This week I’m going to try and start the move from Windows XP to Windows 7 on my development PC at work. I’ve downloaded the Windows Easy Transfer app for going from XP to Win7; that should take care of My Documents. My concern is all of the development environment. In particular I’m concerned about re-establishing things like my Windows services, which host my WCG services, etc. They use TCP and various ports. Plus there are the various ASP.NET apps that are on my machine. What caveats should I be aware of, before I start this?
I deeply don't recommend you to migrate. If I were you, I'd backup these files, format the PC, reinstall everything back again and re-set up the websites. No matter how much pain that may cause, it's still less pain then the potential one you might get if you use this migration tool rather than doing it properly, which would eventually cause you to do the right way anyway.
Related
I'm working with an old (Delphi 2010) app with a number of very specific components that have to be installed, some from compiled from sources. It's a pain to set up, is what I'm getting at.
Currently, I have it on a Windows 10 machine, but I haven't upgraded Windows 10 in quite some time. If I upgrade Windows, it breaks the debugger (and I haven't been able to fix that so I've downgraded Windows).
I'm trying to find any way to move the Delphi environment without having to go through the various steps to get it to work, like making a VM out of it. Or, if I have to go through the steps again, only do it one more time in such a way that I can push-button recreate it. (There are a lot of things I need to try to upgrade the app itself, but many of those strategies will break the environment for me.)
Any strategies?
Recently lost my hard drive where I had WAMP installed and Imagick working.
Someone else did that part for me way back.
Reinstalling Win7 and getting everything working again = nightmare.
So I installed the latest version of WAMP - NO Imagick.
3 days of trying all the solutions on this site (and some others - sorry) and got nowhere.
Does anyone know of a "one shot" installation that will work out the box?
Maybe a fork of one of them - I looked but found nothing
Or maybe I should install Ubuntu onto an old PC and use that as a web server on my home LAN?
Seriously - they are depreciating the GD library some time soon and Imagick is apparently the successor but no-one supports Imagick natively.
Jumping through all sorts of hoops is no guarantee that it will work either as I have painfully found out.
Thanks in advance people.
WAMP and XAMPP are not up to speed with the transition from the soon to be removed GD library to the ImageMagic library and it would seem that neither are planning to bring their products up to date any time soon.
That leaves many users with a major problem as most web site developers need to be able to manipulate images at some time or another during their work.
For users who are not at a reasonably high level of expertize as far as messing around in the guts of the (in my case, Windows) operating systems, this is a nightmare and can be downright dangerous.
I did find what seemed to be a viable alternative in WampDeveloper Pro but unless you specifically go looking for it, their website is very hush-hush about the fact that its going to cost you over $125 to get it working.
You only find out about this at the first run after installing.
So my options are the following:
Put one of the Ubuntu distributions on a VM
or
Find an old drive, install it into your PC and make the PC dual boot using a Ubuntu distribution.
The second option will "ease" me into converting from Microsoft based OS reliance to a Linux based OS however if that does not work out, I do have the option to create an Ubuntu VM under the Windows system (I have used VM for a while under Windows) and use that in place of the other Windows based web server alternatives.
Either way I will be able to carry on servicing my clients and making a living without spending money or having a stroke due to pure frustration.
I may regret this decision BUT I may start wondering to myself "Now why did you wait so long?"
I am trying to set up a clean vm I will use in many of my devs. Hopefully I will use it many times and for a long time, so I want to get it right and set it up so performance is as good as possible. I have searched for a list of things to do, but strangely found only older posts, and none here.
My requirements are:
My host is Vista 32b, and guest is Windows2008 64b, using Vmware Workstation.
The VM should also be able to run on a Vmware ESX
I cannot move to other products (VirtualBox etc), but info about performance of each one is welcomed for reference. Anyway I guess most advices would apply to other OSs and other VM products.
I need network connectivity to my LAN
When developing/testing, guest will run several java processes, a DB and perform some file I/O
What I have found so far is:
HOWTO: Squeeze Every Last Drop of Performance Out of Your Virtual PCs: it's and old post, and about Virtual PC, but I guess most things still apply (and also apply to vmware).
I guess it makes a difference to disable all unnecessary services, but the ones mentioned in 1 seem like too few, I specifically always disable Windows Search. Any other service I should disable?
You can try to run the CD/DVD through vLite to remove unwanted crap. I'm not 100% sure if Windows 2008 server is supported but you could give it a try. I've successfully stripped down XP with nLite to about 200MB with only the bare minimum I need for testing software. You might be able to do something similar to Windows 2008 with vLite.
My host is Vista 32b, and guest is
Windows2008 64b,
First mistake. Seriously, why not running 64 bit even on Vista? This would give your VM a good memory space to work with, while now even if it is possible with VmWare it goes through really nasty API's in the Windows layer.
That said, why use Vista as host? Why not directly load a 2008 R2 host, configure it into workstation mode (heck, you even get our friendly AERO if you install all the things the server leaves out per default) and be happy with it?
I guess it makes a difference to
disable all unnecessary services,
Hm, seriously? I run a couple of Hyper-V hosting servers on top of physical domain controllers without any reconfiguration and with good enough (i.e. great) perforamnce. Helps I dont ahve the typical workstation bottleneck (i.e. one overloaded hard disc). I never found a reason to disable any service for squeezing the last performance out.
Guest will run many java processes, a
DB and perform lots of file I/O
Well, get proper hardware for that. I.e. a hardware RAID controller, and a LOT of drives - in accordance with your needs. DB is IO sensitive. VERY sensitive.
I have decided to go with Subversion for a source control repository for my personal and side projects and I'm now trying to decide what OS to use. Currently my file server for my home network is Windows 7 beta. I'm wondering if I should wipe it and install Windows Server 2008 instead? Basically I'd like to know if there are things I could take advantage with a server OS that I can't with Windows 7. First thing that comes to mind is accessing subversion remotely with a VPN connection.
I'm a .net developer, but have dabbled in Linux a bit so I'm not completely turned off to the idea of an ubuntu or debian server...
I imagine the installation and configuration process might go off with fewer hitches if installed on Linux, just because of the package management, but that's assuming some experience with the package system of $whatever_distro. If you're comfortable with Windows, Subversion works perfectly well on there. I've set it up on both, but prefer the Linux installation process (easier Apache integration, in my view), but I had pre-existing Linux experience.
If you're familiar with Windows, I bet you'll find the installation and configuration process easier there. As others have said, many of the tools are cross-platform.
You can run a Subversion server on Windows or Linux (or whatever) so it really doesn't matter. Pick whichever one you already have and feel most comfortable with. Since you are a Windows developer I see no real reason to toss Linux into the mix though.
If your goal is to minimize the amount of work you put into the maintenance of subversion, go with the OS you are most comfortable with. Many maintenance scripts, and subversion hooks are written and available in perl and python which are available for both windows and linux.
One advantage to the Windows server OSes over their client counterparts is that the client OSes are limited as to the number of inbound connections. If you are going to be the only person working on the repo, this may not make a difference. However, if there are multiple people, then this would be an issue. XP Pro/Vista Ultimate are limited by Microsoft to 10 inbound connections. I cannot speak for Windows 7.
To make life easy, try VisualSVN Server. For personal projects there's no reason to setup a separate server just for SVN.
Windows 7 will be able to host Subversion with no problems whatsoever..
If your file-server is already setup and working under Windows 7, I'd say stick with that.. Adding SVN is no reason to install a new OS
You don't need a server at all to use subversion.
If you've already got a file server on your home network, and you're doing this only for you and your personal projects, just use a subversion client such as TortoiseSVN and create your repository (or repositories) on your file server via network share (or mapped network drive, etc).
I wouldn't recommend this for multi-user setups (unless each has their own repository), but for a single user this is the simplest option. And using this approach, to answer your question, you wouldn't gain anything by switching to a server OS such as Windows Server 2008.
I'd actually recommend going with a hosted Subversion provider instead of setting up Subversion on Windows or getting a second server for that purpose. I work for ProjectLocker, but if you Google "subversion hosting", you'll see there are a number of providers that offer free or reasonably priced solutions. The advantages:
It's a hosting provider's primary job to keep your code safe, secure, and accessible, so they focus on uptime, backups, and security monitoring so you don't have to
You don't have to learn how to be a system administrator or Subversion administrator; several providers have user interfaces that make it easy to manage users and permissions.
Hosting instead of DIY lets you focus on what you actually care about: writing great software
I suggest you take a look at ProjectLocker and some of the other providers and decide which one is right for you. You may decide that doing it yourself is the best option for you, but for many people in your situation, a hosted solution has met their needs.
Let's say you have a slow laptop which can't handle Visual Studio but a blazingly fast desktop that can. Let's also say that you want to develop in several rooms in your house. Are there any drawbacks to having Visual Studio running on the desktop and simply using the laptop as a way to access it remotely? I'd guess that the only thing that you would be concerned about would be the network latency, but if the two computers are on the same network that should be minimal.
Do it.
Since you are running Visual Studio in your own local network, the main drawbacks (security and latency) are not there. In addition, you get the speed of your desktop and the mobility of your laptop.
I do this a lot even over broadband, I've never found speed to be a problem.
This is my standard working practice at work. There are times when you have issues, such as opening TFS document attachments can fail, but overall the experience is fine.
It is also an added bonus that you can leave it running continually (i.e. overnight / weekends) and you can kick off a build before you leave for the evening and come back to a packaged installer (or an error :) ).
I'm looking forward to (in a year or two) be able to do this over Hyper-V - then the application will run as though it IS on my laptop, with no remote desktop required.
No big drawbacks. I've been running VS 2008 remotely on a server 400 miles away, using GNU/Linux and rdesktop on my laptop and the server (of course) running Windows. The only problems I encounter are that it is a mess to move files between the two - but if you have the desktop near and can install anything you like (ftp programs for example), I can't see any drawbacks.
In a corp work environment where I've tried this I never felt particularly joyful. Tried using MSTSC and VNC.
Having a desktop with multiple monitors and trying to view that through a smaller laptop display is typically quite painful, never enough space.
Even when it was PC's on the same switch there always seemed to be some delay in the mouse moving or typing, I'm sure you could adjust, I just found it a bit annoying too.
We haven't tried serving up DevStudio from a CITRIX server yet, that might be worth a go.
I work a lot with Visual Studio over broadband, which is ok.
If you are running linux on your laptop, rdesktop is your friend. There are many options to gain more speed, like using 8-bit color instead of 16 or more. I don't know if mstsc offers such options. Visual Studio 2008 has got many options concerning speed which can be enabled if the connection is too slow: disable fancy menus etc.
greetings
I think that having the dual (or more) monitor set-up does beat the ease of mobility when using a laptop connecting to a remote desktop. I work at home at least two days in a working week using my laptop (which is a 17", 1900x1200 screen, basically what they call a "desktop replacement"), connected to VS and TFS using VPN and I find that experience less than the situation at work where I have the 17" laptop screen AND a 24" TFT (also 1900x1200).
I also have experienced that running VS (or SQL Server Management Studio for example) over an RDP session is just not like the real thing. It does get the job done, however the "feel" isn't just the same.