Slashdot Mirror
VirtualBox 2.1 Supports 64-Bit VM In 32-Bit Host
Stephen Birch writes "Following closely behind the mid-November 2.06 release of VirtualBox, Sun Microsystems has released version 2.1. This has a number of new features, but one of the most interesting is the ability to run a 64-bit VM inside a 32-bit host. Another useful feature is integrated host-based networking; no more fiddling around with network bridges. Sun is really giving VMWare a run for their money."
.. opengl acceleration on windows guests on any opengl capable host! beat that vmware!
Would a 32 bit emulating a 64 be like a fat man in the 200m dash?
Virtual Box is really a good product.
And have been more stable for me than VMware workstation..
I can't justify purchasing a 64 box for the house, but a beefed up 32 running 64 virtually is just the ticket to get SAP on Linux up and running. Merry Christmas to me!
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
i wonder if it would be able to compete with esx, if so maybe we can escape the huge amount of price gouging by vmware
AKA: "QEMU for retards"
here's a howto install Virtualbox 2.1 in Ubuntu Linux:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1015045
> Another useful feature is integrated host based networking, no more fiddling around with network bridges.
Can anyone explain what this "host based networking" is? And what's wrong with the bridges?
Thanks.
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
Another interesting new feature is the experimental 3D acceleration via OpenGL. From the manual:
With this new feature, if an application inside your Windows guest uses 3D features through the OpenGL programming interfaces, these will not be emulated in software (which is slow), but instead VirtualBox will attempt to use your host's 3D hardware.
This works for all supported host platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris), provided that your host operating system can make use of your accelerated 3D hardware in the first place.
The 3D acceleration currently has the following limitations:
1. It is only available in Windows XP and 32-bit Vista guests with the Windows Guest Additions installed.
2. Only OpenGL acceleration is presently available in those guests; Direct3D is not yet supported and will be added in a future release.
Excellent, I really liked VBox over VMWare-Server it's just so much easier and straight forward to use and configure and the big plus is seamless windows for free. But then out IT dept. rolled out some network loop protection that had the rather unfortunate effect of blocking your port from the network - leaving the guest (and host!) without a network whenever you fired up a VBox with the bridged network settings (VMWare just worked out of the box, OK). Sure hope that's not the case any more with the new network settings.
It is not immoral to create the human species - with or without ceremony, Samuel Clemens.
Aside from a clunky GUI, the thing that stood out the most for me about VirtualBox is the abysmal snapshot support. Both VMWare and Parallels allow for a snapshot tree where you can instantly jump to any powered-on machine state that you have saved. VirtualBox, on the other hand, seemed to only support a linear, multiple-level undo.
Anybody know if any progress has been made in this area?
I have found that VirtualBox is a perfect alternative to VMware's expensive Workstation product. Before a friend told me about VirtualBox I was using VMware's Server free product as to how Workstation was meant to be used and not as a server side virtualization solution as VMware expected. So as soon as I checked out VirtualBox I dumped the ever-so-getting bloated Server program suite. I did previously pirate Workstation a couple of years ago before the free Server got released and decided I would try to go legit at that time which made it easy since Server and Workstation were compatible with each other on virtual machine files. As for Workstation product its ~$200 price tag is just way too expensive for my taste.
Now I'm using VirtualBox and I really do like it a lot. It seems to even be less resource intensive than VMware's offerings. Now the question is has anybody tried, or even if possible, to convert a VMware virtual machine to a VirtualBox machine?
This space is not for rent.
I have an Athlon64 but run a 32 bit OS. I tried running a 64 bit virtual machine using VMWare Server 1.0.x a year or so ago and it worked. The performance was not noticeably poor.
So... assuming I haven't missed anything too obvious, my response would be "No, vmware is not getting a run for their money." Not today anyways.
was the reason why I tossed out Virtual Box.
It was prone to problems, and became so annoying I ended up buying a license of VMWare.
There is also one area which is very unstable - OpenBSD support. It crashes the latest versions of OpenBSD, reports out-of-disk errors etc. OpenBSD is definitely more picky on the hardware it runs due to its strong security features, which Virtual Box doesn't appear to implement properly to make it look "real enough"
Sun has recognised problems with OpenBSD but has said its so far down the important-list it won't bother for some time.
Does this mean if I have more than 4G of memory the client will actually be able to use more memory than the client can see? So I can have a full 12G client on a 16G host that only sees/uses 4G of it?
I've been trying out VirtualBox for a while. VMWare had recently updated to v2.0 and had some annoying problems with the new tomcat based web front-end. It was unusable and drove a lot of people to other options. This was why I'd looked at VirtualBox.
It is easy to install and runs most OSes as a host. I tested the last two versions on CentOS 5.2 on 64bit and 32bit. The 32bit version running on my Inspiron E1505 laptop had issues with CPU utilization. No matter what was running (or not running) in the guest, it would completely spike the machine to 99% utilization. Fiddling with the CPU virtualization settings and other BIOS features had no effect.
Anyhoo, VMWare released an update that fixes the Tomcat issues. Xen is running great. Right now I don't have a lot of reason to switch, but VirtualBox does look very promising.
I installed, it upgraded my 2.06 vms to the new format .. now when I shutdown my vm, it makes my host bluescreen .. nice feature .. ;>
Works great otherwise ..
VMWare's compatibility list, and the fact it's been supporting 64-bit for a half of a decade doesn't make VBox any better-- for its half-an-hour-old-now support of 64-bit processors. The management interface isn't there, and the add-in bits aren't there, either. It's way late, like most other Sun promises.
Is it ok for hackers and people that want personal use? Probably. But VMWare, Parallels, Citrix/Xen, mainstream distro Xen, and a bunch of others still have lots of maturity where VBox is what always happens to Sun-- a latecomer with possible technical stability (as Sun code is usually pretty solid).
Bah.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Virtualbox doesn't just give VMware a run for it's money, it's considerably superior in many respects:
- It's open source
- The gtk interface is at least as good as vmware's gui
- It's considerably faster on my system (no hardware virtualisation), windows xp boots in about half the time in virtualbox than in vmware, and applications generally open/run much more snappily.
- It's considerably more stable (on linux) than vmware is. In my experience vmware crashed about 30% of the times I used it, I even got a total system crash once that needed a hard reset (I think due to problems with compiz?). It uses quite an intrusive kernel module that creates a lot of latency in the kernel. This manifests itself mostly as skipping audio when audio is playing. Virtualbox has none of these problems, it's rock solid stable and doesn't hog the cpu like vmware does.
- Virtualbox seems to need less ram than vmware, I only have 1GB of ram in my laptop and swapping was unbearable with firefox and vmware open, yet firefox, virtualbox AND other applications can coexist fine with only limited swapping.
That's all the advantages I can think of of the top of my head, the only disadvantage I can see is that vmware supports USB devices whereas the free version of virtualbox doesn't. Other than that, virtualbox is just better all round.
Sam
This is how the loudness war is killing music.
I've been using VMWare for the last couple years in in a development environment. We don't run any VMWare stuff in our production datacenter, so for my uses it's mostly been to run pre-packaged VMs or making my own to run an older version of Windows or do something in linux.
However, after upgrading to the latest VMWare server, I REALLY hate the new server interface. It has been nothing but a pain to work with. I also recently tried VirtualBox on my Ubuntu laptop at home. It seemed very slick - fast, small, and I was able to create a VM myself without having to run a server instance in the background.
So, what are my options to work interchangeably between VirtualBox and VMWare? On a development workstation, I hate the new VMWare Server interface, and that I have to run a server instance in the background in order to create my own VMs in the first place. I want to create VMs ad-hoc, and then use them on the occasion I need to. But I do like using VMware on a development server, where I do run a few "server" VMs for other purposes.
But VirtualBox seems much more appropriate for my uses. I can create VMs ad-hoc, and it doesn't seem to eat up as much resources. But I don't think it has as easy to user "server" instance, does it? Are there any other things I should consider?
Headline should read "VirtualBox 2.1 Supports 64 Bit VM in 32 Bit Host Operating System".
Big difference between a 32-bit host and a 32-bit host OS.
Jeremy Baumgartner
Virtual Box is good for playing around with on your home desktop. But running a complete desktop OS and another complete desktop OS in a VirtualBox is going to have obvious implications in terms of performance. VMWare ESx however is an operating system with a very small footprint. This gives you more resources to allocate to your virtual machines. Also vmware ESx is pretty good for accessing virtual machines on from a remote location because it comes with VMware infrastructure client which is pretty good.
Look into Xen/KVM for your open source hypervisor needs. If you want a supported solution most of the application houses have one or you can go with Citrix Xenserver for generic ESX style virtualization. We use the HP branded Xen Express because it gives us a nice virtual KVM (not the same as the KVM app, stupid opensource people reusing an already popular TLA) through the iLo for our Windows guests.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
When I am running virtual box do I create new security holes?
That is to say, suppose for example, the host is a mac and it has a firewall and various TCP wrappers turned on. Now run ububtu or windows in the VM.
Are all my ports now open again? or is the host both firewalling and TCP filtering all the communications?
THat is should I be thinking of the hosted os as being behing a firewall or NAT router or is it fully exposed to the outside?
second suppose my hosted OS gets infected. If it launches a network attack on the host computer is it now attacking from within the fire wall and thus making the host more vulnerable.
Somehow it seems like at least one of these cases must be true.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I cant get 64 bit guest to boot at all.....I do have a 64 bit host but I dont think that should matter.
That's the truth. Sun, Xen and even Microsoft are giving VMWare a run for their money nowadays.
There's one interesting thing which has struck me, that I haven't seen any comments on. Namely, that VMWare is stuck competing between Microsoft on the one hand, and several Open Source projects on the other (with some of the Open Source projects having serious financial backing).
Being positioned between Microsoft and Open Source generally hasn't been a good spot to be in (indeed, has anyone succeeded here?). So I have to wonder how VMWare is going to stand up in the future?
I've been a big fan of VMWare in the past, as it has saved my butt more than once. However, now I find myself using Xen more, and seriously considering Sun's offerings.
To VMWare's credit, they have arguably the best person in the world for the job as CEO (at least on paper). Some might remember Paul Maritz as being one of the top people from Microsoft, as well as having led Microsoft's original *NIX strategy (I.e. Xenix). So if there's anyone who can compete there, it is him.
But still, it is not an enviable position to be in, and it makes me wonder how they are going to compete in the long term? Especially since, from a technology basis, the Open Source efforts are arguably better.
Anyone care to add some insightful comments on this? The only way that I can see VMWare winning is if everyone else screws up. While that's possible, there's a lot of money at stake in the Virtualization field, and I think the odds of that happening are low.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
32/64 bit support, OpenGL, etc are nice but how about something that matters: OpenStep support. A couple months back, I dug up my old OpenStep 4.2 CD and tried to install it on virtual box. The installation worked, but it couldn't succesfully boot afterwards. I have the (vbox) source code sitting on my hard drive, but it doesn't compile with modern versions of gcc. Maybe I'll try qemu.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Wouldn't solaris fulfill that part? Its not like esx doesn't contain an OS, it just doesn't export its interface(s).
still no compiz luck
dot slash dot slash dot org
Sun has taken a beating lately, like everyone has, but when I look at its massively multicore Niagara and Victoria Falls systems I see real viable breakthrough in the area of massively parallel computing. With Solaris Containers on Sparc I can take an old production Solaris 8 ( or 9 ) server and literally drop it into a single core of a Niagara machine and then make the old box vanish into a puff of 1U smoke without losing anything. Heck, the new machines will run 256 threads at the same time with no time slice issues. With VirtualBox on x86 we can now park almost anything from the x86 world into a SunFire x4440 ( 16 core AMD Opteron slayer ) in 2U of rack space. The theory, that I would love to test in practice, is that you can make four racks of older gear vanish into 6U of rack space with the SunFire x4440 ( AMD Opteron based ) and the Sun T5440 Server ( 32 core and eight floating-point units per processor ). That would be 256 simultaneous threads all running in one server and 16 cores of AMD Opteron in the other. And that means Linux/Windows and Solaris all running in two machines. I may be wrong but Sun has a hell of a grip on the future multi-threaded world.
...the glaring problem that I have with VirtualBox, VM management.
I love that they use XML for defining a system. I love that they have a virtual disk manager. But they do not have a process for bundling both together if I have a virtual machine with a disk image that I am dedicating to it.
The end result is migrating a VM or even upgrading an install with non-default settings is a huge hassle. And the default puts VM-client xml files in a different location than their virtual disk images.
In VMWare, I just move the entire directory and start a vm with the appropriate vmx file.
have they resolved the pain in the ass issue with using USB on Linux Hosts?
But the ability to take multiple, branching snapshots is worth the price of admission alone. Version 6.5, which they pushed out a short while ago, has a new featured called "Unity mode", which basically takes programs running in the Guest and draws them on the Host so they act like any other program running on your host.
If you are a developer who uses virtual machines every day, $200 is a bargain for a tool like Workstation.
SUN of a BITCH....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
As far as I can tell, it's just a free as in beer version of free as in speech + beer QEMU.
How long before it comes out that virtualbox actually is QEMU, with a Sun sticker on it?
VirtualBox is a hardware emulator. If it emulates the x86_64 instruction set properly, there's nothing to prevent you from running any 64-bit application under it. You'll take a performance hit, since those 64-bit "hardware" instructions are really running in software, but that's true for any emulation.
CPUs and GPUs are designed to handle *very* different kinds of instructions. GPUs are meant to work with matrices that are streamed into them. CPUs are designed to take a single stream of instructions and run it efficiently. While CPU-type instructions can theoretically be run on a GPU, you aren't going to get the kind of performance that you're dreaming of. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
I have an older CPU with EM64T but not VT.
VBox 2.0.x won't run 64-bit guests without VT. Will 2.1? I did look at their site, but the answer is not immediately obvious. Maybe someone knows off the top of their head?
But:
- Does it to branching snapshots? No.
- Does it support "teams" (groups of virtual machines)? No.
- Does it provide DHCP for "internal networks"? No.
- Does it let you run guest programs directly on the host desktop? No.
- Does it have plugins for Visual Studio and Eclipse for debugging? No.
- Do multiple monitors "just work"? Doesn't look like it... looks like I'd have to edit a config file first.
- Will it automatically change the resolution of the guest desktop based on the window size? Nope.
- Does it support Vista out of the box? Not if you want to connect to the network, you have to install a driver first (32-bit only, sorry 64-bit users).
- Does it support Windows 2008? Doesn't say so in the docs.
- Does it have good documentation? I just see acronyms.
Sorry. I'll use my $200 copy of VMWare for now.
And who cares about RAM usage. You are running a computer inside a computer--what do you expect! Buy more RAM, 1GB of ram isn't enough to seriously run virtual machines. 4GB is minimum.
s/SUN/SON
It is even a supported "what OS is the guest running" option in the settings for the machine. And to install VMWare Tools, you dont mess with the kernel, but it does compile a couple kernel modules during its install script. I presume this is the case for any performant virtualization software. I did mention the install script right? You yourself don't mess with anything in the kernel or your xwindows config, they do it all for you just like a good installer should.
Whoosh
I tried out VirtualBox a few months ago. And while it had a nice interface, the VMs seemed to crawl along compared to VMWare Server.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
I want to know when a virtual machine vendor is going to solve the problems associated with devices like USB and parallel port license dongles, or external USB drives of any kind. I have an app that requires 64bit Windows 2003 EE with a USB license dongle. Even assigning the VM to only 2 nodes in our cluster and having USB dongles on both of those systems doesn't solve the problem. "No USB support in VMWare ESX". And yes, I know about the third party "USB device over the network" solutions. Doesn't solve the problem in this case. YMMV.
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
from the user manual:
The amount of memory (RAM) that the virtual machine should have for itself.
Every time a virtual machine is started, VirtualBox will allocate this much memory
from your host machine and present it to the guest operating system, which
will report this size as the (virtual) computerâ(TM)s installed RAM.
Note: Choose this setting carefully! The memory you give to the VM will
not be available to your host OS while the VM is running, so do not specify
more than you can spare. For example, if your host machine has 1 GB of
RAM and you enter 512 MB as the amount of RAM for a particular virtual
machine, while that VM is running, you will only have 512 MB left for all the
other software on your host. If you run two VMs at the same time, even more
memory will be allocated for the second VM (which may not even be able to
start if that memory is not available). On the other hand, you should specify
as much as your guest OS (and your applications) will require to run properly.
A Windows XP guest will require at least a few hundred MB RAM to run properly,
and Windows Vista will even refuse to install with less than 512 MB. Of course,
if you want to run graphics-intensive applications in your VM, you may require
even more RAM.
So, as a rule of thumb, if you have 1 GB of RAM or more in your host computer,
it is usually safe to allocate 512 MB to each VM. But, in any case, make sure
you always have at least 256-512 MB of RAM left on your host operating system.
Otherwise you may cause your host OS to excessively swap out memory to your
hard disk, effectively bringing your host system to a standstill.
As with the other settings, you can change this setting later, after you have created
the VM.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
"but one of the most interesting is the ability to run a 64-bit VM inside a 32-bit host"
I wonder how it handles 64bit 'atomic' operations in multithreaded programs. Being that what might be atomic on a 64bit machine may not be atomic on a 32bit machine and cause a race condition
Whoosh 64 bit
My hardware is a Dell Latitude D830 laptop (64 bit) with 4GB RAM. I desperately wanted to run Ubuntu 64-bit as my primary OS but this is my work computer and I'm tied to Winderz (32-bit XP) for many of our in-house apps as well as my DBA tool (DB Artisan). Wine sux IMHO so I wanted as close to real Winderz as I could get.
Setup was a breeze but admittedly getting the tunneling to work was a bit tedious due much to my ignorance. I needed my Winderz vm to have a true IP Address separate from the host OS. And since I take my laptop home on the weekends / holidays I didn't want to be dinking with static IPs.
However once I had gotten this all set up it is so frick'n stable. I do shutdown the Windows VM every night just like I would if it was my primary OS but leave Ubuntu (oh how I love thee!) up all week long. But it has never crashed on me or caused any issues with my host OS. It boots the VM amazingly fast. I couldn't be happier. AND THIS IS FRICK'N FREE!
Several of my co-workers are running Macs and Parallels for their Winderz VMs and complain about the constant crashing and hanging and sluggishness. I'm trying to get some of them to try VirtualBox but most would rather complain about something they know than try something new.
Oh well, just wanted to give my $0.02 about VirtualBox and no I don't work for Sun!
Oh and for those of you afraid to take the 64-bit Linux plunge, I'm running Hardy Heron and I have absolutely NO issues with 32 bit vs 64 bit. AND I get my full 4GB RAM plus a swap file. So my Winderz VM get 1GB RAM still leaving give or take 3GB for Linux.
Biking42
I noticed the VirtualBox 2.1 release a day or two ago and saw the 64 bit on 32 bit OS listed as a feature... but I couldn't figure out if it's useful to me.
Is 64/32 only useful for development and testing of 64 bit software while running 32 bit Windows? (I assume that most people running Linux would switch to 64 bit hosts...)
Or is it actually faster to run a 64 bit Linux VM on 32 Bit Windows than it would be to run a 32 bit version of the same Linux distribution on 32 bit Windows?
At least it is if this means that any business can just grab their VMWare drive images and throw them into VirtualBox instead. If so, they really are giving VMWare a run for their money. Giving users an easy way to migrate their VMs and supporting all the features that VMWare does if not more, all while being FREE, is really going to make a strong case for VirtualBox.
I ran some benchmarks on Redhat's xen vs. ESX, and for paravirtualized linux-on-linux Redhat/xen will outperform ESX with a fairly significant margin on most IO and kernel-mode things (fork/scripts/etc). As far as I tested it, I basically can't see any load that would be unsuitable for paravirtualized mode.
If you're doing full virtualization you may have to stick with ESX for a bit more, but probably not for long. As noted, various other products, virtualbox, KVM, etc, are rapidly approaching more mature status.
Virtualization is on the cusp of being completely commoditized, just a BIOS and OS feature. It doesn't bode too well for Vmware, but frankly, between their price gouging and their failure to deliver a Linux management client for five years I can't say I'm overly surprised or that I'll miss them.
The title of this post is rather misleading. It implies VirtualBox can run a virtualized 64 bit machine on a 32 bit processor and VMWare cannot. Neither of these are true. It can now host a 64 bit guest VM when the host OS is 32 bits.
Support for 64 bit VM's under 32 bit host OS's has been standard in VMWare's entire line ever since they included 64 bit guest support. Even the service console through ESX 3.5 is a 32 bit VM (Though it's not really fair to call it the "Host" OS)
AFAIK, virtualizing 64 bit guests does still require Intel VT or AMD Pacifica support on the CPU regardless on all products that support 64 bit guests.
SUN Solaris 10 will let you run VirtualBox 'within' a Zone. A Zone is essentially a virtual server.. complete with its own IP addresses, routing, and even filesystems and devices. Add on Trusted Extensions.. and you get Labeling and Mandatory Access Controls, even Network based labeling. So in a sense, you are virtualizing a Solaris server to run a VirtualBox "hypervisor" to virtualize another Operating System. Firewalls and Trusted Kernel features are managed from the Global Solaris Zone. Read-only filesystems can be shared with all the Zones.. and audit data can be collected in the single Global Zone.
You cannot beat that level of security... In fact, a few companies are starting to provide a type of outsourced service online. www.armoredservers.com is one offering this.
Another way to put it is that it *emulates* the behavior of those APIs.
You use that word a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I am currently using Vmware server to run Linux guest under a Windows host. Last time I tried VirtualBox, it had trouble installing Ubuntu. And it did not support SMP at that time.
Ubuntu problems may have been solved since then, but SMP support is still missing.
The free Vmware had neither of these issues.
http://www.nextcomputers.org/forums/search.php?mode=results
There are a few minor adjustments you may need to make.
VirtualBox does a great job with Openstep out of the chute. To support Openstep or NeXTStep, Qemu needs to be built from source with several patches applied, including one for bus mouse access.
These things need kernel drivers, but UML somehow escapes that. I've been wondering exactly how UML works...
Support my political activism on Patreon.
This is a major bottleneck. When they intend to solve it?
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
There is a free version of ESX (ESXi) if you just want the basic stuff.
VMware has been running 64bit VMs under 32bit host OS (on 64bit hardware) since.. 2006, even before?
I'd say look at which products people are willing to pay for, and you know who is giving who a run..
I joined two users too late.
Wh40sh
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Not yet. They have a long way to go to be a real threat in the *workstation* market, and there are NO enterprise features here which is VMware's bread and butter.
But, don't get me wrong its a nice start and they are making it more useable every release.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
s#s/SUN/SON#I am a big friggin moron#
hah.
supporting 64bit Guests on a 32 Hosts is neat and everything, but dropping support for Win2000 Hosts is somewhat counter-intuitive. especially if they (Sun) want VirtualBox to be seen as a serious competitor to VMWare. i mean, it's ok if the users they are targeting are those toying with virtualization in their bedrooms.
it's too early to drop such a solid OS.
I'm using virtualbox from quit sometime now. Running M$ XP and Solaris vms on Fedora 9 host. vms performance is excellent, however with 1gb ram on host i have to run one vm at a time. Upgrading virtualbox is smooth ie download the rpm and rpm -Uvh, however each time Fedora folks release new kernel i have to recreate virtualbox kernel module but again its not virtualbox but fedora for pushing new kernels after every few days :).
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
VirtualBox really does seem to be on a fast track lately. I've mostly switched over to it (from VMware), for anything that doesn't require SMP. Stable support for 2-4 cores would be the killer feature which could convince me to ditch VMware for good.
That was my main beef with it. I couldn't get a simple USB/parallel port adapter working with it. It would see the USB device but couldn't see the printer on the other end of it.
VMWare had no issues (until I replaced my USB hub when it lost contact so it needed a reinstall of XP)-:
From forum posts, USB support is only for mouse/keyboard usage...
I just wanted to thanks for the many insightful comments here. I think they have answered quite well my original question, and have given me a better perspective on the situation.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
I admit I got my facts wrong. But how does that make me a troll?