Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional SP4 [VMware VM].7z

wingzeroismine

Someone messaged me on IRC to say this one is corrupt, can confirm neither copy will extract, nor my own previously downloaded version.

Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional SP4 [VMware VM].7z

3DCC9D6F-18DA-11E4-99E5-7054D21A8599

I guess I can make a new one for us, the vmx won't extract either so I don't know anything at all about how the original was set up.

SomeGuy

The 7-zip file extracts OK for me, but I haven't tested the image contents yet. What precisely is the error you are getting, and what archiver are you using?

If you want to create a new one, that is great. Off hand I don't see why this disk image is a whole 900mb even compressed.

wingzeroismine

Yeah it wouldn't extract, I tried both mirrors and my own previously downloaded copy in both WinRAR and 7zip....

and now it worked fine....

Well I made and submitted another one already, it came out 830MB, so not a whole lot smaller.

Duff

I made these over a year ago and admittedly didn't do an extensive amount of testing with them. It's also possible VMware has made enough changes in recent releases to break something. Though my understanding was VMware virtual machines are 'tagged' with the product they're created with so it any newer release of Workstation/Player should run the older virtual machines.

There's never been a lot of demand for them, obviously, since this hasn't been noticed until now. Most of our visitors who want to virtualize an operating system are generally going to want to do it themselves for the fun/experience unless it's solely to run an old game or something like that.

Plus people have different preferences. I like VMware because it's a polished, professional product but others prefer free alternatives like VirtualBox.

Part of the reason I created those VMs to begin with was to get a starting point for the concept of offering virtual machines for experimentation right on the WinWorld website, but that idea got shoved to the back burner when stitch started work on the new WinWorld and the on-going forum issues have been top-priority as far as WinWorld goes.

I'm more than willing to do up pre-packaged virtual machines again if people think it's worthwhile, but I don't really see the demand for it.

BlueSun

Duff wrote:

Plus people have different preferences. I like VMware because it's a polished, professional product but others prefer free alternatives like VirtualBox.

VMware workstation is definitely more polished, but it also feels more resource intensive than VirtualBox. VirtualBox is nice because it's free and seemingly lightweight... but on the other hand, it also sucks. I've had a few times where it just out right crashes.

Skora

BlueSun wrote:

Duff wrote:

Plus people have different preferences. I like VMware because it's a polished, professional product but others prefer free alternatives like VirtualBox.

VMware workstation is definitely more polished, but it also feels more resource intensive than VirtualBox. VirtualBox is nice because it's free and seemingly lightweight... but on the other hand, it also sucks. I've had a few times where it just out right crashes.

I've had instances where VirtualBox would break with certain OS'es. A few months ago, i tried Windows 10 (Build 9926) on it, and the setup screen would break. Mouse wouldn't move, letter scattered across the VM, etc.

Pretty sure they fixed it now, but still.

SomeGuy

Trying it in VM Ware player, the original looks good to me.

I just don't remember Windows 2000 being such a pig about hard disk space. I mean, the install CDs are only 400MB FFS.

wingzeroismine

Its probably largely due to the mass of windows updates, and things like multiple .net frameworks with their updates all being stored. There is a program that will remove the updates cleanly (and not just delete the ntuninstall folders).

My apologies for what was apparently a false alarm, I should have checked the SHA of the downloads and didn't, that's what I get for posting at 8:30am on the weekend.