Neptune 5111: problems of installing VMware Tools

[tj3713]

Am trying to install Neptune 5111 on VMware 9 (chose Windows 2000 Professional as the VM's OS type)

When the setup is completed, the installation of VMware Tools always fails with prompts like "cannot initialize Windows Installer", resulting in the absence of video driver... Anyone has experience in handling such a problem?

Thanks for the help!

[flicktrace75]

I don't know. Maybe you should upgrade to VMware Workstation 9 or another virtual machine software or ask someone else in the forums.

[tjn]

You need to use hounsell 9.x Driver pack available here:

http://www.thecollectionbook.info/infor ... downloads/

[alally16]

This was my problem to thank you for helping and it has been confirmed that there is no way to get the addons through the actual vmware itself, some kind of weird thing with the windows installer in this build, it really sucks.

[DeFacto]

It's a beta build; what else could you expect? Apparantly there are some issues with Windows Installer, though VPC Additions (which also use MSI) install fine...

[Nick007]

Try to convert the vmware version to 'Workstation 6.5-7.x virtual machine'. Select the virtual machine you want to convert, hit 'VM' and hit 'chance version'. Choose the Workstation 6.5-7.x virtual machine in the list. It's your choice if you want to make a copy of it. Start the virtual machine and try to install vmware tools again.

EDIT: This setting was in VMware Workstation 7. In VMware Workstation 9, hit VM --> Manage --> Chance Hardware Compatibility

[WinPC]

Why not just use the build as it was intended to be used? In case you don't know, installing VMware Tools would update operating system components (such as probably the Windows Installer, if not even some .DLL files) with RTM versions from a later time period (at least as far as I know, it does, or at least that was the case with Microsoft Virtual PC).

Not to mention that no one would have obviously been using VMware Tools in late 1999 and early 2000 anyway, so in my opinion, it's completely pointless.

[James]

Why not just use the build as it was intended to be used? In case you don't know, installing VMware Tools would update operating system components (such as probably the Windows Installer, if not even some .DLL files) with RTM versions from a later time period (at least as far as I know, it does, or at least that was the case with Microsoft Virtual PC).

Not to mention that no one would have obviously been using VMware Tools in late 1999 and early 2000 anyway, so in my opinion, it's completely pointless.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. How can you expect to /use/ the operating system when you don't have the sufficient drivers for your internet, your sound, your video, etc.? Nobody wants to use a half-working VM at 640x480@16.

Using VMWare Tools is /not/ a bad idea, and stop discouraging people from using it. If you want to use Neptune vanilla without any changes what so ever, go buy an old Pentium III and install it on that.

[WinPC]

Why not just use the build as it was intended to be used? In case you don't know, installing VMware Tools would update operating system components (such as probably the Windows Installer, if not even some .DLL files) with RTM versions from a later time period (at least as far as I know, it does, or at least that was the case with Microsoft Virtual PC).

Not to mention that no one would have obviously been using VMware Tools in late 1999 and early 2000 anyway, so in my opinion, it's completely pointless.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. How can you expect to /use/ the operating system when you don't have the sufficient drivers for your internet, your sound, your video, etc.? Nobody wants to use a half-working VM at 640x480@16.

Using VMWare Tools is /not/ a bad idea, and stop discouraging people from using it. If you want to use Neptune vanilla without any changes what so ever, go buy an old Pentium III and install it on that.

Well, if it is required to install proper video, sound, and networking drivers, then I will make an exception here for those reasons alone.

Still, though, is there a way to install just the drivers by themselves, without using the official install routine, just so that no other files are added?

[James]

Why not just use the build as it was intended to be used? In case you don't know, installing VMware Tools would update operating system components (such as probably the Windows Installer, if not even some .DLL files) with RTM versions from a later time period (at least as far as I know, it does, or at least that was the case with Microsoft Virtual PC).

Not to mention that no one would have obviously been using VMware Tools in late 1999 and early 2000 anyway, so in my opinion, it's completely pointless.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. How can you expect to /use/ the operating system when you don't have the sufficient drivers for your internet, your sound, your video, etc.? Nobody wants to use a half-working VM at 640x480@16.

Using VMWare Tools is /not/ a bad idea, and stop discouraging people from using it. If you want to use Neptune vanilla without any changes what so ever, go buy an old Pentium III and install it on that.

Well, if it is required to install proper video, sound, and networking drivers, then I will make an exception here for those reasons alone.

Still, though, is there a way to install just the drivers by themselves, without using the official install routine, just so that no other files are added?

Why does it matter? Even in-period setup files would modify files just as badly.

[WinPC]

Well, if it is required to install proper video, sound, and networking drivers, then I will make an exception here for those reasons alone.

Still, though, is there a way to install just the drivers by themselves, without using the official install routine, just so that no other files are added?

Why does it matter? Even in-period setup files would modify files just as badly.

Well, it would still be more accurate to the time period, not to mention that we may also be talking about Windows system files such as the Windows Installer, among other things. For all we know, it could even update some of the .DLL files, which is why I'm concerned about this.

Personally, though, I find that Virtual PC 2007 is a much better choice for these builds, by far. You don't even need to install anything beside the build itself as far as I know, not to mention that it runs very well without any issues. And I believe that I even found a way to install Virtual PC's bundled drivers without running the official Setup program, in the event that I ever needed them.

[James]

It's pointless to nitpick "original experiences" from installing drivers. Their effect is so minute, it doesn't matter.

[WinPC]

It's pointless to nitpick "original experiences" from installing drivers. Their effect is so minute, it doesn't matter.

I'm not talking about the drivers themselves, but rather the extra components that are often installed by the installation programs, such as updated .DLL files, updated versions of Windows Installer, etc... This also may well include updated versions of files that were installed as part of the operating system itself.

[tj3713]

It's pointless to nitpick "original experiences" from installing drivers. Their effect is so minute, it doesn't matter.

I'm not talking about the drivers themselves, but rather the extra components that are often installed by the installation programs, such as updated .DLL files, updated versions of Windows Installer, etc... This also may well include updated versions of files that were installed as part of the operating system itself.

Of course I am aware of modifications made to some OS files when installing VM additions or drivers. But the thing is that I prefer a good experience with drivers and functions ready, rather than the crippled originalness.

In fact I would be happy if for example an updated Windows Installer works on such a system. I collect original untouched setup images, but it doesn't necessary mean that everything should remain static after installation. Once installed, every second the OS is running, countless changes are made dynamically (e.g. in the registry). How do you strictly define it being original? Even if you merely stare at the screen, so long as it is running, it's changed...

[tj3713]

Try to convert the vmware version to 'Workstation 6.5-7.x virtual machine'. Select the virtual machine you want to convert, hit 'VM' and hit 'chance version'. Choose the Workstation 6.5-7.x virtual machine in the list. It's your choice if you want to make a copy of it. Start the virtual machine and try to install vmware tools again.

EDIT: This setting was in VMware Workstation 7. In VMware Workstation 9, hit VM --> Manage --> Chance Hardware Compatibility

You need to use hounsell 9.x Driver pack available here:

http://www.thecollectionbook.info/infor ... downloads/

Thanks for the hints. Will have a try. I also guess that VMware 9 machines are too new for a system for more than 10 years old...

[Nick007]

Try to convert the vmware version to 'Workstation 6.5-7.x virtual machine'. Select the virtual machine you want to convert, hit 'VM' and hit 'chance version'. Choose the Workstation 6.5-7.x virtual machine in the list. It's your choice if you want to make a copy of it. Start the virtual machine and try to install vmware tools again.

EDIT: This setting was in VMware Workstation 7. In VMware Workstation 9, hit VM --> Manage --> Chance Hardware Compatibility

You need to use hounsell 9.x Driver pack available here:

http://www.thecollectionbook.info/infor ... downloads/

Thanks for the hints. Will have a try. I also guess that VMware 9 machines are too new for a system for more than 10 years old...

Well, I tried it, and I failed with it. However, I was able to install the VMware tools from VMware Workstation 7.1.6 on Neptune. It works like a charm. I installed it yesterday:

[Battler]

Well, it would still be more accurate to the time period, not to mention that we may also be talking about Windows system files such as the Windows Installer, among other things. For all we know, it could even update some of the .DLL files, which is why I'm concerned about this.

And installers from that time period also updated .DLL files. Honestly, we are talking about running it on virtual hardware provided by a virtual machine manager from late 2000's up to 2011 or so. You can't run it properly on that without using drivers from that time period. Also, given how Neptune 5111 most likely takes Windows 2000 drivers, I'd say that at most, some .DLL's could be replaced with later equivalents from a Windows 2000 version, so not that much different.
And you need to understand that we are not in Neptune 5111's time period, and neither should we pretend that we are.

Personally, though, I find that Virtual PC 2007 is a much better choice for these builds, by far. You don't even need to install anything beside the build itself as far as I know, not to mention that it runs very well without any issues. And I believe that I even found a way to install Virtual PC's bundled drivers without running the official Setup program, in the event that I ever needed them.

Well, Virtual PC 2007 (or 2004 for that matter) provides a virtual environment that much more accurately represents a period physical machine than VMWare, so I agree on that. And of course you can install the Virtual PC drivers without running the official program - it's called using Add New Hardware or Device Manager, and installing/updating drivers from there.

I'm not talking about the drivers themselves, but rather the extra components that are often installed by the installation programs, such as updated .DLL files, updated versions of Windows Installer, etc... This also may well include updated versions of files that were installed as part of the operating system itself.

And again, we are in 2013, running the software in a virtual machine manager dating from 2007 onwards. It's pointless to pretend we're in 1999 and avoid replacing any file with any version dated after 1999, when we no longer are in 1999.

[Wheatley]

And again, we are in 2013, running the software in a virtual machine manager dating from 2007 onwards. It's pointless to pretend we're in 1999 and avoid replacing any file with any version dated after 1999, when we no longer are in 1999.

+100000

[WinPC]

I'm not talking about the drivers themselves, but rather the extra components that are often installed by the installation programs, such as updated .DLL files, updated versions of Windows Installer, etc... This also may well include updated versions of files that were installed as part of the operating system itself.

And again, we are in 2013, running the software in a virtual machine manager dating from 2007 onwards. It's pointless to pretend we're in 1999 and avoid replacing any file with any version dated after 1999, when we no longer are in 1999.

I disagree, actually. I prefer to use these pre-release builds the way that they were actually intended (as much as would be possible on the particular system), so to me, keeping as much of the original files as possible is extremely important to preserving the value of the build itself.

Not to mention that these .DLL files (as well as the Windows Installer and other such components) in my opinion, constitute a part of what makes it the particular pre-release build. I mean, there is very little difference between the IO.SYS from Memphis Build 1525 and the IO.SYS from Windows 98 Second Edition, yet I still prefer to keep the original IO.SYS from Build 1525, because it is part of what makes it Build 1525, even as small as it may be. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the same is true here.

You are correct, though, that Virtual PC is the best choice for these builds, not only because it has proper hardware support out of the box, but also because the emulated hardware is much more accurate to the time period, which probably also means that there will be a lot fewer problems in relation to compatibility.

[Battler]

I disagree, actually. I prefer to use these pre-release builds the way that they were actually intended (as much as would be possible on the particular system), so to me, keeping as much of the original files as possible is extremely important to preserving the value of the build itself.

But how are you so sure those particular .DLL's even have unique versions in Neptune 5111 in this case? Or that they even exist in Neptune 5111 before the VMWare Tools installer installs them? And the value of a Build lies in its installer form. Modifications done to an installed copy, especially as minor as these are, remove absolutely nothing from a Build's value.

Not to mention that these .DLL files (as well as the Windows Installer and other such components) in my opinion, constitute a part of what makes it the particular pre-release build. I mean, there is very little difference between the IO.SYS from Memphis Build 1525 and the IO.SYS from Windows 98 Second Edition, yet I still prefer to keep the original IO.SYS from Build 1525, because it is part of what makes it Build 1525, even as small as it may be. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the same is true here.

I can see your point, but in this case you're not even sure if the files are unique to the Build before you install VMWare Tools, and not even if the files even exist before you install VMWare Tools, so you're attempting to preserve something that may either not need to be preserved at all, or that isn't even there to be preserved in the first place.

You are correct, though, that Virtual PC is the best choice for these builds, not only because it has proper hardware support out of the box, but also because the emulated hardware is much more accurate to the time period, which probably also means that there will be a lot fewer problems in relation to compatibility.

What I like in Virtual PC is also that it appears to correctly emulate quirks to the point of undocumented video I/O port calls, which are evidently used by software such as DOS/V (the hardware scroll stuff, for example), which then runs perfectly fine on Virtual PC, but not in VMWare or other hypervisors or emulators.

[WinPC]

I disagree, actually. I prefer to use these pre-release builds the way that they were actually intended (as much as would be possible on the particular system), so to me, keeping as much of the original files as possible is extremely important to preserving the value of the build itself.

But how are you so sure those particular .DLL's even have unique versions in Neptune 5111 in this case? Or that they even exist in Neptune 5111 before the VMWare Tools installer installs them? And the value of a Build lies in its installer form. Modifications done to an installed copy, especially as minor as these are, remove absolutely nothing from a Build's value.

Not to mention that these .DLL files (as well as the Windows Installer and other such components) in my opinion, constitute a part of what makes it the particular pre-release build. I mean, there is very little difference between the IO.SYS from Memphis Build 1525 and the IO.SYS from Windows 98 Second Edition, yet I still prefer to keep the original IO.SYS from Build 1525, because it is part of what makes it Build 1525, even as small as it may be. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the same is true here.

I can see your point, but in this case you're not even sure if the files are unique to the Build before you install VMWare Tools, and not even if the files even exist before you install VMWare Tools, so you're attempting to preserve something that may either not need to be preserved at all, or that isn't even there to be preserved in the first place.

To me, even if the files were just the same from the Windows 2000 RTM, it still constitutes part of what makes it Build 5111, since those would have been the original files that came shipped with the build itself, whereas later files would probably be from when Neptune was no longer being developed, making it inconsistent.

Also, while I agree that we're not completely sure about VMware Tools, I still would not want to risk it myself.

Similarly, if you were installing a Longhorn build today, would you want to import any .DLL files from the present, or would you rather prefer to use the same versions of each file that came shipped with the build itself? In my opinion, the same is also true for Neptune and Whistler builds.

[DeFacto]

By installing VMware tools/whatever you get to use the build the way it was intended - with proper resolutions, sound, etc. and you won't be limited to some pre-historic standards. But clearly this is a matter of personal opinion, so further discussion is pretty much pointless from my point of view...

[WinPC]

By installing VMware tools/whatever you get to use the build the way it was intended - with proper resolutions, sound, etc. and you won't be limited to some pre-historic standards. But clearly this is a matter of personal opinion, so further discussion is pretty much pointless from my point of view...

True, but I'm also talking about using it the way it was intended with all of the .DLL files and components intact, so that those portions are still the same from the build itself.

[DeFacto]

Well then here's a newsflash for you: you can't use it the "intended" way in a VM without installing some tools... VMWare, Virtual PC and Virtual Box aren't emulators - they're hypervisors. They don't emulate the exact hardware of the time, which is why additional packages are supplied for installation of drivers and stuff. Unless you use the build on actual ~2K hardware, you just can't use it the way it was meant without "modifying" it by installing these tools. You will be stuck with low resolution, etc.

[WinPC]

Well then here's a newsflash for you: you can't use it the "intended" way in a VM without installing some tools... VMWare, Virtual PC and Virtual Box aren't emulators - they're hypervisors. They don't emulate the exact hardware of the time, which is why additional packages are supplied for installation of drivers and stuff. Unless you use the build on actual ~2K hardware, you just can't use it the way it was meant without "modifying" it by installing these tools. You will be stuck with low resolution, etc.

Isn't it possible to just install the drivers by themselves directly from the Windows user interface, without using the special Setup programs?

Also, with Virtual PC, as far as I know, it would work straight out of the box, which is why I recommend it for these builds.