And just while our report backs are colliding, I posted in this thread recently about connecting Win98 with Samba.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...705/page2.html

hmmm, I don't think this is the problem... There aren't even guest additions for Windows 95 I believe...

Your are right, the guest additions do not apply to Win98 and earlier. But I do not have them installed. Did you install them for W2K?

PS- I am definitely using host interface networking and not NAT.

Yes, I installed the guest additions in the Win2000 client, but I'm sure networking worked fine before that or I would have remembered.

By the way, your solution from the other post to map from Windows 95 worked And without restarting Samba, just adding the two lines in smb.conf
I'll stick with Win2000 though because Win95 is extremely slow in VirtualBox. Is Win98 any better?
I have some old (from the late '80s, early '90s) DOS accounting software I need to access once in a while, that doesn't run in WinXP.

Now about your problem needing a proxy, I am at a loss... Here everything just worked from the beginning, without any special configurations.
Just to check:
- did you make the rc.vboxbridge file executable?
- did you load the tun module?
- do your br0 and tap0 devices show up in ifconfig?

astrogeek: Thanks for your post. I'll try it after doing some more reading.

I've just put XP professional, (an oxymoron if ever there was one), on VirtulaBox closed source 2.0.2. I chose host networking (I have a bridge and tun device already setup) and the PCNet ethernet controller. Networking works fine without the guest additions. However the Intel ethernet controllers won't work unless I supply a driver.

Don't know if this helps but maybe choose the PCNet adapter ?

I normally use the PCNet adapter as well for my virtual machines. All OSs I tested recognized it (Windows 95 to XP, Slackware 3.5 to 12.2 and several other Linux flavors, FreeBSD, Solaris, Minix)

Yes, that is the thread I linked in my post.
Your script most nearly followed the user manual and was a good working example which is why I recommended it.
I found it necessary to add a line to explicitly bring up the vbox0 interface after it was created. Without that, some of my VMs used it, some didn't and sometimes it appeared and then disappeared in the VM.

I also explicitly remove the existing gateway before adding the new one associated with the br0 device, which effectively transfers it from the eth0 device to the br0 device. Without that I also had some problems reaching the outside world both from my host and from VMs.

(FWIW: When I scripted the routing change I found it necessary to sleep a couple of seconds after the devices had been created and before touching the routes, otherwise it would sometimes fail).

@astrogeek
My apologies for not reading your post more closely. I missed the link that you posted.

@ niels.horn
I find that Win98 runs OK, but is not as zippy as XP. I have Win98 installed using some suggestions from the VirtualBox website including:
a) Installation of rain20 to provide a CPU halt function (not implemented in Win98 by default) and without which my CPU usage runs continuously near 100%.
b) Installation of VXD_398 to provide sound support.
c) Installation of vbemp to provide graphics support so that I can get 1024x768 screen resolution.

@ everyone else!
After reading about other peoples experience, I have finally located the reason that I was unable to get internet support without a proxy server. The answer was embarassingly simple. In my firewall script I had not initialised the FORWARD chain.
Simply adding this line was all that was required (where EXTIF="br0").

OK, I'll try these suggestions and come back with the results.
XP doesn't work for me (not even a real XP machine, the DOS software is simply not compatible...). Sound support is not needed for the accounting software but I'll try the other two.

You can avoid having to register every time you install XP. See here:
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/tips/20...dows_xp-2.html

ok, I tested the 'rain20' program and it did solve the problem of running Win95 inside VirtualBox, at least partially.

The DOS program itself still pushes the processor to 100% at some points, where it seems to scan the keyboard for input in navigational menus etc. But it's a lot better now, at least it stopped frying my processor *most* of the time.

Thanks to Allend for the suggestion!