Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 07 18:35 -0500]:
Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 07 17:29 -0500]:
However, I'd say installation is VERY HARD.
That's why we use Debian, it makes the hard tasks easy and the
impossible ones possbile.
This is not an issue with the distro, it's a defect in the
original package. There is a version for FC, which I use,
but not for FC2, the support starts with FC5.
But the original Makefile needs to be fixed.
Perhaps my original point was too subtle.
You're hanging out on the Debian User list (welcome aboard) and
describing your pain of compiling a module on another distribution
(seems a bit odd to me, but, whatever). Might I suggest an
installation of Debian? If you do so, then your questions and our
answers will be more useful to all.
Perhaps I was being too subtle :-)
Presumably, FC7 would only need
# yum install "qemu*"
I am not and do not wish to become a Debian User. I am, however,
a Debian Administrator. My GF felt a need to have a supported OS
on her machine, which ran Windows NT. I suggested several LiveCDs
for her to try, since she doesn't like the MicroSoft Way, particularly.
I had somewhat an uphill climb, because she had REALLY not enjoyed RHL
6.0. I convinced her to give it a try, and she liked the way Linux
has progressed.
She settled on KNOPPIX, so I suggested she use Debian, which she
finds relatively satisfactory. However, I am now in the position
of having to administer her machine. Hence my membership here.
I installed and ran the emulator, and posted the results on
the Fedora Core User list. However, as a courtesy, since I have
seen discussion here about such topics as well, I posted a copy
here, since the use of Wine, DOSEmu, etc. seems to be of some
interest among all Linux users. My opinions are my own, but I
have the numbers to back them up, for any who care to get them.
Hard disk space is cheap, so give Debian a try. We'll be here to
assist in your transition.
Hard disc space is not cheap. I'm a laid off telecomm engineer.
If you think hard discs are cheap, how about donating one to me?
P.S. We won't take "no" for an answer! ;-)
See above.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
* Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 07 18:35 -0500]: > Nate Bargmann wrote: >> * Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 07 17:29 -0500]: >>> However, I'd say installation is VERY HARD. >> That's why we use Debian, it makes the hard tasks easy and the >> impossible ones possbile. > > This is not an issue with the distro, it's a defect in the > original package. There is a version for FC, which I use, > but not for FC2, the support starts with FC5. > > But the original Makefile needs to be fixed. Perhaps my original point was too subtle. You're hanging out on the Debian User list (welcome aboard) and describing your pain of compiling a module on another distribution (seems a bit odd to me, but, whatever). Might I suggest an installation of Debian? If you do so, then your questions and our answers will be more useful to all. Hard disk space is cheap, so give Debian a try. We'll be here to assist in your transition. - Nate >> P.S. We won't take "no" for an answer! ;-) -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation!" http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike McCarty wrote: > Nate Bargmann wrote: >> * Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 07 17:29 -0500]: >> >>> However, I'd say installation is VERY HARD. >> >> >> That's why we use Debian, it makes the hard tasks easy and the >> impossible ones possbile. > > This is not an issue with the distro, it's a defect in the > original package. There is a version for FC, which I use, > but not for FC2, the support starts with FC5. > > But the original Makefile needs to be fixed. > > Mike I second Nate's statement. Even though it's not a distro issue, I guess that the maintainer of kqemu-source must have fixed these issues, since by using 'aptitude install' and 'module-assistant' I could compile and install the module without any hassle. Cassiano Leal P.S.: Mike, sorry for replying to your personal e-mail. Re-posting reply to the list. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGudvUq4Bz51JiUuERAglEAJ9N1bOvIXw+ZbtjI3aXNOmw9y7ylgCfXg7w 96Me0SDh+u2XyeMwCyyTkm0= =jyTH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Mike McCarty wrote:
I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux,
and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them,
based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation.
The emulators I tried are DOSEMU + Freedos, BOCHS + MSDOS 6.22, and
QEMU + MSDOS 6.22. I found that each had advantages and disadvantages.
I also ran MSDOS 6.0 natively.
Two machines were used. One is an AMD 586 with 16MB of RAM and a
160 MHz processor. Another is a Presario with a 2.7 GHz Celeron.
The AMD was used only for running MSDOS 6.0 natively. The Celeron
was used to run the emulators with Linux, and also to do some
native MSDOS 6.0.
install share speed CPU hardwaresoftevents
DOSEMU easyeasyfastlow Intel only not all no
BOCHS hardhardv.slow highIntel only all yes
QEMUhardhardslowhighmultipleall no
KQEMU v.hard hard *fastlow multipleall no
KQEMU will not build properly. A buried Makefile used -nostdinc
but the source includes and . Also, the
shipped Makefile for modules in the kernel source area has
-nostdinc. As root, I created an alternate Makefile in the
kermel build area etc. So KQEMU has serious defects in the
source tarball, hence my characterization as very hard to install.
This is not the right fix. The sources need fixing, not the
Makefiles.
Why not just fast, instead of *fast?
With KQEMU acceleration, QEMU is actually no faster for emulating
16 bit code, like MSDOS and its applications. MSDOS also spends a
lot of time polling the keyboard, so I saw no decrease in CPU
utilization while the emulation was running. However, when I ran
Linux From Scratch (LFS) from an ISO image on disc, I noticed two
enhancements. First, the CPU was essentially idle (few, 5 or so extra
percent) when the emulated Linux was doing nothing. Second, the
emulation was quite a bit faster. Runing with only a terminal interface
was 182x as fast when accelerated and doing pure CPU (output redirected
to /dev/nul). However, when output was enabled (I computed several
numbers to high precision, for example e = 2.718281828459045...
to like 10,000 digits), it was only 5.6x as fast. Apparently, the
I/O to the screen eats a lot of time.
When I started up X, I found an even greater discrepancy. With
lots of screen I/O the accelerated version was only 1.9x to 2.7x
as fast as unaccelerated. But, moving windows around and so forth
was noticeably faster and smoother.
As far as pure CPU time, running the same native compiled benchmarks
resulted in QEMU+KQEMU is 2/3 as fast as just running Linux
on my machine. Any screen I/O, however, and the advantage starts going
way down. X in particular eats a *lot* of CPU. I dunno whether
that's because the emulation is having to make other calls to X,
or change the effective screen resolution, or what exactly. So,
for running emulated Linux, at least, KQEMU is definitely worth
it.
However, running freeduc emulated, and running Filets Poisson[1]
resulted in relatively high CPU utilization, though the emulated
machine was definitely smoother and faster. I supose that this
is because Filets Poisson is constantly updating the screen with
moving background fronds etc. waving in the water, and I'm seeing
the screen I/O again.
install: ease of installation
share:ease of sharing files between emulation and Linux
speed:speed of emulation
CPU: how much CPU does the emulation burn
hardware: emulates other than Intel hardware
soft: runs all software
events: supports emulating hardware events
QEMU runs something like 5x to 10x as fast as BOCHS. DOSEMU runs
40x to 50x as fast as QEMU.
BOCHS allows one to emulate various hard drives down to the
level of CHS.
I'd like to see how BOCHS et al. do for running LFS. For 16 bit
code, acceleration of QEMU is not worth the effort of installation.
For other programs, it is definitely worth it. Transferring files
is still a pain.
[1] Filets Poisson is a moving/sliding type puzzle game in which
fish are used to move the objects, hence the name. It has a background
which waves back and forth in the "water".
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
On Aug 7, 2007, at 5:32 PM, Mike McCarty wrote: Nate Bargmann wrote: * Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 07 17:29 -0500]: However, I'd say installation is VERY HARD. That's why we use Debian, it makes the hard tasks easy and the impossible ones possbile. This is not an issue with the distro, it's a defect in the original package. There is a version for FC, which I use, but not for FC2, the support starts with FC5. But the original Makefile needs to be fixed. Send 'em a patch. -- Nate Duehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 07 17:29 -0500]:
However, I'd say installation is VERY HARD.
That's why we use Debian, it makes the hard tasks easy and the
impossible ones possbile.
This is not an issue with the distro, it's a defect in the
original package. There is a version for FC, which I use,
but not for FC2, the support starts with FC5.
But the original Makefile needs to be fixed.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
* Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 07 17:29 -0500]: > However, I'd say installation is VERY HARD. That's why we use Debian, it makes the hard tasks easy and the impossible ones possbile. - Nate >> -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation!" http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Mathias Brodala wrote:
Hi Mike.
Mike McCarty, 07.08.2007 09:22:
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux,
and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them,
based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation.
[snip]
Did you run kqemu with qemu?
No, I couldn't get it to build for me.
Well, I tracked it down. One of the sub makefiles had -nostdinc
in it, but the source was including standard includes. I took
out the -nostdinc, and got some of it to compile. But then
/lib/modules/2.6.10-1.771_FC2/build/Makefile also had that
in it, so I made (as root, of course) a copy in Makefile1 and
modified the main Makefile to use -f Makefile1 and got it to
compile and install. It's MUCH faster now.
However, I'd say installation is VERY HARD.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Aenn Seidhe Priest wrote:
There's a Live CD based on Mandriva which has Virtualbox built-in. RAM
requirements are bound to be very hefty, but 1 GB should be enough.
$ head /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 248088 kB
MemFree: 2916 kB
Buffers: 9240 kB
Cached: 51432 kB
SwapCached: 98208 kB
Active: 166328 kB
Inactive:34996 kB
HighTotal: 0 kB
HighFree:0 kB
LowTotal: 248088 kB
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Mathias Brodala wrote:
Hi Mike.
[about kqemu]
No, I couldn't get it to build for me.
How did you try? More than the following commands is not necessary:
I downloaded the source and used the recommended commands.
# apt-get install module-assistant
# m-a prepare
# m-a a-i kqemu
# modprobe kqemu
This will not work on my machine. I don't run Debian.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
There's a Live CD based on Mandriva which has Virtualbox built-in. RAM
requirements are bound to be very hefty, but 1 GB should be enough.
http://mcnlive.org ("Virtual City" build).
On 07.08.2007 at 2:22 Mike McCarty wrote:
>Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
>> Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>>> I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux,
>>> and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them,
>>> based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation.
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> Did you run kqemu with qemu?
>
>No, I couldn't get it to build for me.
>I tried VirtualBox, and found it impossible to install on my machine.
>It won't build. The build errors are rather obscure. I looked at the
>"log" file they say should contain information, but here is the
>head of the log file
>
>Mike
Not far from here, by a white sun, behind a green star, lived the
Steelypips, illustrious, industrious, and they hadn't a care: no spats
in their vats, no rules, no schools, no gloom, no evil influence of the
moon, no trouble from matter or antimatter -- for they had a
machine, a dream of a machine, with springs and gears and perfect
in every respect. And they lived with it, and on it, and under it, and
inside it, for it was all they had -- first they saved up all their atoms,
then they put them all together, and if one didn't fit, why they
chipped at it a bit, and everything was just fine...
-- Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Hi Mike. Mike McCarty, 07.08.2007 09:22: > Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: >> Mike McCarty wrote: >> >>> I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux, >>> and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them, >>> based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation. > > [snip] > >> >> Did you run kqemu with qemu? > > No, I couldn't get it to build for me. How did you try? More than the following commands is not necessary: # apt-get install module-assistant # m-a prepare # m-a a-i kqemu # modprobe kqemu Optionally, for having the module loaded on boot-time: # echo kqemu >> /etc/modules Regards, Mathias -- debian/rules signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Tom Grove wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux,
and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them,
based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation.
The emulators I tried are DOSEMU + Freedos, BOCHS + MSDOS 6.22, and
QEMU + MSDOS 6.22. I found that each had advantages and disadvantages.
I also ran MSDOS 6.0 natively.
[snip]
I would like to see how VirtualBox stands up against the others. It
seems to be the fastest emulator when it comes to Windows. Although
this is only one person's opinion and there is no "scientific" evidence
it just feels faster.
I tried VirtualBox, and found it impossible to install on my machine.
It won't build. The build errors are rather obscure. I looked at the
"log" file they say should contain information, but here is the
head of the log file
[QUOTE MODE ON]
VirtualBox 1.4.0 installer, built Wed Jun 6 00:03:39 CEST 2007.
Testing system setup...
System setup appears correct.
Installing VirtualBox to /usr/local/innotek/VirtualBox
Output from the module build process (the Linux kernel build system)
follows:
cp: missing destination file
Try `cp --help' for more information.
[QUOTE MODE OFF]
Not very informative, is it?
Several of the compiles failed to find, for example, ,
, and other Standard Headers. I have no problem building
my own programs which use these headers.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux,
and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them,
based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation.
[snip]
Did you run kqemu with qemu?
No, I couldn't get it to build for me.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
On Sunday 05 August 2007 16:23:12 B.Hoffmann wrote: > > I would like to see how VirtualBox stands up against the others. It > > seems to be the fastest emulator when it comes to Windows. Although this > > is only one person's opinion and there is no "scientific" evidence it > > just feels faster. > > > > -Tom > > VB runs great here. I'm virtualizing Arch, Fedora and Slack12 on this, > feels fast apart from F7 which feels extremely sluggish. Did not work with > PC-BSD at all when selecting to run as FreeBSD. Slack12 runs like a dream, > will install it for good after this test run in VB. > > Barnaby Similar experiece here. Windows XP, Sabayon, and SuSE all work fine in VBox 1.40, but for some reason no flavor of BSD does. I have no idea if anyone is working on changing this or not. I used to use VMware, but since it's not "free" I didn't really like it. VBox is somewhere in between open and closed, but seems to work much better on my machine(s) than QEMU. Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
> I would like to see how VirtualBox stands up against the others. It seems to > be the fastest emulator when it comes to Windows. Although this is only one > person's opinion and there is no "scientific" evidence it just feels faster. > > -Tom > VB runs great here. I'm virtualizing Arch, Fedora and Slack12 on this, feels fast apart from F7 which feels extremely sluggish. Did not work with PC-BSD at all when selecting to run as FreeBSD. Slack12 runs like a dream, will install it for good after this test run in VB. Barnaby -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > Mike McCarty wrote: >> I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux, >> and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them, >> based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation. >> >> The emulators I tried are DOSEMU + Freedos, BOCHS + MSDOS 6.22, and >> QEMU + MSDOS 6.22. I found that each had advantages and disadvantages. >> I also ran MSDOS 6.0 natively. >> >> Two machines were used. One is an AMD 586 with 16MB of RAM and a >> 160 MHz processor. Another is a Presario with a 2.7 GHz Celeron. >> The AMD was used only for running MSDOS 6.0 natively. The Celeron >> was used to run the emulators with Linux, and also to do some >> native MSDOS 6.0. >> >> install share speed CPU hardwaresoftevents >> DOSEMU easyeasyfastlow Intel only not all no >> BOCHS hardhardv.slow highIntel only all yes >> QEMUhardhardslowhighmultipleall no >> >> install: ease of installation >> share:ease of sharing files between emulation and Linux >> speed:speed of emulation >> CPU: how much CPU does the emulation burn >> hardware: emulates other than Intel hardware >> soft: runs all software >> events: supports emulating hardware events >> >> QEMU runs something like 5x to 10x as fast as BOCHS. DOSEMU runs >> 40x to 50x as fast as QEMU. >> >> BOCHS allows one to emulate various hard drives down to the >> level of CHS. >> > > Did you run kqemu with qemu? > Have a look at the current thread "OT: QEMU Package faster" [1] if you want to get the best performance using QEMU's "-kernel-kqemu" option. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/06/msg02404.html -- Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Tom Grove wrote:
I would like to see how VirtualBox stands up against the others. It
seems to be the fastest emulator when it comes to Windows. Although
this is only one person's opinion and there is no "scientific" evidence
it just feels faster.
Post a URL. I have been running some benchmarks for CPU speed. I haven't
checked out creating/deleting files.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Mike McCarty wrote: I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux, and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them, based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation. The emulators I tried are DOSEMU + Freedos, BOCHS + MSDOS 6.22, and QEMU + MSDOS 6.22. I found that each had advantages and disadvantages. I also ran MSDOS 6.0 natively. Two machines were used. One is an AMD 586 with 16MB of RAM and a 160 MHz processor. Another is a Presario with a 2.7 GHz Celeron. The AMD was used only for running MSDOS 6.0 natively. The Celeron was used to run the emulators with Linux, and also to do some native MSDOS 6.0. install share speed CPU hardwaresoftevents DOSEMU easyeasyfastlow Intel only not all no BOCHS hardhardv.slow highIntel only all yes QEMUhardhardslowhighmultipleall no install: ease of installation share:ease of sharing files between emulation and Linux speed:speed of emulation CPU: how much CPU does the emulation burn hardware: emulates other than Intel hardware soft: runs all software events: supports emulating hardware events QEMU runs something like 5x to 10x as fast as BOCHS. DOSEMU runs 40x to 50x as fast as QEMU. BOCHS allows one to emulate various hard drives down to the level of CHS. Mike I would like to see how VirtualBox stands up against the others. It seems to be the fastest emulator when it comes to Windows. Although this is only one person's opinion and there is no "scientific" evidence it just feels faster. -Tom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virtual Machines/Emulators
Mike McCarty wrote: I recently developed a desire to run some emulators under Linux, and consequently have run some of them. Here are my opinions of them, based on install, ease of use, and speed of emulation. The emulators I tried are DOSEMU + Freedos, BOCHS + MSDOS 6.22, and QEMU + MSDOS 6.22. I found that each had advantages and disadvantages. I also ran MSDOS 6.0 natively. Two machines were used. One is an AMD 586 with 16MB of RAM and a 160 MHz processor. Another is a Presario with a 2.7 GHz Celeron. The AMD was used only for running MSDOS 6.0 natively. The Celeron was used to run the emulators with Linux, and also to do some native MSDOS 6.0. install share speed CPU hardwaresoftevents DOSEMU easyeasyfastlow Intel only not all no BOCHS hardhardv.slow highIntel only all yes QEMUhardhardslowhighmultipleall no install: ease of installation share:ease of sharing files between emulation and Linux speed:speed of emulation CPU: how much CPU does the emulation burn hardware: emulates other than Intel hardware soft: runs all software events: supports emulating hardware events QEMU runs something like 5x to 10x as fast as BOCHS. DOSEMU runs 40x to 50x as fast as QEMU. BOCHS allows one to emulate various hard drives down to the level of CHS. Did you run kqemu with qemu? Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
