On Jul 31, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Gary M. Dennis wrote:
z/VOS translates guest OS code during initial execution. Code fragment
storage, lookup, disposal and reuse for primary and sibling guests are
addressed in a patent application. Suffice it to say that we don't
interpret or emulate massive
32 and 16 bit. The boot loaders used and FreeDos required incorporation of
16 bit support. Monumental pain.
We don't see 64 bit support being problematic though.
Gary
On 8/1/08 9:31 AM, Adam Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does z/VOS do x86_64 or just 32-bit x86? Actually, can you list
Apologies for not responding to this thread in a more timely fashion. I had
a flood of emails after the initial post.
Speed OR Portability
Adam is closer than he knows about the approach we have taken on z/VOS.
First, he is right when he guessed almost-certainly assembly. We have
tried both
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:34 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture - NOT.
z/VOS is written to support
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:48 AM, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:34 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
On Jul 25, 2008, at 8:48 AM, McKown, John wrote:
Somewhat like BOCH? I remember somebody saying that they ran Windows
on
BOCH on an old P/390.
A little more data: the straight-up portable-emulation x86 code-path
is still not a good idea. I got the current released bochs (20080720)
-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Barton Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:59 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture - NOT.
Ok, so reality check folks before y'all start drooling about jobs
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Barton Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:59 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture - NOT.
Ok, so reality check folks before y'all start drooling about jobs and
can think you can
run 47000 windows
-
From: Gary M. Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86
architecture
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:02:33 -0500
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009 Mantissa will deliver a system
. Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86
architecture
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:02:33 -0500
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009 Mantissa will deliver a system that permits
unaltered Windows
@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86
architecture
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:02:33 -0500
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009 Mantissa will deliver a system that permits
unaltered Windows operating systems to run under z/VM
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9183
Should we toss x86 architecture and wipe the slate with something greene
r
and more scalable?
Windows Server 2016 128-bit edition running virtualized on z/VM in a gre
en
datacenter, accessed via my house from a thin client over high-speed fibe
r
optic
With the BSOD replaced by the GSOD?
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Bob Heerdink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9183
Should we toss x86 architecture and wipe the slate with something greener
and more scalable?
Windows Server 2016 128-bit edition running
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009 Mantissa will deliver a system that permits unaltered Windows
operating systems to run under z/VM. Using a desktop appliance running RDC,
users will be able to connect to their virtual Windows images running in the
VM
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009 Mantissa will deliver a system that permits
unaltered Windows operating systems to run under z/VM. Using
a desktop appliance running RDC, users
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:03 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
This was our post to the zd net blog
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:03 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:03 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
This was our post to the zd net
-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:03 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009
The hardest part, of course, will be turning the machine over to get the
Microsoft license key off the bottom...
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Gary M. Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We looked very hard at the licensing aspect of this. We don't see anything
in the Microsoft EULA that would
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Romanowski, John (OFT)
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:44 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
How can the z handle 3000 copies
My guess is that all of the GUIs won't be actively doing things all at
the same time. Newer levels of Windows can also run headless.
Granted 3000 copies of Windows will probably require some pretty good
sized hardware, this sounds like a pretty cool product.
Romanowski, John (OFT) wrote:
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:03 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009 Mantissa will deliver a system that permits
I think that even 10 copies of Windows, especially in an emulated
environment, will eat up enormous amounts of zSeries CPU. Add in the
license costs from Microsoft, and I'm not sure it makes any kind of
financial sense.
But I like the idea.
I plan to watch this develop with my eyes out
System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gary M. Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:03 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009 Mantissa will deliver
How can the z handle 3000 copies of Windows all running a
graphic user
interface (cpu-intensive) ?
Probably the Windows Server 2008 configuration, which can have the GUI
disabled.
Gee. Shades of OS/2 Warp. 8-)
-- db
user id to start his Windows systemis my
understanding correct?
Thanks and have a good one.
DJ
- Original Message -
From: Gary M. Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86
architecture
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:02:33 -0500
- Original Message -
From: Gary M. Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86
architecture
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:02:33 -0500
This was our post to the zd net blog.
Maybe we already have.
In Q1 2009 Mantissa will deliver
28 matches
Mail list logo
