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 lis
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 amounts
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 Q
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)
buil
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
> -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.
>
st that
>>>> your Windows support software, z/VOS, is in fact a
>>>> sophisticated CMS-based application, that is a user would
>>>> log onto a CMS user id to start his Windows system....is my
>>>> understanding correct?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and
ing 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 and
can think you can
ru
-
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 job
is 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
>&
ks 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
This was our post to the zd net blog.
&q
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:
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 J
> > 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
m your system.
>
>
> -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 archite
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
he 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.
&g
Rich Smrcina
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:54 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: Nice idea in blog: Should we toss x86 architecture
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
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:
Ho
> -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
>
> Ho
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 wo
al 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 already ha
dy?
> ;-) )
>
> Regards,
> Richard Schuh
>
>
>
>> -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
>
-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.
"May
> -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 wa
> 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
> unaltered Windows operating systems to run u
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 envir
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 runni
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 c
29 matches
Mail list logo
