On Mar 16, 2008, at 5:50 PM, RB wrote:
>> Xen must've improved then, since the time about a year ago when I
>> tried to use it and it refused on an old P4 based system...
>
> In clarification, it still won't run unmodified OSes without the VM
> extensions, but it will still run most *BSD, Linux
> Xen must've improved then, since the time about a year ago when I tried to
> use it and it refused on an old P4 based system...
In clarification, it still won't run unmodified OSes without the VM
extensions, but it will still run most *BSD, Linux, or Open Solaris
kernels, since they've had the
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:17:55 -0600
RB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I agree with the speed sentiment, Vmware *doesn't* require a special
> > processor. Xen does, and I think qemu does as well...
>
> Beat me to it, but not quite correct - neither Xen nor qemu require
> said support, qemu
> While I agree with the speed sentiment, Vmware *doesn't* require a special
> processor. Xen does, and I think qemu does as well...
Beat me to it, but not quite correct - neither Xen nor qemu require
said support, qemu can even be completely userspace (yes, there is a
kqemu accelerator that isn
> would be painfully slow. Virtual machine hypervisors
> like VMware require processors that support virtualization.
I'm not really interested in joining the debate (other than I think
virtualization is probably the wrong direction), but had to respond to
this comment. Absolutely untrue - for a
While I agree with the speed sentiment, Vmware *doesn't* require a special
processor. Xen does, and I think qemu does as well...
Steve
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:59:17 -0700
Sean McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> x86 emulation to run a software virtual machine
> would be painfully slow. Virtual
x86 emulation to run a software virtual machine
would be painfully slow. Virtual machine hypervisors
like VMware require processors that support virtualization.
I don't think any Soekris board has the required CPU.
--
Sean McGrath
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Florian Klemenz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sunday, March
Hi,
Sunday, March 16, 2008, 14:00, you wrote:
> Do you think a 55XX would have enough horsepower
> to run something like FreeBSD with VMWare on top of it
> with Win98? The machine is only used for access in and out
> of the Fire Station. Having it crash during a fire is a bad
> thing. Th
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think people are under the wrong impression here. Maybe I need
> to drag the story out a bit.
>
> I've been talking to someone about using Soekris boxes at remote
> sites for monitoring and out of band management running (Insert Unix type
> operat
Hi,
I think people are under the wrong impression here. Maybe I need
to drag the story out a bit.
I've been talking to someone about using Soekris boxes at remote
sites for monitoring and out of band management running (Insert Unix type
operating system here.). I've been after him
This application is better suited (legacy windows software) to a
older-segin mini-itx system...
if you were working on a wholesale replacement for this particular
application a modern embedded system might be more appropiate
and no I wouldn't run vmware on a soekris. That's headed the wrong
On Mar 16, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Greg Shenaut wrote:
>> they need to run Windows 98 on it for their door security system.
>
> Is that really true? I think I'd start by trying to find out more
> about this system and their needs. It could be that a Soekris box is
> way overkill, or it could be that t
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
> I'm just trying to see if there are viable
> alternatives that are in the Soekris class. There are solutions
> like :
>
> http://www.plees.f2s.com/ec/mini-svr/mini-svr.htm
>
> but I can't see it being cost effective/supported/etc.
>
> I came to the
> they need to run Windows 98 on it for their door security system.
Is that really true? I think I'd start by trying to find out more
about this system and their needs. It could be that a Soekris box is
way overkill, or it could be that they (and their insurance company)
would be happier wit
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Over the last few months I've talked to a local PC tech
> > about the Soekris line. Well, he just went and pitched it and
> > was accepted at the local fire department. That'd be great,
> > except they need to run Windows 98 on it for their door
> > security system.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET
> Sent: Monday, 17 March 2008 2:01 a.m.
> To: soekris-tech@lists.soekris.com
> Subject: [Soekris] Any suggestion for alternative?
>
> Hi,
>
> Over the last few months I've
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote on 16-3-2008 14:00:
> Hi,
>
> Over the last few months I've talked to a local
> PC tech about the Soekris line. Well, he just went and pitched
> it and was accepted at the local fire department. That'd be
> great, except they need to run Windows 98 on it for their
>
Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET writes:
> I've never seen anything about running Windows on any of the Soekris
> devices. (Maybe just because running Windows in and of itself is in
> general "A bad idea". :) )
Can you run Windows (except Wince) on a device without a graphics card?
Arnt
_
Hi,
Over the last few months I've talked to a local
PC tech about the Soekris line. Well, he just went and pitched
it and was accepted at the local fire department. That'd be
great, except they need to run Windows 98 on it for their
door security system.
I've never seen anything
19 matches
Mail list logo