Well, VMware guests can recognise that they're in a VM because the
software contains a backdoor INT function, mainly used by VMware Tools
for things like Shared Folders and host-controlled mouse cursors
insides guests. I don't quite remember what the function was for
VMware's backdoor, but you can
Mark Williamson wrote:
No, I got the impression that Fabrice was taking about virtualization the
way VMware, old plex86, and vmbear (new FOSS x86 virtualizer in the
works) do it.
The x86 cannot be "virtualized" in the Popek/Goldberg sense, so there's
a couple of fast emulation techniques
Hi,
Attached patch suppress debug log of sb16.
Regards,
Kazu
--- qemu-0.7.1.orig/hw/sb16.c Mon Jul 25 03:52:08 2005
+++ qemu/hw/sb16.c Mon Aug 15 16:24:18 2005
@@ -25,10 +25,14 @@
#define LENOFA(a) ((int) (sizeof(a)/sizeof(a[0])))
-#define dolog(...) AUD_log ("sb16", __VA_ARGS__)
-
/* #define
Hi,
This patch supports a real hard disk drive by \\.\PhysicalDriveN
(N=0,1,2,...) on Windows 2000/XP host. Windows 98/Me are not supported.
You can also use slash like //./PhysicalDriveN. You can see a number in
Administration Tools in Control Panel. This is not case-sensitive. It is
necessary t
> >No, I got the impression that Fabrice was taking about virtualization the
> > way VMware, old plex86, and vmbear (new FOSS x86 virtualizer in the
> > works) do it.
>
> The x86 cannot be "virtualized" in the Popek/Goldberg sense, so there's
> a couple of fast emulation techniques that are possibl
Jim C. Brown wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:58:11AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Jim C. Brown wrote:
Fabrice had said that he > >wants
kqemu to be able to do total virtualization (both kernel and userland > >bits);
basically all the translation code of qemu would be left unused bu
Jim C. Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:37:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
0.7.2 seems to have broken support for kqemu.
You are using both qemu 0.7.2 and kqemu 0.7.2 right? qemu 0.7.2 introduced
some incompatible changes and no longer works with older versions of kqemu.
> No, I got the impression that Fabrice was taking about virtualization the
> way VMware, old plex86, and vmbear (new FOSS x86 virtualizer in the works)
> do it.
>
> So it'll work w/o needing a 64bit chip.
I hadn't seen vmbear, looks interesting... Full virtualisation on vanilla x86
would be rea
Hi,
We are using gdisk.exe in order to format the HD in our WINXP ISO
image of installation.
The problem with GDISK.EXE is the _second_ execution of it. For
example:
A:\> gdisk /?
(... it shows the help)
A:\> gdisk /?
It shows the message:
Error reading drive A (<-
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:37:58PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> 0.7.2 seems to have broken support for kqemu.
You are using both qemu 0.7.2 and kqemu 0.7.2 right? qemu 0.7.2 introduced
some incompatible changes and no longer works with older versions of kqemu.
--
Infinite complexity begets in
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 09:58:11AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jim C. Brown wrote:
>
> >Fabrice had said that he > >wants
> >kqemu to be able to do total virtualization (both kernel and userland >
> >>bits);
> >basically all the translation code of qemu would be left unused but the
> >hardwa
On 9/13/05, Adrian Smarzewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
> > I'm new to qemu and my question is simple and is probably due to my
> > ignorance. If I compare qemu and vmware, there is a great deal of
> > emulation speed differences.
>
> Did you try kqemu or qvm86?
Yes, w
Jim C. Brown wrote:
- If no, is it possible that one day qemu reaches the speed of vmware?
qemu itself? Nope.
kqemu/qvm86 don't have this limitation though. Fabrice had said that he wants
kqemu to be able to do total virtualization (both kernel and userland bits);
basically all the tran
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 08:36:29AM -0400, Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm new to qemu and my question is simple and is probably due to my
> ignorance. If I compare qemu and vmware, there is a great deal of
> emulation speed differences.
>
> - Is it because of what qemu is? (i.e. it is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@-M_H/;6$r$*n!"7]G=?M!"([EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(B
$B"!%R%^$G$*6b;[EMAIL PROTECTED]@-M_$rK~$?$7$F$"$2$F$/[EMAIL PROTECTED](B
$B"!C/$G$b4JC1!*L5NAEPO?!*(B
$B"!%Q%=%3%s!&7HBSA45!pJs$N%;%-%e%j%F%#!http://80607.jp/dt/giaku/enjo
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:45:29PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jim C. Brown wrote:
>
> If I understand this correctly, you have multiple processes displaying
> to the same widget?
>
Currently, yes.
The eventual goal is to manage multiple windows as well, so you can see more
than one guest
Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
I'm new to qemu and my question is simple and is probably due to my
ignorance. If I compare qemu and vmware, there is a great deal of
emulation speed differences.
Did you try kqemu or qvm86?
--
Pozdrowienia,
Adrian Smarzewski
_
Hi all,
I'm new to qemu and my question is simple and is probably due to my
ignorance. If I compare qemu and vmware, there is a great deal of
emulation speed differences.
- Is it because of what qemu is? (i.e. it is a full emulator of many
platforms, etc. Meaning that vmware is probably only spec
18 matches
Mail list logo
