>
>mikael jansson wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I read in a /. comment about FreeMWare that BeOS didn't run satisfactory
>> on VMWare because BeOS needed more resources than the host OS could deliver.
>>
>> Q. Do you've got any figures for the BeOS port to check with?
>> Q. Will BeOS be supported as a *host* operating system?
>
>I can't imagine any problems with BeOS being the host.
Great.
>I'm not sure what the issues are for BeOS being a guest.
>Likely it is pretty demanding of the hardware. What will
>help is if someone takes the task of digging up what the
>issues are with BeOS and VMware, and reports back here.
>You are apppointed, head person-in-charge of compiling
>such info. :^)
Yeah... What if they ask me *why* I want that info?
"FreeM^H^H^H ^H^HNothing special", or what? ;)
>We may be able to either get around issues, or request
>that the Be people add a few features, such as conditionally
>not requiring certain hardware function when BeOS runs
>inside virtualization.
Which functions are they? Be is very likely to help
out with any problems we may run into, as long
it wouldn't make the rest of the system suffer,
performance/stability-wise.
>Then, if we can get the IA32 chip vendors to add a CR4 bit
>to turn on generating exceptions on a few naughty instructions
>which look at system registers, we'll know we're making inroads...
That's a big "Yeah sure... In our pipe dreams"
>-Kevin
>
