in other words it works more like bochs than VMWARE and will probably never reach the execution speed of native code, since it's emulating the CPU itself, am I right? VMWARE will always be faster since it allows the X86 opcodes execute on the CPU without translation layers.
Does bochs let you run LinuxPPC? or Mandrake PPC? how about Mac OS X? SparcLinux? what about a linux distribution for ARM? none of them can be used by bochs..
As for comparing speed - BOCHS is extremly slow when running, since it checks every address and everything while QEMU doesn't check any address (for example QEMU uses 16 bits instead of the usual 10 bits which Pentium Pro uses), and from experience, it seems to work good enough. QEMU is WAY faster then bochs (try to install XP and office on Bochs and try to use it. XP install on bochs takes about a DAY or TWO while on QEMU it's taking about 1.2 hours [I measured]).
QEMU major goal was to let you run Wine binaries under PPC. These days it does that and lets your run other OS's and other processor. I can imagine that once it'll reach this stage, Fabrice (the author) will add the "virtualization" thats the same as VMWare.
Today I'm using Windows XP as a guest with Office, and I can connect with rdesktop, so graphics are not slow and the speed is pretty good.
Thanks, Hetz
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
