I find it interesting that you are so convinced of this...., especially if
the word from the horse's mouth (MicroSoft) says otherwise.......
As for running LINUX as I client to the Win32API I have seen this once &
would like to know how it was done.....
Also...., it must be made clear that when I speak of an OS I speak of a
true operating system. The Win32API handlers are just well integrated
clients for DOS. As proof, I would suggest that you try to run a full dos
mode program in your Windows platform autoexec.bat. Mind you, not the one
you get in a dos window. I mean the core one that you can get to when you
boot off of a disk containing only command.com, io.sys, and the
MS-bootloader code. You will find that the way that the true DOS interface
works has a lot in common with the "VM" dos interface. If you want to know
(from a purist point of view) what a DOS window really does, boot off a
floppy with just command.com, io.sys & the bootloader on it. Then type
"command.com" at the command prompt. That is what happens in windows when
you run a dos window. (It is also a major part of what changed in MS-DOS
since version 3.3.)
As for the extended VM manager API..., I will remind you that whenever you
start using an API you start using either libraries or parent programs (so
that your "executable" runs as a module to something). Thus it is NOT
REALLY A VM!!!!!
more to follow.......have a class that I am late for.......
Drew Northup, N1XIM
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> Of Fred Weigel
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 12:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Vocabulary
>
>
> They *are* true VM's. The machine being emulated is an 8086,
> not a 386+. Access to i/o ports can be trapped, access to interrupt
> vectors, etc. In Windows 3.x, the Window applications run in one
> VM cooperatively. There is another OS "under the covers" in Windows
> (not discussing NT here). It is possible to strip off the "Windows"
> part, and use just the underlying VM OS (not easy, just possible).
> An interesting hack (and not one I've seen published yet).
>
> Another theoretical idea is to augment the Windows VM manager,
> allowing it to do partial 386+ virtualization. This gets you into the
> domain covered by NT, with none of the associated headaches.
> There is enough in the published VM manager documentation to
> allow this extension. Then, the Linux kernel could be modified
> to use the extended VM manager API, which gives you Linux
> cooperating under Windows. Not as polished as Plex86, but it
> would be easier. I find it interesting that the Linux under Linux
> folk haven't pursued this. The big problem with this approach is
> filesystem code, but the UMSDOS filesystem could certainly
> accomodate the need.
>
> Ratboy.
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Drew Northup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Vocabulary
> Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:48:29 -0400
>
> Yep, you'd be right!!! Which is why I didn't refer to them as
> true VM's!!!!
>
> Drew Northup, N1XIM
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> > Of Nick Behnken
> > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 11:59 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Vocabulary
> >
> >
> > Win95 runs all dos apps in a seperate VM in VM86. Win32 apps share the
> > System VM ... ie the one that is present went dos loads becomes
> > the system
> > vm. All other dos vm's are copied from the system vm, but share a
> portion
> > of the first 640K of memory. This is why if you use debug from a
> > dos vm and
> > overwrite the first 64K of ram. Windows 95/98 crashes..
> because you just
> > overwrote the real mode interrupt table.. So much for a true
> > protected mode
> > OS ! lol
> >
> > Windows NT does not use VM86! The dos emulator is a win32 app
> written by
> > Insignia.
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Drew Northup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 6:08 PM
> > Subject: RE: Vocabulary
> >
> >
> > > Yeah....., not only do they say that it is all in one VM, but
> > that is what
> > > the Win2k debug team leader said..... to my face. I'll take
> > his word for
> > > it!!! As for the MSDN library thing you are probably
> > right--that thing is
> > > full of errors!!!
> > >
> > > Drew Northup, N1XIM
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
> > > > Of X-Odus
> > > > Sent:
> > Thursday, September 21, 2000 11:37 AM
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: Re: Vocabulary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This probably doesnt matter but:
> > > > http://www.fayle.freeserve.co.uk/95vmm.htm
> > > >
> > > > That says that Win95 and all Win32 processes run in the same VM.
> > > > I remember
> > > > something in the MSDN library saying differently. But hey
> who cares.
> > > >
> > > > Amy Lear wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: X-Odus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Look up windows architecture it refers to them as virtual
> > machines.
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel obligated to note that in the NT 4.0 terminology, a
> > > > computer boots from
> > > > > the system partition, and the OS loads from the boot partition.
> > > > >
> > > > > However Microsoft refers to something hardly matters, in many
> cases.
> > =>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
>
