Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:58:39 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: Wlinux vs. LWin95, looking at the alternative |
| |
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998, Richard Jones wrote:
> Stephen D. Williams wrote: > > On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, it might be possible to > > make Linux the more native OS and Win95 the more virtualized OS. If > > ALL of the Win95 devices were virtual devices to Linux, then only > > memory management and processor mode remains to be dealt with. What > > if Linux reserved most of upper memory and fooled Win95 into believing > > that there was less memory (easy due to the reliance on Bios)? > [...] > > As I understand it, there are only a few commands that > can't be properly virtualized on the i386 processors. Is
They will trap with 'invalid instruction', and can (in theory) be deassembled and emulated JIT... [well, _can_ they??? I don't know enough about x86 to really know]
> it possible that there are only a few tiny patches to the > Win95 `binary' that need to be made to make it behave itself > in a virtualized 386 environment? Perhaps someone who knows > more about this than me can comment ...
Rik. +-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+ | Linux: - LinuxHQ MM-patches page | Scouting webmaster | | - kswapd ask-him & complain-to guy | Vries cubscout leader | | http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~riel/ | <H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl> | +-------------------------------------------+--------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |