Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 1998 07:54:06 -0400 (EDT) | From | <> | Subject | Re: Wlinux vs. LWin95, looking at the alternative |
| |
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 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]
anything can be emulated. don't ever think otherwise. there is currently a working nintendo 64 emulator for win95. *anything* can be emulated on *any* hardware (provided the display is suitable).
> > 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 ...
_ _ __ __ _ _ _ | / |/ /_ __/ /_____ | Nuke Skyjumper | | / / // / '_/ -_) | "Master of the Farce" | |_ /_/|_/\_,_/_/\_\\__/ _|_ nuke@bayside.net _|
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |