This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Multiple OSs Concurrently
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel
SGI has similar plans for Irix? (Score:1)
Where's the source? (Score:1)
Interesting (Score:1)
Is this new? (Score:1)
It's probably not new - but let's watch them be granted a patent on it anyway....
--
Details lacking (Score:1)
With lots of clever tricks you could intercept this instruction, that's what Merge (under SCO and others) and probably VMware does.
I could imagine a way to intercept this instruction that would not completly kill the performance (in real mode the performance it would be bad, but not fatal, in protected mode, almost nil)... e-mail me for further details...
Interacting with hardware? (Score:1)
With the price of computers coming down as quickly as they are, I think I'd rather just buy two computers if I really need to run two operating systems concurrently. The cost of a basic headless PC isn't that much more than the $300 asking price for the software and you don't have all of these kinds of headaches. Sounds like a bad idea to me.
Hmm... Better. (Score:1)
xfree can do that. (Score:1)
--
Hey Cmdr I gave a link to MySpace over a Week ago! (Score:1)
Is this new? - DEC has done this too (Score:1)
I really just want an 8400: 144 PCI slots (who knows how many independent busses this is?), to 28GB RAM and 14 - 600MHz CPUs. Fun....
VirtualPC/RealPC for the Mac emulates PC hardware (Score:1)
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
People don't try Linux because they don't need it (Score:1)
--
Timur "too sexy for my code" Tabi, timur@tabi.org, http://www.tabi.org
my bad (Score:1)
Status of the LinuxPPC version:
* PPC/68k run-time environment: partly done (interrupts only handled by 68k)
* OS utilities: done
* Time Manager: done
* Mouse: not yet implemented
* Keyboard: not yet implemented
* Video: under development
* Sound: not yet implemented
* Floppy: done except for disk change detection
* Disks: done except for disk change detection
* SCSI: no suitable API in Linux
* CD-ROM: done
* Host filesystem access: done (no resource forks)
* Ethernet: not yet implemented
* Serial I/O: done
Im surpised at the disparity with the BeOS project, I imagine they werent doing much via a vm and instead did a lot of the original version as Beos drivers. In any case if they can get a version done providing low overhead and stability there will assuredly be Mac users migrating to Linux in droves, if for no other reason than to follow the trend.
Oh, and multithreaded for SMP Id hope, though I seem to remember Sheepshaver running in a single thread on Be, which was also a dissappoint me as I have an SMP card which screams on Be.
my two cents (Score:1)
My bets on them having recoded the lowest layer of the Linux kernel to abstract it a step from the hardware... Three years ago when I was bored out of my mind at work and was being forced to use NT, I'd thought about the possibility of having a core microkernel sitting directly on the hardware, and having customized kernels for Linux and NT that mapped their memory management, task switching, etc all through the microkernel.
I wonder if they're claiming a patent on it... I know I've got a whole notebook of notes sitting around on the idea.
machines aren't expensive anymore (Score:1)
Cool Concept (Score:1)
Anyway, I wonder if this will allow you to bind an os to a particular cpu in an smp type system. Now, that would really rock.
I already boot 3 OS`s Simultaneously (Score:1)
On a typical work day, I'll have 3 operating systems booted simultaneously on my Mac G3: The MacOS [apple.com], SoftWindows95 [insignia.com], and MachTen (BSD 4.4) [tenon.com].
This seems to be an example of someone else trying to catch up to the same idea.
I already boot 3 OS`s Simultaneously (Score:1)
I don't see why this is a big new idea.
Um, Coward: 0, Taco: 1 (Score:1)
For example, with VMware Virtual Platform, you can take your personal or business applications with you, and run them on the machine of your choice. Or you can run Windows NT concurrently with other operating systems such as Linux® on a single standard PC.
Bet you feel dumb now
Is this new? (Score:1)
Flux/Fluke (Re: A bit steep) (Score:1)
work on recursive virtual machines.
http://www.cs.utah.edu/projects/flux/
ftp://mancos.cs.utah.edu/papers/fluke-rvm-abs.h
SGI has similar plans for Irix? (Score:1)
If this VMware thing actually works, and the overhead is low (less than 10%) I'd buy it. I am a bit skeptical though...
-beb
Demo99 (Score:1)
Somewhat myopic. (Score:1)
See the website (Score:1)
I've put my name down for the beta - it's pricey but then the market is probably quite limited, and it's not trivial to develop.
Details lacking (Score:1)
this can be done without modifying any of the
linux source code and NT source code. Well, I can
believe they tweaked Linux kernel here and there
but what about NT?
It would be even more bizarre if they say that we can take an off the shelf Redhat CD and NT CD and install on top of VMware.
I don't get it (Score:1)
A bit steep (Score:1)
No Subject Given (Score:1)
By the way, I'm sorry you think WINE sucks... Works for what I "need".
Could be a real Windows killer/Linux eye opener. (Score:1)
Most people don't want to switch to Linux because that are scared of not having all their little WinGizmos anymore.
Slowly, people will stop using Windows and start using Linux more and more... After a while, Windows will only be used for games, its true nature since it is a toy anyway.
Concurrent OSes (Score:1)
Schweet.
K.
-
my two cents (Score:1)
So you didn't read the web page either? Linux or NT are just the HOST NT. With the Linux version, you can indeed run ANY OS.
> I wonder if they're claiming a patent on it... I know I've got a whole notebook of notes sitting around on the idea.
As, I'm sure, does IBM. Perhaps something about their IMPLEMENTATION is patentable, but not the notion of Virtual Machines.
"This is possible because each VM has ..." (Score:1)
The designers of Disco (specifically Rosenblum) are behind vmware, so you can understand the product by reading the Disco papers at Stanford. Look for the FLASH project.
Disco implements the vmware concept, but for IRIX. Their papers describe the performance impact caused by the virtualization, which is fairly negligible. If your program executes mainly non-privileged instructions, then the virtualized machine has no impact. Boot-up time of the OS probably sees the greatest impact, due to processor initialization, address space construction, and hardware probing.
The performance impact caused by virtualized hardware devices can be minimized by coding drivers for NT and Linux that interact directly with vmware. I suspect vmware followed that route.
Oh great (Score:1)
M
Awesome (Score:1)
From what I can tell from their web site, you boot a primary OS, NT or Linux are the only two they going to support so far - and then from that OS you launch virtual machines that should be able to run any OS.
I guess this is similar to how NT runs 16 bit windows apps.
The only thing is, I would have though that the x86 chip would have to be able to virtualize itself entirely, i.e. provide a virtual machine with all the same capabilities of the actual chip itself. From what I understand, the VM mode of the x86 chips is a limited subset of the features of the chip itself.
Also performance could be weird. It looks like each VM is just a process in the host OS, subject to the scheduling of the host OS. If you boot Linux from NT and NT decides to give a native process 90% of CPU, it doesn't look like there is much Linux, or the Virtual machine manager can do about it.
-josh
uh vm86() anybody? (Score:1)
How do you switch? Wheres the BeOS or DOS version? (Score:1)
Calm down. (Score:1)
Some Comments (Score:1)
Virtual machine emulation is interesting, however. Freed software like GNU/Linux or opensource software like BSD is, quite obviously, the easiest to encapsulate on a new platform. I've already got Linux (kernel 2.2.1 <grin>) sort of working in OS/2; I junked things like the memory-manager, and created a special filesystem that just talks to OS/2, rather than actually accessing disks. It is absolutely not complete: things like networking are missing and direct hardware access does not work yet. I really want to get in touch with the Linux kernel people and work on a new architecture--perhaps a VM architecture, for running on other platforms.
I've also toyed with running Windows under other operating systems (in my case, it's Windows 95 under OS/2, but the same would apply for any OS under something like GNU/Linux or BSD). Here's what I've done so far:
I started with Bochs, and put it in tracing mode. Then I booted Windows 95 up to the point where it loads the GUI. I took the resultant 750MB trace file (it took hours to generate) and began analyzing it for things like privileged instructions. Specifically, I wanted to watch the call flow for calls to the memory manager.
Next, I tried hooking the memory manager calls (this was quite simple) and making some changes to Bochs
This stuff is nowhere near pre-alpha quality yet. I'm more actively working on XCLIENT for OS/2 and some other OS/2 software at the moment. However, if you're working on a VM and would like to chat, feel free to drop me a note. It's not as hard as you think, and I did get Windows 95 to boot with my special memory manager.
I also tried recoding Bochs to execute instructions natively, but that did not work. What looks like it might be promising is hooking the memory manager so that instructions that access memory (such as MOV EDX,[EAX]) can run natively. I haven't tested this, though. Emulating I/O hardware is silly, however--just write Windows 95 device drivers that place calls to the host operating system.
Cheers,
Joshua.
You can see --jon. Postel here. Love that beard! [iana.org]
Sheepshaver (Score:1)
-k-
More on extra screen space -- The Pixel Company (Score:1)
"It's not Windows-dependent - which makes it possible to run two operating systems (like Windows and Unix) independently, and simultaneously."
The system requirements, however, say only Win95/98.
"...the MySpace control bar has limitless content possibilities. It can launch any technology - it can manage applications; manage hardware; link to the Internet; control your CD; WebTV, and more. It can also be used to add Java applets and other operating systems. But most importantly, MySpace is always right in front of the user."
It sounds like a FreePC sort of advertising area drawn outside the standard resolution scan area.
-tak
SMP (Score:1)
Darmox
um, What is '"extra" screen space?' (Score:1)
"Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"
GOD --- LEARN TO READ!! (Score:1)
You write like a Fucking Geek(tm) (Score:1)
Overhead? (Score:1)
Dichotomy (Score:1)
"I've heard all these neat things about Linux, but I still need to use WinNT for my daily operations..."
This user then has the chance to try out Linux as painlessly as possible, if VMWare isn't a hoax, because Linux will just be another program on an NT machine. The user will then come to realize that Linux is stable and can do most of what is needed, and switch accordingly.
However, a dearth of applications will prevent people from trying, not just using, Linux, so this program fulfills some of that loss. VMWare is going to help Linux just through sheer exposure.
The problem I see is that if Linux takes more resources while under NT because of overhead, it's much vaunted stability and resource thriftiness may be lost. We shall see.
AS =)
SMP implementation (Score:1)
Have to keep an eye on this one.
What about Bochs??? (Score:1)
wow man (Score:1)
"This is possible because each VM has ..." (Score:1)
Intel CPU's can't be fully virtualized. However, there's nothing stopping someone from virtualizing most of it, and "verify" code before you let it run natively. Most code would never do anything that would give you any problems, and could be executed directly. The small parts that would cause problems, can be modified to call a handler that emulate whatever the original code tried to do.
Of course this causes code to run slower, as you'd have to do a lot of work to ensure the integrity of the system, but it would still be a lot faster than a full emulater like Bochs.
a great idea (Score:1)