Re: Wlinux vs. LWin95, looking at the alternative
Stephen D. Williams (sdw@lig.net)
Thu, 9 Apr 1998 10:01:51 -0400 (EDT)
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> 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
> 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 ...
No, it's not that simple...
What I've been thinking about is NOT actually virtualizing one OS
under another at the kernel level, but peacefully coexistance by one
OS relying on the other for device driver support (through a set of
proxy device drivers) and avoidance of the memory usage of the other
OS.
The idea is that you literally flip back and forth between the OS's
and reconfigure the VMM memory system so that only the appropriate
real memory pages are available to the running OS.
sdw
> Rich.
>
> --
> Richard Jones rjones@orchestream.com Tel: +44 171 460 6141 Fax: .. 4461
> Orchestream Ltd. 262a Fulham Rd. London SW10 9EL. "you'll write in
> PGP: www.four11.com telegraphic, or you won't write at all" [C_line]
> Copyright _ 1998 Richard W.M. Jones
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu