> 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