16 Feb
2010
16 Feb
'10
7:19 p.m.
I was curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware as an emulation environment
on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it in 2002
regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I've been using it for a client's servers for the past few months and
it is mind-blowing. Drag-and-drop, super-fast start and stop of entire
virtual servers.
One of VMware's demo appliances is a DOS environment running old games.
Linux large and small is a common OS in appliances, too.
With the free VMware Workstation version, you can easily click-click
and be running a downloaded appliance.
So why aren't we using VMware appliance images to exchange pre-made,
pre-set environments for running emulated OSes?
- John
17 Feb
17 Feb
12:41 a.m.
On (21:19 16/02/10), John Foust wrote:
I was curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware as an emulation environment
on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it in 2002
regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I don't see why it wouldn't run OS/2, or most other operating systems that
were available on x86. I've certainly used it to run Plan 9, and ISTR that
people have had NeXTSTEP and Rhapsody up and running too. I *think* the only
time you are likely to run into problems is if you don't have drivers for
whatever emulated network/graphics/sound it provides. That said, such
virtualisation software tends to have an option to set the OS type, but I've
never been sure what this does... Might just be a preset configuration of
minimum RAM combined with certain emulated peripherals.
I've been using it for a client's servers for
the past few months and
it is mind-blowing. Drag-and-drop, super-fast start and stop of entire
virtual servers.
One of VMware's demo appliances is a DOS environment running old games.
Linux large and small is a common OS in appliances, too.
With the free VMware Workstation version, you can easily click-click
and be running a downloaded appliance.
You have to pay for VMWare Workstation. Tbh I much prefer Sun's VirtualBox
these days. It's a bit more fiddly to get up and running in a server
(headless) capacity than VMware Server. But it's free, doesn't take that
much to set up headless instances, the source code is available to the
community edition, and it's catching up with VMware for a lot the fancier
capabilities. I think it makes a better candidate for a community of folks
interested in computer conservation, if for no other reason than we have the
source.
So why aren't we using VMware appliance images to
exchange pre-made,
pre-set environments for running emulated OSes?
One thing I don't like about appliances is that you have to trust whoever
did the O/S install. I'd never use a ready made appliance for any VM
connected to the Internet. They are fine for dipping your toe in the water,
though.
No use for an O/S that won't run on x86 - unless you have, say, a Linux
appliance and SIMH or Hercules etc. But I can't see why you wouldn't run
that emulator on the bare metal... Though I suppose again, that appliances
with a bare minimum Linux/BSD install and configured emulator might be nice
for quickly trying out a classic O/S.
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Back
a at smokebelch.org
12:44 a.m.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Andrew Back wrote:
I've had no luck at all getting OS/2 running under VMware ESXi.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I was curious
to see if anyone mentioned VMware as an emulation
environment
on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it in
2002
regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I don't see why it wouldn't run OS/2, or most other operating
systems that
were available on x86.
12:57 a.m.
On (03:44 17/02/10), Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:41 AM, Andrew Back wrote:
I've had no luck at all getting OS/2 running under VMware ESXi.
Oh. Where did it fail? OS/2 didn't support the emulated graphics?
Perhaps I have an oversimplified view of the issues involved in running
classic x86 operating systems under modern virtualisation.
Cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew Back
a at smokebelch.org
I was
curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware as an emulation
environment
on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it in
2002
regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I don't see why it wouldn't run OS/2, or most other operating
systems that
were available on x86.
1:04 a.m.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:57 AM, Andrew Back wrote:
I've had no luck at all getting OS/2 running under VMware ESXi.
Oh. Where did it fail? OS/2 didn't support the emulated graphics?
Perhaps I have an oversimplified view of the issues involved in
running
classic x86 operating systems under modern virtualisation.
I'm sorry, I don't recall exactly. I *think* it was something
along the lines of not being able to run unless host CPU supports
hardware virtualization. I am finishing up some time-critical stuff
right now; I will try it again tomorrow and let you know where it
blows up.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I was curious
to see if anyone mentioned VMware as an emulation
environment
on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it in
2002
regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I don't see why it wouldn't run OS/2, or most other operating
systems that
were available on x86. 
5:31 a.m.
On Wednesday 17 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:57 AM, Andrew Back wrote:
Oh. Where did it fail? OS/2 didn't support the emulated graphics?
Perhaps I have an oversimplified view of the issues involved in
running
classic x86 operating systems under modern virtualisation.
I'm sorry, I don't recall exactly. I *think* it was something
along the lines of not being able to run unless host CPU supports
hardware virtualization. I am finishing up some time-critical stuff
right now; I will try it again tomorrow and let you know where it
blows up.
IIRC, it has to do with the way OS/2 uses segment registers/the MMU. It
appears, however, that VirtualBox supports OS/2. Based on how annoying
VMware has been over the past few years, and what you can do (for free)
with VirtualBox, I would strongly suggest trying that instead.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
> I was curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware as
an emulation
> environment
> on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it
> in 2002
> regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I don't see why it wouldn't run OS/2, or most other operating
systems that
were available on x86.
I've had no luck at all getting OS/2 running under VMware ESXi. 
6:58 a.m.
+1.... VirtualBox is fantastic. And the price is right! I use it on my MacBook whenever I
need to VPN into work.
________________________________
From: Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org>
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 7:31:16 AM
Subject: Re: VMware appliances
On Wednesday 17 February 2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:57 AM, Andrew Back wrote:
Oh. Where did it fail? OS/2 didn't support the emulated graphics?
Perhaps I have an oversimplified view of the issues involved in
running
classic x86 operating systems under modern virtualisation.
I'm sorry, I don't recall exactly. I *think* it was something
along the lines of not being able to run unless host CPU supports
hardware virtualization. I am finishing up some time-critical stuff
right now; I will try it again tomorrow and let you know where it
blows up.
IIRC, it has to do with the way OS/2 uses segment registers/the MMU. It
appears, however, that VirtualBox supports OS/2. Based on how annoying
VMware has been over the past few years, and what you can do (for free)
with VirtualBox, I would strongly suggest trying that instead.
Pat
--
Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/
The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org
> I was curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware as
an emulation
> environment
> on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it
> in 2002
> regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I don't see why it wouldn't run OS/2, or most other operating
systems that
were available on x86.
I've had no luck at all getting OS/2 running under VMware ESXi.
8:20 a.m.
Really? I thought it allowed some access to real hardware.
I haven't needed it personally, so I wouldn't know.
________________________________
From: Christian Corti <cc at informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wed, February 17, 2010 10:18:13 AM
Subject: Re: VMware appliances
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, geoffrey oltmans wrote:
+1.... VirtualBox is fantastic. And the price is
right! I use it on my
And how do I, for example, access my SCSI tape drive? Or my SCSI scanner? Short answer:
not at all :-(
Christian
18 Feb
18 Feb
2:02 a.m.
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, geoffrey oltmans wrote:
Really? I thought it allowed some access to real
hardware.
The problem with VMs is that there is no access to real hardware at all,
everything's virtualized. There may be an exception for USB devices, but
neither VirtualBox nor KVM/qemu map real hardware in a 1:1 fashion.
I haven't needed it personally, so I wouldn't
know.
I'd like to use a scanner with Windows-only software, for example.
Christian
6:41 a.m.
On Feb 18, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Christian Corti wrote:
VMware can, FYI.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Really? I
thought it allowed some access to real hardware.
The problem with VMs is that there is no access to real hardware at
all, everything's virtualized. There may be an exception for USB
devices, but neither VirtualBox nor KVM/qemu map real hardware in a
1:1 fashion. 
8:21 a.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 18, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Christian Corti wrote:
VMware can, FYI.
-Dave
I hate to agree with Dave (grin), but yes, you have access to pretty
much all of the standard hardware and ports.
Most of what I've used has been USB based.
Someone asked about scanners, yes, this definitely works.
You select a pull down menu to "connect" the hardware to the VM. When
you are done using it, you uncheck the option, and then the host has
access to the hardware again. This is true for USB devices, CD/DVD
burners, etc.
While there are better options, I had a USB flash drive connected to the
VM, copied some files, connected back to the host, and now the drive
shows up in host. Interesting because you are moving data from one
place to another via some hardware on exactly the same machine.
This process generally just works.
Keith
Really? I
thought it allowed some access to real hardware.
The problem with VMs is that there is no access to real hardware at
all, everything's virtualized. There may be an exception for USB
devices, but neither VirtualBox nor KVM/qemu map real hardware in a
1:1 fashion.
8:27 a.m.
VirtualBox allows access to USB devices as well, and I think you can allow it raw access
to an IDE/SATA drive, but apart from that I don't know what else it will allow.
________________________________
From: Keith <keithvz at verizon.net>
To: General at olddell.com; On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thu, February 18, 2010 10:21:07 AM
Subject: Re: VMware appliances
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 18, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Christian Corti wrote:
VMware can, FYI.
-Dave
I hate to agree with Dave (grin), but yes, you have access to pretty much all of the
standard hardware and ports.
Most of what I've used has been USB based.
Someone asked about scanners, yes, this definitely works.
You select a pull down menu to "connect" the hardware to the VM. When you are
done using it, you uncheck the option, and then the host has access to the hardware again.
This is true for USB devices, CD/DVD burners, etc.
While there are better options, I had a USB flash drive connected to the VM, copied some
files, connected back to the host, and now the drive shows up in host. Interesting
because you are moving data from one place to another via some hardware on exactly the
same machine.
This process generally just works.
Keith
Really? I
thought it allowed some access to real hardware.
The problem with VMs is that there is no access to real hardware at all, everything's
virtualized. There may be an exception for USB devices, but neither VirtualBox nor
KVM/qemu map real hardware in a 1:1 fashion.
17 Feb
17 Feb
10:47 a.m.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't recall exactly. I *think* it was something
along the lines of not being able to run unless host CPU supports
hardware virtualization. I am finishing up some time-critical stuff
right now; I will try it again tomorrow and let you know where it
blows up.
IIRC, it has to do with the way OS/2 uses segment registers/the
MMU. It
appears, however, that VirtualBox supports OS/2. Based on how
annoying
VMware has been over the past few years, and what you can do (for
free)
with VirtualBox, I would strongly suggest trying that instead.
Yeah. I'm already running VMware though, as VirtualBox won't run
SCO UNIX, which I need to have available to support clients. I
(myself) just wanted to mess with OS/2 a bit to familiarize myself
with it before trying to get it running on the service processor of
my Multiprise 3000.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
>> I was
curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware as an emulation
>> environment
>> on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it
>> in 2002
>> regarding whether it could run OS/2.
>
> I don't see why it wouldn't run OS/2, or most other operating
> systems that
> were available on x86.
I've had no luck at all getting OS/2 running under VMware ESXi.
Oh. Where did it fail? OS/2 didn't support the emulated graphics?
Perhaps I have an oversimplified view of the issues involved in
running
classic x86 operating systems under modern virtualisation. 
9:38 a.m.
Andrew Back wrote:
Another thing is that virtualization is not emulation. :-) Except for
the I/O layer and supervisor instructions, no emulation is involved.
I'd be more worried about compatibility with your machine. Sometimes
machines created on one chip will not work on another (if the guest OS
sees a certain CPU and turns on features for that CPU and doesn't notice
it was moved, you'll have issues.) The other problem I've mentioned
previously. Different versions of VMWare use different file formats for
their VMs. If you create a VM in VMWare Workstation, it probably won't
work under VMWare Server 1.0, though it probably will work under VMWare
Fusion. If you create a VM on a file system that supports 4GB+ files
and you don't select the split into 2GB files, it may not work if your
host's OS can't handle files larger than 2GB. So care must be taken to
craft the appliances properly.
Oh, that, and some guest OS's are commercial, therefore protected by
copyright, therefore, it wouldn't be legal to distribute. No such
issues with Linux VMs for example (assuming you stick to the free ones,
and not something like RHEL.)
I'd worry less about trust, though, there may exist exploits allowing
something running in a guest to escape, as long as you don't allow the
VM access to the network card, and don't give it access to executable
files via the shared folders option, and don't give it access to devices
such as USB drives, there's not too much it can do. :) YMMV, use care, etc.
I don't see why it wouldn't run OS/2,
I
believe the original VMWare used CPU Ring-3 to run the guest OS, and
did a trap+emulate of the supervisor (ring 0) opcodes.
However, OS/2 used ring 3 for itself, therefore it wouldn't work. It
wasn't the I/O emulation that caused it to fail.
Not sure whether modern VMWare still uses ring3, and whether OS/2 would
work under VMWare when on Intel/AMD chips that support virtualization.
You have to pay for VMWare Workstation. Tbh I much
prefer Sun's VirtualBox
these days.
VMWare Player is free. I've played with it once, it was ok, but too
limited.
VMWare Server is free, and runs much better than Player. I've used it
for about 2 years for fun, and it worked very nicely for me. Though,
sorry, haven't used it for OS/2.
I didn't have to run it headless, but I did run VMWare Server 1.x over
2.x because the 2.x versions I've tried wanted the console to be
launched inside a web browser, and I wanted it to be standalone.
Everything worked just fine - network, USB, sound, video. No issues
other than the file format was different, so when I wanted to move the
vmware session to my Macbook which has VMWare Fusion, it had to convert
the guest to its own format, which then couldn't be returned back to
VMWare Server. Other than that, it was all peaches.
ESXi is also free, but requires dedicated hardware and doesn't appear to
allow sound playback across the network, though there may be ways around
this depending on the guest OS.
I've played with it a while and I do like it, but for me (personal use,
not data center use), it's overkill.
They are of course free as in beer, not as in speech. openvirtualbox
is a bit more open source, but haven't played with it as VMWare Server
and VMWare Fusion did the trick for my needs.
So why
aren't we using VMware appliance images to exchange pre-made,
pre-set environments for running emulated OSes?
One thing I don't like about appliances is that you have to trust whoever
did the O/S install. I'd never use a ready made appliance for any VM
connected to the Internet. They are fine for dipping your toe in the water,
though.
9:55 a.m.
At 11:38 AM 2/17/2010, Ray Arachelian wrote:
VMWare Player is free. I've played with it once,
it was ok, but too limited.
Yes, I confused Player and Workstation.
Everything worked just fine - network, USB, sound,
video. No issues
other than the file format was different,
There's also the VMware Converter, which aids in converting physical
devices to virtual appliances. It'll accept machine images in many
formats, and for conversion of Windows and Linux, there's a tool that'll
do it while "live".
Different versions of VMWare use different file
formats for
their VMs. If you create a VM in VMWare Workstation, it probably won't
work under VMWare Server 1.0, though it probably will work under VMWare
Fusion.
And Converter can translate between those, too.
Oh, that, and some guest OS's are commercial,
therefore protected by
copyright, therefore, it wouldn't be legal to distribute. No such
issues with Linux VMs for example (assuming you stick to the free ones,
and not something like RHEL.)
But for emulators that work under FreeDOS or Linux, it would be a way
to distribute a pre-packaged, ready-to-go appliance file that would
let you tinker with an emulator without spending the time to learn
how to configure it (which is ancillary to the objective, no?).
Yes, it wouldn't be legal to redistribute an emulator that
was Windows-based, unless of course in ran under WINE under Linux.
For the Windows-based emulators, I suspect we'll soon have a file format
that bundles all of an application and its data into a redistributable
single-file format. You can see glimpses of this already in the
enterprise tools that let you run an app this way, without actually
installing it into your registry and hard drive. Maybe it'll be a
way from all this Windows ugliness.
As for real devices connecting to emulators and VMs, it is true
that the workstation environments let you connect to that machine's
USB or other devices, but ESXi doesn't even talk to the USB on the
host computer (although it's a bug). Instead, people are using
USB to Ethernet adapters that speak TCP/IP with a driver running
inside the VM.
Good commentary overall, Ray.
- John
10:47 a.m.
On 2/17/2010 11:55 AM, John Foust wrote:
For the Windows-based emulators, I suspect we'll soon have a file format
that bundles all of an application and its data into a redistributable
single-file format. You can see glimpses of this already in the
enterprise tools that let you run an app this way, without actually
installing it into your registry and hard drive. Maybe it'll be a
way from all this Windows ugliness.
This is my primary reason for using VMWare. My personal laptop is a
workhorse and I can ill afford to be without it. When I am suspicious
of an application (not just for uncertainty on intention, but some older
apps for design work are bad WIndows apps), I'll load it into a VM. If
it works but trashes the OS, I'm not out a lot.
Jim
11 a.m.
Jim Brain wrote:
On 2/17/2010 11:55 AM, John Foust wrote:
I forget who recommended it here, but that Symantec Application
virtualization would be perfect for that type thing. (but isn't
supported under 64-bit OS's)
http://www.symantec.com/business/endpoint-virtualization-suite
It is trialware, but think it's unlimited, so basically free.
I also use VMware (workstation), because my Xilinx FPGA ISE software
suite isn't supported on Vista 64-bit. This may have recently changed,
but I have an XP 32-bit VM installed, and then run it inside that. It's
also nice to have things separately installed --- it doesn't affect
anything and nothing affects it.
There can be minor USB driver issues, especially if the host does not
have a device driver for a particular piece of hardware. This changed
at one point, but lack of a driver on the host didn't necessarily
preclude using it successfully under the VM itself.
I tried virtualbox, but had compatibility problems with it and other
linux OS's, and had an XP installation blue-screen. Virtualbox has some
nice features like side by side host and VM applications on the same
desktop. But overall, the lack of compatibility made me uninstall it.
VMware has been stable, reliable, and has nice features for smart and
automatic installation of certain types of windows VMs. So it makes
installing Windows VMs really quick and easy --- bypassing most of the
normal setup screens.
Keith
For the Windows-based emulators, I suspect we'll soon have a file format
that bundles all of an application and its data into a redistributable
single-file format. You can see glimpses of this already in the
enterprise tools that let you run an app this way, without actually
installing it into your registry and hard drive. Maybe it'll be a
way from all this Windows ugliness.
This is my primary reason for using VMWare. My personal laptop is a
workhorse and I can ill afford to be without it. When I am suspicious
of an application (not just for uncertainty on intention, but some older
apps for design work are bad WIndows apps), I'll load it into a VM. If
it works but trashes the OS, I'm not out a lot.
Jim
10:54 a.m.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:55 PM, John Foust wrote:
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
As for real devices connecting to emulators and VMs,
it is true
that the workstation environments let you connect to that machine's
USB or other devices, but ESXi doesn't even talk to the USB on the
host computer (although it's a bug). Instead, people are using
USB to Ethernet adapters that speak TCP/IP with a driver running
inside the VM.
ESXi does real-device passthrough nicely for SCSI host
adapters...I set that up just last night on a customer's machine; a
tape drive is now accessible from a VM. I've not needed USB
yet...what release(s) does that bug affect, do you know offhand? Is
there any workaround to allow USB device access?
-Dave
10:59 a.m.
At 12:54 PM 2/17/2010, Dave McGuire wrote:
ESXi does real-device passthrough nicely for SCSI
host
adapters...I set that up just last night on a customer's machine; a
tape drive is now accessible from a VM. I've not needed USB
yet...what release(s) does that bug affect, do you know offhand? Is
there any workaround to allow USB device access?
It was promised in ESXi 4.0, I believe, about six months ago when
it was released, but it didn't work. There's an obscure workaround
that works on some (three-letter acronym) USB hardware but at the
expense of being able to snapshot or suspend, I think.
- John
11:04 a.m.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:59 PM, John Foust wrote:
Crap. I'm going to need USB support in ESXi v3.5 soon. I'm stuck
at that release at this particular site because the host is a 32-bit
machine.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
ESXi does
real-device passthrough nicely for SCSI host
adapters...I set that up just last night on a customer's machine; a
tape drive is now accessible from a VM. I've not needed USB
yet...what release(s) does that bug affect, do you know offhand? Is
there any workaround to allow USB device access?
It was promised in ESXi 4.0, I believe, about six months ago when
it was released, but it didn't work. There's an obscure workaround
that works on some (three-letter acronym) USB hardware but at the
expense of being able to snapshot or suspend, I think. 
19 Feb
19 Feb
1:46 p.m.
AMOS (Amiga OS) Basic and it's successor AMOS Pro allowed you to do this on
the Amiga. You could reserve a "bank" of memory which could then be used to
store anything (e.g. music, sprites, data and compressed images). It was
possible to have up to 65535 banks, but due to memory limitations the vast
majority of AMOS-made software kept all other files separate.
It's kinda funny how 15-20 year old ideas are resurfacing as "new ideas".
Regards,
Andrew B
aliensrcooluk at yahoo.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foust" <jfoust at threedee.com>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: VMware appliances
For the Windows-based emulators, I suspect we'll soon have a file format
that bundles all of an application and its data into a redistributable
single-file format. You can see glimpses of this already in the
enterprise tools that let you run an app this way, without actually
installing it into your registry and hard drive. Maybe it'll be a
way from all this Windows ugliness.
17 Feb
17 Feb
10:44 a.m.
On 2/17/2010 11:38 AM, Ray Arachelian wrote:
Dunno, it allows access to lots of real devices on the unit, and it's
self contained.
You have to pay for VMWare Workstation. Tbh I
much prefer Sun's VirtualBox
these days.
VMWare Player is free. I've played with it once, it was ok, but too
limited.
VMWare Server is free, and runs much better than
Player. I've used it
for about 2 years for fun, and it worked very nicely for me. Though,
sorry, haven't used it for OS/2.
I didn't have to run it headless, but I did run VMWare Server 1.x over
2.x because the 2.x versions I've tried wanted the console to be
launched inside a web browser, and I wanted it to be standalone.
Everything worked just fine - network, USB, sound, video. No issues
other than the file format was different, so when I wanted to move the
vmware session to my Macbook which has VMWare Fusion, it had to convert
the guest to its own format, which then couldn't be returned back to
VMWare Server. Other than that, it was all peaches.
I'll also put in a good word for VMWare Server. It's awesome being
able
to create, launch, and run an OS over the Internet.
Jim
10:52 a.m.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Ray Arachelian wrote:
I didn't have to run it headless, but I did run
VMWare Server 1.x over
2.x because the 2.x versions I've tried wanted the console to be
launched inside a web browser, and I wanted it to be standalone.
You have to launch the console from the browser interface in 2.x,
but then you can close the browser and the console window will stick
around. One should be able to glean the appropriate command to start
up that console window without too much trouble.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
7:20 p.m.
On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:19 PM, John Foust wrote:
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
I was curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware as an
emulation
environment
on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it in 2002
regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I've been using it for a client's servers for the past few months and
it is mind-blowing. Drag-and-drop, super-fast start and stop of
entire
virtual servers.
One of VMware's demo appliances is a DOS environment running old
games.
Linux large and small is a common OS in appliances, too.
With the free VMware Workstation version, you can easily click-click
and be running a downloaded appliance.
So why aren't we using VMware appliance images to exchange pre-made,
pre-set environments for running emulated OSes?
Why would we? The major emulators (simh, hercules) are trivial to
get up and running, and the OSs are typically easy to install. If
we're going to distribute anything at all, it should be ready-made
disk images, not packaged emulators. And people already do.
Besides...What platform does VMware Workstation run on? Pretty
limiting if you ask me.
-Dave
7:29 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Feb 16, 2010, at 10:19 PM, John Foust wrote:
> So why aren't we using VMware appliance images
to exchange pre-made,
> pre-set environments for running emulated OSes?
While most of the replies haven't been positive, I think this is a good
idea. There is definitely something said to having a
portable-downloadable-instantly-runnable OS.
Besides...What platform does VMware Workstation run
on? Pretty
limiting if you ask me.
Windows? Linux? Seems good enough for most applications.
Did we miss any popular useful OS support there?
Keith
7:35 p.m.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Keith wrote:
On x86.
> So why
aren't we using VMware appliance images to exchange pre-made,
> pre-set environments for running emulated OSes?
While most of the replies haven't been positive, I think this is a
good idea. There is definitely something said to having a portable-
downloadable-instantly-runnable OS.
Besides...What platform does VMware Workstation
run on? Pretty
limiting if you ask me.
Windows? Linux? Seems good enough for most applications. Did we miss any popular useful OS support there?
Linux on anything other than x86 (LOTS of machines out there)
PPC (lots of machines out there)
SPARC (growing like a weed despite misinformed comments here)
Etc.
And does it run on OS X?
I suppose most of the folk who would shy away from installing the
emulators by hand (which includes downloading pre-built binaries and
clicking "go") would probably be the Windows people anyway.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
7:41 p.m.
Dave McGuire wrote:
Actually x86_64. But who's counting?
Windows?
Linux? Seems good enough for most applications.
On x86. > Did we miss any popular useful OS support there?
And does it run on OS X?
Ahhhh, now we come to the root of the argument. :)
Actually, I was totally baiting you and you exercised good restraint.
I'm proud of you! (you're learning) :)
I suppose most of the folk who would shy away from
installing the
emulators by hand (which includes downloading pre-built binaries and
clicking "go") would probably be the Windows people anyway.
-Dave
Touch? pussy cat.
Keith
8 p.m.
On Feb 17, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Keith wrote:
Actually x86_64. But who's counting?
Ahh ok.
Well no, it's not my primary platform, assumptions aside.
Chains rattling in the attic, the whole deal.
But seriously. We have an easy way to do what we're talking about
now, that runs on lots of different platforms. The emulators
themselves (at least the major ones) run on lots of different
platforms. You're proposing the adoption of a habit that would cut
the long list of platforms, upwards of twenty or more, down to
like...two. Bad idea.
But I suppose, that said, people wouldn't *have* to run those VMs..
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Windows? Linux? Seems good enough for most
applications.
On x86. > Did we
miss any popular useful OS support there?
And does it run on OS X?
Ahhhh, now we come to the root of the argument. :) Actually, I was totally baiting you and you exercised
good restraint.
Ahem.
I'm proud of you! (you're learning) :)
When I die, I'm gonna haunt you.
I suppose
most of the folk who would shy away from installing
the emulators by hand (which includes downloading pre-built
binaries and clicking "go") would probably be the Windows people
anyway.
Touch? pussy cat. 
15 May
15 May
8:09 p.m.
John Foust wrote:
I was curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware as an
emulation environment
on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it in 2002
regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I've been using it for a client's servers for the past few months and
it is mind-blowing. Drag-and-drop, super-fast start and stop of entire
virtual servers.
One of VMware's demo appliances is a DOS environment running old games.
Linux large and small is a common OS in appliances, too.
With the free VMware Workstation version, you can easily click-click
and be running a downloaded appliance.
So why aren't we using VMware appliance images to exchange pre-made,
pre-set environments for running emulated OSes?
- John
Dredging up an old thread because I finally got around to trying it out ..
VMWare Player 3 installed IBM DOS 6.3 nicely. I was able to use a USB
floppy drive or floppy images from my hard drive. The emulated network
support (AMD PCNet) worked fine with a packet driver, and I was able to
run my TCP/IP applications.
But it seems to fall down when using DOS console applications. 80x25
text is readable, but when you switch to 80x50 it keeps the same window
size, which is not pleasant to work with. There does not seem to be a
window scaling option or other trick to make it usable. Even
full-screen mode just takes over the entire screen but fills it with a
black border and keeps the working area the same. This seems to be a
common complaint.
Do you use it for DOS text mode applications? If so, have you noticed
this too?
I'm going to look at VirtualBox next ..
Mike
9:22 p.m.
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 22:09:38 -0500
From: mbbrutman-cctalk at brutman.com
To:
Subject: Re: VMware appliances
John Foust wrote:
I had some awesome success with dosbox. I had a pretty demanding application, TOPAS 4.0,
or CrystalGraphics, a expensive 3d animation program.
It ran the VGA display drivers too, including VESA modes and 1024x768
Mouse worked fine
EMM just great, wow, the program never saw that much memory before, and could use it for
playback movies out of ram.
I recommend dosbox,
Randy
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:…
I was curious to see if anyone mentioned VMware
as an emulation environment
on this list. The archives show a brief conversation about it in 2002
regarding whether it could run OS/2.
I've been using it for a client's servers for the past few months and
it is mind-blowing. Drag-and-drop, super-fast start and stop of entire
virtual servers.
One of VMware's demo appliances is a DOS environment running old games.
Linux large and small is a common OS in appliances, too.
With the free VMware Workstation version, you can easily click-click
and be running a downloaded appliance.
So why aren't we using VMware appliance images to exchange pre-made,
pre-set environments for running emulated OSes?
- John
Dredging up an old thread because I finally got around to trying it out ..
VMWare Player 3 installed IBM DOS 6.3 nicely. I was able to use a USB
floppy drive or floppy images from my hard drive. The emulated network
support (AMD PCNet) worked fine with a packet driver, and I was able to
run my TCP/IP applications.
But it seems to fall down when using DOS console applications. 80x25
text is readable, but when you switch to 80x50 it keeps the same window
size, which is not pleasant to work with. There does not seem to be a
window scaling option or other trick to make it usable. Even
full-screen mode just takes over the entire screen but fills it with a
black border and keeps the working area the same. This seems to be a
common complaint.
Do you use it for DOS text mode applications? If so, have you noticed
this too?
I'm going to look at VirtualBox next ..
Mike
5101
days inactive
5189
days old
31 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
aliensrcooluk＠yahoo.co.uk -
andy＠flirble.org -
brain＠jbrain.com -
cc＠informatik.uni-stuttgart.de -
jbmcb1＠gmail.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
keithvz＠verizon.net -
mbbrutman-cctalk＠brutman.com -
mcguire＠neurotica.com -
oltmansg＠bellsouth.net -
pat＠computer-refuge.org -
ray＠arachelian.com -
rdawson16＠hotmail.com