From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MDSUN-0007D6-DD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:13:23 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MDSUI-000778-W9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:13:22 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44540 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MDSUI-00076m-Mh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:13:18 -0400
Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:45881)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <jamie@shareable.org>) id 1MDSUI-0008DK-EZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:13:18 -0400
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 01:13:12 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] POLL: Why do you use kqemu?
Message-ID: <20090608001312.GE15426@shareable.org>
References: <4A26F1E3.1040509@codemonkey.ws> <4A27FC69.9070501@mayc.ru>
	<20090605201415.GA22847@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
	<alpine.DEB.1.00.0906060122440.26154@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0906060122440.26154@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: Anton D Kachalov <mouse@mayc.ru>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > Yeah I don't either.  I actually thought kvm had replaced it effectively.
> 
> You might have realized from the available answers that not everybody is 
> lucky enough to be able to afford 2 week old hardware, and therefore not 
> everybody is able to use kvm.

Plus kvm's not suitable for some guests.  I'm thinking old Windows
guests with 16-bit kernel code here.

It has come up before that kvm will eventually support 16-bit code
better, although I got the impression that it would never support full
16-bit virtualisation accurately, so e.g. Windows 95 will not run on
it, nor some other partially 16-bit OSes.  Possibly not even very old
versions of Linux, I'm not sure.

Don't ask me _why_ I want to run them. :-)

Just a data point that it's not just about the host hardware, and as
far as I know kqemu can accelerate them.

-- Jamie