From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H1jOw-0004yy-B3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:09:58 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H1jOu-0004w2-Kw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:09:57 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H1jOu-0004vF-0c for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:09:56 -0500 Received: from [195.252.0.52] (helo=zebra.uas.se) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H1jOs-0004z2-QK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:09:55 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.252.0.249]) by zebra.uas.se (PMDF V6.0-24 #39208) with ESMTP id <01MBGFHLN4VY008MY1@zebra.uas.se> for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:54:51 +0200 Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:54:50 +0100 From: Dan Sandberg Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] win98 slow with kqemu In-reply-to: <200612301809.30656.mr@ramendik.ru> Message-id: <459A561A.4050704@medsci.uu.se> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <200612301809.30656.mr@ramendik.ru> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org I have noticed the same thing. Could it be that todays processors are simply very bad at running 16-bit code (that the pipeline has to be reloaded for each instruction or something similar)? If this is the case there is probably nothing else to do than avoiding kqemu with 16-bit OS:s. On the other hand, if for instance VMware is able to run Windows 98 much faster (I do not have it so I can't test this) then my guess is that kqemu is the guilty part and does something wrong with 16-bit code. Regards Dan Sandberg Mikhail Ramendik wrote: >Hello, > >Some time ago I reported win98 slowness with kqemu, see >http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2006-05/msg00295.html > >I have tried again, this time on a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3 GHz system, with >Debian sarge and backports.org 2.6.18 kernel; qemu 0.8.2 and kqemu 1.3.0pre9 >are locally compiled, not packaged. > >Still I see visible slowness with win98 guest and kqemu; it is slower than >win98 guest without kqemu. The amnhld.vxd idlesness driver is installed. > >The problem is mentioned in forums periodically, i.e. the last reply in >http://qemu-forum.ipi.fi/viewtopic.php?t=2015 . > >I would really like to have this fixed; I am somewhat experienced and will do >what is needed for testing etc. I would try some CPU "mark" tests for a more >objective check - but which of them will work without DirectX? > > >