From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30)
	id 1BL1BQ-0005oo-O0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 10:46:08 -0400
Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30)
	id 1BL1Au-0005jT-M6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 10:46:07 -0400
Received: from [130.225.88.9] (helo=pop.dtu.dk)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BL1At-0005SE-Sg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 May 2004 10:45:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Windows 98 - hardware
From: Lean Fuglsang <lean@omnia.dk>
In-Reply-To: <40970BCA.2030402@bellard.org>
References: <20040504024759.GB11099@jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
	<40970BCA.2030402@bellard.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1083681962.1484.2.camel@debian>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 16:46:03 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.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://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org


> This is no longer right. qemu-fast will be able someday to run all OSes, 
> but the price to pay will be less security (the emulated user space code 
> will be able to write to the QEMU cpu code).
Okay, as long as I can put qemu into a seperate user that is fine. 
And if Windows crashes, a virtual reboot is needed anyway.
How much performance gain is the in using qemu-fast? Is it something I
should look forward, or is it neglictible?
(I don't dare to ask for the timeframe ;)
> Fabrice.
> 

-- 
Lean Fuglsang <lean@omnia.dk>