From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EAkOz-00005t-Ci
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 04:26:31 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1EAkLN-0008Qx-P6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 04:22:51 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EAkDs-00083T-Qe
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 04:15:02 -0400
Received: from [69.17.117.27] (helo=mail25.sea5.speakeasy.net)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1EAkCO-0007Ve-JJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 04:13:28 -0400
Received: from dsl081-088-222.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [192.168.111.2])
	([64.81.88.222]) (envelope-sender <jhoger@pobox.com>)
	by mail25.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; 1 Sep 2005 08:10:27 -0000
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu vs. win4lin pro
From: "John R. Hogerhuis" <jhoger@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <200509010840.52069.katakombi@web.de>
References: <200509010840.52069.katakombi@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2005 01:10:23 -0700
Message-Id: <1125562223.5781.11.camel@aragorn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: jhoger@pobox.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, katakombi@web.de

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 08:40 +0200, Stefan Kombrink wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
>  I tried win4lin pro and found it very similar to running win2k using qemu.
> Speed (of graphics) is not higher and it uses the same hardware.
> Does it contain less bugs than qemu or what's the advantage that makes user 
> pay 89$ for it?
> 

Never used it, but here's their answer to this question:

http://www.win4lin.com/content/view/131/155/

So you're not imagining that it behaves similar to QEMU.  As to whether
$X for support, smoothing rough edges and whatnot is worth it to party
Y, only Y can say.

For myself, I like my computers to need me. If everything just worked,
aside from being bored, I'd be superfluous! So I get my QEMU from source
control.

-- John.