From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H3FZr-00072W-IO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:43:31 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1H3FZp-00070N-VP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:43:31 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H3FZp-00070K-RG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:43:29 -0500 Received: from [88.212.205.2] (helo=mail.sub.ru) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1H3FZp-000823-3x for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:43:29 -0500 Received: from unknown ([88.212.205.2]) by localhost (mail-new.sub.ru [88.212.205.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with SMTP id 0rJMO7Cl6KuG for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 20:48:18 +0300 (MSK) From: Mikhail Ramendik Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] win98 slow with kqemu Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:43:11 +0000 References: <200612301809.30656.mr@ramendik.ru> <459A561A.4050704@medsci.uu.se> In-Reply-To: <459A561A.4050704@medsci.uu.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200701061743.11495.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 On Tuesday 02 January 2007 12:54, Dan Sandberg wrote: > 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. Thanks. Will test with VMWare and report. -- Yours, Mikhail Ramendik