From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IkAWy-0005Ee-VH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:34:13 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IkAWw-0005Ad-Sl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:34:12 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IkAWw-0005AY-Py for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:34:10 -0400 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IkAWw-0002ax-Bc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2007 23:34:10 -0400 Received: from mail.shareable.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.shareable.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9N3Y8mV021101 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:34:08 +0100 Received: (from jamie@localhost) by mail.shareable.org (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8/Submit) id l9N3Y80h021099 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:34:08 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:34:08 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Physical hard disk drive for win32 Message-ID: <20071023033408.GB15561@mail.shareable.org> References: <001d01c6df8e$2de302c0$0464a8c0@athlon> <7fac565a0609240214u5eca5cedka8a023ab562a87f7@mail.gmail.com> <002501c6dfd2$5e5ae820$0464a8c0@athlon> <47190FA7.80108@mail.berlios.de> <219e947f0710220433l1d652092kd238d6ccb8aeb95a@mail.gmail.com> <471CEB10.9030600@mail.berlios.de> <471D40D6.30405@shaddybaddah.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <471D40D6.30405@shaddybaddah.name> 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 Shaddy Baddah wrote: > >longer than MS does? It would make things easier if we > >dropped support for W2K hosts. > > > Surely not?!? I've heard of people being off hand about supporting > Win95/98 (and I would agree with that) et al..., but surely W2K support > should be sacrosanct ?!? I would hope so, as I get the impression W2K is the last Windows version which can be run reliably in a VM, due to the "legitimacy" checking done by XP and later. :-) -- Jamie