From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Cf4oi-0003m2-Cy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:13:52 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1Cf4oh-0003kN-E1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:13:51 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Cf4og-0003jz-RI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:13:50 -0500 Received: from [83.175.144.121] (helo=chilan.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1Cf4Qn-0006vl-2q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:49:09 -0500 Message-ID: <41C210A3.30406@kadu.net> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:48:03 +0100 From: Adrian Smarzewski MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] SMB for DOS ? References: <41C20E6A.7010507@bellard.org> In-Reply-To: <41C20E6A.7010507@bellard.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Fabrice Bellard wrote: > In order to have similar features to dosemu in QEMU, implementing MFS > support in QEMU would be useful, but it would require a lot of work. I think QEMU should rather focus on x86-x86 speed now (to be full replacement of VMWare) and use as much external code for features as possible instead of implementing it. QEMU is usable now. There are two disadvantages: speed of emulation compared to virtualisation (maybe some switch to enable virtualisation mode instead of emulation? ;)) and lack of USB support for example. But I would vote for optimizations!