> I'm bitter because I can't run java on it. I have to use ubuntu with
> VirtualBox to run some critical work apps that use java :(
> --
> ~Allie D.
>
>
> On Thu, October 4, 2007 15:41, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote:
> > Gerald Thornberry wrote:
> >> I've never used QEMU so I may be talking out my hat. Looking at the
> >> docs for it yesterday I remember seeing something about the QEMU
> >> accelerator. Is that an option here?
> >>
> >> "When used as a virtualizer, QEMU achieves near native performances by
> >> executing the guest code directly on the host CPU. A host driver
> >> called the QEMU accelerator (also known as KQEMU) is needed in this
> >> case. The virtualizer mode requires that both the host and guest
> >> machine use x86 compatible processors."
> >>
> >>
> >
> > i've found qemu-0.8.2p4 on 4.1-release (i386) to be horribly slow and
> > some apps don't install correctly when emulating windows xp. it's ok for
> > viewing ms office documents but doing anything processor or disk
> > intensive takes an order of magnitude longer than usual.
> >
> > would be nice to know if the KQEMU driver is the bottleneck.
> >
> > cheers,
> > jake
> >
> >>
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/about.html
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/4/07, Frank Bax wrote:
> >>
> >>> Indeed, this is a FoxPro program. I had tried changing the path; and
> >>> tested it by starting program without using full path to EXE - although
> >>> the program does startup this way; it still fails at the same point.
> >>>
> >>> I also tried QEMU; but was still researching options before bringing
> >>> speed question here. I've read that it can be a bit slow; but I'm
> >>> wondering HOW slow? I use the FoxPro program to convert a database
> >>> from
> >>> one format to another. Native Win98 on P3-600 the process takes 1:20
> >>> (min:sec). On a 2GHz Core2Duo, QEMU takes 6:00 minutes. Is this
> >>> expected speed? On QEMU/BSD forum, it was suggested I compile from
> >>> source, so I used ports instead of package, but there was no change to
> >>> speed of this process. Files are currently inside a virtual disk. Is
> >>> that fastest for disk i/o? Am I likely to speed it up if I have files
> >>> on host and access them via samba? Is there another way to access host
> >>> files from Win98 guest?
> >>>
> >>> Frank
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Richard Toohey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I do not know much about wine, but the issue interested me ... I've
> >>>> built from ports and
> >>>> I am having a look.
> >>>>
> >>>> From the manual page, re. the wine configuration file, it has this:
> >>>>
> >>>> format: path =
> >>>> default: C:\WINDOWS;C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM
> >>>> Used to specify the path which will be used to find exe-
> >>>> cutables and .DLL's.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you add C:\XXXX and/or C:\XXXX\LIBS to that list and see if it
> >>>> helps?
> >>>>
> >>>> A FLL looks like a FoxPro dynamic link library, so it should count as
> >>>> a
> >>>> DLL.
> >>>>
> >>>> Back to RTFMing ...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/10/2007, at 8:27 AM, Joachim Schipper wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 05:56:46PM -0400, Frank Bax wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I installed wine-990225p0 from packages on 4.1 and can run simple
> >>>>>> programs
> >>>>>> like sol and notepad. I have an old program I'm trying to run; but
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> program cannot find it's own files unless the current working
> >>>>>> directory is
> >>>>>> set to the directory where software was installed. It seems more
> >>>>>> recent
> >>>>>> wine versions support 'bat' files which would solve this; but this
> >>>>>> doesn't
> >>>>>> seem to work in this version.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When I try:
> >>>>>> wine c:/XXXX/program.exe
> >>>>>> the software complains that it cannot open LIBS\FOXTOOLS.FLL
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This file is found at C:\XXXX\LIBS\FOXTOOLS.FLL
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is there a way to run something like this on wine 990225?:
> >>>>>> cd XXXX
> >>>>>> program.exe
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If this is not workable on 990225; do current wine versions work on
> >>>>>> OpenBSD?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure if there is a way to 'cd' on OpenBSD's version of Wine.
> >>>>> As
> >>>>> to porting: more recent Wines do weird things with threads, if I
> >>>>> understand the issue correctly. In short, don't expect an update
> >>>>> soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Qemu works fine, if you don't need to run a particularly demanding
> >>>>> program.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joachim
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> TFMotD: inet6 (4) - Internet protocol version 6 family
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
