> I don't use kqemu but have had satisfactory performance with Windows XP
quoted text
> running on top of qemu.
>
> For me default settings have worked very well and I have not tried to
> allocate 1GB etc. to a process or done anything fancy. I may have changed
> login.conf modestly so that I got higher ulimits but that would have been
> the extent of my tweaking. At that time, Windows 2000 and XP performed
quite
quoted text
> well with -m 384 (W2K was running SQL Server and IIS). Windows 2003 did not
> perform well with -m 384 but was OK for testing purposes with -m 448.
>

No, our version (0.9.1p1) cannot allocate 1GB of memory to install
Windows 7.  And for some reason, Windows 7 requires a minimum of 1gb
of RAM to install.  After you install it, you can run windows 7 with
much less memory

quoted text
> In all cases, at that time I found invoking qemu with -nographic and
> accessing through RDP or rdesktop to be better for B usability and
> performance.
>

I was wondering because XP's mouse was a little slow and click was ex
("click" wait, wait, wait... action)

quoted text
> I am not sure but may be there was a correlation with running multiple
> versions of Windows using qemu. I am saying this because I use OpenBSD 4.6
> -stable AMD64 as my main desktop machine and here I have qemu with a copy
of
quoted text
> Windows XP. This is mainly for my wife so that she can run the one Windows
> program she uses. XP is definitely not slow on this system (whether
accessed
quoted text
> through rdesktop or through KDE) and so far have not had any
> complaints/problems.
>

Well, I was taking stock and the only real reason I might need windows
would be to play flash "tower defense" games, like at
"www.towerdefence.net" (spelled correctly...  if Linux can play flash
games, then I really don't need to install windows.