Very Computer

Is there any work done on;

* 1. A PC 'emulator' to run W95 like dosemu

* 2. Linux as a process under W95 like MachTEN under  MacOS

2. looks more feasable than 1. to me

Pse emali respons too

Linux cannot even yet emulate Windows 3.1. in its entirety.
Neither can W95 for that matter ;-)

Both OS expect to be Lord and Master of the the machine. Once you get beyond
the protected mode issues you still need to deal with emulating all of the
underlaying system calls for one or the other of the OS's.

It ain't pretty. In ain't pretty at all.

I think the appropriate response to this is: Game Over Man!

Your absolute best shot is to get cracking on Wine so It'll get to the point
where it can run Win32 apps under Linux. Then you'll have your solution.

BAJ
--
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!

*big grin*

: Your absolute best shot is to get cracking on Wine so It'll get to the point
: where it can run Win32 apps under Linux. Then you'll have your solution.

That would be very nice.

Here is a partial success story that should seem somewhat heartening,
however.  I've successfully gotten the DOS subsystem for Win95 to boot
under DOSEMU.  Now all we need to try is the Emumodule stuff that gets
Win3.1 working, to see if it works with Win95 also.  If so, we're in
like Flynn.

Of course, I won't let Win95 even TOUCH my system until it's absolutely
imperative that I use it.  (The only reason I have Windows on here at
all is for Matlab.  I don't have the $$$ yet to buy Linux Matlab.  Once
I have an engineering job, then perhaps I'll get it--and write it off too!)

:-)

--Joe

PS.  Yes, I'm an EE, and a Sys Programmer.  And no, I don't know why.

--

 Joseph Zbiciak                      Texas Networking, Inc.          
 Systems Programmer/Analyst          405 North St. Mary's, Suite 200
                                     San Antonio, TX  78205        

       ... Ain't comin' out goofy like the Fruit-of-the-Loom guy ...

cu
--
Solong & Happy Hacking
________________________________________________________________________


| Stardust's LiNUX System   :   Data, Fax & Voice 49 30 3627345        |
| PGP 2.6.2i Key on Demand  :   ZyXEL Link                             |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
`*** Fatal Error: Found [MS-Windows] -> Repartitioning Disk for LiNUX...'

Eeek. Or Yuck. OK, I don't like W95 much. I've been thinking about trying
to make a version of Linux to run under OS/2. Now that would be fun...

Deon

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Deon van der Westhuysen           | Mommy, I don't like the way


---------------------------------------------------------------------

: Eeek. Or Yuck. OK, I don't like W95 much. I've been thinking about trying
: to make a version of Linux to run under OS/2. Now that would be fun...

: Deon

        YES I SECOND THAT  !!! Linux under Os/2  = Fun !!!
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--
**************************************************************

**                                                          **
** HOME PAGE http://www.cl.ais.net/emarch/                  **
**                                                          **
** Bootmanager  OS/2 WARP and LINUX              TEAM OS/2  **
** withstand the Gates of Hell                    MEMBER    **
**                                                          **
** 1 if by land, 2 if by sea, 4,294,967,296 if by internet  **
**************************************************************

Quote:>   imperative that I use it.  (The only reason I have Windows on here at
>   all is for Matlab.  I don't have the $$$ yet to buy Linux Matlab.  Once
>   I have an engineering job, then perhaps I'll get it--and write it off too!)

Number 2 looks like a recipe for disaster to me!

How could you have a protected mode OS running as a "process" on such a
shaky foundation? Even if you could somehow get it to work, it would
indeed be an emasculated version of "Linux"; Win95 could lock up at any
time without warning - what would linux do then? It was designed to
have complete control of the hardware resources, not to be at the mercy
of willy-nilly windoze GPFs, crashes and lockups!

--

     Win95? No, none for me, thanks - I'm already running Linux...
 Microsoft is not the answer - Microsoft is the question; the answer is NO!

:     Funny, that's *exactly* what a lot of people said when multiple
: DOS sessions under Windows first became possible.  ;-)

Exactly.  There is such a thing as a virtual machine.

On the other hand, there's no way Win95 is going to hand over ring 0
privs on the machine.  And I don't think a x386 has a virtual-386 mode :)

Same problems with Win95 under Linux, of course.

I believe our only options are to either flakify Linux to not
require as many privs as it does (which sounds to un-knowledgable
me a very very significant rewrite), or to wait for the
64-bit line of x86 processors to come out, which will of
course have virtual 386 mode :)  (and still a virtual 8086 mode?  horrors!)

Lex

Quote:>* 2. Linux as a process under W95 like MachTEN under  MacOS
>2. looks more feasable than 1. to me

the Base OS which runs in ring 0 and provides similar service to a UNIX
kernel. It is configured completely of loadable modules (VxDs). Some
interfaces are well documented (device drivers, file systems), others
probably less so (creating a process).

the Virtual Machines which run in ring 3. The System VM implements
Win16 and Win32. It is quite different from a UNIX process, in that it
contains multiple process and multiple address spaces.

Can you write VxDs to implement a Linux VM? Good question.
Until some Win95+UNIX guru goes through the MS developer
documentation and pokes around undocumented interfaces,
we will never have the answer.

Re. the three previous responses to you article ...
It's appalling how ignorant most UNIX people are of Windows.
All the information I needed to answer this question comes from
*magazines* available at any newstand over the last 6 months.
There is also "Inside Windows 95, Adrian King" which I got for 1/3 list
price (obsolete before the release!).

L>> Funny, that's *exactly* what a lot of people said when multiple
L>> DOS sessions under Windows first became possible.  ;-)

L> Exactly.  There is such a thing as a virtual machine.

L> On the other hand, there's no way Win95 is going to hand over ring 0 privs
L> on the machine.  And I don't think a x386 has a virtual-386 mode :)

L> Same problems with Win95 under Linux, of course.

Also, no source.

L> I believe our only options are to either flakify Linux to not require as
L> many privs as it does (which sounds to un-knowledgable me a very very
L> significant rewrite), or to wait for the 64-bit line of x86 processors to
L> come out, which will of course have virtual 386 mode :) (and still a
L> virtual 8086 mode?  horrors!)

One more option: The LINUX.386 device driver.  Just install the driver,
reboot, and then Linux/Win can do ring 0 things.  Most (all?) of the
kernel runs as a part of Windows95/NT.  I think this even lets you start
Linux programs from a Windows95 DOS prompt.  (but wildcards won't work)
--

Albert Cahalan

Quote:> >It was designed to have complete control of the hardware resources,
> >not to be at the mercy of willy-nilly windoze GPFs, crashes and lockups!

>     Funny, that's *exactly* what a lot of people said when multiple
> DOS sessions under Windows first became possible.  ;-)

--George

Wasn't this how IBM's VM operating system worked? Amdahl's UTS (Unix) could
be run as guest under VM. You set up a virtual machine that defined the mapping
of physical resources to virtual and then configured the guest to use the
virtual resources. When it tried to do some I/O to the virtual disk device
it would causes a privellege violation. VM would do the virtual/physical
translation and do the I/O to the real disk. Upon completion it would
simulate an interrupt (virtual) to the UTS kernel.

There was, of course, considerable overhead in all this.

Did anyone ever do a VM/386 for the PC? it should be possible, given some
work on the kernel to do this under linux.

Cheers,
Jo
--
Jo Stockley             "Neccessity is the Mother of Invention...

Quote:>There was, of course, considerable overhead in all this.

Quote:>Did anyone ever do a VM/386 for the PC? it should be possible, given some
>work on the kernel to do this under linux.

: I don't know the 386 architecture at all, but since I work on IBM's VM
: kernel, I've often wondered if it's possible to implement a complete
: virtual machine for the 386.  Perhaps one day I'll look into it if somebody
: hasn't beaten me to it.  Linux would be my platform of choice for doing a
: project like that, because of the availability of source code.

I once read that one of the problems had to do with some operations
that did not trap when tried in unpriviledged mode.  Trying to set
certain flags would be ignored instead of producing a trap, so the
386 could not be completely virtualized.

--
Julio Sanchez, GMV SA, Isaac Newton 11, PTM Tres Cantos, E-28760 Madrid, Spain