Perhaps Intel has finally implemented true virtual machines in hardware?
I haven't paid attention to details on processors for many years (um,
make that very many years) but when I was at IBM in OS/2 development my
boss worked closely with Intel on the 386. He tried desperately to
convince them to make the 386 capable of supporting true virtual
machines. I don't think they ever really understood why they should do
that.
Chuck Norcutt
Chris Barker wrote:
> I am a trained bullsh***er, Chuck (;-)), but even I won't try to
> explain the way this might work out. Except to say that I believe
> that the fastest retail Mac available was compared with the fastest
> retail Windoze machine - in the UK.
>
> But it is also worth mentioning that Parallels runs the OS in its own
> window, it doesn't emulate. The Intel chips have apparently made it
> possible to do this with Windoze, Linux and 3 other OSs.
>
> Chris
>
> On 19 Nov 2006, at 22:06, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>
>>I'd believe that if Macs had access to different processors than PC's
>>do. But a Mac running Windoze has to run the same software running on
>>the same processor and, in addition to the PC's workload, it has to
>>pass
>>through the Parallels translation layer at least part of the time.
>>
>>I suppose it's possible that Apple does their own motherboard support
>>chips which might convey a performance advantage but I don't consider
>>that likely given their historic cost/volume problems. Sounds like
>>more
>>Mac folk lore to me. But I'd consider it a resounding success if
>>there
>>was no more than 10% overhead and that is probably quite doable and
>>pretty much unnoticeable.
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|