Wanted: OS/2 version of Virtual PC

Liam Proven lproven at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 08:53:10 CDT 2009

2009/7/23 Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org>:
> On Thursday 23 July 2009, Liam Proven wrote:
>> 2009/7/23 Cameron Kaiser <spectre at floodgap.com>:
>> >> > > VirtualPC was followed by VirtualServer, a server
>> >> > > virtualisation product based on the same code, but with added
>> >> > > support for features like direct control of a host SCSI
>> >> > > adaptor by the OS in a VM.
>> >> >
>> >> > Neat. Did this ever see the light of day?
>> >>
>> >> Well, it was never released as a Connectix product - but Microsoft
>> >> did indeed release it, as a freebie even.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/default
>> >>.aspx
>> >
>> > Oh, bleh. I was hoping there was a Mac version :)
>> >
>> >From MS?! Not a chance!
>> I believe it's not only possible to get Mac OS X running under a
>> hypervisor, but even that it's easier than doing so on "bare metal".
>> I've not tried myself, though. But either the PC OS of your choice in
>> a VM under OS X Server, or OS X Server in a VM under the PC OS of
>> your choice, is as close as you'll get.
>> Innotek's VirtualBox seems to be the free hypervisor of choice these
>> days, but the small-f free options, TTBOMK, summarise as:
>>  - VirtualBox from Sun ("full" freeware edition or limited FOSS
>> edition) under Linux, Windows or Mac OS X
>>  - QEMU (FOSS) with KQEMU module on x86 under Windows, Linux or Mac
>> OS X - KVM (FOSS) on Linux on an x86 with hardware virtualisation -
>> VirtualPC on Windows/x86, or VirtualServer on Windows Server/x86,
>> from MS - VMware Player (can't create or edit VMs) or VMware Server
>> (on Windows or Linux) from VMware
> Citrix (previously Xensource) Xen/XenServer (and VMware ESX) use a real
> hypervisor.  The ones you listed don't.  Just because they provide
> a "virtual machine" doesn't mean that they use a hypervisor to do it.

The term has been redefined these days. Whereas that was originally an
accurate comment, now, anything that provides VMs in which unmodified
bare-metal OSs can run is called a hypervisor. There's a distinction
between "bare metal" hyervisors and ones that run as an application
under another OS, but it's largely an artificial one: even so-called
"bare metal" HVs actually run under a host OS, such as Linux in the
case of VMware ESX & ESXi - although the company vigorously contests
this - and also Xen or KVM.

Alas, the "pure hypervisor" which does nothing else is now largely a
footnote of history. TTBOMK there is no such thing for the x86. There
may be for some of the RISC architectures, which include proper
support for virtualisation, which is a half-hearted bolted-on extra to
the modern x86-64 chips. AMD's is a bit less of a me-too effort than
Intel's, but I believe that neither is as complete as the
implementations in POWER or SPARC, let alone IBM big iron.

Liam Proven • Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • LiveJournal/Twitter: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508

More information about the cctech mailing list