–> No additional configuration possible, but the OS loads directly. ? (can be as well Pro and Con): No BIOS setup.
BOCHS WINXP BOOT UP DISK INSTALL
PRO: VPC has pretty cool Drag’n’Drop support for sharing files between Guest and Host.ĬON: VPC 4.2 (officially WinXP compatible) did not install on my WinXP system (don’t know if VPC 4.3 works).ĬON: Bad performance on multiprocessor systems.ĬON: Emulated HDDs have ALWAYS dynamic size – makes it impossible to install AtheOS (maybe also other OS’ that require you to partition the HDD) (As already been said: VPC-Win does not emulate the CPU.)
This helps alot on multiprocessor systems. IIRC, the main reason why VMware has better performance than VPC-Win is that VMware emulates each device in its own thread (VPC is single threated). For VMWare to run on Mac for example, it will need a software/hardware solution, like a PCI card that has a full x86 CPU on it… While Bochs and VPC, being real emulators, have already being ported to other architectures, like the Macintosh. VMWare _can not_ be ported to any other architecture than x86, because it needs the x86 CPU to do the execution. However, each product has its good and bad points. This results them to be 70-80% slower than the real thing on the same hardware. With VPC and Bochs, they just emulate ALL x86s instructions that the guest OS asks for. VMWare emulates only some I/O functions, the rest are running “natively”. By being a runtime, when a x86 instruction is requested by the guest OS, VMWare asks your x86 CPU to run it, so the overhead is only about 15-20% (which is the time VMWare passes the instruction to the CPU). The reason for VMWare’s speed is simply because it is a runtime, and not an emulator as Bochs and VPC are.
VMWare is way faster compared to both VPC and Bochs. >Anyone who has tried running Virtual PC & VMWare in Windows, how do they compare ?
0 kommentar(er)
