> > > > The only emulator you're spending time on is Qemu, the rest are > > virtualizers or simulators, and there is a significant difference. > > Emulators are much slower, because of what they have to do. > > Qemu is capable of full emulation, but when host & guest architecture match > (or are compatible, e.g. x86_32 guest and x86_64 host) > it's a virtualizer. Given x86 on x86, there is a world of difference between > Bochs's performance and Qemu's.
It's mostly full and not completely accurate. I don't use Qemu so this may be wrong, but I was under the impression Qemu was an emulator unless you used kqemu, and then it lost emulation capability's. > Qemu's display is slow, whatever other factors exist. Drawterm to a qemu cpu > server is very much faster. I can't speak for disk IO > except to say it seems fast under my light usage. > > Also, to nit-pick, don't all virtualisers emulate peripheral hardware? For peripheral hardware, emulators and virtualizers are mostly the same, but that isn't the main reason most people use them, it's about the execution environment, which involves how the CPU is handled. Seeing as you didn't bring up a single full system emulator, I doubt you care more about peripherals.
