If you are running Linux under Windows, I highly recommend using coLinux. It is more of a pain to initially configure, but once it is the code runs just as fast as with a native Linux boot. Maybe someday, someone will merge the front ends to these two entirely different programs...
If anyone knows some good Linux benchmark programs it would be interesting to run comparisons on the same hardware of the two different methods of vitalization. Don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate of QEMU. But only for environments where there isn't a more direct route to host another OS. So I do use QEMU to host other Windows operating systems, but I would only use it for Linux system when coLinux is unusable. Bill On 7/28/05, Christian MICHON <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > found out why :) > > On 7/28/05, 姚春林 wrote: > (...) > > debian + gnome 2.1 > > gnome is slow . and vmware with 256mem is more faster then qemu. > > answer is: gnome usage. Bad idea, which ever is your emulator. > Try to go for lighter window manager environment, like fluxbox. > > Try also to boot in framebuffer mode, in 800x600x16bpp. I noticed > this mode is quite fast :) > > I think there are some patches to try to improve the cirrus emulated. > But I haven't seen any updated for a long time. > > Christian > > > _______________________________________________ > Qemu-devel mailing list > Qemu-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel > _______________________________________________ Qemu-devel mailing list Qemu-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel
