'ello,
I tried QEMU and it runs *much* faster. The only problem is that there
is a bug in it that stops the machine from booting successfully. See
this thread:
http://www.dad-answers.com/qemu-forum/viewtopic.php?p=890#890
which refers to this one:
http://www.dad-answers.com/qemu-forum/viewtopi
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 23:11 +0100, Arne Caspari wrote:
> But OTOH VirtualPC for MacOS X is way faster than qemu. I guess the code
> for those emulators is just not optimized for the PPC. For instance I
> remember some trick in VirtualPC that accelerates the endianess
> conversion or something li
Michel DÃnzer wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 13:45 +, Matthew T. Atkinson wrote:
I realise that I'm not going to get native speed but I would have
thought that a 1.5Gz G4 would at least equal the performance of my
ageing 1.33GHz Athlon.
I'm afraid that's unrealistic. qemu may be faster, but it
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 13:45 +, Matthew T. Atkinson wrote:
>
> I realise that I'm not going to get native speed but I would have
> thought that a 1.5Gz G4 would at least equal the performance of my
> ageing 1.33GHz Athlon.
I'm afraid that's unrealistic. qemu may be faster, but it's still onl
'ello,
I wonder if anyone could shed any light on an issue I've been having
with bochs. I am trying to negate the need for my x86 (Athlon) desktop
by installing Windows 2000 on my PowerBook5,4.
The problem is that it is mind-bogglingly slow. It took 10 hours to
install Windows and takes about 5
5 matches
Mail list logo
