Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register


Groups > comp.os.os2.setup.video > #64

Re: What support for Plug-and-Play does your virtual machine have?

From Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com>
Newsgroups comp.os.os2.setup.video, comp.os.os2.programmer.misc, comp.os.os2.misc, comp.os.os2.beta
Subject Re: What support for Plug-and-Play does your virtual machine have?
Date 2011-02-01 19:49 -0500
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <iia9m1$fg8$1@news.eternal-september.org> (permalink)
References <IU.D20110126.T110040.P1026.Q1@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> <gjxI70UYBlcC-pn2-IpTBCy9SodZ4@trevor2.dsl.pipex.com> <IU.D20110128.T140311.P19611.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost> <gjxI70UYBlcC-pn2-v2OPx7frLGzV@trevor2.dsl.pipex.com> <IU.D20110201.T225114.P3665.Q0@J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


On 2/1/2011 5:51 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
>> This is VirtualBox 2.0.4 btw but I don't think it changes - still
>> works on 4.0.0 which is the latest that I've tried (USB is another
>> matter which is why I'm still on 2.0.4).
>>
>
> Versions are important. (-:
>
> I've tracked down the source for the ROM image that VirtualBox uses. It
> doesn't have, as I surmised, Plug-and-Play support. Interestingly,
> there's a common ancestry here with the ROM image used by Bochs, from an
> earlier version of which the VirtualBox source was taken, and which
> (since then) gained skeleton Plug-and-Play support somewhere in between
> version 2.4 and version 2.4.5. VirtualBox hasn't kept track with the
> Bochs improvements, it seems.
>
> What Bochs has isn't enough for real world use, however, so even if
> VirtualBox caught up with Bochs it wouldn't be enough. It only
> implements the version check. All other functions fail with an error.
> This is pretty useless. So I suppose that we're lucky that no-one with
> Bochs 2.4.5 spoke up. (-:
>
> This is exceedingly annoying, because these virtual machines don't
> operate like real machines in this regard. (Real machines have had fully
> implemented Plug-and-Play firmware support as standard since the late
> 1990s.) But its one more datum supporting the point that I've long made
> that x86 virtual machines don't set out to exactly duplicate real hardware.
>

Why would you need P-n-P?  It's virtual after all, and you can't attach 
a virtual display on the fly while the VM is running.

Back to comp.os.os2.setup.video | Previous | NextNext in thread | Find similar


Thread

Re: What support for Plug-and-Play does your virtual machine have? Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-02-01 19:49 -0500
  Re: What support for Plug-and-Play does your virtual machine have? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-02-02 05:11 +0000

csiph-web