Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #116707 > unrolled thread

Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-26 11:22 -0400
    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-26 20:09 -0400
      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-27 11:29 -0400
        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2018-05-27 18:03 +0200
          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-05-28 10:35 +1200
            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-27 18:57 -0400
            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-27 19:13 -0400
              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-05-28 14:21 +1200
                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 22:27 -0400
                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-27 22:35 -0400
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 20:52 -0700
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-28 18:33 -0400
                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2018-05-27 22:35 -0400
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 08:49 -0400
                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 04:41 -0700
                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 08:20 -0700
                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-05-28 19:30 +1200
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 05:39 -0700
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-28 09:05 -0400
                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 07:29 -0700
                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-05-28 18:28 -0400
                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-28 21:03 -0700
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 08:50 -0400
                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 08:47 -0400
                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-31 10:55 -0400
                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 14:03 -0400
                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-31 15:57 -0400
                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2018-06-01 06:16 +0000
                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 03:01 -0400
                              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2018-06-01 08:17 +0000
                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-01 15:53 +0000
                                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 12:51 -0400
                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2018-06-01 17:23 +0000
                                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 14:11 -0400
                                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 14:26 -0400
                                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0400
                                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 17:29 -0400
                                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:58 +0000
                                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-02 11:37 -0500
                                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-03 12:13 +1200
                                              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? "Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk" <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 05:59 -0700
                                              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-03 23:10 -0500
                                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-04 19:22 +1200
                                                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2018-06-05 03:39 -0500
                                                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-06 09:29 +1200
                                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 02:49 -0700
                                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-04 07:16 -0700
                                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-02 01:37 +0000
                                        Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 01:29 -0400
                                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2018-06-02 19:10 +1200
                                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2018-06-02 23:32 +1200
                                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 09:03 -0400
                                              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-02 14:34 -0400
                                                Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-02 14:35 -0400
                                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-02 14:31 +0000
                                      Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2018-06-02 15:49 +0000
                                  Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-01 14:23 -0400
                                    Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-01 14:35 -0400
                          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-06-02 13:47 -0400
                            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-06-05 09:16 +0000
            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-05-31 08:46 -0400
          Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 16:31 -0700
            Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? android <here@there.was> - 2018-05-28 06:52 +0200
              Re: Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 22:09 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#116707 — Hard 64 bit. Will 32 bit still run in a VM?

I still run WinXP (32 b) under Fusion for a couple useful apps.

Currently my VM is 64 bit, so whatever interfacing it is doing from 
WinXP to Mac OS could be with 32 bit or 64 bit compliant API calls.

	WinXP sys call (32 b) <-> Fusion <32 b> Mac OS
	WinXP sys call (32 b) <-> Fusion <64 b> Mac OS (possible).

When Mac OS goes 64 bit only, will the OS under the VM (64 bit) still 
function if it is 32 bits?  I don't see why not if Fusion is doing the 
call matching/translating.  At worst I may need to update to Fusion 8 or 
higher (I'm at 7).

Anyone?

-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#116713

On 2018-05-26 11:22, Alan Browne wrote:

> When Mac OS goes 64 bit only, will the OS under the VM (64 bit) still 
> function if it is 32 bits? 

Since Fusion supports Windows 10, as long as Windows 10 allows 32 bit
apps to run, then those apps should run.  (Windows 10 64 bit edition can
still run 32 bit apps from what I read).

Fusion will intercept any IO instruction done by the guest OS.

The Fusion 10 release notes states it makes use of the "Metal" graphical
interfaces, so one assumes it does a fair bit of interpretation of guest
OS  IO instructions to gnerate the desired outcome via Metal and that
this might involve converting everything to 64 bits before calling OS-X
native stuff. (I *assume* Metal was never made available in 32 biut mode).

Am not sure how Fusion handles virtual memory though. Does Windows play
with the OS-X virtual memory translation table, or are all memory
operations remapped to Fusion's allocated memory and Fusion has its own
private virtual memorty tranmslation table? ( this may be relevant if
Apple disables 32bit virtual memory translations in its table).

Once Apple makes its plans more clear in a couple of weeks, VMWARE may
be better able to document what will and won't work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116726

On 2018-05-26 20:09, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2018-05-26 11:22, Alan Browne wrote:
> 
>> When Mac OS goes 64 bit only, will the OS under the VM (64 bit) still
>> function if it is 32 bits?
> 
> Since Fusion supports Windows 10, as long as Windows 10 allows 32 bit

You missed the point entirely.  The OS I want to keep running (not the 
app) is 32 bit. (WinXP).  The VM is 64 bit.


-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116732

On 2018-05-27 15:29:39 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2018-05-26 20:09, JF Mezei wrote:
>> On 2018-05-26 11:22, Alan Browne wrote:
>> 
>>> When Mac OS goes 64 bit only, will the OS under the VM (64 bit) still
>>> function if it is 32 bits?
>> 
>> Since Fusion supports Windows 10, as long as Windows 10 allows 32 bit
> 
> You missed the point entirely.  The OS I want to keep running (not the 
> app) is 32 bit. (WinXP).  The VM is 64 bit.

Probably as long as the system processor supports 32 bit calls. I e as 
long as you can run XP on it bare...
-- 
teleportation kills

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116772

On 2018-05-27 16:03:21 +0000, android said:
> On 2018-05-27 15:29:39 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>> On 2018-05-26 20:09, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> On 2018-05-26 11:22, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> When Mac OS goes 64 bit only, will the OS under the VM (64 bit) still
>>>> function if it is 32 bits?
>>> 
>>> Since Fusion supports Windows 10, as long as Windows 10 allows 32 bit
>> 
>> You missed the point entirely.  The OS I want to keep running (not the 
>> app) is 32 bit. (WinXP).  The VM is 64 bit.
> 
> Probably as long as the system processor supports 32 bit calls. I e as 
> long as you can run XP on it bare...

As long as the emulator itself is programmed to run as 64-bit, what 
runs on it is irrelevant to MacOS 10.14 and later. The software running 
on the emulator only needs to satisfy the requirements of that emulated 
system. It's rally a case of whether or not the developer bothers to 
change their emulator to 64-bit (which almost certainly will apply to 
Parallels and VMWare, but maybe not some old Gameboy emulator). There 
are tons of emulators that happily let you run not-32-bit old Mac, 
Commodore 64, Apple II, Gameboy, etc. programs on a brand new 32-bit 
Mac.

Of course, Apple has not actually said MacOS 10.14 won't run 32-bit 
apps, simply that they won't run "as efficiently" (or words to that 
effect).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116773

In article <pefbs0$9h6$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> >>>> When Mac OS goes 64 bit only, will the OS under the VM (64 bit) still
> >>>> function if it is 32 bits?
> >>> 
> >>> Since Fusion supports Windows 10, as long as Windows 10 allows 32 bit
> >> 
> >> You missed the point entirely.  The OS I want to keep running (not the 
> >> app) is 32 bit. (WinXP).  The VM is 64 bit.
> > 
> > Probably as long as the system processor supports 32 bit calls. I e as 
> > long as you can run XP on it bare...
> 
> As long as the emulator itself is programmed to run as 64-bit, what 
> runs on it is irrelevant to MacOS 10.14 and later. The software running 
> on the emulator only needs to satisfy the requirements of that emulated 
> system. It's rally a case of whether or not the developer bothers to 
> change their emulator to 64-bit (which almost certainly will apply to 
> Parallels and VMWare, but maybe not some old Gameboy emulator). There 
> are tons of emulators that happily let you run not-32-bit old Mac, 
> Commodore 64, Apple II, Gameboy, etc. programs on a brand new 32-bit 
> Mac.

vmware & parallels are not emulators.

> Of course, Apple has not actually said MacOS 10.14 won't run 32-bit 
> apps, simply that they won't run "as efficiently" (or words to that 
> effect).

10.13 is the last version to run 32 bit apps 'without compromise'.

what those compromises are will likely be explained in a week, at wwdc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116775

On 2018-05-27 18:35, Your Name wrote:

> As long as the emulator itself is programmed to run as 64-bit, what 
> runs on it is irrelevant to MacOS 10.14 and later.

Whether emulated or not (Fusion lets Windows runs native without
translation, but intercepts certain operations).

The question to me is whether when Fusion intercepts a 32 bit operation,
if it passes it to the equivalent 32 bit OS-X API or whether it converts
this to 64 bit APIs and 64 bit addresses.  (and there would be some
fancy virtual memory footwork involved).


This will dictate what happens when Apple pulls 32 bit APIs out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116777

On 2018-05-27 23:13:59 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> On 2018-05-27 18:35, Your Name wrote:
>> 
>> As long as the emulator itself is programmed to run as 64-bit, what
>> runs on it is irrelevant to MacOS 10.14 and later.
> 
> Whether emulated or not (Fusion lets Windows runs native without
> translation, but intercepts certain operations).
> 
> The question to me is whether when Fusion intercepts a 32 bit operation,
> if it passes it to the equivalent 32 bit OS-X API or whether it converts
> this to 64 bit APIs and 64 bit addresses.  (and there would be some
> fancy virtual memory footwork involved).
> 
> This will dictate what happens when Apple pulls 32 bit APIs out.

Technically Parallels and VMWare aren't emulators - they're 
virtualisation apps, but a similar stance applies. What may happen is 
that the developers simply change their "recommended" options to no 
longer allow older non-64-bit OSes. It really depends on how difficult 
it is for them to continue to support old OSes and whether there are 
enough users of old OSes to warrant that effort.

In some cases is might require changing from a virtulisation app to an 
emulation app (i.e. one that does do on-the-fly translation of 
everything), which may mean a drop in performance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116778

On 27 May 2018, Your Name wrote
(in article <pefp2i$rdh$1@gioia.aioe.org>):

> On 2018-05-27 23:13:59 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> > On 2018-05-27 18:35, Your Name wrote:
> > >
> > > As long as the emulator itself is programmed to run as 64-bit, what
> > > runs on it is irrelevant to MacOS 10.14 and later.
> >
> > Whether emulated or not (Fusion lets Windows runs native without
> > translation, but intercepts certain operations).
> >
> > The question to me is whether when Fusion intercepts a 32 bit operation,
> > if it passes it to the equivalent 32 bit OS-X API or whether it converts
> > this to 64 bit APIs and 64 bit addresses. (and there would be some
> > fancy virtual memory footwork involved).
> >
> > This will dictate what happens when Apple pulls 32 bit APIs out.
>
> Technically Parallels and VMWare aren't emulators - they're
> virtualisation apps, but a similar stance applies. What may happen is
> that the developers simply change their "recommended" options to no
> longer allow older non-64-bit OSes. It really depends on how difficult
> it is for them to continue to support old OSes and whether there are
> enough users of old OSes to warrant that effort.
>
> In some cases is might require changing from a virtulisation app to an
> emulation app (i.e. one that does do on-the-fly translation of
> everything), which may mean a drop in performance.

I remember Virtual PC. Emulation is gonna mean a _massive_ drop in 
performance unless the devs are very, very, VERY good. And no-body’s _that_ 
good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116779

In article <0001HW.20BBA085022597F87000048742CF@news.supernews.com>,
Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> wrote:

> > In some cases is might require changing from a virtulisation app to an
> > emulation app (i.e. one that does do on-the-fly translation of
> > everything), which may mean a drop in performance.
> 
> I remember Virtual PC. Emulation is gonna mean a _massive_ drop in 
> performance unless the devs are very, very, VERY good. And no-body¹s _that_ 
> good.

except that emulating 32 bit x86 on a 64 x86 cpu won't have anywhere
near the overhead as it did on a powerpc cpu.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116781

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:35:15 PM UTC-7, nospam wrote:
> In article <0001HW.20BBA085022597F87000048742CF@news.supernews.com>,
> Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > In some cases is might require changing from a virtulisation app to an
> > > emulation app (i.e. one that does do on-the-fly translation of
> > > everything), which may mean a drop in performance.
> > 
> > I remember Virtual PC. Emulation is gonna mean a _massive_ drop in 
> > performance unless the devs are very, very, VERY good. And no-bodyąs _that_ 
> > good.
> 
> except that emulating 32 bit x86 on a 64 x86 cpu won't have anywhere
> near the overhead as it did on a powerpc cpu.



I would post to Steve Carroll directly but he is a dunce who plays trolling games to effect his desire to call everyone a fool. The complete burlesque is chock-full of bizarre holes and relies heavily on Steve Carroll's 'many certificates' horseplay. You purchased it and deleted competing systems and your "intuitions" lead you to that assumption, and... 

Demanding Steve Carroll to atone, which I have done, is distinct from referencing his fraud. My point was that good people come here *to* battle those who disagree. It's not as if most do not know what this forum is, Michael Glasser Snit especially. You're like a dead, bloated whale on the beach. We all see you sitting there and just laugh at you. And you're so stupid you keep repeating it. 

Frankly I do not really have any hope. 



--
This broke the Internet!
http://www.5z8.info/nic_cage_naked_y8b5qk_torrentEverything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OffkiSAsYo8
Jonas Eklundh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116808

On 2018-05-27 22:35, nospam wrote:

> except that emulating 32 bit x86 on a 64 x86 cpu won't have anywhere
> near the overhead as it did on a powerpc cpu.


Converting Fusion into an emulator would be a MAJOR sofwtare undertaking.

Fusion makes use of hardware capabilities to carve a virtual machine at
hardware level with the guest OS running natively with only certain
machine instriuctions intercepted and handed to Fusion which then
creates OS_X API calls to do what the guest OS wants to do.

Moving this to a fully emulated environment would be a major undertaking.

In the past, emulations of older machines was done on newer/faster
machines, so the additional overhead of emulation was countered by
faster processor speed. But moving from vurtualized native instance to a
fully emulated instance is a lose lose situation since there is no CPU
speed gain, only emulation losses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116780

In article <0001HW.20BBA085022597F87000048742CF@news.supernews.com>,
 Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27 May 2018, Your Name wrote
> (in article <pefp2i$rdh$1@gioia.aioe.org>):
> 
> > On 2018-05-27 23:13:59 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> > > On 2018-05-27 18:35, Your Name wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As long as the emulator itself is programmed to run as 64-bit, what
> > > > runs on it is irrelevant to MacOS 10.14 and later.
> > >
> > > Whether emulated or not (Fusion lets Windows runs native without
> > > translation, but intercepts certain operations).
> > >
> > > The question to me is whether when Fusion intercepts a 32 bit operation,
> > > if it passes it to the equivalent 32 bit OS-X API or whether it converts
> > > this to 64 bit APIs and 64 bit addresses. (and there would be some
> > > fancy virtual memory footwork involved).
> > >
> > > This will dictate what happens when Apple pulls 32 bit APIs out.
> >
> > Technically Parallels and VMWare aren't emulators - they're
> > virtualisation apps, but a similar stance applies. What may happen is
> > that the developers simply change their "recommended" options to no
> > longer allow older non-64-bit OSes. It really depends on how difficult
> > it is for them to continue to support old OSes and whether there are
> > enough users of old OSes to warrant that effort.
> >
> > In some cases is might require changing from a virtulisation app to an
> > emulation app (i.e. one that does do on-the-fly translation of
> > everything), which may mean a drop in performance.
> 
> I remember Virtual PC. Emulation is gonna mean a _massive_ drop in 
> performance unless the devs are very, very, VERY good. And no-body’s _that_ 
> good.

The things that affect whether an *Operating System* supports 32-bit or 
64-bit mode are generally the data structures used in system calls. 
There isn't generally an issue with the execution of ordinary 
instructions that don't call into the kernel.

So when you're running another operating system under virtualization, 
the word size that matters is what the guest OS supports. I don't think 
any emulation should generally be necessary.

Of course, the virtualization software sometimes has to trap operations 
and pass them on to the host OS. As long as the virtualization software 
is 64-bit, it should continue to work.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116838

On 2018-05-27 22:35, Barry Margolin wrote:

<crap about emulation snipped>

> The things that affect whether an *Operating System* supports 32-bit or
> 64-bit mode are generally the data structures used in system calls.
> There isn't generally an issue with the execution of ordinary
> instructions that don't call into the kernel.
> 
> So when you're running another operating system under virtualization,
> the word size that matters is what the guest OS supports. I don't think
> any emulation should generally be necessary.
> 
> Of course, the virtualization software sometimes has to trap operations
> and pass them on to the host OS. As long as the virtualization software
> is 64-bit, it should continue to work.

That's my hope.  I guess I should address this to the Fusion forums.


-- 
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
  need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
                                           - unknown protester

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116959

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 5:49:23 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2018-05-27 22:35, Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> <crap about emulation snipped>
> 
> > The things that affect whether an *Operating System* supports 32-bit or
> > 64-bit mode are generally the data structures used in system calls.
> > There isn't generally an issue with the execution of ordinary
> > instructions that don't call into the kernel.
> > 
> > So when you're running another operating system under virtualization,
> > the word size that matters is what the guest OS supports. I don't think
> > any emulation should generally be necessary.
> > 
> > Of course, the virtualization software sometimes has to trap operations
> > and pass them on to the host OS. As long as the virtualization software
> > is 64-bit, it should continue to work.
> 
> That's my hope.  I guess I should address this to the Fusion forums.
> 
> 
> -- 
> "2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
>   need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
>                                            - unknown protester



  Steven Petruzzellis:
    -----
    I would love to see the group become that! I would love to see
    people, for example, pick tasks they do with Desktop Linux which
    they believe are handled better than the competition. I have
    encouraged that for a long time. But so far few if any such tasks
    have been shown.
    -----

  Marek Novotny:
    -----
    Linux is a Server, A Cloud, A service, A mobile Platform, A
    developers dream come true, A super cluster, a Main frame and a
    DESKTOP. It's not JUST a desktop. You're a two-bit bullshit coward
    who refuses to face what Linux actually is. It's too much for you,
    obviously. 
    -----

  Steven Petruzzellis (referencing to the above quote):
    ----
    But it is not all of those things. Not even close. It is USED by
    those things but it is NOT those things.
    -----

  Marek Novotny (some time later):
    -----
    Android isn't Linux. Android makes "use" of the Linux kernel.
    Android is indeed open source, but it is not community driven open
    source. Those that know the difference likely won't cry over Android
    ditching the Linux kernel and adopting their own kernel. It simply
    never mattered for all the reasons I stated above. Now the fact that
    I have to articulate this in writing so these clueless tards like
    DFS and Steven Petruzzellis can gain some insights because they LACK their
    own insights is what I find troubling. They both have no business
    arguing in here. They are simply too stupid to have a conversation
    about that which they just don't fundamentally understand in the
    first place.
    -----
    
Notice Marek uses the concepts I taught him (about how Linux is "USED" by the things he listed) then fantasizes about how I did not know the information HE got wrong and I corrected him with (and did so with no name calling or insults).

  Meat:
    -----
    I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I and if that wasn't enough, I,I,I,I,I,I. 
    Talk about a narcissistic fool.
    -----

  Steven Petruzzellis:
    -----
    You left out his I, I, I, I. AM. BETTER. THAN. Steven Petruzzellis AND DFS!
    He is clearly feeling very insecure these days.
    -----

  Marek Novotny: 
    -----
    Well, if he wants to play this game with me he'll find pictures of
    his wife on imgur with dildos all over her and I can cross post
    those too. Keep fucking around Steven Petruzzellis. I can play this game too. 
    -----

--
I Left My Husband & Daughter At Home And THIS happened!
http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_j3m3lg_whitepower
Michael Glasser: Prescott Computer Guy
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
https://youtu.be/HMx0RyzbPgQ
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116966

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 4:41:34 AM UTC-7, Snit's dysautonomia http://bit.ly/2Jqpplk wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 5:49:23 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
> > On 2018-05-27 22:35, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > 
> > <crap about emulation snipped>
> > 
> > > The things that affect whether an *Operating System* supports 32-bit or
> > > 64-bit mode are generally the data structures used in system calls.
> > > There isn't generally an issue with the execution of ordinary
> > > instructions that don't call into the kernel.
> > > 
> > > So when you're running another operating system under virtualization,
> > > the word size that matters is what the guest OS supports. I don't think
> > > any emulation should generally be necessary.
> > > 
> > > Of course, the virtualization software sometimes has to trap operations
> > > and pass them on to the host OS. As long as the virtualization software
> > > is 64-bit, it should continue to work.
> > 
> > That's my hope.  I guess I should address this to the Fusion forums.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > "2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants.  Proof that we
> >   need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
> >                                            - unknown protester
> 
> 
> 
>   Steven Petruzzellis:
>     -----
>     I would love to see the group become that! I would love to see
>     people, for example, pick tasks they do with Desktop Linux which
>     they believe are handled better than the competition. I have
>     encouraged that for a long time. But so far few if any such tasks
>     have been shown.
>     -----
> 
>   Marek Novotny:
>     -----
>     Linux is a Server, A Cloud, A service, A mobile Platform, A
>     developers dream come true, A super cluster, a Main frame and a
>     DESKTOP. It's not JUST a desktop. You're a two-bit bullshit coward
>     who refuses to face what Linux actually is. It's too much for you,
>     obviously. 
>     -----
> 
>   Steven Petruzzellis (referencing to the above quote):
>     ----
>     But it is not all of those things. Not even close. It is USED by
>     those things but it is NOT those things.
>     -----
> 
>   Marek Novotny (some time later):
>     -----
>     Android isn't Linux. Android makes "use" of the Linux kernel.
>     Android is indeed open source, but it is not community driven open
>     source. Those that know the difference likely won't cry over Android
>     ditching the Linux kernel and adopting their own kernel. It simply
>     never mattered for all the reasons I stated above. Now the fact that
>     I have to articulate this in writing so these clueless tards like
>     DFS and Steven Petruzzellis can gain some insights because they LACK their
>     own insights is what I find troubling. They both have no business
>     arguing in here. They are simply too stupid to have a conversation
>     about that which they just don't fundamentally understand in the
>     first place.
>     -----
>     
> Notice Marek uses the concepts I taught him (about how Linux is "USED" by the things he listed) then fantasizes about how I did not know the information HE got wrong and I corrected him with (and did so with no name calling or insults).
> 
>   Meat:
>     -----
>     I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I,I and if that wasn't enough, I,I,I,I,I,I. 
>     Talk about a narcissistic fool.
>     -----
> 
>   Steven Petruzzellis:
>     -----
>     You left out his I, I, I, I. AM. BETTER. THAN. Steven Petruzzellis AND DFS!
>     He is clearly feeling very insecure these days.
>     -----
> 
>   Marek Novotny: 
>     -----
>     Well, if he wants to play this game with me he'll find pictures of
>     his wife on imgur with dildos all over her and I can cross post
>     those too. Keep fucking around Steven Petruzzellis. I can play this game too. 
>     -----
> 
> --
> I Left My Husband & Daughter At Home And THIS happened!
> http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_j3m3lg_whitepower
> Michael Glasser: Prescott Computer Guy
> http://prescottcomputerguy.com
> https://youtu.be/HMx0RyzbPgQ
> Jonas Eklundh Communication AB



Over and over, the demand is he wants to "talk tech", but the guy spends most of his time whining about "Mint". 

Nearly all regulars in this group do scripting either as a pastime or as a part of their job, so I have doubts more than a few consider writing macros to be "voodoo". Just some names Steve "Steven Petruzzellis" Carroll has used
    "Evil" John *
    "Evil" Snit *
    Big Crotch on a Small Fish
    Cornelius Munshower
    CSMA Moderator
    Edward Stanfield
    Fretwiz *
    Hitman Hero
    Measles
    Petruzzellis Kids
    Sigmond
    Slaveen
    Smit
    Steve C *
    Steve Camoll *
    Steve Carroll <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> *
    Steve Carroll <stevecarroll@xxxxxxxxxxx> *
    Steve Carroll <trollkiller@xxxxxx> *
    Steve Carroll's Dog *
    Steve Carrolll *
    Steve Carrroll *
    Yevette Owens
    Yobo_Obyo
A shadow of false causation, projected spontaneously, at the wrong time. Too much glue for you, gluehead. Several of us reported him years ago. As expected, it did diddly-squat to thwart the bozo. And you do realize that it isn't impossible for Steve Petruzzellis to be doing this, or working with one of his old students who knows what they are doing. You're like a fool wearing a gorilla outfit at the prom. We all see you sitting there and just laugh at you. And you're so stupid you keep doing it. 

--
Get Rich Slow!
http://www.5z8.info/michaelangelo-virus_t6v2vq_molotovcocktail
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116786

On 2018-05-28 02:27:17 +0000, Wolffan said:
> On 27 May 2018, Your Name wrote
> (in article <pefp2i$rdh$1@gioia.aioe.org>):
>> On 2018-05-27 23:13:59 +0000, JF Mezei said:
>>> On 2018-05-27 18:35, Your Name wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> As long as the emulator itself is programmed to run as 64-bit, what
>>>> runs on it is irrelevant to MacOS 10.14 and later.
>>> 
>>> Whether emulated or not (Fusion lets Windows runs native without
>>> translation, but intercepts certain operations).
>>> 
>>> The question to me is whether when Fusion intercepts a 32 bit operation,
>>> if it passes it to the equivalent 32 bit OS-X API or whether it converts
>>> this to 64 bit APIs and 64 bit addresses. (and there would be some
>>> fancy virtual memory footwork involved).
>>> 
>>> This will dictate what happens when Apple pulls 32 bit APIs out.
>> 
>> Technically Parallels and VMWare aren't emulators - they're
>> virtualisation apps, but a similar stance applies. What may happen is
>> that the developers simply change their "recommended" options to no
>> longer allow older non-64-bit OSes. It really depends on how difficult
>> it is for them to continue to support old OSes and whether there are
>> enough users of old OSes to warrant that effort.
>> 
>> In some cases is might require changing from a virtulisation app to an
>> emulation app (i.e. one that does do on-the-fly translation of
>> everything), which may mean a drop in performance.
> 
> I remember Virtual PC. Emulation is gonna mean a _massive_ drop in
> performance unless the devs are very, very, VERY good. And no-body'™s _that_
> good.

Depends on what you're emulating and how fast the host computer is. 
Emulating a Commodore VIC20 on a new Intel iMac is blazingly fast ... 
MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than the original VIC20 ever was. The emulation 
has to put in "slow down" code, otherwise the games would be 
unplayable).  :-)

But, yes, emulating Windoze 10 (just as an example, I'm not saying it 
actually needs to be emulated) even on a new Mac would be slower than 
running it under virtualisation on a slightly older Mac. Of course 
Virtualisation is slower than simply booting the Mac into Windoze 10 
via Boot Camp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116800

On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 12:30:25 AM UTC-7, Your Name wrote:
> On 2018-05-28 02:27:17 +0000, Wolffan said:
> > On 27 May 2018, Your Name wrote
> > (in article <pefp2i$rdh$1@gioia.aioe.org>):
> >> On 2018-05-27 23:13:59 +0000, JF Mezei said:
> >>> On 2018-05-27 18:35, Your Name wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> As long as the emulator itself is programmed to run as 64-bit, what
> >>>> runs on it is irrelevant to MacOS 10.14 and later.
> >>> 
> >>> Whether emulated or not (Fusion lets Windows runs native without
> >>> translation, but intercepts certain operations).
> >>> 
> >>> The question to me is whether when Fusion intercepts a 32 bit operation,
> >>> if it passes it to the equivalent 32 bit OS-X API or whether it converts
> >>> this to 64 bit APIs and 64 bit addresses. (and there would be some
> >>> fancy virtual memory footwork involved).
> >>> 
> >>> This will dictate what happens when Apple pulls 32 bit APIs out.
> >> 
> >> Technically Parallels and VMWare aren't emulators - they're
> >> virtualisation apps, but a similar stance applies. What may happen is
> >> that the developers simply change their "recommended" options to no
> >> longer allow older non-64-bit OSes. It really depends on how difficult
> >> it is for them to continue to support old OSes and whether there are
> >> enough users of old OSes to warrant that effort.
> >> 
> >> In some cases is might require changing from a virtulisation app to an
> >> emulation app (i.e. one that does do on-the-fly translation of
> >> everything), which may mean a drop in performance.
> > 
> > I remember Virtual PC. Emulation is gonna mean a _massive_ drop in
> > performance unless the devs are very, very, VERY good. And no-body'™s _that_
> > good.
> 
> Depends on what you're emulating and how fast the host computer is. 
> Emulating a Commodore VIC20 on a new Intel iMac is blazingly fast ... 
> MUCH MUCH MUCH faster than the original VIC20 ever was. The emulation 
> has to put in "slow down" code, otherwise the games would be 
> unplayable).  :-)
> 
> But, yes, emulating Windoze 10 (just as an example, I'm not saying it 
> actually needs to be emulated) even on a new Mac would be slower than 
> running it under virtualisation on a slightly older Mac. Of course 
> Virtualisation is slower than simply booting the Mac into Windoze 10 
> via Boot Camp.



Technologies change. Could be the ubiquity of a chat client is getting past its prime. I persist in being uncertain that these posts are from a bot. 

Who _ doesn't_ know that this kind of gobbledygook is Zeus's modus operandi, not the MO of Jeff Relf? It is all just nonsense... the flooding, the forging, the writing of gibberish, the tantrums... the puffy red eyes and tendency to show how flustered he is over being booted from the schoolyard for pooping in it again... Zeus can not help himself ;) On and on. You're again trying to pretend you are something you are not. You're the village idiot and your many pointless challenges show this. 



-- 
Curious how these posts are made? Email: fretwizzer@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116801

In article <pegb5s$1ltk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Of course 
> Virtualisation is slower than simply booting the Mac into Windoze 10 
> via Boot Camp.

not that anyone would notice, other than for gpu intensive tasks, which
aren't virtualized.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#116802

On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 6:05:53 AM UTC-7, nospam wrote:
> In article <pegb5s$1ltk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> > Of course 
> > Virtualisation is slower than simply booting the Mac into Windoze 10 
> > via Boot Camp.
> 
> not that anyone would notice, other than for gpu intensive tasks, which
> aren't virtualized.



Where did you go to school? 

In spite of my own experiences with Mint, I nonetheless continue to use it for users who've had misadventures with OS X. Now that The Flying Spaghetti Monster appreciated how successful Steven Petruzzellis is at portraying himself as the 'scapegoat' he has figured out this is not quite as insane as it seemed. I am an obsessed supporter of Linux, because that's where all the stimulating ingenuity is happening. 

--
Curious how these posts are made? www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZNxaaKD7-c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web