Home | Gallery | Forum | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com Forum
OS2 World.Com Online Discussion Forum.
Index / OS/2 - General / Multimedia
author message
Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
61. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
I am sure many of you knew this already, but I didn't realize that the SNAP SDK had already been released under the GPL. That isn't the whole driver system but that means we have a lot more available to us for further development than I thought we did.
Date: 09 Dec, 2006 on 00:14
oli
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 54
since: 24 Jul, 2003
62. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

Smedles (07 Dec, 2006 03:10):

oli (06 Dec, 2006 20:02):
Besides QEMU does not run OS/2 at all as it is and Linux is not exactly drowning in quality driver software either even if things are not as bad as they are under OS/2.

QEMU for OS/2 is being worked on. (Not by me).


I know, and that is nice to hear but QEMU linux does not properly run OS/2, which is why trying to coax people from using native OS/2 to using it in an emulator that does currently not work is silly, especially since Paraells is cheap and was originally designed in 1996 specifically to run os/2 and Microsoft's VirtualPC offering is now free and handles OS/2 just fine.

Date: 10 Dec, 2006 on 19:48
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
63. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 11 Dec, 2006 03:22 (1 times)

oli (10 Dec, 2006 19:4:
I know, and that is nice to hear but QEMU linux does not properly run OS/2, which is why trying to coax people from using native OS/2 to using it in an emulator that does currently not work is silly, especially since Paraells is cheap and was originally designed in 1996 specifically to run os/2 and Microsoft's VirtualPC offering is now free and handles OS/2 just fine.

Microsoft VPC
1. does not support Linux host (ms win2k/XPpro hosts only)
2. no longer supports OS/2 host
3. dropped VNC server (so now OS/2 clients can not connect)

Parallels
1. Dropped OS/2 host
2. after several years still does not have server
Connectix VPC first had VNC server back in v4.x (2001?) VNC is open source. Been asking Parallels for over three years for this simiple but essential feature. Most every competitor has some type of simiple server feature (MS VPC, VMWARE, win4Lin, QENU).
3. Competing against VMWare and Microsoft which are giving away similar products for free. Both are also giving away server products for free too.
Where is server product Parallels repeated promised?
4. How long can Parallels compete against free desktop and server products from MS, VMWare and also open source (QEMU, XEN)?

XEN (another open source program)
Can now run ms winXP (using latest Intel and AMD cpus)

QEMU
1. supported on Linux, win, BSDs, MacOSX, Solaris
If enough OS/2-eCS developers are interested then OS/2-eCS could be supported in the future (don't have to beg any company)
2. SMP support on x86 (up to 255 CPUs !)
3. includes VNC server
4. Runs Warp4. Almost runs eComStation
If enough OS/2-eCS users show interest then I am sure the issues
will be looked at and fixed.

QEMU home page
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

Date: 11 Dec, 2006 on 03:13
melf
Premium member
in staff

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 212
since: 11 Apr, 2003
64. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
I don't know much about the tecnicalitys, but with all respect of QEMU I can't see the point of running eCS as a guest OS. Since Senernity started eCS we have seen great sucess when it comes to hardware compability, intallation procedure and now bootable JFS, ACPI and also som core software, like Open Office, Lucide. I would rather shift OS than running eCS as an emulation. The devlopement so far has been promising in my opinion though the latest SciTech thing is problematic. In the longterm future It seems like the voyager projekt is promising projekt, though I really can't judge that. For my sake..no I don't want to run eCS as guest on whatever!

---
/Mikael
Date: 11 Dec, 2006 on 09:05
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
65. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

melf (11 Dec, 2006 09:05):
I don't know much about the tecnicalitys, but with all respect of QEMU I can't see the point of running eCS as a guest OS. Since Senernity started eCS we have seen great sucess when it comes to hardware compability, intallation procedure and now bootable JFS, ACPI and also som core software, like Open Office, Lucide. I would rather shift OS than running eCS as an emulation. The devlopement so far has been promising in my opinion though the latest SciTech thing is problematic. In the longterm future It seems like the voyager projekt is promising projekt, though I really can't judge that. For my sake..no I don't want to run eCS as guest on whatever!

I am glad you have all the drivers you need and the time to wait for new ones. When I do my personal machine I spend months picking the hardware so I have drivers for everything.

But please consider that there are other people that might not have the time. This is especially true with anyone trying to support a business with software based on OS/2-eCS. We can not afford to be futzing around and waiting for years for drivers. We can not tell our customer to buy used hardware. We can not tell our customer to wait for who know how long.
Businesses develop apps for OS/2-eCS but they have to be able to sell enough systems to pay the bills and feed our families. In the last couple years I know of a couple great developers that had OS/2-eCS apps who quit. They didn't want to. They loved developing for OS/2-eCS but as is proper their families come first. The hardware market changes too fast. We can't stop that and we have never been able to keep up with drivers and kernel changes. A open source virtual machine gives us another option. Without a virtual machine, eComStation will continue the slide into a hobby market only OS.

Every major OS has several commercial and open source virtual machine options. Every piece of hardware always has drivers for windows yet there are still many virtual machine options for windows. Drivers is not the only reason to want the option of virtual machines or emulators. One of the common processes in the IT server area is to run multiple OSes on one physical server. VMWare and Xen are leaders in that area. Right now neither of those support OS/2-eCS. So here is another reason that IT depts will not consider OS/2-eCS. This in fact happened just two months ago with a customer I was working with. The customer runs all servers as virtuals. They were considering the OS/2-eCS app until they found it could not run as a virtual guest on their servers.

eComStation is one of the only OSes without a fully working open source virtual machine. Besides QEMU, the XEN server virtual machine uses some QEMU code for the guests. If QEMU can run OS/2-eCS then we might also be able to get OS/2-eCS to run as a guest on XEN.

Date: 11 Dec, 2006 on 10:08
Cris
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 124
since: 20 Nov, 2003
66. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

I am glad you have all the drivers you need and the time to wait for new ones. When I do my personal machine I spend months picking the hardware so I have drivers for everything.
But please consider that there are other people that might not have the time.

There is one thing about virtual machines that everybody (among those who push the usage of VMs) seem to ignore:
the fact that the HOST operating system has all kind of drivers for all kind of peripherals doesn't do you ANY good when it comes to the GUEST operating system.

First of all the virtual machine has its own "emulated hardware" that need not bare any resemblance to the physical HW you're running it on; if you buy the latest and greatest peripheral to hook onto the physical box, you won't see it from inside the emulated box, unless it has specifically designed to emulate that too. And even if the virtual box correctly emulates the hardware, you still very often need a specialized driver for the GUEST operating system to take full advantage of it.

So where does this leaves us? In no better position than running on the bare HW, which is preferable anyway.

Bye

Date: 11 Dec, 2006 on 15:22
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
67. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

Cris (11 Dec, 2006 15:22):
There is one thing about virtual machines that everybody (among those who push the usage of VMs) seem to ignore:
the fact that the HOST operating system has all kind of drivers for all kind of peripherals doesn't do you ANY good when it comes to the GUEST operating system.

We are not ignoring anything. In the last five years we have in fact used virtual machines to run OS/2-eCS many times on hardware we otherwise could not use.


Cris (11 Dec, 2006 15:22):
First of all the virtual machine has its own "emulated hardware" that need not bare any resemblance to the physical HW you're running it on; if you buy the latest and greatest peripheral to hook onto the physical box, you won't see it from inside the emulated box, unless it has specifically designed to emulate that too.

That might be true for many external peripherals (like printers) but it is usually NOT TRUE for internal components.

The items I listed in an earlier post are actual hardware types changes where eComstation could and can take advantage of the new hardware without a single change in the emulated VM guest or need for OS/2-eCs driver

dual core
video card
wired NIC
wireless NIC
SATA
sound

This is not theory or hype. Virtual machines are a proven technology that has been in use for over FIVE years. The VM market is one of the fastest growing markets in IT. There are good reasons why that is happening. There were really good business reasons why EMC spent 635 million dollars to buy VMWare, Microsoft bought VPC, etc


Cris (11 Dec, 2006 15:22):
And even if the virtual box correctly emulates the hardware, you still very often need a specialized driver for the GUEST operating system to take full advantage of it.

Sorry but that is not correct.

For many devices the host hardware and the emulated hardware do not need to be the same. This is a pretty standard feature of most VMs.

Also in most cases the new thing is really not that new. The new hardware is usually a revision or update of the previous model. Most of this is done for cost savings reasons by the hardware makers. Most of the time there is ZERO new functionality but the old driver no longer works. A virtual machine where Linux or mswin has the new NIC/LAN driver can still pass the tcpip packets to OS/2-eCS guest. Same with SATA controller and video. For over two years, virtual machines were helping other OSes take advantage of dual core performance even though the guest did not know it was there.

I don't understand why there is so much negative push back on this. This is not some pie in the sky futuristic theory. This is proven fact that is being used everyday on tens of thousands of machines around the world.

The issue I am bringing up is that OS/2-eCS is not able to FULLY take advantage of this powerful and common technology that every other major operating system has available. I have done a lot of testing of eComStation with QEMU. A far as I can tell just a few days to couple weeks of developers time would get us fully running on QEMU. That would be a very big return on time invested.


Cris:
So where does this leaves us? In no better position than running on the bare HW, which is preferable anyway.

Over the last 5 years there are tens of thousands of systems that have been moved to virtual machines. It was because they WERE in a better position using virtual machines than without it.

Both computer scientists and computer business market analysts are predicting that in the near future virtual machines will be standard on most desktop and server machines.


Here is a sample of the future of desktop computing -

Virtual Machine Monitors: Current Technology and Future Trends
http://www.stanford.edu/~talg/papers/COMPUTER05/virtual-future-computer05.pdf

.. excerpt ..
As the pervasive use of virtual machines moves from the server room to the desktop, their effects on computing will become even more profound.
Virtual machines provide a powerful unifying par-adigm for restructuring desktop management. The provisioning benefits that VMMs bring to the
machine room apply equally to the desktop and help solve the management challenges that large collections of desktop and laptop machines impose.

...
Suppose, for example, that a user's desktop machine is running multiple virtual machines simul-taneously. The user might have a relatively low-security Windows virtual machine for Web browsing, a higher-security virtual machine with a hardened Linux virtual machine for day-to-day work, and a still higher-security virtual machine comprising a special-purpose high-security operating system and a dedicated mail client for sensitive internal mail.

..
Admini-strators can publish virtual machines and control how these virtual
machines can be used. The Collective project explored in depth the idea of bundling applications into virtual appliances. The idea is to provide file
servers, desktop applications, and so on in a form that lets users treat the virtual machines as a stand-alone application. An appliance maintainer handles issues like patch management, thus relieving normal users of the maintenance burden.

Date: 11 Dec, 2006 on 19:31
Terry
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 46
since: 09 Dec, 2004
68. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
eCS-OS/2 continues to be very effective in pre-emptive multi-tasking (vs. co-operative multi-tasking), networking, stability, extensibility, and the quintessential workplace shell.

And, interesting how eCS-OS/2 continues the need to be just a little more more effective in three "Vs" of development - Virtualization, jaVa, and Video.

Date: 11 Dec, 2006 on 21:06
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
69. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
As this is a thread about Scitech selling SNAP, any discussion of virtual machines is in the context of using them to compensate for lack of video drivers.

As the forum and site are about OS/2, the context is computing as preferred by OS/2 users. As it is being posted in December 2006, it is as the technology stands now, in the backdrop of OS/2's history so far.

I say that because it explains the strong opposition to virtual machines here, in the face of it being a generally well-accepted technology.

Video drivers are important to us because the visual desktop environment is the key experience to us that we like and want to perpetuate. Virtualizing the display in particular (as opposed to daemons, data access, and other background tasks) necessarily means a slowdown because the performance is directly linked to applications having native access to the acceleration features of the video hardware. Without that, the user experience is dampened, and there is very little point in running the OS. Virtualization could mean running the WPS desktop inside a window on some other GUI, which also utterly defeats the appeal.

OS/2 was never designed to be a catch-up platform, that looks at what everyone else is doing and tries to do it too. It was from its start an innovative reaction to what was wrong with everything else. OS/2's appeal to everyone involved declined when it became a game of catch-up. The day it becomes nothing more than an imitation of everything else is the day no-one wants to bother with it anymore. So you will have to forgive us for needing something more than "Everyone else is doing it!" to gain acceptance.

What makes OS/2 great is OS/2 itself. Throughout its history, the best performance, stability, and user experience has been achieved when things are done "the OS/2 way."So there has always been a healthy debate about whether the latest trend deserves the effort required, and whether OS/2 benefits, or rather is dilluted or even harmed, by its implementation.

Nevertheless, many of these efforts have been heroicly undertaken and achieved. Projects such as Odin and EMX have greatly enriched and perpetuated OS/2 as a unifying desktop, and at the same time caused what their detractors predicted, a transition and exodus of a huge segment of the OS/2 users most interested in those features, to the respective platforms.

Every platform has its advantages and limitations. They cannot all be everything to everyone.

That being said, most of us prefer OS/2 in all respects except one. That one thing is going to move us to migrate, try to fix it, or complain; or some combination thereof.

Migration hurts OS/2, efforts to fix it help, and complaining often helps find disagreement.

There is a place for virtualization of OS/2, but probably not as a video driver solution. Its overall benefit will be disputed by many. At this stage the job of implementing it belongs to the few who want it badly enough. Same as anything else, like new video drivers.

Date: 11 Dec, 2006 on 21:26
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
70. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

obiwan (11 Dec, 2006 21:26):
As this is a thread about Scitech selling SNAP, any discussion of virtual machines is in the context of using them to compensate for lack of video drivers.

Agreed that is the main context. However the lack of other drivers (esp wireless NICs) is very similar to the lack of video drivers. So since the use of VM technology can help with lack of video drivers and NIC drivers and possibly other drivers, increased investment in VM technology that works with OS/2-eCS can help many OS/2-eCS users.


obiwan (11 Dec, 2006 21:26):
As the forum and site are about OS/2, the context is computing as preferred by OS/2 users. As it is being posted in December 2006, it is as the technology stands now, in the backdrop of OS/2's history so far.

I say that because it explains the strong opposition to virtual machines here, in the face of it being a generally well-accepted technology.


Sorry I still don't understand the strong opposition. Having better VM support does not keep anyone who has drivers from running OS/2-eCS natively.

I am an OS/2-eCS user and so is anyone else running OS/2-eCS as a guest under a VM. Many of us would prefer to run with native drivers but under certain situations it is not possible. So our choice is to run OS/2-eCS under VM/emulation or not run OS/2-eCS at all. I would think having more OS/2-eCS users is better for all OS/2-eCS users.

If most current and long time OS/2-eCS users have the drivers they need or can wait for them that is great. However there are many that don't have the drivers they need. Lack of OS/2-eCS driver is usually the biggest issue for new OS/2-eCS users.

What about the hundreds of millions of people whose hardware is lacking OS/2-eCS drivers. All those machines haver either mswin or Linux drivers available. Every year another 50 million machines are made.without OS/2-eCs drivers.

Last week I had to reload windows on one of my customer's machines. The machine is a Intel dual core with 1GB of memory and 120GB harddrive. There is no OS/2-eCS drivers for the video, NIC and SATA controller. Don't know if OS/2-eCS will recognize and use rthe dual core.

So the choices are
1. run windows on the machine
2. run Linux on the machine
3. run OS/2-eCS as guest on Linux
(OS/2-eCs as guest will probably run better than mswin does natively)

Which choice helps the OS/2-eCS community?

Here is another example from early this year.
A family has one computer but everyone in the family wants to run mswin except for one person that wants to run eComStation.

The choices are
1. everyone run mswin (sorry no eCS, eCS user loses
2. run mswin and have eCS as guest.
(Dual boot is not an option because the mswin users will not wait for boots. Remember it seems like win takes forever to boot.)

Which choice is better for peaceful family life?
Which choice helps the OS/2-eCS community?


obiwan (11 Dec, 2006 21:26):
Video drivers are important to us because the visual desktop environment is the key experience to us that we like and want to perpetuate. Virtualizing the display in particular (as opposed to daemons, data access, and other background tasks) necessarily means a slowdown because the performance is directly linked to applications having native access to the acceleration features of the video hardware.

Details are not always important. What is the bottom line? What is the net performance? We usually don't write programs in assembler any more even though a accounting program written in assembler can be much much faster.

When I put a $2 12 year old 4MBPCI video card in a modern machine where I don't have a OS/2-eCs video driver for the onboard video, OS/2-eCS runs great even though I have 0% utilization of the NEW 10 times faster 64MB AGPx8 video card.

OR I could run OS/2-eCS as virtual machine guest. Yes, it is true the video is slower than if I had a native video driver. I would love to have a native driver but I don't. But the video speed in the OS/2-eCS guest is just as fast as the 12 year old PCI card. Net bottom line is that OS/2-eCS still runs fast.


obiwan (11 Dec, 2006 21:26):
There is a place for virtualization of OS/2, but probably not as a video driver solution.

Why not?

Already today virtualization can many times be as fast as native (12 year old video card).

There is still a lot of work being done in the virtualization field. It is entirely possible that in a few years virtualized video will run at 90% of the speed of MODERN NATIVE video.

Connectix VPC had a special video driver for use in OS/2-eCS guest. Once base OS/2-eCS runs fully in QEMU then maybe some developers can look at optimizing the video.


obiwan (11 Dec, 2006 21:26):
Its overall benefit will be disputed by many. At this stage the job of implementing it belongs to the few who want it badly enough. Same as anything else, like new video drivers.

But there are a lot of OS/2-eCs users that do not know that virtual machine technology can allow them to run OS/2-eCS nicely on today's newest machines.

Most OS/2-eCS have friends that have ms windows machines that can not run OS/2-eCS natively. Would be nice to get some of them as OS/2-eCS users.

QEMU
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

Date: 12 Dec, 2006 on 12:49
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
71. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
Virtualization just got faster. part of QEMU is now in Linux kernel.

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/82344/from/rss09

Date: 12 Dec, 2006 on 17:55
Cris
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 124
since: 20 Nov, 2003
72. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
ecsguy, I'm sorry but this is complete and utter crap.

1st: virtual machines are getting more and more market share because of enterprises, not because of home users. enterprises want to consolidate hardware resources and make good use of all the power today's machines have. But enterprises DON'T have the needs that home users have (e.g. usually no need for fully accelerated 3D graphics). Home users like VMs because they can try and use other OSes within their favorite OS, but if it was only for this kind of usage you wouldn't see the present rate of development on the VM front.

2nd: VMs don't let you use HW for which you have no drivers. Take the problem of video drivers: in a VM you have an emulated video card that is quite generic, and don't support all of the features of the HOST video card. Yes, I can run OS/2 as a guest if I have the driver for the emulated video card, but it won't use the features of the HOST video card. If a user has to choose among using OS/2 as a guest on an underfeatured emulated video card, and running Windows natively with full 3D acceleration and all the bells and whistles, what do you think the user would choose? Do you think that running OS/2 this way (i.e. as a guest with an emulated video card) is really all that different than running OS/2 natively on that machine with the VESA driver?
Another example: multi-cored CPUs. Yes, I can run OS/2 as a guest on a multi-cored CPU, but does it use the full power of the multiple cores? No. It will use *some* of that because the VM is capable of using multi cores for its internal things, but you won't get the features that are associated with OS/2 running in native SMP mode. Again: what would the user choose? An OS natively using the full power of the multiple cores or an OS running in a VM which doesn't see all the cores?

You say that having eCS running in QEMU doesn't require muc work. OK then, if you feel it is worth your time, you're free to pursue your goal. It surely will benefit eCS-OS/2. But not in the way you think.
You say that you don't understand the resistance to the use of VMs. You are misinterpreting: there is no resistance to the use of VMs in general, but there is great resistance to the view that the future of OS/2 lies in being used as a guest OS.
I will be migrating to another OS soon before OS/2 becomes a VM-only OS. Even those who state that they will use eCS-OS/2 as a guest in VM will soon find themselves using the HOST OS more and more, until the point they will not see the need to use the VM at all.

That's not what I want to see for the future of OS/2. No, thanks.

Bye
Cris

Date: 12 Dec, 2006 on 20:48
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
73. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 13 Dec, 2006 10:26 (2 times)

Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
ecsguy, I'm sorry but this is complete and utter crap.

Interesting, all I am doing is describing what myself and others have actually done in the past and how it could be used to solve a new problem (Scitech SNAP) and other recurring problems.


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
1st: virtual machines are getting more and more market share because of enterprises, not because of home users. enterprises want to consolidate hardware resources and make good use of all the power today's machines have. But enterprises DON'T have the needs that home users have (e.g. usually no need for fully accelerated 3D graphics).
Home users like VMs because they can try and use other OSes within their favorite OS, but if it was only for this kind of usage you wouldn't see the present rate of development on the VM front.

There are many home users using VM everyday to do something that thier primary OS does not do or because there are multiple people in the family with different needs or desires.

run OS/2-eCS
run ms office
run new flash version
run new acrobat version
run some other win app
....


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
2nd: VMs don't let you use HW for which you have no drivers.

Again that is not a true statement and I have already corrected it several times. This ability is a one of the main features of virtual macines.

The user could use a VM to run OS/2-eCS and use the new/improved part. Maybe the user can not use all the new/improved features. But at least the user can use the device to some degree. In most cases it is enough. All the user wanted were the devices basic standard features to work and is not interested in the optional new/improved/updated features.

In these cases the OS/2-eCS users DOES NOT NEED ANY NEW DRIVER IN THE GUEST.

This usually works for
video
wired NICs
wireless NICs
SATA disk controller
sound cards


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
Take the problem of video drivers: in a VM you have an emulated video card that is quite generic, and don't support all of the features of the HOST video card. Yes, I can run OS/2 as a guest if I have the driver for the emulated video card,

Not having a driver for the emulated video card in the guest has never been a problem. The first production VM that supported OS/2-eCS was Connectix Virtual PC that shipped over 5 years ago (Oct 2001). OS/2-eCs had a driver then and OS/2-eCS has never lacked a driver for any of the other emulated video cards as far as I know.


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
but it won't use the features of the HOST video card. If a user has to choose among using OS/2 as a guest on an underfeatured emulated video card, and running Windows natively with full 3D acceleration and all the bells and whistles, what do you think the user would choose?

From the dozens of OS/2-eCS home computer installs that I have seen and worked on no one had to make a choice that caused them to lose a feature they wanted.

The emulated video is a S3 Trio. That emulated card supported all of the important features that most users rely on today even with the latest "super turbo gazillion megabyte AGP8/PCI16-express" whatever video cards that are in today's bleeding edge machines.

Connectix VPC video (Oct 2001) - S3 Trio 32/64 PCI with 8MB VRAM

What most users seem to find are "must haves"
1. is it fast enough to keep up with their movements
2. resolution (1280x1024)
3. number of colors (64K)
4. refresh (76Hz)
5. work with monitor
6. no corruption
7. no lockups
8. no traps

Options that some user have used
zoom and pan - supported by S3 Trio
TV out - is driver issue that does not matter to host or guests
DVI - is driver issue that does not matter to host or guests

Hardly anybody uses this one
multi head - not supported by emulated driver

The only feature the S3 Trio does not support is dual head. I can count on one finger the number of users I have worked with that used dual head.

The problem with running natively is when no native video driver exists or it does not work properly. In that case the users does not have the "must haves".

In many cases a VM DOES provide a immediate solution to these VIDEO problems.


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
Do you think that running OS/2 this way (i.e. as a guest with an emulated video card) is really all that different than running OS/2 natively on that machine with the VESA driver?

Yes, running emulated can be different and better than running a native driver in VESA mode becuase VESA mode does not work properly with all adapter/monitor combinations. The only video mode that almost always works is 8 color VGA (640x480).


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
Another example: multi-cored CPUs. Yes, I can run OS/2 as a guest on a multi-cored CPU, but does it use the full power of the multiple cores? No. It will use *some* of that because the VM is capable of using multi cores for its internal things, but you won't get the features that are associated with OS/2 running in native SMP mode.

If OS/2-eCs, when run natively does not recognize or use the dual core then for sure half the processing power is sitting idle. That has been true for the over two years that dual core has been out.

With a VM the OS/2-eCS could have been using both cores from since dual cores became commonly available (over two years ago).


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
Again: what would the user choose? An OS natively using the full power of the multiple cores or an OS running in a VM which doesn't see all the cores?

I have not disagreed with that. If OS/2-eCS natively recognizes the dual cores it is probably the best solution. But for over two years there was NO native support.

Again there have been and still are many OS/2-eCS users with wireless cards that were/are unused because they lack native drivers. With VM some of those users are able to use the hardware they paid for.


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
You say that having eCS running in QEMU doesn't require much work. OK then, if you feel it is worth your time, you're free to pursue your goal.

I am doing what I can. Since I currently do not have the particular type of programming skills needed I have to assist the community in other ways.


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
It surely will benefit eCS-OS/2. But not in the way you think.
You say that you don't understand the resistance to the use of VMs. You are misinterpreting: there is no resistance to the use of VMs in general, but there is great resistance to the view that the future of OS/2 lies in being used as a guest OS.

This not not only the future of OS/2-eCS. It is the future of most desktop OSes. Just like the first OS/2 with WPS (OS/2.2.0) on 3.5 diskettes ran on a Intel 386 with 4MB, the software internals and hardware of tomorrows OS/2-eCS might also be much different.

Most desktop processors that Intel and AMD will ship in 2007 and beyond will have new cpu instructions specifically to help support virtualization on desktop systems (not servers). These processors are shipping today!

-------------------------------

http://www.cgs4u.com/fall_technology_preview.aspx

Fall 2006 Technology Preview

AMD's Athlon64 AM2
... excerpt..
Virtualization on desktop computers allows a single PC to act like multiple virtual machines. AMD Virtualization can enable client computers to seamlessly support multiple operating environments.

--------------------------------

more example of virtualization used on home PCs

http://technews.download3000.com/Columnists/5232/Security-Adviser-Virtual-concerns.html

December 1, 2006, 6:00 am

..... excerpt..
As a long-time traveling presenter and lab teacher, I used to have to fly with two or three PCs. Now, I carry my entire Windows forest or Linux realm on a laptop. I can start up four or five servers in about two minutes. It's like ordering lunch: Two or three Windows servers, a few Linux servers, and a Solaris server to go, please.

Classroom shutdown is now a single power down. No cords to unplug. No server hardware to pack. Getting ready for the next class is a snap: revert and I?m ready to go. Today's young computer teachers have no idea how hard it used to be.

But what's coming on the virtual forefront is even more revolutionary. I know of one company that's going to allow its employees to work from home using virtual images. The company will send the entire corporate image to the employee over a VPN connection, or at worst, on a single DVD.

This means the employee can run their own home computer in an insecure state, and the company doesn?t worry about it because the work image is locked down and reverted at each new restart. Documents and company databases are stored on a centralized storage server. The company?s firewall only allows one map drive connection into their physical environment; all other inbound ports are closed. That's a pretty tight firewall.

--------------------------------

http://oncomputerstips.blogspot.com/2006/03/jack-eats-humble-pie-re-virtualization.html

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Jack Eats Humble Pie re; Virtualization on Desktop

... excerpt ..
It hasn't been all that long since I poured verbal cold water on the idea of virtualization on the desktop becoming common. I've been studying virtualization both as a technology and as a market force now for several weeks and I find I must admit I was wrong and just how wrong I was.
.....
Basically, it's a one gigabyte flash memory stick with a twist; You can take enough of your home Windows desktop, including settings, software and data, with you to work in your chosen environment and with your choice of tools on any other Windows PC. And when you leave that PC, none of your data or settings stay behind.
...
Imagine that when you buy or build a PC, there is no operating system as we know it installed. Instead, there will be a virtual machine or "hypervisor", which is the current buzz-word for the host OS in a virtualization scheme. And we can carry a device very much like the Verbatim one, only larger, which contains our chosen operating environment, data and whatever software we choose, making it possible to work on our own PC without our own PC! Plug in your USB device, give it a minute (probably a lot less than a minute) to boot up and you're ready to go. Anything too large to be carried with you on the device would be available over the Internet using a built-in VPN setup to access your home machine.
....
If the hypervisor is well implemented, any user could use literally any work environment they chose on any PC. Like Linux? How about the Mac OS X? You could run them all on the same hardware. No problem at all.

---------------------------------

http://www.extremenano.com/print_article/Virtualization+Headed+Toward+Client+Space/175088.aspx

Virtualization Headed Toward Client Space
By Jeffrey Burt
4/5/2006 12:26:00 PM
BOSTON-The paths for both Linux and virtualization, which have gained ground in the data center, are headed directly toward the client space, according to Dell's top technology executive.

In his keynote here at the LinuxWorld Conference & Expo Wednesday morning, Dell Chief Technology Officer Kevin Kettler said that, up to this point, most of the development of virtualization technology has centered on the needs of server users.

"We at Dell think that is about to change," Kettler said. "What we see is an opportunity to really drive virtualization, and the capabilities of Linux as well, into the client."

Virtualization enables users to run multiple operating systems and applications on a single physical machine through the use of virtual machines. The same convergence of developments-from multicore processors to hardware-based virtualization from chip makers Advanced Micro Devices and Intel to declining implementation costs-that are fueling the drive of virtualization in the data center will do the same in the client space, Kettler said.

Virtualization will enable PC users to create multiple dedicated environments on a single machine that separate such aspects as Web browsing, gaming and media centers from one another, Kettler said. Keeping such environments isolated will protect them from one another-if one is infected by a virus, it can easily be removed without harming any of the other environments.

Virtualization also allows a user to run multiple operating systems-from Linux to Microsoft Windows-on a single machine, freeing the operating system from the hardware.

---------------------------------


Cris (12 Dec, 2006 20:4:
I will be migrating to another OS soon before OS/2 becomes a VM-only OS.

That is of course your choice

There might be other OS/2-eCS that decide that what is in the blackbox engine is not important as long as it is reliable and responsive. They want to interact and interface with OS/2-eCS which is what it will still be.

QEMU
http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

Date: 13 Dec, 2006 on 09:31
Dobber
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 7
since: 02 Aug, 2005
74. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
"The only feature the S3 Trio does not support is dual head. I can count on one finger the number of users I have worked with that used dual head"

Hmmm... I guess all these graphics card makers have added multi head cards to their product lines for that one user? Get real. In the real world, it is common to deploy multi head systems to users. CAD, programming, call centers, operation centers... the list goes on. As people multitask more and more on their desktops, screen real estate becomes VERY valuable.

Date: 13 Dec, 2006 on 13:37
Sebadoh
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this memberhttp://www.newterrasoftware.com
posts: 198
since: 10 Apr, 2001
75. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 13 Dec, 2006 19:26 (1 times)
I guess I must be the one finger you are talking about, I have OS/2 running on an Ati 9250 (might actually be newer I have too many ati cards to remember which is in which pc) running 2 20in lcd's being run at 1600x1200. Tell me an emulator that is going to support that =) And most of the things you say OS/2 lacks while you might be correct about Warp4 have been added YEARS ago. And I don't put 4 year old video cards in my OS/2 machines.. I put current products which are currently being sold. They may not be the MOST recent.. but they are current.. No matter how this is cut we really need to hope someone makes a deal with scitech to continue the OS/2 version or that the company who purchases the product allows SSI to maintain the OS/2 version.

And once again.. hardware virtualization and software virtualization are two DIFFERENT things.. Amd's going the IBM approach of hardware virtualization, a software emulator which is loaded in another OS and hosts yet another OS is just a kludge. It uses too much memory, will always be slower then direct hardware access and will always have significant limitations. Hardware virtualization allows 2 or more OS to run on the same hardware w/o emulation.

Date: 13 Dec, 2006 on 19:23
ecsguy
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 40
since: 24 Mar, 2004
76. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
last updated at 14 Dec, 2006 14:29 (1 times)
It is important to remember that what a technology is capable of is different from what a business will decide to provide.

In the article below Parallels mentions that there will be significant video performance improvements soon in the ms win guest. Corp/enterprise customers must be asking for those 3D gaming video features since everybody knows "Home" users hardly ever use virtual machines.

Also there are other people that noticed that even today VM performance can be competitive with "real" hardware.
Parallels- Rudolph: Parallels Desktop for Mac works on Intel-Macs only and offers performance that rivals - and sometimes exceeds - that found on a "real PC".

I personanlly will not hold my breath waiting for these video enhancements to show up in the Parallels VM OS/2 guest.

If business decisions are different than what the OS/2-eCS community wants, there is an alternative. We can start now or keep waiting while falling further behind the other OSes.
QEMU http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=486

Parallels to offer virtual OpenGL and DirectX in 2007

Thursday, December 14, 2006

... excerpt ..
Parallels- Rudolph: ...
One of the features missing in Parallels I believe is 3D gaming support for games such as Battlefield 1942, Unreal Tournament, etc.

Inside Mac Games: Do you plan to implement this key feature in the future?

Parallels- Rudolph: This is something that we're already working on. The goal is to have OpenGL and DirectX support in our next version, which should be in beta around the turn of the year...

Date: 14 Dec, 2006 on 13:57
Terry
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 46
since: 09 Dec, 2004
77. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message
...Just ran across these virtualization articles with a specific Linux perspective that may assist some of our eCS-OS/2 virtualization & video porting perspectives. The third article dwells upon QEMU:

December 5, 2006 - The Penguin in the Sandbox (Part 1)...
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netos/article.php/3647401

"The basic concept in all virtualization technologies is sandboxing."

December 12, 2006 - The Penguin in the Sandbox (Part 2)...
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netos/article.php/3648796

"QEMU and Bochs are emulators that replicate hardware functions in software, even hardware that is not physically present. So you can run unmodified guest operating systems in all manner of virtual hardware configurations. QEMU is GPL except for the QEMU Accelerator Module, which is a proprietary product. Bochs is LGPL."

January 24, 2006 - QEMU: Maybe a VMWare Killer, Maybe Not...
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netos/article.php/3579721

Note (2) QEMU modes: Full system emulation, or user mode emulation.

Also - "Which is brings us to the first QEMU gotcha: QEMU is GPL, but kqemu is closed-source and proprietary. The terms of use are liberal, but because of the license you won't see it in any Linux distributions; you have to install it from sources, then load a kernel module. Whee."

QUESTION #1: What do the (2) QEMU licensing differences, and (2) mode development choices mean for eCS-OS/2 porting?

QUESTION #2: How would this tie into eCS-OS/2 video emulation?

Date: 14 Dec, 2006 on 18:30
oli
Normal member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 54
since: 24 Jul, 2003
78. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

ecsguy (11 Dec, 2006 03:22):
Microsoft VPC
1. does not support Linux host (ms win2k/XPpro hosts only)
2. no longer supports OS/2 host
3. dropped VNC server (so now OS/2 clients can not connect)


That was not the point, you where talking about moving from OS/2 to another environment that virtualised a PC so you could run eCS on it, if that was the case Windows with VPC is a that actually supports OS/2, Microsoft actually turned up for Warpstock 2006 to show it running OS/2, QEMU does not run OS/2 so there is nothing to move to, period.




Parallels
1. Dropped OS/2 host
2. after several years still does not have server
Connectix VPC first had VNC server back in v4.x (2001?) VNC is open source. Been asking Parallels for over three years for this simiple but essential feature. Most every competitor has some type of simiple server feature (MS VPC, VMWARE, win4Lin, QENU).
3. Competing against VMWare and Microsoft which are giving away similar products for free. Both are also giving away server products for free too.
Where is server product Parallels repeated promised?
4. How long can Parallels compete against free desktop and server products from MS, VMWare and also open source (QEMU, XEN)?


Again this has nothing to do with your original argument, fact is Parallels runs os/2 like a dream, however running it nativly is still a better option


XEN (another open source program)
Can now run ms winXP (using latest Intel and AMD cpus)


XEN is a hypervisor, also referred to as a virtual machine monitor a totally different technology to QEMU, VPC et al. It should be noted that it also does not support os/2 although that is a moot point since XEN and hypervisors is not what was discussed


QEMU
1. supported on Linux, win, BSDs, MacOSX, Solaris
If enough OS/2-eCS developers are interested then OS/2-eCS could be supported in the future (don't have to beg any company)
2. SMP support on x86 (up to 255 CPUs !)
3. includes VNC server
4. Runs Warp4. Almost runs eComStation
If enough OS/2-eCS users show interest then I am sure the issues
will be looked at and fixed.


Yeh, "runs Warp4" as long as you do not do anything in there in which case it bombs, and so does the installer in most cases giving you a somewhat limited options system as to install it, QEMU does not reliably run any version of os/2 and in fact most versions will not run at all, you where advocating moving to a linux based system running QEMU as an alternative to running it on native hardware, even though even you admit that this is not possible at this moment in time. The availability of VNC or compatible technologies is a moot point since presumably if the people moving their personal system to another OS would primarily be interested in being able to run it on their own system.
Date: 14 Dec, 2006 on 19:30
oli
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 54
since: 24 Jul, 2003
79. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

ecsguy (11 Dec, 2006 10:0:
eComStation is one of the only OSes without a fully working open source virtual machine. Besides QEMU, the XEN server virtual machine uses some QEMU code for the guests. If QEMU can run OS/2-eCS then we might also be able to get OS/2-eCS to run as a guest on XEN.

XEN is not a virtual machine, see above post

This is getting to be one of the most clueless technical discussion I have partaken in since I ran a Linux school back in the 90's, at the least back then the average age of the students was 16, so allowances could be made.....

Date: 14 Dec, 2006 on 19:37
obiwan
Premium member
in user

View this member's profileSearch all posts from this memberSend an email to this member
posts: 164
since: 30 Aug, 2006
80. Re:Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Reply to this topic with quote Modify your message

Terry (14 Dec, 2006 18:30):
January 24, 2006 - QEMU: Maybe a VMWare Killer, Maybe Not...
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netos/article.php/3579721

Note (2) QEMU modes: Full system emulation, or user mode emulation.

Also - "Which is brings us to the first QEMU gotcha: QEMU is GPL, but kqemu is closed-source and proprietary. The terms of use are liberal, but because of the license you won't see it in any Linux distributions; you have to install it from sources, then load a kernel module. Whee."

QUESTION #1: What do the (2) QEMU licensing differences, and (2) mode development choices mean for eCS-OS/2 porting?

QUESTION #2: How would this tie into eCS-OS/2 video emulation?


While parts of this article may reveal some things I did not know about QEMU, the author is mincing terminology in a way that shows she is somewhat confused, and she also makes false statements like QEMU has been ported to OS/2. So I would prefer not to waste time with a defective article and refer directly to the QEMU documentation. Once some clear facts are found there, we can discuss the implications for eCS-OS/2 and video emulation.

Date: 14 Dec, 2006 on 19:43
Scitech, SNAP and OS/2...
Post a new topic Reply to this Topic Printable Version of this Topic Forward this Topic to your Friend Topic Commands (for administrator or moderators only)
All times are CET+1. < Prev. | P. 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next >
Go to:
 

Powered by UltraBoard 2000 Standard Edition,
Copyright © UltraScripts.com, Inc. 1999-2000.
Home | Gallery | Forums | Services | Webmail | Archive | Links | Contact Us | About Us
OS2 World.Com 2000-2004