|
switchway (July 19, 2008 at 4:55 pm)
no
one
cares
Quizerzink (July 7, 2008 at 1:30 pm)
what a nerd...
7h3ki113r666 (April 2, 2008 at 6:46 am)
uploaded on my birthday that must be why i love this program
malcr001 (March 26, 2008 at 6:40 pm)
He doesn't really emphasise what it can do. I mean common its literally breaking down the walls of operating systems we've all been familiar with. It's amazing! I especially like the Unity feature.
bgertzfield (December 28, 2007 at 12:01 am)
It's likely that the development team that created the Java-based software you used went to great pains to make it work across multiple versions of the JRE.
Because the IA-32 and IA-64 ISAs make backwards-compatibility a priority, software developers don't have to think about whether their product will run on the latest Intel Core Duo or AMD processor. This has made x86 succeed as an application layer, both virtual and physical.
koshua (December 27, 2007 at 11:07 pm)
@bgetzfield: your complications don't rate a mention when it comes to the impact of Java in the data center. Example: I've just managed a project implementing a Java-based OSS for a multinational service provider. Listed as working with "any compliant J2EE container" and of the four trialled, they were right, with 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and even JRockit. The platform choice is now one of JVM+AppServer; before it was of server+OS. That's the commercial reality today, whatever your portability issues.
bgertzfield (December 27, 2007 at 10:04 pm)
I totally disagree that Java's succeeded at virtualizing the application layer. Sun has shown repeatedly that they have no interest in maintaining backwards-compatibility between Java versions, and this is crucial to making any virtualization engine succeed.
I simply can't take a Java program I wrote for Java 1.3 and have it work reliably under a later JRE. Sun makes too many changes under the hood, and does too little regression testing, for this to work correctly.
karrarhm (December 26, 2007 at 12:55 am)
Doesn't that make the MAC slower than usual ????????
cstubing (December 24, 2007 at 3:14 pm)
Yeah, ESX Server sounds great -- I'm a huge fan!
HolidayInGuantanamo (December 21, 2007 at 10:50 pm)
VMWare ESX Server also does not need a host OS. It's used in production situations, and obviously improves performance as it means one less layer to deal with before getting to the machine. It does the job of memory management, etc that the real OS does. I've been told it's actually making use of a modified version of Linux. |
