X86-64 Simulator - now available (Linux only)

Well, as the title says - the AMD X86-64 simulator is shipping (for Linux only - for now). You can go here and read the details. It is called SimNow!. Unfortunately, the kernel 64 bit port is not done yet, but hey, you got a nice simulated machine to play with! It's available as RPM for RedHat 6.2 and SuSE 6.4. NOTE: - you'll need PLENTY of RAM to operate this simulator! (384MB RAM is minimum) and disk space - 4 GB! So think before you download this beast!

Comments

Re:Interesting approach.

[OlympicSponsor]

"Just because they don't port to every architecture under the sun, doesn't mean that MS can't do it."

Take it from someone who knows: If you haven't actually done the port, you haven't caught all the issues.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.

Wow.

[Black Parrot]

If only they had a 32-bit x86 simulator that ran on 64-bit machines, Micorsoft could finally port Windows to 64-bit platforms!

--

Emulating

[Ashran]

I gotta try this one out.
run a x86-64 emu, install linux on it
run VMWare, install windows
and start a gameboy emulator ;)
this way i get the exact gameboy speed =)

Maxis?

[Tirisfal]

SimNow!.... sounds like something else by Maxis

Re:Interesting approach.

[DickBreath]

Isn't Win NT 5 (ooops, I mean Win 2000) architecture neutral like Linux? Just because they don't port to every architecture under the sun, doesn't mean that MS can't do it.

What I think this means is that the x86-64 architecture could extend the life of the Win 9X lineage (Win 95, Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win ME). This would enable people who aren't successfully coerced by MS's attempts to migrate to Win 2000 to continue paying for upgrades to the Win 9X codebase -- but recompiled for better hardware. The IA-64 couldn't support the descendants of Win 9x. I suppose this means that x86-64 could breathe another hundred years of life into the Win 9x codebase.

For Win 2000, I think MS could support IA-64 as well as x86-64.

If MS were to throw a lot of support behind x86-64 and little support behind IA-64, then it would seem to be in Intel's best interest to really get behind Linux in order for there to be some universe of software that they can sell IA-64 hardware into.

Re:Speed is not the primary goal of emulation

[technos]

If you're dealing with small virtual drive images (which I imagine you are, having stored them on CD) you can do exactly the same Save..Muck..Restore.. process using Linux on the native hardware and forgetting the virtual machine..

Create a 640 meg HD partition as /dev/hda1.
Install Linux on hda2+.
Install Windows9x on hda1, reboot Linux using a boot disk, and restore LILO.
dd if=/dev/hda1 of=/diskimages/windows98SE.image bs=1M count=640.
Wipe hda1 with random data or zero fill it before installing the next OS.
To reinstall a image, simply boot Linux, dd if=/diskimages/windows98SE.image of=/dev/hda1 bs=1M count=640.

Presto! Native speed, native hardware, and you can use all of the great Unixy tools on the images to do snapshot diffs, binary diffs, etc..

pissing in the cheerios

[gtx]

while this is a neat idea and all, does this really have any true value of application? I guess what I'm asking is, what are most people going to get out of this, besides a huge kernel and a sudden hunger for RAM? Is this supposed to be for people that want to code for X86-64 to get a head start? If so, is it really wise to base coding for a 64 bit chip on what happens in a 64 bit simulator on a 32 bit processor?

Re:pissing in the cheerios

[DFDumont]

Yes, most emulators are used to help the developers work with the target system in a controlled, software-only environment. Nearly all, read anyone with a brain, embedded systems are developed this way, especially since the hardware used is typically one-shot ASIC derived.

As far as is it valid, that depends on how well the simulator works. There's no fundamental reason it could not be absolutely, 100% correct; just slower.

Re:To be 3l33t try this

[Mindwarp]

Most of the people cannot even try it! it requires 384MB RAM (minimum!), 4GB Disk space and a good 700+Mhz Processor

Wow, what a coincidence! The exact same minimum requirements as Windows ME!

--

Speed is not the primary goal of emulation

[DickBreath]

I use emulators for certian kinds of work, and believe me, speed is about the furthest thing from my mind.

The easiest to understand example is Virtual PC for Power Macintosh. It emulates the hardware of a PC. That is, the microprocessor, an emulated S3 Trio 64 video card, an emulated DEC 21041 ethernet controller on IRQ 11, etc. This is all emulated. Macintosh has no idea of what an IRQ is. It's all just a software simulation. Like simulating the Enterprise Bridge on the holodeck of a Romulan ship.

Execution speed is not great. But that is not my primary interest. The things you can do with, or to, an emulated system are amazing. Since the entire hard disk of the emulated PC is just a file on the Macintosh, I can make a before and after snapshot of the entire hard drive (including unused sectors) from before and after the installation of some program. Since the Mac is capable of mounting the file as a virtual drive (sorta loopback filesystem) I can then analyze exactly what files were altered on the hard drive. I can make before and after registry dumps. I keep CD-ROM's with pre-burned images of virgin installs of all my un-favorite OS's, such as Win 95, Win 95 SP1, Win 95 OSR2, Win 98, Win 98 SE, Win NT 4, etc., etc., etc. I can restore a virgin install of a Virtual PC hard drive from a CD-ROM in under 4 minutes. I can tinker with the DLL's and registry with impunity. After all, I'm not screwing up a real machine that will take hours to reinstall -- it's just a simulation that can be reset back to virgin status in under 4 minutes.

Believe me, although it is impractical speed wise, I dearly wish Linux had a VMWare like product that attempted to EMULATE the microprocessor rather than attempting to run it in native mode. Apart from speed, there are cool things you can do with an emulated system, even if it is slow.

Interesting approach.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

AMD's choice to add 64-bit instructions to the existing 32-bit set opens up some possibilities. While we in the Linux universe don't particularly consider an architecture jump to be something radical (since we have a hardware-agnostic compiler and kernel, as well as source code to most of the important apps), consider what this could mean to Microsoft. All that legacy 32-bit code, all that downloadable Active-X content that is so architecture dependent ... it'll probably run on AMD's x86-64 architecture without having to jump the chip into an emulation mode. They can just retarget their compiler for x86-64, do a build of the existing system, and optimize in a few places. All existing apps run natively because the 32-bit instructions aren't running emulated.

Put it all together and you've got a good reason for Microsoft to suddenly declare that IA-64 is a train wreck waiting to happen, and x86-64 is going to be the 64-bit architecture supported by Windows. AMD instantly becomes the king of the CPU market while Intel spends another five years retooling.
--