yeah, i know people who coerce their S4's to insane speeds after rechipping them.
personally, the other day it occurred to me that when i peddle my bike, if i exert tangential force on the peddles when the crank is vertical, i get my own speed boost. who needs a car?
the autobahn does have a speed limit of 250 km/h. it is enforced in an odd way though: car manufacturers must speed limit their cars to 250 km/h.
i also notice that german drivers are far more skilled than US drivers. i've been surprised many a time to find drivers in germany (contrary to my low expectations) observant, forward thinking, and skillfully agressive, yet they know when to be careful (pedestrians and bicyclists are treated like gods). and i've noticed a higher percentage of people brake before turns, and accelerate through turns, then i've ever seen in the US. i'm sure many an accident on 17 crossing to Santa Cruz could be avoided if people actually slowed before entering the turns in rainy weather, rather than nailing the brakes at the apex.
Contrary to rumor, the machine is constructed from 640 nodes, with 8 vector processors per node, and 16GB RAM per node. That totals 5120 processors and 10TB memory.
See http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/outline/outlin e02.html
Also of note: peak performance per processor: 8 GFLOPS total peak performance: 40 TFLOPS
XP's raw socket support won't make things any worse.
If code red wanted raw socket support, it could have
included winpcap & a packet driver in the payload,
and achieved raw socket capabilities. The worries
about XP's raw socket support are rubbish. I daily
criticize micros~1 for waiting so long to add raw
socket support. It has so many uses.
The ia32 architecture doesn't have a 16 irq limit. That is a platform limit. And mostly visible to ISA peripherals. Go to Intel's web site, download the PDF's which describe the system architecture, and learn how the hardware interrupts map to the interrupt vector table.
the site is just crawling with little pieces of information that scream hoax. they refer to windows as user friendly. they want to use the FAT file system because it is more intuitive! they act as if their open windows will be binary compatible with MS windows programs. i don't think so. and they seem to gloss over the fact that windows is a moving target. are they going to emulate the win32 api, win 98, win NT, win 2000, win millenium, or windows fucking redesign 1000? i'm surprised at the number of positive posts on slashdot supporting an open windows project. windows is the biggest fuck-up of a software project in human history. let it die. no, help it die.
Come on, you can't create three identical companies based around the same product, expecting them to compete. A company's competitiveness is also a function of the people developing the product. Would you expect the court to divide Cutler among the three competing subcompanies? Or to split his team? A court has no right to split teams apart. Those people chose to work together. They could just quit and regroup at one company anyway. And the subcompany with Cutler and his team will become the authorative OS company. The other companies would have to play catch-up learning about the internals of the code, and figuring out where to develop further. It would not work.
the law is 'just words'. antitrust doesn't make sense. it took a judge to interpret the law before anyone could definitively say that microsoft violated it. antitrust law is too vague for anyone to know whether they are breaking the law. the law is supposed to be black and white. before a theif steals, he knows that he is breaking the law.
the judge can't even say that any specific action of microsoft's was wrong. he has to consider the sum of the actions which put micros~1 into a monopoly position. the monopoly position is the defining characteristic. without the monopoly power, micros~1's actions would not have been found wrong!!
antitrust is a bad thing. it distorts the concept of justice.
And you know what? Taxes are higher here in California than in the UK... but I've lost my freedom to get free medical care when I'm sick.
You mean that doctors in the US have the freedom to charge for their services? Remember that medical care is a business, just like computer programming. You can't claim society is free if your need imposes an obligation on someone else to cover your medical expenses. The person paying for the expenses loses their freedom.
California is a grossly repressive state. And what makes it sick is that the state population accepts the status quo, or tries to remove even more freedoms.
But I wouldn't jump in joy over Europe's supposed freedoms. Try to start a business in Europe. You need permits, which sometimes require 50+ years (like selling alcohol), and then you have to submit to arbitrary employee "protection" laws, which starve your business of money and man power (such as limits on the number of hours permitted to work in a day/week).
Can you provide references? I am very curious about this matter. I have a friend that claims she can argue for the existence of god through the law of identity. We are still researching our sides, and so I haven't been exposed to her "evidence". I would like to know what to expect though.
Dictionaries are incomplete when considering the implications of a concept. For example, your definition of censorship ignores the fact that silence is a form a expression. Thus a governmental demand that one speaks against one's will is censorship. When someone is forced to rate and categorize the ideas which flow from their mind, they are forced to express themselves in a way which was not ever intended. The content of the original message is the whole point of the expression! Reducing it to a rating is really disgraceful. And it is censorship, because it forces one to say something against their will.
i see so many problems with the proposed idea to charge rent for software, that i have no worry about its failure. but there may be a solution with a complete model change.
1. infrequently used programs: i install a word processor and spreadsheet for once a year usage: when a friend needs something typed, or when i calculate my Foolish 4 portfolio. essentially they serve as security to handle any emergency situations where i really need those apps. and so i use the free StarOffice. any type of rental plan would have to charge per use to be fair. but pschologically, a per usage charge would feel horrible, especially if you frequently use the program. similar to the effect of high gas prices on driving. not to mention that it is hard to estimate usage of software.
2. frequently used programs: the operating system, web browser, mp3 player, email client, compression program. most of our frequently used apps use open standards, permitting easy entry into the market. it would be hard to charge for usage of those apps, especially with the poor quality that permeates the commercial software industry. too many free clients would pop-up if someone tried to charge rent. and imagine all the apps competing for rights to the file extension. the war would make the Netscape/IExplorer battle look friendly, because now money is involved. companies would actually have an incentive to modify the registry, install bad dll's, and such not to render your computer unusable for the competitor's software. and i can see a company like Microsoft charging a one-time fee for the first usage of your software. so you install IExplorer, and it installs a bunch of secondary programs behind your back, like an mp3 player. the next time you play an mp3, rather than loading Winamp, the file extension invokes MS's player and hammers you with the one-time low installation fee of only $25.
3. a popular argument for software rental is that the rental includes free upgrades. but that argument only works for buggy software, vaporware, and the US market where materialism demands that you have the latest and greatest. after Windows removed the printer drivers from the word processor, Word Perfect saw that it had no reason for upgrades to its word processor. a high quality app will serve its purpose for many years. how many times have you upgraded vi? before Linux, i always used Qedit, and never upgraded. xterm upgrades? maybe an occasional security patch.
how it could work: applications are offered for free, but they display advertising on the screen, similar to this very webpage, requiring a live I-net connection. and to increase revenue, charge an install fee. otherwise i don't see it generating more revenue than software sales.
j
sorry for double submissions, i received an error while submitting
I really don't understand the pervasiveness of television throughout society. How is it that so many people can waste time watching low quality entertainment? And why is it that passive entertainment is so popular?
Re:Static Pages on an Intranet?
on
NOS Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
A dynamic web benchmark: take a snapshot of the Slashdot databases and scripts, hook them up to one's test platform, and then send in client requests with distributions that match a typical day on Slashdot.
another reason to create a new language: efficient execution of the script. the game should execute smoothly and in real time. the language subsystem should require little of the cpu, and more importantly should have a small memory footprint and minor cache effects. which probably explains all of their compromises. lack of local variables: only one hash table is necessary for lookups. integers don't require forward declarations, but the other types do: cuts down on ambiguity (but why not also require declaration of ints?). no functions: one less language construct to handle.
many past and current languages were designed without regard to implementation. this language could very well be the opposite: concern more for implementation rather than feature bloat and syntax purity.
A few reasons to write one's own language: 1. domain specific languages can be very expressive 2. implementing a new scripting language, and learning a new language, is lightweight to many of us. it requires no effort. 3. existing languages probably have licensing restrictions. 4. not-invented-here
The note from Linus at the head of the license distributed with Linux states that user level programs are exempt from the GPL in the course of their interaction with the kernel through the standard system call interface. Thus they do not fall under the heading of "derived work".
But kernel drivers do not use the system call interface. They operate directly on kernel internals. Why are they not derived works, as claimed by other posters? Did Linus exempt them? I don't see an exemption in the license.
The GPL claims that derived work essentially must fall under its umbrella. The UDI API implementation will have an incenstuous relationship with the kernel, and couldn't be considered anything but derived. The UDI drivers distributed by device manufacturers will then interface with the exposed UDI interface. Does the GPL consider the UDI drivers, which may have been developed on a different implementation of UDI, to be derived works because they interface with the Linux kernel? Should this be another case of fair use?
UDI should be a secondary device interface, if added to the kernel. The Linux kernel device interface is the right way. Not from a religous standpoint, but because it has evolved through the hands of many competent contributers that wanted to design the ultimate solution; one that satisfied the requirements of speed, stability, simplicity, extendibility, etc. In other words, to maintain the integrity of the kernel. The UDI interface on top of Linux is a dilution. A perversion of something that is better.
I think UDI should be prohibited from the official kernel if UDI drivers can be distributed in binary form. Linux is synonymous with stability and robustness. In part because it benefits from peer review. Binary modules are unknowns, with access to enough of the kernel to debilitate it! We should apply a general rule: anything which runs within the kernel's address space should be open source. Open source device drivers are worth the fight, especially so that they can be changed to conform to the Linux device driver interface.
And if the open source community benefits from Microsoft source, then it becomes the theft source community.
Linux already kicks ass. It will see no improvement by feeding off Window's carcass (if the gov causes Microsoft's death, then the code will be a carcass). Such feeding would only poison.
the checksum algorithms which identify a CD do not ensure a one-to-one mapping between checksum and CD. they are one-way calculations. this presents a difficulty for exporting the data from the old CDDB database to an alternative database that implements a different checksum algorithm (such as that proposed by the cdindex project). the two algorithms will desire different data from the CDs, which protects the cddb database from an outright conversion.
in other words, you need to stick a CD in the drive, calculate the cddb checksum, download the cddb info, calculate the cdindex checksum, and then upload the cdindex info.
but i don't know the cddb algorithm. maybe one is a subset of the other.
Imagine this scenario: you run a Win32 console app from the telnet session, expecting it to never interact with the GUI. The app is stored on a remote file server, accessed via a drive mapping. NT attempts to demand load executable pages from the binary, but encounters network congestion, and times-out on the packet. Poof, NT kills your console app, and displays a dialog message box. Where does that dialog appear??? On the frigging graphical console. Can you resume use of your telnet session? Most likely not. Gotta wait for someone at the graphical console to hit the 'ok' button on the dialog.
But NT does offer mechanisms for simultaneous graphical desktops on the same machine. Just use CreateDesktop(), and SwitchDesktop(). They can be created under the auspices of other users, using NT's impersonation routines. But you then encounter other multiuser limitations of NT, such as the redirector! Once the redirector creates a drive mapping, it becomes globally accessible to all active users of the machine, regardless of their privileges.
Imagine this scenario: you run a Win32 console app from the telnet session, expecting it to never interact with the GUI. The app is stored on a remote file server, accessed via a drive mapping. NT attempts to demand load executable pages from the binary, but encounters network congestion, and times-out on the packet. Poof, NT kills your console app, and displays a dialog message box. Where does that dialog appear??? On the frigging graphical console. Can you resume use of your telnet session? Most likely not. Gotta wait for someone at the graphical console to hit the 'ok' button on the dialog.
But NT does offer mechanisms for simultaneous graphical desktops on the same machine. Just use CreateDesktop(), and SwitchDesktop(). They can be created under the auspices of other users, using NT's impersonation routines. But you then encounter other multiuser limitations of NT, such as the redirector! Once the redirector creates a drive mapping, it becomes globally accessible to all active users of the machine, regardless of their privileges.
Virtualization of the 386 is pretty simple. Only the privileged instructions require emulation. Non-privileged instructions execute directly on the processor. The vmware executes NT and Linux as processes with normal, user-level security access. Thus when they attempt to execute priveleged-level code, they trap into vmware, which massages the instructions. For example, vmware will catch a TLB insert, and modify the mapping to match that which vmware desires.
The designers of Disco (specifically Rosenblum) are behind vmware, so you can understand the product by reading the Disco papers at Stanford. Look for the FLASH project.
Disco implements the vmware concept, but for IRIX. Their papers describe the performance impact caused by the virtualization, which is fairly negligible. If your program executes mainly non-privileged instructions, then the virtualized machine has no impact. Boot-up time of the OS probably sees the greatest impact, due to processor initialization, address space construction, and hardware probing.
The performance impact caused by virtualized hardware devices can be minimized by coding drivers for NT and Linux that interact directly with vmware. I suspect vmware followed that route.
Slashdot Mirror
yeah, i know people who coerce their S4's to insane speeds after rechipping them.
personally, the other day it occurred to me that when i peddle my bike, if i exert tangential force on the peddles when the crank is vertical, i get my own speed boost. who needs a car?
the autobahn does have a speed limit of 250 km/h. it is enforced in an odd way though: car manufacturers must speed limit their cars to 250 km/h.
i also notice that german drivers are far more skilled than US drivers. i've been surprised many a time to find drivers in germany (contrary to my low expectations) observant, forward thinking, and skillfully agressive, yet they know when to be careful (pedestrians and bicyclists are treated like gods). and i've noticed a higher percentage of people brake before turns, and accelerate through turns, then i've ever seen in the US. i'm sure many an accident on 17 crossing to Santa Cruz could be avoided if people actually slowed before entering the turns in rainy weather, rather than nailing the brakes at the apex.
Contrary to rumor,
n e02.html
the machine is constructed from 640 nodes, with 8 vector processors per node, and 16GB RAM per node. That totals 5120 processors and 10TB memory.
See http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/outline/outli
Also of note:
peak performance per processor: 8 GFLOPS
total peak performance: 40 TFLOPS
XP's raw socket support won't make things any worse. If code red wanted raw socket support, it could have included winpcap & a packet driver in the payload, and achieved raw socket capabilities. The worries about XP's raw socket support are rubbish. I daily criticize micros~1 for waiting so long to add raw socket support. It has so many uses.
The ia32 architecture doesn't have a 16 irq limit. That is a platform limit. And mostly visible to ISA peripherals. Go to Intel's web site, download the PDF's which describe the system architecture, and learn how the hardware interrupts map to the interrupt vector table.
the site is just crawling with little pieces of information that scream hoax. they refer to windows as user friendly. they want to use the FAT file system because it is more intuitive! they act as if their open windows will be binary compatible with MS windows programs. i don't think so. and they seem to gloss over the fact that windows is a moving target. are they going to emulate the win32 api, win 98, win NT, win 2000, win millenium, or windows fucking redesign 1000? i'm surprised at the number of positive posts on slashdot supporting an open windows project. windows is the biggest fuck-up of a software project in human history. let it die. no, help it die.
Come on, you can't create three identical companies based around the same product, expecting them to compete. A company's competitiveness is also a function of the people developing the product. Would you expect the court to divide Cutler among the three competing subcompanies? Or to split his team? A court has no right to split teams apart. Those people chose to work together. They could just quit and regroup at one company anyway. And the subcompany with Cutler and his team will become the authorative OS company. The other companies would have to play catch-up learning about the internals of the code, and figuring out where to develop further. It would not work.
the law is 'just words'. antitrust doesn't make sense. it took a judge to interpret the law before anyone could definitively say that microsoft violated it. antitrust law is too vague for anyone to know whether they are breaking the law. the law is supposed to be black and white. before a theif steals, he knows that he is breaking the law.
the judge can't even say that any specific action of microsoft's was wrong. he has to consider the sum of the actions which put micros~1 into a monopoly position. the monopoly position is the defining characteristic. without the monopoly power, micros~1's actions would not have been found wrong!!
antitrust is a bad thing. it distorts the concept of justice.
And you know what? Taxes are higher here in California than in the UK... but I've lost my freedom to get free medical care when I'm sick.
You mean that doctors in the US have the freedom to charge for their services? Remember that medical care is a business, just like computer programming. You can't claim society is free if your need imposes an obligation on someone else to cover your medical expenses. The person paying for the expenses loses their freedom.
California is a grossly repressive state. And what makes it sick is that the state population accepts the status quo, or tries to remove even more freedoms.
But I wouldn't jump in joy over Europe's supposed freedoms. Try to start a business in Europe. You need permits, which sometimes require 50+ years (like selling alcohol), and then you have to submit to arbitrary employee "protection" laws, which starve your business of money and man power (such as limits on the number of hours permitted to work in a day/week).
Can you provide references? I am very curious about this matter. I have a friend that claims she can argue for the existence of god through the law of identity. We are still researching our sides, and so I haven't been exposed to her "evidence". I would like to know what to expect though.
Books Online has some essays which argue against the existence of god. For example:
Plea for Atheism.
Two books which address atheism:
"What is Atheism?" by Douglas E. Krueger
"Philosophy & Atheism" by Kai Nielson (just started reading it)
Ironically, I find CS Lewis to be a good proponent of atheism within his works wich argue for god. Example: "The Problem of Pain"
Dictionaries are incomplete when considering the implications of a concept. For example, your definition of censorship ignores the fact that silence is a form a expression. Thus a governmental demand that one speaks against one's will is censorship. When someone is forced to rate and categorize the ideas which flow from their mind, they are forced to express themselves in a way which was not ever intended. The content of the original message is the whole point of the expression! Reducing it to a rating is really disgraceful. And it is censorship, because it forces one to say something against their will.
i see so many problems with the proposed idea to charge rent for software, that i have no worry about its failure. but there may be a solution with a complete model change.
1. infrequently used programs: i install a word processor and spreadsheet for once a year usage: when a friend needs something typed, or when i calculate my Foolish 4 portfolio. essentially they serve as security to handle any emergency situations where i really need those apps. and so i use the free StarOffice. any type of rental plan would have to charge per use to be fair. but pschologically, a per usage charge would feel horrible, especially if you frequently use the program. similar to the effect of high gas prices on driving. not to mention that it is hard to estimate usage of software.
2. frequently used programs: the operating system, web browser, mp3 player, email client, compression program. most of our frequently used apps use open standards, permitting easy entry into the market. it would be hard to charge for usage of those apps, especially with the poor quality that permeates the commercial software industry. too many free clients would pop-up if someone tried to charge rent. and imagine all the apps competing for rights to the file extension. the war would make the Netscape/IExplorer battle look friendly, because now money is involved. companies would actually have an incentive to modify the registry, install bad dll's, and such not to render your computer unusable for the competitor's software. and i can see a company like Microsoft charging a one-time fee for the first usage of your software. so you install IExplorer, and it installs a bunch of secondary programs behind your back, like an mp3 player. the next time you play an mp3, rather than loading Winamp, the file extension invokes MS's player and hammers you with the one-time low installation fee of only $25.
3. a popular argument for software rental is that the rental includes free upgrades. but that argument only works for buggy software, vaporware, and the US market where materialism demands that you have the latest and greatest. after Windows removed the printer drivers from the word processor, Word Perfect saw that it had no reason for upgrades to its word processor. a high quality app will serve its purpose for many years. how many times have you upgraded vi? before Linux, i always used Qedit, and never upgraded. xterm upgrades? maybe an occasional security patch.
how it could work: applications are offered for free, but they display advertising on the screen, similar to this very webpage, requiring a live I-net connection. and to increase revenue, charge an install fee. otherwise i don't see it generating more revenue than software sales.
j
sorry for double submissions, i received an error while submitting
i don't own a television, as the content really sucks, and materialism is a bit boring. so movie watching is only viable through dvd on the computer.
I really don't understand the pervasiveness of television throughout society. How is it that so many people can waste time watching low quality entertainment? And why is it that passive entertainment is so popular?
A dynamic web benchmark: take a snapshot of the Slashdot databases and scripts, hook them up to one's test platform, and then send in client requests with distributions that match a typical day on Slashdot.
ROFLMAO
another reason to create a new language: efficient execution of the script. the game should execute smoothly and in real time. the language subsystem should require little of the cpu, and more importantly should have a small memory footprint and minor cache effects. which probably explains all of their compromises. lack of local variables: only one hash table is necessary for lookups. integers don't require forward declarations, but the other types do: cuts down on ambiguity (but why not also require declaration of ints?). no functions: one less language construct to handle.
many past and current languages were designed without regard to implementation. this language could very well be the opposite: concern more for implementation rather than feature bloat and syntax purity.
A few reasons to write one's own language:
1. domain specific languages can be very expressive
2. implementing a new scripting language, and learning a new language, is lightweight to many of us. it requires no effort.
3. existing languages probably have licensing restrictions.
4. not-invented-here
But kernel drivers do not use the system call interface. They operate directly on kernel internals. Why are they not derived works, as claimed by other posters? Did Linus exempt them? I don't see an exemption in the license.
The GPL claims that derived work essentially must fall under its umbrella. The UDI API implementation will have an incenstuous relationship with the kernel, and couldn't be considered anything but derived. The UDI drivers distributed by device manufacturers will then interface with the exposed UDI interface. Does the GPL consider the UDI drivers, which may have been developed on a different implementation of UDI, to be derived works because they interface with the Linux kernel? Should this be another case of fair use?
UDI should be a secondary device interface, if added to the kernel. The Linux kernel device interface is the right way. Not from a religous standpoint, but because it has evolved through the hands of many competent contributers that wanted to design the ultimate solution; one that satisfied the requirements of speed, stability, simplicity, extendibility, etc. In other words, to maintain the integrity of the kernel. The UDI interface on top of Linux is a dilution. A perversion of something that is better.
I think UDI should be prohibited from the official kernel if UDI drivers can be distributed in binary form. Linux is synonymous with stability and robustness. In part because it benefits from peer review. Binary modules are unknowns, with access to enough of the kernel to debilitate it! We should apply a general rule: anything which runs within the kernel's address space should be open source. Open source device drivers are worth the fight, especially so that they can be changed to conform to the Linux device driver interface.
> Besides that, how can a "public" company ever hold "private" property?
You are ignoring definitions of words, or mixing concepts. Your question makes no sense; a perfect example of the old oranges and apples cliche.
And if the open source community benefits from Microsoft source, then it becomes the theft source community.
Linux already kicks ass. It will see no improvement by feeding off Window's carcass (if the gov causes Microsoft's death, then the code will be a carcass). Such feeding would only poison.
the checksum algorithms which identify a CD do not ensure a one-to-one mapping between checksum and CD. they are one-way calculations. this presents a difficulty for exporting the data from the old CDDB database to an alternative database that implements a different checksum algorithm (such as that proposed by the cdindex project). the two algorithms will desire different data from the CDs, which protects the cddb database from an outright conversion.
in other words, you need to stick a CD in the drive, calculate the cddb checksum, download the cddb info, calculate the cdindex checksum, and then upload the cdindex info.
but i don't know the cddb algorithm. maybe one is a subset of the other.
Imagine this scenario: you run a Win32 console app from the telnet session, expecting it to never interact with the GUI. The app is stored on a remote file server, accessed via a drive mapping. NT attempts to demand load executable pages from the binary, but encounters network congestion, and times-out on the packet. Poof, NT kills your console app, and displays a dialog message box. Where does that dialog appear??? On the frigging graphical console. Can you resume use of your telnet session? Most likely not. Gotta wait for someone at the graphical console to hit the 'ok' button on the dialog.
But NT does offer mechanisms for simultaneous graphical desktops on the same machine. Just use CreateDesktop(), and SwitchDesktop(). They can be created under the auspices of other users, using NT's impersonation routines. But you then encounter other multiuser limitations of NT, such as the redirector! Once the redirector creates a drive mapping, it becomes globally accessible to all active users of the machine, regardless of their privileges.
Imagine this scenario: you run a Win32 console app from the telnet session, expecting it to never interact with the GUI. The app is stored on a remote file server, accessed via a drive mapping. NT attempts to demand load executable pages from the binary, but encounters network congestion, and times-out on the packet. Poof, NT kills your console app, and displays a dialog message box. Where does that dialog appear??? On the frigging graphical console. Can you resume use of your telnet session? Most likely not. Gotta wait for someone at the graphical console to hit the 'ok' button on the dialog.
But NT does offer mechanisms for simultaneous graphical desktops on the same machine. Just use CreateDesktop(), and SwitchDesktop(). They can be created under the auspices of other users, using NT's impersonation routines. But you then encounter other multiuser limitations of NT, such as the redirector! Once the redirector creates a drive mapping, it becomes globally accessible to all active users of the machine, regardless of their privileges.
Virtualization of the 386 is pretty simple. Only the privileged instructions require emulation. Non-privileged instructions execute directly on the processor. The vmware executes NT and Linux as processes with normal, user-level security access. Thus when they attempt to execute priveleged-level code, they trap into vmware, which massages the instructions. For example, vmware will catch a TLB insert, and modify the mapping to match that which vmware desires.
The designers of Disco (specifically Rosenblum) are behind vmware, so you can understand the product by reading the Disco papers at Stanford. Look for the FLASH project.
Disco implements the vmware concept, but for IRIX. Their papers describe the performance impact caused by the virtualization, which is fairly negligible. If your program executes mainly non-privileged instructions, then the virtualized machine has no impact. Boot-up time of the OS probably sees the greatest impact, due to processor initialization, address space construction, and hardware probing.
The performance impact caused by virtualized hardware devices can be minimized by coding drivers for NT and Linux that interact directly with vmware. I suspect vmware followed that route.