By early qemu, meaning qemu prior to KVM and KQEMU (ie between 2003 and 2007), which only did full CPU emulation.
> Workstation predates ESX by a few years and the 1.x versions of Workstation really didn't run well _at all_
It improved quickly. By 3.0 (early 2002) I was using an Windows 2000 desktop with Visual Studio on a Linux host as a daily driver workstation. That was still on pre VT-x x86.
I then used this on a Pentium M (no VT-x) Thinkpad for years.
> I know this isn't the common way to refer to a VM but I'd argue that an emulated hardware adapter is still a virtual machine ...
The thing is overall I agree with you, I think. I agree that these terms have been used in different ways over the years to discuss overlapping concepts. Maybe the only thing is I was pushing back on a notion of "one true" ontology, but maybe that was not really your point.
I also thought you were implying that system virtual machines for targets without hardware assistance (your other comment seems to suggest this) require full CPU emulation, but perhaps that was not your intent.
> I also thought you were implying that system virtual machines for targets without hardware assistance (your other comment seems to suggest this) require full CPU emulation, but perhaps that was not your intent.
In fairness, I did write my comment that way. So I can see why that's the conclusion you drew. Sorry for the confusion there.
By early qemu, meaning qemu prior to KVM and KQEMU (ie between 2003 and 2007), which only did full CPU emulation.
> Workstation predates ESX by a few years and the 1.x versions of Workstation really didn't run well _at all_
It improved quickly. By 3.0 (early 2002) I was using an Windows 2000 desktop with Visual Studio on a Linux host as a daily driver workstation. That was still on pre VT-x x86. I then used this on a Pentium M (no VT-x) Thinkpad for years.
> I know this isn't the common way to refer to a VM but I'd argue that an emulated hardware adapter is still a virtual machine ...
The thing is overall I agree with you, I think. I agree that these terms have been used in different ways over the years to discuss overlapping concepts. Maybe the only thing is I was pushing back on a notion of "one true" ontology, but maybe that was not really your point. I also thought you were implying that system virtual machines for targets without hardware assistance (your other comment seems to suggest this) require full CPU emulation, but perhaps that was not your intent.