Talk:Comparison of Java virtual machines

Computing: Software / Java Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Java (assessed as High-importance).

IBM?

I see no mention of J9 here. 50.170.133.216 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Advertising" old software?

Please dump the ridiculous list of supported OS for Kaffe. The last release was in 2008 (or the higher table is incorrect), so this support list is likely outdated, and it makes reading the table for comparisons difficult on my normal-sized (1280x1024) monitor (it takes up more than half the screen. Also, it would be nice to see info about jrecreate somewhere. 208.127.115.67 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JC virtual machine

is the only one to feature three green fields in the performance columns. But it seems to be long abandoned, and to not have been of any importance at any time? --Ikar.us (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Java not free

As far as I know, Oracle allows using its Java binaries on personal (!) computers for free, but requests license fees for servers, devices or other applications. See license information provided with the downloads for details. --Stefan Weil (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of Java virtual machines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]