Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next PowerPC To Support Multiple OS's?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I admit I like the idea of running multiple OSs simultaneously, but, I don't think that Apple or Microsoft are going to use it. It is one thing what the processor can do and another what it actually does in a particual mother-board.
To me, a computer that can run ANY operating system is wonderful, but I think it is not good for Apple, or is it?
To me, a computer that can run ANY operating system is wonderful, but I think it is not good for Apple, or is it?
Okay, my big question:
HOW THE HECK DO YOU RUN TWO OSes? Wouldn't the GUIs conflict??? Will there be a keyboard command to bring the other OS to the front or something?
Now to reply to someone else:
Well, they ARE running a PPC version of the WinNT core on the XBox 2, AND shipping the dev kits. They're also working with IBM. Why WOULDN'T Microsoft release a PPC build of Windows, integrate VPC into it, and charge a fortune? They'd make WAY more money off a Mac user who buys a Mac + Windows PPC, than a person who buys a Dell with Windows XP preinstalled.
HOW THE HECK DO YOU RUN TWO OSes? Wouldn't the GUIs conflict??? Will there be a keyboard command to bring the other OS to the front or something?
Now to reply to someone else:
ZildjianKX said:
Well, they ARE running a PPC version of the WinNT core on the XBox 2, AND shipping the dev kits. They're also working with IBM. Why WOULDN'T Microsoft release a PPC build of Windows, integrate VPC into it, and charge a fortune? They'd make WAY more money off a Mac user who buys a Mac + Windows PPC, than a person who buys a Dell with Windows XP preinstalled.
How is this useful?
Everyones saying how useful it would be to be able to run multiple OS's? how is this useful? i would think that running linux side-by-side with OS X could be useful if there were applications in both that you wanted to run that weren't supported by the other- but it would be such a drain on resources. My current processors has trouble running my 1 OS along with all the stuff I do on it. Am I missing something here?
Everyones saying how useful it would be to be able to run multiple OS's? how is this useful? i would think that running linux side-by-side with OS X could be useful if there were applications in both that you wanted to run that weren't supported by the other- but it would be such a drain on resources. My current processors has trouble running my 1 OS along with all the stuff I do on it. Am I missing something here?
Don't you think Microsoft would love to give people the "Choice" of loading Windows onto their Apple. Apple needs control of the OS to ensure constant revenue. If people load windows on their Macs revenue goes to MS instead of Apple.
People will do it, I know it doesn't make sense but they would. Whole offices could be forced to "Upgrade" to Windows... no I can't see Steve wanting to go down that path.
People will do it, I know it doesn't make sense but they would. Whole offices could be forced to "Upgrade" to Windows... no I can't see Steve wanting to go down that path.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
i don't understand
i don't understand how this is new....don't all current chips allow you to run multiple OS's? how is this different?
i don't understand how this is new....don't all current chips allow you to run multiple OS's? how is this different?
The benefit of multiple OS's
Multiple OS's is really a benefit in corporate servers and not so much on the desktop. I do big system Unix development as a job, and this capability is pretty powerful.
Why is it used?
- Buy a big or small box from IBM and replace a number of other servers with it. The applications on each server like their own environment, so the ability of the box to run multiple operating systems is good. IBM allows you to change the share of the cpu power allocated to each 'virtual server' without rebooting, so you can assign most of the power to a heavy duty calculation over night, then reassign to give more power to a reporting application during the day.
- Configuration management. You have no idea how much work it is to keep up to date with operating system upgrades. Corporates have to keep up - as they need to be on the later OSs to get support. It's often difficult to test all the applications on one box and upgrade that whole server, so being able to run multiple OS's and upgrade a few apps at a time is great.
- Performance. If two applications need to talk, but run on separate servers, then run both on the same server, each in its own OS. Communication is inside the computer which is a whole lot faster than out over the network.
- Testing. Run multiple OSs together for testing.
IBM's whole mindset is to replace server rooms containing lots of little inflexible servers with bigger servers containing multiple CPUs, and then run virtual servers on top of that - with all the flexibility that that involves. (This brings us full circle to the old days when IBM supplied a big mainframe that everything in a corporation ran on!). I'ts not necessarily a technology that benefits users running a desktop OS.
Multiple OS's is really a benefit in corporate servers and not so much on the desktop. I do big system Unix development as a job, and this capability is pretty powerful.
Why is it used?
- Buy a big or small box from IBM and replace a number of other servers with it. The applications on each server like their own environment, so the ability of the box to run multiple operating systems is good. IBM allows you to change the share of the cpu power allocated to each 'virtual server' without rebooting, so you can assign most of the power to a heavy duty calculation over night, then reassign to give more power to a reporting application during the day.
- Configuration management. You have no idea how much work it is to keep up to date with operating system upgrades. Corporates have to keep up - as they need to be on the later OSs to get support. It's often difficult to test all the applications on one box and upgrade that whole server, so being able to run multiple OS's and upgrade a few apps at a time is great.
- Performance. If two applications need to talk, but run on separate servers, then run both on the same server, each in its own OS. Communication is inside the computer which is a whole lot faster than out over the network.
- Testing. Run multiple OSs together for testing.
IBM's whole mindset is to replace server rooms containing lots of little inflexible servers with bigger servers containing multiple CPUs, and then run virtual servers on top of that - with all the flexibility that that involves. (This brings us full circle to the old days when IBM supplied a big mainframe that everything in a corporation ran on!). I'ts not necessarily a technology that benefits users running a desktop OS.
shompa said:
NT is just a bunch of source code. it can be tuned to run on any OS that is capable. PPC is definitely capable. It was way back in the early 90's as well. PPC is the chip architecture. There is no porting of hardware architecture to an OS. Seriously, I'm very very interested on getting my hands on the xbox2 dev software to see if it's running any variant of Windows at all or if it's just an emulator of some sort and cross compiling tools. If it's running a variant of Windows, well, you know the possible ramifications of that. Speaking of ramifications. Who all is going to be using this Cell processor IBM, Sony and Toshiba are working on?
I am sure that there are uses for this chip already in mind. Spending vast sum of money on development is almost always done with a purpose in mind.
Personally, I am dying to know what Apple and IBM may have planned for the future. I am certain that IBM has never gotten over what Microsoft did to them.
Personally, I am dying to know what Apple and IBM may have planned for the future. I am certain that IBM has never gotten over what Microsoft did to them.
Yahoo for "Vanderpool"
For more info on chip-level virtualization and its advantages, search the web for "Vanderpool" - Intel's been demoing chips with similar features for over a year. (IBM's and others have been making mainframes with the technology for a lot longer, of course!)
"Vanderpool", Multicore Kick Off IDF
Intel Gives People a Peek into its Bag of Tricks
http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/Intel+chips+to+do+double+duty/2100-1006_3-5077336.html
For more info on chip-level virtualization and its advantages, search the web for "Vanderpool" - Intel's been demoing chips with similar features for over a year. (IBM's and others have been making mainframes with the technology for a lot longer, of course!)
"Vanderpool", Multicore Kick Off IDF
Intel Gives People a Peek into its Bag of Tricks
http://ecoustics-cnet.com.com/Intel+chips+to+do+double+duty/2100-1006_3-5077336.html
Wrong. Power5 can run x86 Windows.
From IBM's eServer 520 product page:
Delivering a breakthrough in infrastructure simplification, the 520 is capable of running i5/OS, Microsoft Windows, Linux, and AIX® 5L applications simultaneously on a single server and can integrate IBM..
The 520 is a Power5-based system. It appears to be some kind of very low level emulation capable of running the x86 instruction set at nearly full speed.
JeffTL said:
From IBM's eServer 520 product page:
Delivering a breakthrough in infrastructure simplification, the 520 is capable of running i5/OS, Microsoft Windows, Linux, and AIX® 5L applications simultaneously on a single server and can integrate IBM..
The 520 is a Power5-based system. It appears to be some kind of very low level emulation capable of running the x86 instruction set at nearly full speed.
NT was supported on PPC, it just didn't sell....
PowerPC was a supported system for Windows NT up until Service Pack 3 of Windows NT 4.0.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;153496
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;152841
shompa said:
PowerPC was a supported system for Windows NT up until Service Pack 3 of Windows NT 4.0.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;153496
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;152841
Not quite...
If the source code of the OS is proprietary and the company, such as Microsoft, does not have a version compiled for a specific architecture, such as POWER, it can't run without emulation, such as with VirtualPC. Think of this as VirtualPC at the hardware layer.
swingerofbirch said:
If the source code of the OS is proprietary and the company, such as Microsoft, does not have a version compiled for a specific architecture, such as POWER, it can't run without emulation, such as with VirtualPC. Think of this as VirtualPC at the hardware layer.
If this is true, then Virtual PC for Mac won't be needed on these machines. I'm wondering how Apple will make use of this capability. The most relevant use I can think of is running x86 Linux applications inside of Mac OS X without a recompile, which would be pretty darn cool.Morky said:
Ysean said:
Um, yeah, except for all that real-mode x86 assembly littering up the place.
NT/PPC was dropped because it was too much trouble coding the same thing in two different assembly languages, not because it was too much trouble compiling with two different C compilers!
I don't have the figures, but at least back in the late '90s, a MASSIVE chunk of the core operating system (NT, the part that hasn't changed a whole lot in the last three revisions) was written in hand-tuned assembly. That's 100% non-portable. Period. I suspect that Microsoft has been replacing assembly chunks with more portable code since then in preparation for NT/Itanium or whatever, but I doubt they've gotten anywhere near the whole thing done.
jettredmont said:
You'd be surprised how little assembly is actually in NT and it's variants. I remember talking to a Microsoft VP back in the mid 90's when we were beta testing NT 4.0. It was mentioned most of the OS was written in C and just the extremely low-level routines (routines which would befinit the overall OS the most, like the disk & memory access routines) were coded in assembly. I don't know. Personally, I'd believe a VP for the company than some random person on the net. (No offense intended.)
wrldwzrd89 said:
It wouldn't be as easy as you imply. The different operating systems would be on the same hardware, but it would be a big job to get them to talk. Think of two whole computers in the same box, you'd have to have apps on one displaying in the screen of the other using a network between the two (and an X windows server in the case of Linux). It wouldn't be as 'lightweight' as running an app in a different OS within another.
Virtual PC may still be a better solution in this instance.
Ah...didn't think of that little technical detail getting in the way. It would still be neat to be able to run two or more copies of Mac OS X simultaneously, switching between them as needed.firestarter said:
There were rumours of Apple muxing OS X and Linux together, effectively assimilating the latter...
Could this be the first step? The processor running normally with a Linux shell on the side for efficiency?
Rich::
Could this be the first step? The processor running normally with a Linux shell on the side for efficiency?
Rich::
What about...
UPDATES
In the server world (and even at home for me) rebooting to install low level OS updates is a big deal. IT staff can be fired for five minutes of downtime.
Would this multi OS thingy allow stuff like hot-swapping the kernel?
e.g. Would we be able to boot one OS, update it (after a few months of uptime), then "hot-reboot" into the newly updated OS?
UPDATES
In the server world (and even at home for me) rebooting to install low level OS updates is a big deal. IT staff can be fired for five minutes of downtime.
Would this multi OS thingy allow stuff like hot-swapping the kernel?
e.g. Would we be able to boot one OS, update it (after a few months of uptime), then "hot-reboot" into the newly updated OS?
This ability to run multiple OSes simutaneously isn't likely to get used on Macs, is it? I would assume that this feature is intended for large IBM bladeservers, and possibly for Xserve servers. The Power4 and Power5 require extra hardware for this feature and the PPC 970 will just require extra software on a separate partition, so that's cool.
I don't really care about the multiple OS thing, but I'd like to know what "pretty late in the design cycle now" means. I guess as long as there are no problems it won't take too many months (April?) before a shipping product is ready in quantity. I would expect it to be dual core as well.
I don't really care about the multiple OS thing, but I'd like to know what "pretty late in the design cycle now" means. I guess as long as there are no problems it won't take too many months (April?) before a shipping product is ready in quantity. I would expect it to be dual core as well.