Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Google Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

55 Operating Systems On A PowerBook

Posted by timothy on Wed Dec 17, 2003 08:43 AM
from the but-officer-I-thought-the-limit-was dept.
Portables (Apple) Software Apple
OttoMagick writes "I found an article called 'Many Systems on One Machine' over at Kernelthread.com that shows over 55 operating systems running on a 17inch Powerbook. The article includes screenshots and descriptions of each system, and also hacks and tips on getting the nasty ones installed. The author Amit Singh (the Hanoimania guy, covered earlier on Slashdot) explains his reasons for all this in a related FAAQ (frequently asked + anticipated questions) ... In all a very interesting read, specially the FAAQ, where he calls the setup "the iPod of operating systems". Now thats an Apple Power User! I wonder what Steve Jobs would say if he sees people doing such things to his machines!!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
55 Operating Systems On A PowerBook | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 359 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2

  • Emulators (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AtariAmarok (451306) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:45AM (#7744289)
    Now, run every single possible emulator available for each OS (from Sinclair Spectrum to CP/M to Atari 8-bit to N-64). That would multiply whatever "wow!" factor is involved here.

    • Re:Emulators (Score:5, Funny)

      by aborchers (471342) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:48AM (#7744316)
      (http://www.flipforit.net/ | Last Journal: Monday March 06 2006, @07:48AM)
      Now, run every single possible emulator available for each OS


      The chair of my physics dept once said that he'd seen, on a visit to a local Air Force Base, a CPU emulator that could be configured to simulate any CPU on the market. He then said they had four of these monster emulators at the AFB.

      I asked him why they didn't just buy one and have it emulate the other three.

      [ Parent ]

      • Monster Emulators (Score:5, Funny)

        by AtariAmarok (451306) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:06AM (#7744425)
        "He then said they had four of these monster emulators at the AFB."

        They had to shut down this project, of course, after the Rodan emulator wiped out half the base.

        The Mothra emulator was sold to Saddam Hussein in 1987, and its current whereabouts are unknown, but its presence in Saddam's arsenal, combined with his poor knowledge of English, might have inspired the "Mothra of All Battles" phrase used in 1991.
        [ Parent ]

      • Re:Emulators (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AmigaAvenger (210519) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:30AM (#7744577)
        (Last Journal: Friday June 25 2004, @09:26PM)
        almost all cpu's (including video proc's) are emulated first, but remember the emulators are lucky to run at 1mhz at full throttle! they are to verify design, nothing more, nothing less...
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Emulators by pboulang (Score:3) Wednesday December 17 2003, @01:27PM
          • Re:Emulators by dq5 studios (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @07:24PM
            • Re:Emulators by pboulang (Score:2) Thursday December 18 2003, @12:58AM
          • Re:Emulators by bonehead (Score:2) Thursday December 18 2003, @12:40AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Emulators by slowtonejoe75 (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @11:38AM

    • Oh no! Let's go! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Channard (693317) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:27AM (#7744557)
      Now, run every single possible emulator available for each OS (from Sinclair Spectrum to CP/M to Atari 8-bit to N-64). That would multiply whatever "wow!" factor is involved here.

      And have 'Lemmings' running on every single one.

      [ Parent ]

    • Re:Emulators (Score:5, Funny)

      by schnitzi (243781) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:06AM (#7744882)
      (http://slashdot.org/)
      No, if this guy REALLY wanted to impress me, he would have the 55 OS's running nested inside each other, in an emulator.

      Of course it would probably take 10^236 years to printout "Hello, world!" in the innermost OS but speed isn't really the issue, is it?
      [ Parent ]

      • not a bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)

        by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:43AM (#7745262)
        No, if this guy REALLY wanted to impress me, he would have the 55 OS's running nested inside each other, in an emulator.

        That would be impressive. It's probably been mentioned already... but this is not a bad technique. i knew a guy who ran a University web server like this, few years ago... not quite 55 OS's, but it went like this:

        Old PowerMac running BeOS with SheepShaver - > which emulated Mac OS, running Virtual PC - > which emulated Windows, which ran IIS.

        "Ha! Let's see it crash through three Operating Systems!"

        That was the idea anyways. It was damn slow but nice thing was that when the Windows image crashed it only took 6 seconds to recover to its saved 'state'.

        [ Parent ]

        • Re:not a bad idea (Score:4, Informative)

          by mblase (200735) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @11:23AM (#7745666)
          Old PowerMac running BeOS with SheepShaver - > which emulated Mac OS, running Virtual PC - > which emulated Windows, which ran IIS.

          Nitpick: SheepShaver on BeOS is similar to WINE on Linux -- it doesn't actually emulate the OS, but lets it access the processor without completely switching. Thus SheepShaver wouldn't run on anything but a PowerPC chip, just as WINE won't run on anything but an Intel-compatible chip.
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:not a bad idea by vspazv (Score:1) Thursday December 18 2003, @03:01AM
          • hmmm by Rob Nance (Score:1) Friday December 19 2003, @02:12AM
      • Re:Emulators by Unregistered (Score:3) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:57AM
      • Re:Emulators by BSDKaffee (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @06:40PM
      • Re:Emulators by whereiswaldo (Score:3) Wednesday December 17 2003, @11:03PM

    • Re:Emulators (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AstroSmith (685871) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:43AM (#7745263)
      What's more fun is to see how many levels deep you can go with emulation. I did this several years ago and, if memory serves, had:

      OS 8.1 on a PowerComputing clone running VPC 3 (Windows 98) which was running UAE (Amiga Forever version -- 3.1 roms) running Fusion (68k Mac -- OS 7.1) running SoftWindows 1.0 (Windows 95) running PacifiST (Atari ST, TOS 1.0).

      I was actually able to load an image of "Dungeon Master" in this config, albiet taking a full six minutes to get past the splash screen.

      I remember trying other combinations involving different emulators, but Five levels deep is the best I was able to get. ...now if I only had used PC Ditto in PacifiST...
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Emulators - Just use MESS! by poopie (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:29PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Steve would say... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrFenty (579353) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:46AM (#7744298)
    ...why couldn't the bastard just buy 55 laptops instead ?

  • The nasty ones (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok (451306) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:47AM (#7744308)
    "...each system, and also hacks and tips on getting the nasty ones installed. "

    As soon as I saw "nasty ones" mentioned, I checked the list: Yes, Windows ME is on it.
  • Here's a guy with a lot of extra time on his hands by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:47AM
    • (Looks round) by RMH101 (Score:3) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:40AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • 55 systems.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by johndoejersey (679948) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:48AM (#7744317)
    (Last Journal: Friday January 14 2005, @11:53AM)
    and I bet Windows ME is still the worst!

  • Nice Testimonial (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lizard_King (149713) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:48AM (#7744324)
    (Last Journal: Thursday January 10 2002, @10:55AM)
    From one with lots of experience with many operating systems:

    I find Mac OS X to be the most productivity enhancing operating environment that I have used - ever. Mac OS X is my "primary" operating system, although I do not use, nor have ever used, any Apple systems for or at work.

  • And they used to say there was no sw for Macs... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:49AM (#7744331)
    So I guess we can now put that FUD in the trash bin, together with "beleaguered computer company"
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Except (Score:3, Insightful)

    by phlyingpenguin (466669) <phlyingpenguin AT phlyingpenguin DOT net> on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:50AM (#7744339)
    (http://www.phlyingpenguin.net/)
    He lists Windows 1-3 in that list... those aren't OSes. And he left out Microsoft BOB if he's going to count <Windows 95 as OSes.
  • He really does anticipate by y2imm (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:50AM

  • What no SCO? (Score:4, Funny)

    by AccUser (191555) <mhg@taose.co.MENCKENuk minus author> on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:51AM (#7744345)
    (http://www.taose.co.uk/)
    That'll piss Darl off.

  • Virtual PC == Cheating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Duckman5 (665208) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:52AM (#7744349)
    It seems he's running a lot of those operating systems in Virtual PC. Is it just me or does that seem like cheating? I was expecting him to have all those operating systems installed natively.

  • x86 based? But... (Score:5, Informative)

    by kraker (687285) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:55AM (#7744358)
    (http://photolog.kraker.de/)
    "With the exception of Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X, all systems listed are x86 based" Well, sorry..., but at least Linux and the various BSDs also exist for ppc architecture. And probably even more OSs. I would have liked to see those installed natively. But then again...

    • Re:x86 based? But... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Creepy (93888) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:59AM (#7744820)
      (Last Journal: Monday October 22, @12:27PM)
      Having had both BSD and Linux variants on mac right at OS X.0 release, I didn't find an easy way to boot load all without typing in openfirmware commands (in Forth).

      I never learned Forth well enough to write my own boot loader, tho.

      I had at least 5 (and I recall 7, but I have a feeling that included YellowDog Linux and Debian PPC) mac native OSes installed at once before the machine failed (power supply, I later learned - this was on a PowerMac 7500).
      BeOS
      MacOS9
      MacOSX
      FreeBSD
      SuSE Linux

      I also ran emulators for everything under the sun and probably had more OSes than he had that way - I tried a good chunk of the downloadable OSes I found off of emulation.net [emulation.net] and had VirtualPC (1.0, mind you) with DOS and Windows 95 (tho the OS is technically DOS).

      I slipped away from the emulator scene after the death of that machine, though. The only thing I've grabbed recently is an Apple ][ emulator for old times sake (running on Windows... that's probably heresy, but my working mac is old :P )
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:x86 based? But... by b17bmbr (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:48AM

  • How many? (Score:5, Funny)

    by 1000101 (584896) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:55AM (#7744365)
    "How many?
    Does it really matter?"

    Isn't that kind of the whole point when you title your website "Many Systems on a PowerBook"? I found it strange that he would even ask that question, much less give it its own little header/section.

  • Um, WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by His name cannot be s (16831) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:56AM (#7744367)
    (Last Journal: Saturday April 16 2005, @12:17PM)
    Sure as shit, he's got 55 OSes on there.

    This is all kinda like a mule with a spinning wheel: No one knows how he got it, and be damned if he knows how to use it.

    Seriously tho' Almost all of them are running under virtual PC. That hardly makes this article about a powerbook, and more a testemonial to Virutal PC ( or a simple x86 processor ).

    Now, if you want to have fun, one could certainly load 55+ OSes native on a PC notebook, all directly bootable with one of those new-fangled boot managers. :p

    • Re:Um, WTF? by jimbo3123 (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:17AM

    • Re:Um, WTF? (Score:5, Informative)

      by overunderunderdone (521462) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:39AM (#7744638)
      one could certainly load 55+ OSes native on a PC notebook, all directly bootable with one of those new-fangled boot managers. :p

      Ahh... but with VirtualPC you can run the all AT THE SAME TIME. Or at the very least you are running your primary OS at the same time as whichever one (or two or three) you are working with.

      Of course you can do the same with VirtualPC for windows but then you are stuck with windows as your primary OS.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Um, WTF? by ruiner13 (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:03AM
      • Re:Um, WTF? by mindstrm (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:47AM
      • Re:Um, WTF? by Unregistered (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @11:03AM
        • Re:Um, WTF? by infinii (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @11:29AM
          • Re:Um, WTF? by Unregistered (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @12:07PM
          • Re:Um, WTF? by NickFitz (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @03:13PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Um, WTF? by Wolfrider (Score:2) Friday December 19 2003, @01:46AM
    • Re:Um, WTF? by gl4ss (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @03:11PM
    • Re:Um, WTF? by marcello_dl (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @06:05PM

  • What Steve would say... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Zathrus (232140) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:57AM (#7744375)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    "You're a loony."
  • favourite company? by kraker (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @08:58AM
  • Cha-ching! by gklinger (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:00AM
  • What Would Steve Do? by kurosawdust (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:05AM

    • Re:What Would Steve Do? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Channard (693317) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:31AM (#7744579)
      Would he crap his pants?

      That's 'crap his pants and see a glorious business opportunity, releasing the I-Poop, the portable MP3 playing colostomy bag' you I-nsensitive clod!

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:What Would Steve Do? by Big Dick Magee (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:19AM

  • only 54 now (Score:5, Funny)

    by Albanach (527650) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:06AM (#7744428)
    (http://albanach.com/)
    the one running his web server seems to have crashed.
    • Re:only 54 now by burns210 (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @11:08PM
  • Awwww... by Pyro226 (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:06AM
    • Re:Awwww... by D4MO (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:28AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Different versions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zarhan (415465) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:07AM (#7744434)
    I noticed that on the list there are just

    FreeBSD
    NetBSD
    OpenBSD,

    but every Windows & Dos version released, like, ever. I consider that either non-consistent and/or cheating. Either include every release of non-MS-systems as well or then just single representation from each product line. Pick one from each series: MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, Windows 9x/ME, Windows NT.
  • licenses by malus (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:07AM
  • He's got the wrong acronym by WormholeFiend (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:11AM
  • A mental challenge by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:12AM
  • "What's not here?" by Trbmxfz (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:13AM
  • Leave it Slashdot by morelife (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:13AM

  • So What? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bfg9000 (726447) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:13AM (#7744471)
    (http://bitter-and-impotent-loser-counselling.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 03 2004, @08:27PM)
    I don't get it. This guy just figured out Virtual PC. So what? That's what it does, let you run other OSes.

    I've probably run way over 55 systems on my PC over the years. Looking at his list, I've tried most of these, including the ones he couldn't get working. How is this a story? Because it's on a Mac with emulation?

    No offense, but his feat gets him into the typical Slashdot geek club, but not much else.
  • Not really running on a power book by D4MO (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:16AM
  • Favorite quote by ElGanzoLoco (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:17AM

  • Hobby Operating Systems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveho (235543) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:21AM (#7744519)
    He missed a couple hobby operating systems:Happily, he did mention my hobby OS [sourceforge.net].

    Emulators like VirtualPC and Bochs are a really nice way to play with operating system code without having to worry about screwing up your machine.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • In my day by Phrite (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:24AM

  • What Steve Jobs would say: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fw3 (523647) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:25AM (#7744547)
    (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday December 21 2003, @12:10PM)
    "You've voided your warranty"

    A friend who's got a tibook mentiond recently that the only v. of linux that doesn't void Apple's warranty is Yellow Dog.

  • BeOS in VPC (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thedbp (443047) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:26AM (#7744552)
    I've actually been trying to get BeOS Max to run under VPC 6, and its sorta working, but not really.

    Basically, I'm able to boot to the floppy image or CD image and start the installation. mouse works. problem is, as soon as the BeOS environment gets any KB input, the input (mouse and KB) both hang complete. Installation will continue, but you can't click or otherwise get thru the installation fully.

    So far I haven't been able to get it to install completely (just when its about to finish, my cat leaps on the KB and hangs it). I'm hoping however that when it IS fully installed it'll 'just work' and the KB issue will disappear.

    I've tried this on a couple different machines with the same results, so I think it is definitely an issue w/ VPC in conjunction with BeOS Max and not the hardware. My next step is trying an ADB keyboard instead of USB.

    Anyone else gotten this to work?
    • Re:BeOS in VPC by rampant mac (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:15AM
      • Re:BeOS in VPC by thedbp (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @02:28PM
    • Re:BeOS in VPC by Ohreally_factor (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:16AM
      • Re:BeOS in VPC by thedbp (Score:3) Wednesday December 17 2003, @01:10PM
  • What about atheos? by cr@ckwhore (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:27AM
  • I get it. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:29AM
  • Virtual PC makes it really easy to set up disk images for each OS. These images do not have a set size and can expand as needed. Saves a lot of time in formating the hard drive, rebooting, etc. Also, once you get your base image set up, you make a backup copy and then start in on your kernal tweaking or whatever. You screw up something, just toss the bad image and start a clean copy. Saves a lot of time re-installing OS's when they become corrupt. So, yeah, he could put multiple partitions on his laptop hard drive, install 10 or more Unix/Linux/BSD variations, or he could just shuffle drive image files around.

    I think that's one reason Microsoft purchased Virtual PC. Your PC could be running a secure *cough* MS OS and then you could run other versions of Windows within VPC and have an easier time of things. Would be usefull for gaming, where each game is installed on it's own drive image, with it's own, tweaked OS. Since it's not really emulating on the PC, just running in a box, there shouldn't be a performance hit, just like Apple's use of OS9 within OSX.

  • somebody's gotta say it: (Score:5, Funny)

    by dont_think_twice (731805) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:32AM (#7744590)
    (http://www.wollborg.com/blog/)
    55 operating systems, still one button on the mouse.
  • What is the point? by MacAdmin (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:33AM
  • Makes me feel old by MadHungarian (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:34AM
  • Power book OS Song by AtariAmarok (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:37AM
  • But can it.... by dotegg (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:38AM
  • Not Pokemon!
  • First, a disclaimer of sorts. The guy is obviously a geek, what other reason does he need?

    Now, surely it would have been nice to see them all installed natively, but one of the beauties of VPC is it's ability to run multiple OSes at the same time. Could that have been achieved if all these OSes were installed natively? With the possible exception of Linux->MacOnLinux, the answer is no. Emulation of some sort is necessary.

    I would like to see if the other *nixes, the ones that are available for the PPC architecture, could be installed, but I don't think they could be run in tandem with OS X.

    'Course, I don't really know jack-squat. I'm such a wannabe...

    (tig)
  • no mention of OS/400 by dominux (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:49AM

  • What WOULD Steve Do? (Score:3, Funny)

    by UnixRevolution (597440) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:54AM (#7744767)
    (http://www.unixrevolution.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 09 2005, @06:59AM)
    Easy, he'd encourage it. Apple is a hardware company. or at least they think they are.

  • The 55 operating systems (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr. Neutron (3115) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @09:57AM (#7744808)
    (http://www.shelter.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday April 24 2005, @11:43PM)
    14 Windows systems, whose interface is a bore,
    11 DOS OSes, from the days of yore.
    11 systems scattered across the sundry lands,
    7 real-time systems, in mission-critical hands.

    Three OSes for those who teach, and those who will to learn,
    Three for the Big Blue Demon, from which he could not earn.
    Three of the Small Red Demon, plus one for the Penguin Tux,
    One for desktop publishers, whose software costs big bucks.

    One OS to rule them all, one OS to find them,
    One OS to emulate them all, and on the hard drive bind them.
    In the land of G5, where the cycles fly...

  • What Steve Jobs Would Say (Score:3, Funny)

    by lwagner (230491) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:01AM (#7744838)
    I wonder what Steve Jobs would say if he sees people doing such things to his machines!!"

    um... "Cool?"

    Remember, this guy started Apple when he was a kid (comparatively) and, despite being the salesman, he hacked hardware as well.

  • 37 OS'es Native... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:04AM (#7744857)
    I'm sure /. covered this when it came out, but this kid [maximumpc.com] got 37 different OSes to run NATIVE on one machine.

  • WTFAAQ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JohnPM (163131) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:07AM (#7744887)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    Now this may be somewhat off-topic but I'm tired of people trying to use the front page of Slashdot to try to launch their favourite pet jargon. There is no such FLA as FAAQ. Why can't a single A service both "Asked" and "Anticipated"? I mean 4 FAAQ's sake!!
  • virtualization on ppc by HakuMage (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:08AM
  • Ah, memories! I remember running Oberon myself... by csoto (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:09AM
  • Why I am obsessed with Operating Systems by d0n quix0te (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:21AM
  • All patched?! by ewg (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:27AM
  • linux? by riffraff (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:30AM
  • Windows 'OSes?' by RdsArts (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:30AM
  • boring by patrick lang (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:35AM
    • Re:boring by patrick lang (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @06:40PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • he's only really emulating 2 systems by nurb432 (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:35AM
  • Also missing... by infernalC (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:36AM
  • 55 OS's... 17 inch machine... by ThatTallGuy (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:37AM
  • What, EmacsOS? by Phoenix666 (Score:2) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:41AM

  • What about? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by krray (605395) * on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:45AM (#7745284)
    All those operating systems and no mention of the one I _still_ like to play with...

    What about the Commodore 64? If you're going to count running OS' through VPC then you might as well go get the C=64 emulator. Heck, why not Apple ][?

  • This guy is amazing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by codemachine (245871) on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:46AM (#7745295)
    Anyone notice this is the same guy who solved Towers of Hanoi in over 100+ ways? Check out is projects link in the FAAQ.

    Quite impressive for someone who got hardcore into computing just out of spite.

    Also of note from his resume: He's also doing Desktop Linux work for IBM. Interesting to know that IBM does Desktop Linux at all, even if it is confined to their research labs at this point.
  • but no space for apps by coinreturn (Score:1) Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:47AM

  • Virtual PC overdose (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sloppy (14984) * on Wednesday December 17 2003, @10:55AM (#7745385)
    (http://www.biglumber.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 27, @12:44PM)
    Too many of the examples use emulators, for this to be really interesting.

    For example, I think OpenBSD and a laptop may be a smart combination, but then I see:

    OpenBSD 3.4 installs under Virtual PC without much effort..
    and immediately lose interest. Try running it natively, since that's what a sane person who actually wants to use it, would do.