Next G5 Multitasks Operating Systems

squiggleslash writes "IBM has big plans for the 970, Apple's so-called "G5". The CPU will support partitioning, similar to IBM's mainframe systems, allowing multiple operating systems to run at the same time on a single CPU. A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and the PowerPC version of Windows NT, all simultaneously and independently."

great

[jrl87 (669651)]

so now I can crash at least five systems at the same time?

PowerPC version of Windows NT?

[by Anonymous Coward]

What is this, 1994?

Re:PowerPC version of Windows NT?

[tanguyr (468371)]

a ppc version of the nt kernel will run the next xbox.

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along

[0racle (667029)]

But it sounded really interesting.

On a more serious note, I doubt it could run the PPC WindowsNT as it would be lacking a few important drivers, but running OS X and Linux side by side would make a very interesting system. It would be nice to see som Xserves in our datacenter here.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along

[CdBee (742846)]

The developer prototype for the next-gen XboX is an Apple G5 running a heavily-updated Windows NT:PPC, they're already in the wild. This may be why MS bought Connectix, makers of VirtualPC

In theory yes

[computerme (655703)]

>A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and the PowerPC version of Windows NT, all simultaneously and independently."

But in reality, i believe this is so apple can release "big iron" type systems (servers), the VM would allow Multiple versions of the server OS to run for maximum uptime, protection etc...

Most people are going to take it as "Cool i can run windows and OSX at the same time at full speed" But in reality its closer to what i described above.

But if others care to chime in i could be completely wrong...

So...

[by Anonymous Coward]

I see it runs this "GNU/Linux", but the question is... does it run Linux?

Sounds great...

[iamzack (830561)]

But will it come in a stylish case with a 4-figure price tag?

what about dual?

[jxyama (821091)]

if you had a dual, would it be more efficient to have each processor run 50% of two OS'es or each CPU running one OS?

Re:what about dual?

[bentfork (92199)]

Wow... My head just exploded. Thanks. I wonder if you could run a stable kernel and debug a new kernel at the same time. THAT would be great.

OMG!

[Chief Typist (110285)]

I'm going to need more than one mouse button!

-ch

Re:OMG!

[Chicks_Hate_Me (528837)]

WRONG! Steve Jobs has already thought ahead! Pressing control-click will act as a click in Windows, while in Linux it will be command-click, in BSD it will be ctrl-alt-click, and OS/2 it will be control-alt-command-click, and DOS will be control-alt-command-shift-~-click (will require use of nose.)

Re:OMG!

[Otter (3800)]

...in Linux it will be command-click...

Actually, that's only in KDE. It'll be ctrl-click in GNOME, option-click in Motif, :-click in vi and hitting every key simultaneously in emacs.

What about the rest of the hardware ?

[Bluesuperman (843038)]

So what about the rest of the hardware ? Now you have two OS's accessing the same hard drive. There goes the IO ... unless you had two SCSI drives .. now it gets interesting. Michael.

G5 can't boot OS 9

[rgovostes (814720)]

A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and ... The G5 cannot natively boot Mac OS 9. However, you can run most OS 9 software through the Classic Environment in Mac OS X. If we count the Classic Environment, though, why stop at that list? You could run virtually any OS, through various emulators. Windows 95, DOS, BeOS, etc...

My Conspiracy Theorist view

[Kraegar (565221)]

1) IBM Partners with apple to make the g5
2) IBM Sells off its intel based PC & Laptop line
3) IBM incorporates more features into the g5 to make it a bigger competitor to intel / amd
(begin conspiracy)
4) IBM pushes linux more heavily on the apple g5
5) IBM pushes the idea of apple desktops paired with IBM servers running linux or AIX

Could a stronger IBM / apple partnership be the culmination of technologies (power processors, apple desktops, IBM servers, the marketing engine of both companies) that finally steps up and pushes an all *nix platform to challenge Microsoft?

Re:My Conspiracy Theorist view

[ArbitraryConstant (763964)]

"The new IBM is much more focused on giving enterprise customers What They Want. And What They Want is a commodity OS (Linux/Windows) on commodity hardware (x86). They want CHEAP, and IBM will give it to them."

While it's true they want cheap, I don't think many people are married to x86 for things like databases. Those can usually be anything. And when it comes out, the POWER5 will have the lead in database performance by a factor of 3. With numbers like that, nobody cares what the CPU is or what the OS is.

I doubt IBM will require that clients be any platform in particular, but there are advantages to having binary compatability between the servers and the clients. Or perhaps more importantly, binary compatability between giant mainframes and smaller servers.

In any case, the more alternatives there are, the better. And if such a partnership exists, I'm sure they'll eventually be able to convince Apple to sell desktops with ECC memory so they can actually have a proper workstation.

That's old news..

[by Anonymous Coward]

..the REALLY cool partitioning is the new POWER5 based iSeries and pSeries. Hell, we've been using a Linux LPAR on our iSeries for two years now.

Now it just works better with POWER5. The FSP (Flexible System Processor) that contains the Hypervisor code is just a card that runs an embedded Linux kernel. Plug that in to a IBM "HMC", or a xSeries Xeon box running SuSE Enterprise 8, which boots into Fluxbox. Open a Java-based config utility, and control all your partitions. Do you see a ongoing theme here? That's right folks, IBM trusts Linux enough to stake the reputation of their Big Iron on it.

With POWER5 all the partitioning is transparent to the OSes. WIth out i5/520 I can move RAM and CPU seamlessly without OS reboots. Hell, I can (and do) have my Linux partition specified with just 2/10ths of one of the POWER5's, with a "burst" limit of 8/10ths. You just setup the FSP/Hypervisor with permissions/profiles for the OSes. If it sees that OS/400 needs more CPU and has a higher priority than Linux, it gets it.

However, this is a very cool move for apple. If I could get a Mac that did all that?

Well, yeah. That would own.

Insert profit.

I've used this

[wandazulu (265281)]

IBM sells a product simply called VM. Actually, I guess it's more of a lease option, as it's only available for mainframes (and I used it on an ES/9000...one of the biggest mainframe (read: MVS/CICS) machines around). It's cool in that you could assign separate processors separate copies of the OS, unlike VMware which has a "host" operating system and then various Guests. There's still a bit of low-level software, but for us it was seemless (which, given how much everything associated with this machine cost, had better have been).

Interestingly, this brought to mind the Pink operating system that IBM and Apple were working on way-back-when(tm). The idea, if I remember correctly, was to have a low level OS kernel that could run multiple personalities...they talked about a MacOS personality (back when System 8 was still being developed), OS/2 and probably some flavor of Unix.

I remember being at what I believe was the last Unix Convention at the Javits Center in NYC around '92 or '93 and they (IBM) had a prototype Power box that purported to be running a super super early pre-alpha version of it. The guy standing by it wouldn't let me touch it, and all he said he could do was run a "DIR" on what was supposed to be the OS/2 personality (no Mac one in sight, for the obvious reason there never was one). He also mentioned that there was a second box, but they couldn't get it to boot.

*Sigh* ... strange times. Full of promises yet to be fulfilled. But as someone else pointed out, now that OS X is essentialy Unix, there would be precious little reason to go back to the "personality" scheme. I rather think they'd bring out some kick-ass server type box running multiple copies of OS X server, if that is in fact what they're trying to do.

I was actually under the impression it was just going to be a dual core PPC, but I RTFA off os OSNews.com a couple of days ago and I don't really remember it.

Related stories

[TTop (160446)]

An interesting article [macworld.com] and commentary [macworld.com] about this Power 5 stuff related to Apple.

Re:Isn't this done already?

[Gadzinka (256729)]

Partitioning is quite old indeed and has been running on some big iron for a while, but this particular details are somewhat different that VMWare/QEMU.

They plan to add partitioning support on the chip level, so there will be no performance penalty (like in VMWare) or need to recompile OS (like in QEMU IIRC).

Robert

Re:Isn't this done already?

[IdleTime (561841)]

No, this is different than Vmware etc al
They require a host OS to run under. This means you can partition your CPUs so they can run multiple OSes at the same time, nativly. No need for a host OS, just some bitching BIOS.

There are multiple server vendors who already offer the same ability, mainframes have had this for years.

Of course, running 2 or more OSes requires 2 or more times the CPU power in order to get similar performance to a one OS machine.

Re:What's the point?

[Total_Wimp (564548)]

OS X is already the best OS available anyway.

I know this is just a troll, but people need to rethink their notion of the term "best".

In my IT department, we're abandoning the search for systems that are "the best." Now we look for "very high quality" systems instead. It may seem like mincing words to some of you, but it makes a real difference. Territorial bastards will always be teritorial bastards, but it's amazing how much better their decisions are when you say, "is the solution very high quality" instead of "is it the best." They're forced to make an actual evaluation instead of just going with their gut or their pet. They'll still try to spin their favorite solution, but they're at least forced to acknowledge the real strengths of the competition.

TW

Re:Native Mode Java?

[Timesprout (579035)]

native mode is when a resident national of the country in which the machine is located types "java LocalMain" at the console to launch the program and is not to be confused with indigenous mode which is when a resident national of the country in which the machine is located launches it from an IDE GUI. Hope this clarifies things.

Re:Except that

[Elwood P Dowd (16933)]

The G5 is a 970. The 970 is a G5.

The Power5 is not a 970. They scaled down the Power5 to make the 970.