Next G5 Multitasks Operating Systems 449
A user 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."
Isn't this done already? (Score:2, Insightful)
From the article:
The technology, called partitioning, relies on a concept called virtualization that breaks the hard link between an operating system and the underlying hardware.
Well, that's what VMware and QEMU already do, isn't it?
I'm assuming "partitioning" is some sort of architecture change to make schemes like these work better/more easily/more efficiently - but I don't think they should be pushing it as something new.
Unless it *is* something new and I've missed the point, that is.
What about the rest of the hardware ? (Score:4, Insightful)
My Conspiracy Theorist view (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Linux and OS X side by side (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting, but questionable. (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds cool and all, but I don't multitask nearly as well as even the current G5. One OS running a few applications is about all I need most of the time. Until Apple (or someone else) starts selling extra terminals that can connect to my machine, I can't really share the machine with other people (aside from providing various services, or letting them log into a command line environment). And no matter what, I don't want a copy of any version of Windows running on even a sliver of my machine, thanks very much.
What would be much more interesting, for developers at least, would be to run multiple copies of the same operating system. I could run my app in one copy of the OS and debug it "remotely" from a second copy... two machine debugging in one machine!
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you have 5 servers in a rack that are doing whatever they and only pushing an average 15% utilisation each, you can consolidate into a single physical box, partition it into 5 machines.
This saves you on:
* rack space
* power (electricity)
* cost (only have to buy 1 server, not 5)
That's for a server envirnoment. As Apple is traditionally targeted as a desktop, then it would allow you to do the same thing. How may people do you know who have 2 or 3 computers at home, connected with a KVM switch ? You'd be able to have a single box running all your different OS.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yeah.. BUT (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean just like they restrict you from running Linux, BSD, and BeOS right now? Oh wait...
Re:My Conspiracy Theorist view (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Other than Nerd Fantasy World, nobody in the enterprise world wants AIX (where they can avoid it), nobody wants a single source desktops ( like Apple) and nobody wants an oddball CPU like the G5 when x86 is faster and more readily available. It probably hurts some of you to hear it, but it's true.
Re:In theory yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't think Apple has any importance to the decision. IBM is looking to beef up their powerPC chip. They want to migrate their mainframes and servers and even workstations to it. The more systems that use the processors, the more money they make that can be put into further developing the processor, etc.
This is just a case, IMHO, where IBM is adding features needed by its highend/mainframe systems so that they can be migrated to the Power5 line of processor and unify the IBM system lineup.
Re:I've used this (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM came to give a demo at my former place of employ about two years ago with an Intel-based XServer and VMWare ESX, which ran directly on the hardware without a host OS. Really slick stuff - one of these monsters could run 30+ instances of Linux, Win2k Server, BSD, etc., great for us as 80% of our boxes averaged 1% CPU load and all our storage was on a SAN. I remember writing a proposal based on this to replace five racks of old machines with one 6U XServer.
Re:Linux and OS X side by side (Score:3, Insightful)
So don't. An Xserve isn't a "Mac"; it's an IBM-PPC server running a version of Unix called OS-X. Tell him that.
Re:If lowering your criteria is so good, (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the decisions may not be of higher quality, but the decision tree is that much more robust."
There's a system that doesn't suck?
News to me.
Re:In theory yes (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes. Let's throw away the most advanced operating system out there. Have you read up on OS/400? Every other operating system has been trying to play catch-up (unsucessfully) since it's release. Maybe it's not great for GUI lusers, but from a theoretical standpoint, it beats any form of UNIX, any mainframe, and any windoze system in the world.
Re:Mac OSX Panther is not the worlds best OS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My Conspiracy Theorist view (Score:3, Insightful)
Jeez, I guess the guys at Virginia Tech must be feeling really stupid right now then. Oh wait.
Nothing new and error in the parent (Score:3, Insightful)