Twist of Lemon...

in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014


Is this some kind of joke?

Run XP, Mac OS X and Linux on once chip?

Is Intel finally out to knife M$ in the back and reduce their dependence on the Redmond outfit?

Will Apple give up the rom/ghost? (ie in five years time, software sales will account for at least half Apple's revenue for Apple not to care at all?)

Does this 'five year' or several generation deal with IBM just enough time to cover Apple until 'Vanderpool' strolls into town?

It's one hell of a power play.

Lemon Bon Bon \


  • Reply 1 of 14
    So instead of doing ONE very well, it will do all three very poorly... [sounds like distilled IT]

    No optimization, no special 'altivec' nonsense etc?

    iDunno. Not to say it will *never* happen but....
  • Reply 2 of 14
    dfryerdfryer Posts: 140member
    From what I can tell, Vanderpool isn't really all that.

    For "Mac OS X" to run on Vanderpool, it would *still* have to be compiled for x86. All that the Vanderpool technology seems to do (from what I read here) is keep multiple operating systems from bumping into each other in the dark. This "Hyper OS" (as they call it ) allows division of hardware resources between operating systems, which is something that could be done with Mach.

    As far as I'm concerned, running Linux + Windows or Windows + OS/X on the same box simultaneously isn't all that fantastic. It would be even less "seamless" than Virtual PC, and would (I think) still require a port to x86.

    The operating systems in question would still probably have to be modified to work in conjunction with this "Hyper-OS".
  • Reply 3 of 14
    Just imagine user switching! (eek!)

    How about plugging in a device which isn't supported in another itteration of the OS. You boot to linux and BANG your iPod zaps or some such insanity. You'd have to be a hardware hotswapper all the time. Also think about what this would mean to software developers. How can you 'justify' a version of your product for one OS or another if your purchaser has both?

    Example: I am about to purchase Worms 3D for the PC. Why? Because it will have the editors etc which are 99% for sure NOT going to be on the Mac version!
  • Reply 4 of 14
    Intel's vaporware chip.

  • Reply 5 of 14
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    This is an attempt to move into turf that IBM has occupied for a good long time now. I

    It also seems to be aimed at MS' acquisition of Connectix' technology, which accomplished the same thing in software.

    The release date is so far out that this qualifies as 100% pure vapor, which makes it all the more interesting from a tactical point of view. Why are they revealing this now?
  • Reply 6 of 14
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    it says the future is linux and os10, apple will be here, it's a huge compliment, predicts greater apple market share already you have major countries in the pac basin developing something other than windows, this virus thing is potent switch campaing

    if windows was a food source you would here panic from biologists and agibusiness about severe vunlerability, we need as national security, business security to be less dependent on virus attack prone software. didn't intel say apple chose the wrong chip???
  • Reply 7 of 14
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    And it's advertised in the King of Vapourware Magazine, NewScientist.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    jay1jay1 Posts: 22member
    Wll i think it ant going to happen any time soon. tho about a year ago i saw a mobo with a G4 and pentum chip it could run boath at once and maxed out at 4 gb of ram tho the mobo was i beleave $5000 US with out the prossors. just the mother board. i think the compey might have gone out of busness due to not meany buyers. thats like buying a G5 and using it as a door stop
  • Reply 9 of 14
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    The reason stuff like that is so expensive is because of economies of scale.

    The high fixed costs of stuff like that would dwindle into insignificance if there existed demand for such products. Those $5000 mobos would become less than $500 mobos.

    It's not the cost that's stopping it...

  • Reply 10 of 14
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    When I saw this i instantly wen't googling for Mac-related info concerning Vanderpool. I was intrigued that they mentioned Apple and a new procesosr technology from Intel in the same context, so what I was looking for was any other reference like this. I found none!

    The only conclusion I can comeup with is that some "journalist" at New Scientist just added "Apple's OS" because he couldn't come up with a third OS besides Linux or Windows.
  • Reply 11 of 14

    Originally posted by Barto

    ... if there existed demand for such products. Those $5000 mobos would become less than $500 mobos. It's not the cost that's stopping it...


    Barto, I agree. Reading the thread one question kept coming back to me time and again. Why would you need a machine that runs three OSes? What would be the point? By and large it is not as if there is stuff you can do on one that you can do on another. All platforms support most of the software the average user is gonna need. And if you do need a particular platform for a special software app buying a 3 in 1 box for $$$$ is not gonna be the first thing on you mind. Sounds like a solution in need of a problem. I know, why not invade Iraq?
  • Reply 12 of 14
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Actually, this is simply Intel FUD. They are trying to keep their name in the news as the whole PC world goes gaga over AMD's Athlon 64.

    Forget it, people, there's no story here. Vanderpool is no more real than a space ship in my back yard.
  • Reply 13 of 14
    dfryerdfryer Posts: 140member
    You have a space ship in you back yard??!?!

  • Reply 14 of 14
    rhumgodrhumgod Posts: 1,289member
    What a pile of crap. You can do this NOW with Windows, Linux, really any x86 OS with VMWare. Marketing FUD!
Sign In or Register to comment.