Multi OS Macs

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I saw this today and it looks interesting:



http://www.architosh.com/news/2005-1...-multi-os.html



"The big news yesterday was the discovery of an Apple patent that allows the computer maker to protect the installation of Mac OS X. In this case, really limit it to just Apple-produced hardware. However, the patent describes a process whereby users would be able to load one of three operating systems as their primary OS and then load a secondary operating system as their secondary OS. In the patent application, titled, System and method for creating tamper-resistant code, they describe the process as thus:



22. The method of claim 20, wherein the first operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows.



23. The method of claim 20, wherein the second operating system is selected from the set consisting of Mac OS X, Linux, and Microsoft Windows."



I think such a thing would be the ultimate switcher machine.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,273member
    Well that certainly gets my geek juices flowing. I love the idea of running or at least having the capability to run



    OS X

    Vista and

    Ubuntu simultaneously.



    Give me a 4GB Powerbook and let me go to town. Once you have a hardware common denominator adding the proper virtualization magic should be easier than ever.



    Apple shouldn't make it too easy however. That could adversely affect Mac development. The assumption should never be made that a Mac has Windows installed.
  • Reply 2 of 26
    I remember when Apple was going to develop PPC machines that could run other operating systems (like NT). The project, of course, never came to fruition. I liked the idea then and I like it now.
  • Reply 3 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac on a Mac

    I remember when Apple was going to develop PPC machines that could run other operating systems (like NT). The project, of course, never came to fruition. I liked the idea then and I like it now.



    Actually, I think CHRPs exist somewhere out there.
  • Reply 4 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Actually, I think CHRPs exist somewhere out there.



    CHRPs! Thanks for reminding me of the name. That was quite a few years ago. Are you "the" KKS?
  • Reply 5 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac on a Mac

    CHRPs! Thanks for reminding me of the name. That was quite a few years ago. Are you "the" KKS?



    Of course!!! i am making plastics right now.
  • Reply 6 of 26
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Actually, I think CHRPs exist somewhere out there.



    Indeed. Apple built and sold a lot of them. They run MacOS 8, MacOS 9, and MacOS X, and Linux. However, the deaths of OS/2 for PPC, Win NT/PPC, etc. put the quietus on the multi-OS plans of AIM.
  • Reply 7 of 26
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr. Me

    Indeed. Apple built and sold a lot of them. They run MacOS 8, MacOS 9, and MacOS X, and Linux. However, the deaths of OS/2 for PPC, Win NT/PPC, etc. put the quietus on the multi-OS plans of AIM.



    Hold on a sec, I thought Apples were 'PREP' rather than 'CHRP'. The PPC NT (which is on the NT 4 CDs) only works on IBM PPC boxes, it won't work on Apple boxes.



    If I'm wrong about this, let me know, I have a PB 3400C sitting here and an NT 4 CD, so I could try it.



    As to the original post, I don't see how Apple could get a patent for such a thing. Then again, people have recently patented an antigravity spaceship, a perpetual motion machine, and a storyline for a TV show. The inmates are clearly running the asylum at the PTO.
  • Reply 8 of 26
    I didn't think Apple ever made any machines like that?
  • Reply 9 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac on a Mac

    I didn't think Apple ever made any machines like that?



    I don't believe that Apple ever shipped machines based on CHRP ("Common Hardware Reference Platform"?) But early in the PPC transition, Apple did ship machines that natively supported Windows. This was facilitated by including a separate, second chip from Intel on an add-on card. I never owned one, but remember checking them out, and it was kind of slick. You hit a key combination that would toggle you between something like Windows 3.1 and System 7. I don't believe they charged too much of a premium for this ability, yet I don't believe they sold like hotcakes, and I doubt they affected the availability of Mac-based software.



    As for today, I think the iPod has changed the whole landscape for Apple. It has given Apple a taste of what can happen when they build hardware (along with the software/user expeience) that openly welcomes and plays nice the other 95%. Right now, millions of Windows users, who until recently would never even mutter the word "Apple," let alone own one of their products, suddenly grok the Apple experience because of the iPod. And they have a little taste of that Apple-designed hardware lust.



    I think it would be certain death for Apple to drop Mac OS X and become just a luxury Windows box-maker. But if they can find a middle path (dual booting, perhaps) that makes the Windows user comfortable enough to jump in the pool on a new Powerbook purchase, Apple could easily double the number of computers it sells. The game would be to get Windows users to initially buy the Apple hardware for its OS flexibility, but get them firmly hooked on the Mac OS X side.



    Rambling...



    Paul
  • Reply 10 of 26
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    But most people don't care about things like the switching OSes. If Average Joe and Jane got an intel iMac that had both OSX and Windows on it, they'd probably never touch OSX. Most people do next to nothing with their computers, just word process, email, and a bit of net surfing.



    When this genration's youth grow up(because they grew up with mp3s, editing videos, downloading movies, playing games etc.) then it will really make a difference. But for now the vast majority of people don't know a ton about computers or the OSes that they come with.



    I can almost guarentee you that if both operating systems are on the machine almost no one will do enough in OSX to actually switch.



    Sure apple might see strongs sales at first but eventually they would dwindle.



    With that ethic Apple would eventually become sega: making games on all systems but also making them on theirs, eventually it becomes "why buy their system at all?" So now sega only makes games aka: computers and not their own OS in Apple's case.
  • Reply 11 of 26
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,273member
    I don't agree.





    If you buy a Mactel you're buying it for OS X. Sure you might try windows on it but you're main OS is Macintosh.



    How stupid would it be for someone to buy a Mac and then never use the Mac OS? Too stupid to comprehend actually.



    Besides OS X looks a lot better than Windblows
  • Reply 12 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ecking

    But most people don't care about things like the switching OSes. If Average Joe and Jane got an intel iMac that had both OSX and Windows on it, they'd probably never touch OSX. Most people do next to nothing with their computers, just word process, email, and a bit of net surfing.





    This, like hmurchison has pointed out, is a ridiculous statement.



    If someone purchased a Mac with OS X and Windows on it, they'd sure as hell use OS X over Windows. Not only would it be stupid to buy a Mac and only use Windows (it would still be a win for Apple) but most people that *have* tried both never go back to Windows.



    Now I'm not saying there aren't anyone that switch to Windows from Mac...I'm saying *most* stay with Macs when they've used it.
  • Reply 13 of 26
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    That's what regular non-computer savy people would do. A woman came into my work today interested in buying a mac because she heard about them because of a friend, when I started talking to her about how great OSX is she said "What it doesn't run windows?", I told her no and she said she didn't want it. She wanted one she could put windows on. You'd be surprised how often I get that from people.



    They barely know how to use the computer they have in the first place, let alone try to learn a new one. They don't listen how easy it is to learn they only care that it's the same as they have now.
  • Reply 14 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ecking

    That's what regular non-computer savy people would do. A woman came into my work today interested in buying a mac because she heard about them because of a friend, when I started talking to her about how great OSX is she said "What it doesn't run windows?", I told her no and she said she didn't want it. She wanted one she could put windows on. You'd be surprised how often I get that from people.



    They barely know how to use the computer they have in the first place, let alone try to learn a new one. They don't listen how easy it is to learn they only care that it's the same as they have now.




    I don't think this applies to a very large amount of people. This only applies to people that have done zero homework shopping for a computer.



    A considerable amount of people (who have actually seen a Mac) realize what they're getting into with a Mac purchase.
  • Reply 15 of 26
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    And that's why a considerable amount of people don't buy macs. They know what they'd be getting into and don't want to bother, they know one way of doing things and don't like change(this is obvious because people including myself put up with windows BS for so many years), even if change is better. I've bet friends mac is better than pc and each time they agreed in the end, but getting them to take the first step is extremely hard.



    If apple was another dell, they'll sell hand over foot(because people love the designs etc), but I'd cry over the death of FCP and other programs I've come to love.
  • Reply 16 of 26
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by cubist

    Hold on a sec, I thought Apples were 'PREP' rather than 'CHRP'. The PPC NT (which is on the NT 4 CDs) only works on IBM PPC boxes, it won't work on Apple boxes.



    If I'm wrong about this, let me know, I have a PB 3400C sitting here and an NT 4 CD, so I could try it.



    As to the original post, I don't see how Apple could get a patent for such a thing. Then again, people have recently patented an antigravity spaceship, a perpetual motion machine, and a storyline for a TV show. The inmates are clearly running the asylum at the PTO.




    PReP was the precursor to CHRP. The major difference between the two was that PReP used Old World ROMs whereas CHRP used Open Firmware. PReP machines required a Personality ROM for each OS. My PowerBook G3 (Firewire) (aka Pismo) is a CHRP machine.
  • Reply 17 of 26
    imiloaimiloa Posts: 187member
    >>> Most people do next to nothing with their computers, just word process, email, and a bit of net surfing.





    Tasks that OS X does very well (better than Windoze, most here might suggest).



    That said, I can see a few folks who's work requires Windoze-only apps (eg: AutoCad, Visual Studio, custom biz and legal packages, etc...) buying Powerbooks to run mostly Windows, just because the Powerbooks are so damn sleek.



    Yes, they're paying more for Apple design. Just like those folks shelling out heavy clams for a porsche just for the body-style.



    On the same tack, I fully expect PC laptop makers to clone the Apple designs even more aggressively if Powerbooks are multi-OS.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    And if they buy the Mac, and they don't like MacOS, they can always run Windows. Whereas if they buy the Dell, they can only run Windows. Why, the Mac is the safer purchase!
  • Reply 19 of 26
    I can't wait for a multi-OS Macintosh. It'll be great for plenty of people and industries that require the use of more than one platform on a day to day basis. I'll be able to check any browser compatibility issues on the same machine instead of having to run an emulation package or two different machines and messing with VNC all of the time. I'll also be able to dabble a bit with OS specific apps (3D Studio Max here I come) that I've been barred from running due to current computer choices.



    The amount of money this will save me and the company I work for will be substantial. Between having a more common hardware theme running in terms of tech support and providing everyone more options and a familiar working environment, this is definitely a win-win.
  • Reply 20 of 26
    dwsdws Posts: 108member
    While a dual-boot Mac (OS X & Windows) will certainly appeal to a certain group of people, the concept that really excites me is being able to run two operating systems at the same time. Intel's new processors theoretically will allow this; and I'm sure that Apple could make the experience visually interesting - think Fast OS Switching. On one side of a cube is a secure and beautiful OS & on the other is an insecure and garish one. Cool!



Sign In or Register to comment.