So is anybody going to seriously discuss this instead of babbling about punctuation and other nonesense?
Couple of comments about the original postings...
Why would "Neo" at MacNN post an article specifically referencing Apple in this patent description, when (if you read the actual patent application) it clearly states that Moka5 is the applicant? If the story doesn't have any credibility, why would the postings at MDN and at MacNN be suddenly yanked and not redacted? Does Moka5 always monitor Apple rumor sites for postings about their patent applications or was the article correct in identifying something that Apple is really up to?
It seems extremely suspicious since there is no explanation from either MDN or MacNN and it sure does add to the mystery.
So is anybody going to seriously discuss this instead of babbling about punctuation and other nonesense?
Couple of comments about the original postings...
Why would "Neo" at MacNN post an article specifically referencing Apple in this patent description, when (if you read the actual patent application) it clearly states that Moka5 is the applicant? If the story doesn't have any credibility, why would the postings at MDN and at MacNN be suddenly yanked and not redacted? Does Moka5 always monitor Apple rumor sites for postings about their patent applications or was the article correct in identifying something that Apple is really up to?
It seems extremely suspicious since there is no explanation from either MDN or MacNN and it sure does add to the mystery.
Finally. Someone actually interested in the story.
Could it be that MacNN got extremely careless? Somehow macdailynews found out it wasn't apple but moka5 and quickly yanked their article about it without saying a word. I think whatever happened they tried to stop it in time before it spread too much in fear of being nailed like engadget was about some false apple story a while ago.
All it takes though is a guy like me hungry for Apple news to find a story and help spread it around the net quick as a flash.
I'm still on the hunt for news and rumors about the Feb. 26th SDK event and news on whats going to happen at WWDC this year.
At root this is actually pretty straightforward: The patent describes a consumer device that follows a trend in server technology: virtualization. We're familiar with this as Virtual PC, Parallels, etc. The difference would be that the native operating system would just be a kernel, and everything else that we think of as an operating system would run as if in Parallels, including OS X.
This machine will stay connected to a server and update itself transparently. OK, that's just one step forward from the iPhone, and two steps forward from every Mac that syncs to a time server. It also puts a lot of pressure on the company pushing the updates out to not release anything until it's been thoroughly tested. On the other hand, the consistent hardware of an 'appliance' and the virtual environment should make that easier than testing an entire operating system against thousands of possible hardware configurations (in the best case!).
The "appliance" could be any or all of: AppleTV, iPod touch, iPhone, or some new widget that's a cousin of any of those. I don't think the Mac will get here, not yet. This doesn't look revolutionary; it does look like a more transparent and reliable way to engineer a fully capable PC that's always connected to the internet: If the "operating system" (I'm tempted to pull out the UNIX term, shell) is infected or compromised, the kernel simply launches a pristine copy and kills the compromised one (not necessarily in that order). If an update requires a "restart," the kernel can do that (unless they update the kernel, but that shouldn't happen too often).
At root this is actually pretty straightforward: The patent describes a consumer device that follows a trend in server technology: virtualization. We're familiar with this as Virtual PC, Parallels, etc. The difference would be that the native operating system would just be a kernel, and everything else that we think of as an operating system would run as if in Parallels, including OS X.
This machine will stay connected to a server and update itself transparently. OK, that's just one step forward from the iPhone, and two steps forward from every Mac that syncs to a time server. It also puts a lot of pressure on the company pushing the updates out to not release anything until it's been thoroughly tested. On the other hand, the consistent hardware of an 'appliance' and the virtual environment should make that easier than testing an entire operating system against thousands of possible hardware configurations (in the best case!).
The "appliance" could be any or all of: AppleTV, iPod touch, iPhone, or some new widget that's a cousin of any of those. I don't think the Mac will get here, not yet. This doesn't look revolutionary; it does look like a more transparent and reliable way to engineer a fully capable PC that's always connected to the internet: If the "operating system" (I'm tempted to pull out the UNIX term, shell) is infected or compromised, the kernel simply launches a pristine copy and kills the compromised one (not necessarily in that order). If an update requires a "restart," the kernel can do that (unless they update the kernel, but that shouldn't happen too often).
Shouldn't we all be excited by this though? If not revolutionary it certainly is the next step......right? And what do you think Apple's thoughts would be about this tech? Would they support it or try to crush it?
Shouldn't we all be excited by this though? If not revolutionary it certainly is the next step......right? And what do you think Apple's thoughts would be about this tech? Would they support it or try to crush it?
Nobody's going to crush it. That cat's long since out of the bag. The whole industry is moving this way. They might try to crush whoever's patenting this to get them out of the way, though.
It's why Microsoft bought out Virtual PC: To run virtual PCs on a PC.
It's more exciting in the server space than it is in the consumer space. In the consumer space the most exciting thing it could do is run Windows and OS X (and various UNIX-alikes) concurrently on the same hardware, so that you wouldn't have to reboot. Basically it would be what you can do now with Parallels except that (most of) OS X would be running virtually as well, so no extra software would be required. With Mac Pros and Xserves going 8 core there might be some value in virtualization for pro software that's licensed per CPU core, but that's a border case right now, because for a server 8 CPU cores really isn't all that much.
The big gain, to the extent that there is a gain, is for the always-connected appliance, which wins on security, recoverability (from viruses, crashes, etc.) and ease of updating with this technology—pretty much what's detailed there. But you wouldn't notice that you were running virtually, you'd just notice that whatever appliance you were using ran more reliably and recovered more quickly and seamlessly.
It's a slightly more advanced (and hardware-assisted) version of the microkernel technology that was all the rage back in the '90s before everyone decided that the performance penalty wasn't worth it. The only questions about whether this tech will be implemented come down to when the hardware reaches the price/performance/watt threshold that make the planned appliances possible.
Nobody's going to crush it. That cat's long since out of the bag. The whole industry is moving this way. They might try to crush whoever's patenting this to get them out of the way, though.
It's why Microsoft bought out Virtual PC: To run virtual PCs on a PC.
It's more exciting in the server space than it is in the consumer space. In the consumer space the most exciting thing it could do is run Windows and OS X (and various UNIX-alikes) concurrently on the same hardware, so that you wouldn't have to reboot. Basically it would be what you can do now with Parallels except that (most of) OS X would be running virtually as well, so no extra software would be required. With Mac Pros and Xserves going 8 core there might be some value in virtualization for pro software that's licensed per CPU core, but that's a border case right now, because for a server 8 CPU cores really isn't all that much.
The big gain, to the extent that there is a gain, is for the always-connected appliance, which wins on security, recoverability (from viruses, crashes, etc.) and ease of updating with this technology?pretty much what's detailed there. But you wouldn't notice that you were running virtually, you'd just notice that whatever appliance you were using ran more reliably and recovered more quickly and seamlessly.
It's a slightly more advanced (and hardware-assisted) version of the microkernel technology that was all the rage back in the '90s before everyone decided that the performance penalty wasn't worth it. The only questions about whether this tech will be implemented come down to when the hardware reaches the price/performance/watt threshold that make the planned appliances possible.
I was right. I should be and am excited about this. Although the "appliances" that would do this stuff justice doesn't exist yet....at least not in a non-prototype form.
Olternaut, the posting guidelines are very clear on this issue and people are well within their rights to call you out on it.
Amorph explained to you very patiently and clearly that this is hardly earth shattering news one way or the other. You chose to apply an interpretation to those comments that is not justified but rather reflects your view that this is something you should be excited about. As this seems to have been your opinion before you even started the thread, I suggest in future, you just go straight to being excited and spare us all.
To be perfectly blunt <Amorph groans, slaps forehead, mutters "please don't">, 'the rest of the class' is pointing and staring because you are being a dick.
Crazychester, he HAS been called on it and we all moved on...well, I suppose not all. Some of us really have nothing to actually contribute to the conversation and instead feel the need to try and make others feel bad. Seriously, was there any reason to say he was being a dick other than to make yourself feel like a big man?
And he has every right to be excited! Just because it is mundane to you, doesn't mean it wont be interesting to someone else. And heaven forbid he would want to come to a discussion board and, you know... discuss it?
He has made it clear that he will not do it again. So drop it.
Olternaut, the posting guidelines are very clear on this issue and people are well within their rights to call you out on it.
Amorph explained to you very patiently and clearly that this is hardly earth shattering news one way or the other. You chose to apply an interpretation to those comments that is not justified but rather reflects your view that this is something you should be excited about. As this seems to have been your opinion before you even started the thread, I suggest in future, you just go straight to being excited and spare us all.
To be perfectly blunt <Amorph groans, slaps forehead, mutters "please don't">, 'the rest of the class' is pointing and staring because you are being a dick.
Yes but this was covered earlier in the thread. Why are you continuing to waste time talking about it?
The forum admin should start a whiners section I mean geez! The thread could have been about an Apple prototype holographic projector that would do away with the need for physical screens altogether coupled with a cybernetic interface for doing away with touch interfaces or any manual interface altogether but you freak nerds would STILL be talking about thread posting guidelines!! Have mercy God!
Yes but this was covered earlier in the thread. Why are you continuing to waste time talking about it?
The forum admin should start a whiners section I mean geez! The thread could have been about an Apple prototype holographic projector that would do away with the need for physical screens altogether coupled with a cybernetic interface for doing away with touch interfaces or any manual interface altogether but you freak nerds would STILL be talking about thread posting guidelines!! Have mercy God!
Because you've yet to really acknowledge what others have been saying outside of going 'Geez, okay, forum nazis!' or otherwise mocking the people who bring it up.
Because you've yet to really acknowledge what others have been saying outside of going 'Geez, okay, forum nazis!' or otherwise mocking the people who bring it up.
Someone needs socialization training.
I hAve! Please read the earlier posts. I have yet to REALLY acknowledge? Should I spill my blood to prove my worthiness? or something? Can someone please start talking about tech now?
Comments
Couple of comments about the original postings...
Why would "Neo" at MacNN post an article specifically referencing Apple in this patent description, when (if you read the actual patent application) it clearly states that Moka5 is the applicant? If the story doesn't have any credibility, why would the postings at MDN and at MacNN be suddenly yanked and not redacted? Does Moka5 always monitor Apple rumor sites for postings about their patent applications or was the article correct in identifying something that Apple is really up to?
It seems extremely suspicious since there is no explanation from either MDN or MacNN and it sure does add to the mystery.
So is anybody going to seriously discuss this instead of babbling about punctuation and other nonesense?
Couple of comments about the original postings...
Why would "Neo" at MacNN post an article specifically referencing Apple in this patent description, when (if you read the actual patent application) it clearly states that Moka5 is the applicant? If the story doesn't have any credibility, why would the postings at MDN and at MacNN be suddenly yanked and not redacted? Does Moka5 always monitor Apple rumor sites for postings about their patent applications or was the article correct in identifying something that Apple is really up to?
It seems extremely suspicious since there is no explanation from either MDN or MacNN and it sure does add to the mystery.
Finally. Someone actually interested in the story.
Could it be that MacNN got extremely careless? Somehow macdailynews found out it wasn't apple but moka5 and quickly yanked their article about it without saying a word. I think whatever happened they tried to stop it in time before it spread too much in fear of being nailed like engadget was about some false apple story a while ago.
All it takes though is a guy like me hungry for Apple news to find a story and help spread it around the net quick as a flash.
I'm still on the hunt for news and rumors about the Feb. 26th SDK event and news on whats going to happen at WWDC this year.
Peace til lata.
This machine will stay connected to a server and update itself transparently. OK, that's just one step forward from the iPhone, and two steps forward from every Mac that syncs to a time server. It also puts a lot of pressure on the company pushing the updates out to not release anything until it's been thoroughly tested. On the other hand, the consistent hardware of an 'appliance' and the virtual environment should make that easier than testing an entire operating system against thousands of possible hardware configurations (in the best case!).
The "appliance" could be any or all of: AppleTV, iPod touch, iPhone, or some new widget that's a cousin of any of those. I don't think the Mac will get here, not yet. This doesn't look revolutionary; it does look like a more transparent and reliable way to engineer a fully capable PC that's always connected to the internet: If the "operating system" (I'm tempted to pull out the UNIX term, shell) is infected or compromised, the kernel simply launches a pristine copy and kills the compromised one (not necessarily in that order). If an update requires a "restart," the kernel can do that (unless they update the kernel, but that shouldn't happen too often).
At root this is actually pretty straightforward: The patent describes a consumer device that follows a trend in server technology: virtualization. We're familiar with this as Virtual PC, Parallels, etc. The difference would be that the native operating system would just be a kernel, and everything else that we think of as an operating system would run as if in Parallels, including OS X.
This machine will stay connected to a server and update itself transparently. OK, that's just one step forward from the iPhone, and two steps forward from every Mac that syncs to a time server. It also puts a lot of pressure on the company pushing the updates out to not release anything until it's been thoroughly tested. On the other hand, the consistent hardware of an 'appliance' and the virtual environment should make that easier than testing an entire operating system against thousands of possible hardware configurations (in the best case!).
The "appliance" could be any or all of: AppleTV, iPod touch, iPhone, or some new widget that's a cousin of any of those. I don't think the Mac will get here, not yet. This doesn't look revolutionary; it does look like a more transparent and reliable way to engineer a fully capable PC that's always connected to the internet: If the "operating system" (I'm tempted to pull out the UNIX term, shell) is infected or compromised, the kernel simply launches a pristine copy and kills the compromised one (not necessarily in that order). If an update requires a "restart," the kernel can do that (unless they update the kernel, but that shouldn't happen too often).
Shouldn't we all be excited by this though? If not revolutionary it certainly is the next step......right? And what do you think Apple's thoughts would be about this tech? Would they support it or try to crush it?
Shouldn't we all be excited by this though? If not revolutionary it certainly is the next step......right? And what do you think Apple's thoughts would be about this tech? Would they support it or try to crush it?
Nobody's going to crush it. That cat's long since out of the bag. The whole industry is moving this way. They might try to crush whoever's patenting this to get them out of the way, though.
It's why Microsoft bought out Virtual PC: To run virtual PCs on a PC.
It's more exciting in the server space than it is in the consumer space. In the consumer space the most exciting thing it could do is run Windows and OS X (and various UNIX-alikes) concurrently on the same hardware, so that you wouldn't have to reboot. Basically it would be what you can do now with Parallels except that (most of) OS X would be running virtually as well, so no extra software would be required. With Mac Pros and Xserves going 8 core there might be some value in virtualization for pro software that's licensed per CPU core, but that's a border case right now, because for a server 8 CPU cores really isn't all that much.
The big gain, to the extent that there is a gain, is for the always-connected appliance, which wins on security, recoverability (from viruses, crashes, etc.) and ease of updating with this technology—pretty much what's detailed there. But you wouldn't notice that you were running virtually, you'd just notice that whatever appliance you were using ran more reliably and recovered more quickly and seamlessly.
It's a slightly more advanced (and hardware-assisted) version of the microkernel technology that was all the rage back in the '90s before everyone decided that the performance penalty wasn't worth it. The only questions about whether this tech will be implemented come down to when the hardware reaches the price/performance/watt threshold that make the planned appliances possible.
Nobody's going to crush it. That cat's long since out of the bag. The whole industry is moving this way. They might try to crush whoever's patenting this to get them out of the way, though.
It's why Microsoft bought out Virtual PC: To run virtual PCs on a PC.
It's more exciting in the server space than it is in the consumer space. In the consumer space the most exciting thing it could do is run Windows and OS X (and various UNIX-alikes) concurrently on the same hardware, so that you wouldn't have to reboot. Basically it would be what you can do now with Parallels except that (most of) OS X would be running virtually as well, so no extra software would be required. With Mac Pros and Xserves going 8 core there might be some value in virtualization for pro software that's licensed per CPU core, but that's a border case right now, because for a server 8 CPU cores really isn't all that much.
The big gain, to the extent that there is a gain, is for the always-connected appliance, which wins on security, recoverability (from viruses, crashes, etc.) and ease of updating with this technology?pretty much what's detailed there. But you wouldn't notice that you were running virtually, you'd just notice that whatever appliance you were using ran more reliably and recovered more quickly and seamlessly.
It's a slightly more advanced (and hardware-assisted) version of the microkernel technology that was all the rage back in the '90s before everyone decided that the performance penalty wasn't worth it. The only questions about whether this tech will be implemented come down to when the hardware reaches the price/performance/watt threshold that make the planned appliances possible.
I was right. I should be and am excited about this.
Olternaut will you quit with the non descriptive threads already. This is ridiculous.
Oh for the luv of gawd already! Onlooker, could you please let us know when you have caught up with the rest of the classs??!
We are actually talking about moka5 and the long term impact of virtualization technology in the computer industry.
Geez enough with the thread title crap!
Amorph explained to you very patiently and clearly that this is hardly earth shattering news one way or the other. You chose to apply an interpretation to those comments that is not justified but rather reflects your view that this is something you should be excited about. As this seems to have been your opinion before you even started the thread, I suggest in future, you just go straight to being excited and spare us all.
To be perfectly blunt <Amorph groans, slaps forehead, mutters "please don't">, 'the rest of the class' is pointing and staring because you are being a dick.
And he has every right to be excited! Just because it is mundane to you, doesn't mean it wont be interesting to someone else. And heaven forbid he would want to come to a discussion board and, you know... discuss it?
He has made it clear that he will not do it again. So drop it.
Olternaut, the posting guidelines are very clear on this issue and people are well within their rights to call you out on it.
Amorph explained to you very patiently and clearly that this is hardly earth shattering news one way or the other. You chose to apply an interpretation to those comments that is not justified but rather reflects your view that this is something you should be excited about. As this seems to have been your opinion before you even started the thread, I suggest in future, you just go straight to being excited and spare us all.
To be perfectly blunt <Amorph groans, slaps forehead, mutters "please don't">, 'the rest of the class' is pointing and staring because you are being a dick.
Yes but this was covered earlier in the thread. Why are you continuing to waste time talking about it?
The forum admin should start a whiners section I mean geez! The thread could have been about an Apple prototype holographic projector that would do away with the need for physical screens altogether coupled with a cybernetic interface for doing away with touch interfaces or any manual interface altogether but you freak nerds would STILL be talking about thread posting guidelines!! Have mercy God!
Yes but this was covered earlier in the thread. Why are you continuing to waste time talking about it?
The forum admin should start a whiners section I mean geez! The thread could have been about an Apple prototype holographic projector that would do away with the need for physical screens altogether coupled with a cybernetic interface for doing away with touch interfaces or any manual interface altogether but you freak nerds would STILL be talking about thread posting guidelines!! Have mercy God!
Because you've yet to really acknowledge what others have been saying outside of going 'Geez, okay, forum nazis!' or otherwise mocking the people who bring it up.
Someone needs socialization training.
Seriously, was there any reason to say he was being a dick other than to make yourself feel like a big man?
I assure you, I have never felt like a man, big or otherwise, in my life. Although I'll admit to having felt a few in my time.
Because you've yet to really acknowledge what others have been saying outside of going 'Geez, okay, forum nazis!' or otherwise mocking the people who bring it up.
Someone needs socialization training.
I hAve! Please read the earlier posts. I have yet to REALLY acknowledge? Should I spill my blood to prove my worthiness? or something? Can someone please start talking about tech now?
I assure you, I have never felt like a man, big or otherwise, in my life. Although I'll admit to having felt a few in my time.