Twist of Lemon...
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?threadid=180797
Vanderpool?
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
\
Vanderpool?
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
\
Comments
No optimization, no special 'altivec' nonsense etc?
iDunno. Not to say it will *never* happen but....
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
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".
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!
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?
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???
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...
Barto
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.
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
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?
Forget it, people, there's no story here. Vanderpool is no more real than a space ship in my back yard.