Briefly: Multi OS PowerPC, Canadian iPod price reduction
New PowerPC to Run Multiple Operating Systems
Sometime next year, IBM is expect to announce a revision to its next generation of PowerPC 970 processors that will allow it to run multiple operating systems simultaneously, according to CNet News.com. Doing so will allow a computer to handle more jobs at the same time and to be used more efficiently, said Karl Freund, vice president of IBM eServer pSeries.
"The technology, called partitioning, relies on a concept called virtualization that breaks the hard link between an operating system and the underlying hardware. Partitioning is available today only on servers using IBM's higher-end Power4 and Power5 processors and in competing server designs from Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard and Intel."
According to Freund, IBM's goal is to make virtualization capability ubiquitous across the Power line of processors. Although he declined to comment on precisely when the chip scheduled to arrive, he said it's pretty late in the design cycle and Apple plans to use it in upcoming Mac-based hardware products.
iPod Price Reduction in Canada
Canadian retailers will soon slightly reduce the price of all Apple iPods following a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision throwing out the levy on digital music players with embedded memory.
According to an article in Market News, the price will be reduced at Future Shop and Best Buy stores by the amount of the previously imposed levy, which equates to $25 for Apple iPods, which come in 20GB and 40GB versions. For iPod Minis, which start at 4GB capacities, the savings will be $15.
Sometime next year, IBM is expect to announce a revision to its next generation of PowerPC 970 processors that will allow it to run multiple operating systems simultaneously, according to CNet News.com. Doing so will allow a computer to handle more jobs at the same time and to be used more efficiently, said Karl Freund, vice president of IBM eServer pSeries.
"The technology, called partitioning, relies on a concept called virtualization that breaks the hard link between an operating system and the underlying hardware. Partitioning is available today only on servers using IBM's higher-end Power4 and Power5 processors and in competing server designs from Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard and Intel."
According to Freund, IBM's goal is to make virtualization capability ubiquitous across the Power line of processors. Although he declined to comment on precisely when the chip scheduled to arrive, he said it's pretty late in the design cycle and Apple plans to use it in upcoming Mac-based hardware products.
iPod Price Reduction in Canada
Canadian retailers will soon slightly reduce the price of all Apple iPods following a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision throwing out the levy on digital music players with embedded memory.
According to an article in Market News, the price will be reduced at Future Shop and Best Buy stores by the amount of the previously imposed levy, which equates to $25 for Apple iPods, which come in 20GB and 40GB versions. For iPod Minis, which start at 4GB capacities, the savings will be $15.
Comments
When a computer can run any OS, how will that affect Apple's strategy?
If Macs can run Windows out of the box (with minimal overhead), it's clearly a big plus for switchers + adders.
But on the flip side, if PCs can run OS X (will Wintel ever allow this?), the Mac strategy may undergo an enormous shift.
Before the iPod, I would have scoffed at Apple changing their core business model. But if the cross-platform iPod success continues, it's intriguingly possible that we may be looking at a very different Apple some years down the road.
Looks like Steve J will have something to offer the developers in the mid year Keynote. Major changes in the G5 at that time allow for a little speed bump in January with major announcements focusing on other products, like a flash iPod.
How that involves Windows would hinge upon Microsoft porting XP/Longhorn to PPC and it's ISA.
Would such a technology "break the link" between the hardware and the OS, or not?
Originally posted by Hobbes
Wait, so, "virtualization" of this kind only applies to OSes engineered to run on equivalent architectures?
Would such a technology "break the link" between the hardware and the OS, or not?
the way i read it, is it would allow more than one OS to run concurrently (ie, Mac OS X and GNU/Linux, or two OSXes, or a *BSD & GNU/Linux simul). that brief snippet there doesn't mention x86 compatibility or emulation, so i dont think windows will start running on apple hardware anytime soon (based on this article).
practical benefit to most end-users: little. if osx weren't so stable, then it might be nice to have an extra one loaded and ready to go when one crashed, but since osx is rock solid i dont think thats an issue. people in a dual-boot environment (like myself) may enjoy this though, as it means i wouldn't have to hit the off switch on one OS to run the other.
Originally posted by converted2truth
Why would any home 'user' want to run two operating systems simultaneously? I just don't get it. I'm more for dual processors running one OS, or dual core processors running one OS. What's the point in getting a computer with a permenant case of concurrent skitz-o-phrenia(sp)?
They wouldn't. However, for the Xserve, JS20, and other 970-based servers it could be interesting. I'm more interested in other Power tech that will make it over like SMT and on-die memory controllers.
We have partitioned iSeries and it's useful to have multiple environments on the same box.
It doesn't mean you'll be able to run Win alongside OSX, but two/multiple instances of OS X, or YDL / OSX concurrently.
One thing though.. Xserve is limited when it comes to expansion, you can't add more cards, etc.. so i wonder how really useful will it be.
Originally posted by converted2truth
Why would any home 'user' want to run two operating systems simultaneously? I just don't get it. I'm more for dual processors running one OS, or dual core processors running one OS. What's the point in getting a computer with a permenant case of concurrent skitz-o-phrenia(sp)?
Why would home owners need a personal computer? That was the question/statement made by HP's CEO before Apple made the first successful personal computer. It just goes to show that we can't predict the future, but we can shape it. Home "users" are becoming more advanced, and even if a compute runs two separate operating systems, there's no reason to think they'd be visually or conceptually separate. It could simply be an efficiency restructuring under the hood.
Originally posted by coolfactor
Why would home owners need a personal computer? That was the question/statement made by HP's CEO before Apple made the first successful personal computer. It just goes to show that we can't predict the future, but we can shape it. Home "users" are becoming more advanced, and even if a compute runs two separate operating systems, there's no reason to think they'd be visually or conceptually separate. It could simply be an efficiency restructuring under the hood.
Nah, as I understand it, "virtualisation" as used in the Power-processor familiy by IBM means nothing more than what MS achieves with Virtual PC in software - and what Intel plans in hardware - on the X86 side: Running multiple instances of architecture compatible operating systems on a single CPU. In IBM's/Apple's case this would equate running multiple instances of OS X or another PPC-compatible UNIX variant.
And I guess that there is a consensus that this is of rather little (to sbsolutely no) interest to the regular consumer. To him it would mean to struggle with twice the administration.
For the average home user a fast system running on as many processors as you like - as long as this is transparent for the user - is more efficient.
Originally posted by Stecs
The simple home use for this is one computer, multiple terminals.
Now that has legs. CPUs are way overpowered for the "average" home user - web surfing, word processing, MP3 playing. Heck, I'm still using a G3/350 and it only bogs down when I try to do heavy iMovie editing, 3D rendering and other compute intensive tasks.
So back the the multiple terminals. One OS runs your media terminal(s) - piping music and video to your home entertainment system, another is a desktop instance, another interfaces with a wireless laptop.
OTOH, CPUs are so cheap it might not be worth it to produce "dumb" terminals anymore.
Interesting idea, though.
- Jasen.
P.S. Can I get OS 9 to run in one virtual CPU and OS X in another?
Originally posted by jasenj1
Now that has legs. CPUs are way overpowered for the "average" home user - web surfing, word processing, MP3 playing. Heck, I'm still using a G3/350 and it only bogs down when I try to do heavy iMovie editing, 3D rendering and other compute intensive tasks.
So back the the multiple terminals. One OS runs your media terminal(s) - piping music and video to your home entertainment system, another is a desktop instance, another interfaces with a wireless laptop.
OTOH, CPUs are so cheap it might not be worth it to produce "dumb" terminals anymore.
Interesting idea, though.
- Jasen.
P.S. Can I get OS 9 to run in one virtual CPU and OS X in another?
Wow! talk about the digital hub. Every member of the family running off of 1 computer with each user running a different instance of Tiger and interconnected with next gen airport express cards.
Tablet macs etc....
Wow!
Originally posted by Stecs
The simple home use for this is one computer, multiple terminals.
You mean the way UNIX was designed and how it was used in the 70's at Berkeley...
Makes more sense as a feature for next generation XServes.
The $15 or $25 iPod Price Reduction is based on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in:
Canadian Private Copying Collective v. Canadian Storage Media Alliance, 2004 FCA 424, dated 2004-12-14, which is found at:
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fca/2004/2004fca424.html
The 3 appelate judges decided that a permanently embedded, non-removable memory, incorporated into a digital audio recorder (MP3 player), is not an "audio recording medium" on which a levy can be imposed. See paragraphs 133 and ss., especially paragraphs 159-165 of the decision.
Because the decision is unanimous, there is little chance that it could be overturned, modified by the Supreme Court of Canada. Hence, the immediate price reduction on iPods.
Originally posted by Stecs
The simple home use for this is one computer, multiple terminals.
Originally posted by jasenj1
One OS runs your media terminal(s) - piping music and video to your home entertainment system, another is a desktop instance, another interfaces with a wireless laptop.
Nah. You only need multi-tasking to accomplish that, you don't need virtualization/partitioning for that. In fact, partition a system to do something like that would be a complete waste of system resources because of the overhead it would take just to run each instance of the operating system.
Also, This is not like VirtualPC; take a system with 1 CPU, 1 Hard drive, one network connection and creates multiple "virtual" systems with it.
partitioning as described in the article would be to take a system with 4 CPUs, 8 hard drives, and 2 network connections and create say 2 virtual systems from it each with 2 CPUs, 4 hard drives and one network connection. This allows you to maximize system resources for each given purpose. Maybe one virtual system needs more hard drive space or one needs more CPU power than the other, etc.
Originally posted by schizzylogic
partitioning as described in the article would be to take a system with 4 CPUs, 8 hard drives, and 2 network connections and create say 2 virtual systems from it each with 2 CPUs, 4 hard drives and one network connection. This allows you to maximize system resources for each given purpose. Maybe one virtual system needs more hard drive space or one needs more CPU power than the other, etc.
What makes this different from using a dedicated system for each OS instance?
To add funcionality, you would have to add new components. There will be limited space on the mainboard, so you cannot infinitely add funcionality.
You would have to build a second system, interconnect it with the existing one just to create a partition. This could better be achieved by creating dedicated systems.
In order to add components, the system needs to be shut down or they need to be hot-swap/plugable which is very expensive.
Another thought should be on security and uptime: Once the partitioned system goes down, so do all of its partitions.