Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Next G5 Multitasks Operating Systems

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the little-bit-of-this-a-little-bit-of-that dept.

Apple 449

squiggleslash writes "IBM has big plans for the 970, Apple's so-called "G5". The CPU will support partitioning, similar to IBM's mainframe systems, allowing multiple operating systems to run at the same time on a single CPU. A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and the PowerPC version of Windows NT, all simultaneously and independently."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't forget... (0, Troll)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171626)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Raily? (0, Offtopic)

the Howard Dean Camp (748694) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171628)

You don't say.

Yeargh!

great (5, Funny)

jrl87 (669651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171631)

so now I can crash at least five systems at the same time?

Re:great (1)

tubbtubb (781286) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171842)

Yes, but it's very difficult to crash the Hypervisor [ibm.com] .
That's why LPAR is cool.

great-Demolition derby. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171845)

"so now I can crash at least five systems at the same time?"

Just wait till partitioning comes to the automotive industry.

Re:great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171942)

Easy. I think a little 110VAC over IP [fiftythree.org] should do it.

What's the point? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171632)

OS X is already the best OS available anyway.

Re:What's the point? (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171719)

Imagine if your java apps run in native mode while the rest is under OSX...

Native Mode Java? (1)

NeoBeans (591740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171768)

Imagine if your java apps run in native mode while the rest is under OSX...

I'm sorry, but... what the heck is "native mode" Java?

Sounds like an oxymoron.

Re:Native Mode Java? (3, Informative)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171874)

This would be a JVM running on top of hardware instead of using an intermediate OS layer... Kinda like Sun NCs with Java procs.

Re:Native Mode Java? (4, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171891)

native mode is when a resident national of the country in which the machine is located types "java LocalMain" at the console to launch the program and is not to be confused with indigenous mode which is when a resident national of the country in which the machine is located launches it from an IDE GUI. Hope this clarifies things.

PowerPC version of Windows NT? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171634)

What is this, 1994?

Re:PowerPC version of Windows NT? (5, Informative)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171672)

a ppc version of the nt kernel will run the next xbox.

Re:PowerPC version of Windows NT? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171840)

What a stupid idea. Why the fuck are they doing that? Lots of time on their hands? How about spending that making my DVD burner not crash Windows XP? Or making their OS a little secure, or considering how to make their stupid fucking mail software not automatically execute attachments?

Anyway, so, the theoretical part is that MS might actually release this as a non-xbox piece of software. Probably not is my guess.

Re:PowerPC version of Windows NT? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171676)

No, it's Thursday December 23, 2004 the time is 04:19PM on the East coast. Would you like the weather also?

Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171636)

it's just Linux. Stallman ain't doing any of the 970 work.

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (1)

gregh76 (121243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171710)

Linux is a kernel, not an OS.

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171739)

Exactly, and any porting work is being done by IBM and not the copyleft fanatics over at the FSF. GNU isn't an "OS" either unless you count Hurd (and nobody does). If anything it should be called IBM 970/Linux.

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (1)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171821)

If anything it should be called IBM 970/Linux.


Probably wrong too. Perhaps it should be Linux/970 with GNU utilities. I mean, following the examples of Solaris/86, OS/400, and others.

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171886)

Why are you including GNU but not IBM? Who is doing the actual work here? It's IBM that is putting forth the effort and resources, not GNU. And if you are trying to be "fair", the name should be more along the lines of "IBM 970/Linux with some plenty of BSD code and some GNU code". Yeah, the "ls" command might be GNU's but the TCP stack sure as hell isn't.

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (1)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171917)

Why are you including GNU but not IBM? Who is doing the actual work here? It's IBM that is putting forth the effort and resources, not GNU. And if you are trying to be "fair", the name should be more along the lines of "IBM 970/Linux with some plenty of BSD code and some GNU code". Yeah, the "ls" command might be GNU's but the TCP stack sure as hell isn't.


Forgive me. How about */* since just about everyone has contributed to this by dreaming up computing, making microprocessors, writing software, developing hardware, or purchasing them (thus funding future development)?

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171802)

Bzzzt!!!

Try again nutcase. The entire world outside of GNU freaks considers Linux an OS.

Soooo Sollly Kookie Boy!!!!

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (1)

SCVirus (774240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171882)

Linux is a kernel GNU/Linux is an operating system.

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171725)

You did not explain why Linux is correct in this case. Reason is this time we are only interested in running the kernel, in this case, just Linux, not with the other GNU applications.

Re:Quit with the "GNU/Linux" crap, (1)

acidrain69 (632468) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171828)

True. I have to comment on this for the trolls out there.

While Linux is the GNU operating system, he doesn't really have any right to call it GNU/Linux. It's like saying Model T/Ferrari, or Wright/747, or even IBM PC. Oh wait :)

It is accurate to describe it as a GNU operating system (errr, in so much as linux can be called an operating system, since it is just a kernel).

Sorry. You can mod this offtopic now.

Finally! (1)

Xierox (805009) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171641)

Finally! Something that will stop the big Linux vs. Windows flame wars!

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (4, Interesting)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171648)

But it sounded really interesting.

On a more serious note, I doubt it could run the PPC WindowsNT as it would be lacking a few important drivers, but running OS X and Linux side by side would make a very interesting system. It would be nice to see som Xserves in our datacenter here.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (4, Interesting)

CdBee (742846) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171717)

The developer prototype for the next-gen XboX is an Apple G5 running a heavily-updated Windows NT:PPC, they're already in the wild. This may be why MS bought Connectix, makers of VirtualPC

Linux and OS X side by side (2, Insightful)

XavierItzmann (687234) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171738)

Yeah, I feel a burning need to run two Unices at the same time on the same machine. Maybe Ill have the GIMP running on X Windows in OS X and Ill have another GIMP under Red Hat. Just for the heck of it.

Re:Linux and OS X side by side (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171758)

You've never run multiple machines have you.

Re:Linux and OS X side by side (1)

tanguyr (468371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171824)

As a general rule you don't mind 'em in software, but you'd rather keep the total number of hardware units low, allowing for performance and disaster recovery needs.

You can already get all that today from big blue. Are you really going to buy it next year from Apple?

Re:Linux and OS X side by side (1)

Monx (742514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171911)

Dynamic partitioning is great. Lets say you want to try out a new os version. Install it under another partition and test as much as you want -- without ever shutting off the other os.

You can also use this system anytime you'd dual boot. Just cut one partition down to 1/10 of a proc and increase the allocation for the other one. When you're done playing your game or using some obscure app, just reverse the values and go back to using your main system. You never have to shut it down again.

Want to try a new mailserver config w/out taking your live system offline? Don't have a spare box? Use logical partitioning.

Do you need to test a multi-machine app? Don't feel like buying more hardware yet? Guess what technology solves that problem ...

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along (1)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171823)

I doubt it could run the PPC WindowsNT

Aren't G5's running Windows NT being used to develop games for the XBox2? How does that work?

in russia.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171654)

In Soviet Russia, CPU "multitasks" You!

Re:in russia.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171861)

... and in Korea, only old people "multitask" their CPU

Re:in russia.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171916)

All Your "multitask" are belong to CPU

CPUs "multitask", in Japan!

1. Get CPU
2. "multitask"
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!

Urgh!

Re:in russia.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171866)

oh die already.

these jokes are _so_ lame!

Imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171658)

old people digitally signing this in korea!

In theory yes (5, Interesting)

computerme (655703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171661)

>A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and the PowerPC version of Windows NT, all simultaneously and independently."

But in reality, i believe this is so apple can release "big iron" type systems (servers), the VM would allow Multiple versions of the server OS to run for maximum uptime, protection etc...

Most people are going to take it as "Cool i can run windows and OSX at the same time at full speed" But in reality its closer to what i described above.

But if others care to chime in i could be completely wrong...

Re:In theory yes (1)

0x000000 (841725) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171880)

Doubt windows would be ported to it. Windows NT used to run on the PPC architecture but certainly does not anymore, and porting it would be a major pain for Microsoft. I agree with what you said about the uptime, but the function i see this being used for is what BSD jails are used for now. Trying to create a secure enviroment that is outside of the host OS, and has it's own limitations. Another thing, update one OS X, reboot in a different version, have the two running next to each other, then reboot the one you just updated, 0 downtime if it is properly set up.

So... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171662)

I see it runs this "GNU/Linux", but the question is... does it run Linux?

Sounds great... (5, Funny)

iamzack (830561) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171664)

But will it come in a stylish case with a 4-figure price tag?

For you.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171690)

We'll give you a five-figure price tag.

-Apple

Re:For you.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171947)

I'd prefer a five-finger discount please....

what about dual? (3, Interesting)

jxyama (821091) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171671)

if you had a dual, would it be more efficient to have each processor run 50% of two OS'es or each CPU running one OS?

Re:what about dual? (3, Informative)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171831)

The real benefit of true multitasking is of course that you don't have to lock it down. The use of multitasking user mode processes would be quite limited if you only could use it to assign locked processor affinities. Likewise, the ideal situation here would be to let both OSes share both CPUs, with only maybe some additions in the idle loop and perharps an arbitrator driver in each OS. Strictly speaking, I guess an arbitrator would not be needed, but wouldn't it be nice if the OSes could auto-schedule processes of different priorities with each other?

Re:what about dual? (4, Interesting)

bentfork (92199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171893)

Wow... My head just exploded. Thanks. I wonder if you could run a stable kernel and debug a new kernel at the same time. THAT would be great.

This has little to do with Apple (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171682)

IBM does real computing. I doubt Apple will use this.

Re:This has little to do with Apple (1)

LEgregius (550408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171894)

In an article I read about this, the IBM rep was quoted as saying that Apple would be using it. Whether or not they use that feature is up in the air.

OMG! (5, Funny)

Chief Typist (110285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171683)

I'm going to need more than one mouse button!

-ch

Re:OMG! (3, Funny)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171846)

Take your keyboard and put it ontop of the mouse.

There, now you have over 100 buttons on your mouse.

Re:OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171865)

?

Noob

Re:OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171920)

I think you're going to need more than one mouse in this case!!!

Re:OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171932)

If I get mod points soon, you're getting one of them. If anyone else is, come on, that was fucking hilarious.

Except on an XServe... (0, Troll)

NeoBeans (591740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171688)

....I'm not sure this would be a particularly useful feature for the typical Mac user.. OS 9 is drying up... Yellow Dog Linux can actually co-exist at runtime with Mac OS X [apple.com] . With Fink [sourceforge.net] , I can do an apt-get and pull whatever I need, Debian-style. So... I'm not sure running multiple OSes concurrently is all that big of a deal since I've already picked *one*.

Speeding up the multitasking of apps under that one OS would be a nice artifact, though!

One button mouse... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171691)

But parallel operating systems?

Maybe Mac users should get accustomed to the complexity of a two button mouse first...

I'm still wondering if the wheel mouse... (1)

NeoBeans (591740) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171726)

...has two or THREE buttons. :-)

Just kidding. I get kidded by friends about owning a computer that comes standard with less than three buttons. :-)

Except that (1)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171695)

A G5 is not a full 970. They scale them down to make the more realistic for the desktop. No doubt that they'll do the same here.

After introduction of G5 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171697)

...the CPU PartitionMagic is released.

Isn't this done already? (1, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171698)

From the article:

The technology, called partitioning, relies on a concept called virtualization that breaks the hard link between an operating system and the underlying hardware.

Well, that's what VMware and QEMU already do, isn't it?

I'm assuming "partitioning" is some sort of architecture change to make schemes like these work better/more easily/more efficiently - but I don't think they should be pushing it as something new.

Unless it *is* something new and I've missed the point, that is.

Re:Isn't this done already? (4, Informative)

Gadzinka (256729) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171764)

Partitioning is quite old indeed and has been running on some big iron for a while, but this particular details are somewhat different that VMWare/QEMU.

They plan to add partitioning support on the chip level, so there will be no performance penalty (like in VMWare) or need to recompile OS (like in QEMU IIRC).

Robert

Re:Isn't this done already? (4, Informative)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171773)

No, this is different than Vmware etc al
They require a host OS to run under. This means you can partition your CPUs so they can run multiple OSes at the same time, nativly. No need for a host OS, just some bitching BIOS.

There are multiple server vendors who already offer the same ability, mainframes have had this for years.

Of course, running 2 or more OSes requires 2 or more times the CPU power in order to get similar performance to a one OS machine.

Re:Isn't this done already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171900)

Yes, you are missing the point.

The G5 has special hardware to facilitate virtualization. VMWare is to virtualization what software rendering is to 3D graphics. A processor with hardware support for virtulization is the equivalent of a hot 3D graphics card in this analogy.

Virtualization isn't new. The technology has been used in mainframes and mini's for many years. Its implementation in a processor that may find its way into desktop machines is new.

Re:Isn't this done already? (2, Interesting)

linatux (63153) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171938)

Big Iron allows multiple virtual machines to run at the same time. This can be done by partitioning the machine near hardware level (LPAR) or with VM (O/S that allows multiple guests.
Imagine 5 machines each serving different time zones. Peak load for each machine will vary, but you must be able to cope with the peak. Combine the 5 onto one physical machine & you still have the ability to perform OS maintenance etc seperately, but a single machine could perform the work of the other 5 - just spreading the load.
Me - I can't wait for this to become more affordable than the current Z & I series machines.

yea but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171700)

can it run linux?

oh,
five versions, you say?
well.. cool

What about the rest of the hardware ? (4, Insightful)

Bluesuperman (843038) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171705)

So what about the rest of the hardware ? Now you have two OS's accessing the same hard drive. There goes the IO ... unless you had two SCSI drives .. now it gets interesting. Michael.

All at once (1)

lheal (86013) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171712)

... and slowly.

The first generation of chips with features like those are never fast enough.

A Beowulf cluster of these would be fast enough (if you could get it work at all).

Yeah, I'm a cynical, bitter shell of the promising youth I once was.

Before You Embarass Yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171722)

Please spare us your:

"Kewl! I've always wanted to run OS A and OS B at the same time on my computer at home!"

drivel.

This is a big iron server feature.

Can't wait (2, Funny)

gkuz (706134) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171724)

NT for PowerPC. Be still, my heart!

Re:Can't wait (1)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171914)

It's been around for years. As a matter of fact, they killed it off for the most part (during the beta stage of Windows 2000), otherwise you would see XP on PowerPC ;)

Examples:
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/article/960919/ nt40l.jpg [impress.co.jp]

http://wwb.dreams.ne.jp/~pb1895/WinNT/ [dreams.ne.jp]

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/article/960905/ wexppc.htm [impress.co.jp]

G5 can't boot OS 9 (5, Interesting)

rgovostes (814720) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171728)

A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and ... The G5 cannot natively boot Mac OS 9. However, you can run most OS 9 software through the Classic Environment in Mac OS X. If we count the Classic Environment, though, why stop at that list? You could run virtually any OS, through various emulators. Windows 95, DOS, BeOS, etc...

Re:G5 can't boot OS 9 (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171777)

I am already doing that with a current dual 2.5 gHz G5. BeOS works fine!

Re:G5 can't boot OS 9 (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171899)

You run the BeOS Bootloader from OS X Classic mode?

My Conspiracy Theorist view (4, Insightful)

Kraegar (565221) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171735)

1) IBM Partners with apple to make the g5
2) IBM Sells off its intel based PC & Laptop line
3) IBM incorporates more features into the g5 to make it a bigger competitor to intel / amd
(begin conspiracy)
4) IBM pushes linux more heavily on the apple g5
5) IBM pushes the idea of apple desktops paired with IBM servers running linux or AIX

Could a stronger IBM / apple partnership be the culmination of technologies (power processors, apple desktops, IBM servers, the marketing engine of both companies) that finally steps up and pushes an all *nix platform to challenge Microsoft?

Re:My Conspiracy Theorist view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171770)

Why don't you actually read, or at least have someone with a clue, explain to you the agreement IBM signed with the company they sold their peecee division to.

Re:My Conspiracy Theorist view (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171806)

Decent theory except that: a) IBM has been working with apple on chips for almost 10 years b) IBM is too much of a corporate bohemoth to do anything even slightly creative like that.

Wow, it's press releaeses from 1995 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171743)

Seriously, isn't this exactly what IBM said about "OS WORKPLACE" at the time? Right down to the "PPC Version of Windows NT" (which was cancelled at that time). Maybe it was a slow day at the IBM PR department.

I want one! I want one! (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171752)

What would be cool if you have one partition for the Mac Os and another partition running VMware to emulate a (AMD :P ) x86 CPU for the all the non-Mac OSes.

I been wanting to get a Mac for a long time but I really haven't found the "killer app" reason to do so spend the money.

Re:I want one! I want one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171936)

Yes logical partitions are possible (LPAR) with the G5 (I have an IBM box at work that is partitioned into OS400, AIX and Linux as if they were seperate systems all within the same box), I dont know if Apple is planning on adding the extra hardware to utilize it though.

"has"? (0, Offtopic)

HogGeek (456673) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171753)

What do you mean has? "has" indicates it isn't available yet.

I have a P550 running right now, and it has 2 AIX (5.3), 2 SuSE linux, and 2 virtual IO servers running on 4 processors and eight Gig ram...

LPAR, Hypervisor relatively easy to add (1)

tubbtubb (781286) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171761)

This isn't really a surprise, LPAR and Hypervisor are relatively easy to add to a microprocessor.
I'd guess it's mainly adding an extra supervisor mode above the existing supervisor mode. Some control logic needs to be adjusted to take a privledged interrupt if a resource isn't allowed to be accessed in hypervisor mode.
Expect multithreading to be added soon as well, It's mainly just adding a thread bit to each pipeline, some extra control logic, and more registers.
For comparison, adding this stuff to the PPC970 as it is now is much easier than, say, adding VMX/Altivec to a stripped-down Power5.

Re:LPAR, Hypervisor relatively easy to add (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171869)

No, they are not.

Hence, the reason that Power4's LPAR setup is completely different than Power5. They handle it completely differently.

Hypervisor is a feature currently unique to Power5. Obviously the CNET author really didn't do shit for research, because there are a ton of inconsistencies in his story :).

But really, we just migrated from a IBM iSeries 820 (Power4) to a i5/520 (Power5). The LPAR scheme on the two is so different that I've been reading a 440pg manual on it all day long.

Hypervisor is very cool technology. Don't expect to see it in consumer machines anytime soon, though.

Trickle-down Technology. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171918)

In other words. Mainframe features coming to a CPU near you. Now if we could only get the insane IO.

That's old news.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171767)

..the REALLY cool partitioning is the new POWER5 based iSeries and pSeries. Hell, we've been using a Linux LPAR on our iSeries for two years now.

Now it just works better with POWER5. The FSP (Flexible System Processor) that contains the Hypervisor code is just a card that runs an embedded Linux kernel. Plug that in to a IBM "HMC", or a xSeries Xeon box running SuSE Enterprise 8, which boots into Fluxbox. Open a Java-based config utility, and control all your partitions. Do you see a ongoing theme here? That's right folks, IBM trusts Linux enough to stake the reputation of their Big Iron on it.

With POWER5 all the partitioning is transparent to the OSes. WIth out i5/520 I can move RAM and CPU seamlessly without OS reboots. Hell, I can (and do) have my Linux partition specified with just 2/10ths of one of the POWER5's, with a "burst" limit of 8/10ths. You just setup the FSP/Hypervisor with permissions/profiles for the OSes. If it sees that OS/400 needs more CPU and has a higher priority than Linux, it gets it.

However, this is a very cool move for apple. If I could get a Mac that did all that?

Well, yeah. That would own.

Insert profit.

you still need a supervisor (1)

johnjones (14274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171779)

you still need a stupervisor

see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/ind ex.html

they calll this a managment console but linux already has this kind of caperbility with the right software.... hence MOL and to a lesser degreee UML

you could even go down the virtual ISA route hence IBM daisy and transmeta....

really old thing but nice to have support in hardware to make easy for the software but I am at a loss to see where in PowerPC thay are going to do this what are they going to add ?

anyone ?

regards

John Jones

Mach? (2, Interesting)

Phroggy (441) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171791)

How does this tie in with Mach? I heard something about OSX running the Java Virtual Machine directly on top of Mach for better performance, but I don't really understand how any of this stuff works....

call me a n00b, but... (1)

sdkaneda (798299) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171801)

...with such a CPU, wouldn't it be more efficient to run just one OS that takes advantage of the partitioning for redundancy / uptime reliability / something along those lines?

It seems kinda pointless (and, I also imagine, quite slow) to run multiple OSes unless each one is aware of the other one(s).

So. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171809)

Apple is finally getting serious about Linux.

Not too strange coming from IBM (2, Interesting)

strlen (117515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171810)

Given how this is the setup being used on the S/390 (with Linux and Z/OS being able to run concurrently, including multiple Linux partions), and possibly (though I'm not certain about this one) the AS400.

A multi-cored CPU, or a CPU which has a technology similar to Intel's Hyper Threading would be very well suited to this task.

Of course if tools such as VMWARE and Xen virtualization already offer such capabilities in software, I wonder if it's even needed or desireable to use CPU-specific features for this, couldn't this be simply done at the BIOS level (or by simply porting IBM's VM from the S/390 to the PPC?).

I Have to Wonder (0)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171826)

Running systems in parallel sounds interesting, but I have to wonder if, with the same amount of logic, we couldn't make a simpler CPU that would run faster.

Whats the point? (1, Funny)

dan_sdot (721837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171833)

I hate the state the obvious, but, why not get two computers?

Interesting, but questionable. (3, Insightful)

YouHaveSnail (202852) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171837)

A Mac built around this chip could theoretically run OS X, GNU/Linux, Mac OS 9, and the PowerPC version of Windows NT, all simultaneously and independently.

That sounds cool and all, but I don't multitask nearly as well as even the current G5. One OS running a few applications is about all I need most of the time. Until Apple (or someone else) starts selling extra terminals that can connect to my machine, I can't really share the machine with other people (aside from providing various services, or letting them log into a command line environment). And no matter what, I don't want a copy of any version of Windows running on even a sliver of my machine, thanks very much.

What would be much more interesting, for developers at least, would be to run multiple copies of the same operating system. I could run my app in one copy of the OS and debug it "remotely" from a second copy... two machine debugging in one machine!

I've used this (4, Informative)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171862)

IBM sells a product simply called VM. Actually, I guess it's more of a lease option, as it's only available for mainframes (and I used it on an ES/9000...one of the biggest mainframe (read: MVS/CICS) machines around). It's cool in that you could assign separate processors separate copies of the OS, unlike VMware which has a "host" operating system and then various Guests. There's still a bit of low-level software, but for us it was seemless (which, given how much everything associated with this machine cost, had better have been).

Interestingly, this brought to mind the Pink operating system that IBM and Apple were working on way-back-when(tm). The idea, if I remember correctly, was to have a low level OS kernel that could run multiple personalities...they talked about a MacOS personality (back when System 8 was still being developed), OS/2 and probably some flavor of Unix.

I remember being at what I believe was the last Unix Convention at the Javits Center in NYC around '92 or '93 and they (IBM) had a prototype Power box that purported to be running a super super early pre-alpha version of it. The guy standing by it wouldn't let me touch it, and all he said he could do was run a "DIR" on what was supposed to be the OS/2 personality (no Mac one in sight, for the obvious reason there never was one). He also mentioned that there was a second box, but they couldn't get it to boot.

*Sigh* ... strange times. Full of promises yet to be fulfilled. But as someone else pointed out, now that OS X is essentialy Unix, there would be precious little reason to go back to the "personality" scheme. I rather think they'd bring out some kick-ass server type box running multiple copies of OS X server, if that is in fact what they're trying to do.

I was actually under the impression it was just going to be a dual core PPC, but I RTFA off os OSNews.com a couple of days ago and I don't really remember it.

yeah.. BUT (0)

jspectre (102549) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171864)

will apple every allow it? hahaah.. maybe you can run osx & os9.. but you can bet they'll restrict it from running anything else..

what ever happened to the chrp machines that would multi-boot apple's OS + anything else you wanted?

Oh my. (0)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171872)

Fap, fap, fap...

Did i say that out loud?

Am I the only one... (1)

evilmeow (839786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171915)

Am I the only one who just read this /. news item as "IBM has big plans for 1970"... and weren't surprised a least bit?

For software with per-CPU licensing.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11171919)

Do I only have to pay "1/5 CPU" if I'm running 5 OS's on the same CPU?

that's great, but... (0)

bikerguy99 (650704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171945)

can they put inside an iPod?

Related stories (4, Informative)

TTop (160446) | more than 9 years ago | (#11171954)

An interesting article [macworld.com] and commentary [macworld.com] about this Power 5 stuff related to Apple.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?