Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Vanderpool Make Linux More Popular?

Posted by simoniker on from the keeping-up-with-the-vanderpools dept.

Digitaldonkey writes "New Scientist is reporting that Intel's forthcoming multi-core processor architecture, codenamed "Vanderpool", could undermine Microsoft's dominance by letting other operating systems run simultaneously more easily. From the article: 'The chip will allow future machines to run, say, Windows XP together with Linux or the Apple operating system as easily as today's Windows computers run Word and Internet Explorer simultaneously.'"

8 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. os/390 by deputydink · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sounds a little like how those big iron mainframes run - virtualized os's playing together managed by hardware to a certain degree.


    Seems like another case of technology history repeating itself. Still, the idea is fantastic although i don't see how a company like microsoft in the article can really benifit from it.

  2. Re:Um... by MarkJensen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    VMWare uses a software redirection/emulation. The new chip would act (essentialy) like two separate CPUs.

    The problem would be in splitting up and/or sharing resources, I think. There would have to be some sort of delays for this solution, similar to the ones you might see in VMWare. For example, you can't read from two different sections of memory (or hard drive) at the same time. There would need ot be some sort of pre-empting and priorities assigned. VMWare's solution uses code in RAM. Intel apparently thinks the CPU is a good place to do this...

  3. Article like this misses the whole point... by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For the vast majority of people, the problem is not being able to try the new OS. The problem is getting them to want to try the new OS. People like things that are familiar. They use Windows at home because they use Windows at work. Add to this the clones at CompUSA say to buy Windows.

    Does anyone think their mother or father would switch because of what this article discusses?

    Conversely, is this going to get businesses to try a new OS? No. If a business wants to try a new OS, in general, they can afford a machine dedicated to the new OS to try it out.

  4. Re:Um... by BrynM · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why would this require a hardware solution?
    Speed and better transparency. Dedicating hardware to a process will usually relieve resources used by the system as well. Think of it like the advances in graphics. It used to be that OpenGL was rendered by software for most Windows NT users. I remember getting GLQuake to run at 12.5 frames per second and being stoked. Then along came the dedicated hardware (to the consumer at least). Suddenly 12.5 FPS was a joke and new and shiny features were added/enabled (GLQ runs at 300+ FPS on my GF2 card now and has blended shadows, colored lighting and fog).

    I believe that this architecture may do the same for virtualization and make it truly reasonable to run real-time apps under multiple OSs without the hickups of today. I could then theoretically run Apache/POP3/DNS on the very same box as Active Directory/SQL Server/.Net without many problems - great for a small test environment. Eventually, the hardware might become small/portable and you could start to think of hand-held devices with multiple operating systems or functionalities. The manufacturing and testing industries would love such a device.

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  5. Real value would be running multiple Window OSes by xyote · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Microsofts security lacks somewhat and this would allow sandboxing via virtual hardware. So I could have one virtual machine running IE in slut mode and my critical apps safe on another virtual machine.


    This will have interesting implications with Microsofts licensing mechanisms. All the virutal machines *should* look the same, and Microsoft shouldn't really care if I run multiple copies of their workstation version on the same desktop. That way, I can clone the OS, apply the latest patches, see if they work without blue screening the system, and then put that system into "production". Just like how they use VM on mainframes.

  6. Re:No by tuffy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Umm, pretty much everybody. You appear to have not been around in that era, but the vast majority of users at that time used a command line shell (DOS or *nix), and openly laughed at the whole idea of a GUI.

    So why did everyone accept a GUI from Windows but not a Mac? Is it because all the IBM PC users were morons that didn't see a better GUI was available? No. It's because something superior to Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect and Word weren't available on the Mac at launch, and apps just as good didn't appear until much later. The graphical arts folks appreciated Macs, but the general public had no "killer app" to make it worth the switch.

    No matter how easy (or hard) an OS is, it takes apps to make it a success.

    --

    Ita erat quando hic adveni.

  7. There *was* an x86 OS X rumor... by mactari · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quickly googled up a link from eWeek:

    As Apple Computer Inc. draws up its game plan for the CPUs that will power its future generations of Mac hardware, the company is holding an ace in the hole: a feature-complete version of Mac OS X running atop the x86 architecture.

    There have been rumors of the move to x86 for a while. I'm not sure if I buy them -- that's a ton of QA overhead for a potential move down the line, and hopefully the G5 negates any reason for them to move. Not to mention if Apple swapped processors, all the AltiVec-optimized code would be worth creee-ap without having multiple processor *types* in each new, partially x86 powered Mac. And any way you cut it, Apple would still, I'd assume, stick some hardware dongle in there to do what Open Firmware does now: stop cheap generic hardware (or expensive hardware when you talk Pegasos) from running OS X easily. Apple is a hardware company too, you know. Solutions, not just software, etc.

    But the point of the article stands, even if the author was overhyping. Anil (the author) really has two outs:

    Due for launch within five years, the chip will allow future machines to run, say, Windows XP together with Linux or the Apple operating system...
    1.) ... providing Apple releases/creates its rumored-but-horribly-unlikely (imo) x86 build of OS X.
    2.) ... Darwin, which is an OS, just not a very popular one and not much of story. Though AbiWord does run fairly well there with X11 installed. :^)

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
  8. Re:Intel TSS by iebgener · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Linux used TSS to do task switching in older version like 2.2. The switch to software has been made because : * you can check the data between task switching (E.G. segmentation registers), which cannot be done with far jmp * the time to switch task is about the same, but I it easier to optimize software than hardware...