Slashdot Mirror
Next G5 Multitasks Operating Systems
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."
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.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
>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...
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?
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...
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....
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
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.
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?).
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.
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.
OS X is already the best OS available anyway.
I know this is just a troll, but people need to rethink their notion of the term "best".
In my IT department, we're abandoning the search for systems that are "the best." Now we look for "very high quality" systems instead. It may seem like mincing words to some of you, but it makes a real difference. Territorial bastards will always be teritorial bastards, but it's amazing how much better their decisions are when you say, "is the solution very high quality" instead of "is it the best." They're forced to make an actual evaluation instead of just going with their gut or their pet. They'll still try to spin their favorite solution, but they're at least forced to acknowledge the real strengths of the competition.
TW
Apple once made a Network Server that ran AIX.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Until, of course, a flaw is found in the virtualization layer itself, at which point it would be possible to hijack a computer at the CPU level and run a new, independent, trojan OS to do who-knows-what. Thankfully IBM has some experience with this, which means that such a vulnerability is less likely... right? ^^;
imagine what quality decisions you can make if you simply look for "systems that don't suck."
Well, the decisions may not be of higher quality, but the decision tree is that much more robust.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
I wouldn't place any bets on this being used in the G5.
There were MANY variations of the G4-series chips which were not specifically designed for workstation/mainframe use and were never picked up by Apple.
Offtopic, but interesting to note is that there were actually TWO G4s. I'm not 100% sure, but I think when apple transitioned to DDR RAM, they used a different series of processor -- they were quite different chips... apple never made a big deal out of it (and rightfully so, as it made little difference to the consumer). Still, compiling using optimizations only found on the newer G4s can yield impressive results as shown with the optimized firefox builds.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Linux Insider is running a couple of editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell' processor for the next Sony Playstation. The bold prediction? 'the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine.' And guess who has partnered with Sony to manufacture the 'Cell'? Why its none other than IBM.
I've never heard such shite in all my life.
I've used Linux for just as long and although not a current mac user I can not remember arseing around for hours with dependancies on OSX to get simple stuff like an MP3 player working.
I also can not think of one Linux app with anywhere near the thought apple put into GUI design. Most are frankly hideous and clunky as hell.
And WhoTF uses X11 on a mac? Its there as a "add-on" at best. When you can Quartz render stuff I don't see the point. X11 is crap on anyway.
And we all know OpenOffice only exists cos MS will never release a "proper" office (you know - the one OO keeps chasing and never catches up) on Linux os Solaris. Mac has an office from MS which is better than the Windows one!!
You've missed the point mate - your a budget shopper confused in Harrods....
I've been a linux user for 12 years now since slackware 0.91, and I've finally managed to get everything the way I like on a linux desktop.
...except that xmms and skins are ugly as hell compared to iTunes, and won't automatically sync with my iPod.
/chuckle/ ANYTHING looks ugly as hell in X11 dude!
That was the sound of you shooting yourself in the foot. Ouch. I feel for you.
unless you like the strange program they enclose (iLife) I hate iTunes (a properitary mp3 player tied to a online service for ripping money out of you.)
Personally, I like iLife, which is actually a combo of several programs like iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, iDVD and Garage Band. They just work, out of the box. While they're not work-horse applications, they do enough for what I want for my hobbies. I have an iPod, and iTunes is like magic. I can't imagine things getting any easier. I didn't expect my MIDI equipment to "just work" with a toy like Garage Band. It did, and it blew me away. So really, it depends on what you want to do with your computer. (As a side note, I live in a country where iTMS is not available even if I wanted it. Which I don't, but that again is a choice that is allowed.)
Its better to just use xmms and add all the various decoder plugins.
The X11 term window is not scrollable with the mouse, how do you set the windowbuffer. it is way to small.
OK, you got me there, but I think you're something like the 3rd person that actually attempted to use X11 on MacOS. There's a need, I'm sure, but what it has right now is usually good enough to get around the temporary "need". If you need something more than a temporary fix, you shouldn't be using a Mac. Or Windows, for that matter. Sorta like walking into a shoe store and complaining that you can't find suitable pants!
Openoffice must be used through the X11 windowmanager.
This begs the question... why do you want to use OOo on a Mac? It's fun to tinker around with, as a hobby, but I'd use MS Office for MacOS X. And if you're complaining about the cost, well really, you should have thought about the cost of ownership before you bought that Hummer, son. A Mac is a fancy piece of equipment, and it costs. The cost does not end at hardware alone, although you can sorta get by if you really need to. Sorta like only taking out your H2 on Sundays because you realized you couldn't pay for gas.
Fonts look terrible (poor antialiasing) in the X11 windowmanager.
The enclosed PDF viewing-program called preview is fast, but I've never got search working. this work fine in ggv and xpdf in linux.
I have no idea what you're talking about, since it works fine for me. Dunno, can't help you.
I'm seriously considering wiping out the mac OsX and install latest Debian for PPC on it instead.
Sounds like a viable solution. Sort of wastes part of the idea of buying a PowerBook in the first place, but if that's your thing, why not? In the mean time, the majority of PB users will just merily chug along getting things done on MacOS X.
"The new IBM is much more focused on giving enterprise customers What They Want. And What They Want is a commodity OS (Linux/Windows) on commodity hardware (x86). They want CHEAP, and IBM will give it to them."
While it's true they want cheap, I don't think many people are married to x86 for things like databases. Those can usually be anything. And when it comes out, the POWER5 will have the lead in database performance by a factor of 3. With numbers like that, nobody cares what the CPU is or what the OS is.
I doubt IBM will require that clients be any platform in particular, but there are advantages to having binary compatability between the servers and the clients. Or perhaps more importantly, binary compatability between giant mainframes and smaller servers.
In any case, the more alternatives there are, the better. And if such a partnership exists, I'm sure they'll eventually be able to convince Apple to sell desktops with ECC memory so they can actually have a proper workstation.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
The most annoying thing with running the 2.6 kernel on a production server is that you've to reboot it every time you wan't to have all the bugfixes and so on. :)
My question is: Is it possible to run a kernel and then compile the latest 2.6 kernel and then start it on another cpu "partition"?Then move over all the applications running under the old kernel to the new one without any significant downtime (under 1 second). And you just kill the old kernel and vola you're running the latest 2.6 kernel without any rebooting?
God,root what's the difference? I read slashdot, there for I errr... am stupid?