Slashdot Mirror
Hot Multi-OS Switching — Why Isn't It Everywhere?
First time accepted submitter recrudescence writes "Slashdot readers might remember the Touchbook announcement from Always Innovating stirring up a lot of excitement in the Slashdot community back in 2009 (almost a year before the iPad was announced and essentially killed this off, and way before the Asus Transformer, which is essentially the same idea). The company's new product seems to support Hot multi-OS switching, supposedly with a minimal performance penalty. What seems strange to me is, why haven't other developers jumped in on this already? Macs, for instance, made a huge campaign of their products' new ability to finally support Microsoft Windows, yet (disregarding emulation options) they're still limited to booting to a single working system at any time."
Do you mean a pirated copy?
People have been doing this for ages, it's called virtualization. There are even modes which seamlessly integrate application windows running under different operating systems, and to share folders. So this allegedly new technology appears to be a step backwards.
I don't see any claims in their page that sounds any different than using VMs to run a bunch of operating systems at the same time, other than that they seem to have set it up with hotkeys to switch between full-screen VM displays. What am I missing? Or is this just another attempt to rebrand old technology as something new?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You mean like computers have been able to do since the 1960's?
> All OS are running on the 2.6.32 Linux kernel, and got several optimizations to take benefits of the advanced instructions available in the chipset.
>
> Note that you will not be able to install Windows OS or Mac OS on the Touch Book or the Smart Book.
Yes, you can do some cool things with linux. Including switching out the userspace pretty quickly. That's all that this looks like. The kernel isn't changing, from the looks of it.
There may be reasons to run Windows or Linux natively on a Mac, but for me VMware Fusion does the job. Much better together than apart.
You can't fight in here - this is the war room!
I hereby pledge that we absolutely must have multi-OS action rule 34 on the intertubes.
I can see this actually happening in the near future, I mean the REAL hot-swapping OS. If we have like 8 cores and 4gb Ram on a tablet it would be pretty easy in my opinion to run 2 OS at the same time with a button to just switch between them on the fly.
For those outside of the geek realm, the ability to easily and quickly switch OS's is probably more of a liability (learning two different environments) than a feature. For some people it would be great, but for most users, not so much.
How did this article make it to the front page? Better bring back Rob Malda or it's curtains for slashdot.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I use it on my Desktop, my Notebook, and my Netbook.
Simply having Chrome installed does nearly everything I would want out of a Chromebook, granted my netbook requires a little more overhead by loading up the full version of KDE, but really, the resume from lid being shut on my Acer Aspire One is really awesome and competes with anything a Chromebook can do. (Seriously, boot it up in the morning and it's good for days without charging with the lid shut, and an impressive number of hours lid open)
I have played with emulators for just about everything, even Android. I fail to see a purpose, my full Linux desktop does everything I need, I even run the netbook specific desktop on my net book and the full KDE desktop on my other machines, it's wonderful (and I am drooling on the concept of the the eee Transformer running it). Virtualization on the server level, or for doing client support from a desktop is a whole different thing all together of course.
I looked at Chromebooks, basically Acer is selling what more or less amounts to the same system I already have in my Aspire One only with double the RAM out of the box (I bought a 2GB stick with my Aspire One the day I bought it, so moot point to me) and a significantly smaller SSD instead of a hard drive for $200 extra.
I can install Angry Birds for offline use on my normal Chrome browser, I have both Google Docs and Libre Office for work online and off, and my EVO supplies bandwidth no matter where I am (well almost, Sprint has some crappy coverage areas). By all means continue developing this stuff, but really, I think people have solutions looking for a problem sometimes.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
The reason why we haven't seen this on Windows PCs so far are probably the tight restrictions that Microsoft puts on OEMs in order to be applicable for a rebate, which probably exclude any other OS on the same machine. In other words, if the big PC hardware manufacturers like Dell, HP etc. would put Windows and Linux on the same PC, they'd have to pay the retail price for Windows rather than the monopoly-supported OEM price, which obviously would cut deep into their margins.
When I'm running an instance of VM, the other OS is still ultimately in charge. The VM I'm emulating cannot directly access the hardware without getting permission from the host OS. Proof: Windows XP will allow me to play Doom 95 with a joystick (Windows 7, for some reason, won't allow the game to have direct access to the joystick so it doesn't work). I installed VMWare and put an instance of Windows XP on it. Did I get my joystick back? No, because Windows 7 is still in charge.
Macs, for instance, made a huge campaign of their products' new ability to finally support Microsoft Windows
New? Finally? Apple's Boot Camp utility has been installing MS Windows and Apple supplied drivers on Mac hardware since 2006.
There has been some work(typically only supported on rather new server hardware) on giving VMs direct access to selected chunks of hardware. It is still controlled by the virtualization system, for security reasons; but if access is granted, that particular PCIe device effectively hangs directly off the virtualized OS, rather than the host one.
Probably Not going to be coming to joystick ports anytime soon; but is considered a feature of interest for things like high speed NICs, GPUs, and other such devices where the overhead of having the host juggle the data coming too and from the card in software before handing it to the virtualized OS is impractically large.
Didn't HP have Splashtop for some time? Wasn't that essentially a super customized Xandros partition? I remember their 'Quickplay' from vintage 2005 was essentially enough Windows XP to allow PowerDVD to run, and coincidentally it tended to take longer to boot than just starting Windows...but Splashtop didn't completely suck.
Boy, that's going to work out great!
Is this really that impressive? I looked through his website and couldn't find a straight answer(I guess if I dug through the code I could probably find it but not really willing to do that :P), how does he do this? It looks as if all he is doing is suspending the current OS state to disk(probably by using an SSD which gives you that instant on capability) and then unfreezing one of the other OSs. I assume you can only run programs on one OS at the same time(in the demo video he didn't show otherwise, in fact he purposely paused the video before switching). So really it seems to sacrifice almost all the benefits of virtualization for a perhaps tiny boost in speed if you only want to use one of the OSs. I can see this being very useful in a few niche situations, but overall virtualization is going to win out 99% of the time....unless of course I am missing something.
Monstar L
There may be reasons to run Windows or Linux natively on a Mac, ...
Games, or some other app that wants to squeeze every possible CPU cycle out of the hardware.
... but for me VMware Fusion does the job. Much better together than apart.
I definitely agree for most apps. One nice thing about VMWare Fusion is that you can have it both ways, it does not require a VMWare virtual machine for Windows. Fusion can run Windows from the Boot Camp harddrive partition normally used to dual boot into Windows at startup. So when you need to run the occasional "productivity app" you can stay in Mac OS and fire up Windows in a virtual machine. However if you want to run a modern game you can restart the machine and dual boot.
"Kubuntu does just about everything I need it to do"
The very same claim can be made for Mac, Windows, BSD, or any other operating system you might care to name. They ALL do "just about everything". That doesn't change the fact that sometimes, one OS has advantages over another. I like Ubuntu. I installed an Ubuntu distro to the wife's computer almost 3 years ago now, and it's still running strong. She won't ALLOW me to update, upgrade, or otherwise alter her machine. And, my most elderly machine is still running Ubuntu 10.04. Meanwhile, I have several VM's installed via VirtualBox, some of which I use routines, others that I only fire up now and then.
Windows can, in fact, perform a few little tricks that I can't do on Linux, without jumping through some rather obscure hoops.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I don't think that Splashtop and similiar solutions qualify as an OS in terms of Microsoft OEM contracts, because it is part of the BIOS and is not installed on the hard disk.
Sadly the PC world has unitl recently ignored yet another lesson from mainframes- logical partitioning.
The concept is a minimal bare-metal hypervisor which in mainframes is built into the hardware and is integrated with a robust set of configuration tools. It's nice to see at least a shadow of this concept being implemented in something.
Now I understand that lolcat about "I HAZ A CORM." Apparently that cat is French and is trying to say, "Chrome."
Inconsistent design is generally considered a bad thing.
For non-techies, switching operating systems is akin to learning a foreign language. You're lucky to get a typical Windows user to even try Linux or OS X long enough to become minimally proficient. Software like VMWare utterly baffles most people, and expecting them switch between OSes with different file structures and interface paradigms every time they start an app is an accident waiting to happen.
"Why can't program X see my USB stick?" ...
"Why won't program Y print to my printer?"
"Where did all my files go? I can't even find the C drive!"
"Why isn't my headset working?"
"Why do I need Windows Updates on my Mac?"
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Probably Not going to be coming to joystick ports anytime soon; but is considered a feature of interest for things like high speed NICs, GPUs, and other such devices
With the IOMMU virtualization in current Intel and AMD chips, any PCI device can be slaved to a VM. The trick is that things like joystick ports aren't usually their own device, but rather hang off of a PCI bridge that can't handle single-root virtualization, but is part of an aggregate root device that can. So, you wouldn't always be able to pick and choose just one device.
In Linux, use "lspci -vt" to see the device tree. Any device that is just one level off the root can generally be slaved to a to a VM. I use this feature for an eSATA card and video capture cards and it works fine.
OS-tan characters. Your wish has been fulfilled-... sort of.
The Asus Transformer runs Android Honeycomb whether the keyboard is attached or not. It doesn't have two different OSes.
---
Posted from my Asus Transformer
Windows XP mode works with some USB stuff and it's not 100% pass though but it only has a carp low video chip set for windows xp mode.
I wouldn't dismiss "emulation" so blithely. Macs can, of course, run VMware or VirtualBox and run Linux, Solaris or Windows (or other things) inside those partitions. I have a Mac running all those three. The performance is mostly native, certainly for the things I'm using it for. The days of having to use VirtualPC to run a software x86 are long gone.
They still offer the Touchbook for sale. And there's even a second generation. But for my money, the Acer Iconia 6120 is seriously cool.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
What is the technical reason or reasons why you cannot hibernate one OS (suspend it to disk), then restore another previously hibernating OS? Couldn't you have a number of OSs ready to run simply constrained by disk space?
What seems strange to me is, why haven't other developers jumped in on this already?
Perhaps because its a feature nobody actually wants? It looks cool, but what are the practical uses? TFA refers to switching between ChromeOS, Ubuntu and Android - why? Last time I looked, ChromeOS was basically a gateway onto Google's web apps, which are available in any browser. Meanwhile I don't want to run Android/iOS apps on another OS - the point of a mobile operating system is that both the OS and the Apps are designed for mobile/touchscreen use: if I'm using a device capable of running a desktop OS then I'd also like to run full-fat desktop applications. Most decent mobile applications are designed on the assumption that you'll sync them with your desktop when available.
Macs, for instance, made a huge campaign of their products' new ability to finally support Microsoft Windows, yet (disregarding emulation options) they're still limited to booting to a single working system at any time."
Not sure what you mean by "emulation options" - modern virtualization tools are an order of magnitude better than old-school hardware emulators and perfectly adequate for all but the most demanding applications and some have gone a long way towards making Windows applications work as seamlessly as can be expected alongside OS X on the desktop and sharing files, clipboards. Plus, they let you do all sorts of other tricks like snapshots and exchanging virtual appliances that are useful for testing and experimenting. Parallels seems to be top of the heap in terms of OSX/Windows integration, some claim VMWare Fusion is more stable/has better support (I don't use it so I can't argue) and VirtualBox can't be beat for free.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Here's the thing - multi-OS is confusing for people. No one is clammering for it because no one is going to get a device and then figure out how to load another OS on it. Think about it - how many people do you know (outside of your circle of geeks) that has a clue you can even load another OS? No manufacturer is going to preload two OS's. And, the geek community really isn't large enough to support sales of consumer devices.
People seem to be perfectly content having multiple devices. I don't know anyone who really uses Bootcamp, but I know quite a few Mac users that also have a Windows laptop laying around in case they need to use it, or the occasional VM. (Most Mac users I know seem perfectly content telling their PC brethren "I can't open that" and making them resend it in another format rather than try to figure out why their overpriced, shiny toy can't do something.) In the tablet world, there's not a lot of interoperability needed because there always seems to be An App For That.
----- obSig
VMs may do the job, but they take so much RAM!
What they don't hog, though, is CPU time when they're merely sitting idle. The joyous fruits of hardware-accelerated virtualization, indeed!
And if RAM usage is a problem for you, then I might suggest you stop buying RAM from OEMs. I bought a used i7 board and CPU from my boss, and populated it with 24 GB for about $180, and this was several months ago. Doing so today would cost even less.
Point is, I can't think of a situation outside of running several VMs that would require more than 4 or 6 GB for the average power user today, and even if you are running VMs, stretch that to 8 GB (which would cost you about $50 for RAM) and go on your merry way and virtualize your heart out.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Your reply is "I personally am happy with my OS"?
Uh.. we're really happy for you (I guess) but miss the point much?
Among geeks, there is a substantial percentage who think it's cool to run multiple operating systems. There's an even smaller sub-set for whom it's truly useful. Among normal, everyday users, though, the percentage of users who want or need this is very, very tiny. Just managing ONE operating system is complicated for most non-geeks. They don't WANT to further complicate their tech lives by adding more operating systems. For some reason, it seems to be very difficult for geeks to understand that not everyone is like them -- and the fact that they don't want to do what you want to do doesn't make them stupid. It just means their priorities aren't the same as yours. So this capability isn't "everywhere" because there aren't enough people who need it or want it to make it a profitable feature to add. Simple.
Why would anyone care? Remnants of Microsoft Hegemony remain be their relevance is decreasing. I keep a version of Windows around on the off change that it will come in handy for the MS diehards but I find that is increasingly unnecessary. It is similar to AOL once people realize there are viable alternatives and enough people adopt standards having multiple devices and OS's in the work place is less of a challenge. The old ways die slowly (as they should) since there is no real reason for the adoption of new software when the old works well enough.
the point of a mobile operating system is that both the OS and the Apps are designed for mobile/touchscreen use: if I'm using a device capable of running a desktop OS then I'd also like to run full-fat desktop applications.
Unless the specific application that you want to use is exclusive to mobile phones, such as a bank's check deposit application that uses a mobile phone's built-in camera, or any of several casual games.
Most decent mobile applications are designed on the assumption that you'll sync them with your desktop when available.
iOS 5 is in fact going the other way, reducing its dependency on iTunes software. It appears Apple is opening the door to allow people to own only an iPad and not a Mac or a PC running Windows.
Not really, I got that point, perhaps you missed mine?
I'm just pointing out that sometimes there isn't as much of a need to switch between OS's as some believe.
Chrome OS belongs in low end cheap netbooks - there I said it. Right now the Chromebooks are overpriced for what they are, but they are incredibly handy devices. For web browsing and doing what they do they fit a rather large nitch incredibly well, I could easily see how they're the perfect device for many people, and even in my case my netbook is overkill for a large part of what I do. Should the prices of a Chromebook fall below that of a standard netbook with otherwise identical or superior hardware they will have filled that nitch perfectly.
If you want something more powerful than a Chromebook there is little reason to have Chrome as a live switch between option considering the Chrome Browser does what a Chromebook does without actually running Chrome OS (assuming you have the hardware portion covered). Chrome runs on every modern OS that's actually considered a useful option to have on a netbook/notebook. Having it as a "quick boot OS" isn't such a bad idea. Note/netbooks that have the selectable solid state quick OS and hard disk (or bigger solid state) option to save power/boot time is great, but why would you really want to live switch? Especially from the power hog "big drive" OS to Chrome OS when the browser itself fulfills that function and utilizes on-line everything (unless it actually shuts down the power hog in the process)?
I use Virtual Box on occasion when I have to support Windows systems. The fact I've been without a Windows system of my own for around 11 years now doesn't mean I don't make a living supporting Windows. Sure the idea of a system like the one detailed has seemed nice on occasion, especially on a Mac when trying to get Mac Classic programs to not screw up things like color settings and resolutions for my daughter on OSX Tiger, but Apple saw to it I couldn't boot OS9 natively on that system if OSX was installed, even on a different HDD.
I see little reason to switch between various *NIX OS's when the programs themselves will usually run on all the above.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
a short summary: http://superuser.com/questions/329375/how-is-this-operating-system-switching-done/330926#330926
the presentation by AI at ELC 2011: http://elinux.org/images/5/5c/ELC-AlwaysInnovating-Gentil.pdf
Troubles start when each operating system wants to get control over wireless, the display or any other resource they all share and expect to have exclusive control over. So considering how many bugs we already have in current operating systems I can hardly imagine the amount of hacks required to android or GNU/Linux to make them at least cooperate enough for basic functionality is worth the benefits of having multiple OS at the same time. I dont really see the advantage of such a feature.
For some reason, it seems to be very difficult for people to understand that not everyone is like them -- and the fact that they don't want to do what you want to do doesn't make them stupid.
Fixt. You see this attitude all over the place, no matter what topic the culprit is interested in.
I love it. I need it. I can't imagine living without it.
And you aren't.
So then what point does the story submitter really have? As you say you can easily use OS X and Windows together. So then what would users be clamoring for beyond what you are already doing? There is a lot of competition in the virtualization space, so what is the point of asking for multi-os support when we already have it?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Good for you then. Some people might be dependent on software that does not run on linux or even under wine.
Being able to quickly switch to for example Windows so you can play games is something that would attract a lot of new users to linux.
I know of a lot of people who would not mind switching to linux permanently if it supported their software or game(s).
A lot of people seem to forget that Apple was doing this in the mid 90's, they had a PPC Mac that could boot DOS and Windows 3.1 via an x86 daughtercard, you used a key combination to switch between the two.
You have to options 1) "bare-metal" hypervisor virutalization 2) "layer-2" virtualization - i.e. VMWare Workstation, Virtual Box, Parellels, etc running within primary OS Option 1 you can use free Citrix XenClient http://blogs.citrix.com/product/xenclient/ The problem is...limited hardware support. This is the primary issue with achieving option 1. Option 2 as long as your PC is powerful enough there is no problem here.
Don't waste your time - I ordered one of these October 2010, for delivery Jan 2011. Finally in June or July 2011 I cancelled my order.
Their communications are very poor. Never once did they contact me to tell me the order was delayed or why. I always had to chase them. They don't even announce much via twitter. Totally clueless at keeping your informed.
Why did I cancel - well by the time the EeePad Transformer came out, the Eeepad Transformer was more powerful (faster ARM processor), had a larger screen, better screen resolution, a keyboard (like the TouchPad, which is one of the reasons for ordering) and was cheaper and was actually shipping.
At the time I ordered a TouchBook Pro I was really pleased to support Always Innovating. By the time I cancelled my order I concluded that the only innovation they have is bragging about stuff that does not ship.
Save your money and your time. Get and Eeepad Transformer. It doesn't run two OSes at once, but if I need that I run VMWare on my PC. The only downside to my decision is that the EeePad doesn't run Linux.
Sorry about AC, but this is not from home and I don't have any idea of my password.
Not everyone needs to use more than one OS at a time, in fact I bet the percentage of people who *do* need to use more than one OS at a time is less than the percentage of Linux users in the world. And we all know how much support linux users get. If you want it you gotta build it.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
If you boot into Emacs, you can hot-switch anything you want. It's Emacs.
Man, the slashdotters are sure keeping me laughing today. Why in the world would you EMULATE an x86 PC on x86 hardware?
Man, I got tears in my eyes from that one...
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I thought this was using sleep mode , to swap two OS's, ie you sleep windows, and when you wake up, the BIOS can choose between two sleep states, of the other OS. So you can wake up Linux.
Is this feasable?
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Most devices barely work in one operating system, let alone having to deal with being initialized and controlled by multiple driver models and switching back and forth between them hot.
They are simply not designed for that scenario. Hence, the hypervisor, and virtualized devices under it.
Just hide a headless Linux server in your house somewhere (I used an old laptop whose screen had broken) and I think you'll find yourself much more content running a single OS machine.
Windows: I want to use the sound card!
Mac: No, *I* want the sound card! Windows: The sound card is mine! Mac: No, it's MINE! Windows: MINE! Mac: MINE! You can't have it! User: Why aren't I getting any sound from this stupid machine?
the demand just isn't there. the 1% of customers who want this feature are not worth the development expense.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
OS limitations.
I think the closest we have seen in the 20+ years I've been using and playing with computers is when certain Linux distributions were released to overlay MS Windows. Windows didn't like it much and there was some tinkering to be done to account for that, but it was doable then. Why it hasn't persisted into something more mainstream could be due to Corporate Greed, where companies like Microsoft want their OS to dominate uber alles...
tl;dr: Can it be done? Yes. Has it been done? Yes. Do all OSs like it? No.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
While I see your point, that's niche at best. Even most developers are really coding against ONE operating system and really set of libraries, because they're doing server apps. So while making the perfect app that can truly run everywhere might be a nice nerdy goal to have (non-nerds will have more tangible goals like "get laid" or "get paid" or "make it to Friday 5pm so I can spend the weekend at the pub"), in practice they're still getting paid for something that will only have to run on, say, Java 1.6 on an AIX computer on a Power 5 CPU and with exactly the IBM VM that comes with Websphere at that. So, you know, whether it runs exactly the same in Windows 7 or an old copy of XP is really fluff. If it works on the test and production server, then that's that. Need or want for some testing across all possible OS-s? Zero. Nada. Zilch.
And that's not even getting into what end-users do, and let's just say that, yes, it's the apps that are important. It only matters if they can use MS Word to read your doc, or IE to read your site. Even the thought of configuring 5 operating systems to check out your page in 7 different browsers and versions, ranks for the average user up there with being anally raped with a spiked mace. He doesn't want to do that. He just wants to point whichever browser his "Internet" icon launches at your site and do whatever he needs done.
For him even having one OS is more of a nuisance that comes with the territory. Even the thought of trying the same under a different OS ranks up there with trying to walk to work with a different number of feet. Why bother?
So I guess to return to the question in the OP, basically you have Adam Smith's invisible hand flipping you an invisible but humongous middle finger. It's easier and cheaper to let you figure out using VMs and multiple OS's than to make that a standard feature. Because the average John Does ain't paying for it, and ain't wanting any of it.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If MS Windows didn't have the attempt at proper X windows support ripped out of it at NT3.51 we wouldn't be reading this. If you can run the applications wherever they run and interact with them on the screen in front of you it really doesn't matter what OS or even what hardware is underneath. Booting into whatever carefully walled garden you need to run what you want is the 1980s style constraint forced on us for the purpose of marketing.
The "cloud" is not going to be able to fix it entirely because large revenue streams depend on those walled gardens, just as the web didn't fix it and X didn't before. We're not much closer to just being able to run what the users want wherever they are than in 1996.
Intel in its infinite wisdom disabled VT-d in the i5 2500K and i7 2600K.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/08/what-processor-should-i-buy-intels-crazy-pricing-makes-my-head-hurt.ars
If that wasn't the case I would have shelled out the money for an i7 2600K and a motherboard a few months ago. As it is, I procrastinated and now the Bulldozer desktop CPUs are just around the corner so I'd rather wait for them.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
How on earth would "you can play games in Windows" attract users to Linux?
to assign 2 CPUs and 4 GB RAM to one OS and same to another OS, and switch instantly between the 2.
Virt is okay but still flaky and slow compared with real OSs. Performance within virtualized guest is always substandard and poor, especially disk and network performance. It's useful for testing though.
"I use Virtual Box on occasion when I have to support Windows systems."
And there you blow your argument right out the window (pun intended).
In you first post you said-
"I have played with emulators for just about everything, even Android. I fail to see a purpose, my full Linux desktop does everything I need..."
And now you completely contradict yourself. "Everything I need" does not equal except "when I have to X".
Sigh.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Pretty much spot on. I have a Mac with Parallels with Windows, but I basically gave that up a while ago and just use my wife's Windows machine if I need to do something that is Windows-only. I got tired of having to update both my and my wife's computers' anti-virus, Windows updates, Office updates (well I do have Office for Mac, so that's not 100% correct), whatever the fuck else updates.
I see this as a nice tool for developers that work in multiple spaces. That's about it.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
My Linux desktop DOES do everything I need. When I start up an emulator to support a client, that's what my client needs. When I'm not doing remote support contracts (it comes and goes) I never start up my emulator, therefor running emulators is the need of the client. Even then I don't often start the emulator, only when I need a local point of reference or I absolutely have to run the same environment they do for testing.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I've moved back to consoles. Every since Epic decided to dance around the Linux support thing they sort of messed up my Linux gaming - Unreal was one of the few things I played. There's lots of good games on Linux, they're just not always the ones I want. Good thing I don't have time for games in general any more.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
1) It's on ARM hardware, so any comments about Windows are irrelevant. (I don't count Windows 8, since that's not out yet, and will likely only support a limited subset of ARM machines due to the fragmented nature of ARM board architectures. Most likely Win8 will only run on "certified" ARM hardware - look at how tightly MS controls WP7 hardware architectures.)
2) There are probably severe limitations that Always Innovating isn't mentioning. I've checked them out periodically for a few years. Always Innovating would be better named Always Heavy on the Rhetoric. They're "all show and no go".
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Intel in its infinite wisdom disabled VT-d in the i5 2500K and i7 2600K.
Intel really needs to stop the desktop/server differentiation for it's CPUs.
With 8GB of RAM common, and 16-24GB fairly easy to find in "desktop" configurations, ECC is becoming more important, yet Intel still sees it as a server-only feature. Virtualization will quickly become the same, and Intel needs to accept that the last real server distinction should be multiple sockets (yes, high-end workstations have that, but people who need that know that it's really a mini-server).