it is being able to manage hardware resources... among operating systems without them interfering destructively with one another.
This has already been solved, and YEARS ago by both VIrtualPC and SoftWindows/RealPC.
Even more complicated would be using a single NIC to connect two operating systems to the same network. Unless someone came up with a clever solution, each OS would need its own IP address. However, routers and switches outside the computer would become immensely confused when a single NIC and a single MAC address belong to two IP addresses, since most routers/switches only have a one-to-one correlation between MAC addresses and IP addresses.
Connectix called it "Virtual Switch" and Microsoft has retained the name. You can also choose to share an IP address.
I know from your post that you're a Windows user, so it may help you to read the Macintosh page about VirtualPC on Microsoft's website, or you may be able to find older information from Connectix about how they did all the "magic" to get two operating systems to run concurrently.
some insightful benefits of Apple reinvigorating the "Red Box" project to allow full compatibility between OS X and Windows apps.
I think this would be very enticing for developers. Since Apple gives away Xcode it would be a great way to grow your platform, even if it's only for development. Maybe this is what Steve Jobs has in mind.
Now it would be interesting if MS turns around and makes it incompatible. But I doupt it.
Why would MS make it incompatible? Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, they make money from selling Windows. As it stands, they already spend a lot of money making Windows run on CURRENT Macs with VirtualPC. It would behoove MS to make sure it runs natively the way VirtualPC runs on Windows.
There is an end to it, it's called don't use Windows, but the same people bitching about all the Microsoft crap are the same people that won't pay for a Mac and complain that Gnome and KDE aren't ready for the desktop.
Nokia, of course, is an important player in the phone market but Sony Ericsson and Motorolla are catching up on them quickly. I'd advise ignoring any phone with Windows on it. Carriers are all about how they can lock you into THEIR service/platform and that does not make for good synergy with MS.
This morning, I found a new, better way to butter my toast. It's so revolutionary that it may be part of the anti-margerine ecosystem.
No, the anti-margarine ecosystem was the dairy council funding research against margarine's supposed health benefits that led to the discovery of trans-fatty acids, which shows that margarine is actually WORSE for you than butter.
Your toast buttering discovery is actually part of the anti-bagel ecosystem and quite possible the anti-butterknife ecosystem depending on your method.
needlessly bashing them instead of understanding their strengths is a fools' errand.
We already know what their strengths are. Dirty (and convicted illegal) business practices and huge amounts of cash.
Bram spent a good deal of time creating Bit Torrent and coming up with the democtatised way it opperates. That's genius on a P2P network if you ask me. If all of a sudden Microsoft targets YOUR magnum opus wouldn't you be pissed? Especially since there's not even a product?
Microsoft has just said to Bram "You sure do have a pretty mouth." It's not going to be long before he's fucked.
I bought a pile of shiny new Power Computing McMacs when OS 8 came out, only to find that Apple declined to license future releases to the clone makers.
You're full of shit. Apple never licensed Mac OS 8 to clone manufacturers other than UMAX, in fact, Apple bought back PowerComputing's license before Mac OS 8 even SHIPPED. Mac OS 8 RUNS on clones but is not supported.
the McMac thing was just one way they stifled the competition.
The clones never grew the Mac market, they just eroded Apple's percentage of it, that's the reason why they Apple ended the clone experiment.
this is not 1996, when Mac OS 8 was clunking around on niche clone hardware.
Cloners were never licensed to sell Mac OS 8. They were only licensed to sell versions of Mac OS 7. It was 1994 when they first licensed the Mac OS, to Radius and PowerComputing. Mac OS 8 did not ship until July of 1997.
It's not ironic, it's absolutely right. The platform that Microsoft is presenting is a melding of the internet and the desktop (which just happens to be a terrible idea).
We're not talking about whether it will hurt productivity or sales or users will or won't like it. What we're talking about is THE PLATFORM which, depite what you or I may want to fool ourselves into believing, is soleley controlled by Microsoft/Apple (on their respective platforms).
At this point, if IE is removed from Windows XP, you end up with Windows 95. That DOES hurt the platform Microsoft is presenting.
Your crystal ball is funky. Shake it up and wait for the snow to settle this time.
APPLE TRIED CLONING. APPLE MAKES THEIR MONEY FROM SELLING HARDWARE.
Apple is not a hardware company but that's where they make their money. If licensing the OS was so profitable, why didn't it work the first time around?
Take a look at the richest people in the world sometimes by scanning Forbes' various lists. IIRC, last year, 7 of the ten richest people in the world were either college dropouts or never went to college.
Spending money on university is no guarantee of success. It doesn't even guarantee an advantage.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, that bar and the fact that people will have an alternative, means that Microsoft has less than three years to transform itself to be internet capable (If they already were, there wouldn't be viri, Trojeans, mal-, spy- and ad-ware all over their OS. Microsoft made a mistake are relied on third parties to take care of their problems for them.)
Microsoft has never cared about the home user until the XBOX. MS makes ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL their money on business. Businesses are bothered by viruses and worms, so MS has worked to fix that. Businesses do not worry about adware and spyware and what have you because 75% of their users are on the intranet and the 25% that have access to the outside world are going through a hardware firewall.
Microsoft doesn't sell PCs. They don't care if Microsoft Office is running on Windows or Macintosh (as Roz Ho has pointed out multiple times, the MacBU is one of the most profitable units at Microsoft). Microsoft just wants you to buy their overpriced office suite.
I seriously doubt MS cares if it loses the home market on the PC front when they are poised to snag it on the media center front.
Apple is never going to win business users over unless they partner with a much larger vendor, Apple just does not have the resources for support that businesses need.
Yes, that's why EVERY USB device was candy coloured and just so happened to be the same colours as the iMacs. Please, you and I both KNOW that the only reason why USB caught on was because of the iMac. As you stated, the hardware and the support had been on the PC for an eternity in the tech world and no one cared.
All Intel means to Apple is more profit, not lower prices for the consumer.
I don't believe that will necessarily be true. It's been reported on a lot of websites (possibly not accurate but surely plausible) that the new Macs will be able to use PC expansion components (such as video cards, networking, etc) with just a different driver. That's the way it works now with Linux so I don't see how that couldn't be true with the new Macs.
As it stands right now, Apple has to not only get hardware manufacturers to write drivers that are specialised for Macs but also have to change the hardware because you're dealing with a different processor interfacing with the cards.
I think this will open up a whole aftermarket for Macintosh computers but no one has a crystal ball, we'll all just have to wait and see.
I think "thousands" is a bit of a stretch. DS only plays DS and Gameboy Advance titles unless you run an emu off of a GBA flash cart (which you can). It's more like hundreds, but that's still a distinct advantage. Another advantage is that there is the ability to play two different platforms, Nintendo has stated the GBA is alive and well and just introduced the Micro (which will be out this fall) for super portable gaming with the GBA.
The PSP just isn't "rugged" enough. It looks and feels too precious to just throw into a bag like I am obliged to do with my DS or GBA. Also, that acreen is WORTHLESS in any sort of bright light because it is SUPER reflective.
I'll get one when Lumines isn't the only game worth playing.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the case, how did the internet exist before there were ads? Oh, right right. Freedom finds a way.
This has already been solved, and YEARS ago by both VIrtualPC and SoftWindows/RealPC.
Connectix called it "Virtual Switch" and Microsoft has retained the name. You can also choose to share an IP address.I know from your post that you're a Windows user, so it may help you to read the Macintosh page about VirtualPC on Microsoft's website, or you may be able to find older information from Connectix about how they did all the "magic" to get two operating systems to run concurrently.
The DMCA has to do with copyright restrictions, not licensing arrangements.
I think this would be very enticing for developers. Since Apple gives away Xcode it would be a great way to grow your platform, even if it's only for development. Maybe this is what Steve Jobs has in mind.
Why would MS make it incompatible? Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, they make money from selling Windows. As it stands, they already spend a lot of money making Windows run on CURRENT Macs with VirtualPC. It would behoove MS to make sure it runs natively the way VirtualPC runs on Windows.
Except the driver architecture for Mac OSX isn't derived from BSD, it uses a whole different system. Take a look.
There is an end to it, it's called don't use Windows, but the same people bitching about all the Microsoft crap are the same people that won't pay for a Mac and complain that Gnome and KDE aren't ready for the desktop.
I guess they have to find SOME way of burning through those chips now that no one will be investing in an architecture that's been EOLed
Nokia, of course, is an important player in the phone market but Sony Ericsson and Motorolla are catching up on them quickly. I'd advise ignoring any phone with Windows on it. Carriers are all about how they can lock you into THEIR service/platform and that does not make for good synergy with MS.
No, the anti-margarine ecosystem was the dairy council funding research against margarine's supposed health benefits that led to the discovery of trans-fatty acids, which shows that margarine is actually WORSE for you than butter.
Your toast buttering discovery is actually part of the anti-bagel ecosystem and quite possible the anti-butterknife ecosystem depending on your method.
Mostly with locks. When things get out of hand the pages get locked to the edit before a dispute started, it discourages vandalism, I suppose.
We already know what their strengths are. Dirty (and convicted illegal) business practices and huge amounts of cash.
Bram spent a good deal of time creating Bit Torrent and coming up with the democtatised way it opperates. That's genius on a P2P network if you ask me. If all of a sudden Microsoft targets YOUR magnum opus wouldn't you be pissed? Especially since there's not even a product?
Microsoft has just said to Bram "You sure do have a pretty mouth." It's not going to be long before he's fucked.
You're full of shit. Apple never licensed Mac OS 8 to clone manufacturers other than UMAX, in fact, Apple bought back PowerComputing's license before Mac OS 8 even SHIPPED. Mac OS 8 RUNS on clones but is not supported.
The clones never grew the Mac market, they just eroded Apple's percentage of it, that's the reason why they Apple ended the clone experiment.
Cloners were never licensed to sell Mac OS 8. They were only licensed to sell versions of Mac OS 7. It was 1994 when they first licensed the Mac OS, to Radius and PowerComputing. Mac OS 8 did not ship until July of 1997.
How you ever got modded insightful is beyond me.
Um, no but something quite like it.
We're not talking about whether it will hurt productivity or sales or users will or won't like it. What we're talking about is THE PLATFORM which, depite what you or I may want to fool ourselves into believing, is soleley controlled by Microsoft/Apple (on their respective platforms).
At this point, if IE is removed from Windows XP, you end up with Windows 95. That DOES hurt the platform Microsoft is presenting.
APPLE TRIED CLONING. APPLE MAKES THEIR MONEY FROM SELLING HARDWARE.
Apple is not a hardware company but that's where they make their money. If licensing the OS was so profitable, why didn't it work the first time around?
I suppose "good insitution", being opinion, is debatable.
Spending money on university is no guarantee of success. It doesn't even guarantee an advantage.
Microsoft has never cared about the home user until the XBOX. MS makes ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL their money on business. Businesses are bothered by viruses and worms, so MS has worked to fix that. Businesses do not worry about adware and spyware and what have you because 75% of their users are on the intranet and the 25% that have access to the outside world are going through a hardware firewall.
Microsoft doesn't sell PCs. They don't care if Microsoft Office is running on Windows or Macintosh (as Roz Ho has pointed out multiple times, the MacBU is one of the most profitable units at Microsoft). Microsoft just wants you to buy their overpriced office suite.
I seriously doubt MS cares if it loses the home market on the PC front when they are poised to snag it on the media center front.
Apple is never going to win business users over unless they partner with a much larger vendor, Apple just does not have the resources for support that businesses need.
Yes, that's why EVERY USB device was candy coloured and just so happened to be the same colours as the iMacs. Please, you and I both KNOW that the only reason why USB caught on was because of the iMac. As you stated, the hardware and the support had been on the PC for an eternity in the tech world and no one cared.
I don't believe that will necessarily be true. It's been reported on a lot of websites (possibly not accurate but surely plausible) that the new Macs will be able to use PC expansion components (such as video cards, networking, etc) with just a different driver. That's the way it works now with Linux so I don't see how that couldn't be true with the new Macs.
As it stands right now, Apple has to not only get hardware manufacturers to write drivers that are specialised for Macs but also have to change the hardware because you're dealing with a different processor interfacing with the cards.
I think this will open up a whole aftermarket for Macintosh computers but no one has a crystal ball, we'll all just have to wait and see.
The PSP just isn't "rugged" enough. It looks and feels too precious to just throw into a bag like I am obliged to do with my DS or GBA. Also, that acreen is WORTHLESS in any sort of bright light because it is SUPER reflective.
I'll get one when Lumines isn't the only game worth playing.
Um, they're a deal of a stock buy when some company swallows them up for the patents they hold?
I myself do not understand the purpose of the x86 cruft any longer. Nostalgia? Are people buying Pentium 4s to run DOS in Real Mode?