There are a number of possible options to having virtualization built into the hardware. This has some very distinct performance advantages over software based virtualization (VMWare, Virtual PC, etc.) as there is no additional software layer required. In addition, hardware (firmware) based virtualization has been well proven in the IBM server lines (Unix and AS/400).
The possibility that I see for a desktop user would be to have a separate OS instance that is optimized for running games. By dynamically changing CPU and memory utilization, users would be able to use a highly optimized environment for gaming that wouldn't touch their other applications, and would be constantly available.
Both HP and IBM have had dual core chips for a while now. There are a number of advantages to moving to dual core processors. The most important is that it helps to improve performance without as much heat generation as two single core processors. Another advantage to dual core processors is that you can share caches, which have some very distinct advantanges in multiprocessor environments. By sharing cache processors can check the shared cache without interupting eachother. By improving the performance of the processors, server vendors can actually cut software costs on a per processor basis, as fewer processors are required to perform the same workload.
The real issue for software licensing will be when virtualization becomes more widely used in the Risc and Intel space. How will software vendors charge for 2 tenth's of a processor? This will be the real challenge from a cost perspective, as there will be a number of applications that really only require that much of a processor.
Really what it comes down to is a question of, can companies make money through innovation? I would say that this is so. Companys that innovate can create products that either come to market sooner, or are technically complex enough that a follower like Dell can't buy or produce them. A couple of examples from the Intel server space. Dell does not have an 8 processor or larger Xeon MP server solution, nor do they have a Xeon Blade solution. These are the two highest profit margin items in the Intel server space. Dell has been trying to buy a blade solution, but so far has not been able to. I suspect it is because no one in the blade area is willing to drop their profit margins enough to sell their blade solution to Dell.
In some ways this can be considered a weakness of Dell's business model. They don't have the ability to compete in markets where they can't buy the technology. These markets tend to be the highest profit markets. In addition, it is possible for Dell to be innovated out of markets that they do compete in.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a number of possible options to having virtualization built into the hardware. This has some very distinct performance advantages over software based virtualization (VMWare, Virtual PC, etc.) as there is no additional software layer required. In addition, hardware (firmware) based virtualization has been well proven in the IBM server lines (Unix and AS/400).
The possibility that I see for a desktop user would be to have a separate OS instance that is optimized for running games. By dynamically changing CPU and memory utilization, users would be able to use a highly optimized environment for gaming that wouldn't touch their other applications, and would be constantly available.
Both HP and IBM have had dual core chips for a while now. There are a number of advantages to moving to dual core processors. The most important is that it helps to improve performance without as much heat generation as two single core processors. Another advantage to dual core processors is that you can share caches, which have some very distinct advantanges in multiprocessor environments. By sharing cache processors can check the shared cache without interupting eachother. By improving the performance of the processors, server vendors can actually cut software costs on a per processor basis, as fewer processors are required to perform the same workload.
The real issue for software licensing will be when virtualization becomes more widely used in the Risc and Intel space. How will software vendors charge for 2 tenth's of a processor? This will be the real challenge from a cost perspective, as there will be a number of applications that really only require that much of a processor.
Really what it comes down to is a question of, can companies make money through innovation? I would say that this is so. Companys that innovate can create products that either come to market sooner, or are technically complex enough that a follower like Dell can't buy or produce them. A couple of examples from the Intel server space. Dell does not have an 8 processor or larger Xeon MP server solution, nor do they have a Xeon Blade solution. These are the two highest profit margin items in the Intel server space. Dell has been trying to buy a blade solution, but so far has not been able to. I suspect it is because no one in the blade area is willing to drop their profit margins enough to sell their blade solution to Dell. In some ways this can be considered a weakness of Dell's business model. They don't have the ability to compete in markets where they can't buy the technology. These markets tend to be the highest profit markets. In addition, it is possible for Dell to be innovated out of markets that they do compete in.