Obviously, computers can more easily translate times between zones for us transparently than they can translate what cultural rituals are happening at what time in each place.
Time zones are less work than ever. When I travel from San Francisco to New York City, my iPhone adjusts the Time Zone accordingly. Same with Daylight Savings Time. I don't have any clocks that are not both location-aware and network-connected and neither should you unless you are a masochist. Out of all the things computers can do for us, managing the clock is the most basic.
The thing that has to go is AM/PM. The defense of it is not everybody can count to 24, but that is fucking weak because at high noon, ask 100 people if it is 12 am or pm and half will be wrong, like flipping a coin. And if using a 24 hour clock, time zones are not that hard to deal with manually. That is, compare "15:00 GMT -8" which is 15-8 which is 7:00 GMT to "3:00 PM GMT -8" which is a much, much more complex equation to convert to GMT.
HP PSG only has 5% margins. That is only slightly more profitable than Treasury bills. Apotheker said, "we have better ways of using that capital." Making PC's for Microsoft is not a good business and never has been. It is refreshing to hear someone at HP talk who is not a Microsoft-brainwashed zombie.
Apple just became the #1 PC vendor by volume last quarter. They shipped 4 million more systems than HP.
> but I'd dare say that there has to be more to this story than simply a change of heart > whereby the CEO no longer wants to gun for the number two slot in the tablet market > simply because he doesn't feel like it anymore
Can't fool you! Yes, there is more going on. This HP CEO is not the same HP CEO who bought Palm a year ago. Two months after the Palm purchase, HP fired their CEO and hired this new one. So the CEO did not just change his mind, he changed everything! He is a whole different guy now. No, he is not interested in being Steve Ballmer's punk, making almost no money assembling Windows PC's.
> less than 2 months
The other thing is that WebOS is much, much further behind iOS than is generally understood. They do not have native apps, they do not use the GPU well, they have all kinds of missing stuff. Software takes a long time to make. The tablet market is MATURE, it is over 25 years old. They do not have time to catch up to Apple. OS X is almost 30 years old, and has Unix components that are over 40. WebOS is 3, and made by a much, much smaller team.
The truth is, if they convert all the WebOS apps to iPad apps, that would be the best return on the investment they could make. Except I don't think their apps would be competitive.
The desktop to datacenter thing is obsolete. Today, you want mobile to data center. People don't want huge, complicated, power hungry, high maintenance needing, high software license fee HP PC's as clients. They want iPads, they want iPhones, they want ultralights like MacBook Air. HP did not learn to build those kinds of clients, so they cannot offer an all-HP solution. So they are a server company.
Even Apple's tiny Mac mini is often used as a server today. The clients are wireless. Servers are separated from the client by Wi-Fi or 3G/4G.
The Palm acquisition was made by Apotheker's predecessor, who clearly was thinking to go head to head with Apple at Apple's own game and in Apple's mature tablet and high-end PC markets, where they have 90% of the market. Apotheker doesn't want to do that. The $1.2 billion is not Apotheker's fault. It would be crazy to go up against Apple. The tablet market is very mature, not new at all. iPad is the Windows of tablets, not the Mac of tablets. It's the end, not the beginning.
Software runs all businesses today. Even McDonalds. It's a better investment than making Microsoft PC's or trying to out-iPod Apple.
Compaq would be best, for the nostalgia factor. Use the old logo, too. Only grandpas are buying Windows PC's anyway, so give them a taste of the good old days.
That is BS. HP is not obligated to assemble millions of computers for Microsoft for a 5% return on investment like some kind of charity. If there is some duty to keep HP PSG alive, then let that duty fall on Microsoft, who are the only one who can turn a good profit on a Windows PC. Windows should move from coming on DVD to coming on flash storage inside an already functioning PC.
Apotheker is like, "I can get 5% return just by putting this money in the bank!"
And if people need reliable client computer systems, they can buy from Apple and get the original instead of a shitty clone.
HP PSG is only 33% of HP revenue and only generates a 5% margin. It is like a charity they run on behalf of Microsoft. Put that money in treasury bills and focus on better business opportunities and you are better off. Apotheker said "we have a lot of better ways of using that capital."
The Windows PC has already been "margin driven into the ground." That is why HP wants out. That is why Apple systems are at least a generation ahead at everything. Notebooks just got PCI-Express and it is Mac-only!
When notebooks came in, it was hard for many desktop vendors to make them, because they are so different, and the industry changed a lot. Now, PC makers have to transition from notebooks to ultralights (MacBook Air) and tablets (iPad) and possibly smartphones (iPhone) and those are very, very different from 7 pound notebook PC's and giant tower desktops. MacBook Air has to be made from one piece or made thicker. iPad needs a desktop class touch OS and custom chips. So the industry is going to change radically again. Apple shipping 4 million more systems than HP last quarter to become the #1 PC vendor by volume and then HP throwing in the towel is very indicative of what is happening. If you can't make a MacBook Air, iPad, and iPhone, then you are a server maker. Those are the most popular and most desirable high-end PC, low-end PC, and phone in the world. That is where the bar is for CE device makers. HP is smart to make servers instead.
Apotheker himself said it, and it is in many articles. But I guess by "press" maybe you mean PC-oriented press? I could see why PC Mag would downplay that.
Anyway, he was very clear that he is going to compete with Oracle and IBM, and not compete with Apple.
The thing is, most users right now want either a $499 iPad or a $999 MacBook Air, and only Apple makes those. There is not even a clone that is close. This hasn't happened before because Apple never had a low-end PC before, and Apple's form factors used to be more similar to other vendors. But now we see Apple taking the consumer to a smaller and more mobile place than other PC vendors can go. To make a MacBook Air, you have to cut it out of 1 block of aluminum or else make it thicker. This is not the kind of PC that HP makes. To make an iPad, you have to make your own ARM SoC with a PC-sized GPU like Apple's A5, but that is not HP's thing either, so they used a phone chip in their tablet like everyone else other than Apple.
So it is an existential crisis for HP: tool up to go against Apple on iPads and MacBook Airs, or tool up to go against Oracle and IBM with software. They chose the latter, obviously. Smart choice. They are an IT company, not Consumer Electronics company.
HP's PC's are only 1/3rd of their revenue, and they only get a 5% margin on that, and they have to ship an incredible number of systems just to make that. They could put that same money in T-bills and get 3% for couch sitting, right? They could buy Apple stock and get 10%, 20% return.
Microsoft takes the bulk of the profit from each PC sale. The game is up, though. Apotheker knows HP PSG is being played by Microsoft, because he is a software guy. So let Microsoft buy PSG and tie up that much revenue making Windows systems.
You don't have to infer that HP is not willing to make the investment to become competitive with iPad features, because they said so. They said it would take years and billions of dollars and there is no guarantee that HP could do it. Apotheker did not buy Palm, his predecessor did, and he did not appreciate how far Apple is ahead. For example, nobody but Apple has native C apps on ARM yet. So Apotheker had to do the math and he said "we have better ways of using that revenue."
The tablet market is not new, right? That is a myth. Apple was LAST shipping a tablet, not first. People were asking Apple for a tablet since they canceled their last tablet in 1998. Since the iPhone in 2007, people have REALLY been asking Apple for a tablet. HP has been shipping tablets for well over 10 years. This is not a new niche that everybody has 3 years to catch up. The game is over. All that is in play is the 25% of the market that is too low-end for Apple, and Amazon has most of that now and will likely continue. The tablet market is MATURE now. Apple's entry was the final step in that maturity. PC vendors all pretending that is not the case will not change it. It is the same as iPod: Apple was LAST shipping a music player. Sony shipped one in 1979. Creative had MP3 music players in 1998. No, there was no opportunity for Zune or others to copy the iPod from 2001-2007 because the iPod was a mature music player, not an immature "MP3 player." Well, iPad is a mature tablet, not an immature "media tablet" whatever that is.
So if HP wanted to build their own integrated hardware/software tablet, they should have done it in 2000 instead of building Windows tablets for Microsoft. It is too late now. Apotheker is right.
As for what clients the enterprise will use to access HP's servers if HP does not make PC's: they will use iPads and iPhones and other devices, just like they are doing now. Most office PC's are only used like iPads: Web, email, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, video calls, audio video. A $499 iPad is cheaper than upgrading a Windows XP system to 7, including IT hours. The iPad goes anywhere for 10 hours and has an HTML5 browser, making it a much better client than any Windows device.
Apple just became the #1 PC vendor by volume last quarter, shipping 4 million more systems than HP. They are also by far the most profitable PC maker, and they have grown faster than all the other PC vendors for more than 5 years now. Apotheker specifically said part of the reason for shuttering HP PSG is that they cannot compete with Apple. How that is "not sitting at the table" is beyond me.
The boot loader and partition format on Macs is Intel EFI and GUID. Not exotic at all. They also provide a BIOS emulator for legacy operating systems called Boot Camp.
The MacBook Air has Thunderbolt, so even though it is the smallest i5 system, it is an expandable chassis.
Apple doesn't sell home brew parts or systems. The fact that you can build a home brew system with fewer features than an Apple system and no portability is not surprising, but it is irrelevant.
You are being so disingenuous, it is ridiculous. The fact that you have to be so disingenuous to pretend Dell is cheaper than Apple tells the whole story. Comparing a big fat notebook that most women cannot even carry day-in and day-out to the smallest i5 PC on the planet, with no moving parts, which can get lost in a purse, is just totally disingenuous. Plus you used the Dell base model but not the Apple base model. There is a MacBook Air that is 60% of the price of the one you chose.
The fact is, if you buy a Mac (any Mac) plus AppleCare that extends the service plan to 3 years, it will cost you a little over $1 per day for 3 years of worry-free computing, during which time, Apple will fix any software or hardware problem that comes up. You can buy before school and know you don't have to pay anything for 3 years. iPads cost a little less than $1 per day (they're cheaper, but only last 2 years.) It is CHEAP. Many Windows users spend more than $1 per day on consulting, just to nursemaid Windows.
The most popular low-end PC on the planet is iPad. The most popular high-end PC on the planet is MacBook Air. PC makers have to compete with those 2 systems or get out of the game. Those are the form factors of the next 5 years or more. None of them knows how to do it. So you see Dell is running away to servers, same as HP. Client systems are going to Apple because the others cannot make modern systems, which are not the crufty breadboard towers of yesterday. We all know this is the end of the PC industry. The question is just which PC companies go CE like Apple, and which go IT like HP and Dell, and which die.
Apple is 3x the price? You mean I can get an i5 ultralight with Thunderbolt, SSD, backlit keyboard, multitouch trackpad, made entirely from one block of aluminum for rigidity despite being only millimeters thin, for only $333 from a non-Apple vendor? Who would that be?
There are plenty of Windows users, even many developers, even people inside Microsoft, who use Apple hardware. If you want high-end hardware, the Mac is by far the cheapest and best. If you want a notebook that doesn't suck, the Mac is the only choice.
Apple were already getting a piece of HP's PC business before they decided to sell it, so I think it is assumed that will only continue. Apple just became the largest PC vendor in the world by volume, shipping about 4 million more systems last quarter than HP. Those new Apple sales came mostly out of HP since it is the next biggest vendor.
MacBook Air is the single best-selling notebook computer model in the world and is the computer that "everyone wants." But this applies to all Macs and all iPads. Apple is the leading notebook vendor by volume, and the leading tablet vendor by volume. The Mac represents 90% of the high-end PC market and iPad represents 90% of the tablet market. About half of the home PC's in the United States are Macs. The idea that "no one has" an Apple computer is ridiculously out-of-date.
If you were to put 4GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, USB bus, modern GPU and other features into a C64, it would no longer boot up in 1 second. What you're saying is "how come it takes 15 seconds to boot a whole computer when I used to be able to boot 0.00000001% of a computer in 1 second!?" A MacBook Air booting in 15 seconds is FASTER than a C64 booting in 1 second. A MacBook Air is an exponentially larger computer than a C64.
Anyway, the solution you are seeking to boot times was already found by Apple: you make system software that can wake instantly, and is stable enough that it only needs to be rebooted after operating system upgrades. Apple users are simply getting instant response from their devices, day in and day out.
A MacBook Air goes from off to a fully responsive desktop in 15 seconds. There are no tricks. It has EFI firmware instead of BIOS, it has SSD instead of HD, it has Mac OS X instead of Windows, and the whole thing has been designed and redesigned to boot and wake faster with each generation for a decade now. The MacBook Air also wakes from sleep immediately... faster than you can open the top. These are real-world facts, experienced by tens of millions of Mac users. Or I should say, "not experienced" because waiting for the computer to become responsive to your commands has disappeared in the Mac community. THAT is the point: the users are no longer waiting for their actual real-world computer systems (not artificially sped up demo systems) to boot up or wake up.
And a lot of the minimalism you are asking for is already there in OS X. Lots of stuff doesn't load until needed, and it very aggressively manages resources, which is why it could run on a 2007 iPhone, which essentially had a BlackBerry chip in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, all bowel movements should be synchronized, so that everyone can stay regular.
Obviously, computers can more easily translate times between zones for us transparently than they can translate what cultural rituals are happening at what time in each place.
Time zones are less work than ever. When I travel from San Francisco to New York City, my iPhone adjusts the Time Zone accordingly. Same with Daylight Savings Time. I don't have any clocks that are not both location-aware and network-connected and neither should you unless you are a masochist. Out of all the things computers can do for us, managing the clock is the most basic.
The thing that has to go is AM/PM. The defense of it is not everybody can count to 24, but that is fucking weak because at high noon, ask 100 people if it is 12 am or pm and half will be wrong, like flipping a coin. And if using a 24 hour clock, time zones are not that hard to deal with manually. That is, compare "15:00 GMT -8" which is 15-8 which is 7:00 GMT to "3:00 PM GMT -8" which is a much, much more complex equation to convert to GMT.
It was brave of you to suffer through the spelling and grammar issues.
Next you will be telling me that HP is getting out of the PC business.
HP PSG only has 5% margins. That is only slightly more profitable than Treasury bills. Apotheker said, "we have better ways of using that capital." Making PC's for Microsoft is not a good business and never has been. It is refreshing to hear someone at HP talk who is not a Microsoft-brainwashed zombie.
Apple just became the #1 PC vendor by volume last quarter. They shipped 4 million more systems than HP.
> but I'd dare say that there has to be more to this story than simply a change of heart
> whereby the CEO no longer wants to gun for the number two slot in the tablet market
> simply because he doesn't feel like it anymore
Can't fool you! Yes, there is more going on. This HP CEO is not the same HP CEO who bought Palm a year ago. Two months after the Palm purchase, HP fired their CEO and hired this new one. So the CEO did not just change his mind, he changed everything! He is a whole different guy now. No, he is not interested in being Steve Ballmer's punk, making almost no money assembling Windows PC's.
> less than 2 months
The other thing is that WebOS is much, much further behind iOS than is generally understood. They do not have native apps, they do not use the GPU well, they have all kinds of missing stuff. Software takes a long time to make. The tablet market is MATURE, it is over 25 years old. They do not have time to catch up to Apple. OS X is almost 30 years old, and has Unix components that are over 40. WebOS is 3, and made by a much, much smaller team.
The truth is, if they convert all the WebOS apps to iPad apps, that would be the best return on the investment they could make. Except I don't think their apps would be competitive.
The desktop to datacenter thing is obsolete. Today, you want mobile to data center. People don't want huge, complicated, power hungry, high maintenance needing, high software license fee HP PC's as clients. They want iPads, they want iPhones, they want ultralights like MacBook Air. HP did not learn to build those kinds of clients, so they cannot offer an all-HP solution. So they are a server company.
Even Apple's tiny Mac mini is often used as a server today. The clients are wireless. Servers are separated from the client by Wi-Fi or 3G/4G.
The Palm acquisition was made by Apotheker's predecessor, who clearly was thinking to go head to head with Apple at Apple's own game and in Apple's mature tablet and high-end PC markets, where they have 90% of the market. Apotheker doesn't want to do that. The $1.2 billion is not Apotheker's fault. It would be crazy to go up against Apple. The tablet market is very mature, not new at all. iPad is the Windows of tablets, not the Mac of tablets. It's the end, not the beginning.
Software runs all businesses today. Even McDonalds. It's a better investment than making Microsoft PC's or trying to out-iPod Apple.
They should call one company H and the other: P.
Compaq would be best, for the nostalgia factor. Use the old logo, too. Only grandpas are buying Windows PC's anyway, so give them a taste of the good old days.
That is BS. HP is not obligated to assemble millions of computers for Microsoft for a 5% return on investment like some kind of charity. If there is some duty to keep HP PSG alive, then let that duty fall on Microsoft, who are the only one who can turn a good profit on a Windows PC. Windows should move from coming on DVD to coming on flash storage inside an already functioning PC.
Apotheker is like, "I can get 5% return just by putting this money in the bank!"
And if people need reliable client computer systems, they can buy from Apple and get the original instead of a shitty clone.
HP PSG is only 33% of HP revenue and only generates a 5% margin. It is like a charity they run on behalf of Microsoft. Put that money in treasury bills and focus on better business opportunities and you are better off. Apotheker said "we have a lot of better ways of using that capital."
The Windows PC has already been "margin driven into the ground." That is why HP wants out. That is why Apple systems are at least a generation ahead at everything. Notebooks just got PCI-Express and it is Mac-only!
When notebooks came in, it was hard for many desktop vendors to make them, because they are so different, and the industry changed a lot. Now, PC makers have to transition from notebooks to ultralights (MacBook Air) and tablets (iPad) and possibly smartphones (iPhone) and those are very, very different from 7 pound notebook PC's and giant tower desktops. MacBook Air has to be made from one piece or made thicker. iPad needs a desktop class touch OS and custom chips. So the industry is going to change radically again. Apple shipping 4 million more systems than HP last quarter to become the #1 PC vendor by volume and then HP throwing in the towel is very indicative of what is happening. If you can't make a MacBook Air, iPad, and iPhone, then you are a server maker. Those are the most popular and most desirable high-end PC, low-end PC, and phone in the world. That is where the bar is for CE device makers. HP is smart to make servers instead.
Apotheker himself said it, and it is in many articles. But I guess by "press" maybe you mean PC-oriented press? I could see why PC Mag would downplay that.
Anyway, he was very clear that he is going to compete with Oracle and IBM, and not compete with Apple.
The thing is, most users right now want either a $499 iPad or a $999 MacBook Air, and only Apple makes those. There is not even a clone that is close. This hasn't happened before because Apple never had a low-end PC before, and Apple's form factors used to be more similar to other vendors. But now we see Apple taking the consumer to a smaller and more mobile place than other PC vendors can go. To make a MacBook Air, you have to cut it out of 1 block of aluminum or else make it thicker. This is not the kind of PC that HP makes. To make an iPad, you have to make your own ARM SoC with a PC-sized GPU like Apple's A5, but that is not HP's thing either, so they used a phone chip in their tablet like everyone else other than Apple.
So it is an existential crisis for HP: tool up to go against Apple on iPads and MacBook Airs, or tool up to go against Oracle and IBM with software. They chose the latter, obviously. Smart choice. They are an IT company, not Consumer Electronics company.
HP's PC's are only 1/3rd of their revenue, and they only get a 5% margin on that, and they have to ship an incredible number of systems just to make that. They could put that same money in T-bills and get 3% for couch sitting, right? They could buy Apple stock and get 10%, 20% return.
Microsoft takes the bulk of the profit from each PC sale. The game is up, though. Apotheker knows HP PSG is being played by Microsoft, because he is a software guy. So let Microsoft buy PSG and tie up that much revenue making Windows systems.
You don't have to infer that HP is not willing to make the investment to become competitive with iPad features, because they said so. They said it would take years and billions of dollars and there is no guarantee that HP could do it. Apotheker did not buy Palm, his predecessor did, and he did not appreciate how far Apple is ahead. For example, nobody but Apple has native C apps on ARM yet. So Apotheker had to do the math and he said "we have better ways of using that revenue."
The tablet market is not new, right? That is a myth. Apple was LAST shipping a tablet, not first. People were asking Apple for a tablet since they canceled their last tablet in 1998. Since the iPhone in 2007, people have REALLY been asking Apple for a tablet. HP has been shipping tablets for well over 10 years. This is not a new niche that everybody has 3 years to catch up. The game is over. All that is in play is the 25% of the market that is too low-end for Apple, and Amazon has most of that now and will likely continue. The tablet market is MATURE now. Apple's entry was the final step in that maturity. PC vendors all pretending that is not the case will not change it. It is the same as iPod: Apple was LAST shipping a music player. Sony shipped one in 1979. Creative had MP3 music players in 1998. No, there was no opportunity for Zune or others to copy the iPod from 2001-2007 because the iPod was a mature music player, not an immature "MP3 player." Well, iPad is a mature tablet, not an immature "media tablet" whatever that is.
So if HP wanted to build their own integrated hardware/software tablet, they should have done it in 2000 instead of building Windows tablets for Microsoft. It is too late now. Apotheker is right.
As for what clients the enterprise will use to access HP's servers if HP does not make PC's: they will use iPads and iPhones and other devices, just like they are doing now. Most office PC's are only used like iPads: Web, email, documents, spreadsheets, presentations, video calls, audio video. A $499 iPad is cheaper than upgrading a Windows XP system to 7, including IT hours. The iPad goes anywhere for 10 hours and has an HTML5 browser, making it a much better client than any Windows device.
Apple just became the #1 PC vendor by volume last quarter, shipping 4 million more systems than HP. They are also by far the most profitable PC maker, and they have grown faster than all the other PC vendors for more than 5 years now. Apotheker specifically said part of the reason for shuttering HP PSG is that they cannot compete with Apple. How that is "not sitting at the table" is beyond me.
The boot loader and partition format on Macs is Intel EFI and GUID. Not exotic at all. They also provide a BIOS emulator for legacy operating systems called Boot Camp.
The MacBook Air has Thunderbolt, so even though it is the smallest i5 system, it is an expandable chassis.
Apple doesn't sell home brew parts or systems. The fact that you can build a home brew system with fewer features than an Apple system and no portability is not surprising, but it is irrelevant.
You are being so disingenuous, it is ridiculous. The fact that you have to be so disingenuous to pretend Dell is cheaper than Apple tells the whole story. Comparing a big fat notebook that most women cannot even carry day-in and day-out to the smallest i5 PC on the planet, with no moving parts, which can get lost in a purse, is just totally disingenuous. Plus you used the Dell base model but not the Apple base model. There is a MacBook Air that is 60% of the price of the one you chose.
The fact is, if you buy a Mac (any Mac) plus AppleCare that extends the service plan to 3 years, it will cost you a little over $1 per day for 3 years of worry-free computing, during which time, Apple will fix any software or hardware problem that comes up. You can buy before school and know you don't have to pay anything for 3 years. iPads cost a little less than $1 per day (they're cheaper, but only last 2 years.) It is CHEAP. Many Windows users spend more than $1 per day on consulting, just to nursemaid Windows.
The most popular low-end PC on the planet is iPad. The most popular high-end PC on the planet is MacBook Air. PC makers have to compete with those 2 systems or get out of the game. Those are the form factors of the next 5 years or more. None of them knows how to do it. So you see Dell is running away to servers, same as HP. Client systems are going to Apple because the others cannot make modern systems, which are not the crufty breadboard towers of yesterday. We all know this is the end of the PC industry. The question is just which PC companies go CE like Apple, and which go IT like HP and Dell, and which die.
Apple is 3x the price? You mean I can get an i5 ultralight with Thunderbolt, SSD, backlit keyboard, multitouch trackpad, made entirely from one block of aluminum for rigidity despite being only millimeters thin, for only $333 from a non-Apple vendor? Who would that be?
There are plenty of Windows users, even many developers, even people inside Microsoft, who use Apple hardware. If you want high-end hardware, the Mac is by far the cheapest and best. If you want a notebook that doesn't suck, the Mac is the only choice.
Apple were already getting a piece of HP's PC business before they decided to sell it, so I think it is assumed that will only continue. Apple just became the largest PC vendor in the world by volume, shipping about 4 million more systems last quarter than HP. Those new Apple sales came mostly out of HP since it is the next biggest vendor.
There is also Apple WebKit, but it is also already open source. What is left over then is carrier stuff and a handful of Web apps.
MacBook Air is the single best-selling notebook computer model in the world and is the computer that "everyone wants." But this applies to all Macs and all iPads. Apple is the leading notebook vendor by volume, and the leading tablet vendor by volume. The Mac represents 90% of the high-end PC market and iPad represents 90% of the tablet market. About half of the home PC's in the United States are Macs. The idea that "no one has" an Apple computer is ridiculously out-of-date.
If you were to put 4GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, USB bus, modern GPU and other features into a C64, it would no longer boot up in 1 second. What you're saying is "how come it takes 15 seconds to boot a whole computer when I used to be able to boot 0.00000001% of a computer in 1 second!?" A MacBook Air booting in 15 seconds is FASTER than a C64 booting in 1 second. A MacBook Air is an exponentially larger computer than a C64.
Anyway, the solution you are seeking to boot times was already found by Apple: you make system software that can wake instantly, and is stable enough that it only needs to be rebooted after operating system upgrades. Apple users are simply getting instant response from their devices, day in and day out.
Actually, the operating system shouldn't require a bunch of 3rd party crap to be loaded just so it can view PDF's and MP4's.
No, just a lot of 20th century stuff is dying. Good riddance.
A MacBook Air goes from off to a fully responsive desktop in 15 seconds. There are no tricks. It has EFI firmware instead of BIOS, it has SSD instead of HD, it has Mac OS X instead of Windows, and the whole thing has been designed and redesigned to boot and wake faster with each generation for a decade now. The MacBook Air also wakes from sleep immediately ... faster than you can open the top. These are real-world facts, experienced by tens of millions of Mac users. Or I should say, "not experienced" because waiting for the computer to become responsive to your commands has disappeared in the Mac community. THAT is the point: the users are no longer waiting for their actual real-world computer systems (not artificially sped up demo systems) to boot up or wake up.
And a lot of the minimalism you are asking for is already there in OS X. Lots of stuff doesn't load until needed, and it very aggressively manages resources, which is why it could run on a 2007 iPhone, which essentially had a BlackBerry chip in it.
You shouldn't make a presentation on a laptop that crashes.
And in the building next to you, a guy with an iPad is drinking your milkshake.