Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on June 06, 2005, 05:42:36 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4611505.stm
It might actually happen this time. If this happens, then it would also mean that they would have to make OSX compatible with PCs (the only real hardware difference between PC and Mac is the processor).
-
id like to see a hardware os. you buy a chip with the os code on it, which does most of the bs involved in osing, it would also mean pretty much instantanious os load, and would resolve the piracy issue to a degree, because its hardware. it would also save on the hd usage, only stuff like settings and drivers would be stored on the hd, with minimal impact on system resources. also sence the os chip would be read only, viruses couldnt harm the core operations of your computer and if you crash all you wopuld need to do is dump the setting files on the hd and it would restore the system. but im in margaritaville at the moment so what do i know.
-
I'd like to see the ability to boot the BIOS off and replace it with the OS itself. If Linux weren't such a PITA to use, I'd recommend it.
Of course, I'd also like to see console OGL support, a less bloated windowing system, and a helluva lot easier to work with software packages.
If I can make a limited windowing system as part of a game and pack it into 6 megs worth of code (oh, along with the game itself...) I see no reason why the base X server should be 70+ megs :wtf:
-
id like to see a hardware os. you buy a chip with the os code on it, which does most of the bs involved in osing, it would also mean pretty much instantanious os load, and would resolve the piracy issue to a degree, because its hardware.
I don't like. It's not nearly as flexible. In addition to that, the fact that it is virtually impossible to pirate makes me not want it.
-
indeed, why does windows need a ****ing gig? pdas have good operating systems tht fit into there limited memory, why cant pcs hsve the same? toe os on early macs was pretty versitile and had the advantage of fitting on a single floppy.
as for you Kosh, i like your additude but id be willing to actually pay for an os that can be ready to go within 3 seconds from the post beep
-
the last I heard of it was that it was about the chipsets, but I guess it could be the cpu as well.
which'd be nice. maybe we'd be able to get os x for pc then?
-
any operating system can be designed for any hardware, they just dont do it for some stupid reason (what that reason is, is irellevant, but no matter what it is im sure we could all agree its stupid). what is needed is standarized hardware abstraction. keep it as a standardized module of code that may be compiled for different cpus/operatihg systems. the hardware does one thing and the os does another, but the abstraction is the only thing that makes it all a system. windows has a modular hardware abstraction layer, if they wanted/could to they could write one for mac hardware. i think patents and licensing stand in the way though.
-
Microsoft using PowerPCs, Macs using Intels... I don't know what the world's coming to. :p
-
I'll give you a tip...
*WARNING: POSSIBLE FLAMING CONTENT BELOW*
MSFT owns 30% of Apple ;)
Maybe we will see Windows developed by those guys in a decade or so...
An hypothetical circle will close as MS started by being a subcontractor of Apple itself (believe it or not there was MSFT code inside the first MAC OS), with the trend now reversing...
It is a logical strategic move to counter IBM exploitation of open source...
*END OF POSSIBLE FLAMING CONTENT*
About an hardware based OS there is a slightly hard to overcome obstacle: how would you update it?
Note that updating would also included drivers and similar stuff (at least until MSFT finishes the universal hardware architecture project, their research website shows some really interesting stuff)...
-
I'm pretty sure there's some kind of chip-based (solid-state?) storage that you can read/write from and won't reset with the power.
If not, the same system for updating the BIOS could be used (flashing it). A separate chip could hold updates/add-ons, or they could simply be kept in RAM. In that case you'd probably need a more powerful battery/capacitor so you could move your computer without resetting the OS.
-
Yes, you can use Flash-like memories and that would ackieve some stuff...
An easier way is to set the system to hibernate, makes everything available in less than 30 seconds on my machine.
-
**** Intel. Athlon is better than Intel!
-
Seems like there could be some interesting possibilities with this switch.
I always wondered why OSX being based on Unix was such a big deal, but I'm guessing that fact will make it easier to change processors?
The fastest Macs are dual 2.7GHz right now, so switching to Xeon or whatever should bump speed as well - I'm not well up on this, but dual 3.4GHz is top-end now?
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I'm pretty sure there's some kind of chip-based (solid-state?) storage that you can read/write from and won't reset with the power.
If not, the same system for updating the BIOS could be used (flashing it). A separate chip could hold updates/add-ons, or they could simply be kept in RAM. In that case you'd probably need a more powerful battery/capacitor so you could move your computer without resetting the OS.
solid state is used on alot of industrial computers, where vibrations are too hard on a conventional hard drive. but solid state hard drives are kinda expensive and dont have near the capacity the mechanical drives have. but if you put just the core bulk of the os on a rom chip which could load pretty much instantly, and using as little drive resources as possible would be a real time saver. you also have non-volitile ram, which doesnt forget its state when powered off. but its expensive and slow.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
id like to see a hardware os. you buy a chip with the os code on it, which does most of the bs involved in osing, it would also mean pretty much instantanious os load, and would resolve the piracy issue to a degree, because its hardware. it would also save on the hd usage, only stuff like settings and drivers would be stored on the hd, with minimal impact on system resources. also sence the os chip would be read only, viruses couldnt harm the core operations of your computer and if you crash all you wopuld need to do is dump the setting files on the hd and it would restore the system. but im in margaritaville at the moment so what do i know.
Last sentance: Right.
This is one of the most bloody stupid ideas I've ever heard of.
If the OS cannot be changed, it cannot be updated. Nor can it be replaced with a better OS. So whichever OS the chip manufacturer wants to install is the one you're stuck with. No thanks.
My own system has two OSes on it. How would one do that if it was built into the hardware?
If the users would learn not to click 'OK' to every bloody dialog box they see, viruses would be a lot less common, but I guess it's too much to expect the Human Race to use its collective brains occasionally.
And re: Apple's adoption of Intel CPUs: I guess they won't be using the x86 series, or suddenly the Mac's architectural superiority disappears.
-
what is with everryones obsessions with software upgrades, it seems to me software becomes less effietient and more bloated with every passing "upgrade". btw stupid ideas tend to work best.
and that thing about one tequilla, two tequilla, three tequilla, floor is entirely false, i never hit the floor :D
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4612951.stm
It's confirmed, they are going with x86 Intel chips.
the last I heard of it was that it was about the chipsets, but I guess it could be the cpu as well.
It never had anything to do with the chipsets, it is all about the processor.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I'd like to see the ability to boot the BIOS off and replace it with the OS itself. If Linux weren't such a PITA to use, I'd recommend it.
Intel already have something like this, it's been used in their Itanium systems for a few years now and they're planning on bringing it to PCs.
Originally posted by Nuke
any operating system can be designed for any hardware, they just dont do it for some stupid reason (what that reason is, is irellevant, but no matter what it is im sure we could all agree its stupid). what is needed is standarized hardware abstraction. keep it as a standardized module of code that may be compiled for different cpus/operatihg systems. the hardware does one thing and the os does another, but the abstraction is the only thing that makes it all a system. windows has a modular hardware abstraction layer, if they wanted/could to they could write one for mac hardware. i think patents and licensing stand in the way though.
Windows NT did at one time run on Power PC, MIPS and Alpha in addition to x86. It was dropped years ago though (NT4 SP3 for Power PC, not sure about the other arches though none made it as far as Win2k afaik), probably due to it being uneconomical more than anything else.
-
The thing I don't like about the Intel POS they've chosen is that it has DRM built into the chip itself.
-
So may AMD eventually:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040922120030.html
-
****.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The thing I don't like about the Intel POS they've chosen is that it has DRM built into the chip itself.
As much as it may astonish everybody in the forum, I agree with Liberator.
-
Heh.. Today different processors, tomorrow...
NEW YORK TIMES
Bill Gates marries Steve Jobs
-
Originally posted by Ghost
Heh.. Today different processors, tomorrow...
NEW YORK TIMES
Bill Gates marries Steve Jobs
Better still:
THE SUN
Bill Gates marries Steve Jobs
-
And then they adopt Linus Torvalds.
-
Nah, Linus married IBM long time ago and Steve Jobs going with Bill Gates is much less of a surprise than you may think...
After all if Bill Gates didn't save Apple's butt in 1997 (hate him as much as you want but he could have chosen to let the mac die) there wouldn't be i-pod, mini mac and all that stuff today...
-
Linus and IBM is really only a marriage of convenience though. IBM have been looking for ways to strike back at MS for 0wnz0ring them all those years ago and Linus is just their new poster child. Same with Sun, Novell, Oracle etc.
-
Originally posted by Admiral LSD
Linus and IBM is really only a marriage of convenience though. IBM have been looking for ways to strike back at MS for 0wnz0ring them all those years ago and Linus is just their new poster child. Same with Sun, Novell, Oracle etc.
of course, with solaris becoming open source (although with crappy hardware support) and with novell probably filing for bankruptcy any day now...
nah seriously, the alternatives have passed netware a long time ago. too bad, since I really liked it, but...
-
(although with crappy hardware support)
That's because Sun uses it's own, proprietary hardware.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
That's because Sun uses it's own, proprietary hardware.
that's part of it, yes. although I must say that sun makes nice servers. If they could just be less purple...
-
Originally posted by Nuke
what is with everryones obsessions with software upgrades, it seems to me software becomes less effietient and more bloated with every passing "upgrade". btw stupid ideas tend to work best.
and that thing about one tequilla, two tequilla, three tequilla, floor is entirely false, i never hit the floor :D
OK... so a gaping security loophole in an OS should never be fixed?
Software is NEVER perfect. Upgrades fix problems with the software.
So if you think you can write an OS which is perfect and never requires upgrades or fixes, maybe you should put down the crack pipe?
-
LINUX!!11!!
or at least they like to think so... :rolleyes:
-
Look! A blue penguin!
Besides spamming it is worth to remember that macos is based on BSD (UNIX is NOT linux)
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
OK... so a gaping security loophole in an OS should never be fixed?
Software is NEVER perfect. Upgrades fix problems with the software.
So if you think you can write an OS which is perfect and never requires upgrades or fixes, maybe you should put down the crack pipe?
a gaping security loophole should never have been alowed to exist in the first place. the most secure systems are kept as simple as possible to avoid possible exploitations. in addition simplicity makes the whole of the system easyer to comprehend by those who manage security. simple systems also have the tednancy to be easy to troubleshoot and because there simple will run faster.. indeed no software is ever perfect, but that doesnt mean it should be smoldering pile of doo either. thats one of the biggest excuses of software companies. the fact that microsoft gets away with releasing such a seriously convoluted pile of crap paints a big bullseye on the side of every machine that is running windows. if you tease a dog with a piece of meat long enough its gonna bite. we should drop the whole obsession about security and give the script kiddies nothing to do. as for upgrades the only thing there good for is creating new gaping holes in your security.
-
Too bad that all operating systems are going to add more features, more security patches et al...
You keep citing MSFT but open source systems aren't smaller, with multi million lines kernel...
Now, guess where development is going to go?
Remember we're talking about user level software, not PLCs...
-
a gaping security loophole should never have been alowed to exist in the first place
But sometimes it still does exist. It's a lot more difficult than you think to debug 10+ million lines of code.........
-
The idea of the 'perfect software' flew out the window more than a decade ago. Why? Because it's unfeasible for us to program in every little contingency into our programs given the diversity of people's systems. If you were to take into account every possible configuration, with hardware components and drivers themselves imperfectly programmed, then there are trillions of little things to consider. And considering how 'unintended' functionality (e.g. buffer overflow) can often be accidentally added into code, there'll always be some sort of exploit that's out there. Demanding software that runs perfectly, given the non-linear way in which computers are used, is demanding the impossible.
-
Demanding software that runs perfectly, given the non-linear way in which computers are used, is demanding the impossible.
That is still not going to stop some people. :p
-
Originally posted by Kosh
But sometimes it still does exist. It's a lot more difficult than you think to debug 10+ million lines of code.........
thats why you should try to do the same job with only a million lines. its an operating system, not a celestial navigation system.
-
Celestial navigation is probably alot simpler than windows, anyway. ;)
-
That's actually probably true.
When people said 'upgrades', I figured that this would be things like upgrading the kernel to get newer/better support for some device that you own, or even doing a recompile of it to better fit your system.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
thats why you should try to do the same job with only a million lines. its an operating system, not a celestial navigation system.
I think they did. It was called "Windows 3.x". I remember all the fun I had with that......
No PnP, little networking support, no DirectX, no OGL, no nothing......
-
OpenGL and DirectX really don't need to be integrated into the OS.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Look! A blue penguin!
Besides spamming it is worth to remember that macos is based on BSD (UNIX is NOT linux)
I know that, my comment was in response to Descenterace's comment about perfect software. The way Linux fanboys carry on you'd think it was perfect but scratch the surface and you realise it's just as crappy and bug-ridden if not more so than Windows.
Originally posted by SadisticSid
The idea of the 'perfect software' flew out the window more than a decade ago.
Demanding software that runs perfectly, given the non-linear way in which computers are used, is demanding the impossible.
Software may not be perfect but that's no excuse not to try. With the resources MS have available to them, there's no excuse for their products to have such poor average quality. The real problem is that computer users have become far too tolerant of poor quality software (both open- and closed-source). There are various reasons for this but what it boils down to ultimately is that, unless developers are given incentive to do better, they won't.
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
That's actually probably true.
When people said 'upgrades', I figured that this would be things like upgrading the kernel to get newer/better support for some device that you own, or even doing a recompile of it to better fit your system.
:rolleyes:
Install new gadget X. Realise drivers aren't in kernel. Attempt upgrade to x.y.z. Realise that x.y.z has some boneheaded new "feature" that, while providing support for gadget X, breaks half your other software/hardware too.
OR
Install gadget X. Realise drivers aren't in any kernel. Note that gadget X manufacturer, contrary to popular belief, provides linux drivers on their site. Download and install them. Gadget X works. w00t!. Security flaw discovered. Upgrade to x.y.z. Realise gadget X drivers no longer work because some boneheaded kernel dev has broken something.
Yep, Linux are really on the ball here... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
OpenGL and DirectX really don't need to be integrated into the OS.
True. But there are many other things that either need to be integrated, or should be integrated that were not with Windows 3.x. The point is that 1 million lines might seem like a lot, but in order to get the functionality people demand, you need to go way above that.
-
what people in general do not understand is that more can be less in the case of the amount of software you run on your computer at any one time. demand something that in the long run is a henderance, and you will probibly get it.
-
*drags thread back on topic*
[list=1]- OS X will not run on any old PC. That would be suicide for Apple. However, it sounds like they won't stop Windows from running on a Mac, which could quickly ramp up Apple's market share. (I know I'd buy a system I could dual boot with OS X and Windows over any other option out there!)
- Apple is very pissed off that IBM still hasn't produced a less power-hungry version of the G5 processor for use in laptops. In general, Apple doesn't think IBM has a good vision for the future compared to Intel (i.e. PowerPC chips have been better than x86 up till now, but will they be in 2 years?)
- Connected to this, IBM have not been able to meet Apple's supply demands. Apple is switching because Intel will be more reliable in this regard, and cheaper.
-
You're quite right Sesquipedalian, anyways it looks like it will be a special purpose CPU and not the standard P4 architecture (most likely an optimized IA64 CPU)
-
Originally posted by Zarax
You're quite right Sesquipedalian, anyways it looks like it will be a special purpose CPU and not the standard P4 architecture (most likely an optimized IA64 CPU)
The article states quite explicitly that apple is moving to x86.
Excerpt from the article
The agreement means Apple is joining the ranks of other computer makers which use microprocessors built on the x86 architecture.
-
Also, IA64 is dead. Disregard all reports otherwise. The fact that EM64T (read: x86-64) even exists in Intel chips is due to the absolute failure that is the Itanium. Attempting to destroy the system from top down does not work. You need to destroy it from the bottom up, as that leads to a faster adoption rate.