[Kosh]

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).

[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.

[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.

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

[Kosh]

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.

[Nuke]

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

[kode]

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?

[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.

[Setekh]

Microsoft using PowerPCs, Macs using Intels... I don't know what the world's coming to.

[Zarax]

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)...

[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.

[Zarax]

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.

[Dark RevenantX]

**** Intel.  Athlon is better than Intel!

[Clave]

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?

[Nuke]

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 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.

[Descenterace]

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.

[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

[Kosh]

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.

[Admiral LSD]

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.

[Liberator]

The thing I don't like about the Intel POS they've chosen is that it has DRM built into the chip itself.

[Admiral LSD]

So may AMD eventually:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20040922120030.html