“A computer chip designed to run more than one operating system at a time could break Microsoft’s stranglehold on PC software. Plans for the chip were announced last week by Intel, the world’s largest maker of processor chips.” Codenamed Vanderpool, this is sure to be high on everyone’s wish list. I look forward to playing with Fedora Core, Panther, Zeta, and Longhorn — all at the same time! Read more at NewScientist.
Advanced Chip Opens Door to Software Choice
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
Maybe these guys haven’t heard of dual booting. I really don’t see what the big deal is here. So I can run Windows and Linux at the same time, that’s already possible, this chip just speeds it up.
Such a hyper-OS would allow people using ordinary PCs to try out alternative operating systems, such as Linux, and the applications that run on them, without giving up Windows.
I’m blown away by that quote, especially because some of the newer distros coming out can repartition Windows disks to make room for Linux. Somebody reign in
Yeah, but they’re running at the same time (at least that’s how I understand it). I don’t really see an advantage to that (and I see a heck of a lot of disadvantages), but it is different from dual booting.
I assume this means that they are creating a fully virtualizable instruction-set chip…ie what IBM has been doing for decades with their VM architecture processors.
It really would be fantastic if they integrated that into their mainstream x86 line. No more VMWare, and potentially far more interesting and more robust compartmentalized OS design. Not to mention Intel-based co-hosting big iron, which is probably where Intel’s real interest is.
From the article, though, it sounds frustratingly vaporous. Though also from the article I get the impression that the author has no clue that you can do this today with a phone call to IBM.
Braddock Gaskill
”
Maybe these guys haven’t heard of dual booting. I really don’t see what the big deal is here. So I can run Windows and Linux at the same time, that’s already possible, this chip just speeds it up.
”
you totally miss the point here. The goal is to use several OS at the same time. A bit like VMware, but in hardware.
The advantage of running two OSes simultaneously is that you can use programs that are exclusive to each and pass data back and forth between them.
We used to do this on 68k Amigas – running Mac OS 7 on one screen and Amiga on the others – and it was quite useful. It would certainly be useful to run Linux-PPC on one screen, Mac OS X on another, and AmigaOS-PPC on the others.
“Maybe these guys haven’t heard of dual booting. I really don’t see what the big deal is here. So I can run Windows and Linux at the same time, that’s already possible, this chip just speeds it up.”
This would be handy for support folks that support multiple OS. Kind of the same niche that VMWare is filling now. The big difference is that both OS would be able to access the hardware and work right instead of the VMWare workaround for it.
if MS continues with their plans to take over the BIOS. There was an article on Slashdot last week or week before that mentioning how MS was looking to get control over the BIOS. MS’s argument is that they could help protect your system from infiltration by hackers and viruses if they controlled the BIOS.
Let’s be honest here because if MS were to do this, this is the best chance ever to institute “trustworthy computing” of sort where they completely lock out any other OS, in particular Linux. We already know that Linux is considered a virus by MS so the opportunity to have complete and utter control is something they are probably drooling over.
I hope Intel brings this to fruition because 1) it is a slap in the face of MS and 2) it allows the consumer to have real choice. I have my technological doubts about this but hey, I wish them luck with it.
After reading this article I can say that this sounds strange to me. Intel did not give any information about this. now , why would I , as a linux user, need this? I can dualboot if I really want windows.
I think that it is to complex for hardware to support load balancing of several OSs on multi core cpus. I cant see how this kind of a feature can benefit more then 0.01% of users and I don’t see why intel would spend time and money on this.
my guess is that intel has been working on some multi core CPU and the reporter did not get the point.
Power Computing, a small Georgetown, TX, company was going to release a CHRP Apple just before MS gave Apple $100M. Funny thing is the first thing Apple did with the money was to buy Power Computing and that was the last we has seen of CHRP since the bios support screenshot of the IBM Power 970. Might Intel be worried that the PPC might be used against them again?
Imagine if you could boot up your other OS to do somthing, while still keeping your primary one up and running! I can’t tell you how many times I was booted under Red Hat and just needed to do somthing real quick in windows, but was already doing tons of stuff I didn’t want to interupt. Rebooting just to access a special app is a pain.
I am suprised to see so many people “ho-huming” this. I think it would be INCREDIBLY useful!
two reasons for intel to support this
1) to make it easier to switch from windows to anything
2) to faciliate bringing the wretched itanium into the mainstream.
Either might be the goal.
I totally agree there. Why the ho-hum? Use some imagination- anyone could make use of this. Even think if it was a Windows only computer. It’d be a computer-illiterate’s way of being more secure. Or something. I dunno, but my point is that the flexibility is just awesome. If it catches on, it’ll get to be as standard as built in FP.
So, now I can crash WindowsXP by having Win98 Blue Screen
I see nothing here thats worth the price tag this chip will initially carry thats forsure. I’m interested to find out how this would work under a heavy CPU environment like gaming… How well will this chip work with OpenOffice running in one OS and DOOM3 running in another?
Mind you, released in 5 years, thats along time in computing… anything could happen.
Seems to me that this is Intels answer to running 32 bit applications on x86 and EPIC 64 bit OS and programs at the same time with little penalty. An instantaneous answer for the Opteron. Of course it is probably a bit off, but my guess is they could have an Itanium chip with this dual instruction core and it would pretty much push Itanium down to the desktop once Itanium is king in server land.
back in the amiga days… forgot what the name was (just a 286 but it ran a few little dos things )
anyways it letcha run your pc in a window on your workbench screen….
the ability to run both was actually quite useful…. you can share stuff between them in ways ya cant on a network…
this would be awesome!
and no… dual booting most definitely is NOT the same thing, not even close
Sun does something similar to this:
http://www.sun.com/desktop/products/sunpci/
it doesn’t bother MS because most PC’s won’t come with linux installed anyway
Lets say I have one of these fantastic new processors and I want to run WinXP and FreeBSD at the same time. Would one o/s crashing affect the other? Right now with VMWare/VirtualPC you need to run the virtual computer on a host o/s. I just can’t imagine how one would manage two o/s’s on the hardware level and have them interact possibly. However if they do coexist without eachother it would open up a whole new type of mission critical application, you would be able to run many different programs that use a micro o/s with only features they need and they would be very lean, efficient, and stable.
…the x times that will be needed to boot into x OSes and x times to shut down x OSes while the “main” OS will be already running :p
would allow for their OS to run on a machine that isn’t their own.
I have to boot windows only to play directx games. The opengl games on my gentoo box are runing fine with wine or native binaries. So this chip is good for users like me.
I can see little advantage to this for me at least. I prefer dedicated machines. Example the combo FAX/Scanner/Printer sounds great but what you get is a mediocre Fax/Scanner/Printer. I lug around 2 laptops now one with Netbsd on it and the other with XP and i am fine with that.
This could be good for Microsoft.
When Windows has to reboot to patch the system, it can just start a patched copy of itself, and shutdown the original version. No more rebooting.