Is Steve Jobs the New Lord of the Rings?
The ability to run multiple operating systems simultaneously on the same machine under one supra-operating system or “hypervisor”– all with touch-of-a-key flexibility — has long been the Holy Grail of the computer industry. Or, to put it in J.R.R. Tolkien’s terminology, “The Ring.” The next release of Mac OS X (Leopard) is that long-sought “Ring” and Steve Jobs is about to become “Lord of the Rings.”
The amount of time and attention lavished by Steve Jobs at last month’s WWDC on the “Spaces” feature of the forthcoming Lepoard version of OS X begs the question: what’s up? It is deceptively simple, and yet intriguing. Spaces allows users to have separate windows in which a full desktop of related open applications can be displayed.
At WWDC, Jobs demoed four simultaneous “spaces” opened and displayed as tiles on the screen, from which you can select and then drag-and-drop applications between them as required. At first blush, this new feature (thought not so new for hardcore Mac users) struck me as not very practical and rather unimportant. Why would Apple make such a big deal about it? After reflection, however, it occurred to me that Apple just might be up to something pretty revolutionary.
Here’s my guess. Apple recently announced “Boot Camp,” a utility that allows you to boot up either Apple’s OS/X or MS Windows. This is a great feature, but it forces you to choose between OS/X and Windows because booting is slow. A third party vendor also offers a virtualization product called “Parallels” that allows you to run MS Windows on Macintosh hardware running under Mac OS/X. But Leopard’s “spaces” feature could allow you to seamlessly switch between Mac OS/X and MS Windows with a single keystroke. Therefore, you could quite easily run both MS Windows applications and Apple OS/X applications on the same hardware at the same time – and just as easily switch back and forth.
Better still, Apple’s dual processor architecture featuring Intel’s Core 2 Duo architecture, provides four separate processor cores on which to run applications. Therefore, switching between operating systems should be instantaneous because each OS maintains its separate context. By the time Mac OS/X “Leopard” is released in 1Q07, Apple could market machines with dual Intel quad-core processors. That means Apple’s Mac Pro could possibly have a total of eight processors, each capable of running a different task and/or a different OS and application.
So, my suspicion is that Steve Jobs’ surprise in January will be to run Windows Vista seamlessly in a window (or “space”) under Mac OS/X, accessible at the touch of a key. Better still, it should run just as well (or better) as on a traditional PC because nothing is emulated: all code is native and MS Windows will run on its own dedicated processor core.There is no reason why Linux can’t be run at the same time in another space and on another core.
This ability to run multiple operating systems simultaneously on the same machine under one supra-operating system or “hypervisor”– all with touch-of-a-key flexibility — has long been the Holy Grail of the computer industry. Or, to put it in J.R.R. Tolkien’s terminology, “The Ring.” If my speculation is right, Mac OS/X is about to become that long-sought “Ring” and Steve Jobs is about to become “Lord of the Rings”:
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the Darkness bind them One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them, One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Of course, this could prove to be idle speculation but, if correct, it could be game-changing for both Apple Computer and the entire PC industry. With the ability to shift seamlessly and at no additional cost between the operating systems of Apple, Windows, Linux and who knows what else, Apple and its many innovative applications could start to look awfully attractive to corporate purchasers. With one stroke, Apple could end its long exile from mainstream business computing. It may be that much of the enterprise action has shifted to the Web, but the rumors of the desktop’s death have been greatly exaggerated.
Gary Morgenthaler is a general partner with Morgenthaler Ventures, a Menlo Park, California-based venture capital firm.
Om,
The problem is this; Which operating system is the “base” operating system? Do you run Mac within Windows – or Windows within Mac?
One thing I have found while looking at web-based applications is that they are popular for one big reason – your data is wherever you want it. Sure “cross-platform” is nice, but most people stick to one operating system, making the “cross-platform” a moot point.
The whole cross-platform thing, IMO, isn’t really worth the fight. Instead, why not focus on creating RICH applications that can be streamed over standard broadband – why not make data available everywhere?
With that said, a “hyper operating system” would be perfect – you could still run Windows, Mac, and Linux based applications, you have an environment that could interpret streaming code, and you could integrate “data everywhere”.
The only problem would be Microsoft. They most likely wouldn’t approve of their applications or O/S running within another environment… And any hardware manufacturer that puts Windows on such a platform would risk losing their Microsoft contract.
Oh, and let it be known that when I mean “streaming code”, I’m not referring to browser-based applications – I’m talking about the real-deal. Sure it may not be possible now, but who knows what the future holds.
I love articles that start with a sentence that is written in a way to make it sound like it’s gospel.
Please tell me in whose IT world this is the ‘holy grail’. I can’t think of a single instance where this was important in our organization (30K+ computers) or other places I’ve run the IT group (down to 40 boxes). I also can’t think of a great support/security nightmare. Maybe a few consumers want it but enterprises certainly don’t.
nit: it’s Mac[space]OS[space]X, not OS/X
Windows Vista will not run in “Hypervisor” mode under ANY third party OS. So toss that pipe dream out the window. Note: hypervisor will work with Linux on a Mac.
This might actually be a “holy grail” if Apple ever got it’s enterprise support together. The author has obviously never depended or called on Apple’s enterprise support, because it is horrible (and that’s being polite)!
While virtualization in Leopard has been much speculated about, building in such a feature would likely annoy Parallels and VMware (not that Apple is shy about cutting out developers).
It’s also a bit of a myth that everything runs full-speed under virtualization; all I/O (including graphics) is usually emulated. This means that Windows games and Vista’s fancy Aero Glass interface will either be disabled or run quite slowly (maybe Apple would like that, though).
This article is totaly out of context. Switching between virtual desktops has nothing to do with virtualization and running virtual machines.
“Spaces” looks like Job’s version of what many users of most OSes are familliar with: virtual desktops. Most X Windows (Linux, Unix) window managers support this and there are tools to do the same today (actually yesterday) for Windows and OS X too. I’m pretty sure Apple will make a nice implementation by adding some intuitive features, but… it’s no big deal.
I really do not understand how this article made its way here.
Oh my, VC’s. Ever seen somebody work with/in “spaces”? Normally what this translates to is … context.
Now imagine an application changing it’s UI if you put it into a different context. Tailored to this specific context. Creating a work flow on your very own Desktop with intuitive easy to find UI elements for a given context. No more searching or digging through endless menu trees. Or switching security if you put the application into a different context. Any thoughts what that can do to your productivity and security of your enterprise?
Oh, and try that with your WebX.0 application. We are not done yet with fat clients, ok in the future we will call them smart clients.
I’ve been noting something funny here. Headlines on Gigaom remind me so much of headlines of an Indian tabloid-times of india. This one for example…who gives a cr** about this mulitple operating systems. either someone is grossly out of touch with the enterprise world or they have run out of new stories. trying to make an issue out of nothing (like the good old strawman) and then seeking some page views on the basis of that. May be GigaOm is the tabloid of Web 2.0 reporting!
Acually being able to run multiple operating systems on one computer can be very useful to certain niche groups. The Intel Macs, combined with Parallels have completely changed the way web developers test their sites – it’s obviously now possible to develop and fully test sites (across all relevant web browsers and operating systems) with a single computer.
In most cases I’ve found that Windows XP running on Parellels is as fast as a native PC box (assuming sufficient memory).
The kind of setup the author is describing is kind of possible already with Parallels and VirtueDesktops.
This VC is clueless, Windows Market share last quarter stands @ 97.1% and Mac @ 2.3%. Average Mac Costs 1000 dollars Average PC Cost 400 dollars. Give me break. Color plastics dont impress me.
rk: the point of the article exactly. Apple isn’t expcting to completely crush a huge force like M$ in one quick swoop, and I don’t think they could. Also, the average PC is more like $600-$800. Personally, I don’t think Apple will be able to overcome the PC market inside of the next decade without outside help, namely Open Source. Corporations can’t stand up against the structure of the Open Source movement, because of its self-supporting structure. If you don’t beleive me, read the Halloween Documents, and look at open source in the international community. Open Source is growing stronger fast outside of the US, and it’s only a matter of time before it spreads into the US in significant numbers. I don’t think Macs will ever be the majority, but they can probably make it to 20%-25% once MS collapses, which is guaranteed by their business strategies.
People posting here seem pretty clueless. What Gary is talking about is Win or Linux running on hardware (a discrete processor core) with OSX running on the other cores. Where does he get this idea? It’s already done. Gary is speculating this is the purpose of spaces…and he’s right. As for Win Vista not allowing another OS to manage it’s hardware access…this has already been proven and it’s a done-deal. Ditto Vista…This is not virtualization, although OS X’s kernel does manage and partition hardware access…it’s hardware..
As for enterprise not wanting it…they may not want it for thier bottom line workstations…but in terms of securing multiple redundant databases it will be huge. In terms of what the Man wants on his desk and the front office…the demand is there. People working in Prepress, design, music, film and content creation…they will opt for a Mac Pro Quads or Octo’s probably more often than not and save the budget computers for the renderfarms.
As more people use OSX only a minority will hate it and look to disparage it at every turn. They will become unimportant , because OSX is a joy to use and run. It is the operating system of the future…along with linux…but OSX runs Linux and not visa versa (for now…)
There will always be competition and choice in the market. Although Apple is going to shake up and revolutionize the computer industry (again)…it’s going to offer something Microsoft hasn’t seen for a long time – competition. And for the purpose of people out there who just want a great system – choice. Three strong options for choices in a OS is good for everybody.
“Gary is speculating this is the purpose of spaces…and he’s right.”
Do you have any proof or are you just guessing?
Running multiple Operating Systems in virtual machines is an interesting edge case for developers and enthusiasts (like me – running Bootcamp on a MacBook but writing this from Win XP), but has never been “The Holy Grail” of the computer industry. It’s been possible in a variety of ways on a variety of platforms for a long time and has never been a game changer.
Torn: This facility is not new to UNIX, OpenBSD, Solaris or OSX. UNIX and OSX has a protected operating mode where you can run just about anything you want to safely. This is part of the POSIX API. It is already in use with embedded RTOS’es such as VxWorks, QNX, ThreadX, embedded Linux etc, When the Mac was on PowerPC , virtualization was required due to x86 runtime spec… now that OSX is on Intel…no virtualization is required…with the exception of initializing BIOS for EFI systems. How does a Intel Mac boot XP? Kudos for those who guessed the intel mac has a hardware or pram CSM. Windows has had the POSIX api since NT, (although it must be activated). There is no guessing involved here. If Apple wants to do this, they can do it.
This is just a virtual desktop. We’ve had these for many many many years on many OS’s. Nothing new other than Apple putting their UI genius behind it and making it slightly more user friendly to work with.
Amusing title.
“Rings” are also the terminology for levels of OS privileges. “Ring 0″ is typically the level where the OS runs, and “Ring 3″ is where regular user programs run. (For portability, most operating systems only use 2 rings instead of the 4 levels available on x86.) Each ring can control/intercept rings above it. Ring 0 is usually at the bottom, with control over the entire machine.
Newer Intel and AMD chips support “Ring -1″, which is a level that can control Ring 0 programs, including entire operating systems. In the title of this blog post, “Lord of the Rings” has a dual meaning, in that there now is a “Negative One Ring to Rule Them All”. This is used by Parallels, and likely would be used by Apple to run Windows on another desktop.
An example of windows application running natively inside Linux or OSX is of course WINE or a pertinant example ‘Crossover’ by Codeweavers. This is where .dlls ect. are loaded into a CCSM (Code Compatibility Support Module)…and the supported windows application run natively in the OS userspace.
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/differences/
http://www.maconintel.com/news.php?article=21
(on this latter site it is slightly explained)
For the clueless people here this is windows applications running natively on the hardware, under MacIntel or Linux, without windows and without emulation. Get it? NO EMULATION – RUNNING ON HARDWARE.
( some people here find it very hard to grasp this fact…being conditioned by years of different processors = different OS’s and the shortage of processor grunt and expensive ram that made running two OS’s at the same time on the same hardware not feasible. Now we have considerable hardware muscle and lots of ram – but most of all OS’s whose underpinnings are Unix or Unix derived as Linux.)
So what is to stop Apple from putting all of XP or Vista into a CCSM? Nothing, absolutely nothing. There is no barrier whatsoever. In fact they started working on it at NEXT. If Apple wants to do this, nothing stopping them. However, the incidence of multicore processors, the BSD unix subsystem and cheap ram make it a slamdunk. To myself however, I wonder if Apple is that daring to actually steal Windows from Microsoft in this way. Think about it, if windows itself will run under OSX – if potentially all windows applications run under OSX – why would anyone run Windows except for the cheap hardware? Microsoft really wouldn’t be that threatened, in the short term – they still sell the applications and code for the CCSM’s… I’m not altogether certain Apple will go this route. When Leopard is released one will be able to draw more accurate conclusions. But if they want to do this – there is no barrier to doing it. This is the purpose of the speculation in this article.
Before another genius remarks ‘this is just emulation…’ please do a little research. Work to run two OS’s off the same hardware with a master OS providing crossover support and controlling hardware access was started from different directions at least a decade ago.
“The Truth Is With etype.” Look at it from the user’s point of view. Many are forced to use a Windows machine because so many critial apps only run under Windows, e.g., Bloomberg. They are not going to use emulation or imitation virtualization due to slow boot times, complex installations and the lack of support. With Apple Spaces available as the author speculates, no problem. Now look at from the SI point of view. How do you get into an enterprise that already is committed to another system integrator/support source? Offer something different – Mac/Leopard/Spaces preloaded with Open Office and Vista, able to run all the PC-only software plus all the high-end graphics Mac stuff at processor speeds. Of course they won’t knock off Mr. Softy overnight. But if Apple goes from 2.3% to 10% of the market over the next five years based on this, it will be a spectacular win. Don’t forget to come back here and thank the author for all the money you made in AAPL stock!
Screen in a GUI? My one and only contact with Unix 6 years ago had that.
15 years ago, at high school, the Smaky computers we used had four “virtual desktops” — of course, you couldn’t run a separate OS in one of them :-)
What sounds nice here is that the combination with virtual machines like Parallels make an OS just another application. I’ll be able to have OSX on one screen and XP in the other even without plugging in my second monitor.
Neat! Excited.
Comparison Lord of the Rings and IT language is quite curious. When I found this article I thougth that it’s about the films and writwr, but not about new operating systems.
I have to disagree with Robert Dewey on his view about what Microsoft would think about running Windows on Mac OS X.
In fact, they actually ENDORSE such a process through Virtual PC. Like Parallels, Windows is NOT EMULATED, but rather is run natively on either Windows or iMac Intel.
This brings in more cash for Microsoft as not only can people run many flavors of Windows on Mac, but even Windows Vista is supported (just not its core feature: Windows Vista Aero).
The only people who wouldn’t make money in a situation such as this are the PC manufacturers. If PCs and Macs can run side-by-side, people wouldn’t buy as many PCs. The plus side for PC manufacturers, though is that the speed of Virtual PC for Mac is very slow and 3D gaming is not supported. So for something like that, nothing is better than the real thing.
What WOULD cause problems, is if that someone found a way to emulate the PowerPC on a PC (like the creator of PearPC, for instance). He has already acheived close to 100% of the CPU emulated. The only setbacks are that it is very slow, no sound is enabled, Mac OS X v10.0.3 Beta doesn’t work (simply because it was made as an upgrade from Mac OS 9), and on top of that, Apple’s Classic Support doesn’t work. All that aside, Apple would still definetly lose money off the Mac hardware, being that their computers go for at least $2000. However, they would still take in money from Mac OS X Tiger System Software sales.
[...] Is Steve Jobs the New Lord of the Rings [...]