Re: [MLUG] True Dual Boot

[Shawn Parker <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

with virtualization, though, don't you have to have a "host" os
installed as the foundation of the virtual environment?

On 12/7/05, Phillip Kelchen <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
>  Isn't that what virtualization technologies such as what's upcoming in
> Intel's 65nm chips does- allow two guest OSes to run on the same chip at the
> same time without emulation?
>
>  Phillip
>
>
>  On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 13:27 -0600, Christian M. Cepel wrote:
>  Looking at the Nokia 770, and even more appropriately the blackdog, I'm
> led to wonder... Has anyone out there ever developed a _true_ dual boot
> system.
>
> I don't mean boot to windows or boot to Linux. I mean when the computer
> boots, it either brings up a firmware bootloader/controller or one
> that's stored on disk.
>
> That bootloader would establish two (or more?) side by side sandboxes
> and manage hardware access, and in one of those sandboxes Linux would be
> loaded and in another, winxp... One would be 'focused' and it would
> have 'access' to the soundcard, vidcard and display, keyboard and mouse
> input, etc. Special keys could allow you to access other operating
> systems in their own 'sandboxes' and perhaps view all of them split
> screen like Mac's Expose, or similar.
>
> They would of course be sharing memory, either allocated, or truly
> dynamically shared. Same for processor. The controller program would
> allow you to specify thread priority and cpu usage and memory allocation.
>
> Networking would be shared. When an OS is not focused, the controller
> would suspend device access in such a way as to not screw up the OS.
>
> Frankly, I think my 1.xghz desktop/laptop is pretty much plenty for a
> normal machine (I don't game, and it meets my needs when I render
> video), so let's all that baseline for 1 computer. 1.5ghz 2gb ram.
> Well, the computers that are being sold today, I consider to be two
> computers worth of computer. I could split a 3+ghz machine with 4gb of
> ram between two concurrent operating systems and still be completely
> content with the performance of both.
>
> Added to this thread priority and load management for foreground &
> background OSs, if you wanted you could idle the background OS if you
> wanted and give priority to the foreground OS.
>
> So...has this been done? Is anybody working on it? Is there any reason
> it wouldn't work if the hardware and controller were sophisticated
> enough to keep both OS's happy?
>
> This seems that it would work FAR and away better than emulators where
> hardware access is funneled through the booted OS.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> I like the BlackDog, but I'd much prefer to have things this way.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>
>


--
shawn

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members