Re: [Fed-Talk] XP Booting on Intel iMac: Confirmed
Re: [Fed-Talk] XP Booting on Intel iMac: Confirmed
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] XP Booting on Intel iMac: Confirmed
- From: Amanda Walker <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:44:07 -0800
On Mar 19, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Todd Heberlein wrote:
So I expect by this time next year we won't be talking about dual-
boot or even PC emulation in Mac OS X but multiple OSes running
natively side-by-side on the same hardware.
I guess I don't see what the advantage is (for most purposes) of this
approach over having multiple ABIs (Application Binary Interfaces)
over a single OS (which is what both Mach and NT were designed for,
even though neither one ever developed fully in this direction).
Personally, I really don't want to have to keep up with 2 (or more)
sets of OS security updates, apply two sets of STIGs, etc. (and make
sure they don't conflict or otherwise interact) and so on. I just
want to be able to run multiple types of application on a single OS.
Running two OSs side by side means I have to run and manage two
machines in all respects except weight. Now, granted, a weight
reduction all by itself is sometimes a bonus (I'd rather run dual
OSes than carry both a PowerBook and a PC laptop around, which I've
been doing for the past few years), but it doesn't help any of the
other aspects. Virtualization is great for servers--I'm not so
convinced it's equally great for workstations and laptops.
For example, which is a better user experience: Running under Classic
or a Carbonized application? The ABIs are very similar, but having
to have a whole second OS in there really complicated life.
Amanda Walker
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden