Multiple OSes at the same time

[goatedpenguin]

Instead of having to constantly reboot your machine(if you are doing a dualboot and more stuff) why not just run the two OSes at the same time? In theory it does not sound complicated you just have to "virtualize/schedule the resources" for each OS so they don't clash. What is stopping this from being possible? And in terms of switching the OS it should be a simple thing like having a active OS changer like a bootloader but a menu for you to change your OS without having to restart etc. something like "Alt-tabbing" if that makes sense. Essentially all the hardware is running on the "Active bootloader" and it divides up and schedules the resources evenly or depending on the user preferences. This is not exactly virtualization since that would be a big performance hit but it's more like a scheduler/bootloader in a way. Sorry if this explanation is not so clear since its just an idea... 

 

P.S: this sounds like a VM but without all the hassle and performance loss and more. So it's basically or sorta trying to replace the concept of virtualization entirely. 

 

P.S.S: This is more like contanierzation like docker and a virtualization hybrid but in a more seamless way, almost like switching apps... 

 

P.S.S.S: This would also be easier to do if both OSes could support the same drivers to prevent rebooting of the machine. From a security standpoint sandboxing is also essential here to prevent cross OS-malware-attacks.  

[emosun]

6 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

So it's basically or sorta trying to replace the concept of virtualization entirely. 

problem is virtualization already solved the issue.

Chances are (of the two operating systems) one is used more than the other. Whatever the lesser used OS is can either be virtualized because it's task isn't complex or intensive...... or you just use two computers and a kvm to do exactly what you describe here

6 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

you to change your OS without having to restart etc. something like "Alt-tabbing" if that makes sense

 

[goatedpenguin]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

problem is virtualization already solved the issue.

performance loss is a big issue tho, and not to mention my idea is trying to remove having a guest OS in the first place its more like the two OSes are in conjunction not one below the other. Secondly, Vm allocation afaik is static not dynamic(excluding kubernetes since that is on the cloud). If you want good 3d performance in a Vm you need additional hardware which is more costly same as using two computers.  Thirdly, this idea I have can use a microkernel architecture sorta thing to make it less prone to crashing, isolation etc. 

[Shimejii]

9 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

performance loss is a big issue tho, and not to mention my idea is trying to remove having a guest OS in the first place its more like the two OSes are in conjunction not one below the other. Secondly, Vm allocation afaik is static not dynamic(excluding kubernetes since that is on the cloud). If you want good 3d performance in a Vm you need additional hardware which is more costly same as using two computers.  Thirdly, this idea I have can use a microkernel architecture sorta thing to make it less prone to crashing, isolation etc. 

Yeah this idea is pretty much just nonsense due to the amount of work and the very small audience it would be aimed at. VMS are the answer here. Thats quite literally it. Dual OS trying to use resources just wouldnt go so well. There has to be a division of resources (hence why VMS exist) otherwise there will be a conflict. Its not a simple process, its far more complex than that.

 

Something Has to sort out which OS has what resources, if you can divide them up in BIOS then it could feasibly work, have OS #1 us DDR Channel 1+3, OS2 use DDR 2+4. Have OS Use Cores 0-7, OS 2 use 8-15 etc. But that may be asking a lot of most BIOS chips, it would have to be increased in size quite a bit. 

 

Youd have to get a MOBO vendor to be on board and program that, spend the time making sure it works and fix potential issues, Fix when updating the bios to try saving settings etc.

[goatedpenguin]

2 minutes ago, Shimejii said:

Yeah this idea is pretty much just nonsense due to the amount of work and the very small audience it would be aimed at.

Haha maybe you're right, just an idea I had tho  

[Electronics Wizardy]

11 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

performance loss is a big issue tho, and not to mention my idea is trying to remove having a guest OS in the first place its more like the two OSes are in conjunction not one below the other. Secondly, Vm allocation afaik is static not dynamic(excluding kubernetes since that is on the cloud). If you want good 3d performance in a Vm you need additional hardware which is more costly same as using two computers.  Thirdly, this idea I have can use a microkernel architecture sorta thing to make it less prone to crashing, isolation etc. 

VM allocation can be dynamic, really depends on the resource. There are ways to do dynamic allocation for CPU, Memory, Disk, and GPU.

 

The big issue with this idea is x86 isn't made for this. x86 is made to have one os running on the metal system. I think IBM Z can do something like this

[emosun]

14 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

If you want good 3d performance in a Vm you need additional hardware which is more costly same as using two computers.

ok then buy two 1500$ computers instead of a 3000$ one.

by the time you write your own operating systems that i assume are going to both be linux (seeing as neither ms or apple is going to just hand over source code).... and those two os's have been bug tested across whatever hardware would need to support this setup..... and someone is born that would actually need this setup where two computers and a vm couldn't possibly exist..... the sun would have consumed the earth from orbital decay.

[goatedpenguin]

Just now, emosun said:

ok then buy two 1500$ computer instead of a 3000$ one.

You get half the performance then, I simply thought that when your not using the first OS then "My scheduler" could just dynamically allocate the resources to the second OS that is being currently used. Can you give me an example of why my dynamic multi OS scheduler would need the source code of OS X/Win out of curiosity? 

[goatedpenguin]

5 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

VM allocation can be dynamic, really depends on the resource. There are ways to do dynamic allocation for CPU, Memory, Disk, and GPU.

Still there is a performance loss. 

 

5 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

I think IBM Z can do something like this

Can you elaborate more on this? 

 

[emosun]

Just now, goatedpenguin said:

You get half the performance then,

wait..... do you think the cost to performance ratio of computers is linear?

[goatedpenguin]

Just now, emosun said:

wait..... do you think the cost to performance ratio of computers is linear?

haha, no but a 3000 usd PCs will be more powerful than two 1500 usd PCs

[emosun]

2 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

Can you give me an example of why my dynamic multi OS scheduler would need the source code of OS X/Win out of curiosity? 

oh , so that someone would actually care about it.

[goatedpenguin]

Just now, emosun said:

oh , so that someone would actually care about it.

wdym? 

[emosun]

1 minute ago, goatedpenguin said:

haha, no but a 3000 usd PCs will be more powerful than two 1500 usd PCs

but not more powerful than a 3000 pc running a virtualized OS unfortunately.

[goatedpenguin]

2 minutes ago, emosun said:

but not more powerful than a 3000 pc running a virtualized OS unfortunately.

That is if your doing traditional virtualization not with my idea.

[emosun]

1 minute ago, goatedpenguin said:

That is if your doing traditional virtualization not with my idea.

yes your idea to run two different linux distros that...... someone....... who doesn't have two computers.... won;t ever be able to buy a second computer ever.... is doing high end enough tasks for a vm to not function at all.... and can't possibly just reboot the computer.....

for that massive demographic right?

You want to make it go for it , nobody here is stopping you.

[goatedpenguin]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

yes your idea to run two different linux distros that...... someone....... who doesn't have two computers.... won;t ever be able to buy a second computer ever.... is doing high end enough tasks for a vm to not function at all.... and can't possibly just reboot the computer.....

Why assume that it will work on Linux only? This is like a vm it just needs to run the OS not interact with it to a degree. The scheduler/bootloader just needs to do stuff dynamically. 

[emosun]

3 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

Why assume that it will work on Linux only?

fine then unix or some other os nobody uses too sure

[goatedpenguin]

1 minute ago, emosun said:

fine then unix or some other os nobody uses too sure

No like why not Windows or MacOS??? 

[emosun]

8 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

No like why not Windows or MacOS??? 

A: they ain't giving you the keys to the car so you can integrate their competitors software
B: the user base has almost no overlap
C: even if the user base had a significant overlap to waste resources in developing this ability..... that overlap ALSO having the incredibly specific criteria needed to make this useful is non existent.....

who is your client? seriously?

your client has no money to buy two computers
your client needs both mac os and windows and couldn't find any software that was comparable between the two
your client is doing a high end task that clearly doesn't turn a profit..... because the hardware is a tax write off when it's for a business
your client can't virtualize just one of the machines in the name of performance
your client can't even lean over two inches to hit a reset button.......

Your client..... doesn't own an amazon basics kvm....

[goatedpenguin]

2 minutes ago, emosun said:

who is your client? seriously?

your client has no money to buy two computers
your client needs both mac os and windows and couldn't find any software that was comparable between the two
your client is doing a high end task that clearly doesn't turn a profit..... because the hardware is a tax write off when it's for a business
your client can't virtualize just one of the machines in the name of performance
your client can't even lean over two inches to hit a reset button.......

Your client..... doesn't own an amazon basics kvm....

I see your point, Its just a idea and its just for the sake of discussion.

 

2 minutes ago, emosun said:

A: they ain't giving you the keys to the car so you can integrate their competitors software
B: the user base has almost no overlap
C: even if the user base had a significant overlap to waste resources in developing this ability..... that overlap ALSO having the incredibly specific criteria needed to make this useful is non existent.....

Why do I need the keys of the car when I am simply controlling which one is running and how fast it can do so? Be more technical. Wdym by userbase in this context? 

[emosun]

3 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

Why do I need the keys of the car when I am simply controlling which one is running and how fast it can do so?

i imagine thats the exact question you would ask the people who sent you the cease and desist. See now apple is a non starter as they don't even take kindly to vms let alone just universal native support for x86 machines. and microsoft will just threaten a slap suit that you can't afford to fight so there's the other non starter. So you're stuck with two linux distros anyway.
 

 

8 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

Wdym by userbase in this context? 

humans , that use computers.

most of them use windows... a small amount use mac os.... a tiny fraction use linux.... and an even tinier fraction manage IT infrastructure and can afford to write their own os's and buy hardware.

 

12 minutes ago, goatedpenguin said:

I see your point, Its just a idea and its just for the sake of discussion.

if you want to make it for yourself then go for it.  just don't be surprised when most people don't need it.

[WhitetailAni]

Something like this?

[Blue4130]

1 hour ago, goatedpenguin said:

Still there is a performance loss. 

 

Can you elaborate more on this? 

 

Using dynamic VMs will have less of a performance loss than having two OS's fighting for access.

[goatedpenguin]

1 minute ago, Blue4130 said:

Using dynamic VMs will have less of a performance loss than having two OS's fighting for access.

No i mean the imb z architecture u were talking about.