June 8, 2008, 4:22 PM by TheBlackCat to chairmansteve
I fail to see the advantage to having the operating system on ROM for either consumers or developers. It would make API changes pretty much impossible, since people would not be able to upgrade their OS over the lifetime of the system. That means developers would be stuck with the initial API essentially forever. Adding new or changed abilities more than every decade or so would be nearly impossible. Security fixes would be impossible as well. It would further bring vendor lock-in to a whole new level, since you would be unable to change the fundamental OS of your computer. Who would you trust to the sole developer of computer operating systems?

If you included all that software, then that means the software can also not be changed over the entire lifetime of the system. I don't know who would want that. And it would even further promote vendor lock in. I can guarantee you at least Europe would never allow all your core apps to be decided for you by the computer vendor and cannot be changed by the user ever. That has "anti-competitive practices" stamped all over it. Even the U.S. government may have a problem with that.

And what benefit would it bring to anyone? High speed booting can be accomplished with flash memory but that is fully rewritable.

I also don't see trusted computing catching on. Sure the chips are there, but if they were ever used privacy activists would be all over it. Something that allows everything you do on the computer to be uniquely identified and tracked would be a disaster for the company trying to implement it.

June 8, 2008, 5:25 PM by Airzonk to TheBlackCat

---

I fail to see the advantage to having the operating system on ROM for either consumers or developers.

---

The PC will boot faster. That will give the PC a "console-like" feeling to it. I can see that happening soon.

June 8, 2008, 5:55 PM by TheBlackCat to Airzonk
You can accomplish the same thing with flash memory while still having it fully rewritable and user-customizable. It is not quite as fast yet, but it probably will be before too long. A small tightly-integrated flash chip on the mother board that stores the files necessary for booting would probably be a better solution since it does not require any integrated code, it can hold whatever the user wants.

June 8, 2008, 6:25 PM by chairmansteve to TheBlackCat
Know what is virtualization?

There are two operating systems on the PC running at the same time. Developers can write any application for the high-level OS (e.g. Windows XP, Windows Vista) just like today. The low-level OS is embedded. Consider it like the BIOS but a step above or an evolution, the next generation BIOS. The OS firmware can be updated like a BIOS.

Benefits? The PC would boot in under 5 seconds. Anti-malware software would be at a level untouchable by malware. If the main drive is crippled for whatever reason, the PC would still boot and have access to system tools.

June 8, 2008, 6:41 PM by TheBlackCat to chairmansteve
I understand what virtualization is. So your ROM has anti-malware program built in. Which anti-malware program? How will definition updates be incorporated if the malware software is read-only? It has a web browser built in. Which web browser? How will improvements in the rendering engine and new web standards be incorporated? Which word processor? Which media player?

I am not at all comfortable giving computer manufacturers the sole discretion to decide which of those programs I will get to use, which ones will be given access to the core of the OS. I don't expect regulatory agencies will be very comfortable with it, either. Microsoft got in a lot of trouble for doing that with the OS, imagine what they would do if it was integrated directly into the hardware? At least you can replace your OS pretty easily if you want.

What you are suggesting is no different than my suggestion of an integrated flash memory chip for core OS functionality, except in my example I get to decide what programs are installed while in yours the computer manufacturer gets to decide and I have no way to change it. In fact, my idea is already available. It is called Intel Turbo Memory. The implementation you talk about is already supported in unix-bases systems, where the core programs necessary to boot the OS, do basic tasks, and do recovery can be stored on a separate partition (or even a separate storage device) from the rest of the OS. It is not virtualization but in practice it works the same as you describe.

June 8, 2008, 6:56 PM by chairmansteve to TheBlackCat
You can still install whatever software you like in the high-level OS. The low-level OS is just another level with only basic applications. There might be a few options for the basic apps. The idea is to make the PC easier and more reliable for as many people as possible. If it doesn't please you, just wait for the high-level OS to load like it does today.

"Read only" doesn't mean that memory can never be modified, unless it's implemented with a mask ROM or one-time programmable ROM. EEPROM and Flash can be erased and rewritten. In this case, "read only" just means that users cannot freely mess around with the low-level OS.

It's coming. The haters better run and hide.

June 8, 2008, 7:04 PM by TheBlackCat to chairmansteve
That still doesn't explain how it is better than my suggestion. Why not allow people to install whatever programs they want on the high-level and low-level OS? What is the disadvantage there? Why completely lock consumers out of the low-level OS? What benefit does that serve anybody? That is, besides the company that makes the low-level OS.

Of course I understand you won't want to install games on the low-level OS, but dividing the system up into critical and non-critical files, and lettings users (with sufficient administrative privileges) the ability to decide what goes where, has worked pretty well so far on systems set up that way.

Speaking of virtualization, what is the advantage to having these two OS's in the first place, instead of just doing things like unix-like systems do and dividing files into fundamental files that are needed for booting and user files that are not? It seems to be a hot idea at least on these boards but I fail to see the advantage. Can someone explain it to me?

June 8, 2008, 7:08 PM by chairmansteve to Airzonk
Venders (e.g. Dell, HP) could also, if they want, put their brand or look on the embedded applications and GUI. That's also like a console. Yet no functionality of a PC is lost, as Windows will still load like normal and run all the applications people need.