By: Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar), August 5, 2014 2:11 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
vvid (no.delete@this.thanks.com) on August 5, 2014 9:51 am wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on August 4, 2014 8:01 am wrote:
> > Being able to run processes on two different CPUs
> > at the same time won't be easy, but perhaps the fact OS X uses the Mach microkernel would make
> > this slightly easier than it would be for Linux or Windows to attempt such a thing.
>
> Funny, even on Amiga500 I used both AmigaOS and DOS simultaneously (with 68k+286 dual processor board)
> Nowadays you could just push fat executable in the store for any supported arch (Windows is not here yet)
I was thinking about them both running on the same kernel (i.e. the VM running Windows is just another process on OS X) That's not what the Amiga was doing.
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on August 4, 2014 8:01 am wrote:
> > Being able to run processes on two different CPUs
> > at the same time won't be easy, but perhaps the fact OS X uses the Mach microkernel would make
> > this slightly easier than it would be for Linux or Windows to attempt such a thing.
>
> Funny, even on Amiga500 I used both AmigaOS and DOS simultaneously (with 68k+286 dual processor board)
> Nowadays you could just push fat executable in the store for any supported arch (Windows is not here yet)
I was thinking about them both running on the same kernel (i.e. the VM running Windows is just another process on OS X) That's not what the Amiga was doing.
