@big-iron:
Writing any OS for x86 hardware is suicidal. If you don't believe me, then count the carcasses. If you only count the number of serious attempts to capture a piece of the market, the results remain bleak. Why is this the case? I have my theory: people tend to dual boot between the alternative and predominant OS on x86 hardware. Eventually, support dwindles for the alternative or the user gets tired of dual booting. In either case, the hardware serves as more of a migration path to the predominant OS than anything else.
The other fatal flaw is hardware support. Just because it runs on x86 processors doesn't mean that it supports the hardware which you would choose to run. Even rather popular platforms, like Linux, doesn't support everything -- and Linux has a large pool of developers and code to work from.
On the issue of speed, I would also argue that the problem is with software developers rather than the hardware itself. Yes, there are a few things which need fast processors (such as video compression and climate modelling). On the other hand, a lot of things shouldn't require much of your processor. (Consider how long it takes your web browser to render one or two pages of material -- if you think bandwidth is the main problem, try using an older computer.) If you don't think software developers are an issue, compare how long it takes to get things done on your 3.2 GHz monster and an A500. Is it really 400 times faster, as the clock speed suggests?
