Author Topic: Darwin x86 (Read 950 times)

MacUser3of5 · « **Reply #15 on:** 24 October 2002, 10:41 »

quote:
I can't imagine why they would would name it that since Aqua is not an Operating System and certainly isn't a distribution. Hmmm..

I was referring to the interface and trolling. Damn it's so hard to be an effective troll here

ntiozymandias · « **Reply #16 on:** 25 October 2002, 07:50 »

Marklar is not a rumor...... It's just Apple's backup plan in case IBM and Motorola both spontaneously combust, or Apple itself is defeated in combat....... In the former case, Apple would theoretically switch to x86 chips, and in the latter, it would release OS X as Free Software.

MacUser3of5 · « **Reply #17 on:** 25 October 2002, 10:13 »

As far as I knew it was unsubstantiated, or at least Apple had no offical word on it (they could NOT admit to an x86 Jag now)... It doesn't suprise me, though..

voidmain · « **Reply #18 on:** 25 October 2002, 11:16 »

Well, as much as I would like to see it I find it highly unlikely that OSX would be ported any time soon. I mean Darwin is barely supported on x86 and that is the base of everything.

As soon as Darwin gets all the hardware support for all the different crappy x86 components then they might consider porting the rest of it. But the more I think about it, it still would be no easy task by any stretch. I just don't see it happening....

psyjax · « **Reply #19 on:** 25 October 2002, 12:09 »

Well, from what I read the whole marklar thing is very VERY real. OSX has been steadely maintained on x86 since RHapsody.

It's there, it's just not public. I think it's Apple's ace in the hole.

Calum · « **Reply #20 on:** 25 October 2002, 12:29 »

marklar? you mean those marklars from planet marklar have marklared a marklar?

wow!

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Calum 21.1.4 ]

psyjax · « **Reply #21 on:** 25 October 2002, 12:37 »

Hey Calum.. WTF is up with yer version number? I see Quirk's runnin round with one as well.

anyway. Apple named Marklar after the planet in Southpark. It's an internal development title.

ntiozymandias · « **Reply #22 on:** 26 October 2002, 00:50 »

quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Well, as much as I would like to see it I find it highly unlikely that OSX would be ported any time soon. I mean Darwin is barely supported on x86 and that is the base of everything.

As soon as Darwin gets all the hardware support for all the different crappy x86 components then they might consider porting the rest of it. But the more I think about it, it still would be no easy task by any stretch. I just don't see it happening....

Marklar and Darwin-x86 are designed to support the processor architecture first and foremost. Drivers for other hardware components can be supplied at later dates by authors besides Apple. (If the PowerPC is left in the dust, Apple starts using x86 chips and gets drivers for other standard components; if Apple itself dies, they just release Marklar as open source and everybody and his dog can write their own drivers.)

hm_murdock · « **Reply #23 on:** 26 October 2002, 14:09 »

why wouldn't an x86 build be plausible?

Rhapsody had an Intel build up to DR2, and apparently after that. There's not much change in the APIs between Rhap DR2 and 10.0. 10.1 changed some things, but I'm sure that if they'd kept them synched up to that point, then it'd be easy to keep them source compatible.

But... an x86 version of OS X won't ever run Classic or Carbon apps. Carbon still makes PPC native calls, which is why it runs on OS 9, while Cocoa is abstracted through APIs enough to be portable.

To be honest, I'd rather see the classic OS go open source more than I'd like to see an open OS X.

ntiozymandias · « **Reply #24 on:** 28 October 2002, 06:26 »

quote:
Originally posted by The Jimmy James / Bob:
But... an x86 version of OS X won't ever run Classic or Carbon apps. Carbon still makes PPC native calls, which is why it runs on OS 9, while Cocoa is abstracted through APIs enough to be portable.

Interesting. I thought it was just because Carbon was compatible with PEF (OS 9 file format for programs) and Cocoa wasn't. What code are you talking about, specifically?

Carbon and Cocoa code can both be compiled into the Mach-O format, which supports multiplatform binaries (ie. a single file, compiled correctly, could run natively on both x86 and PPC architectures).

quote:
To be honest, I'd rather see the classic OS go open source more than I'd like to see an open OS X.

So would I. So would hundreds, maybe thousands of others. Unfortunately, there really wouldn't be much of a point to open-sourcing OS 9..... unless you were looking to recreate Copland.

hm_murdock · « **Reply #25 on:** 28 October 2002, 08:34 »

Carbon is platform independent? I don't remember the Red Box specs, but I didn't think it was portable. I thought Yellow Box (Cocoa/OpenStep) was the only portable API.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you're most likely right!

As for a Copland Ressurrection, that would be great! The appearance and features of 9.2.2 with a more updated kernel? Oh yeah!

psyjax · « **Reply #26 on:** 28 October 2002, 21:09 »

Jimmy, your rapidly becoming the VoidMain of the mac forum! Kudos

hm_murdock · « **Reply #27 on:** 28 October 2002, 23:39 »

Thank yas! I'll take that as a compliment! =^)

Pantso · « **Reply #28 on:** 29 October 2002, 01:49 »

I don't know what some people think but since I really started using OS 9.2 about four days ago, I stuck with it. In fact I liked it so much that I stopped booting from OS X. Of course it's not as eye-candy as OS X is but it's great nonetheless. It's really fast and quite stable (although not as stable as OS X).

Furthermore, I was really disappointed to find out that Apple's computers will stop booting from Classic from January 2003. Anyway, I'd love to see OS 9 go Open Source

« previous next » Print Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Author Topic: Darwin x86 (Read 950 times) MacUser3of5 Member Posts: 78 Kudos: 0 Darwin x86 « Reply #15 on: 24 October 2002, 10:41 » quote: I can't imagine why they would would name it that since Aqua is not an Operating System and certainly isn't a distribution. Hmmm.. I was referring to the interface and trolling. Damn it's so hard to be an effective troll here Logged "Let them call me a rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..." - Thomas Paine ntiozymandias Newbie Posts: 10 Kudos: 0 Darwin x86 « Reply #16 on: 25 October 2002, 07:50 » Marklar is not a rumor...... It's just Apple's backup plan in case IBM and Motorola both spontaneously combust, or Apple itself is defeated in combat....... In the former case, Apple would theoretically switch to x86 chips, and in the latter, it would release OS X as Free Software. Logged MacUser3of5 Member Posts: 78 Kudos: 0 Darwin x86 « Reply #17 on: 25 October 2002, 10:13 » As far as I knew it was unsubstantiated, or at least Apple had no offical word on it (they could NOT admit to an x86 Jag now)... It doesn't suprise me, though.. Logged "Let them call me a rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul..." - Thomas Paine voidmain VIP Posts: 5,605 Kudos: 184 Darwin x86 « Reply #18 on: 25 October 2002, 11:16 » Well, as much as I would like to see it I find it highly unlikely that OSX would be ported any time soon. I mean Darwin is barely supported on x86 and that is the base of everything. As soon as Darwin gets all the hardware support for all the different crappy x86 components then they might consider porting the rest of it. But the more I think about it, it still would be no easy task by any stretch. I just don't see it happening.... Logged Someone please remove this account. Thanks... psyjax VIP Posts: 1,871 Kudos: 55 Darwin x86 « Reply #19 on: 25 October 2002, 12:09 » Well, from what I read the whole marklar thing is very VERY real. OSX has been steadely maintained on x86 since RHapsody. It's there, it's just not public. I think it's Apple's ace in the hole. Logged Psyjax! I RULEZZZZ!!! HAR HAR HAR Calum Global Moderator Posts: 7,812 Kudos: 1000 Darwin x86 « Reply #20 on: 25 October 2002, 12:29 » marklar? you mean those marklars from planet marklar have marklared a marklar? wow! [ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Calum 21.1.4 ] Logged visit these websites and make yourself happy forever: It's my music! \| My music on MySpace \| Integrational Polytheism psyjax VIP Posts: 1,871 Kudos: 55 Darwin x86 « Reply #21 on: 25 October 2002, 12:37 » Hey Calum.. WTF is up with yer version number? I see Quirk's runnin round with one as well. anyway. Apple named Marklar after the planet in Southpark. It's an internal development title. Logged Psyjax! I RULEZZZZ!!! HAR HAR HAR ntiozymandias Newbie Posts: 10 Kudos: 0 Darwin x86 « Reply #22 on: 26 October 2002, 00:50 » quote: Originally posted by void main: Well, as much as I would like to see it I find it highly unlikely that OSX would be ported any time soon. I mean Darwin is barely supported on x86 and that is the base of everything. As soon as Darwin gets all the hardware support for all the different crappy x86 components then they might consider porting the rest of it. But the more I think about it, it still would be no easy task by any stretch. I just don't see it happening.... Marklar and Darwin-x86 are designed to support the processor architecture first and foremost. Drivers for other hardware components can be supplied at later dates by authors besides Apple. (If the PowerPC is left in the dust, Apple starts using x86 chips and gets drivers for other standard components; if Apple itself dies, they just release Marklar as open source and everybody and his dog can write their own drivers.) Logged hm_murdock VIP Posts: 2,629 Kudos: 378 The Lord of Thyme Darwin x86 « Reply #23 on: 26 October 2002, 14:09 » why wouldn't an x86 build be plausible? Rhapsody had an Intel build up to DR2, and apparently after that. There's not much change in the APIs between Rhap DR2 and 10.0. 10.1 changed some things, but I'm sure that if they'd kept them synched up to that point, then it'd be easy to keep them source compatible. But... an x86 version of OS X won't ever run Classic or Carbon apps. Carbon still makes PPC native calls, which is why it runs on OS 9, while Cocoa is abstracted through APIs enough to be portable. To be honest, I'd rather see the classic OS go open source more than I'd like to see an open OS X. Logged Go the fuck ~ ntiozymandias Newbie Posts: 10 Kudos: 0 Darwin x86 « Reply #24 on: 28 October 2002, 06:26 » quote: Originally posted by The Jimmy James / Bob: But... an x86 version of OS X won't ever run Classic or Carbon apps. Carbon still makes PPC native calls, which is why it runs on OS 9, while Cocoa is abstracted through APIs enough to be portable. Interesting. I thought it was just because Carbon was compatible with PEF (OS 9 file format for programs) and Cocoa wasn't. What code are you talking about, specifically? Carbon and Cocoa code can both be compiled into the Mach-O format, which supports multiplatform binaries (ie. a single file, compiled correctly, could run natively on both x86 and PPC architectures). quote: To be honest, I'd rather see the classic OS go open source more than I'd like to see an open OS X. So would I. So would hundreds, maybe thousands of others. Unfortunately, there really wouldn't be much of a point to open-sourcing OS 9..... unless you were looking to recreate Copland. Logged hm_murdock VIP Posts: 2,629 Kudos: 378 The Lord of Thyme Darwin x86 « Reply #25 on: 28 October 2002, 08:34 » Carbon is platform independent? I don't remember the Red Box specs, but I didn't think it was portable. I thought Yellow Box (Cocoa/OpenStep) was the only portable API. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're most likely right! As for a Copland Ressurrection, that would be great! The appearance and features of 9.2.2 with a more updated kernel? Oh yeah! Logged Go the fuck ~ psyjax VIP Posts: 1,871 Kudos: 55 Darwin x86 « Reply #26 on: 28 October 2002, 21:09 » Jimmy, your rapidly becoming the VoidMain of the mac forum! Kudos Logged Psyjax! I RULEZZZZ!!! HAR HAR HAR hm_murdock VIP Posts: 2,629 Kudos: 378 The Lord of Thyme Darwin x86 « Reply #27 on: 28 October 2002, 23:39 » Thank yas! I'll take that as a compliment! =^) Logged Go the fuck ~ Pantso Member Posts: 1,249 Kudos: 55 Darwin x86 « Reply #28 on: 29 October 2002, 01:49 » I don't know what some people think but since I really started using OS 9.2 about four days ago, I stuck with it. In fact I liked it so much that I stopped booting from OS X. Of course it's not as eye-candy as OS X is but it's great nonetheless. It's really fast and quite stable (although not as stable as OS X). Furthermore, I was really disappointed to find out that Apple's computers will stop booting from Classic from January 2003. Anyway, I'd love to see OS 9 go Open Source Logged Support-FreeSoftware.org Print Pages: 1 [2] Go Up « previous next » Stop Microsoft » Forum » Operating Systems » Mac OS » Darwin x86
Share or donate

Author Topic: Darwin x86 (Read 950 times)

Share or donate