Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: billy_gates on 22 October 2002, 21:00
-
Does Darwin x86 support AMD CPU's yet?
Has anyone ported the aqua UI to it?
-
as of 1.4.1 i do not believe it suppports amd-style mobos... so no it doesnt support amd chips.
no, but i sure as hell wish someone had ported it!
-
Aqua will never be included with Darwin on any platform. Aqua requires the Quartz display layer. Both of them are part of Mac OS X and are not open source. It is possible that Rhapsody's Display PostScript layer could find its way into Darwin, giving it a native display layer.
That would be goooooood, as long as it's able to run Cocoa apps
-
The only thing I dislike about macs is the way they dumb down the names of everything. Aqua, Quartz, cocoa, I mean that sounds so wussy.
-
What are they supposed to call them?
BigFuckingPenisDisplayLayer?
HardcorePornApplicationInterface?
It's called Quartz because it's 'crystal clear' and Aqua because the interface 'flows like water'... Those Apple peeps sure have a sense of humor about things... Does anyone else remember the developer code name 'BHA'? or Clarus, the dogcow? The dogcow 'technical article' still makes me laugh...
(http://smile.gif)
I don't think you could port Aqua to x86 very easily (if at all) because it would still require almost a total rewrite of most of the 'OS X' layer... not to mention apps would have to be recomiled. You would need the source, which Apple doesn't seem interested in giving out for an x86 port... although there is that mysterious Marklar rumor...
-
i always laugh at the 'codenames' linux distros get. i mean! mandrake 9 is 'dolphin'! and mandrake 8.2 was 'bluebird'! not only that, but linux recognises my pentium 3 chip as a 'coppermine' 850Mhz! what? also, red hat is as bad with its valhalla and so on (i expect this is the sort of non wussy name that apple stuff should be called).
Who needs all this stuff? seriously, i would never get an operating system called 'potato' regardless of how good it was! why do we need all these weird names anyway? everybody just calls them debian 3.0, red hat 8.0, mandrake 8.2, pentium 3 and so on anyway!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
but linux recognises my pentium 3 chip as a 'coppermine' 850Mhz! what?
That is because the Flipchip(FC-PGA Socket 370) Pentium III's are called Coppermines. The FC-PGA Celerons(the ones that look like Soket 370 PIII's) are known as Coppermines also(also referred to as Celemine).
The Coppermine PIII's are alot faster than the original Slot 1 PIII's because they feature full speed on die cache while the Slot 1 PIII's have half speed cache(your 850mhz PIII has 850mhz cache whereas a Slot 1 PIII running at 850mhz would have 425mhz Cache).
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
Who needs all this stuff? seriously, i would never get an operating system called 'potato' regardless of how good it was! why do we need all these weird names anyway? everybody just calls them debian 3.0, red hat 8.0, mandrake 8.2, pentium 3 and so on anyway!
I agree, but all OSs use these code names that I am aware of, even Microsoft. Longhorn is not what that operating system will be called when it is released. They use name Snowball for Win311, Chicago for Win95, Memphis for Win98, Daytona for WinNT 3.5, Cairo for WinNT 4.0, Whistler for XP, Longhorn will be XP 2nd edition, etc:
http://www.phm.lu/Documentation/Windows/Codenames.asp (http://www.phm.lu/Documentation/Windows/Codenames.asp)
As far as RedHat, they had a different code name for each of the beta stages, Valhalla is the one that happened to go final:
http://www.smoogespace.com/documents/behind_the_names.html (http://www.smoogespace.com/documents/behind_the_names.html)
[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by MacUser3of5:
What are they supposed to call them?
BigFuckingPenisDisplayLayer?
HardcorePornApplicationInterface?
It's called Quartz because it's 'crystal clear' and Aqua because the interface 'flows like water'... Those Apple peeps sure have a sense of humor about things... Does anyone else remember the developer code name 'BHA'? or Clarus, the dogcow? The dogcow 'technical article' still makes me laugh...
(http://smile.gif)
I don't think you could port Aqua to x86 very easily (if at all) because it would still require almost a total rewrite of most of the 'OS X' layer... not to mention apps would have to be recomiled. You would need the source, which Apple doesn't seem interested in giving out for an x86 port... although there is that mysterious Marklar rumor...
I would definately by an OS with those names.
-
Red Hat 8.1 "Cocksucker-Motherfucker" - - -
I'd like to see how they'd make that connection on that 'red hat names' website!
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
Red Hat 8.1 "Cocksucker-Motherfucker" - - -
I'd like to see how they'd make that connection on that 'red hat names' website!
The page is here (http://www.smoogespace.com/documents/behind_the_names.html) for all of you too slow to use google.
-
well, they're too slow to have added the codename for red hat 8.1 yet, i mean COME ON! even i know what it is already!!!!!
-
Ok, I'll bite. What will 8.1 be called? And where did you find it?
-
Maybe it will be called 'Well, It's No Aqua But At Least We Tried'
(http://tongue.gif)
ThePreacher: Oh, I wasn't really suprised that you would... no offense ;)
-
quote:
Originally posted by MacUser3of5:
Maybe it will be called 'Well, It's No Aqua But At Least We Tried'
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..
-
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 (http://tongue.gif)
-
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.
-
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..
-
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....
-
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.
-
marklar? you mean those marklars from planet marklar have marklared a marklar?
wow!
[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Calum 21.1.4 ]
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Jimmy, your rapidly becoming the VoidMain of the mac forum! Kudos :D
-
Thank yas! I'll take that as a compliment! =^)
-
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 (http://smile.gif)