rezza Veteran Share Posted April 13, 2003 I personally don't give a rat's arse wether my computer is a windows box, a linux box, a mac, or anything else for that matter. i know i am always going to be able to do what i want to do with it, so who cares? it doesn't matter. and the sooner you "mac is best" people (OR windows/linux/beos/bsd/solaris/etc etc is best) realise that, the better. Link to post Share on other sites
Gator Share Posted April 13, 2003 and the sooner you "mac is best" people (OR windows/linux/beos/bsd/solaris/etc etc is best) realise that, the better. Have you noticed that these arguments always start in a Mac thread in the Mac forum almost always by lurking/trolling plastic box boys? And yes, I am an elitist Mac ###### also. :yes: I could care less about a fews seconds or anything else that has to do with speed, I save that for my car. With my computer, I only care about getting things done and feeling comfortable doing it. Link to post Share on other sites
g33kb0y Share Posted April 13, 2003 This thread makes me sick. :x Ok, it's an undeniable fact that Apple has been developing their core system for x86 architecture. Curiosity dictates that Apple must be doing this for a reason...but why? This would be like Microsoft coding their kernel to run on RISC architecture. Why? There's GOT to be a reason? Perhaps they're doing it just in case their hardware business flops, they have something to fall back on? It's always a possibility. I laught at those who say "you're too dumb to understand how business works," or people who tend to think that just because they have an opinion on something, means they're 100% correct. I would LOVE to see some evidence posted for these people who say it's impossible. If you want to discuss feasibility, we'll discuss relativity. Feasible to you, or feasible to APPLE? Some people may argue that they're the same...while in theory I agree, in practice I disagree. [in general, I tend to disagree with anyone who states that it's impossible to port one system to another. There's always a way...figuring it out is the hard part.] Link to post Share on other sites
frod Share Posted April 13, 2003 people who tend to think that just because they have an opinion on something, means they're 100% correct. sounds like what you are doing right now Link to post Share on other sites
g33kb0y Share Posted April 13, 2003 sounds like what you are doing right now Just an observation of mine. I have logic and evidence to back my points. That's more than I can say for other posts, my friend. But, say what you want. I can't expect everyone to understand. Link to post Share on other sites
frod Share Posted April 13, 2003 why don't you post your evidence then? all i see you doing is trashing people for not posting evidence, yet you are doing the same thing Link to post Share on other sites
mlerner Share Posted April 13, 2003 OS X? not yet, some companies are claiming to be working on it. OS 8.1 though you can with a rom from a 68k mac.. Link to post Share on other sites
sp0rk Share Posted April 13, 2003 There are two reasons why Apple can't be making a version of OSX that runs on an x86 processor: They wouldn't waste the time. Why would they DOUBLE their work making another OS that they will most likely not release? It would've been leaked by now. You can sure as hell count on someone leaking something as important as that. I don't care how honest the workers are, it always seems to get out. I'm sure theres more reasons, but I am not going to think about it too much. Link to post Share on other sites
dmd3x Share Posted April 13, 2003 There are two reasons why Apple can't be making a version of OSX that runs on an x86 processor: They wouldn't waste the time. Why would they DOUBLE their work making another OS that they will most likely not release? It would've been leaked by now. You can sure as hell count on someone leaking something as important as that. I don't care how honest the workers are, it always seems to get out. I'm sure theres more reasons, but I am not going to think about it too much. I wouldn't be so sure. Apple is not as careless as M$. Sometimes I think M$ leaks their crap on purpose it happens so much. Link to post Share on other sites
zivan56 Share Posted April 13, 2003 sp0rk, not necessarily, they would only have to edit the ASM code, the rest is most likely C++ which can be compiled with an x86 compiler. Link to post Share on other sites
g33kb0y Share Posted April 13, 2003 why don't you post your evidence then? all i see you doing is trashing people for not posting evidence, yet you are doing the same thing Oh, Lord. Here's your damn evidence they're developing x86 versions of their core. http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/d....0/release.html http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/d...stall_notes.txt Speculation is all that we can achieve as of right now for as to WHY they're doing it. If you have any insight, then by all means, post it. BTW... I think you might be confused as to what I was talking about. I was pointing out the fact that just because people don't think they're going to develop it, doesn't mean that they won't. They're obviously working on an x86 port, and I don't think anyone but Apple knows why. I'm not trashing people for speculating WHY they're doing it...I'm trashing people who think they AREN'T/WON'T. :whistle: Link to post Share on other sites
g33kb0y Share Posted April 13, 2003 One word: Marklar :whistle: More to help that case: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp Link to post Share on other sites
aaron901 Share Posted April 13, 2003 mr g33kb0y, you totally misinterpret my point. you think only you know that Apple might have a copy of x86 version of OSX and it is possible to port osx to x86? oh god don't overestimate yourself my friend. i guess everybody knows that, everything is possible. i'm just saying its impossible for now because you'll be wasting your time finding an emulator for OSX NOW! i have logic and evidence to back my point, but you didn't get it, again i say, it's god damn possible for Apple to develop OSX on x86, but they won't give it out ok, it's just business! thats as simple as 123. and if someone out there develop an emulator (which is unlikely to happen), Apple will stop them. could i make it more simpler? pm me if you don't understand, don't make a fool out of yourself here. :whistle: Link to post Share on other sites
kryptonik Share Posted April 13, 2003 It isn't possible yet! And like aaron said, if you want OS X so badly then just get a Mac. Link to post Share on other sites
g33kb0y Share Posted April 13, 2003 mr g33kb0y, you totally misinterpret my point. you think only you know that Apple might have a copy of x86 version of OSX and it is possible to port osx to x86? oh god don't overestimate yourself my friend. i guess everybody knows that, everything is possible. i'm just saying its impossible for now because you'll be wasting your time finding an emulator for OSX NOW! i have logic and evidence to back my point, but you didn't get it, again i say, it's god damn possible for Apple to develop OSX on x86, but they won't give it out ok, it's just business! thats as simple as 123. and if someone out there develop an emulator (which is unlikely to happen), Apple will stop them. could i make it more simpler? pm me if you don't understand, don't make a fool out of yourself here. :whistle: What do you mean they won't give it out? Darwin 6.0.2 x86-compatibleDarwin 6.0.2 is available as a bootable ISO CD image. See the installation notes prior to installation. x86 ISO image (315 MB) md5 checksum: d4e9a94c48d900736fa9f77d42707d50 And what do you mean they won't let anyone make an emulator? There's Mac 'emulators' all over the place. Crappy, but they're there. No one's developed one for OSX, yet, but they have one up to 8.x.x. There wasn't really enough interest for OS9 emulator. And I don't think I misinterpret your point at all. You're speaking of feasibility and relativity. Relative to YOUR thoughts, they're not going to fully develop the system and sell it mainstream. I agree with you completely on that. I am - have been since the very first post - saying that they ARE creating one. I want to know WHY. Are they ****ed off at Motorola? Are they ****ed off at IBM? Do they want to shift to a software industry? I mean, come on. Why would they even spend money on development if they didn't have a purpose for it? You want to talk about business? Ok, let's talk about businees. Let's look to the future: Your current production or processors has been slowing down. Promises of "wonderful" performance and "breakthrough" technology aren't being held up. Yes, the G4/G3 processors are powerful, but not to what they were promised. What are you going to do? You're going to start looking to where innovation and mainstream breakthroughs ARE being met. If you can scare your provider - of which your provider only delivers their processors to YOU - then maybe you can get them to get their arse in gear. It's a method used all the time by companies. don't make a fool out of yourself here Open your mind, and open your eyes. People in the past have been rediculed for their ideas and propositions. Thank God people like you didn't win. Link to post Share on other sites
Dazzla Veteran Share Posted April 13, 2003 And what do you mean they won't let anyone make an emulator? There's Mac 'emulators' all over the place. Crappy, but they're there. No one's developed one for OSX, yet, but they have one up to 8.x.x. There wasn't really enough interest for OS9 emulator. Not enough interest? I think there's plently of interest in a fully working PPC emulator don't you? Link to post Share on other sites
g33kb0y Share Posted April 13, 2003 Not enough interest? I think there's plently of interest in a fully working PPC emulator don't you? I don't know...when I was searching around for Mac emulators while OS9 was out, people were looking primarily for OS8.x.x That's just personal experience. I know there's plenty of interest for a fully working PPC emulator. :p I wish I had one. I was just saying that I didn't think there was enough interest for an OS9. Link to post Share on other sites
Dazzla Veteran Share Posted April 13, 2003 They were looking for OS 8 emu's cause there wasn't any OS9 emu's. Link to post Share on other sites
g33kb0y Share Posted April 13, 2003 They were looking for OS 8 emu's cause there wasn't any OS9 emu's. Just out of curiosity, what's your point? :) Link to post Share on other sites
aaron901 Share Posted April 13, 2003 what the hell are you talking about, are we on the same topic here? :o it amazes me you still don't get what i mean. so basically you're saying Apple makes a x86 version of OSX to scare Motorola if they didn't develop a better processor for them yeah? good, that's possible of course, i totally agree. but you know what this thread is about? the guy is asking if there's an emulator because he wants to use OSX so badly, all i'm saying is there's no way you can run OSX on x86 for now, better forget it rather than wasting your time searching for one. even though if someone talented enough to make an emulator (oh don't give me that OS8 craps, you comparing OS8 to OSX?), Apple will by all means try to stop him. when i talk about possibility and feasiblity, i mean it is god damn possible for OSX to run on x86 no doubt, but that's not feasible simply because Apple won't let you have it for NOW ok! just that simple. don't make life harder.. what? relativity? oh god did i say that? i feel like we are not on the same topic really. what i want to tell HPMCommander is there's no way he can run OSX on his machine for now. and you're talking about the purpose of Apple creating an x86 version of OSX... what the... lol you want to win yeah? i'll let you win even though you're kinda off track here. here's your cookies. :laugh: Link to post Share on other sites
g33kb0y Share Posted April 13, 2003 lol you want to win yeah? i'll let you win even though you're kinda off track here. here's your cookies. :laugh: Make 'em sugar cookies...the cafeteria food here sucks, but the sugar cookies rock. :) This was never about winning. Ya, I got off topic, that's my bad. :blush: This particular topic just really pieves me off - especially when people say that they WON'T make an x86 system, or say that it's stupid business - when no one really knows what's going on. (for those of you who love to point out the most incredibly pointless statements, I'll say this: I'm not applying MY principles to Apple. There, it's said.) 9 pages later, we've decided there is no OSx emulator! :D (ok, so it was really decided on the first page, first reply...but wasn't this fun? *cough*) Link to post Share on other sites
the evn show Share Posted April 13, 2003 especially when people say that they WON'T make an x86 system, or say that it's stupid business - when no one really knows what's going on. I hate it when people say they WILL make an x86 system, or say that it's smart business - when there are fairly clear historical evidence and indicators it's not going to happen. Not that it matters for this topic anyway. ----- back on topic ----- I was playing with my network today (new router/access points) and i found that my Macs all handled the changes in stride. Once the new router was plugged in they started working great over ethernet. When i plugged in the access point the wireless networked started up again. Rendezvous saves the day again. The linux machines need to be told to get a new ip address but worked fine after that. When I plugged in the XP machine it refused to 1) see the workgroup or access any shared resources on the macs 2) wouldn't obtain a new ip address from the router (even with ipconfig /release & /renew) The manual for the router (linksys) said I should reboot the windows machines - which i did - and everything worked fine after that. Does windows allow low enough level control to emulate rendezvous or does the abstraction layer prevent this from being possible. I've never done any really low level windows programming so I just don't know. I would assume if it were possible microsoft would have had something similar already built into XP. Link to post Share on other sites
Wickedkitten Veteran Share Posted April 13, 2003 As far as Marklar goes, I kind of see it as being the Duke Nukem Forever of the OS World. People have been talking about it for years, people have been developing it forever in house, but most likely it will never see the light of day. Link to post Share on other sites
Chad Share Posted April 13, 2003 Oh, Lord. Here's your damn evidence they're developing x86 versions of their core.http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/d....0/release.html http://www.opensource.apple.com/projects/d...stall_notes.txt Speculation is all that we can achieve as of right now for as to WHY they're doing it. If you have any insight, then by all means, post it. BTW... I think you might be confused as to what I was talking about. I was pointing out the fact that just because people don't think they're going to develop it, doesn't mean that they won't. They're obviously working on an x86 port, and I don't think anyone but Apple knows why. I'm not trashing people for speculating WHY they're doing it...I'm trashing people who think they AREN'T/WON'T. :whistle: How is this topic still going? Oh man, Darwin is not wholly OSX. There is so much more to it. Just because there is a Darwin emulator available, doesn't mean it's possible to run OSX on an emulator. Marklar is a rumor. There is zero evidence for it, and I really doubt it exists. Sure there are emulators out there for 8 (which Apple no longer sells), but I guarantee you, if someone actually does come up with an OSX emulater while OSX is the main os, Apple won't let it see the light of day. Dazzla's point, is people are looking for OS8 emu's because they know there isn't an OS9 emu. It's not that hard to understand. I also could care less if peecees have 8ghz processors and have millions of software titles. Speed isn't the end all on how you rate quality. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts