Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #133949 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-10 04:52 -0400 |
| Last post | 2020-08-17 08:59 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 146 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-10 04:52 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-10 08:02 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 02:49 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 07:13 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 14:04 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 20:39 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 19:22 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 09:39 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 09:50 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 14:08 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 20:37 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 17:02 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:27 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 08:09 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 21:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 14:34 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 22:23 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 19:52 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:26 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 02:44 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 08:10 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 19:15 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 19:47 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-14 00:33 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-14 03:40 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Wolffan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2020-08-17 08:45 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 09:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-13 13:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-13 19:19 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 23:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-13 19:47 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-14 00:35 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-14 03:43 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-11 19:22 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 16:58 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:32 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 08:10 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 21:32 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 22:29 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 22:43 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-13 04:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 08:44 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:14 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:43 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-16 19:00 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 21:09 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-17 01:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 07:10 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-17 21:45 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-18 11:02 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-18 21:01 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 01:30 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-18 18:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 05:57 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 00:39 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 10:00 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 10:57 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 20:29 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 16:49 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 17:00 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:05 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 03:36 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 21:28 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-19 10:56 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 00:32 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Krzysztof Mitko <invalid@kmitko.at.list.dot.pl> - 2020-08-21 13:45 +0200
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-16 16:13 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 21:23 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:37 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:35 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 13:46 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 09:27 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-17 17:48 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-17 14:56 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-17 15:21 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-18 18:05 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 00:32 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 05:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 10:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 16:45 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 17:00 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 18:38 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 23:51 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-20 00:27 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-20 06:12 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 08:25 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-22 21:39 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-22 21:55 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-22 23:06 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-22 23:48 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-23 22:36 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 06:22 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 04:41 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 11:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 19:33 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 21:11 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-24 13:11 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 06:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 04:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-23 19:06 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 23:31 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 21:11 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-23 11:19 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-23 06:42 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 19:24 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 16:35 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:01 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-19 20:42 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2020-08-19 21:21 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-20 03:31 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:03 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2020-08-10 14:16 +0100
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2020-08-11 10:04 +1200
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-11 07:14 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 08:31 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:13 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-10 08:20 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-11 03:07 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 17:12 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 00:59 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> - 2020-08-11 22:23 -0700
Re: Trivia Pixar computers JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2020-08-12 19:28 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-12 12:37 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-16 07:54 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2020-08-16 17:06 +0000
Re: Trivia Pixar computers nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2020-08-16 14:17 -0400
Re: Trivia Pixar computers Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2020-08-17 08:59 -0400
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-10 04:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Trivia Pixar computers |
| Message-ID | <7V7YG.151250$HY4.66027@fx37.iad> |
Have been going back in history on computer graphcs and stumbled on the history of Pixar Promotional video from 1988: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhhGfdkK9Ek Note the speed at which it rendes 1 frame for the clown or the plane. I remember those days. Now, an iPhoen does this at over 30 frames per socond in your hand. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar Lucasfilm, after Star Wars decided to hire some computer engineers to help develop computer graphics im 1979. They built computers called "Pixar". They didn't sell well, so Lucasfilm spun it off in 1986 and guess who bought majority? Steve Jobs for $10m dollars. (eventually increased his stake by investing $50m) The new company was named... wait for it.... Pixar. It remained focused on selling computers but also developped the imaging software. (if you have watched the video above, you will have seen they had medical, mapping and other coprporate goals, not just movies), The Pixar Image COmputer was very much custom designed, and they had their own CPU chip called CHAP. They own bus "YAPBUS (Yet Another Pixad BUS). So like DEC, they decigned all of their computers. It was high performance for images but not muchj else. Important: The folks at Lucasfilm/Pixar developped the concep]t of Alpha channel for images). The CPU was quite interesing. As with others at the time, single core, single execution stream. But, each instruction acted on 4 sets of values at the same time. You didn't add 1 to register A, you added 1,1,1,1 to registers A B C D in one instruction. This way, each instruction did the same to all 4 values makiing up a pixel in an image (R B G and alpha). So for processing images, this machines was significantly faster than a VAX 75 which was branc new at the time. http://www.ricomputermuseum.org/Home/equipment/pixar-image-computer So Steve Jobs got majority of Pixar for $10m (so total value around $20m ) in 1986. It was sold to Disney for $7.4b in 2006. After the Pixar and Pixar II cpmpiters worked well, but sold fewer than 200 units, they abandonned hardware and focused on sofwtare in 1990. Can't remember which software package it was, but it cane with a diskette for RenderMan (I think it was a Macromedia precursor to Extreme 3D). So Steve Jobs invested in NeXT in 1985, a computer company, and invested in Pixar in 1986, also a computer company. Pixar had proprioetary CPU, NeXT used a 68k CPU fom motorola. BTW, NeXT also migrated from 68k to PowerPC. It was when NeXt decied to focus on software that it moved to the 8086 starting in 1991 with first demo of the port in 1992 on standard PCs 80486. NeXTSTEP was also ported to PA-RISC (HP_ and SPARC (Sun) workstations. After purchase by Apple, the NeXT group re-ported NeXTSTEP to the PowerPC (remember they had moved to 486 in early 1990s). While NeXTSTEP ran on Intel boxes, the porting of the valious Apple frameworks (Carbon etc) was done to NextSTEP on PowerPC only. Note: while NeXT stopoped making its own hardware at the 486, it continued to do NextSTEP os on x86 for a while, so suppor would have included more recent chips. BYUT. prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT forcused on application alyet with OpenSTEP since it was no longer selling computers with its own OS. So in essence, NeXTSTEP development would have stopped. OpenSTEP was desined to run on other operating systems such as Sn Solaris and OpenStep Enterprise for Windows NT. So it is interesting that when Apple bought Jobs/NeXT, it had already stoppe developping the OS NeXTSTEP.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-10 08:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <100820200802254050%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #133949 |
In article <7V7YG.151250$HY4.66027@fx37.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > So Steve Jobs invested in NeXT in 1985, a computer company, and invested > in Pixar in 1986, also a computer company. he did much more than just invest in next. > Pixar had proprioetary CPU, NeXT used a 68k CPU fom motorola. BTW, NeXT > also migrated from 68k to PowerPC. no they didn't. next did not use powerpc at all until they were bought by apple nearly a decade later. > It was when NeXt decied to focus on software that it moved to the 8086 > starting in 1991 with first demo of the port in 1992 on standard PCs 80486. which apple kept alive, ultimately becoming mac os intel. > NeXTSTEP was also ported to PA-RISC (HP_ and SPARC (Sun) workstations. that part is true. > After purchase by Apple, the NeXT group re-ported NeXTSTEP to the > PowerPC (remember they had moved to 486 in early 1990s). nope. that was their first time porting to powerpc. they also maintained the intel version. > While NeXTSTEP > ran on Intel boxes, the porting of the valious Apple frameworks (Carbon > etc) was done to NextSTEP on PowerPC only. nope. mac os led a secret dual-life on intel, which was explained to you before. are you going to argue this all over again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 02:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kcrYG.83382$MQ.18176@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #133950 |
On 2020-08-10 08:02, nospam wrote: >> Pixar had proprioetary CPU, NeXT used a 68k CPU fom motorola. BTW, NeXT >> also migrated from 68k to PowerPC. > > no they didn't. next did not use powerpc at all until they were bought > by apple nearly a decade later. I was quoting the wikipedia entry. It stated cl;early it stated on a varieto to 68k, then went to PowerPC then to Intel 485 at which point it abandonned the idea of making computers. This was circa 1992-1993. Remember that NeXT was started by Jobs as he left Apple I think 1985 or 1986. So they wouldn't have gone to the 8086 16 bit game controller with segment registers used on the IBM PC. > which apple kept alive, ultimately becoming mac os intel. Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. The Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. So it is quite possible that the correct wording is "resurrected NeXTSTEP" instead of "kept alive". > nope. that was their first time porting to powerpc. Not according to the wikipedia entry. I beleive the last one they had was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot loader stuff already. > they also maintained the intel version. OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 as well as new stuff for OS-X. Maintaining/keeping the #ifdefs etc in the components that came from NEXTSTEP is a no brainer. But that doesn't mean that all components from the Apple side were poted to x86 at the time they were integrated into NextSTEP to create OS-X. It was obviously done at some point. Consider the ability to run MacOS 9 applications in the MacOS 9 "applicatioN" that launched in OS-X. Not much sense in porting that to x86. Consider that at the time of Intel announcement, Apple was about to pull plug on a nukjber of APIs until there were severe grumblings from the big developpers such as Adobe, so Apple ported them to the x86 version (they were leftovers from MacOS days).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 07:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj4h8e.1mts.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #133959 |
In message <kcrYG.83382$MQ.18176@fx14.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2020-08-10 08:02, nospam wrote: >> which apple kept alive, ultimately becoming mac os intel. > Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. This is because you are a FUDster idiot who cannot read. This has been covered MANY times. > So it is quite possible that the correct wording is "resurrected > NeXTSTEP" instead of "kept alive". No, this is not the case at all. NextStep became Mac OS, and Mac OS was kept running on Intel from its inception. > OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 > as well as new stuff for OS-X. No, First of all, there i no OS X any more, second of all there is NOTHING from Mac OS 9 in macOS. Not a single line of code. > Maintaining/keeping the #ifdefs etc in the components that came from > NEXTSTEP is a no brainer. But that doesn't mean that all components from > the Apple side were poted to x86 at the time they were integrated into > NextSTEP to create OS-X. This is exactly what happened, as has been explained to you numerous times. An Intel version of the current version of OS X was maintained from 10.0 Developer Beta right up until the switch to Intel. You pretending this is in any way in doubt just makes you look like the foolish FUDster you continue to be. > It was obviously done at some point. > Consider the ability to run MacOS 9 applications in the MacOS 9 > "applicatioN" that launched in OS-X. Not much sense in porting that to x86. Classic was not OS X, it is was application. -- Fairy Tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 14:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <85BYG.322992$PN2.245992@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #133961 |
On 2020-08-11 03:13, Lewis wrote: > No, First of all, there i no OS X any more, second of all there is > NOTHING from Mac OS 9 in macOS. Not a single line of code. So you are denying that initian releases of OS-X had many MacOS 9 frameworks like Carbon in them? Are you claiming that MAcOS frameworks had always been in NeXTSTEP and didn't need to be ported to OS-X ? > Classic was not OS X, it is was application. Classic was invoked by OS-X when you tried to launch an application compiled into MacOS 9 or earlier. But OS-X also supported many Mac OS 9 frameworks natiuvely for apps developped under Mac IS 9 and earlier and recompiled on OS-X These frameworks did not exist under NeXTSTEP. (unles one is to beleive your claims)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 20:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj60gk.bvp.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #133970 |
In message <85BYG.322992$PN2.245992@fx48.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2020-08-11 03:13, Lewis wrote: >> No, First of all, there i no OS X any more, second of all there is >> NOTHING from Mac OS 9 in macOS. Not a single line of code. > So you are denying that initian releases of OS-X had many MacOS 9 > frameworks like Carbon in them? Are you claiming that MAcOS frameworks > had always been in NeXTSTEP and didn't need to be ported to OS-X ? Please reread what I said. Re read it a couple of dozen times until understanding finally penetrates that thick FUDskull that prevents your brain from comprehension.. -- What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 19:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <110820201922050921%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #133970 |
In article <85BYG.322992$PN2.245992@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > But OS-X also supported many Mac OS 9 frameworks natiuvely for apps > developped under Mac IS 9 and earlier and recompiled on OS-X known as carbon. > These frameworks did not exist under NeXTSTEP. (unles one is to beleive > your claims) nobody said they did. what you fail to understand is that when apple wrote carbon for powerpc, they secretly built it and ran it on intel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 09:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <110820200939323516%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #133959 |
In article <kcrYG.83382$MQ.18176@fx14.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > >> Pixar had proprioetary CPU, NeXT used a 68k CPU fom motorola. BTW, NeXT > >> also migrated from 68k to PowerPC. > > > > no they didn't. next did not use powerpc at all until they were bought > > by apple nearly a decade later. > > I was quoting the wikipedia entry. wikipedia is not a reliable source. > It stated cl;early it stated on a > varieto to 68k, then went to PowerPC then to Intel 485 at which point it > abandonned the idea of making computers. This was circa 1992-1993. they did not go to powerpc until apple. > Remember that NeXT was started by Jobs as he left Apple I think 1985 or > 1986. So they wouldn't have gone to the 8086 16 bit game controller with > segment registers used on the IBM PC. they went to x86 in the early 90s. > > which apple kept alive, ultimately becoming mac os intel. > > Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. it is. > The > Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had > already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a > set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. not relevant to mac os on intel. > So it is quite possible that the correct wording is "resurrected > NeXTSTEP" instead of "kept alive". nope. > > nope. that was their first time porting to powerpc. > > Not according to the wikipedia entry. wikipedia is not a reliable source. > I beleive the last one they had > was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed > so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot > loader stuff already. nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just the kernel, not the entire thing. > > they also maintained the intel version. > > OS-X is a superset that includes NeXTSTEP , and components from MacOS 9 > as well as new stuff for OS-X. no. > Maintaining/keeping the #ifdefs etc in the components that came from > NEXTSTEP is a no brainer. But that doesn't mean that all components from > the Apple side were poted to x86 at the time they were integrated into > NextSTEP to create OS-X. just about everything was compiled on both powerpc and intel from the start. keep in mind, nearly everything about nextstep/openstep was rewritten for mac os x. for example, nextstep/openstep used display postscript, whereas mac os x used pdf. that's a shitload more than an #ifdef. > It was obviously done at some point. > Consider the ability to run MacOS 9 applications in the MacOS 9 > "applicatioN" that launched in OS-X. Not much sense in porting that to x86. classic was never ported to x86. > Consider that at the time of Intel announcement, Apple was about to pull > plug on a nukjber of APIs until there were severe grumblings from the > big developpers such as Adobe, so Apple ported them to the x86 version > (they were leftovers from MacOS days). nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 09:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133967 |
On 2020-08-11 6:39 a.m., nospam wrote: > In article <kcrYG.83382$MQ.18176@fx14.iad>, JF Mezei > <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> >>>> Pixar had proprioetary CPU, NeXT used a 68k CPU fom motorola. BTW, NeXT >>>> also migrated from 68k to PowerPC. >>> >>> no they didn't. next did not use powerpc at all until they were bought >>> by apple nearly a decade later. >> >> I was quoting the wikipedia entry. > > wikipedia is not a reliable source. > >> It stated cl;early it stated on a >> varieto to 68k, then went to PowerPC then to Intel 485 at which point it >> abandonned the idea of making computers. This was circa 1992-1993. > > they did not go to powerpc until apple. > >> Remember that NeXT was started by Jobs as he left Apple I think 1985 or >> 1986. So they wouldn't have gone to the 8086 16 bit game controller with >> segment registers used on the IBM PC. > > they went to x86 in the early 90s. > >>> which apple kept alive, ultimately becoming mac os intel. >> >> Ur isn't clear to me that "kept alive" is the correct term. > > it is. > >> The >> Wikipedia articel stated that prior to being bought by Apple, NeXT had >> already switched away from NeXTSTEP and forpcsed on OpenStep which was a >> set of APIs sold to folks like Sun and banks etc. > > not relevant to mac os on intel. > >> So it is quite possible that the correct wording is "resurrected >> NeXTSTEP" instead of "kept alive". > > nope. > >>> nope. that was their first time porting to powerpc. >> >> Not according to the wikipedia entry. > > wikipedia is not a reliable source. > >> I beleive the last one they had >> was on a PowerPC 601. A few years in the 1990s meant a lot had changed >> so not sure how much was still usable, but they would have have the boot >> loader stuff already. > > nope. it took a few months from when apple bought next to when they > were first able to boot openstep on a powerpc mac, and that was just > the kernel, not the entire thing. NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. 'NeXT's long-term plan was to migrate to the emerging high-performance industry standard Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) architecture, with the NeXT RISC Workstation (NRW). Initially the NRW was to be based on the Motorola 88110 processor, but due to a lack of confidence in Motorola's commitment to the 88000-series architecture in the time leading up to the AIM alliance's transition to PowerPC, it was later redesigned around dual PowerPC 601s.[36][37] NeXT produced some motherboards and enclosures, but exited the hardware business before full production.' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT#Second_generation> And before you go back to "wikipedia is not reliable" <http://www.nextcomputers.org/forums/index.php?topic=1271.0> If they had gotten as far as producing motherboards, then there were clearly wire-wrap versions that they had already had running and there would have been PowerPC versions of the OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 14:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <78BYG.322993$PN2.289556@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #133968 |
On 2020-08-11 12:50, Alan Baker wrote: > NeXT did begin a project on PowerPC. They just never finished it. Conside that by the time they got prototypes built, they would have already done much of the porting effort to allow first boot. As both 68k and powerPc were big endian, the port would have been fairly straightforward, juust as it was for Apple.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 20:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj60br.bvp.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #133968 |
In message <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > If they had gotten as far as producing motherboards, then there were > clearly wire-wrap versions that they had already had running and there > would have been PowerPC versions of the OS. Would have been is not "were" and if is not "was". -- >You are forgetting something: the Nazgul are immune to non-magical > weapons. > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-11 17:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rgvbic$lvl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133973 |
On 2020-08-11 1:37 p.m., Lewis wrote: > In message <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> If they had gotten as far as producing motherboards, then there were >> clearly wire-wrap versions that they had already had running and there >> would have been PowerPC versions of the OS. > > Would have been is not "were" and if is not "was". > > If there were pre-production motherboards (there were)... ...then there cleary was a port of the OS that ran on earlier prototype hardware. That's just a fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj7o1n.11fe.g.kreme@www.local> |
| In reply to | #133980 |
In message <rgvbic$lvl$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-08-11 1:37 p.m., Lewis wrote: >> In message <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>> If they had gotten as far as producing motherboards, then there were >>> clearly wire-wrap versions that they had already had running and there >>> would have been PowerPC versions of the OS. >> >> Would have been is not "were" and if is not "was". >> >> > If there were pre-production motherboards (there were)... > ...then there cleary was a port of the OS that ran on earlier prototype > hardware. > That's just a fact. It's misleading since ther was never any sort of release for either the boards or the OS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rh10mv$65c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133987 |
On 2020-08-12 5:27 a.m., Lewis wrote: > In message <rgvbic$lvl$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> On 2020-08-11 1:37 p.m., Lewis wrote: >>> In message <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>> If they had gotten as far as producing motherboards, then there were >>>> clearly wire-wrap versions that they had already had running and there >>>> would have been PowerPC versions of the OS. >>> >>> Would have been is not "were" and if is not "was". >>> >>> > >> If there were pre-production motherboards (there were)... > >> ...then there cleary was a port of the OS that ran on earlier prototype >> hardware. > >> That's just a fact. > > It's misleading since ther was never any sort of release for either the boards > or the OS. > Not when the discussion is whether or not Apple had to port NextSTEP to PowerPC from square one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 21:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrj8nql.2g0s.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #133992 |
In message <rh10mv$65c$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > On 2020-08-12 5:27 a.m., Lewis wrote: >> In message <rgvbic$lvl$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>> On 2020-08-11 1:37 p.m., Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>>> If they had gotten as far as producing motherboards, then there were >>>>> clearly wire-wrap versions that they had already had running and there >>>>> would have been PowerPC versions of the OS. >>>> >>>> Would have been is not "were" and if is not "was". >>>> >>>> >> >>> If there were pre-production motherboards (there were)... >> >>> ...then there cleary was a port of the OS that ran on earlier prototype >>> hardware. >> >>> That's just a fact. >> >> It's misleading since ther was never any sort of release for either the boards >> or the OS. >> > Not when the discussion is whether or not Apple had to port NextSTEP to > PowerPC from square one. They did though. -- So, the apocalypse is happening and whatever and this little piggy comes all this way, but you won’t accept my help because I’m a woman? Pig: Quite right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rh1na0$ipe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #133998 |
On 2020-08-12 2:29 p.m., Lewis wrote: > In message <rh10mv$65c$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >> On 2020-08-12 5:27 a.m., Lewis wrote: >>> In message <rgvbic$lvl$2@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>> On 2020-08-11 1:37 p.m., Lewis wrote: >>>>> In message <rgui9c$i0$1@dont-email.me> Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: >>>>>> If they had gotten as far as producing motherboards, then there were >>>>>> clearly wire-wrap versions that they had already had running and there >>>>>> would have been PowerPC versions of the OS. >>>>> >>>>> Would have been is not "were" and if is not "was". >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> If there were pre-production motherboards (there were)... >>> >>>> ...then there cleary was a port of the OS that ran on earlier prototype >>>> hardware. >>> >>>> That's just a fact. >>> >>> It's misleading since ther was never any sort of release for either the boards >>> or the OS. >>> > >> Not when the discussion is whether or not Apple had to port NextSTEP to >> PowerPC from square one. > > They did though. Really? You were privy to the inner workings of Apple's OS team just post the purchase of NeXT, were you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 20:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <120820202025235616%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134000 |
In article <rh1na0$ipe$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > > > >> Not when the discussion is whether or not Apple had to port NextSTEP to > >> PowerPC from square one. > > > > They did though. > > Really? really. > You were privy to the inner workings of Apple's OS team just post the > purchase of NeXT, were you? were you? not that it matters, since apple publicly stated that it took a few months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript with pdf.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 22:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <vu1ZG.124933$d95.35328@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #134009 |
On 2020-08-12 20:25, nospam wrote: > they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript > with pdf. This was a global change. Adobe made it hard for companies to continue to include display postcript, so many operating systems had to pull the software from their OS. Happened on VMS as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 22:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <120820202243222390%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134012 |
In article <vu1ZG.124933$d95.35328@fx06.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript > > with pdf. > > > This was a global change. it still needed to be done > Adobe made it hard for companies to continue > to include display postcript, so many operating systems had to pull the > software from their OS. Happened on VMS as well. nope. the problem was the price.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Baker <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-12 19:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rh29u7$iaa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134009 |
On 2020-08-12 5:25 p.m., nospam wrote: > In article <rh1na0$ipe$1@dont-email.me>, Alan Baker > <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote: > >>> >>>> Not when the discussion is whether or not Apple had to port NextSTEP to >>>> PowerPC from square one. >>> >>> They did though. >> >> Really? > > really. > >> You were privy to the inner workings of Apple's OS team just post the >> purchase of NeXT, were you? > > were you? > > not that it matters, since apple publicly stated that it took a few > months to boot the nextstep/openstep kernel on powermacs. A few months... ...right. That suggests that there was a lot of knowledge about how to do the port. > > they also rewrote most of it, including replacing display postscript > with pdf. PDF... ...which is a close cousing of Postscript.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web