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 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 09:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FAv_G.357851$AN2.252761@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #134059 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: > On 2020-08-16 08:25, Bud Frede wrote: > >> At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP >> being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the >> OS. > OPENstep was not an operating system, but t came from NextStep. Funny how the box said "OPENSTEP" and it provided an OS, none of which was labeled NeXTSTEP. > > Apple bought NeXT and resurrrected NEXTStep because it needed a core > operating system that supported multitasking etc. It used the OpenStep > improvments made since NexTSTEP was stopped, and also ported the MacOS > classic APIs to the powerPC version that would be commercialised as OS-X. Each of those sentences contains some things that are true, but by the end of the sentence you're wrong. :-) > > A lot fo the OS-X operating systems and default applcations such as > Preview came from NexTStep/openStep and those were already available on > a number of CPU platforms. Mail.app was one of them. I remember that my first e-mail in it was "from" Steve Jobs and contained his digitized signature. I'm aware of what came from OPENSTEP and what didn't. I used OPENSTEP. I do have to hand it to the people at Apple and those Jobs brought from NeXT though. OPENSTEP was not a speed demon, and Rhapsody and then the first several versions of Mac OS X were rather sluggish. A lot of people at the time were saying that it was just something you had to accept with the Mach kernel. They got beyond that and made Mac OS X / OS X / MacOS perform very well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjlgo4.1s09.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134068 |
In message <FAv_G.357851$AN2.252761@fx46.iad> Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes: >> On 2020-08-16 08:25, Bud Frede wrote: >> >>> At the time that I was given a copy of OPENSTEP, there wasn't a NeXTSTEP >>> being sold. OPENSTEP was the product and it was what they called the >>> OS. >> OPENstep was not an operating system, but t came from NextStep. > Funny how the box said "OPENSTEP" and it provided an OS, none of which > was labeled NeXTSTEP. Uh, I don't think so. OpenStep ran ON an OS. Like Windows NT. Or Solaris. I think you are misremembering. > Each of those sentences contains some things that are true, but by the > end of the sentence you're wrong. :-) That is the usual JF dance. Stack up errors until you can make an absurd conclusion. -- and I swear it happened just like this: / a sigh, a cry, a hungry kiss, the Gates of Love they budged an inch / I can't say much has happened since / but CLOSING TIME
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 14:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fpA_G.160871$hQ4.47832@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #134068 |
On 2020-08-17 09:27, Bud Frede wrote: > Funny how the box said "OPENSTEP" and it provided an OS, none of which > was labeled NeXTSTEP. Read up a bit more: NeXT created NeXTStep. Upon existing the hardware business, it unbundled the API from the OS and called the API/apps: OpenStep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStep "OpenStep is a defunct object-oriented application programming interface (API) specification for a legacy object-oriented operating system, with the basic goal of offering a NeXTSTEP-like environment on non-NeXTSTEP operating systems. " OPenStep was available on Sun's Solaris as well as Windows NT. There was also Openstep for Enterprise which had been sold as a programming/application envirnment to some large corporations. The important additional bit I had not read: NeXT also ported OpenSTEP back to NeXTSTEP, and rebranded it as : "OpenSTEP for Mach." So what you saw was really OpenStep for Mach. And what Apple used was in fact OpenStep for Mach, nt NextStep. (Original NeXT opperating system core, but updated API, apps etc) Also of note: Rhapsody was Openstep for Mach, with the port to PowerPC completed and the x86 version available to developpers. But poductized only on PowerPC. OS-X saw the changes to the windows server (Quartz). added backward compatibility with Classic (adding Carbon etc) and that was done only to PowerPC. This included the app that could boot MacOS 9 and run apps it it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 15:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <170820201521093494%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134074 |
In article <fpA_G.160871$hQ4.47832@fx39.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > OS-X saw the changes to the windows server (Quartz). added backward > compatibility with Classic (adding Carbon etc) and that was done only to > PowerPC. This included the app that could boot MacOS 9 and run apps it it. classic and carbon are not the same. carbon existed on both powerpc and intel, the latter done in secret. classic was only powerpc, for obvious reasons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-18 18:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <NgY_G.353792$PN2.344016@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #134075 |
On 2020-08-17 15:21, nospam wrote: > classic and carbon are not the same. But both are part of work to turn Rhapsody (aka: Openstep on Mach) into an Apple branded product with classic Mac look/compatibility. Openstep on Mach (aka: Nextstep with updated API from the Openstep developments) had 0 compatibility with existing Mac applications. > carbon existed on both powerpc and intel, the latter done in secret. Carbon was removed in Catalina. part of the discontinuance of 32 bit support. So it was obbviously ported to Intel. However. while you claim it was always there, developped in secret, the "always" is not proven. Rhapsody was released to developpers on both Intel and PowerPC. So this indicates Apple had completed the port to PowerPC at that point and that Openstep on Mach (rebadged as Rhapsody) was still available on x86 as it had been in the past. However OS-X Server 1.0 was released only on PowerPC and included the "Blue box" bootable Mac OS 9 to run classic apps. So you would have to agree that at that point, OS-X Server 1.0 had PowerPC-only stuff on it. Between that and release of OS-X, Apple added a lot of classic Mac APIs like Carbon as well as various additions such as Apple Talk, Apple File Server etc. I don't know if HFS was ported at the Rhapsody stage, OS-X Server or OS-X (obviouly, it was ready for OS-X). You contend that Apple continuously built OIS-X on both PowerpC and x86. I say that after Rhapsody, work could have been done only on PowerPC in order to get this to market faster. Rememger that prior to Jobs, Apple had failed a few times in trying to get a modernized MacOS to market. This doesn't mean that the core of the OS wouldn't boot on x86. It just means that not all that was part of OS-X was there. It should also be noted that NeXTSTEP was written in Objective C, while MacOS was in C. After release of OS-X, much of the ex-MacOS stuff such as Carbon was reworked extensively to better integrate into the new underlying operating system and new window manager and make it run faster. I suspect that it was during this rework that tiem was spent making sure it was bi-endian and would built on x86. The first port from MacOS to OS-X was quick and dirty to make it work. (it was not originally planned to be ported). Appletalk and OpenTransport did get ported to x86 but didn't last long. I assume that they were easy to compile but interfaced very poorly with the underlying OS. Note that the major rework of Carbon did not involve upgrading it to 64 bits and it remained at 32 till its removal at Catalina. So the rework would have happened prior to the move to 64 bits which happened just before the move to Intel. Also of note: Apple rewrote much of OS-X from Objective C to Swift in recent years, so this likely means there is little to no code left from the original MacOS. Of the portions of MacOS that were ported to OS-X initially, I am not sure how much remains. HFS+ obviously, and there is still support for AFP (but not updated to support APFS, so likely still legacy code). HFS+ might have been rewritten. In fact, one question would now become how much of OpoenSTEP remains since much of the APIs have been rewritten in SWIFT. But the Drwin layer is likely still quite similar. Remember that the goal was to get a new OS out fast, so when Apple wanted to productize OS-X, it wouldn't have spent time going though all the MacOS code to ensure it could compile on x86. It was busy enough maming it fit in NEXTSTEP with its Objective C argument passing standards that were different from C. This is why I think there was a gap in time between first verion of OS-X and the time where all the components that originated on MacOS could be built on an x86 version of OS-X. (but during which, OS-X itself could be built without those components). Note that many of the "built-in" apps on OS-X came from openSTEP and not MacOS. So a build of OS-X on x86 would include a lot of the stuff that you expect on OS-X even if it lacked the ports from legacy MacOS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 00:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <190820200032159996%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134080 |
In article <NgY_G.353792$PN2.344016@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > classic and carbon are not the same. > > But both are part of work to turn Rhapsody (aka: Openstep on Mach) into > an Apple branded product with classic Mac look/compatibility. both existed on powerpc macs. obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a shitload of additional effort, which could not be justified. when intel macs were introduced, there was no classic, nor was it needed. > Openstep on Mach (aka: Nextstep with updated API from the Openstep > developments) had 0 compatibility with existing Mac applications. nobody said it did. > > carbon existed on both powerpc and intel, the latter done in secret. > > Carbon was removed in Catalina. part of the discontinuance of 32 bit > support. So it was obbviously ported to Intel. that was more than 20 years later. > However. while you claim it was always there, developped in secret, the > "always" is not proven. apple has publicly stated that's exactly what they did. > > It should also be noted that NeXTSTEP was written in Objective C, while > MacOS was in C. it should be noted that you are once again talking out your butt. while it's true that much of nextstep was written in objective-c, not all of it was. classic mac os was written in a mix of pascal, c, c++, 68k assembly and powerpc assembly, depending on which part and when. > Note that the major rework of Carbon did not involve upgrading it to 64 > bits and it remained at 32 till its removal at Catalina. So the rework > would have happened prior to the move to 64 bits which happened just > before the move to Intel. false. carbon64 was a work in progress with developer betas available just prior to the wwdc when it was killed off. <https://www.macrumors.com/2007/06/13/leopard-drops-carbon-64-bit-suppor t/> Developers at WWDC are realizing that Steve Jobs made a purposeful omission when he didn't include Carbon in Leopard's list of 64-bit compatible libraries at this year's WWDC keynote. At last year's keynote, Apple had claimed that both Carbon and Cocoa would be 64-bit, adding to the 64-bit fundamentals that Tiger had laid. A photo from last year's presentation, courtesy of Engadget: > Also of note: Apple rewrote much of OS-X from Objective C to Swift in > recent years, some parts have been, but it's a stretch to claim 'much of os-x' has been rewritten in swift. > so this likely means there is little to no code left from > the original MacOS. given that the original macos was written in pascal and 68k assembly, that would be a very safe assumption.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 07:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hq41raFajnnU24@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134085 |
On Aug 18, 2020 at 9:32:15 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <NgY_G.353792$PN2.344016@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei > <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> >> > classic and carbon are not the same. >> >> But both are part of work to turn Rhapsody (aka: Openstep on Mach) into >> an Apple branded product with classic Mac look/compatibility. > > both existed on powerpc macs. > > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a > shitload of additional effort, which could not be justified. when intel > macs were introduced, there was no classic, nor was it needed. It is understandable why it went away -- but backward compatibility is not a bad thing. In the long run though it does allow a platform to move forward better. ... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 06:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <190820200634223250%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134087 |
In article <hq41raFajnnU24@mid.individual.net>, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > >> > classic and carbon are not the same. > >> > >> But both are part of work to turn Rhapsody (aka: Openstep on Mach) into > >> an Apple branded product with classic Mac look/compatibility. > > > > both existed on powerpc macs. > > > > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a > > shitload of additional effort, which could not be justified. when intel > > macs were introduced, there was no classic, nor was it needed. > > It is understandable why it went away -- but backward compatibility is not a > bad thing. there was plenty of backward compatibility, however, nothing lasts forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 05:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TI6%G.94055$355.57871@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #134085 |
On 2020-08-19 00:32, nospam wrote: > obviously, classic could not exist on the intel platform without a > shitload of additional effort, Sheepshaver could have been improved with tighter integration in the file system. The advantage is that Booting "classic" in it is self contained and not dependent on classic libraries existing and being updated on OS-X so less maintenance needed by Apple. But as the Mac picked up momemtum and mreo and mreo applicatiosn were returning to the platform, the need to maintain "classic" went away. >> Openstep on Mach (aka: Nextstep with updated API from the Openstep >> developments) had 0 compatibility with existing Mac applications. > > nobody said it did. One of the apologists stated that Rhapsody had everything on both intel and powerpc. I had to point out that some of the MacOs classic stuff (such as Carbon) was ported after that point when OS-X Server was only on PowerPC as a product. >> However. while you claim it was always there, developped in secret, the >> "always" is not proven. > > apple has publicly stated that's exactly what they did. One needs to parse these PR statements with a legal eye. Apple started with OpenStep for Mach. (Nextstep). Rhapsody was really NextStep 5. and I beleive OS-X Server 1 was Nexstep 5.5 Since it inherited a bi-endian OS, completing the port to PowerPC was easy, and continuing to build that code base on either PowerpC or x86 was easy. Not sure if Apple re-implemented HFS on Nextstep (it has HFS support from circa 1992. Appletalk which had been supported by NextSTEP was not available on Rhaosody. or OS-X Server (neither were serial ports) The move to OS-X after that involved the porting of many items such as Carbon, Appletalk etc from the classic MacOS to OS-X. At that point, Apple had already stopped supporting x86 boots. (publically). Any work on the OS-X (formerly NextSTEP) would implicitely be done bi-endian since it was alrteady. So there is no reason to doubt that Apple continued to test build OS-X on x86. But that does not means that it test built **ALL** of OS-X at every stage between the time of PowerPOC only OS-X Server 1.0 and Tiger which was first version for Intel. The NEXTStep portion of OS-X already had plenty of the apps (Mail, Textedit terminal etc) that are now standard fare. And obviously much (but not all) of what was ported from MacOS to OS-X was availae on Tiger for Intel. What Apple has NOT said is that it ported all the MacOS bits to Intel from day 1. The original port of Carbon to NextSTEP was hard and required a second major update. Appletalk was ported to OS-X (But only after OSX Server 1,0) and made it to iNtel before support was pulled. So my take is that in the OS-X Server 1,0 to OS-X Cheetah transition, all of what was added may not have been qualified to build on Intel and that came later. During this time, they could still build OS-X on Intel as they did before. but it wouldn't include biuts from classic that hadn't been qualified or updated where necessary. Cheetah, Puma, Jaquar, Panther and Tiger (initial) did not have productized Intel support. (Tiger got it midway in its lifetime) I think you are being way too gullible if you think that 199% of OS-X was available on both platforms all along. there are costs to porting old M'acOS Classic software to OS-X (Nextstep) and it doesn't mean an automatic update of code to be bi-endian. What I am curious though is that at that time, x86 booted from ancient BIOS. Apple would have had to find a way to get BIOS to recognize HFS as being bootable. (from what I read, it look at first block on volume). So when Apple created Rhapsody, it would have had to do actual work to support the combination of Intel, BIOS and HFS boot drive. (work that had to be reviewed for the official launch on Intel when chips then worked on EFI and required GPT partitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 10:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjpull.c1a.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134089 |
In message <TI6%G.94055$355.57871@fx27.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2020-08-19 00:32, nospam wrote: >>> Openstep on Mach (aka: Nextstep with updated API from the Openstep >>> developments) had 0 compatibility with existing Mac applications. >> >> nobody said it did. > One of the apologists stated that Rhapsody had everything on both intel > and powerpc. No one said that. >>> However. while you claim it was always there, developped in secret, the >>> "always" is not proven. >> >> apple has publicly stated that's exactly what they did. > One needs to parse these PR statements with a legal eye. No, you are the only delusional shitbag who thinks Apple lies. You are an idiot FUDster who continued to be immune to WIDELY reported facts from multiple sources. > Apple started with OpenStep for Mach. (Nextstep). Rhapsody was really > NextStep 5. No. You are making shit up again. This is simply not true. > and I beleive OS-X Server 1 was Nexstep 5.5 More made up bullshit. > Not sure if Apple re-implemented HFS on Nextstep (it has HFS support > from circa 1992. Appletalk which had been supported by NextSTEP was not > available on Rhaosody. or OS-X Server (neither were serial ports) More bullshit. Mac OS X Server Getting Started: "MacOSX Server offers PostScript-compatible print spooling and job accounting for print jobs submitted using the Line Printer Remote (LPR) protocol, the industry-standard Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) protocol, the Windows SMB/CIFS protocol, and AppleTalk. The server supports both PostScript and non-PostScript print spooling using the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP)." I ran Mac OS X Server for several years, and yes, it supported AppleTalk. And of course, Macs have and had serial ports. What do you think the S in USB stands for? Dipshit. > What Apple has NOT said is that it ported all the MacOS bits to Intel > from day 1. What Apple HAS said is that they maintained an Intel version of the current OS X all along. -- Cause love's such an old fashioned word And love dares you to care for the people on the Edge of the night, and love dares you to change Our way of caring about ourselves, This is our last dance This is ourselves. Under Pressure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 16:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0cg%G.160630$r25.127362@fx08.iad> |
| In reply to | #134091 |
Correction from previous post: OSX-Server 1,0 was Rhapsody 5.3 not 5.5 Rhapsody 5.0: Rhapsody Developer Release Rhapsody 5.1: Rhapsody Developer Release 2 Rhapsody 5.2: -not released- Rhapsody 5.3: Mac OS X Server 1.0 Rhapsody 5.4: Mac OS X Server 1.0.1 Rhapsody 5.5: Mac OS X Server 1.0.2 Rhapsody 5.6: Mac OS X Server 1.2 or 1.2v3 On 2020-08-19 06:11, Lewis wrote: > Mac OS X Server Getting Started: > "MacOSX Server offers PostScript-compatible print spooling and job > accounting for print jobs submitted using the Line Printer Remote (LPR) > protocol, the industry-standard Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > protocol, the Windows SMB/CIFS protocol, and AppleTalk. The server > supports both PostScript and non-PostScript print spooling using the > Internet Printing Protocol (IPP)." Rhapsody Installation Manual from Apple. It confirms Appletalk was NOt present. So if it was in OS-X Server (5.3) it shows it was added between 5.0 and 5.3 > https://512pixels.net/downloads/OS-X-docs/Pre-Release/Rhapsody%201%20Installation%20Manual.pdf The point is that the Appletalk stack came from Apple and not the Appletalk from the early 1990s that NEXSTEP had put in. BTW, NeXTSTEP also came with many licenced software, not just Display Postscript, but also the Sybase SQL Server. Apple worked to remove any licence/royalty encumbered framework from NextSTEP to create Rhapsody/OS-X. > What Apple HAS said is that they maintained an Intel version of the > current OS X all along. The statement from Apple just says that *a* build on Intel continued all along. It does not state that such a build contained all the same frameworks as the productized version on PowerPC prior to Tiger. Would you agress that a build on x86 would not include the "Blue box" Classic boot application/environment? If you agree that the build on x86 did not necessarily include all the same components as a build on PowerPc which was productized, then you do not disagree with what I say. You also need a reality check: Apple was coming out of near bankruptcy. What was already bootable on x86 didn't cost anything to Apple. But what wasn't bootable on x86 would have costed Apple money to assign programmers to go through the code and update it and would have yielded no revenue at all. Once OS-X was up and generating revenues, then Apple starrted to spend time fine tuning it, at which point cleaning up code such as Carbon to make it more efficient could also icnlude "btw , ensure it is bi-endian".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 17:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <190820201700465097%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134101 |
In article <0cg%G.160630$r25.127362@fx08.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > What was already bootable on x86 didn't cost anything to Apple. But what > wasn't bootable on x86 would have costed Apple money to assign > programmers to go through the code and update it and would have yielded > no revenue at all. the same programmers that wrote the powerpc code also wrote the x86 code, without even realizing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 18:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <VRh%G.156551$I15.113313@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #134103 |
On 2020-08-19 17:00, nospam wrote: > the same programmers that wrote the powerpc code also wrote the x86 > code, without even realizing it. Unless you know that MacOS from the Lisa days were designed to be bi-endian, you cannot state that any code Apple used from MacOS to be ported to OS-X was bi-endian by nature. And you cannot state that the last minute decision to port framerowrks such as Carbon involved spending the time right off the bat to ensure bi-endianness. They would have been busy enough to just hook it to NEXTSTEP/Objective C. You can compile it without errors, but you still need to validate it will work and not crash. In the end, you still need to go through it with a fine comb to catch any endian-sensitive code in it. This takes time and human resources (aka: money). If you are iun a hurry to get OS)X out with unplanned additions such as Carbon, you get it up and urnning on PowerPC and worry about x86 later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 18:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <190820201858399461%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134108 |
In article <VRh%G.156551$I15.113313@fx36.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > the same programmers that wrote the powerpc code also wrote the x86 > > code, without even realizing it. > > > Unless you know that MacOS from the Lisa days were designed to be > bi-endian, you cannot state that any code Apple used from MacOS to be > ported to OS-X was bi-endian by nature. yes i can. what part of an intel version was maintained in secret is not clear? > And you cannot state that the last minute decision to port framerowrks > such as Carbon involved spending the time right off the bat to ensure > bi-endianness. They would have been busy enough to just hook it to > NEXTSTEP/Objective C. it was not in any way a last minute decision. *every* line of code for mac os x was endian-neutral. anything that was not was flagged as a bug which had to be fixed. > You can compile it without errors, but you still need to validate it > will work and not crash. In the end, you still need to go through it > with a fine comb to catch any endian-sensitive code in it. This takes > time and human resources (aka: money). If you are iun a hurry to get > OS)X out with unplanned additions such as Carbon, you get it up and > urnning on PowerPC and worry about x86 later. carbon was not an unplanned addition. where do you come up with this shit?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-19 23:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <_qm%G.63786$cc1.62096@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #134112 |
On 2020-08-19 18:58, nospam wrote: >> Unless you know that MacOS from the Lisa days were designed to be >> bi-endian, you cannot state that any code Apple used from MacOS to be >> ported to OS-X was bi-endian by nature. > > yes i can. > > what part of an intel version was maintained in secret is not clear? So now, you are stating that Apple has been secretly building MacOS on Intel since 1984 when the Mac was launched? I am talking about original MacOS code not the Nextstep code yet you keep yapping about how Apple has alwasy secretly built it on x86. macOs started as 32bits at a time when x86 was still 16 bits with segment registers. > it was not in any way a last minute decision. Apple had not planned on porting original MacOS stuff to Nextep/OS-X. It was prior to llaunch of OS-X that the large developpers such as Adobe told Apple "no way José" and Apple was forced to port APIs sucha s Carbon and others to OS-X so developpers could easily recompile "native" on OS0X instead of running in Blue Box. Remember that NextStep was 100% incompatible with MacOS so developpers would have had to spend huge amounts of time rewriting apps to sue the Nextstep APIs instead of the MacOS ones. So "last minute" is correct because it was not originally planned and was after release of OS-X Server 1.0 > *every* line of code for mac os x was endian-neutral. anything that was > not was flagged as a bug which had to be fixed. But this does not mean that it had to be fixed prior to first release of desktop OS-X. The initial port of Carbon to Nextstep was a quick and dirty one and Apple then went back and fixed it up. In fact from what I had read, that was a major rewrite with the new Carbon calling Cocoa instead of having 2 separate drawing packages and this greatly increased efficiency. Between the initial quick and dirty port and the rewrite, Carbon likely existed only on PowerpC version. The rewrite would have qualified it as bi-endiness and would built on x86. > carbon was not an unplanned addition. Why then did the large developpers including Adobe threaten to no go to OS-X if Carbon weren't available ? Why then was Carbon not in OSX-Server if Apple hadn't planned to have it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-20 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <200820200027227174%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134118 |
In article <_qm%G.63786$cc1.62096@fx29.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> Unless you know that MacOS from the Lisa days were designed to be > >> bi-endian, you cannot state that any code Apple used from MacOS to be > >> ported to OS-X was bi-endian by nature. > > > > yes i can. > > > > what part of an intel version was maintained in secret is not clear? > > So now, you are stating that Apple has been secretly building MacOS on > Intel since 1984 when the Mac was launched? try to pay attention. mac os x led a double-life. powerpc was obviously public. intel was secret. *very* few people knew about it. *everything* had to compile and run on both platforms. classic is the exception, for reasons that should be obvious. > > *every* line of code for mac os x was endian-neutral. anything that was > > not was flagged as a bug which had to be fixed. > > But this does not mean that it had to be fixed prior to first release of > desktop OS-X. yes it does. *everything* had to compile and run on both. > The initial port of Carbon to Nextstep was a quick and > dirty one and Apple then went back and fixed it up. nonsense. seriously, where do you come up with this shit? > In fact from what I > had read, that was a major rewrite with the new Carbon calling Cocoa > instead of having 2 separate drawing packages and this greatly increased > efficiency. where did you read that?? > Between the initial quick and dirty port and the rewrite, Carbon likely > existed only on PowerpC version. The rewrite would have qualified it as > bi-endiness and would built on x86. no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-20 06:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hq6iihF33guU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #134119 |
On Aug 19, 2020 at 9:27:22 PM MST, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <_qm%G.63786$cc1.62096@fx29.iad>, JF Mezei > <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> >> Unless you know that MacOS from the Lisa days were designed to be >> >> bi-endian, you cannot state that any code Apple used from MacOS to be >> >> ported to OS-X was bi-endian by nature. >> > >> > yes i can. >> > >> > what part of an intel version was maintained in secret is not clear? >> >> So now, you are stating that Apple has been secretly building MacOS on >> Intel since 1984 when the Mac was launched? > > try to pay attention. Notice your tone there. How would you describe it? > mac os x led a double-life. Friends in the day time, strangers at night. ... -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-20 08:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrjscr2.2kel.g.kreme@ProMini.lan> |
| In reply to | #134118 |
In message <_qm%G.63786$cc1.62096@fx29.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > I am talking about original MacOS code Oh great, something else you know nothing at all about. This should be fun. > *every* line of code for mac os x was endian-neutral. anything that was >> not was flagged as a bug which had to be fixed. > But this does not mean that it had to be fixed prior to first release of > desktop OS-X. Yes it does because a WORKING INTEL BUILD WAS MAINTAINED THE ENTIRE TIME. EVERY FUCKING VERSION OF OS X RAN ON INTEL HARDWARE. EVERY SINGLE ONE. You have been told this and linked to numerous cites dozens if not hundreds of times. STOP SPEWING BULLSHIT. -- HILLBILLIES ARE PEOPLE TOO Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 21:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pNj0H.421697$DO2.66524@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #134122 |
On 2020-08-20 04:25, Lewis wrote: > Yes it does because a WORKING INTEL BUILD WAS MAINTAINED THE ENTIRE > TIME. EVERY FUCKING VERSION OF OS X RAN ON INTEL HARDWARE. EVERY SINGLE > ONE. Are you stating categorically that every productized version of OS-X from Cheetah to Tiger was built on Intel with 100% of features that were productized also included in the intel build? The fact that someone had to demonstrate to an Apple exec that a build on Intel was _still_ possible means that Apple did not ALWAYS intend to keep the Intel port active otherwise that conversation wouldn't have happened. And it also does not state that at that point, ALL of OS-X was buildable on Intel. That demo was done to give Apple the indication it would be worth it to ensure all components were made Intel compatible and could have been what prompted the rewrite of Carbon to better integrate into NextSTEP (aka OS-X); The fact that at some point, Apple made a decision to have a policy to ensure all code could build on Intel does not mean that all code was buildable on Intel at the time that policy was made. (I point to Carbon here). You are blinded by your love of Apple and refuse to read carefully worded statements to see what is missing from them and are gullible enough to accept them for what you want them to say instead of what they are saying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-22 21:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <220820202155269627%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #134149 |
In article <pNj0H.421697$DO2.66524@fx45.iad>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > > Yes it does because a WORKING INTEL BUILD WAS MAINTAINED THE ENTIRE > > TIME. EVERY FUCKING VERSION OF OS X RAN ON INTEL HARDWARE. EVERY SINGLE > > ONE. > > Are you stating categorically that every productized version of OS-X > from Cheetah to Tiger was built on Intel with 100% of features that were > productized also included in the intel build? correct, as well as everything before cheetah. the lone exception is classic, for reasons that should be obvious. > The fact that someone had to demonstrate to an Apple exec that a build > on Intel was _still_ possible means that Apple did not ALWAYS intend to > keep the Intel port active otherwise that conversation wouldn't have > happened. no demos needed, since it ran on intel before it ran on powerpc. > And it also does not state that at that point, ALL of OS-X was buildable > on Intel. That demo was done to give Apple the indication it would be > worth it to ensure all components were made Intel compatible *all* builds of mac os x were *required* to build and run on both powerpc and intel. full stop. > and could > have been what prompted the rewrite of Carbon to better integrate into > NextSTEP (aka OS-X); what supposed rewrite was this? stop making things up. seriously. > The fact that at some point, Apple made a decision to have a policy to > ensure all code could build on Intel does not mean that all code was > buildable on Intel at the time that policy was made. (I point to Carbon > here). that decision was made in 1997, after apple bought next, when it was decided what the future would be. carbon did not exist at that time. > You are blinded by your love of Apple and refuse to read carefully > worded statements to see what is missing from them and are gullible > enough to accept them for what you want them to say instead of what they > are saying. you are the only person who is blinded and who refuses to believe what actually happened, preferring to live in a fantasy world of his own making, where apple did imaginary things that have no basis in reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web