dose anyone rember system 7 on windows

Anything about Mac emulation that does not belong in the above categories.

Moderators: Cat_7, Ronald P. Regensburg

geekybear
Space Cadet
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:10 am

dose anyone rember system 7 on windows

Post by geekybear »

it was a project apple was working on to port system 7 stuff to windows 3.1 i do beleave.i was woundering if anyone might know if i am right about this.

thanks
Stephen Coates
Expert User
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:15 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Stephen Coates »

No, sorry. Havn't heard of it.
thibault
Space Cadet
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:44 am
Location: France

Post by thibault »

in fact, that was not a port of system 7 for windows but a system 7 for x86 computers... I heard it worked well but too late : windows 95 was there...
User avatar
PPC_Digger
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:02 am
Location: Israel

Post by PPC_Digger »

Just did a quick google search and read some:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/ ... 84,00.html
However, see this:
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/04/01.5.shtml
It came out on April 1st.
MacOSX
Tinkerer
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 2:23 pm
Location: Canada

Post by MacOSX »

PPC_Digger wrote:Just did a quick google search and read some:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/ ... 84,00.html
However, see this:
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/04/01.5.shtml
It came out on April 1st.
Is it true though?
Borg_Will_Rule
Tinkerer
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:52 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Post by Borg_Will_Rule »

I bet it is. If Darwin can run on X86 hardware, then why can't Mac OS?
User avatar
PPC_Digger
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:02 am
Location: Israel

Post by PPC_Digger »

Borg_Will_Rule wrote:I bet it is. If Darwin can run on X86 hardware, then why can't Mac OS?
But you should remember that Darwin is the Mac OS X core, and not the classic Mac OS core. We are talking about system 7. But I believe Apple has made an x86 version of OSX and is keeping it in a safe for future use :D .
willhart
Apple Corer
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: right behind you.

Post by willhart »

I'm sorry if I don't know anything about this, but would this mean that native Mac OS X applications would work fine if OS X was rebuilt for x86? I know that Windows NT 4.0 could run on PowerPC, but could it run Windows applications natively?
User avatar
PPC_Digger
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:02 am
Location: Israel

Post by PPC_Digger »

willhart wrote:I'm sorry if I don't know anything about this, but would this mean that native Mac OS X applications would work fine if OS X was rebuilt for x86? I know that Windows NT 4.0 could run on PowerPC, but could it run Windows applications natively?
If apple wants standard (PPC) OSX apps to run on x86 OSX, they would have to include a PowerPC emulator in the OS (as M$ did with the PowerPC version - they included a 486 emulator - so most x86 windows apps could run).
ShadowFox
Tinkerer
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:41 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Post by ShadowFox »

I believe the original poster was referring to some of Apple's experiments in the early 90s, where indeed there was some classic MacOS versions running on x86 hardware. The project was known as "Star Trek", and apparently got pretty far before getting canned.

The other possibility would be Apple's Rhapsody, essentially THE precursor to OSX, which did have a very functional developer release running on Intel hardware.

<edit> This page shows a flowchart towards OSX, and clearly Rhapsody Developer Release 2 is the direct and sole grandparent of the entire OSX line! The screenshots in the link above were of Rhapsody DR2 running on Intel hardware. Given that, I find it hard to believe there isn't a copy of OSX running on x86 hardware somewhere in Apple's chamber of secrets, especially if much of the underlying technology is already in place.


To answer willhart's question, native PowerPC OSX applications would not run on OSX for x86. Even though the operating system would be close to the same, the hardware backing them isn't, so an x86 processor wouldn't understand how to run PowerPC applications, and vice-versa. The applications would have to be recompiled, or in some cases, rewritten to run on differant hardware.
zuc
Student Driver
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 1:59 pm

macos on x64

Post by zuc »

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/ ... 84,00.html

This link is an april joke.
It was written on April 1st, 2002

I don't belive this will ever happen. If apple really is able to create a MacOS X for x86 they'd have already doen it.

The second link shows this:
"Every couple of years, rumors spread that Apple is working on a version of the Mac OS for the x86 platform. It happens with such regularity you could almost set your watch by it."

It's a rumor and will stay one though a OS X for x86 would be nice.
User avatar
PPC_Digger
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:02 am
Location: Israel

Re: macos on x64

Post by PPC_Digger »

zuc wrote:If apple really is able to create a MacOS X for x86 they'd have already doen it.
It's not whether they are able to, it's whether they want to, since it would really kill their hardware business.
zuc wrote:It's a rumor and will stay one though a OS X for x86 would be nice.
If you really want it, wait for SoftPear to come out.
Last edited by PPC_Digger on Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Marc
Master Emulator
Posts: 360
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:14 pm

Post by Marc »

MacOS will only run on the x86 arch if Apple's hardware division completely folds and the OS is the only card they have up their sleeve. Even this would be very difficult for Apple.

For now, lets all just wait for CherryOS :lol:
willhart
Apple Corer
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: right behind you.

Post by willhart »

haha, very funny. But Mac is not going anywhere. Think of it like this: a dual 2.4ghz G5 is efficiently equivalent to a dual 4.8ghz P4. PowerPC is pretty damned powerful.
User avatar
PPC_Digger
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:02 am
Location: Israel

Post by PPC_Digger »

willhart wrote:haha, very funny. But Mac is not going anywhere. Think of it like this: a dual 2.4ghz G5 is efficiently equivalent to a dual 4.8ghz P4. PowerPC is pretty damned powerful.
I remember the times when people would compare G3's to Pentium-4's and laugh: 2.8 GHz P4 is equal to a 850 MHz G3 in Photoshop stuff.
bonehead
Tinkerer
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:35 pm

Post by bonehead »

willhart wrote:haha, very funny. But Mac is not going anywhere. Think of it like this: a dual 2.4ghz G5 is efficiently equivalent to a dual 4.8ghz P4. PowerPC is pretty damned powerful.
No... A dual G5 2.4 is "efficiently equivalent" to a SINGLE P4 4.4 - 4.8 Ghz, should such a beast exist (impossible to say exactly what the perf. on such an imaginary chip would be), or nearly the same speed as a DUAL Opteron 248 (2.2 Ghz)... unless you only use a synthetic benchmark (bad thing to do), or say, Bryce 5, as your benchmark.

Don't forget that the dual Opteron run MUCH cooler than the G5... especially if you use the the 90nm Opteron..
bonehead
Tinkerer
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:35 pm

Post by bonehead »

PPC_Digger wrote:I remember the times when people would compare G3's to Pentium-4's and laugh: 2.8 GHz P4 is equal to a 850 MHz G3 in Photoshop stuff.
And that's the mistake... Assuming that being the best in a handful of Photoshop filters actually matter. That only showed that an un-optimized filter runs slower than an aggressively optimized one. One that exposed one of the largest weaknesses of the P4, it's horribly deep pipeline. Nothing you can't code around, but, the point is, the filters in question didn't.
User avatar
PPC_Digger
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:02 am
Location: Israel

Post by PPC_Digger »

bonehead wrote:
PPC_Digger wrote:I remember the times when people would compare G3's to Pentium-4's and laugh: 2.8 GHz P4 is equal to a 850 MHz G3 in Photoshop stuff.
And that's the mistake... Assuming that being the best in a handful of Photoshop filters actually matter. That only showed that an un-optimized filter runs slower than an aggressively optimized one. One that exposed one of the largest weaknesses of the P4, it's horribly deep pipeline. Nothing you can't code around, but, the point is, the filters in question didn't.
That's it: The P4 was designed to impress with high GHz, not with performance. I am ashamed it was designed in my country (just like the Pentium-M and the Pentium MMX).
willhart
Apple Corer
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: right behind you.

Post by willhart »

If hertz are so relative in processors, why don't we use a different system?
bonehead
Tinkerer
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:35 pm

Post by bonehead »

willhart wrote:If hertz are so relative in processors, why don't we use a different system?
You'll notice that most CPU manufacturers are. They're getting close to hitting the limit in Mhz, and need to start looking at other architectural changes, so they're starting to put less emphasis on the speed.
PPC_Digger wrote:That's it: The P4 was designed to impress with high GHz, not with performance. I am ashamed it was designed in my country (just like the Pentium-M and the Pentium MMX).
The Pentium M is based of the old P-Pro architecture. Really not a bad design. Definitely more a step forward than the P4.

Yes, the P4 was designed to wow with a high clock and serve as a space heater (funny that they now cant get it to the 4Ghz it was originally targeted for). But just because one x86 processor was less than it could have been doesn't automatically give the PPC a free ride. Even with all it's short comings, the P4 has been able to compete well against the AMD 64 and PPC in terms of performance value. (not performance per clock, but performance per buck).
User avatar
PPC_Digger
Forum All-Star
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:02 am
Location: Israel

Post by PPC_Digger »

bonehead wrote:
willhart wrote:If hertz are so relative in processors, why don't we use a different system?
You'll notice that most CPU manufacturers are. They're getting close to hitting the limit in Mhz, and need to start looking at other architectural changes, so they're starting to put less emphasis on the speed.
Why aren't they use MIPS or MFLOPS? Because they know IBM Power's and PowerPC's can smash them on mathemathical operations.
bonehead wrote:
PPC_Digger wrote:That's it: The P4 was designed to impress with high GHz, not with performance. I am ashamed it was designed in my country (just like the Pentium-M and the Pentium MMX).
The Pentium M is based of the old P-Pro architecture. Really not a bad design. Definitely more a step forward than the P4.

Yes, the P4 was designed to wow with a high clock and serve as a space heater (funny that they now cant get it to the 4Ghz it was originally targeted for). But just because one x86 processor was less than it could have been doesn't automatically give the PPC a free ride. Even with all it's short comings, the P4 has been able to compete well against the AMD 64 and PPC in terms of performance value. (not performance per clock, but performance per buck).
The P-Pro architecture is much better than the P4 architecture. See this:
When the first P4's came out, the fastest model was 1.5GHz, while the fastest P3 on that time was 1 GHz. The fastest P3 was faster on cartain operations than the fastest P4 of the time (of course not on SSE2 operations, which the P3 couldn't do).
And the P4 doesn't give more performance per buck than an Athlon, it, and other Intel processors never did against AMD ones.
bonehead
Tinkerer
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:35 pm

Post by bonehead »

PPC_Digger wrote: The P-Pro architecture is much better than the P4 architecture. See this:
Isn't that what I just said?
PPC_Digger wrote:When the first P4's came out, the fastest model was 1.5GHz, while the fastest P3 on that time was 1 GHz. The fastest P3 was faster on cartain operations than the fastest P4 of the time (of course not on SSE2 operations, which the P3 couldn't do).
Yep. Was a pretty big slap in the face for Intel. However, the P-Po had much criticism when it first got its start. It was slower on "legacy" applications than the old Pentium.. Intel was right that time, however. Legacy apps ran fast enough, and pushing optimizations that helped applications using the more modern instructions won out.
PPC_Digger wrote:And the P4 doesn't give more performance per buck than an Athlon, it, and other Intel processors never did against AMD ones.
Actually, Intel has been competitive in the mid to high end workstation segment. Only for a short period while they tweaked the P4 after its initial launch, and then again just recently, has their ability to keep pace in the high-end slipped from their hands. This isn't to say their designs have always been the most elegant, but they have been very competitive. Video production/compression is still a very strong area for the P4. - However, if you start to factor power consumption and heat into the equation, the P4 will fall far behind.

For low end, Intel has been able to saturate the market. May not be the best performance, but the Celeron (castrated P4) does what most people need it to do, and they can be had pretty cheap.

It's really quite amazing how well Intel was able to do with such a bad design. Any other chip company just wouldn't have been able to keep the steam.
robojam
Forum All-Star
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:52 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC. USA

Post by robojam »

bonehead wrote: It's really quite amazing how well Intel was able to do with such a bad design.
Ditto Microsoft...
Once you've made something idiot proof, they go and invent a better idiot!
bonehead
Tinkerer
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:35 pm

Post by bonehead »

robojam wrote:Ditto Microsoft...
Hehe... Exactly.
PPC_Digger wrote:Why aren't they use MIPS or MFLOPS? Because they know IBM Power's and PowerPC's can smash them on mathemathical operations.
Actually it's, because those are bogus synthetic benchmarks. They give little indication how the CPU will do in a real world situation. Also, I wouldn't call 22% better floating point performance per clock "smashing"... seeing as the P4 is available at much higher clocks. It's in dual+ configurations where the G5 and Opteron are able to pull well ahead of the P4. The Xeon's FSB is just too congested and, again, its deep pipeline costs too many cycles when dealing with cache coherency in SMP - even with its superb branch prediction.
mike
Inquisitive Elf
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 9:02 pm

Post by mike »

PPC_Digger wrote:
Borg_Will_Rule wrote:I bet it is. If Darwin can run on X86 hardware, then why can't Mac OS?
But you should remember that Darwin is the Mac OS X core, and not the classic Mac OS core. We are talking about system 7. But I believe Apple has made an x86 version of OSX and is keeping it in a safe for future use :D .
Apple DID make an x86 version of osx... It was called rhapsody.... it's floating around, and i managed to get my hands on it. It's not much of anything other than a NEXT like interface, but it is the mac osx core.

On a side note, Microsoft made windows NT for powerpc :)
Post Reply