MacIntel: the lost first series

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.advocacy (More info?)

The first time that the MacOS was ported to x86!

Star Trek: Apple's First Mac OS on Intel Project
http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/0613.html

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.advocacy (More info?)

In article <yI6te.19042$yU.901576@news20.bellglobal.com>, Yousuf Khan
<bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

> The first time that the MacOS was ported to x86!
>
> Star Trek: Apple's First Mac OS on Intel Project
> http://lowendmac.com/orchard/05/0613.html
>
> Yousuf Khan

Jim Carlton's book covers this episode too. Seems a perfect storm of
attitudes and events conspired to kill MacOS on Intel. Apple wanted too
much money from Novell, hardware advocates saw any deviation from the
proprietary path as jeopardizing the "golden goose" (and it would have
taken a huge effort to write all the device drivers for Intel
hardware), good ol' Moto's inability to produce a decent 680XX chip was
hastening the need for PowerPC (thus a whole other rewrite). Pink had
failed, Taligent was doomed for failure, etc.

Apple had a lot of initiatives back then that never saw the light of
day. And those high prices we paid bankrolled each and every one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.advocacy (More info?)

Craig Koller wrote:
> Jim Carlton's book covers this episode too. Seems a perfect storm of
> attitudes and events conspired to kill MacOS on Intel. Apple wanted too
> much money from Novell, hardware advocates saw any deviation from the
> proprietary path as jeopardizing the "golden goose" (and it would have
> taken a huge effort to write all the device drivers for Intel
> hardware), good ol' Moto's inability to produce a decent 680XX chip was
> hastening the need for PowerPC (thus a whole other rewrite). Pink had
> failed, Taligent was doomed for failure, etc.

And it's not likely with the tools available at that time would have
made portability very easy. These days you just make a "fat binary" with
the executables of several platforms all combined into one big file. You
have lots of disk space to store these fat binaries and lots of other
things.

I think overall that the switch experience these days would be a lot
less hassle than it was back then.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.advocacy (More info?)

In article <LFgte.10698$Kk4.34665@news20.bellglobal.com>, Yousuf Khan
<bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

> Craig Koller wrote:
> > Jim Carlton's book covers this episode too. Seems a perfect storm of
> > attitudes and events conspired to kill MacOS on Intel. Apple wanted too
> > much money from Novell, hardware advocates saw any deviation from the
> > proprietary path as jeopardizing the "golden goose" (and it would have
> > taken a huge effort to write all the device drivers for Intel
> > hardware), good ol' Moto's inability to produce a decent 680XX chip was
> > hastening the need for PowerPC (thus a whole other rewrite). Pink had
> > failed, Taligent was doomed for failure, etc.
>
> And it's not likely with the tools available at that time would have
> made portability very easy. These days you just make a "fat binary" with
> the executables of several platforms all combined into one big file. You
> have lots of disk space to store these fat binaries and lots of other
> things.
>
> I think overall that the switch experience these days would be a lot
> less hassle than it was back then.

Not to mention emulation. Given the speed of current hardware, we
should be able to run legacy applications from any old OS from any old
machine and most likely achieve performance superior to the original
box.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.advocacy (More info?)

Craig Koller wrote:
> Not to mention emulation. Given the speed of current hardware, we
> should be able to run legacy applications from any old OS from any old
> machine and most likely achieve performance superior to the original
> box.

Well, the original hardware would be ancient history by that point.
What counts is what percentage they are in relation to current
hardware.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.mac.advocacy (More info?)

In article <1119267732.309458.169380@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Craig Koller wrote:
> > Not to mention emulation. Given the speed of current hardware, we
> > should be able to run legacy applications from any old OS from any old
> > machine and most likely achieve performance superior to the original
> > box.
>
> Well, the original hardware would be ancient history by that point.
> What counts is what percentage they are in relation to current
> hardware.
>

Not really.

What started this thread was someone claiming that they'd be lost
without some particular application if they upgraded to a new computer.
To make them happy, all that you'd need is for the new hardware to run
their application faster than the old box (since the alternative being
considered is to keep the old box).

Clearly, if you have access to a native version, that's better. But some
apps will never be updated, so as long as they run faster than the older
hardware, it's sufficient.