NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON? - Powerpc

This is a discussion on NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON? - Powerpc ; In article , "Timothy J. Bogart" wrote: > Tom Harrington wrote: > > In article , > > "Timothy J. Bogart" wrote: > > > > > >>Tom Harrington wrote: > >> > >>>In article , > >>> Rob Perkins ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

  1. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    In article <11fnlhebikh7s0d@corp.supernews.com>, "Timothy J. Bogart"
    wrote:

    > Tom Harrington wrote:
    > > In article <11fllp4o3dt7s03@corp.supernews.com>,
    > > "Timothy J. Bogart" wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Tom Harrington wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>In article <3lrvdnF13m92tU1@individual.net>,
    > >>> Rob Perkins wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
    > >>>RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
    > >>>architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
    > >>>switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
    > >>>was an entirely different architecture.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>Actually, POWER was the name in the RS6K, PowerPC was derivative of it.
    > >> The first PowerPC was faithfull to the full instruction set, later
    > >>models dropped some instructions and started breaking things.
    > >>
    > >>So, just to be clear, it was not 'later known as'.

    > >
    > >
    > > If you're sure of that, you should head over to
    > > and correct the entry for PowerPC
    > > there.

    >
    > Wow. I will look at what it takes to get that fixed.
    >
    > Note that if you follow the link to POWER, they get it right. Sigh.


    Wikipedia is one of the growing number of useless "reference" websites
    that have all their information supplied by the user - some people
    think it's funny to add stupid and incorrect information on purpose,
    others simply add rubbish they've read elsewhere on the 'Net which
    turns out to be nothing but rumour.

    Wikipedia is (supposedly) tightening up control on what is added. Now
    if only the others, epecially the hopeless IMDB.com would do the same
    they might actually be useful websites.

  2. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    That is not what I meant. The PPC is a better 68k in essence. The 68k
    was a better CISC
    tech than x86, and PPC even comes with a 68k emulator (built-in the
    chip). The
    transition of 68k to PPC was a natural one. Going from PPC (a clear
    better tech, ie. RISC)
    to x86 is like going from a Flat Panel TV to a CRT, just because CRT's
    may look better
    for non-HDTV signals.


    Steve Hix wrote:
    > In article <1123563917.608275.314690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
    > "abpp" wrote:
    >
    > > Anybody wrote:
    > > > In article <1123480602.817012.173900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
    > > > "abpp" wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Thanks to these two:
    > > > >
    > > > > http://www.pegasosppc.com/odw.php
    > > > >
    > > > > and
    > > > >
    > > > > http://www.gvs9000.com/workstations.html
    > > > >
    > > > > and others, we will continue to have non-Apple PPC
    > > > > workstations and servers, but what about non-Apple PPC
    > > > > laptops?
    > > > >
    > > > > How soon you think we will get one?
    > > >
    > > > Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
    > > > that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

    > >
    > >
    > > Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
    > > when Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

    >
    > Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
    >
    > You appear to be arguing that Macs should still be running Motorola
    > MC68K-family processors.
    >
    > Pretty silly.



  3. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    Well, that is why I am considering switching to Yellow Dog Linux. And
    thanks to
    GVS9000.com and PegasosPPC.com (and maybe others later) a Unix based
    system on
    the PPC will continue.


    Anybody wrote:
    > In article <1123563917.608275.314690@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
    > "abpp" wrote:
    >
    > > Anybody wrote:
    > > > In article <1123480602.817012.173900@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
    > > > "abpp" wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > Thanks to these two:
    > > > >
    > > > > http://www.pegasosppc.com/odw.php
    > > > >
    > > > > and
    > > > >
    > > > > http://www.gvs9000.com/workstations.html
    > > > >
    > > > > and others, we will continue to have non-Apple PPC
    > > > > workstations and servers, but what about non-Apple PPC
    > > > > laptops?
    > > > >
    > > > > How soon you think we will get one?
    > > >
    > > > Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
    > > > that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

    > >
    > > Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
    > > when Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

    >
    > Since Apple ARE switching to Intel and WILL stop development of PowerPC
    > Mac OS probably a couple of years later (if not sooner), it's
    > completely pointless having a computer just because it has a PowerPC
    > chip when all the software needs Mac OS.



  4. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
    68k emulator
    built-in the chip itself. The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
    to the nature of
    the PPC. Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
    the Mac OS, like Classic.


    Tom Harrington wrote:
    > In article <3lrvdnF13m92tU1@individual.net>,
    > Rob Perkins wrote:
    >
    > > Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

    >
    > No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
    > RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
    > architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
    > switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
    > was an entirely different architecture.
    >
    > --
    > Tom "Tom" Harrington
    > Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
    > Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
    > See http://www.atomicbird.com/



  5. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    In article <1124159016.582973.231890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
    abpp wrote:

    > Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
    > 68k emulator
    > built-in the chip itself.


    false.

    > The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
    > to the nature of
    > the PPC.


    the only 'fairly easy' part was not needing to worry about endian
    problems. otherwise, there were numerous issues.

    > Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
    > the Mac OS, like Classic.


    its very possible to have classic on intel, however, the question is
    whether it is worth the effort to bother. the number of people who
    need classic is dwindling, and by the time intel macs are common,
    classic will be even *less* important than today.

  6. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:23:36 -0700, abpp wrote:

    > Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
    > 68k emulator built-in the chip itself.


    This is completely false, at face value. If you can substantiate
    specifics of that claim, please post links. The 68k emulator that shipped
    with the original PowerPC Macs was pure software.

    > The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks to the nature of the PPC.
    > Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of the Mac
    > OS, like Classic.


    Crucial to some, perhaps, but not me. I've never even run the Classic
    environment on my PowerBook. If anyone cared enough, it would be just
    about as simple to write a 68k emulator for x86 as it was for the PPC.
    Easier, since the speed difference between the fastest 68k shipped in a
    Mac and contemporary x86 processors has increased so much.
    (A bit of quick googling brought up this:
    http://www.squish.net/generator/, which looks like a fairly promising
    place to start (dynamic recompilation and all...))

    >
    >
    > Tom Harrington wrote:
    >> In article <3lrvdnF13m92tU1@individual.net>,
    >> Rob Perkins wrote:
    >>
    >> > Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

    >>
    >> No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
    >> RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
    >> architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
    >> switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
    >> was an entirely different architecture.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Tom "Tom" Harrington
    >> Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0:
    >> Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See
    >> http://www.atomicbird.com/


    --
    Andrew


  7. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:10:30 -0700, abpp wrote:

    > That is not what I meant. The PPC is a better 68k in essence. The 68k
    > was a better CISC
    > tech than x86, and PPC even comes with a 68k emulator (built-in the
    > chip).


    They are never been any PowerPC with built-in 68k emulation.
    There was rumors about a PowerPC with x86 emulation (the 615), but no
    actual PowerPC chip has ever integrated such an hardware emulator.

    > The
    > transition of 68k to PPC was a natural one. Going from PPC (a clear
    > better tech, ie. RISC)
    > to x86 is like going from a Flat Panel TV to a CRT, just because CRT's
    > may look better
    > for non-HDTV signals.


    ???
    Have you ever tried to work with HDTV signals on flat panels ?
    For now, Flat Panel TV are ugly and most are unable to display TV
    correctly, ie, without digitalisation artefacts and video processing bugs.

    This comparison is complete nonsense....

    [...]


  8. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:23:36 -0700, abpp wrote:

    > Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
    > 68k emulator
    > built-in the chip itself. The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
    > to the nature of
    > the PPC. Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
    > the Mac OS, like Classic.


    PowerPC has nothing related with 68k. The only one common point is
    endianness. The only part of PowerPC which is related with previous
    Motorola CPUs is its bus which was inspired by the one used on 88000 (not
    68k !).

    Apart of this, no element of the PowerPC architecture come from m68k or
    m88k.

    And m68k emulation has always been done by software on PowerPC machines.
    There is absolutelly no hardware facilities for such a thing.


    > Tom Harrington wrote:
    >> In article <3lrvdnF13m92tU1@individual.net>,
    >> Rob Perkins wrote:
    >>
    >> > Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

    >>
    >> No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
    >> RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
    >> architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
    >> switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
    >> was an entirely different architecture.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Tom "Tom" Harrington
    >> Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
    >> Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
    >> See http://www.atomicbird.com/



  9. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:26:50 +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:

    > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:23:36 -0700, abpp wrote:
    >
    >> Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
    >> 68k emulator built-in the chip itself.

    >
    > This is completely false, at face value. If you can substantiate
    > specifics of that claim, please post links. The 68k emulator that shipped
    > with the original PowerPC Macs was pure software.
    >
    >> The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks to the nature of the PPC.
    >> Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of the Mac
    >> OS, like Classic.

    >
    > Crucial to some, perhaps, but not me. I've never even run the Classic
    > environment on my PowerBook. If anyone cared enough, it would be just
    > about as simple to write a 68k emulator for x86 as it was for the PPC.


    There's one big difference that make 68k emulation far more efficient on
    PowerPC: as PowerPC is a RISC processor and m68k is not, you can keep all
    m68k emulated registers in PowerPC registers. When emulating on a x86, you
    have so few register that you need to store the whole emulated CPU in
    memory. This may slowdown the emulation with a 2 or 3 factor.

    > Easier, since the speed difference between the fastest 68k shipped in a
    > Mac and contemporary x86 processors has increased so much.
    > (A bit of quick googling brought up this:
    > http://www.squish.net/generator/, which looks like a fairly promising
    > place to start (dynamic recompilation and all...))


    The Mhz difference will be compensated by the low efficiency of the CPU.
    x86 is really not a great platform to emulate other CPUs. x86_64 is a
    little bit better...

    >>
    >> Tom Harrington wrote:
    >>> In article <3lrvdnF13m92tU1@individual.net>,
    >>> Rob Perkins wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?
    >>>
    >>> No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
    >>> RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
    >>> architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
    >>> switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
    >>> was an entirely different architecture.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Tom "Tom" Harrington
    >>> Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X. Version 2.0:
    >>> Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See
    >>> http://www.atomicbird.com/



  10. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    In article <1124159016.582973.231890@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups. com>,
    "abpp" wrote:

    > Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
    > 68k emulator
    > built-in the chip itself. The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
    > to the nature of
    > the PPC. Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
    > the Mac OS, like Classic.


    Actually, since the Rosetta / Transitive system can supposedly
    "translate" code from ANY chip to run on ANY other chip with "no speed
    penalty", it should be extremely easy for an IntelMac to run Intel
    code, PPC code, 680x0 code ... hell, even 6502 code, etc.

    Even without that it would be possible, albeit at a slower speed. In
    fact it's almost certain that some emulation coder will get something
    working eventually, even if it's 10 years time for nostalgia purposes.

    The only reason Classic MAY not make the transfer to IntelMac is
    because Apple doesn't want to bother doing it, just like they stopped
    adding floppy drives, using ADC, updating Mac OS 9 and other Apple
    software for non-OS X Macs, etc., etc.

  11. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    I know, I know. You guys misinterpreted what I said. What I meant was
    that (as you know), the PowerPC architecture has a group of
    byte-reversing load and store instructions which can be useful for
    emulating little-endian 68k processors on a big-endian PowerPC system
    (such as the RS/6000 and Power Macs). That's all I meant.


    l'indien wrote:
    > On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:23:36 -0700, abpp wrote:
    >
    > > Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
    > > 68k emulator
    > > built-in the chip itself. The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
    > > to the nature of
    > > the PPC. Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
    > > the Mac OS, like Classic.

    >
    > PowerPC has nothing related with 68k. The only one common point is
    > endianness. The only part of PowerPC which is related with previous
    > Motorola CPUs is its bus which was inspired by the one used on 88000 (not
    > 68k !).
    >
    > Apart of this, no element of the PowerPC architecture come from m68k or
    > m88k.
    >
    > And m68k emulation has always been done by software on PowerPC machines.
    > There is absolutelly no hardware facilities for such a thing.
    >
    >
    > > Tom Harrington wrote:
    > >> In article <3lrvdnF13m92tU1@individual.net>,
    > >> Rob Perkins wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?
    > >>
    > >> No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
    > >> RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
    > >> architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
    > >> switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
    > >> was an entirely different architecture.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Tom "Tom" Harrington
    > >> Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
    > >> Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
    > >> See http://www.atomicbird.com/



  12. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:45:20 -0700, abpp wrote:

    > I know, I know. You guys misinterpreted what I said. What I meant was
    > that (as you know), the PowerPC architecture has a group of
    > byte-reversing load and store instructions which can be useful for
    > emulating little-endian 68k processors on a big-endian PowerPC system
    > (such as the RS/6000 and Power Macs). That's all I meant.


    Hum...
    m68k is _big_ endian, like PowerPC.
    Then, byte-reversed load & stores are not usefull for m68k emulation on
    PowerPC.
    Those instructions are mostly used to access devices, like PCI ones, which
    mostly are little-endian by nature.
    It can also be useful when reading data provided by little-endian archs,
    like IBM PC, but those cases are less time critical.
    And it make x86 emulation on PowerPC more efficient, for sure.


    > l'indien wrote:
    >> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:23:36 -0700, abpp wrote:
    >>
    >> > Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
    >> > 68k emulator
    >> > built-in the chip itself. The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
    >> > to the nature of
    >> > the PPC. Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
    >> > the Mac OS, like Classic.

    >>
    >> PowerPC has nothing related with 68k. The only one common point is
    >> endianness. The only part of PowerPC which is related with previous
    >> Motorola CPUs is its bus which was inspired by the one used on 88000 (not
    >> 68k !).
    >>
    >> Apart of this, no element of the PowerPC architecture come from m68k or
    >> m88k.
    >>
    >> And m68k emulation has always been done by software on PowerPC machines.
    >> There is absolutelly no hardware facilities for such a thing.
    >>
    >>
    >> > Tom Harrington wrote:
    >> >> In article <3lrvdnF13m92tU1@individual.net>,
    >> >> Rob Perkins wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?
    >> >>
    >> >> No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
    >> >> RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
    >> >> architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
    >> >> switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
    >> >> was an entirely different architecture.
    >> >>
    >> >> --
    >> >> Tom "Tom" Harrington
    >> >> Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
    >> >> Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
    >> >> See http://www.atomicbird.com/



  13. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    Anybody wrote:
    > In article <11fnlhebikh7s0d@corp.supernews.com>, "Timothy J. Bogart"
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Tom Harrington wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <11fllp4o3dt7s03@corp.supernews.com>,
    >>> "Timothy J. Bogart" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Tom Harrington wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <3lrvdnF13m92tU1@individual.net>,
    >>>>>Rob Perkins wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
    >>>>>RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
    >>>>>architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
    >>>>>switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
    >>>>>was an entirely different architecture.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Actually, POWER was the name in the RS6K, PowerPC was derivative of it.
    >>>> The first PowerPC was faithfull to the full instruction set, later
    >>>>models dropped some instructions and started breaking things.
    >>>>
    >>>>So, just to be clear, it was not 'later known as'.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>If you're sure of that, you should head over to
    >>> and correct the entry for PowerPC
    >>>there.

    >>
    >>Wow. I will look at what it takes to get that fixed.
    >>
    >>Note that if you follow the link to POWER, they get it right. Sigh.

    >
    >
    > Wikipedia is one of the growing number of useless "reference" websites
    > that have all their information supplied by the user - some people
    > think it's funny to add stupid and incorrect information on purpose,
    > others simply add rubbish they've read elsewhere on the 'Net which
    > turns out to be nothing but rumour.
    >
    > Wikipedia is (supposedly) tightening up control on what is added. Now
    > if only the others, epecially the hopeless IMDB.com would do the same
    > they might actually be useful websites.


    Yes, it seemed to accept an edit to move the most offending stuff, and
    now I see it is back to the original.

    To wit:

    "It is noteworthy that this architecture was originally called "PowerPC"
    by IBM, the term "POWER" was coined several years later to differentiate
    between IBM's server-oriented processors and their desktop and embedded
    processors."

    My first RS6K was a 7012-320. It said POWER. This was not a name later
    invented. POWER did not differentiate between servers and workstations
    as the most powerfull server at one time, the 7013-J series was PowerPC
    based.

    I have created an account, and may try to correct it again, but it is
    unfortunate such rubbish gets put out there.

  14. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?


    "abpp" wrote in message
    news:1124158475.422387.141100@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
    > Well, that is why I am considering switching to Yellow Dog Linux. And
    > thanks to
    > GVS9000.com and PegasosPPC.com (and maybe others later) a Unix based
    > system on
    > the PPC will continue.


    Why ?

    Why not darwin or freebsd or netbsd?



  15. Re: NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

    Alex Gibson wrote:

    >
    >> Well, that is why I am considering switching to Yellow Dog Linux. And
    >> thanks to
    >> GVS9000.com and PegasosPPC.com (and maybe others later) a Unix based
    >> system on
    >> the PPC will continue.

    >
    > Why ?
    >
    > Why not darwin or freebsd or netbsd?
    >

    freebsd doen't support ppc architecture.
    they will in the near feature but now
    this project is quite fresh.


    --
    * Można być wolnym ale czasem wymaga to większego
    wysiłku i szerszego światopoglądu oraz pewnej zaradności.
    (mniej więcej powiedział Telly z pl.comp.sys.amiga)
    http://bezda.com

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2