fix me beautifull
category: general [glöplog]
please always use bbcode in this thread when refering to broken things.
fixed.
stefan: yes, it was running windows xp.
Probably because the macintel are much faster than the ppc ones. And since one can even run windows on them the world will become even more simpler for coders, most mac productions are ports of pc one already.
fixed.
stefan: yes, it was running windows xp.
Quote:
Will demos become intel only? Actually I reckon they will. There's already a few. It's "wrong", but it's happening. I've no idea why, what with not being a coder, but I guess that you need to test and debug on both platforms to make it properly compatible. That isn't always possible if you only have intel macs, so it's forgiveable.
Probably because the macintel are much faster than the ppc ones. And since one can even run windows on them the world will become even more simpler for coders, most mac productions are ports of pc one already.
I'm writing a Mac demo now. I'm not writing it for MacPPC, because in my mind there is no such thing. I'm writing it for OS X.
I go with psionice.
I go with psionice.
I'm with Preacher.
Now half the stuff in "Mac68k" is PPC so I think it would be sensible to categorise as before. "Mac OS Classic" for stuff that's pre-OS X, no matter if it's PPC or 68k; even the system is a mix of both.
"Mac OS X" for stuff that's either PPC or universal; should work on any machine running OS X.
Then finally "Mac OS X / Intel" for Intel-only productions. I know it's lame but realistically there are bound to be an increasing number of them anyway since it's already difficult to find a recent good enough PPC Mac to test on for many people.
"Mac OS X" for stuff that's either PPC or universal; should work on any machine running OS X.
Then finally "Mac OS X / Intel" for Intel-only productions. I know it's lame but realistically there are bound to be an increasing number of them anyway since it's already difficult to find a recent good enough PPC Mac to test on for many people.
please always use bbcode in this thread when refering to broken things.
There, i fixed the 68k category, there's a few more entries to add & fix, tho.
No reason to not to be accurate whenever it's possible, a mac 68k will never be able to run macos 9 or most of macos 8 versions either.
Windows can run msdos prods via a virtual machine too just like macosx or macos for ppc are doing, still there's 2 separate categories (and they can even run natively on the platform with the right os which isn't the case on the macintosh).
When a prod has been crafted for one architecture there's no reason to reference it in another one unless some of it's parts has been crafted specifically for that other platform.
So universal binaries should be referenced in both categories (macosx / macosx intel) as technically they're nothing but ports.
Quote:
Now half the stuff in "Mac68k" is PPC so I think it would be sensible to categorise as before. "Mac OS Classic" for stuff that's pre-OS X, no matter if it's PPC or 68k; even the system is a mix of both.
There, i fixed the 68k category, there's a few more entries to add & fix, tho.
No reason to not to be accurate whenever it's possible, a mac 68k will never be able to run macos 9 or most of macos 8 versions either.
Windows can run msdos prods via a virtual machine too just like macosx or macos for ppc are doing, still there's 2 separate categories (and they can even run natively on the platform with the right os which isn't the case on the macintosh).
When a prod has been crafted for one architecture there's no reason to reference it in another one unless some of it's parts has been crafted specifically for that other platform.
So universal binaries should be referenced in both categories (macosx / macosx intel) as technically they're nothing but ports.
please delete this one. dupe of 25745. big sorry!
Lets summarize, everyone in here who uses a mac wants the platform to be OSX for everything but badly produced demos that only runs on Intel. Still, hitchhikr being admin and windows user that never used Mac OSX with Intel decides what to do or not. Can we have back Analogue, please?
hitch: it seems you're missing the point somewhat when it comes to the PPC/Intel thing. The whole of OSX is universal - it runs on either PPC or Intel. You run PPC only binaries natively on an intel mac, not in a virtual machine. It just translates the code as it runs, so it's slower than normal but otherwise impossible to tell apart from a 'native' app. In practice, you probably wouldn't know if it was PPC or not.
You can't really compare that to dos and windows on PC - how many dos demos run on XP? How about sound support? It's a whole different thing. Comparing dos and windows to something on the mac, you'd have to compare OSX and Classic, as classic stuff used to run in a virtual machine type thing (which wasn't included with recent versions of the OS, and hasn't been ported to intel at all).
You can't really compare that to dos and windows on PC - how many dos demos run on XP? How about sound support? It's a whole different thing. Comparing dos and windows to something on the mac, you'd have to compare OSX and Classic, as classic stuff used to run in a virtual machine type thing (which wasn't included with recent versions of the OS, and hasn't been ported to intel at all).
Quote:
Still, hitchhikr being admin and windows user that never used Mac OSX with Intel decides what to do or not.
Cool down, i'm not an admin and i don't decide anything :]
Quote:
You run PPC only binaries natively on an intel mac, not in a virtual machine. It just translates the code as it runs, so it's slower than normal but otherwise impossible to tell apart from a 'native' app.
I'm not sure that you've understood the basic principles of virtual machines. ;)
Actually windows and msdos running on the same processor/architecture. are more close to each other than the mac ppc and mac intel will ever be.
hitch: this should be more about how you use the things than the technicalities, which was my point. Try watching some classic dos demos on a typical xp box - you'll at least have to open a shell, configure some kind of sound system to get any sound, and most likely you'll need gusemu or dosbox. Now try a ppc demo on an intel mac, you just double click the icon. Technically windows + dos might be closer as a platform, but in practice it's a totally different story.
On the other hand, comparing os 9 and osx is like comparing windows and osx - they're totally incompatible.
Also, I know a fair bit about virtual machines and I wouldn't really consider ppc apps running on an intel mac a 'virtual machine'. There's no separation from the rest of the system, no emulated hardware (apart from the code translation for the cpu). The ppc apps have just the same access to the system as intel apps.
On the other hand, comparing os 9 and osx is like comparing windows and osx - they're totally incompatible.
Also, I know a fair bit about virtual machines and I wouldn't really consider ppc apps running on an intel mac a 'virtual machine'. There's no separation from the rest of the system, no emulated hardware (apart from the code translation for the cpu). The ppc apps have just the same access to the system as intel apps.
Ok well I suppose it's fine if there's a "Mac 68k" platform as well but the "Mac PPC" at the moment doesn't make sense really because there are currently productions that:
- are for Classic Mac OS and work on PPC Macs running OS 9 (or older) and _might_ work on OS X under the classic environment (needs to be started separately and runs basically the whole of OS 9). They do not, however, run at all on any Intel Mac.
- are PPC native but run transparently on either PPC or Intel Macs running OS X
- are Universal and run natively on PPC and Intel
- are Intel-only and don't run on any PPC Mac
Anyway, as a mac user I think it's more important to categorise based on OS rather than architecture since the processor emulation is always more or less transparent to the user.
- are for Classic Mac OS and work on PPC Macs running OS 9 (or older) and _might_ work on OS X under the classic environment (needs to be started separately and runs basically the whole of OS 9). They do not, however, run at all on any Intel Mac.
- are PPC native but run transparently on either PPC or Intel Macs running OS X
- are Universal and run natively on PPC and Intel
- are Intel-only and don't run on any PPC Mac
Anyway, as a mac user I think it's more important to categorise based on OS rather than architecture since the processor emulation is always more or less transparent to the user.
please always use bbcode in this thread when refering to broken things.
Yeah, it's most probably using a jit compiler. It's just that the windows vdm is very minimal (and sucks).
The point is that the x86 can't run ppc or 68k code natively without a software translator/emulator which isn't different from any other emulation process.
Imagine if there would be no separate amiga ECS & amiga AGA categories just because the amiga AGA can run most of amiga ECS prods, what do i do if i want to see ECS prods, do i have to download and test them all one by one until i find the suitable ones ? (that's actually what i had to do to find the mac68k ones).
I'm just thinking about a way of categorization where the users know right away for which platform the demo they're downloading was crafted for, it doesn't matter for mac intel users as the platform emulates the ppc but it will for mac ppc users soon enough.
I even think we should have differentiated .net applications from native windows ones as they required extra translation software to run (it's less relevant now as newer windows are directly provided with .net but not everyone is using windows vista yet).
Yeah, it's most probably using a jit compiler. It's just that the windows vdm is very minimal (and sucks).
The point is that the x86 can't run ppc or 68k code natively without a software translator/emulator which isn't different from any other emulation process.
Imagine if there would be no separate amiga ECS & amiga AGA categories just because the amiga AGA can run most of amiga ECS prods, what do i do if i want to see ECS prods, do i have to download and test them all one by one until i find the suitable ones ? (that's actually what i had to do to find the mac68k ones).
I'm just thinking about a way of categorization where the users know right away for which platform the demo they're downloading was crafted for, it doesn't matter for mac intel users as the platform emulates the ppc but it will for mac ppc users soon enough.
I even think we should have differentiated .net applications from native windows ones as they required extra translation software to run (it's less relevant now as newer windows are directly provided with .net but not everyone is using windows vista yet).
This should not be a discussion about emulation techniques. But anyways, I assume only the real program code is emulated and no ui/osx code. Meaning its just semi-emulated. However, this is irrelevant.
Well, I've no problem with separating ppc and intel somehow. The only issue there is the complexity of it - you have ppc demos that run fine on intel, intel only, universal, and possible some 'ppc only' demos. Does anyone know if there are any ppc only prods (under osx)? And how many? If there's only a couple, it's hardly worth having a category for PPC only, and just OSX / OSX (Intel) would be fine.
The main thing we're not happy about though is the whole osx/pre-osx thing. Compared to the cpu incompatibilities, the OS is massively important. You can't run pre-osx demos at all on an intel mac, or a ppc mac without classic installed (which I imagine is probably most of them).
So: We absolutely need to separate the OSes, separating the CPU somehow would be a bonus.
The main thing we're not happy about though is the whole osx/pre-osx thing. Compared to the cpu incompatibilities, the OS is massively important. You can't run pre-osx demos at all on an intel mac, or a ppc mac without classic installed (which I imagine is probably most of them).
So: We absolutely need to separate the OSes, separating the CPU somehow would be a bonus.
stefan: I think it's recompiled with some JIT magic as hitch says, but then the translated code just runs as a normal app. So really, it's not emulated at all - more like a transparent automatic port. But yeah, it's irrelevant. :)
hitch: told yah this recategorization thingie wouldnt really go well with the mac users :D
everyone: still, the old system was kind of flawed when it didnt identify osx intel, we can take this oportunity to categorize things properly, so, user poll:
everyone: still, the old system was kind of flawed when it didnt identify osx intel, we can take this oportunity to categorize things properly, so, user poll:
please always use bbcode in this thread when refering to broken things.
I'll go for the Mac68k, MacPPC, MacIntel one, here's why, thanks to dodke for the answer to the riddle:
The 5 types of binaries can be combined nicely into the 3 Mac68k/MacPPC/MacIntel categories:
68k binaries: Only run on 680x0 (or need an emulation anything else).
Category: Mac68k.
Universal binaries: Only run on MACOSX anyway (no-go with Macos on ppc).
Categories: MacPPC & MacIntel combined.
MacPPC older binaries: Only run on MACOS or need classic under MacPPC/OSX, can't run on MacIntel.
Category: MacPPC.
MacPPC OSX binaries: Run transparently on MacPPC and MacIntel.
Category: MacPPC & MacIntel combined.
Intel binaries: Only run on MacIntel (so on MACOSX only).
Category: MacIntel.
The 2 combined categories won't make any difference for the users anyway since ppc macos x binaries and universal binaries are running on any computer that can handle macosx (ppc & intel).
I'll go for the Mac68k, MacPPC, MacIntel one, here's why, thanks to dodke for the answer to the riddle:
Quote:
- are for Classic Mac OS and work on PPC Macs running OS 9 (or older) and _might_ work on OS X under the classic environment (needs to be started separately and runs basically the whole of OS 9). They do not, however, run at all on any Intel Mac.
- are PPC native but run transparently on either PPC or Intel Macs running OS X
- are Universal and run natively on PPC and Intel
- are Intel-only and don't run on any PPC Mac
The 5 types of binaries can be combined nicely into the 3 Mac68k/MacPPC/MacIntel categories:
68k binaries: Only run on 680x0 (or need an emulation anything else).
Category: Mac68k.
Universal binaries: Only run on MACOSX anyway (no-go with Macos on ppc).
Categories: MacPPC & MacIntel combined.
MacPPC older binaries: Only run on MACOS or need classic under MacPPC/OSX, can't run on MacIntel.
Category: MacPPC.
MacPPC OSX binaries: Run transparently on MacPPC and MacIntel.
Category: MacPPC & MacIntel combined.
Intel binaries: Only run on MacIntel (so on MACOSX only).
Category: MacIntel.
The 2 combined categories won't make any difference for the users anyway since ppc macos x binaries and universal binaries are running on any computer that can handle macosx (ppc & intel).
Quote:
MacPPC older binaries: Only run on MACOS or need classic under MacPPC/OSX, can't run on MacIntel.
Category: MacPPC.
MacPPC OSX binaries: Run transparently on MacPPC and MacIntel.
Category: MacPPC & MacIntel combined.
Okay, so I download a prod labeled MacPPC and it may or may not run on my Intel Macbook Pro?
Yeah. I like that.
Uh. Sorry. Brainfart. Never mind.
You're stilling missing what system is needed. Which is the key to be able to run the program, not its binary format or package. How are we going to do with Java? What hardware runs Java natively, since obviously we cannot have the "Platform" Java with your reasoning. We can neither have Windows or DOS, we can just have PC GUS PC SOUNDBLASTE PC VOODOO.. Please think about what you are actually saying here. You really make no sense while the rest of the people here are.
It sounds to me you are just trying to defend your stupid ideas by saying "if we add them with this pattern people might be able to solve the puzzle and know what they really need to know".
It sounds to me you are just trying to defend your stupid ideas by saying "if we add them with this pattern people might be able to solve the puzzle and know what they really need to know".
please always use bbcode in this thread when refering to broken things.
No we don't, if it's macintel category we know it's macosx, if it's macpp+macintel we know it's macosx, if it's macppc then it's necessary macos, if it's mac68k we know it's system 7.
Afaik java is exactly the category where we don't need any machine specs.
Where or when did i say that this should be applied to every category ? The windows / dos is ok because the platform they're both running on have the same architecture, and i didn't brought the msdos/gus category but it's there and no one is complaining about it.
Quote:
You're stilling missing what system is needed.
No we don't, if it's macintel category we know it's macosx, if it's macpp+macintel we know it's macosx, if it's macppc then it's necessary macos, if it's mac68k we know it's system 7.
Quote:
How are we going to do with Java? What hardware runs Java natively, since obviously we cannot have the "Platform" Java with your reasoning.
Afaik java is exactly the category where we don't need any machine specs.
Quote:
We can neither have Windows or DOS, we can just have PC GUS PC SOUNDBLASTE PC VOODOO.. Please think about what you are actually saying here.
Where or when did i say that this should be applied to every category ? The windows / dos is ok because the platform they're both running on have the same architecture, and i didn't brought the msdos/gus category but it's there and no one is complaining about it.
Quote:
No we don't, if it's macintel category we know it's macosx
But Mac Intel runs on many more operating systems than OS X, you said yourself you only used an Intel Mac with windows.
Quote:
if it's macpp+macintel we know it's macosx
Pretty much yes! hurray this system ruuuleeez! Unless the ppc version is macos.
Quote:
if it's macppc then it's necessary macos
wtf?
Quote:
if it's mac68k we know it's system 7.
You might not now about this, but there are a lot of "systems" before 7. Not at all as compatible as you might think. Try run dubbelmoral on "system 7".
please always use bbcode in this thread when refering to broken things.
In that case we simply use the windows category as it'll be available for pc users transparently and natively too with exactly the same files. (I never said it should be globally coherent the machine categorization would just be for the mac stuff).
If there's 2 separate binaries inside the archive one for macos and one for macosx (is there any such demo ?) it doesn't really matter for the user anyway, they'll extract the one that suit them.
Yeah, if it was a macosx it would run on macintel aswell, so if that category is excluded that means it's not a macosx binary (since macintel can't run older macos binaries according to dodke). I recognize it may be a bit tricky at first :]
I know that but there's no demos for these ones (so far) and that's the highest version they can run on (prolly some of the remaining ones run on system 6). What's dubbelmoral ?
Quote:
But Mac Intel runs on many more operating systems than OS X, you said yourself you only used an Intel Mac with windows.
In that case we simply use the windows category as it'll be available for pc users transparently and natively too with exactly the same files. (I never said it should be globally coherent the machine categorization would just be for the mac stuff).
Quote:
Quote:
if it's macpp+macintel we know it's macosx
Pretty much yes! hurray this system ruuuleeez! Unless the ppc version is macos.
If there's 2 separate binaries inside the archive one for macos and one for macosx (is there any such demo ?) it doesn't really matter for the user anyway, they'll extract the one that suit them.
Quote:
Quote:
if it's macppc then it's necessary macos
wtf?
Yeah, if it was a macosx it would run on macintel aswell, so if that category is excluded that means it's not a macosx binary (since macintel can't run older macos binaries according to dodke). I recognize it may be a bit tricky at first :]
Quote:
You might not now about this, but there are a lot of "systems" before 7. Not at all as compatible as you might think. Try run dubbelmoral on "system 7".
I know that but there's no demos for these ones (so far) and that's the highest version they can run on (prolly some of the remaining ones run on system 6). What's dubbelmoral ?
Hitch: I think there's a difference of opinion between you and the mac sceners here:
- You want to base the categories on technical differences
- We want to base the categories on practical differences
Sure, PPC and intel are different architectures, but in practice the majority of demos made for OSX will work on any OSX mac. No pre-osx demos are ever going to run on an intel mac, or even a ppc mac unless you install the classic stuff (which I'd say was actually an emulator anyway). This is why we want OSX and classic separated.
Think about it - with the scheme you're proposing, if we download a PPC demo, we have no clue as to whether it will work or not. It's like putting every PC demo that runs on a 286 or higher under "PC - 32bit", it would be pure trial and error!
- You want to base the categories on technical differences
- We want to base the categories on practical differences
Sure, PPC and intel are different architectures, but in practice the majority of demos made for OSX will work on any OSX mac. No pre-osx demos are ever going to run on an intel mac, or even a ppc mac unless you install the classic stuff (which I'd say was actually an emulator anyway). This is why we want OSX and classic separated.
Think about it - with the scheme you're proposing, if we download a PPC demo, we have no clue as to whether it will work or not. It's like putting every PC demo that runs on a 286 or higher under "PC - 32bit", it would be pure trial and error!