Darwin x86

[billy_gates]

Does Darwin x86 support AMD CPU's yet?
Has anyone ported the aqua UI to it?

[cloudstrife]

as of 1.4.1 i do not believe it suppports amd-style mobos... so no it doesnt support amd chips.

no, but i sure as hell wish someone had ported it!

[hm_murdock]

Aqua will never be included with Darwin on any platform. Aqua requires the Quartz display layer. Both of them are part of Mac OS X and are not open source. It is possible that Rhapsody's Display PostScript layer could find its way into Darwin, giving it a native display layer.

That would be goooooood, as long as it's able to run Cocoa apps

[preacher]

The only thing I dislike about macs is the way they dumb down the names of everything. Aqua, Quartz, cocoa, I mean that sounds so wussy.

[MacUser3of5]

What are they supposed to call them?
BigFuckingPenisDisplayLayer?
HardcorePornApplicationInterface?

It's called Quartz because it's 'crystal clear' and Aqua because the interface 'flows like water'... Those Apple peeps sure have a sense of humor about things... Does anyone else remember the developer code name 'BHA'? or Clarus, the dogcow? The dogcow 'technical article' still makes me laugh...
 

I don't think you could port Aqua to x86 very easily (if at all) because it would still require almost a total rewrite of most of the 'OS X' layer... not to mention apps would have to be recomiled. You would need the source, which Apple doesn't seem interested in giving out for an x86 port... although there is that mysterious Marklar rumor...

[Calum]

i always laugh at the 'codenames' linux distros get. i mean! mandrake 9 is 'dolphin'! and mandrake 8.2 was 'bluebird'! not only that, but linux recognises my pentium 3 chip as a 'coppermine' 850Mhz! what? also, red hat is as bad with its valhalla and so on (i expect this is the sort of non wussy name that apple stuff should be called).
Who needs all this stuff? seriously, i would never get an operating system called 'potato' regardless of how good it was! why do we need all these weird names anyway? everybody just calls them debian 3.0, red hat 8.0, mandrake 8.2, pentium 3 and so on anyway!

[Zombie9920]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
but linux recognises my pentium 3 chip as a 'coppermine' 850Mhz! what?

That is because the Flipchip(FC-PGA Socket 370) Pentium III's are called Coppermines. The FC-PGA Celerons(the ones that look like Soket 370 PIII's) are known as Coppermines also(also referred to as Celemine).

The Coppermine PIII's are alot faster than the original Slot 1 PIII's because they feature full speed on die cache while the Slot 1 PIII's have half speed cache(your 850mhz PIII has 850mhz cache whereas a Slot 1 PIII running at 850mhz would have 425mhz Cache).

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
Who needs all this stuff? seriously, i would never get an operating system called 'potato' regardless of how good it was! why do we need all these weird names anyway? everybody just calls them debian 3.0, red hat 8.0, mandrake 8.2, pentium 3 and so on anyway!

I agree, but all OSs use these code names that I am aware of, even Microsoft. Longhorn is not what that operating system will be called when it is released. They use name Snowball for Win311, Chicago for Win95, Memphis for Win98, Daytona for WinNT 3.5, Cairo for WinNT 4.0, Whistler for XP, Longhorn will be XP 2nd edition, etc:

http://www.phm.lu/Documentation/Windows/Codenames.asp

As far as RedHat, they had a different code name for each of the beta stages, Valhalla is the one that happened to go final:

http://www.smoogespace.com/documents/behind_the_names.html

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

[preacher]

quote:Originally posted by MacUser3of5:
What are they supposed to call them?
BigFuckingPenisDisplayLayer?
HardcorePornApplicationInterface?

It's called Quartz because it's 'crystal clear' and Aqua because the interface 'flows like water'... Those Apple peeps sure have a sense of humor about things... Does anyone else remember the developer code name 'BHA'? or Clarus, the dogcow? The dogcow 'technical article' still makes me laugh...
   

I don't think you could port Aqua to x86 very easily (if at all) because it would still require almost a total rewrite of most of the 'OS X' layer... not to mention apps would have to be recomiled. You would need the source, which Apple doesn't seem interested in giving out for an x86 port... although there is that mysterious Marklar rumor...

I would definately by an OS with those names.

[Calum]

Red Hat 8.1 "Cocksucker-Motherfucker" - - -

I'd like to see how they'd make that connection on that 'red hat names' website!

[ravuya]

quote:Originally posted by Calum:
Red Hat 8.1 "Cocksucker-Motherfucker" - - -

I'd like to see how they'd make that connection on that 'red hat names' website!

The page is here for all of you too slow to use google.

[Calum]

well, they're too slow to have added the codename for red hat 8.1 yet, i mean COME ON! even i know what it is already!!!!!

[voidmain]

Ok, I'll bite. What will 8.1 be called? And where did you find it?

[MacUser3of5]

Maybe it will be called 'Well, It's No Aqua But At Least We Tried'

   

ThePreacher: Oh, I wasn't really suprised that you would... no offense  

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by MacUser3of5:
Maybe it will be called 'Well, It's No Aqua But At Least We Tried'

I can't imagine why they would would name it that since Aqua is not an Operating System and certainly isn't a distribution. Hmmm..