@nht, your posts, here, are usually reasoned -- Why are you taking this tack?
Struck me as weird that Apple fans would contest that OSX is already running on ARM. Like you want to disagree with someone sooooo much that you will question whether the sun rises in the east.
Struck me as weird that Apple fans would contest that OSX is already running on ARM. Like you want to disagree with someone sooooo much that you will question whether the sun rises in the east.
No one is contesting that. I, in fact, provided evidence to support someone else's previously unsupported position that "OS X" is on the iPhone.
His attitude was fine when he made his sweeping claims of what Apple will do. It was only after I stated his facts aren't actually facts did he get all upset. Same for you.
You mean like OSX is running on ARM somewhere at Apple?
Quote:
Again, I statement I proved by showing Apple's own banners stating it as such, but, again, OS X is not the same as Mac OS X which is not the same as Macs will be sold running on A9 processors.
He made two simple statements:
OS X is already running on ARM,
and
Apple knows exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo
Both are factual statements. He did not state Max OS X. It may have been implied but if you're going to be all literal about him not using mealy words then turnabout is fair play.
In any case, you've backed yourself into a stupid position.
Quote:
What name did I call you?
Don't play coy.
"Your lack of objectively or intelligence is mind boggling."
"I have absolutely no idea what accounts for your low IQ"
Some folks love you and TS. Me, I think you both act like bullies and I don't care for that. The guy may have been and probably is a troll if Dick thinks so but that doesn't make your actions excusable.
You mean like OSX is running on ARM somewhere at Apple?
Again, I provided proof of that.
He made two simple statements:
OS X is already running on ARM,
and
Apple knows exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo
Both are factual statements. He did not state Max OS X. It may have been implied but if you're going to be all literal about him not using mealy words then turnabout is fair play.
In any case, you've backed yourself into a stupid position.
No, he wrote, "the A9 or A10 chips will be in a Mac laptop or Mac desktop in the future." and therefore I asked for proof as to how he could possibly know such a thing. Then you chimed in with some foolish comment that if one thinks it's feasible then we should consider the same being proven. :no:
Don't play coy.
"Your lack of objectively or intelligence is mind boggling."
"I have absolutely no idea what accounts for your low IQ"
Some folks love you and TS. Me, I think you both act like bullies and I don't care for that. The guy may have been and probably is a troll if Dick thinks so but that doesn't make your actions excusable.
1) Yes, based on your comments I feel you're neither objective nor intelligent in your replies. Neither is calling you a name. And now I see that it's because you have some beef with me that you're willing to disregard all rationale and cognitive thinking to try to "put me in my place." (Yes, I worded this last sentence as a fact because you believe conjecture can be stated as fact without any consideration for proving one's position).
2) I have no idea if [@]Danox[/@] is a troll or not but that is beside the point. Why do you think that being accurate and truthful should be ignored so long as it supports your feelings? If you want everyone to reassure you that your tech decisions are "the best" I'm not someone you should converse with. I come here to learn facts and to have my mind opened to future possibilities but that only way that can truly happen is if fanciful expectations and factual specificities are clearly presented as such by people that care more about being correct than being right.
• an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information:
Steve saying there will be a 3GHz PPC Mac can be proven. It's conjecture to assume that a 3GHz PPC Mac was in the works. It's false to say that a 3GHz PPC Mac was ever sold. Note that Steve also said FaceTime would be open source, which hasn't happened and I later read that the engineers that built FaceTime hadn't heard of that before Steve said it on stage.
It's not the definition of "proof" being questioned but rather what would be accepted as evidence supporting his assertion of fact.
I'll note that you did not at any point acknowledge the link provided...not even to dismiss it as insufficient evidence. My opinion is whatever link he would have provided would have been judged as insufficient even if Steve Jobs rose from the dead and stated that he had seen Mac OSX run on the ARM before he died.
A 3 Ghz PPC Mac existed. That Apple was working on a 3 GHz Powermac is not conjecture. Steve's statement is evidence of this as is the fact that IBM had sampled 3 GHz PPC 980 parts to folks including Apple. There's no direct evidence but plenty of circumstantial evidence when taken together that leaves very little to no doubt that It existed in Apple's labs. .
Apple knows exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo
Both are factual statements.
The former certainly isn’t. At least not in any way we can measure. Same with the second, except that I’ll agree with you that Apple does know how well it runs in any given configuration on which it does run.
The guy may have been and probably is a troll if Dick thinks so but that doesn't make your actions excusable.
In what universe on what website do you find it acceptable that trolls run free?
Originally Posted by nht
It's not the definition of "proof" being questioned but rather what would be accepted as evidence supporting his assertion of fact.
Well, fact would be accepted as evidence. Agreed?
A 3 Ghz PPC Mac existed.
Is that what the link said? Where was it; I can’t find it.
That Apple was working on a 3 GHz Powermac is not conjecture.
Agreed. We have a lot of evidence supporting this.
Steve's statement is evidence of this as is the fact that IBM had sampled 3 GHz PPC 980 parts to folks including Apple.
That from the link, too?
There’s no direct evidence but plenty of circumstantial evidence…
So there’s no proof whatsoever, then.
“Someone (not from Apple) said so” is as much evidence as an analyst saying there will be a 5.5” iPhone.
It's not the definition of "proof" being questioned but rather what would be accepted as evidence supporting his assertion of fact.
I'll note that you did not at any point acknowledge the link provided...not even to dismiss it as insufficient evidence. My opinion is whatever link he would have provided would have been judged as insufficient even if Steve Jobs rose from the dead and stated that he had seen Mac OSX run on the ARM before he died.
A 3 Ghz PPC Mac existed. That Apple was working on a 3 GHz Powermac is not conjecture. Steve's statement is evidence of this as is the fact that IBM had sampled 3 GHz PPC 980 parts to folks including Apple. There's no direct evidence but plenty of circumstantial evidence when taken together that leaves very little to no doubt that It existed in Apple's labs. .
1) Steve Jobs said a lot of stuff. You can prove Jobs said that they had a 3GHz PPC Mac ready to launch at Apple but you can't prove it. You could say that Jobs fully intended and expected this to happen and I'd agree that it was probably the case… but you can't prove it. You can say they probably had some sort of early builds that were testing this in their labs to work out all the issues and I'd also agree that was probably the case… but you can't prove it. You could then say that Jobs had one of these in his office and I'd say that I could see that happening… but you can't prove it. You could then go on to say that Apple built a tens-of-thousands of these but then later found a flaw that made them not sell it and I'd start to question your sanity… and you still can't prove it. "The more specific an unverifiable claim becomes the greater the probability that the claim cannot be accurate." ~Solipsism's Law
2) I'll accept any evidence as evidence. This goes both ways. If I make a statement as an unwavering fact and don't back up my argument with evidence that proves my point then I implore to call me out on it and I will either add the accompanying data, reword my comment, and likely apologize for my poor communication or reasoning. That's how science works. That's not how religion works. Learn the difference.
No, he wrote, "the A9 or A10 chips will be in a Mac laptop or Mac desktop in the future." and therefore I asked for proof as to how he could possibly know such a thing. Then you chimed in with some foolish comment that if one thinks it's feasible then we should consider the same being proven.
False. The nice thing about forums is that there's a trail especially when folks use quotes.
In Post #134 Phil mocked the assertion that OSX was running on ARM.
In Post #140 I pinged Phil for asking for proof of something obvious.
In Post #141 You challenged me for proof that this was obvious.
In Post #142 I mocked you for demanding "proof" and provided a link to evidence that multi-user darwin had been ported to ARM as well as evidence that many libraries had already been ported to ARM v6 and v7 but not to v5. Which you clearly ignored and is evidence that you weren't actually looking for evidence.
Nowhere in that chain was any discussion about the A9 chip being used on Macs. I never touched on that because I thought your chastisement of his assertion there was fair. It's all there for you to follow.
Quote:
1) Yes, based on your comments I feel you're neither objective nor intelligent in your replies. Neither is calling you a name.
No. You did not state that my REPLIES were not objective nor intelligent but that I was not objective nor intelligent. The quote is clear and the proper way to gracefully backpedal is not to try to apply revisionism to what you wrote but to simply apologize.
It's there. Your words:
"Your lack of objectively or intelligence is mind boggling."
"I have absolutely no idea what accounts for your low IQ"
Quote:
And now I see that it's because you have some beef with me that you're willing to disregard all rationale and cognitive thinking to try to "put me in my place." (Yes, I worded this last sentence as a fact because you believe conjecture can be stated as fact without any consideration for proving one's position).
What's with the weird coloring? In any case, I don't need to do anything to "put you in your place"...you seem to do an excellent job of that yourself.
Quote:
2) I have no idea if @Danox is a troll or not but that is beside the point. Why do you think that being accurate and truthful should be ignored so long as it supports your feelings?
You mean being accurate and truthful like attempting to claim that you were insulting my replies rather than me? LOL.
If you wonder why I might have a beef with you then your post clearly illustrates the reason why.
Quote:
If you want everyone to reassure you that your tech decisions are "the best" I'm not someone you should converse with.
And you're off the deep end again.
Quote:
I come here to learn facts and to have my mind opened to future possibilities but that only way that can truly happen is if fanciful expectations and factual specificities are clearly presented as such by people that care more about being correct than being right.
If you can't tell the difference between fanciful expectations and facts without hand holding then internet is probably not for you.
In any case, imagining future possibilities require a minimum amount of flexibility in thinking. Such as accepting as fact that Apple is not so stupid as to not have OSX running on ARM.
And if you disagree with the assertion that the A9 chip will be in macs then the most effective way is to show why this is in fact highly unlikely. Not to throw a hissy fit because he did not clearly mark fanciful expectations as fanciful rather than fact.
How could it be fact? It can't. So the rational response is to simply recognize that as prediction and either support or eviscerate it.
In Post #134 Phil mocked the assertion that OSX was running on ARM.
In Post #140 I pinged Phil for asking for proof of something obvious.
In Post #141 You challenged me for proof that this was obvious.
In Post #142 I mocked you for demanding "proof" and provided a link to evidence that multi-user darwin had been ported to ARM as well as evidence that many libraries had already been ported to ARM v6 and v7 but not to v5. Which you clearly ignored and is evidence that you weren't actually looking for evidence.
I’m gonna pull this out of context for a minute.
#140: “something obvious”. Nope. Something that can be extrapolated from what we’ve seen in history? Absolutely. Something that I believe is true? Sure. Something that is obvious, or that can be known? Not at all.
#142: “I mocked you” Found one of the problems. Anyway, so Darwin’s on ARM. Is Darwin OS X? Nope. Again, I figure as near to full OS X as is possible has been running on some ARM chip since at least the first iPhone’s initial development stages. But we don’t actually know, and no one who does has ever said anything to that effect.
BUT, let’s look at something that Steve said. “iPhone runs OS X.” He said that. First model’s introduction. But we now know (and it was stated in the keynote afterward) that it’s a stripped-down version of OS X. In fact, it’s different enough to have its own name: “iPhone OS”, later iOS. So that’s not at all OS X. The framework that makes Apple’s OS’ (except the non-iOS iPods’) what they are IS running on ARM, but that framework isn’t inherently OS X.
In past threads about this, users have pointed out the fundamental differences between X86 and ARM that make it physically impossible to 1:1 port OS X between the two. There are things that Intel’s chips do that ARM hasn’t, doesn’t, and won’t for the foreseeable future. I say ’things’. I don’t remember what they’re called. Dick, Marvin, and the other great guy, username starts with a ‘D’*; they know. I remember the posts, not the content. Given that Apple’s two OS’ that are built on the same frameworks are, in fact, called two OS’–and not just variants on a single OS–it can’t really be said that OS X runs on ARM, nor can it until ARM incorporates those low-level whatevers.
*No, it doesn’t. Sorry, user, when I remember your name; all I know is that I respect your information and opinion a lot. Gotta tell you, I teeter on the verge of tears most of the time. Forgot my phone number the other day. Had it for 21 years.
In any case, imagining future possibilities require a minimum amount of flexibility in thinking. Such as accepting as fact that Apple is not so stupid as to not have OSX running on ARM.
One last time as I have a plane to catch and unfortunately this leg of the trip will not have WiFI access. You're claiming I don't think OS X on ARM is possible despite my clear reply to Danox providing evidence to support that point and my request for proof regarding Mac OS X running on the A9 or A10. I didn't see anyone else besides me provide evidence that OS X is on ARM. Did you try to support your argument with evidence or attempt to learn anything or did you just pop in to argue?
You're claiming I don't think OS X on ARM is possible despite my clear reply to Danox providing evidence to support that point and my request for proof regarding Mac OS X running on the A9 or A10.
Nope. I'm claiming that I never had any sort of beef with you calling him out on Mac OSX running on the A9 or A10 WHICH IS WHY I NEVER REPLIED AT ALL ON THAT SUBTHREAD.
BUT, let’s look at something that Steve said. “iPhone runs OS X.” He said that. First model’s introduction. But we now know (and it was stated in the keynote afterward) that it’s a stripped-down version of OS X. In fact, it’s different enough to have its own name: “iPhone OS”, later iOS. So that’s not at all OS X. The framework that makes Apple’s OS’ (except the non-iOS iPods’) what they are IS running on ARM, but that framework isn’t inherently OS X.
Did they say it was a stripped down version of OS X or a stripped down version of Mac OS X? It's clearly a stripped down version of Mac OS X leaving OS X, which to means Darwin put all the useful frameworks that that are between Darwin and the Aqua UI (and other features needed for a desktop OS).
These are just names so they have movable boundaries on how they are defined. If Apple solidified the term "OS X iPhone" or said it ran OS X that should be enough to show that was the case even if they don't use that terminology any longer. I seem to recall they stated they took Mac OS X, stripped out everything unnecessary, and then built it up to optimize it for the HW. That sounds like it was based on OS X just as much as saying that Mac OS X is based on NeXTSTEP.
Both iDevices and Macs use Darwin and I believe the same kernel. So where does the OS X segment reside between Darwin and iOS, and between Darwin and Mac OS X? I'd say it's probable that iOS 7.x and Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks are closer in their code base than they were back in the iPhone firmware 1.0 and Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger days. My reasoning is they now have the kernel versions and Mac appears to now use more of the frameworks developed for the iPhone.
In past threads about this, users have pointed out the fundamental differences between X86 and ARM that make it physically impossible to 1:1 port OS X between the two. There are things that Intel’s chips do that ARM hasn’t, doesn’t, and won’t for the foreseeable future. I say ’things’. I don’t remember what they’re called. Dick, Marvin, and the other great guy, username starts with a ‘D’*; they know. I remember the posts, not the content. Given that Apple’s two OS’ that are built on the same frameworks are, in fact, called two OS’–and not just variants on a single OS–it can’t really be said that OS X runs on ARM, nor can it until ARM incorporates those low-level whatevers.
D-something? Hmm...can't recall either.
Anyway, having done my fair share of complex ports (complicated 88K to Sparc transition) nothing is a 1:1 port across architectures. That's pretty much a tautology. However, once you get the kernel and userland ported over you're most of the way there from the perspective of the OS. And that's Darwin. Then you need your Core libraries and lower level stacks ported. Much of this is in ObjC/C and your cross compiler handles a lot of the heavy lifting. All but the assembler bits. Device drivers you need to write anyway since you're building a new machine (you know, the ARM based laptop).
Both are little endian (or at least bi-endian for ARM). Alignment can be an issue for packed structs or assembly code. Both are now 64 bit. Most of the issues are well known in the unix world.
Nope. I'm claiming that I never had any sort of beef with you calling him out on Mac OSX running on the A9 or A10 WHICH IS WHY I NEVER REPLIED AT ALL ON THAT SUBTHREAD.
You previously said I put Mac into "his mouth", and that would be the case if he didn't reference Mac OS X in his next post, but he did, and the only comments I didn't agree with are regarding that particular usage. I even used the specific Mac OS X reference in replies to you, TS, and señor Applebaum so I'm confused why you think I'd be referring to something I specifically provided evidence to pages ago directly to Danox.
Anyway, having done my fair share of complex ports (complicated 88K to Sparc transition) nothing is a 1:1 port across architectures. That's pretty much a tautology.
I know; I’m thinking of the special technologies of which OS X takes advantage that are only in X86 builds… I’ll have to go looking. I’d know them if I see them.
Nah, in other countries they're just "moms". "Soccer" aka football is for everyone.
They're just "moms" here as well. It's a term used to describe suburanite mothers that take their sons/daughters to soccer practice/games in a mini van or SUV. They don't play, and probably don't know much about the game itself. It also has little to do with professional soccer or 'football'.
Comments
@nht, your posts, here, are usually reasoned -- Why are you taking this tack?
Struck me as weird that Apple fans would contest that OSX is already running on ARM. Like you want to disagree with someone sooooo much that you will question whether the sun rises in the east.
No one is contesting that. I, in fact, provided evidence to support someone else's previously unsupported position that "OS X" is on the iPhone.
His attitude was fine when he made his sweeping claims of what Apple will do. It was only after I stated his facts aren't actually facts did he get all upset. Same for you.
You mean like OSX is running on ARM somewhere at Apple?
He made two simple statements:
OS X is already running on ARM,
and
Apple knows exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo
Both are factual statements. He did not state Max OS X. It may have been implied but if you're going to be all literal about him not using mealy words then turnabout is fair play.
In any case, you've backed yourself into a stupid position.
Don't play coy.
"Your lack of objectively or intelligence is mind boggling."
"I have absolutely no idea what accounts for your low IQ"
Some folks love you and TS. Me, I think you both act like bullies and I don't care for that. The guy may have been and probably is a troll if Dick thinks so but that doesn't make your actions excusable.
Again, I provided proof of that.
No, he wrote, "the A9 or A10 chips will be in a Mac laptop or Mac desktop in the future." and therefore I asked for proof as to how he could possibly know such a thing. Then you chimed in with some foolish comment that if one thinks it's feasible then we should consider the same being proven. :no:
1) Yes, based on your comments I feel you're neither objective nor intelligent in your replies. Neither is calling you a name. And now I see that it's because you have some beef with me that you're willing to disregard all rationale and cognitive thinking to try to "put me in my place." (Yes, I worded this last sentence as a fact because you believe conjecture can be stated as fact without any consideration for proving one's position).
2) I have no idea if [@]Danox[/@] is a troll or not but that is beside the point. Why do you think that being accurate and truthful should be ignored so long as it supports your feelings? If you want everyone to reassure you that your tech decisions are "the best" I'm not someone you should converse with. I come here to learn facts and to have my mind opened to future possibilities but that only way that can truly happen is if fanciful expectations and factual specificities are clearly presented as such by people that care more about being correct than being right.
Are you fucking kidding me? What is proof?
proof |pro?of|
noun
• evidence
conjecture |k?n?jekCH?r|
noun
• an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information:
Steve saying there will be a 3GHz PPC Mac can be proven. It's conjecture to assume that a 3GHz PPC Mac was in the works. It's false to say that a 3GHz PPC Mac was ever sold. Note that Steve also said FaceTime would be open source, which hasn't happened and I later read that the engineers that built FaceTime hadn't heard of that before Steve said it on stage.
It's not the definition of "proof" being questioned but rather what would be accepted as evidence supporting his assertion of fact.
I'll note that you did not at any point acknowledge the link provided...not even to dismiss it as insufficient evidence. My opinion is whatever link he would have provided would have been judged as insufficient even if Steve Jobs rose from the dead and stated that he had seen Mac OSX run on the ARM before he died.
A 3 Ghz PPC Mac existed. That Apple was working on a 3 GHz Powermac is not conjecture. Steve's statement is evidence of this as is the fact that IBM had sampled 3 GHz PPC 980 parts to folks including Apple. There's no direct evidence but plenty of circumstantial evidence when taken together that leaves very little to no doubt that It existed in Apple's labs. .
OS X is already running on ARM,
and
Apple knows exactly how fast it runs and with what software combo
Both are factual statements.
The former certainly isn’t. At least not in any way we can measure. Same with the second, except that I’ll agree with you that Apple does know how well it runs in any given configuration on which it does run.
In what universe on what website do you find it acceptable that trolls run free?
Well, fact would be accepted as evidence. Agreed?
Is that what the link said? Where was it; I can’t find it.
Agreed. We have a lot of evidence supporting this.
That from the link, too?
So there’s no proof whatsoever, then.
“Someone (not from Apple) said so” is as much evidence as an analyst saying there will be a 5.5” iPhone.
1) Steve Jobs said a lot of stuff. You can prove Jobs said that they had a 3GHz PPC Mac ready to launch at Apple but you can't prove it. You could say that Jobs fully intended and expected this to happen and I'd agree that it was probably the case… but you can't prove it. You can say they probably had some sort of early builds that were testing this in their labs to work out all the issues and I'd also agree that was probably the case… but you can't prove it. You could then say that Jobs had one of these in his office and I'd say that I could see that happening… but you can't prove it. You could then go on to say that Apple built a tens-of-thousands of these but then later found a flaw that made them not sell it and I'd start to question your sanity… and you still can't prove it. "The more specific an unverifiable claim becomes the greater the probability that the claim cannot be accurate." ~Solipsism's Law
2) I'll accept any evidence as evidence. This goes both ways. If I make a statement as an unwavering fact and don't back up my argument with evidence that proves my point then I implore to call me out on it and I will either add the accompanying data, reword my comment, and likely apologize for my poor communication or reasoning. That's how science works. That's not how religion works. Learn the difference.
No, he wrote, "the A9 or A10 chips will be in a Mac laptop or Mac desktop in the future." and therefore I asked for proof as to how he could possibly know such a thing. Then you chimed in with some foolish comment that if one thinks it's feasible then we should consider the same being proven.
False. The nice thing about forums is that there's a trail especially when folks use quotes.
In Post #134 Phil mocked the assertion that OSX was running on ARM.
In Post #140 I pinged Phil for asking for proof of something obvious.
In Post #141 You challenged me for proof that this was obvious.
In Post #142 I mocked you for demanding "proof" and provided a link to evidence that multi-user darwin had been ported to ARM as well as evidence that many libraries had already been ported to ARM v6 and v7 but not to v5. Which you clearly ignored and is evidence that you weren't actually looking for evidence.
Nowhere in that chain was any discussion about the A9 chip being used on Macs. I never touched on that because I thought your chastisement of his assertion there was fair. It's all there for you to follow.
No. You did not state that my REPLIES were not objective nor intelligent but that I was not objective nor intelligent. The quote is clear and the proper way to gracefully backpedal is not to try to apply revisionism to what you wrote but to simply apologize.
It's there. Your words:
"Your lack of objectively or intelligence is mind boggling."
"I have absolutely no idea what accounts for your low IQ"
What's with the weird coloring? In any case, I don't need to do anything to "put you in your place"...you seem to do an excellent job of that yourself.
You mean being accurate and truthful like attempting to claim that you were insulting my replies rather than me? LOL.
If you wonder why I might have a beef with you then your post clearly illustrates the reason why.
And you're off the deep end again.
If you can't tell the difference between fanciful expectations and facts without hand holding then internet is probably not for you.
In any case, imagining future possibilities require a minimum amount of flexibility in thinking. Such as accepting as fact that Apple is not so stupid as to not have OSX running on ARM.
And if you disagree with the assertion that the A9 chip will be in macs then the most effective way is to show why this is in fact highly unlikely. Not to throw a hissy fit because he did not clearly mark fanciful expectations as fanciful rather than fact.
How could it be fact? It can't. So the rational response is to simply recognize that as prediction and either support or eviscerate it.
In Post #134 Phil mocked the assertion that OSX was running on ARM.
In Post #140 I pinged Phil for asking for proof of something obvious.
In Post #141 You challenged me for proof that this was obvious.
In Post #142 I mocked you for demanding "proof" and provided a link to evidence that multi-user darwin had been ported to ARM as well as evidence that many libraries had already been ported to ARM v6 and v7 but not to v5. Which you clearly ignored and is evidence that you weren't actually looking for evidence.
I’m gonna pull this out of context for a minute.
#140: “something obvious”. Nope. Something that can be extrapolated from what we’ve seen in history? Absolutely. Something that I believe is true? Sure. Something that is obvious, or that can be known? Not at all.
#142: “I mocked you” Found one of the problems. Anyway, so Darwin’s on ARM. Is Darwin OS X? Nope. Again, I figure as near to full OS X as is possible has been running on some ARM chip since at least the first iPhone’s initial development stages. But we don’t actually know, and no one who does has ever said anything to that effect.
BUT, let’s look at something that Steve said. “iPhone runs OS X.” He said that. First model’s introduction. But we now know (and it was stated in the keynote afterward) that it’s a stripped-down version of OS X. In fact, it’s different enough to have its own name: “iPhone OS”, later iOS. So that’s not at all OS X. The framework that makes Apple’s OS’ (except the non-iOS iPods’) what they are IS running on ARM, but that framework isn’t inherently OS X.
In past threads about this, users have pointed out the fundamental differences between X86 and ARM that make it physically impossible to 1:1 port OS X between the two. There are things that Intel’s chips do that ARM hasn’t, doesn’t, and won’t for the foreseeable future. I say ’things’. I don’t remember what they’re called. Dick, Marvin, and the other great guy, username starts with a ‘D’*; they know. I remember the posts, not the content. Given that Apple’s two OS’ that are built on the same frameworks are, in fact, called two OS’–and not just variants on a single OS–it can’t really be said that OS X runs on ARM, nor can it until ARM incorporates those low-level whatevers.
*No, it doesn’t. Sorry, user, when I remember your name; all I know is that I respect your information and opinion a lot. Gotta tell you, I teeter on the verge of tears most of the time. Forgot my phone number the other day. Had it for 21 years.
One last time as I have a plane to catch and unfortunately this leg of the trip will not have WiFI access. You're claiming I don't think OS X on ARM is possible despite my clear reply to Danox providing evidence to support that point and my request for proof regarding Mac OS X running on the A9 or A10. I didn't see anyone else besides me provide evidence that OS X is on ARM. Did you try to support your argument with evidence or attempt to learn anything or did you just pop in to argue?
You're claiming I don't think OS X on ARM is possible despite my clear reply to Danox providing evidence to support that point and my request for proof regarding Mac OS X running on the A9 or A10.
Nope. I'm claiming that I never had any sort of beef with you calling him out on Mac OSX running on the A9 or A10 WHICH IS WHY I NEVER REPLIED AT ALL ON THAT SUBTHREAD.
Did they say it was a stripped down version of OS X or a stripped down version of Mac OS X? It's clearly a stripped down version of Mac OS X leaving OS X, which to means Darwin put all the useful frameworks that that are between Darwin and the Aqua UI (and other features needed for a desktop OS).
These are just names so they have movable boundaries on how they are defined. If Apple solidified the term "OS X iPhone" or said it ran OS X that should be enough to show that was the case even if they don't use that terminology any longer. I seem to recall they stated they took Mac OS X, stripped out everything unnecessary, and then built it up to optimize it for the HW. That sounds like it was based on OS X just as much as saying that Mac OS X is based on NeXTSTEP.
Both iDevices and Macs use Darwin and I believe the same kernel. So where does the OS X segment reside between Darwin and iOS, and between Darwin and Mac OS X? I'd say it's probable that iOS 7.x and Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks are closer in their code base than they were back in the iPhone firmware 1.0 and Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger days. My reasoning is they now have the kernel versions and Mac appears to now use more of the frameworks developed for the iPhone.
In past threads about this, users have pointed out the fundamental differences between X86 and ARM that make it physically impossible to 1:1 port OS X between the two. There are things that Intel’s chips do that ARM hasn’t, doesn’t, and won’t for the foreseeable future. I say ’things’. I don’t remember what they’re called. Dick, Marvin, and the other great guy, username starts with a ‘D’*; they know. I remember the posts, not the content. Given that Apple’s two OS’ that are built on the same frameworks are, in fact, called two OS’–and not just variants on a single OS–it can’t really be said that OS X runs on ARM, nor can it until ARM incorporates those low-level whatevers.
D-something? Hmm...can't recall either.
Anyway, having done my fair share of complex ports (complicated 88K to Sparc transition) nothing is a 1:1 port across architectures. That's pretty much a tautology. However, once you get the kernel and userland ported over you're most of the way there from the perspective of the OS. And that's Darwin. Then you need your Core libraries and lower level stacks ported. Much of this is in ObjC/C and your cross compiler handles a lot of the heavy lifting. All but the assembler bits. Device drivers you need to write anyway since you're building a new machine (you know, the ARM based laptop).
Both are little endian (or at least bi-endian for ARM). Alignment can be an issue for packed structs or assembly code. Both are now 64 bit. Most of the issues are well known in the unix world.
To the point that a sharp intern can handle it...
You previously said I put Mac into "his mouth", and that would be the case if he didn't reference Mac OS X in his next post, but he did, and the only comments I didn't agree with are regarding that particular usage. I even used the specific Mac OS X reference in replies to you, TS, and señor Applebaum so I'm confused why you think I'd be referring to something I specifically provided evidence to pages ago directly to Danox.
Anyway, having done my fair share of complex ports (complicated 88K to Sparc transition) nothing is a 1:1 port across architectures. That's pretty much a tautology.
I know; I’m thinking of the special technologies of which OS X takes advantage that are only in X86 builds… I’ll have to go looking. I’d know them if I see them.
Footie Tootsies :smokey:
Damn... and I thought I was just replying about "soccer mom" analogies... and instead defined the entire discussion thread after the fact?!? :smokey:
I'm just joshing on the relative unimportance of soccer in the US compared to everywhere else.