NO, ****tard, this issue has been threaded broad and large and by the time EVERYONE should KNOW that porting a platform from one hardware platform to another isn't like porting pong from Mac to Windows.
Why does this still excite me? Because I dislike the tought? No, it's because I start to dislike those eternal ignorants who come up with it again and again and time and again.
wow. that just made me think. while personally, i dont think osx (or at least quartz) will go to x86 any time soon, that "fat binaries" mention sparked a thought.
if ne1 has done any CLI fun in OSX, and gone inside of "/Applications/[anything].app" then they prolley noticed that all macosx proggs are actually just folders. further more, there are folders within these folders. (The Finder actually hides the .app extension, and doesn't allow you to traverse the folders, but the terminal does). Well, any way, inside of *.app, there is Contents, then inside contents: a whole buncha folders (some variance between whch folders are in different apps) but one of them is consistently "MacOS". Inside this folder is the actual binary executable.
It seemed silly to me for there to be a MacOS folder inside the Macintosh only programs. It should already be obvious that the prog is MacOS. But maybe this X on x86 idea was being tossed around when they were designing the structure of quartz programs, and the extra "fat binaries" could be placed in separate fodlers (perhaps, named for chips instead of `MacOS`).
then again, i never looked at any vers of NeXT. this could be remnants of that.
Comments
<strong>I'm curious as to why the MacOS on x86 zealots always want to use AMD ???
Why switch just to be behind the curve again, if Apple were to go x86 then they should at least get P4's in SP and DP configs.
Why go second class?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because M$ and Intel are tight.
or a little more clearly:
NO, ****tard, this issue has been threaded broad and large and by the time EVERYONE should KNOW that porting a platform from one hardware platform to another isn't like porting pong from Mac to Windows.
Why does this still excite me? Because I dislike the tought? No, it's because I start to dislike those eternal ignorants who come up with it again and again and time and again.
G-News
<strong>..."fat binaries"...</strong><hr></blockquote>
wow. that just made me think. while personally, i dont think osx (or at least quartz) will go to x86 any time soon, that "fat binaries" mention sparked a thought.
if ne1 has done any CLI fun in OSX, and gone inside of "/Applications/[anything].app" then they prolley noticed that all macosx proggs are actually just folders. further more, there are folders within these folders. (The Finder actually hides the .app extension, and doesn't allow you to traverse the folders, but the terminal does). Well, any way, inside of *.app, there is Contents, then inside contents: a whole buncha folders (some variance between whch folders are in different apps) but one of them is consistently "MacOS". Inside this folder is the actual binary executable.
It seemed silly to me for there to be a MacOS folder inside the Macintosh only programs. It should already be obvious that the prog is MacOS. But maybe this X on x86 idea was being tossed around when they were designing the structure of quartz programs, and the extra "fat binaries" could be placed in separate fodlers (perhaps, named for chips instead of `MacOS`).
then again, i never looked at any vers of NeXT. this could be remnants of that.