I had the opportunity to take a peak at the system library of Jaguar (6C98, I believe), the build on MacWorld's iMacs. It only had definitions of PowerPCs up to the 7450.
The lack of it is a lot less telling than if it had actually been there.
Doesn't mean a thing. In fact I suspect that Apple is crafty enough to remove any traces of G5 support even if they were there, so for all we know Jobs could intro Power 5 Macs next week.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Like I meant anything different than what was said in those last two posts. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
If you hoped there would be a trace in that build, there is not, that is all, period.
<strong>Then why did you post it? What is your point?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I posted because I had personally been wondering if the later distributed builds of Jaguar had any knowledge of a processor beyond the 7450. Now I know the answer, they do not. I would encourage anyone who goes there in the next few days to see if they can learn more. The way to get to the prompt on the expo machines is this (Terminal.app is not on them).
- Log out.
- type ">console" as user name and press return.
- Use user "guest", no password.
Do a:
grep "xyz" filename
to see if the text xyz is in a file, if it says "xyz matches", do a:
hexdump -C xyz | less
then type
/xyz
to find the first occurence / to get each successive one.
The question is if Apple is waiting for Jaguar before introducing new machines (meaning it is not simply t get rid of what is in the channel), then Jaguar must have some info about them, all of which may not have been "sanitized out" of the expo build.
<strong>Ok... what about the 7440s and 7445s in the previous generation powerbooks and the current iMacs?
they're not at all functionally equivalent to the cached 7450s...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same pin count though. The L3 cache doesn't add any pins to the overall size of the chip, just to the top of the chip but I may be wrong here. And therefore with the cache not being there or being there the software reacts the same.
Same pin count though. The L3 cache doesn't add any pins to the overall size of the chip, just to the top of the chip but I may be wrong here. And therefore with the cache not being there or being there the software reacts the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By that same argument, why have separate definitions for the 603, 603e, and 603ev?
There also are references to x86 chips. This is a Darwin issue, not a MacOS X issue. Darwin can conceivably be built for the 68K, and can surely be built for the various x86 flavors.
There may be other more meaningful places to look in than the System file to determine what Jaguar contains in this matter.
I realize that the older processors listed are a vestige from OpenStep's underlayer, which became Darwin. It would be funny, though, to see OS X running on a 68000. On the other hand people shouldn't ever forget that OpenStep ran well on the 68040 chip.
Same pin count though. The L3 cache doesn't add any pins to the overall size of the chip, just to the top of the chip but I may be wrong here. And therefore with the cache not being there or being there the software reacts the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but the 7455.... hey, wait a minute-- where you always a moderator? What happened to your post count? Maybe it's been a long week for me.
Is Jonathan a benevolent tyrant, or one of those the exact terrible consequences on all those that oppose him? They're so hard to tell apart these days.
In addition to what others have pointed out, did you try this on a PowerMac? The installer may be smart enough to not install files related to a 64-bit chip on a computer that will be 32-bit for the foreseeable future.
Comments
<strong>
The lack of it is a lot less telling than if it had actually been there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Doh!
:eek:
[edit was because I`m pissed...]
[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: gnurf ]</p>
If you hoped there would be a trace in that build, there is not, that is all, period.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>Then why did you post it? What is your point?
I posted because I had personally been wondering if the later distributed builds of Jaguar had any knowledge of a processor beyond the 7450. Now I know the answer, they do not. I would encourage anyone who goes there in the next few days to see if they can learn more. The way to get to the prompt on the expo machines is this (Terminal.app is not on them).
- Log out.
- type ">console" as user name and press return.
- Use user "guest", no password.
Do a:
grep "xyz" filename
to see if the text xyz is in a file, if it says "xyz matches", do a:
hexdump -C xyz | less
then type
/xyz
to find the first occurence / to get each successive one.
The question is if Apple is waiting for Jaguar before introducing new machines (meaning it is not simply t get rid of what is in the channel), then Jaguar must have some info about them, all of which may not have been "sanitized out" of the expo build.
[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: *l++ ]</p>
<strong>er, too bad the current PMs and PBs use 7455s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 7455 are functionally equivalent to the 7450. The System file has the following definitions:
m68k, m68030, m68040 ppc601 ppc603 ppc603e ppc603ev ppc604 ppc604e ppc750 ppc7400 ppc7450.
You will notice there is no 7410, because it is equivalent to the 7400.
[ 07-17-2002: Message edited by: *l++ ]</p>
they're not at all functionally equivalent to the cached 7450s...
<strong>Ok... what about the 7440s and 7445s in the previous generation powerbooks and the current iMacs?
they're not at all functionally equivalent to the cached 7450s...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Same pin count though. The L3 cache doesn't add any pins to the overall size of the chip, just to the top of the chip but I may be wrong here. And therefore with the cache not being there or being there the software reacts the same.
Guess it's time to start cruisin' Carracho servers in search of the secret "Power 5" build of OS X...
<strong>
Same pin count though. The L3 cache doesn't add any pins to the overall size of the chip, just to the top of the chip but I may be wrong here. And therefore with the cache not being there or being there the software reacts the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By that same argument, why have separate definitions for the 603, 603e, and 603ev?
There may be other more meaningful places to look in than the System file to determine what Jaguar contains in this matter.
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: shawk ]</p>
[ 07-19-2002: Message edited by: shawk ]</p>
<strong>
Same pin count though. The L3 cache doesn't add any pins to the overall size of the chip, just to the top of the chip but I may be wrong here. And therefore with the cache not being there or being there the software reacts the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but the 7455.... hey, wait a minute-- where you always a moderator? What happened to your post count? Maybe it's been a long week for me.
Is Jonathan a benevolent tyrant, or one of those the exact terrible consequences on all those that oppose him? They're so hard to tell apart these days.