six months ago we did not have Mike Eggleston's tidbit of info
six months ago we were not 1 month away from a machine that has the horsepower to run bochs.
I'm sure 12 months ago people would have said "good god! internet explorer won can we get over this html rendering thing and just move on?"
\
Ok, then how bout this. There was a lot of talk and speculation already written about this subject- why don't we resurrect one of those threads instead of rehashing all that same information which to me is somewhat OT to this thread?
as you know, safari is really made up of 2 parts. the cocoa app, windows, menus etc. and the html rendering engine. this engine is actually open source. it was started by the kde group and called khtml. apple took khtml and made is better and gave back their changes to the OS community.
the html rendering portion is called webCore. this allows 3rd party developers to "use" this rendering engine and display html code in their apps. like omniweb is doing with their next rev of their web browser. they are ditching the old rendering engine and using webcore to give them the exact capablities of safari. (plus what ever they add) itunes uses the same for the music store.
if apple did the same with the boch code (winCore?) then 3rd parties could use the winCore and build their own windows emulators.
Oh, was it that simple Just had a cup of coffee myself
Ok, so Apple makes their own emulator. An emulator that is integated in os X much like classic. I suppose Apple would make this emulation faster than anyone else, because of their knowledge of the os and hardware. Why would anyone else bother with this then?
And my previous comment stands. I think it would be very dangerous for Apple to make a seamless windows emulator environment because of the reasons stated before. Of course they can help other companies develop nice emulation environments, and I would rahter see that happen than Apple providing one.
about the only thing i could think of would be to give back to the linux community a _really_ good windows emulator. that's piss off some M$ people.
another reason why would be when apple releases OSX - > Intel in Jan 2004 with a Superbowl - 1984 commerical. they would be prepared for the immediate shelving of the mac version of Office
I should imagine that an Opteron could emulate a 1 gig G4 in its sleep. That could protect alot of software investments...
Really? Does x86-64 (or whatever it is) have enough registers now? I believe that was what was the bottleneck in emulatiing PPC (hence why there are only 68k mulators out there for x86 right now).
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Bochs is a Windows emulator. A Windows emulator and a PC emulator are two entirely different things.
Bochs runs under Unix/Linux on x86 machines to eliminate the need for Windows...but when those Windows apps start talking to the x86 hardware, the hardware is there and ready to listen.
Bochs would be useless (in it's currently publicly available versions, anyway) on a Macintosh PPC based machine because then the Windows apps starts to talk to x86 hardware that is really a PPC, it would choke.
Bochs would need to be turned into a full-fledged PC emulator, like Virtual PC, which means instant hits in performance. Unless Apple is working with Bochs AND designing a Virtual PC replacement of it's own, optimized for OS X, I'm not sure we have anything to talk about.
Bochs is a highly portable open source IA-32 (x86) PC emulator written in C++, that runs on most popular platforms. It includes emulation of the Intel x86 CPU, common I/O devices, and a custom BIOS. Currently, bochs can be compiled to emulate a 386, 486 or Pentium CPU. Bochs is capable of running most Operating Systems inside the emulation including Linux, Windows® 95, DOS, and recently Windows® NT 4. Bochs was written by Kevin Lawton and is currently maintained by this project.
Bochs can be compiled and used in a variety of modes, some which are still in development. The 'typical' use of bochs is to provide complete x86 PC emulation, including the x86 processor, hardware devices, and memory. This allows you to run OS's and software within the emulator on your workstation, much like you have a machine inside of a machine. For instance, let's say your workstation is a Unix/X11 workstation, but you want to run Win'95 applications. Bochs will allow you to run Win 95 and associated software on your Unix/X11 workstation, displaying a window on your workstation, simulating a monitor on a PC.
Really? Does x86-64 (or whatever it is) have enough registers now? I believe that was what was the bottleneck in emulatiing PPC (hence why there are only 68k mulators out there for x86 right now).
That's what I've heard as well, and Opteron has only 16 (general purpose) registers compared to 32 for all PPCs.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Bochs is a Windows emulator.
No, it's a PC emulator. In theory it should be able to run any PC-compatible OS. You may be thinking of VMWare or VirtualPC for Windows, which let PCs run multiple OSes simultaneously, sort of like how OS 9 runs under X.
Bochs would need to be turned into a full-fledged PC emulator, like Virtual PC, which means instant hits in performance.
It already is, and you're right, performance is a major issue.
NETROMac ... my apologies. You are correct. I was actually confusing WINE with Bochs, which are two different projects. WINE (again...from what I recall) emulates Windows without emulating the actual x86 platform...which apparently Bochs DOES do.
Rog over at a macrumors board (posted at 05-31-2003 12:05 AM, board time) has an interesting point about MacBidoulles reputation.\
Quote:
Uh folks, this is all from the site that claimed to have benchmarks of the 970 using a soon to be released new version of Bryce that is far into development. Guess what? Corel just announced that Bryce version 5 is it as far as the mac goes. Everything on the MB site is just totally and completely bogus, and specifically, news about Bryce is the final nail in the coffin in regards to their earlier claimed benchmarks.
Rog over at a macrumors board (posted at 05-31-2003 12:05 AM, board time) has an interesting point about MacBidoulles reputation.
quote:
Uh folks, this is all from the site that claimed to have benchmarks of the 970 using a soon to be released new version of Bryce that is far into development. Guess what? Corel just announced that Bryce version 5 is it as far as the mac goes. Everything on the MB site is just totally and completely bogus, and specifically, news about Bryce is the final nail in the coffin in regards to their earlier claimed benchmarks.
Oh well.
I read that too. Its possible that bryce was "just" cancelled. But what is looking more and more probable is that macbippyboopy is either receiving or giving false info...
I read that too. Its possible that bryce was "just" cancelled. But what is looking more and more probable is that macbippyboopy is either receiving or giving false info...
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Bochs is a Windows emulator. A Windows emulator and a PC emulator are two entirely different things.
Bochs runs under Unix/Linux on x86 machines to eliminate the need for Windows...but when those Windows apps start talking to the x86 hardware, the hardware is there and ready to listen.
No, Bochs is a PC emulator that emulates an x86 processor and chipset. It does not eliminate the need for Windows for Linux machines.
It's so incredibly slow that it doesn't eliminate the need for anything other than patience. Consider it to be a horribly slow implementation of RealPC/VirtualPC.
As the Bible says, it's better to give than to receive.
If true, this takes an already large hole in their credibility and widens it some - the benchmarks smelled funny even if you granted them a developmental build of Bryce 6.
And, of course, the recent press release does not mean that there never was a build of Bryce 6 for OS X. Half-LIfe for Mac made it all the way to release candidate before it was axed...
Whether this means that all of their information is bogus is impossible to say, but they've gone pretty far out on a limb, and we'll probably know within weeks if that limb can support them.
VirtualPC is roughly 100x faster than Bochs is. Bochs would hope it became more like VirtualPC
Talking about pc emulators. According to SpyMac it looks like FWB's RealPC for Mac OS X is delayed.
Quote:
FWB's Mark Prewitt told Spymac this:
"With the recent updates to 10.2 and the upcoming release of Panther, we have elected to delay the product by a few weeks to better deal with some technical issues that have risen,"
...
"We should be back on track and will be putting some kind of update on our web site shortly."
Talking about pc emulators. According to SpyMac it looks like FWB's RealPC for Mac OS X is delayed.
That's alright. Better to take their time and bring out a good product, then to rush it and have to deal with bugs (other then the big one called Windows).
Comments
six months ago we were not 1 month away from a machine that has the horsepower to run bochs.
I'm sure 12 months ago people would have said "good god! internet explorer won can we get over this html rendering thing and just move on?"
Originally posted by keyboardf12
six months ago we did not have Mike Eggleston's tidbit of info
six months ago we were not 1 month away from a machine that has the horsepower to run bochs.
I'm sure 12 months ago people would have said "good god! internet explorer won can we get over this html rendering thing and just move on?"
Ok, then how bout this. There was a lot of talk and speculation already written about this subject- why don't we resurrect one of those threads instead of rehashing all that same information which to me is somewhat OT to this thread?
Back to lurking for real this time.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
hi. sorry. no coffee yet.
as you know, safari is really made up of 2 parts. the cocoa app, windows, menus etc. and the html rendering engine. this engine is actually open source. it was started by the kde group and called khtml. apple took khtml and made is better and gave back their changes to the OS community.
the html rendering portion is called webCore. this allows 3rd party developers to "use" this rendering engine and display html code in their apps. like omniweb is doing with their next rev of their web browser. they are ditching the old rendering engine and using webcore to give them the exact capablities of safari. (plus what ever they add) itunes uses the same for the music store.
if apple did the same with the boch code (winCore?) then 3rd parties could use the winCore and build their own windows emulators.
Oh, was it that simple
Ok, so Apple makes their own emulator. An emulator that is integated in os X much like classic. I suppose Apple would make this emulation faster than anyone else, because of their knowledge of the os and hardware. Why would anyone else bother with this then?
And my previous comment stands. I think it would be very dangerous for Apple to make a seamless windows emulator environment because of the reasons stated before. Of course they can help other companies develop nice emulation environments, and I would rahter see that happen than Apple providing one.
about the only thing i could think of would be to give back to the linux community a _really_ good windows emulator. that's piss off some M$ people.
another reason why would be when apple releases OSX - > Intel in Jan 2004 with a Superbowl - 1984 commerical. they would be prepared for the immediate shelving of the mac version of Office
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
I should imagine that an Opteron could emulate a 1 gig G4 in its sleep. That could protect alot of software investments...
Really? Does x86-64 (or whatever it is) have enough registers now? I believe that was what was the bottleneck in emulatiing PPC (hence why there are only 68k mulators out there for x86 right now).
Bochs runs under Unix/Linux on x86 machines to eliminate the need for Windows...but when those Windows apps start talking to the x86 hardware, the hardware is there and ready to listen.
Bochs would be useless (in it's currently publicly available versions, anyway) on a Macintosh PPC based machine because then the Windows apps starts to talk to x86 hardware that is really a PPC, it would choke.
Bochs would need to be turned into a full-fledged PC emulator, like Virtual PC, which means instant hits in performance. Unless Apple is working with Bochs AND designing a Virtual PC replacement of it's own, optimized for OS X, I'm not sure we have anything to talk about.
-- Ensoniq
Edit:
from the Bochs homepage
Bochs is a highly portable open source IA-32 (x86) PC emulator written in C++, that runs on most popular platforms. It includes emulation of the Intel x86 CPU, common I/O devices, and a custom BIOS. Currently, bochs can be compiled to emulate a 386, 486 or Pentium CPU. Bochs is capable of running most Operating Systems inside the emulation including Linux, Windows® 95, DOS, and recently Windows® NT 4. Bochs was written by Kevin Lawton and is currently maintained by this project.
Bochs can be compiled and used in a variety of modes, some which are still in development. The 'typical' use of bochs is to provide complete x86 PC emulation, including the x86 processor, hardware devices, and memory. This allows you to run OS's and software within the emulator on your workstation, much like you have a machine inside of a machine. For instance, let's say your workstation is a Unix/X11 workstation, but you want to run Win'95 applications. Bochs will allow you to run Win 95 and associated software on your Unix/X11 workstation, displaying a window on your workstation, simulating a monitor on a PC.
Originally posted by kupan787
Really? Does x86-64 (or whatever it is) have enough registers now? I believe that was what was the bottleneck in emulatiing PPC (hence why there are only 68k mulators out there for x86 right now).
That's what I've heard as well, and Opteron has only 16 (general purpose) registers compared to 32 for all PPCs.
Originally posted by Ensoniq
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Bochs is a Windows emulator.
No, it's a PC emulator. In theory it should be able to run any PC-compatible OS. You may be thinking of VMWare or VirtualPC for Windows, which let PCs run multiple OSes simultaneously, sort of like how OS 9 runs under X.
Bochs would need to be turned into a full-fledged PC emulator, like Virtual PC, which means instant hits in performance.
It already is, and you're right, performance is a major issue.
-- Ensoniq
Uh folks, this is all from the site that claimed to have benchmarks of the 970 using a soon to be released new version of Bryce that is far into development. Guess what? Corel just announced that Bryce version 5 is it as far as the mac goes. Everything on the MB site is just totally and completely bogus, and specifically, news about Bryce is the final nail in the coffin in regards to their earlier claimed benchmarks.
Oh well.
-tink
Variable-precision Rendering
Paper in PDF format.
Thoughts? Speculation? An AltiVec implementation?
Perhaps someone should contact the authors and see if they're planning (or are willing to do) an AltiVec implementation.
--
Ed
Rog over at a macrumors board (posted at 05-31-2003 12:05 AM, board time) has an interesting point about MacBidoulles reputation.
quote:
Uh folks, this is all from the site that claimed to have benchmarks of the 970 using a soon to be released new version of Bryce that is far into development. Guess what? Corel just announced that Bryce version 5 is it as far as the mac goes. Everything on the MB site is just totally and completely bogus, and specifically, news about Bryce is the final nail in the coffin in regards to their earlier claimed benchmarks.
Oh well.
I read that too. Its possible that bryce was "just" cancelled. But what is looking more and more probable is that macbippyboopy is either receiving or giving false info...
Originally posted by keyboardf12
I read that too. Its possible that bryce was "just" cancelled. But what is looking more and more probable is that macbippyboopy is either receiving or giving false info...
I vote for giving.
Originally posted by Ensoniq
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Bochs is a Windows emulator. A Windows emulator and a PC emulator are two entirely different things.
Bochs runs under Unix/Linux on x86 machines to eliminate the need for Windows...but when those Windows apps start talking to the x86 hardware, the hardware is there and ready to listen.
No, Bochs is a PC emulator that emulates an x86 processor and chipset. It does not eliminate the need for Windows for Linux machines.
It's so incredibly slow that it doesn't eliminate the need for anything other than patience. Consider it to be a horribly slow implementation of RealPC/VirtualPC.
Originally posted by 3.1416
Bochs would need to be turned into a full-fledged PC emulator, like Virtual PC, which means instant hits in performance.
It already is, and you're right, performance is a major issue.
VirtualPC is roughly 100x faster than Bochs is. Bochs would hope it became more like VirtualPC
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I vote for giving.
As the Bible says, it's better to give than to receive.
If true, this takes an already large hole in their credibility and widens it some - the benchmarks smelled funny even if you granted them a developmental build of Bryce 6.
And, of course, the recent press release does not mean that there never was a build of Bryce 6 for OS X. Half-LIfe for Mac made it all the way to release candidate before it was axed...
Whether this means that all of their information is bogus is impossible to say, but they've gone pretty far out on a limb, and we'll probably know within weeks if that limb can support them.
Originally posted by moki
VirtualPC is roughly 100x faster than Bochs is. Bochs would hope it became more like VirtualPC
Talking about pc emulators. According to SpyMac it looks like FWB's RealPC for Mac OS X is delayed.
FWB's Mark Prewitt told Spymac this:
"With the recent updates to 10.2 and the upcoming release of Panther, we have elected to delay the product by a few weeks to better deal with some technical issues that have risen,"
...
"We should be back on track and will be putting some kind of update on our web site shortly."
Originally posted by NETROMac
Talking about pc emulators. According to SpyMac it looks like FWB's RealPC for Mac OS X is delayed.
That's alright. Better to take their time and bring out a good product, then to rush it and have to deal with bugs (other then the big one called Windows).