The Apple transition document mentions that the inMacs will use a different partitioning scheme than the one traditionally used by Macs.
This is going to be the same braindead scheme used by all OSses on x86, which is enforced by the limitations of BIOS. Inside this, partitions can be formatted with HFS+, which is the most likely choice for a file system.
Ugggg. That's the worst part of the Intel switch. BIOS! What a mess.
1a) Apple have not stated that they won't use Open Firmware.
1b) Apple have not stated that they will use BIOS or EFI.
2) The fact that the development machine uses PhoenixBIOS has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with what actual Apple products with an Intel x86 CPU will use. The development machine is not an official product.
HFS+ is used on Darwin x86. I don't think they'd switch from what works.
They'll probably use either FAT32, or NTFS. This will make the transition to windows much easier. I personally expect them to get out of the pc business by 2008, or switch to a windows vendor. This is sad, but the transition has already begun. The next gen macs he to be known as wintel macs (built by e-machines) will be just waiting to be virus magnets. Look for MS to produce a "kit" to install windows on them By 2008 also expect many ISVs to drop support for OS X. Hell if you can install windows, why support OS X at all?
They'll probably use either FAT32, or NTFS. This will make the transition to windows much easier. I personally expect them to get out of the pc business by 2008, or switch to a windows vendor. This is sad, but the transition has already begun. The next gen macs he to be known as wintel macs (built by e-machines) will be just waiting to be virus magnets. Look for MS to produce a "kit" to install windows on them By 2008 also expect many ISVs to drop support for OS X. Hell if you can install windows, why support OS X at all?
Very confused by this post.
When you say that by 2008, MS will produce a 'kit' to install Windows on the new Macs...do you mean the standard Windows install CD?
How dos using Intel make them more of a virus magnet? Virii will be written for Macs when Macs have greater marketshare...so you are saying Apple will sell more Macs by using Intel? So, you would appear to agree that the Intel move was a good decision.
Why would Macs be built by emachines? Have you ever known Jobs to go with the cheapest bidder? Jobs always strives for the power of appearance. Emachines doesn't provide this, aesthetically or in reputation.
Misconceptions, idiocies and other flaws in the post:
Quote:
Originally posted by I hate Apple NOW
They'll probably use either FAT32, or NTFS.
Why would they? How could they? FAT32 is patented; Microsoft has allowed third-party implementations so far, but I'm sure they won't be so tolerant when a direct competitor uses the file system as the OS's default. Also, FAT32 is about as modern and feature-rich as anything that we had 10 years ago. Its only two uses these days are compatibility -- pretty much any system on the planet can handle it -- and small media, e.g. floppy disks.
NTFS is very modern, very flexible and very well-designed -- but nobody outside Microsoft (unless they have a license) knows how to implement proper write support, especially when you come to advanced NTFS features such as compression. It is therefore very unsuited as a non-Microsoft default FS.
Quote:
This will make the transition to windows much easier.
There is no such transition to Windows.
Quote:
I personally expect them to get out of the pc business by 2008, or switch to a windows vendor.
Um, and then do what? First you say they have a transition to Windows, thus making their OS irrelevant, and now they're getting out of hardware business as well? What's left?
Quote:
This is sad, but the transition has already begun.
I can literally smell it! Look, over there!
Quote:
The next gen macs he to be known as wintel macs (built by e-machines) will be just waiting to be virus magnets. Look for MS to produce a "kit" to install windows on them By 2008 also expect many ISVs to drop support for OS X. Hell if you can install windows, why support OS X at all?
If you can install Windows, why use Linux at all? If you can drive Porsche on a road, why go for a Volkswagen?
HFS+ is used on Darwin x86. I don't think they'd switch from what works.
Ah, finally, an on-topic post. Does anybody know whether it uses standardized endian or adaptable endian? Has anyone ever tried connecting a Mac-formatted iPod to a Darwin x86 machine? Can someone try it, or shall we speculate endlessly? I know the answer to that one...
They'll probably use either FAT32, or NTFS. This will make the transition to windows much easier.
We are transitioning to intel processors, not windows. Yes, there is a difference.
Quote:
I personally expect them to get out of the pc business by 2008, or switch to a windows vendor. This is sad, but the transition has already begun.
Apple makes unique hardware, not PC clones. There are practical applications to running windows on the Mac. For one, it makes the transition of switchers easy. There also places and people who use proprietary software unique to windows. Being able to access that software while a Mac version is written keeps them in business.
Quote:
The next gen macs he to be known as wintel macs (built by e-machines) will be just waiting to be virus magnets.
1. Emachines quality has gotten a lot better since they started using better components
2. Who do you think makes the current PPC Macs now? The same Taiwanese companies who make x86 PCs. Quanta: Powerbooks, Asustek: iBooks, Foxconn: PowerMacs. Shall I go on?
3. Viruses are caused by security holes in a bad operating system, not my the chip inside.
Quote:
Look for MS to produce a "kit" to install windows on them By 2008 also expect many ISVs to drop support for OS X. Hell if you can install windows, why support OS X at all?
1. You can install windows on an x86 Mac from the getgo?
2. If they supported the Mac on a different platform, why wouldn't they support it on the same platform which may require less programming in some cases and usually already optimized for x86. This isn't OS/2, BeOS, NEXTSTEP, Amiga, Linux or some other the fringe operating systems. The Mac is preferred by professionals.
3. With the choice between using windows (which people are fed up with) or OSX on competitive hardware, why support windows at all?
Ah, finally, an on-topic post. Does anybody know whether it uses standardized endian or adaptable endian? Has anyone ever tried connecting a Mac-formatted iPod to a Darwin x86 machine? Can someone try it, or shall we speculate endlessly? I know the answer to that one...
Why does a filesystem even need to know about endianness? It just stores bytes, or streams of bits partitioned into byte sized chunks. The interior byte ordering is the same for both endians. It's just whem you string bytes together into words that endianness becomes an issue. You don't get to words until you get into byte alignment in RAM, and that just happens automagically via implicit modulo arithmetic as the bytes are loaded into RAM based on a start address.
The DMA engine certainly doesn't care, it will shuffle bytes around regardless of endianness and doesn't particularly care if the CPU doesn't like the endian order or not. The data range is the data range, period.
Ok, so I don't have a great knowledge of filesystems, but wouldn't Apple use HFS+ as standard because this would allow read/write of legacy users files saved to removeable disks (CDr/DVDr/external HDs etc.).
I should hope that this will be the case as (correct me if I'm wrong) I really don't like the idea of trying to convert shed loads of music/data files I've stored on my HFS+ formatted ext. HD and re-formatting the thing if and when I buy a Macintel.
Ok, so I don't have a great knowledge of filesystems, but wouldn't Apple use HFS+ as standard because this would allow read/write of legacy users files saved to removeable disks (CDr/DVDr/external HDs etc.).
I should hope that this will be the case as (correct me if I'm wrong) I really don't like the idea of trying to convert shed loads of music/data files I've stored on my HFS+ formatted ext. HD and re-formatting the thing if and when I buy a Macintel.
\
Apple WILL use HFS+, no problems. If there are endian problems, Apple will provide a solution, but I suspect there will be no problem. One of the greatest things about OSX is that it is filesystem neutral, it can adapt to any file system.
I suppose somebody inside Apple would have tried connecting a Mac iPod to an x86 Mac... but I'm not as confident as you fanboys.
Hiro, a filesystem contains many pieces of data that are bigger than one byte, so it absolutely needs to know about endianness.
Back in the Minix days, I was horrified when I found that an Atari ST running Minix 1.5 couldn't read a floppy made by a PC running Minix 1.5, because each machine simply used its native endian. But my bigger shock was when I complained - Dr. Tanenbaum himself said that he knew there would be an issue, and he didn't care. He wasn't writing an OS for people to use, he was writing it for him to teach with. Well, he taught me one thing for sure: Academics can be real jerks.
The moral of the story is, if people don't think endian issues are going to be a problem, you can be sure that they will be a problem.
as far as i know, i thought you couldn;t use two file systems on the same drive even if they arw partitioned.
If that is so, then how will one dual boot. If it is untrue and you are able to run two different filesystems then nevermind
hmm...that would be wrong. It's been a while, but I've had a drive with vrious mixes of fat32, NTFS, the BE file system, Linux file system, QNX file system on different partitions. Primary, logical and extended might become issues, but you should be able to mix file systems between partitions on a drive.
as far as i know, i thought you couldn;t use two file systems on the same drive even if they arw partitioned.
You are mistaken. Both the Mac and the PC partitioning schemes allow for this. I've had Mac hard disks with HFS+, NTFS and ext2 side by side, I'm typing this on a PC hard disk with two NTFS partitions and one HFS+ one.
You can combine it almost arbitrarily, provided you stay conscious of the limits of both partitioning formats -- having multiple different file systems, however, is not one of them.
Why does a filesystem even need to know about endianness? It just stores bytes, or streams of bits partitioned into byte sized chunks. The interior byte ordering is the same for both endians.
You're half right; endianness matters only for filesystem metadata.
I suppose somebody inside Apple would have tried connecting a Mac iPod to an x86 Mac... but I'm not as confident as you fanboys.
Hiro, a filesystem contains many pieces of data that are bigger than one byte, so it absolutely needs to know about endianness.
Back in the Minix days, I was horrified when I found that an Atari ST running Minix 1.5 couldn't read a floppy made by a PC running Minix 1.5, because each machine simply used its native endian. But my bigger shock was when I complained - Dr. Tanenbaum himself said that he knew there would be an issue, and he didn't care. He wasn't writing an OS for people to use, he was writing it for him to teach with. Well, he taught me one thing for sure: Academics can be real jerks.
The moral of the story is, if people don't think endian issues are going to be a problem, you can be sure that they will be a problem.
You miss the point of my post. The filesystem doesn't care how the endians are defined--the rest of the computer does. Filesystems aren't even concerned with words, which is the level endianness becomes identifiable at. The filesystem just reads/writes a stream of individual bytes defined by base and offset addresses. When a filesystem stores a word it blindly stores those 4 or 8 bytes in the order they are presented by the DMA engine and reads in the opposite manner. I have written network endian swizziling code to allow supposedly incompatible formats to communicate through a proxy, and written both endian formats concurrently to the same HFS+ drive as a debugging and verfication tool.
Think of it this way. Every MS Office for Mac doc on your PPC Mac is stored in little-endian format, even though PPC970 is big-endian (earlier PPCs were bi-endian). The filesystem neither knows nor cares, and the one thing you acre about is the transparent ability to write that file to a PC and have WinOffice open it. You don't really think the Windows end does the translation now do you?
And Tannenbaum didn't write a filesystem to enforce those endian issues, they were forced by the CPU's. Filesystem couldn't care a rats ass. Same holds true for current Linux which grew out of Torvalds desire to have a better OS for his 386 than MS-DOS or MINIX could offer. Ask yourself this, what endian formats do Linux PPC (on a 970, earlier could switch CPU modes as noted above) and Linux x86 write on their native platforms even though they are compiled from the same idential source?
Comments
Originally posted by Smircle
The Apple transition document mentions that the inMacs will use a different partitioning scheme than the one traditionally used by Macs.
This is going to be the same braindead scheme used by all OSses on x86, which is enforced by the limitations of BIOS. Inside this, partitions can be formatted with HFS+, which is the most likely choice for a file system.
Ugggg. That's the worst part of the Intel switch. BIOS! What a mess.
1a) Apple have not stated that they won't use Open Firmware.
1b) Apple have not stated that they will use BIOS or EFI.
2) The fact that the development machine uses PhoenixBIOS has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with what actual Apple products with an Intel x86 CPU will use. The development machine is not an official product.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
HFS+ is used on Darwin x86. I don't think they'd switch from what works.
They'll probably use either FAT32, or NTFS. This will make the transition to windows much easier. I personally expect them to get out of the pc business by 2008, or switch to a windows vendor. This is sad, but the transition has already begun. The next gen macs he to be known as wintel macs (built by e-machines) will be just waiting to be virus magnets. Look for MS to produce a "kit" to install windows on them By 2008 also expect many ISVs to drop support for OS X. Hell if you can install windows, why support OS X at all?
Originally posted by I hate Apple NOW
They'll probably use either FAT32, or NTFS. This will make the transition to windows much easier. I personally expect them to get out of the pc business by 2008, or switch to a windows vendor. This is sad, but the transition has already begun. The next gen macs he to be known as wintel macs (built by e-machines) will be just waiting to be virus magnets. Look for MS to produce a "kit" to install windows on them By 2008 also expect many ISVs to drop support for OS X. Hell if you can install windows, why support OS X at all?
Very confused by this post.
When you say that by 2008, MS will produce a 'kit' to install Windows on the new Macs...do you mean the standard Windows install CD?
How dos using Intel make them more of a virus magnet? Virii will be written for Macs when Macs have greater marketshare...so you are saying Apple will sell more Macs by using Intel? So, you would appear to agree that the Intel move was a good decision.
Why would Macs be built by emachines? Have you ever known Jobs to go with the cheapest bidder? Jobs always strives for the power of appearance. Emachines doesn't provide this, aesthetically or in reputation.
Originally posted by I hate Apple NOW
They'll probably use either FAT32, or NTFS.
Why would they? How could they? FAT32 is patented; Microsoft has allowed third-party implementations so far, but I'm sure they won't be so tolerant when a direct competitor uses the file system as the OS's default. Also, FAT32 is about as modern and feature-rich as anything that we had 10 years ago. Its only two uses these days are compatibility -- pretty much any system on the planet can handle it -- and small media, e.g. floppy disks.
NTFS is very modern, very flexible and very well-designed -- but nobody outside Microsoft (unless they have a license) knows how to implement proper write support, especially when you come to advanced NTFS features such as compression. It is therefore very unsuited as a non-Microsoft default FS.
This will make the transition to windows much easier.
There is no such transition to Windows.
I personally expect them to get out of the pc business by 2008, or switch to a windows vendor.
Um, and then do what? First you say they have a transition to Windows, thus making their OS irrelevant, and now they're getting out of hardware business as well? What's left?
This is sad, but the transition has already begun.
I can literally smell it! Look, over there!
The next gen macs he to be known as wintel macs (built by e-machines) will be just waiting to be virus magnets. Look for MS to produce a "kit" to install windows on them By 2008 also expect many ISVs to drop support for OS X. Hell if you can install windows, why support OS X at all?
If you can install Windows, why use Linux at all? If you can drive Porsche on a road, why go for a Volkswagen?
Originally posted by BenRoethig
HFS+ is used on Darwin x86. I don't think they'd switch from what works.
Ah, finally, an on-topic post. Does anybody know whether it uses standardized endian or adaptable endian? Has anyone ever tried connecting a Mac-formatted iPod to a Darwin x86 machine? Can someone try it, or shall we speculate endlessly?
Originally posted by I hate Apple NOW
They'll probably use either FAT32, or NTFS. This will make the transition to windows much easier.
We are transitioning to intel processors, not windows. Yes, there is a difference.
I personally expect them to get out of the pc business by 2008, or switch to a windows vendor. This is sad, but the transition has already begun.
Apple makes unique hardware, not PC clones. There are practical applications to running windows on the Mac. For one, it makes the transition of switchers easy. There also places and people who use proprietary software unique to windows. Being able to access that software while a Mac version is written keeps them in business.
The next gen macs he to be known as wintel macs (built by e-machines) will be just waiting to be virus magnets.
1. Emachines quality has gotten a lot better since they started using better components
2. Who do you think makes the current PPC Macs now? The same Taiwanese companies who make x86 PCs. Quanta: Powerbooks, Asustek: iBooks, Foxconn: PowerMacs. Shall I go on?
3. Viruses are caused by security holes in a bad operating system, not my the chip inside.
Look for MS to produce a "kit" to install windows on them By 2008 also expect many ISVs to drop support for OS X. Hell if you can install windows, why support OS X at all?
1. You can install windows on an x86 Mac from the getgo?
2. If they supported the Mac on a different platform, why wouldn't they support it on the same platform which may require less programming in some cases and usually already optimized for x86. This isn't OS/2, BeOS, NEXTSTEP, Amiga, Linux or some other the fringe operating systems. The Mac is preferred by professionals.
3. With the choice between using windows (which people are fed up with) or OSX on competitive hardware, why support windows at all?
Originally posted by cubist
Ah, finally, an on-topic post. Does anybody know whether it uses standardized endian or adaptable endian? Has anyone ever tried connecting a Mac-formatted iPod to a Darwin x86 machine? Can someone try it, or shall we speculate endlessly?
Why does a filesystem even need to know about endianness? It just stores bytes, or streams of bits partitioned into byte sized chunks. The interior byte ordering is the same for both endians. It's just whem you string bytes together into words that endianness becomes an issue. You don't get to words until you get into byte alignment in RAM, and that just happens automagically via implicit modulo arithmetic as the bytes are loaded into RAM based on a start address.
The DMA engine certainly doesn't care, it will shuffle bytes around regardless of endianness and doesn't particularly care if the CPU doesn't like the endian order or not. The data range is the data range, period.
I should hope that this will be the case as (correct me if I'm wrong) I really don't like the idea of trying to convert shed loads of music/data files I've stored on my HFS+ formatted ext. HD and re-formatting the thing if and when I buy a Macintel.
Originally posted by MiMac
Ok, so I don't have a great knowledge of filesystems, but wouldn't Apple use HFS+ as standard because this would allow read/write of legacy users files saved to removeable disks (CDr/DVDr/external HDs etc.).
I should hope that this will be the case as (correct me if I'm wrong) I really don't like the idea of trying to convert shed loads of music/data files I've stored on my HFS+ formatted ext. HD and re-formatting the thing if and when I buy a Macintel.
Apple WILL use HFS+, no problems. If there are endian problems, Apple will provide a solution, but I suspect there will be no problem. One of the greatest things about OSX is that it is filesystem neutral, it can adapt to any file system.
I suppose somebody inside Apple would have tried connecting a Mac iPod to an x86 Mac... but I'm not as confident as you fanboys.
Hiro, a filesystem contains many pieces of data that are bigger than one byte, so it absolutely needs to know about endianness.
Back in the Minix days, I was horrified when I found that an Atari ST running Minix 1.5 couldn't read a floppy made by a PC running Minix 1.5, because each machine simply used its native endian. But my bigger shock was when I complained - Dr. Tanenbaum himself said that he knew there would be an issue, and he didn't care. He wasn't writing an OS for people to use, he was writing it for him to teach with. Well, he taught me one thing for sure: Academics can be real jerks.
The moral of the story is, if people don't think endian issues are going to be a problem, you can be sure that they will be a problem.
If that is so, then how will one dual boot. If it is untrue and you are able to run two different filesystems then nevermind
Originally posted by Jwink3101
as far as i know, i thought you couldn;t use two file systems on the same drive even if they arw partitioned.
If that is so, then how will one dual boot. If it is untrue and you are able to run two different filesystems then nevermind
hmm...that would be wrong. It's been a while, but I've had a drive with vrious mixes of fat32, NTFS, the BE file system, Linux file system, QNX file system on different partitions. Primary, logical and extended might become issues, but you should be able to mix file systems between partitions on a drive.
Originally posted by Jwink3101
as far as i know, i thought you couldn;t use two file systems on the same drive even if they arw partitioned.
You are mistaken. Both the Mac and the PC partitioning schemes allow for this. I've had Mac hard disks with HFS+, NTFS and ext2 side by side, I'm typing this on a PC hard disk with two NTFS partitions and one HFS+ one.
You can combine it almost arbitrarily, provided you stay conscious of the limits of both partitioning formats -- having multiple different file systems, however, is not one of them.
Originally posted by Hiro
Why does a filesystem even need to know about endianness? It just stores bytes, or streams of bits partitioned into byte sized chunks. The interior byte ordering is the same for both endians.
You're half right; endianness matters only for filesystem metadata.
Thanks for you help.
Originally posted by cubist
OK, we're speculating, then. :-/
I suppose somebody inside Apple would have tried connecting a Mac iPod to an x86 Mac... but I'm not as confident as you fanboys.
Hiro, a filesystem contains many pieces of data that are bigger than one byte, so it absolutely needs to know about endianness.
Back in the Minix days, I was horrified when I found that an Atari ST running Minix 1.5 couldn't read a floppy made by a PC running Minix 1.5, because each machine simply used its native endian. But my bigger shock was when I complained - Dr. Tanenbaum himself said that he knew there would be an issue, and he didn't care. He wasn't writing an OS for people to use, he was writing it for him to teach with. Well, he taught me one thing for sure: Academics can be real jerks.
The moral of the story is, if people don't think endian issues are going to be a problem, you can be sure that they will be a problem.
You miss the point of my post. The filesystem doesn't care how the endians are defined--the rest of the computer does. Filesystems aren't even concerned with words, which is the level endianness becomes identifiable at. The filesystem just reads/writes a stream of individual bytes defined by base and offset addresses. When a filesystem stores a word it blindly stores those 4 or 8 bytes in the order they are presented by the DMA engine and reads in the opposite manner. I have written network endian swizziling code to allow supposedly incompatible formats to communicate through a proxy, and written both endian formats concurrently to the same HFS+ drive as a debugging and verfication tool.
Think of it this way. Every MS Office for Mac doc on your PPC Mac is stored in little-endian format, even though PPC970 is big-endian (earlier PPCs were bi-endian). The filesystem neither knows nor cares, and the one thing you acre about is the transparent ability to write that file to a PC and have WinOffice open it. You don't really think the Windows end does the translation now do you?
And Tannenbaum didn't write a filesystem to enforce those endian issues, they were forced by the CPU's. Filesystem couldn't care a rats ass. Same holds true for current Linux which grew out of Torvalds desire to have a better OS for his 386 than MS-DOS or MINIX could offer. Ask yourself this, what endian formats do Linux PPC (on a 970, earlier could switch CPU modes as noted above) and Linux x86 write on their native platforms even though they are compiled from the same idential source?
Originally posted by Hiro
PPC970 is big-endian (earlier PPCs were bi-endian)
All PowerPCs are big-endian. Most PowerPCs, however, have a special translation mode that allows for little-endian emulation.