Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/dos/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.96/text5938.txt

Text File | 1996-07-25 | 12.4 KB | 256 lines

    id m0uFG0A-0007sPa; Fri, 3 May 96 02:14 MDT
Sender: owner-executor
Received: from ardi.com by ftp.ardi.com
    (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0uFFzd-0007sOn; Fri, 3 May 96 02:13 MDT
Path: sloth.swcp.com!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!ferrari.mst6.lanl.gov!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!slip-61-3.ots.utexas.edu!user
From: [e-mail] (Dude Steve)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system,comp.sys.hardware.misc,comp.unix.aux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.sys.powerpc,comp.emulators.mac.executor
Subject: Re: PowerMac DOS Compatibles, linux, A/UX and MAE
Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 00:04:51 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 234
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-61-3.ots.utexas.edu
Xref: sloth.swcp.com comp.sys.mac.system:125253 comp.unix.aux:7106 comp.os.linux.misc:99554 comp.sys.powerpc:62561 comp.emulators.mac.executor:2972
To: [e-mail]
X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

In article <[e-mail]>, Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:

> "I see Apple's launched a new range of DOS Compatible cards. Going
>  to buy one for that old Mac of yours and finally get out of Macs and
>  into the mainstream?"
>
> "Nope. They only work in Macs with PCI buses. I'm buying a 6100
>  DOS Compatible instead."
>
> "Why? Isn't PCI the way of the future? Isn't it standard?"
>
> "When you're plugging an Apple card into an Apple Mac, it doesn't
>  matter what the bus standard is. All that matters is that the
>  Mac and card are compatible."
>
> "So PCI isn't important?"
>
> "Do you think that if I plug Apple's new Pentium card into a
>  no-name PC with a PCI bus, it would work? That I'd be able
>  to do anything useful between the Pentium on the card and
>  the Pentium on the PC's motherboard, like that fabled Pentium
>  multiprocessing?"


Like you said, "All that matters is that the Mac and card are compatible."
Who cares if you can't put this card in a PC? You can't put a Nubus or PDS
card in a PC, either - so all three are at the same level on this point.
The important thing is that PCI provides a better bus in which to operate
for the Mac, irregardless of PC's. That in itself is the worthwhile reason
for PCI on a Mac to exist. Although I understand some of your points
regarding the new PCI DOS cards, this doesn't seem to be a reason for
disliking PCI or for not buying a PCI DOS card. Especially since the PCI
DOS cards provide better speed, video, and networking capabilities.

> "Er, no. These cards are for Macs, aren't they?"
>
> "Exactly. Who'd want a PC in a PC when they could just buy a
>  complete PC for less than what the PC in a PC would cost them?
>  Mind you, I can't see the point of selling a card that meets a
>  standard unless you can sell it to everyone who bought into the
>  standard. Adopting PCI made no sense to me at all, since it
>  broke the 'Mac and card are compatible' rule for the entire
>  user base, too."

Once again, it's not the compatibility with PC's that's the point, but the
better bus architecture itself. PCI on a Mac doesn't break the "Mac and
card are compatible' rule. PCI cards designed for a Mac are compatible
with a PCI Mac. It's just means that just because it is PCI doesn't mean
it will work on a Mac. Supposedly, PCI cards are easier and cheaper to
implement than Nubus and PDS, as well. One hopes this results in cheaper
expansion cards for the customer in the long run. It also is supposed to
make it easier for a company to design a Mac-PCI card and a PC-PCI card
with less engineering redesign effort.

> "Well, you can always plug one of those cards into a new Mac, which
>  is what it's intended for. It's not that expensive, is it? You've
>  been making noises about buying a new Mac, and you can
>  share memory with the Mac motherboard, after all, so you
>  save on buying RAM, right?"
>
> "Nope, these new PCI cards can't share motherboard RAM. You've
>  got to buy separate RAM for them."

You only have to buy RAM if you want more than the 8MB that comes on the
card. The Pentium card has 8MB on board + 1 free DIMM slot. The 586 card
has no onboard ram, but includes an 8MB DIMM in its single DIMM slot.
Granted, a lot of people will want to upgrade this, but you don't start at
zero.

> "Really? How much can they take?"
>
> "Well, that new Pentium card maxes out at 24Mb of RAM."
>
> "24Mb? That's not much, is it? NT likes at least 32Mb..."

Actually:
-The Pentium card maxes out at 72 MB RAM
-The 586 card maxes out at 64 MB RAM

But you're right - they don't share RAM anymore. Thus, you don't take the
speed hit (for better or worse depends on your preference. I won't miss
shared memory, myself).

> "Are you sure NT will run on these cards?"

Win NT will absolutely NOT run on these cards. Neither will OS/2 or any
variant of UNIX. I don't think this is a big deal for most people, but if
that's what you want, then you have to look at Orange Micro's products or
get a PC.

> "Ah. But you're buying a 6100 DOS Compatible?"
>
> "Yup. Unlike the PCI cards, the 6100 card shares up to 64Mb of
>  motherboard memory, for a performance hit, mind you. The entire
>  box costs less than one of those new Pentium PCI cards. It's been
>  seen running Apple's port of linux native in select
>  locations now, too. No idea when they'll port linux to the PCI
>  PowerMacs, and given their A/UX porting promises I'm playing safe."

Very legitimate concern. I hope linux makes it to the PCI PMacs.

> "Can't you install x86 linux on the DOS card right now, anyway?"
>
> "Nope, there's a question of drivers. When I get my hands
>  on the powerpc linux it ought to be possible to reverse-engineer
>  them and get linux running on the dos card in a fraction of the
>  time it took to do the powerpc linux port - actually, Apple
>  might have done this as an interim stage for driver development
>  anyway - but sorting out the networking aspects of two unixes in
>  one box with only one lot of ethernet hardware could
>  be tricky, to put it mildly. Could become an interesting
>  two-screen Xserver, though, although the 16" screen resolutions
>  are barely up to it."

I believe it isn't so much the drivers but the virtualization of some of
the hardware that doesn't make NT, OS/2, and unix variants work on the DOS
cards. I suppose you could hack the source code for PC linux, but powerpc
linux wouldn't be of help here and you'd have to know a LOT about the
design of the DOS card itself to do this.

Regarding networking, it's probably just as hard to sort out the
networking aspects of two unixes in one box with only one lot of ethernet
hardware as it is to sort out the networking aspects of any two OS's. You
just figure out an API and code it on both sides. Neither side knows or
cares which OS the other is, in theory.

Regarding the screen saver, that would be really cool! Another feature of
the new PCI DOS cards: enhanced video support. It uses the ATi Mach 64
chip and has 1MB DRAM video memory, and the Pentium version is expanable
to 2MB for support of 640x480 all the way up to 1280x1024. Because of the
PCI bus and ATi video chipset, it also should prove a lot faster than the
6100 DOS card's video.

> "So instead of using this 6100 to run Mac and Windows at the same
>  time, you're heading for linux and dos or windows at the same
>  time, but you really want to use it to run Mac and
>  linux on the DOS card at the same time, and possibly linux with
>  linux at the same time."
>
> "Right. Although I'm going to be stuck with choosing
>  between linux or MacOS with DOS or Windows every time I boot,
>  until I get it all sorted out and get rid of the Microsoft
>  bits. Linux OR MacOS? Some choice. I want linux *AND* MacOS,
>  not windoze and go-on-pick-one."

I don't see how you'd be able to get linux running on the Mac and still be
able to use the DOS card. There are some support files on the Mac side
that are required for the DOS card to work (ex: the PC Setup control
panel), and some of the drivers on the PC side look for specific drivers
on the Mac side (ex: CDROM.SYS on the DOS side requires the Apple CD-ROM
extension). You'd have to rewrite all of this for linux...if you can do
this, I'd like to shake your hand because that means you are one awesome
progger IMO!

> "Couldn't you run the Mac Application Environment on linux?"
>
> "MAE's only available for HP and Solaris machines. Not linux.
>  The idea's not that bad, though. A/UX sat under System 7, so
>  you could do something similar, but linux is free and Apple charges a
>  fortune for MAE, which would mean that Apple would then go and
>  do something stupid like try and charge for linux. A 'proper' PowerPC
>  MAE as a linux/Mac environment combination would really please all
>  three of those remaining A/UX users, and that's a good enough
>  reason for Apple not to do it. And if Apple did do a PowerPC
>  MAE on PowerPC linux, there would be pressure for MAE on x86
>  linux, then everyone would buy fast PCs and run linux with MAE on
>  top even though x86 MAE wouldn't be a patch on powerpc MAE, and we'd
>  finally discover that Apple was a software company. A powerpc
>  MAE on a powerpc-native linux running on a powermac would really
>  kick ass, though. Those A/UX guys would love it, although they'd
>  probably grumble about all the things that A/UX got right that
>  linux gets wrong, religious fanatics that they are."

You can't charge for linux because of the GNU agreement, so Apple (or
anyoneelse for that matter) will never be able to charge for it. It also
means that it isn't Apple's product. The only fee you can charge is for
distrubution (that's why you see linux for sale really cheap - you're not
paying for linux, you're paying for the distribution). Instead of running
a MAE-type product on top of linux, I'd rather just set up separate boot
partitions for linux and MacOS. Why emulate it when you can run the real
thing by restarting? I doubt linux and Apple's AIX will be in real
competition, as they're different markets. And MAE is a completely
different market. I don't know about A/UX, though...

> "But if MAE runs on Solaris, can't you just buy it for your Sparc?"
>
> "The 6100 is only a few hundred dollars more, and it runs PowerPC
>  binaries. MAE looks pretty bad next to an LC475, and won't do PowerPC
>  native apps. It's really a way for Apple to repackage and resell the
>  neat 68K emulator code that made the PowerMacs possible,
>  nothing more. They've made noises about doing PowerMac emulation,
>  but never in a million years will they do it. Emulating a RISC
>  processor with a different RISC processor is a development
>  nightmare, and performance would just suck."
>
> "So if you want performance..."
>
> "You go and you buy a real Pentium PC and stick linux or NT
>  on it and you go and buy a 604-based Mac for doing Neat Stuff
>  and you run real commercial shrinkware unix apps on the Sparc.
>  You don't dick around with these weird 'compatible' cards."

I totally agree - if you really want to run linux or NT on a PC, go out
and get a PC. That's really the only way to do it. The DOS cards are NOT
the solution. If you want a Mac but want to run some DOS, Win3.1, or Win
95 software, the DOS cards are a solution, and one that I've been pleased
with (and I'm really looking forward to the new PCI cards).

Linux will run quite well on a 386 or low-end 486 for most people. You
don't even need a Pentium. But NT...oh, you want a Pentium! NT's pretty
cool if you have the power and the RAM to run it, though.

> "Exactly. Right. So why are you buying a 6100 anyway?"
>
> "Oh, I like Macs, budget money is tight, they're dirt cheap and I
>  wanted a memento of Apple. The DOS card is just a bonus.
>  Besides, Word on the IIsi is a dog and I loathe using Framemaker
>  on the Sparcs."

Damned good reason for making your buying choice.

> L.
>
> linux - see <URL:http://mklinux.apple.com/>
> MAE   - see <URL:http://www.mae.apple.com/>
> --
> <URL:http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><mailto:[e-mail]>

Thanks for the URLs. I didn't know about the linux URL - gonna hit that
one right now.
--
Steve Mekata           |
[e-mail] |
---------------------------------------------------------------------