?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Now for PowerPC! - Lindsey Kuper [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Lindsey Kuper

[ website | composition.al ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Now for PowerPC! [Mar. 20th, 2006|01:53 pm]
Lindsey Kuper

OS X, now for PowerPC!

Okay, I know I'm kinda slow on the uptake here, but this is the first time that "(PowerPC)" has been there, isn't it?

LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: glowing_fish
2006-03-21 12:13 am (UTC)
I think PowerPC might refer to the fact that the current architecture is an extension of the PowerPC architecture, as opposed to the new Intel based architecture.

In Linux, programs are referred to as "i386", because even the Pentium IV still has a basic i386 instruction set at its core. Even though, of course, very very few Linux programs could run on an i386 these days.

At least this is my interpretation, I could be wrong.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2006-03-21 03:10 am (UTC)
I think PowerPC might refer to the fact that the current architecture is an extension of the PowerPC architecture, as opposed to the new Intel based architecture.

That's my point. They've never had to say that before.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stingmeyer
2006-03-21 03:18 am (UTC)
Even though, of course, very very few Linux programs could run on an i386 these days.

Why not? I'd think almost all of them would work perfectly fine on an 80386, though some might be unacceptably sluggish.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: glowing_fish
2006-03-23 02:09 am (UTC)
Well, I suppose in theory they would still be able to follow the instruction set. Although I believe some 386 were sx, single word, meaning 16 bit, and I don't know how things like the kernel compile for 16 bit.

Also, motherboards that had 386s could only have so much memory: the maximum memory was probably 4 Megs or so.

But, I suppose, theoretically, you could compile the Linux Kernel into 16 bits, and then run it on 4 Megs of memory and just use lots of swamp space, and run the whole thing at 25 MHz. Sounds like some geek could spend their spring break trying to get this to work.

I actually have a 486 Laptop running Debian in my apartment.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: stingmeyer
2006-03-23 03:43 am (UTC)
Well, I suppose in theory they would still be able to follow the instruction set. Although I believe some 386 were sx, single word, meaning 16 bit, and I don't know how things like the kernel compile for 16 bit.

The 80386SX is fully 32-bit internally, so there are no kernel compilation issues for the SX; however, the 80386SX did have a 16-bit data bus, and could indeed only address 16MB of physical memory.

Incidentally, non-resident virtual memory is referred to as "swap space", not "swamp space".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: glowing_fish
2006-03-23 03:50 am (UTC)
Well, even 16 MBs of memory in the form of 30 pin SIMMs would be hard to find. Although perhaps not impossible.
How about "you could run these programs on an i386, but not practically"?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: glowing_fish
2006-03-23 03:54 am (UTC)
When your system load gets above 10, it is referred to as "swamp space"
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: lindseykuper
2006-03-23 03:39 pm (UTC)
Point.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)