On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:08:07 -0700, T. Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Panther on a G5 does run a 64 bit kernel, however it is important to note > that the same Panther runs on the 32 bit G4 and the 64 bit G5. In other > words, most of the OS is NOT 64 bit code. So I wonder if this means that a "default" OS X install on a G5 is different form that of a G4 (eg. xnu is a "different" kernel in each case?). I guess it's a "wait and see" thing. I wonder what further optimizations can be done via a kernel recompile. Can't wait to get some time to start hacking on the Darwin kernel again. It was a blast fixing that stupid clamshell problem a couple years back. > Apple's done this before--when they introduced the PowerPC in the first > place, it ran a PowerPC kernel and mostly m68k OS in emulation mode. It > then happened that over the next few years, Apple introduced more > PowerPC-only components and began shipping things that you'd notice > running slowly as diskspace-hogging fat binaries which had both native > PowerPC and m68k code in them. Yeah, I fully remember this. But they really did the best they could, despite certain machines being virtually unusable. I remember the PPC 601 machines being virtually useless until they mostly got rid of the legacy 68k stuff, as it was too slow for proper 68k emulation and most folks opted instead for a "faster" 040. > A few things (photoshop for example) now have G5 binaries available but > most of the world's code does not need to be 64 bit just yet. You're > quite welcome, and Apple would love it if you decide, to develop 64 bit G5 > code. ;) Yeah, I've been reading the dev docs concerning 64 bit coding/optimizations with Xcode. Pretty damned cool. It's good to see non-Linux chatter on the list as well, thanks. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
