68k was cisc, not risc and it was a hugh change. The processors where complete different, including the instruction sets. But usually one doesn't write software on that low level, - in Assembler -, the compiler is dealing with that. 68k is still running in some classic programs emulated on PPCs. Even some parts of OS9. That time we had fat binaries the first time. Instead of a fat binary some companies offered 2 versions, a PPC-version and a 68k version.
The byte-ordering is probably not such a big deal. Every cross-platform software does that already. The big problem might be this: Metrowerks recently sold its Intel x86 compiler and debugger technology to a third party. As a result, Metrowerks will no longer create and sell products that include this technology. <http://tinyurl.com/7b7xb> And I think PM is written with the CodeWarrior IDE. All the best Matthias ----------------------------------------------- schmidt-systemdevelopment http://www.schmidt-system.com iChat/AIM: MatKoyasan Tel. +81-736-56-3905 ----------------------------------------------- Am/On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 00:19:52 -0400 schrieb/wrote A-NO-NE Music: >Matthias Schmidt / 2005/06/09 / 11:59 PM wrote: > >>isn't it just a change like from the 68k chips to the PPC ? > >Nope. The byte order is backward. >Was 68k RISC? I don't remember, but 68k to PPC shared the same >instruction language. Not this time with Intel CISC. > ><www.xlr8yourmac.com> posted a bench test results. According to the >report, unless PM gets ported to XCode, Rosetta will treat PM to run on >G3 emulation. > >Hmmmmmmmmm.... > >The good news is this dev machine, x86/P4 Mac seems to be wacky fast :-) > >-- > >- Hiro > >[PROTECTED] ><[PROTECTED]> <[PROTECTED]> > > > >
