Subject: Re: rule 7
From: Jeff H (jhergan@home.com)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 11:32:21 MST
I think you need OS 8.6 or better.
----------
>From: Dan Leonard <dan.leonard@analog.com>
>To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>Subject: rule 7
>Date: Thu, Dec 21, 2000, 5:08 AM
>
> Hi,
> does anyone know why patching of the kernel needed to run mol
> would fail because rule 7 was broken?? I am trying to get mol to run
> mac os 8.5. Is that possible or do i need a special rom or something??
> Thanks,
> Dan.
>
>
>
> mol-general-digest-help@lists.maconlinux.org wrote:
>
>> mol-general Digest 21 Dec 2000 10:54:35 -0000 Issue 124
>>
>> Topics (messages 1661 through 1674):
>>
>> source code (was: linux keycodes)
>> 1661 by: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
>> 1663 by: Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
>>
>> Hello all
>> 1662 by: Scott McNulty <sbm4@optonline.net>
>> 1666 by: Daniel Wolpert <daniel@berlin.com>
>>
>> bitkeeper, latest sources
>> 1664 by: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
>> 1674 by: "Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com>
>>
>> MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> 1665 by: Francois Prowse <fprowse@uu.net>
>> 1667 by: "Jeremiah Merkl" <merkjj@uleth.ca>
>> 1668 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>> 1669 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>> 1670 by: dpates@dsdk12.net
>> 1671 by: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>> 1672 by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <bh40@calva.net>
>> 1673 by: dpates@dsdk12.net
>>
>> Administrivia:
>>
>> To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
>> mol-general-digest-subscribe@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
>> mol-general-digest-unsubscribe@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> To post to the list, e-mail:
>> mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: source code (was: linux keycodes)
>> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:47:57 -0500
>> From: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> dpates@dsdk12.net writes:
>> > He _could_, and maybe he will at some point. But now, if you want a snap,
>> > there's no use in complaining about how you can and can't get it.
>>
>> How exactly do you ever expect any progress unless someone
>> "complains" (ie, points out true deficiencies)?
>>
>> > bk clone bk://waltari.theophys.kth.se:5000 mol/
>>
>> I did that, against my own better judgement, and I'm sorry I did. I
>> had to give my address to bitkeeper.com in order to get their
>> software, after which I found myself on one of their mailing lists.
>> If this is gnu, than linux is Windows...
>>
>> Bitkeeper is a bad choice, it should be avoided by the gnu/linux
>> community imho. Either way, uptodate read-only snapshots should be
>> made available by some more standard means if at all possible.
>>
>> --
>> reshapiro@mediaone.net
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: source code (was: linux keycodes)
>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 04:19:23 +0100
>> From: Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 07:47:57PM -0500, R Shapiro wrote:
>> > dpates@dsdk12.net writes:
>> > > He _could_, and maybe he will at some point. But now, if you want a
snap,
>> > > there's no use in complaining about how you can and can't get it.
>> >
>> > How exactly do you ever expect any progress unless someone
>> > "complains" (ie, points out true deficiencies)?
>> >
>> > > bk clone bk://waltari.theophys.kth.se:5000 mol/
>> >
>> > I did that, against my own better judgement, and I'm sorry I did. I
>> > had to give my address to bitkeeper.com in order to get their
>> > software, after which I found myself on one of their mailing lists.
>> > If this is gnu, than linux is Windows...
>> >
>> > Bitkeeper is a bad choice, it should be avoided by the gnu/linux
>> > community imho. Either way, uptodate read-only snapshots should be
>> > made available by some more standard means if at all possible.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
>> CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
>> developers are familiar with it already. But I agree
>> there should be a way to obtain the latest snapshot without
>> using BK. When I get some time to spare, I'll add rsync
>> access.
>>
>> /Samuel
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> E-mail <samuel@ibrium.se> WWW: <http://www.ibrium.se>
>> Phone/fax: (home) +46 8 4418431, (work) +46 8 7908470
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Hello all
>> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:26:03 -0500
>> From: Scott McNulty <sbm4@optonline.net>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: <mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org>
>>
>> First time Linux guy here.. well I am not a Linux guy yet because I can't
>> get it to install on my iMac! I have the disk images saved on the hard
>> drive, on the Mac OS partition, and when I run the installation process it
>> tells me it can't find the "installation tree" on the drive.. or something
>> like that.
>>
>> Can anyone help me? I hope this isn't a stupid question!
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re:Hello all
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:03:00 +0000
>> From: Daniel Wolpert <daniel@berlin.com>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> >First time Linux guy here.. well I am not a Linux guy yet because I can't
>> >get it to install on my iMac!
>>
>> Oh Ok. Nice to meet another iMac user :) As a relative newbie myself
>> I'd use a CD to install it's a lot simpler (say LinuxPPC 2000 or some
>> other distro..) - plus you need to partition the Mac's Hard drive and
>> format it to take the new OS.
>>
>> >I have the disk images saved on the hard
>> >drive, on the Mac OS partition, and when I run the installation process it
>> >tells me it can't find the "installation tree" on the drive.. or something
>> >like that.
>>
>> I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick as far as this
>> list goes as it is for a LinuxPPC application called "Mac-on-Linux"
>> which lets you run MacOS under linux. - Once you get going and you're
>> all 'installed' you may want to use MOL:)
>>
>> >
>> >Can anyone help me? I hope this isn't a stupid question!
>> >
>>
>> No stupid questions just dumb answers:)
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: bitkeeper, latest sources
>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:40:01 -0500
>> From: R Shapiro <reshapiro@mediaone.net>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se> writes:
>>
>> > Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
>> > CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
>> > developers are familiar with it already.
>>
>> I'm not religious about Open Source, but I do think it should be
>> supported for internal development of linux. Commercial software is
>> fine, I just don't want to see it used in this kind of context. It
>> just doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of gnu/linux not to use Open
>> Source software here.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what do you need that cvs doesn't provide? We use
>> cvs in-house at bbn for both small and large projects and it's always
>> been more than sufficient. It also work nicely with ssh for remote
>> access.
>>
>> > But I agree there should
>> > be a way to obtain the latest snapshot without using BK. When I get
>> > some time to spare, I'll add rsync access.
>>
>> Thanks. Rsync is a minor nuisance for anyone with a tight firewall
>> (which probably means anyone on a cable-modem or dsl connection),
>> since by default it wants to use a privileged port. But for this
>> purpose it's definitely a better choice than bk (or even cvs) imo, and
>> not only because of the Open Source question.
>>
>> If you can arrange to make automatic daily tarball snapshots, eg with
>> cron, and keep the current snapshot in a place that's accessible via
>> ftp or http, that would be even better than rsync.
>>
>> In the meantime, if there's a regular patch file which includes just
>> the keycode fixes, can you post it?
>>
>> Btw, once I got the sources using bk (and before I removed all traces
>> of bk from my system), I noticed that the daylight savings time patch
>> wasn't included. Neither was the little patch for compiling under
>> 2.2.18. Will these be in the next official release?
>>
>> --
>> reshapiro@mediaone.net
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: bitkeeper, latest sources
>> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 02:54:19 -0800
>> From: "Timothy A. Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> At 10:40 AM -0500 12/19/00, R Shapiro wrote:
>> >Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se> writes:
>> >
>> > > Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
>> > > CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
>> > > developers are familiar with it already.
>> >
>> >I'm not religious about Open Source,
>>
>> Then why do you hate BK? Serious question. (Below, you also use the
>> "gnu/linux" catchphrase, which is often a sign of buying into at
>> least some of Stallman's religious attitude.)
>>
>> >but I do think it should be
>> >supported for internal development of linux. Commercial software is
>> >fine, I just don't want to see it used in this kind of context. It
>> >just doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of gnu/linux not to use Open
>> >Source software here.
>>
>> BK is not pure lily white Open Source but it's very close. I really
>> don't see why so many people get bugged about it.
>>
>> >Out of curiosity, what do you need that cvs doesn't provide? We use
>> >cvs in-house at bbn for both small and large projects and it's always
>> >been more than sufficient. It also work nicely with ssh for remote
>> >access.
>>
>> Speed: BK is much more efficient than CVS across the Internet.
>>
>> Power: BK is unquestionably more powerful and flexible. The entire
>> model is better (push/pull between peer repositories instead of a
>> single central repository). Once you have a repository on your hard
>> drive you can browse the complete history of the tree without going
>> across the network.
>>
>> Suckage: CVS sucks, BK doesn't. CVS is arcane, old, outdated,
>> crufty, and generally a hunk of crap. The only reason everybody uses
>> it is that for a long time it was the essentially the only free (beer
>> or speech, take your pick) option. Don't mistake familiarity for
>> goodness.
>>
>> Tim Seufert
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:48:11 +0000 (GMT)
>> From: Francois Prowse <fprowse@uu.net>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> Gianluca,
>>
>> I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
>> circles to get answers.
>>
>> My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
>> should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
>> MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
>> currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
>> wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
>> Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>>
>> Anyhow, I now have my APUS machine up and running so will be activly
>> pursuing this in the comming weeks:) Will be building MOL support into a
>> kernel or two...
>>
>> Is there any of the MOL developers actually involved in this....I may be
>> able to get my APUS machine online and an account setup on it is so
>> desired.....legit takers only...the APUS guys say they are working on
>> this, however nothing seems to be happening Any suggestions guys..?
>>
>> The furtherest I've heard anyone get with MOL under a 604 Apus system is
>> here...what is the next step then...apart from a correct kernel :)
>>
>> [root@gurgle /root]# startmol
>> Mac-on-Linux 0.9.53, (C) 1997-2000 Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se>
>> This kernel is NOT runtime patched
>> Trying to apply MOL runtime patches.
>> **** Examining '/boot/System.map' ****
>> Discrepancy found, symbol value mismatch:
>> c0003f90 clear_page (c00090f4)
>> c0008338 do_signal (c0008114)
>> c000a364 syscall_trace (c0009db4)
>> **** Examining '/usr/src/linux/System.map' ****
>> **** Success ****
>> Patching the kernel...
>> PATCH....0
>> PATCH....1
>> PATCH....2
>> PATCH....3
>> PATCH....4
>> PATCH....5
>> PATCH....6
>> PATCH....7
>> PATCH....8
>> PATCH....9
>> PATCH....10
>> PATCH....11
>> PATCH....12
>> PATCH....13
>> PATCH....14
>> PATCH....15
>> MOL runtime patch installed
>> Trying to load the Mac-on-Linux kernel module.
>>
>> Warning: kernel-module version mismatch
>> /lib/modules/2.2.10/misc/mol.o was compiled for kernel version
>> 2.2.18pre2-ben1
>> while this kernel is version 2.2.10
>>
>>
>> Francois
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Gianluca wrote:
>>
>> > Hello ML users!!!
>> >
>> > I am using a LinuxPPC 2000 in a LinuxBox Amiga PowerPC 603e, and wish to
know
>> > if somebody is using a APUS machine to run mol...
>> > I know a Kernel Recompiling (603e users need to...) but for
> AmigaPowerUpSystems?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Gianluca
>> > --
>> > IBM IntelliStation MPRO
>> > Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
>> > 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
>> > SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
>> > UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
>> > ...and other delights... ;-)
>> >
>> > ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>> >
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:59:39 -0700
>> From: "Jeremiah Merkl" <merkjj@uleth.ca>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require a
>> machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
>> does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot of
>> work to do to get it working...
>>
>> -JM
>>
>> Francois Prowse wrote:
>> >
>> > Gianluca,
>> >
>> > I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
>> > circles to get answers.
>> >
>> > My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
>> > should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
>> > MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
>> > currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
>> > wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
>> > Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:03:01 +0100
>> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>> > Gianluca,
>> >
>> > I too have a problem with this and really have been running around in
>> > circles to get answers.
>> >
>> > My machine is a Amgia4000 with 060/604e PowerUP card....so in theory MOL
>> > should work. However I think one of the first problems seems to be that
>> > MOL is supported only on specific Kernels...is this correct. Apus
>> > currently only supports 2.2.10 or 2.4.0pre8 I think...unless the user
>> > wants to complile their own kernel. Specific DIFFs need to be applied to a
>> > Linux68k kernel to get a bootable kernel.
>>
>> ...mmh...May be Amigans will have to wait iFusionPPC (AmigaOS, CGX 4 and
>> WarpOS...) to run MacOS PPC Programs at full speed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gianluca
>> --
>> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
>> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
>> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
>> SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
>> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
>> ...and other delights... ;-)
>>
>> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:13:38 +0100
>> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>> > I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require a
>> > machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
>> > does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot of
>> > work to do to get it working...
>> Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
>> based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000,
APUS,
>> Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
>> Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gianluca
>> --
>> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
>> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
>> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller Adaptec AIC-7xxx
>> SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
>> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
>> ...and other delights... ;-)
>>
>> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:02:15 -0700 (MST)
>> From: dpates@dsdk12.net
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
>>
>> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>> > > I may be a complete idiot for asking this...but doesn't MOL require
>> > a
>> > > machine that can run MacOS on it, which brings me to the question --
>> > > does MacOS run on an Amiga machine? If not, I'd say you've got a lot
>> > of
>> > > work to do to get it working...
>> > Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
>> > based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000,
>> > APUS,
>> > Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
>> > Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
>>
>> Umm. Doesn't MoL depend on the Mac IO controller chip? (Paddington on the G3
B/W
>> systems, for example) Far as I know, MacOS depends heavily on this chip for
most
>> of its functionality, and without it, MacOS can't do anything. I think you
need
>> an actual Mac, because of the necessity of having that chip available to do
some
>> of MacOS's dirty work.
>>
>> Derrik Pates
>> dpates@dsdk12.net
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:57:04 +0100
>> From: Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, you wrote:
>>
>> > Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
>> > > Nahhhh. Dont'worry about asking things. MOL requires only a PowerPC
>> > > based machine, an X Server Running, and a "New World ROM" file. RS/6000,
>> > > APUS,
>> > > Amiga, PReP, CHRP machines can run MOL easily (more or less...)
>> > > Obviously a PowerMac is all above (and maybe more... ;) )
>> > Umm. Doesn't MoL depend on the Mac IO controller chip? (Paddington on
> the G3 B/W
>> > systems, for example) Far as I know, MacOS depends heavily on this chip
> for most
>> > of its functionality, and without it, MacOS can't do anything. I think you
need
>> > an actual Mac, because of the necessity of having that chip available
> to do some
>> > of MacOS's dirty work.
>> Yep. You are right. You wrote "MacOS depends heavily on this chip for most of
>> its functionality..."
>> But MoL it's a MacIntosh Emulator. Completely software based. Heard of MAME?
or
>> Basilisk or ShapeShifter? Every Emulator, catch every call to low-level i/o
>> chips and redirect evrything on a higher level. So it needs so much
horsepower
>> to emulate something relativly simpler.
>> Try to think about a PowerComputing Apple Clone (quite different from a real
>> Mac...) running MacOS...
>>
>> The main advantages are if you are not emulating the opcode on the host
>> processor as MoL. It doesn't waste CPU time to translate PowerPC Opcodes,
>> because it is running on a PowerPC CPU System. It is like WinEmu for Linux
>> Intel Based, or ArmEmu for Archimedes ARM Based RISCOS..or Emulating a 68k
Mac
>> on a 68k based Amiga (only the access to i/o chips are wrapped into AmigaOS
>> System...Sometimes better than MacOS counterparts...).
>> The main part is NOT emulating the PROCESSOR ITSELF, but only the chips
>> addressing and operation. (Simpler than an entire system, anyway...)
>>
>> Have you ever heard of Alpha Processors? I saw a Emulated MacOS (Basilisk)
>> faster than a fastest G4 on earth... running 68k software...
>> Imagine if AlphaCPU can obtain the same speed from emulating the RISC
PowerPC...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gianluca
>> --
>> IBM IntelliStation MPRO
>> Dual CPU PentiumIII (Katmai) 512k-L2Cache
>> 768MB RAM / UW-SCSI Dual Controller
>> Adaptec AIC-7xxx SCSI-2 Fast Controller PCI
>> UDMA EIDE/FastATA Dual Controller
>> ...and other delights... ;-)
>>
>> ALL POWERED by Linux Red-Hat 7.0
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:08:02 +0100
>> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <bh40@calva.net>
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: <mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org>
>>
>> MOL emulates all that is needed for MacOS to run. So MOL should work fine
>> on PReP, CHRP, etc... but probably not on APUS.
>>
>> The reason for that is that the APUS kernel has a quite different low-
>> level memory management, and I'm not sure the MOL kernel module that
>> drives the virtual machine can cope with it, at least not without some
>> modifications.
>>
>> You can still try and see...
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Re: MOL on Amiga/APUS again.....
>> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:02:36 -0700 (MST)
>> From: dpates@dsdk12.net
>> Reply-To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>> To: mol-general@lists.maconlinux.org
>>
>> Quoting Gianluca <icjtqr@tin.it>:
>>
>> > Yep. You are right. You wrote "MacOS depends heavily on this chip for
>> > most of
>> > its functionality..."
>> > But MoL it's a MacIntosh Emulator. Completely software based. Heard of
>> > MAME? or
>> > Basilisk or ShapeShifter? Every Emulator, catch every call to low-level
>> > i/o
>> > chips and redirect evrything on a higher level. So it needs so much
>> > horsepower
>> > to emulate something relativly simpler.
>> > Try to think about a PowerComputing Apple Clone (quite different from a
>> > real
>> > Mac...) running MacOS...
>>
>> MoL doesn't emulate anything except some peripheral hardware. Processor-level
>> instructions are executed directly on the PPC, through processor
virtualization.
>>
>> >
>> > The main advantages are if you are not emulating the opcode on the
>> > host
>> > processor as MoL. It doesn't waste CPU time to translate PowerPC
>> > Opcodes,
>> > because it is running on a PowerPC CPU System. It is like WinEmu for
>> > Linux
>> > Intel Based, or ArmEmu for Archimedes ARM Based RISCOS..or Emulating a
>> > 68k Mac
>> > on a 68k based Amiga (only the access to i/o chips are wrapped into
>> > AmigaOS
>> > System...Sometimes better than MacOS counterparts...).
>> > The main part is NOT emulating the PROCESSOR ITSELF, but only the
>> > chips
>> > addressing and operation. (Simpler than an entire system, anyway...)
>>
>> Then why is the Mac IO controller mapped as part of the MoL startup phase?
>>
>> >
>> > Have you ever heard of Alpha Processors? I saw a Emulated MacOS
>> > (Basilisk)
>> > faster than a fastest G4 on earth... running 68k software...
>> > Imagine if AlphaCPU can obtain the same speed from emulating the RISC
>> > PowerPC...
>>
>> Yeah, if you have the ROMs and emulate everything else (including the Mac IO
>> controller). The Alpha AXP is an amazingly fast CPU, so if you have a
well-honed
>> emulator, sure, it can be lightning fast.
>>
>> If it works, hey, that's great, but I don't know that it can without the Mac
IO
>> controller chip. Go ahead and try it, and see what happens, though, and let
us
>> know what the result is.
>>
>> Derrik Pates
>> dpates@dsdk12.net
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 11:32:12 MST