Re: TI-H: heh
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: heh
>Actually, it's my opinion that the hardware isn't the problem, but the os as
>far as macs go... MacOS crashes more often than Linux in my experience
>(unless you're running the most recent devel kernel, but that's yer own
>fault if it crashes). And it doesn't surprise me that Linux runs faster on
>the PPC. It is a faster system. And for years people have used RISC to
>emulate CISC.
Maybe that Mac system was not setup properly. :)
http://applecyber.dyndns.com hasn't ever gone down (I've only had it up for
7 months now), and I use beta www server software.
>Granted, if the processor was running in it's native mode, it
>would probably be about 10 times faster than when it's emulating (which
>makes me wonder why most PPC programs still aren't native RISC). Oh, and
>about grant's little "add proc to temp" well, on my intel chip, i can go adc
>eax,ebx to add ebx to eax...you just twisted the argument by showing the
>extra code required to fill both registeres would would also be required in
>the RISC chip. Anyway, i'm done.
Nope.
add temp, proc
adds temp and proc and stores the result in temp. Thats the goal.
We don't want to use the standard registers. So we have to store temp to
the accumulator, then add proc to it, and store it to temp.
I was using the Z80 and PPC as an example anyway... The Z80 is a rip of
the intel chip.
There are tons of MacOS applications that are written natively for the PPC.
But they have to be made 5 years ago or after.
Hmmm... Here is a real life processing example. A 60MHz PPC 601 can play
3 MP3s at the same time without skipping. I would pay to see an intel do
the same.
>
>
>>You're probably not going to beleive this, but Power Macs don't run
>>Macintosh software...they emulate it. Only on realy new programs are they
>>actually written for the processor. Apple's emulation engine runs on DEC,
>>and HP workstations. So, since the MacOS boots on a DEC, PPC, and HP those
>>are all bad computers! No...
>>
>>Grant
>>
References: