OSNews

Now now, that's not nice.



Well, I'm not an editor here or anything... but, strictly speaking, Wine isn't an os and OS X is. Perhaps that came into play...? Technically, Wine is an emulator.

Wine Is Not an Emulator...

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Best chuckle of the day, chapeau! Well played sir...

Well, they can have all the recursive acronyms they want... but it is most certainly an emulator. It provides a subset of Windows APIs such that a good number of Windows apps will run. It emulates the Windows APIs and system calls to accomplish this... therefore, it is an emulator--not a device emulator as that is unnecessary, but a software emulator none the less.

I've been refreshing my browser like crazy hoping that I'll be graced with the presence of a 'cease and desist' but alas nothing has occurred. With that being said, given that I provided no links to torrents, no screenshots and the fact I am not talking about anything that is particularly 'new' - it would be a difficult thing to try and shut me down.

The DVD framework has been upgraded from 4.0 to 5.2.0 - I haven't noticed any differences by way of formats supported. I doubt they're going to make a leap to BluRay anytime soon given that Apple has banked a lot on the idea of movies being distributed online - however that vision might hit a snag if certain internet service provides think it is good business practice to fleece their customers through expensive tiered service (I'm not against tiered bandwidth allowances by matter of principle, I just find that current arrangement is detached from what one would deem balanced).

i'd agree that kawai doesn't seem to know enough about the innards of osx to draw enlightening conclusions from the stuff he sees. neither do i, but maybe somebody here can answer the questions which kawai asked? you don't even need to break your nda, kawai did that part for you! ;-)

for example, why would you compile stuff (kexts & even apps) for ppc and arm if you don't intend to ship snow leopard for that platforms? do you need them to compile apps for other platforms? or to simulate ppc & arm?
wouldn't device drivers like the one for the gma-gpus have to be in 64 bit to be able to use the 64 kernel? (ok, my question)

one question which i think i can answer: there is (and already was?) a 64-bit carbon framework because only the carbon-gui framework won't be ported to 64-bit.

It could simply be that as the product is unfinished, the various builds they are doing include extra architectures added for testing. A developer may have accidentally included an ARM binary because earlier they were testing the same library on the iPhone and forgot to untick the box to remove ARM from the desktop build.

The PPC stuff is interesting though. We really don’t know where this is going. John Gruber stated quite clearly PPC was out, and Snow Leopard will be Intel only. It will be interesting if he’s wrong as he rarely makes an assertion that isn’t at least certain.

PPC code might be there for Rosetta to work properly with ppc apps. You can't use a ppc plugin for an app on an intel binary. The app and the plugin have to be executed on the same architecture. I guess this would allow to continue using ppc plugins for certain programs.
This may all be totally wrong.

EDIT:
Reading the article I found out that that's Kawai's guess too.

Edited 2009-05-22 09:39 UTC

I never claimed I was a guru of Mac OS X or Information Technology, I was just expecting that maybe some more knowledgeable people might be able to fill me in on the blanks. I have a very limited understanding of MacOS X but I am reading and filling in my knowledge but I would hope that a dialogue can be discussed about some of the already disclosed underlying technologies and how that compares to Leopard 10.5.

I understand there are things yet to change but I am disappointed in that x3100 and 950 are the only two graphics drivers not yet 64bit; I would have thought they would have done something like that first before moving to move complex drivers.