Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:14 am
by Kaeru Gaman
hey, who called for the danish fool?
can't he stay on topic or keep his nosy mouth shut?
according to the actual topic:
it is not possible to make a 64bit system require 64bit software only,
because you have to write the first 64bit progs with existing 32bit development systems.
nobody today would code a complete 64bit environment from the scratch.
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:49 am
by Foz
:roll: How do you think they made the first compilers (which were 8 bit)? with a 4 bit computer?
No, you do it by hand, with a highly detailed plan, and a large reference manual from asm to machine code, then you key in the bytes, one at a time.
Everything is possible. it might be too slow for practical purposes, but it is possible.
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:02 am
by DoubleDutch
I remember coding by hand - before I could afford an assembler!
Converting everything to numbers, putting them in data statements, reading them, poking them and then doing a usr to execute!
I must be old, because when I did computers at college, we looked after an ICL2904 and had to enter things in by punch card! lol!
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 10:43 am
by Kaeru Gaman
sure, I KNOW that. I programmed assembler on an 8bit machine,
I did a lot of things by hand.... but nothing in the huge size of some 64bit-Windows.
It would be an rediculous attempt to try that, surely you would create some tools
that can produce 64bit code on a 32bit machine beforehand,
and also surely you would build a new 64bit generation of your CPU that way,
that is is generally able to execode 32bit code of the last CPU-generation,
maybe with some exclusions, but generally.
even complete different CPUs nowadays are not programmed by hand,
but controlled by code that was created on an emulator running on a PC.
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 11:07 am
by pdwyer
Powerbasic only recently (late last year) changed to be a 32bit compiler but it has outputted 32bit exe's and dlls for many years. It's just reading source code (text) and outputting a binary file (exe or dll). The main reason they updated to 32bit is that 64bit vista won't run 16bit programs. Otherwise there's no reason a 16bit program can't output 64bit executables.
Had it not come up on the forums, I probably wouldn't have noticed that the compiler core was only 16bit. It didn't sound good but techincally it seemed to work just fine.
I stopped using Powerbasic a bit before that though so I can't really speak for any performance differences but I saw some comments to say that the 32bit version was a bit faster.
Move to OS X!
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:53 pm
by CSAUER
I think Apple did a good job during their introduction of Mac OS X. They added a runtime-environment for Mac OS called "classic" environment. The application did not notice, that there was a different OS and it was seamlessly integrated into the new GUI.
And OS X has nothing to do with classic Mac OS. It is a Unix derrivate with its own GUI engine. After a few years, they dropped the classic environement, because every application has been ported meanwhile.
There is a X11 environment available as well.
They did the same job with the shift from PPC to Intel. You can seamlessly run PPC applications (invisible emlutator called "rosetta") on a Intel platform. You don't need to know which CPU you have got, as long as all programs are provided as universal binary (which is standard since 2 years). The OS decides by itself which code-part to run. The executeables are a bit larger, but who cares when you have got hundrets of gigabytes.
This is really smart. I have never seen something like this from MS. Imagine MS would like to change the processor platform? I can remember the disaster of the first Win CE releases. You need to be sure which platform you are using and you need to have different compilations. Very complicated and incompatible.
Let me say: OS X rocks. And a growing community thinks the same. You got a very good development environment for free, you have got a great UI and all the UNIX command line functionallity. And it is 64 Bit - since a few releases. And it is stable at all. Apple supports a few open source projects (WebKit, CUPS, WebDAV, etc.).
The UI is hardware-accelerated since 2002. And it requires less hardware on similar effect base. And they use effects, when they are helpful and not only to just have a effect like they did on Vista. And Vista is just only a bad copy of all innovations, Apple brought to OS X (Widgets, Expose, etc.).
I was a hardcore Win fan. I was working for MS for a couple of months. But I totally moved to Mac OS X and I never want to go back. I just only have a VM with Windows for some client's tasks. But the use is decreasing every month as long as they are growing great and cheap applications on Mac:
- pixel editor:
http://www.pixelmator.com
- vector drawing:
http://www.tweakersoft.com/vectordesigner/
or
http://www.getdrawit.com/
- HTML/PHP/CSS editor:
http://www.panic.com/coda/
- 3D-Rendering:
http://www.cheetah3d.com/
- WYSIWYG-Webeditor:
http://www.theescapers.com/
as well as the known applications:
- Microsoft Office Mac
- Open Office 3
- Adobe Suite
- etc.
...and there is Purebasic. Each release it's getting more stable and compatible with the Win version. If you shift now, you could help fred and freak to get it better.
Regards,
CSAUER
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:03 pm
by pdwyer
"Let me say: OS X sucks"
Then you go on to only say good things about it.
So... why does it suck then?

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:39 pm
by blueznl
Because...
Dunno

Perhaps just a typo?
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 1:42 pm
by pdwyer

"sucks" should have been "rocks" ?

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:29 pm
by CSAUER
Sorry, really just a typo. I wanted to write "rocks" and I did correct it.
I had in mind, that Windows just sucks.
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 5:07 pm
by Rook Zimbabwe
According to Freud and Maslow... there are no typos!
Perhaps you harbor some hidden angst or resentment to OsX?
Lay down on that couch over there and hand me $125.00 for your fist hour... Now... Why do you hate your parents?

Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:01 pm
by Kaeru Gaman
Rook Zimbabwe wrote: hidden angst
omg

don't tell me you took this german word direktly from Freud into the american language...
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 7:06 pm
by blueznl
'Angst' is a very common english word, as is coutier, wiener, new-amsterdam, and 'gurglegurgle' (which is Klingon for deepthroat wrestling, if I recall correctly)...
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 8:35 pm
by Kaeru Gaman
are you american?
'coutier' is french, new-amsterdam is a netherland rooted city-name.
and it's not "english" but "american" words you mean.
they are imported into american, because of the german settlers.
they are not known in english.
english has some imported german words like "kindergarden",
aslike french has "le weekend".
Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:50 pm
by mrjiles
There's a good show on tv called New Amsterdam. It's about this guy who is immortal and...