Post #83,225
2/21/03 4:05:54 PM
|
Re: MacOS X is NeXTStep (and they can keep it, thanks)
karnak wrote:
Do you know if it is possible to install OpenStep 4.2 on a new high powered Intel machine to speed up it's processing? Or is it a situation were OS4.2 is so old that it has factors built in which now cannot take advantage of much faster processors, graphics, etc.?
Not a compliant, but you're a little late to this party.
Um, OPENSTEP isn't an operating system, but rather an architecture specification, abstracted out from NeXTStep.
Presumably, you're talking about NeXTStep 4.2. Which I ran, back in the day. And no, it was never available for x86.
If you like, you can install Linux or {Free|Net|Open}BSD, and use the Window Maker window manager. (Every time I have to switch from that to Mac OSX 10.2.4 on the iBook, the latter pisses me off at just how badly NeXTStep has been mangled in the process of turning it into an OS for Mac users. Window Maker is clean and pleasant by comparison, even given the funkiness of X11. My view, yours for a small fee and disclaimer of reverse-engineering rights.)
Conversely, I just saw this system on comp.sys.next.marketplace and was wondering if there is anything that can be done to those old NeXTcubes to radically speed them up, or again, does the OS4.2 have some structure which was advanced for the era, but now would prevent it from in anyway significant speed increase.
[link|http://homepage.mac.com/xaxax/|http://homepage.mac.com/xaxax/]
Sad to say, it'll keep on running like a well-built 68040, and there's not a lot you can do about that. Sweet old machines, though. Cheaper than buying and maintaining a Studebaker, anyway. ;->
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #83,229
2/21/03 4:15:11 PM
|
Nothing wrong with a 68040.
Or a 68030 for that matter. In fact, I still use [link|http://markn.users.netlink.co.uk/16Bit/tt030.html|one] for a MIDI sequencing computer.
Mine only has 2M of RAM, and an 80M hdd, but that's more than enough for sequencing.
One of these days I might just try turning it into a Linux/m68k box.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #83,418
2/22/03 4:49:01 PM
|
Semi-OT: Fatboy Slim still does all his work on an Atari ST
John. Busy lad.
|
Post #83,427
2/22/03 6:58:43 PM
|
That's what I used originally
A 1040ST, like Cook has. The TT030 has a nice SCSI interface, though.
I also have a set of Mac ROMs and a Spectre cartridge. :-)
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #83,495
2/23/03 6:01:03 AM
|
Do you sound as bad?
/me hides behind Astral Projection.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #83,505
2/23/03 9:46:33 AM
|
Worse.
But then, I don't have to live on the results. ;-)
FBS has some good stuff. Not all of it, but some of it.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #83,343
2/21/03 11:55:44 PM
|
Re: MacOS X is NeXTStep (and they can keep it, thanks)
There was no version of NeXTSTEP above 3.3, NeXT changed NeXTSTEP's name to OpenStep and briefly put out versions 4.0 and 4.1 before its widespread release of 4.2, the last release. OpenStep was always available for x86, HP, Sun and it's own Mach; that's why they changed the name to "Open"Step in an effort to make it less associated with NeXT hardware and more "open" to other platforms. I have never seen an OpenStep install CD that didn't have all four versions on it. On that website I referenced they list on their Inventory page several Intel based product brochures - Canon, Intel, some laptop and maybe another x86 machine that all came with OpenStep 4.2 preinstalled.
I already know that it will run on older x86 and Pentium machines. My question is whether it can take advantage of all the speed improvements over the last decade or if the OS is written in such a manner that it cannot process above a certain speed or recognize any RAM above a certain specification.
|
Post #83,395
2/22/03 12:13:13 PM
|
Comparison of OpenStep & WindowMaker?
How close is WindowMaker to being a NeXTStep / OpenStep\r\nimplementation? I'm mostly a fan of the clean UI, but understand that\r\nNeXTStep offered other featurwes, most of which have never been clearly\r\narticulated to me. \r\n --\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #83,424
2/22/03 6:35:47 PM
|
Re: MacOS X is NeXTStep (and they can keep it, thanks)
karnak wrote:
There was no version of NeXTSTEP above 3.3, NeXT changed NeXTSTEP's name to OpenStep and briefly put out versions 4.0 and 4.1 before its widespread release of 4.2, the last release.
If you say so. It's been a hell of a long time, but I assembled a fairly high-end machine for a former employer to run a very late version of the Intel port, about a decade and a half ago. My recollection is that it still said NeXTStep on the box (I declined then, and still do, to keep up with their goofy periodic capitalisation changes), but I could well be misremembering. I remember that it had an incredibly thin hardware compatibility list, such that I had to fall back to an ISA ATI Mach64 video card, there being no reasonable options for anything better.
When I left that firm in 1994, that was the last I saw of the OS, except on rare occasions when I use my friend David Burrowes's black-cube monochrome NeXT box.
My assumption is that that OS's time has come and gone. If you did find any leftover boxes of the x86 port -- and I haven't seen one in a decade -- trying to find hardware for which it has drivers would be an exercise in frustration, and just not worth it.
The OPENSTEP spec, now, that lives on.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #84,462
2/26/03 8:44:31 PM
|
Have you considered GNUStep?
Install Linux or *BSD, and then visit this web site:
[link|http://www.gnustep.org/|http://www.gnustep.org/]
Last I checked it wasn't ready for prime time yet, but it may have enough of an OpenStep compliance to work for you.
I remember getting an offer from Next to run OpenStep on my Intel system. I turned them down. Later Apple bought them out, and I don't think it is offered anymore. No more improvements, support for P4 chips, etc.
You could; however, download Darwin instead of Linux or *BSD. :) Get the core of OSX for WINTEL systems. [link|http://developer.apple.com/darwin/|http://developer.apple.com/darwin/]
[link|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey|
New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
|
