OSDev.org

i have seen Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard on the Mac site and truthfully, they look pretty darn awesome. i agree with colonel kernel on all the xp issues, my laptop does the exact same thing, if a Mac solves all the UI problems i have, then ill get one

Don't just buy an OS because of it's pretty interface

I think that it'd be worth switching if more developers started writing for the Mac (games, for instance).

Hehe, Mac's are pretty little boxes aren't they?

I know a school (a University to be exact) that has a Computer Engineering department (and, rather suspectly, no other Engineering departments). To further display this suspect institution, they use nothing but Macs in the CompE department. Imagine this, students graduating with a degree in Computer Engineering, who don't know how to use a PC. It's scary.

I know a couple of the students. They use Macs in their personal lives. They swear that Macs are BETTER for programmers because there are such great tools available for Macs...

...Personally, I think people just start kidding themselves after a while. Brand loyalty is perhaps the strangest side-effect of capitalism.

Macs are pretty. If I had a house with a guest-room and oodles of money, i'd throw an iMac in there, because it's pretty. If I wanted to record garage bands, i'd buy a powerMac. But if I want to build OS's, or use the best and most widely available tools for programmers, i'll stick with my PC.

eboyd wrote:But if I want to build OS's, or use the best and most widely available tools for programmers, i'll stick with my PC.

If you mean the GNU tools, OS X comes with gcc and friends.

eboyd wrote:But if I want to build OS's, or use the best and most widely available tools for programmers, i'll stick with my PC.

What do you use for OS dev? Windows, Linux, or something else? If you use Windows, you should at least try Linux for OS dev... I always found Cygwin to be really clunky, and VS.NET to be too inflexible.

I of course prefer OS X over Linux, even for OS dev.

I have a question, is MacOS X the same as linux when comes autoconf automake etc, or is automaking different?
MaocOS X is bsd based, but how far reached is it?

jerryleecooper wrote:I have a question, is MacOS X the same as linux when comes autoconf automake etc, or is automaking different?
MaocOS X is bsd based, but how far reached is it?

I don't own a make so I can be sure, but I heard you can run X applications natively on a mac.

jerryleecooper wrote:I have a question, is MacOS X the same as linux when comes autoconf automake etc, or is automaking different?
MaocOS X is bsd based, but how far reached is it?

I've built GNU source packages with no problems (GCC & binutils), so I assume that the autotools are there and work quite well.

It was recently announced that the next version of OS X (10.5 - "Leopard") is the first version of OS X to be certified by the Open Group as compliant with the SUS (Single UNIX Specification). The only other OSes to be so certified are AIX, Solaris, and HP-UX. I would say therefore that it is more "UNIX" than Linux or any other BSD variant.

Colonel Kernel wrote:I would say therefore that it is more "UNIX" than Linux or any other BSD variant.

That's a matter of interpretation Colonel Kernel, While having that certification is nice.. an OS can technically be certifiable without it.

The BSD's for example, are close.. the simple reason they aren't certified is the cost involved in doing so..

Anyway, If you like over the top GUI's and the power of UNIX, A Mac might be good for you, although so might BSD on a "PC"

The whole "Mac vs PC" debate is overblown, the new Intel Macs are basically PCs in prettier cases. Since the transition from PowerPC, it has become a pretty much meaningless argument.

Intel touts their speed, but Big Blue's chips ,though slower, have proven that some key differences (i.e. smaller number of pipeline stages, increased number of general purpose registers, reduced complexity in instruction set) allows even slower Power chips to outgun Pentium IVs and AMDs on stuff like floating point operations. Performance that adds up to massive bandwidth and data handling capability.

This is why smart game consoles are designed around Power and MIPS processors, and why the original XBox is not only slow, but can double as personal space heater in the winter.

Pirogoeth wrote:This is why smart game consoles are designed around Power and MIPS processors, and why the original XBox is not only slow, but can double as personal space heater in the winter.

Yes, but the original XBOX is more fun to play if it is modded and you already know how to program for such a widely used processor as those in the x86 series. The NASM32 package has information and examples available on how to play around with your XBOX

SpooK wrote:Yes, but the original XBOX is more fun to play if it is modded and you already know how to program for such a widely used processor as those in the x86 series.

That's why I do gamecube (powerpc) development - no modding needed and you can just use gcc

Agreed gamecube linux is pure awesome and no modding needed. It'd be cool to develop for ps2 as well, but without sony's dev tools it seems pretty hard to do. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it has some crazy custom mips III core similar to the r5k in sgi's o2s.