nates@sporobolus.NREL.ColoState.EDU (Nate Sammons) (05/28/91)
Hey, Anyone know if there is anyboby working on a way to run Mac software on a NeXT?? I don't see why not, since the 68040 is binary compatible with the other processors in the 680x0 family, and since someone already did it for the SPARC... PLEASE let me know if there is a way.... -Nate Sammons <nates@Sporobolus.NREL.ColoState.Edu> <nsammons@Lobo.RMHS.Colorado.Edu>
6600dadg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Mark Dadgar) (05/29/91)
In article <15174@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> nates@sporobolus.NREL.ColoState.EDU (Nate Sammons) writes: >Hey, > Anyone know if there is anyboby working on a >way to run Mac software on a NeXT?? I don't see why not, since >the 68040 is binary compatible with the other processors in the >680x0 family, and since someone already did it for the SPARC... > PLEASE let me know if there is a way.... The problem is not technical, it's legal. NuTek has claimed to have cloned the Mac BIOS, and they are presently being sued by Apple. Unfortunately, it'll probably come down to who has the bigger lawyers. So, until the way is cleared to clone the ROM's in a way that Apple cannot contest, we won't be seeing any Mac emulators. Unless, of course, you count add-in boards using purchased Mac ROMS. An expensive solution. I do not, in this capacity, represent the views of NeXT Computers, Inc. +-----------------------------+-------------+---------------------------+ | UCSB NeXT Campus Consultant | Mark Dadgar | 6600dadg@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu | +-----------------------------+-------------+---------------------------+ | Do you remember chalk hearts melting on a playground wall? | | Do you remember dawn escapes from moon-washed college halls? | | Do you remember cherry blossoms in the market square? | | Do you remember I thought it was confetti in our hair? | +-------------Would UCSB write anything this intelligent?---------------+
timbur@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tim Burnett) (05/29/91)
Both the Atari and the Amiga have Macintosh emulators. They both use ROMS that were taken from used machines. There are third-party ROM resellers (which I don't know how they get around Apple's license agreement, but they have existed now for about 3 years). What would need to be done would be to write some software that would address the ROMS from the SCSI port, and someone would have to design the SCSI ROM interface. This would not be a trivial job I would be interested in talking to someone that would like to work on such a project. I'm a 6 year Macintosh programmer with a NeXT at home. --------------------------- Matthew Huff
mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) (05/30/91)
Back in January, I believe, Dave Small (Owner of Gadgets by Small, inventor of the Spectre CGR Mac Plus Emulator for the Atari ST) posted a very detailed, lengthy article explaining all the problems with a NeXT-based Mac emulator. One of the biggest problems was the fact that the Mac OS wants complete control of the computer. Unix doesn't seem to care for that. Apparently, in order for the Mac Emulator to work, it would have to kick out the NeXT OS completely. Who wants that? I remember reading that Gadgets by Small avoids legal issues with Apple by not selling the Mac ROMs. Buyers are instructed to seek them elsewhere. MikeC -- --------------------------------------------------------- Michael D. Callaghan, MDC Designs, University of Maryland --------------------------------------------------------- - Celibacy is a curable condition -
stone@triton.unm.edu (Andrew Stone) (05/30/91)
In article <15174@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> nates@sporobolus.UUCP (Nate Sammons) writes: > > >Hey, > > > Anyone know if there is anyboby working on a >way to run Mac software on a NeXT?? I don't see why not, since >the 68040 is binary compatible with the other processors in the >680x0 family, and since someone already did it for the SPARC... > Abacus Research and Development, Albuquerque NM, the same folks who brought the ROMLIB stir to the net, are working on just such a product. They have it up on SUNS, and the chief executive hacker tells me it should be a quick port. Of course all Appkit Junkies will tell you this is the "wrong way" to go, but for the meantime, it will be the definitive stop gap measure, and perhaps quiet the "no-app-sayers". andrew ||<<++>>||<<-->>||<<==>>||<<++>>||<<??>>||<<++>>||<<-->>||<<==>>||<<++>>|| !! Andrew Stone !! two wrongs don't make a right || !! andrew@stone.com <> but three lefts do. || ||<<++>>||<<-->>||<<==>>||<<++>>||<<??>>||<<++>>||<<-->>||<<==>>||<<++>>||
crum@alicudi.usc.edu (Gary L. Crum) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May29.174221.14752@wam.umd.edu> mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) writes: > One of the biggest problems was the fact that the Mac OS wants complete > control of the computer. Unix doesn't seem to care for that. Apparently, > in order for the Mac Emulator to work, it would have to kick out the NeXT > OS completely. Who wants that? A/UX (as of 2.0) runs Macintosh binaries on top of a UNIX kernel, and at the last USENIX, Macintosh binaries were demonstrated on top of the Mach operating system. That is, it has been demonstrated that it is not necessary to "kick out" underlying operating systems in order to run Macintosh executables. The support of AppleTalk and IP in A/UX and the fact that those network protocols are available to traditional Macintosh programs when running on top of A/UX is particularly interesting. Gary
ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May29.174221.14752@wam.umd.edu> mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) writes: >One of the biggest problems was the fact that the Mac OS wants complete >control of the computer. Unix doesn't seem to care for that. Apparently, >in order for the Mac Emulator to work, it would have to kick out the NeXT >OS completely. Who wants that? You wouldn't need to kick out the NeXT OS completely. You *would* probably need to modify the kernel. My understanding is that all recent 68k series chips ('040, '030, maybe '020) have support for providing supervisor mode *emulation*, by trapping the instructions that are used to enter and use supervisor mode (like the 040 does with floating point operations it can't do in hardware). When a process without permission tries to enter supervisor mode, a trap is generated and the kernel can do anything it wants, including creating the illusion that the instruction worked. One could create a software environment that was an entire virtual machine, from the point of view of a given process. It should be theoretically possible to run a Macintosh in a single NeXTstep window. It might even be possible with enough work to run mac apps as separate NeXTstep windows, but I don't think it'd be worth the extra effort. Something like Mouse-X (hot key to switch between screens) would be just right for me. -- Doug DeJulio ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu
ernest@pundit.cithep.caltech.edu (Ernest Prabhakar) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.171743.16463@cs.cmu.edu> ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes: > In article <1991May29.174221.14752@wam.umd.edu> mikec@wam.umd.edu (Michael D. Callaghan) writes: > >One of the biggest problems was the fact that the Mac OS wants complete > >control of the computer. Unix doesn't seem to care for that. Apparently, > >in order for the Mac Emulator to work, it would have to kick out the NeXT > >OS completely. Who wants that? > > You wouldn't need to kick out the NeXT OS completely. You *would* > probably need to modify the kernel. Ideally, you shouldn't even have to do that. "MacMach" is, after all, precisely a Mac/OS built on top of Mach. Mach can run any number of servers on top of itself quite easily. Now, any Mach before 3.0 (Next runs 2.0, MacMach is probably 2.5) will have some divergences. If both NeXT and MacMach rebuild on top of 3.0, it should be trivial. Again, the real issue is licensing, not technology. This issue keeps coming up. At some point, somebody with good brains and good lawyers will come up with a solution. Until then, let's just sit tight. -- Ernie P. -- Ernest N. Prabhakar Caltech High Energy Physics CaJUN President NeXTMail:ernest@pundit.cithep.caltech.edu "...and ourselves, your servants for Jesus sake." - II Cor 5:13a