It's been a WHILE. Macintosh support yet??
cbmeeks
Posts: 634
It has been a LONG time since I've been on but I've had an EE itch lately. 
Anyway, I have two PC's....a Macbook Pro and a Windows XP machine. The MBP is my favorite to use.
How much trouble is it going to be to be able to program my SX chips using the Mac? Impossible? What about using Windows XP in Parallels? (I'd rather not dual-boot).
Any tips or info is appreciated.
Thanks!
cbmeeks
Anyway, I have two PC's....a Macbook Pro and a Windows XP machine. The MBP is my favorite to use.
How much trouble is it going to be to be able to program my SX chips using the Mac? Impossible? What about using Windows XP in Parallels? (I'd rather not dual-boot).
Any tips or info is appreciated.
Thanks!
cbmeeks
Comments
I don't know Mac that well, my only real experience was when my wife did some part time work for a company and they loaned her a machine to work with. In setting it up with our home network, I found it very similar to Linux, and as I understand it, the Mac operating system OS-X is very similar to Linux. That said there are at least a few solutions using Wine or VMware that work with a Linux system allowing you to run Windows software. I don't know if this would be true for a Mac however. I personally use VMware to run Windows XP from a Linux Boot on a dual head machine; Linux on one monitor, and Windows XP on the other.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Beau Schwabe
IC Layout Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Windows is a derivative of CPM (and that is why it struggles with development from time to time - UNIX was excellent before anybody made an Apple or Linux. While CPM was intended pretty much for a single user with a few floppy disks and just maybe one hard drive.)
There may be software available that will allow Windows programs to operate on Apple. Apple touts OS X compatiblity with M$, but I am not quite sure what they mean. That is likely the most direct route to using Parallax's software on an Apple. Some might be free, but I don't really know of one. It would be a shame to remove OS X and load Windows of some genre on a MAC, but that is another possiblity.
It is rather easy for Parallax to port software over to Linux as no fees or licenses are involved. But with Apple, one has to be sure to recapture all these costs and since the software is freely given that is rather hard to do.
I mainly use Ubuntu Linux these days, but I retain a dual boot for Parallax's software on two computers - one is an XP/Linux and the other a Vista/Linux. I do so because the changes in software usually come out first in the Windows environment and I'd rather not wait for migration to other OSes.
But better yet.....
You could buy an OEM copy of XP on EBay, load it to a USB memory stick in a bootable configuration and use that with any computer that will boot from a USB port. I am not 100% sure that it will work on more than one machine (XP generally recognizes some hardware and refuses to operate if changed), but here is a website for HOWTO
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13257/Boot-Windows-XP-From-a-USB-Flash-Drive
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ain't gadetry a wonderful thing?
aka G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse] 黃鶴 ] in Taiwan
Post Edited (Loopy Byteloose) : 7/25/2010 12:01:24 PM GMT
Exactly how is Windows a "derivative of CPM" ? Windows XP is a "derivative" of windows NT/2000, which is a derivative of... well, nothing specific. They wrote it from scratch at Microsoft. They didn't start from any pre-existing code base.
Thanks,
PeterM
I suppose you can argue Window NT/2000 is a break with the path. It certain apes portions of UNIX and Windows is getting more and more 'Unix-like" everyday as a necessity. (Most of the internet is run on Unix or Linux servers.)
But deep, deep down that whole Registery and DLL mess arose in MS's roots in trying to ignore UNIX/Linux and stay pretty much with a single user, personal computer marketing approach. (CPM was single user.)
Am I wrong? Maybe, maybe not.
I am happy to see that there is a way to run Windows apps on Apple's OSX. Parallax always seem to come out with new software in the Windows OS first. It takes a lot of waiting to get the same thing in Linux, and maybe never in Apple.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ain't gadetry a wonderful thing?
aka G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse] 黃鶴 ] in Taiwan
Well, that's kind of a stretch there. If your argument is valid, then the following is valid:
Apple's OSX is really a derivative of the Xerox Star because they bought the rights to use the Xerox Star GUI and then wrote the original Mac OS based on its concepts.
That may be a dramatic statement, but it's also wrong. While it may have been true when Apple came out with the original Lisa and Mac computers, it ignores the fact that Apple has basically written a Mac GUI shell which rides on top of a Unix kernel in the current OSX. Similarly, ignoring the fact that Windows XP/Vista/7 all share a common bloodline with Windows NT (which shares no common bloodline with MS-DOS or CPM) is a willful ignoring of the facts behind the current version of Windows.
George, you're a lot smarter than that. I've seen your posts. You can dislike Windows or not, but you can't ignore reality. This sounds like you have issues with Windows and want to make a case for your opinion. That's cool. Make whatever case you want, but make it using the actual facts. It's not a question of arguing about if Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista/7 is a break with ancient MS-DOS roots. There is no question. It is a break with MS-DOS.
I highly recommend you read "Showstopper!", which is a book written many years ago about the creation of Windows NT. Here's a link to it on Amazon:
Showstopper! The Breakneck Race to Create Windows NT and the Next Generation at Microsoft
They also have it in Kindle format if you prefer. The book explains in great detail the exact path and players that created Windows NT. Once you read that book, you'll better understand how the current version of Windows came to be.
You also mentioned DLL's as tacit support for the "path to CPM." I'm not sure how much PC programming you've done, but DLL's were created as a way for memory limited machines to share code libraries at runtime instead of statically linking them. Every modern OS has them, including OSX and Linux. There's really no way to conflate the use of DLL's with either single user computing or CPM, given that multi-user OS's have them and CPM didn't. I'm not even sure I understand what "single user" computing refers to in this context. Mac users are single users, right? I can create create multiple accounts on Windows machines, right? It's safe to say the Mac was created as a single user, personal computer, so I'm afraid I don't really follow you here.
Again, George, you're smarter than this. I promise you that if you want to get into some weird flame war, I'll back out right away. I don't care enough about the topic to deal with it anymore. However, I am dead serious when I suggest you take the time to get a copy of "Showstopper!" and read it. You'll have a lot more insight into this topic if you do.
Thanks,
PeterM
Really, all computers are derivatives of toasters -- they are boxes up on a table or counter with a power cord. Only difference now is some computers have batteries
But seriously, to come back to what probably prompted this thread -- Parallax is clearly committed to closed IDEs that are only designed to run on Windows. I find this to be a real shame. Given that Parallax is NOT in the business of selling IDEs per se, I find it baffling that they haven't committed to an open-source IDE and written their own libraries for same.
If I had my druthers, the Prop, Stamp and SX IDEs would be ported to libraries for Eclipse or perhaps Processing/Wiring. This would leave the brute work of cross-platform maintenance and installation to the open-source community, and leave Parallax to maintain their libraries. Users would be able to install on virtually any platform, leverage really cool tools like project and task management, compare of application versions, etc.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -- HST
create bitmap data tool: 1uffakind.com/robots/povBitMapBuilder.php
resistor ladder tool: 1uffakind.com/robots/resistorLadder.php
convert images to ascii art: 1uffakind.com/apptoys/convtoascii/
I may not be a smart as you think I am. For instance, I guess you are right, NT has no ancestor. The idea hadn't occurred to me as products usually evolve, especially complex ones. I still don't think I will ever under what Novell was doing in LANs. (and thank God I don't have to.)
I certainly do have issues with M$ and Windows - most recently about Vista. (Money down a rat hole -again- for promises that eventually things will run right with fantastic new goodies.)
And yes, I am NOT well informed about the evolution of the OSes in great detail. I came very late to the computing party because I made my living in heavy construction until 1994 and then was quite busy teaching English until the mid 2000s. But M$ has been more distant to UNIX than Apple or Linux in origins and had to make a choice toeither not provide a lot of good features or chose to try to keep many under the hood. Linux ported over vast amounts of Unix utilities that make it easy and powerful to use. And the information is not proprietary. I suspect that any and all OSes are now converging on a UNIX/Linux way of doing things.
Right now, I am very pleased with relying on Ubuntu Linux for my daily needs - stable, fast, and free. I don't need goodies and I certainly dislike being gouged for Antivirus software and Registry cleaners on an annual basis. I buy something and then find out the M$ dislikes the company so it never works right. I have never fully understood Windows OS. When I have gotten near to doing so, a new incarnation has arisen. But with Linux, I can begin to identify the parts, why they work, and how they were put together.
DDLs and the Registry are voodoo to me. So I seem to blame them for problems.
Apple did indeed get the mouse and the concept of Windows from Xerox. Feels and smells like a derivative to me, but not to you. And a heck of a lot was very well done in Unix prior to the internet becoming a household word. There are a whole slew of Windows utilities available for $50 USD a piece at some little boutique web site which are ancient and free in Linux. In many cases, the developer merely migrated open-source code into Windows and thinly disguises it as proprietary.
I strongly suspect that the current version of Windows (still bloated compared to Linux and forcing you to use M$'s Internet Explorer) came to be what it is because the bulk of the internet backbone runs on Linux and Unix. These days, you still cannot run a M$ product without using a GUI, but Linux can be stripped of the GUI to run a very lean and fast machine. And so, Windows servers are just not as easy to manage as Linux servers. M$ still is driving the consumer to 'up-size' (Like McDs does) there hardware while not running the machine better, when I have no need for a larger storage media (in fact, it allows clutter to accumulate and have governmental agencies jump to conclusions about my private life). Also, I find that nearly all the consumer hardware depends on Windows, one has to be careful to buy a scanner or other products for Linux.
I wasn't aware that Linux has DLL's. I can't seem to locate them. And every time a hostile software tries to install one on my Linux, it is refused and sits on my desktop waiting to be remove. It is very comforting to dump them into my Trash Can rather than ponder what robotic mole has taken over my machine again. Do you mean they are the same as 'libraries'?
Forgive me. I do have a lot to learn and may never catch up. I do know a good thing when I see it. And having tried to be a legitimate, registered individual user of M$ products for many, many has been brutal. Maybe as a member of a big corporate structure it has been different, but I wonder.
The Unix model had a solid multi-user, multi-task core long before M$ could say 'IBM'. Apple wisely got on-board early as we see that the computer world has evolve to make every machine multi-user, multi-task. M$ has had to apparently retool with NT after reaching a dead-end. It doesn't speak well for their ability to envision the future.
THE Bottom LINE
I simply accept the reality that Parallax depends on the fact that 90% of their potential market are Windows users. They have to provide a Windows IDE to survive. Linux and Apple IDEs are not profitable enough to sustain this kind of an enterprise. We have some because some enthusiast wrote them out of the goodness of their own heart.
In truth, nobody likes a smart machine. One can waste a lifetime pushing electrons and wake up with the rent unpaid. But I really enjoy the puzzle.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ain't gadetry a wonderful thing?
aka G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse] 黃鶴 ] in Taiwan
Post Edited (Loopy Byteloose) : 8/5/2010 11:39:01 AM GMT