Macadore 64 OS X?

[typamc95]

I Recently learned that Mac is based on a Motorola operating system, and that you could quite easily give it internal memory instead of the floppies so I had a crazy idea......
To say it like Ben would in a guide.....
If, I could possibly...Give the Commodore 64 internal memory..I may be able to, possibly....Put Mac os x on a Commodore..Theoretically?

[vb_master]

I Recently learned that Mac is based on a Motorola operating system, and that you could quite easily give it internal memory instead of the floppies so I had a crazy idea......
To say it like Ben would in a guide.....
If, I could possibly...Give the Commodore 64 internal memory..I may be able to, possibly....Put Mac os x on a Commodore..Theoretically?

No. Too slow.

[atari2600a]

Dude, think about it, a 6502 8-bit processor (Manufactured by MOS, but is a clone of a Motorola Processor) running a PPC/x86-based OS? (PPC=IBM; x86=Intel) That's like saying you're going to put Windows XP on an Altair 8800!

[bicostp]

I Recently learned that Mac is based on a Motorola operating system, and that you could quite easily give it internal memory instead of the floppies so I had a crazy idea......
To say it like Ben would in a guide.....
If, I could possibly...Give the Commodore 64 internal memory..I may be able to, possibly....Put Mac os x on a Commodore..Theoretically?

1. The Mac is not based on a Motorola operating system. (I think the only thing they make that's close to an OS is cell phone firmware.) Apple wrote Mac OS X. They wrote OS 9, 8, 7, systems 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. IBM and Motorola made the PowerPC chips which ran Power Macs for over ten years:

PowerPC 601
603
603e
604
G3
G4
G5

Then they switched to Intel Core Duo processors, and in one of the new Mac Pro systems, two dual core Intel Xeon 64 bit processors.

It is impossible for the C64 to run an operating system like OSX or Windows XP, not with an MOS Technologies processor running at a blindingly fast 1 megahert.

So, basically a Commodore 64 is way too slow and has far too little RAM to do anything other than what it was designed to do.

"and that you could quite easily give it internal memory instead of the floppies" This makes no sense. Aren't you talking about the Mac in the first part of that sentence?

http://winhistory.de/more/386/xpmini_eng.htm
XP installed on a Pentium PC which has been underclocked to 20 mhz

It is possible to install older versions of OS X onto Power Macintosh computers with at least PPC 603 processors (at least the 7600, maybe the 7200 with its 601 could run it) using software tricks. This is very, very slow.

[Sparkfist]

Yeah the closest thing you can get to a OS on a commadore is the BASIC commandline interface. There might be an uber geek out there that was able to make a build of Midnight Commander for it but the 64 is just too limited, in ram alone.

However to contradict that last sentence, the C64DTV 2 by Mammoth uses 2MB of ram so theoreticly they could have some really large programs run on the Commodore hardware in those joysticks. I doubt there will be, as I'm sure there will be a lot of people wanting to keep programs backwards compatible.

As for OSX. It's the very defintion of a melting pot of a OS. The base system was made by NEXT, a company founded by Steve Jobs after his leaving of Apple. The OS called NEXT Step, used a Mach kernal to handle a lot of the system but also incorperated a lot of BSD code. NEXT Step was moved to OPEN Step were it was ported to several architectures (one including PPC). In '97 (or '99) Apple was looking to bring a comany in to be the source of the next Mac OS. Well they chose Job's NEXT over the BeOS and OPEN Step was given the Mac look. So with OS X released they worked on refining it to one, make it as good as it is today, and two keep some backwards compatablity with the OS9 and OS8 software.

There you go.

[vb_master]

There is GEOS and Contiki still for Commodore 64, check those out.

[Bibin]

Apple wrote Mac OS X.

Yes and no... they wrote the GUI OS X, but the system is really unix.

[vb_master]

Apple wrote Mac OS X.

Yes and no... they wrote the GUI OS X, but the system is really unix.

Oh wow an old topic. Mac OS X is actually BSD.

[jleemero]

Uuhh...
WHAT?!?!?!?

Code: Select all

Mac OS X brought Unix-style memory management and pre-emptive multitasking to the Mac platform. It is based on the Mach kernel and the BSD implementation of UNIX, which were incorporated into NeXTSTEP, the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs's NeXT company. The new memory management system allowed more programs to run at once and virtually eliminated the possibility of one program crashing another. It is also the second Macintosh operating system to include a command line (the first is the now-discontinued A/UX, which supported classic Mac OS applications on top of a UNIX kernel), although it is never seen unless the user launches a terminal emulator.

(no I didn't write that...)

Kk all?!

[vb_master]

Uuhh...
WHAT?!?!?!?

Code: Select all

Mac OS X brought Unix-style memory management and pre-emptive multitasking to the Mac platform. It is based on the Mach kernel and the BSD implementation of UNIX, which were incorporated into NeXTSTEP, the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs's NeXT company. The new memory management system allowed more programs to run at once and virtually eliminated the possibility of one program crashing another. It is also the second Macintosh operating system to include a command line (the first is the now-discontinued A/UX, which supported classic Mac OS applications on top of a UNIX kernel), although it is never seen unless the user launches a terminal emulator.

(no I didn't write that...)

Kk all?!

When you install OS X 86 it says installing BSD base subsystem.

[SpongeBuell]

OS X, BSD, Linux, et. al. are all based on unix. OS X is based on BSD, which is based on Unix. it's a little bit of a longshot, but OS X is, in a way, based on Unix.

[Sparkfist]

OS X, BSD, Linux, et. al. are all based on unix. OS X is based on BSD, which is based on Unix. it's a little bit of a longshot, but OS X is, in a way, based on Unix.

Gees I thought I covered this already. Yes BSD is a derivative of Unix, but not 100%. OS X uses BSD code in it's kernel, and the Mach kernel. The file system structure of OS X is very much like that of BSD, so you Linux people will be a little lost.

And to clear things up, there was a debate and I'm sure it's still going on. When OS X was released people questioned if there should still be Linux development on the Macintosh hardware now that there was a Unix OS offered already. So, really what more is needed to be said?

As for this topic. It's been covered. No you can not run an OS on a commodore, not even the DTV joysticks can run an OS. You want OS X, you run it on a PC, otherwise you'll be wasting your time.

[atari2600a]

Well, not a GUI anyways. I'm sure there's plenty of Disk Operating Systems (DOS) available for the C64...

[atari2600a]

Well, actually, there might actually be a GUI developed for the C64; I know some very primitive GUI's have been made for the Atari 8-bits.

There IS a web browser on the C64. (displays images & everything!)

[Sparkfist]

Well, actually, there might actually be a GUI developed for the C64; I know some very primitive GUI's have been made for the Atari 8-bits.

There IS a web browser on the C64. (displays images & everything!)

I don't think a Commodore 64 or really any 8bit computer can really run a GUI more developed then say that of Apple IIgs or Midnight Commander. There just isn't enough power in the CPU or GPU to run simultaneous GUI desktop and applications. Hell even the first Macintosh computers has these kind of limitations, namely no multitasking.

Also you can browse the web with a text-based browser. And a big reason that a Commodore can surf the web or any other modern type of function is because of added hardware. IDE64 is a good example, it has the hardware that does most of the work. The Commdore64 does the data processing, though this isn't far from the model the computers of it's day worked with. The peripherals where intelligent (no they don't conspire!) and so only required the computer to tell them what to do not how to do it as well.

Again the Commodore64 would have to have a ton of add-ons to try to keep up with anything more then email/text browsing. Again the it doesn't have the power to do much today. Rams a small part, the CPU and video are the other part of the problem.