[Ti] Will Apple drop its OS?

[Robert Ameeti]

At 7:36 AM -0500, 4/7/06, Chris Olson wrote:

>On Apr 6, 2006, at 11:53 PM, Glenn L. Austin wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, x86 has a direct "load relative to PC" 
>>instruction which doesn't flush the instruction pipeline -- so 
>>MachO is much more efficient.
>
>Ah!  Now you're beginning to understand.  Mac OS X contains an 
>abomination of a RISC kernel with a CISC ABI that tries to built on 
>the perceived advantages of a microkernel and capitalize on the 
>speed of a monolithic kernel.  Didn't happen.  Every commercial and 
>open source Unix or Unix-like kernel in existence kicks XNU's a$$. 
>On x86 it really gets its a$$ kicked.  So Apple tried to fix the 
>abomination with GCC performing -mdynamic-no-pic optimizations, 
>which hard-codes the data addresses in the code, so the result is 
>roughly equivalent to the CFM ABI in OS 9.
>
>A runtime ABI does not a RISC or CISC kernel make.  And neither did 
>I make any assertions that OS X was even *designed* correctly. 
>Merely that XNU is a RISC kernel ported to x86.

I'm still not getting it.

Would you please explain the lousy Intel on a Mac showing that was found here:
<http://www.macworld.com/2006/04/firstlooks/xpbenchmarks/index.php>

I know that you've said that this was such a lousy decision and that 
it is just gunna suck, and that the OS can't multi-task decently 
since you can crash it by simply asking it to open all of the 
applications in the Applications folder at one time, but something 
just doesn't jive when I look at this table for real world 
multitasking (as defined by the WorldBench 5 tests. What am I not 
getting?
-- 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Robert Ameeti

Act naturally
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>