4 ms·

6502 on the Commodore, z80 on the ZX's, 68k on the Ataris, Amigas, and Macs, x86 on the PC (and different hardware architectures, even when they had the same fa

6502 on the Commodore, z80 on the ZX's, 68k on the Ataris, Amigas, and Macs, x86 on the PC (and different hardware architectures, even when they had the same family of CPU)...compared to x86_64 on a PC architecture for just about anything now, with the biggest hurdle being legal, not technical. That's not an "Of course" situation. It's a "bang your head against the wall in frustration" situation. The hardware is commodity hardware, so the software runs on the same hardware that everyone owns, but you're legally required to pretend that it doesn't.

pjmlp 10y ago
> x86_64 on a PC architecture for just about anything now, Not in any of my pockets or devices at home, besides the laptop.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  In context of the discussion, we seem to be talking about personal computers, not hand-held devices, and my comment reflects that.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    A tablet with a physical keyboard is a personal computer.
    - skykooler 10y ago
      Nor does it run OSX.
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zPYW6Ipgok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zPYW6Ipgok
        khedoros1 10y ago
        ...and? I think I see the point that you're trying to make, but I don't think that it's pertinent to the discussion. A tablet is still a "personal computer" (solely as a descriptive term) without the keyboard, and regardless of Apple marketing. But it's not a "personal computer", in the same sense that common usage of that word doesn't include (most) tablets, smartphones, PDAs, programmable calculators, etc. But, we digress. Tell me again how it's reasonable that hardware that will run OSes 1, 2, and 3 shouldn't be allowed to run OS 1, because the hardware doesn't have a fruit sticker on the side. Old hardware was inherently incompatible software-wise, due to widely varying CPU and system architectures. ARM and MIPS hardware today somewhat mirrors that on a device-by-device level; every model has different interconnections between its components and often different mixes of components connected in. Luckily, we've got OSes that provide relatively robust hardware abstraction layers, so that the same software package from my 2010 device is highly likely to run on my 2016 device. I think that strengthens my argument: when even widely varied hardware isn't much of a barrier to software interoperability, why should we be satisfied with legal limitations? And anyhow, the point was software development. Going into the definition of what is and isn't a PC is a bunch of BS semantics. Let's drill down to the devices that are pertinent to the discussion: The set of devices that are technically capable of native (as opposed to web) OSX and iOS development, and the set of devices that are legally capable of the same. Those are what the discussion is about.

pjmlp 10y ago

> x86_64 on a PC architecture for just about anything now, Not in any of my pockets or devices at home, besides the laptop.

khedoros1 10y ago
In context of the discussion, we seem to be talking about personal computers, not hand-held devices, and my comment reflects that.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  A tablet with a physical keyboard is a personal computer.
  - skykooler 10y ago
    Nor does it run OSX.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zPYW6Ipgok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zPYW6Ipgok
      - khedoros1 10y ago
        ...and? I think I see the point that you're trying to make, but I don't think that it's pertinent to the discussion. A tablet is still a "personal computer" (solely as a descriptive term) without the keyboard, and regardless of Apple marketing. But it's not a "personal computer", in the same sense that common usage of that word doesn't include (most) tablets, smartphones, PDAs, programmable calculators, etc. But, we digress. Tell me again how it's reasonable that hardware that will run OSes 1, 2, and 3 shouldn't be allowed to run OS 1, because the hardware doesn't have a fruit sticker on the side. Old hardware was inherently incompatible software-wise, due to widely varying CPU and system architectures. ARM and MIPS hardware today somewhat mirrors that on a device-by-device level; every model has different interconnections between its components and often different mixes of components connected in. Luckily, we've got OSes that provide relatively robust hardware abstraction layers, so that the same software package from my 2010 device is highly likely to run on my 2016 device. I think that strengthens my argument: when even widely varied hardware isn't much of a barrier to software interoperability, why should we be satisfied with legal limitations? And anyhow, the point was software development. Going into the definition of what is and isn't a PC is a bunch of BS semantics. Let's drill down to the devices that are pertinent to the discussion: The set of devices that are technically capable of native (as opposed to web) OSX and iOS development, and the set of devices that are legally capable of the same. Those are what the discussion is about.