Is It Emulation or Not -- the Dilemma

[Iggy]

So if it runs Windows then it's a PC, if it runs MacOS then it's a Mac. If it runs Linux, well I'm not sure what it is as Linux runs on my phone, my NAS, my TV but not one computer I own.
 
Running windows on a macbook air makes it ?

How about running Snow Leopard on a system you put together with a Gigabyte motherboard and an i5 processor (and only running Windows under Parallels 7)?
 
People tend to refer to hacked systems like that as a Hackintosh, but lets face it, its still a PC (not a Mac).
Muddy waters indeed.
This discussion is being to sound like a blues jamb.

[danbeaver]

Weirdly they seem to have taken over the term PC (i.e. the "I'm a PC" adverts). Even more odd is that it was Apple that started it with the Get a Mac adverts.
 
So if it runs Windows then it's a PC, if it runs MacOS then it's a Mac. If it runs Linux, well I'm not sure what it is as Linux runs on my phone, my NAS, my TV but not one computer I own.
 
Running windows on a macbook air makes it ?

It looks like you may be unfamiliar with the English I used; I said, "Microsoft started out selling software; if the hardware ran it, then the hardware did NOT become DOS 6.22 or Windows 3.11." In essence for the non-english speaking readers, the hardware defines the computer, not the OS, UNTIL Apple started BRANDING anything THEY SOLD as a MAC.  As long as they, Apple, called it a Mac it was a Mac.  If it was a computer not sold as a Mac, but ran Apple software, I have no idea what Apple calls it, probably "lost profit." Read the Steve Jobs biography, he sold concepts and looks; he was a marketer; he was not an engineer, hardware nor software; he had no computer science education; he took a high school electronics course.  He sold Apple's -- I's, II's, III's, Lisa's and Mac's, Airs Books, and the like.  That's all he did, sell concepts and looks and an occasional computer.

 That advertisment you reference was an Apple campaign to show that PC's were more like John Hodgman, not like Justin Long.  It tried to sell the look of Justin Long versus the look of John Hodgman.

[Thorham]

Running windows on a macbook air makes it ?

It doesn't make it anything; it's simply a macbook air running a piece of software called Windows. Software doesn't change the hardware into anything, the hardware simply is.

[persia]

Running windows on a macbook air makes it ?

An absolutely fabulous computer.

[ferrellsl]

@persia

That's funny because when I run OSX 10.8 on my Dell D630 or my desktop PC, the Apple fanboys call it criminal.  I call it damned convenient and flexible.

[danbeaver]

@persia

That's funny because when I run OSX 10.8 on my Dell D630 or my desktop PC, the Apple fanboys call it criminal.

Aye, there's the rub. Because it runs OS X 10.8 does not make it a Mac. Apple changed the way we look at computers and they did it twice; they changed to a new Linux core OS AND changed to a standard industrial based set of hardware known to run the Windows operating system. Now what it that computer now sold by Apple?  When they sell it with their OS they call it a Mac; if they sold it with the Windows OS it would still be an Apple in the same way a Dell is a Dell; but it now can be called  a  Mac too as a simple software install works on the same Apple hardware because it is  THEIR standard. Not the world's.

How many Apple engineers does it take to change a light bulb?  Only one, but all he has to do is redefine the meaning of darkness and then upgrades the customer.

[Iggy]

@persia
 
That's funny because when I run OSX 10.8 on my Dell D630 or my desktop PC, the Apple fanboys call it criminal. I call it damned convenient and flexible.

I stuck with Snow Leopard, but it too runs pretty good on the right PC.
BTW - I think the fanboys might be upset because we're violating Apple's Eula (and maybe because I only had to pay $25 for OSX).

[ferrellsl]

@danbeaver

That supports my view that Apple Macs are just the most extreme form of DRM on the planet.  They're just one huge hardware dongle to keep Mac users locked into Apple hardware and PC users locked out of OSX.

@Iggy
Yes, and they're also upset when they find out that they overpaid for the hardware to run OSX.  I can buy an Acer, Dell or Asus laptop with better specs than most MacBooks at half the price of a MacBook and still run OSX just fine on them.  I suppose I'd be upset too if I lost that kind of beer money!

[commodorejohn]

Apple changed the way we look at computers and  they did it twice; they changed to a new Linux core OS

It's not Linux, it's CMU's Mach kernel plus BSD Unix, with Apple's own custom software and toolkits on top of that.

(I can see where the "include ALL the things" approach would lead you to think it's a Linux distro, though ;P)

I stuck with Snow Leopard, but it too runs pretty good on the right PC.

Admittedly my PowerBook G4 is only a casual-use writing laptop, but I've yet to run into anything that Tiger doesn't do perfectly well on it.

[Thorham]

and PC users locked out of OSX.

Is that a bad thing?

[danbeaver]

It's not Linux, it's CMU's Mach kernel plus BSD Unix, with Apple's own custom software and toolkits on top of that./QUOTE]
You are missing the forest for the trees, "It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut."  The Mac OS X uses a core from #?nix land to run on Intel hardware; Apple's original core only ran on Motorola based CPUs. Ergo, they changed both the OS and hardware, but because of its "look and feel" Apple stilled calls it a Mac. They may as well buy out Etch-a-Sketch and call it the Mac Air Book Lite.

[commodorejohn]

I'm not arguing that point, just that it is not, in fact, Linux.

[danbeaver]

I'm not arguing that point, just that it is not, in fact, Linux.

I am sorry that I said it was; well, now that we've settled the issue of what is and what is not emulation by just correcting my quite serious mistake on the actual non-Linux core of Apple's OS X, I  suppose we can close this thread. This i suppose also solves the question of "Life, the Universe and Everything."  Oh, thanks for all the fish.

[commodorejohn]

Just so long as we're clear on that ;P

[foleyjo]

Yeah, welcome to human language use where 'can' is often used instead of 'may' and the words 'amateur' and 'professional' are used to imply quality, while those two words have nothing to do with quality at all.

Feel free to add more examples

A lot of the misuse of English I don't mind. The only 2 that annoy me are Dilemma when there is no di or lemma.

The other is 'could care less'.

[takemehomegrandma]

OK,

Here is the thread, so go at it: When you run software written for one computer (let us say an Amiga) on another computer (for instance a PC, MAC, or DEC PDP 11/40), what is it?

Depends.

If you run software written for Amiga on a Mac using MorphOS, which provides the complete Amiga environment and API's (minus Amiga custom chips etc) fully native on the Mac hardware, then it's not emulation, the software is being run native. The Amiga apps are scheduled by the same scheduler as those compiled directly for MorphOS, they all share the same resources, the same memory space, the same signalling system. There is no difference from an Amiga program and a MorphOS program in the way they are treated/handled, they all have full access to everything, they are both running directly on top of the OS (no layer in between), which is running directly on top of the HW. Everything is fully native!

If you run the Amiga software on a Mac using UAE sitting on top of the native environment, then it will run boxed in an emulated environment. UAE is software that tries to mimic the Amiga hardware, and the Amiga applications are then executed by that piece of SW inside its own box, shielded from the native system that lies underneath it.

On MorphOS you generally don't need to use emulators to run Amiga software. Games/apps that access Amiga custom chips directly (instead of going through the OS) will not run without an emulator like UAE though.

So, by "natively," you mean PPC opcodes only running on a PPC system.
Yep, that's native.
68k opcodes running on a PPC?  There's some level of emulation.

PPC opcodes running on a PPC system, is running native.

If you have a 68k program and you recompile it into being PPC instead, then you will have PPC opcodes running on a PPC system, fully native.

Both the above is how MorphOS does it. In other words, fully native.

If you on the other hand constructs a piece of program with the aim to mimic a physical 68k CPU through SW and run 68k opcodes using that, then you would have emulation. Just like a real CPU, it would have a Program Counter pointing to the next in line 68k opcode to be executed, it would have routines to deal with that opcode and all the others (instruction set), it would have the D0-D7 data registers and the A0-A6 address registers to be used by these opcodes, it would have the status register (signalling "overflow", etc), and it would have a chunk of "system RAM" allocated in a box where the 68k application(s) and their data resides, that this "CPU" can access. When one opcode is executed, registers are altered, "system RAM" is altered, the Program Counter in this "virtual CPU" increases to point to the next opcode in line. Since it's the 68k opcodes (unchanged) that are actually being executed, by a program that simulates a physical 68k CPU, it is emulation. The emulator itself would run native on the system, but the 68k code inside it would be emulated.