Re: [MiNT] New MiNT distribution is n.. ..pro

[Johan Klockars <rand@cd.chalmers.se>]

>  JK> I really don't understand this point of view.
>  JK> 'Nothing more than an emulator'? 'Not a computer'?
> 
>  JK> I don't hear millions of Mac people complaining, and until recently
>  JK> major parts of their OS (as well as all pre-PPC software, obviously) was
>  JK> emulated. [---SNIP---]
> 
> Did Mac users have to load Windows or any other OS to let MacOS work?
> I don't think so. :-)

Well, with MacOS X, that's about what happens. Then you run MacOS as a
'box' inside what more or less amounts to UNIX, on top of a Mach kernel.

> The difference in between a computer and an emulator is very clear: A
...
> computer, an emulator is an emulator. That's what my dictionnary says.  ;-)

Of course they are two different things, but they are orthogonal rather than
opposite. You run an emulator on a computer.
Personally, I don't see a point in worrying about it.

With your reasoning, it seems my very own QLem wouldn't be emulating a
Sinclair QL on an Atari, but would _be_ a Sinclair computer. And that just
because I happen to kill TOS when it's started up.
If I change things (I'm going to, some day) so that you can still get access
to TOS/MiNT (and then of course QLem would take advantage of this to for
example access hard disks), would it suddenly be a horrible emulator?

>  JK> Since people in the Atari market seem to get by just fine on the very
>  JK> slow hardware we have, why don't we just port everything to Java?
>  JK> (That's not entirely ment as a joke.)
> 
> I read it as a joke. Java? Ho boy! Did they do some improvements on speed at 
> Sun? AFAIK, it's not a monster of speed... We're gonna need a PowerST. (This is 
> meant as a joke.)  ;-)

Java can be compiled to native code if you like. Then there's little reason
why it shouldn't be as fast as any other compiled language.
I haven't tried any of the various compilers that do this, so I don't know
if they've quite reached that point yet.

Anyway, my point was that if you're prepared to make do with an '040/'060,
even just-in-time compiled Java on modern hardware could be just as fast,
and it would run on just about _any_, current or future, hardware.

>  JK> At least I would most definitely not want our future to depend on some
>  JK> relatively expensive machine from one very small company.
> 
> For the moment, we have no choice... Except if somebody wants to re-buy all 
> Atari copyrights and resurrect the corp. (This is a joke!)  ;-)

Of course we have a choice. It's not like the Milans are flying off the
shelves right now, and there are plenty of emulators.  ;-)

>  JK> IMO, the only reasonable thing to do for the longer term is to make use
>  JK> of something that already exists and that has a large market outside the
>  JK> (regrettably) very small Atari community.
> 
> That's why I said that MiNT needs to become closer to Linux to be ported on any 
> already available hardware. (This is a day-dream...)

If you go that way, why not just use oTOSis under Linux/m68k.
Ah! That would be an emulator again...

-- 
  Chalmers University   | Why are these |  e-mail:   rand@cd.chalmers.se
     of Technology      |  .signatures  |            johan@rand.thn.htu.se
                        | so hard to do |  WWW/ftp:  rand.thn.htu.se
   Gothenburg, Sweden   |     well?     |            (MGIFv5, QLem, BAD MOOD)