Subject: Re: YDL vs. MacOS X
From: the Webdude (wd@thewebdude.org)
Date: Tue Jul 03 2001 - 14:27:33 MDT
This month's (August) MacAddict has an article on this very thing! See
page 64 for a how-to.
HTH
WD
Peter M. Bagnall wrote:
> My understanding is that MacOS X does not use X (somewhat
> ironically!), instead is uses a display layer based on PDF. I forget
> what the Apple codename is, but I'm sure someone here knows.
>
>
> Assuming I'm right that means you'd need to install a separate Xserver
> under X to get that to work, which should work fine. I don't know
> however whether there are any yet.
>
>
> But it's not supported out of the box.
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>> First of all, I don't think people really care whether you approve of
>> them using all three OSes on one machine.
>>
>> Second, I wonder how well does X work under MacOS X? I'd be
>> interested to try to make that work so I could compile functional
>> programs.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> on 7/2/01 6:49 AM, Chris Ruprecht at chrup999@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just a thought: I read a few posts of people trying to run MacOS
>> Classic, MacOS X and YDL on the same machine in different
>> partitions. My Question is: What's the point?
>> If you're running MacOS X, you're already running a UNIX OS which
>> gives you most of the tools YDL gives you as well. The stuff you
>> don't have under X, you can download and compile yourself.
>> I understand that people want to run YDL on their legacy hardware
>> which is not supported by OS X or they don't like the new OS and
>> want to run some form of UNIX. But running both flavors on the
>> same machine just doesn't make sense to me. The argument "because
>> I can" just doesn't cut it ;).
>>
>> I'm running YDL on my Pismo because I want to run UNIX but OS X
>> is just too big and too clumsy an OS to run within 256 MB. I
>> might give it another try, specially since I ordered a 512 MB
>> SODIMM and I guess 768 MB should be sufficient to run OS X (for a
>> few days). But: What can I do under OS X, I can not do under YDL
>> 2.0 and vice versa? Is there an easy answer to that?
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> --
> Peter M. Bagnall
> pete@surfaceeffect.com - http://www.surfaceeffect.com/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue Jul 03 2001 - 19:33:48 MDT