Page 1 of 6

Porting ReactOS to different Hardware...

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 9:17 pm
by Jaix
Hello, I was thinking about Linux and different ports, it is ported to just everything from toasters to mainframes for atomic power calculations. I am curious about what will happen when ReactOS is stable enough for a release, how much work will it be to port it to say the PowerPC and exchange the MacOS-X or the Amiga or other CPU:s with different hardware.

I saw on sourceforge some one already have plans for a 68k port
but has put the porject to death, whitch is a pitty, i would like to run ReactOS on my old Amiga.

It would be soooo cool to have ReactOS on a Mac or why not the DEC Alpha processor from Compaq, or a Transmeta optimized ReactOS?

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:06 pm
by SirTalon
I voted for AMD 64. But really it should only take 1 or 2 ports to different hardware platforms for ReactOS's codebase to become portable, like Linux's is. The only problem I can see coming from this is support for windows programs, you would have to emulate an x86 processor to be able to run most all of them (unless they can be compiled for the non-x86 platform). Another big issue is drivers, on x86 platforms you would have to create every single driver from scratch (like Linux has to).


Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:16 am
by alex_farlie

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:21 am
by HUMA2000
Maybe the porting may be done later guy, when the OS came more complete, but maybe it help to found bugs.... anyway I wanna see it running under an AMD64 and under a MP platform :lol:

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:50 pm
by uniQ
I filed under A64, as I have 2 such machines.


Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:24 pm
AMD64 must be in the near Future!

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:36 pm
by Harteex
I would love to see ReactOS on the AMD64 and Comqaq DEC Alpha sometime in the future, since I own these systems :)

Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:52 am
by DocPheniX
yeah i voted for amd64 however i would like to see ports for as many systems as possible. seeing a reactosDC (sh4) thats compatible with winCE would be way cool, cause im a big dreamcast nerd... and id love to run it on my sgi o2. /me chuckles

Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:20 pm
by Owen
Porting it to Intal 64 (Itanium) is a waste of time - Itanium is dead now.

Longhorn wont support it. Intel dont make it. And nobody needs it.

I voted for AMD64 - Theyre brilliant systems and probably easiest port

All of the above are good, but first get it working.

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:10 am
by adric22
Of course, as many ports as possible would be good. Most open-source software should be able to be recompiled for whatever CPU is running.. and I suppose some kind of emulation should be possible sort of like Macintosh did when moving from 68000 code to PowerPC.

Did somebody forget to ad Sparc and ARM to the list?

Sparc and Arm

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:25 am
by Jaix
adric22 wrote:
Did somebody forget to ad Sparc and ARM to the list?
Sparc I forgot sorry, but ARM is included in the PocketPC/ WinCE hardware together with for example the MIPS, SH3 processors[/quote]

AMD64 == briliant platform?

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:12 pm
by Linuxhippy
Porting it to Intal 64 (Itanium) is a waste of time - Itanium is dead now.
Longhorn wont support it. Intel dont make it.
Maybe Longhorn isnt the target - I know many guys using Itanium with Linux and are VERY happy.
Itaniums design is the clear winner comparing all x86-compatible devices (and just to clearify Iteanium isnt built uppon x86, it just supports it via software) and Intel simply does not want to see it on desktop.
And nobody needs it.
Maybe you dont need it - I dont need windows at all, another guys just uses PowerPC processors and is happy.
Itanium would be a chance to stop making the crappy x86 stuff even more complex.
x86 is just shit, it was designed as an instruction set for a wek 8-bit CPU, you should never forget this - 8 registers - bahaha.
Did you know that about 40% of x86-code time is wasted with Load/Stores and 25% of this would not be necessary if more registers would be available.
But instead of increasing the numbers of registers, Intel gives us "shadow" registers, we have absolutly no control over them.
Insine x86's are very powerful risc processors but you cannot use their features directly becaus eof the x86 instruction set. You can just hope the CPU will do it right with your code - on optimization that perform well on AMD may destroy performance on Intel, there are even big problems writing code that performs well on P3 and P4.
I voted for AMD64 - Theyre brilliant systems and probably easiest port
Just to clearify - AMD64 is just anyther incernation of x86, with throwing away this crapy instruction set you could get about 2-4x more performance out of the same silicium!
Just sad how important compatibility is :-(

lg Clemens

People with radical thoughts gets flamed...

Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:56 pm
by Jaix
Hello, yes it´s a classic, people withe radical ideas gets flamed by people withe other radical ideas...

Perhaps it´s just a matter of point of view?

I think we need all kinds of ports for everything from toasters to mainframes!

I myself would be impressed to se ReactOS on my old Amiga500 or why not a really thin one in my palm pilot!

Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:36 pm
by uniQ
Regardless of how much "better" IA64 may be, I think that A64s are going to be more important in that AMD is pushing them for desktop use, as opposed to Itaniums (Itanics, ":lol:") when seem to be highend servers.


Yes - of course.

Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:10 pm
by Linuxhippy
Yes of course - AMD64 will be much more important as target for ReactOS than IA54 of course ;-)

I was just about angry because some guys flamed an really good architecture just because its too expensive for their pockets *g*

Nevermind, AMD64 will even increase in importance and I think this is really one of the most important platforms that would be great if supported.

lg Clemens