Nostalgia reminds me of this:
<a href="https://lowendmac.com/2014/next-openstep-and-the-triumphant-return-of-steve-jobs/" rel="nofollow">https://lowendmac.com/2014/next-openstep-and-the-triumphant-...</a><p>Amelio and the rest of his senior staff began searching for a way out. They needed a new operating system to buoy their attempts to compete with the Wintel juggernaut. The same search had taken place several times before, but now the company was desperate.<p>Limited Options
Ultimately the list of possible targets was narrowed down to five options:<p>License Windows NT from Microsoft and bolt a Mac-like interface onto it.
License Solaris from Sun and bolt a Mac-like interface onto it.
Narrow the focus of the flagging Copland project and release it in a year and a half.
Acquire Be and use BeOS.
Acquire NeXT and use OpenStep.
The same developer ported PPC NT 4 to the Wii last year: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8BpUpr1h9U" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8BpUpr1h9U</a>
Fascinating work. The ARC std <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_(specification)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_(specification)</a> was used to boot the Dec Alpha Windows machines, along w/ MIPS, etc. Anyone know of other open source variants of that in the wild? At intel in 1998 the original efi spec was modeled on & inspired by Arc. The Intel boot initiative (IBI) in fact looked mostly like Arc. EFI (now UEFI) is sort of Arc + installable GUID-based interfaces (aka protocols) a la MS COM <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model</a>. Page 8 of <a href="https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/research/2011-vol15-iss-1-intel-technology-journal.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents...</a> recounts some of those travails.
Can someone explain the context here? Surely NT is closed source and was never developed for macs, what actually is this? And what are the chances you can get software for it? Presumably most NT software was compiled for Intel only and closed source.
Man, I loved Windows NT back in the day. It was light enough that I could run it on fairly low end late-90s hardware, and it was substantially more stable than Windows 95.
I love the boot loader file <a href="https://github.com/Wack0/maciNTosh/blob/main/boot_files/System/BootX">https://github.com/Wack0/maciNTosh/blob/main/boot_files/Syst...</a><p>Sidenote: The Open Firmware syntax is so unreadable. No wonder it was scorned. A lost opportunity.
Writing a new NT HAL is a very impressive achievement. A tip of my hat to you, sir!<p>Docs are spotty at best, and I am sure many bugs aren’t known as existing HALs simply got lucky to not expose them.
Microsoft killed the PowerPC 615
IBM engineer offers up 615 information <a href="https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/01/microsoft_killed_the_powerpc/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/01/microsoft_killed_the_...</a>
It's been mentioned here before, but Dave Plummer's YouTube interview[1] with Dave Cutler[2] (NT lead architect) is a must-watch with never revealed before history about Windows NT.<p>1. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxmZPMg7vIs&list=PLF2KJ6Gy3cZ6XYnS6VZm-NLBEMfp997dH" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxmZPMg7vIs&list=PLF2KJ6Gy3c...</a><p>2. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler</a>