Author Topic: [BNET] 0x51  (Read 10409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hdx

  • The Hdx!
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • <3 Java/Cpp/VB/QB
    • View Profile
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2005, 11:36:21 am »
Please note that BNCS/D2GS/D2RS use little-endin
~-~(HDX)~-~
http://img140.exs.cx/img140/6720/hdxnew6lb.gif
09/08/05 - Clan SBs @ USEast
 [19:59:04.000] <DeadHelp> We don't like customers.
 [19:59:05.922] <DeadHelp> They're assholes
 [19:59:08.094] <DeadHelp> And they're never right.

Offline Joe

  • B&
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10319
  • In Soviet Russia, text read you!
    • View Profile
    • Github
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2005, 04:56:37 pm »
Not SCGS, W2GS, or W3GS? Not that there is a GS for them.. but.. nevermind.

MyndFyre, I meant that.
I'd personally do as Joe suggests

You might be right about that, Joe.


Offline Eric

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • I'm new here!
    • View Profile
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2005, 05:15:07 pm »
Can you not use api calls or something in RB?

Win32 API on a Macintosh?

Offline Sidoh

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17634
  • MHNATY ~~~~~
    • View Profile
    • sidoh
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #18 on: September 15, 2005, 05:46:40 pm »
Can you not use api calls or something in RB?

Win32 API on a Macintosh?
Hahahaha.

Offline Blaze

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Canadian
    • View Profile
    • Maide
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #19 on: September 15, 2005, 07:06:48 pm »
I don't know anything about RB, thats why I asked a question.  Sorry for trying to be informed, I'll never do it again. ::)
And like a fool I believed myself, and thought I was somebody else...

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #20 on: September 15, 2005, 07:13:21 pm »
Can you not use api calls or something in RB?

Win32 API on a Macintosh?
WINE
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline Eric

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • I'm new here!
    • View Profile
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2005, 07:24:31 pm »
Can you not use api calls or something in RB?

Win32 API on a Macintosh?
WINE

I don't believe Wine has been ported to Macintosh yet, and even if it was, ewwww @ making a program dependent on it.

Offline Newby

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10877
  • Thrash!
    • View Profile
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #22 on: September 15, 2005, 07:31:21 pm »
Thanks for the link to wine. I don't think I would have found it without your help!

EDIT -- Do you really think those are the only distros of Linux there are? That is why there is the source download! :p
- Newby
http://www.x86labs.org

Quote
[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz
[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby
[17:32:58] <xar> new rule
[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all

I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.

That analogy doesn't even make sense.  Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT. 

Offline Joe

  • B&
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10319
  • In Soviet Russia, text read you!
    • View Profile
    • Github
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2005, 07:34:50 pm »
Thou shalt tell him, Newblare! </greek>

LoRd is right, WINE simply implements the Win32 APIs, and runs EXEs just as a Windows computer would. Hence the name, Wine is not an emulator.
I'd personally do as Joe suggests

You might be right about that, Joe.


Offline Eric

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • I'm new here!
    • View Profile
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #24 on: September 15, 2005, 08:01:44 pm »
Quote
EDIT -- Do you really think those are the only distros of Linux there are? That is why there is the source download! :p

Quote
I don't believe Wine has been ported to Macintosh yet, and even if it was, ewwww @ making a program dependent on it.

Don't let puberty control you by letting the sudden increase in hormones go to your head.  Take the time to read before you post.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2005, 08:04:34 pm by LoRd[nK] »

Offline Newby

  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10877
  • Thrash!
    • View Profile
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #25 on: September 15, 2005, 08:05:17 pm »
I realized you said "I don't think", because apparently you didn't. I just thought I'd help you think. :)
- Newby
http://www.x86labs.org

Quote
[17:32:45] * xar sets mode: -oooooooooo algorithm ban chris cipher newby stdio TehUser tnarongi|away vursed warz
[17:32:54] * xar sets mode: +o newby
[17:32:58] <xar> new rule
[17:33:02] <xar> me and newby rule all

I'd bet that you're currently bloated like a water ballon on a hot summer's day.

That analogy doesn't even make sense.  Why would a water balloon be especially bloated on a hot summer's day? For your sake, I hope there wasn't too much logic testing on your LSAT. 

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #26 on: September 15, 2005, 09:04:22 pm »
Maybe you could google first, LoRd.  "wine on os x" reveals a great first link:

http://darwine.opendarwin.org//

Quote
While the basic compatibility is there as Darwin is largely FreeBSD, there is the hurdle of its Mach kernel which uses the Mach-O format rather than ELF. This part has been achived with success. It means that WineLib is now working on Mac OS X, and that developers should be able to recompile their Win32 Apps using WineLib and make them work in Mac OS X.
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline Eric

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • I'm new here!
    • View Profile
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #27 on: September 16, 2005, 02:13:44 am »
Quote
Apple has decided to switch from IBM PowerPC to Intel Processor. It means that Wine will be able to work on Mac OS X/x86 as well that it does on linux, with a limited effort. You might notice that there is already some code to support Mac OS X/x86 in the Wine's source code, but it is untested.

It will apparently only run on IBM-based Macs.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2005, 02:16:15 am by LoRd[nK] »

Offline MyndFyre

  • Boticulator Extraordinaire
  • x86
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4540
  • The wait is over.
    • View Profile
    • JinxBot :: the evolution in boticulation
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #28 on: September 16, 2005, 04:16:39 am »
Quote
Apple has decided to switch from IBM PowerPC to Intel Processor. It means that Wine will be able to work on Mac OS X/x86 as well that it does on linux, with a limited effort. You might notice that there is already some code to support Mac OS X/x86 in the Wine's source code, but it is untested.

It will apparently only run on IBM-based Macs.
Maybe you should read the entire FAQ:
Quote
The first phase is the port of Wine to Darwin/PowerPC with X11 (XFree86).
It doesn't yet run a Win32 EXE out of the box, but it brings cross-platform code compatibility to Mac OS X with WineLib.  If you had read the FAQ, it addressed the Mac OS X switch to Intel, but it clearly indicates that Darwine is not limited to Darwin-x86.
I have a programming folder, and I have nothing of value there

Running with Code has a new home!

Our species really annoys me.

Offline Joe

  • B&
  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10319
  • In Soviet Russia, text read you!
    • View Profile
    • Github
Re: [BNET] 0x51
« Reply #29 on: September 16, 2005, 07:40:57 am »
Awesome. I wonder if they'll make it work on PPC Linux!
I'd personally do as Joe suggests

You might be right about that, Joe.