Cherry OS Claims Mac OS X Capability For x86 1090
jediboytj writes "According to the MacWorld Article, Cherry OS, does what Virtual PC does for Macs, only the opposite. PC Users are now able to run Mac OSX at G4 Speeds (Company claims 80% of the speed of your PC). It also includes full hardware support: hard drive, CPU, RAM, FireWire, USB, PCI, PCMCIA bus, Ethernet networking and modem. The software is being distributed through electronic download at $49.99 USD..." Note: it does not come with a copy of any Apple OS. Anyone in Windowsland tried it to provide a thumbs up (or down)?
So, you're asking (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, you're asking (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, you're asking (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, you're asking (Score:5, Informative)
Rhapsody was the name of the OS [strategy] developed under the leadership of Gil Amelio, it was heavily based on OpenStep (moreso than OS X), hence it's cross platform capabilities. Apple also had a version of the Rhapsody frameworks that ran in NT, which they inherited from NeXT. At that stage, the name for Cocoa was YellowBox, and the Classic environment was called BlueBox IIRC. There was no equivalent to the Carbon frameworks in those early days, which was the subject of much debate.
Steve Jobs became Interim CEO after Amelio's departure in 1997 and killed the cross platform versions of Rhapsody along with the Mac 'clone' industry. About a year later Apple announced the name change from Rhapsody to Mac OS X. They released Mac OS X Server in 1999, followed a year later by the almost unrecognisable OS X Public Beta.
Check out these screenshots, which (in order from top to bottom) show the gradual progression from NeXTstep's multi-column Browser to Mac OS X 10.3's Finder*.
NeXTstep [pair.com]
Rhapsody [z80.org]
Mac OS X server 1.x [stepwise.com]
Panther [arstechnica.com]
*yes, I skipped the aqua Finder.
FULL hardware support? I think not... (Score:5, Insightful)
" It also includes full hardware support: hard drive, CPU, RAM, FireWire, USB, PCI, PCMCIA bus, Ethernet networking and modem."
No graphics card listed. Usually, that's not a big problem, BUT, Mac OS X uses Quartz Extreme to render all the windows in 3d with shadows and fancy coloring. No graphics card = horrid windowing performance.
So does this use graphics card? Because if it doesn't, we're going to have choppy windows jumping around, performance loss when you move the mouse over the dock, choppy Expose, etc. And graphics card isn't listed.
Re:So, you're asking (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Could this actually help apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, this is a system targetted for people who already have a base of Mac OS apps that they want or need to use, and have an existing investment in PC hardware. For example, somebody who needs a laptop, and wants to use it for games, so they have to get a PC, but also occasionally needs Safari for testing web pages, or X Code to do cross platform builds on the road.
I love my iBook, and I love OS-X, but there are relatively few reasons I'd feel a need to run it on my Dell.
recipe for a slashdotting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:recipe for a slashdotting (Score:4, Funny)
If their web server were running OSX, it might work a little better...
Re:recipe for a slashdotting (Score:5, Funny)
These three are certain:
Death, taxes, and site not found.
You, victim of one.
delivered with a 404.
Re:recipe for a slashdotting (Score:4, Insightful)
That was quick. (Score:5, Funny)
Server Error in '/' Application.
Just a dot away from a PERFECT error message.
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the license you cant run the OS on an emulator because its not "Apple hardware".
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, I wouldn't even need real Mac OS on my PCs if stuff like iTunes and Safari would run on x86 with GNUStep and X11 -- oh well : (
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there are those of us that wonder the legality of such statements in license agreements. For example Apple could also put in the license agreement that you need to give up your first born child.
The real legality of such statements is only known after it has been tried in a court of law, which AFAIK it has not.
On top of that, some argue that the entire license agreement is BS. By law, a contract requires two parties to agree. Some argue that this agreement needs to be in place at the time of purchase. With most shrink-wrapped software you've no idea what you are agreeing to at the time of purchase.
Even if the software vendor would argue that you could return the software if you don't agree, there's a simple way to avoid agreeing to the license.
Basically when you open the package to get the CD out, don't read _anything_. I know the envelope may have some disclaimers about agreeing to a license agreement, well better not read that. You bought the software, you've no obligation to read everything that's being presented.
Same goes for the installation; just blindly hit the highlighted button until the installation is done. If it doesn't work, try the non-highlighted button every once in a while.
The point is, that it's very hard for a software vendor to proof in court that you actually agreed to the license agreement. "You have to hit 'I agree' to install. You got it installed, so you agreed!". I have no idea what you are talking about, I thought 'I agree' meant the color of the button was agreeable.
You could say, well, that sounds like saying that you didn't read a contract that you signed.
The difference is that when you sign a contract, you and the other party specifically sit down for the exact purpose of signing a legal document.
When you buy software, you've no idea that you are about to enter into a legally binding contract. So you simply ignore all the stuff that doesn't make sense to you (like you do with most purchases).
Of course, how well this would hold up in court is just as unproven, but there seem to be some lawyers (which IAN) that think that it will.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Yay permissive Apple licensing not allowing the running of MacOS X on a non-Apple-badged computer!
Although...
Is this why I got a bunch of Apple stickers with my own iBook?
Thievery (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple paid 400 million dollars to buy NeXT. They then spent years of development effort integrating their older MacOS technologies to ensure backward compatibility. They released the resulting core OS for free use (in source code no less). They base a number of their core utility software on OpenSource products, and contribute much source code back to the community.
If you are running a BSD Unix, or running Linix, chances are you are already benefiting from Apple contributions to open source projects on a daily basis.
Ooh, you say, now we can pirate their GUI development utilities and application software! Grow up!
Why would you benefit from doing so? Because the software is worth using, will save you time, and will be enjoyable. If you benefit from a product or service, show some respect for those people responsible for providing it.
If you are not willing to pay anything, then use what is given for free. They respect and contribute to both GNU and BSD based projects.
If you are not willing to buy a new machine, then look on eBay, or online retailers who specialize in repairing and reselling older Mac hardware.
Yes, the software is damn good. No, they currently do not sell it on Intel hardware (either native or emulated).
Whether you or I like that or not, is beside the point. Using tools which improve your productivity or quality of life is worth something to you. If it is worthwhile, put up or shut up. In the open source world, contribute money or time to help improve it. In the commercial world, buy the product, and help fund further improvements.
Re:Thievery (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thievery (Score:5, Insightful)
It is called "theft of services".
And the fellow who says it's not stealing if he would not pay for it in the first place too high to talk too now. I'll post another note when he's had a chance to come down.
(:-{)}
Cheers
Bill
Re:Thievery (Score:5, Insightful)
My local Sam's Club has to discard unpurchased rotisserie ribs every evening lest they go bad. Is it theft if I take one about 10 minutes before closing (before they've discarded it) without paying for it?
Yes. There's nothing you're depriving them of, there's nothing they'd lose, but it's still theft, because you've taken something from them without permission.
Re:Thievery (Score:5, Insightful)
You are correct that until rather recently most statutes concerning theft did correspond to older dictionary definitions requiring that a physical object be missing of that an object be moved from its rightful place.
However in 20th century statutes using the word "theft" began appearing which no longer rely on that old definition.
Statutes for theft of service, involving electrical power define unpaid use of electricity as theft. You have not stolen electrons, merely some of the motive power they convey. Legally however this is a from of theft. Later, theft of service in other forms was legislated. Tapping into a cable TV feed, receiving and decrypting real time stock ticker information broadcast over radio, are all considered theft by both federal and state laws.
In the latter form, you have deprived no-one of use of their property. You have however, attempted to derive personal benefit from something for which you have not paid.
On legal grounds your definition of theft appears unsound.
I see many problems with intellectual property and patent laws which no longer serve the public. Their intent was to provide a short time limited monopoly which was to spur innovation, and then devolve to the public domain and benefit everyone. In my opinion the grant of limited monopoly is no longer limited, and the benefit to the public vastly reduced. However that is a matter of politics, not of pragmatics or ethics.
I agree with your opinion that copying aught to be somehow different. However, ethically and pragmatically it still feels like theft. Legally, it also looks like theft.
Admitting that it is an illegal act, but insisting it is not theft is mere hair splitting.
Re:Thievery (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you can steal a kiss or steal a glance, neither of which involve the denial of an object from an original owner - and 'he stole my ideas!' is a valid, well-understood statement in English. 'Copyright theft' is also a valid, well-understood statement, much to the chagrin of many Slashdotters it would appear.
Why are people so worked up about this issue? Are they trying to rewrite the English language so they don't feel so guilty about something?
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)
So try osx, just make sure you give it fair shake, the first time I tried it I didn't particularly care for it. But after giving it a thorough try out (e.g. not just fiddling in spare time, but used as my main os for a month) I never put it down.
cheers,
-james
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh Boy! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh Boy! (Score:5, Informative)
I know you were just being a smartass, a time-honored tradition around here, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to be informative.
Looks... non-existent (Score:5, Insightful)
Emulating a G3 at 80% might be within the realm of possibility if I was on LSD. However, saying you can do a G4 (which implies AltiVec) is just not possible. Seriously. That'd be like emulating SSE3 on a G5. Ain't gonna happen.
Re:Looks... non-existent (Score:5, Informative)
Its got that feeling of an overnight company. The whois record was only registered in july.
It wouldnt supprise me if its some company that took pearPC and is trying to sell it.
Re:Looks... non-existent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Looks... non-existent (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has had an "escape plan" for years. The original plan was called Star Trek, and it was a port of classic Mac OS. Now, it's called "If we wanted, we could recompile the GUI for almost any platform gcc targets in probably a few hours."
Re:Looks... non-existent (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm trying to boggle over how exactly one would go about trying to do it. My brain keeps insisting that register starvation really is an issue. I guess they just have a lot of stuff sitting in L1 cache, and keep a really tight loop for the emulator core. Regardless of the actual marketing claims, if it works, I'm impressed. They should just be very careful about letting Marketing make empty promises. If they fail to deliver, they are sunk, and have no credibility. If they had just made no speed specific claims, they wouldn't have to worry about failing to live up to them.
Let me educate you... (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you should go and get some experience or at least some knowledge before you start talking about something you know nothing about.
Altivec from its beginning introduced 162 vector instructions that have not changed from the initial G4 to the current G5. On the other hand, Intel's MMX/SSE/SSE2 instructions have evolved over time - roughly 57 in MMX, 78? in SSE and 144 in SSE2. Altivec has been a well-designed and versatile SIMD engine from its beginning while Intel has sort of hacked together their SIMD engine as they've evolved their processors. Intel's implementation is very troublesome for a programmer because he has to do many different things depending on what is available (MMX/SSE/SSE2). These instructions don't map 1:1 for the most part with Altivec. And while SSE2 is much better than SSE, it was only introduced with the Pentium 4.
Also, Altivec has 32 128-bit registers to only 8 128-bit registers for SSE/SSE2. I don't care what anyone says, trying to emulate 32 registers (when all you have is 8) in an SIMD engine is going to be a lot slower.
You say that only a small percentage of time will be spent using Altivec, but that's just not true. Apple has optimized a large part of Mac OS X to use Altivec, especially in Quartz (the windowing and compositing engine). This would result in a major slowdown for any emulator in pretty much every application (except for stuff like background daemons). You'd probably do better just to emulate a G3 so as to not run any Altivec code.
Future Slashdot Story Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Future Slashdot Story Idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Future Slashdot Story Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Finish it (Score:5, Funny)
On an X-Box.
Re:Future Slashdot Story Idea (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Future Slashdot Story Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Now where did I leave that reanimation scroll...?
Re:Future Slashdot Story Idea (Score:5, Funny)
I think there is a NETBSD port for that platform.
Re:Future Slashdot Story Idea (Score:4, Funny)
OS X on PC's??? (Score:5, Funny)
I'll finally... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to see a comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'd like to see a comparison (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd like to see a comparison (Score:4, Informative)
PearPC is free/FREE, though, and I only use it for Safari compatibility testing, so its speed isn't a major issue for me.
--
PearPC is not that slow (Score:4, Informative)
It's an AthlonXP 3000 (oced to 2400MHz or thereabout) box with 1GB RAM. I've assigned 512MB for PearPC.
The overall score is indeed abysmal 2.89. For comparison, my PB 12" (867MHz) gets something in the range of 80, I think.
But if I look at the score more closely, I notice that major drag comes from vecLib FFT test (scored 0.15!) and all kinds of graphics test (OpenGL test being the worst).
For other things, it scores about 30 to 60 scores range. Disk test is pretty impressive. I only have a regular ATA drive on my PC. Got the score better than my PB disk.
These results are quite understandable considering what PearPC is doing. I would say for some tasks, this might even be usable.
Very impressive, I must say.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Eighty percent is dead accurate! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:one has to question the 80% speed claim (Score:5, Informative)
I won't, because the x86 line has lots of general purpose registers now. They just pretend to be whatever special purpose ones the programs need (if any). We've come a long way since the 386.
Cherry Os (Score:5, Funny)
What are you talking about? (Score:5, Funny)
Fraud (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fraud (Score:5, Funny)
Attention: The President/CEO
Dear Sir,
Confidential Business Proposal
Having consulted with my colleagues and based on the information gathered from the Nigerian Chambers Of Software And Emulators, I have the privilege to request your assistance to transfer the sum of $50 (fifty United States dollars) into our accounts in exchange for a Mac OS X emulator that runs on your MS Windows PC. Great cost has gone into the research of this software and it must be transferred as soon as possible out of the country.
While there is no demostration copy available for testing I can assure you that you will be able to run Mac OS X at full speed on any computer with a Pentium III or faster. Screenshots will soon follow after we receive your check (complete with routing numbers).
Thank You And God Speed,
Howgul Abul Arhu
Moderators, lay off the crack! (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I have no idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Pro: PC users buying Mac OS, PC users buying Mac OS software, PC users going 'Hmm Mac is great, I think I'll just buy a Mac for my next computer'. Basically it way lowers the bar for introduction to the platform, seems like a MASSIVE win for Apple.
Con: Mac users not really utilizing their macs from a horsepower perspective, they are just browsing internet, email, a few things, they think, hmm, I could buy a cheap Dell, put this on there, and probably have an ok machine... hmm. Or... Mac users with an inclination towards games, it's an obvious win for them to have a real PC for games and use MacOS for absolutely everything else that isn't nearly as performance related. Aka: -Actual- hardware competition for Apple.. That alone will probably drive Apple into a frenzy.
I personally think the pros outweigh the cons, just simply because there are a ton of people that will never even try Mac simply because of the high cost and risk of introduction. This could lower that bar to almost nonexistant.
From the CherryOS Site: (Score:5, Informative)
NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEADIATE RELEASE Contact: Jim Kartes, 866-661-5699 jim@vx30.com Media contact same.
Maui, HI (DATE) MXS today announce the immediate availability of Cherry OS software . Cherry OS is a software translator that allows you to install Apple's Operating System on x86 computer architecture. To put it simply you can now run Apple's award winning Panther OS on your PC! This breakthrough in OS development now gives home users, software developers and web designer's ultimate flexibility in both the operating system and hardware platform you use for your personal computer or testing environment.
Cherry OS runs Panther as a virtual machine on your Windows PC. This virtual machine has full network capabilities including the ability to share folders and access the web. The virtual machine also has complete access to the computer's hardware resources including, Hard Drive, CPU, RAM, Firewire, USB, PCI, PCMIA BUS and RJ45/Ethernet and Modem.
Arben Kryeziu, Cherry OS inventor and a software developer, got tired of carrying both a Mac and a PC around with him, so he invented Cherry OS. "Think about it," says Arben. "Now about 600 million PC users can have the MAC advantage. One computer to use all software and if PC users would use MAC software to get email, perhaps they would avoid viruses, Trojans and spy-ware." He went on to say that , "You can build and test applications for a Mac on your development PC, test web site design for Mac web browsers without having to buy the hardware, run OS X, the world's best Operating System, on a less expensive hardware platform and use your favorite Mac apps on a PC."
Pricing and availability
Cherry OS is now available only on line at www.cherryos.com as a download, for $49.95. (Mac software not included)
About MXS
MXS is a software development company specializing in video streaming software. Playerless-streaming.org ranked our vx30 encoder as the best in the world.
The products of Maui X-Stream can be viewed on www.vx30.com
Re:From the CherryOS Site: (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally find it hard to trust a company that's supposedly created a full G4 emulator capable of running Mac OS 10.3 but still hasn't figured out the difference in computer land between Mac and MAC.
It's just that simple! (Score:5, Funny)
from TFSite (Score:5, Funny)
WoW!!! I can finally run iTunes and Photoshop on my PC!!!
In A Related Story (Score:5, Funny)
The URL: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp [microsoft.com]
Mod parent down! (Score:5, Funny)
I call BS (Score:5, Interesting)
This'd be running an equivalent 2.7 ghz G4 on your top-of-the-line PentiumIV. They can't come close to that in hardware, there's no way they can touch it in software.
Sounds like a poorly-planned scam to me.
Gentlemen, start your binary diff tools.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Download (Score:5, Funny)
Oh good. I'm growing really tired of mechanical downloads...
Re:Download (Score:5, Funny)
Pfft! Spoiled brats! In my day, we had to download them by hand. Without gloves! In the snow! Uphill!
And there we're bears! Oh, such bears we had!
Screenshots on [H]ard[F]orum (Score:5, Informative)
Fraudulent postings (Score:5, Interesting)
I still think the guy is trying to fuck everyone for their money.
Re:A Report From Maui (Score:5, Informative)
Manual avaliable online (Score:5, Informative)
Manual avaliable here:
http://www.vx30.com/documents/CherryOS.pdf
or as a
http://www.vx30.com/documents/CherryOS.doc
Scam alert (Score:5, Informative)
Desctop & Task Manager
and under "What can CherryOS do?":
Skin enadled GUI
But beyond the typos, their "Client Showcase" features a testimonial from "Secnet Q&A Services" which Google doesn't have any information on (hmm, a Q&A company without a web presence?).
My guess either an out-and-out scam, or a an attempt to pawn off a modified copy of PearPC in an attempt to generate some $ and scram. Ballsy.
Re:Scam alert (Score:5, Interesting)
A quick nose at the screenshots reveals that the (now dead) screenshots are hosted at: http://www.cotse.net/users/secnet/.
So that's secnet. Not that you can see too much: "their" bandwidth's been exceeded. Doesn't sound like a particularly particularly good choice for a testimonial.
I agree with you. I smell a rat.
20% speed? (Score:5, Funny)
Company claims 80% of the speed of your PC
I think it's a scam, i.e Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, this Arben Kryeziu guy is the one in the, of all things, java video player on the video link site.
So this guy has time to run a web development company, be the tech and admin contacts for all the sites, and run a PPC emulation development outfit on the side? I seriously doubt it.
Not that it might be possible, who knows, but companies such as Connectix (now owned by Microsoft) spent literally years, getting their x86 emulators up to about 1/4 of the speed of the host PPC CPU. And this guy has done it on his own, with a tiny outfit in no time and with no news announcements, and got it to run at 3/4 the host x86 system? I doubt it again.
And then, he sells the whole thing for $50????? And only by electronic download???? With a PDF manual that closely resembles the PearPC effort???? Has anyone actually downloaded this and paid the guy his $50???? Has anyone seen it run???
Even in that weird video (why no wmv, why no real, why no quicktime?) where he supposedly "demonstrates" the application, you don't actually see it running.
My guess is that, if the application really does run, it is simply a PearPC wrapper and runs at around 1/10th or less of the host speed. (Notice the typical marketing "up to 80% of the host" x86 system?)
I have nothing against Albanians (Kryeziu is an albanian name, listen to the guy's accent), but I think the guy is trying to make a quick buck off the hopefuls who want Mac OSX but won't or can't buy a Mac.
We'll see when the first real reports come in of how and if this thing performs, but if it truly is what he claims it to be, which I seriously doubt, then he has one big hurdle and that is Apple's EULA, which states that Mac OSX is only allowed to be run on Apple branded hardware.
Re:I think it's a scam ... agreed (Score:5, Informative)
Both Connectix and Insignia (the two main companies that produced Windows emulation for the Mac) were actually just venture capital firms. This is why Connectix, at the height of every product launched, would just sell it off as an asset.
Connectix Quickcam = Logitech Quickcam
Connectix Virtual Game Station = Sony Buyout
Connectix Virtual PC ( at an undeniable breakthrough point) = Microsodt VPC
Insignia was the same:
Softwindows
Insignia is supposedly shopping this around.
I have found that these two companies were essentially started up by venture capital and paid off their investors, dumped their employees, and the owners got filthy rich.
Now, as for this software. I find it NEXT to impossible that the software is running a G4 at 80% speed of the CPU. If you were to translate this properly - Apple's CPUs are about 1.2X as fast as the equivalent P4 and P3 (G3 & G4 respectively) - so essentially the claim is saying it will run a 100% equivalent Mhz / speed ratio.
This means if I had a 3Ghz Pentium 4 with 1 Gig RAM - I would have the equivalent of a 2.4Ghz G4!! There's just NO way!
Why Apple won't do that? (Score:5, Interesting)
The amount of interest this story generated (CheryOS' site is already slashdoted) shows clearly how many people would love to run OS X, but can't afford the hardware. In fact I'm one of those people - I hate Windows, but I'm too old to tweak with Linux. Apple's OS X is the best choice for the likes of me - easy to use, tons of good commercial software for the desktop user, no frustrating tweaking and adjusting to get it working and no Microsoft. However, prices of their hardware are murder when compared to the PC world. I know there are many good reasons for that, but what has bothered me for some time now is why Apple won't release OS X for Intel platform.
In fact OS X is a really great, consequently designed GUI on top of a robust BSD Unix. It should be rather portable by nature, even if it would have high hardware requirements (like lots of memory and fast graphic boards with again lots of memory). Possibly achieving binary compatibility for software would be a problem, but I don't think it would be necessary. After all on a Unix system porting software between hardware platforms is just a question of recompiling it. Now, why don't they try to do it?
As much as I hate paying Microsoft for XP I would gladly pay twice the price of OS X for Mac to be able to run it on PC. Why Apple won't do it? Maybe because they don't want to get into Microsoft's gun sight?
Re:Why Apple won't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
See the Apple Store special deals section.
Re:Why Apple won't do that? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a whole thread about this just a few days ago.
In fact OS X is a really great, consequently designed GUI on top of a robust BSD Unix. It should be rather portable by nature
It is. The challenges aren't purely technical.
Possibly achieving binary compatibility for software would be a problem
Next solved these problems a while ago.
Why Apple won't do it? Maybe because they don't want to get into Microsoft's gun sight?
There are a lot of reasons. Keep a few things in mind:
- Next already pursued a strategy like this. If Steve Jobs decided to not do it again, there *might* be a good reason
- How many copies would actually be purchased vs pirated?
- Some of the desireable features of Mac OS X rely on intergration with underlying hardware
- Do you really think you'd ever see an Office for Mac OS X x86?
There's no question people want everything everything Apple has to offer without actually buying any hardware, but it doesn't make any sense to do if such an action destroys Apple and Mac OS X development in the process.- Scott
Top 3 Signs You're Running OS X on a PC (Score:5, Funny)
2. Inordinate amount of time spent visiting rumor sites to find out when emulation will be sped up.
3. Funny, this beige computer case clashes with the drapes; I never noticed that before...
Re:Site is dead? (Score:5, Funny)
Try this instead: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Try this instead: (Score:5, Funny)
...but... i have a Mac.. how do I do ? I cant see any Mac/PPC versions out there. Bugger!
Re:Try this instead: (Score:5, Informative)
PearPC does run Mac OS X, but at an absolute snails pace (Yes, I've tried it - Three hours to install, approx 1-2 minutes to open a finder-window).
If CherryOS indeed runs it at a somewhat decent G4-ish speed I'd almost consider 50 bucks to be worth it.
Re:CherryOS's speed claims, at least, are fraudule (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CherryOS's speed claims, at least, are fraudule (Score:5, Informative)
Even the classic Mac OS didn't need the ROMs anymore in its last incarnation.
The less-than-modern Macs had driver support for booting in its ROM, and loaded the Toolbox from a file in the system folder (it's named "Mac OS ROM", though). Modern Macs use OpenFirmware [openfirmware.com], which is, as the name says, open. Moreover, it's easily emulated, allowing for running OS X on arbitrary PPC machines (with MOL [maconlinux.org]). Yes, that means e.g. Genesis or AmigaOne boards. Or anything with a PPC, really.
Re:CherryOS's speed claims, at least, are fraudule (Score:4, Informative)
Re:CherryOS's speed claims, at least, are fraudule (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CherryOS's speed claims, at least, are fraudule (Score:4, Insightful)
Using the word "impossible" is dangerous. There have been too many times in history where such sentiments were expressed by skeptics, but what "could not be doen" was done, often to the chagrin of such skeptics. The proof of the pudding is of course easily checked out. Risk $50 +$130 for the Mac OS and try it.
Re:CherryOS goes down! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:CherryOS goes down! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:There's your problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:one problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:one problem (Score:5, Insightful)
But compiling the driver and then crapping around /etc for thirty minutes isn't.
It's a desktop PC. God will kill no kittens and the world will not come to an end if you reboot once in a while. If you do not want to reboot a desktop PC it's either because you have some psychological issues or you're running some mission-critical application on it, which is dumb to begin with.
Re:but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying they aren't good value for money or anything. But if I could compile and test software for OS X on my ix86 system, that could well be worth the purchase price of the software and a license for OS X. Provided, of course, it is fully compatible and runs at a decent speed.
Heck, if they really are close to 80%, this is a pretty good deal. If I was to buy Apple hardware anyway, just for testing, I'd likely end up with a 1.25 Ghz eMac or whatever. The emulation route would result in a much faster OS X system for me as my ix86 computer is generally always quite high-end.
Re:But why? (Score:5, Informative)
There are lots of other reasons you could contrive, what if you had Mac friends that visit a lot but constantly lament being unable to use your PC? It fundamentally boils down to you wanting _both_, but you need more performance on the PC side, which I really think is more common of a case, just on games alone.
Re:But why? (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely: Safari, Camino, and ie/Mac. Web developers can see what their site will look like and how it will function on a Mac without needing to get more hardware.
I used to run Win2k on VMWare on Linux so I could see how my sites would look on a PC.
Re:Ummmm... darwin... (Score:5, Insightful)
Quicktime is an extremely powerful media framework that pervades the entirety of MacOS. There's no open source equivalent to Quicktime. There's lots of open source media libraries but nothing quite like Quicktime. Open source projects attract some of the most talented software developers in the world. It isn't like Apple's software people are better than anyone else necessarily. They are however being paid to do something (such as make a pervasive media framework in the OS) fulltime. They aren't trying to write such a system in their spare time between going to school and working part time. It is entirely unlikely that a bazaar model of development would have ever conceived of something like Quicktime let alone actually built it. The fact that there's no pervasive media framework in Linux right now is good evidense of that claim I think
As such relying on people writing software in their spare time is not condusive to being an industry innovator. Many open source projects exist to build FOS versions of closed source commercial products. There's very few open source projects in existance with the goal of "make a computer easier for everyone to use".