OpenOSX Provides Virtual PC Alternative 102
lucas.clemente writes "OpenOSX has just announced a cheap alternative to Microsoft's Virtual PC for Mac OS X, OpenOSX WinTel. What's more, the OpenOSX version will be compatible with Apple's new G5 architecture, whereas Virtual PC users will have to wait until the next major upgrade for G5 compatibility." It's a frontend to bochs, which we've discussed before as a possible Virtual PC replacement, and the biggest obstacle seemed to be getting it up and running. Perhaps this product will fill that hole. Prices start at $25 for download, but it is covered under the GPL.
First Post?? (Score:3, Informative)
Charge worth it! (Score:2, Interesting)
Before I bought it I downloaded Bochs. I am no ubergeek, so I didn't even get past compiling it.
It works. First I ran Linux on it, then got DOS running, then Win95. It works. It works. It's slow. It works. Compared to spending hundreds of dollars to buy Microsoft's Virtual PC, this is magical. (plus, they have nice bundles where you can get open-source Office, GIMP, and other such programs together for very
Re:Charge worth it! (Score:1)
Every time I think they could be cheaper I wonder why someone(!!!) doesn't recompile it their own way and beat OpenOSX's price. You say it's so easy after all.
Everyone is always saying how they are ripping people off for something they just recompiled, so why don't you recompile and release as freeware which is just as easy to use and install. Yes, and once again I know about Fink, OpenDarwin packages etc. They are getting better, but I want the dumb version I can unders
Re:Charge worth it! (Score:5, Informative)
WITHOUT CREDITING FINK
I don't think that is fair at all.
It even caused the primary devloper of fink to resign because he was fed up of people stealing his stuff, without credit.
Look here [sourceforge.net] and here [sourceforge.net] to judge for yourself.
Re:Charge worth it! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Charge worth it! (Score:2, Informative)
That aside, everything said above about OpenOSX's theft is 100% true, and I'll not be supporting them anytime soon, and really, neither should you.
Not fair... (Score:2, Interesting)
BTW... Is anyone out there using Bochs?
Re:Not fair... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but not for running applications. Bochs is very useful as a development tool to test operating systems or in general self-booting code that would otherwise have you rebooting your computer every five minutes.
Re:Not fair... (Score:2)
I currently have Windows XP installed under VirtualPC 6.0 on my 600MHz dual USB iBook; in 3-6 weeks I expect my G5 to arrive, so I want to get a different emulation option going until VPC supports the G5.
I am... not using the "
But will it run WINE? (Score:3, Funny)
Now if only I had a PPC emulator for i86 Windows, then I could run mac OSX on top of my WINE running on Linux Running on Boch running on OSX. I could then have it running mac Classic and emulate my 68000 processor that emulated my Atari 6502.
Finally I'll fire up a web browser, kick back and re-read Nick Bostroms "you are almost certainly living in a simulation" web page.
The only problem woul
Bochs (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting Windows 95 to run acceptably on my last comouter was impossible in Bochs, and oh so easy in VPC.
Just wait for a VPC update. I'm sure you won't have to wait for 7.0.
Also, I refuse to use software from OpenOSX. All they do is recompile popular software, then put it on CD for you for silly amounts of money.
I.E. - Want GIMP?
Step 1) Download and install fink - http://fink.sourceforge.net
Step 2) % sudo apt-get install gimp
OR
Pay OpenOS X a whole bunch of money.
Re:Bochs (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, but only one person has to do it, then they can post it wherever they want and freely distribute it, per the GPL FAQ.
Re:Bochs (Score:5, Informative)
I suggest that you not hold your breath on that: Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - 827904 [microsoft.com]
excerpt:
Virtual PC for Mac Version 6.1 and earlier use a feature that is present in the PowerPC G3 and the PowerPC G4 named "pseudo little-endian mode". Virtual PC for Mac uses pseudo little-endian mode for increased performance when it emulates a Pentium processor. Virtual PC for Mac 6.1 must use pseudo little-endian mode to function.
The new Power Mac G5 processor does not support pseudo little-endian mode. Therefore, the current versions of the Virtual PC for Mac program do not run on the Power Mac G5.
This is a non-trivial problem.
Re:Bochs (Score:1)
This is a non-trivial problem.
It is, because the G5 DOES support pseudo little-endian mode. It must be a stupid fuck-up on MS's side (as if that'd suprise anyone).
Re:Bochs (Score:5, Informative)
VirtualPC does not use the PowerPC's ability to boot in big or little endian - it uses the lwbrx/stwbrx instructions, which will automatically endian-swap during a load or store. This allows them to keep data in memory in little endian form, have it swapped automatically when it's brought into a register for processing, and have it swapped back when it's written out to memory.
This is the feature which isn't present on the G5, and was responsible for the big speedup in the latest rev of VPC - and the reason it now requires a G3 or G4 (since the previous PPC chips didn't support these instructions).
Since the G5 doesn't support this feature either, they'll need to go back and resurrect some of their previous code - they will doubtless take a performance hit for having to do the swapping themselves, but the massive bandwidth in the new systems will probably help cancel some of that out.
Re:Bochs (Score:4, Informative)
I believe they're supported, so you won't crash, but they invoke an exception handler on the 970 (as per misaligned loads/stores on the 603 or later).
This probably makes them too slow for something like VPC, and if you use them in performance critical code you would probably be better off using a vector permute on larger blocks of data. I can't find any docs at IBM or Apple to back this up unfortunately, this was based on conversations at WWDC (so may be hearsay, but would seem to explain the issue with VPC).
Re:Bochs (Score:2)
Re:Bochs (Score:1, Informative)
Unless you know how the data is structured, you can't just "turn it around" wholesale.
Re:Bochs (Score:1)
Interestingly enough, I just picked up Mac OS X for Unix Geeks [oreilly.com], and it states there (not that this is definitive, mind you) that the PPC arch can do either big-endian or little-endian. This is controlled (on Apple products) through an Open Firmware [apple.com] variable. Makes me wonder how big a deal this actually is, and whether or not this feature is still present on a G5 and/or if this is a convenient excuse on the part of the Beast of Redmond.
Then again, I also am a bit inclined toward tin-foil hats.
Re:Convenient excuse on the part of Redmond... (Score:2)
Re:Convenient excuse on the part of Redmond... (Score:2)
IE using WebKit would be pointless. The only reason people use IE for the most part anymore is because it has the rendering engine which most websites are designed to work correctly on - or because they used Windows and think "it's good enough". And can you point me to the KHTML code modified to work native in Aqua without Qt? Safari is based on on KHTML but it's heavily modified to tie
Re:Bochs (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't have any inside information, however, I am suspecting that the next version of Virtual PC will be much slower on a G5 than Virtual PC (current) on a G3/G4 class machine.
The current version gets a big speed boost, because the G3/G4 processor can run in little endian mode. The new version for the G5 is going to have to spin every opcode from little-endian mode to big-endian mode, run the command, then (possibly) convert back to little-endian mode.
I suspect that versions of Virtual PC that ran on 604 based Macs will run fine on a G5...just slower than the current Virtual PC release on slower hardware!
Re:Bochs (Score:2)
A fast emulator wouldn't "spin" every opcode but would at least identify and convert basic blocks of instructions to the native instruction set for execution.
The parent post implies that G5 does not have an endian mode bit. If true that is a theo
Re:Bochs (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for the fact that those versions of VPC were pre-OSX, and it's dubious that they will run under Classic.
I'm awaiting the inevitable benchmarks that compare various emulated Windows performance under G5 Bochs to VPC 6.x on a decently fast G4.
I'd rather run Bochs for free (or at worse, very cheaply) that pay significantly more to Microsoft for crippled future releases of VPC to ensure that performance sucks (even after the architectural differences are taken into account).
If Microsoft wanted to, they could easily buy back a lot of the performance lost due to manipulating addresses and integers by producing versions of DirectX and other drivers that talk directly to the underlying hardware. Look at how poorly existing VPC manages the video -- emulating an older graphics chip not present in any Mac.
Even if Bochs only ran in full screen mode (to avoid sharing the display with OS X), the performance gains from native instead of emulated video are likely to be quite significant -- maybe not enough to totally overcome the performance hit due to the loss of the pseudo-little endian mode, but I'll bet the G5 can make up the difference.
Why would Microsoft cripple VPC? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I loathe and distrust Microsoft as much as the next guy, but--what incentive do they have to cripple Virtual PC?
Microsoft profits from the sale of Windows for Virtual PC in the same way it profits from the sale of Wndows for actual x86 hardware.
Microsoft may very well sell other software products that run under Virtual PC at the same rates they sell those products for actual x86 hardware.
Apple is only the enemy of Microsoft because Apple hardware a) doesn't run Windows and b) exemplifies an alternative to Windows hegemony. But,
It seems to me that if some application is capable of running Windows and Windows applications aptly on the Macintosh platform, this turn of events is only in Microsoft's interest.
I mean, they have no real hope of "crushing" the Macintosh platform -- there are too many addicts, Apple is far too liquid, and people just plain hate Microsoft. Virtual PC provides them a way to continue to profit from Apple.
Re:Why would Microsoft cripple VPC? (Score:1)
In addition, Apple's existence benefits m$'s legal position when they can demonstrate there are other companies making software in the world. That reasonig may have been behind Bill's "investment" of $150 million about 5 years ago. Though that's is giving him a lot of credit he may not deserve. Did this not "save" apple? They were in some trouble.
I would like to see the specs on bochs but also hope for VPC and other options, perhaps VMWare-- a wondeful product on linux!
Re:Why would Microsoft cripple VPC? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why would Microsoft cripple VPC? (Score:2)
A reasonable question. In fact, they have NO reason, and every reason to make Virtual PC as fast as possible. (Since it's clearly never going to be as fast as running in native mode on a real Intel/AMD processor.)
The reason they bought the Mac emulation technology along with the VPC for Windows (which they wanted for other reasons) was so that in a couple of years they could stop ma
Re:Bochs (Score:3, Informative)
OpenOS X's programmer/owner and Fink (Score:2, Informative)
How hard can it be to get something to add a link to fink's web-site?
Like pulling teeth when Jeshua Lacock is involved.
Re:Bochs (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows XP is... a bit of a dog under Virtual PC on my 600MHz dual USB iBook. Perhaps it's snappier with Altivec, but I can't test that theory. It feels like it's running on maybe a 400MHz PC.
I'm just finishing up an install of Windows NT Workstation 4.0 (the only version I have the CD
License? (Score:5, Informative)
The only link on the page I can see to anything about a license is a link to the GPL [openosx.com]
I have no idea what the actual software is released under. They currently do not seem to have the OpenOSX WinTel license available yet to look at.
This looks interesting, though. Almost enough for me to install it.
Re:License? (Score:2)
Holy Trademark Infringement, Batman! (Score:2)
What about printing? (Score:2)
Also, does anyone have experience running Quicken 2002 (Home & Business) under this?
Re:What about printing? (Score:1)
Why would you want to run Quicken 2002 in a Virtual PC Session when Quicken for Mac [intuit.com] already exists?
Re:not cross-platform or very backward-compatible (Score:2)
Re:What about printing? (Score:1)
Re:What about printing? (Score:1)
As someone who used to use Quicken 2002 for Windows, and switched to Quicken 2003 for Mac, it was a non-issue to export my entire Quicken 2002 data file as a QIF (I did separate ones for each account, chart of accounts, and transactions).
Importing those QIFs into Quicken 2003 for Mac took all of 10 minutes, and things have been smooth sailing ever since.
So
I'm still not sure what issues you guys are having.
In fact, this was the same procedure Intuit suggested when I called them originally about
Unfair refund policy! Re:What about printing? (Score:1)
ATTN Trolls (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:1)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:2)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:1)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:1)
And as another poster said, run a bittorrent, banwidth no problem... DUHx2!
wurst sig ever.
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:1)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:2)
I must merely assume that the source is included with the binaries, or there is an option to download it later. But then, by licensing the distribution of your products to others (which is what the GPL does), you are not limiting the rights of yourself. Though it would be highly irregular, these people could release a program under the GPL and not provide the source to those whom they provide the binaries to.
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:1)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:2)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:1)
I have the idea that you are attempting to confuse the issue. Earlier you said, "Though it would be highly irregular, these people could release a program under the GPL and not provide the source to those whom they provide the binaries to." After I pointed out that that was not so, you conceded the
Re:ATTN Trolls (source distribution) (Score:1)
Perhaps you realize this, but I'm not reading you that way. I suggest you email the openosx folks and ask them how they distribute the source to their customers.
Re:ATTN Trolls (source distribution) (Score:1)
The GPL says that the source has to be provided "from the same place" as the binary. As they are offering a download, I would expect at least a link from their download site, if not directly to the sources
Re:ATTN Trolls (source distribution) (Score:1)
Re:ATTN Trolls (source distribution) (Score:1)
"Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the binary that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary---so you can take advantage of it."
Thanks for explaining the karma thing to me and my apologies
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:2)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:1)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:2)
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:2)
There's not d/l-link for the source or binaries anywhere.
If it's not GPL'd but covered by their "OpenOSX WinTel-License" instead, I'd like to see a copy of that license, but there isn't one anywhere on the website.
Jens
Re:ATTN Trolls (Score:2)
Speed of Implementation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Speed of Implementation (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like they wrote it from scratch. They plopped a GUI onto an existing program.
Re:Speed of Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, not really. OpenOSX is selling WinTel since December 2001 [openosx.com]. So it's more like a "look how quickly someone got the idea to use the VPC/G5 incompatibility to get some free PR". For a public relations stunt, it was not really quick.
Lots of Problems - Old Info (Score:5, Insightful)
1 As said before, bochs is extremely slow. Their own page does not even recommend that you install Win2k or XP.
2 This project is not new. It has been around for I don't know how long, at least a few months. The only new thing is support for the G5.
3 It is suspected that this organization is ripping off compiled binaries from Fink without giving credit. Read about it in the Fink FAQ.
It would be much more useful for someone to create an OS X port of qemu [http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/] and wine [winehq.com] and post it somewhere. Both of these programs have very good things said about them, as far as performance and stability, but I don't know how well they work on OS X.
Re:Lots of Problems - Old Info (Score:1)
RE: a couple of things (Score:1)
Re: a couple of things (Score:1)
The key to decent performance would be to have WINE running natively on OSX. Getting it running on top of X11 on OSX shouldn't be that tough. Then it is just the problem of executing the X86 code in each application. That could be done by X86 to PPC translation, either on-the-fly or staticly. Another alternative is X86 emulation, ala bochs or qemu. The third, and in
Re: a couple of things (Score:1)
My understanding is that Wine is not an emulator. Instead, they rewrote the Win32 API as a layer that called a set of X API functions to mimic the Win32 call.
Simply "porting" WINE to OSX would mean rewriting the entire thing. Sure, OSX is unix based, but there's a lot of stuff.
Now, if they DID decide to fork a WINE project for Mac OSX, that would be cool. Because, personally, I think they could get better performance using Mac OSX as the bottom layer instead of X
Re: a couple of things (Score:1)
Right, so that part is relatively easy, since there is a good X implementaion on OSX. A Quartz native port of WINE would be a huge amount of work, but would presumably be a lot more efficient (speedy).
Johnny
Re:Lots of Problems - Old Info (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lots of Problems - Old Info (Score:1, Redundant)
I imagine such a solution would involve franken-forking bochs and wine, and merging them. The way I figured out would be:
1. Modify bochs somehow so that a program running in the emu can call code running outside it.
2. Modify linux to allow such things, and you'd also need a "thunking" version of WINE inside the emu to call the native WINE code
Re:Lots of Problems - Old Info (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Lots of Problems - Old Info (Score:1)
Re:Lots of Problems - Old Info (Score:2)
> I'm not trying to be contradictory-I'm rather curious as to whether this would
> work.
No, windows software is compiled to run on the Intel 80386 and above chips (IE 486, 586, 686, etc)
Macs use PowerPC processors and now G[3,4,5] processors.
386 executables will not run on a g4 chip.
To do this you would need an emulator, in this case a program made for the G4 chip that pretends to do what a 386 CPU does.
And once
Re:Lots of Problems - Old Info (Score:1)
Read their "Press Release" here [openosx.com].
Below is a snippet from the "press release."
Jeshua then stated that "It is absolutely shameful a business would state on their website to avoid CD's they themselves stole from a legitimate business that created the product they are selling. What's even more sad is that MacGimp has high respect in the community."
FInk FAQ (Score:3, Informative)
Fink Relations with OpenOSX
Note: This page represents the view of Fink project leader Christoph Pfisterer. Other people, including other Fink project members, may have different views.
Here's the story of the relations between the Fink project and OpenOSX. It is unpleasant, but I feel that is has to be made public.
OpenOSX is a business that sells a range of CDs of Open Source applications. The GIMP CD they sell is based to a large part of Fink 0.2.1. Until very recentl
The real question is... (Score:5, Funny)
want the story on OpenOSX? ask Robert Atlee! (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot doesn't probably have the budget that professional news sources do, so we can't expect all of the stories to be double or triple cross-checked. My guess is that if you start asking around (tax records? employees? better business bureau?), you'll find that few others have genuinely benefitted at the hands of this opportunist. The MacGIMP project helped to fund GIMPCon 2003. Has OpenOSX EVER given back to the community that built the software it sells?
One of the first rules of polite public behaviour is to give credit where it is due. Jeshua has attacked my reputation and left a rude web page up with my name on it (after numerous requests to have it taken down) and upset a very good open source developer (Chris Pfisterer) and has managed to con his business partner out of the equipment it took to get everything he had started. Make up your own mind, but I refuse to do business with someone who has managed to offend this many reasonable people without having made any visible efforts whatsoever to set things right.
Re:want the story on OpenOSX? ask Robert Atlee! (Score:1)
Maybe the Anonymous Coward above was correct and not just trolling around.
Re:want the story on OpenOSX? ask Robert Atlee! (Score:1)
I found this via Google:
!!!REMOVE ME!!!
To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Subject: !!!REMOVE ME!!!
From: Jeshua Lacock
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:06:06 -0800
I sent the email below to the list owner and I have not been removed.
This is ridiculous!
! ! ! R E M O V E M E ! ! !
Or I will set up a filter to rese
The *really* sad thing about that page... (Score:2)
Who is that program for, again?
-fred
For desktop users, just add a PC (Score:4, Informative)
We have 3 shuttles with 2400+ processors, 256MB ram, 80GB drives, running Windows 2000 Pro. We already had flat panel monitors which the iBook users mirror when sitting at a desk, so it was simple to place a KVM between their external keyboard/mouse and monitor. The cost of the box was less than $400 each and that included an OEM Radeon 9000 Pro in each of them, which is not really necessary for standard 2D work as they come with decent graphics built in for modest 2D work.
I just don't see the gains for running VPC on a desktop Mac considering the low price of PC hardware; but for a laptop, it's really handy and since there's not much chance of a G5 laptop anytime soon, we can hope there will be a workable solution when and if the G5 architecture comes to Powerbooks.
Re:For desktop users, just add a PC (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again, maybe you were only counting the OS cost in the price of VPC and not with the Shuttle computer. Oh well, I understand. But I wouldn't say VPC costs almost as much as a Wintel machine unless you are getting a pentium 2 from the thrift store with win98 preinstalled. I do agree VPC costs plenty of
Re:For desktop users, just add a PC (Score:3, Interesting)
It ain't $100, but if you already spent the money for a Mac...
Re:For desktop users, just add a PC (Score:1)
Remote Desktop Connection (Score:3, Informative)
This is a much better solution than VPC, IMHO, considering that you can buy a really cheap Windows box and every application runs natively this way.
Depends what you need it for (Score:2)
It's oh, so convenient.
-fred
2001 interview with Jeshua Lacock about WinTel (Score:3, Informative)
You'll have to scroll down a lot to get to the actual interview.
Does this exist? (Score:2)
For example, I develop Mac software. If I could simultaneously test my product on 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 without having to reboot or use different computers it would save me a huge deal of time and money.
Please tell me this exists somewhere out there.
(and if not, someone should start
Do this: (Score:5, Informative)
PS: Did I miss something about using Links in /.?
Re:Do this: (Score:1)
I would love Apple to add remote display/input like X Window to OSX, even if speed wouldbe poorer on remote sessions.
Mac On Linux is your answer (Score:4, Informative)
Get a beefy Apple machine that meets your needs (new dualie G5?). Get it with more than one hard drive. put LINUX (I prefer Gentoo to get the optimizations I like) on it, install MOL (Mac On Linux) and make up raw disk images for any Mac OS systems you want to try out. MOL works really well, and it can handle multiple concurrent instances, IIRC. And while you won't have graphics _acceleration_ the overall speed is comparable to classic (about 95% of normal speed) because it's NOT an emulator, it's basically VMWare for the PowerPC.
I use MOL to play A-10 Attack on OS9 when I get overbored.