Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology (Apple) Businesses Operating Systems Software Windows Apple Technology

OpenOSX Provides Virtual PC Alternative 102

Posted by pudge from the this-might-do-the-trick dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenOSX Provides Virtual PC Alternative More

OpenOSX Provides Virtual PC Alternative

Comments Filter:

  • First Post?? (Score:3, Informative)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @03:56PM (#6882898) Homepage Journal
    Cool. BTW before anyone asks. Yes you can charge for GPL software.

    • Charge worth it! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by igabe ( 594295 )
      FYI this product has been out for well over a year(I bought a copy last December I believe).

      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
      • ...and no I don't work for them.

        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)

          by cmdrbuzz ( 681767 ) <cmdrbuzz@xerocube.com> on Saturday September 06, 2003 @04:09AM (#6886301)
          You do realize that OpenOSX just took Fink [sf.org] and produced their GIMP package.

          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)

            by cybercyph ( 221022 )
            i just read all of the fink vs. openosx debate, and the actual emails sent back and forth, and...i hate to say it, but...i have to agree with openOSX on this issue. please don't mod me down for that, it is my honest opinion. releasing libre software gives others the right to reuse it for their own projects. the fink guy claims they have 'covered their traces' by adding mention of fink...hello? isn't that what he was asking for? i wouldn't call that 'covering,' its more like 'complying.' anyway, it sounds t
          • Actually, Christophe left because he was a whiny crybaby. His leaving, in a huff, with no plan or care about how Fink would go forward, may be the best thing that ever HAPPENED to Fink. I'll, probably justifiably, get modded down for this, but I think it's about time someone said it, so I'll take the risk.


            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)

    by Znonymous Coward ( 615009 )
    Bochs needs a front end for Linux too!

    BTW... Is anyone out there using Bochs?

    • Re:Not fair... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Vector7 ( 2410 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:11PM (#6883052) Journal
      > BTW... Is anyone out there using Bochs?

      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.
    • For some values of "using." I've used 1.4.1 to boot FreeDOS and/or DLX Linux, and now have 2.0.2... I'm in the process of installing Windows NT Workstation 4.0. (Since the CD allegedly includes the code to run NT 4 on PPC, a PPC virtualization thingy might be better for this. ;)

      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 "

    • Since it will run i86 Linux I guess it could run WINE on top of that. Then I could run cygwin on top of that!

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:01PM (#6882946)
    Bochs is so much slower than Virtual PC that I don't consider it an alternative at all.

    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)

      by computersareevil ( 244846 )
      "Pay OpenOS X a whole bunch of money."

      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)

      by coolgeek ( 140561 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:41PM (#6883874) Homepage
      Just wait for a VPC update. I'm sure you won't have to wait for 7.0.

      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.
      • The new Power Mac G5 processor does not support pseudo little-endian mode.
        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)

          by Textbook Error ( 590676 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @02:06PM (#6888562)
          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).

          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.
          • Instead of doing a swap instruction after every load and before every writeback, I see a possibility to fix this - could anyone please confirm if it would work? All data is turned around (made big-endian) when they enter the emulation environment. This means that your win harddrive image would have to be converted while upgrading to VirtualPC G5. Other interfaces that needed to do this turn is file drag-and-drop, clipboard, USB, Ethernet and a few more. But as soon as the data is inside the emulated enviro

            • Re:Bochs (Score:1, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward
              How would you swap DEF04A8B? That could be 4 individual bytes (doesn't need swapping), a pair of 16 bit integers (would be swapped to F0DE8B4A), or a single 32 bit integer (would be swapped to 8B4AF0DE).

              Unless you know how the data is structured, you can't just "turn it around" wholesale.

      • 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.

        • Oh, like when they announced they were no longer developing Internet Exploder for Mac because they "didn't have the access to the operating system" they'd need to make it as good as Safari.

          ...despite Apple making WebKit available, and despite Safari being based on freely available code in the first place. :)

          • ...despite Apple making WebKit available, and despite Safari being based on freely available code in the first place. :)

            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)

      by Smitty825 ( 114634 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:59PM (#6884010) Homepage Journal
      Bochs is so much slower than Virtual PC that I don't consider it an alternative at all.

      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!
      • I'll accept that a G3/G4 can run little-endian mode, but do you know that Virtual PC does that? Seems to me that where endian mattered (loads/stores) it would be simpler to stay in Big-endian mode and use its "load/store byte-reversed" opcodes to swap the bytes.

        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)

        by constantnormal ( 512494 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @08:44PM (#6884903)
        I suspect that versions of Virtual PC that ran on 604 based Macs will run fine on a G5...

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05, 2003 @11:19PM (#6885556)
          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).

          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.
          • True, very true.

            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!
          • > Look, I loathe and distrust Microsoft as much as the next guy, but--what incentive do they have to cripple Virtual PC?

            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)

        by good soldier svejk ( 571730 )
        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!

        Actually, AFAIK all previous PPC CPUs were bi-endian, [byte.com] including the 604 family.

        Last time I ran Bochs on OS X (1.5 years ago?) it was unbelievably slow and had no networking.
    • Read Fink's e-mail correspondence with Jeshua Lacock here [sourceforge.net].

      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)

      by dbirchall ( 191839 )
      Virtual PC is definitely faster than Bochs on Windows OSes (DOS is pretty nice under either one.) It's also more generous with resources. It doles out larger chunks of RAM and disk to Windows OSes by default, I think.

      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)

    by singularity ( 2031 ) * <.nowalmart. .at. .gmail.com.> on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:01PM (#6882956) Homepage Journal
    "The software on this CD is distributed under the GNU General Public License and the OpenOSX WinTel License."

    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.
    • They say the software on the CD is distributed under the GPL, as you note. This software is on the CD. The link to the License is to the GPL. As far as I am concerned, it is under the GPL, until they change their wording. But yes, I would prefer a more clear statement too.
  • Who thinks they're going to get C&Ded by at least one of the three trademark owners they reference with their product's name? I'd say Apple and Microsoft would even have a bit of a leg to stand on in court, but I guess Intel really wouldn't.
  • I did a little looking around the site -- I'm wondering if anyone has experience with this product . Specifically, I'm wondering if you can successfully use a printer attached to the Mac?

    Also, does anyone have experience running Quicken 2002 (Home & Business) under this?

    • Why would you want to run Quicken 2002 in a Virtual PC Session when Quicken for Mac [intuit.com] already exists?

      • Because by all accounts that I've read, Quicken for Mac is inferior in functionality to the Windows version, and converting Quicken files from Windows to Mac is non-trivial. I don't want to take a step backwards. When Quicken for Mac has parity with Quicken 2002, I'll go for it.
        • Well,

          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
    • Don't even think about using an application like Quicken unless you have a screaming fast Mac. I have not idea if printing works, I never could get that far. I paid $25 for WinTel and am VERY disatisfied. They claim that it is about the same as VPC. It's really about 10x slower. On my 350Mhz G4 it took me 2 days (busy cpu the whole time) to install Windows 98 and get it booted. It takes well over 30 minutes to boot Win98. Then to double click "My Computer" it takes 30 seconds for the window to p

  • ATTN Trolls (Score:4, Informative)

    by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr@42.osu@edu> on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:07PM (#6883014)
    Before you post something about them not abiding by the GPL by charging for their software, I suggest you read the GPL FAQ [gnu.org].
    • OK, who's going to be the first person to buy this and then post it for free for everyone else? (per GPL...)
    • Okay, so where is the source code? The GPL clearly states that source is to be made available as well but the site doesn't include even a mention of how one can get the source from them.
      • As I said, read the GPL FAQ before complaining about them not releasing their project freely.

        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.
        • What makes you think I didn't read the FAQ? Look under the section regarding distribution. They are supposed to provide a means by which the source is made available. It MAY be included with the binary, but they don't state that it is so I can conceivable order the binary and not get the source. Regardless, the source *MUST* be made available by mail-order. I believe that they are entitled to still charge for it but they MUST make it available. Also note that while they include a link to the sourceforge si
          • Assuming they don't provide a way to download the source, you are correct that they don't meet the requirements of the GPL. But Bochs is released under the LGPL.
            • So it is clear, like the GPL, I have no problem with the fact that they are charging for their distribution. I have a problem with them not making it clear how they intend to deliver their source code to others.

              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

              • After reading all your comments, I'm not certain who is misunderstanding whom. Openosx has to supply (on request) the source to whomever they distribute binaries they compiled from GPLed code. Nowhere in the GPL does it say source has to be available to all comers.

                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.
                • My understanding is that I can legally acquire their binary from a third party. Yet the GPL gaurantees that I still have the same rights as the third party to the source code. In this respect, the source *is* available to all comers--all I need is a copy of the binary. Again--that's the point of the GPL.

                  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

                  • My understanding is that I can legally acquire their binary from a third party. Yet the GPL guarantees that I still have the same rights as the third party to the source code...The GPL says that the source has to be provided "from the same place" as the binary.

                    The crux here is 'the same place'. If you were to get a gpl binary from a third party, the third party is obligated to supply the source, not whomever they received their binary from. In terms of the license, this third party becomes the "you" in th

                    • The FAQ for the GPL has a question that deals with this (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCRedi s tributedBinariesGetSource) by asking if the same offer can be used to obtain the source. The answer is:

                      "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
              • Source code of the original library, and object files (read: binaries) of the linked code. You do not have to release the source of the code you wrote that is linked to the LGPL'd code. For goodness sake, that's the point of the LGPL!
                • Fair enough, assuming that their software constitutes a linkable binary and not direct source changes. Still, according to their licence page at http://www.openosx.com/wintel/license.html the product in question is actually licenced under the GPL, not LGPL which is what Bochs uses.
                  • Right. However, OpenOSX is not required to abide by their own license (as in they are not going to sue themselves for violating the terms of their license).
    • Yes, but if it's GPL, they must make it available by other means, as well (which they dont't).

      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
      • Yes, but if it's GPL, they must make it available by other means, as well (which they dont't)
        Did you even read my comment? The GPL says that if you give someone a binary, you must also give them access to the source code. They do not have to provide anything for free on their website--after all, bandwidth is expensive.

  • Speed of Implementation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:33PM (#6883253) Journal
    Ok, so this new alternative may not be as fast as Virtual PC. But you know what really impresses me? Look at how quickly an alternative to this Virtual PC problem was produced. Five years ago, it would have been "eh, it's just Mac. Screw 'em." But the G5 just came out and there's already an alternative to a problem. Perhaps it'll keep Microsoft on their toes. Perhaps other developers will go "damn, we best be writin' some stuff for them too." It's refreshing to see developers rushing to fill the void so quickly.

    • Re:Speed of Implementation (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, but dude, it's Bochs. It's been available on Unix systems (like OS X) for quite a while now. This company thinks it might be able to ween a few dollars from the VPC news. I wouldn't read too much into it.

      It's not like they wrote it from scratch. They plopped a GUI onto an existing program. :)

    • Re:Speed of Implementation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @04:57PM (#6883486) Journal
      Ok, so this new alternative may not be as fast as Virtual PC. But you know what really impresses me? Look at how quickly an alternative to this Virtual PC problem was produced.

      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)

    by joebolte ( 704665 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @05:00PM (#6883507) Homepage
    There are a number of issues that are important about Open OSX and bochs.

    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.

    • 1. bochs is definitely not new, been around for at least two years (maybe more) 2. a port of wine would do nearly no good as it is just a wrapper for Windows API calls. it doesn't have to interpret IA-32 code because it's designed to run on x86 processors. I haven't heard of qemu, no idea what it is, so I'm checking it out now. Perhaps a combination of a IA-32 emulator and wine would be ok, but adding levels to emulation like that is just asking for slow-down.

      • Perhaps a combination of a IA-32 emulator and wine would be ok, but adding levels to emulation like that is just asking for slow-down.

        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

        • Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator)

          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
          • 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.


            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

    • Wine Is Not an Emulator.... you won't see a port of wine to os x because it won't run on apple hardware. Of course, you could install wine on linux if you install linux on a pc emulator like VPC... but that kinda defeats the purpose, eh?
      • Somebody really needs to start a project to join bochs and WINE. I've thought about what it would take, and I'd do it but I don't have t3h l337 5k!llz (C, C++, etc.).

        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
      • Go to the website he mentioned and read what QEMU is.
      • What about running wine on a version of linux that's already been ported to mac? I'm not trying to be contradictory-I'm rather curious as to whether this would work.
        • > What about running wine on a version of linux that's already been ported to mac?
          > 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
    • Jeshua is claiming that MacGimp stole from OpenOSX!

      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)

      by vonFinkelstien ( 687265 )
      Here is Fink's reaction:

      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)

    by dnahelix ( 598670 ) <slashdotispieceofshit@shithome.com> on Friday September 05, 2003 @06:44PM (#6884308)
    Can I make my Mac run the LoveSan virus?

  • want the story on OpenOSX? ask Robert Atlee! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 05, 2003 @06:56PM (#6884372)
    Robert Atlee was one of the founders of this company, and provided a substantial part of the initial equipment and funding. He is listed on the contact page [openosx.com] rather unprofessionally as "terminated." I spoke with him on the phone about three months after he footed the bill for the double-wide booth that Jeshua Lacock ran at MacWorld. He was rather upset at the time that Jeshua had basically skipped town with a bunch of his computer equipment and had locked him out of the web server etc. I'm sure that every story has two sides, but at this point in time, not only Mr. Atlee, and Christoph Pfisterer, but also myself have received poor treatment at the hands of Jeshua Lacock, the sole proprietor of OpenOSX.

    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.

  • For desktop users, just add a PC (Score:4, Informative)

    by jeffreym ( 252122 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @10:59PM (#6885485)
    I've been using Windows emulators on Macs since the "beginning" and have 4 licenses for VPC currently, but we use them on laptops, where it would be inconvenient to bring along a PC laptop AND a Mac laptop just to have access to more than one platform. For desktop use, one can add a PC for not much more than the price of VPC + OS and, if space is a problem, as it is for me, build an inexpensive Athlon PC with a Shuttle case and put in a KVM switch to keep to a single keyboard and monitor.

    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.
    • Wow. So it costed under $100 for the hardware? Windows 2000 Pro costed about 300 bucks. I suppose its down closer to 200 now, but still, please let me know how you built your box for such an amazing price.
      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
      • I got a 2Ghz Dell PC with XP Pro, plus a gig of RAM and a 120 gig hard drive for about $500. I use MS Remote Desktop Connection Client for Mac (free). Add a hub and voila! Windows on Mac 12" Powerbook with no pesky emulation lag.

        It ain't $100, but if you already spent the money for a Mac...
    • I use the same setup but with XP instead of W2k. Instead of a KVM Use OS X RDP client and use it to remote control the Shuttle. Native performance on the pc side, and you're not sucking all your Apple resources with VPC. Granted its not as cheap as VPC, but it works much better for most situations.
    • If you have a mac and a PC running XP, try Remote Desktop Connection. [microsoft.com] Whenever I need to do something on my PC, I just run RDC on my Powerbook to log on to XP. It feels like I am directly running XP on my mac.

      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.

    • I do software testing and web page testing on my Mac. I test on WinXP, Win2k, Win98, Win95, and will eventually be adding Win2003 Server. Have a load of prestine hard drive images... every time I need to do a test, I copy one, start from it, and see what happens.

      It's oh, so convenient.

      -fred

  • 2001 interview with Jeshua Lacock about WinTel (Score:3, Informative)

    by vonFinkelstien ( 687265 ) on Friday September 05, 2003 @11:46PM (#6885669)
    The interview is here [xlr8yourmac.com]:

    You'll have to scroll down a lot to get to the actual interview.

  • This is, perhaps, a bit off-topic, but I have yet to find anything like this on Mac OS X. Is there a VMWare (or VPC on Windows) sort of package available on Mac OS X that would let me run multiple, concurrent versions of OS X?

    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)

      by BibelBiber ( 557179 ) on Saturday September 06, 2003 @03:34AM (#6886260)
      Run Linux on your mac, install MOL http://www.maconlinux.org (if its not yet in your Distro) and you have the possible chance to run about as many Mac OS instances as you like (or your hardware is able to serve). Its really fast and I think it as fast as run without Linux. So check that out.

      PS: Did I miss something about using Links in /.?

      • I was thinking of this the other day. I was concerned that two users might conflict since they are each running a whole OS session to themselves, right? It was wonderfult to use MOL to send my Mac OSX experience around a network via X, and I would love to do this for two users at a time. Is it really possible???

        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)

      by MarcQuadra ( 129430 ) * on Saturday September 06, 2003 @05:06PM (#6889600)
      Here's a solution:

      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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.

Close