Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Software Windows Apple

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)?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cherry OS Claims Mac OS X Capability For x86

Comments Filter:
  • by RangerRick98 ( 817838 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @01:55PM (#10505110) Journal
    I wonder how this CherryOS would compare with PearPC [] in terms of speed and functionality. Of course, I don't know much about either product, so I might be comparing apples to oranges (or Cherries to Apples?)
  • by HBI ( 604924 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @01:56PM (#10505134) Journal
    Even without reading the site. Never mind the shortage of general purpose registers on x86 and the lack of a direct mapping between instruction sets, one has to question any vendor that is running on IIS with debugging enabled and with the .NET framework enabled.

    For the reasons why - just look at their site right about now.
  • Fraud (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mr. McGibby ( 41471 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @01:59PM (#10505173) Homepage Journal
    As pointed out on the comments on the article page, this is most likely a fraud. Writing a VM isn't the easiest thing to do. This software would likely cost much more than $50 because of the effort involved.
  • Re:Look out Bill (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AlphaSys ( 613947 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @01:59PM (#10505177)
    Yeh, that should piss them off... make Mac-only software just another obsolete reason for buying pricey Macs over cheap Intel. Even with the cost a Windoze license you could still build a pretty beefy workstation to host an OSX image for the same money you'd pay for a closed G5 setup.

    The flip-side: a report will be out in a week saying 90% of Windows installations are only used to pirate OSX!!!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @01:59PM (#10505187)
    PearPC [] was first and is cheaper.
  • by DigitalRaptor ( 815681 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:01PM (#10505212) Homepage
    Yeah, exept MirrorDot mirrored the site AFTER it crashed. That's funny. Maybe they should change their name to ErrorDot.
  • by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:09PM (#10505320) Homepage Journal
    For Intel processors to run PowerPC instructions takes a lot of power. Luckly, that power exists, yet it not allow a truly powerful Mac OS X experience since that OS has a large overhead for graphics power. Graphic hardware acceleration in modern uses of Mac OS X (such as graphic work and games) is practically essential. Still, I'll withhold judgment on this Cherry thing until I try it out.

    Emulator talk reminds me of a funny error message you get if you try to install a copy of Virtual PC for Windows within a Windows environment running on Virtual PC for Mac OS. The error says somthing like:

    "You cannot install Virtual PC for Windows within the Mac OS version of Virtual PC."

    "(Nice try.)
  • I call BS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mdarksbane ( 587589 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:12PM (#10505349)
    There's no way you can emulate even a stripped-down PPC instruction set on x86 at 80% speed, let alone Altivec. The best I've seen any commercial editor come close to is a third, or maybe a half.

    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.
  • Re:one problem (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jridley ( 9305 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:24PM (#10505499)
    I run Windows 2000 and XP on 4 machines, and none of them go down unless I shut them down. One is used for Windows development at work, one is my wife and kid's internet/game machine, one is a laptop (not heavily used, but the kids play games on it some), one does a fair chunk of video editing and encoding. I regularly have uptimes in the range of 6 to 8 weeks, generally shutting down only for vacations or upgrades.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:38PM (#10505660)
    Looks a lot like PearPC.
    The white bar at the top is where the "Change CD" (etc?) button is in early PearPC builds
    Funnily enough, it's also started with console-output.. F5/F11 are also the keys used for Fullscreen/Mouse toggle in the early SDL builds of PearPC.. .. gee, I wonder.

  • Re:Good news.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:42PM (#10505702) Homepage Journal
    it's a shame that Apple doesn't release OS-X for x86 hardware..

    Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why OS X works so well is because it runs on such a limited pool of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding OS X to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the x86 world, where a machine could be using one of thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Windows developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. OS X developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of NeXTStep that ran on Intel hardware ran on a tiny subset of the available PC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with NeXTStep, you were SOL.

    That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.

    Do you think Jobs could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PC capable of running XP today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Apple uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of OS X for x86 would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price here on /., or you'd pirate it-- either way, Apple would lose money on it.

  • by flibberdi ( 800264 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:34PM (#10506282) Journal
    I did some searching on google and yahoo, and I found nothing besides a note on an cached copy on yahoo of that says that the cherryos is moving to an own site (, google hasn't even indexed the page (that doesn't really tell us too much...) yet. The cached page on yahoo is broken :(

    The mloom site sells an pdf2html converter....
  • Fraudulent postings (Score:5, Interesting)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:45PM (#10506426) Journal
    take a look at the poser in that forum making a big noise about this "wonderful emulator", the guy called DAG33K. Notice his English mistakes. Notice his location, "In da middle of da pacific". The do a whois on, and you get an address in Hawai. The tech contact, who is also the admin contact etc etc, is a guy called Arben Kryeziu, the same guy doing the video "demonstration", which you never get to actually see apart from an installation screen and some supposed OSX desktop, which looks very similar to PearPC. The guy's name is Albanian, and if you listen in that demonstration, he speaks with a thick accent, so my gues is that the poster on hardforum is the very same guy trying to pimp his warez.

    I still think the guy is trying to fuck everyone for their money.
  • You would have to... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BongosNaked ( 758669 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:16PM (#10506813)
    ... try at least once to run virtual pc from your... pc running CherryOS which, of course is... running panther osx... which is running...
  • Re:Thievery (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phildog ( 650210 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:29PM (#10507017) Homepage
    > Downloading a stolen copy of the OS is just plain wrong

    Well, yes and no. Posting on Slashdot doesn't seem to have any sway over getting Apple to port to x86. But perhaps if Jobs took a look at and saw thousands of people downloading his beautiful OS at the same time a little light would go on: hey there's a market here! So pirating the software is probably the best way a tiny individual like you or me can "cast a vote."

    I would gladly pay full retail for an Apple-sanctioned OSX on PC release. I would even do so if they had huge disclaimers: Won't work on all types of hardware! Easy Mac things like burning dvds might not work at all on PCs! and so on.

    Maybe that is the answer--Apple should pick one and only one x86 desktop, video card, cd/dvd burner, and monitor combo and call it "OSX approved". I would buy such a machine the day it was released. With success they could maybe expand things a bit to more supported platforms. Isn't that kind of what Microsoft is doing with the Media Center PC?

    But I'm not going to buy a mac any time soon.

  • Re:Thievery (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbender@gmail ... minus physicist> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:53PM (#10507296)
    Why are people so worked up about this issue?

    It's not that easy. Stealing does have multiple meanings but many people will use "to steal" and mean "to violate copyrights" but treat it as if they said "to deny access". It's like saying "to steal a kiss" without being aware that in that instance no kisses are actually being denied access to.
    And of course, stealing does have more of a negative connotation than violating copyrights, for good reasons since denial of access is arguably a more severe crime, and for the not so good reason that it's simple a more commonly used term and a more commonly prosecuted crime.
    To a certain degree, the same is true for "pirate", although only the latter aspect - nobody calls a P2Per a pirate without being aware that it has a very different meaning than originally. It does have the derogatory quality to it, though, at least in the real world.

    Arguably, in the context of a discussion on the morality or whatever of file sharing etc, it's a good idea to use seperate terms for denial of access and copyright violations, because using the term "stealing" to refer both of them obscures the difference, which some might argue is key. Certainly there's nothing wrong with being specific. Similarily, in a hypothetical discussion of cars vs bicycles, you probably shouldn't use the word vehicle to refer to either. (I admit that's an exaggerated example to make the point.)
  • Re:Scam alert (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Armchair Dissident ( 557503 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @05:00PM (#10507386) Homepage
    Another posting pointed to this discussion [] where "dag33k" is practically wetting himself over three screenshots.

    A quick nose at the screenshots reveals that the (now dead) screenshots are hosted at:

    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.
  • by Eminence ( 225397 ) <akbrandt@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @05:08PM (#10507477) Homepage

    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:Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ( 321932 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @05:17PM (#10507568) Homepage Journal
    According to the license you cant run the OS on an emulator because its not "Apple hardware".

    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.
  • by laird ( 2705 ) <lairdp@gmail.cMOSCOWom minus city> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @05:17PM (#10507581) Journal
    Actually, MacOS X has always (since it was OPENSTEP, then Rhapsody) run on x86. Apple shipped (to developers) Rhapsody for x86, and it worked fine (if you had hardware that they had drivers for). And I've been assured by Apple systems software people that they're still maintaining the x86 build (and the other CPU's that OPENSTEP ran on) in order to make sure that Apple doesn't accidentally break portability. This applies to Cocoa app's, but not Carbon (i.e. old MacOS).
  • Re:Thievery (Score:3, Interesting)

    by homer_ca ( 144738 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @05:38PM (#10507787)
    Isn't that kind of what Microsoft is doing with the Media Center PC?

    Yes, it's an OEM-only release. Hardware support for tuner cards and remote controls is pretty limited so MS only sells it to OEMs who preinstall it on systems with tested compatible hardware. OEM also means don't call Microsoft for support, call the hardware manufacturer.
  • Re:Thievery (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @06:02PM (#10508041)
    But perhaps if Jobs took a look at and saw thousands of people downloading his beautiful OS at the same time a little light would go on: hey there's a market here! So pirating the software is probably the best way a tiny individual like you or me can "cast a vote."

    Heh, I'm sorry but I find that very very VERY funny...

    Clue in a bit will you? Jobs does not consider you ripping him off to be supporting him.. why would he? The best way for you to "cast a vote" as you put it is to buy the damn software!! There is no market from people who download an OS illegally, because they can go "Hey look at how many people love our OS, lets do this and this and make it better so we get a bigger market!!" Then they do these things, and then people... download it for free. That really does not help them. And before someone wants to point out all the benefits that they'd get from more people having their OS, no matter what you say if you pirate it, it's not supporting them anywhere near as much as if you pay for it.

    Downloading software without paying for it is theft, regardless of what you want to do to prove otherwise.

    Now, let me make something clear.. I have more then enough pirate software, because I simply cannot afford to pay for it, and a lot of it I need for my studies.. but I do not have any disillusions about what I'm doing, I know it's illegal, I know it's wrong and I know it's theft. I'm not going to jump up and down and try and justify how right it is. On the other hand if I can afford to pay for software then I will. I use open source software whenever I can and I only pirate what I need to use but can't afford to buy.

    So to all of you out there who think that you can take what isn't yours and then tell yourself it's legal (or that you're HELPING the company somehow).. please for the love of god grow up and accept what you're doing is not right. Someone downloading illegal software I can handle.. someone downloading illegal software and being so damn stupid as to pretend they are in the right is so pathetically dumb I can't even understand it..
  • by Jemm ( 747958 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @07:09PM (#10508674) is down so I can't check for sure, but from what I've read so far, CherryOS does not support sound. I find it odd that PearPC and CherryOS would have this particular feature in common.

    I've just spent a few days playing around with PearPC on an AMD 2400+ laptop with 512 Mb memory. OSX runs fine but a bit slow, kind of like a 233 Mhz machine running XP. Network and CDRom access work great, but of course no sound yet.

    Honestly if I worked for Apple, I wouldn't mind PearPC as long as it did not become fast enough to be a proper alternative to actually buying a Mac. From the forum on PearPC's site, many people have posted that getting this taste of OSX has helped them to "make the switch".

    For those of you who want to play with Mac emulation, have a look at .
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @07:46PM (#10508984)
    Your portrayal of Connectix may be unfair. Connectix had deep Mac roots, in fact, it's the company that produced Mode32 for the Mac II line that allowed machines that were originally not 32-bit clean to address more than 8MB of RAM. For years this was a godsend to Mac users with older systems -- a IIcx from the factory could only use 8MB RAM (around 1988), but with Mode32 you could shove in up to 128MB RAM. As you note, that product was eventually licensed by Apple and distributed for free, but had it not been, Connectix would have still made a killing on it.

    Connectix also made a raft of utilities, including the enormously popular (with some people), if perhaps with somewhat misleading names, RAM doubler and Speed Doubler. At its height, Connectix was a leading Mac utility developer and had a reputation for knowing the Mac almost better than Apple (Connectix didn't know the Mac better than Apple, but their products made you wonder if perhaps they did -- there were very clever developers writing pretty slick software for Connectix). Anyway, the point is that while Connectix may or may not have been a venture capital holding company, the products that were released under its name were ingenious and extremely popular.

    If the company's strategy was to produce software that could be sold out to third parties, the strategy worked because the software Connectix wrote was extremely popular, innovative, or important. I don't think the pattern diminishes the company's achievements at all. Also, in many of the instances of Connectix selling-out there were extenuating circumstances: before Mode32 there were hints of a possible class action lawsuit against Apple; Sony (if I recall correctly) sued Connectix over VGS; and VirtualPC had great strategic value to Microsoft.

    When Connectix ceased to be, many in the Mac community observed a day of mourning for one of their fondly remembered names from the early days of Macintosh history.
  • by furballphat ( 514726 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @07:51PM (#10509020)
    I thought this was true, until recently my main computer broke and I was forced to use my Mac. I plugged in a non sucky mouse, the optical light came on, and nothing happened when I moved it. any old USB mouse my arse
  • Re:EULAs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by arminw ( 717974 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:20PM (#10509268)
    To be safe against *any* such court ruling, just have a 12 year old kid install the software for you. Kids cannot enter into an enforcaeable legal agreement. If they did try to enforce the EULA, that should stop them in their tracks.
  • by bob beta ( 778094 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:06PM (#10510005)
    I'll just save money by buying the emulator and running the free Darwin on it.


    Anyway, actually the most amusing 'emulation' trick I ever did was way back in the mid 90's. I bought a copy of Executor, which is the 68K Macintosh emulator (works really, really well except it only supports System 6 and earlier). I installed the Linux version, and the then-primative version of Wine.

    I was able to then simultaneously run the Mac and the Windows version of Neko (the little kitten who chases your mouse pointer around the screen) and all on a Linux X desktop.

    I had great hopes that the kittens would get in a fight, but they never did.
  • Re:Finally... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by krunk7 ( 748055 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @11:25PM (#10510523)
    Hehe, yes I've paid for it. . . plus some. I bought a new dual g5 and sold my x86 laptop to buy an iBook. . . .so I guess you could say I bought it twice over I liked it so much. :)
  • Re:Screenshots (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dimiter_malkia_stane ( 821672 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2004 @01:20AM (#10511080)
    Look at the VideoEncoding pane - why they needed to show it on each screenshot, if not just to present something important? The screens look faked, the CherryOS application does not have an icon, menu, and just stupid white-stripe. It looks imposed one over the other one. Another tip: Look at all screenshots - the TIMES are synchronized on all of them. G G G But this one here -> G On the Mac OS X - it's 8:39, on PC it's 8:49. 10 minutes lag?????
  • Re:Screenshots (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Magic5Ball ( 188725 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2004 @02:51AM (#10511392)
    Between 3 and 4, note where the cursor is in the VM, above the dock, triggering the dock effect in 3 for iMovie. In 4, the Mail app is highlighted, but there is no cursor.
  • by __aafutm5472 ( 188247 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2004 @03:03PM (#10515879)
    Actually, my B&W G3 400 (overclocked to 450Mhz) handles windows and graphics just fine. It has the stock 16MB ATi card, which doesn't support QE, and no AltiVec instruction set. I'm actually impressed with how well this 6 year old computer runs OS X.
  • by Six3r ( 676500 ) on Thursday October 14, 2004 @06:45AM (#10522176)
    If you look at , you will see that the upper left bit of the Mac OS X desktop is visible, while the scrollbars indicate otherwise: The rightmost scrollbar is scrolled up, but the bottom scrollbar is scrolled to the left. Nor have I seen any third parties come up with any convincing screenshots as yet.

As of next Tuesday, C will be flushed in favor of COBOL. Please update your programs.