Poll: Would you have use for a Mac OS X emulator on a PC?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: Would you have use for a Mac OS X emulator on a PC? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=410)

[mainstreetmark]

...only if I could then install VirtualPC on it.

[Mord]

imagine the ssssssslllllloooooooooownneeeeessssss

[edesignuk]

imagine the ssssssslllllloooooooooownneeeeessssss
That would depend on how good/bad the emulator was.

[P-Worm]

imagine the ssssssslllllloooooooooownneeeeessssss

That doesn't answer the question.

I would have a use for it, by my friend would just eat this up. I'm still waiting for him to get online...

P-Worm

[applefan]

Use for no. Interest in yes. I might play with it.

[mkrishnan]

...only if I could then install VirtualPC on it.

And then if you ran an Apple II emulator on top of that, the speed would be just about right. Maybe there are uses for this after all? :D

[wdlove]

I voted no, just can't imagine that it would function as well as having a Mac. It would just seem that it would be like running VPC on the Mac, just not the same.

[jkojima]

The best possible use? Imagine the hordes of PC-based web developers who now have every opportunity to test their sites with the Mac OS and Safari. No more excuses :)

I would love to try it, at the very least, even if just to run Mail.app (which I feel has the best junk-filter going, and is, of course, immune to the Windows worms).

[Doctor Q]

According to reader reports, the application does appear to work, but is slow and clearly at an early stage of development so of limited use at this time.

So I say no. I'm still shellshocked from my experiments with MAE (http://sunsite.nstu.nsk.su/sunworldonline/swol-12-1996/swol-12-mae.html) (Macintosh Application Environment) for Sun. It took about a half-hour to boot System 7.5.3 under Solaris.

[FoxyKaye]

Vote: Poll: Would you have use for a Mac OS X emulator on a PC? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=410)

Would a fish have use for a bicycle? :D

[anubis]

i would definitely use a macosx emulator because at work they force us to use PCs. they're standard issue - if i want to use a mac at work, i have to bring in my own. i'd be much easier (and cheaper) to get a macosx emulator on the 3ghz p4 they gave me at work.

[mrsebastian]

i personally wouldn't use it. i really wonder at the speed of emulators and will they ever get to a speed where they're actually usable?

[musicpyrite]

NOOOO!!!

Then only reason they would make an emulator for Mac OS X would to use Mac-only software.

IF YOU WAN'T TO USE MAC SOFTWARE, BUY A MAC!!!!!!!!

[MacFan25]

I really would not have a use for it right now. I hardly ever use a PC, and as others have noted, the performance probably would not be too well.

I'll just stick to using my actual Mac, instead of an emulated one. :)

[wrldwzrd89]

NOOOO!!!

Then only reason they would make an emulator for Mac OS X would to use Mac-only software.

IF YOU WAN'T TO USE MAC SOFTWARE, BUY A MAC!!!!!!!!
I agree - that's why I voted no. I would be willing to experiment with a Mac OS X emulator for Windows, but I would never use such a thing on a daily basis (at least at home I wouldn't - if I end up in a workplace that REQUIRES the use of Windows, then I might consider it). Like a previous poster before me said, the speed factor of emulation makes it unsuitable for daily use.

[Bear]

Why the heck would I want to bother with a PPC emulator? I already have real machines.

[Fender2112]

What I really want is for Quickbooks to have total cross platform compatibility. QuickBooks is the only reason I use Windows. :(

[backspinner]

Maybe it would be possible to test sites in Safari or use the small number of Mac only tools I have, all at work of course where we don't have Macs.

[pimentoLoaf]

I'd like an os9 emulator for my antique WinBook XL @ 233mhz, as I doubt an osX emulator would work on it.

[Sailfish]

I would like a full demo training application version of Mac OS X for Windows.

You can go through the GUI motions, even use the finder windows, system preferences etc. Just nothing happens underneath.

This way Windoze snoozers can get true cross compatability experience.

[Nermal]

I would love to install OS X on the high-end P4 I use in class. I would get the Mac experience, and will be able to show off the OS :)

But, of course, I would continue to use my real Mac at home.

Edit: I should probably note that all the systems in my class are dual-booting with Linux. So they're not completely stupid :rolleyes:

[SeaFox]

Because then I could use iSync and edit my .Mac pages from my PC (which is much faster then my Mac).

[jimsowden]

My family is too cheap to but a new computer, so It would be cool for us.

[shamino]

I wouldn't have any use for this, but I would love to see another kind of Mac emulator.

I'd like Apple to bundle a legacy-Mac emulator with a future release of Mac OS. Specifically, something that can boot systems 6 and 7. Apple deleted the original Sound Manager APIs when 7.6 came out. I have a bunch of old games that are silent on any system later than 7.5. They play great, but silently, in Classic on my G4.

I also have some old games that insist on a monochrome screen. These are not playable at all in the Classic environment.

Right now, I boot my Quadra or my SE when I want to run these programs. I would really appreciate the ability to play these on my G4.

Right now, you can download vMac (http://www.vmac.org/) to emulate a Mac Plus, but this program requires an image of a Plus's ROMs. If you don't own a Plus, then you have no legal right to this code. As an Apple product, this little snafu goes away.

[mms]

No, since I never use a PC. We have five Macs at home (and no PC's) and since our district favors Macs, that's what we usually use at school. The only time in the last year that I used a PC was to test a site in Win98.

Since this is a Mac community site, most responders have a Mac and unless they are required to have a PC somehow, would not use such an emulator. I think it would be more interesting to see the results of the same poll in a general audience (or on some Windoze community site).

[iMeowbot]

I would like a full demo training application version of Mac OS X for Windows.

You can go through the GUI motions, even use the finder windows, system preferences etc. Just nothing happens underneath.

This way Windoze snoozers can get true cross compatability experience.

Once upon a time IBM had something like this, a free OS/2 "emulator" for Windows. It was a skinning job plus some imitations of OS/2 utilities.

One problem was that since a lot of the functionality couldn't really be duplicated, it gave the impression that the real OS/2 was a lot less powerful than it was.

[BornAgainMac]

I have PC friends that brag how fast their PC is compared to the Mac. I can say "Proof it" and compare the speed of my old iBook compared to their PC by using something like iPhoto 4 with a 1,000 photos on each computer. They won't grasp that emulation requires overhead and realize that the Mac hardware is much faster.

[mkrishnan]

I have PC friends that brag how fast their PC is compared to the Mac. I can say "Proof it" and compare the speed of my old iBook compared to their PC by using something like iPhoto 4 with a 1,000 photos on each computer. They won't grasp that emulation requires overhead and realize that the Mac hardware is much faster.

Hmmm...scamming the ignorant...now we're talking! :)

Of course, just make sure they don't want to do a comparison using MSIE.... :(

[Manatee]

No, but... It's always nice to have the option. I'm interested in experimenting with this product, and seeing its developers continue with it.

I can't think of any apps that I use on the Mac that aren't available (or have a viable substitute) on the PC platform.

On the other hand, I almost always have Virtual PC running on my Powerbook to use PC-only apps. This is mostly for database and software development stuff. If only I were an artist or musician... then I could live in a Mac-only world. But then I'd probably be poor, so I'll keep things the way they are. ;)

[wrldwzrd89]

No, but... It's always nice to have the option. I'm interested in experimenting with this product, and seeing its developers continue with it.

I can't think of any apps that I use on the Mac that aren't available (or have a viable substitute) on the PC platform.

On the other hand, I almost always have Virtual PC running on my Powerbook to use PC-only apps. This is mostly for database and software development stuff. If only I were an artist or musician... then I could live in a Mac-only world. But then I'd probably be poor, so I'll keep things the way they are. ;)
I actually have some games and sound applications (that I use regularly) that don't exist on the PC (the games don't have any substitute, but the sound applications do have a substitute). If I was in a Windows environment, I might use the emulator for those applications.

[wordmunger]

I like viruses, but I'm frustrated that I don't really experience them while I'm running Mac OS X. If only I could emulate Mac OS X on a PC running Windows, then I'd get to enjoy the experience of Sasser bringing me down while making an iMovie!

;)

[johnnowak]

Only if it was faster than a Mac.... which I doubt will ever happen.

[shamino]

Once upon a time IBM had something like this, a free OS/2 "emulator" for Windows. It was a skinning job plus some imitations of OS/2 utilities.

One problem was that since a lot of the functionality couldn't really be duplicated, it gave the impression that the real OS/2 was a lot less powerful than it was.
Interesting. I'm rather curious what you're referring to here. I was an OS/2 developer for many years, but I never heard of this.

You wouldn't happen to be referring to the concept of "bound" executables, would you? Back when OS/2 was a 16-bit OS (version 1.x), you could make an executable that would run on MS-DOS as well as OS/2. IBM defined a subset of OS/2 APIs as "Family API" (FAPI) that were DOS compatible. If you'd restrict your application to these APIs (meaning no GUI), you could "bind" it immediately after linking. The resulting executable would run on both OS/2 and MS-DOS.

Microsoft used this when developing Word for DOS, allowing the same program to run on MS-DOS and all 16-bit releases of OS/2. (Unfortunately, it has issues with 32-bit OS/2, even though other bound executables work fine.)

[Danrose1977]

I can't see much of a use for it.... unless Windows users are chomping at the bit to use garageband, iPhoto.... or maybe stickies! :D

[usersince86]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but this seems like it could be an open-door strategy to Apple. The "switch" campaign had very limited success.

But if someone could go out and buy a reasonably fast OSX emulator, packaged WITH OSX (i.e. this would be an Apple product), then it becomes interesting. Price it at $199. (OSX included).

Why?

* Longhorn won't be here until at least 2007

* Apple can sell more copies of OSX (more $)

* The OS is Apple's best computer-selling strategy (hardware is nice, don't get me wrong, but secondary, IMHO)

* It's a way to test-drive OSX w/o investing in a new computer

If Apple keeps ahead of the game with the iPod (and other "cool" devices), produces the best OS (OSX) and best real-life software (iLife, Garage Band, etc.), Microsoft keeps developing Office for Mac, and IBM comes through on the processors, I think the OSX emulator's subsequent computer purchase is very likely a Mac.

[sorryiwasdreami]

Yes! This would be a great idea for those who are scared of the mac and downright uneducated about a computer which empowers it's user. We can keep telling our friends how cool and great osx is but it won't convince them until they use it for themselves. (They aren't going buy a mac just to try it.)

-And I don't just mean fiddle with it for 10 minutes or an hour. They would need to feel it for a long time, such as weeks and months.

[ZildjianKX]

NOOOO!!!

Then only reason they would make an emulator for Mac OS X would to use Mac-only software.

IF YOU WAN'T TO USE MAC SOFTWARE, BUY A MAC!!!!!!!!

The same could be said for Virtual PC... and I use that...

[mkrishnan]

Interesting. I'm rather curious what you're referring to here. I was an OS/2 developer for many years, but I never heard of this.

I think he's talking about OS/2 for Windows, which was launched right at the end of OS/2's days, after Warp came out. But I'm not sure if his description of what it does is correct. My understanding of what it did was essentially like providing MacOS X with VPC bundled, and set up in such a way as it was supposed to repartition your drive, keep the Win 3.1 partition, add an OS/2 partition, and then let you run Win 3.1 as a task underneath OS/2.

But I remember nobody really understanding what this was supposed to do...is that the right explanation?

[shamino]

I think he's talking about OS/2 for Windows, which was launched right at the end of OS/2's days, after Warp came out. But I'm not sure if his description of what it does is correct. My understanding of what it did was essentially like providing MacOS X with VPC bundled, and set up in such a way as it was supposed to repartition your drive, keep the Win 3.1 partition, add an OS/2 partition, and then let you run Win 3.1 as a task underneath OS/2.
OS/2 For Windows was simply a special upgrade edition of OS/2 version 2.1. (Before Warp - which was version 3.0 - although I think they shipped "for Windows" versions of 3.0 and 4.0 as well.)

In order to be DOS and Windows compatible, OS/2 included an MS-DOS environment and a copy of Windows 3.1 (modified to work in OS/2's DOS environment.) Because DOS and Windows are Microsoft products, IBM had to pay a Microsoft license fee for every copy shipped, which got passed on to the customer.

OS/2 For Windows was simply OS/2 without the DOS or Windows components. In order to install, you had to have your own pre-existing installation of DOS and Windows 3.1. By distributing in this fashion, IBM could sell OS/2 without the Microsoft licenses and charge a bit less.

The environment is conceptually more similar to Classic under OS X than to Virtual PC, and every copy of OS/2 had Windows support (whether bundled or pre-existing), but your analogy otherwise isn't too far off.

[iPC]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but this seems like it could be an open-door strategy to Apple. The "switch" campaign had very limited success.

But if someone could go out and buy a reasonably fast OSX emulator, packaged WITH OSX (i.e. this would be an Apple product), then it becomes interesting. Price it at $199. (OSX included).

Why?

* Longhorn won't be here until at least 2007

* Apple can sell more copies of OSX (more $)

* The OS is Apple's best computer-selling strategy (hardware is nice, don't get me wrong, but secondary, IMHO)

* It's a way to test-drive OSX w/o investing in a new computer

If Apple keeps ahead of the game with the iPod (and other "cool" devices), produces the best OS (OSX) and best real-life software (iLife, Garage Band, etc.), Microsoft keeps developing Office for Mac, and IBM comes through on the processors, I think the OSX emulator's subsequent computer purchase is very likely a Mac.
All very interesting, but none of it will ever happen as long as SJ has anything to do with Apple. :(

I happen to think the switch campaign was a total failure. The iPod has done more for Apple than anything since the original Macintosh. :rolleyes:

[IndyGopher]

Interesting. I'm rather curious what you're referring to here. I was an OS/2 developer for many years, but I never heard of this.

You wouldn't happen to be referring to the concept of "bound" executables, would you? Back when OS/2 was a 16-bit OS (version 1.x), you could make an executable that would run on MS-DOS as well as OS/2. IBM defined a subset of OS/2 APIs as "Family API" (FAPI) that were DOS compatible. If you'd restrict your application to these APIs (meaning no GUI), you could "bind" it immediately after linking. The resulting executable would run on both OS/2 and MS-DOS.

Microsoft used this when developing Word for DOS, allowing the same program to run on MS-DOS and all 16-bit releases of OS/2. (Unfortunately, it has issues with 32-bit OS/2, even though other bound executables work fine.)

No, he's not talking about OS/2 for Windows, as another user posted. It was a replacement for program manager that looked like the WorkPlace Shell. It was available from IBM, but was not IBM supported software, as I recall it was written by an IBM employee and was available in a specific section of IBM's site devoted to employee written software.

It did look quite a bit like the WPS, and as much as was possible for Windows 3.0 acted like it, but there were many limitations. In fact, it had the same limitations that Windows has for many Mac users.. IE, it looked like OS/2, so people expected it to ACT like OS/2... but there were enough Gotchas that it was frustrating.. just like Windows is for many Mac users who have to use it infrequently.

I probably have the file somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look. I think the program was simply called WPS for Windows so a websearch might turn it up.

Edit: And turn it up it did. http://www.os2ezine.com/v1n6/wps4win.html

[mkrishnan]

No, he's not talking about OS/2 for Windows, as another user posted. It was a replacement for program manager that looked like the WorkPlace Shell. It was available from IBM, but was not IBM supported software, as I recall it was written by an IBM employee and was available in a specific section of IBM's site devoted to employee written software.

I stand corrected! :)

[grneyedjay]

OMG! YES, PLEASE! I would love to have a Mac OS X Emulator for my desktop PC! I'm SO tired of changing all my icons and skinning my Windows GUI with WindowBlinds (stardock.com) to make it look like Aqua interface!

And then I can sync everything up with my iBook..

[o1b2]

why in the world would I buy a pc. I have used them before and seem a little slow. If you have a pc go with linux. I run linux a lot, but just use it on one of my macs. I seem to be a bisis person for this question, I been a mac user since 1984. and if your a pc user reading hear go buy a mac if you want a mac.

[macsrus]

Only if It was implemented in hardware....

Think about it... Why would anyone want to emulate a Mac on a PC....
It isnt like you would have some great software program that their wasnt already a PC equivalent already...

Now the other way around makes sense.... Thats why their are products being sold to do it.