Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Getting Critical: PearPC
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Getting Critical: PearPC
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Getting Critical: PearPC
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
Hah, the author thinks the software will become fast and usable and it will affect Apple's hardware sales.
It will only ever be as fast as Virtual PC is on the Mac. And Virtual PC is working with open specs and has years and years behind them. PearPC is working with closed specs.
If anything it will always be a little slower than Virtual PC and virtual pc is not fast enough to replace a PC except if you just need one critical windows app. There are no critical mac apps so I don't see how this would affect Apple's sales. If anything it would help them.
It will only ever be as fast as Virtual PC is on the Mac. And Virtual PC is working with open specs and has years and years behind them. PearPC is working with closed specs.
If anything it will always be a little slower than Virtual PC and virtual pc is not fast enough to replace a PC except if you just need one critical windows app. There are no critical mac apps so I don't see how this would affect Apple's sales. If anything it would help them.
I doubt it will do much to hardware sales, but the PearPC people are basically working with open specs too. Modern Apple systems are for the most part vanilla CHRP, with all the legacy firmware voodoo moved into files. With a lightweight software shim like MOL, Mac OS runs quite acceptably on unmodified non-Apple PowerPC systems.
Only if the AmigaOne OS understands the Apple Boot ROM that all Apple Macs have - at least that's what I'd think would be the limiting factor. I haven't studied or used the Amiga OS much.nagromme said:Cool. Can I run the AmigaOne OS on my Mac?
Thanks for a fun link!
Reminds me of the Linux on iPod project.
Steve Jobs should just change his mind and port X to x86... He's on a roll now, but Apple history is ... a rollercoaster =\.
Reminds me of the Linux on iPod project.
Steve Jobs should just change his mind and port X to x86... He's on a roll now, but Apple history is ... a rollercoaster =\.
Santaduck said:
It has been said time and time again on this site and others, we will NEVER see an x86 version of Mac OsX. It will never happen, as it will kill Apple. We don't want to see that happen. Old but relevant thread about the switch to x86 this one is fresh, and is about the same subject, non x86ing Mac OsX.
If (and that's a big if) Apple were to port OS X to x86, it wouldn't run on just any x86. The computers it runs on would still be Macs, they would still have proprietary hardware in them to prevent people from installing the OS on generic computers.
The possibility of an x86 port was higher a couple of years ago than it is now. With the advent of the G5, Apple currently has no reason to go to Intel/AMD.
I installed PearPC yesterday. There's something sad about waiting 7 bounces for Terminal.
The possibility of an x86 port was higher a couple of years ago than it is now. With the advent of the G5, Apple currently has no reason to go to Intel/AMD.
I installed PearPC yesterday. There's something sad about waiting 7 bounces for Terminal.
I agree with you 100% - if Apple were to make an x86 version of Mac OS X available, they'd lock it to machines with specific hardware in them, just like the Macs are.Nermal said:
If you take IBM's upcoming developments into account - the rumored PPC970MP and whatever becomes Apple's G6 - there's even less reason to add/switch to x86.
PearPC's biggest problem is its extreme sluggishness. On a real Mac, Terminal opens in 1 bounce (at least for me).
PearPC has been around for ages... and they still haven't made all that much progress. well, at least they're really optimistic.