CherryOS: Interview With Creator, Plus Screenshots


2GMario

macrumors regular
Mar 11, 2004
184
0
oviously you shouldnt point fingures till theres proof, but the numbers dont add up

as said in the article, emulating registers that dont exist on a i386 processor isnt exactly easy, not including altivac and other specifics to os x and the g4 / g5, let alone at 80% actual speed

either way, its a waste of money

os x proforms best at graphical / video applications. pc's on the other hand, run of the mill stock dell, gateway, etc... is ment more for a more well rounded array of applications.

it makes sense in situations to use virtual pc on os x. there are programs on windows not offered on os x. in our case, were a os x office and need to test websites in IE. but the other way around doesnt make sense. few if not none applications for os x arent offered on windows. and i dont think you would like to run final cut pro in a emulator.

and to top it off, $50 + a copy of os x. " to get windows users interested in switching over" ... your local apple store will do that. with the $50 for cherryos, u have exceeded the cost of os x (os x + cherry os > os x alone), not to mention, ALL macs come with os x. u would be wasting your money.

just a view
-Mario
 

mj_1903

macrumors 6502a
Feb 3, 2003
563
0
Sydney, Australia
Not to mention that it is currently illegal to run Mac OS X on anything but Apple branded hardware, and that does not include sticking an Apple sticker on a Dell.
 

Nermal

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
18,678
1,183
New Zealand
mj_1903 said:
Not to mention that it is currently illegal to run Mac OS X on anything but Apple branded hardware, and that does not include sticking an Apple sticker on a Dell.
Only 2 US states enforce 'shrinkwrap licences,' so in the other 48 states there's nothing stopping you from OS X on an emulator. I don't know about Australia (or any other country for that matter).
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
I too am surprised nobody with cash to burn has tried this for the heck of it and reported in by now.

Below that Apple-X article is more discussion, including people claiming that Cherry really DOES use Pear code.

Time will tell.

PS, I see it takes one of the best things about Mac and ruins it: on Mac, you flip your mouse to the top without a second thought and you're in the menus. Even the VERY edge of the screen is clickable. So the only aiming you have to do is left-right. Same with the dock. But on Windows, if you mouse to the top you have to aim up-down as well. The top is just title bar. Hopefully they have a full-screen mode without that Windows bar up there.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
Reasons to hope it's works halfway decently

It may be illegal, but I'd guess that as long as Cherry makes you agree NOT to use it illegally, then they're clear--and then it may be down to local law to determine what you can or can't do.

I can see people's concerns, but this seems like a good thing to me, if it's for real. A "good"/"official" OS X on x86 would be bad. Apple's integration betwen hardware and software benefits users AND is vital to Apple's cash flow. And think of Apple's support nightmare trying to support all the varied Wintel hardware out there.

But a so-so, semi-functional, not-really-there, UNOFFICIAL solution could be a great thing:

* People can try it for a lower cost than buying any computer--and many will like what they see.

* But speed and stability probably won't be that great--not to mention you're still fighting Windows viruses and holes (on some fronts)--and so many (doesn't have to be all) of those who like it will end up with a Mac later. Maybe not right away, but maybe their next computer or the one after that.

* Meanwhile, the problems can be blamed on Cherry, while Apple gets credit for whatever goes well as people use X. And Apple doesn't have to waste any time or money on support.

* And smaller developers who make Windows apps now have a new way to develop/test Mac versions--much the way I use Virtual PC--which can't be bad for us Mac users. Same goes for lazy web developers who should test in Safari.

* Probably most importantly: this gives OS X free publicity and mindshare. It's yet another reminder that many Windows users WANT the Mac OS. That's a powerful indirect message.
 

Nermal

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
18,678
1,183
New Zealand
I'd just like to point out that some people are perfectly willing to legally buy a copy of Mac OS to run on an emulator. I'm one of them - I bought OS 8.1 back when I had the Fusion 68040 emulator for DOS (I didn't own a Mac at the time).
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,378
110
Location Location Location
Even if the processor runs at 80% of the equivalent Pentium chip, how will it do with graphics involved? It may be like VPC....decent if there's nothing graphics related going on, but once you need to do something semi-graphics intensive, it falls flat.

Oh, and a 3.2GHz P4 is not equivalent to a 1.2GHz G4. Its very difficult to say that, and is probably more equivalent to a 1.5G4. On top of that, I would actually have to correct myself and say it also depends on the task at hand....
 

thatwendigo

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2003
992
0
Sum, Ergo Sum.
nagromme said:
I can see people's concerns, but this seems like a good thing to me, if it's for real. A "good"/"official" OS X on x86 would be bad. Apple's integration betwen hardware and software benefits users AND is vital to Apple's cash flow. And think of Apple's support nightmare trying to support all the varied Wintel hardware out there.

But a so-so, semi-functional, not-really-there, UNOFFICIAL solution could be a great thing:
No, it won't be, it pretty well can't be, and the commentary at SlashDot shows why. The overwhelming majority of people who even know what OS X is are Linux and other computer-savvy users, ones who have investment in hardware that they don't feel like replicating. Nearly every comment there is something along the lines of "I'd love to use OS X, but..." The hanging point is that they're too cheap to spend more than $100 on the operating system itself, and don't want to move to PowerPC for various quibbling and trifling reasons.

This isn't a boon for Apple, especially not if the speed is what they claim. People who might have switched before will use this instead, paying $50 to the CherryOS company, then BitTorrenting (at worst) or buying OS X (at best) the actual software.

I think I hardly have to point out that the per-unit revenue for hardware (average $1,441 per CPU sold) compared to the per-unit revenue of OS X (some portion of roughly $240 million in sales, or less than a fifth of Apple's hardware) is hardly favorable. Since Apple sells 860,000 hardware units last time around, they'd have to sell some 5 million copies of OS X just to break even with what they made lasttime around.

* People can try it for a lower cost than buying any computer--and many will like what they see.
...and then stick with what they have, because these will mostly be Linux and Windows people that are used to having to coax and plead things into shape. I think you're also giving far too much credit for objectivity to people, who will glaldy heap piles of abuse on Apple for errors that will come from being bridged this way, rather than from the OS itself.

We have trolls aplenty now, just on the supposed "history" of the platform. Just imagine what this could open up.

* And smaller developers who make Windows apps now have a new way to develop/test Mac versions--much the way I use Virtual PC--which can't be bad for us Mac users. Same goes for lazy web developers who should test in Safari.
I think you've got this the other way around, and it's possibly the first real death knell for Apple. Once again, if the performance is actually true, this would remove reasons for people to develop as much for OS X as they have in the recent past. They could keep a legacy port of their current code, and then just drop all future mac development and tell you to use the Windows version because there's no reason to keep separate forks going.

This is much the same as the arguments I, and others, have made about OS X on x86, but it remains all the same.

* Probably most importantly: this gives OS X free publicity and mindshare. It's yet another reminder that many Windows users WANT the Mac OS. That's a powerful indirect message.
No, they want a magical, nonexistent OS X that would work on PCs with all the stability it has on macs, without having to buy hardware. There's a huge difference.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
Your points are all often true, but I think you may be wrong to apply them so widely.

thatwendigo said:
The overwhelming majority of people who even know what OS X is are Linux and other computer-savvy users, ones who have investment in hardware that they don't feel like replicating.
...
People who might have switched before will use this instead, paying $50 to the CherryOS company, then BitTorrenting (at worst) or buying OS X (at best) the actual software.
That still leaves people caught in the dilemma I described: their $50 is NOT going to be the full Mac experience, merely a taste. SOME will stick with it anyway as you say, but SOME will demand more. And as I say, that doesn't mean suddenly dropping cash on hardware. It means later, when they were going to buy a computer anyway, it just might be a Mac to sit alongside their old x86 box. (Those who are the very cheapest--stringing out old hardware with new parts, pirating lots of stuff--were never going to be a big market for Apple anyway.)

Also, I think you're wrong about tech-savvy users being the ones who know about OS X. Yes, they are SOMETIMES the ones who understand it in detail... but there is a sizable segment of non-techie folks who at least know that Apple has a new "O-S-Ex" that's supposed to be better than Windows. This basic--but crucial--knowledge will only increase, as issues like Mac vs. Windows viruses keep getting into mainstream press more. Some of those folks will grow into people who might try OS X with some help from a techie friend.

In short, I don't see this product being able to dig into the people who Apple sells to much at all. And I do see it bringing SOME new users (and apps) into the Mac fold over time.

No, they want a magical, nonexistent OS X that would work on PCs with all the stability it has on macs, without having to buy hardware. There's a huge difference.
Exactly. Which is why the desire for the impossible, always dangling out of reach for x86 users, is ongoing mindshare for Apple.
 

thatwendigo

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2003
992
0
Sum, Ergo Sum.
Slashdot poster checks on the physically listed addresses...

Read it here.

A short article appeared on the Wisconson Technology Network, among other places, whose author evidently ran into Aren Kryeziu at a hotel on the Big Island of Hawaii, and talked briefly about Maui X-stream. Unfortunately, the company office is in Wailuku, rather than the Maui tech park in Kihei, so I'll have to wait until lunch to drive over to check 'em out. Among the techno clique I've talked to in the tech park, nobody has heard of these guys. In all fairness, it's not unusual for someone to cut loose from the rat race in San Jose for a house on Maui, doing their own thing at the home office

...

MXS, the company behind CherryOS, Maui X-Stream, and the vx30.com web hosting service, isn't showing me a brick-and-mortar so far. Hitting the Google caches, I find 'contact' pages that alternately list a Wailuku and a Lahaina office, both of which were copyright 2003. I tried the Wailuku address during lunch. The office was empty, sign removed from door, and no listing on the building directory. I may try the Lahaina address for fun over the weekend.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Well, Time Warner's listings confirm that at they carry the TV channel Jim Kartes produces, (7, "Paradise Network").

Not that it's very much to go on, but I've also received email from both Arben Kryeziu and Jim Kartes.

We also know that VX30 exist, that their video codec is real, and that it seems to work reasonably well.

For what it's worth, their current mailing address is the Lahaina one, not the Wailuku spot visited by the slashdotter, so that there was nothing to see there doesn't really indicate anything.
 

AmigoMac

macrumors 68020
Aug 5, 2003
2,064
0
l'Allemagne
Fishy...

3.2 P4 >>> 900 MHz G4 ... How much RAM? 2 GB? :eek: the guy is obviously playing a semantic game which he will clear after selling a couple (Thousands) of copies ... 80% ? Give me a break... I don't have a hat but I would eat it if it were true...
 

brap

macrumors 68000
May 10, 2004
1,701
0
Nottingham
Someone should probably grab a copy and run it through a disassembler, in much the same way this little fopar was discovered. Naughty.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
mj_1903 said:
Not to mention that it is currently illegal to run Mac OS X on anything but Apple branded hardware, and that does not include sticking an Apple sticker on a Dell.
That "Apple-labeled" hook appears to be invalid under US copyright law.

First you have Title 17, section 117, which grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to load and run the program. Second, you have Title 17, section 301, which holds that copyright law preempts state law. The OS X license agreement is a California contract, not a federal one. So, since that restriction simply would take away a right granted under Title 117, rather than grant additional rights in exchange for considerations, it's BS.
 

thatwendigo

macrumors 6502a
Nov 17, 2003
992
0
Sum, Ergo Sum.
iMeowbot said:
That "Apple-labeled" hook appears to be invalid under US copyright law.

First you have Title 17, section 117, which grants the owner of a copy of a program the right to load and run the program. Second, you have Title 17, section 301, which holds that copyright law preempts state law. The OS X license agreement is a California contract, not a federal one. So, since that restriction simply would take away a right granted under Title 117, rather than grant additional rights in exchange for considerations, it's BS.
Nobody "owns" a copy of software, though. At best, you're a licensee of the product and not agreeing to the license means that you also agree not to use it. That's explicitly spelled out in the text of just about every single one I've ever seen, so I doubt that this applies.

The only legal wiggle room I've ever spotted is the sealed license, not the actual text of it.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
thatwendigo said:
Nobody "owns" a copy of software, though. At best, you're a licensee of the product and not agreeing to the license means that you also agree not to use it.
That differs from how copyright actually works. If you've received a legitimately purchased copy, you have certain rights granted by Title 17. A license agreement can modify those rights, but it can't take away Title 17 rights. That's what section 301, copyright preemption, is about.

That's explicitly spelled out in the text of just about every single one I've ever seen, so I doubt that this applies.
Licenses carry a lot of language that doesn't apply. That's why they also generally contain clauses that if one part is held invalid, the rest still applies :)

The case law for that is National Car Rental V. Computer Associates. That decision held that if a license term involves a right in addition to what copyright law covers, then it it valid. It is not valid, however, if it doesn't create a right not already granted under copyright law.

Since you have already been, by default, granted the right to load and run the software by purchasing the product, Apple aren't in a position to grant you the right to use it on an Apple-labeled computer because you already had that right. So, it's preempted.
 

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,386
130
Purcellville, VA
thatwendigo said:
Nobody "owns" a copy of software, though. At best, you're a licensee of the product and not agreeing to the license means that you also agree not to use it. That's explicitly spelled out in the text of just about every single one I've ever seen, so I doubt that this applies.
This is what the "license terms" on software tells you, but it is only legally binding in two states (VA and MD). In the other 48 states, shrinkwrap licenses are unenforceable and do not override copyright law.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
shamino said:
Except in states where the UCITA has been passed into law (currently, VA and MD.)
Oh, this isnt a UCITA thing. The stuff I mentioned assumes that the license agreement is a real contract. The purpose of the preemption clause is to ensure that copyright is consistent throughout the states (before the revisions in the 1970s, states had a lot to say about copyright, and that was eliminated).

UCITA is about contracts, but federal copyright still trumps it in certain limited cases. In particular, preemption only applies if the contract purports to grant a right equivalent to what already exists; Apple could use slightly different wording to make the Apple-only stuff stick, but (as someone else here already observed) they've (apparently rather carefully) opted for wording that limits their own support obligation rather than something that introduces a prohibition.