CherryOS Trial and Purchase Download Available Q1 2005
... MXS will provide a free trial download of the CherryOS software, in addition to the purchase download in early 2005.
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.
No Cherry OS on Nov. 25
- Thread starter slooksterPSV
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
CherryOS Trial and Purchase Download Available Q1 2005
... MXS will provide a free trial download of the CherryOS software, in addition to the purchase download in early 2005.
When you strip down, run outside, and moon the sun, only then will your arse see the light of day
im praying apple uses its big profits to sac this company. Anyways this company sounds too shady to be of recognizable importance.
What about with the DP G5's? Wouldn't that make some sort of increased difference, like the x86 emulator running at a speed of 700MHz or so it feels like? I mean, yeah Virtual PC has its ups and downs, but somewhere along the line they've got to come pretty close, within a range of 85-95% of actual clock speed, if you were to have the x86 native components.... Well, nothing can beat a PPC Processor, even @ 1 THz it would never run like a 2.5 GHz DP emulating x86 hardware.
Once again: 
Pear or Cherry ... just Banana.
What's next? the man will appear and say that an Alien took his work with all available data and he can't start all over again? ...
Cherry my ...
Pear or Cherry ... just Banana.
What's next? the man will appear and say that an Alien took his work with all available data and he can't start all over again?
... Cherry my ...
This is the first I've heard of Cherry OS but I'm pretty sure Apple won't be pleased with it. However, the existence of Virtual PC creates a potential hypocrisy problem for Apple.
However, whereas Microsoft gets its profits from sales of the operating system, not computer hardware, then it doesn't care whether people buy a PC (with Windows) or a Mac and virtual PC, since they are buying Windows in both instances.
In this situation, Apple will lose out in the hardware sales, although people will still have to pay for the OS X licence (less profit for Apple). The other repercussions are this though: OS X will have to start having lots of anti-piracy keys and all that nonsense, or many PC users will simply copy the system software illegally; OS X will cost more than $129 because Apple will see a need to increase its profits through sales of OS X on a PC due to decreased Mac sales; Apple may be forced to open up its hardware and allow clones to be made again (some people may think of this as a good thing).
I'm probably being a bit melodramatic here, and maybe it's a bit of a selfish thought to have Mac OS X only available on Macs, but it does worry me a little. And how will Apple have any legal basis to shut this down either?
However, whereas Microsoft gets its profits from sales of the operating system, not computer hardware, then it doesn't care whether people buy a PC (with Windows) or a Mac and virtual PC, since they are buying Windows in both instances.
In this situation, Apple will lose out in the hardware sales, although people will still have to pay for the OS X licence (less profit for Apple). The other repercussions are this though: OS X will have to start having lots of anti-piracy keys and all that nonsense, or many PC users will simply copy the system software illegally; OS X will cost more than $129 because Apple will see a need to increase its profits through sales of OS X on a PC due to decreased Mac sales; Apple may be forced to open up its hardware and allow clones to be made again (some people may think of this as a good thing).
I'm probably being a bit melodramatic here, and maybe it's a bit of a selfish thought to have Mac OS X only available on Macs, but it does worry me a little. And how will Apple have any legal basis to shut this down either?
This could help Apple.
What if CherryOS works, but ... slow, excruciatingly slow, but works.
Some of the PC people will try it. Hopefully think very cool, but very slow.
Figure that 15 GHz P5 isn't going to help much and buy a Mac.
I wonder if Steve likes Maui?
What if CherryOS works, but ... slow, excruciatingly slow, but works.
Some of the PC people will try it. Hopefully think very cool, but very slow.
Figure that 15 GHz P5 isn't going to help much and buy a Mac.
I wonder if Steve likes Maui?
Apple is trying to not be like Micro$lut in that their OS is less than $200, whereas the OEM of Microsoft XP is $200 up to $400. Well, now its went down, but the hype of it was incredible. I'll be honest, XP Pro runs faster than XP Home and with XP Pro you can do things that they've eliminated in XP Home, like 16-bit applications - so it was worth it to buy XP Pro (I bought mine for $80 OEM at buysell101.com). Here's another OT (off topic) question, was Mac OS ever 16-bit? (I'll google it here in a second) I know that Apple is trying to make a profit, but are they when they have other sellers selling their products for like $20 for OS X Jaggy? I mean Apple didn't have it on their site so it was basically like Abandonware... ok thats taking it a little bit too far out of context. But I'm sure Apple doesn't see any money coming from it, except when the company buys the software from them first. So in the long run I've just answered my question huh.
slooksterPSV said:
I doubt it. The Mac started with a 680x0 processor. All the 680xx processors are 32 bits internally. The 68008 had a 8 bit external bus, slow, not sure where this was used. I think, but could be wrong, but I think the Mac did the 68000, 68010, 68020, 68030 and 68040 progression. Then jumped to the PowerPC instead of the 68060.
Mac OS (System 6) was not exactly 32-bit but was not 16-bit either. What does that mean? Silly developers knew that the top 8 bits of memory addresses (68000 has a 24-bit address bus) were not being used, so they decided to use them. That's why System 7 and later had a 32-bit clean flag. Using the upper 8 bits as additional memory space caused many problems with System 7.
As far as the 85-95 percent emulation speed? Not from RISC to CISC or vice versa. To get that kind of throughput, the instruction set has to be fairly close. Remember that Connectix was emulating a Pentium MMX, which does not map well to PowerPC. It would seem more efficient to emulate a CISC processor on a RISC processor because you have less overlap/wasted processor cycles but still, it's not efficient.
As far as the 85-95 percent emulation speed? Not from RISC to CISC or vice versa. To get that kind of throughput, the instruction set has to be fairly close. Remember that Connectix was emulating a Pentium MMX, which does not map well to PowerPC. It would seem more efficient to emulate a CISC processor on a RISC processor because you have less overlap/wasted processor cycles but still, it's not efficient.
zen_state said:
If 32-bit is 24-bit colors with 8-bit alpha would 48-bit be 24-bit colors with 24-bit alpha?
zen_state said:ya lost me
When programming graphics and that, you have a seperate bit for alpha. Basically, alpha is a transparency (colored transparency) and its 8-bit for 32-bit. 24-bit colors with 8-bit alpha. Here's a programming example, NOTE THIS DOES NOT ACTUALLY WORK, THE FUNCTION IS WRONG (I don't remember OpenGL cause I haven't used it forver):
//create a cube
...
GLAlpha(GL_ENABLE);
//color it with a transparency of .5
//GLColor4f(red, blue, green, alpha);
GLColor4f(1f, 1f, 0f, 0.5f);
//when you run the program you see the cube with 50% transparency
//you can substitue f in for d to make it double instead of float