Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Not Apple Software - But uses Apple

slooksterPSV

slooksterPSV

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Apr 17, 2004
3,546
309
Nowheresville
Hey I just tried using PearPC last night, just for fun and that. I actually got it to work, the bad thing is, it ran everything so slow. It is possible to run PearPC, if you guys want pictures of it, when I get home today I'll post them. Its, not good though, it runs so slow, and uses up so much RAM, I do not recommend it. The CherryOS though, I'd like to try that out and see how it works out. Anyone else tried PearPC?
 
How fast is your computer? I tried PearPC on a friend's 1 GHz Athlon, and it took 7 bounces to open Terminal! :eek:

Installation probably took a while too - it took about 10-15 minutes to 'get it started,' then we went out and got fish and chips (it was 3 am so we had to wait about 20 minutes for them). Mmm, fish and chips... sorry, I'm getting distracted and the ice cream man has just pulled up outside my house :D

Edit: He took off before I could get out there :(
 
A 2.5GHz Celeron and I tried it on a 1100MHz AMD Duron. It ran 'reasonably' for an x86 processor. Now if I had an AMD 64-FX-53 that would be fast, as long as it had 1GB of RAM. It uses a lot of RAM. I should setup a whole hard drive just for Panther if I get an AMD Fx-53 computer. I never got the OS installed, but I ripped it using ISObuster. Try it. Oh BTW want screens? I'll post them here in a min.
 
slooksterPSV said:
Now if I had an AMD 64-FX-53 that would be fast, as long as it had 1GB of RAM. It uses a lot of RAM. I should setup a whole hard drive just for Panther if I get an AMD Fx-53 computer.
Click to expand...

Well since an FX-53 almost costs more than a Mac ($1640 here in NZ), wouldn't it make more sense to just get a Mac? :p
 
Nermal said:
Well since an FX-53 almost costs more than a Mac ($1640 here in NZ), wouldn't it make more sense to just get a Mac? :p
Click to expand...

Exactly! Except, I would like an AMD Fx-53 PC, just because AMD is my favorite x86 processor in the world.
 
I'd like to see a screen grab of the "About This Mac" information. How does it display the clockspeed of the processor? Is the number in the emulated OS X different than the actual clock of the x86 processor?
 
Rod Rod said:
I'd like to see a screen grab of the "About This Mac" information. How does it display the clockspeed of the processor? Is the number in the emulated OS X different than the actual clock of the x86 processor?
Click to expand...

me too... post a "About this mac" pic, what would be the main reason to install PearPC apart of *fun*? :confused:
 
thanks slooksterPSV. it'll be comedy to see it. maybe someone out there has a 1MHz PearPC "Mac" that'd blow the doors off that 0MHz system.
 
OK BTW this machien is an Intel Celeron 2.5 GHz, and it has 640MB DDR266 RAM. Now read what it says about the mac from this pic. It runs so frikken slow.


[EDIT]By the way it says that its a 57MHz bus speed and it has 0KB L2 Cache
 
Rod Rod said:
thanks slooksterPSV! that screen capture was entertaining. I wonder if any AMD people out there would care to share.
Click to expand...

If you're lucky - very lucky - I'll be able to try it on my brother's Athlon 2600.
 
Well, it didn't happen. But I *might* be getting an Athlon 64 3500+ next week, so if I do, I'll give PearPC a go :)
 
Screen Shot of AMD 64 running pearpc

My friend put pearpc on his amd 64 pc running at 2 ghz with a gig of ram. Here are some pics and some xbench bench mark scores(the graphical test made it crash so he ran xbench with that turned off.) oh ya here is the xbench scores:

Results 2.61
System Info
Xbench Version 1.1.3
System Version 10.3 (7B85)
Physical RAM 512 MB
Model PowerPC (PearPC 0.4pre)
Processor PowerPC G4 @ 1.06 GHz
L1 Cache 32K (instruction), 32K (data)
Bus Frequency 58 MHz
Video Card PearPC,display
Drive Type EIN GEBUESCH!
CPU Test 0.56
GCD Loop 35.42 1.38 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 2.30 8.33 Mflop/sec
vecLib FFT 0.15 2.34 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 24.77 991.63 Kops/sec
Thread Test 23.79
Computation 42.03 567.43 Kops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 16.59 208.29 Klocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 47.53
System 50.34
Allocate 67.26 43.87 Kalloc/sec
Fill 47.12 375.10 MB/sec
Copy 42.53 212.67 MB/sec
Stream 45.02
Copy 46.92 342.99 MB/sec
Scale 38.15 281.54 MB/sec
Add 48.18 308.35 MB/sec
Triad 48.64 297.17 MB/sec
User Interface Test 21.46
Elements 21.46 6.90 refresh/sec
Disk Test 63.52
Sequential 38.54
Uncached Write 19.70 8.21 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 85.84 35.15 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 27.81 4.40 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 184.34 74.48 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 180.60
Uncached Write 184.44 2.77 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 84.04 18.95 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 489.04 3.23 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 359.37 73.96 MB/sec [256K blocks]
 

Attachments

  • About Mac1.jpg
    About Mac1.jpg
    58.6 KB · Views: 132
  • mac3a.jpg
    mac3a.jpg
    78.8 KB · Views: 108
Apart from benchmarks, how did it run in practice? Did the mouse move smoothly? Did Safari open in less than 5 bounces? Basically, does it 'feel' like you're using a real G3 Mac?
 
well.........

Nermal said:
Apart from benchmarks, how did it run in practice? Did the mouse move smoothly? Did Safari open in less than 5 bounces? Basically, does it 'feel' like you're using a real G3 Mac?
Click to expand...

Well it was my friend who did it and I havn't ahd a chance to try it on his machine in person but I beleave he said that to him it felt like it ran fine and he even talked to me via ichat on it. Also pearpc dosn't support audio so I dont know if that makes a difference. also he was using I think 0.4 version of pearpc wich according to the site is only 40 time slower then the host machine. Were as the the first couple versions of pearpc was 400 times slower then the host machine. Ill see if I can get more out of him tomorow, he is not the talkative type. Nor dose he use macs that much so hes not the most experienced as to how a mac should "feel" when using them. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back