SiliconAddict said:
Microsoft produce Virtual PC, and have rights to Windows code (and emulation of) and Apple approval of the software.
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.
PearPC - PowerPC/Mac OS X Emulation on a PC
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Microsoft produce Virtual PC, and have rights to Windows code (and emulation of) and Apple approval of the software.
Is Marklar the version of Mac OS X that runs on X.86 processors back when Apple considered switching to X.86? 
iris_failsafe said:Is Marklar the version of Mac OS X that runs on X.86 processors back when Apple considered switching to X.86?
Marklar, internal version of X that works on intel processors.... never been released because there is no reason to:
https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020830181129.shtml
edit: I don't think it has ever been confirmed, correct me if I am wrong....
The Ancients said:
What you said made no sense. The only thing different about Microsoft's Virtual PC since it was bought by Microsoft is that they now include the Windows license and do not support any other OS other then Microsoft ones. Virtual PC is able to run any x86 OS. It's emulating a Pentium II chip or something similar. Microsoft may change it such that you can't load anything other then Windows. There's probably not any code in VPC that "emulates" the API. The API runs in a virtual machine that emulates a x86 chip. So you don't really need a special license or anything to run Windows in VPC and VPC technically is capable of running any x86 OS. Microsoft just won't give you phone support.
SiliconAddict said:
No they may not go out and buy one....all they have to do is have access to one. That is easy. Kinkos had them for a while and be realistic....anyone who has a Mac and the know how can technically write a virus. Due to the way UNIX security works, it would not pass to many users, but if there was a local exploit that gave you root access the virus could take take advantage of that and take the OS down. Don't be a fool! JUST because there are not many virii now for Macs doesn't mean it well stay that way! Macs are really no more secure then any other OS. Viruses are not only on Windows easier. What do you think....because it has a Apple on it and it came from Cupertino it's immune to someone who really wants to cause damage??
The Ancients said:
They didn't originally own VPC. And please show me proof Apple gave their blessing to VPC to begin with.
gorkonapple said:
You assume I'm someone who doesn't know what an OS is made of. Its a duh moment that no OS is perfect. My point is that potentially this opens up any would-be virus writer to creating a virus for the Mac. Until now you had to either buy hardware, visit Kinkos, or use a school 'puter. But really who is going to spend time trying to find a way method to propagate a virus at Kinko's. Ya good plan. Emulation on the x86 platform will allow cheap or in some cases free access to OS X to those who feel they want to find an exploit in OS X. I'm not saying it will happen and I'm not saying something as big as Blaster on Windows will occur but its a possibility.SiliconAddict said:
Why show you proof? Apple are aware of the software now (and have been for a long time), and haven't expressed any great level of displeasure at it's existence. VPC does serve it's uses, and is beneficial in many cases to both Apple, and Microsoft.
gorkonapple said:
No sense? It boils down to each party knowing and accepting (if not appreciating) the existence of the other's products. That's a pretty big difference, as at this stage it is unsure whether Apple are aware of the existence of this software, and it's not clear whether any Apple code has been (illegally) included to enable functionality.
jared_kipe said:
Either you have no idea of programming or you are trying to be funny.
At least I have been talking about programming. I also could have written:
a += b;
a := a + b
LET a = a + b
(define a (+ a b))
etc.
bree said:
It's possible ... it's this thing called "emulation." That's really the only way you're going to run code compiled for one architecture on a system with an entirely different one.
Read a little bit about how computers actually work, and I'm sure you'll see why this is the case. (Not trying to be condescending; seriously, look into it.)
Slow
So basically this emulator is too slow to run on a high-end PC running Panther that is running Virtual PC running Windows XP Pro. Or run iMovie, iPhoto, Garageband, or even iTunes.
And you can't run Warcraft III or Unreal 2004 or any other nice Mac games under emulation. So people that want this should just buy a real Mac because Intel and AMD are too slow today to emulate the Mac OS X experience.
So basically this emulator is too slow to run on a high-end PC running Panther that is running Virtual PC running Windows XP Pro. Or run iMovie, iPhoto, Garageband, or even iTunes.
And you can't run Warcraft III or Unreal 2004 or any other nice Mac games under emulation. So people that want this should just buy a real Mac because Intel and AMD are too slow today to emulate the Mac OS X experience.
BornAgainMac said:
Or you could play those games natively on the x86 machine and have it run faster than it would on a comparably priced Mac
. Also, Intel and AMD are not too slow to properly emulate the Mac OS, they are being fed extremely inefficient code, give it time.In other news, I have a question for you who have succeeded in getting this working. I have the 6GB drive image setup and it goes through the boot dealy and I actually get the Darwin setup screen, but I left it running to "detect" volumes that it could install for about... 5 hours and it still had nothing after running at max cpu for that entire time. Any suggestions?
SiliconAddict said:No one ever said Feb. It was announced to be released first half of 04. Which means no complaining until July.
Yeah, actually, someone did.
But the complaining can continue anyway:
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=3406
Spazmodius said:
HAHA *I* can run a program at 5-10 MHz. Screw getting some top of the line PC to fake the power and beauty of a real mac at speeds so slow even your parents can't compare them to the good "old days" ^_^
OS XP
Ok... if you want to run mac PROGRAMS get a mac... there's no real way around it. Mac COULD go to x86, but why? Their products would be so much less stable if they can't know their hardware and optimize for it.
If you want the look and feel of AQUA, however, get OS XP (a windows theme hack for XP to look like OS X) I used to use it when I was still in the closet as a mac lover. I used OS XP's theme after bypassing windows security to change out a system file that checks to make sure your themes are officially M$ approved (dun worry, they have very easy tutorials) and then I used object dock by stardock (it was the fastest one that I'd found at the time). It ran pretty well, but that was on my P4 2.2Ghz... (so sad that it turned into a paperweight the moment the box for my G5 arrived..)
Ok... if you want to run mac PROGRAMS get a mac... there's no real way around it. Mac COULD go to x86, but why? Their products would be so much less stable if they can't know their hardware and optimize for it.
If you want the look and feel of AQUA, however, get OS XP (a windows theme hack for XP to look like OS X) I used to use it when I was still in the closet as a mac lover. I used OS XP's theme after bypassing windows security to change out a system file that checks to make sure your themes are officially M$ approved (dun worry, they have very easy tutorials) and then I used object dock by stardock (it was the fastest one that I'd found at the time). It ran pretty well, but that was on my P4 2.2Ghz... (so sad that it turned into a paperweight the moment the box for my G5 arrived..)
KingOfPain said:
But you arn't really saying a=a+b you're sort of defining a new variable like... the new a = the old a + b. One might go as far as to say a'=a+b or a2=a1+b. It was mostly a joke though.
Note screnshot!
Note this screenshot of the project: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots/kde.png (you may have to copy and paste the address into your address bar).
On the top-layer window, where the specs of the emulated computer are listed, note the "clock" referring to processor speed.
"10MHz"
Oh my gosh, talk about slow! That almost makes me want to UNDERCLOCK my 800 MHz G4 all the way down to 10MHz. I wonder that that would be like? *rolls eyes*
With love, snooziums.
Note this screenshot of the project: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots/kde.png (you may have to copy and paste the address into your address bar).
On the top-layer window, where the specs of the emulated computer are listed, note the "clock" referring to processor speed.
"10MHz"
Oh my gosh, talk about slow! That almost makes me want to UNDERCLOCK my 800 MHz G4 all the way down to 10MHz. I wonder that that would be like? *rolls eyes*
With love, snooziums.
Another review and instructions at kevinrose.com: OS X is running on my Athlon!.
Synopsis: slow, buggy, cool as hell.
Synopsis: slow, buggy, cool as hell.
Rower_CPU said:Another review and instructions at kevinrose.com: OS X is running on my Athlon!.
Synopsis: slow, buggy, cool as hell.
The person that created that site does not have a clue. He says: "It's slow, very very slow as in 286 SX slow, as in..."
There was no 286sx ! There was a 386sx and a 486sx, however no 286sx! I should know as I used to build computer control systems based on the 286 processor (and still have a few of those processors around, the best 16-bit chip ever made, however the world has moved past 16-bit).
Geesh! Someone tell him [the creator of that page] to get a clue!
With love, snooziums.
Pearpc
As Micro$oft bought virtual pc from connectix,
Perhaps Apple should employ these guys and improve the speed.
And then market it as a Virtual mac.
I know that I would buy it (As the rest of my family own wintel machines) If it were fast enough.
As Micro$oft bought virtual pc from connectix,
Perhaps Apple should employ these guys and improve the speed.
And then market it as a Virtual mac.
I know that I would buy it (As the rest of my family own wintel machines) If it were fast enough.
Efalumps said:As Micro$oft bought virtual pc from connectix,
Perhaps Apple should employ these guys and improve the speed.
And then market it as a Virtual mac.
I know that I would buy it (As the rest of my family own wintel machines) If it were fast enough.
Apple never made VPC or anything like it. If they wanted OS X to run on x86 chips, it would run on x86 chips. Then they would sell almost no hardware at all. Which is currently where they make their money.
As for the greatness of the 286, well....we're all entitled to our opinions I suppose.