Sidebar Sidebar
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

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. :eek:
Click to expand...

They very well may buy it... Just to shut it down!

It really does not make sense to me. The only thing I miss on my Macs are games (sports games mainly). I run too many pro apps to be running "windonts" and there is no way you would be able to emulate them on a computer and still have enough head room to do anything else on a "pc".
Running a windows emulator on a Mac makes sense only because there are program and more so GAMES (if that ever happens) that you can not run without it.
Why would anyone want to run mac apps on a "pc"? ... just wondering..
If you are running pro apps like FCP or any of the Adobe line, it only makes sense that you would be smart enough to JUST BUY A MAC!


just thinking out loud
 
Waragainstsleep said:
As for the greatness of the 286, well....we're all entitled to our opinions I suppose.
Click to expand...

Well, when it comes to 16-bit processors, the 286 is so far, and perhaps forever will be, the best 16-bit processor. It introduced "protected mode" memory addressing, although Microsoft never made an OS that used it very well. It also had seperare address and data lines, and could address more memory than any other 16-bit processor made (an entire 16mb of RAM, yippie!).

So, when it comes to 16-bit processors, it was the best, beating the 68000 and the 65816. However, 32-bit and later 64-bit processors have far more capibilities, and the world had moved past 16-bit for computing.

However, I still use it in designs for microcontroller systems where I want a lot of processing power using 16-bit design for ease and cost.
 
TRIED AND FAILED

Tried to run this - OSX installer just stuck on the initial screen and hung up the application - this just proves three things:

1) The variability of PC hardware makes running anything with any stability a bit of a lottery (THAT INCLUDES WINDOWS ! :) )

2) If you want to run OSX buy a Mac - they are much nicer anyway

3) This is a VERY early build of the software - version 0.1 is not very high up the evolutionary scale for any software - Look at Windows - multiple variants are out there as retail boxed software and even that does not run properly !

4) I know I said three points - just checking ! :confused:
 
current uptime on my dual processor G5: 5 days, 10 minutes.

current uptime on my athlon 2500+: 85 days, 4 hours, 42 minutes.

the last G5 restart was due to photoshop hard-locking and ignoring my request for a force-quit.

the last Athlong restart was due to installation of new graphics card drivers that required a restart.

so whatever.
 
itsa said:
This is what I'm saying! :)
Click to expand...

It may be a waste of time right now, but the project as a whole is quite interesting. It would be fascinating if the could make PearPC run OS X on x86 machines better than MicroSoft can make VPC run on Macs.

I am just too lazy to try it on my fiancee's Dell.
 
I have installed OSX 10.3 on my Athlon XP 2000 via PPC since version 0.1, who took 7+ hours to install.

Version 0.2 took 4+ hours to install.

Version 0.3 took 1 1/4 hours to install, boots in 2 1/2 minutes. It run slowly, fast enought to brose internet and check e-mail.

Any person who think that is a time waisting, can do other thin than wasting their time reading these forum... for me it`s a new horizon that will do what apple and microsoft coudn´t, or better say woudn´t, to create an open world were any person can use any system in any hardware. That´s freedom, that´s opening horizons...
 
Romix said:
Any person who think that is a time waisting, can do other thin than wasting their time reading these forum...
Click to expand...

It's a waste of time, because this software exists for one reason and one reason alone - to break the law. Installing OS X using this program is a violation of the EULA and thus clearly, blatantly, and remorselessly illegal. It's not even a fair-use issue, since the license state that you're installing on Apple hardware.

Apple Computer, Inc.
Software License Agreement for Mac OS X
Single Use License


1. General.
The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple’s and its licensors’ intellectual property rights in the Apple Software and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time,and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only; provided that the backup copy must include all copyright or other proprietary notices contained on the original.

...

C. Except as and only to the extent permitted in this License and by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, or create derivative works of the Apple Software or any part thereof. THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.​

for me it`s a new horizon that will do what apple and microsoft coudn´t, or better say woudn´t, to create an open world were any person can use any system in any hardware. That´s freedom, that´s opening horizons...
Click to expand...

One word: Marklar.

Apple has a version of OS X running on x86 hardware in a lab in Cupertino, and they've created prior versions and projects before. Do a little digging before you make allegations like that.
 
Romix said:
I have installed OSX 10.3 on my Athlon XP 2000 via PPC since version 0.1, who took 7+ hours to install.

Version 0.2 took 4+ hours to install.

Version 0.3 took 1 1/4 hours to install, boots in 2 1/2 minutes. It run slowly, fast enought to brose internet and check e-mail.

Any person who think that is a time waisting, can do other thin than wasting their time reading these forum... for me it`s a new horizon that will do what apple and microsoft coudn´t, or better say woudn´t, to create an open world were any person can use any system in any hardware. That´s freedom, that´s opening horizons...
Click to expand...

I can't find 0.3, and what kind of system are you running? Would ichat run well enough to use video, maybe audio?
 
PPC970FX said:
Can OS X be usebal on a very powerful x86 PC, like 53FX? Or dual Operton.
Click to expand...

This project is ineresting but not very practical....IMHO

But If apple released OSX for the PC they could really Take a large share of the Market...

OSX is evolving into a truly remarkable OS.... if only 1 out of 10 PC users ran it...... It would increase Apples revenues by over 3 billion a year.

OSX in many ways(especially in the desktop & usability) is superior to Linux.
Although still a little behind it from the average Unix users standpoint.
Each new update continues to improve on that though, and I expect Tiger just might overtake Linux from a technical standpoint...
(there really are some fundamental differences between the MACH kernel and the Linux kernel but those parts could be addressed by the open source community)

Linux is so far behind both OSX and Windows in easy of use that it will be years before it will be a true desktop competitor. Regardless of the hype(Grandma cant use it... and she will be long gone before they fix it so she can)


But OSX is PPC/APPLE only.... whereas Linux runs on everything...
So again Please Apple do yourself and everyone but Microsoft a favor and Sell OSX on the PC


I really think Apple is a better Software..... than Computer Company.....
Im not saying MACs aren't great computers they ARE
Anyone who has ever used one knows their design has always been equal to or better than the top PCs out.

But I just believe Apple fundamentally makes such good software that they could make 10 times the revenue they do now if all their energy was concentrated on software

Plus Microsoft has proven that there is way more money to be had in devoloping and selling software than in Hardware....
Heck Bill Gates said it himself, "Microsoft makes more money from each Macintosh sold than Apple does".

And Microsoft software in most cases is mediocre at best.....

So Apple Release a verion of OSX for the PC.... make yourself rich... and finally give us a competitor to Microsoft's monopoly.
 
PS2 and MACOSX (pearpc

HEY PEOPLE..WAIT.......
LETS THINK ABOUT THIS. THIS IS MY THOUGHTS
PLAYSTATION 2 NOW HAS hardisk capability and runs Linux.
What i some one or else could compile or convert the PEARPC into linux code...and and so we could Test it on a PS2?

The CPU of the PS2 is way much powerfull than any home CPU now.\\

Let me know about it
 
eyepoper said:
HEY PEOPLE..WAIT.......
LETS THINK ABOUT THIS. THIS IS MY THOUGHTS
PLAYSTATION 2 NOW HAS hardisk capability and runs Linux.
What i some one or else could compile or convert the PEARPC into linux code...and and so we could Test it on a PS2?

The CPU of the PS2 is way much powerfull than any home CPU now.\\

Let me know about it
Click to expand...

how about no, the ps 2's cpu is not very powerfull it's just that it's dedicated to games even a dreamcasts 200MHz hitachi cpu is faster than the ps2's the game cube uses a g3 and an old ati card but it still looks amazing same for xbox's 733 pIII anyway the ps2 uses some type of weird emotion engine it dose use a risc instruction set but that dose not mean instant compatibility, a much better candidate would be a gamecube with it's g3.
 
thatwendigo said:
It's a waste of time, because this software exists for one reason and one reason alone - to break the law. Installing OS X using this program is a violation of the EULA and thus clearly, blatantly, and remorselessly illegal. It's not even a fair-use issue, since the license state that you're installing on Apple hardware.
Click to expand...

so,

wont stop me
 
i played it

i have downloaded a pre-instaled mac os x from the internet and it work very slow but i think its worth it because when i click somewhere it takes 10-15 seconds to respond and i am just running on a 800 mhz athlon!!!!

but i have see some prog on internet that can boost the performance on p4 systems
 
pocketpc2004 said:
i have downloaded a pre-instaled mac os x from the internet and it work very slow but i think its worth it because when i click somewhere it takes 10-15 seconds to respond and i am just running on a 800 mhz athlon!!!!

but i have see some prog on internet that can boost the performance on p4 systems
Click to expand...

So you not only broke the Apple license by installing on hardware that they didn't approve, but you also pirated a copy of it? I think that this shows perfectly, and I do mean perfectly, why Apple shouldn't ever get into the x86 world as an operating system provider. Piracy is rampant and there's not much chance they'd be compensated like they ought to be.
 
think that this shows perfectly, and I do mean perfectly, why Apple shouldn't ever get into the x86 world as an operating system provider. Piracy is rampant and there's not much chance they'd be compensated like they ought to be.
Click to expand...

And you think people don't pirate mac software?
I'll agree: It doesn't happen as much, as lots of users use their macs professionally and thus are more inclined to buy the software to avoid damage to their business.

However: I think for private users the situation is similar on both platforms:

Private users don't/won't spend hundreds of dollars/euros on 3rd party software like photoshop etc. when they just want to play around with it.

I think the mac community is only more loyal to apple than the pc community is to microsoft. so maybe os piracy is less of a problem?
 
This little argument has been going on for a while and I feel that I should take a side.

I think PearPC is a cool little experiment, but that's it. Even if they did manage to get it up to 100% speed emulation, I think it should just remain an experiment. There's a reason that Apple wants their OS to be on their hardware, they don't want more problems to worry about.

Granted, this thing probably won't get huge, but I think we should respect the terms and conditions that Apple has made AND YOU AGREE TO when you install the OS.

I'm interseted to see how well this can get working, but not so I can trade in my hardware, more along the lines of "Can it be done?"

P-Worm
 
I don't see much commercial potential for Mac emulation on a PC.

VPC on Mac was handy for the man-on-the-street because it was a handy way around many Mac/PC compatibility problems. And I know our developers started using it to check PC compatibility (as they preferred using Macs). They did however, stop using VPC some time ago because it was easier having a cheap PC dedicated to the task.

There's little in Mac OS on the PC for the average PC punter because they already have access to more stuff than Mac users, and even though it may end up running pretty efficiently, developers etc would probably still be better off on Mac hardware.

It might be amusing to see Mac OS boot on a PC but can anyone else think of a genuinely good (and widespread) use for it?
 
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