Since 1998, Macs have been based on Open Firmware, which is an open standard. The Toolbox ROM of old is a file in the MacOS 8/9 System Folder. The limitations on the use of the MacOS or MacOS X are no longer technical, they are legal. You can legally install the MacOS/MacOS X only on computers manufactured by Apple Computer. In other words, it is illegal to "clone" a Mac. However, if you are so inclined to break the law, there are no substantial technical impediments to doing so. Prior to the NewWorld Macs, it was for all practical purposes impossible to clone a Mac without stealing the ToolBox ROM code.
WOOOOO_HOOOOOO if apple will not do it, source forge will!
If I buy Panther, I can use it NOW and get used to it before I switch to apple hardware, if the open source people can do this, why the holy hell cant Apple. Smackdown windows by partnering with HP to get OSX into all stores and in front of the consumers, apple hardware is still sexier and cooler and HP boxes arent and will not be as cool, thus people will get an osx box on the low-end cheap and then be turned to Apple.
AW hell who the f**k am I kidding? this will never happen, the stogy, I-AM-BETTER-THAN-YOU-ARE mac community wouldnt have it, as eleitests, Apple seems to think that Mac/OS is only good enough for the people who can/are willing to shell out 2x the price of an equil windows box.
I do plan to buy an Apple of some sort this fall but geeze, why not go to intel, licence X to Apples new buddies, HP and thus show the masses how great Mac is, just imagine: Mac/OS would no longer reside only in the small shaddow in the back corner at COMP USA.
emulating software thats designed to run on a more powerful processor on an inferior processor will always result in severe slowdown. Forget mhz, RISC processes things completely different to x86 in fewer steps.
If apple did release a x86 version it would sabotage there hardware market.
Too many x86 hardware/driver issues to sort out Which would make apple look like a joke and make people question " i thought OS X was easier than windows" because of the lack of hardware support for that platform and dodgy drivers.
As for the price of macs, the emac is just as affordable as a budget PC.
And what is going to drive someone to spend £99 on OS X just to run it 500 times slower, on this software?
Perhaps you didn't notice the "runs 500 times slower" part.
Perhaps you didn't notice that this is 0.1 of an open source project, which is always slow and pathetic, they made this to prove it could be done, give it time, and they will refine it and speed it up in a huge way, this version is so early that a software company would consider it PRE-APHA, just wait till 0.9 or 1.0
emulating software thats designed to run on a more powerful processor on an inferior processor will always result in severe slowdown. Forget mhz, RISC processes things completely different to x86 in fewer steps.
If apple did release a x86 version it would sabotage there hardware market.
Too many x86 hardware/driver issues to sort out Which would make apple look like a joke and make people question " i thought OS X was easier than windows" because of the lack of hardware support for that platform and dodgy drivers.
As for the price of macs, the emac is just as affordable as a budget PC.
And what is going to drive someone to spend £99 on OS X just to run it 500 times slower, on this software?
I have read that the AMD chips are risc and the windows and many linux drivers run it in SISC emulation
Perhaps you didn't notice that this is 0.1 of an open source project, which is always slow and pathetic, they made this to prove it could be done, give it time, and they will refine it and speed it up in a huge way, this version is so early that a software company would consider it PRE-APHA, just wait till 0.9 or 1.0
And what speeds do you realistically think you'll get then?
I say you're lucky if it's as fast as 100 times slower.
...As for the price of macs, the emac is just as affordable as a budget PC... on this software?
Emacs are garbage, i wouldnt buy them for the same reason I avoided the original iMac - a crappy built in crt is great for labs in schools, but I have a 17 inch CRT and, in the other room, a 17 inch flat pannel, why should I scrap that to run a built in CRT? If they ditched the CRT I would be far more willing to buy an emac at the same price! I want to run more than one unit and I only have space for 1 display.
Emacs are garbage, i wouldnt buy them for the same reason I avoided the original iMac - a crappy built in crt is great for labs in schools, but I have a 17 inch CRT and, in the other room, a 17 inch flat pannel, why should I scrap that to run a built in CRT? If they ditched the CRT I would be far more willing to buy an emac at the same price! I want to run more than one unit and I only have space for 1 display.
I have the new Emac and i can honestly tell you it is far from garbage.
The CRT on this mac is superb and if you want your TFT you can still use it.
Just because you buy an emac doesn't mean you have to abandon your monitor of choice.
As for the comparrison base it on buying a pc with monitor of the same spec as the Emac for £550.
And what speeds do you realistically think you'll get then?
I say you're lucky if it's as fast as 100 times slower.
You are being entirely too optimistic. If PearPC can speed up to only 400 times slower than a hardware PPC, the development team should be extremely proud.
I want to run more than one unit and I only have space for 1 display.
you could also run the PC via VNC or RDC it would still be fast enough for most tasks-you would only have to use the native display for things like games...
with that said, there should still be a low cost, headless mac available for purchase... It would make a world of difference...
What about classic MacOS? Can this thing do MacOS 7.1 or better? 7.1 was the first MacOS with PPC support and ran fairly well on systems as slow as 25MHz (68k).
This is awesome! Seeing as though I am looking at buying a PC (don't hate me, I have to as Maya Unlimited isn't made for Mac, only Maya Complete - which lacks Fur and Cloth simulation) - I can make the PC at least look like a Mac... But I won't be using this PearPC, I'll go for another OSX Skin (I found quite a few by doing a google search on "OSX Skins")
You are being entirely too optimistic. If PearPC can speed up to only 400 times slower than a hardware PPC, the development team should be extremely proud.
Indeed. The 100 figure was in there just to sound less like an asshat. :-)
Hm, users are actually reporting acceptable performance when running PearPC with JIT emulation. "Almost usable" they say, and even exposé works. Hum hum, seems like I have to eat some crow.
Comments
ain't this illegal?
And why?
can't see this one lasting too long.
Originally posted by cybermonkey
What no rom image to play with?
ain't this illegal?
And why?
can't see this one lasting too long.
Since 1998, Macs have been based on Open Firmware, which is an open standard. The Toolbox ROM of old is a file in the MacOS 8/9 System Folder. The limitations on the use of the MacOS or MacOS X are no longer technical, they are legal. You can legally install the MacOS/MacOS X only on computers manufactured by Apple Computer. In other words, it is illegal to "clone" a Mac. However, if you are so inclined to break the law, there are no substantial technical impediments to doing so. Prior to the NewWorld Macs, it was for all practical purposes impossible to clone a Mac without stealing the ToolBox ROM code.
If I buy Panther, I can use it NOW and get used to it before I switch to apple hardware, if the open source people can do this, why the holy hell cant Apple. Smackdown windows by partnering with HP to get OSX into all stores and in front of the consumers, apple hardware is still sexier and cooler and HP boxes arent and will not be as cool, thus people will get an osx box on the low-end cheap and then be turned to Apple.
AW hell who the f**k am I kidding? this will never happen, the stogy, I-AM-BETTER-THAN-YOU-ARE mac community wouldnt have it, as eleitests, Apple seems to think that Mac/OS is only good enough for the people who can/are willing to shell out 2x the price of an equil windows box.
I do plan to buy an Apple of some sort this fall but geeze, why not go to intel, licence X to Apples new buddies, HP and thus show the masses how great Mac is, just imagine: Mac/OS would no longer reside only in the small shaddow in the back corner at COMP USA.
Originally posted by a_greer
if the open source people can do this, why the holy hell cant Apple.
Perhaps you didn't notice the "runs 500 times slower" part.
Some reasons why this won't take off a_greer
emulating software thats designed to run on a more powerful processor on an inferior processor will always result in severe slowdown. Forget mhz, RISC processes things completely different to x86 in fewer steps.
If apple did release a x86 version it would sabotage there hardware market.
Too many x86 hardware/driver issues to sort out Which would make apple look like a joke and make people question " i thought OS X was easier than windows" because of the lack of hardware support for that platform and dodgy drivers.
As for the price of macs, the emac is just as affordable as a budget PC.
And what is going to drive someone to spend £99 on OS X just to run it 500 times slower, on this software?
Originally posted by JLL
Perhaps you didn't notice the "runs 500 times slower" part.
Perhaps you didn't notice that this is 0.1 of an open source project, which is always slow and pathetic, they made this to prove it could be done, give it time, and they will refine it and speed it up in a huge way, this version is so early that a software company would consider it PRE-APHA, just wait till 0.9 or 1.0
Originally posted by cybermonkey
Cheers for the run down Mr.ME
Some reasons why this won't take off a_greer
emulating software thats designed to run on a more powerful processor on an inferior processor will always result in severe slowdown. Forget mhz, RISC processes things completely different to x86 in fewer steps.
If apple did release a x86 version it would sabotage there hardware market.
Too many x86 hardware/driver issues to sort out Which would make apple look like a joke and make people question " i thought OS X was easier than windows" because of the lack of hardware support for that platform and dodgy drivers.
As for the price of macs, the emac is just as affordable as a budget PC.
And what is going to drive someone to spend £99 on OS X just to run it 500 times slower, on this software?
I have read that the AMD chips are risc and the windows and many linux drivers run it in SISC emulation
Originally posted by a_greer
Perhaps you didn't notice that this is 0.1 of an open source project, which is always slow and pathetic, they made this to prove it could be done, give it time, and they will refine it and speed it up in a huge way, this version is so early that a software company would consider it PRE-APHA, just wait till 0.9 or 1.0
And what speeds do you realistically think you'll get then?
I say you're lucky if it's as fast as 100 times slower.
Originally posted by a_greer
I have read that the AMD chips are risc and the windows and many linux drivers run it in SISC emulation
The issue is not RISC vs other kinds, but x86 emulating PowerPC.
Originally posted by cybermonkey
...As for the price of macs, the emac is just as affordable as a budget PC... on this software?
Emacs are garbage, i wouldnt buy them for the same reason I avoided the original iMac - a crappy built in crt is great for labs in schools, but I have a 17 inch CRT and, in the other room, a 17 inch flat pannel, why should I scrap that to run a built in CRT? If they ditched the CRT I would be far more willing to buy an emac at the same price! I want to run more than one unit and I only have space for 1 display.
Originally posted by a_greer
Emacs are garbage, i wouldnt buy them for the same reason I avoided the original iMac - a crappy built in crt is great for labs in schools, but I have a 17 inch CRT and, in the other room, a 17 inch flat pannel, why should I scrap that to run a built in CRT? If they ditched the CRT I would be far more willing to buy an emac at the same price! I want to run more than one unit and I only have space for 1 display.
I have the new Emac and i can honestly tell you it is far from garbage.
The CRT on this mac is superb and if you want your TFT you can still use it.
Just because you buy an emac doesn't mean you have to abandon your monitor of choice.
As for the comparrison base it on buying a pc with monitor of the same spec as the Emac for £550.
Originally posted by Zapchud
And what speeds do you realistically think you'll get then?
I say you're lucky if it's as fast as 100 times slower.
You are being entirely too optimistic. If PearPC can speed up to only 400 times slower than a hardware PPC, the development team should be extremely proud.
Originally posted by a_greer
I want to run more than one unit and I only have space for 1 display.
you could also run the PC via VNC or RDC it would still be fast enough for most tasks-you would only have to use the native display for things like games...
with that said, there should still be a low cost, headless mac available for purchase... It would make a world of difference...
Originally posted by Paul
... there should still be a low cost, headless mac available for purchase... It would make a world of difference...
Yes thats what I think the MDD G4 will and should be morphed into at wwdc
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You are being entirely too optimistic. If PearPC can speed up to only 400 times slower than a hardware PPC, the development team should be extremely proud.
Indeed. The 100 figure was in there just to sound less like an asshat. :-)