Apple Emulator for OS X

altivec_2.0

Why doesn't apple create a OS X Emulator like they did with OS 9. It would be neat to be able to go back to Jaguar for something. One reason, is my scanner refuses to work on anything but jaguar. This way I wouldn't need to restart, just load up Jag in a different window. What da ya think?

kickaha

(Fixed the title. )



While possible, I would suspect that the ability to run multiple peer OSs (as opposed to hoisting the rather simple OS 9 model into a process) would be of infinitesimal utility in a large pool of users.



Now, if they push the XServe further, and would like to allow multiple personality OSs running on the same kit, that's another ball of wax completely.

karl kuehn

For most applications Apple has effectively provided just that: multiple versions of the libraries so the Apps can feel at home in newer versions of the OS, however, this have proven a really bad idea over and over when it comes to device drivers (like your scanner). Just look at the debacle that was WindowsME: that was caused mostly because Microsoft tried to mix three incompatible driver models and nothing wound up working right.



There are a number of projects (usually BSD based... but linux is getting into the game) that allow for multiple "guest" OS's, but there are real costs to doing that, and you have to have a special need to make it pay off. I don't see that need on MacOS X.

code master

VPC could do it I imagine. It may not be fully integrated, but it should be integrated enough to use the USB (?) ports with the emulated X's own drivers.



I think it might be the root problem that needs to be addressed here: your scanner needs better drivers, or apple needs to provide better driver support (whichever may be the case).

karl kuehn

Quote:

Originally posted by Code Master

I think it might be the root problem that needs to be addressed here: your scanner needs better drivers, or apple needs to provide better driver support (whichever may be the case).

Actually, MacOS X has one of the cleanest/best driver models out there, but it is still fairly new. 10-10.1 were still sketches of what the driver model should be. 10.2 was the first real implementation worth its salt, and there were a few changes in 10.3. I am not aware of any big changes in 10.4... but I have not been following it that much.

bborofka

One could always just run Cherry OS under Virtual PC

netbanshee

Have you tried using VueScan or looked at their site for scanner compatibility? I got it to work with my Umax Astra 3400 and it's pretty good.



Figured if emulation might not cut it...

chrisg

A Mac Virtual Machine would be very handy, kind of like a VMWare for Mac. I could really use this when doing App testing and building machine images.



My PC IT counterparts are able to (for example) test Windows 2003 Server in a VBMWare session on top of Windows XP Client.

karl kuehn

But you can test 10.4 on a FireWire hard drive, easily... I think it all works out...

joshbuddy

actually, mac on linux is terribly cool, and lets you run macos on linux (ppc). but you might ask, if macs and linux are so similar why can't you port it over to mac?



YOU can!



http://www.inaddrany.com/mom/



still very early, but i suspect it can really only get better. after all, classic is just being run in a virtual machine, and the ppc arch means you can run virtual machine fairly easly (so i've been told)



*j*

mr. me

Quote:

Originally posted by joshbuddy

actually, mac on linux is terribly cool, and lets you run macos on linux (ppc). but you might ask, if macs and linux are so similar why can't you port it over to mac?



YOU can!



http://www.inaddrany.com/mom/



still very early, but i suspect it can really only get better. after all, classic is just being run in a virtual machine, and the ppc arch means you can run virtual machine fairly easly (so i've been told)



*j*

Classic is not a virtual machine.

kickaha

Well, actually it is.



Literally.



Classic creates a virtual motherboard for OS 9 to run on. That's all it does. What it is *not* is an emulator, which is what most people call it erroneously.

mr. me

Quote:

Originally posted by Kickaha

Well, actually it is.



Literally.



Classic creates a virtual motherboard for OS 9 to run on. That's all it does. What it is *not* is an emulator, which is what most people call it erroneously.

Virtual machines tend tend to have fairly well-defined boundaries within the host OS and talk to the outside world only through the host. Classic does has limitations, but not those normally associated with virtual machines. Classic does not use the the MacOS 9 Finder, it uses the MacOS X Finder. Classic uses the same storage as Cocoa and Carbon. In the case of fonts, MacOS X uses Classic fonts. By flipping a bit, Carbon apps can run in either Carbon or Classic. Classic uses its own print drivers rather than abstracting printing through MacOS X.

joshbuddy

i'm not saying it isn't a tightly integrated virtual machine. i'm just saying it is a virtual machine however. but this something that ppc has always been good at. mac-on-linux, classic under macosx and sheepshaver under beos ppc are all examples of this virtualizing.



http://arstechnica.com/reviews/4q99/...s-x-dp2-4.html



a broad explanation of a vm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_machine



*j*