Slashdot Mirror
New G3-Based Platform Runs Mac OS X
Worried writes "Pegasos is a new platform based on G3/G4 CPUs and it runs MorphOS and various Linux distros so far. This very interesting review of the platform over at OSNews points out that Darwin can play a significant role attracting new buyers. Another --possibly significant-- point in the article is that Pegasos can run Mac OS X via the Mac-On-Linux runtime kit. This is the *first* non-Mac platform that can run OSX without even the need for an Apple BIOS!"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the second-rev G3 machines (blue and white towers), hasn't the Apple BIOS been unnecessary? Or am I confusing the Software-ROM (that the New World mac architecture introduced, ROM-in-RAM) with something else?
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
The SSL certificate is not from one of the "trusted" providers, nor does the name on it match the site name, since they're using an IP.
I decided to go through the rigamarole of creating an account to find out the price when they DO get them in, only to find out that while they are sold out, you cannot even list a price.
In other words, this is a non-product. They made a small run of them apparently, but you might as well just call it a beta test, because that's what it seems to be. They have announced that they're bringing out a G4-based replacement, and a G4 upgrade for the current G3 board. All of this will be neatly swept under the rug by dramatically more powerful systems based on next-generation 64 bit PowerPC.
If you need a cheap system to run MacOSX, buy a used Mac or one of those ATX systems based on Mac motherboards. Both are available now and not very expensive, all things considered, plus faster than this unavailable hardware.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
fp!
Why would you want to run Mac OS X under MOL?
It completely defeats the purpose of MOL... and Mac OS X. MOL is designed to allow you to access your mac os x programs when running linux on a dual boot mac, but as far as I know you loose most of the flashy speed that you would get from a standard OS X install.
I say just run linux and be happy.
This is just sig!
Nope. They're not macs, they're CHRP, which is totally legal and not Apple infinging at all.
I ue briqs - www.totalimpact.com for a renderfarm ad they are G4 PPC CHRP boxes, running yellow dog linux and custom render management software that Total Ipmact have written. They're great little general purpose computers.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
They don't have a screen shot of Aqua and they only said that their OS sucked through a straw and needed something better like Linux or OS X (and not even Apple would object unless they try to get Aqua running on it. Then they'd feel the wrath of Jobs and his legal minions.)
This was a bogus post.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I would definitely love to be able to run adobe products on my linux box.
I'm very familiar w/ OS X on a G3 400 iMac, a G3 400 PowerBook, and a G4 450 Cube, and on none of these boxes is performance even close to that bad. The iMac can have its moments, but nothing like that.
Wasn't the Amiga the first non Apple (certified) computer to boot MacOS? Besides, I thought that this would run on any PPC machine under Linux. What's the news here?
I would think that the manufacturers will be in the clear as they don't supply or load OS X on the system, but the actual owner of the installed copy OS X is in breach of the EULA...
Can't see Apple identifying infringments, and tracking them all down though!
(At least I hope they don't... they should be busy building the 970 Powermacs...)
The BriQ http://www.totalimpact.com has been able to run MacOS via MOL for ever so long, so this is in fact not great news itself. Question is: Why do so? Neither machines were intended for this purpose.
However it is nice to see companies supply motherboards based on the PPC processor because of the lower powerconsumption. More Power less Heat.
It's illegal for Apple to try to impose that restriction. It's an illegal tying arrangement. See 15 USC 1.
There is an intrinsic value in buying PowerPC Macs: the tight integration of hardware and software. Most of us are not willing to give that up even if an x86 box is cheaper. The PPC 970 will make the combination even more attractive. That revenue stream will not dry up--indeed, it seems to be on the upswing.
Apple will realize a NEW revenue stream the minute they announce for x86. People with conforming machines will pay the $100 for the software to see if they can get a better computing experience. If the release is good enough, enterprises will be more inclined to take a look. That will engender developer interest. We're already seeing the value of Mac OS X's open source roots in that there's a flood of software that "just works" on the PPC side. This will be true, too, with a predictable, standardized x86 configuration.
The timing of the announcement of "Athens"--the more tightly-integrated PC from Microsoft and HP--is no coincidence. Microsoft doesn't mention Apple when it decries its "open source" competition. But you can bet that Bill Gates knows what's around the corner. It's why "trusted computing" is also a big deal with Wintel now.
Apple could "die", but it's demise would be self-inflicted. The company has everything going for it right now. Things are about to get interesting.
It runs on several PPC platforms already and would provide a non-GPLed option for those so inclined.
The important major difference here is lack of hardware video support for OS X which would account for much of the drag. OS X on a 233mhz rev A Bondi would probably run circles around an MOL implementation but that should not be any real surprise.
MorphOS is an old name from the latter dregs of the Amiga era, along with the infamous "A-Box". The A-Box was a promised Super-Amiga with all sorts of gee-whiz features for the time that sounded great. Trouble was it was nothing other than vaporware.
Darwin is Open Source. It would seem to me that if someone wanted to get OSX running without MOL (or Xpostfacto) on a non-approved PPC machine, they could compile a darwin kernel that does not exclude non-standard hardware.
For example this board has what appears to be a non-standard north bridge and south bridge (non-standard as far as apples go)but they work under linux. Someone could port the modules over to darwin, I'm sure. From what I can tell, there is not very much of a "community" behind darwin. Most seem content to let the apple guys do the darwin work. If I had any level of programming skill beyond 1 semester of C programming I'd seriously look into this myself.
Where do the major differences exist between darwin and Freebsd? Certainly FreeBSD is written to be portable since it runs on i386, alpha, and 64bit Sparc platforms. I'd think that some of the code could be inserted into darwin to add kernel level support for unsupported hw.
That is incredible! On the surface, it looks idiotic: run a virtual Macintosh process under the Linux kernel that supports Mac OSX (potentially breaking the Apple license) -- and the whole thing is currently restricted to PPC platforms since there isn't a PPC emulator (yet). However, there might be an application of the technology in cost-sensitive venues, e.g. schools. Fire up a hefty PPC server running virtual machines for dozens of students. use diskless linux boxes running VNC as the terminals. Voila, cheap OS X desktops. This might actually work!
After Berkeley Systems came out with the flying winged-toasters in AfterDark, it really was just a matter of time until we had flying winged-macs. In fact, I'm surprised it took so long after Apple finally went to a Berkeley OS for it happen.
Hmm. . if they're CHRP, than doesn't that make the whole comment about not needing an Apple BIOS to run OS X become wrong? I mean, first, Apple computers don't have a BIOS, they have OpenFirmware. Second, the CHRP specification requires computers to boot using OpenFirmware. Sounds like it's probably using pretty much the same boot process to me.