Slashdot Mirror
OpenOSX Provides Virtual PC Alternative
lucas.clemente writes "OpenOSX has just announced a cheap alternative to Microsoft's Virtual PC for Mac OS X, OpenOSX WinTel. What's more, the OpenOSX version will be compatible with Apple's new G5 architecture, whereas Virtual PC users will have to wait until the next major upgrade for G5 compatibility." It's a frontend to bochs, which we've discussed before as a possible Virtual PC replacement, and the biggest obstacle seemed to be getting it up and running. Perhaps this product will fill that hole. Prices start at $25 for download, but it is covered under the GPL.
"Pay OpenOS X a whole bunch of money."
Yes, but only one person has to do it, then they can post it wherever they want and freely distribute it, per the GPL FAQ.
Yeah, but dude, it's Bochs. It's been available on Unix systems (like OS X) for quite a while now. This company thinks it might be able to ween a few dollars from the VPC news. I wouldn't read too much into it.
:)
It's not like they wrote it from scratch. They plopped a GUI onto an existing program.
Ok, so this new alternative may not be as fast as Virtual PC. But you know what really impresses me? Look at how quickly an alternative to this Virtual PC problem was produced.
Uh, not really. OpenOSX is selling WinTel since December 2001. So it's more like a "look how quickly someone got the idea to use the VPC/G5 incompatibility to get some free PR". For a public relations stunt, it was not really quick.
1 As said before, bochs is extremely slow. Their own page does not even recommend that you install Win2k or XP.
2 This project is not new. It has been around for I don't know how long, at least a few months. The only new thing is support for the G5.
3 It is suspected that this organization is ripping off compiled binaries from Fink without giving credit. Read about it in the Fink FAQ.
It would be much more useful for someone to create an OS X port of qemu [http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/qemu/] and wine [winehq.com] and post it somewhere. Both of these programs have very good things said about them, as far as performance and stability, but I don't know how well they work on OS X.
I'd rather run Bochs for free (or at worse, very cheaply) that pay significantly more to Microsoft for crippled future releases of VPC to ensure that performance sucks (even after the architectural differences are taken into account).
Look, I loathe and distrust Microsoft as much as the next guy, but--what incentive do they have to cripple Virtual PC?
Microsoft profits from the sale of Windows for Virtual PC in the same way it profits from the sale of Wndows for actual x86 hardware.
Microsoft may very well sell other software products that run under Virtual PC at the same rates they sell those products for actual x86 hardware.
Apple is only the enemy of Microsoft because Apple hardware a) doesn't run Windows and b) exemplifies an alternative to Windows hegemony. But,
It seems to me that if some application is capable of running Windows and Windows applications aptly on the Macintosh platform, this turn of events is only in Microsoft's interest.
I mean, they have no real hope of "crushing" the Macintosh platform -- there are too many addicts, Apple is far too liquid, and people just plain hate Microsoft. Virtual PC provides them a way to continue to profit from Apple.
Wow. So it costed under $100 for the hardware? Windows 2000 Pro costed about 300 bucks. I suppose its down closer to 200 now, but still, please let me know how you built your box for such an amazing price.
Then again, maybe you were only counting the OS cost in the price of VPC and not with the Shuttle computer. Oh well, I understand. But I wouldn't say VPC costs almost as much as a Wintel machine unless you are getting a pentium 2 from the thrift store with win98 preinstalled. I do agree VPC costs plenty of money, especially when you add in the OS.
Here's to hoping bochs gets fast enough to run linux with Wine on top for those rare needed windows apps.
Windows XP is... a bit of a dog under Virtual PC on my 600MHz dual USB iBook. Perhaps it's snappier with Altivec, but I can't test that theory. It feels like it's running on maybe a 400MHz PC.
I'm just finishing up an install of Windows NT Workstation 4.0 (the only version I have the CD for really handy) under Bochs 2.0.2 (not the OpenOSX version - straight off SourceForge!) and it's a big dog. We're talking Clifford sized. (And dangit, this CD says it contains code for the PPC version of NT 4.0 - what I really need is a VMWare or Plex for the PPC, maybe? ;)
I'd say it feels like I'm running NT on a 200Mhz PC, at best. Of course I've got a bunch of other OS X stuff running, and I only gave it 64 megs (Squirm, you accursed OS! One tenth of the system memory is all you get!), so I might find it a little faster in full-screen mode in the foreground with less other stuff going on.
So... mathematically speaking, VPC feels like it's running on a PC with 2/3 the clock speed, and Bochs feels like it's running on one with 1/3 the clock speed. When the G5 arrives with its oh-so-yummy 2.0GHz chips, VPC (if it ran) should theoretically feel like a 1.3GHz PC, and Bochs like a 667Mhz PC. Either of which would be faster than any PC I've ever had, of course... and I used NT 4.0 on a 500Mhz machine just fine for ages.
I'm looking forward to hearing that Bochs runs on the G5 from someone who actually has a G5, since OpenOSX says it does, but then in the same page says they haven't even tested it on OS versions newer than 10.2.4 yet. If no one else tries it in 3-6 weeks... I will.