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.

37 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. First Post?? by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cool. BTW before anyone asks. Yes you can charge for GPL software.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. Not fair... by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bochs needs a front end for Linux too!

    BTW... Is anyone out there using Bochs?

    --

    Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    1. Re:Not fair... by Vector7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > BTW... Is anyone out there using Bochs?

      Yes, but not for running applications. Bochs is very useful as a development tool to test operating systems or in general self-booting code that would otherwise have you rebooting your computer every five minutes.

  3. Bochs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bochs is so much slower than Virtual PC that I don't consider it an alternative at all.

    Getting Windows 95 to run acceptably on my last comouter was impossible in Bochs, and oh so easy in VPC.

    Just wait for a VPC update. I'm sure you won't have to wait for 7.0.

    Also, I refuse to use software from OpenOSX. All they do is recompile popular software, then put it on CD for you for silly amounts of money.

    I.E. - Want GIMP?

    Step 1) Download and install fink - http://fink.sourceforge.net

    Step 2) % sudo apt-get install gimp

    OR
    Pay OpenOS X a whole bunch of money.

    1. Re:Bochs by computersareevil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    2. Re:Bochs by coolgeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just wait for a VPC update. I'm sure you won't have to wait for 7.0.

      I suggest that you not hold your breath on that: Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - 827904

      excerpt:

      Virtual PC for Mac Version 6.1 and earlier use a feature that is present in the PowerPC G3 and the PowerPC G4 named "pseudo little-endian mode". Virtual PC for Mac uses pseudo little-endian mode for increased performance when it emulates a Pentium processor. Virtual PC for Mac 6.1 must use pseudo little-endian mode to function.

      The new Power Mac G5 processor does not support pseudo little-endian mode. Therefore, the current versions of the Virtual PC for Mac program do not run on the Power Mac G5.


      This is a non-trivial problem.

      --

      cat /dev/null >sig
    3. Re:Bochs by Smitty825 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bochs is so much slower than Virtual PC that I don't consider it an alternative at all.

      I don't have any inside information, however, I am suspecting that the next version of Virtual PC will be much slower on a G5 than Virtual PC (current) on a G3/G4 class machine.

      The current version gets a big speed boost, because the G3/G4 processor can run in little endian mode. The new version for the G5 is going to have to spin every opcode from little-endian mode to big-endian mode, run the command, then (possibly) convert back to little-endian mode.

      I suspect that versions of Virtual PC that ran on 604 based Macs will run fine on a G5...just slower than the current Virtual PC release on slower hardware!

      --

      Doh!
    4. Re:Bochs by constantnormal · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I suspect that versions of Virtual PC that ran on 604 based Macs will run fine on a G5...

      Except for the fact that those versions of VPC were pre-OSX, and it's dubious that they will run under Classic.

      I'm awaiting the inevitable benchmarks that compare various emulated Windows performance under G5 Bochs to VPC 6.x on a decently fast G4.

      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).

      If Microsoft wanted to, they could easily buy back a lot of the performance lost due to manipulating addresses and integers by producing versions of DirectX and other drivers that talk directly to the underlying hardware. Look at how poorly existing VPC manages the video -- emulating an older graphics chip not present in any Mac.

      Even if Bochs only ran in full screen mode (to avoid sharing the display with OS X), the performance gains from native instead of emulated video are likely to be quite significant -- maybe not enough to totally overcome the performance hit due to the loss of the pseudo-little endian mode, but I'll bet the G5 can make up the difference.

    5. Re:Bochs by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 2, Informative
      I suspect that versions of Virtual PC that ran on 604 based Macs will run fine on a G5...just slower than the current Virtual PC release on slower hardware!

      Actually, AFAIK all previous PPC CPUs were bi-endian, including the 604 family.

      Last time I ran Bochs on OS X (1.5 years ago?) it was unbelievably slow and had no networking.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    6. Re:Bochs by dbirchall · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Virtual PC is definitely faster than Bochs on Windows OSes (DOS is pretty nice under either one.) It's also more generous with resources. It doles out larger chunks of RAM and disk to Windows OSes by default, I think.

      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.

    7. Re:Bochs by Textbook+Error · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is, because the G5 DOES support pseudo little-endian mode. It must be a stupid fuck-up on MS's side (as if that'd suprise anyone).

      VirtualPC does not use the PowerPC's ability to boot in big or little endian - it uses the lwbrx/stwbrx instructions, which will automatically endian-swap during a load or store. This allows them to keep data in memory in little endian form, have it swapped automatically when it's brought into a register for processing, and have it swapped back when it's written out to memory.

      This is the feature which isn't present on the G5, and was responsible for the big speedup in the latest rev of VPC - and the reason it now requires a G3 or G4 (since the previous PPC chips didn't support these instructions).

      Since the G5 doesn't support this feature either, they'll need to go back and resurrect some of their previous code - they will doubtless take a performance hit for having to do the swapping themselves, but the massive bandwidth in the new systems will probably help cancel some of that out.

      --

      Nae bother
    8. Re:Bochs by Textbook+Error · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you have evidence that these instructions are not supported on the PPC970, please post it.

      I believe they're supported, so you won't crash, but they invoke an exception handler on the 970 (as per misaligned loads/stores on the 603 or later).

      This probably makes them too slow for something like VPC, and if you use them in performance critical code you would probably be better off using a vector permute on larger blocks of data. I can't find any docs at IBM or Apple to back this up unfortunately, this was based on conversations at WWDC (so may be hearsay, but would seem to explain the issue with VPC).

      --

      Nae bother
  4. License? by singularity · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The software on this CD is distributed under the GNU General Public License and the OpenOSX WinTel License."

    The only link on the page I can see to anything about a license is a link to the GPL

    I have no idea what the actual software is released under. They currently do not seem to have the OpenOSX WinTel license available yet to look at.

    This looks interesting, though. Almost enough for me to install it.

    --
    - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
  5. ATTN Trolls by rmohr02 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Before you post something about them not abiding by the GPL by charging for their software, I suggest you read the GPL FAQ.

  6. Speed of Implementation by chia_monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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. Five years ago, it would have been "eh, it's just Mac. Screw 'em." But the G5 just came out and there's already an alternative to a problem. Perhaps it'll keep Microsoft on their toes. Perhaps other developers will go "damn, we best be writin' some stuff for them too." It's refreshing to see developers rushing to fill the void so quickly.

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
    1. Re:Speed of Implementation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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. :)

    2. Re:Speed of Implementation by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  7. Lots of Problems - Old Info by joebolte · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There are a number of issues that are important about Open OSX and bochs.

    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.

    1. Re:Lots of Problems - Old Info by steeviant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go to the website he mentioned and read what QEMU is.

  8. The real question is... by dnahelix · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can I make my Mac run the LoveSan virus?

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  9. want the story on OpenOSX? ask Robert Atlee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Robert Atlee was one of the founders of this company, and provided a substantial part of the initial equipment and funding. He is listed on the contact page rather unprofessionally as "terminated." I spoke with him on the phone about three months after he footed the bill for the double-wide booth that Jeshua Lacock ran at MacWorld. He was rather upset at the time that Jeshua had basically skipped town with a bunch of his computer equipment and had locked him out of the web server etc. I'm sure that every story has two sides, but at this point in time, not only Mr. Atlee, and Christoph Pfisterer, but also myself have received poor treatment at the hands of Jeshua Lacock, the sole proprietor of OpenOSX.

    Slashdot doesn't probably have the budget that professional news sources do, so we can't expect all of the stories to be double or triple cross-checked. My guess is that if you start asking around (tax records? employees? better business bureau?), you'll find that few others have genuinely benefitted at the hands of this opportunist. The MacGIMP project helped to fund GIMPCon 2003. Has OpenOSX EVER given back to the community that built the software it sells?

    One of the first rules of polite public behaviour is to give credit where it is due. Jeshua has attacked my reputation and left a rude web page up with my name on it (after numerous requests to have it taken down) and upset a very good open source developer (Chris Pfisterer) and has managed to con his business partner out of the equipment it took to get everything he had started. Make up your own mind, but I refuse to do business with someone who has managed to offend this many reasonable people without having made any visible efforts whatsoever to set things right.

  10. Charge worth it! by igabe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FYI this product has been out for well over a year(I bought a copy last December I believe).

    Before I bought it I downloaded Bochs. I am no ubergeek, so I didn't even get past compiling it.

    It works. First I ran Linux on it, then got DOS running, then Win95. It works. It works. It's slow. It works. Compared to spending hundreds of dollars to buy Microsoft's Virtual PC, this is magical. (plus, they have nice bundles where you can get open-source Office, GIMP, and other such programs together for very nice prices... yes, I am a newbie and I don't want to use Fink anymore)

    --
    tilTrue.info contechtext.info prettypowerful.info twitter.com/frets fb.com/prosody
    1. Re:Charge worth it! by cmdrbuzz · · Score: 5, Informative
      You do realize that OpenOSX just took Fink and produced their GIMP package.

      WITHOUT CREDITING FINK

      I don't think that is fair at all.
      It even caused the primary devloper of fink to resign because he was fed up of people stealing his stuff, without credit.

      Look here and here to judge for yourself.

    2. Re:Charge worth it! by cybercyph · · Score: 2, Informative

      i just read all of the fink vs. openosx debate, and the actual emails sent back and forth, and...i hate to say it, but...i have to agree with openOSX on this issue. please don't mod me down for that, it is my honest opinion. releasing libre software gives others the right to reuse it for their own projects. the fink guy claims they have 'covered their traces' by adding mention of fink...hello? isn't that what he was asking for? i wouldn't call that 'covering,' its more like 'complying.' anyway, it sounds to me like the openosx guy didnt realize that fink had patched the tools he was using--he seemed to have assumed it was just a download application. it seemed to me the fink guy was being kind of petty about the whole thing. anyway, i encourage everyone to go read this and form your own opinions on the issue.
      disclaimer: i have never used openosx, i have used fink.

    3. Re:Charge worth it! by JohnKFisher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Christophe left because he was a whiny crybaby. His leaving, in a huff, with no plan or care about how Fink would go forward, may be the best thing that ever HAPPENED to Fink. I'll, probably justifiably, get modded down for this, but I think it's about time someone said it, so I'll take the risk.


      That aside, everything said above about OpenOSX's theft is 100% true, and I'll not be supporting them anytime soon, and really, neither should you.

      --

      John Kenneth Fisher
      Table of malContents
  11. For desktop users, just add a PC by jeffreym · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've been using Windows emulators on Macs since the "beginning" and have 4 licenses for VPC currently, but we use them on laptops, where it would be inconvenient to bring along a PC laptop AND a Mac laptop just to have access to more than one platform. For desktop use, one can add a PC for not much more than the price of VPC + OS and, if space is a problem, as it is for me, build an inexpensive Athlon PC with a Shuttle case and put in a KVM switch to keep to a single keyboard and monitor.

    We have 3 shuttles with 2400+ processors, 256MB ram, 80GB drives, running Windows 2000 Pro. We already had flat panel monitors which the iBook users mirror when sitting at a desk, so it was simple to place a KVM between their external keyboard/mouse and monitor. The cost of the box was less than $400 each and that included an OEM Radeon 9000 Pro in each of them, which is not really necessary for standard 2D work as they come with decent graphics built in for modest 2D work.

    I just don't see the gains for running VPC on a desktop Mac considering the low price of PC hardware; but for a laptop, it's really handy and since there's not much chance of a G5 laptop anytime soon, we can hope there will be a workable solution when and if the G5 architecture comes to Powerbooks.

    1. Re:For desktop users, just add a PC by absurdhero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:For desktop users, just add a PC by ackme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I got a 2Ghz Dell PC with XP Pro, plus a gig of RAM and a 120 gig hard drive for about $500. I use MS Remote Desktop Connection Client for Mac (free). Add a hub and voila! Windows on Mac 12" Powerbook with no pesky emulation lag.

      It ain't $100, but if you already spent the money for a Mac...

  12. Why would Microsoft cripple VPC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why would Microsoft cripple VPC? by clifyt · · Score: 2, Informative

      "That reasonig may have been behind Bill's "investment" of $150 million about 5 years ago"

      Apple had like 4 Billion in liquid assets at the time...not including the intellectual properties easily worth that much.

      Apple was never in trouble. This was payback in a face saving move to keep Bill from admitting guilt in a long standard lawsuit against him by Apple. In the end, they STILL made money on this deal even though it wasn't supposed to go down that way. More power to M$ on that deal...

  13. 2001 interview with Jeshua Lacock about WinTel by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 3, Informative
    The interview is here:

    You'll have to scroll down a lot to get to the actual interview.

  14. FInk FAQ by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 3, Informative
    Here is Fink's reaction:

    Fink Relations with OpenOSX

    Note: This page represents the view of Fink project leader Christoph Pfisterer. Other people, including other Fink project members, may have different views.

    Here's the story of the relations between the Fink project and OpenOSX. It is unpleasant, but I feel that is has to be made public.

    OpenOSX is a business that sells a range of CDs of Open Source applications. The GIMP CD they sell is based to a large part of Fink 0.2.1. Until very recently, the OpenOSX web site made no mention at all of Fink, and as far as I can tell, the CDs themselves still contain no hints. My impression (and that of many others) was that OpenOSX did all the porting - which has now turned out to be wrong.

    I was never contacted by OpenOSX about their usage of Fink. Instead, I was notified of the situation by a third party. What followed was a rather unpleasant e-mail conversation with OpenOSX owner Jeshua Lacock. The net result? We almost broke into a flame war and OpenOSX has slightly modified their web site to cover their tracks. They still don't have the courage to openly say which parts are their work and which parts aren't. It also appears they don't want to cooperate with the rest of the Mac OS X Open Source community, and Jeshua doesn't feel like responding to my mails as promised.

    I encourage everyone to read the e-mail exchange that led to this and judge for themselves. (Be warned that it's quite lengthy, though.)

    -Christoph Pfisterer

    Copyright(C)2001-03 TheFinkProject
    Last changed by chrisp on Thu, Aug 23 2001, 05:44 GMT

  15. OpenOS X's programmer/owner and Fink by vonFinkelstien · · Score: 2, Informative
    Read Fink's e-mail correspondence with Jeshua Lacock here.

    How hard can it be to get something to add a link to fink's web-site?

    Like pulling teeth when Jeshua Lacock is involved.

  16. Do this: by BibelBiber · · Score: 5, Informative
    Run Linux on your mac, install MOL http://www.maconlinux.org (if its not yet in your Distro) and you have the possible chance to run about as many Mac OS instances as you like (or your hardware is able to serve). Its really fast and I think it as fast as run without Linux. So check that out.

    PS: Did I miss something about using Links in /.?

  17. But will it run WINE? by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Since it will run i86 Linux I guess it could run WINE on top of that. Then I could run cygwin on top of that!

    Now if only I had a PPC emulator for i86 Windows, then I could run mac OSX on top of my WINE running on Linux Running on Boch running on OSX. I could then have it running mac Classic and emulate my 68000 processor that emulated my Atari 6502.

    Finally I'll fire up a web browser, kick back and re-read Nick Bostroms "you are almost certainly living in a simulation" web page.

    The only problem would be not knowing which window to close when I was done.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  18. Mac On Linux is your answer by MarcQuadra · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's a solution:

    Get a beefy Apple machine that meets your needs (new dualie G5?). Get it with more than one hard drive. put LINUX (I prefer Gentoo to get the optimizations I like) on it, install MOL (Mac On Linux) and make up raw disk images for any Mac OS systems you want to try out. MOL works really well, and it can handle multiple concurrent instances, IIRC. And while you won't have graphics _acceleration_ the overall speed is comparable to classic (about 95% of normal speed) because it's NOT an emulator, it's basically VMWare for the PowerPC.

    I use MOL to play A-10 Attack on OS9 when I get overbored.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  19. Remote Desktop Connection by pario · · Score: 3, Informative
    If you have a mac and a PC running XP, try Remote Desktop Connection. Whenever I need to do something on my PC, I just run RDC on my Powerbook to log on to XP. It feels like I am directly running XP on my mac.

    This is a much better solution than VPC, IMHO, considering that you can buy a really cheap Windows box and every application runs natively this way.