Cherry OS Claims Mac OS X Capability For x86

Finally... by Daimaou · 2004-10-12 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've always wanted to try OS X to see if I'd like it, but I've always thought buying a Mac was an expensive way to "test drive" OS X, and thus have never done so. $50.00 on the otherhand is quite reasonable, I think. Perhaps I'll finally give OS X a try.

Re:Finally... by krunk7 · 2004-10-12 06:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

I find nothing morally wrong with downloading a torrent if your intentions are to "try before you buy". I do this with every game before I buy. I give it a week, if I like it I buy it.....every time.
So try osx, just make sure you give it fair shake, the first time I tried it I didn't particularly care for it. But after giving it a thorough try out (e.g. not just fiddling in spare time, but used as my main os for a month) I never put it down.
cheers,
-james
Re:Finally... by Trolling4Dollars · 2004-10-12 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yesssss... but have you paid for it now??? ;P

--
Un-news

Looks... non-existent by Rosyna · 2004-10-12 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The screenshots are missing (last I checked), the site is full of spelling errors and they called it "Apple Install Shield". It being Installer.app, I guess?

Emulating a G3 at 80% might be within the realm of possibility if I was on LSD. However, saying you can do a G4 (which implies AltiVec) is just not possible. Seriously. That'd be like emulating SSE3 on a G5. Ain't gonna happen.

Re:Looks... non-existent by dalutong · 2004-10-12 06:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would guess they won't because either 1) they have some no-compete-on-x86 clause with their deal with MS or 2) they couldn't have quite as nice an experience with x86 -- if you don't control the hardware it is much harder to have such a nice stable system

--

What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Re:Looks... non-existent by forkazoo · 2004-10-12 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

That, and there would be no apps, a huge amount of cost for technical support, and if 100% of the Apple user base switched over to OS/X x86 (by some miracle every app ever was ported), THEY WOULD STOP BUYING MACS!

Apple has had an "escape plan" for years. The original plan was called Star Trek, and it was a port of classic Mac OS. Now, it's called "If we wanted, we could recompile the GUI for almost any platform gcc targets in probably a few hours."
Re:Looks... non-existent by forkazoo · 2004-10-12 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Have you actually worked with either instruction set? "It's probable that most instructions will map directly" is not a compelling technical argument. I'm not going to clasim to be an expert, but I have dealt in passing with both SSE and Alti-Vec. There isn't a 1:1 mapping. Even if there was, the differences in register layout make emulating AltiVec a bit inconvenient, to say the least.

I'm trying to boggle over how exactly one would go about trying to do it. My brain keeps insisting that register starvation really is an issue. I guess they just have a lot of stuff sitting in L1 cache, and keep a really tight loop for the emulator core. Regardless of the actual marketing claims, if it works, I'm impressed. They should just be very careful about letting Marketing make empty promises. If they fail to deliver, they are sunk, and have no credibility. If they had just made no speed specific claims, they wouldn't have to worry about failing to live up to them.

Re:one problem by ShdwStkr · 2004-10-12 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

behind on your security patches then, are you? :)

Re:but.. by yamla · 2004-10-12 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Most of my software development takes place on ix86 machines, targetting Windows and less often, Linux. It just isn't worth the cost for me to buy an Apple computer.

I'm not saying they aren't good value for money or anything. But if I could compile and test software for OS X on my ix86 system, that could well be worth the purchase price of the software and a license for OS X. Provided, of course, it is fully compatible and runs at a decent speed.

Heck, if they really are close to 80%, this is a pretty good deal. If I was to buy Apple hardware anyway, just for testing, I'd likely end up with a 1.25 Ghz eMac or whatever. The emulation route would result in a much faster OS X system for me as my ix86 computer is generally always quite high-end.

--

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:From the CherryOS Site: by Feneric · 2004-10-12 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

I personally find it hard to trust a company that's supposedly created a full G4 emulator capable of running Mac OS 10.3 but still hasn't figured out the difference in computer land between Mac and MAC.

Re:I have no idea by vhold · 2004-10-12 06:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's really a double edged sword for Apple.

Pro: PC users buying Mac OS, PC users buying Mac OS software, PC users going 'Hmm Mac is great, I think I'll just buy a Mac for my next computer'. Basically it way lowers the bar for introduction to the platform, seems like a MASSIVE win for Apple.

Con: Mac users not really utilizing their macs from a horsepower perspective, they are just browsing internet, email, a few things, they think, hmm, I could buy a cheap Dell, put this on there, and probably have an ok machine... hmm. Or... Mac users with an inclination towards games, it's an obvious win for them to have a real PC for games and use MacOS for absolutely everything else that isn't nearly as performance related. Aka: -Actual- hardware competition for Apple.. That alone will probably drive Apple into a frenzy.

I personally think the pros outweigh the cons, just simply because there are a ton of people that will never even try Mac simply because of the high cost and risk of introduction. This could lower that bar to almost nonexistant.

Gentlemen, start your binary diff tools.. by SiW · 2004-10-12 06:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

..because 10 bucks says this rips off PearPC wholesale.

Re:one problem by The+Bungi · 2004-10-12 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Rebooting for a mere driver upgrade is ridiculous

But compiling the driver and then crapping around /etc for thirty minutes isn't.

It's a desktop PC. God will kill no kittens and the world will not come to an end if you reboot once in a while. If you do not want to reboot a desktop PC it's either because you have some psychological issues or you're running some mission-critical application on it, which is dumb to begin with.

Thievery by JQuick · 2004-10-12 06:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Downloading a stolen copy of the OS is just plain wrong.

Apple paid 400 million dollars to buy NeXT. They then spent years of development effort integrating their older MacOS technologies to ensure backward compatibility. They released the resulting core OS for free use (in source code no less). They base a number of their core utility software on OpenSource products, and contribute much source code back to the community.

If you are running a BSD Unix, or running Linix, chances are you are already benefiting from Apple contributions to open source projects on a daily basis.

Ooh, you say, now we can pirate their GUI development utilities and application software! Grow up!

Why would you benefit from doing so? Because the software is worth using, will save you time, and will be enjoyable. If you benefit from a product or service, show some respect for those people responsible for providing it.

If you are not willing to pay anything, then use what is given for free. They respect and contribute to both GNU and BSD based projects.

If you are not willing to buy a new machine, then look on eBay, or online retailers who specialize in repairing and reselling older Mac hardware.

Yes, the software is damn good. No, they currently do not sell it on Intel hardware (either native or emulated).

Whether you or I like that or not, is beside the point. Using tools which improve your productivity or quality of life is worth something to you. If it is worthwhile, put up or shut up. In the open source world, contribute money or time to help improve it. In the commercial world, buy the product, and help fund further improvements.

Re:Thievery by b-baggins · 2004-10-12 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nice rationalization. However, people who still have their common-sense morality working know that, morally, there's no difference. You are taking something that does not belong to you without paying for it.

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Re:Thievery by Ford+Prefect · 2004-10-12 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Theft or stealing has the implication of denial of the object from the original owner as a necessary part of it's definition.

Well, you can steal a kiss or steal a glance, neither of which involve the denial of an object from an original owner - and 'he stole my ideas!' is a valid, well-understood statement in English. 'Copyright theft' is also a valid, well-understood statement, much to the chagrin of many Slashdotters it would appear.

Why are people so worked up about this issue? Are they trying to rewrite the English language so they don't feel so guilty about something?

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Re:Thievery by mildness · 2004-10-12 08:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

If ran off without paying for a haircut is that theft? Yes. You robbed him of his product even though there is no physical object for you to see.
It is called "theft of services".
And the fellow who says it's not stealing if he would not pay for it in the first place too high to talk too now. I'll post another note when he's had a chance to come down.
(:-{)}
Cheers
Bill

--
bamph
Re:Thievery by JQuick · 2004-10-12 09:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

The court system (both federal, and most states) does not agree with you.

You are correct that until rather recently most statutes concerning theft did correspond to older dictionary definitions requiring that a physical object be missing of that an object be moved from its rightful place.

However in 20th century statutes using the word "theft" began appearing which no longer rely on that old definition.

Statutes for theft of service, involving electrical power define unpaid use of electricity as theft. You have not stolen electrons, merely some of the motive power they convey. Legally however this is a from of theft. Later, theft of service in other forms was legislated. Tapping into a cable TV feed, receiving and decrypting real time stock ticker information broadcast over radio, are all considered theft by both federal and state laws.

In the latter form, you have deprived no-one of use of their property. You have however, attempted to derive personal benefit from something for which you have not paid.

On legal grounds your definition of theft appears unsound.

I see many problems with intellectual property and patent laws which no longer serve the public. Their intent was to provide a short time limited monopoly which was to spur innovation, and then devolve to the public domain and benefit everyone. In my opinion the grant of limited monopoly is no longer limited, and the benefit to the public vastly reduced. However that is a matter of politics, not of pragmatics or ethics.

I agree with your opinion that copying aught to be somehow different. However, ethically and pragmatically it still feels like theft. Legally, it also looks like theft.

Admitting that it is an illegal act, but insisting it is not theft is mere hair splitting.
Re:Thievery by Geoffreyerffoeg · 2004-10-12 13:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not quite. You really don't have to deprive them of anything.

My local Sam's Club has to discard unpurchased rotisserie ribs every evening lest they go bad. Is it theft if I take one about 10 minutes before closing (before they've discarded it) without paying for it?

Yes. There's nothing you're depriving them of, there's nothing they'd lose, but it's still theft, because you've taken something from them without permission.

Moderators, lay off the crack! by John+Harrison · 2004-10-12 06:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

How is this insightful? Of course the software cost more than $50 to develop. They probably plan on selling more than one copy before getting sued into oblivion by Apple. For all you know Cherry OS hired a bunch of guys in India to write the thing and it did cost $50. In any case prices are governed by the law of supply and demand and not by you.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

I think it's a scam, i.e Fraud by theolein · 2004-10-12 07:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

For one thing, I just did a couple of whois on cherryos.com, all of whose contacts are listed as arben kryeziu, whose email is given as arben@bumpnetworks.com. Do a whois on bumpnetworks.com (which is a run of the mill web development company according to its website) and you get all the tech contacts as arben@kryeziu.com, which is a simple holding site, obviously the guy's own.

Now, this Arben Kryeziu guy is the one in the, of all things, java video player on the video link site.

So this guy has time to run a web development company, be the tech and admin contacts for all the sites, and run a PPC emulation development outfit on the side? I seriously doubt it.

Not that it might be possible, who knows, but companies such as Connectix (now owned by Microsoft) spent literally years, getting their x86 emulators up to about 1/4 of the speed of the host PPC CPU. And this guy has done it on his own, with a tiny outfit in no time and with no news announcements, and got it to run at 3/4 the host x86 system? I doubt it again.

And then, he sells the whole thing for $50????? And only by electronic download???? With a PDF manual that closely resembles the PearPC effort???? Has anyone actually downloaded this and paid the guy his $50???? Has anyone seen it run???

Even in that weird video (why no wmv, why no real, why no quicktime?) where he supposedly "demonstrates" the application, you don't actually see it running.

My guess is that, if the application really does run, it is simply a PearPC wrapper and runs at around 1/10th or less of the host speed. (Notice the typical marketing "up to 80% of the host" x86 system?)

I have nothing against Albanians (Kryeziu is an albanian name, listen to the guy's accent), but I think the guy is trying to make a quick buck off the hopefuls who want Mac OSX but won't or can't buy a Mac.

We'll see when the first real reports come in of how and if this thing performs, but if it truly is what he claims it to be, which I seriously doubt, then he has one big hurdle and that is Apple's EULA, which states that Mac OSX is only allowed to be run on Apple branded hardware.

Re:Could this actually help apple? by forkazoo · 2004-10-12 08:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, you really think that people are going to spend $50 for an emulator, and over $100 for the OS, so that they can emulate a platform they barely know exists? And then, the slow performance of non-native operation, the lack of the slick full user experience, and the quirks that are in every real-world emulator... All this will inspire them to buy a Mac?

IMHO, this is a system targetted for people who already have a base of Mac OS apps that they want or need to use, and have an existing investment in PC hardware. For example, somebody who needs a laptop, and wants to use it for games, so they have to get a PC, but also occasionally needs Safari for testing web pages, or X Code to do cross platform builds on the road.

I love my iBook, and I love OS-X, but there are relatively few reasons I'd feel a need to run it on my Dell.

Re:Why Apple won't do that? by adzoox · 2004-10-12 09:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why is $529 for a 17" Monitor, CPU ,and keyboard/mouse + TONS of awesome software - with a one year Apple Warranty too much for you?

See the Apple Store special deals section.

--
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny

Re:Ummmm... darwin... by Graymalkin · 2004-10-12 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

The underlying OS is open source and there's yet to be a massive influx of ported *BSD and Linux drivers. There's been a handful of projects porting specific classes of drivers but no large scale efforts. Apple is not structured to be Red Hat and it isn't likely they would ever want to be. Red Hat survives by the skin of its teeth most of the time.

Quicktime is an extremely powerful media framework that pervades the entirety of MacOS. There's no open source equivalent to Quicktime. There's lots of open source media libraries but nothing quite like Quicktime. Open source projects attract some of the most talented software developers in the world. It isn't like Apple's software people are better than anyone else necessarily. They are however being paid to do something (such as make a pervasive media framework in the OS) fulltime. They aren't trying to write such a system in their spare time between going to school and working part time. It is entirely unlikely that a bazaar model of development would have ever conceived of something like Quicktime let alone actually built it. The fact that there's no pervasive media framework in Linux right now is good evidense of that claim I think .There's people that could design and build it but they don't necessarily have the resources or interest to. The Quicktime developers at Apple are being paid to develop Quicktime.

As such relying on people writing software in their spare time is not condusive to being an industry innovator. Many open source projects exist to build FOS versions of closed source commercial products. There's very few open source projects in existance with the goal of "make a computer easier for everyone to use".

--
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.

Re:Why Apple won't do that? by TheInternet · 2004-10-12 10:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

bothered me for some time now is why Apple won't release OS X for Intel platform

There was a whole thread about this just a few days ago.

In fact OS X is a really great, consequently designed GUI on top of a robust BSD Unix. It should be rather portable by nature

It is. The challenges aren't purely technical.

Possibly achieving binary compatibility for software would be a problem

Next solved these problems a while ago.

Why Apple won't do it? Maybe because they don't want to get into Microsoft's gun sight?

There are a lot of reasons. Keep a few things in mind:

Next already pursued a strategy like this. If Steve Jobs decided to not do it again, there *might* be a good reason
How many copies would actually be purchased vs pirated?
Some of the desireable features of Mac OS X rely on intergration with underlying hardware
Do you really think you'd ever see an Office for Mac OS X x86?

There's no question people want everything everything Apple has to offer without actually buying any hardware, but it doesn't make any sense to do if such an action destroys Apple and Mac OS X development in the process.

- Scott

--
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas

FULL hardware support? I think not... by GFLPraxis · 2004-10-12 10:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Reading the article, it says that it claims full hardware support, and lists:
" It also includes full hardware support: hard drive, CPU, RAM, FireWire, USB, PCI, PCMCIA bus, Ethernet networking and modem."

No graphics card listed. Usually, that's not a big problem, BUT, Mac OS X uses Quartz Extreme to render all the windows in 3d with shadows and fancy coloring. No graphics card = horrid windowing performance.

So does this use graphics card? Because if it doesn't, we're going to have choppy windows jumping around, performance loss when you move the mouse over the dock, choppy Expose, etc. And graphics card isn't listed.

Slashdot Mirror

Cherry OS Claims Mac OS X Capability For x86

26 of 1,090 comments (clear)