Cherry OS Claims Mac OS X Capability For x86

jediboytj writes "According to the MacWorld Article, Cherry OS, does what Virtual PC does for Macs, only the opposite. PC Users are now able to run Mac OSX at G4 Speeds (Company claims 80% of the speed of your PC). It also includes full hardware support: hard drive, CPU, RAM, FireWire, USB, PCI, PCMCIA bus, Ethernet networking and modem. The software is being distributed through electronic download at $49.99 USD..." Note: it does not come with a copy of any Apple OS. Anyone in Windowsland tried it to provide a thumbs up (or down)?

Comments

Finally...

[Daimaou]

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.

Looks... non-existent

[Rosyna]

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.

Gentlemen, start your binary diff tools..

[SiW]

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

Re:one problem

[The Bungi]

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

[JQuick]

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

[b-baggins]

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.

Re:Thievery

[JQuick]

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.

Moderators, lay off the crack!

[John Harrison]

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.

I think it's a scam, i.e Fraud

[theolein]

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:Why Apple won't do that?

[TheInternet]

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:

1. Next already pursued a strategy like this. If Steve Jobs decided to not do it again, there *might* be a good reason
2. How many copies would actually be purchased vs pirated?
3. Some of the desireable features of Mac OS X rely on intergration with underlying hardware
4. 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

FULL hardware support? I think not...

[GFLPraxis]

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.