Slashdot Mirror
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 $49.99 USD..." Note: it does not come with a copy of any Apple OS. Anyone in Windowsland tried it to provide a thumbs up (or down)?
sukaaaz!
Someone popped the cherry...
Hehe piss Micro$oft off and give them a taste of their own medicine :)
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever..."
Version Information: Microsoft .NET Framework Version:1.1.4322.573; ASP.NET Version:1.1.4322.573
i've always wanted something like this! now only if i could get it illegally.... i think i am in the top 20 or 30 of posters for this link, i feel special.
Not no way, not no how it can be that fast.
the x86 chip is considerably less powerfull than RISC chips
For more flexibility with the hardware. You can use a cheap $200 box or a $3000 beast as you please, with the peripherals you like.
Even more important on laptops - Apple hardware has been plagued with issues recently. If I can have the beauty of OSX without logic board failures, broken hinges, dodgy backlights, case markings... well, that'd be cool.
Read: MOST people don't have that stable of an installation of Windows to begin with.
/. crowd is quite different that the average user. They keep up on routine maintenance, patches, and security fixes (most of which require a reboot anyway).
The
The average user doesn't have a clue what windows update is except for that little icon in the bottom corner of their screen that keeps nagging at them and won't go away until they hit the little "X" in the window.
I wasn't speaking in all-encompasing terms, so don't get offended when I tell you that MOST Windows machines out there aren't incredibly stable.
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
osX sucks
You say most of your development is on ix86 machines. Glad to know you don't use AMD chips. So anyhow what systems is the rest of your development on?
So it's not worth the cost for you to buy a Mac to do Windows and Linux development? Did you JUST figure that out?
Do you honestly think that an emulated processor and random PC hardware are going to provide a reliable setup for testing OS X apps? And what are you just going to suddenly decide to dable in OS X development and suddenly create some app that people are going to want?
And trust me the eMac will be faster than any emulation you are going to be doing! I mean god man what would you be writing that would run slowly on a 1.25Ghz G4 anyhow?? What kind of software do you write? Nevermind I don't think I want to know.
I have not worked with or even looked at either instruction set. Nonetheless your average application will spend only a small percentage of its time using Altivec (certain apps like video encoders and editors, and similar programs will almost not certainly function at 80% speed) and most of Altivec should be emulatable through the use of the common x86-compatible processor vector operations. I suspect that the most commonly used instructions will map 1:1, except for endian-ness, because they will by definition be most commonly implemented.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I smell a Mac Zealot!
I just want to be the first person to tell you-- you're a complete moron and a dyed in the wool fanboy if I've ever seen one.
There's nothing overtly difficult about Apple releasing an x86 version of MacOS X, especially since it's based on a flava of *nix now. Hell, modern G4/G5's use ATI videocards not much unlike what you get for a PC, so that throws the most difficult device to account for out the window. As for those other devices in PC's? It'd just give device manufacturers a reason to target drivers for MacOS X on x86. Then Apple would only need to provide a bare minimum to get running (SVGA, detecting and utilizing common audio and networking hardware, etc).
It's not exactly like asking somebody to part the waters or anything...
The only reason Apple won't release an x86 version of OS X is because it'd totally decimate their hardware sales and put them in direct competition with Microsoft (you know, those nice gents in Redmond that put out 50% of the software that makes using a Mac worthwhile. Clue: The other 50% is written by Adobe).
All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
And why's that tough guy? Shut your hole. Mommy has your poptarts ready so you can keep reading /. and be the wannabe you are.
"That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go."
Wow, and people used to say that Apple users were elitist assholes who ultimately adopt the Jobs-esque communications approach of condescension and hostility....I thought that was an unfair stereotype until now.
It's just odd to see some stereotypes are in fact true....
I don't mean "you," personally, of course. ;-)
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
This could work out. The reasons why I would NOT get a mac are that they are slower and cost MUCH more than equivalent PCs, but more importantly, can't run Windows. Meaning that they can't run my games. And trust me, Cedega under Linux on PowerPC isn't going to run them much better than a Palm would run Unreal Tournament--I have friends that have tried, and, uh, friends that have failed. But now that Mac OS X is available on the PC (and is fast), perhaps I can use a fast, cheap PC to run OS X. But a problem I see is that... Macs only have a chance vs. PCs because they have very efficient architecture. Apple doesn't have nearly enough money to compete with Intel or AMD, so they use a more efficient architecture. But since they write the OS also, they can take advantage of that. However, OS X applications will run quite slow under Windows machines because they are optimized for PowerPC, not x86. So I expect that OSX will not actually be used for much serious video/image editing... it may end up becoming more of a novelty than an actual useful OS.
Shame my lemon hardware humps your non-standard, meterosexual-look hardware eh?
WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE GET THIS? You're not a thief if you download music illegally (or do some similar act). It is not stealing! Therefore, someone who does it is not a thief. They are a copyright infringer. Oh and by the way, the concept of intent is not a new one in law. For example, manslaughter is not the same as murder.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Who the hell modded this bollocks insightful, window transparency, shadows, and various other pretty effects all existed prior to quartz extreme.
Everything still works without quartz extreme, as many of the machines still officially supported by OS X are not QE capable.
Please someone with a brain mod this down to -1 Troll where it should be.