Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Alternative Operating Systems => Topic started by: wisementradingdotcom on August 24, 2005, 07:39:25 AM
-
Check out this story from about
Wired News (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,68501,00.html?tw=wn_story_mailer) "the new os x". Do you think Apple wants to be a "software company"?
-
Hi, since one years at least the PPC MAC OS X, was already avaible to run on PC with PearlPC and on AMIGA PPC with MAC-ON-Linux a.K.a. MOL :-)
The X86 MAC OS X, is much closer to a Unix with some "MAC" plugin... :lol:
-
From the reading I've done, it only works for the
developer version. Many think the full release will
foil this install, but I wonder for how long?
Plaz
-
I think when OSX for x86 does come out that hack would be there for the people who can do that kind of thing, but not for the normal person who does not know much about computers and things like that, much like runing home brew on a sony psp not every one know how to do it and not every one wants to.
-
And quite nicely it runs too! :-D
-
Wonder how it will run on my new Athlon64 4000+? :evilgrin:
-
Mac os X was running on x86 with pearpc long time ago. Maybe you refer to the guys that have accomplished to install it on x86 hardware directly?.
-
Oh, i forgot to put the link. Here it goes:
http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2005-08-10
-
Let's see what's so new about this.. NeXTSTep (from which the current AppleOS is descended from) was running on a 486 years ago..
Plus the core Unix that the Apple OS is based on Darwin has always been out on a FREE bootable Intel format disc. So what's new news here, nothing except someone broke thru their supposed digital rights management.
Let's face it Apple is now the "iPOD" company and will soon be totally a software company.. One only has to look at their hardware marketshare to see that. If their cool software ran on non-PowerPC platforms, they would and will make a whole lot more money..
-
I tried this late last week, on a spare P4 we has around at work, and it works. And works quite well *but* rosetta the emulation layer simply cant handle any apps that specifically require a G4 or G5. This throws any intensive video editting tools (such as final cut pro) out of the window but doesn't mean you'll still be able to use apps like photoshop and firefox.
If you want to try you'll also have to endeavour the pain that is installing OSX through PearPC, not a pretty sight. Especially if you are using Tiger.
8-)
-
punkpie wrote:
I tried this late last week, on a spare P4 we has around at work, and it works. And works quite well *but* rosetta the emulation layer simply cant handle any apps that specifically require a G4 or G5. This throws any intensive video editting tools (such as final cut pro) out of the window but doesn't mean you'll still be able to use apps like photoshop and firefox.
MacOSX apps compiled for x86 (http://www.xplodenet.com/blog/?page_id=9)
-
PearPC is a PowerPC emulator for Intel, we are talking about the full Intel version of OS X I believe here and the story.. Who is gonna wanna run the power pc version of applications on intel.. Why be concerned about rosetta? There will obviously be full intel releases of these applications to go with the intel version of Mac OS X..
It's really silly to think there won't be a final cut pro version for Intel, and saying that the Intel version can't handle it is just ultimate sillyness.. Apple wouldn't move to a platform that they couldn't do the same thing they could do on a G4/G5. Plus there has been professional level video editing tools in Intel machines for years like Avid's tools and let's not forget Adobe Premiere among others..
Apple and Adobe already said that Photoshop for Intel Mac OSX was a simple recompile. I would assume that an application developed in house would be the same since Apple uses it's own compiler tools that support this kinda thing (X-CODE)..
-
Who is gonna wanna run the power pc version of applications on intel.
Anyone who is currently running OSX on x86 illegaly, as the apps people need are currently PPC only.
-
you said it, "ILLEGALLY", they should wait and buy the real thing..
-
DonnyEMU wrote:
you said it, "ILLEGALLY", they should wait and buy the real thing..
It's not illegal in my country mate.
-
Got it running on VMWare (Virtual Machine) just to have a try, just like Suse Linux I have running virtually. Suse works fine, OS X is dead slow...
-
Hacked Mac OS X running on PC already!
If Apple didn't see this coming, they're even dumber than I thought. Now they won't be making money from hardware sales because people are using their existing PCs, and they won't be making money from software because people are pirating this cracked version. At least with PearPC and MOL you'd have to buy a copy of OSX to use with the emulation.
Hope their iPod sales are good enough to sustain them...
-
I think a lot of you folks are discounting too quickly. Yes,
there will be people running OS X on generic hardware, but
those with the know-how are not the target market for Apple.
What makes Apple products so attractive to many buyers is
is how the platform avoids many of the headaches of Windows
systems, due to Apple keeping the software and hardware in
house. (I apologize if I didn't word this right, but hopefully
you know what I mean). Running OS X on unauthorized hardware
obviously leaves you without any support from Apple. Again,
for those of us with the know-how, is not really problem.
Like I already said, Apple's target market is not interested
in running on a hacked system. Besides, who knows what Apple
has in store for the commercial release of OS X for x86.
C Snyder
-
I just got it running on my Celeron Laptop in native mode. It's quite 'snappy', considering I'm only running VESA graphics. If I only could get Sound and Ethernet working I would be really happy.
-
I saw this a few days ago... I'll tell ya what, if Apple were to release OSX86 for general desktop use, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. If for no other reason than the cool zoom-out app finder thingie. Screw the task bar! A *nix OS for PC with REAL application support?! Yeah, sign me up!
-
Huh?
-
billchase wrote:
Running OS X on unauthorized hardware
obviously leaves you without any support from Apple. Again,
for those of us with the know-how, is not really problem.
Like I already said, Apple's target market is not interested
in running on a hacked system.
So they don´t want those powerusers who does video,audio and servers who are looking for best price/performance? :-)
Besides, who knows what Apple
has in store for the commercial release of OS X for x86.
C Snyder
I´m sure that Apples x86 will be radically different from regular x86, different bios, no legacy stuff etc
The developer release is really just a marketing release.....
-
I also have my doubts about the final public OSx86 release being able to run on generic x86 hardware. I'm sure Apple will think of a more sophisticated hardware dongle than OS4 has.
-
billchase: Yes, there will be people running OS X on generic hardware, but those with the know-how are not the target market for Apple.
Exactly. I know some Linux people who have no trouble using a Powerbook for coding once in a while, as it's UNIX underneath, but regular people buy Macs for the snazzy interface.
Amiga should pay very close attention to how Apple handles OSX hacks.
I´m sure that Apples x86 will be radically different from regular x86, different bios, no legacy stuff etc
The developer release is really just a marketing release.....
BIOS is a given, since a modern OS doesn't use it for anything after the kernel ititializes. Real-mode BIOSes are a real pain to work with.
Legacy stuff depends where Apple gets their chipsets.
-
odin wrote:
I also have my doubts about the final public OSx86 release being able to run on generic x86 hardware. I'm sure Apple will think of a more sophisticated hardware dongle than OS4 has.
No matter how sophisticated the dongle, I'd wager there are many times as many x86 coders out there with the technical know how to crack it than the entire existing mac user base put together.
Even if it came down to a MacOnLinux style approach, it would still happen.