+

What I find most interesting in the article are the number of Windows users who cling to their Dells, yet desperately want to use Mac OS X. What will it take for them to make the leap?

With the speed degredation of "virtual" OSs. the only thing the pc owner will say is that it is too slow. Exactly what they always say about our processors, eventhough Intel itself as already promoted the truth behind the Mghz myth...

As someone who has had to use VPC on a 667 PB I know that it will be slow and there will probably be problems with allotting memory - making it slower.

There will be those that want to look at OS X and will give it a try -I just hope that they don't end up thinking that Macs are as also as OS X on their Dull.

I suspect that most people will probably use this in the same manner that Mac users utilize Virtual PC--for things like cross-checking browser compatibility (for website developers) and apps which aren't processor-intensive at all (for instance, I use VPC specifically because I have an old copy of QuickBooks Pro 2000 for Windows, and didn't want to lay out another couple hundred bucks for the Mac version).

The uses are limited, but *are* there.

I could use this for creating test machines for OS X software development. VMware is widely used for the same purpose for Windows development, so this could actually be very helpful for the Mac development community. I think they should consider making an OS X binary download available on their site for this purpose. I'm too lazy to build it myself.

If you've had it with the slow, buggy, overpriced Macs and finally decide to join the other 98% who want a 3+Ghz machine at a reasonable price that runs the latest games, works on all web sites, and has a ton more software at lower prices, then this emulator could let you run can't-do-without Mac apps on your PC.

Of course there can't be too many can't-do-without Mac apps since 98% don't use them, but this emulator is a good security blanket for Mac ditchers, at least they would have the ability to run their old Mac programs.

While I appreciate the audacity and the desire for geek bragging rights, these guys have waaay too much time on their hands. I almost spewed my coffee when I heard that they'd need a 150GHz processor to run OS-X in real time. I have no doubt they chortle with glee at 4am when they acheive a successful drag-n-drop after 12 hours of waiting!

This has a loooooong way to go b4 it's more than a curiousity to the PC world. Strange that they are so attracted to Macs as to devote this much effort to it, but still too repelled by REAL Apple hardware to do the obvious easier thing: go buy a Mac... and a LIFE!

By the time they get the bugs out and the speed up we'll all be cruising around on OS-XIV anyway!

-Ken P

Oh come on Ken. Don't be such a fuddy-duddy. The software is free and these fine students have volunteered their efforts to ensure that everyone who owns an x86 box can run Mac OS X now! Within days, Windows market share should be down to 5% or less.

Go free!

Yeah, Ken, give these folks a break.

Seriously, though, as Vern noted, the project is in its infancy. Connectix had a team of paid folks working on VPC, and even then it improved dramatically with time. I imagine the PearPC project will improve, too.

In the meanwhile, I think the whole thing is very interesting.

If this works, albeit slowly, there will be a lot of Windows users who will get their first taste of OSX. They will then know how to use it when they next visit the computer store, meaning they aren't just going to ignore the Apple machines. Just think how much faster and more usable OSX is going to seem to them when they play on it on a real Mac.

This will make a lot more switchers than Apple managed.

Has anyone tried Jaguar running Virtual PC running PearPC running Panther? This might be a really good way to move Jaguar users to Panther without having to actually move them.

Also, any plans to port PearPC to the 680x0 or 6502? I manage a large lab of Mac SEs and Apple ][+s and it would be really good to get them all running Panther.

Thanks!

YIKES! Don't give them any ideas?!!!!! Even this "fuddy duddy" appreciates the humor of this guest's post!

BTW- I'm just jealous of ANYbody who has a lot of free time, whether they're building a bridge out of toothpicks, creating the biggest floppy-disk RAID, or building Battlebots!

-Ken P (back to work!)

It took/takes heaps of dollars to make VPC usable on a mac. Note the word "usable".

And I'm surprised people think this will make people switch. I don't see many people buying copies of Panther to test run on their PC's. I don't even see them go through the trouble of copying Panther in good PC tradition. Why not go to an Apple store or a friend and see what the fuss is all about.

I wouldn't buy VPC in order to see what a Windows PC is. I'd go visit a friend, play a game or two, see the thing crash, see his vast catalogue of pirated software and make a decision based on that experience.

But regardless of its actual use - I bet someone (other developers) will find a use, I think it's a cool thing to do and hope they can make it into a good, solid package.

Potential emulator speed issues aside this could help get more people to switch to Macintosh. Once someone sees how elegant software runs under OSX they may realize just how clunky things are under Windows. I helped a close friend switch to the Mac last year and he has stated numerous times that he wish he had made the change years ago.

If you ever tried Basilisk II, the 68xxx emulator, it actually runs faster than any real 68xxx mac ever did. It is blazingly fast on a 2+ Ghz Athlon running MacOS 8.1. But even if you run it on a 200MHz Pentium, it isn't that bad (68xxx topped out at about 100Mhz I think). Someone who understands these things much better (a Connectix tech support guy I think) said Mac emulation on a PC (at least 68xxx emulation) will always be faster than PC emulation on a Mac (i.e., Virtual PC). something to do with 72 bit words on a Pentium vs. 64 bit words on a 68xxx. Wonder if that is still true for the powerPC chip.

Hello all,
Been thinking about this since posting that article, and I'm beginning to think that emulators may create false images of OS X in the minds of would be switchers.

A person plays around with some slow, buggy emulator and the last thing he or she remembers is it being slow and buggy, they'll forget or, even worse, remember incorrectly, that they were running OS X on an emulator ON TOP OF another OS or chip set.

People tend to forget the details, and even if they remember, the slow and buggy installation may have left a sour taste in their mouths.

All of this leads me to think emulation of Mac ain't so hot afterall.

Heck, just look at VPC or VMWare, both are slow and neither gives you a positive view of life on the PC. True, life on PCs suck, but it sucks even more in VPC or VMWare.

So, while this is interesting, it ultimately won't do Apple any good.

My opinion, of course.

Vern Seward

If these guys would find a way to embed Panther in PearPC so that it could just run iTunes. Then Windows users could run iTunes the way it is supposed to be run and not just as that cheap knock-off being peddled to them now. If Windows users could see iTunes as it is supposed to be, I bet they would buy iPods. What do you think?

I don't see the Windows version of iTunes as a "cheap knock-off". Apple has tried to insure that the Windows version has as much of the functionality of the Mac version as possible, given the differences in platforms. PC users with iPods can do the same things Mac users can. In fact, the only general problems I've heard of about iTunes on Windows usually comes from folks trying to make it work on unsupported version of Windows (Win 98, ME, etc). Beyond that (and some hardware configuration issues) iTunes for Windows is a Windows app.

Vern Seward

Food for thought. Better software development and Moore's law could lead to this being viable enough to run in the real world someday. No need for Apple ROMs. Someone could sell an Intel box for $300 plus $130 for OS X. It's a long shot, but not out of the realm of the possible.

Still dumb for those who know better (get an eMac).

I for one would love an OSX emulator. In flow cytometry, many of th enewer macines are Windows based, but for years and years, the only analyis and acquisition software available that was even remotely functional was for the Mac. This was a result of the dogged persistence of BDBiosciences and the fact that most of the work was being done at universities with their Mac predilection.

Now that machine manufacturers are shipping windows based systems with their woefully pathetic analysis software, the makers of the best 3rd party analysis software are working hard to port to Win2000, but they are not moving as fast as I need.

So I am going to try PearPC before someone yanks it for copyright infringement, and maybe I'll be lucky and it'll work to my satisfaction.

-CB

to be a starting point.

Since PC price/performance outshines the Mac by several degrees of magnitude, it's only a matter of time before running a Mac OS as an experimental novelty is trivial. It won't take a lot of time before running OS whatever at comparable operating speeds will be possible.

The only reason I can gather that one would WANT to do this is pure novelty. I can't imagine any reason for a PC user to emulate a platform with comparatively fewer available software packages and a more skittish interface - except as a novelty.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:


Since PC price/performance outshines the Mac by several degrees of magnitude...