• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

mac os on pc

PearPC.
Macintosh machines _are_ Personal Computers. 😉
There are internal builds for x86 based processors, but so far no leaks.

EDIT: Oh yeah, search.
 
Originally posted by: SUOrangeman
Anyone try Darwin/OpenDarwin?

I've downloaded it, but have yet to give it a shot.

-SUO
Click to expand...

I'm using it right now on my powerbook, but I suspect it won't be as good without the Apple parts. 😛
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: wallsfd949
Cherry OS
I can't comment on how well this works, but the early reviews indicated a 3Ghz P4 would emulate a ~1Ghz G4
Click to expand...

Wasn't that just the repackaged pearpc stuff? 😕
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was basically found out to be a big hoax/scam, whatever.




KeyserSoze
 
is everyone else crossing their fingers on longhorn? xp was a upgrade yet some of xp's services and physical look sucked the ram right out of the comp. i can not count how many comps get bloated from all the meager bull s*** progs running on them
 
Originally posted by: hatim
just bumping this thread with all the rumours of apple finally moving to x86. When will we see OSx on our desktops? 😛
Click to expand...

You won't. If you somehow do get by the restrictions Apple will put to make sure no one does this (probably a hardware restriction), there's the issue of drivers. OS X will not include any drivers needed to run on a white-box PC.
 
Originally posted by: SLCentral
Originally posted by: hatim
just bumping this thread with all the rumours of apple finally moving to x86. When will we see OSx on our desktops? 😛
Click to expand...

You won't. If you somehow do get by the restrictions Apple will put to make sure no one does this (probably a hardware restriction), there's the issue of drivers. OS X will not include any drivers needed to run on a white-box PC.
Click to expand...

Mach is open, the FreeBSD-derived personality that runs on top of it is open, and the basic userland is open. It's possible to make OSX work on any hardware, if you can keep from breaking API/ABI compatability with Apple's binary components, while still adding the drivers. Because if you can get such a kernel underneath the OSX components, you can lie about the hardware to your heart's desire, and the applications won't know the difference (this is the same principle by which rootkits work, except that a good rootkit has to insert itself into a live kernel 😛).
 
Originally posted by: bersl2
Originally posted by: SLCentral
Originally posted by: hatim
just bumping this thread with all the rumours of apple finally moving to x86. When will we see OSx on our desktops? 😛
Click to expand...

You won't. If you somehow do get by the restrictions Apple will put to make sure no one does this (probably a hardware restriction), there's the issue of drivers. OS X will not include any drivers needed to run on a white-box PC.
Click to expand...

Mach is open, the FreeBSD-derived personality that runs on top of it is open, and the basic userland is open. It's possible to make OSX work on any hardware, if you can keep from breaking API/ABI compatability with Apple's binary components, while still adding the drivers. Because if you can get such a kernel underneath the OSX components, you can lie about the hardware to your heart's desire, and the applications won't know the difference (this is the same principle by which rootkits work, except that a good rootkit has to insert itself into a live kernel 😛).
Click to expand...

Have fun writing drivers :beer:. LOL, though I suppose it would be worth it to be able to run OS X.
 
Apple will make sure that you won't be able to run OSX on any PeeCee out there. Now, I know there is someone out there that will figure out how, but with the amout of work that person will have to do it will hardly be worth it. Lets just put it this way, I can't wait to buy my next Powerbook... it's going to put my current one to shame. All the benifits of OSX and the beauity of a powerbook w/ the speed and power usage of a P-M... hehe...
 
Originally posted by: bersl2
Mach is open, the FreeBSD-derived personality that runs on top of it is open, and the basic userland is open. It's possible to make OSX work on any hardware, if you can keep from breaking API/ABI compatability with Apple's binary components, while still adding the drivers. Because if you can get such a kernel underneath the OSX components, you can lie about the hardware to your heart's desire, and the applications won't know the difference (this is the same principle by which rootkits work, except that a good rootkit has to insert itself into a live kernel 😛).
Click to expand...
Errmm, you still can't get the proprietary code to run on another architecture without either the source code or an instruction set emulator (like Rosetta 😛 I wonder if you could get Aqua running on Rosetta?)
 
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: bersl2
Mach is open, the FreeBSD-derived personality that runs on top of it is open, and the basic userland is open. It's possible to make OSX work on any hardware, if you can keep from breaking API/ABI compatability with Apple's binary components, while still adding the drivers. Because if you can get such a kernel underneath the OSX components, you can lie about the hardware to your heart's desire, and the applications won't know the difference (this is the same principle by which rootkits work, except that a good rootkit has to insert itself into a live kernel 😛).
Click to expand...
Errmm, you still can't get the proprietary code to run on another architecture without either the source code or an instruction set emulator (like Rosetta 😛 I wonder if you could get Aqua running on Rosetta?)
Click to expand...

But it's no longer a different architecture...

 
Originally posted by: linuxconvert
So a dual boot XP/Tiger is out of the question?
Click to expand...
I think the general opinion is that it will be possible on Apple hardware, when that comes out. But I don't think that too many people outside of Apple really know for sure how different the rest of the hardware will be. We'll probably hear about it when people get a chance to fool around with the dev machines that Apple is renting out over the next year.
 
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: bersl2
Mach is open, the FreeBSD-derived personality that runs on top of it is open, and the basic userland is open. It's possible to make OSX work on any hardware, if you can keep from breaking API/ABI compatability with Apple's binary components, while still adding the drivers. Because if you can get such a kernel underneath the OSX components, you can lie about the hardware to your heart's desire, and the applications won't know the difference (this is the same principle by which rootkits work, except that a good rootkit has to insert itself into a live kernel 😛).
Click to expand...
Errmm, you still can't get the proprietary code to run on another architecture without either the source code or an instruction set emulator (like Rosetta 😛 I wonder if you could get Aqua running on Rosetta?)
Click to expand...
But it's no longer a different architecture...
Click to expand...
Ah, I assumed he was talking about the currently available operating system, instead of what will be coming out. My bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top