Is there ANY way to run OSX on a x86 processor?


Recommended Posts

aaron901    1
lol... i always thought possibility and feasibility were like synonyms...

look it up on your dictionary and it tells you they are synonyms. but let's put it this way, it is possible that somebody can emulate OSX on an x86 machine, but do you think apple will let him distribute the emulator? thats what i'm trying to say, it's not feasible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HPMCommander    0

ah, gotcha :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
memNOC    0
look it up on your dictionary and it tells you they are synonyms. but let's put it this way, it is possible that somebody can emulate OSX on an x86 machine, but do you think apple will let him distribute the emulator? thats what i'm trying to say, it's not feasible.

what do you say about Wine for *nix then? its GPL and freely distributable, isnt it? run Windows on a different OS.. now i know this isnt the same as emulating completely different platforms, but Mac isnt the only OS that runs on PPC, so they could be safe by that statement.. "we only emulate PPC, not Mac.. its up to the users what they chose to do with it.." hehe.. if that makes sense....

:whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
aaron901    1
"we only emulate PPC, not Mac.. its up to the users what they chose to do with it.." hehe.. if that makes sense....

:whistle:

lol :laugh: i give up. :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
memNOC    0
"we only emulate PPC, not Mac.. its up to the users what they chose to do with it.." hehe.. if that makes sense....

:whistle:

lol :laugh: i give up. :laugh:

please do... :yes:

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Redestium    1
Guys

As a mac user, i admit that PC users have faster processors that churn out all that rare benchmark results that bash macs like crazy and yes u guys have higher memory bandwidth and FPU and blah blah blah performance

But the experience of using a computer is not only about rare speed, there are other things that ppl care about like stability, user-friendliness, the eye candy, security and blah blah bah

When i use a Mac, i have to worry less about patches, security updates, whether my new leaked detonator is going to crap my com and blah blah blah

Maybe thats why mac users have the illusion of being faster because we simply have more time and energy to concentrate on what we do

All the PC users bash 3Dmark as just eye candy that dont give u any idea how fast your real games are going to run

Same here with the PC and Mac, lets not just compare the raw power of the processors.

Lets just maybe compare what a human being can do on a Mac and PC in an hour

Just buy a Mac with OS X and feel it for yourself

If u dont like it, then just put it aside

And to all gamers out there, dont get a Mac

BTW if they could port Darwin over to x86, Apple would still not allow Aqua to be ported over

Good points. But it's just pointing out the obvious: if you're more accustomed to an OS (or anything for that matter) you'll most likely be more productive on it. With that said if you can't seem to be productive on Windows then something is really wrong (not pointing fingers, just generalizing) considering that they dummed it down with XP. I also hear this same thing from a lot of Mac users and to a Windows guy (that once used Apple computers) this comes across as "well we have nothing else to show so we'll just talk about something that no one can prove us wrong on since we already lost in the speed department". It always gives me a few laughs. :laugh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
|Creeper|    0

Macster said:

Just buy a Mac with OS X and feel it for yourself

If u dont like it, then just put it aside

-------

Well, it's just like saying: "buy a car, try it and if it's not ok, send it to the scrap..." You're crazy or what???

Nobody will spend 2500$ just to "try it"...

Heh... :blink: :wacko: :pinch:

Link to post
Share on other sites
aaron901    1
Macster said:

Just buy a Mac with OS X and feel it for yourself

If u dont like it, then just put it aside

-------

Well, it's just like saying: "buy a car, try it and if it's not ok, send it to the scrap..." You're crazy or what???

Nobody will spend 2500$ just to "try it"...

Heh... :blink: :wacko: :pinch:

to be honest, i did.

i was looking for a laptop last nov, but didn't find any PC laptops appeal to me, i came across PowerBook and thought i might give it a shot. i did. no regret.

Link to post
Share on other sites
clonk    2

Marklar: Apple's codename for OS 10.2 running on x86 hardware

Link to post
Share on other sites
|Creeper|    0

aaron901:

you did, no regret.

Ok, but it's not what he said...

He said try it and then trash it...

Just "burn" 2500$ for fun.

Hum...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Schmoove    1

Is it possible?? I'm sure it is! You can recompile and optimize the source for x86 hardware, that is not really the problem.

Would Apple do it? I'm 100% sure they won't. The problem is that when they do it, probably not a single person would buy Apple hardware, because it is far more expensive then the regulare PC (x86) hardware.

So Apple will not make a x86 port, they would take themselves out of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites
|Creeper|    0

Anyway, if I had to buy a laptop, it would probably be a mac, the one with 12" screen... Just to take with me where I want and when I want to "work", I'll use my powerfull desktop...

I like the "smallness" of the "portables"...

Not the os and the trouble I would have to get this "duo" working together...

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
bararum    0

so is this like the 2000000th OSX on x86 thread? I think we should have a party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
aaron901    1
Anyway, if I had to buy a laptop, it would probably be a mac, the one with 12" screen... Just to take with me where I want and when I want to "work", I'll use my powerfull desktop...

I like the "smallness" of the "portables"...

Not the os and the trouble I would have to get this "duo" working together...

;)

obviously you don't know much about Mac. hope you'll get the 12" AlBook someday and you'll realize you can actually "work" on it. :D

we are all like that, you won't care as much if it's not yours. my dad has a PowerBook, he used to tell me how great it is but i didn't give a **** about it and kept luring my dad to get a PC with Windows XP ( i was so in love with XP).. but then as i said, when i got my Mac, i realized how good it really is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DrunkenMaster    0
what do you say about Wine for *nix then? its GPL and freely distributable, isnt it? run Windows on a different OS.. now i know this isnt the same as emulating completely different platforms, but Mac isnt the only OS that runs on PPC, so they could be safe by that statement.. "we only emulate PPC, not Mac.. its up to the users what they chose to do with it.." hehe.. if that makes sense....

:whistle:

This is completely different. Windows -> Unix is still Wintel -> Wintel where as OSX is PowerPC -> Wintel.

I don't think the Zeta emulation of OS 9 will fully support all the "bigger" apps like Photoshop and Quark since it is highly dependent on the Altivec extensions to make it faster. Who would want to emulate OS 9 anyways? I'll get Zeta simply because its BeOS and its a hell of a lot easier to setup and configure then Linux and has a lot less quirks then Windows.

I'd much rather use a "real" Mac and OSX. Apple needs to do better product support and service and lower the prices on their computers particulalry the antiquated G4's and I'll consider buying one. Its a processor design thats well over 5 years old and they still want well over $500 ( US ) for the 1.0 and 1.2 Ghz models ... my estimate here == system price - components.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dazzla    5
ok you are all wrong.. :D

not only that its possible, ive SEEN it done.. intel machine, running MacOS 9 i believe.. the way they did it? ..... its called Zeta (YellowTab).. a new and improved version of BeOS5 and it sure does run MacOS9 (im not sure about OSX).. theres a video out there (about 80mb) that shows their OS running Mac.. amazing, to say the least.. Zeta is still in early beta development and no one's sure when it will be finished.. but i can asssure you this: Mac x86 emulation is not only possible, but it exists now.. so there you go..

talk amongst yourselves...... :alien:

It wasn't running 9, it was running 8.x. Even PC's can do that, no big deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Redestium    1
Its a processor design thats well over 5 years old and they still want well over $500 ( US ) for the 1.0 and 1.2 Ghz models

Excellent point. :yes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
clonk    2

I mentioned this earlier, but in a more vague way, so I understand that it went unnoticed. Yes, OSX exists for x86, hardware. Each build of OSX is built in parellel for x86 and PPC processors. The codename for the x86 version of OS 10.2 is Marklar. What Apple chooses to do with this is anyone's guess, but a select few Apple employees out there are certainly running OSX on a x86 system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
praseodymium    0

Why the fascination with OSX?

I know it's a pretty OS, but there is more to an operating system then just eye candy. The amount of software available for it pales in comparision to that available for Windows. And one could almost gaurantee that OSX wouldn't be as stable as it appears be if it had to support the amount of hardware that Windows supports out the box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cal2002    0

it has been said that apple does of OS X running on an x86. back in there labs. AMD processcor i think

Link to post
Share on other sites
liar2    0

I think that it will happen eventually. With macs being more compatible with pc components, it is bound to happen. It is just a matter of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kairon    0
Why the fascination with OSX?

I know it's a pretty OS, but there is more to an operating system then just eye candy. The amount of software available for it pales in comparision to that available for Windows. And one could almost gaurantee that OSX wouldn't be as stable as it appears be if it had to support the amount of hardware that Windows supports out the box.

That is a rediculous statement, OS X is plenty stable and is being added to constantly, and the amount of hardware it supports certainly does not control the system stability, it's not like all those drivers are turned one at once!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Redestium    1
and the amount of hardware it supports certainly does not control the system stability

You're kidding right? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
kairon    0
I mentioned this earlier, but in a more vague way, so I understand that it went unnoticed. Yes, OSX exists for x86, hardware. Each build of OSX is built in parellel for x86 and PPC processors. The codename for the x86 version of OS 10.2 is Marklar. What Apple chooses to do with this is anyone's guess, but a select few Apple employees out there are certainly running OSX on a x86 system.

This is an unconfirmed rumor and you can NOT just build two seperate versions from one source, both architectures are very different from each other.

Anyways, I hope WK does with this thread what happened to the last OSX X86 related thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kairon    0
You're kidding right? :blink:

Uh, no, why should that affect stability that much?I mean, its not like you have those kinds of extra features turned "on", unless you have the hardware that supports it, otherwise both Windows and Mac OS X would be slower with so much code running at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.