Cowpie Share Posted April 26, 2003 Good Idea. THERE IS NO WAY TO PUT OSX ON x86. TOPIC CLOSED ok, now this is where the real mods come in.... Link to post Share on other sites
aaron901 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Cowpie, no offense, but please don't do this anymore.. you've done it sooooooo many times. ;) Link to post Share on other sites
the evn show Share Posted April 27, 2003 Finally someone who knows Apple history pre-OS X Funny thing is: I'm an MCSE. go figure. Link to post Share on other sites
threetonesun Share Posted April 27, 2003 Why do people insist that market share is the only criteria to evaluate the merits of an OS? Are you American? I thought that's how we evalutated everything here. I mean, Windows is the best because everyone uses it. Duh. Honestly though, considering Apple isn't even close to competing with Windows, it makes you wonder what their market goals are. Staying in business? Gracing the world with new commercials? I guess they really like what they do over there ... but it will be interesting to see what they do in the future, since I can't see them staying with their current system for too much longer. Link to post Share on other sites
Tim Dorr Veteran Share Posted April 27, 2003 Honestly though, considering Apple isn't even close to competing with Windows, it makes you wonder what their market goals are. They doubled market share among consumers last year, so I would say they are starting to compete, despite MS's increasing attention on the home user.... ;) Link to post Share on other sites
Cowpie Share Posted April 27, 2003 I must say, that pre OS X, I wouldnt touch a mac, post OS X I shutter at windows....They're doing something right... Link to post Share on other sites
ali88 Share Posted April 27, 2003 "NeXT" OS was linux! Mac OSX built from "NeXT" OS! So runing Mac OSX on a x86 processor culd not be too hard to do. :yes: Link to post Share on other sites
Symbiotic Hat Share Posted April 27, 2003 now i don't know about OSX but you can run OS9 on x86 using BeOS I'm sure if you can run OS9 you can run OSX also. I've never tried w/ OSX It should work on all versions of BeOS since it's just how you format the HD I have successfully installed OS9 on the Zeta version of BeOS http://www.yellowtab.com/ Good luck!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Chad Share Posted April 27, 2003 "NeXT" OS was linux!Mac OSX built from "NeXT" OS! So runing Mac OSX on a x86 processor culd not be too hard to do. :yes: now i don't know about OSX but you can run OS9 on x86 using BeOSI'm sure if you can run OS9 you can run OSX also. I've never tried w/ OSX It should work on all versions of BeOS since it's just how you format the HD I have successfully installed OS9 on the Zeta version of BeOS http://www.yellowtab.com/ Good luck!!!! :omg: Please tell me you guys aren't serious. :blink: I give up. Some people just don't get it. :no: Link to post Share on other sites
aristotle-dude Share Posted April 27, 2003 "NeXT" OS was linux!Mac OSX built from "NeXT" OS! So runing Mac OSX on a x86 processor culd not be too hard to do. :yes: Argh. NeXT has nothing to do with linux. It was a commercial Unix OS which ran on Motorola 68k series, then PPC and X86. Mac OS X is based on NeXT Step (GUI) and BSD (Berkley UNIX), not linux. Argh!!!!! :p If you want to run OS X, get a mac. Link to post Share on other sites
frod Share Posted April 27, 2003 it's funny how people try to say things when they don't know the slightest thing about them. i've seen so many people try to say os x is linux based and now next? jeez. hehe BSD GUYS! BSD! http://www.opendarwin.org/icons/hexley-1.png the mascot for darwin is even wearing the bsd daemon's costume ;) Link to post Share on other sites
aaron901 Share Posted April 27, 2003 now i don't know about OSX but you can run OS9 on x86 using BeOSI'm sure if you can run OS9 you can run OSX also. I've never tried w/ OSX It should work on all versions of BeOS since it's just how you format the HD I have successfully installed OS9 on the Zeta version of BeOS http://www.yellowtab.com/ Good luck!!!! you are sure if you can run OS9 you can run OSX also?! how sure? go and try it, if you succeed, you're rich man. Link to post Share on other sites
the evn show Share Posted April 27, 2003 I have successfully installed OS9 on the Zeta version of BeOS I call bullsh-t on you. Three facts: 1) From the Apple official minimum requirements (mirrored at MIT) OS 9 requires "Any PowerPC based Apple computer. 680X0 processors are not supported" 2) Posting on the YellowTab.com forums confirm that the emulation in that video is provided by Basilisk II: an opensource 68000 series emulator available for windows, linux, bsd, and beos. 3) From the Basilisk II FAQ: Supported Mac OS's: 6.0 - 8.1 Supported Processors: 68020, 68030, 68040 (without FPU) According to the zeta site the OS isn't shipping yet but I grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've somehow got a beta version... Give than Zeta uses Basilisk II for emulation, and basilisk II doesn't support anything but the 68000 series processors, and that OS9 requires a PPC processor (and will not work on 68000 series) maybe you could explain how you managed to pull off the impossible? I bashed out a quick email to the zeta people asking them to clear this up once and for all. I'll post my reply if/when I get it. Link to post Share on other sites
HPMCommander Author Share Posted May 9, 2003 interesting, i would be interested to find out how it was done as well, i'm thinking it was an OS 8.1 copy :( Link to post Share on other sites
corrosive23 Share Posted May 10, 2003 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. Microsoft had a version of nt 4.0 that ran on x86, dec alpha, ppc, and 3 other types of processor. Link to post Share on other sites
corrosive23 Share Posted May 10, 2003 There are two reasons why Apple can't be making a version of OSX that runs on an x86 processor: They wouldn't waste the time. Why would they DOUBLE their work making another OS that they will most likely not release? It would've been leaked by now. You can sure as hell count on someone leaking something as important as that. I don't care how honest the workers are, it always seems to get out. I'm sure theres more reasons, but I am not going to think about it too much. Yeah they should devote their time to fix that slow browsing problem. Link to post Share on other sites
NeoMayhem Share Posted May 10, 2003 I have successfully installed OS9 on the Zeta version of BeOS I call bullsh-t on you. Three facts: 1) From the Apple official minimum requirements (mirrored at MIT) OS 9 requires "Any PowerPC based Apple computer. 680X0 processors are not supported" 2) Posting on the YellowTab.com forums confirm that the emulation in that video is provided by Basilisk II: an opensource 68000 series emulator available for windows, linux, bsd, and beos. 3) From the Basilisk II FAQ: Supported Mac OS's: 6.0 - 8.1 Supported Processors: 68020, 68030, 68040 (without FPU) According to the zeta site the OS isn't shipping yet but I grant you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've somehow got a beta version... Give than Zeta uses Basilisk II for emulation, and basilisk II doesn't support anything but the 68000 series processors, and that OS9 requires a PPC processor (and will not work on 68000 series) maybe you could explain how you managed to pull off the impossible? I bashed out a quick email to the zeta people asking them to clear this up once and for all. I'll post my reply if/when I get it. You can by the beta on CDs now :p Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now