# PearPC - PowerPC Architecture Emulator for PC = Mac OS X on a PC



## malibux (May 11, 2004)

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/

Did anybody try this? There are screenshots of running OSX on an x86 PC.

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

No! No no no no no no no!!!  It can't be!

Honestly, must run like frozen molasses!


----------



## Zammy-Sam (May 11, 2004)

aren't there powerpc emulators for macos <9 out yet? I don't think a 740/750 emulated cpu with 10mhz will handle macosx.
However, a very interesting project.


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Yes, there were 68k emulators available, which only worked with < 8.5

This looks like it honest to goodness emulates a G3 or even G4 though.


----------



## monktus (May 11, 2004)

According the the docs it emulates something like a G3, although he's working on Altivec. Obviously it's at a fairly early stage with a few bugs etc. but it's quite exciting stuff. And while this isn't maybe quite as useful, remember that it's an architecture emulator so you can run various BSDs and Linuxes too.


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

There's also the question where this will lead. I don't see it leading to something similarly attractive like VirtualPC on the Mac (which - albeit slower than a real PC - enables you to run the occasional Windows application), but rather a proof of concept as well as a tool for playing around, effectively advertising the Mac to the Windows and Linux people.


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Do you really think that's a true picture of an X86 machine running OS X under emulation? It looks like it, but PS is pretty good nowdays. 

Also, wouldn't Quartz be a problem?


----------



## MisterMe (May 11, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> Yes, there were 68k emulators available, which only worked with < 8.5
> 
> This looks like it honest to goodness emulates a G3 or even G4 though.


The newest version MacOS of the 68k emulators is MacOS 8.1. MacOS 8.5 is PPC-only. As for the PearPC, if it "works," it is only an idle curiosity. That it is currently claimed to run at 1/500 the speed of the host seems reasonable and will not improve substantially with optimization. This means that a 3 GHz Intel-compatible processor will yield the performance of a 6 MHz PowerMac G3, which is about 1/10 of the performance of the original PowerMac 6100/60. Quite frankly, it is so slow that I have substantial doubts about any claims made about PearPC. I mean, how do you test them?


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Wow, a whole week to boot up OS X, Cooool! (sarcasm dripping like rain )


----------



## SAbsar (May 11, 2004)

Hey ppl... i REALLY wanna try this out, but im really lame on the compiling and stuff. Can somebody compile it for me? Or give me step by step instructions?
 Thanks in advance!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (May 11, 2004)

Also, none of those screenshots show OS X running under emulation on a Windows machine -- all those screenshots show is OS X running under emulation in Linux distros, and most of them look like PPC Linux distros (I can pick out one YellowDog for sure).


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Ok, that would be stupid. Running a PPC emulator on a PPC machine...


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

Well, there are solutions for running Mac OS X on PPC Linux, but that's not what it's about...

I've seen one screenshot so far that shows Mac OS X actually running (well, the Finder just after installation...).

What I'm interested in, however, is how the development will go in the next few months. A first step is done. With more people interested in its development, this project could go some steps... However, there remains the fact that it's basically more difficult to emulate a PPC on a X86 machine than the other way 'round (for several reasons - where's Racer X when you need him?). So even if there's ever going to be a finished product, it'd be worse to use than VPC running WinXP on a Mac.

But we'll see... I'm sure the following weeks will show one or the other user review of the project.


----------



## Lycander (May 11, 2004)

dlloyd said:
			
		

> Ok, that would be stupid. Running a PPC emulator on a PPC machine...


Not stupid at all. I run VMWare, an x86 emulator on *gasp* an x86 computer! Why? Testing different OSes without cluttering my room with more computers. If it crashes, I switch to Freecell or Solitaire will it reboots   Mostly it's good for developers to test on different platforms.


I also want to mention another PPC OS: MorphOS. If it weren't for the expensive (and limited avail.) Pegasos boards I would have given it a try. Heck they might even get Amiga to run on PearPC!


----------



## Lycander (May 11, 2004)

fryke said:
			
		

> However, there remains the fact that it's basically more difficult to emulate a PPC on a X86 machine than the other way 'round (for several reasons - ).



The biggest obstacle: PPC has 32 General Purpose Registers. x86 has only 8.

PPC is Big Endian (most significant bit first), x86 is Little Endian (least significant bit first). This is just bit ordering, has no performance implications but does matter in the way data is read. I have read an article about programming styles for endian-independence.

If possible, I'd say do this on AMD64 platform. They've added plenty more regsiters than typical x86 arch.


----------



## mindbend (May 11, 2004)

This will never go anywhere. 

The main reason being that the hardware peripheral support wil be totally out of whack (video cards, media drives, etc.). Apple has complete control over such things, so it's fairly easy for them to virtually guarantee compliance and operability. PC users are still plagued with major headaches for such things. To add an emulator on top of that can only mean trouble. 

For example, I want to see someone use Toast via the emulator on an uber-cheap CD burner. Or watch their video card give the emulator's OpenGL fits. Or try burning DVDs with iDVD or DVDSP. Or print to a parallel printer. 

The other reason this will never go anywhere is that there simply is no demand for this product. Yes, there are really compelling products/software these days for the Mac exclusively (Final Cut, iLife series, Motion, Shake, etc.). But you're not going to want to emulate those things. Additionally, those apps tend to be for users that actually make money with them, therefore they can easily justify the expense of buying a real Mac. Kepp in mind, we Mac users typically run VPC because we HAVE to, not because we want to. Admittedly, multi-platform testing is a very legitimate use of an emulator. But I just can't believe there is enough interest in, say, making sure the web page looks right on the Mac, to suport such a product.

Another reason is licensing. I don't know how all that works, but I've got to believe Apple would crush this product like a grape if push comes to shove.

Having said all that, if by some miracle they can actually get this emulator to run just as well as running it on a native box, and Apple lets them do itwell then, that's whole different ball game. Too bad it will never happen. Ever.


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

More interesting would be, whether parts of the project's work could be used to enable _direct_ installation of Mac OS X on IBM's PPC boards. This would eventually lead to a) Mac clones and b) Apple reacting. Right now, those 'other' PPC based computers can only run Mac OS X via MOL (Mac on Linux) or similar, software based solutions, where Mac OS X can't directly access the hardware.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (May 11, 2004)

Now THAT would be interesting.  I don't see any major obstacles in doing that -- of course, it would require reverse-engineering the ROM on the Macintosh motherboards to see what instructions needed to be present in the clone's ROM to trick it into thinking it was a Macintosh.

Perhaps clones do exist!  Reverse-engineering a ROM isn't rocket science -- it's not for the novice, but for an expert (which there are plenty of) it would only take time.  Of course, this is very illegal, so the opportunity to purchase an unauthorized clone is nil... but perhaps people have already done this?  It seems like a logical step to take since the Apple platform is so closed -- people naturally and typically want to put great effort into obtaining knowledge that they aren't supposed to have.  I would bet that there are quite a few programmers and hackers out there that have looked into this and are even working towards this.


----------



## fryke (May 11, 2004)

That ROM part is not an issue - or PearPC would have it solved already! NewWorld Macs don't have those big ROMs any more that old-day Macs had. It's basically only the Open Firmware that's needed.


----------



## chevy (May 11, 2004)

Did they copy the Apple firmware ROMs ? 

Microsoft does not include proprietary software in each PC, anybody has the right to build a PC that can be accepted by a Windows Installer.

Apple includes proprietary information in each Mac it sells. Without this information, the installer will refuse to load. Therefore it is LEGALLY forbidden to make such a clone, even just in software.


----------



## Giaguara (May 11, 2004)

Has anyone tried this on their pc? http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/ 

screenshots

Looks interesting, if I had something non-Mac at the moment to try, I might .. 

Supports: Windows 9x, Windows 2000/XP, andwill need a client OS to support it = Mandrake 9.1 for PPC, Darwin for PPC, OS X.


----------



## chevy (May 11, 2004)

see http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43529


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Oh Gia... That other thread was only posted today, you must really be losing it


----------



## Orbit (May 11, 2004)

http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2004-05-11#2078

Very slow tho


----------



## dlloyd (May 11, 2004)

Awww gee, third thread TODAY on this...

That's the first screenie that actually shows it operating under Windoze, BTW


----------



## Orbit (May 11, 2004)

wow so i get a 3rd and 1st place  

sorry tho


----------



## Giaguara (May 12, 2004)

sorry dlloyd, I must have been intoxicated in the real life?


----------



## dlloyd (May 12, 2004)

Hmmm, yeah. That would explain it. But now my other posts don't make any sense...


----------



## JetwingX (May 13, 2004)

one of the hosts at techtv is really in to it

http://kevinrose.typepad.com/kr/2004/05/osx_is_running_.html

but it runs like you installed it on a first generation iMac (the really colorful ones)



"Without this information, the installer will refuse to load."

thats whey they emulated the information...


----------



## SAbsar (May 15, 2004)

JetwingX said:
			
		

> but it runs like you installed it on a first generation iMac (the really colorful ones)



No no, No no! PearPC is NOWHERE close as fast as afirst gen iMac!! I tried it on my 933MHz PIII, 512MB RAM (of which i put 256 into PearPC), and it took over half an hour just to boot into panther. Btw i uploaded a screenshot of it, showing the windows desktop too, so if any of you guys wanna check it out, here it is:

HQ: http://www.geocities.com/comfygenius/pearpc_hq.jpg
LQ: http://www.geocities.com/comfygenius/pearpc_lq.jpg

Slow, but veeery cool!!!


----------



## fryke (May 15, 2004)

Page not available.


----------



## Jason (May 15, 2004)

copy and paste guys


----------



## SAbsar (May 16, 2004)

Works for me fryke, try to copy and paste the URL into a browser window - maybe its some anti-leeching thing that geocities has.


----------



## SAbsar (May 16, 2004)

And I uploaded a few more screenshots:

http://www.geocities.com/comfygenius/about_finder.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/comfygenius/about_mac.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/comfygenius/expose.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/comfygenius/login.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/comfygenius/mac_help.jpg


----------



## fryke (May 16, 2004)

Yup, okay. They work by pasting instead of clicking. Thx.


----------



## Go3iverson (May 16, 2004)

Million Dollar Question:

Before I start imaging all those CD's and moving them...think I could run this guy on Windows XP 64 bit edition on Athlon 64 hardware?  Could be a fun trial on that guy!


----------



## Ifrit (May 16, 2004)

I tried it, it is easy to configure, but unfortunally I am unable to create an bootable(!) ISO image of the Panther installation CD. Honestly I tried everything on the Windows side. Can anybody give me a hint how to accomplish this? 

Do I have to prepare the HD image first (using the darwin installation cd)? I just want to get a glimpse of the Mac OSX CD boot screen.


----------



## SAbsar (May 16, 2004)

Ifrit, try using Carbon Copy Cloner on a hard drive that already has panther installed. Make sure that the target image size is a multiple of 516096KB. Worked for me.


----------



## fryke (May 16, 2004)

Ifrit: Please do not even name those disk creation -tools, if you want to "not ask for warez" or something. And: You'll probably have more luck finding information about this on PC forums than on Mac forums, too.

This thread is about the _NEWS_ that there is now a PowerPC emulator for X86 hardware.


----------



## Ifrit (May 16, 2004)

Honestly, I didn't know that mentioning disk image creation tools is forbitten, I mean we all know about Roxio Toast or disk copy. What makes the PC counterparts more "criminal"? Every of those programs can be used for "non legal actions". 

I appologize for off topic posting and the former post, fryke, I just wanted a "first hand" experience. I admit, asking about how to copy the OSX CDs wasn't very sensible.

Thanks for the advice SAbsar, I never thought about this possibility.


----------



## fryke (May 16, 2004)

Well, there are some tools and others. At least one of the ones you mentioned kinda rang a bell in my head. I didn't think that the exact list was that important, so I removed it. The question, I think, on how to create the image, was legit, so I left that in. No offense meant. I just don't want a thread in the Apple News, Rumours & Discussion forum to turn into some kind of 'howto' for PC users who want OS X 'for free' and on PC hardware. ... We gotta keep Apple alive and healthy. ;-)


----------



## Ifrit (May 16, 2004)

I believe this kind of emulation is (really) far from perfect. Well, I still have to smile after I've "seen" people asking for advanced features like implementing altivec 2 support. Currently, I am creating a HD image of my system, but I from several reports I gathered the performance is as worse as trying to run OSX on a 68K system (currently no harm is done to our favourite enterprise with the fruit shaped logo). But it is still a big step forward, months ago PPC emulators were considered as impossible. 
Personally I am left in the dark of its usefullness. I mean, OSX is all about style, useability or if you get one of the pro machines, its all about high performance applications, which require high processing power. 

Maybe we shouldn't see this developement in such a negative light. Maybe some PC users get a (small) taste of Mac OSX and get curious how it will perform on the real machine. (Even if it is a small percent. Not everyone is downloading PPC emulation software of source forge, and how they acquired the OSX CDs then is also questionable)
There is no much harm done, real hardware > emulation. Years have passed since the introduction of VPC and it is still performing slow on current machines. And thats a commercial product.


----------



## SAbsar (May 17, 2004)

Well ifrit, i DO see the benefits of PPC emulation on x86. Ever since i 'switched' (and even before that), i prefer using a macintosh instead of a PC. Now most places i go to donot have macs, like my college totally runs PCs. Now I create projects (such as C language programs for my CS course) on my mac, so I would like to take my 'copy' of PPC with me to college on a DVD so that i wouldnt have to modify the code on location. Plus it'd be kinda cool you know  That is 'if' they manage to improve PearPC further. The second release already seems a lot better at performance. 
All in all, I'd like to see this product evolve.


----------



## rubicon (May 17, 2004)

Why doesn't someone build Aqua on top of Darwin X86?


----------



## Lycander (May 18, 2004)

rubicon said:
			
		

> Why doesn't someone build Aqua on top of Darwin X86?


Because someone would have to build *Quartz* first. Aqua is just the theme and style of the windows and controls. Quartz is what actually puts color on your screen instead of console text.

I'm pretty sure XFree86 or X.org runs on Darwin, so users can get graphical mode on Darwin x86. But that still isn't as good as Quartz/Aqua - you lose hardware accelerated desktop, and although there are hardware accelerated drivers from Nvidia and ATI for x86 Unix OSes, I'm not sure if it works in Darwin.


----------



## Easter (May 19, 2004)

> Well, I can say it truly is a miracle. I never thought I would be able to install Mac OS X 10.3 on my supposedly "inferior" x86-based AMD machine. Well, for most of you mac-zealots, you were wrong. It actually does. And I've got the proof right here!



http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7085

 ::ha::


----------



## Randman (May 19, 2004)

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43529

long thread already on this.


----------



## jackdahi (May 19, 2004)

Great idea! Maybe the folks at Apple will decide to port OSX and liscence the os to run on x86 natively. NOT!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Easter (May 19, 2004)

I'm so sorry.



			
				Randman said:
			
		

> http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43529
> 
> long thread already on this.


----------



## Lycander (May 19, 2004)

I'd like to politely remind everyone that Apple did in fact port iTunes to Windows and made their Music Store available to Windows users, the Windows compatible version of iPod has been available much longer than the 2 above mentioned product/service. The result was more iPod and music sales for Apple. So is it really a bad thing?


----------



## rubicon (May 21, 2004)

Lycander said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure XFree86 or X.org runs on Darwin, so users can get graphical mode on Darwin x86. But that still isn't as good as Quartz/Aqua - you lose hardware accelerated desktop, and although there are hardware accelerated drivers from Nvidia and ATI for x86 Unix OSes, I'm not sure if it works in Darwin.




So it's the Quartz engine that needs porting and that's probably where legal problems with Apple might arise?

Regardless, if there were Quartz/Darwin all apps would need to be recompiled for X86.


----------



## Lycander (May 21, 2004)

rubicon said:
			
		

> So it's the Quartz engine that needs porting and that's probably where legal problems with Apple might arise?


Has nothing to do with legality. It's a technical problem. First, we'd need video drivers to make good use of the video cards. ATI and Nvidia do not publicly publish the needed info for anyone to write drivers. Without 3d hardware acceleration, the OSX desktop would be dreadful. Enough info about Quartz is out there that independent developers probably could create a new engine that's at least source compatible with Quartz if not exactly the same.



			
				rubicon said:
			
		

> Regardless, if there were Quartz/Darwin all apps would need to be recompiled for X86.


Well, look at it this way. All apps would have to be recompiled for 64-bits once OSX becomes a native 64-bit OS. Granted it can still execute in 32-bit mode, there will still be a push to get all software working in 64-bit mode.


----------



## texanpenguin (May 22, 2004)

All the 68K emulators, for the PPC or x86 platform, required a ROM-image, dumped from a genuine 68K machine in order to function.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly why OSX doesn't run natively on other (non-Apple) PPC computers (built for Debian etc Linux) without MoL?

Does this mean that PearPC INCLUDES the ROM dump? If so, is it not illegal?


----------



## MisterMe (May 22, 2004)

texanpenguin said:
			
		

> All the 68K emulators, for the PPC or x86 platform, required a ROM-image, dumped from a genuine 68K machine in order to function.
> 
> Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly why OSX doesn't run natively on other (non-Apple) PPC computers (built for Debian etc Linux) without MoL?
> 
> Does this mean that PearPC INCLUDES the ROM dump? If so, is it not illegal?


You seem never to have heard of Open Firmware or New World Macintoshes. The Macintosh Toolbox ROM is required only to Old Word Macs, both 68k and PPC. The functions served by the firmware Toolbox ROM in Old World Macs are served by the ROM file in the MacOS 8/9/Classic System Folder in New World Macs. The ROM file is installed with the rest of 8/9/Classic. MacOS X 10.x requires neither a firmware ROM nor a ROM file. It is a violation of the MacOS X end user license to run the OS on non-Apple hardware. If the user is so inclined to break the law, there are few if any technical impediments to doing so.


----------



## texanpenguin (May 22, 2004)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> You seem never to have heard of Open Firmware or New World Macintoshes. The Macintosh Toolbox ROM is required only to Old Word Macs, both 68k and PPC. The functions served by the firmware Toolbox ROM in Old World Macs are served by the ROM file in the MacOS 8/9/Classic System Folder in New World Macs. The ROM file is installed with the rest of 8/9/Classic. MacOS X 10.x requires neither a firmware ROM nor a ROM file. It is a violation of the MacOS X end user license to run the OS on non-Apple hardware. If the user is so inclined to break the law, there are few if any technical impediments to doing so.



Thanks! You cleared that right up. I had heard of Open Firmware, but you've made it make far more sense now.


----------



## Giaguara (May 24, 2004)

and if you thought running pearpc was slooowww..... << anyone speaks german?


----------



## nixgeek (May 24, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> and if you thought running pearpc was slooowww..... << anyone speaks german?



OMG!   

The HoRRoR!!!!


----------

