i got linux and win on my computer, can i install mac os?
- Thread starter hal.dll
- Start date
michaelsanford
Translator, Web Developer
To be perhaps a little clearer about sur's reply, MacOS and MacOS X run ONLY on PPC based machines, it's *impossible* to install it on an x86 based machine.
You can, as he said, emulate it, but I wouldn't do that, emulation is almost invariably an extremely poor substitute for the real thing.
You can, as he said, emulate it, but I wouldn't do that, emulation is almost invariably an extremely poor substitute for the real thing.
nixgeek
Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
I guess I could mention Darwin, but I think I would be throwing a monkey wrench into this whole thing 
I guess if you have the time, you can use PearPC to emulate a PPC proc and install Mac OS X. I haven't tried this yet, but from what I've heard it's VERY slow.
You're better off getting a Mac (preferably a G4 at minimum).
I guess if you have the time, you can use PearPC to emulate a PPC proc and install Mac OS X. I haven't tried this yet, but from what I've heard it's VERY slow.
You're better off getting a Mac (preferably a G4 at minimum).
perfessor101
Registered
The last authoritative report I saw indicated it was 40 times slower than a Pentium running at the same clock speed.nixgeek said:
Zammy-Sam
Desertchild
If you are talking about VPC 6, I can't second that. On my G4 1Ghz tibook, the emulation of x86 under WinXP is compareable to my P2 233Mhz which is far away from 40times slower. However, VPC 7 should be released soon and sounded very promising by now.perfessor101 said:The last authoritative report I saw indicated it was 40 times slower than a Pentium running at the same clock speed.
Fryke: give him some time. Some ppl need time to realize there are ppl flaming their heads for them
perfessor101
Registered
I was referring to the apparent speed of the Mac OS when running on a Pentium processor using PearlPC. The reason for comparing the speed to a Pentium is that was the comparison used in the material I saw. The emulated speed of a processor, in this case a PowerPC, will in every case be a function of the speed of the host processor which, of course, is a Pentium P3 or P4.Zammy-Sam said:Why would he refer the speed to a Pentium (x86) when it's about ppc-emulation??
However, if you just have to compare it to a Mac a Mac you could interpolate that running on a 2 GHz pentium the apparent speed of the Mac emulation would be roughly equivalent to a PPC running at 50 MHz. (2,000,000,000/40=50,000,000).
perfessor101
Registered
You are right! While the speed penalty will become smaller as PearPC is further developed and optimized, the tremendous difference speaks directly to the inherently superior architecture of the Apple/Motorola/IBM PowerPC processor. For example the 64 bit structure of the G5 was designed into the PPC from the beginning while Intel is scrambling to graft a 64 bit architecture onto the Pentium.Zammy-Sam said:Ok, got it!
Isn't it a good point for macs again?
From the very outset the PPC has been a very effective platform for emulators. When first introduced on the Macintosh the PPC provided backward compatibility with older Mac applications by emulating the Motorola 680x0 processor and that emulation was actually faster than the original hardware.
Gotta correct you here... The 68K emulation in the first PowerPC processors wasn't all that fast. In fact for heavy-duty Photoshop work (just an example), a Quadra 840av (68040/40 MHz) remained king until the PowerPC 604 appeared in the PowerMac 8500/120 MHz. Also, the emulation was that of a 68020 processor without FPU (which explains the Photoshop comparison in part).
However, I'm not disputing that the PowerPC has been effective for emulators. And SoftWindows, RealPC and VirtualPC were three emulators (well, RealPC was SoftWindows minus Windows, basically - same company) that competed and competed well. ("Money makes the world go round...") Today, VirtualPC is quite a beast at what it does. And even if PearPC would have tremendous development speed in the near future, there'd still be the problem that it's just more complicated to emulate PPC on X86 than the other way 'round. And I consider VirtualPC, as good as it is, to be kind of the _minimum_ of what I want in emulation speed to be really useful.
In my opinion, Apple should do the following: Release Mac OS X for X86. A complete port. (We all know it's possible.) With all the iApps. And here's the catch: Make it a 3-day demo version. Make it UNhackable. And say (and say it LOUD): "We will not release a full version of Mac OS X for PCs. If you want this, you'll have to buy a Mac." ;-)
I know, I know. Would never work. But it's a nice daydream of mine.
However, I'm not disputing that the PowerPC has been effective for emulators. And SoftWindows, RealPC and VirtualPC were three emulators (well, RealPC was SoftWindows minus Windows, basically - same company) that competed and competed well. ("Money makes the world go round...") Today, VirtualPC is quite a beast at what it does. And even if PearPC would have tremendous development speed in the near future, there'd still be the problem that it's just more complicated to emulate PPC on X86 than the other way 'round. And I consider VirtualPC, as good as it is, to be kind of the _minimum_ of what I want in emulation speed to be really useful.
In my opinion, Apple should do the following: Release Mac OS X for X86. A complete port. (We all know it's possible.) With all the iApps. And here's the catch: Make it a 3-day demo version. Make it UNhackable. And say (and say it LOUD): "We will not release a full version of Mac OS X for PCs. If you want this, you'll have to buy a Mac." ;-)
I know, I know. Would never work. But it's a nice daydream of mine.
perfessor101
Registered
Definition:
- Unhackable - takes a skilled hacker at least fifteen minutes to hack and another five to post the hack on the internet