i got linux and win on my computer, can i install mac os?

H

hal.dll

Registered
hi, i got linux and windows on my computer with a duel boot.
i wanted to install mac os, and i wanted to know
can i keep my linux and windows and also install mac?
 
hal.dll said:
hi, i got linux and windows on my computer with a duel boot.
i wanted to install mac os, and i wanted to know
can i keep my linux and windows and also install mac?
Click to expand...

macosx is really apple-only software. it can not be installed on a pc.. unless you emulate it somehow but.. yeah. if you want macosx, you need to buy a mac, thats the truth- even if it hurts.
 
Get a Mac. If you can't, get a second hand mac. Or save and then get a Mac.
Don't let the initial price of the computer fool you - your computer (Mac) will keep its calue better than the pc counterparts.
 
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.
 
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).
 
nixgeek said:
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.
Click to expand...
The last authoritative report I saw indicated it was 40 times slower than a Pentium running at the same clock speed. :eek:
 
It doesn't sound like you really need one, you're just curious. My advice would be to keep the pc and when you upgrade get a mac instead. Go to compUSA or the apple store to look if you want. Oh, and if you do get one get it on ebay as it's WAY cheaper.
 
perfessor101 said:
The last authoritative report I saw indicated it was 40 times slower than a Pentium running at the same clock speed. :eek:
Click to expand...
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.
Fryke: give him some time. Some ppl need time to realize there are ppl flaming their heads for them ;)
 
Zammy-Sam said:
Why would he refer the speed to a Pentium (x86) when it's about ppc-emulation?? :confused:
Click to expand...
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.

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).
 
Ok, got it! ;)
Isn't it a good point for macs again? Macs emulating pcs is about 5 times slower then the same x86 clock; pcs emulating macs is about 40 times slower. :D
(I know, it has pretty much to do with the emulator, but for now let's enjoy the moment of glory)
 
Zammy-Sam said:
Ok, got it! ;)
Isn't it a good point for macs again?
Click to expand...
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.

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. :)
 
Definition:
  • Unhackable - takes a skilled hacker at least fifteen minutes to hack and another five to post the hack on the internet
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top