CherryOS

[Archer75]

http://www.cherryos.com/pages.php?cid=MDEwMDA4MTY2

Run OSX from a PC? Yes there is the PearPC project. And these guys supposedly stole thier software, but they are claiming 3 times the performance of PearPC. Wonder if there's any truth to that?

[abudhu]

Well I don't know if there is truth to it. But not to be a douche or anything, but its an emulator and as such will never be as quick as the real thing. If you really want a MAC you might as well buy one.

I've tried a few Mac/PC Emulators and they are terrible. PearPC, although cool was horribly slow. A better plan would be to download a Free Linux Distro and skin it to look like the Mac :D That way you are as close as you are going to get to a mac on a PC machine

[Archer75]

They claim that the emulator will run at 70% of the speed of the machine it's on. Which seems pretty good.

I have a mac but i'm getting rid of it. Would be nice to have OSX on a PC for the few apps I might actually use it for.

They have a trial so i'll grab it and see what happens.

[Direwolf20]

Don't pay a dime to these losers.

Anyone who steals open source software and tries to sell it with a different name (yet exact same source code...) deserves to be shot, not paid ;).

[compslckr]

i am downloading the demo

[acascianelli]

that bullshit claim that its 3x times faster than pearpc is probobly comparing it to pearpc v0.1. the newer 0.3.1 has alot of enhancements and fixes, try comparing that to cherryos and theyll probobly be the same speed.

also, there are settings in the pearpc config file ( while is almost identical to the cherryos config file ) that you could tweak to get more performance out of the virtual machine. they are also probobly comparing cherryos's allready optimized config file to the stock pearpc config file.

http://prasys.skidsoftware.com/preformance_comparison.htm
http://starport.dnsalias.net/index.php?show=article&id=348

[compslckr]

update, the demo will not even complete the install, gets to "registering fonts" then just hangs, and after about 3 minutes winXP tells me the window is not responding.


pretty craptacular

[abudhu]

update, the demo will not even complete the install, gets to "registering fonts" then just hangs, and after about 3 minutes winXP tells me the window is not responding.


pretty craptacular

No, thats seems right actually. Not sure which part is the Registering Fonts. But when I tried PearPC it took very long (and seemed to hang (said it wasn't responding)) when I had to partition the virtual drive. It also took ungodly long to install (also said not responding) but it worked. Try again.

[compslckr]

i restarted my pc and got it to install, now i just need to get my hands on a copy of osx i guess

[ameoba]

Here's what Slashdot says about these guys (http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=&query=cherryOS&author=&sort=1&op=stories). None of it's too promising.

[t. shuffle]

It's fairly obvious that Arben is a liar and a crook. None of "his" code will ever touch my system.

[Archer75]

Is'nt that what a number of linux distros do? Grab source code that is freely available and then stick something of there own on it and then sell it? How is this eany different?

[Direwolf20]

Is'nt that what a number of linux distros do? Grab source code that is freely available and then stick something of there own on it and then sell it? How is this eany different?

Because they stick something of their own in it. Usually a significant something.

CherryOS was nearly an EXACT copy of PearPC. Down to every variable. Hell, they even stuck with the same naming convention (fruits).

[acascianelli]

he is not giving ANY credit to pearpc.
he is claiming that his product is 100% original and unique.
he is claiming that his product is faster than pearpc when in fact its not.
he is violating gpl.
this is not the first time he's stolen code and tried to make profit, vx30 codec.
he is making money (or at least trying to) off something that is and should be free.

setting aside the difference in which version of pearpc he stole to make cherryos, the only difference is that cherryos comes with a install wizard, and a fancy setup wizard.

here is a thread he started a while back trying to pimp his product with an alias before it was released...

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=816641

imo, his actions are more harmfull than all these people being sued by the RIAA for downloading music. i wish i could find a picture of arben kryeziu online so i could make toilet paper out of it or something constructive.

[ameoba]

Is'nt that what a number of linux distros do? Grab source code that is freely available and then stick something of there own on it and then sell it? How is this eany different?

They give credit to original authors. They don't claim to have created it themselves. The follow the terms of the GPL and provide source. There's nothing wrong with selling open source until you start doing shit like this.

[abudhu]

Lets not make this a CherryOS/Pear PC fight.

In any case you'll never know if what they are claiming is true unless you try it yourself.

In a Fight Related issue, I would find it hilarious if someone working on PearPC bought the CherryOS and hacked it and "re-stole" their rightful code. Haha. Even so, CherryOS won't last in the market. Honestly who would pay for a program that does the same thing as a free one? Eventually PearPC will exceed CherryOS. Even if it never does, and is always slightly behind I'd rather get a slightly slower software for Free than have to pay for one that does the same thing a little faster.


In other related news. In response to some of the things acascianelli said. Not arguing with you, but isn't that similar to what DivX did originally? Or am I horribly misinformed. I was under the impression they stole the codec from another and then re-wrote some of it and marketed it as there own. I know Now that they have totally re-written the code and it is there's now, but to begin it wasn't. Perhaps CherryOS will do the same?

[Whatsisname]

and even if they don't, they credit the original creators of the packages and they offer it free of cost.

Because they stick something of their own in it. Usually a significant something.

[anotherguy159]

but its an emulator and as such will never be as quick as the real thing.
Your statement is false.

[kronchev]

Your statement is false.

Your assertion is false.

Any kind of emulation will never be as fast as the real thing. Ever.

[jeclone]

i have an atari 2600 emulator that "seems" a little faster then the original hardware

[abudhu]

Your statement is false.

Yeah..wtf...an Emulator will never run at the same speeds as the real thing.

As for an Atari Emulator/Console Emulators the reason those actually run fast is, look at the orignal hardware running them, since we have increased that hardware about 100 fold, its quite obvious it would run smoothly. As for trying to emulate a diffferent architecture of a modern system..well that we just can't do and get a 1:1 ratio out of it.

[Whatsisname]

not necessarily.

Any kind of emulation will never be as fast as the real thing. Ever.

[abudhu]

Yeah, I'm really not sure where the comment came from. That and I like how he offered no proof of his claim or anything. Just an attack on me for no reason. I mean I am all for healthy debates but come on.

Back to the poster: How did the Demo Preform? After looking those links, I might have to give PearPC Alpha a try on my wishy-washy-don't-care-about-tester-Hard Drive. :D

[rcolbert]

i have an atari 2600 emulator that "seems" a little faster then the original hardware

That's funny but disingenuous. Consoles are designed to run at a fixed speed and clearly a modern PC has enough horsepower to run a 2600 at the one speed that the system was ever intended to run.

But back to emulators for personal computers....

I agree that in the specific case when you are running one OS (e.g. Windows) and then you run an emulation layer such as PearPC, then the resultant OS experience contained therein (Max OSX) would not likely perform at the same level as a dedicated Mac OSX box that was considered to have the equivilent performance of the native OS (Windows) on the hardware in question. That has to be a very conditional statement in this case because you can't run Windows natiively on Mac hardware and vice versa. While performance in many cases might be not perceptibly different, this question is about mechanics not about the subjective.

The more important question is "is it fast enough?"

[Whatsisname]

an emulated platform is not necessarily faster or slower than the original.

[ameoba]

At what level is a system 'real' enough to be a counter-example to your statement that emulators are slower than the actual hardware?

[rcolbert]

an emulated platform is not necessarily faster or slower than the original.


That's absolutely correct. Certainly in the case of consoles that's true. It's just not the point that is being made.

The point is that the OS running in the emulation subsystem is slower than the OS running natively on the hardware. That's simple logic. The emulated system runs and hands off all its requests to the emulator program that converts the instructions to native code. In this case the MacOSX instructions must be converted to run on the x86 processor. By definition this extra processing introduces slowness over an OS that is natively compiled for the processor that it runs on.

That's not to say that MacOSX running on PearPC on a Windows PC with a P4 at 3.6 Ghz won't be faster than the same MacOSX running on native Mac hardware. It certainly might. But that's an apples and oranges (and pears) comparison.

[Archer75]

Ok, I got it installed. It took 45 minutes from start to finish and OSX is running pretty good. It does stutter from time to time but I do have alot of programs and services running on the windows side but I can clean that up.

However I cannot get the network working.