Pearpc mac os x panther Pc#
Pearpc mac os x panther windows#

Also they retain all of the advantages that the x86 platform has to offer. That way they get best of both worlds for far less cash than buying both systems separately. This is what most of us are saying in a nutshell: if enough effort is put into the emulator and x86 processsor advances continue as usual, it could be the case that eventually some people will prefer to use the emulator instead of buying a low-end Mac. It can't even start the freakin' Finder or Dock without entering an infinite crash loop and you guys are making it sound like nobody will need to buy Macs anymore. Surely a try before you buy approach isn't an unreasonable request for an emulator to perform? It was horribly slow, but it was enough to get a feel for OS X without dropping Big Bucks on a new(er) machine for the priviledge. I ran 10.0 on a Umax S900 with a 200 MHz 604e CPU. Personally, I've *already* run OS X at glacial speeds. When you buy a car are you happy to look at it on the dealer's lot or do you prefer to take the car away, test drive it and get it inspected by a third party? You could borrow a copy from a friend or place of work and you can try it in the comfort of your own home. While you're in the store, wouldn't you take the opportunity to maybe try the OS running natively? They can also poke around the control panel and similar to see what options they have. They aren't going to evaluate the speed obviously but they might want to try out how the GUI works and feels. You're saying people are going to evaluate an OS based on how it runs in an emulator? Yeah and it's also a fact that usability is defined by how someone uses something. It is my opinion that a factor of 20 speed difference warrants the two being placed in slightly different categories of usability. Not really there's nothing obtuse about complaining that a $3000 Mac runs some games poorer than a $1000 PC. Right about here, your argument crosses the line into intentional obtuseness. iBooks are still pretty competitive and not a bad 'adder' machine at all.Īnyway, I'm a Mac fan that thinks that a PPC emulator for x86 is a smashing idea. The net result in HW sales would be the same. They would probably sell about 3 of them, while the vast majority could DL PearPC to fiddle with OS X. The emulator will have a long way to go before it's a viable alternative anyways.Īn Apple branded emulator would primarily serve to generate tremendous PR and reach a few more punters than otherwise. Since these folks are _already_ interested in OSX, there's no need of a low-cost emulator to try to sell them they just want cheaper hardware. The reality of the situation though is that Apple is content not to market to all people at present, so a limited flow of switchers/adders is probably OK with them.

Pearpc mac os x panther Pc#

OSX was most definitely way beyond this stage at 10.1.Īpple is definitely shooting themselves in the foot by not making a low-cost-headless Mac to cater to an obviously huge and untapped market.īesides the fact that I was half-joking since I know this issue has been beaten to death everywhere, the point was that the reason these PC users with Mac-envy aren't buying Macs is because they're simply priced too high for most people. I imagine there were huge speed ups from the alpha of OSX to the beta of OSX to the 10.1 of OSX. 'Oh, it's just slow because it has the debug code, when it goes final it will be blazing fast!' Don't throw all your hopes in the optimization ring.Įxcept you are comparing the two products at different stages. What bothers me about this thread is a lot of people sound like the Mac faithful did when 10.1 was in beta. Most here don't see it as that outlandish. 300% improvement in softwore and you got 500Mhz G3.

Let's say you can get dual 4.5GHz systems in 2005 (I don't know the roadmap so this might be 2006 or something)-that gives 168MHz G3. We also have dual Xeon 3.2GHz (assume 50% boost for dual-120Mhz G3). Ok-so 3GHz~75Mhz G3-Right now we have 3.4GHz (85Mhz G3). It will be a Miracle should they manage to get to say G3 500 in a year. Lets not forget as things stand a 3ghz P4 is the same as a G3 75mhz so in order to run this emulator at G4 1ghz we're gonna need a P4 60-100 ghz or a 1000% increase in emulation speed in 12 months. Remember, it is just the fault of the G4's stagnation that PC 2005 can emulate low-end Mac 2004. Oops-I thought it was already out for G5. RSN statement'” this summer we'll have VPC7 running on dual 3ghz - View image here:. We'd all LOVE to know how it runs on a G5 but unfortunately it only runs on G3&G4. But how does a dual G5-2.0GHz run? That is what I want to know.

Pearpc mac os x panther windows#

How slow is VPC? Only data point I saw in this thread is one that said G4-1000 ran windows in VPC similar to P-200 (I think that was numbers).