Light at the end of the tunnel

The DIY apple mac project brings us one step closer to the FINAL solution: Running Apple OS 10 on PC hardware. Can u see a dual boot system with Mac OS 10 and Linux!

That would be interesting, keep us posted on how it goes.

When i was looking into linux, i believe that you can put linux on a mac already.

Yes, there is a Linux flavor for macs.... almost ten year old, I have the CD somewhere in my attic!

The important thing is that there be an alternative to windows on the hardware we love and have already.

Can u dig Mac OS X (based on NEXT & UNIX) on a 3ooo Mhz P4?

I don't think it'll happen. The MacOS and the Mac BIOS are much more integrated than the x86 BIOS and the various x86 OSs. The Mac BIOS is a lot larger, for one thing, which is why it hasn't been successfully reverse-engineered yet.

If it is ever reverse-engineered, however, then MacOS on a PC could be doable.

The important thing is that there be an alternative to windows on the hardware we love and have already.

Can u dig Mac OS X (based on NEXT & UNIX) on a 3ooo Mhz P4?

Click to expand...

Uh... that article didn't involve any PC hardware. No pentiums.

And it's not a BIOS issue either. It's the whole mac OSX running on a completely different architecture. A superior one, I think (as I type on my x86 machine).

I remember reading somewhere that in a lab in Apple HQ they had a version of Mac OS running on a pentium box. This was a long time ago, but I whish they would let the cat out of the bag and give windoze a run for the money.

michaelc said:

And it's not a BIOS issue either. It's the whole mac OSX running on a completely different architecture. A superior one, I think (as I type on my x86 machine).

Click to expand...

Not superior, just differant.

The core system components (mobo, CPU, etc) were Mac, not x86.

It shows you how to build an affordable G4 using a lot of interchangible PC/Mac and used Mac parts.

Not a bad way to go if you want an affordable Mac to run OSX on. I might do the same with todays G5 in a few years when the used parts can be had.

This is a great project. Keep us posted.

There is an x86 version of OS X in Apple's HQ . . . it's called Marklar. They won't release that unless their hardware, ie Macintosh, business goes completely under. It's a failsafe they don't intend to use if they can help it. If you want to know why, search around (not so much here, but on Google), but it's been rehashed a thousand times and the article written has nothing to do with said subject.

In response to the article, I must admit that they would have spent a little less had everything worked out right and they hadn't had to buy two motherboards, but I believe that one can probably buy a fully-functional Mac right off of eBay for less. I think building one is a fine idea, but I don't want people to think that they can save themselves a lot of money. Over a new Mac, absolutely, but a comparable G4 could have been purchased for hundreds less.

Congratulations on getting it to work, though. Without the hardware for the front power switches, it would have been a little more difficult!

And I personally see no sense in running OS X and Linux on the same box. It's the same thing, and OS X allows one to run any Linux program and window manager if they so choose. Seems like a waste of hard drive space to me.

Z

Actually OSX is based on FreeBSD UNIX.

I remember when I was little, my dad used a pc emulator on his mac. It wasn't fast enough to run games, but it could run all other windows programs, kind of like wine is for linux. That mac could play the same games just the same as the pc did, but it had to be the mac version of the game. There was a big slowdown running the program. Mechwarrior 2 looked like it ran at about 5 frames per second, so my dad bought the mac version and it ran fine. Warcraft 2 was also unplayable, but the mac version ran fine.

The differences between Linux and Unix/FreeBSD are small, in my mind. They are differently written to accomplish the same thing, complying with the POSIX standard. Linux was apparently written without reference to Unix source code, thus making it not technically Unix, but MOST people term Unix-like operating systems "Unix" out of (perhaps bad, I don't know) habbit, as I always have. Sort of like saying "get in the car" when you really own an SUV, or saying "we're going up to Indiana" when you live in Michigan. Quite obviously, an SUV is not a car and Indiana is South of Michigan, but you let it slide, because you know what they mean, and their intended message is accurate, if not perfectly worded. I found a quote in searching for the differences:

"Linux was written to be similar in function, but independent of the code. In order not to suffer . . . [through] the same issues that BSD had, Linus rewrote the code, without reference to the original source code, and by designed [sic] reinvented the wheel. By not using the proprietary versions of the code he insulated the LINUX world from any claims by a trademark owner/vendor/pimp. All the issues that accompanied the release of Minux, did not have claim on Linux. Linux by design is not Unix-derived (except by functional comparison.)

If Ford held a trademark on the word "car", Toyotas wouldn't be cars. Technically, Linux doesn't fit the trademark . . . [however] it still acts the same by design . . .," just as a Toyota does a Ford. http://www.dbforums.com/t407234.html

I'll admit that I had a misconception about how Linux came into being, thinking that it was in fact a derivative of Unix. But my belief was not so far from reality, since they're still functionally the same (which was why I always used Linux and Unix interchangably). Having seen this and other pages (thanks to Google), though, I still don't think I'm wrong in saying that OSX and Linux are the same thing. They accomplish the same thing despite having different code, and are so compatible that programs designed for Linux can be run on OSX. How is that different than XP Home and Pro?

As regards Windows emulators on Macs, back in the older days of such programs, you could get a PC coprocessor card containing a Pentium through K6-2, RAM, video accelerator, etc. to run PC programs on your Mac, including Windows. They were terribly expensive, but were much faster than software emulators. I don't know if they still make them or if they're compatible with OSX (or 9 for that matter), but is that what your dad had, or did he run a software emulator? From a technical standpoint, I think that such cards hold much more promise in getting functional and usable emulators for OSX and Windows. VPC for Mac works well enough to run XP, but it's still slow and emulates old hardware.

Z

They are both alternate OSes and not windows but they are differant. But you're right insomuch as they are much closer to each other than they are to windows.

zachj said:

And I personally see no sense in running OS X and Linux on the same box. It's the same thing, and OS X allows one to run any Linux program and window manager if they so choose. Seems like a waste of hard drive space to me.

Click to expand...

OS X and Linux/BSD are not the same thing. For one, you can't run a different window manager without taking away all that OS X is. OS X, as seen and used by most people, is Aqua, Quartz, and all the other proprietary, integrated things that no other *n*x has. All these things are integrated, so you can't mix and match in the same way you can with Linux.

I run OS X 10.3 on a Powerbook, OS X Server 10.3 on an older Powermac, Gentoo Linux on three very different x86 machines, and Windows XP Home on my gaming box. Unlike the difference between XP Pro and XP Home, the code used for OS X applications is very different from that used for Unix programs. Sure, practically any program that will compile in PPC Linux (which is still around and strong, by the way) will compile and run in OS X, but just try running iChat on Yellow Dog Linux.

Audioaficionado said:

Actually OSX is based on FreeBSD UNIX.

Click to expand...

Isn't OSX based on Darwin?

You're right about not being able to run OS X programs on Linux. You're not supposed to be able to, either. Just like you can't run office XP directly on Linux. But you can go the other way, as I said and you agreed.

You can run a different window manager on TOP of OS X using what's called X11 (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/x11/). This "program" allows you to run non-native applications on OSX, as well as a different window manager. And when you're done, you can go back to the goodness of Aqua. I tried it, but of course I have no need for it. Unless a person totally hates Aqua, most of their *nix cravings can be satisfied in the Terminal. OSX is certainly a lot more than JUST UNIX/Linux. It's a combination of Aqua, the iApps, etc. on top of a stable UNIX subsystem that makes it so great. What I was saying by saying "they're the same thing" is that running OSX and X11 will give you exactly the same thing as Linux and OSX on a Mac without taking up the disk space, because OSX inherently provides the same functionality as Linux (if not actually based upon it).

Darwin is what Apple has called OS X's Unix/FreeBSD underpinnings. It's based on NEXTSTEP, a startup of Jobs' purchased by Apple to create OS X. http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/history.html

I guess the Linux/UNIX debate's going to go on forever. Quite clearly they're not the same OS, but some will interpret "similar functionality" and conformation to the same standard as being "the same," while others will say it simply means "similar." Nevertheless, most of your Linux commands will work just fine in OS X.

Z

Like I said, you cannot run another window manager, even in the X11 application. I used to run OS X 10.2 Server on one of my machines, and eventually decided to switch to Linux because it's more standard, and a lot of the functions make more sense. I'd much rather deal with text config files that are read directly than go through whatever NetInfo requires.

But I do agree that the differences in underpinnings are the same as differences between Linux distros, and I've known people who run different distros on the same computer for different purposes. But then you're really debating the differences between Darwin and Linux...

I may not understand all the complex issues going on.......BUT, why doesnt some group with lots of resources.....like a school......create a brand new operating system. I mean, making a model of what people want, and making it backwards compatible with windows and linux and macs I don't think would be impossible. With modern storage devices there is plenty of room to add on emulators. Time to make a new group of millionaires, the old ones are rich enough and getting obnoxious.