Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the MAC dead?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 10:46:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

First they screw up OSX by making it so unlike OS9 you might as well bun
using a different machine. Now a software developer living on Maui who was
tired of carrying a PC and a MAC around has written an emulator called CherryOS
that mimics Mac hardware, so you can run OSX apps on your PC. There is a
speed differential, but for people on laptops the combination of price and
compatibility with the PC environment may be too good to pass up.

Ok it's full release has been pulled back a month, and the Apple IPOD's are
certainly a big success. But can the Macintosh survive losing a lrage part of
it's market to folks buying cheap PC's and running OSX apps on it? The jury
may still be out, but it could be before too long the price of a new Mac is
going to sink like a stone.

http://www.applelinks.com/pm/more.php?id=2521_0_1_0
http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/37504.html


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

More about : mac dead

Anonymous
October 23, 2004 10:46:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <20041023144624.01015.00002302@mb-m15.aol.com>,
willstg@aol.comnospam (WillStG) wrote:

> First they screw up OSX by making it so unlike OS9 you might as well bun
> using a different machine. Now a software developer living on Maui who was
> tired of carrying a PC and a MAC around has written an emulator called
> CherryOS
> that mimics Mac hardware, so you can run OSX apps on your PC. There is a
> speed differential, but for people on laptops the combination of price and
> compatibility with the PC environment may be too good to pass up.

When you take TCO into account, I don't see any great price difference
between Macs and Windows computers. Until Microsoft creates a secure OS
that isn't susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware,
I'll stick with Macs, thanks.

BTW, the creators of the open-source (and still alpha stage) software
called PearPC claim that CherryOS contains a lot of stolen code.

http://wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,65368,00.html

http://forums.pearpc.net/viewtopic.php?p=7613#7613

http://www.artworxinn.com/alex/arben.htm

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 10:46:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

willstg@aol.comnospam (WillStG) wrote:

> First they screw up OSX by making it so unlike OS9 you might as well bun
> using a different machine. Now a software developer living on Maui who was
> tired of carrying a PC and a MAC around has written an emulator called CherryOS
> that mimics Mac hardware, so you can run OSX apps on your PC. There is a
> speed differential, but for people on laptops the combination of price and
> compatibility with the PC environment may be too good to pass up.

This guy appears to be a fraud, although there is technology out there
similar to what you describe:

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/18/21372...

Emulators tend not to have a place in music software. On the other
hand, Microsoft ships a version of Mac Office with a Windows emulator
built in and many people prefer to run the Windows emulated versions
of some applications (notably Excel and Outlook) instead of the Mac OS
X native versions of the same apps. I personally think Microsoft Word
on Mac OS X is one hell of a great piece of software -- and you're not
going to see screenwriters in Los Angeles give up their shiny metal
Mac laptops anytime soon.

OS X is actually ahead of Windows in some ways now. In others, it's
an utter disaster. But for the first time in a long time Apple has
competitive hardware and a decent OS platform. The improvements
they've made in the past two years can't be dismissed just because
some dork in Hawaii claims to have created a Mac emulator in four
months all by himself. (Especially since you still have to run Apple
software on it in order to make it do anything besides run Linux
slowly.)

It'll be interesting to see what Apple come up with moving forward. I
do wish they'd focus more on software than different colors of iPods
and a different type of metal on their slow, easily-broken laptops
every year.

And back on topic -- from an audio perspective, I hope whatever
software they ship is a LOT better than SoundTrack and GarageBand,
both of which are pretty damn horrible.

--Erik
Related resources
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 10:46:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

will, i'll assume this is a serious post -- but there's no way that
cherryOS will affect the mac. first off, it's an emulator. this adds
another layer of abstraction ON TOP of windows. winXP on a P4 is
doing all it can to play back 16 tracks of 24/96 files w/plugins, so
adding a layer on top of that is only going to slow this down.

but there's talk that it's not all that it claims. from /. a few days
back:
............
CherryBS writes "The CherryOS emulator, claiming that it could
seamlessly run Mac OS X at 80% the speed of the host computer on
standard x86 hardware (covered here previously), has created some
controversy about stolen code. It turns out that CherryOS's emulation
engine is nothing more than that of PearPC, an open source GPL project
to create a PowerPC motheboard emulator." Read on for more details.
............

you can check out more here:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/18/21372...


cheeers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

willstg@aol.comnospam (WillStG) wrote in message news:<20041023144624.01015.00002302@mb-m15.aol.com>...
> First they screw up OSX by making it so unlike OS9 you might as well bun
> using a different machine. Now a software developer living on Maui who was
> tired of carrying a PC and a MAC around has written an emulator called CherryOS
> that mimics Mac hardware, so you can run OSX apps on your PC. There is a
> speed differential, but for people on laptops the combination of price and
> compatibility with the PC environment may be too good to pass up.
>
> Ok it's full release has been pulled back a month, and the Apple IPOD's are
> certainly a big success. But can the Macintosh survive losing a lrage part of
> it's market to folks buying cheap PC's and running OSX apps on it? The jury
> may still be out, but it could be before too long the price of a new Mac is
> going to sink like a stone.
>
> http://www.applelinks.com/pm/more.php?id=2521_0_1_0
> http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/37504.html
>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 10:46:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 11:02:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Interesting question, but as you know, most Mac specific applications depend
on proprietary hardware, so can Pro Tools run on OSX on a PC platform and
recognize the hardware?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"WillStG" <willstg@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20041023144624.01015.00002302@mb-m15.aol.com...
> First they screw up OSX by making it so unlike OS9 you might as well
bun
> using a different machine. Now a software developer living on Maui who
was
> tired of carrying a PC and a MAC around has written an emulator called
CherryOS
> that mimics Mac hardware, so you can run OSX apps on your PC. There is a
> speed differential, but for people on laptops the combination of price and
> compatibility with the PC environment may be too good to pass up.
>
> Ok it's full release has been pulled back a month, and the Apple
IPOD's are
> certainly a big success. But can the Macintosh survive losing a lrage
part of
> it's market to folks buying cheap PC's and running OSX apps on it? The
jury
> may still be out, but it could be before too long the price of a new Mac
is
> going to sink like a stone.
>
> http://www.applelinks.com/pm/more.php?id=2521_0_1_0
> http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/37504.html
>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 11:02:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> most Mac specific applications depend
> on proprietary hardware, so can Pro Tools run on OSX on a PC platform and
> recognize the hardware?

Several sources have mentioned seeing OS X running on x86 hardware (at different times and with different versions) in Apple's labs.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:07:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Pat Janes not@bloody.likely.invalid >>
<< BTW, the creators of the open-source (and still alpha stage) software
called PearPC claim that CherryOS contains a lot of stolen code. >>

Stolen from their _free_ Mac Hardware OSX Emulator? Let's assume that's
true, that might be even *worse* news for the MAC (as a piece of hardware), no?

http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/macintosh.shtml


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:07:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I thought OSX was a modified power PC processor version of BSD Unix..... the
PC version was available first....

Rgds:
Eric

"WillStG" <willstg@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20041023170749.19398.00006057@mb-m17.aol.com...
> << Pat Janes not@bloody.likely.invalid >>
> << BTW, the creators of the open-source (and still alpha stage) software
> called PearPC claim that CherryOS contains a lot of stolen code. >>
>
> Stolen from their _free_ Mac Hardware OSX Emulator? Let's assume
that's
> true, that might be even *worse* news for the MAC (as a piece of
hardware), no?
>
> http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/macintosh.shtml
>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:07:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

IIRC, OS X runs on a modified Mach kernel. It shares a lot of ancillary programs (mostly GNU stuff) with both BSD and Linux, but then so do all unices these days.




Eric K. Weber wrote:
> I thought OSX was a modified power PC processor version of BSD Unix..... the
> PC version was available first....
>
> Rgds:
> Eric
>
> "WillStG" <willstg@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20041023170749.19398.00006057@mb-m17.aol.com...
>
>><< Pat Janes not@bloody.likely.invalid >>
>><< BTW, the creators of the open-source (and still alpha stage) software
>>called PearPC claim that CherryOS contains a lot of stolen code. >>
>>
>> Stolen from their _free_ Mac Hardware OSX Emulator? Let's assume
>
> that's
>
>>true, that might be even *worse* news for the MAC (as a piece of
>
> hardware), no?
>
>> http://www.thefreecountry.com/emulators/macintosh.shtml
>>
>>
>>Will Miho
>>NY Music & TV Audio Guy
>>Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
>>"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:09:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

WillStG wrote:

> Now a software developer living on Maui who was tired of carrying a PC and
> a MAC around has written an emulator called CherryOS that mimics Mac
> hardware, so you can run OSX apps on your PC.

That thing ain't lookin' so cherry; in fact, _Wired_ investigation has
determined that there is a lot of Pear OS copied into it. The IP trail
there isn't yet proven clean.

And on, the Mac isn't dead. OTOH, there are reports of a Linux 64 bit
rig running Windoze faster in emulation than Windoze runs by its ownself
on the fastest stuff for it.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:09:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:

> And on, the Mac isn't dead. OTOH, there are reports of a Linux 64 bit
> rig running Windoze faster in emulation than Windoze runs by its ownself
> on the fastest stuff for it.

Where could I find more on this, Hank?


Thanks,

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:10:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> hank alrich wrote:
>
>> And on, the Mac isn't dead. OTOH, there are reports of a Linux 64 bit
>> rig running Windoze faster in emulation than Windoze runs by its ownself
>> on the fastest stuff for it.
>
>
> Where could I find more on this, Hank?

<http://www.synthax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53&gt;
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:10:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

> Bob Cain wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>>
>>> And on, the Mac isn't dead. OTOH, there are reports of a Linux 64 bit
>>> rig running Windoze faster in emulation than Windoze runs by its ownself
>>> on the fastest stuff for it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where could I find more on this, Hank?
>
>
> <http://www.synthax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53&gt;
>

Ah, that's Wine

http://www.winehq.com/

Not sure that if or how Wine deals with driver issues which
are no near and dear to us.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:10:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>
>> Bob Cain wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hank alrich wrote:
>>>
>>>> And on, the Mac isn't dead. OTOH, there are reports of a Linux 64 bit
>>>> rig running Windoze faster in emulation than Windoze runs by its
>>>> ownself
>>>> on the fastest stuff for it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where could I find more on this, Hank?
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.synthax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53&gt;
>>
>
> Ah, that's Wine
>
> http://www.winehq.com/

Yes, but WINE in a very large address space with a very fast processor.



> Not sure that if or how Wine deals with driver issues which are so
> near and dear to us.

That turns out to be the problem with the first attempt if you read his replies a bit. Still, it does point towards some intersting possibilities in the near future. Start with a good set of 64-bit Linux drivers, use those to emulate 32-bit ASIO and run the app on top...
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:14:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Then there is the ongoing rumor that Apple maintains a port
of their current OS that runs on x86 as insurance against the
day that their PowerPC source(s?) flake out on them.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 1:59:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

WillStG <willstg@aol.comnospam> wrote:

> First they screw up OSX by making it so unlike OS9 you might as well bun

Well, there was AUX around 90 and I felt that was late for a better OS
under the pretty but aging shell. Then tere was Pink and then Copland
died 96 and with it OS9 and nearly the Mac to. Thanks to the NeXT rescue
(IMO) the Mac is still alive.

Actually the Mac has been "dying" since the late eighties and even been
declared dead from time to time. Its death is even more prolonged than
that of a leading soprano in an opera. The Mac is very good at dying,
very, very good. I expect it will continue to be dying for quite som
time yet...:-) In the mean time I'll keep úsing it and buying new ones
until it's really really really dead for the last time...

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:05:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) >>
<< That thing ain't lookin' so cherry; in fact, _Wired_ investigation has
determined that there is a lot of Pear OS copied into it. The IP trail
there isn't yet proven clean.>

So how does any of that change the impending reality of being to run on a
PC the Mac OS and hardware addressing? It just means that PearPC might have a
big slice of the pie.

<And on, the Mac isn't dead. OTOH, there are reports of a Linux 64 bit
rig running Windoze faster in emulation than Windoze runs by its ownself
on the fastest stuff for it. >>

Yeah, but why would you want to? <g>

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:05:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

WillStG wrote:

> << walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) >>
> << That thing ain't lookin' so cherry; in fact, _Wired_ investigation has
> determined that there is a lot of Pear OS copied into it. The IP trail
> there isn't yet proven clean.>
>
> So how does any of that change the impending reality of being to run on a
> PC the Mac OS and hardware addressing? It just means that PearPC might have a
> big slice of the pie.

Got a link to this? To say I'm skeptical about running a
Power PC app on Intel processors is a huge understatement.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:43:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Erik Gavriluk wrote:

> This guy appears to be a fraud


If he wasn't behind a keyboard, the charge would be "inciting a riot".
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:11:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

WillStG wrote:

> So how does any of that change the impending reality of being to run
> on a PC the Mac OS and hardware addressing? It just means that PearPC
> might have a big slice of the pie.

Because when somebody goes to show how much cheaper PeeCee's are than
Macs, by the time it's together feature for feature in hardware, there
isn't difference enough to spend time thinking about.

Do you really want to learn Linux? I might, and you might, but it
appears non-trivial from here. <g> Putting a GUI over it doesn't seem to
relieve the need to have some basic operational understanding of that
upon which the GUI floats.

I commented to t a programmer this summer that I wasn't going to go
seriously into OSX until I had time to learn at least enough about the
underlying Unixness of it to save my ass when Apple's magic turend
messy. He said it takes years to learn Unix and I should forget that and
just deal with the GUI. I told him I read repeatedly in DAW Mac where
the folks who can keep their own OSX Macs humming and help the rest of
us out of a tarpit are the Unix geeks, and that I knew I needed to learn
enough about it for them to be able to help me.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:17:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< rnorman@starpower.net >>
<< Interesting question, but as you know, most Mac specific applications depend
on proprietary hardware, so can Pro Tools run on OSX on a PC platform and
recognize the hardware? >>

Well that was the point, they claim it does the hardware addressing. If
true whether the Cherryos uses stolen source code from the pearPC freeware or
not, Apple's Mac as a *hardware* platform may be affected considerably - either
by CherryOS or maybe by an updated/modified version of PearPC.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:17:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

WillStG wrote:

> Well that was the point, they claim it does the hardware addressing.

The Power PC and the Intel processor architectures could
hardly be more different. Enormously different instruction
sets, different memory architectures, different peripheral
architectures, etc., etc.

I suppose it's possible to code a Power PC
interpreter/emulator to run on an Intel architecture but no
way could it offer but a small fraction of the native
performance.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:32:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'll believe the emulator when I see it.

Otherwise, MY mac is working quite well, thanks! Alive and kicking.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now available: new Particle Salad CD "The Track Inside."

See http://www.particlesalad.com for more info.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:32:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Particle Salad wrote:

> I'll believe the emulator when I see it.

I won't believe it then. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 4:33:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

--

Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot.
"WillStG" <willstg@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20041023144624.01015.00002302@mb-m15.aol.com...
> First they screw up OSX by making it so unlike OS9 you might as well
bun
> using a different machine. Now a software developer living on Maui who
was
> tired of carrying a PC and a MAC around has written an emulator called
CherryOS
> that mimics Mac hardware, so you can run OSX apps on your PC. There is a
> speed differential, but for people on laptops the combination of price and
> compatibility with the PC environment may be too good to pass up.
>
> Ok it's full release has been pulled back a month, and the Apple
IPOD's are
> certainly a big success. But can the Macintosh survive losing a lrage
part of
> it's market to folks buying cheap PC's and running OSX apps on it? The
jury
> may still be out, but it could be before too long the price of a new Mac
is
> going to sink like a stone.
>

Right.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 5:33:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Eric K. Weber <eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote:
>I thought OSX was a modified power PC processor version of BSD Unix..... the
>PC version was available first....

No, OSX is based on the Mach kernal. I _think_ that this was originally
written for the Vax, actually. It's got some stuff to make it look like
BSD on top, but what is underneath is a microkernal that bears no resemblance
to the 4.2 BSD tapes.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 6:48:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Pat Janes" <not@bloody.likely.invalid> wrote in message
news:not-7CEF26.16551223102004@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> ...Until Microsoft creates a secure OS
> that isn't susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware,
> I'll stick with Macs, thanks.

I hate to break this to you but it was System 9 and before that wasn't
susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 8:09:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:45:41 -0700, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>
>
>WillStG wrote:
>
>> Well that was the point, they claim it does the hardware addressing.
>
>The Power PC and the Intel processor architectures could
>hardly be more different. Enormously different instruction
>sets, different memory architectures, different peripheral
>architectures, etc., etc.
>
>I suppose it's possible to code a Power PC
>interpreter/emulator to run on an Intel architecture but no
>way could it offer but a small fraction of the native
>performance.

The thing about most application software starting with the
original Mac and Windows 3.1 is that much of the code is calls to
system utilities and user-interface routines (check for
key/mouse/other events, draw/refresh a window, put this string of text
on the screen, send/receive over this serial port) so that most of the
processor time is spent executing system routines. The good news is
the code for these routines doesn't have to be emulated - the routines
themselves can be re-implemented on the native processor, so they run
as fast as anything else, and the calling application doesn't know the
difference. Many apps such as word processing are 99 percent system
calls, and would run essentially as fast as native applications.
But as far as an application running its own code, doing things
like sorting, you're absolutely right. Thus, running for example a
wave-file editor, you can select, cut, paste and do file operations at
"near full speed" but noise reduction would be quite slow.

Regarding the original question, I recall when the Mac was dying in
1996 or so. In my recent move I ran across a Newsweek or Time Magazine
from that era with the front cover announcing the death of Apple
Computer. The PC market was only about two percent Macintosh whereas
it had been several times that years before. But I saw on an Apple web
BBS the statements of supporters and how Apple will live on, and such.
It struck me that Apple was a religion (or some sort of "cult" with
its bizarre slogans such as "insanely great"), and these were it's
strongest believers. I don't know how much this had to do with the
Mac's (ahem) "resurrection" with the hot-selling G2's and G3's and
such, but it occurs to me now that Apple has a base of users who will
"buy Mac" no matter what, and there may still be enough of them to
sustain the company (as long as Apple doesn't make too many big
blunders). These are apparently the graphic designers and such, the
(for a lack of a better word) "liberal hippie" equivalent of
conservative businessmen who said "No one ever got fired for buying
IBM."

>Bob

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 8:58:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Olhsson wrote:

> I hate to break this to you but it was System 9 and before that wasn't
> susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware.

I'm hoping OS9 will hold me for the next couple of decades, then I'm
done. <g>

--
ha
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:15:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Bob Cain arcane@arcanemethods.com >>

<< WillStG wrote:
> << walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) >>
> << That thing ain't lookin' so cherry; in fact, _Wired_ investigation has
> determined that there is a lot of Pear OS copied into it. The IP trail
> there isn't yet proven clean.>
>
> So how does any of that change the impending reality of being to run on a
> PC the Mac OS and hardware addressing? It just means that PearPC might have
a
> big slice of the pie.

Got a link to this? To say I'm skeptical about running a
Power PC app on Intel processors is a huge understatement. >>

CherryPC (http://www.cherryos.com/) claims
"... a breakthrough in emulation development by providing a software emulator
which allows Windows PC users to run Apple's OS on x86 computer architecture,
while preserving network capabilities and access to the host computer's
hardware resources. "

The "Softpear Project" (http://www.softpear.org/) says

"The SoftPear Project aims to create compatibility software between the IBM PC
and the Apple Macintosh architecture.

With Mac OS X, an excellent operating system is available, unfortunately it
runs only on Macintosh hardware. Therefore this project seeks to create
compatibility layers to run Mac OS X on IBM PC hardware.

We do not develop an emulator for PowerPC Macintosh machines (like "PearPC", or
like "Basilisk" or "UAE" for other platforms), though; the project has more
similarities to Digital's "FX!32", FreeBSD's "Linux Binary Compatbility" and
"WINE".

Instead, Darwin/x86 or GNU/Linux will run on the PC, and the Mac OS X user
interface, its libraries and all applications running on top of it will run on
Darwin or GNU/Linux, using SoftPear's compatibility layer.

This compatibility layer consists of an emulator/dynamic recompiler of user
mode PowerPC code and a layer between PowerPC code and native x86 code that
handles endianness issues.

Another layer can make x86 applications run on top of the PowerPC Mac OS X
libraries, which in turn run on x86 hardware, so Mac OS X applications that
have been developed for the PowerPC can be recompiled for the x86 CPU. In
addition, all that knowlegde that will be gained by making Mac OS X run on the
IBM PC architecture might help creating a reimplementation of parts and
eventually all of Mac OS X unter the GPL, providing a fully open source Mac OS
X clone for other processors than just the PowerPC."

I guess the reason the PearPC people call CherryOS a fraud; they say it
uses their code, and it claims capabilities that the PearPC software does not
have in addressing hardware, that the "Softpear Project" is trying to acheive.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:26:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Eric K. Weber wrote:

> I thought OSX was a modified power PC processor version of BSD Unix..... the
> PC version was available first....

And the VAX version of BSD was available waaaaay before that.
And the PDP-11 version of BSD-customized Unix before that even.

Anyway, it's not true that OS X is a version of BSD Unix. OS X is
an operating system that includes three major parts:

(1) The Mach microkernel system.
(2) The OS X class system, which does all the windowing and
all the Mac-like stuff
(3) A version of FreeBSD, whose tasks run as a personality under Mach.

Actually it's more complicated than that when you take into account
the fact that Classic is supported, etc., etc. But the point is
that it's not simply BSD Unix with a GUI slapped on; it's a lot more
than that.

- Logan
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:30:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Olhsson wrote:
> I hate to break this to you but it was System 9 and before that wasn't
> susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware.

If that's true, then why did they have virus checkers on the OS 6
and OS 7 Mac machines in the computer lab when I started college?
If you mean that OS 9 and before weren't AS suspectible, then I
might buy that though. (However, I don't seem to need a virus
checker on the OS X system I'm using, but then again it's normally
behind two firewalls...)

- Logan
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:35:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:
> And on, the Mac isn't dead. OTOH, there are reports of a Linux 64 bit
> rig running Windoze faster in emulation than Windoze runs by its ownself
> on the fastest stuff for it.

Well yeah, and back in about 1990 or 1991, there was a Mac emulator for
the Amiga (since they used the same processors back then), and since
Apple lagged a bit in introducing new hardware for a while there, at
one point the fastest Mac on the planet was an Amiga with the emulator.
(It was a 28 MHz 68030 when Apple was offering only a 25 MHz or so,
plus the emulator ran faster anyway due to the graphics accelerator
built-in on the Amiga that the Mac didn't have.)

But anyway, so what? These days Apple is still around and Commodore
(owners of the Amiga) filed bankruptcy just slightly over 10 years ago,
so emulating your competition successfully doesn't exactly mean a
whole lot IMHO.

- Logan
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 12:40:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I see a lot of discussion about how it's not gonna work, but there's
been an Intel emulator for PowerPC for many years, and in fact, it was
bought and is now marketed by Micro$oft: Virtual PC.

It's gotta be (at best) like classic mode is in regards to device
drivers, therefore unsuitable for audio work, but it seems it should be
included in the discussion. I can't stand the thought of giving moft
more $$ or putting windoze in my mac, but people say it works.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 5:32:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in
news:10nmb0i2bc1su3d@corp.supernews.com:

> Then there is the ongoing rumor that Apple maintains a port
> of their current OS that runs on x86 as insurance against the
> day that their PowerPC source(s?) flake out on them.

Along with a similar rumor that Microsoft has a .Net port to OSX that they
refuse to release for marketing reasons.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 6:19:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1gm4qd8.ozfraed1hvvsN%walkinay@thegrid.net> walkinay@thegrid.net writes:

> I'm hoping OS9 will hold me for the next couple of decades, then I'm
> done. <g>

I felt the same way about DOS 6.22.

I still use the DOS version of Lotus 1-2-3 to run a general ledger
program for my bookkeeping. It's really cool, but it's full of macros
that won't convert to Excel or even later Windows versions of Lotus or
the Open Office version. That still runs under WinXP, but who knows
what my next computer will come with, and if it will run under that?

Maybe that will define when I'm "done."


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:09:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:WJEed.753712$Gx4.477274@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Pat Janes" <not@bloody.likely.invalid> wrote in message
> news:not-7CEF26.16551223102004@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> > ...Until Microsoft creates a secure OS
> > that isn't susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware,
> > I'll stick with Macs, thanks.
>
> I hate to break this to you but it was System 9 and before that wasn't
> susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware.
>
> --
> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
>


Does this really mean that mac-hackers are just less talented ? Surely they
should work harder to redress the imbalance and prove their technical
prowess?

geoff
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:09:22 +1300, "Geoff Wood"
<geoff@nospam.paf.co.nz> wrote:

>
>"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message
>news:WJEed.753712$Gx4.477274@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> "Pat Janes" <not@bloody.likely.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:not-7CEF26.16551223102004@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
>> > ...Until Microsoft creates a secure OS
>> > that isn't susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware,
>> > I'll stick with Macs, thanks.
>>
>> I hate to break this to you but it was System 9 and before that wasn't
>> susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
>> Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
>> Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
>> 615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
>>
>
>
>Does this really mean that mac-hackers are just less talented ? Surely they
>should work harder to redress the imbalance and prove their technical
>prowess?

Not neccesarily.

And I have to beg to differ with Bob, there's nothing about earlier
Mac OS'es that made them THAT much more immune to these things than
Windows systems (it's just that Windows looks like swiss cheese in
comparison, but that's another rant). Hackers/crackers presumably go
for the wider "market" of the PC community. But there certainly have
been a few viruses for the Mac. I recall the story that one of the
first shareware compilation CD's for the Mac had a virus scanner on
it, and also had another app that had a virus that was detectable with
that virus scanner.

>geoff

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Geoff Wood <geoff@nospam.paf.co.nz> wrote:
>"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I hate to break this to you but it was System 9 and before that wasn't
>> susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware.
>
>Does this really mean that mac-hackers are just less talented ? Surely they
>should work harder to redress the imbalance and prove their technical
>prowess?

Until Outlook is ported to the Mac, I don't think there will be much hope.
There is some SMB support for the Mac, but most of the real boneheadedness
has been stripped out.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <cWFed.13636$mZ2.817037@news02.tsnz.net> geoff@nospam.paf.co.nz writes:

> Does this really mean that mac-hackers are just less talented ? Surely they
> should work harder to redress the imbalance and prove their technical
> prowess?

Probably only less interested. If they take down every Mac in the
world, they've only affected a small percentage of the world's
computers. With Windows, you get more bang for the hack.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:09:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > I hate to break this to you but it was System 9 and before that wasn't
> > susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
>
>
> Does this really mean that mac-hackers are just less talented ? Surely they
> should work harder to redress the imbalance and prove their technical
> prowess?
>


but linux doesn't get the same amount of virus's etc. as winXX either.
and these days, spyware is the problem (last stat was 90% of win pc's
with spyware!!!).

i think some of this is obvious market share. but from using a
windows machine, i see day in and day out how microsoft intentionally
leaves my computer open to being messed with by "trusted" entities.
unfortunately, it's all too easy for hackers and less-than-ethical
companies to exploit.

so i finally installed firefox. problem solved.

at any rate, the header of this thread sounds kinda flamelike, no? of
course the mac's not going anywhere. neither is linux. neither is
windows.

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:09:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Bradley wrote:

> But there certainly have
> been a few viruses for the Mac.

But damn few. So few that in fact it can't have been as easy to write
those. The viral balance is way out of line even with the market share
stats.

--
ha
October 24, 2004 9:09:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Bradley wrote:

> Geoff Wood wrote:

>>
>>Does this really mean that mac-hackers are just less talented ? Surely
>>they should work harder to redress the imbalance and prove their technical
>>prowess?
>
> Not neccesarily.
>
> And I have to beg to differ with Bob, there's nothing about earlier
> Mac OS'es that made them THAT much more immune to these things than
> Windows systems (it's just that Windows looks like swiss cheese in
> comparison, but that's another rant). Hackers/crackers presumably go
> for the wider "market" of the PC community. But there certainly have
> been a few viruses for the Mac.


Consider also the motivation of the hacker(s). Windows is not just an easy
target, but it is a very inviting target as well. If you differentiate
between truly malicious hacking (intended to steal money, credit card
numbers, etc.) and academic hacking (intended mainly to prove it can be
done), then it's easier to understand why academic hackers would prefer to
target Microsoft products. The larger installed base makes for greater
visibillity. And it's almost as if Microsoft itself has thrown down the
gauntlet by paying such a huge amount of lip service to security while
making precious few real technical improvements.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:32:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lars Farm <mail.addr.can.be.found@www.farm.se&gt; wrote:

> Well, there was AUX around 90 and I felt that was late for a better OS
> under the pretty but aging shell.

1985-1992. I worked on A/UX from the start till the end. The biggest
problem was that Apple already shipped MacOS 7 on every computer, and
they had no marketing plan for an "alternative" OS.

As a result, A/UX got shuffled around to various marketing departments.
They tried Higher-Ed; they tried Corporate; they tried anywhere that
people were using Unix.

Unfortunately, Apple's 68K-based systems weren't nearly up to the task
of taking on Sun et al in the Unix world.

Then came the PowerPC "deal of the century" with IBM and Motorola.
Apple dropped A/UX in favor of a port of IBM's AIX, still remaining on
68K systems. (Remember the Server 700 series?) The whole project died
in about 1994.

--
- rick http://www.cfcl.com/~rick/
Rick Auricchio Macs Only: Macintosh support rick@cfcl.com
I acknowledge the existence of a higher power, and have therefore installed
surge suppressors.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:34:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt <kurt@nv.net> wrote:

> Several sources have mentioned seeing OS X running on x86 hardware (at
> different times and with different versions) in Apple's labs.

During my four years working on OS X, we were required to maintain x86
compatibility (actual little-endian was all it needed) in the kernel
and I/O subsystems. Someone did periodic builds and testing.

I haven't worked at Apple since late 2001, so this policy may have
changed.

--
- rick http://www.cfcl.com/~rick/
Rick Auricchio Macs Only: Macintosh support rick@cfcl.com
I acknowledge the existence of a higher power, and have therefore installed
surge suppressors.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 11:43:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "Pat Janes" <not@bloody.likely.invalid> wrote in message
> news:not-7CEF26.16551223102004@nntp-stjh-01-01.rogers.nf.net...
> > ...Until Microsoft creates a secure OS
> > that isn't susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware,
> > I'll stick with Macs, thanks.
>
In article
<WJEed.753712$Gx4.477274@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Bob Olhsson" <olh@hyperback.com> wrote:

> I hate to break this to you but it was System 9 and before that wasn't
> susceptible to viruses, trojans, worms and malware/spyware.

I've been using OSX every day for a couple years. I have yet to see any
OSX viruses, trojans, worms or malware/spyware.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 1:52:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

One thing to keep in mind:

Anyone who refers to the Macintosh as a MAC (three letters in all caps)
doesn't actually use one. You'll find this tip useful when dealing with
computer vendors and industry pundits...


Regards,

Monte McGuire
monte.mcguire@verizon.net
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:14:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mr c deckard wrote:

> at any rate, the header of this thread sounds kinda flamelike, no?

Will was havin' a panic attack.

--
ha
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:14:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Monte McGuire wrote:

> One thing to keep in mind:

> Anyone who refers to the Macintosh as a MAC (three letters in all caps)
> doesn't actually use one. You'll find this tip useful when dealing with
> computer vendors and industry pundits...

But you know Will _does_ use a Mac. It was the excitement of imagining
coming home to a dead computer. Scary.

--
ha
!