Who here's seen the rival to PearPC? Its called CherryOS (www.cherryos.com). It claims to be fast than the mac it emulates (a 2ghz G4), emulates a G4, is supposed to be unbeleivably easy to use. Strangly, every time i try to download it, it claims to have a server error. I think this is a hoax.
Bridged chat on:
Please support the defense of Ukraine.
Direct or via Unclutter App
Active forum topics
No Social Media.
All Content Locally Hosted.
Two Terabytes and Growing.
Built on Free Software.
We have complied with zero government requests for information.
It's been \.ed ... it'll be a coupla hours before you can get any info from the site...
I am interested in A) knowing if it works and how long it will take Steve-O to shut them down...
something i've noticed is that it
A) claims to be faster than any real mac on the market (2.7ghz G4 in emulation from a 3.2ghz P IV)
claims to use no previously created code, even though thats near impossible
and C)the one time i managed to get on the site, there were all sorts of scary words for what (according to GPL) be freeware, such as Buy, Shop and add to cart
I found nothing that ever said it was going to be freeware... I was made to understand that it was going to be $50 a copy...
Where did you see that it was freeware?
sorry. it was something else i saw. but $50 a copy for something that in earlier forms looked EXACTLY like pearpc. plus it uses 3gb and 6gb hd images. sound familiar
If one does the math, I do not believe it will emulate at anywhere near 2ghz dual g4 speeds.
The only way I can see it running at anywhere near that speed is if it stored pre-processed code...not likly as that would take a huge amount of disk and memory space. (Something that was considered with Palmboy, the gameboy emulator for pre os 5 palms, but later scrapped)
I hense believe that this is eaither a hoax, vapourware, or something that will emulate a mac at snail pace...alot slower than VPC..
That page has an interesting review plus a few screenshots.
However, the Mac Emulation community has been the most volatile because of late deadlines, vapourware and the like. Not to mention Apple has a say in the matter. Jim Drew who is a known figure in Mac emulation (creator of Fusion, Mac emulator for dos) was at one point supposedly have created a Mac PPC emulator, which had both a software version and a hardware version. Of course, nothing has been heard from that for some time, so it might be possible he sold the rights to someone else. After all, why risk his neck to make money when someone else is willing to?
Most of us Mac users will recall that Blue Label Power Emulator from Lismore was considered as VapourWare for the longest time, and in the end, it did turn out to be real but reports of it's performance were not as good as what was boasted.
It seems the Mac community has been somewhat in chaos in regards to these emulators. I don't see Apple staying quiet in this arena. Apple hasn't as of yet said anything about PearPC, but then again, PearPC isn't charging money. CherryOS, being a commercial product is going to hurt Apple if it is a success. We all know how commonly Windows is pirated. Apple is quite lax about it's products and this is due to the fact that they only work with Macs. However, it would be sad for an emulator to force Mac users into the degraded world that PC Users face with thier OS needing serial numbers and activations etc.
Looking to the legal aspect, Apple can claim that CherryOS is infringing on thier turf because they allow Mac OS X products to run on unsupported Apple hardware which violates Apple's License Agreement. A somewhat weak argument, but it could be enough, considering by the looks of it, CherryOS is a teeny little company compared to Apple.
according to the manual which i got off the webiste, it emulates with 80% of the host speed being used by the client, so under a 3.2ghz P IV, the client (a G4) is running at about 2.7ghz (what a load of made up s**t
Was it him or Derek Mihoka, who took over Fusion at emulators.com? I do know that Derek was working on one that turned into vapour, so that's either the same one, or one extra vapour PPC emu to add to the list.
It would be nice if CherryOS is legit, even if doesn't run quite as fast as promised, but I'll wait until I see several indy reviews before I start Jonesin'.
edit: After reading through the PearPC forum through links above, it seems likely CherryOS is Boloneyware, and it's nothing more than a modified PearPC. Nice dream while it lasted...
That's an interesting article. I like the obfuscation about the speed- sounds like a politician almost: the 80% refers to *an equivelent* G4- his example being that a 3.2 Ghz PIV would be like a 1.2 Ghz G4 (uh...), and 80% of *that* is 900mhz (according to him).
The legal stuff could be interesting... Apple has to maintain that *people*, not hardware or programs, do illegal things, in order to defend its iPod. It would be pretty hypocritical then to attack another company for making a product which merely facilitates something illegal (violating the EULA for OS X not to install on non-apple hardware).
However, I imagine it wouldn't be too hard for Apple to find a way to break CherryOS in future OS X updates/releases. If it becomes a cat and mouse game of patch and break, well, guess which company is the cat and which is the mouse...
::) jeez. okay first of all what you guys have to realize is that in the processor world there are wonderful things called pipelines.
Ever wonder why a 2.1 ghz AMD processor is just as fast(or faster many times) than a 3ghz Pentium 4? Well its because the data pipelines in the AMD processor are shorter, making the time required for data to travel faster. Lower latencies and the lot.
Well PPC processors are the same way. The pipelines are shortened even more. Now they are only slightly shorter than AMD processors so a 1.6ghz processor would be maybe about the same as a 1.9 or 2.0 ghz(probably the lower end) AMD processor. So thats about a 2.6-2.8 ghz P4(depending on cache size. nvm that though)
So you take your processor speed. We'll say 3ghz P4. 80% of that is 2.4 ghz. thats about a 1.3-1.5ghz G4 processor(thats a guestimate. its going to be alittle different depending on several factors but its pretty close). so if you have a 2.2ghz Athlon, 80% of that is 1.76ghz, so that might be around 1.5 ghz G4 processor.
Now I can already see that my math is alittle off here. But we're talking VERY comparable speeds to the apple processors here. I think the only thing we need to worry about is hardware and stability.
I for one am happy to see that someone is finally giving apple a run for their money. They'll finally have to be in a competetive market against all the other hardware makers. While I'll admit that Apple computers are far prettier than PCs, PCs are a whole lot cheaper and costumizable.
I'm a little confused by your post - it appears you start out trying to repudiate dead_elvis' disgust that the comparison is to an "equivalent" processor and end by ascerting the speeds Cherry OS claims are very possible.
How does the Intel compensate for its significantly fewer registers when emulating the PPC 74xx? Will it have to contstantly swap between registers and cache? Won't this have to go down the pipe?
What about the Altivec instructions? If it's not emulating them how can it possibly achieve 80% of G4 speeds? If it is emulating them, how can it possibly achieve 80% speeds?
I don't see it.
Well firstly that is incorrect. If you look at the benchmarks you will see that a 3ghz P4 will woop a 2.1 ghz proc. In fact, an AMD 3200 was slower in almost all the benchmarks than a comparible P4 3.2ghz. To be honest, AMD 32bit procs have been left behind by the P4...
Without seeing source code, hardware designs, real world tests, these figures are useless. There is no evidence that any of you math is correct. I would like to see a PC proc emulate a RISC proc at 80% speed..
Errr yes..so you base your entire conclusion on software that no one has tested and where no revified results have been obtained.
I get the same feeling on this OS. It is fun to believe in like the Great Pumpkin.
It seems that a certain member of the clergy can be rather persuasive, and may have a copy of the disputed software on the way...
E Nomine Verite,
E Nomine Caligatio,
E Spiritu 'fritter,
If it is vapor the disc should be cerimonially burned to return it to the vapor from whence it came...
... of course, the sudden lack of web site does nothing but add to the "vaporware" rumour...
Jim Drew was working on his own version of a PPC emulator, and Derek was working on supposedly another. So there was supposed to be 2 versions under development.
Jim created Fusion PC, which was then sold to Derek and brought to Version 3 and released as freeware.
It's most likely vapourware. But if it is real, it most likely is PearPC with a few optimizations or something else.
Iether way, it seems that it won't be worth the money. It's like how Open Wintel is nothing but a repackaged version of Bochs, albeit they wrote a few extra drivers, slapped on an Aqua interface and claimed G5 optimization. Not really worth the money they ask.
Wired's mac guy has a copy of the software, so to some extent it's real. However he hasn't been able to install OS X on it last time he posted an update so performance is still a big question.
Verified to be a fraud
You are correct about P4's beating XP 3200+'s in benchmarks...synthetic benchmarks that concentrait on WMV and Mpeg4 encoding. Realworld benchmarks show that the 3200+ is as good as the P4. Better in some regions (such as gaming). And dont even bother mentioning hyperthreading. just dont. Anyone who knows anything about PCs knows that HT is not a very useful feature unless you have an OS to support it and you're doing mass video encoding.
that being said. The point is that a 2.1ghz processor from AMD pretty much equals a 3.2ghz processor from Intel...and the AMD is much better at multitasking.
You're right about there being little evidence so far. But theres so many reliable sources saying "ITS FRAUD!" and later "ITS NOT FRUAD!" it makes me believe that there is more than just a shred of truth to this picture.
and even if its not today...there will be a day when apple will have to enter a standardized market. When that happens, we'll see just what kind of company Apple really is.
I'm not a genius on PPC processor funcions so I cant tell you the exact differences between them. From what I have seen from sourcecode however, the instructions that they recieve are not too terribly different.
How is it that the only other emulator is getting one 15th of the speed and this is getting 80%? I dont know. We shall soon find out as it seems that CherryOS is going to be distributed in a few days and a fully functional demo a few days after that.
all in good time :ebc:
unverified to be a fraud
Er...no, not really. Purported by the author not to be a fraud perhaps, but then again the author insists there's no PearPC code used at all in CherryOS, despite both having a made-up variable name of Spiro Multimax 3000, amongst all the other visual similarities posted in links above.
If CherryOS contains PearPC code, he's violating the GPL license, but then again, he's already done that before with a PDF to HTML program 'PdfConf' he was selling that was based on the GPL freely available 'pdf2html.'
The author has changed his story numerous times since the initial announcement of CherryOS; that he was the sole author, that he has a team suddenly; that the initial release in 'a few days' would be a finished 1.0 product, suddenly it's not finished. The 80% speed 'benchmarks' are now a result of the 'personal, subjective experience' of 'the developer' as Kryeziu states, even though he was the developer until a few days ago.
Is this proof it's a fraud? No, but the overwhelming weight of evidence says it is, and there is very, very little to contradict it other than the claims of an already discredited software 'writer'.
He's a one man coding team that is trying to sell the BS that he has a whole bunch of companies. It's like a big setup. Not technically illegal in terms of business practise because one guy can own several companies..but for this guy I doubt any of them are real. They are just facades, he's trying to make it sound like CherryOS is coming from a huge corporate ladder.
Would someone mind taking a few minutes to summarize the posts on this topic? Its a fraud... its not a fraud... violated licencing and what not... It seems like the subject might be important, to Apple and her customers, but I'm just not sure... and I have precious little time for PCs unless they really can run OS X...
thanks so much!
I simply said its unverrified. Its not proof that it meets its claim, but it does say that its not nessesarily a fraud.
everyone on this site is too eager to say its fraud. I'm going to stay optimistic.
Before everyone goes and cries fraud, why dont we look at proof...
oh hey there are none! So lets all wait and see what happens. November is pretty close at hand and CherryOS website has a release date posted now...so until that release date comes, we know nothing.
someone claims to have made a G4 emulator that will run at 80% of your processor speed. (theoretically 1ghz pentium would be 800mhz G4. thats theoretically). Theres lots of mixed evidence. Some people are crying fraud. Some people are claiming that its real. No one knows anything for sure and are just going off their gut feelings. I'm staying optimistic, but no one has ANY proof at all of anything one way or another. We all have to be patient.
what IS a fact though is that G4 emulation is possible and indeed achieved in the pearPC project. Unfortunatly PearPC is slow. very very slow. 1\15th of your processor speed.
Good grief, man, there's no mixed evidence. There's the developer, Arben, saying it's real. That's it. The whole shebang. There is NO other evidence that supports the claims made about CherryOS.
Really, wishful thinking is fine, and I would LOVE to see something like CherryOS exist, but isn't it time to take off the rose-coloured glasses?
Hardly. READ the links above. PearPC developers have stated on the record after actually seeing CherryOS code, that it's PearPC code. That's hardly a 'gut feeling'. Nor am I coming down on CherryBS on a whim. I've read as much as I can because I wanted it to be real, but the burden of evidence, and, with the statement of the PearPC devs, I'll even consider that as proof if only for myself, I can only consider it to be a fraud, and I don't like being suckered. I don't want to see other people suckered, either.
Something that has been happening in the PearPC forums is that there are posters who haven't posted in any other threads jumping in to prop up CherryOS without offering any concrete information. Keep it vague, try and keep the tone optimistic...Arben himself is alleged to have been doing this. Makes you think, doesn't it...
I love both systems and it doesnt matter someone will
make an emulator eventually just a matter of time now.
In the meantime check this out
pretty cool huh
So much for mac PC wars, Im so over them.
PearPC hasnt gotten the copy yet. and the guy from CherryOS has already said hes sending them one. There isnt any concrete evidence one way or another. You arent producing any facts at all. I realize this isnt set yet and that there is a possibility its fraud...You nor I will know until the 25th of November when it'll be available for trial. Until then, stop saying its fake because you have no idea. You say that I'm just propping it up with no evidence...well I'm going by what Wired and other online websites have been saying. That is "it might be a scam, but theres a possibility that it isnt either. we dont know" thats basically what most sites have been saying. PearPC has pretty much been against it, and I'm not quite sure why. If it works the way its advertised, they shouldnt complain at all. In fact they should complain LESS if it turns out that code actually was jacked from them(demand royalties, yes. but dont complain if it works well because they would know that its their work backing this great program. thats assuming it does work well though. or work at all for that matter).
...but methinks 'someone' has gotten 'hold of a copy...
Code is being compared. I'm sure that there will be a revelation in the next week. As far as I know, there seems to be quite a bit of similarity.
And just so's ya know, I'm not the guy with the code. I'm the guy that got the guy the code from the guy with the code to give the guy the code. Ya see, I'm not the 1337 haxo4, I'm just the guy that the haxo4 comes to for ideas.
In Nomine Mitnick
E Spiritu 'fritter
Hmm... seems that the availability of CherryOS has mysteriously changed to Q1 of 2005.
As far as I know, the info that would debunk CherryOS as fraud was planned for release on Nov. 25, the original release date. I have not talked to the guy with the info in a coupla weeks, so I don't know if he's changed those plans or not.
In any case, it's funny that all the text on cherryos.com is exactly the same except for the release date.