Cherry os?!

Anyone know when Cherry os will be available?

www.cherryos.com

michaelmjc said:

Anyone know when Cherry os will be available?

www.cherryos.com

Click to expand...

Cherry OS is a stolen peace of software from a project called PearPC. PearPC is already available.

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/about.html

Here's the Slashdot article on the theft:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/18/2137253&tid=179&tid=3

For the record, PearPC is an incredibly slow, but nonetheless spectacular breakthrough in software engineering. I've seen for myself on Windows forums people who are now considering Macs as a result of testing out Panther on their PCs.

since we are somewhat on the subject. anyone think there is ever any bit of a chance of os X being ported over to x86? Im thinking probably no but someone will come out with as close of a clone as possible without getting in to much trouble.

Smackintosh said:

since we are somewhat on the subject. anyone think there is ever any bit of a chance of os X being ported over to x86? Im thinking probably no but someone will come out with as close of a clone as possible without getting in to much trouble.

Click to expand...

OS X will *never* be ported to x86. Ever. There's too many different variatons of hardware and BIOS revisions and all this crap that it would make OS X as bloated as Windows if Apple ever tried to cover it all.

My best guess is that Linux will clone some features from OS X but will always lag behind (as open source always does) - while the rest of us will enjoy the benefits of the real deal.

meltbanana314 said:

OS X will *never* be ported to x86. Ever. There's too many different variatons of hardware and BIOS revisions and all this crap that it would make OS X as bloated as Windows if Apple ever tried to cover it all.

My best guess is that Linux will clone some features from OS X but will always lag behind (as open source always does) - while the rest of us will enjoy the benefits of the real deal.

Click to expand...

i wouldn't say that open source always lags behind. Lots of good stuff comes from open source.

As far as porting osx over i would think that it would definately be possible if there was enough demand for it. Someone could set up some type of darwin or other distro that already runs on x86 and then somehow figure out how to get the rest of osx running on top of that couldnt they?

Smackintosh said:

i wouldn't say that open source always lags behind. Lots of good stuff comes from open source.

Click to expand...

Like Darwin for example.

If it weren't for open source there would be no www!

Amen-moses

Smackintosh said:

As far as porting osx over i would think that it would definately be possible if there was enough demand for it.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Apple is a hardware company that happens to make good software. Almost all the profits that Apple makes comes from the sale of the computer componets itself. If people could buy Dells and install OS X on it - they'd lose tons of money in hardware sales. It'd be a suicidal business decision, not to mention it's hard to rewrite an OS for an entirely different architecture.

meltbanana314 said:

Wrong. Apple is a hardware company that happens to make good software. Almost all the profits that Apple makes comes from the sale of the computer componets itself. If people could buy Dells and install OS X on it - they'd lose tons of money in hardware sales. It'd be a suicidal business decision, not to mention it's hard to rewrite an OS for an entirely different architecture.

Click to expand...

well i wouldn't say i am entirely wrong. they may loose alot of money on their *hardware* but they could make the $100 + bucks per copy of the os they sold to people with non macs. As far as "having to rewrite an entire OS" well darwin can already run on x86. Although many things would need porting over it probably would be possible. you say open source is always behind. I ask how come it took apple so long to start using it then?

Smackintosh said:

As far as "having to rewrite an entire OS" well darwin can already run on x86. Although many things would need porting over it probably would be possible. you say open source is always behind. I ask how come it took apple so long to start using it then?

Click to expand...

Darwin can run on x86, yes - but that's because both Mach and FreeBSD (XNU) could already run on x86 processors when Apple started using it for NeXTStep/OpenStep/OS X. They didn't even need to touch the x86 codebase that much when compared to PPC.

The real meat of OS X - parts of Carbon, Quartz, Aqua, etc... are all programmed specifically for PPC, and it would take one **** of a re-write to get anything to run on decent speed on non PPC processors.

I'm not sure I understand your last comment/question about open source, though.

yeh i can hear what your saying about it being a ton of work to rewrite the parts they need to (just with the few parts you mentioned, alone) , i just think it could be possible if they really wanted to. As far as if they ever will, i have to say you are probably right. I don't think they are ever going to. In my last comment of my last post i was wondering why apple didnt grasp onto open source for some of their OS earlier? or did they? I don't know much about any mac os before os x. I used os 9 for a long time at work but didn't know much about its structure.

Classic OS was based on a system called 'lisa' and was gradually developed over a long period of time by Apple. It's funny the question about if apple will port their software to a different platform, their was a point that apple allowed other companys to make hybrid macs (I think it was IBM). It wasn't very good for Apple so they stopped doing it. Did you know that Bill Gates worked for Apple once, before he decided to start making his own operating system (many say based on apples system) He managed to succeed in just selling software. Apple thought this wouldn't be a profit making option at the time.

Mr Bobbins said:

Classic OS was based on a system called 'lisa' and was gradually developed over a long period of time by Apple. It's funny the question about if apple will port their software to a different platform, their was a point that apple allowed other companys to make hybrid macs (I think it was IBM). It wasn't very good for Apple so they stopped doing it. Did you know that Bill Gates worked for Apple once, before he decided to start making his own operating system (many say based on apples system) He managed to succeed in just selling software. Apple thought this wouldn't be a profit making option at the time.

Click to expand...

Yeah, every Mac head here should know about the Lisa. It was something like $12,000 and it didn't sell very well. The operating systems got better, and the computers got cheaper. When Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard, he went to work for Altair computers. At this time, the computer industry was more incestuous
than it is today.

Outside of the big corps like IBM and HP, everybody in the computer industry knew each other and had probably worked with each other at some point. This includes Gates & Co. who left Altair and formed Micro Soft, who wrote COBOL, Basic, and FORTRAN compilers. When IBM wanted to enter the PC market - Microsoft bought what was to be the first version of MSDOS from a little company (Seattle Computer) for practically nothing.

Microsoft made other products like Word and stuff for the Mac while quietly improving MSDOS. They didn't *work* for Apple, but they had a symbiotic business relationship. When the Microsoft guys saw some of the secret stuff that Apple was working on (the GUI which was "stolen" from Xerox) - they took it for Windows.

Smackintosh said:

In my last comment of my last post i was wondering why apple didnt grasp onto open source for some of their OS earlier? or did they? I don't know much about any mac os before os x. I used os 9 for a long time at work but didn't know much about its structure.

Click to expand...

Because, in the 80s, there were no real open source projects. Berkeley was pretty much in control of BSD and it still had AT&T UNIX code in it. Linux wasn't even around. The GNU guys were developing the HURD kernel but its STILL isn't even finished today. When Jobs was fired from Apple (by the rat Sculley) he formed NeXT Computers. By then, BSD was open and mature enough to be used, along with the Mach microkernel. They built NeXTStep OS on top of that. When Jobs came back to Apple, he brought NeXTStep (then revamped into OPENSTEP) with him, and turned it into what we know today as OS X - replacing the propriatary and near-ancient 8 and 9 operating systems.

One small correction the GUI was not stolen from Xerox. Xerox did not take it far enough, they actually let Steve and company have it.

rman said:

One small correction the GUI was not stolen from Xerox. Xerox did not take it far enough, they actually let Steve and company have it.

Click to expand...

arg..you beat me to it..

I am pretty sure Gates was fired from Apple because he was using Macintosh computers for his own development on his own OS pretty much

rman said:

One small correction the GUI was not stolen from Xerox. Xerox did not take it far enough, they actually let Steve and company have it.

Click to expand...

Hence the quotation marks.

trpnmonkey41 said:

I am pretty sure Gates was fired from Apple because he was using Macintosh computers for his own development on his own OS pretty much

Click to expand...

Gates never was an Apple employee. He was head of Microsoft, which worked with Apple on a large number of things as a 3rd-pary development team - but he was never really a part of the company like Woz or Andy Hertzfield were.