Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ravenz · Jan 21, 2006, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by rboisjoly

Anyway... now its been running the installer for OVER 12 hours!! and it is only at 51%, copying "usrcoina.dll"... I guess it should be done by tomorrow night :-)

You're experiencing what I did - yet, in a recent support email from OpenOSX, they said:

"Something must be wrong as you are the only person complaining about performance."

I'd like someone who is running WinTel on an Intel iMac with excellent performance to step foward.

I'm glad that Jeshua is reading this forum now, as he will get additional feedback on performance.

baw · Jan 21, 2006, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by inkhead

Why would you EVER shut down your computer? I still can't believe people turn off their computers in 2006. Why? It costs you more power to turn it on/off daily than if you let it go to sleep.

I don't know why people love to turn off their computers, it's almost if people can't handle NOT waiting... they have to wait for something.. or it doesn't feel like a computer

Maybe it is because they choose to turn their computers off. Get over it.

OpenOSX · Jan 21, 2006, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by foo2

A 512MB machine to run this test on isn't a valid test - it's a measure of how slow the hard disk is, because that's about all you'll be doing (just hitting the page file 100% of the time).

Yes, exactly, thank you.

Originally Posted by foo2

Get a 2GB machine, or at least a 1GB machine, and redo the test.

Open OSX : Can you post numbers for why you believe you're getting this speedup? It would make things much clearer.

I would suggest that he also wait until he has the correct settings. A small difference in the IPS and VGA update settings can have profound effects on performance.

I am not sure what numbers you are referring to. Basically the Intel binary that ships with WinTel 2.0.0 has zero optimization done to it. In our tests we have seen as much as a 5 fold in performance with optimized binaries, and are quite excited about it. When we released 2.0.0 we wanted to include the optimized binaries, however, we were having some reliability issues that we have to work out first.

The 2.0.1 version will ship next week and most folks would rather get their hands on the product today with a free upgrade in the coming days.

And for those that dream of the FULL performance of Windows, it will NEVER happen under Mac OS X; as Mac OS X itself requires clock cycles - so go buy a DELL!

Sincerely,

Jeshua Lacock
OpenOSX Owner
http://OpenOSX.com

OpenOSX · Jan 21, 2006, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Icruise

Is the program emulating an x86 processor, or is it using the Intel Mac's actual processor to run x86 code natively? Just because the emulator program itself is "native" does not mean that you are actually running x86 code without emulation, which is what your website leads people to believe. There's no way you're getting "nearly native" performance out of Bochs, I can tell you that right now.

The program of course simulates an entire machine. The x86 calls are native.

It is "native" perfomance as it is running native. We do not state that it is as fast a dual 2 gHz Intel Duo Windows machine (anywhere), nor do we make any spec of float performance claims.

That said, our build of Bochs is achieving around 10 to 20 MIPS, which is definitely Pentium class processor performance. Not the faster Windows machine, but usable.

OpenOSX · Jan 21, 2006, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by rboisjoly

Here's my story...

20 inch iMac Dual Core, 1 Gig of RAM

Tooa few hours (about 8 I'd say to get my download link, then it too less than an hour to get the code to uncompress it. That's fine.

Installing did not work at first, I created my disk image (XP Pro SP2) as per the instructions.

Followed the XP tutorial

Adjusted the values to
512 MB of RAM for the emulator,
20000 VGA Update
3000000 Emulated IPS

Clicking Start 586 Emulator would not do anything (It would ask for my password but nothing happened. After some time though with clicking it again and again, restarting, etc, it finally started-up the Bochs emulator when I deactivated the Network Card and started the Windows XP Installer... I was getting some sort of Authentication error in the Console.

Anyway... now its been running the installer for OVER 12 hours!! and it is only at 51%, copying "usrcoina.dll"... I guess it should be done by tomorrow night :-)

Installing is more than slow...

Now, perhaps tweaking the IPS would help, if I know what that meant! Hopefully we'll get a better system for this in the future.

So, I'm waiting for this to complete to see how fast the emulator actually runs once it is done. It may just be that reading from the CD image is painful and that other things are faster, time will tell.

If you are running anything else on your machine, I fear that you may have given it too much memory. You have to save plenty for Mac OS X. Mac OS X by itself likes GOBS of RAM.

If you over allocate memory, it can be worse than under allocating it.

Also, your IPS settings are most likely too high, try around 15,000,000.

OpenOSX · Jan 21, 2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Icruise

I wasn't even addressing ravenz's experiences. Bochs (which is what this is) is a DOG in terms of performance (a lot slower that Virtual PC, which itself was unbearably slow for many things). Even if this version runs a lot faster than previous versions, it's still nowhere near "native" performance.

Bochs running on an Intel will SMOKE Bochs running on a G5.

The performance on the G5s has been lacking, finally with Intels we think that the speed is finally acceptable.

Don't believe me? Run VPC on the Intel (under Rosetta) and benchmark it against Bochs running on Intel...

And as long as the binaries are native (whatever the program - however slow) it would be running native, wouldn't it?

Simon · Jan 21, 2006, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by OpenOSX

Don't believe me? Run VPC on the Intel (under Rosetta) and benchmark it against Bochs running on Intel...

Actually, I'm starting to wonder how much you really know about Macs. There are probably two dozen thirteen year olds on this board who could have told you that VPC will not run under Rosetta.

http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?...60110120028762

OpenOSX · Jan 21, 2006, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by ravenz

They falsely advertise about "nearly native" performance on their website.

Yes, I have 512MB of RAM. However, I dedicated 256MB to WinTel before booting up Bochs. I get another 1GB of RAM on Tuesday and will try the same test with 1GB allocated to Bochs, but I don't think that is the problem.

That is FAR worse than giving it 64 MB of RAM!!!! As explained previously, if you gave it 64 MB of RAM you would only have about 12 MB of free physical RAM for Mac OS X. If you gave it 256 MB, you would be in the hole, minus 244 MB!!! If you don't believe, start your setup as described and monitor your memory with something like top.

Sorry, but can't give something more than you have and expect it to create the RAM from the air!

Originally Posted by ravenz

Bochs is consuming 99.9% of the CPU. It's CPU-bound.

This is meaningless.

Because even when it is idle, it consumes 90-95% Don't believe me? Boot in to FreeDOS at watch your CPU meter while it sits there at the DOS prompt.

OpenOSX · Jan 21, 2006, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

Actually, I'm starting to wonder how much you really know about Macs. There are probably two dozen thirteen year olds on this board who could have told you that VPC will not run under Rosetta.

http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?...60110120028762

Uh yah - thats my point. So admit-ably, Bochs runs a just little faster on the Intel than VPC, right?

Bochs = Usable VPC = DOA

And even if VPC run under emulation Bochs with native Intel calls would run circles around it. And Bochs is not much slower than VPC when emulating the Intel calls...

Simon · Jan 21, 2006, 01:26 PM

Riiiight.

OpenOSX · Jan 21, 2006, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by ravenz

They falsely advertise about "nearly native" performance on their website.

Yes, I have 512MB of RAM. However, I dedicated 256MB to WinTel before booting up Bochs. I get another 1GB of RAM on Tuesday and will try the same test with 1GB allocated to Bochs, but I don't think that is the problem. Bochs is consuming 99.9% of the CPU. It's CPU-bound.

It is a native application, therefore it IS native performance.

Giving a 1 GB of RAM will not help! You will end up starving you system of vital memory again.

toddtmw · Jan 21, 2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by OpenOSX

It is a native application, therefore it IS native performance.

Giving a 1 GB of RAM will not help! You will end up starving you system of vital memory again.

Man, I hope you stop posting here and answer my support e-mail about not being able to boot at all...

-Todd

baw · Jan 21, 2006, 02:25 PM

I'll quote someone from digg.com;

"This app is pure crap. This 'OpenOSX' company is infamous for bad business practices, taking people's money and not sending product, and producing a pure crap product to begin with. All their products are generally available for free elsewhere, they just repackage and ship (i.e. 'if' they ship).

Just check out this link where costumers hate this product. http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/mo...545&vid=114956"

baw · Jan 21, 2006, 02:34 PM

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/OSX/openo..._emulator.html

baw · Jan 21, 2006, 02:38 PM

http://fink.sourceforge.net/pr/openosx.php

Anyone need more proof that OpenOSX is shady?

foo2 · Jan 21, 2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by OpenOSX

I am not sure what numbers you are referring to. Basically the Intel binary that ships with WinTel 2.0.0 has zero optimization done to it. In our tests we have seen as much as a 5 fold in performance with optimized binaries, and are quite excited about it. When we released 2.0.0 we wanted to include the optimized binaries, however, we were having some reliability issues that we have to work out first.
http://OpenOSX.com

I'm simply asking you to post applications that have a 5x speedup, and I'm asking that you post benchmarks of common speeds people should expect. Where do you get your claims numbers?

icruise · Jan 21, 2006, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by OpenOSX

It is a native application, therefore it IS native performance.

I think this statement tells us everything we have to know about their speed claims.

baw · Jan 21, 2006, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Icruise

I think this statement tells us everything we have to know about their speed claims.

Yeah, that statement is sig-worthy.

Pierre B. · Jan 21, 2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Icruise

I think this statement tells us everything we have to know about their speed claims.

Indeed, I am surprised.

Chuckit · Jan 21, 2006, 06:16 PM

This thread makes me giggle.

"Of course the binaries are native, so like it or not, it is native performance."

"The performance on the G5s has been lacking, finally with Intels we think that the speed is finally acceptable. Don't believe me? Run VPC on the Intel (under Rosetta) and benchmark it against Bochs running on Intel..." Then, after somebody points out VPC won't run on the Intel. "So admit-ably, Bochs runs a just little faster on the Intel than VPC, right?"

"That said, our build of Bochs is achieving around 10 to 20 MIPS, which is definitely Pentium class processor performance." Meaning it runs as well as a 60 MHz processor (though according to several sources I've seen, this is about a third of what that 60 MHz processor could do).