Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ooagentbender · Aug 30, 2003, 05:36 PM

http://www.openosx.com/wintel/

Check this out because its simply awesome. One can only hope that at some point Apple will pick this up and make it their own because it works and then we can say goodbye to MS for good.

Angus_D · Aug 30, 2003, 05:36 PM

This is hardly news. BOCHS is just... slow.

CharlesS · Aug 30, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
BOCHS is just... slow.

That is to say, in the same sense that Mount Everest is... tall.

Chuckit · Aug 30, 2003, 08:21 PM

OpenOSX.com is a thing of the devil. They take open-source programs (only ones that already work on Mac OS X, of course), stick them on a CD and charge more for them than most shareware developers do for software they actually worked on. It depresses me to think people actually make money from this scam.

ZackS · Aug 30, 2003, 08:21 PM

C'mon guys, it's not that... hahahaha! Yeah it is. I remember trying to run stunts on FreeDOS. It wouldn't recognize my mouse, refused to play sound and the damn thing skipped! This is Stunt's we're talking here! Also, how does OpenOSX get away with packaging up free software all pretty and charging for it? It's like Apple's model for OS X taken to an extreme.

CharlesS · Aug 30, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by ZackS:
It's like Apple's model for OS X taken to an extreme.

Oh come now. Are you really going to try to say that OS X is the same thing as your garden-variety Linux or BSD distribution?

ZackS · Aug 30, 2003, 10:01 PM

That's where the "extreme" part came in. I understand how OS X differs in a HUGE way.

It would be like calling a communist a liberal democrat taken to the extreme. It's a shocking claim but an accurate one.

moki · Aug 31, 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by ooagentbender:
http://www.openosx.com/wintel/

Check this out because its simply awesome. One can only hope that at some point Apple will pick this up and make it their own because it works and then we can say goodbye to MS for good.

From the web site:

WinTel is a Aqua graphical user interface to control the popular and powerful open-source Bochs software

Say no more... Bochs is so incredibly slow, you'd be able to run Windows faster on an IBM PCjr.

moki · Aug 31, 2003, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
OpenOSX.com is a thing of the devil. They take open-source programs (only ones that already work on Mac OS X, of course), stick them on a CD and charge more for them than most shareware developers do for software they actually worked on. It depresses me to think people actually make money from this scam.

It's not a scam, and they aren't doing anything wrong, assuming they are abiding by the GPL and making the source code available to people who want it.

They are writing frontends to some of the software they are selling, and they are going through the work of creating installers and pressing easy to use CDs for people. This is a service that some people will find worth paying for.

RedHat does similar things with Linux distros; I see no reason why OpenOSX can't do it as well. If you think their prices are outrageous, just don't buy from them. If you're technically adept enough to compile and install these programs yourself, again, no need to be their customer.

I do think they are providing a service that is of value to some people, though.

However, the way they are promoting Bochs, it's almost as if they are saying it is a viable emulator for running Windows on a Mac. This really isn't true. Bochs is entirely unusable, because it is so slow. We're not talking "things are a little laggy" -- we're talking so incredibly painfully slow that you get to watch windows paint line by line.

Angus_D · Aug 31, 2003, 06:00 AM

They were at one point leveraging the work of the Fink project without giving them any credit, though. I forget the exact details, there's something over on the site about it somewhere AFAIK.

dr. zoidberg · Sep 1, 2003, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by ZackS:
C'mon guys, it's not that... hahahaha! Yeah it is. I remember trying to run stunts on FreeDOS.

oooh!!! now THAT game surely was FUN....

KidRed · Sep 1, 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by ZackS:
That's where the "extreme" part came in. I understand how OS X differs in a HUGE way.

It would be like calling a communist a liberal democrat taken to the extreme. It's a shocking claim but an accurate one.

Or like calling a dictator a kind republican

SSharon · Sep 1, 2003, 10:50 AM

I've never used bochs and haven't used VPC for some time now, are they really both so slow even on these new macs?

Gul Banana · Sep 1, 2003, 11:10 AM

VPC is okay. Bochs... is not.

Prijker · Sep 1, 2003, 03:17 PM

why not stick to RealPC 1.1 under X Classic?
Far better than VPC under X.

vic

moki · Sep 1, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by SSharon:
I've never used bochs and haven't used VPC for some time now, are they really both so slow even on these new macs?

VPC is many, many times faster than Bochs is.

voodoo · Sep 1, 2003, 05:35 PM

How hard can it be to make an Intel emulator? I mean people can make Atari ST emulators, C64 emus etc in their spare time. I realise that the modern PC is more complex, but then again more people are working on Bochs for instance than NoSTalgia.

(note: I am just projecting so go easy on the flames)

bmhome1 · Sep 1, 2003, 06:42 PM

A really slick emulator that's free, from one man developer, is MOL (Mac-On-Linux) to run OSX windowed or full screen in a PPC Linux distro at nearly FULL native speed. And Linux ext2 and hfs+ don't co-exist well at all.

CharlesS · Sep 1, 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by bmhome1:
A really slick emulator that's free, from one man developer, is MOL (Mac-On-Linux) to run OSX windowed or full screen in a PPC Linux distro at nearly FULL native speed. And Linux ext2 and hfs+ don't co-exist well at all.

Doesn't MOL run on PPC hardware? I don't think it is emulating the processor at all, but that it's more akin to the Classic environment.

Mediaman_12 · Sep 1, 2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
How hard can it be to make an Intel emulator? I mean people can make Atari ST emulators, C64 emus etc in their spare time. I realise that the modern PC is more complex, but then again more people are working on Bochs for instance than NoSTalgia.

Huummmm lets see?
C64: 8bit cpu ?mhz (1 or less?) <1mb Ram.
Atari ST: 16bit CPU, these where Moto 68k's so what's that 8mhz 1mb Ram.
The Amiga also ran this CPU but also had a load of custom chips, Amiga emulators a usually a bit slow.
Intel based PC: 32bit 2Ghz+ (an emu must run at least 800mhz to be useful) loads of Ram.

Can you see the problem here.

voodoo · Sep 1, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
Huummmm lets see?
C64: 8bit cpu ?mhz (1 or less?) <1mb Ram.
Atari ST: 16bit CPU, these where Moto 68k's so what's that 8mhz 1mb Ram.
The Amiga also ran this CPU but also had a load of custom chips, Amiga emulators a usually a bit slow.
Intel based PC: 32bit 2Ghz+ (an emu must run at least 800mhz to be useful) loads of Ram.

Can you see the problem here.

Yep - but listen; The ST emulators don't just emulate the ST, but the entire ST motherboard - from the processor to the sound chip etc. Mac uses pretty much the same graphics cards and sound cards as the PC. All a PC emulator has to emulate is the processor and the motherboard. No custom chips. VPC and the lot are just glorified x86 emulators AFAICT.

sniffer · Sep 1, 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yep - but listen; The ST emulators don't just emulate the ST, but the entire ST motherboard - from the processor to the sound chip etc. Mac uses pretty much the same graphics cards and sound cards as the PC. All a PC emulator has to emulate is the processor and the motherboard. No custom chips. VPC and the lot are just glorified x86 emulators AFAICT.

VPC emulates a complete x86 compatible PC. SoftWindows 98 had another approach where the emulation was minimized as much as possible to gain the best speed, and it worked. At least in theory. They made special drivers for Windows so it could take advantages of the MacIntosh's hardware "directly", but there was a drawbacks with compatibility for instance.

Read more about it here:
http://www.kearney.net/~mhoffman/sof...98_review.html

It would definitive and certainly possible for MS to take a similar route as with Softwindows 98 to make VPC run better and faster since they now control both the OS and the emulation application.

Brass · Sep 1, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by ooagentbender:
http://www.openosx.com/wintel/

Check this out because its simply awesome.

After having downloaded, installed, configured and run Bochs on Mac OS X, "simply awsome" is not a phrase that comes to mind.

There are a lot of other phrases that do come to mind, however. But I can't repeat them here, as they would get censored, I suspect.

But yes, Bochs does work. Can't say any more than that though.

bradoesch · Sep 3, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by dr. zoidberg:
oooh!!! now THAT game surely was FUN....

I think it's time to fire up the PC and play Stunts again. What a game. I bet I've played that game more than any other.

ZackS · 01:29 AM

Originally posted by bradoesch:
I think it's time to fire up the PC and play Stunts again. What a game. I bet I've played that game more than any other.

It plays flawlessly in VPC 6 on my G4/400 running an emulated Windows 98 (only the music is a bit off, it makes some sort of high pitched screeching sound, though that may just be the original music playing through my fancy hi-fi stereo speakers, you never know

)

IT LIVES!

- - e r i k - - · Sep 3, 2003, 02:40 AM

****. You really need to give me stunts RIGHT NOW!

(that is one rocking game, why isn't there a modern version of it? It would be easy enough to do in OpenGL)

ZackS · Sep 3, 2003, 11:27 AM

The game is ancient and not available in any store so I figure posting it here is ok

Download Stunts 1.1

Download the Stunts Crack or the Stunts List of Passwords

From the Stunts Box:
HARDWARE Requirements (original/minimum):
Stunts requires an Intel 8086 processor (or compatibles) running with 8 MHz or faster. You will also need a video card, such as Hercules, CGA, EGA, MCGA/VGA, 640K of memory and a 5.25" or 3.5" disk drive. AdLib, SoundBlaster or Roland MT-32 sound cards and Joystick or Mouse are supported.

SOFTWARE Requirements (original/minimum):
Stunts requires MS DOS version 3.30 or later or any MS DOS compatible operating system (IBM PC DOS, DR DOS, Novell DOS, Caldera DR OpenDOS, PTS DOS).

Please Note: you will need a fairly good PC emulator to play this. I'm not saying it will need to be fast (although Bochs won't do unless you have a Dual 1.42 G4 or G5

) but it has to be fairly complete and stable. I've verified that it works on VPC 6 running Windows 98.

RooneyX · Sep 3, 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by ZackS:
The game is ancient and not available in any store so I figure posting it here is ok

Download Stunts 1.1

Download the Stunts Crack or the Stunts List of Passwords
.

Kewl. Pirate warez. Do you have a copy of Panther too?!?!?!

Just kidding.

- - e r i k - - · Sep 3, 2003, 01:20 PM

I'm looking forward to playing it once I get VPC from work. Thanks!

TC · Sep 3, 2003, 01:25 PM

They have updated their site and are now showing it as being accelerated for the G5!
Open OS X that is, not Stunts.

CharlesS · Sep 3, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by TC:
They have updated their site and are now showing it as being accelerated for the G5!
Open OS X that is, not Stunts.

OpenOSX are a bunch of sleazeballs. Bochs and 'accelerated' should not be used in the same sentence.

Anyone who actually pays for Bochs is going to be sorely disappointed.

VValdo · Sep 3, 2003, 07:15 PM

First off-- I had an old DOS database file from like 1985 or so that I had archived somewhere. I don't have a PC, but luckily I had the .exe for the database program...

Fired up BOCHS with FreeDOS and was able to export the file into a tab-deliniated text file.

So BOCHS was useful for me.

I haven't seen anyone post a link to it yet, so here it is... perfect for running FreeDOS.

BOCHS 2.0.2

Disk Images with pre-installed systems (FreeDOS, Linux, etc.)

latest versions of FreeDOS

W

brainchild2b · Sep 3, 2003, 07:25 PM

A new amazing solutions!!!

Just buy a $150 PC and stop being so retarded. Or if you need a that badly maybe your work field requires it to be your main computer.

Either way emulation of that sort is just plain stupid.

Chuckit · Sep 3, 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
A new amazing solutions!!!

Just buy a $150 PC and stop being so retarded. Or if you need a that badly maybe your work field requires it to be your main computer.

Either way emulation of that sort is just plain stupid.

There are lots of reasons people would not want to buy two different computers.
For instance, it would be quite impractical to lug around both a 17" AlBook and a PC notebook just so you can run a couple of Windows programs.

And using Windows full-time because you need a couple of programs? That shouldn't be necessary, and it isn't.

ZackS · Sep 3, 2003, 08:27 PM

I rather enjoy the convenience that Virtual PC brings. Its speed falls in the acceptable category on my G4/400 and I find the program its self to be incredibly mature, slick, polished, and stable. It's well worth $300 at any rate. I was very disappointed at the prospect of Microsoft killing it.

tooki · Sep 3, 2003, 11:44 PM

Wrong forum.

tooki

voodoo · Sep 4, 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by tooki:
Wrong forum.

tooki

stay on topic.