[mac_x86rocks]

hello,
i have gotten mac os x to install and operate correctly. I've installed using vmware sucessfully, most apps are operational with the exception of safari. ive also installed the new mac intel dev firefox, but sadly the the os refuses to recognize internet connection. Strangely(considering this is supposed to be mactel), AMD processor is detected as an amd at 2.4 ghz. And a little snafu is the graphics card is not detected, yet quartz works??? I'm not sure what that means. I will try posting benchmarks, but cinebench crashes. any recommendations on benchmarking apps??

my current setup: self-built
AMD 3500+
DFI lanparty sli mobo
1gb ram OCZ platinum
nvidia 6800gt

[mac_x86rocks]

sorry for double posting, i forgot to mention AMD 3500+ OCZ to 3.4.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Sounds like your network card isn't detected (lack of drivers perhaps?) Cinebench is probably trying to run in Rosetta-mode (and crashes because I believe it makes extensive use of Altivec which just isn't emulated...and wouldn't be emulatable without an insane performance hit.)

Dunno how long this thread will last since you're talking about unreleased software or unsupported hardware.

[rickey939]

Interesting...

[Ganesha]

Why is it strange? Unless you have the same ethernet as is on the developers boxes, why should your network work? The reason things just work on a mac is because the small subset of hardware that needs to be supported. You can always write your own driver of course.

Benchmarking apps are useless unless you compile them yourself, seeing you are going to be benchmarking the emulator in most cases.

[mac_x86rocks]

I've have been testing various features of the OS and usability. Sound is now working, after enabling the intergrated audio on motherboard. I have just installed flash mx for os x and seems to work fine. I was really interested in performance vs the current G5. Maybe I could install photoshop and do some benchmarks.
and
how can i post screenshots?

[Goldfinger]

Get your anti-flame vest ready. Oh and benchmarking Photoshop etc. right now is ridiculous since it runs in emulation. But I'm sure you already knew that...

[mac_x86rocks]

sorry, if I wasn't clear enough in my opening post

this isn't pearpc, this is mac intel dev os 10.4

[grovberg]

Originally Posted by mac_x86rocks

sorry, if I wasn't clear enough in my opening post

this isn't pearpc, this is mac intel dev os 10.4

We get that, but since there isn't a native x86 version of photoshop, you'll be running photoshop (or anything else not specifically compiled for x86 Mac OS) in Rosetta to emulate the PPC.

[Ganesha]

So where are you going to find x86 Mac version of Photoshop. Do you not understand what emulation means?

[mac_x86rocks]

I do understand that rosetta is essentially an emulator, but it only emulates necessary points in software designed specifically for PPC. So performance difference should be negligible, unless the app is heavily altivec optimized. To use a example, firefox for PPC works well on x86 not that significant of a speed difference compared to a G5, but the native x86 firefox is even faster than a g5(I believe).

on another topic, I believe that apple might support AMD processors in the future and is most likely testing them right now considering the dev version supports them.

[mAxximo]

Good job. I'd like to see some Photoshop benchmarks to know what can be expected from emulation in Rosetta.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mac_x86rocks

I do understand that rosetta is essentially an emulator, but it only emulates necessary points in software designed specifically for PPC. So performance difference should be negligible

"Necessary points"? The machine code is all designed specifically for PPC.

Originally Posted by mac_x86rocks

unless the app is heavily altivec optimized.

Which Photoshop is. That's why Apple always used it for benchmarks.

[Ganesha]

At this instant, except for Bare Bones, every piece of software that does not come from pre-installed will run in emulation.

And Photoshop will run more slowly because...

1) It will fall back to the G3 code path. (Which is slower then the G4 or G5 paths). Because that's what the emulator reports itself as.
2) That G3 code path has to be emulated, since zero x86 code exists in the Mac version of Photoshop. Photoshop even uses a lot of it's own drawing routines, which will make it slower still since it can't take advantage of a x86 native drawing API.


Quartz is Apple's drawing API, if it doesn't work you won't see anything.

Quartz Extreme, is a hardware accelerated version Quartz that speeds up some of its elements. The only needs a graphics card that has sufficient vRAM and can map a texture onto a 2D surface.

Quartz Extreme 2D, hardware accelerates more components of the Quartz API, which requires a pretty high end graphics card, it is currently not active by default.

[mac_x86rocks]

Xbench results

results 57.88
System Info
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.1 (8B1025)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model ACPI
Drive Type
CPU Test 30.58
GCD Loop 118.52 6.25 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic 70.19 1.67 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT 10.50 346.40 Mflop/sec
Floating Point Library 77.72 13.53 Mops/sec
Thread Test 66.53
Computation 50.87 1.03 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention 96.13 4.14 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test 89.01
System 68.23
Allocate 238.60 876.20 Kalloc/sec
Fill 50.74 2467.33 MB/sec
Copy 49.82 1028.93 MB/sec
Stream 128.01
Copy 122.67 2533.65 MB/sec
Scale 116.40 2404.73 MB/sec
Add 138.55 2951.31 MB/sec
Triad 137.26 2936.33 MB/sec
Quartz Graphics Test 76.50
Line 71.13 4.74 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle 103.72 30.97 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle 103.52 8.44 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier
Text 43.26 2.71 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test 43.44
Spinning Squares 43.44 55.11 frames/sec
Disk Test 13.16
Sequential 13.70
Uncached Write 10.38 6.37 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 11.52 6.52 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 25.36 7.42 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 14.42 7.25 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Random 12.65
Uncached Write 4.50 0.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Write 20.51 6.56 MB/sec [256K blocks]
Uncached Read 60.85 0.43 MB/sec [4K blocks]
Uncached Read 34.62 6.42 MB/sec [256K blocks]

[mac_x86rocks]

sorry for the double post again
I also found this article

intel Mac Benchmarks

Individuals attending Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference have submitted Xbench benchmark results from Apple's Pentium 4-based Power Mac systems. The benchmarks do not reflect native performance of the 3.6GHz systems, however, but rather provide an indication of how PowerPC-compiled applications will run under Rosetta on Intel-based systems.

Rosetta is the name of Apple's technology that seamlessly converts PowerPC code to Intel code on the fly. It is designed so that applications that are not available as universal binaries for both PowerPC and Intel systems can still run on Apple's Intel Macs. During the WWDC keynote, Apple CEO Steve Jobs demonstrated several PowerPC applications running with Rosetta, including Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop. Very fast systems, Jobs said, will be able to take advantage of Rosetta without the user even noticing.

Preliminary benchmarks suggest otherwise, but questions still remain about benchmarking Rosetta. One developer wonders how the Intel Mac would score when running Xbench a second time, since Rosetta caches translated binaries in real time, and could presumably benefit from the cache upon an additional run. In addition, Apple's developer docs say Rosetta isn't tuned to apps that have "intense" computing needs, though it says software with moderate user interaction and "some high computational needs" are in most cases compatible.

Overall, the Intel Mac are scoring between 65 and 70 with Xbench, a far cry from the 200+ scores higher-end G5 systems reach. The CPU test is landing in the high teens compared with scores of 100 to 200 for G5 systems, but that appears to be primarily due to lackluster FPU scores. According to a recent Macworld story, Rosetta does not support AltiVec instructions, which substanties the results. The GCD Loop score for the Intel Mac, part of the CPU test, is a respectable 110, compared to dual-2.5GHz G5 Macs that score about 140.

The Intel Mac performed substantially less well than the dual-2.5GHz G5 at Thread test, scoring an 82 compared to 225. In the Computation Thread test the Intel Mac scored a respectable 110 compared to 155 in the G5, but the G5 blew the doors of the Intel Mac in the Lock Contention test, scoring a 420 to the Intel Mac's 66.

The Memory Test tells a similar story: overall the Intel Mac scored a 214 to the G5's 378, but the Intel Mac actually exceeded the G5's Stream Memory Test: 351 to 319. The G5 trounces the Intel Mac at the system memory test, however, scoring a 464 while the Intel Mac musters a 154.

The Intel Mac scored a 125 on the Interface Test, compared to a 380 for the G5.

The Intel Mac scored well in both the Quartz graphics and OpenGL graphics tests—almost matching or exceeding dual-2.5GHz G5 score—although it's unknown which video card is powering the system. There has been some speculation that Apple's emracement of Intel processors will also allow the company to take advantage of off-the-shelf PC video cards. In addition, Mac Rumors notes that "system tools calls/APIs should enjoy native (not emulated) speeds."

[Ganesha]

My G5 scores over 200 in xBench, my god AMDs are slow, good thing Apple is going with Intel.

[Chips G]

Mac_x86rocks

Do you have ICQ, AIM or MSN Messenger? I would love to talk to you as you may be able to help me get X to run on my machine.

msn: gilpin at mac dot com

if you have aim or icq if you could post your contact or email it to me it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance,

Chris

[Angus_D]

Oh, look, another dirty rotten pirate.

[workerbee]

Originally Posted by Ganesha

My G5 scores over 200 in xBench, my god AMDs are slow, good thing Apple is going with Intel.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Angus_D

Oh, look, another dirty rotten pirate.

I prefer the term 'thief' as I happen to like pirates. Arrggghhh!!!

But then why hasn't this thread been locked (or better yet - just flat out deleted) as discussing pirated software is supposed to be off limits in these fora.

[Targon]

oh stop it. let them have their fun an n-joi the OS while they still can.

When Apple's Open Firmware Intel based hardware enters the market place with DRM in 'full use' they wont be able to install OSX86 on any BIOS based MOBO!!!

[wtmcgee]

Hey guys, I stole some software - can you help me get it running?

[Kerrigan]

How do you know it's pirated? It could be some rogue developer who installed his copy onto a proper PC. Unlikely, but still possible.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

How do you know it's pirated? It could be some rogue developer who installed his copy onto a proper PC. Unlikely, but still possible.

And that is no better as that would violate the user agreement.

The developer kit is only to be installed and used on the developer Mactel that Apple made available. Any other use is not legal.

Why oh why is the difference between right and wrong so f*cking hard to understand?

[mac_x86rocks]

after some driver tweaking and messing around with settings , the internet is now working.
yup, posting from mac x86 firefox, I think with some TPM network patches the os should be fully operational for general use(which should be available for general use soon).

For those interested in running the mac os x86, heres my guide (updated patches should hit torrent sites soon) and sorry i can't provide dev DVDs.

Side notes

A general question how do I post screen shots on MACNN.

[Weyland-Yutani]

I dislike people who don't see the difference between right and wrong on one hand and lawful and unlawful on the other.

People who break the law may well be breaking laws that are plain wrong or simply don't enter into the discussion of 'right and wrong'.

That said, I will not waste a word or a breath to defend the interests of commercial companies. They'll have to deal with that themselves. So in conclusion violate software licence agreements like there is no tomorrow if you think it is ok. It is neither right nor wrong.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by mac_x86rocks

Side notes

A general question how do I post screen shots on MACNN.

Either press the button in the 'post reply' dialogue OR use image tags directly by writing

Code:
[img]<insert url to picture>[/img]

cheers

W-Y

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

That said, I will not waste a word or a breath to defend the interests of commercial companies. They'll have to deal with that themselves. So in conclusion violate software licence agreements like there is no tomorrow if you think it is ok. It is neither right nor wrong.

Much like it would not be right or wrong for me to mug you every evening?

I'm hardly a stickler for restrictive license agreements, but seriously, what a jackass thing to say.

[leperkuhn]

Originally Posted by msuper69

And that is no better as that would violate the user agreement.

The developer kit is only to be installed and used on the developer Mactel that Apple made available. Any other use is not legal.

Why oh why is the difference between right and wrong so f*cking hard to understand?

you wouldn't care if it was microsoft. or any other company. learn to relax.

[aristotles]

Thanks for sharing your experience on "pirating" OS X. Now go way.

If you were a developer with a legal copy of the X86 version of OS X, you would not need to waste your time on this since you would be in legal possession of the transition kit unit. You also would be under an NDA to not discuss it.

I can only assume, therefor that you have pirated it on P2P networks. Warez talk is not allowed here IIRC.

Even if you own a legal copy of Tiger on a mac, that does not entitle you to the unreleased X86 version. Heck, even if it was available for sale, you still would not be entitled to it without owning an X86 mac regardless of how many versions of PPC Tiger you had.

PS. I've reported this thread. Warez talk is against the rules. This is an unreleased version of OS X bundled only with developer unit.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by leperkuhn

you wouldn't care if it was microsoft. or any other company. learn to relax.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Much like it would not be right or wrong for me to mug you every evening?

I'm hardly a stickler for restrictive license agreements, but seriously, what a jackass thing to say.

Did you not read what I wrote or are you just one of those people who is mentally retarded? That would be someone with less than 80 IQ..

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by leperkuhn

you wouldn't care if it was microsoft. or any other company. learn to relax.

That my good people, is the sound of the proverbial nail being hit on the head!

cheers

W-Y

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Did you not read what I wrote

You said people should "violate software license agreements like there is no tomorrow if [they] think it's okay." Yes, I read that.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

or are you just one of those people who is mentally retarded? That would be someone with less than 80 IQ..

Never taken an IQ test, honestly. That would be pretty interesting to see.

[Detrius]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

You said people should "violate software license agreements like there is no tomorrow if [they] think it's okay." Yes, I read that.


Never taken an IQ test, honestly. That would be pretty interesting to see.

Check out:

http://www.iqtest.com/
http://www.highiqsociety.org/

I got matching scores on those two. The popular ones max out somewhere around 130 or 140 because such a small minority of people have IQs higher than that. I like the two listed because they are capable of scoring *well* beyond the majority of the other IQ tests.



And anyone with an IQ over 120 would realize the legality of what's being discussed here. Also, any developer would realize that the AMD processor is an Intel compatible processor. Microsoft didn't have to rewrite Windows to support the original AMD processors. Obviously, it's going to work. That being said, Apple would be dumb to not keep their options open. Unlike Apple's options, this thread is closed.