Success, Yes, But Usable Os X On X86?

[emm]

Ok

 

I patched with oah750d from another post (see below)and have not had a crash since (about 3 hours now).

It seems the problem is oah750d.

I installed office and some other stuff all seems good.

 

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=597

 

Emm

[joneSi]

Ok

 

I patched with oah750d from another post (see below)and have not had a crash since (about 3 hours now).

It seems the problem is oah750d.

I installed office and some other stuff all seems good.

 

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=597

 

Emm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Check my sig. Same as all ya'll (just about anyway) and I've found it useful to run with the oah750d patch from xplodes stuff.zip file. (Google it). I used several other patches of the oah750d (including Deadmoo's) and I have found this to be the best one for my setup. If you are running progs and are getting crash reports on the exit of the progs, try this patch out.

 

joneSi

[lieb39]

I'm using it on a Dell D600 Laptop (1.4GHz, 512MB of RAM, SSE2, 30GB Hard drive, standard image size for the time being) and it's great. I prefer Mac OS X to XP (I have a mac mini on the side as well) and the dell starts OS X a lot faster then the mini. However, the only issues I'm having at the moment are the I can't get AirClick to work & Pages (iWork package) crashes when I save.. not helpful at all. Other then that, all is well! I'm running at the full 1400x1050 resolution, wireless card working and all components working (well, that I use anyways.) Heck, even the volume controls work on the keyboard (Up/Down & Mute.)

 

In your situation I would wait unless you really want a mac now. After playing with Mac on an intel processor I'm going to wait to get my Powerbook (was going to buy it earlier but no way now) because intel is much faster.

 

-lieb39

[ptaylor]

I'm using it on a Dell D600 Laptop (1.4GHz, 512MB of RAM, SSE2, 30GB Hard drive, standard image size for the time being) and it's great. I prefer Mac OS X to XP (I have a mac mini on the side as well) and the dell starts OS X a lot faster then the mini. However, the only issues I'm having at the moment are the I can't get AirClick to work & Pages (iWork package) crashes when I save.. not helpful at all. Other then that, all is well! I'm running at the full 1400x1050 resolution, wireless card working and all components working (well, that I use anyways.) Heck, even the volume controls work on the keyboard (Up/Down & Mute.)

 

In your situation I would wait unless you really want a mac now. After playing with Mac on an intel processor I'm going to wait to get my Powerbook (was going to buy it earlier but no way now) because intel is much faster.

 

-lieb39

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think I've seen enough good responses that I think it is worth a try... And when the real Intel Macs arrive, I can find other uses for this MB combo...

 

Paul

[vaxrat]

Well, I bought the ASRock mb with a Celeron D 2.8MhZ cpu, 1 GB ram and an 80 GB SATA drive for this project. SSE3 works great, Quartz Extreme and Coreimage work, it runs about as fast (if you look at XBench scores) as the better scores I've seen. But I wanted some kind of hard comparison with the real thing. I've had a Mini since March, and thought this would be a good test. My Mac friends tell me that filters in Photoshop will stress both systems about as well as a real-world test can, so this is what I've done. I have both monitors side-by-side, and I have Photoshop CS on both machines. I opened up a local copy of the same image on both machines (to avoid any network issues). I ran a representative sampling of filters, such as Gaussian Blur, Colored Pencil, and Stained Glass texture on both machines at the same time, and what I found is that the 1.42 Mini with 1GB memory was about twice as fast on these tasks. I have had no stability issues, I can play DVD's (as long as I don't mind 16 shades of green) and any game that attempts to change resolutions won't work. Is this usable? Not really, for me. I'll be passing this box along to a friend, to let him experience OSX. But it was fun. I guess the point here is if you've got parts lying about to tinker with, it might be a good deal. But a $599 mini smoked the thing. You do the math.

[ptaylor]

But a $599 mini smoked the thing.  You do the math.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I don't quite think that is really a fair comparison... Photoshop CS isn't compiled for Intel, so the entire thing was running through Rosetta.. To be completely honest, being half the speed with the emulation of a processor intensive task such as applying Photoshop filters doesn't really sound bad to me... This will only get better as more apps are compiled as universal.

 

Now, if you had a program that was a universal binary to test that did something processor intensive, that would be a good test... Unfortunately, I'm not aware of very many programs that are currently available as universal binaries. I know Firefox is, but how processor intensive is pulling up a web page? So, that's pretty much out as a benchmark...

 

Paul

[vaxrat]

Well, I don't quite think that is really a fair comparison...  Photoshop CS isn't compiled for Intel, so the entire thing was running through Rosetta..  To be completely honest, being half the speed with the emulation of a processor intensive task such as applying Photoshop filters doesn't really sound bad to me...  This will only get better as more apps are compiled as universal.

 

Now, if you had a program that was a universal binary to test that did something processor intensive, that would be a good test...  Unfortunately, I'm not aware of very many programs that are currently available as universal binaries.  I know Firefox is, but how processor intensive is pulling up a web page?  So, that's pretty much out as a benchmark...

 

Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, I agree that it will probably get better with time. I was only speaking with respect to the way it is today. My only metric is how the applications I use daily work, and I wasn't really putting this forward as a benchmark, as much as an observation. Photoshop is the reason that many people, myself included, bought their Mac's. So if the question is "how is it compared to the real thing", this type of "real world" comparison is valid right now, as far as I can see.

[ptaylor]

Oh, I agree that it will probably get better with time.  I was only speaking with respect to the way it is today.  My only metric is how the applications I use daily work, and I wasn't really putting this forward as a benchmark, as much as an observation.  Photoshop is the reason that many people, myself included, bought their Mac's.  So if the question is "how is it compared to the real thing", this type of "real world" comparison is valid right now, as far as I can see.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed, if your main use of a Mac is for Photoshop work... In my case, I'm using my Mac mostly as a general-use machine... Internet surfing, mail, etc. with a little programming now and then... My Mini actually isn't bad in terms of speed, but it could be a bit faster at some tasks..

[wow]

Well, I don't quite think that is really a fair comparison...  Photoshop CS isn't compiled for Intel, so the entire thing was running through Rosetta..  To be completely honest, being half the speed with the emulation of a processor intensive task such as applying Photoshop filters doesn't really sound bad to me...  This will only get better as more apps are compiled as universal.

 

Now, if you had a program that was a universal binary to test that did something processor intensive, that would be a good test...  Unfortunately, I'm not aware of very many programs that are currently available as universal binaries.  I know Firefox is, but how processor intensive is pulling up a web page?  So, that's pretty much out as a benchmark...

 

Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think he does. Its gone tak a while before all apps get turned into universal apps. Maybe not everybody is gone convert their babys. So for the moment its only 99% rossetta apps that we can run. Maybe we have to wait another year before uniapps appear. So to me this was a real benchmark, thanks finaly something else then xbench.

[ptaylor]

I think he does. Its gone tak a while before all apps get turned into universal apps. Maybe not everybody is gone convert their babys. So for the moment its only 99% rossetta apps that we can run.  Maybe we have to wait another year before uniapps appear. So to me this was a real benchmark, thanks finaly something else then xbench.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Almost all the apps that come with OS X for x86 are universals... I have a total of 18 apps on my Dock (on my Mini)... Of those, twelve came with the OS. The rest? OmniOutliner, Proteus, Chicken of the VNC, Pages, TextWrangler, and OSXvnc. Of these, cotVNC is available as source, and is a Objective C project, so I may be able to compile it for Intel myself using XCode 2.1, and OSXvnc is already universal. I imagine that most apps that are already written under XCode will quickly be available as Univerals since it requires so little work to port... I think someone has Darwine ported already...

[wow]

Almost all the apps that come with OS X for x86 are universals...  I have a total of 18 apps on my Dock (on my Mini)...  Of those, twelve came with the OS.  The rest?  OmniOutliner, Proteus, Chicken of the VNC, Pages, TextWrangler, and OSXvnc.  Of these, cotVNC is available as source, and is a Objective C project, so I may be able to compile it for Intel myself using XCode 2.1, and OSXvnc is already universal.  I imagine that most apps that are already written under XCode will quickly be available as Univerals since it requires so little work to port...  I think someone has Darwine ported already...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you call i see more as utilities not as real apps like Photoshop. I find the osx apps funny but i if i need it fro real work they on do the job.

Last time i wanted something simple, to scale picture to 50% and found that iPhoto could not do it. Also i could not find any other tiger standard app that would do it. So i booted to the pc

 

Or i didnt search good enough in iPhoto

[jchowland]

It really depends on your Hardware configuration. I've now tried OSX on both an SSE3 P4 3.0 and an SSE2 PM 1.4.

 

The 3.0 is faster than any mac i've ever used (I got a score of 40, and that's with a VESA video card), but the 1.4 crawls and feels about as slow as pearpc.

 

Some people are having great fun, some see this only as a proof of concept. I fit into the first catagory.

[ptaylor]

What you call i see more as utilities not as real apps like Photoshop. I find the osx apps funny but i if i need it fro real work they on do the job.

Last time i wanted something simple, to scale picture to 50% and found that iPhoto could not do it. Also i could not find any other tiger standard app that would do it. So i booted to the pc 

 

Or i didnt search good enough in iPhoto 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, iPhoto doesn't have the best export options in the world.. I've never needed to batch export images in that manner (from iPhoto)... I do believe that I have seen some 3rd party tools that do this...

 

I've used Gimpshop on my Mac... Basically, it's a modified version of Gimp that sets the menus up to more closely resemble Photoshop... I've not used it for too much, but it does look like a pretty high quality app... If you are very used to Photoshop, you probably won't like it.. (I am more used to Photoshop, but don't have it for the Mac, only the PC)...

 

Paul

[llothar]

Can somebody here do some compilation of some free open source projects. This is a much much better benchmark about the performance as the photoshop or other things mentioned here.

 

First, only few apps are really performance wise GUI bounded, even less use floating point operations extremely (yes photoshop might be one - depending on the filters).

 

A gcc compiler run will always reveal the true performance as it is a good mix of disk access, cpu load and ram bandwith usage.

 

So lets take a good easy to compile open source package. Compile it and post the results for a MacMini and an IntelMac. I think if downloading the source file for the ruby or python interpreter might work best as i'm sure both are build with simply typing ".configure ; make"

 

 

Or is here really anybody who nows how to do even simplest programming tasks ?

[wow]

It really depends on your Hardware configuration. I've now tried OSX on both an SSE3 P4 3.0 and an SSE2 PM 1.4.

 

The 3.0 is faster than any mac i've ever used (I got a score of 40, and that's with a VESA video card),  but the 1.4 crawls and feels about as slow as pearpc.

 

Some people are having great fun, some see this only as a proof of concept. I fit into the first catagory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only 40? that about the speed of a MiniMac 1.4 (45)

A G5 does somthing of 170

[cyrana]

The benches aren't quite accurate anyway, wow. xbench, even the x86 one still has some tests for vector functions that altivec is good at. If you look at the full results on an x86 vs. a pcc, you'll see the functions I mean.

 

So, yeah, an altivec-enhanced app is going to make the PPC mac scream. Once everything is available in universal binaries there won't be much of a difference.

[wow]

The benches aren't quite accurate anyway, wow.  xbench, even the x86 one still has some tests for vector functions that altivec is good at.  If you look at the full results on an x86 vs. a pcc, you'll see the functions I mean.

 

So, yeah, an altivec-enhanced app is going to make the PPC mac scream.  Once everything is available in universal binaries there won't be much of a difference.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah it would be nice when xbench got some p4 replacement instructions instead of altivec emulators.

[cyrana]

I think they need to fundamentally redo xbench, as it isn't a valid test any more on a Mac(perhaps at least change that test for veclib FFT). It depends on each specific application and how well it was optimised for a particular architecture. They used to be able to mostly take it for granted that Altivec would be a good boost, but no longer.

[ptaylor]

I think they need to fundamentally redo xbench, as it isn't a valid test any more on a Mac(perhaps at least change that test for veclib FFT).  It depends on each specific application and how well it was optimised for a particular architecture. They used to be able to mostly take it for granted that Altivec would be a good boost, but no longer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Cyrana,

 

You haven't responded (unless I missed it) in this thread... How well is your Intel Mac working?

 

I ordered the parts last night for my Intel Mac experiment... I bought a Intel 915GUXL board with a Celeron 330J processor and 1 GB of DDR2 ram.. I also think that I've scared up a Silicon Image ADD2-N card. Hopefully, this will give me a machine that works well enough to get by with until the real Intel Macs are available. I'm sure I can come up with another use for this machine once it's retired from Mac duty.

 

Paul

[newyork4me]

Well, here's the thing...  I want a new (faster) Mac, and I'll give my wife my Mac Mini, since she loves it too...  But, about the only Mac I could afford would be another Mini, which isn't going to be faster than my Mini...  (It's a 1.42 with 1 GB of RAM and a 7200 RPM drive)...  Even if I had a spare $2K to throw at a low end dual PowerMac, that seems like that would be money wasted since the new Intel boxes running OS X are reported to be so fast.  (I have gotten OS X to run on my 2.4 Gig P4, but it's an SSE2 machine, doesn't have Intel 900 graphics, and thus isn't real usable...  But what I can get to work is fast.)

 

Now, for about $200 (or $300) I could get the remaining parts to build my own OSx86 machine, which would tide me over until I could get a real Intel Mac, *IF* it is stable.  That's why I'm looking for reports of the experience of others with the right hardware.

 

If only Apple had the Intel-based Mini's ready...  Heck, if they had a PowerMac based on Intel I would probably go ahead and get it because it would surely be fast enough to hold me off for a few years...

 

Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I find it quite stable, and it is running all the apps I have. Has only crashed once (iTunes visualizer doesn't like my computer :/ )

[xer0]

I've been using it for the past few days as my primary OS and I'm REALLY liking it. PPC apps don't lag horribly on my SSE2 system like I expected them to, but if you get too much PPC stuff going on you can peg the CPU real quick. Here's my specs...

 

Dell Dimension 4400 - Primary PC using OS X as my main OS and XP as my backup

1.7Ghz Pentium 4 Williamette(SSE2)

Intel i845D Chipset w/ onboard audio

1GB PC3200 Ram(Only being read as PC2100, but I had it lying around)

128MB ATI Radeon 9600XT(still only reads as a 16MB VESA 2.0 )

3COM 3C905-TX NIC

Native DVD install w/ Maxxuss .4.1 SSE2 patch

 

With proper video drivers and more intel-compiled apps out it will only get better. OS X runs faster, even with PPC apps, then XP does on this same machine. It runs more then stable enough for everyday use, another thing I wasn't really expecting.

 

Kudos to Apple for putting together such a great OS and to the scene for making it all possible for everyone to run it!

 

This bud's for you!

 

[nenonih]

I am using a mac at work. it's a imac with 1.8 GHz G5 and 1 GB Ram. My everyday applications are: mail, safari, firefox, photoshop, word, excel, itunes...

 

I installed OSX86 on a P4 3.0 HT, Intel 915 GAGL mainboard and 1 GB of kingston memory. From marklar image, patched with Generic_OSx86_Install_DVD_Patcher_test3.rar.

 

Since 2 days I am using OSX86 as my main OS. There are only a few programs, which wont run, torrent clients, limewire, flash. But the working ones are just great, even better then the imac. Photoshop for example, very fast. and did not crash since. office is running without any problems.

I have a problem with ical on imac, crashes all the time, but on PC it runs smoothly.

 

I also installed MS Vista beta 1, really sucks. M?crosoft is preaparing its own end.

 

So, my PC is running faster then my imac.

[ptaylor]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone... I've ordered my parts, including a Silicon Image card for DVI out, and I'm just waiting for it all to arrive... I think I have my planned installation path documented already...

 

This link looks like a good one to follow, since I'll have the right hardware... (The Luther Blissett post, several down from the top.)

 

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=499

 

So, I'll take my deadmoo image already on an old 10 GB drive and use that to create my own bootable install DVD, burn and then install to the same 10 GB drive. If all works well, I'll probably replace the 10 GB drive with a 36 GB 10K RPM Raptor... (But I'll have to backup that PC first and move that data to another drive... Decisions, decisions!)

 

At any rate, from the replies that I've gotten here, I think that I will have a machine that will perform well and hopefully tide me over until Apple releases real MacIntels next year...

[wow]

dvi is great, vga is a bit blurry compared to dvi which is razorsharp, that is also true for the minimac btw :-)