What PearPC Means to Apple…and Microsoft!
Making the headlines on the Apple news websites this week was a mention of PearPC. If you haven’t heard, “Pear” is an acronym for PowerPC Emulation Architecture. An open source software project has come up with an “emulated Mac” using software, and it is now possible to run Mac OS X on an x86 powered PC powered by Linux or Windows.
On his website, Kevin Rose of Tech TV’s ScreenSavers posted instructions on how to make OS X run under Windows. Following them, it’s not a relatively hard task to get OS X installed and running on a virtual Darwin hard disk, just like Virtual PC runs Windows on a virtual hard disk under Mac OS X. With a little tweaking, Mac OS X will run on an AMD powered 2800+ system using Windows XP as well as Windows 3.1 would run on a 386 powered PC. However, at least under Windows, PearPC cannot access the PC’s real hardware, so loading any application software on the virtual hard disk becomes a bit of a chore, if possible at all. PearPC is an interesting proof of concept, but not much more than that, at least right now.
It does fuel hope for those folks who want to be able to run OS X on PC hardware without shelling out the extra bucks for a Mac. I used to be one of them. I’m not any more. I’m really sold on the whole Mac experience; and though I hate the high price of entry as much as anyone else, I consider it worth it for what I get...most of the time. The cost differential to get into the Mac is not as high as it used to be; in many cases, several hundred dollars, money that my experience suggests will be recovered in joy of use and simple productivity. Additionally, every time I’ve tried running any kind of emulation, I have always been unhappy with the performance. It has been adequate for the most basic of tasks but not much else. It’s hard for me to believe that Mac emulation would pose much of a threat to the Apple platform. The people who would find emulation on a PC suitable would probably not buy a Mac anyway. At least Apple would have the dollars in their pockets from the purchase of the operating system.
Except, of course, that there’s a catch. The Apple license included in the Panther installation states that the operating system is licensed only for an “Apple-branded” computer. PC’s thereby do not qualify, and running Mac OS X on them is a violation of the license. Whether Apple would (foolhardily, in my opinion) go after the websites demonstrating how to get OS X running on a PC is anyone’s guess. Frankly, I think Apple needs to remove the “Apple-branded” restriction but make it plain they won’t support the operating system on anything but the Mac platform. They can take a page out of the Microsoft book and encourage adoption of more “virtual Macs”. Microsoft realized they could use Virtual PC as another means of selling Windows or at least, of gaining more foothold on the Mac platform; it doesn’t make sense that Apple would turn down the same opportunity for revenue. Removing the language that restricts OS X to Mac hardware could be done quietly…
The company that really needs to be concerned about PearPc isn’t Apple but Microsoft! PearPC represents another choice for users who currently have investments in x86 architectures. If Mac OS X were to eventually join Linux as another choice, both home and corporate users would have fewer reasons to stick with the Microsoft hegemony. Eventually, if PearPc evolved into a low resource, easily installed base layer that could run OS X on x86 architecture with only a slight performance hit, then the whole landscape of the software market could shift, eventually taking the hardware market with it. Apple might have to shift off their current price points; but their machines’ performance advantage, even if it eventually turned out to slight, over software emulated PowerPC hardware could be parlayed into market share. Instead of Apple switching to x86, Dell might be forced to switch to PowerPC.
It’s nice to dream, isn’t it?
On his website, Kevin Rose of Tech TV’s ScreenSavers posted instructions on how to make OS X run under Windows. Following them, it’s not a relatively hard task to get OS X installed and running on a virtual Darwin hard disk, just like Virtual PC runs Windows on a virtual hard disk under Mac OS X. With a little tweaking, Mac OS X will run on an AMD powered 2800+ system using Windows XP as well as Windows 3.1 would run on a 386 powered PC. However, at least under Windows, PearPC cannot access the PC’s real hardware, so loading any application software on the virtual hard disk becomes a bit of a chore, if possible at all. PearPC is an interesting proof of concept, but not much more than that, at least right now.
It does fuel hope for those folks who want to be able to run OS X on PC hardware without shelling out the extra bucks for a Mac. I used to be one of them. I’m not any more. I’m really sold on the whole Mac experience; and though I hate the high price of entry as much as anyone else, I consider it worth it for what I get...most of the time. The cost differential to get into the Mac is not as high as it used to be; in many cases, several hundred dollars, money that my experience suggests will be recovered in joy of use and simple productivity. Additionally, every time I’ve tried running any kind of emulation, I have always been unhappy with the performance. It has been adequate for the most basic of tasks but not much else. It’s hard for me to believe that Mac emulation would pose much of a threat to the Apple platform. The people who would find emulation on a PC suitable would probably not buy a Mac anyway. At least Apple would have the dollars in their pockets from the purchase of the operating system.
Except, of course, that there’s a catch. The Apple license included in the Panther installation states that the operating system is licensed only for an “Apple-branded” computer. PC’s thereby do not qualify, and running Mac OS X on them is a violation of the license. Whether Apple would (foolhardily, in my opinion) go after the websites demonstrating how to get OS X running on a PC is anyone’s guess. Frankly, I think Apple needs to remove the “Apple-branded” restriction but make it plain they won’t support the operating system on anything but the Mac platform. They can take a page out of the Microsoft book and encourage adoption of more “virtual Macs”. Microsoft realized they could use Virtual PC as another means of selling Windows or at least, of gaining more foothold on the Mac platform; it doesn’t make sense that Apple would turn down the same opportunity for revenue. Removing the language that restricts OS X to Mac hardware could be done quietly…
The company that really needs to be concerned about PearPc isn’t Apple but Microsoft! PearPC represents another choice for users who currently have investments in x86 architectures. If Mac OS X were to eventually join Linux as another choice, both home and corporate users would have fewer reasons to stick with the Microsoft hegemony. Eventually, if PearPc evolved into a low resource, easily installed base layer that could run OS X on x86 architecture with only a slight performance hit, then the whole landscape of the software market could shift, eventually taking the hardware market with it. Apple might have to shift off their current price points; but their machines’ performance advantage, even if it eventually turned out to slight, over software emulated PowerPC hardware could be parlayed into market share. Instead of Apple switching to x86, Dell might be forced to switch to PowerPC.
It’s nice to dream, isn’t it?
posted by Andy Foster at
2:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home