#BEST PPC EMULATOR FOR MAC OS X MAC#

But if you can emulate one that was sold only a year or 2 ago, then it would be something. I doubt that it will get to the point where you can buy a Wintel at any reasonable price (dual CPU even) that would emulate as fast as any currently selling Mac. But it will happen sooner or later you can bet your bottom dollar on that.

#BEST PPC EMULATOR FOR MAC OS X MAC#

Do I think it will be able to compete with actual Mac harware a year from now? Probably not. Do I think PearPC will be faster a year from now? Yep. Anybody who writes this thing off because of that sole reason hasn't got a clue what they are talking about. If in 1.5 years (Oct of 2005) they get a speeds similar to G3-800, then they have emulated a Mac that was sold only 2 years in the past-Oct 2003) Take a dual G5-2Ghz-mac top of the line-and how fast of a Wintel does it emulate-PIII-733? 800? How long ago since those were sold? 4-5 years in desktops? or more? The problem here is that a lot of people are hung up on the initial version and refuse to accept the overwhelmingly obvious scenario that performance will go up in future versions.ДЄnd on top of that, Wintel systems will get faster, so it is a double whammy! That's right, BFG10K-it is right now the best it will ever get, the most optimized, etc. Pure speculation? No evidence? Are you reading the comments and links that Beeru is posting? It doesn't even use the FPU yet! So in a year or 2 they could just get a Wintel and run OSX and have the best of both worlds. is what they need and the low-end Macs serve that well. So again, following their own reasoning at least a few people out there will find PearPC adequate.Д®xactly-for MOST people, as the argument goes, simple email, websurfing, etc. Not only that but when discussing the performance delta Maclots often make claims that for most people processing power doesn't matter. and for a while it was better to get teh G3-733 instead of the G4-450 or G4-500 since the G3 was faster. Since most benchmarks of G3 versus G4 at same clock showed very little difference except for altivec-I am fine with that. I just don't see that as that outrageous an improvement from alpha 0.1 version to 1.0 version.ДЄnd if it makes you feel better-fine-G3-1000 next year. This means they would need about a 4x improvement in the emulator for it to happen. So-if Intel made a 3x improvement in OS-that would be 9x faster. Ok, look-we currently have systems that are about 3x faster than G4-1000 on cross-platform benches. You're saying that based on the fact that because chips next year will be faster, they will be able to emulate a G4-1000. I just don't think 1 GHz G4 speeds are achievable in 12 months.Дў) I made sure to state that it was highly dependant on both Intel and the developers Could be loads better in a year or 2 or might take a decade-that is hold-up. The biggest unknown is how good and how fast the developers will go.

They can do the same things, but because they work differently _using SSE to do Altivec_ is the wrong way to go about things. I've taken issue with your claims that a G4 (particularly a 1 GHz) can be successfully emulated within a year.ДЄlso-my understanding is that some of altivec can be done with MMX/SSE/SSE2/SSE3. And also that I haven't said anything about G3 emulation. except that those 'special cases' aren't exactly 'special' on OS X. The difference between G3 and G4 is only ALtivec (ok other few things too, but by far Altivec) and benchmarks showed equally clocked G3s and G4s doing almost identical except for when Altivec was used. Let me in on a little secret-that is only used for special cases! So YEAH it would be slower for somethings and just dandy on most things. Baksi-your whole point seems to revolve around Altivec.

Best ppc emulator for mac os x