[question] Pearpc On Dos

I've got a question on my head which is why we can't run pearPc directly on a dos mode without the windows xp mode.

PearPc run on linux and windows so i think it doesn't need the big and voluminous windows core, so we may lose a lot of power with this big interface.

Cause we make a new installation with a new os and a new core, which is kernel based, Darwin, we may win a lot of internal ressources if we can just make a clean install??

This is just an interrogation i've got, and i've just think that can be good for the osx on x86.

Thank and Vive AQUASoft

Sorry for my english

-----------------------

Please use tags. This is a [Question] thread.

The Topic Has Been Tagged

// Seph

#182232

There is no DOS mode in Windows XP - its a DOS emulation layer

that emulates an entire DOS PC inside a command prompt window

and real DOS will take your machine back to 1993, with 1 MB of RAM,

16 bit instead of 32 bit memory and disk access.

I understand that you want to trim down your XP box so far that it runs PearPC

only - a clean install would do the trick or a clean install of Windows 2000 that

consumes less system resources than XP.

Sorry you can't trim down the XP kernel any further since its monolithic.

Better try to find a Linux distribution that is hand crafted for running PearPC?

#182235

Better try to find a Linux distribution that is hand crafted for running PearPC?

And what about the Darwin Linux version???

Cannot be a good linux version for PearPC???

#182238

Darwin is not Linux. It's...darwin. It's a mix of MACH and BSD.

You can get a linux install to a few megs very easily (look at Damn Small Linux, it's got loads of stuff, only 50MB, Linux runs fine off a floppy, but probably not enough to run PearPC). Just tweak that if you want a clean PearPC system.

#182269

I've been thinking about this to. Cause Panther is damn

slow on XP. Would it be possibe to do it on windows 95 ?

Probably not. 95 has the reall COMMAND.COM file strait

from msdos. XP and 2000 have CMD.EXE. That rotten

emulator.

#189591

The difference between XP\2k and 9x when it comes to dos is that 9x runs on command.com and XP doesn't run on cmd.exe, that's just a command interpreter. You can shut off any extra services or effects that they added to XP and it'd basically be win2k. Also if you check the Wikipedia you'll see that NT (XP) is a micro-monolithic hybrid. There are arguments for the superiority of either. But being monolithic isn't nessasarily bad as Linux's kernel is monolithic.

Anyway in all ways you can go I don't thnk you can expect stellar performance out of PearPC. Just my opinion.

P.S. If you are thinking of trying pearPC on 9x and choosing boot into DOS you can't run windows graphical applications in DOS unless they have their own "32-bit protected mode" like old games like Quake for DOS do. It'll just tell you "you need windows to run this application" or something like that.

Also the recovery console in NT isn't good for running anything. =p

Anyway, I also pretty much figure it's not memory that's slowing you down. It's how fast the CPU is being emulated.

#189624

Even if you could you shouldnt notice any difference anyway because it makes perfect sence to reboot or at least kill as many applications as possible before running PearPC, you may say it run slow but thats PearPC not XP. The average home PC isnt powerful enough to run this emulator its only just hit version 0.2. The emulator is to get help from uses and prove it can be done at the moment progress needs to come along way until Mac is actually useable inside PearPC.

Even if you could run it in DOS you shouldnt notice any difference because like I said you should be running on bear essentials anyway. I have a P4 3.0GHz and it runs fairly decent on mine but its still way too slow for everyday use and I have it setup on its own seperate HD with it own clean installation of Windows so I can boot straight into Mac and there wasnt much speed difference.

#191100

Originally posted by ifido@Jul 14 2004, 04:14 PM
I've been thinking about this to. Cause Panther is damn
slow on XP. Would it be possibe to do it on windows 95 ?
Probably not. 95 has the reall COMMAND.COM file strait
from msdos. XP and 2000 have CMD.EXE. That rotten
emulator.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it should be more speed on windows 95 because windows 98 can really use only 96 mo of ram and windows 95 I don't know ...

#191113

There was a beta of DOS called "7.0" and it WAS in fact a 32 bit version of DOS.

also... If someone would make a PearPC distrobution of Linux you would need X. X is how *nix distros make graphics.

#191151

Originally posted by ihartmacz@Jul 18 2004, 11:36 PM
There was a beta of DOS called "7.0" and it WAS in fact a 32 bit version of DOS.
also... If someone would make a PearPC distrobution of Linux you would need X. X is how *nix distros make graphics.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Windows 95 used DOS 7.0

#191166

O.k. people. I have the solution. The almighty, ass-spanking,

competitor-beating, not-for-skinning, no-nonsense :

WINDOWS NT 4.0 !!!! :rockband:

I am 90 % sure that it uses the 32 Bit dos emulator that they

put in Windows 2000 and XP. If not then I know the CMD file

from Win 2000 will work on it. Windows NT uses only about

16 MB or ram, and all the rest is left for whatever your

running on pearpc. It supports the NTFS file system so it is

big enough to hold the PearPC disk Image and other stuff.

I'm gonna try it as soon as I can get my old 8 GB HD out

from under the loose floorboard I have

#191195

I guess I was too long winded in my last post. PearPC is not a DOS program so that doesn't help you, period it's a win32 program. Also people seem to think resources=memory, and that's not the problem here it's CPU. You can run whatever OS you want underneath, but it won't give you much of a boost..It's going to use 100% no matter what is underneath it.

BTW, the limit untweaked on 9x is 512mb for ram but if you use cacheman you can have more. Also the DOS that is in 9x is still 16-bit, 9x just ran in 32-bit protected mode over it. There was once a 32-bit DOS but it was scrapped before it was ever widely used.

Windows95 Definition

#191261

I was just throghing the DOS 7.0 thing out as some info...

machines equipped to run Windows NT 4.0 is not powerful enough to run power PC very well.

This is about equivalant to trying to hack up a Macintosh Classic circa 1991(68k) to run Mac OS X 10.3.3.

You should get

Windows .Net Server 2003 eval or Windows 2000

LOTS of RAM

One huge page file (2GB)

and a Pear PC build built spacifically for your CPU.

#191276

My Paging File is 6 GB and PearPC is slow as hell.

#191294

Originally posted by smoke+Jul 18 2004, 08:04 PM-->
QUOTE(smoke @ Jul 18 2004, 08:04 PM)
Also people seem to think resources=memory, and that's not the problem here it's CPU.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

#191453

Originally posted by ifido@Jul 18 2004, 08:46 PM
My Paging File is 6 GB and PearPC is slow as hell.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats just a virtual HD thats like saying if you stick a bigger HD in your PC Windows will run faster, I have a 20GB Page File and it dosnt change it as they just act as HDs.

#191459

Yeah, the main problem is not the hosting OS. Trimming it down won't

speed up because to emulate a different processor you waste about 40

x86 machine language instructions to emulate one PPC machine language

instruction. Simplified you may have a 25 MHz PowerPC on a 1 GHz Pentium,

period.

However, there are two possible remedies:

Software just in time compilation.

Instead of interpreting / executing, the PPC emulator could read ahead

some of the instruction code, translate it to x86, and execute the buffered

outcome; load balancing and cacheing strategies could help to keep code

in memory that is used frequently; A complete translation would need more

RAM then the emulated PPCs RAM plus the Gigabytes of the hard disk, so

this overhead is critical. If I read it right, the PearPC team has adopted this

strategy and needs time to streamline it - patience, guys.

Hardware just in time compilation.

Same as above, but the cacheing / translation is built in into the CPU.

PCs with Transmeta chips emulate x86 that way, why shouldn't they succeed

in PPCs? The design of Transmeta seems to be nearer to PPCs than PCs.

The opcode translation schemes are adoptable and read from flash, while

the CPU nicks 16 MB RAM for their JIT queues; I read that a 700 MHz Transmeta

CPU compares to a 533 MHz Celeron which is orders of magnitude better

than software JIT. So given a Transmeta CPU, we could dual boot into OS X

and execute it at almost native speeds.

Just my $0.02 to this never ending story.

#191471

The only way to speed it up is to wait PearPC is slow is just the way it is and anyone who expects it to be real-time is kidding themselves its only a 0.2 release. THe only thing you can do it just have a fast computer and like I said trim down the OS because PearPC will use 100% resources no matter what processor you got so the less your processor has to do the better as if you try and load an app while PearPC is running the app will get priority and PearPC literally freezes.

#191517