<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: OS X running on an ordinary x86 PC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/</link>
	<description>Random pieces of code, thoughts and movie reviews</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: arkadaş</title>
		<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-51021</link>
		<dc:creator>arkadaş</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-51021</guid>
		<description>you were right, even ppc compiled Photoshop or Office 2004 works on Rosetta at a reasonable speed! I don’t</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you were right, even ppc compiled Photoshop or Office 2004 works on Rosetta at a reasonable speed! I don’t</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: estetik</title>
		<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-50760</link>
		<dc:creator>estetik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-50760</guid>
		<description>I really wander what is the speed of OSX running on ordinary PC?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really wander what is the speed of OSX running on ordinary PC?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Goscicki</title>
		<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-114</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Goscicki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Sep 2005 08:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-114</guid>
		<description>Compared to the Windows XP running on the same hardware, how much slower, for example, Photoshop is?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Compared to the Windows XP running on the same hardware, how much slower, for example, Photoshop is?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philippe</title>
		<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator>Philippe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-110</guid>
		<description>I too played around with osx86 now - you were right, even ppc compiled Photoshop or Office 2004 works on Rosetta at a reasonable speed! I don't know how much binaries are "fat" compiled - that's for ppc and x86.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too played around with osx86 now - you were right, even ppc compiled Photoshop or Office 2004 works on Rosetta at a reasonable speed! I don&#8217;t know how much binaries are &#8220;fat&#8221; compiled - that&#8217;s for ppc and x86.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Goscicki</title>
		<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-84</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Goscicki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:18:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-84</guid>
		<description>I believe it has little to do with what Steve was talking about. I still think that almost all software should be working without any porting whatsoever as OS X is supposedly running natively. It's the hardware where the problems begin - not every piece of hardware is supported by the OS. It is BSD at the core of the OS X so that's why it is able to work. OS X is just a graphical interface (that's a simplification, because it's much more).

Btw: check out &lt;a href="http://www.uneasysilence.com/archive/2005/08/3937/" rel="nofollow"&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I believe it has little to do with what Steve was talking about. I still think that almost all software should be working without any porting whatsoever as OS X is supposedly running natively. It&#8217;s the hardware where the problems begin - not every piece of hardware is supported by the OS. It is BSD at the core of the OS X so that&#8217;s why it is able to work. OS X is just a graphical interface (that&#8217;s a simplification, because it&#8217;s much more).</p>
<p>Btw: check out <a href="http://www.uneasysilence.com/archive/2005/08/3937/" >this link</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philippe</title>
		<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-82</link>
		<dc:creator>Philippe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-82</guid>
		<description>That leaves me a bit confused... Steve talked about all the porting to the intel architecture and I thought that has to be done to every bit of code or at least the "programming language interpreter"?
Tell me if I'm completely wrong!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That leaves me a bit confused&#8230; Steve talked about all the porting to the intel architecture and I thought that has to be done to every bit of code or at least the &#8220;programming language interpreter&#8221;?<br />
Tell me if I&#8217;m completely wrong!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Goscicki</title>
		<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-81</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Goscicki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:18:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-81</guid>
		<description>Wish I knew the answer. But still I think that 99% of all the Mac stuff should be working. There are some things requiring SSE3 from Intel processors, but other than that everything (almost?) should be ok.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wish I knew the answer. But still I think that 99% of all the Mac stuff should be working. There are some things requiring SSE3 from Intel processors, but other than that everything (almost?) should be ok.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philippe</title>
		<link>http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-80</link>
		<dc:creator>Philippe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://paulgoscicki.com/archives/2005/08/os-x-on-an-ordinary-x86-pc/#comment-80</guid>
		<description>That sure does sound cool! I just managed to get some aqua look and feel on my xp machine... (see my site)

But there aren't may programs yet supported on Intel? Only safari, iphoto, just like "default stuff"? Otherwise I should consider installing os x myself..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That sure does sound cool! I just managed to get some aqua look and feel on my xp machine&#8230; (see my site)</p>
<p>But there aren&#8217;t may programs yet supported on Intel? Only safari, iphoto, just like &#8220;default stuff&#8221;? Otherwise I should consider installing os x myself..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
