Mac OS X Running on Non-Apple Hardware

MacBeliever writes "Inevitably, Mac OS X for x86 has been hacked to run on a non-Apple PC. Is this the beginning of the fulfillment of the Dvorak prophecy?" RetrogradeMotion also writes "The OSx86 Project has posted a how-to guide telling how to run OS X on any Windows or Linux-based PC using VMWare." Not 100% corroborated, so ingest with salt.

Random thoughts on Apple

[bigwavejas (678602)]

Ok I'm naïve on the politics of this, so my post is more of a question than a answer. I know this is an argument that has gone back and forth, but here goes again...

Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands? Sure, it might detract from them selling hardware (short term), but I can honestly say for me (average Joe) I've never purchased a Mac because they simply don't have the software titles I'm interested in and Windows does. I mean sure, they've got great stuff, but they lack in GAMES, yes games... I've said it, gotten it out. I'm a gamer and so are all of my friends. I'd venture to say a good chunk of those purchasing PC's are in the same group as me (surf the web and play games). So if the Apple OS became more popular, wouldn't more developers consider making a version of their game in the Apple OS flavor?

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Radres (776901)]

Ya' know, it's not unlike Steve Jobbs to say one thing and then end up turning around and doing the exact opposite, perhaps with the intent of throwing off his enemies. I can't find the sources right now and get a top post, but as an example, he specifically said that there would never be an iPod cell phone, and a few weeks later there was talk of one. Doesn't surprise me one bit that Apple is taking their OS which is vastly superior to Windows and trying to take on that huge market.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833)]

1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware. 2. there would be a loss of branding and a lowering of the quality associated with OS X. 3. there are plenty of games on the Mac, but if you want the very latest cutting-edge PC games you'd never be satisfied anyway since you'd need ATI/nVidia making their latest cards in Mac versions too. 4. if you DO want games, why do you want a Mac? if Windows works, use it. 5. what is happening to the PC game industry? is it growing/shrinking? will PC games be so important when the latest generation consoles are out? 6. given PC games makers moves to absurd copy-protection methods (drivers), will either the makers or Apple allow the other to do what they want to "secure" the computers?

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Deep Fried Geekboy (807607)]

Yeah, the hardware support is the killer, and why they won't do it. Where would all the drivers for all the obsolete hardware out there come from? Just getting it to boot on most 3-year old systems would mean having to write tens of thousands of drivers. Not gonna happen.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Lewisham (239493)]

Apple is a brand that is based on quality. What you're advocating is running the brand through the mud, exactly what the company doesn't want.

Not supporting things is sure-fire way for customer support to decline.

Supporting things that cause it to run like crap is a sure-fire way for customer support to decline.

Apple can only, and should only, release OS X on their own hardware, where the quality of user experience is assured.

This is what will happen.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[pcidevel (207951)]

1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware.

Due to the lack of formatting (probably not your fault) and because I happen to know quite a bit about the subject, I stopped reading at this sentence..

My nick, pcidevel, comes from the fact that I've spent the last 5 years developing device drivers for pci devices in Windows (as well as Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, etc).. I've never worked for Microsoft that whole time. Microsoft does not develop the device drivers for Windows, the third party manufacturer of the device does. I've written, probably close to a dozen drivers, from niche products to ethernet drivers for Intel (if you use a IBM or Intel ethernet card, you've probably encounterd my code.. yeah it's the shit that made your box BSOD, sorry about that)..

If Apple increases their market share and opens their APIs, hardware manufacturers will flock to OSX with device drivers. Hell I've had companies pay me to develop drivers for HP-UX, and there are probably around 15 people in the WORLD using HP-UX anymore. You can guarantee if there was even a fractional market for OSX using the hardware I've developed for, my boss would have me working on OSX drivers in a heartbeat, i.e. if Apple would let us, we would support them.. hardware manufacturers love cash..

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[pauljlucas (529435)]

I've never purchased a Mac because they ... lack in GAMES

I've never understood this argument. You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games? If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?

Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Kaa (21510)]

If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?

I am not the original poster, but games you play on a PC are very different from the ones you play on consoles. If you like MMORPGs (e.g. World of Warcraft), FPSs (e.g. Unreal), RTSs (e.g. Rome: Total War) then having a console does not help you at all.

As for the "rest of your stuff" it very much depends on what kind of stuff this is. For my purposes I am quite happy to have a Windows machine as a gaming/Photoshop/MSOffice box and a Linux machine for heavy lifting. No need for a Mac.

Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.

The gaming segment by now includes 30-something males and I bet the 20-40 year old demographic has Apple marketers drooling.

Playing it both ways

[Fzz (153115)]

Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

Apple is clearly a hardware company, and so they make most of their money from selling hardware. Thus it's very unlikely that Apple would want to support generic x86 boxes.

But Apple has an interesting opportunity here. If they simply ignored people running unlicensed x86 copies, but prevented else anyone selling pre-installed Macs, then they probably wouldn't lose much business. The people who are willing to install MacOS themselves are unlikely to be the people who'd buy Mac hardware in the first place.

However, Apple would gain a lot of mindshare with the kids and with the technically savvy who are happy installing their own OS. In the long run, this will bring many more people to Apple hardware, and to influence their parents/family/employers to buy the supported Apple products.

Seems like Apple can't lose here.

-Fzz

Re:Playing it both ways

[rbanffy (584143)]

Fzz got it right.

By letting OSX be pirated Apple is following the winning strategy of Microsoft. The only difference is that the cheapest way to run MacOS is buying a Mac mini and I am notsure whether the cheapest way to run Windows is to buy a PC pre-installed with Windows or to buy a box with a CD inside.

By allowing PC users that would never buy a real copy of Windows, Microsoft used "virtual dumping" to get rid of any competition (by offering an "unsuported" version of its OS for free) and to increase its market share. When MS got rid of the competition in the OS arena, it had a healthy user base software writers were happy to make software available for.

Apple is using exactly the same strategy. By making OSX "unsuported" available to current PC users, Apple increases its user base, making it more attractive to build software for it and, at the same time, makes people try Apple software in the hopes they get the next PC upgrade.

In the meantime, they pretend that's not what they are doing.

Brilliant

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[hackstraw (262471)]

Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

No. To paraphrase Douglas Adams "Apple may only have 10% of the computer market, but its definitely the top 10%".

Would it benefit Ferrari in the long run to have every ghetto curb filled with Ferrari's?

In looking at the demo movies, it was impressive to some degree to see OS X running on a cheap Windows PC. But looking more closely, I noticed that the image appeared stretched. I saw that yucky BIOS black screen with white text. However, it looked close to a regular Mac experience.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[DaggertipX (547165)]

Not impossible, but it would be a tricky transition for them.

Apple charges a very very large markup on their hardware, I don't think the margin on their software would be nearly as high.

Beyond that, one of the advantages of them controlling hardware and software is the fact that they can do more rigorous quality control, because they KNOW the configuration your machine will be running. This leads to the disadvantage of having a limited and more costly hardware base, but that is why Apple products "just work".

Personally, I think moving Mac OS to mainstream machines with unpredictable hardware would dramatically lower the quality of the software, and I would hate to see that. I would much rather have an Apple piece of hardware that I know was tested well with the operating system on it.

I suppose that viewpoint will put me in the minority here.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[jarich (733129)]

Apple charges a very very large markup on their hardware, I don't think the margin on their software would be nearly as high.

???

Microsoft? World's richest guy as the owner?

Software has a fixed cost of creation. You make your money in volume!

Beyond that, one of the advantages of them controlling hardware and software is the fact that they can do more rigorous quality control, because they KNOW the configuration your machine will be running. This leads to the disadvantage of having a limited and more costly hardware base, but that is why Apple products "just work".

Agreed... but it would be entirely possible to only provide support for "approved" hardware.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Shanep (68243)]

So you are paying for a complete experience. Which I can get from Dell or something similar.

Yeah, I love the full Dell experience. You send them money, then weeks later you get a laptop which comes complete with:

1. A battery which breaks within 3 weeks.
2. A CDROM drive with a dodgy eject button and requires a "right click -> eject".
3. Keyboard marks rubbed onto the screen.
4. A floppy drive which goes out of alignment after you first use it (two weeks after the warrantee ran out, because you don't use floppies that much). They demand money.
5. A trackpad/nipple which have you chanting, "The power of Christ compels you!..."
6. Flimsy build.
7. Poor performance (compared against other x86).
8. Non English speaking support, once they actually answer the phone.
9. An OS made by someone else, with drivers made by yet some other people again. Install media if you are lucky. Roll-your-own if you are not.
11. Anti virus software which takes the performance down by about one hundred annoyance notches. Only to be bothered for money 3 months later.
12. Lots of half baked software which is designed to get you to "upgrade to the pro version which actually works" with yet more money.
13. One hundred and fifty three billion different services installed and set to run by default, with a systray that goes half way across the screen when maximized.
14. A system which could come with any combination of a number of different parts. SOE hell.
15. A lesson in appreciation of quality over barrel bottom scraping "value".
16. I'm sure other /. readers can take it from here...

I support lots of Dells. The desktops... work. But the laptops are not built well enough to be used as laptops in my opinion.

My *opinion* is, that there never has been a Dell laptop which could compare with an Apple Powerbook for build quality or overall system quality. The overall Apple experience is nice. I could never say that about Dell. BTW, I say all this typing from a Sony VAIO.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Fussen (753791)]

I totally agree. Fake wood inlays on the dashboard are critical to the overall functioning of the vehicle.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Microsoft would never allow Dell or any of the other major manufacturers to sell their boxes with an Apple OS.

They give Dell, et al, huge discounts on Windows, which I'm sure would disappear the moment Dell started considering an alternative OS. Dell wouldn't be willing to risk the majority of its sales on the off chance of this new alternative OS taking off.

And I'll restate the point others have made: Apple's superiority in terms of user experience is directly attributable to the tight integration between and control of the hardware. There are far less hardware configurations in any Apple system than a commodity x86 box. Go look for Mac video cards and you'll see what I mean. Apple would be gambling with their one real advantage if they actually marketed their OS for commodity hardware, as opposed to just letting a few hackers here and there play with it.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[jav1231 (539129)]

You lost me at "the stability of XP."

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[dustmite (667870)]

I don't think I've *ever* gotten a blue screen.

Of course not: Go to Start/Control Panel/System/Advanced, click "Settings" under "Startup and Recovery", then under "System Failure" uncheck "Automatically restart". Voila, you'll have blue screens again ;)

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Or it could backfire horribly, like the "experiment" with clones/CHRP did: Apple's overall market share didn't change, but users who previously had bought Apple hardware migrated to Power Computing and Motorola and UMax boxes, giving Apple only a licensing fee instead of the 20% margin they previously did.

If Mac OS ran on commodity hardware, perhaps they'd pick up a few disgruntled Windows users, and Linux users who want something easier to use, but I suspect any positive movement would be greatly offset by the number of current Mac users who would switch to cheaper hardware and deny Apple profit.

I'm sure there are some potential Mac users waiting in the wings, held off by the high cost of Apple hardware, but this is not a market that I suspect Apple really cares about. Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel because they wanted to get faster processors into their current lineup and maintain and increase the number of people buying Apple boxes, not decimate their hardware division's sales overnight.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[GileadGreene (539584)]

Apple is neither a hardware company nor a software company. What Apple sells is user experiences. Apple users don't buy a computer, or a piece of software, they buy an integrated product that lets them get the things done that they want to get done ("It Just Works"(TM)). Both the hardware and the software are integral pieces of that product, and neither is complete without the other.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[gcondon (45047)]

Perhaps Apple doesn't want to change into a software company.

Perhaps they like building computers and maybe, just maybe, their legions of aficionados would like them to continue doing so.

In my opinion, the most significant characteristic of Apple, as a company and a culture, is that they clearly love computers and it shows in everything they build - hardware and software.

Very few other technology companies exhibit this same exuberance that has been an Apple hallmark for many years (esp. under the leadership of the norotiously persnickety Steve Jobs).

I rarely walk away from using a Microsoft product thinking that this was created by someone who loves computers as much as I do.

Not every company needs to (or should) try to maximize sales and market penetration like Microsoft - just like every person doesn't need to try to be as rich as Bill Gates, as musical as Mozart, as tall as Shaq, etc.

Is it inconceivable that Apple might have success criteria that are different from Microsoft? Is it impossible that we, as users, can understand and embrace that kind of diversity of thought in the marketplace?

Hey you, Ferrari - why aren't you selling as many cars as Toyota? Slackers!

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[jonfelder (669529)]

No...you already admit to pirating the OS and building the PCs. I'm not sure how you can recommend buying stock PCs if you build them...but...whatever. It's a lot more likely that it goes like this:

Next month your parents decide they want to upgrade their PC and come to you for advice (because you built their last PC). You tell them to order OS X compatible parts, and you install your pirated copy of the OS on the machine after you build it. Apple gains market share and makes no money.

Your grandfather, a year later, decides to upgrade his PC. He comes to you for advice because you built his last PC. You tell him he should run OS X. He talks to your parents, they tell him they love their OS X compatible PC. He orders OS X compatible parts, and you build the machine and install your pirated copy of OS X. Apple gains market share and makes no money.

Soon your aunt wants to upgrade, repeat above story. Market share continues to grow, but people aren't actually purchasing any Apple products. Rinse and repeat for your entire family. I doubt you build your friend's computers, but if you do...or your friends are similar to you (i.e. technically savy and have copies of OS X) rinse and repeat for them. In 5 years listen to all of the "Apple is DYING" trolls on slashdot because Apple is a hardware company and isn't selling any hardware. In 10 years your son asks you, "What is Apple?" and you tell him, "Oh we're running the last version of their OS on our Dell. Great company, too bad they went under."

Hey look, the Apple legal team!

[richdun (672214)]

Wonder what they're up to today?

Salt?

[BigZaphod (12942)]

Putting salt on my monitor didn't make the terrible shock I got while trying to ingest this any better. Did I do something wrong?

MS better watch their back

[by Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. The largest barrier for adoption of OSX has been the high cost of entry (ie buying Mac hardware). This has been slightly reduced with the Mac Mini, but now people can try out OSX without even having to buy new hardware.

Re:MS better watch their back

[TheOtherAgentM (700696)]

I don't agree. As someone that grew up on Windows and decided to try out Apple midway through college, it's not that simple. For us here on Slashdot, we realize the programs are similar in nature and are intuitive enough to figure out. However, I have switched many of my friends to Apple, making sure they knew how difficult it would be to unlearn what they already thought about computers. Most of them don't get very far in learning. That may be okay in a lot of cases, but if you are someone that has to be productive and you've learned to do things certain ways, switching is going to make Apple seem real inferior. Switching is not as easy as it appears.

Hardware Hack Required!

[FlameTroll (901932)]

Ya have to duct tape the mouse buttons together...

Re:Hardware Hack Required!

[Epistax (544591)]

That's much easier! Here I was, chopping off people's middle fingers...

For the love of all that is holy..

[by Anonymous Coward]

..please never, ever use Dvorak and Prophecy in the same phrase again.

Dvorak prophecy?

[Z0mb1eman (629653)]

Oh c'mon.

There are only two possible paths for Apple: continue to keep their OS working only on their hardware, or making it also work on x86.

I'm sure everyone who knows what a Mac is has speculated at one point or another what would happen if Apple made their OS work on x86 hardware, and whether they would, and why they would take that decision. Calling it the Dvorak prophecy seems way too pretentious.

That's all good and well...

[TheOtherAgentM (700696)]

That works fine until one of Apple's security patches screws things up for those users. The one reason I like Apple is because they can control their hardware market. Lots of times when I did Windows Updates, the patches would be incompatible just because of driver and hardware issues. I know people that still can't installed Service Pack 2 on XP, because of their video cards. I prefer to stick with the hardware Apple is going to sell.

Re:That's all good and well...

[zoomzit (860737)]

With Apple controlling their hardware market, you are stuck with whatever they decide to ship you. You have no options.

But, on my x86, I can choose any ATI Card or Nvidia card and I most certainly will not have XP update issues.

Apple "controlling" their hardware market is unfortunately limiting your choices for no good reason.

everybody, lower your heart rate. except me.

[captnitro (160231)]

FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, SWEET FUCKING CHRIST!!

Can we postpone these stories until the production runs of both the boxes and OS X comes out? Please? All these stories in the past few weeks have read like the following and have steadily decreased in poster IQ:

Apple: Wild speculation abounds on developer-only releases of software, hardware OMGWTF

Apple: Apple may/may not use DRM, based on developer-only releases of software and hardware OMGWTF!!!1

Apple: Teh interface is pretyOMGWTF!!!!!11eleventyone
Anonymous Coward writes: i am LOVE MY MACCY from BITTTORRRENT!!! I kissed it becos it tastES LIKE CANDY!!

Calm down, people. I'm not saying these things will or won't come to pass, but everybody assuming that a developer-only release will be anything like its comparable production release -- not to mention one that won't be available for a year -- is silly.

Disclaimer: Mac user at home.

Article already slashdotted

[Penguinoflight (517245)]

Here's the link to the article:
http://slashcache.com/stories/8e3fd00a12869f50e7ec c0512672bf76/index.html [slashcache.com]
and here's a torrent for the x86 dev kit:
http://torrentspy.com/search.asp?mode=torrentdetai ls&id=369442&query=OS+ [torrentspy.com]

So what!

[Goth Biker Babe (311502)]

People like Mercedes, BMW, Volvo etc sell cars at a premium because they are good quality and have nice design. In fact I bought an older Volvo precisely for that reason. It was a quality vehicle with the luxury and safety I would expect from the manufacturer. Apple is the same. Yes, may be you could run OS-X on a cheap clone PC, or one made of bits, but I bought Apple after years of such machines, because I wanted a quality machine with nice design and nice construction. Anyone who thinks this will hurt Apple's sales to a great extent is sadly mistaken.

Re:So what!

[It doesn't come easy (695416)]

I agree. People buy Apple because they want lots of good things, one of which is seamless operation, another top of the line hardware. People who steal the OS likely wouldn't fork over the cost of buying Apple hardware anyway, so the theft will NOT hurt Apple's bottom line while it MAY help Apple advertise their system. Given enough pirating, it is conceivable that Apple could eventually switch to selling the OS separately for cheap and have an immediate and significant boost to their market share. Hopefully, we'll get some real numbers in the next 24 months instead of all of this speculation...

Hard OCP HardForum Thread

[smileyscout (818108)]

This thread http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=937806&p age=1&pp=20 [hardforum.com] Has some interesting screenies about MacOSX 86 running natively on a laptop. Be sure to check it out.

Hold the salt please

[seven5 (596044)]

This works. This is not running inside of vmware. This is running directly on hardware. No salt needed. I have this running on a dell computer right now. All you need to do is take the vmware image floating around the internet, and use dd to image it to a drive. Boot from the drive and it works.. Requirements include an SSE2 enabled cpu, that would be most p4's and amd64 and higher. Rosetta requires SSE3, so without that you get no ppc apps. Newer p4's using the .90nm process will have SSE3. Make sure you have a great Video card as well soyou have Quartz Extreme running. It is also possible to patch the install dvd and install strait to the hardware. But the Vmware image is the easiest to do. You dont even need vmware, just download the vmware image, and use linux or knoppix to dd it over to a blank drive. The next few weeks should be fun :) Compliant hardware on Ebay is going for $225 or so. Not bad.

Article is wrong and misleading

[IntergalacticWalrus (720648)]

It cannot run on any x86. OS X extensively uses SSE2 everywhere, and in some places SSE3 too. You need at least a SSE2-capable CPU to run it (Pentium 4, Pentium M, or any 64-bit AMD), and then again it's apparently not very stable.

Yes, it's all about games...

[podperson (592944)]

OSX offers no compelling advantages, and many disadvantages, as a platform to game developers. Apple has neglected or actively discouraged game developers over a long period of time -- starting with a refusal to produce a joystick standard (so there is still no standard joystick interface after 20 years) through refusing to enable low res graphics back in the early 90s when every hit game (Doom, etc.) relied on them to achieve acceptable frame rates.

Apple's current initiative is actually probably the best move they could make vis-a-vis games.

Currently, a typical Mac gamer owns a PC to play games on. In my case, I upgrade my PC more frequently than my Mac, even though I use my Mac for *paying work*, and the only reason is game performance. Apple can capture a chunk of this money by producing computers that run their OS and the games I want to play.

Whether I have to reboot into Windows or run in a compatibility box, I'd rather upgrade one computer every twelve-eighteen months than upgrade my PC twice and my Mac one every two years.

If Apple released OSX for random PC boxes it would instantly lose its hardware margin, and it might never get significant volume on software. And, frankly, Apple's hardware innovations are as important as its software innovations -- would you like to see Apple out of the hardware market?

Re:Yes, it's all about games...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746)]

OSX offers no compelling advantages, and many disadvantages, as a platform to game developers.

Actually that is mostly untrue. You don't think Carmack develops on a mac because he's a moron do you? The dev tools are very very nice and free.

...through refusing to enable low res graphics back in the early 90s when every hit game (Doom, etc.) relied on them to achieve acceptable frame rates.

Heh, I had both a mac and a PC back in the day when doom came out. At the time when many people were playing Doom 1 and 2, I was playing Marathon 1 and 2. It made all the PC users green with envy. The marathon games were so much better there was no comparison. Good sound, better graphics, better story, multiplayer in teams, voice chat with your team... all this many years before anything comparable was available on the PC. Sorry, but what kept games off the mac was market share, not graphics or device support.

Currently, a typical Mac gamer owns a PC to play games on.

No they don't. Currently, the extreme gamer who uses a mac for work, etc. owns a PC for games. The typical mac gamer owns a console and/or just plays games on their mac. The typical gamer does not actually need to play every game 3 months earlier and does not spend tons of money upgrading their machine every year. You've mistaken yourself for a typical gamer when you are, in fact, quite atypical.

On the plus side as far as you are concerned, Windows will run on your x86 mac, and if you don't like rebooting, within a short period of time it will probably run at near real speeds in emulation. Of course being an extreme gamer you probably need that extra 5 FPS so you will probably reboot it anyway. Good luck.

...do not be surprise if it disappears

[by Anonymous Coward]

"do not be surprise if it disappears"

so I'm putting a copy here for safe keeping:

Wednesday August 10, 2005

- Mac OSX x86 on PC: and now a video! [Upd] - bad_duck [mailto] - 21:03:35

The Apple Developer kit version of MacOSX x86 has indeed been fully cracked!
An anonymous source has sent us a video showing MacOSX x86 booting natively on a Pc notebook Mitac 8050D (Pentium-M 735/1.6GHz).

Boot Mac OS X 86 [macbidouille.com] (Mpeg4 - 1,5 Mo) - [torrent] [macbidouille.com]

As you can see the boot phase is rather fast, and the error message at the end is simply due to an right/authorization error due to the kext allowing PS/2 support.

[Upd]
Here is a second video showing the boot on the same hardware, the permission error was repaired. We can see the "About this Mac" panel, Apple System Profiler and CHUD prefpane showing information on the processor (frequency, cache etc...).

Boot Mac OS X 86 v2 [macbidouille.com] (.mov - 11,5 Mo) - [torrent] [macbidouille.com]

[Update] - We've added torrent files for the 2 videos to relieve the stress on our server. If you use them, please keep seeding as long as possible, thank you.

[translation by Eric [mailto]]

[edited - windows vista crap removed]

- Mac OSX x86 on any PC : a reality, current status - Yoc [mailto] - 14:18:24

Hereafter is the current status of the OSX x86 on any PC project run by PC/Mac "bidouilleurs"

Initial problems

Several system prevent running OSX x86 on any PC:
1. TPM chips from Intel
2. SSE3-enable processor
3. GMA900-based graphic card to natively support Quartz.

First solution: VMWare

simply install VMare on ANYPC, and this application will emulate what needs to be (GMA900, SSE3 ...)
Of course this is only a short-term solution, since it is rather instable, and particularly slow.
since this morning one can find on P2P network an already configures VMWare image OSX x86.

Patches

Several solution have been found. The TPM is cracked, and no one needs it anymore. The SSE3 requirement, can be bypassed via quite complex modifications, and this case several kernels will not work since they REALLY need SSE3. A patch for those kernels is being prepared allowing SSE3 instructions to be translated into their corresponding SSE2 ones.
GMA900 can be avoided by modifying CoreGrapics, patches are also available.

The best solution: the right hardware

The best and the most secure solution is a motherboard from Intel: D915 GA, GL or GU :
http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/ux/ [intel.com]

Excellent results have been obtained with Gigabytes GA-8I915P motherboard card:
http://www.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Products/Prod ucts_GA-8I915P%20Duo-A.htm [giga-byte.com]

Users with such a motherboard and a Pentium 4 will be able to install MacOSX x86 with the patch for Rosetta (without the patch if you choose a SSE3-enable Pentium4).
Be careful not to use any HD in RAID settings, otherwise it will crash your system.
Use a USB keyboard, PS2 port is not really well supported.

First tests

First tests have shown that MacOSX x86 on PC is very reactive, no crash, iTunes is running perfectly, with Rosetta.
Digital camera work perfectly with iPhoto, as well as digital camcorder with iMovie.

Another solution
The last solution is based on installation of Darw

All part of Jobs' plan...

[bshroyer (21524)]

Well, perhaps not, but if I were Jobs, it would be going something like this:

1. Develop OSX for x86, in secret
2. Announce it to a stunned audience
3. Seed dev Intel boxes
4. Wait for image to leak
5. Anticipate hackers discover image will boot on SSE3 procs
6. ???
7. Gain market share
8. Profit!!!

The trick is in step 6:

Insert the following code into Aqua:

aqua_speed=1.0;
if (!genuine_apple_hardware_bit) aqua_speed=0.25;

Thus, OSX runs natively on non-Apple hardware, but the GUI runs at quarter speed. If you want full-speed Aqua, you'll need the branded hardware. It's the crack dealer's approach: your first taste is free. There'll be time enough to get your money once you're hooked.

Dangerous Game...

[Run4yourlives (716310)]

There's no guarantee that the code in question won't also be hacked, so that would be a bad business move. The risk is too high.

What's more likely is that the hardware compatibily has been completely ignored in the plans, and that the "hacked", freely available OS has been factored in to a certain percentage of lost hardware sales, and it's still deemed to be a profitable move.

Pretty easy solution

[grahamsz (150076)]

Compile aqua without optimizations.

It'd be far harder for a hacker to find a way to optimize the binary than change some constant.

Re:Pretty easy solution

[akuma(x86) (224898)]

It'd be far harder for a hacker to find a way to optimize the binary than change some constant

Then it's time to bust out the dynamic recompiler [mit.edu]

White Box vs. Apple Hardware...

[BawbBitchen (456931)]

I have built maybe 30 or so white box intel/amd hardware computer over the years, starting back with the 386. I have also owned a Dual 500 Mac, and 2 iBooks. At the end of the day, I would pay $400 more for the Apple hardware vs. building it myself. My Apple hardware just works, never breaks (and that goes for my friends that have about 20 Macs between them). I cannot say the same thing for any of the PC hardware. Sure I have had some systems, PC, that just keep working, but in the end the quality of the PC systems (not to mention style!) was just not there.

Re:This is 'news'?

[ZackSchil (560462)]

Actually, this story is pretty well-established: hard-to-fake handheld videos of systems cold-booting into OS X, screenshots, torrents, reports from all around that installation is tricky but it works...

It was speculation last week then there were a handful of sketchy screenshots taken in VMWare floating around. Now I'd say it's pretty much fact that it's working at some level.

Re:VMWare

[blackmonday (607916)]

If I remember correctly, the developer Intel Macs didn't ship with iLife. I'd be interesting to install them anyway and see what happens.

You'd have to be a masochist to run Final Cut Pro on Rosetta. Thank you sir may I have another!

Re:VMWare

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Let me guess, you've never looked closely at x86 (and, really, who can blame you)?

There are a small set of (14?) instructions on x86 that can't be easily trapped. You have two choices, paravirtualisation (like Xen) or emulating an entire system but passing through all of the non-privileged instruction. VMWare does the second, and takes a significant (20%+) performance hit from it. In SPEC99, VMWare is under 30% of the speed of the host machine (source [cam.ac.uk]).