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.

VMWare

[WatertonMan]

Running it under VMWare (assuming you have a system that supports SSE3) will be a slow experience for many applications I suspect. Yeah most programs will run fine. But I'd not want to run iMovie or FCP.

Article already slashdotted

[Penguinoflight]

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]

Hard OCP HardForum Thread

[smileyscout]

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.

Torrents.

[Anonymous Cumshot]

Direct links to torrents of the videos showing OS X running on non-Apple hardware:

1. MacOSX x86 booting natively on a Pc notebook Mitac 8050D (Pentium-M 735/1.6GHz) [macbidouille.com]

2. 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...) [macbidouille.com]

And yes I know these are linked on the site, but if it gets slashdotted, at least you might be able to still grab the torrents since they appear to be on a different server.

Hold the salt please

[seven5]

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]

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.

Re:Who cares?

[NoodleSlayer]

You obviously have not seen the Mac OS X Server benchmarks.

They're pitiful.

Largely its due to OS X's inefficiencies with thread management. This has nothing to do with CPU performance, if you take a real look at some benchmarks the Power processors tend to whipe the floor with Xeons. By no means is it processor speed, and odds are the server products will be one of the last things moved over to x86.

As such OS X Server is mostly used by Schools and other mac heavy environments that want a Mac server.

Yes. It's easy to use. It's reasonably stable. However the limiting factor is OS not the hardware.

Proper torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful, a few GNAA fake torrents are being advertised here and there. Use this one [torrentreactor.net] if unsure.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[EvilNight]

All of the arguments about being primarily a hardware company aside, I keep seeing people saying that "Apple will have to support 100s of different kinds of hardware products" if they move to standard Intel architecture.

That's bullshit. Apple doesn't have to support anything. They can pick five of each kind of hardware if they want, or none. Look at Solaris-Intel, for example... supports very little of the hardware out there, but folks still use it. There's plenty of PC hardware out there that Linux can't use, and plenty more that it can only use in a rudimentary sense. People would simply have to be more careful about what hardware they buy if they wanted a supported Intel platform for MacOS.

It'd be up to the hardware vendors to match Apple's specs and get the support, just like with Linux and Solaris. Microsoft seems to be the only company making an OS that'll use any junk circuit board with a driver file regardless of quality. Don't make the mistake of assuming Microsoft's way is the only way.

Re:MS better watch their back

[rinoid]

This is such a dead horse.

Not just with the entry of the Mini.

You had been able to get a 1299.00 tower (1999 now which is too high an entry for a tower IMO).
A 799.00 eMac.
A 999.00 iBook.
And now you can even get a multi-button mouse !

The price argument has been gone for a few years now skippy.
These prices are competitive.

I have tried and tried to buy one of those 399.00 - 500.00 WinTel boxen just for a few tasks and games but it's not doable. Those boxes SUCK!!! Once you add the 300.00 video card the price goes up!

The other meme here is about Apple being a HW company, not a SW company.
Look at the SEC filing.
~30% revenue from iPod
~ 33% from CPUs
~ the rest is "Other Music Products, Peripherals & other HW, and Software & Other"

The upshot is not only CPU sales increasing (iPods natch but that's IMO a temporary phenom.) but SW sales are increasing.

True, the Tiger upgrades are a small percentage, but, people buy more CPUs because it runs Tiger, not Windows.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[relentless1914]

Not only that, but we have to remember how rampant piracy would be. To be honest, I think that if given the choice, very few people outside of Apple's core markets would purchase their hardware if they knew they could go to walmart and buy a $299 computer and download OSX from the internet for free. 1. The OS doesn't cost enough for them to recoup the R&D dollars they put into it. 2. If they raise the price, many people will just pirate it, (which of course many people will do anyway) The truth is that Apple has got to STAY in the hardware business if they want to stay in business.

Re:VMWare

[TheRaven64]

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]).

Dvorak wasn't the first to make the prediction

[comicnerd]

I don't know if he's commented on it since, but Michael Swaine [swaine.com] made a small but amusing prediction that this might happen waaay back in the April 1993 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal [drdobbs.com]. Here's a link to the Google cache version since the original wasn't coming up for me [64.233.161.104].

...do not be surprise if it disappears

[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

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[LWATCDR]

except that the Apple hardware is their copy protection system. If you only run MacOS on Apple an Apple Computer Apple knows that it got at least a little money from the user.
Why do people always forget the cost of the programmers?
Do you know how little a house costs before you add in the labor and the cost of the plans and permits?
Same thing with software.

As the author of the tutorial...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can assure everyone that it DOES work as written. PPC apps crap out due to SSE3 lacking on my own system, but the VMware tutorial does the best that can be done with OSX x86 right now.
N.B. NO, I do NOT condone piracy in any way shape or form. Parts I left out deal with the more copyright-worrying issues and I left them out exactly for that reason.
Anyway, hope some/all of you enjoy getting it up and running. I've had exactly four days experience with Darwin and I can repeat the steps and be at GUI in around a half hour. So anyone can. Enjoy,
Kal/"Twigletesque".

Re:Apple x86 hardware = not teh l33t

[Mechcozmo]

Again, you are seeing DEVELOPER stuff now.

Apple motherboards are made by ASUS. So? You can't buy them... same thing with the new Intel boards. They will be customized for Apple only. The current boards? They are custom made to fit the holes in the back of the G5.

Can't buy that, can you?

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Kadin2048]

Actually, your comment about drivers is not true on the Mac.

Apple builds most of the generic drivers (USB Mass Storage, the input device drivers, even generic SCSI card drivers) for commonly available hardware. They do this because they realize their marketshare is too small to rely on aftermarket hardware providers to put the time in to make drivers that are reliable and would maintain a satisfactory user experience.

I have a lot of hardware attached to my Macs, and I can't think of anything that I've actually installed a manufacturer-supplied driver for. Perhaps the printer. But other than that, everything else runs using the default, Apple supplied generic drivers.

Apple doesn't have the market or mind-share to piss away customer goodwill by having them call up and get told that they're SOL because their hardware isn't supported. Better to just make the OS not run on unsupported systems at all, than to run poorly and give Apple and the Mac OS a bad reputation.

Only the developper kit has been hacked

[Anonymous Coward]

The real hardware level protection has not been activated yet, and it will be only once the system goes on production.

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

[tholomyes]

You have no options.

That's odd, because on the Apple Store, it sure looks like you can choose either an ATI Radeon 9600, 9650, x850 XT, or Nvidia GeForce 6800 when you order your PowerMac.

And while that may be "limiting" the options, I would certainly not say you have "no" options. Maybe if you choose a Mac Mini you have no video card options, but, OTOH, you're choosing the Mac Mini.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[Kadin2048]

Uhhh....no.

What Apple is going to release are Apple Computers, which just happen to have processors made by Intel. You'd be a fool to think that means you can just plug in a PC video card. It's still going to be a "Macintosh computer," and to users that means that you need to buy Mac-compatible hardware if you want it to work correctly.

In other words, when you want a video card, you go to ATI and pick from the one or two 'Mac' video card versions they sell, or the same from nVidia. Nowhere has Apple done anything to suggest to anyone that this situation will change.

I think people here on Slashdot are making a bigger deal out of the processor change than average Mac users will. They'll still be buying and using those big silver metal boxes with the Apple on the front, and buying hardware that's compatible with it. The advantage of the new processors is increased speed, not wider hardware compatibility.

Re:So what!

[justins]

Anyone who thinks this will hurt Apple's sales to a great extent is sadly mistaken.

Anyone like... Apple? They are putting a lot of money into DRM to keep this from happening.

Mirror for HOWTO Guide

[tini1212]

http://mirrordot.org/stories/8e3fd00a12869f50e7ecc 0512672bf76/index.html [mirrordot.org]

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[xbasque]

one more item need to show up in that list : the cost of developing macsox and the ilife suite is fixed , as is the cost of designing chipsets and other hardware R&D . so - the greater the sales volumes , the smaller the costs per unit . (apple spends over half a billion in R&D each year) .

that's to say - the smaller apple's market share , the more expensive the units will be . SO ... if you PC folks stop whining and start buying macs soon , prices will come down substantially by the time you're ready to get your second mac . how's that for a plan ?

Re:Random thoughts on Apple

[NoodleSlayer]

While it varies from division to division. I started my Internship at Apple this year. Currently I'm testing on a:

1.8 GHz iMac G5
Dual 866 MHz G4
450 MHz G4
400 MHz "B&W" G3
266 MHz iMac Rev B
233 MHz iMac

So. Even in Apple old hardware is still laying around and being used. Heck that B&W G3 is now nearly six years old and will still "run" Tiger, and it runs Panther rather well.

As it stands the average expected lifetime of a Mac is somewhere between 4-6 years, I've never had a PC longer then 2.5 yrs before upgrading the CPU & Mobo (at least that's what constitutes a "new PC" by my definition, building your own boxes the line can get blurry), and by four years a PC definately showing its age and starts to slow down quite a bit, largely because of Spyware and viruses too.

AMD64 is SSE3, too

[hkb]

There seems to be a big misconception that AMD64 chips aren't SSE3 capable, and maybe most aren't, but my Venice core AMD64 chip is most definitely SSE3 capable, so...