xbox linux uses only a patched kernel just because the xbox has a different bus design... with different clocks timings etc
other than that it runs linux binaries 100% identical to any straight x86 distribution
the only thing that was difficult to do is the boot sequence:
no real bios;
code execution prevention;
after that the code can be run unaltered
same thing will be for the mac/intel
if someone finds the "hack" to bypass the chip authentication
the os can be booted
but in addition i think will be hard to do a bootloader that can do it
without modifying some OS X files first
as xboxlinux maybe it will have some different bus behavior
but who knows?
maybe not if the mac/intel will be compatible with windows too
it would be great if the new mac os will be released opensource as the ppc version is
so all will be done faster
maybe someday we will see a some kind of "maconlinux" for X86
it will be much easier to do
and it will be at full speed
edit: the only reason xbox cannot boot windows natively is that bill's OS is totally closed source so it's harder to hack
Apple and Intel?
Moderators: Cat_7, Ronald P. Regensburg
-
lord_muad_dib
- Student Driver
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: italy
-
Borg_Will_Rule
- Tinkerer
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:52 am
- Location: United States
- Contact:
From ThinkSecret.com
Running Windows; Mac OS X on other PCs
Along with running Mac OS X, Windows XP installs without hitch on the Intel-based Mac, just as it would on any other PC, and booted without issue when installed on an NTFS-formatted partition. The only misbehavior sources encountered involved the video card. Initially, Windows refused to budge from an 800x600 setting on a 23-inch Cinema Display. Some prodding managed to get the screen to 1600x1200, but sources were unable to get Windows to take advantage of the entire screen.
Apple alluded to developers at its recent Worldwide Developer Conference that Windows should be able to run on Apple's Intel Macs.
As for installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, attempts to boot from the included Mac OS X for Intel disc resulted in an error message on both a Dell and off-brand PC. The message states that the hardware configuration is not supported by Darwin x86.
Sources have indicated that Apple will employ an EDID chip on the motherboard of Intel-based Macs that Mac OS X will look for and must handshake with first in order to boot. Such an approach, similar to hardware dongles, could theoretically be defeated, although it's unknown what level of sophistication Apple will employ.
Also uncertain is whether the Intel-based development kits seeded to developers already feature the EDID chip or whether the installation disc contains a less sophisticated installation check that simply seeks out one particular hardware configuration--the one given to developers--and will not install on other configurations.
-
lord_muad_dib
- Student Driver
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: italy
maybe it's just me but it seems a joke
and the system profiler?
this article is not much more than a summary of news and (maybe not real) photos picked up here and there
did they tried to install darwin or macos X?The message states that the hardware configuration is not supported by Darwin x86
and why don't they show that panel to on/of HT they mentioned?with the exception of a modified Processor System Preference (from Apple's CHUD tools) that allows the user to toggle Hyper-Threading on or off. Apple System Profiler includes a new line under Hardware listing CPU Features; for the 3.6GHz Pentium 4 this comprises a rather lengthy list of technical acronyms
and the system profiler?
this article is not much more than a summary of news and (maybe not real) photos picked up here and there
They are allegedly trying to install a Dev. Release of Tiger on a standard Whitebox PC and they got that error message. I can only assume that message would come up as MacOS X is built directly above Darwin, in much the same way as Windows 95 was built above MS-DOS 7.lord_muad_dib wrote:maybe it's just me but it seems a joke
did they tried to install darwin or macos X?The message states that the hardware configuration is not supported by Darwin x86
and why don't they show that panel to on/of HT they mentioned?with the exception of a modified Processor System Preference (from Apple's CHUD tools) that allows the user to toggle Hyper-Threading on or off. Apple System Profiler includes a new line under Hardware listing CPU Features; for the 3.6GHz Pentium 4 this comprises a rather lengthy list of technical acronyms
and the system profiler?
this article is not much more than a summary of news and (maybe not real) photos picked up here and there
I don't think they would be wanting to show photos that could possibly reveal their source (if it is accurate) given that ThinkSecret.com was recently sued by Apple for damaging its business interests by leaking details of the Mac Mini before it shipped.
The full story is here http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0506intelmac.html
Think Secret is usually pretty accurate in its reporting (hence the legal proceedings) and I can see no reason to disbelieve this. However, as you say, a photo of X running with the system profiler saying 'Intel Pentium 4' would have been neat.
-
CaptainValor
- Forum All-Star
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 11:57 pm
I think you're totally wrong.ehabouf wrote:Let us face it, Appple now switch to only software company this will stop hardware within few next years
to me it sounds obvious, even if the CPU is a x86, the motherboard will be an Apple, as it always been.I'll get it to this thread to prove that it is a STANDARD x86 motherboard/system
and anyways, i dont know what yall think, but i'd find it very surprising if OS X for x86 could boot natively on my PC, but it's all good tho, a virtual machine is all i'm askin for
makes very much sence. it's just like I can program GameBoy Advance games on my PC, but it doesn't mean my GBA's got an Athlon SempronThe test machine, for Xbox 360, as Yukon Kid points out, is a Dual G5 Powermac. That doesn't mean that the Xbox 360 is going to be a Dual G5 Powermac
.http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-prove ... dinary-pc/
Exactly what I expected
Standard motherboard + extra rom (Trusted Computing countermeasures) which will be easly hacked
Let us review the steps slowly
1- Apple made OSX for X86 since a period of time (as rumors say for about 2/3years) and keep it for proper time
2- Pearpc is alive and going something faster
3- OSX-86 comeing to light with standard PC motherboard + ROM
4- ROM is hacked
Future as I expect
5- Apple start some legal actions to stop the spread of hacked OS
6- Apple start to licence some large companies like Dell, IBM, ... etc to make pcs with OSX-86
7- OSX-86 is on shelf to any one want to buy it
Exactly what I expected
Standard motherboard + extra rom (Trusted Computing countermeasures) which will be easly hacked
Let us review the steps slowly
1- Apple made OSX for X86 since a period of time (as rumors say for about 2/3years) and keep it for proper time
2- Pearpc is alive and going something faster
3- OSX-86 comeing to light with standard PC motherboard + ROM
4- ROM is hacked
Future as I expect
5- Apple start some legal actions to stop the spread of hacked OS
6- Apple start to licence some large companies like Dell, IBM, ... etc to make pcs with OSX-86
7- OSX-86 is on shelf to any one want to buy it
Remember this is just a developer release and is pretty useless. The developer system may be standard but the production systems may not be.ehabouf wrote:http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-prove ... dinary-pc/
Exactly what I expected
Standard motherboard + extra rom (Trusted Computing countermeasures) which will be easly hacked
Let us review the steps slowly
1- Apple made OSX for X86 since a period of time (as rumors say for about 2/3years) and keep it for proper time
2- Pearpc is alive and going something faster
3- OSX-86 comeing to light with standard PC motherboard + ROM
4- ROM is hacked
Future as I expect
5- Apple start some legal actions to stop the spread of hacked OS
6- Apple start to licence some large companies like Dell, IBM, ... etc to make pcs with OSX-86
7- OSX-86 is on shelf to any one want to buy it
You should not base much on this developer system.
Everyone predicted that this would be hacked.
Marc wrote:Remember this is just a developer release and is pretty useless. The developer system may be standard but the production systems may not be.ehabouf wrote:http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-prove ... dinary-pc/
Exactly what I expected
Standard motherboard + extra rom (Trusted Computing countermeasures) which will be easly hacked
Let us review the steps slowly
1- Apple made OSX for X86 since a period of time (as rumors say for about 2/3years) and keep it for proper time
2- Pearpc is alive and going something faster
3- OSX-86 comeing to light with standard PC motherboard + ROM
4- ROM is hacked
Future as I expect
5- Apple start some legal actions to stop the spread of hacked OS
6- Apple start to licence some large companies like Dell, IBM, ... etc to make pcs with OSX-86
7- OSX-86 is on shelf to any one want to buy it
You should not base much on this developer system.
Everyone predicted that this would be hacked.
Do you still think that it is differnet hardware???
Do you thik that the developer release use a harware different than the final release??
The hardware is finished (standard motherboard + extra ROM)
They can change the code of checking in final release but every one know that ir must be hacked also
I didn't ever at any point say that the developer box wasn't standard hardware...can you actually read? I said that it is not impossible to change x86 hardware whereas you seemed to think that it was...
I don't know if the developer release uses different harware than the final release, but it is quite possible that it will (see my example above about the X-Box 360 dev system).
If the hardware is finished, why are they taking a year to finalise release of it (other than app development)? They have been testing OS X on x86 since its inception, so it must be stable. That leads me to belive that they will actually change the hardware. And given that the developer release has been hacked I think there will be stronger protection in the retail version.
I did say in my posts that whatever protection Apple put in WOULD be hacked. Where there is a will, most of the time, there is a way.
This is only a developer release. You can run a Developer release of OS X (Rhapsody) on a Pentium 133, that doesn't mean OS X will run on it.
Is all you contribute to this board to come and try to argue with me in this topic?
I don't know if the developer release uses different harware than the final release, but it is quite possible that it will (see my example above about the X-Box 360 dev system).
If the hardware is finished, why are they taking a year to finalise release of it (other than app development)? They have been testing OS X on x86 since its inception, so it must be stable. That leads me to belive that they will actually change the hardware. And given that the developer release has been hacked I think there will be stronger protection in the retail version.
I did say in my posts that whatever protection Apple put in WOULD be hacked. Where there is a will, most of the time, there is a way.
This is only a developer release. You can run a Developer release of OS X (Rhapsody) on a Pentium 133, that doesn't mean OS X will run on it.
Is all you contribute to this board to come and try to argue with me in this topic?
I am really confused about all this talk.
Developer version etc.
I think everyone of you should watch the video from the unveiling of the mac on intel.
Steve says in very plain english that since the beginning of OSX there have been 2 versions, one on ppc and one on intel.
both versions are complete. (over 5 yrs worth of os x now)
this developer box and software is just to allow the developers to transition to macos x for Intel, nothing more.
it is complete and it works as well as the ppc version.
however some software was not written to work in the intel world,(machine level coding) hence the reason for rosetta.
the reason for the box is to make sure that the transition will meet the standard that apple is going to set for the hardware requirments of the software.
so it should be of no surprise that the software can be hacked and that it will work on intel hardware, but the big question yet to be answered is exactly what software will run on a substandard system (not an Apple box). I know that sometimes when I have tried to use certain software I get a message telling me why it will not run, everything from not enough memory to not a large enough monitor, wrong hard drive etc.
emulators like Pear take this into acount and find a way to fool the system into thinking the hardware meets the standard allowing the substandard hardware to "work".
Emulation is a handy thing at times.
Developer version etc.
I think everyone of you should watch the video from the unveiling of the mac on intel.
Steve says in very plain english that since the beginning of OSX there have been 2 versions, one on ppc and one on intel.
both versions are complete. (over 5 yrs worth of os x now)
this developer box and software is just to allow the developers to transition to macos x for Intel, nothing more.
it is complete and it works as well as the ppc version.
however some software was not written to work in the intel world,(machine level coding) hence the reason for rosetta.
the reason for the box is to make sure that the transition will meet the standard that apple is going to set for the hardware requirments of the software.
so it should be of no surprise that the software can be hacked and that it will work on intel hardware, but the big question yet to be answered is exactly what software will run on a substandard system (not an Apple box). I know that sometimes when I have tried to use certain software I get a message telling me why it will not run, everything from not enough memory to not a large enough monitor, wrong hard drive etc.
emulators like Pear take this into acount and find a way to fool the system into thinking the hardware meets the standard allowing the substandard hardware to "work".
Emulation is a handy thing at times.
My appologise...I have perhaps misinterpreted your posts as being more confrontational than you intended.ehabouf wrote:I don't argue with you but you started to quote my messageMarc wrote: Is all you contribute to this board to come and try to argue with me in this topic?
Anyway, This is from LEM, and this is what I was trying to say (probably less succesfully)
As I said before, none of us really know with any certainty how apple will approach this.Apple's developer systems use off-the-shelf Intel motherboards. These are not the final product we're going to see when the Macintel computers start shipping next summer.
Yes, the Macintel motherboards - and you can be certain that production Macs will include custom Apple motherboards - do have a Trusted Computing chip, and Apple appears to use that as a roadblock to moving OS X to standard Intel hardware.
But keep in mind that this is a development system and these are stock motherboards. Apple has only shipped a limited number of developer systems, has been porting OS X to standard Intel hardware through the entire OS X development process, and probably didn't see any reason to include strong protection for a prerelease, unoptimized version of OS X running on a machine that will never be available to the general public.
In other words, OS X on these development systems is a quick port to Intel created so programmers can create software for the new hardware platform. It's not the final product, which we don't expect to see until June 2006.
Full article at http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/05/0815.html
It's very interesting
Last edited by Marc on Wed Aug 17, 2005 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
![[img=http://img369.imageshack.us/img369/2015/picture18ba.th.png]](http://img369.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture18ba.png){kind=link}
As anyone with a bit of experience could expect, its quite trivial to make OSX x86 to work on generic PC hardware. Its easy as hardware can be emulated in software and calls to hardware can be intercepted by software.
However, I don't think that this will mean the end of Apple as a hardware company. Face it, for the lot of the PC Users, patching a Mac OS X to work on a PC is quite a task to do it over and over again each time a new version is released. I guess buying regular Macintosh hardware is way more rewarding if you value your free time a bit. So I guess this will mainly be a geek thing only.
Now, if they would start selling ATX motherboards which were identical to Macs... (EFI bootloader among other)
However, I don't think that this will mean the end of Apple as a hardware company. Face it, for the lot of the PC Users, patching a Mac OS X to work on a PC is quite a task to do it over and over again each time a new version is released. I guess buying regular Macintosh hardware is way more rewarding if you value your free time a bit. So I guess this will mainly be a geek thing only.
Now, if they would start selling ATX motherboards which were identical to Macs... (EFI bootloader among other)
-
PPC_Digger
- Forum All-Star
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:02 am
- Location: Israel
Bump?nf>_ wrote:As anyone with a bit of experience could expect, its quite trivial to make OSX x86 to work on generic PC hardware. Its easy as hardware can be emulated in software and calls to hardware can be intercepted by software.
However, I don't think that this will mean the end of Apple as a hardware company. Face it, for the lot of the PC Users, patching a Mac OS X to work on a PC is quite a task to do it over and over again each time a new version is released. I guess buying regular Macintosh hardware is way more rewarding if you value your free time a bit. So I guess this will mainly be a geek thing only.
Now, if they would start selling ATX motherboards which were identical to Macs... (EFI bootloader among other)
BTW, Maxxuss has been doing that for us for quite some time (10.4.5 was patched within mere days).
What I mean is that when you have a genuine mac intel box, you can just fire up Software Update, get your update, reboot and be done with it, while with a generic intel box, you need to make sure there are patches out and you have to have them handy and apply them every time Apple does a point release. So you have the possibility that your box breaks every time there's a release trough software update.
So I don't think OSX/Intel on generic hardware will be that big outside of the hacker/geek community, I can't see common folk care about trying that even if they can save a couple of bucks. They'd go for convenience anyway. Other than that, the Mac mini is priced pretty competively compared to their PC counterparts.
I didn't mean to bump, I guess my second paragraph was meant to add something to the discussion here.
So I don't think OSX/Intel on generic hardware will be that big outside of the hacker/geek community, I can't see common folk care about trying that even if they can save a couple of bucks. They'd go for convenience anyway. Other than that, the Mac mini is priced pretty competively compared to their PC counterparts.
I didn't mean to bump, I guess my second paragraph was meant to add something to the discussion here.