PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X Lion *does* run on Core Duos/Core Solos.




Pages : [1] 2

iMacC2D
Mar 2, 2011, 09:49 PM
http://i52.tinypic.com/v2wc48.png

By removing System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist, an unsupported Intel based system (Core Solo, Core Duo, or any Mac that's been upgraded to a Core 2 Duo) will successfully boot into Mac OS X Lion Developer Preview. It has no issues running any of the applications (Safari works, for example) and the overall speed of the system is on par and faster depending on spec than its Core 2 Duo based counterpart. (Compared with my Late 2006 CD iMac Core 2 Duo)

You should also be able to add the motherboard identifier to PlatformSupport.plist and have it work. The motherboard identifier can be retrieved by booting a Core Duo from a standard Lion install in Verbose Mode, or you can run Primate Labs Geekbench which will give you the motherboard identifier once it's benchmark results have been submitted to their online database.

Overall, owners of Core Solos, Core Duos and upgraded-to Core 2 Duos can hope that Apple either keeps this in place until the final release, or even better, their machines won't be obsoleted after all and this is only a temporary measure. Fingers crossed.


Credits to mcdermd on the 68k Macintosh Liberation Army (http://68kmla.org) forums for pointing out the method of removing the plist to bypass the board identifier check to make it boot on a Core 2 Duo upgraded Mac Mini (Early 2006). After some quick checks on an old iMac Core Duo I had around, i'm pleased to be able to say it works perfectly on here as well.



Steve Ballmer
Mar 2, 2011, 11:05 PM
But the average Mac user will never know about this because they will never edit/alter/remove such .plist files. Interesting to know it is possible, though.

iMacC2D
Mar 3, 2011, 01:50 AM
For sure. It'll be for the tweakers more than anything, but some minor modification can get you a long way with an unsupported machine and the fact it's possible at all is great, imho.

Unless Apple goes ahead and changes it by the time the gold master comes around. That would be a problem.

AndyK
Mar 3, 2011, 02:25 AM
It's cool it's been hacked too show it "can" be done, but it "wont" simply because of what's posted above me, in that the average user that is bummed their machine is becoming unsupported will either upgrade too a new one or stay on Snow Leopard.

For advanced users it's great though, although I'm not sure why :p

Steve Ballmer
Mar 3, 2011, 02:31 AM
For sure. It'll be for the tweakers more than anything, but some minor modification can get you a long way with an unsupported machine and the fact it's possible at all is great, imho.

Unless Apple goes ahead and changes it by the time the gold master comes around. That would be a problem.
That's very much a possibility, especially since Apple tends to lock out older systems as an incentive to upgrade to new hardware.

Mr. Retrofire
Mar 3, 2011, 02:44 AM
For sure. It'll be for the tweakers more than anything, but some minor modification can get you a long way with an unsupported machine and the fact it's possible at all is great, imho.

Unless Apple goes ahead and changes it by the time the gold master comes around. That would be a problem.

I'm also not sure, that Rosetta will be disabled forever in Lion. I think Apple disabled it in the Lion DP, because they need to port it to 64-Bit Intel x86_64 instructions.

Embio
Mar 3, 2011, 03:06 AM
iMacC2D - is your machine having issues with sleep? My Macbook seemed to be having a couple but I am suspecting that this was due to being booted off USB/ODD ATA connections. Not quite ready to install on the SSD just yet, but a pleasant surprise that my Macbook from 2006 is still running the latest OS in 2011

iMacC2D
Mar 3, 2011, 07:06 AM
Couldn't give you a definitive answer there. I've been running it from an external USB SATA case as well. I haven't noticed any sleep issues so far, but i've only played around with it for a limited amount of time before booting back into Snow Leopard.

Embio
Mar 3, 2011, 09:13 AM
aye don't suppose it'd be as big a problem on an iMac! I wonder if it will be killed in the next build... certainly hope not. If the Kernel is 32bit and the applications are still being compiled for 32bit, what else is there?

scenemissing
Mar 3, 2011, 01:29 PM
I remember the same thing went on with the 10.5 update. It would check for a given processor speed. The easy way around was to put the drive in something else, upgrade, and put it back...

iMacC2D
Mar 3, 2011, 03:15 PM
Difference with 10.5 is that the checks were at the installer level. If you could get the OS installed on another machine or skip the checks in the installer via other methods, you didn't need to do anything else afterward.

It's very similar in this case, you can install from a newer machine or even Target Disk Mode the older Mac to a newer Mac and run the installer on the newer Mac to the older Macs drive. The difference is because the check is actually built in to the operating system, you have to remember to trash that plist file after the installer is done.

As far as the scenario goes though, it's pretty much the same. Leopard ran well on quite a few G4s, especially the 800MHz Dual Processor models that were also excluded from support. Leopard upgrades on older machines, although it never became a mainstream occurrence, did become popular with the technically inclined and hobbyist groups.

Stevelane
Mar 3, 2011, 03:34 PM
Thanks for the tip iMacC2D I would never have got it going without!
I am running an ancient core 2 Duo 2.16 iMac and so far Lion works fine for me. Of course it's early days yet.



Steve

Mr. Retrofire
Mar 3, 2011, 03:45 PM
Btw, as long as

lipo -info /mach_kernel

returns "i386", you should be able to use Lion on 32-Bit Intel machines.

axu539
Mar 3, 2011, 03:48 PM
This is great for tweakers, but I'd expect the Lion experience to not be optimal on those machines. How does it feel on the Core Duo iMac?

Mr. Retrofire
Mar 3, 2011, 04:02 PM
This is great for tweakers, but I'd expect the Lion experience to not be optimal on those machines. How does it feel on the Core Duo iMac?

Please read the thread!

It has no issues running any of the applications (Safari works, for example) and the overall speed of the system is on par and faster depending on spec than its Core 2 Duo based counterpart. (Compared with my Late 2006 CD iMac Core 2 Duo)

axu539
Mar 3, 2011, 04:20 PM
Please read the thread!

Oops, must have missed that bit!

newfoundglory
Mar 3, 2011, 04:25 PM
Btw, as long as

lipo -info /mach_kernel

returns "i386", you should be able to use Lion on 32-Bit Intel machines.
Rather odd that Apple have (currently) chosen not to 'support' 32-bit processors, but that the kernel is still a fat binary..... does this mean they are currently undecided... or are they doing a 2006 "just in case" scenario?

Most of us with 64 bit machines could do without the extra fat!

iMacC2D
Mar 3, 2011, 08:46 PM
This is great for tweakers, but I'd expect the Lion experience to not be optimal on those machines. How does it feel on the Core Duo iMac?

I have it running from an external hard drive, so the disk operations aren't as quick as they could be. However apart from that the performance is the same as my Late 2006 Core 2 Duo iMac and MacBook. It's not as quick as a current model machine of course, but it doesn't feel slow. As a matter of fact it feels significantly faster than Snow Leopard in some areas.

Most of us with 64 bit machines could do without the extra fat!

I don't think users of 64-bit machines would gain much, if anything, from having 32-bit support dropped from the operating system. I'm not even sure removing the 32-bit kernel would be an option since a number of Core 2 Duo based Macs are still only capable of running the 32-bit kernel, even under Lion Developer Preview.

richard.mac
Mar 5, 2011, 09:35 AM
oh wow! thanks iMacC2D! (such a contradicting username :D) i havent installed Lion on my Core Duo MBP yet as it was not supported. i knew it would be as simple as deleting/altering a file! as i saw the kernel was indeed i386… damn you Apple! :mad:

Embio
Mar 6, 2011, 06:23 AM
The kernel I can understand, but why is everything else still being compiled in 32bit as well as 64bit? Lion 11a390 may be the last hurrah for Core Duos, I bet retail definitely wont run :-(

mrkramer
Mar 6, 2011, 06:36 AM
But the average Mac user will never know about this because they will never edit/alter/remove such .plist files. Interesting to know it is possible, though.

I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who cares about having lion on their computer has upgraded their old intel machines, and the ones who haven't upgraded come here to complain and find out about these solutions.
But I wouldn't be surprised if this support was gone in the final release, didn't Leopard support G3s in the betas and then drop that support for the final release?

AtariKee
Mar 6, 2011, 06:57 AM
Difference with 10.5 is that the checks were at the installer level. If you could get the OS installed on another machine or skip the checks in the installer via other methods, you didn't need to do anything else afterward.

It's very similar in this case, you can install from a newer machine or even Target Disk Mode the older Mac to a newer Mac and run the installer on the newer Mac to the older Macs drive. The difference is because the check is actually built in to the operating system, you have to remember to trash that plist file after the installer is done.

As far as the scenario goes though, it's pretty much the same. Leopard ran well on quite a few G4s, especially the 800MHz Dual Processor models that were also excluded from support. Leopard upgrades on older machines, although it never became a mainstream occurrence, did become popular with the technically inclined and hobbyist groups.

Leopard is running on my 550 Mhz TiBook; quite well, in fact. I still have to download the Lion preview when I get time (I see it on the App Store but just haven't gotten around to it) and give this a try.

mabaker
Mar 6, 2011, 07:08 AM
That is indeed encouraging and all the more egregious from Apples side. No excuses accepted from the fanboys.

iMacC2D
Mar 6, 2011, 07:36 AM
oh wow! thanks iMacC2D! (such a contradicting username :D) i havent installed Lion on my Core Duo MBP yet as it was not supported. i knew it would be as simple as deleting/altering a file! as i saw the kernel was indeed i386 damn you Apple! :mad:

Such an awful username... it took me about 4 and a half seconds to come up with it and I haven't been able to shake it since. :p


But I wouldn't be surprised if this support was gone in the final release, didn't Leopard support G3s in the betas and then drop that support for the final release?

I believe you would be correct. Early releases of Mac OS X Leopard did have limited support for PowerPC G3 processor based machines. It was dropped from later builds. Whether it happens with Lion remains yet to be seen.

richard.mac
Mar 6, 2011, 08:56 AM
so i cant get it to install. i restored the installer to a flash drive and removed the plist and tried to install while booted into SL, but it says it cannot be installed on this Mac.

i then i tried to boot into the installer and install, but it still says the same. tried adding my Mac's mobo id, but didnt work.

thecrevis
Mar 7, 2011, 05:13 AM
can someone please tell me how to remove the PlatformSupport.plist file? The file is not in snow leopard in that directory!!! I have even shown hidden files in finder...I have installed the lion dmg file onto a usb drive....so what next? The file "PlatformSupport.plist" is not on my 2007 white macbook anywhere... sorry im a real noob

richard.mac
Mar 7, 2011, 05:55 AM
its on the installer file directory. you have to view with hidden files shown as you have or use the Terminal.

thecrevis
Mar 7, 2011, 06:09 AM
its on the installer file directory. you have to view with hidden files shown as you have or use the Terminal.


Brilliant i found it and deleted the file. Thank you. However i am still getting the same error message that Lion won't install on my computer. Any ideas?

Embio
Mar 7, 2011, 12:25 PM
thecrevis - best option is to install it on a C2D and move the drive to your machine

mcdermd
Mar 7, 2011, 12:47 PM
If you install on C2D then move the drive, you still have to remove PlatformSupport.plist from the newly installed drive or else it will refuse to boot on the CD machine.

Also, for the record, I booted from a prepped Lion USB stick (http://holgr.com/blog/2011/02/creating-a-bootable-os-x-10-7-lion-disc/) (with /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist removed) on my upgraded mini (originally a Core Solo) to do a clean install. I did not run the installer from Snow Leopard.

Mr. Retrofire
Mar 7, 2011, 05:23 PM
If you install on C2D then move the drive, you still have to remove PlatformSupport.plist from the newly installed drive or else it will refuse to boot on the CD machine.

Also, for the record, I booted from a prepped Lion USB stick (http://holgr.com/blog/2011/02/creating-a-bootable-os-x-10-7-lion-disc/) (with /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist removed) on my upgraded mini (originally a Core Solo) to do a clean install. I did not run the installer from Snow Leopard.

You can also find the board-id via

ioreg -lp IOService | grep board-id

and then add it to PlatformSupport.plist with Apples Property List Editor:

sudo /Developer/Applications/Utilities/Property\ List\ Editor.app/Contents/MacOS/Property\ List\ Editor

;)

AuroraProject
Mar 7, 2011, 11:27 PM
Good that means my 2.16 Core Duo MBP can last just a bit longer!

Casey01
Mar 9, 2011, 08:49 PM
How big is OSX Lion because I want to run it via Flash Drive or CD. But if I do will it do anything to my current Hard Drive? Will it delete files, or mess up anything?

richard.mac
Mar 13, 2011, 01:45 AM
so do you need a supported Mac to do this? to complete the install, as the installer while in OS X just extracts packages to disk and then boots into an image to complete the install, and then remove the plist? i cant get the booted installer to install when removing the plist either.

i only have a Core Duo Mac. anyone done this on just an unsupported Mac?

joeexp22
Mar 13, 2011, 05:10 AM
so do you need a supported Mac to do this? to complete the install, as the installer while in OS X just extracts packages to disk and then boots into an image to complete the install, and then remove the plist? i cant get the booted installer to install when removing the plist either.

i only have a Core Duo Mac. anyone done this on just an unsupported Mac?

Get hold of a LION VMWare disk image > mount this image > then copy disk to USB stick etc ...
Don't forget to edit/delete PlatformSupport.plist

richard.mac
Mar 13, 2011, 06:16 AM
tried that of course "i cant get the booted installer to install when removing the plist either". i removed the plist, booted into the installer and it says it cant be installed on this unsupported Mac :(

joeexp22
Mar 13, 2011, 07:56 AM
tried that of course "i cant get the booted installer to install when removing the plist either". i removed the plist, booted into the installer and it says it cant be installed on this unsupported Mac :(

You won't be able to install it on a Core Duo nor run it in VMware! However you can boot Lion from an USB stick. The VMware disk images floating around have the system installed already. So all you need is to copy the VMWare Image to an USB stick (Disk Utility > Restore ) and deal with PlatformSupport.plist.
And you won't have the "Four Finger Multitouch" on Older Macbook Pros which is kind of good to have in LION :-(

Embio
Mar 13, 2011, 12:21 PM
You won't be able to install it on a Core Duo! However you can run Lion. The VMware disk images floating around have the system installed already. So all you need is to deal with PlatformSupport.plist.

It does run on a Core Duo, thats what I'm currently using. However it won't run in VMware - the Core Duo does not support the generation of VTx that OS X on VMware requires. Get your facts right...

easy4lif
Mar 13, 2011, 08:31 PM
OMG, I gonna bookmark this. looks like my macbook 2006 CD won't be hand-me-down after all


WOOP WOOP!

ivnj
Mar 13, 2011, 08:41 PM
So does this somehow indicate lion might be dropping 32 bit support for retail also? Or is this just developer and final version might be 32 bit also and not just limited to 2 duo and 64 bits?

jeanlain
Mar 14, 2011, 01:40 AM
That Lion requires a Core 2 Duo is listed in the "known issues" section of the seed notes.
If that's a known issue, it should be fixed before release. :rolleyes:

ivnj
Mar 14, 2011, 05:58 PM
Yes but eventually 32 bit has to be outdated. Everyone has to move on to 64 bit.

Embio
Mar 14, 2011, 06:07 PM
Yes but eventually 32 bit has to be outdated. Everyone has to move on to 64 bit.

Sure but why does that have to be with lion? ;)

There's not much software that gets a big benefits from 64bit. In fact there is a school of thought that says 32bit can be faster under certain circumstances.

OT: I need to try a clean install of Snow against lion to see if there is a spppeed increase.

ivnj
Mar 14, 2011, 07:09 PM
If not now then when?

kioshi
Mar 14, 2011, 10:41 PM
So does this somehow indicate lion might be dropping 32 bit support for retail also? Or is this just developer and final version might be 32 bit also and not just limited to 2 duo and 64 bits?

I think there's a tendency to move to 64-bit. For example, I saw a program, a simple photo uploader for facebook/etc with a very pretty interface, but not supported by 32-bit macs, I tried, no go, then I saw in the macupdate page it required 64-bit. I don't remember the name but it may be a tendency.

Joshuarocks
Mar 15, 2011, 11:44 AM
What about a hack to get Rosetta to install?? Is there a way to copy the rosetta package from Snow Leopard and hack the installer to bring rosetta to Lion?

WardC
Mar 15, 2011, 02:30 PM
Please help -- Rosetta functionality is a must. Around here, we rely on AppleWorks for 95% of our stuff, most of our legal documents and client files are in AppleWorks, if we upgrade to Lion, AppleWorks will not even RUN!!! Hello, Apple?!?!?

ivnj
Mar 15, 2011, 02:39 PM
Don't they have an intel version of apple works.

thejadedmonkey
Mar 15, 2011, 05:58 PM
But the average Mac user will never know about this because they will never edit/alter/remove such .plist files. Interesting to know it is possible, though.
You're new hear aren't you? I'm sure a lot of people know how to hack around a Tiger install to get 10.4 working on their machines without a firewire drive.

This is great for tweakers, but I'd expect the Lion experience to not be optimal on those machines. How does it feel on the Core Duo iMac?

The kernel I can understand, but why is everything else still being compiled in 32bit as well as 64bit? Lion 11a390 may be the last hurrah for Core Duos, I bet retail definitely wont run :-(

I'd actually be shocked if it doesn't run on 32 bit hardware. See, the original core duo macs, and the 2nd generation core 2 duo macs, have identical hardware, sans the CPU. To make a Core 2 Duo model from late 2006 work reliably with Lion means that the system is still 32 bit (the first C2D models have a 32bit FSB), and since there's no other hardware differences, the original Core Duo macs should run just fine.

Once the 2nd gen intel macs aren't supported - the ATI x1600 graphics card for example - I wouldn't expect the older core duo models to work either, unless Apple never removes the old driver support.

pjarvi
Mar 16, 2011, 02:09 PM
If not now then when?

How about when Blu-ray support is added. That would be perfect timing. :p

sithboi
Mar 22, 2011, 11:19 AM
it doesnt seem to work for me. i have tried the plist deletion but it didnt work. i also tried adding eht board id to the plist but that didnt work either. i have however, updated my macbook to 10.6.7 just today. im going to rollback tonight and try before that update. i have a black macbook, 2006 core duo.

pitbull010
Mar 26, 2011, 05:14 PM
I don't know why but whenever I try to delete SupportPlatforms.plist it says read only and my permissions won't edit. What am I doing wrong?:apple:


I mean edit not delete

mcdermd
Mar 28, 2011, 01:34 AM
If you can't even get rid of the plist to make your new installer, I can't believe you're actually a developer in the first place.

pitbull010
Mar 29, 2011, 06:49 PM
If you can't even get rid of the plist to make your new installer, I can't believe you're actually a developer in the first place.

I am a developer I usually stick with my iOS and android. I know how to edit the plist I can get it to. It is in read only mode and I changed all of my permissions and it still won't work. Don't believe me go to www.modmyi.com and look for me STRAYunINFIDEL

Embio
Mar 31, 2011, 09:32 AM
Just in case anyone was wondering - DP2 does not boot on a 32bit only machine. The 'block' appears to be in boot.efi....

joeexp22
Apr 1, 2011, 08:03 AM
Just in case anyone was wondering - DP2 does not boot on a 32bit only machine. The 'block' appears to be in boot.efi....

That's not good news for 32 bit machines! :(

Embio
Apr 1, 2011, 01:05 PM
it will be fine - the kernel is still a universal 32/64bit binary. The Hackintosh crowd will soon have a kernel with restrictions removed but otherwise vanilla.

Lets all be optimistic here!

elnegas
Apr 4, 2011, 07:36 PM
I changed OSXInstall.mpkg so I could install Lion DP2 directly on a Core Duo, then I changed boot.efi with the 11a390 one but I can only get into single user mode. If Hackintosh is possible, lion (as it's still a 32 bit system) has to run on core duo machines.

By the way, 11a390 works well (no hangs or crashes).

mrsir2009
Apr 4, 2011, 11:12 PM
Wait wait, does this mean Lion needs to be hacked to run on Core2Duo computers?! That can't be right because it means a 2 year old MBP with Core2Duo couldn't run it...

alust2013
Apr 4, 2011, 11:28 PM
Wait wait, does this mean Lion needs to be hacked to run on Core2Duo computers?! That can't be right because it means a 2 year old MBP with Core2Duo couldn't run it...

No. This is referring to the original Core (not 2) Duo and Solo that were in the very first generation of MBs, MBPs, iMacs, and Minis.

mrsir2009
Apr 5, 2011, 01:52 PM
No. This is referring to the original Core (not 2) Duo and Solo that were in the very first generation of MBs, MBPs, iMacs, and Minis.

Wow so they've finally ditched support for those first intel Macs...

Embio
Apr 5, 2011, 06:11 PM
Wow so they've finally ditched support for those first intel Macs...

What do you mean 'finally'? My macbook CD is as fast as the c2d that immediatelly replaced it.... faster with the SSD :-P

DP1 ran great - with a 10 day uptime! there is no technical reason to drop 32bit only machines.

Erikthefinn
Apr 5, 2011, 06:31 PM
I had a friend install it for me from a Core 2 Duo Mac onto an external USB HDD. I then edited the PlatformSupport.plist file by adding my Core Duo Macs Board ID and it boots fine. The only App that didn't work was iTunes so I simply deleted all parts of it & installed another version.

What I require is the 'Full' (Server portion as well) download of Mac OS X Lion 10.7 Build-11A390

I would dearly love to locate an image of the 11A390 with the Server download already installed somehow. As being limited to a Core Duo Mac I'm unable to run the installer. The Server portion of Build 1A390 is no longer available via Apple period!

To me having the full thing would be like digital gold. Anywhere anyone could point me would be helpful!!!

Build-11A419l is another matter. if someone running a Core 2 Duo Mac could try: lipo -info /mach_kernel in terminal while booted into it, it would be very interesting to know if it comes back with "i386" if so then there is hope for Core Duo Macs with it.

elnegas posted that by switching the boot.ei from 11A390 that he got into Single User Mode I'd love more details on this. I tried this too but could not get past the Apple Boot Logo with that 2nd Build.

I hope this thread stays open as I am hoping the Hackintosh Devs will come up with a Kernel or another workaround could be done.

elnegas
Apr 8, 2011, 10:31 AM
elnegas posted that by switching the boot.ei from 11A390 that he got into Single User Mode I'd love more details on this. I tried this too but could not get past the Apple Boot Logo with that 2nd Build.


I think I put 11a390 extensions too. I'm not sure because I tried lot of things. I don't know which extension makes it hang and now I can't spend my time on it but it could be a way to make it work.

vansouza
Apr 10, 2011, 12:06 AM
And I finally have 64bit greatness ... that Leopard and Snow Leopard denied me.:eek:

rivermandan
Apr 14, 2011, 06:42 PM
well, 5 years of lurking and I finally had to register.

trying to load DP2 on my girl's core duo MBP, not having any luck. threw her MBP in target disk mode, and ran the installer off my 13" MBP via firewire. booted in, deleted platformsupport.plist, no go. boots to a white screen with the circle/dash symbol, no luck with singleuser or safemode switch.

it is a 15" core duo with an ati x1600, any ideas guys?

EDIT - tried using the DP1 kexts, no go.
EDIT2 - tried DP1 as well, no go. she's back to 10.6.7 for now

zap2
Apr 15, 2011, 06:01 PM
Hmm, well I could pop a C2D in my CD Mac Mini, but this seem like a good as time as any to grab a new Mac mini when they are released. And I can make this old Core Duo machine a Windows or Linux box.

Reach9
Apr 15, 2011, 06:36 PM
Hold on.. does this mean that my 2010 C2D 13" MBP can't support Lion?

QuarterSwede
Apr 15, 2011, 08:19 PM
Hold on.. does this mean that my 2010 C2D 13" MBP can't support Lion?
Let me quote post 60 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12329489&postcount=60) for you.

No. This is referring to the original Core (not 2) Duo and Solo that were in the very first generation of MBs, MBPs, iMacs, and Minis.

Bregalad
May 5, 2011, 05:59 PM
I'm also not sure, that Rosetta will be disabled forever in Lion. I think Apple disabled it in the Lion DP, because they need to port it to 64-Bit Intel x86_64 instructions.

But Lion DP is running on 32-bit machines so it can't be using x86_64 instructions exclusively. There simply must be 32-bit alternatives in the OS. Maybe those will be removed before Lion ships to the public.

Rosetta in Lion - I buy a new iMac this year
No Rosetta in Lion - I keep using Snow Leopard on my old Mac for at least one more year

miscend
May 7, 2011, 12:18 PM
Please help -- Rosetta functionality is a must. Around here, we rely on AppleWorks for 95% of our stuff, most of our legal documents and client files are in AppleWorks, if we upgrade to Lion, AppleWorks will not even RUN!!! Hello, Apple?!?!?

Why don't you upgrade to iWork or Office 2010?

mabaker
May 8, 2011, 03:16 AM
Please help -- Rosetta functionality is a must. Around here, we rely on AppleWorks for 95% of our stuff, most of our legal documents and client files are in AppleWorks, if we upgrade to Lion, AppleWorks will not even RUN!!! Hello, Apple?!?!?

What you could do in your case is to install Apple Works for Windows on Parallels and work from there. :)

tsmith
May 9, 2011, 09:55 PM
So now that the Lion DP2 update 2 (11A444d i believe) has been released, has anyone else not been able to boot up from a core duo x86? I did remove the platformsupport.plist, but it now doesn't boot up just the "no smoking sign".

Lion booted up fine for me all the way up until this update.

Anyone know a fix for this or if I am missing something?

KurtangleTN
May 17, 2011, 11:33 AM
No doubt they will fully remove the ability to boot with a CD/CS by the end of release. It was the same situation with G3s and Leopard, initial versions were working fine and then later versions axed it completely.

Obviously a pretty petty move by Apple to try to get users to upgrade. The computers may be 3-4+ years old but they are still good computers. I wonder how many people who lined up to spend $2500 on a new Macbook Pro just 4 years ago thought the thing wouldn't be able to upgrade 2 OSes later. Hell if you bought a certified refurbished machine and Apple Care you could still be under warranty.

While they can all run SL just fine, Apple has a way of doing other busche league maneuvers to screw over people on older OSes. They limit future apps to the OS, new hardware tends to be limited (iPhone 5 or 6 anyone?).

Also, gotta love the hilarity of half the thread people going "WAIT CORE 2 DUO AINT GUNNA WORK!!", it's got the three-gees anyone?

dbalone
May 17, 2011, 12:14 PM
(]Obviously a pretty petty move by Apple to try to get users to upgrade. The computers may be 3-4+ years old but they are still good computers. I wonder how many people who lined up to spend $2500 on a new Macbook Pro just 4 years ago thought the thing wouldn't be able to upgrade 2 OSes later. Hell if you bought a certified refurbished machine and Apple Care you could still be under warranty.

While they can all run SL just fine, Apple has a way of doing other busche league maneuvers to screw over people on older OSes. They limit future apps to the OS, new hardware tends to be limited (iPhone 5 or 6 anyone?).

Also, gotta love the hilarity of half the thread people going "WAIT CORE 2 DUO AINT GUNNA WORK!!", it's got the three-gees anyone?)


If we all took this route we would all still be using Windows machines with XP installed. That is where I like Apple. Keep technology moving and improving. We all know technology is constantly changing. No one forces anyone to upgrade. I guess we could all just have stuck with "Panther" many years ago and be just like all those still out there using XP.

KurtangleTN
May 17, 2011, 01:25 PM
What does XP have to do with anything?

Do you actually believe there will be some great performance increase by cutting out CD users? Of course not, you might save a couple megabytes for the drivers/code though.

Not to mention, these Core Duo machines are stil very nice. To compare to the latest Macbook GeekBenches only about 25% more, and I'm not entirely sure how much of that is because the newest Macbook has a dedicated graphics card while the originals don't, which would mean for everyday tasks they are pretty much the same. Hell to make it even fairer, the C2D update that will be supported benchmarked only 5% more.

When Apple cut PPC from SL, it was an obvious move forward. Were people who bought an expensive G5 or Powerbook happy? No, but it's a bit more understandable then this move.

SideStepSociety
May 17, 2011, 06:25 PM
I've been trying to find a way to install DP 1 on my 2006 CD mini, but I'm not having any luck at all, actually, at this point, I'm kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I'm of course not able to directly install it on the mini, and my 2011 MBP isn't compatible with DP 1, so I can't install on an external drive and copy it over.

Anybody know anyway around this or have any ideas?

tallchris
May 24, 2011, 06:27 AM
Not sure if this is correct place to post this but anyway.

I'm looking forward to the retail version of Lion, I've got a macbook 2,1 so I'm not to worried about it being compatible with the processor as its a C2D.

What I was wondering about would be if it was compatible with the Graphics. Mine has a GMA 950, will/has Lion made this 'obsolete'?

Thanks

roadbloc
May 24, 2011, 07:10 AM
[I](]If we all took this route we would all still be using Windows machines with XP installed. That is where I like Apple. Keep technology moving and improving. We all know technology is constantly changing. No one forces anyone to upgrade. I guess we could all just have stuck with "Panther" many years ago and be just like all those still out there using XP.

You mean you enjoy giving Apple your money and don't see a problem with their short product support?

Sneakz
May 28, 2011, 11:02 PM
Not sure if this is correct place to post this but anyway.

I'm looking forward to the retail version of Lion, I've got a macbook 2,1 so I'm not to worried about it being compatible with the processor as its a C2D.

What I was wondering about would be if it was compatible with the Graphics. Mine has a GMA 950, will/has Lion made this 'obsolete'?

Thanks
No. Apple still has support for the GMA 950 in Lion. But graphically, your experience might not be optimal. To optimize, Apple has done things like remove the the transparency in Launchpad.

Nobita
May 30, 2011, 09:40 PM
I remember when upgrading from Leopard to SL my machine got a lot faster (I didn't use erase and install, I kept all the data intact). Would it be the case as well that SL to Lion will make my machine faster?

I have 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB DDR3 RAM Macbook.

zencowboy
Jun 1, 2011, 11:19 PM
Hello all, I just love the spirit of tinkering.
I have the same macbook pro 1.83Ghz/2GB memory 1st generation Core Duo as the originator of this thread.

I have downloaded both DP1 and DP3 Lion.

I added my motherboard ID to plist/then tried to delete plist.
Swapped out boot.efi files from DP1, put into DP3...no go either (Because DP1 worked on CD).

I am trying this on external clone SSD 10.6.7 SL.

Would changing something in terminal help??

It is getting close to final release of Lion and will shortly have a hacked version for us CD users.

Thanks for any positive info;)

SisterRay
Jun 6, 2011, 03:46 PM
No mention of system requirements from Apple today. Do you like they might still support core duos?

chrfr
Jun 6, 2011, 04:16 PM
No mention of system requirements from Apple today. Do you like they might still support core duos?

No.
It's detailed here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/how-to-buy/
"Your Mac must have an Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, or Xeon processor to run Lion."

easy4lif
Jun 6, 2011, 04:17 PM
No mention of system requirements from Apple today. Do you like they might still support core duos?

on the "how to buy" section its states core 2 duo and up

Bear
Jun 7, 2011, 09:39 AM
Do you actually believe there will be some great performance increase by cutting out CD users? Of course not, you might save a couple megabytes for the drivers/code though.
...
When Apple cut PPC from SL, it was an obvious move forward. Were people who bought an expensive G5 or Powerbook happy? No, but it's a bit more understandable then this move.
Will cutting out CD users be a great performance increase? Probably nothing noticeable at all. Will it save disk space? Some - maybe only really noticeable on Airs with 64GB SSDs.

So why might Apple be cutting out the older CD systems? Well it does cut down on how many different systems they need to test on. Also, Apple no longer has to write and test software (bits and pieces) for CD systems.

I suspect that even if you can hack the released version of Lion to run on CD systems, at some point some update to Mac OS Lion will break on the CD systems.

Those with CD systems, what feature in Lion is crying out to you that you must have it? I have a system that is fine for Lion and truthfully, I'm not that impressed with it. So not impressed that I will need to go in to an Apple Store and play with Lion to see if there's anything I really need and to make sure it hasn't broken things like Mail to uselessness for me.

EDIT: When I say my system is fine for Lion, I mean fully supported.

cubanmiami05
Jun 7, 2011, 11:14 PM
You can also find the board-id via

ioreg -lp IOService | grep board-id

and then add it to PlatformSupport.plist with Apples Property List Editor:

sudo /Developer/Applications/Utilities/Property\ List\ Editor.app/Contents/MacOS/Property\ List\ Editor

;)


hi , Thanks I just found the board id , but How do I add it to the PlatformSupport if its READ ONLY FILE ?? :(

KurtangleTN
Jun 8, 2011, 12:20 AM
Will cutting out CD users be a great performance increase? Probably nothing noticeable at all. Will it save disk space? Some - maybe only really noticeable on Airs with 64GB SSDs.

So why might Apple be cutting out the older CD systems? Well it does cut down on how many different systems they need to test on. Also, Apple no longer has to write and test software (bits and pieces) for CD systems.

I suspect that even if you can hack the released version of Lion to run on CD systems, at some point some update to Mac OS Lion will break on the CD systems.

Those with CD systems, what feature in Lion is crying out to you that you must have it? I have a system that is fine for Lion and truthfully, I'm not that impressed with it. So not impressed that I will need to go in to an Apple Store and play with Lion to see if there's anything I really need and to make sure it hasn't broken things like Mail to uselessness for me.

As I said earlier, it's mainly because you're left behind and Apple shows little mercy for those who don't upgrade.

Apps (especially Apple's) in the future will only support 10.7+, future security updates will only support 10.7+ (as seen with MacDefender), soon certain Apple peripherals and hardware (iPods possible) will only support the later OS. The app store is going to help push this initiative even faster with all of the new stuff it allows developers to do in Lion.

Bear
Jun 8, 2011, 07:26 AM
As I said earlier, it's mainly because you're left behind and Apple shows little mercy for those who don't upgrade.

Apps (especially Apple's) in the future will only support 10.7+, future security updates will only support 10.7+ (as seen with MacDefender), soon certain Apple peripherals and hardware (iPods possible) will only support the later OS. The app store is going to help push this initiative even faster with all of the new stuff it allows developers to do in Lion.A lot of companies show no mercy. I have a perfectly fine scanner that actually only barely works in Snow Leopard. But Canon wants me to buy a new scanner so there is no driver update.

Traditionally Apple has always provided security updates for the previous version of OS X. I suspect we'll continue to see that happening.

easy4lif
Jun 9, 2011, 08:46 PM
look, i know that everyone is freaking out that lion won't run on core duo's but i wouldn't worry too much. i give it a day or 2 after release that its torrented and a day after that, that the hackintosh crowd figures out how to bypass all the apple lockout features. within a week core duo's will be running lion just like everyone else.

SideStepSociety
Jun 9, 2011, 09:18 PM
Except it's nothing like jailbreaking if Apple decides to remove all the 32 bit code from Lion, if they haven't already done so.

cubanmiami05
Jun 9, 2011, 09:40 PM
look, i know that everyone is freaking out that lion won't run on core duo's but i wouldn't worry too much. i give it a day or 2 after release that its torrented and a day after that, that the hackintosh crowd figures out how to bypass all the apple lockout features. within a week core duo's will be running lion just like everyone else.

Lets Hope So !! :)

elnegas
Jun 11, 2011, 09:05 AM
Hi,

I have managed to run Lion DP4 on my MacBook Core Duo, here are the steps:
- Install first on a compatible Mac
- Delete PlatformSupport.plist
- Bless boot.efi from DP1
- replace mach_kernel from DP1
- replace AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement.kext, AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient.kext, AppleIntelIntegratedFramebuffer.kext and IOFireWireFamily.kext from DP1

But there are some issues that makes it impossible to work with:

- Finder is only in x64, so no way to run it, the rest of apps stay in x86
- launchd process uses all CPU and Memory resources, so it is not possible to work normally with.
* It's possible to disable some launchDaemons loaded by launchd (related to crash reports, etc), to resolve the last issue.

gvollant
Jun 11, 2011, 09:53 AM
Hi,
Ive a Mac Mini1,1, which was shipped with Core Duo, and I had replaced Core Duo by a Core 2 duo
(Snow leopard can uses 64 bits application).

I tried modify or remove the /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist file, but I still have the compatibility error message at startup

ResPublica
Jun 12, 2011, 05:08 PM
Hi,

I have managed to run Lion DP4 on my MacBook Core Duo, here are the steps:
- Install first on a compatible Mac
- Delete PlatformSupport.plist
- Bless boot.efi from DP1
- replace mach_kernel from DP1
- replace AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement.kext, AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient.kext and AppleIntelIntegratedFramebuffer.kext from DP1

But there are some issues that makes it impossible to work with:

- Finder is only in x64, so no way to run it, the rest of apps stay in x86
- launchd process uses all CPU and Memory resources, so it is not possible to work normally with.
* It's possible to disable some launchDaemons loaded by launchd (related to crash reports, etc), to resolve the last issue.
Great work. Perhaps you could somehow install Snow Leopard's Finder?

Embio
Jun 12, 2011, 05:38 PM
this is great news! :D

Would the DP1 Finder not work? or are we all PathFinder users now? :rolleyes:

Embio
Jun 13, 2011, 09:31 AM
elnegas:

I have followed your instructions with no additions, twice, and get the attached Kernel Panic. Is there perhaps another kext required?

Beanoir
Jun 13, 2011, 02:29 PM
Hi,
Ive a Mac Mini1,1, which was shipped with Core Duo, and I had replaced Core Duo by a Core 2 duo
(Snow leopard can uses 64 bits application).

I tried modify or remove the /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist file, but I still have the compatibility error message at startup

I'm in the same camp, in fact I actually upgraded the processor just last week thinking that it would allow me to use Lion...now I realise that was not quite the case (oops!!)

So I guess at the moment it's wait and see, and if not then lets hope there is a viable workaround.

elnegas
Jun 14, 2011, 05:01 AM
elnegas:

I have followed your instructions with no additions, twice, and get the attached Kernel Panic. Is there perhaps another kext required?

Sorry, I tried lots of things to make it bootable, so I forgot that kext. You have to use IOFireWireFamily.kext from DP1 too (the kext that caused the kernel panic).

elnegas
Jun 14, 2011, 05:07 AM
this is great news! :D

Would the DP1 Finder not work? or are we all PathFinder users now? :rolleyes:

It doesn't work, DP1 Finder requires some plugins or frameworks which are different in DP4 Lion, but I haven't tried too much. I think it's not impossible to make it run.

Embio
Jun 14, 2011, 08:28 AM
that is strange - I tried the Firewire kexts... I'll give it another go :D

As for Finder - perhaps we should just focus on finding an alternative?

Core5i
Jun 14, 2011, 10:57 AM
can't wait for the lion (http://www.ihelplounge.com/ihelplounge/2011/02/mac-os-x-lion-core-2-duo-minimum-benefit.html) release

elnegas
Jun 14, 2011, 12:34 PM
that is strange - I tried the Firewire kexts... I'll give it another go :D

As for Finder - perhaps we should just focus on finding an alternative?

Next week I'll do a clean install to see if I forgot another step. I'm very busy this week so I can't try anything. If you succeed, please tell us :)

Embio
Jun 14, 2011, 06:21 PM
Next week I'll do a clean install to see if I forgot another step. I'm very busy this week so I can't try anything. If you succeed, please tell us :)

ok so I got it booting - slowly working my way through frameworks to get DP1 Finder to run - painstaking! I thought maybe the DP2/DP3 Finders had 32bit code... Will try this tomorrow. I suspect the SysLogd problem may be our biggest hinderance mind.

Ultimately if the retail version is 64bit beyond the kernel this work may be moot - but I'd still like the options of a Snow Leopard/Lion DPx/Ubuntu Macbook :)

Jethryn Freyman
Jun 15, 2011, 12:35 AM
-Finder is only in x64, so no way to run it, the rest of apps stay in x86
OK, so it looks like Apple have disallowed Core Duos because of a technical reason, and not just to force people to upgrade. Good.

elnegas
Jun 15, 2011, 03:26 AM
OK, so it looks like Apple have disallowed Core Duos because of a technical reason, and not just to force people to upgrade. Good.

Hi,

There are not significant performance differences between core duo and first core 2 duo macbooks. In fact they share the same chipset. I think it's a decision of apple to force developers to make x64 only apps.

Jethryn Freyman
Jun 16, 2011, 06:27 PM
Hi,

There are not significant performance differences between core duo and first core 2 duo macbooks. In fact they share the same chipset. I think it's a decision of apple to force developers to make x64 only apps.
Soon after I posted that I actually read something saying that the Finder is now 64-bit only, so that could be it.

Exponent
Jun 17, 2011, 09:55 PM
So if the Finder is indeed 64-bit only, I imagine that's not good for coreduo users.

However, what does this mean for those of us who upgraded the CPU on the motherboard from a CoreDuo to a Core2Duo? We now have a 64-bit capable machine, from the CPU standpoint - does it matter what's in the ROMs?

stroked
Jun 17, 2011, 10:02 PM
So if the Finder is indeed 64-bit only, I imagine that's not good for coreduo users.

However, what does this mean for those of us who upgraded the CPU on the motherboard from a CoreDuo to a Core2Duo? We now have a 64-bit capable machine, from the CPU standpoint - does it matter what's in the ROMs?

No you still have a 32 bit EFI

slb
Jun 17, 2011, 11:00 PM
Hi,

There are not significant performance differences between core duo and first core 2 duo macbooks. In fact they share the same chipset. I think it's a decision of apple to force developers to make x64 only apps.

64-bit also brings with it the modern Objective-C runtime.

Intell
Jun 17, 2011, 11:05 PM
So if the Finder is indeed 64-bit only, I imagine that's not good for coreduo users.

However, what does this mean for those of us who upgraded the CPU on the motherboard from a CoreDuo to a Core2Duo? We now have a 64-bit capable machine, from the CPU standpoint - does it matter what's in the ROMs?

You'll still be limited by the logicboard's model ID not appearing in the list(s) of supported boards.

No you still have a 32 bit EFI

The 32-bit EFI is not an issue. The first Mac Pro has a 32-bit EFI and 64-bit Xeon CPUs that can run Lion without problems.

mcdermd
Jun 19, 2011, 11:47 AM
For the record, my Core 2 Duo updated Core Solo mini is still running the latest dev preview with nothing more than the PlatformSupport.plist modification.

dchao
Jun 19, 2011, 06:55 PM
No you still have a 32 bit EFI

32-bit EFI is not a problem. So far (in DP4) 32-bit kernel is still there.

32-bit kernel will have to stay, since Apple have already announced the minimum requirements to run Lion. And there are some Mac's have made to the list with EFI-32 only, example is early 2007 Mac Pro with Xeon processor (64-bit) and EFI-32.

EDIT: Sorry I did not see Intell's reply above.

glossywhite
Jun 19, 2011, 07:03 PM
Who in their sane mind would still be developing *32*bit apps? It's not 1998 any more.

stroked
Jun 19, 2011, 07:22 PM
You'll still be limited by the logicboard's model ID not appearing in the list(s) of supported boards.



The 32-bit EFI is not an issue. The first Mac Pro has a 32-bit EFI and 64-bit Xeon CPUs that can run Lion without problems.

That's good. I must be behind on my reading. I read somewhere on this forum, that my first generation imac cor 2 duo couldn't run Lion, because of the 32 bit EFI.

Beanoir
Jun 21, 2011, 05:03 PM
For the record, my Core 2 Duo updated Core Solo mini is still running the latest dev preview with nothing more than the PlatformSupport.plist modification.

Thats promising...

gvollant
Jun 25, 2011, 03:25 PM
For the record, my Core 2 Duo updated Core Solo mini is still running the latest dev preview with nothing more than the PlatformSupport.plist modification.

I've also a MacMini1,1. I had removed the Core Duo and replaced by Core 2 Duo (and snow leopard run well 64 bits apps)

I'm surprised by your message.
I transfered DP4 dmg to an USB hard disk, I tried both modify or remove /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist without success : after boot on the disk, installer say computer is not compatible

juuuice
Jul 2, 2011, 12:26 AM
Has anyone verified in the new GM build is indeed blocked for upgraded minis from coreduo to core2duo?

Intell
Jul 2, 2011, 12:39 AM
Has anyone verified in the new GM build is indeed blocked for upgraded minis from coreduo to core2duo?

Ever since DP2 it was not possible to get Lion working on CD Minis with only the PlatformSupport.plist modification. It'll require something more along the lines of a modified boot.efi file to get it to work.

chrfr
Jul 2, 2011, 01:12 PM
It'll require something more along the lines of a modified boot.efi file to get it to work.

...and you'll need a replacement for the Finder which is a purely 64-bit app now. (and was before.)

Intell
Jul 2, 2011, 01:20 PM
...and you'll need a replacement for the Finder which is a purely 64-bit app now. (and was before.)

Not unless the CD Mini has a C2D CPU upgrade.

skier777
Jul 2, 2011, 01:31 PM
Any word on if this still works with the GM?

Intell
Jul 2, 2011, 01:33 PM
Any word on if this still works with the GM?

No, it only worked on DP1.

roobarb!
Jul 2, 2011, 06:25 PM
No, it only worked on DP1.

So if you had, for example, a Core 2 Duo upgraded MacMini1,1 (which originally shipped with a Core Duo), what's the procedure for getting Lion running? Does the installation need to be done on a genuine Core 2 Duo machine and then moved, or can it be done in another way?

Intell
Jul 2, 2011, 08:38 PM
So if you had, for example, a Core 2 Duo upgraded MacMini1,1 (which originally shipped with a Core Duo), what's the procedure for getting Lion running? Does the installation need to be done on a genuine Core 2 Duo machine and then moved, or can it be done in another way?

Currently, Lion will not boot on a MacMini1,1. Even with a C2D upgrade. It has to do with the Mini's logicboard ID not being in the list of supported boards. There are a few places this list exists. The harder/hardest of the places is currently the boot.eif file.

gvollant
Jul 3, 2011, 03:15 AM
On my MacMini1,1 upgraded with Core 2 Duo, I made a Lion GM install using firewire target mode.

When I boot with verbose option, I can read:
boot file path: \System\Library\CoreServices\boot.efi
..
***********************************************************
This version of Mac OS X is not supported on this platform!
***********************************************************
Reason: Mac-F4208EC8

Pehaps the solution is patching the boot.efi file (or replace by boot.efi from DP1, but I don't found place to get it)

rom828
Jul 3, 2011, 10:40 AM
On my MacMini1,1 upgraded with Core 2 Duo, I made a Lion GM install using firewire target mode.

When I boot with verbose option, I can read:
boot file path: \System\Library\CoreServices\boot.efi
..
***********************************************************
This version of Mac OS X is not supported on this platform!
***********************************************************
Reason: Mac-F4208EC8

Pehaps the solution is patching the boot.efi file (or replace by boot.efi from DP1, but I don't found place to get it)
Have you tried modifying the PlatformSupport.plist? adding the '<string>Mac-F4208EC8</string>' to the list?

Intell
Jul 3, 2011, 10:44 AM
On my MacMini1,1 upgraded with Core 2 Duo, I made a Lion GM install using firewire target mode.

When I boot with verbose option, I can read:
boot file path: \System\Library\CoreServices\boot.efi
..
***********************************************************
This version of Mac OS X is not supported on this platform!
***********************************************************
Reason: Mac-F4208EC8

Pehaps the solution is patching the boot.efi file (or replace by boot.efi from DP1, but I don't found place to get it)

That's one of the places that contains the list of supported logicboard IDs. Modifying this list is going to be difficult. There is currently no solution.

Have you tried modifying the PlatformSupport.plist? adding the '<string>Mac-F4208EC8</string>' to the list?

That hack only works on the first developer preview.

gvollant
Jul 4, 2011, 02:48 AM
using the boot.efi from DP1 will not solves ?
if anyone can give a link to a copy of boot.efi from DP1, I'll be happy trying

dgozalie
Jul 4, 2011, 12:08 PM
hallo,

i got macmini core solo upgrade into core2duo... i cannot install the lion and i did edit and add "Mac-F4208EC8" into InstallableMachines.plist, PlatformSupport.plist and still cannot install it...

can anybody help... i am dying to install it to my mac mini and yes, i already using 10.6.8

after that, my mbp core duo waiting to be installed if possible at all....

Donny

Intell
Jul 4, 2011, 12:11 PM
using the boot.efi from DP1 will not solves ?
if anyone can give a link to a copy of boot.efi from DP1, I'll be happy trying

Using the boot.efi from DP1 doesn't work. It causes the system to not start until the proper boot.efi is installed.

hallo,

i got macmini core solo upgrade into core2duo... i cannot install the lion and i did edit and add "Mac-F4208EC8" into InstallableMachines.plist, PlatformSupport.plist and still cannot install it...

can anybody help... i am dying to install it to my mac mini and yes, i already using 10.6.8

after that, my mbp core duo waiting to be installed if possible at all....

Donny

Read my last few posts.

andreas.b
Jul 4, 2011, 01:19 PM
That's one of the places that contains the list of supported logicboard IDs. Modifying this list is going to be difficult. There is currently no solution.

Have you tried replacing mach_kernel, AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement.kext, AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient.kext and AppleIntelIntegratedFramebuffer.kext from DP1?

This link suggests that works for DP4, maybe it would work with GM too.

http://osxdaily.com/2011/06/11/run-lion-dp4-core-duo-mac/

I would try it, but I don't have the DP1 files.

Intell
Jul 4, 2011, 01:24 PM
Have you tried replacing mach_kernel, AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement.kext, AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient.kext and AppleIntelIntegratedFramebuffer.kext from DP1?

This link suggests that works for DP4, maybe it would work with GM too.

http://osxdaily.com/2011/06/11/run-lion-dp4-core-duo-mac/

I would try it, but I don't have the DP1 files.

That may work, but it'd be unstable and probably stop working with the release of 10.7.1.

gvollant
Jul 4, 2011, 03:57 PM
Using the boot.efi from DP1 doesn't work. It causes the system to not start until the proper boot.efi is installed..


The only solution is patching boot.efi ?

Intell
Jul 4, 2011, 03:59 PM
The only solution is patching boot.efi ?

There are a few other files to patch. I don't know of all of them, but hopefully a hack is created shortly after Lion is released.

CountBrass
Jul 5, 2011, 04:27 AM
That's very much a possibility, especially since Apple tends to lock out older systems as an incentive to upgrade to new hardware.

That's simply not true. As an example getting 64-bit Windows Apple drivers installed on a Mac Pro 1.1 is simply a matter of running the installer from the command line.

No hard lock out at all.

When Apple still sold explicit 'upgrade' versions of OSX (today it's implicit that they are all upgrades) you could still install it as a full copy with what amounted to a text file edit.

I've given several examples to prove you're hopelessly wrong- care to provide that proves you are right- i.e. a case where some software could have run on an earlier model of Mac except for Apple hard-coding in an exclusion?

gvollant
Jul 6, 2011, 12:43 AM
There are a few other files to patch. I don't know of all of them, but hopefully a hack is created shortly after Lion is released.

You think that even after loading boot.efi, the kernel or somes kext again check the ID to reject MacMini1,1 ?

gvollant
Jul 6, 2011, 12:46 AM
I really don't understand why Apple does hard coding mac exclusion. Why they don't just check the "EM64T" flag on the intel processor?

Intell
Jul 6, 2011, 11:38 AM
You think that even after loading boot.efi, the kernel or somes kext again check the ID to reject MacMini1,1 ?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

andreas.b
Jul 6, 2011, 01:31 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

He is asking if you think there are more hardware ID checks than the one in boot.efi.

Obviously there's the one in CoreServices/PlatformSupport too.

But other than that?

Intell
Jul 6, 2011, 01:36 PM
He is asking if you think there are more hardware ID checks than the one in boot.efi.

Obviously there's the one in CoreServices/PlatformSupport too.

But other than that?

Oh, yes I believe there are more. Probably in the mach_kernal.

andreas.b
Jul 6, 2011, 03:51 PM
Oh, yes I believe there are more. Probably in the mach_kernal.

As far as I know they always release the full kernel sources though, so when they do that for Lion it would be easy to get around.

I'm thinking that patching boot.efi would be a good start, unfortunately that's not something I'm capable of.

gvollant
Jul 8, 2011, 10:53 AM
it seem somes user are able to run Lion GM in hackintosh or VMWare virtual machine. So there is probably a solution for real mac!

SideStepSociety
Jul 8, 2011, 12:50 PM
Getting it to run on a 64 bit Hackintosh or VM is a lot different than finding a way to run 64 bit system apps on a 32 bit Mac.

0dev
Jul 8, 2011, 12:55 PM
Typical of Apple to kill off support for perfectly capable systems.

elnegas
Jul 8, 2011, 03:20 PM
Have you tried replacing mach_kernel, AppleIntelCPUPowerManagement.kext, AppleIntelCPUPowerManagementClient.kext and AppleIntelIntegratedFramebuffer.kext from DP1?

This link suggests that works for DP4, maybe it would work with GM too.

http://osxdaily.com/2011/06/11/run-lion-dp4-core-duo-mac/

I would try it, but I don't have the DP1 files.

This link only explains the same things I have explained on this forum (page 4)

slb
Jul 8, 2011, 05:02 PM
Typical of Apple to kill off support for perfectly capable systems.

Heaven forbid Apple refuses to officially support Macs whose owners have cracked them open and replaced their processors.

roobarb!
Jul 9, 2011, 08:20 AM
Heaven forbid Apple refuses to officially support Macs whose owners have cracked them open and replaced their processors.

I think 0dev may be making a reference to the perfectly capable Core Duo systems, rather than ones upgraded with Core 2 Duo processors. Lion DP1 with the newly rewritten Finder did work very well indeed on the 32-bit CPUs.

It does seem an unusually arbitrary move, IMHO.

andreas.b
Jul 9, 2011, 09:59 AM
This link only explains the same things I have explained on this forum (page 4)

Yeah it does. My point was that it was probably possible to get Lion GM running the same way.

I see this as useful on systems 32-bit EFI and 64-bit CPU upgrade. This of course won't help on systems with a 32-bit CPU.

I'm not sure if Lion is ever going to be viable for 32-bit CPU systems, because as you say, some apps doesn't have 32-bit binaries anymore.

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 9, 2011, 10:24 AM
I've given several examples to prove you're hopelessly wrong- care to provide that proves you are right- i.e. a case where some software could have run on an earlier model of Mac except for Apple hard-coding in an exclusion?

I don't know what Steve Ballmer has been saying, but there are a few examples of this.

Back in the day, when iTunes first came out, Apple quickly restricted it to OS 9. I didn't have OS 9, so when iTunes 3 (I think it was 3) came out, it wouldn't work. I found a hack online, changed the OS check, and it worked perfectly. The next version of iTunes had a deeper lock-out that I never was able to find how to get around, though I saw many articles (from reputable sources) that said there was no reason for this; iTunes didn't have anything in it that relied on something in OS 9 that wasn't present in OS 8.5+. I may be slightly off on the exact version numbers of iTunes, but that was so many years ago, I think I was about 15 or so.

iMovie 8 doesn't run on PPC Macs, for no reason. The only part of iMovie that requires Intel is its ability to process AVCHD video. However, the rest of iMovie has no issues running on a PPC Mac. I know this, because I acquired a copy of iLife and went to install it, and iMovie installed but wouldn't run. Did some searching around, changed a few hex bits, and it worked like a dream. No speed issues, no nothing (though, because it was hacked, it would crash if you tried to process AVCHD video). There was no reason Apple locked iMovie out from PPC Macs, it would have been easy enough to disable that one feature on PPC Macs.

When Leopard came out, it was restricted to 867+ MHz G4s as the base requirement. While I generally agreed with it for performance standards, it has no problems running on slower hardware once you get it past the install check. I have a friend at work who installed it on some 800 MHz (or around there) dual proc G4s and, according to him, it runs great.

Apple does lock out older hardware arbitrarily sometimes. I don't think this is the case with Lion, though, as Apple is trying to move to a wholly 64-bit OS, and that's not possible with a 32-bit processor.

stewacide
Jul 9, 2011, 04:07 PM
I think this is all about Apple forcing devs to make 64bit apps. With the next iOS release I'd expect to see the whole system - kernel, drivers and everything - 64bit exclusive. Which will leave behind otherwise capable systems with 32bit EFI.

re: hacking Lion onto 32bit intel, while I'm sure third party apps will continue to ship universal for some time, there's no reason for Apple to ship universal apps for Lion, when when all supported systems can run 64bit apps. Anything that's still working in 7.0 will probably be broken a few patches in. In fact I don't understand why Lion ships with universal binaries at all, except that the decision to go 64bit only was made late in the dev process...

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 9, 2011, 04:35 PM
except that the decision to go 64bit only was made late in the dev process...

???

OS X has been getting progressively closer to 64-bit only for the past several releases, starting with 10.4 at the latest. This decision was most certainly not made late in the dev process...

stewacide
Jul 9, 2011, 05:37 PM
???

OS X has been getting progressively closer to 64-bit only for the past several releases, starting with 10.4 at the latest. This decision was most certainly not made late in the dev process...

They why are *ANY* Lion apps, save perhaps those needing to accept old plugins (Safari, PrefPane), shipped in 32bit form?

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 9, 2011, 08:43 PM
That's very much a possibility, especially since Apple tends to lock out older systems as an incentive to upgrade to new hardware.

This proves once and for all that Apple is ONLY doing it for that reason. There's no technical reason it won't run on those systems. They are simply being evil and saying frack you to loyal customers. Give us more money! :mad:

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 9, 2011, 08:56 PM
There's no technical reason it won't run on those systems. They are simply being evil and saying frack you to loyal customers.

You conveniently ignored my post on this subject in this thread, replying to the same thing.

Apple has been pushing for a wholly 64-bit OS ever since the G5 was introduced. When the G5 was experiencing severe issues, they switched to Intel (which had been in the plan for a long time) and were forced to accept one generation of 32-bit CPUs. After that generation, EVERY Mac has shipped with a 64-bit architecture.

There is a very technical reason why Lion won't run on 32-bit Intel machines: Lion is a 64-bit OS. You can't run a 64-bit OS on a 32-bit machine. The 1st two DPs did run on them, but the current ones do not.

Intell
Jul 9, 2011, 09:00 PM
I think this is all about Apple forcing devs to make 64bit apps. With the next iOS release I'd expect to see the whole system - kernel, drivers and everything - 64bit exclusive. Which will leave behind otherwise capable systems with 32bit EFI.

How is iOS going to be 64-bit when ARM doesn't even make 64-bit processors? The 32-bit EFI has nothing to do with Lion's limitations. The first Mac Pro has 32-bit EFI and 64-bit CPUs.

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 9, 2011, 09:00 PM
They why are *ANY* Lion apps, save perhaps those needing to accept old plugins (Safari, PrefPane), shipped in 32bit form?

Apps and OS are two different things. You have to make the OS wholly 64-bit before making the apps 64-bit. Only an Apple software engineer can really answer your question.

For non-Apple apps, you're most likely looking at the amount of time to recode an app from 32-bit to 64-bit form. Many apps won't benefit at all from 64-bit, which means they'll take their sweet time moving to 64-bit. Just because the OS is 64-bit doesn't mean all the apps have to be.

stewacide
Jul 9, 2011, 09:01 PM
You conveniently ignored my post on this subject in this thread, replying to the same thing.

Apple has been pushing for a wholly 64-bit OS ever since the G5 was introduced. When the G5 was experiencing severe issues, they switched to Intel (which had been in the plan for a long time) and were forced to accept one generation of 32-bit CPUs. After that generation, EVERY Mac has shipped with a 64-bit architecture.

There is a very technical reason why Lion won't run on 32-bit Intel machines: Lion is a 64-bit OS. You can't run a 64-bit OS on a 32-bit machine. The 1st two DPs did run on them, but the current ones do not.

There's no technical reason Lion can't support 32 bit processors: everything in the OS is still compiled for both, and the kernel still defaults to 32bit on all but Xserves.

Intell
Jul 9, 2011, 09:06 PM
There's no technical reason Lion can't support 32 bit processors: everything in the OS is still compiled for both, and the kernel still defaults to 32bit on all but Xserves.

I'm guessing you've never used a 2010 or newer Mac have you? They default to 64-bit.

stewacide
Jul 9, 2011, 09:06 PM
Apps and OS are two different things. You have to make the OS wholly 64-bit before making the apps 64-bit. Only an Apple software engineer can really answer your question.

For non-Apple apps, you're most likely looking at the amount of time to recode an app from 32-bit to 64-bit form. Many apps won't benefit at all from 64-bit, which means they'll take their sweet time moving to 64-bit. Just because the OS is 64-bit doesn't mean all the apps have to be.

Since all officially supported Lion systems can run 64bit apps there's no need to ship them as 64bit/32bit universal apps... yet Apple did, likely because they chose to exclude 32bit systems too late in the dev process to strip the 32bit code out.

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 9, 2011, 09:12 PM
If they stripped all the 32 bit code, there would be huge backlash! It would be an absolutely moronic decision, and you and I both know this. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

I'm not a dev, but my understanding is that, when coding for UB, you make a 64-bit app and when you build it, building it as UB automatically makes it 32-bit compatible as well. That's no extra work for the developer.

Besides, being able to run the app in 32-bit mode has significant advantages. For example, a few months ago Safari wouldn't play anything on YouTube in 64-bit mode. Switching to 32-bit mode fixed the problem. Is TextEdit likely to have a problem like this? No. But building all apps as a UB isn't a bad thing.

Intell
Jul 9, 2011, 09:13 PM
The 32-bit code is left in for legacy plug-ins and the like.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 9, 2011, 09:13 PM
Since all officially supported Lion systems can run 64bit apps there's no need to ship them as 64bit/32bit universal apps... yet Apple did, likely because they chose to exclude 32bit systems too late in the dev process to strip the 32bit code out.

If they're too darn lazy to strip out the 32-bit code then they might as well let Core Solo/Duo owners use Lion. Their removal of those machines is both arbitrary and capricious. I still say they're just sodding greedmongers. Their own code for iTunes isn't even full Cocoa after how many years? They're hypocrites to boot. FCPro wouldn't even use multiple cores for rendering. Apple doesn't even support their own standards half the time. They probably don't have enough developers to do these things since Steve is so flipping paranoid about total control that he won't approve hiring enough programmers.

gvollant
Jul 9, 2011, 11:48 PM
Getting it to run on a 64 bit Hackintosh or VM is a lot different than finding a way to run 64 bit system apps on a 32 bit Mac.

My goal is running lion on a Mac Mini selled with Core Duo, but upgraded to Core 2 duo, so it is now a 64 bits mac (which run 64 bits apps perfectly under snow leopard)

marsonist
Jul 10, 2011, 08:41 PM
You conveniently ignored my post on this subject in this thread, replying to the same thing.

Apple has been pushing for a wholly 64-bit OS ever since the G5 was introduced. When the G5 was experiencing severe issues, they switched to Intel (which had been in the plan for a long time) and were forced to accept one generation of 32-bit CPUs. After that generation, EVERY Mac has shipped with a 64-bit architecture.

There is a very technical reason why Lion won't run on 32-bit Intel machines: Lion is a 64-bit OS. You can't run a 64-bit OS on a 32-bit machine. The 1st two DPs did run on them, but the current ones do not.

I have upgraded A 1.66 Ghz Core Duo Mac Mini to a 1.83 Ghz Core 2 Duo. Snow leopard now runs all of the appropriate applications in 64-Bit mode. With the developer previews of Lion it was possible to edit a plist and install Lion. With the release of the GM that is no longer possible. I'm sure apple doesn't want to have to deal with support issues for nonstandard systems, but to say that they did not intentionally block certain (fully capable) Apple hardware from running Lion is indeed false.

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 10, 2011, 08:56 PM
I have upgraded A 1.66 Ghz Core Duo Mac Mini to a 1.83 Ghz Core 2 Duo. [...] but to say that they did not intentionally block certain (fully capable) Apple hardware from running Lion is indeed false.

Ah I see... wait, you're not running "fully capable Apple hardware", you're running fully capable non-Apple hardware. So there's no surprise that when Apple blocks hardware not normally capable of running 64-bit software, and you've upgraded that hardware so it can, you're still locked out. So, my point still stands. Your hardware may be capable, but it was never intended to be so.

shaivure
Jul 11, 2011, 02:33 AM
My goal is running lion on a Mac Mini selled with Core Duo, but upgraded to Core 2 duo, so it is now a 64 bits mac (which run 64 bits apps perfectly under snow leopard)

Hey, I've just managed to install the Lion GM on my Mac Mini 1,1 which I upgraded with a Core 2 Duo.

Details in my blog link in my signature

weckart
Jul 11, 2011, 04:03 AM
Hey, I've just managed to install the Lion GM on my Mac Mini 1,1 which I upgraded with a Core 2 Duo.

Details in my blog link in my signature

Hmm. Checking the sources in your blog reveals that the torrent is only hosted on a couple of sites and has disappeared (if it ever existed) from the rest that were brought up in the linked search.

That usually is a red flag that there is more than you bargained for in that doctored GM. I do hope you have Little Snitch installed for your own safety.

andreas.b
Jul 11, 2011, 04:26 AM
I'm downloading it now to check out the contents. Annoyingly it's zipped up, so you can't select to only download the hack.

You have a good point about it being removed from bigger sites. I hope I can get something legit out of it, as I do want to run this on my 64-bit CPU Mac Mini (why not?).

Hopefully there's some good documentation included if it is legit, so that the hack would be possible to reproduce. I'm not sure I'm able enough to be 100% sure if something malicious is included or not.

I find it a bit weird that the hack is ONLY distributed in this way, you would think that it should originate as a standalone hack from some of the forums regarding MacOS, but nothing turns up on google.

shaivure
Jul 11, 2011, 04:48 AM
Hmm. Checking the sources in your blog reveals that the torrent is only hosted on a couple of sites and has disappeared (if it ever existed) from the rest that were brought up in the linked search.

That usually is a red flag that there is more than you bargained for in that doctored GM. I do hope you have Little Snitch installed for your own safety.

Hmm, admittedly I may have been a little too trusting, however I don't use this as my main machine. Thanks for the tip and I'll try and monitor for any suspicious behaviour.

If anyone can detail how to reproduce the hack on the retail version when it is is shipped then I'd be interested in finding out how. I might take a look at the files in the package tonight and see what I can work out.

Cheers

andreas.b
Jul 11, 2011, 08:23 AM
Okay, in my eyes it seems to be legit, more specifically the packages included in "Educational Materials" seems to be fine, if you were to create your own image from your own Lion ESD image, using the following method, you would likely be safe.

In all likelyhood the included installer image haven't been tampered with either, so it could be safe too. On your own risk tho, no guarantees :D

For people interested they could likely make it work themselves using the guide found here:

http://www.obviouslogic.com:8080/solutions/lion-vmware/ and the OSInstall.mpkg and PlatformSupport.pkg from the "Educational Materials" from the torrent.

optimistique1
Jul 11, 2011, 11:47 PM
Hmm, admittedly I may have been a little too trusting, however I don't use this as my main machine. Thanks for the tip and I'll try and monitor for any suspicious behaviour.

If anyone can detail how to reproduce the hack on the retail version when it is is shipped then I'd be interested in finding out how. I might take a look at the files in the package tonight and see what I can work out.

Cheers

Hi Buddy your guide looks great, do you know if there is anyway to run 10.7 GM on a machine that only has a Core Duo Processor and not the upgraded Core 2 Duo?

Intell
Jul 11, 2011, 11:53 PM
Hi Buddy your guide looks great, do you know if there is anyway to run 10.7 GM on a machine that only has a Core Duo Processor and not the upgraded Core 2 Duo?

A 64-bit CPU is required. The Core Duo is not 64-bit.

roobarb!
Jul 12, 2011, 01:41 AM
A 64-bit CPU is required. The Core Duo is not 64-bit.

True. To clarify, the Finder is now compiled with only 64-bit binaries, so there's no way it'll run on a Core Duo (which is 32-bit only). The Finder is pretty fundamental, so while you might get to the desktop, you'll bump into so many issues as to make it useless.

Just to rub a little salt in, Lion's new Finder was 32 and 64-bit in DP1, so again, it's an arbitrary decision by Apple to ensure there's no support for 32-bit CPUs.

andreas.b
Jul 12, 2011, 01:45 AM
But all 32-bit macs are socketed as far as I know, so what's stopping you from putting a 64-bit CPU in it?

Sneakz
Jul 12, 2011, 02:05 AM
But all 32-bit macs are socketed as far as I know, so what's stopping you from putting a 64-bit CPU in it?

Uh, not the MacBookPro1,1, a MacBook 1,1 or iMac 4,1.

Intell
Jul 12, 2011, 02:15 AM
Uh, not the MacBookPro1,1, a MacBook 1,1 or iMac 4,1.

All Intell iMacs have a socketed CPU.

andreas.b
Jul 12, 2011, 04:18 AM
All Intell iMacs have a socketed CPU.

I think a lot of them are soldered on?

Intell
Jul 12, 2011, 10:44 AM
I think a lot of them are soldered on?

There isn't any solder holding them on. The earlier ones have a P socket and can take up to a Core 2 Duo, just like the early Intell Mac Mini's.

Xenomorph
Jul 12, 2011, 11:13 AM
Typical of Apple to kill off support for perfectly capable systems.

This is Apple. This is what Apple does. Everyone knows this by now.

Have any older systems?

Ever check the Mac OS X 10.3 System Requirements? (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2176)

Requirement for G3 systems: "built-in USB ports"
I had some nice G3 systems with maxed out RAM. Even though I could easily add a USB card to the system, Mac OS X 10.3 refused to install because the system didn't have *onboard* USB ports.

Ever look at the Mac OS X 10.4 System Requirements? (http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1514)

"Built-in FireWire".
That's right. Turbo-charged systems with a ton of RAM, more than capable of running the OS would be blocked from upgrading because they didn't have *onboard* FireWire.

XPostFacto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPostFacto) is what I used to install Mac OS X on systems that Apple seemed to remove support for (with no good reason).

Apple dropping support for 32-bit Intel isn't a big thing. There are probably a LOT more people with PowerPC systems still angry over Apple dropping support for that. Personally, I work with tens of thousands of dollars of Apple server hardware, all stuck at 10.5 because they came with the most expensive, best G5 chips in them.

Sneakz
Jul 12, 2011, 12:19 PM
There isn't any solder holding them on. The earlier ones have a P socket and can take up to a Core 2 Duo, just like the early Intell Mac Mini's.

Dude, you don't know what your talking about. First off, it's "Intel". Second, the only Intel Macs with socketed processors were the Intel Minis, Xserve and Mac Pro. Everything else is soldered.

Intell
Jul 12, 2011, 02:50 PM
Dude, you don't know what your talking about. First off, it's "Intel". Second, the only Intel Macs with socketed processors were the Intel Minis, Xserve and Mac Pro. Everything else is soldered.

I most certainly do know what I'm talking about. All Intell iMac's have socketed CPUs. Futhermore, the 2009 and later Mini's are soldered to the board and are not upgradable. Please research before spouting misinformation next time. Here are some threads/links (with pics):

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/imac-aluminum-faq/imac-intel-aluminum-processor-upgrade-instructions.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/faq_cd/imac-intel-processor-upgrade-video-upgrade.html
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=221112
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=998457
http://www.maclife.com/article/upgrade_your_imac_core_2_duo_processor

Intell with two L's? Its a reference to my user name.

Eidorian
Jul 12, 2011, 02:53 PM
There isn't any solder holding them on. The earlier ones have a P socket and can take up to a Core 2 Duo, just like the early Intell Mac Mini's.It should be the twist of a flat head screw to unlock the processor from the socket. That is after the teardown before you reach that point.

Sneakz
Jul 12, 2011, 10:41 PM
Okay, fine. The iMac is socketed. But the MacBook and MacBook Pro aren't. You have been implying they are.

Oh, you edited your post. I believe it originally said


All Intell Macs have a socketed CPU.

You later added the "i".

Eidorian
Jul 12, 2011, 10:44 PM
Okay, fine. The iMac is socketed. But the MacBook and MacBook Pro aren't. You have been implying they are.The Mac mini was socketed up until the current version. If we are talking about upgrading a Core Duo machine to Core 2 Duo, it is going to be a Mac mini or iMac.

You are looking at replacing the entire logic board for a notebook. Where is the implication again?

Intell
Jul 12, 2011, 10:52 PM
Okay, fine. The iMac is socketed. But the MacBook and MacBook Pro aren't. You have been implying they are.

Oh, you edited your post. I believe it originally said

You later added the "i".

That "i" was there from the beginning. You are trying you hardest to win this argument by falsifying things. What about the edit at 4:22AM you might ask? That's my signature. Look around its on all my posts.

Sneakz
Jul 12, 2011, 11:01 PM
I guess I might have made a mistake.

I'm not even about this anymore. I'm wondering why I even care as none of this pertains to me. What I originally opened up my browser for was too look for a new GPU for a hackintosh, not to be on MR.

Whatevs

gvollant
Jul 14, 2011, 04:25 PM
I found a web page
http://vureyosx.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-to-install-os-x-lion-107-on.html

we need try!

stewacide
Jul 14, 2011, 04:32 PM
...indeed this is less lame than the likes of "built in USB and built in Firewire", but unnecessary nonetheless.

smartalic34
Jul 15, 2011, 10:20 PM
I just read the first and last pages of the thread, but can the Lion GM be installed on Core Duo machines? I know Apple made it tougher this time around than with Leopard... Leopard had an 867 MHz G4 requirement, and all I had to do to get it on an 800 MHz eMac was install on an external drive and CarbonCopyCloner the drive over to the eMac. None of this .plist stuff... oh well...

Intell
Jul 15, 2011, 10:37 PM
I just read the first and last pages of the thread, but can the Lion GM be installed on Core Duo machines? I know Apple made it tougher this time around than with Leopard... Leopard had an 867 MHz G4 requirement, and all I had to do to get it on an 800 MHz eMac was install on an external drive and CarbonCopyCloner the drive over to the eMac. None of this .plist stuff... oh well...

No, it will refuse to boot. The minimum is a Core 2 Duo.

smartalic34
Jul 15, 2011, 10:55 PM
No, it will refuse to boot. The minimum is a Core 2 Duo.

Even with the .plist modification I've read about (that apparently worked in DP builds)?

Intell
Jul 15, 2011, 10:58 PM
Even with the .plist modification I've read about (that apparently worked in DP builds)?

That hack only worked on the first developer preview. It no longer works and Lion requires a 64-bit capable CPU.

jisoza
Jul 16, 2011, 01:10 AM
Hello,
I'm just curious to known if we have all exactly the same DMG file

(in the past, I see that there is a "signature" on each DMG of a package)

can you compare the crc32, md5 or sha1
(you can use crc32 command from terminal)


My info for InstallESD.dmg from Lion GM:

size:
3743009943

crc32 :
e2223190

md5:
b5d3753c62bfb69866e94dca9336a44a

sha1:
e05c4c7c43b210d0b8fc265c609f4dd70617ff86

gvollant
Jul 18, 2011, 02:03 PM
Heaven forbid Apple refuses to officially support Macs whose owners have cracked them open and replaced their processors.

yes, Apple accepts we change memory but no processor. Why?

Draeconis
Jul 18, 2011, 04:41 PM
It's not deemed to be a user-serviceable part, and as a consequence you're voiding your warranty by replacing it. Sucks, but that's how these things work.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jul 18, 2011, 06:09 PM
It's not deemed to be a user-serviceable part, and as a consequence you're voiding your warranty by replacing it. Sucks, but that's how these things work.

WTF does the warranty have to do with anything? He wasn't asking for Apple to fix his machine. :rolleyes:

iThinkergoiMac
Jul 18, 2011, 07:55 PM
WTF does the warranty have to do with anything? He wasn't asking for Apple to fix his machine. :rolleyes:

He might be if the machine breaks.

chrfr
Jul 18, 2011, 08:16 PM
He might be if the machine breaks.
The newest Core Duo machines are long since out of Applecare.

Ollie4c
Jul 18, 2011, 09:00 PM
So, I just bought a 1.86ghz Intel core duo iMac. If I upgrade the ram to 2gb and the cpu to a t7600 Intel processor will I be able to run Lion without a problem? or will I need to do something special? I am talking about the final release not the early betas.

And is it at all possible to run the Golden master on my Current specs on the iMac of 1.86ghz Intel core duo, 1.5gb of ram, and 128mb radeon x1600?

Thanks

Intell
Jul 18, 2011, 09:22 PM
So, I just bought a 1.86ghz Intel core duo iMac. If I upgrade the ram to 2gb and the cpu to a t7600 Intel processor will I be able to run Lion without a problem? or will I need to do something special? I am talking about the final release not the early betas.

And is it at all possible to run the Golden master on my Current specs on the iMac of 1.86ghz Intel core duo, 1.5gb of ram, and 128mb radeon x1600?

Thanks

Lion will not work on a Core Duo Mac. It requires a 64-bit CPU. Even with the a CPU upgrade, your iMac will not boot Lion without some as yet undeveloped hacks.

Ollie4c
Jul 19, 2011, 05:04 AM
Lion will not work on a Core Duo Mac. It requires a 64-bit CPU. Even with the a CPU upgrade, your iMac will not boot Lion without some as yet undeveloped hacks.

Since Lion is rumored to be coming out on Wednesday I'd assume quite a few people would want to run it on their socketed iMac or Mac mini upgraded cpu. Could you message me if you find out some way to get it running with the cpu upgrade i mentioned before?

And also would the T7600 fit in my iMac and run right away or would I need to do something special?

Thanks

gvollant
Jul 19, 2011, 07:35 AM
It's not deemed to be a user-serviceable part, and as a consequence you're voiding your warranty by replacing it. Sucks, but that's how these things work.

Warranty is already void because these computer are old !

bige12
Jul 20, 2011, 09:33 AM
It will probally not work since we have the old intel Core Duo Macbooks, the Mac App Store won't let us download lion try it.

shoebobs
Jul 20, 2011, 09:52 AM
So, I just bought a 1.86ghz Intel core duo iMac. If I upgrade the ram to 2gb and the cpu to a t7600 Intel processor will I be able to run Lion without a problem? or will I need to do something special? I am talking about the final release not the early betas.

And is it at all possible to run the Golden master on my Current specs on the iMac of 1.86ghz Intel core duo, 1.5gb of ram, and 128mb radeon x1600?

Thanks

I had a similarly spec'd Mini and I upgraded it with I think a T7300 Core 2 Duo and 2GB ram a while back. The app store won't let me download Lion with that machine (says it's not compatible, but it's probably just looking at the model number, not actual hardware), but I am able to download it on my 2011 MBP. When I get home from work (late) I am going to make a bootable version of the download and follow the steps to modify the plist settings shown in this thread. I'll let you know if the install then works on my Mini.

Intell
Jul 20, 2011, 09:55 AM
I had a similarly spec'd Mini and I upgraded it with I think a T7300 Core 2 Duo and 2GB ram a while back. The app store won't let me download Lion with that machine, but I am able to download it on my 2011 MBP. When I get home from work (late) I am going to make a bootable version of the download and follow the steps to modify the plist settings shown in this thread. I'll let you know if the install then works on my Mini.

The plist hack no longer works. It only worked on the first developer preview. Now one must patch multiple files. The hardest of which are the kernel and boot.efi.

RaNdOm
Jul 20, 2011, 03:19 PM
Can someone confirm that the plist hack no longer works? This is the only place that I've seen it stated that Core Duo's no longer can install Lion.

Intell
Jul 20, 2011, 11:54 PM
Can someone confirm that the plist hack no longer works? This is the only place that I've seen it stated that Core Duo's no longer can install Lion.

It has been confirmed by many long since the release of the 2nd developer preview.

onuryasar
Jul 21, 2011, 02:07 AM
it's stupid. my core duo desktop at the office works much more faster than my core 2 duo macbook, though i can't upgrade it to lion. plan rip-off.

niewiesznic
Jul 21, 2011, 03:29 AM
Is there another solution to instal Lion on upgraded to coe2duo mac mini ?

mcdermd
Jul 21, 2011, 04:10 AM
I haven't put too much effort into it but I think it's checking for 32bit EFI in the installer. The plist hack still works to get the install image to boot but the actual installer app is checking.

I was lazy and got around it by booting my Core 2 Duo-upgraded Core Solo mini into target disk mode, then installing Lion onto it's hard drive from an early 2008 Core 2 Duo Macbook connected with firewire. After the install and a quick modification of the PlatformSupport.plist, Lion has been running fine on the mini (the same as the later developer builds did).

BradClarke
Jul 21, 2011, 05:14 AM
Is there another solution to instal Lion on upgraded to coe2duo mac mini ?

Yes I just installed it on My Mac Mini that was upgraded to a Core 2 Duo. My Mac mini was originally a Core Solo 1.5 Ghz, bought a new 2.0 Ghz Intel C2D processor on ebay and upgraded it.

Here is how todo it:
http://vureyosx.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-to-install-os-x-lion-107-on.html

here the proof, attached below. :)

niewiesznic
Jul 21, 2011, 07:04 AM
Can I add this Educational Files to USB Bootable AppStore OSX Lion version ?
Or it does work only with GM version ?
I would like to be able to use Software Update, and I would like to use the OS I have bought.

4JNA
Jul 21, 2011, 10:34 AM
well, that was easy! installed and working well on a mac mini 1,1 upgraded with a T7200, 2gb ram, etc.

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

what i did...

1. bought and downloaded the retail 10.7 from the app store (11A511)

2. saved the image to an 8gb usb drive

3. installed 10.7 on an known supported device (MBP 2,2) on an external drive.

4. modified the installed 10.7 on the external drive by removing /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist

5. took the external drive and booted the mini, used superduper to image the internal drive, and it works! apps all work, app store, software update, everything. even with the sucky 950 all the animations and eye candy work, no noticeable lag.

best of luck to all the 1,1 upgraders!

Miti96
Jul 21, 2011, 01:43 PM
Any chance there'll be a possibility to let Lion run on non-supported hardware?

Intell
Jul 21, 2011, 01:58 PM
I haven't put too much effort into it but I think it's checking for 32bit EFI in the installer. The plist hack still works to get the install image to boot but the actual installer app is checking.



The 32-bit EFI is not the problem. The first two generations of Mac Pro's have 64-bit CPUs and 32-bit EFI, yet they run Lion without a problem.

well, that was easy! installed and working well on a mac mini 1,1 upgraded with a T7200, 2gb ram, etc.

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

what i did...

1. bought and downloaded the retail 10.7 from the app store (11A511)

2. saved the image to an 8gb usb drive

3. installed 10.7 on an known supported device (MBP 2,2) on an external drive.

4. modified the installed 10.7 on the external drive by removing /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist

5. took the external drive and booted the mini, used superduper to image the internal drive, and it works! apps all work, app store, software update, everything. even with the sucky 950 all the animations and eye candy work, no noticeable lag.

best of luck to all the 1,1 upgraders!

I cannot get this to work. The plist hack hasn't worked since the first developer preview.

revillug
Jul 22, 2011, 04:10 AM
The 32-bit EFI is not the problem. The first two generations of Mac Pro's have 64-bit CPUs and 32-bit EFI, yet they run Lion without a problem.



I cannot get this to work. The plist hack hasn't worked since the first developer preview.

So you followed what 4JNA said? and it didnt work?
It should work, if you can find the supported.plist on the external hd

i will try it soon :)

watons
Jul 22, 2011, 10:00 AM
well, that was easy! installed and working well on a mac mini 1,1 upgraded with a T7200, 2gb ram, etc.

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

what i did...

1. bought and downloaded the retail 10.7 from the app store (11A511)

2. saved the image to an 8gb usb drive

3. installed 10.7 on an known supported device (MBP 2,2) on an external drive.

4. modified the installed 10.7 on the external drive by removing /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist

5. took the external drive and booted the mini, used superduper to image the internal drive, and it works! apps all work, app store, software update, everything. even with the sucky 950 all the animations and eye candy work, no noticeable lag.

best of luck to all the 1,1 upgraders!

but the question is I have no supported device... can u upload the external drive (installed) image for sharing??

revillug
Jul 22, 2011, 10:22 AM
Thanks 4JNA it worked like a charm!

if anyone else is struggling just follow 4JNA's mini guide!

:)

Ollie4c
Jul 22, 2011, 05:47 PM
Is there a way I can download a modified backup from 4JNA's guide? I don't have a mac that can run lion natively nor do I have access to one. So is their a way I can do it without a core 2 duo and up mac around. Maybe a modified backup that someone could send to me or something like that?

Thanks

Intell
Jul 22, 2011, 06:01 PM
Is there a way I can download a modified backup from 4JNA's guide? I don't have a mac that can run lion natively nor do I have access to one. So is their a way I can do it without a core 2 duo and up mac around. Maybe a modified backup that someone could send to me or something like that?

Thanks

No, doing so is illegal.

SideStepSociety
Jul 22, 2011, 06:04 PM
Is there a way I can download a modified backup from 4JNA's guide? I don't have a mac that can run lion natively nor do I have access to one. So is their a way I can do it without a core 2 duo and up mac around. Maybe a modified backup that someone could send to me or something like that?

Thanks

Creating a Lion virtual machine and cloning the virtual drive worked for me.

Ollie4c
Jul 22, 2011, 06:24 PM
No, doing so is illegal.

I have no problem buying it from the app store, but it won't let me. I'll buy an extra copy of Snow Leopard to make up for the 29.99 I am not giving to Apple for Lion. Will that work for you?

Intell
Jul 22, 2011, 06:29 PM
I have no problem buying it from the app store, but it won't let me. I'll buy an extra copy of Snow Leopard to make up for the 29.99 I am not giving to Apple for Lion. Will that work for you?

The question isn't about me. Its about Apple's lawyers. In the event they sue you, that will not pass. In addition, piracy is not allowed to be discussed on Macrumors.

Ollie4c
Jul 22, 2011, 06:36 PM
The question isn't about me. Its about Apple's lawyers. In the event they sue you, that will not pass. In addition, piracy is not allowed to be discussed on Macrumors.

How do you suggest I go about getting it legally if apple won't allow me to download it?

METOO999
Jul 22, 2011, 06:38 PM
well, that was easy! installed and working well on a mac mini 1,1 upgraded with a T7200, 2gb ram, etc.

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

what i did...

1. bought and downloaded the retail 10.7 from the app store (11A511)

2. saved the image to an 8gb usb drive...

best of luck to all the 1,1 upgraders!

Wow, thanks! I'm going to try this on my white CD Macbook. Luckily my black C2D Macbook will help out. ;-)

Intell
Jul 22, 2011, 06:39 PM
How do you suggest I go about getting it legally if apple won't allow me to download it?

Find a friend that has a supported Mac, login into their Mac App Store with your Apple ID, download the Lion app, copy the installer to a portable media, use it for your own uses.

Ollie4c
Jul 22, 2011, 06:48 PM
Creating a Lion virtual machine and cloning the virtual drive worked for me.

Can you give me step by step instructions on how to do this? I have a legal copy of VMware Fusion, and I will download a legal copy of Lion somehow. What do I do now?

Thanks

SideStepSociety
Jul 22, 2011, 07:11 PM
This guide worked for me.

http://osxdaily.com/2011/03/07/install-run-mac-os-x-10-7-lion-in-a-virtual-machine-with-vmware/

shoebobs
Jul 23, 2011, 12:30 AM
well, that was easy! installed and working well on a mac mini 1,1 upgraded with a T7200, 2gb ram, etc.

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

what i did...

1. bought and downloaded the retail 10.7 from the app store (11A511)

2. saved the image to an 8gb usb drive

3. installed 10.7 on an known supported device (MBP 2,2) on an external drive.

4. modified the installed 10.7 on the external drive by removing /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist

5. took the external drive and booted the mini, used superduper to image the internal drive, and it works! apps all work, app store, software update, everything. even with the sucky 950 all the animations and eye candy work, no noticeable lag.

best of luck to all the 1,1 upgraders!

This worked for me. Thanks!

METOO999
Jul 23, 2011, 03:15 AM
well, that was easy! installed and working well on a mac mini 1,1 upgraded with a T7200, 2gb ram, etc.

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

what i did...

1. bought and downloaded the retail 10.7 from the app store (11A511)

2. saved the image to an 8gb usb drive

3. installed 10.7 on an known supported device (MBP 2,2) on an external drive.

4. modified the installed 10.7 on the external drive by removing /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist

5. took the external drive and booted the mini, used superduper to image the internal drive, and it works! apps all work, app store, software update, everything. even with the sucky 950 all the animations and eye candy work, no noticeable lag.

best of luck to all the 1,1 upgraders!

Just to clarify some steps. I installed Lion onto a blank external USB through my C2D Mac. Then I deleted the plist file and used SuperDuper to make a read-only DMG of the external system and copied that to the USB drive.

So my next steps are to boot up with a Lion DVD and format the Core Duo Mac internal drive. Then I restore the DMG to the internal. Is that right?

Draeconis
Jul 23, 2011, 06:43 AM
Wow, thanks! I'm going to try this on my white CD Macbook. Luckily my black C2D Macbook will help out. ;-)

Unless you've replaced the CD in your MacBook with a C2D, I don't think it's gonna work. As far as I know, all core services are 64bit only, and CD is 32bit, so won't run Lion.

jaco3700
Jul 23, 2011, 07:07 AM
Hi all,

So, this is only going to work if you update the processor? Not on a core duo?

sw1002
Jul 23, 2011, 07:14 AM
Just to clarify some steps. I installed Lion onto a blank external USB through my C2D Mac. Then I deleted the plist file and used SuperDuper to make a read-only DMG of the external system and copied that to the USB drive.

So my next steps are to boot up with a Lion DVD and format the Core Duo Mac internal drive. Then I restore the DMG to the internal. Is that right?



hi i followed also 4JNA steps but im stuck with how to get the external drive content back to the internal.

Do I just have to user SUperduper with the copy command?
When I used SuperDuper with the "COPY" option, but Super Duper did not wipe the disk, it only replaced system files and the internal doesnt boot now at all. Super Duper did not create the Recovery Partition also?
PLZ help! and send maybe a detailed how-to....
How Can I make super duper to copy it 1:1, also creating the restore partition.
or in that way that user files and programms will be preserved and the system gets updated=

shrx
Jul 23, 2011, 08:32 AM
Can anyone confirm if you can also get AirDrop on unsupported computers with this method?

official AirDrop requirements:
MacBookPro (Late 2008 or newer)
MacBook Air (Late 2010 or newer)
MacBook (Late 2008 or newer)
iMac (Early 2009 or newer)
Mac Mini (Mid 2010 or newer)
Mac Pro (Early 2009 with AirPort Extreme card, or Mid 2010)

I have early 2008 mbp and I'm interested if there is a way to get AirDrop to work.

METOO999
Jul 23, 2011, 11:56 AM
Unless you've replaced the CD in your MacBook with a C2D, I don't think it's gonna work. As far as I know, all core services are 64bit only, and CD is 32bit, so won't run Lion.

That'll teach me not to read forums past 2am! ;)

shoebobs
Jul 23, 2011, 01:20 PM
hi i followed also 4JNA steps but im stuck with how to get the external drive content back to the internal.

Do I just have to user SUperduper with the copy command?
When I used SuperDuper with the "COPY" option, but Super Duper did not wipe the disk, it only replaced system files and the internal doesnt boot now at all. Super Duper did not create the Recovery Partition also?
PLZ help! and send maybe a detailed how-to....
How Can I make super duper to copy it 1:1, also creating the restore partition.
or in that way that user files and programms will be preserved and the system gets updated=

After you modify/edit the plist, Boot from the external drive on your unsupported Mac. On superduper, choose to copy from the external drive to the internal and select the option "backup - all files." Once you click "Copy Now," a warning should pop up that says it will completely format the internal drive; click to proceed. One of the first steps in the copy process should be that it formats the internal drive and it will completely copy the drive over.

I have the same question though about the recovery drive. This is not on my machine. I don't think I'd ever use it, but it would be nice to have the option...anybody else know how to get that copied over?

ethermcman
Jul 24, 2011, 09:41 AM
Hi all!
I've succesfully installed Mac OS X Lion GM on a Mac Mini 1,1 with T7200 and 2 Gb of ram.
What I've done and what I've used:
- a bootable USB stick with Lion GM
- a supported mac system to install Lion GM
- a firewire wire

1) Boot up your mac mini in Target Mode
2) Link it with your supported Mac
3) Boot up your supported Mac with your USB stick
4) Complete the lion installation on the firewire disk (the mac mini disk)
5) Wait about 45 min
6) The installation reboots your system
7) Boot with your supported mac on firewire targeted disk
8) Delete /System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist
9) Halt your supported Mac
10) Halt your mac mini
11) Power on and enjoy ;)

System fully working and this process seems for me easier than the USB disk and cloning trick.

weckart
Jul 24, 2011, 10:57 AM
How is the performance considering that the max ram that these systems can physically run is the absolute minimum recommended for Lion?

I had updated my cpu in my mac mini a while back in anticipation of future upgrades being 64bit only, but seeing how much memory Safari sucks up on my other Macs I am not sure the upgrade is worth it.

[EDIT] Tried it by the method shown on the macmini123 forums and by the poster above, except I just used the downloaded installer to upgrade my Mac Mini over FW rather than bother with creating a bootable usb pen. Took a little longer than installing directly, but not a single problem en route - absolutely painless and all my files and settings were retained.

Remains to be seen what checks the point upgrades will make before installing, if any, but there will probably be a similar bypass method of installing those, too, if they play up.

Only downside - no AirDrop, although my wifi card is a compatible genuine Apple broadcom card.

niewiesznic
Jul 24, 2011, 11:15 AM
What is the performance of Mac Mini 1.1 under Lion?
I have 2Gb RAM, and old Kingston SSD inside. I am using it to play movies from NAS, and EyeTV ?
Is it faster then Snow Leo ?

niewiesznic
Jul 24, 2011, 02:45 PM
Target mode IS WORKING!
You have to delete it (/System/Library/CoreServices/PlatformSupport.plist) booting from another computer and mac mini 1,1 in target mode, then the catalog and file can be seen. :)

Paradoxpm
Aug 6, 2011, 04:56 AM
still no luck for a finder alternative for the original core solo/duo? (I guess you can't upgrade an early 2006 macbook).

stevepunkrock
Aug 7, 2011, 04:48 PM
Anyone tried installing Lion on a Core2Duo machine, copying that installation on a machine running a Core Duo, and then booting the computer by pressing 3 and 2 for forcing Lion in 32 Bits Mode?

Paradoxpm
Aug 9, 2011, 04:57 AM
Anyone tried installing Lion on a Core2Duo machine, copying that installation on a machine running a Core Duo, and then booting the computer by pressing 3 and 2 for forcing Lion in 32 Bits Mode?

Doubtful about it. How's that? Did anybody try?

niewiesznic
Aug 16, 2011, 05:01 PM
Does your system work after upgrade to 10.7.1 ?

shoebobs
Aug 16, 2011, 05:35 PM
Ok, I bit the bullet and ran software update/upgraded to 10.7.1 on my mini.

My upgraded machine:
Model: Mac Mini 1,1
CPU: Upgraded to a T7200 core 2 duo
Ram: Upgraded to Crucial 2GB (2 x 1GB) Ram model CT2KIT12864AC667
SSD: Intel 320 Series 120 GB SSDSA2CW120G3K5

The machine booted up perfectly. This is a secondary machine so all I did was open up firefox and verified Wi-Fi worked. There could be glitches in other areas of the OS, but most importantly it booted up properly.

OverSpun
Aug 16, 2011, 06:15 PM
Does your system work after upgrade to 10.7.1 ?

I'm wondering about this too. I have an early '06 Mini w/ 2gb ram, but I have Lion on my unibody laptop with the retail version until its been all organized so I can install it on my mac mini. :)

mcdermd
Aug 16, 2011, 06:27 PM
10.7.1 update worked fine without any need to mess with anything on my T7400 upgraded Core Solo mini.

niewiesznic
Aug 16, 2011, 06:58 PM
It works on MacMini 1,1 upgraded to c2d and 2gb ram.

saulinpa
Aug 16, 2011, 09:15 PM
Weird - My macmini1,1 w/T7200 tells me that software is up to date. Need to find the .dmg file and try that.

Update: DMG doesn't work either. Doesn't look like it is a mini specific issue. Says "Mac OS X Update can't be installed on this disk. An error occurred while evaluating JavaScript for the package." Strange as this is a fresh install of Lion as of last week.