PDA

View Full Version : Apple TV Running Full Mac OS X




MacRumors
Mar 31, 2007, 08:38 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

AppleTVHacks posts (http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/04/01/mac-os-x-running-on-apple-tv/) walk through to boot full Mac OS X on the Apple TV, along with keyboard and mouse support.

At this time, the 14 step hack requires opening the Apple TV, installing Mac OS X on the hard drive, and modifying some Operating System files.

It does, however, represent the ability to convert a $299 Apple TV into (what appears to be) a full Mac OS X machine. They also point to a Youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3qvJSMojBQ) as proof of the hack.



matticus008
Mar 31, 2007, 08:43 PM
This is cool and all, but wouldn't it just be easier to buy a Mac mini? By the time you get up to a usable amount of storage and RAM, you've spent the same amount of money. Then there's the whole "no optical drive" thing which makes installing some software a bit of a hassle (but converting CDs into ISOs for mounting is one of the first things I do with purchased software anyway).

If you're using it to run, say, a MythTV frontend, though, this is a nice, Apple-branded option.

Peace
Mar 31, 2007, 08:45 PM
This is dumb..

What people would be doing is getting a low quality Mac in terms of CPU and RAM AND Hard Drive.

They do get OS 10.4.7 though :rolleyes:

ricksbrain
Mar 31, 2007, 08:48 PM
You're missing the point. Notice all the hacking attention to Appletv? This means that it could sell well to various consumers, not just the high-end hi-def tv owners.

The more Apple hardware the better because it will allow Apple to leverage it even more in time.

This is good in my opinion. Very good.

failsafe1
Mar 31, 2007, 08:48 PM
Would you need to upgrade anything? The hard drive is on 20 gb smaller. What are the ram specs on the ATV? I would not think you could upgrade that like you can on the mini. For a simple machine that could manage media and now be used to do other things in the place of a mini this is an interesting development.

VanMac
Mar 31, 2007, 08:49 PM
Good Hack.

The more devices running OSX the better :)

Xander562
Mar 31, 2007, 08:57 PM
I like this hack, I would do this for a very very small child learning to use a computer or a senior citizen. :mad: Cheaper than a mac mini for only ultra-simple purposes. Word processing, internet, e-mail, and chess and that's it. Very nice.

jsw
Mar 31, 2007, 08:59 PM
This is dumb..

What people would be doing is getting a low quality Mac in terms of CPU and RAM AND Hard Drive.

They do get OS 10.4.7 though :rolleyes:
The tutorial recommends an update to at least 10.4.8. Assuming you have the ability to clone the drive and then install OS X onto it (and so don't need to buy another HD), you're looking at a $300 Mac with component and HDMI output. Yeah, it's not a powerhouse. But it'd be a decent family room entertainment center/email station/web browser, and, with a BT dongle on the back, it takes up virtually no room.

mlrproducts
Mar 31, 2007, 09:02 PM
The tutorial recommends an update to at least 10.4.8. Assuming you have the ability to clone the drive and then install OS X onto it (and so don't need to buy another HD), you're looking at a $300 Mac with component and HDMI output. Yeah, it's not a powerhouse. But it'd be a decent family room entertainment center/email station/web browser, and, with a BT dongle on the back, it takes up virtually no room.

And there, ladies in gents, is why it kicks butt!

Wonder how many ATVs will be sold tonight?

clevin
Mar 31, 2007, 09:05 PM
a machine with 1G CPU, 256MB RAM, no CD/DVD drive, really, a low end mini is well worth that extra $$$ than cheap APPLE TV MINI COMPUTER.

kskill
Mar 31, 2007, 09:06 PM
how long before people end up doing the same to iphone?

jsw
Mar 31, 2007, 09:09 PM
a machine with 1G CPU, 256MB RAM, no CD/DVD drive, really, a low end mini is well worth that extra $$$ than cheap APPLE TV MINI COMPUTER.
Odd... my parents use my old 4.5-year-old iMac with lessor specs (except for RAM) and have no problems. This is a faster version of that, with the ability to download and watch movies and shows off of iTMS or other sources at 720p for $299. Doesn't seem all that bad to me.

puuukeey
Mar 31, 2007, 09:12 PM
first of all, I would assume(correct me if I'm wrong) this is the cheapest mac EVER. in my opinion, apple should sell it with os10 on it.

this makes the macintosh viable for many "cheap linux box only" applications.

if you want to leave something in your basement that does dial-in voice mail or home automation. if you want to do a mac based kiosk. Point of sale, VOIP. The multimedia art applications are endless. For white trash to pimp out their cars with a slick nav system and runs disgusting neon! For $300, I'm sure super evil ripoff monster cable will sell a wireless HDMI adapter for that much. It could make for the cheapest render farm evar. I wonder if logic will distribute processing to it. For 300 bucks I'd load porn and run it 24/7/365 on an old monitor in my kitchen. (wait what?!)

plus the obvious. what if you want something OTHER than the altered front row!

SeaFox
Mar 31, 2007, 09:17 PM
This is dumb..
What people would be doing is getting a low quality Mac in terms of CPU and RAM AND Hard Drive.


I can see a nice use for this as a file/print server on a network. Hey, turn on internet connection sharing and we have a wireless access point, too!

It's the all-in-one gateway that uses less power, generates less noise and heat, and is cheaper than getting a Mac Mini to do the job.

SiliconAddict
Mar 31, 2007, 09:19 PM
Now the question I have is how about BootCamp and XP Media Center Edition?

EDIT: Never mind. 256MB of RAM? Gags. I'd never run Windows on less then 512MB. Apple must have the thing seriously stripped down to run OS X on 256MB.

mashinhead
Mar 31, 2007, 09:19 PM
how long before people end up doing the same to iphone?

what i want to know is why there is no itunes intergration on the i phone? wouldn't it be cool to use it as a remote for itunes on the airport extreme.

clevin
Mar 31, 2007, 09:20 PM
Odd... my parents use my old 4.5-year-old iMac with lessor specs (except for RAM) and have no problems. This is a faster version of that, with the ability to download and watch movies and shows off of iTMS or other sources at 720p for $299. Doesn't seem all that bad to me.

well, the problem is:
1. once this TV MINI's OS crashed, users don't even have a way to insert OS disk to do any repair.
2. Tiger's minimum RAM requirement is 256, and we know how slow OSes are when they are run on minimum RAM.

Dagless
Mar 31, 2007, 09:20 PM
I would love something like that.

Makes you wonder why Apple don't release a super budget Mac. Something to test the water with for reasons mentioned above. I would get one of these for word processing or web browsing alone!

akac
Mar 31, 2007, 09:21 PM
how long before people end up doing the same to iphone?

Never. Its simply not the same thing. First of all, its not an Intel x86 based device. Second, its not using OS X as the Apple TV is. Its using a cut down OS X that's been customized for the processor, screen, and applications that the iPhone runs. So first, you'd have to get the OS X source (not just the kernel - all of it) and compile it for the iPhone using a build of XCode that is not publicly available (since it compiles for that processor). Next, you'd have to find the drivers to run the specialized hardware the iPhone runs.

Now I'm sure it will be possible to run Linux or something on the iPhone at some point much like they did on the iPod. But I don't think you'll be able to do anything with it including use the screen :)

matticus008
Mar 31, 2007, 09:28 PM
Now the question I have is how about BootCamp and XP Media Center Edition?
MCE won't install; the remote wouldn't be supported and there'd be no TV capture options, and MCE's installer crashes on all sorts of unsupported hardware.

Regular XP probably would go right in, though. What the point would be, I don't know.

rockthecasbah
Mar 31, 2007, 09:30 PM
Does anybody have a mirror to the You Tube video? The link goes to a video that is no longer available according to you tube...

Eidorian
Mar 31, 2007, 09:31 PM
It's an interesting prospect of having a $300 Mac with a single core. If you got 1 GB in it, it would be a great starter machine. I'd get one just to have a spare machine around.

Mac thin client? :rolleyes:

motulist
Mar 31, 2007, 09:48 PM
A cheap, small, attractive mac would be PERFECT for me! I download lots of big files, but I have a laptop, so it's a drag. If I had an ATV Mac I could just set it up to download all my media files all day and all night, and it could also play those media files directly to my tv and stereo! That would be awesome!

If the ATV can be made into a functional mac then my answer to the poll "Are you buying an Apple TV?" just went from 'no' to a definite 'maybe.'

Edit: Though the lack of an optical drive is a minus, but maybe one could be added cheaply via usb. But that makes the package less cheap, small and attractive.

zimtheinvader
Mar 31, 2007, 09:50 PM
Ok, now do the iPhone!!!

Boo all you naysayers, perhaps it can indeed be done!

McScooby
Mar 31, 2007, 09:56 PM
All well and good saying a basic OSX capable machine, but wait until an update/security update appears and breaks the hack!

If a slimmed down version can run on a 4GB phone, what's the big deal with a disk 10x the size and a processor that beats tech from 9 years ago, I'm still using my original bondi blue iMac on a day to day basis, just because you can doesn't make it revolutionary.

Next we'll be hearing about an iPhone that acts as an Apple TV!!!

Sure you can mess about with things, but this doesn't necessarily mean you should, it defeats the purpose/definition of everything apple!

uaaerospace
Mar 31, 2007, 09:57 PM
I download lots of big files, but I have a laptop, so it's a drag. If I had an ATV Mac I could just set it up to download all my media files all day and all night, and it could also play those media files directly to my tv and stereo!

I smell a rat. :p

wavelayer
Mar 31, 2007, 09:59 PM
Will it run OS 9? I hope so.

uaaerospace
Mar 31, 2007, 10:01 PM
Will it run OS 9? I hope so.

OS 9 was written for PPC, so I don't expect to see it running on an Intel powered :apple:TV.

twoodcc
Mar 31, 2007, 10:02 PM
Good Hack.

The more devices running OSX the better :)

true.

i think this is pretty cool :) i'm not going to go buy one of these things though....i wonder if someone can do some benchmarks on it though? i wonder if it'd be faster than a 1.42 PPC mini?

dwhittington
Mar 31, 2007, 10:02 PM
I've heard of many who mod their Mac Minis for war driving or in-vehicle entertainment. It seems like a stripped down system like the AppleTV might be even better for this kind of thing, especially with all the different AV ports. Frankly, this seems compelling with or without a full OSX on the box.

ripfrankwhite
Mar 31, 2007, 10:06 PM
Video is no longer available. Any other links?

motulist
Mar 31, 2007, 10:09 PM
Will it run OS 9? I hope so.

Sorry, no new hardware will ever run OS 9 natively ever again because OS 9 only runs on PowerPC chips, not Intel chips. Never ever. But all computers can run OS 9 by using a PPC emulator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheepShaver

jackjason
Mar 31, 2007, 10:15 PM
the http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/04/01/mac-os-x-running-on-apple-tv/
updated the video to google video..
go watch sooon
as it still there..

pianodude123
Mar 31, 2007, 10:29 PM
The youtube vid does not work for me.

tonyeck
Mar 31, 2007, 10:32 PM
The youtube vid does not work for me.

look above your post

twoodcc
Mar 31, 2007, 10:34 PM
the http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/04/01/mac-os-x-running-on-apple-tv/
updated the video to google video..
go watch sooon
as it still there..

thanks for the link....i got to see the video.....pretty cool

Taselcult
Mar 31, 2007, 10:37 PM
For white trash to pimp out their cars with a slick nav system and runs disgusting neon!

I think people are missing a gold mine here. Imagine this: You get into your car for a trip. kids are in the back, bouncing around as kids do. They drop down the little LCD screen in the SUV. Then pulling out the apple remote, they slect the new song they just downloaded onto the home iMac. Later on the trip they switch from music to Pirates movie without ever putting in a DVD. A little while later they watch they're favorite episode of Sponge Bob. How is this possible?

Apple Tv

Your car while at home wireless conected to your wireless network from the Garage. It sync'd all the new movies, music and other content from iTunes. No wires, no bringing the ipod, no having to remember to transfer a movie or remmebering to bring the cables to hook to the AV port in the car. Your Music, Your Movies, Your TV... anywhere your car is.

How sweet would that be?

BlueRevolution
Mar 31, 2007, 10:38 PM
Remember, when you consider the price of this $299 hardware you have to include the $99 purchase of OS X, if you want to do it the legal way. The Mini comes with it preinstalled, so you have to compare the iTV at $398 vs. the Mini at $599. Then if you want to add 512 MB of RAM that's another $100 - and the Combo Drive alone is worth the remaining $101 difference.

But if you have an iTV anyway and a copy of OS X lying around it could be a fun enough thing to tinker with. I'm just saying it doesn't really increase the iTV's appeal for most people.

What I'm wondering is if it works the other way. It would be cool to take an old Mini and install the :apple:TV's operating system on that to run as a media center.

notjustjay
Mar 31, 2007, 10:42 PM
So if Apple TV is a (cut down) OS X install, what is its boot time like?

I've never been a big fan of consumer electronic appliances that take a while to boot up, and the way things are going, many such appliances are actually full-fledged desktop computers in disguise...

LumbermanSVO
Mar 31, 2007, 10:46 PM
It would be great to have a Mini in my truck with the syncing ability of the :apple: TV and the interface. I'd also like to be able to exit the :apple: TV interface, like front row, for GPS use.

I'm also a stereo geek so having Bootcamp/XP to tune computer controlled processors for tuning would be fantastic, no laptop needed.

RichP
Mar 31, 2007, 10:52 PM
Remember, when you consider the price of this $299 hardware you have to include the $99 purchase of OS X, if you want to do it the legal way. The Mini comes with it preinstalled, so you have to compare the iTV at $398 vs. the Mini at $599. Then if you want to add 512 MB of RAM that's another $100 - and the Combo Drive alone is worth the remaining $101 difference.

But if you have an iTV anyway and a copy of OS X lying around it could be a fun enough thing to tinker with. I'm just saying it doesn't really increase the iTV's appeal for most people.

What I'm wondering is if it works the other way. It would be cool to take an old Mini and install the :apple:TV's operating system on that to run as a media center.

exactly what I want! I would start a $$ pool to get "backrow" on a mini with DVD player functionality in it.

wmmk
Mar 31, 2007, 11:23 PM
Good Hack.

The more devices running OSX the better :)
As long as they're not generic peecees!;)
The tutorial recommends an update to at least 10.4.8. Assuming you have the ability to clone the drive and then install OS X onto it (and so don't need to buy another HD), you're looking at a $300 Mac with component and HDMI output. Yeah, it's not a powerhouse. But it'd be a decent family room entertainment center/email station/web browser, and, with a BT dongle on the back, it takes up virtually no room.
Great point. I wonder if yo could Photoshop CS3 Extended on it...:D

And to everyone saying this kind of thing would be good for iPhone, isn't the whole point of that the nicely integrated software already on it? OSX on that small of a screen would be a pain for most people, I think.

ChrisA
Mar 31, 2007, 11:38 PM
I can see a nice use for this as a file/print server on a network. Hey, turn on internet connection sharing and we have a wireless access point, too!

Doesn't Apple sell an "Airport Extreme" base-station for less then $200 that can also serve as a file and print server?

The ATV has a graphic subsystem that makes it to expensive to use for a server

Wild-Bill
Mar 31, 2007, 11:58 PM
I'd like to see someone port a MythTV install to the :apple: TV. If they did that, I'd buy, I suppose.

motulist
Apr 1, 2007, 12:10 AM
I'd like to see someone port a MythTV install to the :apple: TV. If they did that, I'd buy, I suppose.

I heard that people are working on that.

Wild-Bill
Apr 1, 2007, 12:12 AM
I believe it's already been done.

Really?

..............googles MythTV AppleTV......... :D

I've got a spare 80 gig 5400 RPM 2.5 drive that was pulled from my Powerbook when I installed a 100 gig 7200 rpm drive, AND it's got my install of OSX on it.... hmmm....................

motulist
Apr 1, 2007, 12:15 AM
Really?

..............googles MythTV AppleTV......... :D

I misspoke, I heard that people are working on it.

Daringescape
Apr 1, 2007, 12:17 AM
[QUOTE=What I'm wondering is if it works the other way. It would be cool to take an old Mini and install the :apple:TV's operating system on that to run as a media center.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I was thinking.... can I run the apple software on an old mac, and have a full working computer as well?

Hmmm......

ortuno2k
Apr 1, 2007, 01:25 AM
I think my name changed too?
hahaha :)
Edit: I thought I originally posted on the April Fool's Thread

bankshot
Apr 1, 2007, 01:31 AM
Well, this is certainly interesting. My primary use for a Mac mini or AppleTV would be to use Front Row and DVD Player to browse and view my DVDs (ripped to hard drive). I was disappointed to find that the AppleTV would not play VIDEO_TS folders from ripped DVDs.

With this hack, I suspect the CPU and RAM in the AppleTV would be capable of these tasks. The memory would be tight, but maybe that could be alleviated somewhat by turning off all unnecessary services. Certainly Spotlight should be turned off.

Very intriguing, just too bad that currently there's no retail version of Mac OS X that runs on the AppleTV. Getting any version onto it is clearly illegal at this point. That's really too bad. I wonder if a Leopard family pack license could be legally used? Apple would surely argue that the AppleTV does not qualify as an "Apple-labeled computer" (however they word the license) and therefore it's illegal, but would that hold up if it went to court?

Interesting indeed.

localoid
Apr 1, 2007, 01:40 AM
It's an interesting prospect of having a $300 Mac with a single core. If you got 1 GB in it, it would be a great starter machine. I'd get one just to have a spare machine around.

Mac thin client? :rolleyes:

Who knows? Perhaps the hackability of :apple: tv will create enough interest in "open Darwin" types projects to actually generate applications (for open Darwin vs. Mac OS X)... :rolleyes:

Is the port of LTP (http://www.ltsp.org/) to OS X ready yet? :p

nagromme
Apr 1, 2007, 01:41 AM
In time, a Mini WILL cost $299 :) And have more power than today's Mini (certainly much more than an AppleTV).

In the meantime, I'd be happy to see the current Mini fall back below $500.

dornoforpyros
Apr 1, 2007, 02:02 AM
This may have been mentioned before, but who's up for running a little Bit Torrent in their living room?

localoid
Apr 1, 2007, 02:17 AM
...
Very intriguing, just too bad that currently there's no retail version of Mac OS X that runs on the AppleTV. Getting any version onto it is clearly illegal at this point. That's really too bad. I wonder if a Leopard family pack license could be legally used? Apple would surely argue that the AppleTV does not qualify as an "Apple-labeled computer" (however they word the license) and therefore it's illegal, but would that hold up if it went to court?...

Yes. Currently, you need to make use of a Intel Mac's OS to pull this "experiment" off. But since it's just an experiment by a few non-technophobic individuals at this point in time, will such experiments cause Apple great concern? :)

The "most legal" method at this point in time would be to run a system based on totally on Apple's open source core (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html); legal, albeit extremely limited in comparison to the commercial Mac OS X. But as I said early, perhaps :apple: tv might actually foster the development of "real" open source applications (for the open OS X core)... which would seem to be a "good thing" for all parties. :p

localoid
Apr 1, 2007, 02:36 AM
Odd... my parents use my old 4.5-year-old iMac with lessor specs (except for RAM) and have no problems....

Keyword: RAM :rolleyes:

Will someone running the "full" OS X on "teh atv" run "vm_stat" in a terminal window and report what "pageouts" says? :p

PPC970FX
Apr 1, 2007, 03:13 AM
I never thougt I would ever say this but, thank god for Vista. Apple did mac os x kill the box with the fact that it only have 256mb RAM. BUT if we could impliment the USB sticks as RAM. boom you got up to 8 GB of ram, some of the usb sticks are well not fast but will make a BIG speed difference. If we could impliment that on the Apple TV in mac os x, there you have the perfect cheap smal and livingroomish computer.

Not a powerhouse but kicks ass in what I think of its uses are.
some browsing
video
music
looking at pics
+
as good as everyting a normal mac can do just slower

timmillwood
Apr 1, 2007, 03:22 AM
I think apple should release a system like this $299 for Mac mini nano.

They would sell Millions, because some home users don't wanna pay a lot for a machine just to check e-mails and look-up recipes etc online.

Package it, Mac Nano, Apple Keyboard and mouse, 17" cheap screen all for $499 BARGIN!

localoid
Apr 1, 2007, 03:24 AM
... BUT if we could impliment the USB sticks as RAM. boom you got up to 8 GB of ram...

You meant this as an April Fools joke, I assume? :rolleyes:

Clive At Five
Apr 1, 2007, 03:35 AM
Wow... I would deactivate all OS X non-essentials, get a USB hub, an eyeTV and see what can be done here...

-Clive

Multimedia
Apr 1, 2007, 03:40 AM
So if this is possible, why the hell hasn't Apple started selling a Mac like this for $299? Greed?

So is the RAM soldered to motherboard so you can't increase it?

Where's the web surfing video so we can see how snappy Safari is?

Congratulations to the creators of this amazing hack. Thank you kids.Wow... I would deactivate all OS X non-essentials, get a USB hub, an eyeTV and see what can be done here...Oh yeah baby. Make the :apple:TV an EyeTV DVR with an internal 750GB HD and an external series of large USB2 Drives. Any word on what 1GHz processor that is? I may buy one yet now that I've see this much. Can the :apple:TV drive the full 1080i from EyeTV 1080i recordings? It'll still look very good as 720P I'm sure.

Did you guys notice they even have the Apple URL icon in front of their URL? Man the Apple lawyers are going to have a field day with these kids. If Apple had half a brain, they'd track these kids down and give them a $1 Million award for creativity and launch the $299 NanoMac tomorrow as part of their 31st anniversary celebration. Would be amazing publicity stunt and sell millions overnight.

matticus008
Apr 1, 2007, 03:52 AM
So if this is possible, why the hell hasn't Apple started selling a Mac like this for $299?
Same reason BMW doesn't sell a $15,000 car and Cuisinart doesn't make a $15 blender and that Pillsbury or Gold Medal flour still costs more than generic.

If Apple released this machine as a computer, it would be berated and victimized by outraged Internet people for years to come for how weak and incomplete it is.

No optical drive, small hard drive, sad little processor, no Firewire, one USB port, no minijack audio output, 256MB of RAM, no iLife and no way to attach a PC monitor directly, just to start. It would be a disaster. The fact that it can be modified to run as a low-end computer is a nice bonus, but it wouldn't sell the other way around (as a crappy computer that could also be a media center).

iMikeT
Apr 1, 2007, 04:08 AM
I think I'm going to set a count-down clock to the day that Apple releases an update to :apple:tv preventing all the hacking.

SpaceMagic
Apr 1, 2007, 04:11 AM
Let's get BootCamp and Windows running on it tee hee... XP with 256mb and 1ghz isn't too bad.

I hope Apple doesn't prevent hacking. It's up to people what they do with their own hardware.

localoid
Apr 1, 2007, 04:38 AM
In reply to multimedia's question -- "So if this is possible, why the hell hasn't Apple started selling a Mac like this for $299?" matticus008 replied:

...If Apple released this machine as a computer, it would be berated and victimized by outraged Internet people for years to come for how weak and incomplete it is.

No optical drive, small hard drive, sad little processor, no Firewire, one USB port, no minijack audio output, 256MB of RAM, no iLife and no way to attach a PC monitor directly, just to start. It would be a disaster. The fact that it can be modified to run as a low-end computer is a nice bonus, but it wouldn't sell the other way around (as a crappy computer that could also be a media center).

Reality = exactly <what matticus008 said>

How many people already complain about how "underpowered" the current Mac mini is since it's "only" using a Core Duo? Or asking: "Why does Apple even sell a combo drive anymore? That's so Twentieth Century and just yukie-poo!" Or whine "The mini comes with 512MB? It should come with 120MB HD and 2GB RAM standard for $499! What a ripoff!"

Some things never change: Joe Average Consumer will always want/desire a do-everything box that'd super cheap, and will always have totally unreasonable expectations about what they should be able to do with such a bargain box. :rolleyes:

MacFly123
Apr 1, 2007, 04:57 AM
This might be really cool to put an Apple TV in your car and with 802.11n it could sync to your computer while the car is parked in the garage :) Does anyone have any thoughts on that or know of it being done? I know Minis have been put in cars, let me know people ;)

Digitaljim
Apr 1, 2007, 05:16 AM
If this all turns out to be true - and not a sneaky April Fool trick - I have to say I'm very tempted. I don't think many people would use it as their main workstation, but for safari/itunes/office I assume its specs would make would it run fine. My Dad has been doing all that stuff with Tiger on a 500ghz G3 with 256mb ram for ages now.

One question to those in the know: on a scale of 1 to 10, how difficult is the 14 step guide to complete? Would I need to be an übergeek to get this impressive addition running in my living room?

Bonte
Apr 1, 2007, 05:32 AM
In time, a Mini WILL cost $299 :) And have more power than today's Mini (certainly much more than an AppleTV).

In the meantime, I'd be happy to see the current Mini fall back below $500.

Maybe in a long long time from now, Apple will pump up the specs to justify the current price tag. Cheaper models will be generic PC's running 10.5, my bet is that all Intel Core duo proc's will be supported. Maybe only the 64 bit machines that are poorly supported in Windows but it will run on practically all PC hardware.

k2k koos
Apr 1, 2007, 05:34 AM
true.

i think this is pretty cool :) i'm not going to go buy one of these things though....i wonder if someone can do some benchmarks on it though? i wonder if it'd be faster than a 1.42 PPC mini?

for the same reason, I wonder if it would beat my 1.25Ghz PPC Mac mini at home?
I know I would never replace it with an :apple: TV, but just curious :-)

k2k koos
Apr 1, 2007, 05:42 AM
Let's forget about the Apple TV for a minute, and look at the broader picture here.
There are more and more people 'hacking' and experimenting with Macs, and other things Apple. A few years ago, this wasn't so much the case, hacking etc was done on PC's , running a Linux variety, or Windows or whatever, not a lot of Macs, at least not in the public eye.

I think this is living proof that Apple, and Macs, are beginning to gain foothold with a larger public, and for once it's not a statistic.
Great stuff!

psychofreak
Apr 1, 2007, 05:44 AM
Let's forget about the Apple TV for a minute, and look at the broader picture here.
There are more and more people 'hacking' and experimenting with Macs, and other things Apple. A few years ago, this wasn't so much the case, hacking etc was done on PC's , running a Linux variety, or Windows or whatever, not a lot of Macs, at least not in the public eye.

I think this is living proof that Apple, and Macs, are beginning to gain foothold with a larger public, and for once it's not a statistic.
Great stuff!

Mmm....macmod.com has been involved in this stuff for ages...

kadajawi
Apr 1, 2007, 06:03 AM
It could make for the cheapest render farm evar. I wonder if logic will distribute processing to it.
Hm... no. Not really. A 1 GHz CPU for rendering is just a waste of effort, especially with only 256 MB RAM. Better get a Mac Mini, they have way more than twice the CPU power (rather say 3 or 4 times as much) for twice the money. Makes much, much more sense to me.

While this is all nice i gues we all know what ridiculous amounts of RAM Mac OS X likes. 512 is painfully slow, even for Firefox. My Mac Mini is swapping all the time. 256 MB? No. Never. For an in car system it might be ok, or as a router, home server, ... but other than that... The CPU is probably ok though.
Hm. What about Windows? Windows XP is a bit more careful with the ressources, that might run... somehow.

I somehow doubt this all though...

winmacguy
Apr 1, 2007, 06:15 AM
I think apple should release a system like this $299 for Mac mini nano.

They would sell Millions, because some home users don't wanna pay a lot for a machine just to check e-mails and look-up recipes etc online.

Package it, Mac Nano, Apple Keyboard and mouse, 17" cheap screen all for $499 BARGIN!

That's about what I was thinking when I read the article. Something simple and cheap (with a profit margin) that could cater for the budget and of the market. Apple could sell as many of these setups in a quarter as they sell iPods! :apple:

localoid
Apr 1, 2007, 06:16 AM
Mmm....macmod.com has been involved in this stuff for ages...

Yes, but this is rather different in many different regards. At $299, the price of admission is lowered quite a bit, and when you look at the hardward this device has on it, there are several appealing items. It's onboard graphics are better than the Mac mini, the low-end iMacs and the Macbooks. For $299, you get HDMI + component video out, 802.11n wireless + 10/100 ethernet, IR remote, S/PDIF, etc. You can't build this box for $299.

The price point + these features will attract much new blood to OS X. The clever hackers will find ways of using the box for new applications, while working within the device's RAM limitations. But will these neo-hackers use OSX or simply install Linux and go in that directions with developing applications for this cool little inexpensive box?

The real potential of this box (for OS X) is its use as an extension of existing platforms, or even new platforms, both which will require new apps and software. Think "thin"... think Ajax... etc., e.g., think differently ;)

To date, there's been no incentive for previous hackers of OSX to develop (radically) new apps or platforms. Instead, they waited for Apple to develop <insert groovy new stuff here>. Open Darwin failed because all "development" was for (real) OS X, not for Darwin. Now, new stuff will likely be developed... Apple TV has opened up the game and changed the rules -- quite a bit! :p

msandersen
Apr 1, 2007, 06:17 AM
I would love something like that.

Makes you wonder why Apple don't release a super budget Mac. Something to test the water with for reasons mentioned above. I would get one of these for word processing or web browsing alone!
That's what the original iMac was supposed to be, really, a simple computer for people who just want internet, email and occasional word processing; hence the whole i-name thing.
The :apple:TV could well be used for this, depending how responsive it will be with this much RAM, although it is not its intended purpose, and personally I think these tasks are better using a regular computer monitor at a desk. That's not the purpose of this device. That is, however, the purpose of the Mini.
Many expected the Mini would be made for what this device is. If :apple:TV is successful, maybe a version of the Mini may yet gain some of the same capabilities and ports and sold as the :apple:TV's bigger brother.

motulist
Apr 1, 2007, 06:36 AM
$600 for a low end mac is just too much for me to justify, if there really was a $300 or even $400 mac I could justify buying it just to act as my media and internet machine. At $500 I might even be able to convince myself that it's reasonable, but at $600 the mac mini is just way too much money for me to even imagine I'd buy it.

But $300 for the ATV with it's standard features is too anemic for me to justify buying that either, and while it's fun to watch all this hacking unfold, I don't think this really changes the buying equation for me, and here's why. I'm skeptical that the ATV hacks will ever be easy or certain enough that I'd risk purchasing an ATV while having to depend on the hacks to give me the features that I want. Plus, it seems like the hacked ATV will still have lots of limitations.

If there was a $400 mac mini I'd be salivating.

bittervictorian
Apr 1, 2007, 06:57 AM
So 1 April is a good day to release cutting-edge hacks, right?

Jarcrew
Apr 1, 2007, 07:01 AM
If that's what constitutes April Fools these days, it's a sorry state of affairs.

Take some pointers from Google.

letaalio
Apr 1, 2007, 07:16 AM
Nop, It's not an April Fools joke :)

So how do you imagine Apple fixing this? To install OS X on :apple: TV, you have to remove the HDD and install Mac OS X on it. I don't think Apple can "patch" that.

RichP
Apr 1, 2007, 07:35 AM
This mod is really impressive, but I honestly dont see a good, general application use of it..yet. If at some point we can increase "backrow" functionality by learning more about the machine, then that is great. However, this machine really is too underpowered to be of much use. (that 256mb of RAM being the biggest roadblock) and long with a Pentium M chip that is already a few years dated.

Will Apple respond? I hope not, this isnt really a threat to their profits as this is still in the "hobby" realm. Although, what they are doing is illegal, because no purchaseable version of OSX intel exists yet.

blybug
Apr 1, 2007, 07:55 AM
What I'm wondering is if it works the other way. It would be cool to take an old Mini and install the :apple:TV's operating system on that to run as a media center.

I've been using Front Row on a mac mini in the living room for months now. As of yesterday I've successfully gotten @TV installed and running both as a separate boot partition AND as a Front Row replacement on my primary OS X install. Directions are right here (http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=46680). As part of the process an "exit menu" hack has been added that sheds light on "frappliances" that can be added to the @TV interface...I expect the future holds many others (games, EyeTV, web, DVD etc).

A few downsides to using @TV instead of Front Row

Volume control doesn't work from the Apple Remote
Can't access the iTunes media on the local computer (even with the Apple-Tab hint/hack listed in the link, just won't work for me :(
Similarly, only networked iTunes media shows up, subfolders of movies in the Movies folder do not as they do in Front Row, meaning my kids' Disney movies are mixed up in one giant list with my movies and our home videos, etc...seemingly no way to break up video into categories or playlists
No way to play a DVD through the interface
Media "synched" to the pseudo-@TV goes into a "Media" folder at the root of the local machine in a very cryptic iPod/iPhoto-like hierarchy, haven't figured out how to force this to go elsewhere (ie big external drive) or feel confident using it as a backup strategy since the files are not easily recognizable

Otherwise the @TV interface is much more elegant than Front Row, despite the above limitations I really don't want to go back. It's also a little more "self-contained" and somehow more intuitive for my family, they can't accidentally get out of the interface to the computer desktop as easily. Even as a simple Front Row replacement on top of the normal OS, my networked iTunes "see" an @TV and sync/stream to it as if it were a legit device. The separate @TV boot partition works exactly like a real @TV, but with the disadvantage of not being able to manage it or mount it remotely, or to occasionally get to the "computer" underneath.

I wonder if Front Row v2.0 will be just like this and allow all these features for those who already have a computer hooked to the TV, without requiring the purchase of @TV?

localoid
Apr 1, 2007, 08:57 AM
This mod is really impressive, but I honestly dont see a good, general application use of it..yet. If at some point we can increase "backrow" functionality by learning more about the machine, then that is great. However, this machine really is too underpowered to be of much use. (that 256mb of RAM being the biggest roadblock) and long with a Pentium M chip that is already a few years dated.

As a replacement for the "conventional" desktop computer running a typical GUI desktop OS (like OS X) it'd made for a 3rd-rate-product, primarily because of its RAM limitation. For more innovative applications, as a server cluster node, a non-GUI server, an ICE unit, or even a thin-client w/GUI this unit would do fine.

Will Apple respond? I hope not, this isnt really a threat to their profits as this is still in the "hobby" realm. Although, what they are doing is illegal, because no purchaseable version of OSX intel exists yet.

I think it's important to point out that many of these experiments with this box have made use Open Darwin sources, or other Open Source software, in an effort to "keep things legal." But yes, there has been some "borrowing", from non-open sources, which comes from the desire to produce a "proof of concept", to see what does (or doesn't) work.

There is now a great potential for OS X to grow... horizontally...

Probably many people in this forum have never heard of commercial ventures like OpenOSX (http://openosx.com/index.html) or are aware of Apple's open source OSX (http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html) offerings, largely because all Macs (to date) have come with a full-blown Mac OS X with all the bells and whistles. If all new Macs come with a great GUI -- why would the typical consumer want to fool around with running Linux ports or running Open Darwin kernal.

But Apple TV has changed all of that. It doesn't come with the full-blown OS X, but it is a very inexpensive box that's able to run more than just the Apple TV GUI. Thus, it creates the need for (legal) open source OS and applications that will run on it, which is where the 3rd-party developers come in, which is likely to include a good many folks known to enjoy the art of hacking. ;)

peharri
Apr 1, 2007, 11:06 AM
Right now, the only serious problem I see with using this as a Mac is the lack of memory. 256Mb has never been enough for Mac OS X, even for low grade applications. The disk size is fine, the speed is fine, the lack of an optical drive is not a serious issue. I'd love something like this, just with a little more memory.

network23
Apr 1, 2007, 11:21 AM
I think people are missing a gold mine here. Imagine this: You get into your car for a trip. kids are in the back, bouncing around as kids do. They drop down the little LCD screen in the SUV. Then pulling out the apple remote, they slect the new song they just downloaded onto the home iMac. Later on the trip they switch from music to Pirates movie without ever putting in a DVD. A little while later they watch they're favorite episode of Sponge Bob. How is this possible?

Apple Tv

Your car while at home wireless conected to your wireless network from the Garage. It sync'd all the new movies, music and other content from iTunes. No wires, no bringing the ipod, no having to remember to transfer a movie or remmebering to bring the cables to hook to the AV port in the car. Your Music, Your Movies, Your TV... anywhere your car is.

How sweet would that be?

Okay, while this idea is INCREDIBLY cool, I'm not sure how this use is any different from how you could use a standard out-of-the-box Apple TV right now. Could you do what is described above with an Apple TV right now without any hacks? If so, I hadn't thought of this idea and it's VERY appealing!

EagerDragon
Apr 1, 2007, 11:28 AM
I think apple should release a system like this $299 for Mac mini nano.

They would sell Millions, because some home users don't wanna pay a lot for a machine just to check e-mails and look-up recipes etc online.

Package it, Mac Nano, Apple Keyboard and mouse, 17" cheap screen all for $499 BARGIN!

A long time ago Microsoft was selling a small box (computer) to allow people to use their TV as a monitor and do emails and surf the web, not sure what it was called, I think it was Miscrosoft TV but I do not remember.

mr.suff
Apr 1, 2007, 11:29 AM
could this hack bode well for a mini macbook?
all apple would need to do, in theory, is add a screen and upgrade the ram.

localoid
Apr 1, 2007, 12:22 PM
A long time ago Microsoft was selling a small box (computer) to allow people to use their TV as a monitor and do emails and surf the web, not sure what it was called, I think it was Miscrosoft TV but I do not remember.

Arg! This "thing" of which you speak was called Web TV before it became Microsoft TV aka MSN TV... Whatever name it went by, it was really, really, really bad.

How bad, you ask? Well, it was named as one of The 25 Worst Tech Products of All Time (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125772-page,7/article.html) by PC World. :eek:


PS: "A long time ago" you say... ? Ten years ago was a "long time"...??? :p

leftbanke7
Apr 1, 2007, 12:23 PM
Question: what do you think this ATV news means to those trying to find a hack around installing OSX onto a self-built computer? In the same realm or apples and oranges?

ClimbingTheLog
Apr 1, 2007, 12:34 PM
One MythTV front-end, one for the in-car entertainment system. Kick, ass, Apple - I had no use for an embedded system, but now I'm buying two.

Wild-Bill
Apr 1, 2007, 01:49 PM
One MythTV front-end, one for the in-car entertainment system. Kick, ass, Apple - I had no use for an embedded system, but now I'm buying two.

I think if someone can get MythTV working, and enable the USB port for EyeTV or some other tv tuner it would be a perfect front end.

CJD2112
Apr 1, 2007, 02:18 PM
...and with this article hundreds of warranties are voided as :apple: TV users arduously attempt to hack their product. April Fool's any one? :eek:

CJD2112
Apr 1, 2007, 02:32 PM
LOL blond moment 101. I'm sitting in front of my screen reading "Eclectic CJD2112" as my screen name and panic sets in. "Who hacked my profile?!", "Why Eclectic?!"... then is dawns on me, April 1st. DOLT. LOL :o

matticus008
Apr 1, 2007, 03:23 PM
Okay, while this idea is INCREDIBLY cool, I'm not sure how this use is any different from how you could use a standard out-of-the-box Apple TV right now. Could you do what is described above with an Apple TV right now without any hacks? If so, I hadn't thought of this idea and it's VERY appealing!
Of course you can. It's simply a matter of finding an LCD display which will accept a standard input style (get an HDMI-DVI converter, for example). Of course you'll also need a power inverter, and if you want anything to show up properly, you'll need a widescreen LCD.

A widescreen, automobile LCD that takes DVI input might be a little hard to find, and certainly the AppleTV interface probably wouldn't be too easy to read on a 10" display, but it could be done right out of the box.

QuarterSwede
Apr 1, 2007, 03:37 PM
LOL blond moment 101. I'm sitting in front of my screen reading "Eclectic CJD2112" as my screen name and panic sets in. "Who hacked my profile?!", "Why Eclectic?!"... then is dawns on me, April 1st. DOLT. LOL :o
Hahaha, nice. And apparently I'm intriguing.

Stadsport
Apr 1, 2007, 04:00 PM
Really?

..............googles MythTV AppleTV......... :D

I've got a spare 80 gig 5400 RPM 2.5 drive that was pulled from my Powerbook when I installed a 100 gig 7200 rpm drive, AND it's got my install of OSX on it.... hmmm....................
Sorry, your powerbook ran OS X for PowerPC. AppleTV uses an Intel Processor.

I never thougt I would ever say this but, thank god for Vista. Apple did mac os x kill the box with the fact that it only have 256mb RAM. BUT if we could impliment the USB sticks as RAM. boom you got up to 8 GB of ram, some of the usb sticks are well not fast but will make a BIG speed difference. If we could impliment that on the Apple TV in mac os x, there you have the perfect cheap smal and livingroomish computer.

Not a powerhouse but kicks ass in what I think of its uses are.
some browsing
video
music
looking at pics
+
as good as everyting a normal mac can do just slower
If you've ever used a USB stick as RAM (or hell, just using a USB stick) you would hopefully understand how slow and useless it would be in place of RAM.

stainlessliquid
Apr 1, 2007, 04:17 PM
This isnt any different than OSX86, even made by the same people. So its technically illegal since its a hacked version of OSX and doesnt install from a real OSX disc, but rather than a PC its installed on an Apple product.

Still kind of cool, but not the cheapest "mac" since you can still make a PC to run OSX86 for slightly less.

If you could replace the ram then this would be a really cool hack, but with just 256mbs theres not much use for it since OSX is hell on 256mbs.

The best thing about it is finally having a use for that HDMI cable. No more wondering why youre using up an HDMI cable to play artifact filled VHS quality videos.

stephenli
Apr 1, 2007, 09:14 PM
Would you need to upgrade anything? The hard drive is on 20 gb smaller. What are the ram specs on the ATV? I would not think you could upgrade that like you can on the mini. For a simple machine that could manage media and now be used to do other things in the place of a mini this is an interesting development.

comeon, $299 cannot buy a Mini. $299 cannot buy a Mini with HDMI output and 1080i resolution.
and, for your information, the drive inside :apple: TV is 40GB...

laidbackliam
Apr 1, 2007, 11:48 PM
is there a way to get the apple tv interface running on my macbook instead of front row?

Bye Bye Baby
Apr 2, 2007, 02:44 AM
Wouldn't it be a better idea to take the software version of :apple:TV and make it run on a mini??? A mini with the option of running as :apple:TV has got to be somethinh sweet!!!

Pity the mini didn't have a better graphics card!!!

blybug
Apr 2, 2007, 03:21 PM
is there a way to get the apple tv interface running on my macbook instead of front row?
Wouldn't it be a better idea to take the software version of :apple:TV and make it run on a mini??? A mini with the option of running as :apple:TV has got to be somethinh sweet!!!

Pity the mini didn't have a better graphics card!!!

Check about 18 posts back (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3502232#post3502232) :)

Another nice touch with the @TV (even a pseudo-mac-mini-@TV) is that play counts and lasst played info gets updated on the source machine, even when in streaming mode. I wish normal iTunes streaming could do that :rolleyes:

rxse7en
Apr 3, 2007, 08:43 PM
for the same reason, I wonder if it would beat my 1.25Ghz PPC Mac mini at home?
I know I would never replace it with an :apple: TV, but just curious :-)
I started looking at the Apple TV as low end Mac for my son today. I just can't justify $600-$800 for a Mini for him and started researching the viability of the Apple TV connected to a 37" LCD TV as an option. In my research I came across the following benchies:

The Apple TV running OSX score a 55.75 in Xbench as compared to an Intel Mini's (w/2gb ram) score of 110.27.

The 1.25ghz G4 mini averaged at about 35. The 1.42ghz Mini averaged about 45.

I can't tell from the descriptions on the Intel Minis, but they look to average between 70-100 from single to core duos.

With the ability to use USB periphs and upgrade the HD if necessary the Apple TV is looking really good for child's computer/media center. I don't think I'd take the plunge myself, but I hope Apple takes note and produces a true entry level Mac around this platform.

Reference for the benchmarks: http://db.xbench.com/compareindex.xhtml