Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

First Hand with Mac OS X on Toshiba Intel (x86)

Are you kidding me?

Rosetta can ONLY emulate a G3 processor, that is nowhere near 80% of a G5 lmao.

DeathChill said:
No...This has been known for about 6 or 7 months, so I don't know why ZDNet is JUST posting it. It's funny because they're actually using a patch to the DVD that the group responsible for hacking the original 10.4.1 x86 DVD created. You can easily download both the 10.4.1 x86 DVD and the Release1 patch and install it on just about any of the newer Pentium and AMD chips (SSE2 is the minimum requirement).

Also, Rosetta runs about 80% of the speed as running PowerPC apps on an Intel machine show no signs of lagging that would be noticable to the average user. I'm sure the larger power-user applications aren't translated as fast by Rosetta but it still should be usable.

EDIT: iTunes JUST got converted to be a Universal Binary, as with the 10.4.1 release it was not a unibin. It is now with the newest 10.4.3 x86 release, though. :)
Click to expand...
 
EricNau said:
I never said Apple was 50% looks, I said it was 50% good hardware. I have found, through the several PC's I have owned, that Apple uses better Hardware, which makes my life easier.
Click to expand...

I think if you tore apart a Mac you would find the same components used in it as are used in just about every other PC. I am guessing they use many of the same vendors for their components. Once they go to Intel, they will be pretty much a mirror image inside.
 
Abercrombieboy said:
I think if you tore apart a Mac you would find the same components used in it as are used in just about every other PC.
Click to expand...
If that's true, then why do Mac computers seem to last longer? My school has some original iMacs and they are working just fine (slow, but fine). My PC's would have turned to dust at the age of those iMacs.
 
Long term , this has to be the way forward for Apple .
Their current strategy of tying hardware and software together can't be justified
anymore. It's time for them to move out of the sandbox in to the real world.
The idea that OS x wil be " tainted " running on non Mac hardware is false .
Sure there will be the curious , who just try for the sake of it , but are real potential customers ,
who given the opportunity to dual boot on their PC and see the advantages.
These are the people , Apple needs to bring on board for the future ?
 
iQuit said:
Rosetta can ONLY emulate a G3 processor, that is nowhere near 80% of a G5 lmao.
Click to expand...

You have to separate the G3 technology from the clock speed. True, it emulates G3 hardware, but it's not limited to 400MHz or whatever the top speed was. It could just as easily act like a 1.5GHz G3 if the host hardware had enough power to do so, even though no *real* G3 was ever made that fast. For applications that require only a G3, there's no practical difference between it and a G4 or G5. That's because none of that newer technology is used by the application. So it's quite possible for applications to run at 80% native speed.

Most of them don't run that fast, but that's another story.
 
Moonboots said:
Long term , this has to be the way forward for Apple .
Their current strategy of tying hardware and software together can't be justified
anymore. It's time for them to move out of the sandbox in to the real world.
The idea that OS x wil be " tainted " running on non Mac hardware is false .
Sure there will be the curious , who just try for the sake of it , but are real potential customers ,
who given the opportunity to dual boot on their PC and see the advantages.
These are the people , Apple needs to bring on board for the future ?
Click to expand...
These are also the people that would never want to touch a Mac in their life, what makes you so sure that they'd want to if it was on a different brand computer?
 
Some of you are saying that people will switch to generic PCs to run OS X because it will be cheaper, will it really? The new Intel based Apple computers will basically have the same parts as a PC. So the cost of owning an Apple will be pretty much the same. Apple will surely have cool high end models that have more features and will cost more but people that want that will pay for it. Others will buy Mac mini style machines that will cost much less. I think the Apple market will be like the iPod in the future. There are alot of cheaper MP3 players out there that do pretty much the same thing but iPods are way cooler and the high sales show it. I think Apple will think of ways for people to lust over a Mac even if they can get a PC to do most of the same thing. :cool:
 
Well, if people keep this up, I forsee Apple will either have to implement changes on every update that breaks the hacks or we may see the rise of Microsoft like licensing. Right now, Apple doesn't keep you from installing a since copy of the OS on multiple machines, but it really hasn't mattered all that much since the OS was being installed on an Apple made computer--even if they don't get any money for an additional license installation, they've already sold you the computer. However, I would think hackers are more likely to break any locks on OS X, allowing it to run on non-Apple hardware, and post the broken OS for other PC owners to use (and steal). Though, it would be a pretty huge file to post somewhere :confused:

To a limited extent, this might be good for Apple since this would allow people to actually try OS X. I think many people will understand that working with a hacked version, a real version on a real Mac would work better.

Along those lines, maybe Apple should somehow make a free demo version of the OS that will run on anyone's PC. Give everyone a taste of the OS and include little tips that point out why an Apple OS on Apple hardware works better than trying to run it on a generic PC.
 
Everyone just acts like putting OS X on a PC will solve all of Apple's problems. IT WON'T!!!
Most PC users don't buy Apple's, because they are Apple's. - putting OS X on a PC won't change the way they feel.
 
nagromme said:
Well, it's piracy, AND it's not likely to be nearly so simple once Apple has protections in place.

And what's the surprise here? OS X for Intel runs on Intel chips. I think we knew that already :)

I see it more as a teaser for the Wintel users who are starting to eye OS X. That's all good--they'll have to get a Mac if they want it, though :)
Click to expand...

Really, like what protections would apple have in place that they don't have already?. I'm not the smartest person but i bet i could defeat whatever apple comes up with and so will many other people. People already defeated what they came up with. What is this protection apple will come up with, is this rocket science (so complex, no one can break it?).
 
EricNau said:
If that's true, then why do Mac computers seem to last longer? My school has some original iMacs and they are working just fine (slow, but fine). My PC's would have turned to dust at the age of those iMacs.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt this observation. My original Imac does not work anymore and i have a PC that is older than that and it still works. You should qualify your statement. Perhaps a sucky, $400 dollar pc would break before an imac but not a comparably priced PC. Realize that many of the components within an imac is not made by apple and also, these components are not unique to macs. Apple does not make CD or DVD drives, nor the hard drive, nor the video card, nor the processor, nor the power supply.. need i go on?.
 
wnurse said:
I seriously doubt this observation. My original Imac does not work anymore and i have a PC that is older than that and it still works. You should qualify your statement. Perhaps a sucky, $400 dollar pc would break before an imac but not a comparably priced PC. Realize that many of the components within an imac is not made by apple and also, these components are not unique to macs. Apple does not make CD or DVD drives, nor the hard drive, nor the video card, nor the processor, nor the power supply.. need i go on?.
Click to expand...
I realize this, for example: my processor is made by IBM, Superdrive by Pioneer, graphics by ATI, and all of these are in my Apple.
But from my experience, Apple uses a higher quality, they take pride in their product, I may be wrong, but I don't think I am.
And it's not just the fact that they make their computers with good hardware, they make the hardware work with their computers, something I think some other companies forget to do *cough*gateway.
 
mugwump said:
So ZD net hacked an alpha build of a mac OS to run it on an unsupported PC laptop, and then they reviewed it?

Talk about a site desperate for hits to their windows advertisers.

Seriously, they had to break the user agreement to install the thing, I hope they get sued for millions.

I mean, if they were to review Microsoft Office by declaring they didn't pay for any copies and simply pirated the software from a young teen, they would be shot down.

Seriously lame, and it's not even a public beta yet. Sue the bastards, just because they are that stupid and desperate.
Click to expand...

You know, people seem to think that license agreements are always binding. It is not if it violates common sense. Example. a spyware company recently have in their license agreement that if you use their software, you cannot analyze it to determine if it is spyware (the obvious purpose is so as to prevent anti-spyware companies from determining how to remove their software).. Another case would be if a license agreement states that you have to give up your first born to use the software. Obviously, a license is not an ironclad legal document. Don't you worry about ZDnet, i am sure they can take care of themselves. Suing someone only really works when the other party cannot adequately defend themselves. You should do a bit of reseach to see how many times a company wins when they sue another company with enough resources to defend themselves (see current suit against Linux). It rarely is worth it and it is very expensive... so expensive that the benefits of suing diminishes with length of case and even if apple were to win, so what?.. Does their license spell out some financial renumeration should the terms of the license be violated? What financial benefits would they reap from suing?.
 
wnurse said:
Really, like what protections would apple have in place that they don't have already?. I'm not the smartest person but i bet i could defeat whatever apple comes up with and so will many other people. People already defeated what they came up with. What is this protection apple will come up with, is this rocket science (so complex, no one can break it?).
Click to expand...
I don't think Apple was that strict with their developer models, after all, they won't be around much longer. When these come out for real, we'll see stricter security.
 
wnurse said:
You know, people seem to think that license agreements are always binding. It is not if it violates common sense...Another case would be if a license agreement states that you have to give up your first born to use the software. Obviously, a license is not an ironclad legal document.
Click to expand...
Last I checked, they very much could be used in legal courts, and for the record, if a license agreement said you had to give up your first born, you wouldn't hit "agree."
Some people don't know that you are also supposed to read them. :rolleyes:
 
wnurse said:
Really, like what protections would apple have in place that they don't have already?. I'm not the smartest person but i bet i could defeat whatever apple comes up with and so will many other people. People already defeated what they came up with. What is this protection apple will come up with, is this rocket science (so complex, no one can break it?).
Click to expand...
Apple hasn't really done very much to secure the developer copies. There's a wide range of options available to them, some of which we'd prefer they not implement. I don't think you could single-handedly defeat any of the protective measures out there. I do think that you can follow instructions and apply cracks written by someone else, but even that is beyond what many people can do.

When it comes down to it, something like TPM or Apple's recent patent for securing "computer code" will come in handy. Since the vendor ID lies in hardware, all Apple needs is a chip and a series of checks to keep almost everyone from breaking the copy protection. Every time it's broken, they'll go one step further.

If Apple (1) instituted a check for a specific hardware ID in their logic boards and a second one in the CPUs supplied to them by Intel, (2) required signed code from the BIOS/OF replacement, and (3) had boot time and possibly post-boot software checks for the hardware IDs which must be executed and passed, it would be pretty difficult to circumvent. The Vendor ID in TPM can't be replicated in software, so you'd need someone to leak the chip specs and you'd need to solder that chip to your motherboard. You'd need Apple's OpenFirmware-replacing ROM to execute the boot process, which means your motherboard would have to match the specs of an Apple one. And then you'd need the right CPU. You could go at it from the software side, but reprogramming something that deeply entrenched wouldn't be so easy (especially if every application checked for the hardware ID at launch), especially since it wouldn't be open source.

EDIT: Just to hop into the license agreement battle obliquely, they ARE always legally binding. That binding can be overridden by proving the agreement to be illegal. But if the agreement breaks no laws, you don't get to dismiss it because you don't agree with it. Giving up your firstborn would be a contract asking you to do something illegal, and you would be reprimanded for agreeing to it, but it would be overturned. But it has to be overturned in order for you to be released from its terms. The provisions keeping you from sharing code are legal and have been upheld in the past, with fines levied against those who violate their agreements.
 
EricNau said:
I don't think Apple was that strict with their developer models, after all, they won't be around much longer. When these come out for real, we'll see stricter security.
Click to expand...

I hope not, I plan to install it on my laptop (dell 9300) when it comes out of alpha or whatever it is. Hopefully they don't learn from this, using windows sucks, almost as bad as using apple's mobile hardware (radeon 9700 on pbook... *shudder*)
 
booksacool1 said:
I hope not, I plan to install it on my laptop (dell 9300) when it comes out of alpha or whatever it is. Hopefully they don't learn from this, using windows sucks, almost as bad as using apple's mobile hardware (radeon 9700 on pbook... *shudder*)
Click to expand...
You are avery weird exception to my argument :p Just Kidding ;)

I guess there are a few people out there who actually like Apple, but don't like their hardware. :confused: (but I will agree their mobile is lacking a little bit)
 
I have to admit, I'm getting annoyed with some of the ignorance that is being spread around this thread but trolling windows fans, firstly what are you doing on a mac site? secondly, please please please, when you crack apples release version of OS X for intel, show me - i will happily give you a million bucks. Just how stupid do you think apple is? there are plenty of measures that will be taken to assure osx cannot be used on non-mac hardware.

Nobody will use the extremely slow, developers version and they wont be able to use the final version (some will say they have, or gone out and bought hardware to run it on (chips and processors), hardly cracking the OS though.)
 
OS X on intel

Unclean! So unclean! I keep washing but can't get clean.

*huddles in shower whimpering*
 
This is beyond old news, there are whole communities and sites dedicated to running the leaked versions of OSX for devs on x86 boxes, I tried it atleast a month in half to two months ago. It is nothing new alot of people are doing it, if you have SSE3 it really is fast as hell, if not its still pretty quick and there are hacks for sound and SSE2 support to make carbon apps work. What alot of people on this site do not get regardless of what your freind told you, is they are not going to release there x86 version any sooner then they said 6 months ago, 2006 deal with it. They don't have enough apps written nativley yet and they would piss of a whole lot of developers. Rosetta is nothing more then something to get you by until everything is native with PPC/x86 binaries. Rosetta is good enough for thoes stubborn apps created by devs that don't want to convert yet.
 
Garcia said:
I have to admit, I'm getting annoyed with some of the ignorance that is being spread around this thread but trolling windows fans, firstly what are you doing on a mac site? secondly, please please please, when you crack apples release version of OS X for intel, show me - i will happily give you a million bucks. Just how stupid do you think apple is? there are plenty of measures that will be taken to assure osx cannot be used on non-mac hardware.

Nobody will use the extremely slow, developers version and they wont be able to use the final version (some will say they have, or gone out and bought hardware to run it on (chips and processors), hardly cracking the OS though.)
Click to expand...
This is a little naive. There is absolutely no doubt that OS X for intel will be cracked and, subsequently available to generic pc's. While the usability, and overall damage it does to the Apple platform is unclear, it's inevitability is not. Your average consumer is not going to go through the geek hack-jobs needed to install so I personally think it's going to be a non-issue. Might actually be a good thing for Apple if people had a chance to try out the platform, and learn to love it. After tiring of the perpetual cat and mouse game when Apple chooses to update its software, they might just go out, and purchase an Apple computer. Sounds plausible......I think:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back