Snow Leopard on PowerPc Macs??

[elppa]

First of all, devs like me have the source code. 2nd of all, the source code it out in the wild.

You fail completely at reading. I said “Apple” has the source code.

They let the 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 source code out "in the wild" too, or at least the PPC code.

The builds which compiled on intel chips didn't leave Cupertino.

But they still existed.

 

[chriszzz]

Hey guys I am a certified Apple Dev., (Yep, the ones with the source code) and I have worked with Apple. In this field I am an expert. I have OSX installed on an Acer Aspire One and so on... (Whoops that must have been a typo. I would never do that! )

But that isn't the point. I am just here to correct a couple things. First of all there is always a possibility of some anxious hacker (Or shall we call then developers as well?) made a 10.0 Kernel for the PPC. Please keep in mind there are tons of people running OSX on AMD processors. Apple never made a code for that. Snow Leopard is no exception. Rosetta is for running PPC applications on an Intel processor. Not to be confused QEMU (http://wiki.qemu.org/Index.html) which is being modified for running Intel only apps on PowerPC.

In theory it IS possible to install Snow Leopard on a PowerPC. Through Emulation (Which again, in theory, someone could apply on a SL iso. Or they could apply it to VMWARE then run the ISO) The other option would be having a devoted team develop a PowerPC kernel.
WHICH IS VERY POSSIBLE! IT JUST TAKES SOME WILL POWER AND MONEY!

Long time watcher, now glad to be part of the community!

A couple things: The Hackintosh is not illegal. Yes it is in violation of the EULA which results in Apple terminating support for your disk.

Making a modified 10.0 Darwin (SL) kernel for the PowerPC would not terminate the EULA as it is a Macintosh Machine. Oh wait, your editing the software... But like I said it is not illegal.

Wow thats a whole lot of FUD. You are clueless.

 

[old-wiz]

I can not believe that any OSX source code is available anywhere but inside Apple. While some of the Darwin kernel is available since it is not all Apple specific (and Apple has their own version), the Apple code is not. No one outside of Apple is going to see the internals for iTunes for example.

It doesn't matter if we're talking 10.2, 10.3, or anything: Apple simply doesn't let their internal source code go out. If, for example, non-apple person got ahold of even the 10.4 source code for iTunes, this would give them a huge advantage in hacking iTunes, or breaking the DRM used for the movies and such. It's not a matter of PPC vs Intel.

Under very strict legal agreements, Microsoft does allow some access to the windows source code, and I'm sure Apple is at least as restrictive. I worked for a company that had an agreement with Microsoft where we could look at the source code for Windows, and only the people directly working on the project were able to look at it at all. Modifications were totally forbidden and disclosure was equally forbidden.

The source code for an operating system is far too valuable to be allowed to escape into the wild.

 

[madwolf]

To be exact those are the source code parts that are realesed as open source and freely available:
http://opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1062/

There's the entire,complete kernel, some kernel extensions and some other open source code that apple uses in mac os x. Generally stuff that Apple is obliged to share because of the license (like MIT, GPL, BSD). Nothing more.

Anyway what's the point of running snow leo on ppc? and besides, new apps are no longer made for ppc...

 

[benjamin747]

Oh am I?

Wow thats a whole lot of FUD. You are clueless.

Compared to what you said, I am a genius.

Of course, Apple didn't release it, but there are always 'leaks' if you will. How did we get the Snow Leopard builds on torrents? Developers decided to help out the hacking community. http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1062/

The main thing restricting it from going on the PowerPC is the Kernel and the Kexts, both which are open source.

But then it goes back to, Why??? I know I should live by "Keep the OS that came with the computer, or only go one version up" but I never follow that rule and in result I wish I did. It is either really sluggish or it has frequent Kernel Panics!

 

[Darwin-ksh]

No one has ever made it run on an unsupported architecture.

Except for AMD of course.

 

[madwolf]

Quote:
Originally Posted by yippy
No one has ever made it run on an unsupported architecture.
Except for AMD of course.

Well no. As it has been said, AMD is x86/x64 architecture, exactly like the intel chips. It's just a different brand. In 99% of cases AMD processors can natively run code compiled for intel processors and intels can run code compiled for AMD.

Of course, Apple didn't release it, but there are always 'leaks' if you will.

Source code leaks? nope. Really, there are none. I'm part of the hackintosh community and even done some of the coding myself. Everything we have is based on code released by Apple or reverse engineered. I am not aware of any Apple code leaks. However, some people think that Apple does secretly help the hackintosh community or at least it does not interfere. Apart from the psystar case where they wanted to make money, Apple didn't ever make a move to put a stop to "hackintoshing". I guess hackintosh users realy aren't apple's target costumers so they don't care about us ;-) Apple customers are usually people that want stuff to "just work" and not tinker with it all day long. We're just hobbyists.

The main thing restricting it from going on the PowerPC is the Kernel and the Kexts, both which are open source.

How about all the system apps? Like the dock, system preferences etc.
The kernel and some kexts are open source. However, most of the kexts are closed source and not available anywhere.

 

[benjamin747]

Well no. As it has been said, AMD is x86/x64 architecture, exactly like the intel chips. It's just a different brand. In 99% of cases AMD processors can natively run code compiled for intel processors and intels can run code compiled for AMD.


Source code leaks? nope. Really, there are none. I'm part of the hackintosh community and even done some of the coding myself. Everything we have is based on code released by Apple or reverse engineered. I am not aware of any Apple code leaks. However, some people think that Apple does secretly help the hackintosh community or at least it does not interfere. Apart from the psystar case where they wanted to make money, Apple didn't ever make a move to put a stop to "hackintoshing". I guess hackintosh users realy aren't apple's target costumers so they don't care about us ;-) Apple customers are usually people that want stuff to "just work" and not tinker with it all day long. We're just hobbyists.


How about all the system apps? Like the dock, system preferences etc.
The kernel and some kexts are open source. However, most of the kexts are closed source and not available anywhere.

Wow. Someone who actually knows something!

Actually, Apple did tear apart Psystar like a piece of Steak. That could have been monumental if not for Psystars suckish lawyers. I think Apple should just lay back a little. I understand that they might want to gain back a little cash from Apple Corps...

I've done some coding to. As tight as it is, check your torrents. Now and then they are up there for a flash.

Actually SL has 0% support for AMD processors.

 

[yamabushi]

I dare you to build it

Seems like some sort of Frankenstein's monster version of PPC Snow Leopard might be possible with a lot of work. Apple probably has a working alpha kept close and private but I don't expect that code to be available for a project taken up by a hobbyist developer. Using publicly available code it would be possible to get partway there.

The question is how to finish up the parts where code is unavailable? Writing enough code from scratch to fill the holes is likely a prohibitively long process for a small group of hobbyists. Perhaps using modified parts of leopard or snow leopard to fill in some of the holes might be possible but would probably require considerable work to get it working at all. Reverse engineering some of leopard and snow leopard might reveal enough information to help also.

Anyways, it seems like the project might be possible but very difficult. It also probably would produce an unstable and bug filled version of snow leopard.

Still, I dare somebody to try this just for the mad scientist challenge of it.

 

[MisterMe]

Seems like some sort of Frankenstein's monster version of PPC Snow Leopard might be possible with a lot of work. Apple probably has a working alpha kept close and private but I don't expect that code to be available for a project taken up by a hobbyist developer. ...

This would be a very un-Apple thing to do. If Apple has a POWER/PPC port of Snow Leopard--and I am certain that it does--then you can rest assured that it is a fully-operational elegant OS.

 

[Mr. USB]

Actually There Is A Project To Get Snow Leopard On A PPC

Check out this site:
http://flyingtankproductions.webs.com/xos.htm

XOS is a Snow Leopard port that they are working on

 

[Mr. USB]

Already On It...

Seems like some sort of Frankenstein's monster version of PPC Snow Leopard might be possible with a lot of work. Apple probably has a working alpha kept close and private but I don't expect that code to be available for a project taken up by a hobbyist developer. Using publicly available code it would be possible to get partway there.

The question is how to finish up the parts where code is unavailable? Writing enough code from scratch to fill the holes is likely a prohibitively long process for a small group of hobbyists. Perhaps using modified parts of leopard or snow leopard to fill in some of the holes might be possible but would probably require considerable work to get it working at all. Reverse engineering some of leopard and snow leopard might reveal enough information to help also.

Anyways, it seems like the project might be possible but very difficult. It also probably would produce an unstable and bug filled version of snow leopard.

Still, I dare somebody to try this just for the mad scientist challenge of it.

I started the XOS project at Flying Tank Productions to port 10.6 to PPC...

 

[HardCider]

This would be a very un-Apple thing to do. If Apple has a POWER/PPC port of Snow Leopard--and I am certain that it does--then you can rest assured that it is a fully-operational elegant OS.

I'm inclined to agree, but only because Snow Leopard is the first release without PPC support. Apple has a history of being secretly cautious about such things and may well have elected to complete the development just in case something forced them to reverse their decision to discontinue PPC support.

I would be greatly surprised, of course, if they chose to add it back in now (or that they have continued with any PPC development for the next release). I'm sure it's dead there.

On the other hand, I would also be greatly surprised if Apple did not internally maintain and test kernel versions with native support for the AMD chipsets, just in case they again have a sudden desire to change hardware vendors.

(Contrary to earlier suggestions, full support for Intel chips is not 100% identical to full support for AMD chips. Sure, their agreed x86/64 specifications keep them 99% functionally compatible, but there's often a lot of politics and interpretation of the specs going into that last 1%. There are a few low-level hooks that are different, and the two manufacturers have some divergent views about the implementation of some special features. Thus, making full use of those features means having some manufacturer-dependent code right in the OS.)

Sure, the mods would be relatively simple, but Apple would still want to stay up to date on it (including rigorous testing), even if there are no plans to do anything with it in the foreseeable future. They have probably had kernel versions for Itanium, too.

Dan

 

[el-John-o]

Did they sell it to Jobs then so he can start working on Intel hardware?

You can't BUY it if it's an open source project. Open source is just that, Open, no one person owns it.

 

[chrismacguy]

Wow. Someone who actually knows something!

Actually, Apple did tear apart Psystar like a piece of Steak. That could have been monumental if not for Psystars suckish lawyers. I think Apple should just lay back a little. I understand that they might want to gain back a little cash from Apple Corps...

I've done some coding to. As tight as it is, check your torrents. Now and then they are up there for a flash.

Actually SL has 0% support for AMD processors.

1) SL has 100% CODE COMPATIBLE support for AMD Processors, as internally at least they are identical to intel in terms of the instruction set (what matters)
2) If you really had worked for Apple youd know the BIG difference between 10.0 kernel (Prehistoric, Much more closely tied to NextSTEP and OpenSTEP) and the 10.6 kernel (Todays, 10 years more developed kernel).
3) Apple hasnt had a source code leak. Theyve had binaries leaked, and theyve released certain components (Not all the ktexts, but some as stated above) They havent released Aqua source code, which youd need to get 10.6s UI Running on PowerPC, and that has never been leaked.
4) Apple needs to defend its OS because otherwise you will end up with DELL and HP shipping crap computers with a bodged version of OS X installed which would cause havoc
5) Also to get 10.6 to run on PowerPC, you would have to find a way of Universal-Binary ing the entire source code tree - not possible without the sort of access ONLY given to a select few at Apple (Think higher-level senior developers, the people who in-effect "glue" the OS together)

 

[Mactrillionaire]

My guess is that it would be a better investment of people's time and effort to buy a Mac that runs Snow Leopard instead of trying to force it to run on PowerPCs. If the futility of trying to undertake this approach doesn't convince you then I guess the slowness of the PowerPC doesn't phase you either.

 

[old-wiz]

1)
5) Also to get 10.6 to run on PowerPC, you would have to find a way of Universal-Binary ing the entire source code tree - not possible without the sort of access ONLY given to a select few at Apple (Think higher-level senior developers, the people who in-effect "glue" the OS together)

Before I retired, I worked in the area involved in OS builds (not for Apple) and you would need not only access to the entire source tree, but you would need to really know how the Apple build process works. As ChrisMacGuy says, this info is not readily available.

If someone did manage to steal the private part of the source code and try to sell it or even use it for a PPC port, apple would have a hundred lawyers armed to the teeth going after them.

Another big issue would be keeping up with fixes; how do you keep up with Apple's changes? Security fixes? Every OS in the field needs to have changes made as it goes along. The amount of work required to do this is considerable based on the complexity of the software and the sheer size of the codebase.

No one outside of Apple is going to suddenly start selling 10.6.6 for PPC and get away with it.

 

[el-John-o]

You know what, Criticize Apple all you like, but here's what you do when a company does something you don't like- you don't patronize them. If there was no demand for a locked OS on proprietary hardware, Apple would be out of business. Apple remains highest for support and satisfaction, meaning it's not all smoke and mirrors that you get a premium computing experience when you invest in a Mac. The market share of Windows is so high that there is very little you can do on a Mac that you can't do on a PC (And please, for the love of all things good, nobody quote this and list three random programs that are Mac only and claim that proves that Windows is useless). So therefore, if you aren't in the market for that type of a system, buy a PC.

OSX doesn't have to focus on universal hardware support, how much time do you think Microsoft spends on each edition of Windows, ensuring it will work with not only the latest hardware, but legacy hardware as well? Obviously a big portion of that is hardware manufacturers writing drivers, but Microsoft has to hold up their end too. Not to mention all of the bloated portions of the OS so it will work on HUNDREDS of different machines. When OSX Developers work, they only have a handful of products to develop for, it's streamlined, and it shows. Mac OS has always been incredibly stable, their hardware has always been incredibly reliable, and their service has always been fantastic. Once again, some random iMacs with a yellow screen (that Apple fixed, they weren't stuck with it) or whatever random troll someone is thinking of posting is irrelevant, nobody is perfect, but compared to the competition, Apple is king.

I HAVE a non-proprietary Mac, a PowerTower Pro 250. It's junk. If you bump into it, it crashes, it's big, noisy, ugly, heavy and slow. That's what happened when Apple decided to let other manufacturers make PCs, and then they were still using PowerPC CPU's! So no matter what, they were all using the same CPU and very similar motherboards! Imagine what would happen now when they can use who-knows-what to build an OSX Machine? Most of the complaints about Windows are probably hardware-related, or related to Microsoft having to support all kinds of junk! They're making the money, yes, and they have the market share, but if you buy a Mac, your getting something good. That's worth the "Apple Tax" for some people, for others, it's not, those are folks we call "Windows Users".

-John

 

[Mactrillionaire]

el-John-o, the problem is that, at least in the short-term, the hardware constrained model has proven itself more predictably functional and better able to be secured. Windows has to support an almost infinite number of hardware configurations and there is just no way at present to test all of those configurations to a degree of certainty that you can make any meaningful statements about predictable functionality and system security. Not only that, but because Windows is a registry based operating system, it will have security flaws that other non-registry based operating systems do not have. Now, I will agree with you in saying that Macs aren't for everyone, but PCs ARE for those who don't mind the frustration and perpetual time wasting activities needed to successfully maintain a Windows computer that aren't necessary for Macs or for those who just don't care to maintain their systems because of user ignorance or because they know but the data isn't valuable enough to expend the effort on securing it. If you are a power user then you don't want a system that has many already known shortcomings that you have to constantly do preventive maintenance to address. If you are a person with lots of valuable data then you don't want a system which is very easily hacked from a remote location and your valuable data stolen. In short, unless you don't mind the aggravations (or are oblivious of what needs to be done or don't care to do it) of working with Windows and think you really can figure out how to secure your valuable data (unless you don't have really valuable data on a given system), OS X is the clear choice. If those things don't apply then Windows is an acceptable alternative in certain cases like building a gaming rig.

 

[mjsmke]

Of course it will work on a PPC. Right after you install the Flux Capacitor, lol!

 

[Damo01]

I don't get it. Why do you want snow leopard to run on PPC?

 

[el-John-o]

I don't get it. Why do you want snow leopard to run on PPC?

He's just not an experienced Mac user, my guess is he's not technical enough to understand the differences, and thinks it's just a software-lockout type of thing. In other words, he's a 'normal user', which, granted, is rare on these message boards. (At least for Mac, I know lots of PC enthusiasts who have built their PC's written software, but didn't even know PowerPC existed)

As far as why he would WANT to, who WOULDN'T want to if they could? I mean, if you had a late G4 or G5 Mac, that was quick enough (heck a dual core PowerMac G5 is comparable in performance to some of Apples lower end notebooks now -note, the words were 'low-end', don't tell me your MacBook Pro i7 can beat it, because I don't care-) So if I was a person who had spent thousands on a dual-core dual CPU G5 Mac Pro (or heck, just someone who found one used for a good deal), I too would like to run snow leopard if it was possible. In fact, if I had spent $50 on an old eMac, I would want to run Snow Leopard. If it was possible, who WOULDN'T want to run the latest software on their Machine? (Assuming it would perform well, which is part of his question).

One thing is for sure, the transition to intel has trashed the value of PowerPC macs, which is great if your not selling one, I can find G5 Macs, which are still powerful machines, for super cheap, I just have to leave them in a 2005/2006/2007 suspended state, meaning that's about as new as I am going to find PowerPC software, even though it's capable of running more, had it been an equivalent intel Mac.

 

[MisterMe]

Easy, Grasshopper. Apple's switch to Intel makes my G5s invaluable. Some users may have been born yesterday, but others have decades invested in their systems. For example, I have been a Mac user since 1989 and have files that date all the way back then. Nothing on an Intel-based Mac or a Windows-based PC can open many of my veteran files. However, Macs running Classic can open most of them.

For my Intel-based Macs, I want the latest versions of MacOS X and each software title. For my PPC-based Macs, I want nothing that requires MacOS X 10.5 or later. This is because Classic is a mission-critical environment. Of greater concern is that my PPC-based Macs are getting long in the tooth. For the first time in my life, I am considering purchasing refurbished G5s to replace my current G5s in the event that they fail.

 

[el-John-o]

Easy, Grasshopper. Apple's switch to Intel makes my G5s invaluable. Some users may have been born yesterday, but others have decades invested in their systems. For example, I have been a Mac user since 1989 and have files that date all the way back then. Nothing on an Intel-based Mac or a Windows-based PC can open many of my veteran files. However, Macs running Classic can open most of them.

For my Intel-based Macs, I want the latest versions of MacOS X and each software title. For my PPC-based Macs, I want nothing that requires MacOS X 10.5 or later. This is because Classic is a mission-critical environment. Of greater concern is that my PPC-based Macs are getting long in the tooth. For the first time in my life, I am considering purchasing refurbished G5s to replace my current G5s in the event that they fail.

You know what that's a fantastic point. I actually use a system booting straight into OS9 for that, but yeah, I guess if I was running 10.4 or earlier, I could use classic. I have a whole case of 100 and 250MB ZIP disks, and JAZ disks, full of old Adobe software, files, images, etc. I don't always need to access them though, so it's acceptable to run them on my OS9 machine, makes sense though.

What I've done lately, though, is just emulated OS9. Even my 3 year old laptop can emulate OS9 flawlessly, I've moved most of the contents of those old disks onto a network storage device, (An eSata hard drive attached to an old 366Mhz laptop, I can always find a use for old hardware, lol!). That is not as nice of a solution though, as running them natively in the main OS. Other than moving physically to the other machine, (or hitting the KVM switch as the case is), running in an emulated environment is quite similar to running separate machines, they talk to each other, but only as remote computers.

-John

-John

 

[chrismacguy]

You know what that's a fantastic point. I actually use a system booting straight into OS9 for that, but yeah, I guess if I was running 10.4 or earlier, I could use classic. I have a whole case of 100 and 250MB ZIP disks, and JAZ disks, full of old Adobe software, files, images, etc. I don't always need to access them though, so it's acceptable to run them on my OS9 machine, makes sense though.

What I've done lately, though, is just emulated OS9. Even my 3 year old laptop can emulate OS9 flawlessly, I've moved most of the contents of those old disks onto a network storage device, (An eSata hard drive attached to an old 366Mhz laptop, I can always find a use for old hardware, lol!). That is not as nice of a solution though, as running them natively in the main OS. Other than moving physically to the other machine, (or hitting the KVM switch as the case is), running in an emulated environment is quite similar to running separate machines, they talk to each other, but only as remote computers.

-John

-John

Aaahhh old Junky software - the only justification I have for keeping my G4/450 with 9.2.2 going (Final Cut Pro 1 and InDesign 1.5 no-less). Mainly as Emulators for me dont ever feel as fast, even on my Mac Pro, as a physical OS 9 Machine (I even have 9.2.2 installed on my G4 MDD on 1 drive or another).