Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Workaround Restores Mac OS X 10.6.2 Compatibility With Intel Atom Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well in that case, you should stop comparing an apple product to a Ferrari. A premium car is about $40K? (not sure of the us prices). Apple has no equivalent product to a Super Car in the car industry.
You might consider Apple to be a nice BMW at best, your delusional at comparing it to a Ferrari.
The computer industry has no super exclusive brand. So there is no equivalent of say the Vertu of the mobile industry.
Nonsense. Apple did nothing intentional here. The removal of a CPU id was hardly going to stop anyone. The hack was working within three hours of the 10.6.2 release. This kind of thing is par for the course in the hackintosh community and Apple probably knew it woul.d not take them too long to work around.
People modify the software that tunes their engines all the time to get more performance out of a less expensive car.
As long as someone is using a purchased copy of OSX, I don't care what they do it.
If the brevity between user-made solutions to anti-Hackintosh, jailbreak and iPhone unlock initiatives by Apple is any indication, they should not waste the resources trying to thwart the hackers. They'll never win.
-Clive
-Clive
LTD, don't forget Ferrari only wants you to buy their car if you've owned 2 other Ferraris in the past. 
This news comes as no surprise. I have been browsing MyDellMini and it's been done for a couple days now.
I sympathize with all the Apple guys, but I think we all must realize that hacking/warez will always exist to some extent, and the information will be out there somewhere.
This sort of stuff has been happening for years---Windows being bootlegged, people putting Linux on the XBox, Linux on the PS2, hacking the PSP to run games off the memory stick, etc and those are just more recent examples in the past 5-7 years. I would bet there are more bootlegged copies of Windows XP than any other piece of software. Now, I don't run Windows, nor do many people on here, but it's still an example. And trying to port OS's is nothing new.
Back in the day like 7 years ago, I definitely wanted Linux on my XBox. I just never knew how to do it. But back when it was a fresher system, it was a pretty powerful piece of hardware for the price (after the price drops) that was very limited by its software. Forget the fact that many of us hate Microsoft for a second, but it's a similar concept, except with a piece of hardware.
Should this info be on here? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. I just do know that I don't think that hackintoshing will stop anytime soon. I'm not saying that I'm going to go run out and buy an MSI wind and put OSX on it by any means.
Just my thoughts.
This news comes as no surprise. I have been browsing MyDellMini and it's been done for a couple days now.
I sympathize with all the Apple guys, but I think we all must realize that hacking/warez will always exist to some extent, and the information will be out there somewhere.
This sort of stuff has been happening for years---Windows being bootlegged, people putting Linux on the XBox, Linux on the PS2, hacking the PSP to run games off the memory stick, etc and those are just more recent examples in the past 5-7 years. I would bet there are more bootlegged copies of Windows XP than any other piece of software. Now, I don't run Windows, nor do many people on here, but it's still an example. And trying to port OS's is nothing new.
Back in the day like 7 years ago, I definitely wanted Linux on my XBox. I just never knew how to do it. But back when it was a fresher system, it was a pretty powerful piece of hardware for the price (after the price drops) that was very limited by its software. Forget the fact that many of us hate Microsoft for a second, but it's a similar concept, except with a piece of hardware.
Should this info be on here? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. I just do know that I don't think that hackintoshing will stop anytime soon. I'm not saying that I'm going to go run out and buy an MSI wind and put OSX on it by any means.
Just my thoughts.
Depends on your definition of "win".
Psystar has just been found guilty of a DMCA violation because of hacking around something similar (the situations are not quite the same though), so commercial distribution of netbooks with MacOS X installed has just become a bit harder.
They "won" in that Psystar was profiting from it. These people aren't asking for any money. Although, some do have Paypal so you can donate but nothing is asked in exchange for the knowledge/hack.
hackintosh
so many repeat posts to so many repeat articles about this topic. this was never a big deal to begin with. Hackers won't be stopped, they'll find a way around any barrier. Even if the fix had taken a long time hackintoshes with a 10.6.1 or earlier build still worked fine. Mine Dell mini 9 is still at 10.5.7 and I feel no need to update it.
so many repeat posts to so many repeat articles about this topic. this was never a big deal to begin with. Hackers won't be stopped, they'll find a way around any barrier. Even if the fix had taken a long time hackintoshes with a 10.6.1 or earlier build still worked fine. Mine Dell mini 9 is still at 10.5.7 and I feel no need to update it.
Why does nearly every single "mac news" site keep posting speculation crap about this issue when anyone can see what was done? The kernel is open source. What changed is public knowledge. And yet every article still is still trying to spin a big conspiracy. The more of these stories I see, the more I'm driven away from sites I normally visit due to the writers clearly trying to build hype out of nothing.
Here, let me repost my comments from another site to explain what actually changed.
----------
I decided to browse through the kernel code in 10.6.2 (now that its out), and here is what I found.
What specifically killed the Atom is in xnu-1486.2.11/osfmk/i386/cpuid.c, around lines 600.
In the past, the kernel would check if the CPU family was 6, and if the model number was higher then 13. This basically means any Intel CPU newer then the Pentium M Dothan (used in the Apple TV) was supported.
The new code now specifically checks for family 13, 14 (Yonah), 15 (Merom), 23 (Penryn), 26 (Nehalem), 30 (Fields), 31 (Dales), and 46 (Nehalem_EX). The Atom is 28, so it doesnt pass the check, and hits code at line 649 that panics with Unsupported CPU.
Interestingly, in xnu-1486.2.11/osfmk/i386/cpuid.h, code was added to define models 28, 30, 31 and 46. Even though the kernel now panics with 28, CPUID_MODEL_ATOM is defined where it wasnt before.
I cant say for certain why the change was made, but to me, it was a rework of a previous flawed check (is CPU model 13 or higher), and replaced it with one that checks for exactly what the kernel wants. There is a decent bit of code in the kernel that is optimized specifically for certain processors, so it makes sense to improve the high level checks.
Oh, and there is a comment in cpuid.c that says suck it atom hackers.
(Certain parts of this post in regards to code comments may or may not be true).
----------
So in summary, the "Atom Killing" 10.6.2 simply tightened up a logic check that was passing things it shouldn't have. The fact now is that 10.6.2 actually has more Atom specific code in it then 10.6.1, because they now specifically define model 28 as ATOM. Nothing is done with this definition yet, but it is the foundation for kernel checks elsewhere if they wanted to make specific Atom optimizations. There are already plenty of other CPU specific optimizations in the kernel, for things like Nehalem's hyper threading and so on.
Here, let me repost my comments from another site to explain what actually changed.
----------
I decided to browse through the kernel code in 10.6.2 (now that its out), and here is what I found.
What specifically killed the Atom is in xnu-1486.2.11/osfmk/i386/cpuid.c, around lines 600.
In the past, the kernel would check if the CPU family was 6, and if the model number was higher then 13. This basically means any Intel CPU newer then the Pentium M Dothan (used in the Apple TV) was supported.
The new code now specifically checks for family 13, 14 (Yonah), 15 (Merom), 23 (Penryn), 26 (Nehalem), 30 (Fields), 31 (Dales), and 46 (Nehalem_EX). The Atom is 28, so it doesnt pass the check, and hits code at line 649 that panics with Unsupported CPU.
Interestingly, in xnu-1486.2.11/osfmk/i386/cpuid.h, code was added to define models 28, 30, 31 and 46. Even though the kernel now panics with 28, CPUID_MODEL_ATOM is defined where it wasnt before.
I cant say for certain why the change was made, but to me, it was a rework of a previous flawed check (is CPU model 13 or higher), and replaced it with one that checks for exactly what the kernel wants. There is a decent bit of code in the kernel that is optimized specifically for certain processors, so it makes sense to improve the high level checks.
Oh, and there is a comment in cpuid.c that says suck it atom hackers.
(Certain parts of this post in regards to code comments may or may not be true).
----------
So in summary, the "Atom Killing" 10.6.2 simply tightened up a logic check that was passing things it shouldn't have. The fact now is that 10.6.2 actually has more Atom specific code in it then 10.6.1, because they now specifically define model 28 as ATOM. Nothing is done with this definition yet, but it is the foundation for kernel checks elsewhere if they wanted to make specific Atom optimizations. There are already plenty of other CPU specific optimizations in the kernel, for things like Nehalem's hyper threading and so on.
You know I'd love to try this out, not because I want to use a netbook (my 2007 MBP still does what I need) but because I'm a geek and I love trying stuff out just to see if I can get it to work, this is in many of our blood. ever sense I was a little kid I've loved taking stuff apart, trying to get things to do what I need/want. heck that's a huge reason why I love computers, the 'solution finding' and stuff. forget the legalities of it or not. I'm not out to cheat Apple on anything, and I doubt I'd keep OS X on the netbook if I had one, but I'd sure as heck like to try to load it on just to do it. Not everyone that wants to do this is wanting to wear an eye patch, or 'stick it to the man' many people just want to do it to see if they can, and to have a little geekfest.
Just out of curiosity: Why are people interested in running OS X on an Atom-based system?
OS X Snow Leopard runs pretty poorly on my old Core Duo MacBook, and the Core Duo's have better processing power than the Atoms.
Not trying to start a flame war here, but even Windows 7 is better suited on an Atom-based laptop than OS X, in my experience.
OS X Snow Leopard runs pretty poorly on my old Core Duo MacBook, and the Core Duo's have better processing power than the Atoms.
Not trying to start a flame war here, but even Windows 7 is better suited on an Atom-based laptop than OS X, in my experience.
i find that the dell mini 9 is great for someone with a limited budget..
the keyboard aint that bad
the keyboard aint that bad
Oh come on guys, grow up. Let's face it, the only reason this thread is almost a tie on negative vs positive ratings on the front page, and so full of hate is because you guys can't stand the idea of OS X running on a Dell. How dare they put it on a computer that costs less than $600!
Get off your dang high horses, I'd be willing to bet the majority of people here have either violated an EULA or outright pirated something before.
Get off your dang high horses, I'd be willing to bet the majority of people here have either violated an EULA or outright pirated something before.
I have moved the posts dealing with if this should be on the front page to this thread in Site & Forum Feedback where it belongs. 165 posts were moved so if you're looking for yours, it's probably there! Please try to keep the rest of this thread on topic. Thanks!
Obviously never driven a Ferrari. Worst, most delusional analogy ever.
No spinning beachballs, cracked bodies, yellow tinted windows, burning magsafes, exploding batteries, wiped data, defective 8800s for an entire line of laptops.....and on and on from Modena.
Apples are Chevies with Buick stickers on them so the easily fooled will think they have a better computer for the extra money they spent on it.
http://gizmodo.com/5406415/laptop-reliability-study-asus-and-toshiba-come-out-on-top
Obviously never driven a Ferrari. Worst, most delusional analogy ever.
No spinning beachballs, cracked bodies, yellow tinted windows, burning magsafes, exploding batteries, wiped data, defective 8800s for an entire line of laptops.....and on and on from Modena.
Apples are Chevies with Buick stickers on them so the easily fooled will think they have a better computer for the extra money they spent on it.
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/4/2009/11/500x_squaretrade3.jpg
http://gizmodo.com/5406415/laptop-reliability-study-asus-and-toshiba-come-out-on-top
That's why mine's an Asus.
Uh, because they want OSX on a device that Apple won't sell them? A $300-$500 netbook with 10-11" screen that weighs about #3 and they don't need "performance" for email, web surfing, listening to music, looking at photos and word processing?
As you say, W7 is really better suited for a netbook, though.
Customers really love the portability of the netbooks.
Can't believe that Apple couldn't have Asus make a hip and cool silver one for them, stick an Apple sticker on it and sell it for $500 to keep those 40% margins rolling in. I could have sold a ton of Apple "iBooks".
That's why mine's an Asus.
The new Asus i7 gaming laptops are the bees knees.
Great performance and value.
Can't wait for the next MPB to get that cpu and the new ATI 5000 GPUs.
Apple will just come out with the Slate and this will be passe...
It will sell like the iPhone does... unless your just a tweak.
It will sell like the iPhone does... unless your just a tweak.
Oddly enough, Flash is not a problem on my netbook running Windows 7. Its OSX that has the problem or more specifically, Adobe's rendition of Flash for OSX.