Installing Mac Os X Tiger On X86 Architecture

[murtu52]

Has anyone tried it? I want to experiment with it, figure things out, but I never have the time to sit down and fiddle. I found a set of instructions at http://www.tech-recipes.com/apple_mac_tips964.html; Anyone want to experiment?

Also, seriously, is this illegal in any type of way (assuming you obtain your copy of OSX Tiger legally)? Technically you aren't stealing anything, but just to be sure....

[macmarauder]

sorry murtu52 all i get is a 404 page. i'll gladly experiment for you if you can find the recipe again and if it will work with a panther cd instead of tiger. as far as legality. i'm not sure but i wouldn't worry about it.

here i fixed your link.

clicky

Edited August 16, 2005 by macmarauder

[Pierce]

Yes, if you correctly read the "small print" it will say reverse engineering of any kind will invalidate your legality of using the software.

Also even if you have OSX for your macintosh, unless its an "intel" powered macintosh the operating system will not install on a pc even with the hack.

Pierce

[isteve]

You can get links from here.

[murtu52]

I've done some reading, i'll do some more research and see what I can do...

By the way, thats macmarauder....

[macmarauder]

well i tried this myself. yes it will only work on an intel system and only with Tiger. not Panther. also yes it is not legal but my personal opinion is loose when it come to legality this small. but do at your own risk. it takes a little fanagling and lots of patience but it runs pretty fast actually. way way much faster natively than using Virtual Pc and others. how ever i would not recommend doing this. i am having several little problems, after all your taking an os that wast written for a memory based system and putting it on a process based system. the biggest reason of why apple has kept os x to them selves is to keep good control over the hardware/software interface and in doing this you throw that out the window. made for mac for a reason. but if anyone wants to try it here is a good forum for just such a thing.

http://www.concretesurf.co.nz/osx86/index.php

[murtu52]

Exactly, but just doing it for experience can't hurt at all . I wasn't planning to use OSX as my primary or even secondary OS, just something to try out and have fun with. I always loved apple OSs, just never got the chance to really have fun with them after the first one I had when I was a child and at school....

[TheLetterK]

after all your taking an os that wast written for a memory based system and putting it on a process based system.

Nextstep was originally written for m68k boxes, and ported to x86 back in 1993. I've got a copy of it, in fact. I'd go so far as to say OS X actually has a longer history on 'wintel' hardware than it does 'Mac' hardware.

the biggest reason of why apple has kept os x to them selves is to keep good control over the hardware/software interface and in doing this you throw that out the window.

It's because Apple leverages the operating system as a reason to pay for their (moderately) overpriced systems. Apple makes tremendous profit off the sale of hardware in this manner.

[murtu52]

the biggest reason of why apple has kept os x to them selves is to keep good control over the hardware/software interface and in doing this you throw that out the window.

It's because Apple leverages the operating system as a reason to pay for their (moderately) overpriced systems. Apple makes tremendous profit off the sale of hardware in this manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But isn't another reason why prices are so high is because of IBM's charges? People are hoping that when the Intel machines come out they'll be cheaper....

[TheLetterK]

the biggest reason of why apple has kept os x to them selves is to keep good control over the hardware/software interface and in doing this you throw that out the window.

It's because Apple leverages the operating system as a reason to pay for their (moderately) overpriced systems. Apple makes tremendous profit off the sale of hardware in this manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But isn't another reason why prices are so high is because of IBM's charges? People are hoping that when the Intel machines come out they'll be cheaper....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell no! Apple gets insane pricing on PPC procs. Here's how they do it:

Since Apple is essentially the only buyer of desktop PPC procs, they can simply withhold new models until the price is right. They force IBM and Freescale to fund development of new processors, then make them store these new processors until IBM or Freescale is willing to drop the price just to move the procs out of warehouses. Intel, however, is not susceptible to this type of coersion.

Pricing will undoubtedly remain the same as it is now, but Apple will make less per unit (though will likely make up for the loss in increased unit sales).

[macmarauder]

OUCH! TheLetterK your supposed to hit the nail on the head, not me.

[murtu52]

Hmm....it seems I've heard both sides of the story now . Thanks TheLetterK, you cleared that up for me....

[isteve]

Looks like apple may be putting some Dual core PPC's in the G5's soon. A dual, dual core G5 has got to be some serious potential horsepower.

Also Apple may be a little unhappy about os x on x86 websites here.

[macmarauder]

yeah double core G5 processors are extremely powerful too. but if memory serves me right they pretty unstable and ran really hot. so much so that Apple was pissed at IBM. they had to use liwuid cooling (which apple still hasn't gotten quite right yet) just to use dual G5s running at less than 2gzh. let alone 2.5gzh like IBM plans.

in the one hand Apple has always wanted to make their money from the hardware which this takes away and in the other the whole reason of why Apples are as stable as they are is because of the control over hardware. like i said i got it to work with extra effort but it's buggy. but i got to admit that when it's working it very fast. or least it's the fastest crashing computer i've ever seen. i don't mean it crashes all the time but when it does i can crash at 150 mph.

thanks for the links isteve.

[murtu52]

Yeah, thanks for the link...

Also, mac, regular G5s already run at very hot temperatures. Thats pricisely why we don't have G5 power- and ibooks. We'd burn ourselves :D :D .

[TheLetterK]

Looks like apple may be putting some Dual core PPC's in the G5's soon. A dual, dual core G5 has got to be some serious potential horsepower.

Also Apple may be a little unhappy about os x on x86 websites here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Frankly, I'd rather them use Freescale's MPC8641D ('Dual-core G4') for the Powerbooks.

[TheLetterK]

Yeah, thanks for the link...

Also, mac, regular G5s already run at very hot temperatures. Thats pricisely why we don't have G5 power- and ibooks. We'd burn ourselves :D :D .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Current G5s are actually fairly cool when you clock them down to 1.4ghz or so. Unfortunately, this is no more powerful than the G4s currently shipping, and certainly less powerful than Freescale's latest offerings.

[isteve]

Frankly, I'd rather them use Freescale's  MPC8641D ('Dual-core G4') for the Powerbooks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If apple announced a dual core 1.5 Freescale powerbook my credit card would be smokin'.

But... I guess I'll just have to wait for a Intelabook.

[macmarauder]

this reminds me of when G4s had only been out for a year or so . i was jumpering B&W G3s and 2 G4s at work. i could get the G3s to jumper further and be more stable than the G4s. i like the G3s cause of their stock running temps and power consumption was much lower when overclocked. after hacking OS 9 down to bare minimum they were so fast for back then. weeeeeeee 615mhz they'll never get better than that.

[macmarauder]

Frankly, I'd rather them use Freescale's  MPC8641D ('Dual-core G4') for the Powerbooks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If apple announced a dual core 1.5 Freescale powerbook my credit card would be smokin'.

But... I guess I'll just have to wait for a Intelabook.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you guys might be very very pleasantly surprised at the chips intel is making for apple. some of us a while back were trying to figure out which chip base they were going to start with for the new chips. there were a couple that looked like they were meant for an apple based system.

[TheLetterK]

Frankly, I'd rather them use Freescale's  MPC8641D ('Dual-core G4') for the Powerbooks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If apple announced a dual core 1.5 Freescale powerbook my credit card would be smokin'.

But... I guess I'll just have to wait for a Intelabook.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you guys might be very very pleasantly surprised at the chips intel is making for apple. some of us a while back were trying to figure out which chip base they were going to start with for the new chips. there were a couple that looked like they were meant for an apple based system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never had a problem with 'PC' hardware. Just Windows. This desktop is a 'LinMD' box, Intel is overpriced IMO, but there's nothing really wrong with their products.

AMD and Nvidia make a killer combonation.

[macmarauder]

that's the same way i feel. i was just saddened but not surprised to hear about apple dumping ibm. it had been coming for a long time though. JSKY and i looked at some of the architecture of the some of the underused intel processors and were pleasantly surprised. i talked to an old co worker from apple and he had a visit with people from intel r&d and he said that they were pretty sciked about just working on something non x86.

[jcl]

The only problem with Intel's products is that they're unstable. Not the products, Intel. Every few years the company tries to create the Platform of the Future and ends up blowing billions of dollars and years of development on some absolutely bonkers idea. NetBurst and Itanium are the most recent examples, but you can go back to the i860 and iAPX432. (i860 and Itanium were actually the same bonkers idea, that no matter how complicated you make the architecture, the compilers will make it Fast. Whoops.)

The move to the Pentium M, if that is indeed what they're doing, is a fit of sanity, but I don't know if it will last. Intel seems to have developed a real interest in thread-level parallelism (SMT, CMP, and of course SMP) and while I approve of the general idea, the results so far haven't been entirely encouraging. It would be unfortunate if Apple committed to Intel and then a few years down the line found itself trying to deal with, say, an experiment in low-power parallel hardware ("How Many Celerons Can We Put On A Chip?").

Edited August 19, 2005 by jcl

[macmarauder]

i know, sounds like they just need better leadership and control. too bad apple can't just take that part of them over. "form follows function" even in business matters.

[jcl]

Apple does the same thing, they just to it with software instead. Need I mention Pink, Taligent, Copland, Dylan, even, in a way, Rhapsody (but not OS X)?

The problem, I think, is that innovation is inherent a dirty, dangerous business. When you add the resources of a large corporation like Apple or Intel it just becomes that much more dangerous.

Edited August 19, 2005 by jcl