Slashdot Mirror
HOW TO: Convert a Mac into an x86
inventgeek writes "With the recent announcements Apple
has made regarding its operating environment, Inventgeek.com
has a mod that seems rather fitting. They have converted a Mac
G3 to an Intel P4 System capable of running Windows or Linux. Full how to
is available on there site for those brave enough to bask in what many say could
be Apples greatest folly, and a
blow to Linux." Update: 06/08 17:53 GMT by T : A few further Mac-OS-X-on-Intel notes, about the new Intel development kit from Apple: Readers jimboman78 and shooflot sent in, respectively, links to (mostly positive) comments on the front page of Accelerate Your Mac and a more skeptical but equally preliminary description at Think Secret.
RTFA, the description here is misleading.
The case mod for the G3 was interesting for the most part. The author includes several pictures and descriptions of the mod and is nice enough to include price points and a scale that makes no sense.
http://www.allometry.com
This is just another "fit a PC in a mac" mod. It has nothing to do with Apple's decision to move to Intel chips, nor is it a particularly inventive thing to do. And, ooh, he put an LED in the case. That's *classy*.
Area IV, here I am
...save yourself a few bucks and just buy an X86 box for much, much cheaper....
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
It's just a case mod and consists of the following:
1. Buy a Mac G3
2. Through away all the electronicsy bits
3. Buy a PC
4. Put PC electronicsy bits inside the G3 case
5. Stick a Windows logo on case
6. ?
7. You are so not l33t
John.
The headline should read: "How to put an Intel based processor motherboard into a G3 chassis."
There is no "conversion" going on here.
This is no t the article you are looking for, move along.
I still don't get the hooplah over this in terms of Linux usage. I see the two as being very distinct. Yes, I know OS X runs a BSD (?) variant, but it is still a vendor product. Even if I could run OSX on a whitebox system I probably wouldn't, since I know the backup and support for is going to be superior to any that Apple (single vendor) will give me.
Given that one of the major selling points of Linux (aside from the stability and lack of virus attacks) is the ability to be choosy with vendors, I can't imagine someone trading in Vendor M for Vendor A. If I were a network admin or a CIO, I'd be looking at being vendor free as much as possible.
Just my $.02 - whatever that's worth these days...
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
Doubt it. It's not like he was trying to run OS X on it. When they do release a version of OS X for Intel, it'll probably only support Apple hardware anyway.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
How is Mac OSX going to hurt Linux? I mean, people buy Macs to install Linux on them and its not like Apple is going to allow people to install OSX on commodity hardware. Apple is still a hardware company. If anything, the new machiens will just be overpriced commodity Intel gear. $500 for 512 megs of RAM, shit like that.
If anything, its hurts Microsoft bad. Linux is a server OS first, desktop second. There are far more Linux servers out there than desktops and the enterpise is looking for Linux servers to interoperate with their Windows desktops. I don't see OSX making any inroads into the Linux server market, hence, I don't see it to be a threat.
On the other hand, those company's looking to move an alternative desktop may choose OSX over Linux but might have anyway. Not to mention, in a recent survey post people choose Linux to avoid vendor lock in, which is Apple's specialty.
http://www.w3sh.com/archives/2005/05/enfin_un_bon
Just as stupid and non-technical as the one the story is about, but at least i dont claim that its something cool or ingenius (like that summary of this story)
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
"NEXT WEEK ON SLASHDOT: We put a PC into.... A CARDBOARD BOX! Is there ANYPLACE that's too wacky for us to use?"
Not only is this a dupe of another lackluster "roflolol i put a pc ina mac case" story from a few months ago, but it's completely un-newsworthy on its own merits.
This is as akin "turning a mac into a PC" as "wearing Davey Crockett's hat" is to making you a raccoon.
Now, if it were something really clever, like, say, taping a camera to an R/C tank and calling it a 'basement exploring robot', that would be totally different. Why, anyone who would do that would be pure genius!
But unfortunately, I can't really wait a year or two while they transition over. And buying a current PowerBook isn't an option either--the hardware is already obsolete by PPC standards. I guess it's just a ThinkPad for me (or any other laptop with excellent Linux support).
Anyways, that is a cool case mod though.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
It's THEIR site. What fucking use is an editor that can't spell?
Hardware is not used under license. It is yours.
KFG
Dear lowly worm,
It has come to our attention that you have converted an apple into a car. This is strictly against our EULA and we will be dispatching our squadron of attack lawyers immediately. It will be an insanely great lawsuit featuring impeccably dressed lawyers with super slick white plastic computers. You have been warned.
Sincerely,
The Apple Legal Team
air and light and time and space
Now if Apple decided to allow OSX to be run on commodity hardware, that would be threating to both windows, linux and every other OS. If Apple decided to open up the propriatary components that really define OSX, that could lead to people switching to OSX. As it stands now, the likelihood of Apple doing either is very slim.
"Full how to is available on there site for those brave enough to bask in what many say could be Apples greatest folly, and a blow to Linux."
h tml
I don't think their is any exclusivity to Apple's agreement with Intel, so conceivably some models could continue to be PowerPC/Cell based while others move to Intel. Seems like Apple would then be in a good position, if IBM's Cell processors are compelling, to keep some of its machines based on that platform. This could work out for both Apple and consumers.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.
I remember they did this in 2002 and called it the rotten apple. http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzUx
I also think what they did with the colors was a lot more interesting than this mod.
rm -rf
Not yet.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Companies don't use Linux because they like the UI. Companies go with Linux because it's highly customizeable, they have full access to the source and there are no royalties or licensing fees. Mac-Intel won't impact any desktop Linux users because you won't be able to run Mac OS X on an Intel whitebox.
So Dvorak, who is an idiot, claims that Linux will die because of this move. Remember, he's the guy who claimed that Microsoft will die in less than 10 years. And since when does "Dvorak" constitute "many"?
And now every fucking Mac article has to mention how "Macs on Intel" are a blow to Linux.
How about this. I propose that you blow Linux, instead of blowing all that nonsense hot air that has absolutely no merit.
Raises an interesting question:
1. Apple will not be allowing OSX to run on standard PC hardware. Part of this will almost certainly be because of incompatible hardware, but Apple's had language in its EULAs saying you can only run MacOS on Apple hardware ever since the end of the clone era.
2. Given that Darwin, the underpinnings of OSX, runs quite well on stock PC hardware, it seems unlikely to me that someone won't figure out how to get OSX/x86 running on standard PCs.
3. Therefore, would it be against the Apple EULA to run OSX/x86 on a standard PC motherboard shoehorned into an old Mac?
Of course, this is all theoretical right now since OSX/x86 isn't really shipping yet.
If Apple ports their OS to Intel, so that it can run on standard PC architecture, then they become an OS vendor, rather than a Mac appliance vendor. Consumers would be faced with three options: Microsoft, with its reputation for unreliability and lack of security; Linux, with its reputation for difficult installation, not being ready for the masses, and no support; and MacOS, secure, stable, and widely supported.
I know which way I'd steer people.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
It would have been impressive if they'd used any of the iMac or eMac series and had the display working. But putting a PC motherboard in a pretty standard case that just happens to have been made by Apple? Lame.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
The machines do not have Open Firmware. They use a Phoenix BIOS. That;s right, a Mac with a BIOS. (I asked if the Bios had any tweaks like Memory Timing which is common for many PC motherboards, although Intel OEM motherboards don't usually have any end user tweaks like that.-Mike) They won't tell us how to get in the BIOS. I'm sure we can figure it out when out dev kits arrive.
They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box.
Now this is regarding the DEV machines Apple is handing. I know everyone on slashdot has ASSUMED that Apple will control the hardware based on the CNET article that said Apple would not allow users to install OSX on non-Apple hardware. However, what if this threat is just Apple saying that they'll use the lawyers instead of a technological solution? Think about it, Apple will have limited driver choices out there since it wil be a limited Apple-controlled machine. So either someone writes the drivers or your machines is close enough to run OSX. I think those of us with Pentium M notebooks will have the easiest time with OS X. Now, what I want to know is... if these machines have EVERYTHING any other PC does, why is it not possible to run a copy of MacOSX on a normal white box PC.
They announced the dev kit would be P4 3.6 GHz, the spec for building applications for it indicates two platforms, PPC and ia32 by name.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
as long as they make OS X available for any Intel based system and don't try to lock people into using just their hardware
Sorry, but no such luck. :-(
Back in 2002, [H]ardOCP did a project called "The Rotten Apple".
Its far more creative and looks a hell of a lot nicer.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzUx
Mac G3 to PC mods are (were) fairly common, due to the overall niceness of the G3 case.
Note that this isn't really a conversion so much as it is a "gutting and stuffing".
Of course, I've never thought case-mods were newsworthy.
The only probable reason this made it to the front page is to exploit the apple switch buzz.
Boo timothy.
Some people will probably want to dual-boot, at least initially.
But let's go on a brief flight of fancy here.
Suppose Apple were to create a new fork of WINE to run natively in the Aqua environment, and pour a whole bunch of development time into tweaking and improving it (sort of like how they forked the K browser to make Safari.)
Suddenly the Macintosh becomes a box which can run damn near all Windows apps and damn near all Linux apps, without ever leaving OS X.
At that point, there are only three groups of people who would ever have any reason to run something other than OS X: Platform bigots, open-source zealots, and penny-pinchers. Granted, those three groups comprise a significant portion of the market, but think of how many more there are out there.
A conversation which goes on about 20 times a day in big-box computer stores:
"I need a new computer, and my nephew says Macs are good. Do you have them?"
"Yes, we carry a few, but keep in mind that Macs can't run Windows software. If your old computer ran Microsoft Windows, you will need to buy all new software."
"Oh. Well what's good then?"
Suddenly the #1 reason why people who consider Macs go with something else evaporates.
That doesn't address the #2 reason (cost), but I think it will still make a huge difference in future Macintosh market share.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
1. Find a dead badger (try the sides of highways) /.
2. Remove fiddley biological bits
3. Insert fiddley electronic bits
4. Install Linux w/ apache
5. Write up process and post on deadbadger.dyndns.com
6. Submit article to
7. Watch as deadbadger gets slashdotted to death
The devkit runs a P4 660, a stock proccessor that you can buy on newegg, it has Intel GMA integrated graphics, but will support existing (and future) PC video cards so long as the vendors have supplied a OS X driver. 533MHz DDR2 memory, SATA-2 hard drive. Firewire 400, USB 2, Pheonix BIOS. There is already a list out of wireless adapters that do and don't work with x86 OS X. I haven't read anything about the ethernet controller, but it is most likely a Realtek or something similar.
1)So best case senario, the x86 version of OS X will run on any PC with commodity hardware so long OS X drivers are available.
2)Mid case senario 1: OS X will require a certain Intel chipset (such as the 945G) and any mobo with that chipset will run OS X.
3)Mid case senario 2: OS X will require the same model Intel motherboard that Apple will be shipping with.
4)Worst case senario, OS X will require an "available to Apple only" motherbard and won't run on any other board.
Cases 1 & 2 would require minimal to no investment to get me running OS X on my existing P4 box. Case #3 would be something I would do with my next PC, but still very easy to manage. Cases 2 & 3 aren't even likely, or even feasible, beacause of upgrading issues. Case #4 would be the existing Apple lock-in.
Apple has been moving towards commodity hardware for years. The existing G5's use IDE hard & optical drives, a PCI bus for expansion cards, and 8X AGP. Now that Apple will be moving to an x86 proccessor, the only thing Apple could do to prevent OS X on a "Dell" would be a "Apple-Inside" chip.
Free MacMini
Not so, in my humble opinion. The only thing that made a mac unique was the OS and the processor, and the processor was making the pc cost-prohibitive for joe america to own, and quite frankly making it impossible for mac to compete on any real level with intel and amd. Put an intel in a mac, and it's still a mac. It's all in the OS.
Currently, wanting it illegal and making it illegal are, thankfully, two different things.
My Sysadmin Blog
"Hardware is not used under license. It is yours."
Try selling a used Scientology e-meter on eBay. eBay won't let you do it. Scientology lawyers claim the hardware is copyrighted. eBay said, "Please don't sue us -- you got it, no sales."
To create law from the primal soup, you first establish precedents. We're well along the path to "licensed hardware use".
...is that it's a rental from Apple. They want the developer box back in 2006. They don't want you to think this is representative of hardware they're going to put in production machines, as far as performance, etc. Which is odd, because developers can't optimize until they know the platform, but that's the way it is. I'm guessing they're just having these out until they can come out with the first production model, and then everyone should build off that.
I really don't think that numbers generated from XBench running on Rosetta running on a developer preview of 10.4.1 for Intel, like ThinkSecret is showing, are truly indicative of the performance we'll get from native apps on Leopard, which will be the first shipping version with the Intel platform.
But let's go on a brief flight of fancy here.
IIRC, when Apple first starting morphing Rhapsody into OS X, there was this concept of "boxes". There was a red (windows applications), yellow (java), and blue ("Classic") box.
Where that technology went is anybody's guess. But the fact that it probably still exists, and now no longer would have to emulate the processor, makes me think that in a year or two, Jobs will be saying "Oh, and one more thing..." just as he leave the stage, and then go on to show how to use any Windows application on a Mac/Intel.
Just my tinfoil hat speaking.