Slashdot Mirror
EFI Modifications Leaves iMac Unbootable?
jerbare writes "In attempting to run Linux and Windows on the new iMac Core Duo, people experimenting with configuring the EFI Console/Boot loader have found they can no longer boot the machine at all. Dave Schroeder of appleintelfaq.com comments, 'We have already irreversibly lost a couple of iMacs trying to load various EFI modules'. Instructions for breaking the iMac's are presently located at the bottom of the comments."
+1, damn clever hardware hackery.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Well, OS X runs X11, which lets it do some Linux apps. Aside from that, you're looking at the same situation Windows is, unless there is a specially designed Linux that does EFI and the GPT (or whatever the Hard Drive issue is). I'd say dual-booted Linux would beat XP to the Mactels because of the fact that a version of Linux can be engineered to work on the Mactels.
First of all, Microsoft may well produce a version of Virtual PC for Mactels that does graphics acceleration. A version of Windows is a version of Windows to them. If they can sell VPC + Windows XP or Vista, it'll make them more profit per sale than a sale of Windows at a reduced rate to an OEM.
Did you at least notify the manufacturer of the defect? Not everyone can go all MacGyver on motherboards, and if some customers are finding ways to fix broken equipment in their own way it could prove to be bad for both the company and the customer. That is if the manufacturer isn't kept in the loop that they have produced a batch of malfanctioning devices.
Such things tend to skew the QA data, which is never beneficial to either party.
"Otherwise, you potentially have the mother of all DRM traps in front of you."
Yes. This, if it turns out to be the way it looks at first glance, is truly evil. Very important to realise what you may be looking at. The first commercial example of a company which has totally taken away control of your hardware.
Lets hope it turns out not to be true. Because if it is true, its war.
"Lets hope it turns out not to be true. Because if it is true, its war."
How melodramatic.
Apple never said that they would support Windows on any Mac, and as such has not built the functionality to run it. Why would they? It runs OS X just fine, and any OS X user would have zero reason to screw with the firmware using non-Apple software. It's not a conspiracy, it's not DRM. It's like complaining you can install OS X on your thinkpad but it doesn't have all the drivers, oh no! Apple is trying to screw me...!
Instead of using sudo...
/Developer/Applications/Utilities/PackageMaker) that requires root access (under the Configuration tab, select Root from the Authentication menu). Set it to require a restart after installation (select Required Restart from the Post-Install Action menu). It doesn't have to actually install anything, just go through the motions. Put the malware in a script called InstallationCheck, put it in the Resources folder, and make it executable.
/path/to/image.dmg), throw it on a web server and trick users into downloading it by telling them it's a pornographic screen saver or something.
.dmg file, your package will automatically be opened. The user will be prompted to enter an Administrator password, and they will be told the installer needs to run a script to see whether the software can be installed. If they enter their password and click OK to the security prompt, the script will run with root privileges even if the user changes their mind and cancels the installation. If they proceed with the installation, they'll be asked to restart the computer.
Make an Installer package (using
Build your package, make a disk image from it (open Disk Copy, select File/New/Disk Image from Folder, select your package), set the internet-enable bit (open Terminal, type hdiutil internet-enable -yes
Upon downloading the
Anyone who says Mac OS X isn't susceptible to malware doesn't know what they're talking about. Yes, this method requires the user to enter their password and confirm a security warning, but these are perfectly normal things to do when installing software, so most users are accustomed to it. As long as you make them think what they're installing is something they want to have, most users won't even blink.
To be honest, I'm surprised this hasn't been done on a wide scale already.
Btw, please don't do this, kthx.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
No matter how difficult it is for someone outside Apple to make Windows XP boot, I would say the following to Apple:
1. If Apple were to sell Macintosh hardware with Windows XP preinstalled instead of MacOS X, then a considerable number of people would buy these machines. Not "considerable" as in "Dell goes out of business" but "considerable" as in a few percent of Apple revenues.
2. If Apple were to sell Macintosh hardware that can dual boot into MacOS X and Windows XP without any problems, a much greater number would buy those machines. Dual boot = run one, reboot, run the other, reboot...
3. If Apple were to sell Macintosh hardware that can run MacOS X and Windows XP simultaneously, they could sell tons of those. Even if "simultaneously" means that one of the OSes is in sleep mode while the other is running, with some form of communication so that cut&paste works.
Granted, this second argument might not pan out -- now that Apple is on the intel bandwagon, They may speed up the upgrade cycle for different models. Since it's not very different from any of the millions of other intel based systems out there, It will be easier to port new hardware to the new machine. The Physical hardware is/nearly is identical with the exception of how the form factor might be when the non-imac models come out, and the software drivers will be easier to port since the underligning hardware calls to the CPU and system buses are going to be the same/nearly the same.
Mod parent up.
This basically is the answer to the question behind the first ~100 or so posts (mine included).
So it's not an irrecoverable "bricking" problem, but it does get close.
I wonder if it's possible, rather than reformatting the HD, to put it into another machine and just wipe the partition with the bad NVRAM image on it. Not that it really matters in a test environment (which I hope is the only place anyone would ever try this), where you'd probably want to reformat and reinstall anyway, but I just wonder if it's possible.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."