Slashdot Mirror
Leopard Already Hacked To Run On PC Hardware
PoliTech passed us a PC World link, noting that the newest version of OS X, Leopard, has already been adapted to run on a PC. "The OSx86 Scene forum has released details of how Windows users can migrate to Apple's new OS, without investing in new hardware -- even though installing Leopard on an PC may be counter to Apple's terms and conditions. The forum is offering full instructions on how to install the system, including screenshots of the installation process. Not all the features of Leopard function with the patch -- Wi-Fi support, for example, is reportedly inoperable. Historically, Apple's likely next move will be to track down and act against those behind the hack."
Are these the same guys from the original hack?
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Shame about that. I mean, I've got 4 computers that I use at home for various things, and if I could buy a legal working copy of OS X to run on 'em, I would in a heartbeat. Even at say $200/copy, with the same support I'd get from Microsoft if I were running Windows (read that as "none")....
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
You'll only be able to buy the OS with a credit or debit card (no cash!), and the first service pack will brick your PC.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
They would probably lose money unless they charged $300 per copy of the OS.
It's not hard to do the math: Take their current earnings per Mac and then the projected earnings per copy of OS X. How many boxes of OS X would you have to sell in order to equal a Mac sale?
If they get, average, $250 per Mac, then two copies of OS X at current prices would be required to break even. So if all Mac sales die, overnight, they would need to jump up to something like 16% US or 7% worldwide to make up the difference. To make it a profitable endeavor, therefore, they would need to sell 3 copies of OS X... or 32% US/10% worldwide.
GPL Deconstructed
Because I can build a PC for FAR, FAR less than an equivalent Mac costs. I've not run Leopard on my Hackintosh yet (still on Tiger), but if I can run the OS I want on the hardware I want (saving about $1000 or more in the process) with the only negative being that it hurts Apple's feelings, then I'm gonna do that.
Put it this way: my Hackintosh in it's original incarnation had a 2.6ghz Celeron, 1GB of RAM, 160GB of Hard Drive space, a DVD Burner, and a Geforce 7300LE. Now, this was kind of a toss up between a bare-bones Mac Mini at the time. The mini had it in processor speed, but the $599 machine had less ram, less hard drive space (and a slower hard drive), and a slower video card. That and it wasn't really upgradeable. The hardware for my Hackintosh costed $250. I actually did buy a copy of OS X Tiger (though just one for my G4, but I don't use the G4 99% of the time), but that was only $100. So for $350 total, I've got a machine I like more than Apple's $600 machine. Later on for another $250 I've traded up to a Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz in that machine, a 7900GS, and 2GB of RAM - now I'm still $100 cheaper and it's FAR better than the Mac Mini, especially for playing WoW. And even then, I still had the original CPU and video card left over which went to live in my Linux machine.
Bottom line is my Hackintosh does more than Apple's hardware for less money, and if it ever gets behind I get whip it back into shape with nothing more than a few dollars and a screwdriver.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Cue up the "I would buy OSX for my PC if they would only offer it" posts.
This is why you are not running a major corporation, son.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Apple uses EFI in Intel-based Macs instead of regular BIOS.
This is the same reason why you need BootCamp to emulate BIOS in order to boot Windows on an Intel Mac.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
This is really so simple, I can't believe I don't see any posts directly mentioning it. Apple doesn't release Mac OS X for other machines because doing so opens them up to unknown performance and stability. People who see Mac OS X running nicely on a Mac love it, and may want to buy a Mac later. People who see it running on a random PC box, with driver issues and performance problems-- even kernel panics-- aren't going to be left with a good impression. It doesn't matter if you say "Supported on Apple hardware only", the impression is still made.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Apple is worth more than IBM, but armchair CEOs keep saying, "if they were smart, they would sell OS X for 'IBM' PCs. Imagine how much more successful they would be." But Apple has no debt, it has billions in the bank, and its cashflow is astounding and steeply increasing. Why do the armchair CEOs never do a reality check and adjust to what really works in the marketplace? Quality products that are cool and just work.
I would love to be able to play with OS X on a couple non-Mac machines I own, but I would never ever request that Apple open the OS for operation on generic hardware.
"bricking your machine"?
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this procedure, the worst case scenario is you have to reformat the disk and reinstall Windows/Linux/whatever.
That hardly qualifies as "bricking" to me.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
It works great. Cost me less than a real Porsche would have anyway.
Reverse doesn't work, sometimes I can't turn left, and sometimes it stalls on the highway. But take that Porsche and your integrated Engine/Car financial model.
Bug in that logic: its not only MS that supports your PC - its also the hardware manufacturers. Every component, peripheral and driver on your PC is compatible with - and has been tested with - one or more flavours of MS Windows by the manufacturer. PC component manufacturers have to do that in order to survive in a MS-dominated market. Their customer support lines may be crap but they've still invested serious dosh ensuring that they work with MS Windows. Unfortunately, the OS monoculture often means that they've eschewed platform-independent interface protocols in favor of cheaper "soft hardware" solutions that depend on windows-specific drivers. Even the mfrs that do support OS X may only bother on their higher-end products (e.g. the cheapest printers that don't have PCL or Postscript on-board are usually WIndows only).
Now, if you try and sell a "minority" OS product then - until you reach a critical mass and convince hardware mfrs to invest in supporting you - all of that behind-the-scenes support becomes your problem. Linux can scrape by because its got a lot of free labour backed up by multiple sources of commercial backing - but even that has had a hard time. You also have the problem that the vast mass of users buy a PC with Windows installed and are pretty much incapable of installing an OS.
So, say you get the hack and illegally install OS X. The motherboard, WiFi card, ethernet, bluetooth, video card, sound card, web cam etc. in your PC may or may not work with OS X and if the answer is "not" then tough titty - who ya gonna call? Pay $200 to Apple for a copy of OS X and you're going to expect Apple to support your hardware.
Basically, its going to cost Apple a lot of money to break into the "aftermarket OS" market - something that Jobs has already tried and failed at once (NeXTStep) and which, even if successful, would risk eroding Apple's hardware sales.
Bottom line - the MS Monoculture means that there is no "aftermarket OS" market (see: BeOS, NeXTStep, Netware). Even the Linux movement is having an uphill struggle giving away a desktop operating system (not so much in the internet server market, but what with the whole Internet being built on free *nix-oriented code its bloody amazing that anybody even considers Windows).
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Apple's primary concern isn't market penetration at all costs. If that were so then it would have made some sort of effort to release a x86 version of MacOS X for third party hardware. In fact, Apple has gone in the exact opposite direction, and has done everything possible to make such use of its OS on third party hardware impossible.
Apple isn't a software company. It's not interested in selling you an OS and some tools for a few hundred dollars/pounds/euros. Apple is a hardware company, albeit one which also designs its own software to complete its system. It's interested in selling you a complete experience, one that marries custom-designed hardware with custom-designed software, for several hundred/thousand dollars/pounds/euros.
Selling its software only with its hardware has been very successful for Apple. It has many benefits (eg, it allows it to focus software R&D only on a handful of hardware configurations, which makes post-sales support orders of magnitude easier) and is the backbone of modern Apple.
Your idea of getting the OS out there to as many people as possible was tried by Apple in the mid 90s and failed miserably. Several third party clone manufacturers (APS Technologies, DayStar Digital, Motorola, Power Computing, Radius, and UMAX) quickly gobbled a share of the hardware market... but that share was gobbled from Apple itself, as Apple users bought the cheaper clones to run Mac OS 7.x rather than Apple's comparatively more expensive hardware. The rest of the market (mostly DOS and Windows-based PCs) barely noticed at all.
Rather than gaining it market share (and thus sales) the Mac clone experiment almost became Apple's suicide note. Sure, we can sit around and talk about the "what if..." scenarios and talk about what might have happened had Apple tried it out before Windows had become so entrenched but the simple reality was that by the time that Apple did try it out it was too little, too late for it to capture the market away from Microsoft's baby.
How bad was the cloning? Well, the first thing that Steve Jobs did when he rejoined Apple was sit down with the clone makers and try to renegotiate their licensing terms to raise Apple's per-computer revenues. The clone makers refused and Jobs effectively withdrew their licences (the next version of the MacOS was released as MacOS 8, and the clone makers existing licences only covered 7.x). Apple's hardware sales recovered, eventually, but Apple never once gained any benefit from the exercise in terms of revenues.
Apple today is all about presentation. To that end, it carefully controls every aspect of the user experience. Putting its showcase OS out there in the wild would destroy that simply because for every user that had a good experience installing OS X onto a non-Apple configuration there would be many more that would have nightmares dealing with installation on hardware that wasn't compatible, features that didn't want to work, inconsistent support, etc.
As a technically adept individual, I'd love to run Apple's OS on all my PCs. It would in many ways be a dream come true. However, for the reasons that I've outlined, that will never happen. Apple doesn't want it to happen so it won't happen, and I understand why perfectly.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
If Apple actually shipped OS X for PCs, it would lose its aura of quality and superiority. The reason?
Think about it. Right now, to actually use OS X, you have to really hate Windows and Linux enough to pay a lot of money for a new Mac, set up the hardware, and switch. That's a big commitment, and cognitive dissonance will probably keep you from disliking it. Furthermore, you'll become a vocal advocate for OS X, both because you really hated Windows and Linux in the first place, and because you really like OS X now.
If it were easy to switch, a lot of people who are only mildly unhappy with Windows and Linux would buy OS X and stick it into their beige box. Many of them would likely conclude that the hassle of switching wasn't worth the improvement (if any) for them and just go back to what they were using before. And they'd tell others about their experience, destroying some of the aura of quality and mystery surrounding the Mac.
So, the reason you can't get OS X for your PC is likely that it is in Apple's interest to keep the cost of switching pretty high: it means they won't get a huge market share, but they skim off the best customers and the ones that are the most vocal advocates for their products.
There's a difference between these alternatives:
1. Actively supporting third-party hardware
2. Being indifferent to third-party hardware
3. Actively interfering with attempts to run on third-party hardware
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters, because I genuinely don't know. Is Apple doing #2, or #3? It's plausible that, as people claim, #1 interferes with Apple's desire to guarantee quality. But #2 and #3 should be essentially equivalent in terms of the quality that Apple can deliver for its customers, and hobbyists would be a lot happier with #2.
I am a registered ADC developer and so I had access to all the seeds. That was a god send for dealing with the new 64-bit Objective-C runtime but I also figured that since I had the seeds, well, why not see how compatible Leopard is with non-Apple hardware.
There are legit reasons to do it. For instance, a base Darwin system can be made out of entirely open source software. Until you start decrypting binaries or (given the DMCA) tell people how to do it, you're not breaking the law. Running binaries you compile yourself is also not breaking the law nor the license.
So I did some research into it and looked at the various hacked kernels that are out there as well as some of the available source patches. After doing some research on it I realized that a good bulk of the typical kernel patch is due to lack of the "/efi" node in the device tree. Well, boot-132 (the non-EFI bootloader) is open source and after a bit of hacking I modified it to look for the ACPI and SMBIOS tables and put them in the appropriate sub-nodes of the efi node.
Assuming the right processor (e.g. Core or Core 2) that's enough to get any kernel Apple has ever made to boot without modifying the binary or recompiling from source. Unfortunately I used a P4 as a test rig so I had to do a tiny bit of hacking. It's pretty easy since the source is available so you can just fix it and recompile. Or if the source isn't available (e.g. source for Leopard isn't yet) you can still quite easily patch the machine code to ignore the processor family.
Once you've got that the only thing between you and OS X is a way to get the kernel to decrypt the binaries. Amit Singh has illustrated the magic poem which is actually not the decryption but instead a secondary protection mechanism. In some earlier Leopard seeds, that mechanism didn't appear to be used anymore. The real decryption is two AES keys, also widely available. The interface between the kernel and the decryption kernel extension is public. That is, there's a function pointer variable in the source and basically you just write a function that does the AES decryption and then set the appropriate function pointer to the address of your function from your kernel extension's initialization routine. That's all I'll give away on a public forum though. And I'm not giving anything away here, it's public knowledge, right in the source code to xnu.
I post here not to tell people how to hack it but to illustrate that it's not some difficult scheme. I have a good laugh reading the various osx86 forums about how cool these hackers must be if they can crack OS X. It's not as if Apple tried to make it hard. I mean, putting the decryption hook in "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext" is a pretty dead giveaway. The other good meme is the thought that the methods of hacking need to be kept secret so Apple doesn't figure them out. Believe me, if I can reverse engineer the hacks then I'm quite certain Apple has several people who can. If they even want to. I see no indication that anyone at Apple is trying to prevent hacks. They write code that works on their machines. If it happens to work on other x86 machines, it does. They haven't ever done anything to stop it.
2. Being indifferent to third-party hardware
3. Actively interfering with attempts to run on third-party hardware
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters, because I genuinely don't know. Is Apple doing #2, or #3? It's plausible that, as people claim, #1 interferes with Apple's desire to guarantee quality. But #2 and #3 should be essentially equivalent in terms of the quality that Apple can deliver for its customers, and hobbyists would be a lot happier with #2.
The problem is twofold.
Firstly: Apple is all about a brand, an experience if you like. It's a bit hard to explain to an IT crowd who are used to being able to mix and match what they like and don't mind too much if something breaks, but the whole point of Apple as a company is "sell elegant stuff which JFW". The "don't care if it breaks, I'll just fix it" customer mentality has never been particularly important to Apple.
If someone's experience of Mac OS is "oh, that's the thing the kid down the road installed on my PC and it never really worked properly", then it's very hard for Apple to get the message across that they sell elegant stuff which JFW.
Secondly: If Mac OS can be made by hobbyists to work well with non-Apple hardware, suddenly Apple finds that every PC OEM on the planet has just become an Apple-cloning company. Something similar almost destroyed Apple some years ago, they're not about to make the same mistake again.
Here is a chart comparing features of Leopard vs Vista...
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/27/leopard-vs-vista-feature-chart-showdown/
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Continuing my series of new Mac ads......
[fade in from black]
[hip charismatic kid]: Hi, I'm a Mac....
[middle-aged, sorta nerdy guy]: And I'm a P.C......
[deformed little creature that would make Dr. Frankenstein wince]: And I'm their bastard love-child.....please....kill me....[creature gurgles and a wisp of smoke escapes an ill-fitting seam in it's neck]
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
The one thing no one seems to mention is apple has NO activation process, they are one of the few companies on the planet that dont assume their customers are crooks.
If they opened OSX up to generic hardware they would need to impliment some type of anti theft setup simply because generic PC users are cheap and would steal OSX till the cows come home. Personally that fact alone makes me glad it only runs on Mac hardware, Its so nice never having to deal with activations, or worse false positives and the machine becomming basicly un-usable.
Business plan:
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
"they'll a) get more OS sales "
I know I'll be ripped to shreds for saying this, but my guess is that well over 90% of those that would hack a PC to run OS X would be more likely to get OS X via bittorrent or usenet or whatever rather than thru legal "sales".
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
In fact, my comment should properly read "at least 30%" as they tend to quote double the price in many cases (such as $700 vs $350 for 4gb of notebook ram) I hate that I'm even replying to this, but that's just stupid. You can buy ram, hard drives, and bluetooth upgrades for your Mac from many other vendors. I personally wouldn't buy them from HP or Sony either.
All is Number -Pythagoras.
Executive Summary
- Regardless of what the media has been harping on for a long time, and regardless of what system attackers have been saying about the "evil TPM protection" Apple uses, Apple is doing no TPM-related evil thing. In fact, Apple is doing no TPM-related cryptographic thing at all in Mac OS X. Yes, I know, there has been much talk of "TPM keys" and such, but there are no TPM keys that Apple is hiding somewhere.
- More specifically, Apple simply does not use the TPM hardware. In Apple computer models that do contain a TPM, the hardware is available for use by the machine's owner. Of course, to use it you need a device driver, which Apple indeed doesn't provide.
- I am releasing an open source TPM driver for Mac OS X, along with Mac OS X versions of popular open source trusted computing software from the Linux world. No reverse engineering was required to write this driver.
- The driver and the software stack together make (a form of) trusted computing possible on Mac OS X, assuming you have a machine with a TPM. This page shows you how to "take ownership" of the TPM and begin using it.
- For crying out loud, Intel's Trusted Execution Technology (a.k.a. LaGrande) does not mean you start putting TPMs "inside the CPU". Apple isn't shipping CPUs with "built-in TPMs."
(emphasis mine).You know, I see this remark in one form or another all the time, but I don't believe it at all. I'll tell you why.
Our household is Mac-centric; we have 3 mini's and a Macbook Pro. There are other machines here, linux and XP, but we generally use the Macs, the linux machine is a web server, not a desktop. We've run into problems with the Mac's wifi, specifically with the sharing of the connection feature. I've taken the time to document the problems, post them on the Mac forums, report them as bugs, but these problems remain unfixed. These are stock Mac machines with stock Mac wifi hardware. My impression is that Apple doesn't care about my complaints, because the configuration here is, apparently, uncommon. Most people use a wifi-capable router to distribute wifi about their premises, while I elected to use the mini's "share" capability to do it. It worked 100% initially, then an OS upgrade broke it, and it's remained broken since March 2007, despite my poking them in various places such as this (this is only one of many examples - there are other threads, and not just from me, either.) These replies on the Apple forums - not from Apple, from users - were the closest I ever got to help.
I'm right with the program when people say that Apple stuff is remarkably stable. However, I think the credit there should go to the engineers who created the system. There's no apparent company-wide effort to see that things "just work." Lots of things don't work, and haven't for years. There's no unified push to get things that are broken "right." They never added unicode to Appleworks, or really even kept up with it, they just let it die. As of 10.4, network shares haven't been able to refresh after changes for years. Memory (mis)management still causes applications to pig out for tens of seconds at a time. Mail still loses sent mail if you try to use more than one email address. The iPod touch works through the Intel mini's WiFi but not the PPC mini's wifi, same settings all around. Apple's response to this was "use the intel mini" which I consider to be inadequate.
Lest you think I'm just generally Apple bashing, I'm not. I spent years trying to work with Microsoft, both as a user and a developer, and it was MUCH worse. Microsoft sucks so hard my vacuum cleaner ran out in the street and threw itself under the wheels of a passing semi in despair. It is the very reliability of Apple's products out the door - not as a "we'll fix what's broken", but as a "we generally don't ship broken stuff" - that makes the Apple experience what it is.
Consequently, I don't buy the whole "we don't want customers to experience broken OSX, so we won't let it run on generic hardware" rationale. Customers experience broken OSX behaviors all the time, and Apple just lets it run on, likely as not.
People have a very strong tendency to speak up in support of products they have purchased, my guess is because they feel a need to justify having spent money and time and reputation on such a thing. I've heard absolutely worthless justifications over and over for everything from Photoshop to Windows to linux that one way or another, seem to only have obvious value as they reflect the investment in time, money or even public remarks people don't want to back down from. Apple is no more and no less subject to this; once someone buys an Apple, it is my very strong impression that they're going to be pretty positive about having done so. Not just because it works pretty well, which it certainly does, but because money was spent, a decision was made, an internal turning point reached (and there can be factors like terminal frustration with another vendor, such as Microsoft... I'm personally familiar with that feeling, in spades.)
There's another
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Apple "recommends" you use their memory, but you can use any memory you want and install it yourself without voiding the warranty; see the standard Apple hardware warranty http://images.apple.com/legal/warranty/docs/cpuwarranty.pdf. Same applies to hard drives, video cards, etc.
The only exclusion is if you damage the machine while installing hardware, or if the stuff you are installing damages the machine somehow.
All is Number -Pythagoras.
In spite of its limited market share, Apple has often been one of the biggest leaders in innovating with acceptance of new hardware standards. Not having to support an arbitrary base of hardware manufactured by other people allows them to be much more nimble. If the next big thing required a particular combination of hardware, Apple can ensure that all new computers made include it, even if it raises the cost slightly for a benefit that won't become clear until later when they enable features that take advantage of it.
If Apple were to become a mainly software company, not only would they be faced with supporting far more models, they'd loose their ability to ensure that new computers contain the hardware they want and would instead have to dictate the software to the hardware the users have chosen. Look at Vista. Faced with the choice of buying new hardware that supports Vista well or sticking with XP, many people choose XP.
To be successful as a purely software company, Apple would have to compete directly with Microsoft and shift their focus to high volume, low margin. This is absolutely contrary to everything that Jobs is interested in. He would much rather have a successful minority company with a disproportionate impact on the market as a whole than a leading manufacturer of a commodity.