Mac Hacks Allow OS X on PCs

jimnms · 08-12-2005, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Imagine if your next Mac cost you only $300, and ran faster than any G4 or G5 you've ever used.

That future may already be unfolding: Hackers have found a way to bypass a chip designed to prevent the Mac OS from running on non-Apple PCs, which are often cheaper than Macs.

Some of the hackers are running the tweaked version of the operating system on their PCs natively. Others are using the system with VMware, which allows the Mac OS to support more PC hardware.

Hackers and curious computer users this week have been downloading the tweaked Mac OS X for PCs, nicknamed "OSx86," from several websites connected to the BitTorrent file-distribution system.

OSx86 is designed to run on Apple Computer's next generation of hardware, which some call "MacIntels" and others "MacTels" because the machines will run on Intel microprocessors rather than the PowerPC processor used in current Macs. The hacked version of OSx86 is based on pirated software, which came from copies of the operating system sent to participants in the Apple Developer Connection. The ADC participants also received MacIntel computers for testing and development.

Now the hacked version of OSx86 is running on Dell laptops and other PCs with Intel and AMD microprocessors.

"Mileage varies depending on what kind of hardware you're using, but it (OSx86) is working on several PCs," said "Mashugly," a college student majoring in communications who manages the OSx86 Project, a community of developers interested in the new operating system.

No one knows exactly why OSx86 appears to be running faster on the PCs than the Mac OS does on today's Macs.

"To be honest, we're not sure," said a hacker nicknamed "cmoski," who said he works for a large software company. "Some in the Pentium camp want to say, 'Because a Pentium is faster, of course,' some want to say (Intel chip architectures are better than Apple's) and some in the PowerPC camp just want to say that it isn't full OS X (running on the beta systems)."

The hacked OSx86 bypasses a chip, the Trusted Platform Module, or TPM, that is intended to prevent the system from running on ordinary PCs.

"We have even gone so far as to remove the TPM kernel extension called AppleTPMACPI.kext entirely," said cmoski.

The impact of the OSx86 hack on Apple's hardware brand could be severe.

The hack shows that Steve Jobs' company will be turning out machines indistinguishable from any other PC, or "white box," said German hacker Michael "mist" Steil.

"Apple wants to avoid the word getting out that (MacIntels) are just PCs, and that (OSx86) works on PCs," said Steil.

Full Story...

PN · 08-13-2005, 07:58 PM

If I didn't need to use Dragon voice recognition, I would pay Apple/Steve Jobs $150 to run OS X on my PC.

Perhaps, Steve Jobs knew something about Intel’s next generation of processors when he decided to make the change.

Intel will show its next generation of processors August 23. The company will begin shipping the chips in the second half of 2006. The expectation will be on low heat and high efficiency.

CNET

Wise Young · 08-13-2005, 08:28 PM

It makes no sense. I suspect that most people with spinal cord injury spend more time and derive more benefits from their computer than any car that they would own. Yet, they would spend $30,000+ on a car but would hesitate to spend $3000 on a computer. If a person drives the car say 100 hours a year, that means that they are spending $300 per hour (plus of course the cost for insurance, garaging, and maintainance) that they would spend in their car. By contrast, a person could easily spend 1000 hours (3 hours per day) on their computer and their cost would be $3 per hour (plus the cost for internet connection, electricity, and software). Yet, they would not hesitate to spend that kind of money for their car but not for their computer.

I use a Mac because I am accustomed to a Mac (having used it for over 20 years). I am not sufficiently experienced with windows to be able to say that I can do the same things as well on a PC windows computer. The Mac OSX gives me everything that I could want. If I were dependent on Dragon, of course, that would be the decisive factor. However, I am not. So, from the perspective of usefulness, benefit, and cost-effectiveness, the Mac does the job. The main cost of the computer is no longer the processor but the screen, the communications options, the hard drive, and the CD/DVD drive. Software costs may be as much as the hardware costs. To me, if I can get a computer that does everything that I want, that is worth a lot and more than what I have paid for the Mac to date.

In my opinion, Steve Jobs made the correct decision in that he percieved that the faster growth path for processor speed will be coming from Intel rather than IBM and Motorola. Since he has already made the software commitment, the cost to Apple is actually minimal. He will end up having an operating system that can work on all major computers, software packages from major software producers that are independent of hardware but simply dependent on OSX, and the flexibility of having an operating system that is not hardware dependent. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain. It was a smart move.

Wise.

08-13-2005, 07:58 PM	#2
PN Moderator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: California Posts: 5,589	If I didn't need to use Dragon voice recognition, I would pay Apple/Steve Jobs $150 to run OS X on my PC. Perhaps, Steve Jobs knew something about Intel’s next generation of processors when he decided to make the change. Intel will show its next generation of processors August 23. The company will begin shipping the chips in the second half of 2006. The expectation will be on low heat and high efficiency. CNET __________________ Rock bottom is relative to how high you bounce when you hit. --General George Patton Complex problems need to be solved collectively. ––Paul Nussbaum usc87.blogspot.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dell founder says that he might switch to Mac OS if it becomes available for Intel	Wise Young	Computers	2	06-19-2005 02:00 AM
Mac Supercomputer Joins Elite Wired News Report	Max	Computers	0	11-16-2003 01:31 PM
Apple: New Power Macs world's fastest PCs	Jeff	Computers	16	07-04-2003 05:38 PM
Mac and Accessibility Resources	Wise Young	Computers	8	05-18-2003 02:45 PM
New Stores Make Fast Mac Friends By Leander Kahney	Max	Health & Science News	0	11-06-2002 05:45 PM

08-13-2005, 08:28 PM	#3
Wise Young Administrator Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: New Brunswick, NJ, USA Posts: 37,975	It makes no sense. I suspect that most people with spinal cord injury spend more time and derive more benefits from their computer than any car that they would own. Yet, they would spend $30,000+ on a car but would hesitate to spend $3000 on a computer. If a person drives the car say 100 hours a year, that means that they are spending $300 per hour (plus of course the cost for insurance, garaging, and maintainance) that they would spend in their car. By contrast, a person could easily spend 1000 hours (3 hours per day) on their computer and their cost would be $3 per hour (plus the cost for internet connection, electricity, and software). Yet, they would not hesitate to spend that kind of money for their car but not for their computer. I use a Mac because I am accustomed to a Mac (having used it for over 20 years). I am not sufficiently experienced with windows to be able to say that I can do the same things as well on a PC windows computer. The Mac OSX gives me everything that I could want. If I were dependent on Dragon, of course, that would be the decisive factor. However, I am not. So, from the perspective of usefulness, benefit, and cost-effectiveness, the Mac does the job. The main cost of the computer is no longer the processor but the screen, the communications options, the hard drive, and the CD/DVD drive. Software costs may be as much as the hardware costs. To me, if I can get a computer that does everything that I want, that is worth a lot and more than what I have paid for the Mac to date. In my opinion, Steve Jobs made the correct decision in that he percieved that the faster growth path for processor speed will be coming from Intel rather than IBM and Motorola. Since he has already made the software commitment, the cost to Apple is actually minimal. He will end up having an operating system that can work on all major computers, software packages from major software producers that are independent of hardware but simply dependent on OSX, and the flexibility of having an operating system that is not hardware dependent. Apple has nothing to lose and everything to gain. It was a smart move. Wise.