I wanted to refresh my Mac skills, as I've been working in Windows/Linux environments for some time. This page -
https://lukesempire.com/2021/04/11/vms
Has a great page on getting Windows 10 and MacOS running on an old i5 running Linux.
He's running a Thinkpad T410 with an i5 and 8 GB of RAM. I'm running
mine on a T410 with an i7, so have a little more power to go around.
MacOS was a breeze to install, although it wanted to send notifications
to an iPhone 4S that I haven't had in YEARS.
Very interesting. I'm guessing that the newer the hardware is, the better things will be for running MAX OSX on PC hardware?
Re: Re: Hackintosh
By: Paradigms Shifting to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Apr 19 2022 12:31 pm
What is MAX OSX? Is that a special version of Mac OS X?
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Win32
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
What is MAX OSX? Is that a special version of Mac OS X?
A typographical error perhaps?
Re: Re: Hackintosh
By: The Millionaire to Nightfox on Mon Apr 18 2022 07:31 pm
I figured it might be, but I'm not familiar with all that Apple is doing (I don't have any Apple products).
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Win32
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
I figured it might be, but I'm not familiar with all that Apple is
doing (I don't have any Apple products).
Well I have an Apple iPad and I love it. :-)
The days of the hackintosh are numbered now that Apple has their own custom silicon. They can write OSX in such a way that it will only run on M1 and not any other Arm-based silicon.
Re: Re: Hackintosh
By: 2twisty to The Millionaire on Mon Apr 18 2022 08:50 pm
I wonder if someone will end up finding a hack for that to get OS X running on other ARM-based devices - maybe even things like a Raspberry Pi.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Win32
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
How about getting a bbs to run on an iPad? Now that would be interesting.
Re: Re: Hackintosh
By: The Millionaire to Nightfox on Tue Apr 19 2022 09:54 am
When I had an iPod Touch, I jailbroke it so I could install apps from other sources on it. And another thing I could do on a jailbroken iPod Touch was that I could SSH to it and get to a command prompt. It basically runs on Darwin (same as mac OS X), from what I remember. You could probably get Linux to build on it and run it, but I've never tried that.
Nightfox
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Win32
* Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (21:1/137)
When I had an iPod Touch, I jailbroke it so I could install apps from
other sources on it. And another thing I could do on a jailbroken
iPod Touch was that I could SSH to it and get to a command prompt. It
basically runs on Darwin (same as mac OS X), from what I remember.
You could probably get Linux to build on it and run it, but I've never
tried that.
Well if you do get it to work, let me know. Thanks. :-)
I wonder if someone will end up finding a hack for that to get OS X running on other ARM-based devices - maybe even things like a Raspberry Pi.
I wonder if someone will end up finding a hack for that to get OS X
running on other ARM-based devices - maybe even things like a
Raspberry Pi.
That's extremely unlikely. The OS would have to be recompiled to run on alternate silicon, and I don't think Apple's going to release the source code.
Well I have an Apple iPad and I love it. :-)
I thought Apple's M1 processor is ARM at its core, isn't it? If it's running on another ARM system, I don't see why it would need to be recompiled. Unless there's more to Apple's M1 processor than I'm aware of.
Apple could ADD additional instruction sets to the base ARM design, and then writing their source code to use those insructions. A regular ARM chip would have no idea how to use it.
M1 MacOS will never run on a "garden variety" ARM chip. Apple learned their lesson with all the Hackintoshes.
times. I remember Apple allowing Mac clones in the 90s (and there were some Mac clones made by Motorola and Power Computing etc.), but they stopped that when Steve Jobs came back. And when they started using
Intel processors, one of their advertised advantages was that you could easily run Windows alongside Mac OS so you could use apps that were only available for Windows if you wanted to.
I've thought it would be interesting if Apple opened up their Mac OS X
so that it could officially be installed on any PC, but with their mindset, I don't see them doing that.
Jobs put an end to that due to quality issues with the clones, and his desire to control the entire user experience.
Intel processors, one of their advertised advantages was that you
could easily run Windows alongside Mac OS so you could use apps that
were only available for Windows if you wanted to.
...and you still can, via emulation. The M1 is powerful enough to emulate x86-64.
I wonder if someone will end up finding a hack for that to get OS X running on other ARM-based devices - maybe even things like a Raspberry Pi.
Apple could ADD additional instruction sets to the base ARM design, and then writing their source code to use those insructions. A regular ARM chip would have no idea how to use it.
Yeah, I wondered about that. Apple's customizations that go into their
M1 may make it a bit different from a regular ARM processor.
The kind of control Apple wants on their products seems weird to me at times. I remember Apple allowing Mac clones in the 90s (and there were some Mac clones made by Motorola and Power Computing etc.), but they stopped that when Steve Jobs came back. And when they started using Intel processors, one of their advertised advantages was that you could easily run Windows alongside Mac OS so you could use apps that were only available for Windows if you wanted to.
...and you still can, via emulation. The M1 is powerful enough to emulate x86-64.
Well the XNU kernel in the form of Darwin is very much open source.
However, one won't get all the nifty Apple goodies just from that.
...and you still can, via emulation. The M1 is powerful enough to
emulate x86-64.
I figured as much. But that wouldn't be as efficient as running Windows natively.
acn wrote to The Millionaire <=-
I used to have an iPhone 4 and loved it - until iOS 7 came out and
made it absolutely unusable. I walked to an official Apple Store and
asked how I could revert to iOS 6, they said "it's impossible" - and I walked out of the shop, right into another shop and bought a Galaxy
S4.
Since then, I'm using Android, which also has its rough edges, but did
not cripple my devices (yet). And the devices I bought were 'open
enough' that I could install alternative systems.
I also loved my old PowerBook G4 that I bought many years ago and the
iMac 21" from 2010 - but here Apple also crippled the system and dumbed-down everything (I loved Apple Pages until it could not even
read its own old documents correctly after a major update), so I
installed Linux on the iMac and used it for some years as a Linux
system. That was my last Apple computer.
Regards,
Anna
--- OpenXP 5.0.51
* Origin: Imzadi Box Point (21:3/127.1)
Nightfox wrote to 2twisty <=-
Re: Re: Hackintosh
By: 2twisty to Nightfox on Wed Apr 20 2022 11:12 am
Jobs put an end to that due to quality issues with the clones, and his desire to control the entire user experience.
What quality issues did the clones have?
Jobs put an end to that due to quality issues with the clones, and his 2t>> desire to control the entire user experience.
What quality issues did the clones have?
They could but to this point they don't appear to be reinventing the wheel, just optimising it. I believe, and once again I can't quote this, it was all over the place for a while... Apple merely optimised the support chips and layout adding cache and memory to the die. Decreasing the fab from 16nm to 5nm process.
So better efficiency, lower power consumption. Otherwise basically the same bits and pieces as any other ARM processor with support chips.
The first thing Jobs does on his return is eliminate the clone licensing, why give them the tools to defeat you on your own turf. They're more
What quality issues did the clones have?
They were leaking money from Apple. :)
I remember the hornet's nest stirred up when Steve Jobs came back, cancelled the clone licenses and killed off the Newton. There were avid fan bases of both.
Jobs put an end to that due to quality issues with the clones, and
his desire to control the entire user experience.
What quality issues did the clones have?
As far as I know, they were more powerful and less expensive than the comparable Apple machines.
...and you still can, via emulation. The M1 is powerful enough to
emulate x86-64.
Its got Rosetta built into the CPU silicon. It can out perform any intel powered mac using this translation layer while only managing ~80% of native chip performance.
...and you still can, via emulation. The M1 is powerful enough to
emulate x86-64.
Its got Rosetta built into the CPU silicon. It can out perform any in powered mac using this translation layer while only managing ~80% of native chip performance.
It's in the CPU itself?
That would mean it could translate x86 to ARM
fairly efficiently and transparently. Would that also mean that you
could potentially install an x86-compatible OS (such as Windows) and
have it appear to run "natively" on it?
I'm a bit surprised, since the previous incarnation of Rosetta (when
Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel) was a piece of software that was installed on Mac OS X.
Its got Rosetta built into the CPU silicon. It can out perform
It's in the CPU itself?
No.
Rosetta 2 is software that does binary translating from
x86 instructions to ARM. It is a software component. It
does not support e.g. booting Windows natively.
From my understanding, that's basically how the ARM model works.
I always thought that was an interesting attitude. Apple seems to be more
bringing income from their software. Microsoft became successful making money from their software licensing, including their operating systems.
That's what I thought initially. I had done some reading about it
online and it sounded like it was a software component, like the
original Rosetta, and not actually in the M1 processor itself.
I always thought that was an interesting attitude. Apple seems to
be more
Sculley had some odd thoughts about trying to make a system for each niche, until they had the market confused with to many offerings that didn't have sufficient turnover of any particular model.
bringing income from their software. Microsoft became successful
making money from their software licensing, including their
operating systems.
Thats because of their target market though. When IBM created the PC and XT they basically just gave it away, anyone could make copies of it. There's not much value trying to compete in a budget hardware space.
There also wasn't a lot of point trying to out manouver Apple on their own operating system either.
That's what I thought initially. I had done some reading about it
online and it sounded like it was a software component, like the
original Rosetta, and not actually in the M1 processor itself.
IIRC, Rosetta (1) did real-time instruction translation every time you ran the app. Rosetta (2) does the translation ONCE and stores some kind of translated binary on the filesystem.
This allows for Rosetta (2) to run apps much quicker once the translation has happened.
Not 100% sure of this, but I thought I read/saw that somewhere when the M1 came out.
It's in the CPU itself? That would mean it could translate x86 to ARM fairly efficiently and transparently. Would that also mean that you could potentially install an x86-compatible OS (such as Windows) and have it appear to run "natively" on it?
Sculley had some odd thoughts about trying to make a system for each niche, until they had the market confused with to many offerings that didn't have sufficient turnover of any particular model.
I was actually referring to Jobs eliminating the clones, and Apple's desire to make both the hardware and the software. But it was a bit weird that Apple had so many different models in the 90s.
Sysop: | Nelgin |
---|---|
Location: | Plano, TX |
Users: | 509 |
Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
Uptime: | 108:28:18 |
Calls: | 8,193 |
Files: | 15,442 |
Messages: | 913,167 |