OS X running on a TCPA/TPM-free x86 PC?
For the uninitiated, VMware is virtual machine software—an x86 to x86 emulator of sorts—that lets you run a second
operating operating system in an entirely enclosed, emulated environment. What's our point? Well, we have no way of
knowing for sure whether these shots are faked, but someone by the pseudonym blex86r was apparently able to get
OS X for x86 running in VMware—including
ATSServer module emulated by Rosetta, a major component required by the GUI supposedly
protected by the TCPA/TPM on the Intel dev kit DVD. We're
gonna have to give this a go this weekend, we think. Anyone else having any luck out there?
[Thanks, EdZ]
Filed under: Desktops
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Fuzz @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
i want mac x86!!! I WANT IT!
BP @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
I'm pretty sure Rosetta isn't required by the GUI. Rosetta is an emulation engine so PPC apps can run on the intel box.
Unkuser @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
How did he do it?? I have been trying since yesterday and have not gotten it to work.
Jonathan @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
If you look at these pictures, you will notice that in one of them it states the machine has 512MB RAM and in another it states that it has 128 MB RAM. Could be a screw up in trying to fake these.
sheepbat @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
BP:
I belive they mean that the GUI hasn't been ported from PPC yet, and thus Rosetta is needed in order to run it.
Darwin has been available on x86 for a very long while, but Aqua has only just been semi-publically made available. Unless the rumors of a complete x86 port being hidden for a long while are true, they'd have a relatively short period of time to port everything, and this would be a shortcut to get stuff out quicker
Enjayenel @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Those weren't rumors, Steve Jobs confirmed that they were true. For every release of OS X, there has been a x86 compiled version made.
EdZ @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
>> Unless the rumors of a complete x86 port being hidden for a long while are true, they'd have a relatively short period of time to port everything, and this would be a shortcut to get stuff out quicker
According to apple themselves, thay have had internal x86 ports of Mac OS for each revision alongside the PPC builds, so the amount of stuff that needs porting is smaller than if they were starting from scratch.
grovberg @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Umm...did you guys miss the keynote? Steve Jobs said flat out that OS X has had feature parity on x86 since the beginning. Every version of OS X has had a fully functioning Intel compatible version with all the bells and whistles. The version running at WWDC was the x86 version with EVERYTHING running.
Also there's a story on Slashdot contradicting the Trusted Computing rumors.
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
I have some bad news guys. I just tried booting the DVD in VMware, and was presented with a GNAA logo, and a full complement of Goatse-type images. I've tied booting the DVD at POST on various machines and get compatibility errors complaining about the hardware onto which I tried to nstall.
Looks like this one is garbage too.
Mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
^ was that DVD x86 tiger?
sheepbat @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
edz, grovberg:
I stand corrected then, and so should the article's writer.
flava @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
xVariable, you got the fake from a few weeks ago by mistake.
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Yes, Mike, it was the latest release: "Apple MacOS X Tiger *x86* *PROPER*" by XiSO (47x50mb).
It's possible that it's legit but they've put that goatse shit in there to throw people off. Personally, I can't be bothered to toy with it. I'll wait for a truely proper release that works ootb.
Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
1. There have been several releases of the actual files.
2. If you dig around the Internet, you'll find enough supporting evidence to show these screenshots aren't fake.
3. It's really, really hard to get it working.
4. Nearly all of the GUI has been ported -- Rosetta is used for ATSServer, Apple's font daemon. That is the only part which needs to be ported.
sickpuppy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
???????????????????????????????????????
?lease: Apple MacOS X Tiger *x86* *PROPER*
?pe: OS ?rmat: ISO
rchives: 47x50mb ?te: 08/2005
????????????????????????????????????????
?stem requirements: ?
Intel Pentium 4 w/HT/1GB RAM/10GB+ HD ?
??????????????????????????????????????
?
R E L E A S E N O T E S ?
?
Thanks to the guys at phe*NIX who released a non-working copy. Too bad ?
we at XiSO had the OSX x86 DVD for a few weeks now, working hard on dis- ?
abling the Infineon/Trusted Computing module which is present onboard of ?
the "developer" Apple-Intel boxes. As some of you have heard, Rosetta, ?
Apple's binary translation software used to convert PPC binaries to x86 ?
bytecode at runtime is a primary user of this Trusted Computing module, ?
and since majority of OSX Intel apps are actually PPC bins, not much of ?
the OS is usable without this binary converter working. So we patched ?
that, as well as a check during boot for "supported hardware". Enjoy! ?
?
?????????????I N S T A L L N O T E S ?????????????
?
1. Burn to DVD using your favorite burning software. ?
?
2. Enjoy this fine release from XiSO. ?
?
3. This has been extensively tested on various hardware configurations, ?
but you WILL NEED a SSE2+ enabled CPU to run this on. Also, this has ?
*NOT* been tested, and not expected to work on AMD CPU's. ?
?
???????????????????????????????????????
?
All software included in this release is only intended for your use if ?
you own a legal license to this software. We are not to be held ?
responsible for illegal use/installation of this software. If you choose ?
to install and test this software and you decide to keep it, you must ?
purchase a valid license. If you do not own legal license to this ?
software we will not be held responsible for any charges brought against ?
you by any software company(s) or people working for any software ?
company(s). We do not support piracy, we are here only to provide an ?
evaluation. ?
?
????????????? Brought to you by XiSO ????????????
?
????????????????????????????????????????
sickpuppy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
oh and by the way works fine for me
mrocker @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
I don't have any means of testing this, but *supposedly* the way to install OSX on a non-mac x86 box (if it is at all possible) is to install Darwin, the apple kernel which is not limited to Apple boxes. Then take a working OSX x86 install on a different HD, and copy over the differing files over to cover the GUI & software etc.
This should, in theory, circumvent the hardware checks that Intel OSX is clearly making, uness they're made at boot.
Mr. Blex86r could have done it like this. But as with most people, I'm still skeptical. I'd like a description as to how he installed it..
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3363864
Read the comments. sickpuppy, AFAIK you are a lying sack of shit.
hamish @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
In response to Jonathan, post #2, your eyes deceive you - the machine has 128MB of RAM, and 512KB of L2 cache.
baranovich @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
>>In response to Jonathan, post #2, your eyes deceive you - the machine has 128MB of RAM, and 512KB of L2 cache.
No it clearly says 512MB in one screenshot and 128MB on the other.
naikrovek @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
it is very possible that they booted it at first with 128mb, found that it was too slow, then adjusted the virtual machine memory, rebooted, and took more screenshots.
John @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
>>In response to Jonathan, post #2
In VMWare, you need to set the amount of system ram to allocate to VMWare - the default I believe is 128MB. So the system had 512MB and VMWare is set to use 128MB - very typical.
**I think the flickr pics are gone now! :(
John @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
>>In response to Jonathan, post #2
In VMWare, you need to set the amount of system ram to allocate to VMWare - the default I believe is 128MB. So the system had 512MB and VMWare is set to use 128MB - very typical.
**I think the flickr pics are gone now! :(
EdZ @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
The pics are still there, you just have to search for his username (blex86r) manually.
And yes, it does show both 512kb cache ANd 512mb memory in one image, and 128mb DRAM in another. Bear in mind VMWare can allocate diferent amounts of ram to eavh Virtual Machine, and nowhere does it state all these shots are from the same VM instance.
Final note: the XiSo release is a fake, the ph*nix release is real, but unmodified.
Eddy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
no Vmware makes a complete virtual machine with bios and all. so if 128mb of ram is allocated to the osx x86 virtual machine the system settings in that machine will only see the 128mb as far as the os inside VMware knows the hardware is whatever vmware decides that includes the ram.
John @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Whoops :) ..the 'Read' link doesn't work, but clicking the image does.
Still is weird why it reports two different amounts of ram though. Anyone experienced with VMWare had this happen in other OSs??
Mark @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
baranovich:
If you've used VMWare you're probably familiar with the fact that you can easily change the amount of ram apportioned to the virtual machine. I know I've done installs with 128-160 enabled then later up it as needed (such as with a test of Win2k in VMware 4 that I brought over to 5, then upped to 256 after enabling 3d acceleration support in the config file.) It may be a flaw in a fake, but I can also easily see it being a legitimate alteration that took place between various boots of the VM.
mephistoqc @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
look at the time in the pictures. there's a 10 hour difference between the pic with 128mb and the one with 512. it's not hard to up the ram in the guest pc within vmware, just requires a reboot of the guest basically. it's not outside the realm of possibility that they installed, saw it ran like pooh with 128mb, shutdown then changed the memory allocation size and restarted osx86
mike @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
if PC users can install OS X on their hardware.. everyone wins...
Apple still makes money by selling hardware.. and may or may not make money off its software too (come on.. tell me you haven't tried pirating sofware before..)
Eddy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
that does make sense having changed the ram later on. if you notice when it says 128mb the dock has a bunch of ? placeholders but when it says 512mb those are gone and he added the terminal after using it with 128 he probably increased it.
akaidiot @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Now this is cool: http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=osx86
Also, the flickr link is broken!
Eddy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
no Vmware makes a complete virtual machine with bios and all. so if 128mb of ram is allocated to the osx x86 virtual machine the system settings in that machine will only see the 128mb as far as the os inside VMware knows the hardware is whatever vmware decides that includes the ram.
myname @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
this video is really cool! Now could someone with knowledge tell whats going on in the first screen, what settings have been modified?
AppleTPMACPI.kext?
Micah Wylde @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Now, the more interesting thing about this photos (should they prove to be valid, which I doubt) is that the system information shows the cpu as not having support for SSE3, which has been thought to be essential for the kernel to even boot up.
xVariable @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
... ROFL Do you recon this is the same Blex of "Blex's Page of Good Mp3" fame? Probably not (I wnder where he is now :-P ...). Now *that* was a long time ago. Ah, the memories...
jonathanquinn @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
So what the hell? is there a working x86? and what about trusted computing, i've converted my dell to look just like a mac. but i wnat the real thing!!
Matt @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Micah:
There's a patch.
Chad Caswell @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
What if you had a legit Apple Developer Box, you installed WinXP on it and then ran OS X with VMWare?
Wouldn't it look like you were running OS X on a "generic" Intel box?
thomas @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Apple.MacOS.X.Tiger.x86.PROPER-XiSO
does someone know if this rls works or not? i have a laptop with P-M 1.6 and 512MB ddr ram, will it work on that? ive seen lots of ppl claiming that it works and lots claiming the opposite..
kruton @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
[in reply to 36]
VMWare does not emulate the DRM chip though?
kruton @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
[in reply to 36]
VMWare does not emulate the DRM chip though?
Chad Caswell @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
in reply to 36
It doesn't have to emulate it, it's built into the computer. If XP recognizes the DRM chip, wouldn't vmware have access to it?
In all fairness, I know nothing of vmware or DRM chips, this is just the first scenario I thought of when reading the article.
Chad Caswell @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
crap, I meant in replay to 38
kruton @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
[in reply to 40]
No, VMWare does "total virtualisation" where all machine hardware is emulated by default. You can then optionally install a VMWare toolset that allows the OS to access things like 3D accelerators to provide a speed bump. If this were Xen though which does "para virtualisation" the chip could be accessed.
As I have found out VMWare does not emulate TPM and does not provide transparent access to underlying TPM chips. If it did the first then TPM would be completely underminded as far as I understand the system. And no version is out that provides the seamless access I speak of that could allow this to work on the offical hardware.
This is either legitimate or a very very elaborate fake (especially the video).
thomas @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Apple.MacOS.X.Tiger.x86.PROPER-XiSO
no one knows if this works on a pentium m 1.6 730? with 512mb ram..
cause im downloading it now and if it dont works then that would be a waste of time..
autoy @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
To #43 and the rest: blex86r's work is legit and public, meaning that you can read about his progress and steps taken in several sites.
To #44 and others who refer to the Xiso release: Not even Xiso claims its their own. You'll get just a bunch of files from tiger ppc + a small bootloader. Other false Xiso releases feature goatse art, so... beware! :P
EdZ @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Another possibility is that the box runing VMWare IS an intel developer Mac! That way, the YPM chip doesn't need to be emulated.
David Garc? @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
Hi all,
I've just read all your comments, and I have only one thing to say:
The only way that I know to install OSX-x86 in VMWare is:
- Get the darwin_8.01_x86 package, and install it in a clean partition (in VMWare of course).
- After that, you have to get a hard disk dump called "mactelbase.rar" from "our" favorite P2P network. Once decompressed, you have to copy it in the root partition ( "" ) of your Virtual HD with darwin.
And, if you're lucky, after a re-sync, the OSX boots ... is the only way... but it's difficult, I have tried several times and no luck. Only one thing, my PC (an old PIII/850 with 512 Mb RAM) doesn't match the minimum specs for it... in the first boot, I get a kernel panic and several errors more... but none referring to DRM or similar.
In the next weeks, I'm going to buy a kick-ass last generation PC with SATA disks and full loaded of RAM (2 Gb DDR2)... I will try again.
EdZ @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
>47
That's a load of complete bollocks, unfortunately. With no modification to VMWare or the OSX files themselves, you won't be running anythng. (OSX won't see the TPM chip, or any of the needed architecture)
Plus, the PII doesn't even support SSE2, let alone SSE3.
Ithrazel @ Dec 19th 2005 1:02AM
i have actually seen it running. At a friend's place. He's an IT specialist of sorts. SO i guess the shots aint faked. He was talking about enclosed environment emulator of sorts as well. Noyt that i myself actually understood any of it. But that wasw like, a week ago already.