Apple's OS X 10.4.4 for Intel already cracked?
By Paul Miller 
posted Feb 14th 2006 11:57AM
posted Feb 14th 2006 11:57AM
We were just about to
hunker down and wait through the cold winter and a wet spring until we saw some results on the OS X 10.4.4 for Intel hacking efforts, but it looks like we're
getting a little Valentines present from "Maxxuss" who has already broken through Apple's heightened security
that is present in their shipping version of the OS. It's just a preliminary release, not all hardware is supported and
it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work, but seeing as we weren't expecting this kind of breakthrough
this early, we really can't complain. Thanks Maxxuss, we love you too.[Thanks, Mathieu; via OSx86 Project]
what exactally does this hack do? i know they were trying to get both windows and linux to work is this related to that? or is it just the ability to get the 10.4.4 to run on any pc?
P.S. is anyone else having problems with engadgets rss feeds
It's great to see this effort to bring OS X to people who can't afford Macs.. :)
My iMac is part of the experience, so I don't care either way, but it would be somewhat funny and liberating to boot it up on commodity hardware.
I have a friend at work who always buys the cheapest stuff he can. He'll ask for recommendations on things, and then proceed to ignore them and buy the cheapest thing he can get at Fry's. He's interested in Mac OS X, but only on his cheap hardware.
This scares me.
He's the type who will install it on the cheapest no-name crap he can buy, and then bitch and complain about how "Mac OS X sucks" (I can hear it now...).
I have no problem with people wanting to run OS X on their existing hardware, but they sure as hell better not complain and bitch when it doesn't "Just Work" - it was never supposed to.
I couldn't have said better myself, Joshua. I too can hear that coming from some of my PC friends.
Mac OS X sucks, not all hardware is supported and it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work.
It really would be great if Apple would release OS X for whatever-you-wanna-run-it-on, but as was said above, it won't "Just Work" anymore. I'd prefer the OS to be completely opened up as linux has, but of course that will never happen. Where's my Linux desktop that "Just Work"s, and is as light as OS X?
sorry, but in my experience, Linux never "Just Works". I have to spend some time configurating everything, including xorg. Why doesnt my Think Pad like xserver?!
"It really would be great if Apple would release OS X for whatever-you-wanna-run-it-on"
Great concept, but this equals a TESTING and SUPPORT NIGHTMARE, ala Microsoft. I don't see any advantage to Apple OSX becoming just another Microsoft Windows.
OSX is made for Apple computers, Keep in on them.
Anyone who bitches about osx not running on pc hardware correctly is a moron. OF CORSE IT'S NOT GOING TO RUN CORRECTLY!! IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE RUN ON A MAC!!! Apple makes their $ from selling hardware...HARDWARE! Do you think they're going to let those sales dissolve by configuring it to run on ordanry pc hardware?
PS: Linux sucks. It is an underground OS that is completely unstandardized. What makes linux good is whats keeping it from mass use, open architechture. In order to configure it for the mass market that must be destroyed and it must be all standardized like windows and osx is. Thus destroying the linux magic.
Linux geeks, get the fuck over yourselves.
uhhhh, Mac OS X is BSD based (Darwin)...
.. BSD is Unix ...
.. Linux is Unix based ...
hmmmm ... you're an idiot
Apple will be able to be run by anyone on a generic pc. By next year when Leopard comes out it will be an option.
macguru are you dumb? Apple would never do that. #9 hit the nail right on the head. Apple makes their money from hardware not from the software.
I can not wait for MAC to be loaded on PC's. Then the world will know what a piece of crap it is, locking up and all.
Oh yeah and Windows will get some help, not being on the front line all alone, let the hackers and all the other crap on the web take some shots at MAC OS.
I would enjoy trying to get OS X to work on my dual-core PC...most of the people who are willing to do this are going to be willing to be up for the challenge of configuring it to work properly. The average user isn't going to attempt this. The average person isn't going to even understand how to apply the patch, so its safe to say that you're up for the task for having driver and config issues if you try it. So if someone is willing to hack it to give us the opportunity to try to create a dual-boot Windows/OS X PC, why not?
Also, Apple has recently been creating more and more of their own software, so if one day they want top open up the OS, they can make money off of their software. Apple sales have become heavy on the iPod, so why not try to make more money on the actual computer business on people willing to buy Apple software, but not hardware. Saying they can't/won't do this is like saying a computer maker should make a music store and media player...but it seems to have worked so far for Apple...
There's some software for both OSs that would be great to run on the same computer.
I think this is neat, but I agree, anyone who complains about OSX not running on their needs to either stop, or start developing drivers for it.
#10 has it right that Apple makes it's money off the hardware.
#8 is also right about the support issue. Apple does not want to have to support all the crappy hardware that is out there, nor do they want to waste the time and resources for it.
I'd say if they restarted the open/free Unsupported version that'd be great, but I'm also fine with a tight set of hardware compatibility.
Mike, you must be a complete moron and are obviously completely uninformed. It was already announced in either pc magazine or pcworld that because of the interest in running OSX on PC's, and espeically with the introduction of the Intel in the mac, that apple is working on an OS that will run on PC's. It was said that the version would not be the same as the mac version.
I'm a big fan of linux and unix, i just dont have the time to do all the extra work to make everything compatible.
free software = big problems
Can Apple sell a non-upgradable version of OSX to PC users? Then sell upgrade packages to PC users, but make them free for Mac users (like they always did).
I wonder if that is too annoying and/or will break any laws.
I don't approve of this... It's just going to end-up on bittorent sites... Learn to save your money if you want a Mac, the price difference isn't all that large when you do the math.
And yes, Apple is a Hardware company, not a software company. They make software to sell hardware. They sell music through iTunes to sell iPods... Same with the OS.
(_;;) Of COURSE they make their money on hardware! They'd make a decent profit in software if they would keep their Chinese stores in check. Really, it's so un-Apple to be buying iLife 06 for $3 and have it come in a paper sleeve, on a burned CD, no less. (Yes, this is an official Apple Store, but I don't think it will be for much longer) (∆) But, if Apple wants to keep it that way, then more power to them, and more joy to tourists looking for a good deal (I love the ability to bargain down prices for things like iPods, especially when a 512MB shuffle still costs $125 here.)
I'm not really surprised by the responses here. Especially after the heavily Mac-slanted Engadget Reader Awards. I think it's great that Maxxuss has cracked 10.4.4. You know many PC users would be glad to pay Apple the cost of OSX if they were to sell a version that installed on regular Intel boxes.
When you can buy the equivalent Intel hardware for much cheaper why on earth would you buy the Apple hardware? Especially if OSX runs on the PC.
When Apple used Motorola chips it was easier to justify their pricing because there was no competition, but now that they are using Intel hardware available to both PC and Mac buyers, it is harder for Apple to justify their hardware monopoly.
Plus I want to be able to dual boot OSX and Windows and it looks like it's coming to the PC world before the MacTel world.
Ha! Ha!
#18 Paddy O: looks like it's coming to the PC world before the MacTel world.
I think the vast majority of Mac users here would agree with me in inviting anyone working to get Windows to boot on a Mac system to take as long as they want. I think it's a VERY small percentage of Mac users (if any at all) that would be interested in this.
From my many many years of experience troubleshooting Windows problems, I would see this as a huge disaster welcoming all sorts of chaos. Thanks, I'll stick to my elitist ways. I switched for a very good reason, which that reason still stands. And is only enforced even more when I go to work everyday and spend more than half of my time fixing Windows issues (which is not what i'm being paid to do) all over our office.
2. It's great to see this effort to bring OS X to people who can't afford Macs.. :)
---
no such thing.. utter bs.. to those who understand TCO and cost of repair/virus protection.. and understand what Mhz is..
#19
#17 512MB iPod Shuffle = $69.
I think MacOSX running on regular Intel hardware is a great idea. Just think about the kind of interoperability that would offer. I guess I am biased because I think from the developers point of view (being a developer myself). If MacOSX is able to run on regular Intel compatible hardware, then it can become as popular as Windows is today. And that would give developer motivation to write the same software the write for Windows. Just think about it. Today the best games come for the Windows platform first and then they are PORTED to the Mac. Now, since the Mac is using regular Intel compatible hardware, developers can target both platforms at the same time. Besides if MacOSX runs for regular Intel chips it also means it would run on those sexy AMD chips (which I am a great fan of). Compare to those many OSes out there, the MacOSX really stands out. Take a look. UNIX like core (Darwin), stability, features, performance, looks, it has it all. Not many people can afford the costly (albeit great) Mac hardware. So this would be a real big thing. If I were to rate all those Desktop OSes out there, my rating would go like this (earlier the better): 1. Window XP (not those 9Xs please), 2. MacOSX, 3. SkyOS (check this OS out), 4. ReactOS (free WinXP clone, although incomplete; check this out). Sorry I am not a Linux fan due to the bitter experience I had with it and lack of standardization.
whoops and apple rold out 10.4.5 ...
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/02/14/10-4-5-available-via-software-update-for-both-ppc-and-intel-bas/
Interestingly enough, Apple came out with 10.4.5 today. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for Maxxuss etc to get that version running. If it is another 6 weeks, then I think that most people will find running OS X on generic PC hardware problematic. On the other hand, if it just works that is another story altogether.
How can we contact this Maxxxusss guy? He seems smart enough to figure out whats going on with these Mac's....maybe we can have him hack at a MacTel to get XP running on it? $10,000 prize money sounds like a good deal to me.
Hi. My Name is Maxxuss, and I live in Russia. Here's a, um, new Kernel that I patched. It was ONLY to get OSX on non-Apple hardware. Really. That's all.
Really.
Trust me.
-Pie
The question of "why buy more expensive Mac hardware" keeps coming up. There's a very simple reason: tight coupling between hardware and software.
Apple *designs* the computer. Apple *designs* the OS for *that* computer. This allows strong control and specific testing to occur at Apple. And that "guarantees" the "it just works" factor.
This is all self-evident, but that's been the primary philosophy of the Mac from the get-go. A computer for *people*, not a computer for *computer people.*
It's already been said, but in context I repeat: you lose tight coupling once you go to "any old intel box," and stuff suddenly becomes far more complicated an unpredictable... just like Linux and Windows.
-Pie
What's the point? If you're so against paying for an OS, use Linux. Stealing OSX from Apple just gives them less money to keep improving it.
You really want Apple to die and leave the world to Windows? Too much like being at work for my liking. I'd rather not have a home computer if that happened.
Right on # 24! Sure, run os X but it will have lots of problems. Apple knows what hardware your apple has in it, so they write the software to work. Not enough money to buy a mac, are you for real? They are not that much. Sure you pay for the cool design, the ease of use and the fact that you don't have to deal with windows. That last point should be the new ad. "Macintosh, you won't have to deal with Windows."
I can understand emulate a pc on a mac, but emaulate a mac on a pc...
why? for games? tell me a program that doesn't exist for PC.
#28: "Apple *designs* the computer. Apple *designs* the OS for *that* computer. This allows strong control and specific testing to occur at Apple. And that "guarantees" the "it just works" factor.
It's already been said, but in context I repeat: you lose tight coupling once you go to "any old intel box," and stuff suddenly becomes far more complicated an unpredictable... just like Linux and Windows."
this is an oft repeated statement which is completely untrue, especially with regards to Windows. almost all PC hardware is based on reference designs. you hardly find a manufacturer who actually adds anything completely new or different from anyone else. pick up a Dell or an IBM, look inside, and everything is completely recognizable even if the brands for some components are different.
every hardware interfaces with the PC via the same connections, and even for add ons e.g. graphics cards, as long as they comply with DirectX/OpenGL there are never any problems. most manufacturers test everything they put on their machines anyway. if there are problems, someone quickly finds out and solves it - e.g. the recent SLI graphics card issues (not enough power, basically)
in fact, MS has been quietly consolidating its position: DirectX, Plug and Play, PlaysForSure (and hence WM)... all these are ways to make the basics standardized while still giving a choice in hardware. the days of configuring IRQs and DMAs is long, long, long, long gone.
your statement was correct: 6-7 years ago. while Windows might not guarantee that 100% of hardware will work with 100% of hardware, the percentages which are incompatible with each other are so miniscule as to be negligible.
Quote:
"almost all PC hardware is based on reference designs. you hardly find a manufacturer who actually adds anything completely new or different from anyone else."
...except for the hardware manufacturers that write their own OS. Controlling the whole widget allows for accelerated development of your platform, regardless of what is happening outside your customer base.
I said up above that the 512MB shuffle is about $125... in China. It's an irony, really, when you think about it. It's made here, and it sells for more than in the US.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think (as Maxxus has stated on his site) is that this patch is very preliminary work, i.e. it allows booting Darwin at least up to single user mode. Booting to the GUI/Finder and being able to run applications still requires much more work. When that happens (and it eventually will), that will be the really big news. Nonetheless, the work done so far still represents significant progress and is a requirement to get towards that objective.
Personally I've been a Mac user for 10 years now and like others mentioned, the Mac experience is about the entire widget. Still, there is value in being able to run OS X Intel on non-Apple hardware (like it would allow me to cobble together a test system for a low price).
David, good argument, but unfortunately you are incorrect. Realize that specification of an interface does not in any way guarantee that it will be implemented properly. The problem isn't that a vendor doesn't implement DirectX, say, but that they implement it poorly, or in a way that conflicts with the assumptions of another component (which may itself be implemented poorly).
The cost is not in the kind of coarse-grained integration you mentioned that happened years ago, when no one even agreed on standards. Now, the cost is in integrating the many fine-grained hardware and software components supposedly written to standard interfaces, but implemented by many, many parties with varying levels of skill, knowledge, and interest. It is often the case with cheap hardware that both the hardware and drivers have bugs that affect the implementation of these standard interfaces. Devices from larger, more reputable companies are more likely to either 1) be correctly implemented, or 2) contain bugs or idiosyncracies that are widely supported and worked around by other component vendors.
If you've ever tried to run a game on a laptop, you know what I'm talking about--they all supposedly implement DirectX, etc., but maybe 1 out of 3 games either doesn't run or has significant problems. Small companies selling cutrate products, or large vendors pumping out products too quickly or for another market, often don't have the resources to invest in doing things properly and covering all the bases. Then factor in things like language and culture issues (for example, specification written in English, implementors working in Chinese), and it becomes even less likely to work perfectly. What's surprising, actually, is that it works at all without companies needing to resort to selling integrated hardware and software.
But, when the same party implements the components on both sides of an interface, they can work together to share implementation assumptions more easily. Or, just by virtue of being the same party, such assumptions are implicitly shared, thus resulting in fewer problems from the start. This is frequently the case with developing for the Mac--they clearly find and fix problems between components that they own, but try to use these components from somewhere else and there are bugs galore. The Java Development Kit (JDK) on MacOS is a prime example of this. It's developed by Apple with help from Sun, supposedly to standard interfaces that run the same way on dozens of platforms, but there are loads of bugs that prevent applications from running when they run without problems on 4-5 other platforms.
Furthermore, the testing that occurs on a smaller number of platform variations is by defintion repeated more often than testing that must take into account multiple variations. One of Microsoft's biggest assets as a software company dedicated to supporting arbitrary software/hardware compbinations is its hardware labs. The last thing Apple wants to do is to sacrifice its bottom line to build an equivalent testing apparatus if they have a good thing going now. If the market supports an integrated hardware+software combination, what compelling reason would they have to do otherwise?
#28. The question of "why buy more expensive Mac hardware" keeps coming up. There's a very simple reason: tight coupling between hardware and software."
So true. I prefer windows- i can do what i damn well please with my box.
Rapid Upgradability = Reduced Stability. that's an acceptable compromise for me. Add a far wider range of software (including games), and i'm sold.
for many people who don't want to be screwing around with their pc, Macs are brilliant.
I challenge any anti-MAC person to use an Apple Display and not love it. They are the bomb.
#10. Linux sucks. Linux geeks, get the fuck over yourselves. - LOL. You don't get 30% of the server market for nothing. Linux is a prick to set up, but once you have, NOTHING touches it for stability.
#30 - LOGIC. Fuck you appple ;P, Cubase it is....
"30. I can understand emulate a pc on a mac, but emaulate a mac on a pc...
why? for games? tell me a program that doesn't exist for PC."
Final Cut Pro (+ everything in the suite). Logic. the iLife apps. Shake. all sorts of stuff. you aren't looking very hard.
x23
Admittedly, there have been very few "great" video editing programs available for windows, but very little effort is required to make something great for the pc, because till now the pc has had the technical advantage macs have not.
However, everything in iLife has been available in one form or another on the pc for decades, be it windows or linux there are tons of content creation suites available.
About ease of use, sure because apple controls both hardware and software the likelyhood of errors is small, but it does happen, and when it does, apple users tend (not always) to equate it to being broken.
And because the mac has "just been working" most mac users are clueless how to fix them.
Running os x on an average x86 system is not a bad idea, if anything it might give apple a more open attitude to hardware vendors, thus giving an educated user the power to make a choice, and not be forced into buying hardware they don't need, or might already have.
As for driver support, apple could always control what drivers are supported, and possible making vanilla drivers like microsoft already does.
Or letting the os find drivers like xp already does, you know, it "just works".
Re: many comments here
Most people cannot afford a Windows PC - they aren't Windows gurus and have the ability to keep out all the viruses/malware/etc. They shouldn't have to spend extra cash buying anti-virus software and much more.
Most people can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars for an expensive door-stop - they should buy a used Mac before they buy a new PC.
Finally! Now I can run OS X on my really crappy PC hardware.
"this is an oft repeated statement which is completely untrue, especially with regards to Windows."
Um, David T? Hello??
You counter my post about a company that designs the OS AND Hardware by saying that... "Windows Sucks"? You realize that Microsoft DOES NOT design the hardware, only the OS?
Hello? You do realize that, right??
Maybe this is why tight coupling IS "oft repeated": because it's true in Apple's case! :p
-Pie
Simply, it doesn't make sense to port OSX to pc, but it does the other way around, why? Here's why, an example:
It's matter of majority vs minority.
Do you expect Americans in the USA to learn Spanish so they can communicate w/ the Mexican OR have the Mexican learn English to communicate w/ his amigos & and huge pool Americans?
Common sense.
Ahh, I have been running 10.4.3 on a Generic PC for about a month now. The OS is rock solid and runs great.
OpenGL apps do not run, but luckily I use any OpenGL applications.
Toast, Photoshop, Illustrator run good in Rosetta.
Deer Park (Firefox port) runs great, Safari does not.
Firewire Networking and Ethernet 100Base-T works.
DVD+RW works like a SuperDrive.
Airport or Wireless PC Cards do not work.
1600x1200x32 VESA 2.0 Video Drivers work.
This is what you get with OSx86. Yes, it is not a Mac. Dah, it's a Hackintosh.
GT
its smart NOT to have it run on ANY pc hardware out there.
why?
because its a bitch of a time having to compile things for everything in existance....like Microsoft does.
its better just to have A few hardware to run on.
theres like a BUTTLOAD of chipsetsout there with intergrated audio and graphics and ALL the revisions to go with it.
most PC Techs arent programmers (complied not scripted) so they realy dont have that grasp of things.
plus money wise it would be a bitch.
thats why theres so many distros of linux and BSD because there are people that dont need all the bells and whisles BUT need it for a certain platform, then theres those that would rather compile it themselves, then theres those that could give a rats ass and EXPECT it to work out of the box.
then theres those that read it in a magazine and THINK its needed but look good around there frineds although they dont understand it at all.
"has anyone used the darwin souces with this and looked under the cars hood?