Linked by David Adams on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:27 UTC, submitted by karl
Mac OS X This could be completely faked, but engadget has a screenshot of OSX x68 running on the x86 virtual machine VMWare. It's an interesting feat if its true, but it also has other implications. Since VMWare obviously does not implement any of the various DRM schemes, this would poke holes in the assertion that Apple is using Trusted Computing in its developer boxes.
Order by: Score:
DRM
by JrezIN on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:38 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

The big question is, they *will* use DRM in the final costumer MacIntel?

IIRC, these developer boxes are only avilable for "rent", they're not owned by these developers. In the end, these boxes may not be so close to the final version of MacIntel.
#
Besides that, nice to see OSX_x86 running on wmware! =]

Reply Score: 1

RE: DRM
by David on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:40 UTC in reply to "DRM"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

You're right about that being the big question. Remember, though, that this whole brouhaha started when someone claimed that Apple was including DRM on their x86 *developer boxes*. If that claim is discredited, there's no evidence to suggest that Apple is considering Trusted Computing at all.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: DRM
by JrezIN on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM"
JrezIN Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm not, really, the one who could confirm that... I DO remember some posts about DRM and MacIntel, but it spreaded so fast that I can't remember the (real) original news source... The others are always interpreting, adding, subtracting... well, changing the information somehow... It's so easy someone anything post about possible DRMed MacIntels and someone else post how it has "discovered" that the developer boxes has DRM from a "misterious" news source... =]
...These days you can't really trust (cof) everything you read in internet... :rolleyes:

...But in the end... what really matters is, "OSX_x86 running on VMWare's nice". =] (well... if it's not a fake... =[ )

Bonus about the subject:(Eugenia pointed the story, the fist comment is really nice!)
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/01/0421248&tid=179&t...

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: DRM
by IceCubed on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DRM"
RE: DRM
by Celerate on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:34 UTC in reply to "DRM"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm no longer seriously concerned about the whole DRM issue. While I'm no fan of "Trusted Computing" as Microsoft likes to call it, I'm starting to think that the TPM chips in the developer boxes may be no more real than the iHome.

Reply Score: 1

v re
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:38 UTC
Maybe not a fake
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have the AVI that is floating around that these screenshots were taken from.

I found the AVI at this forum
http://osx86.classicbeta.com/forum/index.php

Reply Score: 0

RE: Maybe not a fake
by analogue on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:52 UTC in reply to "Maybe not a fake"
analogue Member since:
2005-07-16
Mactel
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is probobly not fake. This was probobly by installing Darwin 8.0, upgrading to Darwin 8.1, then using the Mactel leak.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Mactel
by David on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:52 UTC in reply to "Mactel"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

It's true that if all you need to do is to produce a working OSX in VMWare good enough to produce a video, there are other ways of doing that besides using the x86 developer edition.

Reply Score: 5

Im not too suprised.
by Devon on Fri 5th Aug 2005 17:51 UTC
Devon
Member since:
2005-06-30

I didn't expect them to go all out with their "Apple hardware only" techniques, whatever they will be, on these early dev macs. In fact, just the fact that these are special developer versions of OS X is probably enough, as they can simply add logic too their software and updates in the future that prevent it from installing on these early dev versions, making them pretty useless.

You can BET that the consumer release will not run in a VM this easily.

Reply Score: 1

How does this disprove anything?
by japail on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:04 UTC
japail
Member since:
2005-06-30

If the limitations can be bypassed, how does that "poke holes" into the matter of them existing in the first place?

Reply Score: 1

Doesn't require Apple hardware?
by Celerate on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:22 UTC
Celerate
Member since:
2005-06-29

If OS X x86 doesn't require Apple hardware that would be interesting. I know a lot of mac fans think their hardware is higher quality, but I'm not of the same disposition.

I'd love to be able to run Mac OS X on the computers I already have rather than having to wait to get a Mac mini much further down the road. Really I would just be running OS X to see what it's like because I'm curious, even just being able to run it in a fast VM would be good enough for me.

Reply Score: 2

protected hardware target
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I think that almost everybody will agree that Apple will do everything within it's powers to make sure OSX will only run on Apple boxes.So somehow they have to make sure that will happen in most instances.

None the less it's awsome to have OSX running on vmware.Especially with fast hardware and enough memory and potent vmware guest drivers. However how much will vmware workstation cost in that scenario?

Interesting nonetheless.

Reply Score: 0

RE: protected hardware target
by bubbayank on Sun 7th Aug 2005 04:53 UTC in reply to "protected hardware target"
bubbayank Member since:
2005-07-15

"None the less it's awsome to have OSX running on vmware.Especially with fast hardware and enough memory and potent vmware guest drivers. However how much will vmware workstation cost in that scenario?"

Well assume that all these people "trying it out" will pirate VMWare just like they'll pirate OS-X. It's all free!!

I mean, some people are so hell-bent on NOT buying hardware that doesn't exist yet, I really doubt that they'll be paying for the OS to run it on their Alienware machine.

Reply Score: 1

v Who cares
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 18:40 UTC
Confused
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 19:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I may be a bit behind on the news front, but I thought that the version of OS X on x86 couldn't run on normal PCs. If that is the case, how on earth did they manage to get OS X running in an emulator?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Confused
by navaraf on Sat 6th Aug 2005 22:48 UTC in reply to "Confused"
navaraf Member since:
2005-07-08

It uses patched Rosetta and hack for loading the TCPA kernel module.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

You also don't need to have SSE3 for the phenix build. Blex0r has already built a patch to fix the iso right from the go... it's called sse3patcher.exe and is NOT indexed by google yet. If you've been keeping up with th research pages for osx86 you should find the link in the forums...

Reply Score: 0

One and only solution
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 19:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Please give us the VMware image, so we can proove this no fake ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: One and only solution
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 21:23 UTC in reply to "One and only solution"
Anonymous Member since:
---

yeah, sounds like the way to go - if this is possible, i think it would totally kill apple hardware-wise.

Reply Score: 0

The developer kit
by fretinator on Fri 5th Aug 2005 19:47 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

The developer kit edition of OSX 86 [the only thing out as of now] DOES NOT use DRM. However, these means zip, as it does not relate to the final version of OSX any more than the first Alpha of Longhorn relates to Windows Vista.

Reply Score: 0

RE: The developer kit
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 21:26 UTC in reply to "The developer kit"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Could you provide a link to back up your claim of no TPM usage by the dev kits ? According to this -

http://www.osx86.classicbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

- "Breaking News" - they do ...

Reply Score: 0

Simple
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 20:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Well it's not because the OSX x86 should only run on Apple hardware that it's impossible to make it run on commodity hardware. I suppose crackers made a crack for the installation DVD or something like that. Windows XP should only be activated using an activation code provided by Microsoft, however everybody know that crackers found a solution ;)

Reply Score: 0

Would love to switch back
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 20:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I want vmware running on OS X not OS X running on vmware. I switched from the Mac to Windows becuase of marketplace requirements.. and plan to swtich back when OS X Intel based boxes ship.. my current plan is to run OS X and Windows each on different drives (using drive bays) and network based storage.

I would rather have vmware running on OS X so that I could run XP or Vista in vmware for the Windows based apps I need to run.

Reply Score: 0

kit? pearpc?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 5th Aug 2005 21:31 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Has anyone considered the possibility that this is some smart guy who is making smart use of his transition kit? I don't know how flexible VMWare is, but shouldn't you be able to tell VMWare to use *some* hardware direclty from the host PC, instead of letting VMw emulating it? And that via trial and error, he was able to activate the DRM chip in the trans. kit?

I no fcuk-all about emulation, so I have no idea if this makes any sense.

Another possibility is some kid having a go at hacking PearPC code.

Reply Score: 5

I hope not
by Jedd on Fri 5th Aug 2005 22:58 UTC
Jedd
Member since:
2005-07-06

Really hope they DON'T use DRM.

Reply Score: 2

Well
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 23:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I kinda followed this guy's archievements and it's not like it's running perfectly now. He says it's slow and very unstable. There is DRM in Rosetta and other apps, that's why those apps simply don't run (yet).

Reply Score: 0

Uh
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 23:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It would be trivial to emulate any TCPA dongle in VMWare/bochs/qemu.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Uh
by pravda on Sat 6th Aug 2005 01:12 UTC in reply to "Uh"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

That is not true. TCPA is not a "dongle" as the encryption/decryption is done on the chip and no keys ever leave the chip.

There may be ways around it but that will mostly likely be fixing the code to not use TCPA.

With product activation combined with TCPA it makes it more and more difficult to find "fair use" solutions.

As Apple is already doing product activation, it is not hard to imagine a shipping Mac using TCPA + product activation.

Reply Score: 1

please....
by Anonymous on Sat 6th Aug 2005 00:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Of *course* it can be faked...has anyone here ever heard of Photoshop?

Reply Score: 0

OSX on dc opteron
by re_re on Sat 6th Aug 2005 02:02 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

i think apple will have the best and greatest of what intel has to offer and that being the case... it would not be detremental to apple if a few rogue coppies are installed and running on non apple hardware, however, with the current state of CPU's.. (and this could change by the time apple introduces it's first x86 for sale) it could be a very bad thing if people start running osx on high end opteron's

think about it.. somebody needs a hardcore apple workstation and instead of buying apples hardware, they build a smokin fast opteron 275 system and install a pirated copy of osx... this would make apple look really bad since this would no doubt outpreform intels offerings by a substantial margin, at least in certain tasks.

I very highly doubt apple will make it possable to install osx on non apple hardware for this reason.

Reply Score: 1

Fake...?
by gamma on Sat 6th Aug 2005 03:54 UTC
gamma
Member since:
2005-07-06

Isn't it possible to modify the hardware information in the system profiler? I watched the video and that could easily be PearPC or native OSX. I remember with PearPC people were making the hardware profiler say they had a 300ghz cpu and what not. It could be just as easy to fake that. As for the image, probably photoshop.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Fake...?
by Anonymous on Sat 6th Aug 2005 10:26 UTC in reply to "Fake...?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Nah, it's definitely not a fake, they've been working for more than a month now. I'm not surprised they can finally boot to the Desktop.

And yeah, there is a TPMA chip on the Mactel motherboard. I have heard that Rosetta uses it, I have no idea. If you install Windows on the machine it will ask for drivers for the chip.

Reply Score: 0

RE Devkit
by Anonymous on Sat 6th Aug 2005 14:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Could you provide a link to back up your claim of no TPM usage by the dev kits ?

Maybe I am mis-reading everything. Even the link you gave tells me the TPM chip is there, but I can't tell if DRM is actually being used. If the current OSX86 is not using the chip, then it would not be surprising that it could boot in VMWare. But, even if the dev version is not "locked" to the hardware, it seems obvious to me that Apple will tie the shipping version to Apple-specific hardware.

Reply Score: 0

VMwarae and Darwin 8.01
by Anonymous on Sun 7th Aug 2005 22:01 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I really doubt this is real as to my knowledge Darwin 8.01 doesn't recognise any hard drives when you boot it in VMWare although I would very much like to be proved wrong so I can run Darwin in VMware

Reply Score: 0