Submitted by Mac OS X 10.4.8 will now run on any generic x86-based PC. Well, almost. Kernel coder Semthex has posted what he claims is an entirely legal release of the Mac operating system’s foundation layer. The only snag: you can’t boot into the familiar GUI. To date, the version of Mac OS X for x86 processors has relied on kernel add-ons to anchor the software to Apple’s own hardware through the machines’ Trusted Platform Module. Much of the core code is independent of it, however, and available for access to all and sundry via Apple’s own source code licence. What Semthex has claimed to do is produce code that essentially bypasses the TPM stuff yet stays within the Apple licence.
The only snag: you can’t boot into the familiar GUI.
[sarcasm]And such a minor snag at that.[/sarcasm]
Please read the link. This development will make it much easier to run the “familiar GUI”, for those who are interested in doing so.
…would be so cool! If I had the money, I’d buy a Mac right away, or if they even sold Mac OS X for regular x86 computers..
Oh, and it can boot to GUI: and want to correct one thing. This kernel boots to GUI but it needs a key-salt to be inserted into “commpage.c
A PC + OSX != A Mac.
It’s about vertical integration. When you get a Mac, you get a system designed top to bottom, not just an OS. The hackers who do this work, know this; the people who run their code generally don’t.
Its a really strange argument. When you run Office or Photoshop on a Mac, and print to an Epson printer, or maybe use a Minolta negative scanner, or backup to an external usb drive, or import from your Canon in raw, how exactly is this ‘a system designed top to bottom’?
On the other hand, when you use Office over XP to interface to Exchange Server….maybe that really is a system designed top to bottom. At least in the respects that you might feel count, if any of them really do count.
This is just silliness. Not my own phrase, but we need to stop claiming as advantages things which the Mac does not have, and which would not be advantages even if they did.
That’s a bit irrelevant of course, except for a few crusaders nobody would want to pirate MacOSX and use it on their hardware at this point, it’s much easier to pirate Windows plus all the “software” people are talking about is there.
I’m only worried that Apple may choose to go the generic x86 path all of a sudden and then the whole platform will go down the drain. Microsoft has such a huge experience (decades!) of supporting third-party junk and Apple doesn’t have this, and Microsoft was learning when the web wasn’t as large and whiny as it is now. The moment someone’s notebook’s built-in camera is not supported there’ll be whines all over the place.
Apple hardware is extremely stable – I’ve had about 50 Minis and a couple of iMacs running for a year in an office and none of them have had any hardware issues so far. I find this pretty impressive having witnessed the stability of PC hardware. Just trying to say here that you can configure an adequately stable generic PC from better components, but nobody would do it of course because the price would skyrocket.
you are so stupid! you even don’t understand how stupid you are!
first of all, not semthex but mifki patched kernel.. you can read any thread at insanelymac.com and you’ll know this. semthex provided his kernel only after mifki.
second, patched kernel doesn’t bypass TPM. this isn’t possible. simply because kernel doesn’t do anything TPM-related. in my patches only CPU and EFI checks are bypassed. all TPM stuff are located in Don’t Steal Mac OS.kext and it needs to be patched to bypass TPM, not kernel.
good luck in providing incorrect news
Edited 2006-10-26 17:31
see his blog, this entry http://semthex.freeflux.net/blog/archive/2006/10/24/haleluja-it-s-d…
where he writes that mifki did it before him..
mifki, why are you making a fool of yourself and the whole community? What does matter who got there first, it is the outcome that really matters.
And besides my understanding is that you two have been working together, so you got there almost at the same time.
I’m trying to defend my ownership of my work and you saying I’m making fool of myself? Will you be happy if you do something but in all news there’s another name?
we never worked together. I always worked alone and shared my progress/sources/solutions. he always worked with one of other hackers and never shared sources/solutions. I started later but first got single-user working and then gui fully working, he published his kernel only when I said how to solve last problem (timeline can be easily found in corresponding forum thread). and after this you think his name should appear in the news?
also as I said before what is written here about TPM is simply incorrect.
Edited 2006-10-26 20:40
OK, I modded you up for clarifying the TMP issue.
However the fact remains that this wrangle doesn’t help the good name of our community, which outside our own forum we have to defend daily.
has a future after all.
Frankenstein OS