Posted 02 January 2007 - 05:00 AM
Posted 02 January 2007 - 05:01 AM
Posted 02 January 2007 - 10:14 PM
No, we can't.
cant we just use a 10.2 install dvd?
We haven't got ANY 10.2 install DVD that works on Intel processors, we only have the PPC version of Jaguar.
And still if we can make 10.4.1 running on processors without SSE2 instructions, it seems to be pointless, because almost every universal binary actually shipping requires at least Mac OS X 10.4.3/4.
But... I just saw somewhere that the internal 10.4.2 build of Mac OS X x86 was hacked to allow the applications built with it or further releases of Mac OS X run on previous Mac OS X x86 releases too, so... Maybe we can make a lot of applications work even without 10.4.3 and even without SSE2.
Posted 02 January 2007 - 11:34 PM
Posted 03 January 2007 - 12:02 AM
Posted 03 January 2007 - 10:47 AM
Yes, it is.
is the 10.4.2 exec patch the one you're talking about Sherry?
If I remember correctly, Apple introduced a new type of binary with 10.4.2 which cannot run on previous releases of Mac OS X x86. Anyway, someone (maybe Maxxuss?) hacked it and find a way to make those binaries to run well even with 10.4.1.
EDIT: nevermind, I've found this:
So it seems that we cannot even run younger applications.
back on topic, the installer can easily hacked to make it install over 10.4.1 but apple has broken binary compatibility again and not in the old way. dunno if you remember that maxxuss released a 10.4.2 kernel exe patch that used to work but doesn't anymore.
Posted 03 January 2007 - 11:37 AM
let's just see what we can do and then worry about application compatibility later.
Posted 04 January 2007 - 12:46 AM
Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:58 AM
Posted 04 January 2007 - 03:10 AM
Posted 04 January 2007 - 10:36 AM
anyways, i spoke to semthex about the kernel today and he said the problem is not with the kernel, it's with the non open source extensions and that we can boot the current kernel with "-s" to run on sse. so does somebody have a list of all the extensions which require sse2? if so, post plz.
Posted 04 January 2007 - 12:28 PM
Posted 04 January 2007 - 12:42 PM
Ok, and for Tiger so the problems are extensions and closed-system apps (like the Finder and the Dock)?
So we still need an SSE2 emulator, isn't it?
But if between SSE2 and SSE3 there are only few differences, between SSE and SSE2 there are a LOT of new instructions.
And remember that SSE-only processors are usually slow...
It'll be useless, maybe.
Posted 04 January 2007 - 01:27 PM
Posted 04 January 2007 - 02:04 PM
Posted 04 January 2007 - 04:37 PM
Posted 04 January 2007 - 08:09 PM
We're trying to obtain a copy of Mac OS X 10.2 for Intel.
what are we trying to do here? Tiger on SSE or OSx86 10.2?
Posted 05 January 2007 - 12:32 AM
Posted 05 January 2007 - 01:32 AM
Posted 05 January 2007 - 03:12 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users