Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xVariable

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé
  1. 100% cpu in vmware 6.0.1

    I tried a different release and that fixed the problem. It's still SLOW as HELL though. If it's just sitting there, not being interacted with, it takes no CPU. The minute I click on something though, the CPU usage goes to 100% and everything really slow. I seem to recall the original Deadmoo was much faster, a native install is super-fast, and a VM Ware install of any other OS is super-fast. So, what gives?
  2. 100% cpu in vmware 6.0.1

    Hate to resurrect a thread this old, but I'm having the exact same issue. I installed 10.4.8 using your guide and the core that VMWare's using is pegged at 100%. The TPM kext isn't in the folder. Any ideas? The only difference for me is I'm running VM Ware 6.0.2. EDIT: Oh a few other things of note: I'm running Ubuntu 7.10 w/the Nvidia binary driver. OS X'es Activity Monitor doesn't show any single process or combination of processes taking 100% of available CPU. Yet, GNOME's System Monitor says the main VW Ware thread is constantly consuming 50% of my CPU (1 of the 2 cores). To be clear: I run XP and Vista in VM Ware and neither pegs the CPU at 100% like this.
  3. [How To] X800 XL set up with working Display Manager and QE/CI

    SUCCESS!!!!11!!0neowe!!!111 I figured-out why OS X wasn't booting reliably. I booted from the install DVD, and verified the permissions. Apparently the 9700 kext and GA plugins' were incorrect. After repairing them, the system boots normally and consistently now. Give that a try if you're having trouble. Now I have a reliable install of OS X with full video acceleration. About the only thing left to do is locate a compatible 5.1 surround sound card *w/digital out*, an' I'll be sittin' pretty. EDIT: Oh, and I thought you might be interested to know that OS X takes less than 5 SECONDS to get to the Login screen, after pressing Enter at the boot loader. That's friggin crazy fast man!
  4. [How To] X800 XL set up with working Display Manager and QE/CI

    OK, I'm getting some interesting results here. My card is the ATI x850 XT Platinum Edition w/256 MB VRAM (Device ID 5D4D). I install the latest Callisto drivers, and get full resolution and refresh rate switching. Then I perform the manual hex edit, and the Login screen won't load normally 9 times out of 10. Also, despite specifying a Desktop of 1600x1200x32 in System Preferences, OS X intially loads-up in what appears to be 1024x768. Then, at the login screen, the top 1/3 of the screen is the grey-silver of the login window (with the mouse pointer displaying/behaving normally), and the bottom 2/3 is black (refresh problem?). If I specify the resolution in the bootloader, it still won't load the login screen correctly 9/10 times; however, on the rare occasion, under the latter circumstances, the login screen loads, I login, and have QE/CI enabled. The same thing happened when I patched the driver with Koverg's utility. The only differences here are 1) I can change resolutions now, 2) monitor sleep works, and 3) my card is being detected properly in System profiler now, instead of as a "VGA-compaitble controller" or whatever, as was the case when I was merely applying Koverg's patch. I should mention that I've noticed a corellation between rebooting into XP, modifying the display settings in some way, and then being able to successfully boot OS X with full acceleration. Maybe the state of the hardware is being changed somehow? OTOH, it could just be a coincidence... Any advice guys? It seems like there's just one little thing out of place which, were I to fix it, would make OS X stable on my system. As it is, having to hard-reset the system frequently has corrupted my OS X partitions 3 times, including the large HFS+ partition I share between OS X and XP, requiring 3 reinstalls so far.
  5. It's a printer driver for OS X. I downloaded/extracted/ran the installer packages fom Dell's site. One is called "Dell Laser MFP Installer", and the other "Dell ScanThru Installer".
  6. borisbadenov ATI X1000-series Solution

    Do you have XP installed, and have you tried Doom 3 on it too? I'm really curious how well the card/driver performs, and only have XP as a reference point.
  7. borisbadenov ATI X1000-series Solution

    Hey Boris, so how's Natasha? Have you compared the performance in XP and OS X of, say, CoD? I know that, with my card, everything is working in OS X, but not nearly as fast as in XP. For example, I'm able to run UT 2004 at 1920x1080 with all detail settings maxed in XP, but barely get a slideshow in OS X (interestingly, but not surprisingly, it doesn't matter what detail settings are used in OS X - the game is equally slow regardless ). Regarding the boot speed: I bet it's the video driver and not the hacks, or even trying to get this all to work on an unsupported platform. If you recall how long it takes one of the new iMacs to load, it's pretty much in line with what you are experiencing. I've always wondered why they take so long, seeing as how my system boots in, like, 11 seconds.
  8. A sign of things to come

    If Parallels is anything like VM Ware (and it probably is), then it probably can't make use of an OS on another partition. Rather, you have to install another copy into a container file on your OS X partition (it acts as a sort of "virtual partition"). If it were possible to boot a copy of WXP from an NTFS or FAT32 partition, though, that would be the best of both worlds. In any case, virtualization never held much interest for me, outside of the novelty factor. You know what'll really get me excited: when Apple releases OS X for generic x86. (Note: Don't get me wong: I own a 20" Intel iMac, and plan to get a tablet when Apple releases one. What I'm more interested in is the impact such a development will have on the computing landscape, and even society in general.)
  9. Care to recommend a text file host?

    Yeah: embed hyperlinks, to text files, in my signature, in order to get around the 10 line signature limitation.
  10. Given that our signatures can only be 10 lines long, I figured we might be able to resort to a free host for text files. The sorts of things I'd use it for would be system specs, and xBench and Cinebench results. The problem is that, unlike image hosts, there doesn't seem to be any decent, free, and easy to use, and no-registration-required free hosts for other file types. Maybe I'll just take screen shots of the text windows and host 'em on an image hoster, but that's a bit of a hack. Any suggestions?
  11. Signature and Avatar Rules

    Why was I asked by SABR to shorten my signature, when there's a countless number of forum members, with much larger post counts, and far longer sigs? Why am I being singled-out? BTW, my signature was 11 lines long (10 lines of text, which were the technical specs of my system), before I modified my sig. Now it's 2.

    Again, though: Apple hasn't said anything. That Mac World article was speculation, based on the fact that Apple hasn't updated the Darwin sources for a long time. Mac World concluded, based on the afore mentioned fact, that Apple must be planning on closing the kernel. That's not a news story, that's opinion. Once again: Apple has not made a public statement saying anything.

    Man... Apple hasn't may any statements. That story was based PURELY on speculation. Apple hasn't updated x86 Darwin in a while, but that could mean anything, including the possibility that they're switching to another kernel, as the OP (and others, here, and in the industry) have pointed-out. Besides which, getting OS X to run on generic hardware isn't contingent upon having access to the kernel sources. Let's review a bit, shall we: 1) Rumours persisted, for years, that Apple was parallel developing OS X to run on the x86 architecture. It was almost universally dismissed as an urban legend, and preposterous. 2) Leading up to the x86 Transition Announcement, the rumours of it were dismissed as a preposterous urban legend. 3) Afterward, the inevitability of OSX86 being hacked to run on generic HW were dismissed as preposterous and technically impossible. 4) Who here remembers the recent New Yorker story, about the contingency plan the US military had in place, to use nuclear weapons against Iran, and how the US government said it was just that - a contingency plan? Contingency plans exist for a very good reason: prudent planning. Apple, a publically traded company, can't officially formulate a contingency plan to release OS X for generic hardware: such information constitutes a trade secret that, if publically known, could undermine Apple's strategic interests and profitability. You can be sure, however, that such a plan exists, if only in the mind of Steve Jobs and, perhaps, a cadre of his most intimate confidants. In any case, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that suggests OS X will be released eventually. Only time will tell; however, those that say "never", are usually never right.

    What the f*** are you talking about man?

    Oh, I'm fairly certain that Apple will make OS X available on generic systems at some point, but that's just informed speculation and wishful thinking; however, you said: What I, and everyone else, wants to know is did your teacher, an OS X kernel developer, tell you that Apple will make the OS installable on generic hardware, from the likes of Dell, with the release Leopard? Please man, just a simple yes or no would suffice.