Jump to content

iWin32

Members
  • Content count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About iWin32

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Geek

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not a programmer/developer, but I took interest in it a while when I was younger. Most of my development experience is just compiling source code as-is, without changes. I can read through some easy code and figure out how it works, but that's my extent of programming knowledge. So believe me when I say I'm not an expert by any means. That being said, however, if you are just a beginning developer (which it sounds like you are judging by your OP, correct me if I'm wrong), I HIGHLY recommend starting with something much simpler than kernel development. A kernel is very low-level, and it gets very complex very fast. Writing code in C, as you have said, is a very good start, but you should be very proficient in C before you try OS or kernel development. It's akin to starting to learn Dutch grammar rules without knowing a single word in Dutch. You need to start with the basics and work your way up. Other developers here can chime in and give their own advice if they want, but that's just my take!
  2. First things first: I apologize to the mods if this isn't the right place to post this. Please feel free to move this to wherever you feel is necessary. I've been following developments with the Hackintosh community for a while now, all the way back to the days of 10.5 Leopard. I've configured a handful of Hackintoshes myself over the years, and recently, I built a computer that's running macOS High Sierra for video editing purposes. However, I'm starting to think someone high up at Apple is doing their best to slow down the progress of Hackintoshes with the release of macOS Mojave. It's important to note that Apple has always officially been against Hackintoshes since the Apple Intel transition. All the way back to the very first version of OS X, the Apple EULA stated that Mac OS X was only licensed to run on Apple-labeled hardware, and you aren't even allowed to enable others to do so under those terms. And in the early days of Tiger Hackintoshes, Apple frequently released updates that, whether intentional or not, broke the ability of the Intel version of OS X to run on PC hardware. But in more recent years, Apple has been more tolerant of Hackintosh users. When Apple unveiled their Kext signing protocol, they went out of their way to make sure that unsigned, Hackintosh-only kexts like FakeSMC were whitelisted out-of-the-box. Most people speculate that while this use of the macOS is still unlicensed, Apple recognizes that the majority of Hackintosh users are their own customers; some even speculating that it's like free research and development on the OS. Plus, killing Hackintoshes would be bad PR for Apple. But I'm starting to wonder if things are changing as of recently. First, there are the NVIDIA web drivers (or the lack of them) for macOS Mojave. As of yesterday, MacRumors reported that NVIDIA went on the record saying that it's up to Apple to approve NVIDIA's own web drivers. Some NVIDIA fanboys are speculating there's more to the story than NVIDIA is letting on, but for all intents and purposes, let's give NVIDIA the benefit of the doubt. Outside of a few old Mac Pros that allowed customers to upgrade to a third-party video card (all of which are presumably out of their original warranty), the only other people who need NVIDIA drivers are Hackintosh users who rely on them for accelerated graphics support. Mac graphics cards are either integrated Intel or dedicated AMD, and all work out-of-the-box. So, in theory, a Hackintosh user could still build a machine that matches Apple's graphics cards in their Macs, but all other users are stuck without third-party driver support. If Apple won't approve of NVIDIA's web drivers for Mojave, Hackintosh users will either have to stick to High Sierra or avoid Hackintoshing altogether and buy a real Mac. Also, in terms of AMD kernel development, the only way to run macOS on PC hardware with an AMD CPU is with a patched kernel. Previously, it took a few days to around a week or so for Apple to release the source code for the XNU kernel. Sierra was released on September 20, 2016, and the source code for XNU was released on or around October 1st. High Sierra was released on September 25, 2017, and the source code for XNU was released on or around September 27th (a mere 2 days after High Sierra was released!). However, Mojave was released on September 24th, 2018. It's now well over a month since it's release, and Apple has yet to release the source code of its own OPEN SOURCE kernel. Without this source code, it will be next to near impossible to patch the kernel to support AMD CPUs. Of course, real Macs don't need to have a patched kernel for CPU support, as all Intel processors within real Macs are supported out-of-the-box. Is Apple going to close the source code for the latest version of XNU in an attempt to break Hackintoshing on AMD hardware? Or are they deliberately delaying it in an attempt to delay development of the patched kernel? Again, this doesn't completely break Hackintoshing as anyone with a supported Intel CPU can run OS X out-of-the-box, even on PC hardware. Finally, there's been a rumor going around that Apple is going to abandon Intel sometime around 2019 or 2020 in favor of developing their own ARM CPUs for their Mac lineup. I certainly hope that this rumor will be debunked, not just because of the Hackintosh community, but because of what this might mean for professional applications. It's well known that historically, Macs are generally regarded as better than PCs for professional multimedia use. I remain skeptical that an ARM processor and compatible graphics card could live up to the performance of an x86 processor and compatible graphics card in terms of apps like Final Cut Pro, Apple Motion, any app in the Adobe CC suite, etc. Also, apps like VMWare Fusion will have to go back to emulating the x86 platform if they want to run Windows on a Mac, and you can kiss Bootcamp goodbye. If I had any say in Apple, I would advise them that if they were unsatisfied with Intel for any reason, instead of switching over to their own CPUs, to try switching to AMD CPUs for Macs. The Hackintosh community already has a lot of experience in this, so it's essentially free R+D plus it would help streamline development of AMD support. You already have a working relationship with AMD for their ATI graphics cards in Macs, so it wouldn't be too hard to open up a dialog about switching to AMD processors. Historically, AMD has been regarded as superior to Intel in the PC community, and to top it all of, you wouldn't have to abandon the x86 platform. Bootcamp would still work, professional applications would still have better performance than any ARM architecture could design, and you don't have to stay behind with Intel. It's a win-win. But I digress. If Apple does, in fact, transition away from Intel and x86 into the world of ARM and their own CPUs, then Apple is going to break the Hackintosh community completely. Want to run macOS on PC hardware? Good luck. You'd have to develop an emulator. And you know how slow development was over at PearPC, and to this day, whether PearPC, QEMU, or VMWare, there is no virtual or emulated graphics card that supports QE/CI. If accelerated graphics are a requirement for your macOS experience, then you are just going to have to buckle down and buy a real Mac. Regardless of my ramblings, if this rumor is true, Apple is already on the stage to break Hackintoshes entirely within the next few years, so what's to stop them from doing so now? In the end, I just hope that Apple doesn't deliberately plot against the Hackintosh community this way or any other way. Not only would this be bad PR for Apple, but it would be another thing to add to the list of Apple's anti-consumer moves they've made this year. For instance, Linus Tech Tips was denied being able to even PAY Apple for their broken iMac Pro just because they opened it, which in and of itself revealed that even Apple authorized repair shops are being required to keep Apple's own repair policies confidential or risk being stripped of their Apple certification. Let me know of your thoughts on this subject.
  3. iWin32

    NEWS FLASH: Apple switching away from Intel

    No, it would become ARMacOS, because after all, it's OSx86 and not OSXx86. (And yes I know it's pronounced like OS 10 and not OS ex, but that's not my point!) Unless Apple keeps their current policy in place (open up your computer, void your warranty). That's probably the reason the 2013 Mac Pros are less rectangular and more like garbage cans cylindrical. Because we all know that hacking and modding of Apple stuff never happens! But in all seriousness, I can't see such a move working out. If they no longer want to rely on Intel, why not switch to AMD (plus it would make our AMD development a heck of a lot easier)? ARM, whether produced by Apple or outsourced, would create several limitations. The x86 platform is still used in PC desktops and laptops for a reason. I find it hard to believe that professional software like FCPX would render well and perform as well on ARM processors and not Intel. Some might see this as a move to destroy hackintoshes as we know it, but it would also come at a cost for those who want to do the opposite: Use Boot Camp or VM software to install Windows on a Mac. Sure, Microsoft is developing Windows 10 versions for ARM, equipped with x86 emulator support. But if you have to run professional software like Premiere CC on an x86 emulator, for the time being, it would definitely take a hit in performance, and it would defeat the purpose of installing Windows on a Mac. And if they want to streamline macOS with iOS by using the same processors, would that also come with the App Store limitations? Even Windows, which has its own App Store, doesn't force you to only use apps unless you're using certain versions of Windows (Windows RT, Windows 10 S, etc.). If you limit the Mac experience to the app store (because let's face it, all the App Store is ever used is to download macOS and other Apple software, and that's it), you downgrade the quality of the experience and make it less attractive. If Apple made this move, I see it as a suicide mission for the Mac product line. I definitely don't want to see in a few years posts like "RIP Macintosh (1984-2021)" because of a foolish move for Apple to maintain control over every aspect of computer design.
  4. Slice, in all seriousness, is there a chance that your Clover development branch or something could have been compromised? If this isn't a false positive, it is a serious issue. Proton is a RAT trojan for macOS. And I'm sure you're all familiar with the time Transmission's (the BitTorrent Client) site was compromised and was used to deliver Ransomware to macOS users who downloaded a compromised version of the software. If not, then it's a false positive. And to be fair, VirusTotal only shows that one AV showing Clover as infected. But as to Clover itself, I can assure that it is 100% malware free under usual circumstances. I've used it countless times before, and I'd even recommend that over Chameleon for BIOS-based computers.
  5. iWin32

    [GUIDE] 1st Generation Intel HD Graphics QE/CI

    I just tested this out... FCPX only works if you sideload offline (as in copying to the .app bundle to an external drive and transferring it to the other computer). If you transfer it online or, like I initially did, through AirDrop, a "Verifying Final Cut Pro" window will pop up, like you get with downloaded applications. It'll complete about 99% of the way and then hang there. When you transfer via an external disk, the program will open fine without that verifying window. There is a speed hit, but then again, the PC I tested it out on has less RAM than my MacBook Pro, so it's hard to gauge. Also, this method won't allow you to playback ProRes content in QuickTime. But it does open and function properly. I'd also recommend turning off background render, as that will take a lot of the GPU's power. And I only tested a simple edit (take a 5 minute YouTube video, import it, cut it down to 3 minutes by removing the first minute on the beginning and end of the clip, and exported to ProRes). I can't vouch for any more powerful features, but Final Cut Pro seems to work just fine on the First Gen Intel HD Graphics. So there's your answer!!
  6. iWin32

    [GUIDE] 1st Generation Intel HD Graphics QE/CI

    In any official capacity, no. FCPX only works with either dedicated OpenGL cards or Intel HD Graphics 3000 or later. You definitely wouldn't be able to install from the App Store. What may work, if you have a real Mac or compatible Hackintosh laying around (VMs won't work), is downloading and installing on a compatible computer and slide load the app. You just would have to copy /Applications/ Final Cut Pro X.app from the compatible computer to the incompatible computer. This method works with some incompatible real macs, but a Hackintosh with first-gen Intel HD Graphics remains untested to my knowledge. I may be able to test this method for you, albeit it would be a while and it would be an old version of FCPX on El Capitan. I'd recommend letting me test it before shelling out $300 for FCPX to side load onto a computer that may not work. I already have bought FCPX for school work on my real MacBook Pro. Just let me know if you want me to proceed!
  7. iWin32

    [GUIDE] 1st Generation Intel HD Graphics QE/CI

    I'm coming out of "retirement" to throw this idea out there: Is it possible to consider creating a kext based on Lilu to automatically patch the kexts and other issues related to first-gen Intel HD Graphics? I would try myself, but I'm not a programmer and all the plugin reading is going over my head. More info: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/321371-lilu-%E2%80%94-kext-and-process-patcher/
  8. iWin32

    Apple unveils "macOS High Sierra"

    Apple: Mac OS X Leopard Apple: Mac OS X Snow Leopard Apple: Mac OS X Lion Apple: OS X Mountain Lion Me: Come, on! There's still OS X Cougar!! Apple: We're out of cat names, let's name OS X after places in California... Me: Great. OS X Hollywood? Apple: OS X Mavericks Apple: OS X Yosemite Me: OS X Hollywood? Apple: OS X El Capitan Me: OS X Hollywood? Apple: LOL let's ditch "OS X", that's so 2001. How about, macOS Sierra! Me: macOS Hollywood does roll off the tongue a bit better. Apple: macOS High Sierra... Me: You better use macOS Hollywood next year, or you'll be seeing a lawsuit from me!! Apple: ***Next Year's prediction*** We're out of California names, let's ditch the whole naming thing: macOS 10.14!! Me: :wallbash: :wallbash: TL;DR: It sounds like Apple had gotten lazy in picking a California name with "High Sierra"!
  9. iWin32

    Pluses when booting to sierra installer.

    Can you post a screenshot? If there are plus signs, it's likely not caused by an OS X, but an issue with Clover preventing from booting properly, but I want to be sure!
  10. Before I go into my question, I first wish to say, as I have said in the first-gen Intel HD Graphics thread, I now have real Macs and am not nearly as active in the Hackintosh scene. That being said, I still have an interest in it, and I still browse this forum from time to time. However, something interesting caught my eye in this thread: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/topic/320700-an-iso-for-my-hackbook/ In it, the OP is asking for a location for a distro ISO of a specific version of OS X/macOS. While posting direct or indirect links to pirated goods (distros included) are obviously not allowed in the rules, it was my understanding that the discussion of distros is allowed here for a number of reasons -- The main one being that distros were a part of our history. That being said, the second post doesn't cite the rule of illegal download links, but instead, cites the rules about commercial spin-offs, like TonyMacx86. This is interesting to me for a number of reasons. First, the only distro maker to my knowledge that would now be considered a commercial spin-off is iATKOS, given that any new version now is only available after a donation. But to my knowledge, that doesn't make all distros inherently a commercial spin-off. In fact, the one being referenced in the OP is Hackintosh Zone, formerly known as Niresh. His stuff has always been available for free, and to my knowledge, his past distros have been tolerated for discussion before. Yet, somehow it became known as a commercial spin-off? The only reason that might be justifiable in calling it that is because his site has ads. But if that's the case, so does InsanelyMac, and surely you don't consider yourself a commercial spin-off, right? Besides, who in their right mind would host this stuff for free, use their own money for bandwidth and server costs, and make zero profit? That doesn't make much sense. (I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but it just seems absurd that ads would be a reason to call something a commercial spin-off. TonyMac has ads, but that's not one of the reasons we don't support him here! And we also support open source developers who have donation buttons, yet we don't consider them commercial.) I guess I'm struggling to see why InsanelyMac would consider Hackintosh Zone/Niresh a commercial spin-off. Also, for that matter, what about those like iATKOS, where they once produced free distros but became a commercial spinoff? As old as their free distros are now, does that mean we no longer support them altogether? Or, is discussion and support of the free distros still allowed, with the paid ones restricted accordingly? And if anyone is wondering why I just didn't PM the guy or reply in that thread, I feel like this is a question that is not entirely related to the OP, and that it warrants it's own discussion, especially for newbies who don't understand what makes a site a commercial spin-off. We have a locked thread specifically about Tony, and I'm sure no one would disagree that Psystar in its day was considered a commercial spin-off. But even what goes into a moderator's or admin's decision as to what to and what not to consider a commercial spin-off would be helpful, especially considering there isn't a term used a lot in the Hackintosh world or the Internet in general. Just about everyone (newbies included) knows what P2P means, but commercial spin-off? Does that mean we can talk about The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, but not The Suite Life on Deck? (Sorry, that was the best joke I could come up with!!) I just want to be clear on what these examples are according to the forum rules, and if it's at all possible, where does one draw the line from sites we can discuss and support and sites that are commercial spin-offs?
  11. I may not have this exact computer, but if me or anyone else is able to help you, we need to know more than "no good results". I believe you're new here and to the Hackintosh scene in general, but without specifics of what happens, no one will know how to help you. What exactly is not good? What have you tried to search for? Judging by your CPU, there should be no issues with booting OS X's vanilla (stock) kernel. For each install method you use, I would recommend answering these questions as far as you're able: Are you able to boot to the Clover/Chameleon boot screen? What boot flags are you using/tried to use? Are you able to begin the OS X boot process? Are you able to reach the installation/language selection screen? Did you use disk utility to format the partition you want to install OS X on as Mac OS Extended (Journaled)? After formatting, are you able to select that partition? If it's a distro, what install options are you using? (Did you click customize before install?) How does the installer finish? Does it succeed? If it fails, what is the reason it gives you? (Believe it or not, some reasons the install may fail may be because of using PC hardware and would not fail on a Mac. If this is true, the install may have succeeded, and you should try to boot the install anyway) When you reboot, are you attempting to boot off of your hard drive or the bootable Install USB? Depending on your vanilla install method, you may need to boot off of the USB to boot into OS X? Are you able to select the partition you installed OS X on? Are you able to boot and complete setup? If the issue arises after this stage, you best post in the Post-Installation forum instead. As a side note, you don't need to post all the specs you posted... it looks like there's some Windows-related DLL's in there as well. Generally, what is most affected by OS X installs are motherboard/computer model if not custom-built with its chipset info, CPU, and Graphics Card. However, graphics is NOT as important when installing OS X and may need additional fixing in post-install. Additional helpful info (most not important when installing, but network adapters may need additional fixing in post as well) includes the amount of RAM, HDD/SSD, and any network adapters, but we don't need to know as much as what you posted.
  12. iWin32

    AMD El Capitan (@Slice)

    Chameleon, which is probably the only bootloader of the oldest origin, has always simply booted OS X without boot.efi. Keep in mind, Chameleon is based off of Boot-132 modifications, which has been around since the days of OS X 10.5 Leopard. In these days, emulating EFI was necessary, but true EFI emulation was a mere fantasy. boot.efi is simply the stock Apple bootloader and is a regular UEFI application. Chameleon is unable to load that because it isn't true EFI emulation. Rather, it uses the same boot process as the Darwin bootloader, with Chameleon itself reading com.apple.Boot.plist (injecting the info provided in org.chameleon.Boot.plist) and then loading the kernel and extensions, but with the ability to "simulate" the small amount of EFI needed directly in the kernel. Chameleon remains unaffected by boot.efi. In fact, some earlier installations replaced that file with the "boot" file needed for Chameleon. Clover, on the other hand, is a full-fledged UEFI bootloader and can emulate UEFI on BIOS-based computers. As such, Clover can have no problems loading boot.efi. In fact, Clover simply creates the conditions necessary for boot.efi to take over and load the kernel and extensions. Chances are, Apple's stock bootloader is the problem. If replacing the boot.efi file from Yosemite enables Clover to boot El Capitan on AMD systems (I wouldn't know... Left the Hackintosh scene a while ago because I'm typing this on my real Macbook Pro now), you've essentially downgraded the bootloader. It would be like using NTLDR (the XP bootloader) to load Windows 7 instead of it's native bootloader (BCD). It's possible, but for most scenarios unnecessary unless you're dual booting Windows XP and Windows 7. Windows aside, I do believe that boot.efi is the culprit from what you demonstrated. As to why, you'll need to figure that out on your own. However, I hope this clears up as to why Chameleon can boot El Capitan without replacing boot.efi while Clover can't. I wish you the best of luck!
  13. iWin32

    Next Apple OS will be for ARM CPUs!

    As much as I expect this to be an April Fools joke, I would predict Apple would at some point full-out merge iOS and OS X. Both are Darwin-based operating systems developed by Apple, Windows 10/Windows RT from Microsoft merging the mobile and desktop platforms into one OS ecosystem, and Android supporting both ARM mobile devices and x86 desktop computers before anyone else did, so it's inevitable that Apple would have to adapt to this practice to compete with others. It likely won't be the next OS release, but I predict it will be in the not-too-distant future.
  14. iWin32

    [GUIDE] 1st Generation Intel HD Graphics QE/CI

    Guys, I'm making this official... I will no longer be following this thread. I have since gotten a new MacBook Pro (well, refurbished), and that's on top of my cousin's older MacBook I had gotten last year. Due to hard drive issues on the HP computer that I had Hackintoshed that had this GPU, I am no longer using it. As such, I am no longer willing to support or follow developments in the Intel HD Graphics Hackintosh field. While installing OS X on a PC had been of interest to me (mainly when I still was a PC person), I no longer have the need to be using it. All I really did was contribute information from other people and help put together another guide on creating the Resolution module for Chameleon. RemC only provided a way so that you don't have to manually put in your EDID information directly into the source code for it to work. The compiled module and the source code is already public if you still are in need of using it. Furthermore, I had since stopped using the Chameleon boot loader altogether in favor of Clover. I also was then an advocate to patch the framebuffer on-the-fly, as the framebuffer's patching was now the primary focus of enabling Intel HD Graphics (assuming you had LVDS support, which I did). We now have accomplished that, too. While installing OS X on PCs may continue to be a hobby of mine, I don't really have a computer that needs to do that myself. I am not a programmer, let alone a developer, so I wouldn't be able to do much to help further developments anyways. Between the framebuffer being the key issue, and being able to patch both the VBIOS and framebuffer on-the-fly in Clover anyway (which is, IMO, a more advanced, superior bootloader to Chameleon). Now, this does not mean I'll be leaving InsanelyMac... My account will remain open. I may post about things here and there, get help for OS X or other technology-related things here. You have been a really kind and helpful group of people. I wouldn't have gotten OS X on a lot of my PCs without your help. But between school and other interests, I simply don't have the time, energy, or reason to keep up with this. I wish all of you the best of luck!
  15. iWin32

    [GUIDE] 1st Generation Intel HD Graphics QE/CI

    GhostRaider said a while ago that CI-only users can only go up to Mavericks. If you want to no why, then ask Apple. But don't ask Apple. Our experience here has always had success with either the MacBookPro6,1 or MacBookPro6,2 smbios.plist configuration. Try that and see if you still have an issue!
×