ComputerFreak Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I am running osx 10.4.7 on my dell, and was just curious.... How long does anyone think it will be before there is a way to install it on a non-mac machine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggie Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 give it a while........ remeber the version of leopard that people have is just a developer preview. its not the actual release. the proper public release will probally be a lot diferent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComputerFreak Posted September 16, 2006 Author Share Posted September 16, 2006 OK, thanx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Fogge Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I had Leopard "functioning" on non-apple hardware for a little while before the update. What I had done was take a hard disk, put it into my Mac Pro, format it as HFS+ with an MBR Partition table, install inside the Mac Pro and apply the 10.4.6 Kernel to the Leopard installation residing in the Mac Pro. Then, I pulled it out and put into a custom build system with an Intel PentiumD 865 processor (Has SSE3) and booted up. I got to the desktop but when I try to open Finder or anything that ties to Finder I get a kernel panic. (I didn't expect it to work very well anyways). I have been working on other solutions, however have yet to find anything as successful as the one above. Just give it time and you will be able to run Leopard on a whitebox. Anything that can be engineered can be reverse-engineered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwhsh8r Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I had Leopard "functioning" on non-apple hardware for a little while before the update. What I had done was take a hard disk, put it into my Mac Pro, format it as HFS+ with an MBR Partition table, install inside the Mac Pro and apply the 10.4.6 Kernel to the Leopard installation residing in the Mac Pro. Then, I pulled it out and put into a custom build system with an Intel PentiumD 865 processor (Has SSE3) and booted up. I got to the desktop but when I try to open Finder or anything that ties to Finder I get a kernel panic. (I didn't expect it to work very well anyways). I have been working on other solutions, however have yet to find anything as successful as the one above. Just give it time and you will be able to run Leopard on a whitebox. Anything that can be engineered can be reverse-engineered. that is quite true... quite true indeed. max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bikedude880 Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 I had Leopard "functioning" on non-apple hardware for a little while before the update. What I had done was take a hard disk, put it into my Mac Pro, format it as HFS+ with an MBR Partition table, install inside the Mac Pro and apply the 10.4.6 Kernel to the Leopard installation residing in the Mac Pro. Then, I pulled it out and put into a custom build system with an Intel PentiumD 865 processor (Has SSE3) and booted up. I got to the desktop but when I try to open Finder or anything that ties to Finder I get a kernel panic. (I didn't expect it to work very well anyways). I have been working on other solutions, however have yet to find anything as successful as the one above. Just give it time and you will be able to run Leopard on a whitebox. Anything that can be engineered can be reverse-engineered. Can we get proof of this, because right now this just doesn't sound feasable. You cannot just swap kernels out as there are too many dependencies built into all the frameworks that check the kernel version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigxcpu Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 the guy is lying. the desktop itself is an instance of finder ATSServer is encrypted (font provider) etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtraa Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Yes, the kernel itself would not accept anything, including windowserver etc. It is impossible to get to the desktop. What does r2 says about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts