Jump to content

I GOT MY INTEL IMAC TODAY!!!

kinkadius

By kinkadius,
in Hardware Components and Drivers

 Share
377 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

kinkadius
kinkadius
Posted
  • Author
Posted
That's cool! Good work. It's ironic that you spend so much time with your new iMAC trying to boot Windows!

 

Strange to see the "For evaluation purposes only"

 

Off topic,

 

I see you're a fan of NIN. You can get some of their songs that you can edit with GarageBand (in multitrack).

 

http://www.nin.com/downloads/index.html

 

not just a fan, i'm a card carrying member of the "premium nin fan club" :-D

 

yeah i downloaded those the day they came out. really fun to play with. i'm actually on my quest right now to get every live show this year in my mp3 collection :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest terry
Guest terry
Posted
Posted
Hold on, does that say an Intel 1500 @ 2.0GHz. Does that mean these chips inside of the iMacs are overclocked by default??

 

Spanky

The Intel (T)1500 is the single-core version of the CPU at 2GHz (dual-core is T2500), so I believe this is perhaps a small glitch in the software that does not recognize the second core, or even just a typo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors
bofors
Posted
Posted (edited)
The Intel (T)1500 is the single-core version of the CPU at 2GHz (dual-core is T2500), so I believe this is perhaps a small glitch in the software that does not recognize the second core, or even just a typo.

 

Exactly my thoughts on the "1500" issue here..

 

Now, what about this "System BIOS version"? Is this supposed to be the EFI-BIOS that was booted from to make this EFI "shell"/panel come up?

 

So does Apple give you their EFI on the install/restore DVD too? I mean, you would need to replace that Intel EFI to get your iMac working again, right?

 

Is it here: /usr/standalone/i386/boot.efi on your OS X install?

 

Hmm... now we are getting somewhere. Someone need to get the EFI off the Apple DVD and try installing it (flashing?) on an Intel EFI-capable motherboard. Likewise, we should alse be analyzing that Apple EFI, because we are probably going to have to add a CSM to make it boot XP.

Edited by bofors
Link to comment
Share on other sites
crazymonkeypants
crazymonkeypants
Posted
Posted
Now, what about this "System BIOS version"? Is this supposed to the EFI-BIOS that was booted from to make this "shell" come up?

 

Compare to the version reported by the System Profiler. It's clear that the GraphicsConsole.efi application doesn't know how to parse the version string reported by EFI on this machine.

 

Again, note my point above; what you're running here is not built for the EFI version on the Macintosh. If you're familiar with the way EFI is built (you can look at the Tiano distribution if you're really enthusiastic) you'll know that typically the ROM image is built directly alongside the shell and console in order to keep all of the components in sync.

 

There's a defined interface between EFI applications and the firmware, but both the shell and the console have more intimate knowledge of the system; if they're out of sync as in the example here, odd things like the above will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors
bofors
Posted
Posted (edited)

Can someone post the bless(8) and hdiutil(1) man pages of Intel MacOS X 10.4.4 here?

 

They are supposed to say some things about EFI.

 

Compare to the version reported by the System Profiler.

 

The versions of EFI? That would be Apple's EFI, right? What was the version "number" reported by System Profiler?

 

It's clear that the GraphicsConsole.efi application doesn't know how to parse the version string reported by EFI on this machine.

 

I'm not following this part.

 

Again, note my point above; what you're running here is not built for the EFI version on the Macintosh.

 

Yes, this part is perfectly clear. He is running a generic Intel EFI that he just downloaded. That is why I am asking about "System BIOS Version", what is that supposed to be referring to? The generic Intel EFI or is there actually some BIOS that Apple flashed on the system?

 

If you're familiar with the way EFI is built (you can look at the Tiano distribution if you're really enthusiastic) you'll know that typically the ROM image is built directly alongside the shell and console in order to keep all of the components in sync.

 

I will check it out.

 

There's a defined interface between EFI applications and the firmware, but both the shell and the console have more intimate knowledge of the system; if they're out of sync as in the example here, odd things like the above will happen.

 

Ok, so we have EFI "applications" and BIOS-like firmware. So, here he was running an Intel EFI "application" but on the BIOS-like firmware that Apple flashed on the board, right?

Edited by bofors
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kinkadius
kinkadius
Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Bear in mind that the downloaded GraphicsConsole.efi binary wasn't built by Apple; it's an Intel binary that has no special knowledge of the system.

 

Thus, this isn't "getting into" anything; you're just running an EFI application on the system. In that regard, EFI has some close parallels to DOS.

 

i AM getting into an EFI shell. yes that can also mean running, but the fact of the matter is that we are able to boot something else besides os x. this is a good first step.

Edited by kinkadius
Link to comment
Share on other sites
crazymonkeypants
crazymonkeypants
Posted
Posted
The versions of EFI? That would be Apple's EFI, right? What was the version "number" reported by System Profiler?

I'm not following this part.

 

The "system BIOS version" is obtained by the GraphicsConsole application from a call to EFI. The mangled string with '39' in it is not in the same format as the version string that AppleSystemProfiler prints.

 

From: http://appleintelfaq.com/imac/system_profiler.html

 

Boot ROM Version: IM41.0039.B00

 

Yes, this part is perfectly clear. He is running a generic Intel EFI that he just downloaded.

 

No. He is running some generic Intel EFI applications that he just downloaded.

 

EFI, like the traditional PC BIOS (and ignoring the bootable EFI demo) contains low-level system-specific startup code. Thus there is no "generic Intel EFI" because every EFI built has support for a specific system.

 

That is why I am asking about "System BIOS Version", what is that supposed to be referring to? The generic Intel EFI or is there actually some BIOS that Apple flashed on the system?

 

As per above; it's the version reported by the currently-active EFI.

 

Ok, some we have EFI "applications" and BIOS-like firmware. So, here he was running an Intel EFI "application" but on the BIOS-like firmware that Apple flashed on the board, right?

 

That's it, yes. You can think of EFI as a lot like DOS in ROM, if your history goes back that far...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
anothermortal
anothermortal
Posted
Posted
i AM getting in to an EFI shell. yes that can also mean running, but the fact of the matter is that we are able to boot something else besides os x. this is a good first step.

 

I have this feeling that booting to a stripped linux kernel will be easier and give us more insight on how EFI and the new Macs interact than trying to shoe-horn Windows in just yet. Man I wish my MacBook Pro would come already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest terry
Guest terry
Posted
Posted
Exactly my thoughts on the "1500" issue here..

 

Now, what about this "System BIOS version"? Is this supposed to be the EFI-BIOS that was booted from to make this EFI "shell"/panel come up?

 

So does Apple give you their EFI on the install/restore DVD too?

 

[...]

 

Someone need to get the EFI off the Apple DVD and try installing it (flashing?) on an Intel EFI-capable motherboard.

No, you don't get it and mix things up because you're so used to the BIOS setup in your PC. The EFI resides in a flash ROM inside the machine. What you see here is just a graphical interface to configure it which has been loaded from a disk. In the early days, the first IBM PCs were configured by a set of DIP switches.

 

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~preid/pcxtsw.htm

 

In later models, this could be done in software. Yet those machines still didn't have the integrated BIOS-setup you know from today which you can enter by simply pressing a key. Instead of this, you had to load a special setup program from floppy disk in order to access the options of the BIOS, just like with this EFI-controlled Mac today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors
bofors
Posted
Posted (edited)
The "system BIOS version" is obtained by the GraphicsConsole application from a call to EFI. The mangled string with '39' in it is not in the same format as the version string that AppleSystemProfiler prints.

 

From: http://appleintelfaq.com/imac/system_profiler.html

 

Boot ROM Version: IM41.0039.B00

 

That's it, yes. You can think of EFI as a lot like DOS in ROM, if your history goes back that far...

 

Great, thanks for the help. I now feel like I am beginning to understand how this EFI stuff is supposed to work.

 

Apple's "Boot ROM" == EFI's "System BIOS"

 

No, you don't get it and mix things up because you're so used to the BIOS setup in your PC. The EFI resides in a flash ROM inside the machine. What you see here is just a graphical interface to configure it which has been loaded from a disk.

 

Ok, I was confused about some things, but I think I have been straighten-out now. But we have some real terminology problems here. Like you, I been using "EFI" to mean the flashed boot ROM code (like a "BIOS"), but now we also have to consider "EFI applications".

 

So in the grand EFI schema, where is a BIOS-emulating Compatibility Support Module (CSM) supposed to reside? Are they supposed to go into ROM or are they merely some kind of "EFI Application"?

Edited by bofors
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest terry
Guest terry
Posted
Posted
Like you, I been using "EFI" to mean the flashed boot ROM code (like a "BIOS"), but now we also have to consider "EFI applications".

Yes, I think this is a really good explanation of what's going on here. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John the Geek
John the Geek
Posted
Posted
Man I wish my MacBook Pro would come already!

 

I'll second that. I have NO patience.

 

Seeing a generic EFI shell boot on the mac, and one that provides the source code as well, is a nice starting point for understanding how this all works.

 

Apple will release their source code for Darwin 8.4 i386 soon enough. Just because the PPC version is up first doesn't meant they are going to stop supporting the x86 version... quite the opposite.

 

I need patience for everything. Not just my MacBook. I want to play so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bofors
bofors
Posted
Posted (edited)
Seeing a generic EFI shell boot on the mac, and one that provides the source code as well, is a nice starting point for understanding how this all works.

Yes, and thanks for pointing out that the source code is open.

 

Apple will release their source code for Darwin 8.4 i386 soon enough. Just because the PPC version is up first doesn't meant they are going to stop supporting the x86 version... quite the opposite.

 

This is a huge issue right now. Of course, Apple must release x86 Darwin 8.4 under their open source agreement. But I think they are stalling.

 

But the other issue is, will x86 Darwin 8.4 require EFI support and if so, what is the story with the boot ROM? I mean, it could be that x86 Darwin 8.4 requires Apple's EFI boot ROM, right?

 

Either way, x86 Darwin on an EFI system may be a very useful test-bed for 10.4.4 analysis, as was the case last summer with BIOS when the OSx86Project got started.

Edited by bofors
Link to comment
Share on other sites
crazymonkeypants
crazymonkeypants
Posted
Posted
So in the grand EFI schema, where is a BIOS-emulating Compatibility Support Module (CSM) supposed to reside? Are they supposed to go into ROM or are they merely some kind of "EFI Application"?

 

CSM appears to be supplied by Intel as something that gets built into EFI.

 

One problem you would have with building a BIOS emulator to run on top of EFI is that the BIOS is expected to remain present and callable while a BIOS-based operating system is running.

 

With EFI, the bootstrap loader typically calls ExitBootServices to turn off most of EFI (and free up the memory, devices, etc) it is using. Only the EFI Runtime Services remain available. It's generally not a good thing to leave the Boot Services active; they assume they control the whole machine.

 

If your CSMulator was to be portable; i.e. not built with intimate knowledge of a specific system, it would have to be layered on top of the EFI Boot Services; Runtime Services does not have enough functionality to support full BIOS emulation.

 

This leaves you in a difficult situation. It's not unworkable, but there would be a non-trivial amount of engineering effort involved in supporting a BIOS-only operating system on an EFI platform. The best and most worthwhile way of attacking the problem is, of course, to fix the operating system itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...