Build Your Own Mac for $199

so this phoenix install lets you run a full installation from DVD on supported hardware??

i thought the ONLY way to run the OS native was the disk image DD clone.

where can i find info on this?? hmm....

so this phoenix install lets you run a full installation from DVD on supported hardware??

 

i thought the ONLY way to run the OS native was the disk image DD clone.

 

where can i find info on this??  hmm....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the dvd will boot and installer will install if you patch only oah950d and have a 915 chipset.

the dvd will boot and installer will install if you patch only oah950d and have a 915 chipset.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Has anyone actually bought the Intel D915GUXLK or D915GHALK boards and confirmed them working totally natively?

I bought the ASRock board and it works fine, for a Socket478, but these two other boards have the TPM chip on them and are Socket775.

I found them at Directron.com on sale for $105.99, but have found a bulk source that may sell individually. Will keep posted.

Peace Out!

the dvd will boot and installer will install if you patch only oah950d and have a 915 chipset.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i tried to patch with "better oah950d" but it wont even boot, so i am doing the pearpc-vmware thing

i tried to patch with "better oah950d" but it wont even boot, so i am doing the pearpc-vmware thing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Done the pearpc vmware thing, QE is still not supported ;(

Try to delete intel 830

i tried to patch with "better oah950d" but it wont even boot, so i am doing the pearpc-vmware thing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the dvd will only boot if the oah950d remains the same size. if you add or delete kexts from the dvd it will no longer boot.

I bought the ASRock board and it works fine, for a Socket478, but these two other boards have the TPM chip on them and are Socket775.

 

Peace Out!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By saying it works fine do you mean its not too fast? How fast would you compare it to say a 1 ghz g4 mac... I am between buying the ASRock board recommended by CEPeep or spending the extra money for the D915GUXL ($100 on ewiz) which has the lga775 socket and DDR2 ram.

thanks,

By saying it works fine do you mean its not too fast? How fast would you compare it to say a 1 ghz g4 mac... I am between buying the ASRock board recommended by CEPeep or spending the extra money for the D915GUXL ($100 on ewiz) which has the lga775 socket and DDR2 ram.

 

thanks,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Smokes the G4 from what I can see. However, if you just wanted to "Get 'er done.." the ASRock is the way to go for now.

If the goal is long term and as close to the Dev Kit, then D915GUXL is your ride. The TPM is there and it will give you a forward migration path for later on.

I too am searching hi and low for that board as it is as close to dev as possible and eventually I will go to 775/DDR2.

From what I understand it may even be possible to load NATIVE on the inTel, but no one has confirmed nor denied.

Bottom line: For the money....ASRock is god for now.

Peace

SWEET!

CoreImage and Quartz Extreme work now.

I used http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=338

its SO much faster

expose and everything are silky smooth.

As far as I can tell, everything is perfect now.

Try to delete intel 830

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanx. QE works now. :-P

I would do it but I am unemployed

I just bought the AsRock board off Newegg.com for $34 and a P4 630 EM64T with 2mb Cache. I will be running 1gb memory but my problem right now is I have two CD Roms and 2 HD's all of which are IDE. I guess one will go external and the other will have to be sold for a Serial ATA one. I wanted two IDE channels but the price of $34 was just too damn cheap to pass up. It allowed me to upgrade my CPU from the Celeron to the P4....although the CPU upgrade was a $100 upgrade I wouldn't ahve bought it if I paid $60 for that board.

see below

so what if the final version is unhackable. I don't think it will be impossible to hack, but still, we have this version right? Whatever happens, this version will remain in the wild. And about legal arguments.... I don't expect Apple to make it legal or even easy to run on generic hardware, but who knows, maybe they'll look the other way when a small number of people do. Like many have said, it could give them a bit more operating system market share among those who are currently running windows.

so what if the final version is unhackable.  I don't think it will be impossible to hack, but still, we have  this version right? Whatever happens, this version will remain in the wild.  And about legal arguments.... I don't expect Apple to make it legal or even easy to run on generic hardware, but who knows, maybe they'll look the other way when a small number of people do.  Like many have said, it could give them a bit more operating system market share among those who are currently running windows.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing is unhackable.

I'd bank on OS x86 being released sometime in 2007, perhaps after the Universal Binary release of 10.5 Leopard. Don't count on Tiger (or "Le Tigre" as I call it) being released. Apple wants to make money from this, but remember the "Marklar" project still has to be made to support Intel hardware outside of the Apple supported stuff in order to make it a releasable piece of software.

Geez, get it right, please!

Geez, please, live up to your own principles!

All of Apple's stuff had always been in the format of Fat Binary files

No. Apple dropped 68k-support with MacOS 8.5(*). Since then none of the operating systems they sold were "fat". And also some pre-MacOS 8.5 install CDs that were bundled with new PowerPC machines would not run on 68k systems.

(*) (I do not want to comment further on the fact that, of course, Apple did not begin building computers with the first 68k Macintosh, and that prior to the introduction of the PowerPC in their Macintosh line of computers, there was no use for fat binaries, anyway).

If you say so -- I guess the specifically defined 'Fat Binaries' that we have been creating since the 90s in order to provide PPC/68k programs are, geologically speaking, a new thing -- but to Apple, this has been pretty much old hat for the past 10 years.

 

[...]

 

It wasn't NeXT that called them 'Fat' first, as you implied.

Wrong again. Seems you have no idea of Apple's and NeXT's history. NeXT introduced the concept of "fat binaries" with the first release of their operating system for non-NeXT-computers in May 1993. The first Power Macintosh (i.e., Mac with a PowerPC CPU) came out in March 1994.

"Sortie le 25 mai 1993, NeXTSTEP 3.1 est la première version de NeXTSTEP marchant sur une machine autre qu'une machine NeXT à savoir un PC 486. La version de NeXTSTEP 3.1 pour PC s'appelle NEXTSTEP 486.

[...]

Les évolutions par rapport à la version NeXTSTEP 3.0 sont les suivantes :

Utilisation de programmes fat-binary. C'est-à-dire que dans un fichier unique se trouvent les exécutables pour différentes architectures (ici: Motorola 680x0 et Intel 486). Ainsi donc un même programme peut tourner sur plusieurs CPU sans utiliser des artifices d'émulation qui ralentissent."

http://www.levenez.com/NeXTSTEP/Logiciels.html

Official NeXT product brochure from February 1993:

http://83.72.130.71/NeXT%20Info%20Archive/...p_for_intel.pdf

Thus, all Apple needs to do in order to undercut arguments such as yours, is to make sure that when OS X 10.5 ships as a consumer product, that it only support PowerPC and NOT intel. Easy enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But that's not where apple is going (if you saw the clip from the developer's conference on the apple website, you would know this).... they're phasing the PowerPC processor out and introducing the x86 architecture to their systems over a period of about two years (2006-2007).

I bought those parts. THey come on thurs... will report on success or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are these the Mashugly list parts or the PGHammer list parts? Good to hear about your success - that's why I want to be sure I know what platform you're running.

Wrong again. Seems you have no idea of Apple's and NeXT's history.

Sure. ;-P

"Sortie le 25 mai 1993, NeXTSTEP 3.1 est la première version de NeXTSTEP marchant sur une machine autre qu'une machine NeXT à savoir un PC 486. La version de NeXTSTEP 3.1 pour PC s'appelle NEXTSTEP 486.

Et ta raison pour copier un tas de paragraphes en français, apart le branlage, c'est exactement.....quoi?

If the goal is long term and as close to the Dev Kit, then D915GUXL is your ride.  The TPM is there and it will give you a forward migration path for later on.

"Will give you a forward migration path for later on"? Nonsense, because it is mere speculation. There is no upgrade path for the dev kits, as they will be discarded and probably end in a land fill. Thus it is highly questionable if any end-user release of MacOS X for x86 will run on the kind of generic hardware that meets or is close to that in the dev kits.

From what I understand it may even be possible to load NATIVE on the inTel, but no one has confirmed nor denied.

OMG. Native is what all the fuss is about. If you only run a virtualizer like VirtualPC and VMware, it is close to irrelevant which physical board (but not CPU!) you use. IIRC (not 100% sure about that), both virtualizers emulate the venerable Intel 440BX chipset (released in spring 1998)!

But that's not where apple is going (if you saw the clip from the developer's conference on the apple website, you would know this).... they're phasing the PowerPC processor out and introducing the x86 architecture to their systems over a period of about two years (2006-2007).

My point was that the consumer version of the OS releses were to provide backwards compatibility for existing machines, and I doubt that all existing PPCs will self-destruct come 2007... Either way, I do stand corrected, as they will need to provide for the intel Macs shipped from June 2006 onwards to the release of Leopard -- unless, of course, they will make Leopard available as of June 2006, with the first intel Macs... Wouldn't surprise me. Also, it wouldn't be unheard that those first intel Macs would come with a coupon for a free upgrade to Leopard -- meaning that they get their own fulfillment, and subsequently again would have a limited release.

Either way, this is just splitting hairs, as a lot can still happen between now and then - and all of the above scenarios are unnecessary, if Apple's future intel hardware contains custom I/O chips that are required for OSx86 to run, though would be transparent for Windows installations - in which case they can ship everything as Universal Binaries, and there's no danger of running it on standard PC hardware.

Can anybody tell me if if the processor SL6WR commonly refeered to as a 2.4c pentium 4 has sse3? i find yes and no when i google and the intel site doesnt say. i have one and it is without a mobo so i cant run it and analyze it and was hoping maybe someone has a 'c' pentium 4 and would know. If it does ill order the hackintosh asrock board.

ive made a OSx86 install devel dvd 'hackintosh' edition and want to make sure sound, eth, etc work after the install.

This will hypothetically be OS X 10.5 (Leopard), which is the first REAL version of OS X to support the intel platform.

Obviously you havent seen the press release and video from WWDC, where Steve specificaly said.... "In this building EVERY build of OS X has been running on Intel systems, EVERY patch, and update has been made for both platforms."

So daffy Duck, still say 10.5 will be the first REAL version to support Intel, cause Steve Jobs says otherwise.

No go sit down.

Thank you

Actually the first real release from Apple that is capable of running on X86 will probably be something like 10.4.6, since Apple already said there WILL be systems running on the x86 platform by the WWDC in 2006 and that date preceeds the expected launch date of 10.5