OS X hardware lock on PPC machines?
Just curious... After thinking about how some have hacked the x86 version of OS X to run on "generic" hardware, I'm wondering what is keeping people from installing the shipping (PPC) version of OS X on "generic" PPC hardware. Does Apple use a hardware-lock on their PPC hardware??? Just curious.
Comments
Originally posted by Macvault
Just curious... After thinking about how some have hacked the x86 version of OS X to run on "generic" hardware, I'm wondering what is keeping people from installing the shipping (PPC) version of OS X on "generic" PPC hardware. Does Apple use a hardware-lock on their PPC hardware??? Just curious.
No, Apple does not use a hardware lock. If you remember, PearPC is a PPC computer emulator for Intel-based computers. All available reports say that it boots and runs MacOS X, albeit glacially. The thing that prevents the use of MacOS X on non-Apple hardware is the EULA, not the technology.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
No, Apple does not use a hardware lock. If you remember, PearPC is a PPC computer emulator for Intel-based computers. All available reports say that it boots and runs MacOS X, albeit glacially. The thing that prevents the use of MacOS X on non-Apple hardware is the EULA, not the technology.
The EULA doesn't seem to be preventing the use of OS X on generic x86 hardware, according to recent reports of successful installations. If the EULA really worked anyway, why would Apple be making it "much more difficult" (using technology) in 10.4.3 x86 builds of OS X?
Originally posted by Macvault
Just curious... After thinking about how some have hacked the x86 version of OS X to run on "generic" hardware, I'm wondering what is keeping people from installing the shipping (PPC) version of OS X on "generic" PPC hardware. Does Apple use a hardware-lock on their PPC hardware??? Just curious.
Well, the thing is, there really isn't that much PPC hardware that has the same set of components as a Mac or PC does. Much of the PPC market is in integrated chips in DVD players or phones, that is, hardware that wouldn't run OS X even with the same processor type.
Originally posted by Macvault
The EULA doesn't seem to be preventing the use of OS X on generic x86 hardware, according to recent reports of successful installations. If the EULA really worked anyway, why would Apple be making it "much more difficult" (using technology) in 10.4.3 x86 builds of OS X?
So as Mr. Me already said, OS X is legally locked away from non-Apple machines, but not technologically.
This is different for the x86 versions, which have actual technology aiming to prevent this; furthermore, circumventing that technology is in various countries (such as the US) a crime. So you not only violate the EULA, but (in the case of the US) also the DMCA.
Originally posted by Chucker
So as Mr. Me already said, OS X is legally locked away from non-Apple machines, but not technologically.
This is different for the x86 versions, which have actual technology aiming to prevent this; furthermore, circumventing that technology is in various countries (such as the US) a crime. So you not only violate the EULA, but (in the case of the US) also the DMCA.
Incorrect, it is actually the OpenBoot firmware that stops people, if that wasn't the case, you would see people simply grabbing a PowerPC Board and processor from Genesi and loading MacOS X onto the hard disk - regardless of the 'almighty EULA'.
Sorry, they *CAN'T* track MacOS X installations and sales because there ARE not serials, controls or regos.
That's why their infamous cease & desist letters haven't been sent to PearPC. They don't have a case.
Originally posted by kaiwai
Incorrect, it is actually the OpenBoot firmware that stops people, if that wasn't the case, you would see people simply grabbing a PowerPC Board and processor from Genesi and loading MacOS X onto the hard disk - regardless of the 'almighty EULA'.
You do realize that almost anything related to booting Mac OS X is open-source (hint: Darwin)? All that's lacking on Genesi computers is drivers for Mac OS X. Write them, and there you go.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Write drivers for something you don't know shit about? Huh. Not that easy.
Eh? Both the Mac OS X driver architecture and the Genesi architecture are documented.
I don't understand what you're getting at at all.
Originally posted by Chucker
Eh? Both the Mac OS X driver architecture and the Genesi architecture are documented.
I don't understand what you're getting at at all.
I find it hard to believe that Genesi architecture (at least pertaining to their OS X compatible hardware) is as open as you think. If it were, we would be seeing a lot of home-built OS X machines out there.. EULA SCHMEULA.
Reverse engineering something that's documented well is not that hard, and it would take a very short amount of time to do it, especially for low-level drivers. The only logical reason why it's not done (IMHO, of course), is that stuff pertaining to OS X is not that well-documented at Genesi.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I find it hard to believe that Genesi architecture (at least pertaining to their OS X compatible hardware) is as open as you think. If it were, we would be seeing a lot of home-built OS X machines out there.. EULA SCHMEULA.
If that is the case, I fail to see how it is Apple's fault? I thought what we were discussing is whether or not Apple is putting technical limitations on running OS X for PowerPC on specific hardware.
Originally posted by Chucker
If that is the case, I fail to see how it is Apple's fault? I thought what we were discussing is whether or not Apple is putting technical limitations on running OS X for PowerPC on specific hardware.
It's not Apple's fault; I'm not claiming that. I was just saying that writing drivers for a not-so-well documented architecture or hardware specs is not that easy.
I wasn't blaming Apple for it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
PearPC is emulating the architecture, not OS X itself, so Apple can just suck it up if people choose to install OS X. Since they're emulating the architecture, then they must be emulating OS X too, and, as far as I know, emulation is not illegal in any country.
That's why their infamous cease & desist letters haven't been sent to PearPC. They don't have a case.
Just to clear things up, PearPC emulates PPC-based hardware and firmware. It does not emulate MacOS X. To run MacOS X on PearPC, you must install a standard distribution of the OS on the emulator. This clearly violates the MacOS X EULA. However, Apple has chosen not to go after violators. Presumeably, Apple has made this choice because PearPC's developers do not tout the emulator as a means to run MacOS X, but as a means to run PPC ports of several OSes. The choice of OS is left to the user.
It does not emulate MacOS X.
Since the architecture is emulated, then whatever runs inside the architecture must be emulated too. It could be Yellow Dog Linux, for all they care. Just because some people install OS X, it doesn't mean that what they're doing is wrong.
To run MacOS X on PearPC, you must install a standard distribution of the OS on the emulator.
Yes, which means that you are paying Apple money.
This clearly violates the MacOS X EULA.
How so? You're not installing OS X on a physical piece of hardware, you're installing it on a Virtual PC. It doesn't exist. It's virtual.
However, Apple has chosen not to go after violators. Presumeably, Apple has made this choice because PearPC's developers do not tout the emulator as a means to run MacOS X, but as a means to run PPC ports of several OSes. The choice of OS is left to the user.
Exactly. But that's not because Apple is good, or some such, but because, as I stated above, there's nothing they can do. They did, however, go after a much smaller developed named Yamaguchi. He produced a small piece of software known as Y'z Dock that directly emulated or "impersonated" (for lack of a better word) the Mac OS X Dock.
He was forced to scrap his work. So we know Apple goes after "violators" when they actually have a case. Which this isn't.
Originally posted by Chucker
So as Mr. Me already said, OS X is legally locked away from non-Apple machines, but not technologically.
This is different for the x86 versions, which have actual technology aiming to prevent this; furthermore, circumventing that technology is in various countries (such as the US) a crime. So you not only violate the EULA, but (in the case of the US) also the DMCA.
Yes, I do know what a EULA is. Sounds like you're not understanding what I'm getting at... EULA or no EULA, hackers are getting OS X x86 to run on generic PC hardware. Why have I never heard of hackers getting OS X PPC to run on, for example, generic PPC PC hardware?.?.? My thought is that... if Apple has been able to lock OS X PPC to only Apple-branded PPC hardware, why are they having a harder time locking OS X x86 to run only on Apple-branded x86 hardware.
Originally posted by Macvault
Why have I never heard of hackers getting OS X PPC to run on, for example, generic PPC PC hardware?
Because there is no compelling PPC hardware other than what Apple has to offer. All other PPC hardware that is even close to being like a PC is far too niche or otherwise uncompetitive. The only significant advantage is increased customizability.
if Apple has been able to lock OS X PPC to only Apple-branded PPC hardware,
They haven't been.
All there is to it is: 1) Apple, and Apple alone, writes the drivers for their own driver. For non-Apple PPC hardware, you would have to write the drivers yourself. Apple won't provide them, for obvious reasons. 2) Mac OS X currently relies in certain ways on the existence of OpenFirmware. I do not believe it would be hard too make it boot on a BIOS, however.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I find it hard to believe that Genesi architecture (at least pertaining to their OS X compatible hardware) is as open as you think. If it were, we would be seeing a lot of home-built OS X machines out there.. EULA SCHMEULA.
Reverse engineering something that's documented well is not that hard, and it would take a very short amount of time to do it, especially for low-level drivers. The only logical reason why it's not done (IMHO, of course), is that stuff pertaining to OS X is not that well-documented at Genesi.
The Gensis hardware is actually opensource; they've recently oped up their WHOLE architecture as to allow ANYONE to write drivers and operating systems for it; also, the firmware which Genesis uses is not compatible with MacOS X - they use a firmware which is based IIRC on the POWER firmware.
As for MacOS X; I doubt all the stuffing around required would make it worth while; one would literally have to create a bootable cd with Darwin, then after the kernel has loaded, then request that the end user installs the first cd as to launch the installer; and thats assuming that some how that they can stop the installer from loading the lower level bits of MacOS X in favour of using the OpenSource equivilant provided by Darwin.
The stuffing around wouldn't be worth it, and from my standing, if I were to purchase a Genesis anyhow, I wouldn't be saving any money over a Apple solution, and my primary motivation would be the ability run an opensource operating system on it without a hitch.
Originally posted by wmf
Getting OS X to run on Mac-on-Linux or the Genesi Pegasos is no more difficult than XPostFacto. But since the Pegasos is so lame, nobody bothers.
Precisely. The Genesi is $799 for a 1GHz G4. A Mac Mini is faster and cheaper. So, no point in working to get it running on more expensive hardware.
I think ths is the answer to the original question: no one gets OS X to run on other PPC hardware because Apple sells the lowest cost PPC hardware (they are the only volume PC supplier using PPC).
Originally posted by atomicham
Precisely. The Genesi is $799 for a 1GHz G4. A Mac Mini is faster and cheaper. So, no point in working to get it running on more expensive hardware.
I think ths is the answer to the original question: no one gets OS X to run on other PPC hardware because Apple sells the lowest cost PPC hardware (they are the only volume PC supplier using PPC).
There will be a PPC970 version for around the same price; even then the Mac will be a better deal; like I said, the only people interested will be the über geeks wanting to get their operating system working.