[terkwong]

OS X running on Intel Celeron 2GHz, 640MB RAM, VIA Motherboard!



*link removed due to usual C&D*



*link removed due to usual C&D*


Movie Here!
*link removed due to usual C&D*

Responsiveness Movie Here!
*link removed due to usual C&D*

[mikemako]

On the "Bootup Celeron" movie, why is there a suspicious cut at 27 seconds, right after the gray startup apple appears?

[rickey939]

Can we have some threads on this same subject? Please?

[Link]

OS X and Celeron? That should be illegal.

Next you'll be saying that Intel Integrated Extreme Graphics™ is the best graphics system ever.

[Kerrigan]

Sadly the celeron is probably better than the G4 both in terms of performance and power consumption.

[Link]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Sadly the celeron is probably better than the G4 both in terms of performance and power consumption.

********.

The celeron is a P4 starved of cache to the point that it strongly limits performance. This means 2 things:

1. It's still going to use as much power as a P4... The TDP for a 3.2ghz Celeron is about 75 watts (73 was the lowest I saw). That's still less than a P4, but not much. A g4 sucks no more than 25 watts at best.

2. A celeron has 256k L2 cache and 16kb L1 cache. A G4 has 64kb L1 cache and 512kb of L2 cache.

I'm not even mentioning the amount of steps used in a G4's clock cycle and in a Celeron D's clock cycle, nor (I'm sure), a few other factors.

[hcorf]

Originally Posted by mikemako

On the "Bootup Celeron" movie, why is there a suspicious cut at 27 seconds, right after the gray startup apple appears?

i will agree about the cut, all this guy did is film his pc booting, then swapped it for a mac after the cut. Notice how he doesnt show us the pc after this point, and there is no cpu icon in the top right hand corner, as was in the pictures.

[terkwong]

Hi all,

movie was cut due to my camera's 30 sec limitations...

and if you look at this web forum... more success stories are posted there...

http://www.concretesurf.co.nz/osx86/viewforum.php?f=10

[Salty]

This is a sad sad day...

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Link

********.

The celeron is a P4 starved of cache to the point that it strongly limits performance. This means 2 things:

1. It's still going to use as much power as a P4... The TDP for a 3.2ghz Celeron is about 75 watts (73 was the lowest I saw). That's still less than a P4, but not much. A g4 sucks no more than 25 watts at best.

2. A celeron has 256k L2 cache and 16kb L1 cache. A G4 has 64kb L1 cache and 512kb of L2 cache.

I'm not even mentioning the amount of steps used in a G4's clock cycle and in a Celeron D's clock cycle, nor (I'm sure), a few other factors.

I'm sorry but my leader (Stever Balmer) dispells all of this in something called the "Clock Cycle / Cache Myth". Clock cycles and cache are not important, what is more important is the clockspeed advertised on the commercial.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I'm sorry but my leader (Stever Balmer) dispells all of this in something called the "Clock Cycle / Cache Myth". Clock cycles and cache are not important, what is more important is the clockspeed advertised on the commercial.

Beautiful irony

cheers

W-Y

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I'm sorry but my leader (Stever Balmer) dispells all of this in something called the "Clock Cycle / Cache Myth". Clock cycles and cache are not important, what is more important is the clockspeed advertised on the commercial.

He probably meant the depth of the pipeline.

[Big Mac]

On the bright side, if you take a look at the forum the original poster sent us to you'll notice that the machines they manage to install OS X on run pathetically slow. The installation process they have to go through is completely convoluted.

[damnyooneek]

where did you get the instructions to install osx on x86?

[budster101]

Funny, movies are "NOT FOUND"...

[kmkkid]

I have OS X successfully running on my 2.53 Ghz Intel P4. It's a beautiful thing. It needed a few modifications for the OS to recognise my integrated graphics, but all is well now. It's BLAZING fast. Most every app opens in 1 bounce, and I find the net is just as fast as in windows.


P.S. I love Camino

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

On the bright side, if you take a look at the forum the original poster sent us to you'll notice that the machines they manage to install OS X on run pathetically slow. The installation process they have to go through is completely convoluted.

The install doesnt completely work because its a hackjob, what do you expect? The install procedure is extremely simple, its just hit or miss if your hardware will work.

As for speed, OS X on my P4 3.0 (1gig/80gb) seems almost 2 times faster than my DP 2.0 (2.5gig/160gb)

[jaydon34]

Truthfully I cant wait to purchase the first intel chipset Ibook

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

On the bright side, if you take a look at the forum the original poster sent us to you'll notice that the machines they manage to install OS X on run pathetically slow. The installation process they have to go through is completely convoluted.

The 'slowdown' was caused by a kext that was no longer needed, but was still being called. After it's deleted and the system is rebooted OS X is very fast, at least on my 2.53 Ghz P4 it is.


The only drawback for my hardware is that I dont have SSE3 support, therefore rosetta wont run, so the app selection sucks right now.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by jaydon34

Truthfully I cant wait to purchase the first intel chipset Ibook

Maybe they should change the name to I-Book? and I-Mac!

[Alexei]

Since I want to keep my old G4 tower case, I wonder if there is a mobo I can get with maybe even with a AMD chip put in and have my own Frankenstein set up? I'll be getting a new Mactel at some point anyway but don't want to dispose of my old G4, so why not have some fun?

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Sadly the celeron is probably better than the G4 both in terms of performance and power consumption.

One thing I've learned around here is that members are defined by one of two things:

1) Their signature image.
2) Their more 'infamous' posts.

Don't let that type of post define you.

[budster101]

Crap, I need a signature image... because my signature posts right now are not winning me friends...maybe a nice signature.. yeah...that will do it. ;D

[Gee4orce]

Where'd you get that funky CPU graph ?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

I have OS X successfully running on my 2.53 Ghz Intel P4. It's a beautiful thing. It needed a few modifications for the OS to recognise my integrated graphics, but all is well now. It's BLAZING fast. Most every app opens in 1 bounce, and I find the net is just as fast as in windows.


P.S. I love Camino

Well, that makes it official

Mac OS X has been let loose in the jungle of Wintels. Let's hope it lives up to it's predator-y name shall we..

cheers

W-Y

[tonalsickness]

i have tiger for intel sitting unloaded on my p4m 1.6 GHz laptop. Since I only have SSE2 I see no point in loading it on there unless someone comes out with a fix for rosetta to run on sse2. whats the point in loading it if i can't run anything.... I guess I'm gonna just have to deal with my dual 2.3 GHz G5 for a while...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mhuie

The install doesnt completely work because its a hackjob, what do you expect? The install procedure is extremely simple, its just hit or miss if your hardware will work.

As for speed, OS X on my P4 3.0 (1gig/80gb) seems almost 2 times faster than my DP 2.0 (2.5gig/160gb)

Could you explain what feels twice as fast to you? Can you give any stopwatch measurement that would substantiate your feeling? You'll have to forgive my incredulousness.

[metfoo]

Intel based systems do work using the vmware hack. I have seen it working, and i am impressed at what it can do. You must have sse3 for rossetta to function properly.

i think apple purposely made it easy to hack. they probably realized that they could release a version that would make its way onto the net. A hacker or group of hackers would then modify it to remove the trusted platform code and make it work on mainstream PC's. This allows them to see how they did it, so the final version can be much much more rock solid. It also exposes the type of people to try this hack to Mac OS X. Most of these people probably never used a mac, and helps them sell their OS to this group.

I have always felt that once you try OS X, chances are, you will be hooked.

[Big Mac]

We can all be exceedingly sure that if it runs acceptably on any crap PC hardware out there with a minimal amount of hacking, Apple Computer is dead with a capital D - along with OS X. Perhaps Apple the iPod maker can survive.

[ibugv4]

Big Mac has it all wrong and metfoo has it right. Apple is not blind, please people get over yourselves here.

Lets look at another near-dead company that pioneered a new sectory of technology: TiVo.

The TiVo community had a dedicated hacking section for Series 1 units. They discovered the half-hearted attempts of networking software and other features that the TiVo developers left hoping someone would touch. Hacked Series 1 TiVos can be twice as fast, run a net server to allow remote scheduling (even over the net if set up right), remote download of the MPEG2 content, and more. They were also easy to open and had a free PCI port. Series 1 begged to be tinkered with.

I think it was two or three years pass by.. and then we get the slim, the sexy, Series 2. It features USB ports and a on-board DRM of types that will not boot the system if the hard disk has been modified by an outside system (some type of ROM checking to the software or something like that). Either way, the new units lack PCI ports and have similar, but very limited and Copy Protected, functionality that's more easy-to-use for the average person. You spend $40 on a Linksys USB adapter and BOOM it's up on your wireless network playing MP3s and looking at photos, and on a PC even downloading and burning content that TWC/MPAA says you can export (reads: no HBO).

Will Apple do this? Most certainly. Mac OS X Leopard will likely imploy DRM schemes that only Microsoft could dream of, and that's because Apple is a minority company and as such is capabale of doing that. Apple <b>is</b> Minority, after all, in the computer sector.

I am wearly of the OS X port and Intel switch myself, I went to a Mac to not think about my hardware configuration. Now they are appealing to those who want to tinker with that configuration. Ironic.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ibugv4

Big Mac has it all wrong and metfoo has it right. Apple is not blind, please people get over yourselves here. . . .

Will Apple do this? Most certainly. Mac OS X Leopard will likely imploy DRM schemes that only Microsoft could dream of, and that's because Apple is a minority company and as such is capabale of doing that. Apple <b>is</b> Minority, after all, in the computer sector.

DRM Microsoft could only dream of? I'm sorry, ibug, but Microsoft has been trying to reduce/eliminate piracy for a long while now, something which Apple has essentially zero experience with. And despite all of that effort, piracy is a still a huge problem for Microsoft. Simply because Apple has considerable interest in preventing piracy of OS X does not mean the company will be any more successful than Microsoft has been - quite to the contrary. Remember, Microsoft has a great deal more resources to throw at the problem.

Apple is letting out a can of worms by defecting to Intel. Mac users are going to be burdened by onerous Windows-like registration schemes, and those who wish to hack the OS to run on their non-Apple PCs will still be able to do so. I just pray Steve had no alternative but to defect.

[buffswin]

For these people who are installing the Mac OS onto their PC's --- does it actually DO anything?

I mean, the operating system, in and of itself, doesn't really do anything. (Can't write a paper with just the OS. Can't browse the internet with just the OS. Can't play games [well, a couple] with just the OS.

So it seems to me that if you really wanted to do something special-- you'd have to load up some extras and see how they run.

[Big Mac]

buff, they must have all the Intel native apps bundled with the developer OS.

[migs647]

Everyone is going on and on how these "hackers" got Mac OS X x86 to run on x86 hardware. Well duh? What everyone DOESN'T realize is that all of apple's current machines DO NOT have the protection chips on the developer machine motherboards yet. On top of this, OS X isn't even utilizing the "Trusted Computing Modules" at this point. This is why it's hit or miss on installing this x86 OS X version.

Why do you think the developers HAVE TO GIVE BACK their machines in December of 2006? The reason? Not all these machines have the TPM inside them. This version of OS X probably doesn't have any code to make it stick to a TPM machine. Personally I'm waiting till the real intel machines ship before I start freaking out over this doom and gloom.

One thing maybe possible however. You might be able to buy an apple motherboard 'replacement' and stick it in your machine with an intel cpu. Since that motherboard will have the TPM module... you should be good to go as long as you can obtain graphic card drivers. Just a thought.

Be careful guys, don't believe everything you read. Its much more complicated than it appears.

Source: Open for Business TPM Article

[buffswin]

So what are the developer installed programs?

Are people doing actual work with these OS X/PC's??

Or is it just one of those, "Hey, lets boot this up with OS X and look at how cool the desktop is."

[Maclectic]

Originally Posted by migs647

Everyone is going on and on how these "hackers" got Mac OS X x86 to run on x86 hardware. Well duh? What everyone DOESN'T realize is that all of apple's current machines DO NOT have the protection chips on the developer machine motherboards yet. On top of this, OS X isn't even utilizing the "Trusted Computing Modules" at this point. This is why it's hit or miss on installing this x86 OS X version.

Why do you think the developers HAVE TO GIVE BACK their machines in December of 2006? The reason? Not all these machines have the TPM inside them. This version of OS X probably doesn't have any code to make it stick to a TPM machine. Personally I'm waiting till the real intel machines ship before I start freaking out over this doom and gloom.

One thing maybe possible however. You might be able to buy an apple motherboard 'replacement' and stick it in your machine with an intel cpu. Since that motherboard will have the TPM module... you should be good to go as long as you can obtain graphic card drivers. Just a thought.

Be careful guys, don't believe everything you read. Its much more complicated than it appears.

Source: Open for Business TPM Article

I hate to burst your bubble, but the article you cite above has an update that CNET has a report that indicates some Apple developer motherboards do have a TPM chip and that the version of Mac OS X they're using seems to utilize it.

I will grant that CNET has consistently shown an anti-mac bias, but the report still could be credible.


- Maclectic

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by buffswin

So what are the developer installed programs?

Are people doing actual work with these OS X/PC's??

Or is it just one of those, "Hey, lets boot this up with OS X and look at how cool the desktop is."

It's stable enough to do real work on, provided you have SSE3 so that you can run both PPC and Intel apps. If you only have SSE2 then rosetta wont function therefore it's slim pickings for intel apps atm. People are working on a hack to replace SSE3 calls with the equivelent SSE2 calls though. Then everything should run like magic.

[ibugv4]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

DRM Microsoft could only dream of? I'm sorry, ibug, but Microsoft has been trying to reduce/eliminate piracy for a long while now, something which Apple has essentially zero experience with. And despite all of that effort, piracy is a still a huge problem for Microsoft. Simply because Apple has considerable interest in preventing piracy of OS X does not mean the company will be any more successful than Microsoft has been - quite to the contrary. Remember, Microsoft has a great deal more resources to throw at the problem.

Apple is letting out a can of worms by defecting to Intel. Mac users are going to be burdened by onerous Windows-like registration schemes, and those who wish to hack the OS to run on their non-Apple PCs will still be able to do so. I just pray Steve had no alternative but to defect.

I don't know, Big Mac. Like my example before, TiVo had no source funds and they left it up to the hacker community to see what they needed to do to make it appeal to more people, make it simple, and lock it down. Piracy isn't something Apple is blind to. Apple made the iPod "locked down" for the Music buffs so that it pleased them, but not so tight that a cleaver applescript can't reveal the folder your music is in because it's hidden. They did that so the iPod would keep selling -- if it was a totally locked down device no one would own it.

Granted, the DRMs are not in place yet on the dev units, and I am sure the Halo affect of OS X hacked onto a Celeron will bring more to the platform.. but where iPod's security was to please the record labels to bring forth the iTunes Music Store... when it comes to Jobs and Co losing $$$ out of their own pocket.. they don't do that. I'm sure someone will hack the DRM, but I am also sure they are going to make it as difficult as possible.

Again, following the TiVo analogy -- if they do it like TiVo did you'll have to desolder and resolder some components on the mother board to make it work. I do not think it's beyond Apple to do that, Given how they make certain products (pre and post Jobs era) that would break cables and components if you opened them imporperly and didn't know about them (examples: 3G iPods with the ribbon cable on the left hand side that requires the units be opened from the right else it breaks the cable, PowerBook Duos with their Track Pad Cables were very similar to the iPod cable).

It will be locked down so that 80% of the computing public won't want to touch it and of the 20% that does, half will be capable of doing it due to physical technical limitations ... ie a chip to be removed or installed.

[Todd Madson]

The "funky CPU graph" as illustrated above is the wonderful CHUD tools you can get at Apple's
developer site.

[Todd Madson]

One more bit: I'd wager that the x86 Tiger version right now expires at some convenient point.

[asdasd]

To the original poster. It's all very nice and dandy that the About This Mac dialog went out of it's way to "prove" that it was on an Intel Celeron by using the Intel(r) Celeron(r) 2 Ghz phrase ( how *very* specific) , but the question remains: where in the operating system did this string come from? I checked the process which displays the About This Mac ( loginwindow) with strings loginwindow | grep Intel and I did not get the Celeron processor listed, so what gives?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by asdasd

To the original poster. It's all very nice and dandy that the About This Mac dialog went out of it's way to "prove" that it was on an Intel Celeron by using the Intel(r) Celeron(r) 2 Ghz phrase ( how *very* specific) , but the question remains: where in the operating system did this string come from? I checked the process which displays the About This Mac ( loginwindow) with strings loginwindow | grep Intel and I did not get the Celeron processor listed, so what gives?

The processor stores an identifier of it's name on it. The BIOS also usually displays it during the post.

[terkwong]

To dispel all forum users that are still suspicious about the movie cutoff (links should be live now)..... Here's a longer version of the recording...

*link removed due to the usual C&D*

asdasd:- As mentioned by Todd Madson, the Processor palette is from CHUD tools in the Developers installation.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by buffswin

For these people who are installing the Mac OS onto their PC's --- does it actually DO anything?

I mean, the operating system, in and of itself, doesn't really do anything. (Can't write a paper with just the OS. Can't browse the internet with just the OS. Can't play games [well, a couple] with just the OS.

So it seems to me that if you really wanted to do something special-- you'd have to load up some extras and see how they run.

Just like the OSX Public Beta release then. And Apple was able to sell that to 1000's of Apple Mac owners.

[thekapper]

Here is one to ponder....

Can you install Tiger for Intel on Virtual PC running on Tiger for PPC?

[kmkkid]

Well, the kernal has been hacked and recompiled, you can now run 'most' PPC apps through rosettas emulation layer if you have an SSE2 or higher CPU. I'm loving it A few apps cause system crashes now, but I'm sure that will be worked out in the near future