OT: Hackintosh

On 2014-09-24, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2014-09-23, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2014 6:42 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>> On 2014-09-23, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nor am I eager to "become expert" (or even "mildly familiar"!)
>>>>> with them.  Least of all, let him (or other neighbors) *think*
>>>>> I may be!  (I have no desire to assume more "IT" functions!)
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, it sparked a curiosity on my part.  Enough to want to
>>>>> play with one -- without investing in one!
>>>>
>>>> If you just want to play with MacOS, then running it in a VM was
>>>> pretty straight-forward the last time I tried (a few years ago). I had
>>>> an iPod and needed to be able to run iTunes (I also wanted to run tax
>>>> software locally).  I haven't had either of those needs recently, so
>>>> my MacOS VM is rather unused these days.
>>>
>>> MacOS or OSX?
>>
>> Doh.  OS X (I think it was snow-leopard).
>>
>
> MacOS was PPC only ( SFAIK ) so....
>

it started out on 68K


-- 
umop apisdn


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 23:34:53 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Neighbor was "taking delight" in showing me his new Mac, tonight.
>Having not used one since '040 days, I am relatively clueless as
>to its abilities, etc.
>
>Nor am I eager to "become expert" (or even "mildly familiar"!)
>with them.  Least of all, let him (or other neighbors) *think*
>I may be!  (I have no desire to assume more "IT" functions!)
>
>OTOH, it sparked a curiosity on my part.  Enough to want to
>play with one -- without investing in one!
>
>I've poked at hackintosh info in the past just to get a feel
>for what Apple has done in the underpinnings of the OS to tie
>it to "specific" hardware.  But, again, never looked at that
>info as more than an intellectual curiosity.
>
>Now, I'm considering going that route -- but, just for a
>"play toy"!  Something that I can play with and then discard
>(i.e., no long term exposure or commitment).
>
>FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD,
>========================================================
>any advice on how much of a hassle this is likely to be?
>GIVEN THAT I AM JUST LOOKING TO PLAY?  I.e., I won't care
>if the wireless works, or perhaps if the sound works *well*
>(unless, of course, there is something FANTASTIC in apple-land
>that exploits sound that I really SHOULDN'T MISS!!).
>
>Am I better off trying to build a portable -- or a desktop?
>Recall, no investment so it would have to be some bit of
>kit I have lying around already (assuming that is possible
>and the set of potential "hackable" machines isn't too
>small to exclude the bits I might have).  I won't be using
>any "reasonably current" hardware as that is already spoken
>for (recall:  this is a toy!).
>
>[OTOH, I don't need to run Yosemite -- unless doing so is the
>ONLY way to "truly experience" a Mac!]
>
>I'm pretty sure I know of the highly visible sites for this
>information.  What I'm looking for is EXPERIENCED comments
>along the lines of:  "Getting a basic system up and running
>is easy; getting these particular I/O's might be problematic.
>Favor <foobar> machines.  Avoid <bazfoo>.  Laptops are
>easier/harder than desktops but have the following downsides..."
>
>Finally, any idea on the relative *effort* required to do so?
>
>Thx,
>--don

I doubt that any single application gives you the "Mac" experience.  I
have used Mac's enough that i can get around OK.   In terms of being
smooth and consistent Mac's are about 10 years ahead of M$.  BTW OSX is
BSD based, so you are at least one leg up for developing new device
drivers.  Just the same my workplace provides Win7 and at home i prefer
Linux.  I have to keep Win7 at home for compatibility reasons.  Oh well.

?-)
 

On 9/24/2014 8:22 PM, josephkk wrote:

> I doubt that any single application gives you the "Mac" experience.  I
> have used Mac's enough that i can get around OK.   In terms of being
> smooth and consistent Mac's are about 10 years ahead of M$.  BTW OSX is
> BSD based, so you are at least one leg up for developing new device
> drivers.  Just the same my workplace provides Win7 and at home i prefer
> Linux.  I have to keep Win7 at home for compatibility reasons.  Oh well.

Systems have different "feels", assumptions, expectations, etc.

Contrast DOS with (any) Windows; Windows with MacOS (e.g., vintage 7 or 8);
Solaris with MacOS; etc.

E.g., I found the MacOS approach to apps far more efficient in terms of
screen real-estate.  And, wonder why such an obvious change never made it
to other GUI's!

Then, of course, there are the maintenance aspects of The System -- how
"under the hood" is exposed to the user, what happens when you "break
the rules", etc.

[let's not even go into programming API's...]

Just installing *apps* can reveal big differences in how each system
approached that concept (dependency resolution, tracking installation
changes to make backing out the app possible, etc.)

You don't get a real appreciation for those types of things "playing on
a showroom floor".  Rather, you have to see what is *really* involved
installing a printer, talking to a thumb drive, etc.

[E.g., neighbor was tickled that he was able to install his printer
(getting the wired AND wireless aspects of it working) *without* having
to give me a call!]

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
> FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD,
> ========================================================
> any advice on how much of a hassle this is likely to be?
> GIVEN THAT I AM JUST LOOKING TO PLAY?  I.e., I won't care
> if the wireless works, or perhaps if the sound works *well*
> (unless, of course, there is something FANTASTIC in apple-land
> that exploits sound that I really SHOULDN'T MISS!!).

No experience, but note that many features of the OS X UI use a
multitouch touchpad, so if you don't have one of those you miss out on a
lot.  External Bluetooth/etc devices work fine, so it doesn't have to be in
a laptop.

(Curiously, I installed Android 4.4 on an old (2010) laptop and discovered
that the touchpad had been multitouch all along, just previously no drivers
had enabled it)

> Am I better off trying to build a portable -- or a desktop?
> Recall, no investment so it would have to be some bit of
> kit I have lying around already (assuming that is possible
> and the set of potential "hackable" machines isn't too
> small to exclude the bits I might have).  I won't be using
> any "reasonably current" hardware as that is already spoken
> for (recall:  this is a toy!).

From what I looked, it's mostly about the right CPU/chipset.  If it matches
a platform that OS X already runs on, chances are good.  You may have to
swap about wifi card or whatever for one drivers are available.

Just google what you have and see if anyone's done it for that hardware.
Expect it to be substantially more hit-and-miss than the usual Linux
install.

Theo

Hi Theo,

On 9/25/2014 2:11 AM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>> FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD,
>> ========================================================
>> any advice on how much of a hassle this is likely to be?
>> GIVEN THAT I AM JUST LOOKING TO PLAY?  I.e., I won't care
>> if the wireless works, or perhaps if the sound works *well*
>> (unless, of course, there is something FANTASTIC in apple-land
>> that exploits sound that I really SHOULDN'T MISS!!).
>
> No experience, but note that many features of the OS X UI use a
> multitouch touchpad, so if you don't have one of those you miss out on a
> lot.  External Bluetooth/etc devices work fine, so it doesn't have to be in
> a laptop.

Ha!  Neighbor didn't even *show* me that aspect!  Amazing!  I guess he
is still thinking in terms of his old PC (use mouse to get from A to B).
He was more interested in showing me the MS Office "counterparts"
("Pages", "Numbers"??) that he would be using (as that's where he spends
most of his time).

Excellent!  Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was looking for!

> (Curiously, I installed Android 4.4 on an old (2010) laptop and discovered
> that the touchpad had been multitouch all along, just previously no drivers
> had enabled it)

Hmmm... I'd never considered what (technologically) would differentiate
between single and multi-touch.  To me, gestures have always been
"tracks through 2-space"

>> Am I better off trying to build a portable -- or a desktop?
>> Recall, no investment so it would have to be some bit of
>> kit I have lying around already (assuming that is possible
>> and the set of potential "hackable" machines isn't too
>> small to exclude the bits I might have).  I won't be using
>> any "reasonably current" hardware as that is already spoken
>> for (recall:  this is a toy!).
>
> From what I looked, it's mostly about the right CPU/chipset.  If it matches
> a platform that OS X already runs on, chances are good.  You may have to
> swap about wifi card or whatever for one drivers are available.

Oh, OK.

> Just google what you have and see if anyone's done it for that hardware.
> Expect it to be substantially more hit-and-miss than the usual Linux
> install.

Yeah, that's what it looked like.  I couldn't see any obvious pattern
and wasn't keen on typing in every machine I *might* consider using.
Likewise, just because something is NOT listed doesn't mean it *won't*
work (even if someone else has tried -- poorly -- and failed).

Thanks, Theo!  A colleague will be providing me with a machine with
which to play (hopefully next week).  At least now I'll have a heads
up on what things to play *with*!

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
> Yeah, that's what it looked like.  I couldn't see any obvious pattern
> and wasn't keen on typing in every machine I *might* consider using.
> Likewise, just because something is NOT listed doesn't mean it *won't*
> work (even if someone else has tried -- poorly -- and failed).

I'd look at it the other way around: there are relatively few Mac machines. 
So see if anything you have roughly matches those.  For starters, Apple only
use Intel hardware, so AMD, VIA etc are out straightaway.  That's not to say
that it has to match exactly, but you might have less difficulty if you have
something similar to hardware Apple support (in a recent version especially)

Theo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:52:15 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Theo,
>
>On 9/25/2014 2:11 AM, Theo Markettos wrote:
>
>> (Curiously, I installed Android 4.4 on an old (2010) laptop and discovered
>> that the touchpad had been multitouch all along, just previously no drivers
>> had enabled it)
>
>Hmmm... I'd never considered what (technologically) would differentiate
>between single and multi-touch.  To me, gestures have always been
>"tracks through 2-space"


The key difference is that "singletouch" devices can track only a
single contact at a time.  So they can't track the "squeezing" motion
(two fingertips coming together) to cause a zoom-out (for example).
IOW, multitouch is basically trying to resolve two (or more) gestures
on the same device at the same time.

Technologically multi-touch is a bit more of a challenge, since you
can no longer do a simple detector on each axis.  Nor is a detector on
each axis that can resolve more than one position enough (that would
resolve to four possible positions with two touches, with no way of
knowing which are the real ones).

The problem is in some ways analogous to keyboards without n-key
rollover.  A simple scannable array of switches (keys) can easily (and
cheaply!) detect a switch closure (key press), but if you press two
keys at once, it gets confused.  Fortunately you don't see that on
real keyboards anymore (the last time I saw a non-n-key-rollover
keyboard was probably about 1980, before then it was actually an
advertised feature), but you do still see the effects on many
(particularly inexpensive) calculators (where it's even worse, since
keyboard scanning is usually tied to the LCD refresh, so when you
press several keys at once, you mess up the display as well).

On 9/25/2014 9:17 AM, Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:52:15 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Theo,
>>
>> On 9/25/2014 2:11 AM, Theo Markettos wrote:
>>
>>> (Curiously, I installed Android 4.4 on an old (2010) laptop and discovered
>>> that the touchpad had been multitouch all along, just previously no drivers
>>> had enabled it)
>>
>> Hmmm... I'd never considered what (technologically) would differentiate
>> between single and multi-touch.  To me, gestures have always been
>> "tracks through 2-space"
>
> The key difference is that "singletouch" devices can track only a
> single contact at a time.  So they can't track the "squeezing" motion
> (two fingertips coming together) to cause a zoom-out (for example).
> IOW, multitouch is basically trying to resolve two (or more) gestures
> on the same device at the same time.

Yes, I understand the difference in *application*.  Rather, I was
commenting on what the differences in *implementation* would likely be.
I.e., how to resolve two (or more) "contact points" concurrently.

> Technologically multi-touch is a bit more of a challenge, since you
> can no longer do a simple detector on each axis.  Nor is a detector on
> each axis that can resolve more than one position enough (that would
> resolve to four possible positions with two touches, with no way of
> knowing which are the real ones).

"Coordinated" (X+Y) detection can resolve the location of two
different contacts (if the technology can "see" both -- e.g., cameras
being an intuitive option).  I have a whiteboard digitizer that could,
conceptually, track each of the five "utensils" (4 pen colors plus
an eraser) concurrently on that surface.  (AFAIK, it makes no attempt
to do so -- people tend to write with one hand at a time and prohibiting
erasure WHILE writing seems an easy user-constraint)

To be honest, I've never been interested enough to explore the
technological options.  As I said, to me, a gesture is a one-handed
(if hands are used) action that just packages a "route through space"
as a recognizable entity ("gesture").

> The problem is in some ways analogous to keyboards without n-key
> rollover.  A simple scannable array of switches (keys) can easily (and
> cheaply!) detect a switch closure (key press), but if you press two
> keys at once, it gets confused.  Fortunately you don't see that on
> real keyboards anymore (the last time I saw a non-n-key-rollover
> keyboard was probably about 1980, before then it was actually an
> advertised feature), but you do still see the effects on many
> (particularly inexpensive) calculators (where it's even worse, since
> keyboard scanning is usually tied to the LCD refresh, so when you
> press several keys at once, you mess up the display as well).
>

On 9/25/2014 9:16 AM, Theo Markettos wrote:
> In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, that's what it looked like.  I couldn't see any obvious pattern
>> and wasn't keen on typing in every machine I *might* consider using.
>> Likewise, just because something is NOT listed doesn't mean it *won't*
>> work (even if someone else has tried -- poorly -- and failed).
>
> I'd look at it the other way around: there are relatively few Mac machines.
> So see if anything you have roughly matches those.  For starters, Apple only
> use Intel hardware, so AMD, VIA etc are out straightaway.  That's not to say
> that it has to match exactly, but you might have less difficulty if you have
> something similar to hardware Apple support (in a recent version especially)

Good point.  AFAICT, one of my laptops has seen some attention on this front.
Just not sure I'd want to scrub the laptop just to "play".

OTOH, if my colleague fails to "come through" for me, it seems like it
would be the least troublesome way to proceed...

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
> Good point.  AFAICT, one of my laptops has seen some attention on this
> front.  Just not sure I'd want to scrub the laptop just to "play".

This may be of interest:
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Apple_hardware
(if slightly out of date)
There's plenty more info on that site.

> OTOH, if my colleague fails to "come through" for me, it seems like it
> would be the least troublesome way to proceed...

One of your Atom boards might be a useful target, depending on the spec,
though probably only for Snow Leopard or earlier.  It was particularly
popular on Atom netbooks.

Theo