Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Hacking Businesses Intel Apple Hardware

HOW TO: Convert a Mac into an x86 296

inventgeek writes "With the recent announcements Apple has made regarding its operating environment, Inventgeek.com has a mod that seems rather fitting. They have converted a Mac G3 to an Intel P4 System capable of running Windows or Linux. Full how to is available on there site for those brave enough to bask in what many say could be Apples greatest folly, and a blow to Linux." Update: 06/08 17:53 GMT by T : A few further Mac-OS-X-on-Intel notes, about the new Intel development kit from Apple: Readers jimboman78 and shooflot sent in, respectively, links to (mostly positive) comments on the front page of Accelerate Your Mac and a more skeptical but equally preliminary description at Think Secret.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HOW TO: Convert a Mac into an x86

Comments Filter:
  • by filesiteguy ( 695431 ) <perfectreign@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @01:45PM (#12759741)

    I still don't get the hooplah over this in terms of Linux usage. I see the two as being very distinct. Yes, I know OS X runs a BSD (?) variant, but it is still a vendor product. Even if I could run OSX on a whitebox system I probably wouldn't, since I know the backup and support for is going to be superior to any that Apple (single vendor) will give me.

    Given that one of the major selling points of Linux (aside from the stability and lack of virus attacks) is the ability to be choosy with vendors, I can't imagine someone trading in Vendor M for Vendor A. If I were a network admin or a CIO, I'd be looking at being vendor free as much as possible.

    Just my $.02 - whatever that's worth these days...

  • Re:Don't RTFA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by HermanAB ( 661181 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @01:47PM (#12759768)
    Geezus H. Krist - lighten up would you? Get a life, calm down, it is only a toy.
  • by mind21_98 ( 18647 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @01:49PM (#12759784) Homepage Journal
    But unfortunately, I can't really wait a year or two while they transition over. And buying a current PowerBook isn't an option either--the hardware is already obsolete by PPC standards. I guess it's just a ThinkPad for me (or any other laptop with excellent Linux support).

    Anyways, that is a cool case mod though.
  • by dlZ ( 798734 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @01:57PM (#12759893) Journal
    I remember they did this in 2002 and called it the rotten apple. http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzUx [hardocp.com]

    I also think what they did with the colors was a lot more interesting than this mod.
  • by Shrapn3l ( 888384 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @01:58PM (#12759902) Homepage
    I agree. We're still going to be looking at price competition between Windows and OSX, and Linux (for the most part) is still free. Besides, both Windows and OSX are closed-source and proprietary, so what kind of "blow" to Linux this may pose may still be trivial.
  • by OmegaBlac ( 752432 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @02:00PM (#12759933)
    Full how to is available on there site for those brave enough to bask in what many say could be Apples greatest folly, and a blow to Linux."
    Wow, more typical slashdot flamebait added at the end of a summary, way to go inventgeek that was real original there. What does Linux have to do with this, did I miss something? And "Apple's greatest folly"? What happens if it turns out to be Apple's greatest success? How come that wasn't in there? Too bad article submissions cannot be moderated themselves after being posted.
  • by allanc ( 25681 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @02:13PM (#12760053) Homepage
    Raises an interesting question:

    1. Apple will not be allowing OSX to run on standard PC hardware. Part of this will almost certainly be because of incompatible hardware, but Apple's had language in its EULAs saying you can only run MacOS on Apple hardware ever since the end of the clone era.
    2. Given that Darwin, the underpinnings of OSX, runs quite well on stock PC hardware, it seems unlikely to me that someone won't figure out how to get OSX/x86 running on standard PCs.
    3. Therefore, would it be against the Apple EULA to run OSX/x86 on a standard PC motherboard shoehorned into an old Mac?

    Of course, this is all theoretical right now since OSX/x86 isn't really shipping yet.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @02:20PM (#12760125)
    I think the most interesting thing about this Apple-Intel -switch is that it wasn't spoiled by regular Mac-rumor sites, rather than big news outlets like Wall Street Journal and C|net.

    This is how Apple got that Intel-annoucement right:

    I bet Steve Jobs was nervous that someone leaks information about the Intel-switch beforehand his keynote. If someone had done it, no-one wouldn't have bought new Macintosh while waiting the confirmation.

    Thus Steve got this idea to post (or asked someone to) some other interesting things and possible rumors about Apple to Slashdot And As Seen On TV (857673) was born.

    ASOT was here to get rumormill working like Apple wanted it to. Talk about Apple tablets, iTMS movie stores, next generation AirPort Extreme, ect. etc. Focus was completely elsewhere than Intel.

    Jobs had one problem with Intel-announcement: How would ppl take the news from keynote. Especially when Apple's marketing had years said that Intel is a dogpoop. Well, they decided to tell WSJ and C|net about it. So ppl was ready to hear it from Jobs, not unpleasently surprised or betrayed.

    Jobs just had to show that "It's True!" slide he had done weeks before keynote. And after that ASOT was useless. No new posts and all.

  • by Critical_ ( 25211 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @02:25PM (#12760175) Homepage
    from the article:

    The machines do not have Open Firmware. They use a Phoenix BIOS. That;s right, a Mac with a BIOS. (I asked if the Bios had any tweaks like Memory Timing which is common for many PC motherboards, although Intel OEM motherboards don't usually have any end user tweaks like that.-Mike) They won't tell us how to get in the BIOS. I'm sure we can figure it out when out dev kits arrive.

    They run Windows fine. All the chipset is standard Intel stuff, so you can download drivers and run XP on the box.

    Now this is regarding the DEV machines Apple is handing. I know everyone on slashdot has ASSUMED that Apple will control the hardware based on the CNET article that said Apple would not allow users to install OSX on non-Apple hardware. However, what if this threat is just Apple saying that they'll use the lawyers instead of a technological solution? Think about it, Apple will have limited driver choices out there since it wil be a limited Apple-controlled machine. So either someone writes the drivers or your machines is close enough to run OSX. I think those of us with Pentium M notebooks will have the easiest time with OS X. Now, what I want to know is... if these machines have EVERYTHING any other PC does, why is it not possible to run a copy of MacOSX on a normal white box PC.

  • by Wwolmack ( 731212 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @02:32PM (#12760255)
    Back in 2002, [H]ardOCP did a project called "The Rotten Apple".
    Its far more creative and looks a hell of a lot nicer.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MzUx [hardocp.com]

    Mac G3 to PC mods are (were) fairly common, due to the overall niceness of the G3 case.
    Note that this isn't really a conversion so much as it is a "gutting and stuffing".

    Of course, I've never thought case-mods were newsworthy.
    The only probable reason this made it to the front page is to exploit the apple switch buzz.

    Boo timothy.
  • by artifex2004 ( 766107 ) on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @05:54PM (#12762383) Journal
    ...is that it's a rental from Apple. They want the developer box back in 2006. They don't want you to think this is representative of hardware they're going to put in production machines, as far as performance, etc. Which is odd, because developers can't optimize until they know the platform, but that's the way it is. I'm guessing they're just having these out until they can come out with the first production model, and then everyone should build off that.

    I really don't think that numbers generated from XBench running on Rosetta running on a developer preview of 10.4.1 for Intel, like ThinkSecret is showing, are truly indicative of the performance we'll get from native apps on Leopard, which will be the first shipping version with the Intel platform.

BLISS is ignorance.

Working...