OSX on sub notebook (MSI wind)

[aidanjt]

careful, you don't want to give the impression you know anything about compiling code, he'll start calling you illegal again!

It's zeh law!!11!!!1! <-- see!
Discussing it is !

[dangel]

keef247, I've been programming for over 18 years now,.

noob!

[TheAnimus]

keef, one simple question, why is it you not only think you know more about EULA law and programming, than ANYONE else on this board?

Even if it is just a case of having completed GCSE business studies (which includes basic contract law).

Dangel: given my age i think its an achevement (cut my teeth on BBC BASIC before i could actually spell disk without help)

[aidanjt]

keef, one simple question, why is it you not only think you know more about EULA law and programming, than ANYONE else on this board?

Cuz zeh intardwebz sez so!

[TAKTAK]

the POINT IS you NEED a MAC to create the modified version of OS X to run on a x86... as the tools/patches to make the original untouched os x distro runnable on a x86 windows pc are built for OS X

Hang on...

so your basically saying that you need OSX to make OSX?....

what came first the chicken or the egg?

if you need OSX to do something to OSX, how was OSX made originally?


you can modify files outside of OSX.. you do not need OSX to compile the files... the only reason some people use OSX to compile the ISO's is that it is easier to test the relative parts of the operating system inside the same operating system as you don't get as many package discrepancies...

and the people that have hackitosh's are more likely than not the ones that allready own a mac (and therefore want the OS that they are used to on a system of their choice... [a cheaper system than a comparable mac]).. therefore it makes sense to have the software available for macs... as thats what the user is more likely to have available.....


but this thread just seems to be descending into more and more arguments and finger pointing.....

[TheAnimus]

Cuz zeh intardwebz sez so!

Ah that old chessnut which also says suchs gems as Nazi's are good and never killed any minorities, the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that wales is a country!

[aidanjt]

Ah that old chessnut which also says suchs gems as Nazi's are good and never killed any minorities, the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that wales is a country!

And it never gets old, does it?

[dangel]

Dangel: given my age i think its an achevement (cut my teeth on BBC BASIC before i could actually spell disk without help)

Gah, you kids don't know how lucky you are - when i was t'lad all i had was a green screen and a C= pet
Sorry - just trying to lighten things up

[aidanjt]

the point is though yes you need os x to modify the original disc to patch up a new image to run on x86...

The point is though, no, you're completely wrong.

[TheAnimus]

Gah, you kids don't know how lucky you are - when i was t'lad all i had was a green screen and a C= pet
Sorry - just trying to lighten things up

You mean you didn't have to punch the wholes yourself?

The point is though, no, you're completely wrong.

The problem with stupid people, is often they're too stupid to comprehend how stupid they are.

[TAKTAK]

just because the program (that someone has coded) isn't there for windows (i havnt looked, i'm speculating, and CBA to get too drawn into this ) doesn't mean that it cannot be done...

there is no reason for the coder to spend weeks of extra time making a patcher that works under windows... it doesn't mean that it cannot be done...

look at 360 vs ps3, gears of war is 360 only... it doesn't mean that it could not be made on a ps3.... they are totally different platforms with totally different OS's but it could be done...

just because there are tools available for MAC and not windows doesn't mean that it cannot be done, all the 'patch' does anyway is remove the code that checks for apple certified hardware....

there is no call for the windows software as the people that generally want a hackintosh are those that have used the interface because they own a mac........ so a windows version would be redundant.. being redundant and not possible are a long way away from each other....

[aidanjt]

link us all to proof of this then.lets see the windows patches to make the custom image then.cause i've never seen them.if they do excist then fair enough i was wrong.

There's a multitude of general purpose tools that can do what you're looking for. A hex editor, a disassembler, a compiler, etc...

As I said before, just because it isn't convient for joe blogs windows user, it doesn't mean it can't be done. The proof of concepts already exist in abundence.

[TheAnimus]

ok, you're probably not going to get this but:
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/id...&part=SW007002
is an IDE (its what us dev monkies use to create, and modify programs) that targets low end micro controllers. A micro controller is like a tiny PC, it has a processor, memory, and a bus all in one tiny package.

Now this instrunction set is RADICALLY different to the x86/x64 PC. Yet in windows and linux i've spent months writng code for these. At no point do i need physical access to one of these micro controllers to assembly the code.

[Tak]

please ignore - sorry

[TAKTAK]

taktak your completely missing the point... right the intention was to create os x for windows "hardware" if you like yeah? so why would someone wanting to use a x86 windows machine as their hackintosh bother to write it and produce it on a proper mac (bar stability possibly/compatability) when they could do it on windows which is the platform of hardware that it'll be run on anyway.
if that made no sense basically... its for a x86 machine yeah... so why not if its that easy write it on there to as after all thats what the non mac user owns thats wanting a hackintosh... a pc not a mac... so it'd save A LOT of hassle making them the required patches etc to be run within windows before say partitioning that same machine for mac... kill 2 birds and all that...

aaah, but who says that the x86 machine allready has windows installed?
what if it has just been built (specifically to be a hackintosh)?...
if it's specifically for a hackintosh then why would the user get a windows liscense that he/she isn't going to use? but the mac user wants to put OS X on it...

and you've got to think.. the users that are writing the 'patches' for mac os are the ones using mac os in the first place that want to spread OS X to the world ... why benefit those that are 'stupid enough' to be using the 'devils OS'? (not bsd in this case )
so why would the hacker spend more time making more programs to do something that he/she has allready coded, when theres much more he can be getting on with?

[aidanjt]

ok, you're probably not going to get this but:
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/id...&part=SW007002
is an IDE (its what us dev monkies use to create, and modify programs) that targets low end micro controllers. A micro controller is like a tiny PC, it has a processor, memory, and a bus all in one tiny package.

Now this instrunction set is RADICALLY different to the x86/x64 PC. Yet in windows and linux i've spent months writng code for these. At no point do i need physical access to one of these micro controllers to assembly the code.

. <---- our point



















\o/ <-- keef's head