Exactly, which is why I mentioned GPU passthrough. That's the key piece that’s missing.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Tiger Thread (Mac OS X 10.4)
- Thread starter Amethyst1
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
So this, but for Intel. That's good news. Though I still am itching a lot more to see a custom Jaguar kernel for later G5s... (But that's something for the Jaguar thread instead.)
But what about stuff like the onboard SATA and USB controllers? Would these work in native SL on a Ryzen system? Sorry if this is obviously the case but I've been out of the Hack scene for quite a while.
Definitely not a dumb question, I had the same concern going in—there's very little information about these kernels. Before the build, I bought a PCIe SATA card, a PCIe USB card, a USB sound card, and a USB ethernet adapter, so I'd have workarounds ready.
IIRC, these ended up being completely unnecessary. SATA and USB worked out of the box, and audio and ethernet worked with some very common Hackintosh kernel extensions. Unfortunately though, the detailed writeup I did on amd-osx disappeared when they wiped their forums.
What I know for sure is that I was able to comfortably browse the web, play music, and encode videos (for benchmarking purposes)—but only when graphics acceleration was disabled.The graphics acceleration issue was just so weird, because it did work, technically. I could boot with acceleration turned on, and Mavericks would output a full 1080p signal with Quartz enabled and everything. But for some reason, this caused the computer to suddenly become inexorably slow. At one point, I timed how long it took to open a new Finder window; the beach ball lasted more than 60 seconds.
Notably, a really strange message kept appearing in the Console, which I wrote down:
Code:
kernel[0]: NVDA(Private): Channel timeout!I really wish I'd tried an AMD GPU, or even just a non-Kepler nVidia GPU.
Last edited:
There was no Tiger thread in the Intel forum. And the first post mentions PPC and Intel. Tiger is the first macOS for Intel.
Don't worry, my Mac blood runs with PPC cells. But Tiger has this weird x86 cousin, at which we glance over with curiosity, too. Hey, it may be Intel, but at least it got a reasonable PPC binary emulator. Anything Tiger ~ Snow Leopard is, fortunately, PPC enough.
The only time you will see me seriously discussing 10.7+, though, is when I'm running them on my sexy PPC Macs via VM, be it QEMU, VirtualPC etc.. Except that I'm usually a pure native OS kinda guy, and that too for real-world technical reasons, so...
Speaking of which, this gave me an idea: In Macintosh Garden, one gripe I sometimes have is how original Mac OS apps are archived with Mac OS X's .zip format, and that is a huge PITA for us Mac OS users, so much that writing an OS9 unzipper is on my (never-progressing) "to do" list. So you know what? What about getting Mac OS X Tiger to boot under VirtualPC 6 (or earlier), under OS9? I don't care how slow that would be, or how difficult it would be; I just care about how to make it happen. Are there known previous attempts? I know PPC Leo (and probably PPC Tiger) can run new Mac OS X versions via QEMU at the very least, but I have never heard of Intel OS X attempts under any version of VirtualPC.
Forget about that. The ancient CPU that VPC emulates isn't good enough. Not even close to being good enough.
Last edited:
And I see no point in maintaining a separate Tiger for Intel thread that would largely be a duplicate of the existing one when it comes to updates and compatible software.
What's more, Tiger is more of an oddity for Intel. Without Classic, and with the existence of Snow Leopard, there are frankly better choices for PPC app support on Intel. But Tiger is the last version to support Classic, and that makes it very important for PowerPC Macs.
Even if its Classic environment sucks compared to Jaguar's.
To me it's a salvation. My favourite old version of OS X on superfast hardware.
Last edited:
"Good enough", as in, in performance or in bootability? If the former, its performance scales up with the performance of the native CPU, doesn't it? As long as it boots, though, I honestly couldn't care less how much of a snail it is.
But if the latter, then the question is why. If it's merely a CPU ID issue, that's nothing i.e. a custom kernel build wouldn't take care of. If it's the emulated x86 ISA itself not being feature-complete compared to what x86 Tiger needs, then I understand VPC would hardly offer the possibility, and thus different approaches would be better to take.Edit: Welp, I just realized one can take an even dumber approach: one could always use VMs inside VMs to achieve that.
QEMU under OS9! (I jest, seriously I jest. Hopefully. No, I'm not trying that! Maybe.)
Lack of SSE2 instructions comes to my mind. Let alone SSE3 (which isn't strictly required).
Hm, but considering G3s run Tiger, and G3s lack AltiVec, and AltiVec more or less corresponds to SSE, then maybe it does not need SSE at all? I guess it depends on how the kernel is compiled for x86.
But yeah, suddenly just writing a proper OS-X-Zip app sounds easier than going that way.
The Early Intel Macs forum’s SuperWikiPost links to the pre-existing WikiPosts for Tiger and Leopard, both which presently live here on the PPC forum.
Those two WikiPosts could live on their respective 10.4 Tiger and 10.5 Leopard forums, but it would require a mod to move those WikiPosts.
I'd vote for leaving them here, given that most newcomers to the ppc scene will probably stumble in here and thus be more likely to find them.
I agree. If in doubt, both SuperWikiPosts provide links to both WikiPosts.
Hopefully, one day, both SuperWikiPosts will have enough user consensus to become their own sticky posts.
@B S Magnet All it took to get The PPC Debian Wiki stickied was me asking once. And they didn't even consult me when they stickied the foxPEP thread, they just did it. (Although I did imply that I would have liked it as such.)
The PPC SuperWikiPost has so far gathered 12 signatures in favor of it being stickied. Needless to say, for some obscure reason, I don't think the mods agree.
The PPC SuperWikiPost has so far gathered 12 signatures in favor of it being stickied. Needless to say, for some obscure reason, I don't think the mods agree.
No.
You need to run the Server installation package from a Tiger Server DVD (iirc the Server package is separate from the base OS package; and I'd use the ppc-only version rather than the universal 10.4.7 one - to avoid mixing ppc-only and universal binaries just in case) and then apply the ppc-only 10.4.11 Server combo update on top of that hodgepodge.
I finally got around to installing Tiger on my MacPro3,1
I used the installer linked above to install 10.4.10 to a HFS+ partition on a FireWire disk connected to an iMac (20-inch, Mid 2007). I booted it on the iMac7,1 to update to 10.4.11. Then I restored the partition to an internal drive in my Mac Pro 2008.
On the Mac Pro 2008, the following changes needed to be made:
- boot-args needs to include
maxmem=32768if you have more than 32 GB of RAM (same as Leopard 10.5.8). - NVDAResman.kext should be remove if you have a GTX 680 Mac Edition (same as Leopard 10.5.8).
- The AppleAHCIPort.kext needs to be edited to remove the GenericAHCI IOKit personality if you have a third party AHCI controller such as the ASMedia ASM1062 installed in a PCIe slot (not necessary for Leopard 10.5.8).
I suppose I could have done the install directly on the MacPro3,1 if I replaced the GPU, removed the SATA card, and patched the installer to allow running on the MacPro3,1 (search for iMac7,1 and replace with MacPro3,1)
Code:
/Volumes/Mac OS X Install Disc 1/System/Installation/Packages/Bundled Software.mpkg/Contents/Bundled Software.dist
/Volumes/Mac OS X Install Disc 1/System/Installation/Packages/Bundled Software.mpkg/Contents/Info.plist
/Volumes/Mac OS X Install Disc 1/System/Installation/Packages/OSInstall.mpkg/Contents/OSInstall.dist
Anyone use Leopard 9A343 or prior? I'm wondering how it would fare as a Tiger update, rather than as a G3 Leopard (which it isn't really). I imagine it's not as polished as 10.4.11, but if it's as stable as, say, 10.4.8, that would be good enough.
I mean, I have one of every G and an Intel MB, so I could just test it myself, just wanted to hear others' thoughts first.
I mean, I have one of every G and an Intel MB, so I could just test it myself, just wanted to hear others' thoughts first.