OSX86 Cracked!

[djnes]

I'd agree with that as well. I've never EVER been an Apple fan, but if OS X were ever publicly available for my x86 hardware, I'd gladly give it a shot. I think it's a great OS, but up to this point has been mired by over-priced, arguably underpowered hardware. Give me a chance to try OS X on hardware that I already own, and I'd jump at the chance. More competition always benefits one group of people....the consumers.

 

[HHunt]

Simple solution.
Can you get the guy to post a screenshot of safari viewing e.g. the OS forum frontpage? Preferably with a few of the controls at the bottom visible, so it'd be harder to cut/paste a screenshot of another browser into it and make it look good?

And djnes, this might be fake, but it's definitely not two years old. The metal-ish non-striped theme on the windows is younger than that.

edit: Didn't think of the VNC angle. Any good ideas, anyone?
reedit: I'd settle for the boot logs, if such a thing exist. (Does dmesg work?)

 

[djnes]

All in all none of this matters that much. Its only a beta version of OSX 86. The real hype will come when this group (hopefully it lasts long enough) "fixes" the retail version of OSX 86.

Which would make it an illegal, hacked version which;

1) Starts raising the ire of the mods when it's discussed here
2) Isn't going to have as much support as a possible public beta (free) offered from Apple.

Apple has already realized it needs to cater to the PC crowd, for example, making Windows versions of iTunes and iPods for the PC, and now planning a switch to Intel chips. If they ever offer a free public beta of OS X for the PC, with the intent of eventually selling it, I think they would be overwhelmed with the response.

 

[djnes]

And djnes, this might be fake, but it's definitely not two years old. The metal-ish non-striped theme on the windows is younger than that.

The time frame I gave was around 2 months....not years...but I agree with the rest.

 

[HHunt]

The time frame I gave was around 2 months....not years...but I agree with the rest.

Yeah, I was thinking about the "this is nothing new, they showed it running on x86 two years ago" - part. You seemed to imply something, and I gave an even more vaguely targeted answer.

(I mean, we all know it's running on x86, so I began looking for other reasons for you to even mention that, and ended with some very vague speculations. I responded to those. Feel free to ignore that part, I wasn't thinking too clearly.)

 

[djnes]

I should have explained clearer. I remember seeing those screen shots on Neowin 2 months ago. The demoed x86 at some Mac developer conference was roughly 2 years ago. I should have split those up better.

 

[smileyscout]

HHunt

I'll ask him to produce boot logs whenever he comes back from away. Apparently he was up for about 3 days working on this and I think he finally passed out. He may come back online sometime tonight. If he does't hopefully I can come up with bootlogs or some kind of logs tomorrow.

As to the quality of the picture; I don't think he has a good digital camera and he used a webcam to make the pictures. Hopefully I can get him to find a better camera and take some good pics.

 

[HHunt]

I should have explained clearer. I remember seeing those screen shots on Neowin 2 months ago. The demoed x86 at some Mac developer conference was roughly 2 years ago. I should have split those up better.

Ah well, we got it cleared up.

 

[HHunt]

HHunt

I'll ask him to produce boot logs whenever he comes back from away. Apparently he was up for about 3 days working on this and I think he finally passed out. He may come back online sometime tonight. If he does't hopefully I can come up with bootlogs or some kind of logs tomorrow.

Right; I look forward to it. Now I just have to dig up some PPC bootlogs to compare them to.
(I've already got FreeBSD x86 logs right here, if there's any similarity. We'll see, I guess.)

 

[eeyrjmr]

Simple solution.
Can you get the guy to post a screenshot of safari viewing e.g. the OS forum frontpage? Preferably with a few of the controls at the bottom visible, so it'd be harder to cut/paste a screenshot of another browser into it and make it look good?

And djnes, this might be fake, but it's definitely not two years old. The metal-ish non-striped theme on the windows is younger than that.

edit: Didn't think of the VNC angle. Any good ideas, anyone?
reedit: I'd settle for the boot logs, if such a thing exist. (Does dmesg work?)

Better still get him to post a photo of the screen while view this thread

OSX-x86 Hack for real!!!

 

[sandmanx]

As to the quality of the picture; I don't think he has a good digital camera and he used a webcam to make the pictures. Hopefully I can get him to find a better camera and take some good pics.

How about turning the freaking lights on? It looks like it was taken at night in a dark room. I'm sure a better camera would help as well, but some better lighting conditions would also help.

 

[HHunt]

How about turning the freaking lights on? It looks like it was taken at night in a dark room. I'm sure a better camera would help as well, but some better lighting conditions would also help.

Photographing monitors isn't easy, and the only thing more ambient light would improve is the looks of the surroundings. (The light levels of things on-screen will stay the same.)

 

[Wildfire]

HHunt

I'll ask him to produce boot logs whenever he comes back from away. Apparently he was up for about 3 days working on this and I think he finally passed out. He may come back online sometime tonight. If he does't hopefully I can come up with bootlogs or some kind of logs tomorrow.

As to the quality of the picture; I don't think he has a good digital camera and he used a webcam to make the pictures. Hopefully I can get him to find a better camera and take some good pics.

This is just like looking for Aliens in my opinion The shot is always with a crappy camera and at night time !!!

 

[smileyscout]

REMOVED at request of channel creator.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Right well they say they have it running via Qemu and also VMware BUT no mention abt native, real, physical hardware.

I would love to see this work and with is is real but IF this is just working in a virtual machine (such as Qemu or VMware) it isnt really running on an x86 processor.

Eqaully they are not saying how they did it - I would like to give this a go

 

[Unknown-One]

Photoshop

Did you even look at the header info of the file in a hex editor? Photoshop leaves a nice "Adobe Photoshop" line in the header of every file it creates, that image DOES NOT have that in the file header

 

[smileyscout]

Thank you Unknown-One! Finally someone who puts forth enough effort to support their opinions instead of flaming about like a 12 year old. Oh and btw other ppl supporting arguments with vague facts and conjecture does not count like putting in actual investigative work. <Amazingly not aimed at djnes he seems pretty cool more aimed at mister "Photoshop" whithout so much as an look at the actual file>

I applaude you Unknown-One! You are an example of how ppl should behave when something like this is posted on the forums! <claps>

 

[Unknown-One]

I applaude you Unknown-One! You are an example of how ppl should behave when something like this is posted on the forums! <claps>

Uhmm...thanks

Amazing what a differeance there is between a 12 and 15 year old. (I'm 15 )

 

[smileyscout]

Ok my friend came back online and sent me the output of dmesg from his lappy

Plus another cool pic
http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/8439/picture31lv.png

Once again not condoning or approving of the actions of this group. Just trying to prove it has been done. <I don't like being told "Photoshop" and you are wrong when I am right >



standard timeslicing quantum is 10000 us
vm_page_bootstrap: 127181 free pages
mig_table_max_displ = 70
CPU identification: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 Mobile CPU 1.70GHz
CPU features: FPU VME DE PSE TSC MSR PAE MCE CX8 SEP MTRR PGE MCA CMOV PAT PSE36 CLFSH DS ACPI MMX FXSR SSE SSE2 SS HTT TM
HTT: 0 core on a die; 1 logical cpu per core
CPU extended features:
Local APIC discovered and enabled
Enabling XMM register save/restore and SSE/SSE2 opcodes
battery clock configured
[RTCLOCK] frequency 1690000000 (1694981600)
PCI Ver=2.10 BusCount=3 Features=[ BIOS16 CM1 ]
ACPI CA 20050408 [debug level=0 layer=0]
Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1993
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

using 655 buffer headers and 655 cluster IO buffer headers
Security auditing service present
BSM auditing present
disabled
From path: "mach_kernel", Waiting on <dict ID="0"><key>IOProviderClass</key><string ID="1">IOMedia</string><key>Content</key><string ID="2">Apple_HFS</string></dict>
ACPI: Supported S-states [S0 S3 S4 S5] (S3)
AppleMTRRSupport: Enabled Write-Combining for memory range e0000000:400000
IOPCCard info: Intel PCIC probe: TI 4451 rev 00
IOPCCard info: Intel PCIC probe: , TI 4451 rev 00
AppleIntelPIIXPATA: ICH3 ATA/100 (CMD 0x1f0, CTR 0x3f4, IRQ 14, BM 0xbfa0)
Got boot device = IOService:/AppleACPIPlatformExpert/PCI0@0/AppleACPIPCI/IDE0@1F,1/AppleIntelPIIXATARoot/PRI@0/AppleIntelPIIXPATA/ATADeviceNub@0/IOATABlockStorageDriver/IOATABlockStorageDevice/IOBlockStorageDriver/HITACHI_DK23DA-40 Media/IOFDiskPartitionScheme/Untitled 1@1
BSD root: disk0s1, major 14, minor 1
jnl: replay_journal: from: 6217728 to: 5309952 (joffset 0x12d000)
FireWire (OHCI) TI ID 8027 PCI now active, GUID 374fc00030d4b021; max speed s400.
Jettisoning kernel linker.
Resetting IOCatalogue.
Matching service count = 2
Matching service count = 4
Matching service count = 4
Matching service count = 4
Matching service count = 4
VID: stalling for module
Apple3Com3C90xB: 3Com EtherLink 3C905C Regs 0xf8fffc00 IRQ 11
Matching service count = 1
ApplePS2Trackpad: ALPS GlidePoint v4.34
raw version: Darwin Kernel Version 8.1.0: Thu May 26 19:10:26 PDT 2005; root:xnu-792.1.82.obj~3/RELEASE_I386
raw version: Darwin Kernel Version 8.1.0: Thu May 26 19:10:26 PDT 2005; root:xnu-792.1.82.obj~3/RELEASE_I386
IPv6 packet filtering initialized, default to accept, logging disabled
Apple3Com3C90xB: Ethernet address 00:06:5b:b9:85:c1
VID: vram [e0000000:08000000]
ERROR - CHUDProf.kext: CHUDProf::attachToChild - chudxnu_trap_callback_enter() error
System Doze

 

[buzzard34]

*falls off his chair*

the dmesg output has me convinced...ladies and gentlemen I do believe OSX has been HACKED. BTW what was the exact dell laptop he's running this off of?

 

[smileyscout]

OSX 86 Laptop Specs (BTW ppl I have played CounterStrike:Source on this thing when it was running Windows XP Pro)

Dell Inspiron 8200
1.7 ghz Mobile Pentium 4
Level 2 Cache: 512 KB
System Memory: 512 MB
Video Controller: NVIDIA GeForce4Go
Video Memory: 64 MB

Links for those ppl at the beginning of this thread who thought a 1.7 ghz Pentium 4 didn't exist. You insolent fools!

http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/top...e/2002/au/2002_03_05_syd_000?c=au&l=en&s=corp
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,6664,00.asp
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200204/ai_ziff25832/print

 

[Unknown-One]

*falls off his chair*

*joins buzzard34 on the floor*

I admit, I was skeptical when I started reading this thread, and finding out that the pics were not photoshoped piqued my interest, but this...

All my doubts about this are now completely gone.

 

[eeyrjmr]

Did you even look at the header info of the file in a hex editor? Photoshop leaves a nice "Adobe Photoshop" line in the header of every file it creates, that image DOES NOT have that in the file header

read a few post down from that - I beleive as a 15yo you must also be from the USA and thus sarcasm is lost on you.

I forgive you for your shortcommings.

 

[lozaning]

this seams realy cool and all, but what am i missing that suddenly makes all you guys beleavers. guess i dont know my boot long?

 

[Unknown-One]

read a few post down from that - I believe as a 15yo you must also be from the USA and thus sarcasm is lost on you.

Lost to sarcasm? yes
For those reasons? They probably contribute

BTW, I didn’t see your post that stated you were joking (Just saw it now), and for that I apologize.

 

[HHunt]

I'll join those on the floor, then. Good-looking boot logs, BSD-like but not from FreeBSD, and with the right components sprinkled in. (The network card is right for the laptop, for instance.)

Legally or not, there's a certain chance that OSX might at last be coming to a PC near me.

 

[eeyrjmr]

STill would like to know if this was on hardware and NOT on emulation like qemu or VMware

everything from the website is stating it is emulation-based.

IF it is emulation based it is showing that OSX can run on x86, however with the emulation method you have the ability to tweak bits to get around Apple restriction.

On pure hardware BIOS booted (or maybe via GRUB/floppy) would be fantastic, as it stands...

 

[HHunt]

Well, what hardware is identifiable from that log matches the hardware of the laptop, so it doesn't look like vmware.

 

[djnes]

Well, what hardware is identifiable from that log matches the hardware of the laptop, so it doesn't look like vmware.

That part is true....VMWare does have generic hardware that isn't the same as the "host machine". If this is in fact real, so be it. If I was on the other end, trying to prove it was real, I would do a much much better job from the start posting screenshots with dates, like a current CNN.com main page, etc. I also would take steps not to have pictures and video that looked identical to a known hoax. Anyhoo, I don't know anything about OS X, but it seems others feel the proof was posted. I stand corrected, but if I can find those pictures from the hoax a little while ago, I'll post them as a comparison to show how nearly identical they are.

 

[smileyscout]

Well my friend hasn't been online since sometime last night and I have to work from 1:15-10:15 PM MST. After I get home hopefully he will be online and I can get the pics you want djnes.

 

[ksar123]

Well, what hardware is identifiable from that log matches the hardware of the laptop, so it doesn't look like vmware.

Exactly...its identifying the BIOS as Dell blah..A10, so vmware and qemu are out. Looks legit to me...

 

[br0adband]

Well, I'm late to the party it seems so I'll do some basic ground work and then you fine folks can take it from there. I remember seeing some of those Dell laptop pics in the past and thought it would be cool to try out OSX for Intel sometime, and it more than likely will happen given that: if people can get Doom running on an iPod, why not OSX on a PC?

Makes sense to me. Now on with the myth dispelling.

Let's do this in sequence, so follow along.

I first looked at the Processor information in this pic:

http://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture11pp.png

It plainly states:

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor

If it truly is just a Pentium 4 Processor - and there are several versions of Pentium 4's, I'll get to those, bear with me - then it's a desktop processor not designed for mobile usage. That's the first clue to me something is fishy. IF this truly is a Dell laptop then I'm wondering why the hell this person has a DESKTOP PROCESSOR in it since Dell never sold any laptops with DESKTOP PROCESSORS in them as some other laptop manufacturers have been known to do (WinBook, Sager, several others).

I know there are two windows in this picture with CPU information, but for right now I'm only going to focus on the top one, the Processor window. The other one, hidden partially below it, will be discussed later on.

So, we go to this page to find out all the known Pentium 4 SSPECs as published by Intel:

Intel Processor Spec Finder page

I change the drop down item to "Intel® Pentium® 4 Processors" and get a list of all the Pentium 4's Intel has produced - meaning the first generation of 400 MHz FSB processors, then the 533 MHz FSB and then finally the newest ones running on an 800 MHz FSB.

There are eleven 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 Processors listed, all with 400 MHz FSB, and all of them with 256KB of L2 cache. The L1 cache amounts are irrelevant at this point. So based on this information Intel never made a "first generation" Pentium 4 that ran at 1.7 GHz and did so on a 533 MHz FSB.

The other thing to note here is that to operate at 1.7 GHz on a 533 MHz Front Side Bus, the processor multiplier would have to be 3.2 roughly (3.1894934333958724202626641651032 by the actual mathematics). Talk about oddball multipliers. Sorry, I'm not believing it.

Moving on...

Just in case we might be dealing with another Pentium 4 (I mentioned there are others), we'll check them all. In case you didn't know, here they are:

Intel Pentium 4 Processor (the original 1st generation)
Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor (the original 1st generation for mobile/laptop usage)
Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor-M (the second generation for mobile/laptop usage)
Intel Pentium 4 Processor Extreme Edition

It's safe to say the last one on that list isn't in that Dell laptop since it's a massive powermonger processor and has more cache that most people would ever realistically need. Anyway, back to the dispelling.

So, it's not the first gen desktop processor in those pics. Let's move to the next one, the first generation mobiles. Checking the sSpecs once more we find that all of these processors work on the 533 MHz FSB - maybe we're getting close... but... <insert annoying buzzer sound here> We lose... they start at 2.4 GHz and go up in speed. Oh well.

So now our last hope is the Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor-M and under that we find...

Five 1.7 GHz Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor-M CPUs listed, all operating on a 400 MHz FSB and all having 512KB of L2 cache - so we're close. We can't verify the L1 cache levels because Intel doesn't publish that particular tidbit of information.

However, as luck would have it, I'm on a laptop right now from Dell that has - go figure - an Intel Pentium 4-M (a lot of confusion over the damned naming scheme I swear; by Intel's standards it's *officially* a Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor-M). It has 512KB of L2 cache and 8KB of L1 cache. I'm going to paste the saved results of a CPU-Z look at my processor:

CPU-Z version 1.30.

CPU(s)
Number of CPUs 1

Name Intel Pentium 4-M
Code Name Northwood
Specification Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 1.70GHz
Family / Model / Stepping F 2 7
Extended Family / Model 0 0
Brand ID 14
Package mPGA-478B
Core Stepping C1
Technology 0.13 µ
Supported Instructions Sets MMX, SSE, SSE2
CPU Clock Speed 1196.5 MHz
Clock multiplier x 12.0
Front Side Bus Frequency 99.7 MHz
Bus Speed 398.8 MHz
L1 Data Cache 8 KBytes, 4-way set associative, 64 Bytes line size
L1 Trace Cache 12 Kµops, 8-way set associative
L2 Cache 512 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64 Bytes line size
L2 Speed 1196.5 MHz (Full)
L2 Location On Chip
L2 Data Prefetch Logic yes
L2 Bus Width 256 bits

So, by all the information I have from the pics we've seen, I come to this conclusion:

It's bullshit.

Intel never manufactured a 1.7 GHz processor based on the Pentium 4 architecture that runs at 533 MHz FSB with 512KB of L2 cache for either desktop or mobile environments - at least as far as their published specifications at their Processor Spec Finder page is concerned. The reason I added that little disclaimer is because a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to purchase a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 Processor-M to replace the 1.7 I current have - and that 1.5 I found had 1MB of L2 cache. Why is that significant?

Because Intel doesn't show such a processor on the Processor Spec Finder site, that's why. When I punched in the sSpec number it pulled up the correct information for that processor. Why Intel doesn't have all their processors listed by sSpec is beyond me, but I wanted to make it clear that the information I have in this posting are based on what Intel tells the public. There is the possibility that Intel *did* make a 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 Mobile processor with 512KB of L2 cache running on a 533 MHz FSB - but until I find more data to support that assumption, I'll pass on it for now.

Just because I care I decided to take one last chance to see if perhaps the Pentium-M Processor had one that matched those specs. Well, they do have them in 1.73 GHz flavors, and they're even at 533 MHz FSB but... the cache is 1MB, so once more we don't have anything to go on.

Ok, enough of that. The second window below the first.

It lists basically the same information but the important piece of data I was looking for was the inclusion of SSE3 instructions. They're not listed although SSE2 is meaning it's a .13 micron core. What does this mean? It means this processor if it exists is based on the .13 micron core, meaning it would be a Northwood processor, meaning... yep, you guessed it.

It's bullshit.

.13 micron processors were all running on the 400 MHz FSB. .90 micron processors are where 533 MHz FSB came into play.

According to this page and the paragraph it starts at (I'll highlight the appropriate part in my quote):

With the introduction of SSE2, the Intel NetBurst microarchitecture extended the SIMD capabilities that Intel MMX technology and SSE technology delivered by adding 144 instructions. The next generation 90 nm process-based Pentium 4 processor introduces the Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSE3), which includes 13 additional SIMD instructions over SSE2. The 13 new instructions in SSE3 are primarily designed to improve thread synchronization and specific application areas such as media and gaming.

Hope this helps quell any doubts about that one particular picture.

smileyscout: If at all possible, have that "friend" of yours go here:

Intel Processor Identification Utility - Download Utility (Bootable Diskette)

And have him verify what CPU is in that laptop. I did some research on Dell Inspiron 8200s and while they were available with 1.7 GHz processors, once again the specs just don't jive on the FSB.

One final disclaimer: As stated above about Intel not posting all the sSpecs publicly, I could be wrong about all this. But based on the pics and my research, I don't believe the processor info, and if I don't believe that much (possible Photochop work, etc), I have no reason to believe anything else in the pics either.

bb

EDIT:

One last thing: I do believe it'll happen at some point and that a leaked/hacked/cracked/reverse engineered version of OSX will run on any Intel hardware - it's just a matter of time at this point. This post was just talking about *those* screenshots* and the processor information. I'd love to get my hands on OSX for Intel just like the rest of us and take a peek.

 

[hazmatic]

Well, I'm late to the party it seems so I'll do some basic ground work and then you fine folks can take it from there. I remember seeing some of those Dell laptop pics in the past and thought it would be cool to try out OSX for Intel sometime, and it more than likely will happen given that: if people can get Doom running on an iPod, why not OSX on a PC?

Makes sense to me. Now on with the myth dispelling.

Let's do this in sequence, so follow along.

I first looked at the Processor information in this pic:

http://img257.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture11pp.png

It plainly states:

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor

If it truly is just a Pentium 4 Processor - and there are several versions of Pentium 4's, I'll get to those, bear with me - then it's a desktop processor not designed for mobile usage. That's the first clue to me something is fishy. IF this truly is a Dell laptop then I'm wondering why the hell this person has a DESKTOP PROCESSOR in it since Dell never sold any laptops with DESKTOP PROCESSORS in them as some other laptop manufacturers have been known to do (WinBook, Sager, several others).

I know there are two windows in this picture with CPU information, but for right now I'm only going to focus on the top one, the Processor window. The other one, hidden partially below it, will be discussed later on.

So, we go to this page to find out all the known Pentium 4 SSPECs as published by Intel:

Intel Processor Spec Finder page

I change the drop down item to "Intel® Pentium® 4 Processors" and get a list of all the Pentium 4's Intel has produced - meaning the first generation of 400 MHz FSB processors, then the 533 MHz FSB and then finally the newest ones running on an 800 MHz FSB.

There are eleven 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 Processors listed, all with 400 MHz FSB, and all of them with 256KB of L2 cache. The L1 cache amounts are irrelevant at this point. So based on this information Intel never made a "first generation" Pentium 4 that ran at 1.7 GHz and did so on a 533 MHz FSB.

The other thing to note here is that to operate at 1.7 GHz on a 533 MHz Front Side Bus, the processor multiplier would have to be 3.2 roughly (3.1894934333958724202626641651032 by the actual mathematics). Talk about oddball multipliers. Sorry, I'm not believing it.

Moving on...

Just in case we might be dealing with another Pentium 4 (I mentioned there are others), we'll check them all. In case you didn't know, here they are:

Intel Pentium 4 Processor (the original 1st generation)
Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor (the original 1st generation for mobile/laptop usage)
Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor-M (the second generation for mobile/laptop usage)
Intel Pentium 4 Processor Extreme Edition

It's safe to say the last one on that list isn't in that Dell laptop since it's a massive powermonger processor and has more cache that most people would ever realistically need. Anyway, back to the dispelling.

So, it's not the first gen desktop processor in those pics. Let's move to the next one, the first generation mobiles. Checking the sSpecs once more we find that all of these processors work on the 533 MHz FSB - maybe we're getting close... but... <insert annoying buzzer sound here> We lose... they start at 2.4 GHz and go up in speed. Oh well.

So now our last hope is the Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor-M and under that we find...

Five 1.7 GHz Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor-M CPUs listed, all operating on a 400 MHz FSB and all having 512KB of L2 cache - so we're close. We can't verify the L1 cache levels because Intel doesn't publish that particular tidbit of information.

However, as luck would have it, I'm on a laptop right now from Dell that has - go figure - an Intel Pentium 4-M (a lot of confusion over the damned naming scheme I swear; by Intel's standards it's *officially* a Mobile Intel Pentium 4 Processor-M). It has 512KB of L2 cache and 8KB of L1 cache. I'm going to paste the saved results of a CPU-Z look at my processor:

CPU-Z version 1.30.

CPU(s)
Number of CPUs 1

Name Intel Pentium 4-M
Code Name Northwood
Specification Mobile Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 - M CPU 1.70GHz
Family / Model / Stepping F 2 7
Extended Family / Model 0 0
Brand ID 14
Package mPGA-478B
Core Stepping C1
Technology 0.13 µ
Supported Instructions Sets MMX, SSE, SSE2
CPU Clock Speed 1196.5 MHz
Clock multiplier x 12.0
Front Side Bus Frequency 99.7 MHz
Bus Speed 398.8 MHz
L1 Data Cache 8 KBytes, 4-way set associative, 64 Bytes line size
L1 Trace Cache 12 Kµops, 8-way set associative
L2 Cache 512 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64 Bytes line size
L2 Speed 1196.5 MHz (Full)
L2 Location On Chip
L2 Data Prefetch Logic yes
L2 Bus Width 256 bits

So, by all the information I have from the pics we've seen, I come to this conclusion:

It's bullshit.

Intel never manufactured a 1.7 GHz processor based on the Pentium 4 architecture that runs at 533 MHz FSB with 512KB of L2 cache for either desktop or mobile environments - at least as far as their published specifications at their Processor Spec Finder page is concerned. The reason I added that little disclaimer is because a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to purchase a 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 Processor-M to replace the 1.7 I current have - and that 1.5 I found had 1MB of L2 cache. Why is that significant?

Because Intel doesn't show such a processor on the Processor Spec Finder site, that's why. When I punched in the sSpec number it pulled up the correct information for that processor. Why Intel doesn't have all their processors listed by sSpec is beyond me, but I wanted to make it clear that the information I have in this posting are based on what Intel tells the public. There is the possibility that Intel *did* make a 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 Mobile processor with 512KB of L2 cache running on a 533 MHz FSB - but until I find more data to support that assumption, I'll pass on it for now.

Just because I care I decided to take one last chance to see if perhaps the Pentium-M Processor had one that matched those specs. Well, they do have them in 1.73 GHz flavors, and they're even at 533 MHz FSB but... the cache is 1MB, so once more we don't have anything to go on.

Ok, enough of that. The second window below the first.

It lists basically the same information but the important piece of data I was looking for was the inclusion of SSE3 instructions. They're not listed although SSE2 is meaning it's a .13 micron core. What does this mean? It means this processor if it exists is based on the .13 micron core, meaning it would be a Northwood processor, meaning... yep, you guessed it.

It's bullshit.

.13 micron processors were all running on the 400 MHz FSB. .90 micron processors are where 533 MHz FSB came into play.

According to this page and the paragraph it starts at (I'll highlight the appropriate part in my quote):

With the introduction of SSE2, the Intel NetBurst microarchitecture extended the SIMD capabilities that Intel MMX technology and SSE technology delivered by adding 144 instructions. The next generation 90 nm process-based Pentium 4 processor introduces the Streaming SIMD Extensions 3 (SSE3), which includes 13 additional SIMD instructions over SSE2. The 13 new instructions in SSE3 are primarily designed to improve thread synchronization and specific application areas such as media and gaming.

Hope this helps quell any doubts about that one particular picture.

smileyscout: If at all possible, have that "friend" of yours go here:

Intel Processor Identification Utility - Download Utility (Bootable Diskette)

And have him verify what CPU is in that laptop. I did some research on Dell Inspiron 8200s and while they were available with 1.7 GHz processors, once again the specs just don't jive on the FSB.

One final disclaimer: As stated above about Intel not posting all the sSpecs publicly, I could be wrong about all this. But based on the pics and my research, I don't believe the processor info, and if I don't believe that much (possible Photochop work, etc), I have no reason to believe anything else in the pics either.

bb

EDIT:

One last thing: I do believe it'll happen at some point and that a leaked/hacked/cracked/reverse engineered version of OSX will run on any Intel hardware - it's just a matter of time at this point. This post was just talking about *those* screenshots* and the processor information. I'd love to get my hands on OSX for Intel just like the rest of us and take a peek.

FYI they did make a 533 FSB 1.7ghz processor, Intel isn't the most reliable when it comes to having an updated database of all their processors.

 

[br0adband]

FYI they did make a 533 FSB 1.7ghz processor, Intel isn't the most reliable when it comes to having an updated database of all their processors.

If you're referring to the 1.73 GHz Pentium 4-M, I mentioned that:

perhaps the Pentium-M Processor had one that matched those specs. Well, they do have them in 1.73 GHz flavors, and they're even at 533 MHz FSB but... the cache is 1MB

That processor is (roughly) 3.25 x 533 = 1.7325 - again, the math isn't perfect in respect to processors but Intel has never made a processor based on a 3.2 multiplier.

Once more: I could be wrong on this. Perhaps smileyscout will get that "friend" to do the Processor ID thing and get back to us. Can't wait to see those results.

bb

 

[Drake]

[...]

The other thing to note here is that to operate at 1.7 GHz on a 533 MHz Front Side Bus, the processor multiplier would have to be 3.2 roughly (3.1894934333958724202626641651032 by the actual mathematics). Talk about oddball multipliers. Sorry, I'm not believing it.

[...]

Quad pumped FSB. But you're right, that does place the multiplier at 12.70...

That does not rule out FSB tampering, though, or the fact that many motherboards kick up the FSB a few MHz for an extra edge in benchmarks... though that may not be valid seeing how it's supposedly Intel made. Hmm...

I still believe though The sooner I get to run x86 OSX the better.

 

[buzzard34]

Its also possible that perhaps the FSB and CPU are "tweaked" in the Dell BIOS. And its also possible that Intel does not have a complete list of all the different P4s made in the western world. And its also possible that I could be wrong.

 

[Jerunk]

If you're referring to the 1.73 GHz Pentium 4-M, I mentioned that:



That processor is (roughly) 3.25 x 533 = 1.7325 - again, the math isn't perfect in respect to processors but Intel has never made a processor based on a 3.2 multiplier.

Once more: I could be wrong on this. Perhaps smileyscout will get that "friend" to do the Processor ID thing and get back to us. Can't wait to see those results.

bb

the math is off, its not 533, it's 133.

 

[smileyscout]

http://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture0111eh.jpg
http://img363.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture0133dg.jpg

Those shots are from the Intel utility which br0adband linked to. Sorry about the poor image quality he only has a web cam to work with. If you know a better way to get info from that utility rather then take sceenshots please tell me and I will have him do it.

Mac OS X 86 is incorrectly reporting the fsb. He doesn't know why. Plain and simple. It says the CPU does SSE3 becasue he has managed to hack OS X 86 so it can run without the SSE3 extensions.

The below paragrah is quoted from him. I don't really understand it either cause I'm not the one doing the hacking.

The Coregraphics module had to have a few SSE3 instructions with SSE2 equivalents replaced in order to run, and the Rosetta layer had to have the TPM implimentation which does exist (as AppleTPMACPI.kext) taken out of it to run the GUI.

Pictures for djnes

http://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture63zo.png
http://img353.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture0160to.jpg
http://img356.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture85sc.png

For these pics he used firefox compiled for x86, which is called to deerpark, cause safari wasn't working right with CNN.com

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/josh/archives/2005/07/intel_mac_build.html

Once again not condoning his actions just trying to prove to you ppl that he has OSX 86 running on his laptop.

PS: If anyone needs a good resource for finding out specifics about different CPUs and their versions this site rocks.

http://www.cpu-world.com/

 

[lithium726]

If you're referring to the 1.73 GHz Pentium 4-M, I mentioned that:

no such thing. ALL mobile p4-m (note: this is the mobile p4-m, not the mobile p4) are 400FSB.

 

[smileyscout]

YAH! The OSX 86 Classic Beta Wiki site is back up!

http://www.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

Ok not trying to get banned by linking to this site just trying to prove the group is real and alive. Not condoning there actions. Hopefully Apple won't get angry at them and hunt them all down but I don't think OSX86 is the brightest for doing this.

Be sure to check my first post every once in a while. I keep updating it.