-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
Apple Development Transition Kit
- Thread starter Dandu
- Start date
IPalindromeI
Well-known member
Likely the firmware and OS X doesn't support the GPU.
Just give up on upgrades. Nothing will be supported, it'll reduce the value of being original, and these weren't meant to be upgraded.
Just give up on upgrades. Nothing will be supported, it'll reduce the value of being original, and these weren't meant to be upgraded.
Sherry Haibara
Well-known member
Unfortunately, 10.4.1 is extremely finicky regarding the supported hardware: the Intel GMA900 and GMA950 chips are effectively the only GPUs supported with graphics acceleration.
It's also important to point out that 10.4.1 doesn't support the final revision of the Intel binary format that eventually shipped with the first Intel Macs back in 2006: it's got a custom binary format that is specific to 10.4.1 and 10.4.2, so no modern program (even if 10.4 compatible) will run on it, with the exception of PowerPC binaries which should be correctly translated via Rosetta. The only Intel software that can run on 10.4.1 is the software that Apple provided bundled with OS X (and very early versions of Xcode for Intel).
On a side note, if you do choose to install a more recent version of OS X on a different partition, you should be able to install 10.4.3 (which is still a developer release) without problems: that version is recent enough so that it should be capable of running real programs and also has a better hardware support, notably for ATI graphic cards (nothing fancy, though, you're pretty much stuck with ATI Radeon 9600 and similar devices). You can have a better picture of what's supported on both systems here and here. Note that these lists were compiled with hacked versions of OS X in mind, but since the Apple DTK uses a customized version of an otherwise standard BIOS (and not Apple EFI like all the Intel Macs that shipped later) I see no reason why these graphic cards shouldn't be supported out of the box.
It's also important to point out that 10.4.1 doesn't support the final revision of the Intel binary format that eventually shipped with the first Intel Macs back in 2006: it's got a custom binary format that is specific to 10.4.1 and 10.4.2, so no modern program (even if 10.4 compatible) will run on it, with the exception of PowerPC binaries which should be correctly translated via Rosetta. The only Intel software that can run on 10.4.1 is the software that Apple provided bundled with OS X (and very early versions of Xcode for Intel).
On a side note, if you do choose to install a more recent version of OS X on a different partition, you should be able to install 10.4.3 (which is still a developer release) without problems: that version is recent enough so that it should be capable of running real programs and also has a better hardware support, notably for ATI graphic cards (nothing fancy, though, you're pretty much stuck with ATI Radeon 9600 and similar devices). You can have a better picture of what's supported on both systems here and here. Note that these lists were compiled with hacked versions of OS X in mind, but since the Apple DTK uses a customized version of an otherwise standard BIOS (and not Apple EFI like all the Intel Macs that shipped later) I see no reason why these graphic cards shouldn't be supported out of the box.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have tested with classic PC card (old and new) and graphic card from Mac Pro (who works on PC and on Mac). I'm waiting for a PCIe x1 card and a PCI card.
The problem : i can't find 10.4.3.
I have found a torrent (can i speak about that here ?) but with only 99,94 %... and the other are patched, i don't know if it's work.
Sherry Haibara
Well-known member
Thanks haplain! It's supposed to be build 8F1111. It was once very popular, but like almost every torrent I know, it died many years ago. Back then, I don't think people saw the historical value of keeping a copy of that file, it was only used for hacking.
Your best bet truly is to image the drive that came with it (unless you also got whatever installation media Apple shipped with it) and then put a new drive in to install some other version of Mac OS X with hackintosh techniques. The version you install really doesn't matter if you're just going to hackintosh it, and at that point, you may even have more luck with a better video card, unless it is, as noted, a board with a PCIe slot that only supports the ADD2 card.
If you can get 10.8 or newer on it, that's what I'd personally recommend running, but 10.4.11, 10.5.8 or 10.6.8 (or possibly 10.7.whateverthelatestversionwas) may end up working best with the integrated graphics.
As always, I personally recommend against hooking a machine running a non-current version of Mac OS X to the Internet, for reasons. It would be a great darknet machine or if you just feel like having an install party, a platform to play with as many different versions of Mac OS X as possible.
General DTK question: has anybody looked at operating systems other than Mac OS X on them? Windows 7, 8.1U1 or 10TP would probably do really well on this thing, especially if the Pentium 4 CPU in it has HyperThreading and you can get 2 or more gigs of RAM in it. (915 chipset should happily run 3 or 4 gigs.)
If you can get 10.8 or newer on it, that's what I'd personally recommend running, but 10.4.11, 10.5.8 or 10.6.8 (or possibly 10.7.whateverthelatestversionwas) may end up working best with the integrated graphics.
As always, I personally recommend against hooking a machine running a non-current version of Mac OS X to the Internet, for reasons. It would be a great darknet machine or if you just feel like having an install party, a platform to play with as many different versions of Mac OS X as possible.
General DTK question: has anybody looked at operating systems other than Mac OS X on them? Windows 7, 8.1U1 or 10TP would probably do really well on this thing, especially if the Pentium 4 CPU in it has HyperThreading and you can get 2 or more gigs of RAM in it. (915 chipset should happily run 3 or 4 gigs.)
In re piracy links:
Please don't. especially Mac OS X itself and OS X-era software. All of that stuff is stuff you know is actively being developed, and most of it's still actively being sold, and you can't even feign ignorance of details like the fact that Adobe owns the Aldus intellectual property.
My only advice on that front at the moment is that you individually use search tools to see if you can find any resources.
Please don't. especially Mac OS X itself and OS X-era software. All of that stuff is stuff you know is actively being developed, and most of it's still actively being sold, and you can't even feign ignorance of details like the fact that Adobe owns the Aldus intellectual property.
My only advice on that front at the moment is that you individually use search tools to see if you can find any resources.
Sherry Haibara
Well-known member
That's something I'd definitely look into.
Not specifically to run a different operating system, but because Windows and DOS have plenty of utilities to dump the BIOS of a machine, while I don't think OS X has any (because it doesn't use BIOS at all). It'd be interesting to look at it and see exactly what's different (and also keep it for archiving: we're already lucky enough that these machines survived at all, since they were supposed to be returned to Apple, if something goes wrong and the motherboard dies this software is gone forever).
Last edited by a moderator:
Sherry Haibara
Well-known member
Awesome information! I had initially thought about this, but I had just supposed that it was soldered and thus the only viable way of getting data out of it was running a BIOS dumper.
Keep us updated on your progress with this!
TheWhiteFalcon
Well-known member
Faster than before, or faster than another machine? I'd love to see these compared to a G5 Quad.
Sherry Haibara
Well-known member
Any update on the BIOS dump? Have you had any success?
It'd be interesting to compare it with the "plain" Intel version and see where the main differences are.
It'd be interesting to compare it with the "plain" Intel version and see where the main differences are.
The BIOS is a custom one based on the intel reference bios for this board series. It pre-dates the "retail" board used in the D915GXX series by a little bit (no surprise there as the board and TPM were pre-programmed by Intel for apple.
The Installer for this system was fully leaked in the early days of "hackintoshing"
Look up "Marker-Tiger.dmg"
This will be the unmatched copy of the install disc designed for the encryption keys stored in the TPM.
Upgrading the bios will not actually prevent any of the 10.4.x Marklar builds from working, but you'll loose the pretty boot screen and some of the System Profiler text.
I've done a bit of experimentation with the DTK bios on non-DTK D915GXX boards and vice-versa- just dropping in the actual bios chip from one of those boards.
There is NO matching consumer SKU for the combination of TPM, Firewire, and Gigabit in the 915 boards, but the board in the DTK IS a D915GXX series board, just with a custom form factor from Intel. NO other differences.
Also, the ADD2 support is very limited, but I have run other PCI cards off the board, simply never played with display cards.
The Installer for this system was fully leaked in the early days of "hackintoshing"
Look up "Marker-Tiger.dmg"
This will be the unmatched copy of the install disc designed for the encryption keys stored in the TPM.
Upgrading the bios will not actually prevent any of the 10.4.x Marklar builds from working, but you'll loose the pretty boot screen and some of the System Profiler text.
I've done a bit of experimentation with the DTK bios on non-DTK D915GXX boards and vice-versa- just dropping in the actual bios chip from one of those boards.
There is NO matching consumer SKU for the combination of TPM, Firewire, and Gigabit in the 915 boards, but the board in the DTK IS a D915GXX series board, just with a custom form factor from Intel. NO other differences.
Also, the ADD2 support is very limited, but I have run other PCI cards off the board, simply never played with display cards.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
