Sorry if the question seem stupid but how can I check in OF that the MacRISC2 descriptor is present or not ?as per the OP make sure your machines firmware is fully up to date, it was only in later BootROM's did apple add the MacRISC2 descriptor which is what the modified ROM looks for instead of "PowerMac3,1" etc
Thank you !!!Just type...
dev / .properties
I think. I'll go and check.
Edit - yeah. This is mine :
View attachment 70191
Hum. I wonder if checksum checking an environmental property?Bawww. I tried. This is after spoofing machine and CPU properties, attempting boot from USB - seems it simply didn't like the file.
did you do a .properties check after spoofing the CPU PVR to make sure the changes had indeed gone through?Bawww. I tried. This is after spoofing machine and CPU properties, attempting boot from USB - seems it simply didn't like the file.
Yup - not my first time around the block both PVR and compatible took the edits to nvramrcdid you do a .properties check after spoofing the CPU PVR to make sure the changes had indeed gone through?
Quite possibly. I've been wondering if editing BOOT-SCRIPT to remove the DO-QUIESCE would lead to more useful debugging info. Never really tinkered that far.the checksum error is normal, but I note your trying that on an AlBook, so I think its hanging up on the GPU side of things, most later apple portables and AIO's dont have the GPU's NDRV in ROM, instead Mac OS X fetches it from disk instead, and the MacOS 8.6 ROM does not seem to like the lack of an NDRV
Thanks for the heads up. I've tweaked it to match your version.BTW @Phipli I was just reading the page you made for it, and I notice your instructions for spoofing the CPU PVR are not quite correct, please refer to this post I made on MR on how to do it correctly
Mac OS 8.6 findings and ramblings
to fake a CPUs PVR to boot a Classic New World ROM Mac OS that does not include native support for you CPU in question you do something like this dev /cpus/PowerPC,G4 000c0206 encode-int " cpu-version" property .properties obviously replace "PowerPC,G4" with whatever the OpenFirmware name of...forums.macrumors.com
also worth noting this is temporary change its cleared every reboot, but its not too hard to roll it into an NVRAMRC script.
Which is what most of the 3rd party firmware patchers for 7447/7448 do to enable OS 9.2.2 booting on those CPU's in their case they spoof the CPU to be a 7455, if you already have such an NVRAMRC script installed just replace the 7455 PVR value with the 7400 value to enable 8.6 booting on your 7447-7448 CPU upgrade card
thats how I booted 8.6 on a 2Ghz 7448
View attachment 70244
this was combined with a fast CF card, never before had I seen the extensions load so quickly during boot
That's why I've asked about the command to check MacRISC2 flag.The G4 Mac Minis came with a 7447a processor and an ATI Radeon 9200 graphics chip. Is this adaptation of 8.6 likely to work on the G4 Mini?
But can't 7.5.3 be run on those? Which is basically functionally equivalent?Is there an equivalent topic Mac OS 7.5.5 for unsupported machines (eg PM4400, PB1400). I was curios, since the PB1400 doesn't run 7.5.5, but a PB5300 does and yet they're basically the same underlying architecture aren't they?
I know almost nothing on this subject, but perhaps the ROMs are different?Is there an equivalent topic Mac OS 7.5.5 for unsupported machines (eg PM4400, PB1400). I was curios, since the PB1400 doesn't run 7.5.5, but a PB5300 does and yet they're basically the same underlying architecture aren't they?
Well, that's part of the curiosity: what was really different about 7.5.5? I might try comparing 7.5.3 and 7.5.5 on Infinite Mac. I guess there was a bit of bug-fixing, and maybe it's bug-fixing that didn't fix bugs when run on the PB1400, but worked ok on the 5300. E.g. IDE-based CD-ROM (though I guess PPC Performas were using IDE CD-ROMs by then (I know they used IDE internal HDs, but can't remember if the CD ROMs were IDE too)). Then there might be a few new extensions or control panels, which could be just dropped into 7.5.3.But can't 7.5.3 be run on those? Which is basically functionally equivalent?
Maybe it is a basic ROM incompatibility.I know almost nothing on this subject, but perhaps the ROMs are different?
If I had to outright guess, I'd say they had a conflict when integrating the system enablers, which was the primary difference between 7.5.3 and 7.5.5. Other than some bug fixes, integration of system enablers was the big change.Well, that's part of the curiosity: what was really different about 7.5.5?
Given that System 7.5.5 was being released at just about the time that the Copland project was imploding (according to Wikipedia, Copland was cancelled in late August 1996, and 7.5.5 was released just about a month later), it's entirely plausible that the team in charge of 7.5.5 simply had no idea of what they were doing because of how chaotic and confusing things were.If I had to outright guess, I'd say they had a conflict when integrating the system enablers, which was the primary difference between 7.5.3 and 7.5.5. Other than some bug fixes, integration of system enablers was the big change.