OS X Developer Preview on Pismo?

[CrippleJoe]

Hi guys,
I´m new to the forum. As a long time Mac user (since 1994) I bought a Powerbook G3 Pismo recently. I know Lombard would be better bet (or even wallstreet) to run early versions of macOs X.
However I found that while OS X Public beta is supported, developer previews do not. Any attempt to launch installer and start installation results in "this version of macOs X is not supported on this machine".
Is there a way on how to force install (aka avoid hw check) OS X DR on Pismo? Say, from version Developer preview 2 upwards to DP 4?

Thanks

 

[herd]

Hello, welcome to the forum. There may be ways of tricking the installer, depending on what it's looking for. For real hardware limitations there may be a few; I think OS X needs at least 128MB of RAM to even boot, for example. One common approach to this sort of thing is to use a supported computer to install onto an unsupported computer that is connected as an external firewire drive (target disk mode). Or to actually transplant the drive after installation. Good luck and let us know what you find!

 

[aladds]

I'd take a look at XPostFacto and its predecessor Unsupported Utility X as they can patch the installer (From OS 9) to get it installed / running

 

[joevt]

I'd take a look at XPostFacto and its predecessor Unsupported Utility X as they can patch the installer (From OS 9) to get it installed / running

I don't think they patch the installer. XPostFacto can create a boot helper partition with kexts that don't exist in the installer so the installer can boot.

 

[aladds]

Depending on what you consider to the installer to be, that could be considered a patch. But I get your point. It certainly isn’t a binary patch in the traditional sense.

That said, I have never tried it with the Public Beta, so I would be interested to know if it works!

 

[CC_333]

I think OS X needs at least 128MB of RAM to even boot

I actually can disprove this.

Back in 2005 or so, I had Mac OS X 10.1.5 installed and booting on my 266 MHz tray loader iMac, equipped at the time with 32 MB of RAM. Yes, 32 MB!

It thrashed the hard drive like crazy and took 10-15 minutes to boot, but it worked!

c

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

I actually can disprove this.

Back in 2005 or so, I had Mac OS X 10.1.5 installed and booting on my 266 MHz tray loader iMac, equipped at the time with 32 MB of RAM. Yes, 32 MB!

It thrashed the hard drive like crazy and took 10-15 minutes to boot, but it worked!

c

I guess this means that I can attempt to install OS X on my PowerBook 3400c. It has 48MB.

 

[CC_333]

I guess this means that I can attempt to install OS X on my PowerBook 3400c. It has 48MB.

It'll probably run like trash, but yeah, it should work.

I must've had to do something about the memory capacity check in the installer like add another 32 MB for 64 MB total (the official minimum is 128 MB, but the "unofficial" minimum is 64), but once installed, Mac OS X definitely ran in 32 MB out of the box.

Perhaps to reduce the risk of failure, you could install it on a machine with >64 MB and then move the disk over to your 3400c. That would be your best bet, I think.

You'll have to also do something about the CPU. If you're 3400c isn't upgraded to at least a G3, some sort of hackery is in order, as Mac OS X only officially supports the G3 and G4.

c

 

[herd]

I was testing various Pismo CPUs and I have a pile of 64MB memory modules so I stuck one in to test a new CPU. I figured if the newly soldered CPU was going to grenade there was no reason to risk a nice RAM stick too. It did nothing and of course I first suspected the CPU. But after a bit of swapping stuff around I eventually figured out that 64MB was not enough RAM for OS X on my test machine. The CPU was fine, and I binned my pile of useless RAM.

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

You'll have to also do something about the CPU. If you're 3400c isn't upgraded to at least a G3, some sort of hackery is in order, as Mac OS X only officially supports the G3 and G4.

603 will run OS X with XPostFacto. That only goes for PCI based systems though, so no OS X on a PowerBook 1400 or a Performa 6200CD.

 

[CC_333]

603 will run OS X with XPostFacto. That only goes for PCI based systems though, so no OS X on a PowerBook 1400 or a Performa 6200CD.

Right. That was the "hackery" I was alluding to.

I forgot about XPostFacto, though. Pretty handy bit of software.

c

 

[just.in.time]

I have run Mac OS 10.2.8 on a 240mhz 3400c with 144MB ram way back in the day… even with max RAM it was way less responsive than a 233mhz G3 with 128MB ram. I think slower system bus and lack of the G3’s extra cache, and weaker graphics system really hits the performance. It was cool to see it working but not very usable.

 

[MacUp72]

I installed 10.1 on my G3 Kanga ( with max 128MB RAM) via XPostFacto but it wasnt fun..it basically ran but without Ethernet.
there still is a difference between a Wallstreet-to-Pismo and a Kanga architecturally

 

[3lectr1cPPC]

The main issue with the Kanga (and likely why Apple never supported OS X on it) is that it lacks 3D accelerated graphics, which OS X really needs. All the later G3s use ATI 3D graphics, while the Kanga uses the Chips & Technologies 65554 chip (the 3400c uses the 65550 which is similar but a bit worse). So that's why OS X runs like crap on a Kanga, but decently on a Wallstreet.