4 ms·

You've got it backwards. A hackintosh would mean running macOS on non-Apple hardware, so any security checks could just be patched out. In fact, I'm pretty sur

You've got it backwards. A hackintosh would mean running macOS on non-Apple hardware, so any security checks could just be patched out. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is how hackintoshes work now.

swozey 9y ago
Not really. I've built Hackintoshes so I'm familiar with kext replacing and what not, my idea was more that Apple could do something to limit apps/OS from running on anything that didn't have a t2 chip and it might be difficult to get around, like OSX on exotic or AMD chips can be a bit of a pain. Haven't used one in a few years though. Also the chip stuff is out of my realm of expertise. Was just a thought I had.
- saagarjha 9y ago
  There’s no way they can do this in the foreseeable future, since they need to continue to support current Macs without T2 as well.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    How long did it take them to drop support for PPC Macs in new OS versions? 6 years or something? Could be similar here.
    - saagarjha 9y ago
      The Intel transition was officially started with 10.4.4, IIRC, and the last version of Mac OS X that PowerPC Macs could run was Leopard. Mac OS X 10.7 dropped Rosetta, meaning all software had to be Intel-only. I know that by OS X all system binaries were Intel only, without a PowerPC slice.
- derefr 9y ago
  True; it would be as simple as crucial parts of the kernel being targeted to ARM (to run on the T2.) Good luck patching around that without embedding an ARM VM kext to simulate the T2; and then good luck getting that to be at-all performant.
- willstrafach 9y ago
  Right, you're replacing kernel extensions with patched ones then? Problem is, intel is intel, so again any such limit could be patched. I understand your concern, but consider it this way: The only real mitigation Apple might have is to offload certain critical functionality to the ARM chip, and even then, they would have to drop support for all macOS hardware without T1/T2.
- burnte 9y ago
  Well, it's easier to bypass a software check like that than it would be to create a hardware check like the T2. It's unlikely to hurt hackintosh anytime soon.
- megy 9y ago
  Yes. If part of the OS is written in ARM, that needs a separate chip to run on, this will be hard to hack.

You've got it backwards. A hackintosh would mean running macOS on non-Apple hardware, so any security checks could just be patched out. In fact, I'm pretty sure that is how hackintoshes work now.

swozey 9y ago

Not really. I've built Hackintoshes so I'm familiar with kext replacing and what not, my idea was more that Apple could do something to limit apps/OS from running on anything that didn't have a t2 chip and it might be difficult to get around, like OSX on exotic or AMD chips can be a bit of a pain. Haven't used one in a few years though. Also the chip stuff is out of my realm of expertise. Was just a thought I had.

saagarjha 9y ago
There’s no way they can do this in the foreseeable future, since they need to continue to support current Macs without T2 as well.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  How long did it take them to drop support for PPC Macs in new OS versions? 6 years or something? Could be similar here.
  - saagarjha 9y ago
    The Intel transition was officially started with 10.4.4, IIRC, and the last version of Mac OS X that PowerPC Macs could run was Leopard. Mac OS X 10.7 dropped Rosetta, meaning all software had to be Intel-only. I know that by OS X all system binaries were Intel only, without a PowerPC slice.
derefr 9y ago
True; it would be as simple as crucial parts of the kernel being targeted to ARM (to run on the T2.) Good luck patching around that without embedding an ARM VM kext to simulate the T2; and then good luck getting that to be at-all performant.
willstrafach 9y ago
Right, you're replacing kernel extensions with patched ones then? Problem is, intel is intel, so again any such limit could be patched. I understand your concern, but consider it this way: The only real mitigation Apple might have is to offload certain critical functionality to the ARM chip, and even then, they would have to drop support for all macOS hardware without T1/T2.
burnte 9y ago
Well, it's easier to bypass a software check like that than it would be to create a hardware check like the T2. It's unlikely to hurt hackintosh anytime soon.
megy 9y ago
Yes. If part of the OS is written in ARM, that needs a separate chip to run on, this will be hard to hack.