Forums | MacLife

I don't think we're on the same page, here.

Is it OK for us to talk about Paris Hilton using such language?

Haha, I saw a review by a member on InsanelyMac, but I was afraid to post it (it's blasphemous, you know).  But as long as the door is already open, I might as well point out that you can download a free alternative called "Modified Boot 132" which yields a similar result  -- you boot the OS from a DVD, install updates, etc...  The tradeoff with Boot 132 is that's it's more "high-level" than EFI-X, meaning it's "theoretically" more susceptible to breakage from a future OS update (it's worked fine with updates so far).  Boot-132 also requires the user to enter strings for certain components like grpahics, network, and sound.  This is a one time deal, and it's easily done with a GUI program called EFI Studio.  Basically, I just wanted to say that the free alternatives are actually much better than the reviewer gives 'em credit for.  There's no need to "download patched updates," for example.  In fact, from the user's perspective, Boot-132 is almost as good as EFI-X.

Mr. T wrote:

Haha, I saw a review by a member on InsanelyMac, but I was afraid to post it (it's blasphemous, you know).  But as long as the door is already open, I might as well point out that you can download a free alternative called "Modified Boot 132" which yields a similar result  -- you boot the OS from a DVD, install updates, etc...  The tradeoff with Boot 132 is that's it's more "high-level" than EFI-X, meaning it's "theoretically" more susceptible to breakage from a future OS update (it's worked fine with updates so far).  Boot-132 also requires the user to enter strings for certain components like grpahics, network, and sound.  This is a one time deal, and it's easily done with a GUI program called EFI Studio.  Basically, I just wanted to say that the free alternatives are actually much better than the reviewer gives 'em credit for.  There's no need to "download patched updates," for example.  In fact, from the user's perspective, Boot-132 is almost as good as EFI-X.

Really? I was under the impression that you needed the proper kexts for your Boot-132 image before you could do the install.

unshavenyak wrote:

Really? I was under the impression that you needed the proper kexts for your Boot-132 image before you could do the install.

It depends on where you get it from.  Some people have made images that are ready for writing to a flash drive -- with the mot typical kexts included.  Really, only two kexts actually need to be loaded from Boot-132; one to override Apple's DSMOS, and another to override Apple's CPU power management.  You may also want a hacked AppleSMBIOS, to make your hardware show up correctly in System Profiler (I know; whoop-de-doo).  Any third party stuff (drivers, etc) can be installed normally.

Going back to the point I was making before, there's actually very little hacking taking place in hackintoshes these days.  Chameleon can load 99.9% of the OS without hacking.  Boot-132 basically takes that 0.1%, and makes it automatic.  EFI X is 100%.

Last edited by Mr. T (2008-09-17 5:31 pm)