Installing OSX on Dell Intel Laptop

[zod96]

I've got OSX and a Dell Latitude 13 laptop. I can install OSX onto the laptop but when it is done installing it does not see my keyboard or trackpad. I have to use a wireless mouse and keyboard then it will work. Also the laptop uses the intel 4500 grpahics card, and for some reason my display will only do 1280x768, even though the laptop is 1366x768. Everything seems to be in VGA mode. Am I doing something wrong here???? What is strange is during the install my trackpad and keyboard work fine. Its after it reboots and finishes the install that is doesn't work...

 

[compman25]

You're not doing anything wrong with the graphics, the Intel graphics aren't very well supported. As for the keyboard and mouse, you might need to use a PS2 kext, I think I did with my Latitude E4300. I eventually gave up on running OS X on my E4300 because of the Intel graphics and lack of support for it. I know Tonymac is working on Intel support, but not sure how far along he has come.

 

[Zaap]

There's only Intel GMA 9xx and GMA 3100 graphic support in OSX. The 4500 is a no-go.

You've got no res-switching, because you're not using any graphic hardware accel because there are no OSX drivers for the 4500. Therefore, no Quartz Extreme or Core Image for it either.

Chances are your audio, LAN, wifi, power-management, etc. may not work right either.

The keyboard is likely in need of the right driver- PS2 as mentioned.

This is what sucks about trying to Hackintosh random PC laptops. With a desktop you can change vital hardware components if they're not OSX compatible, so long as OSX runs on the base motherboard. But with a laptop you're likely stuck with vital components that aren't compatible.

 

[Nothinman]

This is what sucks about trying to Hackintosh random PC laptops.

No, this is what sucks about OS X because Apple wants you to pay for the hardware too. Ironically, you'd probably have a much simpler time getting Linux to run on the thing.

 

[TheStu]

No, this is what sucks about OS X because Apple wants you to pay for the hardware too. Ironically, you'd probably have a much simpler time getting Linux to run on the thing.

Would you say that it is all Apple sucking? OS X is just a piece of software. It is like saying 'That is what sucks about Office because Microsoft wants me to buy a computer and not a toaster to run it'. Office has nothing to do with it, it is innocent in all this.

 

[Nothinman]

Would you say that it is all Apple sucking? OS X is just a piece of software. It is like saying 'That is what sucks about Office because Microsoft wants me to buy a computer and not a toaster to run it'. Office has nothing to do with it, it is innocent in all this.

Apple forces you to buy a computer instead of a toaster too. But they've also put a lot of extra work into OS X to push your towards buying their hardware. I can run Windows and Office on any computer I can buy, even Apple's hardware. The opposite isn't true. I can even install Office in Linux via WINE if I want, the only real check done is the product key activation.

And Office and OS X are inanimate objects so they're obviously not at fault, but they can still suck just like any product.

 

[TheStu]

Apple forces you to buy a computer instead of a toaster too. But they've also put a lot of extra work into OS X to push your towards buying their hardware. I can run Windows and Office on any computer I can buy, even Apple's hardware. The opposite isn't true. I can even install Office in Linux via WINE if I want, the only real check done is the product key activation.

And Office and OS X are inanimate objects so they're obviously not at fault, but they can still suck just like any product.

I meant to put 'wouldn't', if you want to blame something, fully blame Apple, not OS X.

 

[Zaap]

No, this is what sucks about OS X because Apple wants you to pay for the hardware too.

The Stu is right, this has nothing to do with OSX sucking or not, or Apple expecting to profit from their own products. Expecting OSX to just magically run on any random PC isn't Apple's fault. And it actually does run on hardware it wasn't designed for- it's just up to the user to assemble the right mix of compatible hardware, and figure out how to Hack it.

Why would Apple waste time and money supporting chipsets and graphics hardware that aren't in any model of legit Mac, just so their product also can run on someone's random laptop? Especially since people often make repackaged download versions of OSX, so they don't even make a sale of the OS in those cases. It makes no business sense what-so-ever.

Ironically, you'd probably have a much simpler time getting Linux to run on the thing.

There's nothing all all ironic about that- Linux is actually designed to run on most any PC, and is open source and freely distributed.

 

[Nothinman]

The Stu is right, this has nothing to do with OSX sucking or not, or Apple expecting to profit from their own products. Expecting OSX to just magically run on any random PC isn't Apple's fault. And it actually does run on hardware it wasn't designed for- it's just up to the user to assemble the right mix of compatible hardware, and figure out how to Hack it.

Technically it's semantics, but I still stand by my statement that OS X sucks because of this.

Why would Apple waste time and money supporting chipsets and graphics hardware that aren't in any model of legit Mac, just so their product also can run on someone's random laptop? Especially since people often make repackaged download versions of OSX, so they don't even make a sale of the OS in those cases. It makes no business sense what-so-ever.

Because it would expand their install base and potentially make them more money off of software. If hundreds of software companies can make a profit selling software why can't Apple? And yes, OS X sucks because of this. Sure it's Apple's fault, but the product still sucks because of it.

And I'm still curious as to why talk about pirating OS X is cool but if you start a thread about cracking anyone else's software your thread gets locked almost instantly.

There's nothing all all ironic about that- Linux is actually designed to run on most any PC, and is open source and freely distributed.

Technically so is Darwin, the core of OS X, where all of the drivers sit.

 

[secretanchitman]

Technically it's semantics, but I still stand by my statement that OS X sucks because of this.



Because it would expand their install base and potentially make them more money off of software. If hundreds of software companies can make a profit selling software why can't Apple? And yes, OS X sucks because of this. Sure it's Apple's fault, but the product still sucks because of it.

And I'm still curious as to why talk about pirating OS X is cool but if you start a thread about cracking anyone else's software your thread gets locked almost instantly.



Technically so is Darwin, the core of OS X, where all of the drivers sit.

osx sucks because it only works on apple computers? thats a new one.

if apple made osx work on every computer, then no one would buy their hardware. its as simple as that. what would be the point of their lineup if osx worked on a dell or gateway? part of the reason of buying an apple machine is to use osx - having the ability to natively run windows is a bonus for me.

osx would have had to be developed constantly for so many types of computers - built, preconfigured, old, new, future. windows has millions of drivers simply because there are so many types of hardware out there. osx (and especially snow leopard) have much more strict hardware requirements because their operating system ONLY supports their product lineup, which is miniscule compared to the other manufacturers like dell, acer, and hp.

its really stupid to say osx sucks just because it only works on apple hardware. why should apple support everyone else? it just doesnt make sense to me.

 

[Nothinman]

osx sucks because it only works on apple computers? thats a new one.

I have other gripes about it too, but yes, lack of freedom is a big reason that OS X, and most of Apple's software, sucks IMO.

if apple made osx work on every computer, then no one would buy their hardware. its as simple as that. what would be the point of their lineup if osx worked on a dell or gateway? part of the reason of buying an apple machine is to use osx - having the ability to natively run windows is a bonus for me.

Not true at all. Lots of people would buy the hardware because they like the look, brand, support, etc.

osx would have had to be developed constantly for so many types of computers - built, preconfigured, old, new, future. windows has millions of drivers simply because there are so many types of hardware out there. osx (and especially snow leopard) have much more strict hardware requirements because their operating system ONLY supports their product lineup, which is miniscule compared to the other manufacturers like dell, acer, and hp.

Development cost would be minimal, most of those drivers are developed by the manufacturer, not MS, and the same would apply to Apple. Support costs would go up, but MS deals with that just fine so I can't imagine Apple couldn't too.

The fact that Hackintosh works at all now shows how close they are already, they would just need to loosen up the installation controls and maybe get a deal with Dell or HP to get the ball rolling.

its really stupid to say osx sucks just because it only works on apple hardware. why should apple support everyone else? it just doesnt make sense to me.

No it's not, it's no more stupid than liking one sports team over another. It's called an opinion. And for me, freedom is one of my requirements for software. So any software company that puts out software that's so unnecessarily restrictive sucks and so does their software. Apple isn't the only company that I hate because of that, but they're the best example because of how tight they keep their fist wrapped around their products and users.

And as seen by the number of Hackintosh threads here it's obvious that they're missing out on a decent number of hardware sales already. They're just artificially limiting themselves and their users, although their users seem to like being controlled.

 

[secretanchitman]

I have other gripes about it too, but yes, lack of freedom is a big reason that OS X, and most of Apple's software, sucks IMO.

lack of freedom is because osx and most of apples software sucks? i dont even know what to say to that quite honestly.


Not true at all. Lots of people would buy the hardware because they like the look, brand, support, etc.

i think you would see apple's hardware sales decline permanently. there are plenty of good looking/performing laptops that are well under what apple charges. i happen to think apple makes the best looking laptops, but that doesnt mean someone else might find the hp envy series attractive, in terms of price, looks, etc.


Development cost would be minimal, most of those drivers are developed by the manufacturer, not MS, and the same would apply to Apple. Support costs would go up, but MS deals with that just fine so I can't imagine Apple couldn't too.

The fact that Hackintosh works at all now shows how close they are already, they would just need to loosen up the installation controls and maybe get a deal with Dell or HP to get the ball rolling.

how would development cost be minimal? supporting a hell of a lot more cpus, gpus, motherboards, you name it would be costly in terms of money and time. people will mix and match hardware, and bitch at apple that "this doesnt work on my specific machine" blah blah. apple doesnt need the support from other manufacturers - they are doing completely fine without them.

i know all about hackintosh, and its awesome that people are creating drivers for their specific hardware, but again, apple doesnt want to, or need to support anyone else but their own product line.


No it's not, it's no more stupid than liking one sports team over another. It's called an opinion. And for me, freedom is one of my requirements for software. So any software company that puts out software that's so unnecessarily restrictive sucks and so does their software. Apple isn't the only company that I hate because of that, but they're the best example because of how tight they keep their fist wrapped around their products and users.

And as seen by the number of Hackintosh threads here it's obvious that they're missing out on a decent number of hardware sales already. They're just artificially limiting themselves and their users, although their users seem to like being controlled.

just because you cant install a competitors operating system on anything but their own products doesnt make them stupid. they are restricting it because they can make their operating system run better on their own products, and get more sales for them. why boost their competitors sales when they have their own to worry about? like ive been saying, apple doesnt need to open up osx to the rest of the world. think of itunes on osx vs itunes on windows. which runs better? itunes on osx. office on windows vs office on mac. which runs better? office on windows.

the number of hackintosh threads out there are a lot because some of the stuff DOESNT work with it. a lot of the hackintosh crew pirate osx and love the operating system, but dont want to get a mac because they are too expensive, which proves my point that people would have a nice operating system, but would pay so much less for the hardware.