Can you run Mac OS X on a non mac computer?

[Skia_42]

Okay, I have been curious about this for a while and I decided to try and find an answer. I know that since Apple switched all off their new computers to intel architecture, you can run both Windows XP and Mac OSX on a new apple computer. That means that Mac OSX works with the intel architecture. My question is this: Can you run Mac OSX on non-apple computers with intel chips without an emulator?

[aggyb]

Apple have a security (thats not really the right word but it's the best my tired brain can come up with) feature in OS X that stops it from booting on non-Apple PC's. There is an effort to work around it and you'd be best off looking at: http://www.osx86project.org (http://wiki.osx86project.org). Your other option would be to run a PPC version of OS X inside an emulator such as PearPC.

Hope that helps

AggyB

[Skia_42]

I was suspecting there must be a catch to it, if Apple didn't have a apple specific hardware check I could go out, build my own PC and install Mac OSX on it in the same way that you can with Windows or Linux.

[chuckdsanders]

Actually thats not true. You can install some versions of OS X on an Intel or AMD machine provided you have SSE2 or SSE3 support. If you goto the X86 project website, ( do a search in google ) you will find a vast comunity of people working on this very thing. I myself have a 10.4.6 distro working on my Intel 955x chipset 830D processor. Please understand that this is not fully fuctioning, as all the "drivers" or hardware support is sketchy at best. For instance I only have 2 channel audio support and no hardware 3d acceleration. With this being said, much of this is dependent on the hardware that you have. I have found it very fun though to play with OSX on my wintel machine. I hope you have found this helpful.

[aysiu]

PearPC?

[bjweeks]

Putting OSX on a PC is illegal.

[chuckdsanders]

There are pleanty of things that are illigal that we do anyways. And yes, you should be proud if you are running 100% legit software, but in the real world, sometime it doesn't work that way. Another thing is, people weren't discusing the legality of the OS, they were inquiring as to , the POSIBIlITY of the instaltion. Now if you want to argue about legality and the ethics of this instalation, I think thats another question all in itself.

[bjweeks]

There are pleanty of things that are illigal that we do anyways. And yes, you should be proud if you are running 100% legit software, but in the real world, sometime it doesn't work that way. Another thing is, people weren't discusing the legality of the OS, they were inquiring as to , the POSIBIlITY of the instaltion. Now if you want to argue about legality and the ethics of this instalation, I think thats another question all in itself.

No, it illegal peroid, if you want a Mac get a Mac.

If somebody asks how to install ktorrent and I bitch at them about "legality and the ethics" then I'm in the wrong, but this can't be done legally, ever.

[Skia_42]

No, it illegal peroid, if you want a Mac get a Mac.

If somebody asks how to install ktorrent and I bitch at them about "legality and the ethics" then I'm in the wrong, but this can't be done legally, ever.

Thats the thing though, since apple switched to intel they are essentially like all the other pcs only pricier. I would like to install Mac OSX on a custom made intel box for personal use. From my point of view apple computers are severely overpriced and I see the possibility of installing it on a cheap custom made computer great. If I or anyone wants to infringe on the License Agreement then it's our fault if we suffer for it.

[hanzomon4]

No, it illegal peroid, if you want a Mac get a Mac.

If somebody asks how to install ktorrent and I bitch at them about "legality and the ethics" then I'm in the wrong, but this can't be done legally, ever.

I get your point and agree but, maybe they don't want a Mac.. just the OSX..
And yes I know thats illegal

[dabear]

Hm, so you mean it is illegal? In which country/-ies? Do you have any references to any laws saying that "using software where it isnt supposed to, is illegal"? Please elaborate and backup what you are saying with some links.

Oh, and by the way; I am running OS X on an Fujitsu Siemens Scaleo L right now. I am missing sound, and the ability to burn things (says not supported on my cd bruner and on my dvd-burner)

[bjweeks]

Hm, so you mean it is illegal? In which country/-ies? Do you have any references to any laws saying that "using software where it isnt supposed to, is illegal"? Please elaborate and backup what you are saying with some links.

Oh, and by the way; I am running OS X on an Fujitsu Siemens Scaleo L right now. I am missing sound, and the ability to burn things (says not supported on my cd bruner and on my dvd-burner)

By installing OS X on a non Mac you are breaking the EULA besides the point you probably stole the OS X also

[Skia_42]

By installing OS X on a non Mac you are breaking the EULA besides the point you probably stole the OS X also

Not everyone is a good for nothing thief, if you buy the newest version of Mac OSX for $129 I think you should be able to install it on whatever machine you want.

[chuckdsanders]

I don't get why this person is so irate about the legality of the install. I am more enamered of the possibility of installing the OS, than the outlaw aspect of the install. I do not fear the Apple gustapo coming after me, for I am not selling the OS, nor loading it on other PCs and CHARGING them either. Legaliy most of the time only becomes a problem when someone is trying to profit from someone elses hardwork without their compinsation, which is far from what I am doing and most in the community. And to those of you who are adventurous, The OSX install was about as straight forward as the Ubuntu install as far as I was concerned. Check it out, play with it, Knowledge is power.

[arkham]

I've heard of the "you are breaking the EULA" agreement before, I have one question - when have you ever seen an EULA enforced?

I know from talking to legal folks a little while ago that they were unaware of the EULA ever being tested properly in court, so for all we know it may be worthless. Not to mention the enforcability of such an agreement across borders (I have one copy of OS X from when I lived in the EU and another from the US).

In terms of the legality in obtaining the OS - I personally own 2 MACs, one of which is *very* dead and has no hope of ever working again. Now, I have 2 copies of OS X but only one machine to use them on - so personally I have no problems with installing OS X on one of my other machines.

[rado_london]

Hello. You can run OS X on x86. I do on my HP Pavilion dv4000 and it works 99% (except wireless). It is fairly easy to install. It is thousand times better than Ubuntu for multimedia(come on guys that is true). Thats why I use it. Oh yes and sometimes I go to my college with it, then I enter the IT centre and ask for asistance. Guess the reaction:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[rado_london]

Also check my video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__EHb4hPbrE).

[darkenedday]

I thought I heard something awhile back about apple realeasing OS X to be used on PC? I could have sworn there was something about that recently, so that would solve the legality issue, and really, the guy asked if it is possible, not if it is legal, it obviously, it IS possible, since when does anyone go through life without breaking at least one law? As far as an EULA holding up in court, I doubt it would stand.

[bjweeks]

I thought I heard something awhile back about apple realeasing OS X to be used on PC? I could have sworn there was something about that recently, so that would solve the legality issue, and really, the guy asked if it is possible, not if it is legal, it obviously, it IS possible, since when does anyone go through life without breaking at least one law? As far as an EULA holding up in court, I doubt it would stand.


OSX for PC was a rumor.

[bjweeks]

Great more ******** stealing others work.

[cptnapalm]

Installing legally purchased software can be illegal? That is absurd.

If you open the box, the store will NOT refund your money since that has been the traditional store policy on software for as long as I can remember. So you either are out a good hunk of change for a coaster or you can go to jail for installing software which you paid for...

[bjweeks]

Installing legally purchased software can be illegal? That is absurd.

If you open the box, the store will NOT refund your money since that has been the traditional store policy on software for as long as I can remember. So you either are out a good hunk of change for a coaster or you can go to jail for installing software which you paid for...

You can not "buy" OS X.

[cptnapalm]

There is a box... and a price, right?

[bjweeks]

There is a box... and a price, right?

That for an upgrade, nothing more.

[Skia_42]

What do you mean you can't buy Mac OSX? It's pretty much like windows...see for yourself. (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=405B1455&nplm=MA453Z%2FA)

[GarethMB]

Putting OSX on a PC is illegal.
Courts decide whether an EULA is legally binding.

[hizaguchi]

By installing OS X on a non Mac you are breaking the EULA besides the point you probably stole the OS X also
A EULA is not law, and breaking one is not strictly illegal... even in the US. Our rights are getting pretty thin these days, but it isn't quite to the point that we blatantly allow corporations to write the law. The only power in a EULA comes from people like you, who think that just because Apple says they have the right to price discriminate with your hardware makes it true. With that mindset spreading so rapidly, I'm terrified of copyright reform.

Err, anyhow. Yes, it's possible to install most recent versios of OSX on other Intel hardware. I know a guy that has screwed around with his to the point that it is finally working with all of his hardware so well you'd think it was a Mac. I just can't get interested in it because Linux allows me more freedom and flexibility.

[kris kincaid]

EULA's are pretty much self serving to the company that writes it.

[bluenova]

bjweeks, You really bugged me reading this thread. Why couldn't you go open your own thread about the legality of OSX on other machines rather than highjacking this thread which is (was) about something else. Perhaps a mod could split the 2 topics?

[bjweeks]

bjweeks, You really bugged me reading this thread. Why couldn't you go open your own thread about the legality of OSX on other machines rather than highjacking this thread which is (was) about something else. Perhaps a mod could split the 2 topics?

Because mods normally lock threads that are illegal in the US.

Err, anyhow. Yes, it's possible to install most recent versios of OSX on other Intel hardware. I know a guy that has screwed around with his to the point that it is finally working with all of his hardware so well you'd think it was a Mac. I just can't get interested in it because Linux allows me more freedom and flexibility.

Might want to get busy voting the guys who voted for the DCMA out of office now.

[bluenova]

Because mods normally lock threads that are illegal in the US.

But you are not a Mod. It says in the Forum rules if you see somthing wrong you should not post a reply and just click the 'Report a post' button.

Anyway this is getting way off topic, anyone else using MacOS on a PC?

[bjweeks]

But you are not a Mod. It says in the Forum rules if you see somthing wrong you should not post a reply and just click the 'Report a post' button.

Anyway this is getting way off topic, anyone else using MacOS on a PC?

:rolleyes:

[Redcard]

Apple uses hardware technology to disallow the use of Apple's OSX on non-Apple hardware.

By circumventing the technology to install the OSX, you are violating the DMCA. (If you , of course, are in the US)

This has NOTHING to do with the legality of the EULA. This has to do with you intentionally using circumvention technology to bypass intellectual property controls. That SPECIFICALLY is illegal.

You can't install OSX on a non-apple platform without breaking the law.

[dabear]

When you say "the law", which law do you refer to?

[bjweeks]

When you say "the law", which law do you refer to?

The DCMA and a (possibly) binding legal contract.

[Redcard]

When you say "the law", which law do you refer to?

The DMCA. Digital Multimedia Copyright act.

It is a US only law for the moment, but the European Union seems on the verge of passing their own version, as well as other nations.

[dabear]

The DMCA. Digital Multimedia Copyright act.

It is a US only law for the moment, but the European Union seems on the verge of passing their own version, as well as other nations.
Well, breaking a non-existing law? hmm, that cannot be so bad. I live in Norway btw, and we're not part of the union either.

[GarethMB]

Because mods normally lock threads that are illegal in the US.

Discussing the legality of something isn't illegal.

On topic: In my windows days i tried to run OS X in pear PC (an emulator), but i didn't manage it only got part way through the installation, which is hella slow on my a PC with the specs of mine.

[bjweeks]

Discussing the legality of something isn't illegal.

On topic: In my windows days i tried to run OS X in pear PC (an emulator), but i didn't manage it only got part way through the installation, which is hella slow on my a PC with the specs of mine.

It is still against forum rules and in the case of the DMCA you can't talk about how to break DRM as some of those links did.

Well, breaking a non-existing law? hmm, that cannot be so bad. I live in Norway btw, and we're not part of the union either.

Great, the forums are hosted the US.

[hanzomon4]

Great more ******** stealing others work.

Wow, You are really pissed about this.
I not sure about the EULA legal ramifications, but if some one buys a copy of OSX is it really wrong, morally speaking, for them to try and run it on non-Mac hardware?

[Redcard]

Wow, You are really pissed about this.
I not sure about the EULA legal ramifications, but if some one buys a copy of OSX is it really wrong, morally speaking, for them to try and run it on non-Mac hardware?

In the US, yes.

It is morally wrong because you don't have permission to do it. If you don't have permission to do something with somebody elses property, that doesn't mean you should do it anyway because you like that property. It means you just should follow what permission you do have.

If I said "You can borrow my car, but just for local driving" and you say "But I can go to Mexico and back, nobody will know, and he let me borrow it" that doesn't mean it's morally right simply because I wouldn't know.

Licenses are the problem here. You are not BUYING a copy of anything. You are buying the phsyical media. You are buying the right to use the software on the drive for the purposes they intend.

Morally, you're in the wrong. Morally, you should be speaking out by NOT using that software.

[hizaguchi]

Woah now, let's leave the moral issues alone. This was originally a technical discussion, and even turning it to a legal discussion is at least helpful in some ways, but telling someone they are morally in the wrong just because their views differ from yours doesn't help anybody... it just turns good threads into flame wars and gets them locked.

[Redcard]

Woah now, let's leave the moral issues alone. This was originally a technical discussion, and even turning it to a legal discussion is at least helpful in some ways, but telling someone they are morally in the wrong just because their views differ from yours doesn't help anybody... it just turns good threads into flame wars and gets them locked.

He asked if it's really wrong, morally speaking.

My response is, yes. When you take something that is not yours, and without permission of the owner use it in ways that the owner does not approve of, it is morally wrong.

If you disagree with the current software "ownership vs licensure" policies that this world runs under, that is fine, but to morally object to that should mean you do not use the software in question at ALL.. regardless of condition.

The fact is, Apple owns Mac OSX. You don't. Not even if you purchased a copy, you don't own the software, you own a license to use that software. If you don't respect their ownership rights, you are morally in the wrong. If you don't LIKE their ownership rights, then you have a right not to purchase the license.. but you don't have a right to ignore their rights.

He asked. It's morally wrong. If you can live with it, fine.. but the best way to get around that is to either follow the rules that Apple has set.. or don't bother with Apple.

[hanzomon4]

Woah now, let's leave the moral issues alone. This was originally a technical discussion, and even turning it to a legal discussion is at least helpful in some ways, but telling someone they are morally in the wrong just because their views differ from yours doesn't help anybody... it just turns good threads into flame wars and gets them locked.

I asked the question and the response wasn't over the top (he didn't call me Satan)The question I asked was answered well in my opinion. So don't jump on Redcard for my question, if my question took away from the topic being discussed ...My Bad ;)

[bjweeks]

Woah now, let's leave the moral issues alone. This was originally a technical discussion, and even turning it to a legal discussion is at least helpful in some ways, but telling someone they are morally in the wrong just because their views differ from yours doesn't help anybody... it just turns good threads into flame wars and gets them locked.

It's morally and legally wrong.

[Monsuco]

Actually, from what I understand, the DMCA only is illegal in the sense of breaking copy protection. Using an EFI instead of a bios hardly is in any way, copy protection. In addition, the DMCA is in direct conflict with the "Fair Use" act and in direct conflict with the First Amendment (this is due to the fact that the courts ruled that code is indeed free speach). The DMCA is essentially an invalid law. Also, the DMCA was only passed due to bribery paid by the RIAA, and from an ethical standpoint, there is little wrong with breaking it especially when you are exercising your rights protected under the fair use act. The DMCA does not apply to anything but copy protection. Use of a mutant bios like the EFI in Macs hardware is not copy protection as it does not prevent duplication.

In fact, I think it is illegal the other way around. Apple could be in violation of various antitrust acts by blocking the installation of it's product on non-Mac hardware. From an ethics standpoint, at least MS allows anyone to produce hardware that their software will run on, but MS is a much more ethical company than Apple. From a legal standpoint, one could see Apple computing as trying to monopolize the market of Mac hardware by crippling its software. I don't really know why anyone would use a Mac, but that is a different story.

Oh and wasn't Apple Computing found to be violating anti-trust laws in France by locking the iPod with iTunes and locking out various other MP3 player marketers. Apple also seems to have broken the law when they tried to kill Be Inc. by locking down the PPC market. Be jumped ship to X86 but eventually died out. I kind of wish Be had survived, as they did have inderesting software from a technical and inovation standpoint. Apperently, the company with the "Think Different" ad campain ironically seems to oppose people "Thinking Different" when it comes to using Mac software.

[bjweeks]

Actually, from what I understand, the DMCA only is illegal in the sense of breaking copy protection. Using an EFI instead of a bios hardly is in any way, copy protection.

There is more to it than just changing EFI to BIOS.

The DMCA does not apply to anything but copy protection. Use of a mutant bios like the EFI in Macs hardware is not copy protection as it does not prevent duplication.


If you think all apple is doing to protect OS X is a new BIOS you are very misinformed.

Also, the DMCA was only passed due to bribery paid by the RIAA, and from an ethical standpoint, there is little wrong with breaking it especially when you are exercising your rights protected under the fair use act.

Great, it's still a law. "protected under the fair use act" I would love to see this backed up.

I don't really know why anyone would use a Mac, but that is a different story.

Yeah, cause Macs totally suck:rolleyes:

Oh and wasn't Apple Computing found to be violating anti-trust laws in France by locking the iPod with iTunes and locking out various other MP3 player marketers.

Nope.

Apperently, the company with the "Think Different" ad campain ironically seems to oppose people "Thinking Different" when it comes to using Mac software.

Sorry your opposed to a company making money.

In fact, I think it is illegal the other way around. Apple could be in violation of various antitrust acts by blocking the installation of it's product on non-Mac hardware. From an ethics standpoint, at least MS allows anyone to produce hardware that their software will run on, but MS is a much more ethical company than Apple. From a legal standpoint, one could see Apple computing as trying to monopolize the market of Mac hardware by crippling its software.

Apple is not crippling anything, OS X is made to be used on Mac and only on Macs. Apple is a hardware company not a software.

In addition, the DMCA is in direct conflict with the "Fair Use" act

So how does the "Fair Use" act over power the DCMA again? And what act do you refer to?

[Monsuco]

Yeah, cause Macs totally suck:rolleyes:
I don't see solid advantages to Mac over Linux or BSD, and I only see a few advantages to OS 10 over Windows.

Sorry your opposed to a company making money.
No, I am opposed to a company crippling its products. At least MS doesn't lock hardware to software (thats also why MS is far more sucessful than Apple). Oh and Mac makes money if you purchase their software correct, or does that $120 that someone pays for OS 10 go to some other company?


Apple is not crippling anything, OS X is made to be used on Mac and only on Macs. Apple is a hardware company not a software.
So if they are truely a hardware company, why not open source OSX? Currently, you have a little bit of code availible under the Darwin thing, but Mac OS 10 is indeed closed source. Look at Sun, they are a hardware company and they have open sourced most of their stuff (Java is to be open sourced compleatly in October). Also, if Apple is truely a hardware company, why did they refuse to allow BeOS on their 3G systems? Also, why does Apple sell their hardware for prices that are far higher than anything else on the market for the same quality? If they were "a hardware company" they would sell for competative prices.


So how does the "Fair Use" act over power the DCMA again? And what act do you refer to?The fair use act says that you have certain rights, the DMCA enables companies to use uneeded digital restrictions managment. There are numorus cases of these restrictions infringing upon protected rights. Also, copy right law was absolutly never intended to apply to the general public, just to artist protecting themselves from companies, not companies protecting themselves from intellegnece.

I suspect that the only chance Apple really has of ever gaining more than 5% or so of the market would be to ditch hardware and allow their software on normal PCs instead of strange mutant PCs.

[bjweeks]

Also, why does Apple sell their hardware for prices that are far higher than anything else on the market for the same quality?

They don't? :rolleyes:

If they were "a hardware company" they would sell for competative prices.

You really should do some research before spouting ********.

I don't see solid advantages to Mac over Linux or BSD, and I only see a few advantages to OS 10 over Windows.

There are many... Try using it.

No, I am opposed to a company crippling its products. At least MS doesn't lock hardware to software (thats also why MS is far more sucessful than Apple). Oh and Mac makes money if you purchase their software correct, or does that $120 that someone pays for OS 10 go to some other company?

Great, let Apple do what they wish, if it's why they are not Microsoft well thats their fault.

So if they are truely a hardware company, why not open source OSX?

Because they want you do buy a Mac to use OS X? :rolleyes:

Currently, you have a little bit of code availible under the Darwin thing

http://www.macosforge.org/

Look at Sun, they are a hardware company and they have open sourced most of their stuff

Solaris is just one more unix spin off, I'm so glad it's open source.


I suspect that the only chance Apple really has of ever gaining more than 5% or so of the market would be to ditch hardware and allow their software on normal PCs

OS X is great because of the limited hardware.

instead of strange mutant PCs.

What the f*** are you talking about?

The fair use act says that you have certain rights, the DMCA enables companies to use uneeded digital restrictions managment. There are numorus cases of these restrictions infringing upon protected rights.

Until proved otherwise fair use applies as long there is no DRM on the media.

[Redcard]

Fair use is a doctrine, people. It's not an act. It's PART of an act that refers to people's right to use copyrighted material in discussion, discourse, or criticism. It has NOTHING to do with whether or not you're allowed to make a copy or use the OS you purchased a license for to install that OS on another , nonlicensed machine.

STOP throwing around Fair Use. It doesn't mean what you think it does.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[greggfathead]

No, it illegal peroid, if you want a Mac get a Mac.

If somebody asks how to install ktorrent and I bitch at them about "legality and the ethics" then I'm in the wrong, but this can't be done legally, ever.

I'm new to the Linux world after being (and still being) a hardcore Mac user, and though I do admit that the Mac hardware is pricey I also respect Apple and what they've been able to do to keep us Mac-faithful truly "faithful". I never gave Linux a second thought until a friend introduced me to Ubuntu, and I felt the same loyalty I felt to my very first Mac back in college in the late 80's/early 90's. So yeah, though I've totally embraced this open source Linux world, I also understand your stance on legalities and the difference between right and wrong.

I get the same thing from people who don't understand how WRONG it is to download music via BitTorrent or whatever sharing path you want... I know I'm in the minority here, but being someopne who also makes their living by their creative side, I have to side with the artists here - if you like that band so much, then show them some support by buying their records, not stealing them. Same thing goes with your software - you like it that much, then either pay for it legally or make a donation to the devo team!

[hanzomon4]

Same thing goes with your software - you like it that much, then either pay for it legally or make a donation to the devo team!

Thats where my questions begin with this osx thing. When you buy something you own it, but with software like OSX you never really own it.

While I agree that what Apple does with OSX is the law and that installing it on non Apple hardware brakes the Law/EULA, It seems like a law someone should change.

If a Phone company would sell service that could only be used with phones they sell people would cry foul.
If a Car company would sell cars that could only run on gas that they sell would be wrong in my opinon, but if you apply the laws that govern software the "Company" would be with in the law to do so.

[bjweeks]

If a Phone company would sell service that could only be used with phones they sell people would cry foul.

They have been doing this for years...

If a Car company would sell cars that could only run on gas that they sell would be wrong in my opinon

Who is forcing you to buy that car?

Nobody is forcing you to use OS X.

[hanzomon4]

What phone companies sell service that can only be used with phones they sell?

It's not a matter of forcing someone to buy a product, It's a matter of what is acceptable for a business to do and not do.

And where does it stop, If a company could lock an OS(that they do sell independent of its hardware :link (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=405B1455&nplm=MA453Z%2FA))to a computer that only it sells; Can they also
lock what software you can use on that OS/hardware?

[win_zik]

Hm, so you mean it is illegal? In which country/-ies? Do you have any references to any laws saying that "using software where it isnt supposed to, is illegal"? Please elaborate and backup what you are saying with some links.


Just wanted to quote this again, as this still hasn't been answered.
And no, namecalling and false statements like "you can't buy OSX" don't count for an answer.

[bjweeks]

Just wanted to quote this again, as this still hasn't been answered.
And no, namecalling and false statements like "you can't buy OSX" don't count for an answer.

This has been answered many times, you have to break the DCMA and the EULA(for what it worth).

false statements like "you can't buy OSX"

You don't, you buy an _upgrade_ to OS X. You get the licence when you buy a Mac.

an they also
lock what software you can use on that OS/hardware?
Reply With Quote

Sure, why not? But again you don't have to use that software.

[win_zik]

This has been answered many times, you have to break the DCMA and the EULA(for what it worth).

1. Just because you say the DMCA is broken, doesn't mean it is.
2. Even if the DMCA is broken, that's irrelevant outside of the US (that is, most of the world).
3. A EULA is not a law.


You don't, you buy an _upgrade_ to OS X. You get the licence when you buy a Mac.

It doesn't say update, it doesn't require a previous version, even the EULA doesn't speak of it as an upgrade == it isn't an upgrade.

[bjweeks]

1. Just because you say the DMCA is broken, doesn't mean it is.

You have to break DRM thus breaking the DCMA.

2. Even if the DMCA is broken, that's irrelevant outside of the US (that is, most of the world).

Yet the forums are still hosted in the US and most of the people in this thread are, moot point.

3. A EULA is not a law.

It has not been completely discredited yet.

It doesn't say update, it doesn't require a previous version, even the EULA doesn't speak of it as an upgrade == it isn't an upgrade.

And I quote Apple's web site.

"Buy the upgrade from the Apple Online Store, an Apple Retail Store or an Apple Reseller."

[win_zik]

Yet the forums are still hosted in the US and most of the people in this thread are, moot point.

I doubt most people in this thread are hosted in the US and as someone not living in the US I don't consider this a moot point.


It has not been completely discredited yet.

not completely discredited != it's a law


And I quote Apple's web site.

"Buy the upgrade from the Apple Online Store, an Apple Retail Store or an Apple Reseller."
So? They market their upgraded OS as an upgrade. How on earth does this show that it's only an upgrade version in the legal sence? Especially as I can buy a copy of OSX in a store that doesn't say upgrade anywhere, doesn't require and check for a previous version and doesn't have any upgrade restricition in the EULA? Come on, this is just silly.

[bjweeks]

I doubt most people in this thread are hosted in the US and as someone not living in the US I don't consider this a moot point.

By breaking the DCMA this forum could get shut down...

not completely discredited != it's a law

Is it not a contract?

So? They market their upgraded OS as an upgrade. How on earth does this show that it's only an upgrade version in the legal sence? Especially as I can buy a copy of OSX in a store that doesn't say upgrade anywhere, doesn't require and check for a previous version and doesn't have any upgrade restricition in the EULA? Come on, this is just silly.

How could it not be an upgrade? It only runs on Macs and Macs all come with OS X. :rolleyes:

[win_zik]

By breaking the DCMA this forum could get shut down...

How is this forum breaking the DMCA?


Is it not a contract?

No, it's not, it's a EULA.
Anyway, my point was that it's not a law.


How could it not be an upgrade? It only runs on Macs and Macs all come with OS X. :rolleyes:
Wow, you can use stupid smileys...
So now you change your argument again. The problem is of course that it's wrong again.
There are of course second hand macs you can buy that come without OSX but can run OSX. Do you honestly want to argue that it would be illegal to buy a legitimate copy of OSX and put it on such a machine, as it is impossible to buy a normal version of OSX (though even Apple doesn't say that's the case)?

[hanzomon4]

And where does it stop, If a company could lock an OS(that they do sell independent of its hardware :link (http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=405B1455&nplm=MA453Z%2FA))to a computer that only it sells; Can they also
lock what software you can use on that OS/hardware?



Sure, why not? But again you don't have to use that software.
The Microsoft operating system (WindowsTM), applications (ExplorerTM, WordTM, PowerPointTM, ExcelTM), and many other Microsoft drivers and modules are the software programs running on a majority of existing personal computer systems. The interaction of these programs with each other and with programs from other sources is vital for most current business activity. Microsoft software functions to communicate information: between applications, between the operating system and the applications, and between Microsoft software systems and networks. The ability of these programs to interwork is completely based on evolving Microsoft proprietary specifications, or, as they are considered by most Microsoft users, "standards."

On April 3, 2000, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia decided to split Microsoft into an operating system company and an applications company to redress the effects of Microsoft's market dominance [1]. The decision of the US District Court in paragraph 3.b Conclusions of Law [2] addresses the need to open the Microsoft controlled interfaces to competitor's use, but does not order the creation of open standards

It seems like this could apply to a computer-hardware company that locks, by law/EULA not by tech impossibility, an OS(software)to its hardware.
Computer game makers that only make games for Windows can't by law stop me from playing those games on linux, if I can get it to work on linux.
I don't see the difference between a Copmuter game(software) and OSX(also software).
If you can buy it independently of the hardware its just software that you should be able to run on whatever hardware you can get it to run on

[chuckdsanders]

So this has to be one of the more humorous threads I have seen in a while. It has gone from a technical discussion to a discussion on ethics, morality, and legality. Now, this even more humorous sighting the computer industry and its shady history of deals gone bad, and the spoils all going to the victors. Read into Xerox and Apple in the early days and you will see what I mean about theft and profit off of others ideas. I will say this about the morality, legality, and ethics of installing a non native OS on a PC. It isn't legal, it isn't moral, it isn't ethical, HOWEVER, WHO CARES, if you aren't profiting off of the stuff, or elevating yourself within the society by the un-accredited means of another, WHO CARES. Now, for the Nerds out here, like myself, this is a very exciting time for computers. For the first time we are getting true cross platform OSs. Computing power is cheap for all intensive purposes. With all that said. OSX IMO is a superior OS than any Linux distro. And before you condemn me for life, this is what you NERDS don't understand about NORMAL human beings, because I believe we are a special group. Humans need to have it kept simple so they aren't too easily confused. I am sure that all of you enlightened ones have had a host of annoying questions about how to the most mundane of tasks. OSx makes MOST of this go away. My parents had an XP PC amd CPU, now if I was using it, I wouldn't have had a problem, but I am a nerd, my parents are not. I would get a call once a week about something stupid going wrong. Finally I got fed up, and told them to get a MAC mini. They did, and you know what, I haven't had a tech problem to fix for them since. Now, I am not saying that MACs are perfect, nor that they fit EVERYONE, but the functionality and EASE of use is what MOST people are looking for. I like OSx because I don't have to screw around with mounting something, or chasing down some text file to edit. I want it to work, because if it works, I can be productive. Don't get me wrong, I have an Ubuntu PIII machine that I use just for bittorent and file sharing, and it works like a champ. With this all being said, if we are all just explorers on this planet trying to make our world more interesting and wonderful, why not explore installing OSx on a non mac PC, if you were counter culture enough to install linux on a machine, then I think OSx shouldn’t be that far of a jump for any of you. Futher more, maybe you might like it, maybe, just maybe, someday you might buy a MAC. If not, you absolutely hate it, then you didn’t spend the 2.5k on a new MACpro that you think is fit for a paper weight. You get my drift, for some people it might be a form of try before you buy. We live in a capitalistic country, that means that we will LIE, CHEAT, STEAL to get to the top, so go out there, and get to the top with this new knowledge and power.

[bjweeks]

Computer game makers that only make games for Windows can't by law stop me from playing those games on linux, if I can get it to work on linux.

Yet they can? :rolleyes: If they put DRM on the disk you can't use it on linux without breaking the law.


It seems like this could apply to a computer-hardware company that locks, by law/EULA not by tech impossibility, an OS(software)to its hardware.

Uh, Apple doesn't have a monopoly.

[Skia_42]

Holy ****, I was gone for a hiking trip for 4 days and I wasn't expecting this. I wasn't expecting Mac OSX to legally run on an x86 architecture. All I wanted to know is if it could be done, legally or not. If you guys want to duke out the legalities go for it, I got the answer I was looking for.

[chuckdsanders]

Holy ****, I was gone for a hiking trip for 4 days and I wasn't expecting this. I wasn't expecting Mac OSX to legally run on an x86 architecture. All I wanted to know is if it could be done, legally or not. If you guys want to duke out the legalities go for it, I got the answer I was looking for.

Hey no problem man, Glad that we could answer your questions. Check out http://www.osx86project.org/ Its awesome. Take it easy man

[hanzomon4]

Here is a link to an article off the OSX86 website about the legal, moral, and all that other stuff as it allies to OSX86. The Great Debates: OSx86 (http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&Itemid=2)
Also I'm sorry for not addressing the original question asked

[Redcard]

Here is a link to an article off the OSX86 website about the legal, moral, and all that other stuff as it allies to OSX86. The Great Debates: OSx86 (http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222&Itemid=2)
Also I'm sorry for not addressing the original question asked

Good article.

I tend to be of the opinion that people should do whatever they feel comfortable with.

The only problem I have is when some of these people try to tell me that using OSX on a PC is legal because of "fair use" or that it is morally in the right for some other reason.

It's not legal. It's not moral. If you're fine with that for yourself, go ahead, do it. Enjoy :) But don't sit there and tell me that it's moral and legal. That's just insulting my intelligence and demeaning yours.

[hanzomon4]

I agree

[hanzomon4]

If anyone wants to debate this further its being discussed on the OSX86 forums The Debate (http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=22588)

[Linux_Noobie]

In the US, yes.

It is morally wrong because you don't have permission to do it. If you don't have permission to do something with somebody elses property, that doesn't mean you should do it anyway because you like that property. It means you just should follow what permission you do have.

If I said "You can borrow my car, but just for local driving" and you say "But I can go to Mexico and back, nobody will know, and he let me borrow it" that doesn't mean it's morally right simply because I wouldn't know.

Licenses are the problem here. You are not BUYING a copy of anything. You are buying the phsyical media. You are buying the right to use the software on the drive for the purposes they intend.

Morally, you're in the wrong. Morally, you should be speaking out by NOT using that software.

But he bought it. I belive if i paid that much on my small budget i would get it working no matter what.

[HanZo]

why is it that as soon as somebody starts talking about macs the discussion soon gets a)silly b)useless c)agressive d)childish?

[H.E. Pennypacker]

BJWeeks is clearly a troll, who has complete disregard for the original poster. He/she hijacked this thread and answered questions that were never asked. He/she still will not say WHERE he/she got the idea that this thread was ever about morals or legal issues.

If anything, the question is of technical nature. If you can't answer the question, leave the thread, instead of disrespecting someone's right to creating a thread.

Want to do good for this world? Join an anti-piracy group or whatever it is you're interested in, instead of harassing a forum user who is only interested in something of a technical nature.

Stop being a troll, and create your own thread. This thread is clearly not yours.

[xenon2000]

I didn't read all the pages. But I have installed OSX 10.4 on a PC. Now that Mac's are now all Intel with intel boards and intel CPUs and are just x86 hardware. You can installed XP on a MAC and OSX on a PC. Yes it is true that it is not supported by Apple and if you read the user aggreement, it's probably an illegal use of the software.

The only real hurdle is that you can't just install a retail CD of OSX on a regular PC because it has code that checks if the hardware is approved by apple and mroe specifically, if it has the correct bios, etc. But there are altered versions of the OSX ISO available.

Apple is in a great position now to really compete against Windows if they wanted to. Since the hardware playing field is now level with PCs, now being x86. They could allow OEMs such as Dell to offer OSX on DELL hardware. And if they really wanted to get into the game, they could actually release OSX retail boxes that support installing on modern Intel hardware. Of course both options would require a boost in hardware support. But not a magnitude that Apple couldn't handle.

I don't know if cost of hardware or competition with Windows was the motive to move to x86 PC hardware. But personally I don't think we will see OSX officially supported on generic hardware anytime soon. But that would be cool. (note: I am not much of an OSX fan anyways, so I don't care either way. I just like to see quality competition)

[xenon2000]

I didn't read all the pages. But I have installed OSX 10.4 on a PC. Now that Mac's are now all Intel with intel boards and intel CPUs and are just x86 hardware. You can installed XP on a MAC and OSX on a PC. Yes it is true that it is not supported by Apple and if you read the user aggreement, it's probably an illegal use of the software.

The only real hurdle is that you can't just install a retail CD of OSX on a regular PC because it has code that checks if the hardware is approved by apple and mroe specifically, if it has the correct bios, etc. But there are altered versions of the OSX ISO available.

Apple is in a great position now to really compete against Windows if they wanted to. Since the hardware playing field is now level with PCs, now being x86. They could allow OEMs such as Dell to offer OSX on DELL hardware. And if they really wanted to get into the game, they could actually release OSX retail boxes that support installing on modern Intel hardware. Of course both options would require a boost in hardware support. But not a magnitude that Apple couldn't handle.

I don't know if cost of hardware or competition with Windows was the motive to move to x86 PC hardware. But personally I don't think we will see OSX officially supported on generic hardware anytime soon. But that would be cool. (note: I am not much of an OSX fan anyways, so I don't care either way. I just like to see quality competition)

[Redcard]

But he bought it. I belive if i paid that much on my small budget i would get it working no matter what.

No. He didn't buy it. Like with all software that is commercially released, he bought the right to use the software as the company dictates. He didn't buy the right to use it where its not legal to use.

ALL he bought was the physical media. The software on it is NOT his. It's still apple's software.

[Skia_42]

No. He didn't buy it. Like with all software that is commercially released, he bought the right to use the software as the company dictates. He didn't buy the right to use it where its not legal to use.

ALL he bought was the physical media. The software on it is NOT his. It's still apple's software.

True, but if I am going to drop $100 on an OS I am NOT going to let myself be tied down by apples expensive software. I can build an equivelent apple system for under $500, think about that....

The only real hurdle is that you can't just install a retail CD of OSX on a regular PC because it has code that checks if the hardware is approved by apple and mroe specifically, if it has the correct bios, etc. But there are altered versions of the OSX ISO available.

Would you mind sharing where I could find an altered ISO disk?

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Would you mind sharing where I could find an altered ISO disk?

You'll likely find one through P2P, but before you do, make sure to do a Google check on, for example, "Mac OS X ISO' to make sure you know everything involved, including, but not limited to, possible failures, and how to do it correctly.

[xenon2000]

But he bought it. I belive if i paid that much on my small budget i would get it working no matter what.

I just wanted to point this out if it hasn't been already. The retail disc of OSX does hardware and BIOS checks that will prevent it from working on non-Apple branded hardware.

Return it if you can, and just download the hacked OSX ISO to burn to DVD. The "hacked" version of the install disc bypassed the hardware and BIOS checks. Though you will still need modern Intel x86 hardware. I believe an 915 for higher Intel chipset will work just fine. Though it may work as low as an 865 intel chipset. OSX does require SSE2 instruction set and I believe EIST intel bios function.

But like I said, you can't use the retail disc As-Is. You either have to rip the ISO, hack that and burn a new disc to install from; or hack your hardware to pass the retail disc checks.

So save the trouble and just download the already modified ISO to install. I think there is even a site of tested hardware. But I know for a fact it needs modern Intel hardware. Some have gotten other modified ISO to work on modern AMD hardware with SSE2 instructions, but I haven't seen that ISO myself.

And yes, I know that is not legal use of the software. But this thread is not a discussion about legally using OSX on non-mac branded hardware. This thread seems to be filled with wasted babble of legal this, etc. I do not have or use the modified ISO that I speak of, but I have seen it used by others and on many geek sights. And that is the power of learning.

Oh, and for anyone that hasn't heard the new Weird Al song yet... go and download the "DontDownloadThis.mp3" by Weird Al... it's so funny.

[xenon2000]

oh, and of course Mac won't support the install and you will need to disable the updates feature otherwise it will break with system updates.

I work at Intel and I have seen many outside demos, etc. But like I said, I don't use or have OSX in any form personally. Only work related and outside demo related experiences. So I am probably not much more help.

[Jerome36]

Wow, this argument got interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Linux supposedly have numerous Patent Infringements, with Linux itself, and more then likely other various software? If so it seems kind of funny to talk about morals and legality, on a Linux message board. :)

[darkenedday]

Ok, well I know a decent ammount about law, and the DMCA is in conflict with a few previous acts, but as far as this all holding up in court I'm sure this case could be backed


Mr. John Doe payed $______ for this software, he only owns PC's however is used to using OS-X on his MAC at work, and mind oyu there is no label on the box that says before he purchase the software you can not install it on anything but a MAC, he opens the box, tries to install OS-X but fails, however he can not return the software being that it is already opened, so he sets about finding a way to install it so that it is not a waste of his money, If Apple would like to consider this stealing, I would assume that an even more basic form of stealing be evident in the fact that there is no label posted on the box, no warning of any kind, and most people do not know that the OS can not be loaded on just any machine, so he buys the software, opens it and then is faced with an EULA stating he can not install it, THIS is theft, Mr. Doe is now faced with having lost $_______ for soemthing he can not use, and was not informed that he can not used untill AFTER he bought the software. Mr. Doe is not at fault here, it is apple for there neglect to advertise there intentions.


And if you're going to say that pure ignorance is not a valid argument for having broken the law, then I'd like you to tell me what happened in the case that forced any policeman to have to read the miranda rights to an alledged criminal upon arresting them, and also why tobacco companies are forced to put warning labels on every pack they sell. :-) personally I think mac is in the wrong here, and am positive that with a good attorney (say the couple that got OJ off) this argument could EASILY stand in any court in the US.

[Skia_42]

I am not going to go out and sell PC's with OS X on them, I simply want it for personal use. Thank you for all off your help, I think the technicalities are settled. I will post results if I get around to testing OSX on a PC but untill then, feel free to duke out the morals on this thread.

[hanzomon4]

I am not going to go out and sell PC's with OS X on them, I simply want it for personal use. Thank you for all off your help, I think the technicalities are settled. I will post results if I get around to testing OSX on a PC but untill then, feel free to duke out the morals on this thread.

Check this (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbookpro.ars/5) out it's a review of a Macbook-pro put up against a Powerbook G4, and a Dell Inspiron 9100 running OSX

p.s. I think I said this before, but truly mybad about all the legal/moral debate,its just hard not to get drawn in to these things

[hanzomon4]

This wiki has alot of good info about installing OSX on pcs it's the OS x86 wiki (http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page)

[xenon2000]

Odd, this sucks. I posted a big reply with some great links and now it's not showing up? Odd... good thing I have my post in my clipboard still.. so here it is again.

.... and mind oyu there is no label on the box that says before he purchase the software you can not install it on anything but a MAC,

..... the fact that there is no label posted on the box, no warning of any kind, and most people do not know that the OS can not be loaded on just any machine, so he buys the software, opens it and then is faced with an EULA stating he can not install it,

... apple for there neglect to advertise there intentions.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.4

While I don't remember what is printed on the box. Take a look at the wiki link I posted above. Some interesting points.

1. "The 2006 Intel-based Macintoshes come from the factory with a Universal build of Mac OS X 10.4; the boxed 10.4 upgrade DVD only runs on PowerPC Macintoshes."

And after searching all over Apple's website and all over the net. It appears that the only Retail Tiger is an upgrade DVD. And given the line above from the wiki and the text from Apple's page:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.html

It appears that the Retail (upgrade only) disc is only for non-intel hardware G3, G4, G5... which are specific Mac's since there are no generic G3, G4, G5 computers.

And if the intel version of Tiger is currently only available factory installed on Mac hardware. Then I think both of these things clearly express to the consumer that there is no intel OSX tiger retail disc to buy and install.

So I might not remember what is on the box right now, but I am guessing that it most likely does clearly state the system requirements. And I doubt it says anything about generic x86 Intel hardware. :)

As my other posts in this thread have mentioned. I am not going to get into the argument of Legel vs illegal. That really is none of my business.

So back to the topic title "Can you run OS X on a non mac computer?"
Answer: Yes. (Hacked installer to by pass Trusted computing)

But obviously people want to talk about the 2nd interpretation of this title. "MAY you run Mac OS X on a non mac computer?"
Simple answer: Nope.

First the retail box most likely states system requirements that doesn't include non-mac hardware. Second, you can't buy a non-mac with OS X already on it. Third, Further research shows that OS X impliments TPM "Trusted Platform Module". Which is a hardware/software combo that ensures that the "Platform" are trusted for running the software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.4

So as for "Can" you... sure, but you won't be able to using the retail disc. It just won't work.

I am guessing the thread author isn't still reading this thread with so many responses aimed "May you run..." instead of the question "Can you run...".

Good luck people. I hope this helps people start thier own research. :)

[hanzomon4]

The iso that people have been using to get OSX on pcs is the developer version of OSX (10.4.4 ?) that has some patch to bybass all of the hardware checks, I think.

EDIT:Never mine, I checked the wiki and they have installation guides for versions as high as 10.4.7. Here's the link Installation Guides (http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Installation_Guides)

[xenon2000]

The iso that people have been using to get OSX on pcs is the developer version of OSX (10.4.4 ?) that has some patch to bybass all of the hardware checks, I think.

EDIT:Never mine, I checked the wiki and they have installation guides for versions as high as 10.4.7. Here's the link Installation Guides (http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Installation_Guides)

Via the osx86project link you posted, I got to the install page.
http://www.profit42.com/index.php/2006/06/29/osx-1047-on-your-x86-windows-computer/

It clearly states all over the wiki as well as the final install page that it "requires a prepatched image". So I would like to clarify this once again. It is not currently possible to install OS X onto non-mac hardware using the retail DVD you buy in the stores. Which the retail disc is only for PPC cpus anyways. And the intel version is factory installed only at this time also.

So all install guides and help will require that you download or get the image from someone that has downloaded a "prepatched" or modified iso image.

[kinghajj]

It's morally and legally wrong.

But totally cool. :cool:

Anyways, yes, bjweeks, it is ethically and legally wrong to install Mac OS X on non-apple hardware. Apple makes a product, and because they only license the product to you, they have a right to dictate on which hardware you may run their OS.

But I still want to run their OS on my system. And when there's a will, there's a way. People won't let little things like EULAs and copyright laws get in their way of having the cheap thrill of using Mac OS X on their Intel box.

People don't always follow the law--in fact, on the internet, breaking the law is extremely ubiquitous. As one poster wrote, most people have some illegitimate software on their computer.

[xenon2000]

man, why does this thread have to be filled with wasted posts about "legal", "moral" ,etc? How can the author's question be more clear?

He asked "Can you run..", not "May you run".

I am curious if there is 1 person here that has never had 1 MP3 on their computer they didn't pay for. Or has never copied a CD song onto a cassette tape. Or recorded a VHS tape, etc, etc. I mean come on, this isn't a thread about legal, morals, judgements, etc.

And if you are perfect and have never or currently follow all rules 100% to the letter... then good for you. You are officially better than the majority of mankind and we salute you. But can you please leave your judgemental comments out of this thread? The poster did not ask if using OS X on non Mac hardware was legal or not. They asked if it "can" be done... and more importantly, I think they are most interested in "How" to do it.

If people want to talk about morals and ethics... go to college where they force that down your throat, and start your own thread where you can all gather to talk about it.

Just last week, inside of Intel we built a non mac computer with OSX 10.4.5 and XP SP2, dual boot without Boot Camp. Matter of fact it uses Darwin's boot loader to choose XP or OSX. It's the Developers image available within Intel and sure we have the right to do so... but that isn't what the thread is about.

So yes, it can be done and I am sure you can find the OSX image to try out, legal or not.

[bloodniece]

I installed OSX86 on a 2.8ghz P4 with some problems. Mainly sound and NIC drivers. Luckily, osx86project had all the drivers I needed. I also tried Parallels out on Dapper and XP boots fine, but I cannot boot the x86 OSX Developer disc. In the end I dropped OSX on my P4 since it was not tuned to run on that hardware and since it is stealing. Even if you own a Mac that came with OSX it is stealing, the EULA states it must be installed on Apple hardware. I'm not sure if this is the right place to talk about breaking a EULA. All I can say is check osx86project and the torrent sites for a copy of the dvd.

[netkid91]

OI, all of this leaglity BS is pissing me off. It is perfectly legal to install OSX on a non-apple machine. Although I would personalyl just buy a mac (mac mini is $599, buy a new computer plus OSX), and have plans to buy an iMac myself. Anyways, this reminds me of SOE's famous "anti-emulator" clause in EverQuest's EULA, it is UNENFORCABLE, just like Microsoft Office file formats, people have the right to use software with any other product or service they wish. Now, you do not OWN software, you 'own' a revokable right to use it. But, if you own a legal copy of OSX, you can install it on any machine you damn well please, but only 1 machine per license, if it's on you mac, get another license before you put it on your PC. However, putting OSX on a PC is worthless consdering it was designed for APPLE hardware, not hackintoshes. If you truly want OSX, shell out the $599 and buy yourself a mac mini, or $1299 for a decent iMac.

[hanzomon4]

hackintoshes

:neutral:

[3rdalbum]

A software license is a contract. I have a copy of the OS X license agreement here, and it says that you must use OS X on an Apple-branded computer. If you break this contract, your right to use the software ends.

In some parts of the world, judges may think themselves pretty smart to rule EULAs unlawful, but in all other places the law is the law. It's illegal to break a license agreement and continue using the software, whether or not judges in your juristiction would rule against you in a court of law.

What makes the Mac OS so good, really, is its tight integration with Apple hardware. If you hack OS X to run on a PC, then you're not really experiencing what the operating system has to offer.

[3rdalbum]

Mr. John Doe payed $______ for this software, he only owns PC's however is used to using OS-X on his MAC at work, and mind oyu there is no label on the box that says before he purchase the software you can not install it on anything but a MAC, he opens the box, tries to install OS-X but fails, however he can not return the software being that it is already opened

The OS X license (and probably every other software license) says:

If you do not agree to the terms of this license, do not use the apple software and (if applicable) return the Apple software to the place where you obtained it for a refund.

Simple. If you don't agree with the bit in the license about only using it on Apple-branded computers, you can return the software for a refund. Since the license agreement is inside the box, you can return it after the box has been opened.

[Donnut]

Yes, you can, my brother and I managed to do it. It isn't the best way, but you can do. There are a lot of walkthroughs on this on the net.

[mabhatter]

Okay, I have been curious about this for a while and I decided to try and find an answer. I know that since Apple switched all off their new computers to intel architecture, you can run both Windows XP and Mac OSX on a new apple computer. That means that Mac OSX works with the intel architecture. My question is this: Can you run Mac OSX on non-apple computers with intel chips without an emulator?

yes.... but not legally. During the betas there was (and still are) cracked builds out there that remove the reletively simple apple "trusted computing" locks. Unfortunately, It's reletively hard to set up ... but should work on any recent platform. Note, you need a minimum of SSE2, SSE3 prefered capable processor anything below AMD64 and pentium 4 (no pentium M) simply won't work. The hardware is extremely picky, while much is supported thru the Darwin project, getting it all working is a little tricky. Personally, I had an early pre-release working on the minimum hardware, but it was a bit limited.

Anyway, it's possible technically for apple to release it widely, and there's nothing technical stopping OSX from working on generic hardware except Apple's programming measures. I'd suppose it's out there if you really want it.

[hanzomon4]

Anybody ever got it working in something like vmware? I know it can be done just curious if anyone has done it, Also are OSX apps usable in open Darwin

[Xiunix]

This is a very interesting topic which has gotten pretty far off topic. The fact is that there is NOTHING wrong with using different OS on various systems. It is legally impossible to stop that. It is against the choice of digital rights from the "licenced" purchase of any product.

If you say that installing OSX on other systems is illegal, you are DEAD WRONG. I know this because even though Apple may lead you to believe it can't be done, it would be against absolute law for them to restrict it to that point. Yes, however, they do have the ability to "restrict" certain software usage just for the same reason that you can only get certain programs on certain OS languages. This can't be helped

But this is cut short because if it were to go any further, it would become a monopoly. See it as if one company could put such immense restrictions on their "copyrights' (if it truly is all of theirs)...then other companies could do the same thing. Business and Society Ethics 101 here.

I could do whatever I want with whatever I buy...it is a right I take VERY seriously. I pay for the proram, I pay for the music CD, I can do whatever I want with it...AS LONG AS I do not "create a profit or have disclosure to others." You cannot stop ANYONE from this.

This has nothing to do with morals or legal "loopholes." This is as far black and white you can get.

[TecnoVM64]

Anybody ever got it working in something like vmware? I know it can be done just curious if anyone has done it, Also are OSX apps usable in open Darwin

I got it working in vmware, it's dead slow and really unpleasant, if you really want to try OSX on your x86 box just install it on a spare partition and believe me, you'll see a lot of diffences.

I installed it once on my computer, I have to admit that OSX looks too damn polished and pretty but once you get tired of the same look you have no exit, it's not the fastest OS ever made too. I feel like home on a Linux OS or even Windows, but Mac OS X wasn't for me.

[hanzomon4]

Thats kinda what I expected, I'll just wait till I get my macbook pro. I do hope that apple one day releases OSX to the wider pc world, It would be soo neat to have such a desktop polished *nix-like OS as an option.

By the way for any of the developer types here, how did apple manage to make such a polished desktop environment; I would assume that the open source model could have bested the apple model as far as software is concerned.

Not that gnome, kde, and the others are less capable then the OSX desktop, but the ease of use and integration seems almost unmatched. I guess since they don't have to worry about supporting as much hardware gives them an edge.

[Donnut]

Yeah, they are. I'm running on a macbook right now, and I can tell you, they ARE pretty sweet, but once linux fully supports them, it's bye-bye windows, hello linux. Now if I could only build a triple-boot sytem that works...

[jtraveller]

a question for those using osx on x86 hardware, and who had used a real mac for a while...

if you have used mac and pc (windows, linux, doesnt matter) for a while i bet you noticed that the cursor in a mac runs much more smooth than in a pc, so i wonder if its the same case in a pc with mac os x on it.


and about the legality...
havent you noticed that the individual rights are second after corporations rights when it comes to law making? a law can (and should) be LEGALLY contested if enough people thinks such law is wrong. after all, laws arent perfect and can be revised or even deleted.
actually it is kind of an obligation for a responsible citizen (in a democratic country) to watch the lawmaking process and debate those finds unfair.

who am i kidding, im in mexico and senate passes laws without even reading them down here T_T

[rado_london]

The cursor is well smooth on my HP laptop.

[gruffy-06]

If you are a registered user, you can download the source code for x86 at:

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

Maybe somebody will use that code to create a common x86 OSX-like system.

[hanzomon4]

who am i kidding, im in mexico and senate passes laws without even reading them down here T_T

I'm in the US and they don't read the laws they pass ethier. They just walk the party line...:rolleyes:

[Ptero-4]

Apple have a security (thats not really the right word but it's the best my tired brain can come up with) feature in OS X that stops it from booting on non-Apple PC's. There is an effort to work around it and you'd be best off looking at: http://www.osx86project.org (http://wiki.osx86project.org). Your other option would be to run a PPC version of OS X inside an emulator such as PearPC.

Hope that helps

AggyB

Actually AggyB, AFAIK, OSX for Mactels check for the presence of certain type of TPM chip and only runs if it is found in the computer. Since Apple boxes are just Asus PC's, System76 PC's (which are also Asus PC's) have the same TPM chip and should be able to run OSX just fine.

[Alfa989]

Actually AggyB, AFAIK, OSX for Mactels check for the presence of certain type of TPM chip and only runs if it is found in the computer. Since Apple boxes are just Asus PC's, System76 PC's (which are also Asus PC's) have the same TPM chip and should be able to run OSX just fine.

Only MacBooks are made by Asus, all other Macs are Apple-made...:)

[justin1278]

OS X checks for a specific chip that is built in all Mac computers if the install CD cannot find the chip then it will not install. However there are emulaters that emulate the chip so it is possible to setup a virtual version of OS X.

[turkenator]

What a frustrating post to read
look BJweeks ok u stated that it is illegal and done your part if the people want to continue discussing it or even trying to install it thats there problem not yours basically the whole post is about you ranting its illegal unethical etc... next time if a similar subject opens up please just state that it is illegal and report it to a mod instead of messing up the post and make it go off topic
thanks

[Redcard]

What a frustrating post to read
look BJweeks ok u stated that it is illegal and done your part if the people want to continue discussing it or even trying to install it thats there problem not yours basically the whole post is about you ranting its illegal unethical etc... next time if a similar subject opens up please just state that it is illegal and report it to a mod instead of messing up the post and make it go off topic
thanks
You realize that you sound incredibly unintelligent, turkenator, by not using punctuation or proper english. Further, BJWeeks hasn't commented since mid august , september at the latest. It's November 2 right now.

Your post is out of line. Reported.

[PriceChild]

Lets get back on topic please :)

[turkenator]

sorry about the punctuation i was in a hurry
i know he hasnt sent messages in a while but i just had to get it off my chest lol

[ernestmac13]

CPU-Z says my 2.8 Ghz P4 supports SSE and SSE2, is this sufficient to run OS X? My box has 1.5 Gigs of Ram but, only 512 k of L2 cache. How much space should I set aside for OS X? What version do I need? To bad Apple doesn't sell both power PC and Intel based OS X in one Box as, I have a 600 Mhz iBook and it would be nice to pay one price rather than have to pay twice.

Thanks

[Frak]

Use OS X86 JaS or Uphuck edition, if you use AMD, Tubgirl has a really great DVD Image for AMD Processors.

EDIT
OS X requires at least 256MB of RAM. But will run very responsively on 512.

[brokenstrides]

I thought I heard something awhile back about apple realeasing OS X to be used on PC? I could have sworn there was something about that recently, so that would solve the legality issue, and really, the guy asked if it is possible, not if it is legal, it obviously, it IS possible, since when does anyone go through life without breaking at least one law? As far as an EULA holding up in court, I doubt it would stand.

If Apple did that, they'd lose the biggest selling point of their computers... A lot of people would buy OS X for PC, but even more would just steal it...

[Frak]

If Apple did that, they'd lose the biggest selling point of their computers... A lot of people would buy OS X for PC, but even more would just steal it...
They did though, it was called:

Apple Mac OS X 10.4.x Developer Edition

It ran on most PC hardware.

There's even a 10.5.x version out now.