Mac OS on a PC

[goumples]

I hope that Mac OS will one day be able to be run in a virtually on a PC, or maybe even installable on a PC. Mac OS X is a very rich and functional environment, but I can't seem to justify spending the $$$$$ for an apple computer that matches the hardware specs of a PC that I can build for much much cheaper. Any thoughts on Mac OS for a PC? I read somewhere that Apple isn't too keen on the idea. :(

[Iceni]

You can run OSX 10.4.8 on a regular computer. I've tried it and it works.

A community dedicated to this at www.insanelymac.com

[etotehpii]

I agree with you for desktops. I built my desktop for a lot cheaper than buying from Dell or Hp, for example.

However, Apple's notebooks are comparable with their pc equivalents.

There are some projects working on OSX related to your topic, try searching these forums for more info.

[washu]

Here's your answer!!!
:popcorn:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jungiantheology

[goumples]

Kost makes pretty good videos, but that didnt answer my question.

[jclmusic]

look up osx86 on google.

[3rdalbum]

Why not just run Windows Vista?

[Alfa989]

Why not just run Windows Vista?

?! Maybe because Windows is still crap???

[ZoiaGuyver]

There's a couple of reasons for ppl to prefer Mac OS X to Windows Vista even on x86 machine's. Personally i run OS X on 1 of my Mac's, the rest are Ubuntu. I dont use Windows much really anymore due to the various problems it has, add to this the new Anit-Piracy stuff in Vista which i admit although i agree piracy is against most things i dont see ppl should have an OS that limits theyre ability to use theyre PC because of this.

Mac OS X running on PC's is a very much discussed matter at the moment partially due to what ppl think of Apple long standing Mac users (like myself) have always seen OS X and Mac OS as a flexible enviroment that allowed Apple's PPC arch to keep up with current day tech. The price you pay for Mac OS X is way cheaper than MS Windows, £89 for a non machine specific full version of the latest OS X versus almost £300 for Vista Ultimate, i know which id be going for no matter what the arch was.

Then we get to Virus's there is so much info about this dotted around the net i took the first one i found. This is from "The Register" site


"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."

That was quoted in 2003 (i think it was) last thing i read on it the numbers were substantially higher than that i think around 114,000 known for Windows vs 80 on Mac.

Security has also became a major issue for ppl in recent years as more and more is done online and tbh Windows just doesnt have the "Trust" of its customers when it comes to security.

Theyre are more Windows users because of 2 main things, Windows is well known (much of this due to relentless marketing) and seen to be easy to use. Windows is the same no matter what its running on so familiarity comes into play.

Ive recently switched a few of my friends to Ubuntu and showing them the differences between Windows/Linux and Mac OS X. They have all been much more into Linux as an idea (open source, free and good community support) but have commentated on what seems to be lack of a "Simple" install procedure like Windows and Mac OS X have. As ive tried to explain to them though each application they build from source is optimised to theyre specific machine and the advantages are increased speed and usabiity, they still say about theyre not being one way to install programs, there are many ways :P. Ubuntu has somewhat reached a level where most my friends see synaptic and they are like "wow i didnt know linux could do install that easy!", Ubuntu is def going in the right direction to make a good share of OS users switch and try Linux and for that im really glad. Ubuntu is by far the easiest OS around.

Enough of my Rant though :D

[saulgoode]

The price you pay for Mac OS X is way cheaper than MS Windows, £89 for a non machine specific full version of the latest OS X versus almost £300 for Vista Ultimate, i know which id be going for no matter what the arch was.

I disagree with this (not that I care overly much). If Windows Vista has a similar lifespan to that exhibited by XP then during the course of those seven years, Mac OS X users will have to have purchased four or five upgrades -- each at the cost of £89.

[3rdalbum]

?! Maybe because Windows is still crap???

If you consider OS X to be great, then Windows Vista is just as great.

[Alfa989]

If you consider OS X to be great, then Windows Vista is just as great.

¿¿?? I don't get it, OS X is far superior to Vista, which is a pretty bad OS overall... And in my opinion, OS X is still better (a bit) than Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution out there

[goumples]

I disagree with this (not that I care overly much). If Windows Vista has a similar lifespan to that exhibited by XP then during the course of those seven years, Mac OS X users will have to have purchased four or five upgrades -- each at the cost of £89.

Don't think that Vista will last nearly as long as XP has... In fact i'd venture to guess that XP will actually outlast VIsta in terms of installer base.

I really just want to test drive OS X.. without having to buy apple hardware, thats why I started this thread.. It's the only OS i've never been able to kick around and take apart.

[FoolsGold]

If you consider OS X to be great, then Windows Vista is just as great.
Dude, you're making us Australians look bad. :(

Anyway, yeah I'd be interested in getting OSX working on a PC. I know it's possible, just not sure how useful it is. Might try it as an experiment one day.

[3rdalbum]

Seriously, what does OS X have that Vista doesn't have? Better IAC support for sound and MIDI, that's about it. Oh, and Vista has rolling security updates; whereas Apple waits until it has enough to make a nice big download before releasing them. Yep, it's a real mystery why no-one uses OS X Server...

Both of them lock your system down with proprietry software, closed file formats and DRM. You're passively discouraged from kicking them around and taking them apart. They're both as bad as eachother, it's just that Microsoft is "the evil empire" and Apple is more like the underdog.

[Alfa989]

Seriously, what does OS X have that Vista doesn't have? Better IAC support for sound and MIDI, that's about it. Oh, and Vista has rolling security updates; whereas Apple waits until it has enough to make a nice big download before releasing them. Yep, it's a real mystery why no-one uses OS X Server...

Both of them lock your system down with proprietry software, closed file formats and DRM. You're passively discouraged from kicking them around and taking them apart. They're both as bad as eachother, it's just that Microsoft is "the evil empire" and Apple is more like the underdog.

1.- "Seriously, what does OS X have that Vista doesn't have?" Everything
"Both of them lock your system down with proprietry software, closed file formats and DRM."
Propietary sw locks you down? WTF?? Well, I prefer closed-source app to open-source ones...
Close file formats? Like any other apps
DRM? Not at all in Mac OS X, it hasn't got any DRM in it...

[goumples]

Seriously, what does OS X have that Vista doesn't have? Better IAC support for sound and MIDI, that's about it. Oh, and Vista has rolling security updates; whereas Apple waits until it has enough to make a nice big download before releasing them. Yep, it's a real mystery why no-one uses OS X Server...

Both of them lock your system down with proprietry software, closed file formats and DRM. You're passively discouraged from kicking them around and taking them apart. They're both as bad as eachother, it's just that Microsoft is "the evil empire" and Apple is more like the underdog.

Vista hogs more system resources.. that and in my opinion, the software that comes bundled with the Mac OS is far better than what comes with Vista.. In fact when I install windows the first thing I have to do is clear out all that worthless mess they pack with it, and go out on the internet and get something better.

[ZoiaGuyver]

Wel tbh XP was released in Oct 2002, Vista in Jan 2007 so its actually 4 odd yrs, OS X 10 was realeased March 2001 and has then been updated to its current version OS X 10.4 Tiger which was released in April 2005, Leopard is due in October of this year. The difference being i still run machines on 10.1 Puma without any problems at all (which in MS terms would be like them still supporting/updating 95 which they dont). All the interim releases are done by choice of the user not by force of the company.

The difference is Tiger will still be supported and Available, MS has already stated that as of June this year XP will no longer be available to OEM's and Volume licensing for XP will cease. So if you want to purchase a new PC you wont get the choice of XP.

Also Vista tbh is probably the worst OS microsoft has released its so tied into DRM and security measures that limit the users ability that it goes against everything they so say wanted to achieve.

If you do the maths though in the 5 yrs Windows was around you would have upgraded OS X possibly twice costing you a total of £178 vs MS Windows Vista Ultimate which is £359 Retail (and tbh the only Vista thats even worth anything imo).

Also there is the difference in Hardware requirement's to enable you to run Vista you need a up to date PC, Powerfull processor, lots of memory and a decent GFX card for Aero.

To Run Mac OS X its anything newer than a G3 with firewire and you pretty much get the same abilitys that even someone using the latest Mac Pro has within OS X (apart from the speed ofcourse :P).

I dont really go for the new "Security" in Vista to me its just MS trying to tell the user what he can and cant run. Would you honestly want an OS that takes its own Messenger service as a security threat?, didnt have a Anti-Virus program because the manufacturers of the OS didnt make the SDK's available with details to the companys that needed them? and to top it off has already had to patch a major security flaw in the way Vista handles Cursors of all things.

Microsoft need weekly security patchs or ongoing work because they release such a poor code in the first place, Apple doesnt need constant patching as its primary focus is Security anyways everything else is just bolted on as it were.

Can i also add that OS X can run X11 based apps (as of 10.2) so it opens the path to using/testing new interfaces like KDE and Gnome on OS X (Windows isnt physically able to do this).

Darwin the basis for OS X is open source so ppl can help apple to sort anything they beleive is an issue and apple has good ties with its open source community, MS doesnt have an open source community at all.

DRM was a Tech introduced and forced by MS not Apple. Apple were forced to follow DRM because of licenses with MS for Ofiice, IE and Messenger since these have now ended, Apple has dropped DRM from everything it was tied to.

At the end of the day everyone has theyre own prefference but tbh i would only ever use 3 OS's and none of them are MS Windows (plus thats coming from an OEM for MS, tells you something dont it, when theyre own OEM's lose faith in the company).

But getting back on topic after my rambling OS X can be run on Intel and AMD processors (providing you get a patched version).

If you want to check compatibility of your machine with OS X and have a play with the internals try out OpenDarwin its apples basis for OS X and is available from http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html, it doesnt have things like Cocoa or Aqua but being its the base that these two lay on if you can run this basically you should be able to run OS X

[3rdalbum]

Propietary sw locks you down? WTF?? Well, I prefer closed-source app to open-source ones...

Proprietry software locks down your ability to use it for any purpose you wish; you may only use it in ways that the vendor approves of.


Close file formats? Like any other apps

Any other applications except anything you'll see in open source.


DRM? Not at all in Mac OS X, it hasn't got any DRM in it...

If Mac OS X doesn't have any DRM in it, then neither does Windows Vista. Those TPMs on the motherboards just came as free bonuses from Intel, did they?

I will apologise for my opening remarks though, saying that OS X is as good as Vista. This is in fact, false. Vista has had only a couple of security updates since its release, and these were released as the flaws became known. OS X has had more security updates since Vista's release, and Apple sat on some of those for 5 months before releasing them. So, Vista is possibly better than OS X.

[Alfa989]

Proprietry software locks down your ability to use it for any purpose you wish; you may only use it in ways that the vendor approves of.

What? So you want to use an email app to make your breakfast? Does OSS allow you to scratch your butt with it?


Any other applications except anything you'll see in open source.

For example: I use an open-source app to manage my money called Buddi (http://buddi.sourceforge.net/en/), which uses .buddi files... Which I can't open with any app except the one that created it...
And if I want to share a file created with a closed source app, I can just export it as a PDF... Natively, not like Ubuntu or Windows... :)


If Mac OS X doesn't have any DRM in it, then neither does Windows Vista. Those TPMs on the motherboards just came as free bonuses from Intel, did they?

That TCP chip is there only so that OS X know that the computer is installed on is a Mac, it doesn't use it for anything more than that... :D


I will apologise for my opening remarks though, saying that OS X is as good as Vista. This is in fact, false. Vista has had only a couple of security updates since its release, and these were released as the flaws became known. OS X has had more security updates since Vista's release, and Apple sat on some of those for 5 months before releasing them. So, Vista is possibly better than OS X.

Well, anyone that thinks that Vista is better than OS X obviously doesn't know what he's talking about...
And why do you say that Vista is better only based in the number of security updates that have been released? Why not compare REAL security threads such as viruses:
Windows: 60000
Mac OS X: 0
Linux: 40 or so (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/)...
14 according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses)... :D

And you don't compare things such as 3rd party apps, ease of use, user experience... :P

[nave.notnilc]

Hmmm, back to the actual topic maybe? Has anyone here tried using PearPC? I played around with it a bit, but gave up because my crappy computer needs top be replaced (it is soooo slow). I found it pretty easy, and it worked.

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/

[Alfa989]

Hmmm, back to the actual topic maybe? Has anyone here tried using PearPC? I played around with it a bit, but gave up because my crappy computer needs top be replaced (it is soooo slow). I found it pretty easy, and it worked.

http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/
It works, but is hell slow... :( You could give it a try and see how does it work on your new computer...

[3rdalbum]

For example: I use an open-source app to manage my money called Buddi (http://buddi.sourceforge.net/en/), which uses .buddi files... Which I can't open with any app except the one that created it...

No, but that's because .buddi files are so obscure that nobody has implemented support for them in any other program. But if you decided to migrate to another OSS money manager, you could find someone with some programming skill to add the ability to open .buddi files in the new program; or add new exporting capabilities to Buddi.


That TCP chip is there only so that OS X know that the computer is installed on is a Mac, it doesn't use it for anything more than that... :D

That's DRM; you cannot use the software on anything, or for any other purpose, than the licensor approves of. You just proved my point. Besides, you don't know that the TPM isn't used for anything else or that it won't be used in the future. It's a TPM, not TCP - that's something different, unrelated to DRM.


Well, anyone that thinks that Vista is better than OS X obviously doesn't know what he's talking about...
viruses:
Windows: 60000
Mac OS X: 0

Pot and kettle, pot and kettle. Viruses appear for OS X all the time, yet Mac users still claim the platform is virus-free. The viruses just don't spread too well; it's almost impossible to spread a virus through e-mail when it will only affect some 4% of computers.

I think you should probably take your bat and ball and go home... I'm not sure you understand much at all about open source and computing freedom.

[Alfa989]

No, but that's because .buddi files are so obscure that nobody has implemented support for them in any other program. But if you decided to migrate to another OSS money manager, you could find someone with some programming skill to add the ability to open .buddi files in the new program; or add new exporting capabilities to Buddi.

And if I used a closed source money manager I could probably find someone with a some programming skill to make an import or export plug-in to make the transition...


That's DRM; you cannot use the software on anything, or for any other purpose, than the licensor approves of. You just proved my point. Besides, you don't know that the TPM isn't used for anything else or that it won't be used in the future. It's a TPM, not TCP - that's something different, unrelated to DRM.

¿? Well, I am only going to use a Mac to do everything I want, without Apple looking over my shoulder, plus, I can do anything I want with it... And what's that "you cannot use the software on anything, or for any other purpose, than the licensor approves of"???? If I use an app, it will be to do whatever the vendor wants me to do with it, aka, the purpose of the app... Is it really that hard to understand?
How do I know that Apple is not gonna use TPM in the future? Because that'll ruin their business, and those guys at Cupertino are not stupid...

And I apologize because I confused TPM with TCP... My fault...


Pot and kettle, pot and kettle. Viruses appear for OS X all the time, yet Mac users still claim the platform is virus-free. The viruses just don't spread too well; it's almost impossible to spread a virus through e-mail when it will only affect some 4% of computers.

Viruses? More like proofs-of-concepts that appear all the time... And yes, today (3/05/2007) there are 0 viruses for Mac OS X
And that use of the 4% market share in virus-related statements is total bs... The classic Mac OS still had viruses, despite having less market share than OS X... The same goes for Spectrums, C64s, Amigas... Small market share does not equal smaal number of viruses...

[QUOTE=3rdalbum;2585540]I think you should probably take your bat and ball and go home... I'm not sure you understand much at all about open source and computing freedom.

Now:
I'll explain my thoughts about OSS later on, remind me of it...

[GimmeRed]

I hope that Mac OS will one day be able to be run in a virtually on a PC, or maybe even installable on a PC. Mac OS X is a very rich and functional environment, but I can't seem to justify spending the $$$$$ for an apple computer that matches the hardware specs of a PC that I can build for much much cheaper. Any thoughts on Mac OS for a PC? I read somewhere that Apple isn't too keen on the idea. :(

I loaded OS 10.4.8 on my Dell Inspiron 9300 and played with it for a couple on months. It is a very easy system to learn and much of it is easier then XP.
The only real problems I had with my system was the poor driver suport for my ATI video and it would run a little hotter then XP does. If it were a desktop I'd just beef up the heatsink but I don't want to shorten the life of a laptop with no real gain.
If I could buy a legal copy with full suport I'd do it in a heartbeat.