Run OSX on your PC useing Ubuntu?

[BWF89]

Has anyone tried this?

http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/index.htm

[Kimm]

probably entirely possible, I doubt that its still running ubuntu though. But perhaps FreeBSD or even Darwin for x86. Problem is:

1. I dont want to risk destroying my install just to try that.
2. As OS X is pretty much the only remaining comertial unix, I would like to support it somewhat, better then supporting MS anyway.
3. Where the heck would I get apps from?

If you want to try... go ahead, try.

[WildTangent]

you just saved me a lot of time buddy :) i just got the torrent for the x86 dev edition, now with these instructions i can install it. however, my legality sense is tingling. id suggest deleting this before we get in trouble. or PM a mod and ask

-Wild

[benplaut]

you just saved me a lot of time buddy :) i just got the torrent for the x86 dev edition, now with these instructions i can install it. however, my legality sense is tingling. id suggest deleting this before we get in trouble. or PM a mod and ask

-Wild

we're in switzerland, right? :-#

[autocrosser]

Yes-there has been a dual-line development of OSX from the 10.04 days--I was wondering when it would crop up--Now than Apple is fronting the I86 chip from Intel---I86 is not the same a X86--close, but running a "different" command set--Sounds like a MOL (mac-on-Linux) solution--The Apple Developer forums have talked about this for about two years & decided that only certain "fringe" user groups would be the only ones to use this approach:???:

You will find that the speed that OS 10.4 runs will be slow--code not set-up exactly for X86--But, as a OSX user for 5 years now, I welcome you to the work I helped create:)

I was part of the Beta team that debugged 10.04 to get it ready for the 10.1 release--and now I'm moving to Ubuntu--I like being on the "real" fringe

OSX is a 'unix release--sort of--big-endian solutions are short-cut & Steve's boys have done some real hack butchery--it still looks wonderfull in it's Aquaness--I just wish that the Linux world would not be so enamored with it--:???:

We have a solution that is special--a large group of VERY talented people that will change the future of computing as it is presently viewed--I have seen more inovating in the last five years than the 20 years before--Let's focus on creating the best OS the World has ever seen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BetaguyGZT]

I'm with Autocrosser on this. I think that while OSX is PRETTY, it really dosen't offer THAT much appeal. It's UNIX (albeit a highly butchered-to-death one). Ubuntu is where the goods are. The TRUE innovation is happening HERE.

Bear in mind that Linux can be MADE to do everything that OSX and Windows can do, given the development, dedication, and time. I truly believe that Ubuntu is going to win where others haven't.

Imagine the Ubuntu that we'll be using five years from now. :D

[poofyhairguy]

id suggest deleting this before we get in trouble. or PM a mod and ask

-Wild

Its fine by me, as long a link to a torrent doesn't follow. The trick only needs a Linux Live CD, the fact that he uses Ubuntu actually is more evidence that we are rocking this Linux world.

I hate to sound like Balmer...but...."drivers, drivers, drivers." Its going to run like crap on anything not made by Apple because of a lack of drivers. Sure...if you are the 1% of PC users that have the EXACT same hardware as a Mac it might work better. But you can bet when the real deal is released that the hardware in the x86 Macs will be changed just enough so that no hardware in the current x86 world will be an exact copy (aka won't be able to use native drivers).

I used a Powerbook all month. OSX is neat, but the best parts are Eye Candy tricks that you can do in KDE (kompose anyone?). The advantage I keep hearing from the "I hate MS, and I tried and hated Linux and I plan to buy (or hack) a x86 Mac" crowd comes down to how easy it is to install Mac software.

But I'll tell you something....it was a shock for me to install software on a Mac. Not because it was hard (a little harder than synaptic, but I'm a nerd) but because you had to pay for the best stuff. I get the best stuff in Linux for free. I guess I could have pirated the stuff but then I might as well be using Windows...

I wish Apple the best in the future. They boost OSS a little more than Microsoft does (darwin anyone?). And OSX IS neat. But, it has one of the biggest problems of Linux on official machines (it can't run MS software) and if you hack it onto a Dell, it has THE single biggest Linux problem but worse (drivers). It great for some people. Works good for my sister. It a good way to sneak a Unix on to people. but they are still the BMW of the computer industry (not the Ford), and that won't change in the near future.

[autocrosser]

Poofyhairedguy, You are right--Steve is not going to "allow" just anyone to install the I86 version on their Dell--etc, Windows is just a software company, while Apple is first & foremost a hardware one--The OS is designed to work best with a very narrow spec as far as performance goes....

As I said, Apple expects people to try to install the OS on systems that it is not designed to run with and with the new chip being so close to the X86 design, you can bet Steve has really good ways to degrade running in a non-approved way.......anything else cuts Apple's throat

The point is---Apple hardware is some of the best the computer world has to offer---at a price. So, there needs to be a real way to justfy the added expense--if you can install OSX on any Dell--Hp--XYZ inc computer, people will buy the lowest bidder,,,and Apple goes down the tubes

I have supported Apple from way back (68K days)--maybe it's because I vote for the underdog in any match--and for the same reasons, I'm now moving to Linux--I can't resist a great fight.........And the people that support the underdog tend to be more aligned with freedom of thought.

Hey---I can still stand on a soapbox at 3 AM:roll:----sorry about the mild rambling--I gave up staying up all night lond ago-------

[agger]

2. As OS X is pretty much the only remaining comertial unix, I would like to support it somewhat, better then supporting MS anyway.


What about Solaris & AIX? Yes, I know: Solaris is free as in beer now, but it's still commercial (and both do some things Linux can't yet, but are not very suitable for end user desktops OTOH).

And even though Apple are smaller than Microsoft, when it comes to
being commercially aggressive (avoid Linux support for iTunes, DRM,
legal clampdown on fans + patents and other "IP" stuff) they're just
as bad, I believe ...

[Kimm]

I dont think you quite understand what I mean. I'm not saying apple as a company is alot better then Microsoft, what I mean is that since there not maby comertial UNIX's left I would much rather support Apple then MS. In my opinion (and probably most peoples) UNIX is pretty much the ultimate breed of OS's because of their stable and higly secure nature whilst if a company like MS would succed in their quest for world domination I would consider switching planet ;-)

And Solaris is I supose comertial but I did not count it since its not as widely spread as OS X (thus the "pretty much") and I didnt know about AIX.

[wmcbrine]

Now than Apple is fronting the I86 chip from Intel---I86 is not the same a X86--close, but running a "different" command set
No. The Intel Macs will use exactly the same processors as "PCs". (Other hardware may differ -- though it doesn't, much, in the developer systems.) "i86" (or more commonly, "i386", as in the Linux source tree) and "x86" are synonyms. The "i" is for Intel, while the "x" stands for the series 8086, 80286, 80386, etc.

You may be thinking of the Intel Itanium, aka IA64*, which does use a completely different instruction set. But Apple won't be using the Itanium.

* As opposed to IA32, which is yet another synonym for x86, coined retroactively by Intel. (IA = Intel Architecture, 32 = 32bit, 64 = 64bit.)

[autocrosser]

Sorry about the terminalogy--I know from the Apple Developer Forums that Intel is making a "special" subset chip for Apple--The reason is that Apple wants Apple software on Apple hardware--unless you go to a bit of trouble to do it (and it won't run as well anyway)

Edit--in any case--the "new" processors are 64 bit--to go backwards to 32 after the G5 would be counterproductive.

[XQC]

Everyone who wants to try it out - keep in mind that you need a CPU that supports at least SSE2, SSE2 and SS3 would be optimal.
Otherwise the apps will refuse to launch.

[wmcbrine]

Sorry about the terminalogy--I know from the Apple Developer Forums that Intel is making a "special" subset chip for AppleI'm sorry, but to the best of my understanding, that's just not true. Indeed, it would defeat what seems to be the primary purpose of the switch: to reduce Apple's reliance on the whims of third-party chipmakers by moving to commodity parts, away from specialty CPUs for which Apple is the only customer. With commodity parts, Intel could still screw Apple, but not without screwing all their other customers at the same time; and in a pinch, Apple could use AMD as a second supplier.

Perhaps you've read that the chips Apple is planning to use don't exist yet. That's true, but it doesn't mean they'll be any different from what other Intel customers will be getting at that time.


--The reason is that Apple wants Apple software on Apple hardwareYes. But they don't need a special CPU to achieve that.


Edit--in any case--the "new" processors are 64 bit--to go backwards to 32 after the G5 would be counterproductive.Nope. Here's the plan, as I've read it: The low-end machines, which are currently based on the 32-bit G4, will be the first to switch -- to a 32-bit x86. Later (by as much as a year, IIRC), the G5-based machines will switch. But they still won't use Itanium. Rather, they'll go to what Intel calls "IA32e" (e for "extensions"), but which the rest of the world knows as "AMD64", or "x86-64".

The interesting thing about AMD64, vs. Itanium, is that it's a true 64-bit extension of the x86 architecture, enhancing it in much the same way that the 386 built on the 286. The Itanium is a radically different architecture which has nothing in common with x86... and it's been less than wildly successful, to date.

[xequence]

The OSx86 bypasses something that is meant to stop people from using osx on normal pcs.


I'm sorry, but to the best of my understanding, that's just not true. Indeed, it would defeat what seems to be the primary purpose of the switch: to reduce Apple's reliance on the whims of third-party chipmakers by moving to commodity parts, away from specialty CPUs for which Apple is the only customer. With commodity parts, Intel could still screw Apple, but not without screwing all their other customers at the same time; and in a pinch, Apple could use AMD as a second supplier.

Apple SAID they switched because steve promised a 3ghz powerpc and broke the promise. Also steve wanted better battery for ibooks and powerbooks which intel had with centrino. Apple also said IBM was hard to work with with their powerpc chips. Most think the real reason was the famed price cuts in 1000+ quanities of the intel chips.

Oh, and also, I am not sure but I think powerpc chips are in most of the gaming systems out there and IBM offered apple a chance to use the gaming power pc chips in their computers. Correct me if im wrong.

[autocrosser]

Personally,I'd like nothing better that to keep the current G4/G5 line--Makes it much harder to write virus/trojans/etc---So, from that point of view, the IBM chips are heads above Intel and AMD---

wmcbrine, I'm just repeating what I hear on Apple Developer net--The interesting part is that nobody really knows what is going the happen--Steve will throw out false rumors like he has always done---I think we will all be suprised when he springs it on us........

[poofyhairguy]

The other problems are with support. Cool thing about Apple is that they are a one stop shop. Putting htis on your Dell prevents you from askin ghelp from Dell OR Apple.

[wmcbrine]

The OSx86 bypasses something that is meant to stop people from using osx on normal pcs.Yes, a chip. (Note: not a modified CPU.)


Apple SAID they switched because steve promised a 3ghz powerpc and broke the promise. ... Apple also said IBM was hard to work with with their powerpc chips. Yep (see below).


Also steve wanted better battery for ibooks and powerbooks which intel had with centrino.Absolutely -- although it's more the Pentium M (or rather a forthcoming CPU based on the same architecture) than Centrino per se; and it's more that the G5 just couldn't be put into a notebook, because of its power and cooling requirements -- while the G4 is showing its age. IBM had (has) no suitable notebook replacement for the G4.


Most think the real reason was the famed price cuts in 1000+ quanities of the intel chips.I don't think that "most" think that, no. In fact, I think those who do think it are a bit confused. The Intel procs may actually cost Apple more than the IBMs -- and God knows the transition will cost them plenty. But the real benefits are potentially much bigger.

Which is not to say that I agree with the decision. I'm very sad to see the PowerPC, and indeed the whole mighty big-endian line, departing from personal computers, leaving nothing but x86 as far as the eye can see.


Oh, and also, I am not sure but I think powerpc chips are in most of the gaming systems out there and IBM offered apple a chance to use the gaming power pc chips in their computers. Correct me if im wrong.They're not in any of them yet; but they are planned as the CPUs for the Playstation 3, XBox 360, and the next generation of Nintendo consoles. The CPU in question is the "Cell processor", which is sort of a PowerPC with eight extra vector processing units. And yes, IBM offered it to Apple; but that was largely an empty gesture. See, while the Cell may be killer for games, it's not very suitable for a general-purpose computer. Despite increased clock speeds, it would actually be a step back for Apple from the G5.

This is exactly why Apple left IBM: IBM was focusing their development on a processor for game consoles, to the detriment of Apple's own requirements.

[TristanMike]

Has anyone tried this?

http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/index.htm
All content removed, this directory is emptyHmmmm, anyone else?

[wellery]

Hmmmm, anyone else?

I'm not sure if this is the same but you may be able to use this:

http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/

[TristanMike]

I'm not sure if this is the same but you may be able to use this:

http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/
Yup, thanx, saw that one already though. I was just wondering if it was just me because I seem to have been experiencing a few internet quirks lately or if the owner of the website was asked to remove it's content. Apple is pretty protective of it's OSX. Just wondering if anyone else was getting it.

[drizek]

Hmmmm, anyone else?
it was just working 10 minutes ago.

the fact taht its no longer online is precisely why i would HATE to have apple replace MS as the supplier of the OS of 95% of the population.

[poofyhairguy]

the fact taht its no longer online is precisely why i would HATE to have apple replace MS as the supplier of the OS of 95% of the population.

Don't worry, that won't happen.