OSx86

[(MoC)]

Highly improbable. HP and Dell are both Microsoft's {censored}.

 

Yeah, all the companies that make windows compatible stuffs are under the M$ rule!

[SDRacer48]

Highly improbable. HP and Dell are both Microsoft's {censored}.

 

Dell is not, I mean they do offer laptops with Ubuntu.

[(MoC)]

Great, after a few years of profit they'll come out with "Premium Versions" which are going to be like Vista.

UHH

[fryke]

Gotta say Leopard changes a lot of this. It is now possible to go out & buy a copy of os x 10.5, and with a few small adjustments install it on non-apple hardware.

Morally: I'd say that as long as you have bought your copy of leopard, this mitigates a great deal of what people see as the "immoral" aspects of osx86.

Don't you see that you're just bending morality here instead of flat-out breaking it? Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard can, legally, only be installed on a real Mac. If you ask the person selling Leo to you, he or she will tell you you need a Mac with at least a G4 processor running at 867 MHz. This does _not_ include "the any-PC" you want to install it on, because that's simply not a Mac. Saying you've paid Apple 129 USD for Leopard certainly does *not* make it morally right. Buying Leopard is merely paying for your own conscience. What do you do if your conscience is still bothering you? Buy more copies of Leopard? Will that make it any better or even morally right? Surely not. That's just like those guys who think they're clever and buy the EDU version of some software without actually being legit. They should be honest to themselves and pirate it, IMHO.

 

That said: I think that right now would be a great time for Apple to open things up. Vista, viruses etc. are still bothering a lot of people, Apple's in a great spot with their success stories (iPod, iPhone etc.). So if they'd truly _want_ to open OS X up to be used on any PC, they should – and probably would – do it now. They don't. For two reasons:

 

1.) Steve Jobs doesn't want his work to run on ugly PCs. He doesn't like that. That's probably the more relevant reason. But still:

 

2.) The Mac _is_ a success story currently. Apple has started to win market share in recent months and years. So it simply doesn't look like a necessity to open things up. The old argument of "Apple would rule if only they'd sell to PC users" doesn't sting anymore, because Apple _already_ is making (slow, but steady!) progress.

 

So yes, running Mac OS X on your PC is probably legally and morally wrong. If you can live with that, that's fine. Although it might sound shizoid: I firmly believe that I should not legally/morally run OS X on my Hackintosh, and yet I feel those Hackintoshes are actually helping Apple, because most PC users who actually got OS X to run on their PCs "see the light" and that the OS and the apps for it are actually great. They surely see Apple as a viable alternative when asked about what computer to buy.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Dell already applied to Apple and was refused.

Dell is on top for a reason. At least they try.

[yangj08]

Don't you see that you're just bending morality here instead of flat-out breaking it? Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard can, legally, only be installed on a real Mac. If you ask the person selling Leo to you, he or she will tell you you need a Mac with at least a G4 processor running at 867 MHz. This does _not_ include "the any-PC" you want to install it on, because that's simply not a Mac. Saying you've paid Apple 129 USD for Leopard certainly does *not* make it morally right. Buying Leopard is merely paying for your own conscience. What do you do if your conscience is still bothering you? Buy more copies of Leopard? Will that make it any better or even morally right? Surely not. That's just like those guys who think they're clever and buy the EDU version of some software without actually being legit. They should be honest to themselves and pirate it, IMHO.

 

...

 

So yes, running Mac OS X on your PC is probably legally and morally wrong. If you can live with that, that's fine. Although it might sound shizoid: I firmly believe that I should not legally/morally run OS X on my Hackintosh, and yet I feel those Hackintoshes are actually helping Apple, because most PC users who actually got OS X to run on their PCs "see the light" and that the OS and the apps for it are actually great. They surely see Apple as a viable alternative when asked about what computer to buy.

I still don't see how any law could make installing an OS that is not native to your computer illegal. If such a law exists I am glad that sich a law does not exist where I live, where an Apple reseller is completely free to say "Oh, that's a normal PC- here's what you'll have to do to use Leopard on it" and help out along the process (being the country with the largest population in the world helps a little- Apple wants more customers and the best way to do that is to hook them on the experience first). I also don't see what the moral wrong is. I'ver certainly not stolen anything from Apple.

[fryke]

You can buy a Picasso and take a dump on it. While that might be interesting - and may even get some artist aroused - it doesn't make it morally right. Intellectual property is a {censored}, but you should read about it regardless.

[InorganicMatter]

Don't you see that you're just bending morality here instead of flat-out breaking it? Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard can, legally, only be installed on a real Mac. If you ask the person selling Leo to you, he or she will tell you you need a Mac with at least a G4 processor running at 867 MHz. This does _not_ include "the any-PC" you want to install it on, because that's simply not a Mac. Saying you've paid Apple 129 USD for Leopard certainly does *not* make it morally right. Buying Leopard is merely paying for your own conscience. What do you do if your conscience is still bothering you? Buy more copies of Leopard? Will that make it any better or even morally right? Surely not. That's just like those guys who think they're clever and buy the EDU version of some software without actually being legit. They should be honest to themselves and pirate it, IMHO.

 

Legal? There's no legal questions here. An EULA is an extremely grey area as to wether it is a legally binding agreement or not, and has been thrown out of court on MANY occasions.

 

The only, only, ONLY legal barriers for OSX86 have been pirating the install media, and modifying Apple's proprietary kernel. Neither is a barrier - you can walk into any Best Buy and buy Leopard off the shelf, and you can run said install without using modified kernels. Both legal barriers are gone.

 

OSX86 is legal. The Apple elites need to face it, and stop trying to use this argument so they can make themselves feel better for spending crazy amounts of money on proprietary "authorized" hardware.

[Ikshaar]

I almost never buy a game or software without testing it first. eg. game which don't offer downloadable demo are out of question (only exception is Blizzard because they never released something that I did not like - but you don't have to share that idea).

 

Back to OSx86, same idea, I would never buy a Mac - especially considering the price - without testing if it would fulfill my needs. Hence OSx86 was the perfect occasion. I am now at the point where I successfully have installed it and can run most of it. Few things still crash but I have accelerated graphics and decent speed.

 

So results in the end:

- I like the sleek aspect of OSX, and I really would like to have a desktop with it. I would trade by Windows XP for it, but...

- I am really disappointed of the lack of features which I get accustomed to using Linux especially - lack of native ogg vorbis support being the most annoying as well as the lack of GPU power (graphic card options are terrible for the gamer than I am).

 

So in the end, I might not yet buy a Mac but sure OSx86 showed me what to look for in the next Apple annoucement. And if Apple makes the right offering, then I might rejoin the ranks. Thanks to OSx86.

[nagal]

OSX86 is legal.

 

Speaking from the stand point of the US, it is NOT legal as such legality of specifically invalidating the EULA of OS X for install on non Apple labeled hardware has never been determined in a court of law. Until it is ruled as legal, it falls into the area of being illegal.

 

There is a good case for its legality but that still does not make it legal and until someone goes to court for it or Apple takes someone to court over it, we will never know the legal standing of OSx86 in the US.

[yangj08]

On the other hand, certain countries do not treat the EULA as absolute, especially if it takes away the customer's rights to use it as he/she pleases.

 

For the US, though, someone really should test that "Apple-labeled" part of the EULA- will those Apple stickers that seem to (used to?) come with OS X be all right?

[SticMAC™]

I'd BEG to disagree, Less than a year ago Dell had lenghty discussions with Apple to include 10.5 on their latest product the XPS 1 but ot no avail, so they opted to have either vista or Ubuntu linux shipped as standard choice!

i'm currently running 10.5.1 on one of them, and it make that "movie thing" from apple look STUPID!

 

SticMAN

 

Highly improbable. HP and Dell are both Microsoft's {censored}.

 

This is my View on the topic!!!

We have argued the following,

1) You may purchase an LEGAL Apple Mac, Software?

2) You may rebuild it into a different case for heating issues, and transfer Logo?

3) You may replace the memory with Kingston Modules, for faster access?

4) You may replace the Intel Proccessor from duo core to Quad?

5) You may replace the Graphics card to accomodate you gaming needs?

6) You may replace the DVD Writer, with a BlueRAY for Backup Capacity?

7) You may replace the Keyboard and Mouse for a more Ergonomical friendly Logitech?

8) You may replace the existing Audio with a 7.1 Surround Creative for sound in gaming?

9) You may replace your Harddrive with a 1TB Maxtor for enlarging your storrage capacity?

10) You may purchase a 83" HDMI 1080i LCD TV/Monitor toaccommodate your gaming

Let me see whats left........? the powercable!

The Apple Store told me to cut the cable and fit my own PLUG!

What i'm seeing here is... you wont have much of a warranty left unless you have all this done at the Apple Shop,

 

Then what are we to do?

 

"on a single Apple-labeled computer" I got some REALLY cool Apple labels with my new IPOD!

 

Sticman

Learn to flow not fight the system.......

 

QUOTE(MetalFishX @ Dec 8 2007, 05:38 PM) People, just an advice, to prevent you bad surprices... Dont talk abut LEGAL because it wont be legal anyway.. Read Leopard licence here: http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.Apple specified that you can't install Leopard on a non Apple machine; so no mather how you install Leopard on pc, it wont be legal anyway

[Inepsa]

I would be a Mac guy if they would sell Leopard so I can install it on any machine I want. There hardware is overpriced and not worth it. If they start selling licenses to everyone that wants to use a Mac, then I will put it on all of my computers.

[socal swimmer]

you would only be a mac guy for a little while. after that Apple would go belly up, or leave computers. So no more macs. Selling OS X is not profitable!

[Inepsa]

Then they should lower their prices on hardware prices. You can build amazing machinery for the same price as a piece of Mac hardware. They could be far more competitive with lower prices.

[robotskip]

Microsoft survives on selling Windows licenses though of course, that's enabled them to expand into other areas.

 

I wish someone would create an app that replaces the Dock with a kind of Gnome panel/Windows startbar in the same style as the top bar in OSX. :/

[Colonel]

I wish someone would create an app that replaces the Dock with a kind of Gnome panel/Windows startbar in the same style as the top bar in OSX.

 

Dock > Taskbar

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

 

Dock > Taskbar

Dock alone, no... but dock + expose > Taskbar.

[newbmac]

I'd BEG to disagree, Less than a year ago Dell had lenghty discussions with Apple to include 10.5 on their latest product the XPS 1 but ot no avail, so they opted to have either vista or Ubuntu linux shipped as standard choice!

 

Interesting. do you have a citation for this information? I had never heard such a thing....

[Mr. Harrison]

I understand that if Apple takes the exclusive OS X from their expensive hardware, then they would obviously lose money. So what they should do is make an OSX86 that partially works more or less with PC's (which is what we're working with now), work on the A/V drivers a little more, provide NO SUPPORT FOR IT, YOU HACK IT YOURSELF!!!, and sell it for $50. It would legalize the usage of OSX86, people would still be compelled to use a Mac because they're not getting the max performance, usability, and support out of a real Mac, and Apple would be getting money and marketing off this hackery. I think they would be able to give the PC users a taste of Mac without having to hurt their sales of iMacs and such. It would also ease the inevitable transition of OS X to PC's, but to pull that off, they need to creep into the world of Windows, and start getting compared side by side with XP and Vista and the upcoming Vienna. Then they can overcome less than 5% and make it safe to crawl into the PC market and make OSX86 profitable.

[S.SubZero]

So what they should do is make an OSX86 that partially works more or less with PC's (which is what we're working with now), work on the A/V drivers a little more, provide NO SUPPORT FOR IT, YOU HACK IT YOURSELF!!!, and sell it for $50.

This would never work, as even if they forced you to etch "I will not sue Apple if this causes data loss" on your arm with a razor blade, the minute you lose that business critical file when the OS glitches and blows up the data, you'd be screaming for blood and hiring lawyers.

 

---

 

OSX86 is an opportunity for me to tinker with OS X and learn about it without having to buy a Mac. I don't do anything particularly productive with it. If I blow it up (like I have done a lot lately) it's not a big deal, I can re-install it at my leisure. If nothing else I can mention OS X on my resume.

 

I admit I am kind of relying on iTunes, since I don't like the Windows version at all. My friend got me one of those gift certificates for Christmas and I've been downloading songs to my iPod, AND listening to cool french techno on their audio streams. My iPod is now formatted for Mac, so I am kind of stuck with it unless I feel like re-doing it again with the Windows version (NOOO).

[kinkster]

I understand that if Apple takes the exclusive OS X from their expensive hardware, then they would obviously lose money. So what they should do is make an OSX86 that partially works more or less with PC's (which is what we're working with now), work on the A/V drivers a little more, provide NO SUPPORT FOR IT, YOU HACK IT YOURSELF!!!, and sell it for $50. It would legalize the usage of OSX86, people would still be compelled to use a Mac because they're not getting the max performance, usability, and support out of a real Mac, and Apple would be getting money and marketing off this hackery. I think they would be able to give the PC users a taste of Mac without having to hurt their sales of iMacs and such. It would also ease the inevitable transition of OS X to PC's, but to pull that off, they need to creep into the world of Windows, and start getting compared side by side with XP and Vista and the upcoming Vienna. Then they can overcome less than 5% and make it safe to crawl into the PC market and make OSX86 profitable.

 

 

Or they could just leave the Mac hackers alone, since they probabaly wont cause much loss of profit anyway and might increase interest in OS X.

[qlayer2]

Apple will never license/sell the OS X software, they don't have the vendor support on internal crew to support the monsterous mass of hardware available. The "hacked" version with no support would not work, because you would see clone companies really take off, and take marketshare from Apple directly.

 

I owned a G3 ibook, and it was a great laptop while it lasted. I replaced it with a dell vostro 1500 with a hacked version of OS X and XP. It cost me $800 and feature for feature is nearly identical to the macbook pro (slightly smaller hard drive 160 v 250, more memory 4gb v 2gb, 2.3ghz v 2.5ghz processor).

 

Until Apple expands its product line to include disposable laptops ($500-900 with an average lifespan of 2 years) and reasonable towers with upgradeable components ($600-1000 with an average lifespan of 3-5 years with incrimental upgrades), which make up about 80% of the home PC market, their marketshare won't expand.

 

With the Vista debacle, I can't believe no one at Apple has pushed this idea through yet. The components are out there, the osx86 people here have proved it.

[kinkster]

I dont think Apple or Steve Jobs necessarily want a large market share.

[Josh Fee]

So I haven't read all 9 pages of this thread... I have better things to do (no offense to those who spent time posting on pages 3-8), but here are a few of my thoughts.

 

Apple is a hardware company that has an interface for their hardware. That is all OS X (or 9 or 8...) is, an interface. No one can argue that they are a monopoly by limiting use of this interface to their products. Just like if you bought an iPod and decided "I like the firmware on the iPod... I'm going to put it on my Zune". Just because the firmware (OS X) comes on a DVD doesn't make it any different. Regardless of what you do with that intellectual property, unless you are installing it to their hardware it is ilelgal.

 

An interesting point about the above is that you can open up, take apart, rewire, and modify almost any piece of hardware (say a hard drive for example), and there is no way they can sue you. Sure your warranty will be void, but they cannot prosecute. If you buy a hard drive, modify it, and then distribute that, then you have committed a crime, which leads me to my next point.

 

Both using OSx86 and illegally downloading music can be seen as stealing and in turn can be viewed as morally wrong. That's all fine and dandy, but there is a big difference between the two. Apple is typically not losing customers because of this. Majority, like myself, plan to buy their hardware, recommend to friends, etc. With the music industry, however, when someone downloads a song or an album, they have it. There is no need to buy it, and the record companies are actually losing money.

 

Like in my shpeil about modification and distribution, there is a big gap between hacking OSx86 for your own use and calling it a day, and modifying it and publishing it for the rest of the world to use. Once you do that you are ACTUALLY breaking the law (as opposed to technically breaking the law ) Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate the work that the big names in this community do (you know who you are), but it is probably the most illegal aspect of it all.

 

In the grad scheme of things, we live in cyberspace. I may be sitting in a physical room, but that physical room has nothing to do with the world of the internet besides a number in the format of XXX.XXX.XX.XX called an IP address And no can really be prosecuted based on a number being associated with a torrent tracker (no matter how hard they try )

 

So until the thought police start breaking down our doors, this debate is one of ethical law, when in reality all that matters is practical law.