Can we talk about the Mac OSX x86 project on here as long as we have a warning that it is illegal and give no links to downloads?
cheers
Hynesy

Hum.. Are you saying that the Intel Macs Apple sells are illegal? :p

Should have phrased it better, alot of hackers would wide have hacked OS X to run on normal PC's both intel and AMD architecture. This is obviously illegal and just wondering if we can talk about it here.

The legality of reverse engineering stuff depends on the country and IMHO is not against basic morality.

If you think that you have something to say, do it. Just remember that you are on thin ice and don't be mad when we just delete everything :p

You can talk about it but linking to MacOS downloads is not allowed.

OK exactly what I expected, excellent.
Has anyone used OSX x86 on a normal PC, because when I installed it on my PC it ran but was a bit laggy. Anyone else have this problem?

If you look in the TS gallery I believe someone posted a pic of such software running on a home-made computer, try to ask him/her how the system worked.

I would like to ask why its illegal. I get that its for macs and not made for PCs, but if someone can get it to work on a PC it should be ok...they would still have to pay for the OS software. If they get it like off limewire or something like that, then i can understand, but i think its just silly that its illegal to cross brand it.

just my thoughts.

regards,
trevorlclan

Because you purchase a license to use the OS in ways intended by the software author in this case Apple & Apple forbids using it on anything other than a Mac. You mostly have the DMCA to thank for that.

I don't know why they won't release it for PC, their market share would soar, I certainly would buy it even if it had a heavy price tag.

The current basis of the OS X experience is controlling both ends of the equation, hardware and software, so Macs don't suffer from so called incompatibilities of sorts like Windows Vista because it's only being run in known configurations.

As for discussing OS X x86, I believe we can keep it legal as long as we don't point to illegal downloads.

Yep. Good idea...I’m dual booting with WindowsVISTA Ultimate & Tiger 10.4.10 , had some problems at first but I worked them out. It’s pretty cool.
So... what are we going to talk about?

Hypothetically, If one such as myself were to attempt to dual boot OSX onto my PC would it be easy to accomplish?

If you know your basics Hypothetically Yes

Cool, I might give it a shot. Basics? depends on what you consider bascics. But i reckon I can manage it. My mum has a copy of OSX 10.4 Tiger so Ill try it sometime.

Let me give you an update on OS X after a few weeks of using Leopard (on Apple hardware)... "move along, nothing to see here"

Seriously, is just as nice as Vista can be, maybe a little less hard drive thrashing but just as buggy and unstable XP or Vista can be. Actually, neither of those versions of Windows have a bug that disables your keyboard completely and forces you to restart (OS X does).

I haven't had problems so far with it & where it does stand head above Windows (even Vista) is with Exposé. Flip3D although visually pleasing does not make it easier to manage lots of windows at the same time, Exposé does.

I've been running it for about a month now, I've had no problems with it at all. It is MUCH improved over Tiger for handling Windows machines on the network. Previously you had to double click network, then your machine, then login and check the "Remember in Keychain" box even though it never would (this happens in 10.3 and 10.4). Now in Leopard you already have your network computers visible in the left pane (no double clicking network), then a single click to them connects you (no more logging in after the first time, even after restarts).

Other than that it seems about the same as Tiger. Although TimeMachine is pretty slick, just got that set up a couple days ago.

I thoroughly bricked my hard drive trying to do this; I'm typing this on my PS3. :p Ain't going to stop me trying again though.

I am using a hackintosh Leopard version 10.5.1, works flawlessly on my hardware, in fact it works better than Vista, now all I use it Leopard. That is a big deal, because I was a really windows fan boy.

PS3 has internet? where have i been...

I am using a hackintosh Leopard version 10.5.1, works flawlessly on my hardware, in fact it works better than Vista, now all I use it Leopard. That is a big deal, because I was a really windows fan boy.


where did you get the iso?

If I told you I would be putting techspot in quite a legal predicament not to mention myself getting banned on this forum. Although i can give you a hint. Google.
cheers
hynesy

where did you get the iso?You can purchase the MacOSX Leopard operating system from the Apple website or you can get it at any Apple store. As hynesy just said it is not allowed to discuss means of downloading the ISO here.

I don't know why they won't release it for PC, their market share would soar, I certainly would buy it even if it had a heavy price tag.

I completely agree with you but then it would hurt Mac's hardware sales. Just look at their computers. They offer a Macbook with 1GB DDR2-667 and for an upgrade to 4GB DDR2-667 they charge $850. Any sane person could upgrade it themselves for $80 but for some reason they want to charge a 10X price premium.

I'd love to switch to a Mac OS but there's no way I will buy their hardware.

Yeah, mac hardware is costly, which is why I used a hacked mac, I know of somone that just bought a macbook with 1gb ram, then paided $120 Aussie dollars to upgrade himself, when its about 1400 aussie dollars from mac, its beyond criminal.

Well, if you are someone like me that already has a high end PC why would I need to switch to a Mac? I've used Linux distros (FC8 and PCLOS) without a problem and enjoyed the experience.

Macintosh is just really hurting their own company. Good thing they got smart and went with Intel but they need to take the extra step if they want to compete. I know they might take on issues like hardware support but it would be well worth it to get their OS into the PC world.

There's nothing in it for Apple at all. They make the most margins on their hardware & are very good convincing people to buy it with the aesthetics & because the software "just works". They won't have any of that if they simply allow MacOSX to run on any PC.

There's nothing in it for Apple at all. They make the most margins on their hardware & are very good convincing people to buy it with the aesthetics & because the software "just works". They won't have any of that if they simply allow MacOSX to run on any PC.

It doesn't really "just work" as a Mac can go bad just like a PC. Sure, there aren't the viruses and spyware that you have to worry about but there are crashes and hardware failures like a PC.

Mac has what, 5% of the market? That's not enough to compete. Even AMD has more than that against Intel. Shamefully Linux has like 1.5%...

That's not enough to compete.That's what you don't get, they don't need/have-to compete. Apple as a company simply has to be profitable & it is doing very well, there isn't a single benefit in releasing MacOSX to be used on any PC.

That's what you don't get, they don't need/have-to compete. Apple as a company simply has to be profitable & it is doing very well, there isn't a single benefit in releasing MacOSX to be used on any PC.

If they don't have to compete then there wouldn't be any Mac vs PC (Windows) commercials out there would there?

The reason Apple is doing so well is mainly because of iTunes along with the iPod and iPhone. That is what is bringing the mass loads of profit to Apple, not their Mac brand of personal desktops and laptops.

I see every reason to release Mac OS to the PC. I'm getting tired of the same old Windows and Linux is still (always) developmental software even with WINE. That's just my opinion though.

If you're tired of it, you can purchase a Mac. On that system MacOSX will work much better than on a PC (even if Apple were to support such a system). The closed system in this context is perfectly logical & is a benefit to the overall quality of the system. You lose all of it if you allow MacOSX to run on any machine.

No, I have a very fast PC with Windows on it now (see my "System specs"). Why would I go spend more money for the same computer?

In the long run I really think that Apple will give in and do the smarter thing. They already took the step by going with Intel. May as well finish the leap...

& I for one do not see them making that step unless someone quite clueless takes over the controls of the company. The OS works very well because it looks good (but so does Vista), because the software is complete & polished but most importantly because of the relatively compact & well known hardware ecosystem it is meant to run on.

Take that away & you simply have a different OS than Windows & people don't change their habits just for something different, there has to be a benefit to the change.

& I for one do not see them making that step unless someone quite clueless takes over the controls of the company. The OS works very well because it looks good (but so does Vista), because the software is complete & polished but most importantly because of the relatively compact & well known hardware ecosystem it is meant to run on.

Take that away & you simply have a different OS than Windows & people don't change their habits just for something different, there has to be a benefit to the change.

They already changed from PowerPC to Intel. People don't change their habits just for something different, eh? ;)

You must've missed the part where I said that there has to be a benefit. Going from PowerPC to Intel has brought so many advantages from performance, thermals & part availability that I wouldn't know where to start.

You must've missed the part where I said that there has to be a benefit. Going from PowerPC to Intel has brought so many advantages from performance, thermals & part availability that I wouldn't know where to start.

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

Seems to me like direct competition that Apple is trying to make here. If you are going to compete with Vista then it has to be on the same level. Is Leopard really faster than Vista? I don't know, not on the same hardware so I cannot really compare.

I believe those ads are probably meant to attract new users rather than current Windows users. The previous "Switch" ads were there to entice users to migrate to MacOSX, I don't think that's the case here.

What's encouraging people to migrate is the "ease of use" that's been lost when going from XP to Vista. Even with a good machine where Vista is fast enough, it doesn't change the fact that menus have been rewritten in non logical ways, settings are found in non intuitive areas & you simply need more clicks to do things that required less in XP.

I believe those ads are probably meant to attract new users rather than current Windows users. The previous "Switch" ads were there to entice users to migrate to MacOSX, I don't think that's the case here.

What's encouraging people to migrate is the "ease of use" that's been lost when going from XP to Vista. Even with a good machine where Vista is fast enough, it doesn't change the fact that menus have been rewritten in non logical ways, settings are found in non intuitive areas & you simply need more clicks to do things that required less in XP.

Not sure what "easy of use" is lost going to Vista. I sure learned it rather quickly. Only slight differences but it honestly isn't as severe as someone going from Windows to Mac.

Not sure how many "new users" there are out there for a computer. Windows has 93% of the market and being that they are attacking Vista directly it seems to me that they are trying to get people from Windows XP.

I still like that ad for Mac's hourly backup thing. Unsure if Mac was aware of Shadow Copy in Vista. They also attack UAC but fail to point out that it protects against spyware/malware. Just funny sometimes.

But those ads surely wouldn't get me to "switch" or buy into their expensive hardware. They need something a lot more.

Not sure what "easy of use" is lost going to Vista. I sure learned it rather quickly. Only slight differences but it honestly isn't as severe as someone going from Windows to Mac.It took me a while to figure out how to simply share files from the Vista machine. I'm still looking for how a way to hide the widget sidebar (http://www.technologyquestions.com/technology/windows-vista/50308-there-way-auto-hide-gadget-sidebar.html?q=windows-vista/50308-there-way-auto-hide-gadget-sidebar.html) until I put the mouse cursor on the left. I have quite a few more problems about simple things that should've been simple to do in Vista but aren't & I've been using Windows for a while now (maybe that's the problem).

I still like that ad for Mac's hourly backup thing. Unsure if Mac was aware of Shadow Copy in Vista. They also attack UAC but fail to point out that it protects against spyware/malware. Just funny sometimes.Well Time Machine "just works" (& is included on every Leopard install). Shadow copy is more complicated to get working for someone discovering computers & furthermore is only available on certain editions of Windows Vista (Home doesn't have it).

ps. maybe we should stop steering this topic away from the original post.

jonmcc33 - Its clear you won't switch to OS X unless (and even then probably not) it is released natively for traditional Windows boxes, thats fine, but the debate on why you think Vista is just as good doesn't need to continue here, in another thread fine.


Back on topic - I tried a few times to get it to work on a Pentium D system with repeated failures. I've since gotten rid of that system (had too many PCs anyway) and am considering trying it on a C2D E4400 system. Hopefully that goes a little better.

It took me a while to figure out how to simply share files from the Vista machine. I'm still looking for how a way to hide the widget sidebar (http://www.technologyquestions.com/technology/windows-vista/50308-there-way-auto-hide-gadget-sidebar.html?q=windows-vista/50308-there-way-auto-hide-gadget-sidebar.html) until I put the mouse cursor on the left. I have quite a few more problems about simple things that should've been simple to do in Vista but aren't & I've been using Windows for a while now (maybe that's the problem).

Sidebar isn't a Vista thing. It's just included with Vista. You can get it for Windows 2000, XP and Server 2003 as well...

In regards to file sharing, it works the same was as it does in Windows XP and any other OS. Of course there is the Network & Sharing Center that is different but it rolls a lot of new features into file sharing.

But setting up a share hasn't changed at all.

The best thing about Vista is the Search capability. Go to Start and in "Search" type in anything. It will auto-fill results in the Start Menu for you. Quite easy actually.

Well Time Machine "just works" (& is included on every Leopard install). Shadow copy is more complicated to get working for someone discovering computers & furthermore is only available on certain editions of Windows Vista (Home doesn't have it).

ps. maybe we should stop steering this topic away from the original post.

All versions of Windows Vista have Shadow Copy.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/recover-files-with-shadow-copies-on-any-version-of-windows-vista/

jonmcc33 - Its clear you won't switch to OS X unless (and even then probably not) it is released natively for traditional Windows boxes, thats fine, but the debate on why you think Vista is just as good doesn't need to continue here, in another thread fine.

Back on topic - I tried a few times to get it to work on a Pentium D system with repeated failures. I've since gotten rid of that system (had too many PCs anyway) and am considering trying it on a C2D E4400 system. Hopefully that goes a little better.

Don't be confused. I am not a Vista fanatic. I'm just very familiar with it. I actually enjoy Linux quite a bit more.

Won't switch? Well, when I get a few thousand dollars that I can afford to throw away just for the sake of being able to use Mac OS X then maybe I'll "switch". That's besides the point that I am trying to make, which is merely that Apple will gain quite a bit from selling a universal OS as opposed to their computer line.

In regards to your failed attempts with a Pentium D, I wouldn't blame that all the way. It doesn't work on my Core 2 Duo E6400 either. I'm going to drop my PATA DVD burner for a SATA burner to see if that works better. I don't think "Hackintosh" likes my JMicron PATA controller very much. Not sure...

Didou:
They will never get it -- give up.

PC people are not Mac people and conversely. They work, think, and act differently.
I've had both since '89 and watched the parade for decades now -- it's been very interesting.

I've preached "it just works" forever and to whoever will listen.
I'll refrain from doing so here as T.S. is clearly biased toward PCs --
let's just agree to disagree on the theological nature of Macs vs. PCs :)

They offer a Macbook with 1GB DDR2-667 and for an upgrade to 4GB DDR2-667 they charge $850.The last time I checked (which was probably about two weeks ago), they were charging about $200 for a 2GB module meant for late-model Macbook Pros. Yes, still a substantial markup, but just wanted to clear that up.

Also, have you looked at PC vendor prices? I just recently had a client tell me he wanted to upgrade his harddrive (Lenovo 12"). He found a 100GB drive on Lenovo's website for nearly $250. I told him that would be crazy, bought him a 160GB drive AND installed it for nearly half that. So this isn't just Apple... Your argument that Apple is price gouging implies that other manufacturers don't, which is misleadingly false... although that certainly doesn't change the fact that they are expensive.

And honestly, their products aren't THAT much more expensive. Look at what you get with the MacBook Pro and compare it against any other PC laptop with roughly the same specs at about 1" thick. First off, you won't find many. Secondly, you'll notice there really isn't that much of a premium, considering. Granted, you don't get much bang for your buck - but again - you are paying for that 'experience' and the unique features + homogeny that the Apple Universe offers.

Apple will gain quite a bit from selling a universal OS as opposed to their computer line.You answered the argument to this yourself. "I completely agree with you but then it would hurt Mac's hardware sales." Apple's main selling points are its OS and the 'Apple experience'. As long as Mac OS remains a compelling product, people will buy their expensive hardware because they are locked in. If they offered OS X for non-Apple PCs, eventually people would be running OS X on cheap PCs. Not ONLY would that would cut into Apple's hardware profits, but it would chew up OS X's polish and shine because some things work on Mac OS only because its on an Apple platform.

You don't seem to (Well, I think you refuse to) understand it. Apple isn't just another regular computer vendor like HP and Dell. They want to control your experience from top to bottom, service to parts. People choose Apple - not only because it is chic and trendy - but they want that experience. This is worth money to some people...

Because of the control Apple has over its own (sometimes rebranded) products, they can do things like the slick and drop-dead simple Airport Admin Utility or turn an Apple computer into an external firewire disk by holding the "T" key during boot... These are just a couple of things that only work because Apple itself has its grubby little mitts in everything related to it.

Also, because of that homogeny, they can offer good quality support. Actually, there are LOT of advantages to having a small product ecosystem. More than I care to talk about or could even think of. Apple is reaping that benefit of that small ecosystem right now as about 1 out of 11 laptops sold are Macbooks. And if you look at it in the correct perspective (manufacturer vs manufacturer, not just PC vs Apple), that makes them a huge player among the top laptop brand names.

Yeah, I'm a PC person myself. I don't like being 'locked in' and certainly like paying 'too much' for stuff. But there are reasons to all of the recent Apple phenomena, as much as you don't want to believe. :)

Didou:
They will never get it -- give up.

PC people are not Mac people and conversely. They work, think, and act differently.
I've had both since '89 and watched the parade for decades now -- it's been very interesting.

I've preached "it just works" forever and to whoever will listen.
I'll refrain from doing so here as T.S. is clearly biased toward PCs --
let's just agree to disagree on the theological nature of Macs vs. PCs :)


Macs are already using x86 technology now. There's not much that separates them from the PC in regards to hardware.

Biased towards the PC or Windows? The PC, sure. It's the "open source" technology of the world. Any PC parts can fit into any PC computer and work as long as there are drivers for the OS.

If you think I'm biased towards Windows then you've clearly missed my Linux comments. I'm a happy Linux user as well, thank you.

The last time I checked (which was probably about two weeks ago), they were charging about $200 for a 2GB module meant for late-model Macbook Pros. Yes, still a substantial markup, but just wanted to clear that up.

Go to apple.com/store and select the 13-inch white Macbook. It comes standard with 1GB RAM. Upgrade to 4GB RAM is $500. I guess they've dropped the price in the past week. Still, you can buy that same thing for $100 from NewEgg, even "made-for-Mac" DDR2-667. So they are charging a huge premium and for what?

Also, have you looked at PC vendor prices? I just recently had a client tell me he wanted to upgrade his harddrive (Lenovo 12"). He found a 100GB drive on Lenovo's website for nearly $250. I told him that would be crazy, bought him a 160GB drive AND installed it for nearly half that. So this isn't just Apple... Your argument that Apple is price gouging implies that other manufacturers don't, which is misleadingly false... although that certainly doesn't change the fact that they are expensive.

I'm comparing Apple to the PC, not Apple to PC OEMs (vendors). You cannot put a Mac together piece by piece like you can a PC. So you MUST purchase a Mac as a whole.

You answered the argument to this yourself. Apple's main selling points are its OS and the 'Apple experience'. As long as Mac OS remains a compelling product, people will buy their expensive hardware because they are locked in. If they offered OS X for non-Apple PCs, eventually people would be running OS X on cheap PCs. Not ONLY would that would cut into Apple's hardware profits, but it would chew up OS X's polish and shine because some things work on Mac OS only because its on an Apple platform.

Oh no! It wouldn't matter if they ran OS X on cheap PCs because Apple would at least profit from the purchase of the license for the OS. Instead they get NOTHING because Windows owns 93% of the market.

You don't seem to (Well, I think you refuse to) understand it. Apple isn't just another regular computer vendor like HP and Dell. They want to control your experience from top to bottom, service to parts. People choose Apple - not only because it is chic and trendy - but they want that experience. This is worth money to some people...

You keep bringing up PC vendors. I'm not comparing against those. The PC wasn't based upon vendors like HP and Dell. The only thing you really gain from a vendor is their tech support and warranty. That's about it. That's what sells a Dell or HP.

Yeah, I'm a PC person myself. I don't like being 'locked in' and certainly like paying 'too much' for stuff. But there are reasons to all of the recent Apple phenomena, as much as you don't want to believe. :)

Recent Apple "phenomena"? If there has been any peak in interest it's because Apple switched to x86 technology when they grew a brain.

I'm comparing Apple to the PC, not Apple to PC OEMs (vendors). You cannot put a Mac together piece by piece like you can a PC. So you MUST purchase a Mac as a whole. Firstly, the 'vendor' hard drive example is a counter example to your '$850 4GB DDR2' upgrade... Not some sort of Lenovo-represents-the-PC-Market vs Apple comparison... Because both you and I know you can use standard PC memory. So your counter point is irrelevant.

Secondly, if comparing Apple to PCs, why not compare them to PC OEMs? That's really the only relevant point to make. Not once have you actually argued the DIY PC angle, so why is it an issue now? Don't change your argument on me...

Oh no! It wouldn't matter if they ran OS X on cheap PCs because Apple would at least profit from the purchase of the license for the OS. Instead they get NOTHING because Windows owns 93% of the market.

It just won't sink in... IT IS NOT ABOUT MARKET SHARE. It is about the Apple experience. THIS is the reason they don't turn OS X into some universal PC commodity... not 'market share'. You can ignore this all you want, but your point is invalidated by this. OS X on proprietary Apple computers is a philosophy, not a rubber stamp factory.

And you know what, increase market share for what? Great, so now instead of being half of Microsoft's market share value, they could be worth just as much? Maybe more than MS? Has it occurred to you that Apple is already huge and this doesn't really matter? Apple is doing their own thing and it appears they are doing just fine without your insight. :)

You keep bringing up PC vendors. I'm not comparing against those.
Then what ARE you comparing? DIY PCs? Again, you haven't mentioned this angle before, why now? Your argument has been Apples are expensive and Apple charges too much for their stuff. If you want to compare things in a way that makes sense, you need to compare PC vendors to Apple. If you want to talk about DIY PCs, then you need to come out and say it.

Recent Apple "phenomena"? If there has been any peak in interest it's because Apple switched to x86 technology when they grew a brain.Yes, Intel is a huge reason, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple has doubled its market share since the switch... And it is still increasing. Whatever they are doing seems to be doing OK.

Unsure if Mac was aware of Shadow Copy in Vista.... Yeah, just like 2000 and XP. And again, and again (since I feel it is necessary to repeat it to you) it is about the 'Apple experience'. The fact you can use Time Machine to backup to an external drive and boot from it by holding down the Option key without any special modifications, is part of that experience... And again, that is why Apple has a "closed system" way of doing things. And like Didou tried to get across to you, Backup and Restore in Home Edition is a stripped down version that doesn't do a complete backup.


You know, I'm not an Apple fan. But the more I discuss this with you, the more I like Apple. Thanks for that.

You're really going off on a tangent here, you know that right?

You're really going off on a tangent here, you know that right?It's been off tangent for awhile. lol. But thanks for the heads up. :)