OSX on pc

I've been reading a lot of stuff about how it can be installed on PCs and such. But is it legal? I know there are some illegal ways to do it but what if you do have the OSX cd?

 

Nope...Apple specifically says in the EULA it must be on a machine approved by Apple (aka...no Windows PCs).

 

As night said, the only way to do it would be an illegitimate one.

 

or if you're an apple developer, since they apparently can do this.

 

Awww man. That sorta bites. But I heard it was a B**** to install OSX on a PC. You have to go through linux and all this jazz huh.

 

nah, you just need a prepatched os x disc, and a bootloader that works with both os x and windows. Trust me, you do not want to forget about that. if you do, you (might) corrupt your windows installation (and if you're unlucky your os x installation as well). i was soo pissed off.

 

That is, you would have been pissed off if you had tried installing OS X, which you didn't of course... being illegal and all that.

 

of course that was hypothetical anger

 

So can sombody explain why Windows is allowed on a Mac? And OSX is not allowed on a PC?

Is MS forced to accept this?

 

It's just that Apple stated in their license agreement that OS X is only allowed to be installed and run from Apple machines. MS simply didn't mention anything about that in their license agreement, so Windows can be installed on any machine legally.

 

Thanks, but that doesn't explain ...Why?

I'm pretty sure their has been requests to do so. And why wouldn't MS just do the same?

 

Microsoft doesn't want to be limited to specific companies, like how Apple makes their own hardware so they don't run OS X on somebody else's computer...

Microsoft makes more money by allowing anyone that can pay the licensing to use Windows. They don't care if its an Apple computer or a Dell computer or a Toshiba computer. Its all business to them.

 

But they gave in with the Ipod. Allowing people to sync via I-tunes made for Windows. And thats turned out very well.

I don't think any thing would hinder OSX by allowing it to be installed on a PC. Apples only problem would probally be more Piracy.

 

"That is, you would have been pissed off if you had tried installing OS X, which you didn't of course... being illegal and all that."

Who cares? There were no negative effects as a result of his tinkering. It's not like Apple lost money or anything.

 

I'd like to ask the annoying but inevitable question:

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyy??

 

Personally who cares if you run OSX on a PC.

If you paid for it, and you know how, go for it.

 

Different Company, Different Business Strategy.

 

Branding. OSX running on any piece of hardware affects the company's image not to mention tons of compatibility issues.

 

Well if someone wants to do it -- and legally paid for it -- oh well.

And compatibility issues? OSX isn't difficult to run on a PC at all. There are very few problems encountered if done right.

 

The simple reason as to why Apple does not allow their OS X to be run on any machine is stability and security.

One of the reasons why OS X is so stable is because Apple knows exactly which pieces of hardware it needs to cater for. Apple does not need to write drivers for any other PC hardware, which otherwise would lead to plenty of compatibility and security flaws.
This is also the main reason why Hacbooks and iHacks and Hacintoushes never work properly - they do not have the proper drivers. All their drivers are either hacked or modded by some random guy(s).

 

Apple is headed for failure, anyway.

All these years without major virus or spyware problems.

Do you think honestly they are fully prepared to handle the upcoming battle?

Apple will be using (haha!) most likely PC designed software to combat these threats.

 

Spyware existance is going down quickly, being that Spyware blockers are in most computers these days. It's not worth it to write spyware apps as it use to be. Companies are losing money from it and Spyware will be ilegal very soon in the US which will cut it down alot.

As for Viruses, well being that it's not Windows and under Unix is a reason enough not to worry to much about it.

 

I totally agree. I think if you paid for it you should be able to install it on any system you want.

 

I second that.

It funny how the words EULA, PIRACY or ILLEGAL does not come up when using apps and drivers NOT made for LINUX.

 

Double Negative.

All hardware and software come with some sort of agreement. For whatever reason, Apple has decided to keep OSX away from non-Apple approved hardware. The user of OSX is free to use it however way they choose provided they don't bypass any of the security measures.

 

Agree as long as users hold a licensed copy, they should be able to use it on any machine they want, BUT Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, etc also wants every single user to be legally licensed and you know how that goes.

 

I know this and most of us have established this already.

Myself and others are just trying to see the reason, advantages, and etc: in doing so.

 

It comes down to greed.

M$ is greedy and so is Apple.

but if I buy products from them (including their iTunes songs), I should be able to run it on whatever system I want -- and be able to use any media player I want. Sorry Apple, it's bad enough I have to pay $1 for a song, I should not be forced to use your crappy iTunes software too.

 

Sorry, I thought I mentioned it earlier. Apple can and can not support non Apple computers. Its a business strategy Apple executives have decided to take.

 

Sure. Gasoline prices are $2.60 in Southern California and Cable Television with Internet access is nearly $100 per month. Crazy.

 

And I wonder why companies like M$ and Apple scratch their heads and cry about people who steal their stuff.

Hmmmmm -- make things super expensive and you'll get just that!

(Not saying its right but this is the way of the world).

 

As has already been stated several times above, the reason that the EULA for OS X does not allow running on non Apple hardware is not that they're money grubbing scumbags, but that OS X's stability is largely due to the limited range of hardware it has to support. Open the market to the almost limitless commodity hardware your average PC is assembled from would be detrimental to that stability, to say the least.

Trust me on this, if Microsoft was selling the MSPC you'd be reading an almost identical clause in your shiny new Vista EULA... and their OS' would probably be a bit more reliable.

As to people's concerns with iTunes, if you don't like their policy then vote with your wallet. There are plenty of other music services out there that will work with virtually every DAP (except the iPod) and media player currently available. I'm not a fan of ANY DRM system, so I simply do not buy my music from any company that attempts to foist it on me... but by the same token, I don't grab it from P2P and rationalise it as "sticking it to the man."

Theft of intellectual property, be it music or software, because you think they're ripping you off is a facile argument at best.

 

But at the same time the Consumer does have every right to complain or suggest what should or shouldn't be.

The Consumer is looking for the perfect mix of Options and Freedoms in what ever they are purchasing.

It's very hard to vote with your wallet when almost every product has restrictions that the other doesn't have and Vice Versa.

So much Red Tape in Technology when we all know that Technology already gives us the means to have it all. So thats why we feel we need a better explanation.

 

*shrug* Common sense and capitalism rarely work well together.

 

You WIN the agruement with that comment. LOL

 

"You know what capitalism is? Getting f..cked!"
- Tony Montana

 

It was always my impression that people who wanted Macs (and therefore OSX) wanted the whole package - meaning the high aesthetics of the MacBook line(s). It seems silly to have a Toshiba or Compaq running Mac OS because it defeats the fashion statement.

The reason for BootCamp is different - people on Macs need certain Windows functionalities which are otherwise unavailable to them. They still want to have the higher end fashion, and the relative ease of Mac OS-es.

This isn't to say that Asus, Acer and Sony machines are not aesthetic - its just that a Mac has the aesthetics "standard" so to speak, whereas, you can get super ugly PC notebooks.

 

Well, in my case it had nothing to do with aesthetics. I just needed a machine that could run OS X at good speeds and didn't want to break the law. Besides, the pricing on Macs aren't bad, take the Mac Mini as an example. £400 (excl. any discounts) for a tiny box with Core Duo and 512MB RAM. Seeing as Mac users aren't hardcore gamers (or at least the sane ones aren't, as OS X doesn't support DirectX and all that, greatly limiting the number of games you can run on it unless you boot camp, in which case you're better off with a PC) those specs are more than enough to fulfill the usual tasks for the average user.

Sure, if *would* be cheaper to spend £80 on an OS X licence and dual boot it on your PC if it was possible, but if Apple were to start supporting all types of hardware, the pricing of OS X would probably escalate to something near Windows Vista (£200-£300), in which case it would be much better to buy the £400 box.

And very few things in this world works like 'I bought it so I should be able to do whateve I want with it' without going illegal. Music and video are a prime example, you buy em but you are not allowed to distribute them in any way without breaking the licence agreement.

 

First of all, it's not Apple who forces DRM upon you, but the music industry. Second, you can burn a cd with all the music you purchased from iTunes, and convert into regular mp3 that you can play on any media device you choose. Third, iTunes has a much clearer interface and functionality than any other crappy musuc players I'd seen. There.

 

Yes, but itunes 7 is a bit buggy, a resource hog, sluggish and not friendly towards people with big music collections (I use the windows version, but i've heard of some problems on the mac one as well). But the interface is better than the rest, so i use it anyway.

 

With a little google searching

there is a DRM-removal program as well.

 

Won't Apple implant a a micro chip in their computer in Leopard to prevent unauthorized use? Always, my friend runs this website with pages after pages of instructions on how to install OS X on PCs. Don't know if he still runs it though.

 

"You know what capitalism is? Getting f..cked!"
- Tony Montana

In Scarface, he uses that curse word at least in every other sentence. I didn't know whether to act offended or laugh when I first saw that movie.

 

you can check out http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page for some more info on how you set it up and how well it runs and whatnot.

 

Only someone who has never used Amarok could say that.

 

I like Amarok too, although I don't run it on my machine at home. Can't handle loading the KDE framework for one app, no matter how nice.

Sav has a point though, the iTunes interface must be doing something right... just look how many imitators it has.

 

Amarok has to learn how to put cover art on my iPod before I'll even look at it again...