Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Running Mac OS X On Standard PCs

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the good-bye-apple-tax dept.

Operating Systems 623

ZDOne writes "ZDNet's reviews team have been tinkering with the various ways of running OS X on standard PCs. They found that with the right hardware components, a standard PC running Mac OS X Leopard is, at first sight, no different from a genuine Apple Mac. Special CPU extensions such as Intel VT-x provide support for software solutions like Parallels Desktop for Mac. Even Adobe Photoshop, which queries a Mac to verify its authenticity, runs fine on a standard PC thanks to EFI emulation. However the article points out that it's a pretty technical proposition to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware, beyond all but the most powerful power users. And then there is the legal question. Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23402570)

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (3, Informative)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402706)

Similarly powerful PCs cost 1/2 as much as a Mac does, in almost all areas.

I use the term "similarly powerful" on the basis of framerate testing and how fast it can do on CPU heavy projects like folding@home

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23402830)

Ok, Where can I buy a PC that is as small and quiet as a Mac Mini or Apple TV?

There is currently, no such equivalent.

For now, I will stick to my Ubuntu running AppleTV. It has digital audio and video out, and casts $250.

But if you have a suggestion, go ahead.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (1, Insightful)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403102)

Okay, I'll bite.

17" silent-ish HP laptop : Eur 1000
17" PowerBook : Eur 2800

Eur 1800 Just for a working webcam? FUCK YOU, EXTORTIONIST PIECES OF SHIT! Like I haven't paid enough for that ssslllooowww MacMini G4 (Eur 500 at the time, worth 10 on flea market for equivalent perfs), then the over-overpriced MacBook (Eur 1400, worth 700 at Asus - again, for same perfs).

No, I've ponied up way too much more than enough at Apple stores to NEVER have ANY qualm whatsofuckingever to happily tell everyone I'd install OSX on their PC using my Kalyway install DVD if they'd just let me.
Just like I nailed my original WinXPProSP2 CD to the wall the day I discovered slipstreamed installs with VLKs that pass WGA. (Also after said CD, installed and verified, killed itself with the slow-self-destruct-feature that's called Windows Update.)

Apple hardware is NOT worth what it costs. Nowhere near. The higher the class the more exaggerated the price. How MUCH for a MacBook Air? Eur 1700 and it has no optical drive? BWAHAHAHAHA. Who ever bought one? Morons? And what about the MacPros? Eur 10,000 for an eight-core? I can make that for 4000 WITH a pair of 24" monitors AND a studio-class sound card AND wireless speakers. And better hard drives.

And install MacOSX on it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (4, Interesting)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403248)

When Apple does an update, the MBs and MBPs are usually pretty competitive pricewise. The problem is that most people don't need all that a Pro has to offer and can get by with a $400 laptop. I'm on a SR MBP now, and when pricing dells or Lenovos with the same features they were always within $100-$200 of the mac.

The problem is that Apple doesn't lower the prices of their machines over time, so if the machine hasn't been updated in awhile then the value does indeed suck.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (3, Informative)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403406)

Which is why people should just use http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ [macrumors.com] live with it and stop complaining. Just wait until it updates and buy. Sure it sucks that Apple don't adjust prices, but there is nothing to do about it.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402890)

Powerful, maybe. But have you seen the video of those clones? It sounds like a jet taking off!

Apple has a big hole in their lineup, IMHO. That is the mid-sized tower... basically a headless iMac. Apple should just sell one - I don't think it would be too expensive... their other products compete quite well with similarly-spec'd PCs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402958)

yeah, that's one company's very cheap clone boxes.

If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.

Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (1)

BlueF (550601) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403272)

Yet another reason to consider licensing specific HARDWARE. I require silent computing (with high performance as well). My custom built box cost 30-50% less than the equivalent Mac Pro, while running in my a silent case.
I own 3 copies of OS X (two mac mini's and a mac book, not to mention my iPhone). I wouldn't feel badly about running Leopard (OSx86)on my PC. Only wish there was a legal/supported way to do this!!

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (2, Insightful)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402906)

if you think video framerate and cpu crunching is the only measure of "performance" for a computer you should go back to sleep.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (0, Troll)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403044)

Please enlighten us as to what it is that Macs do better. Video framerates and cpu crunching, plus memory banwidth/speed are pretty good performance benchmarks, especially between very very similar systems.

Pray tell us how the performance of genuine Mac hardware "just feels better" and has magic imbued only by the tender kiss of Steve Jobs.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (2, Insightful)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403210)

well heres a quick one for ya.. show me a workstation with multiple firewire800 and firewire400 ports standard

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403366)

While he's at it, why don't you show me a Mac capable of running OS X that has DE-9 and DB-25 serial ports, and a DB-25 parallel port? Those USB adapters don't always cut it, depending on the device.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403384)

Depends on when you buy them. Always buy just after a new modell are released and you get a decent deal. Better yet if you use some sort of student discount / ADC student membership / are a "real" ADC member / ...

Think about XP SP3 for a second (5, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402894)

I believe their hardware could stand on its own merits and the additional revenue and marketshare couldn't hurt.
Microsoft just had an XP SP3 disaster when on some machines with AMD based motherboards the system would endlessly reboot. I have no doubt MS did test this on AMD processors. The problem was that some motherboard makers and vendors improperly used both the intel and amd power management kernel mods simultaneoulsy. This did not show up for 10 years, and SP3.

Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.

  Not only does no one claim responsibility but they really can't because they don't control it all like apple.

So you pay a tad more for a pleasant experience. Savvy apple folks know which things to buy from apple and which to do themselves. e.g. don't buy apple memory upgrades, but perhaps it may be worth it to buy an apple WiFi (since the system will then handle all the firmware updates for you, and things like optical audio, remote disk mounting over the WiFi will all happen magically and reliably).

As for this latest EFI spoof. Apple, as evidenced by the lack of DRM on their OS and the vulnerable DRM on itunes, tries to use the speedbump model for DRM rather than the Steel Vault model. Any time people start abusing one of their DRMs they tend to issue some new software update that goofs up the current way of gaming the system. Basically a nuiscance which at some point becomes not worth dealing with for the majority of people.

I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second (3, Funny)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403376)

I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.

I agree about the 5 years, but for a different reason:
Considering how much progress in user-friendliness Linux has made in that time, I guess it will catch up to the Mac OS X of today in another five years. So either Apple has something new and shiny by then, or cracking OS X will be pointless for most purposes.

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403404)

What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.

Many businesses including Apple have recognized the benefits of simplicity. From a manufacturing view, Apple only offers 4 desktop PC models and 4 laptop models. Southwest Airlines only flies 1 kind of airplane, etc. Many of PC issues come from the fact that there are a kajillion variations of hardware. Just recently, Apple seemingly offered sympathy and poked fun at PC for this. [youtube.com]

Re:Think about XP SP3 for a second (4, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403410)

Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.

I wouldn't exactly call AMD mutt-hardware...

Interestingly, the hardware control Apple exercises that you say is a good thing is exactly what bothers me with Apple. I know people hate hearing this, but I feel like Apple's operating systems are a cop-out. Sure, everything looks nice and just works...because they spent several months working on a single piece of hardware (which is often no longer on the bleeding edge). And the support is likely no more than a series of kludges, just like in Microsoft and Linux operating systems. Where's the ability to use brand-new hardware? Where's the ability to make whatever modifications you wish to the computer and then simply download a driver for it (easily, I mean)?

Yes, I know Linux often has trouble supporting new hardware, but that's simply the nature of open-source: things take time. But Linux is also free. Apple is proprietary and expensive, and Microsoft is able to support a vast array of hardware and Windows compared to Mac's tiny amount (partially because the vendors are biased towards Microsoft in making drivers, but I don't see Apple encouraging them for the above reasons).

Given all this, I don't understand why people insist on hacking the Mac for use on PCs. Why not use Linux? Even on bizarre hardware this would give a more pleasant experience.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403042)

They dont want that nightmare. the PC can be a mishmash of really bad hardware. I have fixed many PC's by removing that new Winmodem or USB card that someone bought and installed themselves. Crap ram causing random crashes, and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again) and attaching OSX to the non-stable world of PC is something that jobs and Apple does not want.

They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.

Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (1)

canUbeleiveIT (787307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403382)

...and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again)...

It seems to me that if you ask a hundred PC techs about which brands of MOBOs are best and worst, you get a hundred and five answers. Not that I'm promoting MSI or PCChips, but I've had just about every brand fail at too high a rate for my tastes.

I can't say that I've seen many Intel brand boards fail, but that may simply be that very few consumer-level computers have Intels inside (I know, bad joke).

I think that it speaks more to the industry overall, as well as to consumers who are concerned mostly with price. It certainly wasn't always this way, at least not when a good desktop cost as much as a decent used car. I finally recycled about thirty P2 IBM Intellistations with the MOBO manufactured in Ireland. Of those, not one ever had a bad board.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403124)

I highly doubt they will ever do a such thing.

Apple makes most of its profit from hardware, not software. If they start licensing OS X on low cost Dell or HP, nobody will ever buy Apple hardware. Not to mention the hassle it will be to support various kind of device (although vendor can limit availability of OS X on hardware known to work).

Still their marketshare will certainly rise, but certainly not their profits.

Re:Perhaps Apple should begin licensing OS X (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403284)

They tried that back in the mid 90s. It didn't work so well from Apple's point of view.

MacOS on PCs... (5, Interesting)

TofuMatt (1105351) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402584)

MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.

I'm sure the crowd of people who feel the need to upgrade their computer every 5 seconds but like MacOS X otherwise might dig this. I can see this turning/degenerating into a "why doesn't Apple just license MacOS X for PCs?!" discussion awful quick. But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Re:MacOS on PCs... (4, Funny)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402632)

"MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool"
... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-)

Re:MacOS on PCs... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23402876)

"MacOS X on PCs is like Linux on microwaves: it's very cool"
... as opposed to Windows for Microwaves, which keeps your food very cool ;-)
Don't forget that Windows for Microwaves brings a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".

Re:MacOS on PCs... (3, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403164)

"What smells like blue?"

Re:MacOS on PCs... (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402822)

But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

That's not a very can-do attitude. We should aim to put OS X and Linux on everything including granola bars! Turn in your geek card. I label you as not-a-team player. :P

Re:MacOS on PCs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23402924)

But just because it's possible doesn't mean it's a good idea.

It's amazing how many things fit in that category... Going to the moon, invading Iraq, trolling on slashdot...

Ok, ok, I'll click the 'Anonymous' box...

Well some us would upgrade if given the chance (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402968)

but seeing that only one manufacturer holds the keys to the kingdom and they are slower than shit and don't seem to listen to a lot of the forums what choice will we have other than by going this route. In fact I think the primary reason most of us didn't consider this route is because it was too difficult compared to just putting up with the hardware Apple allowed us to buy.

I am in the camp of needing a Mac Pro for expandability but not wanting one that seems to just exist to list every top end product standard Intel has in its books; yes I see the current Mac Pro as nothing more than a buzzword monster - features included because they sounded good not because they were needed. As such I and those of us on various Mac Forums have been clamoring for a "Mini Mac Pro". Something that uses similar processors and memory of iMacs/Minis but has expansion slots and room for more drives.

Its a big market. There are people sitting on G4s because the cost of moving up is prohibitive. If it takes a new resurgence in clone makers to rattle Apple's cage then I am all for it. If someone delivers a proven working solution then to hell with Apple.

As I mentioned at the start, the real reason most of us didn't go this route is because it was more time consuming than and "annoying" than just putting up with whatever we were allowed to buy. Since the process is getting more "ironed out" and practically turn key I expect a few of us to jump at the opportunity.

Just like we scream that MS has no right to dictate this and that we should hold Apple to that same standard. When they were the little guy we justified it because we could be smug about it deeming pc quality as too low for us. Now that we use the same exact hardware there isn't a real excuse, least one that holds up to any scrutiny.

When did form forever displace function at Apple. Can they get back to function please. Make the "Pro" line all about function - form means little to us, we just want it to work.

Re:MacOS on PCs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403182)

My microwave runs OpenBSD, you insensitive clod...

Re:MacOS on PCs... (2, Interesting)

jbarr (2233) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403320)

...it's very cool, and a neat experiment, but I think for most folks, it's not very appealing.

Actually, I am looking for a very practical reason to do so: I would like to try my hand at developing an application for the iPhone/iPod Touch using Apple's SDK, however, doing so requires a machine running Leopard. This means that at minimum, I must invest at least $500-$600 for a Mac Mini to do development. The problem is that there is no facility to "evaluate" the development environment without actually installing it on an Apple platform--which I do not have.

OK, I do realize that to make money, you typically must spend money, and a modest investment in a Mac Mini could bring a larger payback if I develop something that is successful. But in this case, being able to "test out" the SDK on a PC would give me that opportunity to evaluate it. And if I decide that it is worth my time and money, then, I'll happily invest in an Apple platform. In fact, I'd actively promote the SDK and the platform. But if it doesn't suit my needs, then I won't wast any more time or money.

Yes, there is a potential legal issue in this, but is this really that different from downloading a cracked version of an application to evaluate it with the full intention of purchasing the application if it proves to be what I'm looking for?

Purchasing OSX (0, Redundant)

c0ol (628751) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402600)

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.
What, never :) [mininova.org]

Re:Purchasing OSX (1)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403222)

YFI - You can't install that one on a PC.

Try again? [mininova.org]

But if your time has no value... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23402608)

...why not just stick with Windows?

Re:But if your time has no value... (0, Offtopic)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402668)

Funniest AC post of the day.

Legality? (1, Redundant)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402610)

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

Doing any of this is in violation of the EULA. Do they really believe someone who does this is going to 'buy' a copy of the OS?
How naive.

Re:Legality? (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402732)

I would. Only if it was for a desktop though, I'm quite happy with the quality of Apple's laptops for everything I use it for, even with their apparently poor thermal paste application.. if I was going to do any more serious gaming on this laptop I'd probably be better off taking it apart and sorting the cooling out.

Re:Legality? (3, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402784)

Personally, I don't recognize EULAs as legitimate contracts. If they want me to enter into a contract, then they need to negotiate it with me PRE-SALE!

I do, however, recognize their copyright. So I'll buy a copy to respect copyright, and then install it wherever I damn well please.

That said, I'm not above copyright infringement either. The RIAA will not see a penny of my money.

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this post you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (âBOGUS AGREEMENTSâ) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

That ought to hold up in court, eh?

Re:Legality? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403244)

Personally, I don't recognize EULAs as legitimate contracts.
Too bad you don't get to make that decision, hey?

Re:Legality? (5, Insightful)

adpsimpson (956630) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402838)

Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.

Enforcing EULAS does not.

Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.

Strategy (0)

conner_bw (120497) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402614)

Is it me or does anyone else think this kind of Apple nonchalance is deliberate?

Let the hardcore enthusiasts hack the OS into their PCs for a few years, save truckloads of money on development time and PR/support nightmares.

Or?

Weird summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23402618)

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.
Why not?

However the article points out that it's a pretty technical proposition at the end of the day and beyond all but the most powerful power users.
I doubt it.

Re:Weird summary (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402778)

Yeah, to begin with I can't see how this can be "news", it have been possible for so long and it improve all the time. One don't need to be one of the most powerful power users, if one already have the right hardware one don't have to be more powerful than being able to install Windows or whatever Linux distribution. It's not hard.

Also I don't know if one can really consider oneself a nerd if one haven't run some Linux dist, installed OS X just because one can, run some other architecture than x86 and small things like that.

lolololo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23402624)

lol its bad

Pre-empting the fanboy spin (0, Troll)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402626)

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

Why would that even matter? You're breaking the EULA, so you're stealing the software anyway.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (1, Flamebait)

Ahlee (160047) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402700)

Indeed. You're not legal if you buy a copy of Leopard. It shouldn't let you sleep any better, as you're still breaking the law.

Yada yada mid size tower, yada yada I want to upgrade. Yada yada I can build XYZ for ABC less than what Apple charges.

Tough. At the end of the day to be legit you've gotta pony up the cash for the MacPro, accept the non-upgradability of the iMac or Mac Mini, or not run the software. /me waits for the obligatory "or buy a Mac laptop!" reply, so to reply to you before you reply: you missed the point. Entirely.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403306)

Your not breaking the law until a judge tells you that you are and all a judge would say in the case is that the contract wasn't followed.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402754)

Not if you put an apple sticker on your PC!

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402826)

You're breaking the EULA
Wooooah, nooooos! I'm breaking the non-negotiated post-sale meaningless contract!

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403088)

EULA's aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Which is no paper at all.

Re:Pre-empting the fanboy spin (1)

wass (72082) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403266)

Right, and since Larry Leadfoot tends to drive faster than the legal speed limit, he may as well just steal his next automobile instead of purchasing it, seeing as he already broke the law regarding speed limit.

Popular Choices (-1, Offtopic)

cciRRus (889392) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402630)

They are: Kalyway [uphuck.com] and iAtkos [uphuck.com] . Personally I've had better luck with Kalyway 10.5.2 than iAtkos.

Re:Popular Choices (5, Informative)

snib (911978) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402878)

I used to run Kalyway 10.5.1 on my Dell Inspiron e1505 - it all ran pretty flawlessly. Some hardware drivers had to be hacked, and I couldn't get my video card to run at a native resolution.

But it was only a couple weeks before I got tired of it. IMO, part of the charm of a Mac is... y'know... the actual Mac.

Anyway, I used this guide [insanelymac.com] for Dell Centrino Duo laptops, and other posts on the same site are extremely helpful if you're really interested in trying Mac OS X on a PC. Check the "OSx86" section [insanelymac.com] , and especially this thread [insanelymac.com] .

Re:Popular Choices (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403080)

I saw the "Please support the uphuck.DVD project by paypal." on the webpages. I really hate all those begs for donations, as I did with Jaz ones for his Mac Pro.

If I/"you" are going to support someone why on earth would you support the pirates / people who don't develop it instead of the developers? It's like donating $20 to the pirate bay for each CD album you download, it doesn't make sense at all. If I'm going to pay I will do so to Apple thank you.

And in the case of Jaz he said he needed the mac pro so it could help with getting future releases done, some people was affraid he would stop make DVDs but no, that wasn't going to happen... But well, then he got it and so much for more disk images from him =P

Not that he was obligated to make any, but I guess some people may feel fooled. (I appologise if he's still active within the community and still makes things possible.)

Anyway I've always said I could see myself paying 4000 sek or so for OS X and something which worked, thought I didn't wanted to pay 20.000 sek for a whole mac. But then in the end I got this Macbook Pro because I'd better do what I say. Sure a Dell Vostro would had been cheaper and does similair things, but I wouldn't support Apple then would I? And the price difference wasn't enormous.

Re:Popular Choices (1)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403264)

Greetings! Using Kalyway since 10.4.8. Had no luck using ToH. Now running Kalyway 10.51 upgraded to 10.5.2.

(how was that off-topic, too?)

Never mind the buying part... (4, Informative)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402692)

Because even if you pay for it, the EULA forbids you from legally running it on non-apple branded hardware.

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf [apple.com]

Re:Never mind the buying part... (4, Informative)

adpsimpson (956630) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402962)

Pirating software has been successfully prosecuted as a crime in most courts in the world.

Breaking EULA's has not.

One is blatantly illegal, the other is doing something that a company you bought something off would rather you didn't do, so has told you is against the undisclosed 'contract' you 'agreed to' when you 'bought' the software.

Re:Never mind the buying part... (5, Funny)

dfm3 (830843) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402996)

Because even if you pay for it, the EULA forbids you from legally running it on non-apple branded hardware.
That's what the Apple stickers that come with your iPod are for...

Re:Never mind the buying part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403026)

Just like safari [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Never mind the buying part... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403078)

Last I looked, Apple used 3rd party off the shelf components.

If you purchase a copy of Leopard, Apple can't really prevent you from installing it on hardware of your choice. Imagine a nail manufacturer sticking an EULA shrinkwrap on their products, "These nails can only be used with brand X hammers". Commodity products can and are frequently modified and adapted to unintended purposes. If you think differently (sic) then you are simply not an engineer (etymology: ingenious).

Reselling a generic box with OSX installed is a separate issue.

Re:Never mind the buying part... (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403236)

I question what non-apple branded hardware is. Intel makes the processor. Asus and Quanta make the cases. Broadcom makes the wireless cards. What part is apple branded? And is it apple branded because it says Apple Computer on it? I could to that to my Dell laptop anyday. (And since it currently uses Leopard, as soon as they enforce that policy, I'll be printing out some Apple stickers.)

I went there (5, Funny)

tripmine (1160123) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402694)

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."
Oh, I thought about it...

Re:I went there (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402734)

Just get the Leopard

Re:I went there (1)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402756)

Not only that, but is it even possible to purchase a legitimate copy of OS X for use on a PC? Certainly there are provisions in the licensing agreement dictating where it can be installed, meaning you would be in just as much violation whether or not you shelled out the cash.

Re:I went there (1, Informative)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403324)

And the Safari for Windows EULA forbids you TO INSTALL IT ON NON-APPLE HARDWARE.

The one they've been pushing bundled with an iTunes update.

EULAs don't mean shit and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Even those who write them.

so STFU

Re:I went there (1)

gimple (152864) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402944)

Again with the modding as "troll." I think maybe the mod needs a hug. (Hopefully, they are out of mod points by modding all these as "troll.")

Re:I went there (4, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403202)

It's kind of like breathing, you don't think about it until someone brings it up.

By the way, you are now breathing manually.

Where is the charm? (3, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402710)

For the hobbyist and the experimenter, PC hardware is far cheaper than a license of Leopard. No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.

Re:Where is the charm? (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402846)

No charm in getting pricey OSX apps and software working on a commodity piece of hardware.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I just want access to iLife and maybe later FCP. There's really nothing else all that compelling that I can't run on Linux. But, I want to run it in a virtual machine. And until I have a free VM with emulation of an OpenGL/T&L video card, I'm not interested anyway. By which time probably jahshaka will be worth using :D

It's not technical at all- (5, Informative)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402718)

Step 1: Visit your local friendly torrent site and find "leo4all.v2"
Step 2: download and burn onto dvd
Step 3: Use Intel hardware. SATA for hard drive if you wish, but use IDE for the DVD rom
Step 4: let the "leo4all.v2" do the rest.
Step 5: there is no step 5

I first started with AMD hardware, and had endless issues (no surprise really, AMD isn't fully supported by OS X) but the switch to intel hardware went much more smoothly.

The system I used was a D945GNT board, with an off-the-shelf nVidia 7300GT. OS X picked up everything but the sound (still working on why, claims it's suported) and for the fisrt time ever, I've had the pleasure of playing with OS X on fast hardware.

Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)

Apple updates worked fine, as did other software updates, so kudos to the OSX86.org crew for their outstanding work.

Re:It's not technical at all- (0, Troll)

CaptScarlet22 (585291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403126)

It's obvious you are enjoying the Apple product then, hey?
How about supporting the company with purchasing the product from Apple.

Oh thats right, your one of those who thinks cause it's too expensive to buy, your entitled to steal it instead of paying for it.

Re:It's not technical at all- (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403200)

"OS X picked up everything but the sound "

Oh is that all? Meh , I hated listening to those pesky mp3's and watching silent videos on youtube is sooo much more fun.

Re:It's not technical at all- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403364)

Yes, but remember, it works *perfectly*. Oh, and none of the power management features work. And sometimes plugging in a USB device causes it to kernel panic. But otherwise, it's identical! Identical to what, I have no idea.

Re:It's not technical at all- (1)

Life2Short (593815) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403408)

"Total box cost set me back ~300$ US. Not bad...(mind you, the board and CPU were used)." Fun hack, but in the end you have a used machine that runs OS X with no sound for ~ $300. For the same money and less time you could have bought a used Mac with sound and a screen and no worries about software upgrades.

Re:It's not technical at all- (5, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403436)

leo4all v3 is already out and fixes a LOT of issues.

get that instead.

Hint leo4allv3 leo4all.v3 leo4all v3

Don't think about it? (2, Funny)

b96miata (620163) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402746)

Fuck that, I'm thinking about it, right now.

Not gonna do it, since all I use my PC at home for these days is playing games (old ones, the only ones it can run very well), and I don't think MS has released Rise of Nations for OSX yet.

Still, I'll think about it all I want.

Re:Don't think about it? (1)

gimple (152864) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402848)

Geez, who pissed in the mod's corn flakes. This comment is hilarious! (Okay, not hilarious, but funny.)

Re:Don't think about it? (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402860)

Fuck that, I'm thinking about it, right now.

  Not gonna do it, since all I use my PC at home for these days is playing games (old ones, the only ones it can run very well), and I don't think MS has released Rise of Nations for OSX yet.

Still, I'll think about it all I want.
Wrong [apple.com] . But continue to think - or not think - about it as much as you like. I support free thinking that way.

Re:Don't think about it? (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403346)

Before people claim that they can't run certain games off of OS X, do your research. Just like Rise of Nations, someone thought Team Fortress 2 doesn't run on OS X. It has run on OS X via Crossover Office, for months. http://www.tuaw.com/2008/04/17/tuaw-hands-on-with-crossover-games/ [tuaw.com]

EFI emulation (0)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402762)

Maybe someone knows this better than I do, but it mentions still using emulation to get the OS to work. I've wanted to test out OSX just to see what it's like, but never really wanted to bother with the emulation. It is interesting to note about the benchmarks b/w Mac hardware and PC hardware running OSX, with the exception of AMD which was always underperforming both Intel and Mac, due to the hardware incompatibilities. Plus from browsing through that article there is a ton of work you need to do to get it to work with your hardware, especially for an AMD/Nvidia computer. I don't want to try it out that bad.

Re:EFI emulation (2, Informative)

Pentahex (1050778) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402970)

EFI emulation is not a full emulation. It only emulates the bios to allow Leopard to boot without modified files.

Paradox (4, Insightful)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402786)

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.
So buy Leopard before you even consider ever using it? Now that's marketing!

way ahead of you (5, Informative)

naibas (109074) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402810)

I'm currently browsing slashdot in Firefox running in OSX 10.5.2 on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe board with an Intel Q6600 Quad 2.4Ghz proc, 4GB RAM, and a DigiRack 002 Pro Tools LE rig. And yes, I have legally purchased my copy of Leopard (I was worried they wouldn't sell stand alone retail copies, since it normally comes with the hardware, but NewEgg had 'em, so now I do).

It definitely takes a lot of tweaks to get right. For example, if my Apple brand USB keyboard is plugged directly into the USB ports on the back of the motherboard, then the machine will not properly wake from sleep. I had to run the keyboard first through a Belkin 7 port hub. That one took me a couple of (frustrating) days (including buying a second video card to rule that out) to figure out.

The Pro Tools/DigiRack had previously only been run through Windows, and although it installed and recognized the hardware OK, I was having problems with playback and crashes until I went back and did even more BIOS tweaking (I think disabling SpeedStep was the key, although I also turned off everything else I could find that said it might automatically throttle the CPU or RAM). Now even that seems to be running smoothly.

Summary: not for the faint of heart, and it could break with any Apple software update, but when it works, it is brilliant.

Re:way ahead of you (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403162)

How much money did you save, compared to buying an equivalent mac system? I take it you feel it was enough to be worth the trouble?

Re:way ahead of you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403368)

yes, yes. everyone wants apple to license os x for the pc. other people say apple doesn't want to do that because they want to control the experience and that apple doesn't want to support that mess.

guess what? you're both right! apple is licensing os x for the pc in their own, legally-safe, not our problem if it doesn't work, way! they do this by selling os x stand-alone. however, they get out of having to support on other hardware with the EULA everyone keeps mentioning. everything is playing out as steve jobs has forseen! apple wants you to run os x on your pc. they want you to taste 'the apple'. then they want you to buy 'the apple'. what is happening is a master plan.

Running OS X with Emulation on Linux? (1)

Couzin2000 (797592) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402856)

Has anyone tried to run OS X on, say, Ubuntu Linux with VirtualBox running? So far I've managed to install and run Linux itself, Windows XP SP2, and I have a good feeling about Vista (even though I hate the thing and wouldn't use it). I'd love to hear about whoever has managed to install it and/or get pointers towards the propers sites where the info on how to do this is stored. Also - does running OSX "virtually" infringe upon the OSX EULA? Since it's not "technically" running on a PC, but in a VIRTUAL PC...

Re:Running OS X with Emulation on Linux? (1)

njcoder (657816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403148)

I tried VirtualBox 1.6 with the Kalyway iso I found. Couldn't get it to boot. I wanted to play around with OSX because I heard a lot of good things about apple's laptops.

Market drivers (5, Interesting)

low profile (943206) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402882)

The usual argument for wanting MacOS X on PCs is that it will foster wider adoption. Most organizations look for multiple sources when buying computers so Apple, being single source, gets locked out of many purchase decisions. But if you look at it from an OS level, most are buying single source anyway. Windows is M$, even Linux will lock you in to a certain extent to a distro once you add in all the applications needed to support a business. I prefer Apple HW with the OS. Apple is comming back with this strategy. Focus needs to be kept on maintaining the real value propositions: "it just works"; "less overhead to achieve secure operation", "pleasing to work with" ...

Re:Market drivers (1)

cobaltnova (1188515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403178)

As for "lock in," at least *nix TRIES to be standard: POSIX. Also, same goes for distributions of Linux: LSB.

As I don't do any cross-platform development, I can't comment on the result, only the visible intention.

iGroundhogDay (5, Funny)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402930)

Here we go...

posts as follows:

"Apple won't release Mac OS because they can't tightly control the hardware"

"That doesn't matter, it's down to the device drivers"

".. but will it run Linux"

"The Mac Book Air doesn't have a removable battery so it's shit"

"Why would you want to run OS-X, the earth is only 3,000 years old"

guid disk activation (1)

vossman77 (300689) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402972)

man, I tried this on like 3 different machines with both the Kalyway and iatkos. After much hassle, it would even start to boot. I am glad for this write up because now I think it was the disk activation thing. Ugh. Now got to try it all over again.

The Problem With Unsupported Hardware (4, Insightful)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | more than 6 years ago | (#23402982)

Disclaimer: I am a Apple user.

The problem with running an operating system (or application software) on an un-blessed platform is that in a real-world environment (e.g. anything not in your home) is that when a patch the next minor update comes along, it is more apt to cause problems (in particular, strange undocumented problems). For instance, if you could get HP-UX to run on competitor hardware, more power to you, but when it breaks, you've got really very minimal recourse and are on your own to get it working again. The same thing goes for Wine... if you run an application, the next incremental change could cause a performance hit, or make the application not run at all, and you'll have significantly less recourse to get it fixed (e.g. ISV knowledge base, community, etc...).

I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment, and I wouldn't want to give a box like this to my mom because when it breaks, you're really on your own to get it running.

This is a problem when the manufacturer says "We're really sorry, but we didn't certify $PRODUCT (or $OS) for that hardware so support is on a best-effort basis", and it is a even bigger problem when the manufacturer (like Apple) is tempted to, or outright promises to do whatever it can to make the product fail on unsupported configurations.

In any situation, it is nice about being able to tell my boss "I called Dell, a new mobo is on the way" rather than explaining why *my* design failed, or why to save a few grand in licensing or new hardware or plain novelty, I took production down for 3 days. It is fine for your own personal rig, but beyond that, doesn't seem worth it beyond that.

I can has torrent, plz? (2, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403032)

Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard.

...Because, of course, the sort of people who would try this in the first place tend to strongly believe in honoring copyrights and EULAs, right?

Anyway, why would I give Apple any more respect than Microsoft in that regard? ;-)

Any experience? (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403104)

I plan to buy some mini-ITX like desktop (http://linitx.com/viewproduct.php?prodid=12065) soon, and would love to try OSX86 on it.

I doubt it would work with this example (VIA processor), but does someone have any experience with a small desktop that works out of the box with OSX86?

Mac OS Server (1)

akatsukix (1289280) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403156)

Anyone run Server this way?

Re:Mac OS Server (4, Insightful)

Spencerian (465343) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403358)

It should work fine since the differences between OS X client and Server are similar.

That is, if you happen to have $500 to $1000 to blow away. Legal issues aside, Mac OS X Server isn't something you can get from a friend. Unlike OS X client, OS X Server requires a serial number and, as noted, is pricey.

And why would one run OS X Server when a Linux server distribution is free, tested, generally supported and available. Besides, one would likely take LESS time to tweak a Linux server on supported hardware than any OS X installation on supported hardware.

Surprisingly, no one seems to have brought up the prime reason why you'll not likely see OS X for generic PCs.

Repeat after me:

Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple leverages low-cost or free software to sell all hardware.

iTunes is free because it makes using an iPod and the iTunes store a breeze. Mac OS X client is low in cost and works as it does because Apple spent a lot of time and money to ensure you're getting your bang for the buck in a computer you buy from them.

Microsoft sells software. Others leverage Microsoft to sell their hardware. Microsoft doesn't always make the best hardware, nor do they read consumer needs very well (not to be confused with business customers). Zunes don't sell, for instance.

When Microsoft makes crappy software, the whole PC industry suffers a bit.

And Apple just counts its cash reserves since they don't compete in most areas that Microsoft tends to. There is happy crossover with, say, Office 2008 for Mac, but generally Apple and Microsoft are different worlds. When Apple makes a good product, third parties dive in to complement the experience with accessories and the like. Crappy products in the Apple world today get bad press fast.

Kalyway 10.5.2 works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403226)

Two weeks ago I turned my desktop into a hackintosh.

Specs:
Intel Q6600 2.4 Ghz Quadcore
Asus P5E Motherboard
8GB DDR2-800 RAM
320 GB SATA Hard Drive

I had to purchase a SATA DVD-RW drive and a Dynex Firewire card, the ones I already had didn't work.

The machine has been running nonstop for those 2 weeks. Not a single kernel panic or any other issue for that matter. I've been throwing lots of work at in Logic too.

This hackintosh experiment was done to hold me over while I save up for a Mac Pro. I just bought a brand new black macbook 3 weeks ago.

In summary, the hackintosh is cool and all, but I'm still going to get a real mac. Never doing the PC thing again.

Obligatory Poll for MacOS on PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403276)

1) I can has Jobs?
2) DO NOT WANT!
3) CowboyNealOS

No thanks (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23403304)

Mac OS X?
No thanks.

No proprietary software.

I rather run Ubuntu;
* http://www.ubuntu.com/ [ubuntu.com]

I can use Mac4Lin theme;
* http://sourceforge.net/projects/mac4lin/ [sourceforge.net]

Don't mess with Jobs (1)

tekman94 (1289286) | more than 6 years ago | (#23403388)

When ol' Steve finds out about this he is gonna be mad. (less money for them)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?