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!

Mac OS X Running on Non-Apple Hardware

ScuttleMonkey posted about 9 years ago | from the mac-of-borg dept.

OS X 962

MacBeliever writes "Inevitably, Mac OS X for x86 has been hacked to run on a non-Apple PC. Is this the beginning of the fulfillment of the Dvorak prophecy?" RetrogradeMotion also writes "The OSx86 Project has posted a how-to guide telling how to run OS X on any Windows or Linux-based PC using VMWare." Not 100% corroborated, so ingest with salt.

cancel ×


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

Random thoughts on Apple (5, Interesting)

bigwavejas (678602) | about 9 years ago | (#13295307)

Ok I'm naïve on the politics of this, so my post is more of a question than a answer. I know this is an argument that has gone back and forth, but here goes again...

Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands? Sure, it might detract from them selling hardware (short term), but I can honestly say for me (average Joe) I've never purchased a Mac because they simply don't have the software titles I'm interested in and Windows does. I mean sure, they've got great stuff, but they lack in GAMES, yes games... I've said it, gotten it out. I'm a gamer and so are all of my friends. I'd venture to say a good chunk of those purchasing PC's are in the same group as me (surf the web and play games). So if the Apple OS became more popular, wouldn't more developers consider making a version of their game in the Apple OS flavor?

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

dsginter (104154) | about 9 years ago | (#13295342)

Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

I've already made comments like this only to get this response in LARGE numbers:

"But Apple is a hardware company."

Apparently, it is impossible for Apple to change into a software company.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (5, Insightful)

DaggertipX (547165) | about 9 years ago | (#13295408)

Not impossible, but it would be a tricky transition for them.

Apple charges a very very large markup on their hardware, I don't think the margin on their software would be nearly as high.

Beyond that, one of the advantages of them controlling hardware and software is the fact that they can do more rigorous quality control, because they KNOW the configuration your machine will be running. This leads to the disadvantage of having a limited and more costly hardware base, but that is why Apple products "just work".

Personally, I think moving Mac OS to mainstream machines with unpredictable hardware would dramatically lower the quality of the software, and I would hate to see that. I would much rather have an Apple piece of hardware that I know was tested well with the operating system on it.

I suppose that viewpoint will put me in the minority here.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

Matey-O (518004) | about 9 years ago | (#13295487)

[blockquote]Apparently, it is impossible for Apple to change into a software company. [/blockquote] Not Impossible, just unwise.

IT history is littered with the remains of 'software only' OS firms.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

grunherz (447840) | about 9 years ago | (#13295539)

I've already made comments like this only to get this response in LARGE numbers:

"But Apple is a hardware company."

It is.

Has been since Jimmy Carter wandered the halls of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Apparently, it is impossible for Apple to change into a software company.

Not impossible, just not likely an easy thing to do after almost thirty years.

I've been watching this argument now for years and it seems the folks who can't understand the concept of Apple being a hardware company aren't regular Mac users or followers of Apple on a regular basis.

If you look at their numbers, they aren't making squat on selling OSX, Final Cut Pro etc. They're raking it in on the huge margins they get on the Macintoshes, PowerBooks and iPods.

Apple is not Microsoft, even though they compete in the same general arena.

The fact that a lot of folks seem to think that Microsoft's software heavy business strategy would somehow work for Apple IMO shows an ignorance towards how Apple Computer actually operates.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (3, Interesting)

Radres (776901) | about 9 years ago | (#13295363)

Ya' know, it's not unlike Steve Jobbs to say one thing and then end up turning around and doing the exact opposite, perhaps with the intent of throwing off his enemies. I can't find the sources right now and get a top post, but as an example, he specifically said that there would never be an iPod cell phone, and a few weeks later there was talk of one. Doesn't surprise me one bit that Apple is taking their OS which is vastly superior to Windows and trying to take on that huge market.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295546)

If by vastly superior, you mean I'm forced to pay $130 for an upgrade just to get Java5 support, I suppose you're dead on.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1, Interesting)

MindStalker (22827) | about 9 years ago | (#13295402)

But how would more games help Apple. Apple doesn't make much money from OS X, and it probably never will. Its money was always from sale of its hardware. If you can run it on any X86, there goes that profit line completly. Though I could see apple doing some sort of driver verification thing, where if you didn't have apple branded MB and apple branded video card etc, even if they were the same thing.. It wouldn't run. Then make the hardware vendors pay a fee for making apple hardware. This could work to consumers advantage even, because apple has historically been known as a stabler operating system, mainly because they can contol what hardware goes into it. So if you want a stable computer go apple, and as a side advantage you will probably get a stable window system to dual boot into.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1, Interesting)

pcidevel (207951) | about 9 years ago | (#13295510)

But how would more games help Apple.

Example: I finally get around to pirating OSX because it finally works on my home built PC and actually has some use for me (Games). I work with it for a couple of months, and I decide I love it (assuming it's as great as I've been promised). I find alternative applications for all of the "normal" applications I use, such as word processors and browsing the web.

The next month my parents decide they want to upgrade their PC and come to me for advice (because I built their last PC). I have long since decided to tell them to buy stock pcs, as I am through being Tech Support for my family. I say "you know, this mac stuff is much easier and better, buy a mac". Apple gains market share.

My grandfather, a year later, decides to upgrade his PC. He comes to me for advice because I built his last pc. I tell him to buy a Mac. He talks to my parents, they tell him they love their mac (because it's as good as you guys have been promising). He buys a mac. Apple gains market share.

Soon, my aunt, wants to upgrade, repeat above story. Market share continues to grow. Rinse and repeat for my entire family. Rinse and repeat for my friends and their families. In 5 years listen to all of the "Apple is a MONOPOLY" trolls on slashdot. In 10 years my son asks me "What is Microsoft? What is a Dell?"..

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (3, Insightful)

Yocto Yotta (840665) | about 9 years ago | (#13295511)

Well, take this only as my assumption, but Apple would likely charge the same amount as Microsoft for their OS -- if not more (which I'm sure Jobs could justify with his pretty marketing spin) -- if/when they release OS X for open x86 hardware.

Will Apple do such? I don't think many people have any point of reference to make an educated guess about that. They certainly would not sell OS X to the mass market for $129 though.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (5, Insightful)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | about 9 years ago | (#13295414)

1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware. 2. there would be a loss of branding and a lowering of the quality associated with OS X. 3. there are plenty of games on the Mac, but if you want the very latest cutting-edge PC games you'd never be satisfied anyway since you'd need ATI/nVidia making their latest cards in Mac versions too. 4. if you DO want games, why do you want a Mac? if Windows works, use it. 5. what is happening to the PC game industry? is it growing/shrinking? will PC games be so important when the latest generation consoles are out? 6. given PC games makers moves to absurd copy-protection methods (drivers), will either the makers or Apple allow the other to do what they want to "secure" the computers?

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

slapout (93640) | about 9 years ago | (#13295438)

The problem with an Apple OS running on just any old hardware is that they would then be facing some of the problems that Microsoft faces: making it run on all kinds of different hardware. They would have to support dozens of graphics cards and sound cards and other hardware that has differing standards of production. Getting everything to work right could be a big problem that would require more code in the OS. Right now, they tightly control the hardware, so they are able to make the user experience a nice one. (Which right now is one of their big pluses). If they lose that, they could lose customers.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

jcr (53032) | about 9 years ago | (#13295548)

The problem with an Apple OS running on just any old hardware is that they would then be facing some of the problems that Microsoft faces: making it run on all kinds of different hardware.

That's really not MS's problem. The hardware makers write their own windoze drivers. MS just has to support a handful of CPUs, northbridge/southbridge chips, ethernet controllers, etc.

MS's biggest problem is their incompetence w/r/t security.


Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

djdavetrouble (442175) | about 9 years ago | (#13295553)

Microsoft has solved that problem already silly, signed drivers. ;)

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 9 years ago | (#13295445)

Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

In theory, yes. In practise, show me a company today which has successfully run a business selling operating systems to run on white-box PCs in competition with Microsoft.

I've never purchased a Mac because they simply don't have the software titles I'm interested in and Windows does.

And with an x86-based Mac, you can do both.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (2, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | about 9 years ago | (#13295457)

Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

Apple are a hardware company. They make a lot of money selling hardware. Selling computers that are capable of running Mac OS X and Windows is probably going to make them even more money as lots of people who are currently buying Dells will opt for the more flexible vendor instead.

Why would they throw away that in order to become a software company, when being a hardware company is working so well for them? Apple have gone from strength to strength in the last few years, it would be madness to completely change the direction of the company now.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295490)

Microsoft has faired well with software, maybe Apple could overthrow the software giant?

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (5, Insightful)

pauljlucas (529435) | about 9 years ago | (#13295494)

I've never purchased a Mac because they ... lack in GAMES
I've never understood this argument. You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games? If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?

Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.

OS X on PCs won't make any difference (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295497)

Once a PC user, always a PC user. After years of careful study, it is now known that while one's personality may determine his or her choice of OS, the reverse is never the case. In other words, nothing can rob these [] happy [] souls [] of their superior creativity [] , intellect [] , and style [] --but then neither, alas, can anything be done to rescue people like these [] from eternal virginity. No matter how much time they spend in Mac OS X, Darwin, FreeBSD, or Pianos [] , they are doomed to live as shadows among men. The more fortunate among us should mourn them--for theirs, truly, are the lives of the never-been. It is nature's cruel will.

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

Iriel (810009) | about 9 years ago | (#13295508)

I, also, have heard countless claims that Apple is a hardware company, and it seems quite reasonable still (in my perspective anyway. If you wish to enlighten me, please do so politely). However, here's where I see the basics behind the idea of an OSx86 project and its effects on Apple:

Apple still has the 'trendy computer' kind of image to them in the eyes of many. Whether you see mac users as different or completely zealotous is another issue. However, if Apple can make their system just hackable enough to get it 'mostly' working on non-Apple hardware, they hope that those users will be so amazed as to become legit consumers of Apples. That's just my thoughts.

Also, Apple says that their new mactels will be able to dual-boot OSX and Windows (as well as BSDs and Linux distros retooled for the new macs). From their view, 'why make OSX hobble along on a regular x86 with broken features when you can buy a mac that runs OSX perfectly, and dual-boot Windows for games or anything else that strikes your fancy that OSX doesn't offer? You'd be paying 'a little' more for a high quality system that gives you the best of everything.' This is how I see ideas floating around in the Apple marketing department.

Now go run a hacked OSX so you can convert like Apple wants you to ;)

Re:Random thoughts on Apple (1)

jcr (53032) | about 9 years ago | (#13295512)

Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

It depends on the circumstances in which it does so. If Apple gets paid for it, then the answer is almost certainly yes.

The difference between Apple and MS's situation, is that MS gets to tax nearly all of the intel boxes, and Apple doesn't. If windows gets pirated, then revenue-wise, it's at the noise level.

If OS X were pirated all over the place, and running on 90+% of generic intel machines, then Apple couldn't sell their own hardware anymore, and they'd be screwed.


Run a Windows Update and you'll see why (1)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | about 9 years ago | (#13295541)

There are so many hardware incompatibilities in Windows that Microsoft has to deal with every time there is a major update. While you are more than assured to be covered with a mainstream computer, like Dell or HP, I've seen Windows Updates go wrong so many times because of hardware. Apple controlling hardware and software makes it a superior product from my experience, even if it does cost more.

Slashdot, your source of yesterday's news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295572)

can't you get any faster?

This is 'news'? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295312)

Not 100% corroborated, so ingest with salt.

Slashdot: Speculation for Half-wits.

Re:This is 'news'? (4, Insightful)

ZackSchil (560462) | about 9 years ago | (#13295423)

Actually, this story is pretty well-established: hard-to-fake handheld videos of systems cold-booting into OS X, screenshots, torrents, reports from all around that installation is tricky but it works...

It was speculation last week then there were a handful of sketchy screenshots taken in VMWare floating around. Now I'd say it's pretty much fact that it's working at some level.

Hey look, the Apple legal team! (4, Funny)

richdun (672214) | about 9 years ago | (#13295313)

Wonder what they're up to today?

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295317)

This first post was made from Safari running on Mac OS X on non-Intel hardware.

Re:FP! (1)

DavidLeblond (267211) | about 9 years ago | (#13295472)

... which would be what the majority of Apple users run.

Re:FP! (1)

rafleming (825583) | about 9 years ago | (#13295509)

.... This first post was made from Safari running on Mac OS X on non-Intel hardware ....

And this makes you special somehow?
I been running Safari with Mac OS X on non-Intel hardware for the past several years.

Press 1 to Install, 2 to Update, 3 to go "WOOT" (2, Funny)

TsukasaZero (850187) | about 9 years ago | (#13295324)

Garage Band at my finger tips....

Unfortunately, no. (1)

Zzyzygy (189883) | about 9 years ago | (#13295554)

Unfortunately Rosetta [] cannot run Garage Band. IIRC Garage Band makes some pretty heavy use of AltiVec instructions.


Salt? (3, Funny)

BigZaphod (12942) | about 9 years ago | (#13295325)

Putting salt on my monitor didn't make the terrible shock I got while trying to ingest this any better. Did I do something wrong?

VMWare (2, Informative)

WatertonMan (550706) | about 9 years ago | (#13295327)

Running it under VMWare (assuming you have a system that supports SSE3) will be a slow experience for many applications I suspect. Yeah most programs will run fine. But I'd not want to run iMovie or FCP.

Re:VMWare (1)

meccaneko (844665) | about 9 years ago | (#13295393)

/ingests salt

VMWare is just a start. And since VMWare is meant emulate a PC, surely they cant be too far off getting it to run natively?

Re:VMWare (2, Interesting)

randomErr (172078) | about 9 years ago | (#13295428)

I would disagree with that statement. We're talking about x86 emulation on an x86 system. If properly emulated it should keep between 90-99% of its speed original.

Re:VMWare (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 9 years ago | (#13295463)

That depends on what kind of GPU VMware emulates. Remember that OS X offloads a lot of stuff to the GPU, and only if it's a modern one. If VMware is emulating good ol' VESA, OS X is going to be slow.

Re:VMWare (1, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | about 9 years ago | (#13295470)

The point of VMWare is that it virtualises the whole system. Provided there's nothing else competing for processor time on the box, any given OS running in VMWare should run at near-native speeds.

Re:VMWare (4, Insightful)

blackmonday (607916) | about 9 years ago | (#13295531)

If I remember correctly, the developer Intel Macs didn't ship with iLife. I'd be interesting to install them anyway and see what happens.

You'd have to be a masochist to run Final Cut Pro on Rosetta. Thank you sir may I have another!

MS better watch their back (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295328)

Seriously. The largest barrier for adoption of OSX has been the high cost of entry (ie buying Mac hardware). This has been slightly reduced with the Mac Mini, but now people can try out OSX without even having to buy new hardware.

Re:MS better watch their back (5, Interesting)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | about 9 years ago | (#13295456)

I don't agree. As someone that grew up on Windows and decided to try out Apple midway through college, it's not that simple. For us here on Slashdot, we realize the programs are similar in nature and are intuitive enough to figure out. However, I have switched many of my friends to Apple, making sure they knew how difficult it would be to unlearn what they already thought about computers. Most of them don't get very far in learning. That may be okay in a lot of cases, but if you are someone that has to be productive and you've learned to do things certain ways, switching is going to make Apple seem real inferior. Switching is not as easy as it appears.

Re:MS better watch their back (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295464)

Don't think so. It'll be the same problem as Linux has. If it doesn't come preinstalled by the big box shifters, forget it for the masses.

Re:MS better watch their back (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | about 9 years ago | (#13295545)

The largest barrier for adoption of OSX has been the high cost of entry (ie buying Mac hardware).
How long are people going to keep raising this bogus argument? (Probably at least as long as the "no 2-button mouse" argument.)

You can buy a Mac Mini for $499. So... what high cost of entry?

Apple be lawyer'n (1)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | about 9 years ago | (#13295330)

Apple cease and desist in 3.. 2.. 1..

There goes the neighbourhood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295331)

Bill Gates must be outraged. Imagine, someone threatening his monopoly - and with better quality software to boot!

Re:There goes the neighbourhood (1)

richdun (672214) | about 9 years ago | (#13295440)

Nah, he's tried Mac OS X, but didn't like it, and frankly, Windows XP SP2 is better. (or something along those lines)

Hardware Hack Required! (5, Funny)

FlameTroll (901932) | about 9 years ago | (#13295333)

Ya have to duct tape the mouse buttons together...

Re:Hardware Hack Required! (5, Funny)

Epistax (544591) | about 9 years ago | (#13295404)

That's much easier! Here I was, chopping off people's middle fingers...

Re:Hardware Hack Required! (1)

bad_outlook (868902) | about 9 years ago | (#13295437)

I just spit out my drink...nice one! Don't forget to also assume a condesending tone towards Windows 'lusers'!

Re:Hardware Hack Required! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295523)

And don't forget the spelling mistakes!

For the love of all that is holy.. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295338)

..please never, ever use Dvorak and Prophecy in the same phrase again.

Palladium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295340)

So does this prove that the rumours about Palladium and OS X for x86 are at least mostly false?

Re:Palladium? (1)

BobVila (592015) | about 9 years ago | (#13295441)

nope they just patched it to get around it.

Re:Palladium? (1)

richdun (672214) | about 9 years ago | (#13295482)

Actually, if you read the write-up over at Tom's Hardware [] , you'll remember that Palladium was Microsoft's "Secure Coding" bit back in 2002 that was officially dropped in 2003. The Intel Trusted Platform is code-named "LaGrange". So yes, Palladium will not be in OS X for x86, though the hardware may make use of Intel's LaGrange technology. These guys just found a way around whatever protections are in the dev kit.

Long Live Virtual PC's (0, Troll)

Lozay_2k (766165) | about 9 years ago | (#13295344)

Do we need to buy a one button mac mouse to use with that?

Re:Long Live Virtual PC's (1)

richdun (672214) | about 9 years ago | (#13295524)

Nope, you can use any mouse, so long as it is dressed in a yellow jumpsuit wearing a red cape.

"Here I come to save the day!"

Dvorak prophecy? (5, Interesting)

Z0mb1eman (629653) | about 9 years ago | (#13295346)

Oh c'mon.

There are only two possible paths for Apple: continue to keep their OS working only on their hardware, or making it also work on x86.

I'm sure everyone who knows what a Mac is has speculated at one point or another what would happen if Apple made their OS work on x86 hardware, and whether they would, and why they would take that decision. Calling it the Dvorak prophecy seems way too pretentious.

Re:Dvorak prophecy? (1)

Lactoso (853587) | about 9 years ago | (#13295519)

Z0mb1eman pecked - "Calling it the Dvorak prophecy seems way too pretentious."

Dvorak, pretentious = redundant

Err.. (2, Insightful)

pickyouupatnine (901260) | about 9 years ago | (#13295349)

Mac OS will only run on non-Mac hardware if there's drivers available for that non-Mac hardware. If say.. nVidia decides not to make a driver for their latest PC Card to run on MacOS.. then you're screwed. I'd rather stick to Linux (cuz methinks it would have better support than Mac OS running on non-Mac approved hardware).

Re:Err.. (2, Insightful)

randomErr (172078) | about 9 years ago | (#13295460)

Umm... boot it into an emulator [] that has generic drivers?

That's all good and well... (5, Interesting)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | about 9 years ago | (#13295359)

That works fine until one of Apple's security patches screws things up for those users. The one reason I like Apple is because they can control their hardware market. Lots of times when I did Windows Updates, the patches would be incompatible just because of driver and hardware issues. I know people that still can't installed Service Pack 2 on XP, because of their video cards. I prefer to stick with the hardware Apple is going to sell.

Re:That's all good and well... (1)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | about 9 years ago | (#13295479)

I'm still too scared to touch anything in the "hardware" section of Windows Update after a driver update for my NIC somehow destroyed all OS networking capabilty.

even if Apple hardware wasn't required for OS X, I'd buy it anyway. I love the look and functionality of my iBook.

Intentional or Unintentional? (2, Interesting)

Profcrab (903077) | about 9 years ago | (#13295362)

A leaked, cracked version of that OS could quickly become a favorite for non-gaming computers. I have to wonder if this was an intentional leak or not. I dont know if it will supplant 3.11 as the most pirated OS ever, but it will be up there. This could be a market test for Apple to see if the demand is there to sell their OS to the non-Apple hardware crowd.

Dvorak just playing the odds (2, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 9 years ago | (#13295365)

Eventually he'll be right, and perhaps, once, before he dies, he'll actually have something insightful to say.

No more. (1)

ipapusha (895578) | about 9 years ago | (#13295366)

And the OSX86 project is no more, courtesy of your local slashdot.

Key + Lock (2, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | about 9 years ago | (#13295367)

Here is the key (OS-X86)
Here is the lock (Dell)
Take as long as you want with them.


Re:Key + Lock (0)

kin_korn_karn (466864) | about 9 years ago | (#13295551)

Can I buy some pot from you?

Why not offer it for all x86 systems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295374)

Is there any reason why Apple shouldn't offer MacOS for non-Apple systems now? If people are able to run it any way, then wouldn't it really help their market position by letting people have a choice of desktop-proven operating systems?

Oh God... please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295375)

Do not use the words "Dvorak" and "prophesy" in the same paragraph, let alone right next to each other like that. John Dvorak is like a man who, beginning in April, consistently predicts that winter will come. Then when December comes and it starts to get cold, he takes credit for it.

everybody, lower your heart rate. except me. (5, Insightful)

captnitro (160231) | about 9 years ago | (#13295389)


Can we postpone these stories until the production runs of both the boxes and OS X comes out? Please? All these stories in the past few weeks have read like the following and have steadily decreased in poster IQ:

Apple: Wild speculation abounds on developer-only releases of software, hardware OMGWTF

Apple: Apple may/may not use DRM, based on developer-only releases of software and hardware OMGWTF!!!1

Apple: Teh interface is pretyOMGWTF!!!!!11eleventyone
Anonymous Coward writes: i am LOVE MY MACCY from BITTTORRRENT!!! I kissed it becos it tastES LIKE CANDY!!

Calm down, people. I'm not saying these things will or won't come to pass, but everybody assuming that a developer-only release will be anything like its comparable production release -- not to mention one that won't be available for a year -- is silly.

Disclaimer: Mac user at home.

Re:everybody, lower your heart rate. except me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295451)

Parent poster forgot to take his valliums.

Please disregard the incoherant angered rambling.

Old news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295392)

The torrent [] has been available for a few days now.

Re:Old news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295442)

Torrent in progress, it's easy with it:!

support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295397)

from what ive gathered, they dont want it out to the general public, because of support issues. Everything mac has support, cuz its been verified or whatever, whereas the windows world has all kinds of crazy stuff that would create choas for mac users.

torrents...anyone? (2, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | about 9 years ago | (#13295399)

Where can one grab the Mac OSX torrents? I need to try this out.

Re:torrents...anyone? (1)

smartin (942) | about 9 years ago | (#13295558)

There is a torrent file called something like "Vware patched files", has anyone tried this? Is it straight forward or does it require the compicated steps involving installing darwin?

So what! (5, Insightful)

Goth Biker Babe (311502) | about 9 years ago | (#13295400)

People like Mercedes, BMW, Volvo etc sell cars at a premium because they are good quality and have nice design. In fact I bought an older Volvo precisely for that reason. It was a quality vehicle with the luxury and safety I would expect from the manufacturer. Apple is the same. Yes, may be you could run OS-X on a cheap clone PC, or one made of bits, but I bought Apple after years of such machines, because I wanted a quality machine with nice design and nice construction. Anyone who thinks this will hurt Apple's sales to a great extent is sadly mistaken.

Re:So what! (4, Interesting)

It doesn't come easy (695416) | about 9 years ago | (#13295571)

I agree. People buy Apple because they want lots of good things, one of which is seamless operation, another top of the line hardware. People who steal the OS likely wouldn't fork over the cost of buying Apple hardware anyway, so the theft will NOT hurt Apple's bottom line while it MAY help Apple advertise their system. Given enough pirating, it is conceivable that Apple could eventually switch to selling the OS separately for cheap and have an immediate and significant boost to their market share. Hopefully, we'll get some real numbers in the next 24 months instead of all of this speculation...

Okay? (1)

Blindman (36862) | about 9 years ago | (#13295415)

Is running Mac OS X within a virtual machine really that big a deal? If VMware properly simulated Mac hardware, then the operating system believed that it was running on Mac hardware. This is great for VMware, but this isn't the same thing as popping a CD in my x86 computer and installing Mac OS X.

Re:Okay? (1)

washley (865407) | about 9 years ago | (#13295484)

You can dd the vmware hard disk image over a real hard drive and run it natively. It runs really fast and supports a suprisingly large amount of hardware.

Re:Okay? (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 9 years ago | (#13295496)

But VMware emulates a generic PC, not a Mactel. Thus if OS X runs on VMware, it's not far from running on a real generic PC.

Handy for testing on Safari (2, Interesting)

edxwelch (600979) | about 9 years ago | (#13295434)

That would be handy if it worked. I could test web sites for Safari without having to buy a Mac.

Meh. (-1, Troll)

Kynmore (861364) | about 9 years ago | (#13295439)

Every time i see Dvorak's name in an article, i think of two things: A really neat keyboard design, and a blabbering ass w/ glasses.

Not the same thing... (1, Insightful)

aardwolf64 (160070) | about 9 years ago | (#13295443)

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't running OS X on an emulated PC using VMWare a totally different thing from actually installing it on the PC? Plus, weren't we told that the current dev kits didn't have the mac-only protection built into them yet?

Please, never, ever ... (2, Insightful)

ubrgeek (679399) | about 9 years ago | (#13295462)

... say, "fulfillment of the Dvorak prophecy." The last thing his ego needs is for /.'ers to agree with him ;)

Re:Please, never, ever ... (-1)

gothzilla (676407) | about 9 years ago | (#13295478)

bad image....the slashdotting of an ego

Apocolypse now? (0)

cyberworm (710231) | about 9 years ago | (#13295473)

Is this the second or third seal?

Who cares? (2, Interesting)

spectrokid (660550) | about 9 years ago | (#13295486)

So a couple of nerds will run OSX -sortish- on non Apple hardware. Any non-apple approved component will cause more instability. To get the full experience, (and be legal!!!!) you will still need to cough up the cash. At worst people will try it on their PC, and buy a real Apple as their next PC. How did Excel beet Lotus 123? Simple: Lotus 123 had copy protection. Where Apple will win big on their Intel-switch is servers. Think of them cooperating with Dell. Their market share for servers is marginal, and hardware esthetics doesn't matter for servers so they have nothing to lose. Suddenly a big player like Dell starts offering servers with Intel-like speed, Dell-like reliability, BSD-like stability and Mac-like userfriendliness. Heck, even I would have to think twice before saying no thanks!

Re:Who cares? (1)

Roguelazer (606927) | about 9 years ago | (#13295518)

If you have to think twice before saying "no thanks" to Dell, then you have other problems, friend. :)

Torrents. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Cumshot (859434) | about 9 years ago | (#13295489)

Direct links to torrents of the videos showing OS X running on non-Apple hardware:

1. MacOSX x86 booting natively on a Pc notebook Mitac 8050D (Pentium-M 735/1.6GHz) []

2. The boot on the same hardware, the permission error was repaired. We can see the "About this Mac" panel, Apple System Profiler and CHUD prefpane showing information on the processor (frequency, cache etc...) []

And yes I know these are linked on the site, but if it gets slashdotted, at least you might be able to still grab the torrents since they appear to be on a different server.

Spinning beach ball? (1)

bad_outlook (868902) | about 9 years ago | (#13295491)

Now instead of a blue screen, you can have a blue screen with a VMware window displaying the (never stops spinning!) beach ball busy cursor icon! And remember, it's no longer Ctrl-alt-delete - it's 'Force Quit'!

Hold the salt please (5, Informative)

seven5 (596044) | about 9 years ago | (#13295504)

This works. This is not running inside of vmware. This is running directly on hardware. No salt needed. I have this running on a dell computer right now. All you need to do is take the vmware image floating around the internet, and use dd to image it to a drive. Boot from the drive and it works.. Requirements include an SSE2 enabled cpu, that would be most p4's and amd64 and higher. Rosetta requires SSE3, so without that you get no ppc apps. Newer p4's using the .90nm process will have SSE3. Make sure you have a great Video card as well soyou have Quartz Extreme running. It is also possible to patch the install dvd and install strait to the hardware. But the Vmware image is the easiest to do. You dont even need vmware, just download the vmware image, and use linux or knoppix to dd it over to a blank drive. The next few weeks should be fun :) Compliant hardware on Ebay is going for $225 or so. Not bad.

Jobs Better Pray The iPod Fad Continues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295526)

The best case for Apple now that IBM dumped them is to survive off the iPod stuff. With the now legacy PPC hardware sales drying up, it will be the only thing keeping the company alive over the next couple of years. The cracked x86 version of OS X will effectively kill off the OS/desktop hardware/server hardware divisions at Apple.

WTG Steve. You gambled that nickle and diming IBM on a mobile chip would land Apple a great deal and instead you will be fighting for your life.

Enjoy! (1)

dduck (10970) | about 9 years ago | (#13295528)

Well, if you are kind of person who actually uses his/her computer for productivity, rather than hacking, fiddeling and games, you are in for a treat.

I switched less than half a year ago, and I am so happy I finaly got around to it. I have saved incredible amounts of time, not to mention aggravation. The UI is not just pretty - it's fast, powerful and easy to use, and the new Spotlight feature is saving me at least an hour of work every single day.

Slashdotted (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295547)

I think their website is running on OS X on VMWare.

Ingest with salt? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13295565)

I have high blood pressure, you insensitive clod!

OSX on generic boxes will work for Apple (1)

Areeves (598018) | about 9 years ago | (#13295566)

*when* OSX retail is hacked to work on a dell or other generic x86 hardware, it will benefit Apple greatly. Look at photoshop for instance, it is the defacto standard in photo manipulation partly due to the rampant copying of its software. The same could easily happen to OSX. While Apple would never support the install, I'm sure they will gain something from it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>