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!

Leopard Already Hacked To Run On PC Hardware

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the fast-moving-kitties dept.

OS X 568

PoliTech passed us a PC World link, noting that the newest version of OS X, Leopard, has already been adapted to run on a PC. "The OSx86 Scene forum has released details of how Windows users can migrate to Apple's new OS, without investing in new hardware -- even though installing Leopard on an PC may be counter to Apple's terms and conditions. The forum is offering full instructions on how to install the system, including screenshots of the installation process. Not all the features of Leopard function with the patch -- Wi-Fi support, for example, is reportedly inoperable. Historically, Apple's likely next move will be to track down and act against those behind the hack."

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

Stay Out! (-1, Troll)

AssCork (769414) | about 7 years ago | (#21172041)

First the gays want our marriage - and now they want our hardware!
What a world we live in...thank god for GWB!

Why is a patch needed? (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | about 7 years ago | (#21172043)

Why is a patch needed? Is it due to DRM?

Re:Why is a patch needed? (4, Informative)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 7 years ago | (#21172143)

Why is a patch needed? Is it due to DRM?
Yes. Apple wants OS X to only operate on Apple hardware.

Freedom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172697)

Yes. Apple wants OS X to only operate on Apple hardware.

It would seem, then, that there are some significant differences between what Apple wants and what Apple's customers want.

Apple would do well to bridge that gap, but for all their cleverness, they seem to be missing this obvious cornerstone of success.

Oh well, looks like some customers are finding a way to get what they want anyway, so it all works out in the end.

Re:Freedom (4, Insightful)

xero314 (722674) | about 7 years ago | (#21172823)

there are some significant differences between what Apple wants and what Apple's customers want.
Not sure actually know any apple customers, or in this case Mac customers specifically. Any Mac user with any knowledge at all knows that they one of the main reasons that OS X is as stable as it is happens to be because it runs on a very controlled set of hardware. Apple customers, those that pay money to apple for the right to use their products as intended, actually prefer the hardware lock-in because of what they gain from it.

I would love to be able to play with OS X on a couple non-Mac machines I own, but I would never ever request that Apple open the OS for operation on generic hardware.

Re:Freedom (3, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | about 7 years ago | (#21172825)

It would seem, then, that there are some significant differences between what Apple wants and what Apple's customers want.
Apple is in the buisness of selling all in soloutions, they don't want people running copies of one of the key components of that soloution on other peoples hardware most likely without paying for it at all (or at best paying the upgrade price).

Maybe they should give in to what some geeks want and try and turn themselves into a software company in direct competition with microsoft but such a move would be pretty risky.

Re:Freedom (0)

p0tat03 (985078) | about 7 years ago | (#21172917)

I'm an Apple customer, as are many of my colleagues and friends. None of us want Mac OS X to run on generic hardware. We like the stability that limited hardware brings, and are willing to give up some versatility to get it.

Apple is in the business of selling packages that "just work". Running on generic hardware (which in its nature can be EXTREMELY low-end and of shoddy quality, both driver-wise and hardware-wise) destroys that image they've spent years building.

Re:Why is a patch needed? (2, Informative)

cromar (1103585) | about 7 years ago | (#21172147)

More or less. OS X checks for specific hardware and will not run if it is not present.

Re:Why is a patch needed? (4, Informative)

antv (1425) | about 7 years ago | (#21172505)

Apple uses EFI [wikipedia.org] in Intel-based Macs instead of regular BIOS.
This is the same reason why you need BootCamp [wikipedia.org] to emulate BIOS in order to boot Windows on an Intel Mac.

Re:Why is a patch needed? (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | about 7 years ago | (#21172571)

I believe it is because they restrict the drivers to their hardware only so it is hard to get it to work or even install on many computers with out the patch, or at least that is what I have been told.

Really? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172047)

Apple's likely next move will be to track down and act against those behind the hack.

Gotta love hardware lock in.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172357)

Until the specific portions of the EULA have been tested in court it is worthless. EULAs are generally a scare tactic, most people not having the funds/resources/guts to fight.

If you buy a piece of software, its up to YOU to decide how to use it.

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172909)

DMCA, shitcock.

Shame... (4, Interesting)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 7 years ago | (#21172063)

Shame about that. I mean, I've got 4 computers that I use at home for various things, and if I could buy a legal working copy of OS X to run on 'em, I would in a heartbeat. Even at say $200/copy, with the same support I'd get from Microsoft if I were running Windows (read that as "none")....

Re:Shame... (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | about 7 years ago | (#21172545)

Part of the reason why OS X is liked & so stable is because it can fairly easily be tested on every possible variant of Mac hardware. It would be impossible for Microsoft to test every possible PC setup (which is why they dont bother trying). They release early beta versions and use the in-built phone home features to report bugs.

Even with no support included they would be swamped with users complaining that it didn't work or was unstable for any number of reasons.

Re:Shame... (5, Informative)

NekoXP (67564) | about 7 years ago | (#21172879)

which is why they dont bother trying


But they do - at least a very broad range of PC hardware runs every build of Windows they make, for regression testing.

It's not as comprehensive, but they DO bother trying.

Re:Shame... (4, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | about 7 years ago | (#21172945)

OS X isn't significantly more stable than Linux and the BSDs (or even Windows NT), so that argument is just another lie from the Apple fanboys. Why, oh why, do you people feel the need to spin every possible marketing decision from Apple as being somehow good for the consumer?

Re:Shame... (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | about 7 years ago | (#21172691)

If your intent is to support Apple by giving them money for the OS, then you can still do so and ignore the EULA. If your intent is to just be "legal", well, then you are still SOL. But yeah, I hear you.

Re:Shame... (4, Insightful)

geeknado (1117395) | about 7 years ago | (#21172751)

You don't get support from Microsoft, but that's not their business model-- theoretically, the support comes from the OEM that builds your machine, not the OS producer. Apple, on the other hand, is a service provider-- it's part of their value-- and the way they make the whole thing maintainable for themselves is by reducing the number of possible machine configurations. Even if they theoretically don't support your configuration, instability may well reflect on their brand, reducing their competative advantage.

Moreover, once you take this step, there's no going back-- OEMs will introduce their own OSX machines, subject to their own sometimes dodgy support structures....Honestly, how many instabilities perceived as being "Windows" issues are actually caused by OEM hardware? I can't tell you how many machines I've had to tweak for friends that were overheating/throwing up because of bad system design. OSX would suffer the same issues were that door opened.

Apple's all about control of experience, for good or ill. I'm not going to say you'll never have a non-Apple-branded machine running OSX in a sanctioned manner, but it'd be a huge paradigm shift.

frst (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172069)

frst

asldj34q$#Q%^ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172089)

!#@$J%KELARJT#$@^KJL#Q$^

Question (3, Interesting)

TrippTDF (513419) | about 7 years ago | (#21172091)

I know that traditionally Apple has held onto it's OS because they are a hardware company, not a software company. In the past, I have understood that... they are not a company that is going head-to-head with MS.

However, in the same way that the iPod won over a lot of users to the Mac, what if they offered OS X for PC users with LIMITED support- meaning they only support specific hardware, and they will only sell OS X stand alone, not pre-installed through Dell or someone else. That would give people a taste of the OS, and for anyone other than the hobbiests, push them towards the hardware...

Re:Question (1)

dfetter (2035) | about 7 years ago | (#21172169)

That would give people a taste of the OS, and for anyone other than the hobbiests, push them towards the hardware...
I think they're right in assuming that people would stop with the OS (assuming it's un-crippled) or just get disgusted and continue with XP/*Ubuntu/etc. if it was crippled.

Re:Question (3, Insightful)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 7 years ago | (#21172189)

the iPod won over a lot of users to the Mac
It actually didn't. Most of those iPods are being used on windows computers. If Apple had locked down the iPod to only play with their other hardware we'd all be carrying around Zunes (kidding, but only slightly, SOMETHING would fill the need). The MP3 player market would likely be much more fragmented than it is now, instead of one product line having clear dominance.

Re:Question (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 7 years ago | (#21172283)

It actually did. That's (one reason) why Apple set record sales for computers this last quarter. And expect to beat it next quarter.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172541)

So? The PC OEMs also did well. It just means more computers are being sold in total. By far the vast majority of iPods are getting synced on XP and Vista boxes. Maybe the iPod helped apple sell more macs, but it certainly hasn't hurt PC sales.

Apple sales record (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172771)

If Apple sets a record number of sales, considering only past Apple-only sales figures to compare against, then that is no record at all, or at least not one that matters to the rest of the world.

Only until the day comes that Apple Mac sales meet at least half or more of the total Windows PC sales (of all brands selling PCs loaded with Windows), will that constitute any kind of sales record that matters worth beans.

Re:Question (1)

DaveWick79 (939388) | about 7 years ago | (#21172843)

Yes, Apple shipped just over 2 million new units in their fiscal 2007 4th quarter, which places their market share at about 3.2 percent. However, this number was at 2.8 percent one year ago, but dropped to 2.5% at the end of their fiscal 2007 2nd quarter in March 2007. Apple sold an estimated 5.2 Million Macs in fiscal 2006, while bootcamp downloads numbered over 1 million, suggesting that the increase in Mac sales has as much to do with their switch to Intel architecture and ability to run Windows, had as much or more to do with the surge in Mac sales than the iPod. Apple themselves attribute strong 4th quarter 2007 sales with the introduction of the new iMac and strong laptop sales, while iPod sales have remained fairly level and even dropped slightly over the second half of fiscal 2007.

Re:Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172899)

If Apple had locked down the iPod to only play with their other hardware

What do you mean "if"? The iPod was Mac-only from its debut until July or August of the following year. And for all the Windows-only MP3 players available at the time, there were still PLENTY of people who pissed and moaned that they couldn't buy an iPod because they used Windows. And plenty of other people bought the Mac-only iPods and used various hacks to get them to work with Windows.

Re:Question (4, Insightful)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 7 years ago | (#21172261)

They would probably lose money unless they charged $300 per copy of the OS.

It's not hard to do the math: Take their current earnings per Mac and then the projected earnings per copy of OS X. How many boxes of OS X would you have to sell in order to equal a Mac sale?

If they get, average, $250 per Mac, then two copies of OS X at current prices would be required to break even. So if all Mac sales die, overnight, they would need to jump up to something like 16% US or 7% worldwide to make up the difference. To make it a profitable endeavor, therefore, they would need to sell 3 copies of OS X... or 32% US/10% worldwide.

Re:Question (1, Interesting)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 7 years ago | (#21172451)

Along those lines, how many people whould *never* buy Mac hardware, but would use the OS?

I'm more than willing to give every OS I see a try periodically (one of these days I'll even get to Vista. Pity me)

However, I do *not* want to buy one of those overpriced machines to try out their OS. I can build a better quality machine for the same or less money, including the price of a new copy of OS X.

Now, I'm not saying this is a large crowd, but I know I'm not the only one (or this hack wouldn't have been created). It is a crowd that Apple should look into.

That being said, one thing Apple does fairly well is the support. I've had some bad experiences with their support, but overall they are a lot better than most hardware manufacturers (I'll take most individual parts makers over Apple, but the only pre-built I've liked better was Dell, and then only for corporate support).

Re:Question (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 7 years ago | (#21172581)

Well, if you wait a few more years, when MacBooks hit $500 and Mac minis are $250, you should be able to get a Mac for only a $80 premium :)

Re:Question (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 7 years ago | (#21172831)

A Mac Mini?

That's like getting a Cheap(R)Ass(TM) EMachines, and saying Windows sucks because of the bad experience.

No, if I go Mac, I'd at least like to try it on decent hardware for the stuff I do - well more than reading email and surfing the web.

Re:Question (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 7 years ago | (#21172851)

Fine, an iMac will probably be available in 2010 for $800 :P

Re:Question (1)

faloi (738831) | about 7 years ago | (#21172517)

The flip side is that if they didn't require Mac hardware for their OS, they'd have a ready-made base of how many millions of people who are just about fed up with Windows but not technically-minded enough to scrap it and go to some Linux varient? With Vista being the OS equivalent of a steaming pile of poo, a lot of users might be willing to jump ship for OS/X. They could get a decent OS to do their web browsing and email, and they'd be set. Pimp it out to a few major PC vendors, and get even more users going. Add-in some ready made service contracts to add to the cost of the OS, and you're golden. Charge $200 for the OS, and an optional 1 year contract for $100. Get better response times for more money, and get people who are thinking about their next computer to actually consider a Mac (they'd already be used to the OS, the change in hardware vendor wouldn't mean much to your average user).

Re:Question (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 7 years ago | (#21172539)

Are you seriously suggesting that 30% of the US population would switch to Mac if the OS was available for general use? I can see 15%, but not 30%.

Re:Question (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | about 7 years ago | (#21172845)

It wouldn't be 30% overnight, but maybe in 10 years. A growing market share excites third party software / hardware manufacturers and support for OS X would snowball making it a viable alternative to Windows in cases where it isn't now. So yeah, it could be possible to see 30% at some point.

Re:Question (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | about 7 years ago | (#21172799)

Sell two versions. The first being an "upgrade for your OEM Apple hardware" at the same $129 / $199 family pack, and another "Full Retail" version for $300 or whatever.

The bigger issue is support. Apple doesn't want to support "random" hardware. It's a nightmare. Better to do a deal with HP / Dell / Etc. and only support a few "OS X compatible" models, and make the OEM offer support.

Re:Question (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 7 years ago | (#21172941)

That is the best suggestion I've heard. But in Apple style, the full retail "unlocked" version would have to be $399.

Re:Question (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 years ago | (#21172273)

"in the same way that the iPod won over a lot of users to the Mac"

We use to hear that, but what are the proofs?
I don't want a stinking iPod, I wanted a mac and now I got one.
Atleast after they got USB who cared? And even before that did people really buy macs just to be able to use an iPod?

Re:Question (2, Interesting)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 7 years ago | (#21172515)

I think it's more along the lines of
"Oh, look, they make this neat, popular, easy to use electronic device, and do a good job as far as I'm concerned. Why not try one of their computers next time I upgrade?"

This is just a hypothesis, but I think the iPod sold the Macs because it brought Apple back into the public conciousness with a positive light.

Public Service Correction (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172323)

and for anyone other than the hobbiests
Unless you're talking about the superlative quality of being a Hobbit ("Bilbo is the hobbiest Hobbit of them all!"), the word is "hobbyist". It's an -ist ending, not -est, and as such you don't convert the y.

Your spelling checker should have flagged that for you.

OS/2. NextStep. Linux. (1)

Foerstner (931398) | about 7 years ago | (#21172711)

Against Windows, alternative OS's can't get significant traction. Period. No matter how good or how cheap.

Apple is making billions selling hardware, and it's smart enough to know better than to risk it.

Re:Question (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 7 years ago | (#21172809)

There would be some advantages to that, but also some disadvantages. For example, imagine the negative PR that would occur if some update to OSX broke on Apple-approved Dell hardware and didn't break on Apple hardware. Whether it was intentional or not, conspiracy theories would abound. Plus, Apple would have to support a lot more drivers, and wouldn't be able to be as nimble about cutting off support for old stuff. Add that to the potential loss in hardware sales, and it might not be the best business decision. Even if they offered only very limited support (say, so you couldn't do certain things on generic hardware), it would give the impression of OSX as a limited OS that couldn't do everything.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like for OSX to be more open. I'd love for Apple to open all of their source code. I'd love to have the option of throwing OSX on every computer I own and every computer my company owns. But I understand there are probably a lot of reasons why Apple is hesitant or unwilling to do that.

Why do it at all?? (-1, Flamebait)

raque (457836) | about 7 years ago | (#21172145)

I always wonder why do this at all??

You have the two basic reasons :
          1)You should I can't/shouldn't so I will
          2)Gee - I wonder if I can fit this into that?

Outside of these why?? I can understand running Windoze on a Mac but not the other way around.

Re:Why do it at all?? (1)

cromar (1103585) | about 7 years ago | (#21172191)

I always wonder why do this at all??

For the sheer joy of it.

I can understand running Windoze on a Mac but not the other way around.

And that's obviously just flamebait.

Re:Why do it at all?? (1)

DaggertipX (547165) | about 7 years ago | (#21172563)

I don't think he meant that last statement as flamebait. Although I see how it could be interpreted as such.

I read it more as : Running Windows on a Mac is supported under Leopard, meaning it's likelihood of bricking your machine is very small. Running Mac OS on a beige box PC isn't supported anywhere, meaning bricking your machine is much more likely. I can understand why someone would want to do the former, but it seems unnecessarily risky to do the latter - unless you're doing it for the "because I can" aspect, and not with the end goal being a stable running machine.

Re:Why do it at all?? (4, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | about 7 years ago | (#21172915)

"bricking your machine"?

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this procedure, the worst case scenario is you have to reformat the disk and reinstall Windows/Linux/whatever.

That hardly qualifies as "bricking" to me.

Re:Why do it at all?? (1)

imemyself (757318) | about 7 years ago | (#21172965)

How exactly would you "brick" your system by installing OS X on it? You cannot "brick" a computer by installing anything on the harddrive. Bricking the computer would require something like trying to flash the BIOS and failing. Worst case scenario, if OS X doesn't work on your Hackintosh, then reinstall Windows/Linux. No bricking involved.

Re:Why do it at all?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172339)

It's a very neat hack, what other reason do you need? Stupid apple for keeping them down, what's happened since their biggest strength was openness (apple + apple II)?

Re:Why do it at all?? (2, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 7 years ago | (#21172441)

Stupid apple for keeping them down, what's happened since their biggest strength was openness (apple + apple II)?
Some versions of ProDOS included a hardware test to make it refuse to run on Franklin computers.

Re:Why do it at all?? (2, Interesting)

initdeep (1073290) | about 7 years ago | (#21172411)

How about because even if i go out and purchase the EXACT same hardware, it's still 1/2 the price of buying the equivalent Mac. Which is in reality, not all that much different than building a top end PC. Dell charges up to $500 for a 750Gb SATA HDD, which I can, and have, purchased for sub $200 for several months now. So in the PC market, people build there own to save money. Which is why PC sales are much stronger than MAC sales will ever be under the current sales model. I don't need some fancy looking case that I'm going to shove under a desk, nor do i need a hugely overpriced LCD display from Apple. Throw in that some people in the computer world actually want to test out apps they have written on Mac's to ensure that they *gasp* work correctly before releasing them to the wild, and they do so in the virtualization environment without needing to pay thousands of dollars to do so.

Re:Why do it at all?? (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 7 years ago | (#21172445)

Because I can build a PC for FAR, FAR less than an equivalent Mac costs. I've not run Leopard on my Hackintosh yet (still on Tiger), but if I can run the OS I want on the hardware I want (saving about $1000 or more in the process) with the only negative being that it hurts Apple's feelings, then I'm gonna do that.

Put it this way: my Hackintosh in it's original incarnation had a 2.6ghz Celeron, 1GB of RAM, 160GB of Hard Drive space, a DVD Burner, and a Geforce 7300LE. Now, this was kind of a toss up between a bare-bones Mac Mini at the time. The mini had it in processor speed, but the $599 machine had less ram, less hard drive space (and a slower hard drive), and a slower video card. That and it wasn't really upgradeable. The hardware for my Hackintosh costed $250. I actually did buy a copy of OS X Tiger (though just one for my G4, but I don't use the G4 99% of the time), but that was only $100. So for $350 total, I've got a machine I like more than Apple's $600 machine. Later on for another $250 I've traded up to a Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz in that machine, a 7900GS, and 2GB of RAM - now I'm still $100 cheaper and it's FAR better than the Mac Mini, especially for playing WoW. And even then, I still had the original CPU and video card left over which went to live in my Linux machine.

Bottom line is my Hackintosh does more than Apple's hardware for less money, and if it ever gets behind I get whip it back into shape with nothing more than a few dollars and a screwdriver.

Re:Why do it at all?? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about 7 years ago | (#21172693)

And that's exactly why Apple doesn't want you to do that. They want the profits from selling you their hardware. That's also why I'll never buy any Apple computers new.

minis are $ because they're small (2, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 7 years ago | (#21172905)

Put it this way: my Hackintosh in it's original incarnation had a 2.6ghz Celeron, 1GB of RAM, 160GB of Hard Drive space, a DVD Burner, and a Geforce 7300LE. Now, this was kind of a toss up between a bare-bones Mac Mini at the time. The mini had it in processor speed, but the $599 machine had less ram, less hard drive space (and a slower hard drive), and a slower video card. That and it wasn't really upgradeable.

And a BMW M5 probably costs more than a 20 passenger minibus. What's your point?

The mini is a TINY system. That's why it costs more than a standard, large Dell or HP. Go pick any major manufacturer, and spec out their smallest "SFF" PC. Now put it next to the mini, and laugh at how much smaller and quieter it is. And no 802.11n or bluetooth in that price tag, generally. The mini can be had/comes with both inside (no dongles necessary.)

Now go online and try and build a mini-itx box similarly configured. Not such a drastic price difference anymore, eh?

One big reason your system is a better value is because your "Hackentosh" is running an operating system you did not buy a license for.

Re:Why do it at all?? (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | about 7 years ago | (#21172705)

I have attempted to get this to work on my computer because it is fun, interesting and passes the time.

Historically, indeed. (5, Funny)

imstanny (722685) | about 7 years ago | (#21172175)

Not all the features of Leopard function with the patch -- Wi-Fi, support, for example, is reportedly inoperable. Historically, Apple's likely next move will be to track down and act against those behind the hack."
Historically, it's been notoriously hard to track down a computer that is not connected to the internet.

Re:Historically, indeed. (2, Funny)

phobos13013 (813040) | about 7 years ago | (#21172255)

They may have to resort to the extremely outdated technology of this type of cable called Category 5... I don't know if you can still find this in antique shops, however.

Re:Historically, indeed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172423)

Cat5? I'm on a gigabit network you insensitive clod!

the implication (0)

fishdan (569872) | about 7 years ago | (#21172185)

Of course what makes a mac great is the stability AND the OS. And much of that stability comes from knowing exactly what devices are in the machine If someone can get Leopard running on cheaper hardware, and keep it stable, you might see a new round of "DIY" Mac at some point [wikipedia.org] . And that is something Apple really does not want.

If that happens, expect mac to counter-salvo via software updates -- bricking devices, instead of just phones

Re:the implication (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 7 years ago | (#21172265)

How hard is it to have common drivers for ATI / AMD / NVIDIA / and INTEL chip sets and ATI / NVIDIA / INTEL video cards?

Also If apple had a mid-range desktop with pci-e slots then less people will need to use a hacked mac os X.

Re:the implication (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 years ago | (#21172347)

Many hacks are probably just as stable as the real thing.

Software updates already "bricks" them by your definition, new versions will probably contain a few binaries with the encryption still intact so someone needs may need to fix that. Even more so if you run SSE2 or AMD because OS X are built for SSE3 so someone needs to add emulation.

Everything could be shorten down to BS thought.

Re:the implication (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about 7 years ago | (#21172405)

Why not give your customers what they want? If Apple is concerned about its "oh so reliable" image (which is almost meaningless if that reliability comes at the price of limiting people to the choice of take it or leave it when it comes to the hardware) then why not simply offer both setups? The guaranteed Apple branded hardware + OS new in the box bundle for the "it just works" crowd and the OS box, perhaps with instructions, and a "good luck" to the crowd that wants that experience and is willing to accept a waiver on the support issue? At least with the iPhone there is a good reason for the lock-in other than Apple protecting its brand (i.e. AT&T is giving them payola for each iPhone sold).

Re:the implication (1)

idlemind (760102) | about 7 years ago | (#21172607)

Because there will be a 3rd party who will step up, offer support, and undercut Apple.

I guess this means... (4, Funny)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | about 7 years ago | (#21172227)

You'll only be able to buy the OS with a credit or debit card (no cash!), and the first service pack will brick your PC.

Re:I guess this means... (1)

daeg (828071) | about 7 years ago | (#21172747)

Only to be fixed when you view a TIF online. Unfortunately, the only working TIF exploit happens to be a certain distended fellow.

Apple is missing an opportunity (-1, Redundant)

mlwmohawk (801821) | about 7 years ago | (#21172241)

I can fully understand *not* wanting to support the hardware nightmare that is the P.C. market place, but I mean, money is money, and if you have demand, what the hell?

I could see supporting home brewers by stating: Mac OS/X is designed to run on Macintosh hardware and is unsupported on any other platform and may not be returned if t does not work on non-Apple hardware. For home experimenters who acknowledge that OS/X will most likely NOT run on their P.C. and agree to assume all risk, here is a list of OS/X supported peripherals, good luck.

They could sell a couple million extra boxes that way.

Re:Apple is missing an opportunity (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | about 7 years ago | (#21172381)

That's how many people see the pirated version...
Most of the recent mac converts i know started out with a pirated copy, unsupported with very few drivers, features not working and not as stable as it should be...
They liked the OS, and wanted to run it properly, so they went and bought macs.

Re:Apple is missing an opportunity (1)

R2.0 (532027) | about 7 years ago | (#21172549)

"They could sell a couple thousand extra boxes that way."

Fixed that for ya. I thing you overestimate the number of folks willing to do this by several orders of magnitude.

Re:Apple is missing an opportunity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172555)

Like many other large companies, Apple still has to learn that one good way to make money is to sell customers something they want, rather than trying to ram something down people's throats.

Re:Apple is missing an opportunity (1)

geeknado (1117395) | about 7 years ago | (#21172645)

The problem is that the console-like approach is /why/ OSX is so much more stable than Windows. They have limited hardware configurations they support. Even if people are theoretically accepting that they don't have support, do you really suppose that a bunch of bluescreening Macs are going to be helpful to their efforts to chip away at the Windows user base?

That's the thing-- Mac thrives because things 'just work'-- it doesn't break much, it's pretty secure, and your mom can use one without much training. If that changes too dramatically, their competative advantage is gone.

Re:Apple is missing an opportunity (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 7 years ago | (#21172687)

How is your suggestion any different than the existing situation?

Re:Apple is missing an opportunity (1)

mlwmohawk (801821) | about 7 years ago | (#21172847)

How is your suggestion any different than the existing situation?

The current situation is of questionable legality under the DMCA. What I suggest is an open hacker "friendly" Apple corp.

VMWare, here we come! (1, Insightful)

v_1_r_u_5 (462399) | about 7 years ago | (#21172245)

At last, this shows that virtualization is possible. Apple's next move should be to embrace virtualization and welcome sales of their software with open arms.

Re:VMWare, here we come! (1)

Carson Napier (1045596) | about 7 years ago | (#21172349)

Agreed. I'd buy it. It blows doors over Windoze. I just hate Apple and their proprietary crap!

Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172269)

An unstable version of OSX Leopard!

Re:Cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172589)

If you've been reading the nes you'd see that's it's rpetty unstable on Mac hardware as well...

Re:Cool! (1)

mjs_ud (849782) | about 7 years ago | (#21172663)

I can't even believe they need to "hack" Leopard, I figured it "just worked"

I don't get it (1)

TheDrewbert (914334) | about 7 years ago | (#21172281)

Doesn't Apple want to increase market penetration?

Re:I don't get it (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | about 7 years ago | (#21172513)

Dammit Apple, release the files!

It's what Bill Hicks would have wanted. ... I hope Apple is just waiting for the next uber Vista screw-up to release OS-X for PCs

Re:I don't get it (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 7 years ago | (#21172551)

Doesn't Apple want to increase market penetration?
[Insert ad for natural computing platform enhancement product here.]

Re:I don't get it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172777)

They are. [apple.com]

Apple shipped 1,517,000 Macintosh® computers and 10,549,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 36 percent growth in Macs and 24 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

Geeks want Apple to put OS X on PCs. Consumers don't give a fuck.

Re:I don't get it (1)

427_ci_505 (1009677) | about 7 years ago | (#21172793)

No, they're just interested in penetration, as it were.

Wow, One Bad (-1, Troll)

davidsyes (765062) | about 7 years ago | (#21172295)

Ass Cat

What if you have a laptop with the same specs (0, Flamebait)

majortom1981 (949402) | about 7 years ago | (#21172335)

I have a laptop that has about the same specs as a new mac book pro. What if they released a pc version only if it has the same specs as one of their computers. Even with vista i will not buy a computer that is $800 more just because it has osx. Heck on the cheaper computer I can tripple boot with xp,vista,ubuntu. So all that extra just for an operating system is not worth it for me.

Re:What if you have a laptop with the same specs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21172577)

I have a few questions:
  1. What is the make and model of your machine
  2. What are the exact specs (+ extras if build to order) of your machine
  3. How much (with and without sales tax) was your machine?
Thanks

Deja vu times infinity (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about 7 years ago | (#21172483)

Cue up the "I would buy OSX for my PC if they would only offer it" posts.

This is why you are not running a major corporation, son.

Apple should be THRILLED (1)

jabber (13196) | about 7 years ago | (#21172485)

Apple should encourage this sort of thing. Yes, they make more money on hardware sales than on the OS, but if they allow this to proceed - without formally supporting the PC as a valid platform, they'll a) get more OS sales and b) get more people using their software - these people, in turn, will be more likely to buy a Mac as their next upgrade, for the additional support and guaranteed compatibility. No?

Migrate? (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 7 years ago | (#21172493)

Anyone wishing to "migrate" to OS X on non-Apple hardware is just as likely to be left with a trashed PC when Apple release a patch that bricks or renders it unbootable.

It sounds like a neat trick to be able to run OS X, but "migrating" via some hack sounds like an extremely bad idea.

Messing With Success (2, Insightful)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | about 7 years ago | (#21172511)

Apple just sold the most Macs ever in a single quarter. I don't think the company wants to mess with that unprecendented level of success by opening OS X to the general PC market. There's no question that if it were done properly, an OS X for PCs retail box would substantially grow the platform. The questions are, can Apple successfully pull that off, and does Apple want to greatly expand an already growing platform at the cost of proprietary control. It could happen, though - Stranger things have - like the x86 switch itself.

Dual-Booting with Windows Vista (0)

mqudsi (1074334) | about 7 years ago | (#21172543)

For those of you (unlucky enough to be) using Windows Vista, you should be able to use this free program [neosmart.net] (previously featured on Slashdot) to get it dual-booting with as little pain as possible. EasyBCD works fine with Linux, Windows XP & Vista, and OS X.

Quality = Branding (4, Insightful)

njfuzzy (734116) | about 7 years ago | (#21172553)

This is really so simple, I can't believe I don't see any posts directly mentioning it. Apple doesn't release Mac OS X for other machines because doing so opens them up to unknown performance and stability. People who see Mac OS X running nicely on a Mac love it, and may want to buy a Mac later. People who see it running on a random PC box, with driver issues and performance problems-- even kernel panics-- aren't going to be left with a good impression. It doesn't matter if you say "Supported on Apple hardware only", the impression is still made.

Re:Quality = Branding (1)

darjen (879890) | about 7 years ago | (#21172653)

I get what you're saying, but since Apple has switched to mostly commodity hardware that doesn't seem to be as much of an issue anymore. Now if you're using a whole bunch of custom hardware, I don't see why you'd want to install it in the first place. But if you are simply doing mundane office tasks, why is it such a problem?

Anyway, it seems like it would be fun to try but I am too lazy to install a whole nother OS just to give it a whirl, especially if it doesn't have wifi support. The last time I tried Ubuntu, I couldn't get wifi working either. I'll just stick with what I know for now...

Re:Quality = Branding (0)

Endo13 (1000782) | about 7 years ago | (#21172689)

It's really a shame that I'm out of mod points and that this post is almost certain to get buried beneath several dozen samples of garbage.

Apple being dummies (0, Flamebait)

p00pyd00py (1174655) | about 7 years ago | (#21172741)

Why on earth do they have such a huge problem with people trying to install their OS on other types of hardware? Wouldn't they be better off if their software was released and 'encouraged' people to install it on PCs? I would imagine they could take a fairly big bite out of Microsoft if they did that. The way their brain works is just plain weird. Seems Apple is run almost like a brainwashed cult or something.

Armchair quarterbacks (5, Insightful)

Darth Cider (320236) | about 7 years ago | (#21172765)

Apple is worth more than IBM, but armchair CEOs keep saying, "if they were smart, they would sell OS X for 'IBM' PCs. Imagine how much more successful they would be." But Apple has no debt, it has billions in the bank, and its cashflow is astounding and steeply increasing. Why do the armchair CEOs never do a reality check and adjust to what really works in the marketplace? Quality products that are cool and just work.

Information wants to be free! (1)

mattgreen (701203) | about 7 years ago | (#21172849)

I'm not sure how anyone can be against this, as long as people know it isn't explicitly supported by Apple, and the people doing this buy copies of the operating system.

Post-sale restrictions? (0, Flamebait)

thtrgremlin (1158085) | about 7 years ago | (#21172931)

I think all Apple is saying is they don't want poor people using their OS because it would make them look bad. I mean really, the iPhone may be up to $5000 a month, but how cool would you be if you saw poor people using those too? I think they are just looking out for out best interests.

Now all we got to do is repeal all those silly "consumer protection" laws. Stoopid democracy and its "laws".

I got a Flat-6 into my Beetle! (4, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 7 years ago | (#21172971)

It works great. Cost me less than a real Porsche would have anyway.

Reverse doesn't work, sometimes I can't turn left, and sometimes it stalls on the highway. But take that Porsche and your integrated Engine/Car financial model.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?