BleepingComputer.com: Mac on PC. Is it possible?

I have a question. Is it possible to legally put Os x 10.5.5 on your pc? Like how the new macs have bootcamp which allows you to install vista.

new apple hardware is similar enough to PCs (they even use Intel core2 processors) that I would imagine that it would be possible but there would still be some driver issues.

Aww I would love to have a bootcamp interface in vista so i can install mac os x. I really should have just got myself a macbook pro or a mac pro

Like ive said, i think its technically possible, CPU wise should be no problem, Ive heard of people doing it, its just some of the drivers you may have problems with. :D

You asked if it was legal. NO

It is possible, for that you should use google because it can't be discussed.

Doing it will violate Apple's TOS which says that Mac OS X can only be run on Apple hardware.

Oh ok thank's

Quote

So, when was free speech deemed illegal?

Further Darkking711 you should have a full understanding of the ability to run OSX on a PC. It is possible to do this, and it's available. I'm NOT saying Nor am I recommending that you should do this.

I believe that lLHAMIl64 has been reading TOS (terms of service) agreements day and night, thus losing sight of free speech.

1st, the legalities of OSX on hardware other than Apple are being determined in court.

2nd, The core of OSX began development Free as in Beer software, Like FreeBSD. Apple Renamed Darwin. The origins were typically licensed under some for of the GPL or General Public Licence.

3rd, Apple then tied the operating system to their own hardware using EFI which is mean for proprietary use. Effectively, this gives Apple market control over their products which inhibits the ability for competition of similar products despite their compatibility.
EFI in and of itself alone is not proprietary, but the modifications by OEM's certainly can be.

In conclusion, I'm not against Apple computer by any means. It's a great company with great products. The concern here is that somehow it was implied that open discussion on website designed for technological discussion is subject to censorship. It also appears that free speech is not something that the above poster had considered.

My understanding is that, the internet (information superhighway) is intended for use to discuss, learn, and theorize without reasonable limitation.

You may find out more about Apple on PC Hardware at OSX86PROJECT.ORG

Currently I am not able to condone or encourage this software as the legalities or being left up to the legal system as it should be. If you choose to use that software, do so
at your own risk. If you simply want to learn, then by all mean read up.

If someone gives me a beer at a party, great. If a middle man takes that same beer and says, no no, you must pay me a percentage for drinking that beer from my cup, that's extortion.

I don't claim to know the law nor do I want to project such an Idea. I'm simply looking for information to educate and inspire beyond the restrictions of an Orwellian society.

Darkking711, don't be afraid to ask questions and be open-minded. In that same token, try not to do anything illegal.

Quote

Regarding Apple actually using EFI, I may be incorrect about this. I saw several conflicting articles about how the OS is tied to the hardware. Some claiming it's the installer on DVD, other claiming EFI. I'm not sure which is correct, if either. If someone knows for certain, please post and reference

Quote

Members need to be careful in this regard. Bleeping Computer is a private website, and as such considerations of free speech require some thought. Bleeping Computer is subject to censorship of a sort - the Moderators ensure that posts conform with the rules of Bleeping Computer. One of these rules is:

Quote

If putting OSX on a PC violates the TOS, it could also run foul of the Bleeping Computer rule stated above. I might ask one of the Moderators to jump in on this.

Ye I actually researched this a little but hopefully maybe when Snow Leopard comes out, they might allow it on pc's that have the requirements.

RandomUser, on Mar 31 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

As I recall, the Mach kernel was originally released under the BSD License which is not a Free Software license (since it allows the redistribution of modified versions as binary-only files rather than requiring the source be available as well.) Thus, NextStep, and later Apple, was able to take the kernel, modify it, and the re-release their modified version under whatever terms they saw fit. They chose to make their kernel legally (not technically) incompatible with non-Apple hardware. is this ethical? I don't think so. Should it be legal? I think not. Is it the reality of the situation? Yup.

As has been stated, Bleeping Computer's rules are quite clear on this matter. These rules are not intended to chill free speech (though they may have that effect) but rather to protect Bleeping Computer from being sued into oblivion by software patent and copyright holders under the DMCA (Bleeping Computer is located in the USA.)

<Warning! Off Topic Rambling Starts Here>
Current copyright and patent law have been perverted from their original intent to serve the greed of publishers (be it software, book, music, movies, or what have you.) Richard Stallman recognized this and created the Free Software Foundation in an effort to counter this trend, at least in the world of software.

This is one of the main reasons I refuse to buy a Mac. When I purchase something, be it a $2000 computer or a .59¢ Bic pen, I expect to be able to use the item in whatever way I see fit. I could write a letter with the pen, or I could wedge it under a door to prop it open. No one has the right to tell me that I can't use my pen to prop open my door. When hardware and software manufacturers try to tell me what I can do with "their" products, they are impinging upon my rights as the owner of the item in question.

Suppose that Bic, the pen company, came out with a line of ball point pens. These pens cost twice as much as other pens and were designed to only write on a particular type of paper, also available from Bic, that cost more than regular paper. Granted, the pen and paper were designed to go together; the ink never smudges and the contrast between paper-white and ink-black is perfect for reading. But would you actually be willing to buy such a pen?

Suppose that in addition to only being able to write on Bic-paper, the pen would only work in certain countries. Or, perhaps certain words and phrases were prohibited from being written with the pen by the Bic End-user License Agreement ("Bic Sucks" being at the top of the list, for example.)

Suppose, then, that some smart guy figured out how to make the pen write on normal binder paper and published his methods. He could go to prison, but has he really committed a crime? Would you be committing a crime by reading his work?

The fundamental question is this: whose rights are more important: the public's or the publishers'?

</end Off Topic Rambling>

So yeah, not being "allowed" to talk about things like this sucks. It's against my nature, I don't like it. But I'd like to see BC sued out of existence even less.

I was at a Best Buy store and two of the sales people (young geek types) had Apple OS running on their netbooks. Each had Vista as one boot up and Apple OS as second. They used Vistal to partition their hard drives and create a partition for the Apple OS. All USB ports worked; I believe they had problems with the printer working though. I actually used the netbook to see how it worked; it was pretty good considering the limited resources on the netbook. I was up and running surfing the web with it, so the wireless worked great. Neither had any luck with the Mac OS on their towers because of hardware issues.

It is usually not possible. Apple Macs have a very different caching system and it requires parts specified by Apple. Windows configured computers cannot deal with caching systems like that of a Mac.

Windows gaming or professional structures can get up to 64 bit processor, and 8 GB RAM. Function well? Multiple processors=multiple RAM.

iMacs can get two Quad-Core processors, but still run only 2 GB RAM.

See the difference?

Quote

Did open source suddenly change in it's definition or am I missing the point? I thought this included universal use on hardware as the end user sees fit as long as it's done with open source software.

I did not once condone or assume to know the legalities behind placing OSX on none MAC hardware.

My point here is regarding open discussion, and I find offensive to free speech in questioning the legalities of something and we don't
necessarily know the intent of the person unless they explicitly state what they are doing.

To sue bleeping computer for something that it's users are doing illegally or not borders on imperialism just a bit. I would not be concerned
about this as the last thing a company wants to do is take away it's customers leisurely activities. If Any one company had this issue, it would be
morally correct to stop the end user involved in such potential crime.

BTW, does MS consider it illegal to install Vista, XP, etc.... ON Mac hardware? No, and yet it was Made for the "PC" but MS doesn't stop selling their
software to whoever. And in fact, Apple provide Boot camp to natively install Vista/XP. hmmm Don't install OSX on PC's (which by definition, the apple hardware now is),
but go ahead and put linux or windows on our product, because that's not a crime. How convenient for market share.

Forgive me if I'm wrong? but isn't an Operating System's purpose to well, Operate a System?

I don't see every mechanical engineer going crazy with patent protection on so-called software, but rather on the functionality of the physical product.

Don't install OSX on Intel hardware, because XYZ company didn't buy it first.... And yet, people still have to Pay for the rights to the software.

Anti-competitive much?

I'm done now. no more squawking here.

RandomUser, on Apr 8 2009, 12:32 AM, said:

<nitpick>

Agreement between Microsoft and Apple. Apple made BOOTCAMP to make a BOOTCAMP Partition to allow the Operating System to be hosted in on that partition. It isn't illegal, even if it were agreed. You have the Windows in hand ready to install. BOOTCAMP is good.

</nitpick>

who cares, isnt it kinda sacriligouse to put a mac on a PC anyway? lol my best friend found a computer tower that was modeled after a apple server tower for his custom build (it looked like a apple server but was designed for PC) and he was braggin about it, and Im like you know, no matter how you look at it, if your a PC lover your insulting PCs by makin it look like a apple, and if your a apple lover your insulting apple by putting a PC into it. he just smiled and gave me that dear in the headlights look like he usually does. . .but hey each to their own.