If you want to run an OS on your own home-built PC or Dell, use Windows or Linux or any of the other half-dozen operating systems designed to do that.

If you want to run Mac OS X, buy a Mac. Simple as that. Just because you have a legal copy of Mac OS X, you are bound by the license agreement for that software, which DOES NOT permit you to install it on anything but a Mac. If you don't like that, then don't buy it.

If you are pirating it, which is definitely the case, since you can't buy Mac OS X for Intel off the shelf yet, then you were stupid to publicise your endeavors on the web to begin with. You're lucky you lasted this long.

I think pirating the OS is wrong, but if you buy it legally you ought to be able to install it on a non-Apple computer, if you so desire.

I can put cheese in my toaster all I want.

I'll eventually have to go buy some more cheese and a new toaster, though. While I'm out, maybe I'll get something actually designed to heat up the cheese without becoming useless itself or doing the cheese a bad turn.

Or I can get another toaster and keep cramming it full of Wensleydale.

to use it.

Good. It is about time these cheap theives, hack bastards were shut down.

If you want to run OS X, buy a Mac, if you love your Dell too much to switch, sorry about your luck, but you can not (legally) run OS X on your Dell.

"I think pirating the OS is wrong, but if you buy it legally you ought to be able to install it on a non-Apple computer, if you so desire."

1. You bought a license, so you are restricted to what the license says. Technically, all MacOS boxed editions for retail are upgrades or replacements, because only Macs (and all Macs) come with MacOS in the first place.

2. Amd even if fair use applies, it does so only for your own PC (if you're technically able), but fair use would still not allow you to make it available to anyone else.

Windows users spend half their time on the computer surfing hardware manufacturer's websites in search of new, updated drivers for their hardware so that their computers might actually stop crashing.

In contrast, Apple ensures that hardware for Macs work under OS X and work well. By limiting the operating system to specific hardware, Apple has created a brand that is known and trusted to function, unlike MS Windows.

The OS X license limits the user to the specific hardware Apple authorizes. Any attempt to make the operating run on other computers is a violation of the EULA.

In short, sure, they can pat themselves on the back because they made OS X run on a Dell computer, but they only end up with a buggy piece of sh!t just like Windows.

The anonymous post above feels like it has been written by Apple employee...

But i do agree with the issue. People have bought a license to use Mac OS in a Mac hardware. They have not bought rights to make modifications to it, and to distribute it to 3rd parties...

Not all EULAs are legal in all jurisdictions. Unreasonable EULA restrictions have often been rulled illegal in many courts.
I doubt the machine specific restriction is legal in many jurisdictions.
That said it is impossible to buy a legal copy of universal binary OS X yet...

I agree, if they stole the OS then they are wrong. But if anybody purchases an OS and gets it to run on any hardware supported or unsupported I don't think it's that big a deal.

What if people install OSX on "unsupported" Mac hardware? Do they get fined or jail time? What if people purchase an processor upgrade? Should they be prosecuted?

Where do you (or Apple, or judge) draw the line? Again, I agree if they pirated a version of OSX then they are in the wrong.

I agree with those who think that, as long as you legally purchased a copy of the Mac OSâ„¢, you have the right to install it on anything you want. And OS X86 was more of an experimental community, discussing the possibilities of installing the much praised Mac OSâ„¢ on unsupported hardware. Never did anyone expect the majority of the installed user base to be operating on unsupported hardware, and that would have never become a reality. Apple could have just left that small community alone.

in reference to fultonkbd's post:

Where do you draw the line? The line is drawn when the software (operating system) is altered in order to run on x86 machines. Purchasing OS X does not grant you the right to hack the software, you agree to that when you install it or use it for the first time.

I think a lot of people just don't get the whole issue of just what it is they own when it comes to software or pre-recorded music or video. Normally, if I buy a tangible object, I am free to use it, tinker with it, and maybe eventually sell it at a profit or a loss... but people treat media the same as a tangible object, thinking they have the right to tinker, and copy, and redistribute, etc. as they deem appropriate.

This is not like my friend who recently installed a Buick engine in his Ford car. He owns both the car and the engine, as they are tangible items. Though we can do quite a bit with our hardware (I could paint my G5 purple, or add a different HD or vid card.), only Apple has the right to tinker with OS X.

Quote

Guest wrote:
in reference to fultonkbd's post:

Where do you draw the line? The line is drawn when the software (operating system) is altered in order to run on x86 machines. Purchasing OS X does not grant you the right to hack the software, you agree to that when you install it or use it for the first time.

So again, what about OWC? They have shareware available for years that allows Mac OS X to run on unsupported hardware. How come Apple isn't threatening them? Is that line drawn because it's still unsupported Apple hardware and if so why does that make a difference?

What about all the processor upgrade companies. Don't they have software that comes with the cards that allow you to run the OS with that chip? I seem to recall installing software with my Sonnet upgrade.

Please don't read into this. I'm not trying to edge anyone on. I'm just curious to see where people stand. Again, if a person is pirating software, I believe it's wrong. I just don't think running OS X on unsupported hardware is all that wrong as long as both the OS and the hardware are legitimate.

We don't need to get all philosophical about this. We all know Apple makes the money on the hardware. The virtual powerpc software that let you sort of install OS X and sort of run it was crappy at best and barely functional. Not much of a threat. People installing OS X natively on non-Apple hardware is not crappy and would be a threat. This threatens their profits and that's bad for them. Given that they control OS X and the license agreement, they are doing what is in their best interests.

And running OS X on uncontrolled hardware configurations can and will lead to a less than optimal experience and, while we know that would not be Apple's fault, people would still come away with a negative impression of OS X and Apple. So again this is not in their best interest.

I don't see anything wrong with it personally, but maybe thats just cause I love Apple's hardware and would prefer to see them stay in business.

Quote

fultonkbd wrote:
So again, what about OWC? They have shareware available for years that allows Mac OS X to run on unsupported hardware. How come Apple isn't threatening them? Is that line drawn because it's still unsupported Apple hardware and if so why does that make a difference?

What about all the processor upgrade companies. Don't they have software that comes with the cards that allow you to run the OS with that chip? I seem to recall installing software with my Sonnet upgrade.

Please don't read into this. I'm not trying to edge anyone on. I'm just curious to see where people stand. Again, if a person is pirating software, I believe it's wrong. I just don't think running OS X on unsupported hardware is all that wrong as long as both the OS and the hardware are legitimate.

But it is still running on Apple hardware. Old Apple hardware, but still...

When Apple says OSX is unsupported on a particular Mac configuration, it means that it has not been tested or designed to run well on that hardware, and don't call them if it doesn't work well. But it is still Apple hardware, which is within the EULA (I don't believe the EULA states particular models of hardware is allowed.)

What OWC is not doing is altering the operating system. They provide their own software, they don't actually go in and change code in the OS.

Ok I see your point. I don't know how OWC software works. So taking that you are correct I can see that line. But people are arguing that its wrong because it robs Apple of a hardware sale. So coming from that angle isn't OWC still wrong because you haven't purchased new hardware to run a new OS?

Honestly, I don't think a few people tinkering around getting OS X to run on unsupported hardware isn't going to put Apple out of business. Doing this and documenting it just doesn't seem wrong to me. Is the gentleman who got his car to run on cooking oil running Exxon out of business? To me it's kind of the same thing.

With that said, I don't fault Apple for doing what they did. I just think that the threat that nobody would ever buying Apple hardware again is a far jump.

Quote

Guest wrote:
What OWC is not doing is altering the operating system. They provide their own software, they don't actually go in and change code in the OS.

yes, hardware enablers were to make sure the cache functioned correctly, not make the OS compatible with the CPU. It would be different if you bought a Pentium 4 chip on a Daughter card designed to fit the Mac, and needed to make fundamental changes to the OS for it to run.

Quote

Guest wrote:
...yes, hardware enablers were to make sure the cache functioned correctly, not make the OS compatible with the CPU. It would be different if you bought a Pentium 4 chip on a Daughter card designed to fit the Mac, and needed to make fundamental changes to the OS for it to run.

Point taken as with the previous person who posted. From my understanding the OSx86 group altered a possibly pirated copy of Mac OS X designed for Intel chips. I don't necessarily fault Apple for protecting what it feels it needs to protect,.

My point is, if a person has a legit copy of Mac OS X now or in the future, a version that will run on Intel chips or PPC chips where does the fair use line get drawn. Can said person just do it and keep it to themselves? Can said person document how they did it and post it on the internet? Can said person go ahead and sell the info or even sell a computer or two to make an extra buck?

Now I don't agree with my last suggestion but think said person should be able to get away with the other two within fair use. But if you are in disagreement. What do you suggest the punishment for this crime is? A strong letter? A fine? Community service? Jail time?

My reasons are more curiosity. With this and the recent RIAA articles about copying a CD to an iPod doesn't fall within fair use. I'm curious to see just what people think fair use is compared to what companies and lawmakers do.

Quote

Biff wrote:
And running OS X on uncontrolled hardware configurations can and will lead to a less than optimal experience and, while we know that would not be Apple's fault, people would still come away with a negative impression of OS X and Apple. So again this is not in their best interest.

I would agree with that statement if it wasn't true that the only people running OS-X 86 on non-supported hardware are massive tech geeks. They know perfectly well that the end result isn't going to to be a solid working environment like a natural Mac, and they aren't going to blame Apple for a poor experience on said system.

Why windows is running on a interMac using Boot Camp?

May I do the "Mac OS running on a PC using "_____"??

I know about the Apple and Intel pact but is not kind the same?

Why are you writing unintelligible drivel? what are you trying to say? is it relevant will it make sense when you re-word it?