Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 16th Nov 2005 01:50 UTC, submitted by Jeremy
Apple ExtremeTech is featuring a How-To on building an OSx86 MacIntel machine that boots both OS X and Windows. On the same hardware, OS X booted almost three times faster than Windows, yet was a disappointment when playing certain games. Update: One more article about it.
Order by: Score:
In other words...
by kellym on Wed 16th Nov 2005 02:07 UTC
kellym
Member since:
2005-07-06

In other words...

How to break the law by going against Apple's EULA.

Why are people so flippant about these sorts of things? Why not publish an article titled, "hot to pirate music and software for fun and profit."

It doesn't matter that you may not agree with Apple's approach to operating systems and computer hardware. That doesn't make it right to break the law.

Edited 2005-11-16 02:09

Reply Score: 1

RE: In other words...
by WorknMan on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:13 UTC in reply to "In other words..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Well, let's see ...

Nobody saying you have to pirate the OS in the future. If Apple sells boxed versions of Mactel OSX that I can buy off the shelf, assuming it can be hacked, then I'll run it on whatever I damn well please.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: In other words...
by kellym on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:24 UTC in reply to "RE: In other words..."
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

With that logic, I can't imagine you'd mind me walking in your house and taking a few of your things. I know its against the law, but as long as I'm capeable of doing it, and you're away from home and not stopping me, I'll go in and take what I damn well please.

Edited 2005-11-16 03:25

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In other words...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see how the two things are comparable: you are talking about stealing, we are talking about buying.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: In other words...
by kellym on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

You'd be right if the development cost of OS X weren't primarily funded by the understanding that a person will also be buying a computer. When you buy OS X to the exclusion of a Mac, you are stealing at least $500 from Apple.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: In other words...
by AdamR01 on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
AdamR01 Member since:
2005-09-14

How does any theft take place? You may be cheating them out of money but you certainly are not stealing. You might get more people to agree with you if you use the correct terminology.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: In other words...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"When you buy OS X to the exclusion of a Mac, you are stealing at least $500 from Apple."

Which could also be interpreted as: a Mac is at least $500 too expensive

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: In other words...
by WorknMan on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't see how the two things are comparable: you are talking about stealing, we are talking about buying.

I'm assuming that there won't be any boxed versions then and so the only way you'd be able to get it is with a new Mac. If that's the case, then I probably won't be buying it, depending on how competively priced Mactel hardware is. I'm not one to pay for overpriced hardware just to be able to run software that would otherwise run on a computer I already have, if it weren't illegal to do so.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: In other words...
by rayiner on Wed 16th Nov 2005 05:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: In other words..."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

1) These arguments are predicated on the fact that there will be boxed versions, like there have been for releases so far.

2) It is not illegal to install OS X on an x86. It's a violation of Apple's EULA, but whether its a prosecutable one is still up in the air.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: In other words...
by rayiner on Wed 16th Nov 2005 05:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

You'd be right if the development cost of OS X weren't primarily funded by the understanding that a person will also be buying a computer. When you buy OS X to the exclusion of a Mac, you are stealing at least $500 from Apple.

Law is not based upon understandings. If you sell a product for $X, and I buy it for $X, that's the end of the agreement. It's immaterial if it cost you $(X+J) dollars to make that product. If it was such a problem for you, you shouldn't have sold it so cheaply!

By your logic, I'm stealing from Microsoft if I buy an XBox 360 and no games. After all, the cost of the XBox is based on the understanding that you'll also buy games.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: In other words...
by japail on Wed 16th Nov 2005 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: In other words..."
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

And if you use it to run linux, you're eeeeevil.

It's always fun to see people support arbitrary and bizarre "contracts." If publishers started putting such agreements on the inside of the covers of books preventing the reader from telling anyone the ending of the book by turning the page, I suppose that would seem perfectly sensible to some parties.

As I pointed out when this same subject came up before, if I buy N versions of OS X for my Mini or my iMac, I'm either stealing several hundred dollars from Apple or Kelly McNeil's estimated valuation is a poor means of rationalizing his argument.

This has more to do with keeping the unwashed hordes from OS X and thus removing it as whatever status symbol certain parties perceive it to be. If anything, Apple would benefit tremendously from the increase in volume of legitimate, unsupported sales of OS X from those looking to select the hardware upon which to run it. Way more than the $0 they'll obtain from the people that aren't going to buy a Mac for the privilege. What they would lose is the exclusiveness of their party, which might tarnish their brand. I have little faith that they'll be able to prevent the combination of dedicated cracking effort and ubiquitous warez channels from proliferating the system, so they should really just welcome the revenue stream and increased ISV relevance not making people go that route would provide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: In other words...
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

kellym, consider what you are saying. Please. You are saying the hardware is 500 more than it would be if bought on the open market. But you also say that the hardware is the same price as, or cheaper than, hardware bought on the open market. Which is it?

Then, you are saying breaking a Eula is criminal. it isn't. At worst it is a violation of a binding civil contract. There is a difference between things being illegal, unlawful and simply violation of contract. Its not illegal to break a contract, though it may attract enforceable penalties. What's illegal is to break a court order on the subject.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: In other words...
by alcibiades on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Again, its not right to moderate this down. He is not being consistent with some of the things he has said in the past, and it is not a very good point, but so what? Its not abusive or offensive, and the point, though mistaken, is understandable. Just tell him he is wrong.

He is wrong, of course, because no way can you be said to be stealing if you buy what a company has put out for sale. This is so obvious once you have said it, that it is better just to point it out, and leave the original post standing for everyone to see.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: In other words...
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 18th Nov 2005 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Since when did consumers have any obligation (legal or otherwise) to subsidize the development of OS X?

I think the primary objection is that people find the artificial restriction of hardware that OS X will run on to be rather churlish. There's obviously a demand for OS X on non-Apple hardware and if Apple isn't willing to satisfy it, people will turn to other means. I have a hard time finding that immoral, given that no other major OS vendor artificially limits the platform their OS will run on.

I've seen this particular "You're stealing from Apple if you run OS X on non-Apple hardware" hobbyhorse. Rather than being borne of any rational argument, it appears to be largely based on a feeling that it would be offensive to Mac users if OS X ran on non-Apple hardware, or somehow cheapen the "Mac Experience." In other words, a silly a stubborn sort of elitism.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In other words...
by WorknMan on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't see how the two things are comparable: you are talking about stealing, we are talking about buying.

Exactly. His logic says that installing a purchased copy of OSX on a PC that is NOT a Mactel PC is the same as commiting piracy.
That would be like saying that if I bought a song off the iTunes music store and then stripped the DRM off of it so I could play it natively on a non-iPod device that supports unencrypted AAC woudl also be piracy.

Honestly, if they sell it as a boxed version and then try to tell that I can't install it on hardware I already own even when it is compatable, they can kiss my ass. Hell, not even MS does that.
I know that if I install it on non-support hardware, Apple won't support it, and that's fine with me. But my decision to install it on non-Apple hardware is my decision to make, not Apple's.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In other words...
by molnarcs on Wed 16th Nov 2005 10:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

I little bit melodramatic, no? This is a freakin beta OS for God's sake! Why are you so annoyed by the idea? I found both articles interesting...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In other words...
by alcibiades on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

I upped the mod. I don't agree with him. He is quite wrong . He's not entirely reasonable on this subject - but - he is not being abusive or offensive....

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In other words...
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 18th Nov 2005 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

What a wonderul example of reductum ad absurdum. There's a big difference between felony theft and violating a clause in a (questionably-enforceable) EULA.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: In other words...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE: In other words..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

And I believe very few courts of law will be willing to prosecute you because of that (certainly not in this country, Italy)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In other words...
by kellym on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

Well as long as nobody is going to punish you for breaking the law... then it must be ok.

Edited 2005-11-16 03:27

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In other words...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

If nobody wants to prosecute you, that is normally because you are breaking a silly, questionable or obsolete law.
A law which dictates how to use an object you bought would most likely be deemed against the Constitution by the Italian Supreme Court.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: In other words...
by Andrew Youll on Wed 16th Nov 2005 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
Andrew Youll Member since:
2005-06-29

if you actually read most Software license, all you have is a license the software is never your property, you have bought a license, you can do what you please with the license, print it off, frame it, even eat it if you so desire, but you must obide (SP?) to it as it is a legally binding document (yes in some countries EULA's are questionable). so you own a license, not a copy of Mac OS X, so you can't legally "crack / hack" it

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: In other words...
by Temcat on Wed 16th Nov 2005 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

The world != USA, buddy, though you may believe otherwise. There are a lot of sane (even first world) countries where EULA are not enforceable, and good ol' copyright rules. Which is how it *should* be. Would you like to buy, say, a shovel with an obligatory EULA that instructs you what you can and cannot dig with it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In other words...
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 18th Nov 2005 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

That's a pretty disingenuous bit of reasoning. You might want to look up the concept of "de minimis" - in a nutshell, "violations" that are considered to be so minor as to be unworthy of the law's attention.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: In other words...
by Jedd on Wed 16th Nov 2005 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE: In other words..."
Jedd Member since:
2005-07-06

I totally agree with you WorknMan. ^_^

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: In other words...
by Bastian on Wed 16th Nov 2005 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE: In other words..."
Bastian Member since:
2005-07-25

Please.

Everyone's sick of hearing all of this tired talk about Apple allowing OS X installs on any old Intel hardware. See any geek conversation involving Apple over the last six months for all of the back-and-forth.

Not that there's much back-and-forth, the whole conversation is bascially a bunch of Apple fanatics listing a whole bunch of canned reasons why Apple shouldn't do it, and a bunch of people who like to whine about how Macs are too expensive saying, "but d0000000d it would be so k-l33t!" Which brings us back to everyone being sick of the whole conversation in the first place.

It's a waste of time, anyway. Regardless of what YOU think, Apple has made it clear that their OS is going to run on Apple hardware only, so yes, in fact, you would have to "pirate the OS in the future" to run it on non-Apple hardware.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: In other words...
by Mediocre Sarcasm Man on Wed 16th Nov 2005 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
Mediocre Sarcasm Man Member since:
2005-07-06

It's a waste of time, anyway. Regardless of what YOU think, Apple has made it clear that their OS is going to run on Apple hardware only, so yes, in fact, you would have to "pirate the OS in the future" to run it on non-Apple hardware.

Has the definition of "pirate" been extended to include modifying legally purchased software against the wishes of the developer/publisher?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: In other words...
by WorknMan on Wed 16th Nov 2005 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Has the definition of "pirate" been extended to include modifying legally purchased software against the wishes of the developer/publisher?

They don't really have to even technically allow it. They could just say "You can run it on whatever you want, but we're not going to support it." A lot of people would still buy it and run it on their own hardware, even if it were unsupported. So I go out and pay $150 (or whatever) for OSX and Apple doesn't have to support or provide a thing for me.
So basically, since I wouldn't touch their overpriced hardware with a 10-foot rubber dildo, that's $150 they otherwise wouldn't have had, and they never ever have to worry about getting any support calls from me. So imagine if 10,000 people bought the OS to run on their own hardware. That's 10,000 copies Apple doesn't have to support, so multiply 10,000 * $150 a piece for no additional overhead in support costs, and that's not a bad return, IMHO. Not only that, but Apple wouldn't have to worry much about trying to keep it off non-Apple hardware, because if 100,000 people buy the OS at $150 a pop who otherwise wouldn't have bought a Mac, and whom Apple wouldn't have to support, isn't that good thing? For those who want the Apple eXperience, they'll buy the whole package anyway, so this seems to me a win-win situation for eveyrone involved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: In other words...
by Mage66 on Thu 17th Nov 2005 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

Unfortunately, there's not much Apple can, or historically HAS done to keep MacOS X off unsupported Platforms...

Go look for MacOnLinux, and XPostFacto..

MacOnLinux has allowed MacOS X to run on Pegasos and AmigaONE Hardware..

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: In other words...
by Mellin on Thu 17th Nov 2005 01:13 UTC in reply to "RE: In other words..."
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

you can forget support on that copy of Mac OS X if you install it on a PC

Reply Score: 1

RE: In other words...
by QuantumG on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:49 UTC in reply to "In other words..."
QuantumG Member since:
2005-07-06

If the EULA said you had to eat pickles whilst using MacOSx86 would you hunt down and arrest people who claim to have used it without eating pickles? It's just absurd to think that the seller of an item gets to dictate how you use it. It's even more absurd to justify such a system.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: In other words...
by the_trapper on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE: In other words..."
the_trapper Member since:
2005-07-07

Exactly!

It makes me laugh that some of the people justify Apple having absurd EULAs for their products, but wouldn't have any problem running Microsoft Office on a Linux system through Wine.

Or how about if Sony started making it so that you could only listen to Sony's CDs on Sony CD players? That probably wouldn't fly with consumers.

It IS the same thing. I agree with the poster above that said there is nothing wrong with using Mac OS X on any computer you want as long as you have legitimately paid for said product. Apple engineers get paid so their families don't go hungry and people have a product they want. The computer and entertainment industries are the only industries I've ever heard of that get to control something you purchase after it enters your hand. They might as well just tell you you're leasing their product.

Just because it is illegal, doesn't mean it is wrong. That's one of the principals that a certain influential North American country was founded around.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[3]: In other words...
by COSCOSCOS on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
RE[4]: In other words...
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Not that OS X is a giveaway...
In any case they can increase the price until it becomes profitable for them, as far as I am concerned (how about the same price as Windows XP Professional? Is that reasonable enough?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: In other words...
by rayiner on Wed 16th Nov 2005 05:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

First, you have no proof of that. Second, at worst, you're taking advantage of someone, not stealing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In other words...
by japail on Wed 16th Nov 2005 06:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
japail Member since:
2005-06-30

So why aren't new releases of OS X free, and why do they make so much money for Apple?

Edited 2005-11-16 06:36

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In other words...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 16th Nov 2005 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

By installing OS X on anything other than a Mac, you are stealing.

No.. for me it's the right I have according to danish law. As long as I have a legal license I have the right to reengineer and use it on hardware of my choice.

There is no stealing involved in this. Just an illegal EULA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: In other words...
by silicon on Wed 16th Nov 2005 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: In other words..."
silicon Member since:
2005-07-30

No you are wrong: Apple is using lots of opensource code which belongs to you and me for profit. Apple's the one thats stealing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: In other words...
by rm6990 on Wed 16th Nov 2005 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

You're wrong. The development of OS X is paid for primarily by the fact that its tied to hardware. By installing OS X on anything other than a Mac, you are stealing.

Breaching a license agreement is copyright infringement, not theft, just to let you know.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: In other words...
by Temcat on Wed 16th Nov 2005 07:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Breaching a COPYRIGHT license is copyright infringement. "Breaching" an EULA may or may not be breach of contract in USA and may even be legal in other countries where EULAs are not enforceable and/or illegal (which is IMHO right).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: In other words...
by falemagn on Wed 16th Nov 2005 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: In other words..."
falemagn Member since:
2005-07-06

> Breaching a license agreement is copyright infringement

Not even close to truth. Copyright concerns copying and distribution of a material, breaching a license is a breach of a contract, which has nothing to do with copyright.

Reply Score: 2

RE: In other words...
by rayiner on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:56 UTC in reply to "In other words..."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

How to break the law by going against Apple's EULA.

I would love to see the location in US, State, or Local law that makes breaking an EULA illegal.

Let me save you the trouble. You won't find how. That's because EULA's are, at best, contracts. So, at worst, this is a breach of contract, not a breach of the law.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: In other words...
by kellym on Wed 16th Nov 2005 06:53 UTC in reply to "RE: In other words..."
kellym Member since:
2005-07-06

Breaking a contract is illegal. The EULA is a contract.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: In other words...
by dagw on Wed 16th Nov 2005 09:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Why don't you quote this law? Breach of contract is not in itself in any way illegal. It's a civil matter between the two parties involved in the contract. If you and I signed a contract saying you where not allowed to wear blue on tuesdays, and you broke that contract you would not be going to jail.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: In other words...
by Emil on Wed 16th Nov 2005 13:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
Emil Member since:
2005-06-29

I can not read EULA before I buy a box. This makes such contrac invalid. Also, when I pay for it, it's mine. I can use it as a doorstop if I please.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: In other words...
by alcibiades on Thu 17th Nov 2005 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other words..."
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Kellym, got to understand the difference between civil and criminal law in Anglo Saxon jurisdictions. It is not illegal to break a contract. However, the contract holder may in civil suit obtain a judgment against you, and if so, failure to comply may lead to contempt of court, and THAT is criminal. But it was not the breaking of the contract which was a crime. Think about it. All kinds of crazy contracts would be made criminal offences to break. Can't work that way.

Look up contract law, tort, criminal and civil - you'll see for yourself. You're letting your eagerness to defend the company, if that's what it is, get in the way of common sense.

Reply Score: 1

RE: In other words...
by ApproachingZero on Wed 16th Nov 2005 05:12 UTC in reply to "In other words..."
ApproachingZero Member since:
2005-11-10

Breaking a EULA is not the same thing as breaking the law. An end user license agreement is not a law. Whether or not you broke the law would be for a judge or jury to decide.

Reply Score: 2

RE: In other words...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 16th Nov 2005 10:23 UTC in reply to "In other words..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The EULA is illegal in Denmark.

If I buy it, I have the right to crack it so I can run it on any hardware I want to.

It's only in USA stupid things like the EULA works as intended by the companies.

Apple is today everybit as "bad" as Microsoft and most other companies limitting your constitutional rights (as it basically is in Denmark).

Look at Sony. Their copy protection root kit is a violation of the danish constitution.

Built-in hardware limitations are constantly working on the borders of the danish constitution.

Reply Score: 3

RE: In other words...
by nimble on Wed 16th Nov 2005 23:30 UTC in reply to "In other words..."
nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

In other words...

How to break the law by going against Apple's EULA.


Except it doesn't, at least in the US:

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

Reply Score: 2

Huh?
by jeffbax on Wed 16th Nov 2005 02:12 UTC
jeffbax
Member since:
2005-07-27

What games have x86 Mac Versions?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Huh?
by Lazarus on Wed 16th Nov 2005 02:21 UTC in reply to "Huh?"
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

Chess ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Huh?
by markob on Wed 16th Nov 2005 08:56 UTC in reply to "Huh?"
markob Member since:
2005-07-06

World of Warcraft, for example.

Reply Score: 1

Alternate Title
by Tom K on Wed 16th Nov 2005 02:25 UTC
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

"How to run an unstable and unsupported development version of an operating system on a new PC!"

Really now. I know some morons out there who have completely switched to "OSXx86" as their primary OS. Hardware support is limited (and somewhat unstable), there are no applications that will ever run on it, and getting it to run amounts to hex editing certain binaries and kernel extensions.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Alternate Title
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:28 UTC in reply to "Alternate Title"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, you have a point there, but it is ExtremeTech we are talking about: they have the resources and they must attract readers.

Reply Score: 1

Well ...
by agildehaus on Wed 16th Nov 2005 02:29 UTC
agildehaus
Member since:
2005-06-29

Could it be that games don't work well because there is no 3D acceleration for ANY cards (that I'm aware of) on the x86 side of things yet?

Reply Score: 1

Re: How to Build an Intel Mac
by Lazarus on Wed 16th Nov 2005 02:52 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Call me crazy, but I think I'll wait until actual MacIntels come out, and buy one of those.

Legal issues aside, I find it brain-dammaged that people trust illegaly distributed (and (potentially) modified) binary apps they find on the Internet.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Re: How to Build an Intel Mac
by astroraptor on Wed 16th Nov 2005 05:03 UTC in reply to "Re: How to Build an Intel Mac"
astroraptor Member since:
2005-07-22

I couldn't agree more. Just like the Vista betas going around. I mean, what the hell's the point of running it? It's slow and it's imcomplete. I used to want to be able to run OS X on my PC but somehow I wouldn't meet the requirements and it's so complicated and potentially damaging what would be the point?

Reply Score: 1

I'll ask...
by nbensa on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:03 UTC
nbensa
Member since:
2005-08-29

Today at my office, someone showed me Mac OS x86.

The thing that puzzled me was: Microsoft Messenger. This guy installed the Mac version and it worked.

A "file Microsoft Messenger" showed it was a PPC binary (!!) How could this be? How can an AMD64 box run PPC code? Is there any type of emulation going on there?

Other binaries showed they were both PPC and x86. Something like the "hybrid" binaries on the Motorola 68K <-> PowerPC era.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I'll ask...
by Lazarus on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:05 UTC in reply to "I'll ask..."
Lazarus Member since:
2005-08-10

"A "file Microsoft Messenger" showed it was a PPC binary (!!) How could this be? How can an AMD64 box run PPC code? Is there any type of emulation going on there?"

Rosetta, a program that translates PPC code to x86 code. Bloody slow from what I've read.

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universa...

Edited 2005-11-16 03:10

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I'll ask...
by Kroc on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE: I'll ask..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You read wrong then. It runs well enough, and I personally believe that when the new macintels come out that they will feature latest intel processors fast enough to emulate at near to today's speed. Remember that the OS is not complete yet, usually optimization is the last task done to some processes. (Vista for example)

Reply Score: 1

paging..
by Brad on Wed 16th Nov 2005 03:04 UTC
Brad
Member since:
2005-07-06

Paging Apple legal department, Paging Apple legal depart...

Release the hounds!

Reply Score: 2

$90?
by PCheese on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:04 UTC
PCheese
Member since:
2005-07-24

I don't get it. ExtremeTech Total: $1,409. Total for official transition kit: $1499. Difference in price: $90. Overlooking the slight differences in hardware, $90 would definitely be worth not having legal issues and being able to run the latest version of the operating system without needing to hack it. Plus you'd get all the extras from a Select ADC membership...

Reply Score: 1

RE: $90?
by AdamR01 on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:47 UTC in reply to "$90?"
AdamR01 Member since:
2005-09-14

Except for the fact that ExtremeTech even says they went overkill on the specs. I beleive their machine has specs higher than those of the developer machines. On top of that, you have to return the developer machines in December 2006 I beleive.

Reply Score: 1

RE: $90?
by Mage66 on Wed 16th Nov 2005 15:22 UTC in reply to "$90?"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

But, the Intel Developer Mac has to be returned, and you don't get your $999 back. You don't get to keep it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: $90?
by Mage66 on Wed 16th Nov 2005 15:28 UTC in reply to "$90?"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

But, the Intel Developer Mac has to be returned, and you don't get your $999 back. You don't get to keep it.

Reply Score: 1

Mac People
by snaker on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:09 UTC
snaker
Member since:
2005-11-16

I have a couple of Mac machines (Mac Mini's at home-G5 dual at work) around the house and a couple of Linux boxes (Suse 9.3 on both with 3D (The 3D is just a punch in the side). I read osnews daily and everyone in the windows forums talk about Linux nuts. I must have found the nut farm! Whenever someone talks about MAC it only must be good. Macs have their advantages and disadvantages and games are a HUGE disadvantage. I use the PS2 for gaming. You should just read the articles and either agree, disagree or agree to disagree.....its simple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mac People
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:20 UTC in reply to "Mac People"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I can see you have just joined, this is your first post, and you already want to dictate how other people post: good start! (not even mentioning your offensive language)

Edited 2005-11-16 04:23

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mac People
by snaker on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac People"
snaker Member since:
2005-11-16

first post since OSNEWS redid their database.......your right
and what do I need to do get to your status, of a nice warm welcome.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mac People
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mac People"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"a nice warm welcome"

It *solely* depends on what you write in your posts.

Reply Score: 1

Games
by ValiantSoul on Wed 16th Nov 2005 04:19 UTC
ValiantSoul
Member since:
2005-07-20

Of COURSE games will be slow, until they come out with x86 versions OS X has to emulate the PowerPC via Rosetta.

Reply Score: 1

Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

This has been an amusing thread! ;)

Well, they can have fun now, cracking OS X so they can run it on any x86 hardware, but why bother wasting time and resources on this until the final version of OS X is out? At that point Apple will have a different method of obfuscation in place and no doubt it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to crack. Then there is the issue of support.

When you run Linux, you don't care about support. You ARE the support and you are running free software that millions of people will help you support.

You run OS X and you will be using software that you have purchased (if you want to get a lot of real work done) and NONE of it will be supported if something goes wrong.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: In other words...
by Celerate on Wed 16th Nov 2005 06:26 UTC
Celerate
Member since:
2005-06-29

In this case actually it would be because they have less to gain by making an example of you than it would be worth to them.

I'm in general agreement with the argument that OS X should be able to run on non-Apple hardware. I'd be happy to pay full price for OS X, but I'd want to put together my own system with good hardware.

I'm hoping that when Apple finds people using modified versions of OS X on their own homebrew systems they'll change their policy a little and come out with a friendlier system for people who like homemade computers. I think a reasonable compromise would be Apple selling the motherboards as well as OS X, that way they can include their controversial TPM chip and make extra dough by selling the mobo, and the people who would rather build their own systems can get what they want legally. Ideally everyone would win in that case.

Either way, if OSx86 hits the shelves locally and I can make it work on my own hardware without too much trouble I may very well do that. Apple needs to start thinking different, lots of people want the freedom of choosing their own hardware.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Huh?
by Celerate on Wed 16th Nov 2005 06:46 UTC
Celerate
Member since:
2005-06-29

You forgot the other two games ;-)
http://www.apple.com/games/

I recall seeing a port of my favourite game, Rise of Nations, for OS X. In all fairness OS X does have a decent collection of games; however, those that are ported may not perform as well.

Reply Score: 1

Nice thread
by Bringbackanonposting on Wed 16th Nov 2005 08:16 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

I love these topics, it brings out the MAC in everyone.
OSX for X86 is now free for everyone and will continue wether anyone like it or not, just like OSX for MAC was free from your friend on CD. EULA SHMUELA forget it. All I see here is the usual MAC people trying to feel good about themselves again and their precious money torn from their hands for their new G5 and Tiger (Growl). Oh, and I run Linux and not Windows. Oh and another thing, I did get tiger running on the same machine in less than an hour with 2D accell. Probably quicker than installing Windows. Why bother? Who cares. Just like the many readers who download Ubuntu DVDs run the livecd once then throw them in the bin - just looking I guess. I'll probably never run OSX, but then again I might and if Apple gives me the opportunity then I'll pay for my copy (probably hacked one too). You like that?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nice thread
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 16th Nov 2005 08:55 UTC in reply to "Nice thread"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

As you can see, being a registered user didn't stop you from posting something nice. And you are still fully anonymous :-)

Reply Score: 1

I can see it coming...
by The Lone OSer on Wed 16th Nov 2005 08:36 UTC
The Lone OSer
Member since:
2005-07-11

I can see one of either 2 things happening in the near future..
1) Apple will make it next to impossible to run OSX on a standard PC (Maybe a PCI daughterboard will be NEEDED to run OSX that only Apple will sell, as one idea)
2) Apples attempts at securing the OS to Mac hardware will fail, and Apple will see in a very few short months that their OS has been pirated THAT much, that if they actually boxed the OS for standard x86 platforms, they would be making a killing in the market place.

Micrsoft is a software only company to a degree, and look at their profits compared to Apples in computing, and people are begging for OSX on their cheap PC boxes.... I think Apple MAY revise this hardware only plan in the next 12-24 months IMHO if #2 takes place as I suspect it will... Even Steve Jobs has to do what his shareholders demand.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I can see it coming...
by Emil on Wed 16th Nov 2005 13:09 UTC in reply to "I can see it coming..."
Emil Member since:
2005-06-29

,,Apple will make it next to impossible to run OSX on a standard PC''

You underestiminate hackers. They have skills to change and modify everything that corporation can come up with. I've seen "this is the unbreakeable stuff" quote in CEO's talks, and they all been proven wrong.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I can see it coming...
by skingers6894 on Thu 17th Nov 2005 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE: I can see it coming..."
skingers6894 Member since:
2005-08-10

Apple doesn't really care about the hackers. As long as it's inconvenient for most users to run on generic hardware then that will be enough.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: I can see it coming...
by Emil on Thu 17th Nov 2005 06:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I can see it coming..."
Emil Member since:
2005-06-29

Still, counting that it will be unhackable it's a dream.

Reply Score: 1

This is what I feared
by DevL on Wed 16th Nov 2005 09:03 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder how many will try Mac OS X on a poorly supported grey box and dismiss it due to poor user experience onyl to go tell all their friends that "Mac OS X sucks".

I for one want to see Apple gain market and mind share and I fear articles such as this one MIGHT make more damage than good.

That said, from a pure technological perspective I like to read them and wouldn't mind trying Mac OS X x86 myself, it's just that after running my own business for a while I guess I've developed an additional perspective on things...

Reply Score: 1

They should grow some balls!
by RawMustard on Wed 16th Nov 2005 10:11 UTC
RawMustard
Member since:
2005-10-10

And go head to head with the other villains, their OS is good enough is it not? This trying to legagally stop people from running a legally purchased product on something other than what it was made for is absurdity at its best. Like trying to stop a Chevy freak from putting a toploader in their car, who really gives a hoot if they do; not in the auto industry, not in any industry other than IT, what a bunch of morons! And anyone that thinks people that do it are criminals, really need to get a life!

Reply Score: 1

RE[94583]: In other words....
by Bringbackanonposting on Wed 16th Nov 2005 12:07 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

Kellym has left the building....

Reply Score: 1

Rosetta
by rbenchley on Wed 16th Nov 2005 15:46 UTC
rbenchley
Member since:
2005-11-03

Rosetta, a program that translates PPC code to x86 code. Bloody slow from what I've read.

Rosetta's performance is perfectly decent for most PPC programs that most people will use. You're not going to notice much of a difference running MS Office on an Intel Mac. Something like Photoshop will lag quite a bit. Going from a PPC version of Photoshop running on a G5 to an Intel Mac would not be much fun.

Reply Score: 1

Correct me if I'm wrong
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 18:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

....but isn't OS-X86 just based on Darwin? Isn't darwin basically open source?

If I am correct then hacking it to run on a regular PC should be a piece of cake.

Reply Score: 0

Legal
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 18:38 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I don't get it. Apple buys a bunch of commodity hardware, slaps a lock-out chip that adds no functionality to the system beyond providing a lockout system to ensure use of Apple software, packages the thing together, then sells it. This is called tying and is essentially illegal. Why? Well, you cannot force a customer to buy two products when only one would work. If a consumer can buy the commodity hardware (it can), then Apple cannot enforce the use of it's software ONLY on Apple assembled machines.

Understand that today, if you could get your hand on a PPC Chip and motherboard, you can build your own Mac (google search: build own mac). The only reason more don't is that it's too costly owing to the lack of supply of parts. Why doesn't Apple stop this practice? Expense doesn't justify the cost and it wouldn't legally be able to.

There are, of course, ways around this issue, that being make some of Mac OSX software to reside on a ROM chip. That way, running it without the chip aquired from Apple would be an infringment of copyright laws. Beyond that, if a company like Dell or HP wanted to sell OSX, it could in fact legally force OSX into the "beige box" world.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Legal
by alcibiades on Wed 16th Nov 2005 18:57 UTC in reply to "Legal"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

This isn't quite right. At least in the EU, don't know about elsewhere, linked sales are not always anti-competitive. It is what you use linked sales for and their market effect. You cannot use them to privilege your entry from one market segment (and defining this is very hard) to another. But it is only a factor if you have significant market share. Market power it is called. I don't think it will be a problem for Apple, because their market share is so small. If you are below 5% in both market segments, hardware and software, and Apple seems determined to remain there in both, you are going to be able to link as much as you like.

However, your point is accurate in one important way: the minimal distinction between Apple and non-Apple hardware. It raises the question of whether it is commercially viable to distinguish Apple from non Apple equipment by only two things, the price, and the chip. This I greatly doubt.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Legal
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Legal"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Here's a commedic way to look at it. First, Apple is assembling a hardware box. They are also, at the same time, making software that makes the hardware box go. They state that you may freely run other operating systems on their hardware. You may not, however, run their OS on anyone else's hardware.

Alright, let's draw a similar, but silly comparison:

The XYZ Company makes a car. It's a real nice car....slick looking and runs nice. Quite the status symbol. The XYZ Company also sells gasoline refined specifically for the XYZ Car. Now, you can buy the XYZ car, but buy gas from anyone...but the thing is, I have a Ford. Sure my Ford's not as sexy as the XYZ, but it's about as fast, and just about as well optioned. Now I want to buy XYZ Gas, but XYZ gas has an additive that only the XYZ Car's computer can deal with, otherwise, XYZ Gas is just a real nice, clean fuel. Unfortunately, XYZ Company doesn't care if my Ford won't deal with XYZ Gas without modification. In fact, it makes the use of XYZ Gas (and the modifying to my Ford to make it possible) illegal through contracts at time of purchase.

All I want to do is buy and use some XYZ Gas in my Ford without getting sued.

Reply Score: 0

Do we own the software we pay for?
by growchie on Wed 16th Nov 2005 20:18 UTC
growchie
Member since:
2005-07-07

or are we rather renting it according to EULAs?

Reply Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

No, you are not renting it. For a contract to be construed as rental there would have to be periodic payments as a condition of continued rights of use. You have bought one copy of it, just as you have bought one copy of a book. You have fair rights use, whatever the eula says, including the right to read it in bed.

Reply Score: 1

re: AdamR01
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 21:51 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"How does any theft take place? You may be cheating them out of money but you certainly are not stealing. You might get more people to agree with you if you use the correct terminology."

Idiots abound

Reply Score: 0

Just fuck the EULA.
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Nov 2005 23:17 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Just f--k the EULA.

Reply Score: 0

"Buying" the OS
by spraint on Thu 17th Nov 2005 08:05 UTC
spraint
Member since:
2005-11-11

Exactly where do people expect to buy the Intel version of OS X?

The initial version, at any rate, will only be available preinstalled on Mac hardware, and most probably the accompanying DVD will be so tied to the hardware as to not allow installations on other hardware, incl. Apple's, without much hacking.

There certainly will not be any retail versions of Leopard for Intel, as there are no Mac Intel installations to upgrade from, so all this talk of EULAs is moot, except in the very unlikely possibility of Leopard's being released as a universal installation. Unless you download via Bittorrent or the like, you have already got the necessary hardware to run it on - bought from Apple.

Reply Score: 1

BrainDeadHippie
Member since:
2005-07-06

I understand the interest in getting a OS X installed on your machine but why do that when apple will hound you? there are so many open source projects that need people to participate in their alpha's and beta's and who wouldn't mind if someone would try to install their distribution on an unsupported hardware....after this my involvment with proprietary OS's will become very limited.
-QAK

Reply Score: 1