178 replies to this topic

[Synaesthesia]

nice computer!

Quote

Panasonic Toughbook CF-T5
1.2GHz Core Solo
512MB RAM
10/100 Ethernet
12in LCD
SD card reader
Intel Wireless (doesn't work)
about 6hrs of battery life

Works rather nicely for me, and it's fanless too. If Apple would make their own version of Toughbook I'd be back with them in a heartbeat, but they don't, so yay for OSx86.

[Conroe Mac]

OS X86 is morally and legally wrong.  Neither of these things have ever stopped me from doing something I wanted to do.

[yangj08]

I suppose you're right on the "morally" bit, but I'm happy to say that I currently live in a country where it's legal (even the Apple resellers get in on the action- I've heard every so often "So you like Mac OS but that Macbook's too expensive? Here, this version's made for normal computers...").

[aboldinu]

I don't see how 'morally' it is wrong...I'd guess and say a lot of people here have their OSx86 machines as a 'stepping stone' to buying a real mac, rather than a replacement.

[yangj08]

Well, I'm using mine as a substitute for a real Mac, because I had a real Mac (Powerbook 15inch) before and found it to be way too fragile.

[Hagar]

Gotta say Leopard changes a lot of this. It is now possible to go out & buy a copy of os x 10.5, and with a few small adjustments install it on non-apple hardware.

OSX86 has been claimed to be legally & morally wrong...

Morally: I'd say that as long as you have bought your copy of leopard, this mitigates a great deal of what people see as the "immoral" aspects of osx86. I'd turn this around & question the morality of DRM & the restriction of what I can do with an OS I bought.

Which leaves legally: the things that make osx86 illegal are all related to the licensing of the OS combined with the laws of the country in which it is used..

Previously, it was the case that:
Any copy of os x installed on a pc was a pirated copy by definition. The OS was not available for retail. now it is.

which leaves: the EULA, and the APSL

EULA: this clearly states that the licence is for Apple labelled machinery only, however many (particularly european) countries have ruled that EULA's constitute post-sales conditions being imposed on the customer, and as such are invalid.

APSL: up until the change in the APSL, modification of the kernel from source was entirely legal. Since the change, this has become a grey area, as modification is no longer allowed, (which makes one wonder what is meant by "open source" in the license) However, as some countries do not allow licenses that prohibit modification for the purpose of increased functionality (e.g. France) clearly there are cases where this doesn't apply. Additionally, non-invasive methods (such as the EFI bootloader trick) don't modify the original code at all (or it uses code from before the APSL change) and as such allows installation unaffected by the APSL.

In short, although some may disagree with my moral point-of-view, it is clearly the case that if you live in a non-EULA country, there are now ways of installing OS X on a pc without breaking the law.

[Spoone]

Just an opinion here, but if Apple would simply release OSX for a generic PC, there'd be none of this argument...though that's likely to never happen.

On another note...maybe they're fully aware of the OSx86 phenomenon and are using it for development.
Who knows?

[nintendo_skyline]

I agree with spoone. I do wonder if Apple ever did release mac os for generic PCs would it be able to take away microsoft's thunder.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

nintendo_skyline, on Nov 25 2007, 03:34 AM, said:

I agree with spoone. I do wonder if Apple ever did release mac os for generic PCs would it be able to take away microsoft's thunder.

Highly improbable. HP and Dell are both Microsoft's bitch.

[Hagar]

SEEANN JEEANN WAZUP BUDDEE, on Nov 25 2007, 04:03 PM, said:

Highly improbable. HP and Dell are both Microsoft's bitch.

Dell already applied to Apple and was refused.

[(MoC)]

SJWB (Your name is too {censored} long), on Nov 25 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

Highly improbable. HP and Dell are both Microsoft's bitch.

Yeah, all the companies that make windows compatible stuffs are under the M$ rule!

[SDRacer48]

SEEANN JEEANN WAZUP BUDDEE, on Nov 25 2007, 10:03 AM, said:

Highly improbable. HP and Dell are both Microsoft's bitch.

Dell is not, I mean they do offer laptops with Ubuntu.

[(MoC)]

Great, after a few years of profit they'll come out with "Premium Versions" which are going to be like Vista.
UHH

[fryke]

Hagar, on Nov 11 2007, 02:59 PM, said:

Gotta say Leopard changes a lot of this. It is now possible to go out & buy a copy of os x 10.5, and with a few small adjustments install it on non-apple hardware.
Morally: I'd say that as long as you have bought your copy of leopard, this mitigates a great deal of what people see as the "immoral" aspects of osx86.

Don't you see that you're just bending morality here instead of flat-out breaking it? Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard can, legally, only be installed on a real Mac. If you ask the person selling Leo to you, he or she will tell you you need a Mac with at least a G4 processor running at 867 MHz. This does _not_ include "the any-PC" you want to install it on, because that's simply not a Mac. Saying you've paid Apple 129 USD for Leopard certainly does *not* make it morally right. Buying Leopard is merely paying for your own conscience. What do you do if your conscience is still bothering you? Buy more copies of Leopard? Will that make it any better or even morally right? Surely not. That's just like those guys who think they're clever and buy the EDU version of some software without actually being legit. They should be honest to themselves and pirate it, IMHO.

That said: I think that right now would be a great time for Apple to open things up. Vista, viruses etc. are still bothering a lot of people, Apple's in a great spot with their success stories (iPod, iPhone etc.). So if they'd truly _want_ to open OS X up to be used on any PC, they should – and probably would – do it now. They don't. For two reasons:

1.) Steve Jobs doesn't want his work to run on ugly PCs. He doesn't like that. That's probably the more relevant reason. But still:

2.) The Mac _is_ a success story currently. Apple has started to win market share in recent months and years. So it simply doesn't look like a necessity to open things up. The old argument of "Apple would rule if only they'd sell to PC users" doesn't sting anymore, because Apple _already_ is making (slow, but steady!) progress.

So yes, running Mac OS X on your PC is probably legally and morally wrong. If you can live with that, that's fine. Although it might sound shizoid: I firmly believe that I should not legally/morally run OS X on my Hackintosh, and yet I feel those Hackintoshes are actually helping Apple, because most PC users who actually got OS X to run on their PCs "see the light" and that the OS and the apps for it are actually great. They surely see Apple as a viable alternative when asked about what computer to buy.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Hagar, on Nov 25 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

Dell already applied to Apple and was refused.

Dell is on top for a reason. At least they try.

[yangj08]

fryke, on Nov 26 2007, 05:04 AM, said:

Don't you see that you're just bending morality here instead of flat-out breaking it? Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard can, legally, only be installed on a real Mac. If you ask the person selling Leo to you, he or she will tell you you need a Mac with at least a G4 processor running at 867 MHz. This does _not_ include "the any-PC" you want to install it on, because that's simply not a Mac. Saying you've paid Apple 129 USD for Leopard certainly does *not* make it morally right. Buying Leopard is merely paying for your own conscience. What do you do if your conscience is still bothering you? Buy more copies of Leopard? Will that make it any better or even morally right? Surely not. That's just like those guys who think they're clever and buy the EDU version of some software without actually being legit. They should be honest to themselves and pirate it, IMHO.

...

So yes, running Mac OS X on your PC is probably legally and morally wrong. If you can live with that, that's fine. Although it might sound shizoid: I firmly believe that I should not legally/morally run OS X on my Hackintosh, and yet I feel those Hackintoshes are actually helping Apple, because most PC users who actually got OS X to run on their PCs "see the light" and that the OS and the apps for it are actually great. They surely see Apple as a viable alternative when asked about what computer to buy.

I still don't see how any law could make installing an OS that is not native to your computer illegal. If such a law exists I am glad that sich a law does not exist where I live, where an Apple reseller is completely free to say "Oh, that's a normal PC- here's what you'll have to do to use Leopard on it" and help out along the process (being the country with the largest population in the world helps a little- Apple wants more customers and the best way to do that is to hook them on the experience first). I also don't see what the moral wrong is. I'ver certainly not stolen anything from Apple.

[fryke]

You can buy a Picasso and take a dump on it. While that might be interesting - and may even get some artist aroused - it doesn't make it morally right. Intellectual property is a bitch, but you should read about it regardless.

[InorganicMatter]

fryke, on Nov 25 2007, 03:04 PM, said:

Don't you see that you're just bending morality here instead of flat-out breaking it? Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard can, legally, only be installed on a real Mac. If you ask the person selling Leo to you, he or she will tell you you need a Mac with at least a G4 processor running at 867 MHz. This does _not_ include "the any-PC" you want to install it on, because that's simply not a Mac. Saying you've paid Apple 129 USD for Leopard certainly does *not* make it morally right. Buying Leopard is merely paying for your own conscience. What do you do if your conscience is still bothering you? Buy more copies of Leopard? Will that make it any better or even morally right? Surely not. That's just like those guys who think they're clever and buy the EDU version of some software without actually being legit. They should be honest to themselves and pirate it, IMHO.

Legal?  There's no legal questions here.  An EULA is an extremely grey area as to wether it is a legally binding agreement or not, and has been thrown out of court on MANY occasions.

The only, only, ONLY legal barriers for OSX86 have been pirating the install media, and modifying Apple's proprietary kernel.  Neither is a barrier - you can walk into any Best Buy and buy Leopard off the shelf, and you can run said install without using modified kernels.  Both legal barriers are gone.

OSX86 is legal.  The Apple elites need to face it, and stop trying to use this argument so they can make themselves feel better for spending crazy amounts of money on proprietary "authorized" hardware.

[Ikshaar]

I almost never buy a game or software without testing it first. eg. game which don't offer downloadable demo are out of question (only exception is Blizzard because they never released something that I did not like - but you don't have to share that idea).

Back to OSx86, same idea, I would never buy a Mac - especially considering the price - without testing if it would fulfill my needs. Hence OSx86 was the perfect occasion. I am now at the point where I successfully have installed it and can run most of it. Few things still crash but I have accelerated graphics and decent speed.

So results in the end:
- I like the sleek aspect of OSX, and I really would like to have a desktop with it. I would trade by Windows XP for it, but...
- I am really disappointed of the lack of features which I get accustomed to using Linux especially - lack of native ogg vorbis support being the most annoying as well as the lack of GPU power (graphic card options are terrible for the gamer than I am).

So in the end, I might not yet buy a Mac but sure OSx86 showed me what to look for in the next Apple annoucement. And if Apple makes the right offering, then I might rejoin the ranks. Thanks to OSx86.

[nagal]

InorganicMatter, on Nov 28 2007, 01:53 PM, said:

OSX86 is legal.

Speaking from the stand point of the US, it is NOT legal as such legality of specifically invalidating the EULA of OS X for install on non Apple labeled hardware has never been determined in a court of law. Until it is ruled as legal, it falls into the area of being illegal.

There is a good case for its legality but that still does not make it legal and until someone goes to court for it or Apple takes someone to court over it, we will never know the legal standing of OSx86 in the US.