Jump to content

Doesn't Apple BootCamp mean that Maxxus and everybody else are now legally covered ?


6 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

While there might be some people (too) quick to point that Apple is not OK with people installing OSX on non-apple machines that has very little legal weight - and after launching a tool to patch a competing product (which also has a mention in the license that it should not be patched) I would dare saying that the legal position of Apple is very bad!

 

Extra note - if Apple wanted to do it 100% right they could have legally licensed XP and sell/bundle it to their own computers - the BootCamp solution is more like "we will sell you this computer and give away this tool so you can install a pirated (or not, but that's not our problem) XP" !

MS sell windows, they don't specify what it has to be install on, but Apple as of yet don't sell an intel version of os x, so no one legally is covered.

 

If someone sells a computer without software on it, they aren't saying go install illegal software, Apple is just giving there users the option to run XP.

Well, this is a good question, and I think that if Apple was ever taken to court on the issue, the court would say that Apple has no right to lock their OS to their own hardware. There have been a few instances of things like this in the past.

 

But it would be hard for them to make the case that they don't want OS X installs elsewhere since they allow for the (quasi-supported) use of another OS on their machines.

You can buy a PC with linux installed, you can build your own from scratch or buy a prebuilt one with no OS installed. All these can have windows installed on them (from whatever source your conscience or abilities allow), just because most big name box makers (and no name for that matter) preinstall windows it doesn't follow that Microsoft had anything to do with it other than selling them the rights to do this. The bootcamp code as far as I'm aware does not patch XP in any way, at least no more so than any other hardware manufacturer does by providing a driver for their hardware. Its a two part solution, the MAC firmware gets altered to allow XP to install, and the second part is just a bunch of drivers for the MAC hardware under XP.

OSX is licensed for use on Apple hardware only, not like the microsoft license which tends to be for one computer at any one time (or in the case of an OEM license, for the PC that it came installed on).

There's something I really don't get about Apple's strategy; intel macs will now legally run XP (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/05bootcamp.html) but still OSX on pc is illegal.

Why does Apple open to windows, virtually making it even more dominant os?

Won't this strategy reduce apple to just a hardware company such as acer, toshiba, dell and so on?

An intel mac running XP only has a nicer box and nothing else, compared to a pc.

 

XP conquers macs and OSX becomes not essential to run a mac... this sounds very strange.

if Vista keeps up to its promises it will be the end for OSX.

@carac86

 

Your thougths seem very simple minded.

Particularly because you did not read the news as you should do before comparing apples and eggs.

 

Apple did not patch anything of Windows. Apple just changed the firmware of its Intel Macs to support Windows. Thats all.

 

Every PC builder ist allowed to do something to support OSX on a "standard" PC but not patch OSX to not beeing protected by copy protecting shemes like TPM etc. or just copy copyrighted code or techniques.

 

So whats your problem?

×
×
  • Create New...