Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Desktops (Apple) Operating Systems Software Hardware

Mac OS X Running on Non-Apple Hardware 962

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the mac-of-borg dept.
MacBeliever writes "Inevitably, Mac OS X for x86 has been hacked to run on a non-Apple PC. Is this the beginning of the fulfillment of the Dvorak prophecy?" RetrogradeMotion also writes "The OSx86 Project has posted a how-to guide telling how to run OS X on any Windows or Linux-based PC using VMWare." Not 100% corroborated, so ingest with salt.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac OS X Running on Non-Apple Hardware

Comments Filter:
  • by bigwavejas (678602) * on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:21AM (#13295307) Journal
    Ok I'm naïve on the politics of this, so my post is more of a question than a answer. I know this is an argument that has gone back and forth, but here goes again...

    Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands? Sure, it might detract from them selling hardware (short term), but I can honestly say for me (average Joe) I've never purchased a Mac because they simply don't have the software titles I'm interested in and Windows does. I mean sure, they've got great stuff, but they lack in GAMES, yes games... I've said it, gotten it out. I'm a gamer and so are all of my friends. I'd venture to say a good chunk of those purchasing PC's are in the same group as me (surf the web and play games). So if the Apple OS became more popular, wouldn't more developers consider making a version of their game in the Apple OS flavor?

    • Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

      I've already made comments like this only to get this response in LARGE numbers:

      "But Apple is a hardware company."

      Apparently, it is impossible for Apple to change into a software company.
      • by DaggertipX (547165) * on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:29AM (#13295408) Homepage
        Not impossible, but it would be a tricky transition for them.

        Apple charges a very very large markup on their hardware, I don't think the margin on their software would be nearly as high.

        Beyond that, one of the advantages of them controlling hardware and software is the fact that they can do more rigorous quality control, because they KNOW the configuration your machine will be running. This leads to the disadvantage of having a limited and more costly hardware base, but that is why Apple products "just work".

        Personally, I think moving Mac OS to mainstream machines with unpredictable hardware would dramatically lower the quality of the software, and I would hate to see that. I would much rather have an Apple piece of hardware that I know was tested well with the operating system on it.

        I suppose that viewpoint will put me in the minority here.
        • At least with regards to video, they're not working on *known* hardware as much anymore--you can get plenty of add-on video boards. They don't have to deal with processor/motherboard combinations they are unfamiliar with, but even that shouldn't give them that much trouble. Everyone makes a big deal about apple's "control" of hardware and how "good" their hardware is... Okay- I've owned both and my macs have lasted longer; however, there are reasons.

          My orginal Mac Plus would not be running today if I had
          • While it varies from division to division. I started my Internship at Apple this year. Currently I'm testing on a:

            1.8 GHz iMac G5
            Dual 866 MHz G4
            450 MHz G4
            400 MHz "B&W" G3
            266 MHz iMac Rev B
            233 MHz iMac

            So. Even in Apple old hardware is still laying around and being used. Heck that B&W G3 is now nearly six years old and will still "run" Tiger, and it runs Panther rather well.

            As it stands the average expected lifetime of a Mac is somewhere between 4-6 years, I've never had a PC longer then 2.5 yrs befor
        • Apple charges a very very large markup on their hardware, I don't think the margin on their software would be nearly as high.

          Why?

          People are screaming for an alternate OS to run on commodity hardware. OSS isn't quite there yet. Apple's market share would skyrocket if Dell were able to offer their customers "Dual Boot Apple OSX when your Windows partition becomes too virus infected". Even if they only charged $50 a copy, it wouldn't take a significant percentage of x86 OSX dual-boot to more than make up fo
          • by Kadin2048 (468275) <`ten.yxox' `ta' `nidak.todhsals'> on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:51PM (#13296351) Homepage Journal
            Microsoft would never allow Dell or any of the other major manufacturers to sell their boxes with an Apple OS.

            They give Dell, et al, huge discounts on Windows, which I'm sure would disappear the moment Dell started considering an alternative OS. Dell wouldn't be willing to risk the majority of its sales on the off chance of this new alternative OS taking off.

            And I'll restate the point others have made: Apple's superiority in terms of user experience is directly attributable to the tight integration between and control of the hardware. There are far less hardware configurations in any Apple system than a commodity x86 box. Go look for Mac video cards and you'll see what I mean. Apple would be gambling with their one real advantage if they actually marketed their OS for commodity hardware, as opposed to just letting a few hackers here and there play with it.
            • Sure, video cards... And don't forget about all the real guts! The network cards, the USB cards, the old soundblasters. Oh and those mainboard drivers. All those people who install on VIA mainboards and get to install the after-install VIA 4in1 drivers? Yeah, you think OS X is going to support you?

              Windows supports all that stuff, and arguably that's what eats up all of their development time. Apple releases most of their machines will pretty much all the hardware you need already installed, so you do

              • To me, the joy of OS X is that it recognizes everything in the box from the very beginning, and I don't need to open the case for anything if I don't want to.

                The same is true of any competant Intel laptop, pretty much. It's certainly true of Thinkpads, and they're better as laptops than any of Apple's 'books as well.

                So why am I considering an iBook, even though I hate the 'books?

                Because the Joy of OSX is that the software just works. I went through hell getting OSX up in the first place, on a 7500 with thir
              • But then, if Apple can make a Macintosh compatible with Windows, why couldn't they quietly create a new platform based on that, with machine specs defined by them, and let other assemblers slowly propose a new breed of clones ? Couldn't integration be as good as in a genuine Apple Macintosh ? And then let start a market for compatible/checked/approved only peripherals and parts ?

                Besides the economic model of Apple being a hardware manufacturer with no competition on OS X... I personnaly think Apple hardware
            • Microsoft would never allow Dell or any of the other major manufacturers to sell their boxes with an Apple OS.

              Well, Dell already sells machines with factory-installed Linux, so i don't know about *never*, although i do concede that they certainly wouldn't appreciate it, especially since the target market would be different (any maybe bigger? hmmm, something to ponder...)

              The real question is what would Apple gain by licensing OSX to Dell (or any other manufacturer/assembler)? They already did licensing deal
          • At $50 a copy, Apple would need to sell 35 million copies a year to match their current Mac profits.

            Currently they sell something like 5 million Macs a year.

            I don't see a sevenfold increase in market share as likely, especially since Microsoft can cut prices at any time. If people aren't willing to pay more for Macs, why are you so sure they'd be willing to pay more for OS X?
          • by jav1231 (539129) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @02:40PM (#13297532)
            You lost me at "the stability of XP."
        • Apple have approximately 20% margins on hardware. This is quite high for the computer hardware industry. I imagine that these margins will drop a bit after they transition to x86 so people are not able to compare a Mac to a Dell with identical specs and see a hugely overpriced Mac. In contrast, any copy of OS X sold to someone who would otherwise have used Linux or Windows is 100% profit (well, minus the negligible cost of the DVD, box and manual).
          • except that the Apple hardware is their copy protection system. If you only run MacOS on Apple an Apple Computer Apple knows that it got at least a little money from the user.
            Why do people always forget the cost of the programmers?
            Do you know how little a house costs before you add in the labor and the cost of the plans and permits?
            Same thing with software.
            • This is an excellent point. I've stated before that I think it's also the reason why we've never had to deal with serialization or activation in the Mac OS until this point.

              Apple knows that you can take a OS X install DVD and pop it into as many computers as you want and pirate like hell, but they've never chosen to do anything about it. Why? Because you can only install it on Apple computers, so they know they've made some money off of you anyway.
        • by jarich (733129) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:42PM (#13296232) Homepage Journal
          Apple charges a very very large markup on their hardware, I don't think the margin on their software would be nearly as high.

          ???

          Microsoft? World's richest guy as the owner?

          Software has a fixed cost of creation. You make your money in volume!

          Beyond that, one of the advantages of them controlling hardware and software is the fact that they can do more rigorous quality control, because they KNOW the configuration your machine will be running. This leads to the disadvantage of having a limited and more costly hardware base, but that is why Apple products "just work".

          Agreed... but it would be entirely possible to only provide support for "approved" hardware.

      • by GileadGreene (539584) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:49AM (#13295644) Homepage
        Apple is neither a hardware company nor a software company. What Apple sells is user experiences. Apple users don't buy a computer, or a piece of software, they buy an integrated product that lets them get the things done that they want to get done ("It Just Works"(TM)). Both the hardware and the software are integral pieces of that product, and neither is complete without the other.
      • by gcondon (45047) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:53AM (#13295680)
        Perhaps Apple doesn't want to change into a software company.

        Perhaps they like building computers and maybe, just maybe, their legions of aficionados would like them to continue doing so.

        In my opinion, the most significant characteristic of Apple, as a company and a culture, is that they clearly love computers and it shows in everything they build - hardware and software.

        Very few other technology companies exhibit this same exuberance that has been an Apple hallmark for many years (esp. under the leadership of the norotiously persnickety Steve Jobs).

        I rarely walk away from using a Microsoft product thinking that this was created by someone who loves computers as much as I do.

        Not every company needs to (or should) try to maximize sales and market penetration like Microsoft - just like every person doesn't need to try to be as rich as Bill Gates, as musical as Mozart, as tall as Shaq, etc.

        Is it inconceivable that Apple might have success criteria that are different from Microsoft? Is it impossible that we, as users, can understand and embrace that kind of diversity of thought in the marketplace?

        Hey you, Ferrari - why aren't you selling as many cars as Toyota? Slackers!
    • Ya' know, it's not unlike Steve Jobbs to say one thing and then end up turning around and doing the exact opposite, perhaps with the intent of throwing off his enemies. I can't find the sources right now and get a top post, but as an example, he specifically said that there would never be an iPod cell phone, and a few weeks later there was talk of one. Doesn't surprise me one bit that Apple is taking their OS which is vastly superior to Windows and trying to take on that huge market.
    • But how would more games help Apple. Apple doesn't make much money from OS X, and it probably never will. Its money was always from sale of its hardware. If you can run it on any X86, there goes that profit line completly. Though I could see apple doing some sort of driver verification thing, where if you didn't have apple branded MB and apple branded video card etc, even if they were the same thing.. It wouldn't run. Then make the hardware vendors pay a fee for making apple hardware. This could work to con
      • Well, take this only as my assumption, but Apple would likely charge the same amount as Microsoft for their OS -- if not more (which I'm sure Jobs could justify with his pretty marketing spin) -- if/when they release OS X for open x86 hardware.

        Will Apple do such? I don't think many people have any point of reference to make an educated guess about that. They certainly would not sell OS X to the mass market for $129 though.
    • by Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:29AM (#13295414)
      1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware. 2. there would be a loss of branding and a lowering of the quality associated with OS X. 3. there are plenty of games on the Mac, but if you want the very latest cutting-edge PC games you'd never be satisfied anyway since you'd need ATI/nVidia making their latest cards in Mac versions too. 4. if you DO want games, why do you want a Mac? if Windows works, use it. 5. what is happening to the PC game industry? is it growing/shrinking? will PC games be so important when the latest generation consoles are out? 6. given PC games makers moves to absurd copy-protection methods (drivers), will either the makers or Apple allow the other to do what they want to "secure" the computers?
      • by Deep Fried Geekboy (807607) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:57AM (#13295713)
        Yeah, the hardware support is the killer, and why they won't do it. Where would all the drivers for all the obsolete hardware out there come from? Just getting it to boot on most 3-year old systems would mean having to write tens of thousands of drivers. Not gonna happen.
      • by pcidevel (207951) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @01:31PM (#13296826)
        1. Apple would have to support a massively larger amount of hardware.

        Due to the lack of formatting (probably not your fault) and because I happen to know quite a bit about the subject, I stopped reading at this sentence..

        My nick, pcidevel, comes from the fact that I've spent the last 5 years developing device drivers for pci devices in Windows (as well as Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, etc).. I've never worked for Microsoft that whole time. Microsoft does not develop the device drivers for Windows, the third party manufacturer of the device does. I've written, probably close to a dozen drivers, from niche products to ethernet drivers for Intel (if you use a IBM or Intel ethernet card, you've probably encounterd my code.. yeah it's the shit that made your box BSOD, sorry about that)..

        If Apple increases their market share and opens their APIs, hardware manufacturers will flock to OSX with device drivers. Hell I've had companies pay me to develop drivers for HP-UX, and there are probably around 15 people in the WORLD using HP-UX anymore. You can guarantee if there was even a fractional market for OSX using the hardware I've developed for, my boss would have me working on OSX drivers in a heartbeat, i.e. if Apple would let us, we would support them.. hardware manufacturers love cash..
    • by pauljlucas (529435) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:36AM (#13295494) Homepage Journal
      I've never purchased a Mac because they ... lack in GAMES
      I've never understood this argument. You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games? If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?

      Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.

      • You're willing to put up with the sucky OS that is Windows the rest of the time you're using your computer (i.e., when you're not playing games) just so you can play games?

        I prefer my approach to the problem ;) I put up with the sucky Windows machine while playing games. As soon as the game is over, I hit the input switch on the monitor to go back to my "real" desktop :)

        (Though I'll admit that dual-desktops isn't practical for most people, and that I have way too many computers)
      • by Kaa (21510) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:08PM (#13295829) Homepage
        If you're that into games, why don't you just get a dedicated game machine, e.g., PS2, Xbox, etc., for games and a Mac to do the rest of your stuff?

        I am not the original poster, but games you play on a PC are very different from the ones you play on consoles. If you like MMORPGs (e.g. World of Warcraft), FPSs (e.g. Unreal), RTSs (e.g. Rome: Total War) then having a console does not help you at all.

        As for the "rest of your stuff" it very much depends on what kind of stuff this is. For my purposes I am quite happy to have a Windows machine as a gaming/Photoshop/MSOffice box and a Linux machine for heavy lifting. No need for a Mac.

        Aside from that, I really don't think Apple cares about the gaming market segment, i.e., teenaged-or-twenty-something males.

        The gaming segment by now includes 30-something males and I bet the 20-40 year old demographic has Apple marketers drooling.
    • Playing it both ways (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Fzz (153115) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:43AM (#13295577)
      Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

      Apple is clearly a hardware company, and so they make most of their money from selling hardware. Thus it's very unlikely that Apple would want to support generic x86 boxes.

      But Apple has an interesting opportunity here. If they simply ignored people running unlicensed x86 copies, but prevented else anyone selling pre-installed Macs, then they probably wouldn't lose much business. The people who are willing to install MacOS themselves are unlikely to be the people who'd buy Mac hardware in the first place.

      However, Apple would gain a lot of mindshare with the kids and with the technically savvy who are happy installing their own OS. In the long run, this will bring many more people to Apple hardware, and to influence their parents/family/employers to buy the supported Apple products.

      Seems like Apple can't lose here.

      -Fzz

      • by rbanffy (584143) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @01:35PM (#13296867) Homepage Journal
        Fzz got it right.

        By letting OSX be pirated Apple is following the winning strategy of Microsoft. The only difference is that the cheapest way to run MacOS is buying a Mac mini and I am notsure whether the cheapest way to run Windows is to buy a PC pre-installed with Windows or to buy a box with a CD inside.

        By allowing PC users that would never buy a real copy of Windows, Microsoft used "virtual dumping" to get rid of any competition (by offering an "unsuported" version of its OS for free) and to increase its market share. When MS got rid of the competition in the OS arena, it had a healthy user base software writers were happy to make software available for.

        Apple is using exactly the same strategy. By making OSX "unsuported" available to current PC users, Apple increases its user base, making it more attractive to build software for it and, at the same time, makes people try Apple software in the hopes they get the next PC upgrade.

        In the meantime, they pretend that's not what they are doing.

        Brilliant
    • by hackstraw (262471) * on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:43AM (#13295580)
      Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?

      No. To paraphrase Douglas Adams "Apple may only have 10% of the computer market, but its definitely the top 10%".

      Would it benefit Ferrari in the long run to have every ghetto curb filled with Ferrari's?

      In looking at the demo movies, it was impressive to some degree to see OS X running on a cheap Windows PC. But looking more closely, I noticed that the image appeared stretched. I saw that yucky BIOS black screen with white text. However, it looked close to a regular Mac experience.
      • Just to be politically incorrect for a moment....

        Would it benefit Ferrari in the long run to have every ghetto curb filled with Ferrari's?

        It seems to be working for BMW and Mercedes :-)
    • All of the arguments about being primarily a hardware company aside, I keep seeing people saying that "Apple will have to support 100s of different kinds of hardware products" if they move to standard Intel architecture.

      That's bullshit. Apple doesn't have to support anything. They can pick five of each kind of hardware if they want, or none. Look at Solaris-Intel, for example... supports very little of the hardware out there, but folks still use it. There's plenty of PC hardware out there that Linux can't u
    • I honestly think they can and should do this, with some caveats.

      Everyone talks about how their hardware profit margins are high. This is true, but on the other side the marginal cost of more copies of the OS are pretty near null. The worry that people would have bought a mac otherwise could be assuaged in several ways, however. If it can be done in a way that leaves people that would have bought mac hardware, still buying mac hardware, but other people that would not have done this running Mac OS on non-a

  • by richdun (672214) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:21AM (#13295313)
    Wonder what they're up to today?
  • Salt? (Score:3, Funny)

    by BigZaphod (12942) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:22AM (#13295325) Homepage
    Putting salt on my monitor didn't make the terrible shock I got while trying to ingest this any better. Did I do something wrong?
  • VMWare (Score:2, Informative)

    by WatertonMan (550706)
    Running it under VMWare (assuming you have a system that supports SSE3) will be a slow experience for many applications I suspect. Yeah most programs will run fine. But I'd not want to run iMovie or FCP.
    • Re:VMWare (Score:3, Interesting)

      by randomErr (172078)
      I would disagree with that statement. We're talking about x86 emulation on an x86 system. If properly emulated it should keep between 90-99% of its speed original.
      • Re:VMWare (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:11PM (#13295853) Journal
        Let me guess, you've never looked closely at x86 (and, really, who can blame you)?

        There are a small set of (14?) instructions on x86 that can't be easily trapped. You have two choices, paravirtualisation (like Xen) or emulating an entire system but passing through all of the non-privileged instruction. VMWare does the second, and takes a significant (20%+) performance hit from it. In SPEC99, VMWare is under 30% of the speed of the host machine (source [cam.ac.uk]).

    • Re:VMWare (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blackmonday (607916) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:39AM (#13295531) Homepage
      If I remember correctly, the developer Intel Macs didn't ship with iLife. I'd be interesting to install them anyway and see what happens.

      You'd have to be a masochist to run Final Cut Pro on Rosetta. Thank you sir may I have another!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:23AM (#13295328)
    Seriously. The largest barrier for adoption of OSX has been the high cost of entry (ie buying Mac hardware). This has been slightly reduced with the Mac Mini, but now people can try out OSX without even having to buy new hardware.
    • by TheOtherAgentM (700696) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:33AM (#13295456)
      I don't agree. As someone that grew up on Windows and decided to try out Apple midway through college, it's not that simple. For us here on Slashdot, we realize the programs are similar in nature and are intuitive enough to figure out. However, I have switched many of my friends to Apple, making sure they knew how difficult it would be to unlearn what they already thought about computers. Most of them don't get very far in learning. That may be okay in a lot of cases, but if you are someone that has to be productive and you've learned to do things certain ways, switching is going to make Apple seem real inferior. Switching is not as easy as it appears.
  • by FlameTroll (901932) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:23AM (#13295333)
    Ya have to duct tape the mouse buttons together...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:23AM (#13295338)
    ..please never, ever use Dvorak and Prophecy in the same phrase again.
  • Dvorak prophecy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Z0mb1eman (629653) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:24AM (#13295346) Homepage
    Oh c'mon.

    There are only two possible paths for Apple: continue to keep their OS working only on their hardware, or making it also work on x86.

    I'm sure everyone who knows what a Mac is has speculated at one point or another what would happen if Apple made their OS work on x86 hardware, and whether they would, and why they would take that decision. Calling it the Dvorak prophecy seems way too pretentious.
  • Err.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    Mac OS will only run on non-Mac hardware if there's drivers available for that non-Mac hardware. If say.. nVidia decides not to make a driver for their latest PC Card to run on MacOS.. then you're screwed. I'd rather stick to Linux (cuz methinks it would have better support than Mac OS running on non-Mac approved hardware).
    • Re:Err.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by randomErr (172078)
      Umm... boot it into an emulator [sourceforge.net] that has generic drivers?

    • Re:Err.. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yellowbkpk (890493) *
      Indeed, most of the people running this either have Intel chipsets to run it natively (one person posted some screenshots from their computer that was running a VIA chipset) or are emulating a generic chipset (via VMware).

      Audio device support has been spotty (according to reports in the forums, but someone hooked up a Sony USB audio card and it worked flawlessly), along with NIC supprt (it seems 3Com and Intel chips are supported natively) and hardware GUI acceleration.

      All of this is from the posts on the f
  • by TheOtherAgentM (700696) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:25AM (#13295359)
    That works fine until one of Apple's security patches screws things up for those users. The one reason I like Apple is because they can control their hardware market. Lots of times when I did Windows Updates, the patches would be incompatible just because of driver and hardware issues. I know people that still can't installed Service Pack 2 on XP, because of their video cards. I prefer to stick with the hardware Apple is going to sell.
    • by zoomzit (860737) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:13PM (#13295872)
      With Apple controlling their hardware market, you are stuck with whatever they decide to ship you. You have no options.

      But, on my x86, I can choose any ATI Card or Nvidia card and I most certainly will not have XP update issues.

      Apple "controlling" their hardware market is unfortunately limiting your choices for no good reason.

      • You have no options.

        That's odd, because on the Apple Store, it sure looks like you can choose either an ATI Radeon 9600, 9650, x850 XT, or Nvidia GeForce 6800 when you order your PowerMac.

        And while that may be "limiting" the options, I would certainly not say you have "no" options. Maybe if you choose a Mac Mini you have no video card options, but, OTOH, you're choosing the Mac Mini.

  • A leaked, cracked version of that OS could quickly become a favorite for non-gaming computers. I have to wonder if this was an intentional leak or not. I dont know if it will supplant 3.11 as the most pirated OS ever, but it will be up there. This could be a market test for Apple to see if the demand is there to sell their OS to the non-Apple hardware crowd.
  • Eventually he'll be right, and perhaps, once, before he dies, he'll actually have something insightful to say.
  • Here is the key (OS-X86)
    Here is the lock (Dell)
    Take as long as you want with them.

    YOU DID WHAT?!?!?!

  • by captnitro (160231) * on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:28AM (#13295389)
    FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, SWEET FUCKING CHRIST!!

    Can we postpone these stories until the production runs of both the boxes and OS X comes out? Please? All these stories in the past few weeks have read like the following and have steadily decreased in poster IQ:

    Apple: Wild speculation abounds on developer-only releases of software, hardware OMGWTF

    Apple: Apple may/may not use DRM, based on developer-only releases of software and hardware OMGWTF!!!1

    Apple: Teh interface is pretyOMGWTF!!!!!11eleventyone
    Anonymous Coward writes: i am LOVE MY MACCY from BITTTORRRENT!!! I kissed it becos it tastES LIKE CANDY!!

    Calm down, people. I'm not saying these things will or won't come to pass, but everybody assuming that a developer-only release will be anything like its comparable production release -- not to mention one that won't be available for a year -- is silly.

    Disclaimer: Mac user at home.
  • by Penguinoflight (517245) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:28AM (#13295395) Homepage Journal
    Here's the link to the article:
    http://slashcache.com/stories/8e3fd00a12869f50e7ec c0512672bf76/index.html [slashcache.com]
    and here's a torrent for the x86 dev kit:
    http://torrentspy.com/search.asp?mode=torrentdetai ls&id=369442&query=OS+ [torrentspy.com]
  • by bogaboga (793279) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:28AM (#13295399)
    Where can one grab the Mac OSX torrents? I need to try this out.
  • So what! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goth Biker Babe (311502) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:28AM (#13295400) Homepage Journal
    People like Mercedes, BMW, Volvo etc sell cars at a premium because they are good quality and have nice design. In fact I bought an older Volvo precisely for that reason. It was a quality vehicle with the luxury and safety I would expect from the manufacturer. Apple is the same. Yes, may be you could run OS-X on a cheap clone PC, or one made of bits, but I bought Apple after years of such machines, because I wanted a quality machine with nice design and nice construction. Anyone who thinks this will hurt Apple's sales to a great extent is sadly mistaken.
    • Re:So what! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by It doesn't come easy (695416) * on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:42AM (#13295571) Journal
      I agree. People buy Apple because they want lots of good things, one of which is seamless operation, another top of the line hardware. People who steal the OS likely wouldn't fork over the cost of buying Apple hardware anyway, so the theft will NOT hurt Apple's bottom line while it MAY help Apple advertise their system. Given enough pirating, it is conceivable that Apple could eventually switch to selling the OS separately for cheap and have an immediate and significant boost to their market share. Hopefully, we'll get some real numbers in the next 24 months instead of all of this speculation...
    • Re:So what! (Score:3, Informative)

      by justins (80659)
      Anyone who thinks this will hurt Apple's sales to a great extent is sadly mistaken.

      Anyone like... Apple? They are putting a lot of money into DRM to keep this from happening.
  • by Blindman (36862)
    Is running Mac OS X within a virtual machine really that big a deal? If VMware properly simulated Mac hardware, then the operating system believed that it was running on Mac hardware. This is great for VMware, but this isn't the same thing as popping a CD in my x86 computer and installing Mac OS X.
  • by smileyscout (818108) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:30AM (#13295425)
    This thread http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=937806&p age=1&pp=20 [hardforum.com] Has some interesting screenies about MacOSX 86 running natively on a laptop. Be sure to check it out.
  • Who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spectrokid (660550) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:36AM (#13295486) Homepage
    So a couple of nerds will run OSX -sortish- on non Apple hardware. Any non-apple approved component will cause more instability. To get the full experience, (and be legal!!!!) you will still need to cough up the cash. At worst people will try it on their PC, and buy a real Apple as their next PC. How did Excel beet Lotus 123? Simple: Lotus 123 had copy protection. Where Apple will win big on their Intel-switch is servers. Think of them cooperating with Dell. Their market share for servers is marginal, and hardware esthetics doesn't matter for servers so they have nothing to lose. Suddenly a big player like Dell starts offering servers with Intel-like speed, Dell-like reliability, BSD-like stability and Mac-like userfriendliness. Heck, even I would have to think twice before saying no thanks!
    • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)

      by NoodleSlayer (603762)
      You obviously have not seen the Mac OS X Server benchmarks.

      They're pitiful.

      Largely its due to OS X's inefficiencies with thread management. This has nothing to do with CPU performance, if you take a real look at some benchmarks the Power processors tend to whipe the floor with Xeons. By no means is it processor speed, and odds are the server products will be one of the last things moved over to x86.

      As such OS X Server is mostly used by Schools and other mac heavy environments that want a Mac server.

      Yes. It'
  • Torrents. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Cumshot (859434) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:36AM (#13295489)
    Direct links to torrents of the videos showing OS X running on non-Apple hardware:

    1. MacOSX x86 booting natively on a Pc notebook Mitac 8050D (Pentium-M 735/1.6GHz) [macbidouille.com]

    2. The boot on the same hardware, the permission error was repaired. We can see the "About this Mac" panel, Apple System Profiler and CHUD prefpane showing information on the processor (frequency, cache etc...) [macbidouille.com]

    And yes I know these are linked on the site, but if it gets slashdotted, at least you might be able to still grab the torrents since they appear to be on a different server.

  • Hold the salt please (Score:5, Informative)

    by seven5 (596044) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:37AM (#13295504)
    This works. This is not running inside of vmware. This is running directly on hardware. No salt needed. I have this running on a dell computer right now. All you need to do is take the vmware image floating around the internet, and use dd to image it to a drive. Boot from the drive and it works.. Requirements include an SSE2 enabled cpu, that would be most p4's and amd64 and higher. Rosetta requires SSE3, so without that you get no ppc apps. Newer p4's using the .90nm process will have SSE3. Make sure you have a great Video card as well soyou have Quartz Extreme running. It is also possible to patch the install dvd and install strait to the hardware. But the Vmware image is the easiest to do. You dont even need vmware, just download the vmware image, and use linux or knoppix to dd it over to a blank drive. The next few weeks should be fun :) Compliant hardware on Ebay is going for $225 or so. Not bad.
    • AMD64 is SSE3, too (Score:3, Informative)

      by hkb (777908)
      There seems to be a big misconception that AMD64 chips aren't SSE3 capable, and maybe most aren't, but my Venice core AMD64 chip is most definitely SSE3 capable, so...
  • by IntergalacticWalrus (720648) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @11:43AM (#13295576)
    It cannot run on any x86. OS X extensively uses SSE2 everywhere, and in some places SSE3 too. You need at least a SSE2-capable CPU to run it (Pentium 4, Pentium M, or any 64-bit AMD), and then again it's apparently not very stable.
  • by comicnerd (866351) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:17PM (#13295917)
    I don't know if he's commented on it since, but Michael Swaine [swaine.com] made a small but amusing prediction that this might happen waaay back in the April 1993 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal [drdobbs.com]. Here's a link to the Google cache version since the original wasn't coming up for me [64.233.161.104].
  • by podperson (592944) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:26PM (#13296021) Homepage
    OSX offers no compelling advantages, and many disadvantages, as a platform to game developers. Apple has neglected or actively discouraged game developers over a long period of time -- starting with a refusal to produce a joystick standard (so there is still no standard joystick interface after 20 years) through refusing to enable low res graphics back in the early 90s when every hit game (Doom, etc.) relied on them to achieve acceptable frame rates.

    Apple's current initiative is actually probably the best move they could make vis-a-vis games.

    Currently, a typical Mac gamer owns a PC to play games on. In my case, I upgrade my PC more frequently than my Mac, even though I use my Mac for *paying work*, and the only reason is game performance. Apple can capture a chunk of this money by producing computers that run their OS and the games I want to play.

    Whether I have to reboot into Windows or run in a compatibility box, I'd rather upgrade one computer every twelve-eighteen months than upgrade my PC twice and my Mac one every two years.

    If Apple released OSX for random PC boxes it would instantly lose its hardware margin, and it might never get significant volume on software. And, frankly, Apple's hardware innovations are as important as its software innovations -- would you like to see Apple out of the hardware market?
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:59PM (#13296447)

      OSX offers no compelling advantages, and many disadvantages, as a platform to game developers.

      Actually that is mostly untrue. You don't think Carmack develops on a mac because he's a moron do you? The dev tools are very very nice and free.

      ...through refusing to enable low res graphics back in the early 90s when every hit game (Doom, etc.) relied on them to achieve acceptable frame rates.

      Heh, I had both a mac and a PC back in the day when doom came out. At the time when many people were playing Doom 1 and 2, I was playing Marathon 1 and 2. It made all the PC users green with envy. The marathon games were so much better there was no comparison. Good sound, better graphics, better story, multiplayer in teams, voice chat with your team... all this many years before anything comparable was available on the PC. Sorry, but what kept games off the mac was market share, not graphics or device support.

      Currently, a typical Mac gamer owns a PC to play games on.

      No they don't. Currently, the extreme gamer who uses a mac for work, etc. owns a PC for games. The typical mac gamer owns a console and/or just plays games on their mac. The typical gamer does not actually need to play every game 3 months earlier and does not spend tons of money upgrading their machine every year. You've mistaken yourself for a typical gamer when you are, in fact, quite atypical.

      On the plus side as far as you are concerned, Windows will run on your x86 mac, and if you don't like rebooting, within a short period of time it will probably run at near real speeds in emulation. Of course being an extreme gamer you probably need that extra 5 FPS so you will probably reboot it anyway. Good luck.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:29PM (#13296056)

    "do not be surprise if it disappears"

    so I'm putting a copy here for safe keeping:

    Wednesday August 10, 2005

    - Mac OSX x86 on PC: and now a video! [Upd] - bad_duck [mailto] - 21:03:35

    The Apple Developer kit version of MacOSX x86 has indeed been fully cracked!
    An anonymous source has sent us a video showing MacOSX x86 booting natively on a Pc notebook Mitac 8050D (Pentium-M 735/1.6GHz).

    Boot Mac OS X 86 [macbidouille.com] (Mpeg4 - 1,5 Mo) - [torrent] [macbidouille.com]

    As you can see the boot phase is rather fast, and the error message at the end is simply due to an right/authorization error due to the kext allowing PS/2 support.

    [Upd]
    Here is a second video showing the boot on the same hardware, the permission error was repaired. We can see the "About this Mac" panel, Apple System Profiler and CHUD prefpane showing information on the processor (frequency, cache etc...).

    Boot Mac OS X 86 v2 [macbidouille.com] (.mov - 11,5 Mo) - [torrent] [macbidouille.com]

    [Update] - We've added torrent files for the 2 videos to relieve the stress on our server. If you use them, please keep seeding as long as possible, thank you.

    [translation by Eric [mailto]]

    [edited - windows vista crap removed]

    - Mac OSX x86 on any PC : a reality, current status - Yoc [mailto] - 14:18:24

    Hereafter is the current status of the OSX x86 on any PC project run by PC/Mac "bidouilleurs"

    Initial problems

    Several system prevent running OSX x86 on any PC:
    1. TPM chips from Intel
    2. SSE3-enable processor
    3. GMA900-based graphic card to natively support Quartz.

    First solution: VMWare

    simply install VMare on ANYPC, and this application will emulate what needs to be (GMA900, SSE3 ...)
    Of course this is only a short-term solution, since it is rather instable, and particularly slow.
    since this morning one can find on P2P network an already configures VMWare image OSX x86.

    Patches

    Several solution have been found. The TPM is cracked, and no one needs it anymore. The SSE3 requirement, can be bypassed via quite complex modifications, and this case several kernels will not work since they REALLY need SSE3. A patch for those kernels is being prepared allowing SSE3 instructions to be translated into their corresponding SSE2 ones.
    GMA900 can be avoided by modifying CoreGrapics, patches are also available.

    The best solution: the right hardware

    The best and the most secure solution is a motherboard from Intel: D915 GA, GL or GU :
    http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/ux/ [intel.com]

    Excellent results have been obtained with Gigabytes GA-8I915P motherboard card:
    http://www.giga-byte.com/Motherboard/Products/Prod ucts_GA-8I915P%20Duo-A.htm [giga-byte.com]

    Users with such a motherboard and a Pentium 4 will be able to install MacOSX x86 with the patch for Rosetta (without the patch if you choose a SSE3-enable Pentium4).
    Be careful not to use any HD in RAID settings, otherwise it will crash your system.
    Use a USB keyboard, PS2 port is not really well supported.

    First tests

    First tests have shown that MacOSX x86 on PC is very reactive, no crash, iTunes is running perfectly, with Rosetta.
    Digital camera work perfectly with iPhoto, as well as digital camcorder with iMovie.

    Another solution
    The last solution is based on installation of Darw

  • Predictions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tgibbs (83782) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:49PM (#13296322)
    1. OSX86 as shipped will not install on a non-Apple PC, and the license agreement will limit its use to Apple hardware.

    2. Within a few weeks, a program along the lines of XPostFacto [macsales.com] will be available to install OSX86 on generic Intel-compatible hardware. A new version will be required for every major OS X system update.

    3. Apple will add "call-home" registration and serial numbering to insure that each copy of OSX will run on only a single computer. The protection will be cracked, but will be restored (and need to be re-cracked) with every system update.

    4. People with non-Apple hardware who call up Apple seeking OS X support will get a standard reply: "Buy a real Mac, it will run OS X without any problems, and it can run Windows, too!"

    5. Hackers will run OS X on generic hardware. Anybody who wants to do anything serious with it will buy a Mac.
  • by bshroyer (21524) <bret@nOSpam.bretshroyer.org> on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:54PM (#13296390)
    Well, perhaps not, but if I were Jobs, it would be going something like this:

    1. Develop OSX for x86, in secret
    2. Announce it to a stunned audience
    3. Seed dev Intel boxes
    4. Wait for image to leak
    5. Anticipate hackers discover image will boot on SSE3 procs
    6. ???
    7. Gain market share
    8. Profit!!!

    The trick is in step 6:

    Insert the following code into Aqua:
    aqua_speed=1.0;
    if (!genuine_apple_hardware_bit) aqua_speed=0.25;
    Thus, OSX runs natively on non-Apple hardware, but the GUI runs at quarter speed. If you want full-speed Aqua, you'll need the branded hardware. It's the crack dealer's approach: your first taste is free. There'll be time enough to get your money once you're hooked.

  • by BawbBitchen (456931) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @01:04PM (#13296518) Homepage
    I have built maybe 30 or so white box intel/amd hardware computer over the years, starting back with the 386. I have also owned a Dual 500 Mac, and 2 iBooks. At the end of the day, I would pay $400 more for the Apple hardware vs. building it myself. My Apple hardware just works, never breaks (and that goes for my friends that have about 20 Macs between them). I cannot say the same thing for any of the PC hardware. Sure I have had some systems, PC, that just keep working, but in the end the quality of the PC systems (not to mention style!) was just not there.

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...