Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Leopard Already Hacked To Run On PC Hardware 568

Posted by Zonk
from the fast-moving-kitties dept.
PoliTech passed us a PC World link, noting that the newest version of OS X, Leopard, has already been adapted to run on a PC. "The OSx86 Scene forum has released details of how Windows users can migrate to Apple's new OS, without investing in new hardware -- even though installing Leopard on an PC may be counter to Apple's terms and conditions. The forum is offering full instructions on how to install the system, including screenshots of the installation process. Not all the features of Leopard function with the patch -- Wi-Fi support, for example, is reportedly inoperable. Historically, Apple's likely next move will be to track down and act against those behind the hack."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leopard Already Hacked To Run On PC Hardware

Comments Filter:
  • Shame... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by i.r.id10t (595143) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:13PM (#21172063)
    Shame about that. I mean, I've got 4 computers that I use at home for various things, and if I could buy a legal working copy of OS X to run on 'em, I would in a heartbeat. Even at say $200/copy, with the same support I'd get from Microsoft if I were running Windows (read that as "none")....
  • Question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TrippTDF (513419) <{hiland} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:14PM (#21172091)
    I know that traditionally Apple has held onto it's OS because they are a hardware company, not a software company. In the past, I have understood that... they are not a company that is going head-to-head with MS.

    However, in the same way that the iPod won over a lot of users to the Mac, what if they offered OS X for PC users with LIMITED support- meaning they only support specific hardware, and they will only sell OS X stand alone, not pre-installed through Dell or someone else. That would give people a taste of the OS, and for anyone other than the hobbiests, push them towards the hardware...
  • by initdeep (1073290) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:35PM (#21172411)
    How about because even if i go out and purchase the EXACT same hardware, it's still 1/2 the price of buying the equivalent Mac. Which is in reality, not all that much different than building a top end PC. Dell charges up to $500 for a 750Gb SATA HDD, which I can, and have, purchased for sub $200 for several months now. So in the PC market, people build there own to save money. Which is why PC sales are much stronger than MAC sales will ever be under the current sales model. I don't need some fancy looking case that I'm going to shove under a desk, nor do i need a hugely overpriced LCD display from Apple. Throw in that some people in the computer world actually want to test out apps they have written on Mac's to ensure that they *gasp* work correctly before releasing them to the wild, and they do so in the virtualization environment without needing to pay thousands of dollars to do so.
  • by HTH NE1 (675604) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:36PM (#21172441)

    Stupid apple for keeping them down, what's happened since their biggest strength was openness (apple + apple II)?
    Some versions of ProDOS included a hardware test to make it refuse to run on Franklin computers.
  • by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:36PM (#21172445)
    Because I can build a PC for FAR, FAR less than an equivalent Mac costs. I've not run Leopard on my Hackintosh yet (still on Tiger), but if I can run the OS I want on the hardware I want (saving about $1000 or more in the process) with the only negative being that it hurts Apple's feelings, then I'm gonna do that.

    Put it this way: my Hackintosh in it's original incarnation had a 2.6ghz Celeron, 1GB of RAM, 160GB of Hard Drive space, a DVD Burner, and a Geforce 7300LE. Now, this was kind of a toss up between a bare-bones Mac Mini at the time. The mini had it in processor speed, but the $599 machine had less ram, less hard drive space (and a slower hard drive), and a slower video card. That and it wasn't really upgradeable. The hardware for my Hackintosh costed $250. I actually did buy a copy of OS X Tiger (though just one for my G4, but I don't use the G4 99% of the time), but that was only $100. So for $350 total, I've got a machine I like more than Apple's $600 machine. Later on for another $250 I've traded up to a Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz in that machine, a 7900GS, and 2GB of RAM - now I'm still $100 cheaper and it's FAR better than the Mac Mini, especially for playing WoW. And even then, I still had the original CPU and video card left over which went to live in my Linux machine.

    Bottom line is my Hackintosh does more than Apple's hardware for less money, and if it ever gets behind I get whip it back into shape with nothing more than a few dollars and a screwdriver.
  • Re:Question (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ByOhTek (1181381) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:36PM (#21172451) Journal
    Along those lines, how many people whould *never* buy Mac hardware, but would use the OS?

    I'm more than willing to give every OS I see a try periodically (one of these days I'll even get to Vista. Pity me)

    However, I do *not* want to buy one of those overpriced machines to try out their OS. I can build a better quality machine for the same or less money, including the price of a new copy of OS X.

    Now, I'm not saying this is a large crowd, but I know I'm not the only one (or this hack wouldn't have been created). It is a crowd that Apple should look into.

    That being said, one thing Apple does fairly well is the support. I've had some bad experiences with their support, but overall they are a lot better than most hardware manufacturers (I'll take most individual parts makers over Apple, but the only pre-built I've liked better was Dell, and then only for corporate support).
  • Re:Question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ByOhTek (1181381) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:40PM (#21172515) Journal
    I think it's more along the lines of
    "Oh, look, they make this neat, popular, easy to use electronic device, and do a good job as far as I'm concerned. Why not try one of their computers next time I upgrade?"

    This is just a hypothesis, but I think the iPod sold the Macs because it brought Apple back into the public conciousness with a positive light.
  • it's all psychology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by m2943 (1140797) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:28PM (#21173313)
    If Apple actually shipped OS X for PCs, it would lose its aura of quality and superiority. The reason?

    Think about it. Right now, to actually use OS X, you have to really hate Windows and Linux enough to pay a lot of money for a new Mac, set up the hardware, and switch. That's a big commitment, and cognitive dissonance will probably keep you from disliking it. Furthermore, you'll become a vocal advocate for OS X, both because you really hated Windows and Linux in the first place, and because you really like OS X now.

    If it were easy to switch, a lot of people who are only mildly unhappy with Windows and Linux would buy OS X and stick it into their beige box. Many of them would likely conclude that the hassle of switching wasn't worth the improvement (if any) for them and just go back to what they were using before. And they'd tell others about their experience, destroying some of the aura of quality and mystery surrounding the Mac.

    So, the reason you can't get OS X for your PC is likely that it is in Apple's interest to keep the cost of switching pretty high: it means they won't get a huge market share, but they skim off the best customers and the ones that are the most vocal advocates for their products.
  • Re:Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shmlco (594907) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:28PM (#21173317) Homepage
    "... turn themselves into a software company in direct competition with microsoft but such a move would be pretty risky."

    Yeah, as in the the first counter-move by Microsoft would be to drop Office support for Mac.
  • by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:33PM (#21173409)
    First point: I did buy a license for OS X. I installed it on my old G4, but IIRC Apple allows up to 5 installs within the same household off of a single purchase anyways.

    Second point: Did you not notice the emphasis I put on upgradeability in my post? That "super duper mini form factor" is one of the most compelling reasons I DON'T want a Mac Mini. It's a negative in a very real way. If they'd make a reasonable tower unit - just a regular fricken computer instead of their current models which are essentially laptops pretending to be a desktop (unless you drop over $2k on the only real desktop Apple makes), then I might consider buying it. As it stands though, they don't do that, and I FAR prefer to actually have a full size upgradeable case over the limited Mini.
  • by Mr_Silver (213637) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:34PM (#21173423)

    Because I can build a PC for FAR, FAR less than an equivalent Mac costs. I've not run Leopard on my Hackintosh yet (still on Tiger), but if I can run the OS I want on the hardware I want (saving about $1000 or more in the process) with the only negative being that it hurts Apple's feelings, then I'm gonna do that.

    In addition, I cannot buy a Mac in the specification I want. That doesn't mean that my requirements are wild or unrealistic, but if I already have a monitor then I have only two choices - the Mac Pro (which at the very cheapest is £1,699.00) or the Mac Mini (which at the best specified is £639.00).

    Unless I'm missing something, I have a £1060 price gap which cannot be satisfied.

    If I want a 750GB hard-drive, reasonably fast processor, 2GB of RAM, use my existing monitor and a good enough graphics card to run bootcamp and some games then I'm SOL unless I plump for the Mac Pro.

    I don't care about Apple opening up their operating system, but a few extra choices on the desktop would be nice.

    (side note, the cheapest Mac laptop is £699. It may be better specified than a Dell at the same price but the average student can get away with a £399 laptop without a problem. Again, it comes down to a big hole in the choices)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:38PM (#21173499)
    You guys released a Windows port of Safari 3 so that we can develop Web2.0 apps that will run on iPhone, right? So, if you won't release an OS X capable of running on generic x86/x86-64 hardware, could you at least release a version that will run inside of Virtual PC or VMWare, so we can work on developing software for your platform without having to go out and buy a lot of hardware? I think it'd benefit you if you had more developers, developers, developers, developers making things for your user base. True, I'm sure you'd rather sell all those developers a Mac Pro, but that's just one sale as opposed to potentially thousands of sales to Macheads who need to run an app that only runs on Windows if only we could be bothered to port it, and virtual machines would be very helpful in doing that.
  • Re:Shame... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ArcherB (796902) * on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:48PM (#21173661) Journal
    Not to mention it will kill Apple

    I could not disagree more. Do you think that OSX is better than Windows? Most people do. How many of these people would be willing to pay a little bit more for OSX than they do for Windows? Again, I bet most of them would. So how long do you think it would take OSX to overtake Windows? My guess would be within 10 years. Combine this with server sales (it is UNIX after all) and maybe even an office product and you have an Apple that is making more than Microsoft and a Jobs that is richer than Gates.

    Of course, the Mac business would take a hit, I don't think it would go under and any loss in the hardware business would be more than made up from the OS sales. People will still by Macs the same way they do today. Hell, there are people that buy Macs and install Windows on them. I had a Mac and I ran Yellow Dog Linux on it. Mac hardware can stand on its own. People know that Apple makes quality machines and are willing to pay the premium. Those that don't care much about the quality are sold on the style that oozes from every Apple design. Of course, the iPod sales wouldn't exactly be going away either.

  • Re:Freedom (Score:3, Interesting)

    by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768.comcast@net> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @02:04PM (#21173909) Journal
    Currently based on past practice, Apple is doing number 2 (the most scolding they do about hacking it to run of 3rd party hardware is a "Please dont do this" line in their codebase, and thats it.

    Whats being insinuated by people is they will do number 3, based on Apples practice with AT&T. The difference is though, Apple isnt making 18 dollars a month per person off of OS X... Apple IS making that much from AT&T.

  • Re:Freedom (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Sczi (1030288) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @02:26PM (#21174229)
    Reason #25656824871 why the govt should have split Office off to be its own company back when they had the chance.
  • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)

    by YukonTech (841015) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @02:48PM (#21174663)
    The one thing no one seems to mention is apple has NO activation process, they are one of the few companies on the planet that dont assume their customers are crooks.

    If they opened OSX up to generic hardware they would need to impliment some type of anti theft setup simply because generic PC users are cheap and would steal OSX till the cows come home. Personally that fact alone makes me glad it only runs on Mac hardware, Its so nice never having to deal with activations, or worse false positives and the machine becomming basicly un-usable.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @03:43PM (#21175465)
    Why doesn't Apple release a crippled version of OSX packaged as a VMware guest so Windows users could try it out before purchasing a Mac? It would work with the free VMware player and there would be no issue of hardware incompatibility since VMware would virtualize it. Personally, I would like to monkey around with OSX before committing to purchase an entirely new machine. What would be the downside for Apple?
  • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)

    by coult (200316) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @03:43PM (#21175469)

    By comparing the listed prices of upgrades (RAM, hard-drive, bluetooth) and addons at Apple online store vs HP or Sony.

    In fact, my comment should properly read "at least 30%" as they tend to quote double the price in many cases (such as $700 vs $350 for 4gb of notebook ram)
    I hate that I'm even replying to this, but that's just stupid. You can buy ram, hard drives, and bluetooth upgrades for your Mac from many other vendors. I personally wouldn't buy them from HP or Sony either.
  • Re:Since always (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dloose (900754) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @03:48PM (#21175537)
    Accoring to this [osxbook.com] article, your article is mistaken. There was a lot of noise about Apple using the TPM chip to keep people from running OS X on non-Apple hardware, but it turns out that simply isn't the case. The TPM chip is there, but Apple doesn't even ship a driver for it.
    Executive Summary
    • Regardless of what the media has been harping on for a long time, and regardless of what system attackers have been saying about the "evil TPM protection" Apple uses, Apple is doing no TPM-related evil thing. In fact, Apple is doing no TPM-related cryptographic thing at all in Mac OS X. Yes, I know, there has been much talk of "TPM keys" and such, but there are no TPM keys that Apple is hiding somewhere.
    • More specifically, Apple simply does not use the TPM hardware. In Apple computer models that do contain a TPM, the hardware is available for use by the machine's owner. Of course, to use it you need a device driver, which Apple indeed doesn't provide.
    • I am releasing an open source TPM driver for Mac OS X, along with Mac OS X versions of popular open source trusted computing software from the Linux world. No reverse engineering was required to write this driver.
    • The driver and the software stack together make (a form of) trusted computing possible on Mac OS X, assuming you have a machine with a TPM. This page shows you how to "take ownership" of the TPM and begin using it.
    • For crying out loud, Intel's Trusted Execution Technology (a.k.a. LaGrande) does not mean you start putting TPMs "inside the CPU". Apple isn't shipping CPUs with "built-in TPMs."
    (emphasis mine).
  • Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fyngyrz (762201) * on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @03:55PM (#21175641) Homepage Journal

    In the case of Apple's computers, they want to be able to give you that happy "Mac Experience" in which things don't go wrong on you.

    You know, I see this remark in one form or another all the time, but I don't believe it at all. I'll tell you why.

    Our household is Mac-centric; we have 3 mini's and a Macbook Pro. There are other machines here, linux and XP, but we generally use the Macs, the linux machine is a web server, not a desktop. We've run into problems with the Mac's wifi, specifically with the sharing of the connection feature. I've taken the time to document the problems, post them on the Mac forums, report them as bugs, but these problems remain unfixed. These are stock Mac machines with stock Mac wifi hardware. My impression is that Apple doesn't care about my complaints, because the configuration here is, apparently, uncommon. Most people use a wifi-capable router to distribute wifi about their premises, while I elected to use the mini's "share" capability to do it. It worked 100% initially, then an OS upgrade broke it, and it's remained broken since March 2007, despite my poking them in various places such as this [apple.com] (this is only one of many examples - there are other threads, and not just from me, either.) These replies on the Apple forums - not from Apple, from users - were the closest I ever got to help.

    I'm right with the program when people say that Apple stuff is remarkably stable. However, I think the credit there should go to the engineers who created the system. There's no apparent company-wide effort to see that things "just work." Lots of things don't work, and haven't for years. There's no unified push to get things that are broken "right." They never added unicode to Appleworks, or really even kept up with it, they just let it die. As of 10.4, network shares haven't been able to refresh after changes for years. Memory (mis)management still causes applications to pig out for tens of seconds at a time. Mail still loses sent mail if you try to use more than one email address. The iPod touch works through the Intel mini's WiFi but not the PPC mini's wifi, same settings all around. Apple's response to this was "use the intel mini" which I consider to be inadequate.

    Lest you think I'm just generally Apple bashing, I'm not. I spent years trying to work with Microsoft, both as a user and a developer, and it was MUCH worse. Microsoft sucks so hard my vacuum cleaner ran out in the street and threw itself under the wheels of a passing semi in despair. It is the very reliability of Apple's products out the door - not as a "we'll fix what's broken", but as a "we generally don't ship broken stuff" - that makes the Apple experience what it is.

    Consequently, I don't buy the whole "we don't want customers to experience broken OSX, so we won't let it run on generic hardware" rationale. Customers experience broken OSX behaviors all the time, and Apple just lets it run on, likely as not.

    People have a very strong tendency to speak up in support of products they have purchased, my guess is because they feel a need to justify having spent money and time and reputation on such a thing. I've heard absolutely worthless justifications over and over for everything from Photoshop to Windows to linux that one way or another, seem to only have obvious value as they reflect the investment in time, money or even public remarks people don't want to back down from. Apple is no more and no less subject to this; once someone buys an Apple, it is my very strong impression that they're going to be pretty positive about having done so. Not just because it works pretty well, which it certainly does, but because money was spent, a decision was made, an internal turning point reached (and there can be factors like terminal frustration with another vendor, such as Microsoft... I'm personally familiar with that feeling, in spades.)

    There's another

  • Re:Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)

    by megaditto (982598) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @03:56PM (#21175653)
    We cannot directly compare Apple hardware with Sony hardware, but we can in fact compare the things they re-sell, such as RAM or disks.

    And Apple markup tends to be a lot higher on these compared with HP or Sony. Whether it's due to the "milk the fanboys" attitude or all the rigoros testing, I will not say.
  • Re:Shame... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tbuskey (135499) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @04:32PM (#21176179) Journal
    I have a Mac G4 dual 500 at home that I play with OSX on. It had 10.3 and I bought Tiger for it to upgrade. It cost more then the system did (I got it used). I'd love to play with Leopold but no way am I going to buy new hardware for it. I suspect it will be slow on my system if it ran at all.

    I also have a Linux box running VMware. I run an instance of XP in it. I'd love to run OSX in a VM. I also have a Solaris box. I will run xVM on it when it gets into the production version. I might run XP in it. Or Linux in an lx zone.

    I usually access these VMs via a laptop running Linux. The OSX system runs VNC, the XP VM runs remote desktop. If I ever need the gnome/kde console, I can run vncserver on the Solaris or Linux box, but X11 works. I'm running gigabit ethernet on all my systems (including laptop) and I don't need faster speed to my screens.

    Apple will be left out of virtualized desktops if they don't come up with a MacOSX that will run in a VM. COmpanies are already starting to VM desktops.
  • Re:Freedom (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lymond01 (314120) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @05:35PM (#21176885)
    Whats being insinuated by people is they will do number 3, based on Apples practice with AT&T.

    What was the final outcome of Apple's firmware update? Did they actually send out an update that rendered hacked iPhones unusable on purpose? Or was it just an update like any other, but because of the nature of the hack, your iPhone would rendered unusable? Could you choose not to allow Apple to update the phone and still have it remain usable, or would the service not work because your phone wasn't updated? If you reflashed with the original firmware, was your phone usable and updatable again?

    Just wondering whether Apple went out of its way to kill unlocked iPhones, or if it was just the hack combined with a normal patch that made the phone unusable. As a developer, it makes sense to create your patches to work with the product you supplied, not adjust them to work with a hacked product. But if they could have done a proper patch and not unlocked phones inoperative, then that's "evil".
  • Re:Freedom (Score:3, Interesting)

    by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768.comcast@net> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @08:03PM (#21178373) Journal
    They didnt brick the phone, but it didnt work after the update either, you had to apply a new unlock to get it to work again.

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum

Working...