Leopard Already Hacked To Run On PC Hardware 568
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."
Why is a patch needed? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
I would love to be able to play with OS X on a couple non-Mac machines I own, but I would never ever request that Apple open the OS for operation on generic hardware.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Actively supporting third-party hardware
2. Being indifferent to third-party hardware
3. Actively interfering with attempts to run on third-party hardware
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters, because I genuinely don't know. Is Apple doing #2, or #3? It's plausible that, as people claim, #1 interferes with Apple's desire to guarantee quality. But #2 and #3 should be essentially equivalent in terms of the quality that Apple can deliver for its customers, and hobbyists would be a lot happier with #2.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
2. Being indifferent to third-party hardware
3. Actively interfering with attempts to run on third-party hardware
Please excuse my ignorance in these matters, because I genuinely don't know. Is Apple doing #2, or #3? It's plausible that, as people claim, #1 interferes with Apple's desire to guarantee quality. But #2 and #3 should be essentially equivalent in terms of the quality that Apple can deliver for its customers, and hobbyists would be a lot happier with #2.
The problem is twofold.
Firstly: Apple is all about a brand, an experience if you like. It's a bit hard to explain to an IT crowd who are used to being able to mix and match what they like and don't mind too much if something breaks, but the whole point of Apple as a company is "sell elegant stuff which JFW". The "don't care if it breaks, I'll just fix it" customer mentality has never been particularly important to Apple.
If someone's experience of Mac OS is "oh, that's the thing the kid down the road installed on my PC and it never really worked properly", then it's very hard for Apple to get the message across that they sell elegant stuff which JFW.
Secondly: If Mac OS can be made by hobbyists to work well with non-Apple hardware, suddenly Apple finds that every PC OEM on the planet has just become an Apple-cloning company. Something similar [wikipedia.org] almost destroyed Apple some years ago, they're not about to make the same mistake again.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they are one of the few companies on the planet that dont assume their customers are crooks...
See "Apple no longer accepts cash for iPhone"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Apple "recommends" you use their memory, but you can use any memory you want and install it yourself without voiding the warranty; see the standard Apple hardware warranty http://images.apple.com/legal/warranty/docs/cpuwarranty.pdf [apple.com]. Same applies to hard drives, video cards, etc.
The only exclusion is if you damage the machine while installing hardware, or if the stuff you are installing damages the machine somehow.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Actually, you can directly compare Apple hardware with HP, Sony, or Dell hardware since they use many of the same components. For example, a Mac Pro can be directly compared to a number of different Dell or HP servers; the CPU, motherboard, memory, etc. are nearly identical. The Mac Pro cost compares quite favorably. For example, a Dell Poweredge 1900 dual socket quad core Xeon 5365 machine w/ 1 GB ram and 250 GB disk costs $3747 with no OS. The same CPUs, disk, and RAM from apple is $3997 but include
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The thing that stumps me with Apple is they would probably do very well even if they sold the parts separately. Honestly, a lot of people would pay $500-600 for a sexy Apple "barebone" system (chassis + mb + power), because they already pay
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
I can build a dual socket quad-core w/ 1GB ram and a 250GB hd for a lot less than "$3747". Oh wait, I already have.
I also have a Dual docket quad core Xeon Mac Pro (I use Logic Pro). It is NOT "basically silent". I had to buy/build a special cabinet for both machines to isolate my studio from the noise. So, why shouldn't I be able to run OSX on either machine?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Since always (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Lord knows Apple would never actually push or advocate DRM, or attempt to lock people into proprietary hardware. They're not evil like that.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/27/leopard-vs-vista-feature-chart-showdown/ [engadget.com]
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is in the buisness of selling all in soloutions, they don't want people running copies of one of the key components of that soloution on other peoples hardware most likely without paying for it at all (or at best paying the upgrade price).
Maybe they should give in to what some geeks want and try and turn themselves into a software company in direct competition with microsoft but such a move would be pretty risky.
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, as in the the first counter-move by Microsoft would be to drop Office support for Mac.
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless, Microsoft dropping Office from the Mac would be a major blow for two reasons:
First, Apple is one again just starting to make headway into the business world. Losing Office, and especially Entourage (Outlook for Mac), would stop any movement in that direction dead in its tracks.
Second, one of the major reasons that Apple is had as much success in the home market has been, once again, Office. Hang around an Apple store, and inevitably the first or second question a new customer asks is "Does it run Office?"
A "no" answer to that question would probably kill a third of those sales.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is a patch needed? (Score:5, Informative)
This is the same reason why you need BootCamp [wikipedia.org] to emulate BIOS in order to boot Windows on an Intel Mac.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All the BootCamp utility does is provide a GUI to diskutil resizeDisk and burn a CD of drivers from a DMG that is inside the application package. You can just partition your disk with Disk Utility and install Windows. With Leopard now you can just pop the install DVD in for the Windows drivers and re-partition your disk non-destructively as well with Disk Utility.
Track Down, Really? (Score:5, Informative)
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page [osx86project.org]
Shame... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even with no support included they would be swamped with users complaining that it didn't work or was unstable for any number of reasons.
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Informative)
But they do - at least a very broad range of PC hardware runs every build of Windows they make, for regression testing.
It's not as comprehensive, but they DO bother trying.
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end it's more about control and the dollar. They are a hardware/solution company, and NOT a Software company. The percentage they make of OS X sales is not their cup of tea, they rely on their hardware sales.
However there are some CR@PPY PCs out there, things that make even a good distro of Linux cringe. Most notably poor components that have poor support for drivers and don't work well with generic drivers, let alone have decent Windows drivers. I've received some of these and tried resurrecting them via Ubuntu or what-not and encountered a lot of problems to the point that I gave up.
Unfortuantely, these are the PCs Joe Sixpack buys at discount: desktop+monitor+inkjet for $150 after rebates. These are the ones that manage to bring down XP and Vista a couple of times per week. And these are the ones Apple wants no part in.
If they open it up, then every Joe Sixpack out there will give it a go to try on their junk-Machine-5000 to see what all of the fuss is about. When it starts dying 10x more than Windows, they start yelling loudly that OS X runs horrible and has poor support, neglecting to add the fact that Windows runs almost as poorly on those rigs.
Then Apple's image for quality products go down the drain. So, might as well do what they can to keep it off everything they can't control.
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one but geeks would read the fine print. Joe Sixpack would still try to install on his $150 Wal-Mart PC, run into problems, call Apple, and complain loudly how much Apple sucked when they told him to read the disclaimer.
I agree that hardware sales are the main motivation for Apple not to support non-Apple hardware, but OS X's very good reputation (which helps lead to those hardware sales) would be severely affected if it were allowed to run, whether supported or not, on unstable junk hardware.
A better approach would be for Apple to allow one or two known high-quality boutique PC makers to ship OS X with their systems. At least that way the systems would be as stable as Macs out of the box. (Furthermore, Apple could carefully restrict the types of systems sold, ensuring that the third-party makers only sold in segments where Apple doesn't try to compete.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hogwash. Their OS is internally quite device-independent. As long as your drivers aren't buggy, you're not going to have stability problems. Take a look at Linux or any of the BSDs some time, and you'll see how incredibly common and normal it is, for wide driver availability to not have any stability side-effects. Just get good hardware that has been around for a whil
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Apple tried allowing Mac clones once, before the resurrection of his Steveness.
The result was a significant loss in Apple hardware sales, and that loss was not even close to made up in OS licensing.
Apple is a hardware company. Sales of Leopard help defray the cost of the OS development that Apple has to undertake anyway in order to sell its hardware.
If Apple were to sell Mac OS X for generic hardware, it would cannibalise hardware sales to the point where the OS sales would have to pay for OS developme
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, once you take this step, there's no going back-- OEMs will introduce their own OSX machines, subject to their own sometimes dodgy support structures....Honestly, how many instabilities perceived as being "Windows" issues are actually caused by OEM hardware? I can't tell you how many machines I've had to tweak for friends that were overheating/throwing up because of bad system design. OSX would suffer the same issues were that door opened.
Apple's all about control of experience, for good or ill. I'm not going to say you'll never have a non-Apple-branded machine running OSX in a sanctioned manner, but it'd be a huge paradigm shift.
Support is not just "Customer Support" (Score:5, Insightful)
Bug in that logic: its not only MS that supports your PC - its also the hardware manufacturers. Every component, peripheral and driver on your PC is compatible with - and has been tested with - one or more flavours of MS Windows by the manufacturer. PC component manufacturers have to do that in order to survive in a MS-dominated market. Their customer support lines may be crap but they've still invested serious dosh ensuring that they work with MS Windows. Unfortunately, the OS monoculture often means that they've eschewed platform-independent interface protocols in favor of cheaper "soft hardware" solutions that depend on windows-specific drivers. Even the mfrs that do support OS X may only bother on their higher-end products (e.g. the cheapest printers that don't have PCL or Postscript on-board are usually WIndows only).
Now, if you try and sell a "minority" OS product then - until you reach a critical mass and convince hardware mfrs to invest in supporting you - all of that behind-the-scenes support becomes your problem. Linux can scrape by because its got a lot of free labour backed up by multiple sources of commercial backing - but even that has had a hard time. You also have the problem that the vast mass of users buy a PC with Windows installed and are pretty much incapable of installing an OS.
So, say you get the hack and illegally install OS X. The motherboard, WiFi card, ethernet, bluetooth, video card, sound card, web cam etc. in your PC may or may not work with OS X and if the answer is "not" then tough titty - who ya gonna call? Pay $200 to Apple for a copy of OS X and you're going to expect Apple to support your hardware.
Basically, its going to cost Apple a lot of money to break into the "aftermarket OS" market - something that Jobs has already tried and failed at once (NeXTStep) and which, even if successful, would risk eroding Apple's hardware sales.
Bottom line - the MS Monoculture means that there is no "aftermarket OS" market (see: BeOS, NeXTStep, Netware). Even the Linux movement is having an uphill struggle giving away a desktop operating system (not so much in the internet server market, but what with the whole Internet being built on free *nix-oriented code its bloody amazing that anybody even considers Windows).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 i
Question (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not hard to do the math: Take their current earnings per Mac and then the projected earnings per copy of OS X. How many boxes of OS X would you have to sell in order to equal a Mac sale?
If they get, average, $250 per Mac, then two copies of OS X at current prices would be required to break even. So if all Mac sales die, overnight, they would need to jump up to something like 16% US or 7% worldwide to make up the difference. To make it a profitable endeavor, therefore, they would need to sell 3 copies of OS X... or 32% US/10% worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger issue is support. Apple doesn't want to support "random" hardware. It's a nightmare. Better to do a deal with HP / Dell / Etc. and only support a few "OS X compatible" models, and make the OEM offer support.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Apple's product line-up i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah. Cheap(R)Ass(TM) EMachines suck because they include dodgy components and often fail. The mini is not super-fast but it's one of the most reliable Macs Apple has ever made. While it won't play 3D games, a Mini with a modern 7200rpm drive, 3GB of RAM, and (optionally) a faster drop-in C2D provides a highly satisfying experience for nearly everything else. Quiet, tiny, and (somewhat) cheap. For better disk performance many people have modified mini-specific 3.5" disk enclosures to use the mini's SATA port. No one will get a bad impression of OS X from a well-configured mini.
If a mini is not enough, though, I hear you about the giant performance gap between iMacs and drool-worthy but ridiculously expensive Mac Pros.
Re: (Score:2)
We use to hear that, but what are the proofs?
I don't want a stinking iPod, I wanted a mac and now I got one.
Atleast after they got USB who cared? And even before that did people really buy macs just to be able to use an iPod?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"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.
OS/2. NextStep. Linux. (Score:2)
Apple is making billions selling hardware, and it's smart enough to know better than to risk it.
Re: (Score:2)
There would be some advantages to that, but also some disadvantages. For example, imagine the negative PR that would occur if some update to OSX broke on Apple-approved Dell hardware and didn't break on Apple hardware. Whether it was intentional or not, conspiracy theories would abound. Plus, Apple would have to support a lot more drivers, and wouldn't be able to be as nimble about cutting off support for old stuff. Add that to the potential loss in hardware sales, and it might not be the best business
Historically, indeed. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess this means... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Deja vu times infinity (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why you are not running a major corporation, son.
Migrate? (Score:2)
It sounds like a neat trick to be able to run OS X, but "migrating" via some hack sounds like an extremely bad idea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Messing With Success (Score:2, Insightful)
Quality = Branding (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To believe this post, you have to believe in alchemy. Cheap Samsung memory suddenly becomes something quite other when installed in a case with the Apple label on it. A cheap disk drive is transm
Armchair quarterbacks (Score:5, Insightful)
I got a Flat-6 into my Beetle! (Score:5, Funny)
Reverse doesn't work, sometimes I can't turn left, and sometimes it stalls on the highway. But take that Porsche and your integrated Engine/Car financial model.
it's all psychology (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Why? I'll tell you why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I own a Mac - and I'd be happy if the screen was just uniform in brightness and the keyboard was a smidgen larger.
Perhaps that's why people want a hackintosh?
Leopard just as easy if not easier to hack (Score:5, Informative)
I am a registered ADC developer and so I had access to all the seeds. That was a god send for dealing with the new 64-bit Objective-C runtime but I also figured that since I had the seeds, well, why not see how compatible Leopard is with non-Apple hardware.
There are legit reasons to do it. For instance, a base Darwin system can be made out of entirely open source software. Until you start decrypting binaries or (given the DMCA) tell people how to do it, you're not breaking the law. Running binaries you compile yourself is also not breaking the law nor the license.
So I did some research into it and looked at the various hacked kernels that are out there as well as some of the available source patches. After doing some research on it I realized that a good bulk of the typical kernel patch is due to lack of the "/efi" node in the device tree. Well, boot-132 (the non-EFI bootloader) is open source and after a bit of hacking I modified it to look for the ACPI and SMBIOS tables and put them in the appropriate sub-nodes of the efi node.
Assuming the right processor (e.g. Core or Core 2) that's enough to get any kernel Apple has ever made to boot without modifying the binary or recompiling from source. Unfortunately I used a P4 as a test rig so I had to do a tiny bit of hacking. It's pretty easy since the source is available so you can just fix it and recompile. Or if the source isn't available (e.g. source for Leopard isn't yet) you can still quite easily patch the machine code to ignore the processor family.
Once you've got that the only thing between you and OS X is a way to get the kernel to decrypt the binaries. Amit Singh has illustrated the magic poem which is actually not the decryption but instead a secondary protection mechanism. In some earlier Leopard seeds, that mechanism didn't appear to be used anymore. The real decryption is two AES keys, also widely available. The interface between the kernel and the decryption kernel extension is public. That is, there's a function pointer variable in the source and basically you just write a function that does the AES decryption and then set the appropriate function pointer to the address of your function from your kernel extension's initialization routine. That's all I'll give away on a public forum though. And I'm not giving anything away here, it's public knowledge, right in the source code to xnu.
I post here not to tell people how to hack it but to illustrate that it's not some difficult scheme. I have a good laugh reading the various osx86 forums about how cool these hackers must be if they can crack OS X. It's not as if Apple tried to make it hard. I mean, putting the decryption hook in "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext" is a pretty dead giveaway. The other good meme is the thought that the methods of hacking need to be kept secret so Apple doesn't figure them out. Believe me, if I can reverse engineer the hacks then I'm quite certain Apple has several people who can. If they even want to. I see no indication that anyone at Apple is trying to prevent hacks. They write code that works on their machines. If it happens to work on other x86 machines, it does. They haven't ever done anything to stop it.
Re:Leopard just as easy if not easier to hack (Score:5, Funny)
And a new character is born.....Part Deux (Score:5, Funny)
[fade in from black]
[hip charismatic kid]: Hi, I'm a Mac....
[middle-aged, sorta nerdy guy]: And I'm a P.C......
[deformed little creature that would make Dr. Frankenstein wince]: And I'm their bastard love-child.....please....kill me....[creature gurgles and a wisp of smoke escapes an ill-fitting seam in it's neck]
And why do i care? (Score:3)
Hardware Control = Freedom to Innovate (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple were to become a mainly software company, not only would they be faced with supporting far more models, they'd loose their ability to ensure that new computers contain the hardware they want and would instead have to dictate the software to the hardware the users have chosen. Look at Vista. Faced with the choice of buying new hardware that supports Vista well or sticking with XP, many people choose XP.
To be successful as a purely software company, Apple would have to compete directly with Microsoft and shift their focus to high volume, low margin. This is absolutely contrary to everything that Jobs is interested in. He would much rather have a successful minority company with a disproportionate impact on the market as a whole than a leading manufacturer of a commodity.
What I'd really like (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm interested in developing OSX software, and I already own vmware (every developer should), but I don't want to shell out for apple hardware. I've paid for apple hardware in the past, and it tends to be over priced, and there isn't much selection (their current line up of laptops in particular kind of suck compared to my thinkpad x61).
Currently I run linux through vmware on top of vista, which I've found to be superior to dual booting in terms of usability. It lets me avoid linux driver and configuration issues (vmware tends to be better supported than native hardware), play windows games natively, waste less harddrive space on a statically sized partition, manage various linux distros more easily, manage complicated development environments and software configurations more easily (since I can easily make copies of the OS images at any point in development and return to the old version later), etc.
If I could run OSX on vmware (in a supported manner) I could develop OSX guis for the various unix software I write (I've used the cocoa libraries and the interface builder in the past, and they are better than anything in the linux world). This would allow me to give support to the mac platform as a developer in a convenient way. However, at the same time virtualization is off the beaten path, and so it avoids taking a chunk out of apple's bottom line in mac sales.
Re: (Score:2)
For the sheer joy of it.
I can understand running Windoze on a Mac but not the other way around.
And that's obviously just flamebait.
Re: (Score:2)
I read it more as : Running Windows on a Mac is supported under Leopard, meaning it's likelihood of bricking your machine is very small. Running Mac OS on a beige box PC isn't supported anywhere, meaning bricking your machine is much more likely. I can understand why someone would want to do the former, but it seems unnecessarily risky to do the latter - unless you're doing it for the "because I ca
Re:Why do it at all?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding this procedure, the worst case scenario is you have to reformat the disk and reinstall Windows/Linux/whatever.
That hardly qualifies as "bricking" to me.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why do it at all?? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:minis are $ because they're small (Score:4, Informative)
So while he did not buy the license for this machine specifically, he did include that licensing cost in his price estimate. So in that sense he is comparing [ahem] apples to Apples.
You are quite correct about the form factor not being the same footprint. But if space or chic is not one of your top considerations for a system then his rig wins on price and functionality. Personally, I have a shuttle XPC case and it's as small as it needs to be, it's already smaller than a shoebox so to scale it down to mac mini size for double the price doesn't interest me. Considering most users have enough space for a medium sized case, and want blazing fast hardware, the advantage of form factor over price is greatly reduced.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 essent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He did buy the license for the OS. He's not using the OS under the terms and conditions that Apple choose to apply to their product, but those terms may or may not be legally binding depending or where the original poster resides.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Also If apple had a mid-range desktop with pci-e slots then less people will need to use a hacked mac os X.
Re: (Score:2)
Software updates already "bricks" them by your definition, new versions will probably contain a few binaries with the encryption still intact so someone needs may need to fix that. Even more so if you run SSE2 or AMD because OS X are built for SSE3 so someone needs to add emulation.
Everything could be shorten down to BS thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple is missing an opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the recent mac converts i know started out with a pirated copy, unsupported with very few drivers, features not working and not as stable as it should be...
They liked the OS, and wanted to run it properly, so they went and bought macs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing-- Mac thrives because things 'just work'-- it doesn't break much, it's pretty secure, and your mom can use one without much training.
Re: (Score:2)
Why Apple won't sell you OS X for your PC... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple isn't a software company. It's not interested in selling you an OS and some tools for a few hundred dollars/pounds/euros. Apple is a hardware company, albeit one which also designs its own software to complete its system. It's interested in selling you a complete experience, one that marries custom-designed hardware with custom-designed software, for several hundred/thousand dollars/pounds/euros.
Selling its software only with its hardware has been very successful for Apple. It has many benefits (eg, it allows it to focus software R&D only on a handful of hardware configurations, which makes post-sales support orders of magnitude easier) and is the backbone of modern Apple.
Your idea of getting the OS out there to as many people as possible was tried by Apple in the mid 90s and failed miserably. Several third party clone manufacturers (APS Technologies, DayStar Digital, Motorola, Power Computing, Radius, and UMAX) quickly gobbled a share of the hardware market... but that share was gobbled from Apple itself, as Apple users bought the cheaper clones to run Mac OS 7.x rather than Apple's comparatively more expensive hardware. The rest of the market (mostly DOS and Windows-based PCs) barely noticed at all.
Rather than gaining it market share (and thus sales) the Mac clone experiment almost became Apple's suicide note. Sure, we can sit around and talk about the "what if..." scenarios and talk about what might have happened had Apple tried it out before Windows had become so entrenched but the simple reality was that by the time that Apple did try it out it was too little, too late for it to capture the market away from Microsoft's baby.
How bad was the cloning? Well, the first thing that Steve Jobs did when he rejoined Apple was sit down with the clone makers and try to renegotiate their licensing terms to raise Apple's per-computer revenues. The clone makers refused and Jobs effectively withdrew their licences (the next version of the MacOS was released as MacOS 8, and the clone makers existing licences only covered 7.x). Apple's hardware sales recovered, eventually, but Apple never once gained any benefit from the exercise in terms of revenues.
Apple today is all about presentation. To that end, it carefully controls every aspect of the user experience. Putting its showcase OS out there in the wild would destroy that simply because for every user that had a good experience installing OS X onto a non-Apple configuration there would be many more that would have nightmares dealing with installation on hardware that wasn't compatible, features that didn't want to work, inconsistent support, etc.
As a technically adept individual, I'd love to run Apple's OS on all my PCs. It would in many ways be a dream come true. However, for the reasons that I've outlined, that will never happen. Apple doesn't want it to happen so it won't happen, and I understand why perfectly.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every non-Apple hardware box that a user uses instead of Apple hardware box is much more money out of their pocket than the cost of the OS. Plus, last I was aware, there was no DRM, serial numbers, or other such things besides a simple agreement to prevent installing a single boxed copy of the Mac OS on as many computers as you want. Chances are that the people who would hack and install on cheap hardware would also be willing to not pay past the first copy. As a Mac hardware user, I'd rather not have
Re:Apple should be THRILLED (Score:4, Insightful)
I know people who bought Apple hardware specifically because they wanted the OS X experience and couldn't do it on their existing hardware. For the paltry number of sales Apple would gain in additional OS sales, they would lose many of these customers. And as you said, Apple makes more money on hardware.
The OS X "experience" is also more closely tied to Apple hardware than you might imagine. For example, iChat allows you to video chat with just about anyone with a Mac, why? Because any relatively recent Mac has a webcam built-in, across the entire line from low to high end. This is the kind of no-brainer thinking that Apple users have grown to love - the fact that they don't have to worry about what kind of hardware is under the hood, nor do they have to worry about what hardware the OTHER end has under their hood.
Re:Apple should be THRILLED (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I'll be ripped to shreds for saying this, but my guess is that well over 90% of those that would hack a PC to run OS X would be more likely to get OS X via bittorrent or usenet or whatever rather than thru legal "sales".
Re:If apple had a mid-range head less desktop then (Score:5, Insightful)
Business plan: