Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leopard Already Hacked To Run On PC Hardware

Comments Filter:
  • Why is a patch needed? Is it due to DRM?
    • by Ash-Fox ( 726320 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:18PM (#21172143) Journal

      Why is a patch needed? Is it due to DRM?
      Yes. Apple wants OS X to only operate on Apple hardware.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cromar ( 1103585 )
      More or less. OS X checks for specific hardware and will not run if it is not present.
    • by antv ( 1425 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:39PM (#21172505)
      Apple uses EFI [] in Intel-based Macs instead of regular BIOS.
      This is the same reason why you need BootCamp [] to emulate BIOS in order to boot Windows on an Intel Mac.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by macshome ( 818789 )
        BootCamp has nothing to do with the BIOS emulation. That was added with an EFI update to early Intel Macs and has been included ever since.

        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)

    by BoldAC ( 735721 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:12PM (#21172045)
    Are these the same guys from the original hack? []

  • 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")....
    • Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by click2005 ( 921437 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:42PM (#21172545)
      Part of the reason why OS X is liked & so stable is because it can fairly easily be tested on every possible variant of Mac hardware. It would be impossible for Microsoft to test every possible PC setup (which is why they dont bother trying). They release early beta versions and use the in-built phone home features to report bugs.

      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)

        by NekoXP ( 67564 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:03PM (#21172879) Homepage

        which is why they dont bother trying

        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)

        by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:07PM (#21172945) Homepage Journal
        OS X isn't significantly more stable than Linux and the BSDs (or even Windows NT), so that argument is just another lie from the Apple fanboys. Why, oh why, do you people feel the need to spin every possible marketing decision from Apple as being somehow good for the consumer?
        • Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:25PM (#21173281)

          OS X isn't significantly more stable than Linux and the BSDs (or even Windows NT), so that argument is just another lie from the Apple fanboys.
          You are correct, as an OS it's no more stable than any of the *nix variants out there. As an OS it's not super-stable, though as a package it's pretty good.

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Sloppy ( 14984 )

        Part of the reason why OS X is liked & so stable is because it can fairly easily be tested on every possible variant of Mac hardware

        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

    • If your intent is to support Apple by giving them money for the OS, then you can still do so and ignore the EULA. If your intent is to just be "legal", well, then you are still SOL. But yeah, I hear you.

    • Re:Shame... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geeknado ( 1117395 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:55PM (#21172751)
      You don't get support from Microsoft, but that's not their business model-- theoretically, the support comes from the OEM that builds your machine, not the OS producer. Apple, on the other hand, is a service provider-- it's part of their value-- and the way they make the whole thing maintainable for themselves is by reducing the number of possible machine configurations. Even if they theoretically don't support your configuration, instability may well reflect on their brand, reducing their competative advantage.

      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.

    • by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:09PM (#21172981)

      Even at say $200/copy, with the same support I'd get from Microsoft if I were running Windows (read that as "none")....

      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)

      by tbuskey ( 135499 )
      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 i
  • Question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TrippTDF ( 513419 ) <> 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...
    • Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sqrt(2) ( 786011 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:21PM (#21172189) Journal

      the iPod won over a lot of users to the Mac
      It actually didn't. Most of those iPods are being used on windows computers. If Apple had locked down the iPod to only play with their other hardware we'd all be carrying around Zunes (kidding, but only slightly, SOMETHING would fill the need). The MP3 player market would likely be much more fragmented than it is now, instead of one product line having clear dominance.
      • It actually did. That's (one reason) why Apple set record sales for computers this last quarter. And expect to beat it next quarter.
        • Yes, Apple shipped just over 2 million new units in their fiscal 2007 4th quarter, which places their market share at about 3.2 percent. However, this number was at 2.8 percent one year ago, but dropped to 2.5% at the end of their fiscal 2007 2nd quarter in March 2007. Apple sold an estimated 5.2 Million Macs in fiscal 2006, while bootcamp downloads numbered over 1 million, suggesting that the increase in Mac sales has as much to do with their switch to Intel architecture and ability to run Windows, had a
    • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:25PM (#21172261) Homepage
      They would probably lose money unless they charged $300 per copy of the OS.

      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.
      • by faloi ( 738831 )
        The flip side is that if they didn't require Mac hardware for their OS, they'd have a ready-made base of how many millions of people who are just about fed up with Windows but not technically-minded enough to scrap it and go to some Linux varient? With Vista being the OS equivalent of a steaming pile of poo, a lot of users might be willing to jump ship for OS/X. They could get a decent OS to do their web browsing and email, and they'd be set. Pimp it out to a few major PC vendors, and get even more users
        • Are you seriously suggesting that 30% of the US population would switch to Mac if the OS was available for general use? I can see 15%, but not 30%.
      • Sell two versions. The first being an "upgrade for your OEM Apple hardware" at the same $129 / $199 family pack, and another "Full Retail" version for $300 or whatever.

        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)

        by greg1104 ( 461138 )
        This is a bit unrealistic. For example, last quarter [] 62% of all Mac sales were portables. Would all these sales go away if you could run OS X on more generic hardware? Considering there's a growing number of people buying Apple portables that spend a good chunk of their time in Windows, I doubt it; a large number of those buyers wouldn't stop buying Apple hardware even if they could grab some generic PC laptop and possibly get it to run an unsupported OS X build.

        The problem with Apple's product line-up i
    • by aliquis ( 678370 )
      "in the same way that the iPod won over a lot of users to the Mac"

      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)

        by ByOhTek ( 1181381 )
        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.
    • Against Windows, alternative OS's can't get significant traction. Period. No matter how good or how cheap.

      Apple is making billions selling hardware, and it's smart enough to know better than to risk it.
    • 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

  • by imstanny ( 722685 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:20PM (#21172175)

    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."
    Historically, it's been notoriously hard to track down a computer that is not connected to the internet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by phobos13013 ( 813040 )
      They may have to resort to the extremely outdated technology of this type of cable called Category 5... I don't know if you can still find this in antique shops, however.
  • by PHAEDRU5 ( 213667 ) <instascreed&gmail,com> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:23PM (#21172227) Homepage
    You'll only be able to buy the OS with a credit or debit card (no cash!), and the first service pack will brick your PC.
    • by daeg ( 828071 )
      Only to be fixed when you view a TIF online. Unfortunately, the only working TIF exploit happens to be a certain distended fellow.
  • by paiute ( 550198 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:39PM (#21172483)
    Cue up the "I would buy OSX for my PC if they would only offer it" posts.

    This is why you are not running a major corporation, son.
  • Anyone wishing to "migrate" to OS X on non-Apple hardware is just as likely to be left with a trashed PC when Apple release a patch that bricks or renders it unbootable.

    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)

      by rhpenguin ( 655576 )
      Ive been running Mac OS X on my generic hardware since somewhere in early 2006. I felt it was a much more cost effective way to replace my aging DA PowerMac. I mean sure, I have to rip apart dot releases with Pacifist to install them but, bricking my machine? Hardly. Worst case scenario, I boot with -s flag and repair whatever files need repairing. Actually, after a while you kinda forget your not running Apple hardware.
  • Apple just sold the most Macs ever in a single quarter. I don't think the company wants to mess with that unprecendented level of success by opening OS X to the general PC market. There's no question that if it were done properly, an OS X for PCs retail box would substantially grow the platform. The questions are, can Apple successfully pull that off, and does Apple want to greatly expand an already growing platform at the cost of proprietary control. It could happen, though - Stranger things have - like th
  • Quality = Branding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by njfuzzy ( 734116 ) <.moc.x-nai. .ta. .nai.> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:42PM (#21172553) Homepage
    This is really so simple, I can't believe I don't see any posts directly mentioning it. Apple doesn't release Mac OS X for other machines because doing so opens them up to unknown performance and stability. People who see Mac OS X running nicely on a Mac love it, and may want to buy a Mac later. People who see it running on a random PC box, with driver issues and performance problems-- even kernel panics-- aren't going to be left with a good impression. It doesn't matter if you say "Supported on Apple hardware only", the impression is still made.
  • by Darth Cider ( 320236 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @12:56PM (#21172765)
    Apple is worth more than IBM, but armchair CEOs keep saying, "if they were smart, they would sell OS X for 'IBM' PCs. Imagine how much more successful they would be." But Apple has no debt, it has billions in the bank, and its cashflow is astounding and steeply increasing. Why do the armchair CEOs never do a reality check and adjust to what really works in the marketplace? Quality products that are cool and just work.
  • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:08PM (#21172971)
    It works great. Cost me less than a real Porsche would have anyway.

    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)

    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.
  • by Panaflex ( 13191 ) <convivialdingo AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @01:56PM (#21173791)
    I don't want to be critical.. but my 3 year old IBM Thinkpad has a uniform display brightness & color, better battery life, larger keyboard, won't cook your lap, and a bonus right mouse button. Compared to the Macbook Pro it's "more professional" in many ways except CPU and disk i/o.

    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?
  • by Jimithing DMB ( 29796 ) <dfe@tgw b d .org> on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @02:11PM (#21174013) Homepage

    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.

  • by NiteShaed ( 315799 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @02:47PM (#21174643)
    Continuing my series of new Mac ads......

    [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]
  • by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @03:17PM (#21175061) Homepage Journal
    Aside from the 'cool factor' why do i care? I wouldn't want to rely on a cracked OS for daily life. Its bad enough having to rely on a 'modern OS' as it is.
  • by mjboyle ( 1081145 ) on Tuesday October 30, 2007 @04:39PM (#21176241) Homepage
    In spite of its limited market share, Apple has often been one of the biggest leaders in innovating with acceptance of new hardware standards. Not having to support an arbitrary base of hardware manufactured by other people allows them to be much more nimble. If the next big thing required a particular combination of hardware, Apple can ensure that all new computers made include it, even if it raises the cost slightly for a benefit that won't become clear until later when they enable features that take advantage of it.

    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.
  • by sentientbrendan ( 316150 ) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @12:47AM (#21179997)
    is support for OSX on vmware. I understand why apple doesn't want third party hardware to run OSX, but the lack of licensing for vmware support mystifies me.

    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.

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.