PDA

View Full Version : Parallels Server Runs Virtualized Mac OS X




MacRumors
Jan 9, 2008, 11:06 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Parallels announced (http://www.parallels.com/en/pr/press-releases/id,16850) a beta of their new Server application which is the first virtualization solution to run multiple copies of Mac OS X Server v10.5 Leopard on a single Apple computer.
Parallels Server can be installed using the Parallels lightweight hypervisor, in which virtual machines run in tandem with a primary operating system, or "bare metal’, in which virtual machines run independently and are not dependent on a host operating system to function properly.
The advantages to administrators is the ability to run a combination of different "guest" operating systems in various virtual machines. These "sandboxed" virtual machines can be used to easily test software and configurations, without affecting a full production server.

We've previously explored (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/01/22/running-mac-os-x-on-generic-pcs-with-parallels-vmware/) this topic, realizing that the ability to run virtualized Mac OS X would make it very easy to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.

When questioned about the possibility of using Parallels Server to run Mac OS X Server on a PC, Parallels' Director of Corporate Communications told us that that they have not enabled this functionality in the Windows and Linux versions of their product. The reason behind this limitation is that such behavior would violate Apple's end user license agreement (EULA) for Mac OS X, and Parallels wished to continue their good relationship with Apple.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/09/parallels-server-runs-virtualized-mac-os-x/)



product26
Jan 9, 2008, 11:09 PM
this would be great if it will run tiger....

a little backwards compatibility without a second partition...

Novaoblivion
Jan 9, 2008, 11:14 PM
Interesting I was wonder when something like this would come out.

product26
Jan 9, 2008, 11:15 PM
i saw this one coming.


if they can virtualize windows... whats stopping them?

himansk
Jan 9, 2008, 11:16 PM
I guess if they have the code of running osx in the windows or linux versions and simply keep it disabled, some hacker will find a way to break it and we will see many PCs running virtualized osx...

Big-TDI-Guy
Jan 9, 2008, 11:17 PM
Parallels can maintain their good relationship with Apple.

Just as long as somebody who does NOT work for SWSoft "finds" the code to enable this feature. :D

Edit: For the record - I'd be all over that like Dr. Venture on amphetamines if I could run Tiger on my Dell Craptop.

neoserver
Jan 9, 2008, 11:17 PM
I suspect that they're probably smarter then that and have not compiled in the support for it in the Windows/linux editions.

indiekiduk
Jan 9, 2008, 11:27 PM
wonder how you switch between the visor and bare metal OSs.

twoodcc
Jan 9, 2008, 11:39 PM
this sounds very interesting to me. i like the idea though. probably not long until they get this working on non-apple hardware though

Anonymous Freak
Jan 9, 2008, 11:41 PM
One other nice thing to note is that this supports Intel's 'VT-d' technology, which allows specific bits of hardware to be designated to specific virtual machines, and those virtual machines get full access. So this means you could run Windows in a virtual machine, and it would have full access to a second video card, or second NIC.

That's right, alteredego, this is what you were IMing me about earlier today.

It specifically mentions VT-d in the linked press release.

indiekiduk: There are two ways of running this. One is 'conventionally', where you run the software inside a 'host' OS, and all of your virtual machines run as 'guest' OSes. The second manner is called "bare metal", where there is what I will term a 'picokernel' hypervisor that virtualizes multiple machines before any OS loads, and each virtual machine thinks it is the sole OS. (I don't know what the official term for this is, so I picked 'picokernel', because it sounds appropriate.)

agensop
Jan 10, 2008, 12:01 AM
What they said: When questioned about the possibility of using Parallels Server to run Mac OS X Server on a PC, Parallels' Director of Corporate Communications told us that that they have not enabled this functionality in the Windows and Linux versions of their product. The reason behind this limitation is that such behavior would violate Apple's end user license agreement (EULA) for Mac OS X, and Parallels wished to continue their good relationship with Apple.

What they meant: When we bought the Director of Corporate communications alcohol hoping to get them him drunk enough to reveal how the hell we can run os x on our dell boxes he quickly quipped back: What the hell are you talking about??, and have jobs walk into our office with his lawyers, cut our balls off and them feed them too us? No way am i that drunk or we that STUPID.

:D

vertgo
Jan 10, 2008, 12:21 AM
One other nice thing to note is that this supports Intel's 'VT-d' technology, which allows specific bits of hardware to be designated to specific virtual machines, and those virtual machines get full access. So this means you could run Windows in a virtual machine, and it would have full access to a second video card, or second NIC.

That's right, alteredego, this is what you were IMing me about earlier today.

It specifically mentions VT-d in the linked press release.


Wow eHurtley (this is me, altered ego),
actually I was specifically wondering if the new mac pros have the capability of doing the VT-d. Ask and you shall receive. But i guess if parallels (who has previously mentioned that they have been working on vt-d support), says they are coming out with vt-d support a day after hardware has come out, then I would guess as well that the chipset on the new mac pros is indeed support it.

Sweetness.

This has been my dream, having a machine that has 8 cores, can run both mac and windows at the same time, and have either operating system access the hardware directly, resulting in the virtual OS running as fast (minus negligible overhead) even in 3D heavy work.

Imagine a machine that has 2 video cards, 4 monitors, and 8 cores. If you need, you can do all 4 screens controlled by leopard, or two by leopard, two by windows, NATIVELY, and 4 cores for each one, at the same time.

Now imagine when ZFS support is complete (a look at the developer page shows they are working on boot support for it), so that you can keep slapping more drives into a pool, and each drive makes the transfer rate faster and increasing data stability.

So you throw 4 disks into a mac pro, watch as it has super fast
disk i/o with great redundancy, time machine working with ZFS's constant time snapshotting, windows running virtualized, but with direct i/o so that your peripherals that don't have mac drivers can still be controlled by windows, and of course, Leopard. If windows screws up, you go back using the snapshot that's on leopards partition, and the virtual machine is back up and running.

You can test for multiple platforms, edit HD video in real time, the perfect workstation for anyone who does everything from software development to video editing.

As you can tell, I am really excited.

kaisdaddy
Jan 10, 2008, 12:22 AM
...before someone else figures out how to do this. In particular, someone who doesn't care about their relationship to Apple.

More likely than not, it will be somebody who lives in a jurisdiction that doesn't care about prosecuting folks who play fast and loose with copyright law and EULA's.

Once it's out in the wild, Apple will have a huge incentive to sell their OS to folks wanting to use their own hardware. Whether or not they will depends on how stubborn certain people who have say-so over this type of thing are. ;)

ReanimationLP
Jan 10, 2008, 12:28 AM
Parallels can maintain their good relationship with Apple.

Just as long as somebody who does NOT work for SWSoft "finds" the code to enable this feature. :D

Edit: For the record - I'd be all over that like Dr. Venture on amphetamines if I could run Tiger on my Dell Craptop.

Err, you already can. Its called OSX86.

This has been done for 2 years. Now its gotten to the point to where if you have a Core micro architecture system, your Hackintosh can use the native OSX non-hacked kernel and the normal updates.

award
Jan 10, 2008, 01:08 AM
Parallels is definitely not the first virtualization solution to run Mac OS X.
The first one was KVM with several patches provided ca. 2 weeks ago on this page:

http://alex.csgraf.de/self/?qemu/

Fast Shadow
Jan 10, 2008, 01:53 AM
Fusion on my Mac has sworn me off other hardware brands forever. Being able to run a virtualized OSX would be huge. Curious to see if/how VMWare will respond to Parallels Server. Hopefully I'll be approved for the Parallels beta.

iMikeT
Jan 10, 2008, 03:05 AM
I'm glad that these guys respect Apple's EULA.

janstett
Jan 10, 2008, 03:53 AM
When questioned about the possibility of using Parallels Server to run Mac OS X Server on a PC, Parallels' Director of Corporate Communications told us that that they have not enabled this functionality in the Windows and Linux versions of their product. The reason behind this limitation is that such behavior would violate Apple's end user license agreement (EULA) for Mac OS X, and Parallels wished to continue their good relationship with Apple.


Technology gets held back because of legalese.

I understand Parallels being a good partner, but I hate finding out something that CAN be done that would be quite cool ISN'T. Grrrrrr....

jhande
Jan 10, 2008, 04:38 AM
Yah, that's really great and all, but this is Parallels. How about throwing a little SmartSelect in there as well on the server side. And enable it by default.

Given Parallels past history of creating default mash-ups (or mix-ins, if you prefer) which then have to be manually untangled, pardon me for not being all that excited.

I think I'll save my applause for something more bomb-proof, say VMWare.

I bought Parallels Desktop, but that one 'feature', and the subsequent clean-up work involved, really killed any chance of me buying anything from them in the future.

Merkuryy
Jan 10, 2008, 05:24 AM
Once it's out in the wild, Apple will have a huge incentive to sell their OS to folks wanting to use their own hardware. Whether or not they will depends on how stubborn certain people who have say-so over this type of thing are. ;)

That's true! with the success of Linux , i think there is time to have personal HD+ personal OS. May be not now, but it's the future. Apple must have solutions to deal with this, to hold the legacy of Mac OS isn't a good way for future project

Fukui
Jan 10, 2008, 05:43 AM
hmmmm, where is vmware........

ajbrehm
Jan 10, 2008, 05:55 AM
.
More likely than not, it will be somebody who lives in a jurisdiction that doesn't care about prosecuting folks who play fast and loose with copyright law and EULA's.


I understand that in Europe a EULA is in itself a violation of copyright law. For example, when you buy an item that contains copyrighted information you are bound by copyright law, but you are NOT bound by some weird agreement that the vendor includes and claims you "agreed" to by opening the package. Claiming that the consumer agreed to a contract he hadn't seen at time of purchase and never signed or agreed to is in itself not legal.

I do not know why in the US companies can apparently force a contract on people without their consent, but in Europe they cannot.

I never care about EULAs, I only care about the law. The law doesn't allow me to distribute copies of copyrighted material without a licence to do. If the EULA gives me more rights than that, I will agree with it. If the EULA gives me less rights than those I have by law, why would I agree with it? I already have the product and am bound by the law. And whether I found the package on the street or bought it in a shop, my ownership is legal.

I find it strange that American law enforcement doesn't care about prosecuting companies who play fast and loose with copyright law by forcing contracts on people that a) their customers didn't see or sign before they got the product and b) take away from rights that customers have according to copyright law.

jellomizer
Jan 10, 2008, 06:21 AM
...before someone else figures out how to do this. In particular, someone who doesn't care about their relationship to Apple.

More likely than not, it will be somebody who lives in a jurisdiction that doesn't care about prosecuting folks who play fast and loose with copyright law and EULA's.

Once it's out in the wild, Apple will have a huge incentive to sell their OS to folks wanting to use their own hardware. Whether or not they will depends on how stubborn certain people who have say-so over this type of thing are. ;)

I think in this case for an other company to do so. Would be bad for them. Companies large enough to get away with it and not be intimated by Apple are also partners with Apple on some level and doesn't want to get on their bad side (Microsoft, Adobee, etc...), they tend to think like Apple does in terms of protecting their code and assuring it is ran the way they want it. So they are not going to violate Apple rights in fear of be hypocritical and perhaps open the door for others as well.

Smaller Companies even if they don't mind loosing apple as a customer/partner or ever getting them as such. Are smaller then Apple and can be bullied by Apple to stop support, just making life difficult for the company.

The Open Source Community hasn't done to much work in the terms of virtualization there are some that work with some success in general but there is a lack of control to get people to make windows drivers, OS X drivers for the Virtual Machine, because there is no glory in making windows drivers for and Open Source project and could be some licensing issue too. Also VM Coding isn't really so much fun it is about translating calls or passing them through. It takes a skilled programmer with a good knowledge of hardware to write the code (hard to find) and the fact it isn't really much fun makes it even harder to find for Open Source. Commercial Development makes it possible because it may not be fun but it will pay the bills and them sum.

AppleMojo
Jan 10, 2008, 06:23 AM
this sounds very interesting to me. i like the idea though. probably not long until they get this working on non-apple hardware though

I would have to imagine that Apple has provided Parallels with the incentive and methods to prevent virtualization of OSX on non-Apple hardware just the same as OSX.

Although I could be wrong, and when it's released check /windows/system32/parallels.ini for "enable.osx.virtualize = off"

;-)

AppleMojo
Jan 10, 2008, 06:35 AM
That's true! with the success of Linux , i think there is time to have personal HD+ personal OS. May be not now, but it's the future. Apple must have solutions to deal with this, to hold the legacy of Mac OS isn't a good way for future project

Most people seem to lose focus on the fact that Apple is not an OS company. OSX is just the platform which runs on Apple hardware.

At $129.00 a copy every 18 months, Apple isn't getting rich. Apple's revenue stream is high end consumer devices & hardware which run with beautiful interfaces.

OSX is by far superior in every way, but keep in mind this is primarily due to the quality of hardware controlled by Apple. Imagine every Joe Kwan importing cheap hardware into America (I'm American, so I am globally self-centered) expecting OSX to support it.

Besides, the same argument can be used for the iPhone and iPod. You are not ever going to see Apple release a copy of the iPod's interface for use on 3rd party hardware.

jellomizer
Jan 10, 2008, 06:48 AM
I understand that in Europe a EULA is in itself a violation of copyright law. For example, when you buy an item that contains copyrighted information you are bound by copyright law, but you are NOT bound by some weird agreement that the vendor includes and claims you "agreed" to by opening the package. Claiming that the consumer agreed to a contract he hadn't seen at time of purchase and never signed or agreed to is in itself not legal.

I do not know why in the US companies can apparently force a contract on people without their consent, but in Europe they cannot.

I never care about EULAs, I only care about the law. The law doesn't allow me to distribute copies of copyrighted material without a licence to do. If the EULA gives me more rights than that, I will agree with it. If the EULA gives me less rights than those I have by law, why would I agree with it? I already have the product and am bound by the law. And whether I found the package on the street or bought it in a shop, my ownership is legal.

I find it strange that American law enforcement doesn't care about prosecuting companies who play fast and loose with copyright law by forcing contracts on people that a) their customers didn't see or sign before they got the product and b) take away from rights that customers have according to copyright law.

Originally EULA where mostly to protect the software developer from lawsuits from their product. (being that software can run on different systems and in different methods) It is impossible for a program of medium to large size to handle all situations properly. So the EULA were mostly for preventing companies and people from suing the company because they run the program and saved the data file on top of their current years tax files. Or the program crashed in a business and the company sues to get back their lost hours.

Then we can tangent from this to incorporate reverse engineering because there is no way we could support a system that is reverse engineered to do something different that we never programmed for ourselves and beyond our support and control. So lets tell people not to do this.

Then we can tangent off of this again to provide illegal copies because people could be getting the application without proper manuals or with additional software and it continues on and on.

EULA are not enforceable under criminal law unless they break copywrite law or other laws such as the US DMCA etc... But what it does allow the company to not support the product or disable it...

topgunn
Jan 10, 2008, 07:46 AM
I guess if they have the code of running osx in the windows or linux versions and simply keep it disabled, some hacker will find a way to break it and we will see many PCs running virtualized osx...
You do realize that this happened about 2 years ago, right? Thousands of people are running Mac OS X via VM Ware illegally on their Windows and Linux boxes as we type.

jragosta
Jan 10, 2008, 07:47 AM
Technology gets held back because of legalese.

I understand Parallels being a good partner, but I hate finding out something that CAN be done that would be quite cool ISN'T. Grrrrrr....

Yeah. What a shame that Apple wants to make money so they can stay in business.

I understand that in Europe a EULA is in itself a violation of copyright law. For example, when you buy an item that contains copyrighted information you are bound by copyright law, but you are NOT bound by some weird agreement that the vendor includes and claims you "agreed" to by opening the package. Claiming that the consumer agreed to a contract he hadn't seen at time of purchase and never signed or agreed to is in itself not legal.

I do not know why in the US companies can apparently force a contract on people without their consent, but in Europe they cannot.

I never care about EULAs, I only care about the law. The law doesn't allow me to distribute copies of copyrighted material without a licence to do. If the EULA gives me more rights than that, I will agree with it. If the EULA gives me less rights than those I have by law, why would I agree with it? I already have the product and am bound by the law. And whether I found the package on the street or bought it in a shop, my ownership is legal.

I find it strange that American law enforcement doesn't care about prosecuting companies who play fast and loose with copyright law by forcing contracts on people that a) their customers didn't see or sign before they got the product and b) take away from rights that customers have according to copyright law.

It's not really as different as you think.

Apple has a copyrighted OS. The EULA is essentially the terms of their copyright license. Apple is graning you a license to use their copyrighted material under their license terms.

It's just a lot more convenient than requiring every customer to sign a license agreement.

ajbrehm
Jan 10, 2008, 08:22 AM
It's not really as different as you think.

It is really quite different. Copyright law gives me certain rights. If the EULA takes those rights away from me, there is a difference and I don't have to acknowledge the EULA.


Apple has a copyrighted OS. The EULA is essentially the terms of their copyright license. Apple is granting you a license to use their copyrighted material under their license terms.

Nope. It's immaterial. Copyright law already regulates what I can and cannot do with copyrighted material. I do not need a licence to do what the law says I am allowed to do with a product I have acquired legally.

It's just a lot more convenient than requiring every customer to sign a license agreement.

It's also more convenient if I sell you a car and THEN inform you that you are not allowed to drive the car between 6 PM and midnight or to paint it red. It's a lot more convenient than getting you to sign those terms before you buy the car.

The point is that under EU law contracts that a customer gets to see only after buying the product are not valid. It has nothing to do with convenience. It's the law.

And given that copyright law gives copyright holders and society certain privileges and rights, I find it very odd that the US allow one side to enforce terms that the other didn't agree with and that take away from their rights.

I have my own EULA, btw. It's essentially a VLA, a vendor licence agreement. I simply assume that Apple agree with it when they sell me the software, just like they assume that I agree with their EULA. I can tell you that the VLA does give me quite a lot of freedom in regards to what I can do with the software and restricts what Apple can do with the money I gave them (for example, they must not store the money in a bank that is not owned by me).

Alas, copyright law disagrees with my VLA, and Apple never signed it before they sold me the software, and contract law disagrees with my (and Apple's) opinion that a contract the other party hasn't seen or agreed to before the transaction is binding, hence we both will have to do what the law allows us to do regardless of other arrangements made.

I would attach a copy of the VLA to cheques I send to Apple, but paying by credit card is more convenient.

(Note that in Europe, I don't have to send them a copy of the VLA, as neither the VLA nor the EULA have any legal meaning.)

0racle
Jan 10, 2008, 08:25 AM
I'm glad that these guys respect Apple's EULA.
Except they might not be, or at least allowing others to break the EULA.

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosxserver105.pdf

The OS X 10.5 Server license says:

"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Mac OS X Server software (the “Mac OS X Server Software”) on a
single Apple-labeled computer. You may also install and use other copies of Mac OS X Server Software on the same Apple-labeled computer, provided that you acquire an individual and valid license from Apple for each of these other copies of Mac OS X Server Software."

You are allowed to run Server on the Apple branded machine. You can also run other instances on the same machine if you have licenses to do so. This is not all that different from the Windows Server Enterprise EULA which dictates to virtualize the 4 copies, those 4 copies have to be running on that same licensed copy of Server Enterprise. I believe that running OS X in a hypervisor environment is a breach of the OS X Server EULA.

synth3tik
Jan 10, 2008, 08:31 AM
Sweet. I can become that much more of a geek.

ajbrehm
Jan 10, 2008, 08:33 AM
Except they might not be, or at least allowing others to break the EULA.

The Finder allows you to copy files, effectively allowing you to "break the EULA".

In fact, I myself often fail to stand behind users and prevent them from breaking EULAs.

It's terrible.

AppleMojo
Jan 10, 2008, 08:34 AM
The point is that under EU law contracts that a customer gets to see only after buying the product are not valid. It has nothing to do with convenience. It's the law.

How does this work if the EULA is posted @ Apple.com. Does this imply that the software company has to force the end user to read the agreement before a transaction takes place?

Or possibly before they enter the store they sit through a EULA keynote presentation?

Lately it just seems that ignorance and tolerance are now more important than common sense.

Don't get me wrong; I understand what your saying, it just irks me that it has to be so drawn out.

And again, with that rational... I have never signed a copy of the US Constitution nor have I had a government representative sit down and explain to me copyright laws, therefor I should be exempt. ;-)

kaisdaddy
Jan 10, 2008, 08:40 AM
You do realize that this happened about 2 years ago, right? Thousands of people are running Mac OS X via VM Ware illegally on their Windows and Linux boxes as we type.

However, in order for Apple's hand to be "forced", the whole process will have to be easy for the average user. While there probably are thousands of geeks who are running their hackintosh, Joe Blow is not going to get on board unless the available solution is simple. That means that installation is nearly as easy as installing OS X on a Mac and that the OS can't break after updating the software. That has not happened yet.

AppleMojo
Jan 10, 2008, 08:41 AM
The Finder allows you to copy files, effectively allowing you to "break the EULA".

In fact, I myself often fail to stand behind users and prevent them from breaking EULAs.

It's terrible.

That makes you an accessory.

kaisdaddy
Jan 10, 2008, 08:42 AM
And again, with that rational... I have never signed a copy of the US Constitution nor have I had a government representative sit down and explain to me copyright laws, therefor I should be exempt. ;-)

The government has been ignoring the constitution for decades now. It was designed to keep them off our back.:rolleyes:

I agree with you that contracts should be clear and voluntary.

saltyzoo
Jan 10, 2008, 09:23 AM
Does anyone really think that a company (parallels) is going to put a feature into their product (the ability to run OSX on their windows version) and not advertise it?

What would the point be? They'd open themselves up to litigation / losing a valuable relationship for a feature they can't tell people about. That's really great marketing. :rolleyes:

aaarrrgggh
Jan 10, 2008, 10:14 AM
So is this product intended to compete with ESX Server, or is it intended to be a single box alternative to Server/ESX Server?

Just yesterday I was bemoaning the cost of ESX Server as it would make an X-Serve not viable for our office. I want to avoid having a Linux base layer if we switch to virtualization for some of our functions...

Hope Parallels can price it competitively for the stated market they are trying to reach.

!¡ V ¡!
Jan 10, 2008, 11:28 AM
Sweet. I can become that much more of a geek.

Too late for that, most of us on MR are already geeks since OS X is built on freeBSD, plus running PPC to x86 conversion and now multiple OSes only to have a select who care to have Apple HW and also a hackintosh. :eek:

Not to forget server side.

What is the industry making us Apple users into (outcasts)? ;):D

jashic
Jan 10, 2008, 11:44 AM
fellas....people have been running MacOS on Dell machines for years. What's so new about this?

- Pick up a $500 Dell machine
- Install EFI and MacOS
- End up with a Mac system that's 30% faster than the fastest iMac.

inmotion
Jan 10, 2008, 02:47 PM
let me just say that indeed osx86 has been around for a while
actually.... i was a user of it myself.

let me explain,


i was interested in os x for music recording but had purchased a asus m5 laptop not too long and could just not justify buying a mac without even knowing the OS

a bit later: osx86 slowly became my primary OS (though i was an windows IT assistant..)

march 2006 --> convinced a friend to buy a macbook pro based on my great experience on osx86

august 2006 --> bought my first macbook pro...

present --> never going back

so in the end... i guess osx86 helped a great deal in transiting me from a experienced windows user to a mac loving one.

stainlessliquid
Jan 10, 2008, 04:09 PM
It cant get any easier to install OS X on a PC. The osx86 installers out right now are exactly the same as installing OS X on a real mac.

People are going to do what theyre going to do, Parallels wont make it any harder or easier. The EULA is just as much BS as the RIAA saying ripping a CD is illegal so who cares about the so called "legality" of it all, I seriously doubt Apple could ever enforce such a ridiculous restriction if the person bought the copy themselves.

!¡ V ¡!
Jan 10, 2008, 04:57 PM
It truly is amazing we have the following:

Mac Camp:

We want to run 10.5 and, XP, Vista, 2000, Linux, etc... on our Apple built computers.


versus


Generic PC Camp:

We want to run 10.5 (hackintosh), who cares for Windows unless its gaming and speciality application(s) on our self-built PC.


Is it me or Mac users are just bigger geeks, most are not hard gamers...we just like to justify the cost of our purchase. :confused:

!¡ V ¡!
Jan 10, 2008, 04:59 PM
It cant get any easier to install OS X on a PC. The installers are exactly the same as installing OS X on a real mac.

People are going to do what theyre going to do, Parallels wont make it any harder or easier. The EULA is just as much BS as the RIAA saying ripping a CD is illegal.

Sure people such as you and I how to do it and call it easy, however there are many people who will not care to go through the trouble.

AppleMojo
Jan 10, 2008, 09:50 PM
fellas....people have been running MacOS on Dell machines for years. What's so new about this?

- Pick up a $500 Dell machine
- Install EFI and MacOS
- End up with a Mac system that's 30% faster than the fastest iMac.

30% faster eh?

Most negative comments regarding Mac's always end up being about price... If you can't afford it, then I guess thats really all you got left. Good luck with that.

Besides, I heard that nearly 96% of all statistics are made up.

AppleMojo
Jan 10, 2008, 09:55 PM
Is it me or Mac users are just bigger geeks, most are not hard gamers...we just like to justify the cost of our purchase. :confused:

I completely agree; I know so many newly converted Mac users who are blown away with OSX and Apple hardware simply because they had no idea it was Unix and they've never seen Unix look so good.

It takes a serious user to really appreciate the technology sitting on/under that desk.

A convert myself; I just can't bring myself to spend another $1 on flavor of the month hardware slapped together in Austin, TX.

AppleMojo
Jan 10, 2008, 10:21 PM
People are going to do what theyre going to do, Parallels wont make it any harder or easier. The EULA is just as much BS as the RIAA saying ripping a CD is illegal so who cares about the so called "legality" of it all, I seriously doubt Apple could ever enforce such a ridiculous restriction if the person bought the copy themselves.

This silly mentality is the exact reason these licenses and agreements are placed on all of us.

If I disagree with the rules, I don't play. Unlike the type, who continues to play then cries about the consequences they were completely aware of.

Apple has 100% the right to choose what their software is installed on. They designed it, they built it and therefor they get to define the rules of it's use.

I in fact, think it would be great if you have to prove ownership of Mac hardware before you buy OS X. Or better yet, they just do away with boxed copies of OS X and it is only downloadable onto certified Apple hardware during an upgrade process. As this is what the OS was designed to do in the first place.

Personal Note:

When you develop software and have licenses being stolen, and it directly affects the quality of life for your family/children; then you may an opinion.

And to save a response for the expected comment: By installing a purchased copy of OS X on non-Apple hardware you are not purchasing the entire intended package from Apple, which does affect many, many pocket books.

Mindflux
Jan 10, 2008, 10:26 PM
fellas....people have been running MacOS on Dell machines for years. What's so new about this?

- Pick up a $500 Dell machine
- Install EFI and MacOS
- End up with a Mac system that's 30% faster than the fastest iMac.


How does one change from BIOS to EFI? I don't think it's as simple as 'installing EFI'

saltyzoo
Jan 11, 2008, 04:39 AM
How does one change from BIOS to EFI? I don't think it's as simple as 'installing EFI'

Yup. I think it's hilarious when people make it sound like running OS X on a non-apple is easy / stable. The only people that believe that are people that haven't tried to do it.

Merkuryy
Jan 11, 2008, 04:47 AM
Most people seem to lose focus on the fact that Apple is not an OS company. OSX is just the platform which runs on Apple hardware.

At $129.00 a copy every 18 months, Apple isn't getting rich. Apple's revenue stream is high end consumer devices & hardware which run with beautiful interfaces.

.

Yes, I know that, thanx but we're talking about the future. And Mac OSX is the face of Apple computer, see that the image of Macbook Macbook Pro, iMac both have the beautiful Leopard on the screen.

And in China, my prof's assistant has a "dock" and the "aqua" effect on its Win XP. Most people who love the beauty of Apple will still stick with M$ in this way. That's not big deal for Apple which biggest market is in US, but if you consider the future in 20 or 30 years, man, that's what is important

ajbrehm
Jan 11, 2008, 05:51 AM
How does this work if the EULA is posted @ Apple.com. Does this imply that the software company has to force the end user to read the agreement before a transaction takes place?

That is the usual practice when you buy something that comes with a long contract. In fact, the only thing I ever bought that came with a contract that long was a flat. And they did, in fact, read out the entire thing to me.

USUALLY, when I buy something there is no contract involved other than the implicit contract.

Why Apple and Microsoft think that buying software should be more like buying a house than buying a book, I don't know. To me software seems more like a book than like a house.

Or possibly before they enter the store they sit through a EULA keynote presentation?

That's basically what other vendors that sell goods that come with complicated contracts do, yes.

Lately it just seems that ignorance and tolerance are now more important than common sense.

That is true also.

Don't get me wrong; I understand what your saying, it just irks me that it has to be so drawn out.

It irks me too, that's why I am so offended by software companies who have decided to make it so. I never said that software must come with long contracts to read and sign. That was Microsoft's (and other companies') idea.

I find it appropriate for a house, not appropriate for books (where it isn't done) and software (where for some reason there is a long contract involved).

If it was up to me, this matter would be easy.


And again, with that rational... I have never signed a copy of the US Constitution nor have I had a government representative sit down and explain to me copyright laws, therefor I should be exempt. ;-)

If you become a US citizen, you do swear an oath on the constitution, which is, I guess, the equivalent of "signing" it. (For social compacts only the author(s) sign(s) it, everybody else swears oaths.)

If you are born a US citizen, the constitution is not binding to you, because you have not signed it, and you are free to leave the area the constitution claims as its area of legitimacy.

If you stay, the constitution is your law.

A EULA, on the other hand, is a contract, not a constitution or law enacted under the constitution. And I don't see why a EULA should be regarded as "law" like the US constitution rather than like a contract.

AppleMojo
Jan 11, 2008, 08:10 AM
If you are born a US citizen, the constitution is not binding to you, because you have not signed it, and you are free to leave the area the constitution claims as its area of legitimacy.

If you stay, the constitution is your law.

Need a flat mate? ;-)

AppleMojo
Jan 11, 2008, 08:24 AM
Yes, I know that, thanx but we're talking about the future. And Mac OSX is the face of Apple computer, see that the image of Macbook Macbook Pro, iMac both have the beautiful Leopard on the screen.

It doesn't really matter what people believe the face of Apple to be.

Apple is not an OS company, they just simply have a better Operating System for the systems they provide. Which, is quite sad considering some organizations are OS only companies, and they are 2nd rate.

Having the marketing material for the software side of their hardware device sounds like normal business practice to me, not acknowledgement that they are an OS company.

Would you rather they had cute little kittens or a pretty princess on the images of Apple's computers?

People want what they can't have...

dummptyhummpty
Jan 11, 2008, 09:35 AM
You do realize that this happened about 2 years ago, right? Thousands of people are running Mac OS X via VM Ware illegally on their Windows and Linux boxes as we type.

Yup. Last Friday I installed 10.4.8 under vmWare on my work computer to see if I could do it. My boss thought that was cool and I think he planned to do it on his pc this week. I'm on vacation so I don't know his progress.

How does one change from BIOS to EFI? I don't think it's as simple as 'installing EFI'

I believe there is something you install that is kind of like an EFI emulator.

diamond.g
Jan 11, 2008, 09:49 AM
How does one change from BIOS to EFI? I don't think it's as simple as 'installing EFI'

The question I have is why wouldn't it be as easy as flashing the BIOS chip with EFI instead of BIOS? I mean if you can do it for a video card then why is a motherboard any different?

jashic
Jan 11, 2008, 12:41 PM
30% faster eh?

Most negative comments regarding Mac's always end up being about price... If you can't afford it, then I guess thats really all you got left. Good luck with that.

Besides, I heard that nearly 96% of all statistics are made up.

Hmm, considering I own 6 macs and 2 pc's (1 PC that is running leopard), I should know.

And if you are stupid enough to dispute the fact that desktop processors are indeed FASTER than laptop processors (that iMac's use), then I'd suggest you do some additional research on your own spare time.

My $500 custom built quad core PC running MacOS/Vista dual-boot is MUCH faster than anyone's iMac....period.

jashic
Jan 11, 2008, 12:44 PM
Yup. I think it's hilarious when people make it sound like running OS X on a non-apple is easy / stable. The only people that believe that are people that haven't tried to do it.

And those who think it's so hard, havent tried it. Continue to wear your blinders. No one really cares.

what in the world is so hard about loading EFI, popping in leopard and installing it? Are you the kind of guy who went to the genuis bar to get your leopard installed? rofl.

stainlessliquid
Jan 11, 2008, 04:49 PM
How does one change from BIOS to EFI? I don't think it's as simple as 'installing EFI'
Its similair to the method Bootcamp uses BIOS even though the motherboard is EFI. It doesnt change your BIOS to EFI, thats impossible, its just a bootloader on the HDD, it never touches the actual BIOS rom. It allows a virtually unmodified copy of OS X to run on a Core 2 Duo PC just like Windows on a Mac. And its very simple to install, you just put the files on a USB stick, boot with the OS X DVD and run a couple short commands in terminal, its Darwin too which is all open source. Its not Apple's EFI with actual functionality like Bootcamp and the bong sound, its a very rudimentary bootloader using Darwin that looks similair to the generic Windows multiboot menu.

saltyzoo
Jan 11, 2008, 05:00 PM
And those who think it's so hard, havent tried it. Continue to wear your blinders. No one really cares.

what in the world is so hard about loading EFI, popping in leopard and installing it? Are you the kind of guy who went to the genuis bar to get your leopard installed? rofl.

Please feel free to forward me information to the magic that will allow OS X to run on any hardware with full or even almost full functionality. I could make good money with such knowledge.

jashic
Jan 11, 2008, 10:43 PM
Its similair to the method Bootcamp uses BIOS even though the motherboard is EFI. It doesnt change your BIOS to EFI, thats impossible, its just a bootloader on the HDD, it never touches the actual BIOS rom. It allows a virtually unmodified copy of OS X to run on a Core 2 Duo PC just like Windows on a Mac. And its very simple to install, you just put the files on a USB stick, boot with the OS X DVD and run a couple short commands in terminal, its Darwin too which is all open source. Its not Apple's EFI with actual functionality like Bootcamp and the bong sound, its a very rudimentary bootloader using Darwin that looks similair to the generic Windows multiboot menu.

Exactly. Finally someone who knows something. =)

jashic
Jan 11, 2008, 10:44 PM
Please feel free to forward me information to the magic that will allow OS X to run on any hardware with full or even almost full functionality. I could make good money with such knowledge.

Why don't you crawl back into your dark hole. Maybe next time you'll think before you start bashing other people's posts without knowing a single thing about it. Now run along.

saltyzoo
Jan 12, 2008, 04:51 AM
Why don't you crawl back into your dark hole. Maybe next time you'll think before you start bashing other people's posts without knowing a single thing about it. Now run along.

Thank you for the information. You've changed my mind. :rolleyes:

WildPalms
Jan 12, 2008, 04:54 AM
That is the usual practice when you buy something that comes with a long contract. In fact, the only thing I ever bought that came with a contract that long was a flat. And they did, in fact, read out the entire thing to me.

USUALLY, when I buy something there is no contract involved other than the implicit contract.

Why Apple and Microsoft think that buying software should be more like buying a house than buying a book, I don't know. To me software seems more like a book than like a house.



That's basically what other vendors that sell goods that come with complicated contracts do, yes.



That is true also.



It irks me too, that's why I am so offended by software companies who have decided to make it so. I never said that software must come with long contracts to read and sign. That was Microsoft's (and other companies') idea.

I find it appropriate for a house, not appropriate for books (where it isn't done) and software (where for some reason there is a long contract involved).

If it was up to me, this matter would be easy.




If you become a US citizen, you do swear an oath on the constitution, which is, I guess, the equivalent of "signing" it. (For social compacts only the author(s) sign(s) it, everybody else swears oaths.)

If you are born a US citizen, the constitution is not binding to you, because you have not signed it, and you are free to leave the area the constitution claims as its area of legitimacy.

If you stay, the constitution is your law.

A EULA, on the other hand, is a contract, not a constitution or law enacted under the constitution. And I don't see why a EULA should be regarded as "law" like the US constitution rather than like a contract.

Your details state you are from Ireland. You are not in a position to be making statements of fact about the US constitution nor do you deserve the position to do so. Once you become an American, you may have that opportunity. Until then, suck another Guiness down and stick to your own politics.

Sesshi
Jan 12, 2008, 05:17 AM
Possibility of OS X on *good* hardware that's kinda-sorta-supported?

I'm a bit excited.

Shadow
Jan 12, 2008, 05:39 AM
Your details state you are from Ireland. You are not in a position to be making statements of fact about the US constitution nor do you deserve the position to do so. Once you become an American, you may have that opportunity. Until then, suck another Guiness down and stick to your own politics.

Just because he's in Ireland means he (or indeed she ;)) automatically know nothing about the US? Maybe he's an American staying in Ireland. You do not know, so kindly shut up.

jashic
Jan 12, 2008, 06:46 AM
Thank you for the information. You've changed my mind. :rolleyes:

I'm not here to change your mind. Only to point out how stupid your earlier comments were. Job complete and now moving on.

saltyzoo
Jan 12, 2008, 06:51 AM
I'm not here to change your mind. Only to point out how stupid your earlier comments were. Job complete and now moving on.

How about pointing out how stupid they are with information rather than name calling? I want to see this magic that makes this happen. Produce it.

Getting OS X to run well on a virtual machine is a whole lot easier than it is on a hodge podge of equipment. By design, the driver support just isn't there. OS X is only designed to run on very specific hardware.

A virtual machine can "virtually" supply that specific hardware. A random $500 dell cannot.

I've seen claim after claim about how easy it is to run OS X on a random PC. I've yet to see any evidence of such claims. It can be done. But it's not easy and it requires very specific equipment, and a lot of patience, and even then it's not fully functional.

But feel free to continue call me names simply because I refuse to believe you just because you say so. It proves your point so well.

WildPalms
Jan 12, 2008, 06:55 AM
Just because he's in Ireland means he (or indeed she ;)) automatically know nothing about the US? Maybe he's an American staying in Ireland. You do not know, so kindly shut up.


Do you know? Did you check before commenting? In this country we have free speech, and we left you folks behind long ago.
He's not, I've asked before. So take your own advice and .... have a nice day :D

TechHistorian
Jan 12, 2008, 07:42 AM
I find it appropriate for a house, not appropriate for books (where it isn't done) and software (where for some reason there is a long contract involved).

If it was up to me, this matter would be easy.




If you become a US citizen, you do swear an oath on the constitution, which is, I guess, the equivalent of "signing" it. (For social compacts only the author(s) sign(s) it, everybody else swears oaths.)

If you are born a US citizen, the constitution is not binding to you, because you have not signed it, and you are free to leave the area the constitution claims as its area of legitimacy.

If you stay, the constitution is your law.

A EULA, on the other hand, is a contract, not a constitution or law enacted under the constitution. And I don't see why a EULA should be regarded as "law" like the US constitution rather than like a contract.

The EULA isn't a "law" -- it's a license to use the product. When you buy a book, you buy the actual physical copy of the book. Only one person can read a book at a given time.

Software, however, is different. And thus the software manufacturers have to come up with a mechanism to ensure that only one person uses a given copy of the software at a given time (unless, of course, the license provides otherwise as in Apple's family packs).

BTW, the US Constitution isn't a "law" per se but rather the delineation of the structure of the government and the enunciation of certain rights guaranteed to Americans. It's more akin to the English Bill of Rights (1689) than to the German Grundgesetz of 1949 even though the Grundgesetz does set up the framework of the Federal Republic. Moreover, the Constitution is indeed binding on people born in the US regardless of their consent -- individuals are guaranteed the same rights (life, liberty, due process of law, etc.) even if said individuals refuse to recognize the authority of the federal government (see the militia movements for example).

jhande
Jan 12, 2008, 04:34 PM
Your details state you are from Ireland. You are not in a position to be making statements of fact about the US constitution nor do you deserve the position to do so. Once you become an American, you may have that opportunity. Until then, suck another Guiness down and stick to your own politics.

Oh that really made my evening. This statement is so .... "interesting" in so very many different ways. Is there a scoreboard for the most asinine statements to grace MacRumors? This one must surely be a contender.

A good chuckle was had - thank you. :rolleyes:

stainlessliquid
Jan 12, 2008, 05:04 PM
I've seen claim after claim about how easy it is to run OS X on a random PC. I've yet to see any evidence of such claims. It can be done. But it's not easy and it requires very specific equipment, and a lot of patience, and even then it's not fully functional.
Behold the magic of the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GEZgwh2Eas

Does that look hard to do? It looks pretty similair to isntalling OS X on a real Mac plus a couple extra steps which a monkey could do. Only the weirdest and most obscure motherboards have problems, a lot of boards work without doing anything at all, and some just need some numbers changed in a kext to recognize the ethernet. Boards with an Intel chipset are pretty much guaranteed to work. Whats funny is that it supports dozens more video cards than a real Mac does. Virtual machines are much less compatible and way harder to get working. And yes its 100% functional, there is not a single thing that my Core 2 Duo machine cant do that my mac can, the only difference is that the PC is faster since its overclocked to 3ghz.

saltyzoo
Jan 12, 2008, 05:08 PM
Behold the magic of the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GEZgwh2Eas

Does that look hard to do? It looks pretty similair to isntalling OS X on a real Mac plus a couple extra steps which a monkey could do. Only the weirdest and most obscure motherboards have problems, a lot of boards work without doing anything at all, and some just need some numbers changed in a kext to recognize the ethernet. Whats funny is that it supports dozens more video cards than a real Mac does. Virtual machines are much less compatible and way harder to get working.

LOL A youtube video is not proof. Send me links on EXACTLY how to do it. With the binaries needed and all.

And you are dead wrong. A virtual machine is designed to mimic exactly the target hardware. It would be 0 trouble to use a virtual machine designed to "be" a mac.

chris200x9
Jan 12, 2008, 06:02 PM
Apple has 100% the right to choose what their software is installed on. They designed it, they built it and therefor they get to define the rules of it's use.


I find the EULA rules attitude by mac users a bit hypocritical. We are talking about virtualization I mean the EULA of Vista says only vista ultimate can be virtualized but we've had numerous threads about virtualizing home premium and the consensus was go ahead uses parallels to run it. Now the shoe is on the other foot and all mac users are saying we have to respect EULA. I'm just confused if we can break microsoft's EULA why can't we break apple's?

stainlessliquid
Jan 12, 2008, 09:20 PM
LOL A youtube video is not proof. Send me links on EXACTLY how to do it. With the binaries needed and all.

And you are dead wrong. A virtual machine is designed to mimic exactly the target hardware. It would be 0 trouble to use a virtual machine designed to "be" a mac.
Arent you a close minded one. How is that not proof? There are several other similair videos on youtube using iATKOS. Theres also BrazilMac, Kalyway, and ToH versions.

If you want to know how to do it then go to this site and look at all the tutorials and threads about people getting it to run on their PC: http://forum.insanelymac.com/

But you probably think that the 148,000 registered members are all part of the conspiracy.

If you want the long complicated procedure then this thread was one of the first solutions to getting Leopard on a PC, it involves patching the actual Leopard DVD on a Mac so it has a bootable file system on a PC: http://forum.osx86scene.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2008

Virtual machines are garbage, its all emulation and very generic emulation, virtual machines dont emulate real hardware like a Geforce so they dont use good drivers. And emulation is never better than a native install.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 13, 2008, 12:43 AM
LOL A youtube video is not proof. Send me links on EXACTLY how to do it. With the binaries needed and all.

And you are dead wrong. A virtual machine is designed to mimic exactly the target hardware. It would be 0 trouble to use a virtual machine designed to "be" a mac.

Alright, salty, if you come to Portland, Oregon, I'll show you how to do it in person. It took me about one hour. (To satisfy the license freaks, I have a 'Family Pack' license, and only have it on three computers. So I have two licenses to 'spare'.) The hour consisted of about 10 minutes of running a single command on an existing Mac to create the customized install DVD, and 40 minutes of what felt like a bone-stock-standard install on the non-EFI machine. To avoid the copyright infringement difficulties with Torrents of the OS X install discs, I used a program (readily available if you search for "OSx86",) that uses no Apple copyrighted or licensed files to modify the file structure of an existing OS X install DVD. It copies your OS X DVD to your own drive, modifies the files necessary, then burns it back to a new DVD.

Since seeing it in person seems to be the only way to convince you, I'm making the offer. And yes, it is a legitimate offer. Let me know by PM when you'll be in Portland, and I'll adjust my schedule to show you.

As for creating a virtual machine that can 'be' a Mac, the problem is that so far, all VM software emulate a BIOS system, and Macs (and by extension OS X,) are EFI-based. So yes, if someone were to re-write their VM to emulate EMI, it would be possible to have it pretend to be a Mac instead of 'generic PC' the way they do now.

saltyzoo
Jan 13, 2008, 04:45 AM
And its very simple to install, you just put the files on a USB stick, boot with the OS X DVD and run a couple short commands in terminal, its Darwin too which is all open source.



If you want the long complicated procedure then this thread was one of the first solutions to getting Leopard on a PC, it involves patching the actual Leopard DVD on a Mac so it has a bootable file system on a PC: http://forum.osx86scene.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2008

Since I'm so close minded, can I have the "simple install" instructions instead of the long complicated ones? You said they exist, so they must exist.


Since seeing it in person seems to be the only way to convince you, I'm making the offer. And yes, it is a legitimate offer. Let me know by PM when you'll be in Portland, and I'll adjust my schedule to show you.
I'm not saying it can't be done. It can. But it's not simple, and your odds of having a fully functional machine are very low unless you buy very specific hardware, which isn't necessarily easy to find cheaply. That's not an opinion, it's a matter of reality.

My point is that you can't just take an "average $500 dell" and make it a mac in an hour. And that's not because I'm narrow minded. It's just reality.

Just like anything else you do, it's simple once you understand it. But the average schmuck is not going to be able to create a hackintosh in an hour. The average schmuck isn't going to be able to do it at all.

stainlessliquid
Jan 13, 2008, 04:43 PM
Stop pretending like you know what youre talking about, you dont have any experience in trying it yourself or even reading about it. I sent you a link of a video installing the iATKOS version of Leopard, which is the easy way to do it, THOSE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS. You turn on the computer, you put the DVD in the drive, you run the installer, then you take the DVD out of the drive (or if youre feeling extra rebellious you can actually leave the DVD in the drive). How is it possible to show better proof than a video outside of you installing the thing yourself? You wanted the details so I sent you the BrazilMac method, which apparently wasnt good enough for you even though it was exactly what you asked for (including links to the scripts you use to patch the DVD, you can actually open up a .sh file in text edit and read exactly what its doing or type the commands in terminal yourself :eek: ).

Just like anything else you do, it's simple once you understand it.
How many times have you gone into something thinking its going to be hard only to find out it was incredibly easy? You cant expect to get very far in life if you just give up when something may or may not be hard to do.

saltyzoo
Jan 13, 2008, 04:54 PM
Stop pretending like you know what youre talking about, you dont have any experience in trying it yourself or even reading about it. I sent you a link of a video installing the iATKOS version of Leopard, which is the easy way to do it, THOSE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS. You turn on the computer, you put the DVD in the drive, you run the installer, then you take the DVD out of the drive (or if youre feeling extra rebellious you can actually leave the DVD in the drive). How is it possible to show better proof than a video outside of you installing the thing yourself? You wanted the details so I sent you the BrazilMac method, which apparently wasnt good enough for you even though it was exactly what you asked for (including links to the scripts you use to patch the DVD, you can actually open up a .sh file in text edit and read exactly what its doing or type the commands in terminal yourself :eek: ).


How many times have you gone into something thinking its going to be hard only to find out it was incredibly easy? You cant expect to get very far in life if you never try things you think might be hard.

You have no idea my experience or knowledge, and you are quite wrong in your guesses. YOU are the one that said it was simple, THEN posted IN YOUR WORDS a link to a COMPLICATED procedure.

If you find it simple, I applaud you. But it's not simple. You are seriously oversimplifying it. OSX will not magically run perfectly on any computer. To state such is an oversimplification at best and an outright distortion of reality at worst.

You can "kind of" get OSX to run on some equipment, to some degree, with some degree of work. That we can agree on. But especially in the wake of the recent Vista driver fiasco, to state that it will work perfectly on any $500 Dell is an overstatement. Every device out there isn't going to work with an out of the box Mac device driver. Not by a long shot.

I know, you risk being labeled (what was it? A five year old?) if you don't pretend that it's simple, but relax, I'm not going to think any less of you if you admit that it's not perfect.

jhande
Jan 13, 2008, 05:07 PM
You have no idea my experience or knowledge, and you are quite wrong in your guesses. YOU are the one that said it was simple, THEN posted IN YOUR WORDS a link to a COMPLICATED procedure.

If you find it simple, I applaud you. But it's not simple. You are seriously oversimplifying it. OSX will not magically run perfectly on any computer. To state such is an oversimplification at best and an outright distortion of reality at worst.

You can "kind of" get OSX to run on some equipment, to some degree, with some degree of work. That we can agree on. But especially in the wake of the recent Vista driver fiasco, to state that it will work perfectly on any $500 Dell is an overstatement. Every device out there isn't going to work with an out of the box Mac device driver. Not by a long shot.

I know, you risk being labeled (what was it? A five year old?) if you don't pretend that it's simple, but relax, I'm not going to think any less of you if you admit that it's not perfect.

Lemme take a wild guess here: Prior to 2001 you didn't use computers, have never used a floppy disk, never connected peripherals to these complicated things, and have only been exposed to 'It Just Works'. Oh yeah, you have never, ever, ever used a windows operating system (and never understood what people meant when they said 'General Protection Fault', and 'BSOD'), right?

Otherwise, how could you call the references that stainlessliquid/ehurtley gave you 'complicated'. :confused:

Oh, my bad. You're just yanking peoples' chains, no? :eek:

saltyzoo
Jan 13, 2008, 05:15 PM
Otherwise, how could you call the references that stainlessliquid/ehurtley gave you 'complicated'. :confused:

Um, he's the one that used the word complicated, not me. I happen to agree with him.

I'm not going to give you my resume because I could care less if some random person on the internet thinks I'm an idiot.

Do you honestly believe there is magic that makes OSX work on any hardware with no troubles? And if so, why do you think MS hasn't bought it yet? That's some pretty powerful magic that would save them a lot of embarrassment and support costs for Vista.

stainlessliquid
Jan 13, 2008, 06:28 PM
The BrazilMac method is complicated (and I use that term loosely), it involves creating a dmg out of the Leopard DVD and then running an automated script, ouch. The iATKOS way is not, hence me saying twice that it was the easy way which you managed to stay oblivious to. I said at the beginning that it doesnt work on "any" hardware, you grabbed that one out of thin air, but it does work perfectly on a lot of hardware, mostly intel chipsets, both expensive and nonexpensive. With the new releases like iATKOS or Kalyway it is compatible with a good 80%+ of the PC's out there using an Intel SSE3 processor. http://wiki.osx86project.org has a massive compatibility list which includes OEM computers and individual parts.

Really, everyone is saying youre wrong, links were posted proving that it is easier than what you are making it out to be. What exactly is so hard to understand?

saltyzoo
Jan 13, 2008, 06:32 PM
Really, everyone is saying youre wrong, links were posted proving that it is easier than what you are making it out to be. What exactly is so hard to understand?

LOl You and one other person is hardly "everyone". But it fits with your descriptions of compatibility as well. That 80% figure. Care to provide anything to back it up? Or did you just "guess"?

BTW, that post is the first time you admitted that we actually agree. Thanks.

jashic
Jan 13, 2008, 06:41 PM
LOl You and one other person is hardly "everyone". But it fits with your descriptions of compatibility as well. That 80% figure. Care to provide anything to back it up? Or did you just "guess"?

BTW, that post is the first time you admitted that we actually agree. Thanks.

Jesus, no one cares if you don't believe any of us. Keep your head in the sand. We're not your gofers who find information for you at a whim. Use google. It's your friend. I know you may not know how to use it but here are some instructions:

Type g o o g l e dot c o m in the top bar address on your browser. The browser is the program that lets you go to different websites. You will see a simple page appear in your browser. In the text box in the middle, type in what you want to find and click "search". Thumb through the results until you are satisfied.

If this is too complex then forget everything we told you about MacOS on PC's. It's simply too much for you to handle and therefore you should consider it an impossibility.

stainlessliquid
Jan 13, 2008, 06:45 PM
LOl You and one other person is hardly "everyone". But it fits with your descriptions of compatibility as well. That 80% figure. Care to provide anything to back it up? Or did you just "guess"?

BTW, that post is the first time you admitted that we actually agree. Thanks.

You must just be trolling now, I dont think its possible for someone to be that oblivious to reality.

saltyzoo
Jan 13, 2008, 06:48 PM
So I must agree with you to not be stupid? And I must agree without you providing any evidence. Yup. I'm too stupid to be here all right.

PS> WE AGREE. You amended your statements to admit that it isn't perfect and it doesn't work perfectly and it isn't simple. That's all I've been saying all along.

stainlessliquid
Jan 13, 2008, 06:59 PM
I didnt amend anything, show me where I changed what I said. Youre still acting like the only thing I showed you was the BrazilMac way of patching a DVD. Bravo.

ajbrehm
Jan 16, 2008, 11:38 AM
The EULA isn't a "law" -- it's a license to use the product. When you buy a book, you buy the actual physical copy of the book. Only one person can read a book at a given time.


I said the EULA isn't a "law". What were you reading?

Either way, more than one person can read a book at a given time. That's what photocopiers and printing presses are for, and that is why copyright law was invented.

The fact that copyright ALSO applies to software (as it does to books) does in no way mean that books and software are different.


Software, however, is different. And thus the software manufacturers have to come up with a mechanism to ensure that only one person uses a given copy of the software at a given time (unless, of course, the license provides otherwise as in Apple's family packs).


Copyright law defines what we can legally copy and what not. It has nothing to do with other mechanisms. For example, I am allowed to quote a sentence or two from a book or newspaper, and I am allowed to make a backup copy of software I bought.

If the vendor uses "mechanisms" to take those rights away from me, he is violating the law that says that I have those rights.


BTW, the US Constitution isn't a "law" per se but rather the delineation of the structure of the government and the enunciation of certain rights guaranteed to Americans. It's more akin to the English Bill of Rights (1689) than to the German Grundgesetz of 1949 even though the Grundgesetz does set up the framework of the Federal Republic. Moreover, the Constitution is indeed binding on people born in the US regardless of their consent -- individuals are guaranteed the same rights (life, liberty, due process of law, etc.) even if said individuals refuse to recognize the authority of the federal government (see the militia movements for example).


A constitution is law. But the US constitution is really only about the limits of the US government. It doesn't tell you or me what to do, it only limits what (other) laws the government can apply.

It is _not_ binding on people born in the US, it is binding on the US government.

ajbrehm
Jan 16, 2008, 11:44 AM
Your details state you are from Ireland. You are not in a position to be making statements of fact about the US constitution nor do you deserve the position to do so. Once you become an American, you may have that opportunity. Until then, suck another Guiness down and stick to your own politics.

I totally forgot that Ireland doesn't have any copyright laws and that I am hence not allowed to make statements about copyright laws. Sorry, my bad.

I also forgot that I am not allowed to make statements about the US legal system, because of where I was born. Sorry, also my bad.

I foolishly assumed that a constitution is something you understand because you read it rather than understand because of who or where your parents where at the time of your birth.

P.S.: I was actually born in US-occupied territory in an American hospital. Does that count?

P.P.S.: My apparent lack of general knowledge allows me to travel and live in different places. I _might_ move to the US, but I now fear that that would mean that I am no longer allowed to know anything about other legal systems.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 16, 2008, 02:21 PM
P.S.: I was actually born in US-occupied territory in an American hospital. Does that count?

Just in case you didn't know, that entitles you to apply for dual citizenship.

(Trying really hard to refrain from making personal remarks about other members {not you} while agreeing with your other statements.)

ajbrehm
Jan 16, 2008, 02:51 PM
Just in case you didn't know, that entitles you to apply for dual citizenship.


I don't think so. I was not born on a sovereign base or any such area, just occupied territory.

It would be great if that entitled me to American citizenship. :-) I did play Baseball growing up!


(Trying really hard to refrain from making personal remarks about other members {not you} while agreeing with your other statements.)

Hehe. Good one. I didn't manage that well.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 16, 2008, 11:05 PM
I don't think so. I was not born on a sovereign base or any such area, just occupied territory.

Whoops, misread your original post, I thought you said you were born in US territory, somehow I missed the whole 'occupied' part. :o