Mac OS X on an IBM-Compatable?

[hob]

Are there ways of running OS X on a PC? I'm curious because my iBook's in the shop and seems to be taking forever and I miss OS X!!

Hob

[mnkeybsness]

no

[Sun Baked]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[x86isslow]

mac osX on an ibm: G5.

[7on]

or G3

[Krizoitz]

Originally posted by hob
Are there ways of running OS X on a PC? I'm curious because my iBook's in the shop and seems to be taking forever and I miss OS X!!

Hob

....no comment....

actually the best you can do is find a skin out there that makes WinXP look like OS X. Probably have to pay for MS Plus to use it though...

[iMeowbot]

This (http://www.mlode.com/~stuka/imac-atx/) is about as close as you'll get.

[Westside guy]

Originally posted by hob
Are there ways of running OS X on a PC? I'm curious because my iBook's in the shop and seems to be taking forever and I miss OS X!

Now, now, folks...

The reason it won't work is OS X is designed to be run on a specific type of processor chip (Power PC), while Windows is designed to be run on a different type of chip (x86). The basic instruction sets for the chips are not compatible.

So it's also not possible to run Windows on a Mac - at least not without some sort of emulation layer (like Virtual PC). But that's REALLY slow by comparison.

Now if you had the source code for either of these, it'd be possible to create a "port" of the program onto the other type of chip. While Apple has released the source for the underlying OS itself (Darwin, which indeed has been ported to x86), it hasn't released the source for its graphical interface.

[HexMonkey]

Originally posted by Westside guy
The reason it won't work is OS X is designed to be run on a specific type of processor chip (Power PC), while Windows is designed to be run on a different type of chip (x86). The basic instruction sets for the chips are not compatible.

From what I've read in other threads, Apple did, at some stage, write a version of Mac OS X that would run on the x86 architecture (presumably when they hadn't decided what architecture they'd use in the future, before the G5), but it was never released. I see this as a good thing though, for two reasons.

1. If you could run Mac OS X on a Wintel machine, it would be less stable because Apple would have less/no control over hardware and it is harder to program an OS when you don't know what hardware it's using.
2. People would have no incentive to buy Macs since they have the software anyway. I understand that Apple's profits are mostly from hardware sales, so Apple would likely to bankrupt fairly quickly. :eek:

[hob]

Originally posted by HexMonkey
Apple did, at some stage, write a version of Mac OS X that would run on the x86 architecture.

I believe this was called "Marklar"? Reminds me of an episode of South Park...!

I realise that some of you may have found my question funny or stupid but I was curious as to why it wouldn't run... Would be nice if I could emulate it...

Hob

[hvfsl]

You can run Mac OS 8.1 on a PC using emulation, but thats about it at the moment.

[hvfsl]

Originally posted by iMeowbot
This (http://www.mlode.com/~stuka/imac-atx/) is about as close as you'll get.

Thats pretty cool, I am getting an old iMac 400DV from someone who is getting one of the new G4 iMacs. They are giving it to me for free because I have helped them a lot with their computers in the past. But the screen seems like it might be going, so I might try and do what that guy did.

[strider42]

Originally posted by Westside guy
Now, now, folks...

The reason it won't work is OS X is designed to be run on a specific type of processor chip (Power PC), while Windows is designed to be run on a different type of chip (x86). The basic instruction sets for the chips are not compatible.

So it's also not possible to run Windows on a Mac - at least not without some sort of emulation layer (like Virtual PC). But that's REALLY slow by comparison.

Now if you had the source code for either of these, it'd be possible to create a "port" of the program onto the other type of chip. While Apple has released the source for the underlying OS itself (Darwin, which indeed has been ported to x86), it hasn't released the source for its graphical interface.

the other reason is that even if apple and windows used the same chip architecture, apple uses a proprietary boot rom. You can buy powerPC motherboards from vendors other than apple, but they still won't run an apple OS despite being actually capabale of doing so. The boot rom prevents this. this is why you don't see any apple clones (and why apple was able to stop the clones they had previously allowed in th early 90's)

[janey]

marklar, yeah that was it.

but actually there's another one too. Darwin (core of Mac OS X) is available for x86 PCs too. :)
If you dont mind having a gui-less thing, ya know it's always cool to install darwin :p :p
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/

[Nermal]

Originally posted by HexMonkey
1. If you could run Mac OS X on a Wintel machine, it would be less stable because Apple would have less/no control over hardware and it is harder to program an OS when you don't know what hardware it's using.
2. People would have no incentive to buy Macs since they have the software anyway. I understand that Apple's profits are mostly from hardware sales, so Apple would likely to bankrupt fairly quickly. :eek:

No! No! No!

If Apple were to release an Intel-compatible version of OS X, it would still only run on a Mac. It would simply be a Mac with an Intel CPU. It would not be possible to run OS X on a generic PC.

[HexMonkey]

Originally posted by Nermal
No! No! No!

If Apple were to release an Intel-compatible version of OS X, it would still only run on a Mac. It would simply be a Mac with an Intel CPU. It would not be possible to run OS X on a generic PC.

I guess I worded my post badly. What you say is true, but what I meant by those two points was that if OS X could be run on a PC, like the original post was asking about, then these would be the problems. I didn't mean that if Apple decided to use the x86 architecture then these problems would occur (even though it seems like I did in my original post).

[Nermal]

Yep, you're right there, if it did run on a generic PC then your points would be correct.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by strider42
the other reason is that even if apple and windows used the same chip architecture, apple uses a proprietary boot rom. You can buy powerPC motherboards from vendors other than apple, but they still won't run an apple OS despite being actually capabale of doing so. The boot rom prevents this. this is why you don't see any apple clones (and why apple was able to stop the clones they had previously allowed in th early 90's)

The boot ROM thing was true in the 680x0 days, but not any more. (http://maconlinux.net/overview.html)

Note however, that while it works, the OS X license contains the following:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.

So make sure to slap an appropriate sticker on the front of your PC after you put in the AmigaOne board :p

[spook]

I've heard there is a way to run a OSX like os on a x86 computer

This is done by getting hold of a copy of Rhapsady

see here
http://www.osnews.com/phorum/read.php?f=7&i=983&t=983#reply_983

[iMeowbot]

Rhapsody on intel was pretty much NextStep with an OS 8 GUI on top of Display PostScript. Yellow Box was pretty close to current Cocoa, but there's no Classic or Carbon there so you aren't going to be running or recompiling much Mac software on it.

[FattyMembrane]

try searching the forums. this question pops up about every 3 weeks or so, along with "what's a good irc client?", "do macs get spyware", "do i need to defrag in osx", and "is counterstrike ever coming to the mac?". however, they do give us geeks the chance to flex our geekieness and feel super smart :D

[Petrus]

since ibm is coming out with servers using the same chips as the g5, wouldn't os x run on that?

[spook]

my personal opinion is it be wonderful if Apple would bring out a OSX-lite, say a OS9 look-a-like that would run as a Linux distro on a x86 machine, not only would it open the Mac experience to a whole new audience, provide a very polished OS for Linux once and for all (don't forget Linux is the OS operating most web servers) but it might tempt people to migrate onto the full OSX and buy a PPC Mac

[janey]

Originally posted by Petrus
since ibm is coming out with servers using the same chips as the g5, wouldn't os x run on that?
it might work. but they're servers. they're expensive. it'll probably be more cost effecient to run something other than OS X.

btw dont forget that the reason why OS X is so awesome is because Apple designs all their hardware and software. Microsoft doesnt have and cant afford that luxury.

[Petrus]

Originally posted by übergeek
it might work. but they're servers. they're expensive. it'll probably be more cost effecient to run something other than OS X.

btw dont forget that the reason why OS X is so awesome is because Apple designs all their hardware and software. Microsoft doesnt have and cant afford that luxury.

I get what you're saying, but I think it's just a matter of time before IBM starts using these chips in their consumer line (i.e. desktops, laptops)

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by Petrus
I get what you're saying, but I think it's just a matter of time before IBM starts using these chips in their consumer line (i.e. desktops, laptops)
With what OS? Windows don't run on PPC platform and there aren't much consumer linux apps that run on it.

[strider42]

Originally posted by iMeowbot
The boot ROM thing was true in the 680x0 days, but not any more. (http://maconlinux.net/overview.html)

Note however, that while it works, the OS X license contains the following:



So make sure to slap an appropriate sticker on the front of your PC after you put in the AmigaOne board :p

Maybe boot rom isn't the right term, maybe it is, but as far as I know, you can't run OS X on a generic powerpc motherboard (and yes, they do exist), or IBM's PPC970 machines, so there is a rom the boot sequence is looking to make sure you are running it on a apple made machine. The old ROM stuff has changed, but apple still makes its hardware proprietary by using some kind of rom. I could be wrong, but that is the impression i've gotten. Otherwise, they couldn't very well stop people from making clones.

[iMeowbot]

Originally posted by strider42
Maybe boot rom isn't the right term, maybe it is, but as far as I know, you can't run OS X on a generic powerpc motherboard (and yes, they do exist)

Yes, you can, it should work on any CHRP machine with a 603 or better; that's why I posted the link to Mac-On-Linux. The "new world" Macs don't need a boot image in hardware, instead they can use a file included with OS 9 and some copies of 8.6.

MOL is a nice tool to have even if you have a real Mac. It allows multiple operating systems and versions to be run at the same time, much like VMWare or VPC on intel.

[beltandpants]

Go to apple.com and get the Darwin kernel. It's a free download. It'll run on your x86 machine... no problem, everyone is aware of this, it's not a secret. Pop in your OSX install cd and use the mount command to mount it, amazingly with a bit of tinkering, you will be able to get a few programs to operate, but nothing fancy.

Here's where I lied. You will have a very hard time (it's impossible) getting the OSX gui to run on x86 because it is compiled for different architecture (obviously) and the source code isn't redily available. But you can install X11 and then run a few programs that are made for mac that use X11... but it won't be OSX.

I've tried working on this for quite some time, and have had no luck. I think the closest you can get is doing the above, installing X11 editing gnome source code to use as a gui, and you can dress it up and write a few scripts to make it function in an OSXy kind of way.

[jhu]

this topic comes up so many times in multiple message boards. perhaps it should go into some sort of faq.

to anyone who wants to run mac osx on an x86 computer, all i have to say is: look at where beos is because that's exactly what will happen with mac osx on x86.

[gsl2]

my personal opinion is it be wonderful if Apple would bring out a OSX-lite, say a OS9 look-a-like that would run as a Linux distro on a x86 machine, not only would it open the Mac experience to a whole new audience, provide a very polished OS for Linux once and for all

Absolutely

[Nermal]

Maybe in the future you'll be able to run OS X. But at the moment, you can only run up to 8.6 (in emulation, so it's slow).

[ingenious]

From what I've read in other threads, Apple did, at some stage, write a version of Mac OS X that would run on the x86 architecture (presumably when they hadn't decided what architecture they'd use in the future, before the G5), but it was never released. I see this as a good thing though, for two reasons.

1. If you could run Mac OS X on a Wintel machine, it would be less stable because Apple would have less/no control over hardware and it is harder to program an OS when you don't know what hardware it's using.
2. People would have no incentive to buy Macs since they have the software anyway. I understand that Apple's profits are mostly from hardware sales, so Apple would likely to bankrupt fairly quickly. :eek:

yes it was Rasphody DR2. It ran on x86. (Rasphody was the prepredessor to Mac OS X Server)

[silicon]

...to tell you guys; you're all wrong, see: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net

[Rower_CPU]

...to tell you guys; you're all wrong, see: http://pearpc.sourceforge.net

Actually, they were right if you look at the dates people were posting. PearPC was released May 5, and the last post before yours was April 28.

You can find more discussion on PearPC in this thead:
PearPC - PowerPC/Mac OS X Emulation on a PC (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=71370)