How long until hackers put OSX x86 on a PC?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by skubish, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. skubish macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #1
    Anyone want to make a prediction on how long it will take hackers to find a way to install OSX on a PC after the x86 version is released? I am curious to see if it can be done, not that I want to do it. I predict it will be done within the first week.

    It would be fun if someone made a prize (similary to X-Prize) to the first person to post the steps required to make it happen.
     
  2. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #2
    Being that it would be illegal, I doubt there will be a prize.
     
  3. skubish thread starter macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #3
    I am not sure that it is actually illegal (if you own a copy of OSX). It is just something that Apple doesn't to happen. I think it would fall under "fair use".

    Also I am not thinking about cracking the OSX system software but more like either someone righting an app to fool the OSX into installing on a PC, getting some drivers to work, maybe do some soldering on a mobo, etc.
     
  4. Benjamin macrumors 6502a

    Benjamin

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    no it would be illegal under the current SLA if they use that...

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

    as to writing an application to fool os x, we don't know how apple will restrict os x to just apple computers, for all you know apple will change up the mobo since it won't be just any generic pc.
     
  5. AmigoMac macrumors 68020

    AmigoMac

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    l'Allemagne
    #5
    Not within the 1st year, period.

    OK, maybe within the 1st month if the people from Cherry OS work on it :rolleyes: ;)

    Someone inside Apple has to release the code to the public, that would be pretty damn illegal.
     
  6. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #6
    It is against the Apple's 'Software License Agreement for OS X'. Is it enforceable? I wouldn't want to be the one who tries to fight it in court to find out how enforceable it is.
    http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.htm
    EDIT: WAY too slow.
     
  7. vouder17 macrumors 6502a

    vouder17

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Location:
    Home
    #7
    well it seems like it has been done... Hardmac Well i wonder what apple is going to do to fix this problem...
     
  8. Benjamin macrumors 6502a

    Benjamin

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #8
    granted but developer macs are not production models.
     
  9. vouder17 macrumors 6502a

    vouder17

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2003
    Location:
    Home
    #9
    This is true..But it does show that some people out there have tried mighty hard to get it to work on a PC. So i am pretty sure that maybe one day there will be OS X on a PC :(
     
  10. Woodley macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #10
    I was reading Engadget news and it seems that someone got Tiger running on x86 with some program. He took a screenshot but that could be totally fake.

    I certainly know it's only a matter of time before it happens though.
     
  11. Plymouthbreezer macrumors 601

    Plymouthbreezer

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2005
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #11
    Humm, Apple Legal should be taking them down pretty soon...
     
  12. DeathChill macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    #12
    It's already known OS X x86 can now install on many normal x86 machines. Simply placing in a patched Rosetta allows OS X to install on a machine with SSE3 and SATA drives, and places in certain kexts and the patched Rosetta lets it install on SSE3 systems with IDE drives, as well as there being a patch to remove SSE3 requirements from the system so any SSE2 machine can install it.
     
  13. jiv3turkey748 macrumors 6502a

    jiv3turkey748

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Location:
    atlanta
  14. Le Big Mac macrumors 68020

    Le Big Mac

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #14
    You're probably right, but I wonder why we should care.

    Apple has said they won't support it, and it will almost certainly be against the licensing agreement.

    So, it won't be marketable, but rather just a hack that some folks will try mainly to say that they could do it. What's the big harm there? So some tinkerer will have OS X running on a PC, likely without all the features, and probably without significant functionality. And maybe he posts some steps how to do it, and then Apple comes in and shuts things down.

    I'm not worried that this will be a big problem for Apple or Mac lovers.
     
  15. superbovine macrumors 68030

    superbovine

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    #15

    if you read the article they used something called VMWare which is a virtual machine. what that means it was like running Windows XP on OS X using Virtual PC which isn't really that practical. The point to take notice is they figured out how to emulate the hardware portion of apple's protection. that means that if you can do it in software, they can probably figure it on how to actually machine although implementation might be hard.
     
  16. skubish thread starter macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #16
    People do because they can and then they can brag about it.
     
  17. Patch^ macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    Great Britain
    #17
  18. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #18
    My bet is that someone will have it working within 2 months of the first release of OS X x86 in the stores after releasing the first Intel Macs. There probably won't be a boxed version until Leopard. If all of the Intel Macs come with Tiger there is no reason to have a boxed version of Tiger for x86.

    Considering that some already have the developer version working. Yes the developer Macs are not production hardware, but the developer OS is not widely available at the moment either. Once the first Macs hit the stores and the OS is available to anyone with $129, it will hit the P2P apps much more widely and there will be a lot of hackers working on getting it running. I'm not saying it will be easy to do but with that many people working on it, it is bound to happen. The trick for Apple is to make it prohibitively complicated for the average user to install to keep everyone from doing it. If you only have the hackers on the fringes doing it, it won't be so bad. If everyone can do it easily Apple is going to have a tough time as hardware sales slump.
     
  19. derboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    It will happen

    Of course it will happen. As i understand it the lowest kernal level, is still pretty much open source. -So its fair game to change it as you want.

    I also think there is significant margin in a company that sells pc systems that would suit os x well. (not needing much os x hacking) Then they could sell computers that do exactly the same thing as the apple ones, only at half the price. I think that there would be a significant market for this service. I'm thinking along the lines of a shuttle/Dell company. They dont have to ship with os x, or even officially recomended for it. Just so that everyone knows that it would :D

    The support issue is irrelevant. Apple wont support other peoples stuff, - thats fine. I'm sure a lot of other people would, and there is definatly money in that. I dont think that would be a big problem to users, the linux comunity seem to manage ok.

    Does it strike anyone else as apple wanting to "have thier cake and eat it." Apple have chosen to use the same components as everyone else, and charge a ridiculous premium to run thier software, on what is now standard equipment. I would welcome a massive surge of pc's running pc code!!

    I dont mind either way if it happens, but i'm not too keen on apple's high and mighty attitude. Its just getting a bit tiresome. :eek:
     
  20. Gizmotoy macrumors 65816

    Gizmotoy

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    #20
    The majority of the system is already running on generic hardware, and the TPM module has been deactivated. VMWare is only required to run OS X if you don't have a supported Intel Motherboard and a separate SATA drive... if you do, no VMWare required and it runs natively. If you don't have SSE3, everything that comes with the system except iTunes works (Rosetta currently requires SSE3).

    So from release to hack took what, 2 months? I don't remember the release date exactly... The only reason it didnt happen sooner is it required access to one of the developer machines to get the software in the first place, I'd imagine.

    So in response to the OP's question, I give it 2 months or less (and probably less) for the final release, with an additional 4 months or so to come out with an SSE2 patch if the final release doesn't support that.
     
  21. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #21

    That's just naive. Almost as bad as saying hackers simply can't make viruses for MacOS X because it's too secure...
     

Share This Page