Mac OS X 10.4.8 runs on any PC...

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Oct 28, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    #1
  2. macrumors 68030

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #2
    Not yet. These people seem resourceful of hacking OS X onto cheap Dells. I'm sure this will be worked on further, sadly.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    It's not a house, it's a home.
    #3
    Please excuse my ignorance, but can somebody please explain for non-programmers like myself how they do this and how it is legal?

    Thanks!
     
  4. Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Whakatane, New Zealand
    #4
    I believe that it's all made from Apple's open-source offerings. That's why there's no GUI - the GUI isn't open-source.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    It's not a house, it's a home.
    #5
    so why does apple make things open source then? For mac programmers to make better programs?
     
  6. macrumors 68030

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #6
    Wasn't there a GUI for Darwin?
     
  7. Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Whakatane, New Zealand
    #7
    You can add a GUI, but it's not Aqua, Finder, etc.
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #8
    Ah...got it.
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    #9
    I have an eMachines collecting dust that I would install Mac OS X on to make it useful if Apple were to sell it to me for that purpose.......just saying. Would I stop buying Macs if Apple sold the OS this way? It would depend on what was on the market at the time. But it would be possible. So I can dig their leeriness.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    BackInTheSaddle

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula, WA
    #10
    I suppose you could hack into OS X and make it all run on a Dell or other PC box...but why would you want to? Mac OS X is so well-integrated with the Apple hardware. I would think the lack of drivers, lack of support, as well as the likeliness of poor and/or unreliable performance would discourage most people from wanting to use a hacked system on another platform. Even the argument of lower costs with generic platforms is wearing thin when you do a fair comparison of the actual hardware specs.

    Sure, it could be fun as a science project but after the bloom is off the rose, I doubt many people would use it on a daily basis as their regular work machine.
     
  11. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #11
    Intriguingly enough, out of all the OSs I've tried running on this s***bucket temporary replacement (now entering the 11th week without my PB... :mad:), OSx86 is by far the most stable, and it's the only one that recognises and uses the built-in wireless card (including the OS it was designed for, XP). And then I leave it with Adam during a band practice, and come back to find it no longer gets past "loading darwin/x86" with my disk scratched beyond useage :( Now back on XP...
     
  12. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    #12
    Large parts of OS X (but far from all of it) are released using an open source license. This is the "Darwin" kernel.

    Darwin is (more or less) the UNIX foundation of Mac OS X, but without higher-level things like the GUI.

    Running Darwin on a PC is very much like running Linux or FreeBSD.
    Darwin is based on open source code. It's my understanding that it originally came from a BSD distribution, but has since been substantially modified, so it would be unfair to call the current product a simple BSD port.

    Apple keeps the code open source, because history has shown that it is a good way to spur development. It's the same reason IBM ships Linux on their workstations and has many engineers working on it.

    Apple gets updates (including optimizations and security fixes) from the open source community, and those people in open source community who run Darwin on their PCs get an OS that Apple's world-class engineers work on. It is (usually) a win-win situation.
    Really? Have you tried other X86-based UNIXes, like Linux, FreeBSD or Solaris? I've found all of them to be pretty stable as well (although, admittedly, driver support for some hardware can be hard to get.)
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    #13
    I haven't tried any BSDs or Solaris, but Ubuntu, Kubuntu and SUSE weren't happy with all the hardware (the wireless card didn't work on any of them), and Gentoo gave up on booting
     
  14. macrumors 68040

    shamino

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Vienna, VA
    #14
    This doesn't surprise me. Ubuntu, Kubuntu, SUSE and Gentoo are all the same operating system.
     
  15. wallock, Nov 2, 2006
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2013

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    #15
    Message deleted
     
  16. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    #16
    You should have a look at the xbench scores for PCs running osX86 (average score 84.49) and compare those with the scores of the iMac G5 (average score 63.98) and the scores of the Intel Mini (average score 87.82).

    No, you can't just install osx86 on just anything, but since Apple is for the most part, building their Intel machines on chipsets that are readily available to the 'PC builder' community.. it's not difficult or expensive to build a 'hackintosh' that runs as well or better than an 'official' Mac costing twice as much.

    It is, however, against Apples End User Licence Agreement to modify OSX in order to run it on 'non-Apple' hardware.
     
  17. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #17
    However, without the Aqua GUI, it's Darwin, and Darwin can run on pretty much any hardware. The Register was looking for hits and they know the difference between the two.
     
  18. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    #18
    Speaking of the EULA.. I wonder what exactly constitutes 'Apple Hardware'.

    For instance, if you buy a faster 'off the shelf' P4 CPU to drop into your Intel MacMini does it cease to be 'apple' hardware?

    What if, in a few years, I buy a bare Intel MacPro motherboard off eBay, from a guy parting one out.. and stick it in an ATX case with my own sourced CPU, HD, RAM, etc.. would it be legit to run OSX on it?

    Or what if I BIOS flash a 'PC' card to get it to run in my G5 tower?

    Stuff like that happens all the time. There was a guy awhile back who was trying to make Apple clones by buying up surplus G4 tower boards and stuffing them in ATX cases, and it stands to reason, sooner or later, the Intel Mac boards will start popping up, too.

    I've run several Mac 'parts' machines in the past.. with just about the only thing 'factory' on them being the system board, generally sourced from a dead iMac, eMac, or G4/G5 tower.
     
  19. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #19
    Remember the iBox? Didn't some dealer lose their ability to sell Apple products and parts over supplying the motherboards for that?
     
  20. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    #20
    There's an article about the 'iBox' on Wired from 2003 where they mention the guy who cooked up the idea, John Fraser was planing on buying his parts from Other World Computing.

    There was also an outfit that was selling rack mount cases designed to work with G3 iMac system boards that seems to have gone belly up.

    The question remains, tho.. what constitutes 'Apple Hardware' as defined by the OSX EULA.

    Would a B&W G3 tower with a G4 tower system board and a Giga Designs dual processor installed and a 256MB nVidia AGP card be in violation of Apples EULA running OSX?
     
  21. macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #21
    Apple should just sell the last years version of OSX for PC's. The software is made and it could reap millions plus then they can allways point to the newer version with its bells and whistles and say if you want these you have to buy our hardware to get it.
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    #22
    I don't think Apple should ever make a 'generic PC' OS, because the task of having to support the wide range of available PC hardware out there would do nothing but erode the stability and performance of OSX, much as it has with Windows.

    That's what happens when you try to make an OS that's compatible with literally billions of possible hardware combinations.

    But I think it would be a fantastic idea if Apple were to sell a ATX type Mac logicboard to the 'builder' community, bundled with the latest version of OSX, and priced at a point that is affordable to the hobbiest/builder community, but high enough to make it unattractive to commercial 'clone' builders.

    A move like that would all but crush the 'osx86' bootleg/cracked scene, create a lucrative, high margin revenue stream, and significantly boost market share for the platform all in one swipe.
     
  23. macrumors 601

    mrgreen4242

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    #23
    That's a great idea... box up the final build of 10.4 and sell it for general use @ $199 a pop about a month after Leopard launches.

    I'd buy it without hesitation... none of Apple's current system offerings are exactly what I want, hardware wise, so $200 is a small premium to pay in the grand scheme of things.
     
  24. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    #24
    Apple didnt just make things open source. They used existing open source to make macosX. I believe that the code they used was licensed under a BSD license and not GPL (General Public LIcense ), so they werent obliged to keep it open source, but it is the only fair thing to do. They were given it from others so they should not claim it is theirs.
    GPL license protects against such possibility by damanding all software that was created based on GPL to be released under the same license.
    With BSD license you can do whatever you want. Like for instance taking some program, modify it slightly and sell it as proprietary software (under license of your liking).
    I looked quickly on Apple Public Source License and it seems to be similar i many ways to GPL.
    I found one funny thing though. It seems like it might work as their insurance, it states namely that if you use the APSL, you are not allowed to sue apple for patent infringement heh.
     

Share This Page