Running Mac OS X on Generic PCs with Parallels/VMWare? [Update]

[jayducharme]

I can also see Apple doing some pretty fancy dancy stuff to prevent Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware. I think Mac OS should stay on Macs.

Remember, though, this is talking about <i>virtualized</i> operation. It's not like Boot Camp. Since the OS is virtualized, so are the hardware interfaces. But I'm sure many of OS-X's Mac-specific functions wouldn't work without the correct hardware in the PC.

I struggled for years to get Linux to run efficiently on a PC box, and I found it just wasn't worth the effort to track down (or create) all the drivers I would have needed for the peripherals. This might be why Jobs wants to keep control. Macs are known for their ease of use and their stability. If people begin installing OS-X on any old pile of hardware, stability will most likely vaporize. I switched to Mac so that I wouldn't have to deal with interrupt conflicts and random crashes. So far I've been very happy with my choice. Why would I want to go back to troubleshooting?

 

[akac]

For me the only reason to run OS X in a VM is to test new apps/servers before I install them in my main machine. I run OS X Server Panther for my web/email/SVN etc and I'd like to upgrade that machine to Tiger or Leopard running on a new intel machine eventually. But no way am I doing so until I can make a full copy of that install in a VM and make sure it works. My business depends on it working. I do this all the time in Windows. Why not OS X?

 

[SeanMcg]

Since no one seems to be reading this...

I'm going to quote Dave Schroeder in his entirety here, because he has made the best points in this whole thread. Original post

Please read it before posting anything else on this topic.

I'm surprised at the amount of misunderstanding around this issue.

Right now, Parallels Desktop and VMWare aren't intentionally "crippled" in any way to prevent Mac OS X from running on them (either on Apple hardware, or not). Both only emulate BIOS, as has been case for the history of both products (and Parallels' Windows and Linux products existed before Apple even announced the Intel transition). In order for Mac OS X to run within either of the products, unmodified, which is the key, they'd have to implement full EFI support, and it's not the case that they've possibly done that and are just "not releasing it" because of Apple; it's a rather large engineering undertaking. VMWare hasn't done any work on this at all, so Diane Greene's statements are somewhat puzzling. Parallels, on the other hand, has been thinking about and working on integrating this into the product since day one.

The primary "legal" thing they want to enable is running Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server within a VM on Apple hardware, because that's a market they want to hit. That would also not be against the EULA in any way, as the Mac OS X EULA does not prohibit virtualization, and only stipulates that it be used on Apple-labeled hardware. However, if a VM vendor were to integrate this functionality into the core of the Linux and Windows products, the side result would ostensibly be a VM product that could run OS X unmodified, without "hacking", on non-Apple hardware. The hardware and driver profiles for non-Apple hardware would be irrelevant, because it's the VM that's presenting all of that to the OS, just like running Windows or any other OS in a VM now.

Apple and VMWare have already been talking at the highest levels in the context of all of VMWare's virtualization products. Apple has made it clear that it is 100% fine with virtualization of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server, as long as it's licensed properly and is on Apple hardware. This includes welcoming possible server virtualization products, like VMWare ESX Server, to the Apple platform (e.g., Xserve). (They still do not want Mac OS X Server running on non-Apple hardware, anywhere, as much of a boon as some may think that to be.)

Also, statements that VMWare and/or Parallels are intentionally "crippled" are not accurate. Integrating even the most basic functionality (notably EFI) to properly support Mac OS X in a VM, even on Apple hardware, is a massive engineering undertaking.

So, everything above is the facts. Here's the analysis:

As long as no vendor advertised the capability to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware with any product, and didn't provide official support mechanisms, list it in product specifications, and so on, I can't see any valid legal complaint Apple could possibly have with a future product that might coincidentally enable Mac OS X to be easily run/installed unmodified on non-Apple hardware. I don't see VMWare doing this, because they've got a whole slew of established products that don't implement EFI, and even if they did, it would probably only be on their Apple products. However, Parallels is working on this for the core of its next products now - including server virtualization products. There is also a misconception that Apple uses TPM to tie Mac OS X to Apple hardware. They do not. (It is actually done with binary protection.)

So, ultimately, as long as a company doesn't present/market/support a VM solution as something that can run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, and it's really merely incidental (but the key is NOT advertising/supporting it as such), there isn't much Apple can do, as abiding by the EULA is the responsibility of the end user in their legal jurisdiction. People are running hacked versions of Mac OS X in VMWare's products on non-Apple hardware now. They're running afoul of Apple's licensing in the same way someone would be if they ran Mac OS X unmodified on non-Apple hardware. The key is non-support of the product: as long as the vendor doesn't advertise, promote, or support Mac OS X compatibility on non-Apple hardware, this again keeps it marginalized in a way that it's only hobbyists and so on who will use it, as it is now. With the lack of official support from any vendor, and the danger that the next update from Apple may "break" something, Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware will always be relegated to the unsupported fringe, where Apple wants it.

If a vendor DID support and advertise a capability to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, that would be a clear case of actively encouraging end users to violate another vendor's software licensing agreement. No matter what one thinks of software license agreements, or whether one thinks they're inherently invalid, etc., the fact of the matter is that Apple would indeed have a strong legal case in such an instance, and that's when you'd see Apple's legal teams getting involved. But as long as running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is merely incidental, not promoted or advertised, and unsupported, there isn't much Apple can do.

Some other notes:

It would not be "easy" for Apple to just open up Mac OS X to any hardware overnight. Technically, maybe. But that would be an unbridled support nightmare of unprecedented proportions, to say the least. However, the possibility of running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment does raise the interesting technical point that, regardless of anyone's particular position on this, a VM can present a consistent hardware profile to the OSes running within it, regardless of the physical hardware it's on. So running Mac OS X in a VM, as opposed to on real hardware, becomes interesting from a technical perspective for that reason. There are of course a range of arguments for Apple allowing (or not allowing) this in the server space with Mac OS X Server, as opposed to in the general purpose desktop space.

I want to make it clear that I am fully cognizant of the numerous valid reasons for Apple wanting to keep Mac OS X exclusively on Apple hardware. It's their product, and frankly, it's their right. When an entity invests billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of manhours in a product, I do believe that legal frameworks (such as copyright and software licenses) can be reasonably used to stipulate the conditions under which it is used. I'm also aware of the numerous arguments, some of which are also valid, for Apple to start to go down the road of untying Mac OS X from Apple hardware only. Ultimately, it's Apple's decision.

Regards,

Dave Schroeder
University of Wisconsin - Madison
das@doit.wisc.edu
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/

 

[JGowan]

When something bad happens, who are you going to call? Apple? Dell?

Dell: I'm sorry. I cannot help you. Our hardware was not designed to run Apple OS X.

Apple: I'm sorry. I cannot help you. Our software was not designed to run on a Dell.

Apple hardware running Apple software: I will never stray.

I've read that Vista is a MEMORY HOG... try running Vista and OS X together -- probably a very terrible experience.

Run OS X on top of XP -- you're dealing with the day-to-day horrors that have plagued XP from the beginning, starting with viruses all types of malicious acts, attacking from all sides.

You can have Windows,... I'm sticking with OS X.

 

[RBR2]

At its core, Apple has always been a consumer company. It is even moreso now that iPods and other consumer products represent such a large proportion of its revenue.

Apple have always struggled with entering the business market, which is where many sales of OS X for other than Apple hardware would also occurr. The Xserve, while a fine piece of hardware in its own right, is not everyone's cup of tea, even those who would run OS X if given the choice.

During Apple's hard times one of the recurring rumors of candidates to buy Apple was Sun Microsystems which has been on difficult times itself of late (currently trading at less than $6), but has undergone management changes. SUN is a business oriented company. Interestingly, with Scott McNealy's departure from the scene, Intel CEO Paul Ottelini who had first proposed using Intel CPUs when he was at SUN (but was overruled by McNealy) has finally prevailed, although the deal is non-exclusive. Considering the similarity of Solaris and OS X and with a common architecture to work upon it would seem that Apple and SUN might be at a point where it would make sense for them to merge...or even for Apple to acquire SUN (in a man bites dog story).

The business community simply needs more flexibility in its hardware than Apple currently provides.

Many consumers want this flexibility as well.

 

[Bonte]

FYI Apple's OS is technically bound to Apple hardware through the use of the Intel TPM (Trusted Platform Module).

Not so if we can believe this article
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/01/02/ebay_osx_booting_dell/

According to the seller, the Inspiron "boots strait [sic] into Mac... because this specific Inspiron model has the same configuration as a Mac Mini and so with a bit of tweaking to make the BIOS reed [sic] the same as the Mac this installs".

So no TPM or hacking into osX, just a new BIOS on the machine and the Dell Inspiron 6000 installs osX via the standard system DVD supplied with the Mac Mini. Its seems fair to assume that any PC with the integrated Intel GPU will be compatible with 10.5, this will mark the big turnaround for Apple computers, first the name and now head on with Micro$ for desk(lap)top domination.

 

[rktheac]

While I understand and appreciate the possibility of running OS X on any "PC" hardware, Apple allowing that is not going to happen.

Let me illustrate.

You may agree or disagree, but there's considerable amount of engineering behind Apple's computers. Each are designed specifically and uniquely; Apple uses their own logic board design. They may use off-the-shelf chipsets, but how they're put together is entirely Apple's own. Take a look inside iMacs and Mac Pros, or even Mac minis to the Macbooks (and Pros). You'll definitely find standard Intel, ATI/Nvidia chips, but how they're packaged is unique. You will not find anything exactly like it with other manufacturers. If I can be even more specific, take a look inside a Mac Pro. See much dangling wires?

Good or bad, this approach adds considerable expense compared to using standard components inside a standard case, like many DIY computers are (and to lesser extent, many inexpensive PCs). And for many of you, when you talk about PCs, you're talking about DIY computers, not the likes of Dell XPS Extreme (dunno the exact name), or you are talking about <$400 computers that one can get from Walmart.

If Apple opened up OS X to generic PCs, it will force Apple to compete in the supercheap PC category, not to mention having to support these users when things go wrong, whether they want to compete or not. Think about it: Who will you call if while using your generic PC with OS X, if there appears to be a problem? One of many hardware manufacturers whose components you bought to build your PC, or Apple? Great Quality (they sell cheap PCs at Fry's) or Apple?

Take a look at mainstream PC manufacturers like Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. Go to their websites (US websites) and configure a comparable (in price and features) computer to Apple's iMac. How many of them give you an option of choosing Linux as your primary OS as part of your build-to -order option? Linux is free, and Windows is not, yet in almost all cases (if not all), you cannot choose to have Linux installed. In most cases, your option is XP Home, XP Pro, and XP with MCE (and soon various flavors of Vista). You can't even choose to have "no OS." It appears Microsoft likes to have control too, doesn't it? There are dozens of freely available Linux distributions, and yet not one mainstream PC manufacturer offers Linux. If a free OS like Linux is not even offered, what makes you think they'll offer OS X? If Michael Dell was serious about offering OS X on his PCs, he would have offered Linux long ago.

If none of the mainstream PC manufacturers would offer Linux or OS X, then OS X would have to be offered as a retail product, which means Apple's computers would have to compete with DIY PCs. And if OS X can run on them, what's the incentive to buy Apple's iMac, or Mac Pro, when one can buy the individual components and build a computer for less?

The answer is Apple does not want to spend resources on this part of the market. It's not a poor reflection on the people in this category, but judging from Apple's computers, their focus is not here. Moreover, if you haven't noticed, Apple likes to be in control of everything. Letting loose OS X on this market means Apple loses control, because it means OS X running on something Apple didn't design. And Apple losing control is not something Apple wants.

Have you considered, that perhaps Apple is actually happy with their niche position with their computers? With <5% of the market share, it's a formidable challenge to tackle Microsoft head-on with OS X, despite its techinical and UI superiority over Windows. If market share were to be judged on these factors alone, then even Linux should have a higher share over Windows. But they don't, do they? Instead of scratching at the 5% share and competing with Microsoft OS to OS, it's far better for Apple to take OS X to other Apple products, to markets where Apple forges in its own direction, and they still maintain control over the widget. They showed us a glimpse of their strategic vision a couple of weeks ago.

Those of you who have been pushing for OS X on any PC so far only showed your selfish reasons, and nothing about strategy that makes sense for Apple. It's ok to have your selfish reasons, I mean, I'd think it's cool to see my old Dell box running OS X, but it doesn't show how Apple will benefit. Apple will compete with Microsoft on Apple's terms, and OS X on generic PCs is not it.

 

[other]

I hope it'll be easier to run OS X on a generic PC. I want OS X on a laptop, and since Apple apparently can't manufacture a working MacBook, I'm going to have to find alternative ways. It's your own fault, Apple.

 

[JGowan]

My 2¢...

Honestly -- I say Parrallels will soon be getting "konfabulated". That's a term I just made up.

Konfabulator was a cool little program that allowed "widgets" (little tiny apps) to run on your computer. They did specific little tasks and they looked good doing it. Apple comes up with Dashboard and makes it even easier to design their version of widgets by using web technology.

The folks at Konfabulator had to do something -- they went to Windows. And they eventually got bought for a lot of money by YaHoo!

I am betting with Leopard and Macintels, we're going to see Windows applications running on mac.

Steve (at next Keynote announcing Leopard): "Today, the world will finally discover the answer to the age-old question 'how did the leopard change its spots. Today, with Leopard and an Apple computer with intel processors, you will be able to run any PC software program without even having to install Windows. It just works."

Parrallels is going to find that the gravy train is over for good. They probably know by now. One way or the other, they're going to either die or try to do what Konfabulator did.

 

[ddubbo]

When something bad happens, who are you going to call? Apple? Dell?

Dell: I'm sorry. I cannot help you. Our hardware was not designed to run Apple OS X.

Apple: I'm sorry. I cannot help you. Our software was not designed to run on a Dell.

Apple hardware running Apple software: I will never stray.

So why Windows run without any troubles on Dell, HP,Sony,Lenovo etc.? I heard that OS X far more advanced than Windows so it won't be a trouble.
Even when you plug some weird China-made hard into PC - it usually works OK. When it doesn't - it's up to manufacturer, not for Microsoft.
Same way, if Dell wants to sell their PC with OS X they should verify that all hardware is compatible.
I seems that that best solutions for this - Dell,Sony,HP,Toshiba,Lenovo acquire 51% of Apple(it's only about 40B - so 8B for everyone) and do what they want. The only pity - we won't see Mr Jobs dancing on Mac World stage every year

 

[Zadillo]

My two cents...

Microsoft has been fairly successful as a purely software company

Apple isn't going to be able to control (stop) this now...so they should change course and make this a positive thing versus fighting a losing battle. They can if they choose to. Hopefully, Steve will remember how Apple (Steve) spit in Bill Gates' face many moons ago when Bill offered to get behind Apple's OS...not Windows. Bill went forward with Windows and we all know how that turned out.

First, of course, MS has been successful because of the massive volume that they sell. Does anyone think Apple could sell enough copies of OS X to be successful solely as a software company?

Aside from that, I think you are distorting history a bit. Bill Gates had told Apple they should license Mac OS to third parties; he didn't say MS would get behind it, beyond how they already were "behind it" in terms of supporting the platform and developing software for it.

What you have said though implies that MS only made Windows because Apple decided not to partner with them or whatever, and that isn't really likely. Windows would have moved forward regardless. But Apple most likely would have been crushed trying to go head to head with MS on the PC operating system front. The history of other companies that tried to do this was not very good, frankly. The closest thing to a successful OS partnership was between IBM and MS for OS/2, and even that ultimately was mainly about giving MS the chance to develop the core technology that became Windows NT.

Apple would have been committing suicide to partner with MS on Mac OS, even if that had been an option.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

So why Windows run without any troubles on Dell, HP,Sony,Lenovo etc.? I heard that OS X far more advanced than Windows so it won't be a trouble.
Even when you plug some weird China-made hard into PC - it usually works OK. When it doesn't - it's up to manufacturer, not for Microsoft.
Same way, if Dell wants to sell their PC with OS X they should verify that all hardware is compatible.
I seems that that best solutions for this - Dell,Sony,HP,Toshiba,Lenovo acquire 51% of Apple(it's only about 40B - so 8B for everyone) and do what they want. The only pity - we won't see Mr Jobs dancing on Mac World stage every year.

Huh?

Anyway, I'm sure that Apple has no inclination to support OS X on other manufacturers' hardware. I wouldn't if I was running Apple - sales are up and if you keep gaining ground on the big PC OEMS why give up millions of potential hardware sales by licensing OS X? It totally contradicts Apple's business model - make everything, software, hardware, the whole nine yards.

 

[Kirkmedia]

What ever is best for the consumer..

So if OSX is can run on a PC, apple will have to compete with Dell, HP, & Gateway for hardware sales. What a shame, apple might have to lower
their prices, or continue to make better hardware than everyone else.
THis is good for the consumer.

 

[Zadillo]

So if OSX is can run on a PC, apple will have to compete with Dell, HP, & Gateway for hardware sales. What a shame, apple might have to lower
their prices, or continue to make better hardware than everyone else.
THis is good for the consumer.

That isn't good for the consumer if it means lowering the quality to get to the rock bottom prices some people seem to think Apple should sell Macs at.

As it is, Apple's pricing isn't so outrageously expensive. On the laptop line especially, PC equivalent notebooks to the MacBook and MacBook Pro aren't necessarily a whole lot cheaper. What Apple doesn't currently have is a $400 laptop with a Celeron M processor in it.

So why Windows run without any troubles on Dell, HP,Sony,Lenovo etc.? I heard that OS X far more advanced than Windows so it won't be a trouble.
Even when you plug some weird China-made hard into PC - it usually works OK. When it doesn't - it's up to manufacturer, not for Microsoft.
Same way, if Dell wants to sell their PC with OS X they should verify that all hardware is compatible.
I seems that that best solutions for this - Dell,Sony,HP,Toshiba,Lenovo acquire 51% of Apple(it's only about 40B - so 8B for everyone) and do what they want. The only pity - we won't see Mr Jobs dancing on Mac World stage every year

Umm, speaking as someone who has owned hardware from Dell, Sony and Toshiba, I can asure you that Windows does not run without any troubles on their hardware.... far from it. Sometimes it does run well, but oftentimes there are numerous problems (some the fault of Windows itself, some the fault of the third party crapware they stick on there).

And the whole "it's up to the manufacturer, not microsoft, to deal with problems" is one of the big differences between the PC/Windows world and the Mac world. It's one reason why the PC ownership experience is so poor for many customers (finding out who is responsible and who will actually support something or other; sometimes it's MS, sometimes its the manufacturer of the PC, unless it is another hardware component that they don't know how to support).

-Zadillo

 

[Lord Blackadder]

So if OSX is can run on a PC, apple will have to compete with Dell, HP, & Gateway for hardware sales. What a shame, apple might have to lower
their prices, or continue to make better hardware than everyone else.
THis is good for the consumer.

Apple doesn't want to compete with Dell for hardware sales. They have no interest in the under $500 PC market - the volume is massive and the profit margins are crap. When you need to crank out zillions of boxes a year to make a profit, you get low quality. Apple is content to let Dell et. al fight for those scraps while it concentrates on the mid and high-end market, which is much more profitable and has lower volume allowing for better QC.

Dell makes most of its profit in the mid- and high-end markets too (as well as servers), but uses its el-cheapo models to build brand recognition rather than making heaps of cash. Apple has built its brand recognition in a different way.

Besides, if you want an uber-cheap PC and aren't a beginner, just build the damn thing.

EDIT - as others mentioned above, the markets Apple doesn't compete in use old netburst Pentiums and Celerons - screw that. If Apple starts cranking out Celeron boxes it will be a dark day. Apple's cheapest computer comes with a Core Duo - lets keep it that way.

Who wants Ferrari to start building hatchbacks? That would cheapen the brand and NOT be good for the consumer, as it would be just another crappy econobox. You can't bring the price down without sacrificing quality, and Apple's brand image is built on a certain level of quality.

 

[other]

Honestly, nobody actually believe Apple would ever release OS X for generic PCs, right? They would go bankrupt. But I would be happy if they did.

/.../ allowing for better QC.

Haha, Apple quality control is a joke. At least when it comes to their MacBooks, I never had any trouble with my iBook.

 

[MacConvert]

Apple is (mostly) a hardware company. It is out of the question for them to allow OS X to be bastardized so it runs on non-Mac hardware. It will never happen. Microsoft would sooner part with Windows than Apple with their hardware platform.

On the flipside, what benefit do you actually get out of running OS X inside a Windows or Linux VMWare host? You certainly do not enjoy the stability of OS X. Ok, so perhaps running it on Linux would prove just as stable, but why? Linux already does 95% of what OS X does, short of having the GUI..... Running OS X on Windows is moot beyond description.

Why do topics like this even get posted and/or commented on?

 

[Rocketman]

In reading the linked articles, especially the update, I find it helpful Apple is developing OSX as a hardware/software grouping and I respect Apple's choice to not let OSX out.

What made sense to me about the article on how virtualization can be used is that it does not actually prevent OSX from running on non-Apple hardware. It is a regime of strictly following the EULA to marginalize that activity to non-commercial and hobbiest users (many with alternatives to Finder and Dock anyway), as opposed to large server farms and businesses and schools.

This is simply Apple being true to its stockholders (which they are required by law to do) and preserving their revenue stream. What I find interesting is this series of events and conditions is actually a big boon for the hobbiest users as they now have more and better choices than ever!

That can only be good for future commercial software and hardware development as random testing and development of previously unreleased killer apps is accelerated.

I voted this article positive.

Rocketman

P.S. Be sure to watch the video of Jeff Han demonstrating Multi-Touch.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=89sz8ExZndc

 

[Zadillo]

Haha, Apple quality control is a joke. At least when it comes to their MacBooks, I never had any trouble with my iBook.

And here of course is the problem with anecdotal evidence. You had problems with your MacBook, but didn't with your iBook, so you conclude, of course, that Apple QC has gone to crap.

But there are of course people who have had the opposite experience as you; various problems with the iBook, and no problems at all with the MacBook. Those people would come to the opposite conclusion; that Apple QC used to be a joke, but is now very good.

Of course, neither of these conclusions are wholly accurate or inaccurate, because they are anecdotal. The reality is that there have been QC issues with iBooks AND MacBooks, and different people have had different issues. It's not like Apple used to have perfect QC and never ship laptops with problems, and it's not like every MacBook they ship now has problems.

 

[MacBucky]

Another Angle

Another way if we think Apple should quickly gain market share is to simply give away a previous verison of OS X. Let's say, OS X 10.4, the current version to windows users right before OS X 10.5 ships. Ship out 10.4 to billions of users to load on current window users drives so they too can experience what life is like with Mac OS X is truly like. Once they experience it, they will want to upgrade to the most recent version.

A quick, off the top of my head idea.

 

[other]

And here of course is the problem with anecdotal evidence. You had problems with your MacBook, but didn't with your iBook, so you conclude, of course, that Apple QC has gone to crap.

But there are of course people who have had the opposite experience as you; various problems with the iBook, and no problems at all with the MacBook. Those people would come to the opposite conclusion; that Apple QC used to be a joke, but is now very good.

Of course, neither of these conclusions are wholly accurate or inaccurate, because they are anecdotal. The reality is that there have been QC issues with iBooks AND MacBooks, and different people have had different issues. It's not like Apple used to have perfect QC and never ship laptops with problems, and it's not like every MacBook they ship now has problems.

Indeed. However, I've seen too many reports of faulty MacBooks (I'm talking about users who've had 3+ MacBooks) to believe that quality control hasn't gone down the gutter. Or, they just don't care. Because it seems that some people are happy with having a whining MacBook (that is, some don't even hear it due to inferior hearing).

I know the iBook had problems, the only reason I said that was to show that I actually like OS X, and that I'm not pissed for no reason. Oh well, I failed.

 

[Zadillo]

Indeed. However, I've seen too many reports of faulty MacBooks (I'm talking about users who've had 3+ MacBooks) to believe that quality control hasn't gone down the gutter. Or, they just don't care. Because it seems that some people are happy with having a whining MacBook (that is, some don't even hear it due to inferior hearing).

I know the iBook had problems, the only reason I said that was to show that I actually like OS X, and that I'm not pissed for no reason. Oh well, I failed.

I don't think Apple doesn't care, and I believe they are working to address these issues. I would probably chalk a fair amount of it up to the upheaval with the switch to Intel, frankly.

 

[RBR2]

I don't think Apple doesn't care, and I believe they are working to address these issues. I would probably chalk a fair amount of it up to the upheaval with the switch to Intel, frankly.

You're kidding, right? Have you actually dealt with Apple when you had a problem?

 

[Zadillo]

You're kidding, right? Have you actually dealt with Apple when you had a problem?

Sure, I had to deal with them because of uneven backlighting on the MacBook Pro, and they were nothing but pleasant to deal with. They didn't argue with me, they acknowledged it was a problem, and it was returned without any problems.

Apple has been much more pleasant to deal with than Sony or Toshiba or Dell, the other companies whose computers I have owned.

 

[other]

I don't think Apple doesn't care, and I believe they are working to address these issues. I would probably chalk a fair amount of it up to the upheaval with the switch to Intel, frankly.

It still doesn't change the fact that they can't deliver a fully working laptop for a reasonable price to me. I want OS X, but I also want a computer that doesn't make any annoying sounds. Unfortunately they don't seem to go hand in hand, so if I can return my third MacBook (unless it actually turns out to be working, but I doubt it), I will buy a PC laptop instead (no, not Dell).