Apple vs. Mac OS X Hackers

[zap2]

Does Apple even offer it to buy?

Because Apple does not sell it, it makes it right to steal it?

MS does not sell Windows for PPC but if there was a illegal copy online would be "right" to steal it

*yes i know there is not a PPC Windows*

 

[Apple-Alt-Ctr]

Yes, but Apple also sells the engine seperately and then tries to prevent the owner from using the engine in another car.

Apple do not sell the 'engine' separately, you can not buy OS X for Intel as a separate product.

The fact of the matter is Apple makes OS X, it is not open source nor does it belong to the public, it belongs to Apple. This means they can dictate where and how it can be used. At this moment in time they dictate that it may only be used on Apple's own hardware. If you don't like it, why not write to Apple or go elsewhere for an OS?

I can understand why at present why Apple do not 'allow' it to be run on other hardware and I can also understand why people would also want to.

I may be wrong but I get the impression that Apple are more peeved by the fact there are pirate copies of OS X for Intel flying around than the fact that people are getting it to run on non Apple hardware.

 

[myamid]

Of course Apple had to ruin it buy not allowing (not yet at least, if ever) these new systems to dual boot.

They didn't ruin anything... Apple made what they felt were the best technology choices. Going for EFI for example is only logical if you're building a new platform from scatch in 2006 that needs to have legs for a few years. Choosing BIOS now over EFI would have been a little shortsighted. But that choice in itself does not prevent dual-booting... Microsoft's 3 year delay in releasing Vista on the other hand does not help one bit as it will supports EFI and will conceivably be easier to dual-boot with.

Apple couldn't realistically be expected to make technology choices based on making dual-booting easier... But if they didn't do anything to technically prevent it (as they stated last year), then it's just a matter of time (whether it's a hacker's neat trick or the release of Vista that makes it happen... we'll see!)

 

[cyberddot]

In the end...I hope Apple decides to work toward upgradeability of a Pro line so we can continue to hear the chirping of those that think it's bad business to keep that lovely OS restricted to use on an expensive, upgradeable Apple product.

"All we frustrated non-Apple-OS users want to do is build our own affordable box and then put one over on all you silly Apple customers. Thats all...we just want to make better choices than YOU and Apple won't let us!"

Apple isn't stealing any bread from your mouth, don't steal bread from theirs. If you've got sour grapes about not having your own successful business, then stop ranting here and get to work. While you're saving money building your own system from a single block of wood, you are also wasting lots of time trying to convince users of multiple platforms HERE that Apple should give you your share.

You steal and I think you should lose a hand, not just pay a fine.

 

[duffman9000]

They didn't ruin anything... Apple made what they felt were the best technology choices. Going for EFI for example is only logical if you're building a new platform from scatch in 2006 that needs to have legs for a few years. Choosing BIOS now over EFI would have been a little shortsighted. But that choice in itself does not prevent dual-booting... Microsoft's 3 year delay in releasing Vista on the other hand does not help one bit as it will supports EFI and will conceivably be easier to dual-boot with.

Apple couldn't realistically be expected to make technology choices based on making dual-booting easier... But if they didn't do anything to technically prevent it (as they stated last year), then it's just a matter of time (whether it's a hacker's neat trick or the release of Vista that makes it happen... we'll see!)

I don't trust the inquirer, but sometimes they are right.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29710

The point of the article is: without a major firmware hack from an untrusted source, since neither Apple or MS is going to be of much help, XP will not be bootable.

Either way, i'm waiting. If its possible then i'll get a MacBook Pro.

Someone needs to take apart their MacBook. Upon closer inspection it will be possible to hack the firmware without "bricking" the laptop.

 

[DeathChill]

Apple did not stop you from dual booting, but there not going to help do you dual boot. If you want to dual boot Mac OS X and Windows have fun doing it, but remember doing in on a non-Apple HardWare is illegal

What everyone seems to miss is that it is NOT ILLEGAL. It's not what Apple wants but they can't stop you. Their highly dubious license agreement says you can't but we all know that would NEVER hold up in court, and unless Apple suddenly makes the laws we needn't worry about the legality of it.

I'm not saying it's right, however there has been a lot of good because of the OSX86 hacking groups. They've ported over TONS of open source applications to be Universal Binary's, so that helped all you early adopters. Just because they're doing something you don't like doesn't mean that they're evil.

 

[robbieduncan]

MS does not sell Windows for PPC but if there was a illegal copy online would be "right" to steal it

*yes i know there is not a PPC Windows*

You used to be able to get Windows NT for PPC. But it would not be right to steal a copy.

Just because someone (or company) choses not to sell you something does not give you the moral right to steal it. Lets say I come round your house and ask to buy your favourite possession. You say no. Can I now steal it? No.

 

[janstett]

Because Apple does not sell it, it makes it right to steal it?

MS does not sell Windows for PPC but if there was a illegal copy online would be "right" to steal it

*yes i know there is not a PPC Windows*

Actually, there is (was) a PPC Windows. Windows NT supported several platforms besides X86, just all of them except IA64 have gone away. Intel N10, MIPS 4400, PowerPC, DEC Alpha, Intel IA64, AMD 64, and possibly others I am forgetting.

Don't forget IBM had a short-lived line of PowerPC PCs that ran either Unix or NT.

Windows has run on more hardware platforms than OSX.

 

[nataku]

Why? You've still failed to explain why OS X should only be used on Macs. You make it sound like that's your religion, which is fine with me, but if other people don't adhere to your religion, than don't bother them.


...because everybody likes companies that are 'ferociously aggressive and determined' against their customers! That has worked great for the RIAA as well. Everybody loves them!

My religion? Macs? wow you need guidance. don't you notice that you are the only one left quoting me? You, on the other hand, have a 3 more people quoting you because you don't sound clear. the Mac OS is intellectual property which Apple owns. They tell you what NOT to do. They give rules that are reasonable. Forcing it to install on another machine will violate one of their rules, which comes with every Mac OS.

RIAA and Apple are in semi-different conditions. Though they both are doing their job to protect their/other's investment (RIAA=artists,studios,media companies / Apple=OS X, Macs) but they differ in their targets because RIAA=file sharers, Apple=hackers.

 

[nitejazz]

The OSx86 debate

I must be missing something here, with so much being said about the recent hacking by the OSx86 project running Mac OS X for intel on non-apple hardware, (naughty people) why are we holding out hopes of Windows (native, not Virtual PC) booting on an Intel Mac?

nitejazz

 

[heisetax]

Software is to use

I think they pissed Steve off with their retort poem:

In this spirit, we would like to humbly offer up our own poem to the developers of the “OS that ran great.”

Rime of the Ancient Hacker
There once was a hacker named Maxxuss
who Steve did not think was a genius.
But Steve pondered awhile,
grabbed the phone with a smile,
and said “Bill, there’s a thing to discuss…”

Don't frack with the Steve™.

Software is to use. OS X runs better on a Mac. Windows run better on a Windows machine. But with help they both will run on the other platform. I would like it best if we could be free to run the OS of our choice on the platform of our our choice at that exact time. Generally we would choose to run Apple on Apple & Windows on Windows. But there is those times that we want Windows on the Mac or OS X on our Windows machine. Software licenses can be so restrictive that they really show us what we have purchased, basically nothing real, just the temporary restricted use.

I see nothing wrong with running OS X on a Windows machine. Is there anything in the Mac OS X license that says we must run this copy on an Apple produced Mac?

I'm one of those that purchace Macs inspite of Steve Jobs & not because of Steve Jobs. In fact when he took over Apple & canceled the Clones he had letters sent out to those that owned Clones welcoming them back to Apple. At least those that owned Power Computing computers. I resented that as I owned one clone, buat least 8 Macs plus several others purchased & sold before that time. For that reason I went out & purchased 4 Clones instead of purchasing 4 PowerMac 9600 machines. This hassle of those that want to spread the use of OS X to those machines that wre previouly restricted to running the dull Windows OS should be encouraged & not discouraged. I can see the restriction of one license per user or computer. I just do not like the problems that he can & does cause to others. Much of the time it is just to make himself happy. Think back to the ATI/keynote happenings of a few years ago.

Long live Apple with or without the salesman Steve Jobs.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[rjgjonker]

My religion? Macs? wow you need guidance. don't you notice that you are the only one left quoting me? You, on the other hand, have a 3 more people quoting you because you don't sound clear. the Mac OS is intellectual property which Apple owns. They tell you what NOT to do. They give rules that are reasonable. Forcing it to install on another machine will violate one of their rules, which comes with every Mac OS.

Their rules are irrelevant, as they are not legally binding. Just like in your terrible analogy, where there is actually no law that forbids me from doing something else with those books.

If Apple does not want people to do with their copies of Mac OS X what they want, they shouldn't sell it. That all there is to it.

By the way, the number of people quoting one is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You're just using that as a distraction from the fact that you refuse to give real answers to the questions I ask.

 

[duffman9000]

I must be missing something here, with so much being said about the recent hacking by the OSx86 project running Mac OS X for intel on non-apple hardware, (naughty people) why are we holding out hopes of Windows (native, not Virtual PC) booting on an Intel Mac?

nitejazz

Do you realize that the majority of the home computing world uses windows? Who in their right mind would switch if it meant having to repurchase all of their software. For some, its easy. Add in Office, Macromedia Studio, Adobe products... who can afford to repurchase those? Running XP through VMWare would also be great, since it would run close to full speed also negating having to repurchase your software.
I know some people who don't like OS X but like Apple hardware. I also have pet peeves with OS X and don't want to repurchase the software i use. I would use XP for work and games and OS X for more leisurely activities.

 

[duffman9000]

rjgjonker,
LOL... i thought about chiming in but any time anyone mentions religion in any discussion, it never ends good. Frankly, Apple IS a religion to some people. Some lose all sense of reality when Jobs speaks or when discussing Apple hardware.

Also, i don't know if the legality of EULA's or shrink wrapped licenses have ever been brought before a court. Personally, i hate them.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

I must be missing something here, with so much being said about the recent hacking by the OSx86 project running Mac OS X for intel on non-apple hardware, (naughty people) why are we holding out hopes of Windows (native, not Virtual PC) booting on an Intel Mac?

nitejazz

The funniest thing about naughty people putting Mac OSX on a non Apple machine is that they are the same people who complain that Mac OSX is an inferior OS.

Yeah I do know a whole heap of fellow techies who will pirate Mac OSX and put it on the CHEAPEST and CRAPIEST hardware they can find then complain how bad Mac OSX really is and completely missing the whole Apple thing in the first place.

If Apple ever releases a copy of Mac OS where it can be put on anything I still would be buying the Apple hardware to run the OS simply because it works and works well.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Do you realize that the majority of the home computing world uses windows? Who in their right mind would switch if it meant having to repurchase all of their software.

That's where WINE will come into its own and if the developers could make a cheap, stable, easy to use and a version that supports DirectX 9. Windows people would come to the "Dark Side" in droves.

If they bring out an Intel Mac port of Cedega many Windows people will be tempted, check it out.

http://www.transgaming.com/

 

[duffman9000]

That's where WINE will come into its own and if the developers could make a cheap, stable, easy to use and a version that supports DirectX 9. Windows people would come to the "Dark Side" in droves.

If they bring out an Intel Mac port of Cedega many Windows people will be tempted, check it out.

http://www.transgaming.com/

IF they could support DX9 now it would have already been done. How long has DX9 been out? DX10 is coming this year though games won't until next year.

EDIT: talking about WINE. Cedega is doing translation from D3D to OGL. Translation takes time.

 

[jhu]

rjgjonker,
LOL... i thought about chiming in but any time anyone mentions religion in any discussion, it never ends good. Frankly, Apple IS a religion to some people. Some lose all sense of reality when Jobs speaks or when discussing Apple hardware.

Also, i don't know if the legality of EULA's or shrink wrapped licenses have ever been brought before a court. Personally, i hate them.

it depends on the wording of the eula of course. take a look at this article

 

[ezekielrage_99]

IF they could support DX9 now it would have already been done. How long has DX9 been out? DX10 is coming this year though games won't until next year.

EDIT: talking about WINE. Cedega is doing translation from D3D to OGL. Translation takes time.

I don't think WINE have ever really taken off because there are so may different distros fo Linux, Linux isn't really mainstream (yeah I am aware that there are pleanty of people who think otherwise but for a consumer market it isn't) and WINE has pretty much just been a nerd toy (not that much commercial viability).

With that said if you get a few serious companies involved then yeah we might see leaps and bounds with what exactly WINE can do for Linux and Mac OSX users.

 

[jhu]

The funniest thing about naughty people putting Mac OSX on a non Apple machine is that they are the same people who complain that Mac OSX is an inferior OS.

Yeah I do know a whole heap of fellow techies who will pirate Mac OSX and put it on the CHEAPEST and CRAPIEST hardware they can find then complain how bad Mac OSX really is and completely missing the whole Apple thing in the first place.

If Apple ever releases a copy of Mac OS where it can be put on anything I still would be buying the Apple hardware to run the OS simply because it works and works well.

hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of people who are dedicated enough to actually put mac osx on non-apple hardware actually like os x.

 

[jumpinjohn]

Do you realize that the majority of the home computing world uses windows? Who in their right mind would switch if it meant having to repurchase all of their software. For some, its easy. Add in Office, Macromedia Studio, Adobe products... who can afford to repurchase those? Running XP through VMWare would also be great, since it would run close to full speed also negating having to repurchase your software.
I know some people who don't like OS X but like Apple hardware. I also have pet peeves with OS X and don't want to repurchase the software i use. I would use XP for work and games and OS X for more leisurely activities.

I guess I and every other switcher were crazy... I even made sure I could cross-grade the software that I needed to use... I even put up with VPC w/ Outlook until our exchange server was upgraded to work with Entourage.

I must have been out of my mind.

See 'ya

 

[dernhelm]

I can't prove it or have any info but it's my opinion that a member over there wrote that "trojan"..

You'd likely be wrong. Those are people that are up front about what they are doing. I don't agree with breaking the law iin any form really, but the amateurish way in which that virus was written does not lead me to believe that anyone from that effory would have anything to do with it.

Their goal is not to disrupt the mac platform, but to extend it.

 

[nataku]

Their rules are irrelevant, as they are not legally binding. Just like in your terrible analogy, where there is actually no law that forbids me from doing something else with those books.

If Apple does not want people to do with their copies of Mac OS X what they want, they shouldn't sell it. That all there is to it.

By the way, the number of people quoting one is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. You're just using that as a distraction from the fact that you refuse to give real answers to the questions I ask.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! wow. there is just no way you can understand. I should have know. You come from the Netherlands, where more than 40% of the population are Atheist. No wonder you cannot understand my "terrible" analogy. Sorry man. I won't bother you anymore. hahahahaha!

 

[ezekielrage_99]

hate to burst your bubble, but the majority of people who are dedicated enough to actually put mac osx on non-apple hardware actually like os x.

Still what is the point of putting Mac OSX on a non Apple computer?

Apple aims at the entire package hardware and software not one or the other, I still can't really see the point of running any Mac OS on non Apple hardware.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

i cant create my own threads yet, but i encourage everyone to post on this morons site about his

"Its official!! Apple is switching to Windows!" article.

A completely fabricated, unresearched piece of garbage. PLEASE post on his site(you dont have to register).


http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=3118

Love the article and the writer even states he got a whole heap of Apple strategies wrong (e.g. iPod revolution).

Obviously written and researched by a person who worships Windows and knows not a thing about Apple or Mac OSX.