Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.4.4 Intel Patch for PCs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
snowmen said:
Your risk if you run a pirated version of MacOS X: Copyright infringement with a maximum penalty of $150,000 per case (and since MacOS X has significant protection, you are likely to get the maximum), plus jail for DMCA violation.
So you are going to bet that Apple cannot detect that your software runs on a non-Apple computer? You are going to bet that some russian hacker is more clever than any programmer that Apple has?
Good luck.
gnasher729 said:
Not likely to happen, at least statistically speaking, for an individual to be specifically targeted for something of this minute order of magnitude, you'd first have to find a crack in the tied up legal system which is now busy with subpoena's from RIAA/MPAA targeting long dead individuals for copy-right violation. Then, the courts would be tied up with a huge queue of DMCA violators. All of this at the expense of taxpayers, since the corps don't pay anything other than lawyer fees and let the police and FBI sort out the subpoena's themselves, which makes the police and FBI queued up and sick of these copy-right issues. It's not whether or not apple knows, it's the state of legal affairs, you can only hire so many lawyers and still make your business profitable, and then there is only so many courts to be distributed that deals with corporate matters.
you can't sue people in countries that you aren't established in - IE hold a resident business in. that is since all of these projects will seem to originate from countries without extradition treaties with the united states (meaning our law holds law in your country when crimes are commited against our country from a person located in your country.)
the swiss, the brazilians, and the russians own. Besides that, apple hasn't shutdown sourceforge and they have everything needed to do this already. These supposed russians just disabled apples 'make sure its ONLY the stuff WE sell'.
It's called capitalism and rebelion. All companies seem to learn this the hard way.
the swiss, the brazilians, and the russians own. Besides that, apple hasn't shutdown sourceforge and they have everything needed to do this already. These supposed russians just disabled apples 'make sure its ONLY the stuff WE sell'.
It's called capitalism and rebelion. All companies seem to learn this the hard way.
here's a link to the mac os x 10.4 end user license agrement. the relevant part is section 2:
it seems that you can slap an apple logo on any computer, run mac os x, and be within the bounds of the eula.
this part is amusing:
well, eulas aren't exactly binding anyway
it seems that you can slap an apple logo on any computer, run mac os x, and be within the bounds of the eula.
this part is amusing:
well, eulas aren't exactly binding anyway
Macrumors said:
Maxxuss has released a patch for Mac OS X 10.4.4 8G1165 (Intel) to allow it to be installed on a generic PC.
Given the recent legal stuff goin on I'd suggest an edit of this post
For all the people asking questions about the "hack" of OS X for Intel, I found a very informative article, with complete history of the project and some technical info -- as well as analysis of economic effects on Apple:
www.macadell.com
With regard to speed of the hacked systems -- go to Xbench.com. Look at the results section (where people submit their results) -- http://db.xbench.com/.
Under the developer transition version results, you will find a few thousand tests by people running hacked PC's. Look at the results logged since January (boxes running the last developer version) and you will see most of these boxes are doing at least 50-60. Many of these people leave notes about exactly what type of hacked machine they are running.
Reviewing these results: The Pentium D's are clocking 100-120 (100 is the benchmark rate for G5 dual). A two year old Dell with a P4 3Ghz is XBenching at 65 -- equal to many G5's and twice most G4's. I saw a post from a guy who installed 10.4.4 today, and he is getting about 75 with the hacked production version on a Dell 8300.
Having followed the development of the scene, I can tell you these machines are reported to work quite well, especially the Pentium D installs.
Anyway, the article noted above has lots of thought-provoking detail.
www.macadell.com
With regard to speed of the hacked systems -- go to Xbench.com. Look at the results section (where people submit their results) -- http://db.xbench.com/.
Under the developer transition version results, you will find a few thousand tests by people running hacked PC's. Look at the results logged since January (boxes running the last developer version) and you will see most of these boxes are doing at least 50-60. Many of these people leave notes about exactly what type of hacked machine they are running.
Reviewing these results: The Pentium D's are clocking 100-120 (100 is the benchmark rate for G5 dual). A two year old Dell with a P4 3Ghz is XBenching at 65 -- equal to many G5's and twice most G4's. I saw a post from a guy who installed 10.4.4 today, and he is getting about 75 with the hacked production version on a Dell 8300.
Having followed the development of the scene, I can tell you these machines are reported to work quite well, especially the Pentium D installs.
Anyway, the article noted above has lots of thought-provoking detail.
MACOSX Intel
I have been a user of NeXT for quite a Long time.
Since 3.3 And I would like to build programs for MacOSX,
But I could just make Sources, with either OpenStep 4.2.
And upload them to the Internet. And people who have XCode,
Could recompile it and get it to work on MacOSX With no code changes,
But I'm thinking about playing with GNUStep On linux.
From what I hear it is 100% source code compatible with OpenStep 4.2.
And the only changes to be made is to convert the Gorm file or files to
Interface Builder, and The Project Center Files and convert them to
Project Builder files. I can make applications for the Mac with Opensource tools.
Or With NeXT/OpenStep Tools.
So I don't see why I would need MacOSX on Intel.
GNUstep is free.
Free and Legal is better than free and Illegal.
Don't you think?
I have been a user of NeXT for quite a Long time.
Since 3.3 And I would like to build programs for MacOSX,
But I could just make Sources, with either OpenStep 4.2.
And upload them to the Internet. And people who have XCode,
Could recompile it and get it to work on MacOSX With no code changes,
But I'm thinking about playing with GNUStep On linux.
From what I hear it is 100% source code compatible with OpenStep 4.2.
And the only changes to be made is to convert the Gorm file or files to
Interface Builder, and The Project Center Files and convert them to
Project Builder files. I can make applications for the Mac with Opensource tools.
Or With NeXT/OpenStep Tools.
So I don't see why I would need MacOSX on Intel.
GNUstep is free.
Free and Legal is better than free and Illegal. Don't you think?
Use linux
*bump*
By the way instead of bickering over Mac or windows why not use linux?...and what about boot camp Macintosh PC's can use Windows but NOOOO Regular pc's can't use Mac osx. And stop using "generic" to describe a pc that isnt running your precious OSX. PC's can be a hell of alot more different then macs, you can customize so much more. Thats all i have to say about your performance lacking Transparent cased computers, that you mac users love so much.
-Misufuru
*bump*
By the way instead of bickering over Mac or windows why not use linux?...and what about boot camp Macintosh PC's can use Windows but NOOOO Regular pc's can't use Mac osx. And stop using "generic" to describe a pc that isnt running your precious OSX. PC's can be a hell of alot more different then macs, you can customize so much more. Thats all i have to say about your performance lacking Transparent cased computers, that you mac users love so much.
-Misufuru
netdog said:
Haha... exactly.
In short, both were made beacuse it was possible. There will always be some über-gurus out there that will make these things possible, and lots of us geeks love to try it out... see if you can get it working on your hardware.
I used that Windows "install patch" on my mini before Boot Camp came along just because I wanted to see how it worked. I have also installed OS X on my non-Apple PC for the same reason.
It's just fun to do.
Nobody in their right mind will use either system for their main computer.
But, Mac OS X is superior anyway (execpt for gaming , that is...
)
Misufuru said:
Actually, unless you are buying an IBM machine, "generic" is the correct term.
In drug stores, you can buy Bayer Aspirin or you can buy Walmart Aspirin... or Rite Aid Aspirin, or CVS Aspirin, or Target Aspirin. Guess what? Even though the store names are attached, they are not brand name medications.
Even though Dell, Gateway, HP, and the others stamp their names on the boxes, they are indeed, GENERIC IBM PC's.
Misufuru said:
Well hell Misu' why don't you trot out the 'Macs are more expensive' diatribe too. Almost everyone here knows that you can go to Fry's Electronics and for a song you can build a PC and install a distribution of Linux; this isn't exactly a revelation.
But, the hardware is merely means to an end. We end up fetishizing the hardware, yammering on about sexiness or translucency, industrial design and all-hail Jonathan Ive. But, hardware is just a means to make the OS work, and using specific software, actually make something. That can just be an email to grandma or it can mean a two hour epic, but the meaning of the PC isn't the stuff you can touch. So, with that in mind, Linux fails for me (and I'll make that distinction because for lots of people, Linux rocks!) because it doesn't have the software I need and it doesn't have the tools I want. I could survive on Linux and I'll give projects like GIMP all the distinction they deserve, but I want to use OSX.
If I can run Windows (and Linux too!) on the same machine, than I have an extra trick like being able to run games, or being able to test a website using IE 7 on Windows XP. This is useful, but I want to live on OSX.
Furthermore, lots of people have PCs and don't even put in more memory or hard-drives, much less exchange out video-cards. And, in laptops this becomes rediculously difficult and expensive. So, for me the whole 'customization' issue is pretty pointless and I'm not going to exchange quality for the possibility that I might want to spend $500 bucks on parts for a $500 computer.
ssj300 said:
Well there's 'grammer' and then there's: nobodies car abut Gramma on the net cept for these whe kant spal.
A few mistakes are okay, and I'm not going to harp on anybody for split infinitives, but there are people who post on forums who write as if posting using a cell phone just as a weasel decides to chew off their thumb. It's painful to read and I think disrespectful.
And it's rarely the ESL posters that are hard to read, it's usually some guy who waves it off as laziness. What kind of sad sack can't at least try to write well, I'm not expecting Tolstoy, but I would like sentences around the 8th grade level.
timswim78 said:
You think wrong.
You should also realise that Apple is just playing here. Whatever they do to make MacOS X run on Apple Macs only is just enough to prevent widespread copying, and to make anyone copying MacOS X guilty to an extent that allows maximum prosecution by law.
If this kind of copying reaches a point where Apple feels it is losing real money, they will take action that will be very expensive for anyone copying MacOS X.
right-o kids - a few facts:
- Apple MacBooks are PC hardware with a fancy case. Period.
- OS X is not superior to such OS as Ubuntu simply because it only runs on limited hardware specified by Apple. Get a grip.
- Apple only use Intel hardware because PowerPC chips were stopping them from releasing the next gen of notebooks because they ran too hot. They resisted for years to up hold some myth of superiority to some sad devotees.
- Apple have extremely restrictive practices to protect their less than 5% market share.
- Apple run sweatshop making iPods paying their staff $50 a month and housing them in dorms while they hammer out your beloved players for 15 hours a day
- If OS X ran on any hardware how many home users would buy a copy? As many as buy a copy of XP = only those forced too when they buy the hardware. With MS hold of 95% of the market that means pretty much none.
Open your eyes and stop deluding yourselves with the Apple dream. They are rotten to the core.
- Apple MacBooks are PC hardware with a fancy case. Period.
- OS X is not superior to such OS as Ubuntu simply because it only runs on limited hardware specified by Apple. Get a grip.
- Apple only use Intel hardware because PowerPC chips were stopping them from releasing the next gen of notebooks because they ran too hot. They resisted for years to up hold some myth of superiority to some sad devotees.
- Apple have extremely restrictive practices to protect their less than 5% market share.
- Apple run sweatshop making iPods paying their staff $50 a month and housing them in dorms while they hammer out your beloved players for 15 hours a day
- If OS X ran on any hardware how many home users would buy a copy? As many as buy a copy of XP = only those forced too when they buy the hardware. With MS hold of 95% of the market that means pretty much none.
Open your eyes and stop deluding yourselves with the Apple dream. They are rotten to the core.
right-o kids - a few facts:
- Apple MacBooks are PC hardware with a fancy case. Period.
Sure thing - apart from the iSight.
- OS X is not superior to such OS as Ubuntu simply because it only runs on limited hardware specified by Apple. Get a grip.
Well, since you're battering on about market share - what's the market share for Linux? And ease of use for the average user?
- Apple only use Intel hardware because PowerPC chips were stopping them from releasing the next gen of notebooks because they ran too hot. They resisted for years to up hold some myth of superiority to some sad devotees.
Correct. PowerPC are still damn good chips though. They just weren't what Apple wanted.
- Apple have extremely restrictive practices to protect their less than 5% market share.
Like?
- Apple run sweatshop making iPods paying their staff $50 a month and housing them in dorms while they hammer out your beloved players for 15 hours a day
Yes....and? What about MS? Dell? Nike? They ALL do, it's practically worthless to mention it as a negative comment.
- If OS X ran on any hardware how many home users would buy a copy? As many as buy a copy of XP = only those forced too when they buy the hardware. With MS hold of 95% of the market that means pretty much none.
I'd buy one.
Open your eyes and stop deluding yourselves with the Apple dream. They are rotten to the core.
Rotten to the core? Like every company focused on profits? EVERY PROFIT DRIVEN COMPANY DOES THIS.
Apple are not a special company, but they do make ace products. Thats it. They are not my religion, they are not God.
And PLEASE do not start another post with "right-o kids" - approach it in a nicer manner maybe?
Weird. I didn't think they were performance lacking or transparent. Have I missed something?
- Apple MacBooks are PC hardware with a fancy case. Period.
Sure thing - apart from the iSight.
- OS X is not superior to such OS as Ubuntu simply because it only runs on limited hardware specified by Apple. Get a grip.
Well, since you're battering on about market share - what's the market share for Linux? And ease of use for the average user?
- Apple only use Intel hardware because PowerPC chips were stopping them from releasing the next gen of notebooks because they ran too hot. They resisted for years to up hold some myth of superiority to some sad devotees.
Correct. PowerPC are still damn good chips though. They just weren't what Apple wanted.
- Apple have extremely restrictive practices to protect their less than 5% market share.
Like?
- Apple run sweatshop making iPods paying their staff $50 a month and housing them in dorms while they hammer out your beloved players for 15 hours a day
Yes....and? What about MS? Dell? Nike? They ALL do, it's practically worthless to mention it as a negative comment.
- If OS X ran on any hardware how many home users would buy a copy? As many as buy a copy of XP = only those forced too when they buy the hardware. With MS hold of 95% of the market that means pretty much none.
I'd buy one.
Open your eyes and stop deluding yourselves with the Apple dream. They are rotten to the core.
Rotten to the core? Like every company focused on profits? EVERY PROFIT DRIVEN COMPANY DOES THIS.
Apple are not a special company, but they do make ace products. Thats it. They are not my religion, they are not God.
And PLEASE do not start another post with "right-o kids" - approach it in a nicer manner maybe?
Misufuru said:
Weird. I didn't think they were performance lacking or transparent. Have I missed something?
jonnyspeed said:
You know that claiming something's a fact doesn't make it so.
jonnyspeed said:
Except for the custom motherboards and the custom made heat-pipes and the MagSafe power connector...
jonnyspeed said:
This is an opinion not a fact. Although, there are many who would disagree.
jonnyspeed said:
The PPC is actually a better architecture, but has had limitations because of Motorola and IBM. Apple wanted to stick with the PPC because it believed in the G4 and IBM's road-map with the G5, but they were smart enough to react and managed to change their entire architecture in less than a year and created the Universal Binary, which allows Apple to straddle both PPC and x86. That's a very impressive change and Apple should get credit for doing it.
jonnyspeed said:
It's Apple's prerogative to keep OSX on Apple hardware, just as Microsoft makes decisions about how their software works. But, I think the restriction is an advantage.
jonnyspeed said:
Apple investigated this accusation and has addressed these concerns, but I wonder what your favorite hardware company is and how well they do?
jonnyseed said:
I've yet to read a single fact, but this is entirely your opinion. And, fact is copies of XP are sold, hence all the boxes on shelves at CompUSA and Best Buy. Apple uses software to sell hardware, this is their business model and it works, why should they change it to prove your deluded yammering?
jonnyspeed said:
And you end your trollish logorrhea with one of the oldest and most trite phrases from the technology press. If you've drunk Stallman's kool-aid or gotten wind blown up your skirt by a copy of Ubuntu then congratulations, but really no one cares about your babbling. I've replied because hammering you is fun.
Hope you get banned!
jonnyspeed said:
Except for that if Apple was going to sell retail box
operating systems to install on Dells and Gateways,
they would also forge business partnerships WITH
those companies and they could offer OS-X
preloaded, like they currently do with Windows.
You could by an OS-X Gateway or a Windows Vista Gateway
if this happened. Apple would increase their OS market
share, but because they would lose some market share
in their hardware, their profit would dip way too low.
They still could end up doing this, however, if they made
a good plan and marketing strategy, so selling retail
box sets of OS-X is something to look for in the future.