Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Possibly dumb OS X question

T

tomster2300

macrumors member
Original poster
Apr 18, 2008
43
0
Disclaimer: I currently own a Macbook and absolutely love it. I love it so much that I'm willing to buy a second license of Leopard if this will work. I hope what I'm asking is not illegal - I am purely curious.

So I think I know the answer to this is no, but I wanted to throw it out there and ask anyway.

Now that Apple is selling standalone copies of Leopard from their store, is it possible to buy a license and install it on a homebuilt pc? I would really like to run OS X on my main desktop without having to buy another computer.

I'm not going to get into the x86 project since I don't think it's completely legal, but is there a legit way of doing this?

I wouldn't think Apple would allow this.
 
The end user license agreement for OS X expressly prohibits the installation of the operating system on any non-apple hardware.
 
if i buy an iCar can i only drive it on streets that have Blvd in their names? ;)

some logic is once i buy it, i can do whatever i like with it.:rolleyes:

debates, debates.:eek:
 
You know, all the debates about click through licensing and what you're allowed to do with stuff you "buy," aside, its my belief that Apple has no real problem with people doing this on a personal hobbyist level. The way I see it, the Apple allows the hackintosh community to exist with the tacit understanding that you don't try to sell the result or explicitly demonstrate or instruct people to pirate software.

There's been what, two instances of Apple actually putting the hammer down. Those guys, whatever they're calling themselves these days, who are trying to sell hackintoshes and the Wired instructional that blatantly showed how to torrent Leopard.

Think about it. A LOT of major legit tech sites and blogs have posted instructions, pictures, tutorial videos, etc. If Apple really, really didn't want you to do this, they'd have problems with Gizmodo posting a step by step how-to.

Personally, I think Apple gains from this by giving an obvious community of enthusiasts more play on the leash.
 
Signal-11 said:
You know, all the debates about click through licensing and what you're allowed to do with stuff you "buy," aside, its my belief that Apple has no real problem with people doing this on a personal hobbyist level. The way I see it, the Apple allows the hackintosh community to exist with the tacit understanding that you don't try to sell the result or explicitly demonstrate or instruct people to pirate software.

There's been what, two instances of Apple actually putting the hammer down. Those guys, whatever they're calling themselves these days, who are trying to sell hackintoshes and the Wired instructional that blatantly showed how to torrent Leopard.

Think about it. A LOT of major legit tech sites and blogs have posted instructions, pictures, tutorial videos, etc. If Apple really, really didn't want you to do this, they'd have problems with Gizmodo posting a step by step how-to.

Personally, I think Apple gains from this by giving an obvious community of enthusiasts more play on the leash.
Click to expand...

hum. never thought of that. i like that.
 
miles01110 said:
Totally agreed. But it's also important to remember that you can never be prosecuted [successfully] if you follow the rules to the letter :p
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Example: "I was just following orders." We executed a bunch of Germans for this. On the other hand, American soldiers have been successfully prosecuted for failing to follow what they believed was an unlawful order.

If the rules are contradictory, no matter what you do, you can be prosecuted successfully. Not necessarily the case here, but there you go.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthewpb/3388106780/

Yeah, Woz isn't in charge much these days, but I'd like to think that hacker ethos is still alive somewhere in One Infinite Loop even if seems like the legal department is running the show.
 
Signal-11 said:
Sure you can. Example: "I was just following orders." We executed a bunch of Germans for this. On the other hand, American soldiers have been successfully prosecuted for failing to follow what they believed was an unlawful order.
Click to expand...

Not exactly the same thing. Germans/Japanese were tried and convicted by international tribunals under a pretense of international law, not domestic courts/domestic law. Similarily, the American soldiers were tried at a military tribunal, which for all practical purposes is quite unrelated to domestic laws as well.
 
debates aside, you won't find any help here...

you have to be "INSANELY" looking for "MAC" on google

(/shiftyeyes)

--rob
 
Certainly not a dumb question.

There's no debate on the subject of what you can do with the software once you own it, because you don't own it. You own a license, with conditions.

If you're interested in owning it however, maybe Apple will let it go for a cool 50 billion.

I agree with the hacker spirit that previous posters mentioned, the spirit of Woz still walks the halls, I assure you. These days, Apple walks a tight rope trying to keep loyal users, new users and shareholders happy. That in itself is an impossible task, but they do a better job than any company out there.

If Apple were truly selling OS X to run on non Apple hardware, it certainly wouldn't be $129. Look at Vista Ultimate Retail pricing and you're getting closer.
 
StigJr said:
...

If Apple were truly selling OS X to run on non Apple hardware, it certainly wouldn't be $129. Look at Vista Ultimate Retail pricing and you're getting closer.
Click to expand...
Apple doesn't have Microsoft's economies of scale. To be profitable, a merchant version of MacOS X might have to go for OpenSTEP prices.
 
miles01110 said:
Not exactly the same thing. Germans/Japanese were tried and convicted by international tribunals under a pretense of international law, not domestic courts/domestic law. Similarily, the American soldiers were tried at a military tribunal, which for all practical purposes is quite unrelated to domestic laws as well.
Click to expand...

The Nurnberg trials were a series of trials, several series' of which were conducted under different jurisdictions. I assure you, I'm quite familiar with the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, both as a soldier and a civilian.

But that wasn't the point. The point was that if the rules are complicated and sometimes contradictory, you can be punished for following the rules. The unlawful order thing was just fresh in my mind when I wrote the post but there are numerous examples of the same, regardless of jurisdiction.
 
Signal-11 said:
But that wasn't the point. The point was that if the rules are complicated and sometimes contradictory, you can be punished for following the rules.
Click to expand...

So? The criminals in question weren't being prosecuted by a "jury of their peers" so to speak. They were being tried by outsiders, unlike a case Apple could bring against a hackintosher in which there would be a trial by jury.

So I guess we're both right, although we're talking about totally different legal codes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back