Or...
4. He can just install Windows on it, and keep using it as a PC that can also run Mac software.
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.
Why cant install single user Leopard on more than 1 Mac ?
- Thread starter XheartcoreboyX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Or...
4. He can just install Windows on it, and keep using it as a PC that can also run Mac software.
Uh... no, he wouldn't. The EULA says it can't be used in a virtualized environment. Boot Camp isn't virtualization.
And I suggest you let him have Tiger... Leopard isn't ready yet, but it will be soon, I think.
Absolutely correct. Any version of Windows can be legally run directly on the computer (as in with Boot Camp).
And, if he really wanted to run it in a virtual environment, he could use Windows Vista Ultimate (which permits running in a virtual environment).
But, if he doesn't like the Mac OS, then he could legally run any version of Vista or XP directly on the hardware just like he would on a real PC. Set it up as a dual-boot and switch between them if he likes. Or, format the whole hard drive and just install Windows if he likes. Doing it that way, it would behave just like a regular PC.
I have mine set to dual Boot Vista Ultimate and Leopard. Work great. I just reboot and choose what I want.
But, he could set it up without OS X if he didn't care to have the option of booting into OS X.
But running windows on the computer he is not going to be convinced that apple is a better product. Just a more expensive machine to run his windows. You would want the friend to find that yes apple has very good products and would like to expand his horizon in apple products, but if he cant get that through leopard as a friend I would , in this case, illegally give him my tiger to keep him convinced that apple really is a great product.
Remember it was just hypothetical story.
Remember it was just hypothetical story.
Interesting, I've yet to, or by brother (a recent convert) have a problem with Leopard. Maybe we're in the minority, but we've had no problems.
I dunno the letter of the law, but as your friend has a legal version of OSX Leopard and an Intel Mac, I think it would be morally acceptable for you to give him a copy of Tiger. He would be running that instead of his Leopard install.
I don't think companies are too bothered if you pay for their latest software but choose to use an older version.
I don't think companies are too bothered if you pay for their latest software but choose to use an older version.
I think it's pretty stupid (or nice!) for Apple to expect people to not install leopard on more than one machine. It's very naive for them to think people will actually do that. 90% of people who install anything never read the terms, and just check it in (I do anyway)... Why should a person have any reason to buy a 'family' pack if they don't need it? It's pretty rediculous, and installing leopard onto multiple computers is not 'morally wrong' it's just being smart. Why should a person waste money on something that isn't really needed...
It is smart in the same way that stealing someone's food from the fridge at your company is smart. It is one hundred percent illegal (as if you care), and if you install it on two Macs that are in use, it is morally wrong.
I think his friend was rather hypothetical. The last person I meet who just bought a computer with Vista asked me if I could install Windows on their computer instead
People who switch from XP to Vista mostly regret it, and I cannot imagine anyone wanting to switch from Leopard to Vista.That said, you cannot install Tiger on a new computer that shipped with Leopard. Tiger versions that came with a computer are specifically made for that computer (the Tiger that came with your 2006 iMac won't install on a brand new 2008 iMac), and the retail versions of Tiger are PowerPC only.
You are confusing EULA and copyright law.
You are correct in saying that the legal status of EULAs in some countries is at least unclear. However, in all these countries there is a copyright law, that doesn't allow you to make more copies of the software than absolutely needed - that means you can install one copy of MacOS X on one computer. If the MacOS X EULA has additional limitations then we can debate whether they apply, but installing on two computers is illegal by plain old copyright law, even if there is no EULA whatsoever or if it is invalid for any reason.
Note that if you buy a family pack, then you are definitely bound by the EULA (because copyright law only allows one copy to be made; it is the EULA that allows you to make four more copies).
Thanks for the link, I was wondering what the user constraints are for using Leopard.
Cheers
The one thing that I am wondering however is it illegal for me to make a back up of the CD, I tend to do this just in case I loose the install disc (and it has happened to me before when I moved house).
Huh?
What, pray tell, would keep the second machine from working at the same time as the first one?
Huh?
What, pray tell, would keep the second machine from working at the same time as the first one?
The context of the quote you snipped was an ethical one not a technical one.
You could have two OS's installed, but if you booted them both you'd be violating the EULA. With application software it can be installed on two machines, but not running on both. With an OS, if it's installed on two machines and both are running, then you are violating the license.
well, Im pretty sure apple never really expect that, does apple look like a naive company? lol
why not free?
Why doesn't Apple just make the upgrades free?
Call me crazy, but do they really make that much money on this? Don't get me wrong, I paid for a copy of Leopard, but honestly one of my big selling points for switching was that Xcode was free. Visual Studio is far from free.
It just seems like in the PC world everyone is trying to nickel and dime you for everything. I'd rather pay a little extra up front for the machine, knowing, that's it.
Then there's the, "when should I buy?" thing. I waited thinking I would get Leopard, but eventually bought a month before, because I really just wanted my *explicitive* computer. I'm having a hard time seeing how morally I did the right thing paying for something I would have got installed for free in a months time had I waited. My old OS was only good for a month?
Why doesn't Apple just make the upgrades free?
Call me crazy, but do they really make that much money on this? Don't get me wrong, I paid for a copy of Leopard, but honestly one of my big selling points for switching was that Xcode was free. Visual Studio is far from free.
It just seems like in the PC world everyone is trying to nickel and dime you for everything. I'd rather pay a little extra up front for the machine, knowing, that's it.
Then there's the, "when should I buy?" thing. I waited thinking I would get Leopard, but eventually bought a month before, because I really just wanted my *explicitive* computer. I'm having a hard time seeing how morally I did the right thing paying for something I would have got installed for free in a months time had I waited. My old OS was only good for a month?
Tiger versions that came with a computer are specifically made for that computer (the Tiger that came with your 2006 iMac won't install on a brand new 2008 iMac), and the retail versions of Tiger are PowerPC only.[/QUOTE]
Where'd you get this from?
Tiger will install on IntelMacs as well as PPCMacs. Nothing earlier will.
Where'd you get this from?
Tiger will install on IntelMacs as well as PPCMacs. Nothing earlier will.
Consider this, then.
We have the EULA, and the license from Apple.
However a lot of the underlying software is OpenSoftware.
I can copy that to any machine I want and run it. That is the beauty of OpenSoftware. The OSX is really only a window manager, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. Gnome works really well and is just as pretty and maybe prettier than OSX.
We have the EULA, and the license from Apple.
However a lot of the underlying software is OpenSoftware.
I can copy that to any machine I want and run it. That is the beauty of OpenSoftware. The OSX is really only a window manager, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to. Gnome works really well and is just as pretty and maybe prettier than OSX.
Where'd you get this from?
Tiger will install on IntelMacs as well as PPCMacs. Nothing earlier will.
[/QUOTE]Go ahead and try it. Just for fun, try it. After you've tried it, then report back.
First, there was no universal version of Tiger. There was a separate PPC and a separate Intel version. One could not be installed on the other type of system. You had to use the Intel version with the Intel's, and the PowerPC version with the PowerPC systems.
Second, there was no retail version of Tiger for the Intel systems (it wasn't needed since they all came with Tiger until Leopard shipped). And, the retail PowerPC (and OEM PowerPC) version would not install on an Intel system.
Third, Apple has always made it so that the OS X disks that shipped with a particular computer could not be used with a different revision or different model Mac system. So, the iMac disks will not work with an iMac that has a slight revision or boot ROM version, or other alteration. They have always been keyed to work only on the exact model and revision computer that they shipped with. This has been the case through history with OS X and PowerPC systems. It will likely continue on with the Intel systems for the remaining future of OS X.
Fine.
try to install the PPC version of Leopard on your IntellMac. Go ahead, try it and report what happens here.
Leopard is either installed as Intel or installed as PPC. Not both.
As for Tiger, you'll have to lend me your IntellMac long enough for me to try it.
Mine are all PPC machines.
On the other hand PPC machines will also handle some of the IBM software. That is where the PPC stuff started at. It is more readily noticeable with Linux Distros for PPC, though.
try to install the PPC version of Leopard on your IntellMac. Go ahead, try it and report what happens here.
Leopard is either installed as Intel or installed as PPC. Not both.
As for Tiger, you'll have to lend me your IntellMac long enough for me to try it.
Mine are all PPC machines.
On the other hand PPC machines will also handle some of the IBM software. That is where the PPC stuff started at. It is more readily noticeable with Linux Distros for PPC, though.
Fine.
try to install the PPC version of Leopard on your IntellMac. Go ahead, try it and report what happens here.
Leopard is either installed as Intel or installed as PPC. Not both.
As for Tiger, you'll have to lend me your IntellMac long enough for me to try it.
Mine are all PPC machines.
On the other hand PPC machines will also handle some of the IBM software. That is where the PPC stuff started at. It is more readily noticeable with Linux Distros for PPC, though.
I think you must not have actually read what I wrote. Try it again.
I have 10.4.6 rtl version. Doesn't say whether PPC or Intel. I don't have an IntelMac to try it on. Being of limited resources at the moment, I need to borrow an IntelMac from some one to try to load it on. According to Mac's website, it should install.
SawTooth500:
what is trying to be explained is that the retail version of Tiger will not install on Intel machines. This is due to the fact that all Intel machines were shipped with Tiger (therefore no Intel mac owner would need a retail copy- they have their discs that came with the machine). The retail Tiger disks were never released as a Universal Binary because there was no need.
However, retail Leopard disks are Universal Binaries i.e. they will install on either PPC or Intel machines (the disk will install the matching version). This is because many Intel macs shipped with Tiger (and all PPC macs shipped Tiger or earlier OS X versions).
Therefore, I'd venture to say that using a retail Tiger disk on an Intel mac won't work.
what is trying to be explained is that the retail version of Tiger will not install on Intel machines. This is due to the fact that all Intel machines were shipped with Tiger (therefore no Intel mac owner would need a retail copy- they have their discs that came with the machine). The retail Tiger disks were never released as a Universal Binary because there was no need.
However, retail Leopard disks are Universal Binaries i.e. they will install on either PPC or Intel machines (the disk will install the matching version). This is because many Intel macs shipped with Tiger (and all PPC macs shipped Tiger or earlier OS X versions).
Therefore, I'd venture to say that using a retail Tiger disk on an Intel mac won't work.
"Fair Use" doesn't technically cover this situation....
... but at least morally-speaking, I tend to agree with you. It's certainly not a brand new, unique way of looking at software licensing either. Microsoft has, in the past, offered some customers a license allowing simultaneous installation of a product (like MS Office) on both a portable and a desktop Windows PC. (The theory being, it's impossible for you to sit in front of your desktop at work AND in front of your laptop someplace else at the same time. So the simultaneous install still amounts to one person using only 1 copy at a time.)
I guess the problem comes in with the fact that *someone else* might sign onto one of your computers and use the application while you were off using it elsewhere on the other installation. Then, you're suddenly violating the licensing agreement. That's probably why this type of license has traditionally been limited to being granted to large (volume) license customers in big businesses or research labs. In a large corporate setting, there's much less incentive for someone to "get on your computer" to get some work done, because they probably already have their own assigned workstation to use. (And in all likelihood, the business already purchased THAT user a license for the same software, too.) Furthermore, there's presumably an I.T. department of some kind to help enforce said licensing agreements.
... but at least morally-speaking, I tend to agree with you. It's certainly not a brand new, unique way of looking at software licensing either. Microsoft has, in the past, offered some customers a license allowing simultaneous installation of a product (like MS Office) on both a portable and a desktop Windows PC. (The theory being, it's impossible for you to sit in front of your desktop at work AND in front of your laptop someplace else at the same time. So the simultaneous install still amounts to one person using only 1 copy at a time.)
I guess the problem comes in with the fact that *someone else* might sign onto one of your computers and use the application while you were off using it elsewhere on the other installation. Then, you're suddenly violating the licensing agreement. That's probably why this type of license has traditionally been limited to being granted to large (volume) license customers in big businesses or research labs. In a large corporate setting, there's much less incentive for someone to "get on your computer" to get some work done, because they probably already have their own assigned workstation to use. (And in all likelihood, the business already purchased THAT user a license for the same software, too.) Furthermore, there's presumably an I.T. department of some kind to help enforce said licensing agreements.