# Mac OS X on intel PCs?



## jsn (Jul 29, 2005)

Hi all

Is that true that we can install Mac OS X for Intel  in a regular PC?

May be we will use the first $100 computer 

http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,1083344,00.html

thanks
jsn


----------



## MisterMe (Jul 29, 2005)

My God, you have been on this forum since 2001 and ask a question like this? Where have you been? Please read this first.


----------



## fjdouse (Jul 29, 2005)

I have to second that.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jul 29, 2005)

...and no, it's not true that you can install Mac OS X on a non-Apple branded Intel machine.


----------



## NanoNano (Jul 29, 2005)

MisterMe said:
			
		

> My God, you have been on this forum since 2001 and ask a question like this? Where have you been? Please read this first.



What is "this"?  The link just sends me to a list of forums.  What should I see?

Thanx.


----------



## boyfarrell (Jul 29, 2005)

Come on don't be grumpy to jsn he's just asking a question!

What technology is apple going to use to stop this from happening?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jul 29, 2005)

boyfarrell said:
			
		

> What technology is apple going to use to stop this from happening?


Nobody but Apple knows at this point, and anyone that claims to know is merely speculating.  Mac OS X for Intel has not been released (and the developer copies are surely not the final release candidates), so it's impossible to tell for sure.

Some speculate that it will be a hardware chip on the motherboard, others speculate it will be software-based.  Your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## kainjow (Jul 29, 2005)

It's 100% guaranteed that someone will find a way to run it on a normal PC. It's just a matter of time once the first Mactel becomes available.


----------



## mindbend (Jul 29, 2005)

But how well it will run will be a whole different matter. Unsupported video cards are just one example where it starts to fall apart. 

I really hope the hackers can't get OS X to run on non-Apple Intel too well, otherwise Apple's in trouble.

I'm going to speculate that there will definitely be some sort of hardware modification required and probably a software prevention as well. The hardware solution will at least restrict the hacking to the more serious hackers.


----------



## kainjow (Jul 29, 2005)

When it's hacked, it will only be for the very advanced hackers to use, not for anyone else, unless there is some type of easy hardware or software modification that can be applied to the computer. I wouldn't expect to see it wide spread outside of the Slashdot crowd.


----------



## MBHockey (Jul 29, 2005)

yea...it will probably (IMO) require a hardware mod.  if this is the case...Apple isn't in trouble.

the average computer user doesn't even know how to install more ram


----------



## Qion (Jul 29, 2005)

This is very true. Apple shouldn't see any problems outside of super-users. I figure that the impact of running a hacked Mactel on unsupported hardware would make an impact about equivalent to hacking an Xbox to run OSX.


----------



## aximdude2005 (Aug 2, 2005)

In the end, who really cares about whether Mac OS X will be able to run on a PC?  The only advantage would be convenience and accessibility to more software. 

From a standpoint of selling computers, I bought a Mac because of style and included hardware, workmanship, and design.  Unless I wanted to save money, I wouldnt buy a crappy Dell desktop.  I would rather use the pieces-parts approach and make my own computer to my specs.  I also wouldnt want to bother with hardware compatibility issues.

From an operating system standpoint, Apple would do well to make Mac OS X available to PC-computers, especially if Apple wants to become a software company rather than a full-fledged computer/laptop company.  I am not really that well-versed in business and such, so I dont know how important this is.  

I do know that it really doesnt matter if a bunch of computer geeks get Tiger to run on a PC.  To me, it will have no effect.  Apple makes a damn good computer and I dont have the time or inclination to convert a Mac into a PC or a PC into a Mac.  Hell, I could peel an orange with most of the peel intact and wrap it around an apple and vice versa.  But the apple still tastes like an apple and the orange tastes like an orange.  The question is, which fruit do you want to eat.


----------



## kainjow (Aug 2, 2005)

I like pears, sometimes strawberries


----------



## MacFreak (Aug 2, 2005)

Apple already to use Intel's DRM system then its hard to hack it.


----------



## kainjow (Aug 2, 2005)

It was also hard to build the great wall of China, but it was completed


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 3, 2005)

aximdude2005 said:
			
		

> In the end, who really cares about whether Mac OS X will be able to run on a PC?  The only advantage would be convenience and *accessibility to more software.*


How would Mac OS X running on generic Intel hardware allow anyone access to more software?  You'd still need Macintosh-specific versions of the software... I think the software situation would stay the same... it's not gonna magically let you run Windows software or anything...


----------



## Qion (Aug 3, 2005)

There are two things I see which would be motives for someone to build a hackjob Mactel. (Beaten to death by thousands btw)

1. Lower Prices 

2. Custom Built System

But again, Apple will make this egg hard to crack. Super-users only.


----------



## aximdude2005 (Aug 3, 2005)

In response to ElDiabloConCaca:

If I wanted to run Windows software and Mac OS X software, it would be more convenient for me to have a dual boot system rather than having two different machines.  I didnt think it took a rocket scientist to make that logical jump.  But I guess some people think it doesnt matter to have to carry around two laptops or have two desktops on two different computer desks. I recognize the fact that there may be Mac users out there who need to use PC applications for their careers.  DUH!!!!


----------



## Ripcord (Aug 4, 2005)

Yes, but since it's already been said that Windows will dual-boot on Macs, I don't see how your argument makes any sense, still.  Running OS X on a non-Apple PC still does not provide "access to more hardware".

(Besides, dual-booting makes little sense IMO.  I'd much rather see near-full-speed virtual machines, though my guess is that we'll see VMWare make an OS X port before we ever see MS get around to building Virtual PC for MacIntel!)


----------



## Mikuro (Aug 4, 2005)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> (Besides, dual-booting makes little sense IMO.  I'd much rather see near-full-speed virtual machines, though my guess is that we'll see VMWare make an OS X port before we ever see MS get around to building Virtual PC for MacIntel!)


If performance is an issue, dual-booting will always be better. OS X uses a LOT of RAM, so it doesn't make sense to have it loaded if it doesn't need to be.

And just because there's no CPU emulation doesn't mean _everything_ will work the way it should. VMWare is far from perfect.

That said, if we can only have one option, I'd definitely prefer virtual machines.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 4, 2005)

Ripcord said:
			
		

> Yes, but since it's already been said that Windows will dual-boot on Macs,


Apple said that they wouldn't do anything to stop people from trying to run Windows on a Mac.... that is a far cry from saying that the final design _will_ be able to boot Windows.

Apple has no reason to make their systems Windows compatible... which is something you have to set out to do when designing a system. 

Anyone thinking that Intel based Macs are going to boot Windows hasn't spend much time working with hardware. I can think of a number of examples where two different computers used the same processor and yet could not run the operating system design for the other.

Also, for those who don't know this, the Developer Kit systems are not Apple hardware. Those systems are based on the systems put together by the operating system team at Apple to keep builds of Mac OS X for Intel current. Not only are those systems not what an Intel based Mac is going to be like, the final version of Mac OS X for Intel based Macs isn't going to be able to run on them (part of the reason for Apple collecting them and destroying them in about a year).

Besides, Schiller's statement was made before Apple's hardware division had started working on designing the new system.

If you want to run Windows software on a Mac, VirtualPC is going to be your best bet. The version of Intel based Macs should perform as good as the Windows version of VirtualPC does.


----------



## fryke (Aug 4, 2005)

Just assembling what I know and heard... Apple's going to use 'standard' intel processors. They're _probably_ going to make use of intel's work on motherboards. I actually think one reason to go with intel was to circumvent the problem of always having to have custom everything. Apple's long started to adopt "PC technology". As in PCI. As in PCMCIA. As in USB. And they've started to push _their_ technologies into the PC world. Such as FireWire. QuickTime. Rend... Bonjour.

My take is that the board designs would be a PC. Plus some sort of DRM technology that ensures to Mac OS X that it's actually running on a Mac. I think booting Windows on an intel Mac will be possible.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 4, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> My take is that the board designs would be a PC. Plus some sort of DRM technology that ensures to Mac OS X that it's actually running on a Mac. I think booting Windows on an intel Mac will be possible.


Hmmm... I beg to differ -- I don't think Apple will use run-of-the-mill or commercially available motherboards for their Intel-based systems.  There are PPC motherboards out there, yet Apple makes their own.  I think this will continue, as Apple has some strange form-factors: the Mac mini and the iMac, most prominently.  

My guess is that the motherboards will continue to have Apple-proprietary stuff, just with an Intel processor and Intel DRM chip.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 4, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> I actually think one reason to go with intel was to circumvent the problem of always having to have custom everything.


Well, this would only be true if they plan on getting out of the hardware business. Part of having custom parts to Apple computers is to give Apple the opportunity to move at the pace they want rather than the pace of what Microsoft will support.



> Apple's long started to adopt "PC technology".


Apple has long supported standards in hardware. Apple used SCSI, lots of people used SCSI because it was faster than IDE and wasn't as limited. Apple used Nubus, that wasn't Apple's technology, it was from Texas Instruments. Apple used RS-422 series ports, I have SGIs that use the same type serial ports. Apple used their own ADB for keyboard and mouse, NeXT used ADB for keyboards and mice.



> As in PCI.


Texas Instruments Nubus 2 slots (while much faster than the original versions), were not as fast as PCI. The move was performance based.

Mac video cards (be them PCI or AGP) are not compatible with PCs. The bus speed was what Apple was after.



> As in PCMCIA.


Apple was one of the first to adopt this technology and made use of it in both the PowerBook line and Newtons.



> As in USB.


USB had languished for 3 years after Intel had released it and some PC makers started adding it systems. You needed a special version of Windows 95 to use it early on and Windows NT 4.0 *never* supported USB. 

When Apple announced that the *only* way to connect peripherals to the iMac was going to be via USB, all of a sudden there were USB products (which didn't exist before the announcement even for Windows PCs).



> And they've started to push _their_ technologies into the PC world. Such as FireWire. QuickTime. Rend... Bonjour.


QuickTime has been available for Windows since version 2.0 as I recall. FireWire was developed from the outset to be open for other venders to use (just like ADB was).

And people seem to have forgotten that Apple has been making Windows software for quite some time. As I pointed out, QuickTime predates iTunes by years. So did AppleWorks for Windows. And WebObjects.

And there have been very few _Mac-only_ displays made by Apple since 1997.



> My take is that the board designs would be a PC. Plus some sort of DRM technology that ensures to Mac OS X that it's actually running on a Mac. I think booting Windows on an intel Mac will be possible.


Then what you are saying is that you don't think Intel based Macs are going to be any different than an Intel based PC. Apple will no longer, in your mind, make better hardware... because they won't be _making_ the hardware anymore.

It is a good thing that you are off base on this one.

Apple's designs are going to be governed by Apple, not Microsoft or some third party logic board maker.

Further, part of the reason Intel has been pushing to get Apple as a client has been the fact that Apple is not restricted to being compatible with Windows. Intel has tried pushing new technologies with PC makers for years (like they did with USB) only to get a luke warm reception because the technology wasn't supported by Windows. Apple has no qualms with modifying Mac OS X to support something new that will set them apart. 

If Apple restricts themselves to using Windows compatible logic boards, then they must be getting out of the hardware business... because the only thing that keeps Apple a float currently is the ability to innovate. And if they do what you think their going to, innovation will be a thing of the past.

The developer kits are the last standard PC logic boards that Apple is going to put into one of their cases, and all of them are going to be destroyed.


----------



## mindbend (Aug 4, 2005)

Well said. I wish I had written that.


----------



## fryke (Aug 5, 2005)

I think you got me wrong, RacerX... Or maybe I didn't put it clearly... I, too, think Apple's intel Macs won't "just" be PCs. For instance, Apple can adopt EFI - whether Windows is ready for that or not. But that doesn't hinder Windows from adopting EFI, too.
But unless Apple adopts something that doesn't have a future in the PC world at all (and I doubt that, because if it's good, they'll want it, too!), at some point, there'll be drivers for it for Windows (XP, Vista, ...).
I guess we'll know more only once the first 'real' intel Mac arrives in June 2006 and people start taking it apart and/or installing Windows on it. But Phil Schiller said they wouldn't prevent people from installing Windows on those machines. And I guess that also means they won't create their own motherboards, crippled to the extent that no other OS could live on that computer.

What you said about QuickTime etc.: Yes, of course. That's what I _meant_. Apple has long learned that using standards actually helps them. And that the standards they develop themselves must be adopted widely in order to succeed on the market. Like FireWire. Had Apple kept that "secret" to themselves, there'd be no cameras using it, and it'd only be another connector for HDs. And only _some_ makers would create HDs based on it, because it'd only run on the Mac (2-5% of the market). That's what I meant: They _got_ that right.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 5, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> But Phil Schiller said they wouldn't prevent people from installing Windows on those machines. And I guess that also means they won't create their own motherboards, crippled to the extent that no other OS could live on that computer.


Well, lets be clear on what I'm saying...

First, there is a major (and there is no way around it) difference between setting out to stop some one from installing another operating system and just not making something that supports that other operating system. 

Schiller spoke before the hardware design team had even started on a design. And the only thing that can be concluded from his statement (knowing that nothing had been started) is that Apple would not take any steps to stop people from trying. But that is a long way from making anything that will work with Windows. Companies have to set out to make Windows compatible PCs. Apple has no reason to do this, in fact it would be an extra step on their part to make a Mac compatible with Windows... a step I highly doubt Apple will make because it doesn't add anything to a Mac and would actually limit it.

Second, I don't think Apple is going to do anything (at all) to cripple Macs from being able to run other operating systems. And I fully expect that Linux will be running on Intel based Macs within a month of their release. But lets be clear... I don't think that Linux for PCs is going to run on a Mac any more than Windows. I believe that Linux will be ported to the new hardware, and will run just fine. And I also believe that any applications for Linux on PCs will run without issue on an Intel based Mac running Linux.


Things that I doubt will change because of the processor... video card architecture (current Mac video cards will work, PC ones will not), open firmware (no bios), and the ability to set the system up in target disk mode. 

Apple would have to be getting rid of all of those to make a Mac compatible with Windows.



Now, on the other hand, I could see some one creating a Darwin based boot loader and maybe a hardware card (with bios, maybe even a video chip set for PCs) to let a Mac run Windows, but something is going to have to hold Windows' hand in order to get it up and running on an Intel based Mac.

And I would point out that once Mac OS X for Intel is ported to this new hardware, there is going to be no chance of anyone installing it on a standard PC.


Again, Apple doesn't have to _do_ anything here to keep Windows from running on a Mac. But they would have to take steps* to _make_ them compatible.






* _Historical Note: Apple didn't take those same steps when making the early PowerPC Macs so that Windows NT for PowerPC could run on them. All Apple would have had to do is follow IBM's CHRP standard for PowerPC logic boards and Windows NT 4.0 would have run just fine. Same thing with SGI, had they followed someone else's standards, Windows NT 4.0 for MIPS would be able to run on my Indy... but it can't. In both those cases, the processor was not the deciding factor, it was the logic board design._


----------



## fryke (Aug 5, 2005)

RacerX said: "Things that I doubt will change because of the processor... video card architecture (current Mac video cards will work, PC ones will not), open firmware (no bios), and the ability to set the system up in target disk mode. [...] Apple would have to be getting rid of all of those to make a Mac compatible with Windows."

Frankly, I have basically _no_ idea why graphics cards need special firmware in order to run in a Mac. What I _do_ know is that back when I bought a PC Voodoo2 card, it gave me VGA graphics on the Mac okay. Then i uploaded Mac firmware to it, and it gave me everything a Mac Voodoo2 card would. So that's no biggie, really. Actually, I'm pretty sure that Apple could use 'standard' PC graphics cards without problems. They're using a rather generic intel graphics chipset for the devkit - and that _does_ QuartzExtreme etc. I know, I know, the devkit is only a transitive system, but from what I know: It's simply possible.
If you look at the devtalk lists, you see that OF/BIOS/EFI is not set in stone. I'd say, however, that Apple has an interest in adopting EFI. (So does intel.) EFI is good and is there. I don't see much sense in "porting" OF.
The third thing is the target disk mode. This would simply be a function of EFI or OF or the BIOS. And it wouldn't in any way hinder Windows from running.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 5, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> They're using a rather generic intel graphics chipset for the devkit - and that _does_ QuartzExtreme etc. I know, I know, the devkit is only a transitive system, but from what I know: It's simply possible.


And you, *better than anyone else here*, should know why it works... the version of Mac OS X running on the developer kits is a direct descendant of Rhapsody for Intel, which was design to run on standard PC hardware. The goal of keeping those builds alive followed the original design for Rhapsody for Intel, which was an operating system that would run on standard PC hardware.

That is *very* far from what Mac OS X for Intel is now being proposed for. It is going to be reworked to be Mac only.



> I don't see much sense in "porting" OF.


What porting would really be needed? It is part of designing and building every Mac. Implementing it on a new processor shouldn't be that hard. And it helps keep the systems running the way that Mac users are used to (those that even know how to work with open firmware, that is).



> The third thing is the target disk mode. This would simply be a function of EFI or OF or the BIOS. And it wouldn't in any way hinder Windows from running.


Lets be absolutely clear here... it would not be a hinderance as long as Windows supports what ever Apple chooses to go with.

But if Windows does not support what Apple chooses, then it could very well be the deal breaker on Windows being able to run on a Mac on it's own. And Apple has no reason to make the choices that would make Macs into Windows PCs. The closer Mac hardware is to Windows PCs, the more likely that Mac OS X is going to get hacked to run on Windows PCs.

In all reality, Apple has almost no reason at all to change anything else about Macs than the processor.


And again, I'm sure that you are aware that when Apple made the switch to PowerPC, it wasn't even a done deal when they were designing those original models. The logic boards in the 6100/7100/8100 series systems were designed to work with either IBM's PowerPC 601 *or* Motorola's MC 68060 processors. There is very little that Apple would need to adopt to make this change in processors, and I don't see anything wrong with their current designs that would justify a radical shift in the directions they have been taking in the recent past.


----------



## fryke (Aug 6, 2005)

The one reason I see for Apple to "not break" Windows compatibility or to actually provide (although not treading on it) Windows compatibility is that it makes it MUCH easier to sell to Windows people. "Buy a Mac. If you don't like it, you can use Windows on it." I think that would switch a lot more people, actually.


----------



## fryke (Aug 10, 2005)

Back on topic: It's happening. http://haligon.blogspot.com/2005/08/mac-os-x-running-on-any-pc.html


----------



## MBHockey (Aug 10, 2005)

You dont' even need a sse3 enabled cpu, right?  I believe that's what one of the patches does...i don't think you need a pentium 4, either.

I could be wrong, but this is what i've gathered.  Either way, quite interesting.


----------



## MBHockey (Aug 10, 2005)

This just in...

It is running on AMD processors too..unless it's photoshopped:

http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=systemprofiler5ai.jpg


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Aug 11, 2005)

Well Mac Rumors has posted it....It's been hacked to run on any pc with a little teaking of course. The videos look pretty legit. But then again it's a Dev Kit. They've posted it on their english site hardmac.com, here's the link. Enjoy and well I'd still stick with a powerpc mac since it can do everything. I'm sure there's issues both hardware and software if somebody does get it up and running. http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2005-08-10#4352


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Aug 11, 2005)

For the videos and the current posting scroll to the top of site. Whoops! Sorry about that.


----------



## fryke (Aug 11, 2005)

Merged your thread into the existing one, nietzsche2131...


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Aug 11, 2005)

Thanks fryke, wasn't quite usre where the topic should go. Sorry about that.


----------



## CreativeEye (Aug 11, 2005)

I won't believe any of these videos until the person behind the camera actually shows themselves inputing things onto the screen.

They all always seem to happilly show themselves turning the machines on - but from there forget it!! theres no vids that show them typing / moving the curser etc etc. why not stick in a DVD and play it?!

Also - if you look at the video - when OS X starts up - I have never seen any mac at any version - stretch its video mode like that - even when i hook up a new screen to my laptop it optimises the screen res by itself so everything still sits square...


----------



## fryke (Aug 11, 2005)

The stretching thing is simply a thing of those widescreen PC notebooks. Mac OS X probably defaults to 1024*768, and the hardware defaults to stretch this onto the screen, rather than show black bars on each side. It would've been interesting to see him go to the monitors prefpanel.


----------



## ksv (Aug 12, 2005)

parb.johal@ante said:
			
		

> I won't believe any of these videos until the person behind the camera actually shows themselves inputing things onto the screen.
> 
> They all always seem to happilly show themselves turning the machines on - but from there forget it!! theres no vids that show them typing / moving the curser etc etc. why not stick in a DVD and play it?!
> 
> Also - if you look at the video - when OS X starts up - I have never seen any mac at any version - stretch its video mode like that - even when i hook up a new screen to my laptop it optimises the screen res by itself so everything still sits square...



You can actually see the reflection of the user's arms on screen, so the input itself is not fake. Of course, it could be a video playing or a fake interface that responds to mouse clicks (I did something like that a few years ago to fool the spymac community, tihi), but that seems unlikely.

However, being stuck on a development version of 10.4.1 doesn't seem like a viable option for any serious user.


----------



## fryke (Aug 12, 2005)

It's not about serious users. Yet.

But even now: If I still had a decent PC (hah!) lying around, I'd quite certainly install OS X on it now. It'd make a nice backup machine for my work, should my PB ever fail. Also, if reports are true, the machines don't run Mac OS X very sluggishly. Even Rosetta-emulated software, once it's actually running, performs quite well. It's not a seriously viable solution now, but these people are trying, and they'll continue once a final version of OS X for intel Macs is available.


----------



## kainjow (Aug 12, 2005)

Check out the videos and pics here: http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-and-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/

Seems like OS X is running pretty fast on that machine (1GHz Pentium M, 512 MB)


----------



## smithy (Aug 12, 2005)

Maybe the switch to intel was the best thing afterall ?? I wonder how Apple are feeling right now with all the news about Tiger hacked to run on intel ...


----------



## RacerX (Aug 13, 2005)

ksv said:
			
		

> However, being stuck on a development version of 10.4.1 doesn't seem like a viable option for any serious user.


How do you define a _serious user_?

And does this mean that no one who has been using 10.4.1 is a serious user? Because if serious users have used 10.4.1, then 10.4.1 is a viable option for serious users for as long as the system provides the functionality needed by the user.

Sorry, but just because _you_ wouldn't find 10.4.1 a viable option to be stuck at, doesn't make it not a viable option for other people. And just because they could make it a viable option doesn't make them any less a serious user than you.


If it sounds like I'm taking this _serious user_ comment to heart... you're right, I am.

Because for years I've been hearing comments like yours about how _being stuck on a development version of _Rhapsody_ didn't seem like a viable option for any serious user_.

And as someone who has made Rhapsody a viable option for years, I fine the insinuation that *I* might not be a _serious user_ to be an insult.


And yes, *I* could make a development version of 10.4.1 a viable option for years if I was stuck with it... and I hope you aren't challenging my status as a _serious user_ because I could do this (if need be).


----------



## Jason (Aug 13, 2005)

I'm working on installing it this weekend, on VMWare, dunno how much this will effect speed, but I guess I will find out


----------



## fryke (Aug 13, 2005)

Can't you install on an empty harddrive or something? I think that'd give you a _much_ better idea... Graphics power etc.


----------



## Jason (Aug 13, 2005)

theoretically you can, afaik

I'd have to disable my graphics card and use the integrated intel graphics chip though, that and have an extra hd... so i'll wait on that


----------



## ksv (Aug 13, 2005)

RacerX said:
			
		

> How do you define a _serious user_?
> 
> And does this mean that no one who has been using 10.4.1 is a serious user? Because if serious users have used 10.4.1, then 10.4.1 is a viable option for serious users for as long as the system provides the functionality needed by the user.
> 
> ...



Now you're cute 

My comment was not at all directed at you, but rather at those who desperately download patched copies of OS X and spend hours getting it onto their PCs, only to find that it's incompatible with most of the software that makes the Mac a Mac; rather than doing what they really wantto get rid of the PC and buy a Mac.

Surely enough, 10.4.1 for x86 is nice as it is, but there's a _slight_ chance it'll never be able to run iMovie, Final Cut, Logic or any other Apple application that didn't come bundled with the OS.

If I were in charge of a company with a machine park of Mac OS X "compatible" Dells, I don't think I'd consider myself a serious user if I violated the software agreement by making copies of the disc, reverse-engineering and patching it to run on an unsupported system and then refusing to return the copies to Apple. In the long run, it could be far more affordable to simply get the computers the OS was meant to run on.

I'm starting to think I should replace my signature with a disclaimer, tihi.


----------



## Jason (Aug 13, 2005)

All apps *should* work if you have an SSE3 enabled cpu and rosetta running from what I understand...


----------



## ksv (Aug 13, 2005)

Jason said:
			
		

> All apps *should* work if you have an SSE3 enabled cpu and rosetta running from what I understand...



Not those with AltiVec code.


----------



## HateEternal (Aug 13, 2005)

I kinda want to try it to compare the A64 to the G5.
I want to see how fast it is for my self. It looked pretty quick in the videos but still, I have a hard time beliving that it would run faster on a P4 than G5...


----------



## fryke (Aug 14, 2005)

ksv said:
			
		

> Not those with AltiVec code.


They'd run just like on a G3 iBook. Slower, maybe, but they'd run.


----------



## ksv (Aug 14, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> They'd run just like on a G3 iBook. Slower, maybe, but they'd run.



I mistakenly included iMovie in my statement; the other apps require a G4 or G5 as far as I know, and won't even install.

Neither the iBook nor Rosetta runs Altivec code, but many apps with Altivec code have a built-in check for the presence of Altivec on the processor and alternative code for non-Altivec processors.


----------



## penguincentral (Aug 14, 2005)

There is a way to install Mac OS X 10.4 on an Intel Platform. It requires a little bit of hacking, hard drive space, Windows XP or Linux and more. See it at http://wiki.pearpc.net/index.php/InstallTigerWithoutPanther. It does not seem to be much work but you will need to look closely. Some things that are for Windows are really ment to be for Linux only. It's a little easier with Windows XP.


----------



## fryke (Aug 14, 2005)

Erh... Did you even _read_ this thread?


----------



## MBHockey (Aug 14, 2005)

lol.

It's quite surprising (IMO) how easy this is to do once you can get a hold of the right Tiger Intel image (i'm just going by all the stuff i've read on this) and if you have a spare PC with at least an sse2 enabled cpu.

I hope apple locks this up more tightly come the real macintels, just so it's not a viable option for the casual user.


----------



## fryke (Aug 15, 2005)

Well, I actually hope they don't care too much. They could throw a lot of working hours into tightening it - but it only needs one clever hacker to find away around their work to allow many (illegal) users to make use of that hacker's work. I'd rather see them concentrate on making OS X and the hardware it's supposed to run on the best we've seen.


----------



## Jason (Aug 16, 2005)

Installed osx86 on VMWare this morning, rather meh as far as speed goes, and multiple items crashing, generally in related to things requiring Quartz effects... I will attempt to install natively on my PC this weekend, dual booting with windows via a Linux booter...


----------



## MBHockey (Aug 16, 2005)

It's probably not too stable.


----------



## Jason (Aug 17, 2005)

I'm going about it slowly doing lots of research because the pc I will be installing it on is my workhorse 

What method did you use, are you dual booting? And what are the full specs of the machine?


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Aug 20, 2005)

There is patches for SSE 2 processors to make it more stable and to run Rosetta too on SSE 2 processors. http://osxonpc.com/. It's still interesting how much progress hackers are making. Apple so far hasn't gone after the wiki on x86 on pc's. This seems odd but then again we just have to see what happens in the next couple of weeks with this...


----------



## Jason (Aug 21, 2005)

probably because they are collecting info on who to sue... :-|


----------



## mindbend (Sep 2, 2005)

What about OS X on AMD via the hacking community?

Is there something specific about the Intel version of OS X that excludes AMD from being able to run it?


----------



## Jason (Sep 3, 2005)

Nope, there are AMD processors that work just as well, go to places like http://osx86project.org for more info.


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 3, 2005)

mindbend said:
			
		

> What about OS X on AMD via the hacking community?
> 
> Is there something specific about the Intel version of OS X that excludes AMD from being able to run it?



Actually, yes, there is.  The development releases of the the OS require Intel TPM chips, and SSE3 support.  Obviously Intel's not going to license their TPM system to AMD chipset builders, and SSE3 support is not in most AMD chips (though it's not in most Intel chips either).

However, is that hobbyists HAVE gotten OSX86 to run on AMD systems (by removing the TPM and SSE3 requirements).  And quite well, too.


----------



## fryke (Sep 3, 2005)

But isn't it so that Rosetta, at least, is not supported on machines without SSE2/3?


----------



## Ripcord (Sep 4, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> But isn't it so that Rosetta, at least, is not supported on machines without SSE2/3?



Rosetta (and apparently some apps) will not run without the SSE3 instructions.  However, I see that some hobbyists have found ways to map the SSE3 instructions onto others (mostly SSE2) - so Rosetta et al run, albeit at a somewhat reduced rate.

It's unclear whether OS X will continue to have this requirement, but assuming that Apple only plans to target OS X for current and future Intel processors (which pretty much all now support SSE3), then there's not much reason not to use it.

However, should they decide to open OS X to a larger community, say, a year after selling x86-based machines, it doesn't look like it would require much work to eliminate the requirement =)


----------



## fryke (Sep 4, 2005)

_then_ current and _then_ future, i.e. Summer 2006.


----------

