# OSX x86 leaked?



## Chazam (Jun 12, 2005)

There are reports that someones leaked ths x86 build of osx
I hope they find out who has done this if true!

anyone think this is good or bad news for apple?


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Jun 12, 2005)

Yea this is interesting...Espically since they are going on about how it apperently runs on any intel machine, since there isn't any hardware guard. It's called LeGrande techonoglies or something to that effect. Anyways you can  download this torrent burn an iso and you should be off and running Tiger. What about it being buggy though? Ha! Who i am kidding, who has downloaded yet?


----------



## Convert (Jun 12, 2005)

I don't think discussion of that matter will be allowed here, not sure.


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

I don't think the discussion about this is at all interesting... Good or bad for Apple? Whatcha think! They certainly didn't want it leaked, of course!


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

Btw.: Had to remove the links, since there was much too much talk about where to get it on there... I don't think we have to close the thread or remove it, but please do NOT talk about where to get illegal copies.

The discussion seems to claim it's simply a hoax. So "reports" about it installing on "just about any hardware" are to be taken with a kilo of salt, to say the least.


----------



## elander (Jun 12, 2005)

...it might even be intentional. After all, Apple knows that this is probably the most coveted software at the moment. And they haven't forgotten about the leaked Tiger copies. They must've been aware that this would happen.

Why is this good for Apple? Well, it seems that the version in the transition kit will actually run on just about any i386 system. The system they used on WWDC wasn't special in anyway, and according to rumors on the 'net, neither will the transition kit be. Apparently, they are NOT using LaGrande...

This means that a lot of people will get to test OS X on Intel, with a native iLife'05 on it. And since it won't be possible to upgrade it, if you like it you'll have to buy it when it expires (there is an expiration date when the OS will cease to function).

Viral marketing anyone?


----------



## Chazam (Jun 12, 2005)

That's okay fryke. I can't imagine anyone here being too interested in downloading it. We can all run tiger already!  

People are speculating this may be intentional like elander said, giving x86 owners a taste of OSX.
I personally think it's a bit extreme but no publicity is bad publicity!


----------



## fryke (Jun 12, 2005)

Hm. I just think Apple _doesn't_ want an early build to leak like this. Evangelism or not. Not this far away from Intel/Macs, you know... Once _those_ are released, however, Apple could of course release demo DVDs that install on any X86 hardware - but is seriously crippled, i.e. runs for only 30 days, can only create non-admin users etc. ... Things like that.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 12, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Hm. I just think Apple _doesn't_ want an early build to leak like this. Evangelism or not. Not this far away from Intel/Macs, you know... Once _those_ are released, however, Apple could of course release demo DVDs that install on any X86 hardware - but is seriously crippled, i.e. runs for only 30 days, can only create non-admin users etc. ... Things like that.


.....
That's the evilest idea I've heard in a while. I like it! ::evil::

Although it might make people just resent Apple for their "artificial" hardware lock on the Real Thing.


----------



## Scottfab (Jun 12, 2005)

sounds like a baseless rumor/hoax to me...


----------



## HateEternal (Jun 12, 2005)

Well, I have seen the torrent on a few sites. Of course it could be fake, it was only a gig.

I am very curious but I restrained my self from downloading it. Apple usually retaliates when their software is pirated, especially on something like bittorrent which is so insecure to begin with.


----------



## markceltic (Jun 12, 2005)

Ever heard the saying "you get what you paid for"? I'm not that daring of an individual to get a so-called copy of an OS off of some torrent site.Who needs the complications ?


----------



## DevilRocks (Jun 12, 2005)

i am very curious on wheather or not this is real or fake.

I ask if there is an apple developer who has real copy, to find out if this is real or fake, developer, step up.


----------



## MBHockey (Jun 12, 2005)

Ehh..whoever the developer that leaked this (if it's even true) is going to be in a whole lot of trouble soon...

But, i find it quite interesting, if this is true, that why did Apple make it so easy for Tiger for x86 to be sent off somewhere, i mean, i'm guessing the OS came pre-installed on those dev systems, so if it's preinstalled, wouldn't Apple have had to give them a disk for it if the image file for it is floating somewhere around the internet?  Why would they do this?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 12, 2005)

This is something I've wondered -- do the developer machines that Apple is "renting" to developers come with an OS X x86 install disk, or do the machines simply come pre-installed only (causing problems if a reinstall happens to be required)?

Haven't heard anything definite on this one...


----------



## MBHockey (Jun 12, 2005)

Yeah -- I'd like to know.  

And if they did supply a disk, which i could definitely see as a feasible thing to do since it's such an early release of the OS for x86 architecture, why wouldn't they go to some length to prevent it from being leaked?  Do they really trust the 3800+ developers that much, or did they not care (to some extent) if it leaked?


----------



## mindbend (Jun 12, 2005)

I don't know whether it's real or not, but I can't believe it would run well if it's true.

OS X is currently very nitpicky, which is a blessing and a curse. Apple users typically get a "it just works" experience, which is great, but you also get a more limited set of options (say, video cards for example).

Windows can run about anything in terms of software/hardware integration, but it's often a PITA compared to OS X.

I would think running OS X on any old PC box would be very shaky at best. At least I hope so, or Apple is in big trouble. Remember, Apple is a HARDWARE company. The LAST thing they want is for OS X to run on a generic PC box.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 12, 2005)

If it leaked the build and wont work on your G5 and Intel right now its foucs on Intel machine from Apple. They want to foucs on Intel teaking right now..


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 12, 2005)

foucs?

Even IF it's true, and even IF it works on machines other than the dev kit Apple are providing, I find it hard to believe it will work on the vast variety of PC hardware out there, especially graphics and sound cards, think of all the drivers required!  I've had headaches of the last few years getting not only Linux but Solaris to work on standard PC kit. Regardless, I wouldn't read anymore into this than the pics of the internals of the dev kit, it gives absolutely no indications of final products, the dev kit probably is a fairly generic mobo and the OSX/x86 as it exists now probably works on a few combinations of hardware but it means nothing.

If true, installing it on a PC is really risky, if Apple did find out, there could be.. problems. I also expect the OS will be date-limited too. It won't be difficult for Apple to tie the OS to the dev kit it was intended for (if they are clever), that developer better be ready for a visit from Apple's lawyers.


----------



## symphonix (Jun 12, 2005)

First of all, all signs point to this being a simple fake. No big deal.

Secondly, I don't know if "Leaked" is really the word to use for something that has been publicly released. That is to say, if you're an Apple Developer Connection Select or Premier member and are happy to splash out $999 US you can have Mac OS X on Intel hardware right now (and that price includes usage an Intel Pentium 4 3.6ghz fitted in a PowerMac G5 enclosure). 

Don't these people have something better to do with their time? If they invested as much time and money into getting the real thing as they do into fuelling these rumours, they'd have a genuine Intel P4 powered Mac loaded with OSX at their doorstep within 3 weeks.


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 12, 2005)

MBHockey said:
			
		

> Yeah -- I'd like to know.
> 
> And if they did supply a disk, which i could definitely see as a feasible thing to do since it's such an early release of the OS for x86 architecture, why wouldn't they go to some length to prevent it from being leaked?  Do they really trust the 3800+ developers that much, or did they not care (to some extent) if it leaked?


Which developer release of MacOS X do you think was _not_ leaked?


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Jun 13, 2005)

Well, my friend is downloading a copy of it....... Serious it looks real so far. But time will tell. I'll get back to you guys about this one. It's on illegal filesharing services. Not going to say much more then this....But yea this is going to be interesting test


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

If it's true, I sincerely hope whoever 'leaked' it, whoever downloads it and whoever runs it, get's what they really deserve.

That's all I have to say on piracy.


----------



## MBHockey (Jun 13, 2005)

Every PC kiddie with a cable modem is going to download, try it for 5 minutes, confirm that it sucks since it's not optimized for the masses yet, and post to their blogs about how Macs still suck.


----------



## kainjow (Jun 13, 2005)

It's not real. Some people at Engadget said it's like 958MB of GNAA repeated over and over   link


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 13, 2005)

Do you really think that a company who managed to keep it not only internal, but SECRET for five years is going to be that vulnerable to a leak? I'm willing to bet only a few select people at Apple can even get their hands on it. The fact that it was nothing but unconfirmed rumors since 10.0 existed shows how well they're able to control this. I also suspect that these developer machines are probably heavily weighted down with software lojacks, fingerprints, and a buttload of paperwork that will bring the developer to financial ruin if it were leaked out. Finally, only offering this to premier developers who are willing to pay $999 for equipment *rental* suggests that the companies coding on this platform are serious about development, and therefore very strong anti-piracy advocates.


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

Yes. That company is vulnerable to leaks. Mac OS X has leaked since the public beta. Of course they've had the locks down on it internally, but as soon as the devkits are out, Apple hasn't got much control over it. There's the NDAs, but it seems that _some_ developers still shared the developer versions of OS X. Also, the devkits are for Select and Premier members, not only Premier.


----------



## ernie (Jun 15, 2005)

There are several fake OSX_86 torrents kicking around the net. Most are about 956MB too small for an OSX installer, they are an .iso that just does a pornographic splash screen on startup, so don't waste you time looking for them.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 15, 2005)

why would anyone bother looking for these torrents? It's a prerelease version of OS X which is not working completely. Also it was not meant to run on grey boxes so you are facing two obstacles there. Why not wait????


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 15, 2005)

Why would anyone bother?  Why?  Because half the fun of being an Apple user is the company itself, and it's secrecy about it's hardware/software... it's not out of line to believe that some people would find it extremely exciting to get their hands on an x86 copy of Mac OS X and "test" it out...

I highly doubt that people in a professional environment would want to get their hands on "Mac OS x86" for use in a production environment, but I can see a very high desire among Apple fans to run pre-release software to tinker with it.


----------



## ernie (Jun 15, 2005)

AdmiralAK said:
			
		

> why would anyone bother looking for these torrents? It's a prerelease version of OS X which is not working completely. Also it was not meant to run on grey boxes so you are facing two obstacles there. Why not wait????



The rumors on slashdot are saying it's a generic Intel motherboard in the developer boxes, so the chances of it running on "grey boxes" is quite good compared to when Apple ship a full blown system that they have had time to design and lock down. I would personally be quite happy to be able to purchase  OSX_86 to run on generic hardware as well as regular Mac hardware, because I have numerous different requirements that I am sure Apple wont bother making exactly the right hardware for.


----------



## jimbo (Jun 16, 2005)

> Do you really think that a company who managed to keep it not only internal, but SECRET for five years is going to be that vulnerable to a leak?



Controlling something that only exists in your own in-house lab is possible. Controlling something that is on the computers of several thousand people is something else.



> The rumors on slashdot are saying it's a generic Intel motherboard in the developer boxes, so the chances of it running on "grey boxes" is quite good



My bet is that it is highly likely that it will run on 'grey boxes' that have the same motherboard chipset, sound, network and graphics cards as in the developer box.

I think it is highly unlikely that the devel version of OSX x86 will include support for the multitude of motherboard chipsets, sound cards, video cards, ethernet cards, IDE / SATA / SCSI / USB / IEEE1394 / WiFi / ISDN / whatever hardware that is used in 'grey boxes'. So successfully booting to default 640x480x16color VGA without sound or network is probably the best one can hope for on most PClones.


----------



## Cat (Jun 16, 2005)

Apple is planning to use EFI, not BIOS. So I doubt OS X/intel will boot on a BIOS "grey box". Likewise, I'm not so sure windows would boot on a Mac/intel. The developer boxes are not representative of the finished product. Windows will not run without some hacking on a Mac/intel and OS X will not run without some hacking on a "grey box".


----------



## Carlo (Jun 18, 2005)

I would love a copy.. to run OSX on my work HP laptop would be very cool! hehehe

But I think I will stick out and wait for new fast intel macs to ship and just buy one of those.


----------



## fryke (Jun 18, 2005)

Cat: What's EFI, where did you learn about Apple using it and is it impossible for Windows to use EFI?


----------



## fryke (Jun 18, 2005)

Okay. I've read that EFI is to be "the next BIOS standard". I don't think Apple using EFI would hinder Windows installations.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 18, 2005)

EFI is Intel's extensible firmware interface, I BELIEVE Longhorn will use it.

Theres some introductory information at:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/index.htm

quote:

"The EFI specification defines a new model for the interface between operating systems and platform firmware. The interface consists of data tables that contain platform-related information, plus boot and runtime service calls that are available to the operating system and its loader. Together, these provide a standard environment for booting an operating system and running pre-boot applications.	
The EFI specification is primarily intended for the next generation of IA-32 and Intel® Itanium® architecture-based computers, and is an outgrowth of the "Intel® Boot Initiative" (IBI) program that began in 1998."


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

http://lists.apple.com/archives/Darwin-drivers/2005/Jun/msg00020.html

More discussion of EFI for those interested... well, I was interested anyway


----------



## fryke (Jun 20, 2005)

Interesting. Guess we'll only have definite information when the products actually ship. Either way, the question was BIOS/OF/EFI and whether Windows would boot. I guess BIOS is out, anyway, EFI would lead to Windows being bootable and OF - which I don't think will be used, but that's just guessing - would make it harder - but probably not impossible.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 23, 2005)

There's a story on /. about the dev kits; apparently they come with a CD, but they do not install on standard PC's. Hopefully someone will leak out a copy so we can get to looking at its clockwork.


----------



## monktus (Jun 25, 2005)

Cat said:
			
		

> Apple is planning to use EFI, not BIOS. So I doubt OS X/intel will boot on a BIOS "grey box". Likewise, I'm not so sure windows would boot on a Mac/intel. The developer boxes are not representative of the finished product. Windows will not run without some hacking on a Mac/intel and OS X will not run without some hacking on a "grey box".



I think the developer machines are using BIOS since it's a fairly standard motherboard intended for getting something out to developers quickly, but as you mention Apple are going for EFI instead of Open Firmware. There's the expected banter on Slashdot about it; "Why are they using commodity hardware, I'm so disappointed!" / "It's only a dev kit, not a product, don't be stupid" / repeat and so on...

Windows does boot on it though.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 26, 2005)

We don't know if Apple is going the EFI route or not -- it's all just speculation at this point.


----------



## monktus (Jun 26, 2005)

I thought it had been announced on the Apple developer site, could be wrong though.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 26, 2005)

It's been _hinted_ at on the Darwin developer site.


----------



## ablack6596 (Jun 28, 2005)

I don't see why this post is fine when my post about the Tiger for Mac leak was closed.


----------



## fryke (Jun 28, 2005)

Hm. I don't remember that one, but basically: As long as a thread doesn't talk about how/where to _get_ pirated software, it should be fine. Tiger for the Mac being pirated, however, is nothing new at all, and such a thread would not bear much healthy discussion potential.
This thread is different in more than one way, though. The interest of the Mac community (and to some extent the PC community, too) is whether someone gets Tiger/intel to run on plain vanilla computers - and that's what the discussion is really about, it seems to me.


----------



## ablack6596 (Jun 28, 2005)

I agree that is how the thread has become, but the first post is just that there are reports that it has been leaked and asking whether or not it is good or bad.  Tiger being pirated isn't news, the news was that it was out a weak or two early.  My post was like the one here except I showed that it was real by posting the contents of nfo. 

The nfo contained nothing illegal, it was just a description of the release. 

I then made a topic asking why it was closed, I didn't see anything wrong with the thread, and thought I might have been missing something about the rules here.  I then got flamed about that I was promoting piracy by talking about it or something and that thread also got closed.


----------



## Chazam (Jun 29, 2005)

Are you suggesting i was asking if the leak was any good?

What i was originally asking about is if PC owners got ahold of OSX for their PC if it would help them decide if OSX is better than windows. There was a bit of speculation that the leak may have been intential to woo pc users to OSX.

Now the thread has evolved into talking about the security measures on what hardware it can be installed on.

Im my orignal post i posted a few news stories about it which the mods removed.
If i had posted:

*OMG - WHERE CAN I DOWNLOAD OSX FOR MY PC???!?!?1111* then the thread could have and should been deleted.

I didn't post any nfo's, torent links or any downloads for it. I guess that's why it stayed.

EDIT
I don't even have a PC for it to run on even if it did exsist.


----------



## fryke (Jun 29, 2005)

ablack6596: I can only _guess_ what happened to your thread(s). And from what I hear, my guess is this...

Some moderator saw your thread about Tiger already being pirated. This puts the thread in a difficult position, since we _do_ have a board rule about warez, and we generally simply don't allow talking about it. (There's been a LOT of talking in the past about the whys etc., we do _not_ want to over it in this thread again...)

Such threads have the tendency to attract people who are looking for the item talked about, which ends in questions like the bold one in above post (I know that was demonstrational, of course).

So now when a moderator sees such a thread, the thread's in a grey area. We moderators all have our own ideas, and we usually don't blindly delete threads. Some might come across with a longer, others with a shorter leash. That's normal.

However: Once a moderator has decided that a thread has to go according to board rules - and talking about pirated Tiger copies is certainly within the grey area, and a thread about it could go either way... - and put the thread away, that's done. What we _certainly_ don't like is threads like "Why was my thread deleted?". You can ask a moderator in private messages. You can see who's moderating each forum on the forum homepage - http://macosx.com/forums - and click on a moderator's name. While it could be that you get the wrong mod by doing that, the mods of the forum will talk about the subject and come to a decision - unless it's very clear what happened from the very beginning.
(Posting the nfo probably didn't help the thread either, btw.)

If you have any further questions about it, don't hesitate and use the PM system to contact me. Or E-Mail.


----------



## ablack6596 (Jun 29, 2005)

Ok, I mean that's all I really wanted in my second thread.  I didn't understand why it was deleted, and my thread to find out why was also deleted.  I'm happy to follow the rules of the forum, but when threads are just deleted with no explanation I can't figure out what was wrong with them.

And for the thread starter, I agree.  The first post of this thread says that it might have been leaked, that is all my thread said.  That's why I was confused as to why my post was so bad that it had to be deleted off the forums.

And I don't see what's wrong with the nfo, they're perfectly legal.  They just say that the release is out, but I won't post anymore.


----------



## fryke (Jun 29, 2005)

*[Use private messaging for this. I've sent you one. Back on topic, please.]*


----------



## Carlo (Jul 10, 2005)

Should apple keep OS X Intel a secret???? hell no

I think apple should do what they did with 10.0 and offer up a public beta. No doubt they can time bomb it, also making it no accept updates etc etc will give it a limited life.

Why would they do this.. well why not! All the mac heads are going to run Tiger on their PPC systems, the developers can run Intel OSX to do their development work and should any Intel users start running it they might get hooked and end up buying a Apple machine when the switch is complete.

Whilst I respect that apple want to keep it limited, I think they should calm down a little. Time bomb the software, restrict updates for it and once they ship a final product (10.5) make sure that no legit apple updates and software will work on beta OSX.

Besides intel OSX has no new features that we are yet to see on a PPC mac!!


----------



## HomunQlus (Jul 11, 2005)

This is completely random, but I'd call it:

Mac OS X86


----------



## Viro (Jul 11, 2005)

Carlo said:
			
		

> I think apple should do what they did with 10.0 and offer up a public beta. No doubt they can time bomb it, also making it no accept updates etc etc will give it a limited life.



Only to be hacked two hours after it is released to the public. No amount of copy protection is going to help. It will slow down the hackers, but it won't stop the piracy.

Windows XP came with product activation that was supposed to be 'uncrackable' and 'unpiratable'. A crack was released the same day Windows XP shipped. You're deluding yourself if you think you can come up with a copy protection scheme that cannot be broken. If it is in the software, it will be broken. If it in the hardware, it will be bypassed. There are numerous historical precedents for all these happening.


----------



## MBHockey (Jul 19, 2005)

Viro said:
			
		

> If it is in the software, it will be broken. If it in the hardware, it will be bypassed. There are numerous historical precedents for all these happening.



Well said.


----------



## mindbend (Jul 19, 2005)

I agree that there is a very good chance of OS X on 86 being cracked, but I think the end result will be shaky. All the unsupported hardware (video cards) and other technology will make running OS X on 86 as much fun as running, well, Windows.

It will be very interesting. There's good arguments to be made from both sides. I think a small amount of OS X leakage running on 86 would be a god thing for Apple. The more OS X gets into the hands of knowledgeable Windows users, the better. However, given that Apple is a hardware company first and foremost, it can't get out of hand. You don't want everybody easily able to get OS X running on a $299 Dell box. Especially since OS X currently is so easy to propagate.

And on the other side, allowing Windows to run on an Intel Mac has been argued both good and bad. I actually think it will mostly be a good thing. It will allow curious Windows users to give OS X a go with Windows as a backup. Also, think of it this way. The core Mac audience are as dedicated as they come. With few exceptions, they aren't going anywhere. Even if a Windows user buys an Intel Mac and only runs Windows on it, the Mac audience hasn't dwindled, and Apple gets a few more bucks to develop the stuff we like.

It will be very interesting to see how all of this shakes out.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jul 19, 2005)

mindbend said:
			
		

> It will be very interesting. There's good arguments to be made from both sides. I think a small amount of OS X leakage running on 86 would be a god thing for Apple. The more OS X gets into the hands of knowledgeable Windows users, the better.


I've never understood this argument -- a small amount of piracy doesn't benefit Apple in the slightest.

Some people argue that a small amount of piracy will let users "test out" the Mac operating system, and they'll hopefully become switchers after that... why would they switch after they've gotten the operating system already?  That's just wishful thinking.  Anyone smart enough to know how to get a pirated copy of OS X has probably got a lot of pirated software, and won't be likely to start paying for it in the future.  The rest of the people don't know where to get pirated software and/or don't want to break the law, and will get their "dose" of Mac OS X in their own due time -- by going down to the local computer store and trying it out.  Those that don't live close to a computer store or just don't have the means to try OS X out will just have to bite the bullet and pay for the computer, then return it if it doesn't fit their needs.

Oh, and then there's people who just can't afford a computer and/or software.  But that's hardly an excuse for piracy.  I can't afford QuarkXPress 6.5 at the moment, so I'm stuck using it at work or finding an alternative.  Nothing wrong with that course of action at all.

Why would ANY piracy be good for Apple?  Apple doesn't make money off of it, there's only a miniscule chance that the above scenario where someone pirates then buys would happen (not enough to even make a blip on an Apple financial chart), and it's just plain wrong and illegal.  It's like people don't wanna commit -- you want a Mac?  Buy a Mac.  If you are completely dissatisfied with it and cannot get the hang of it and it ate all your data and Windows is so, so, so much easier and more compatible, then Apple will gladly offer you a refund within 2 weeks of the purchase.  The only reason left to pirate OS X is because a) you're too cheap to buy it, or b) you're too poor to buy it, or c) you don't give two craps about copyright law or theft protection, don't mind being branded a "thief," and think the way to combat unjust law is to outright ignore the fact that it's there.

It's like saying a small amount of robbery is good for a convenience store... please, someone intelligently, literately and clearly explain why any amount of piracy is good for Apple -- I just think it's either another excuse to try and justify piracy, or another excuse for laziness/inability to find creative ways to fund one's wants.


----------



## mindbend (Jul 19, 2005)

I could easily explain the piracy argument, but it would be against forum rules. Seriously.

However, I never mentioned piracy. My position includes the possibility that someone legally obtains OS X and somehow gets it to run on an x86 machine.

Now that may or may not be "legal" according to Apple when it's all said and done, but it's a very real possibility.


----------



## MBHockey (Jul 19, 2005)

But as of right now, no x86 copy of Tiger is legal...so it being pirated was a correct assumption made by ElDiablo

I don't think x86 Tiger being leaked would help Apple in ANY way.  People would likely use it, and find it terrible because of such limited hardware support, or, people would like it, and pirate it when the final version came out.

It's a lose-lose situation.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jul 19, 2005)

I see... I apologize for misinterpreting.



			
				mindbend said:
			
		

> The more OS X gets into the hands of knowledgeable Windows users, the better. However, given that Apple is a hardware company first and foremost, it can't get out of hand. You don't want everybody easily able to get OS X running on a $299 Dell box.


Pure speculation: OS X gets cracked by someone who owns a non-Apple x86 machine and who legally purchased a retail copy of Mac OS X Intel.  They then, legally because Apple took the highly unlikely road of not putting any clauses in their EULA about cracking/reverse-engineering/modifying their code, distribute a tutorial about how to crack OS X for Intel and run it on unsupported hardware.  Now, "everybody" is "easily able to get OS X running on a $299 Dell box."  Legally.  That's 50 million users or more, legally purchasing and cracking OS X, amounting to over $6,000,000,000 in revenue -- completely making up for low hardware sales.



			
				mindbend said:
			
		

> You don't want everybody easily able to get OS X running on a $299 Dell box. Especially since OS X currently is so easy to propagate.


How is OS X so easily propagated?  Sounds like piracy to me.



			
				mindbend said:
			
		

> I think a small amount of OS X leakage running on 86 would be a god thing for Apple.


What are the reasons that a cracked version of OS X will be good for Apple?


----------



## nietzsche2131 (Jul 19, 2005)

Piracy or not. OS X on intel is leaked and they making progress. I still see the ponit of not pirating, but hey this isn't a perfect world and it's happening like it or not. But it's still interesting that people are getting far with this. Check this out. A installer guide. 
I hope this is OK to put up on the forums. http://grabberslasher.no-ip.com/macosx/
They haven't been able to get to the gui because of grahics drivers. It's still impressive they getting this far with it. Anyways it's slowly happening and people are going to run it. It isn't a bad thing because it's still showing people the power os x. No matter if it isn't legit or not. I mean wouldn't it be piracy if you viewed os x without even owning a mac?!! Not that would be a scary world. It's a developer's copy people, which means if it's cracked tomorrow and leaks well people are not going to run it for that long. I mean you really can't update it. So in the long run it doesn't matter all that much.


----------



## mindbend (Jul 20, 2005)

I think we're in nitpicking mode right now. I'm really just throwing out a very general opinion based on the premise that "More OS X to More People Equals Good". I'm not saying it's a good business strategy to actually make it an official policy to let cracked versions get around. I'm not encouraging piracy either. I stick to my original premise, which in and of itself simply states that a few extra copies of OS X in the hands of Windows users can only elighten them. At worst, they will be uninspired and "we're" no worse off. Obviously, there's a point of diminishing returns and you can fight amongst yourselves as to where that point is.

A phrase that comes to mind is, try before you buy.


----------



## slooksterpsv (Jul 20, 2005)

As a post from the first page of posts, I think Apple may have released it - good thing they made it "viral" as they call it, cause if people are installing it, it'll just become unusable anyways. Maybe it'll convert more Windows users to Mac. They get a taste, and want to come back for more. - Reminds me of Coyote ugly where what's her name was using Logic Pro making her music on an iMac (or was it an eMac... don't remember).


----------



## fryke (Jul 20, 2005)

It was an iBook.


----------

