Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

doucy2 · May 4, 2006, 06:25 PM

Well would it be possible to take the install disks from my mac mini duo 1.66ghz and install osx on this laptop Sony VGN-SZ110/B Core Duo 1.83GHz Laptop (more specs on it here http://columbus.craigslist.org/sys/157234186.html)

if this would be possible it would be sweet because i dont want to drop a fortune on a macbook pro just yet but yet i still love the stability of OSX Tiger

any help is appreciated

cheers

Kerrigan · May 4, 2006, 07:13 PM

It's impossible to instal OSX on a non-Mac. I don't know why it's impossible, but it is. There are no hacks, no tricks, no mods that can make that happen (at present).

I'm sure other people here would be glad to explain the reasons why this is.

doucy2 · May 4, 2006, 07:58 PM

dangit
well let hope someone finds a way around that soon
i would love to have a nice cheap pc notbook and not run windows

mduell · May 4, 2006, 08:05 PM

If nothing else (like TPM/Lagrande), OSX requires EFI to boot and Macs are the only 32-bit machines with EFI.

If you don't want to run Windows on a cheap laptop, install Linux. What you're asking to do with OSX breaks the licensing agreement, which may or may not be enforceable where you live.

icruise · May 4, 2006, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by doucy2

if this would be possible it would be sweet because i dont want to drop a fortune on a macbook pro just yet but yet i still love the stability of OSX Tiger

This is precisely why Apple won't let you do that.

alphasubzero949 · May 5, 2006, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It's impossible to instal OSX on a non-Mac. I don't know why it's impossible, but it is. There are no hacks, no tricks, no mods that can make that happen (at present).

I'm sure other people here would be glad to explain the reasons why this is.

It is possible and there are quite a number of people who have copies of Tiger up and running. Google is your friend.

Might as well install Linux instead. At least you can get a ton of free apps with little overhead.

ghporter · May 5, 2006, 08:32 AM

Even if you find a way around the different booting scheme, it's a violation of the Apple OS licensing agreement to run OS X on anything but a Mac.

If you want to run something other than Windows on your PC laptop, look into the variety of Linux distributions. Some even offer OS X-like desktop managers so that it would "feel like" running OS X. And this is not only legal, it's almost certainly free as well.

Dr.Michael · May 5, 2006, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by doucy2

if this would be possible it would be sweet because i dont want to drop a fortune on a macbook pro just yet but yet i still love the stability of OSX Tiger

This is a wrong expectation.
Tiger is stable because apple controls the hardware platform.
If you install Tiger on a sony you will experience a bunch of problems with stability.

ghporter · May 5, 2006, 04:13 PM

Has anyone noticed I pointed out that it was a violation of the licensing agreement? That means it's illegal. A user has actually reported this thread because it's about piracy. I don't think so because we've pointed out that it's infeasible AND illegal.

Did you notice the "violation" and "illegal" parts?

icruise · May 5, 2006, 05:32 PM

I think it only makes sense that Apple limits the use of its operating system to its own computers. They spend a huge amount of money developing OS X and (at least with their present business model) this is mostly to get people to buy new Macs.

And Apple's pricing of its OS doesn't take into account the idea of people using it on non-Apple computers (and thus reducing the amount they make on hardware), so you can't say "I'm willing to buy a retail copy of Tiger, so they should let me install on whatever I want!"

I also agree that releasing OS X for all Intel computers would be problematic because there are so many configurations out there, but I can't help but think that it would be more stable than Windows.

Tomchu · May 5, 2006, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Has anyone noticed I pointed out that it was a violation of the licensing agreement? That means it's illegal. A user has actually reported this thread because it's about piracy. I don't think so because we've pointed out that it's infeasible AND illegal.

Did you notice the "violation" and "illegal" parts?

It's illegal only where software EULAs are enforceable, which isn't everywhere.

mduell · May 5, 2006, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Has anyone noticed I pointed out that it was a violation of the licensing agreement? That means it's illegal.

Not necessairly, as it depends what jurisdiction you're in, and more have ruled that EULAs are invalid and unenforceable than have ruled they are valid and enforceable.
From the Wikipedia's page on EULAs (bolding mine):

Enforceability

The forceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court that the case is heard in. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center, and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well.

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "license" and "not sold" arguments, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that's passed UCITA.

ghporter · May 5, 2006, 07:23 PM

There is no way for MacNN to exclude itself from liability for assisting with piracy where these agreements are enforceable. Further, installing an Apple OS on a non-Apple product is acting in bad faith even if the agreement is not enforceable.

Let's do this: if someone wants to TRY to install OS X on non Mac hardware they do so without ANY support or assistance from MacNN, its employees, or volunteers.

Anyone wishing to try such activities must look elsewhere for assistance. This thread is closed.

tooki · May 5, 2006, 08:29 PM

Everything Glenn said is correct, plus our rules explicitly list: "No piracy. Threads that share software or media illegally, explain how to pirate, solicit information on how to pirate, etc. will be removed."

I guess I'll leave this thread up, instead of deleting it, since it contains sensible discussion of the illegality issue.

tooki