[Mac User #001]

Like, can a Windows PC boot in to Mac OS X and run it at native speeds? My brother insists it exists, because he wants me to buy a cheaper Windows computer and just install this, but I know otherwise.

Well, he needs proof. Is there anything?

[adamfishercox]

No. Nothing that isn't a hack, might endanger your system, or is legal.

[Big Mac]

[mduell]

Yes, there exists software and directions to get OS X running on a generic PC.

No, we can't discuss it here since it's prohibited by the EULA for OS X (the legality of which is dubious, but not yet definitive).

[Mac User #001]

Alright, thanks. I guess we're both right.

[Mac User #001]

Boy... What a kicker. He's going to totally rub this in my face.

[Big Mac]

It's not legitimate software like Boot Camp, Mac User. You can hack almost anything to run almost anywhere. I don't think that's what your brother was talking about.

[Horsepoo!!!]

I once hacked OS X onto a Mac 128k. Can you believe DAT!?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mac User #001 

Boy... What a kicker. He's going to totally rub this in my face.

It's not like Boot Camp. With Boot Camp, you just need a few drivers and you've got a full, working Windows installation — heck, it often works better than Windows on people's PCs. With the hacked OS X, what you have is a kludgy hack that doesn't necessarily work right in the first place, is a bitch to upgrade and threatens to break at any time. I would rather just run Windows. At any rate, in my humble opinion, it is not a valid option for running OS X — for reasons that have nothing to do with the EULA.

[Mac User #001]

Oh alright. He's still rubbing it in my face. But at least now he understands that I pretty much have to buy a Mac to get OS X. Thanks a lot guys.

[besson3c]

He's rubbing the fact that PCs are cheaper in your face? Why don't you rub your being right in this face?

What I would suggest doing is to abstain from participating in silly Mac vs. Windows arguments and wars, don't be too religious about this stuff, and simply recognize that different computer platforms are appropriate for different types of usage. If the Mac is the best or preferred platform for your use, recognize that you do have to pay a premium to use a Mac. If that premium is worth it, great, if not, cool, use Windows or Linux...

[peeb]

I don't buy that you have to pay a premium for a Mac. Granted apple does not make really cheap computers, but they are no longer much more expensive than comparable PCs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I don't buy that you have to pay a premium for a Mac. Granted apple does not make really cheap computers, but they are no longer much more expensive than comparable PCs.

They most definitely are. Price a Mac Pro. Price yourself a Dell. Post the results here... Notice how expensive Apple's BTO options are too.

Sad that you have to shell out all that money for a Mac Pro, and all you get in the base config is a Geforce 7300 GT. You can get yourself that same video card for between $50-80, except this is supposed to be a pro machine?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They most definitely are. Price a Mac Pro. Price yourself a Dell. Post the results here...

Were the last eleventy billion times people did that for you not enough?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Were the last eleventy billion times people did that for you not enough?

I've never requested anything of this nature, and I thought that in the past it was generally pretty conclusive that while the gap is closing, there is still a premium required to purchase a Mac, particularly with desktops?

[besson3c]

Granted, having just built myself a PC, my senses might be skewed. You pay a premium to buy anything compared to a home-built PC.

[adamfishercox]

Buying a PC and a Mac, and trying to make them as equal as possible (I'd do this by subtracting iLife or adding comparable programs to the PC) seems to come out with Mac being cheaper on the consumer end and more expensive on the pro end. And I'll accept that, because I believe Apple makes better pro computers in general... Not saying the Mac Pro doesn't lag in a few areas...

[besson3c]

Is it a fair practice to subtract the cost of software that comes with the machine regardless of whether you want it there? I say no. The software enticement is a marketing trick (and an effective one, at that), very similar to any other sort of "buy this, get this for free!" sort of deal. However, you aren't really paying for that other thing that is thrown in... This is pull marketing. In order to compare costs fairly, it is appropriate to only compare exactly what you are paying for and disregarding the other stuff that is thrown in. If you could save money by *not* having your machine bundled with this software, none of what I'm saying here would remain my opinion.

Of course, it is smart for a shopper to weigh all purchase incentives, including this... However, to some people this software might not provide any real incentive at all.

Some might argue that it is unfair to take limited time offers and rebates and such into account too...

[besson3c]

Okay, I take back part of what I've said... I have no clue how Apple's prices stack up against Dell or HP, and I'm too lazy to do a comparison right now. I did, however, do a comparison of servers recently and Dell had the XServe beat, FWIW... (of course, I would never buy a server from either, but that's another argument)...

Where I was coming from was the simple idea that you do pay a premium to have a Mac when you look at component costs. Apple charges ridiculously high prices for components and build to order options that are often quite skimpy - even in their pro gear.

Now, is it worth it to pay more for Apple's engineering in spite of the actual costs of the hardware they are selling? For the free software that is included? For the privilege to run OS X?

Obviously we all feel differently about each of these answers. I'm obviously willing to pay that premium since I own a Mac (a Powerbook G4), but I will say that I would be *much* more hesitant to pay that premium for an Apple desktop. The average person (including myself) could not build themselves a laptop like Apple does, and would have difficulty with a Mac Mini or iMac too. However, most of the arguments about good engineering go out the window when you consider that you could buy yourself a well designed case and all of the same components put in a Mac Pro for a fraction of what Apple charges, and the machine would run just fine (you could make it run silent too). The Apple premium is really apparent here, I think.

[ghporter]

A fully integrated, turnkey PC from one of the major manufacturers that matches a Mac Pro feature and capability by feature and capability, would be hard to find, and would likely be more expensive than the Mac Pro. But that's because the MP is a really high performance machine, and the majority of PCs marketed for consumers are anything but. Nowadays, even building a homebrew ain't particularly cheap-have any of you priced building a C2D PC from scratch lately? It is cheaper to get one from Dell than to start from scratch for what I want. With that said, I've yet to see a consumer of mainstream business Dell that was as well integrated as a Mac. As well built? Pretty much. But having the hardware all work together as well as a Mac will out of the box? Not so much at all.

With all that said, OS X is not terribly expensive compared to Vista, and the same version works on everything except maybe a server, which is not the case with Vista-how many versions of Vista are there? And why?

But I suspect that a huge part of the reason Apple doesn't want people trying to use OS X on anything but Mac hardware has to do with the fact that they have no clue what kind of hardware it might be installed on if it isn't a Mac. What a nightmare-as Windows users are well aware, having eleventy billion and four hardware drivers for zillions of devices, many of which are...antiquated...makes for a slow and painful installer load process.

Oh, and just for the record, the purpose of this forum is discussing operating systems other than OS X that one wishes to run on Mac hardware. In the future, I'd like everyone to remember that discussing the opposite, running OS X on something other than a Mac, is definitively off topic. Discussing WHY it isn't a good idea, why it's not easy, and so on, is fine, but expect "how do I run OS X on my cobbled together haxors box?" to be closed with a nice, resounding slam. Not only a violation of Apple's SLA for OS X (which may be enforceable enough to get people into trouble-even though as mduell avers, it's not been thoroughly tested in court), but far enough off topic that I'll enjoy slamming that door.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A fully integrated, turnkey PC from one of the major manufacturers that matches a Mac Pro feature and capability by feature and capability, would be hard to find, and would likely be more expensive than the Mac Pro.

Right, because no one else puts a low-end gamer video card in their mid-range workstations.
Aside from that (and the lack of SAS support in the MP), there are pretty close comparisons with the HP xw8400 or Dell Precision 490.

[mduell]

Well I've got the time, and it's almost that time for new machines at work, so here goes nothing... a comparison of machine options for my line of work across the three vendors. OS doesn't matter since we'll be putting a corporate image (Windows <=4GB, Linux >4GB) on it anyway.

Base option: Dual 2.66Ghz dual Xeons/4GB/minimum size HD+2x250GB HD/DVD burner/entry level graphics/hardware RAID1/23-24" display/3 year warranty... expect $5k here

Apple Mac Pro: 2x2.66 dual, 4x1GB, 250GB+2x500GB, 7300GT, Apple RAID, 23" ACD, APP at $6003
Dell Precision 490: 2x2.66 dual, 4x1GB, 80GB+2x250GB, NVS 280, PERC, 24" LCD, 3 year at $4264
HP xw8400: 2x2.66 dual, 4x1GB, 80GB+2x250GB, NVS 285, RAID, 24" LCD, 3 year at $4545

Prime option: Dual 3.0Ghz quad Xeons/16GB/minimum size HD+2x750G/DVD burner/high-end pro graphics/hardware RAID1/23-24" display/3 year warranty... expect $10k here

Apple Mac Pro: 2x3.0 quad, 8x2GB, 250GB+2x750GB, FX4500, Apple RAID, 23" ACD, APP at $13,290
Dell Precision 490n: 2x3.0 quad, 8x2GB, 80GB+2x750GB, FX4600, PERC, 24" LCD, 3 year at $10,701
HP xw8400: 2x3.0 quad, 8x2GB, 80GB+2x750GB, FX4600, RAID, 24" LCD, 3 year at $11,492

Dell and HP are close (I think HP is in favor with the powers that be at the moment), and Apple isn't really close. Some of that has to do with Apple completely ignoring the not-so-recent Xeon price cut.

[Mac User #001]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He's rubbing the fact that PCs are cheaper in your face? Why don't you rub your being right in this face?

What I would suggest doing is to abstain from participating in silly Mac vs. Windows arguments and wars, don't be too religious about this stuff, and simply recognize that different computer platforms are appropriate for different types of usage. If the Mac is the best or preferred platform for your use, recognize that you do have to pay a premium to use a Mac. If that premium is worth it, great, if not, cool, use Windows or Linux...

I usually do that. Sometimes I have to shut him up though. The premium is always worth it, but its also always out of reach. And since I'm a gamer, he's always telling me it would be stupid to get a Mac, because then I'll just be buying the Windows OS to install it on my Mac.

The only Mac I have ever gotten him to recognize as worthy of its price tag and limited gaming is the MacBook Pro. He even did a search himself and saw nothing with the same stats and comparable design for cheaper.

And I do recognize Windows uses. Paint, for instance. And gaming.

[ApeInTheShell]

your brother is half right. There is an emulator called pear of that simulates a G4 processor. It is called pearpc but it would be slow.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mac User #001 

I usually do that. Sometimes I have to shut him up though. The premium is always worth it, but its also always out of reach. And since I'm a gamer, he's always telling me it would be stupid to get a Mac, because then I'll just be buying the Windows OS to install it on my Mac.

So he reckons it's OK to pirate a hacked copy of Mac OS to install it on a PC but not OK to pirate Windows to install on a Mac?

[peeb]

It's not really pirating - it's possible to use a legit copy of OSX, in which case you are infringing the license agreement. The exact legal status of this is unclear, what is clear is the it's not ok to discuss the details here.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's not really pirating - it's possible to use a legit copy of OSX, in which case you are infringing the license agreement. The exact legal status of this is unclear, what is clear is the it's not ok to discuss the details here.

Using software in violation of the EULA is piracy — if not, what is? (And just incidentally, it's not possible to use a copy of OS X that you paid for, since you can't buy OS X for Intel yet.)

[peeb]

Breaking the terms of an EULA for software that you legitimately own is not piracy. EULAs may or may not be legally enforceable - it's not clear, and the litigation is mixed. Re the Intel thing, it's a stretch, but you could buy an Apple, install linux on it or something, and have a legit copy of OSX. It's not piracy, it may or may not be legal - we really don't know.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Breaking the terms of an EULA for software that you legitimately own is not piracy. EULAs may or may not be legally enforceable - it's not clear, and the litigation is mixed.

That's just saying there may or may not be such a thing as software piracy. Again, what reasonable definition can we give for "piracy" other than "using the software without authorization"?

[peeb]

No, it's not the same as saying that there may or may not be any such thing as piracy - using a piece of software you have not payed for is very well litigated, and the law is very clear.
Using software you have paid for in violation of the terms of a shrinkwrap license is a very different thing. Think of the recent shrink-wrap licenses that forbade users from criticizing the company if they used the product, or the iTunes license that forbids its use in the creation of weapons of mass destruction!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, it's not the same as saying that there may or may not be any such thing as piracy - using a piece of software you have not payed for is very well litigated, and the law is very clear.

So if I go to my dad's and use his copy of Excel, is that piracy? And heck, I've never paid for any of the freeware on my system — I hope that's not piracy.

The best definition of "piracy" I can come up with is still "Using software without authorization from the software vendor." Using software you didn't pay for may or may not be piracy, and that seems mainly to depend on whether the use is authorized.

[peeb]

Look, you can pick apart my hasty description of exactly what piracy is, and make up your own definitions of things, but the fact is that in the case of commercial software like OSX, the law is clear on copies that have not been paid for. It is entirely unclear on the issue of copies that have been paid for, but are being used in ways that are in violation of shrink-wrap licenses.

[Chuckit]

Yes, but what does that have to do with what I said?

[peeb]

You said that breaching the terms of the shrink-wrap license is piracy. The law is entirely unclear on this point. It does not treat them as equivalent, and may not uphold shrink-wrap licenses at all.

[besson3c]

If this person wants to install OS X on a PC, I say have at it...

I don't understand why in addition to all of the armchair forum mods, we also have armchair law enforcement around here too? We don't need to give this person the lecture about how what they are doing is against the law. The chance that Apple has hired some software police that go door to door and will find this individual is ridiculously remote. Moreover, these laws are setup to protect Apple, not us consumers. Apple does quite well in hiring their own legal team, they don't need our help.

[peeb]

Indeed, even if Apple found this person, it is unclear that they have committed a crime.

[Chuckit]

All I was saying is, if you're OK with installing OS X86 (which is pirated, hacked stuff — they definitely don't have the right to distribute it), why would you have a problem with installing a downloaded, cracked version of Windows? His brother was saying he'd have to spend a bunch of money on Windows, which seems like a silly objection to me. I wasn't trying to start any legal ****.

[peeb]

OK! I think I must have misunderstood you! Honestly, I think that companies enforcing copy protection laws will be a huge boost to the Open Source movement. The fact that MS software has been free and easy to pirate has been a huge drag on Linux et al.

[ghporter]

Violating a license agreement is not a crime. If the agreement is enforceable, it is a violation of a contract, and thus a civil matter. In other words, trying to install OS X on something other than a Mac is not a crime per se, but it IS a violation of a contract that you agree to by breaking a seal, clicking on an "OK" box or other mechanism. Whether that contract is enforceable is a matter for other people to discuss-unless there's someone here who's an expert in software contract law-and has the proper credentials to back up that expertise. It IS, however, a crime in the U.S. to do a number of things with software, such as sell unauthorized copies (which IS the original and strict definition of "piracy"), reverse engineering copy protection or other DRM schemes (this falls under DCMA), and so on. Selling unauthorized copies is also a crime in many other countries.

The point is NOT whether or not Apple could discover a person who has violated the license agreement as much as whether it is right to violate that agreement in the first place. Legalities aside, numbers of people violating Apple's agreements could potentially harm Apple. What if all it took to run OS X were a cheapie PC with lame hardware? Wouldn't that have a serious impact on Apple's bottom line? Wouldn't that potentially reduce their ability to bring out new computers and new software? Using OS X in violation of the software license agreement HURTS APPLE, and thus all of us fans in the long run. It's wrong, it's dumb, and it's hurtful.

And now that we're all at the point of discussing piracy frankly, I think it's time to ring the time bell and close this debate.