Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

maggiepie · Dec 1, 2007, 08:52 AM

Is there any MacOS version for Intel?

ghporter · Dec 1, 2007, 09:34 AM

Um..... ALL the new Macs are Intel-based, so yes, both Tiger and Leopard are "a MacOS version for Intel." If you're asking "Can I run OS X on a PC?" the answer is NO. There are hacked versions of OS X floating around that can be made to work on basic PC hardware, but it's a violation of the Apple licensing agreement to do so.

peeb · Dec 1, 2007, 10:02 AM

OSX on generic PC cannot be discussed here. Google is your friend though.

kmkkid · Dec 1, 2007, 10:36 AM

Maybe the OP meant Classic, in which case you could use sheepshaver, but it's not the most stable.

Dork. · Dec 1, 2007, 10:41 AM

Technically, the limitation is only on "Apple-Labeled" computers in the Leopard EULA. Maybe if you put a Apple sticker on it you'd be in the clear?

In any case, this question has come up quite a bit. And although it can be debated whether or not the "Apple-Labeled" clause is enforceable, it is there, and MacNN is acting responsibly in discouraging questions like this. Perhaps it's time for a sticky?

peeb · Dec 1, 2007, 10:55 AM

It is debatable whether this is legal or not, but what is not debatable is that MacNN has made a policy that it will not allow discussion of it here.

besson3c · Dec 1, 2007, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

It is debatable whether this is legal or not, but what is not debatable is that MacNN has made a policy that it will not allow discussion of it here.

never mind

peeb · Dec 1, 2007, 06:12 PM

Never mind what?

besson3c · Dec 1, 2007, 06:23 PM

I was going to question why we need to be pedantic about the rule considering that the purpose of the rule is to prevent MacNN from getting itself into hot water by sponsoring discussion on the actual process/procedure of running OS X on a generic PC, which we haven't done. It's almost as if people feel the need to personally protect Apple or something...

However, we've been through this before, and I'm trying to minimize the amount of bickering I do as well as avoiding bickerfests I have not instigated.

Cold Warrior · Dec 1, 2007, 06:43 PM

Give how litigious many companies can be, and how lawyers always need to justify their fees, I think MacNN is going the safe route by reiterating their rule any time this comes up. All it takes is one post and a mid-level litigator looking to make a name for himself to screw up everything here.

Dork. · Dec 1, 2007, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

All it takes is one post and a mid-level litigator looking to make a name for himself to screw up everything here.

Which is why this thread (or one like it, with less navel-gazing) should be sticky, so that we don't have to keep answering this question over and over again.

Cold Warrior · Dec 1, 2007, 07:11 PM

We have too many stickies now. Between the top banner ad and stickies, I can't even see any threads on a page without scrolling down.

It seems like we need just a single sticky for all other stickies.

peeb · Dec 1, 2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I was going to question why we need to be pedantic about the rule.

I'm sorry - I didn't think I was being pedantic, I suppose I was though...

ghporter · Dec 1, 2007, 07:26 PM

Just a little pedantic. But we DO specifically have a policy that is intended to keep MacNN out of any litigation loop: we will not allow the discussion of methods of violating license agreements, methods of overcoming limitations built into software, methods of circumventing registration schemes, or any other way someone can use software in a way not allowed by the software maker. No piracy, no cracking, no kidding.

peeb · Dec 1, 2007, 08:07 PM

Which, not wanting to be pedantic, is what I pointed out...

ghporter · Dec 1, 2007, 08:54 PM

But I get to be pedantic whenever I want to. One of my perqs.

besson3c · Dec 1, 2007, 08:58 PM

That's why I retracted what I said peeb, I didn't mean to insinuate that your post was pedantic. Anyway, moving on...

Maybe we can make this thread about ponies now? That, or ointment... We haven't had an ointment thread for a while, and I know that Dork. is thinking of starting his own line of ointment for head wounds...

Dork. · Dec 1, 2007, 09:30 PM

The ointment is only for head wounds on ponies, sorry....

besson3c · Dec 1, 2007, 09:39 PM

Can ponies even get head wounds?

Oh, duh... of course... what a dumb question besson3c. Ponies get head wounds when they trip and fall running up and down rainbows, which I'm sure happens a lot more than we are led to believe.

TheoCryst · Dec 1, 2007, 09:56 PM

Man, speaking of ponies, I saw the freakiest thing today at Target - a near-life-sized, robotic pony. I didn't catch the price on it, but it was a little disturbing. The worst part is that there were at least three people looking at it.

Wait, here it is: FurReal Friends Pony - Butterscotch : Target

besson3c · Dec 1, 2007, 10:29 PM

It says that the pony eats the carrot you give it... That's crazy! If carrots can power robot ponies, why don't we think about cultivating carrots to use as car fuel, or even rocket fuel? We can grow a lot of carrots, right?

peeb · Dec 1, 2007, 11:32 PM

FurReal Friends? Makes me think of an altogether different genre of product. shiver.

P · Dec 2, 2007, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

It seems like we need just a single sticky for all other stickies.

What is generally called a FAQ. Yes please.

24klogos · Dec 7, 2007, 05:52 PM

dear maggiepie

no. there is currently no versions of mac OS for intel.
Check commodore Amigas from the mid 90's. i've heared they can run that.

C.A.T.S. CEO · Dec 7, 2007, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by 24klogos

dear maggiepie

no. there is currently no versions of mac OS for intel.
Check commodore Amigas from the mid 90's. i've heared they can run that.

Huh?

adamfishercox · Dec 7, 2007, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by 24klogos

dear maggiepie

no. there is currently no versions of mac OS for intel.
Check commodore Amigas from the mid 90's. i've heared they can run that.

Try a Mac from the 90s. I've heard tell that they can run the Mac OS.

imitchellg5 · Dec 9, 2007, 09:51 PM

Hi,

I really want to run OS 8.6 on my Mac Pro. Can anyone help me get it running?

CharlesS · Dec 10, 2007, 01:28 AM

Your best bet would be to try SheepShaver. Unfortunately, it's really unstable, but you should be able to get 8.6 to boot, at least.

Cipher13 · Dec 10, 2007, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

If you're asking "Can I run OS X on a PC?" the answer is NO

So the answer is most definitely "yes" in all ways. He wasn't asking about the legality.

ghporter · Dec 10, 2007, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Cipher13

So the answer is most definitely "yes" in all ways. He wasn't asking about the legality.

We've said as much. We've also said "we won't discuss how to do it here." We ARE concerned about the legality for a number of reasons, and it is the formal policy of the MacNN forums that we will not allow discussions we know to be for the purpose of exceeding, avoiding, or violating limitations placed on software by that software's publisher.