[Nolander]

Hay just came from Macrumors and got spat in the face

so i hope yous r nicer

My Q:
Can i put a mac OS on my P4

Thanks Nolander

Ps sorry bout the spelling
pps Sorry if im in the rong place

[kick52]

Originally Posted by Nolander 

Hay just came from Macrumors and got spat in the face

so i hope yous r nicer

My Q:
Can i put a mac OS on my P4

Thanks Nolander

Ps sorry bout the spelling
pps Sorry if im in the rong place

we are extremely nice, and polite people.

though we will kick your ass and swear words you may never of heard before if you use 'r' as 'are' and 'u' as 'you', or you talk about illegal stuff.

you can do this. you can do it via an emulator, which is legal, as long as you own the real os disks.
you can not run it native without doing something illegal at the moment.

[Nolander]

Thanks kick52

I will buy a copy of the os from my local Mac store
ta,
Nolander

Ps Is ta allright lol

[OreoCookie]

No, it won't work.
However, all current Macs can run MacOS X and Windows side-by-side.

[kick52]

Originally Posted by Nolander 

Thanks kick52

I will buy a copy of the os from my local Mac store
ta,
Nolander

Ps Is ta allright lol

to use in an emulator? remember, doing this will be 5x slower how a real mac could perform. (depends on your PC speed though)

if you want it native (no emulation):

a) this is illegal.
b) you cant just pop the dvd in the drive and install.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by kick52 

to use in an emulator? remember, doing this will be 5x slower how a real mac could perform. (depends on your PC speed though)

if you want it native (no emulation):

a) this is illegal.
b) you cant just pop the dvd in the drive and install.

Just exactly what emulator are you talking about? I have never heard of an emulator that installs on a Windows PC that allows the installation of the MacOS.

[utw-Mephisto]

its called google
Posting a link for it won't be allowed and again : its not legal

[CharlesS]

PearPC. It's way too slow to be actually usable, though.

I've got to chime in with the others - you want to use OS X, you need to get a Mac. Getting OS X to run on PC hardware is not possible without resorting to software piracy, of which you won't find help on this board.

edit: Mephisto: huh? PearPC is legal AFAIK; it's just not a realistic option because it is unusably slow.

[P]

Oh there are a few - Softmac, and Fusion and PearPC are a few I remember. They emulate the PowerPC to run various versions of the Mac OS on it. What the OP is asking about isn't that, it's about running the Intel version on his P4, either directly or through virtualization. Virtualization programs include VMware and VirtualPC. One of the easiest ways to get OS X running on a PC is to use virtualization and a hacked version of OS X. Instructions on how and the actual hacked disk images are found on many places on the 'net. This is not one of them. Google knows where they are.

Whether doing this is legal when you own a copy of OS X yourself depends on local laws. IANAL, so I'm not going to advice you there. Do it at your own risk.

[mduell]

It's not illegal, but it's a violation of the terms in the EULA; EULAs have both been upheld and thrown out by various courts in various jurisdictions.

But it is difficult, and you won't find any help here in terms of how to do it. Try Googling to find instructions.

[CharlesS]

It most certainly is illegal, even disregarding the EULA, because you cannot buy an Intel version of Tiger off the shelf. The boxed copies are PPC-only. The only way to get an Intel build of OS X is to get a new Mac or to pirate it. The latter is certainly illegal and against the rules to discuss here.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It most certainly is illegal, even disregarding the EULA, because you cannot buy an Intel version of Tiger off the shelf. The boxed copies are PPC-only. The only way to get an Intel build of OS X is to get a new Mac or to pirate it. The latter is certainly illegal and against the rules to discuss here.

You can buy the Intel install disks from someone who has an Intel Mac.

[mchladek]

Originally Posted by mduell 

You can buy the Intel install disks from someone who has an Intel Mac.

Only if you buy the Mac along with the disks. Buying the disks alone would imply that the OS is being installed on two Macs: one license, two Macs = illegal.

Unless, of course, the person with the Intel Mac runs only Windows or Linux on it and deletes OS X.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Even ignoring that, the illegal part would surely be the selling of your disk, not the buying of someone else's, right?

[utw-Mephisto]

Only legal when they are sold with a Mac (OEM !)

But why do we even discuss it .. you want to run Mac, get a Mac
Now assuming you HAVE a Mac and you HAVE the DVD / CDs and you would like to do it like prove of concept, you search for "x86 mac" on google and you might find your answer .. however .. once again .. it might not be legal !!

[goMac]

Originally Posted by utw-Mephisto 

Only legal when they are sold with a Mac (OEM !)

* ding ding ding *

We have a winner. You can sell the disks, but that means squat. The license for OS X is attached to the Mac that it came with and you need to sell the license in order for the sold copy to be legal. The only way you can transfer the license is to transfer the Mac.

[OreoCookie]

Hold on a second guys: there are ways to obtain Tiger for x86 legally. I could get a licence via university for instance (they have a licence agreement with Apple, we can duplicate the OS X install discs at leisure and get about 50-70 % off on each license; Apple Dev Con is another option) and we'd end up with a violation of the EULA. The EULA is a contract (not a law) and very often bits and pieces are illegal -- in particular when it comes to limitations of installations on different machines and/or supported hardware.

Also, many of you seem to think that it's illegal for the buyer if somebody sells his OS X discs (and thus his licence), no, if the seller keeps on using 10.4, he is in violation of the law, not the buyer. The EU for instance has just reaffirmed the stance that you are allowed to sell software licences and that the EULA can't do much about it (Microsoft in a surprising move tried to prevent the sale of unused corporate licences of older versions of their products, but failed utterly).

So you have to be careful who is in violation of the law and what a EULA really is.

[utw-Mephisto]

I mean you can find DVDs and CDs even on eBay for Intel ..

But we kinda got Offtopic here

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It's not illegal, but it's a violation of the terms in the EULA; EULAs have both been upheld and thrown out by various courts in various jurisdictions.

But it is difficult, and you won't find any help here in terms of how to do it. Try Googling to find instructions.

It's common that parts of the EULA are not valid as a contract for various reasons, the most prominent two are: (i) a company cannot get a blanket cheque without express knowledge of the user (e. g. the user waivers certain right in paragraph 34 section 4 subsection 2) and (ii) certain EULA provisions are in violation of (local) law. HP for instance was spying on its users with its mobile print drivers (to monitor ink consumption, find out what kind of documents are printed, etc.). They first denied it, but since a very competent staff of big German computer magazine could prove it (they also have the fastest webserver in Germany for instance), they got into legal trouble themselves.

[kmkkid]

It's a breach of the EULA agreement whether done by emulation or as a native install. OS Xs EULA specifically states that it not be installed on anything other than an Apple Macintosh Computer.

Breaking this agreement is illegal in the countries that agknowledge it as a binding contract. (Like the US)

[OreoCookie]

Companies cannot put anything in their EULAs and as every contract, they can be contested in a court of law. But to equate it's forbidden in the EULA (a contract) = legal is incorrect, kmkkid.

[P]

This is exactly why I didn't want to advice the OP on whether it was legal or not...

It is actually more common for the EULA to be not valid than for it to be valid - mainly because clicking a button is not a legal signature in most countries, and a legal signature is required for a contract to be valid. There was a recent court decision in the US in favor of Blizzard vs. some people who developed a Battle.net replacement where the court actually said that the EULA was valid, and this has muddied the waters a bit, but in general, the EULA is only valid if you have actually signed it. This happens with volume licensing deals, for instance, but not for single users. This is why the BSA rarely sues anyone for violating the EULA - they sue them for copyright infringement. BSA doesn't want the click-through agreements tested in court, because they know that there is a large risk that they will lose such a test. Right now, they deter people somewhat. If they're declared invalid, they won't deter anyone.

The part that IS illegal in many countries is the circumvention of the copy protection mechanism. By DMCA or EUCD-derived local laws, that is illegal but usually not tested in the courts. In particular the EUCD has lots of exceptions where it may be legal, and member state governments chose which to implement.

If you buy a copy of Tiger for PPC, not use it and then borrow a Tiger Intel disc from a friend and install that on your machine, then I think that it would be legal - if it worked. According to DMCA/EUCD, you cannot now go on and fiddle with the installation to make it work, but if you live in a country that doesn't have any laws against circumventing copy protection mechanisms, you can. I think that this would be legal - at least in theory.

[TheoCryst]

In other words, it's of questionable legality (at best), and Mac Minis are cheap.

However, if you ARE curious, I can give you this tidbit of information: when the Intel build of OS X was announced, people lovingly referred to it as "OSx86"...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mchladek 

Only if you buy the Mac along with the disks. Buying the disks alone would imply that the OS is being installed on two Macs: one license, two Macs = illegal.

Unless, of course, the person with the Intel Mac runs only Windows or Linux on it and deletes OS X.

As you have pointed out yourself, buying the disks doesn't imply that the OS is loaded on two computers. Also, loading it on two computers isn't illegal, it's a violation of the EULA (which may or may not be enforceable).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Even ignoring that, the illegal part would surely be the selling of your disk, not the buying of someone else's, right?

Selling a disk you own is not illegal. See the first-sale doctrine and the recent case law applying it to software.

[monkeybrain]

To the original poster: for anything related to OS X on non-Apple hardware, these forums: InsanelyMac Forum are the place to go.

[ghporter]

In any case, this forum is supposed to be about supporting Mac OS on Macs. It is not about running anything on any other platform, it's not about legal issues, and it's not about subverting, ignoring, or "conveniently construing" license agreements to suit one's preferences. kmkkid, it was my impression that Apple used a "license agreement" and "EULAs" were pretty much the province of Microsoft... And in fact, MS has quite a history of sicking lawyers on people in North America and Europe who violate the terms of their EULA wherever it is enforceable. I've seen Apple sue companies, but I haven't seen any behavior on their part like that of Microsoft's actions against individuals.

Finally, "illegal" implies violation of a criminal statute. At most a violation of an enforceable contract is a tort, curable in civil courts, not criminal courts. I personally think that people who intentionally violate the spirit and letter of Apple's license agreement are hurting both Apple and the Mac community as a whole, and showing bad faith in their actions as individuals. My only concern in this issue is that it be made very clear that MacNN does not support, encourage, nor enable people in violating the terms of such contracts, whether they are enforceable or not. There's a thread in the Alternative OS forum on this same issue, and I stand by my posts there: I will not let anyone assume that we who run these forums are in favor of people violating their license agreements, the license agreements that come with any Apple code, or any other implied agreements attached to Apple's code.

[wingdo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

kmkkid, it was my impression that Apple used a "license agreement" and "EULAs" were pretty much the province of Microsoft...

What's the difference between a "license agreement" and an "End User License Agreement"? Not being sarcastic, they just seem like the same thing to me.

[tinkered]

Correct me if I am mistaken but even if we grant mduell his point and ignore EULA violations:
It takes 3rd party hacks to get OSX to load on a Non-mac Intel platform. Some of these hack must of required reverse engineering or obtaining patented proprietary code. The act of doing something like that is illegal irregardless of a EULA. Just as it is illegal to take my book, rewrite small sections, and publish it for free. Or take my brand new patented design water pump made of pvc, and make it out of brass and sell/give away that. The OS is inherently linked to the hardware and you must break that to put it on a dell, thus creating a derivative version of the software without the creators permission.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by tinkered 

Some of these hack must of required reverse engineering or obtaining patented proprietary code. The act of doing something like that is illegal irregardless of a EULA.

Although I understand the point you're trying to make (and I definitely don't enjoy seeing OS X on PCs), I wanted to point out that reverse engineering isn't illegal everywhere. IIRC the DMCA makes it illegal in the US, but in many other countries and AFAIK most of the EU reverse engineering isn't illegal per se.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by wingdo 

What's the difference between a "license agreement" and an "End User License Agreement"? Not being sarcastic, they just seem like the same thing to me.

Microsoft's agreements are specific to the particular kind of purchaser. There are different EULAs for different market channels, and some of them vary widely from each other. They have site licenses for Windows at large corporations, where the IT folks just load the same image of a disk onto new PCs and shove them out the door, educational agreements where they either give the OS or provide it for a "nominal" fee (roughly $20 at my school) but it's technically only a valid license while the student remains a student THERE, and so on. All I've ever seen from Apple is the basic license agreement that says "don't install this on more than one Mac."

Originally Posted by Simon 

Although I understand the point you're trying to make (and I definitely don't enjoy seeing OS X on PCs), I wanted to point out that reverse engineering isn't illegal everywhere. IIRC the DMCA makes it illegal in the US, but in many other countries and AFAIK most of the EU reverse engineering isn't illegal per se.

As far as I know, we have a huge amount of participation in the U.S. Which means that the federal government could see even allowing a discussion of how to violate the (enforceable in the U.S.) license agreement and/or doing the reverse engineering needed to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware as a criminal violation of the DMCA and a civil violation of the license agreement-on the part of the owners of MacNN. THAT is why I have specifically stated that it's "not good" for us to discuss this here, quite aside from the fact that the question doesn't fit the forum. If it is illegal somewhere where prosecutors WANT to prosecute it, then it's not good for us to help get people in trouble.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Hold on a second guys: there are ways to obtain Tiger for x86 legally. I could get a licence via university for instance (they have a licence agreement with Apple, we can duplicate the OS X install discs at leisure and get about 50-70 % off on each license; Apple Dev Con is another option) and we'd end up with a violation of the EULA. The EULA is a contract (not a law) and very often bits and pieces are illegal -- in particular when it comes to limitations of installations on different machines and/or supported hardware.

You can get a 10.4 for PowerPC license. Not a 10.4 for Intel license.

Although this point will be mute when 10.5 comes out.

[Uncle Skeleton]

"moot"

[mduell]

Originally Posted by tinkered 

Correct me if I am mistaken but even if we grant mduell his point and ignore EULA violations:
It takes 3rd party hacks to get OSX to load on a Non-mac Intel platform. Some of these hack must of required reverse engineering or obtaining patented proprietary code. The act of doing something like that is illegal irregardless of a EULA. Just as it is illegal to take my book, rewrite small sections, and publish it for free. Or take my brand new patented design water pump made of pvc, and make it out of brass and sell/give away that. The OS is inherently linked to the hardware and you must break that to put it on a dell, thus creating a derivative version of the software without the creators permission.

Reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is not illegal in the US.

Neither of your analogies match the situation at hand.
It is legal to buy a book, create a new part for it (like a patch), and post your own part on the web. You're not distributing any of the original work.
It's also legal to buy a pvc pump, create a brass adapter for it, and sell the brass adapter. Patents have nothing to do with creating or distributing a patch.

[Jonathan-Tanya]

You said : "Just as it is illegal to take my book, rewrite small sections, and publish it for free".

It would be a copyright violation, assuiming you hadn't released your book into the public domain, to rewrite small sections and publish the majority of it, unchanged. However, it is very common practice in the publishing industry, to take the outline of a book, rewrite it, and publish the same book elsewhere. You cannot copyright outlines, styles, or ideas. So if I wanted to use your book as a guide for writing my book, that would be perfectly OK'ey dokey.

People have a lot of misconceptions about the law, and thats why its sad, when people don't really know, that they somehow naturally side with big corporate interests like apple, who...are proven to bully the little guy, with utter crap, and even had to pay treble damages for their relentless pursuit of innocent individuals (for example in the appleinsider.com case).....

I personally think apple's eula is worthless and not worth considering for a moment....but in this thread, its kind of obvious that some of you think otherwise, so you will tell him to search google for osx86, and with your vague wording, your conscious is satisfied that you didn't tell him how to find directions for an activity that you think is illegal....

but, I'm kind of a straightforward thinker...that poster just told him how to find the information to break the eula, the eula that he obviously thinks is valid.

Why should anyone listen to the opinion, of someone who thinks like that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You can get a 10.4 for PowerPC license. Not a 10.4 for Intel license.

Although this point will be mute when 10.5 comes out.

No, the licence agreement between Apple and my university for instance doesn't single out a specific architecture. The basic message is that I can install OS X just on one machine (per licence) and I can only use it for as long as I work/study there.

Since all Intel machines came with 10.4, there's no need to purchase a licence for an Intel Mac. But again, the licence agreement isn't specific about the platform.

[CaptainHaddock]

Contract != license

The L in EULA stands for "license", not "contract". (Fairly obvious I should think.) EULAs do not pretend to be contracts, they pretend to be licenses. However, EULAs are "licenses" of extremely dubious merit. A license gives you permission to do something otherwise illegal, like a license to hunt animals where it is normally prohibited. It is not illegal to use the products you purchase in the law-abiding manner you desire. It is not, for example, illegal to run a piece of software on your Mac, or your Xbox, or your toaster (even if there are technical obstacles). Thus you have the natural right to do these things even if no license expressly grants you such rights. A license cannot take away your rights, only grant rights you don't have.

In many cases, the terms of these supposed licenses (EULAs that is) violate local laws. In nearly every case, they provide no rights you don't already have. The paper they're printed on is probably worth more to most people.

What is a contract? A contract is a negotiated agreement between two people, not between a customer and a piece of paper hidden inside a box.

[ghporter]

Don't you have to accept the license agreement as a condition of installing the OS? That acceptance has the force of a contract in the U.S. The agreement does not have to be face to face; accepting the terms of the license agreement is the same as signing a contract.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

...is the same as signing a contract.

In a court, are you sure clicking on a button will hold up as well as a signature?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Don't you have to accept the license agreement as a condition of installing the OS? That acceptance has the force of a contract in the U.S. The agreement does not have to be face to face; accepting the terms of the license agreement is the same as signing a contract.

Apple has no way of knowing, much less proving, who clicked Accept. It could be your 6 year old daughter. Or your cat.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Don't you have to accept the license agreement as a condition of installing the OS? That acceptance has the force of a contract in the U.S. The agreement does not have to be face to face; accepting the terms of the license agreement is the same as signing a contract.

I don't pretend to know about US laws, but according to German and EU law, accepting a EULA on the computer via clicking `Accept' is not the same as a regular, signed contract. There are two reasons: first of all, an average user cannot be expected to read the whole EULA. Second of all, clicking next is not the same thing as signing a contract in paper: anybody could do that and there's no way of knowing who has clicked next. Since a contract is between two or more parties -- here the software company and the end user --, it's important to know who that end user is.

There are Licence Agreements that are binding contracts, e. g. the LA between Apple and my university allows me to purchase an OS X licence for only 50 Euros and copy the DVDs at will as long as I pay for each licence. However, as was said before, the agreement here is different from that you accept on the screen.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Apple has no way of knowing, much less proving, who clicked Accept. It could be your 6 year old daughter. Or your cat.

It doesn't matter, someone MUST click through to get the install to work. And most of us accept the license as one of the very first steps in setting up a new Mac, so the "6 year old daughter" issue is debatable at best. In the U.S., (and Germany, apparently) ANYONE clicking through has the force of a contract.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It doesn't matter, someone MUST click through to get the install to work. And most of us accept the license as one of the very first steps in setting up a new Mac, so the "6 year old daughter" issue is debatable at best. In the U.S., (and Germany, apparently) ANYONE clicking through has the force of a contract.

You can't make a contract with a 6 year old. Or a cat.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It doesn't matter, someone MUST click through to get the install to work. And most of us accept the license as one of the very first steps in setting up a new Mac, so the "6 year old daughter" issue is debatable at best. In the U.S., (and Germany, apparently) ANYONE clicking through has the force of a contract.

In the EU (and thus Germany), it doesn't.

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by Nolander 

Hay just came from Macrumors and got spat in the face

so i hope yous r nicer

My Q:
Can i put a mac OS on my P4

Thanks Nolander

Ps sorry bout the spelling
pps Sorry if im in the rong place

I tend to think I am a nice guy. But have absolutely no idea if you can put OSX on a P4. I doubt it ... even with hacks.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In the EU (and thus Germany), it doesn't.

I misunderstood your post. Sorry.