[murtu52]

Has anyone tried it? I want to experiment with it, figure things out, but I never have the time to sit down and fiddle. I found a set of instructions at http://www.tech-reci...c_tips964.html; Anyone want to experiment?

Also, seriously, is this illegal in any type of way (assuming you obtain your copy of OSX Tiger legally)? Technically you aren't stealing anything, but just to be sure....

[macmarauder]

sorry murtu52 all i get is a 404 page. i'll gladly experiment for you if you can find the recipe again and if it will work with a panther cd instead of tiger. as far as legality. i'm not sure but i wouldn't worry about it.

here i fixed your link.
clicky

This post has been edited by macmarauder: 16 August 2005 - 11:47 AM

[Pierce]

Yes, if you correctly read the "small print" it will say reverse engineering of any kind will invalidate your legality of using the software.

Also even if you have OSX for your macintosh, unless its an "intel" powered macintosh the operating system will not install on a pc even with the hack.

Pierce

[isteve]

You can get links from here.

[murtu52]

I've done some reading, i'll do some more research and see what I can do...

By the way, thats macmarauder....

[macmarauder]

well i tried this myself. yes it will only work on an intel system and only with Tiger. not Panther. also yes it is not legal but my personal opinion is loose when it come to legality this small. but do at your own risk. it takes a little fanagling and lots of patience but it runs pretty fast actually. way way much faster natively than using Virtual Pc and others. how ever i would not recommend doing this. i am having several little problems, after all your taking an os that wast written for a memory based system and putting it on a process based system. the biggest reason of why apple has kept os x to them selves is to keep good control over the hardware/software interface and in doing this you throw that out the window. made for mac for a reason. but if anyone wants to try it here is a good forum for just such a thing.

http://www.concretes...osx86/index.php

[murtu52]

Exactly, but just doing it for experience can't hurt at all . I wasn't planning to use OSX as my primary or even secondary OS, just something to try out and have fun with. I always loved apple OSs, just never got the chance to really have fun with them after the first one I had when I was a child and at school....

[TheLetterK]

Quote

after all your taking an os that wast written for a memory based system and putting it on a process based system.

Nextstep was originally written for m68k boxes, and ported to x86 back in 1993. I've got a copy of it, in fact. I'd go so far as to say OS X actually has a longer history on 'wintel' hardware than it does 'Mac' hardware.

Quote

the biggest reason of why apple has kept os x to them selves is to keep good control over the hardware/software interface and in doing this you throw that out the window.

It's because Apple leverages the operating system as a reason to pay for their (moderately) overpriced systems. Apple makes tremendous profit off the sale of hardware in this manner.

[murtu52]

TheLetterK, on Aug 17 2005, 03:50 PM, said:

Quote

the biggest reason of why apple has kept os x to them selves is to keep good control over the hardware/software interface and in doing this you throw that out the window.

It's because Apple leverages the operating system as a reason to pay for their (moderately) overpriced systems. Apple makes tremendous profit off the sale of hardware in this manner.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But isn't another reason why prices are so high is because of IBM's charges? People are hoping that when the Intel machines come out they'll be cheaper....

[TheLetterK]

murtu52, on Aug 17 2005, 05:16 PM, said:

TheLetterK, on Aug 17 2005, 03:50 PM, said:

Quote

the biggest reason of why apple has kept os x to them selves is to keep good control over the hardware/software interface and in doing this you throw that out the window.

It's because Apple leverages the operating system as a reason to pay for their (moderately) overpriced systems. Apple makes tremendous profit off the sale of hardware in this manner.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But isn't another reason why prices are so high is because of IBM's charges? People are hoping that when the Intel machines come out they'll be cheaper....
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell no! Apple gets insane pricing on PPC procs. Here's how they do it:

Since Apple is essentially the only buyer of desktop PPC procs, they can simply withhold new models until the price is right. They force IBM and Freescale to fund development of new processors, then make them store these new processors until IBM or Freescale is willing to drop the price just to move the procs out of warehouses. Intel, however, is not susceptible to this type of coersion.

Pricing will undoubtedly remain the same as it is now, but Apple will make less per unit (though will likely make up for the loss in increased unit sales).

[macmarauder]

OUCH! TheLetterK your supposed to hit the nail on the head, not me.

[murtu52]

Hmm....it seems I've heard both sides of the story now . Thanks TheLetterK, you cleared that up for me....

[isteve]

Looks like apple may be putting some Dual core PPC's in the G5's soon. A dual, dual core G5 has got to be some serious potential horsepower.

Also Apple may be a little unhappy about os x on x86 websites here.

[macmarauder]

yeah double core G5 processors are extremely powerful too. but if memory serves me right they pretty unstable and ran really hot. so much so that Apple was pissed at IBM. they had to use liwuid cooling (which apple still hasn't gotten quite right yet) just to use dual G5s running at less than 2gzh. let alone 2.5gzh like IBM plans.

in the one hand Apple has always wanted to make their money from the hardware which this takes away and in the other the whole reason of why Apples are as stable as they are is because of the control over hardware. like i said i got it to work with extra effort but it's buggy. but i got to admit that when it's working it very fast. or least it's the fastest crashing computer i've ever seen. i don't mean it crashes all the time but when it does i can crash at 150 mph.

thanks for the links isteve.

[murtu52]

Yeah, thanks for the link...

Also, mac, regular G5s already run at very hot temperatures. Thats pricisely why we don't have G5 power- and ibooks. We'd burn ourselves .