[Kevster89]

I have always wondered if this is possible. Could I essentially purchase Mac OS X (Let's say Leopard, since its the newest version) and install in on a Dell (or any other non-Apple brand) computer? Would this work.. why or why not?

[Tom_Diola]

No because it violates the End User License Agreement.

Why would you want to do that anyway?

[Kevster89]

I don't want to do that, who said I did? I was simply bringing up a hypothetical situation.

What do you mean it EULA?

[Tom_Diola]

there are many challenges associated with putting
OS X on a vanilla machine drivers etc. Updates .

[radiopromoguy]

End User License Agreement...

It essentially says that Mac software MUST run on Mac hardware, and that by purchasing said software, you agree to abide by the rule of the EULA

[Typhoon14]

It's possible, but not at all recommended.

Problems:
- the Mac OS looks for a hardware protection chip present only in "real" Macs
- Apple only makes drivers for hardware that it puts in its own machines.
- violates Apple's software license.

It can be done with considerable difficulty, but will not be particularly stable or reliable.

[atomic]

I think what Apple is doing should be illegal. Their machines are really no different than Dell or HP machines. Same processors, video cards etc. Yet they are forcing you to buy their hardware to run their software even though it should work fine on the machines. Could you imagine if Microsoft started building intel based machines and only letting Windows run on their machines? People would be in an uproar. Someone should sue Apple.

[Tom_Diola]

Oh you're so right - Oh wait a minute isn't Apple Computer a Business and allowed to run it the way that makes them money?

[kersen13]

Why would It be illegal. A company has a right to license their Product how ever they wish to. And besides isn't it part of the whole apple experience a total hardware software infusion. Heck if I wanted to hack a computer together I would use Linux. But I don't ( that's why I use a mac and Love it every minute). Yeah I paid more But their is not a day that goes by that I am not eternally grateful. And I am looking forward to the day they have a 64 gig Iphone So I can replace my Ipod and cell phone. But thats a whole different subject.

[atomic]

Well what if Microsoft bought out Intel and then said every machine made with an intel chip had to use windows os? Would you have a problem with that? Basically that would put Apple out of the pc business. Same situation here. It isn't fair to companies like Dell, Sony, HP etc.

[Martian]

Macintosh is more about the OS and the apps that run on it than it is about the hardware. So Mac’s real competitor is Microsoft, not Dell, HP, etc.
But how can Apple support OS development and compete with Microsoft just on unit sales that are 1/10 or 1/20 of MS’s? it can’t. if you take away Mac’s captive hardware profit, it could no longer support the OS, and Mac would die.
With that said, it’s obvious as hell that there are a whole bunch of incentives for an individual to want to run Mac OS on a non-Apple machine.
This Mac situation is just a unique manifestation of the conflict between protection of intellectual property rights.

Macro vs. micro.

Collective good vs individual advantage.

[smax013]

atomic said:

I think what Apple is doing should be illegal. Their machines are really no different than Dell or HP machines. Same processors, video cards etc. Yet they are forcing you to buy their hardware to run their software even though it should work fine on the machines. Could you imagine if Microsoft started building intel based machines and only letting Windows run on their machines? People would be in an uproar. Someone should sue Apple.

I don't know if Apple's EULA provision requiring the Mac OS to be run on Apple hardware only is enforceable or not. There are provisions that software companies put in EULA that are NOT enforceable and have been deemed unenforceable in court. Realistically, even a veteran lawyer who specializes in this area could not tell you with 100% certainty. We would only really know until someone violates the provision and Apple takes them to court and the court rules and the ruling has funnelled through the appeal process to the degree that the ruling becomes precedent. Until that point it is a viable provision that could be challenged.



Now, beyond that, I will first note that a Dell computer is NOT the same as an Apple computer. To begin with, all Macs use EFI, NOT BIOS. This does not mean that the Mac OS cannot run on a Dell, but it is NOT as simple as just popping in the disk and installing. There is also the issue that the Mac OS looks for some special Apple chips.



The point is that your claim that the machines are no different then Dell or HP is just not true. There are differences. And that is not even getting into the fact that there is a TON of hardware for Windoze PeeCees that is NOT supported on Macs. For example, there are a TON of different graphics cards for Windoze boxes that will not work with a Mac Pro even though a Mac Pro has the same type of processor and expansion slots as those Windoze PeeCees.



In the end, there is a LOT of stuff that just would not work well with the Mac OS as there are not drivers or support for them...at least not work well without a lot of effort. And that is at least one reason why Apple is at least partially justified in their position. Face it, the provision gives them a LOT more cover to say "tough $hit" when someone wants support for trying to get the Mac OS to run on a Dell. I suspect that Apple might not pursue legal action under that provision against some user, but it gives them 100% cover to say "sorry, we prohibit that use and thus don't have to support it".



The point is that I will certainly question whether they should be able to actually prohibit such a use and take legal action against someone who tries to do it, but I don't question their right to say "here is the hardware that it is designed for, tested for, and that we will support it for."



As a case in point, I have not seen any headlines about Apple going after Psystar. Does not mean that they won't. But, they might view them as minor annoyance and basically let it pass unless it becomes a major hassle or problem as right now it is probably not worth the legal costs (it would not suprise me if they were to send a "cease and desist" letter, but I am not sure they would be bothered at this point to do more). But, then Apple does tend to aggressively protect their turf at times...rightly or wrongly.

[Martian]

Any action Apple takes will generate negative publicity. Apple's action would “advertise” to the masses that you can run Mac OS on a PC, and it would wake up (misdirected) consumer advocacy and anti-business groups.
Apple must save any legal action for if and when they have a legal case strongly in their favor. If Psystar were to intercept Mac OS updates, modify them, and then redistribute them, this might be the winnable case that Apple is waiting for.

Meanwile, Apple could be working on several different stealth routes to sabotoge Psystar units.

[smax013]

Martian said:

Any action Apple takes will generate negative publicity. Apple's action would “advertise” to the masses that you can run Mac OS on a PC, and it would wake up (misdirected) consumer advocacy and anti-business groups.

Apple must save any legal action for if and when they have a legal case strongly in their favor. If Psystar were to intercept Mac OS updates, modify them, and then redistribute them, this might be the winnable case that Apple is waiting for.

Meanwile, Apple could be working on several different stealth routes to sabotoge Psystar units.

Not to mention that it might be possible that the provision is unenforceable and Apple suspects that and thus does NOT want to push it to court to actually have it ruled that way. Even if the provision is unenforceable, it has deterant value right now. If Apple where to go after someone and LOSE in court, then open up the masses to the realization that it was actually unenforceable.



I have no dbout that there are a lot of people/entities that bluster and send out cease & desist orders on something that they claim is protected, but then never really push the issue because they KNOW they would actually lose. It is kind of a like bully on a playground...that bully is only scary until some kid stands up to the bully and shows that the bully was really just all talk and not so scary after all. Of course, sometimes the bully really does beat the snot out of you, too! ;)