[gortpara]

Has anyone ever tried to install OS X on a PC? With all the talk about Windows on a Mac I never hear anything about anyone going the other way.

[CheeseHead]

Quote:

---

With all the talk about Windows on a Mac I never hear anything about anyone going the other way.

---

That's because it's not possible. If you really want to run OS X go out and buy a mac and ditch the Dell. Then you can run OS X and Windows.

[sandbag1]

From his signature, it looks like he already has. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sosumi]

Quote:

---

That's because it's not possible.

---

Actually, it is possible. OS X 86 Project

[CheeseHead]

Quote:

---

Is it legal to download the Developer Kit Installation DVD? Simple answer. No. It is not legal to download it, as the only possible use of the developer kit DVD is to circumvent its copyright protections to enable its use on a non developer machine. Reminder that OSx86Project, it's owners and contributors do not condone illegal activity and will not provide information on how to obtain a download of this or any other copyrighted work.

---

I stand by my initial comment...

[sosumi]

Legality aside, it can be done, n'est-ce pas?

[Martian]

Would a DVD labeled, DTK Mac OSX 10.4.3 Build 8F1111 (INTEL) have any relationship to this?
A DVD+R hand labeled with that name was shipped to me inside a supposedly brand new DVD burner I just bought.

[maflynn]

Yes its possible with a fair amount of hacking and I suspect it's problematic. Is it legal definitely not.
Macintoshs are cheap enough so that you wouldn't need to pirate or brake the EULA to load OSX on a non-macintosh machine. Just look at the mini, very inexpensive and you get OSX too boot /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Randy_B_Singer]

Actually, it is fairly easy to emulate a PowerPC platform on an Intel PC and run OS X 10.3. See:
PearPC project
http://pearpc.source....net/about.html
But performance won't be optimal.

[Martian]

I have absolutely zero intention of bothering with the hassle, but I actually do have 2 incentives to run Mac OS on non-Apple hardware. And I am sure other people have other reasons, and to some just the challenge is sufficient motivation.
Reason 1.....I need a travel only computerSony TX series is the perfect size for me personally (even though it is expensive as hell). Fujitsu, and possibly others, also make laptops just slightly larger and cheaper than the Sony but considerably smaller than any Mac. And unlike the most compact Macs, they all have an important travel featurePCMCIA or Express slots.
Reason 2.....I want to replace my Powermac with another tower plus a 30 display. I absolutely do want a tower and 30" display, but since casual Photoshop Elements is my most demanding application, I dont need MacPros power, or its price. IMac has the perfect power level but dont like the all-in-one for several reasons.

[sandbag1]

Quote:

---

I need a travel only computerSony TX series is the perfect size for me personally (even though it is expensive as hell). Fujitsu, and possibly others, also make laptops just slightly larger and cheaper than the Sony but considerably smaller than any Mac. And unlike the most compact Macs, they all have an important travel featurePCMCIA or Express slots.
I dont need MacPros power, or its price. IMac has the perfect power level but dont like the all-in-one for several reasons.

---

How are you able to overlook the "all in one" form factor of the laptops, but unable to do so when looking at an iMac?

[mdawson]

I was thinking the same thing, but Martian is correct in that Apple is missing a product in their desktop lineup. There is a gaping hole between the iMac and the Mac Pro lines that Apple has not provided a product to fill since the days of the Power Mac G3 desktop; some would count the Power Mac G4 Cube, but the Cube lacked some much as a single expansion slot effectively making it a headless G4 iMac prior to the introduction of the G4 iMacs.
As to the original posters inquiry, Apple is not Microsoft. Microsoft profits from the sale of software and, in typical avaricious Gatesian fashion, now only permits the most expensive versions of the latest version of Windows to be run on Macs(< home users and anyone else that does not need the professional versions of Windows. Apple is and has always been a hardware company, so it is absurd to think that they would ever allow the engine behind their hardwares intuitive usability, security and robustness to ever be used on any other OEMs hardware; at least not while Jobs is at the helmothers do not seem to have what it takes to run Apple correctly. Also, OS X is more robust than Windows can ever be and better integrated with Macs for that very reason. For any given release of the Mac OS, Apple can test every piece of hardware for compatibility because they make the hardware; it is impossible for Microsoft to even come close to that level of quality assurance.

[d00d]

Maybe I'm confused, but no one was talking about emulating the PowerPC platform. The issue everyone is talking about is how hard it is to boot into OS X on an generic Intel-based computer.
And at the end of the day, illegal.

[Martian]

Quote:

---

How are you able to overlook the "all in one" form factor of the laptops, but unable to do so when looking at an iMac?

---

I thought the answer would be obvious.
If you have the room and the money, a tower configuration and giant monitor is the way to go for a desktop. IMacs compactness is no advantage for a significant market segment which includes me.
On the other hand, a travel computer for my needs should be as tiny an integrated unit as possible while still being able to clearly display resolution of at least 1080 at a pixel size large enough for my aging eyes.
I know this is off topic, but I do want to say that although I personally would benefit in the short run if I could run Mac OS on a Dell, Apple could not support ongoing development of the Mac OS without the bundled profits on the hardware. The OS is the jewel, but the hardware pays the bills.