# built my own MacIntel



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

i may get flamed for this but i thought i'd ask anyway cuz i'm curious. i just built my own MacIntel last night and i'm currently surfing this forum with it. i'm running a system with a Pentium D 805 (dual core 2.66ghz), 1gb ddr2, GMA950 video, GB lan, HD audio, SATA2, Pioneer 111D DL writer, and logitech LX 500 KB/M (great for both PC/Mac cuz it's fully supported in both. all this for about $650. this cost is sans monitor.

has anyone else experimented with runing OSX x86 on PC hardware?

now that i've got OSX running, gonna install either WinXP x64 or Win2k3 R2 on it and have one really nice dual boot machine!!!


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

I'd really interested in this project. How difficult was the install? What works and doesn't work right now? Is it Intel specific, or does it run on all x86 processors?

Isn't the Pentium D a 32 bit processor?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACME--You should just buy some empty G-5 boxes and start selling these. It's the logical result of Apple conforming itself to PC architecture.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

What OS? I'm betting it's an old one, and that software updates aren't going to work.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

milhaus said:


> I'd really interested in this project. How difficult was the install? What works and doesn't work right now? Is it Intel specific, or does it run on all x86 processors?
> 
> Isn't the Pentium D a 32 bit processor?


best thing is to get a mobo that has as much on board INTEL hardware on it as possible. 915 or 945 chipset are the best, with either GMA900 or GMA950 on board video. i went with the more expensive 945 chipset cuz i wanted a Pentium Dual Core, but if you want to go real cheap, get a 915 board and you can use a Celeron Dual Core, which would have saved me $100 or more.

anything marked as a EM64T is a 64bit processor. btw, ppl have OSX x86 running on AMD processors as well!


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> MACME--You should just buy some empty G-5 boxes and start selling these. It's the logical result of Apple conforming itself to PC architecture.


As lovely as they are, the G5 boxes are WAY too big! i use a dual G5 at work and that thing is a BEAST!!! i opted to go as small as possible with this m-atx mini tower, no where near as compact as my G4 mini, but IMHO it's nice enough!


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> What OS? I'm betting it's an old one, and that software updates aren't going to work.


i'm running 10.4.5. other ppl have already updated to 10.4.6. when i say updated, i should say patched, since of course you can't use the "update" in OSX.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacMe--I wouldn't worry about getting flamed. Many Mac-sters were almost wetting themselves when Apple released BootCamp, so seeing this is going to have them even more excited!


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Macfury said:


> MacMe--I wouldn't worry about getting flamed. Many Mac-sters were almost wetting themselves when Apple released BootCamp, so seeing this is going to have them even more excited!


doubt it.

Hacked Box, Hacked Software..... (read illegal)

I for one would rather support Apple thanks 


Besides, many Macsters already knew that this could be done. But, haven't done it. Because? It's not a Mac  

This was around LONG before Bootcamp was around. People were doing this when the Intel Transition Boxes were released.


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

People were doing this months before the trasnsition...when os x86 leaked onto the internet. I'm with vexel though would much rather buy apple hardware!


----------



## pcronin (Feb 20, 2005)

obviously one of the .isos from 'net land eh?
I would love to go to Appleworld and put the coin down for OS X X86, so I could 3x boot a machine.
but, if Apple were to do that, OS X would start with the same probs as WinXP. The reason X is so much smoother, is b/c there's only certian hardware that it has to support. XP has to support every random card out there... 

*sigh* to dream.
I'm going to end up building a Linux box before getting a G5/Intel tower, b/c it's way cheeper. 

However, my mini runs XP like a dream, but other than showing people, I've been staying in OS X.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

pcronin said:


> obviously one of the .isos from 'net land eh?
> I would love to go to Appleworld and put the coin down for OS X X86, so I could 3x boot a machine.
> but, if Apple were to do that, OS X would start with the same probs as WinXP. The reason X is so much smoother, is b/c there's only certian hardware that it has to support. XP has to support every random card out there...
> 
> ...


if you are planning on building a linux box, why not spec it up properly and run OSX x86 on it as well?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

>> Hacked Box, Hacked Software..... (read illegal)

Didn't know it was illegal to change software to suit your own needs--as long as you pay for it and don't distribute it.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Macfury said:


> >> Hacked Box, Hacked Software..... (read illegal)
> 
> Didn't know it was illegal to change software to suit your own needs--as long as you pay for it and don't distribute it.


#2 on the Mac OS X 10.4.4 EULA



> 2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
> A. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer
> at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable
> others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you
> ...


http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx1044.pdf


----------



## Pavmentsurfer (Jan 4, 2006)

Thats just silly. You can buy our software but ONLY use it in our computers. What the hell man, they cant tell you what you CAN and CANT do with software you LEGALLY purchase. As long as you dont have it on more than one computer (which I agree is wrong) you should be able to load the software on any machine you want. I highly doubt this would hold up under any law. Thats like saying you can buy a CD and ONLY play it in a SONY CD player... you cant control that. 
I think if its purchased legaly, go ahead. The only people your offending are the Mac diehards. And who cares what they think... they wont like what anyone but the Mac factory does anyway.

Pavmentsurfer


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

You buy the right to run the software under the terms and conditions specified under the EULA etc., you don't actually own it.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I highly doubt this would hold up under any law.


of course it would. the end user agreement is contract like any other, with its own terms and conditions. apple could have written 'you may only use this software with an apple branded mouse' and it would still be enforceable.

if you don't like the terms of the contract, don't use the software, *or*, violate the terms of the contract and take your chances, since the probability of being caught is fairly miniscule.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was checking out the Windows XP EULA:

>> The Software may not be used by more than one 
>> processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

So we'd better be careful running Windows on any Macintosh's that have dual processors--just to ensure we're not engaging more than one processor at a time. Them's the rules.


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

Let's face it. It can and has been done legally or otherwise.
But for the majority of users, it's just way too much effort and geekness to deal with.

With refurb prices bringing down the cost of an iMac 17" to $1299, I wouldn't bother.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I was checking out the Windows XP EULA:
> 
> >> The Software may not be used by more than one
> >> processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
> ...


You should see the EULA for Windows server and the subsequent licensing terms it has. You need to buy a license not only for the amount of users who will connect to your services, but also for how many processors your server has. Its pretty sad, but its been like that for a long time.

Trev


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I worked for a company that printed the terms of its "contract" on the back of the check it paid to suppliers. By signing the back of the check, you were also signing the contract. I doubt that would hold up in court either.


----------



## Blood_Lust (Sep 7, 2003)

MacME said:


> i may get flamed for this but i thought i'd ask anyway cuz i'm curious. i just built my own MacIntel last night and i'm currently surfing this forum with it. i'm running a system with a Pentium D 805 (dual core 2.66ghz), 1gb ddr2, GMA950 video, GB lan, HD audio, SATA2, Pioneer 111D DL writer, and logitech LX 500 KB/M (great for both PC/Mac cuz it's fully supported in both. all this for about $650. this cost is sans monitor.
> 
> has anyone else experimented with runing OSX x86 on PC hardware?
> 
> now that i've got OSX running, gonna install either WinXP x64 or Win2k3 R2 on it and have one really nice dual boot machine!!!


a friend of mine has been running OSX in his PC for 2 months now. HE just recently updated it to 10.4.6 :clap:


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> I worked for a company that printed the terms of its "contract" on the back of the check it paid to suppliers. By signing the back of the check, you were also signing the contract. I doubt that would hold up in court either.


possibly, but we're talking about totally separate things.

the issue with the contract on the back of the cheque is that the court may not recognize it as a contract at all, which is different than saying specific terms found in a legal contract are null (because you don't like them).


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I was checking out the Windows XP EULA:
> 
> >> The Software may not be used by more than one
> >> processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
> ...


FWIW - A dual core processor is still a single processor. There is only one processor slot on the motherboard. There are some systems out there that provide multiple processor slots (the old Pentium II dual systems come to mind) but the current wave of dual cores is still a single chip solution.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

> Thats just silly. You can buy our software but ONLY use it in our computers. What the hell man, they cant tell you what you CAN and CANT do with software you LEGALLY purchase.


Actually, they CAN and HAVE.



> As long as you dont have it on more than one computer (which I agree is wrong) you should be able to load the software on any machine you want. I highly doubt this would hold up under any law.


It's intellectual property and they can govern that as they wish. I actually think it's a good thing. Most software companies are like this. And yes, it would hold up under law.



> Thats like saying you can buy a CD and ONLY play it in a SONY CD player... you cant control that.


Actually, they could make it law.. and legally charge you if you were caught using another CD player. But, it's not like that for Music CD's. However, there are plenty of Digital Downloads which are this way. So, I guess it depends on the type of information that we're talking about.



> I think if its purchased legaly, go ahead. The only people your offending are the Mac diehards. And who cares what they think... they wont like what anyone but the Mac factory does anyway.


Actually.. there's lots of people who DO respect intellectual property and its uses. They don't have to be "Mac Diehards" as you so elegantly put it. If you don't like the rules.. don't play the game. :baby:


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MACME--You should just buy some empty G-5 boxes and start selling these. It's the logical result of Apple conforming itself to PC architecture.


It would actually be illegal to do this. The MacOS EUL allows you to only run the MacOS on Apple produced hardware. Trust me. A person already tried doing this with a PowerPC machine when MacOS ran only on PowerPC machines. He was put out of business by Apple.

So can he do it himself? Probably, as Apple isn't going to go after a person who did it once. Can he start selling these. NO.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I trust you that it's illegal. However, I suspect that Apple has opened a Pandora's Box by aligining itself so closely with the IBM-PC. My predicition: this will be happening more and more often until Apple begins licensing OSX (or whatever) for IBM just to stake out lost territory.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I think secretly Apple does want those geeks to run it on the x86 system and see that they like it, and eventually when they can't run the next version of MacOS (ex. Tiger 10.5.x) on their x86 system because Apple locks them out, they'll buy an Apple Intel machine just so they can run MacOS X, Windows, and any other operating system out there.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh: Well, if they did THAT, I would admire them very much!


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

10.5 will be hacked, just like every other version has.

I've been into the whole OS X on x86 thing since the beginning, and I too currently run OS X on a custom machine designed specifically for that purpose. It outperforms Apple's current offerings at a fraction of the price. I'm up to date with 10.4.6, and everything is 100% compatible and pretty much guaranteed to stay compatible since my system is based on hardware on the currently available macs (Intel 945 chipset, Pentium D 9xx series processor with VT, comparable enough to the core-duos feature wise). It's really nice having dual monitors and running Windows inside of Parallels on one monitor, and OS X on the other.

If you use software update to update the OS, you'll end up with a non-booting system, however the combo updates have been hacked so you can just download it and install it like you'd install a combo update from Apple themselves.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I trust you that it's illegal. However, I suspect that Apple has opened a Pandora's Box by aligining itself so closely with the IBM-PC. My predicition: this will be happening more and more often until Apple begins licensing OSX (or whatever) for IBM just to stake out lost territory.


Okay, then, but please answer my initial question: does everything work? Hardware support is all there? i.e. plug in USB device, and it's recognized and works fine? Uses graphics cards properly? All apps work ? Rosetta runs fine? Networking all okay? Seriously, I want to know because if that's the case, I'm building my own . . . 

How many hackers run OS X as the primary system on their intel machines? Not many I'm guessing.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

OK well thank God we seem to have finished with the typical ehMac IP/copyright bitch-fest. Let's get down to teh really interesting question. How does it benchmark? Let's see some real world numbers that can be compared directly (Apple to apples, natch) to other posted numbers out there (e.g. on Barefeats or in the Maccentral or Macintouch reviews).

When you say it's smokin' hot I certainly believe you, but if you want to claim it blows the Apple h/w away, it's time to put your money where your mouth is ...


----------



## jdurston (Jan 28, 2005)

mycatsnameis said:


> OK well thank God we seem to have finished with the typical ehMac IP/copyright bitch-fest. Let's get down to teh really interesting question. How does it benchmark? Let's see some real world numbers that can be compared directly (Apple to apples, natch) to other posted numbers out there (e.g. on Barefeats or in the Maccentral or Macintouch reviews).
> 
> When you say it's smokin' hot I certainly believe you, but if you want to claim it blows the Apple h/w away, it's time to put your money where your mouth is ...



Agreed, as soon as this thread started I knew there was going to be a big legal discussion. If you guys want to discuss legal, start a new thread (I think the topic is big enough to warrant it). This thread is to directly discuss homemade Macs and one user's successes.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I think you should take your thread to OS X86 if you don't want the legal issues in this one. Obviously, in a place where so many people like Apple, and what they do, your thread is going to be bashed.

Quite simply, what's happening is wrong.. therefore, expect people to reply.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

jdurston said:


> Agreed, as soon as this thread started I knew there was going to be a big legal discussion. If you guys want to discuss legal, start a new thread (I think the topic is big enough to warrant it). This thread is to directly discuss homemade Macs and one user's successes.


Hey, someone else brought up the topic of selling these, I didn't.


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

yawn... so if we put the legal issues aside, other than the fairly obvious setup of going with the same chipsets that Apple uses that address the obvious driver issues of OS X, what are we really talking about?
1. Proof that it can be done - as others have pointed out, been there, done that.
2. Updates need to be hacked to be applied - assuming enough people are doing it, someone will be hacking them - maybe not the day after they're released, but soon enough that its not a practical issue. Of course Apple will make it more difficult and of course someone will hack around it eventually - yawn...

3. yawn... someone close this thread, I'm falling asleep and its only 10 am

[Edit]: I just realized this sounds a bit harsh, not my intent. Just blowing off at the 4 pages of discussion on this.
The only mildly interesting discussion IMO is how this is going to affect Apple's bottom line wrt h/w sales over the next few years.
They'll have to enable OSX for non-Apple h/w eventually - you only have to look at Sun Microsystems to see the evolution of this h/w path.
They'll continue to sell h/w on their own merits and people will buy.
Given the niche space Apple h/w sells into, its unlikely to be much impacted by this.
Of course, any major growth in the PC space thru h/w sales is unlikely to happen.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I just can't see Apple licensing OS x for non-Apple hardware, there's just to many configurations and hardware headaches out there to support.


----------



## RISCHead (Jul 20, 2004)

They don't have to support everything - simply document what they choose to support. There's no point in fighting this battle by trying to cripple every update and losing out on OSX revenue at the same time.
Its a pretty standard model other hardware and OS vendors follow - Sun, HP, IBM in the the Intel/Linux/UNIX space.


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

Yup, totally. I would buy an Intel boxed version of OS X.

I do actually use it as the primary OS on my desktop, and everything works. I mean EVERYTHING. It xBenches around 125 overall with a lousy old Seagate 120GB that scores less than 50 on the disk test, I can't wait to get my 10,000 RPM Raptor back from RMA, then the overall score with disk will probably settle right around 150. It xBenches 155 when you leave the disk test out.

From what I saw, the loaded iMacs were benching less than 100.

I guess the big thing for me is that they haven't released the Intel PowerMacs yet. I would likely buy one if they were really worth it. I own a PowerBook and an iBook, and will be buying a 13" MacBook when it arrives on the scene. Apple does make beautiful looking hardware, but right now their offerings simply aren't that great compared to the available PC hardware, and the cost is still too high for what you get.


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

NBiBooker said:


> I just can't see Apple licensing OS x for non-Apple hardware, there's just to many configurations and hardware headaches out there to support.


Apple won't licensce OS X because it would hurt their hardware sales end of story.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

mycatsnameis said:


> OK well thank God we seem to have finished with the typical ehMac IP/copyright bitch-fest. Let's get down to teh really interesting question. How does it benchmark? Let's see some real world numbers that can be compared directly (Apple to apples, natch) to other posted numbers out there (e.g. on Barefeats or in the Maccentral or Macintouch reviews).
> 
> When you say it's smokin' hot I certainly believe you, but if you want to claim it blows the Apple h/w away, it's time to put your money where your mouth is ...



FINALLY, some ppl are actually answering my post and keeping on topic of what I was introducing for discussion! man this one almost turned into the flamefest when i asked about CRT vs LCD!!! tptptptp

having just built my system and installing OSX86, i can't say much on how it performs to say a dual G5 or a real MacIntel. but i can confidently say it smokes my G4 Mac Mini in booting and response time. I will probably do some more testing this week-end when i get the chance.

here's a review on the MacBook Pro where they do some benchmark comparisions with it and a Powerbook G4, and a Dell Inspiron 9100 running hacked OSX86.

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbookpro.ars/5


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

HowEver - By default, it's set to 10 posts/page. At times I find the highest setting; 40 posts/page not adequate enough, but it's a balance between less info, or more work to render a larger page.


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

MacME said:


> FINALLY, some ppl are actually answering my post and keeping on topic of what I was introducing for discussion! man this one almost turned into the flamefest when i asked about CRT vs LCD!!! tptptptp
> 
> having just built my system and installing OSX86, i can't say much on how it performs to say a dual G5 or a real MacIntel. but i can confidently say it smokes my G4 Mac Mini in booting and response time. I will probably do some more testing this week-end when i get the chance.
> 
> ...


Of course it will smoke the mac mini, honestly. Your comparing a dual 2.66 with a G4 mac mini.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

Aero said:


> Of course it will smoke the mac mini, honestly. Your comparing a dual 2.66 with a G4 mac mini.


well yeah i could have guessed it would run faster than my G4 Mini. but before having actually done it, i didn't know how much faster it would be considering it isn't running on actual Mac hardware. as well as the fact that most apps i use would be running under Rosetta.

give me a week or so and then i'll let you know how it fairs compared to a dual G5 which i use at work.


----------



## Aero (Mar 2, 2006)

MacME said:


> well yeah i could have guessed it would run faster than my G4 Mini. but before having actually done it, i didn't know how much faster it would be considering it isn't running on actual Mac hardware. as well as the fact that most apps i use would be running under Rosetta.
> 
> give me a week or so and then i'll let you know how it fairs compared to a dual G5 which i use at work.


I would guess that the G5 will definitely run faster. Test the universal apps, g5 vs the other one. Its pointless to compare a G5 running a PPC apps vs a rosetta running a PPC apps. Even the true intel macs doesnt do well when running rosetta ppc apps (compared to G5 ofcourse).


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

You can slice it as thin as you like, it's still baloney. There is no legal way to install an Intel version of OS X on a non-Apple computer. The only legal way you can even possess a copy is by purchasing an Intel-Mac computer. 

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. It lives or dies by its hardware sales. Software, including OS X is merely an adjunct to hardware sales. Anything that harms Apple's hardware sales is against all our interests. If OS X is widely pirated to run cheap white-box PCs, Apple's sales will decline. Do you want to be a part of that?


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Gerbill said:


> You can slice it as thin as you like, it's still baloney. There is no legal way to install an Intel version of OS X on a non-Apple computer. The only legal way you can even possess a copy is by purchasing an Intel-Mac computer.
> 
> Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. It lives or dies by its hardware sales. Software, including OS X is merely an adjunct to hardware sales. Anything that harms Apple's hardware sales is against all our interests. If OS X is widely pirated to run cheap white-box PCs, Apple's sales will decline. Do you want to be a part of that?


:clap:

Well said. Exactly my point.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I'm sure Apple makes some money off Logic Pro and Final Cut Studio. 

That being said I'm wonderring if it's time for an addendum to ehmac.ca's forum rules to ban all talks that even relate to piracy of software, let it be MacOSX, Front Row Enabler, Microsoft Windows, etc... though there is such a huge grey area in there.


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

> Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. It lives or dies by its hardware sales. Software, including OS X is merely an adjunct to hardware sales.


This is what IBM thought about Microsoft when they comissioned them to make them an OS for their machines. 

OSX is the centre of the Apple universe not the hardware they sell although the two are intimately tied together for the moment.

Given that Apple obviously knew how easy it would be to get OSX running on a generic PC it is niave to expect that the discussions are not already well underway for broad licensing of the OS to other manufacturers.

Consider this, the physical cost of an OSX package is probably not even a dollar and it sells for around a $150. Apple's real cash cow is in the mainstream acceptance of their OS and they know it.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

> FINALLY, some ppl are actually answering my post and keeping on topic of what I was introducing for discussion! man this one almost turned into the flamefest when i asked about CRT vs LCD!!!
> 
> having just built my system and installing OSX86, i can't say much on how it performs to say a dual G5 or a real MacIntel. but i can confidently say it smokes my G4 Mac Mini in booting and response time. I will probably do some more testing this week-end when i get the chance.
> 
> ...


Benchmarks!
Benchmarks!
Benchmarks!

Let's hear 'em!


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, oops, benchmarks, benchmarks, benchmarks, benchmarks...


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

Visual-Q said:


> OSX is the centre of the Apple universe not the hardware they sell although *the two are intimately tied together for the moment*.


This has always been the case and won't change.



> Given that Apple obviously knew how easy it would be to get OSX running on a generic PC it is niave to expect that the discussions are not already well underway for *broad licensing of the OS to other manufacturers*.


So long as the Stevie J. is at the helm, this won't ever happen. Don't you remember when he came back to Apple, the first thing he did was to kill the clones. Only Macs will legally be able to run the Mac OS.


----------



## hokuto (Apr 19, 2006)

Where are all the mods? This is ridiculous, this forum is discussing something that is illegal. The only way someone could get OS X for Intel is by downloading it from a Torrent site online. Does that mean we can all start new topics now asking people where to download Microsoft Office, or asking for support because the version of Final Cut Pro we downloaded isn't working? Because that's exactly what this is. There's plenty of other sites online dedicated to this topic that the user can refer to. Come on Mods, set an example.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

hokuto said:


> Where are all the mods? This is ridiculous, this forum is discussing something that is illegal. The only way someone could get OS X for Intel is by downloading it from a Torrent site online. Does that mean we can all start new topics now asking people where to download Microsoft Office, or asking for support because the version of Final Cut Pro we downloaded isn't working? Because that's exactly what this is. There's plenty of other sites online dedicated to this topic that the user can refer to. Come on Mods, set an example.


when has having open discussion regarding something illegal, become illegal??? so i guess newspapers and television should stop covering illegal matters, interviewing (ex) criminals? never has anyone in this thread asked me, or have i given out information regarding WHERE to obtain software, or even HOW to install software illegally.

i don't see this as being any different than the time on EhMac when all the discussion was done regarding FrontRow working on Macs that didn't come with it, or when ppl started discussing how to boot WinXP on their MacIntels prior to Apple releasing BootCamp.

EhMac is a forum to discuss all things Apple, is it not? that includes all the good and the bad that comes with it. but it seems some users are too closed minded to have such discussions.

so if any mod wishes to close this thread, that's fine by me. as *hokuto* has pointed out, there are plenty OTHER forums i can share my opinions and experience with. better to do it there than to waste my time here.


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

I for one would like to see this thread carried on with the OP's orignal intent... It's not like we couldn't use a break from some of this forum's puritanical blandness; no need to hijack the thread fellas, start another...


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I used to have a PowerMac 7300 MacinTel, Still have the PCI card.
Amazing how some things still remain the same...Well almost the same.

D


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

hokuto - The thread is simply about one user's experience of how they've got OS X working on their own x86 system. Sure it's illegal to be running it, but we aren't talking about how to crack the system, where to download the disc (if he even got it off the web instead of a CD from an Intel Mac.).

There are better sites that discuss about OS X on your own built machine (x86Mac for one), but so long as this thread stays out of the actual steps or where to obtain the software I feel it's fine.

Let's see some benchmarks! (Geekbench works.)


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Visual-Q said:


> Consider this, the physical cost of an OSX package is probably not even a dollar and it sells for around a $150. Apple's real cash cow is in the mainstream acceptance of their OS and they know it.


Yes, because we all know it cost Apple nothing to develop OS X, so Apple makes $149 profit every time the OS X Package is sold. Yes...and pigs fly.

Cough...no business sense...cough.


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> Yes, because we all know it cost Apple nothing to develop OS X, so Apple makes $149 profit every time the OS X Package is sold. Yes...and pigs fly.
> 
> Cough...no business sense...cough.


lol, dude you're so delicously brutal!


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

*Illegal BS*

If you buy a product then you can do what you as an individual like with it. Our friend isn't using OS X for commercial gain, he's just using something he bought. Any EULA that violates that basic concept is BS to me, and should be ignored. If you buy a CD you can copy it for your own use. If you buy an OS it's yours and you can do whatever you like with it for personal use. Getting asked to click on a button at the bottom of pages of legal spew is not a contract, it's not ethical, so I think it's reasonable to ignore it.

Getting a fully functional copy of OSX running on a Dell is very cool, great job! A lot of the discussion here seems to be just whinning: "Oh, I don't want OS X on Pee Cee boxes, terrible!" Get over it, Apple is a giant corporation that doesn't value you as a customer or human being anymore than Microsoft. You are a consumer to both companies, a very small portion of a line item under "Revenue." Get over it, hack the hell out of the OS and get it all running on Dells, yeah!

I look forward to more OS X on Dell machines.


----------



## mrt_mcfly (Oct 25, 2005)

some of you are being ridiculous...those of which are, will be offended by this comment, and those that aren't, will agree with me.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

RISK said:


> If you buy a product then you can do what you as an individual like with it.


As long as you do so in accordance to the terms set out by the manufacturer in which you were in agreement.



> Any EULA that violates that basic concept is BS to me, and should be ignored.


Translation: I know the rules, but I choose not to follow them.



> If you buy an OS it's yours and you can do whatever you like with it for personal use.


I'll let that one stand on its own merit (sheesh).  



> Getting asked to click on a button at the bottom of pages of legal spew is not a contract, it's not ethical, so I think it's reasonable to ignore it.


Translation: I can't re... Oh, whatever! I took the bait, big-time on this one. I'm gonna bar-b-que some steak and take another dip in the pool. tptptptp


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

RISK said:


> If you buy a product then you can do what you as an individual like with it. Our friend isn't using OS X for commercial gain, he's just using something he bought. Any EULA that violates that basic concept is BS to me, and should be ignored. If you buy a CD you can copy it for your own use. If you buy an OS it's yours and you can do whatever you like with it for personal use. Getting asked to click on a button at the bottom of pages of legal spew is not a contract, it's not ethical, so I think it's reasonable to ignore it.


I checked with my lawyer from the lawfirm of Making It Up As We Go & I Don't Like It So There, and they whole-heartedly agree with you.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

This is so ridiculous ...


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

Bjornbro said:


> As long as you do so in accordance to the terms set out by the manufacturer in which you were in agreement.
> 
> 
> Translation: I know the rules, but I choose not to follow them.
> ...


OK, so it was a bit incendiary, but we all choose which rules make ethical or moral sense and which ones don't. I don't believe in ripping people off in business or life, and I expect the same back. Apple's choice to tie their software to their hardware looks a lot like Sony putting a sticker inside a music CD that says, "By purchasing this Sony music CD you agree only to play it in Sony CD players..." There's probably somebody on here who can cite the correct legalese for a contract being invalid when there are ridiculous clauses in it, I'd say Apples hardware-specific clause is ridiculous. If Microsoft said, "You can only run XP on Dell machines" there would be an uproar, but somehow some people seem to think it's OK for Apple to do the same. Bullocks. One last example: Imagine if you bought a song from iTunes and the EULA stated you could only play it on an iPod or Apple hardware. Nobody would go for that, but somehow it's OK to restrict software to hardware that has an Apple logo on the front? Maybe it's time for someone to take Apple to court over the EULA of OS X.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

RISK said:


> Apple's choice to tie their software to their hardware looks a lot like Sony putting a sticker inside a music CD that says, "By purchasing this Sony music CD you agree only to play it in Sony CD players..."


You are absolutely right!

I should be able to use my Future Shop Credit Card at Zellers.
I should be able to redeem my Canadian Tire Money at 7-11.
I should be allowed to eat my bag lunch in a Swiss Chalet.
I should be able to take my camcorder into a movie theatre.
I should be able to put a GM air filter in my Ford.

Fight the power! Screw the rules! We aren't going to take it!

I'm going to put Kool-Aid in my Gatorade bottle. Take THAT!


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> You are absolutely right!
> 
> I should be able to use my Future Shop Credit Card at Zellers.
> I should be able to redeem my Canadian Tire Money at 7-11.
> ...


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

> Originally Posted by guytoronto
> Yes, because we all know it cost Apple nothing to develop OS X, so Apple makes $149 profit every time the OS X Package is sold. Yes...and pigs fly.
> 
> Cough...no business sense...cough.


Duh.... I didn't think I needed to state the obvious...Cough...have to have absolutely everything spelled out for me...cough. 

Apple needs to spend the money on development cost no matter what. The point is every time someone buys the OSX box Apple makes a huge profit over what it actually cost to manufacture ergo if they sell a bazillion of them they make a bazillion dollars.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Oh just like how today I broke the law because a traffic sign said no left turn but it make absolutely no sense to me, a stupid law prohibiting left turns onto a street that's quiet and doesn't even have a centre yellow line, so I made that left turn. Is it like that?


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

If anyone wants to read a thoughtful analysis of these issues, try John Gruber from his Daring Fireball blog:

http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

ahem. anyone want to stop thr flame-war>? OP has the blessing of the pope here, so there's no need to (dis)prove the case. Get off the high horse, people. You're only preaching to the saved, largely.... On any other site this would be laughable. 

As in, lpkmckenna on MacNN laughable.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Visual-Q said:


> Apple needs to spend the money on development cost no matter what. The point is every time someone buys the OSX box Apple makes a huge profit over what it actually cost to manufacture ergo if they sell a bazillion of them they make a bazillion dollars.


You still don't get it. Apple DOESN'T make a huge profit from selling the OS X box. They make their profits selling their hardware. People buy Apple hardware because it comes with Apple software. If Apple only sold the OS X box, do you really think it would only be $149?

Windows XP Home Edition retails for over $250. XP Professional even more.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

tedj said:


> ahem. anyone want to stop thr flame-war>? OP has the blessing of the pope here, so there's no need to (dis)prove the case. Get off the high horse, people. You're only preaching to the saved, largely.... On any other site this would be laughable.
> 
> As in, lpkmckenna on MacNN laughable.


Flame war? I don't think. We're expressing our opinions on the matter. In fact, I never said don't do it.. and I never said I was against it. I only expressed the legal issues of the matter. 

I do believe it's necessary to have BOTH sides of this argument in this thread only because it is NOT legal. Others should be aware of this fact. So, how about coming down off your pedistal so we can have a discussion?


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

can you ppl all find some other thread to hijack please? *SHESH* or at least have the courtesy to start up your own thread to debate your "legal" rights. or can some MOD close this thread if this continues, this is ridiculous!  

if anyone that ACTUALLY is interested in the original topic of my post, here's my xbench results i ran last night. if anyone has some xbench results from their real MacIntel, be it the new Mini, or an iMac or MacBook Pro, and would like to post them for comparision, that be great!



> Results	68.70
> System Info
> Xbench Version 1.2
> System Version 10.4.5 (8G1454)
> ...


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

Look up how to turn off beam sync if you use an LCD, and how to turn on QE2D regardless. It makes a huge different in responsiveness, and most other benchmarks are done with it off.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

DS said:


> Look up how to turn off beam sync if you use an LCD, and how to turn on QE2D regardless. It makes a huge different in responsiveness, and most other benchmarks are done with it off.


i just turned off Beam Sync and my scores for Quartz went up to 81.41 and UI to 127.33. with those increases, my diyMac now scores 94.43!!! 

how do i know if QE2D is turned on or not?


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

Get the Quartz Debug tool, isn't that what you used to turn off beam sync? 

You can tell if QE2D is on by looking at Displays in system profiler, and it will list QE2D there. 

Like I mentioned earlier, my system xbenches 155 without disk test (slow old disk scores less than 50), and 125 with the disk test in, but I've got a Pentium D 920. If I were you, I'd overclock that 805 as much as possible, apparently they're quite good for that.

All I know is that my machine is WAY more responsive than any other Mac I've used, Dual 2.7 G5, you name it. And I can't wait to get my 10,000 WD Raptor hard drive back in. I Haven't tried an actual MacIntel yet, but hopefully the 13" MacBook will be out soon so I can get my hands on that puppy.


----------



## DS (Oct 7, 2004)

Here's a quickie

Results	153.98	
System Info 
Xbench Version 1.2
System Version 10.4.6 (8I1119)
Physical RAM 1024 MB
Model ADP2,1
Drive Type ST3120026A
CPU Test	81.42	
GCD Loop	111.86	5.90 Mops/sec
Floating Point Basic	95.06	2.26 Gflop/sec
vecLib FFT	57.90	1.91 Gflop/sec
Floating Point Library	80.68	14.05 Mops/sec
Thread Test	207.39	
Computation	188.64	3.82 Mops/sec, 4 threads
Lock Contention	230.27	9.91 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
Memory Test	130.65	
System	112.30	
Allocate	67.90	249.35 Kalloc/sec
Fill	163.98	7973.04 MB/sec
Copy	169.84	3507.94 MB/sec
Stream	156.17	
Copy	150.20	3102.30 MB/sec
Scale	153.52	3171.72 MB/sec
Add	161.68	3444.07 MB/sec
Triad	159.82	3419.04 MB/sec
Quartz Graphics Test	149.67	
Line	135.52	9.02 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
Rectangle	126.58	37.79 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
Circle	126.16	10.28 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
Bezier	124.92	3.15 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
Text	455.18	28.47 Kchars/sec
OpenGL Graphics Test	248.76	
Spinning Squares	248.76	315.56 frames/sec
User Interface Test	285.06	
Elements	285.06	1.31 Krefresh/sec


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> You still don't get it. Apple DOESN'T make a huge profit from selling the OS X box. They make their profits selling their hardware. People buy Apple hardware because it comes with Apple software. If Apple only sold the OS X box, do you really think it would only be $149?
> 
> Windows XP Home Edition retails for over $250. XP Professional even more.


Actually it is all about margins. Apple makes higher margin (the amount of profit made over the manufacturing cost as opposed to cost of sale) off the software than they ever could off of the hardware. In the past the hardware was a silo'd channel where there OSX was tied directly to that channel.

That is no longer the case. I predict that Apple will remain in the hardware business, however I wouldn't be at all surprised if they start selling OSX into the mainstream non Apple hardware market. Imagine being HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway... If it increased the sales for your hardware you'd OEM OSX in a second.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Well, I sincerely hope that Apple deals with this by putting in some kind of hardware-key-type technology when Leopard comes out. We certainly can't rely on some people to obey _laws_ or _contracts!_ (heaven forbid!)


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

Let's try this again: Say you buy a car and it states in the warranty that you can only use GM filters for oil changes, but you go ahead and use high-quality FRAM filters. Did you just screw GM, and is GM right to put that restriction into their contract? Well, many car manufacturers tried just this tactic back in the day, eventually it was thrown out as restraint of trade or something. I think that if this were Microsoft or any other company everybody would be calling for immediate legal action, but somehow it's OK because Apple is doing it? No.

One of the things I love about using Apple products is the Apple community. One of the things I hate about using Apple products is the Apple community.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

RISK said:


> Let's try this again: .....
> 
> 
> I think that if this were Microsoft or any other company everybody would be calling for immediate legal action, but somehow it's OK because Apple is doing it? No.


OMG, you're right again! I'm suing Microsoft because I can't put my PS2 DVD's in it to play my PS2 games on my XBox!


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

Vexel, perhaps you are one of those people who never rips the mattress tags off that say, "Don't rip these tags off?" And you probably machine wash some of your dryclean only shirts despite explicit instructions on that tag that say not to. You darn EULA breaker, you're evil! Come on, Apple is doing the same thing. I buy an average of $5K worth of Apple stuff every year, I'm not anti-Apple, but a ridiculous EULA is just that whether it's from Apple, Microsoft or Izod. As for your X Box analogy, if you can hack the Xbox to play PS2 DVDs then good job, you should be able to do just that if you bought and paid for all the hardware and software. I wouldn't expect Microsoft or Sony to support your actions, but they have no right to interfere either. Don't let your cute emoticons turn blind green from drinking the Apple Kool Aid.


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

Actually if OSX ever became sufficiently dominant in the marketplace Apple would almost certainly be sued for unfair trade practices by the other manufacturers if they tried to permanently prevent their OS from ever running on other PCs.

Once something reaches the point of being considered a vital consumer/business product competition and consumer protection laws come into effect.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

RISK said:


> Let's try this again: Say you buy a car and it states in the warranty that you can only use GM filters for oil changes, but you go ahead and use high-quality FRAM filters.


But, FRAM filters and high-quality do not belong in the same sentence. You're not screwing GM, you're screwing yourself.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

Hee hee, that's another whole topic... K&N?

Visual-Q, does that same "unfair trade practice" concept apply just to the dominant market player or does it also apply more broadly? And Apple is fairly dominant with Final Cut Pro, so shouldn't that same concept apply to MacMe's use of OS X if he wants his macintel to run OS X and Final Cut? Whoa, breaking TWO EULAs, horrible...


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

Visual-Q said:


> Actually if OSX ever became sufficiently dominant in the marketplace Apple would almost certainly be sued for unfair trade practices by the other manufacturers if they tried to permanently prevent their OS from ever running on other PCs.


*SIGH* For all you recent switchers, the Mac OS (software) is what enables you to use a Macintosh computer (hardware), not the other way around. Stop and think about that for as long as it takes to sink in. Apple is a _hardware_ company, in business to sell _hardware_, not software. To be able to use this _hardware_ you have to use the Mac OS. This is what differentiates Apple from other PC vendors. If all they did was to build a PC and put Windows on it, it would just be a higher quality brand computer.

Therefor to license the Mac OS to work on generic PCs would kill Apple's hardware sales and they would not be in business. Does this make sense now?

As for Apple being sued for unfair trade practices, no one is holding a gun to your head to use the Mac or it's OS.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

I've used Apple hardware for going on 20 years, perhaps Dona83 has also, so suggesting that we're recent switchers is a bit of a stretch. And I do have to use OS X to run Final Cut, so I do in some ways have a gun held to my head. But you're getting at the root of what perturbs some Apple users about the possibility of running OS X on any intel machine, which is starting to look like a reality as MacME and others have shown. This is a different discussion than whether or not Apple's EULA is reasonable, or using your copy of OS X on any machine you want to is ethical. 

I don't think anyone really knows the answer as to whether Apple will be a hardware or software company in the future, but one basic fact in business is that the more you sell of something with a high startup and then low per-unit cost the more $ you make. For example, it cost a lot of $ to develop Final Cut Pro. Say it takes 100,000 sales to pay off each new version of FCP. Every sale after 100,00 is almost 100 percent profit after the cost of the materials in the box and minor overhead. If Final Cut and the other Apple-only software ran on all the existing hardware in the world then you would have one massive potential revenue stream, one that I think would likely more than make up for any hardware losses. Apple hardware reportedly has a 25 percent margin, software after initial payback must have a near-90 percent margin.

iTunes is so successful not because of us Mac types but because it also runs on, horrors, XP boxes. Same with the iPod, and Apple is making out OK with that deal last time I checked. I have no idea how Apple is going to play the game in the years to come, but it's not going to surprise me if Apple says, "We believe we have superior hardware and software. Our hardware will run XP or OS X, and our software will run on Apple and non-Apple branded hardware (but we won't support it on non-Apple hardware)." If Apple really has the best of both hardware and software then it's going to make a killing as it has with the iPod... I've actually recently bought more Apple stock, I believe Apple is going to go "mainstream" and take over the world finally, it's about time.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Imagine being HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway... If it increased the sales for your hardware you'd OEM OSX in a second.


Gateway is almost bankrupt, but we'll ignore that for the moment. I'm going to go out on a limb here are say the people on the inside of Apple probably have a better business sense of how to run their business. I'd even put money down on it that they've analyzed all sides of the equation and know what's best. But I could be wrong. After all, ehMac is THE place for all things intelligent.



RISK said:


> Apple hardware reportedly has a 25 percent margin, software after initial payback must have a near-90 percent margin.


Yes, so it makes sense for Apple to make $80 on every copy of iLife versus $125 on every 2GB iPod nano. Lord knows iLife outsells the iPod. Apple needs to focus on $90 software! And since nobody pirates software, it's a rock solid investment.



RISK said:


> iTunes is so successful not because of us Mac types but because it also runs on, horrors, XP boxes. Same with the iPod, and Apple is making out OK with that deal last time I checked.


iTunes makes Apple nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. It's all about iPods. Selling iPods. Selling as many as possible. Selling the HARDWARE to every person on the planet. Apple touts the success of the iTunes Music Store because it helps sell iPods. The money is in the HARDWARE.



RISK said:


> If Apple really has the best of both hardware and software then it's going to make a killing as it has with the iPod.


If every MP3 player worked as well and as easily as the iPod, and integrated as easily with iTunes and the iTunes Music Store, do you honestly think the iPod would be the monster that it is? Of course it wouldn't. The same goes with PCs. If every PC worked as well and as easily as a Mac, why would anyone spend $1249 for an entry level iBook when they could spend $799 on an entry level PC notebook?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

RISK said:


> Let's try this again: Say you buy a car and it states in the warranty that you can only use GM filters for oil changes...Well, many car manufacturers tried just this tactic back in the day, eventually it was thrown out as restraint of trade or something.


Buy an Epson printer. You must use Epson cartridges. Sure, you could refill the cartridges, but new ones must be Epson. Epson has successfully sued makers of no-name cartridges for patent infringements.

But a Gillette razor, and you must use Gillette Razor Blades.


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

> *SIGH* For all you recent switchers, the Mac OS (software) is what enables you to use a Macintosh computer (hardware), not the other way around. Stop and think about that for as long as it takes to sink in. Apple is a hardware company, in business to sell hardware, not software. To be able to use this hardware you have to use the Mac OS. This is what differentiates Apple from other PC vendors. If all they did was to build a PC and put Windows on it, it would just be a higher quality brand computer.


Actually I have used Macs for about 12 years and probably spent about 25K on their hardware. I buy Apple because they have a better operating system. And since hindsight is 20/20 we can analyze the final results of Apple's go it alone hardware/software philosophy. The complete abandonment shortly of the PowerPC platform for Intel, and Bootcamp. Why Bootcamp? Because Apple missed the boat more than a decade ago when it could have crushed Windows in it's infancy. 



> Therefor to license the Mac OS to work on generic PCs would kill Apple's hardware sales and *they would not be in business*. Does this make sense now?


I don't see a lot of Microsoft PCs, Windows seems to be kind of popular though, probably just a cult following, I think Microsoft is still in business right?

Apple's strength is in its OS and if it goes mainstream it may just have a chance of taking over the OS world which would be one hell of a lot more profitable than selling hardware, which they will no doubt also continue to do anyway. Hardware, by the way, which is no longer all that much different than any other PC apart from some cooler cases.


----------



## RISK (Jan 3, 2004)

Epson ink catridges: They actually lost a lawsuit because they were setting their software to indicate low ink when there was still ink: hhttp://printscan.about.com/. They recently sued to block the sale of some cartridges, no word yet if that will be successful. HP sued for ink formulation, fair enough, but there's nothing that says you can't use generic cartridges that don't infringe on patents. 

Generic blades were common for the Atras and so on, less common now that Gilette is adding blades (think they are up to five or so now) near weekly! Once things stabilize there will likely be generic blades.

But the point is that if you wanted to use your razor on your girlfriend's legs (bad idea for sharpness, grin) then you ought to be able to do it. The razor company can't tell you that the pink razor they make for women is the only one you can use on her...

So neither of your analogies are apt. Keep trying, there must be a way to justify what Apple is trying to do beyond, "It's the end of Apple if they can't link hardware/software."


----------



## Visual-Q (Dec 14, 2003)

Actually RISK I do think Apple is probably within their legal rights to tie hardware/software together. At least until an antitrust ruling says they can't.

As a consumer though I don't appreciate it. I like Apple and find them interesting to discuss but I don't subscribe to the cult of corporate personality and cuddle up to my Apple plush toy at night as many Mac users seem to do.

Must be nice for Apple though to have this army of unpaid attorneys lobbying on their behalf.

On another note I think we can probably now declare this thread officially hijacked...


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> iTunes makes Apple nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. It's all about iPods. Selling iPods. Selling as many as possible. Selling the HARDWARE to every person on the planet. Apple touts the success of the iTunes Music Store because it helps sell iPods. The money is in the HARDWARE.
> 
> 
> If every MP3 player worked as well and as easily as the iPod, and integrated as easily with iTunes and the iTunes Music Store, do you honestly think the iPod would be the monster that it is? Of course it wouldn't.


Well, we'll find out soon enough when the EU decides this is an illegal business practice, and forces Apple to open their DRM. Blame France if you want, but it seems Mac hypocrites can't see when Apple behaves the same way as Microsoft did to build their dominance in the market.


----------



## pepper (Oct 31, 2005)

MacMe,

If you keep reading this thread (wouldn't be surprised if you didn't), would you be able to list your specific hardware choices? I hope you didn't already do that. I may have missed it in all the off topic legal mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## Pylonman (Aug 16, 2004)

Yes, me to. I tried sending a PM and the email quota is full.
Could you maybe start a web page for us curious people.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

Pylonman said:


> Yes, me to. I tried sending a PM and the email quota is full.
> Could you maybe start a web page for us curious people.


sorry about that, didn't even know that my PM box was full.

all your answers can be found on this website:

http://wiki.osx86project.org/

there's a list of compatible hardware, guides, FAQ, and a forum for further discussion and answers.

FYI, i went with the Asus P5LD2-VM motherboard that has the intel 945G chipset with integrated GMA950 video, HD audio, EIDE/SATA2 and gigabit LAN. went with the 945G chipset instead of the 915GL chipset because i wanted a Pentium D dual core machine. 915 chipset would have been a cheaper solution. you can even run OSX86 on compatible AMD machines.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

DS said:


> Get the Quartz Debug tool, isn't that what you used to turn off beam sync?
> 
> You can tell if QE2D is on by looking at Displays in system profiler, and it will list QE2D there.
> 
> ...


no i turned off BeamSync using a terminal command line posted by JAS at osx86.org forum. tried Quartz Debug and turned on QE2D, but it didn't do much.

o/c my Pentium D 805, but couldn't get it past 3.0ghz. it posted a couple times and got into win2k3 and OSX86, but after a while of running, if i restart the machine, it wouldn't post. so right now its a tad under 3.0ghz, 2.9ghz or so.

at 3.0ghz my xbench was just above 100, now running 2.9ghz, it's slightly under 100.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

just an update for those who care.

i o/c my Pentium D 805 from 2.66ghz to 3.3ghz this week-end and scored an xbench of about 110-115. awesome improvement!!!

also borrowed 2gb of mem over the week-end from the dual G5 2.0, so running total of 4gb (probably didn't make too much of a difference though), to do some work at home, and working with Photoshop and Quark was comparable! :clap:


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Some people in this thread need a history lesson. Why does Apple not license the MacOS? Just google Mac Clone and you'll find out why. It was one of Apple's worst eras (for Star Wars fans you could call it Clone Wars) where Apple almost went under. It plain didn't work because Apple didn't have the market share and the Clone makers basically chewed into Apple's marketshare. Why would Apple do this again, against a company even bigger than Apple. Apple cannot compete against Microsoft, and eventually they would have to. 

As for the person putting MacOS X on his own PC for his own use. That's fine. Apple or I could care less. But when someone then suggests to sell PCs with MacOS X on, well it's not gonna happen because you do not have a license to put Mac OS X on PCs and sell them, and Apple will shut you down and sue you, just like they did with the person trying to sell PowerPC machines with MacOS X on them. Same thing will happen if you try and publish how to put MacOS X on an X86 machine. 

Basically if you cause Apple to lose money, Apple is gonna come after you with their lawyers.


----------

