Leopard on PC - anyone

[Michael_Lambert]

I have been trying to read up on this, and getting totally lost. I have posted this on a forum dedicated to this type of thing and am getting lots of crap.. lol Not what i am looking for.

Simply put my Imac got destroyed, i do have Leapard and my programs for it so i dont want to spend the money to buy PC copies of all this and dont have the cash to replace the mac!

Can my PC run Leapard, Will i do any harm if i put a new drive in it and try and install??

My computer details are as follows.

Case
Cooler Master HAF 932 Full Tower ATX Case

Power Supply
Corsair HX Series CMPSU-620HX 620W ATX Triple Power Supply 120MM Fan 12V 50A Continuous 24PIN ATX Modular

Mother board - Asus P5N-D

CPU - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor BX80562Q6600 - 2.40GHz, 8MB Cache, 1066MHz FSB, Kentsfield, Quad-Core, Retail, Socket 775

Memory - Corsair XMS2 QUAD2X4096-6400C5DHX Matched Pairs 4GB Kit (4x1GB) PC6400 DDR2-800 CL 5-5-5-15 240-pin Dual Channel DHX Memory

Video card - 2 x BFG Navidia 8500GT 512 meg running in SLR

Hard Drives-

- Running RAID 0 - 2 x Western Digital VelociRaptor (WD1500HLFS) 150GB SATA 10000RPM 16MB Cache
- 1 x Western Digital Caviar Black (WD1001FALS) 1000GB SATAII 7200RPM 32MB Cache

External Hardrives

- 2 x Seagate FreeAgent Pro 750GB ( storage mirroing them for storage)
- 1 x Seagate FreeAgent Pro 750GB ( Used to store the ISO Images of both my OS hardrive and my Storage drive ) kept at my office backing up the ISO files weekly.

I/O Devices

- Lite On DH-401S Blu-Ray ROM SATA
- LG G-H20L-S10 /Black SATA LightScribe DVD-Writer 20xDVD+R/-R 8xDVD+RW/6x DVD-RW 12xDVD+/-R9 Dual Layer 48xCD-R 32xCD-RW

Monitor

-LG W2242TQ-BF, 22" Widescreen LCD, 2ms (G to G), 8000:1
- Datacolor Spyder3 Elite

[wlescall]

Hope these links will help you.

OSX86 Database (http://www.insanelymac.com/osx86db/)

OSX86 wiki (http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page)

[Bobster]

apart from breaking the law? nope ;)

[Michael_Lambert]

How is installing a OS i purchased breaking the law? Of course i have never actually read the user agreement for my OS Leopard or the Imac when i got it, however my Legit copy of Leopard would be only installed on one computer.

[cory1848]

How is installing a OS i purchased breaking the law? Of course i have never actually read the user agreement for my OS Leopard or the Imac when i got it, however my Legit copy of Leopard would be only installed on one computer.

Think of it like photos you license to people. You are not purchasing the OS, you are purchasing a license to use the OS. With that license comes certain restrictions and limitations. One being that it will only be installed on an Apple machine...etc...

Is it actually breaking a law? Who knows...but its breaking the agreement you accepted when you purchased the license. If some were to take one of your images and use it in a form that wasnt agreed to... Would you be upset at that?

[Michael_Lambert]

I guess that is a question, does the license sipulate it be only installed on an offical Apple computer :D I have no idea... i have just read about these Hackintoshes and was wondering if what i had could support a install of the software i have.. Was not looking to start using the hacked drivers and such...

Its all good, i will have to look at a mac Mini i guess.

[René Damkot]

According to Apple, OSX may only be installed on a Mac...

Edit: Note to self: Refresh before typing :rolleyes:

[Tony-S]

Can my PC run Leapard, Will i do any harm if i put a new drive in it and try and install??

My computer details are as follows.

Video card - 2 x BFG Navidia 8500GT 512 meg running in SLR

This is the only potential issue. While the 8500 chipset is supported, BFG may have some weird compatibility issues that could compromise the system. Only way to find out is to try.

All your other components should work just fine. The boot-132 method with a retail Installer DVD should bring you right up to OS X 10.5.6. Be prepared to spend a few hours getting it up and running. The Q6600 works perfectly and the P5N series boards are very friendly to OS X.

Think of it like photos you license to people. You are not purchasing the OS, you are purchasing a license to use the OS. With that license comes certain restrictions and limitations. One being that it will only be installed on an Apple machine...etc...

Depending on your country of residence, the EULA potentially ranges from a contract to meaningless, especially since you cannot read it until after you purchase and open the copy of OS X. If Apple were to pursue individuals who install a legitimate copy of OS X (i.e., a retail copy) in the U.S., it would be, at most, a breech of contract resulting in the cost of the item. In this case, that would be US$129. I doubt Apple is interested in pursuing the tens of thousands of individuals who have done this for their own purpose. Indeed, many of those who have did the hackintosh with their existing PCs ended up buying a real Mac, principally laptops, because they like OS X so much. In the end, seems like Apple wins.

Where Apple clearly is defensive is when a company, such as Psystar, decides to sell PCs with OS X pre-installed. Thus the legal issues between these companies. It will be interesting to see who is behind Psystar (they have spent a ton of money on their defense for such a small company). Apple also is at risk. What could come out of this is revelation of some of their trade secrets because Psystar is pursuing anti-trust.

[cory1848]

This is the only potential issue. While the 8500 chipset is supported, BFG may have some weird compatibility issues that could compromise the system. Only way to find out is to try.

All your other components should work just fine. The boot-132 method with a retails Installer DVD should bring you right up to OS X 10.5.6. Be prepared to spend a few hours getting it up and running. The Q6600 works perfectly and the P5N series boards are very friendly to OS X.



Depending on your country of residence, the EULA potentially ranges from a contract to meaningless, especially since you cannot read it until after you purchase and open the copy of OS X. If Apple were to pursue individuals who install a legitimate copy of OS X (i.e., a retail copy) in the U.S., it would be, at most, a breech of contract resulting in the cost of the item. In this case, that would be US$129. I doubt Apple is interested in pursuing the tens of thousands of individuals who have done this for their own purpose. Indeed, many of those who have did the hackintosh with their existing PCs ended up buying a real Mac, principally laptops, because they like OS X so much. In the end, seems like Apple wins.

Where Apple clearly is defensive is when a company, such as Psystar, decides to sell PCs with OS X pre-installed. Thus the legal issues between these companies. It will be interesting to see who is behind Psystar (they have spent a ton of money on their defense for such a small company). Apple also is at risk. What could come out of this is revelation of some of their trade secrets because Psystar is pursuing anti-trust.

If you want to read before buying... Check here..

http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/

Not directed at you Tony...but I do get a kick out of people that fight this agreement... saying its non binding, etc... Usually these are the same people that are complaining and wanting to sue when their photo gets taken illegally and it gets used in an ad somewhere... Hypocrisy at its finest...

People used to think the RIAA had no power either... but thats another thread...

Bottom line is... Why? Why run Leopard on a PC? Mac OS is known for its stability, it gets that stability because its designed to run on the hardware macs come with. Put that on PC hardware you lose the stability, which means you might as well stick with windows...

[Tony-S]

Bottom line is... Why? Why run Leopard on a PC? Mac OS is known for its stability, it gets that stability because its designed to run on the hardware macs come with. Put that on PC hardware you lose the stability, which means you might as well stick with windows...

We own four other Macs (two laptops, a Mini and an iMac). The only reason I have a hackintosh is because Apple doesn't make a computer with the hardware I need or can afford. No way am I buying a server-grade computer (Mac Pro), the new iMacs are built with notebook cpus and chips and all ship with glossy displays, and the Mini (also notebook components, including a notebook drive) still has integrated graphics. I'd have been happy to pay for a quad-core Mac in a nice, elegant enclosure with all the Apple bells and whistles. But alas, Apple makes no such computer with desktop components.

My PC with OS X has only crashed once in the year that I've owned it and that was due to an overheating issue (a Q6600 oc'd to 3 ghz) last summer. No other stability issues - after all the hardware it pretty much the same these days.

[MaxxuM]

Apple also is at risk. What could come out of this is revelation of some of their trade secrets because Psystar is pursuing anti-trust.

Apple and Psystar have already come together in a confidentiality agreement signed in court in front of the judge. Neither will release information gained in court and all intellectual paper work will be destroyed after examination by court appointed observation. Apple would never allow it's info leaked and Psystar is very worried about its little ROM emulator being leaked. Rumor is that they may have actually stollen that too from another organization and that is a criminal case vs a civil one. They both have a lot to loose if stuff leaks.

[Irreverent]

Would somebody care to point me to the exact clause in Apple's EULA that expressly forbids installing a legally purchased copy of OS X on a non-mac?

[cory1848]

Would somebody care to point me to the exact clause in Apple's EULA that expressly forbids installing a legally purchased copy of OS X on a non-mac?

See the link I posted above, download the PDF of the license agreement and read.

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. 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 may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

[Irreverent]

Thanks. I did download the PDF, purely to re-read what I have read a number of times before. The license seems to be as I remembered it - that is to say, the only stipulation is that OS X not be installed on a "non-Apple-labeled computer". It doesn't say "on a non-Macintosh". It simply requires the target computer to be Apple-labeled. Get yourself an Apple logo sticker, place it on the case of the computer you wish to install OS X on, and you are in full compliance with the EULA.

[cory1848]

Thanks. I did download the PDF, purely to re-read what I have read a number of times before. The license seems to be as I remembered it - that is to say, the only stipulation is that OS X not be installed on a "non-Apple-labeled computer". It doesn't say "on a non-Macintosh". It simply requires the target computer to be Apple-labeled. Get yourself an Apple logo sticker, place it on the case of the computer you wish to install OS X on, and you are in full compliance with the EULA.

Please.... Sarcasm or not, Apple is the manufacturer, Mac is the brand name/ Model name under that. I think you need to reread it again, because you plainly do not understand it.

[Anke]

Can I ask what happened to your iMac, is it not cheaper to consider repairing than buying a whole new PC?

[Irreverent]

I wasn't being sarcastic - I am being 100% sincere. A lot of time and effort has been put into the creation of convoluted legal language in order to make contracts unambiguous and indisputable, and the license agreement clearly states that the computer only be "Apple-labeled". Apple more than likely has a huge team of highly paid lawyers, and they would be more than capable of being absolutely specific about restricting use of OS X to anything other than a computer that was manufactured and distributed by Apple Computer Inc., but they haven't, more than likely because that would be completely unenforceable in the eyes of the law.

[Michael_Lambert]

Can I ask what happened to your iMac, is it not cheaper to consider repairing than buying a whole new PC?
Yea we where moving things around and the mac was sitting on the ground and someone knocked it over and stepped on it. The local shop said it needs a new display and motherboard that he could see just by looking..

I have the PC already it was just going to be a matter of installing the OS... But i guess i will look into picking up mini for now.

[Anke]

Yea we where moving things around and the mac was sitting on the ground and someone knocked it over and stepped on it. The local shop said it needs a new display and motherboard that he could see just by looking..

I have the PC already it was just going to be a matter of installing the OS... But i guess i will look into picking up mini for now.

Ouch! Definitely expensive then. I've seen displays for iMacs going for a couple of hundred pounds on eBay the past few weeks. But I'm sure motherboards run for much more than that.

[cory1848]

I wasn't being sarcastic - I am being 100% sincere. A lot of time and effort has been put into the creation of convoluted legal language in order to make contracts unambiguous and indisputable, and the license agreement clearly states that the computer only be "Apple-labeled". Apple more than likely has a huge team of highly paid lawyers, and they would be more than capable of being absolutely specific about restricting use of OS X to anything other than a computer that was manufactured and distributed by Apple Computer Inc., but they haven't, more than likely because that would be completely unenforceable in the eyes of the law.

Apple is the registered trademark of the company. That is the label they are referring to. If your apple "sticker" holds up to that registered trademark all the power to you. Like to see you explain that in front of a judge. They would get a good laugh.

[Irreverent]

Apple is the registered trademark of the company. That is the label they are referring to.

Yes I know it is. This doesn't alter the fact that the only stipulation in the EULA is that the OS is installed on hardware with an Apple label on it. Take a look at a Mac Pro - the only place you'll find an Apple label is on the case. You certainly won't find one on the processor, or the hard drives, or the graphics card.

If your apple "sticker" holds up to that registered trademark all the power to you.

Why wouldn't it? Like I said, if you read the EULA this is all that is required. That is literally all it stipulates. Anything beyond this is just personal interpretation, and as I pointed out earlier lawyers get paid very highly to make documents of this type very specific. If they wanted to state in plain, unambiguous terms that OS X can not be installed on anything other than a machine that was assembled and distributed by Apple Computer Inc., they would state that explicitly in the EULA.



Like to see you explain that in front of a judge. They would get a good laugh.

Are you sure about that? Given that the EULA has never once had its validity tested in court and Apple have never shown any sign of wanting to pursue any action against individuals for installing OS X on custom hardware, I'd suggest that you are making assumptions based on an interpretation that you are applying to the EULA.

[Irreverent]

To clarify my earlier posts - I'm not arguing purely for the sake of it, nor am I expressing an opinion one way or the other on whether installing OS X on custom hardware is ethically right or wrong - I'm simply observing the ambiguity of the EULA, and how, if they so wished, Apple could eradicate that ambiguity by simply clarifying the term "Apple-labeled computer". Given that they haven't done this, I would assume their reasons for this to be that either a) they could not legally enforce such a requirement due to monopoly laws, or b) they really don't have a huge interest in preventing a small clique of special interest users from installing the OS on custom hardware.

If we wanted to get into it, I can personally think of a number of scenarios whereby Apple benefit from having a number of people running their OS on custom hardware, but given that this discussion is about the letter of the EULA, and not Apple's motives, I will save that for another time.

[MaxxuM]

To clarify my earlier posts - I'm not arguing purely for the sake of it, nor am I expressing an opinion one way or the other on whether installing OS X on custom hardware is ethically right or wrong - I'm simply observing the ambiguity of the EULA, and how, if they so wished, Apple could eradicate that ambiguity by simply clarifying the term "Apple-labeled computer". Given that they haven't done this, I would assume their reasons for this to be that either a) they could not legally enforce such a requirement due to monopoly laws, or b) they really don't have a huge interest in preventing a small clique of special interest users from installing the OS on custom hardware.

If we wanted to get into it, I can personally think of a number of scenarios whereby Apple benefit from having a number of people running their OS on custom hardware, but given that this discussion is about the letter of the EULA, and not Apple's motives, I will save that for another time.

You're just being silly. Apple is a registered business name and their logo is a registered trademark. Everywhere in their contracts it states what "Apple" means - it is a registered company (in many countries to be sure). Though you are correct, the EULA is ambiguous in areas is is NOT whereas the label, company or trademark is mentioned. When they say "Apple" legally they mean "the company" and/or the "trademark". You could no sooner use their logo/trademark legally than you could IBM's, Disney's or Dell's. Try to put a movie with the Disney trademark or a computer labeled as IBM and you'll find yourself in court and come out short a lot of money. No where in modern history has anyone used another companies trademark (in a non parody) and not been sued - and rightly so - though many have tried. So, you might have a point if Apple actually 'labeled' your computer though.

Also, somone up in the forum said that just by opening up the software you were agreeing to the Apple EULA. This is not so. This is the actual wording on the very top of the contract:

PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND. IF THE APPLE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE".

It's really silly to be sure. Apple has very little president to do what it's doing, but this laymen discussion is just non-legal banter with very little merit to it. The EULA is VERY detailed and very open in what it is saying. There is very little misconseption on what Apple is doing. If they loose against Pystar it will just mean that OS X will be found on crapware as well as Apple and Apple will not support it. Apple refuse to warranty or support third party platforms and will begin to charge OEM's for licensing and software fees to conform to Apple's Warranty standard - which means, by by Apple Care or guarantee’s of operation.

[Irreverent]

MaxxuM, I understand the point you are making, but I am saying that simply placing an Apple label on your desktop PC case is not abuse of their trademark. Please note I am talking about private users here, and not 3rd party resellers. When I bought my Macbook Pro back in Oct 2006, Apple included 2 white Apple stickers in the box. Obviously, these were not designed for me to plaster all over my new MBP, as it was already rather jazzily badged by the LCD backlight. Rather, they were a promotional gratuity from Apple for you to boast your love of the company on whatever you saw fit - your microwave, your car bumper, your school textbooks - the choice is yours. Now, the act of simply placing one of these stickers (openly supplied by Apple) onto an everyday object does not constitute an attempt to depict that object as an Apple product. Similarly, if someone were to place one of these stickers on the case of their desktop PC, it does not constitute an attempt to claim the PC is a Mac, so there's no abuse of the trademark. They didn't say "use these stickers as you see fit, but don't put them on a non-Apple computer". My contention is that when placed on a computer, while that computer does not become a Mac, it has now become an "Apple-labeled computer". At which point, how exactly would it be a violation of the EULA to install a copy of OS X on the machine?

[MaxxuM]

MaxxuM, I understand the point you are making, but I am saying that simply placing an Apple label on your desktop PC case is not abuse of their trademark. Please note I am talking about private users here, and not 3rd party resellers. When I bought my Macbook Pro back in Oct 2006, Apple included 2 white Apple stickers in the box. Obviously, these were not designed for me to plaster all over my new MBP, as it was already rather jazzily badged by the LCD backlight. Rather, they were a promotional gratuity from Apple for you to boast your love of the company on whatever you saw fit - your microwave, your car bumper, your school textbooks - the choice is yours. Now, the act of simply placing one of these stickers (openly supplied by Apple) onto an everyday object does not constitute an attempt to depict that object as an Apple product. Similarly, if someone were to place one of these stickers on the case of their desktop PC, it does not constitute an attempt to claim the PC is a Mac, so there's no abuse of the trademark. They didn't say "use these stickers as you see fit, but don't put them on a non-Apple computer". My contention is that when placed on a computer, while that computer does not become a Mac, it has now become an "Apple-labeled computer". At which point, how exactly would it be a violation of the EULA to install a copy of OS X on the machine?

You're assuming a good bit. By law, Apple is 'granting' you permission to use these stickers in a manner that is consistent with copyright/trademark law. Copyright/trademark law stipulates a good bit of protection for it's owners. Just placing them on a microwave does not make it an Apple microwave and if you try to claim it is (to get around the EULA) is unlawful according to current contractual law. Now, Pystar is (with the help of some unknown benefactor) debating this very law in courts and until it is done current law must be followed. By law, only Apple, Inc. may "label" or use it's trademark's or allow (you) to use them. This like pretty much scraps your 'label' theory (here (http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html)). You are trying to isolate one tiny term, "Apple-labeled computer", but you cannot do so because the term Apple is a company, a trademark and a legal meaning within a contract. Once you try to say that a sticker authorizes you to get around a contract then you violate the 'spirt' of law and no court would let you do so. I could no sooner put on a Disney badge and try to act as their agent nor stick a Dell sticker on an IBM computer and try to load Windows Vista on it legally.

Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony and other companies supply ROM enabled OS disks that will only work on their machines. You cannot move it to another machine nor sell it without the PC it came with. When you buy a Vista DVD you are also bound by contract not to move it more than two times (you'll have to call MS to do so and most times it works - but that is up to MS to allow).

[Sauk]

is it actually possible to stay on TOPIC and answer the op's question? Geez