Slashdot Mirror
Running Mac OS X On Standard PCs
ZDOne writes "ZDNet's reviews team have been tinkering with the various ways of running OS X on standard PCs. They found that with the right hardware components, a standard PC running Mac OS X Leopard is, at first sight, no different from a genuine Apple Mac. Special CPU extensions such as Intel VT-x provide support for software solutions like Parallels Desktop for Mac. Even Adobe Photoshop, which queries a Mac to verify its authenticity, runs fine on a standard PC thanks to EFI emulation.
However the article points out that it's a pretty technical proposition to get OS X running on non-Apple hardware, beyond all but the most powerful power users. And then there is the legal question. Don't even think about trying to put OS X on your PC without first purchasing a legitimate copy of Mac OS Leopard."
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Pirating software has a long history of being successfully prosecuted through the courts of most Western countries.
Enforcing EULAS does not.
Just because Apple says you can't do what you want with the software you have bought doesn't necessarily mean it is not legal to do so. However it most certainly is illegal to install pirated commercial software.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Powerful, maybe. But have you seen the video of those clones? It sounds like a jet taking off!
Apple has a big hole in their lineup, IMHO. That is the mid-sized tower... basically a headless iMac. Apple should just sell one - I don't think it would be too expensive... their other products compete quite well with similarly-spec'd PCs.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Apple wants to control the experience. They want to spec high values of hardware. And they don't want to support mutt-hardware and end up like SP3.
What's the number one frustration in calling ANY tech support hotline. Well if you have more than one vendor in the chain then vendor A says it's a graphics card problem, and Vendor B says it's a operating system problem. Meanwhile it's actually a mouse problem because the logitec mouse drivers over wrote some dll the video card was expecting to be an older version.
Not only does no one claim responsibility but they really can't because they don't control it all like apple.
So you pay a tad more for a pleasant experience. Savvy apple folks know which things to buy from apple and which to do themselves. e.g. don't buy apple memory upgrades, but perhaps it may be worth it to buy an apple WiFi (since the system will then handle all the firmware updates for you, and things like optical audio, remote disk mounting over the WiFi will all happen magically and reliably).
As for this latest EFI spoof. Apple, as evidenced by the lack of DRM on their OS and the vulnerable DRM on itunes, tries to use the speedbump model for DRM rather than the Steel Vault model. Any time people start abusing one of their DRMs they tend to issue some new software update that goofs up the current way of gaming the system. Basically a nuiscance which at some point becomes not worth dealing with for the majority of people.
I would predict they have a long road of nuiscance planned for EFI crackers. They only need to plan about 5 years worth of them, because in 5 years there will be new hardware nuiscances that spwan a whole new list of software nuiscances.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
yeah, that's one company's very cheap clone boxes.
If decent sized manufacturers got in on the deal (and they would) then apple would find themselves significantly undercut with equal quality (though less shiny) machines very quickly.
Of course they may not lose much in the way of business, as "shiny" seems to be one of the main reasons current customers buy Macs.
but seeing that only one manufacturer holds the keys to the kingdom and they are slower than shit and don't seem to listen to a lot of the forums what choice will we have other than by going this route. In fact I think the primary reason most of us didn't consider this route is because it was too difficult compared to just putting up with the hardware Apple allowed us to buy.
I am in the camp of needing a Mac Pro for expandability but not wanting one that seems to just exist to list every top end product standard Intel has in its books; yes I see the current Mac Pro as nothing more than a buzzword monster - features included because they sounded good not because they were needed. As such I and those of us on various Mac Forums have been clamoring for a "Mini Mac Pro". Something that uses similar processors and memory of iMacs/Minis but has expansion slots and room for more drives.
Its a big market. There are people sitting on G4s because the cost of moving up is prohibitive. If it takes a new resurgence in clone makers to rattle Apple's cage then I am all for it. If someone delivers a proven working solution then to hell with Apple.
As I mentioned at the start, the real reason most of us didn't go this route is because it was more time consuming than and "annoying" than just putting up with whatever we were allowed to buy. Since the process is getting more "ironed out" and practically turn key I expect a few of us to jump at the opportunity.
Just like we scream that MS has no right to dictate this and that we should hold Apple to that same standard. When they were the little guy we justified it because we could be smug about it deeming pc quality as too low for us. Now that we use the same exact hardware there isn't a real excuse, least one that holds up to any scrutiny.
When did form forever displace function at Apple. Can they get back to function please. Make the "Pro" line all about function - form means little to us, we just want it to work.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Disclaimer: I am a Apple user.
The problem with running an operating system (or application software) on an un-blessed platform is that in a real-world environment (e.g. anything not in your home) is that when a patch the next minor update comes along, it is more apt to cause problems (in particular, strange undocumented problems). For instance, if you could get HP-UX to run on competitor hardware, more power to you, but when it breaks, you've got really very minimal recourse and are on your own to get it working again. The same thing goes for Wine... if you run an application, the next incremental change could cause a performance hit, or make the application not run at all, and you'll have significantly less recourse to get it fixed (e.g. ISV knowledge base, community, etc...).
I've seen OS X running on a PC and it seemed to work good enough but you could never rely on it in a corprate environment, and I wouldn't want to give a box like this to my mom because when it breaks, you're really on your own to get it running.
This is a problem when the manufacturer says "We're really sorry, but we didn't certify $PRODUCT (or $OS) for that hardware so support is on a best-effort basis", and it is a even bigger problem when the manufacturer (like Apple) is tempted to, or outright promises to do whatever it can to make the product fail on unsupported configurations.
In any situation, it is nice about being able to tell my boss "I called Dell, a new mobo is on the way" rather than explaining why *my* design failed, or why to save a few grand in licensing or new hardware or plain novelty, I took production down for 3 days. It is fine for your own personal rig, but beyond that, doesn't seem worth it beyond that.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
They dont want that nightmare. the PC can be a mishmash of really bad hardware. I have fixed many PC's by removing that new Winmodem or USB card that someone bought and installed themselves. Crap ram causing random crashes, and the 65,000 different motherboard makers some work some are crap (I'll never buy PCChips and MSI again) and attaching OSX to the non-stable world of PC is something that jobs and Apple does not want.
They want to give you an "experience" and no not the experience that the Pc world offers.
Look at the fight that Linux has, OSX would have the same fight.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It should work fine since the differences between OS X client and Server are similar.
That is, if you happen to have $500 to $1000 to blow away. Legal issues aside, Mac OS X Server isn't something you can get from a friend. Unlike OS X client, OS X Server requires a serial number and, as noted, is pricey.
And why would one run OS X Server when a Linux server distribution is free, tested, generally supported and available. Besides, one would likely take LESS time to tweak a Linux server on supported hardware than any OS X installation on supported hardware.
Surprisingly, no one seems to have brought up the prime reason why you'll not likely see OS X for generic PCs.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple leverages low-cost or free software to sell all hardware.
iTunes is free because it makes using an iPod and the iTunes store a breeze. Mac OS X client is low in cost and works as it does because Apple spent a lot of time and money to ensure you're getting your bang for the buck in a computer you buy from them.
Microsoft sells software. Others leverage Microsoft to sell their hardware. Microsoft doesn't always make the best hardware, nor do they read consumer needs very well (not to be confused with business customers). Zunes don't sell, for instance.
When Microsoft makes crappy software, the whole PC industry suffers a bit.
And Apple just counts its cash reserves since they don't compete in most areas that Microsoft tends to. There is happy crossover with, say, Office 2008 for Mac, but generally Apple and Microsoft are different worlds. When Apple makes a good product, third parties dive in to complement the experience with accessories and the like. Crappy products in the Apple world today get bad press fast.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Apple NEEDS a mid-rage head less system the old g4's and g5 stared at lower price then the $2200 mac pro does.
The mini is over priced for it's hardware and the older g4 one cost $100 less with a real video card And $599.00 for 1gb of ram and DVD / CDRW what a joke and you have to add $200 to get a
DVD / RW and you still only have 1gb of ram and it's hard to open up next to a real desktop.
The imac are ok but the built in screen is not that good and it's hard to open up and only has room for 1 hd unlike the new dell AIO that can hold 2 and is a lot easier to get in to.
But a system at $1,199.00 with only 1GB memory and ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory is not that good of a price.
Apple needs to be more open to ATI and nvdia video cards in the mac pro and a real desktop as a big number of them use the same video chips and they only have 1 driver set for a lot of cards.
The mac pro at $2200 is over kill for a lot of users and the hardware is over the top with alot of higher costs from sever / workstation parts that are not needed.
Most office uses need a desktop with desktop parts and desktop ram not a over priced laptop in a small case with out screen that you need to force open.
"And have just as clean of a design." Translation: "I am free to reject any evidence as invalid." The Mac premium is mostly for style, therefore any alternative should be considered cheaper, primarily, because it lacks style.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
The price is high, but the limited product line makes the high price for Macs a much bigger problem.
... I'm happy for you, fellas, I really am. But most people buying home computers don't buy a set-top style box like the Mac mini, or an all-in-one like the iMac, they buy a mini-tower or fat slab with expansion slots, drive bays, and room to grow. Whether they USE it or not, that's beside the point, that's what they buy. Companies look at Apple's high margins and come out with "iMac killers" and "Mac mini killers" and, well, they don't STAY on the market. Now I suppose they could just be selling out and they don't want to cut into their less profitable lines, but I suspect that they just don't sell well.
This low market share is often attributed to the relatively high prices of Apple computers.
They're only about 40% more than comparable PCs, and sometimes less. But if you are looking for a conventional desktop then the "entry level" is over two grand.
Yes, I've heard all the arguments about how an all-in-one provides a better "experience", and how you don't "need" the expansion slots, and for people who like the iMac
People aren't buying Macs because of the hardware "experience", they're buying them because of OS X, and they're often buying them despite the hardware "experience".
The cheapest Mac that really competes head-to-head with the average PC, on a hardware level, is the Mac Pro. For the rest of the line, you have an all-in-one with almost no upgradability, and a crippled desktop with even less than the all-in-one (the putty knife problem). Now I will go along (for the sake of argument) with the claim that mostly don't upgrade their PCs, but even granting that the reason is that you can generally get any combination of stuff you WANT in a PC, because there's so many of them. Apple can't do that, upgrades are the only route to fine-tuning the box, and Apple doesn't even let you upgrade the one thing that's top on people's list of upgrades these days... the video card.
And in the mini, you can't put a full sized hard drive in there, you're limited to low power low performance laptop drives, or higher latency external drives.
The mini, currently, may be the MOST overpriced Mac. For $600 you get a 1.83 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 80GB 5400 RPM hard drive, and Intel integrated graphics... and firewire 400 and wifi. For $300 from HP you get a 1.8 GHz dual-core CPU, 1GB RAM, 320 GB 7200 RPM hard drive, and nVidia integrated graphics, but no wifi or firewire.
Well, you may say that the small size, the wifi, and the firewire is worth $300.
But you can't upgrade the mini to match the specs of the entry level HP for any amount of money, and adding wifi and firewire to the HP costs you $30 from HP and about $20 from Fry's.
So, setting aside the size, after upgrades, the Mac mini is 70% more expensive, and you have to give up 3/4 of your disk, you get a much slower disk, you get a USB port that can't even charge an iPod Shuffle, you get a far inferior graphics chip, and to get no "comfort headroom".
The size? If that mattered to most people then you can bet HP would have an "a6400z mini" out there. They're not going to leave money lying on the ground. The hardware "experience" doesn't move boxes.
Apple has to sell Macs to people for whom Apple's hardware is a huge stumbling block. Buying a Mac is like buying a car... and finding the only options are a decked out luxury SUV, a souped up Civic, or a motorbike.
They're selling laptops like mad because everyone's laptops have the same kind of limitations that APple imposes on all their computers, but desktops are languishing because they're simply not in the race for most people.
Just a quick note. You have a lot of assertions, but I bet Apple has a lot of formal studies on what the market wants. While you may want a given machine and while a lot of people on Slashdot may want it to, that doesn't mean it is the most profitable hardware niche for Apple to enter next. They've been doing pretty well so far. Their latest, the MacBook Air is something I don't want and most people on Slashdot think is useless junk. It's also been sold out in many locations for about 6 months now.
As a second note, your assertions about desktops versus laptops is well, not the way the industry is going. For office use and home use, the desktop has been slowly dying for several years now.
A few things:
1. "Faster and cheaper" wins every time, only when it's also reliable! (EG. Apple moved to Intel because despite every effort, they couldn't get either Motorola or IBM to consistently improve on their product offerings in a timely manner. It was already proven that Intel CPUs are reliable, so that PLUS faster and cheaper made it a good move.) It does a person no good to have something that's "cheaper" and supposedly "faster", but is breaking down constantly.
2. My experience with AppleCare has been FAR superior to anything I ever received from Dell, HP, Gateway, or other PC vendors I've had the displeasure of dealing with. Yes, Apple systems are "proprietary", in the same sense that a Playstation game console is proprietary to Sony, or the XBox 360 is proprietary to Microsoft, or a Sun workstation was proprietary to Sun. That business model has its pros and cons, but it's the de-facto ways computers were ALWAYS sold, up until a bunch of different people decided to build "PC clones" running the same default operating system. I know my hold times calling Apple have averaged around 5-10 minutes, as opposed to 45 mins. to 1 hour with everyone else. I know I've always reached a person who speaks my native language clearly and effectively with Apple. I know that when I have sent in a Mac for warranty work, they've gone over and above what was promised or "covered in writing", replacing any dented or scratched casings, loose hinges, etc. etc. What makes you think Dell or anyone else will give you great support for old, out-of-warranty systems of theirs, anyway? Like Apple, they'd rather just have you buy a new model, too.
3. I'm not going to get into the big, raging "Windows vs. OS X" debate, other than to say one thing. Currently, you can poll Mac users and then poll Windows users on how often spyware has crippled their machines. You tell me who suffered the biggest productivity losses.
Indeed, there are no PC equivalents. Therefore Apple should just liscense out the OS and people should still buy the Mac Mini in droves because it's small, low power, and quiet.
OR, they may be afraid of the truth: that a huge number of consumers buy the Mini because it's the cheapest Mac and given the option would be a slightly larger, louder, but faster tower in a heartbeat?
It's weird how zealots will claim that Apple's hardware is the be-all and end-all of computing equipment but simultaneously declare that licensing OS X to third parties would destroy Apple.
The truth is that Apple makes a wonderful OS. Their hardware is stylish, overpriced, and has too many gaps in their lineup. Licensing OS X probably would result in a dramatic drop in Apple hardware sales simply because: Apple's hardware is not market competitive. On equal footing, with the same software, many fewer people would buy their machines.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain