Is it possible to run OS X using PC Hardware?

G

gramarye

Gawd
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
800
Hello, I currently am using an iMac as well as a PC I recently built. Since I predominantly work on the mac, I was wondering if it's possible to actually installed Apple OS Xusing the PC Hardware I have. I've searched the internet for quite a few sources, a lot of them led me to emulators, which I am not quite looking for. I hear it is possible as long as you have a Dual Core? Is that true?

Thanks for your time reading this. I appreciate it.

(Should I move this thread to the "General Hardware" or "Software" sub-forum instead?)
 
Apple have not, and I do not think they ever will, release OS X for use on anything other than Apple machines.

There exists hacked version of OS X floating around that will allow non-apple hardware to run a copy of OS X natively. However, that version is illegal and so we shouldn't even be talking about it. ;)
 
Use of "OSX86" on a "Hackintosh" discussion is not permitted here. :D
 
Why doesn't Apple start licensing its operating system like Microsoft? They would take a large chunk of the market share...
 
n3g471v3 d3c1b3l said:
Why doesn't Apple start licensing its operating system like Microsoft? They would take a large chunk of the market share...
Click to expand...

Why should they? I've heard markup numbers for Apple hardware ranging from 25% to over 30%. Unfortunately I have no documentation to support this claim.
 
There are some rumors that with 10.5 it may be released for general consumption.
 
n3g471v3 d3c1b3l said:
Why doesn't Apple start licensing its operating system like Microsoft? They would take a large chunk of the market share...
Click to expand...

Apple alone, makes so much money for their main products (as well as the ipod), since they are all propriteary. As wiith the software, I think it is smart (just coming to the realization after posting this thread), that they have their software only be compatible with their system. If PC users can suddenly buy OS X, than what is the point in buying a mac, when your pc build can have such a performace? PC Hardware is built by so many companies, so many competitors out there. Microsoft is responsible for the platform/software for PC useres (and other stuff). Replying to this sort of answered my own question.

Thanks for the replies everyone, good to know what you guys think and what ideas you guys have to discuss.

Whats interesting, correct me if i'm wrong, you can natively run XP legitimately through Apple's "Boot Camp"?
 
gramarye said:
Whats interesting, correct me if i'm wrong, you can natively run XP legitimately through Apple's "Boot Camp"?
Click to expand...

Yup, but that's because the current Macs use mostly off the shelf PC type hardware, underneath the sexy exterior is a mostly non-proprietary x86 system, pretty much the same as anything you'd buy from Dell or whoever (except for how the bios/firmware works, which I think is licensed from Intel or IBM anyway).

The Apple difference is that by locking the The Hardware and OS together they can build and optimise the OS to work with a specific hardware set, unlike Windows, which has to be built to work with an unknown combination of dozens, if not hundreds of different subsystem components. Sort of like a games console.

So Windows will work on a Mac because it is built to adapt to multiple configurations (although it still needs bootcamp to get around the bios), but MacOS won't work on PCs because it's designed for a very specific platform, a Reverse bootcamp type thing could be done, but to be practical MacOS would have to be rebuilt with zillions of new drivers and shit, and if you're doing that you may just as well be using windows or Linux (or Unix/Bsd, which is the basis of MacOS anyway).
 
gramarye said:
Apple alone, makes so much money for their main products (as well as the ipod), since they are all propriteary. As wiith the software, I think it is smart (just coming to the realization after posting this thread), that they have their software only be compatible with their system. If PC users can suddenly buy OS X, than what is the point in buying a mac, when your pc build can have such a performace? PC Hardware is built by so many companies, so many competitors out there. Microsoft is responsible for the platform/software for PC useres (and other stuff). Replying to this sort of answered my own question.

Thanks for the replies everyone, good to know what you guys think and what ideas you guys have to discuss.

Whats interesting, correct me if i'm wrong, you can natively run XP legitimately through Apple's "Boot Camp"?
Click to expand...

While Apple has very high margins for an OEM computer builder, the margins on software sales are far far higher than they will ever be for hardware sales (take a CD or DVD that takes a couple cents to press and sell it for $100+ , even factoring in R&D costs software is much more lucrative than hardware).

However, much of the 'Mac Experience' is that everything works out of the box with no problems, driver issues, hardware incompatibilities, etc. If Apple officially released a generic x86 version of their OS, many people would expect them to offer support for the huge multitude of various devices/cards/etc out there, and that is a big, and very expensive, undertaking.

While I am sure Apple could make a ton of money selling their OS to the general public free of Macintosh systems, they would also have to invest a ton of money into a tech-support and trouble-shooting department. I am guessing that since so far they have not, their business advisors are saying they would likely spend more on that than they would gain from pure software sales.
 
NulloModo said:
However, much of the 'Mac Experience' is that everything works out of the box with no problems, driver issues, hardware incompatibilities, etc. If Apple officially released a generic x86 version of their OS, many people would expect them to offer support for the huge multitude of various devices/cards/etc out there, and that is a big, and very expensive, undertaking.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Apple is insistent on controlling the user experience. Apple's business model is entirely dependent on designing elgeant products that work elegantly. When you introduce untold numbers of variables that becomes virtually impossible.
 
These are all awesome answers! an interesting discussion.

I'm probably going to save up for an MacBookPro (however long it will take me), keepin it legit. I would also run the PC as well, maybe invest in a kvm switch.
 
gramarye said:
These are all awesome answers! an interesting discussion.

I'm probably going to save up for an MacBookPro (however long it will take me), keepin it legit. I would also run the PC as well, maybe invest in a kvm switch.
Click to expand...

Or you can run parallels and have windows open at the same time as osx. It works on any mac with an intel processor. If you want to do that, you definitely should get 2gb of ram.
 
hungryduck said:
this is the question that people have been asking since the 80's. They will never do it.
Click to expand...

I think OS X is one of the major factor that is pushing hardware sales for Apple and I wouldn't think they would want to stop this trend.

What I mean is that OS X has been advertised (and may be true to some extend) to be "stable", "virus free", "fun and friendly", and is bubaliciously pretty. You'd be surprise about the amount of people who are clueless when it comes to computer and when they hear phrases like I just said and "works out of the box", they'd jump on it. Another reason is that we all know Apple laptops for the price range is configured slightly weaker than competing windows based laptops for the same price range.(ie, less ram, lower screen resolution, less ports, finger print reader, etc) Thus, if Apple release OS X for the mass, a lot of people would say, "hey, I'm just gonna buy this laptop here for much cheaper and same performance and buy OS X here and get the best of both world!"
 
I think one of the reasons Apple doesn't wanna release OS X for the PC is because of the support issues.

The reason macs "just work" is because of how regulated the apple platform is.

There's less than 30 supported hardware builds, on 2 different processor architectures.

Shoving os X onto PC hardware will create worlds of problems for support...

I don't think Apple can handle it.
 
Some of you may be suprised to find that OSX on a PC, while illegal, does run quite well. All without any support from apple or hardware vendors.

If hardware vendors released OSX drivers we would be all set with no need for apple to support that hardware.

The arguement that no one would buy apple hardware if they released OSX for the PC is kinda silly. People buy pre-built machines all the time. Even overpriced pre-built machines. And those same people would still buy macs. Apple can sell hardware and software and do well at both. Sure they would have to lower their prices to remain competitive but there is no reason why they couldn't.

However apple would make a killing just in software sales alone. they would have opened up a HUGE market for their OS and their apps and i'm willing to bet their market share would literally double overnight.

I understand that they are control freaks and I understand why and while their are advantages to this it is still the main reason why I won't buy a mac. But if OSX was on the PC(legally), well, i'd be first in line to buy a copy. And I know many more people who feel the same way.
 
i think its a matter of time though before someone hacks a vm program to do it.
 
Archer75 said:
Some of you may be suprised to find that OSX on a PC, while illegal, does run quite well. All without any support from apple or hardware vendors.

If hardware vendors released OSX drivers we would be all set with no need for apple to support that hardware.

The arguement that no one would buy apple hardware if they released OSX for the PC is kinda silly. People buy pre-built machines all the time. Even overpriced pre-built machines. And those same people would still buy macs. Apple can sell hardware and software and do well at both. Sure they would have to lower their prices to remain competitive but there is no reason why they couldn't.

However apple would make a killing just in software sales alone. they would have opened up a HUGE market for their OS and their apps and i'm willing to bet their market share would literally double overnight.

I understand that they are control freaks and I understand why and while their are advantages to this it is still the main reason why I won't buy a mac. But if OSX was on the PC(legally), well, i'd be first in line to buy a copy. And I know many more people who feel the same way.
Click to expand...

It can run quite well if you have the proper hardware and hacks, which can be confusing and random at times. It often makes little sense why one NIC works and another doesn't, for instance. I do it for the sheer geek fun of it, I don't actually *do* anything with the install I have on my pc. Regardless though, it is very hit or miss and by releasing it to the public for any machine to use the mac experience of stability etc would decline drastically.
In addition, you have to understand the Unix CLI to a fair degree to get it working properly.
All in all, it is a lot of effort to go through to use for day to day stuff.

Keep in mind one of the first things Steve Jobs did upon returning to apple was terminate the clone program, so I really don't think a legal OsX_86 will happen during his tenure.
 
Martyr said:
i think its a matter of time though before someone hacks a vm program to do it.
Click to expand...

It's already been done, and this is probably not the forum where you want to say you have OS X installed on a Hackintosh in your signature.
 
There is a legitimate macintosh forum over at insanelymac.com ... those folks may or may not know more about the so-called "Hackintosh".
 
Andrmgic said:
There is a legitimate macintosh forum over at insanelymac.com ... those folks may or may not know more about the so-called "Hackintosh".
Click to expand...

They do have a forum dedicated to 10.5 Leopard as well.
 
n3g471v3 d3c1b3l said:
Why doesn't Apple start licensing its operating system like Microsoft? They would take a large chunk of the market share...
Click to expand...
Because market share doesn't matter; money does. Bigger marker share does not automatically equate bigger profits, or better survivability.

Also, if Microsoft saw Apple as a proper threat, you can image Office:mac disappearing quite quickly. That would be bad for Apple's market share.
 
Grathrax said:
Keep in mind one of the first things Steve Jobs did upon returning to apple was terminate the clone program, so I really don't think a legal OsX_86 will happen during his tenure.
Click to expand...

I think this is probably the biggest reason we won't see OSX on white box machines. When Apple did their clone experiment, it nearly killed the company. To be sure, some of Apple's wounds were self-inflicted, but it taught Apple many lessons about market share vs. profitability and controlling the user experience.

Back in 1994, clones were supposed to help Apple grow the Mac market. It simply didn't work out that way. Apple intended for the clone manufacturers Power Computing, Umax, APS, etc to grow the Mac market - taking the platform to brand new customers. But. . .rather than growing the Mac market and install base the clone manufacturer's aggressively went after Apple's customers and cannibalized those sales from Apple. Further, Apple was reportedly making a royalty of only $50 per computer (consider 1994-era computer prices). So not only were clone manufacturers cannibalizing Apple's sales rather than growing the market, Apple was feeling like they were subsidizing them to do so.

For various reasons, the cloners/licensees were not the most stable players in the market. Some of the machines, particularly from APS and Radius were beyond bad. Power Computing's financials were a house of cards. And Umax & Motorola wanted to innovate in directions Apple wouldn't allow.

When it was all over, everyone involved lost money on the deal. It drove some either out of business entirely (APS) or forced them to a state unrecognizable to what they were before (Radius). Umax and Motorola were too big to go away, but the whole experience definitely left both companies soured on Apple and the Mac platform. Power Computing was on the verge of financial collapse anyway, and the non-renewal of their MacOS license would have been the death blow. Apple bought Power Computing primarily because they mananged to sell enough machines - to Apple's core market - to the point where Apple did not want to lose those customers long-term due to Power Computing going away.

Obviously, the market is different today but if we are going to propose OSX on non-Apple systems there is one question that must be answered to Apple's satisfaction - what's in it for Apple? I would argue that the number of people who would not move to OSX unless able to do it on a self-built box is infinitely small. Certainly not enough to offset the loss of sales from other manufacturers going after Apple's customers. As well all know, it's ultimately not a technical issue. It's simply a business decision. Apple is quite profitable as it is right now. so they don't need to license OSX to 3rd-party box builders - so why would they?

Black Morty Rackham said:
Also, if Microsoft saw Apple as a proper threat, you can image Office:mac disappearing quite quickly. That would be bad for Apple's market share.
Click to expand...
Last I checked, the Mac BU was a pretty profitable division of Microsoft. I'm not sure Microsoft would turn that down, at least for a while.
 
The clone almost killed apple because of timing. The computer world was very different then and Mac OS sucked. Things have changed and come a long ways since then and apple is in a VERY different position. And their market share is so small that a great share does = greater profitability.
 
Archer75 said:
The clone almost killed apple because of timing. The computer world was very different then and Mac OS sucked. Things have changed and come a long ways since then and apple is in a VERY different position. And their market share is so small that a great share does = greater profitability.
Click to expand...

Your premise depends on a VERY big "if" and one that was at the heart of the failure of clones in 1994-1997.

IF third-party manufacturers bring new and untapped markets/users to the Mac platform, then yes, it could be a success. Multiple manufacturers actually growing the Mac install base.

However. . .if third-party manufacturers bring very few new people to the Mac platform and are simply competing with Apple for their current customer base - not growing the install base, but instead beating each other up for the same existing install base - this can do nothing but hurt Apple. This is the way the first go-around with clones went in the 90s and it hurt Apple then and would hurt them now.

Based on Apple's prior experience and the current competitive landscape, I simply don't see the positive scenario as very likely - unless Apple chooses to cease making computers and looks to be only a software/gadget/user interface company. Otherwise, why would Apple give Dell/HP/etc the tools with which to compete with them?
 
CreativeMac said:
Otherwise, why would Apple give Dell/HP/etc the tools with which to compete with them?
Click to expand...

Money. Apple let's other companies sell their ipods. I can buy them and bestbuy and elsewhere. Yet apple still sells them at their own stores. And they are purchased at all locations.
People will buy macs if they continue to be quality products and are priced competitively.

There are lots of computer manufacturers out there and even with all of the competition they each do well. Apple can do even better just on the brand name alone. And then they are earning revenue from the hundreds of millions of copies of OSX and ilife they could sell.
 
Archer75 said:
Money. Apple let's other companies sell their ipods. I can buy them and bestbuy and elsewhere. Yet apple still sells them at their own stores. And they are purchased at all locations.
People will buy macs if they continue to be quality products and are priced competitively.

There are lots of computer manufacturers out there and even with all of the competition they each do well. Apple can do even better just on the brand name alone. And then they are earning revenue from the hundreds of millions of copies of OSX and ilife they could sell.
Click to expand...

I would agree with your comment that it's all about money. At what price and quantity would Apple have to sell OEM versions of OSX to offset hardware sales lost to competitors? I seem to remember Apple's margins on their hardware are some of the highest in the industry. I'm guessing for the money to remain even, they'd have to sell something on the order of 5-10 OSX licenses to make up for each lost MacPro/MBP sale. If Dell or HP or any other competitor could support this model, then it may make sense for Apple. Otherwise, what would be in it for Apple?
 
CreativeMac said:
I would agree with your comment that it's all about money. At what price and quantity would Apple have to sell OEM versions of OSX to offset hardware sales lost to competitors? I seem to remember Apple's margins on their hardware are some of the highest in the industry. I'm guessing for the money to remain even, they'd have to sell something on the order of 5-10 OSX licenses to make up for each lost MacPro/MBP sale. If Dell or HP or any other competitor could support this model, then it may make sense for Apple. Otherwise, what would be in it for Apple?
Click to expand...

Dell has already told apple they would sell PC's with OSX pre loaded. I think that selling 5-10 licenses for each lost sale wouldn't be a problem at all. I'm willing to bet they would easily sell 10x that.
But people would still pay apple hardware too.
Like you said, they do have the highest markups so there is room to lower their prices, become competitive and still make a profit.

Apple's success with the ipod, the switch to intel and the intrest in the iphone has made them a VERY popular company. I think they would do quite well now if they released OSX for the PC.
 
Archer75 said:
Dell has already told apple they would sell PC's with OSX pre loaded. I think that selling 5-10 licenses for each lost sale wouldn't be a problem at all. I'm willing to bet they would easily sell 10x that.
But people would still pay apple hardware too.
Like you said, they do have the highest markups so there is room to lower their prices, become competitive and still make a profit.

Apple's success with the ipod, the switch to intel and the intrest in the iphone has made them a VERY popular company. I think they would do quite well now if they released OSX for the PC.
Click to expand...

When and where did Dell say this? I have to applaud them for supporting non MS OSes as of late.
 
Grathrax said:
When and where did Dell say this? I have to applaud them for supporting non MS OSes as of late.
Click to expand...

It was around the time that apple announced the switch to Intel. Michael Dell extended the offer to Steve.
 
Archer75 said:
Dell has already told apple they would sell PC's with OSX pre loaded. I think that selling 5-10 licenses for each lost sale wouldn't be a problem at all. I'm willing to bet they would easily sell 10x that.
But people would still pay apple hardware too.
Like you said, they do have the highest markups so there is room to lower their prices, become competitive and still make a profit.

Apple's success with the ipod, the switch to intel and the intrest in the iphone has made them a VERY popular company. I think they would do quite well now if they released OSX for the PC.
Click to expand...

I'd read that as well and found it interesting. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind at all if there were more options on the hardware. The idea of building my own 1U or 2U OSX Server box is very attractive. My experience just tells me there's a snowball's chance of that, at least as long as Apple continues to offer their own hardware. That said, for the last 1-2 years, Apple has been positioning themselves as more of a gadget/UI company than a computer company. I think this is best evidenced by the fact that the MWSF 2007 keynote featured NOTHING involving computer equipment as such. Strictly the AppleTV and iPhone. Also at MWSF 2007, Apple announced that they were changing their name to "Apple, Inc." from "Apple Computer, Inc.". A subtle change, but one which could signal a profound change of direction.
 
Given the past experience of Steve Jobs and having his own hardware system (nextstep) running on controlled systems sold by them and then when the opened it up for running on an off the shelf cheaper pc and the problems that caused I highly doubt he will let OSX just run on an off the shelf system.
 
OS X is just a shell and some "glue code" over NeXT Computers Openstep OS, more or less. Jobs brough it with him when he closed the doors on NeXT and returned to Apple. You can still find it around the net. I know for a fact you can get a copy from blackhole.com Rob Blessin is the name of the man you need to talk to. NeXTstep and Openstep both have an X86 install.

http://www.blackholeinc.com/clean/hardware/topshelf.html

So maybe its not a "true" OS X but it will run on X86 and is a bunch of fun
to play with. I still use my NeXT Cube.
 
Just one more thought on Apple selling OS X for X86.

Microsoft has Billions and Billions of $$ in cash all made with out selling a "Microsoft Box" that you MUST buy before you can use Windows.
 
Archer75 said:
Apple's success with the ipod, the switch to intel and the intrest in the iphone has made them a VERY popular company. I think they would do quite well now if they released OSX for the PC.
Click to expand...
Here's what would likely happen if OS X were released for PCs:
  • Sales of Apple desktops and notebooks immediately plummet, possibly halving, or worse.
  • Witnessing the diminished hardware sales, Apple begins to shift focus to maintaining and expanding OS X for PC platforms, shifting funding on the hardware side to the software side.
  • Hackers, seeing a large and quick expansion in OS X saturation, begin to flock to OS X. Ergo, OS X exploits/month increases by a factor of two to three, increasing Apple programmer workload by the some factor. Apple attempts to expand the development staff quickly, reducing previously high standards for employment and instead drawing from a pool of less adept and experienced programmers.
  • Viruses, spyware, adware and other nefarious applications become widespread on OS X, affecting both PC users and Mac users.
  • Development progress of OS X features and performance diminishes. Focus is shifted toward security over innovative features. OS X, as a whole, begins to suffer.
  • The image and allure of OS X as a strong alternative operating system diminishes severely due to security flaws and compatibility issues. The image of Apple itself degrades, while strengthening the image of Dell and other OEMs who offer OS X as an alternative. Sales of Macs decrease further.
  • Software developers now feel the need to support both Windows and OS X similarly. Expansion of OS X software increases, but the quality of these applications on both platforms suffer due to no real increase in sales of said software, as the market as a whole increases at a rate almost exactly the same as it was increasing previously.
  • OS X eventually becomes the equivalent of Windows Vista.
  • Apple's profitability remains relatively the same despite the focus shift, making the project itself a wash.
Sounds great, huh?
 
phide said:
Here's what would likely happen if OS X were released for PCs:
  • Sales of Apple desktops and notebooks immediately plummet, possibly halving, or worse.
  • Witnessing the diminished hardware sales, Apple begins to shift focus to maintaining and expanding OS X for PC platforms, shifting funding on the hardware side to the software side.
  • Hackers, seeing a large and quick expansion in OS X saturation, begin to flock to OS X. Ergo, OS X exploits/month increases by a factor of two to three, increasing Apple programmer workload by the some factor. Apple attempts to expand the development staff quickly, reducing previously high standards for employment and instead drawing from a pool of less adept and experienced programmers.
  • Viruses, spyware, adware and other nefarious applications become widespread on OS X, affecting both PC users and Mac users.
  • Development progress of OS X features and performance diminishes. Focus is shifted toward security over innovative features. OS X, as a whole, begins to suffer.
  • The image and allure of OS X as a strong alternative operating system diminishes severely due to security flaws and compatibility issues. The image of Apple itself degrades, while strengthening the image of Dell and other OEMs who offer OS X as an alternative. Sales of Macs decrease further.
  • Software developers now feel the need to support both Windows and OS X similarly. Expansion of OS X software increases, but the quality of these applications on both platforms suffer due to no real increase in sales of said software, as the market as a whole increases at a rate almost exactly the same as it was increasing previously.
  • OS X eventually becomes the equivalent of Windows Vista.
  • Apple's profitability remains relatively the same despite the focus shift, making the project itself a wash.
Sounds great, huh?
Click to expand...

Very well done response! :D
 
if apple did make OSX compatible with PC's ....
It would suck for current MAC users. I like buying a 5-pak of OSX for 40 bucks a copy
Not $140 a copy for XP.
 
El Spic said:
if apple did make OSX compatible with PC's ....
It would suck for current MAC users. I like buying a 5-pak of OSX for 40 bucks a copy
Not $140 a copy for XP.
Click to expand...

uhh why would the price go up? they don't have to write the software over again for each cd.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top