J
jshockley
i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
- Thread starter
- #2
A
Andrew McLaren
"jshockley" <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:0649A4FA-9E3A-408D-A5AC-5FAD2CF7B8A5@microsoft.com...
>i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
Did you see my earlier reply? -->
"jshockley" <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:6314AE8C-942C-4427-B4F0-040D2F68578C@microsoft.com...
>i have vista 32bit ...can i run macosx using virtual pc on this one
>compute?
No. Mac OS X only runs on Apple hardware.
Although they all have Intel CPUs, there are many hardware differences
between a Mac and a PC. For a start, an Intel Mac uses EFI 1.1 firmware to
boot up instead of a BIOS like a PC. Also, I believe the Apple EULA
prohibts you running Mac OS X on anything except Apple hardware.
You cannot run Mac OS X in VMWare or Xen, either - it's not just a
limitation of Virtual PC.
You can, however, run Windows XP and Vista inside Mac OS X on an Apple
machine, using either Parallels or VMWare Fusuon virtual machine products.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
in message news:0649A4FA-9E3A-408D-A5AC-5FAD2CF7B8A5@microsoft.com...
>i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
Did you see my earlier reply? -->
"jshockley" <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in message news:6314AE8C-942C-4427-B4F0-040D2F68578C@microsoft.com...
>i have vista 32bit ...can i run macosx using virtual pc on this one
>compute?
No. Mac OS X only runs on Apple hardware.
Although they all have Intel CPUs, there are many hardware differences
between a Mac and a PC. For a start, an Intel Mac uses EFI 1.1 firmware to
boot up instead of a BIOS like a PC. Also, I believe the Apple EULA
prohibts you running Mac OS X on anything except Apple hardware.
You cannot run Mac OS X in VMWare or Xen, either - it's not just a
limitation of Virtual PC.
You can, however, run Windows XP and Vista inside Mac OS X on an Apple
machine, using either Parallels or VMWare Fusuon virtual machine products.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
- Thread starter
- #3
M
Mike
In article <0649A4FA-9E3A-408D-A5AC-5FAD2CF7B8A5@microsoft.com>,
jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
have personally run OS X in VMWare, and tried many times to install it
in VPC but it I've never succeeded. In fact, there is a ready to run
VMWare disk image of 10.4.6 floating around.
Actually you can run OS X right on your PC without VPC. Of course,
it's not the standard issue OS X, it has to be a patched version.
There are many "distros" of OSX86. I am using one right now and it
runs fine.
It's sort of like installing Linux. Depending on your hardware, it can
be simple to install or it can be a royal pain in the ass - some manual
file editing, fiddling with drivers, getting partitions correct to dual
boot with Windows, etc.
Check out The OSX86 Project at
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
for all the details. Beats the hell out of any Linux distro on the
planet.
Mike
jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
have personally run OS X in VMWare, and tried many times to install it
in VPC but it I've never succeeded. In fact, there is a ready to run
VMWare disk image of 10.4.6 floating around.
Actually you can run OS X right on your PC without VPC. Of course,
it's not the standard issue OS X, it has to be a patched version.
There are many "distros" of OSX86. I am using one right now and it
runs fine.
It's sort of like installing Linux. Depending on your hardware, it can
be simple to install or it can be a royal pain in the ass - some manual
file editing, fiddling with drivers, getting partitions correct to dual
boot with Windows, etc.
Check out The OSX86 Project at
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
for all the details. Beats the hell out of any Linux distro on the
planet.
Mike
- Thread starter
- #4
A
Andrew McLaren
"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote
>> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
> Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by using
an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
module.
Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion
Strictly speaking
you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua spliced
on top.
It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X, which would
be supported by Apple, suitable for use in a workplace office, etc. It might
suddenly stop working after software updates from Apple replace the kernel.
And legally of course, it's probably illagal (but I am not a lawyer). It
might also be technically intimidating for anyone who needs to ask in a
newsgroup if it's possible - ie, if you can do it, you wouldn't need to ask.
It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run Mac
OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
> Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by using
an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
module.
Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion
Strictly speaking you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua spliced
on top.
It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X, which would
be supported by Apple, suitable for use in a workplace office, etc. It might
suddenly stop working after software updates from Apple replace the kernel.
And legally of course, it's probably illagal (but I am not a lawyer). It
might also be technically intimidating for anyone who needs to ask in a
newsgroup if it's possible - ie, if you can do it, you wouldn't need to ask.
It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run Mac
OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
- Thread starter
- #5
L
Lang Murphy
"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote in message
news:uGCS4ecxHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote
>>> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
>> Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
>
> Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by
> using an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the
> TPM module.
>
> Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
> the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion Strictly speaking
> you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua
> spliced on top.
>
> It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X, which
> would be supported by Apple, suitable for use in a workplace office, etc.
> It might suddenly stop working after software updates from Apple replace
> the kernel. And legally of course, it's probably illagal (but I am not a
> lawyer). It might also be technically intimidating for anyone who needs to
> ask in a newsgroup if it's possible - ie, if you can do it, you wouldn't
> need to ask.
>
> It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
> of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
> second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
>
> But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run
> Mac OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
Andrew,
Good post: roger that!
Lang
news:uGCS4ecxHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote
>>> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
>> Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
>
> Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by
> using an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the
> TPM module.
>
> Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
> the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion
Strictly speaking > you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua
> spliced on top.
>
> It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X, which
> would be supported by Apple, suitable for use in a workplace office, etc.
> It might suddenly stop working after software updates from Apple replace
> the kernel. And legally of course, it's probably illagal (but I am not a
> lawyer). It might also be technically intimidating for anyone who needs to
> ask in a newsgroup if it's possible - ie, if you can do it, you wouldn't
> need to ask.
>
> It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
> of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
> second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
>
> But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run
> Mac OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
Andrew,
Good post: roger that!
Lang
- Thread starter
- #6
M
Mick Murphy
Good post Andrew, very interesting. I learn something every day.
"Andrew McLaren" wrote:
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote
> >> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
> > Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
>
> Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by using
> an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
> module.
>
> Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
> the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion Strictly speaking
> you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua spliced
> on top.
>
> It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X, which would
> be supported by Apple, suitable for use in a workplace office, etc. It might
> suddenly stop working after software updates from Apple replace the kernel.
> And legally of course, it's probably illagal (but I am not a lawyer). It
> might also be technically intimidating for anyone who needs to ask in a
> newsgroup if it's possible - ie, if you can do it, you wouldn't need to ask.
>
> It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
> of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
> second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
>
> But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run Mac
> OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
>
>
"Andrew McLaren" wrote:
> "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote
> >> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
> > Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
>
> Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by using
> an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
> module.
>
> Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
> the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion
Strictly speaking > you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua spliced
> on top.
>
> It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X, which would
> be supported by Apple, suitable for use in a workplace office, etc. It might
> suddenly stop working after software updates from Apple replace the kernel.
> And legally of course, it's probably illagal (but I am not a lawyer). It
> might also be technically intimidating for anyone who needs to ask in a
> newsgroup if it's possible - ie, if you can do it, you wouldn't need to ask.
>
> It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
> of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
> second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
>
> But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run Mac
> OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
>
> --
> Andrew McLaren
> amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
>
>
>
- Thread starter
- #7
M
Mike
In article <uGCS4ecxHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by using
> an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
> module.
There is no "sort of" about it. It runs fine. Better than any Mac
Mini, which is a horribly overpriced POS.
> Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
> the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion Strictly speaking
> you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua spliced
> on top.
Which is exactly what OS X is. Clearly you know nothing about OS X.
The Darwin in my OS X is the same as Apple's but without the Apple crap
*added* to it.
Check out any Mac in a store. Open terminal and it says "Welcome to
Darwin". Type hostinfo and it will show you the kernel version
number. Mine is *exactly* the same as anyone else running 10.4.9.
> It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X
Yes, it's better because I didn't pay Apple's absurd hardware prices.
> It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
> of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
> second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
Baloney. The Mac mini is a piece of crap. This T41 runs rings around
a mini, and my P4 3Ghz 2 GB RAM desktop runs rings around *any* Mac
except the most expensive.
It's not just a curiosity. I run it every day. Safari, Firefox,
Itunes, Office 2004, MT-NW - everything "just works".
> But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run Mac
> OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
Yes, you can. Very easily and very well as it turns out.
Mike
"Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by using
> an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
> module.
There is no "sort of" about it. It runs fine. Better than any Mac
Mini, which is a horribly overpriced POS.
> Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
> the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion
Strictly speaking > you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua spliced
> on top.
Which is exactly what OS X is. Clearly you know nothing about OS X.
The Darwin in my OS X is the same as Apple's but without the Apple crap
*added* to it.
Check out any Mac in a store. Open terminal and it says "Welcome to
Darwin". Type hostinfo and it will show you the kernel version
number. Mine is *exactly* the same as anyone else running 10.4.9.
> It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X
Yes, it's better because I didn't pay Apple's absurd hardware prices.
> It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
> of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
> second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
Baloney. The Mac mini is a piece of crap. This T41 runs rings around
a mini, and my P4 3Ghz 2 GB RAM desktop runs rings around *any* Mac
except the most expensive.
It's not just a curiosity. I run it every day. Safari, Firefox,
Itunes, Office 2004, MT-NW - everything "just works".
> But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run Mac
> OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
Yes, you can. Very easily and very well as it turns out.
Mike
- Thread starter
- #8
K
Kerry Brown
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal
Pretty much says it all about this option.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:no-DDDA0C.07510414072007@news.supernews.com...
> In article <uGCS4ecxHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> "Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by
>> using
>> an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
>> module.
>
> There is no "sort of" about it. It runs fine. Better than any Mac
> Mini, which is a horribly overpriced POS.
>
>> Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're
>> replaced
>> the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion Strictly speaking
>> you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua
>> spliced
>> on top.
>
> Which is exactly what OS X is. Clearly you know nothing about OS X.
> The Darwin in my OS X is the same as Apple's but without the Apple crap
> *added* to it.
>
> Check out any Mac in a store. Open terminal and it says "Welcome to
> Darwin". Type hostinfo and it will show you the kernel version
> number. Mine is *exactly* the same as anyone else running 10.4.9.
>
>> It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X
>
> Yes, it's better because I didn't pay Apple's absurd hardware prices.
>
>> It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or
>> display
>> of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
>> second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
>
> Baloney. The Mac mini is a piece of crap. This T41 runs rings around
> a mini, and my P4 3Ghz 2 GB RAM desktop runs rings around *any* Mac
> except the most expensive.
>
> It's not just a curiosity. I run it every day. Safari, Firefox,
> Itunes, Office 2004, MT-NW - everything "just works".
>
>> But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run
>> Mac
>> OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
>
> Yes, you can. Very easily and very well as it turns out.
>
> Mike
Pretty much says it all about this option.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:no-DDDA0C.07510414072007@news.supernews.com...
> In article <uGCS4ecxHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> "Andrew McLaren" <andrew@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by
>> using
>> an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
>> module.
>
> There is no "sort of" about it. It runs fine. Better than any Mac
> Mini, which is a horribly overpriced POS.
>
>> Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're
>> replaced
>> the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion
Strictly speaking>> you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua
>> spliced
>> on top.
>
> Which is exactly what OS X is. Clearly you know nothing about OS X.
> The Darwin in my OS X is the same as Apple's but without the Apple crap
> *added* to it.
>
> Check out any Mac in a store. Open terminal and it says "Welcome to
> Darwin". Type hostinfo and it will show you the kernel version
> number. Mine is *exactly* the same as anyone else running 10.4.9.
>
>> It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X
>
> Yes, it's better because I didn't pay Apple's absurd hardware prices.
>
>> It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or
>> display
>> of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
>> second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
>
> Baloney. The Mac mini is a piece of crap. This T41 runs rings around
> a mini, and my P4 3Ghz 2 GB RAM desktop runs rings around *any* Mac
> except the most expensive.
>
> It's not just a curiosity. I run it every day. Safari, Firefox,
> Itunes, Office 2004, MT-NW - everything "just works".
>
>> But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run
>> Mac
>> OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
>
> Yes, you can. Very easily and very well as it turns out.
>
> Mike
- Thread starter
- #9
M
Mike
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:7CD8D0D1-89A8-4789-A25B-5AACF4808610@microsoft.com...
> http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal
>
> Pretty much says it all about this option.
About the "legality" yes. It says *nothing* about how well it runs, which
is the point under discussion here
Mike
news:7CD8D0D1-89A8-4789-A25B-5AACF4808610@microsoft.com...
> http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal
>
> Pretty much says it all about this option.
About the "legality" yes. It says *nothing* about how well it runs, which
is the point under discussion here
Mike
- Thread starter
- #10
K
Kerry Brown
If it's not legal then an ethical person wouldn't run it. That means for the
majority it doesn't work.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:33355ADD-DB69-427D-83A8-B98BE684F36E@microsoft.com...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:7CD8D0D1-89A8-4789-A25B-5AACF4808610@microsoft.com...
>> http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal
>>
>> Pretty much says it all about this option.
>
> About the "legality" yes. It says *nothing* about how well it runs, which
> is the point under discussion here
>
> Mike
>
majority it doesn't work.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:33355ADD-DB69-427D-83A8-B98BE684F36E@microsoft.com...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:7CD8D0D1-89A8-4789-A25B-5AACF4808610@microsoft.com...
>> http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal
>>
>> Pretty much says it all about this option.
>
> About the "legality" yes. It says *nothing* about how well it runs, which
> is the point under discussion here
>
> Mike
>
- Thread starter
- #11
J
jshockley
so it would be useless to use vmware on my inspiron and install my osx
installation disks from my old g5 mac
"Mick Murphy" wrote:
> Good post Andrew, very interesting. I learn something every day.
>
> "Andrew McLaren" wrote:
>
> > "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote
> > >> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
> > > Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
> >
> > Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by using
> > an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
> > module.
> >
> > Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
> > the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion Strictly speaking
> > you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua spliced
> > on top.
> >
> > It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X, which would
> > be supported by Apple, suitable for use in a workplace office, etc. It might
> > suddenly stop working after software updates from Apple replace the kernel.
> > And legally of course, it's probably illagal (but I am not a lawyer). It
> > might also be technically intimidating for anyone who needs to ask in a
> > newsgroup if it's possible - ie, if you can do it, you wouldn't need to ask.
> >
> > It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
> > of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
> > second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
> >
> > But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run Mac
> > OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew McLaren
> > amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
> >
> >
> >
installation disks from my old g5 mac
"Mick Murphy" wrote:
> Good post Andrew, very interesting. I learn something every day.
>
> "Andrew McLaren" wrote:
>
> > "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote
> > >> i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
> > > Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
> >
> > Well, you can *sort of* run Mac OS X on a PC, incl VMWare. BUT only by using
> > an unofficial patched version of the OS kernel, and disabling the TPM
> > module.
> >
> > Whether you can still claim to be "running Mac OS X" after you're replaced
> > the kernel, is an interesting semantic discussion
Strictly speaking > > you're actually running Darwin, a somewhat Mac OS-like OS with Aqua spliced
> > on top.
> >
> > It is far from being a plain, ordinary installation of Mac OS X, which would
> > be supported by Apple, suitable for use in a workplace office, etc. It might
> > suddenly stop working after software updates from Apple replace the kernel.
> > And legally of course, it's probably illagal (but I am not a lawyer). It
> > might also be technically intimidating for anyone who needs to ask in a
> > newsgroup if it's possible - ie, if you can do it, you wouldn't need to ask.
> >
> > It can be made to happen (eg the OSX86 project) as a curiosity, or display
> > of technical wizardry. But if you really want to run Mac OS X, just buy a
> > second-hand Mac Mini. You'll get a much better Mac experience.
> >
> > But if someone wants to really, really argue black and blue you can run Mac
> > OS X on a PC, then ... sure, fine, okay, whatever dude, you can.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew McLaren
> > amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
> >
> >
> >
- Thread starter
- #12
J
jshockley
so i cant use my mac osx installation disks i got with my g5 on my inspiron
pc if i were to use vmware? im just looking for the easiest way to use both
platforms withut carrying around 2 comuters?
"Mike" wrote:
> In article <0649A4FA-9E3A-408D-A5AC-5FAD2CF7B8A5@microsoft.com>,
> jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
>
> Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
> have personally run OS X in VMWare, and tried many times to install it
> in VPC but it I've never succeeded. In fact, there is a ready to run
> VMWare disk image of 10.4.6 floating around.
>
> Actually you can run OS X right on your PC without VPC. Of course,
> it's not the standard issue OS X, it has to be a patched version.
> There are many "distros" of OSX86. I am using one right now and it
> runs fine.
>
> It's sort of like installing Linux. Depending on your hardware, it can
> be simple to install or it can be a royal pain in the ass - some manual
> file editing, fiddling with drivers, getting partitions correct to dual
> boot with Windows, etc.
>
> Check out The OSX86 Project at
> http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> for all the details. Beats the hell out of any Linux distro on the
> planet.
>
> Mike
>
pc if i were to use vmware? im just looking for the easiest way to use both
platforms withut carrying around 2 comuters?
"Mike" wrote:
> In article <0649A4FA-9E3A-408D-A5AC-5FAD2CF7B8A5@microsoft.com>,
> jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > i have vista32bit...can i run macosx using virtal pc on this one comp
>
> Yes, you can. Well, VPC still can't handle it, but VMWare can. I
> have personally run OS X in VMWare, and tried many times to install it
> in VPC but it I've never succeeded. In fact, there is a ready to run
> VMWare disk image of 10.4.6 floating around.
>
> Actually you can run OS X right on your PC without VPC. Of course,
> it's not the standard issue OS X, it has to be a patched version.
> There are many "distros" of OSX86. I am using one right now and it
> runs fine.
>
> It's sort of like installing Linux. Depending on your hardware, it can
> be simple to install or it can be a royal pain in the ass - some manual
> file editing, fiddling with drivers, getting partitions correct to dual
> boot with Windows, etc.
>
> Check out The OSX86 Project at
> http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> for all the details. Beats the hell out of any Linux distro on the
> planet.
>
> Mike
>
- Thread starter
- #13
M
Mike
In article <979A9208-B71A-4B7D-A12B-4124D60C0C16@microsoft.com>,
jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> so i cant use my mac osx installation disks i got with my g5 on my inspiron
> pc if i were to use vmware? im just looking for the easiest way to use both
> platforms withut carrying around 2 comuters?
No. G5 OS X is not going to run on ANY kind of Intel PC. You need
an Intel OS X - specifically, OSX86.
Mike
jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> so i cant use my mac osx installation disks i got with my g5 on my inspiron
> pc if i were to use vmware? im just looking for the easiest way to use both
> platforms withut carrying around 2 comuters?
No. G5 OS X is not going to run on ANY kind of Intel PC. You need
an Intel OS X - specifically, OSX86.
Mike
- Thread starter
- #14
M
Mike
In article <83D2CD87-222D-441C-95CD-ED223098B56B@microsoft.com>,
jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> so it would be useless to use vmware on my inspiron and install my osx
> installation disks from my old g5 mac
Correct, because a G5 Mac is Power PC based, not intel. It won't work,
it won't even boot.
Mike
jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> so it would be useless to use vmware on my inspiron and install my osx
> installation disks from my old g5 mac
Correct, because a G5 Mac is Power PC based, not intel. It won't work,
it won't even boot.
Mike
- Thread starter
- #15
M
Mike
In article <300B8338-297F-489B-81BC-D79C4449E400@microsoft.com>,
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
> If it's not legal then an ethical person wouldn't run it. That means for the
> majority it doesn't work.
Neither is driving faster than the posted speed limit, but that
certainly works for the majority around here.
Mike
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
> If it's not legal then an ethical person wouldn't run it. That means for the
> majority it doesn't work.
Neither is driving faster than the posted speed limit, but that
certainly works for the majority around here.
Mike
- Thread starter
- #16
K
Kerry Brown
"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:no-09A628.18552414072007@news.supernews.com...
> In article <300B8338-297F-489B-81BC-D79C4449E400@microsoft.com>,
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>> If it's not legal then an ethical person wouldn't run it. That means for
>> the
>> majority it doesn't work.
>
> Neither is driving faster than the posted speed limit, but that
> certainly works for the majority around here.
>
By that logic breaking any law can be excused by saying not all laws are
obeyed or even enforced therefore I can break any law with impunity. I don't
want to get into an ethical argument. I was just pointing out that the
solution recommended by Mike may be considered illegal.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
news:no-09A628.18552414072007@news.supernews.com...
> In article <300B8338-297F-489B-81BC-D79C4449E400@microsoft.com>,
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>> If it's not legal then an ethical person wouldn't run it. That means for
>> the
>> majority it doesn't work.
>
> Neither is driving faster than the posted speed limit, but that
> certainly works for the majority around here.
>
By that logic breaking any law can be excused by saying not all laws are
obeyed or even enforced therefore I can break any law with impunity. I don't
want to get into an ethical argument. I was just pointing out that the
solution recommended by Mike may be considered illegal.
--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca
- Thread starter
- #17
M
Mike
In article <8772F186-473C-416B-9847-E65C48C78533@microsoft.com>,
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
> By that logic breaking any law can be excused by saying not all laws are
> obeyed or even enforced therefore I can break any law with impunity.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Some laws certainly can - and
are - broken every day with impunity. Like, for example, breaking
Apple's "law" about daring to install their OS on non Apple hardware!
That in no way excuses breaking other, real laws.
But all of this is beside the point. The point is that OS X can easily
be installed on PCs other than Apple's PCs.
Mike
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
> By that logic breaking any law can be excused by saying not all laws are
> obeyed or even enforced therefore I can break any law with impunity.
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Some laws certainly can - and
are - broken every day with impunity. Like, for example, breaking
Apple's "law" about daring to install their OS on non Apple hardware!
That in no way excuses breaking other, real laws.
But all of this is beside the point. The point is that OS X can easily
be installed on PCs other than Apple's PCs.
Mike
- Thread starter
- #18
J
jshockley
can u refer me on instructions on installing my osx on my pc?
"Mike" wrote:
> In article <8772F186-473C-416B-9847-E65C48C78533@microsoft.com>,
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
> > By that logic breaking any law can be excused by saying not all laws are
> > obeyed or even enforced therefore I can break any law with impunity.
>
> No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Some laws certainly can - and
> are - broken every day with impunity. Like, for example, breaking
> Apple's "law" about daring to install their OS on non Apple hardware!
>
> That in no way excuses breaking other, real laws.
>
> But all of this is beside the point. The point is that OS X can easily
> be installed on PCs other than Apple's PCs.
>
> Mike
>
"Mike" wrote:
> In article <8772F186-473C-416B-9847-E65C48C78533@microsoft.com>,
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
> > By that logic breaking any law can be excused by saying not all laws are
> > obeyed or even enforced therefore I can break any law with impunity.
>
> No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Some laws certainly can - and
> are - broken every day with impunity. Like, for example, breaking
> Apple's "law" about daring to install their OS on non Apple hardware!
>
> That in no way excuses breaking other, real laws.
>
> But all of this is beside the point. The point is that OS X can easily
> be installed on PCs other than Apple's PCs.
>
> Mike
>
- Thread starter
- #19
M
Mike
In article <F7DC8E7A-C8BE-43DD-A958-8BBC89744038@microsoft.com>,
jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> can u refer me on instructions on installing my osx on my pc?
Well, again your existing copy of OS X - particularly if it's a G5
(Power PC) version - will not install on your PC. You need an OSX86
distro.
Check out
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
for all the details and info you will ever need. Of course, OSX86
itself is not available there. There are FAQs, installation guides,
hardware compatibility lists, question and answer forums and loads of
other stuff.
Mike
jshockley <jshockley@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> can u refer me on instructions on installing my osx on my pc?
Well, again your existing copy of OS X - particularly if it's a G5
(Power PC) version - will not install on your PC. You need an OSX86
distro.
Check out
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
for all the details and info you will ever need. Of course, OSX86
itself is not available there. There are FAQs, installation guides,
hardware compatibility lists, question and answer forums and loads of
other stuff.
Mike
- Thread starter
- #20
A
Andrew McLaren
"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote ...
> In article <uGCS4ecxHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
<snip>
Yeah, I expected you'd reply along those lines
I have the impression the OP was looking for something a little more, um,
straightforward and orthodox.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au
> In article <uGCS4ecxHHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
<snip>
Yeah, I expected you'd reply along those lines
I have the impression the OP was looking for something a little more, um,
straightforward and orthodox.
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au