OS-X on intel machines
Wolf Kirchmeir
machine. I'm more than willing to pay for OS-X, but not for the
over-priced substandard hardware that Apple offers. I have a self-built
screamin' machine based on a 2.4GHz dual core chip, a mobo with a 1GHz
FSB, and so forth, I want to run my Mac apps on it!
Help anyone?
If, that is, one can buy OS-X apart from the hardware....
TIA.
--
wolf k.
MacGeek
Wolf Kirchmeir <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
OSx is 129.00 available at apple.com or your local Apple store.
google - "os x on intel pc" and see what unfolds for you.
it is a violation of the terms of agreement to install the Apple OS on
anything other than a Mac. Software and Hardware are meant to integrate.
Wolf Kirchmeir
> In article <481cf4f6$0$10609$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
> Wolf Kirchmeir <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> I'd like advice on how to get Tiger or Leopard to run on any Intel
>> machine. I'm more than willing to pay for OS-X, but not for the
>> over-priced substandard hardware that Apple offers. I have a self-built
>> screamin' machine based on a 2.4GHz dual core chip, a mobo with a 1GHz
>> FSB, and so forth, I want to run my Mac apps on it!
>>
>> Help anyone?
>>
>> If, that is, one can buy OS-X apart from the hardware....
>>
>> TIA.
>
> OSx is 129.00 available at apple.com or your local Apple store.
Thanks.
> google - "os x on intel pc" and see what unfolds for you.
Did that. Seems I need a few hacks to make it work. That's not really
what I want, but if all else fails ----
> it is a violation of the terms of agreement to install the Apple OS on
> anything other than a Mac. Software and Hardware are meant to integrate.
Really? You mean Stevie wants me to things _his_ way?
Who'dathunkit. ;-)
--
wolf k.
MacGeek
Wolf Kirchmeir <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
snip
>
> > it is a violation of the terms of agreement to install the Apple OS on
> > anything other than a Mac. Software and Hardware are meant to integrate.
>
> Really? You mean Stevie wants me to things _his_ way?
>
> Who'dathunkit. ;-)
I really don't think it is that personal. Intergration is one of
Apple's strengths. You spend three days working WITH your computer as
opposed to three days work ON your computer. Dropping OSX on a parts
machine would require a whole lot of tinker. Most of us prefer a
computer that 'just works'.
to each his own eh?
Wolf Kirchmeir
Well, that's true, sort of. I take it that Apple doesn't provide
drivers for any hardware except what it sells, and/or that hardware
vendors don't bother providing OS-X drivers. OTOH, that shouldn't be too
difficult, I'd think. Oh, well.
> to each his own eh?
Yup. ;-)
--
wolf k.
J Sadler
Wolf Kirchmeir <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Take a look at the following:
http://lifehacker.com/software/hack-attack/build-a-hackintosh-mac-for-under-800-321913.php
http://lifehacker.com/software/benchmarks/hackintosh-vs-mac-pro-vs-macbook-pro-benchmarks-322866.php
J. Sadler
Wolf Kirchmeir
> In article <481cf4f6$0$10609$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
[snip courteous reply to my query about MAC OS-X on non-Apple hardware]
> it is a violation of the terms of agreement to install the Apple OS on
> anything other than a Mac. Software and Hardware are meant to integrate.
True. But IMO Apple is making a serious mistake by not marketing OS-X to
people who buy or build non-Apple hardware. MS used dirty tricks to
spread Windows, true, but the net result has been that Windows will run
hassle-free on just about any Intel-based or similar hardware. That has
kept hardware prices low, and has made it easy to build your own (just
buy the bits and pieces, plug them together, install Windows, and go.)
Another result of that has been an incredible quantity of 3rd party
software, much of it more or less crappy, but all of it prompting
further development, which tosses up some very good freeware and
shareware. This has not happened for the Mac, and that's a pity. For
example, there is nothing like Irfanview (freeware) or PMView
(orphanware, sadly) available for the Mac. These are straightforward
viewers that include some simple and basic processing (gamma, colour
balance, format conversion, resizing, filters, etc.) Irfanview also has
neat and simple slide-show facility. Very easy to use, unlike iPhoto,
which IMO is a royal PITA. It insists on "importing" pictures, etc,
instead of just enabling you to navigate to the folder of your choice,
and working directly from/in it. I know iPhoto as presently configured
suits many people's work habits, but it doesn't suit mine.
Apple's insistence on My Way Or The Highway is IMO the main reason it
lost market share, and hasn't gained much back. And that's a pity,
because in most respects OS-X is far superior to Windows. Why do you
think I want a version I can _legally_ and _easily_ install on my desktop?
Do I sound pissed off? Damn right I do. A manufacturer's mission is to
meet its customer's needs and desires, not impose its notion of what's
good for them.
HTH
--
wolf k.
MacGeek
Wolf Kirchmeir <wol...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> MacGeek wrote:
> > In article <481cf4f6$0$10609$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>,
>
> [snip )
>
> Another result of that has been an incredible quantity of 3rd party
> software, much of it more or less crappy, but all of it prompting
> further development, which tosses up some very good freeware and
> shareware. This has not happened for the Mac, and that's a pity.
snip
Bob Nielsen
There is also a huge amount of free software which can be installed via
macports or fink.
Wolf Kirchmeir
Thanks, but as I've said, I've looked....
Anyhow, I use the Powerbook from time to time, it (ie, the software I've
found) does some things exceptionally well. ;-)
--
wolf k.