Policy regarding OS X on non-Apple Hardware

[markwolfe Veteran]

How would you? Circumventing activation/copy protection? (which doesn't apply to OS X)

You can run Vista for 30-days per install. Will that rule forbidding this be removed now? After all, less circumvention is being done reinstalling than there is in making OSX work on beige box hardware.

No, because you only have one license for that copy of Vista. Purchasing a copy of Vista only grants you the rights to install it on one PC, the same with OS X. That would be the law, not just the EULA.

That sounds like picking and choosing among what EULA provisions are honored and which are not. And that is the EULA, as there is no "law" that forbids multiple installs - outside of Copyright law. And Copyright law is based on... get this... the terms of the EULA.

I accept it is now legal to discuss OSX86. I just don't see consistency with other EULAs

[Darran]

Cara had a blog post about this about a week ago, she was not supportive of Hackintosh: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?auto...;showentry=1828

[Arkaic]

So is this unofficial and just "modifying" of the files so it will work on x86? I thought Apple was a different architecture, like PPC? How do you get code compiled for PPC to work on x86?

[Hurmoth]

Also, another thing to think about. I've already started reading member's posts where they stated they tried this on their notebook and ended up purchasing a Mac. I'm sure that there are probably thousands of people who have done the same. I'm one of those people. I fell in love with the UI after using it on my desktop and ended up buying an iMac late last year. I've never been happier.

[Darran]

So is this unofficial and just "modifying" of the files so it will work on x86? I thought Apple was a different architecture, like PPC? How do you get code compiled for PPC to work on x86?

You are way behind the times, Apple's new machines are entirely Intel x86 based, see http://www.apple.com/intel/

[+StevoFC MVC]

Cara had a blog post about this about a week ago, she was not supportive of Hackintosh: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?auto...;showentry=1828

Yes. And if I had to guess I would say she won't be happy at all with this decision. And it definitely doesn't make much sense to **** off the most informed Apple/OS X user here.

Support for all things Apple will drop significantly here because of this. I for one, will not help anyone I am even suspicious of using OSX86.

[Mathachew Veteran]

So is this unofficial and just "modifying" of the files so it will work on x86? I thought Apple was a different architecture, like PPC? How do you get code compiled for PPC to work on x86?

I'm probably going to get flak for this, but that changed when Apple changed their Macs to be like PCs by going with Intel chips.

[Darran]

Should also be noted, Apple does not advertise on websites (rumour sites/hack sites/hate sites) that cross them.

[giga Veteran]

You can run Vista for 30-days per install. Will that rule forbidding this be removed now? After all, less circumvention is being done reinstalling than there is in making OSX work on beige box hardware.

I'm not familiar with the Vista side of things but as far as I'm reading it, that rule mainly deals with the aspects of downloading a copy of Vista through illegal means and thinking of it as "shareware" software. We're not condoning downloading Leopard through illegal means.

[BajiRav]

I think they've just opened up a big can of worms that they really should have kept covered up.

Its a very slippery slope they have just started down.

We all know that the OSX used on whitebox PCs is going to be a pirated version just as we know that a the majority of people have pirated software on their machines, dodgy decisions to open up with no visible sign on what exactly they stand to gain by the decision.

In same manner, can we safely assume that all Mac owners running Vista are pirating Windows?

[Hurmoth]

You can run Vista for 30-days per install. Will that rule forbidding this be removed now? After all, less circumvention is being done reinstalling than there is in making OSX work on beige box hardware.

Again, to get Vista you'd have to download a copy illegally. That is warez. Unless you obtain a copy of Vista from an authorized vendor (Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc.) then it is warez.

That sounds like picking and choosing among what EULA provisions are honored and which are not. And that is the EULA, as there is no "law" that forbids multiple installs - outside of Copyright law. And Copyright law is based on... get this... the terms of the EULA.

I accept it is now legal to discuss OSX86. I just don't see consistency with other EULAs

Did you see Tim D.'s post? He actually addressed this. I'm researching licensing laws/EULAs right now.

[Lee G. Veteran]

Is creating a new subforum for this a good idea if Neowin is going to allow this discussion? (I know, Neowin is looking to simplify its forum structure) - but I think it's reasonable to say that it will annoy genuine Mac users in having the Apple General Discussion forum full of [OSx86] threads. I'm not a Mac user (yet!), but I can imagine having these topics in this forum would annoy those who have Macs.

[MasterC]

Cara had a blog post about this about a week ago, she was not supportive of Hackintosh: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?auto...;showentry=1828

Thanks for posting that link. (Y)

Yes. And if I had to guess I would say she won't be happy at all with this decision. And it definitely doesn't make much sense to **** off the most informed Apple/OS X user here.

Support for all things Apple will drop significantly here because of this. I for one, will not help anyone I am even suspicious of using OSX86.

Once again, I'm with you on this. :yes:

[markwolfe Veteran]

Again, to get Vista you'd have to download a copy illegally. That is warez. Unless you obtain a copy of Vista from an authorized vendor (Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc.) then it is warez.

To get Vista, I can buy. Then proceed to violate the EULA by installing it on extra computers with "trial periods" then re-imaging it. I am not making copies of the media. I am not illegally downloading anything. Simply violating the spirit and terms of the EULA.

Did you see Tim D.'s post? He actually addressed this. I'm researching licensing laws/EULAs right now.

I know I must sound like a pain in the butt right now (and considering I have never bought an Apple computer - just been donated an old G3 for my kid to play with) I really have no vested interest in Apple or their EULAs. And I do appreciate the effort and hassle the staff is going through to answer these questions that everyone is pouring into the thread at breakneck pace. :p

And timdorrs post was purely on copyright aspects of downloading.

[Knife Party]

like the add says ''get a mac'' - don't be cheap. the EULA is there for a reason

[Hurmoth]

Yes. And if I had to guess I would say she won't be happy at all with this decision. And it definitely doesn't make much sense to **** off the most informed Apple/OS X user here.

Support for all things Apple will drop significantly here because of this. I for one, will not help anyone I am even suspicious of using OSX86.

She claims she's an Apple employee, I'd imagine that Apple employees probably would agree with allowing this discussion, but, with all due respect, we're not here for Apple, we're here for the community and this is a step forward in helping out the community.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

i would like them to have their own section, but i do not agree with having the section at all.

i hope apple puts a stop to it as it will majority lead to extreme negativity towards osx because of people tryign to run it on stuff it was not meant to be run on ( aka forcing XP to run on a 486 )

Is creating a new subforum for this a good idea if Neowin is going to allow this discussion? (I know, Neowin is looking to simplify its forum structure) - but I think it's reasonable to say that it will annoy genuine Mac users in having the Apple General Discussion forum full of [OSx86] threads. I'm not a Mac user (yet!), but I can imagine having these topics in this forum would annoy those who have Macs.

[Darran]

I don't think saying "We know most users are pirating windows, photoshop etc. etc." is an excuse to say it's fine to put up with discussion of ilegal activity especially if you know it's predominantly ilegal. If anything Neowin should be encouraging users who wish to do these things to pursue the legal(er) route, not just opening pandora's box.

I hope that made sense.

[+StevoFC MVC]

She claims she's an Apple employee, I'd imagine that Apple employees probably would agree with allowing this discussion, but, with all due respect, we're not here for Apple, we're here for the community and this is a step forward in helping out the community.

I'm sorry but either your reading comprehension isn't very good or you didn't read her blog post. Because what you just said makes no sense.

And she "claims" to be an Apple employee?

What, you don't believe her?

[Hurmoth]

To get Vista, I can buy. Then proceed to violate the EULA by installing it on extra computers with "trial periods" then re-imaging it. I am not making copies of the media. I am not illegally downloading anything. Simply violating the spirit and terms of the EULA.

I know I must sound like a pain in the butt right now (and considering I have never bought an Apple computer - just been donated an old G3 for my kid to play with) I really have no vested interest in Apple or their EULAs. And I do appreciate the effort and hassle the staff is going through to answer these questions that everyone is pouring into the thread at breakneck pace. :p

And timdorrs post was purely on copyright aspects of downloading.

You're absolutely right. But here's my question for you, what support would someone need from installing Vista on multiple computers that s/he'd need to disclose that information to us? While you're right it is just a violation of the EULA to install software on multiple computers, my question, I guess is why would they need to tell us that? Unless of course they're having an activation issue.

On top of that, they do not have a legal standing to back themselves up in court. Someone who installs OS X on their PC does. The 1984 Federal Court ruling specifically makes it illegal for a company to force their users to install the OS on specific hardware. Which is ultimately the reason we're now allowing this discussion.

[MMaster23]

Also I don't get Neowin is doing this? Sure they want more visitors but OSX86 traffic is hard to get.

There are 2 huge special x86 fora and 1 central wiki for this stuff...

By allowing it here, you not only wasting your time with legal issues (keeping up to date wether supporting this is (still) legal takes time too...), but also decentralizing the current community.

I know you guys want to help, but you aren't making it easier for yourself and the (newbie) osx86 user.

IMHO .. just allow links to the 2 special osx86 fora and central wiki.

(also .. if you're going to do this .. use a seperate subforum for this .. and not tags... supporting x86 is a mess (which nearly every macfan hates most of all; see workstation thread, 'em fakers :p))

[what]

This makes sense. Since the EULA isn't connected to any U.S. laws, as long as you obtain OS X legally in the first place, the only issue is between the user and Apple, who will refuse to give support for the product, which is fair. OSx86 is a community-driven project and I think Neowin should be a part of that community. I can see why some people may disagree with the idea but I'm personally in support of it. Good job (Y).

[Hurmoth]

I'm sorry but either your reading comprehension isn't very good or you didn't read her blog post. Because what you just said makes no sense.

And she "claims" to be an Apple employee?

What, you don't believe her?

I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve her to be an Apple employee. That wasn't my point. My point was we're not here to cater to Apple, we're here to help the community.

[markwolfe Veteran]

You're absolutely right. But here's my question for you, what support would someone need from installing Vista on multiple computers that s/he'd need to disclose that information to us? While you're right it is just a violation of the EULA to install software on multiple computers, my question, I guess is why would they need to tell us that? Unless of course they're having an activation issue.

So, the policy is "don't ask, don't tell"? That a "wink" about the media origin is OK? I guess that the same assumptions are made about Vista and Photoshop in the forums. Only direct admitting to warez copies is acted on. So being evasive about the source of your OSX is the way for pirates to go.

The 1984 Federal Court ruling specifically makes it illegal for a company to force their users to install the OS on specific hardware. Which is ultimately the reason we're now allowing this discussion.

If this was all based on that ruling, then why did not anyone say so at the beginning announcement?

If it is of any consolation, I now accept this not only as a staff decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. I won't be posting any more questions on this. :yes:

(I still am strongly opposed to "wink warez", though) :p

[Marshalus Veteran]

Cara had a blog post about this about a week ago, she was not supportive of Hackintosh: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?auto...;showentry=1828

And since when Cara speak for Neowin or Apple? Never, she speaks for herself.