Response to "Hackintosh"

[szr]

Ok, It seems everytime I come across this topic anywhere on the web, there are people, such as Cara, who continue to misrepresent what it means to run the Mac OS X operating system on an true "x86 PC."

I feel it best to divide this into two clear groups:

First, you have special modified versions of the operating system itself, such as "Kaylay" or "JaS" - two of the most notable ones I've read about - which are normally distributed via P2P networks a la Bit Torrent. These are not the same as the original retail version, and are what Cara seemed to be refering to in the article in question; as noted there can be various problems with drivers/kexts as well as stability and you can never be sure if there isn't some unadvertised bayload that was bundled along for the ride.

This is what is correctly refered to as a "Hackintosh", as the OS itself has been modified and thus virtually never legally purshased.

Second, you have those who have legally purshased the OS, and have installed and run it on a normal Intel-based x86 PC. This is not difficult to do providing you have a supported processor and know how to tweak the bootloader (ie, a tweaked BootEFI) which can be run off of a DVD or even off the HD itself if done correctly. Again this approach works with 100% legal copies of the OS; I've installed and run it on both real PCs and in VMWare 6.5. Seeing as the bootloader is open source, this modification in and of itself is perfectly legit.

This is what is typically refered to as a "OSx86", as you are simply running the retail (unaltered) operating system. The only modifiying that is done is at the boot loader level. Otherwise, the actual hardware is really no different that what might be found inside of an offical Intel-based Mac box. The EULA aside, if a retail version is used, Apple is not loosing any money (infact they've made a sale), so to me, this is not ethically wrong, as the first approach I've outlined clearly is.

In conclusion, what prompted me to write this post is the sheer ignorance I see on this topic; the painting of all angles with the same brush, regardless of what the author of a forum post or someone in a chat room (try talking about it in Freenode IRC's #macosx channel) has actually built. I seriously implore the community to set aside any preconceived notions about what exactly OSX on an x86 based-PC actually is, and not to be so quick to judge.

Sadly and almost ironically, this seems to be an all too familar problem for Apple supporters, in which many who I've spoken too seem to still believe, with with Apple having gone the Intel route, that what is inside their "Macs" is so much different then what one might find inside a typical "PC" running Windows or Linux; clearly, any Intel-based Mac sold these days are little more than custom built PCs, built specifically for running Mac OS X. but are in fact themselves perfecly capable of running Windows or Linux operating systems.

I hope everyone has had a pleasant start to this new year and I wish to all a positive outlook for the rest of it :)

[markwolfe Veteran]

Hi. Welcome to Neowin.

If I want to call a modified version of OSX "hacked" to have the bootloader modified, and put it on a generic x86 PC a "Hackintosh", why is there a problem?

It was hacked in there. And don't get me wrong. I fully endorse white-hat hacking. I am a Linux user, and things like wine running Windows exes, or ndiswrapper loading Windows wireless drivers are all positive results of hacking.

I just don't get wound up, or create an account just to single out someone by name for derision and scorn for what he or she prefers to call a hacked install of OSX.

[LTD]

Ok.

Cara is against osx86. She's outlined her reasons. Mine are similar, but perhaps it's a bit less of an issue for me, given the real menace out there, which is outfits like Psystar.

However, what you do isn't entirely lily-white. ;) It doesn't matter whether your copy of OS X was bought legally or not.

You can categorize and divide to your heart's content. Apple does not intend for OS X to be run on anything but Apple hardware - it's in the EULA, and it's in the kernel extensions as well. The reasons for this are numerous, obvious, and have already been outlined countless times. You need to hack OS X to make it work, because OS X will refuse to install on non-Apple hardware - it's part of the kexts. You can't simply install the retail version and be done with it. So you're HACKING a company's product not only against the EULA, but also making modifications that the software specifically tries to prevent.

If an underground or "Hackintosh"/osx86 community exists, then fine. At least a fully working osx6 install is sufficiently difficult to pull off to turn most people away from it. And at least you do less damage to Apple and its user base over the long term than thieves like Psystar.

Thanks for the New year wishes. Same to you.

[kyro]

majority of people here , who appear to be old time users of apple are very against OSx86 and its mention. i have been snubbed and targetted just for mentioning OSx86 in my reply to a thread , so this hostility towards me has totally made keep quiet on any new exciting news i encounter about OSx86 project, Like recently discovered method to produce LiveDVD of OSX , its hell of a cool news but obviously i will get torched to bones here. i guess thats the way people want to keep it that way, here at neowin.

[the evn show]

You can categorize and divide to your heart's content. Apple does not intend for OS X to be run on anything but Apple hardware - it's in the EULA, and it's in the kernel extensions as well.

What Apple wants and what people who pay for their software want don't necessarily coincide.

The folks responsible fro the :CueCat probably didn't want 99% of the things that happened with their product but that really doesn't matter. Same with Disposable digital cameras.

So you're HACKING a company's product not only against the EULA, but also making modifications that the software specifically tries to prevent.

The enforceability of click-through EULAs are questionable even in the most anti-consumer parts of the world (like the USA) and they may not be enforceable at all in certain countries.

Even under the DMCA, modifying software for the purposes of interoperability is permited though the details are muddy at best. There is an article at IPcentral about Apple specifically that serves as a good starting point to understanding the issue.

It's generally accepted that taking?for example?the mach_kernel file form a standard install of OS X and modifying it is acceptable. You stray into the realm of copyright infringement when you distribute your modified binary to others. The typical work-around is distributing a patch: A program or set of instructions to modify another user's own copy of mach_kernel. The complexity of a patch could be as simple as a text file with instructions:

• At offset 0x3B203 set the value to 0xAFFF
  At offset 0xA0632 set the value to 0x0000
  ?
  

It could be more complicated: maybe you drag/drop an ISO image of your OS X install disk on to it and it makes all the patches.

I'm not sure how the Hackintosh folks go about making their install media (though I suspect it's probably a little bit of "here are the patches" and then some copyright infringment kiddies run those and make the modified ISO install disk images available through the standard channels for the less technical people).

While software with the express purpose of enabling copyright infringement tends to be a one-way-trip to the losing side of a court battle, it's not clear whether or not these hacks would be protected under interoperability rules.

Having said all of that, modifying software generally voids Apple's requirements on the service agreement (ie: don't call tech support if an update fails). You'll also expose yourself to a much higher probability of things going ###### up when a patch or update happens. But if you're buying OS X, applying patches yourself, and not distributing the fruits of your effort then it's unlikely you're running on the wrong side of any laws, especially for people outside of the United States.

majority of people here , who appear to be old time users of apple are very against OSx86 and its mention. i have been snubbed and targetted just for mentioning OSx86 in my reply to a thread , so this hostility towards me has totally made keep quiet on any new exciting news i encounter about OSx86 project, Like recently discovered method to produce LiveDVD of OSX , its hell of a cool news but obviously i will get torched to bones here. i guess thats the way people want to keep it that way, here at neowin.

Different communities have different standards. I think that the neowin community is of the opinion that anybody messing around with a hacked-up OS X install is commiting copyright infringement. I figure the logic goes something like "If they're willing to ignore the EULA to install it on a non-mac then they're probably willing to pirate a copy too".

I'm not sure whether that leap in logic is accurate, and I don't have any desire to find out.

You don't have to agree with the prevailing community standards but you shouldn't be surprised when going against them is met with scorn.

Imagine if our linux community was very much in favor of rolling your own distribution & always compiling from source and someone came in advocating that everyone just pays for a copy of Redhat + support agreement. I imagine that person would earn themselves a spot on the community black-list too.

[szr]

Hi. Welcome to Neowin.

Thank you very much.

If I want to call a modified version of OSX "hacked" to have the bootloader modified, and put it on a generic x86 PC a "Hackintosh", why is there a problem?

I'm sure exactly what you mean here. Modifiying the OS and modifiying the bootloader are two entirely different things. Many people seem to think they are the same, and I am just pointing out there is a world of a difference between the too; naming the latter allows a full retail product, while the former you usually have to seek out "specialty" versions, with which you take your chances.

It was hacked in there. And don't get me wrong. I fully endorse white-hat hacking. I am a Linux user, and things like wine running Windows exes, or ndiswrapper loading Windows wireless drivers are all positive results of hacking.

That is a good point; running even a perfectly retail copt of Leopard on a normal PC is no less illegal than, say, modding an xbox or playstation, or jail breaking an iPhone, etc, but you never see people make the same irrational arguements for those. You don't see the same amount of censorship as you do when someone brings up running OS X on a home built PC.

I just don't get wound up, or create an account just to single out someone by name for derision and scorn for what he or she prefers to call a hacked install of OSX.

I was not singling out anyone, and that certainally wasn't the sole reason I made this account. My post was in reference to a blog post, but I was not attacking the author at all, nor was it my intent to do so. Also, when composing my initial post, I was in a calm frame of mind, and not at all "wound up."

[szr]

Cara is against osx86. She's outlined her reasons. Mine are similar, but perhaps it's a bit less of an issue for me, given the real menace out there, which is outfits like Psystar.

I understand her reasons, but the point I was making was that she seems to think all forms of running OS X on a "PC" are all one and the same; that there are rather big differences (one of the biggest imho is running a paid-for retail OS and the other a special build of the OS of unknown and/or questionable origin.

However, what you do isn't entirely lily-white. ;) It doesn't matter whether your copy of OS X was bought legally or not.

I believe it does make a difference. If you paid for the product, as a user, you have every right to experiement. Yes, it's against the EULA, but then again, so is jail breaking an iPhone or modding xboxes, playstations, or PSPs; even using Wine to run certain things voilates an EULA or two. but I never see people sometimes go out of their way to chastise those who do it as I do with those who talk about running OS X on "PC"s.

You need to hack OS X to make it work, because OS X will refuse to install on non-Apple hardware - it's part of the kexts. You can't simply install the retail version and be done with it. So you're HACKING a company's product not only against the EULA, but also making modifications that the software specifically tries to prevent.

This is completely untrue. All you need is the right boot loader (what amounts to an EFI tweak, which is an interface Intel - not Apple - provides.)

I've installed Leopard and Tiger off of 100% retail DVDs on both VM Wware 6.5 and physical Intell Dual Core machines; no modding/hacking was done to the operating system what so ever. Boot loaders exist out side of the operating system, they are not technically part of the operating system. A boot loader is basically a program that lives in either the MBR of a hard drive, or in the first sector or so of a partition (depending on the boot loader in question.)

If an underground or "Hackintosh"/osx86 community exists, then fine. At least a fully working osx6 install is sufficiently difficult to pull off to turn most people away from it. And at least you do less damage to Apple and its user base over the long term than thieves like Psystar.

Well, if you're actually paying for the operating system, then I don't see how a private user would be doing any damage; it would see by purchasing a retail DVD you're actually helping Apple, by giving them your money, no?

Thanks for the New year wishes. Same to you.

No problem.

[sn00pie]

Where is Cara? I haven't seen her or her posts in quite some time..

[szr]

Well it wasn't simply a straight reply, but an attempt to start an engaging discussion on a topic I feel is repeated misrepresented, in many differnt forum and chat networks. I wanted to set aside the clear differences between using a modified version of the OS vs using the original (legally paid for) retail DVD, tweaking the bootloader by way of using Intel's Extensible Firmware Interface.

People say that running OS X on x86 is wrong... well correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't genuine Intel Macs in fact an x86 platform? Sure some things are tweaked for Apple's taste (again, Intel EFI comes into mind), and I surmise that using the EFI tweak is essentially undoing what Apple did to an otherwise vanilla Intel setup (although I cannot say for sure as I don't know the extend of the modifications Apple does to Intel chipsets.)

To me, weather running on an "Intel Apple" or a vanilla Intel "PC", you still have OS X running on an Intel plaform. I think the great hardware/platofrm divide that Mac users have become so acustomed to over the many years prior to Apple's decision to go Intel (Snow Leopard, according to Apple, will be Intel only) has withered to being virtually non existant anymore, resulting in the box itself that OS X comes installed on it little more than a custom built PC housed in most case really a really nice enclosure.

IMHO, there are many among the Apple crowd in general who seem to be having a hard time letting go of that old way of thinking... ie the PPC Macs vs x86 PCs... those who see their Intel Macs as being something, hardware-wise, completely different than a x86 PC, are purely living in denial, and these are the kind I see most commonly spreading the common FUD about running OS X on a plain PC that I'm attempting to correct. It's not about piracy, for many, it's about running the retail product on hardware other then which Apple provides, even though Intel Macs are composed of virtually the same hardware you can get for a PC off the shelf or from an OEM.

[markwolfe Veteran]

I guess my position is if someone wants to use the following:

Micro$oft instead of Microsoft

Crapple instead of Apple

Linsux instead of Linux

Hackintosh instead of Macintosh

... it just doesn't bother me.

And, looking at those above terms, only the "hackintosh" one is not flamebait. It is actually quite accurate. It doesn't imply "warez", just hacked into working.

[39 Thieves]

Where is Cara? I haven't seen her or her posts in quite some time..

She vanishes quite frequently. She'll be around for months, that you'll not hear a peep from her for months.

[the evn show]

In the interests of cleaning up misconceptions:

People say that running OS X on x86 is wrong... well correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't genuine Intel Macs in fact an x86 platform?

The objection is to running on anything but an "Apple Branded computer". Way back in the day topics about running Mac OS X 10.4 on "oldworld" macs using XPostFacto were generally met positively. Nobody really gives a damn about the components inside so long as the package was purchased from Apple.

Some/most macs might be x86 machines but that's not what the people opposed to running the hackintosh setup find distasteful.

resulting in the box itself that OS X comes installed on it little more than a custom built PC housed in most case really a really nice enclosure.

For some of us the package is what matters: Getting Mac OS X on a PowerMac or Mac Mini as a tool to do interesting. The unique part of the hardware is the industrial design and functional like magsafe but it's a tiny minority that believe those points alone make macs special. If more people cared deeply about the hardware alone then you'd see a lot more Linux/Windows-only "mac" users.

Apple crowd in general who seem to be having a hard time letting go of that old way of thinking... ie the PPC Macs vs x86 PCs... those who see their Intel Macs as being something, hardware-wise, completely different than a x86 PC

Who are these people? I think you'll find the Mac users here see the package of Mac OS X on an Macintosh as something distinct from Windows or Linux on a Dell?or even Mac OS X on an EEEPC. But I don't think you'll find many people here that think the individual components of their mac are anything spectacular.

It's not about piracy, for many, it's about running thretailb> product on hardware other then which Apple provides, even though Intel Macs are composed of virtually the same hardware you can get for a PC off the shelf or from an OEM.

Having spent a little time browsing the resources about this, I think copyright infringement is a major component.

Example: I've got an old dual Dell workstation that I figured I could try this out on: it's a few years old and I was planning to recycle it this week anyway. I've got a family pack of Mac OS X 10.5 that I picked up on launch day but have only used 2 installations (My iMac and old iBook).

I went to the Linked article for OS X 10.5 on a Pentium 4.

Image #1 indicates I'm supposed to be using some ISO I've snagged from a P2P application or torrent site. The act of sending that software to me (whether I'm licensed or not) is copyright infringement: it was an image for one of the developer releases.

The guide for 10.5.1 contains the following advice for selecting a way to get a copy:

Who cares, just download it. This is the most common method, and also the least legal.

http://tgrounds.blogspot.com/2008/03/osx-l...1051-on-pc.html

Every guide I looked at said more-or-less the same thing "screw the EULA and buying it: just download it".

I decided to look up what the hell a kalyway iso was and came across a forum post by a person named "kaly".

which describes the image not as a patch that I can apply to an image of my retail disk but as a hacked up ISO with a bunch of changed files and some "bonus applications" too. Again I'm running in to copyright infringement.

Where can I find instructions that will let me use my retail Mac OS X 10.5 install DVD to install this on my PC with only "minor EFI tweaks"? Everything I've seen assumed I've taken a tour or two through various torrent sites or P2P applications before I even start.

Maybe I'm looking in shady locations (this is the first link on google when I searched for "osx86") but the whole thing has an air of illegitimacy. If this is the first exposure any mac-owner has with this, is it any wonder that they assume the people interested are infringing copyright and generally unethical folk?

[kyro]

People say that running OS X on x86 is wrong... well correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't genuine Intel Macs in fact an x86 platform? Sure some things are tweaked for Apple's taste (again, Intel EFI comes into mind), and I surmise that using the EFI tweak is essentially undoing what Apple did to an otherwise vanilla Intel setup (although I cannot say for sure as I don't know the extend of the modifications Apple does to Intel chipsets.)

IMHO, there are many among the Apple crowd in general who seem to be having a hard time letting go of that old way of thinking... ie the PPC Macs vs x86 PCs... those who see their Intel Macs as being something, hardware-wise, completely different than a x86 PC, are purely living in denial, and these are the kind I see most commonly spreading the common FUD about running OS X on a plain PC that I'm attempting to correct. It's not about piracy, for many, it's about running the retail product on hardware other then which Apple provides, even though Intel Macs are composed of virtually the same hardware you can get for a PC off the shelf or from an OEM.

Oh ****kk man , no you didn't. You didn't have to bring the truth here, they are now going to chase you in alley, lynch you , hang you by the tree and shove the EULA right up your copyright :(

was nice knowing you :|.

[szr]

Having spent a little time browsing the resources about this, I think copyright infringement is a major component.

Example: I've got an old dual Dell workstation that I figured I could try this out on: it's a few years old and I was planning to recycle it this week anyway. I've got a family pack of Mac OS X 10.5 that I picked up on launch day but have only used 2 installations (My iMac and old iBook).

I went to the Linked article for OS X 10.5 on a Pentium 4.

Image #1 indicates I'm supposed to be using some ISO I've snagged from a P2P application or torrent site. The act of sending that software to me (whether I'm licensed or not) is copyright infringement: it was an image for one of the developer releases.

The guide for 10.5.1 contains the following advice for selecting a way to get a copy:

Every guide I looked at said more-or-less the same thing "screw the EULA and buying it: just download it".

I decided to look up what the hell a kalyway iso was and came across a forum post by a person named "kaly".

which describes the image not as a patch that I can apply to an image of my retail disk but as a hacked up ISO with a bunch of changed files and some "bonus applications" too. Again I'm running in to copyright infringement.

Where can I find instructions that will let me use my retail Mac OS X 10.5 install DVD to install this on my PC with only "minor EFI tweaks"? Everything I've seen assumed I've taken a tour or two through various torrent sites or P2P applications before I even start.

Maybe I'm looking in shady locations (this is the first link on google when I searched for "osx86") but the whole thing has an air of illegitimacy. If this is the first exposure any mac-owner has with this, is it any wonder that they assume the people interested are infringing copyright and generally unethical folk?

That because you're looking up the wrong thing entirely. If you are searching for information about "hackinstoshes", then it's nowonder you are running into modified ISOs and P2P links and such.

The clean method I was talking about involves installing and running a genuine retail product. Try seach for OSx86 bootloader EFI or something along those lines. When I drive back home tomorrow or so I'll be able to give you some links.

Just to make it clear, the only method I feel is perfectly legit is using a retail product that you've legally purchased. Using downloaded ISO's (or DMG's) is pirating. Using a legally purchased install DVD by way of a modified boot loader is not piracy, and I do not see how that is copyright infringement. Downloading OS X from PSP, however, is.

[the evn show]

That because you're looking up the wrong thing entirely. If you are searching for information about "hackinstoshes", then it's nowonder you are running into modified ISOs and P2P links and such.

?Try seach for OSx86 bootloader EFI or something along those lines.

I didn't search for that. I looked up "OSx86" after reading the first post that said:

I followed the first link which was to a wiki hosted by "insanely mac" which I recall being a discussion/rumor site way back in the day. That's where I ended up being told to hit up torrent sites or otherwise acquire a hacked image of Mac OS X install media.

Searching for "OSx86 bootloader EFI" turns up a somewhat useful Wikipedia article. It describes a bit of history but doesn't provide instructions or links. The next result is back to the insanely mac site mentioned earlier, and the next few don't seem terribly useful at all (spam sites, etc). The wikipedia article is enough to get me started looking in to more legitimate?if that's the right word?methods of installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer. If you can post more detailed articles I'm sure we'd appreciate the info. The more information that doesn't require copyright infringement, the better: i think it would help to ease some of the concerns that Mac users at Neowin have.

I still don't see the value proposition in running an unsupported system, but thank-you for guiding me towards better information. I'm glad to see that not everybody interested in running mac os x on a non-mac has to commit copyright infringement just to get started.

Just to make it clearonlyly method I feel is perfectly legit is using a retail product that you've legally purchased. Using downloaded ISO's (or DMG's) is pirating. Using a legally purchased install DVD by way of a modified boot loader is not piracy, and I do not see how that is copyright infringement. Downloading OS X from PSP, however, is.

On these two points we agree. If you can take an install disk out of the box and shove it in your PC (dell, roll-your-own, whatever) you're not breaking any copyright laws. The only part of the EULA that you might be running on the wrong side of is the "bundling clause" which may or may not be valid depending on where you live. There may also be DMCA issues for Americans but those are things we haven't seen tested in court yet.

Having said that: when searching the obvious terms lead to a bunch of guides telling you to download a hacked-up copy then I think it's pretty easy to understand where the suspicion of the Neowin Mac community comes from. I suspect many have done the same cursory search, found themselves in questionable company and the wrote the whole thing off as crooked.

[szr]

I'm guessing the topics were old / out of date. Many of those articles refer to the pre EFI and Boot-132 methods.

Have a look here for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#EFI_emulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86#Boot-132

Edited January 5, 2009 by szr

[kyro]

boot132 is the most widely used method, i use it too :yes:

[Silverskull]

I am wondering whether "hackintosh" is the actual term, because it seems to me that it's used to describe all OS X installs on non-Apple PCs. To my knowledge, osx86 covers all methods of installing OS X on standard PCs as well. It seems that "Hackintosh" is just an unofficial term.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Silverskull