Is there ANY way to run OSX on a x86 processor?

[gigapixels]

i know what to do: FORGET IT. it doesn't really matter... shiznizzle if you want to have os x go buy a mac. i know i want os x but i'm not here starting a thread askin if it'll be made for x86 and then complaining about it since it obviously won't be (unless there's some sort of conspiracy going on... :shifty: ) so just forget it and buy a mac.

[rocks1985]

What I mean though, is you said that it is illegal. Okay, but I mean, lets say I just want to have some fun. So I go out and buy Mac OS X. Then I take a PC. What happens when I put the CD into the PC? You say it won't run? I'm no computer scientist, so I don't know if it's possible, but then aren't there smart people who could tweak a few settings on a PC or install the necessary MAC hardware to let the CD of OS X think that it is being installed on a mac? That's not illegal. If I purchase Mac OS X and purchase a PC, I can do anything I want with those things...i'm not selling it...i would just want it for my own to use. What i mean is...can't people build their own macs....just get a mac motherboard and then pc parts...or whatever...I don't really quite understand the "difference" between a Mac and a PC. sorry.

And then lets say this...I don't want to RUN os x on my PC I want to install it on my PC so that Mac OS X is the default Operating System. Why can't I simply buy a PC with no Operating System and install Mac OS X? Again...if you say that the CD won't run or something, then can't one just add the necessary parts to the PC to make it be recognized as a Macintosh or is that a secret peice of hardware that apple does not reveal? lol

[Liquid]

nonononono

[klop]

Ishhh I think you didnt understand the fundamental base of whats the difference between PPC and x86 architecture...

[jackwanders]

okay, 4 pages have proven that OSX is not going to run on x86 for a period of time, a long one i suppose.

so for those who want OSX so badly, sorry, no option but to buy Apple hardwares. and if Apple machines are too costly for you, try ebay, or.... hmm...well, bad luck. be happy with Windows XP 'coz it rocks as well. :)

You probably won't believe me, and I really wish I could find the article I read this out of, but it is a fact that Apple does have a working version of OSX built for the x86 architecture. In fact, Apple keeps this version of the OS just as up to date as their PPC version. Apple considers it a 'last ditch' move just in case their deal with Motorola falls out or they do (for some sick reason) decide to switch to x86. Granted, it's only used by a very small circle of employees (just to keep it up to date) but it does in fact exist.

So, technically speaking, OSX does run on an x86 processor. Will more than a handful of people ever see it, hopefully not. If you want OSX on your PC, the only option is to hire a freakin' ninja to infiltrate Apple and steal their copy. :ninja:

[Chad]

You've got to be kidding. There is no proof that Apple is running a x86 version of OSX. It is as far from fact as anything could be. The ONLY places that have reported it are rumor sites, because that's all it is....a rumor.

Until Apple themselves say it's true, I won't believe any rumors dealing with "marklar"

[jackwanders]

Like i said, I really wish that I could find the article where I read this, but I really doubt that it was a 'rumor' article. I'll try to hunt it down, although a google search is going to be awfully hard to wade through.

Take it with a grain of salt until I can provide the source.

[MajorSham]

Well one of the problems are that the lowest end mac out performs the highest end PC by about 30%, so even if you are running a P4 3.0 processor, it will still be slow.  It just wouldnt be feesable to do it.

You just have to know that is untrue. The G4 platform may be more efficient and may be able to complete more instructions per cycle (IPC = Efficiency). . . However, where the Pentium 4 is lacking as far as IPC efficiency is concerned, it makes up with raw clock speed and actually is significantly faster than the fastest G4. . and I say this from the camp that believes Intel is the spawn of Satan and AMD is everything that is good and Holy.

[threetonesun]

Lol, I can guarantee Apple will make a version of OSX for x86 processors if that ever becomes the way they can make more money. Their running a business, and they're lucky that they've been able to do so well with their own hardware. But if PCs took over a large enough percentage of the market that it would be more economically sound for them to compete against Windows on x86 than their own processors, my guess is a x86 version would appear.

I'm suprised they don't do it already. I doubt most Mac fans would leave their hardware, and it would allow more Windows converts. Say all you want about hardware support/program compatibility, if it becomes economically feasible, it will happen.

[daddy los]

eweek article and to break it down to rocks1985 over there... it's like trying to run a gamecube game in a ps2, the software doesn't work with the chipset.

[jackwanders]

eweek article

Sweet mother of jesus! You found it.

That's the exact article I was referring to. You rock!

Superfula, take a gander at this article.

[MajorSham]

You probably won't believe me, and I really wish I could find the article I read this out of, but it is a fact that Apple does have a working version of OSX built for the x86 architecture. In fact, Apple keeps this version of the OS just as up to date as their PPC version. Apple considers it a 'last ditch' move just in case their deal with Motorola falls out or they do (for some sick reason) decide to switch to x86. Granted, it's only used by a very small circle of employees (just to keep it up to date) but it does in fact exist.

So, technically speaking, OSX does run on an x86 processor. Will more than a handful of people ever see it, hopefully not. If you want OSX on your PC, the only option is to hire a freakin' ninja to infiltrate Apple and steal their copy. :ninja:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/?http://www.pcpro.c...ry.php?id=36263

This certainly makes me think that an OSX for x86 might exist. .

[insurgent]

Even *IF* Apple switches to the x86 architecture, and that's a big if, OS X would still be a Mac-only OS. They would find a way to tie it to Apple-specific hardware, which wouldn't be hard to do. Yeah, you would probably have a few freaks out there willing to go at their PC with a soldering iron and a blowtorch to make the neccesary tweaks or whatever...there's lots of people with too much free time, but you will NEVER see OS X on some crappy E-Machines or Gateway craptastic econobox. Apple makes their money off of hardware sales, but one of the biggest draws to the Mac platform is their incredible OS and it's famous stability, which is in part to the extreme level of control Apple is able to exert on the hardware OS X runs on. If anything, Apple should keep OS X Mac-specific, and start pumping out Dual Athlon or Opteron Powermacs, and put out some systems that are just as fast or faster than the best commercially-built systems out there. *That* I can see happening a lot sooner than I can see WinEXPEE and OS X on the same system. If they could manage to keep their systems priced around the same...then what excuse would Wintendo kiddies have for hating Apple if their systems were just as fast as those horrid Alienware atrocities? I know I'd pay the same and more than I did already for an iBook with a 2ghz processor, be it from IBM, Intel or AMD.

But as far as OS X being on x86...yeah, it may be someday, but you'll still have to buy a Mac to get it. I'd put money on that.

;)

[Redestium]

Even *IF* Apple switches to the x86 architecture, and that's a big if, OS X would still be a Mac-only OS. They would find a way to tie it to Apple-specific hardware, which wouldn't be hard to do. Yeah, you would probably have a few freaks out there willing to go at their PC with a soldering iron and a blowtorch to make the neccesary tweaks or whatever...there's lots of people with too much free time, but you will NEVER see OS X on some crappy E-Machines or Gateway craptastic econobox. Apple makes their money off of hardware sales, but one of the biggest draws to the Mac platform is their incredible OS and it's famous stability, which is in part to the extreme level of control Apple is able to exert on the hardware OS X runs on. If anything, Apple should keep OS X Mac-specific, and start pumping out Dual Athlon or Opteron Powermacs, and put out some systems that are just as fast or faster than the best commercially-built systems out there. *That* I can see happening a lot sooner than I can see WinEXPEE and OS X on the same system. If they could manage to keep their systems priced around the same...then what excuse would Wintendo kiddies have for hating Apple if their systems were just as fast as those horrid Alienware atrocities? I know I'd pay the same and more than I did already for an iBook with a 2ghz processor, be it from IBM, Intel or AMD.

But as far as OS X being on x86...yeah, it may be someday, but you'll still have to buy a Mac to get it. I'd put money on that.

;)

It's just a hunk of plastic and binary...not some ethereal experience get over it... :rolleyes:

[insurgent]

Even *IF* Apple switches to the x86 architecture, and that's a big if, OS X would still be a Mac-only OS.? They would find a way to tie it to Apple-specific hardware, which wouldn't be hard to do.? Yeah, you would probably have a few freaks out there willing to go at their PC with a soldering iron and a blowtorch to make the neccesary tweaks or whatever...there's lots of people with too much free time, but you wil[NEVERu>[/b]b> see OS X on some crappy E-Machines or Gateway craptastic econobox.? Apple makes their money off of hardware sales, but one of the biggest draws to the Mac platform is their incredible OS and it's famous stability, which is in part to the extreme level of control Apple is able to exert on the hardware OS X runs on.? If anything, Apple should keep OS X Mac-specific, and start pumping out Dual Athlon or Opteron Powermacs, and put out some systems that are just as fast or faster than the best commercially-built systems out there.? *That* I can see happening a lot sooner than I can see WinEXPEE and OS X on the same system.? If they could manage to keep their systems priced around the same...then what excuse would Wintendo kiddies have for hating Apple if their systems were just as fast as those horrid Alienware atrocities?? I know I'd pay the same and more than I did already for an iBook with a 2ghz processor, be it from IBM, Intel or AMD.

But as far as OS X being on x86...yeah, it may be someday, but you'll still have to buy a Mac to get it.? I'd put money on that.

;)br />;)

It's just a hunk of plastic and binary...not some ethereal experience get ove:rolleyes:olleyes:

That's quite a statement for someone on this site. Look around you...what I've said is NOTHING compared to some of the obsessed freaks on here. Pot call the kettle black much?

Oh, and we're talking about Macs. Don't like it or your panties getting in a bunch...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way outMacintoshtosh forum.

:rolleyes:olleyes:

[-outcast-]

Even *IF* Apple switches to the x86 architecture, and that's a big if, OS X would still be a Mac-only OS.? They would find a way to tie it to Apple-specific hardware, which wouldn't be hard to do.? Yeah, you would probably have a few freaks out there willing to go at their PC with a soldering iron and a blowtorch to make the neccesary tweaks or whatever...there's lots of people with too much free time, but you wil[NEVERu>[/b]b> see OS X on some crappy E-Machines or Gateway craptastic econobox.? Apple makes their money off of hardware sales, but one of the biggest draws to the Mac platform is their incredible OS and it's famous stability, which is in part to the extreme level of control Apple is able to exert on the hardware OS X runs on.? If anything, Apple should keep OS X Mac-specific, and start pumping out Dual Athlon or Opteron Powermacs, and put out some systems that are just as fast or faster than the best commercially-built systems out there.? *That* I can see happening a lot sooner than I can see WinEXPEE and OS X on the same system.? If they could manage to keep their systems priced around the same...then what excuse would Wintendo kiddies have for hating Apple if their systems were just as fast as those horrid Alienware atrocities?? I know I'd pay the same and more than I did already for an iBook with a 2ghz processor, be it from IBM, Intel or AMD.

But as far as OS X being on x86...yeah, it may be someday, but you'll still have to buy a Mac to get it.? I'd put money on that.

;)br />;)

It's just a hunk of plastic and binary...not some ethereal experience get ove:rolleyes:olleyes:

That's quite a statement for someone on this site. Look around you...what I've said is NOTHING compared to some of the obsessed freaks on here. Pot call the kettle black much?

Oh, and we're talking about Macs. Don't like it or your panties getting in a bunch...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way outMacintoshtosh forum.

:rolleyes:olleyes:

Ou:pinch: :pinch:

[threetonesun]

Oh, and we're talking about Macs.  Don't like it or your panties getting in a bunch...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of the Macintosh forum.

:rolleyes:

Woah there ... might want to look up how to use metaphors. And he's right, the Mac Operating system is not so amazing that it won't ever change. I agree it may use x86 processors for more power, but along those same lines it is just as likely that it will show up dual-booting with a version of Windows.

Either Apple stays all home built, hardware and software, or they specialize their hardware and universilize their software. That's how I see it.

[Redestium]

Even *IF* Apple switches to the x86 architecture, and that's a big if, OS X would still be a Mac-only OS.  They would find a way to tie it to Apple-specific hardware, which wouldn't be hard to do.  Yeah, you would probably have a few freaks out there willing to go at their PC with a soldering iron and a blowtorch to make the neccesary tweaks or whatever...there's lots of people with too much free time, but you will NEVER see OS X on some crappy E-Machines or Gateway craptastic econobox.  Apple makes their money off of hardware sales, but one of the biggest draws to the Mac platform is their incredible OS and it's famous stability, which is in part to the extreme level of control Apple is able to exert on the hardware OS X runs on.  If anything, Apple should keep OS X Mac-specific, and start pumping out Dual Athlon or Opteron Powermacs, and put out some systems that are just as fast or faster than the best commercially-built systems out there.  *That* I can see happening a lot sooner than I can see WinEXPEE and OS X on the same system.  If they could manage to keep their systems priced around the same...then what excuse would Wintendo kiddies have for hating Apple if their systems were just as fast as those horrid Alienware atrocities?  I know I'd pay the same and more than I did already for an iBook with a 2ghz processor, be it from IBM, Intel or AMD.

But as far as OS X being on x86...yeah, it may be someday, but you'll still have to buy a Mac to get it.  I'd put money on that.

;)

It's just a hunk of plastic and binary...not some ethereal experience get over it... :rolleyes:

That's quite a statement for someone on this site. Look around you...what I've said is NOTHING compared to some of the obsessed freaks on here. Pot call the kettle black much?

Oh, and we're talking about Macs. Don't like it or your panties getting in a bunch...don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out of the Macintosh forum.

:rolleyes:

Hmm I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything to warrant the "pot calling the kettle black" line. This is Neowin right and this topic is dealing with the x86 architecture right? I have just as much right to be here as anyone. And for somebody who isn't an "obsessed freak" you sure take offense from someone making an observation about a fraction of Apple users. A few words of advice don't be rude, it only is asking for trouble in real life or online.

[insurgent]

Lets do a little simple math here:

minimum cost of a Mac = $1000+

Cost of Mac OS X = $129

Now, where is the logic in offering OS X to PC users, when they have a decent, viable choice of OS to begin with, and Microsoft essentially holds all the cards? They would make $129 a pop, and it would be sold to niche users...the average PC user probably wouldn't want dual operating systems on their computer, they'd be happy with Windows XP (which isn't that bad of an OS in it's own right). Not to mention, by doing this, they would alienate and **** off their core hardware buyers, the Mac fanatics, and that's where most of their revenue comes from. Most of them would view this as Steve selling out, and honestly I think Apple hardware sales would slump off worse than ever.

Now...if they could use inexpensive Opteron or Athlon processors in their Powermacs...would people really be complaining about paying around $2000 for a dual 2.5+ ghz PowerMac that was manufactured by Apple...that would be price competitive with the market, and you would get the famous hardware design of Apple, and the speed to compete with the Windows workstations. What about a 17" Powerbook with a 2.5 ghz P4-M? I could go for that. *That* is the direction I see Apple going in, not boxing up Marklar and having it sold at Wal-Mart. Sorry, I just don't see that happening.

Oh..asking for trouble? Pardon me...I've got to go and build up some intimidation...so far, I'm just not feeling it.

:whistle:

[Darkwolven]

I'd like to know why it seems like most of the PC people are level headed at least at first with statements like "Well there is the rumor that Jobs has been looking at x86 chips because they are on the outs with Motorola and there is a version rumored to already run on x86, so it could maybe happen" and then all the freaking Mac freaks get ****ed off and freak out like it is a friggin blasphemy to even suggest such a thing that it could happen. Unless you are freaking Steve Jobs, get hard core proof that it will never happen or just freakin chill out! This is all hypothetical. Be open minded that you don't truly know. It's not like we PC people are saying it's going to happen without a doubt. It's not a reason to start a freaking flame war.

would alienate and **** off their core hardware buyers, the Mac fanatics, and that's where most of their revenue comes from.

Why would it? Is it the Mac users overzealousness? Right now, Apple does fair business with hardware, but they are just making it. Why do you think they brought down the prices recently again and again? They are hurting for money and market share. Even though they don't compete head to head with MS, they STILL do. So what would be so different in selling a version of OSX for x86? I wouldn't buy a MAC just for OSX, but I am betting the people that want Macs would still buy them. Apple's market is not the windows converts, even though they try to make it seem like that. Their niche are the hard core Macheads that would buy the Mac Hardware anyway.

Edited April 24, 2003 by Darkwolven

[threetonesun]

Now, where is the logic in offering OS X to PC users, when they have a decent, viable choice of OS to begin with, and Microsoft essentially holds all the cards? They would make $129 a pop, and it would be sold to niche users...the average PC user probably wouldn't want dual operating systems on their computer, they'd be happy with Windows XP (which isn't that bad of an OS in it's own right). Not to mention, by doing this, they would alienate and **** off their core hardware buyers, the Mac fanatics, and that's where most of their revenue comes from. Most of them would view this as Steve selling out, and honestly I think Apple hardware sales would slump off worse than ever.

You assume Mac users would ditch Mac hardware to put the OS on x86 machines. According to what most Mac users say, they'd rather have the Mac hardware. And if it is truly price/performance competitive, then what would be the harm in selling two versions, one for Apple hardware and one for x86. Wouldn't that sell more copies of the OS? Or is there some reason they won't do this?

Obviously there is at this point, because Macs are still a niche market that demands the OS and hardware be tied together. However, if they find a reasonable way to change their hardware to keep it selective, they could release an OS for the PC user.

[Chad]

eweek article

Sweet mother of jesus! You found it.

That's the exact article I was referring to. You rock!

Superfula, take a gander at this article.

I am fully aware of that article. But it's just a rumor. Nothing they wrote in the article was confirmed by any knowledgeable entity. They only mentioned their sources told them. But that's the same thing all the rumor sites share. Just because eweek was gullable enough to report it as well doesn't give it any more credence.

[insurgent]

Probably because we Mac people spend a lot of time reading about Macs. I know I spend a *lot* of time reading Mac rumor sites. I heard about Marklar for the first time probably 9-10 months ago. I'm really not trying to start a flame war, but when I spend most of my online time reading and talking about Macs with others that know and use them on a regular basis, when a PC person asks a question about Mac rumors...chances are, we've already heard and discussed it to death. But sometimes people don't like what they hear and can't accept an answer for what it is. Right now, Marklar is a *rumor*. And as I've stated earlier in the thread, it really doesn't make any sense to offer OS X on a PC. x86 does not equal a PC. Can you imagine the headache that would be involved in just supporting the myriad hardware combinations on the PC? It would be a nightmare. I'm sorry if I came off abrasive, but really honestly and truely, I just cannot concieve seeing OS X on a Compaq for sale at Best Buy.

And I'm not some anti-PC Mac freak...I'm in the process of building -another- PC for the house...but I'm being realistic with this. Apple would just lose waaaaaaay too much money on that deal. Remember what Microsoft did to OS/2 Warp? Yeah...

[insurgent]

Look, most Apple users that I've met and talked to DO NOT like PC's, and they vehemently hate Microsoft, probably about on par with Linux users. Most Mac users are already rather frustrated with the lack of speed on the Mac platform, but if Apple released OS X for the PC, I think many would view that as a betrayal and a slap in the face. It's weird, but it's true. Half the appeal of Macs is OS X, and it's what got me to switch in the first place. If I could buy OS X for the PC, and use cheaper PC components and build my own system...I probably wouldn't be so quick to buy an Apple again, as would probably many many Apple users. And Apple probably knows this. But if Apple could cheaply boost the speed of their systems, while keeping the price down, that would alleviate all the grumbling of their core audience, and probably attract more "switchers" at the same time. It'd be an easier sell to be able to say that this iBook here is just as fast as that Dell Inspiron over there, in actual speed ratings, and not a "megahertz myth".

[insurgent]

You assume Mac users would ditch Mac hardware to put the OS on x86 machines. According to what most Mac users say, they'd rather have the Mac hardware. And if it is truly price/performance competitive, then what would be the harm in selling two versions, one for Apple hardware and one for x86. Wouldn't that sell more copies of the OS? Or is there some reason they won't do this?

Apple doesn't care if they sell their OS, what is $129 when compared to several thousand dollars? The OS is not where they make their money. OS X draws users, and sells their hardware. If you'd ever used it, you'd understand why.