If Win XP now runs on a mac, could MAC OS run on a PC?

[chssvl]

Reading the latest news about Apple releasing software that would allow Win XP on a mac I do wonder, could the opposite be done? I know a couple of people who would love to be able to run MAC OS without having to pay a hefty price for a mac.

[doctorgonzo]

Apple says that there will be checks built into Mac OS to ensure that it only runs on Mac hardware. Apple makes most of their money on the hardware, so it would be incredibly stupid of them to allow people to buy Mac OS and not a Mac computer.

However, the exact mechanisms by which Apple will prevent Mac OS from being installed on PCs is unknown. I'm pretty sure some hackers will figure out a way to install Mac OS on a PC.

[chssvl]

I agree. I don't think it would take long for hackers to figure out a way around it.

Could this at least mean that software which is usually only made for the PC could be readily available for MAC OS? Particularly games and such.

[ZeratulsAvenger]

Doesn't OSX already run on a Windows box with hacks? It is in violation of the Apple product agreement, though i was sure it had already been done.

[doctorgonzo]

That's an interesting thought. I don't know much about porting games and apps to different architectures, but unfortunately I think there are more hurdles than just the processor that Macs use; that's probably the smallest this. One very big issue in terms of games is the fact that DirectX, which most games use, does not exist for Mac OS, and switching to an Intel architecture isn't going to change that. The GUI engine is also different between Windows and Mac OS. I don't know how much easier it will be to port programs to Mac OS with these changes, but I don't think it will be all that much.

[colecifer]

There was a developers version of the x386 OS X floating around a long time ago. It did not have any sort of protection built in and it ran around the net for a while. Some people believed it was apples way of trying to suck people in, which is bunk in my opinoin. But in retail versions there are checks built in. Last i heard it was most likely going to be a chip on the motherboard that the OS checks for at boot. This seemed like the most logical and i'm pretty sure they went with that.

[kram 2.0]

I'm sure Apple spent a great deal of time making sure that this would not happen. doctorgonzo said it perfectly - it would be incredibly stupid to let Mac OS run on a non-Apple system. That will put Apple down in the hole.

kram

[piasabird]

Apple can easily make a motherboard with a special BIOS/CMOS that only works with Apple Software/OS that you have to have to load the operating system that is incompatible with other motherboards or have a special MAC-Only Chipset. Personally, I think they should sell a compatible version for around $400.000 Which requires you to connect to a MAC server and get a security code to make it work. Anytime you release software, there is a danger someone can mess with it, but if you want a MAC, just buy one.

[HAL9000]

I have a copy of Darwin (No GUI) that runs on a PC, although it is restricted to running on an Intel system with a BX chipset.

[Force Flow]

The thing about running OS X on a PC is that there is very limited driver support. Why? Because there is a limited amount of Mac hardware out there. This makes it easier for Mac developers so that there is a confined set of hardware and drivers.

Just take a look at the driver issues that plauged linux a few years ago...there were some generic drivers, but there also was a lot of hardware out there that there were no drivers for. Driver support in linux is much better than it was, but there is still some hardware out there that isn't supported

Long story short, not only does x86 architecture matter, but the other hardware as well. Now, there *were* reports of hacked versions of OS X running off of VM or VMware (I believe), but that is not a native installation of the O/S--only an emulation. Even then there were still hardware limitations.

[IntegraGSR]

The OSX86 project has made some progress in putting OS X on an x86 machine, however it is much easier, feasible and LEGAL to put Windows on your Mac via Boot Camp. Not cheaper, but folks who complain about Apple's pricing usually are those who buy SLI 7800GTX's and Athlon FX-60's.

I'd feel better running Windows on Apple hardware anyway

[ztx]

Originally Posted by colecifer Last i heard it was most likely going to be a chip on the motherboard that the OS checks for at boot. This seemed like the most logical and i'm pretty sure they went with that.

Yeah your right about that, Apple uses a Trusted Computing Chip made by Infineon, which is intergrated in macinteltosh mobo's.

http://attivissimo.blogspot.com/2006...-in-intel.html

[Strider]

I think John C. Dvorak is going to be right I think Apple is eventually going to dump OSX in favor of Windows and concentrate on the hardware side. I know it sounds crazy but if Vista is supposed be as good as some people say it is, it might make sense for Apple to do this.

[David M]

Apple software is so expensive and limited in selection compared to software written for Windows that I don't see any point in trying to get OSX to run on a PC.

[glc]

I doubt that, Strider - if Apple does that, they will alienate their core constituency. They will simply say why spend the premium for Apple hardware when a PC will now do the exact same thing? If Apple lowers the hardware price to be competitive, they will start losing money. Death of a fine company results. Apple has their niche and it would be corporate suicide to let that go.

[lpc300]

Although not exactly what everyone's talking about, http://basilisk.cebix.net/ is emulation software to run the Mac OS on a Windows box. I've tried it, and it works, though with MANY limitations.

[kram 2.0]

Apple has been known to make some pretty crazy moves, but ditching Mac OS is a little bit over its head. Apple can't compete quite as well "apple to apple" with PCs - that is exactly when they make it "Apples to Oranges". Who'd want to buy Apple's hardware when Windows is cheaper? What pushes their hardware sales is arguably their operating system and without that, they'll go down the drain.

kram

[thefultonhow]

Originally Posted by David M Apple software is so expensive and limited in selection compared to software written for Windows that I don't see any point in trying to get OSX to run on a PC.

Limited in selection -- maybe. There is less of a free-software community for MacOS, although now I bet you can get most Linux software to run by recompiling. Also, games for MacOS are almost nonexistant.

Pricey -- not really. If you look at the cost of Microsoft Office, or Adobe Photoshop, or Macromedia Dreamweaver, they're exactly the same on both Windows and Macintosh platforms.

[David M]

Originally Posted by thefultonhow Limited in selection -- maybe.

I differ in opinion. Look at the amount of shelf space in retail stores occupied by Windows software versus Apple software. I don't know the actual ratio but it seems there is at least 4 times the amount of software written for Windows as there is for Apple. I can understand why as well. According to the Wall Street Journal, Apple has 2.6% of the computer market and it does not make much financial sense for many software companies to write software for such a small segment of the market. I'm not knocking Apple, but thats just how it is.

As far as pricing is concerned, yes, some software is priced equivalently such as the examples you mentioned but overall?...Windows is still less expensive. The reason I believe is that there is much more price competition with Windows software since there is more software competing for the same dollars AND those that write Apple software must have higher prices since there is much less of an economy of scale which means it costs more per unit sold to create Apple software since less is sold.

[thefultonhow]

I think that we need to differentiate between the different types of software available for computers and see whether it's available for Macs:

1. First-tier commercial software. This includes Office, Photoshop, Quicken, Dreamweaver, Roxio burning programs, and lots of other software that is most important to us on PCs. Usually there is a Mac equivalent to this software -- there certainly is in the case of all the examples I mentioned.
2. Second-tier commercial software. This stuff gets shelf space at CompUSA, but few people buy it. There is lots more of this available for the PC than for the Mac, but since people rarely need to use the stuff, it doesn't matter as much as the first-tier software. Incidentally, I don't have any of this on the computer in front of me, and maybe one or two programs like it on my home PC -- one of which is cross-platform.
3. Shareware, freeware, and open-source software. There is a huge shareware base for PCs, and not as big of one for Macs. So the advantage here is clearly in the PC court -- but personally, on the computer I'm on right now, I have only two freeware/shareware programs that don't have Mac versions -- Daemon-Tools and mIRC -- and both have alternatives of one kind or another on the Mac side. On the computer sitting next to it, I have utilities like nLite and PE Builder that would be useless on Macs anyway becaue they're PC-admin-oriented.
4. Security Programs. Lots more of these on the PC than on the Mac, but nobody writes viruses or spyware for the Mac, so they're not really necessary.
5. Games. The PC has a huge advantage here. End of story. If you are a gamer, MacOS is not the right OS for you.

So the Mac is at a slight disadvantage in a couple of these categories, and more of one in the Games category, but in the category that counts -- first-tier commercial -- there's really no difference. And in the other cagegories (besides games, of course), you can almost always find an alternative program that does the same thing and is available for the Mac.

[IntegraGSR]

Even more reason for corporate offices to run OS X, games support is nearly nonexistent. More work gets done!

[HAL9000]

Are you kidding, most office gamers are of the solitaire variety

[Mac Medic]

Originally Posted by David M Apple has 2.6% of the computer market and it does not make much financial sense for many software companies to write software for such a small segment of the market. I'm not knocking Apple, but thats just how it is.

You have a good point here but for different reasons.... There is now a concern that cross platform software developers may stop development of the Mac versions and just tell their Mac customers to use bootcamp and use the windows version instead. I don't think it'll actually happen with the top-tier developers (Adobe, Microsoft etc..) but certainly it'll happen with the game developers. I think we have seen the last A-List game ported to the Mac because of bootcamp... Not a loss for me as I'm not a gamer, but if I had to run the windows version of Photoshop i'd be sickened....

[abacus]

Can't beleive people can't figure this out on thier own, but... MICROSOFT ONLY WANTS TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT HELPS THEM GET ONE STEP CLOSER TO TAKING OVER THE COMPUTER WORLD!!!! MAC HAS PRETTY MUCH RESIGNED TO FIGHTING THEM AND IS NOW HELPING THEM!!! If you'd like to read about this subject, go to my blog here

[Mac Medic]

Originally Posted by abacus Can't beleive people can't figure this out on thier own, but... MICROSOFT ONLY WANTS TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT HELPS THEM GET ONE STEP CLOSER TO TAKING OVER THE COMPUTER WORLD!!!!

It's not actually Microsoft doing this but I suppose that's irrelevant really. I think if you look a little further down the road you'll see what I think is Apple's real plan here. To be able to run windows applications inside of Mac OS x without having to own a copy of windows. By all accounts Apple just included windows API's from M$ inside of the latest developer build of OS X, there is only on reason I can think of for them to do that. Apple don't want their users to have to worry about dual booting or installing a virtual OS inside of OS X, it's just way too geeky to them, Apple want the process to be seamless and simple for the user like everything else they do. So let me ask you this, if you are able to run a Windows .exe inside of OS X without having to own a copy of Windows (like Wine I guess) how do you think M$ will react?.