Talk:Hackintosh

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hackintosh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Archived talk

Talk:OSx86/Archive1

84.142.245.165 11:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) is it possibel to somehow protect links as they get spammed all the time?[reply]

Illegal project?

Isn't it illegal as per Apple Mac OS X license agreement to run the OS on anything but an Apple computer? "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time" - Refer [1]. Nowhere on the article is it mentioned that the project is illegal. -- Artagnon 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The project is illegal, but considering there is no sum you could pay Apple for a copy of the latest version of OS X, as long as you buy a number of Apple products as time progresses, the endeavor is relatively moral. Apple is placing undue restrictions on the consumer.

"Illegal but relatively moral" == bullshit. It's illegal, period.--88.149.235.94 10:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as 'undue restrictions' - they can restrict what they like, and sell software with whatever terms they like, so long as they're upfront about it (and, some might add, so long as they're not abusing a monopoly position, but it gets a little complex there...) But I agree, so long as you buy a decent number of Apple products, it's relatively moral (some just buy a copy of OS X and then throw it away). Hippo X 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on where. In the US, it is illegal. However, the restriction is in the EULA, and they are not considered binding in many jurisdictions around the world. -- int19h 11:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are two issues here. It may be against the EULA. Whether the EULA is an enforceable contract varies from country to country and depends on many factors. But even if the EULA is an enforceable contract it doesn't mean that violating is illegal. Apple could sue you perhaps but it wouldn't necessarily be illegal. While the law in a number of countries (US, UK, Australia and NZ at least AFAIK) makes it illegal even for end users to violate copyright (so for example running a pirated copy of OS X or Vista is illegal in these countries) it's unclear whether doing this would fall into such a category. Nil Einne 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] and the next question partially answers the question Nil Einne 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kernel vs. processor

Has anyone considered comparing the benefits of various kernel versions with certain processors? This is something other sites have failed to do, and would be thoroughly useful for any OSX86 user. It is also of historical value if the judgment of OSX86 depends on how close one can get to approximating a fully functional MacOS setup on other hardware. (i.e. graphics acceleration, power management, sleep modes, multiple cores, 64-bit, NX bit, VT, etc.)

Too many advertisements in External Links.

Actions should be taken. Vincent Pun ^talk 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add a section

Add a section called "Legality of OSx86" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.13.2 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon Cleanup

Theres a bit too much jargon parts of it would be hard to understand for any one not completley familiar with this end of technology. For example the article discusses missing SSE3 instructions in early releases, what does that entail? What doesn't work because of missing SSE3 instructions ? that sort of thing.