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

Frijole

After your little pointless war I wonder why you kept it up seeing as it is NOT a blog, it serves useful information AND you have still failed to notice that External Links contains a duplicate for the OSx86Project homepage. LOL. Fail.

See WP:EL for more information - the page is not to be a comprehensive list of external links. On top of that, the link that you advocate appears to be virtually content-free. Disguising the title the way you do makes it even more suspect. 205.205.56.11 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The legality of running Apple's software on non-Apple hardware has not been decided in a court of law, so anyone claiming anything either way doesn't know what they're talking about. Apple can claim that my first born child belongs to them in their EULA, but that doesn't make it legal. More specifically, their claim that an end-user can only make one backup copy is laughably ridiculous, and would never hold up. My personal opinion is that it's equally ridiculous for Apple to claim they can restrict what hardware I can run my legally-purchased software on, but again, nothing has been decided in the courts. On the other hand, certainly the patched complete distributions of Apple's software is illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The license says "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." Since the purpose of OSX86 is installing the software on non-"Apple-labeled computers," and the License does not prohibit this action, it seems to me that this project does not violate the license. It also seems to me that such a draconian measure, if it were properly phrased, may be questionably legal under Fair Use and similar laws anyway. -- Adam Katz Δ talk 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As many have pointed out before, it allows you to use on an "Apple labeled" computer. Since it was not worded as "Apple manufactured" slapping an apple sticker on the computer would comply with the TOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.81.149 (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2008 (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. 72.147.77.11 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an iPhone

Ok, Considering they say "Apple-labeled" and my iPhone came with a set of stickers, that I have in plain sight on two of my laptops. I am wondering does that make any apple based OS install on my laptops legit ? This are dell based PCs.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haqtiq (talk • contribs) 06:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, lol! Didn't you see the C|NET Vid?14:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A Spam Block On A User May Be Needed

This user, 172.188.187.67, may need to be blocked. The user repeatedly inserts a link to a practically content-free ad revenue site. The link is disguised with an OSx86 title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.56.11 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its gone on long enough. I'll try to look into contacting the admin folks about it. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him and if he keeps it up, I'll post it on the admin noticeboard. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

the osx86project link should not be up there if the other sites like hackint0sh.org, osx86scene.org, and maconpc.org are not up there. the osx86project page is run by the same people that run insanely mac and if other sites are being removed it should go or they should all stay. It is unfair just to advertise one site on the topic when there are many others with just as much information on the topic. In general OSX86 users go between all four sites for information. It is the same principal as if you were to not mention linux and only microsoft on the operating systems article. It is unethical to have one and not the others so leave them all up as they provide useful information and it is in the interest of people who want to learn more about the topic.

WP:NOTLINK - WP is not a collection of links. WP:EL - among those that you added are a 2 forums, an inactive blog, and a dead link. Elsendero (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and the osx86project blog isn't active anymore either. That site should not be advertised without the others. All the actual hacking for the project happens at hackint0sh. Links restored. People have a right to more than one source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The creator (talk • contribs) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. Attempting to create an exhaustive listing of external links is not an improvement to the article. It is considered spamming. Your contributions are welcome, please consider ways to improve the content of the article. The osx86project wiki does appear to be active according to its recent changes page. In any case, the rationale for it appears to be that it is historically important to the topic. The links you added (that are reachable) point to 2 forums and an advertisement supported blog. Elsendero (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is to a site that gives you an option to go to the wiki or insanely mac another forum which is owned by insanely mac. If insanely mac is only included the the links section is biased. You should review the rules about unbiased articles. The other osx86 sites should be included. Hackint0sh.org is where most of the work gets done and people deserve to know about the other large osx86 sites. It is biased to only include one of them. If one large community is included in the article then the others should be to. It is only ethical. Hackint0sh, OSX86scene, and Maconpc are just as important to osx86 if not more than insanely mac. these links are not spam but to the other leading osx86 community. You fail to realise the osx86project link just gives you the option to go to two insanely mac owned sites. It would be the same as writing an article on broadcasting companies and only including CNN and not even mentioning the BBC, CBC, etc. Please cease and desist removing all links to osx86 communities except the one owned by insanley mac, this appears to be quite biased as they should all be removed or none at all. It is incontrovertible that only advertising CNN and not the BBC and CBC would be wrong and this is the exact same principal. I therefore take it upon my self to correct this misjudgement and re-establish the links in question as they are irrefutably just as important to osx86 which is what the entire article is about.

- the creator user:the creator 22nd of April, 8:16 pm DST