Talk:Hackintosh

No one sued?

"As of November 2008, no person(s) using OSx86 on non-Apple hardware have been sued by Apple." What about Psystar? I've removed that section. -Mlaheji (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Frijóle

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)

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?

Illegal project?

Why on Earth would someone want to run that inferior desktop anyway? Mind boggles ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.112.161 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.

^{Who the FUCK removed my comment from October 25, 2007?? I'm reposting it, you bitch had better leave it there, whoever you are, or I'll hunt you down and shame you publicly:}

"Illegal but relatively moral" == bullshit. It's illegal, period.--Contributions/81.174.2.180 (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

? How does that make the statement wrong? It still says it's illegal. mike4ty4 (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 KatzΔtalk 19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Or you could gut one the old Mac G4 towers cluttering up your basement, put in an Intel motherboard and CPU, and you'd have an Apple-labeled computer. thx1138 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent)As I stated in the article itself on Feb 17, 2006 in a ZDNet article called "DMCA axes sites discussing Mac OS for PCs" Tom Krazit stated "The company used a Trusted Platform Module, or TPM, to tie Mac OS to the systems it distributed to developers after announcing its switch to Intel's chips last year, but hackers have found ways to circumvent that protection, which is illegal under the DMCA." So there you have it. Nothing about Apple's EULA but rather a Federal Law! Amit Singn in the December 2007 MacOS X Internals article ""TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die" claimed it was actually the System Management Controller (SMC) chip that was used but again bypassing that chip would also be a violation of the DMCA.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Judge Alsup's November 13, 2009 summery verdict against Psystar on DMCA grounds indicates that this project is illegal as the DMCA clearly states "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have the software, you have the software. Apple can't write laws. The threat isn't supported by law, thus being irrelevant. They won't support OS X if you run it on a PC, but OS X is practically indestructible, so you shouldn't care. Jakeraymin13 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

You take them. We are not here to deal with your suggestions. Get off the beat. Yesitsnot (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Who says CNETs right? I wouldn't install it anyway, myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.247.123 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2010 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The creator (talk • contribs) 03:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not my link. It goes to the the project wiki page. Elsendero (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No it goes to insanely mac or the project wiki page. you are misinformed though. this project is not limited to websites run by the owners of insanely mac. Most of it really takes place at hackint0sh.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by The creator (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Edit, now it does. You just changed to to do so. Origionally the link you were argueing for went to osx86project.org which is insanelymac's old domain. However, this is still part of the insanely mac community and should hardly be included with out the other large communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The creator (talk • contribs) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The External Links section had by now grown to ten sites, most of them forums and blogs. I just cut the section down to one link, wiki.osx86project.org, because osx86project.org is the only site listed in Dmoz: Computers: Systems: Apple: Macintosh. If you would like other sites to have the same level of recognition as osx86project.org, then please have those other sites added to the Dmoz directory page, and then replace the osx86project.org link from this article with Template:Dmoz linking to the directory page. - Brian Kendig (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

in fairness, either the osx86project.org link should go, or the others should be allowed.. the osx86project.org wiki is heavily out-of-date, poorly maintained, and commercial in nature. Whilst there is validity in the external links guidelines that there should not be a long list of links, in this case it seems relevant for both informational & historical reasons to provide links with impartial descriptions to a selection of the sites that were instrumental in the development of OSX86, which is, after all the topic in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.196.101.178 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all external links per WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNO as well as possible WP:ELNEVER violations per Apple's November 27, 2008 charges that MacOS X contains "technological protection measures that effectively control access to Apple's copyrighted works" meaning that installing it on non-Apple hardware is in violation of the DMCA.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: The November 13, 2009 decision in the Apple vs Psystar per DMCA makes any external links to sites that instruct you on how to install MacOS X on non Mac hardware possible violations of WP:COPYRIGHT. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1])." For this reason ALL external links should be discussed before being included.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

hacker ezine

hackintosh was also the name of a '90s mac/hacker oriented ezine. it was distributed as one of those self reading document apps iirc. it's where the alt.hackintosh newsgroup came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.194.181 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

deadmoo image?

no where does it mention the deadmoo iso image, which is in some places more popular than jas or other install dvds, although it is noted that deadmoo is distributed post-install as a vmware set, and a tiger.img file which is the hard drive image of the installation. (I personally used installed it to my harddrive via the linux dd command after reading other's success of using it). I just feel that it deserves to be mentioned in this article.

and all you mac fanatics out there who don't like your system being reduced to just expensive hardware, deal with it, os x is just proprietary unix anyway. (reference, my own dissecting of OS X on my own pc on top of my computer science major :)) . 71.204.234.179 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hacker alias name dropping

Folks, this is an encyclopedia and it has a reputation to loose. So please let us not (mis-) use it for dropping hacker's alias names. Build up an osx86 fan site, post your community stories there and WP might link to it. Thanks. --Edoe2 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

boot-132

hey wikians,

I think everyone has noticed that this page has become quite aged and stale. I think there is a lot of unnecessary jargon (as already noted) but more importantly a lack of recent developments being discussed. I've just finished up taking the time to write about the recent boot-132 method of installing Leopard and am about to apply my edits.

Best regards!

Mrdoomino (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Given Judge Alsup's summery judgment I think this article is effectively dead for the reason I laid out in the intro. Wikipedia frowns on copyright violations and Alsup has upheld Apple's position that its locking of its OS to Apple hardware is protected by the DMCA. Until the details are thrashed out I think it wise to err on the side of caution.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Snow Leopard

Hey guys,

Let's clean this up now that Snow Leopard is out. I'm a WikiNoob, but I added a bit on 10.6. It's all accurate as far as I know, and fairly straightforward.

NighTalon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.70.202 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Current Mac clones may not be legal and for the most part are not notable and therefore should not be listed

Given the Apple vs Psystar case ruled that Apple's methods of linking MacOS X to Apple hardware was protected under the DMCA any Mac clone is on very shaky legal ground. Also with the exception of Psystar none of them are that notable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If the articles exist, I think we should link to the articles there. It is not our job to censor info, and something as simple as mentioning the companies is probably not illegal. We also have an article on ThePirateBay, a website that encourages copyright infringment, and it's OK for us to talk about that. --SF007 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried that argument in the Christ Myth Theory page with John Remsburg and it didn't fly. If it didn't fly there then why should what is effectively the same argument fly here espcially as I had references shows that Remsburg was used in the argument? Besides of the three only Psystar was the only truly notable one and they have effectively stopped being a Mac clone maker. The Bison article is up for deletion and nothing seems to have been mentioned on PearC in nearly a year.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SF007 here. Wikipedia is not censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.210.184 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about giving free advertisement or violating others copyrights either. The Bizon Computers article has been deleted for lack of notability, PearC has a "may not meet the general notability guideline" tag and likely will also be soon on the chopping block as well. If these companies cannot keep their own articles do to lack of notability then why even bother mentioning them other than to make them notable? Newsflash here: Wikipedia does censor things that are not notable as proven by the removal of the Bizon Computers article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Goatse

This build was used as a way to distribute goatse. There was a hoax that the build was available, but in fact, the materials spread goatse. It was widely spread. Yesitsnot (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Which build? Where's the evidence? -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I know a guy who knows a guy who got goatse from that. Yesitsnot (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Would not matter. Not notable enough for inclusion in this article. Ethelred Cyning (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

regarding EFiX module which boot Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Mac OS X 10.5

EFiX is confirmed to use real EFi implementation, but not emulation and is not based on any OSX86 project known till today. Test way i used to confirm this: I booted with EFiX V1.1 under Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6) and extracted via terminal so called ioreg "ioreg -lw0 > destination.txt"

Then i booted with seveal hackintosh solutions (Chameleon and other)and extracted also ioreg too, then i boot same OS and same revision of OS of course under Mac Pro and Mac Book Pro.

The Ioreg tables between EFiX and real Mac hardware are almost identical, in my opinion and according to the content of ioreg, which you can easy extract by your own, you will find that sometimes Mac OS X 10.6 booted with help of EFiX show better ioreg-log's than on a real apple hardware. How this guys this do, is not clear to me and for this article not relevant. When you compair ioreg log's finally to any hackintosh, then you will very fast discover that most of values are incorrect, missing, improper or invalid. If you would pay attention to details and structure, then you will see that hackintosh compaired to EFiX or real Mac hardware missing a lot of functionality which can be reached with help of real EFi implementation only and will be not possible to archive with boot132 due its serious limitations. Comparation to Psystars released booting way resulted that they were using strong modified Chameleon, OSX86 project also. Some of bugs are clearly taken direct from Chameleon and Netkas hacking solutions.

Hope helps to clarify about EFiX for this article, but in fact i would contact EFiX developers, ASEM (www.art-studios.net) with questions, they will, so i believe, give by far better explanations to their products... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.44.96.205 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that the article Hackintosh be merged here. The article is just a stub that states the "hacks" already discussed here in greater detail. Considering it is a stub, it woulnd't overwhelm the content here. Wizoomer95 (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there aren't enough different meanings of the word 'Hackintosh' to maintain a separate article about it. Aaditya 7 14:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is stale so I am doing it per WP:BOLD. I don't think there is anything to merge, so I am just redirecting.--Cerejota (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Sections

There is absolutely no reason why somebody needs to delete sections out of the wiki. I am referring to the Chimera and tonymacx86.com sections. If your Russian developer created a way to hack as well then add it in don't be a little sour bitch and delete whole sections because you got a boner for tonymacx86.com. Add your content along with everybody else's content. I thought we were in this together, as all of the development work is shared and credited to each person. So don't be a little bitch and make the page great for resources not a pissing match.

the wikipedia page should be for historical facts- not a pissing match!!!!

I recommend that you catch up on WP:NOT, it will explain why those links are not included. Ethelred Cyning (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Illegal Macintosh cloning"

Does Wikipedia let Apple Inc. write its articles now? The title of this page is a joke and it should be changed back to Hackintosh or OSx86. 91.49.199.89 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)