# Mac on Wondows machine?



## docmcr (May 16, 2007)

Ok, I am confused, a little. I have been told and have read on this group that I can install Winmdows on a Mac machine. but my question now is can I install Mac OS on my windows computer? I have set it up with NTFS, unfortunately even if I reformat my 160 GB HD and partition it will Mac OS work?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

No, not to mention it being illegal on multiple accounts.


----------



## docmcr (May 16, 2007)

Why illegal? 
I have a generic clone desk top computer that I had built to my specs. I paid for the machine in cash as well as the complete install version of Windows XP Pro. I own the license and licensed copy of the Windows XP Pro. I admit that I didn't read all of the fine print of the license, but who does????
If I decide to eliminate my Windows XP, say buy a new HD, couldn't I also purchase the complete install version of the Apple OS and install it on the machine and run Apple instead of Windows? Do I have to purchase a new Apple computer?


----------



## kayote (Nov 3, 2006)

I believe that OS X's license says it can only be run on Apple hardware.

But beyond that, I don't think you can install OS X on anything but Apple hardware. I don't think it works.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

kayote said:


> I believe that OS X's license says it can only be run on Apple hardware.
> 
> But beyond that, I don't think you can install OS X on anything but Apple hardware. I don't think it works.


It is possible, and against Apple's EULA.

What Apple doesn't want you to know is that their is nothing special about their hardware, they just match the OS to batches. Serial starting with xxxxxxxx--------- is a valid drive etc.

There are hacks out there to run Mac OS on a regular PC, but it is not technically legal. Not to mention you will get 0 tech support from Apple shoudl there be issues.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

docmcr said:


> Ok, I am confused, a little. I have been told and have read on this group that I can install Winmdows on a Mac machine. but my question now is can I install Mac OS on my windows computer? I have set it up with NTFS, unfortunately even if I reformat my 160 GB HD and partition it will Mac OS work?


There is no such things as a "windows computer" or "windows machine". Windows is just the software, the operating system.

Computer is hardware


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

namenotfound said:


> There is no such things as a "windows computer" or "windows machine". Windows is just the software, the operating system.
> 
> Computer is hardware


Does it really matter?


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

ferrija1 said:


> Does it really matter?


Yes!

Everyone on this site uses the wrong terminology, it drives me crazy. 

Just looking through the forums, you can see at least 5 new posts per day with the wrong words in it.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

We're not the only ones doing it... 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="windows+computer"&btnG=Search

You fighting billions of people, just let people call it what they want. People say the nonsensical phrase "I could care less' while it should truly be 'I could not care less," but who goes around correcting people and making sure everything is right? Windows machine/computer is a popular term already, can you please stop playing terminology police?


----------



## Serge_N_Gin (Sep 7, 2004)

When I refer to a _"Windows machine"_ It's shorthand for _"a machine running Windows Software"_ ... it's just quicker/easier to type the former.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Exactly.


----------



## Clintonio (Aug 16, 2005)

ferrija1 said:


> We're not the only ones doing it...
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q="windows+computer"&btnG=Search
> 
> You fighting billions of people, just let people call it what they want. People say the nonsensical phrase "I could care less' while it should truly be 'I could not care less," but who goes around correcting people and making sure everything is right? Windows machine/computer is a popular term already, can you please stop playing terminology police?


I could care less is an Americanism. Us Brits do say "I couldn't care less", and thus I make sure to correct people  
Sorry, I'm being pedantic.

Like said above, if you're willing to break the law and lose support for your OS, go ahead and install Mac on a normal machine. I'm all in favour of it. I may even have to try it one day. I refuse to purchase any Apple Hardware just for a single damned OS.


----------



## Serge_N_Gin (Sep 7, 2004)

_[Off Topic_Pandora's Box]_ Thanks for clarifying that clintonio .... we Aussies say the same_ [/Topic_Box]_


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

Clintonio said:


> I could care less is an Americanism. Us Brits do say "I couldn't care less", and thus I make sure to correct people
> Sorry, I'm being pedantic.
> 
> Like said above, if you're willing to break the law and lose support for your OS, go ahead and install Mac on a normal machine. I'm all in favour of it. I may even have to try it one day. I refuse to purchase any Apple Hardware just for a single damned OS.


I'd say it's less an Americanism, and more a person not understanding what s/he is saying. There are those of us, who are Americans, who care enough to be precise about the turns of phrase we use, be they spoken or written.

The above "phrase" is one of my pet peeves. If one _could_ care less, then apparently s/he cares at _least_ a _little_. More often than not, this is not the message that is intended to be conveyed.

Another of my pet peeves is when a person says, "heighth." No such word. This same person, mind you, would _never_ say something concerning "weighth."

Sadly, people are no longer corrected when they use the language incorrectly. I could care less.

Yes. That _was_ intentional. I _could_ care less. But I don't. I _do_ care, and I find trends such as these abhorrent.

Sorry for the detour. Someone seems to have hit a nerve.  For what it's worth, I'm also one who uses italics and underlines and bold print to convey emphasis in my posts, so as to remove any doubt as to where the inflection I intend is to fall. Some find that annoying. I find it _quite_ useful.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

docmcr said:


> Ok, I am confused, a little. I have been told and have read on this group that I can install Winmdows on a Mac machine. but my question now is can I install Mac OS on my windows computer? I have set it up with NTFS, unfortunately even if I reformat my 160 GB HD and partition it will Mac OS work?


Why would you want to run OS X on this computer?

Peace...


----------



## matthew0155 (Jan 14, 2008)

i suggest stop talking about it here since they do not condone illegal activity look up how to dual boot with the OSx86 method.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

matthew0155 said:


> i suggest stop talking about it here since they do not condone illegal activity look up how to dual boot with the OSx86 method.


Hypocrite.


----------



## matthew0155 (Jan 14, 2008)

what, i didnt tell him how to do it, i just mearly pointed him in the right direction. Nothing hypocritical. :down:


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

matthew0155 said:


> what, i didnt tell him how to do it, i just mearly pointed him in the right direction. Nothing hypocritical. :down:


Yes it is 

That's like saying to someone they can't do something, but at the same time shaking your head up/down to imply that they can.

You told him exactly what to google to get the answer he needs, after telling him you can't give him the answer


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

Ok now I am confused...???
How is putting a Mac OS on a non-Apple computer illegal? You are paying for the OS not the whole Apple "experi. I mean if Apple did not want it done then why wouldn't they just right something into the software. I know there are laws against say making a copy of software and using it on a second computer. I thought I heard that Windows had some sort of "you only get three downloads" thing in their XP


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

pelokwin said:


> Ok now I am confused...???
> How is putting a Mac OS on a non-Apple computer illegal?


Do you ever read license agreements on software? You do know that even if you don't read them, just using the software makes you legally bound to what the license says?

Well it says on the End User License Agreement (EULA) for Mac OS that you can only use it on an apple-labeled computer.

THAT is what makes it's illegal to use it on an non apple-labeled computer


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

of coarse like most folks no I did not read the whole thing, but _"Well it says on the End User License Agreement (EULA) for Mac OS that you can only use it on an apple-labeled computer."_ does not really tell me the basis for it . Maybe I should have said " Why does Apple need to restrict it's customers to only use Mac OS on Apple hardware (other than the obvious "so we make more money" ) I always thought that Apple products only worked with apple products and in a against the "world of Windows"* way I thought it was cool. This whole thing kind of reminds me of why I hate the "industry" of music. If I pay for a product it should be mine to do with as I please...maybe insted of selling software they should say they are renting it to you

*The whole world of Windows thing is not an attack of Win. but an observation that Win. is used way more in the world than any other OS


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

Apple isn't a software company, they are a hardware company. They make their own operating system so the hardware is functional. You're free to use Windows or Linux on an apple computer if you wish.

They limit use of the OS to apple-labeled computers only because they know that if they allowed you to use it on other brand computers, that you will and they'll lose money. _Most_ of their money comes from the hardware, they don't make as much in the software as they do the hardware. And considering they are a hardware company, it would be pretty foolish on their part to allow you to use the OS on other computers.

Microsoft is a software company, that's all they do (aside from making mice, keyboards, and routers). They don't make computers, thus they couldn't care less what brand computer you use their OS on, just as long as you use their OS.

So to recap:
Apple wants you to use their hardware, they don't care as much if you use their OS.
Microsoft wants you to use their OS, they don't care at all what computer you use it on.


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

wow!! That was one of the most well put answers to one of my rant-e questions I think I have ever got.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

If you notice, OS X costs around $120, while their machines are all upwards of $1000 (besides that little gray box), if you could buy OS X and put it on a Windows machine, Apple's computer industry would quickly fade away.


----------



## Gigacore (Jul 19, 2007)

Installing MAC OS on any other machine than Macintosh is against apple's EULA and its Illegal


----------



## Serge_N_Gin (Sep 7, 2004)

pelokwin said:


> How is putting a Mac OS on a non-Apple computer illegal? You are paying for the OS not the whole Apple "experience"





namenotfound said:


> Apple wants you to use _their _ hardware, they don't care as much if you use their OS.
> Microsoft wants you to use _their_ OS, they don't care at all what computer you use it on.





pelokwin said:


> wow!! That was one of the most well put answers to one of my rant-e questions I think I have ever got.


I agree! Very succinctly put, namenotfound, kudos and stuff


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

One more tidbit that will shed a bit more light on the subject:

When you "buy" a disc that has software on it you are not "buying" the software. You are buying a license to _use_ that software. You are a licensee, not an owner. There is a _huge_ legal difference. That text that pretty much everybody just clicks "Okay" on to make it go away and begin the installation process explains this, though it's largely in legalese, so it may not be entirely understandable.

Because of the way copyright law is set up it is incumbent upon the holders of copyrights (that is to say, owners of copyrighted property) to only allow _licenses_ to use (or whatever verb is applicable, given the copyright) the thing that is copyrighted. To allow any greater rights to that is to erode the copyright that is owned by the owners.

You don't own that software. You didn't buy it. You paid for the right to be a licensee, and, as such, you _must_ abide by the terms and conditions that come with the software. One of those restrictions, in the case of the MacOS, is that you agree to _only_ install it on approved (i.e., Apple-branded) hardware.

The same is true with music, books on "tape," or any other sort of intellectual (that is, not physical) property. You _do_ own the disc that it came on. But you are only a licensee of the owner to the information stored on that disc.

Hope this helps someone.


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

Again...very clear and in plain english thanks
on a more sarcastic note: all that helped me to remember how much I miss the days when you bought a hammer and the next day you owned a hammer.
I do understand the "why" but I still feel like I am getting short changed


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

pelokwin said:


> I do understand the "why" but I still feel like I am getting short changed


You could always go with Linux. It's both free as in speech and free as in beer. :up:

You can modify it as much as you want and re-distribute it as you wish. It is one OS that you can really say you "own".


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

namenotfound,
I was just about to say, we all started talking about right and wrong and forgot about DOCMCR, I was going to suggest Linux. 
You beat me to the punch


----------



## VegasACF (May 27, 2005)

pelokwin said:


> Again...very clear and in plain english thanks
> on a more sarcastic note: all that helped me to remember how much I miss the days when you bought a hammer and the next day you owned a hammer.
> I do understand the "why" but I still feel like I am getting short changed


But, even in those days, when you bought a roll for a player piano, you were not buying the song that was contained in that roll. You were buying the rights to have it played on your player piano.

Things aren't that different from what they were 100 years ago. Just different media.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

VegasACF said:


> But, even in those days, when you bought a roll for a player piano, you were not buying the song that was contained in that roll. You were buying the rights to have it played on your player piano.
> 
> Things aren't that different from what they were 100 years ago. Just different media.


True  I'd be rich if I automatically owned the rights to the music I bought. Image getting paid everytime someone sings a popular folksong


----------



## Serge_N_Gin (Sep 7, 2004)

namenotfound said:


> Do you ever read license agreements on software? You do know that even if you don't read them, just using the software makes you legally bound to what the license says?


I often wonder about this and whether or not it's really true ... I struggle sometimes to get my head around the, what I ( and 80% of the rest of the world ) refer to as "gobble-de-****" and get lost in the excitement of the installation process.

I guess that in my case I won't have a problem but I do wonder whether or not there may or may not be any _"small print"_ where I sign my soul away.

I realise the Companies need to protect their software and suppose it's only the pirates that the terms and conditions of the EULA are aimed at ... dunno.


----------



## pelokwin (Apr 2, 2008)

Sorry Vegas,
I did not mean back in world time only in my time i.e. my youth I have yet to hear about some kid getting sued because he put Darth Vader in the cockpit of a G.I.Joe SkyStriker XP-14F


----------

