If the Apple hardware is capable of running Windows, then why wouldn't PC hardware be able to run MacOS?

[Windowsrookie]

http://pearpc.net

microsoft doesn't care, it would't really help them that much.

[turbulentfurball]

It violates Apple's EULA. That's why.

Running Mac OS X on a PC would cause various incompatibilities with the infinite number of PC configurations out in the wild, and more importantly (for Apple), it would negatively impact sales of Apple hardware. As a result, it is stated in the EULA that Mac OS X may only be used on hardware certified by Apple. That means Macs, and Macs only.

Nobody answered the question... it says in the EULA that MacOS should only be used on certified hardware, but does MacOS only successfully boot on apple hardware, despite the EULA?

[Brad]

Short answer: No, Mac OS X does not run on off-the-shelf PCs without hacking it. In fact, I think only the old developer builds were hacked to run on PCs; the recent versions are still impossible. The big issues keeping it from running are that Mac OS X uses EFI whereas most PCs have BOIS and that Mac OS X has TC protection.

[turbulentfurball]

No. It just won't work. OS X for x86 requires EFI and most PCs have BIOS.

[hotch]

osx86 project... it works

[turbulentfurball]

It's also illegal. Such talk will get this thread locked.

[hotch]

Originally Posted by turbulentfurball It's also illegal. Such talk will get this thread locked.

maybe this thread needs to get locked, as there are working answers to his question, but they're all illegal?

[Chinney]

Let’s get back to the legit talk. The real question is not hacks, the real question is…could Apple, on its own - no cooperation from MS – release a version of Boot Camp for “PCs”. My initial impression is that the lack of cooperation from MS would not be the stumbling block. MS does not seem to have directly cooperated for Boot Camp for Mac – I am not sure that any lack of cooperation would stop Apple from releasing a Boot Camp PC. They would not be treading directly on toes – purchasers would still have to have licences to valid copies of Windows and OS X to have the dual boot option.

There may be a technical stumbling block, of course. The EFI vs. BIOS could create a problem. I’m not too familiar with that aspect. I would assume, however, that there are technical ways around this, such as a special version of OS X. That likely would not fit with the Apple vision for OS X.

And there is the big stumbling block – Apple’s vision of the integration of the Apple OS and Apple hardware – leaving them only to let their OS run on their own computers. Formerly, I sympathized with the vision, but now that they have gone ‘half way’ with Boot Camp, I wonder if they should just go the whole distance and allow OS X for PC. It would allow greater exposure for OS X to the computer using public and Apple would still have the argument that ‘If you want to see OS X in all of its glory, see it run on our own hardware’.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Chinney The real question is not hacks, the real question is…could Apple, on its own - no cooperation from MS – release a version of Boot Camp for “PCs”.

Of course Apple could. The developer machines ran Mac OS X without EFI; so, that's certainly not required for basic operation.

It's just not currently in Apple's best interests (or ours) to do so, though.

[Chinney]

Originally Posted by Brad [...] It's just not currently in Apple's best interests (or ours) to do so, though.

But the same arguments are being made about Boot Camp for Mac. But the arguments are going both ways...and so could they too about Boot Camp for PC. I raised one of these arguments in my previous post.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Chinney But the same arguments are being made about Boot Camp for Mac.

No, these are totally unrelated to Boot Camp:

1. Apple currently makes profits from hardware sales.
2. Apple currently has lax copy protection.

Both of these would have to do a total 180º if Mac OS X is to be sold for generic PCs. Apple would have to completely reinvent its business model to try to rely on software to drive revenue and profits. That's no easy task and takes more than software engineers to get it to work. It's not just a "vision thing" either; it's the way Apple makes money. Apple would have to start implementing registration and possibly product activation (ala Microsoft Windows XP) to stave off piracy so that any new software-driven business model could survive.

Boot Camp, on the other hand, reinforces the hardware-driven business model, by adding value to the purchase of an Apple computer.

[Chinney]

True Brad, but you response assumes that the effect of making a ‘Boot Camp for PC’ or otherwise licensing OS X for the PC would be to fundamentally undermine Apple’s hardware business and to turn Apple into just, or primarily, a software company. That might be true…or it might not. My point is that the argument is analogous, in some ways, to the current argument surrounding Boot Camp for Mac that maintains that its effect will be to fundamentally undermine software development for the Mac, turning Apple into just another PC manufacturer. That may or may not be true as well. In each case, the point is at least arguable either way.

[Paranoid666au]

If you look at it from Apples point of view, they want to provide both the hardware and the softare in one package, on one intergrated eco system. That's just the way they do it and have always done it. In a way, releasing OS X for PC just wouldn't be Apple.

Now that the Mac's are intel and can run Windows, Apple has decided to imbrace that and it can only be a possitive thing to there hardware sales. Apple can still maintain the 'eco system' while the user can also use Windows.

[TednDi]

It also screws MS after they bought virtual pc from connectix.

[turbulentfurball]

Originally Posted by TednDi It also screws MS after they bought virtual pc from connectix.

Not quite, Virtual PC is available for Windows, so you can run Windows 98 in Windows XP, and so on. That said, I couldn't hazard a guess as to which flavour of Virtual PC has more sales, the Mac version or the Windows version.