Comments on: FAQ: Will your Intel-based Mac run Windows?
Since both the Mac OS and Windows now run on Intel-based hardware, shouldn't it be easy to run them on the same computer?
Ten thoughts on the new Intel iMac
Since both the Mac OS and Windows now run on Intel-based hardware, shouldn't it be easy to run them on the same computer?
Ten thoughts on the new Intel iMac
January 2, 2010 6:26 PM PST
January 2, 2010 4:56 PM PST
January 2, 2010 4:16 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
how, so far, nothing has been written that I would argue with at the
moment. But the story may yet develop in more ways. We'll see.
By the way, you really don't want to get Ty started on any set of
posts.
I see posts from both, have yet to read them all but it's going, it's going! :)
how, so far, nothing has been written that I would argue with at the
moment. But the story may yet develop in more ways. We'll see.
By the way, you really don't want to get Ty started on any set of
posts.
I see posts from both, have yet to read them all but it's going, it's going! :)
full version of OS X, since there is no such thing as an OS X-less
macintosh.
Basically, with Apple, their hardware likely subsidizes their software development, so if you like having MacOS X exist, don't pirate it onto non-Apple hardware.
an "upgrade" has nothing to do with whether it requires the
previous version to exist on a computer's hard drive at the time
of installation. Many apps have (and do) simply replace the
existing app with a full copy of the new version. The license is
all about a legal contract. And when it comes to Mac OS, you
"agreed" to the terms of Apple's license when you started using
the machine -- regardless of which Mac OS was installed on it.
As someone accurately pointed out: the machine itself is proof
that you had (or were originally entitled to) a legal, licensed
version of Mac OS. So Mac OS X is just an "upgrade" -- even
though it can be installed on a clean hard drive. Your
previously-licensed version is either on a disk in your desk
drawer, or happened to get lost somewhere in time. But once
upon a time, that Mac had a licensed copy of Mac OS on it --
every Mac and even the short-lived Mac OS clones did. So don't
get so hung-up on whether it'll install on a clean HD. That has
nothing to do with it. It's all about the legal license agreement.
full version of OS X, since there is no such thing as an OS X-less
macintosh.
Basically, with Apple, their hardware likely subsidizes their software development, so if you like having MacOS X exist, don't pirate it onto non-Apple hardware.
an "upgrade" has nothing to do with whether it requires the
previous version to exist on a computer's hard drive at the time
of installation. Many apps have (and do) simply replace the
existing app with a full copy of the new version. The license is
all about a legal contract. And when it comes to Mac OS, you
"agreed" to the terms of Apple's license when you started using
the machine -- regardless of which Mac OS was installed on it.
As someone accurately pointed out: the machine itself is proof
that you had (or were originally entitled to) a legal, licensed
version of Mac OS. So Mac OS X is just an "upgrade" -- even
though it can be installed on a clean hard drive. Your
previously-licensed version is either on a disk in your desk
drawer, or happened to get lost somewhere in time. But once
upon a time, that Mac had a licensed copy of Mac OS on it --
every Mac and even the short-lived Mac OS clones did. So don't
get so hung-up on whether it'll install on a clean HD. That has
nothing to do with it. It's all about the legal license agreement.
its operating system." They certainly do. It does seem that Cnet
writers too often don't have mastery of their topics.
Don't be surprised by the quality of what you read here. And keep an eye on the banners and interstitials when evaluating the subjects they deem worthy of consideration...
I use it as a "heads up" on things that might be interesting to explore elsewhere. No more, no less.
its operating system." They certainly do. It does seem that Cnet
writers too often don't have mastery of their topics.
Don't be surprised by the quality of what you read here. And keep an eye on the banners and interstitials when evaluating the subjects they deem worthy of consideration...
I use it as a "heads up" on things that might be interesting to explore elsewhere. No more, no less.
is true that most people use it as an upgrade, it's also a full,
standalone version - even if your harddrive is empty you can install
a full running copy of OS X. I've done it before. Sounds like more
than an upgrade to me.
regular intel box, but would you not require a copy of the Mac ROM
to install Mac OS X on a non-Mac box?
is true that most people use it as an upgrade, it's also a full,
standalone version - even if your harddrive is empty you can install
a full running copy of OS X. I've done it before. Sounds like more
than an upgrade to me.
regular intel box, but would you not require a copy of the Mac ROM
to install Mac OS X on a non-Mac box?
and having it bronzed.
there is no mac equal to a custom developed piece of software for a corporation that runs on windows
I duel boot linux and windows for exactly that reason I develop for both platforms.
like a Mac. That's why I have PC's to run Windows.
To each his own
and having it bronzed.
there is no mac equal to a custom developed piece of software for a corporation that runs on windows
I duel boot linux and windows for exactly that reason I develop for both platforms.
like a Mac. That's why I have PC's to run Windows.
To each his own
The problem lies in the legal domain. Apple will fight tooth and nail to protect MAC OS. They have been quite successful in doing it all these years.
I don't think it would be legal to run Mac computers using Windows. Ask the "Man", and he will say; No way, Jose.
The problem lies in the legal domain. Apple will fight tooth and nail to protect MAC OS. They have been quite successful in doing it all these years.
I don't think it would be legal to run Mac computers using Windows. Ask the "Man", and he will say; No way, Jose.
That way it is running in a nice controlled sandbox. The worms and
other crap that sprout can be contained.
http://www.vmware.com
And if not, Darwine may be even better:
http://darwine.opendarwin.org/
That way it is running in a nice controlled sandbox. The worms and
other crap that sprout can be contained.
http://www.vmware.com
And if not, Darwine may be even better:
http://darwine.opendarwin.org/
I dont know, Jobs can plan a MacTel computer but, imagine the damage he can do to MS if his MAC OS runs in PC with the same quality as it runs in a mac?
They might license it to exclusive partners (like they did the iPod with HP), but open it completely? Forget about it. Not going to happen.
- Who would install a Windows in a Mac?
- by Mark_Smith January 20, 2006 3:04 PM PST
- From what ive heard in ten years using a PC, ppl say mac rules. I dont agree in 100%. I would like to see, yes, a PC running a MAC OS. It would be a good point to break the Microsoft monopoly over the pcs.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Answer: Virtual PC and VMWare customers.
- by open-mind January 20, 2006 3:21 PM PST
- Opening OS X to run on any Intel box would hurt Apple a lot more than it would hurt Microsoft. In fact, it would probably destroy Apple.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
Showing 1 of 3 pages (314 Comments)I dont know, Jobs can plan a MacTel computer but, imagine the damage he can do to MS if his MAC OS runs in PC with the same quality as it runs in a mac?
They might license it to exclusive partners (like they did the iPod with HP), but open it completely? Forget about it. Not going to happen.