Can I install Apple's Leopard on my Lenovo ?

Is that possible ???

(Sorry if it's a dumb Q - but I need to know)

 

You should go ask at osx86.com.

WHy not just buy a mac? You wouldnt have to worry about waiting for hacked updates or anything...

 

Im pretty sure you can, Ive seen versions for Intel and AMD on Bit Torrent for PC's

 

Yes, it is possible. How? I don't know. I've also heard something about the questionable legality of doing so, but I don't see how using software you purchase can be illegal.

 

Not legally, no. It's a violation of the EULA.

cbs2186, the EULA you agree to when you purchase OS X specifically says that it can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware.

Aside from that, it's not like people just can buy a copy of OS X and install it on a PC laptop. It requires a variety of hacks/etc. to it that also violate the EULA.

Of course, the large majority of people who do this don't actually bother to buy a copy of OS X; they use a pirated hacked copy, so I guess they could argue they never agreed to the EULA in the first place.

Essentially, if you want/need to run OS X, you'd want to get a MacBook or MacBook Pro. Aside from the legal questions, this is also going to be the only way to be able to run the current software without having to deal with a variety of hacks, etc.

-Zadillo

 

its illegal if you dont install it on a non apple machine. You can use ubuntu for free and legally and its every bit as good as OS X

 

Really? I've never heard of OS X being pirated.

 

yes, if theres a will theres a way. who knows what types of trojans/backdoors/viruses they include in there without you ever knowing

 

Seriously, please stop this discussion of how to pirate OS X, etc.

-Zadillo

 

What about Darwin? Has anyone tried it and if so how does it compare to OSX?

It is perfectly legal to install on a Thinkpad.

 

Darwin is basically the underlying UNIX framework OS X is built in. In and of itself it is basically like many other UNIX-like OS's; you can run plenty of open source software on it, but it doesn't contain the various libraries or the Aqua UI that characterize OS X itself.

So yes, one could certainly install and run Darwin on a ThinkPad, but it wouldn't give them much benefit over Linux, etc.

-Zadillo

 

Wow, I don't see anyone talking about "How to". Sounds like more of a discussion about it not being worth the trouble. Oh well.

 

There are some posts in this thread with people talking about where/how to find torrents for it, etc. which is getting pretty close to what isn't allowed here.

It hasn't really crossed that line yet, but what I'm trying to avoid here is the detailed discussion of how/where to do it.

-Zadillo

 

isnt leopard version 10.5? and not released yet?

 

Yes, it's currently only available to Apple Developers. Presumably the question was whether they'd be able to install it when it came out.

-Zadillo

 

Just install Linux on it. It is legal and is cooler than OS X. Plus, you do not feel dirty after using it. It is free so you do not get the Apple vendor lock-in.

 

There's an explanation of the details on tommerritt.com. It's a hack best left to those who want to deal with everything not working exactly as desired and/or breaking unexpectedly.

If you want that kind of grief stick with Windows where at least you know at some point someone is likely to fix it.

If you want OSX, get a Macintosh.

 

I agree with akadoublej.

Installing a hacked OS X is almost worth doing just to annoy the Mac zealots. Or as a novelty. But if you're unsatisfied with Windows, I'd certainly try Ubuntu first.

As for Darwin, it won't get you the Mac GUI, and it doesn't really offer any advantages over Linux, and it has disadvantages like being somewhat less widely supported by the open source community, and probably less driver support.

 

Btw if you want to better understand legallity of this stuff:

When you buy software you are not buying the actual software, you are buying a license to use it. This is how they can tell you what you can and cannot do. The companies love this approach, it lets them keep 100% control. The legality of these tactics is a hot debate, some judges strictly uphold End User License Agreements ( EULA ), and some don't. Generally the license governs how many times you can install it, and it limits people who can buy the license ( Companies can't buy educational license, etc.. ), and since you never bought a license for the code itself you are not able to modify it. And so lies the problem. You can install OSX on a toaster if you want, but that assumes that you can do it without modifying OSX in anyway. And guess what Apple does to OSX? They code a few features that check what hardware it is running on, so it will never run on other hardware, without modification.

Its a crazy world, companies want as much money as they can get ( good business ), and consumers want freedom. I don't think you would ever win a lawsuit if you hacked OSX onto different hardware, but rather Apple could find itself in the same spot as Microsoft where their products become to everyday the courts demand they make them more accessible. This won't be happening anytime soon ( will happen on the iPod before anything ), so if you want OSX just get a mac.

Although I admit it is alot of fun to goof around with this type of thing just to see if you can do it.

 

Say you have purchased a copy of OSX, installed it on a Thinkpad and then Apple finds out and takes you to court.

Say the court finds that you have violated the EULA. How does the court go about determining damages? What damage have you done? What loss has Apple suffered?

Apple lost out on the profit from the sale of the hardware but is that it? Surely Apple would not be happy if this is what damages were based upon.

 

This is a completely hypothetical question of course; Apple wouldn't be likely to take an individual user to court for violating the EULA.

By the same token, Microsoft wouldn't be likely to sue an individual Windows user for violating the Windows EULA in some way.

If Apple was going to take anyone to court, it would probably be someone responsible for something on a greater scale.

But that comes down to issues of personal morality and ethics, for the most part. If the only concern is whether you'd be taken to court for something, there's all sorts of agreements/etc. that could be violated.

I'm not a lawyer, but the bigger issue with the hypothetical scenario you described is that it requires modifying Apple code/etc. that permission isn't given to modify.

It's not like someone can go buy a copy of OS X, stick it in their ThinkPad, and install it. It does require outside modifications, etc.

It's like with any software, really. When you purchase it and open the package and install it, you do agree to the EULA defined by the developer. When I buy a copy of Photoshop, I also agree not to reverse engineer aspects of it, etc.

Will Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc. go after individual users for EULA violations? No, probably not. Whether that fear of being sued or something is the sole thing keeping someone from doing something unauthorized, that is something else.

I think again your hypothetical situation is probably fairly rare though, as most people who do this don't normally bother with the step even of buying a copy of OS X.

-Zadillo

 

Apple would not take a hobbyist to court for trying to get OSX running on non apple hardware. They will take a hobbyist to court who gets OSX running on non apple hardware and provides a method for others to do it. The damages then become many. Fair use is all good until it can cost them money.

Also if you put OSX on non apple hardware, they can sue you for damages to their trademarks, reputation, and any other intangible assets a company has. The reason being they can claim you mislead people to believe Apple software works like XXX when it clearly does not. This type of damage is critical as they want people to believe Apple OSX is a godlike OS with no problems. I you put their software on unsupported hardware any problems can be immediately attributed to you.

 

The answer is yes, but you wouldn't want to. I cringe when people try to choose between a Mac and a PC based on hardware. Pick your OS, THEN choose your hardware. Not the other way around.