Mac fans nightmare has come true

[pmeswani]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/

[Bob Dalek]

Nightmare, is the word: have you seen the Linux-like farting about required? End result for most will be a f--ked PC!

[Cliphead]

Tried this months ago and it works very well.

[chef]

why not just get Vista?

[Moscow Mule]

why not just get Vista?

Because, IMO, OS-X is better. I'm not going to argue why - it's a personal choice.

It's also my personal choice to buy Apple hardware to run it on, I just prefer it - much the same as I would buy an Alienware pc if I ever wanted a PC again...

[NotAllThere]

Can it be run under VMware?

[pmeswani]

Can it be run under VMware?

I'm sure VMWare will come out with a version to support it.

[bogeyman]

I'm sure VMWare will come out with a version to support it.

Only if they want Apple's attack lawyers all over them.

IIRC the OS X EULA forbids it being run on non-Apple harware - whether under a VM or not.

[ThomasSoerensen]

Only if they want Apple's attack lawyers all over them.

IIRC the OS X EULA forbids it being run on non-Apple harware - whether under a VM or not.

that is a bit stingy isn't it.

[NickFitz]

that is a bit stingy isn't it.

Don't see why. The one point that nobody ever seems to get in the Windows v. Mac "debate" (aka slanging match) is that Microsoft and Apple aren't actually equivalent companies.

Microsoft are a software company. Apple are a manufacturer of computer systems. Microsoft develop an operating system as their core product, and invest time and money in making it run on commodity hardware of widely varying specifications. Apple develop an operating system specifically optimised to run on their comparatively small, but precisely specified, range of hardware.

If Apple choose to licence their OS on the basis that it may only be used on their hardware, it's not being stingy - it's a reflection of their business model.