# OSx86



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 4, 2006)

Is anyone taking advantage of cracked versions of Mac OSX that run natively on PCs? (Known by many as OSx86).

I'm considering doing something like this, though by setting up a virtual machine with VMWare instead and using a slightly different cracked OSX version.


----------



## Kougar (Oct 8, 2006)

If you have a CPU that features hardware virtualization, why not just run OSX from within Windows? So far the are still working on getting 3d acceleration to work without a software abstraction layer, but otherwise everything else runs with maybe only a 5% performance hit only.

Parallel's Desktop is pretty amazing for what it can do with near native performance. They offer a free trial copy http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/


----------



## Rhainor (Oct 9, 2006)

Only marginally related, but...

A guy I know from another message board is working on creating a Virtual-OS of WinXP Pro (with Office and some other stuff in it) using VMware.


----------



## Shapeshifter (Oct 10, 2006)

I have used OSX on my desktop before. It's OK. It just didn't make sense to use it, though, when I also have a Mac. 

I'd advise against using OSX on a desktop, as it has been a nightmare for me to get it to work. Apparently laptops have a higher success rate.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (Oct 11, 2006)

Shapeshifter said:
			
		

> I have used OSX on my desktop before. It's OK. It just didn't make sense to use it, though, when I also have a Mac.
> 
> I'd advise against using OSX on a desktop, as it has been a nightmare for me to get it to work. Apparently laptops have a higher success rate.



Less hardware variation perhaps between most PC laptops and Mac laptops?

PC Desktops can have very very different configurations, so I can imagine it would be hell.


----------



## quentinwolf (Oct 23, 2006)

My current PC here is dual booting XP pro and OSX86 (version 10.4.4).

Its runs like a dream, other than Coreimage or Quartzextreme support (one worked, the other didn't, whichever one was the more powerful, was the one that didn't work.  Lots of people said they got their ATI X800's to work with it, so my X700pro should have been entirely capable) or whatever the hardware 3d support is called.

10.4.3 ran okay, but had some issues, and 10.4.5 installed, but networking and sound was majorly messed up.  10.4.4 installed with sound working fully, only the networking was slightly effected, but easily fixed with a small patch.

PC its running on:
Pentium 4 (Northbridge) 3.06 ghz (with only SSE2 support, not SSE3)
2048 mb/2gigs ram
Asus P4G8x mobo.
Radeon X700pro AGP

I haven't booted into it for well over a month or two now, just simply because I'm too busy to be constantly re-booting into different OS's...  (Btw, osx86 wouldn't even install on my laptop, its even MORE choosey with laptops, unless its using a centrino, or similar laptop with supported chipset.  Thankfully my desktop, had a mobo that was highly supported.  [ http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10.4.4#Motherboards 11th entry down] It says 10.4.5 should have worked, but maybe it was just that I downloaded a corrupt, or bad version of it. 10.4.6 and higher, my mobo isn't listed.)

Good luck if you attempt to try, I loved it!  Such a beautiful OS.


----------



## blackdragoon (Oct 23, 2006)

you guys are making my head hurt. what does "cracked" mean?


----------



## quentinwolf (Oct 23, 2006)

blackdragoon said:
			
		

> you guys are making my head hurt. what does "cracked" mean?



Means its been "Modified" to run on "Non-Apple" hardware  (Not even specifically "Apple" hardware, but apples 'authorized' hardware).

Each of the latest version, slowly is reducing the amount of computers you may run it on, For example, 10.4.4 could run on like, 60% of the latest computers,  10.4.5 could run on 50% of em, 10.4.6 could un on 40%... and 10.4.7 can run on maybe 30% of the latest computers.  (Latest computers, being those made, or built within the past 3 years.)


----------



## WelcomeTheCollapse (Oct 23, 2006)

Kougar said:
			
		

> Parallel's Desktop is pretty amazing for what it can do with near native performance. They offer a free trial copy http://www.parallels.com/en/products/workstation/



I've been using Parallels on my Mac to run Windows (because screw rebooting), it works like a dream. I highly recommend it to anyone who needs another OS to do anything; it handles Linux, Solaris, the old DOS, etc. Just make sure you have at least of Gig of RAM so it'll run nicely.


----------



## quentinwolf (Oct 23, 2006)

WelcomeTheCollapse said:
			
		

> Kougar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've heard good things about Parallels, but the only downside to that is, That's if your running on a Mac... This whole topic is about OSx86, or basically getting OSX running on a standard every day PC, so its kinda opposite.


----------



## benanderson (Nov 18, 2006)

I use OS X 10.4.7 JaS Hack version in VMWare 5.5 on my P4 HT Dell... runs as well as I would expect from visualization, very well just choppy and the audio skips like crazy. But if you really want to use mac on a physical machine, then go for it! This hack I got was only for VMWare, but it install nicely on my laptop. But it proved useless seeing as the Celeron processor in my laptop doesn't have SSE3. It ran VERY well, but it couldn't run PPC aps, and seeing as almost all mac modem/router/wifi drivers are PPC based, it was pointless to keep it, and the audio drivers are also usually PPC based, so I had no audio. It does work on a physical Win Based machine, just make sure you have a processor with SSE2 AND SSE3 support, such as the P4HT, Xeon or Core Duo. As for OSXx86 drivers... god knows how many can be found over google.

Some specs for my laptop:
SiS mirage graphics 64MB - Worked fine! Can't comment on 3D support, I have no 3D hardware
AC97 Audio - Known to Work, but needs SSE3 to detect and use it.
Keyboard - Works better than when windows was installed the Fn>F12 (turn off monitor) command never worked in windows. Alt is the Cloverleaf key.
DVDRW - Worked fine, Mac also recognized it to be a burner too. But SSE3 needed for burning software.
USB - SSE3 needed. I had NO USB functionality.
Ethernet - Seemed to work according to system profile, but I had no way of testing it.


----------

