No more Safari for Windows based PCs

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Just to clarify, it isn't running OSX on Windows, but rather running OSX on non-Apple hardware.

Yes, I multi boot on a Windows badged Computer with Win7, Apple and Linux.

While initially experimenting I found that if a system carries both the Intel Dual Core, or Core I?, and either Windows Vista or Windows 7 compliance stickers it seems to work OK with the Apple OS. If not - i.e., some of the older Pentium/XP-Pro badged systems that do not have those particular Widows compliance stickers, they seem to be problematic with an Apple OS. Not enough dual core drivers to patch things in smoothly.

Doing this makes it easy for those fairly rare occasions where I need the Apple OS. Another simple way of going about things is with some of the systems that have a removable Sata drive bay. Just swap and boot. Those drive bay conversion kits are quite cheap nowadays.

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

While initially experimenting I found that if a system carries both the Intel Dual Core, or Core I?, and either Windows Vista or Windows 7 compliance stickers it seems to work OK with the Apple OS.

It's somewhat more complex than that, particularly if you are looking for certain levels of functionality and reliability. But the essence of what you say is correct: it isn't too difficult to build a generic PC that runs Mac OS X. You simply have to ensure that your hardware is supported by Mac OS X, which usually means that you can use any components that Apple uses.

Still, this doesn't mean that it is legal to do so.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

It's somewhat more complex than that, particularly if you are looking for certain levels of functionality and reliability. But the essence of what you say is correct: it isn't too difficult to build a generic PC that runs Mac OS X. You simply have to ensure that your hardware is supported by Mac OS X, which usually means that you can use any components that Apple uses.

Still, this doesn't mean that it is legal to do so.

It is not illegal to run Mac OS X on non Windows hardware. Let's get that straight right off. YOU WOULD NOT BREAK ANY LAWS. You're not having to break any DRM, or crack encryption, etc. The few tricks you have to do are perfectly legal. That is why Apple hasn't been able to shut down any of the websites aiding people in making Hackintoshes. The only thing you'd be doing is violating the EULA, which IS NOT ILLEGAL.

As long as you pay for a copy of OS X, you're not breaking the law. End of story. What is so hard to understand about this?

Originally Posted by Hellmark

It is not illegal to run Mac OS X on non Windows hardware. Let's get that straight right off. YOU WOULD NOT BREAK ANY LAWS. You're not having to break any DRM, or crack encryption, etc. The few tricks you have to do are perfectly legal. That is why Apple hasn't been able to shut down any of the websites aiding people in making Hackintoshes. The only thing you'd be doing is violating the EULA, which IS NOT ILLEGAL.

As long as you pay for a copy of OS X, you're not breaking the law. End of story. What is so hard to understand about this?

It's not criminal, to be sure. Chances are that they would be on very shaky grounds when it comes to discussing hackintoshes, which is why they cannot shut down sites that don't promote piracy. The question is: do they have the right to sue? That depends upon the legality of particular clauses in the EULA.

I would suggest that the lack of lawsuits does not make the clauses legally enforceable or non-enforcable. They simply have not been tested. Maybe they haven't been tested because Apple doesn't want to test them, but that doesn't automatically make it legal to violate the EULA.

(For what it's worth, I don't think that manufacturers/developers should have the right to dictate the use of consumer goods. On the other hand, the law and I don't always agree.)

[heySkippy]

Apple isn't going to bother anyone for installing OS X on their own PC.

Try making a business selling them and all bets are off.

[Matth79]

Getting back to Safari, in windows, it's "the other webkit based browser", and with everyone either pushing IE9, Firefox or Chrome, I suspect the only people that care about Safari/Win are those who want consistency with use of Safari/OSX.

Just wish there was something you could call a "reference" Webkit browser - Safari may have been closer to that than Chrome is.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

It's not criminal, to be sure. Chances are that they would be on very shaky grounds when it comes to discussing hackintoshes, which is why they cannot shut down sites that don't promote piracy. The question is: do they have the right to sue? That depends upon the legality of particular clauses in the EULA.

I would suggest that the lack of lawsuits does not make the clauses legally enforceable or non-enforcable. They simply have not been tested. Maybe they haven't been tested because Apple doesn't want to test them, but that doesn't automatically make it legal to violate the EULA.

(For what it's worth, I don't think that manufacturers/developers should have the right to dictate the use of consumer goods. On the other hand, the law and I don't always agree.)

They've never really made much of an attempt to do things to prevent people from installing it. I guess they feel that if people like the OS, they'll get actual mac hardware the next time, plus are more likely to buy iPhones, iPads, etc.

Originally Posted by heySkippy

Apple isn't going to bother anyone for installing OS X on their own PC.

Try making a business selling them and all bets are off.

That's because it is direct competition, making money off their work. Apple profits off the hardware, not the software.

Originally Posted by Matth79

Getting back to Safari, in windows, it's "the other webkit based browser", and with everyone either pushing IE9, Firefox or Chrome, I suspect the only people that care about Safari/Win are those who want consistency with use of Safari/OSX.

Just wish there was something you could call a "reference" Webkit browser - Safari may have been closer to that than Chrome is.

One of the reasons for that is Apple for the longest time was one of the largest forces behind Webkit. It started as the library for a really unknown linux browser (KHTML, the basis for KDE's Konqueror browser). Apple originally forked Webkit from KHTML back in 2001, because it was small, code was extremely clean (unlike Mozilla's gecko renderer), and was designed to be standards compliant (a huge thing to the open source crowd). Now other companies are working on it, but in the beginning, it was largely Apple.

[Matth79]

Interestingly:
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/Applicat...sing%20WebKit# - Quite a lot of things use webkit
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/ApplicationsGtk# - or Webkit/GTK+
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/QtWebKit# or QTwebkit - one I've tried is http://www.qtweb.net/