[Evildave]

If the legality is such a worry, fork over a little cash for a Mac. The Mac Minis are pretty cheap, and you can upgrade it to a relatively capable little machine with a SSD and a little more RAM. And the Thunderbolt connection may come in handy, if you want to build a monster.

Then you can move all your VMs over to it and use it as an upgrade, and write it off on your taxes.

And yeah, intel-based VMs from VirtualBox can run under VirtualBox under OS X with only a little bit of tweaking in the XML. Though you might want to invest in Parallels, since it's just better. WAY better. It'll even run DirectX games in windoze at pretty much full speed, and the 'shared' drives run at full-speed, too, which is a HUGE improvement over VirtualBox or VMWare.

Then you'll be 100% legal, get your free Xcode (which you probably want to do iOS stuff with), etc. No question whatsoever about 'legality'.

But seriously, if you're a small-fry and don't make a stink of yourself like those Psystar nimrods, Apple ain't gonna gitcha, either.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 23 October 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 23 October 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

I think OS X Server, now that I think about it, CAN legally be run in a virtual machine ON MAC HARDWARE, but not on a regular PC>

Again, there is NO LAW against it.

The question comes down to the EULA and weather or not a CIVIL court would uphold it.

But again, would Apple really care? I thought they were too busy suing other smartphone manufacturers and such over stupid patent stuff.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 23 October 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:

waldojim, on 23 October 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 23 October 2011 - 10:07 AM, said:

I think OS X Server, now that I think about it, CAN legally be run in a virtual machine ON MAC HARDWARE, but not on a regular PC>

Again, there is NO LAW against it.

The question comes down to the EULA and weather or not a CIVIL court would uphold it.

But again, would Apple really care? I thought they were too busy suing other smartphone manufacturers and such over stupid patent stuff.

It isn't a matter of if they are busy, but rather is it worth it? Why sue you for the $500 you didn't pay for a Mac? They will pay more in legal costs than they could possibly hope to make.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 23 October 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

It isn't a matter of if they are busy, but rather is it worth it? Why sue you for the $500 you didn't pay for a Mac? They will pay more in legal costs than they could possibly hope to make.

I dunno... The RIAA sues people for half a million bucks for downloading 2 dozen songs illegally... (yeah, about $24 worth of stuff)

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 23 October 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

waldojim, on 23 October 2011 - 11:50 AM, said:

It isn't a matter of if they are busy, but rather is it worth it? Why sue you for the $500 you didn't pay for a Mac? They will pay more in legal costs than they could possibly hope to make.

I dunno... The RIAA sues people for half a million bucks for downloading 2 dozen songs illegally... (yeah, about $24 worth of stuff)

They didn't hit them with downloading, they hit them with distributing. Roughly $100,000 per song for distribution. Also, the RIAA has the entire music industry financing it. RIAA has nothing to loose and everything to gain, unlike Apple.

[MACDROID84]

Wouldn't this argument be a case study for DMCA if it ever got that far(not that it would)? How hard is it do build a hackintosh? I'm thinking of going the other way though. I have an old mac that I was thinking of upgrading with an inexpensive HD and installing XP on to run as a nas box. I've never done this so i'm interested in the steps. Sorry, if I should post this as a new thread will do.

[LiveBrianD]

MACDROID84, on 09 November 2011 - 05:54 AM, said:

Wouldn't this argument be a case study for DMCA if it ever got that far(not that it would)? How hard is it do build a hackintosh? I'm thinking of going the other way though. I have an old mac that I was thinking of upgrading with an inexpensive HD and installing XP on to run as a nas box. I've never done this so i'm interested in the steps. Sorry, if I should post this as a new thread will do.

Is it an Intel mac? If so, look in Applications>System Utilities, and you should see a Bootcamp utility or something. If it's a PowerPC mac, you can't run Windows, period. It's a completely different architecture than x86 (unless you use a virtual machine).

[MACDROID84]

LiveBrianD, on 09 November 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

MACDROID84, on 09 November 2011 - 05:54 AM, said:

Wouldn't this argument be a case study for DMCA if it ever got that far(not that it would)? How hard is it do build a hackintosh? I'm thinking of going the other way though. I have an old mac that I was thinking of upgrading with an inexpensive HD and installing XP on to run as a nas box. I've never done this so i'm interested in the steps. Sorry, if I should post this as a new thread will do.

Is it an Intel mac? If so, look in Applications>System Utilities, and you should see a Bootcamp utility or something. If it's a PowerPC mac, you can't run Windows, period. It's a completely different architecture than x86 (unless you use a virtual machine).

I haven't gone into the machine, but it's from the mid 90's. I know it's not a powerPC mac.

[LiveBrianD]

From wikipedia:
the earliest models (1984–1994) used Motorola's 68k and models from 1994–2006 used the AIM alliance's PowerPC.

[smax013]

LiveBrianD, on 09 November 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

MACDROID84, on 09 November 2011 - 05:54 AM, said:

Wouldn't this argument be a case study for DMCA if it ever got that far(not that it would)? How hard is it do build a hackintosh? I'm thinking of going the other way though. I have an old mac that I was thinking of upgrading with an inexpensive HD and installing XP on to run as a nas box. I've never done this so i'm interested in the steps. Sorry, if I should post this as a new thread will do.

Is it an Intel mac? If so, look in Applications>System Utilities, and you should see a Bootcamp utility or something. If it's a PowerPC mac, you can't run Windows, period. It's a completely different architecture than x86 (unless you use a virtual machine).

Actually, there are ways to run Windows on non-Intel Macs. You won't run it "natively" like you can in BootCamp on an Intel Mac, but you can run VirtualPC to run some version of Windows (http://www.microsoft...c7/default.aspx). I am not say it is necessarily practical, but it can be done...it will just be very, very slow typically.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Actually, there are ways to run Windows on non-Intel Macs. You won't run it "natively" like you can in BootCamp on an Intel Mac, but you can run VirtualPC to run some version of Windows (http://www.microsoft...c7/default.aspx). I am not say it is necessarily practical, but it can be done...it will just be very, very slow typically.

Back when I was in high school we had a Mac running Windows 3.11 that way. Damn it was slow. But it worked well.

[smax013]

waldojim, on 24 December 2011 - 05:05 PM, said:

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

Actually, there are ways to run Windows on non-Intel Macs. You won't run it "natively" like you can in BootCamp on an Intel Mac, but you can run VirtualPC to run some version of Windows (http://www.microsoft...c7/default.aspx). I am not say it is necessarily practical, but it can be done...it will just be very, very slow typically.

Back when I was in high school we had a Mac running Windows 3.11 that way. Damn it was slow. But it worked well.

I want to say that my old Quadra 840AV (or maybe my Performa 6500) that is sitting around has a copy of VirtualPC on it. I cannot recall which version of Windows it is run.

And yes, it is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW.

There were also "expansion" cards that you could put in a slot that had like a 286SX on it that would then allow you to run Windows on things like the various versions of the Mac II. It was like a have a virtual PC that was not really so virtual!

[LiveBrianD]

So, that's sorta like using mounting a secondary physical hard drive in a VM and installing Windows on it, right?

[smax013]

LiveBrianD, on 24 December 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

So, that's sorta like using mounting a secondary physical hard drive in a VM and installing Windows on it, right?

Not really. This was essentially like sticking a PC mobo with an Intel processor in your Mac that then "shared" the monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive and other "peripherals". It had its OWN CPU...and RAM if I recall correctly.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 24 December 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

So, that's sorta like using mounting a secondary physical hard drive in a VM and installing Windows on it, right?

Not really. This was essentially like sticking a PC mobo with an Intel processor in your Mac that then "shared" the monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive and other "peripherals". It had its OWN CPU...and RAM if I recall correctly.

Kinda sounds like the original Kaypro PC design. With the CPU and base ram on one card, using a passive backplane to connect everything else. That would certainly be effective.

[LiveBrianD]

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 24 December 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

So, that's sorta like using mounting a secondary physical hard drive in a VM and installing Windows on it, right?

Not really. This was essentially like sticking a PC mobo with an Intel processor in your Mac that then "shared" the monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive and other "peripherals". It had its OWN CPU...and RAM if I recall correctly.

Oh, I get think I get it now. I kinda wonder though, isn't it almost easier to just get another physical PC?

This post has been edited by LiveBrianD: 24 December 2011 - 06:03 PM

[smax013]

waldojim, on 24 December 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 24 December 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

So, that's sorta like using mounting a secondary physical hard drive in a VM and installing Windows on it, right?

Not really. This was essentially like sticking a PC mobo with an Intel processor in your Mac that then "shared" the monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive and other "peripherals". It had its OWN CPU...and RAM if I recall correctly.

Kinda sounds like the original Kaypro PC design. With the CPU and base ram on one card, using a passive backplane to connect everything else. That would certainly be effective.

This was the major player for such cards:

http://en.wikipedia....C_compatibility

Here is an example:

[smax013]

LiveBrianD, on 24 December 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 24 December 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

So, that's sorta like using mounting a secondary physical hard drive in a VM and installing Windows on it, right?

Not really. This was essentially like sticking a PC mobo with an Intel processor in your Mac that then "shared" the monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive and other "peripherals". It had its OWN CPU...and RAM if I recall correctly.

Oh, I get think I get it now. I kinda wonder though, isn't it almost easier to just get another physical PC?

To a large degree, yes. But, then you would also need another monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive, etc...and twice the desk space. For most, it was easier to get a second computer, but for some it was better to get such a card.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

waldojim, on 24 December 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 24 December 2011 - 05:26 PM, said:

So, that's sorta like using mounting a secondary physical hard drive in a VM and installing Windows on it, right?

Not really. This was essentially like sticking a PC mobo with an Intel processor in your Mac that then "shared" the monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive and other "peripherals". It had its OWN CPU...and RAM if I recall correctly.

Kinda sounds like the original Kaypro PC design. With the CPU and base ram on one card, using a passive backplane to connect everything else. That would certainly be effective.

This was the major player for such cards:

http://en.wikipedia....C_compatibility

Here is an example:

And look at that! An AMD processor in an Apple!

[LiveBrianD]

smax013, on 24 December 2011 - 06:13 PM, said:

To a large degree, yes. But, then you would also need another monitor, keyboard, mouse, hard drive, etc...and twice the desk space. For most, it was easier to get a second computer, but for some it was better to get such a card.

Or use a KVM switch, and you can use one monitor, keyboard, and mouse; only needing separate hard drives.