Mac Os X 10.4 Tiger For Intel X86, Bootable And Installable.iso.[ISO] Torrent Related mac-os 10.5 - leopard 001 7.51G torrent Boot Camp Drivers for Windows - Mac. Results 1 - 10 of 10 - MacOsX10. IsoTorrent Mac Os X 10.4 Tiger For Intel X86.Iso Torrent Mac Os X Tiger Intel Torrent. Download Mac Os X 10.

Registry edit? That's something in the Windows OS, dumby. The point is, past date xyz the OS won't be supported any more, patches wont work with it etc etc, so it basically becomes useless to anyone except developers. Next time rtfa. Notice how much marketshare? It's pirated like crazy, but MS still exists as a company. Do you really think people are going to say 'hey, ive got a crippled, not to mention BETA (or even alpha?) of the OS, why buy the computer for real when I can run this for the.

Apple makes its money on Software. Apple is a software company. Apple makes hardware because they want their software to run well. The idea that Apple is a hardware company is common, but misguided. Yes, they make hardware, but that's not the focus of their business model. Apple makes more money selling an OS upgrade than selling a Mac. Apple makes as much from selling a piece of hardware that you could call that profit profit of the OS with free hardware, or profit of the hardware with free softwware.

If there were 40 million Mac clones being sold every year and Apple made as much from each one of them as it does from an iPod, Apple would be about 8 times more net revenue than it is now. IF it made as much as it does frome each OS upgrade, it would be 16 times as much revenue. Macs are just a box for Apple software. This is why so many people are perplexed at apple's actions. The purpose of limiting OS X on intel to Apple hardware is to give them a chance to make the transition first *before* organizing a profitable cloning arrangement, assuming there are enough people who want to sell mac clones. But you will never see Apple authorized crap hardware that doesn't work, like you do in the PC world. I would expect that it would be a lot like the old Rhapsody DR1 and DR2 releases were on x86 (anybody else remember those things?), except with newer and shinier 'eye candy.'

That is to say, assuming it can even be booted, hardware support will be *extremely* limited. In fact, it may be even worse because while the Rhapsody DR releases on x86 were intended to target beige-box PCs (if only a few models thereof), this build of Mac OS X was only intended to target a single, very specific 'PC'.

MS gained their stronghold, at least within the operating system universe, through having their operating system included with nearly every computer made for the last two decades. I don't think piracy had much of an influence at that point. Since corporations buy most word processors and they almost always buy their software instead of pirating, I doubt that piracy had much impact in the rise of Word over WordPerfect and the like.

It was better than the competition, something hard to remember nowadays. What would be really ideal for Apple is if people get a version of OSX running POORLY on generic x86 machines. Like, you know, it works well enough to see what's nice about the OS, but there are enough problems and bugs that most people will say, 'screw this, I'll just buy an Apple.' After all, once Apple makes the switch to Intel, people should be able to run Windows and Linux on them.

So you'll get everything you'll get from buying any other x86 machine, but you'll also be able to run OSX trouble-free. I believe it will be the opposite effect -- if people get MacOSX to run at all, people (generally assumed to be stupid) will still think that it should still 'just work' even though it is pirated and not running on official hardware. Ie: if it runs like crap, people who see it are going to implicitly blame Apple--even though it is totally not their fault. This will hurt Apple's image. The ability to run MacOSX on anything but official Apple hardware is very bad for Apple. One nice thing about running on Int.

I think the danger to MS and Linux from OS X is being exaggerated. Windows - the people that would have to switch to hurt MS are the ones that won't even look at Linux because it's 'different'. They are either comfortable with the Windows way of doing things or they are barely computer literate.

Gnome and KDE have themes to make things look/work very similar to Windows. Apple makes no excuses, they know the 'best' way to do things. These users are already used to MS's 'best' way. Linux - OS X has many of th. Don't you see the CONNECTIONS?