Talk:Hackintosh

Illegal project?
Why on Earth would someone want to run that inferior desktop anyway? Mind boggles ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.112.161 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it illegal as per Apple Mac OS X license agreement to run the OS on anything but an Apple computer? "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time" - Refer. Nowhere on the article is it mentioned that the project is illegal. -- Artagnon 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. The project is illegal, but considering there is no sum you could pay Apple for a copy of the latest version of OS X, as long as you buy a number of Apple products as time progresses, the endeavor is relatively moral.  Apple is placing undue restrictions on the consumer.


 * Who the FUCK removed my comment from October 25, 2007?? I'm reposting it, you bitch had better leave it there, whoever you are, or I'll hunt you down and shame you publicly:
 * "Illegal but relatively moral" == bullshit. It's illegal, period.--Contributions/81.174.2.180 (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ? How does that make the statement wrong? It still says it's illegal. mike4ty4 (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as 'undue restrictions' - they can restrict what they like, and sell software with whatever terms they like, so long as they're upfront about it (and, some might add, so long as they're not abusing a monopoly position, but it gets a little complex there...) But I agree, so long as you buy a decent number of Apple products, it's relatively moral (some just buy a copy of OS X and then throw it away). Hippo X 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on where. In the US, it is illegal. However, the restriction is in the EULA, and they are not considered binding in many jurisdictions around the world. -- int19h 11:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that there are two issues here. It may be against the EULA. Whether the EULA is an enforceable contract varies from country to country and depends on many factors. But even if the EULA is an enforceable contract it doesn't mean that violating is illegal. Apple could sue you perhaps but it wouldn't necessarily be illegal. While the law in a number of countries (US, UK, Australia and NZ at least AFAIK) makes it illegal even for end users to violate copyright (so for example running a pirated copy of OS X or Vista is illegal in these countries) it's unclear whether doing this would fall into such a category. Nil Einne 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * and the next question partially answers the question Nil Einne 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The legality of running Apple's software on non-Apple hardware has not been decided in a court of law, so anyone claiming anything either way doesn't know what they're talking about. Apple can claim that my first born child belongs to them in their EULA, but that doesn't make it legal. More specifically, their claim that an end-user can only make one backup copy is laughably ridiculous, and would never hold up. My personal opinion is that it's equally ridiculous for Apple to claim they can restrict what hardware I can run my legally-purchased software on, but again, nothing has been decided in the courts. On the other hand, certainly the patched complete distributions of Apple's software is illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairebis (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The license says "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time." Since the purpose of OSX86 is installing the software on non-"Apple-labeled computers," and the License does not prohibit this action, it seems to me that this project does not violate the license. It also seems to me that such a draconian measure, if it were properly phrased, may be questionably legal under Fair Use and similar laws anyway. -- Adam KatzΔtalk  19:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As many have pointed out before, it allows you to use on an "Apple labeled" computer. Since it was not worded as "Apple manufactured" slapping an apple sticker on the computer would comply with the TOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.114.81.149 (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Or you could gut one the old Mac G4 towers cluttering up your basement, put in an Intel motherboard and CPU, and you'd have an Apple-labeled computer. thx1138 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent)As I stated in the article itself on Feb 17, 2006 in a ZDNet article called "DMCA axes sites discussing Mac OS for PCs" Tom Krazit stated "The company used a Trusted Platform Module, or TPM, to tie Mac OS to the systems it distributed to developers after announcing its switch to Intel's chips last year, but hackers have found ways to circumvent that protection, which is illegal under the DMCA." So there you have it. Nothing about Apple's EULA but rather a Federal Law! Amit Singn in the December 2007 MacOS X Internals article ""TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die" claimed it was actually the System Management Controller (SMC) chip that was used but again bypassing that chip would also be a violation of the DMCA.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Judge Alsup's November 13, 2009 summery verdict against Psystar on DMCA grounds indicates that this project is illegal as the DMCA clearly states "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have the software, you have the software. Apple can't write laws. The threat isn't supported by law, thus being irrelevant. They won't support OS X if you run it on a PC, but OS X is practically indestructible, so you shouldn't care. Jakeraymin13 (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kernel vs. processor
Has anyone considered comparing the benefits of various kernel versions with certain processors? This is something other sites have failed to do, and would be thoroughly useful for any OSX86 user. It is also of historical value if the judgment of OSX86 depends on how close one can get to approximating a fully functional MacOS setup on other hardware. (i.e. graphics acceleration, power management, sleep modes, multiple cores, 64-bit, NX bit, VT, etc.)

Too many advertisements in External Links.
Actions should be taken. Vincent Pun  talk 11:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You take them. We are not here to deal with your suggestions.  Get off the beat. Yesitsnot (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Add a section
Add a section called "Legality of OSx86" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.13.2 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jargon Cleanup
Theres a bit too much jargon parts of it would be hard to understand for any one not completley familiar with this end of technology. For example the article discusses missing SSE3 instructions in early releases, what does that entail? What doesn't work because of missing SSE3 instructions ? that sort of thing. 72.147.77.11 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A Spam Block On A User May Be Needed
This user, 172.188.187.67, may need to be blocked. The user repeatedly inserts a link to a practically content-free ad revenue site. The link is disguised with an OSx86 title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.56.11 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, its gone on long enough. I'll try to look into contacting the admin folks about it. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've warned him and if he keeps it up, I'll post it on the admin noticeboard. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ ʘ и†ʀ¡ β s ) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

hacker ezine
hackintosh was also the name of a '90s mac/hacker oriented ezine. it was distributed as one of those self reading document apps iirc. it's where the alt.hackintosh newsgroup came from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.194.181 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

deadmoo image?
no where does it mention the deadmoo iso image, which is in some places more popular than jas or other install dvds, although it is noted that deadmoo is distributed post-install as a vmware set, and a tiger.img file which is the hard drive image of the installation. (I personally used installed it to my harddrive via the linux dd command after reading other's success of using it). I just feel that it deserves to be mentioned in this article.

and all you mac fanatics out there who don't like your system being reduced to just expensive hardware, deal with it, os x is just proprietary unix anyway. (reference, my own dissecting of OS X on my own pc on top of my computer science major :)) . 71.204.234.179 (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hacker alias name dropping
Folks, this is an encyclopedia and it has a reputation to loose. So please let us not (mis-) use it for dropping hacker's alias names. Build up an osx86 fan site, post your community stories there and WP might link to it. Thanks. --Edoe2 (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

boot-132
hey wikians,

I think everyone has noticed that this page has become quite aged and stale. I think there is a lot of unnecessary jargon (as already noted) but more importantly a lack of recent developments being discussed. I've just finished up taking the time to write about the recent boot-132 method of installing Leopard and am about to apply my edits.

Best regards!

Mrdoomino (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Given Judge Alsup's summery judgment I think this article is effectively dead for the reason I laid out in the intro. Wikipedia frowns on copyright violations and Alsup has upheld Apple's position that its locking of its OS to Apple hardware is protected by the DMCA.  Until the details are thrashed out I think it wise to err on the side of caution.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NighTalon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.70.202 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Current Mac clones may not be legal and for the most part are not notable and therefore should not be listed
Given the Apple vs Psystar case ruled that Apple's methods of linking MacOS X to Apple hardware was protected under the DMCA any Mac clone is on very shaky legal ground. Also with the exception of Psystar none of them are that notable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the articles exist, I think we should link to the articles there. It is not our job to censor info, and something as simple as mentioning the companies is probably not illegal. We also have an article on ThePirateBay, a website that encourages copyright infringment, and it's OK for us to talk about that. --SF007 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried that argument in the Christ Myth Theory page with John Remsburg and it didn't fly. If it didn't fly there then why should what is effectively the same argument fly here espcially as I had references shows that Remsburg was used in the argument? Besides of the three only Psystar was the only truly notable one and they have effectively stopped being a Mac clone maker.  The Bison article is up for deletion and nothing seems to have been mentioned on PearC in nearly a year.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with SF007 here. Wikipedia is not censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.210.184 (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about giving free advertisement or violating others copyrights either.  The Bizon Computers article has been deleted for lack of notability, PearC has a "may not meet the general notability guideline" tag and likely will also be soon on the chopping block as well.  If these companies cannot keep their own articles do to lack of notability then why even bother mentioning them other than to make them notable?  Newsflash here: Wikipedia does censor things that are not notable as proven by the removal of the Bizon Computers article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Goatse
This build was used as a way to distribute goatse. There was a hoax that the build was available, but in fact, the materials spread goatse. It was widely spread. Yesitsnot (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Which build? Where's the evidence? -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know a guy who knows a guy who got goatse from that. Yesitsnot (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Would not matter. Not notable enough for inclusion in this article. Ethelred Cyning (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

regarding EFiX module which boot Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Mac OS X 10.5
EFiX is confirmed to use real EFi implementation, but not emulation and is not based on any OSX86 project known till today. Test way i used to confirm this: I booted with EFiX V1.1 under Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6) and extracted via terminal so called ioreg "ioreg -lw0 > destination.txt"

Then i booted with seveal hackintosh solutions (Chameleon and other)and extracted also ioreg too, then i boot same OS and same revision of OS of course under Mac Pro and Mac Book Pro.

The Ioreg tables between EFiX and real Mac hardware are almost identical, in my opinion and according to the content of ioreg, which you can easy extract by your own, you will find that sometimes Mac OS X 10.6 booted with help of EFiX show better ioreg-log's than on a real apple hardware. How this guys this do, is not clear to me and for this article not relevant. When you compair ioreg log's finally to any hackintosh, then you will very fast discover that most of values are incorrect, missing, improper or invalid. If you would pay attention to details and structure, then you will see that hackintosh compaired to EFiX or real Mac hardware missing a lot of functionality which can be reached with help of real EFi implementation only and will be not possible to archive with boot132 due its serious limitations. Comparation to Psystars released booting way resulted that they were using strong modified Chameleon, OSX86 project also. Some of bugs are clearly taken direct from Chameleon and Netkas hacking solutions.

Hope helps to clarify about EFiX for this article, but in fact i would contact EFiX developers, ASEM (www.art-studios.net) with questions, they will, so i believe, give by far better explanations to their products... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.44.96.205 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Illegal Macintosh cloning"
Does Wikipedia let Apple Inc. write its articles now? The title of this page is a joke and it should be changed back to Hackintosh or OSx86. 91.49.199.89 (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree – this seems to violate NPOV and cloning cloning Mackintoshes is not illegal everywhere. I think "Macintosh Cloning" or "Hackintosh" is less biased. Jonathan Williams (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia provides the technical means to User:Proud User to make such a change (here). I have reverted it. (See also the section below.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved back to the original title, OSx86. Clearly there was a consensus against the move to "Illegal Macintosh cloning". No prejudice against a new discussion with something like Hackintosh as the proposed title. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Illegal Macintosh cloning → Macintosh Cloning – per Article_titles. Additionally, this is clearly not illegal in all jurisdictions worldwide and there are questions about the enforceability of EULAs. Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Explanatory comment: For a few days only, this article was titled "Illegal Macintosh cloning". Jonathan Williams started this "requested move" thread during this period. (The article's current title, "OSx86", is as it was before it became "Illegal Macintosh cloning".) -- Hoary (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support move from 'illegal', but not to 'cloning' 'clone' is too close to 'Starmax' etc. Suggest Hackintosh, or OSX86 or OSX86 computers. These are the names actually used by the people who do or want to know about these things.Pincrete (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification, 'Illegal etc' is truly terrible in every way, inaccurate, unhelpful, and judgmental. 'Cloning' is too easily confused with its well established use for a previous generation of licensed, Mac compatibles (which are a seperate subject, it isn't simply the legal/illegal element). Pincrete (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * support but to OSX86, which is more specific than Macintosh cloning, less slangy than Hackintosh, and otherwise non-judgemental/non-POV. Plus as the name before the recent undiscussed move it should be the default if there is no consensus in this discussion.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support "OSx86" is too spicific. Not every attemt to run Mac OS on a Windows machine is part of the OSx86 project. Needs a more general name, or even be merged with the already existing article about Macintosh cloning. I wouldn't recomend calling it "Hackintosh" because that name is extremely unencyclopedic and informal.--Proud User (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1990-ish 'clones' are a different subject, and couldn't really merge. This article, I believe, is specifically about 'OSx86' rather than other ways of running Mac on PC, though virtualisation is mentioned. I think 'OSx86', (rather than OSx86 project), is sufficiently broad. Though if someone could come up with a better title?Pincrete (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose this is not about cloning Macintoshes, it is about doing so on the x86 variant using standard PC hardware. There have been many efforts to clone the 68k and PPC Macs, which has nothing to do with the content of this article. And indeed, there were licensed clones at the end of the 68k era under Sculley, before Jobs returned to Apple. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't "OSx86" specifically refer the "The OSx86 Project", or is it a generic name for Hackintoshes? If the former, then I'd prefer "Hackintosh" as the title. I think either are equally "slangy", and without a commonly used formal name I don't think this is a good reason to not use such a word as the title of an article. (Also, while I'm not aware of any m68k or PPC hackintoshes, if there were that would be another good reason to prefer Hackintosh over OSx86.) —Ruud 14:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that it was the change to Intel processors that made hack-cloning possible, there were of course the legal 'clones' in PPC days, but other than that the only way to run Mac systems on PCs was virtualization software, mostly of what has come to be called OS9.0 or lower.Pincrete (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, while the RS/6000 was at some point intended to run classic Mac OS, this plan was abandoned and I doubt the firmware was compatible enough for anyone to ever get vanilla Mac OS (classic/X) to boot on such a machine. —Ruud 21:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support but to Hackintosh, although a colloquial name this 1) doesn't refer to a particular implementation of running OSX on an non-Apple Intel computer 2) removes the value judgment 3) is not generally used to refer to unauthorized/unauthorized 68k/PPC Macintosh clones. Jonathan Williams (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

There may be some confusion with Macintosh Clone, open to better ideas. Jonathan Williams (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This should either be merged with Macintosh clone, or be renamed to hackintosh to narrow the scope. Since the current article is mostly about running MacOS in non-Mac hardware, probably the latter. —Ruud 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should be renamed back to OSX86. I have a blown up Mac Mini whose hard disk still works. If I could put this in another box and run a EFI emulator and boot the drive, I am running seriously unsupported stuff, but I have still paid for OS X and am using it only on one computer at a time, in compliance with the licence. While I'm not a lawyer, there can be legitimate uses for trying to run OS X on non Apple hardware, just as an experiment. This is straightforward "hacking" in its original sense without any real intent to break any laws. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Pings. Jonathan Williams, Pincrete and JohnBlackburne wrote comments above that assumed that the article had a title different from the title that it now has (because at that time it did have a different title). So I'm hereby pinging them in order to encourage them to look again at what they wrote, and to rethink the matter (and perhaps rephrase, or even decide differently) according to the changed circumstances. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC) .......... PS And ditto for Ruud and User:Ritchie333. -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, very unhelpful to rename mid-discussion, people above (inc me) are responding to completely different proposals.Pincrete (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I regret that you found very unhelpful my restoration of an article title that had been changed suddenly and unilaterally. Note that I pinged you, together with (I think and hope) every other person who'd commented before the re-renaming, in order to alert you to this second change of title. -- Hoary (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know whose 'fault' this is, I was only commenting that the effect, was to make it unclear what we had responded to. Your restore MAY make this discussion unnec. since 'Illegal' was (I think) the proposer's main concern.Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hoary, please don't rename article while a discussion is in progress in the future. Even if a previous rename was "clearly wrong" and "unilateral", that doesn't offset the confusion that is created by moving an article in the middle of a discussion. —Ruud 14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Retitled, twice
On 25 August, User:Proud User retitled this article, from "OSx86" to "Illegal Macintosh cloning", with the summary "More technical terminology". This was unilateral (and immediately followed another edit by Proud User resulting in "Illegal Macintosh cloning refers to collaborative hacking to run the OS X operating system on non-Apple personal computers with x86 architecture on x86-64 processors").

If Proud User wishes to have the article titled "Illegal Macintosh cloning", then he/she should argue for this on this talk page, and get agreement for it on this talk page. (I suspect that this would be a difficult task.) Any further retitling (moving) of this page without first obtaining agreement over the space of at least one week would be merely disruptive and time-wasting. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Illegal Mac cloning existed long before Macs ran on x86s. That title makes no sense, there is a complete lack of any acknowledgement that Macs existed before they ran on x86s in the renames. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * User:70.51.202.113, you seem to know more about this than me, what (illegal) cloning was done before the change to Intel? Or do you just mean virtualisation like 'Sheepshaver' etc.Pincrete (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not the IP. Perhaps s/he meant Unitron? ("Although Unitron claimed to have legitimately reverse-engineered the ROMs and hardware ... Apple claimed the ROMs had simply been copied.") --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's one, I was also thinking about those add-in cards for various computers that people usually ended up cloning ROM chips to use on instead of ripping it out of a disued Mac. (same as how some early PCs had people cloning IBM BIOS ROMs instead of using third party ones) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou both for the answers. Pincrete (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on OSx86. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016095831/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9590_22-146879.html to http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9590_22-146879.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/65oGU7nRU?url=http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/12/gadget-lab-vide/ to http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/gadget-lab-vide.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524052648/http://www.digitmemo.com/articles/734/howto-install-efi-patch-and-enable-vanilla-os-x-kernel-in-hackintosh/ to http://www.digitmemo.com/articles/734/howto-install-efi-patch-and-enable-vanilla-os-x-kernel-in-hackintosh/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 January 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

OSx86 → Hackintosh – OSx86 refers to a specific project while the page itself contains general information about installing macOS on non-Apple hardware. These systems are generally known as Hackintoshes. Ianmcxa (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Hackintosh is a more common and more generic term, and the article discusses more than just the OSx86 project. There may be reason to split the article into two articles, but I'm not interested in doing so myself.  As a side-note; this is a sub-page of Macintosh clone. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: per WP:COMMONNAME. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - The usage of a specific project violates WP:NPOVTITLE. - User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 02:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparisons with GUIed Linux
Given that the Apples OS systems were developed out of UNIX, it may be useful to compare why some people prefer to run the apple systems over legal Linux distros. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.8 (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the core of macOS is based on BSD (with Mach at the lower layers). However, UNIXes originally didn't have GUIs, and several window systems were built for it.  X11 eventually became the one used with most UNIXes, but NeXTSTEP was an exception, and that'ss where the macOS GUI, and a lot of its applications, came from.
 * So, while you can run UN*X tools on macOS or Linux with little difference (if any), and the command line interfaces are similar (modulo the differences between terminal emulators - and some commands), the GUI applications are very different, so it's not as if they're interchangeable experiences.
 * So it's pretty much "if you like macOS, but, for whatever reason, don't want to run it on a Mac, you go with a Hackintosh. If you prefer UN*X plus various non-macOS UN*X desktops to macOS, you go with Linux (or BSD or...).  If you just want a UN*X box with a bunch of terminal windows, you'd probably go with Linux (or BSD or...), unless there's something you like about macOS as a UN*X or you just enjoy the challenge of building a Hackintosh." Guy Harris (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)