Leopard runs on non-Core 2 Duo systems

This is for all you who got it in your heads that Psystar was fighting against EULAs Take a look at the EULA these clowns have
have and tell me if you think this is a good company
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081204231414746
thanks to GROKLAW

Leopard runs on more than Core2Duos and whoever said so is a liar.

My 6 year old G4 runs it JUST fine thank you very much.

Psystar is twisted and under the influence of delusions of grandeur.

Leopard runs perfectly on my P4 3.06 GHz (without HT) supporting SSE3.

Dear, dear Inquirer...

Just rest back on that couch and listen... your deep hatred of all things Apple is clear for all the world to see. And it's okay! We understand. We really do. But - you know? - you are going to have to let go of these feelings one day in order to move on... Now I realise that at some point Steve Jobs must have parked in your parking space/enjoyed relations with your girlfriend/jumped in front of you in the checkout queue (delete as appropriate), but to retain such irrational hatred for a balding egocentric IT billionaire with a penchant for rollneck sweaters will lead to karmic unhappiness....

I have just spent the last days re-installing Windows systems on my various PC machines (oh, sorry, no I'm not an "Apple fanboy"... would it make you feel better if I was? I could always wear the T Shirt and refuse to wash...) and after many conversations with Microsoft, and many frustrated battles with the *very* stringent authorization controls on Windows software, I found your article a little ironic.
I have installed OS X on my Mac. And it doesn't require *any* user authorization from Apple to work. You buy your software, you install it, it works. Change your hard disk? Just reinstall OS X. It works. No calls to Apple. No online authorization. No codes, no interrogations.
Windows? Buy, install, and... oh, I still don't own what I've just paid for. I have to tell Microsoft that I'm a good boy before they'll allow me to use my purchase properly. Change my hard drive? Bang. Sorry. De-authorized. Back to Microsoft to explain...

Now I don't want to interrupt you when you're having so much fun with all that "Apple EULA contains clause saying that they will slay your firstborn son!" kind of headline, but - you know - the whole thing with Apple is very simple. It's a *BUSINESS MODEL*. They tightly tie hardware to software to make a premium product at a premium price. This isn't exactly a secret. And guess what? If you don't like this model then you DON'T BUY THEIR STUFF! Simple. Now when a company like Psystar comes along, blatantly breaks the clear legal terms of this tightly-controlled Apple business model and then pretends it's actually doing it for Truth, Justice and the American Way (excuse me, I'm crying already...) I get a little cynical. So to tout some alleged deep-level hardware check by Apple which prevents a *clearly illegal install* (i.e. if the hardware isn't Apple-approved, it can't be legal - that's their closed business model!) as evidence that Apple are deeply evil in some way, I just laugh.
No, Microsoft aren't "evil" either! But do me a favour.... put the user install experience of Windows and OS X side-by-side and then tell me again with a straight face how Apple are evil incarnate, but Microsoft and Psystar are the people's champions in comparison.....
Look, I think I know what really annoys you guys about Apple, and it isn't just the hysterical get-a-life extremists. (which annoy the HELL out of me!) It's the fact that people are buying their stuff in droves - even now. When Apple was a fading company on the edge a few years back, it was easy to mock. It made all the windows fanboys (oh yes, those great unspoken legions...) all warm and fuzzy to be reassured that the business model they'd chosen was clearly the right one. But now? There is less certainty. The 'Great Wintel Choice Of One' is over. And though I personally think a little competition is great, many others seem threatened by others who don't see things their way. And they develop irrational hatreds....
but you know what really *really* gets to some of these people? That Apple make some great stuff! Again and again. And people keep buying it. And if there's one thing I learned at school, it's that certain people hate a smartass more than genital herpes.

So look...I know she was a sweet girl, but - hey - Steve Jobs only slept with her the one night, and she came back, didn't she?.......didn't she?.....

Regards Steve x

Regardless of which side of this argument you come down on, this "new" charge is ridiculous. The basis of Apple's suit is that the EULA states that OS X shall only be run on Apple branded hardware. Pystar's new charge that the EULA amounts to a monopoly.

Psystar's original defense was the the EULA is not enforceable. Why? Because it amounts to a monopoly.

Seems like the same argument twice.

Hmmm - Mac OS X 10.5.5., a.k.a. Leopard, seems to be working just fine on my Dual 2.3 GHz PowerPC G5. Perhaps if the author did some actual research before writing, oh but wait a sec, we are talking about the Inquirer. Never mind. I forgot that we're not talking about real journalism here. Carry on, chaps!

You're a hopeless twit.

Read the article... Information Week (and a whole bunch of other sites) is saying that Psystar's latest claim is that OS X bricks other computers. What Paul is saying here is 'no it doesn't. People who actually develop stuff for Mac are telling us it isn't borked'.

And in case yous till haven't understood yet: they're talking about x86 machines, not your PowerPC based computers.

In fact the article - save for the EULA bit - goes against Psystar's claim.

But even then it is not true - Apple released a Mac mini 1.6GHz Core *solo* - which happily runs 10.5
(The G4s&G5s don't use x86 code - so that's another story.)

Leopard (10.5.4) runs just fine on several other type of x86 machines. It's running fantastically on my Acer Aspire One (Atom processor) right now. Screams as a matter of fact.
-rain-

Try to "force" OSX 10.6 only run on SSE 4.2? It is better to really use SSE 4.2 feature so that when someone manage to hack that checking prosessor part, it still don't work.

Isn't this irrelevant. The point is Apple creates this OS for their platform. They don't advertise it as working on any platform other than those they've stated (ie Apple products) so they have no warrantee or need to implement the product on an AMD for example and are at liberty to place any form of check on the processor or other hardware they like.

Even though they have purchased the OS, it clearly states that it's for running on Apple hardware - whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant as that what Apple have placed in their requirements and that is all that they will maintain support for.

This company is crying over spilt milk.

What a load of crap. The original Intel Macs were Core Duo's. Mine runs Leopard just fine thanks.

At day's end, Apple makes HARDWARE; the well-done software like OS X is simply eye candy to draw you into buying it.

The smartest thing Jobs did after coming back (2nd smartest was sacking Sculley) was to shut down the Mac-clone market; WHY would you support direct competitors?

If Apple doesn't want to open up their hardware, that's their choice. If you want the eye candy enough that you don't care, that's your choice. Obviously their business plan's working for them, why expect them to change?

Here, verbatim, are the system requirements for Leopard from the Apple website:

General requirements:

Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
512MB of memory
DVD drive for installation
9GB of available disk space

So, exactly WHAT was this story about again?

"but Apple wouldn't want its OS running on cheap hardware, now would it?"

Too late for that . Sure Apple has the best designs but the hardware is sh*t.
Mine is 1 year old and i had the MB, PSU and screen replaced under warranty of course.

A lot of posters here seem to think that the article is about whether or not Mac OS X will run on a variety of processors used in recent hardware made by Apple.

I urge you all to read the article again and pick out the fact that the code in the X86 version of the operating system will run on any machine that meets the SSE3 spec requirement. Many processors from both Intel and AMD meet that spec requirement. However, as the article points out (validity irrelevant for the time being for the sake of clarity) Mac OS X will shut down if the processor ID is not "supported" by Apple.

From this we can see that Apple clearly is preventing Mac OS X to be run on Intel Celerons or AMD processors even though those processors might in fact be able to run it.

A bit weird is it not?

How is that weird? It's called checking system requirements. OS X is only supported on certain processors and hardware as listed in the system requirements and it checks and refuses to install or run unless they are met. Apple is hardly the only company that checks and enforces system requirements.

Everyone seems to forget that apples OS is nothing more than a heavily modified version of free BSD, therefore apple has no business telling People and vendors that its OS can not be installed on any other computer, in other words wake up and smell what your shovelling apple, and grant licences to other manafurers or slowly die