anyone here do the X-on-generic-PC install?

3 replies [Last post]
dankephoto's picture
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1900

Just curious, don't want a how-to or anything, merely an idea how widely done is the hack(s).

dan k


|| web page gone - curse you Comcast! | Applish goodies servers offline, sorry! |
» email macdan at

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
eeun's picture
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1891
Live and in colour

Just for fun, I'm posting from it.

It's little more than a novelty, really.

Heavily patched, missing functionality, and easier to blow up than WinME.

I'm using an AMD processor and Gigabyte mobo, so the experience may be better with an Intel processor and chipset, but still I wouldn't trust it for full-time use.


"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett)

Eudimorphodon's picture
Joined: Dec 21 2003
Posts: 1204
Good Lord, No!

I'd never do such a thing. It's illegal, immoral, and wrong. ;^b

Now, this friend of mine, see, tried it on a P4 Dell with essentially identical hardware to the OS X x86 Developer machines (Intel 915 motherboard, GMA900 graphics, etc.), and it, well, works, and it's *fast*. Boots like lightning compared to a G4 Powerbook, I'll say that. But it's also pretty useless. Software Update is of course broken, hardware support is *really* sketchy, random weird behavior trying to do things like burn CDs, etc, etc.

The Dell's running Ubuntu again now, if that gives you any idea how much long-term play value it has.


Joined: Sep 23 2005
Posts: 316

my comment completly mirrors the experience of the above poster, except that my dell is now triple booting ubuntu, Windows XP Media Center Edition, and Vista.

The OSX install was fun to play with. fast, wonky graphics support, difficult to install and not very practical.