Hello, lazyweb. Today I shall demonstrate to you how to install Mac OS X Snow Leopard onto VirtualBox without using a Hackintosh distro (and an installation that will be fully upgradeable to 10.6.3 (and probably 10.6.4)). Big thanks go out to Andrew…

Thanks again for the positive response.

One thing I noticed from distros is that you are pretty much stucked on the distro version as an update can corrupt your system and become non bootable.

I followed the method described on this site and got it working in the 2nd or 3rd attempt. Thanks! Just contributed with a small donation and encouraging others to join.

Only one question… Can I update to 10.6.2 w/o issues or there are risks associated?

BTW, thanks a lot for the effort in putting all this information and utils available to the community. {thumbsup}

also i have no access to a mac
so i don’t really see a choice between distros and the retail version

its quite hard for a mac noob to do a retail install

Yes Apple has stated in the EULA that you may only install OS X on Apple-Branded hardware. However, there are larger laws, consumer rights dictate that we can use software and hardware in accordance with our own individual desires so long as we are not re-branding aforementioned software, calling it our own and reselling it for a profit or otherwise inflicting financial damages on original software maker, that is what the laws and licenses and copyrights are intended to protect – not to give carte blanche to software makers that anyone has to follow just because they say so.

The other clause in the EULA that could be potentially violated is the clause about reverse engineering or decrypting files. Now some portions of the OS are open source and those are generally what we have modified so that clause does not apply to them, as to decryption – well AMD users who are using bin patchers (which decrypt binaries) are in violation and the older dsmos.kext is as well. FakeSMC however is an emulator written from open source so it falls into a sort of grey area that does not technically violate the EULA from what we can tell since it is not bypassing any ‘protection’ or decrypting any binaries but is merely functioning the way a real SMC hardware device functions.

To state it simply just because the EULA says something doesn’t mean it’s enforceable … or not enforceable.

Additionally I would like to point out that an EULA violation is VERY DIFFERENT from piracy. Piracy (copyright violation) is a serious crime in most nations and usually carries a hefty fine and additional punishment depending on severity and local laws. An EULA violation is a completely different animal. Just because you have used software in a way that the author did not originally intend does not mean you have illegally copied and distributed their software or owe them ‘damages’. In cases of companies like psystar though that are violating the EULA and selling computer systems for profit I believe there is a genuine case for seeking damages and personally I feel this kind of profiting from the hard work of others (1 being Apple, 2 being the OSx86 community they steal the methods to run OS X on non-apple hardware from) is highly inappropriate. This kind of behavior hurts the entire open source movement. Developers are becoming increasingly reluctant to release their source code because people like psystar will take it and slap their own name on it (often violating the open source license) and then sell it for a profit with no royalties or even so much as a reference to the original author.

Additionally purchasing a copy of OS X is the LEAST you could do to support Apple for all the hard work they have put into this fine operating system. PS: I also own a real Mac.