Slashdot Mirror


Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 Leaked?

patr1ck writes "Mac Daily News is reporting that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 processors has been leaked to the internet already. Apparently the version running on the development kit machines is easily transfered to run on any x86 machine. Conspiracy theorists unite: an Apple marketing scheme?"

864 comments

  1. why aren't I surprised? by jgionet · · Score: 0

    all of these guys use these types of strategies to stir up some publicity.. I bet there's a mac out there already running windows..

    1. Re:why aren't I surprised? by Nimloth · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I bet there's a mac out there already running windows
      Why would they do that?
      I bet there's a PC out there already running Tiger...
    2. Re:why aren't I surprised? by Celt · · Score: 1

      Considering the dev kits are standard intel chip/mobos I don't see why not, couldn't be that hard setup tbh

      --
      "WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
    3. Re:why aren't I surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that would at least allow third-party developers to not shelve out $999 per devkit (to be returned in 2 years) to port their apps !

    4. Re:why aren't I surprised? by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      I believe that Xbox 360 dev kits are supposedly PowerMac G5s running some custom version of Windows. (Although they may've been replaced with final hardware by now). So there are Macs that are runnning Windows, but unless you're a game dev you'll never see them.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    5. Re:why aren't I surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So there are Macs that are runnning Windows

      Yeah because anything with a PowerPC CPU in it is a Mac. My Kyocera FS-1020D has a 266MHz PowerPC CPU in it, therefore it is a Mac.

    6. Re:why aren't I surprised? by notthe9 · · Score: 1

      No, not everything with a PowerPC processor is a Mac. However, then high end Macs used in the development of the XBox 360 were.

    7. Re:why aren't I surprised? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I first ran Windows on a Mac about 8 years ago. Insignia Solutions produced SoftWindows a long time ago.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:why aren't I surprised? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      The computers were twin G5's made by Apple. "Mac" is the right label.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    9. Re:why aren't I surprised? by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not an Xbox developer, but I would imagine that this "custom version of Windows" is a version of the Xbox OS and not of Windows itself. The Xbox OS was derived from Windows 2000, and according to some people at MS only around 10% of it remained similar to Win2k. The rest of the code was seriously modified. The Xbox 360 OS is a continuation of the Xbox OS, not of Windows. In that case, it may have strayed very far from the Windows you see on your PC.

      Basically what I'm trying to say is that the presence of Mac-based Xbox developer kits does not imply that Windows can run on Macs (or even PPC).

    10. Re:why aren't I surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZING!

  2. it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by pbjones · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple has often put an expiry date into their software so it may only be good for a short period of time? enjoy

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
    1. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by ihatewinXP · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah but howabout the old "turn abck the clock" trick or given enough time regedit it into working. I know I for one would love to have Tiger 10.4.1 on a PC - I am typing this on Tiger right now and it is an amazing OS.

      Conspiracy? Apple leaked this? Please..... Apple is making people buy this with an Apple PC they have to return. They took and will take any step possible to stop this from happening.

      --
      ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    2. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      regedit?

      You do realise we're talking about OS X?

    3. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

      regedit? wtf? 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 next ten years? suck it apple!"?

    4. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that would be really hard to patch? Any newbie cracker with 5 minutes free time could defeat this. Hardly an issue. Won't stop anyobyd but the most clueless n00bs.

    5. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by SA+Stevens · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One point worth noting is that this Beta appears to work on non-Apple hardware. It demonstrates that the Apple OS DOES, or CAN, work on non-Apple hardware. And it provides a running sample of the Apple OS running on non-Apple hardware, that might be useful in analysis to make the final release run on non-Apple hardware.

    6. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by ceeam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? If it runs it can be cracked. Period. Even complicated (reasonably) schemes like Windows Activation are only a nuisance for legal users. Timebomb? - there are probably several 100s of thousands people in the world capable of cracking it in 20 minutes.

    7. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by yabos · · Score: 1

      Regedit is an OS 9 program for modifying resource forks.

    8. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh baby, I hope this means that I might actually be able to run OS X on Opterons. I'm sceptical about how quick Intel are going to be by 2007 as opposed to AMD.

    9. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      I think you're talking about resedit. resedit was kinda cool. It let you edit resources within applications, so you could do things like change keyboard shortcuts, or even add keyboard shortcuts when they didn't exist.

      Regedit is the Windows program to perform attempted surgery on the registery. Some similar tweaks can be performed using it, but the resedit program was a lot more elegant and much easier to use and find things in. The registry is a centralized database, while regedit data was in the individual applications. The latter approach is far cleaner.

      I can't say I miss HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. What the heck is a HKEY and why should I even have to know?

      D

    10. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by KH · · Score: 1

      That's ResEdit, which has been around since the beginning of the classic Mac OS... System 1?

    11. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by yabos · · Score: 1

      Oh, right haha. Now I look dumb. That's what I meant. I think you mixed them up too "The registry is a centralized database, while regedit data was in the individual applications." :)

    12. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by d99-sbr · · Score: 1

      An HKEY is a Handle to a registry KEY, probably just a typedef'ed long value in the Windows API.

    13. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      it's pretty easy; there are many ways to do it. The basic part is knowing how to automate finding function-calls. For C++, if they're not inlined, then typically a bunch of stuff gets pushed on the stack (including return-addr), which makes it easy to identify functions.

      Either find the bad function or run the binary with a software or hardware(e.g. periscope) wrapper, buffering the last n (e.g. 8192) instructions. Set the date to > 31dec2005, see the last chunk of instructions before it dies.

      If the stuff isn't inlined, just issue a return-stmt in the function the most rarely called (easy to gather static-code statistics about function-addrs : #addrs-calling-it). If the stuff is inlined, it's tougher. I won't get into the case when it's all inlined because the compiler can optimized away any predictable info. Instead, some funcs could be inlined, usually the most-nested. Either patch all occurences of the inlined most-nested func, or issue a return-stmt in some of the outter funcs. If you're lucky, you might even see the comparison-stmt using 31dec2005, and you can probably globally replace that with 31dec2030.

    14. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by daviddennis · · Score: 2

      Guilty as charged!

      Guess it's easier to confuse them than I thought.

      D

    15. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      (same poster)

      Consequently, knowing how to crack binaries helps to write code which is tougher to crack. Instead of static-gotos, like call_foobar();, you can make it tough by using a lot of inlining, having non-static paths (e.g. polymorphism), and avoid assembly-reuse (e.g. useless templates, for example, have foo_foobar and use many different Ts, the cracker won't easily know all those functions are the same).

      Tons of inlining, polymorphism, and code-independence won't make it impossible to crack, but it will certainly reduce the pool from 100,000+ who can crack it to ~10,000 who can and ~1,500 who also have the patience to (heavily inlined code w/ dynamic binding such as polymorphism & code bloat via templates is a PAIN to crack)

    16. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      "Attempted surgery" that's a new classic for my list. Thanks for the laugh!

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    17. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Geuis · · Score: 1

      Its actually called Res Edit, as in Resource editor.

    18. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by l3prador · · Score: 1

      One of the cool things about Apple is that it really hasn't put any serious piracy protection on its software. It basically trusts its users, and so there's nothing like the Windows Activation deal...

    19. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by ricotest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the cool things about Apple is that it really hasn't put any serious piracy protection on its software. It basically trusts its users, and so there's nothing like the Windows Activation deal...

      Watch your words. Apple doesn't trust its users, it has done research indicating either that its demographic won't pirate, or that coding anti-piracy systems wouldn't be worth the investment. Apple is a company, not a person.

    20. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that it's strategically more important to have the userbase on OS X v.Latest, even if they didn't pay for it.

    21. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yessir, with martini wodka (only Wodka Moskowskaia would do)

      We learned this in 1996.

    22. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by LandownEyes · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to get tiger to run well on my APPLE hardware.

    23. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by CmdrPorno · · Score: 2, Informative

      31/12/2006 is when the dev mechines have to be returned, not 31/12/2005.

      --
      Sent from my iPhone
    24. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by r3m0t · · Score: 1

      No piracy protection? Well, that must be because EVERY COMPUTER CAPABLE OF RUNNING IT is produced by Apple!

    25. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal users? Haha... first off this version is supposed to ONLY run on apples DevPreview machines... machines you rent from apple. So one machine gets you one OS seat. You rent the DevPreview system from Apple for just over a year... after that years time you GIVE the system back to Apple... thus after that year NO ONE has a legal use for that OS. So its not really slowing down legal users... it just checks to see if today is after the experation if it isn't then you have no legit use for it PERIOD. You are no longer a legal user.

      Now that was to hard to understand now was it?

    26. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Javagator · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If it runs it can be cracked. Period

      Right. That's why Apple will never switch to Int... No, wait. That's one thing I don't understand about the switch. Apple makes its money on hardware. If OS X can be hacked to run on every Intel box, Apple stands to lose big time. They must have some way figured out how to insure that OS X runs only on Apple hardware.

    27. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by BitGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful


      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.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    28. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Why troll? Tiger works fine... its been a pretty smooth upgrade all around.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    29. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 1

      Are there special tools out there for this? Once I was trying to hack a game binary (Return Fire) to remove some stupid version tests that prevented it from running on newer Windows versions, even though it was compatible. Trying to use the visual studio debugger for this was less than ideal, and I figured the people who do this a lot must have some better tools.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    30. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Didn't know that the Pegasos is made by Apple. Thanks for clearing this up!

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    31. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by limon.verde · · Score: 3, Informative
      No. Apple's two most hyped products now are being marketed to sell software (music through iTunes) at loss to sell hardware (iPods) at huge profit. Apple loses money in the iTMS

      In computers it's the same story. If Apple is a software company, why did it kill the Mac Clones Program? Acording to Wikipedia, Jobs said that the clone program was doomed to failure from the start; and since Apple mostly made money by selling computer hardware, for the most part, it ought not engage in a licensing program to reduce its hardware sales.

    32. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Bin_jammin · · Score: 1

      Arguing about Macs vs PC on the internet, We all look dumb.

    33. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by LandownEyes · · Score: 1

      I'm not trolling...I'm just saying i've got a few problems with Tiger that are still as of yet unresolved. Nothing that would make me run anything else, but I just find it funny all the recent talk about getting osx to run on the x86 and everytime I see mention of it, that is what pops into my head.

    34. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by l3prador · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about no piracy protection on almost all of their software, in addition to all of their operating system upgrades, which if Apple really didn't care if you paid for or not, they would offer as a free download.

    35. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I am tempted to buy an imac in the not so distant future (may actually wait for x86 versions now), but would not buy osx for non-mac hardware, don't trust apple to support it after their last clone market was nuked.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    36. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by cyberphotographer · · Score: 1, Interesting
      1. Apple lost to Microsoft because it failed to see that software was where the money was.
      2. Apple has steadily been migrating towards standard x86 hardware configurations ever since his steveness's 2nd coming.
      3. Apple's acquisitions in the last few years have mainly been software companies/titles/staff.
      4. If Apple were able to grow install base rapidly this could trigger a boom in sales of software titles such as Final Cut, Logic, Shake, Motion, WebObjects, XGrid, DVDStudio, iWork (Pages, Keynote), AppleWorks, Quicktime Pro, iLife (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie HD, GarageBand, iDVD), iChat, iCal, iSync et cetera. Such a boom would have the potential to dwarf profits from Apple's tight margin hardware sales.

        Today Apple is really a strong software company with a limited access to the software market. Giving away the OS for a while must look tempting.

    37. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      I thought this was:

      "Attempted (and generally successful) butchery."

      I know I have a habit of rashly axing stuff when I visit a registry.

    38. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by Kyogen · · Score: 1

      I think that Apple could make a good swing as mainly a software company. OS and iLife and Pro Apps for video and sound. Only supporty hardware systems that are "Apple Certified" to run that soft. License fees to help with Industrial Design on all hardware too.

      Also sell iPods and music related hardware/software.

      Why not? MS made plenty of $$ that way.

      Charlie

      --
      www.InGratia.org - Gratitude, Memorials and Giving
    39. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by jtshaw · · Score: 1

      Have you even so much as glanced at Apples earning statements or profit margins per product? Obviously not.

      The iPod (a piece of hardware) and there physical computers make up well over 50% of there revenue. The majority of the rest is iTunes Music, followed way behind by software.

    40. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by r3m0t · · Score: 1

      Alternative suppliers of PowerPCs aren't a large thing... yet.

    41. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Jesus, if you glanced at their earnings statement it would be lost on you-- since you don't know the difference between revenue and profits.

      Furthermore ,you'd see that iTunes music is a very small part of their software business, even revenue wise, and is a non-existant part of their hardware business.

      The ipod, like the mac, is merely a nice box for Apple's software.

      What apple sells, and what they make money on is the user experience. The user experience doesn't come from the hardware it comes from the software.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    42. Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 by BitGeek · · Score: 1


      Apple makes money on the iPod, but not because it has custom Apple hardware. The iPod is really a commodity piece of hardware with custom apple software.

      What seperates the ipod from all the idiotic copy-cat products? Apple software.

      Apple killed the mac clones program because they were subsidizing the clones, and lost money on every one sold. When Jobs tried to replace the expiring contracts with one where Apple made money, the clone sellers balked.

      The purpose of the iPod is to get people buying Macs. The purpose of that is not to sell Mac hardware, but to sell OS X.

      Apple makes nothing on hardware-- hardware is a commodity. Apple makes all their profits on SOFTWARE. Whether the softwware is boxed in an ipod, a Mac or shrinkwrap.

      I find it amazing that all you pc weenies complain about Apple not selling commodity hardware (When really they do) but you think a software based business model would cause Apple to go under.

      Frankly, you have no fucking clue, just the ability to link to wikipedia and misinterpret what you find there.

      Its really sad how slashdot is filled with flatline idiots. This is why linux is such a crappy application-- no passion, no crativity, and no ability to think in the linux community.

      People are stupid, and I do not know why I waste my time trying to educate them.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  3. Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew it was inevitable, but this is nuts.

  4. So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...who has the torrent?

    1. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Woy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is slashdot. If the torrent doesn't show up pretty quickly, and its late already, it doesn't exist.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    2. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Newtonian_p · · Score: 1

      I found a 500 MB file on Gnutella named 'Mac OS X Tiger Intel version.dmg' but I have no idea wether it's real or not.

      --

      There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't

    3. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by miscz · · Score: 1

      Tiger is big, it was released on DVD so I doubt anything smaller than 1,5 GB could be real.

    4. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, tha fact that it's a .dmg file makes it an obvious fake, since that's the apple disk image format.
      Basically, you try to pull that up on a Windows box, and it just says "WTF is this!?!?"
      And yeah, the filesize is an indicator, as well.

    5. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3343842 at least pretends to be the file you are looking for. I have no idea if it is or not.

    6. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      http://mininova.org/tor/55573 Not sure if it's the real deal. I will try and get the .nfo posted when it completes. (I'm using Azureus to only get the nfo)

    7. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by ahoehn · · Score: 1

      Well, I certenly won't participate in the illigal activity of downloading this torrent, but if you head over to the pirate bay, there's a torrent claiming to be the x86 version of tiger right here.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    8. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's this. Don't know if it's genuine or not.

    10. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NFO isn't very specific. See here

    11. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, YHBT. The "release" hit the most popular trackers a few hours ago. The iso file contains nothing but the pattern "GNAAGNAAGNAA". Visit http://www.gnaa.us/ if you haven't heard about them yet.

    12. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's supposedly at the pirate bay, but it's highly suspect and all seems to point to a fake

    13. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here's one: found it at mininova.

      The nfo says it was released almost a week ago, but the torrent was added just today. I'm skeptical, but downloading it anyway just to see. Plenty of seeders. I guess it's a DVD iso? Perhaps I'll have to go get a DVD burner. There's no way I'm having OS X sitting on my hard drive without being able to install it.

    14. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by MarcoPon · · Score: 1

      Maybe you can try to boot VirtualPC or VmWare (or even QEMU) directly from the ISO image... "just in case"!

      --

      SeqBox
    15. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Informative

      FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD. DO NOT GET THIS TORRENT.

      It boots up to a picture of the goatse.cx guy.

      You have been warned.

    16. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No such torrent." It's either not there, or it's been taken down. I can't imagine Pirate Bay would take it down if it ever existed. If so, that would be a first. :-/

    17. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      why would the file format be suspect? Wouldn't it make sense that an image of an Apple disk would be in an Apple format?

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    18. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, it's a fake.

    19. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    20. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I'd get a chance to check out Tiger without shelling out for the computer first...

      Yikes!

      I got the Butt-Screen-of-Death!

      Verified that it's a fake.

    21. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Newtonian_p · · Score: 1

      I agree, dmg is a popular format among Mac users because it can be mounted using the Disk Copy tool which comes with Mac OS. It is possible that a user running Tiger/x86 would create an image of his install disk using the built-in software of Tiger/x86.

      However, I'm starting to have doubts that these stories about a leak are true. If they were, the strong desire to have a copy of Tiger/x86 would have ensured that it would be well spread around p2p networks by now. But all I can find so far are a few obvious fakes. (I've checked Bittorrent, E-donkey and Gnutella.)

      --

      There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't

    22. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Hegh · · Score: 1

      Found a copy on Shareaza, but don't bother. It's 900M for a boot image that'll show some guy's ass on the screen when it loads.

      --
      Bravery is not a function of firepower.
      ~J.C. Denton (Deus Ex)
    23. Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.gnauk.co.uk/gnaa_osx/trollog.txt
      talking about making it here

  5. What warez sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article says something about some piracy sites, which ones?

    1. Re:What warez sites? by benna · · Score: 1

      top level ones that "don't exist."

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:What warez sites? by benna · · Score: 1

      None, its all a lie.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  6. Wholly Shit Batman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pirate tigers are on the loose tonight.

  7. Marketing scheme? Interesting thought by daviddennis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wondered why they threw iLife in there. It really would be of little interest to developers, but if your stealth market was someone pirating the software to try it out, it would be near-indespensible.

    So perhaps there's something to the conspiracy theory after all. I wonder if it would run on my older Compaq PC with a Pentium III and all Intel components.

    I have a PowerMac G5 dual, which would surely outperform my old 700mhz Compaq by miles, but I have to admit my curiosity is piqued.

    D

  8. This may answer the question by ralphart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt this was part of Apple's master marketing scheme. Still..this may help answer the question on whether or not the new x86 version of Mac OS X will run on generic hardware.

    1. Re:This may answer the question by mike518 · · Score: 0

      i highly highly double it would be useful if it could run on an x86 machine.

      the reason windows it so flaky with hardware is because it has to work with so many different hardware configs... apple isnt really designed for that -- i think it would take a LOT of programming on apples part to make a version that would be smooth with so much generic hardware. But then who knows...

      --
      Mike
      I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
    2. Re:This may answer the question by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      Good luck finding drivers. For OSX. Running on Intel. Yeah, bet that works like a dream.

    3. Re:This may answer the question by bsharitt · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is probably why they are leasing the dev machines until 2006. The "real" releases probably wont run on them, and supporting them would mean supporting generic PCs. Steve did say they are leasing them becasue they dodn't want any of them floating around. This is proabably why.

    4. Re:This may answer the question by yabos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That question has already been answered. This development version obviously doesn't have any kind of protections on it yet to make it only run on Apple hardware. Phil Shiller has already said that the final version will only run on Apple hardware and not any x86 computer.

      This version will no doubt expire at the end of 2006 when you have to return the development machines to Apple.

    5. Re:This may answer the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That question has already been answered. This development version obviously doesn't have any kind of protections on it yet to make it only run on Apple hardware.

      Clearly whoever answered it for you is an idiot, and has no idea what he/she is talking about. There are absolutely protections on this version to keep it from running on non-Apple hardware.

    6. Re:This may answer the question by zerus · · Score: 1

      I'll bet Microsoft is kicking themselves for bailing out Apple back in the 90's, because now they might have some serious competition if a user has a choice between two mainstream, easy-to-use-right-from-the-box OS's that work on the same computer (I'm not forgetting Linux is a good desktop OS, but my mom can't use it so I don't consider is mainstream). If anything, Apple is going to quietly release a few more of these developer previews to let architecture bugs be found before they sell the OS to give them some good PR for having well tested software which may very well be at the heart of this scheme.

    7. Re:This may answer the question by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      I think that's apple's mistake. Apple should take on Microsoft on the X86 platform. Apple should not limit themselves to their own x86 platform. Apple should go for the big bite and give microsoft a run for its money. I bet Apple would do pretty dam well.

    8. Re:This may answer the question by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      The minute Apple does that is the instant Microsoft drops Office for OS/X.

      Then watch a nice platform become a dead weight.

      Jobs has done it before with NeXT (make a nice O/S available for the x86). It pretty much killed the company. I can't see how Apple would fare any differently.

    9. Re:This may answer the question by js7a · · Score: 1
      The minute Apple does that is the instant Microsoft drops Office for OS/X.
      So what? OpenOffice is mature enough for that not to matter, and the native OSX AppleWorks tools can read and write most of MSO formats, anyway.
      Jobs has done it before with NeXT (make a nice O/S available for the x86). It pretty much killed the company. I can't see how Apple would fare any differently.
      The difference being that the installed user base and number of available applications were half a dozen orders of magnitude less for NeXT.

      I bet they open it all the way to commodity hardware in 9 months, after "allowing" cracker pirates to help them out with the torrents.

    10. Re:This may answer the question by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      I'll bet Microsoft is kicking themselves for bailing out Apple back in the 90's, [...]

      At no stage has Microsoft ever "bailed out" Apple.

    11. Re:This may answer the question by Khuffie · · Score: 1
    12. Re:This may answer the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Microsoft actually had bailed Apple out, of course they'd be kicking themselves. They never did, however. Please stop spreading the "MS OWNZ APPELZ" lie. Microsoft bought $150 million of Apple stock in non-voting shares as part of a quid-pro-quo deal. And they didn't buy them from Apple. They bought them on the open market. The actual benefit to Apple was immeasurably small.

      Also, did you not hear the part of the speech where Steve said that Apple's been running OS X on Intel internally for five years now? There are no architecture bugs left. They were all squashed years ago.

    13. Re:This may answer the question by pediddle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, OpenOffice still requires X11 to run on OS-X, and they've said they won't be supporting Aqua natively for the forseeable future. There's absolutely no way Apple would expect your 80 year old grandma to run X11 (besides, it looks like ass, is slow as a dog, and isn't even able to integrate with native cut-and-paste).

    14. Re:This may answer the question by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      There is no reason Apple could not take on Microsoft in the Office department either.

      I think OSX should be opened up to all intel/amd platforms.

      Now is a great time. I think the general public is getting a sense that microsoft means "lack of security" I think the public is tired of spyware etc. I think Apple could pull a great marketing campaign and say that switching to APPLE OSX for your PC would solve many of the issues you have with windows.

      I'm not pro apple, i dont own an apple... I've been a PC guy forever but i'm seriously looking for a change. Microsoft keeps getting slower, bloated, and full of things i dont need (active X etc)

      I would love to have final cut pro running on OSX on my amd 64.

      I would LOVE to see someoen give microsoft some real competition. It will improve both products through competition.

      Apple does think differently. And i like that because microsoft never appears to be thinking period.

      So many things in XP are half assed. Thumbnail intergration in xp only views bmp, jpg, and gif... Why not TGA? PIC? TIF? PCX, PNG, Alias image formats etc etc (I do 3d animation for a living) I have to go to some page on the web where a very generous asian programmer wrote the dll's to view TGA thumbnails in the explorer.

      How about the media player? It sucks. Every professional 3d animator/graphics artist i know uses the open sourced, freeware Media Player Classic.

      How about picture viewing in xp? Its limited to formats again, AND its a terrible interface.... So EVERYONE uses Irfanview.

      XP's sound recorder... useless...

      Windows Paint... USELESS

      There's plenty of things in XP that seem so half assed that are new... and there are legacy things that simply dont need to be there.

      Everyone is tired of the XP/windows2000 ui. Its boring, dull etc. So many people are running styleXP, windowblindz, etc to theme/skin their windows ui.

      If windows didnt run the programs i needed... I would dump windows.

      I have no love for windows itself. It's boring, plain, half assed, uninspiring.

      The programs i use are the only thing that makes the windows platform appealing.

      If Apple would bring OSX to all of us amd/intel users... I think they would have a fairly easy time winning users over to their OS. The trick again is applications. But Apple has always had that struggle, and Apple has been doing fairly well image wise as of late thanks to the Ipod, Final Cut Pro, Final Cut Motion, Shake, etc.

      It would be interesting to see OSX and Windows battle for the same hardware.

    15. Re:This may answer the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I'm hardly the first to note that Apple have been moving slowly toward replacing the need for MS software including Office on the Mac.

      First step was Safari, replacing InternetExplorer, which you'll recall became the Mac OS8-9- X default web browser as part of the agreement that guaranteed Office on the Mac for 5 years back in '98 (iirc). Most people focused on the 150 million that MS invested in Apple in that deal but everyone who could do basic arithmetic knew that a company with 4 billion in cash - which is what Apple had at the time - didn't really need a 150 million dollar investment. It was the guarantee of MS Office on the platform that was of real value to Apple at the time. In exchange Steve had to promise to make iE the default Mac OS web browser - at the time it was Netscape.

      Next came the assault on Office via the back door - PowerPoint first - in the form of Keynote. Next a more frontal assault on Word in the form of Pages.

      But there are still crucial components missing - Excel for spreadsheets - Access for databases. One could argue that Mail and iCal approximate Outlook's functionality, but that would be a stretch.

    16. Re:This may answer the question by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      OOo isn't putting much effort into it, but Apple might. They've already turned Konqueror into Safari, and that caught on. Fork OOo and call it AppleOffice, and there wouldn't be much of a problem.

    17. Re:This may answer the question by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      however.. virtualising the 'real mac' could be possible done quite well on a x86, in the same fashion as you would use mac-on-linux to run macosx on a generix ppc machine.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    18. Re:This may answer the question by GekkePrutser · · Score: 1
      Access for databases

      Office for Mac doesn't include Access anyway :-) I'd say it's way too much tied into the Jet database engine and ODBC links to be ported to MacOS easily.

      It also doesn't come with Outlook but with Entourage, which has sort of the same functionality. I'd say if Apple would integrate Mail and iCal and make it work with exchange server (like Evolution already can) they'd be almost there.

  9. Lousy journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Where was it leaked to? Sheesh..

  10. This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by donnacha · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The OP said:
    "Conspiracy theorists unite: an Apple marketing scheme?"
    Accidental or not, you can bet that this development has MS in a cold sweat. Seriously, if it wasn't for piracy, MS would never have gained their stranglehold. Now, the sudden possibility of OSX spreading frictionlessly into Windows' marketshare signals a major change in the commercial landscape.

    1. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by 4nd3r5 · · Score: 1

      i wonder if this means the end to MS office for mac ?

      --
      spelling is for people who doens't know better...
    2. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by ninjakoala · · Score: 1

      Nope. That Mac Business Unit at Microsoft representative was on-stage during the presentation of x86 MacOS X. They are fully committed to supporting MacOS on Intel.

      --
      Against the grain
    3. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, within a year and a half. Microsoft already got pissy and dropped Internet Explorer. Jobs realised this some time ago of course; what do you think iWork is all about?

    4. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 2/3 was popular when we were leeching warez from bbs and you were sitting in diapers. This wont have bill gates worrying...

    5. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by bhalo05 · · Score: 1

      Not for now, anyway. The second OS X becomes a serious threat to windows, it's something Microsoft certainly will consider.

    6. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      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.

      Piracy might help Apple at this point because most people have not been exposed to MacOS. Exposing them through illegal distribution would be better than no exposure at all -- at least as long as there's a way of getting them to buy when the software is released.

      D

    7. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by nick-less · · Score: 4, Funny

      Windows 2/3 was popular when we were leeching warez from bbs and you were sitting in diapers. This wont have bill gates worrying...

      What? You mean that Windows2 thing we needed to use to start Aldus Pagemaker was actually an operating system?

    8. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Drexus · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is why Steve already mentioned Leopard. If there is a taste... then when will the whole meal be served? Leopard?

    9. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by donnacha · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't think piracy had much of an influence at that point.
      I can categorically assure you that, since their inception, there have always been more PCs running unauthorized copies of MS software than PCs entirely running authorized MS software.

      More importantly, the widespread uptake driven by piracy is what got their software to "that Point".
    10. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

      The "developer machines" running P4, about 4GHZ, were sold to attendants (some 2000-4000 people, I'd say) for $999, I'd say a bargain price. Now what's the chance a brand spanking new computer with brand spanking new ultra secret operating system gets stolen from one of 2000 nerds? Conspiracy or not, the leak was something that had to happen.

      Now the tricky news. The machines are just for development before the official release and are to be returned somewhere around the end of 2006. I wonder if the system stops working then :)

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    11. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I have this suspicion that a Apple is also leading a "double life" concerning Microsoft office. Want to a lay a wager that Apple doesn't have a seceret division working on an Office just in case Microsoft pulls out?

    12. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, the widespread uptake driven by piracy is what got their software to "that Point".

      That begs the question - why did MS software get pirated so much more than others? Was MS software like Office so much more popular with the users than the alternatives like then market leading WP/Lotus?

    13. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      All I had was a crummy 9-pin dot matrix printer. Windows 2 with the 'Write' word processor gave me, for the first time, DIFFERENT FONTS. And I had Micrografx In*A*Vision so I could do vectored drawings too, and paste the result into Write docs.

      So yes, there are people who didn't just install the Windows runtime.

    14. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by SlamMan · · Score: 1

      Its actually a lease. They're supposed to be returned when OS X for Intel ships.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    15. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      OSX might spread frictionlessly, but what about the binary commercial apps? Unless they're open source and can be recompiled for x86, or run on a virtual machine like Java, won't this just be "cute but useless"?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    16. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Yes, sure. If (imagine) MS suddenly has there OS business in tatters it should make a clear business sense to bundle their Office business to this disaster, right? After all - they still would have XBox360 left.

    17. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow you're really lost aren't you. PPC apps are emulated on x86 with Rosetta. Now go back to your cheerios, idoit.

    18. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by The+Step+Child · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows will never lose its stranglehold on OS marketshare.

      Firefox is free and easy to install, but the vast majority of people still use IE6 (and even IE5) which most agree is inferior. If people can't be buggered to install a simple browser, why would they ever bother to switch their entire OS without OEMs being in on it?

    19. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Shanep · · Score: 1

      Not for now, anyway. The second OS X becomes a serious threat to windows, it's something Microsoft certainly will consider.

      Actually, I think it would go something like this...

      Apple: Microsoft, we are going to build Intel based machines and move our resources to OS X for Intel (which has been running for the past 5 years), all our apps will get ported and we will get dev kits out NOW to all our biggest Apple developers. However our OS X will be limited to use with the Intel hardware WE build. You will support this effort of course with Office for the Intel Mac won't you? It would be unfortunate if we had to release OS X for the generic x86 market wouldn't it?

      In other words, "DON'T FUCK WITH US!" Apple is holding a big fucking gun to Microsofts head and I like it.

      With OS X on one side of MS and Linux on the other, they are going to have one hell of a war on their hands if Apple decides to get evil with them.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    20. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

    21. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Want to a lay a wager that Apple doesn't have a seceret division working on an Office just in case Microsoft pulls out?

      Yeah, too bad the name 'AppleWorks' is already used up. Maybe they could call it 'iWorks' or something silly like that.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    22. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Microsoft head of the mac business unit isn't even one of the top 100 people at Microsoft. what he said on stage was his opinion only.

    23. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Or run on Rosetta.

      Any app that can run on a G3 (with some exceptions) can run on an OS X86 Mac in emulation.

    24. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by darco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 Intel chips is that VirtualPC can run at full speed. Weeeeeeeeeeeee. :)

      --
      — darco
    25. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by nuggetman · · Score: 1

      Actually, they're sold to anyone with a select or premiere ADC membership, and have to be returned at the end of 2006

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    26. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      iWorks sounds too much like iWork, their current office like project, Though, it really needs a spreadsheet before it could really compete with MS Office.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    27. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      I'm a little fuzzy on the timeline, but I think for a while Lotus had copy protection while Microsoft didn't.

    28. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figure it'll either be the spreadsheet or the graphic app that ships next. I've been playing with Pages lately, and as a former PageMaker and then later Quark guru, it rocks. It's not meant for hard core prepress like those packages, but for a 1.0, it's astounding. It's already ten times better than MS Word for basic office-grade page layout.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    29. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by nuggetman · · Score: 1

      Any app that can run on a G3 (with some exceptions) can run on an OS X86 Mac in emulation.


      Seriously people, stop calling it OS X86. Besides the fact it sounds retarded, X is a roman numeral, 10. It's not "OS 10 86" it's still OS X, compiled for x86

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    30. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Boy, you're just fast and loose with the facts, aren't you?

      1. They weren't sold.
      2. They haven't shipped yet.
      3. They're for any higher-level developers, not WWDC attendees.
      4. They don't come with an installer, it's pre-loaded.
      5. They will be individually watermarked.

      Other than that, your post was quite helpful.

    31. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

      > 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.

      Nah. The hackers who get it running on a PC are not the folks who normally buy a Mac and expect it to just work. The hackers will tinker and chat and read hacker sites and eventually get it running and feel a sense of accomplishement and love it. If they have problems, it gives them something else to tinker with. Besides, how can it be any worse then getting Linux to work?

      jfs

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    32. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      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.

      Sure... Work would buy a nice gen-u-ine IBM PC or maybe a box from Compaq (if they were smart). But when you wanted a home computer and wanted to run what you had at work - what did you do? At one point, it was actually cheaper to get a whitebox clone (especially if you built it yourself). You either installed a pirated copy of Windows on it yourself or part of the cheap price from the whitebox screwdriver shop involved a pre-installed illegal copy.

      What about the Office suite from work? That involved either taking home the Microsoft floppies one evening or bringing in a box of blank floppies to make copies. So now you ran Office and work and at home. You're unlikely to change for two powerfull reasons. First and foremost - it's the software you're familiar with. Secondly, you have no financial incentive to change (which is one of the few things that can upset familiarity).

      Now you're set with Microsoft. When your family wants additional functionality out of your home computer, they will need compatability with Windows. And when your company is looking at their next major workstation upgrades, you're not going to request anything but Microsoft architecture because 1) familiarity 2) you run it at home and changing would cost you personally.

      "Piracy" has certainly had an impact.
    33. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by NewNole2001 · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt Virtual PC will run at full speed, considering that it doesn't even run at full speed on Windows. If you want full speed virtual machines (or as close as you can get for now) go get a copy of VMWare. Running WinXP in Virtual PC is 3-4x slower than on VMWare.

    34. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      OSX x86? Or maybe there should be another space... OS X x86. :)

    35. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      more than that it used to be SO easy for an admin to just pass a coworker one for "work at home" and that's why MS ensured their lock for so long.. Corps have money to pay and money to loose for piracy.. workers don't.. as long as companies & students could play the double standard it worked in MS benifit to allow the "piracy" versus people choosing something else based on its true cost.

    36. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by darco · · Score: 1

      VirtualPC would run at full speed because it would not have to dynamically recompile x86 code into PPC code. An updated/optimized version of VritualPC for Intel macs would operate much like VMWare. Anything else would be a waste of cycles.

      --
      — darco
    37. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Golias · · Score: 1

      Apple: Microsoft, we are going to build Intel based machines and move our resources to OS X for Intel (which has been running for the past 5 years), all our apps will get ported and we will get dev kits out NOW to all our biggest Apple developers. However our OS X will be limited to use with the Intel hardware WE build. You will support this effort of course with Office for the Intel Mac won't you? It would be unfortunate if we had to release OS X for the generic x86 market wouldn't it?

      In other words, "DON'T FUCK WITH US!" Apple is holding a big fucking gun to Microsofts head and I like it.


      Nothing good comes of holding a gun to somebody's head. If you point a gun at somebody, you damn well better be ready to pull the trigger. Here is how Microsoft would respond to such a threat:

      Microsoft: Nah. You go ahead an do whatever you like Apple. We will decide whether to sell Office for OS X ourselves based on whether it makes us money or not. All of your users are addicted to MS-Office, so we could easily spike your entire platform into oblivion pretty much any time we want. We are, after all, the ones who drove you into that tiny little niche market of yours in the first place. MWAHHahahaha....

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    38. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No, I can't let you get away with it - got any numbers to back up that assertion?

    39. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by llefler · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 the same annoyances that Windows has, just in a different form. A lot of us don't like having an OS make assumptions for us and then make it extremely difficult change. I still remember when Win95 came out and it had 'modem drivers' that were basically the modem's init strings. If the manufacturers' defaults didn't work for you, you had to fight to get the correct settings. OS X assumes I want that menu bar across the top of my screen. Linux servers are for production, Linux desktops is still for the tinkerers. OS X (IMO) sucks for tinkering.

      --
      It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
    40. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      You know, I completely agree with you.
      However, I think it's important to remember that most computers sold do have a legit copy of Windows. For example all of our PCs at work have 2 actual licenses. The first one is the one that the manufacturer had to put (XP Home, to get the price down) and then we put on our own XP pro, because we get the volume discount.

      Sure on a dozen computers I've built long ago I used a not so legit copy, but my numbers pale in comparison to legit licenses.

      Now I know better. I buy an old G3 or G4 that comes with OS X for family members.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    41. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Less typing that way ;-)

      Let's not get into a flame war over semantics...

      Plus, I'm almost willing to bet that OS X 10.5 will be a fat OS. All binaries will probably be "Universal Binaries" or whatever Apple's calling them (they're fat binaries...) So, no separate "OS X for Intel machines, OS X for PowerPC machines". I'm just calling it OS X86 for simplicity. (And yes, I DO see the irony of writing a 478-character long post to defend leaving an X and a space off of something)

    42. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to call it anything. It's just Mac OS X. It's built from the exact same source tree, with a few additional features added via conditional compilation. (Multi-architecture support in the Finder Get Info GUI, etc.)

    43. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by rich_r · · Score: 1

      And, if VMware are sensible, they'll have their product recompiled for os x from the get go, especially if OS x intel will work on generics, just imagne the amount of unused windows licenses...

    44. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      And the rest of the convo goes like this:

      Apple: All-righty-then! We'll move all our users to iWork! After all, Pages and Keynote are better for the Mac than Office 2004 was anyway! And furthermore, here's "NumberCruncher" the spreadsheet for iWork, which incidentally spits out perfect .XLS files!

      Microsoft: But they are addicted to Office OS X! They will never switch!

      Apple: Not if we start giving iWork away for free-as-in-beer...BWAHAHAHAHA!

      Microsoft: ^_^;;; (sweating profusely) Um uh um uh...

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    45. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "She."

    46. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Marillion · · Score: 1

      And you needed to be from an organisation that was already a development partner.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    47. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by cosmo7 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you see the CONNECTIONS?

      WILLIAM the Conquerer died in 1086 (X86), 20 YEARS after INVADING England and beating KING HAROLD who received an ARROW (ie: pointer) in his EYE (i).

      HAROLD is also the name of HAROLD EDGERTON, who became famous for his high-speed images of bullets piercing APPLES.

      So, twenty years ago WILLIAM (Gates) killed APPLE. But now WILLIAM is dying. WILLIAM was followed by his son, RUFUS THE RED (ie: Longhorn), who was incredibly unpopular and ironically died from an ARROW in his EYE.

      It ALL FITS.

    48. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by NewNole2001 · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about Virtual PC for Windows. It is much much slower that VMWare on windows. I'm not sure why this is, but it is evident that a VMWare Virtual WinXP box running inside of Windows will run much much much faster than a VPC Virtual WinXP box running inside of Windows. I haven't used VPC on OSX, so I can't speak to that, all I'm saying is that you shouldn't expect to much from VPC on Intel.

    49. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Raises the question' .. not 'begs the question,' dip shit

    50. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I can categorically assure you that, since their inception, there have always been more PCs running unauthorized copies of MS software than PCs entirely running authorized MS software.

      Amonst the build-it-yourself crowd, I'm sure that's true. Even amonst home users, there are lots of pirated versions of Windows floating around. But don't forget that there are literally millions of corporate PCs out there running Windows and I'm sure well more than 95% of them are completly legit.

    51. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by toddestan · · Score: 1

      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 doubt that. Keep in mind that most Windows users only experience with Apple software is Quicktime and iTunes for Windows - both of which are really crappy programs (slow, ugly, buggy, intrusive, lousy interface, resource hogs). Now, if someone who already has a negative view of Apple software installs OSX on their machine and finds that it's slow, buggy, and crashes a lot - it'll just reinforce what they have already know about Apple software. This, they would never buy an Apple computer.

    52. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and that is precisely the point. Apple is happy to let this build of OS X get out to PC pirates a year before their Intel machines (and third-party apps) ship precisely because it's cute but useless. It's a demo.

    53. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a flaw in your analogy: WILLIAM will not be followed by RUFUS THE RED (Longhorn) because Longhorn isn't coming out for another few years.

      Other than that, though, this is Nobel worthy work.

    54. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      Who cares? Those people do not buy operating systems. They buy computers with operating systems on them. They don't really care what name is on the outside, only whether the computer does what they need with a minimum amount of hassle and a maximum amount of enjoyment.

      The minute Apple or anybody else can provide that better than Microsoft and at a cheaper price, Microsoft is toast. Unless, of course, they can figure out a way to stop such a thing. They've done that before.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    55. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      'Raises the question' .. not 'begs the question,' dip shit.
      Listen up, you pendatic fucktard, and you just may learn something: The fact that a phrase has a certain meaning in a particular context does not deprive it of any meaning it might have outside of that context. "Begs the question" means exactly what the gp intended it to mean. Not only that, but you knew exactly what it meant in the context in which it was used. That means the phrase accomplished the fundamental purpose of language: it communicated clearly and unambiguously.

      I suggest that you either take your pendantic head out of your gigantic asshole or else do us all a favor and inhale enough of your diarrhetic ass juice to drown yourself.

      AC
    56. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      Your scenario would ensure that when Windows' monopoly status is re-reviewed next year, it will be declared that Windows no longer enjoys monopoly status for desktop operating systems on Intel-compatible computers. At which point, Microsoft's restrictions are removed.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    57. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1
      ... I'm sure well more than 95% of them are completly legit.

      Yeah. Right up until the first subsequent release of Windows. Then, let the piracy begin!

      You're also forgetting that small businesses often buy their machines from screwdriver shops that will allow you to provide your "old" Install Disc when you buy a machine. Dell has changed some of this recently with their super-deep discounts and coupon deals, but there's a LOT of hardware out there that's not legit. Banks, Fortune 500 companies, and retail chains might be 95% legit, but that's not the whole picture.

      Jasin Natael
      --
      True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    58. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by jcr · · Score: 1

      Pages is pretty sweet, and I expect that in a few more release cycles, it will be something you can use for magazine publishing, daily newspapers, etc. It does need a plug-in API, though.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    59. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      No, I wouldn't call Windows-anything an "operating system" until Windows 2000.

    60. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      I'm about to start doing a 32 page black and white magazine for a friend, and I've been waiting till I got Pages to start the layout. It's not pro-level yet, but it oughta work for now, since I can't afford and refuse to pirate Quark or InDesign.

      The live reflow is definitely a killer app feature. My boss struggles constantly with trying to do page layout type stuff with Word, so I brought the iBook to work and she was blown away by that feature alone.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    61. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Enjoy your delusions, but if MS Office disappears, so does most of Apple's business sales.

      The truth is that Office/Mac is generally much more expensive than the Windows version (due to OEM and corporate discounts), so MS wins either way. They've even bragged in the past that they make more money on each Mac sold than each PC.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    62. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just like when I say "I face fucked your mother last night and she begged for more, but I saw a picture of you on her bedside table and you're just so fucking pig ugly it put me off" I really mean "I hope you have a nice day." The context should be obvious. Hey, it's just language evolving, deal with it.

    63. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      Indeed. That's actually how the Darwin CD is right now.

    64. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, what exactly have those restrictions really accomplished?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    65. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pssst.

      iWork has no spreadsheet.

      There goes your fantasy.

    66. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      You forgot to link in the Freemasons and Illuminati.

      --
      Me (Blog)
    67. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      Don't you see the CONNECTIONS?

      James Burke you ain't.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    68. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by jcr · · Score: 1

      I'm about to start doing a 32 page black and white magazine for a friend, and I've been waiting till I got Pages to start the layout.

      Sounds cool. I haven't tried using Pages for anything very big yet. I should probably download War and Peace from the Gutenberg project and see how it does.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    69. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Raffaello · · Score: 1

      Does anybody else think that Steve was saving the name "Leopard" for the version in which Apple switched to Intel just for the irony value - as in "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" from Jeremiah 13:23 - more commonly quoted as "The leopard cannot change its spots."

    70. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Raffaello · · Score: 1

      This comment might carry a bit more weight if you hadn't referred to the head of the MS Mac business unit as "he" - she's a woman.

      Now back to reality. Nobody running a major business unit of any public corporation makes any sort of public statement - much less a stage appearance - without clearing it with superiors. Corporate representatives do not get to express their personal "opinions" on matters involving their public company. Everything they say publicly carries legal consequences for their corporation and they are fully aware of that fact. So when Roz Ho, the head of the MS Mac BU said:

      The Mac BU is already hard at work on the next versions of Office for Mac and Virtual PC for Mac. An important part of that work includes collaboration with Apple engineers on Xcode to create Universal Binaries of future versions of Office so that it will run natively on Apple's future hardware

      she was legally speaking as a representative of MS not expressing her personal "opinion."

    71. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Windows actually pulled PCs up to Commodore 64 GEOS level?

    72. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll call it iQuit. It'll actually just be Safari, except when you press the (otherwise nonfunctional) Windows key, it'll pop up a screenshot of Excel so you look productive when the boss comes around. Oh, that gives me an idea for another joke... now I just have to wait two minutes so I can give it it's own thread.

    73. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Virtual PC for mac has made a lot of strides since OSX.. I think that this will help VPC, and may see an OSX-x86 version of vmware for that matter... this could be a big boom for developers that want a *nix environment, *and* need windows software, *and* want to run emulated environments... I think that this will bring over a lot of windows developers, imho...

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    74. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      Yes. GEOS was another alternative. But there wasn't In*A*Vision for Geos.

    75. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So, Windows actually pulled PCs up to Commodore 64 GEOS level?

      Around the time I was playing aorund with GEOS at home on my C64, we got a small group of "brand new" 286's with Windows 3.0 on a 20MB hard drive at school (much more high tech than the hard-drive-less 8086's that were everywhere).

      Oddly enough, GEOS took about the same amount of time to boot off of a 1541 drive (Slowest. Floppy. Ever.) as Windows did to boot off the hard drive...so, pretty much, yep.

    76. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by douglasq · · Score: 1

      How do you "watermark" a computer?

      --
      "Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
    77. Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How do you "watermark" a computer?

      I think it was a metaphor.

  11. Re:Marketing scheme? Interesting thought by DogcowX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I wondered why they threw iLife in there." I can't even believe you asked that question. They put iLife in there because many developers write applications that interface (or supplement iLife).

  12. As microsoft prooved... by ratta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    having a large market share is more important then being able to stop piracy...

    --
    Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
  13. the ire of popularity by Eric+Coleman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If this increases Mac's market share, at least in terms of software, how will it deal with an increase in viruses, worms, and trojans. Mac's will get them, that's for sure, but the deciding factor I think will be how well they respond to vulnerabilities.

    1. Re:the ire of popularity by Obsidian_AL · · Score: 0

      OS X is Unix. x86 Linux doesn't get worms... OS X should be fine unless the virii are specially brewed for OS X. =P

    2. Re:the ire of popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that symantec and norton are coding away viruses as we talk.

    3. Re:the ire of popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why exactly would osx all of a sudden be more prone to virii?

    4. Re:the ire of popularity by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      10.3 added notifications of apps being launched for the first time under certain circumstances, and 10.4 seeks confirmation on the first launch of a Dashboard Widget. They've also added a bit to the root password prompt telling you what privelege is being sought, and by which app (with path shown). Not that those two features are all that will ever be needed to prevent malware, but they are definitely helpful, and I doubt that's the entirety of their efforts.

      Like all Mac users with any sense, I worry about the malware question and am cautious about what I download and especially what I will give a root password to. But I am fairly confident that they're devoting a whole lot of energy to the question, and I suspect that OS X86 probably has more defensive measures that we haven't seen yet.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    5. Re:the ire of popularity by zkn · · Score: 1

      Yes because Softwareviruses find vulnerabilities in the MARKETSHARE not in the SOFTWARE, that's why we call them marketshareviruses......
      When ohhh when is this stupdidass argument of marketshare=vira going to die out?

      Next people will start claiming that Coka Cola is only unhealty because it's the most popular softdrink, thus there is nothing to due about it.

    6. Re:the ire of popularity by AnObfuscator · · Score: 1

      Well, Apple is quite responsible about patching security flaws *now*, even though there are no immediate threats. I doubt they'd suddenly become irresponsible and careless as their marketshare *increases*. One of their big marketing points is security, for crying out loud!

      at any rate, OSX is based on a far more secure and reliable codebase, and it is *very* unlikely that a large number of malicious threats will emerge. Whatever threats do emerge are going to be orders of magnitude less severe than Windows.

      --
      multifariam.net -- yet another nerd blog
    7. Re:the ire of popularity by OS24Ever · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't buy this. I think virus makers are an egotistical lot and hearing Apple claim for the last few years how virus free they are compared to virus-prone windows that someone would have done a few things just to 'shut them up'

      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    8. Re:the ire of popularity by feldsteins · · Score: 1

      I think it obvious that an increased marketshare would lead to an increased exposure to malware of all kinds. What is also obvious to me, but not to many others apparently, is that Apple's stellar record with regard to malware isn't solely due to it's tiny marketshare. It's not even mostly due to that factor. The cleanliness of today's Macintoshes is primarily due to sensible policies and sound engineering on behalf of coders at Apple and in the open source community.

      Translation: even if Apple captured (an unlikely) 50% marketshare, their share of malware would still be far less than that of Windows.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    9. Re:the ire of popularity by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Is it worth it for some pimply-faced virus kiddie to buy a Mac just to prove a point?

      I mailed some AppleScripts to myself. They opened up and ran just fine. There's all sorts of interesting things you can do with file extensions and types. I don't think there really any technical barrier to taking out the advertising agencies and art schools of the world with a Mac virus -- especially because nobody's expecting one.

      Nearly 100% of Mac users are supportive of the platform. If a hacker doesn't like Apple, they're more likely to just leave rather than lashing out by sending viruses.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    10. Re:the ire of popularity by OS24Ever · · Score: 1
      Is it worth it for some pimply-faced virus kiddie to buy a Mac just to prove a point?
      What, like This guy>?
      --

      As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

    11. Re:the ire of popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love some example AppleScripts...

    12. Re:the ire of popularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be true 10 years ago. But these days, all the the good malware writers are either heavily monitored or else working for Russian spammers, and consequently get way more money to stick to windows.

      Besides, if you want to spread malware on any Open-source-type OS, just put together an autoconf file for it and say it does something really cool on slashdot. All the lemmings will download it, configure and make it, and then install it. Piece of cake!

  14. Re:An era has passed by jokell82 · · Score: 1
    What will the Mac fanatics think now?
    We're thinking people like you don't know what you're talking about. Apple has said they will be tying the OS to the hardware. If someone can "hack" their PC to install OS X, that's fine, it just wont be supported at all.

    And Apple is nowhere close to becoming another Microsoft. But thanks for playing.
    --
    I dunno who it is
    but it prolly is fhqwhgads.
  15. slashdotted, here's article text... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Report: Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hits piracy sites

    Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 12:14 PM EST

    "There is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components," Jeff Harrell writes for The Shape of Days. "The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs... I estimate that we're down to a matter of hours before Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hardware is available for download on Internet software piracy sites and peer-to-peer piracy networks. (Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites.) If I can think through this stuff, Apple's management can think through this stuff. This is the most awe-inspiring stealth marketing move I've ever seen."

    "According to reports, Apple's bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed... Given Apple's experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple's management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife '05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation. As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs. Apple's giving their potential future customers a free taste, that's what they're doing. It's a try-before-you-buy deal," Harrell writes.

    Also, full article (by Jeff Harrell @ ShapeOfDays.com)...

    Mac OS X on Intel: Try before you buy?

    Item the first: Apple is not staffed entirely by idiots. This is self-evident, and it's important to what follows. Keep this in mind as we proceed.

    Item the second: The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. This information has just become public in the past few hours. (Comments I made to the contrary yesterday and on Monday were erroneous. The source who fed me that information has been sent to bed without any supper, and says to tell you he's very sorry and that it won't happen again.)

    Item the third: It's safe to assume, given the timeframe, that the developer transition kits that Apple will ship within a couple of weeks will be fundamentally similar to, if not outright identical to, the Power Macs on display at the conference.

    Item the fourth: The Power Macs on display at the show run a one-off build of Mac OS X 10.4.1 that incorporates the few necessary changes that were required to get the operating system running on the Intel hardware. This build includes Apple's bundled iLife '05 suite of applications.

    Item the fifth: Because Intel's LaGrande security technology is not yet incorporated into any shipping products, it's safe to assume that it's not present in these transition-kit computers.

    Item the sixth: Given items two through five, apart from the constraints introduced by hardware-software interfaces, there is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components.

    Item the seventh: Because the Intel version of Mac OS X that's being distributed to developers is a one-off build, future software patches, including all-important security patches, will not install on top of it, making it totally useless to anybody who's not a developer of Mac software.

    Item the eighth: Given it

    1. Re:slashdotted, here's article text... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I wish I could agree with the conclusion. I just don't think it's true.

      If you want to market OS X to non-Mac users, you have to get it to them. Limiting yourself to a handful of technologically knowledgable geeks, and then only those who do not have a problem with blatant copyright infringment, is going to "get it to" a very small group of people, relative to the population Apple wants to get it to.

      And yes, it's going to be a subset of geeks who do this. Why? Because relatively few people are willing to set up dual booting computers simply to test an operating system. Very few people are willing to do that and download what's presumably in the order of 2-3G (Panther is 3 CDs plus a developers CD, I don't have Tiger but I'm guessing it's larger) from the Internet to put themselves in a position of being able to try it out.

      If Apple wants to get this out to non-geeks, they have to create something similar to "BeOS for Windows", where installation is a matter of downloading the system from the Internet or copying it from a CD, unzipping the file, and then running something, from Windows or maybe by booting the CD, that boots into BeOS. I think Apple knows that this is what would be necessary, together with a very substantial (far more than Be did) advertising campaign.

      What this may, ultimately, boil down to is Apple putting a toe in the water to see how bad piracy might end up being. They're releasing a one-off unupdatable OS (as you've said) that has no restrictions built into it whatsoever. If it ends up on a few thousand unauthorized desktops, then Apple's going to breath a sigh of relief and incorporate minimal restrictions in the final releases. If it spreads like wildfire, with millions of unauthorized installations over the next few months, then Apple will feel obliged to put far tougher restrictions into the eventual release.

      A demo though? They don't have to release a stealth demo. They can do so publically. It makes little sense that this is a demo. A test, perhaps, but not a demo.

      BTW, I'd be surprised if the developers boxes do not have serial numbers in their operating system copies that can be traced. It'll be interesting to see if there's a lawsuit over this.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:slashdotted, here's article text... by havoc · · Score: 1

      Dual boot? What is that anyway... VMWare or VirtualPC all the way.

      Dual boot, haven't used that in years.

    3. Re:slashdotted, here's article text... by artemis67 · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Apple has NEVER serialized OS releases, not even developer seeds. Unless someone specifically says that this one is serialized, I think you can assume that it's not.

      The trick is going to be, does it run with your particular hardware setup?

    4. Re:slashdotted, here's article text... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      It makes sense to me, if you think of this as sort of a skunkworks marketing effort. They're playing a delicate game with Microsoft, and one thing they need, at least for the time being, is plausible deniability.

      No, this won't get 10.4 (codename: GoodBuddy) on my mom's machine, but it might just get it onto her boyfriend's machine, who is more technologically adept (although, I'm proud to say that she's been online longer than I have), and even more frustrated with Winders than she is.

      So if this is really what they're trying to do, it's only gonna get 10.4 GoodBuddy onto 1% of the PCs out there, if that. But there's two things about that number: first, it would be a *sizable* increase in their market share (even if they can't officially claim those users), and many of those intrepid users who do try it will tend to be the ones with more influence over other, more typical Winders users.

      I'm torn: I wanna grab the torrent to give to some coworkers tomorrow morning, but I don't do that sort of thing anymore. But if that's what Apple wants people to do, it's not exactly wrong then, is it? Hmm. I probably won't. But if someone brings me a DVD later this evening, I will take a copy to the office just to see the looks on their faces.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    5. Re:slashdotted, here's article text... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given items two through five, apart from the constraints introduced by hardware-software interfaces, there is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components.

      How exactly did the person writing the summary go from that, which basically says that it should be theoritically possible to crack any software-based restrictions and get it running on one specific chipset, to this:

      Apparently the version running on the development kit machines is easily transfered to run on any x86 machine.

    6. Re:slashdotted, here's article text... by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      no, the trick is figuring out which of the 20 something computers in my house itll run on :-P...

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    7. Re:slashdotted, here's article text... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bzzt. Thanks for playing. OS X Server is serialized, and has been since its inception. While it is true that OS X client has not been serialized to this point, wouldn't a build that ran on Intel machines be a great incentive to add that serialization support?

      Additionally, wouldn't it be interesting if that serialiation was added "under the hood" to development machines, in a manner that is not readily apparent to developers but could be found by Apple developers if a torrent of the build was distribuited?

      I'm not saying that's what HAS happened; simply that it could happen, and anyone with a developer machine might want to consider that if they post the version of OS X that it may well be easily tracked back.

      And it occurs to me that Apple can be very litigious when need be, yes?

    8. Re:slashdotted, here's article text... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Think about the kinds of people that will be downloading and installing (and/or cracking, etc) Mac OS X for Intel... yes they may be a limited group in number, and they may be the ones with somewhat questionable morals with regard to copyright law, but they're the mavens. They're the ones who are largely responsible for the building of "popular belief" regarding technology and trends. They're the ones their friends look up to and go to for computer advice. They're the ones that will have much of the power to build a viral upswing in Apple's sales and marketshare.

  16. Bill Gates said to be ... by KSobby · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bill Gates said to be muttering something about "Tiger Tiger. burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye. Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" Who knew he was a Blake fan?

    --
    "It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
    1. Re:Bill Gates said to be ... by takeya · · Score: 1

      You know I just came very close to failing a final on British Literature, you don't need to rub it in :(

      To be fair, I did get the one's about Blake's innocence/experience poems right.

    2. Re:Bill Gates said to be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just took a final on british literature... I said coleridge wrote the poems of innocence and experience :(

    3. Re:Bill Gates said to be ... by Beale · · Score: 1

      The Microsoft Procurement Dept. were later slightly confused by the order for "100 barrels of hot, flaming napalm".

    4. Re:Bill Gates said to be ... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      The Microsoft Procurement Dept. were later slightly confused by the order for "100 barrels of hot, flaming napalm".

      Yup, that's Microsoft for ya. See, Apple would order the napalm, take the time needed to get it strategically placed, and only *then* light it off.

      Ya know, kinda like what they just did.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  17. Same hardware as Darwin by ninjakoala · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's most likely not "any" x86 machine, but rather those that Darwin already runs on. Whether it's a intentional or not, it's still good marketing though.

    --
    Against the grain
    1. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Crimson+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You would probably find it interesting to know it just booted on my Athlon 64 X2.

      --
      The Crimson Dragon
    2. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 2, Funny

      You would probably find it interesting to know it just booted on my Athlon 64 X2.

      I'd be more interested to know where I could download it :)

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    3. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "it" do you mean Darwin or Mac OS X for Intel?

    4. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find lies amusing not interesting.

    5. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?!
      (fuck, I want it!, I want it! I want it!)

    6. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Crimson+Dragon · · Score: 1, Troll

      I got it privately actually, so as for where to download it, undoubtedly torrents have been seeded.

      --
      The Crimson Dragon
    7. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by returnoftheyeti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Post a screen shot or somthing

    8. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're funny.

    9. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by rjelks · · Score: 1

      Would you mind pointing out where this was found? ....Just for curiosity's sake.

    10. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seed a torrent then. Because I can't find one.

    11. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Considering that (according to Steve Jobs) they've been building OS X on Intel for the last five years, it seems like a pretty obvious move to also compile on an AMD box while you're at it ... so I would be surprised if it didn't run on AMD, even though they obviously wouldn't have announced that since they're so buddy-buddy with Intel for the PR.

    12. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by pomo+monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting. Can you post a screenshot of the "About This Mac" dialog from the Apple menu?

    13. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You actually think anyone believes that shit?

      Nice try at looking important, dickface.

    14. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Oopsz · · Score: 1

      I have to ask, where is the pic in your sig from?

      Talk about redefining hardcore mac zealot ;)

    15. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Jeebus.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    16. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      Erm, you realise AMD64 is an x86 extension, right? :S

      --
      Me (Blog)
    17. Re:Same hardware as Darwin by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly, that's my entire point. ??? What are you trying to say? A lot of people here on /. seem to think that OS X for Intel is unlikely to be able to run on AMD.

  18. Must... find... torrent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody seen it in the wild yet? I'd love to give this one a go...

    1. Re:Must... find... torrent... by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

      it looks like it is a fake...

      --
      Your Average Joe
  19. Re:An era has passed by donnacha · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it. What will the Mac fanatics think now?
    Apple has never shown any hesitation in screwing over their fanatics and the fanatics, for their part, have never seemed to mind.

    As for Apple becoming another Microsoft, I'm sure their shareholders would be delighted to see that happen.
  20. Holy evil triad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy evil triad. The mean corporate zombies at intel, ms, and now apple (sun is no longer a player) is taking another swipe at derailing tux.

    bat tux 2.6.12 and sidekick kde 3.4 to the rescue!

  21. Who Has The Torrent? by ihatewinXP · · Score: 4, Funny

    For a second when I read this story I thought the same thing......And then I realized that I have a Powerbook and am typing this on Tiger 10.4.

    I am such a kleptomaniac.

    --
    ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    1. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...Yeah, but seriously, anyone?

      I'm already salivating.

    2. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      might try looking for the WWDC demo??

    3. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by SA+Stevens · · Score: 1

      True, but shouldn't you feed your old Thinkpad something nice once in awhile?

    4. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by petrus124 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think the question all mac users are asking is, will this run on Virtual PC???

    5. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I've got 10.4 on my iBook, too... which makes me want it for my other computers (that I got before I became a Mac user) even more!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by iJed · · Score: 1

      I think the question all mac users are asking is, will this run on Virtual PC???

      I am actually interested to know this. It would be a great way to test x86 compiles of my apps without paying $1500 for ADC select and a dev kit.

    7. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      So... MacOSX on PPC running VirtualPC running MacOSX/x86, running PearPC.....

      My head hurts.

      --
    8. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by DigitalHammer · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, the real question is: will it run on a P-P-P-P-P-P-Powerbook?

    9. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by TheHornedOne · · Score: 1

      No, the question we are asking is if we can run the QEMU PowerPC emulator well enough to install Mac OS X 10.2...

    10. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by TheHornedOne · · Score: 1

      On edit, perhaps VPC would be good, too, perhaps with a side of OpenStep...

    11. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      True, but shouldn't you feed your old Thinkpad something nice once in awhile?

      Throw Linux on it. It's not as good as MacOS X, but it's better than Windows.

    12. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by robogobo · · Score: 1

      Veeeeeery true.

    13. Re:Who Has The Torrent? by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

      Funny as it may be, that actually made me think of something interesting: in the future, could you run OS X/x86 inside Virtual PC not only for developers to test out universal binaries on x86 as well if they only have access to a PPC ... but also for "ordinary" (or maybe slightly techie) users to run Intel-only apps without upgrading their hardware?

      Yeah, it might be a bit slow because it's emulated, but x86 on a PPC seems to be a heck of a lot better than PPC on x86. And I suppose it would depend on whether or not OS X/x86 sees Virtual PC (or other x86 emulators) as "regular PCs" on which it won't install ... or MacOS-comatible ones that it will install on--not that somebody probably won't hack it anyway...

      --
      R.Mo
  22. seriously doubt it was planned by toQDuj · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I seriously doubt it was planned, considering Apple's desire to only publish something when it's 100% finished. Expect lawsuits to ensue, and heads to roll.
    In my opinion, these people (read: the ones shamelessly distributing development software) ruin that which they have.

    They may think they're doing it for the good of Apple, but in the endd, if the development 10.4_X86 has many bugs and crashes often, the X86 version is going to be reviewed in a bad light by "normal" (read: non-mac-fanatical) sites and journals.

    grr.
    B.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    1. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by cowscows · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it'll be much of a problem. First off, they've had this in development alongside the PPC version for years, so it's not like it's an ugly hack to get it working. It should be reasonably sound and stable.

      Second, it'll be compared to Windows, which, despite massive improvements in stability, still has a reputation for crashing, not to mention malware problems. Simply stated, it's easier to look good when you're standing next to someone ugly. Windows is really ugly in a lot of ways. You don't have to be at the top of your game to look better than it.

      Add in the fact that anyone tech savvy enough to track down a copy and install it, (ok, it probably won't be terribly hard, but there will be a knowledge barrier to stop my grandmother from doing it), anyone who can figure that out will understand that it's just a development version, that a lot of software is running slower through Rosetta, and that this is just a taste, not the total package Apple will be selling in a year or two.

      I think Apple will come out looking pretty good after this. Sure, there will be some who criticize, but there always are. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy, but truly believe that there are plenty of compelling reasons to use OSX over Windows, that most people who get the chance to try it out will want to switch. Anything that gives people a good opportunity to try (moreso than dicking around on the machines in the Apple Store for a half hour), is a good thing.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the development 10.4_X86 has many bugs and crashes often, the X86 version is going to be reviewed in a bad light by "normal" (read: non-mac-fanatical) sites and journals.

      Since it's only possible to get a legal copy of the 10.4 x86 development version if you join Apple's developer program and rent a development machine, the only publications that will be reviewing that version now, that would not have reviewed it anyway, will be using pirated copies of the software.

      How many reputable review sites are going to publish a review that can only have been written by a self-confessing software pirate? I think that's a big fat zero there, mate.

      There are many ways this could hurt Apple, and I agree with you that it's not going to have been planned, and this will probably end in court. But your particular nightmare scenario is not going to happen, thank God.

    3. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably, this thing didn't go from zero to mostly complete during one week. Whoever leaked it could've done so last week or even before, yet they conveniently waited for the announcement before publishing the copy. If I were a pirate, I would've published the copy much sooner for maximum cred. If I were a marketer, I would've waited until just after the official announcement for maximum impact but minimum damage.

    4. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      good one there, didn't think of that immediately.
      I had the case in the back of my mind when writing it, where details leaked of the mac mini specs.

      I guess I should think more :)
      B.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    5. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by kucsak · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would expect some bugs and crashes from a pirated developer copy of software two years away from projected release date and I expect that the "normal" (read: non-pc-fanatical) sites and journals would report it that way.

    6. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by Tzutzu · · Score: 1
      It should be reasonably sound and stable.
      Second, it'll be compared to Windows, which, despite massive improvements in stability, still has a reputation for crashing, ...
      Apple has three main reasons to stay with it's own proprietary hardware
      1. they make a lot of money out of it, much more than from the OS itself
      2. if OS X will have to run on any hardware, it would be more crashy than Windows
      3. if they run on any PC, they enter direct competition with MS, and they will die
    7. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by cappadocius · · Score: 1

      Not to be too much of a contrarian, but you shouldn't make blanket statements about OS stability across diverse machines. Personally, 10.4.1 has been brutal on my machine as far as stability. So far my Uptime Widget has only a 3 day uptime record. Granted my First Gen Quicksilver has taken a lot of abuse over the years, but so have a lot of generic PC boxes, so it is far from a certainty that the pirated copies will be as stable as what runs on a G5.

      --

      omnia tua castra sunt nobis

    8. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by Gleenie · · Score: 1

      Hell yes. I don't quite have the money to pay the Apple hardware premium, but as long as a) the hardware support is there and b) so are the games I'd buy OSX on Intel in a second.

      The only reason I keep Windows around at all is because I can't get the games I like to play on Linux. Yes, I know in many cases it can be done but hey, they're games, they're supposed to be fun, not a whole lot of work.

      --
      -- Your mother uses Emacs.
    9. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I don't think apple is going to start selling OSX for any ol' PC either. It would kill the company, at least at this point in time. But if they can let a few more people get a taste of it, that's a good thing. LIke others have said, this is an unsupported, unupgradable copy, but it might whet the appetite for more.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    10. Re:seriously doubt it was planned by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I have no personal experience with 10.4, although I have heard about more problems than usual. If that's the case, then Apple dropped the ball there, and that's unfortunate. I still don't think that that presents a major problem to my original post.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  23. Driver Modules by dduardo · · Score: 1

    Since Darwin is based on FreeBSD, are all open source kernel modules for FreeBSD fair game to modprobe?

    1. Re:Driver Modules by TilJ · · Score: 4, Informative

      OS X doesn't use the FreeBSD kernel. And, more importantly, FreeBSD doesn't have a 'modprobe' (that's a sign of a Linux user who has never used a BSD if I've ever seen one). 'kldload' is probably the closest equivalent and OS X doesn't have it (just checked).

      --
      "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
    2. Re:Driver Modules by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      No. The Darwin driver model has almost nothing to do with FreeBSD.

    3. Re:Driver Modules by bcmm · · Score: 1

      It's not actually FreeBSD; it's a Mach/FreeBSD hybrid with various stuff including the input/output system handled by the Mach part (so probably no device driver compatibility), while the BSD subsystem does POSIX compliance (which, along with the X server, is what makes it Unix/BSD/Linux compatible) and some other stuff. More information here

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    4. Re:Driver Modules by Colol · · Score: 3, Informative

      'kldload' is probably the closest equivalent and OS X doesn't have it (just checked).

      OS X kernel modules are kernel "extensions," so the tools are all kext*. kextload, kextstat, and kextunload.

      But yeah, no dice on "well let's just load up FreeBSD drivers." Not gonna happen.

    5. Re:Driver Modules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the FreeBSD kernel is BSD-based and the Darwin kernel is mach-based I would gather, no...

    6. Re:Driver Modules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can write your own modules if you want, gotta use IOKIT.

      OS X is based on the mach micro kernel, it has 'servers' (mach speak for kernel threads basically) that handle BSD stuff. They also have some for the mac components which are not part of opendarwin.org nor the x86 darwin you can get directly from apple. Hardware support is currently limited, wifi in opendarwin is nonexistant right now (it detects the airport card but you cant configure it without the mac components).

      I however am very interested in os x on x86. I dont know if this is true, the WWDC speech that jobs gave said the systems would be available in 2 weeks, and I dont think it has been that long yet. Even if its not 'installable' in a conventional fashion a dd of the dev systems (due back to apple at the end of 2006 so if its timebombed it will be dec 2006) could yield an image that could be used. All for only $999.

  24. Re:An era has passed by BackInIraq · · Score: 1

    Well say goodbye to the age when Apple made the hardware and the OS as a complete system.

    Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it. What will the Mac fanatics think now?


    Not really a fanatic...but I think it sucks. Guess they gave up on trying to do things differently...sadly, it actually looked like it was starting to work for them, too.

  25. Re:An era has passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good! Let the old platform rot! NeXT step for Apple is to open the source of OS X, embrace the linux development community with a standard gui toolkit that has everything in there, gather the mobs of OpenSource developement and unite them under the sword of an all-compatible hardware platform, and make it to the Final Encounter with Microsoft.

    At least, we'll have a leader-dictator that puts some weight in quality software and hardware.

  26. universal binaries by ftsf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years." http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate /index.php why cant they just run the normal Max OS X binaries on X86 if they're universal binaries like they speak of?

    1. Re:universal binaries by Large+Green+Mallard · · Score: 1

      Because running PPC binaries on the Intel Macs requires emulation. Emulation = slow. The whole reason they're changing is speed :)

      (For small values of whole)

    2. Re:universal binaries by BoomerSooner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Only Mac apps were universal. All the old PPC apps will run via Rosetta, so they will run, they just won't be "universal binaries". For example, Photoshop isn't a universal binary but it runs fine.

    3. Re:universal binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple never released any of these universal binaries in their shipments of Mac OS X. Otherwise, someone would have noticed 5 years ago, "Hey, these apps are twice as big as they need to be, and contain x86 machine code.. hmmm...". The universal binary version of OS X has only been released to developers just now.

    4. Re:universal binaries by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because the universal binaries were kept internal to Apple and the released versions of OS X were only capable of running on Apple hardware?

      If they released versions of OS X that were fat binaries, someone outside of Apple would have noticed and said something, and we would all know about it already. Jobs is almost certainly talking about internal builds that Apple has been doing to ensure compatability for a possible transition.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:universal binaries by slim-t · · Score: 1
      Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years." http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate /index.php [macworld.com] why cant they just run the normal Max OS X binaries on X86 if they're universal binaries like they speak of?

      They do not have "universal binaries". They have one set of binaries for the PPC, and one set of binaries for Intel.

      Apparently binary applications for PPC OS X will run through emulation on Intel OS X, but that will still require having the Intel binaries for OS X.

    6. Re:universal binaries by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      "Universal binaries" is a euphamism for "look, we stuck a PPC binary and an x86 binary together!" It is not a Java/.NET style virtual machine thing.

      --
      Me (Blog)
    7. Re:universal binaries by laird · · Score: 1

      "why cant they just run the normal Max OS X binaries on X86 if they're universal binaries like they speak of?"

      Because they didn't ship "universal binaries" out to consumers. So while they were compiling and testing the OS and iLife app's on x86 as well as PPC, they only shipped the PPC binaries externally.

  27. AMD...?? by klaasb · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Before I download it....does it run on systems with an AMD processor that is equal to an Intel G4???

    --
    if your pants fit well, it's not only because of the pants ...
    1. Re:AMD...?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another poster confirmed that it booted on his Athlon 64, so it will probably boot on almost any x86.
      Can't say the same for the final release though, it'll probably be locked to Apple's own Intel hardware.

    2. Re:AMD...?? by aeror · · Score: 1

      no it have to be equal to an intel g5. duh

    3. Re:AMD...?? by dschl · · Score: 1
      Before I download it....does it run on systems with an AMD processor that is equal to an Intel G4???
      Equal to a Intel P4, perhaps?
      --
      Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
    4. Re:AMD...?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Before I download it....does it run on systems with an AMD processor that is equal to an Intel G4???"

      I'll just assume you meant P4 and the answer would be probably not, because darwin doesn't.

  28. the apple strategy by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    First to answer the question. I doubt its their strategy. First because it's almost certainly filled with debugging code, is not optimized and is thus not going to benchmark att that hot. Second even if they wanted to it's probably loaded with other people's IP, like rosetta, that they cant just give out.

    Not to mention that their $999 lease is not much of an obstacle for serious developers. Apple does not need new Killer apps to seed the desire to purchase new apples. So such a broad based seeding of the OS does them little good in that respect.

    Now to answer cringley's question. "Why would they pre-announce the swtich a year ahead if it is so easy to port apps". People fret they will "osbourne" themselves when current apple users hold off purchasing a new apple waiting for the intel ones.

    I suspect that an equally large effect may work the opposite direction. There 10 times as many high-end PC people out there that are about to upgrade their machines and may start to think. Hmmmm this new apple hardware might run windows, maybe I'll put off buying my next Dell-shitbox machine and see what apple rolls out. So this way by pre-announcing they cant get that meme going for a year. Thought's like that lead over the course of a year to the thought of maybe trying out OSX while they are at it.

    And of course there's the developers that need to be stroked. gotta give them a year's notice. and apple has the cash reserves to suck-up the osbourne effect.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:the apple strategy by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      I guess I fall in to your category of someone who will wait to see what Apple will release. I run Linux, and Win2k at home on machines with removable HD's. "IF" Apple comes out with a machine that can run Linux, Windows AND OSX then I would seriously consider it IF the price isn't more than ~25 to 30% more than what I could get a white box for.

      I am doubt that Apple will make a box that you can easily run Windows on. I fully suspect them to do everything possible to prevent that from happening. I hope and pray they don't but I just don't see them doing that.

      Now I also want to say that I was seriously considering a new Macintosh in the next 6 months, but there is NO WAY I would buy one now or in the next year. It will take them at least 2 years to get all the "bugs" and performance issues worked out (look at 68k to ppc migration as an example).

      Does Apple really have the cash to survive this osbourne effect? I hope so, but I am not as sure as you are. This will hurt them very bad, and they will forever now be compared to Dell on hardware specs. It will be VERY easy for Joe consumer to look at Dell's specs and then say well the "Apple" is 20% more. Guess I am getting a Dell.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    2. Re:the apple strategy by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      First to answer the question. I doubt its their strategy. First because it's almost certainly filled with debugging code, is not optimized and is thus not going to benchmark att that hot. Second even if they wanted to it's probably loaded with other people's IP, like rosetta, that they cant just give out.

      First, this is only going to end up the hands of serious geeks, no one is going to be able to find, download and get running this copy without some serius nouse and intent. Such people will, I suspect, view it as still containing debugging code and being forgiving.

      Second, the implication is not that this was "deliberately released" by Apple, but rather that Apple was (should have been) aware (especially after the Tiger beta leaks) that if it could run on standard hardware with little change (and apparently it can) it will get leaked and pirated quite heavily. That is to say, they are claiming Apple simply provided developer editions that weren't excessively hard to pirate in the knowledge that they would get pirated. This gives them full legal deniability - Apple has not leaked this, and can claim they took all appropriate safeguards (NDAs, some basic anti pirating stuff etc.) Apple can just say "Oops, sorry!" as they technically didn't leak the software - they just put it out there with the full expectation that this would happen.

      Whether you agree with that thesis or not is an interesting question, so please actually try arguing against what their claiming.

      Jedidiah.

    3. Re:the apple strategy by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Well, one advantage is that you can now compare Apples to apples (pun intended). You'll know that the Mac Mini 2 has a 2.8GHz Pentium MD (no, I don't know anything. Those are just numbers and names that I pulled out of my ass.), rather than a 1.45GHz G4. And, you CAN compare a 2.8GHz dual core P-M to a P-D or A64.

    4. Re:the apple strategy by koko775 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does anyone else foresee the leaked build being used to hack universal support into the official released version?

    5. Re:the apple strategy by discstickers · · Score: 4, Informative

      I am doubt that Apple will make a box that you can easily run Windows on. I fully suspect them to do everything possible to prevent that from happening. I hope and pray they don't but I just don't see them doing that.

      Phil Schiller is on record stating that Apple won't do anything to stop people from booting Windows.

      --
      I have a shitty sig!
    6. Re:the apple strategy by Bruha · · Score: 1

      Announce for a year deliver by Christmas.. that's probably the plan since it would put everyone off balance expecting the new machines by next summer. Jobs did not say we'll ship them in a year but said to expect to see them shipping by this time next year.

    7. Re:the apple strategy by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      There 10 times as many high-end PC people out there that are about to upgrade their machines and may start to think. Hmmmm this new apple hardware might run windows, maybe I'll put off buying my next Dell-shitbox machine and see what apple rolls out.

      Only the Apple faithful give half of a fuck about what Apple's going to be introducing down the road. The rest of the computing world doesn't really care. Some of us look at Apple to see what's going on. Apple has a history of blazing new trails that others follow(like 3.5" floppies, CD-ROM drives, Mice, built in networking, etc) so many people watch with curious interest, but for the most part only Mac people plan their Mac purchases around Apple's release schedule.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    8. Re:the apple strategy by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      if apple pulls it out and you can run windows and osx they have a winner. the major thing which is problematic for many buyers is, that if you buy apple you cannot run windows decently. Now if they are going to buy an apple for windows, they start toying around with osx and never even bother with windows anymore.

    9. Re:the apple strategy by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Phil Schiller is on record stating that Apple won't do anything to stop people from booting Windows.

      That doesn't mean that Apple is going to make it easy to install Windows in the first place.

    10. Re:the apple strategy by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      I understand him, but wait until the marketing dorks get involved. The last thing they want being shoved down their throat is pictures of Macintoshes running MS windows.

      You could see the headline now...

      "Even Apple realizes that they should run Microsoft Windows".

      I hope you are correct though.... I do know a lot of people who have tried Linux just for the fact that it ran on the same hardware they where not using anymore, and if they could play with OSX, then they "may" purchase an apple next time.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    11. Re:the apple strategy by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      It would be funny if Intel apples came with "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP64" stickers.

      Unless Apple is planning to let OSX-x86(-64) run on normal PCs, I have a hard time believing they would make standards-compliant PCs able to run Windows... at least not without some hacking.

  29. Via Piracy, Apple market share at... by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 0

    Could Apple market share be at 50% in 6 months due to piracy?

    If they could it would cause serious waves in the Microsoft monolithic culture. Home user software would see a serous shift in platform support. The honest people would buy the software and Apple would be in a great position.

    Sure we run on Dell computers, but when you want a cool/sexy computer buy an Apple Mactel. Man if I quit super-sizing my fast food I can afford the apple for a nickel more rather than the Dell...

    Doesn't a Dell computer remind you of Darth Vader???

    --
    Your Average Joe
    1. Re:Via Piracy, Apple market share at... by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

      Your high if you think this leak will have a serious impact on OS X's market share. Considering that there will probably be ZERO programs released for it for a couple years, whos going to run it?

      Also 75% of the computer using population wouldn't have the slightest clue on how to install it.

    2. Re:Via Piracy, Apple market share at... by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

      1) install torrent client
      2) download torrent
      3) burn .iso to cd
      4) boot/install OS X from cd

      How hard can that be? 99% of computer users just use the tools installed on the machine.

      --
      Your Average Joe
    3. Re:Via Piracy, Apple market share at... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Considering that there will probably be ZERO programs released for it for a couple years, whos going to run it?

      The demo ran current (Motorola) OSX apps in emulation.

  30. Re:An era has passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone can "hack" their PC to install OS X, that's fine, it just wont be supported at all.

    I don't need support to use Windows. Surely MacOS can't be that much more dificult?

  31. Leak is Just a Blog Rumor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MacDailyNews' source for the fact that Mac OS x86 has been leaked is a weblog that says:

    "Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites."

    And further, the blog adds:

    "It's possible that any one of the ten items above -- well, except number one -- is wrong either in detail or completely. It's possible that I'm totally off-base here."

    Slashdot, always helping to spread rumors without fact.

  32. legal? by PrivateDonut · · Score: 1

    how many laws would I break by downloading and installing it? (laws affecting Australia that is...)

    1. Re:legal? by jsrlepage · · Score: 0

      many, though i personaly beleive you shouldn't care...

      --
      This is my opinion. Everyone has a right to my opinion.
    2. Re:legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > how many laws would I break by downloading and installing it?

      All of them. Now STFU and seed another torrent already.

    3. Re:legal? by stereotree · · Score: 2, Funny

      how many laws would I break by downloading and installing it? (laws affecting Australia that is...)

      1138.

      -George Lucas's Lawyer.

  33. THAN not THEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THAN not THEN /this has been a message brought to you by the local grammar Nazi

    1. Re:THAN not THEN by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      Are you in any way related to the soup nazi? I'm a big fan..

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    2. Re:THAN not THEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, but not "proved not prooved?"
      Cripes. And I don't think you capitalize "nazi", unless you are, you know, a Nazi.

  34. Vapor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a dreamer who wants to stir up some real dust. But ultimately, there is nothing to see. The whole idea of developing an environment for the whole world is ridiculous.

    Nobody seems to be thinking of how impossible it would be to have all the hardware in the world compatible with a now universal operating system.

    The concept is so far off the mark to suggest that quietly an operating system that was on a Next cube swallows up the worlds computers over night - is a technical and infrastructure impossibility. Essentially it would require the support of every known hardware developer in the world... and do it in secret... with nobody saying anything the whole project?

    Vapor!

  35. Re:Marketing scheme? Interesting thought by laird · · Score: 1

    "I wondered why they threw iLife in there."

    And, of course, because they've compiled the iLife applications for x86, and want to prove that MacOS X on x86 runs real native applications. It's hard to argue that video editing, music playback, and photo organizing aren't "real". :-)

  36. Serial Number by scrotch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would be surprised if there wasn't a hidden serial number in the OS on each PC they distributed. I bet Apple, and their lawyers, will know exactly who leaked this very soon.

    1. Re:Serial Number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't count on it - there's a good chance imho this was leaked from the inside, straight from CVS. After the last leaking debacle, developers would be very wary of leaking anything from Apple - remember, it's serious big-wig developers who're after these development machines, not high school beta-tester hacks. Besides, it's doubtful many have even reached the orderees yet.

    2. Re:Serial Number by rincebrain · · Score: 1

      My friend's high school teacher is an Appleseed member, and he got his last week...

      --
      It's only an insult if it's not true.
    3. Re:Serial Number by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      They could have *easily* locked it down to only boot on the transitional development boxes if they didn't want it out there. The fact that they didn't leads me to believe there's no serial number. It's all about plausible deniability.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  37. mnb Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the '-1 Liar' mod when you need it?

    Parent poster obviously doesn't understand that this release needs a P4.

    1. Re:mnb Re:Same hardware as Darwin by eggoeater · · Score: 1

      So if I get my hands on this, it's not going to run on my Athlon? Is it the Intel chip-set it's looking for (i.e. built in drivers for it...) or is it something in the instruction set on the processor?

    2. Re:mnb Re:Same hardware as Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Does the OS check the logo on boot?

  38. QEMU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I go download this now, would I be able to run it via QEMU to take a look at OS X on x86, or would it require a full install?

    1. Re:QEMU? by Halo1 · · Score: 1

      I doubt you'd be able to run it on Qemu, since even Darwin/w86 doesn't boot on Qemu.

      --
      Donate free food here
    2. Re:QEMU? by Khakionion · · Score: 1

      Probably not, since QEMU can't reliably run any non-free OS out there (well, I guess it runs DOS okay). Stick with VMware until they make their next release.

      --
      OMG! Wau!
    3. Re:QEMU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QEMU?? LOL, riiiight. It barely runs Windows.

      VMware maybe.

  39. There is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a PowerPC Mac right here running Windows NT 4.0. MS stopped selling it in 1999 and it's all but obsolete now. However, it's still around if you look for it, as is the Alpha version.

    1. Re:There is... by mink · · Score: 1

      If you know where to look you can find win2k for the Alpha chip as well.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  40. As inevitable as it is good. by crovira · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When Longhorn finally comes out, some tech people will have had OS X running on their boxes already and won't bother to switch and that is worrying Microsoft.

    Apple makes killer hardware, which they make their money on, and set bar for what people are willing to pay for an OS AND for the quality that they should expect.

    Unfortunately for Microsoft, that bar and the fact that people will have an alternative, means that Microsoft has less than three years to transform itself to be internet capable (If they already were, there wouldn't be viri, Trojeans, mal-, spy- and ad-ware all over their OS. Microsoft made a mistake are relied on third parties to take care of their problems for them.)

    Either Microsoft can make the cut or it never could. They won't be able to rely on pulling anti-trust moves again. That sort of stuff goes on in backrooms and needs darkness to exist. Now, there's a light on in the room.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:As inevitable as it is good. by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately for Microsoft, that bar and the fact that people will have an alternative, means that Microsoft has less than three years to transform itself to be internet capable (If they already were, there wouldn't be viri, Trojeans, mal-, spy- and ad-ware all over their OS. Microsoft made a mistake are relied on third parties to take care of their problems for them.)

      Microsoft has never cared about the home user until the XBOX. MS makes ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL their money on business. Businesses are bothered by viruses and worms, so MS has worked to fix that. Businesses do not worry about adware and spyware and what have you because 75% of their users are on the intranet and the 25% that have access to the outside world are going through a hardware firewall.

      Microsoft doesn't sell PCs. They don't care if Microsoft Office is running on Windows or Macintosh (as Roz Ho has pointed out multiple times, the MacBU is one of the most profitable units at Microsoft). Microsoft just wants you to buy their overpriced office suite.

      I seriously doubt MS cares if it loses the home market on the PC front when they are poised to snag it on the media center front.

      Apple is never going to win business users over unless they partner with a much larger vendor, Apple just does not have the resources for support that businesses need.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    2. Re:As inevitable as it is good. by psergiu · · Score: 1
      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  41. Finally I can play games on my x86 machine!!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone point me to a torrent for a mac version of Half-life 2 or Far Cry?

  42. Fortuitous accident? by haggar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have some doubts whether this was a leak or a "leak". However, even if it was an unintended (by Apple) event, it could turn out to be the best things to happen to Apple, ever. A sudden boom in OS-X86 (you heard it here, first) could shake some cojones in Apple's executives' pants, and cause a paradigm shift in that company's strategy.

    Basically, a shift from hardware towards software-based revenue.

    Or not. Apple might utilize this event just to market OS-X86 to new users, users that would otherwise not have bought a Mac, and increase their future sales of Intel-based Macs. However, this strategy would work only on a fraction of those who tried OS-X86 for size, so the effect would be limited.

    I say, Apple, have some balls and start selling OS-X86 and related applications! Stick it to Microsoft and cause a stir in the desktop OS marketplace.

    --
    Sigged!
    1. Re:Fortuitous accident? by pinny20 · · Score: 1

      Apple makes far, far more through selling hardware and software together than it ever would through making just software. You can't copy a piece of hardware and put it on a bittorrent site for example.

      The only reason Microsoft can afford the piracy of Windows/Office that goes on is primarily OEM and business sales. It would be commercial suicide for Apple to try and compete with Microsoft in the OS market.

    2. Re:Fortuitous accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sudden boom? On the usage of the leaked OS, with no applications available whatsoever? What would these pirate switchers do with an OS without application support?

    3. Re:Fortuitous accident? by vena · · Score: 1

      Apple "leaks" development copy of x86 OS X. it is time limited, slightly buggy, and bogged down by debug code. additionally, it reports back a single ping to Apple.com upon install.

      Apple gets a very basic idea of potential install base for a beige box bootable OS X without suffering piracy because who would want to run the "old and busted" copy once the real one comes out?

    4. Re:Fortuitous accident? by Renderdog · · Score: 1

      OS-X86 sounds good; OS-Xi would be good too. Then they could sell "iMacs" to run it. Oh yeah!

    5. Re:Fortuitous accident? by haggar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, interesting thinking. Basically, it would be akin of distributing a demo version AND market research at the same time? I see how that could work.

      --
      Sigged!
    6. Re:Fortuitous accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the emulator that reportedly runs Mac apps faster on a shiny new x86 than on the PPC?

    7. Re:Fortuitous accident? by donny77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree. Apple can let OS X run on "generic" hardware with absolutely no ramifications to their bottom line. Why?

      First, the iPod has become their cash cow. They make more on iPods than they do on "Mac Hardware."

      Second, Apple currently is credited with a 10%-15% "market share." Most Mac users are considered "zealots" that buy Mac because Macs are "better." Sony Viao computers are 10-20% more expensive than "generic hardware." how many computers sold are Sonys? Mac is a "Brand" name. Even if 100% of computers can install OS X, Apple can still manage their same 10% market share on Brand name status alone. Meaning they lose nothing in hardware sales. They gain in OS install base and revenue. This pressures Windows developers to support OS X. Broader software support will increase the OS X marketshare even more.

      Third, Getting drivers for the generic hardware should be no problem since they run on a BSD kernel anyways. The drivers for the most part will already be there. Just a few tweaks and optimizations and you're set.

      There is no reason not to do this. Apple could have 30-40% of the OS market in one years time if they allow OS X to run on any intel computer.

    8. Re:Fortuitous accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use the emulator that reportedly runs Mac apps faster on a shiny new x86 than on the PPC?

      I don't thikn anyone actually believes that.

    9. Re:Fortuitous accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sudden boom in OS-X86 (you heard it here, first)

      No, you didn't.

    10. Re:Fortuitous accident? by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Third, Getting drivers for the generic hardware should be no problem since they run on a BSD kernel anyways. The drivers for the most part will already be there. Just a few tweaks and optimizations and you're set.

      LOL!!! You must be kidding me! I love my open OSes but to say that BSD (or Linux, or Windows out of the box) even supports 50% of hardware out there is a longshot. So many damn, cheap webcams and wireless cards and sound cards and etc. till I could puke. You obviously haven't tried to install BSD on as a desktop on more than one or two systems!

      Hey people, get it through your head!!!! There are too many x86 combinations out there for Apple to consider selling OSX for Dells. Isn't going to happen. Please deal with it so I can stop posting the same obvious stuff!

    11. Re:Fortuitous accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh.

      Do you have any idea how much Apple would need to sell OS X to make a profit? Right now the costs are subsidized by hardware sales, so consider the normal price of OS X to be an "upgrade only" price. Without those hardware sales, consider OS X to cost about $300 or so.

      Now add development costs to support all X86 boxes. The cost of OS X just went up to about $500-$600.

      Basicially, if Apple went this route they would make little sales -- everyone would stick with Windows, or grab a torrent and Apple would be dead within a decade.

      The only way this would work is if Apple made a deal with Dell, HP, Sony, etc. for bundling on their computers, guaranteeing sales in the same manner Windows does, and limiting support only for approved machines by those vendors.

    12. Re:Fortuitous accident? by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Getting drivers for the generic hardware should be no problem since they run on a BSD kernel anyways. The drivers for the most part will already be there. Just a few tweaks and optimizations and you're set.

      OS X runs on a Mach microkernel. BSD is there as a userland environment, and OS X can even be installed without it. So in terms of porting CLI apps from *nix, you're right. But in terms of drivers, no such luck. I don't know how the move to x86 would affect the whole driver porting question, though. I kinda think it still wouldn't make it trivial, but I really don't know enough to say for sure.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    13. Re:Fortuitous accident? by donny77 · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between saying OS X for Intel will only run on Apple hardware, and saying cheap webcams, wireless cards, etc won't work. You can always replace a NIC or webcam with one that is "supported." Nothing supports everything, but then again, didn't someone with too much time on their hands actually get a winmodem to work under Linux? They don't have to support every piece of hardware in the world to allow OS X to run on "generic" equipment. And once the OS X market share ballons, the generic hardware companies will make sure their product works with OS X. As far as the fabled, Macs are stable because of the lack of cheap hardware... I don't buy it personally. Sure some advanced programs might make raw system calls, but for the most part, programs should call the driver API's. That the whole point right? So either the driver is unstable, the hardware is defective, or the OS is unstable. Frankly, my windows computer is reasonably stable. It's been stable in Linux. It would be stable in OS X.

    14. Re:Fortuitous accident? by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      "Basically, a shift from hardware towards software-based revenue."

      Would be dangerous to do that in an era where more and more people are expecting (and demanding) that "software should be free!!!" (free to obtain and free to redistribute).

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    15. Re:Fortuitous accident? by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      It's all about hardware support. It would be an absolute nightmare for Apple to try to support every bit of x86 hardware out there. They're much better off just restricting it to their own computers, keeping their reliability.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    16. Re:Fortuitous accident? by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      Apple's moved rather heavily to components that are standard in the x86 world. PCI, IDE, etc is now standard, even on PPC Macs. The only things that would be really new are things relating to the x86 CPU itself- mainly the chipset. There are only a handful of chipset makers out there, and most use the same drivers for all the variations of a line (e.g. all forms of GeForce). I can't see nVidia refusing to release drivers for OSX/x86 when it could open themselves up to an entirely new market. Sure, the "Mactel" systems might be Intel board/chipset/CPU, but why limit it artificially?

      Too big a market to skip for no good reason. Anyone that has a decent Linux driver would release a good OSX driver. Apple could even certify a few alternatives, like "Asus M5N, certified to work with MacOSX" for whitebox builders. Everything on the board would be as supported as the official boards.

  43. Re:An era has passed by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

    I *am* really a fanatic, and I want to remind you that the reason it was starting to work for them was that they finally had hardware to sell that was competitive in terms of price and performance. That reason was slipping away as IBM screwed up all their promises, and Apple is doing what they have to to get it back. I'm one fanatic who's glad he won't have to justify buying drastically slower hardware anymore.

  44. Finally a good move for Apple? by AC-x · · Score: 1

    Releasing a version of OSX that runs on standard x86 hardware should allow Apple to be in direct competition with Windows (to "switch" is simply case of buying OSX rather then an entirely new computer)

    Of course it'll only work if they can get get drivers and software backwards compatibility sorted, which given they announced the switch to Intel in more then a year away they might just make it.

    1. Re:Finally a good move for Apple? by nuggetman · · Score: 1

      Releasing a version of OSX that runs on standard x86 hardware should allow Apple to be in direct competition with Windows

      This statement is making the assumption that Apple WANTS to be in direct competition to MS. Apple is more in competition with Dell and Gateway than it is MS.

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    2. Re:Finally a good move for Apple? by blakespot · · Score: 1
      Apple will never allow a release verison of OS X to run on any hardware but an Apple Macintosh. Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. Do not forget that.

      http://www.maconintel.com/


      blakespot

      --
      -- Heisenberg may have slept here.
      iPod Hacks.com
    3. Re:Finally a good move for Apple? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Apple is not and never has been in competition with the likes of Gateway. They are not a box shifter. Apple compete with other people who make decent computers at the upper end of the price and quality spectrum, like Sony. They don't stick a couple of components with big headline numbers in a tin-foil box with the cheapest peripherals they can find.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    4. Re:Finally a good move for Apple? by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Can we let this go already? Maybe Apple's not a hardware company or a software company. Why can't they just be a company?

      If Steve sees an opportunity to strike it big (i.e. bring Mac OS X to the "rest of us") by dumping the hardware business and selling only software, he'll do it. If he thinks the way to "dent the universe" is to stop pushing OS X and focus on the hardware side of things, he'll do that too, although frankly I think that has a far smaller chance of happening.

      Point is, Apple's a beast of its own. It defies traditional categorization. Comparing its business to a Microsoft or a Gateway is ultimately a useless comparison--they just don't fit.

    5. Re:Finally a good move for Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must know that the average family buys a new computer every 3-4 years, less that if you like buying entry line PCs.

      With that said I bet Apple would show the unspoken truth that, Hey only geeks and /.'s are downloading this pre GM software. They will spread the word to their friends how great this is and when everyone is ready to get a new computer they will remember the geek showing off that cool Operating System on his Plain ole PC, and by then the margins of cost of a Mac and Windows PC will be next to nill (or null).

      Anyone running this pre GM as primary OS will be constantly reminded how much faster it would run on Mac designed x86 hardware, and will buy the x86 Mac when their ready to upgrade.

      Did Apple do this on purpose? I doubt it, but im sure after Stevie publicly admitting the stranglehold on the binary went way down.

      I think its win win for Apple. Get the geeks all excited on both the window dominate side and the "bi geeks".

      Brad W.

  45. AMD64 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quit all this whining about Apple!

    1. Where is the torrent?
    2. Will it run on my AMD64 laptop!

  46. Just moving to mainly Mac by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    I'm just moving from x86 Linux (Debian) to "mainly Mac". Zero fuss out-of-the-box avantgarde functionality is the reason. Check out any online hardware store and view the list of current x86 CPU sockets and you now why.
    I personaly couldn't care less wether my Mac runs on x86 or PPC. But you can bet your right arm that as soon as Mac gets to become the pissy fumbly ten-bazillion different component standards and driver issues DIY plattform the PC is today, I'm switching back. Unless, of course, anything Mac is cheaper by then. But I doubt it.
    As long as Apple keeps a firm grip on a overseable list of components and I can get a good cinema screen with a good computer built into it that has me rolling the moment I unpack it and switch it on for the first time, they might aswell use VIA CPUs if they fancy that.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:Just moving to mainly Mac by blakespot · · Score: 1
      The attempt to support ten bazillion componente issues won't be problematic for Apple because Apple not support any platform other than a Macintosh to run OS X. OS X will never run on a standard PC. To do so would destroy the company which makes its profits from HARDWARE not SOFTWARE.

      http://www.maconintel.com/


      blakespot

      --
      -- Heisenberg may have slept here.
      iPod Hacks.com
    2. Re:Just moving to mainly Mac by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

      You sound exactly like a friend of mine that used Debian, then Gentoo for a while (Still has it on his server), and then went back to Windows for a low-BS experience w/ doing stuff. Finally got a Mini-Mac a few months ago, and he has been very happy with it. I use Gentoo, but hope to soon follow his example....

      --
      In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
  47. Pretty sneaky, sis... by amper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course, the only way that this would make sense is if the developer release is time-limited. Let's face it, Apple is not ready to take on Microsoft head-to-head right now; it would be suicide for Apple to allow an easily-hacked version of Mac OS X that could run on cheap-ass hardware out the door.

    Now, assuming that the dev kit *will* time-bomb, this would be a brilliant move. Of course, it might still be hacked, but the fact of the matter is that only a very, very small subset of the potential market will bother will figuring out the hack to keep it running.

    As I've said before, the only negative impacts I see of Apple moving to Intel are:

    1. (Temporarily) Increased costs for current Apple hardware/software owners.
    2. Decreased competition in the desktop CPU marketplace.

    Other than these two items, this whole thing is a net plus for the entire world, even Microsoft, who will surely benefit from direct competition with Apple in the future. Dell could possibly turn out to suffer some losses from this, eventually, but Michael Dell is an arrogant ass who deserves being taken down a notch.

    Which of course, is not to say that Steve Jobs isn't arrogant at times, as well, but at least Steve is a consistently proven innovator who constantly (and relentlessly) pushes the technology industry forward, whereas Dell is, and always will be, just a cloner.

    So, by all means, grab a copy, check it out. If you haven't developed for Apple hw/sw before, I think you might be pleasantly surprised enough to switch.

    1. Re:Pretty sneaky, sis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As I've said before, the only negative impacts I see of Apple moving to Intel are: 1. (Temporarily) Increased costs for current Apple hardware/software owners. 2. Decreased competition in the desktop CPU marketplace.
      you forgot DRM ;)
      well, depends on wether you think its good or bad...
    2. Re:Pretty sneaky, sis... by m50d · · Score: 1

      If it's timebombed that makes a non-timebombed version worth more. So the stripped version will be what gets distributed. I can't believe someone hasn't tried putting their clock forwards to see if there is a timebomb.

      --
      I am trolling
    3. Re:Pretty sneaky, sis... by Bodysurf · · Score: 1

      "Dell could possibly turn out to suffer some losses from this, eventually, but Michael Dell is an arrogant ass who deserves being taken down a notch."

      I'll probably be modded as a TROLL, but truer words have not been spoken.

      He makes Ted Waitt look like a genius, and that's saying a lot.

    4. Re:Pretty sneaky, sis... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Hell, we still haven't had confirmation that a single x86 user has installed it successfully, have we?

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    5. Re:Pretty sneaky, sis... by wenchmagnet · · Score: 1

      Install it, set the date in BIOS to sometime in 2007 and see what it throws back at you... easy enough to check if its timebombed.

  48. Re:An era has passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Apple really said was: Windows can run on 10.4.1 but if someone wants to run 10.4.1 on a PC "we won't allow it".

    That said, you can figure out here that Apple didn't say they wouldn't do it themselves.

  49. It's a fake story to get web visitors by xirtam_work · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but you've been duped. This is a fake story, of this I am certain.

    The Intel build of Mac OS X only runs on the chipset supplied in the development machines, so it won't run on *any* x86 machine. Furthermore, outside of Adobe and a few other companies none of the other developers would have receieved their Intel Dev Kits yet. Lastly, all builds would have had digital fingerprints inserted on the CD and in vital binaries to trace any leaks (If not then Apple are stupid).

    If someone leaked this then they are likely to be sued for hundreds of millions of dollars. This would mean any company stupid enough to let their employees leak it would be in dire trouble. Hence, my reasoning for saying that this is fake.

    1. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lastly, all builds would have had digital fingerprints inserted on the CD and in vital binaries to trace any leaks (If not then Apple are stupid).

      Do you realize how stupid that statement is, right? That kind of fingerprinting is not easy to do. This is due to the manufactoring process. You can't put different data on each CD/DVD. It doesn't work like that.

      Fingerprinting each individual CD is too expensive on the scale we are talking. That's why no one ever does it. They're not stupid, it's just the way it is. Tracking that kind of crap is a logistical nightmare for very little benefit.

      Besides, all you would need are two CD's and you could find all the fingerprinting information... There is no security in it.

    2. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      well, the developer machines are sold for $999 to anyone who attended the apple World Developer Conference. The room on the video from it seemed like some 4000 people and I bet most of them bought one. Now even if THEY wouldn't leak it, there's a good chance it would be stolen from one of them - not by dumb gangsta boys but by informed criminals/blackhats who just wanted to lay their hands on it.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Chucker23N · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The Intel build of Mac OS X only runs on the chipset supplied in the development machines, so it won't run on *any* x86 machine."

      The development machine uses an Intel chipset, an Intel CPU, a Phoenix BIOS, an Intel GPU. This, btw, is largely different from the actual 2006+ Intel-based Macintoshes, which I'm almost positive will use an Apple chipset, an Intel CPU, an ATI or nVidia GPU, an Apple motherboard, and some custom form of BIOS, EFI (most likely) or Open Firmware. But either way: Mac OS X obviously runs on a machine that's pretty much a typical vanilla x86 machine.

      "Furthermore, outside of Adobe and a few other companies none of the other developers would have receieved their Intel Dev Kits yet."

      Jobs said two weeks. That was Monday, so it's been almost a week. Furthermore, of the thosuands of WWDC attendees, all were allowed to use development machines on site. There's no reason to believe that it was hard for them to just do a straight copy of the entire hard drive and burn it on DVD, then look into it further at home and try and make an installable OS out of it.

      "Lastly, all builds would have had digital fingerprints inserted on the CD and in vital binaries to trace any leaks (If not then Apple are stupid)."

      Because we all know that Apple uses serial numbers, copy protection and fingerprinting all over their place in Mac OS X. Not. While the server versions have a serial number, the client versions have *no* protection against piracy whatsoever. They never did, and there's no reason to believe they will now.

      "This would mean any company stupid enough to let their employees leak it would be in dire trouble."

      Why do you assume large companies, when small shareware houses like Panic are at WWDC as well?

    4. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by VoiceOfRaisin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not to mention the file cannot be found anywhere. this would spread like wildfire if real. im sure you are right, its fake.

    5. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by CableModemSniper · · Score: 1
      I don't know that it is fake necessarily but it definitely can't be determiend on the basis of this article. The whole part about it being leaked seems to be based on one parenthetical note
      (Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites.)
      --
      Why not fork?
    6. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, you could do it. They're not churning out millions of these discs at the moment, and a few thousand discs is quite plausible with a dozen or so burners over a few days. Many small run CD producers (and pirate operations) apparently use this sort of a setup, so the infrastructure already exists. And it isn't fundamentally different from the mass floppy disk duplication operations from years ago.

      Whether they would, is another matter entirely, and I think you're right that they probably wouldn't. I just think you're overstating what a logistical problem it would be.

    7. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Shanep · · Score: 1

      While the server versions have a serial number, the client versions have *no* protection against piracy whatsoever. They never did, and there's no reason to believe they will now.

      No reason, except for the fact that this is the biggest news in Apple history for as long as I can remember (I started with Apple II's) and that this change interests a LOT of people as far as piracy goes. People with an extreme interest, x86 hardware, no patience to wait a year and little desire to purchase Mac hardware when they already have a decent PC.

      No reason?!

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    8. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Crimson+Dragon · · Score: 1

      What if those who have it don't want to leak it via a torrent for other reasons?

      --
      The Crimson Dragon
    9. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always find it amusing when skript kiddiz think that Bit Torrent web sites are the leetest form of piracy.

      You children and your toys.

    10. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      "People with an extreme interest, x86 hardware, no patience to wait a year and little desire to purchase Mac hardware when they already have a decent PC."

      You incorrectly assume that Mac OS X will run on any Intel box. While it is conceivable that hacks will appear soon to *make* it run on any x86 machine -- including those with Via and AMD CPUs -- such patches will always be used by a tiny minority, just like XPostFacto -- which lets you run OS X on Old World Macs, including clones -- never bothered Apple, simply because hardly anyone used it.

      Mac OS X on an x86-based Mac is just as Apple-specific as Mac OS X on a PowerPC-based Mac is, and Mac OS Classic on 68k- and PowerPC-based Macs was. Apple can add their own ROM, their own custom chipset, etc. to make sure that, as far as the huge masses of people out there go, it won't run on their non-Apple hardware. There is therefore no notable added threat.

    11. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by jericho4.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Commercial CD burners are capable of customizing each burn automaticly in the way you describe.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    12. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Spetiam · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry, but you've been duped.

      Now all we need is a dupe of this story tomorrow.

    13. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a fake story, of this I am certain.

      No, the story is just a lot of speculation. It's the summary that is fake.

    14. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's funny that leet dudez like you feel superior because they've good mad skillz to get warez. Virgin.

    15. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

      (If not then Apple are stupid).

      If not then Apple is stupid. Saying are makes you look stupid.

    16. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by be-fan · · Score: 1

      The 2006 Apple machines will likely use an Intel chipset and a regular BIOS. Reports indicate part of the reason Apple went with Intel in the first place is because Intel has an entire platform to sell Apple, unlike AMD. In any case, Apple didn't develop their own chipsets (by themselves anyway) on the PPC platform (they used an AIM-developed chipset), and they'd be stupid not to use Intel's chipsets on the x86 platform. As for the firmware, while EFI is still possible, its unlikely. Apple's current developer documentation all refers to a regular BIOS. If Apple changes things again before the platform is even rolled out, third-party manufacturers are going to be pissed.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    17. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Shanep · · Score: 1

      as far as the huge masses of people out there go, it won't run on their non-Apple hardware. There is therefore no notable added threat.

      An already patched install DVD, doing the rounds on bittorrent I imagine would piss them off.

      I believe the major threat would be people talking about how buggy or slow aspects of it are ( made worse by use with machines that are not even optimal for the software). Apple want to limit the circulation of this to a select group of developers for a reason and I don't see why such a huge stepping stone in their history won't be watermarked. Especially given how huge this is for them and how small the distribution of the software will be.

      I assume worst-case because worst-case would typically be considered by a large company like Apple. Hell they've had Mac OS X86 going for five years afterall.

      Remember Apple doing the smack down on OSS GUI themes which looked like Apple GUI's? Aqua and the technical drawing theme? What do you think would be more popular, OS X on old World Mac's? Or OS X on current x86's? This is not some badly done look of Apple or OS X on some slow old irrelevent computers, this could be OS X on machines which may run faster than Apple's current G5 flagships.

      *IF* (I'm not assuming, but they should cater for worst-case) OS X can be installed on generic x86 through whatever means (eg pre hacked ISO installer), I would see that as a huge issue.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    18. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      "An already patched install DVD, doing the rounds on bittorrent I imagine would piss them off."

      Er, yes, it would. But we weren't talking about that, were we?

      This is pre-release software. You can spread it around all you like, it won't make thosuands of people suddenyl install it. The amount of people interested in the latest and greatest unofficial, illegal and unfinished software is small.

      "Remember Apple doing the smack down on OSS GUI themes which looked like Apple GUI's? Aqua and the technical drawing theme?"

      I would be pretty pissed as well if someone were to not only steal my design, but also insult its qualities.

    19. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist. That's a cultural difference. "are" is just as valid as "is".

    20. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Shanep · · Score: 1

      Er, yes, it would. But we weren't talking about that, were we?

      I was speaking hypothetically about OS X running on generic x86's through whatever means. There are plenty of smart folks out there.

      This is pre-release software. You can spread it around all you like, it won't make thosuands of people suddenyl install it. The amount of people interested in the latest and greatest unofficial, illegal and unfinished software is small.

      Small compared with the official OS X install base? Yeah sure. But if OS X for generic x86 becomes available I am confident that it would be installed on thousands of machines and a LOT of people will be talking about the experience. Just the talk alone could be very damaging. The Apple Newton (I owned an MP130) was given to press way too early and nobody ever got over the initial reaction it received from journalists. My MP130 was fantastic, very accurate and sufficiently fast. The 2000 was even faster. But it was killed by Apple releasing it too soon. It was pulled from production because people were not buying this fantastic device which they'd been told time and time again was crap. Talk alone can be make or break.

      I would be pretty pissed as well if someone were to not only steal my design, but also insult its qualities.

      Yes, but don't forget those inferior "copies" were being used by a similarly small minority, yet Apple cared.

      It just seems to me that Apple potentially have a massive amount to lose here and this could be a vulnerable next year or two for them. I would expect them to have it locked down to specific hardware they control, but suddenly a top secret gem which people have desired and speculated about, has been shown to be true and is no longer locked up in an Apple controlled building.

      With something important, I always go with the "what do we have to gain and what do we have to lose if we do X? And what do we have to gain and what do we have to lose if we don't do X?". A huge OS, developed for 5 years on a completely different architecture, complete with cross platform developer tools, which now appears to be THE future of Apple ... versus individual watermarking of maybe 100,000 copies? Something which could be automated.

      I know you are working from past experience with Apple, but this just seems too massive to take any chances. I would be doing everything I could to make sure that I keep control and keep it confined. I hope Apple do, because I their stuff.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    21. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      I entirely see your point of view, I just hope that you're wrong, because fingerprinting for me reeks too much of copy protection, DRM, software activation and other stupid means of alleged piracy prevention.

      We'll see what the future brings. :-)

    22. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Shanep · · Score: 1

      I entirely see your point of view, I just hope that you're wrong, because fingerprinting for me reeks too much of copy protection, DRM, software activation and other stupid means of alleged piracy prevention.

      We'll see what the future brings. :-)


      Yes, regardless of who's right or wrong, I hope Apple makes it out of this stronger than ever and the users benefit. And if someone really did leak it, I hope to God they don't get caught. Isn't there now a jail term for such things? Very very scarey and very very backward.

      You seem very confident BTW. Do you have inside knowledge? Could we argue some more until I squeeze it out of you? ; )

      I was feeling so good about Apple. Just bought a new Mac mini, then Tiger, have a wad of cash on stand-by waiting for a Powerbook with fast access to fast memory, convinced my girlfriend that she will have a much more pleasant time with an Apple notebook for what she does and that we'll each get Powerbooks... now everything seems all so ominous.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    23. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      "Yes, regardless of who's right or wrong, I hope Apple makes it out of this stronger than ever and the users benefit. And if someone really did leak it, I hope to God they don't get caught."

      I agree on both counts. Apple sometimes needs to realize that it's their users that made and continue to make them successful.

      "Isn't there now a jail term for such things?"

      Not being a U.S. citizen, I wouldn't know.

      "You seem very confident BTW. Do you have inside knowledge? Could we argue some more until I squeeze it out of you? ; )"

      Considering most NDAs have a clause that says you're not even allowed to admit that the NDA exists in the first place, it's hopeless to ask me this, but I can tell you this: I'm a 21-year old student from the North West of Germany, far far away from the headquarters of Apple in Cupertino, and unlikely to have inside knowledge.

      "I was feeling so good about Apple. [..] now everything seems all so ominous."

      I wouldn't be so worried about it if I were you. Apple has a tendency to drive themselves into crises through fatal management decisions, but they also have some of the most talented people in their world that so far have always managed to not only pull Apple out of trouble, but make its logo shine brighter than ever.

      Market share-focused people can say what they want; Apple has never ever been in greater shape. Geeks that used to shun Apple's OS now switch to it in masses -- most recently jwz -- , the hardware is solid and hardly as expensive as people make it out to be, Apple produces some great software such as iWork and FinalCut Pro, and needless to say, Steve Jobs could never have dreamed of the iPod ("No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." -- remember, Slashdot?) success. And while Microsoft's stock literally had its peak in early 2000 and has been going down ever since, Apple is debt-free, has had higher revenues and profits than ever in the past few quarters and has a stock value that makes you wonder if we're back at the dot-com bubble, only this is a stable, reputable company here.

      Hope you'll convert your girlfriend ;-)

    24. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Triped?

    25. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Spetiam · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, maybe just "tripe."

    26. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by macshome · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to believe that it was hard for them to just do a straight copy of the entire hard drive and burn it on DVD, then look into it further at home and try and make an installable OS out of it.

      Yeah, except for the padlocks on the Macs, the fact that they couldn't boot from other media, lack of admin credentials, and the constant hovering of Apple Engineers. I guess you could of plugged in a FW drive and tried to image it off, but odds are you would of been busted. I got busted just trying to take a picture of friends in the lobby so I don't know how successful any would be pirates might be.

    27. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by FredFnord · · Score: 1
      The 2006 Apple machines will likely use an Intel chipset and a regular BIOS.
      Apple machines highly unlikely to use a 'regular bios'. If you look around a little you'll see both why, and what they're likely to use instead. (Hint: not Open Firmware.)
      In any case, Apple didn't develop their own chipsets (by themselves anyway) on the PPC platform (they used an AIM-developed chipset)
      Actually, Apple developed that almost entirely in-house, if I recall correctly, and then farmed it out to manufacture. Just like they basically made up the Altivec extensions themselves, because nobody could be bothered at I or M.
      As for the firmware, while EFI is still possible, its unlikely. Apple's current developer documentation all refers to a regular BIOS. If Apple changes things again before the platform is even rolled out, third-party manufacturers are going to be pissed.
      Um... actually, I guess I haven't seen that part of the developer documentation, because I haven't seen a reference to bios in it at all, in the quick look I took.

      Here's a quote from Dean Reece (Apple Engineering Manager).
      Correct. We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.
      and
      The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
      1) They don't want us to use BIOS
      2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF
      3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI

      This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.
      So frankly, given that Apple doesn't typically adopt really rotten, useless, outdated technologies when they switch from one to another, with the exception of course of the x86 (ugh) instruction set, I'm inclined to believe him rather than you.

      -fred
      --
      Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
    28. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Shanep · · Score: 1

      Considering most NDAs have a clause that says you're not even allowed to admit that the NDA exists in the first place, it's hopeless to ask me this, but I can tell you this: I'm a 21-year old student from the North West of Germany, far far away from the headquarters of Apple in Cupertino, and unlikely to have inside knowledge.

      I've been under a few NDA's, one of them was under a foreign company who never met me face to face. Apple though, is so careful that I guess this would not fly with them.

      I'm not a US citizen either, but my country is one of USA's "bitches" it seems and their laws are coming to a town near me soon. : ( A few nights ago, an advertisement on TV warned that distributing a new release game would carry a penalty as high as 2 years in prison!

      My GF still wants a Powerbook, the idea of an Apple has grown on her. She loves my mini. We're waiting for the next round of Powerbooks. I would really like full speed access to the supplied DDR RAM though.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    29. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      "I've been under a few NDA's, one of them was under a foreign company who never met me face to face."

      Ditto. ;-)

      "Apple though, is so careful that I guess this would not fly with them."

      You're probably right on that.

      I'm sorry to hear that the US's ignorance is getting to you and your surroundings. We can only hope that this situation will improve over time. Right now, however, it only seems to get worse and worse. :-/

      As for >200 MHz front-side bus speeds, the limitation is the MaxBus implementation by Motorola, which wasn't designed for desktops, but embedded systems. Since Motorola/Freescale has little interest in desktop CPUs, this situation is unlikely to change. As for upcoming PowerBook CPUs before the Intel switch, the two likely candidates are the 7448, a slightly better-cached and better-MHzd version of the current 7447B. While the 8641D will be out some time 2006 and comes with two cores, making it interesting, it probably won't have a better front-side bus system either.

      IOW, before the Intel switch, chances are this won't be solved in any way. Motorola's project for a new I/O bus, RapidIO, was to my knowledge for all intents and purposes cancelled, and IBM's very high front-side bus performance (resulting in a 1.35 GHz FSB for the 2.7 GHz PowerMac G5) is unlikely to ever come to a PowerBook near you for obvious thermal reasons.

    30. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Shanep · · Score: 1

      As for upcoming PowerBook CPUs before the Intel switch, the two likely candidates are the 7448, a slightly better-cached and better-MHzd version of the current 7447B. While the 8641D will be out some time 2006 and comes with two cores, making it interesting, it probably won't have a better front-side bus system either.

      I thought that I had read (a year or so ago) that the new Freescale G4's had FSB's fast enough to fully exploit DDR RAM. I thought they'd be ready by now. That was where my hope had been.

      So my hopes are dashed? I wan't a powerful notebook and had hoped for a Powerbook. Thinkpads are so expensive on the high end but I like their quality after Powerbooks.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    31. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      I prefer Samsung laptops when it comes to non-Apple products. They're only available in very select regions of the world, however; Western Europe and some parts of Asia. Sleek almost Apple-like design.

      As for the upcoming Freescale G4 CPUs: http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview. jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3bTdG7249 says that the 7448 will continue to use MPX/60x, their name for MaxBus, and will therefore continue to be limited to 200 MHz max for its FSB clock rate.

      The 8641 and 8641D, however, will supposedly actually feature RapidIO, which as you can see on that page will bring them up to par with modern CPUs. Knowing Freescale / Motorola in this regard, however, they often over-promise and under-deliver, and they tend to be optimistic when it comes to release dates.

      Don't expect any 8641*-based Macintosh before 2006, when Apple will already be starting the transition to x86 anyways. And even if Freescale does manage to pull off the 8641D as promised, note that, being a 8xxx series CPU, it is not designed for desktop/laptop use, but for communication devices in the embedded market. That may not stop Apple from using it, as it is otherwise entirely compatible with the 7448, but Apple has never used anything but 6xx, 7xx/7xxx and 9xx CPUs, all of which are specifically designed for personal computers.

      In short, don't count on them. If you want a "good enough" PowerBook with many luxury features from Bluetooth 2.0+EDR to two-finger scrolling, ambient light sensors that illuminate your keyboard and dim your screen at the same time, etc., get it now.

      Also check http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/ for a list of average product cycles of Macs, and http://forums.applenova.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22 for purchasing advice.

    32. Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors by Shanep · · Score: 1

      Thanks for those links.

      In short, don't count on them. If you want a "good enough" PowerBook with many luxury features from Bluetooth 2.0+EDR to two-finger scrolling, ambient light sensors that illuminate your keyboard and dim your screen at the same time, etc., get it now.

      I'd love to get one now, but what I do is very memory intensive. I'd like to just get a Powerbook and access an Opteron remotely or something similar since I guess even the fastest notebooks are not going to match a really fast desktop. But often a customer of mine will hand me a CDR or DVDR and ask me to extract and analyse what is on it there and then..

      I'll take a look at Samsung and see if they're available here.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  50. worth a try but still not free by shawn443 · · Score: 1

    This is interesting and I would love to give Tiger a try. But unless this OS completely redefines for me what an operating system is, I will stay with Linux. Since I have already popped the cherry on a Mac, I doubt I will be blown away. I probably will download it for testing and learning purposes. But nonetheless, it is still encumbered by many of the same problems inherent with Windows. Of course I am speaking of limitiations on my freedom and as such Macs will have no place in my heart or personal work.

    But this sure is good news for those of us who do not compete for Apple specific jobs because we cannot claim good faith expertise or even power-user familiarity with Apple products. This might just allow a new revenue stream for simplistic networking, routine upgrades, etc. So no doubt, this is a positive development.

  51. Piracy++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's a try-before-you-buy deal"

    Why does anyone who downloads the software from a .torrent site actually need to buy it?

  52. Where is the RSS feed by houghi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    OK, not on topic for this, but what happend to the RSS feed http://slashdot.org/rss/index.rss

    The last link at this moment is http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/11/185123 1&from=rss

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:Where is the RSS feed by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      I was pointed to this article straight from the Slashdot:Apple RSS feed.

    2. Re:Where is the RSS feed by subtropolis · · Score: 1

      Talk about it. For a moment there i thought every story was a dupe from yesterday.

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    3. Re:Where is the RSS feed by Dreimiller · · Score: 1

      I had noticed that the Slashdot RSS feed that I had subscribed to was no longer refreshing so I checked the link at the bottom of the home page and found that it had a different URL than the one I had been using: Old: http://slashdot.org/rss/index.rss> Current: http://slashdot.org/index.rss>

    4. Re:Where is the RSS feed by houghi · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Firefox indeed still shows the old one.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  53. is it buggy? by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

    Is there any word on how well the Intel build actually works for serious use yet? I mean, I agree that there'll be tons of PC-only folks trying this out soon, but I'm not sure it'll be such a big win. It'll be an OS running most applications in emulation, with native code that's never been tested on any large scale, and no patches available. Sure I understand the reasons for all of that, but if you were predisposed to think Macs had sparse application support, ran slowly, and weren't really as stable as everyone claimed, this could easily reinforce everything you thought ...

    I don't know, tell me I'm wrong. Am I not giving average warez-users enough credit? Is this build more usable than I think?

  54. Re:An era has passed by jimicus · · Score: 1

    Support doesn't just mean "Hi, tech support helpline, how can I help you?".

    It also means patches and updates.

  55. where... by fbartho · · Score: 1

    the article is slashdotted so I can't find the link to the site where they were hosting the torrent for it (assuming its a torrent) would you mind forwarding me the hyperlink?

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  56. Leaked?? by base_chakra · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, am shocked.

  57. Well, assuming this actually *has* leaked... by Frank+Palermo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... 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"... namely the transition kit system Apple is making.

    I would hazard a guess that would-be Intel Mac "owners" will have the most luck with something as similar to the transition system as reasonably possible (which would I believe be a Pentium 4 660, running on an Intel OEM motherboard w/ one of the 900-series chipsets and using its onboard graphics, maybe an Apple-supported optical drive couldn't hurt, etc...). And that's assuming Apple hasn't had special tweaks made to the BIOS that OS X/Intel looks for before running (they lock out non-Apple optical drives with special firmware, why would they be so careless when talking about a full OS running on non-Apple-blessed hardware, unless of course this is really a marketing conspiracy...?).

    In summary, I think most of the people who download this (again, assuming it actually has leaked at all...) will be "eleet dood skript kiddiez" who expect they'll be able to pop a DVD into their Athlon 64 PC w/ killer nVidia graphics card, boot up and install OS X, and get a free "SuperDuperPowerMac G6+!!!" to play with iMovie and such on. But the chances of it actually being that simple are slim-to-none. It could still be a fun toy for more knowledgeable computer geeks though.

    -Frank

    1. Re:Well, assuming this actually *has* leaked... by enosys · · Score: 1

      Rhapsody DR2 seemed fairly compatible. Here's a list of drivers. No, it's like not like you could use whatever you want but you could use some of the most popular hardware and it wasn't locked to a particular chipset or processor. You could also use some OpenStep 4.2 drivers with it.

    2. Re:Well, assuming this actually *has* leaked... by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      Thing is, most stuff in macs are standard PC hardware anyway. Last I checked, the Superdrive was the Pioneer A0x series. The video cards are ATI.

      I also can't imagine that the demo machine was non-standard, that would be way too complicated and would've led to more leaks. IIRC, it was announced that it was a P4, Intel board, Intel chipset. It should run on a select few configurations.

  58. Who cares about fingerprints? by glrotate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Say some intern at Adobe or Macromedia snuck the cd over to his desk and copied it. Apple can track it down, but what are the going to do? Jobs can yell and scream, but he can't cut a company like that off, Apple needs them.

  59. Nutter Conspiracy stories on /. what a surprise. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    Geez, what makes more sense? a corporate conspiracy to have everyone pirate your sw and destroy your HW biz. Or some individual idiot working at a SW Dev looking for some notoriety.

    And all those thinking this will benefit Apple, are smoking from the same Crack Pipe.

    Those who pirate the OS to sit alongside windows are never going to buy it. It will always be second fiddle to their windows install that has all the applications. A curiousity to play with and if they decide to keep it around, well they will just look for a newer version to pirate.

  60. Farsa by DiegoLM · · Score: 0

    Yo no me creo nada hasta que vea el torrent, y llevo un rato buscandolo y no aparece, y aqui tampoco esta....es que nadie lo ha visto?

    1. Re:Farsa by PinkX · · Score: 1

      Esta debe ser la primera vez que veo un comentario en slashdot en castellano.

      This has to be the very first time I ever see a spanish comment on slashdot.

  61. Re:Marketing scheme? Interesting thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I wondered why they threw iLife in there. It really would be of little interest to developers,

    Actually, iLife is very important to the OS X developer community. The "big thing" in lots of Mac programs these days is their ability to interact with iTunes/iPhoto/iMovie/iDVD/iCal. It's that whole digital hub that Steve Jobs is always talking about.

  62. Re:I gots a new Chebby wid a new BMW engine in it! by rogerborn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Flamebait???

    You called it Flamebait?

    Wuz supposed to be funny.

    gotta picture all these guys out there trying ta get OS X ta werk onna their old PCs...

    rogerborn
    borngraphics.com/writing
    "time flies like an arrow. fruit flies like a banana"

  63. so where the hell is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so where is it dude? sheesh
    i checked p-bay but couldnt find it there. augh!

    1. Re:so where the hell is it? by carney1979 · · Score: 0

      The links show up -- for a few minutes. Then, poof! They're gone.

      Can't blame the Slashdot admins....

      David

  64. Time to get to work... by J.+Charles+Holt · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So, now that PC users have access to OS X, can I safely assume that some doorknob somewhere is feverishly working on creating the first virus for OS X on Intel so it'll be ready when the first machines roll out the door next year?

    1. Re:Time to get to work... by Chucker23N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does a switch of architecture make it suddenly more likely for viruses to come up?

    2. Re:Time to get to work... by J.+Charles+Holt · · Score: 1

      Because by dramatically increasing the number of people who can run the operating system, it increases the chances that some of those people are willing and able to write viruses that can infect OS X.

    3. Re:Time to get to work... by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      Interesting -- so how come is pretty much virus-free? :-p

    4. Re:Time to get to work... by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Because they have negigible desktop marketshare. The presumption here is that OS X is something that people would actually want to run.

      You will note that where Linux/Solaris is popular (server installations), there's a ton of scripts and hacks available to comprimise systems with, so it's not like people lack the motivation or ability.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  65. 10 to 20 times more switchers. by crovira · · Score: 1

    Apple makes hardware, sells hardware and supports hardware.

    The fact that the OS is on a much safer BSD base than Windows ever was, (in part because Apple understands that security can't be a retrofit,) and will ONLY BE SUPPORTED on Apple's own hardware may bring far more switchers from a far larger pool of switchers.

    And this AFTER Apple has itself made the switch and dumped the IBM chip set.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  66. Anyone wonder .. by jilles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    .. what would happen if Apple decided to just offer the OS without the hardware? MS is in an enviable position of having a monopoly on x86 pc operating systems. There is some competition but none of it is taken seriously at the moment (except for servers). Even cost conscious companies choose windows over linux for their desktops.

    Mac OS X x86 fixes this.

    It's got a unix touch yet it is user friendly (unlike almost any other flavor of unix). It performs well and doesn't suffer from any of the trademark Microsoft deficiencies (security fixes every week, poor usability, an indifferent software vendor, the occasional BSOD & a hefty pricetag). Users apparently seem to like it and there's a decent selection of OSS and commercial desktop apps (including MS office!).

    Apple should be able to get 5% marketshare of the PC OS market within a year or so. I expect that there is a turning point where the marketshare will grow rapidly at the cost of windows. For example, a deal with Dell might be such a turningpoint. That means a steady flow of revenue that outperforms anything that can be realized through Apple hardware sales. Most of it is profits because they already did the hard work of writing & porting the software.

    I'm actually wondering why they wouldn't do this.

    --

    Jilles
    1. Re:Anyone wonder .. by Chucker23N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I'm actually wondering why they wouldn't do this."

      Because a similar business model led to the bankruptcy of Be Inc.?

    2. Re:Anyone wonder .. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      .. what would happen if Apple decided to just offer the OS without the hardware?

      My guess is:

      1. Apple would have to provide drivers for every shitty bit of PC hardware out there. Every chipset, every graphics card, every addon.

      2. Beige-box vendors would steer well clear because they don't want to lose the hefty discounts they're getting on Windows. Is it illegal to refuse discounts if the person buying your stuff is also buying from the competition? Probably. Would Microsoft threaten it anyway? Almost certainly.

      This immediately eliminates anyone who's not prepared to go out and buy a separate OS to install. That's a pretty big userbase.

      3. As a side-effect of supporting all sorts of generic hardware - bye bye locking OS X to Apple hardware, hello piracy nightmare.

      Could it happen? Certainly. Is it likely to happen any time before Apple has enough market share to eliminate the above concerns? Nope.

    3. Re:Anyone wonder .. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Apple would have to provide drivers for every shitty bit of PC hardware out there. Every chipset, every graphics card, every addon.

      Seeing as most hardware manufactureres are moving towards unified driver architectures, eventually all things will run off a generic driverset. I honestly don't see the point of your statement, as ATi and nVidia have started the market for this. And, very quickly, other companies that manufacture other hardware are doing this (Like Creative with their sound blaster Live/Audigy Line. It's not unified completely, but it's getting damned close.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    4. Re:Anyone wonder .. by anarkhos · · Score: 1

      Yes, which is why everybody is running OPENSTEP right now.

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    5. Re:Anyone wonder .. by joeykiller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can hardly compare an eventual Apple strategy of selling their OS for non-Apple boxes with Be's history. Be, inc. had an unfinished OS and little else. No wonder they went bankrupt.

      I comparison, Apple has a proven OS with real life applications written for it. They have mindshare. They have the iPod. They have the brand. With the possible exception of Dell, I think Microsoft have shown the world that the real big bucks in the PC world is in software, not hardware.

      So if someone, someday, propoes to Apple that they should sell OS X separately for PCs, I'd say that's a bet that they should be willing to take.

    6. Re:Anyone wonder .. by MassacrE · · Score: 1

      You mean the Windows Driver Architecture? Yeah, I'm sure microsoft has no patents on that...

    7. Re:Anyone wonder .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In short, no.

      - Apple would need to support multiple configurations of PCs. It would create the same mess and support problems you see in Wintel world now.

      - Apple would need to sell boat loads of this to offset the development of OS costs. ATM, the hardware subsidizes the software. You can't achieve this simply by selling retail boxes off the counter.

      - Which leads to Apple signing contracts with PC hardware manufacturers. Can Apple actually get them to sell Mac PCs? Do you think Microsoft will stay quiet when Apple is trying to steal their partners?

      - Apple would need to be like Microsoft: putting stupid guards against piracy.

      The end game, maybe, is on divorcing the OS from the hardware, but that would take years and years to execute. My feeling is it would not happen though. Apple can be comfortable in its own niche. Apple is not Microsoft and Jobs is a control freak, not a world-domination type guy like Gates.

    8. Re:Anyone wonder .. by Chucker23N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Be, inc. had an unfinished OS and little else. No wonder they went bankrupt."

      Oh, I agree.

      "[Apple has] mindshare."

      Yes, and tons of it. They also have great reputation and brand recognition, in most regards.

      But look at IBM. Does IBM have mindshare? Hell yes. Does IBM have good reputation? Arguable, but certainly not all too negative these days. What happened to OS/2? It never took off, and since it let Windows apps run inside, developers just coded for Windows and let OS/2 users eat the emulated software.

      BeOS and OS/2 are just two examples of why I believe commercial operating systems that don't go by the name of Windows currently cannot work in the x86 mass-user field, thanks to Microsoft.

      Letting Mac OS X run on any x86 machine would be a great idea for customers, a great threat to Microsoft, and a great risk for Apple. Will they take it? Not according to Phil Schiller.

    9. Re:Anyone wonder .. by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      I'm actually wondering why they wouldn't do this.

      I'll answer your question n a Balmerish way:

      OSX won't be on Dells officially because it lacks "drivers, drivers, drivers."

      I mean, any Linux fan will tell you happens when you try to support every crap part in every crap x86 box out there. OSX does the magic it does because it only has to account for the exact hardware that Apple sells. You put OSX on Dell and it would run like crap (if it would run at all).

    10. Re:Anyone wonder .. by joeykiller · · Score: 1
      Does IBM have mindshare? Hell yes. Does IBM have good reputation? Arguable, but certainly not all too negative these days. What happened to OS/2? It never took off[...]
      I understand your point, but the situation for an eventual OS X for any Intel PC is different than OS/2's situation was. OS/2 came from nowhere. In the beginning it had no applications written for it; customers didn't know anyone with OS/2 experience, and this -- together with the break with Microsoft and the latter's momentum -- caused IBM to fight an uphill battle.

      But Mac OS X is proven technology. Many people know someone that uses Macs. The important and well known applications are there (Office, iTunes, Photoshop, the web browsers). The battlefield is very different this time.

      Letting Mac OS X run on any x86 machine would be a great idea for customers, a great threat to Microsoft, and a great risk for Apple. Will they take it? Not according to Phil Schiller.
      Well, the May 24 Apple said rumors about switching to Intel were just that: Rumors. See http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23447

      A couple of weeks later it's a fact. I'm not saying it will happen, but what's considered thruth one month will be false the next. Things happens fast in this business.

    11. Re:Anyone wonder .. by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      "But Mac OS X is proven technology. Many people know someone that uses Macs."

      Yes, but does that give them incentive to switch? Not for many. Why do you think this would be different if they didn't have to change their hardware, just their software? It still means, for the average customer, a $1,000 investment in new software. New operating system, new office suite, new this and new that. The Mac mini is somewhere between three and four times the price of the OS alone, which I dare say is a pretty cheap way of joining the Mac platform, but so far it hasn't *made* millions of people switch.

      "Well, the May 24 Apple said rumors about switching to Intel were just that: Rumors. See http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23447"

      Then Inquirer, otherwise a respected site, is incorrect, since Apple *never ever*, per policy, confirms or denies rumors. They don't comment on them, and make everyone wait for an announcement on their own. Apple didn't deny the c|net news.com story* wrt/ Intel; they *declined to comment*. Big difference.

      *) As to the WSJ story a few weeks before that, during D: All Things Digital, I'm not sure if Apple reacted at all, but I've never so far seen Apple deny rumors.

    12. Re:Anyone wonder .. by argent · · Score: 1

      What happened to OS/2? It never took off,

      THe big problem with OS/2 is that IBM started out doing it in partnership with Microsoft with the intent that it would basically be "the 32-bit version of Windows", and Microsoft pulled out in the middle of the game and went off with their own 32-bit Windows plans.

      BeOS and OS/2 are just two examples of why I believe commercial operating systems that don't go by the name of Windows currently cannot work in the x86 mass-user field, thanks to Microsoft.

      The conclusion may be valid, but BeOS and OS/2 both had bigger problems to deal with than just not being Windows. And remember, Schiller also said "Who knows what the future holds?"

    13. Re:Anyone wonder .. by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      Your overall point is correct, that a limited hardware pool is key to getting near perfect interaction with the OS, but it's not *just* the hardware they sell. The third party Mac peripheral market right now is thriving.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    14. Re:Anyone wonder .. by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 1

      >>It performs well and doesn't suffer from any of the trademark Microsoft deficiencies (security fixes every week, poor usability, an indifferent software vendor, the occasional BSOD & a hefty pricetag)

      Security fixes come every other week.

      An *upgrade* of MacOS costs $130, compared to $99 for the cost of a retail upgrade Windows, and a full OEM version can be had at that price too.

      And as mentioned the only reason why OS X runs as well as it does is because it only runs on Apple hardware only.

    15. Re:Anyone wonder .. by FrothyBitter · · Score: 1

      1. No. Apple would have to have minimum system requirements on the box just like everything else including Windows.

      2. No. Microsoft is already in hot water. They can't play the monopoly card right now. Every OEM, including Dell, would LOVE to offer systems that dual boot Windows and OS X.

      3. Piracy isn't a nightmare, it grows marketshare. Besides, despite the common perception that hackers will always win, DRM is going to lock out piracy in the next few years.

      Is it likely to happen soon? I agree, probably not. Apple is either scared or greedy.

    16. Re:Anyone wonder .. by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      1. MS doesn't do this now, never has. Recently, they started offering a service of certification. Vendors still write the drivers.

      2. The agreement in place is that they can't ship a system with NO operating system. A while back, one of the big players was offering a system designed to be customized by the consumer, and shipped with a blank drive. Due to this agreement, it shipped with FreeDOS, on a floppy, and not installed.

      Now, it would be avoided, since (IIRC) Dell allows you to get no OS, but it's more expensive than OEM Windows, because it's a nonstandard choice that breaks their assembly line. Most whitebox vendors don't give you much choice, because people don't want much choice.

      However, if OSx86 catches on, you'll be able to get your $300 Dell with your choice of XP Home, XP Pro, or OSX.

      3. Yeah, but that gains marketshare. Double-edged sword.

    17. Re:Anyone wonder .. by jimicus · · Score: 1

      1. You still need to talk a lot of hardware manufacturers into writing drivers. There's a lot of addons (both internal and external) where the manufacturer simply hasn't bothered. I see this as a chicken-and-egg scenario. I can't see manufacturers devoting much time to writing drivers if they don't perceive a market; similarly I don't see a significantly larger market emerging if hardware compatability is a big issue.

      2. Assuming Apple does some day plan on selling the OS through OEMs or off-the-shelf, how do they get OEMs to ship it in the first place? Another OS to install means another OS to provide support for. Without some degree of popularity, that's unlikely to happen. However, if they can gain significant sales through retail, this may not be a problem. But do Apple want to set up and run a support line where people ring up saying "I installed OS X on this random bit of hardware I found in the shed and (insert-random-thing-here) is broken?"

      3. True. But you need to consider where you're going with the marketshare. Business marketshare is good, as it's more likely to pay for the software - if not now then some day. Personal marketshare - well, here we're back at the "how many people will ever go out and BUY it when they upgrade" question.

  67. The same reason why you Buy Linux by ThoreauHD · · Score: 1

    Support and Services- and to contribute to the company that makes such great software. While that sounds corny, it's in the back of everyone's mind that pirate's software. I have yet to meet a pirate that doesn't buy 2X the amount of software as dorks like you.

    Anyone who has pirated software for any amount of time understands that you cannot kill all the animals in the forest and then wonder why you're starving to death. Microsoft doesn't understand this priciple, and neither do you apparently. Pirates worth a shit grep it.

  68. Not Likely by thenewcloo · · Score: 1

    I doubt that Mac OS for x86 was released by Apple, if at all, because if it uses Darwin 9.0, it won't be able to run on many processors.

    In fact, I've tried running Darwin on my AMD system to no avail.

    Just my 2 cents...

    1. Re:Not Likely by mvfranz · · Score: 1

      Do you mean Darwin 8? The only reason Darwin 8 will not work on 32 bit athlons is they do not support SSE2. Athlon 64s do.

  69. motherboard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering Apple is probably using an off-the shelf-motherboard at the time, it's no surprise that it ports to any x86 easily. This probably won't be as easy when the Mactels debut.

  70. From where came the ipod? by io333 · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget where the idea for digital music distribution (more or less the only reason Apple is still afloat). Without song swapping on the net, that was around long before Apple, there would be no apple.

    1. Re:From where came the ipod? by Chucker23N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "(more or less the only reason Apple is still afloat)"

      Er, no. Apple was doing fine, just not "great", before the iPod.

      "Without song swapping on the net, that was around long before Apple"

      Song swapping on the net was around long before Apple was founded in 76? Interesting. What net is this you're speaking of? ARPAnet?

    2. Re:From where came the ipod? by io333 · · Score: 1

      I meant ipod as the last word, not apple. Apple was in deep sh*t before ipod happened, that's just a fact.

    3. Re:From where came the ipod? by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      They weren't. Five years earlier, before Jobs returned, they weren't doing well, but when iPod came (2001), they didn't have too many problems.

    4. Re:From where came the ipod? by io333 · · Score: 1

      Except that both their stock market value, and their market share had tanked.

    5. Re:From where came the ipod? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      They were selling the iPod for a couple of years before iTunes came out. And they were selling a lot of them.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    6. Re:From where came the ipod? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they had something like four or five billion in the bank and little to no debt against that.

      Would that I could be in deep shit to that extent.

    7. Re:From where came the ipod? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iPod predates iTunes?
      What software did apple originally use to load iPod (snide sarcasm hopefully evident)

    8. Re:From where came the ipod? by TomHandy · · Score: 1

      I'm almost positive iTunes was around for the original iPod. I think that maybe he meant the iTunes Music Store (which is different than just the iTunes software). For what it's worth, before iTunes for Windows, you had to use MusicMatch on the PC side.

    9. Re:From where came the ipod? by JoshNorton · · Score: 1

      Actually, while market share had gone down, the stock market price had gone up - remember, they were ACTUALLY MAKING MONEY for a quite a few quarters before the iPod.

      --
      "Stupid! Stupid stupid stupid stupid! I touched the hot wire right there - I'm an idiot!"
    10. Re:From where came the ipod? by itcomesinwaves · · Score: 1

      Wha-huh? Song swapping around long before Apple? How long do you think they've been around?

      I agree that without the iPod Apple wouldn't be as strong as it is today, but there is *no* way that it would be gone. Apple has billions in the bank. This isn't to say they can't die. But with that amount of cash, they can't die as quickly as you imply.

      I don't think you know what you're talking about.

    11. Re:From where came the ipod? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Song swapping on the net was around long before Apple was founded in 76? Interesting. What net is this you're speaking of? ARPAnet?

      Oh yeah, rampant MIDI swapping on ARPANET is what cauased the Beatles to break up.
    12. Re:From where came the ipod? by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Except that both their stock market value, and their market share had tanked.

      Oh, really? [dip at end of 2000 is due to the stock price split]

      See, the problem with posting facts is that they can be checked. Stick to opinions next time, like "Apple is teh suxors!!!1oneone LOLOL"

  71. Probably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect the "leaked" version will only have drivers for the hardware in the Apple developer lease machines. So it won't be very good for testing on random generic PC hardware.

    If your machine has a hardware subset of the developer boxes, then it should run, but that really wouldn't add much to the testing data.

    Now if the leaked version has lots of other drivers, then perhaps the stealth marketing theory holds some water.

  72. Dual Processing? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    So does the OS show your running in 64bit mode with two processors? What about Intel running HT? Would it show up as a 32bit platform with two CPUs?

    So many questions...

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  73. You are a complete moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Releasing a version of OSX that runs on standard x86 hardware should allow Apple to be in direct competition with Windows

    Apple is a HARDWARE company, because most of their revenue comes from SELLING HARDWARE. Why the fuck can't anyone seem to grasp this simple fact?

    If Apple put "OS X for Generic x86 Whiteboxes" on store shelves tomorrow and made no other changes to their business model (which is what you idiot "cheap hardware" fanboys seem to think they can do), they'd be out of business in a year. They wouldn't sell enough copies at the current OS X price of $129 to make up for all the lost hardware sales. If they jacked the OS X price up to compensate, you would bitch about it and just download a torrent of it somewhere, further cutting Apple's revenue. Hell, you guys who bristle at paying for than $400 for a computer would just download the torrent of it even if they kept the price at $129!

    1. Re:You are a complete moron. by mwooller · · Score: 1

      So many MP3 players out there, so many people own expensive iPods...

  74. probably buggy too by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I also seriously doubt the first version of OSX for intel is free of serious security holes. If people who use the leaked version are doing so for that reason they are mistaken.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:probably buggy too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first version of OS X for Intel is actually the umpteenth version of OS X for Intel. Every build of Mac OS X from the developer previews forward was built both for PowerPC and Intel. It's just that none of the hundreds of builds prior to 10.4.1 were ever seen publicly.

      The preview that's out there is 100% stock standard 10.4.1, plus a few features to support multiple architectures. (Like the ability to show you what architectures a binary supports in the Finder's Get Info window, the "launch with Rosetta" checkbox, little GUI stuff like that.)

    2. Re:probably buggy too by justMichael · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I also seriously doubt the first version of OSX for intel is free of serious security holes. If people who use the leaked version are doing so for that reason they are mistaken.
      You do realize that this "first" version of OS X on Intel is the exact same OS that runs on PPC, right? This "first" release is 5 years old, they build them both at the same time.

      It was entertaining to hear that every release of OS X was built for PPC and x86. Something a lot of people thought but couldn't confirm.

      And do you really think Windows has security issues because it runs on an x86 chip?
    3. Re:probably buggy too by mcc · · Score: 1

      You do realize that this "first" version of OS X on Intel is the exact same OS that runs on PPC, right? This "first" release is 5 years old, they build them both at the same time.

      Well, to play devil's advocate here, there are certain classes of buffer overflows which are possible on the x86 architecture but not the PPC. So it is possible that there are security holes at this exact moment in time which effect OS X/x86 but not OS X/PPC, simply because OS X/x86 has not had as much testing for such done on it. However, since Darwin-- basically everything except the GUI in OS X-- has run publicly on x86 for some time, this is extremely unlikely.

      It was entertaining to hear that every release of OS X was built for PPC and x86. Something a lot of people thought but couldn't confirm.

      Actually MacWorld and other Apple-related news sources have run Apple-sanctioned articles on that exact project in the past, and one of them actually contained a photo of the development team.

      It wasn't so much unconfirmed as not widely reported ^_^

    4. Re:probably buggy too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And do you really think Windows has security issues because it runs on an x86 chip?

      Yes. I mean not only because it runs on an x86 chip, but I know from personal experience that it is easier to create exploits for x86 than for other architectures.

    5. Re:probably buggy too by Jezza · · Score: 1

      Actually I strongly suspect that Mac OS X is actually leading much more than a "double life" as Steve puts it - I expect there is at least an UltraSPARC version, probably more. Mac OS X (by virtue of the fact that it's largely compiled with gcc) is quite easy to port (sounds like Linux doesn't it?) and Apple know all about needing a new processor.

      But back to the point in hand - Apple engineers have plenty of years supporting a Mac OS X-like OS on Intel: OPENSTEP for Mach (aka NEXTSTEP). Mac OS X is a development of THAT OS. OPENSTEP for Mach ran on lots of processors... I would be amazed if there isn't a SUN box in that little building running iLife et al!

    6. Re:probably buggy too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, unsubstantiated anonymous clams are all I need.

    7. Re:probably buggy too by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      Probably Itanium, too. I wouldn't be surprised if that's their long-term goal.

      --
      Me (Blog)
    8. Re:probably buggy too by softends · · Score: 1

      Aye, but this dual-development may or may not have taken place. The only confirmation we have right now is Jobs' keynote.

    9. Re:probably buggy too by laird · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Mac OS X (by virtue of the fact that it's largely compiled with gcc) is quite easy to port"

      This claim is just silly; anyone who's ported code between UNIX machines knows that simply being compiled with GCC doesn't give portability. MacOS X is extremely portable because it was originally written very carefully to be portable (NeXTSTEP ran on 680x0, x86, HP-PA/RISC, SPARC) and Apple has carefully maintained that portability.

      That being said, I agree with your main point -- MacOS X is highly portable, and anything written using Cocoa or Carbon should be easily or trivially portable to any OS.

      So one interesting side-effect of the x86 migration is that once app's are compiled with universal binaries, it's very easy for Apple to add additional CPU's and have everything just work. So Apple could use those amazing next-generation SPARC's on serves, x86 on high-end desktops, and PPC's in low-end machines, and everything would "just work".

    10. Re:probably buggy too by Jezza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well I kind of agree that **just** using gcc doesn't make it portable (as perhaps the text suggested) but using gcc is a damn good "first step" to making something portable.

      Actually I think a lot of people have missed an interesting dynamic with all this: Apple are doing the opposite replacement to the usual one - LOW END Macs will be the first on Intel - HIGH END the year after, the exact opposite to the usual "filter down" policy.

      Personally I think this is because a lot of the "high end" applications lean hard on AltiVec, and the Intel chips have nothing as good - it'll take a while for Intel to have performance that beats the PowerPC970FX in ALL areas...

      The Mac "fanboys" had it right that the PPC has better performance in areas that matter to the Mac (mostly as Apple have favoured applications well suited to that chip). I think the biggest problem was that the G5 (as Apple call it) seems no closer to fitting in a PowerBook, and laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales (in all PCs not just Macs). This has been forced on Apple, not chosen by them, and not because the top end Macs are too slow. (though the need for liquid cooling isn't a good sign!)

      However I'll admit, I was wrong - I didn't think this would happen (mostly because of Apple using AltiVec so much).

    11. Re:probably buggy too by jerkyjunkmail · · Score: 1

      It would fully be possible. SPARC was an architecture supported by OpenSTEP and for that matter PA-RISC i believe. I think the odds are pretty low that they would have continued development. They would be in the same boat with the lack of laptop processor which is why I think they did the parallel x86 development. Jobs had been quoted in some articles a few years ago in regards being at some Intel conventions or expos, he stated "I'm looking at options" "it's good to have options"

      --

      --
      What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
    12. Re:probably buggy too by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Intel chips have SSE2, which for the most part, is faster than AltiVec (at least on the newer chips which will be available in 2006)

      AltiVec is just a more robust design.

      So, take your pick on what you think is better: speed => Intel, design => PowerPC

      The consumer, who votes with their wallet, and the lack of progress in the PowerPC development has forced Apple to go for the Intel and speed, rather than the superior design of the PowerPC.

      Same problem is with the BIOS. OpenFirmware is way much better than the Standard PC BIOS, but *shrug* can't use commodity PC hardware without it, so Apple would screw themselves just as bad if they went with OpenFirmware. (Funny thing is, if they did keep OpenFirmware, you could still use the same video cards, etc that you used on your PowerPC Mac. But people would wonder why you couldn't use this PC Video Card, on a PC Apple, and that wouldn't be good.)

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    13. Re:probably buggy too by laird · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd rather see Apple retain a mix of CPU's in the marketplace, and just make sure that developers keep shipping "universal binaries". That gives both Apple and its customers the most flexibility. Want the cheapest possible consumer machine? Use an embedded PPC. Want the fastest server? Use an 8-way UltraSPARC. Want to run on a cheap PC? Run Intel. It's a winning strategy because it defines the applications and the OS as the important thing, and the CPU has just a part to be swapped in based on target requirements.

      And if Apple _really_ wants to confuse people, they could (finally) release the Cocoa runtime for NT. Most people don't realize it, but Web Objects (which ships for PPC, NT and SPARC) contains the Cocoa runtime, so it could (if Apple allowed it to be licensed) to run Cocoa app's everywhere. Wouldn't that be fun! Write a Cocoa app, and ship for every OS. Who needs Win32! :-)

    14. Re:probably buggy too by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it would definitely be awesome to see them make the CPU architecture itself a trivial, and unimportant aspect of the computer.

      Think of the skill required to write viruses. You'd have to be able to generate fat viruses that would infect each architecture.

      I'd say you're spouting crap with the whole Cocoa runtime... but then I'd have said you were spouting crap about Marklar up until the WWDC last week.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  75. Re:An era has passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What will the Mac fanatic think now?


    We're thinking, oh, no, Apple's in a death spiral now! Arrgghh! Why didn't we see it all this time?? One button mouse! One button mouse! Oh, 3Ghz ceiling, 3Ghz ceiling! Arrgghh!

    I for one welcome my new virus-laden Dell shitbox overlord as soon as I throw my 30" Apple Cinema Display through the window because of some press releases and asshat speculation that won't affect my buying for two years!
  76. Fortuitous "instant gratification"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " I have some doubts whether this was a leak or a "leak". However, even if it was an unintended (by Apple) event, it could turn out to be the best things to happen to Apple, ever. A sudden boom in OS-X86 (you heard it here, first) could shake some cojones in Apple's executives' pants, and cause a paradigm shift in that company's strategy."

    That's what the inexpensive Mac-Mini was for.

    "Basically, a shift from hardware towards software-based revenue."

    Didn't work as a strategy for NeXt. Didn't work as a strategy for BeOS.

    "Or not. Apple might utilize this event just to market OS-X86 to new users, users that would otherwise not have bought a Mac, and increase their future sales of Intel-based Macs. However, this strategy would work only on a fraction of those who tried OS-X86 for size, so the effect would be limited."

    The "immedietcy" that everyday people now pursue things, has given us road-rage and piracy.

    "I say, Apple, have some balls and start selling OS-X86 and related applications! Stick it to Microsoft and cause a stir in the desktop OS marketplace."

    "Sticking it to MS" is the Slashdot mantra. Not necessarily the objective of someone charged to running a profit-seeking company.

  77. No real Windows users.... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...will even care about this. It's not like I'm going to take my wonderfully stable Windows XP Pro installation, that runs 98% of all software out there (either Windows, or Un*x software via Microsoft SFU or Cygwin), and replace it with some flakey old NeXT software....

    1. Re:No real Windows users.... by terminal.dk · · Score: 1

      MacOS X for Windows will ship with a program called WINE. This allows you to run MS Office for Windows and other crappy buggy software on it.

      The good news is, that you do not need to reboot every month.

    2. Re:No real Windows users.... by dibbs_online · · Score: 1

      The only part I'm keen to see is if M$ release office for it, and how long before there will be support for OSX binaries in linux allowing me to run outlook native.

    3. Re:No real Windows users.... by lostchicken · · Score: 1

      It will NOT ship with Wine. That would be suicide for Apple, because it would kill Mac development dead, turning the Mac into a not-quite-as-good-as-windows win32 box.

      --
      -twb
    4. Re:No real Windows users.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "MacOS X for Windows will ship..."

      Mac OS X for Windows? Heheheheh...

  78. No, no, NO! by phillymjs · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm just going to paste my standard reply to this below. It still holds true even though it was written months ago, before the Intel announcement:

    ----------
    Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why OS X works so well is because it runs on such a limited pool of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding OS X to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the x86 world, where a machine could be using one of thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Windows developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. OS X developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of NeXTStep that ran on Intel ran on a tiny subset of the available PC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with NeXTStep, you were SOL.

    That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.

    Do you think Jobs could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PC capable of running XP today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Apple uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of OS X for x86 would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price here on /., or you'd pirate it-- either way, Apple would lose money on it.

    ~Philly

    1. Re:No, no, NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, my homebuilt box is NOT a "shitbox" - it's higher end and higher quality parts than the machines I could get from local vendors or the likes of HP, etc.

      I would consider running OS-X, but only if it runs on my hardware. I'm not going to buy some needlessly expensive hardware that restricts what components I can easily replace.

      It will have to run on at least as wide a selection of off-the-shelf HW as Linux does before I'd consider it.

    2. Re:No, no, NO! by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      You know, the PC hardware world is a lot less diverse that it used to be back in the OpenStep days.

      Intel has 60-70% of the chipset market. Video cards are handled by "universal" ATI and NVidia drivers (even on PPC). Sound is still kind of screwy, but even there is the AC97 standard and so on. Nobody cares about 8 year old SCSI cards and other legacy parts any more -- the new stuff is so cheap. All DVD and hard drives now look the same from a software perspective. And so on.

      The point here is that it's going to be awfully difficult for Apple to build a PC that doesn't look almost exactly like a Dell or a 'homebuilt shitbox' internally. It's all the same crap nowdays. Therefore any restrictions on OSX booting a stock PC are going to be entirely artificial -- either DRM or some kind of firmware check.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    3. Re:No, no, NO! by SteeldrivingJon · · Score: 1

      " If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with NeXTStep, you were SOL."

      It wasn't quite that bad, especially later in the OPENSTEP days.

      I even upgraded my motherboard so I could upgrade the CPU, and it worked without a hiccup.

      They also added a VESA graphics, so you didn't really need a specific driver for your video card.

      --
      September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA
    4. Re:No, no, NO! by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about how well my current system is running, especially compared to olden days. Did Microsoft get so much better at supporting all my hardware? I don't think so. The makers of my hardware got their act together. nVidia released excellent drivers. Via released excellent drivers. ATi released excellent drivers. Promise released excellent drivers...

      Mac only supports a few configurations, so they only have to make good drivers for a few things. And some of them aren't even done by them (see ATi).

      Any driver/configuration issues would be related to the manufacturer. Just as we all know that nVidia released great Linux drivers and ATi hasn't, and that a Linux user should buy an nVidia graphics card, we might soon know that Mac OSx86 users should buy ATi and not nVidia.

  79. so where the hell is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    jeez guys about 100 comments posted already and not a single link?

    slashdot is slacking today!

    a disturbence in the force, I sense...

  80. agreed by sbma44 · · Score: 4, Informative

    no hint of it on the big trackers, nobody on IRC has seen it... looks like a fake to me.

    1. Re:agreed by Jicksta · · Score: 4, Informative

      No sign on Usenet either.

    2. Re:agreed by Woy · · Score: 1

      Plus that thing about someone finding it on a p2p network: if you do a search on edonkey, you will probably find _anything_ you look for. It searches by name. Of course, when you actually finish downloading it, it will be renamed farm porn.

      That's just the great thing about the Internet: there's nobody to stop you from showing the world how little you know.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    3. Re:agreed by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

      Not that I can see either. But then again, a bastard child like this might need a little scouring with how unusual it is....

      --
      In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    4. Re:agreed by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 1

      Not really so with usenet though, and he said he couldn't locate on there.

    5. Re:agreed by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

      looks like a fake to me as well... :-( Bummer I wanted to test it out on my wife's laptop.

      --
      Your Average Joe
    6. Re:agreed by Woy · · Score: 1

      I mean that the article states that they found it in some p2p. This thread is a sequence of people stating that they can't find it and i'm offering a possible explanation.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    7. Re:agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the article does not say that. I emailed the author (jharrell@mac.com) and he said it was on a password-protected FTP server. He also said he wouldn't give the address.

    8. Re:agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not on those sites either according to all the pre bots I've checked and all the sites I'm on. Nobody in the scene has seen it either.

    9. Re:agreed by doomy · · Score: 1

      No sign on the pigeon networks either. Must be a dud.

      --
      ...free your source and the rest would follow...
    10. Re:agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TKA (torrentskickass.com) had it (it's deactivated), but could be a fake. Size: 956.48 MB

  81. PC or Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if one were to hypothetically look for this on their favorite torrent site, would it be in the Mac section, or the PC section?

  82. Re:Torrent by cymen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's a torrent of OS X for PPC! Pretty damn sure at least. This story is about the x86/Intel version of OS X that hasn't even been shipped yet (note the date on that file - 4.17.05).

  83. When do secure operating systems become secure??? by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    only after 100 million users have it and there are viruses, spyware, adware and trojans. Then big smart company XYZ says we are making a secure OS and will commence patching all the holes we have made.

    or

    Do you think secure OS design starts long before the users have it and the hackers break it?

    --
    Your Average Joe
  84. Shut up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your post is not funny and has nothing to do with the article. Fucking idiots...

  85. Re:Torrent by taskforce · · Score: 1

    I haven't been able to find it on any Bittorrent networks yet, it must be only newsgroups so far.

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
  86. Re:If I wanted FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah but you ain't got Cocoa, Aqua, iXXXX, ease of use, etc.

    but you do get a fast non-microkernel (Mach sucks) free environment so it's a trade-off.

  87. Re:If I wanted FreeBSD by ceeam · · Score: 1

    Can you be any more elitist narcisist asshole? Tell us how your FreeBSD runs iPhoto for example?

  88. Re:Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, don't worry. The odds are good that it'll hit torrent within a day...two days, at most.

  89. the apple strategy as a lymeric by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quothe Bill Gates "longhorn draws the noose tighter"
    Who smiled as he rode on a Tiger
    They returned from the ride
    with intel inside
    and the smile on the face of the Tiger.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  90. other Apple developer releases..... by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

    the other developer releases for OS X have been made so they can not be upgraded with non-developer updates.

    meaning if you have the dev builds of 10.4 (or whatever) when the official version ships you have to wipe that drive and reinstall the shipping product. you can download the updates to the developer builds (not sure if they track who downloads that), but when the final thing ships you will have to get another copy.
    then again the actual OS X for Intel will not run on regular PC hardware... so if this story is even true, you will only have a limited time to keep current. the longest these boxes are allowed out in the wild is the end of 2006, but i do not know at what point they will stop doing updates for the software on them.

    wouldn't there be driver issues if somebody tried to install this on their home windows machine? i would think it will only work on limited hardware, if it really works at all.

  91. Rosetta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Why don't you take an hour and listen to Steve Jobs keynote address? You can find it easily on www.apple.com. Or, if you can, skip about half way in to get to the Intel stuff.

    All the PPC apps will run on Intel using Rosetta. Steve brought up a bunch of PPC stuff on the Intel box, including Word, Excel, and Photoshop (with plugings). I believe it translates OP codes on loading, so you don't have the typical emulator slow down.

    1. Re:Rosetta by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Why don't you take an hour and listen to Steve Jobs keynote address?

      Can I get my hour back afterwards?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Rosetta by pohl · · Score: 1

      If it stops you from spending an hour on disinformative slashdot threads, yes.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  92. Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 by drxray · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've extracted the serial number from the version I downloaded, and it's SJOBS_000001. Whatever could it mean?

    --
    Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    1. Re:Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      Where did you download it from? HUH HUH HUH?!?!?

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    2. Re:Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      Steve Jobs: #1 Dad?

    3. Re:Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 by grefyne · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows Steve Jobs is enployee number 0, except the payroll software which couldn't handle anything below 1.

    4. Re:Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OSX doesn't have a serial (or CDKEY).

    5. Re:Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Anyone else here think that it was a good thing Steve Jobs' parents didn't name him Han?

      Incoming! Negative Mod Points!

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    6. Re:Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 by davesag · · Score: 1

      weird, mine says "4891-ereh-saw-dlefztreHydnaA"

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    7. Re:Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > OSX doesn't have a serial (or CDKEY).

      OSX Server does. It's certainly conceivable that they put it on the x86 developer preview as well (it might even be Server).

  93. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    baaaaaahahahahhahahahahahaha
    come on, i'm a mac user and even i find that hilarious.

  94. Re:Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, that's a torrent for OSX Tiger for apple.
    And anyways, the link is down.

  95. You can't download an iPod.... by phillymjs · · Score: 1

    ...so it's much harder to casually obtain one without paying for it.

    Plus, those "cheap hardware" fanboys all own iRivers or whatever and mock the iPod.

    ~Philly

  96. The main reasons we know it's fake by objekt · · Score: 1

    No one apart from developers has it and no one has reported running it on a non-Apple machine.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
  97. Re:Torrent by sucker_muts · · Score: 1

    Yeah indeed, got carried away there. Didn't think enough so it slipped my mind the PPC version gets pirated too...

    --
    Dependency hell? => /bin/there/done/that
  98. Leaks and apple history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think the apple's crackdown on the leaks of tiger might now be better understood. Most folks thought apple was being a bit more draconian than usual in persuing journalist/bloggers who also leaked secrets of things like the the still missing "Asteroid".

    Maybe we can now look back and think that perhaps they had something big planned and were all paranoid about security. Even AsSeenOnTV never hinted he knew about this. The internal security must have been ramped up and apple was clearing house ahead of time to plug leakers.

  99. Are we talking about this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Are we talking about this here? by GizmoToy · · Score: 1

      Apple PPC version is what you linked to. This story is about the Intel version.

    2. Re:Are we talking about this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's 10.4 for the current PPC Macs. Check the date added (April 27th)

    3. Re:Are we talking about this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That's for PPC

    4. Re:Are we talking about this here? by Khakionion · · Score: 1

      Somehow, I doubt it; that torrent was added on April 26.

      --
      OMG! Wau!
  100. What leaked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FreeBSD-x86 + Desktop?

    If so, can I take "Desktop" and use it with linux?
    Can I take FreeBSD-x86 and use it with KDE?

    Oh yes, it's illegal to use the aqua theme!

  101. Linux, OS-X, freedom, and ease of use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is free as in beer, and free as in freedom. It's also a PITA.

    OS-X works very well and and smoothly and is the polar opposite of a PITA, but it's not free as in beer nor free as in freedom.

    Which is likely to do better on x86?

  102. Re:Torrent by thenewcloo · · Score: 1

    This is definitely a torrent for Tiger for PPC. Just look at the comments...

  103. I just downloaded it... by meisterk · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... it definitely feels snappier.

    1. Re:I just downloaded it... by DiegoLM · · Score: 0

      I dont believe you. Where is the torrent? whheeeeerrreeeee fakfe fake fake

    2. Re:I just downloaded it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need this torrent, I DO NEED this, where, where?

    3. Re:I just downloaded it... by cymen · · Score: 1

      I feel the snap too. The snap of drifting off in thought of running OS X on my PC. Of Apple theoretically releasing some version that would be horrible for their business model but would allow me to buy a legal copy of the OS for my homebuilt systems. Ah.... Snap!

    4. Re:I just downloaded it... by aeror · · Score: 1

      Then you must have a really fast connection.. liar..

    5. Re:I just downloaded it... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      *whoosh*

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    6. Re:I just downloaded it... by FrothyBitter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Apple theoretically releasing some version that would be horrible for their business model"

      Horrible for their current business model, but an excellent business model none the less. Or do you think Apple's business model is better than Microsoft's? Making 50 bucks a pop off the sale of 1 billion units of an OS is a little bit more than making 500 bucks a pop off the sale of a couple million Macs. About 49 billion dollars more, just ask Bill.

      I also feel it is a dream that will be long in coming, if ever, true. However, that is their own fault. Either they will greedily cling to the high margin business model that has kept them where they are because their greed has blinded them into thinking that they can somehow, someday have a total and complete monopoly on the entire industry. Or they simply don't belive their OS is really good enough to take on Windows head to head.

      Look at all the free publicity Apple got over this Intel announcement. Imagine the impact of announcing, "OS X has a little secret, it's been running on PCs all along, and today is the day we let the Tiger out of the cage."

      EVERYONE would be talking about that, everyone. Not just some tech sites, and a blurb on TV business shows. It would be front page headline news on every paper across the globe. It would be on every news show, Letterman and Leno would be joking about what Bill Gates was going to do to answer this, Opra would have Jobs on her show giving away free copies to everyone in the audience... just imagine the rest for yourself.

      I honestly believe that had Steve said that last Monday, the only thing stopping Apple from having more market share than Microsoft today would be the long lines in stores.

      Now, if he does announce it next year, or the year after, people will have been expecting it and it won't have near the impact it would have had Monday.

      Since it is almost a fact that OS X does run on plain Jane PCs, meeting the minimum system requirements. Since the general perception of most people is that OS X is superior. Since people are fed up with spyware and viruses. Since Steve Jobs has the vaccine. I think this proves he isn't the business genius people think he is. People give him far too much credit. He just gave Bill another chance to steal his thunder.

  104. Huh? by samuelsidler · · Score: 0

    Apple on Intel? What the... Did I just sleep through the last week?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      short answer: YES!

      Long answer: YES!!!!

  105. Re:If I wanted FreeBSD by Patik · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This was the worst comment in the history of Slashdot.

  106. Re:An era has passed by Aldric · · Score: 1

    I'll agree they aren't close to being another Microsoft, but that's only because they don't have the power to do it. The attitude is already there.

  107. Re:I gots a new Chebby wid a new BMW engine in it! by mollymoo · · Score: 1
    gotta picture all these guys out there trying ta get OS X ta werk onna their old PCs...

    Jar-jar, is that you?

    --
    Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  108. NuPrometheus League, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As in 1989 leak of the Mac ROM source code. The perps were never caught.

  109. Life must be boring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more i read /. the more i think life must be boring...
    I think i'm going outside, breathing fresh air, listening to the birds singing, staring at the sun, thinking of the spoiled intellectual effort peolple put on replying to these pointless articles.... (To confirm you're not a script, please type the text shown in this image:..... i'am shure it's time for me to look at the blue sky.... what world i'm forced to live in, good-bye cruel world....)

    1. Re:Life must be boring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody holds you back, go... and may the force be with you...

    2. Re:Life must be boring... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO! None may leave. Nothing outside geekdom exists. If there did, /. would report it - they report anything, no matter how pointless. If /. doesn't report it, it doesn't exist...therefore sedx and the outside world do NOT exist.

      Those who go into the light get burned...no...Don't....STOP!!!! DON'T OPEN THAT DOOR> the sun is one massive fusion reaction - it's rays are radioactive...you'll die....Noooooooooooo!

  110. HONESTLY! by KajiCo · · Score: 1

    Who didn't see that fucking coming?

  111. Re:If I wanted FreeBSD by maniac/dev/null · · Score: 1

    Wow, a Mac user calling other people elitist narcisists? I guess FreeBSD is totally flawed due to its lack of one particular application, of which there are probably open-source tools to do the same thing. Get back to your Starbucks and your iPod and let the men handle this, Nancy.

  112. Sneakernet. by argent · · Score: 1

    Or bootnet, or sandalnet.

    Homer was the first software pirate.

  113. Bittorrent is for legal distribution right? by Jeehoba · · Score: 1

    Like this torrent here right?

    1. Re:Bittorrent is for legal distribution right? by drwho · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is the Intel vesion.I say this because nowhere in the title or page is intel or x86 mentioned, and also it was released on the 12th of April -- whereas the article mentions this 'just' became available.

      So, yeah, a torrent like this -- but for x86.

    2. Re:Bittorrent is for legal distribution right? by W00dyW00d · · Score: 1

      You say oh well look this can distribute illegal software. Well what about every other protocol that is used for illegal distributing. Should FTP be illegal, you can search and find piracy all over that. Even on plain http? Here is a great example why its good. twit.tv, Leo and the guys podcast hundreds of thousands of people download that weekly there is no possible way they could handle that on a small budge without p2p like bittorrent. Bittorrent has a lot of good and people are always looking at the bad sides of things. W00d

  114. I want it by Viadd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sounds great, but I don't have any intel machines.

    Can you run it under Virtual PC on the G5?

  115. Not a Phoenix BIOS, and story still is shaky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The development machine uses an Intel chipset, an Intel CPU, a Phoenix BIOS

    It does not use a Phoenix BIOS.

    It uses an Intel-branded BIOS, and this is plastered *all over* in the BIOS configuration itself. (No, really. No matter what xlr8yourmac says. Because, well, xlr8yourmac couldn't even figure out how to *get into* the BIOS, even though it's as simple as just holding F2 at boot.)

    Further, it's still extremely unlikely that this story is accurate, because:

    - While it would have been possible, it would have been unlikely for someone to have imaged/copied the entire contents of the drive, and even if they did, it's unlikely it would run on generic x86 hardware because:

    - No, there aren't any fingerprints, but the problem is that even Darwin x86 supports an *extremely narrow* range of hardware. Mac OS X/Intel's support is just as narrow. You can hardly take this and install it on any PC.

  116. What if I don't want to run it on a s***box? by argent · · Score: 1

    That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass.

    I don't care about G5 performance. If I could get Mac mini performance on a Thinkpad instead of having to buy one of Apple's s***box laptops to get a laptop running OS X, even if it cost as much as a Mac mini just to buy that copy of OS X, I'd buy it.

    1. Re:What if I don't want to run it on a s***box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Apple should change their business strategy because of a single customer's wish.

      Really, I don't understand why, of all the smart people here, arguments based on a single anecdote, personal wishes, etc., are so prevalent. Who gives a damn about what you want if in the end it could kill a company? Especially when we talk about a luxury item. So you don't wanna buy an Apple laptop. So what?

  117. Apple vs. Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem with your reasoning is that most people who buy Dells do not realize that they are "shitboxes."

    Just as Apple has a reality-distortion field, Dell does, too. People think they are higher-quality, and that their service makes the deal worth while.

    Many otherwise capable system administrators buy in to this all the time.

    These people will not think, "Dells suck and therefore I'll wait to by a PfourMac next year." They're already deluded enough to buy Dells... x86 Max on the scene won't change that.

  118. One good reason, one bad reason. by argent · · Score: 1

    Good reason: buffer overflows are easier on x86 than RISC because the instruction set is denser. This does lower the bar a bit, but it won't make any difference to most of us for a year.

    Bad reason: "the only reason OS X doesn't have as many viruses as Windows is because it's not as popular". This one has been disproved a bunch of times, but it's still a popular meme among Microsoft apologists.

    1. Re:One good reason, one bad reason. by nuggetman · · Score: 1

      Bad reason: "the only reason OS X doesn't have as many viruses as Windows is because it's not as popular". This one has been disproved a bunch of times, but it's still a popular meme among Microsoft apologists.


      I always shoot that reason down. Simply because it's touted so much, if that were really the case there's some exper virus writer who would pick up a cheapo used Mac and get coding on a virus

      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    2. Re:One good reason, one bad reason. by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      Fully agreed.

    3. Re:One good reason, one bad reason. by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Plenty of the virus-coding bozos out there would love to impress their peers and make a name for themselves by being the first to come up with a real OS X virus, yet in five years, nobody's been able to do it.

      Anyone who believes it's simply because nobody's been trying to come up with one seriously needs to remove their sphincter from around their neck.

      ~Philly

  119. Smoking from Microsoft's Crack Pipe? by argent · · Score: 1

    And all those thinking this will benefit Apple, are smoking from the same Crack Pipe.

    Windows and Office benefited enormously from "Pirate Domain" distribution, over the long term. Would Apple benefit the same way? I don't know. Whether Apple did this deliberately? Probably not, but it's not impossible: Steve Jobs is pretty savvy about this kind of stuff (according to Cory Doctorow anyway) and he's hardly a babe in the woods when it comes to the computer underground.

  120. Subject: British Literature by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 1

    Specific Subject: The Death by Drowning of Percy Bysshe Shelley.

    It has long been reported that: "On July 8, 1822, less than a month before his 30th birthday, Shelley drowned in a sudden storm while sailing back from Pisa and Livorno to Lerici in his schooner, the Don Juan." --Wikipedia

    The Wikipedia quoted above is accurate. The Drowning of Shelley is one of the facts that I remember from British Litt..

    While it's true that Shelly died from asphyxiation, it is not true that he drown as reported above. The whole story of his drowning was PR cover for the true cause of his death by asphyxiation.

    The real cause of Shelly's asphyxiation is that he choked to death. Specifically he choked on his own poetry.

    --
    "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
  121. Re:An era has passed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why you have been modded down because Apple and Macs as we knew them are finished. History. dead. There is no Mac anymore, just Job's ego running on Intel, that might be enough for the Intel lovers, but the Mac and everything it stood for is no more.

    Apple computers are finshed. Oh they might have some deal with Intel to carry them for a while as their sales of new Macs fall to zero but at the end of the day it's not going to work, is it ? Mac OS X is on a path set out by Steve Jobs to becoming it's own version of Windows. There is no doubt about that. There is no doubt Jobs leaked the Intel switch stuff before WWDC. There is no doubt Apple have already accepted the fact that Mac OS X will run on generic boxes and have already planned for that certainty. They will sell Mac OS X to generics, make no mistake. Also make no mistake this development version was leaked by Jobs.

    Finally understand that Apple's own trained team of sock puppets are rampant talking up their products and spinning against sceptics on every forum on the net.

  122. The specs on the Intel PowerMac by nbahi15 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Based upon the specs and pictures of the box the Intel PowerMac it is most likely an Intel Desktop Board D915GUX. This has the GMA900 onboard graphics adapter and DDR-2 memory that xlr8yourmac.commentioned. It also has the same layout as the photos of the PowerMac board.

    1. Re:The specs on the Intel PowerMac by MojoStan · · Score: 1
      Based upon the specs and pictures of the box the Intel PowerMac it is most likely an Intel Desktop Board D915GUX.

      Actually, based on the specs you linked to, I think it's more likely an Intel D945GTP motherboard. The necessary features that the D945GTP has built-in (and the D915GUX lacks) are SATA-2 (945 chipset) and FireWire 400.

      The D945GTP also accepts dual-core processors. I bet someone will needlessly benchmark a dual-core Pentium D OS X development system against a dual-processor G5 PowerMac.

      --
      TO START
      PRESS ANY KEY

      Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

    2. Re:The specs on the Intel PowerMac by nbahi15 · · Score: 1

      I saw this. But the video card is wrong. That is why I thought it must be the 915 chipset.

    3. Re:The specs on the Intel PowerMac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not an Intel D915GUX, though it's probably very close. It's a custom board without any ATX I/O connectors (or even pads for them). No logos or model numbers on the board.

  123. fanaticism by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    show me a fanatic, and i'll show you an inherent desire for power. all of us little apple obsessed trolls have simply been waiting for this, so that we can run through the computing wolrd raping an pillaging...

    shiny little apple! just gaze at it a little longer.

  124. They do fingerprint developer seeds. by argent · · Score: 1

    Because we all know that Apple uses serial numbers, copy protection and fingerprinting all over their place in Mac OS X. Not.

    On developer seeds they do. That's how they track down people who post developer releases.

    1. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      They tracked down the Tiger 8A294 seed through the torrent site that hosted it. Not through any form of fingerprint. Since the seed is delivered as DMG* from the web site, there is no means of fingerprinting it unless you were to put a thousand different DMGs on the Akamai servers -- which I'd argue they don't. ;-)

      *) They are disk images, ready for mounting, burning, converting, etc. Developers alternatively can retrieve burned media from Apple, but fingerprinted media aren't feasible either, as someone else already mentioned, as this would mean custom-burning ever single disc, rather than pressing them.

    2. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by enosys · · Score: 1

      No, they don't have to make a new file for every customer. Downloads could go through a program which inserts the fingerprint.

    3. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by Chucker23N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've explained already why that isn't the case, one: the file format, DMG, doesn't support such fingerprinting. It lets you easily convert to ISO as well as other imaging formats, and it lets you burn a DVD. You can open the images Apple creates in non-Apple-related software, on non-Apple-related operating systems, so if there was a fingerprint, it would be uneffective, since it can't reside inside the actual *data* of the image.

      Second, Apple also distributes media via snail mail, rather than images through downloading, and as I've explained, it unfeasible to fingerprint those.

    4. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by enosys · · Score: 1
      Why can't the fingerprint be inside the data of an image? It could be as simple as altering a single text file or some place in some executables. They could even put it in free space in the last block allocated by a file but after the end of that file. You just need to know the offset to write to. It would be harder if the DMG was compressed but it would still be possible.

      As for snail mail, are they burned or pressed? If they're burned it's easy to add some fingerprinting.

    5. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      You said:
      "Downloads could go through a program which inserts the fingerprint."

      That suggests taking the disk image and wrapping a fingerprint *around* it, no?

      If you're talking taking the disk image, mounting it, editing it, then serving it to the user: *way* too complex to accomplish. These files are being distributed over plain old FTP servers, without any delay, so I maintain that there's no such preprocessing being done.

    6. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by enosys · · Score: 1
      No, I meant something like the downloads going through a CGI program. Instead of returning a file the web server executes a program and sends back the output of the CGI program. The program just reads from the DMG file and sends that for parts that are unaffected by the fingerprint. When sending parts affected by the fingerprint it reads from the file, applies the fingerprinting, and sends that altered data. It is easy to do. There doesn't have to be any delay because fingerprinting can be *much* faster than a download, and it is being done in parallel with the download.

      I didn't know they used FTP servers but there must be some way to do this with FTP servers as well.

    7. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's impossible, and I know that you were referring to some wrapper script on a web server, be it through CGI, PHP or whatever. However, I still find it hard to believe that a HTTP, FTP, or whatever server would be fast enough to go through an encoded and compressed (albeit not encrypted*) 2.6 GiB file and add fingerprints to it.

      *) Another point, in fact. Why don't they just add encryption to it, based on the login/password of the ADC user?

    8. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they just add encryption to it, based on the login/password of the ADC user?

      Because that would require re-encrypting it for each person, which would take several minutes. If this is a download from an FTP server, that would be too long.

    9. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by Shanep · · Score: 1

      However, I still find it hard to believe that a HTTP, FTP, or whatever server would be fast enough to go through an encoded and compressed (albeit not encrypted*) 2.6 GiB file and add fingerprints to it.

      They could be pre-computed differences, which would be very fast come prime time.

      *) Another point, in fact. Why don't they just add encryption to it, based on the login/password of the ADC user?

      That would be good. With a seperate decryptor which also adds fingerprints based on that unique key and decryption time.

      Of course, this is all just chit chat at /. and as you've said, time will tell.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    10. Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      "
      Because that would require re-encrypting it for each person"

      Just like adding a fingerprint would require editing the disk image for each person. A proper, hard to discover and even harder to remove finger print takes just as much CPU time to add as encryption, no?

  125. Re:If I wanted FreeBSD by jdog1016 · · Score: 1

    Please refrain from making comments about topics you know nothing about. OS X is not FreeBSD; it simply contains a large amount of FreeBSD code. It does not use the FreeBSD kernel, nor does it use any of the shitty graphical interfaces or applications that FreeBSD shares with Linux. It is an entirely different system. And frankly, many of us that use FreeBSD have paid for at least one release anyway--why haven't you?

  126. Won't affect Apple, transition, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So some nerds are going to play around with OS X on their white boxes. Is this a secret ploy by Apple to gain market share? Is this an Earth shattering development that will forever change the OS landscape? Give me a break! Leaked copies of OS X for X86 will have the same overall effect on Apple and its transition to Intel as PlayFair and other similar software have had on the iTunes Music Store. It will barely register.

    The real annoyance for me as a Mac user is now I've got a bunch of unwelcome guests trampling through my living room. I loved the phrase "just buy a Mac," which actually meant "good luck coming up with the money required to join our club you cheap son-of-a-bitch." Now Apple's forced us to share our club with a bunch of freeloaders. Sigh.

  127. Re:An era has passed by tktk · · Score: 1
    Speaking as a fanatic and for my fanatic friends : Woohoo!

    Speaking as a stockholder and for a smaller number of stockholder friends : Woohoo!

  128. Smart Cows by argent · · Score: 1

    Now, assuming that the dev kit *will* time-bomb, this would be a brilliant move. Of course, it might still be hacked, but the fact of the matter is that only a very, very small subset of the potential market will bother will figuring out the hack to keep it running.

    All it takes is one "forensic programmer" to break any copy protection or time bomb Apple has on this software, and the broken version or the recipe will be all over the place. It's called the "smart cow" problem (eg: last line of this story).

  129. Design matter by justine_avalanche · · Score: 0

    Hi,

    I don't care *that* much what cpu is inside my mac, but I do care about the actual OS (solid, useable) and THE LOOK OF THE MACHINE.

    I, for one, hope Apple will not just become a software vendor only because they design the most beautiful machines today. Design matters.

    (writing from an imac g5).

    1. Re:Design matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THE LOOK OF THE MACHINE.

      hahahaha

      fag

      Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  130. That's one Prim3 pi3c3 of wAr3Z by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nice, thanx Steve

  131. MOD PARENT DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Playing on the /.ers willingness to believe whatever they read in order to toy with them even more than this incorrect-speculation-reported-as-news does is just cruel, yo.

  132. How did this leak so fast? by WouldIPutMYRealNameO · · Score: 1

    I thought that developers would still be at WWDC, and that it would take a couple of weeks for them to get their machines.
    And the other thing is, surely Apple didn't just give them a nice install DVD - they would have just preinstalled the system.

    Now, if it has leaked already, and Apple did give them a nice, easily installable DVD - then yes I think that Apple has done this deliberately. If Apple doesn't bother to go after the leaker, or can't find them - then this is an Apple "release".

    --
    Damnit - I wanted my nick to be "WouldIPutMYRealNameOnSlashdot"
  133. The popularity myth. by argent · · Score: 1

    how will it deal with an increase in viruses, worms, and trojans.

    Currently there are zero "live" worms or viruses for OS X.

    So any at all would be a "dramatic increase", but it'd take a lot more than a "dramatic increase" to get to the point where it's even a minor annoyance for anyone who's smart enough to figure out that they didn't REALLY win a million dollar lottery in Nigeria.

    See, the biggest potential holes that have been found in Mac OS X aren't one-step exploits like the nasty ones that really kicked off the big flood of Outlook worms back in the '90s... they're more like accelerators for social engineering attacks, you still have to convince the victim to open a file or attachment. Even if you catch someone you can still drop a Dashboard widget on, they still have to run it.

    Not that these holes are OK, but they're only tiny steps down the road to Internet Exploiter.

  134. leak here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    Mac OS X 10.4 - Tiger WWDC beta

    http://mininova.org/tor/314

    http://mininova.org/get/314/tiger.dmg.torrent

    I haven't check if it's real yet.

    1. Re:leak here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That was uploaded in january

    2. Re:leak here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .dmg is a apple disk image - its the ppc release, not the x86 build

    3. Re:leak here by mwooller · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was the WWDC last year where attendees got a beta of Tiger.

  135. wouldn't it be cool!!! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    Unoffical or not, OSX even pirated for x86 would be signalling the start of a war!!! Being as apple has no intention to sell it as a product anyway a "leak" wouldn't hurt them. It would just get more people to try it out and ready and waiting at the gates for the release of intel hardware... and spike the sales of cheap Mac Mini's in the meantime.

    Frankly, I think Apple needs to shore up OSS on linux just to get people off windows. Like the KHTML issue, iTMS on windows already runs that code! I'd be another shot at MS to open up the browser in iTunes Windows... and because it's based on a Linux browser, OSS people would already be in the loop. All they have to do now is get OASIS formats into their pre-installed iLife + iWork and they'll be golden for cross platform work. The only real thing Apple needs for Linux to be "complete" is iTunes and Quicktime made just for linux...it would fill a lot of the legal media on OSS issues [heck they could sneak a DVD player in their just for fun!] ... even if they just had to "WINE" it so it can't be hacked as easily. Remember, all the x86 machines out there aren't future sales, but the network effect of co-opting them for NOT-windows would turn the tide on the NEXT round of hardware purchases. If apple would just roll over and choose SDL for gaming then Linux gaming would also be a recompile away.. and windows would be the "odd boy out"

    It's right there, MS is distracted, take it if you can!!!

    1. Re:wouldn't it be cool!!! by iJed · · Score: 1

      iTunes has nothing to do with KHTML/webcore. It uses a completely proprietary XML based viewer.

  136. Re:Nutter Conspiracy stories on /. what a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, what makes more sense? a corporate conspiracy to have everyone pirate your sw and destroy your HW biz. Or some individual idiot working at a SW Dev looking for some notoriety.

    Irrelevant to the point being discussed. Nobody is suggesting that Jobs is out there uploading this thing to Kazaa himself.

    But here's what he did do. He allowed developer kit machines outside the door running a version of Mac OS X for Intel that is *not tied to the hardware*. Yeah, details are still sketchy, but it looks like there are no serial numbers, no watermarked binaries, and certainly nothing akin to a ROM check (ala old school Macs). This thing is "free as a bird," baby. It runs on vanilla hardware.

    Now, when the consumer Intel Macs hit I'm sure that won't be the case - Apple has said as much. So why the oversight now? They just didn't have time? This thing has been in development for five years. Dude, this is an "intentional oversight" for reasons that appear obvious to everyone but you. Read on.

    And all those thinking this will benefit Apple, are smoking from the same Crack Pipe. ...
    Those who pirate the OS to sit alongside windows are never going to buy it. It will always be second fiddle to their windows install that has all the applications. A curiousity to play with and if they decide to keep it around, well they will just look for a newer version to pirate.


    It's going to expire, there are no patches, etc. This isn't a viable operating system for everybody out there. Mom and Dad and the Fortune 500 aren't going to run a hacked up pirated OS either, even if it were.

    But Mom and Dad's geeky son in the basement, who by the way has final approval over all technology purchased by the parental units (wouldn't it be great to convert him to Mac?), just might. Pete the Windows developer who's never paid much attention to the Mac (wouldn't it be great to convert him to Mac?) - but intrigued by all this Intel talk and with a BitTorrent trigger-finger - just might. Bob the Mac shareware developer who can't afford to drop $999 on a developer kit - just might. Joe the Microsoft Hater who downloads every new distro of Linux praying for one that'll be easy enough for him to use, just might. And so on.

    And here's my official prediction: the network effects and marketing effects described above are going to be so strong, and so beneficial to Apple, with such little downside, that whatever protection goes into the final Intel Mac OS X is going to be relatively weak. Because it exists at all, Apple will keep 99% of their Mac sales. And the lost revenues from that odd 1% - who are willing to run hacks, limit their hardware choices, dual boot, and put up with various and other sundry bullshit - will be worth far more to Apple than that lost 1% of revenues...

  137. What to do......(Segmentation Fault) by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 1

    Urge to Steal.... Rising.... But.... OSX Fanboy bent on someday getting Powerbook.... Not....Christian.... To....Steal....

    --
    In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
    1. Re:What to do......(Segmentation Fault) by KillShill · · Score: 1

      but is it "christian" to infringe copyright?

      THAT is the question.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
  138. In soviet russia... by tuggy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...Tiger(s) leaks you!

  139. Think Secret: Tiger x86 Source Code Leaked Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just kidding...that's about as believeable as this story though. Stop giving all us PeeCee guys boners for god's sake. It's at least a year away!

  140. This reinforces Apple's antitrust tying problem by Animats · · Score: 1, Interesting
    This punches a hole in Apple's strategy. The question is, can Apple compel users to run Apple's operating system only on Apple's hardware. In general, that's a "tie-in sale", where you have to buy B to buy A.

    There are four elements to a per se tying violation:

    1. the tying and tied goods must be two separate products;
    2. the defendant must have market power in the tying product market;
    3. the defendant must afford consumers no choice but to purchase the tied product from it; and
    4. the tying arrangement must forclose a not insubstantial volume of commerce in the tied product.

    With the proposed tying of MacOS x86 to Apple hardware, we clearly have 2, 3, and 4. Apple's only defense is that the OS is an "integral part" of the hardware/software offering.

    That defense just blew up. If you can run the thing on a stock PC, clearly the tying and tied goods are separate products.

    This is an area where software/hardware companies consistently have lost. IBM lost decades ago, which created the IBM compatible mainframe market. Sony lost in the Connectix case. There will be cheap Mac clones from China, and Apple won't be able to stop them.

    1. Re:This reinforces Apple's antitrust tying problem by sanchz14 · · Score: 0

      apple does not have market power in the tying product market (the operating system market)

    2. Re:This reinforces Apple's antitrust tying problem by Senjutsu · · Score: 1

      "Tying" is only illegal if you're a monopoly in the market.

    3. Re:This reinforces Apple's antitrust tying problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how is this different from having to buy apple hardware (Macs) in order to use Mac OS X (current version)?

    4. Re:This reinforces Apple's antitrust tying problem by Animats · · Score: 1
      If the tying product is protected by patent or copyright the existence of market power should be presumed. See Data General vs. Digidyne.

      Data General vs. Digidyne is very similar to the Apple/MacOS situation. Data General manufactured both Nova minicomputers and the RDOS operating system to run on them. Digidyne manufactured a Nova clone. Data General was not the dominant minicomputer manufacturer at the time. The appelate court held that Data General's requirement that RDOS could only be run on Data General hardware was an illegal tie-in sale. The Supreme Court declined to review, so that's the law in the US.

      This is an area where combined software/hardware manufacturers have consistently lost.

  141. Yeah, whatever... by MassacrE · · Score: 1

    First:
    Has anyone actually seen a torrent of this? has anyone seen it available for download someplace? Expect it to be > 1 single-layer DVD.
    I think the "anonymous reader" is just making shit up.
    Second:
    This runs on very limited hardward. Mind-bogglingly limited hardware. If you do not have the exact board the DTK ships with, it will not work. You could conceivably hack Darwin to support more hardware, but you aren't going to add any sort of good graphics driver support, because all newer video hardware drivers are closed-source (I blame the DVD consortium and Macrovision).
    Finally:
    There is no promise that the existing DTK will continue to work in the future. This build of the OS may be the only thing that ever runs on them.

    The only conceivable ways a non-Apple hardware vendor will ever ship with OS X is by
    1) operating illegally
    2) Apple providing the hardware boxes to be branded per Apple's allowances ("HP iMac"), or
    3) making a deal requiring that Apple "blesses" and fully QA's the OEM's hardware.

    If you doubt this, go find a Mac and look at the "Display" control panel. Then compare this to the windows equivalent clusterfuck. This is only possible because Apple, not some random vendor, defines the UI to meet the needs of their users across their limited supported hardware vendors. Supported features get rolled out in new hardware and in the OS simulataneously, unlike the Microsoft world.

  142. AAAHHH, MY EYES!!!! by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

    Although you probably figured it out by now, don't click on that link.

  143. Crying Wolf by argent · · Score: 1

    10.3 added notifications of apps being launched for the first time under certain circumstances

    10.4 seeks confirmation on the first launch of a Dashboard Widget

    They've also added a bit to the root password prompt telling you what privelege is being sought

    This kind of approach is one of the first things that Microsoft tried to alleviate the risks created by their approach to Active X security in the HTML control. The problem is that usually these dialog boxes are "crying wolf", so people become used to automatically answering "yes" to them like they answer "yes" to "do you really want to overwrite this file" or "do you really want to leave this secure website".

    Even Firefox's XPI installer bothers me, and that requires about 5 clicks to whitelist a site, then you have to click on the link again and wait through a countdown before you can OK it. If you need to put that many warning layers in front of a potentially dangerous action, maybe that's a sign that you shouldn't be doing it.

    But IE? Oh, man, I have had users come to me multiple times saying "Peter, I'm sorry, I clicked OK again, and now I think I have a virus". And, yeh, they do. Same people. These are the people who provide the pools of infected machines that keep Windows viruses alive.

    There's a better approach.

    I've never had someone come to me twice with a story like "I downloaded an attachment to my desktop and opened it and now I'm infected". It's easy to learn not to be "social engineered" this way, because there's no urgency, there's no pressure to click on SOMETHING on the dialog box just to get it out of your way to get back to work.

    So...

    Don't automatically open, execute, install, launch, or activate any object you click on in a web browser, unless you're opening or otherwise running it under a sandbox that you have a good reason to believe is designed to be as secure as the browser itself. Don't ask the user "should I do a potentially dangerous thing", just don't do it.

    That's the pre-internet-explorer standard. With very few exceptions (and I've touched on one, and I'll get to others) this is the standard for every browser but Internet Explorer. Back in the early '90s, there was a joke going around about the "Good Times" virus. The "Good Times" virus was a virus that could run just by opening an email message. Everyone knew it was a joke because nobody would ever be stupid enough to put that kind of capability in a mail reader. If it happened accidentally, it would be treated as a bug and removed as soon as anyone noticed. I mean, this was obviously impossible.

    Microsoft was that stupid. And Microsoft was not only that stupid, they were arrogant enough to place their plans for world domination by locking people in to Active X over applying the obvious fix. And the result? In the late '90s, email viruses went from "a minor annoyance for people who were smart enough not to believe they really won a million dollers in a Nigerian lottery" to a plague.

    OK, that's Microsoft.

    I don't think Apple's problems in the same area are big enough to make viruses more than a minor annoyance on OS X, no matter what the market share, but I could be wrong... and in any case I'd rather they not even get that far. So, what are the problems and what does Apple have to do to fix them?

    1. There are no such things as "safe files". Turn off "open safe files after downloading" by default, and don't bring up the "I'm about to do something stupid" dialog until someone turns it on again. That'll give people an incentive not to let Safari be stupid, without making things any more annoying for the people who trust "safe files" than they are now.

    2. There's no problem with Dashboard. It's not necessary to try and fix the Dashboard sandbox, because there's no way to effectively give Dashboard a real sandbox without losing the capabilities that make Dashboard useful. Just treat Dashboard as a regular scripting environment for OS X like Apple

    1. Re:Crying Wolf by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see them add an interactive egress filtering interface to IPFW like the one I purchased from Objective Development, and maybe add hooks to Fast User Switching to encourage its use as a sandbox environment.

      Perhaps someone (like myself if I worked at it and managed my time better) could write a Widget that interprets top to show exactly what executable owns processes not shown in the Dock. I also think Dashboard should have much more fine grained preferences regarding both 'net and filesystem access, but I suppose that could also be handled with a Widget.

      And I don't know if you've seen it or not, but the added stuff in the root password request box are not in the form of added stuff to click through, just more info shown in the existing box, so I don't think it really adds to the 'cry wolf' syndrome.

      And personally, I use the ultimate sandbox: the iBook I'm typing this on. My G4 isn't air gapped from the 'net or anything, but any non-Apple stuff I install for the first time goes here first so I can check it out in an environment that contains nothing I actually care much about. I love my iBook, and I'd hate to lose it, but I treat it as something that could be stolen at any moment as far as data on the drive goes (and that includes stored passwords, etc.)

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:Crying Wolf by argent · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see them add an interactive egress filtering interface to IPFW like the one I purchased from Objective Development

      I can think of a bunch of easy ways to avoid egress filtering, particularly when most of your apps are in Objective C and Rentszch has documented so well how to insert a thread in a running application.

      The firewall's controls are inside the security boundary protected by the firewall, so once you launch code inside the firewall attacking the firewall itself becomes possible. The bad guy would probably need to find a local root exploit first, so this is less of an issue than on Windows (where there's already viruses that disable antivirus software, for example) but it's a general weakness in all egress firewalls running on the firewalled computer itself.

      I'd like to have one on a per-user basis, though... it would make your next idea more useful:

      and maybe add hooks to Fast User Switching to encourage its use as a sandbox environment.

      Any sandbox that isn't secure enough to prevent me from running native code isn't secure enough to prevent me from using your computer in a botnet for spamming or DOS attacks, or to prevent me from using a local exploit to get out of the sandbox... and while local exploits are harder than on Windows (where they're practically unnecessary) they're still too big an exposure.

      Something like a FreeBSD "Jail" or a VMware session, where the sandboxed app doesn't have access to any non-volatile state you can't safely delete, would be better. Or chroot combined with the per-user egress firewall, though you need to be really careful setting up the chrooted environment.

      I wonder if using MOM to run OS X under OS X would be an option? Like a sacrificial host (your iBook) it doesn't help with the "stupid dialog" problem but it sure gives you a useful tool when you're concerned with a social engineering attack.

      the added stuff in the root password request box are not in the form of added stuff to click through, just more info shown in the existing box

      Ah. Probably I'm confusing this with the dialog in Dashboard to ask before running native code components.

    3. Re:Crying Wolf by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      I wonder if a less priveleged account could exist entirely within a chroot/Jail-type sandbox. If so, a checkbox could be added to the Users pref that would effectively do that and make it painless for the clueless.

      And here's the dialog I was talking about.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    4. Re:Crying Wolf by argent · · Score: 1

      I wonder if a less priveleged account could exist entirely within a chroot/Jail-type sandbox.

      That would be a sandboxed account. Whatever privileges it has inside that sandbox are still actual privileges.

      My colo box lives in a FreeBSD jail on someone else's box. I can have root in that jail, but I can't access anything outside it.

      See, a sandbox really doesn't fit in the "discretionary access control" model where priviliges apply, it's more of a "mandatory access control" environment where security classifications. A sandboxed process can't even know about anything outside the sandbox (its classification is 'untrusted'), and the only way for it to find out anything about the outside system is for an application outside the sandbox to move objects into it (declassify then).

      You really can't build a sandbox just using discretionary access control techniques.

  144. Re:If I wanted FreeBSD by Doc+Creep · · Score: 1

    You don't browse at -1 much, do you?

  145. A end for microsoft? by rudydog · · Score: 1

    If Mac releases an x86 version of tiger is this the end of Microsoft? Who would not want a good os?

    1. Re:A end for microsoft? by ReNeGaDe75 · · Score: 1

      Many people wouldn't. Not that I agree with it, but it's clear that most Windows users are afraid of anything non-Windows. If you mention Linux to most PC users, they cringe and say "no way" without ever having seen it, read about it, used it, or anyway of having insight.

      At least I have used Linux extensively enough that I made an educated choice to use Windows. Most users won't. Then there's the fact that it's Apple. Don't get me wrong, I love Macs. I own an iBook. But most PC users hate Macs simply because all their PC-loving friends hate Macs and they want to be cool too.

      So in short, there will be users who convert from Windows to Mac/Intel, but nowhere near as many as you think, and definately not the majority. This will NOT be the end of Microsoft, nor should it be. As much as I hate Microsoft's business ethics, we need them around to keep everyone else in check and keep up competition. If Apple destroys Microsoft, then aren't we back at square 1, with one proprietary vendor controlling the entire market? And it'll be worse because Apple makes hardware too. So I think it's important for both Apple and Microsoft to co-exist and compete fiercely.

      --
      Hypocrisy is the 8th deadly sin.
  146. A minor suggestion by trezor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry for being offtopic, but I think the next slashdot poll should be "What sort of scripted and automated action should we take against posts containg the phrase 'Soviet Russia'?"

    Options should range from "Instant permaban" and "Slashdot their servers" to "Order nasty russian hitmen to do what's necessary".

    Seriously though. There should be a slashdot poll on that exact topic.

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    1. Re:A minor suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missing Poll Option: CowboyNeal blahblah...okay, so I didn't think this joke out. Shit.

    2. Re:A minor suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in Soviet Russia, you are the Slashdot poll!

    3. Re:A minor suggestion by staed · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, Slashdot polls you!

    4. Re:A minor suggestion by davesag · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      fine, but in Soviet Russia nasty russian hitmen order you to do what's necessary.

      --
      I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
  147. It will be hacked by LemonFire · · Score: 1

    I remember that we were three guys spending roughly two weeks each working on a very elaborate copy protection scheme for a game of ours. The copy protection was very nifty and used a lot of tricky code. It took less than two hours for a cracker to hack it.
    The lesson learned was that crackers who specialize in hacking software typically don't have any major issues removing crippling code.
    This pattern reoccured for other products. If you look around you will find that almost every product made has been hacked/cracked. Not even hardware dongles will protect you.

    -- This SIG was cracked like a nut.

    1. Re:It will be hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      find me a working hack of logic audio pro 7.1 for OS X then

      seriously...nobody's hacked the emagic xskey on the mac since version 4.7...they are at 7.1. think about it.

      you might see a crack out on the net..but try to make it run. it won't.

      I'm fairly certain this could easily be the tech they use to lock the OS to a system.

    2. Re:It will be hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHA!
      That's because nobody bothered with it.

  148. They don't fingerprint developer seeds? by argent · · Score: 1

    They tracked down the Tiger 8A294 seed through the torrent site that hosted it. Not through any form of fingerprint.

    You got a URL so I can file that one with "the CPU in the XBox is a 3.2 GHz G5" meme?

    Since the seed is delivered as DMG* from the web site, there is no means of fingerprinting it...

    Not being in the developer I don't know the details of how they distribute it. It was reported that Apple fingerprinted the seeds... and since Apple does have the technology to efficiently serve fingerprinted documents already (from iTMS, which has a LOT more customers), you can see how that's not hard to believe.

    And for this project? Lots of small publishers (musicians, software developers, ...) custom-burn every disk. I've done it, and it's no more hassle than hand-packing and hand-labelling in your spare time. Apple's only shipping these computers to select developers, so they could easily afford to cut a custom CD for each box.

    Would they? Well, if it were me I'd do it. But I'm sure as hell no Steve Jobs, so maybe I'm just being overly cautious.

    1. Re:They don't fingerprint developer seeds? by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      The interview at http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/00 0369.html refers and links to the torrent site. A recommended read.

      "and since Apple does have the technology to efficiently serve fingerprinted documents already (from iTMS, which has a LOT more customers), you can see how that's not hard to believe."

      When iTMS was introduced, Steve Jobs stated that
      1) they have DRM on there as per RIAA requirement
      2) he personally is entirely aware that no copy protection is fully effective.

      It doesn't take rocket science to conclude that, when it comes to products Jobs fully has under control -- such as OS X -- he won't apply ideas that he personally doesn't believe in.

      "Apple's only shipping these computers to select developers, so they could easily afford to cut a custom CD for each box."

      Select developers, in this case, is a five-digit number, however.

      "Would they? Well, if it were me I'd do it. But I'm sure as hell no Steve Jobs, so maybe I'm just being overly cautious."

      Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but past experience with Apple, which dates back over 14 years, tells me that they aren't interested in such measures.

    2. Re:They don't fingerprint developer seeds? by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Mac OS X Server, iWork, and Final Cut Pro all require serial numbers. Steve knows that copy protection may not be fully effective, but it can be effective enough.

    3. Re:They don't fingerprint developer seeds? by jizmonkey · · Score: 1
      since Apple does have the technology to efficiently serve fingerprinted documents already (from iTMS, which has a LOT more customers)

      Apple does not serve encrypted iTunes songs -- the songs are sent plain, unencrypted, and the iTunes client software does the encrypting. One of DVDJon's releases showed this.

      --
      With great power comes great fan noise.
    4. Re:They don't fingerprint developer seeds? by Shanep · · Score: 1

      Milk me, honey

      Ouch. She breaks my heart.

      The physical pain dulls the emotional pain? Very sad to see young people hurt themselves.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  149. Yeah, probably fake. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    As someone used to seeing stuff days before it hits store shelves, and seeing leaks like this within hours on IRC, bittorrent, and Usenet... I have to say that if something THIS BIG hasn't shown up on any of those yet, it has to be fake.

    A shame, really. I really wanted to try this. I've been wanting to switch to Mac OS for a long time now, but I wanted it to run on MY hardware. Everyone's always telling me to switch to linux, well...I love linux, but none of the applications I use for *gasp* work run under linux. They do however all run under Mac OS :)

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  150. You sound like an informed person. by itomato · · Score: 1

    Care to site these sources you quote?

    Awful authoritative if you ask me, with all the absolutes in there.

    1. Re:You sound like an informed person. by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      I am stating my opinion, based on past experiences with Apple as well as common sense.

  151. torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  152. Re:Nutter Conspiracy stories on /. what a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not true , I am buying a G5 in one month , yet will download and install this leaked (??) version just ... because I can. (or not... depending if its actually leaked or not)

  153. where the heck is it by pandasonic · · Score: 1

    so.... where could i hipothetically get my hands on it?

    1. Re:where the heck is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  154. Re:If I wanted FreeBSD by wootest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I guess FreeBSD is totally flawed due to its lack of one particular application, of which there are probably open-source tools to do the same thing.

    No, not really - the grandparent poster was pointing out that OS X is not equal to FreeBSD and followed up with a rhetorical question - if this *was* equal to FreeBSD, then how come there are applications, such as iPhoto, that won't run on FreeBSD but will run on OS X? Because it's not equal to FreeBSD, obviously.

    Without resorting to trolling and/or name-calling or casting people into stereotypes (as every other direct ascendent of this comment), let's settle for the facts that a) FreeBSD and OS X are both good, solid OSes with their own benefits, and that b) FreeBSD and OS X are not equal. If you think that OS X has absolutely nothing useful over plain FreeBSD and that you're just happy using FreeBSD, then good for you! Keep using FreeBSD, and keep not using OS X, but there's no need for you to flame others over it (or for others to flame you over it, for that matter).

  155. Re:Torrent by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    looks like a fake, has not appeared on any site... A million nerds looking for it you would think one of us would have found where it is by now...

    --
    Your Average Joe
  156. spend alot for something i've never used? by ezekiel683 · · Score: 1

    if its possible i am tempted to try mac osx via this method however I would never spend thousands for a mac or anything else just to try a os i've never used.
    yeah theres the mac mini but I would at least want to buy a more powerful system for my general needs.
    How does apple expect to sway people like me who would like to try these things and have the cash but are somewhat dubious of parting with alot of money for overpriced hardware that i've used.
    its very difficalt to get my hands on one to even try.
    I cant sit in a apple store for 6+ hours to get a feel

    1. Re:spend alot for something i've never used? by corvair2k1 · · Score: 1

      yeah theres the mac mini but I would at least want to buy a more powerful system for my general needs.

      Don't you have a niche purpose for a computer in your home? File server, or a box for the living room?

      That said, if you wouldn't want to keep the under-powered box around, they have a really high eBay value... You could get just about everything you put in back out.

  157. They're getting good at feature-crippling. by itomato · · Score: 1

    Look at the iPod Shuffle. It's very limited. Chic, but limited.

    Same goes for the Mac Mini. Chic, but hobbled by HD I/O, etc.

    Why would they not apply the same philosophy to some new Intel hardware?

  158. Oh the irony.. by hacker · · Score: 1

    Here's my theory:

    Someone wanted to get their hands on the 10.4.1/Intel build because they couldn't afford it (note, not x86, since nobody said that this would be x86 code in the final release). They posted a story on some obscure Mac forum, knowing that it would get syndicated all the way up to Slashdot and other sites.

    Their goal was to encourage anyone who DID lease the Developer Transition Kit to pirate their copy and put it on the web, so the original poster could download it and run it for free, like the greedy little bastards that they are.

    Note, the Developer Transition Kit is a LEASED machine, by the way. You're leasing the hardware and the OS for the priviledge of having your apps listed as being 100% compatible at Day 1, instead of Day 100. You're not "buying" the machine or the OS, you're renting it for development purposes.

    But now that this story is out, and rumors are flying, you can bet that Steve Jobs and the geniuses at Apple are putting in some solid checks for the OS-against-the-hardware (remember, P4 still has the CPUID built into it). Within a couple of days they should have the OS checking the hardware at bootup, and for any copies found floating around the web (which probably won't run anyway), they'll know exactly which Premiere partner leaked it, based on the code in the OS proper.

    They have a finite number of Developer Transition Kits going out (and it costs $500 to $1300 to join as a Premiere developer to be allowed to get one, on top of your $999 lease fee). You can bet they'll be locking the OS to the hardware now, even if they weren't going to a week or two ago.

    So the original poster just screwed himself, and potentially thousands of other developers who might have wanted to use this platform for development, but couldn't afford the $1,499 to $2,299 to join up and get one.

    I think this is great on all sides.. good work everyone!

  159. Hashes? by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    SHA? MD5?

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  160. Normally I'd agree 100% by argent · · Score: 1

    Normally I'd agree with you, but your "displays" example doesn't really hold water.

    go find a Mac and look at the "Display" control panel. Then compare this to the windows equivalent clusterfuck

    Hmm. On my Mac I have "Displays" and "ATI Displays". On my PC I have a "Display" control panel that seems to combine the Mac "Screen Effects", "Desktop", and "Displays" panels... and in Panther Apple for some weird reason merged "Screen Effects" and "Desktop" into "Desktop and Screen Saver" making the Mac and Windows experience more similar.

    Going back to my PC, the equivalent of the "Displays" control panel is the "Settings" pane on the "Display" control panel. It's absolutely identical on every PC I've used, and provides about the same basic controls as the "Displays" control panel with a slightly different layout.

    Then there's an "Advanced" button. This brings up a dialog provides more features. Some of these features are common to all PC video drivers, others only show up for certain models of cards (for example, a card that doesn't support OpenGL or DirectX doesn't have settings that only make sense on those kinds of cards), but when they're there they're pretty much the same whether it's an nVidia or ATI card that's got those features. There's also a set of tabs with an ATI logo on them. These correspond to the tabs on the "ATI Displays" control panel, but they're a superset of the ones I have on the Mac.

    That last bit is interesting, because even when I had the PC version of this video card, the control panel still gave me access to more features than the Mac control panel does. And, it has the same hardware as the PC version of the card: it's actually possible to use the ROM image from my card to flash the PC version and make it work in a Mac. Why can't I tune the Mac video card the way I can tune the PC one?

    Well, I can do a bit more tweaking by editing the .plist file for the kernel extension under /System..., but not much.

    This is only possible because Apple, not some random vendor, defines the UI to meet the needs of their users across their limited supported hardware vendors.

    Or to put it another way, this is only possible because Apple defines the UI to provide access to the limited feature set they think I need, and doesn't even provide ATI a hook to add new tabs to the Displays control panel the way that can on Windows... so I have two separate control panels where Windows has one, and I need to edit obscure text files to tweak my OpenGL settings the way I want them.

    I don't think this is just because Apple doesn't support as many different video cards.

    1. Re:Normally I'd agree 100% by MassacrE · · Score: 1

      It is because Apple supports video cards. Microsoft just provides a minimal set of options common across all of them, and leaves graphics cards manufacturers on their own. So they differentiate themselves by who can add the most # of rows and nested screens of options that the software utilizing the hardware should be responsible for, and have control over.

      I've never felt the urge to tweak the windows driver to lie about features to various running apps to see if they perform better, I expect when paying $50 for a game that they have tested against the video card I have and have figured the best settings themselves. Of course this is easier for Apple, where you can go into one room in Cupertino and test every released configuration over the last decade.

    2. Re:Normally I'd agree 100% by argent · · Score: 1

      Microsoft just provides a minimal set of options common across all of them,

      The Microsoft options take up two of the three rows of tabs on my PC. The ATI-specific options are in the minority. The only "nested window" is the Advanced window itself.

      I've never felt the urge to tweak the windows driver to lie about features to various running apps to see if they perform better, I expect when paying $50 for a game that they have tested against the video card I have and have figured the best settings themselves.

      It's not the performance of the video card that's the problem. It's the display. Particularly CRT vs LCD. For example, I do find myself tweaking the settings to get the best image on my LCD at the office. At home I've got a really nice Sony Trinitron so it more "just works".

  161. On both chip arcitectures by Snick^ · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Does this mean that there will be high end macs (ppc) and low end macs (intel)?

  162. Live CDs / DVDs by IcarusMoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    as I have been saying since (before) this whole thing started is that Apple should have been (and be) releasing Live CDs (or DVDs) of thier OS. more so now than ever before. People test drive cars, preview movies and music, we try BEFORE we buy. We re not very apt to abandon what we know works for something with promise with little or no recourse.

    If Apple sent out free (or low cost) Live Disks that supported a fairly wide range configurations, anything outside of that Apple can say we don't support it. Tack a few crippling in it (such as no burning and limited application saves etc) and you ahve an excelent preview package.

    Now Apple if Apple believes that thier OS has the goods and that it stacks up to what is out there, this is the perfect way to make that statement. And if it really has it, it will show in a shift in marketshare. And if that happens then we will all really see the security and stabilty that OSX has (or doesn't).

    --
    the OS is only as secure as its most ignorant user.

    1. Re:Live CDs / DVDs by inkswamp · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I doubt it will happen. Your posts highlights one of the primary differences in expectations between Mac users and PC users. Mac users expect the whole package to work together beautifully and Apple caters to that expectation. Apple isn't going to release OS X on non-Apple computers for that reason. They are in the business to (as Jobs has put it) provide the whole widget.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  163. On limewire & edonkey: by ElGanzoLoco · · Score: 1


    There is one file called "Mac OS X 10.3 (Intel Version) at 631.15 megs .iso file, on both networks, but someone put a disclaimer on it on limewire, adding "bogus_file_empty" in the name.
    It goes without saying, I'm downloading it anyways, just to be sure (hey it might even be pron! Who knows!)

    Another file called "Mac OSX 10.4.1 - How to get.txt" which reads, I quote:

    a) wait upto 2006
    b)
    Become an developer http://developer.apple.com/ (500eur/year)
    Buy the Development PC 1000eur, this package includes OSX for Intel (Preinstalled on HD)

    Greets :)


    Someone somewhere has some sense of humour (and / or works for Apple...).

    --
    Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
    1. Re:On limewire & edonkey: by DiegoLM · · Score: 0

      631.15Mb??? Its porn Sure

    2. Re:On limewire & edonkey: by kff322 · · Score: 0

      Beat ya 2 it; its 600mb worth of
      fooled you!O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0
      O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0
      O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0
      (in a hex editor)

  164. eMule appears to have a copy by CdBee · · Score: 1

    There's an ISO on the eMule network called "Mac Osx 10.3 (Intel version).iso". The hash is 7D9587606F550C2767667B09C10C1C68

    I have no intention of getting sued by Apple for downloading this file. I have not verified its identity. It may be a hoax

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    1. Re:eMule appears to have a copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Commentaries says that is a fake :(

    2. Re:eMule appears to have a copy by slazar · · Score: 1

      mac os X intel developer kit has 10.4 on it, not 10.3

    3. Re:eMule appears to have a copy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Despite the low quality of crap that is on eMule, I decided to take the plunge and download this file, just in case it was the real deal.

      It isn't.

      As this screenshot from my machine shows, every, single byte in this file has a hex value of 00.

      I guess this is some turkey's idea of a fun prank for a Sunday afternoon.

    4. Re:eMule appears to have a copy by Kujila · · Score: 1

      I tried to grab this one but it wasn't legit... twas' empty space... Nero 6 bruned it, though, even though it was nothingness =D

  165. Re:Torrent by kff322 · · Score: 0

    Sofar I have found it in Limewire search for "Mac Intel" and give it a few mins. Mines still downloading so it may be a fake. Don't say you havent been warned

  166. Tiger urinary incontinence by cocoamix · · Score: 1

    The developers at Apple might consider a presicription of Detrol.

    That stops untimely leakage, at least it does for my grandfather.

  167. But! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but will it run unix?!

  168. Apple will slow this if it's true.... by ShyGuy91284 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We've all seen Apple doesn't have many morals in terms of who it will and won't take down. I see them having a room of 20 people googleing the net for the next 3 months, finding any traces of how to get it (be it nzbs, torrents, etc.), and threatening swift and harsh legal action against anyone supplying info to get it. Perhaps it will survive on traditional p2p networks though (I don't think Apple has the knowledge or experience to take people down on that like the RIAA).

    --
    In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
  169. Great potential for Apple by libra-dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There are several directions that Apple could take with furthering the adoption of "OSXx86":

    1. To secure the final production version, Apple could run a third train of the Darwin kernel leaving PPC, x86 and a new MacIntel version. Assuring than only OSXx86 only runs on Apple hardware and accommodating the speculated differences between generic x86 PCs and proprietary Apple x86 powered computers. For instance, just because the XBOX360 can run on a PowerMac G5 doesn't meant the the final production version will or ever will again.

    2. Give out a live CD based on the generic x86 Darwin kernel to entice PC users to switch. Similar to what Be did, but actually get people to switch..

    3. If MS chooses not to continue development of VPC as a defensive move, Apple could still look to VMWare to provide virtualization for running Windows applications for those that have switched. Or integrate Bochs, Plex86, WINE, etc..

    4. Apple could allow dual-booting of Windows and OSXx86. Although this is less likely to happen --remember Win95 / Dos6.22-Win3.11?

    Apple's employees aren't dumb. They're primarily interested in keeping existing Mac users and developers happy by creating things like Rosetta and universal binaries. To think that Apple wouldn't apply the same philosophies towards disatisfied Windows users would be ignorant.

  170. Message to Steve Jobs or anyone else by waferhead · · Score: 1

    On PC hardware, margins are razor thin, probably even for Apple, %10 would be excellent.

    On an OS CD/DVD set, @$129, it must approach %100.

    I want to run Tiger.
    I have my $129. I run an Athlon on an NF2 chipset, NVidia graphics. Where do I send the money?

    (I'm pretty sure I speak for several million other protential customers)

    Selling JUST the OS on a documented HW platfoem will not hurt Apple IMHO. It's free money.

    1. Re:Message to Steve Jobs or anyone else by oritpro · · Score: 0

      Apple already knows this, three of the major PC vendors have been petitioning them for years to release OSX for x86.

      This would kill Apples hardware business and they are first and foremost, a hardware company.

      But I am totally with you on this and would dump Ubuntu in a heartbeat if I could run it on my Athlon 64 system.

    2. Re:Message to Steve Jobs or anyone else by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Insightful
      100% on software? Do support techs work for free? Did their developers work for free? Did their QA staff work for free? Will bug fixes cost Apple nothing? Is the manufacturing and package design free?

      Even with hardware, that 10% margin you quote does not go completely into the profit column of the ledger, in fact most projects (hardware or software) will be in the red for the first two quarters as amortized costs are recouped, if not longer.

      Any bug fixes and support will be charged against those margins for the project.

      Welcome to the "real" world where beer is not "free".

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  171. What pirated versions? by Tzutzu · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget that the PC manufacturer payed the "MS tribute" for each PC they sell. So, unless you put you PC together yourself, there is no 100% pirated MS OS.

  172. Chuck Taylor by FrothyBitter · · Score: 1

    "Apple makes killer hardware, which they make their money on, and set bar for what people are willing to pay for an OS AND for the quality that they should expect."

    That is a myth. Everyone says it so everyone believes it. Apple makes expensive hardware and to justify their spending that amount of money people site extreme quality.

    Two months after spending $1500 on a Mac my HDD died and I lost everything. Sure, I should have backed up, and really I didn't loose much but my settings and all the time it took to get it all setup, but who expects their brand new "Apple" hardware is going to die? Well, now I do, as does anyone knowledgable enough to know better than the extreme quality myth.

    Obviously Apple didn't make the hard drive, but it was a Fujitsu, which is a very cheap brand I would certainly never choose. I was not surprised one bit that it was replaced with an IBM drive, having to replace the drive more than once would really take a bite out of their profit. I was surprised they cracked the case while replacing the drive though.

    Aside from the crack in the case everything was fine until the logic board fried. Luckily that was under recall, not a normal recall though where a severe flaw is found in the design and a company tells everyone with that product to return it and have it replaced. A special recall where you have to wait for the part that is known to be flawed to actually fail then you can return it and they will replace it with the same part.

    On the plus side, I shipped it back with a note in the box asking them to replace the cracked case and they did. However, this time I got it back with a poorly mounted trackpad (the top left corner sticks up well past flush with the case) and significantly less Airport signal strength.

    Now I do realize none of that is major, but there has been plenty of quirky behaviour to go along with it. It's had its share of kernal panics, lock ups, and general unexepctedly quits. Just yesterday something happened where all my settings were set to default and it can't find my keychain. All of that on top of significantly less performance than any other computer I own. While it's only a 900 MHz G3, I realize it won't have the performance of a dual G5 system, but there's been plenty of times it has had trouble keeping up with my typing.

    Add this story to the countless stories of my friends, and I know if you have friends with Macs they have stories of their own, and it becomes quite clear that Apple does not make extremely high quality hardware that sets the bar for everyone else and justifies the premium price they set.

    I'm not saying they suck. I'm not even saying they aren't good. I'm just saying they aren't extremely great and I certainly look forward to the day I could run OS X on PC. As does most of the world I suspect, even those that have never heard of OS X.

    Not that you don't have a point about Microsoft, but your point is really the converse of what you said. Apple has until Longhorn to 'commercially' release OS X for PC. If they think they are going to take over the computer idustry on their hardware, well, they know better themselves. If Longhorn both comes out before OS X PC and plugs up most of the holes then the motivation for most to switch will be gone.

    1. Re:Chuck Taylor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So as I read this... you had a bad experience therefore Apple hardware cannot be high quality...

  173. Does that really make sense to you? by itcomesinwaves · · Score: 1

    That was in no way a 'bailout'.

    Remember that Apple had billions in the bank at this point. A $150 investment is a drop in the bucket. This was mearly a gesture of good faith in Apple that went along with a few other agreements between the two companies (the linked article goes into these).

    1. Re:Does that really make sense to you? by Khuffie · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Does that really make sense to you? by itcomesinwaves · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure what your point is, but this quote is from the linked site:

      In exchange for $150 million in Apple Stock, Microsoft and Apple would have a 5-year patent cross-license and, more importantly, a final settlement in the ongoing GUI argument. Microsoft agreed to pay an unreleased sum of additional funds to quiet the allegations that it had stolen Apple's intellectual property in designing its Windows OS. Microsoft also announced that Office '98, its popular office package, would be available for the Mac by years end.

  174. Dumby? by ihatewinXP · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Ok, first before you call someone a dummy make sure you can spell it correctly, fucking retard.

    Second, my point stands, apparently this works on non-apple hardware, and if it doesn't yet then it will. (And excuse the regedit reference - everyone pointed out that I was wrong to use that name but knew the direction I was going.

    Third, Microsoft doesn't lose money like Apple stands to on pirated Windows because they don't sell hardware.

    Fourth the BETA you are refering to, if it is a full 10.4 release, (which if you watched the Developers Conference it appears to be) then like I said it is a hella usefull piece of software.

    So to recap I did RTFA and at least I understood it - so watch who you call "dumby."

    --
    ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    1. Re:Dumby? by stam66 · · Score: 1
      Ok, first before you call someone a dummy make sure you can spell it correctly, fucking retard.
      ...
      So to recap I did RTFA and at least I understood it - so watch who you call "dumby."

      Chill dude.

      It's not like the offending poster called you a bollock-juggling chimpanzee or anything...

  175. 10.3 is a fake by FullCircle · · Score: 2, Informative

    That 10.3 one is definately an empty CD size file. It's all zeros.

    ed2k://|file|Mac Osx 10.3 (Intel Version).iso|666000000|7d9587606f550c2767667b09c10 c1c68|">Mac Osx 10.3 (Intel Version).iso

    So don't bother with it. OTOH, you get great DL speeds ;)

    --
    If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
  176. his connection isn't any faster than yours by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    but it's much snappier.

  177. Re:If I wanted FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And frankly, many of us that use FreeBSD have paid for at least one release anyway--why haven't you?

    Why pay for shit?

  178. Never seemed to mind... by garote · · Score: 1

    That phenomenon is generally due to the fact that Microsoft releases swiss-cheese shit, and Apple releases decent products.

  179. Torrent posted on thepiratebay.org by andersa · · Score: 2, Informative

    15 minutes ago..

    1. Re:Torrent posted on thepiratebay.org by DiegoLM · · Score: 0

      Very suspicious the torrent was posted half hour ago..... I think this is called...FAKE FAKE FAKE

    2. Re:Torrent posted on thepiratebay.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fake, if you check out the rar files all you get is "GNAAGNAAGNAA" over and over and over again.

    3. Re:Torrent posted on thepiratebay.org by andersa · · Score: 1

      You are right. It was just nuked..

  180. OSS implementations of Cocoa/Carbon by aaronrp · · Score: 1

    The original article talked about people stealing Mac software being a new problem for Apple, and at first I thought it meant application software. (Which wouldn't make much sense, but now I realize they meant the OS might be stolen.)

    But now I wonder if someday there will be an open-source implementation of the Mac OS X APIs (other than GNUstep).

    I hope that if so, it will be called "Cider."

  181. Darwin 8 needs SSE2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the Darwinx86 boards on Apple's site, it is compiled to support the P4's SSE2, so it is doubtful that any version of X will run on a non-P4 anytime soon unless a low-level SSE2 emulator is released for the exact purpose of gettign around this problem.

    1. Re:Darwin 8 needs SSE2 by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      All Athlon64's include SSE2. The newest Athlon64's even include SSE3. What are you even talking about?

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    2. Re:Darwin 8 needs SSE2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know about the 64, but he asked about a generic Athlon, which will not run any Apple x86 code without a recompile.

    3. Re:Darwin 8 needs SSE2 by mink · · Score: 1

      AThalon XP series chips have SSE2 as well. Only chips without it are the old pre XP line AFAIK.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  182. Here's the torrent ;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  183. THE torrent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3343842

    I'm trapped behind dialup now so I can't check if it's real, but it 'feels' right :)

    Oh, and besides I would never download illegal sofware anyways, and that "soon-to-be-slashdoted-to-oblivion-link" there is just to comfirm the story.

    1. Re:THE torrent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...thus it should not be slashdotted, with so many "honest" posters here who would *NEVER* download a leaked or pirated software.

      *cough*hypocrites*cough*

    2. Re:THE torrent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's the great thing about BT. The more people hitting it, the faster it goes. I'm seeing 100+ kB/s.

    3. Re:THE torrent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fake, they removed it from the bay. It contained "GNAA" in all the files though :| Better luck next time.

  184. piratebay by qda · · Score: 1

    thepiratebay.org now has a torrent for the cracked version of it

  185. "It" is on mininova. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    http://mininova.org/tor/55573 Not sure if it's the real deal. Trying to get the .nfo now.

    1. Re:"It" is on mininova. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The torrent has been removed from thepiratebay as there were many reports of it being fake.

    2. Re:"It" is on mininova. by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      the .nfo file claims that the file is real. However, there's still a strong possibility that its a fake.

      Release: MAC OS X "Tiger" Filename: tiger-x86-xiso.iso

      Strangely enough however, it claims the minimum requirements is 133MHZ/128MB RAM/1GB HD which would indicate that its a fake.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    3. Re:"It" is on mininova. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fake. The .nfo indiciated that it was real, and from "xiso", but I took a look at the rar file, and it was just a repetition of "GNAAGNAAGNAA"

    4. Re:"It" is on mininova. by aostanin · · Score: 1

      Even though I thought it would be fake, I decided to download it anyway. It boots to a picture of goatse.

  186. Torrent on Pirate Bay is Different! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what I found. (Hopefully it's real.)

    http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3343842/

    I can't believe /. didn't see this sooner.

  187. Take that websherriff!!! by SCVirus · · Score: 1

    Its not available from the good ol' pirate bay.

    1. Re:Take that websherriff!!! by SCVirus · · Score: 1

      i must be drunk... its NOW.

  188. Torrent Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:torrent link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is pulled, because it was a hoax.

  189. Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO by logik3x · · Score: 1

    Don't know if it's real or fake... but theres a torrent @ pyratebay : /

    1. Re:Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole thing is too strange... when something leaks, it isnt just one source and over advertises. Usually the ones who do most of the pre retail leaking stay unknown.. and within hours on irc or torrents there are multiple versions... this took too long in the day for something that supposedly was floating around in the am... and the fact that there is 1 seeder sending the ONLY torrent is just... fishy... the nfo file even makes this worse... crosses fingers with optimism here... but something tells me that the REAL deal doesnt support but like 0.9% of the hardware out here. If it comes on dev kits, its arranged for that... if there are plans to market it otherwise, I doubt theyd leave remains on the dev boxes... not logical... Its all too fast, and when you slow down to think about it... bullshit...

    2. Re:Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake by the GNAA. Good thing Azureus lets you prioritize/isolate files.

  190. and the torrent by donutface · · Score: 0
  191. And OS/2 and Solaris x86 and NextStep .... by guidryp · · Score: 1

    No OS can take on windows on the desktop and survive, let alone thrive. Apple is much better off sticking to their own HW.

  192. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mininova.org/tor/55573

  193. The Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  194. pic of osx on a pc by qda · · Score: 1
    1. Re:pic of osx on a pc by Haiku+4+U · · Score: 0

      That obviously
      says that it is running on
      a PowerPC.

    2. Re:pic of osx on a pc by qda · · Score: 1

      you can make that out?

    3. Re:pic of osx on a pc by Haiku+4+U · · Score: 0

      You can plainly see
      the capitalization
      of the PPC.

    4. Re:pic of osx on a pc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mean nothing but PearPC !!!

      It prove nothing !!! But we have been nuked !

    5. Re:pic of osx on a pc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you learned to plug a non-Apple monitor into a Mac, and put it on a desk next to a PC. Revolutionary.

    6. Re:pic of osx on a pc by qda · · Score: 1

      didnt make the pic but thanks

  195. Very interesting - Have a look at the nfo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.mac/msg/a3 55c24899789644?hl=en

    For all you eager guys out there waiting to get your hands on the
    mac os x. There have been rumors about it getting released on silly
    p2p and newsgroups, but it's completely fake. We are proud to bring
    Mac OS X for the x86 processor, pre retail. Yes, you heard right.
    Pre Retail. This comes fully cracked and all you need to do is just
    unrar and burn with your favorite software. We hope to bring you guys
    more stuff in the near future and thanks for the support from
    everyone.

    1. Re:Very interesting - Have a look at the nfo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a look inside the first rar file too, and you will see it is too repetitive to be a legitimate rar file

  196. Lease/give back for $1499 or build/keep for $600 by MojoStan · · Score: 1
    Not to mention that their $999 lease is not much of an obstacle for serious developers.

    For serious Apple developers, yes. However, the $999 lease (must give back PC) plus $500/yr ADC Select membership might seem like a needlessly high expense to an independent developer (e.g. a hobbyist Linux developer), when a development box very similar to Apple's (w/o SuperDrive, keyboard/mouse) can be built for less than $600 from Newegg.com parts (and you get to keep your self-built PC).

    Another comment shows that Apple's development PC is very likely a Pentium 600 series PC using an Intel D915GUX motherboard. I built a quick Newegg "barebones Apple development machine" (no SuperDrive, keyboard/mouse) for less than $600.

    • intel BOXD915GUXLK Intel 915G Micro ATX Intel Motherboard ($115)
    • intel Pentium 4 630 EM64T Processor ($228.99)
    • CORSAIR ValueSelect 1GB (2 x 512MB) DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 533 (PC2 4200) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit ($92)
    • Western Digital Caviar SE WD800JD 80GB 7200 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive ($60)
    • IN WIN Z Series IW-Z720T.I300BFU2AD Black Steel MicroATX Mini Tower Computer Case 300W Power Supply ($44.99)
    • Illegally downloaded developer version of Tiger for x86 (free)
    • Total: $540.98 before tax and shipping
    Add $500 for an ADC Select membership if it's absolutely necessary. When the development version of OS X expires, the self-built PC can continue to be used as a Linux development PC (or whatever).
    --
    TO START
    PRESS ANY KEY

    Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...

  197. Sooo... by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if the "Mac OS X Tiger X86 READNFO-XISO" torrent is the real thing?

    1. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks fake here. just look at the contents of the first rar file. it is waaaaay too repetitive to be a legitimate rar file. My guts tell me this is a fake.

    2. Re:Sooo... by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      The nfo says "Hardware requirements: 133MHZ/128MB RAM/1GB HD". Riiiiight...

    3. Re:Sooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, it's a fake. The rar contains a real ISO, but inside it is an empty file, and another that contains "GNAA" all over.

  198. Faggot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up 703k user.

  199. I'll take it from here... by FrothyBitter · · Score: 1

    "Yes, but does that give them incentive to switch? Not for many. Why do you think this would be different if they didn't have to change their hardware, just their software? It still means, for the average customer, a $1,000 investment in new software."

    Tiger for PC including iLife for $129. Think about that for a second. Would you buy it? Yeah, I know you're a geek so of course you would. But would you buy it for mom and dad too? Yeah I would too. See, now we're getting started. OK, you gonna tell all your friends about it? Yup me too. Yeah, I know a bunch of them are kinda fanboyish, mine too, but we both know they are gonna buy it just to try to make fun of it. We also both know that there isn't much they can make fun of. We also know that they've had a couple viruses and their PCs are running like crap because they are full of spyware. Yup, they'll only boot into Windows to play games from now on.

    OK, now the other 50 people that call you for free tech support every week. You're not going to keep this secret from them are you? Me neither, finally some peace and quiet.

    OK, that covers just about everyone.

    Oh, oh yeah, your boss. Yeah, mine's not going to install OS X on all the PCs at work either. But he'll buy a few OS X PCs from the OEM vendor next year I'm sure.

    Apple is still making Macs as well. MOST of the people with Macs today will buy Macs tomorrow instead of PCs. I know all my Mac friends will, I doubt your Mac friends are any different.

    Face it, such a move wouldn't take over the business sector over night, but the average Joe just surfs the net and sends email. OS X and iLife will do just about everything they need. Thanks to MS for moving games from the PC to console, how often would most people have to boot into Windows?

    I use my slow ass iBook more than any of my PCs anymore even though they are all much faster. I'd buy a copy of OS X for each PC tomorrow and rarely feel the need to boot into Windows. (OK, you caught me in a lie. I'd buy a copy of OS X and install it on all my PCs tomorrow, but still...)

    1. Re:I'll take it from here... by Chucker23N · · Score: 1

      "Tiger for PC including iLife for $129."

      Erm, without iLife. iLife is another $79 (formerly $49). iWork is another $79. But all of that aside:

      I love OS X just as much as you do, but I just don't think it's *so* much better for people as to give them incentive to switch.

      *shrugs* OS X on any PC? I'd love to see it happen, but I don't think we will.

  200. Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are just like the old FAT binaries. When you launch a universial binary the load loads the intel binary if you on an intel box or the ppc binary if you on a ppc box... if the binary is just a pcc binary then on a ppc box it just launches and an intel box Rosetta runs the binary... the universial binary option bundles in the app bundle.

    Simple as that. You don't release two version just one.

  201. torrent link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  202. No OS can take on Windows on x86 desktop. by guidryp · · Score: 1

    Once enabling SW like an OS reaches critical Mass, like windows, it is virtually unstoppable, unmovable force. It becomes irrelavent which OS is technicaly better. The incumbent is now the recipient of a beneficial catch 22. It is the OS everyone must use because it has all the applications. Correspondingly it is where all the applications are being devopoped, because everyone is using it. Breaking this cycle is virtually impossible.

    You could give OSX x86 away for free and it would not dent windows market share and would gain no development traction, because it would be second fiddle OS for geeks to play with, but everyone would stick with windows as their core. Since everyone would probably have Windows as well, developers would just keep targetting windows.

    There has been no shortage of desktop x86 OS contenders. OS/2, BeOS, Solaris x86, FreeBSD, Linux and yes NextStep.

    Tell me which one has a market share to speak of, which one has comercial software being developed for it?

    Apples best strategy is remain captive to it's HW and offering a premium HW/SW experience rather than becoming another Windows casualty on the desktop.

    1. Re:No OS can take on Windows on x86 desktop. by Khakionion · · Score: 1

      You are phenomenally ignorant. The difference between all the OSes you cited and OS X is that OS X is user-friendly to the point where you don't need to be a geek at all to use it. That's why it's the first x86 OS that could actually compete with Windows for market share. For the vast majority of non-technocratic computer users, OS X does everything they need, and then some. Safari, Finder, iTunes, iPhoto, Microsoft Office, Adium X(or official clients), Flash...when a personal computer is nothing more than a means to a technologically illiterate end, Apple fits the bill perfectly.

      --
      OMG! Wau!
  203. Drivers by SecretAsianMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I seem to recall that most operating systems for personal computing need drivers to interface with hardware. Given Apple's ostensible plans that MacOS X x86 will run only on Apple hardware, it is highly unlikely that Apple has created such a comprehensive set of drivers as would allow MacOS X to run on any majority of PCs. The greater probability is a hardware requirement set so stringent that only PCs closely resembling the Apple developer box will run the OS with an acceptable degree of functionality.

    So I say the idea of running MacOS X on any commodity PC is, at the moment, a complete myth.

    --

    Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.

    1. Re:Drivers by lems1 · · Score: 1

      yeah, but since Darwin is itself open sourced, and therefore you have a change to know how the kernel works, it should be trivial for people to start porting those nice Linux drivers to work on x86 Darwin... Or at least, they would have an idea of where to start.
      1) find nice hardware that doesn't yet work with MacOS X
      2) ?
      3) profit!

      --
      This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
    2. Re:Drivers by SecretAsianMan · · Score: 1

      Ah, good call. It will be interesting to see what (if anything) Apple throws into MacOS X x86 to stop that from occurring.

      --

      Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.

  204. EXACTLY! by FrothyBitter · · Score: 1

    The argument that Apple controlling the hardware gives them power over Windows is dead. Apple doesn't control the hardware any more, just the price.

    A Mac today is a PC with a different processor. A Mac tomorrow will be a PC.

    Back in the day a Mac was a very different animal. It was made up of parts that Apple designed or chose to use because it had advantages over PC hardware. Every aspect of a PC has been refined to the point to where it was the best choice for Apple to use, now even the processor.

    1. Re:EXACTLY! by CatOne · · Score: 1

      There's a lot more that goes into a PC than a processor. There's, say, the entire motherboard. You think Apple's going to go with a stock Intel (or, hell, Asus) motherboard?

  205. ThePirateBay of cource by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  206. The torrent is a troll. by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Informative
    The rar files consist of "GNAA" repeated over and over.

    Like shooting fish in a barrel, really.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    1. Re:The torrent is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confirmed. GNAA repeated. Funny. Funnier if it was April 1, but still funny. For proof, just DL a small portion and open any of the files with a text editor. Most of the files will be "empty" since you didn't get the whole file downloaded, but any slices you did get will be GNAAGNAAGNAA.

    2. Re:The torrent is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine said GNAA GNAA all over it too. I cancelled it because I figured it was fake. Funking GNAA strinkes again.

    3. Re:The torrent is a troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visual confirmation with hexeditor:

      http://users.chartertn.net/localh/gnaa.gif

    4. Re:The torrent is a troll. by Renesis · · Score: 1

      Confirmed here too.. downloaded it to take a look and it is just 99% GNAAGNAAGNAA. Is this their first front page /. story? :)

  207. Re:I am such a kleptomaniac. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All i have to say to apple is:

    WELCOME TO THE x86 MARKET! where you have to spend 1/2 your resources developing countermeasures to stop people from stealing your software.

    I think maybe all that microsoft has taught us is to expect a free as in stolen software route to anything.

  208. This is unusual for me... by FrothyBitter · · Score: 1

    but...

    Own3d!

    Driver support for Linux sucks because Linux developers have to write it from scratch using a crystal ball or hardware developers throw it together in a hurry to say they have it.

    Apple does not and would not have a problem with driver support. Especially when they had a 50% market share in a matter of days.

    1. Re:This is unusual for me... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      The driver situation for Linux is the same as Apple's. Either the manufacturer writes one, a developer for the platform writes one, or it doesn't happen and that peripheral only works under Windows. if Apple's market share suddenly goes through the roof, more manufacturers will write Mac drivers for their hardware (and hopefully throw some quality control at the effort), but fundamentally the equation doesn't change.

      Oh, and, uh, 13@s3d?

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  209. GNAA OWNS YOU, suckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bahahahaha... 1GB of the text 'GNAA' repeated.

    owned.

    1. Re:GNAA OWNS YOU, suckers. by ColonelFubster · · Score: 0, Troll

      LOL APPLE DID WTC

      --
      :-M
  210. You can stop now. by FrothyBitter · · Score: 1

    "There are too many x86 combinations out there for Apple to consider selling OSX for Dells. Isn't going to happen. Please deal with it so I can stop posting the same obvious stuff!"

    Linux is not OS X. That should be all I had to say, but just to make it clear...

    Driver support in Linux sucks because developers have to write drivers from scratch using a crystal ball or hardware developers throw it together real quick to say they have it.

    Apple has never and will never have a problem with driver support. Hardware developers will be falling all over themselves to support OS X.

    1. Re:You can stop now. by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Hardware developers will be falling all over themselves to support OS X.

      For future stuff sure. And now Mac does have a more 3 party drivers than Linux will have for a while.

      Linux is not OS X. That should be all I had to say, but just to make it clear...

      You are correct., despite some common ancestory they are very different. One is an nice and very modern OS that is meant to run on Apple hardware (and will do so in the future, sorry guys) and is probably the best desktop OS on the planet. Yet this greatness costs money. The other is a free and flexible OS that is great for servers and development work. Progress on the Linux desktop increases swiftly but it still lags behind other desktop OSes in key areas. Yet it runs on almost every personal computer you can get you hands on, unlike OSX.

      Driver support in Linux sucks because developers have to write drivers from scratch using a crystal ball or hardware developers throw it together real quick to say they have it

      Driver support sucks because the whole thing is semi-hostile to non open drivers and because it has too small of a marketshare to be worth developing for.

  211. TORRENT HERE by benna · · Score: 1

    Supposedly this is it, but I'll believe it when I can install it.

    http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3343842

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    1. Re:TORRENT HERE by benna · · Score: 1

      Nevermind, piratebay just removed it.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:TORRENT HERE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this


    3. Re:TORRENT HERE by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

      too small, 200 meg?

      --
      Your Average Joe
  212. Re:So why haven't they bought Macs? by guidryp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "For the vast majority of non-technocratic computer users, OS X does everything they need"

    This hasn't changed with a move to x86. If the Mac OS is all they need, why didn't they all buy Mini's?

    These non technocratic folks, as you put it, seem unlikely to install a totally new OS. You don't need to be a geek to use Linux, just to install it.

    There is one simple critical fact that will never change. The vast majority of people will use the OS that ships with their computers and that will never change.

    Windows succeeds on the sales of Dells, OSX will sink or swim on the sales of Macs.

    Selling an OS that is not tied to HW is a doomed enterprise. A big part of the Microsoft push has always been about getting their OS bundled with Hardware.

  213. In the real world MS makes more than Apple. by FrothyBitter · · Score: 1

    "100% on software? Do support techs work for free? Did their developers work for free? Did their QA staff work for free? Will bug fixes cost Apple nothing? Is the manufacturing and package design free?"

    Depends on how many units sold. See hardware requires a lot of people to do work for each unit sold, whereas software almost all the work is done when the product is done. The more copies you sell, the less it cost you to make each one.

    That's why Microsoft makes SO much more money than Apple.

    As Apple's market share shot up, so would their profit on each unit sold. If they continued to make their own Macs and sell OS X for PC the OS money would pretty much be exactly as the other guy said, 100% free money.

    That is if they think my buying OS X for my PC is costing them a sale of a Mac. Which they probably think is true but are dead wrong.

    How many people have said that this changes nothing, a Mac is still going to be a Mac, just a different processor? They are right, in more ways than one.

    Just as Mac users aren't going to jump ship over a processor, PC users aren't going to suddenly run out and buy Macs over a processor. Apple quite simlply wouldn't be losing anything by selling Macs with OS X and OS X for PC. They'd probably even sell more Macs that way because they would no longer be a niche market most people are afraid of.

  214. Is this a fake? by babelex · · Score: 1

    I was browsing Make which I followed to del.icio.us which showed this link First mac on intel in the wild?. Can't see any details or links etc.., could be a fake of course, but figured someone of you here might be able to do a good analysis.

    1. Re:Is this a fake? by enosys · · Score: 1

      Screen image quality kind of sucks on that photo. Plus it's too easy to fake that. You could have the PC display a Mac screenshot, perhaps a photoshopped Mac screenshot saying that it's running on x86.

    2. Re:Is this a fake? by Hamled · · Score: 1

      Because the screenshot isn't good enough quality to see any details, there could easily just be a G5 under the table that the monitor is connected to, rather than the compaq.

  215. nfo by programgeek · · Score: 0

    Release: MAC OS X "Tiger"
    Filename: tiger-x86-xiso.iso

    1. UnRAR, Burn, Install.
    2. Enjoy

    For all you eager guys out there waiting to get your hands on the mac os x. There have been rumors about it getting released on silly p2p and newsgroups, but it's completely fake. We are proud to bring Mac OS X for the x86 processor, pre retail. Yes, you heard right. Pre Retail. This comes fully cracked and all you need to do is just
    unrar and burn with your favorite software. We hope to bring you guys more stuff in the near future and thanks for the support for everyone.
    Okay, problem:
    "install"? What's the installation method? Do we boot the cd?

    Also, I googled "xiso" and didn't find that it's a cracking group that released anything previously.

    And the torrent has no complete seeds.
    as in, 0 seeds, 37 leechers.

    Hmmm.

    --
    Georgia
  216. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    informative++?

  217. Hurbis (No OS can take on Windows on x86 desktop) by borgheron · · Score: 1

    It's hubris like this that caused the fall of Standard Oil. :) MS is starting to loose mindshare since people are getting tired of an insecure OS.

    Most people don't really care what OS a computer runs, only that it will run what they want it to.

    GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  218. Torrent by dimmak · · Score: 1
    I don't know if this link has been posted previously, but this is the torrent I found. No way of knowing the legitimacy as of yet.

    I found it at thepiratebay.org and currently I don't see the torrent at the site anymore (http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3343842), but here is the hash that azureus gives: 002F6FCC7DE9E96D198F686CDF1ABE8599EEFEAC

    Good luck and it is probably a waste of time, but I don't mind wasting the bandwidth.

    --
    http://www.sledgehammercomputers.com
  219. GNAA? by MemeSpitter · · Score: 3, Informative

    Several people who have gotten pieces of it from torrents have reported that if you open the file up in a hex editor, it's just "GNAA" over and over again... surprised?

    1. Re:GNAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true.

    2. Re:GNAA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey GNAA, eat my fucking diarreah!!!

  220. definitely fake by qda · · Score: 2, Informative

    just looked at one of the rars, its just GNAA or some shit repeated over and over... lame

  221. Re:Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's fake. Here's a screenshot of a hex editor looking at one of the pieces.

    http://users.chartertn.net/localh/gnaa.gif

  222. Re:Torrent by dimmak · · Score: 1

    Thank you providing that screenshot.

    --
    http://www.sledgehammercomputers.com
  223. This is a fake. by entrigant · · Score: 1

    While the possibility may be real, the torrent isn't. It was removed from the pirate bay which means one thing. It was a fake.

  224. hash of torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    002f6fcc7de9e96d198f686cdf1abe8599eefeac

  225. NFO Post by Viper_Viper · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Should I post the contents of the .nfo file or is that a bad thing to do... I dont want to get into any trubble with /.

    1. Re:NFO Post by Viper_Viper · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Never mind... Im stupid... just mod me down for this

  226. GNAA pffft by kff322 · · Score: 0

    what I find odd about this is if you type in gnaa mac intel in google, several thing come up. Besure to look at the Mac rumors articles

  227. Might not be fake... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GNAA pre-wwdc tiger screenshots were real.

  228. Slashdot has been trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently this article is a troll by our "fellows" GNAA...

    http://forums.anti-slash.org/viewtopic.php?t=577

    "GNAA Leaks OS X - hahahahaha" :(

    1. Re:Slashdot has been trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they aren't that clever. Someone posted this to Slashdot from the story in the linked blog, GNAA saw it here and thought it would be funny to capitalize on.

      Again, they're not clever enough to post a story like this, they just wait for possible opportunities for their retarted play.

  229. beta testing by lcde · · Score: 1

    Heh, talk about an awesome way to beta test.

    1)Leak OSX Tiger x86 slightly modified to send dmesg back to apple.com
    2)See what hardware is out of the box properly supported.
    3)Free Data mining.

    You know hard core geeks will install OSX instantly if the torrent was available. Which means normally higher end equiptment.

    --
    :%s/teh/the/g
  230. Re:An era has passed by laird · · Score: 1

    "Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it."

    Why do you say that? Apple's releasing a version of their OS that runs on Intel chips doesn't make them Microsoft any more than Microsoft's releasing a version of their OS that runs on PPC's.

  231. Re:Working release. by StarWreck · · Score: 1

    So the words GNAA GNAA GNAA worked like a charm, huh? Yeah, I'm pretty sure simple text works on any AthlonXP system. Pre-cracked? Why would you want a text document to be cracked?

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
  232. Official Torrent information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK- to recap. The two current torrents listed are ate the (http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3343842), and at http://mininova.org/tor/55573.
    However, the Pirate Bay file is offline, either it is fake, or it was nuked by traffic. The MiniNova one is still online, with approximately 5 Seeders and over 700 leechers, with more adding every few minutes. The file size from MiniNova is ~950Mgs.
    it will soon become clear whether or not this is real. Please post information regarding the legitamacy of the torrent here.

    1. Re:Official Torrent information by Finis · · Score: 0

      I have another site which I am downloading from. Private torrent site, file size is also ~950 megs, obviously, I would rather not post the URL until AFTER I am down downloading. I have about 2 hours left for it since the 4 seeders are only at 40 kb/s...but there are only 10 leechers. I'll report on if it's fake ASAP.

    2. Re:Official Torrent information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry guys boths are fake :GNAAA :-(

  233. Re:So... by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    3 days before it is finally downloaded. I hope it is not a NGAA text file...

    --
    Your Average Joe
  234. MOD PARENT DOWN by StarWreck · · Score: 1

    MOD PARENT DOWN! That nfo file belongs to the copy that just repeats the words GNAA GNAA GNAA ad infinitum. I wish I could find a real copy.

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
  235. Alot of people were naysaying last time... by naasking · · Score: 1

    Apparently the version running on the development kit machines is easily transfered to run on any x86 machine.

    Well duh. A lot of people were naysaying in the last article that this would NEVER happen.

    Of course, I tried to correct them. Silly people. So I ask again: why is anyone surprised?

  236. Here's the NFO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Make your own judgement (edited cause of whitespace)

    ç Release: MAC OS X "Tiger" ç Filename: tiger-x86-xiso.iso

    For all you eager guys out there waiting to get your hands on the êýø mac os x. There have been rumors about it getting released on illy êýø p2p and newsgroups, but it's completely fake. We are proud to bring êýø Mac OS X for the x86 processor, pre retail. Yes, you heard right. êýø Pre Retail. This comes fully cracked and all you need to do is just êýø
    unrar and burn with your favorite software. We hope to bring you guys êýø more stuff in the near future and thanks for the support from êýø everyone.

  237. lawl here's a torrent by Kujila · · Score: 1

    Popped up on MyBittorrent although I'm not sure if it's legit or not... MYBT shows so seeds/leechers, but there's quite a few once you start the transfer. 3 BT

  238. Re:lawl here's a torrent... that's crap! by Kujila · · Score: 1

    Doy! Seems like it's the same fake-torrent posted on mininova... sorry! :(

  239. MiniNova torrent is GNAA... by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 1

    Surely someone has already verified this, but I thought that I would confirm that the mininova torrent is definately GNAA repeated forever. I did a tail on a partially downloaded RAR file and the result was GNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAAGNAA.... (you get the picture...).

  240. UPDATED RECAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Both the current torrents, located at thepiratebay.org and mininova.org are confirmed fake. All rar files contain the repeated strand GNAA (http://www.gnaa.us/) - antislash.org reports that the GNAA released the fake packs to troll slashdot.

    The file tiger-x86-xiso.iso is the fake GNAA release

    As of this time THERE ARE NO CONFIRMED REAL COPIES of the intel x86 build of mac osx 10.4 released on the internet

    Any copies that are about 970mbs can be assumed to be this fake release

  241. Re:Hurbis (No OS can take on Windows on x86 deskto by guidryp · · Score: 1

    "It's hubris like this that caused the fall of Standard Oil. :) MS is starting to loose mindshare since people are getting tired of an insecure OS."

    We can only hope, I am no MS fan and I would change to another OS if it supported everything I want to run. But in reality if you are reasonably carefull you really don't have to worry about the security issues with windows. Just don't use IE/Outlook, use a firewall and don't install crap unless you know it is spyware free. The only people likely to install another OS have the ability to manage the security issues.

    "Most people don't really care what OS a computer runs, only that it will run what they want it to."

    No disagreement. I just don't believe the theory that releasing OSX for generic HW is the panacea that most here make it out to be, like overnight everyone will format their HD and dump windows.
    Part of this reason is exactly that most people don't care and most people don't want to be bothered reinstalling their OS.

  242. bullshit by fredouil · · Score: 1

    probably no link with gnaa.us and antislash.org is just an it company, they didnt report anything.

  243. Fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The Torrent going around as: Mac OS X Tiger X86 READNFO-XISO It's a complete fake. When the image is booted it shows a picture of a guy showing off his Bu** H**e.

    Later.

  244. 3days eh?? by fbartho · · Score: 1

    You've been on that torrent for 3 days??, especially when it got posted Sunday?? or did you get it from another link

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  245. Another casualty of the ISO of unholiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the love of christ do not boot this thing! It was the goatse guy! I'm fucking blind now. I'm typing this using a brail keyboard.

  246. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Downloaded it myself; it is indeed a fake.

  247. GNAA by HawksNest · · Score: 1, Informative

    If anyone has had time to look at a partially downloaded file, its filled with "GNAA" over and over, in each and every file, its a fake.

  248. its a fake!!!!! by BobVila · · Score: 3, Funny

    the torrent that is floating around is fake. if you unrar, burn, and boot like the .nfo file says, it just boots it to a very lovely goatse image. no joke, wasted two hours of my life and made a coaster out of some DVD+R media. HILARIOUS!

    1. Re:its a fake!!!!! by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

      was the filename Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO

      --
      Your Average Joe
    2. Re:its a fake!!!!! by BobVila · · Score: 1

      yes it was. i guess nobody was dumb enough to go the whole way through the process to boot like I was.

    3. Re:its a fake!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone else was dumb enough to let the torrent finish, much less unrar and boot it.

      Hahahahaha.

    4. Re:its a fake!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, never turn your back on a free Goatse image. After peak oil, they'll be worth something.

  249. Linux loosing marketplace to Tiger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cant believe how blinded we ARE !!!

    Please consider the facts:

    1. Tiger runs on what? A Unix Variant.
    2. Uses what Chip: Intel CPU

    Now think, Longhorn is delayed, Everyone has the hyper hype of Mac OS X, & everyone wants to use it in their PC,

    Why will Microsoft delay? They have all the money & people, just why?

    Answer: MS or Bill has stake in Apple.

    Its the ultimate goal of destroying Linux.

    If every other Non Windows user moves tp Tiger for free, what will Linux worth for the desktop?

    (forget about servers)

    Linux will eventually loose popularity. Every kid with broadband will be running this & new Applications soaring to Mac OSX, time well spent for linux.

    (Im sure it wont be that easy to port from mac x86 to linux, unless...)

    I sense a plot to destroy Linux.

    G.Raj

    1. Re:Linux loosing marketplace to Tiger. by da_guy2 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why does everything on slashdot eventualy turn into a plot to destroy linux????? The world isn't out to destroy linux FACE IT! This is just Apple making more money and selling more systems.

    2. Re:Linux loosing marketplace to Tiger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why is this a troll? It's a very valid point.

      I'm ashamed to see the tinfoil hatters taking this place over...

    3. Re:Linux loosing marketplace to Tiger. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on... you know The Man is always trying to bring Linux down. Corporate monstrosities aren't really about making money, they just hate freedom.

  250. Re:So why haven't they bought Macs? by pastafazou · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Apple is partnering with Intel to corner the market on the "mini" computer market, as well as make up for IBM's failings on the laptops. Intel had just hyped the release of their mini. So Apple transitions the Mac Mini to Intel and captures broader marketshare through a cheap machine. If Apple can do the inexpensive machine best, which they probably can by securing Intel's first year of production or some-such. Meanwhile the PowerPC is targeted for the high-end market. I would say the Dual 2.7GHz with a FSB of 1.35GHz is still quite powerful, and IBM does still have dual-core CPUs on the way which should make this kind of FSB speed a huge edge in future updates. Remember, they kept a working version of the OS on x86 for five years before using it. What makes you think they won't continue to do the same with PowerPC for ten years in the hopes of IBM getting things back on track? IBM is pushing PowerPC in the Asian market hard now, while Microsoft/Xbox is creating a market for PowerPC code (where's the conspiracy theories on this one, BTW?).

  251. Re:An era has passed by davesag · · Score: 1

    The other day i was givena tour around one of the big newspapers here in amsterdam and was could not avoid noticing the many hundreds of G5s (for pre-press and art/web production) and sunflower iMacs (for everyone else). I asked how many IT staff they had and the answer was 2. Two people do the system admin etc for an entire newspaper. They also eschewed a 'real' content management system for their web publishing because their head of web publishing prefers to use templates and to write ad-hoc applescripts. And all works brilliantly. Seriously if you've ever worked in a 100% osx environment then you know just how excellent it can be. Apple becoming another Microsoft - if only. I doubt too many people would complain about Apple dominating the OS landscape the way MS does now.

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
  252. Re:So... by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    956meg one is a fake as well? I have 5 hours to wait to tell.

    --
    Your Average Joe
  253. It's a fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It shows the goatse.cx guy, yuck.

  254. Awww.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't someone please think of the poor pirates?

    LOL, yeah right.

  255. Works fine.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    It installed and runs just fine on my setup.. the only issue I found was when I hit the Windows key. I won't ruin the surprise for everyone, but let's just say you shouldn't press it if you're offended by profanity.

  256. Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO by Your+Average+Joe · · Score: 1

    Is the Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO torrent file a fake/hoax? It sounds too good to be true...

    --
    Your Average Joe
  257. It's a fake by zzats · · Score: 1

    Well the leak is a fake. In case anyone wants to know, it shows a picture taken from a famous shocksite. I don't know if it destroys your hd or anything, I tried it inside a virtual machine.

  258. Goatse! by conduit8675 · · Score: 1

    Yeah...got goatse?

  259. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let me know since you will finish before me

  260. Torrent for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  261. Who'll run it? Cheap/poor developers by ralphc · · Score: 1

    Assuming this comes with Xcode and gcc, I'm sure there's plenty of developers of small applications that would like to get a head start on porting their small business or open source apps without shelling out $1499 (signing up, then getting the box) for something they'll have to return.

  262. W H A T ! ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a fake! I have just tested.
    what file have you downloaded? O_o

  263. Obligatory Simpsons Reference by saddino · · Score: 1

    Best. Goatse.cx. Trap. Ever.

  264. New Release Link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging by the reaction to both the tracker (millions of hits) and with replies to this post (both based on a fake release). How long can it be until an actual working release gets out?

    Additionally do you think that Apple execs are watching the reaction and using it as leverage on the windows product? Realistically I believe that a ton of users would switch, based on an easy to use OSX platform.

    out.

  265. Dell with OSX video by willynuez · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Dell with OSX video by kff322 · · Score: 0

      See the video lag! and the slowness of the application launch. Its clearly being emulated by PearPC or something. Stop trying to get out hopes up.

  266. "Lose" not "loose" by douglasq · · Score: 1

    Why is this such a common mistake? No, I'm not a grammar or spelling Nazi but this one seems to be all over the place on /.

    --
    "Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
  267. New Video? by techweenie1 · · Score: 1

    http://maconmac.bastix.net/intel.mov http://maconmac.bastix.net/intel3.jpg Looks legit compared to the other one...not sure though, what do you guys think?

  268. NEW Torrent - Looks like it's not GNAA by FooBarney · · Score: 1

    A new torrent of the Tiger Developer beta just popped up:

    http://torrentspy.com/search.asp?mode=torrentdetai ls&id=328287&query=intel%20mac

    It's entitled "MAC OS INTEL X86 DEVELOPER EDITION", and looks like it's at least different from the fake "GNAA version" that had been floating around. The torrent delivers a single file called "macosxintel.exe" .

    I have no idea whether it's real. Anyone have a clue? If you do download it, BE CAREFUL ... it's an executable, and if it's from some unsavory character, might do unspeakable things to your pc.

    1. Re:NEW Torrent - Looks like it's not GNAA by Kujila · · Score: 1

      All I got was:

      "We could not process the selected torrent. Please try again."

      Maybe it was just a crap file so TorrentSpy pulled it, or perhaps it was the real deal and supporter groups of the DMCA gave TorrentSpy a call :D

    2. Re:NEW Torrent - Looks like it's not GNAA by kff322 · · Score: 0

      It looked like it was nuked or something, if you downloaded the torrent could you send it to me via email linuxsuperuser@gmail.com for testing, if its real ill do my best to get it to the rest of the ./ community ;)

      linuxsuperuser@gmail.com

  269. Idiots! by chudgoo · · Score: 1

    You are all discussing various niche topics while the point of this thread was about a leak that not one person on slashdot could be bothered to verify its contents. I see exactly 2 posts mentioning the actual goatse image that this DVD produced and almost 900 discussing the hypotheticals of Apple's business plans... Slashdot editors have never cared about being first with a story except for this one time when not one person could TEST the image before posting a link.....think of all the bandwidth wasted for a lame prank....

  270. Ive seen the torrent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is 1.7 days old with 12 seeds.
    but haven't downloaded to see if its a fraud.

  271. UPDATE by kff322 · · Score: 0

    nevermind, I got ahold of the torrent, it downloads to 13%. It contains 2 files setup.exe and setup.bin, both contain the backdoor.bifrose virus/trojan. more than just a prank! wurd DO NOT DOWNLOAD ITS JUST ANOTHER FAKE!!!!

  272. Apple on x86 by Bring+Back+the+DOS! · · Score: 1

    So the whole thing (the OS) was re-written for PCs? That sounds like a lot of work, and will apple lose money? It's like Linux a little bit, because you download it and install it on your PC. Whatever, I guess I'm probably a little confused.

    --
    5 HGR 10 PRINT "LOVE YOUR APPLE" 11 HCOLOR= 3 : HLIN 8,36 12 HOME : end
    1. Re:Apple on x86 by techweenie1 · · Score: 1

      No No No...it wasn't rewritten, in fact Mac OS X has evolved from NeXT, which ran on intel...even the first Mac OS X Developer Release was for Intel Only. For the past 5 years Apple has been keeping under wraps Mac OS X for Intel, also Darwin (the under pinnings of Mac OS X) has been publicly available for intel as well.

  273. Mac OS X Tiger for x86 Intel - Rumors Dispelled by sardopsycho · · Score: 1

    Hello everyone! I am writing to you all to dispell some rumor and information floating around about Mac OS X Tiger for x86 Intel platforms being leaked on the internet. First off, I was one of the developers that attended the conference. I received my developers kit yesterday and have had at it since I opened the package. 1) The kit has NOT been leaked to the internet - at least not as of today (6/18/05). Anyone who has been boasting that they have it have been lying through their teeth or posting grand Photoshop desktop shots. Up until yesterday I have searched EVERY IRC pirate channel, newsgroup, torrent sites, and P2P app that I could find. YES There are some that say they have it, but they are hoaxes and junk. I cannot say that it will not happen, as I am sure someone will put themselves at risk by uploading the x86 discs / DVD up on the internet. I will tell you all, I will NOT be one of them, so do not even waste your time asking. 2) The kit will NOT run on AMD based systems - I dumped it on my AMD system for giggles and got nothing but errors, instability, and crashes. 3) The Intel kit will work on Intel hardware only, and has support for nVidia and ATI cards. As for network, unless it is an Intel network port, it will not work. USB Keyboard and mouse are required, and you have to use the native OS X drivers for the mouse and keyboard, you cannot install the support software at all - obviously they are not written to work on Intel architecture. Printers, scanners, and other devices of the such do not work; so basically you need a 100% Intel board with the onboard Intel graphics or an nVidia or ATI card and you have a running unit. Anything else causes severe slowness, system instability, or it just won't plain work at all. I am sure someone will post a 'hacked' version eventually, so all you folks out there hoping to score a copy that will work with everything, do not get your hopes up for while. 4) Steve Jobs has already publically stated that the current plan is that the Intel hardware will contain an encrypted chip that will only allow the OS to run on Mac Intel hardware. The OS would have to sustain major hacking to get around this software security. I also read a post out there from some bozo claiming he wrote a BIOS bootloder to fool the OS into thinking it was an Intel BIOS - full of $h** he is. First off he doesn't have it to do that to, and second of all, you can't fool this build At least no one knows how to yet. Just thought this might help everyone - feel free to spread this post to other boards. Sardopsycho.

    1. Re:Mac OS X Tiger for x86 Intel - Rumors Dispelled by kff322 · · Score: 0

      uploading the x86 discs / DVD up on the internet.

      Does it come with restore dvd/cd?

    2. Re:Mac OS X Tiger for x86 Intel - Rumors Dispelled by sardopsycho · · Score: 1

      Full install DVD - again...no I will not upload it - so don't ask please.

  274. the REAL torrent by kff322 · · Score: 0

    the real torrent is called Truth.About.OSX.x86.Leak-XiSO I think.

    Right now the torrent exists on private trackers and on emule by searching "Truth.About.OSX.x86.Leak-XiSO" but the Queue is like 3000 people to download. If anyone has this torrent can you please put it on a public tracker

    1. Re:the REAL torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is just an .nfo file stating the following:

      You've got to love all the fakes and lame shit thats been happening in the scene lately, the latest of which is Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO . Too many kiddies have access to predb's and prebots and have been flooding the scene with fakes which have pissed many people off. Something needs to be done to clean this up before it gets any worse.

      Another thing that needs to be dealt with is the flood of re-encodes and dupes, especially in the PSP section. Rules need to be setup and standards established before things become more messy. At least if you're going to fake something, do it right you dumbasses. Anyone looking at the fake vs a real release should be able to see a few differences right off which I'm not going to bother to name.

      Enough rambling for now, and look for a real OS X x86 release sometime in the near future if it does indeed make it ouside of Apple.

      So there...