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?"
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
I bet there's a PC out there already running Tiger...
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.
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.
"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).
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.
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
As for Apple becoming another Microsoft, I'm sure their shareholders would be delighted to see that happen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"(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?
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:
/., or you'd pirate it-- either way, Apple would lose money on it.
----------
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
~Philly
"I'm actually wondering why they wouldn't do this."
Because a similar business model led to the bankruptcy of Be Inc.?
How does a switch of architecture make it suddenly more likely for viruses to come up?
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.
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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).