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?"
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.
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?
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.
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.
... 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
.. 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
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
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).
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.