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?"
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.
...who has the torrent?
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 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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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 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!
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 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.
I, for one, am shocked.
... 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
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.
how many laws would I break by downloading and installing it? (laws affecting Australia that is...)
1138.
-George Lucas's Lawyer.
.. 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
"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?
not to mention the file cannot be found anywhere. this would spread like wildfire if real. im sure you are right, its fake.
Best Buy can have you arrested
"(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?
jeez guys about 100 comments posted already and not a single link?
slashdot is slacking today!
a disturbence in the force, I sense...
How does a switch of architecture make it suddenly more likely for viruses to come up?
no hint of it on the big trackers, nobody on IRC has seen it... looks like a fake to me.
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).
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.
I've extracted the serial number from the version I downloaded, and it's SJOBS_000001. Whatever could it mean?
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
... it definitely feels snappier.
Sounds great, but I don't have any intel machines.
Can you run it under Virtual PC on the G5?
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.
'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.
That was the WWDC last year where attendees got a beta of Tiger.
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).
OLPC Australia
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'm sorry, but you've been duped.
Now all we need is a dupe of this story tomorrow.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
That 10.3 one is definately an empty CD size file. It's all zeros.
0 c1c68|">Mac Osx 10.3 (Intel Version).iso
;)
ed2k://|file|Mac Osx 10.3 (Intel Version).iso|666000000|7d9587606f550c2767667b09c1
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
15 minutes ago..
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
just looked at one of the rars, its just GNAA or some shit repeated over and over... lame
"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".
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
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).
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
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!
It shows the goatse.cx guy, yuck.