Slashdot Mirror
No DRM for Apple in Intel-based Macs
JWeinraub writes "OfB is reporting that, contrary to widely-published and discussed rumors, Apple is not including the controversial Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in its Intel-based Macs. An anonymous registered Apple developer claims that the Apple x86 test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components." From the article: "As to why those with access to the kits have been quiet concerning the claims, our source said, 'you can rest assured that Apple is keeping very close tabs on those of us who have them.' The kits are only available to those who accept a non-disclosure agreement."
Even though the article says these are "test boxes" apple should see that wIthout DRM they would have the perfect weapon to gain market share. The difference between heavily restricted wintel boxes and non DRM Apples will be apparent even down to the level of J6P. Would this leave Apple as the only "General computer" left? A more accross the board move to Apple could even be a boon to linux as more people accept the fact that there are options to wintel (or at least options to Microsoft). Americans generally only get upset at the loss of Freedom when those it is the kind of abrupt in your face taking that DRM represents.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Posting anonymously, here...
While it is very much correct that the Developer Transition Platform does not represent shipping or production hardware, the motherboard does indeed have an Infineon Trusted Platform Module controller right on the motherboard. Mac OS X for Intel Platforms contains a TCPA/TPM kernel extension, by the name of AppleTPMACPI.kext.
It's very much correct that this doesn't necessarily represent the shipping hardware. Apple today doesn't have serialization, product activation, or any other limiting copy protection technology in place on Mac OS X. It is purely tied to Apple hardware by the Mac OS X EULA, which, by tying Mac OS X to Apple-branded hardware only, effectively quashes any commercial entity from developing and promoting any other platform that might support Mac OS X. Granted, the landscape changes with Mac OS X running on the x86 architecture, but until a production Mac OS X machine ships, there is absolutely nothing to indicate the final scenario one way or the other.
The rest of the article, however, makes no sense in that, while he correctly asserts that the Developer Transition Platform doesn't represent the final shipping product, it does indeed contain an Infineon TPM module.
Keep in mind that the motherboard in the Developer Transition Platform is a very generic one, and could just as easily be a preexisting Intel motherboard that already includes TPM. Remember: everything in the Developer Transition Platform at present is generic Intel components. They don't support FireWire 800, Bluetooth, 802.11, and have a generic standard Intel BIOS. Does that imply shipping machines will be that way? No? Then neither does the inclusion of a TPM chip on this particular motherboard. There is precedent for Apple taking special care to disallow the spread of prerelease/developer software and hardware, while having no such equivalent restrictions in the final product.
In short, to quote Dean Reece of Apple:
"Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product."
So we have some people saying that there are DRM chips in the x86 macs, and some people saying that there aren't DRM chips in the x86 macs... did it ever occur to anybody that Apple might be shipping different configurations to different people? It makes sense that they'd try a few different things out before release.
Do we believe there is, isn't, or will be. Sounds like the same response to Intel 1+ month ago with the DRM claims in thier chipsets, etc.
We shall find out within a year...
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
"' The kits are only available to those who accept a non-disclosure agreement.'"
Yeah, I can see how well that's working for them.
First they move to a *nix based OS, then switch to Intel processors, then they add a mouse with multi-buttons and scroll, and now no spooky DRM at the hardware level.
I'm finding it harder every day to resist... Now if they'd only do something about the price.
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
Hmm... confirmed via a "reliable source". I guess that automatically makes this fact!
Exactly. We won't know either way until the real ones are out.
To all of you Slahsbots who rushed to criticized Apple. Here is further evidence that you should take a deep breath and calm down....
Another thing to consider is that these developer machines are technically beta and may not represent what the first Intel Mac will actually ship with.
Apple may not care what people do with the Developer Macs because of the tight NDAs, but I'm sure they have a plan in place for the millions of iTels to come. Apple has repeatedly stated they are a hardware company and to loose their OS to cheap PCs would spell death to their business model.
While the article states that there is no DRM or TCPA in the dev boxes, there is still proof to the contrary.
The article also states that these in no way represent the shipped product, which makes sense, but if they say that there is no DRM and then say that the shipped product will be different, does that mean that production Macintels will have DRM?
I had been concerned recently and was considering not recommending Macs to people asking me what computer to buy. Please Apple, give us a definite answer on this.
This does not prove anything! We will see in one year! There's no use to speculate before that.
DRM will be put into Apple boxen sooner or later. The MPAA/RIAA will force them into it as a requirement to allow Apple to continue to distribute music and movies.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
$499 gets you a mac mini that has basically the same specs as my 15 month old powerbook. 512MB, 1.25 GHz G4. No, Apple doesn't compete with whitebox selling-out-of-my-trunk "vendors" on pricewatch.
If being a mac user means hanging out at raves populated by drug burn-outs, then I'm going to classify this as a good thing.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Nice start-up picture.
You must be new here, please move along.
heh, in portuguese TPM stands for 'tensão pré menstrual' ("pre-menstrual tension"); maybe thats why Mac is not including that...
An anonymous registered Apple developer claims that the Apple x86 test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components.
Wow - so regardless that the dev kits contain the code and the mobo's contain the chip, an anonymous developer said they don't have them?
Well obviously the anonymous developer must be right; after all - who can argue with anonimity?
The slashdot article summary title is misleading. It should have "Development" or "Some Development".
So they went from "We're going to lock down OSX with Treacherous Computing" to "DRM? What DRM?"
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Just because a computer is based around a particular processor, does not necessarily mean it is going to be software- and hardware-compatible with other machines based around the same processor. For instance, the BBC model B, the Commodore PET and the Atari 400/800 were all based around the 6502 processor. The Sinclair Spectrum and the Amstrad PCW8256 were based around the Z80A processor. Both the Acorn Atom and the Dragon 32 used the 6847 video chip. And both the Oric-1 and the Amstrad CPC464 used the Yamaha AY-3-8910 sound/PIO chip. Anyone who was reading computer magazines in the 1980s will tell you that even when it was possible, it was a devil of a job to translate type-in listings meant for one machine so they could be run on another. It wasn't made any easier by the almost total lack of abstraction in many systems -- you would often have to use PEEK and POKE statements {and IN and OUT on Z80 machines with their separate memory and I/O buses} to manipulate memory and peripherals directly.
All Apple would need to do to prevent their OS from being run on generic hardware, would be to use a totally different addressing schema than that used by generic DOS/Windows/Linux PCs. Of course, it will still be possible to compile Linux and BSD for Apple hardware {the absolute minimum you need to port any OS written in a compiled language to a new architecture is an interpreter, written in assembler, and just capable enough to understand the compiler compiling itself}. But OS XI would not run on generic hardware because the memory map would be all wrong and the I/O devices would be in the wrong places. And as long as Apple did not release the source code, nobody would be able to recompile OS XI for generic hardware.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed
It took 10 minutes for my work laptop PC to boot and for me to log in today, before Windows calmed down and I could actually start firing up some work apps. Out of frustration (or because I'm used to my Mac at home) I looked at Task Manager and guess what process single-handedly read 140 megabytes of data, caused 35,000 page faults and read from the hard drive 45,000 times since booting merely 10 minutes sooner?
Fucking McAfee VirusScan.
I have no antivirus software or antispyware software running on my G5 at home. Boots in under a minute. Logs in in 5-10 seconds. Sleeps instantly, wakes instantly. Most of all, NEVER "gets in my way". This is the kind of look-and-feel thing that you wouldn't even know you were missing if all you used was Windows.
You can hate your corporate-policy-reinforced PC, or you can love your Mac... for a little bit more cash.
Actually, don't get a Mac, because it will cause you to hate your PC. Best to remain ignorantly blissful. Don't take the red pill.
I'm the pleased owner of a dual G5 powerpc and a g4 powerbook, but if apple does advance intel's drm, I'll bail ship and swtich fulltime to ... Solaris 10 and ubuntu?
You can't draw conclusions from what is in the dev kits.
Development kits are first cuts at hardware and often lack or contain hardware not in the final version.
The original post is incorrect. The article it links to discusses "Palladium" not DRM in general or under other names.
First of all, I will say that I am as against Trusted Computing as the next guy on Slashdot. I think it is a terrible thing.
Unfortunately, I don't think Apple is going to have a choice in this matter. When the big media companies have seen TC and its "benefits" on the Wintel Vista boxes, they will demand it on Apple boxes. Since Apple doesn't currently have the *COMPUTER* marketshare to stand up to the MPAA/RIAA, on the COMPUTER (where video content will come), they will be unable to get any of the content that media companies will be comfortable releasing to a Trusted Vista box. Since Apple only has 5% market share, it won't hurt much to leave them out.
So why does Apple NEED that content? Simple. In recent years, Steve Jobs is taking steps to reinvent Apple as a media company. Not a media PRODUCTION company, but a company that makes media-centric equipment. The iPod now contributes far more than its fair share of profits to Apple's bottom line. Jobs has visions of Apple computers being the "hub" of a home media system. How can any of this POSSIBLY happen when the companies that control the content will not release it to non-DRMed Apples?
Jobs is a good negotiator -- that is clear from his dealings with music companies with iTunes. But there is NOTHING that the MPAA/RIAA is more afraid of than rampant piracy. They see it as bad now, but potentially MUCH worse when all those computers are connected to home TVs and stereos. The sad reality (for me, especially, as I would certainly get a non-TPMed Apple if it was the only "free" (as in speech) choice) is that it WILL happen sooner or later, because it would be a major stumbling block to Apple's foreseeable future as a media-delivery company.
So I'm moving along writing my book when the drm chip steps in and decides that my book is copyrighted by someone else. ( obviously it's not as I'm writing it now) But that is it I'm locked out of my file and can't get it unlocked.. I have to call 1-800-i don't steal to schedule an appointment for someone to come to my computer ( physical or over the internet) and decide that indeed my book isn't copyrighted or do they still think it is and keep me locked out? This is going to be a Scary, Scary situation.
Huh. Seems the mods didn't get your humor but more likely their spelling is not that great. /. so spelling is not of importance here.
Moderators - there is a difference between 'quiet' and 'quite'. I know, this is
What we need here is some of Steve Jobs's patented straight talk routine. Stand up and tell us that the DRM will work solely to limit the OS to Apple-branded systems, or whatever... but tell us something, rather than having rumors turn themselves over on slashdot.
(Not that there's any way to get 'hold of /. rumors for good. But you want to shape them a little.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
This is another example of poor reporting on both sides. The first report was Apple will have DRM, based on what? Anonymous sources and speculation. Not hard facts, or confirmation from Apple or another source that would know. Now we have an anonymous source contradicting the original report.
The media needs to focus on reporting the facts! Don't turn headlines into flamebait or exagerations used to draw in readers and sell more ads.
If you look at the Intel D915GUX, you'll see the unpopulated pads near the SATA headers:
g -sep2k4/d915gux-board.jpg
http://www.ixbt.com/mainboard/images/roundup-i915
If you look at photos of the same region of an Apple X86 Developer MLB, you'll see a chip.
I'd like to see the kernel output from an attempt to boot on one of those..
They're $109 at Fry's, d00ds. You can take it back when you're done.
would have been a more appropriate title.
Just because there's no DRM in the test boxes doesn't mean they won't add it to the consumer version.
Americans generally only get upset at the loss of Freedom when those it is the kind of abrupt in your face taking that DRM represents.
The trusted computing hardware doesn't prevent you from running untrusted code, it just prevents untrusted code from accessing protected data. What the lack of inclusion of trusted computing hardware would mean is simply that, if trusted computing catches on on Windows, a lot of Windows-based music and video can't be accessed on the Macintosh at all.
Would this leave Apple as the only "General computer" left?
Apple has never produced "general computers"; they don't support running other operating systems on their hardware, and they have a long history of using proprietary and undocumented hardware components in their Macintosh platform. The reason things have gotten better recently is not a change of heart at Apple, but the fact that they are increasingly using standard PC components in their systems.
A more accross the board move to Apple could even be a boon to linux as more people accept the fact that there are options to wintel
Apple hardware will be a decent choice for Linux as soon as (1) Apple gives you the option of buying the hardware without the software and (2) Linux developers aren't forced to create drivers by reverse engineering anymore.
On balance, I still think it's good for Apple to leave this out; if they really need it later, they should be able to provide it as a USB dongle. However, leaving it out doesn't make Macintosh an "open platform"; it never has been, and the way it looks, it won't be any time soon.
Gee, i wonder what this Kernel Extension that the Rosetta Launch daemon calls is good for: 'AppleTPMACPI.kext' ..and what's with that Class contained in its .plist called 'com_apple_driver_AppleTPMClient'?
;-)
No TPM, riiight.... That Infineon-Chip is just a dummy!
We must surely all be hallucinating!
Here's Apples Transitionkit Motherboard (well - minus the COM and LPT-Ports!), and looky looky, what's that about TPM in the column on the right?
If i want BS, I'll throw a laxative party at the local farm!
There is actually hardware and software proof of DRM in the test machines. This whole story is just made up. You can find all sorts of DRM evicence here:
a in_Page
http://www.osx86.classicbeta.com/wiki/index.php/M
The problem is there is no midrange product that seems reasonable to me.
Mac mini (Slow G4) + 17" monitor + mouse and key board = $900
You can get a lot of quality PC for that kind of money.
The g5 imac looks cool but it is well established that monitors can be modern and useful through at least 2 or 3 systems. You get the modern processor but at the cost of having to abandon your monitor if you upgrade (imaging ditching the 20" imac g5 monitor!)
Then the next offering starts at $1999, is the size of a server, presumably it had to be so big an aluminum and expensive to keep those G5s cool, but then they made the imac g5 which demonstrates that they could easily make a box with a reasonable price (for macs) and a g5 processor.
What I'd really like of course is that apple compete with microsoft directly and open up OS X to the rest of the hardware market. It's not like microsoft isn't making good money in software alone.
We don't know what the final macintels are going to be like but we DO KNOW the test boxes and they are DRM'd for shure!
I know the chip is physically there, but I don't think it's being used for anything important. My proof? Well, for starters, someone (Blex86r from the OSX86 project) http://www.flickr.com/photos/56598311@N00">got OS X for x86 running in VMWare. If there was DRM, I think he might have had a bit of a harder time getting it to work.
I can't see hardware manufacturers NOT going towards a DRM chip of some kind. It's evolution man. It'll happen wether you like it or not, and you certainly don't have to buy one. Bu tI think it'll get harder and harder to buy a computer of ANY kind that doesn't have SOME KIND of DRM in it.
My
When the intels comes out for the mac platform, and thats the new standard, that means I will have to buy an entirely new box, because my old mac wont support the new intel hardware?
...it's just there so Mac OS X can run.
Apple said Mac OS X wil run just on Macs (of course). That chip is there to tell Mac OS X it's a Mac so it can run.
It doesn't do anything else. You still have complete control of the computer, and any operating system has (Windows, Linux, *BSD, BeOS and so on).
There's a proof I am right: here. Windows XP running on a apple developer intel machine.
How could this be possible if I wasn't right? The software has full control on the hardware even ignoring that chip (or tearing it away, if you're stupid enough: you won't be able to run Mac OS X). That chip isn't anything more than USB (or old serial ones) dongles given with some applications to make sure you're authorized to run them. It's just built on the motherboard.
So, please, stop saying nonsenses.
now honestly ... what the hell did those pictures have to do with anything? sure there is an apple logo in there, and the boobs were nice ... but seriously.
He's actually working to hack the DRM if you read about his work and not come to retarded conclusions.
a tesharpen4nw.jpg
Get a clue! - http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9736/appletpmrot
"Apple is not including the controversial Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip...
But Intel is, since afterall they are putting together the machines?
"An anonymous registered Apple developer claims that the Apple x86 test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components."
No, but commercial boxes do have DRM and/or TCPA ?
I'd better RTFA....
Until Apple makes a statement (which would be really easy for them to do) this is just a counter-rumor.
Now, as to why apple won't simply come out and say whether they'll be using DRM to lock their OS to their hardware... my tinfoil hat tingles in a way that make me think the DRM is coming. This way the fanbase, as opposed to the userbase, has time to internalize this possibility before they announce it.
Or it could be like you're implying in your post, they just haven't decided yet themselves.
No. He mentioned his G5 boots in under a minute. My iBook G4 boots in 15 seconds.
In other words, your OS is so crappy and insecure that you have to go through services.msc disabling things so you don't get a virus.
Hey, that makes it better! Meanwhile, OS X has had zero trojans and viruses since its release five years ago.
And here, you've completely invented a conclusion you had no basis of reaching. What makes his laptop properly inconfigured? Are you saying Windows isn't properly configured until you go through disabling all the services it ships on by default? Does that mean Windows ships inconfigured? What kind of phrase is "properly inconfigured," anyway? Don't you mean "improperly configured?"
As opposed to the totally turned off G5 he already mentioned and you choose to ignore.
My iBook G4 1Ghz with 640MB of RAM boots faster than my 1.5Ghz Pentium 4 PC with 640MB of RAM and XP SP2 with no services I don't need. Next.
He already said the G5 boots cold in less than a min...ah, forget it. You're so deluded that you think a Windows machine should force its users to go through disabling services just so you don't have to run anti-virus (sorry, you'll still have to, along with your firewall, anti-spyware, registry cleaners, and so on). If by "properly set up desktop G5" you mean a computer that doesn't turn on services it doesn't need, doesn't open ports it doesn't need (which get exploited...hello, MSBlaster rebooting two-thirds of the world's computers), and actually institutes a security policy, then yes, you're right. The G5 has the properly configured operating system.
Have fun running in an admin account for the next two years.
The real MC 900 foot Jesus would never say anything that stupid.
This is NOT flamebait! I really am considering switching now, and I really do dislike their UI philosophy. Grow up, fanboys.
Slashdot (http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/08/04/1338205. shtml?tid=118&tid=158&tid=3) and others are referencing this article (http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=art icle&sid=380&mode=&order=0&thold=0) from Ofb.biz which states that our reports of the TPM module in the Developers Kits "were incorrect." As you can see by visiting our TPM Resource Center however, the evidence is quite conclusive.
We're providing this lighthearted and irreverent rebuttal to prove it.
Palladium Not in Apple Dev Kits
By Timothy R. Butler
Editor-in-Chief, Open for Business
August 03, 2005, 22:38:05 EDT
EXCLUSIVE. Earlier reports circulating around the Internet concerning Apple's inclusion of a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in Intel-based Macs were incorrect, OfB has learned. News of the inclusion of the chip, based on the technology formerly known as Palladium, had spread across the Internet as wildfire in recent days and many news outlets, including Open for Business, had published commentary on the dramatic revelation of the technology's inclusion.
The alleged digital rights management chip was said to be included in Apple Developer Transition Kits. These kits are early Intel-based Macintosh systems Apple has been providing for lease to Apple developers at a price of $995 since company CEO Steve Jobs announced the transition away from PowerPC in June.
* All very true so far.
The Trusted Computing Group's technology has been surrounded by controversy since word first broke out about it in 2002. The Trusted Computing Group is an industry consortium sponsored by Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Hewlett-Packard Sun Microsystems and IBM. Macintosh aficionados had been pleased in the past that their platform was isolated from the technology, making the claims released this week all the more disconcerting to many.
* Such claims are disconcerting because the evidence supports them. Visit our Knowledge Base for more support.
Commenting on earlier reports, a reliable source who requested anonymity told OfB, "While many rumors are being circulated on the web about Apple's future direction on Intel processors with DRM, the majority of them are just that - rumors." The source, a registered Apple developer, continued, "Reality is that these boxes are production PC's in an Apple case, not DRM or TCPA protected, and none of these boxes will remain in circulation after their purpose has been served - they must be returned to Apple.
* This is just poor journalism. They base their entire story on the word of one anonymous source. The "a registered Apple developer" intends to provide credibility, but gives none as it's simply a membership do the ADC. It's doesn't give him the credentials to be an expert on the TPM.
As to why those with access to the kits have been quiet concerning the claims, our source said, "you can rest assured that Apple is keeping very close tabs on those of us who have them." The kits are only available to those who accept a non-disclosure agreement.
* Hmm... it looks like their anonymous source is as law abiding as he is accurate.
The Open for Business source also cautioned against trying to predict too much about the future Intel-based Macs from the developer kits. "Because they are developer kits only, future functionality of boot protection that prevents OS X x86 from booting on compatible non-Apple hardware, graphical interface, and other underlying technologies are emulated and do not reflect a production environment." The source emphasized that "they [are not] indicative of the future production release of Mac OS X for Intel."
We break it down and let you decide:
#OSx86 Response.
Also be sure to check out the updated TPM Resource Center and take a look at the chip information while you're at it.
WASTE - The Secure P2P
how do i unpost to slashdot?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Today: To run OSX, you need to buy a Mac from Apple.
Tomorrow: To run OSX, you need to buy a Mac from Apple.
I don't understand what all of the excitement surrounding these rumors of Apple including DRM technology on the Macintels is about. It's pretty obvious that if they do include DRM on future Macs it will be to prevent people from running OSX on non Apple hardware. It's no different than today - for whatever technological reason, you need a Mac to run OSX.
It seems to me that Apple wants to maintain the Macintosh experience - they're switching to "generic" (ie, more popular) processors so they need a new method to enforce their rules.
Don't get me wrong, I am as much against DRM as the next slashdotter, but DRM has it's place. In this case I don't see it as a swat against my fair use rights (the way DRM on purchased music is).
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
Unfortunately that is not so. The kernel has a driver for TPM and Rosetta (the PPC emulator) uses that driver. Take a look at the proof.
Using non official information to prove other non official information wrong?
Better yet, using a rumor to disprove another rumor.
Wouldn't Apple be better off publishing expected timelines for products and plans instead of hiding it from everyone? Does the hiding information really help the end users? We all know Longhorn is coming and there is a specific roadmap. Sure, there are delays but there is enough information released about the OS that we all know many of the features and we all know when and why certain delays come up. Imagine not knowing a release was coming until days before? It is not just MS that operates this way, in fact Apple is in the huge minority that does this. As a past and potential future customer of Apple products, I find it very frustrating for planning when and what to buy and many times have gone the PC route because of the unknown and lack of a information from Apple. Apple may get away with this to some extent on the consumer level but businesses with a high volume do not like to take that risk.
Hey! This isn't the Intelligent Design topic!
As I type this post I am staring at Windows XP device manager running on MY Intel Mac. There is a device in "System Devices" called "Infineon Trusted Platform Module" - wether OS X uses it or not I can't say, but it IS there.
I don't understand what all of the excitement surrounding these rumors of Apple including DRM technology on the Macintels is about.
It's got very little to do with boot protection, and everything to do with the restrictions that Apple would have to impose on OS X to make the kind of strong DRM that Microsoft uses and promotes realistic.
If Apple were to meaningfully use DRM for more than boot protection, which is what is implied by the presence of a DRM chip and a TPM module in the kernel (because DRM is a really bizarre method of implementing boot protection... they could do it much easier and more effectively in other ways), then they would need to close the kernel and driver kits, go to signed drivers, all the **** that Microsoft's pushing.
There is Pegasos PPC from Genesi who is catering to the Linux PPC workstation crowd. And you can still buy Sun workstation computers too. And there are many other manufacturers making computers like this. These manufacturers probably won't ever add DRM to restrict the people that buy these machines.
And they won't be able to connect to the Internet if the vast majority of ISPs require Trusted Network Connect in order to get an IP address, which some people expect to happen between 2011 and 2015, possibly by force of law.
So I'm moving along writing my book when the drm chip steps in and decides that my book is copyrighted by someone else. ( obviously it's not as I'm writing it now)
This has in fact happened, albeit with music rather than books. See Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music .
It also takes under a minute for my older 667 MHz Powerboot to fully boot from a cold start (of course waking is under a second).
At work I use a PC (2.7 GHz) with a virus scanner - that I have disabled, because runtime checks (which you reccomend) still chew up a very annoying amount of system resources.
I also have a 1.8 DP G5 and it frankly feels faster, even with the virus scanner on the PC disabled.
Sure it's better to disable services on Windows. But what if you're running a corperate PC? They frown on you messing with those things. That's why, in theory, I am supposed to leave the virus scanner on all the time. But I prefer to spend a little work every now and then when something happens instead of suffer under the agonizing pain that is the constant virus scan.
But to get back to the original point, the poster was simply noting how much faster Macs boot, which is very true - even from a cold start, much less from sleep.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The sad reality (for me, especially, as I would certainly get a non-TPMed Apple if it was the only "free" (as in speech) choice) is that it WILL happen sooner or later
So how would you connect that machine to the Internet? Within the next decade, residential ISPs are likely to stop giving out IP addresses unless you can prove that your machine is "trusted".
So what the hell are you reading Slashdot on if you don't have a monitor?
That's rather the point, most people have monitors and keyboards now from previous PC's. Why let them (or the printer you already have) go to waste?
What is that extra $100 for? They do whip with 512MB of RAM which is actually plenty for just about anything except really large photo or video editing projects. Even development would be OK with that much RAM.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When Apple moved from 68040 to PowerPC around Mac OS 7.1, it put a 68LC040 emulator into the PowerPC version of Mac OS. In addition, apps started to contain both PowerPC code and 68K code in what was called a "fat binary".
Now Apple is moving from PowerPC to x86 around Mac OS X 10.5. The x86 version has a PowerPC emulator called "Rosetta". In addition, apps will start to contain both x86 code and PowerPC code in what Apple has called a "universal binary".
These are not the Palladium chips you are looking for.
Vote for Pedro
Mac mini (Slow G4) + 17" monitor + mouse and key board = $900... ...The g5 imac looks cool but it is well established that monitors can be modern and useful through at least 2 or 3 systems.
If monitors last through 2-3 systems then use the one you have now on a Mini...
I do think it odd you have left out Powerbooks as options though, which are nice because you can also use that monitor you already have as a second monitor.
As for the iMac, it will last through the same period as 2-3 PC systems so really the monitor point is a bit moot. I mean it will still be there happily working for you seven years from now, or you can sell it for a pretty good percentage of the original price if you feel the need so there is no waste. Don't listen to the curmudgeons saying it will be obsolete in a year when the Intel based Macs will come out, in reality all but the highest end games will be shipping binaries for PPC macs for several years, and they'll work smooth for the next three than the Intel macs which will have a few integration pains for a year or so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why go through all the trouble and expense of making hardware incompatible with pc hardware, when it's cheaper to just implement the DRM scheme?
Vote for Pedro
Jobs does not nessicarily have "the dream" of Apple as the hub of a home media system. That 's Gate's dream more than Jobs.
The subtle difference is that Apple is thinking to be the center of a home computing hub - media is just a small part of that equation. Yes Apple wants to sell video but there is no need for them to do so on any terms but thier own, which they have already shown to work well with Music so they negotiate from a position of strength.
They already have the foot in the door with music videos, which currently are bog-standard MP4 video files (I can play them with VLC). The next step (I think) is a store that sells TV shows, which also possibly could be negotiated to use fairly open formats. And if Apple succeeds at that then movie companies have no choice to follow. The mvoie companies aren't really any smarter tahn the music companies so I see no reason why there will not be a repeat of the rise of ITMS - only in video.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It is amazing that anybody buys this crap. TPM chips are on the motherboards of Intel based Macs. The Intel Dev Kit makes heavy use of TPM to keep the OS from being run on unauthorized computers. As some of you may have heard, an image of the Intel Developers Kit (includes OS X 10.4.1 install) leaked onto the web. There are a number of fake releases - but this particular one is real and the community has been dissecting it rather heavily. Here is their rebut to this specific article:
/me sighs....
Classic Beta's Rebuttal of the claims in this article.
I suggest everybody take the time to read this. Yet again we have a slashdot article which not only is wrong but being defended by a bunch of goons who can't be bothered to find out the truth for themselves.
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
Wrong. Apple and OSF Research Institute started MkLinux to run atop PowerPC hardware. In addition, Apple ran AIX on some of their older servers.
In the early to mid-nineties yes they did. In the late nineties Apple switched this and moved to a completely open platform. They use OpenFirmware (which ( if you didn't pick up from the name) is open) instead of a proprietary bios, standard internal components PCI/USB/Firewire and standard RAM/HDs etc.
Well, if you mean "increasingly using standard PC components" by "have been using completely standard PC components for quite awhile now", then yes, you'd be right on that part.All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
There's this chip that you find on a lot of intel computers that's also in Apple intel developer loaners.
Until now nobody has actually used that chip for the intended purpose (ie restricting fair use of media).
Apple has announced it will restrict use of it's OS to it's own machines.
Most likely this will be done with a chip you can't just buy in any store, this chip being the one everyone is flipping about right now, or another one, no-one knows, right?
No surprise there.
So WTF is all the commotion about then?
I think, therefore I am...I think.
or else you won't be able to run Vista on those boxes...
Perhaps the DRM is only on the test boxes to track and find out if anyone violates the NDA, maybe they're coming off in the final release. Just some thoughts.
I hope that this is true, and I hope that Apple wont bow down.
I wonder just how many of the people kicking and screaming have got recent Intel motherboards, most how which have probably got exactly the same DRM chip sitting there awaiting Vista.
So far, the sum of these stories is: "There's a 50% chance that Apple will use DRM!" vs. "There's a 50% chance that Apple won't use DRM!"
This would be a perfect topic for a pundit tracker.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Anytime any company would not confirm one way or the other, in my experience the synical prediction has always been correct. For example when Corel purchased Jasc where I worked and proclaimed, "We don't know if job cuts will be necessary" which means most entire departments will be axed.
I've got an Intel motherboard awaiting FreeBSD 5.4.
Don't have any awaiting Vista.
Reminds me of an old campfire song I remember from summers in the '70s...
Flea
Flea Fly
Flea Fly Flo
Vista!
Coomalah, coomalah, coomalah Vista!
Oh, no no, no not the Vista!
Beat dillee oten doten bo ho be deten daten.
Shhhh....
If I cannot run a completely open source OS on your network, I won't be your customer. I always wanted to run a BBS as a kid, but could never afford a phone line. By the time I could afford a phone line the internet had taken off and there was no need. (That and I grew up enough to know running a BBS would be work for little gain)
My network may be kludge of 802.11b with antennas to other geeks, and long distance phone via 14.4k modem, but it won't be DRM. It may take a week to send an email across the country, but at least it will get there.
They're fair assumptions if you've been watching the progress and goals of media companies recently.
Basically, they want complete control over any interface that outputs copyrighted content. So either you can play your audio out of an analog output, probably with some "subaudible" watermarking and/or degradation, or it goes out some sort of controlled digital interface, which will only cooperate with DRM enabled hardware.
In order to get full resolution sound and video, under the media companies' real wet dream of a future, you'd basically need to replace everything from your computer to your home theater amplifier, with closed boxes that support DRM. I doubt people will do this though, instead they'll just have one DRM-enabled box (the computer) and watch whatever degraded analog output it produces, instead of the high-quality but impaired digital ones.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's the first step in getting consumers "buttered up" to accepting DRM on a much wider scale. Sure, today it's only to lock out non Apple PC's from running OS X, tomorrow just to get rid of piracy, then the day after you software stops working and you read the new updated EULA where you find out that, oh, actually you now have to pay a subscription to continue using the program. Not only that, you cannot reverse engineer your own data stored in files saved by that program because they are encrypted and thus only work with that program.
It will also be used to stifle interoperability, no more Koffice or OO.org being able to open Word files etc.
DRM is bad, just say no kids. Apple is small enough that consumers could make an example of them by voting with their wallets. Hopefully Apple realise this and will not start down that path.</tin-foil-hat>
I am NaN
"A reliable source who requested anonymity" said it, therefore it must be true.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If they breach their contract with Apple, what makes you think they would tell _you_ the truth?
Obviously their man'chi is towards the computer community rather than Apple.
Question: Why would Apple release an OS level DRM chip/scheme/driver at this point in the game?
/.'ers would love to have that changed to "Any x86" hardware.
Apple has made it clear that it will take "MacTel" hardware to run OSX. Most
Apple is not stupid - Whatever they are cooking up for protecting their hardware wouldn't be put in the hands of the very people that could try to defeat it.
And in case you think I may have missed the point about why there may be support for DRM (as it applies to Music/Movies etc) I haven't. I happen to think this is coming one way or another - Apple may simply use it to lock down OSX to MacTel hardware.
1) Not as cheap when looking just at price, but I bet it's way lower in maintenance time, which is also a cost, unless your time is worth nothing
2) I don't know where you gather it's not quite as fast, has the mips-per-dollar figure fallen that behind with apples?
3) When it comes to apps, and especially games, as far as sheer quantity goes, I'd say Windows > Mac > *nix. Quality-wise, I'd say Mac > Windows with *nix varying widely (when you can't even standardize on a single windowing metaphor and widget set, how can a UI judgment be made?)
Sony is expected to offer optional hard drives for the PS3 with potential memory capacity of 80 or 120 GB. It remains to be decided whether the standard version of the PS3 will come complete with a hard drive. The operating system has also yet to be clarified. The integrated Cell processor will be able to support a variety of operating systems (such as Linux or Apple's Tiger).
So, If I am a TechNet member, I can submit a story about "Windows Vista" containing a hidden feature that performs a DDOS attack on apple.com?
The fact of the matter is that Apple has clearly stated that it's OS will only work on it's own Hardware, and the best way to do that is TPM.
Oh, and read the .nfo file on the leaked devkit DVD... it clearly states so.
Mozilla stole tabs from NetCaptor. So what? Right?
Well, tin foil hats aside, I think everybody with a clue would agree that Apple'd be dead if OS X could run on just any PC (those who think otherwise have never ever done support).
So they'll have to do something to keep OS X on their boxes only. If it's through this chip, that's BTW already on a shitheap of laptops and other configurations you all buy, what gives?
If they ever use hardware drm on their computers to hamper fair use, I'd say you have a real reason to boycot them. Give me a call then, I'll stand on the barricade and sing...
IMHO this is like all those posts on Apple's mouse (a friggin mouse FGS) by people who just knew how it would suck by looking at Apple's glossy webpages...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
The TPM chip is not necessarily used for DRM. In fact in today's environment, it can't be used for that purpose. To use it for DRM it is necessary for the chip to be sold with an embedded key and for the manufacturer to supply a certificate (similar to a web site certificate) which means that the key is a valid TPM key. No manufacturers are presently doing this, because the whole issue is too controversial.
I have a computer with a TPM that I bought for research, and I tried to get one with a key and a certificate, but it was impossible. Even though it was for legitimate security research, everyone has been scared by all the anti-TCPA and anti-Palladium activism on the net.
You can still do some useful things with the TPM; it has crypto features and can do some Tripwire-like functionality. But this is not DRM.
It's entirely possible that Apple is using the TPM for various purposes. Theoretically the software could look for a particular brand of TPM and use that to somewhat limit which boxes it would run on. Or it could be using it for the crypto functions.
But that is a far cry from using it for DRM or the other advanced features in the TCPA spec. My reading of the various claims and counter-claims is that Apple is in fact shipping with a TPM but it is not using it for DRM and has no plans to do so. That is generally consistent with what all sides are saying, modulo a bit of confusion and sloppy terminology. It appears to be as close to the truth as we are going to get in a situation like this.
AppleTPMACPI.kext is being used by the rosetta binary.
My guess is that Apple aren't worried about DRM, but Transitive are.
"A Mac G5 - which is what we were comparing - will boot faster than a PC with AV software"
I have an iMac G5 and it takes about a minute to boot.
I have a P4 3.2G with Grisoft AVG and it takes about a minute to boot.
No difference.
Unless this strangely similiar pic is also true about the commodore64 port?
http://saveie6.com/
I fail to see problem here. Apple uses DRM today to lock OSX to Apple computers. They been doing it for years and have publicly stated they will do it for the Mactel computers. Who cares about the mechanism of the DRM they use? Futhermore, I look at the members of the Trusted Computing Platform. You have Intel and AMD who are competitors. You Microsoft and maybe now Apple who are competitors. Do you think market forces will minimize DRM usage much the same way it drives down price? Restriction is naughty word in this society and companies will try to undercut the next guy with less restriction. This will apply to content providers as well as the software providers.
I don't really see DRM as big problem, in fact I see it as quite the opposite. First, there are social mechanisms that expose abuse. Examples from modern times exposing of the Nixon administration and Enron scandal. No one would getaway with abusing DRM for very long. Faster broadband connection are going to give computers an unbelievable amount of flexibility. You will be able get access all sort of content from movies to tv shows to music. You will able to collaborate with anyone from across the globe in realtime. Coupled with the already booming e-commerce, society is going to need DRM to protect everyone. The same technology that will protect music and movie files will protect your ideas, your identity, your credit card number. Let's face it, there are bad people out there that will pirate all that if you let them without conscience. DRM is a necessity. Let's just see how its used before condemn it outright.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
linux is free
Top 5 Resource Hogs in each resource category, 10 minutes after booting
Showing processes from all users
CPU Time
taskmgr.exe 43s
mcshield.exe 39s
IEXPLORE.EXE 16s
svchost.exe 13s
explorer.exe 12s
Mem Usage
sqlservr.exe 56.4M (yup, it's a database server, alright... and it eats RAM for breakfast... AND lunch...)
inetinfo.exe 31M
mcshield.exe 25.8M
blackd.exe 25.2M (Granted, "blackd.exe is the intrusion detection system of the BlackICE computer protection firewall"...) Hmmm.
svchost.exe 23.5M
VM Size
sqlservr.exe 28.9M
mcshield.exe 22.4M
IEXPLORE.EXE 22.4M
svchost.exe 15.9M
explorer.exe 14.1M
Page Faults
mcshield.exe 52,400
tsmjbbd.exe 32,028
svchost.exe 22,153
iPodService.exe 18,790 (whoa)
sqlservr.exe 14,935
I/O Reads
services.exe 38,032
mcshield.exe 29,325
winlogon.exe 27,169
csrss.exe 17,454
UpdaterUI.exe 13,901
I/O Read (Bytes)
mcshield.exe 146,334,118 (that's 146 megs, 146 million bytes!)
svchost.exe 28,979,182
tsmjbbd.exe 8,643,108
IEXPLORE.EXE 7,492,844
blackd.exe 4,996,131
I/O Writes
services.exe 38,651
blackd.exe 33,804
tsmjbbd.exe 5,716
svchost.exe 5,239
winlogon.exe 4,662
I/O Write (Bytes)
tsmjbbd.exe 125,997,316 (125 megs of backup writes? At boot?
svchost.exe 11,617,200
services.exe 5,468,445
System 3,460,292
IEXPLORE.EXE 3,002,950
Now, ok. I know which processes these all are, being a geeky coder and voracious googler by trade and all, so let's take em one at a time by christian name.
the absolute minimum you need to port any OS written in a compiled language to a new architecture is an interpreter, written in assembler, and just capable enough to understand the compiler compiling itself
;-)
This is a bit odd. Sure, back in the dawn of time, you would first write a trivial assembler in machine code, then write a better assembler in trivial assembly, and later write a compiler in assembly and bootstrap from there.
But it's all-around easier to just write your first compiler in a high-level language and cross-compile. (No snide comments about C not being a high-level language, please.
These days, you can take a working C compiler, written in C, and compile it with itself. So you can write a new back end for the compiler, to generate code for a new platform, then cross-compile to make the first-ever native compiler for that platform.
These days, you don't need to bootstrap the compiler with assembly code; you just need to write a new back end that generates correct machine code.
Note that the Debian project had Debian up and working on the AMD64 platform before any actual chips were available. They used an interpreter that emulated the AMD64 instruction set and tested Debian in a virtual machine. (I'd guess that the interpreter was written in C or C++, too.)
This is just a nitpick. I agree with the important parts of what you wrote.
I imagine no-one will admit it (anonymous sources, NDAs, etc), but I wonder if the OS X on Intel runs on a non-developmental box? Does OS X actively search for the TPM, and if it doesn't find it, does it run?
Here's another question. Since the TPM (from what I understand from their specs) is just another device, could you theoretically just hack Darwin to give fraudulent replies to the OS? (I've always wondered about that since I learned how TPM worked... seeing as servers will query it to verify how secure your computer is before they let you connect).
Apple uses DRM today to lock OSX to Apple computers. They been doing it for years and have publicly stated they will do it for the Mactel computers.
No, they haven't been doing it for years and years. There's no copy protection in Mac OS or Mac OS X, no certificates, CD keys, authentication codes, or other mechanisms to explicitly check if you're running on a GenuineMac. The computer itself was the dongle, and if you were using an unsupported Mac, or using a newer PROM, or you replaced your CPU or anything else on the motherboard and took wirecutters and soldersuckers to it and added piggyback RAM sockets... you could do that.
Even if they don't abuse the DRM, the fact that there's now a dongle-chip in the Mac makes it more likely that it won't stay usable over the years. I'm only using a Mac now because I could run Mac OS X on a machine that Apple NEVER supported OS X on. I couldn't justify the cost of a newer Mac just to see if it was really what it sounded like, but I could afford a junker machine and a few bits to upgrade it. I had to replace the CPU with a G3, and use XPostFacto to patch the boot so it would work. None of that is likely to be possible when your Intel Mac gets old and grey.
I tried searching google and wikipedia and could not find any similar information. Phrases like "DRM capable sound card" and "DRM capable digital speakers" produce 0 hits on google.
You're right, when I just googled "DRM capable sound card" I got zero results but using Teoma I got almost 9000 results.
Falcon
Ooh, generally I use Google first then when like just now I don't get any results I'll use Teoma and/or Mooter. They both usually provide results when Google won't.Should there be a Law?
Just because you don't see a TPM on a motherboard pic doesn't mean that the same functionality hasn't been integrated into the silicon of another chip.
On the Intel 945G mobo, this is exactly what has happened.
There, the TPM functionality is inside the chipset that accompanies the CPU. The chipset typically handles the interface to DRAM and controls the flow of data to output devices, among other things. By the time the MacTels roll out, the TPM will most likely not be a separate chip anymore (to sibling: that's how the developer configuration and the final configuration can be workalikes.)
Those of you who plan to be looking for a chip labelled "TPM" on the board as a way of determining the truth of Apple's claims by that time will be wasting time. The only way to know (for the moment) is to look for a TCG-conformant chipset model instead. In the future, you will have no need to check because all Intel chipsets are to be TCG conformant. So, unless Apple is claiming they will use an older chipset, the most stringent DRM capability ever released to the mass market under the bizarro term of "Trusted Computing" will be in there.
Note that on the Cell processor, the TPM is already in the CPU itself, with no external signals to tap into, though IBM claims it is not a full-bore implementation. In the future, as they try to cram more transistors into a smaller space, Intel may also integrate most of the chipset (and the TPM along with it) into the CPU. AMD has already integrated the memory interface into the CPU on some of its processors, and has also jumped on the TCG bandwagon (either that or be run over by it), so it is only a matter of time for them to add a TPM as well.
The only thing that the pictures can prove is which stage of TPM integration is being used by some developers :) None of it should be
interpreted to mean that Apple will not have a TPM somewhere. Their claim is not credible, in my humble opinion.
Then they added previews etc. that can't be skipped, but maybe FF'd through.
It's true with my dvd player. Many of the movies I watch with it have previews before it gets to the main menu, and while I can skip them on some disks or fast foreward with others there are some that I can't do either. As for what's on the top ten rentals, I have no idea as I only buy movies I don't rent any. I thought of joining one of the rental places and asked for the form to join. It quickly found it's way into the recycling without me filling it out, seemed more like it was a loan application with a lot of financial questions. Forget that BS.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Actually a more important upgrade than the processor is the video card. A 32 or 64MB card will do wonders for the computer...
My mom uses a G4 400 as her primary computer to this day, that I upgraded with the aforementioned video card, 1GB of memory, and a new (and thus larger) HD.
She uses it daily for work, mostly InDesign and PhotoShop.
It's not going to be a speed demon but it's very useful with enough memory, and graphics processing power (which frees up the CPU even more).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
56KBps is slow, but the BBS sub-thread has it right. And if analog phone lines get closed off to try to force us all through filtered pipes, there's always tunnelling. Put your DRM-enabled box on line, start up a process that listens to the serial port, run your bridge over serial, invent your own replacement for TCP and tunnel it over TCP.
And if they start looking for tunnels and shutting them down, well, we could all start talking about the weather and yesterday's game and,
Great seals fly turgidly over a ballpark. Your wetsuit friend dances rumbling to alpha. Three felicitous ferrings on the pultice raise shares of diamonds.
It's 10:36 pm Eastern, and I just found this article on CNET which states that Apple Dev Kits DO have TPM (as several of you have already pointed out. http://news.com.com/Much+ado+over+Apple-Intel+deve loper+box/2100-1016_3-5819211.html?part=rss&tag=58 19211&subj=news
I also cam across this article which says the PlayStation 3 will be able to run OS X Tiger.
http://news.com.com/Much+ado+over+Apple-Intel+deve loper+box/2100-1016_3-5819211.html?part=rss&tag=58 19211&subj=news
"Quick! Run to your chocolate huts!" -Meatwad, Aqua Teen Hunger Force
Appologies if I'm quibbling over a throw-away remark, but...
there is NOTHING that the MPAA/RIAA is more afraid of than rampant piracy.
No, what has them really terrified is the rise of independent artists and labels and the fracturing of the market. It no longer takes a fortune in hardware and production costs to record a CD. It no longer takes a multi million dollar ad campain to get exposure. It no longer takes a hundred million dollar production plant to manufacture CDs. It no longer takes a billion dollar distribution chain to deliver those CDs.
Today SINGLE talented person with a few thousand dollars in hardware can create and record professional quality music and can set up shop on the internet. The situation for video is almost comparable.
While the RIAA is yelling and screaming about single-digit percent shrinkage year after year, the number of independent labels is exploding. Many or most of those independant labels are seeing dounble and triple digit GROWTH rates. The "piracy problem" is nothing but a nuisance to these companies... but the rise of independant artists and labels... that wipe out their power or even kill them outright.
They are also seriously threatened by the fracturing markets. The Long Tail is a killer on their business models. Look at how the RIAA business operates. They spend enormous sums of money producing each CD and they spend enormous sums on promotion etc. Just to hit the break even point they have to sell about a quarter million copies. Anything less than that is a loss. They make their money on top-40 pop, and they cater to a handful of musical genres. Pop, rock, pop, alternative, pop, country and more pop. But look at what's happening today... With the increased availability of music all of the catagories are fracturing. Even a fringe catagory like Electronica is fracturing into Acid Jazz, Ambient, Dub, Electro, Electronic, Euro-Dance, House, I.D.M., Illbient, Nu Breaks, Techno, Trance, Trip-Hop and more. Even the subgroups are fracturing. House music has fractured into Acid, Ambient house, Chicago, Deep house, Garage, Ghetto house, Hip house, Microhouse, Progressive, Tech house and more. Techno has fractured into Detroit, Minimal, Hardcore, 4-Beat, Gabba, Ghettotech, Happy hardcore, Rave, Nortec and more. The number of musical genres and subgenres and subsubgenres is almost limitless.
RIAA corporations make their money selling 20 millions copies of the latest Britney Spears CD. These coporations would lose their sirts attempting to sell 30,000 copies of an Electonica/Techno/HappyHardcore remix of Beethoven's 5th symphony or 30,000 copies of the Country&Western/JugBand The Watermelon Mountain Jug Band playing washboard, jug, kazoo, washtub bass, spoons, guitar and a banjo.
Independant bands may can do quite well selling a few tens of thousands of copies at a time. The music industry corporations simply cannot handle The Long Tail. They cannot handle small runs of an endless variety of music. But this is where we are headed. People are increasingly moving towards more customized musical tastes. Internet radio has the RIAA scared shitless (pardon the french). Internet radio is and was playing almost nothing BUT independant music. You don't tune in to internet radio searching for Briteny Spears and her fellow pop icons. You tune into internet radio to find stuff you can't hear on normal radio. Internet radio isperfect for providing thousands of stations catering to niche musical tastes. And this is why the RIAA lobbied for new internet radio rules and deftly manipulated the CARP process to thoroughly strangle the medium.
No, the RIAA isn't so much afraid of copyright infringment as they are terrified of losing their monopoly power and ultimately fading into oblivion. Of course they pull out the "Piracy!" card every chance they can manipulate it to further entrench themselves or further undermine independent artsists and independent labels.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Note that the link does not appear to work on a direct click. The site may be blocking the Slashdot refferer. It does work if you right-click the link and use the copy command and then paste the link in a new window. The empty outline for a TPM is clearly visible an inch or two in from the bottom left corner.
Intel may also integrate most of the chipset (and the TPM along with it) into the CPU.
You do not need to use the future tense. Intel's CPU-embedded Trust system is codenamed La Grande. If you look at the bottom of this page from TWO AND HALF YEARS AGO you'll find that an inactive version of it is already embedded in the Prescott line and god knows how many other models. If you want to see a more detailed but unlabled micrograph of the chip look here. Note that that this image is rotated 90 to the right compared to the image in the first link I gave. With a little hunting it's not hard to match up the details in the two images, but it's real handy if you have image software to rotate the second image and flip between them.
AMD [] has also jumped on the TCG bandwagon (either that or be run over by it), so it is only a matter of time for them to add a TPM as well.
The AMD CPU-embedded Trust system is codenamed Presidio. AMD has been keeping a tight lid on the project and it took me months just to find the damn name documented anywhere on the 'net.
Cell processor, the TPM is already in the CPU itself,[] IBM claims it is not a full-bore implementation.
Any chance you can elaborate on that? It is well documented that there will be some such system in the Cell, but I haven't been able to pin down any details. In particular, what does "not a full-bore implementation" mean???
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
... that there is data available or room for new data from the host -- nothing more. You still need to be able to pull that data from it and to write data and control information. The interrupt itself doesn't convey any other information than 'hey, interrupt #13 just got raised'.
Then, you either do the reading and writing through a memory window (ie. the device presents itself as a sort of pseudo-memory somewhere in the physical memory addressing range of the host CPU) or through an I/O window (a separate addressing space with separate instructions to access it).
Cheers,
Emile.
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
Do not blame the operating system for your company's bad IT department. That reasoning has got nothing to do with it. Most/all of that crap is completely unnecessary on Windows platform, especially in Enterprise environments.
My company does in fact have the Intel box. We compiled and tested our software and fed-back the results to a public benchmarking website regarding the performance. The site is not a top visited site, it's actually quite obscure and I would imagine has under a hundred thousand viewers. The actual data posted on the site is not searchable, meaning that there are no methods of googling for Apple Intel or Apple x86 or the like that would return this as a result.
In fact, the information that we posted is of little value to anyone other than us directly for our comparisons with other products of the same type.
Well, in under 6 hours, we received a reminder of our NDA agreement with them with specific reference to the benchmark data with legalese similar to "Ok, you did it, we know noone actually reads the NDA agreements, let us spell it out for you, it means every single thing that goes on with this Intel based machine is between you and us and noone else"
I am under the impression that Apple is trying to retain sales levels as best they can through the formal release of Apple x86. They will not likely be able to do this if people realize that the first x86 PowerBooks and iBooks and iMacs are going to be that much better than what they sell now. I think that they are also avoiding reminding people that are looking at Macs that every single vendor of commercial software has pretty much powered down their longterm G5 development since they know that the market will be on x86 instead.
All I can say about this transition that is truly bad for Apple is that companies like Adobe and Quark and such have optimized to death their windows versions of software. In many cases their optimizations are assembly based or optimized code targetting a specific x86 compiler, they invest less time in G5 to begin with. I'm guessing that they are pretty much all switching to x86 instead of G5 as we speak. So don't expect a great deal of G5 optimized software in the future.
I got modded "offtopic" for posting a link to the actual Sony offhand mention of running Tiger on the PS3.
I don't believe it, but I don't quite disbelieve it either.
Wouldn't hat put the cat among the pigeons? Both Apple and Microsoft driving game engines and using a different CPU to keep the console and desktop market separate. Works better than DRM, too...
The iMac line may have some heating issues (mainly resolved by now I think) but if your iMac works through all of Applecare then chances are it's going to go the distance.
I have a Dell from seven years ago that still works too - however it is basically useless at this point and so I don't even bother to turn it on. Macs end up being actually useful for a far longer period (in personal experience).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can't he, the oracle of all things Apple, clear this up for us? Why is he strangely silent, he who used to comment so often?
Lasers Controlled Games!
Thanks for pointing that out. Keep in mind though, chipmakers do have the ability to try out several different kinds of prototypes before they decide which design they will want to build in large quantities. So, while I will happily admit that it's possible that I underestimated the most likely current level of integration, it is with the caveat that that early article could have been based on a prototype that was never built. The data in it was fairly reliable, but still speculative. The most likely thing, IMO, is that TC has pieces in both the CPU and the chipset. Come to think of it, that NX bit feature that they were in such a hurry to come out with, now seems better oriented at addressing the only possible hole left in TC than to protect existing hardware.
My main point, which is still valid, was to warn people that it's more tricky than opening up the case and hunting for a discrete TPM chip with an obvious target painted over it. Now that the vendors know that people are learning about what TC really is, I think they may try to hide the fact on any labels, boxes, or webpages (so this is a good time to make your own archive of some sites). They already changed the name of the governing body from TCPA to TCG -- I wonder what other shell games are afoot?
The link that I cited presents it as being some sort of new thing, which I agree could be kind of misleading if at least part of the capability is already in the CPU, but I think that the DRM aspect of it (e.g. control of sound, video channels) necessarily has to have some support in the mobo chipset that handle those functions.
In particular, what does "not a full-bore implementation" mean???
That is a reference to a comment made by IBM itself some time (months?) back in an apparent attempt to allay fears about the strength of the feature (maybe someone else remembers it offhand?) I searched high and low for the link but aren't able to find it anymore. My running cynical theory is that the only thing they didn't implement was the self-destruct-on-tampering feature, and then only because their own testers kept ruining them :)
The most important message at the 2005 WinHEC about Microsoft's trusted computing effort, now known as Next Generation Secure Computing Base (NGSCB), is that it is late and will not be included in Windows Longhorn [...YET]
NGSCB is late? So what, Longshorn itself will be delivered late. They have simply moved the dates, but that doesn't say that they've changed their minds. You are trying to lull people into thinking that "it's OK, this time it will be different" and they won't act monopolistically, lock people into their business model, centralize internet identities, break standards, etc. But the motive and the opportunity is still there, as strong as ever, and you have given us no reason to trust Megalosoft this time, especially with a scheme as potential powerful as this one is.
In short, you are wrong that Vista in 2006 will use TPMs with certs for DRM purposes [...YET] ...Maybe never...
You really can't give a guarantee that it won't happen. That's what's wrong with your argument. You're saying, it's OK for everyone to go and wait inside of the simmering pot, because the heat won't be turned up to boiling... yet.
Apparently the I86 disk installs to PPC as well. Both sets of binaries are included on the disk. Guess this will reduce the costs of distributing the disks to both platforms. I saw this done on an iBook G4.
Immediately after the announcement of Apple's switch to Intel, Terrasoft Solutions has stated that they would not port their Yellow Dog Linux distribution from PPC to Intel-based Macs.
You could rightly call this Offtopic, but it's not a Troll. Unfair.