Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the i-don't-hardly-believe-it dept.
Slashfan writes "It has been widely reported allovertheInternet that it is extremely easy to get the Intel port of Mac OS X to run on regualar PC boxes.
Some of the hackers are running the tweaked version of the operating system on their PCs natively." Pardon my skepticism ;)
So you have no graphics, sound and networking, but other than that it runs just fine? I'd guess that's taking the famous mac usability one step further.
People seem to have it running natively on the right motherboards. I would have no problem building my next PC from a short list of parts if it meant I could run OS X.
-- "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
I believe there will be a small to medium community porting linux drivers to OSX to allow people to use unsupported hardware, both in their official Apple boxes and their whiteboxes.
Darwin is a very different kernel. The interface the kernel exposes is mostly BSD, but the implementation is entirely different.
That said, they can barely port BSD drivers to other BSDs. Between BSDs that aren't as closely related (FreeBSD, OpenBSD for example) it's more a matter of using the other driver as documentation when you rewrite the driver.
Part of Apple's advantage has always been that since they control the hardware and the software, that can make sure that everything works across the board. For those who value their time, this is an excellent reason to stick with Apple hardware.
Everyone say "DMCA" now... that's all this TPM stuff is likely for.
Sure, you or I may be able to build a "clone" box with enough compatible components that it runs as well as a true Apple box. Just don't go trying to sell them... or if your name is Michael Dell... beware!
See, since TPM is an access control mechanism, bypassing it would be a violation of the DMCA, and Apple legal would be all over anyone trying to sell non-Apple systems running Mac OS X. I truly think that's the only reason for it.
Excuse me while I bang my head on the desk... Should _everything_ mention Linux??? WTF - every card you can stick into your PCI, USB (and I guess AGP) slot you can equally well stick into your Mac. And I think they would have drivers for Mac _ready_ then. At least for mediumly popular hardware. I know that many driver disks I've seen had Mac drivers. Or PPC Mac drivers won't work on Intel Macs?
PS: While you are at it - please port ReiserFS to Mac/BSD/NT. I know that it'd be hard.
Re:Ummm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
No problems here. eMachines T3882 works great, albeit a bit slowly with its 2.8GHz Celeron. Sound is fine. Video does not appear to be accelerated but appears just fine. No problems identifying the NIC. For the most part, this computer is a reference-level Intel board.
The reason Apple locks the OS in the first place is stability. Apple makes almost no money off of their Mac hardware compaired to iPods and iTunes. They would love to be able to sell their OS to the very large market of people who already have x86 PCs. The problem is, in order to keep with Apple's legendary "it just works" tradition, every part of the OS needs to be highly tested and troubleshot, especially drivers. In the past, that has not been a problem, because there are only about 15 different computer models that can run OS X. That means Apple has to make sure only 15 different systems will run stably. If they released for all x86 machines, they would have no way of testing every machine. Therefore, there would certainly be bugs that were found after release with certain hardware, making the OS no more stable than Windows, if not less so. Also, Apple does not have the clout to get drivers written for its OS by all hardware vendors, and they certainly don't have a large enough staff to write the drivers themselves. It is therefore obvious that Apple's decision to make OS X run only on their special x86 hardware was a move to insure that the stability and quality of use of the OS is consistant, not a cold hearted move to exclude the x86 masses (even though it fits with some of the terrible decissions that Apple made in the past).
Wow, concern about stability is about the most positive spin you can put on that decision.
When clearly it's the 'here's a 100 million dollars, plus a few more releases of Office for Mac, just to make it appear as if a viable competitor to us exists' deal with MS which precludes the release of a competing OS.
Riiight. You can stick any card you want in, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to use it. As I understand it, there are special mac versions of soundcards and videocards that were required.
Besides, I'm not the one you should be argueing to. I'm responding to all the people who are claiming that OSX-x86 will never work properly on whiteboxes due to the lack of drivers. If there is in fact a driver shortage, I think people will step up to the plate and write their own.
Apple makes almost no money off of their Mac hardware compaired to iPods and iTunes.
This is utterly, absurdly wrong (and I will show you why that is at the end of this post), and since the rest of your post is based on this weird claim, I expected it to be just as utterly and absurdly wrong.
However, I was amazed to find that you actually have a point: Mac OS X works so well partly because the hardware which it needs to support is quite stable and not very diverse. I probably helps that the peopel building the hardware are in the same company as the people building the software.
Just to quickly come back to your claim that Apple makes "almost no money of their hardware": During Q3 05, Apple sold "1,182,000 Macintosh units and 6,155,000 iPods" (see for yourself). The average selling price (the price at which Apple sells it, not at which you buy it) for a desktop Mac is over 1000 US$. The average selling price for an iPod is quite a bit below 200 US$. Apple doesn't say what its exact margins on iPods are, but they seem to be almost 10% lower than on Macs. Still, let's assume they're equal, and let's assume Apple sells iPods for 200 US$ and Macs for 100 US$. So Apple has to sell 5 iPods for each Mac it sells to make the same amount of money. Hence, actual numbers show us that Apple makes about as much money on Macs as they make on iPods - probably more, as I rounded all numbers in favour of the iPods.
As for iTunes: Apple doesn't make any money selling music, they barely break even. iTunes sells iPods. iPods make money. iTunes doesn't.
I said Mac hardware. Not all hardware. The iPod is not a Mac. It does not run "Mac OS". It is an iPod. They sell tons more of those than of their Mac line. The much greater quantities of people buying iPods makes up for their lower profit per unit. Since the iPod has been released, Apple has seen profit growth in excess of 200%, whereas sales of Mac computers has only risen slightly.
iTunes and the iPod can be seen as one product, since the other is pretty much forced on a user of the other (iPods work with iTunes to sync, iTunes music will only play on iPods).
Re:Ummm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, Apple's profit on their computer hardware is between 28-35% on average, and has been over most of the years and models I've been a Mac user (since 1986). They make almost the same profit on their iPod line. It's iTunes that brings only a few pennies per song in profit. Although, a few pennies on 500,000,000 songs sold is alot. And wait until movies... wow!
Re:Ummm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Have you heard of the I/O Kit? http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeviceDri vers/Conceptual/IOKitFundamentals/Introduction/cha pter_1_section_1.html> It's an object-oriented framework for device driver implentation in OS X. Instead of the copy and paste style of driver development used in every other O/S most driver functionality is inherited from a suitable base class. The I/O kit is a well designed framework written in embedded C++ (no exceptions or RTTI) that is fast and robust. It provides excellent abstractions from hardware and it it this that allows Apple and third parties to write quality (robust and correct) drivers rapidly.
John
I know perfectly well what you said. You, however, did not read my post. You said that Apple made almost no money on their Mac hardware compared to iTunes and iPods. That is wrong, as I've shown. Apple makes no money on iTunes and more money on Mac hardware than on iPod hardware, as you can see from their Q3 report, which is publicly available.
Re:Ummm
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Oh yeah? So it's working for you pretty well on your machine right now?
The reason Apple locks the OS in the first place is stability.
And the reason your government wants to make every citizen carry a radiotransmitter with a GPS is to be able to locate them in case of a 911 call. Rrrrrright.
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Thank you for reminding me how old I am, because I get your horrible Bobby Mcfarrin reference. There's a lot about the young turks I work with that makes me feel bad for them... They don't know who Hong Kong Fooey is, a lot of times they don't really understand how computers actually work inside, they don't really appreciate cable or VCRs or hard drives because they never lived without them,etc. But on the plus side, they won't get the reference, or get that f-ing song stuck in their head for the rest of the afternoon...
-- "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:pardon?
by
Monkelectric
·
· Score: 2, Informative
horrible Bobby Mcfarrin reference
To his credit, bobby mcfarrin went on to have a fairly respectable career as a jazz musician after that gimmick track of his. He did a few tracks with the Yellow Jackets that are quite decent.
Actually, his surname's McFerrin, and he's done quite a lot of stuff, from unaccompanied African vocal groups to conducting his own orchestra (the Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra) in quite respectable classical works. He's also done a 2-man show with Robin Williams (the comedy actor, not Robbie Williams the singer!). His work is variable IMO, and while some of it's not to my taste, he obviously has a wide-ranging talent.
He was a respectable jazz musician before that song... just had his entire body of work eclipsed by a throwaway pop jingle. A lesson for us all, truly.
-- Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Unfortunate story, but when I was but a wee lad (read: 3 or 4), whenever we came back from our cabin in north-central PA, we would occassionally stop at a small bar. Anyway, I would constantly pester people for quarters so I could play exactly that song. Why? I don't know. My little cousin and I would run around like crazy monkeys whenever it came on.
Anyway, I remembered it a few years ago and downloaded it, just to reminisce. I was still living with my dad at the time and he just got real quiet and asked me to turn it off. It was rare for him to do this, so I asked why.
My father worked on a surface mine. When I was about 6 or 7, they were tearing down a silo. One of his best friends, who also worked with him, was singing that song earlier in the day trying to get my dad to cheer up about something stupid or another. Anyway, my dad walked away to get something out of the service truck, the silo collapsed, and when he ran back around, his friend was buried under a few tons of brick.
Completely off topic, of course. Mod at will.:]
Re:pardon?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I told those fudge packers I liked Bobby McFerrin.
Re:pardon?
by
Simon+Garlick
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Fairly respectable"? The guy is one of the greatest vocalists and musicologists of the late twentieth century.
I have always wanted to try out on my Intel box and my dream is finally coming true. I hope Steve learns a lesson from this and does not put DRM in the official version
I would hope that Apple does not ever release their OS for the standard PC. It would be terrible for their image. Sure the Mac OS works great on Apple's machines, but start throwing it on people custom machines and trying to run all kinds of crazy hardware setups and OS X isn't going to run so swell anymore. The reason the Mac OS runs so well is because it and the hardware it runs on are meant to run together.
Windows, which is really a great OS, gets such a bad rap because it's expected to run with every piece of hardware out there flawlessly. No one stops to think that it's a miracle that it runs as well as it does on so many systems. Not to put down the Mac OS, but compatibilty realy isn't so much of an issue/concern for OS X as much as it is for Windows.
So basically, OS X runs good because it runs on Apple hardware. Start putting it on other machines, and it won't be too long before "OMG this OS suxors! It keeps crashing all the time on my CompuExpress UltraGaming Machine 2000!"
-- Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
> I hope Steve learns a lesson from this and does not put DRM in the official version
Methinks he'll learn from this and be sure to put DRM in the final version
I hope Steve learns a lesson from this and does not put DRM in the official version
It seems to me the only lesson to be learned is "If we don't make a serious effort to make our x86 macs different enough from vanilla PCs, a bunch of jackassess will just download it off some P2P network, run it on their own boxes, and freeload off our hard work".
Having learned that, why would he not make it harder for people to obtain and use OS X without purchasing their products?
What that dishonest people will lie, violate their NDAs, illegally infringe upon his copyrights, and not pay him a red cent because they have some sense of entitlement? Not exactly model customers for a software company that (usually) prides itself on trusting its customers and does not even require an authentication code to install and run its OS and the majority of its commercial applications.
MS makes you pay when you buy the hardware and does not worry and just tries to annoy you when you pirate. Apple also has not worried about pirates and makes you pay when you buy the hardware. Apple running on commodity PCs would make this situation one where you pay MS when you buy your hardware and then pirate Apple's OS and pay them nothing. And you applaud pirates freely distributing this pirate copy?
I'm sure Jobs has learned a lesson all right, that being PC users are untrustworthy and if there is no DRM locking OS X onto Apple boxes they will all just pirate it without paying one penny.
Re:Congrats
by
danheskett
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You speak the truth. "Back in the day", in many vertical markets (and still a lot today), there was "one" platform for any given application. That meant a specific model of a given PC or a line. I worked for a place who originally had the one true platform which was an IBM PS/2 Model 30 with certain revisions only allowed.
It was pretty strict. The software checked all over the place to make sure it was being fooled. Really, really, really paranoid about it.
But in the end, maybe it was worth. Worked like a charm for 10+ years. When that product was discontinued they went to generic Dell boxes where two apparently identical models will have different video cards, hard drive brands, or even motherboards. Very annoying when you are trying to get a very good idea of what happens with a specific machine over time.
So Windows' poor programming, poor security, and poor usability is all because it has to run on generic PC hardware. Yeah right.
The real problem with Windows isn't that it crashes so often (in 2000 and XP I rarely encounter an OS level crash); it's Window's extremely poor security. Spyware is so prevalent on Windows partially due to its popularity, but primarily due to its insecurity.
Put OS X on a generic box vs Windows on the same and one will be the clear leader.
Yeah, sure Mac OS runs better on MACs than on PCs. Well, it seems to me that trying to get software to run on a platform that it wasn't designed for is what being a hacker/geek is all about.
Perhaps we shouldn't try then. MAC OS was just intended to be run on Macs, and that is that. Oh, woe is the PC user for he cannot see Expose at work!
I've been using XP since its release, though I'm not familiar with this term "crashing" that you speak of. Last time I rebooted was because my power supply bit the dust.
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Whether you like it or not, DRM http://www.drm.org/ is coming, has had millions of dollars invested by Texas Instruments, some good engineering work by the BBC and is a splendid toy. A USB stick version is already for sale.
But perhaps you were thinking of something else....
Sure the Mac OS works great on Apple's machines, but start throwing it on people custom machines and trying to run all kinds of crazy hardware setups and OS X isn't going to run so swell anymore.
Hm... then how about this: OSX finds a piece of hardware it doesn't like (i.e. has no "proper" drivers for it), then disables it, with a little message: "This device is not officially supported by Apple, may we suggest buying an Apple box?".
As long as Apple gets to define "proper", all should work fine, right? At least as far as harware goes, because they only have to support a selected few harwdare combinations.
I should add, I use XP and the last time it BSOD'd was about a year ago. iTunes, of all things, was the culprit. The Apple engineers did get me a fix fairly quickly, however.
Your post is a crock of shit. And it is blatantly obvious that you do not use OS X nor have you ever used OS X. You are simply a Windows/Linux user without a clue in the world what he is talking about. How does it feel to regurgitate back what you read on Slashdot without having any actual knowledge of the subject?
The only piece of Apple sanctioned hardware that I use with OS X is the CPU/motherboard itself. The wireless Bluetooth mouse, Bluetooth cellphone, external Firewire HDD's, external Firewire DVD, OEM ATI Radeon video card, external USB printer, Linksys/Cisco wireless network base station, non-Apple LCD monitor, USB pen drive, etc. and EVERYTHING works perfectly with OS X (I am running 10.4.2).
OS X is BY FAR technically and usably superior to Microsoft Windows in every aspect. A hardware driver is a hardware driver. If a company, such as ATI, can make a stable hardware driver for Windows they can make a stable hardware driver for OS X. The simple fact that until OS X Apple has had a small hardware market does not imply that Apple's are only stable because they only have to run on a small market of hardware. Those are not the same things. Your logic is false. And it is false for every person who regurgitates it back on Slashdot.
Windows, which is really a great OS, gets such a bad rap because it's expected to run with every piece of hardware out there flawlessly.
Then it's not a good OS. It is the job of the operating system to abstract the hardware so applications can run on it hardware-agnostic.
The problem with windos is that it tries to do a million other things except the one thing an operating should do - be a stable and reliable platform for other stuff to build upon.
that doesn't really make sense given that OSX86 isn't available for purchase. there's no "freeloading" here, it's not available otherwise. when OSX86 is on the shelf at bestbuy and you download it, then you're freeloading.
You will also have to wait till OS X supports all the hardware Windows does and it's userbase grows to something even *worthwhile* to compare to Windows - making it somewhat tempting to spyware writers to target it.
hmmm, I guess I have to revise that to "unexpected update." I have rebooted for windows update (though it usually occurs automatically when I'm not around so I forget about it.
Windows, which is really a great OS, gets such a bad rap because it's expected to run with every piece of hardware out there flawlessly.
Well, mister, the problem is, I don't consider Windows a great OS and I'm quite sure a lot of people will agree with me. And this has nothing to do with hardware compatibility - even if Windows was the most solid OS on this planet, I wouldn't like it because I just don't like how it's designed.
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hello, my name is 99BottlesofBeerInMyF, and I'm a Mac elitist shitwad.
When you buy a PC it comes with Windows on it. Only a tiny fraction are ever sold from a shelf at best buy. OS X will be on a shelf at Best Buy, but I doubt it will ever run on commodity PCs without hacking. Personally I think the argument that it is not for sale yet is not valid justification for not compensating authors for their hard work. Likewise I find the argument that something doesn't work the way you'd like to be a poor argument for the same. You can buy OS X today and run it on some PPC hardware. That is, to the best of my knowledge, the only way that fairly compensates the authors. If you take it and don't pay, you're screwing them over. You're taking their hard work and effort and giving them squat. An honest person would not do that.
I completely buy the "it's not available for sale" argument when you're talking about pirating a book, software, or other work, provided it has been released for sale or the copyright holder does not provide it for sale in any form. Traffic in pre-release copies or drafts of books without compensating the author, however, is another matter. Just freaking wait for it already. You have no right or entitlement to have it for free right now, and if you do think that, I doubt you'll be paying for a copy anyway.
and what about the millions of mac users who download unauthorized copies of windows (you know, the ones that don't check or care that they're being run on ppc).
apparently it's so good that people are willing to use it along side osx.
now if william made sure the next version of windows checked for a special Insidious Computing chip, which if not found would lock out anyone not running on APPROVED hw, even if they bought a copy of windows.
see, locking up software !artificially! to check for certain hardware is not only childish, anti-customer, probably illegal (if lawmakers did their jobs) but it's just plain fugging stupid.
what the hell should anyone care what a company's business model is? i want software that i buy to run on any hardware i choose and when a company goes out of its way to make sure that i can't, that is anti-competitive and illegal not to mention immoral.
when the RIAA/MPAA want you to play back video/audio on only approved (what the hell does that REALLY mean...) devices... aka excluding linux and Free Software, what the hell are reasonable minded people to think?
apple zealots are even worse than windows ones. they think the ass-reaming they get is for their benefit. windows dumbies at least curse bill each time something goes wrong (or even when not).
buncha idiots. no one has any right to restrict a product after the sale. period. laws that say otherwise are bought and paid for and not in the interest of the people.
when you buy a copy (EULAs aren't contracts, it doesn't fit the definition) of any software, for example OS X, i have the right to use it on any platform i desire. i can run it on ARM, SPARC, X86, PPC, MIPS, CUSTOM, embedded, etc. apple has NO business telling me where to run it. the only right they do have is to NOT SUPPORT any "unapproved" set of hardware. nothing more.
yeah, some DRM is good. just like some genocide is good.
wait a few more years and when you're totally handcuffed and chained because you wanted lickable eye candy, come crawling back to us, we'll take you in. this benefits no one, and a company's profits is none of anyone's concern except the company in question. their business model either works or doesn't, and if people aren't allowed to choose how they use THEIR BOUGHT AND PAID FOR SOFTWARE, then the company can fu** off and die. there's a reason people think windows activation is god damn garbage. they want to use it in a manner they see fit, not how the manufacturer thinks so. anyway...
thank you for your time.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
IIRC, Apple's plans for the retail Mactel boxes include a custom BIOS. The reason the existing dev release is so easy to run on generic PCs is that the dev kit boxes use a standard PC BIOS; once the "real" Mactel machines are moved to a custom BIOS, I would make an uninformed guess that getting it to boot on a generic PC with a standard BIOS would be much more difficult.
Can someone who knows more about BIOS foo comment on this? I'm curious myself...
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hmm... now where did apple most of it's fancy OS? Write it all from scratch?
Nah, *that's* not freeloading cuz this is apple and they are so nice and cuddly and and and... and yer a fanboy.
locking up software !artificially! to check for certain hardware is not only childish, anti-customer, probably illegal
Actually it is perfectly legal so long as you are neither a monopoly trying to maintain or extend that monopoly via your established position or a cartel which is conspiring to do the same.
when you buy a copy (EULAs aren't contracts, it doesn't fit the definition) of any software, for example OS X, i have the right to use it on any platform i desire.
The people we were discussing haven't bought a copy of OS X though. So where exactly do they get the "right" to run it anywhere?
apple has NO business telling me where to run it.
True, you can run it on anything you want, but they also have no legal or ethical responsibility to make it (or even not artificially restrict it from) running on any given set of hardware. They are not a monopoly. Deal with it. If you don't like that aspect of their product, don't buy it. But don't pirate it and try to justify that by saying you don't like aspects of it. You can't steal BMWs just because you don't want to pay for them because you don't like the available color choices. You also can't honestly take a bunch of people's hard work and use it without compensating them because it is not just what you want.
I would hope that Apple does not ever release their OS for the standard PC. It would be terrible for their image. Sure the Mac OS works great on Apple's machines, but start throwing it on people custom machines and trying to run all kinds of crazy hardware setups and OS X isn't going to run so swell anymore. The reason the Mac OS runs so well is because it and the hardware it runs on are meant to run together.
My guess is that Apple will lock OS X up about as tightly as they lock up iTunes Music Shop music. You can't just freely copy it as is, but if you really want to, you can strip off the DRM--but it requires a bit of effort and the result is not quite as good as the original.
In the case of OS X, I expect that hacked versions will have problems with updates and nonstandard hardware--not serious problems, just enough to deter anybody who doesn't enjoy having to hack these things. And Apple won't get the blame when the hacked OS X crashes, because nobody expects a hacked OS to run perfectly, anyway.
Hacked copies of OS X running around will probably help Apple more than hurt them. People will play around with OS X on their Dell PCs, and the next time they buy a PC, they'll be thinking about whether it might be worth a few extra bucks to get an Apple-branded model that will run OS X out of the box.
I'm sure Jobs has learned a lesson all right, that being PC users are untrustworthy and if there is no DRM locking OS X onto Apple boxes they will all just pirate it without paying one penny.
If what you say is true... why is it that microsoft had to bail Apple out of bankruptcy.
It's true, windows is pirated by everyone and their grandmother. But it's also true that Microsoft sells a product and makes bank. The bad thing about a product that's so easy to copy is the fact that lots of people will copy it for free. The *GREAT* thing about a product that's so easy to copy is you can make more for the millions who are paying for it... and the profit margin is so high for this easy to copy product one would be a fool to not consider selling it.
I do hope to see OS-X on the PC. If if I choose not to use it competition is always good.
-- There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary.
SHUT UP!
There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bullshit. This has NOTHING to do with trust. Jobs sense of entitlement is valid because it's codified in law; remove that, his trust is actually distrust of customers.
Besides, the hacking was done because it was clear that Apple's strategies were to prevent the OS from running on beige boxes. This was further pushed by the media, rumor sites, and forums--OS X on generic boxes wasn't happening.
What to do? Hack it. This was more done because of the challenge, as well as to run the x86 code because of the limited number of hardware being circulated, and certainly that hardware is not available to the general consumer.
As I write this, I have 2 Win98 machines, 3 XP Home machines, several Linux and OBSD machines. I have 7 legal copies of MS OS's for those 5 machines (2 Win3.1 copies upgraded to 98).
If Apple releases MacOS X x86 and I can choose non-Apple hardware to run with it, I'm buying at least 3 copies--I can easily live with no support, but a known informally supported hardware listing would help but not really necessary because it will become clear what is or is not stable; I'd get 3 copies *at the start* if the OS licenses were around $125 or less. Plus, I'd be heavily inclinced to look at maybe one of their boxes or two for my next hardware purchases.
And that doesn't include the temptation to try these on a box to see how it runs that may push me over the edge to get a Mini or two.
Windows, which is really a great OS, gets such a bad rap because it's expected to run with every piece of hardware out there flawlessly.
Last I checked almost every hardware manufacturer in the past 9+ years has always had Windows as their first priority when it comes to compatibility....Windows is just shit because of security and alot of bloat:/ If hardware isnt running on your box most of the time it's because of conflicting issues with another device or drivers that the hardware company released. Not Windows:/ ( some cases yes, but no one is perfect )
Having learned that, why would he not make it harder for people to obtain and use OS X without purchasing their products?
Apple allows users to purchase a family pack of 5 licenses for $199 instead one license for $129.
Instead of going the MS activation route, they've acknowledged that home users aren't crazy about buying mutiple licenses at cost when they don't really need to. With the family pack, everyone is happy.
I haven't upgraded my machine at home yet because of the whole XP activation thing. I don't feel like I should have to contact anyone if I re-install the OS and/or add hardware... but that's just me.
Re:Congrats
by
bit+trollent
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
... and learn the intricacies of this operating system, go to work for companies that actually do pay for their operating systems, and recommed and implement OSX on many computers.
as opposed to:
Fuck Apple. They wan't total control over computers that run their OS. Fine. I won't run it.
Unless of course this story is for real. If it is, I might actaully learn something.
And another thing. FUCK APPLE. You think just because you are a hit in the gay community you can force your users in to a rediculouse vendor lock in? Ha. Fags stick all kinds of shit up their ass al the time, reguardless of manufacturer. You can't change this so don't try. Fucking Steve Jobs wearing a black turtleneck. Shit....
Actually, it's not freeloading because Apple has provided a large number of patches to existing projects like KHTML from the work they did on Safari and they have contributed entirely new projects to the OSS ecosphere. That's what a healthy symbiosis with a corporate partner looks like, Mr. Cranky.
I do not know why did the mods moded you troll. If you remember with Windows XP MS introduced something called "certified" or "signed" drivers. Which where drivers that in some whay had passed some Microsoft QA tests.
Maybe there is not such thing as Microsoft hardware but at least microsoft could/should focus on making his operating system AND office suite to work Bulletproof on some models of Dell machines or other big vendors.
-- Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
i didn't know you could copy BMW's cheaply and easily?
if they want to be compensated, they need to change their business model. the RIAA/MPAA want to be compensated too as does microsoft. perhaps we should just bend over and lubricate ourselves while we wait for them to get to us.
if you're happy to be a sheep, good for you. many others are not even remotely interested in grazing.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
The wireless Bluetooth mouse, Bluetooth cellphone, external Firewire HDD's, external Firewire DVD, OEM ATI Radeon video card, external USB printer, Linksys/Cisco wireless network base station, non-Apple LCD monitor, USB pen drive, etc. and EVERYTHING works perfectly with OS X (I am running 10.4.2).
Every single one of the above (except for the ATI card and perhaps the cell phone) uses generic drivers. It is a very, very different matter when you want to support every x86 chipset and SCSI controller in the world.
``Sure the Mac OS works great on Apple's machines, but start throwing it on people custom machines and trying to run all kinds of crazy hardware setups and OS X isn't going to run so swell anymore.''
I don't know where you get that idea from. It's not like Windows includes drivers for each and every piece of hardware that works with it.
Hardware vendors usually write the Windows drivers and ship them with the product. Many do the same for OS X drivers. I'd expect that if OS X runs on generic PCs, it will gain market share, compelling hardware vendors to make sure their devices work with OS X, too.
Even if the hardware vendors don't write good drivers, one can always count on the open-source community to do it. Apple publishes APIs for exactly this purpose, and some open-source drivers have already been written. The same happens with Linux and the *BSDs, and I don't think they are any the worse for it.
Windows sucks because of bad design and implementation, not because of the hardware it runs on. OS X works better because of better design and implementation, not because (maybe even in spite of) the hardware it runs on.
An unpatched Windows system, directly connected to the internet, is comprimised in minutes, while an unpatched OSX system is never comprimised. Are we to blame that on the bad rap because [Windows is] expected to run with every piece of hardware out there?
The only internal thing you were using was an ATI video card, which was almost definitely a Mac Edition card. Additionally, sound is on the motherboard, and you are using Mac CD and HD drives.
Or not. OS X can't handle multiple threads. It's handling is a thenth of of Windows and Linux. Mach, while a good idea, was a bad implimentation of a microkernel. The new L4 kernels fix that.
-- Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apple also has not worried about pirates and makes you pay when you buy the hardware.
Obviously you've never purchased Apple's Motion or Final Cut. Not only does it need a license, it checks the network to see if any other machines are using that license.
The family pack is an ordinary single client edition of OSX, combined with a slip of paper that amends the license.
It doesn't come with a "network license daemon," or a activation scheme, serial codes, or even a set of five dongles. Just pop in the DVD and install.
If you take licenses seriously, it's a substantive difference. If you don't, it's just a $70 slip of paper. On the other hand, perhaps most of the license fetishists have already migrated over to Linux (or BSD).
Windows, which is really a great OS, gets such a bad rap because it's expected to run with every piece of hardware out there flawlessly. No one stops to think that it's a miracle that it runs as well as it does on so many systems.
How, then, do you explain Linux? It runs on an even wider variety of hardware (not just x86 and AMD64, but PowerPC, ARM, SPARC, and a bunch of others), and it doesn't have nearly as much trouble running on that wide variety of systems.
(Yes, you were probably referring to peripherals, but even here it's almost scary how much stuff works. There's not much hardware I've bought that's a paperweight under Linux...maybe some webcams and such, but that's about it.)
The wireless Bluetooth mouse, Bluetooth cellphone, external Firewire HDD's, external Firewire DVD, OEM ATI Radeon video card, external USB printer, Linksys/Cisco wireless network base station, non-Apple LCD monitor, USB pen drive, etc. and EVERYTHING works perfectly with OS X (I am running 10.4.2).
Almost every "standard-based" piece of hardware ought to work. Bluetooth mice and keyboards, external USB or Firewire storage, monitors and many printers (Postscript or PCL, for example) are very standard pieces of hardware and do not need "esoteric" drivers most of the time. Most of the hardware you mention (I'll give you the USB pen drive, I've never used one) is pretty standard and is EXPECTED to work. Am I to praise Apple because an LCD MONITOR works!?!? (unless of course the monitor is some 32" 12-bit grey weird model) Or do you consider an OEM ATI Radeon card a rarity (it doesn't get any more standard than this!)?
Try some video capture cards, some older scanners, SCSI controllers, old (non-realtek or 3com) ethernet cards, maybe a winmodem or a winprinter. Non-PnP peripherals, serial or parallel port hardware, ISA cards (research apparatus that we use at the lab needs an ISA card interface) are even harder to support. This is the kind of crap that Windows or Linux has to put up with. Apple has been intelligent and lucky enough to promote the use of standard peripherals while at the same time keeping a steady hardware base (motherboard/CPU at least). Furthermore, the Apple user will usually tolerate the fact that his hardware and software is obsolete[1] when new models come out, while the Windows user expects full backwards compatibility (hell, even XP includes DOS and Win95 mode for old applications!).
Anyway, the hardware drivers are privileged pieces of code. It is true that Win has a huge disadvantage by running drivers in Ring 0 (kernel privileges). I imagine that the OS X approach is superior, but that doesn't mean that the problems they are facing with hardware are equivalent to the chaos that prevails in the x86 world.
P.
[1] This does not mean that the hardware ceases to work. Several people may work happily with MacOS 9 or very old CPUs. However, they do not expect to carry over their hardware/software.
"I have always wanted to try out on my Intel box and my dream is finally coming true. I hope Steve learns a lesson from this and does not put DRM in the official version"
On one side Darwin allows for peolpe to easily add custom drivers, and on the other side OS X is easy to "crack" to make it run on common hardware... hmmmm.
I don't know how to put this, but maybe Apple just wants to send the message that while they won't officially support OS X in common hardware, they won't mind either if those willing to do so run it anyway...
After all, those who don't want to buy Macs but want to use the OS may change their minds in the future. They are potential customers. And on top of that, they may help turn OS X in a common and popular OS like Windows is now.
And they may even eventually contribute with Darwin's source code. New drivers, or something like that.
I do believe that Microsoft did buy $150 million in Apple stocks, and that was just before Apple got out of debt for the first time in about 10 years
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This argument is mostly nonsense. The same thing was said about OpenStep when it was released on Intel. Not only was it stable, but our entire company did their software development on it for years.
So I don't buy into the 'works well because it's on Apple Hardware', because I've seen it disproved before.
Man...I miss the OpenStep on Intel days...I dream that Steve might repeat the decision with OSX (I know slim chance, but it's my dream!)
It seems to me the only lesson to be learned is "If we don't make a serious effort to make our x86 macs different enough from vanilla PCs, or sell the OS by itself to regular x86 users that want it, a bunch of jackassess will just download it off some P2P network, run it on their own boxes, and freeload off our hard work".
-- Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
OS X is BY FAR technically and usably superior to Microsoft Windows in every aspect. A hardware driver is a hardware driver. If a company, such as ATI, can make a stable hardware driver for Windows they can make a stable hardware driver for OS X. The simple fact that until OS X Apple has had a small hardware market does not imply that Apple's are only stable because they only have to run on a small market of hardware.
Whoah, tone down the zealotry. Of course Mac OS X is technically superior to Windows, Apple chooses to actually push the technology envelope instead of repeatedly patching the old piece of shit for 25 years in order to maintain compatibility (which coincidentally is one reason some people choose Windows).
The fact of the matter is that, amazing though Windows driver support might be, it's still not perfect. Sure most work on 99% of Windows boxes, but on that last 1% it doesn't, or it jacks your hard drive, or something else horrible happens. You need to come out of your fantasy world and realize that the reason this doesn't happen on Macs is because the hardware is strictly controlled and well-tested. And just to offer some legitimate proof... I had one of those Motorola Mac clones back in the day, a StarMax 3000. That bastard wouldn't even install a Mac OS upgrade that I needed to run a program. The installer just crashed out every time.
When I pay the premium for Apple computers (they're all I've bought in the last 8 years), I do so with a full awareness of the benefits that I'm getting and why. Instead of running around like a chicken with your head cut off spouting unfounded hyperbole, you should get your facts straight. There are plenty of reasons Macs are awesome, divine intervention isn't one of them.
Then it's not a good OS. It is the job of the operating system to abstract the hardware so applications can run on it hardware-agnostic.
That's assuming hardware manufacturer's are all writing perfect drivers for your OS. I don't see that Windows has a real problem here... you can't expect every shitty hardware manufacturer to write decent drivers, especially when they're just trying to scrape a little profit off the bottom of the OS bucket.
Most companies are in debt for a long period in their life, few of those companies are anywhere near bankruptcy during that period. Debt is an integral part of a company, and in many cases is considered an asset to be traded or sold off. Just because a company has debt doesnt mean its doing badly at all.
Contrary to popular opinion, Windows/PC users aren't all thieves. I'd be happy to be able to purchase an x86 version of OSX.
Yes, but Apple makes their money off hardware. Plus, if they sold a generic PC version then they'd have to support about 10,000 times more hardware then they currently support. The cost of tech support alone seems like it would blow away any profitability, not to mention the lost sales of Mac hardware.
I do believe that Microsoft did buy $150 million in Apple stocks, and that was just before Apple got out of debt for the first time in about 10 years
That is about the same time circa 1998 IIRC that Apple was in danger of a hostile takeover by Sun Microsystems and had it not been for Microsoft bailing them out Apple would not exist as we know it. Whether this would be been good or bad would be worthy of a debate.
Needless to say Microsoft, like them or not, has a very successful business model. Like it or not Microsoft saved Apple's collective tookus back in 1998 (IIRC).
-- There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary.
SHUT UP!
There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
If what you say is true... why is it that microsoft had to bail Apple out of bankruptcy.
Factually incorrect. (You weren't suckered by that April Fool's Day article on CodePoetry, were you?) The only time Apple ever flirted with bankruptcy was back in the 1995/96 time frame, when the company was undergoing restructuring due to some bad quarterly losses. The events you're thinking of occurred in 1997, and this was in no way a "bail-out."
Here's what really happened: Microsoft agreed to pay a certain amount of money ($150 million) to Apple in exchange for essentially two things: some non-voting shares of stock (which Microsoft has subsequently sold off for a tidy profit), and a resolution of some still-pending lawsuits by Apple against Microsoft. For its part, Apple got a modest amount of money and a promise from Microsoft to continue supporting the Mac with new versions of Office and Internet Explorer for several years to come.
$150 million is chump-change to Microsoft, and would have been insufficient to "bail out" Apple if it were indeed bankrupt at the time.
Of course, I fail to understand how your response logically follows from the grandparent poster's comments which you quoted, but it certainly doesn't help that you cite a fictitious turn of events.
apple zealots are even worse than windows ones. they think the ass-reaming they get is for their benefit. windows dumbies at least curse bill each time something goes wrong (or even when not).
Not that I'm an Apple zealot, but I do primarily use Macs. I pay the premium with a smile because:
1) My time is worth money. Time spent fucking around configuring a free OS and commodity hardware is not billable. With a Mac sure I pay $100 a year for my OS, but if I have to spend 2 hours getting something working on Linux before I've lost any financial incentive.
&
2) I like Apple's software from a usability and software availability perspective. Paying them money seems like a reasonable thing to do if I want them to continue developing it.
That said, I do agree with your general premise that its stupid to make extra effort to lock the software. I do think they have a right to only support it on approved hardware though.
I would pay as well. Given its a resonable price and there is not a mandatory update every 6 months that I have to pay for.
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I'd be willing to bet that Apple has contributed more per capita to the open source movement than you have ever even thought about. They submit changes to just about every piece of GPL software they use. They've made KHTML (and as a result, the whole of KDE) better. They've given you things like Rendezvous (zeroconf), launchd, and a bunch of other crap I can't think of off the top of my head.
And Apple did, in fact, write a lot of its fancy OS from scratch. As NeXT. To my knowledge, there was no IOKit, Display PDF, Quartz, Mac OS Services, or QuickTime before Apple wrote them.
Seeing as Darwin is free and runs on generic hardware, and seeing as it's OS X's kernel, couldn't any hardware limitation be avoided simply by installing OS X on a standard Darwin system? That's how I installed Ubuntu on my iMac G5: I used Yellow Dog's Linux kernel to boot the install and subsequent installed system.
I don't know if there's some special way of avoiding this that Apple could use, which is why I ask the question. You'd probably also need a custom bootloader because OS X isn't as flexible (by design) as GNU/Linux systems are, but that couldn't take more than a week for a skilled and motivated hobbiest.
I'm sure Jobs has learned a lesson all right, that being PC users are untrustworthy and if there is no DRM locking OS X onto Apple boxes they will all just pirate it without paying one penny.
Hate to break it to you and Steve but any DRM he uses will be broken and people will run this on generic boxes. When some warez group gets it working with standard PC hardware and releases it it is all over. How many of those users would have purchased it given the option?
Couldn't Apple just create a hardware certification program where they only promise to work with software that has their seal and the only give their seal to vendors who have drivers and hardware that work properly? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to solve this problem, and believe it or not, 99% of users aren't trying to use ancient devices on their computers, and certainly wouldn't be surprised if a new OS didn't support some ancient device...
Hey, I've got a serial trackball from 1989 that doesn't seem to work with Windows 2000... WTF!? Damned Microsoft!!!
Apple were never close to bankrupcy, and Microsoft put in $250M as a good faith gesture. It was non-voting stock, and all since long sold off (check NASDAQ and you won't see MS in the top 100 shareholders).
At the time, Apple had about $6B in the bank, so the $250M was a gesture. Nothing more.
There were rumours about Sun, just like there were rumours about Disney, Sony and pretty much everyone taking Apple over.
They were rumours.
Microsoft did not bail Apple out. Look it up if you don't believe me. They put in a tiny fraction of Apple's cash on hand.
Where do you people get this information? Obviously not from any real source like the WSJ or NASDAQ. Is there somewhere in fantasy-land that these things are thought of as true?
Like it or not, you're wrong. The facts are different to your bizarre business fantasy.
Seeing as OSX will only run on macs that you have to buy from apple, and that apple makes their money off of hardware, not requiring software activation doesn't really say much.
Where do you people get this information? Obviously not from any real source like the WSJ or NASDAQ. Is there somewhere in fantasy-land that these things are thought of as true?
Hmmmm. My broker at Merrill Lynch. If i'm dead wrong i'm dead wrong... the only reason I cared anything about apple at the time was broker reccomended picking up some apple stock when it was about $5.00 a share... and IIRC the rumor was in WSJ. I have to admit the idea was somewhat exciting... apple being taken over by Sun or someone else (was it Cisco.. I can't remember). I didn't invest which is just as well.
-- There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary.
SHUT UP!
There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
If Windows is configured and treated like any other mainstream OS, the difference between them in "security" is negligible.
[...] and poor usability [...]
Your personal tastes do not define "poor usability".
The real problem with Windows isn't that it crashes so often (in 2000 and XP I rarely encounter an OS level crash); it's Window's extremely poor security. Spyware is so prevalent on Windows partially due to its popularity, but primarily due to its insecurity.
Funny how if you use Windows the same way do other OSes (don't run binaries from unknown sources, don't run with high privileges, avoid known vulnerable software like IE) most of those "security problems" (the few of them that aren't directly attributable to end-user behaviour, that is) evaporate.
"Windows, which is really a great OS, gets such a bad rap because it's expected to run with every piece of hardware out there flawlessly. No one stops to think that it's a miracle that it runs as well as it does on so many systems. Not to put down the Mac OS, but compatibilty realy isn't so much of an issue/concern for OS X as much as it is for Windows."
I'm so sick of hearing this argument. If Microsoft is so great, how come Microsoft Office crashes on Mac hardware? Microsoft wants you to believe it is bad drivers/hardware compatibility that causes instability, thus they added driver signing. Windows still has plenty of bugs and stability issues. My wife JUST got a mac laptop 2 months ago, it was running great, then we put MS office on it. It's the only things that actually locks up or hangs on the Mac. Stop spreading this microsoft propoganda. They just are more concerned with features than stability and security.
-- -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Apple chooses to actually push the technology envelope instead of repeatedly patching the old piece of shit for 25 years in order to maintain compatibility (which coincidentally is one reason some people choose Windows).
Windows NT started development in 1988.
NeXT started development in 1987.
(It seems Apple is the one "patching up the old piece of shit").
There are a handful of places OS X is technically superior to Windows - almost solely in areas like the display system. Other than that, it's a wash.
The main reason Apple are ahead in the technology race/at the moment/ is because they were 7 - 10 years late to the "next generation OS" party that Microsoft were having back in the early '90s.
I find it incredibly hypocritical the way Mac zealots crow about the "technical superiority" of OS X while conveniently ignoring the "technical superiority" of most PC OSes for nearly a decade preceding its release.
The wheel will turn again. When it does, is zealotry and misplaced loyalty going to drive your attitude, or pragmatism and usefulness ?
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Windows, which is really a great OS, gets such a bad rap because it's expected to run with every piece of hardware out there flawlessly. No one stops to think that it's a miracle that it runs as well as it does on so many systems.
Huh, Microsoft marginally stable on x86, cannot run on G4, G5, PA-RISC, Sparc I/II/III/IV. And it is hackable, as in break in -- Microsoft misinterpretated PC to mean public computer.
Porting BSD based OS/X should not be that tough, and take but a fraction of the time Microsoft spent porting to the Alpha chip, which by the way they no longer support.
The Windows crack heads gave us a dual proc gateway as they said it was unstable, they tried for a year to get NT stable. We put Linux on it, plugged it into the UPS and over 4 years later of continuous uptime we need to change the UPS. Not one reboot in 4 years!!
Never heard of a Windows system that stable.
China isn't stuck with M$ stock options and learning disabilitis of North American employees and they are buying Linux. Ask Dell and HP, they now sell Linux with their desktops in China so they can compete.
So please don't blame the hardware for Microsoft's instability. The most stable Windows tends to run something like VMWare underneath that abstracts the flakey drivers of Windows to that of a more stable Linux kernel. But then, Microsoft would not like you to know this is how to get more than 30-50 days of uptime. At least with VMWare you can quickly recover Windows from virus, worms, file system corruption, unstable installers and generally poor software management architecture.
But Microsoft does know their customers, first they sell the problem, and then sell a partial solution as an add on. They do quite well playing the public like YoYos.
OS X is BY FAR technically and usably superior to Microsoft Windows in every aspect.
False. There are a handful of areas (mainly in the display engine). The rest is, at most, a wash.
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>> being PC users are untrustworthy
Amen Brother !!!
All PC software developer gone broke. No one can make buck. EA sports is closing shop because damn madden pirates. PC user stole mouse buttons 2 and 3. Thats why my mac only 1 button. Please Steve we work together friend to stop this bomb.
they were 7 - 10 years late to the "next generation OS" party
That really isn't an accurate characterization.
Apple kept throwing their own little 'next generation OS' parties, but nobody turned up. Everybody kept going to Billy's parties down the street. (which sucked, but at least there were chicks there)
Apple foundered and fumbled, and their in-house-geniuses bled millions and millions of dollars (and oh was there a 'celebration of our wunnerful corporate culture' during said period) and finally gave up and bought NeXT.
What were some of the names of all that crap? Pink? Taligent? I remember they had something called Sagan for awhile until Carl Sagan objected, so they renamed it BHA (buttheaded astronomer).
Yes, Microsoft's money given to Apple back in 1998 was NOT close to the kind of money that would have been needed to bail out Apple if it had been 'on the edge of bankruptcy.'
What's hilarous is that it's the Apple Zealots who now have to shout to the world 'Microsoft's money was just a gesture, to show the world that Apple was a viable company.'
Yep. That's what the Apple fans are forced to acknowledge.
I'm not usually one for ontological arguments, but in this case....Windows was designed from the ground-up as a single user system. OS X was not. I would agree with you that OS X is not superior in "every aspect" but I wouldn't say that the rest is at most, a wash.
-- When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
....I would hope that Apple does not ever release their OS for the standard PC.....
Don't worry, they won't. They shouldn't really care if some few hackers get their OSX running on a generic PC with a certain set of hardware specs. It's just that the ordinary millions of consumers won't have the skills needed to get OSX running on their PC. If someone tries to sell a way for the masses to be able to do this, I'm sure they'll hear from Apple legal eagles. Apple will not need to support any of those PCs and so if a clueless Joe has trouble getting OSX to run, they will have no way to get help from Apple. Any manufacturer of a PC that advertises OSX compatibility will likely also have legal problems as well. Since most PCs already have the Microsoft system installed, Joe user would have to buy or pirate OSX and then try to get it to run. Not likely. Also, if the prices of the new x86 Macs are not significantly more than an equivalent PC, there'll not be much incentive for someone to buy say a Dell, erase the already paid for Windows, pay $129.00 for OSX and then maybe not even be able to get it to install and/or run.
There aren't that many (modern) x86 chipsets to support. Really, there aren't. It wouldn't be that difficult to support a rich subset of them.
SCSI? You're asking Apple Computer to support SCSI? SCSI is last decade's PowerPC. Didn't ya know?
-- resigned
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Anybody worked on or remember Alpha Micro? It was at my first IT related job that I was exposed to it. The company is dental package software vendor. They sell the HW and software all bundled together. Uses Motorola 68000 cpu. We eventually went to start using 286/386 with SCO xenix and stopped using AMOS.
I know people running OS X on seven year old (or older!) beige boxes using XPostFacto. Sure, the G3 CPU has been upgraded to a G4 running much faster, and USB and firewire ports have been added , but . . .
Oh, wait. You meant 4-year old beige x86 hardware. Doesn't that stuff come with an expiration date? It spoils after three years, I thought.
Anyway, I tend to agree with your point, but not the way you put it. Apple computers are a solution that tends to work well because the development of the hardware and the software are under one roof and more integrated. The way you put it, it sounds like pure fashion, as in "Those slacks and belt are great because the compliment each other." That sounds gay. People already think I am gay for being a mac user, there's no need to get a coordinated wardrobe to prove their point.
I find it incredibly hypocritical the way Mac zealots crow about the "technical superiority" of OS X while conveniently ignoring the "technical superiority" of most PC OSes for nearly a decade preceding its release.
Thanks for picking out one sentence of my post and overemphasizing it The whole reason I said that was to get through the thick skull of a true Apple Fanboy who wouldn't listen to anything else.
I don't give a shit about technical superiority. I've been using Mac OS X since 2000 because it's far better suited to my profession (web design and development) and because of general maintenance nightmares I experienced on my last PC (installing IE6 caused a hard drive crash). I don't give a shit about the eye candy or Quartz Extreme. I'm not loyal to Apple, they've just got the best thing going for what I do, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Yeah, true. I do remember Quartz and CoreImage and NeXTStep and all the iApps being tarball downloads on SourceForge back in the day. Good thing Apple came along and pointed out all these great, polished, not-stuck-in-alpha projects hiding in broad daylight, otherwise Linux desktops would still be using X11, gtk, QT, and esd!
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If there is no DRM locking OS X onto Apple boxes they will all just pirate it without paying one penny.
How can you stop the software from running when all it takes is changing a 0 to a 1? Even if it looks for a chip, the system could emulate it through software.
Standard Darwin aside, it's probably possible to replace the BIOS if we have to. If you've got a popular enough / old enough / standard enough board, there's LinuxBIOS. That's right -- a port of the Linux kernel to the BIOS. I bet it could be made to fake Apple's custom BIOS.
Windows seems to encourage pirates that way. I have three, soon to have four legitimate copies of various kinds of Windows, two of them XP, one of those two is XP Pro. But I download XP Pro Corporate Edition for one feature that it has -- no activation at all. Just give it a seemingly-valid product key and go.
I can't officially recommend that to anyone, or even say that I've done it, but I can say that there's absolutely no reason I'd pirate XP if it weren't for the fact that if I pirate it, it's mine, whereas if I buy it, I get a "license" to use it, which they can revoke anytime they like.
..... I'd be happy to be able to purchase an x86 version of OSX.....
Yes, and then if wouldn't work on your crappy Dell, you'd expect support from Apple, since you PAID for their OSX. Dream on. As a/. geek you'll likely get OSX running on your PC box and be your own support service however. The masses of users will just go and buy a Macx86 if they want OSX
Having learned that, why would he not make it harder for people to obtain and use OS X without purchasing their products?
Because, as I've said before, making it harder to pirate something doesn't immediately turn pirates into legitimate users.
Remember, getting people to switch to Linux is a huge problem already. People want to keep all their stuff and settings, but none of their spyware and annoying quirks (that are a result of certain settings), and they want all of their hardware and software to work out of the box, no tweaking, even if it's got "Win" in the name.
It even gets down to the point where people are going "Yes, it looks kind of cool, but why can't I hit Backspace in Firefox and make it go back a page?" "You hit Alt-Left." "Well, it's backspace in IE, so it should be backspace in Firefox." Never mind that Alt-Left to go back and Alt-Right to go forward makes more intuitive sense. No, if Linux innovates, it gets crucified for not being "user-friendly", and if it doesn't, it gets crucified for being exactly like Windows, only after a lot of effort to install it.
Linux is getting prettier. With a reasonable amount of expertise and chutzpah, you can turn on the experimental eye candy that'd make Steve drool. And it is more user-friendly in some respects than either Mac or Windows. But not many are paying attention. Not many are switching.
Now, pretend for a moment that Linux suddenly has so much DRM that you can only install it on official Penguin Computers. Would anyone notice or care? Would anyone actually buy a Penguin Computer just for Linux, especially if Windows wouldn't run on it?
They're already going to a lot of trouble to switch OSes, and now you want them to buy a new computer, for no reason other than that you don't trust them. That you assume they are a pirate.
This would be ludicrous, were it Linux. But it's Apple, and it's somehow OK for them to lock things down so tightly it gives Gates wet dreams.
So, the answer to you question: Steve wouldn't make it harder for people to use and obtain OS X without purchasing a mac, so that people who don't have macs will purchase OS X. Or at least use it. I sincerely doubt that anyone who would buy an x86 Mac would reconsider if they could run the OS on a PC, and I doubt that anyone who has a PC and the skills to install the cracked OS X would ever buy an x86 Mac.
So, he wouldn't do it because it would be more work for him and his company, and wouldn't get them a single dime more. And, worse, it would just piss everyone off for no good reason.
The lesson to be learned is that Windows people do want OS X, and they want it on their Windows computers, and they are willing to go out of their way to do it. So why wouldn't Apple do the reasonable thing and sell OS X on the x86 for (say) $50, and let the open source community handle driver support (Darwin)? Remember that every one sold, if they did that, would be pure profit -- they'd be reaching a market that would never have bought the x86 macs. And those who would get the x86 macs wouldn't pay for their OS anyway -- it'd be bundled.
Unfortunately, Apple isn't that smart. Ok, I'll be generous -- they can't afford to gamble. They are sticking to what they know works. Notice how the iPod only came out when there were plenty of other 20 gig mp3 players -- even when they try something new, it's not new.
I am not too terribly sure Jobs is going to care as much as we think he is about piracy. At least not in the foreseeable future (5 years or so). Most Apple users are very loyal and have no problem paying the apple premium. That won't change immediately with the move to x86. If every geek in the world (including those in college or highschool) starts pirating osx, great! All that will mean is more mind share for apple, which means a greater chance that more and more products will be coming to their platform. Also, in my experience people eventually do grow up and stop stealing/infringing - either they start using open source or they buy macs:) Or in my case, both. Anyway, if all the geeks in the world are running pirated copies of mac osx they'll be that much more likely to recommend it to friends and family.
And when did VMS, from which NT claims much of its heritage, begin development?
It's fair game if you're making the OS X -> NeXTStep leap.
-- When life gives you lemons, you CLONE those lemons, and make SUPER-LEMONS. -- Dr. Cinnamon Scudworth, Ph.D
Re:Congrats
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Older G4 turned Server of mine: I have an AGP card that was made for windows (and never for the Mac), flashed for my Mac, a 3rd party SCSI card (Grappler) for internal and external SCSI drives and SCSI CD burner, and SCSI Scanner, 7.1 Surround sound card (M-Audio) with Altec Lansing speakers, web cam from orange micro, mouse from Logitech, 2 brands of HD's (internally), KVM from cicero (which switches to my home built -- PC based, gasp -- Domino box)
The RAM looks like it was taken from a buffet: Size/Type/Speed 128/SDRAM/PC100-322S 128/Unknown/ PC100-586S 256/SDRAM/PC133-333
Now this 5+ year old now a server but previously used for everyday use never crashes or has corruption (rare), and all the parts from it have been thrown in randomly over time.
Sorry to say, but your argument is from yester-year when Macs really did have a hard time getting obscure 3rd party hardware to work. Now it seems that there are either drivers from the original company or 3rd party that work, and failing that... the generic seem to pick up almost anything for at least basic functionality.
Apple kept throwing their own little 'next generation OS' parties, but nobody turned up.
No, _that_ isn't an even remotely accurate characterisation.
Microsoft _released_ their "next generation OS" in 1993.
Apple had a number of _aborted projects_, but nothing that made it to the release stage (until they bought NeXT and turned it into OS X).
Apple never had a party. They started to plan a few, maybe even sent out some invitations - but no party.
Or, to put it another way, "real artists ship";).
Of _course_ OS X has some technical superiorities over Windows - with 7 - 10 years more to watch and learn from the rest of the industry it would be nothing short of disgraceful if it didn't. However, the point so many people seem to ignore is that if Microsoft had started writing Windows NT in 1998 instead of 1988, it would probably look much like OS X does today. It's got nothing to do with better or worse development practices at Apple or Microsoft, or any inherent flaws, it's simply because Windows is a much older product with vastly more restrictions imposed by history than OS X is.
The wheel has turned. It'll turn again in the future. But there's a hell of a lot of people who either don't realise - or ignore - the fact that these things are cyclical.
* The reason the Mac OS runs so well is because it and the hardware it runs on are meant to run together.*
So technically windows may be the absolute most brilliant piece of software ever and is pushing the very limits of possiblity with its ability for massive interoperability.
Yes and how would you expect Apple to survive by giving it away for free?
Why do you have such a problem with the concept of profit? Companies have to make money in order to exist. They cannot survive on donations.
Apple does give it away for "free" with purchase of new hardware. Hence, the price of the OS is "subsidized" by hardware sales. When you purchase an "upgrade", they do charge something.
What would be a fair price to compensate Apple for OS X if you did not purchase Apple hardware? Free is not the correct answer btw.
-- Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Or maybe you guys are reading too much into things. Maybe Apple does know that some people will always pirate software. Apple does not seem to want to make it difficult for legitimate users from installing their software or accessing their music.
People may be used to companies like MSFT which do not "trust" their own users and may view this TPM chips as "copy protection". I see it as some way to identify a machine as an officially supported developer machine. It may be that the shipping boxes will not use TPM at all and this was just an attempt to keep the developer that received the transition kits honest.
Apple may instead opt to use a customized Bios or event EFI with proprietary extensions instead of relying on TPM or they may use both.
Maybe they decided to use TPM because it was fast to implement and they could mark various parts of the OS with unique identifiers. It may be that each copy will only boot on a specific developer transition kit without a crack.
I fully expect the person who leaked their copy to be hauled into court soon.
-- Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Surely with all of the leaks that happen these days Apple anticipated that their product might make its way around the net. Even if it is a developer release (where it is hoped that the developers can be trusted), it isn't completely implausible that some sort of 'phone home' feature is hidden away somewhere.
So the story here is 'Apple gives it away free with your hardware purchase' but when Dell 'gives away' Windows 'free' with their machines, we all get out picket signs and hold a Windows Refund Day rally.
What about people who buy Macs to run Linux on them? (I have Macs that run NetBSD, personally). Are they entitled to a MacOS Refund?
As you said, 'free is not the correct answer.'
I don't have a problem with the concept of profit. And anywaysI am mostly responding to the 'NextStep was really expensive because they don't sell hardware' excuse. Lots of things used to be expensive, software-wise.
I'm sure Jobs has learned a lesson all right, that being PC users are untrustworthy and if there is no DRM locking OS X onto Apple boxes they will all just pirate it without paying one penny.
This is one of those cases where I would gladly pay to run OSX on my PC.
I don't see myself buying a 2000$ intel mac anywhere in the future though.
Uh, the difference is that Apple designs and sells the hardware (motherboard) as well as the OS whereas neither MSFT or Dell designed the motherboard/CPUs in a Dell. Dell does not produce windows either. As much as i dislike MSFT, nobody is entitled to a "refund" if windows is bundled with hardware. You are entitled to take your money elsewhere if you don't like the terms and conditions of your purchase and service agreements.
There is nothing preventing you from installing Linux or FreeBSD but why should you be entitled to a refund on an OS that is produced by the OS vendor?
Software costs "money" to produce and even more money to support with technical support and bug fixes.
People on slashdot like to point out that software has a huge margin if you only include the "initial" cost of development and manufacturing but what they fail to include is the cost of after market support. After market support for software can often be much higher than for most hardware products.
Some of you will never get that until you actually "work" in the software industry.
-- Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Shatter is sort of interesting, but there are a few mitigating factors:
* It's largely an application developer issue
* It's not something that can be used for an automatic remote exploit
* Someone, at least, thinks they've found a complete "workaround".
* Since Win32 is being replaced by.NET, it's being addressed.
I'm not usually one for ontological arguments, but in this case....Windows was designed from the ground-up as a single user system.
This is not correct. NT was designed "from the ground up" to be multiuser. Indeed, with its pervasive ACLs, it's "more multiuser", if anything, than the typical unix (including OS X).
I would agree with you that OS X is not superior in "every aspect" but I wouldn't say that the rest is at most, a wash.
Sun Microsystems designs and sells the hardware as well as the OS. Just like Apple. And they have for a number of years given away their OS (Solaris) for free, not only on their 'chosen' hardware, but a version that runs on any old PC Clone hardware (or, most of it, anyways).
Of course, Sun's hardware makes Apple's product line look like plastic-cased screwdriver shop junk, and there are a LOT ways to compare OS X to Solaris that makes Apple's software look like a shiney plastic toy by comparison.
To address your last point: After market support is most expensive when a company tries to support ill-designed piece-of-shit software.
WTF? No, it isn't. Stop perpetuating this myth that the ONLY reason for Windows sucking is that it 'has to support many configurations'. That's only one of many reasons.
You *are* dead wrong, and you really should have picked up the Apple stock when it was at $5. It's been up to $60 since, then split and risen again. You would have made a lot of money.
The only piece of Apple sanctioned hardware that I use with OS X is the CPU/motherboard itself. The wireless Bluetooth mouse, Bluetooth cellphone, external Firewire HDD's, external Firewire DVD, OEM ATI Radeon video card, external USB printer, Linksys/Cisco wireless network base station, non-Apple LCD monitor, USB pen drive, etc. and EVERYTHING works perfectly with OS X (I am running 10.4.2).
We're talking about the x86 architecture here. I got OS x86 to boot fine, but alas, it doesn't support a keyboard connected to the PS/2 port. Little things like that tend to put a damper on functionality.
"Windows" was designed from the ground-up as a single user system, but Windows NT wasn't. Microsoft discontinued Windows some time ago. The current operating systems are versions of Windows NT which shares a name and an API but practically nothing else with Windows.
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, but I am part of one of the universities that got academic access to Windows source code. Although I didn't personally review it, my compsci department friends have horror stories.
If Windows is configured and treated like any other mainstream OS, the difference between them in "security" is negligible.
Windows is inherently insecure. At a fundamental level windows allows (and indeed, requires) too much access for programs to operate. Just look at how many applications need to be installed with administrator settings. Compare to Unix (or Linux or OS X) and the clear separation of user and system.
Your personal tastes do not define "poor usability".
True. But that doesn't negative the fact that Windows is poorly designed. Friends and family using Windows==tons of trivial use questions. Friends and family using Mac==a few non trivial questions.
Funny how if you use Windows the same way do other OSes (don't run binaries from unknown sources, don't run with high privileges, avoid known vulnerable software like IE) most of those "security problems" (the few of them that aren't directly attributable to end-user behaviour, that is) evaporate.
Funny how if you use Mac OS X however you want, you don't have any security problems.
the RIAA/MPAA want to be compensated too as does microsoft
You name two cartels convicted of pice fixing and a monopoly convicted of illegally stifling competition. But lets go with your MPAA example. Suppose someone creates a movie and an MPAA member markets it for them. Do you think it is fair to take that movie for yourself and not compensate the creator? Heck, one of my main objections to the RIAA and MPAA is that they don't compensate the authors for their work (or compensate them very poorly while stopping their work from reaching the public if they don't comply).
if they want to be compensated, they need to change their business model.
So building a creative work, under copyright, and selling it is a flawed business model? What business model would you suggest for say, a fiction author? Should they just try to find a wealthy nobleman to sponsor their writing and then give it away for free? Do enlighten me.
This is a traditional copyright, being used in the traditional way, without an illegal monopoly or an illegal cartel stepping in between the author and the purchaser. I guess you're one of those people who thinks all copyright is bad and needs to be abolished. So what is your better solution then? How should traditional authors succeed? What is this "new business model" you propose?
any DRM he uses will be broken and people will run this on generic boxes.
Yup it sure will. But at the same time those breaking it will not make it easy to install, and it will probably take a BIOS hack or something similar. The percentage of people who will want to run OS X, will find a pirate copy, will be confident enough to run the hack, and will be willing to do so illegally at the risk of damaging their system will be so small that it will not make a blip in sales. Steve is the one who said DRM couldn't work, remember?
How many of those users would have purchased it given the option?
They are given the option to run it on Apple boxes. If Apple makes it run on generic hardware than they will have a serious piracy problem because it will be easy to install and run. Also, they will undercut their laptop/desktop sales, which is 50% of their profit. You want Apple to sell it for generic x86 boxes because it is best for you. They have to do what is best for Apple.
This is one of those cases where I would gladly pay to run OSX on my PC.
You and a number of other people, but not enough to make business sense for Apple. They would be cutting the throat of a good chunk of hardware sales, to reach a small number of users who install OS's on their existing box. At the same time they would be opening themselves up to a huge piracy problem.
People don't buy OS's off the shelf. There is already one installed on their computer and most people never touch it. You're in a small minority that right now is impossible to reach without dealing with a ton of headaches and lost sales elsewhere.
Maybe some day it will be the case that the average user can buy a computer, in the store, either without an OS, or with a choice of OS's. That day has not yet arrived.
Seeing as OSX will only run on macs that you have to buy from apple, and that apple makes their money off of hardware, not requiring software activation doesn't really say much.
The same could be said for Windows, it comes on all the machines already so why do they have it?
First, it is not just OS X, but quite a few of the for-sale applications Apple develops and all of their free applications. Second, It means they are more interested in giving their users an easy install experience than in trying to stop piracy. Third, it means that OS upgrade sales (the reason MS includes activation and a serial) are not as important to Apple and they would rather a dishonest person who is unwilling to pay for a new version pirates it than use and old version.
You and the 2000 other people who actually install OS's on their computers might buy it. Another couple thousand who would never have bought it anyway will pirate it. Some unknown number of people who would have bought a mac, will now buy a cheap PC and pirate it.
You want Apple to bet that you and those like you will buy enough copies to make up for the losses in OS and hardware sales they will suffer as a result. At the same time, you want them to risk gaining a reputation for being unreliable compared to Windows by allowing their OS to run on random hardware that ships with Windows drivers and was designed with Windows in mind, but is not intended to run with MacOS at all.
You want Apple to take a pretty big risk, so where is the potential reward? Sales to people like you who install a new OS after the fact are infinitesimal compared to sales of boxes with the OS already installed. Sure they might gain some more recognition and recommendations from users like you to friends and family, but they are risking gaining a bad reputation just as easily. Further the segment who installs their own OS's is one of long time computer users who have a lot of expectations about how their computer will work. I've seen plenty of Windows and Linux users get upset with OS X just because it does not do something the way Windows does, or the way Linux copied a feature from Windows.
It's not a good risk right now, in my opinion. As much as I would like it to happen (I'd buy a copy as well) I don't think it is a smart move for Apple. The day you can go to the store and buy an OSless computer and choose your OS when it boots is the day it will make sense for Apple to ship for hardware they don't sell.
The point is not to stop people from hacking OS X from running on commodity hardware. The point is to make it inconvenient enough so that the number who do so is small enough to not affect sales.
No, but I am part of one of the universities that got academic access to Windows source code. Although I didn't personally review it, my compsci department friends have horror stories.
Undoubtedly - most of them probably from the "Microsoft" part.
Windows is inherently insecure. At a fundamental level windows allows (and indeed, requires) too much access for programs to operate.
Evidence ?
Just look at how many applications need to be installed with administrator settings.
And then look at how many *properly written* programs achieve the same functionality _without_ requiring Administrator access.
This is an application developer problem, not a Windows problem.
To take an example, the only reason Doom 3 requires "Administrator access" because some idiot at id software decided to ignore the Windows standards for where configuration data should go, and store it in a.cfg file in the program directory. How is this sort of thing (it's extremely common) the fault of _Windows_ ? Would you blame Linux if some foolish developer decided that per-user configuration data would be stored in a file only writable by root ?
Compare to Unix (or Linux or OS X) and the clear separation of user and system.
Windows _has_ a clear separation of user and system. The problem is a large proportion of developers ignore it.
True. But that doesn't negative the fact that Windows is poorly designed.
And you saying "Windows is poorly designed" doesn't make it a fact, it makes it an opinion. If you want to make it a fact, say _why_ it's poorly designed and supply some actual supporting evidence for your arguments.
Friends and family using Windows==tons of trivial use questions. Friends and family using Mac==a few non trivial questions.
I'd be interested to see if that were actually true. I remember moving a relative from Windows to OS X - I had to answer exactly the same sort of "trivial questions" about OS X that I did about Windows.
Funny how if you use Mac OS X however you want, you don't have any security problems.
Really ? You think if I enabled the root account with a trivial password then fired up a few network services I wouldn't have any "security problems" ? How about if I ran exploit code as root, or simply typed in an admin password when prompted ? How about if I just ran a shell script that scanned through the system looking for email addresses and fired off some spam to any that it located ?
If/when OS X gets the same level of attention Windows does, it's going to have the same sorts of problems - because the vast bulk of "security problems" are caused by the end user doing silly things, not vulnerabilities in the OS.
And how about running OSX programs?
by
AlfaWolph
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
I have heard good things about iLife and iCalendar..
Be very careful
by
Solder+Fumes
·
· Score: 1, Troll
I have heard that GNAA is trying to troll the P2P networks with an OSX_x86 torrent. Just a heads-up to anyone, prepare to be disappointed.
While I don't doubt that, there is definitely a real, working torrent floating around. I've used it in vmware already and am testing it on a separate drive now. (Anyone know an easy way to dual boot XP and OSx86, with OSX imaged to my second drive?)
Normally I don't run pirated software, but I justify it in this case because I will be purchasing a Mac when they release it on intel hardware, and I just bought a mac mini to tide me over.:)
-- Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:Be very careful
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I enjoy hacks as much as the next guy, but I shed no tears for software pirates.
Ok, mod me down for flying off the handle. It appears that the GNAA (I still hate the name) *IS* suspected of doing this. I did some more digging. I apologize to you Solder Fumes. I simply assumed you were doing GNAA Trolling yourself.
Sorry.
-- "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
Re:Be very careful
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What's the GNAA? First google hit was this: http://www.gnaa.us/ - but somehow I have a feeling that this wasn't what you were getting at (Not that it's a bad thing).
-- No sig for you.
Re:Be very careful
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You know the GNAA doesn't actually exist, it's just something people troll about. I bet all sorts of people put crap onto P2P just for a laugh. But if you're illegally pirating software I don't think you can expect any support or sympathy if you end up with goatsex.
Re:Be very careful
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I wonder why the GNAA version of Linux keeps downloading porn every time I start it.
Don't worry about it, takes a lot more than that to get under my skin. I wasn't really adding much to the conversation anyway, just something I'd heard of and thought I might clue in some Slashdotters to the possibility.
Re:Be very careful
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
lol, the GNAA actually does exist. I spent some time in their irc channel a while ago. Unbelieveably, this is actually a real organization. They even had some drama with one of their important members, Penisbird, earlier this year. He left. It was quite lol.
Not only that.. But you can use the VMware image, a live cd of any linux flavour, and dd to create a native booting version of OSX. Unfortunately.. it seems the Broadcom GiB-Extreme support is missing. After playing with adding Darwin kexts to the extension library manually.. I gave up.
It looks pretty. It plays well.
It is useless without a network card of any kind.
When did Zonk gain access to CmdrTaco and "ScuttleMonkey"s logins?
Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Apple should take note of this surge of interest and really consider selling the OS only. I know I'd line up to buy one.
However, could this be just a hacker interest simply because it's the "latest and greatest challenge"?
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
Brento
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Apple should take note of this surge of interest and really consider selling the OS only. I know I'd line up to buy one.
If they did, then they'd have to support it on your hardware, and that's a money-losing proposition this early in the game. Even if you publish a very specific set of supported devices, you immediately take a huge support load hit when everybody and their brother starts bringing in their devices that kinda-sorta-but-not-quite made the list. Plus, you get the negative PR that comes with, "I bought the new OSX, but it kept crashing on my Crapposan P4 that I got from Ebay."
-- What's your damage, Heather?
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
Skye16
·
· Score: 1
In all honesty, I would as well. It would initially probably be tri-boot (Windows and Gentoo being the other options), but maybe with time it would phase Gentoo out. The only reason I keep window is because I am, first and foremost, a gamer. In fact, aside from that, music, email, chat, and webpages, I would have virtually no use for my PC. I suppose the XP box could double as a foot warmer in the winter, but..
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
sentanta
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My guess is that Bill would drop support for Office on the Mac in about 1 second if OSX ever retailed in Best Buy
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I line up to download one. There is no serial number on OS X. Why spend your hard earned money when you can get one for free?
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
rayde
·
· Score: 1
perhaps... but i certainly wouldn't care, and this would only encourage apple/sun or whoever to come up with a viable, better performing alternative.
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
broken.data
·
· Score: 1
You can buy OSX at Best Buy for awhile now. Tiger OS X
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
geekee
·
· Score: 1
"If they did, then they'd have to support it on your hardware, and that's a money-losing proposition this early in the game. Even if you publish a very specific set of supported devices, you immediately take a huge support load hit when everybody and their brother starts bringing in their devices that kinda-sorta-but-not-quite made the list. Plus, you get the negative PR that comes with, "I bought the new OSX, but it kept crashing on my Crapposan P4 that I got from Ebay.""
I disagree. The average person doesn't build his own machine. So if Apple published a list of compliant hardware, companies like Dell and HP would start selling dual boot machines or maybe even MacOS only machines, and take care of support like any other Apple reseller.
-- Vote for Pedro
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
Seahawk
·
· Score: 1
Then consider them partnering with someone like Dell(Or HP or whomever)
Then Dell could sell Dimensions with preinstalled OSX in well tested hardware configurations.
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
bmeteor
·
· Score: 1
right, doing all the driver support would kill them. I don't think apple's ready to kill their lucrative hardware revenue stream for an incredibly risky software model.
But, I do see that they could ask people wanting to use OS X on their non-apple hardware to check out Darwin for x86 and just drop in the proprietary bits. Then they don't have to support all that low level stuff since you're doing it yourself.
Still I have a feeling, they'll put some really great proprietary hardware in the mac's alongside the Intel processors.
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
Cyclon
·
· Score: 1
Why would they want you buying a Dell preinstalled with OSX when you could buy an Apple with preinstalled OSX?
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
legirons
·
· Score: 1
"Apple should take note of this surge of interest and really consider selling the OS only. I know I'd line up to buy one."
So why not buy a Mac? It's not like it costs any more than Windows (especially if it saves you time solving problems with it)
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 1
They did that sort of OS license deal with independent manufacturers already and it bled Apple dry. If Apple ever does go in that direction again, it'll be done very differently. It's likely that they'll be getting a deal where Apple is compensated a great deal more for its IP than during the previous round of clones, making the only viable model, something innovative like a tablet mac or some other form factor which Apple can't make a profit on because they have some sort of inability to either sell to that small a niche or their culture just can't handle the verticals that need that type of machine. Big players probably won't do the deal.
Re:Obvious market or hacker enthusiasm...
by
caulfield
·
· Score: 1
My guess is that Bill would drop support for Office on the Mac in about 1 second if OSX ever retailed in Best Buy
My guess is that Bill makes more money selling retail copies of MS Office for Mac OS than he does for OEM copies of Windows.
Not Surprising
by
RumGunner
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've suspected this was Apple's plan since the Intel announcement. They're going into direct competition with Microsoft.
About damn time.
Re:Not Surprising
by
Alan+Partridge
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Apple have been in direct competition with MS for 20 years, and they've only survived by picking their battles. Maybe now is the right time, but to my eyes it looks like MS Office is as big as it ever was. Windows is there to strengthen Office, Office os there to make MONEY. Best case scenario for Apple selling shrink-wrapped OSX for x86 is that MS has a new platform through which to force Office down the world's throats - what do we gain? We certainly LOSE PowerPC as the only realistic alternative to x86.
"They're going into direct competition with Microsoft."
I think you meant "indirect". "Direct" would imply that they'd go out selling Apples like any other PC and saying, outright, "We're going against Microsoft".
I really don't think Apple's intention of releasing Intel-based Macs was to have hackers immediately crack it. Why put the hardware blocks in at all?
They're going into direct competition with Microsoft.
Unless they can get some major OEMs to take a huge risk and give up Microsoft then they will be crushed like every other competitor. BeOS ran on X86 too and they could not even get a single major vendor to include them on PCs or market them, even for free as dual-boot systems. I think you're dead wrong.
Re:Not Surprising
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The difference between Be and Apple in your analagy above is that Apple already has a successful Hardware business.
The OEM market is not as critical to their success.
This said though, it could be a boost for the launch. So may people (ok, geeks) will run an OS on their machine purely because they're not supposed to be able to do it. Once they get the geeks, maybe they'll release a public version?
Not my actual beliefs, but still it could be true...
And STILL costs more! MS could make a pretty comfortable business supplying office software to 95% of the world's organisations. In fact, seeing as they lose money on Windows, their business may actually be in better shape than it is now.
Lose money on windows? Not a chance. Even though they sell it cheap, they still make money on the OEM shipments. Think abou it - it doesn't cost them a dime with OEMs for the most part, the OEMs just slap the drive image onto each machine complete with OEM printed discs the OEM's make themselves, all they need is a key from M$....
"Unless they can get some major OEMs to take a huge risk and give up Microsoft then they will be crushed like every other competitor. BeOS ran on X86 too and they could not even get a single major vendor to include them on PCs or market them, even for free as dual-boot systems. I think you're dead wrong."
Sony wants to be free of Microsoft. Unfortunately, Sony and Apple are naturally competitors to one another. Gateway has a history of not liking Microsoft. HP, bitter that they do not get Dell's discount, does not like Microsoft either.
There are OEMs that are interested this time in dumping Microsoft. The question is, will Apple accommodate those desires?
-- "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
I've suspected this was Apple's plan since the Intel announcement. They're going into direct competition with Microsoft.
How would they turn a profit? You can only make money as an OS vendor by cornering the OEM market (MS owns it), or by supplying server products and making your money on support (unlikely, since OS X is a lousy server OS, as many benchmarks have shown, and irrelevant to the desktop market, as linux has demonstrated conclusively).
Apple would be absolute fools to try to get into the generic PC OS market. They could never provide the Apple experience on generic hardware, and they wouldn't be able to turn a profit, since MS can outprice them as long as they want with the huge cash reserves MS has, and MS still owns the OEM market.
Now, I do agree that likely the final release of OS X for intel will run just fine on generic PC's, with a bit of tinkering. That is nothing special. What you won't see are COTS versions of OS X meant for generic intel PC's.
Ofcourse, it's a nice fantasy to think someone could finally make a decent generic PC OS, which is why I suspect so many people are clinging so desperately to this idea.
Sony wants to be free of Microsoft. Unfortunately, Sony and Apple are naturally competitors to one another. Gateway has a history of not liking Microsoft. HP, bitter that they do not get Dell's discount, does not like Microsoft either.
Well, they are losing money on their PC businesses. Maybe their boards will be willing to bet the whole shebang on Apple, but most likely they would not. Assuming you are running a multimillion dollar company, would you risk the whole thing on the chance that Apple software would sell at the same or higher levels of profit that your current Windows machines are? Would you bet your career on the upstart, especially given the incumbent is very rich and has already been caught breaking the law to win many times? It is a huge risk, and unlikely to be worth it in the long run.
It's been said before
by
digidave
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
and I'll say it again: Apple wants OS X to be pirated. First, you pirate OS X and start to like it, then next time you go to buy a computer you choose an Apple because, hey, you get some advantages to running a legit copy and you can still dual boot Windows or Linux if you want.
Apple should start sending out OS X on CD AOL-style. If they really are a hardware company, that will sell them a lot of hardware later on. If they're really smart, they'll send out Panther on CD to everyone. People will pirate Tiger anyway, but that would at least get OS X onto computers that would otherwise have never pirated it, then those people can buy Apple hardware in a year or two when they upgrade.
-- The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
This actually isn't a bad theory. As more F/OSS Operating Systems arise (F/OSSOS's?) the value of software will fade. It's a matter of time realistically. By pushing their software and luring people to their hardware, they may actually have a viable business strategy. Assuming people will fork over the cash for Apple equipment that is.
-- Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
Re:It's been said before
by
Have+Blue
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it will sell a lot of hardware- a lot of cheap no-name hardware that goes into cheap PCs running these free copies of OS X. Then Apple dies.
How many of these people were Apple's customer's in the first place?
Re:It's been said before
by
blibbler
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
and I'll say it again: people go and install OSX on a cheap machine, realise how great it is, and then when they want a new machine, they get another cheap machine, and install OSX on that one. I can't see any reason why someone would pirate it the first time, then go out and spend extra to get an Apple machine, when can get (or build) a similar (albeit stylistically challenged) machine cheaper.
Your argument might be valid if the final intel version of OSX wasn't (as easily) hackable, so people wouldn't be able to run the final version on non-apple machines.
Re:It's been said before
by
Dutchmaan
·
· Score: 1
I think that's a great idea.. send out the first OS for free and when you have millions of people on it.. hit them with the $129 upgrade...
It would be a big gamble for Apple, but it could have a tremendous future payoff in greatly enhanced marketshare..
Re:It's been said before
by
Beatbyte
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Who says you're pirating it if you run it on your PC?
Personally if I find out this is a solid platform on white boxes, I'm going to purchase a copy for my home PC and possibly my office laptop.
It's not stealing if you use it for something besides what they intended.
That's like saying a Neon can't legally be a monster truck. Give me a welder and some beer and we'll see about that;-)
Re:It's been said before
by
iminplaya
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't argue with that. It worked for Microsoft, Adobe, etc. It works for the ??AA. It's easy to understand how when you get the propaganda out of the way. Capitalism on such a grand scale cannot work without piracy.
-- What?
Re:It's been said before
by
Apotsy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
then those people can buy Apple hardware in a year or two when they upgrade.
They can buy Apple hardware right now if they want, but they don't. And they still won't in your scenario. Why? Same reason as today: because they'll take one look at the price and buy a Dell instead.
Rampant pirate copies of OS X will not change that.
Have you ever gone into an Apple store to look at one of their 30" flat panel monitors? Forget the iPod, it's not often that I think a piece of hardware is beautiful, but damn those things are.
Re:It's been said before
by
gnasher719
·
· Score: 1
"Personally if I find out this is a solid platform on white boxes, I'm going to purchase a copy for my home PC and possibly my office laptop."
There will be no MacOS X 10.4 for Intel for sale. Ever. The only way to get your hands on it legally will be by buying an Intel Macintosh.
When MacOS X 10.5 is released, the only Intel versions will have UPGRADE written on the box in extra big letters. The only way to run it legally will be to install it on a computer that has an older version of MacOS X legally installed - which will be an Intel Macintosh.
Maybe Apple will release a full, non-upgrade version of MacOS X. But that will cost you more than the $129 that you pay for the MacOS X 10.4 upgrade for PowerPC Macintoshes. My guess is $399.
Re:It's been said before
by
Solidsnot
·
· Score: 1
Apple wants OS X to be pirated. First, you pirate OS X and start to like it, then next time you go to buy a computer you choose an Apple because, hey, you get some advantages to running a legit copy and you can still dual boot Windows or Linux if you want.
Your argument about sending out OS X out AOL style is interesting but your first part doesn't make sense. Apple doesn't want to get pirated. The number of people who would be interested in pirating OS X is about the number that actually RTFA. The kids and parents at home could care less as long as their email programs and the game of the moment works, they could give a damn about getting OS X illegally. The small community of hackers that even know that they can get a hold of OS X and put it on their Intel box is insignificant compared to the mass market.
Re:It's been said before
by
moonbender
·
· Score: 1
They might as well sell the full version for Intel. As far as I know, every compulsory Mac OS EULA includes something about only being licensed for usage on Apple hardware.
It's a great strategy to counter the chicken-and-egg problem. Get a whole lot of people to install it - and use it regularly - on PC hardware that Apple does not have to support, distribute CDs to, or in any way acknowledge. That creates a bigger demand for Mac software, a large user base that wants apps. The more apps and word-of-mouth advertising, the more people will buy Apple hardware to get the support.
It's like seeding the education market with cheap software or computers. After a while, people want to use it at work. The same will happen in the consumer market, resulting in more demand in the workplace.
Oh sure, some people will always be proud to say that they've paid Apple nothing, but the overall effect is more hardware sales for Apple in the long run.
-- I always equivocate. Well, almost always.
Re:It's been said before
by
kin_korn_karn
·
· Score: 1
Maybe they should work it like Sun used to work solaris x86 - give away a free half-assed version for people to try out and learn with, but reserve the good version for their hardware.
When it's available on x86, a lot of Apple's customer base stop buying Apple hardware and get OSX on x86 instead. Then they realise it's easy to pirate. Then Apple's business model collapses.
Re:It's been said before
by
stonedonkey
·
· Score: 1
and I'll say it again: Apple wants OS X to be pirated. First, you pirate OS X and start to like it, then next time you go to buy a computer you choose an Apple because, hey, you get some advantages to running a legit copy and you can still dual boot Windows or Linux if you want.
And it's still very, very doubtful that Apple would want its OS exposed to a million peripheral combinations it has no support layer for. If OSX can handle all the cards, mice, keyboards, HDDs, optical drives, sound cards, et cetera... I will be absolutely fucking astonished.
And then I will buy myself a copy!
Re:It's been said before
by
jinzumkei
·
· Score: 1
What are you insane? People can barely install the software on the crappy little AOL discs (disclaimer: I don't know if that is true since i've never known anyone to actually install the software that comes on those cds) but you want them to start doing OS installs? that sounds like dis-f*cking-aster to me:)
and I'll say it again: people go and install OSX on a cheap machine, realise how great it is, and then when they want a new machine, they get another cheap machine, and install OSX on that one. I can't see any reason why someone would pirate it the first time, then go out and spend extra to get an Apple machine, when can get (or build) a similar (albeit stylistically challenged) machine cheaper.
Because the hacked versions will always be a minor pain in the butt. Apple won't support it, because it's not on their hardware, and your PC manufacturer won't support it because it's not the OS they shipped the system with. Every time Apple comes out with a system or application update, there will be problems on non-Apple systems and you'll have to search the internet for patches. Hackers will take pride in showing off OS X running on their non-Apple software, and a lot of people will probably download a copy to try it out, but most people won't want the aggravation of running it long-term on non-Apple hardware.
Re:It's been said before
by
Dolly_Llama
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In some other discussion of.com failures, someone remarked in comments about how the marketing blitz of the.com world failed miserably because it didn't take into consideration who really makes decisions and influences people about computer related decisions. Instead of speding X millions of dollars buying a superbowl ad, the successful companies tried and succeeded into getting their products into the hands and minds of the alpha geeks and was then disseminated to the unwashed (maybe the washed in this case) masses. Google didnt become the monolith it is because it ran stupid superbowl ads. It had a superior product, and geeks told geeks who told normal people.
Maybe this is apple's way of doing the same thing. If installing OS X on your Fry's especiale pizza box system is easy, but not trivial, the alpha geeks are given a challenge to sort out the messes that x86 OS X represents. Hell maybe the open source mentality will lead to bugfixes headed back to Cupertino.
Once this core geek-ocracy is on board with x86, applications are ready, the x86 Macs appear, THEN will the influence have spread to those with purchase authority, both in the home and in the office....so maybe my tinfoil hat is on inside-out, but I think, 'leaking' x86 OS X was both intentional, and brilliant!
--
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
-- Carl Sagan
They can buy Apple hardware right now if they want, but they don't. And they still won't in your scenario. Why? Same reason as today: because they'll take one look at the price and buy a Dell instead.
But these days, the price difference between Apple and Dell is pretty small. People buy Dell not so much to save money (if you really want to save money, you'll buy a generic PC, not a Dell), but for compatibility with the world of Windows software. Buy an Apple and you get OS X to use routinely, and you can get Windows too if you want to run your favorite FPS.
Re:It's been said before
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apple's coreuserbase sustained them through the dark years of the '90s, and we're certainly capable of keeping them afloat again. You Johnnies-come-lately can go right ahead and switch back to Dell hardware. Don't let the door hit you.
Either that, or they run a pirate copy on a shitty box, find that it's as buggy as windows on the unsupported hardware (but prettier), and decide that it must be the same on Apple hardware.
It leaves a bad taste in their mouth, hence No Sale.
-- Wake up.
Re:It's been said before
by
TooncesTheCat
·
· Score: 1
"Apple wants OS X to be pirated. First, you pirate OS X and start to like it, then next time you go to buy a computer you choose an Apple because, hey, you get some advantages to running a legit copy"
What are the advantages of running a legitimate store bought copy of a operating system? Last time I checked and I have been dual booting between Slackware and Windows, Im 20 years old and have never bought Windows. Always have pirated it and always will.
IMHO their are no "benefits" of a legit Windows copy. I can update just the same as you and everything else. And their are no flaws:/
Re:It's been said before
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apple designs a lot of their own hardware. Previous Macs have had custom I/O chips and even custom sound chips. It's not such a big leap to think that by the time the x86 Macs are introduced, Apple x86 motherboards will be customized to such an extent that OS X will not run on any plain jane PC because it does not include support for the other readily available motherboard chipsets.
And not to mention that the population that will hack OS X to run on a cheap box is quite small compared to all computer users. This sub-group might put up with the minor pains in the butt, while others might not. But all of them could come to realize that OS X has some nice features and is solid. So when Mom and Pop, or Grandma and Grandpa, need a new computer, their hacker son or grandson will now be familiar with OS X and like it. Since Mom and Pop ain't gonna be doing anything but going to the computer store to get their new system, a recommendation for OS X will steer them right for an Apple store. This is a much bigger slice of the population.
As more F/OSS Operating Systems arise (F/OSSOS's?) the value of software will fade. It's a matter of time realistically.
This is far from a foregone conclusion. The kind of vision that is required to create a reasonable consumer-oriented operating system is so far only seen in private companies.
KDE and Gnome won't cut it, there's too much demand for features that dilute the usability of the system for novices. Only a company has the kind of structure where a central authority maintains the vision by delegating carefully, and controlling the developers with paychecks.
But assuming that the conditions somehow fall into place within the next 50 years, you still have to assume the quality won't quite reach Apple's standard.
By distributing AOL style, the masses will install it - and invariably fuck it up.
By setting the "find it online, crack/whatever it, install it using some convoluted method" benchmark, they're making sure only competent (or reasonably so) people can run OS X at first, and thus people won't be blaming Apple for their borked computer and lost data (most likely, at least).
They'll just attach a lower, 'consumer' price later on, or offer incentives.
I hope to God that Apple doesn't go the winmodem/winfax/winprinter bullshit route, though. That would really screw them in the long run.
-- ~/ssh slashdot.org
ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
What would make sense would be if OSX didn't have drivers for half of the hardware in the cheap machine. If OS X works on your cheap machine, but the sound doesn't work and animation is jerky (because it's not hardware accelerated), you could get an idea of how slick the interface is without actually being able to use it for day-to-day use. Part of the reason that Apple's stuff is stable is that there's a limited set of possible hardware configurations to test, at least for the non-hotplug stuff. It would make sense that this would imply, for example, no wifi unless you've got a built-in Airport, because there's no need to support other wifi on Apple hardware.
Re:It's been said before
by
The+Lynxpro
·
· Score: 1
"Apple should start sending out OS X on CD AOL-style. If they really are a hardware company, that will sell them a lot of hardware later on. If they're really smart, they'll send out Panther on CD to everyone. People will pirate Tiger anyway, but that would at least get OS X onto computers that would otherwise have never pirated it, then those people can buy Apple hardware in a year or two when they upgrade."
Are you advocating a commercial Knoppix-type like distribution of OS X for x86? Let the person try what its like (a simulation of sorts) to use OS X and then give the user a discount when they come into an Apple store interested in purchasing a Macintosh?
That would only work if the people weren't existing Apple Mac owners, otherwise Apple unnecessarily cuts into its own projected sales margins. Unless they sent out those discs to holdouts that still haven't switched to OS X...:)
-- "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
The quality will reach Apple's standards because Apple will continue to cherry pick the best, picking winners and upgrading the code of projects like KHTML and giving back their changes while they repackage for the OS X platform.
Every time Apple comes out with a system or application update, there will be problems on non-Apple systems and you'll have to search the internet for patches.
Joe Sixpack's kid: "Yeah, I tried OSX for a while. It kept breaking. I don't know why people bother with it."
they'll take one look at the price and buy a Dell instead.
I think his point was they would be more likely to once they got used to it from pirating. If price was the only factor, people would buy Microtel machines from Walmart running Linux and OpenOffice.
I think a free copy of Mac OS X that could run on my existing PC would give me a great reason to try it, and maybe even get used to it. I can't count how many free Linux distros I've tried. Maybe Apple finally realizes the real money is in the platform, not the OS. Although Microsoft makes a lot of money on Windows, they've been more than happy to give it away in the past for lock-in and "getting them hooked."
They might give back some here and there, but from what I've heard a lot of Apple's patches for KHTML haven't really been useful given the structure of their code.
Besides, the value of Apple is the integration of everything in a tidy, uniform package. The problem with KDE isn't lack of features, it's lack of unified vision.
In your humble opinion, of course. They may not be immediate or hugely obvious, but there most certainly are consequences to your piracy. The megacorps are only interested in DRM technology because of your kind of thinking, and we're all going to suffer for it. Thanks.
Re:It's been said before
by
killjoe
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
More likely they try it, they like it, they lobby their bosses to get one for the office. That's where apple is trying to go, into the office.
Well, with the Pentium-M coming, Macs can't be much more expensive than Intel-machines anymore, because people would notice. I expect a price tag of about $200 more than equivalent PCs (maybe only $100 in the low segment), and for that you get a legit copy of Mac OS and iLife.
The only thing left to hope is that they'll finally include decent screens in the iBooks.
Actually, naive idealists do nothing. Do you think the losers here who hate copyright, patents, profit and capitalism get anything done? No, it's the businessmen who live in reality. Once you get out of school/Slashdot, living in a fantasy just leads to being slapped in the face by reality.
The slashbots with the entitlement complex just sit in office cubicles or flipping burgers doing nothing, waiting for the day when the world turns into an RMS-lead commune.
Re:It's been said before
by
hawaiian717
·
· Score: 1
Exactly, the EULA says that OS X can only be run on Apple hardware (so yes, even if you buy it to run on PearPC, it's still technically not legal). However, there is no such thing as an "upgrade" version of OS X; every retail copy is a full install. Sometimes the discs that come with a new machine are machine-specific, though.
No, no, no, no. Apple does not want it to be pirated any more than any other company would. I can understand your confusion if you are used to companies that distrust their users by forcing them to jump through various hoops. Apple does on currently rely on either CD keys or activation for OS X installs.
They know that some people will always pirate but in general, they still trust their "loyal" users to do the right thing and "buy" their OS.
Your AOL idea is horrible. Apple is not interested in being buried in technical support costs for little or no return on the investment.
Here are a few observations I've made of many people who post on slashdot:
- Most of you have never taken any sort of course on economics.
- Consequently, most of you have trouble grasping concepts such as profit motive or how a company must make money to survive.
- Many of you also do not understand that the true cost of a product includes the following: R&D, production and fixed costs which would include the various logistics to support business operations and customer service.
- Technical support is a financial drain on a company. It is an expense for most corporations and is part of those fixed costs I mentioned above.
- It is difficult to break even on the "free software" and paid technical support business model let alone earning a decent profit.
I worked in technical support in the past. I can tell you that it is costly and can be time consuming. I can also tell you that if you give the product away for free, very few people will be willing to pay for technical support.
-- Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Re:It's been said before
by
linuxpyro
·
· Score: 1
Apple should start sending out OS X on CD AOL-style.
I agree. A new OS X CD bedroom would go great on top of my AOL CD living room.
-- Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
What's the point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Running OS X on a Dell is like putting race car parts in your Yugo. You can, it is sort of funny, but... why?
Haven't you ever seen Pimp My Ride.. you know, that TV show where they put a 30,000 dollar finish on a car, but rarely if ever touch a single part in the engine bay?
People like bling. Bling sells. OS X is blingzilla, but it also functions like a beast under the hood, as long as it is on hardware that allows it to. So, for all of those people who are hacking OS X together to run on crap hardware, Apple will try to stop you as best as they can, but in the end, you're still retarded. Upgrade the engine, and the whole package will fly.
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:What's the point
by
m50d
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Not really. These are x86 chips made by Intel themselves, so the only thing your mac hardware premium (and don't try and claim it doesn't exist) is going on is the software and the pretty boxes. It's more like reflashing your video card to behave like a more expensive model, something many of us here applaud.
No, it's more like trying to put Audi parts in your VW. It's the same underlying hardware, unless you're at the very cheap end of the spectrum, then it's like trying to put Bentley parts in your VW. You can do it, and most of it will work, but occasionally something won't and then you're on your own.
You do know that VW and Audi are the same company, right? They share many, many parts between VW and Audi models. The VW R32 and the 3.2L TT use the same engine, transmission, brakes, and more. The A4 and the Passat share a lot of components. Even on my VW, many of the parts have the VW logo and the Audi logo stamped into them.
Re:What's the point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you actually read the post, you will see that yes, the poster did know that. Quoth the GP: It's the same underlying hardware
I met a guy a while back that put a large Olds V6 in a Yugo. It went wicked fast and the oddness of the whole setup made it kinda cool. But he did it just because he could, not to commute, race, or pick up chicks.
The moral of this story? Sometimes you have to do something just because you can:)
Re:What's the point
by
ciroknight
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You act as if a CPU is all that makes a computer a computer.
Motherboards, chipsets, video cards, hell even computer cases are all part of the Apple experience. If you want to believe that the only "premium" you're paying for is the operating system, then believe it all you like. But when you run out and try one of the machines, you'll realize there's a lot more to it.
Apple puts serious time into making their product work, and to making it work, every single time. They put serious effort into having good tech support. They put serious effort into making their machines fast (as that's the number one driving force to x86 today). They put serious effort into making sure the ram your system uses is of quality. The list goes on.
Most PC vendors are bidding in a market to get the cheapest, working parts they can find, and if you like your machines to run like that, then by all means I won't stop you. But before I went to Apple, I built my machine with premium parts that I raed reviews on and made sure were of quality. After doing the same with Apple's components, and finding out it was, in the end, much cheaper to go with their pre-built machine, I switched.
Besides, if you call a hundred or two bucks a premium, then your really talking bottom barrel parts. Apple doesn't even want your money if you're not willing to spend it.
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
umm... they're switching because mac hardware is like a hampster wheel in a ferrari, it looks cool but it runs like crap. wait until they get it running on x86 for real, fanboy. you can only say more efficient per clock until they can out clock you by 1GHz, that one billion more times per second. I thought I'd specify since mac users took 20 years to learn more than one mouse button.
oh, and dual core processors. yeah i know mac offers dual processors, but you can put two dual cores in an x86 board for 4x the power.
Thank you, Captain Obvious, for doing what you do best. That was my entire point. Apple is going to use the same hardware everyone else does, slap their logo on it, make everything prettier, shinier and more "upscale," and sell it at a premium. The only real difference is the OS (so it'd be like a diesel Audi vs. a gas VW).
Re:What's the point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So you're crapintosh has never had a hardware failure? It lasts forever? I bet not. Fact is all hardware is prone to fail at random times no matter the quality. For myself I'd rather have the replacement cost be real cheap rather than be locked into apple crapintosh shiny hardware.
Um, if you check out the Development Macs (which I'm assuming you'd bench it against, as an OS X x86 machine vs a OS X/PPC machine comparison this early is retarded), they're all P4 machines. Some of these computers they're getting it to run on are Pentium M machines. Pentium Ms are inheirently faster than Pentium 4s by design. Thus, it quickly makes up for the discrepency.
Besides, I wouldn't care if I could take a race car's looks and strap on my 74 Postal Jeep, but give me one of those Indy V8s and I don't give a shit what goes on top of it. Better yet, give me a Indy V8, with a Ferrari's body/chassis, and you've got yourself a sell. Oh wait. That's what Apple sells. Doh!
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
$499 for a desktop computer that is half the size of a cappuccino pc that is usually more expensive for the same components is a premium? how about $1999 for a machine that is comparable to an alienware box? its not a "premium" if you compare it to non-cheap-ass PC hardware.
and you write off the software as if it isn't a big deal. the software, tied in with the hardware, is very important and is what makes a mac a mac.
OS X is blingzilla, but it also functions like a beast under the hood, as long as it is on hardware that allows it to. So, for all of those people who are hacking OS X together to run on crap hardware, Apple will try to stop you as best as they can, but in the end, you're still retarded. Upgrade the engine, and the whole package will fly.
How is an Athlon 64 4000 considered "crap" compared to the lower-end PC hardware that Apple is now going to use?
I hate to break it to you, but much of the hardware in a PC is higher grade than what's in Apples. But Apple fans will never see the light.
Re:What's the point
by
radish
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Apple puts serious time into making their product work, and to making it work, every single time. Well, then they've failed. Apple's crash. Apple's have hardware failures. Hate to break your rose-tinted bubble but they are JUST COMPUTERS, like all the others. Why do I read so many problems about PowerBook logic board failures if they're perfect? Why the tint problems on their amazingly over priced LCD displays? Why did my girlfriends ibook just need a battery recall? What's with the ipod mini recall from a while ago? Do I even hame to mention the cube?
They put serious effort into making their machines fast (as that's the number one driving force to x86 today) Again, they've failed. There is not an Apple in production today, for any price, which can beat a decently high end Athlon or P4 based PC.
They put serious effort into making sure the ram your system uses is of quality Oh please. It's the same (perfectly decent) generic ram everyone else uses, it just costs twice as much.
Look, if you want to buy an Apple go ahead, it's no skin off my nose. But DO NOT give me all this crap about how if I prefer a PC I'm being cheap, or I don't appreciate the perfection of Apple. I don't want an Apple because I think they're too expensive, too slow, I don't really like OSX, and I don't think they look particularly great. I've dealt with their support - it's nothing great (waiting in line for an hour to speak to a "genius" who really doesn't know what he's talking about is not a win in my book). I've dealt with their failed hardware and I've dealt with their insane pricing. When the Intel based Apples come out I'll take another look, but right now I've thought about it and decided no.
--
----
Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
>: No, it's more like trying to put Audi parts in your VW.
Yes. But some people like OSX and if they want to put a VW's OS on their Audi that is their business.
You see, you have it exactly backwards. Apple is the VW of computers, they make a very limited lineup of mid to low end machines and sell them at a premium over what anyone else could get because of nostalgia over past glories.
Look in a Mac sometime, it's all crap that was obsolete everywhere else one to two years ago. They were still peddling PC100 memory when everyone else had moved on to DDR. Until very recently (they are getting more competitive lately) you could depend on Apple introducing new products with specs about equal to what was on the display model bargain table everywhere else. And don't even START the bullshit about the marvels of the G[45] processor being so much better than a Pentium that it made up the performace gap. You have your new marching orders from the Maximum Leader now, PPC bad; Pentium Good. As usual, a generation behind. Those in the know, know Pentium old and slow, Athlon Good.
On the flip side there is my Athlon system I built from parts off the shelf (so to speak in internet terminology)
Runs great, doesn't crash, nothing flips out and I get great FPS in most games.
I just followed a few simple rules. Don't buy a first revision of a chipset. Get a good PSU. Make sure it's not smoking hot.
Seems like all you are paying Apple to do is take care of the research and limit your scope of available devices.
-- "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Re:What's the point
by
ltbarcly
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh please. It's the same (perfectly decent) generic ram everyone else uses, it just costs twice as much.
Stop, collaborate and listen!
Ram quality is a highly overlooked cause of many many stability problems. I will NOT run generic ram in the debian machine I use for development, nor will I in my powerbook. Many of those hard to track down and intermittent 'software' errors are caused by either poor quality ram or a cheap power supply. With windows it's not so important, as you are less likely to keep it up for long periods of time (apparently it reboots itself to install patches now, without asking).
If you are doing anything serious on a PC, I really recommend ECC. There is a slight cost involved, and a very small performance penalty, but it comes with the total prevention of single bit errors due to cosmic rays or decomposing atoms in solder. You'll avoid a hell of a lot WTF troubleshooting.
Now, if you're a cretin, feel free to get GENERTEC's offering for $5 less, but in the long run you'll bitch and moan about whatever operating system you're using being unstable.
CRETINS STOP READING HERE, AND RECEIVE A GENUINE IMITATION LEATHERETTE WALLET CARRYING CASE
Ok, now that they're out of the picture, check out www.crucial.com. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Micron, and it is high quality stuff.
Two RAM boards with the exact same chips can vary widely in quality. This is because the big 3 ram manufacturers do a great job, but the PCB makers do an often shit job.
As in all things you get what you pay for.
Oh, and parent IS a cretin. Nobody cares about your personal justification for Apple bashing. Apple makes great stuff, it's not everything to everybody. I personally wish that konqueror would be split from KDE so that it could be platform independent. It's fantastic.
Cars crash, parts fail, what's your point? You can't expect Apple to be able to stop acts of God, bad components they get from other companies, and irresponsible employees.
What you can expect them to do without much arm pulling is fix it if they were responsible, and in all of the cases I've studied, they've been great at it. Hell, I'd encourage Apple or anyone to start a study and find just how many customers are satisfied with their Macs, how many hardware problems they'd had in their life time, and what errors they were.
I'm not saying lemons don't occur. They always have and always will, that's the nature of the environment. I'm saying by and large, from all accounts I've read, people are satisfied or they would not continue buying Apple products. And just because Slashdot is an environment where both people who like and dislike Apple (and no middle ground) exist, we will always have fundamentally different views. But in all honesty, if you have a problem with their products, go to them, don't talk to me about it.
By the way, before you make judgement on hardware that's not available to you, me, and maybe even Apple themselves, perhaps you should look into what Intel has around the corner. Call me an Intel, Apple, Palm jockey all you want, but in the end, I like functional hardware, and I like to know what is going on inside. Apple's under enough pressure that we all know what's inside. Intel just as AMD are both under enough scrutiny by this group of people that we will always know what's under the hood of their products. And Palms.. they just work for me.
I can give you the crap about you wanting a cheap PC if you give me the crap about Apple being a premium box. Hell, there are people selling computers that make Apple's look cheap as dirt. Machines geared towards people like you who oogle at them. Machines that are so expensive because they use the most bleeding edge of parts and have absolutely no expectation that they will continue to work ten years down the line.
I don't care if you don't want Apple. That's your choice. Unlike Microsoft they won't make you pay for their product if you're not buying it.
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:What's the point
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
hell even computer cases are all part of the GAY experience.
Alienware is both higher end hardware, and a complete ripoff on price. You can replicate their product, in some cases right down to the chassis, for about half the price they charge.
The Apple box will very likely have some proprietary components, which may or may not be better than other stuff out there.
Apple is just a company. The will still use the cheapest part that works, and they will still plan in product obsolescence so that they continue having a market. They are in it for profit, not for some silly movement.
Compared to most of the PC vendors, they're better with hardware quality control, and they've become better with software quality. They also charge more than the equivalent classed PC.
Part of the reason that Apple does so well is that by far most people *really* don't need the latest and greatest. This means Apple can ship older parts that cost a whole lot less for them to get ahold of. Then they charge a tidy markup and make nice profit. Their high-end more cutting edge stuff is still extremely over-priced compared to their competitors.
Apple would like for a computer to be an appliance. You buy the Mac computer and run the Mac apps, or you buy the Dell computer and run the Dell apps. It that regard, they win; their machine are much more aesthetically pleasing. However, they don't run the same apps, and that both helps and hinders.
Re:What's the point
by
ImpTech
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> Motherboards, chipsets, video cards, hell even computer cases are all part of the Apple experience. If you want to believe that the only "premium" you're paying for is the operating system, then believe it all you like. But when you run out and try one of the machines, you'll realize there's a lot more to it.
But thats really the whole point... Apple's going to Intel, ergo their motherboard and chipset choices will be the same as everybody else's (I'd imagine they'll use Intel-brand boards and chipsets, but we'll see), and their video card choices are *already* the same as PCs, except they like to give you a low end one. For RAM, well duh, any PC manufacturer that wants to make money in the long run uses decent memory. So, once the Intel move is complete, the only thing separating Apple from Dell will be the case and the software. This, IMO, makes paying the Apple premium much harder to justify.
No, it's more like taking really sexy, translucent lingere which lets you see all the important parts that you would drool over if it was on a hot chick, and putting it on the Dell Dude.
"Apple puts serious time into making their product work, and to making it work, every single time."
Yeah, they really put a lot of work into picking out those exploding batteries and crappy monitors from LG.
I do love my PowerBook, but let's not go crazy here. For the price I paid for this thing, I could probably find a Toshiba or Sony laptop just as shiny and feature-packed. And chances are, it wouldn't EXPLODE.
Re:What's the point
by
radish
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think you and I have different ideas of what generic means. To me, Micron/Crucial is generic. They make good, reliable stuff and it's cheap. It's not Geil SuperDooperProGold Overclockers RAM with LEDs. That's what I meant by generic...
--
----
Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Cars crash, parts fail, what's your point? You can't expect Apple to be able to stop acts of God, bad components they get from other companies, and irresponsible employees. My point is: of course Apple can't help have problems, neither can anyone else. Apple are just the same. What I hate is the belief that the sun shines out of Jobs' ass. It doesn't.
Hell, I'd encourage Apple or anyone to start a study and find just how many customers are satisfied with their Macs, how many hardware problems they'd had in their life time, and what errors they were. And I'd be interested in the results.
By the way, before you make judgement on hardware that's not available to you, me, and maybe even Apple themselves, perhaps you should look into what Intel has around the corner. If you actually read my post, I didn't make any judgments about the forthcoming hardware. In fact, I said "when the Intel stuff comes out I'll take another look" - because I will. I hope it will fix their performance problems.
Hell, there are people selling computers that make Apple's look cheap as dirt. Machines geared towards people like you who oogle at them. How the hell do you think you know what I do or do not oogle at? For the record I have never in my life bought an entire, prebuilt, PC. I build my own, I choose the components and spec it how I like. I don't go to dell and I don't go to alienware because I don't like the lack of flexibility. Apple likewise.
absolutely no expectation that they will continue to work ten years down the line I bought my mother an iMac about 4 years ago - it's now completely unusable. The hardware is failing, repairs are of course amazingly expensive and there's no upgrade path. If that was a PC I could at least replace the broken bits with spares or bits off ebay. Bitter? Yep. I've spent over $4000 on Apple gear over the years (all for other people) and I'm not a satisfied customer.
I don't care if you don't want Apple. That's your choice. Thank you. All I want is to be allowed to disagree and not be insulted for it.
Unlike Microsoft they won't make you pay for their product if you're not buying it. Who the hell said anything about Microsoft? Did I mention them? Or Windows?
--
----
Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
I work in an environment where Mac, x86 running Windows and x86 running Linux are heavily used. Plus, I make a living fixing both Windows-based machines and Apple.
I'm sorry to report I couldn't disagree with you more. While I have found the PowerMac line to be acceptable for the most part, Apple has a strong tendancy to make extremely foolish design moves for the sake of the "cool look" they are so famous for on their other lines.
The flat-panel iMac comes to mind especially. Ever had to replace anything inside this beast? If so, you know what I mean. You can't even open it up without having to apply heatsink grease to close it back up. Getting it apart and even putting it together can easily bend pins that connect to the motherboard. Let me tell you, this thing is a complete dust-trap. Ever needed to replace the neck that connects the display to the base? Hope you have 6 hours to replace that one. Let's talk about the iMac and the mysterious failing Power/Analog/Video board. Or how about the eMacs that require you to discharge the CRT in order to replace the hard drive?
I do like the OS to a certain extent. Of course I could do without all the legacy garbage and evil resource forks, and don't get me started about the design flaw that is the dock. And why can't they make the Finder a little more reliable? Sure the O/S doesn't crash, but the system is pretty useless without Finder and sometimes it won't relaunch properly after the spinning wheel of death.
Overall, I would say Apple is just so-so. The engineers ought to put more time into making the system more maintainable rather than "cool". Again, I would say I've had better luck with the PowerMac line, but they certainly don't beat x86 with even mediocre hardware, and I couldn't care less about the looks, I don't own a computer to stare at the case.
I think you're missing the point. Nobody wants the Apple hardware, they just want the operating system. Apple has the ability to bring a unix-based operating system into the mainstream and give serious competition to Microsoft. The public is not heard by their voice, they are heard by their checkbooks.
I agree with most vendors trying to get the cheapest component they can find...most vendors (Dell, HP, etc) sell you something that doesn't have a solid upgrade path, but neither do Macs. Macs have better quality components going for them, but all hardware vendors, Apple included, plan for obsolescence. If they didn't, why would you ever go buy a new machine?
What you are missing is that most of us don't want the Apple components or hardware, we just want the operating system. I don't need the Apple "experience" of spending three or four grand on a computer that isn't as useful, upgradable, or robust as one I can build for a fifth of the cost, I just want to run a non-Microsoft OS on my machine aside from Linux.
>I'd argue with you, but the mac zealots will drown me out, they always do. I suppose there's strength in numbers...
In other news, Apple's market share instantaneously grows to an unexpected majority.
Re:What's the point
by
ltbarcly
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
don't be "one of those people". You can't just take words to mean whatever you want 'to you'. That is bullshit. As soon as you do that everything you say has no meaning, as who knows what YOU mean by 'reliable'. Perhaps by 'reliable' you mean 'lasts at least 1 week' and 'cheap' means 'less than a million dollars'. Of course you take 'ideas' to mean 'the internet version of deas' or something equally stupid.
So, since you don't seem to know what words mean, I'll lend a hand:
Generic: Not having a brand name.
So you cannot possibly consider 'Crucial' to be 'generic' as 'Crucial' IS the name of the brand.
Now, everything today has branding of some sort. You can't buy a box at the store that just says 'crackers' and doesn't refer to a brand. So it seems that there are no longer generic products. So now the word generic means 'lower quality or lesser known brand'. Safeway brand food is generic, Kraft is name brand. This is mostly a product of advertising.
However, crucial is generally considered to be the premier brand of RAM. In most compatibility tests it scores near or at the top.
By "not generic' you seem to mean 'flashy, shiny'. And that is about what I would expect from you. Tell me, do you drive a souped up civic? Does your car have a carbon fiber hood and an exhaust tip?
Re:What's the point
by
i41Overlord
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Generic: Not having a brand name.
So you cannot possibly consider 'Crucial' to be 'generic' as 'Crucial' IS the name of the brand.
Really, there isn't any truly "generic" memory. Only a few companies make memory chips, smaller companies couldn't possibly build a fab to produce memory chips.
The "generic" companies use the same Samsung, Toshiba, or Hynix, etc chips that most other companies do, and build them according to the reference design produced by the chipmakers. They also buy the PCB that the memory chips are soldered to from a company that makes PCBs and sells them to OEMs. In addition, the SPD on the memory chip isn't made from them either, they buy that.
In fact, many "generic" computer parts are actually OEM produced parts sold in the gray market from oversupply. You might find a motherboard/memory stick that is completely identical to the product of a big name motherboard/memory stick producer.
For instance, I used to work for a motherboard manufacturer and one of our competitors was PC Chips, a huge OEM. They produced huge volumes of motherboards and sold them under their name, sold them to manufacturers who sold them under their own names, and also produced boards that were sold under "house" names like Tiger Direct or even by smaller retailers under the term "generic". Yet they were all produced on the same assembly line.
Motherboards, chipsets, video cards, hell even computer cases are all part of the Apple experience.
And most of them are the same. The chipsets are by and large the same as in your PC. The video cards are often identical. The motherboard may be different (or may not with the new machines), but many of the chips will be the same. Back when Apple was using their own nonstandard busses for things etc. there was something to saying an Apple was different, but these days the CPU was the last internal thing that was truly different, and now that's gone.
If you want to believe that the only "premium" you're paying for is the operating system, then believe it all you like.
I'm believing it from my experience. You get reasonable components, possibly better than the average PC since cost is the top factor for many, but nothing you can't get cheaper for a PC. You get good assembly. You get some expensive apps as well as the OS. You get a nicely designed case. If these are things that matter to you then by all means pay the premium for them. They don't to me.
But when you run out and try one of the machines, you'll realize there's a lot more to it.
I've tried them. They break down just about as much as my linux boxes. If you put the same OS on them, they're not really distinguishable to me except when I open them up to upgrade things. They may be prettier, they may be quieter, but neither of these are things I notice.
Apple puts serious time into making their product work, and to making it work, every single time. They put serious effort into having good tech support...They put serious effort into making sure the ram your system uses is of quality.
Not IME. The typical apple hardware fails just as much as - ok, maybe not the typical pc hardware (though IME there is no difference, but I can see many PCs use absolute bargain basement parts that will fail a bit more than quality stuf), but just as much as similar quality pc components, which can be had for significantly less. Some claim that the random crashing often seen on windows machines is due to bad ram, but since it's disappeared on every machine I've switched to linux, I think it's just windows being windows.
Most PC vendors are bidding in a market to get the cheapest, working parts they can find, and if you like your machines to run like that, then by all means I won't stop you. But before I went to Apple, I built my machine with premium parts that I raed reviews on and made sure were of quality. After doing the same with Apple's components, and finding out it was, in the end, much cheaper to go with their pre-built machine, I switched.
I'm typing this on a cheapest working type machine, which gave me no trouble at all in terms of hardware failures for 3 years or so and is still perfectly usable though some of the hardware is now starting to go. But I've also built a quality machine, I and am confident it was cheaper than a performance-equivalent Apple. It may not have had the look of the case, or been as quiet perhaps, but in terms of functionality and looking at the hardware alone it is superior for the price.
Besides, if you call a hundred or two bucks a premium, then your really talking bottom barrel parts. Apple doesn't even want your money if you're not willing to spend it.
I'm happy to spend my money on things which are valuable to me. An attractive case doesn't matter when I'm never looking at the thing. I'll get parts which are as good as I think I need, and find I can get them overall cheaper with a PC, probably because of higher volume and the fact there are multiple vendors competing, which drives the price down. I enjoy putting computers together so don't mind about having it assembled, and I like my software open so Apple's OS and software, as good as they are, don't really interest me. Being able to throw money away may be a nice position to be in, but doing it is just stupid.
$499 for a desktop computer that is half the size of a cappuccino pc that is usually more expensive for the same components is a premium?
It's usually going to be the same components whatever you get. When you consider what you can get for the same price it is a premium - remember your mini doesn't include any of the peripherals, which are normally included in the price of any PC it's compared to. You can get a faster PC for less, that's a fact, plain and simple. You get the software, you get the nicely designed case, you get the small form factor. If those are things that matter to you, pay the premium for them. They don't to me.
how about $1999 for a machine that is comparable to an alienware box?
There are PCs that perform as well as the top Apples for less than that, definitely.
its not a "premium" if you compare it to non-cheap-ass PC hardware
Yes it is. It's not as big a premium, but it's still there.
and you write off the software as if it isn't a big deal
Because it isn't for me, I tend to use open stuff anyway. Anyway, this whole story is about getting the software working on non-premium hardware, which means you get the whole mac experience without the cost.
They put serious effort into making sure the ram your system uses is of quality.
When I popped open my mac mini to upgrade its memory what did I find? Hynix memory. Where else have I seen that... Oh yeah - consumer grade dell computers and laptops.
Apple uses hynix ram in there G5's too...
Not that I'm saying thats a bad thing - but you make it sound like the PC manufacturers are a bunch of small time OEM's.
All Marketers are Liars and you just believed the Apple marketing team. Truth is that when you pay extra for the story that Apple sells.
The reality is that people don't need special hardware. A keyboard is a keyboard, a mouse is a mouse. You can pick the ones you really like for 20-50 bucks. An LCD monitor is an LCD monitor, the cheapest one is almost as good as the best one (of same size), unless you work in design or publishing.
And everything else is irrelevant, as long as it's functional, has the right drivers and doesn't have manufacturing defects or bad parts.
I don't care about the box, I don't see it most of the time. The only Apple thing I may be somewhat interested in is OS X and, frankly, I am not that much impressed with it. Most of the bells and whistles are just that - bells and whistles and most of them exist for Windows as well in the form of 3rd-party software. Now that I think of it, the OS doesn't really matter either - it's applications. And most of the applications are available for Windows. Yes, there are some neat Mac-exclusive apps, but there are probably only 5 of them that I may be interested in. Windows is the best for games and great for everything else. And I am not into any server/backend stuff, so I don't care about that *nix advantage.
Really, Apple doesn't give you anything tangible for that 200$ premium, it simply sells you a story about cool computers. If you decide that you need this story, you pay extra. If you don't, you buy something that does the job.
-- Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I would guess that all the parts being exactly the same or similar, that the main difference between Generic and Name Brand would probably be in quality control. So, Brand X might use a chip that didn't quite pass whatever test but still functions ok, whereas Crucial would probably be more discerning about that sort of thing, and would have a higher specification. But I don't know, IANA ram manufacturer.
No. The chips are all equally good,and come from the same manufacturers anyway.
The PCB's (the green part) vary widely. If you want to save money on ram production this is the only place to do it, as there are no 'generic' ram chips (the black part of a dimm).
Notice that a "stick" of ram consists of two parts, the actual microchips, which are black, and the PCB, which is blue, black or green, (sometimes red or purple) which the chips are mounted on. The chips are produced by Micron, Infineon, and Samsung (all of which are fine quality wise), whereas there are myriad producers of PCB's, many of them are shady.
When you buy brand name ram you are buying a higher quality PCB, along with higher production standards.
Well right, and it's the production standards that I was referring to. If there's a flaw at some point in the process, and one of those chips is somehow damaged or maybe flawed coming from the chipmaker, then a Name Brand manufacturer is going to be more likely to catch that and throw it out. That was my whole point.
The PCB's (the green part) vary widely. If you want to save money on ram production this is the only place to do it...
Another place to save money would be to not have as strict QC standards so you could ship less well manufactured memory.
PC chips was only an example. Sorry if you didn't like it.
IBM does the same thing.
Perhaps, a licensed version soon?
by
Blindman
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple has to realize that there is a demand for their software of the x86 PC. Obviously, there would be problems if they had to support all the varieties of x86 PC hardware, but they could at least try to provide a version that works for the customers willing to use it.
-- I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
Re:Perhaps, a licensed version soon?
by
ciroknight
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple can notice the demand all it wants, but in order to produce the quality that they must to stay competitive, they _must_ limit their hardware install base, or they _must_ grow to being the size of Microsoft overnight.
Simply handing off driver creation to the companies isn't an effective way of ensuring something will work. Many companies will half-ass a driver just to get their product, others won't even put that much effort in to it.
OS X is a great operating system. Apple has the right to demand that you buy their hardware to use it.
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:Perhaps, a licensed version soon?
by
chromaphobic
·
· Score: 1
Simply handing off driver creation to the companies isn't an effective way of ensuring something will work. Many companies will half-ass a driver just to get their product, others won't even put that much effort in to it.
Witness the state of OS X drivers for scanners. Many people have to rely on a third-party app like VueScan (which is not free) because so many scanner manufacturers have either not bothered to release OS X drivers for their hardware, or released drivers so crappy as to render them effectively useless.
Now imagine this scenario applied to the melange of PC hardware that would need drivers if OS X for Intel was opened up for non-Apple hardware. Ugh.
Re:Perhaps, a licensed version soon?
by
bnenning
·
· Score: 1
in order to produce the quality that they must to stay competitive, they _must_ limit their hardware install base, or they _must_ grow to being the size of Microsoft overnight.
Absolutely right. If Apple goes for OS X on commodity PCs they're betting the company, because they'll have to *vastly* increase their market share to compensate for the loss of hardware sales. As OS/2, Be, and NeXT 1.0 have shown, this is extremely hard to do in the face of the MS monopoly, even if you have clear technical superiority.
-- How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
No encryption/copy protection scheme is secure. If one must unencrypt it to use it then its crackable. Period. If you think apple will be able to 'lock it down', you're gravely mistaken IMHO. Apple WANTS this to happen. Steve Jobs is finally getting back at Bill Gates. Look at it this way. Gates once upon a time royally SCREWED over Jobs and made billions doing it. Well Microsoft has dug its own grave with stagnation and Vista and they're currently most vulnerable. What does jobs do? He pulls out his nuclear weapon, OSX x86 and points it at Gates and pulls the trigger. Mark my words. By 2010 Apple will have 50%+ of the PC OS market and Microsoft's stock will be falling as they work on SP1 for Vista and Internet Explorer 7, which still crashed regularly and is riddled with spyware still while every major software and gaming company is busily relasing World of Warcraft 2, Everquest 3, Quake 5, and Halflife 3 on OSX.
Die Microsoft die- its about fucking time. (this coming from a once upon a time hard-core windows user/mac hater - check out my slashdot profile to see what I mean)
Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
mfh
·
· Score: 3, Informative
For those who are interested in learning more about Rosetta.
-- The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
lawpoop
·
· Score: 1
How about TPA? Wikipedia gives irrelevant results -- wasn't it the report from Office Space?
-- Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Thanks for the link. I just about got excited about running Final Cut on my Compaq R3000 notebook but then realized that Rosetta only does G3 instructions and not G4 (or G5) and Final Cut likes G4's or better.....
You saved my weekend.
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
techfury90
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Weird, last I checked, Final Cut Express ran just fine on my mom's 600 mhz G3 iBook....
-- I'm friends with the youngest daughter of the former head of the PowerPC division of IBM you insensitive clod!
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
bedouin
·
· Score: 1
Final Cut Express 1.0 maybe; 2.0 onward require a G4.
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
blugu64
·
· Score: 1
nice try but I ran FinalCut 2 on my B&W G3 back in the day.
-- "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
onkelonkel
·
· Score: 1
OMG
TGWB!
-- None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
bedouin
·
· Score: 1
Final Cut Express 2 is not the same as Final Cut Pro 2.
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
SCVirus
·
· Score: 0
Stop calling it Rosetta, its just Transitive's QuickTransit.
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
entrylevel
·
· Score: 1
In the movie, Peter Gibbons was a programmers working on the Y2K bug, so Test Prodecure Specification is more likely to be correct.
-- Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
engine+matrix
·
· Score: 1
I was forced to start submitting status reports to the PHB's, so I added a coversheet to them with the title "Total Project Summary Report". After a week I started referring to them as TPS reports and they were none the wiser. Now everyone seems to refer to them as TPS reports.
Re:Disambiguation: Rosetta
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
They were working on the Y2K bug in BANKING SOFTWARE!! Transaction Processing Software makes sense.
Here, we work with Test Program Sets.
I don't know what a "Prodecure" is.
Random thoughts on Apple...
by
Tezkah
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Ok I'm naïve on the politics of this, so my post is more of a question than a answer. I know this is an argument that has gone back and forth, but here goes again...
Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands? Sure, it might detract from them selling hardware (short term), but I can honestly say for me (average Joe) I've never purchased a Mac because they simply don't have the software titles I'm interested in and Windows does. I mean sure, they've got great stuff, but they lack in GAMES, yes games... I've said it, gotten it out. I'm a gamer and so are all of my friends. I'd venture to say a good chunk of those purchasing PC's are in the same group as me (surf the web and play games). So if the Apple OS became more popular, wouldn't more developers consider making a version of their game in the Apple OS flavor? Would it lead to an increase in dupe stories/comments?
Re:Random thoughts on Apple...
by
ChrisKnight
·
· Score: 1
World of Warcraft runs on OS X. That's the only game a lot of people play anymore.:)
-Chris
-- --
This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty.
--
Re:Random thoughts on Apple...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?
Not unless it lead to more sales, which there is no reason to believe it would.
So if the Apple OS became more popular, wouldn't more developers consider making a version of their game in the Apple OS flavor?
Probably 75% of PC game sales every year are restricted to a few dozen titles, almost all of which are released for the mac either simultaneously or within 6 months. Games on the mac are mostly a problem for a small, vocal minority of hardcore gamers who either can't wait a few months or need to play one of those few big titles that does not get ported. Contrast that with the number of really cool mac only games they've never heard of and, personally, I find gaming on the mac to be just as good, or better than on the PC. Of course I'm not a hard-core, constantly playing, must have it right now sort of a gamer. I have too much to do in the real world to play most of the huge time-suckers that are on top these days.
Re:Random thoughts on Apple...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I find gaming on the mac to be just as good, or better than on the PC. Of course I'm not a hard-core, constantly playing, must have it right now sort of a gamer.
Your second statement is the reason you can make the first statement. Not the other way around. If you were interested in playing games, you would be using a PC. Based on your description and your posts. I consider you to be a "slight gamer" and your definition of a hard-core gamer is what most people would consider a low to regular gamer. You are trying to move the Mac further up the gaming ladder then where reality really has it.
If you read my previous post you'd note, most games sold are a few very popular ones that run on both platforms. Most people only buy a few games for their computer. Most Mac users have no problem finding a few games a year they like and playing them on their machines. Thus, Macs are fine for the average gamer. Note, we're talking computer gamer here, the market for people who play consoles is even larger.
People who are constantly buying new hardware and dozens of new games a year, and dedicate a lot of time to it are not your average gamer. They think they are, because only really dedicated gamers are on all the time, form relationships, participate regularly in forums, etc. Thus people who are dedicated or extreme gamers tend to associate a lot with those with a similar interest. Their opinion of what a normal gamer is thus very skewed.
On the high end, of course are people who live for games. They naturally have both a mac and a PC so they can play the really cool games unique to each platform.
This was surely the inevitable conclusion of Apple's x86 port all along? So if they knew the OS was going to be cracked and widely redistributed on the 'net, one wonders why they didn't just go ahead and offer ISO9660 images or links to BitTorrents of them on their own site. Looks like they missed an incredibly good opportunity to heighten public opinion of the company for no obvious reason.
If you were a customer that paid for the OS, and then a few weeks later they not only approved it being issued for free, but in fact distributed, what would you do? Would you want your money back? I would. I imagine authorizing its distrobution would generate significant refunds on their product, and potentially lawsuits.
-- Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
I'm very interested to see performance numbers. I am a mac and linux person, and I think it is pretty much accepted that tools aren't quite as snappy on Mac OS X as on pc's. I'm interested to see if that is true on an apples to apples comparison. (That said, there is more to life than being snappy)
Re:This is great!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You'll have to wait until OS X for Intel is released to get valid performance comparisons. The Developer Release is intended to get code to run reliably, not as an example of the performance to expect.
I'm a MacOS X, Linux and XP 'person' and despite shelling out for a Dual 2Ghz G5 with a 256Mb graphics card OS X is still slower than my 2.2Ghz AMD machines for simple things like cursor movement in the shell and Emacs. It's crazy. Press down arrow and wait while the cursor moves at a snail's pace. I've always considered the combination of Apple's BSD core and Aqua interface to be an uneasy alliance at best. That and the HFS+ legacy with its attendant "fix permissions" nonesense.
There is this concept called the 'key-repeat time'. Go to the control panel, click on 'Keyboard and Mouse', and alter to suit.
If, for some reason, you want a faster repeat-time than the dialogue provides, you'll have to get someone with more insider-knowledge than I to tell you how to do it, but the speed of response to key presses is nowhere near an adequate benchmark for CPU comparison.
A dual 2-GHz G5 could process tens of thousands of keys being pressed every second without breaking sweat. As could a 2.2GHz AMD (or Intel) box.
The nonesense(sic) of the HFS+ permissions isn't clear to me. It seems to use unix-style permissions with ACL's, that seem perfectly adequate for every other unix box. I'm not sure what the problem is...
that's true at the low level, but if you're running something like Microsoft Word, without all the doodads turned off, sometimes it has trouble keeping up with a fast typist on a gigahertz machine.
Re:OPEN LETTER TO MAC USERS
by
Alan+Partridge
·
· Score: 0, Informative
Wrong on both counts.
-- That was classic intercourse!
Re:Are you joking? This was on the front page yest
by
mythicflux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That's why you should read the title:
More OS X on Plain Old x86 Boxes.
Re:Are you joking? This was on the front page yest
by
varmittang
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Because that was one person getting it to run on a Toshiba laptop, this other guy got it onto a Sony. So two different people, or just two different laptops, getting it onto regular PC hardware.
Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?
Apple is clearly a hardware company, and so they make most of their money from selling hardware. Thus it's very unlikely that Apple would want to support generic x86 boxes.
But Apple has an interesting opportunity here. If they simply ignored people running unlicensed x86 copies, but prevented else anyone selling pre-installed Macs, then they probably wouldn't lose much business. The people who are willing to install MacOS themselves are unlikely to be the people who'd buy Mac hardware in the first place.
However, Apple would gain a lot of mindshare with the kids and with the technically savvy who are happy installing their own OS. In the long run, this will bring many more people to Apple hardware, and to influence their parents/family/employers to buy the supported Apple products.
Seems like Apple can't lose here. They didn't even do anything and they got this posted twice! Just like Google.
-Fzz
Re:Playing both sides...
by
alfredo
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Apple's second biggest product is buzz.
Let's face it, nobody works the media like Apple. I love it.
but whats to stop the smart people from buying dirt cheap hardware and installing OSX on it for free? sure, not everyone is that smart, but who wouldn't market towards the masses with "CHEAP PC" and then just include an OSX disk?
Don't forget that OSX still won't run all the software you want it to...like quicken 98....at least I don't think it will....
Let's face it, nobody works the media like Apple. I love it.
Yeah, but that will only get you so far if you don't have solid products to back up the hype. MS spends a crapload more on marketing than Apple does, and yet they are widely panned. Why? Because previous buzz created by MS has turned out to be almost completely without substance. Once bitten, twice shy.
No, I'm pretty sure Apple's first biggest product is buzz. Two examples:
1) They shrunk the ipod. The new ipod is so small they can't fit a worthwhile screen on it to see what you're doing. So what do they do? They release a marketing blitz: Life is random, and name the thing the "shuffle".
2) They release a mouse. This mouse has-- get this-- more than one button. Every review site (and some non-review sites) run reviews of it, hype it, praise it as the greatest thing since sliced bread...
Jobs claims Apple is a hardware company. This is not true. Apple is a spin company. And boy is spin profitable. The man is a genius.
-JDF
OSX DRM similar to ITMS DRM
by
SuperKendall
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It seems to me that the philospophy behind OS X DRM is exactly the same as ITMS DRM - the DRM is just there to say "we'd rather you not do that" but they don't take a lot of steps to stop the people that work around it.
Really this makes the most sense. Any kind of DRM is going to be broken eventually, so it makes sense to do a quick and cheap effort to stop casual users but not to expend a huge amount of money or time on an effort that is, in the end, futile.
So the shipping version will also probably have some light protections on it but I'm sure it will be cracked and spread shortly.
The interesting thing I read is that as a result of being able to run this on other boxes, people are writing new drivers for devices not covered before - if the source for these drivers is public it could drive more devices to work under OSX (even on the PPC) than did before!
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:OSX DRM similar to ITMS DRM
by
TravisWatkins
·
· Score: 1
That's funny, I'm pretty sure they spent a lot of time and money trying to stop us from breaking their DRM and getting into their systems.
--
"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
It's possible that Apple made it fairly easy to hack the prerelease. Think about it. Release an easily hackable version early on. Get lots of people running it then tighten things up as time goes on.
I were Apple I'd release a preview version that installed any where.
-- IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer,
but I play one on GrokLaw.)
And you have the bonus of having that secret fingerprint in your OS so when you find the copies distributed online, you know who to black list from your trusted group for the next version.
FREE KARMA!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Quick! Post observations which were modded up on this same topic yesterday! You will the t3h insightful!!!!1!eleventyone!!!
Yay, dupes!
but osx will suck on commodity hardware
by
grahamsz
·
· Score: 1
Apples work well because they are made and controlled by apple.
When was the last time you struggled to find a driver for something that came preinstalled with your mac - most likely never. Yet i need a plethora of disks and downloads to get my dell machine running.
The current situation is probably the best case for apple. People will run a hacked osx, but if driver support sucks then they'll assume "we'll OSX is cool, and when i get real apple hardware it'll run far better"
Whereas if they officially release it, then people will assume "OSX is cool, but it's pretty flaky"
If apple's can dual boot windows and cost less than the price of osx more than dells, then they should be set:)
Re:but osx will suck on commodity hardware
by
moonbender
·
· Score: 1
A plethora of disks? On a fresh install I don't use any driver disks; downloading and installing the drivers over the net takes all of, oh, 15 minutes. And this is pretty much only for performance, everything except perhabs games pretty much works with the drivers available with XP SP2.
Re:but osx will suck on commodity hardware
by
grahamsz
·
· Score: 1
hell i dont even get wifi or bluetooth on my laptop without driver disks... cant download much without them.
Linux in on the act...
by
advocate_one
·
· Score: 5, Informative
ha ha... Linux was used to achieve the feat... basically as the midwife OS used in the copying act before kickstarting the new OSX image...
1. Download "VMWare files for patched Mac OS X Tiger Intel" from your favorite torrent site. (Hint: Use the search function).
2. Copy tiger-x86-flat.img from the archive to an external USB drive (it's 6gb)
3. Download Ubuntu Live CD (link)... be sure you get the "Live CD"!!
4. Burn the ubuntu iso, stick it in your pc, and boot it! (make sure you have your bios set to boot to CD)
5. Once ubuntu boots and the gui finally comes up, hook up the USB drive you copied the 6gb image to. A window should pop up showing the contents of the drive. Take note of where its mounted. It should be/Devices/Yourdrivesvolumename
6. Open a terminal window and cd to that directory (/Devices/Yourdrivesvolumename). Do an "ls" to make sure you are in the right place (you should see the 6gb img file.
7. In the terminal window type:
dd bs=1048576 if=./tiger-x86-flat.img of=/dev/hda
Replace hda with the correct drive! If you only have one drive, its probably hda. Thats what mine was. You are about to erase this entire drive so make sure youve got it right and make sure you want to do this! Hit enter. It takes a while... took my vaio about 9 minutes.
8. When it's done, remove the ubuntu disc and shut down the pc. Disconnect your usb drive. Thats it! When you power it back on, OS X should boot!
-- Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Re:Linux in on the act...
by
Rimbo
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Does it still work if you use the Ubuntu PPC Live CD?
Humm, you should be able to do it from Windows too. (I suspect you using Windows, since you are talking about using Live CD to boot to Linux).
1) Download the OS X image 2) Download dd for Windows 3) use dd to write the image to some unused harddrive 4) Add that harddrive to NT bootmenu or change boot drive from BIOS 5) Boot to OS X!
-- - Raynet --> .
Re:Linux in on the act...
by
nine-times
·
· Score: 1
Or it could be that he's assuming you don't have "some unused drive" handy. In such a case, even if you are currently running linux, the live cd is still an important step.
Where are these people getting drivers?
My guess is this story is complete FUD.
Look at Sun.. Solaris x86 cant really compete in the same market as the other x86 unix variants. Why?
No hardware support. Just because you can load the kernel doesnt mean you can use any of your fancy video cards, and the like, unless someone writes a driver.
Apple should start sending out OS X on CD AOL-style.
No. They should not do that. Please no. Actually they should just release the thing like Linux, over torrents, if you ask me. But it will never happen. How would they explain the move to their stockholders? I mean really -- how do you explain a risky plan like that? "We are giving our merchandise away in hopes we will make up for losses with hardware sales." Many stock holders will applaud it. But what of the little old Granny who doesn't understand Open Source? It would be a nightmare for them...
But who knows. Maybe software distrobution is going to end up going that way anyway. If AJAX has it's way with us, we'll be skipping the OS layer altogether soon enough!!
-- The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Having already educated granny on the merits of slower PowerPC over Intel, and then re-educated granny on that same subject, I would guess Steve could probably get her beliving anything.
-- "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
It's ok, the old granny and Steve probably get their buy from the same dealer, so their old tokin' buddies. Steve will explain the open source model to her over a bowl, and then they'll go on a munchie run.
However, things will turn ugly when she runs out the store with a bag of funyouns screaming "it's open source man, it's freeeee!"
-sf
This can be a golden opportunity for Apple.
by
Spy+der+Mann
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just like Microsoft got rich by allowing distribution of pirated windows.
Then, if at the appropriate time (let's say 4 or 5 months from now) they OFFICIALLY RELEASE Mac OS/X for Intel platforms...
The heck, release TWO versions: "Official Mac" (which is obviously going to be cheaper), and "Broad Intel".
And I, for one, would welcome our new Apple Overlords. And no, I'm not kidding.
Re:This can be a golden opportunity for Apple.
by
learn+fast
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Our new Google overlords overhead that. Our new Google overlords do not find your comments humourous.
Re:This can be a golden opportunity for Apple.
by
AugstWest
·
· Score: 1
I agree, which makes the timing superbly ironic, since MS just started locking down WinidowsUpdate for unlicensed Windows installations....
LoLZ H4x0RZ!!!1!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
HAXED! lOlz! LoLZ! haxornated!
Re:What's the point - RTFA
by
GAATTC
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the wired coverage of this story:
'No one knows exactly why OSx86 appears to be running faster on the PCs than the Mac OS does on today's Macs.
"To be honest, we're not sure," said a hacker nicknamed "cmoski," who said he works for a large software company.'
make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
mozkill
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
If someone can make a simple VMWare i386 image that has OSX installed on it, THEN I will believe this.
If its true, let them make the VMWare image and then I will download it and look.
--
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
yellowbkpk
·
· Score: 1
Search the pirate bay for a 386 and vmware. There's a torrent out there. It decompresses to about 6GB.
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
mozkill
·
· Score: 1
sweet... ill try it this weekend and see what I come up with... i remember booting Debian on a Macintosh back in 1995... that was fun...
--
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
Digital+Pizza
·
· Score: 1
Uh, you're kidding, right? That's pretty much exactly what this article is about.
Nobody's been going through the convoluted method based on the original Developer CD, since someone wrote that VMWare file.
-- We apologize for the inconvenience.
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
mozkill
·
· Score: 1
sorry, between the time the article was posted and now, the site with the news article was being slashdotted and I couldn't read it. now that I can read it, I see what you are saying.
--
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
walker2030
·
· Score: 0
umm, hello it was copied from a VMware img I know I for one have done it myself RTFM
-- Got Athlon?
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Three words: alt binaries comp
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
kayen_telva
·
· Score: 1
Re:make me a VMWare image and I will believe it
by
Anubis350
·
· Score: 1
I just finished (2 weeks ago) installing debian on an oldworld g3 to use as my webserver. Fun isnt exactly the word that comes to mind. The exultation when it actually works is nice though:-P.
OTOH free 300mhz g3 with 20gig disk and 128MB of ram, old copy of os9 + bootx + free and powerful os (deb) = me being very happy so I guess I shouldnt complain.
-- "goodbye and hello, as always"
~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
The same could be said about linux.
by
Reeses
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Alright, I've seen this argument a number of times, and for some reason people forget that OS X is unix-based. It has the same ability to handle hardware that all other unixen do.
In the above statements, if you could substitute the word "Linux" or "NetBSD" for every occurrence of Macintosh, and not sound like some sort of raving lunatic, I'd be surprised.
I don't understand how Linx and xBSDs can be expected to "run everywhere" on everything, yet, for some reason OS X, a very pretty GUI that is supported by the same technology as the other Unixes, is excluded from that. It just mystifies me.
Maybe it's just anti-Mac zealotry.
-- Reeses
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Reeses
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I dunno, but there are perfectly good nVidia drivers for OS X, since nVidia is an option for graphics cards Doesn't seem like that would be a problem.
-- Reeses
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
alienfluid
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
How many 3rd party hardware vendors ship Linux device drivers as compared to Windows drivers?
The major share of Windows crashes are due to poorly written device drivers that 3rd party hardware vendors write. In the past, these drivers has access to critical sections of the kernel and so if for example, they had a buffer overrun, it was possible that it could write a critical section of the kernel space, thus bringing down the machine. With Vista, this is going to change.
I am only saying that the original poster did get it right by saying that Windows crashes mostly because of compatibility issues and not because of poorly written software. I agree, MS has had its share of problems (security, architecture and etc.), but it does not change this fact.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
mcc
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In the above statements, if you could substitute the word "Linux" or "NetBSD" for every occurrence of Macintosh, and not sound like some sort of raving lunatic, I'd be surprised.
Uh... well... let's try.
"Sure [Linux] works great on [a popular configuration], but start throwing it on people custom machines and trying to run all kinds of crazy hardware setups and [Linux] isn't going to run so swell anymore."
Honestly this seems to describe my exact experience with Linux. There have been multiple times that I've attempted to install Linux on [X random piece of obscure hardware] and had to spend a pretty decent amount of time hunting down network drivers, compiling video drivers, hand-editing module files and generally just doing things that would be impossible for a non-programmer to even attempt.
Yeah, Linux has support for a disturbingly large range of hardware. That doesn't mean it has good support for even an acceptably large range of hardware. If we're supposed to expect that Mac OS X would be able to handle wide and varied hardware with the same level of functionality and ease of use as Linux does, this would seem to be the most extreme argument in favor of keeping OS X on Apple hardware possible. One word: XF86Config.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
happyemoticon
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Clearly you've never done anything with drivers. We're doing some driver programming at my company, and let me tell you sir, it's a bitch. We have Dell and Gateway boxes with the same OS revision and everything, but (one particular rev of) the driver makes the Gateway box bluescreen and not the Dell. Hell, we've even had cases where two seemingly-identical Dells were tested side-by-side; one consistently bluescreened, and the other did not. It is a very tricky topic.
And moreover, since we're just talking about the OS running on Intels, it's decidedly not the kernel/processor, which is the lowest level of portability and the level at which Linux almost universally succeeds. One Genuine Intel x86 is pretty much the same as the next, a few register extensions aside. It's the devices which might be attached to it which create headaches. I could set up Slackware or Gentoo on almost any system on the face of the earth with very little difficulty. Now, getting sound to work on one of those systems is another matter entirely. Framebuffer devices will always be a pain in the neck. I'm still working on scanning properly. MacOS uses a ton of OpenGL and other chutzpah for its basic functionality; Linux basically just uses the kernel and a few core tools you'd find on the Slackware "a" diskette set.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
jim_v2000
·
· Score: 1
My point was simply that if OS X was released so you could install it on any machine, you would see an increase in the number of issues/problems with it. It's stable because the hardware and the OS are made for each other and tested for each other.
-- Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
timeOday
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Argh, you're making the wrong point with the right analogy.
The truth is, Limited hardware support is precisely the reason Linux cannot become mainstream on the desktop in the forseeable future, and it does not bode well for OSX on general PC hardware.
I use Linux full time every day, and the software, for the most part, is good. But fighting with hardware is the #1 source of frustration. The fact is you just don't know a lot of times whether something you buy will work. There are tons of supported hardware lists out there, and every one is about 50% wrong for a variety of reasons - they're outdated, incomplete, and also people who submit information to them are very liberal in calling devices "fully supported." In practice, very many don't work fully and are unstable. This despite the fact that most of the linux kernel is drivers. To have everything but the drivers is to have very little.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
happyemoticon
·
· Score: 1
Nvidia and ATI are kind of in a driver race. The last time I ran UT2k4 on my Linux box (6 months ago), which has an ATI card, it was acceptable, maybe 85% of the speed of the windows build (with better load times). I always understood that Nvidia's drivers were better than ATI's from the forums, so they're probably very acceptable by now.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
sflory
·
· Score: 1
You can go to nvidia.comand get linux drivers. Many linux distros will automate the download for you.
-- IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer,
but I play one on GrokLaw.)
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 1
It's highly unlikely that Apple will actually sell Mac OS X on j random piece of shite stuff. You'll be able to buy the OS, stick the disk in, and when you run into trouble, Apple will refer you to one of their growing line of certified consultancy partners to sort it out because it's unsupported hardware. Applecare won't cover uncertified hardware either.
The point is that we're not supposed to expect that Mac OS X will have a wide variety of hardware support. The price difference in most instances will be low enough that it's worth it to spend the extra hundred or two and buy from Apple.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
ciroknight
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Parent post is simply ignorance.
Linux or any BSD is hardly a commodity OS. It runs on everything because there is a geek somewhere with every piece of hardware imaginable who has nothing better to do than make that operating system work.
Meanwhile OS X has to run because the people who want to use their computers, aren't the kinds of people who have time to make every single piece of hardware work.
Microsoft's Windows works on a lot of hardware because of the WHQL program they've instituted, and that only works because they're big enough to pressure PC manufacturers to use cheap, standard components, and because they've got the money to buy every single piece of hardware, and code for it. And, if you haven't used Windows lately, there are still hundreds upon thousands of bugs. My P3's audio quality sucks, my mom's P4's disk controller is a serious flake. Both are Dells.
Linux isn't expected to run everywhere. Linux is MADE to run everywhere. This requires effort. This kind of effort isn't economical for a business to support. I'd feel sorry if Redhat or IBM decided to go out and support hardware.. they'd immediately go out of business dealing with the Tech Support alone.
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Ciaran_H
·
· Score: 1
I'm not chewing you out over this, but I really am curious; how long ago was this? Because nVidia drivers not only exist nowadays, but they're pretty darn good. (If you discount their closed-sourcedness, but then that's understandable to an extent.)
nVidia and ATI are the two major players in Linux graphics card drivers, and nVidia have done a lot of work for Linux.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
cshark
·
· Score: 1
I've always thought of them as the unicies rather than the unixen, but I guess that there isn't much of a difference.
Although I do think it's fair to point out that Linux and All of the BSD distributions, except the one created by Berkely itself are not true Unix, and are not certified by The Open Group. Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, and the like all fall under the category of Unix-like OS's, but none can legally call themselves that. In fact, Apple got into trouble awhile back as I recall for making that claim.
--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Lothsahn
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Nvidia drivers have full support for 3d, and work very well. Also, Nvidia supports all TNT2+Geforce products in linux, and they have either an installer that's easy to use, or your distribution comes with a patch.
The Nvidia drivers are VERY good and easy to install.
ATI also has linux drivers, but they don't support all of their products, and they support some partially--so you have to be very careful what you get.
-- -=Lothsahn=-
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
64nDh1
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Unixen? I always thought it was like index and indices. So the plural would be formed into the word "Unices".
If not, then a good rule of thumb for writing is to rephrase if it will help you get your meaning across. If people won't understand something, or it is an unconventional word (even on Slashdot, I haven't seen 'Unixen' used often), the author should consider a different wording.
You could easily have said:
It has the same ability to handle hardware that all other types of unix do.
</GrammarNazi>
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
strstrep
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
> In the past, these drivers has access to critical > sections of the kernel and so if for example, they > had a buffer overrun, it was possible that it > could write a critical section of the kernel > space, thus bringing down the machine. With > Vista, this is going to change.
Wait? Didn't they say that about Windows 95? And Windows NT 4? And Windows 2000? And Windows XP? I've had blue screens on all of those (except NT4, which I've never run).
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Marc+Rochkind
·
· Score: 1
Linux and some of the BSDs are "expected to 'run everywhere'" because their creators and supporters make that claim. OS X is not because its sole creator, Apple, makes no such claim.
It is true that UNIX-based systems have a theoretical ability to "handle hardware that all other unixen do," but for this theoretical ability to become real requires:
1. The necessaary device drivers,
2. Necessary kernel modifications outside of device drivers,
3. Lots of hardware testing,
4. Keeping up with hardware changes,
5. Support for all the combinations.
For any OS, the assumption that 1 - 5 can be done for a narrow subset of hardware will lead to many opportunities to produce a more reliable system.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
hunterx11
·
· Score: 1
How is I/O Kit, which isn't even compatible with other Mach-like systems, going to be compatible with the same devices as other Unix systems? That's like saying that BeOS should support the same hardware Windows NT does because they're both kernel-based.
-- English is easier said than done.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
dbrutus
·
· Score: 1
Apple doesn't want to be on general PC hardware. They want to sell you the general stuff themselves. What they *do* want is a healthcare oriented shop that is going to crack the tablet market for doctors for them. They want somebody who is going to make gargantuan, massively parallel systems with an overhead structure that can sell those systems at a profit. They want a hundred licensees that each can tweak what they're used to and license OS X while giving Apple a fat check.
That's the real game that's afoot. Everything else will be unsupported and aggressively unsupported at that.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
David+Horn
·
· Score: 1
>> Alright, I've seen this argument a number of >> times, and for some reason people forget that >> OS X is unix-based. It has the same ability >> to handle hardware that all other unixen do.
So, in other words, it has NO ability to handle hardware? I mean, Knoppix won't even boot on my Thinkpad T40, and IBM do apparently design them to be Linux friendly.
At least with Windows, installing a driver is for the most part mindlessly simple - I've never even tried to install a driver on Linux, but looking at the instructions it's something that's going to give me one hell of a headache when I do need to do it.
-- PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
you should really try something like ubuntu. If you install just the Linux you might not get much work done;)
You probably couldn't install Windows either, and nobody can without hunting for drivers all over the net. Actually, not being able to get a modern Linux distro to install is quite a feat these days.
Repeat after me: "copying a text command from the Internet is not programming.." And give me the name of the quality product that Linux doesn't have good support for!
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
mpaque
·
· Score: 1
Oh, yeah. Been there, done that waaay too much.
At one time, we ordered 18 identical Gateway machines. A new OS build booted and ran flawlessly on 12 of the machines, and behaved 'badly' on 6 of them. We tracked the difference down to a change in the graphics cards. A new board layout was introducing timing problems at higher resolution VESA modes. Same chips. They just changed the board layout to reduce layers, making the boards slightly cheaper. "What? You needed that ground plane?"
I don't think an OS vendor would care to deal with this sort of debugging and support for a cracked OS.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
theid0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Linux or any BSD is hardly a commodity OS. It runs on everything because there is a geek somewhere with every piece of hardware imaginable who has nothing better to do than make that operating system work.
Meanwhile OS X has to run because the people who want to use their computers, aren't the kinds of people who have time to make every single piece of hardware work.
Very true. Linux is open source, and it's about the only one that people generally agree is nice to develop on so it has been getting lots of attention (vs the varied opinions on other systems such as Solaris, SCO, AIX, etc). Mac OS X isn't completely open source; most people don't need to hack together drivers to get devices to work because there is "enterprise support" either from Apple or the device vendor. However, with the increasing number of hackers using OS X we'll see a lot more OS development going on. Many of Apple's low-level drivers (kernel extensions) are already open source. I wouldn't be surprised to see a significant shift in development expenditures from Windows to OS X by the time Vista is released, and linux will reap many of the benefits right along with it.
It would be interesting to get the inside history behind it, but I think Apple doesn't want to spend valuable resources making drivers for this, that, and the other thing. They've endured years and years of shitty or absent drivers from companies that really ought to know better (if they'd look at potential sales numbers - printer makers especially). So the Apple dev team decided years ago that they'd rather spend a little more time on their existing drivers and get them to support a wider array of devices, rather than program lots of specialized drivers that'd be buggier and soon outdated. Today you can load up pretty much any USB keyboard, mouse, or storage device, any Firewire camera, hard drive, or midi device. It is what the whole Windows plug-n-play mantra was supposed to be about, except that it actually works and you don't need to click 'next' 6 times in an installer (+reboot) every time you plug in somebody's digital camera.
So what you end up with is a system that's poised to get a lot of development on a really good starting base. Unless Apple really tries hard to tie the whole system down to an encrypted, hardware-checking authentication system, we're only going to see the list of devices supporting OS X grow.
Forget the NetBSD toaster, I want a cell phone with iPhoto.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
dkordik
·
· Score: 1
You're a flamebreathing dragon. Seriously, did you have to post this twice? At least grow some balls and post under your actual name.
In other news, Macxen on PC Boxen are sweetxen.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Haven't heard about the new X.org, have you? Sure, it's not done yet, but the version that will be 6.9/7.0 already runs without a config file. Fascinating, no?
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Tim+C
·
· Score: 1
My P3's audio quality sucks
That may well be a hardware problem - we bought a bunch of P3-based machines at work a few years ago, and the audio quality was dire. You could hear a constant background noise, that changed tone as you scrolled windows, or text scrolled over a console, etc. We switched the onboard audio off and put in Soundblasters, and it was fine.
my mom's P4's disk controller is a serious flake
Again, that sounds likely to be a hardware issue, although I have very little experience of flaky disk controllers (thankfully!).
Both are Dells.
Ah, well there's your problem then. At least they're not Compaqs, I guess...
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
schotty
·
· Score: 1
Well, I have had the exact opposite with one major point. Most hardware works great. Some (small amount in reality, mostly WLAN and digital cameras) has a feature or three that arent there, but what does work is great.
The one problem I do see is that for some reason that Mac-ism holds true with a few parts for me -- I have perfect compatibility and perfomance on all of my nForce motherboards and GeForce VGA cards. I have rather nice quality out of my Realtek, Linksys, and Netgear 10/100/1000 BaseT cards as well.
But the woes I have are with laptops. My Toshiba is goat piss for linux. The ATI hardware blows. Could I avoid it? Probably, but to be stuck with windows isn't that bad, considering that now I have true heterogenous software platforms to test apps on and a real platform for the games, not an emulated one.
I think that once Linspire or Novell get a share of Best Buy / CompUSA / Dell 's product catalog of pre-built machines, the driver hell some claim to experience rather harshly on even desktops, will disappear rather quickly. The addition of Apple going to x86 makes NIX drivers more attractive now. Maybe BSD will win out in the end, maybe not. But one F/OSS OS will win out and make it to the mainstream en masse. Personally I don't care which -- they are all great and wonderful pieces of art. I happen to prefer Linux (Red Hat or Linspire are my drugs of choice).
Both distros have installed rather flawlessly on my hardware (sans the laptop aforementioned). I generally am very brand centric :
Netgear or Intel for NICs Creative or Ensoniq for audio nVIDIA for graphics VIA or nVIDIA for motherboard chipsets Logitech for all mice and keyboards Hauppage for all video in / out solutions
These all work, cost little if any more than the competition, and are perfectly functional and stable under all F/OSS OS'es. Not to say there aren't others, but this is what I and my associates use to great successes.
Thanks for your insight though, it did cause me to think (as opposed to other posts which are just whines and rants usually;D )
Later!
-- Sigs are nice guns...
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
thirdrock
·
· Score: 1
We switched the onboard audio off and put in Soundblasters, and it was fine.
Amen to that. It's hard to buy a motherboard without onboard audio these days, and the very first thing I do when I get a new mobo is go to the BIOS settings to turn the damn thing off and install anyone of a number of soundblasters I'v got hanging around in boxes.
Onboard audio just sucks. Plain and simple. Maybe it's me, but I've never heard a good one, and they nearly all have that wonderful high pitched tone that is so responsive to user actions (and the CD, even when reading data).
-- >>
I am the director, and this is my movie...
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Sancho
·
· Score: 1
The difficulty level for installing a device driver in any given OS is almost entirely dependant upon the developer who created the driver. It could be as simple as a script or require compiling without a makefile. In many cases, a kernel recompile may be necessary, however a monkey could do this with a good set of instructions.
To give an example, take Gentoo. With Gentoo, installation of the ipw2200 driver requires two things: 1) wireless networking support in the kernel as a module (requring a recompile if it's not there already) and 2) the command "emerge ipw2200" executed as root. The developers/packagers have made it that simple. In another Linux flavor, it may be more complicated.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Halfbaked+Plan
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand how Linx and xBSDs can be expected to "run everywhere" on everything, yet, for some reason OS X, a very pretty GUI that is supported by the same technology as the other Unixes, is excluded from that. It just mystifies me.
Well, to start with OS X is, uh.. Closed Source.
(don't preach at me about Darwin. I've run it on both Intel and one of my Beige G3s. It's a nice OS, with X and everything. It's not OS X)
-- resigned
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
CitizenJohnJohn
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Is that like Gore-Tex and Gore-Tices?
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Here comes all the "been running XP forever on original install without a single lockup, crash, or bluescreen!" replies.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
arminw
·
· Score: 1
.....Onboard audio just sucks. Plain and simple. Maybe it's me, but I've never heard a good one.....
You will hear excellent audio on any existing Mac and that should also be the case on the x86 Apple boxes. Apple designs the hardware and software together as a SYSTEM, just like your DVD player, digital TV and any other modern digital electronic device purchased from a reputable brand manufacturer.
-- All theory is gray
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
jbrandon
·
· Score: 1
MacOS uses a ton of OpenGL and other chutzpah for its basic functionality
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
A+beautiful+mind
·
· Score: 1
Clearly you're talking out of your ass. Slashdot is going downhill lately and with all that Apple fanboyism around i'm seeing outright stupid comments moderated up to high sky.
Even your sig irritates me, Python would be alright if not the whitespace shit.
If anyone reads what i was writing: i'm not trolling merely f*cking fed up with it. Every time there is a discussion on slashdot about linux, the kernel, half of the idiots speak out of their asses. It was like this when Linux development switched from bittorrent, etc.
OSX is just a nice gui on a BSD kernel.
-- It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anubis350
·
· Score: 1
I've had that with most mobos recently, that the sounds doesnt sound all that great. The one in my main machine currently however doesnt seem to have that issue, (It's a gigabyte 7n400 pro2 in case you're wondering) the onboard sound sounds fine. Interestingly, in windows, it has the high-pitched wine you talk about, but under debian (which is 99% of the time), no problems at all.
-- "goodbye and hello, as always"
~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Orkie
·
· Score: 1
"OSX is just a nice gui on a BSD kernel."
But it isn't.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anubis350
·
· Score: 1
perhaps he was talking about their chipsets, where the drivers are incomplete and a PITA to get installed. However, as all of the nvidia chipsets I've seen are very well supported by open source drivers (and in most cases drivers built into the linux kernel) I'm not sure why you'd want to use the official ones.
-- "goodbye and hello, as always"
~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
In comparison to Linux or the hypothetical "OS X for commodity PC", Microsoft has it easy. Just about every hardware manufacturer that makes PC-compatible hardware is going to make sure that their hardware works with Windows, and thus does the majority of work without any effort from Microsoft.
On the other hand, the manufacturer of gadget X in year 2005 is targeting their efforts to compatibility with Windows XP, Windows 2000 and maybe Windows 98. Once Longhorn comes out, you can be damn sure that a good proportion of peripherals made today will not work with it. And a commodity hardware manufacturer is not going to care. They will make drivers for Longhorn, but those will be for the 2008 version of their peripherals, good luck if you expect them to make an effort to support old peripherals for no extra money whatsoever.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
TravisWatkins
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, drivers are still running in the kernel in Vista.
--
"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
thirdrock
·
· Score: 1
You will hear excellent audio on any existing Mac and that should also be the case on the x86 Apple boxes. Apple designs the hardware and software together as a SYSTEM, just like your DVD player, digital TV and any other modern digital electronic device purchased from a reputable brand manufacturer.
Well yes, I suppose so. However the context of the thread was how supporting every Bat-Gai brand of hardware (like the PC and yes, winders does) is not something that Apple wants to do for precisely the reason that so much of it is designed with the sole objective of making it as cheap to mgfr as possible.
-- >>
I am the director, and this is my movie...
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I totally agree.
Apple sell a proprietary heavily bastardised UNIX on overpriced hardware - yet they can do no wrong!
Sun sell a real UNIX on similarly overpriced hardware, open source StarOffice then Solaris - and they're just known as evil SCO conspirators on slashdot.
Utter crap.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
correction: s/bittorrent/bitkeeper/
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Infernal+Device
·
· Score: 1
Only inexperienced Linux users expect Linux to run on any hardware - the rest of the world either doesn't give a damn, hasn't heard of it, or has a grip on reality.
However, everyone expects Windows to run either because they use it, or it allows a bit snide commentary if it fails.
OS X (until now) just ran on Apple hardware and that was enough. Now, it seems Apple has opened the floodgates wide for people to bitch and moan about how it's not compatible with their old dot-matrix printer.
Whether it's reasonable or not.
-- "My God...it's full of trolls!"
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you have ever used python you would know that the "whitespace shit" is one of the best features of the language.//very late I know
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
hostyle
·
· Score: 1
Come over here and say that to my multi-various Unixen boxen!
-- Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
Re:The same could be said about linux.
by
clymere
·
· Score: 1
I'm on my second Toshiba laptop, ran Slackware on both, and all pieces of hardware on each are supported, right down to 3D acceleration so i could game:)
Also worth mentioning...chipsets matter, not manufacturers. You mention Netgear as if its a shining example of stuff that works in Linux. I own two of their wireless nics...but only because they are PrismGT and Atheros respectively, chipsets that are well supported in linux. Whatever brand is slapped on those chipsets is incidental...and Netgear has put out several products, even other revisions of the SAME CARDS that i have which have totally different chipsets, which are poorly supported.
These days almost anything you're buying is just a brand name slapped on top of a chipset that may be in a dozen different products. Chipset + price > name on the box.
What a coincidence. The same "random" thought can be found here from a similar article just a few days back.
On Plain Old x86--I call BS
by
FerretFrottage
·
· Score: 1
I can't get it to run on my beige colored, sharp metal finger slicing and dicing case that reads "66" on the outside and has a 486-DX Intel on the inside. Nevermind that I'm using "Stacker" to double my disk drive storage amount so that I have enough space to triple boot (DOS, Win95 beta, and now a Mac OS)...maybe it will work on a plain new x86
-- "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Re:On Plain Old x86--I call BS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you answered your own question, tool. if the PC happpens to have similar hardware (chipset, VGA, etc) to that of the new mac, why wouldn't it run?
Re:On Plain Old x86--I call BS
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
OS X wont run on my Macintosh Quadra 610 with a PPC 601 upgrade card either:( WAH WAH WAH!
As long as you have SSE3, you can run natively. Depending on your motherboard's chipset and your PCI peripherals, you should be able to go out of the box.
virtual PC isnt worth bothering with
VMware allows higher level access and is FAR snappier, even if it is pretty slow
my experience with virtual PC was..."emulate a pentium 1 on your 2ghz AMD!"
Unixen? wtf?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
They wouldn't release it officially for free because they are selling (renting) $999 Intel Developer Kits, and who would buy those if you could just get the whole thing for free?
Re:Are you joking? This was on the front page yest
by
mnemonic_
·
· Score: 1
Michael Sims was actually fired from slashdot a while ago. Check your the "Authors" list in your slashdot "Homepage" preferences. Michael's gone (thank god).
Skills these hackers have amaze me
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Could anyone tell me how to become a kernel hacker? What would be the route? I know how to use Unix effieciently, but how to make the next step to really understand what's happening under the hood?
What on earth?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
What does SHA-1 have to do with instruction translation?
Further I would guess that this is to make a very fast hash-table implementation, the sort of thing required for a performance critical thing like binary emulation.
Sell a "dev kit" version of OS X for x86
by
angryflute
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
This way Apple can make money by selling legitimate copies of OS X to the geek/hacker/developer community, and not have to worry about fully supporting the operating system for the average computer user. This version would, after all, be for "development purposes only".
It would also have a legitimate purpose for Apple, too: It would further encourage software development for the company's MacIntel line.
The hacker/geek community gets to build their own gray box OS X systems, and Apple still makes most of its money with average computer users through its hardware. Furthermore, more software is developed by independent programmers. Everybody wins.
Re:Sell a "dev kit" version of OS X for x86
by
jmelloy
·
· Score: 1
They do sell a "dev kit". It's available to their paying developers, and it's called a dev kit.
If you want to buy the developer membership and the kit, it's $1500, with a nice 20% discount on future hardare purchase[s?].
They also make you sign an "NDA".
Re:Sell a "dev kit" version of OS X for x86
by
MrFreak
·
· Score: 1
Actually, every copy of Tiger comes with all of Apple's Developer Tools on the installation DVD. This include's Apple's XCode IDE, gcc4, Interface Builder, Profiling apps, Quartz Composer, et al.
So, presumably all of you running osx on your vanilla x86 boxes could get started "contributing to the software community" today...
Re:Sell a "dev kit" version of OS X for x86
by
asapien
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I wish they did that bundling of dev tools back in the mid 90s, I remember you had to get a top of the line machine just to have enough disk space to run code warrior, which is why I got into java when they came out with the macos jdk 1.0, didn't know about python to know I could use it to program.
restricted hardware set
by
Tumbleweed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Okay, so Apple may not have to implement any DRM type scheme here, AND not have to support all hardware under the sun. They can do like any other x86 vendor does - here's what we sell. Our OS runs on this just fine. If you don't have drivers for YOUR system, that's an awful shame, but not really our problem, since it's not our hardware. We support OS what we sell _on what hardware we sell it_. Now, you may be able to build a system using similar enough hardware to what Apple sells, and that's okay - as long as you've bought a legal copy of the OS.:)
I'm _seriously_ jonesing for a Yonah-based 12" PowerBook. *Homer Simpson drooling sound here*
Re:restricted hardware set
by
xtracto
·
· Score: 1
IIRC that was kind of what IBM was doing with the IBM/PC, but then the clones started to appear AND the hardware companies (logitech, helwett-packard, etc) created hardware taht was conected to the parallel or serial port AND provided the drivers to use them.
So if the OSX for Intel is sucessfull the companies will start providing drivers for it... and they are the ones that will give support for their hardware not Apple
-- Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:restricted hardware set
by
KillShill
·
· Score: 1
and how long would it take for people to port or write drivers for the hardware?
in 6months to a year you can have a fully supported osx on good, inexpensive hardware.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Re:restricted hardware set
by
Tumbleweed
·
· Score: 1
Maybe so, but _Apple_ wouldn't have to be the one doing all that driver development and support. As long as Apple is selling their OS and not having to do any extra driver dev or support, they'll make a nice profit on selling just the OS, should they decide to do so.
There's one major difference between IBM then and Apple now : IBM was so stupid as to have somebody else make their operating system and have them keep the licensing scheme. Now We all know who that someody else is...
So you're really comparing Apple with Microsoft circa 1985 and I guess that's what Steve Jobs et al. have been doing when they made this decision
Re:restricted hardware set
by
KillShill
·
· Score: 1
that would be the case if they stopped artificially restricting how a customer's copy of osx would work.
going out of your way to make sure a product doesn't work on hardware you don't approve of... smacks of rotten behavior consistent with intel and microsoft.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Re:restricted hardware set
by
Bassman59
·
· Score: 1
" and how long would it take for people to port or write drivers for the hardware?"
Depends on the "openness" of the hardware. In many cases, the answer will simply be "forever."
the way i see it is that OS X isn't a fucking OS like windows. it's nothing more than a user-replaceable part for Macs...and it just happens to be shared across the product line...and it also happens to be the only software part.
(yes, I know what an OS is, from a technical standpoint...and it is one there...but that's irrelevant...we're in the land of marketing now)
-- "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
RealityProphet
·
· Score: 2, Informative
We have seen this time and time again in the computer industry: commodity hardware puts niche makers out of business. SGI toyed with Intel architecture, about a month before going belly up. DEC Alphas. Sega couldn't compete in the console market, and instead turned their efforts into porting their trademarks (e.g. Sonic) to other systems. Nintendo will soon follow, or die. Apple is just the latest in a very long list to have their hardware market commoditized right out from under them. They have some very cool software products that many people seem to like (iTunes notwithstanding). Maybe they can turn into a software only company, or a services-oriented company that gives their software away for free.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I can't believe how full of shit you are. Nintendo has an ENORMOUS amount of cash just waiting to be used. There's no way in hell Nintendo could die off anytime soon. Idiot.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
bloodmusic
·
· Score: 1
SGI toyed with Intel only when they were on the verge of going belly-up anyway; it was an attempt to stay alive, and it failed, but it was not what killed them. Apple's situation is entirely different; they are riding high right now by practically every sane measure of corporate success. Also, I think it would surprise everyone in the industry if Apple's Intel machines are "commodity hardware". More likely they'll be a continuation of the current line, with exactly the same attention to design, detail, and finish, but an Intel processor under the stylish heat-sink. They may lower prices, they may not; if they do, I'm betting that it won't be by much, because they don't need to -- the processor isn't what people are paying for. They have in no way had their hardware market "commoditized right out from under them."
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
RahoulB
·
· Score: 1
Steve Jobs said this before he returned to Apple - when he was still in charge of NeXT - he said "I would milk the Mac for all it's worth and then move onto the next big thing". Looks to me like he's doing that.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
2nd+Post!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So you're projecting into a future that doesn't yet exist because of companies that don't share the same business models that happened to fail?
You use Sega, for example, but fail to note that the forces that killed Sega (commoditization) hasn't killed Nintendo (Gameboy Advance, Gameboy DS) and hasn't killed Sony (Playstation, Playstation 2). You bring up SGI, but then can't account for the fact that commoditization hasn't killed IBM (who has their own CPU and architecture, Power and PowerPC, used in supercomputers, GameCubes, the Revolution, Playstation 3s, and XBox 360s). You also bring up DEC Alpha, but don't account for the fact that AMD and IBM are still around (both also produce stellar 64bit CPUs).
If what you say is true, then IBM and AMD will be killed by Intel and commoditization, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony will become software only houses because their hardware became commoditized (which makes no sense because that isn't what happened to Sega).
Reality is much more complex. Apple has a niche due to specialization in the music market; the iPod and the iTMS gives them tremendous brand and marketing cachet. Apple also has a profitable computer division, selling solutions no one else does (the Mac mini is today what the iPod was in 2001, old technology in a new formfactor for a new market), they produce speciality software for their markets (Logic, Express, Final Cut, DVD Studio, etc), and they grow in value in the public eye every month (new iPods, new iTMSs, new Mac designs, new software, etc).
What we are seeing is Apple diversifying, and doing so profitably.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
RealityProphet
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You use Sega, for example, but fail to note that the forces that killed Sega (commoditization) hasn't killed Nintendo (Gameboy Advance, Gameboy DS) and hasn't killed Sony (Playstation, Playstation 2).
The Playstation was the primary impetus behind Nintendo's fall from grace. They can sustain a massive amount of financial pressure and undersell Nintendo at every turn because they have a tremendous amount of other sources of income. Nintendo has their game console. It is hard to undersell on your only source of income.
You bring up SGI, but then can't account for the fact that commoditization hasn't killed IBM
Commoditization is precisely what killed IBM in the PC field. They used to make PCs, you know, but got killed by low-cost IBM-clones. They used to make hard drives, and then sold that failing enterprise to Hitachi. Big Blue is still around because they have so many other sources of income, but they are no longer in the PC market.
What we are seeing is Apple diversifying, and doing so profitably.
Good for Apple! I never once even insinuated that they were going to go bankrupt. I simply said that they are done with the computer market. It is over for them.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
And, of course, you forget to mention that one of the factors that killed IBM's hard drive business wasn't from commodization, but from bad publicity. As a former DeathStar owner, ther was no way I was buying another IBM hard drive after mine died gridning and screaming, and I knew plenty of people who felt the same.
In the end, it was quality issues that killed their drives, not the fact that there were low-cost alternatives.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
cei
·
· Score: 1
Apple started with a 6502, moved to a 68000 then PPC... none of these have been "commodity" chips, IIRC. Apple's been doing this since 1977. Sure, they might get out of the hardware business eventually. It could be another 30 years. But when they do, you'll be saying "I told you so... commodity hardware puts niche makers out of business." You and Dvorak must get along great...
-- This sig intentionally left justified.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
2nd+Post!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ah, I get you now.
I will have to respectfully disagree, because I own a Mac and I still wish to see Apple continue to make Macs for the foreseeable future. It is not improbably, in a crazy reality, that Macs become PCs (and vice versa) because Apple will have Intel's ear, and Intel will have Apple's manufacturing interests; in the same way that, after Apple bought NeXTStep, NeXTStep became Apple, Apple adopting Intel CPUs might make PCs directly descended from Macs.
As for being done with the computer market, as long as Apple can produce value, provide value, convince people of that value, and profit off that value, with computers then there is no reason to expect them to stop making computers.
I mean, in one sense, a real sense, an iPod is a computer; a specialized computer, but a computer none-the less. It has a display, input, output, disk storage, ram, two CPUs, and recently both audio and video output.
As long as Apple can make 'computers' like the iPod, and make computers with the same sense of style, usability, and functionality as an iPod, I think they are far from 'done' in the computer market.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
jcr
·
· Score: 1
SGI toyed with Intel architecture, about a month before going belly up.
I'd say that SGI took more of a hit from getting on the NT bandwagon, than from using intel processors.
-jcr
-- The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
Microlith
·
· Score: 1
Nintendo returns a handy profit on both the console units and game sales.
They're not going anywhere.
If they do, every one of their brands goes with them. Believe me, they'll do it. Japanese companies are not like American companies, they won't sell the family jewels just to stay afloat.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The NeXT Big Thing is OS X.
Re:as a computer maker, Apple is done
by
Jace+of+Fuse!
·
· Score: 1
Nintendo has their game console. It is hard to undersell on your only source of income.
That would matter if Nitendo weren't profiting, but they are. They may not be doing as well as projected due to a lot of factors, but sales aren't one of those factors.
The Gameboy Advance and Nintendo DS lines are doing quite well, and the Gamecube is still doing respectably in Japan. Also, most of the best top selling Gamecube titles are Nintendo's very own titles.
If anything, when it comes to the video game market, Nintendo is surviving where most other companies would have failed long ago. Their market position is not a favorable one and they're still regularly reporting profits.
I will also assume you have no idea exactly how much money Nintendo really does have? Nintendo can hardly be likened to Sega. Sega was hurting long before the Dreamcast was launched, and poor management decisions coupled with a few other factors forced Sega into a serious money losing situation. A totally different scenerio than we see going on here with Nintendo.
Just because they aren't dominating all over the competition doesn't mean they're going to shrivel up and die. Esspecially not if the GBA and DS keeps selling as well as it has been.
What you can do is charge for it, if it's good enough to charge for, or else "let" people steal it. The last bit is the really really clever bit of marketing.
I run a rather successful software business (for the niche, mind you), and early on made the decission not to copy protect the software per se, but to personalize each copy sold with a user name. This way, anyone who wants to steal it can, but will have to look at someone else's name every time they start it. If they can live with that, they either can't afford the software anyway, and are welcome to it - it's assistive technology, which no-one sane or normal uses for "fun" - or they are just the kind of people who don't pay for software, and never will, so why bother trying to stop them?
Make it easy for them to steal it: The thrill will make it seem even sweeter to the last category - the people who just have to try stuff - and make them love, and thus recommend, it even more. You can't stop them anyway, and trying is only going to make them mad and negative.
Re:It's simple psychology really...
by
Chaotic+Spyder
·
· Score: 1
yeah just like that free linux thing.. I herd about it but found it was free..... Fuck that shit it can't be good if it is free
-- Losers whine about their best, Winners go home to fuck the prom queen
My favorite app in the world, Total Commander, is licensed like that. Very cool.
For support come here !
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
People interested in installing this should checkout IRC SERVER irc.osbetaarchive.com CHANNEL #osx86 , they are the source of the release and can help with installation issues !
I feel bad about pirating
by
jaypaulw
·
· Score: 1
What is one to do if they don't wanna buy a new computer but don't wanna pirate?
why is pirating a forgone conclusion? I'm old fashion I guess and I think it's stealing. I don't even copy cds
Re:Congrats --- me a Troll?
by
aristotle-dude
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Mod me as a troll if you wish but I speak the truth. Perhaps that is not very popular around here.
The fact remains that prices of OS X and bundled applications are relatively low compared to their MSFT/Windows Third-party counterparts. This is due to the fact that the development of that software is subsidized by hardware purchases.
Apple does not care if you upgrade from Puma, Jaguar or Panther to Tiger as long as you are installing on hardware that is compatible with it.
They also do not enforce any form of copy protection to prevent you from installing on multiple machines because the "trust" users. That is a different philosophy from how MSFT does business.
These actions are a spit in the face of that very same company that not only trusts its users but also contributes to open source projects.
-- Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Obligitory Comic Book Guy quote...
by
shuufoxie
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling!"
Exactly!!
by
snowwrestler
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Any OS will be more reliable, secure, and just plain work better if it can be tweaked carefully for the exact hardware configuration it's running on. Linux and Unix allow anyone, including the end user, to customize their configuration to the exact hardware it's running on. It's not exactly easy though, is it?
Apple takes the opposite tack to achieve the same end result--rather than complete freedom to customize the software, they strictly limit the hardware.
Either way, the end result is a product in which the software and hardware are closely matched. Apple's way produces a much more limited set of final products, but at very little effort to the end user. Linux provides a lot more freedom, but at considerable cost to the user in terms of expertise or time.
But Microsoft tries to have it both ways. In order to realize the vast economy of scale that makes it so profitable, Windows is written once to accomodate a wide variety of hardware configurations. And you can't tweak it or modify it. So the end result is a generic software config running on generic hardware. It will never work as well as a dedicated OS on known hardware.
Finally it's important to understand Apple's approach to computing...they sell computers. Not computer parts. You can't buy a DVD player or a digital TV without its operating system, and you can't buy the operating system without the hardware. It's an appliance--you plug it in and use it. That's how Apple (Jobs) views computers, and it's why they won't license their OS. You might as well ask Sony to licence the OS running on their DVD player.
-- Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
But they don't license it for use on other hardware. You can get firmware for DVD players online, but that doesn't mean it has to work in the crappy APEX you bought from Wal-Mart.
-- A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:What about solaris x86?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
My guess is this story is complete FUD.
My guess is that you don't know what FUD means.
It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dduck
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Guess I have some karma to burn, so here goes:
To the ones bitching over the (very very low, IMHO) possibility that Apple will NOT release OS-X for generix x86:
It's theirs. They made it. They can do with it whatever they want. They have that right. If you don't like it, go code a better OS yourself or something, but don't bitch at them - that only makes you sound like a kid who can't get his/her way.
Or in playground terms: It is indeed their ball, and they can take it home with them if they feel like it.
Yes, it's software, so you can copy it without taking the original away from someone, but that it still stealing. Just because you want it, doesn't mean that you have a right to have it - no matter how much you want it.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
vertinox
·
· Score: 1
but that it still stealing.
For the love of God... Haven't you read enough/. sigs to understand the American Legal System?!
Piracy is:
Copyright infringment.
A civil offense.
Punishble in civil courts.
What piracy is not:
Stealing.
A criminal offense.
Punishble in Federal and State criminal courts.
A sin against God in any of the three major religions. (Unless the Pope or an Islamic Iman has spoken out against piracy lately... It's not high on their evil "you are going to hell" lists.)
-- "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
KillShill
·
· Score: 1
yeah, but as soon as someone purchases a copy of osx, it belongs to the customer. that apple goes out of it's way to prevent legitimate usage of said product is what people are complaining about and justifiably so.
imagine microsoft pulling shit like this (which they do and people call them on it).
take your head out of the kool aid bowl before you drown.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dduck
·
· Score: 1
No matter what you call it, it's against at least one law. And morally, it's stealing. You are taking something you have no right to take without paying.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
ewhac
·
· Score: 1
It's theirs. They made it. They can do with it whatever they want. They have that right. If you don't like it, go code a better OS yourself or something, but don't bitch at them - that only makes you sound like a kid who can't get his/her way.
Or in playground terms: It is indeed their ball, and they can take it home with them if they feel like it.
Yes. They indeed have that right, as does everyone. "I'll let you play with my ball only if I get to score all the touchdowns/goals." However, such behavior is widely regarded as socially unredeeming because it's... well, childish.
There is no functional difference between a child imposing selfish conditions on the use of their ball, and Apple imposing selfish conditions (Apple-branded hardware only) on their use of "their" OS. In fact, the issue of "whose ball it is" is blurred in the latter case, since I'm only borrowing the child's ball, but I will have purchased OS-X. No matter how you try and slice the semantics, it's still childish behavior, and you shouldn't expect anyone to play with you for long if you behave this way.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dduck
·
· Score: 1
Please let me know what legitimate use you feel you are being prevented from at this point by Apple. I am curious...
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dduck
·
· Score: 1
I'm telling you that they are in fact allowed to do just that. If you don't like it, tough. It does not excuse breaking laws and aiding others in doing so.
If you don't their rules, just don't buy it.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
vertinox
·
· Score: 1
ARRRGH!
Have you ever been to court, or at least friends with a lawyer, and ever at least been on a Jury?
Criminal cases are extremely different than a civl case because in a civil case you don't know have to prove beyond a resonable doubt that they are guilty.
In a criminal case you do. (Even though you still may face jail time and/or harsh fine)
Secondly, because it is illegal it does not make it immoral and also because it is legal it does not always make it moral.
I could give you thousand of examples of legal tax code that makes this apparant.
I'm not justifying those of this particular issue and yes it is illegal and maybe immoral, but it's not stealing.
"STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required."
Have they deprived apple of the use of OS X or directly removed money from apples online back account?
NO!
- Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I have been to jury duty and have this explained for me for a long time and had to listen to my friend who is going to law school about her homework for a very long time. She is planning on being a corporate lawyer and I talk to her about issues with my record label.
-- "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dduck
·
· Score: 1
If you were the publisher of it, you would surely consider it stealing. I'm sorry if it offends you so, but there you go.
You take something that does not belong to you. You were supposed to pay for it. How is that not stealing?
Perhaps it's not in a courtroom in some countries, but that's really beside the point IMHO.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
KillShill
·
· Score: 1
i'm curious as to what level of reading comprehension you possess. it's not a time-limited transaction i.e. that apple doesn't sell x86 osx right now is completely irrelevant to my current discussion.
apple has announced they won't let you run x86 osx, when you buy a copy, on anything other than the hardware they want you to. they even use insidious computing to prevent lawful and fair use of your bought software (at the time when it goes on sale). EULA's have as much moral and legal authority as satan. if they do start attaching EULA's to everything that exists in the world, then we'll have to talk about that specific situation in the future.
if one didn't know any better, one would think apple was just another corporation.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dduck
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but I don't feed (obvious) trolls. Learn to debate without namecalling, and we can perhaps return to the issue in the future;)
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
KillShill
·
· Score: 1
true that part was my fault. and i do apologize for it.
but i also appreciate how you avoided the points i brought up.
so if you really do want to discuss this in the future, i promise i will not give you any reasons to stop the discussion prematurely.
sincerely yours, mistaken for a troll because of my strong views, KS.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
vertinox
·
· Score: 1
If you were the publisher of it, you would surely consider it stealing.
No. I would not. I would not go to the police and file a stolen property report, but I would call my lawyer and ask him to start a case in a civil court. If somone broke into our place and stole our cds then I would report this to the police.
You were supposed to pay for it. How is that not stealing?
Who is to say that you pay for anything? It is the laws we have on the books. The law says you are to pay for others property. The law also says you must pay for the rights to copy others intellectual property. Because you do not pay to copy another persons property does not mean you steal away their property, it means you make you're own without acknowledging or compensating them for their design work.
I am not offended, but I want to educate and let people know that there is a difference in the US legal system just like assult and battery and libel and slander.
-- "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dhasenan
·
· Score: 1
Well, if you took metal and a workshop and copied your Buick to create an identical vehicle, would that be stealing?
But it would infringe on trademarks and patents.
It's a matter of where you got the object in question--whether it was copied by a consumer or created by the distributor.
There's no marginal loss in copyright infringement. There's opportunity loss, though. On the other hand, theft always involves marginal loss and usually opportunity loss.
In short, if I get an illegal copy of OS X, Apple doesn't have any less money or property than it had before, but it has less money or property than it would have had.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
planetfinder
·
· Score: 1
So lets be clear then.
Are you saying that if their behavior is childish in your opinion then you have the right to steal their stuff or are you just calling people names because the won't do what you want i.e. they won't give you stuff for free. I'm just trying to understand your point here and to sort out who is being childish.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
pomo+monster
·
· Score: 1
Apple doesn't want to have to amputate 90% of its revenue stream, and that's selfish?
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
ewhac
·
· Score: 1
I'm telling you that they are in fact allowed to do just that.
...And what I'm saying is that. even though they're allowed to do that, their behavior will have consequences. No one looks kindly on a spoiled, ill-mannered child.
If you don't like it, tough.
Actually, tough for Apple. As interested as I am in playing with OS-X, they will not be receiving my dollars. I don't play with snotty brats.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
LoveTheIRS
·
· Score: 1
Wrong,
It is NOT stealing. They own the COPYRIGHT to the software. It is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, to illegally copy the software. There is no relation to theft. Theft is the term people use to get other upset. Don't fuck up your terms.
Well, to use the ol' car analogy, do you have a right to bitch and moan that Ford won't let you put their engines in Chevys? Both are cars, so by what you're claiming, Ford is obligated to make their engine compatible with Chevys...guess what, they're not.
Not letting you run OS X x86 on a generic PC is no different. Apple has made a software "engine" that has a certain shape and you're bitching that they've shaped it in a way that ensures it'll only fit on their computers.
If you really think about it, OS X is not an *OS* like Windows...rather, it is the one user-upgradeable part (and by chance the one software part) of an Apple Mac.
In my personal opinion, in both situations, you'd be more than welcome to hack the item up ***at your own damn risk*** but don't complain if / when something blows up in your face.
-- "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dduck
·
· Score: 1
"STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required."
Have they deprived apple of the use of OS X or directly removed money from apples online back account?
NO!
You have, however, deprived them of the income they would otherwise have gotten form you. I agree that that's not stealing in the legal sense, but in the sense that you are enjoying the fruits of someone elses labor without paying, despite their express wishes that you should not do so for free, you are at best freeloading, morally stealing, and obviously doing something "bad".
Arguing over what to call it exactly is interesting to lawyers, but to the rest of us - when we have to decide whether to do it or not - what matters is right and wrong.
I'll cheerfully admit to having broken US laws in several cases related to this... but then I am not in the US;) No DMCA. Reverse-engineering is legal. No software patents. And somehow the IT companies manage to make money here in Europe too.
Perhaps the problem is US laws, not whether copying software is stealing or not? The main issues people seem to have with it is the limited rights you have...
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
dduck
·
· Score: 1
Well, there you go.
You always have that choice as a consumer, which is really what I said initially, but you've got to respect their choice to sell it the way they do - not react by stealing, cracking, distributing pirated versions...
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Get it straight.
Stealing is when I take something of yours away and keep it. Not when I say I don't like your hairstyle, or when I do something you don't like with a copy of your novel, or when I post something you don't agree with on Slashdot.
Piracy is when I attack your ship (usually at sea), board it, and then steal the cargo, kidnap passengers etc. Not when I distribute illegal copies of software, not when I call someone a "bitch", not when I give away free copies of my own software, and definitely not when I post something you don't agree with on Slashdot.
Murder is when I kill you. Not when I point out your body odour in public, or when I sneeze at an inappropriate moment at a live stage show. Not when I link Goatse, or refuse to pay my taxes, and definitely not when I post something you don't agree with on Slashdot.
If you can't or won't use words to mean what other people agree they mean then you're not able to communicate effectively and should probably quit trolling Slashdot.
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
max_paine
·
· Score: 1
You do not take something that doesn't belong to you. You copy something that doesn't belong to you. If it would exist a device capable of replicating physical objects with practically no cost at all would the unauthorized use of it be stealing ?
Re:It's theirs. Get over it.
by
BananaPeel
·
· Score: 1
Seems quite coincidental that this is all happening at the time that MS is pushing their WGA. It would appear that MS sees that their is suficient market volume in pirated windows to try and covert some of those to pirated versions into sales.
If this is true then it would make sense for a competitor to try and deny them those sales maybe by leeking their own OS version onto the market and making it run on the most generic software.
Afterall if we are talking about 20% of all OS installs as being pirated that represents a huge potential market worth a huge amount of money even if you can convert a fraction of those people.
You don't have many friends, do you?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Subject says it all.
Dev Kits Less Secure Than the Real Deal?
by
warmgun
·
· Score: 1
Isn't the only version out so far the one shipped with dev kits? We could assume that various programs and features aren't complete yet, including the security allowing which hardware it'll run on.
Re:Mod Parent Down -1 Troll
by
SoCalChris
·
· Score: 1
He was referring to the last time Slashdot posted a story about there being a copy of OSX for x86 on BitTorrent. The disc booted up, into a full screen image of the Goatse guy. So, the GNAA managed to get slashdot to not only post the story, but have an untold number of people spend several hours doing nothing but downloading a goatse picture.
I haven't heard anything about the GNAA trying that again, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did release it again, with the intention of fooling some of the people downloading to download their image again. That's all the grandparent poster was trying to say.
Mod Me Down -1 Flying-Off-The-Handle
by
flosofl
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, I did a little more looking around and discovered Solder Fumes was not being a GNAA Troll himself. I already attached another post to his to directly apologize to him.
And at the cost of karma, I hope my previous post gets modded down, so I don't cause any confusion by my knee jerk reaction.
-- "This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
Re:but before you begin...
by
whyde
·
· Score: 5, Funny
This sounds just like a set of open-source bomb defusing instructions I read:
1. Remove bomb housing
2. Unscrew blasting cap cover, counter-clockwise
3. Locate red wire with a white stripe
4. Cut red wire with white stripe near blast cap connector
5. Now the bomb should be defused, but before you begin, move the bomb to a remote, secured area and wear appropriate protective gear.
Re:Are you joking? This was on the front page yest
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
That means it's a followup. Ans *that* means it should be on Slashback instead of on a sepparate "new" story. Call me anal but they brought Slashback back for a reason.
marketing 101, my friend
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apple is not a hardware company, they are an image company.
Re:marketing 101, my friend
by
alfredo
·
· Score: 1
But any marketing will ultimately fail if the product is crap. Word will get out.
Apple has been able to deliver a product that lives up to the hype in most cases. That's why they are still in business.
Well if that's the case
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
If what you say is true then that should be extremely easy to test. Disassemble the TCPM driver, see what on earth it's doing. Remove it, and see what breaks. If you want to get really fancy replace the TCPM driver with a dummy driver that just waits for someone to call it, and then logs this so you know what in the OS is using TCPM and why.
Apple may secretly support piracy...
by
vertinox
·
· Score: 1
However, they will never officially support it for non-Macs. The support costs alone would be unendurable trying to assist people will thousands of outdated and incompatible hardware issues. Not to mention the thousands of drivers that do not exist.
On the flip side... If Apple made is so you could us OS X as your desktop if you put for a bit of effort on your own, but you could never go to apple for support they would gain a market share in the shadows of people getting familiar with OS X.
Then of course this would hope to encourage the purchase of new OS X apps and the purchasing of a real Mac computer down the road.
-- "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I gather that the Dell Optiplex line is designed for that. They make models with limited configuration options precisely so that you can have a better idea of what's inside. But they don't, to my knowledge, have any software designed to track the changes over time or ensure that somebody hasn't added a forbidden video card/hard drive/game controller/etc.
Re:Dell Optiplex
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Dell OpenManage does that. AFAIK Microsoft System Management Server will do it too.
I run almost exclusively Dell Optiplexes here at home now (mostly GX1's and some older stuff in a few places)(I'm too busy buying cool non-Intel hardware, i.e. classic UNIX hardware from Sun, HP, etc., to bother with 'keeping up' in Winteland these days.) There is a lot of variation just in the GX1 line. Little things that aren't that noticible pop up if you swap around a hard drive with Windows 98 on it from one system to another.
There are now firmware 'tweaks' and tricks you can use to 'upgrade' a GX1. For instance, if you want to run a Pentium III 800 in a GX1 motherboard, you must DOWNGRADE to a non-current BIOS version, because Dell decided at one point they were no longer supporting newer-than-Pentium 550 processors so they dropped support that was present in earlier BIOS versions.
So, yes, Dell has added software (BIOS firmware) to disallow 'forbidden' hardware upgrades.
-- resigned
Market share among pirates is worth? Zero.
by
guidryp
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, since we know once they pirate the OS, they are going to run out a buy lots of applications.
No, this is not in Apples interest and they do not want their OS pirated.
Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
tshak
·
· Score: 1
If you can point me to a PC manufacturer that makes well designed and high quality products like Apple does than I'd be very much obliged. Apple provides everything from a quality motherboard, quality case and parts (i.e. power supply and cooling fans that aren't 100db, etc.), and a simple and elegant design that is not only aesthetic but extremely functional. All brought to you buy a company that gives you decent customer support and you know will be around for a while. Again, if you can find me a PC manufacturer that comes close, that would be great because I'm in the market for one and I can't stand the crap I'm seeing (from Dell to Alienware). I know Apple's aren't perfect, but they are far closer to what I want in a computer from a hardware standpoint, x86 or not.
--
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
C32
·
· Score: 1
Still, with this recent developement you can go out and buy an intel mobo, intel cpu, intel-qualified ram, nvidia/ati graphics card... and hey presto; you'll have about the same hardware as will be going into an x86 mac.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
bedouin
·
· Score: 1
Until Apple releases an update that, intentionally or unintentionally, renders your FrakenMac crippled and stuck at say, OS X 10.5.4.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
ciroknight
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
And you sir, are mistaken.
You can buy all of that stuff, put it together, and have a PC. You will never have a Mac.
A Mac is the entire machine. It starts with the case, and moves to the (usually Apple designed) motherboard, the Apple designed Bluetooth, the Apple designe Firewire, the Apple designed WiFi modules, then moves on to the placement of fans, the duct work, the attention to details. And you end up with a machine that performs the same function, but is of a much higher quality; a computer that's as much as computer as it is a piece of furnature in the room, and that's the idea of the Mac.
While your machine may run OS X (and that's a long shot; these machines are running a developmental, most likely tagged, build of OS X that may never see the light of day on Macs), it will never match up with the quality, or the design.
If people thought about their computers the same way they thought about their cars, they'd realize exactly what Apple's going for. When you buy Apple you buy a Lexus. When you buy Dell, you buy a Kia.
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't bother trying to explain; it's lost on this crowd. They'll never appreciate the beauty or elegance of the Mac.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
MustardMan
·
· Score: 1
That's actually a really good analogy, albeit not for the reason you think. Many lexus owners have a sense of smug superiority that makes anyone who drives the car look bad, when in fact many people who own a lexus just enjoy driving a nice luxury car. Unfortunately one vocal group of lexus-driving assholes makes you immediately think anyone in a lexus is a prick.
Sort of like how on/. people assume anyone who has anything nice to say about apple is a zealot.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
linguae
·
· Score: 1
But what if the Lexus and the Kia are both made of the exact same parts, down to the engine?
Not much point in buying a Lexus then, unless you really want a "luxury" car that is overpriced for the parts that it contain.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
rainer3
·
· Score: 1
While you're right on all counts... A Mac starts with the box the computer shipped in. The packaging, presentation, the experience of opening it up and looking at your new computer are all part of having a Mac as well. You'd never get that part of the entire Mac experience just putting a bunch of computer parts together.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Cthefuture
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Uh, Apple external design is better but the quality of the components is pretty much no different from anything else.
For example, my iBook feels nice on my lap. It doesn't get too hot and doesn't have any pointy bits poking me. It has long battery life and externally it looks nice. On the other hand my Dell laptop is hot, noisey and it has sharp poking bits all over the outside.
But that's not all that makes up a computer...
The Apple LCD screen sucks compared to my Dell. The screen is low resolution, there are dead pixels, and it has a washed out looking display. My Dell does 1600x1200, there is not a single dead pixel and it has a beautiful display quality. My Dell is also a lot faster than the Apple.
Based on my experience it seems like Apple spends money on artistic quality and has to cut corners on the innards to get a reasonable price. Dell spends money on the innards and cuts corners on the artistic stuff in order to get a reasonable price.
So like practically everything, they both suck in different ways.
-- The ratio of people to cake is too big
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
All those pictures are of *guys*
Hence more apple faggotry!
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
ciroknight
·
· Score: 1
Sure, if that was the case. But it isn't. Therefore it completely invalidates this argument. We have no idea what will ship in Apple's box; just because they share the same engine archetecture, doesn't mean they'll be anything near compatible.
For all we know, Apple could even go the BGA route and solder the CPU to the board../. would cry foul, but most end users would never know the difference.
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
ciroknight
·
· Score: 1
Luxury cars aren't perfect either...;). They tend to be gas guzzlers (wallet biters).
-- "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
aaronl
·
· Score: 1
Really, comparing a luxury car to computer hardware is silly. Many luxury cars have a variety of annoying problems that you have to deal with. They do a good job of taking care of it, but when you have so many toys you have to expect things to break more often.
At least nobody is comparing them to sports cars. Those break often and are quite expensive to fix.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
dokebi
·
· Score: 1
A Mac is the entire machine. It starts with the case, and moves to the (usually Apple designed) motherboard, the Apple designed Bluetooth, the Apple designe Firewire, the Apple designed WiFi modules, then moves on to the placement of fans, the duct work, the attention to details.
Do you think Dell designs their own motherboards? No, they just buy Intel's. When the MacTel boxes show up, it'll have Intel CPU, Intel Motherboard with integrated Firewire, integrated ethernet, using generic ATX layout. And when MacTel notebooks finally show up, it'll have Intel Centrino Technology, which means everything above plus Intel Wifi.
While your machine may run OS X (snip), it will never match up with the quality, or the design. When you buy Apple you buy a Lexus. When you buy Dell, you buy a Kia.
Haha, I would love to see your face when MacTel boxes finally show up. Maybe then you would go out and buy a Hyundai!
-- In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apple Suxors think a 1 button kia mouse is a lexus. too funny. haha.:0
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
drsmithy
·
· Score: 1
A Mac is the entire machine. It starts with the case, and moves to the (usually Apple designed) motherboard, the Apple designed Bluetooth, the Apple designe Firewire, the Apple designed WiFi modules, then moves on to the placement of fans, the duct work, the attention to details. And you end up with a machine that performs the same function, but is of a much higher quality; a computer that's as much as computer as it is a piece of furnature in the room, and that's the idea of the Mac.
Fundamentally, Apple do nothing more than Dell (or any other whitebox supplier) does - they take a bunch of prefabricated parts from a number of sources and put them all together in their own way.
Like larger PC builders (eg: Dell, HP) a small number of their parts are in-house designed (eg: cases). The vast bulk of them, however, are off-the-shell third party components (RAM, CPUs, hard disks, video cards, etc).
Apple == Dell+Microsoft. Get over it.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
deesine
·
· Score: 0
This is sad. A geek who's been completely isolated from women for so long, that he doesn't even recognize them when he sees them. To him, everyone looks like a male.
-- damaged by dogma
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
deesine
·
· Score: 0
Go away. Go back to watching the Simpsons.
-- damaged by dogma
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A Lexus with consumer grade parts is called a Toyota.
A Lexus ES300 is a Toyota Camry with leather interior and a coin shooter.
A Macintosh running Linux (in my experience) is a graphical masterpiece with weak thruput and crappy memory management. Don't pretend that Apple don't cut corners when they can.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
wvitXpert
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But the Lexus will still ride better and be much more comfortable. Why? It's in the details, and that's where Apple excels over most other computer makers, they get the details right.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
LOL
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
xenoandroid
·
· Score: 1
Do you really think you'll be seeing a standard ATX motherboard, power-supply and Pentium 4 in in the iMac form-factor and noise level? Even if they change the looks of all the new Intel lineups, I highly doubt they're going to go with a form-factor that is nearly impossible to make look good (in my opinion, all PC cases are ugly).
Seriously, maybe in their high end towers but their other product lines are going to require more than off the shelf components. Even if the components are produced by a 3rd party they're going to end up being custom jobs.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
xenoandroid
·
· Score: 1
You know, you're supposed to configure your iBook's LCD if it matters to you, they actually have a utility in OS X to do it (it's also accessible through the Display control panel). As for the resolution, I heard the idea behind that is to keep a certain dpi for easy readability. As for dead pixels, there's no excuse at that resolution. My iBook has no dead pixels, maybe you should complain to Apple.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
so let me get this straight....a lexus and a kia, both exactly the same mechanically, the lexus just looks prettier.....how will THAT make the lexus ride nicer? i dont get that at all.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
smithmc
·
· Score: 1
A Mac is the entire machine. It starts with the case, and moves to the (usually Apple designed) motherboard, the Apple designed Bluetooth, the Apple designe Firewire, the Apple designed WiFi modules, then moves on to the placement of fans, the duct work, the attention to details. And you end up with a machine that performs the same function, but is of a much higher quality; a computer that's as much as computer as it is a piece of furnature in the room, and that's the idea of the Mac.
Lemme guess - you also paint the edges of your LPs in green marker and put magical Mpingo wood discs on the corners of your handmade single-ended triode amplifiers that are connected with six-nines-pure silver cables with insulation around each strand that cost $100/foot, right? It's a damn computer ferchrissake. Get over it already.
-- Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
i41Overlord
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A Mac zealot will never accept anything other than a Mac even if you built two identical machines on the same assembly line and took the badge off at the end.
Mac users are emotional thinkers, not logical thinkers. The "reasoning" used in their replies speaks for itself. They believe there is something unable to be measured that makes Macs great. It is a belief... no rationale necessary. Just like how Mac users believed that the G5 was faster than an Athlon64, no benchmark stating the obvious can make them believe otherwise.
Once you pick apart their reasoning and prove their examples wrong, the belief remains. They will always remain a Mac fanboy.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
lightyear4
·
· Score: 1
and linux is more like a Land Rover with a snorkle, winch, plow, and propeller for use in water.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
SPY_jmr1
·
· Score: 1
I dare you to stuff something sqaure into a eMac, or a iLamp.
Apple makes some weirdly shaped computers, to be honest. But they work.
DISCLAIMER: I have not opened/worked in a eMac before, so I may be wrong. I'm just guessing i'm not.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
TomThamuz
·
· Score: 1
The packaging and presentation? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Did I miss something here? Can you say "Cardboard box"?
Flashy translucent plastic pieces only sell computers to idiots who want a computer to match their decor, a fashion statement, instead of those who build their own machines so they know exactly what is inside of it, and know how to use it.
My toaster oven came in a cardboard box too.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
garote
·
· Score: 1
You can go ahead and put your hoity-toity words into my mouth about my supposedly irrational choice of hardware and software, if it make you feel like a big boy. Speaking as a hardcore PC user who "switched" to an Apple PowerBook four years ago and has enjoyed every minute of it, my Mac fanboy opinion is that you should shut the hell up. >:)
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
b374
·
· Score: 0
When you buy Apple you buy a Lexus
and when you buy a Lexus you buy a Toyota in fact...
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
actually. all dell does is the proprietary case and motherboard, oh and modify a bios
in fact, in this they're just like every other branded PC manufacturer... including apple
as well, izn't it just so freakin amazing just how many peeps feel the need to prove thier fav flavour is what everyone should be sucking
hint: just once, try putting as just much effort into understanding others as you do in dismissing them
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
i41Overlord
·
· Score: 1
You can go ahead and put your hoity-toity words into my mouth about my supposedly irrational choice of hardware and software, if it make you feel like a big boy. Speaking as a hardcore PC user who "switched" to an Apple PowerBook four years ago and has enjoyed every minute of it, my Mac fanboy opinion is that you should shut the hell up. >:)
Wow, you don't seem like an emotional, irrational Mac fanboy at all.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
drsmithy
·
· Score: 1
Do you really think you'll be seeing a standard ATX motherboard, power-supply and Pentium 4 in in the iMac form-factor and noise level?
No, but I never suggested you could.
I could certainly see a lightly modified micro-ATX or mini-ITX board fitting into an iMac form factor - not to mention a user-replaceable video card (the iMac's biggest weakness, IMHO).
Even if they change the looks of all the new Intel lineups, I highly doubt they're going to go with a form-factor that is nearly impossible to make look good (in my opinion, all PC cases are ugly).
There's no reason whatsover a PowerMac G5 couldn't be built in an ATX or BTX form-factor.
Machines like the iMac (or laptops), of course, require more customised boards - but the bulk of components remain off-the-shelf.
Seriously, maybe in their high end towers but their other product lines are going to require more than off the shelf components.
For all its form-factor coolness, the iMac is still made up of mostly bog-standard off-the-shelf components. The case and system board are the only custom-made components.
Heck, random people have come close to fitting mini-ITX form-factor boards into the Mac Mini - and that's with no access whatsoever to fabrication facilities or industrial designers.
My point is that there's nothing magical about Apple hardware. Certainly, some models are on the high end of the quality scale in terms of industrial design, but fundamentally Apple are doing the same thing Dell are and Macs don't have better hard disks, RAM, chipsets, etc, etc.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
m50d
·
· Score: 1
Apple's "higher quality parts" is a myth, IME (I have used the things, and if anything they go wrong (through hardware failure, the typical PC is so stuffed with spyware it will crash at the drop of a hat, but that's another question) more than PCs). The fans may be quieter, but they're no less likely to break, and most of the solid state parts are the exact same ones you'd find in a cheaper PC. If the elegance of the external design matters to you then by all means pay for it, but the box I'm using sits at my feet where it isn't even in my field of vision most of the time.
-- I am trolling
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
xenoandroid
·
· Score: 1
I don't think there's enough space in the current iMac for an off the shelf video card. Laptop video card maybe, but as of now they have the video fabricated on board to save space.
The difference between Dell and Apple supposedly is that Apple tries make sure to choose good hard disks, RAM, chipsets, etc.
For example, unlike Compaq did several years ago. I doubt Apple would stick an extremely noisy and failure prone hard drive, terribly unstable winmodem, and give me a laptop video chipset in a desktop AGP slot. Apple's own operating system is very picky about RAM, thus whatever company makes their DIMMs has to provide a reliable stream of good RAM.
If you buy a stack of Apple DVD-Rs, you'll find that the actual maker of those discs are the ones that get very good comments in all the discussion about good media. Even if Apple doesn't hand craft every single component in their machines, they at least don't stick bargain bin quality components in their machines.
Of course I may be wrong about the other companies now, I've stopped buying premade desktops for a while now so I don't know if they've stopped putting shit components in their machines. But I have noted that a lot of new laptops have plenty of blue lights on them to waste battery life in attempt to 'look cool'.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Apple quality is hit or miss. Some people get decent stuff but from my experience there are a lot of broken machines. My friend ordered a $30k dual-G5 system not long ago and it's been in the shop more times than I can count (replaced the motherboard, all sorts of things). Not that other companies are always better, it's just that Apple really isn't anything special and you pay more for it to look nice.
Apple LCD's are funky looking. Configuring out that washed-out look is not possible. It has something to do with looking at the screen from an angle, the Apple LCD's only look right when you're looking at exactly the right point and you can't vary that for more than a fraction or the screen turns ugly. Meh, pretty crappy. I use a Dell LCD for my Macs.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
wvitXpert
·
· Score: 1
They're not the same mechanically. You'd have to be a moron to say so. But they might use alot of the same parts. I assumed that is what the parent meant, maybe I gave hime too much credit.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
thatguywhoiam
·
· Score: 1
Mac users are emotional thinkers, not logical thinkers. The "reasoning" used in their replies speaks for itself. They believe there is something unable to be measured that makes Macs great. It is a belief... no rationale necessary. Just like how Mac users believed that the G5 was faster than an Athlon64, no benchmark stating the obvious can make them believe otherwise.
That's a mighty wide brush you've painted with...
So if I tell you that I am measurably less productive doing my job on a PC - I have a PC and a Mac on my desk - you will tell me that it is all in my head? And then you will call me a 'Mac fanboy'? Riiight. Who's drinking the Kool-Aid now.
But of course using your completely impenetrable logic I cannot possibly present any sort of reasonable argument. I guess I will just decry you as a PC fanboy and move on. If that's ok with you.
-- If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
i41Overlord
·
· Score: 1
So if I tell you that I am measurably less productive doing my job on a PC - I have a PC and a Mac on my desk - you will tell me that it is all in my head?
It's funny how every time a person on a forum wants to push their favorite product over another product, they claim to use both regularly and have conclusive evidence that their favorite one is better. Feel free to produce the measurements of you being "measurably less productive" doing your job on a PC verses a Mac.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
thatguywhoiam
·
· Score: 1
It's funny how every time a person on a forum wants to push their favorite product over another product, they claim to use both regularly and have conclusive evidence that their favorite one is better. Feel free to produce the measurements of you being "measurably less productive" doing your job on a PC verses a Mac.
Sure, I can give you a few off the top of my head.
I use a tablet most of the time, even for my general mousing. Its easier on the wrist for long stretches and destroys the mouse for illustration work. The Mac 1-button philosophy translates nicely to working this way as right-click is not essential for anything (although there are 2 buttons on my stylus). Spell check (Canadian dictionary) is pervasive throughout the OS, even in web forms like the one I am typing in now; I filter a lot of copy for presentation on web pages, and this has saved me many times. Support for PDF in every application that can Print is a godsend, I don't need Acrobat Distiller and I can be sure that I can save things in a printable form that is precise, from anywhere. The Clipboard also thinks in PDF on Mac. I deal with a lot of French copy; accents and special characters are a breeze to type on the Mac (mnemonic shortcuts like apple-u for umlaut... åéüîø etc) compared to the PC which requires the ASCII 4-digit code typed on the numpad that you must memorize. ColorSync is still the best solution out there for working with precise colour from screen to paper, and you can't get it for Windows. QuickTime itself makes much of my job possible, it is the rosetta stone of multimedia and it works best on the original Mac platform; I am *constantly* switching contexts with bits of disparate media and I find that cut-and-paste, or particularly drag-and-drop, are a pale shadow on WinXP compared to the Mac. Ever try to drag-drop Flash symbols into Illustrator? Works on Mac, doesn't on PC. Lots and lots of examples like this. Also, the MDI interface system that Windows uses is really counterproductive for doing graphical work when one is referencing, say, a logo spec or design document. Photoshop/Win has a gray 'backdrop' like most Windows MDI apps and this means you can't see past it to other things. On the Mac I can arrage the document and my Photoshop comps so that I can see everything while I'm working - and I'm using a widescreen display too, although that is not unique to Mac.
Throw on that pile the usual arguments of not having to deal with viruses or spyware, fewer driver issues, etc. and maybe you get the idea. Some of this is 'anecdotal' and not 'measurable' I grant you but how would I prove that in a slashdot submission anyway?
-- If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
i41Overlord
·
· Score: 1
Good points.
I'm so used to Windows that I can't imagine doing it any other way. When I try to use a Mac I find it too awkwards since I don't have much experience with it. Maybe if I used it more my opinion would change, who knows. Thanks for replying with an honest answer.
Re:Apple quality is not about the architecture.
by
thatguywhoiam
·
· Score: 1
I'm so used to Windows that I can't imagine doing it any other way. When I try to use a Mac I find it too awkwards since I don't have much experience with it. Maybe if I used it more my opinion would change, who knows. Thanks for replying with an honest answer.
You know, I think people really underestimate how much pain it is to 'switch' - to any new OS or interface. And I also think a lot of that pain and frustration is easy to direct at the offending platform, when in reality much (though certainly not all in many cases) of the pain is from the re-learning itself, and not necessarily because the new system flawed or worse. It could very well be, but when someone is so used to effortlessly accomplishing their typical tasks with the system they have already learned, trying something new is going to be painful, as they may have forgotten or subsumed the original pain of learning how to use the computer at all.
Sort of like FPS players. People who started with 'inverted' mouselook use that forever and can never switch; and vice versa. What is that expression? Habit is a thread we weave every day, until at last it is a cord from which we cannot break free.
-- If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Apple should follow SGI's example
by
Listen+Up
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Like SGI, Apple should have the similarity between common x86 hardware and Apple specific x86 hardware end at the CPU pins. Just because Apple wants to use x86 CPU's does not mean they have to let anything else from the CPU pins back be common x86 compatible. That would easily solve the pirating problem.
Re:Apple should follow SGI's example
by
foniksonik
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And have you seen anything from SGI lately?????? Who here has an awesome SGI box sitting under their desk at home, or in the office... you may have hit the nail on the head but you forgot to move your thumb out of the way. Apple shouldn't be doing anything like SGI if they want to remain a profitable company.
-- A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Apple should follow SGI's example
by
Listen+Up
·
· Score: 1
I hit the nail on the head and my thumb is perfectly fine. You clearly are not able to separate the target markets of SGI and Apple. They are not the same. Also, Sun uses AMD for their workstations, for a reasonable price, but are not targeted at the same market as Apple either.
So, your counterpoint was meaningless.
Re:Apple should follow SGI's example
by
foniksonik
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, SGI changed their focus from visualtization workstations using highend processors to try to edge in to the commodity workstation market that Apple was excelling in and that Windows NT was starting to take over... this was in the middle 90s... to do this they adopted an x86 strategy to reduce their overhead.
Then they discovered that they couldn't compete in that market and practically disappeared from the market altogether. Since then they have reemerged as a, get this, visualization workstation company.
Seems to me they made a serious mistake going x86 and have yet to fully recover if they ever will. The accepted reason for this is that they adopted NT as their OS on x86 processors and became 'just another PC company', but one that couldn't make a profit cause they were using non-commodity parts. The only thing that differetiates them from Alienware is their business services department.
If Apple wants to become 'just another PC company' then they should definitely look into following SGI's 'busness plan'.
However, if Apple wants to become a more dominant player in the PC market they should learn from the mistakes of the SGIs out there, the successes of the Dells and the mediocrities of the Sony's and Toshibas. Don't try to adopt the system and buck the system at the same time, take advantage of supply chain savings and don't be another 'also ran' when it comes to innovation.
Some advice for SGI, learn from IBM. Stop selling hardware and focus on the service sector. Sub-contract someone else to build the hardware and develop the software while focusing on business integration and solutions services.
-- A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
None, because the AOL customers were purchasing an ISP, not browser software.
Another example would have been Gillette's idea of "Give away the blades and sell them the razors". And to that, my reply would have been that no one was asking "What's wrong with the blades?".
When something given away for free is so obviously used as a come-on to sell something else that is related, no one is questioning the motives behing giving it out. A freebie on it's own could be suspicious, however.
-- -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Re:Unixen? wtf?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Well, yeah, I suppose that "Unixen" would make sense if UNIX was a word with some sort of secret Anglo-Saxon heritage. However, it isn't the case.
It's about as reasonable as saying that "school bi" is the Latin plural of School bus. Perhaps the reason that "Unixen is not common, although occasionally seen" is there is always some dolt out there following their own rules of pluralization, rather than those that are commonly accepted by others.
Maybe I'm Just Wired Weird
by
IcarusMoth
·
· Score: 1
But I rather like the idea of building my system from the ground up. Choosing my Mobo, CPU, RAM, GPU, etc. I like having that level of Quality Control. I'd also like to have a Posix or Unix Based OS, for stability, speed and security, while at the same time retaining a user friendly interface (nothing relying on Xfree or Xorg is ever going to be user friendly). Windows 2003, and Linux, and The BSDs are my only real options right now on x86.
When I look at the Apple configurations, I think; "I'd rather have more speed and greater amount of RAM than what is offered, and a higher Capacity SATA drive, and a Dual Core AMD processor." Possibly have My mac Running in a Blue case with Neon Lights, whatever.
Fact is I'd rather have it built by my own two hands, because I take a good bit of pride in that. Sadly for me and people like me, there really is no good option.
Re:Maybe I'm Just Wired Weird
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you like building your system from the ground up, then why not build your user friendly interface from the ground up too?
Re:What's the point - RTFA
by
bedouin
·
· Score: 1
'Faster' is completely subjective.
Faster than the latest dual CPU G5 offerings? I doubt it.
Faster than the iBooks and Powerbooks running on 167mhz busses -- well, obviously.
yes... it IS still freeloading
by
johnpaul191
·
· Score: 1
no, this is still freeloading. just because it is a developer release that is not yet for sale does not mean it is a free for all. you are not entitled to have it just because you have mad warez finding skillz. that's like going and stealing a concept car and saying it had to be done because you were not allowed to buy it. Apple released these machines and this version of the OS a year in advance to make it a smooth transition. that will make my life easier as a Mac user. sorry if i feel no empathy for x86 box owning pirates.
all this will do is make apple tighten up their developers.
if this happens in the wild it will probably also mean that Apple will start using serial numbers or some authentication for their OS releases (and iLife and all the other Apple stuff that is currently not protected). honestly i have bought every version of OS X going back to 10.0 and i used to buy some of the classic versions of the OS. i really liked that i did not have to do all kinds of validation to run it. i was genuinely paying for it as i was supposed to, and Apple seemed to be content with leaving it at that. Apple users seem to buy a lot of copies of the OS. their incoming money from OS X are significant enough that they mention them in quarterly earnings reports. i realize that they spend a ton of money on creating the OS, so who knows how much of it is actually profit? it's hard to argue when the same OS runs on so many machines (including 5 year old ones). the development is spread out over soooo much hardware.
Re:yes... it IS still freeloading
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
all this will do is make apple tighten up their developers.
not all of us developers are into bondage and gimps...or in this case.. vices.
-Sj53
WRONG. A thousand times wrong.
by
piecewise
·
· Score: 1
The ONLY people who would hack OS X and get it installed on non-Apple hardware are the same people who don't want to shell out money for Apple hardware/software. Therefore, they will always continue to steal it. And this is NO THREAT to Microsoft, because I doubt seriously these technically-minded hackers are using Windows in the first place. Rather they have cheap PC hardware and a free distro OS.
This is not an ingenius plan by Apple to subversively take over the market. Rather it is harmful to their business and illegal. You can bet that things like this will only act as mobilizing forces for companies to embrace DRMs and trusted computing - because assholes break licensing agreements and steal software.
Even the biggest corporation has my support if someone's stealing what they created and using it for poorly thought-out reasons.
iTunes+DRM is important to protect the music industry's intellectual property. And you know what? THEY'RE RIGHT. If you have a problem with it - go buy a non-DRM CD. Thanks to music downloads, CDs are much cheaper these days. But don't expect the ease and organization of a downloaded song, and don't expect to get it so quickly. And don't expect freebies like music videos with your purchase.
Similarly, trusted computing will come into force in PART as a result of the same people who hate TC. Got a problem with it? Go buy some non-DRM computer. It'll be cheap (beer) and free (speech). Just don't expect a commercial world-class OS like Apple's to run on it.
-- The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Re:WRONG. A thousand times wrong.
by
salimma
·
· Score: 1
If you have a problem with it - go buy a non-DRM CD. Thanks to music downloads, CDs are much cheaper these days. But don't expect the ease and organization of a downloaded song, and don't expect to get it so quickly. And don't expect freebies like music videos with your purchase.
I know this is a bit beside the point, but the only times I get freebies like music videos with my music purchase are when I buy CDs.. iTunes recently added bonus music videos, but the one band that I know does this on iTMS, Gorillaz, does it on their normal CDs too (my platinum CD came with a bonus DVD)
Re:WRONG. A thousand times wrong.
by
bogie
·
· Score: 1
" The ONLY people who would hack OS X and get it installed on non-Apple hardware are the same people who don't want to shell out money for Apple hardware/software."
"This is not an ingenius plan by Apple to subversively take over the market. Rather it is harmful to their business "
How is is harmful then? As you just stated these people wouldn't be buying Macs in the first place. It may be illegal but as your correctly said Apple has zero chance of seeing dollar from these people. So while it may bother you personally it really isn't harmful to Apple in any financial sense.
"You can bet that things like this will only act as mobilizing forces for companies to embrace DRMs and trusted computing - because assholes break licensing agreements and steal software. "
Now your just over the edge. As its been proven over and over and over. DRM et al does Nothing to stop the pirates and only harms innocent consumers. If you want to blame someone for DRM and trusted computing blame the companies. They are the ones implementing it.
-- If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:WRONG. A thousand times wrong.
by
petermgreen
·
· Score: 1
right trouble is for the music industry that once someone gets something in a non-drm format (either from a CD or from cracking drm on a download or whatever) its going to be widely distributed pretty quickly.
-- note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:WRONG. A thousand times wrong.
by
tyahand
·
· Score: 1
DRM is just getting started. I wouldn't count it out quite so soon.
And no, this is not the companies' fault. They wouldn't need to do this were it not for widespread piracy. If you don't think something's worth your money or don't agree with the terms it's being offered under, then don't buy it. Strangely, it seems much of the world has great difficulty with that kind of emotion-free, principled thinking.
How do shots of the screen alone prove anything?
by
ZipR
·
· Score: 1
So many of these sites have them. Maybe I'm blind, but a screenshot of OS X running on a PC looks identical to OS X running on a Mac.
Maybe the hacking is being done by the same folks that review hardware and feature endless shots of the packaging it comes in.
Re:Congrats --- me a Troll?
by
badasscat
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They also do not enforce any form of copy protection to prevent you from installing on multiple machines because the "trust" users.
Well, that and the fact that even if you do pirate their software, they know that you have already given them several thousand dollars for the hardware you're running it on. It seems to me it has very little to do with "trust" and everything to do with promoting their hardware.
That will not be the case once they switch to Intel. They're already learning about the wild west of the Intel world (cue conspiracy theories, but I don't think this was all intentional). Once they realize that hey, people can install their software on multiple machines and not give Apple a dime, you can expect restrictive DRM and copy protection to be introduced right quick.
got it running on my Dell Optiplex GX280 at work. No network or sound support for the onboard stuff, but sticking in a generic network card with a RTL8139D chip and it's off and running.
it's got an X300 only, graphics acceleration doesn't seem to be all working, but 2D interface is plenty fast. Screen savers are a slideshow tho.
it just looks so WRONG! =D
Apple could benefit if OSX licensed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I think there is some basic market pressure that will push Apple to sign up a couple other makers of MacIntels. Look at the Mac Mini.
I read that the estimated component cost on a $499 mini is about $275. Let's say Apple hits a home run and sells 4 million of them this year (1 million per quarter). Add $50 each for distribution, $20 for sales/marketing expense and overhead, and $30 for cost of software (OSX, iLife, Quicken etc). That means realistically, Apple makes $125 each (25% margin) or $500 million.
Now assume Apple lets Dell and eMachines build MacIntels with same basic hardware and drivers (all intel). Apple licenses OSX & iLife for $120 ($20 cost, $100 margin). That's probably less than windows so Dell can have price parity or lower than Wintel. If Dell sells 10 million units and eMachines sells 5 million units, thats $1.5 BILLION. Subtract the $500 million assuming that this canabalizes mac minis and Apple is still $1 BILLION better off.
Volumes of low end commodity MacIntels should go to the volume producers, Dell, HP, and Gateway, with limited diversity of components. Apple should keep the high-end which is where it really can leverage their hardware expertise.
Be, Inc. tried exactly that, they spewed the lightly crippled "Personal Edition" (very cool; it could chainboot from linux or windows) of their OS everywhere they could in the late 90s. While alot of people know about BeOS because of that effort, few people bought the full edition after their "trial", and Be went under, and the BeOS properties were sold to Palm, then YellowTAB, who is attempting to resuscitate BeOS (as seen on/. recently)
True, but Apple is in a much better place for it than Be ever was. Almost every computer user knows what a Mac is (fuzzily; 'it's better but more expensive'), while only tech types know what Be is. And OS X has tonnes of software available (and very good software), compared to what Be had.
-- "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
I have 3 servers in my house running ancient (although upgraded) Debian installations and am "perfectly" happy with my current Linux-based desktop.
I can get my work done. I can run many things. I can browse and play movies or whatever.
I've resisted dabbling with Gentoo. I've resisted many other new distributions.
I figure that these days I'm quite frankly not too interested in trying out multiple systems just to see what they have to offer.
Does Mac OS REALLY provide something different? I could never afford it before.
I've seen Mac OS on laptops and can't see that it's a world of difference. It was always the same story about this program not running or that.
Would a Mac OS let me run programs I cannot currently run? I'm not looking for snazzy graphics/clicking effects. I'm thinking that if I can download something that will only work on a Mac then it's worth a shot.
I'm thinking if I can buy a piece of software that will only run in Mac OS and be fantastic, it's worth a shot.
TIA
--
As my father lik@(munch munch).......
Re:What's the point?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
most userland linux programs can be compiled and run in OS X. they have a great X11 implimentation, and most of the tools you're familiar (or at least, that i was familiar with coming from a linux background 2 years ago).
I'm really tired of these kind of posts as a Mac user. It's not our job to prove Mac OS X to you. Want to find out if it's for you? Go out and try with it. Play with it. If it's not for you, stick with what works for you. If you like it, buy a Macintosh.
Would a Mac OS let me run programs I cannot currently run? I'm not looking for snazzy graphics/clicking effects. I'm thinking that if I can download something that will only work on a Mac then it's worth a shot.
Something that will only work on a Mac?
Or something that won't work on Linux but will work on a Mac?
Well, either way: iLife (iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, etc), Photoshop, GarageBand, IntuemRW, AdiumX, Microsoft Office, iWork, bunches of games, bunches of commercial software - stuff that's just a pain to write and do properly so it doesn't get done open-source, what the heck do you do, what are your hobbies...
All I was saying is that here is an opportunity for me to explore the Mac OS without buying all the associated hardware. And, at this point, what should I worry about anymore?
Seven years ago or so Mac and Windows were heads on for software (with an associated hardware tie-in), and I installed linux to get away from all the mess. Now I can freely explore Mac but I've kinda-sorta lost interest because I'm well entrenched.
I'm responding to the story's point of "you can install Mac OS on probably what you own right now."
FYI, I've helped people install Yellowdog Linux. Unfortunately, those persons (for the most part) just wanted to try linux (as in, linux "something") on a piece of hardware that they already owned. The important part is that these were people willing to explore.
Now, here I am asking a question like, "I own hardware that I'm running linux on, why should I try Mac OS?".
I'm just asking.
My only experience supporting OS X has been in the realm of "this works and this doesn't"... but that involved NFS mounts and X and whatever Mac uses for their own windowing system.
I'm not trying to berate Mac. I know many people that use Macs, but they're typically incapable of explaining why they like it. They just use it, regardless of hardware problems.
Should I install this just to find out why it's so inexplicable? That would be interesting in and of itself.
I don't own an iPod, but at least I understand the idea. I bought an mp3/CD (disc) player with FM and I'm stoked.
It would be nice to not have to buy a Mac machine just to run whatever all this other i* is, though.
A few months ago, I was looking for a pro-(US)-sports schedule and found that all the REALLY GREAT schedules were written in iCal format. At the time, I was thinking, simply, "how do I transfer this to my nearest format?"... not installing an entire OS to transfer. That, of course, was before it was possible to even do so.
I'll look up GarageBand, IntuemRW, AdiumX, and iWork to see what they're about.
My hobbies are surfing, swording, gambling, and, of course, my wife.
I think the best thing for Apple to do would be to put out a Live DVD version of the OS os that people can give it a quick try on their machines. You wouldn't be able to install to the hard drive, just surf the internet and play around and stuff. That way people could see what it was like before taking the plunge. They could include them in magazines, put them at the checkouts at retailers (block buster, book stores, computer stores, etc). I think that would be a great idea.
I don't think they should ever release a version for "normal" computers are some here suggest. I also don't think they will. But this would provide a decent opportunity for trial.
-- Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
That would be a really nifty idea, and you could leave out a lot of the system for this (like, for example, the burner framework, the file system checker, iSync, iCal, most of Utilities, just enough to run Safari and canned apps). You could limit it to run with a live Internet connection, with some grace period (15 minutes?) so you could get your connection UP. Plus put a time limit on the video driver so it won't run accelerated even on supported video cards after six months after the install (and you can't spoof that easily, since it can get the time from the Internet).
You could possibly even fit a minimal OSX with Safari on a bootable CD, not a DVD.
Oooh.
The biggest driver problem would probably be the video card and sound. You won't need SATA or SCSI drivers for this, and you don't REALLY need sound for Safari (but iTunes... nah, people KNOW what iTunes is like, they have that on their PCs anyway)...
Bundle it with the supported video card.
Sure, a few people will hack around these limitations, but they're more likely to get the full thing from P2P networks anyway.
First, the Mac OS X installer is, in some senses, a Live CD. It doesn't run the Finder, but it does run a significant amount of the rest of the OS, including the GUI. It's horrible. It's increadibly slow. OS X is heavily dependent on the underlying file system and uses such a large amount of it and RAM that it's hard to see what it could do in terms of RAM caching to run at an acceptable level.
Additionally, disabling the features you mention might seem like it makes sense because a user will be unable to make practical use of any of them, but at the same time, the whole "You burn CDs by inserting a blank" thing is part of the user experience. The address books, calenders, etc, are also supposed to be a part of that.
Finally, hardware support being what it is, users will find themselves unimpressed, in the majority of cases, with many of OS X's "strengths". Can you imagine the impact if the vast majority of people who use OS X see it on an unaccelerated graphics card (unaccelerated because, well, Apple doesn't support many cards.)
I used to run Jaguar on a Beige G3, which has an "ATI Rage Pro" inside with a whole 6 megs of graphics RAM. It crawled. It wasn't until I added a Radeon that the thing became a joy to use.
The alternative is probably for Apple to have the live CD refuse to boot on systems with unsupported graphics cards. But that will lock out probably the majority of users, and most of us, experiencing a "Your hardware is not good enough to run this program" type messages, usually end up getting pissed at the vendor.
Neither solution helps Apple in the majority of cases.
Apple is probably better off releasing a "Live CD" comprising of giant, full screen, AVI of OS X in use...
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
First, the Mac OS X installer is, in some senses, a Live CD. It doesn't run the Finder, but it does run a significant amount of the rest of the OS, including the GUI. It's horrible. It's increadibly slow
On the other hand, there's BootCD which, while it's not up to booting Tiger yet, does allow you to run a lot faster than the install CD by loading applications into a RAM file system.
You can use BootCD right now to test this with Panther.
at the same time, the whole "You burn CDs by inserting a blank" thing is part of the user experience.
The only way to get the whole user experience is to have the whole OS, yes. On the other hand, it would convince people that are just worried about whether they can deal with such a different user interface. Yes, there's a LOT of people like that.
Plus, well, there's a lot of deliberate marketing features in Panther and more in Tiger, like Expose and dashboard, that are fun to play with by themselves, and you really don't get the feel of them in a video.
I used to run Jaguar on a Beige G3
I used to run Jaguar on a Powermac 7500. I actually booted Puma on it before I upgraded it with a Sonnet Crescendo, and that was pretty sad.
That G3/400 with the on-board frame buffer was quite usable. That was a machine with a 400 MHz CPU, a 40 MHz 64-bit system bus, and a horribly crippled PCI bus that managed about 17 MB/s throughput. Now admittedly the framebuffer was 64 bits wide and on the 40 MHz bus, which meant it had more bandwidth than your Rage Pro on PCI, but still... you can't buy a PC now with less than 1 GHz, 400 MHz front side bus, and AGP graphics.
But I do see that as an issue, which is why I suggested Apple and ATI bundling it with the appropriate graphics cards.
Let people play with the marchitecture features like Dashboard and Expose and the dock, all of which work on dumb cards without the fancy graphics, and only include things like OpenGL screensavers with the Radeon bundled versions...
I wonder what it's like running OSX and Ubuntu simultaneously under VMWare. With clipboard integration, it could be as hot as toggling between just two Linux workspaces. Now, if someone can publish a tool to pipe processes STDIO between the instances, I'm ready for my dual-MobileP4 notebook, thank you.
--
--
make install -not war
Re:Mod Parent Down -1 Troll
by
jericho4.0
·
· Score: 1
Are you retarded? The OP was noting that the torrent you find, might, in fact, be a troll. Perpetuating hate and bigotry, indeed. Get a fucking clue.
-- "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it too
by
Shivetya
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Apple isn't going to take on Microsoft. First Apple knows better than to waste their time trying to make an OS that supports every damn accessory; card or plugged in; as that only invites frustration on the consumer level.
I believe it is more likely Apple was fully expecting this to happen and have already "written it off". There won't be enough geeks pirating it to matter and they don't have to support anyone who does. If anything it may help them because more people will become familar with how it looks and feel. By that I mean some of these basement dwellers will show it off to coworkers and relatives - bragging that they did it but at the same time spreading the Apple kool-aid without realizing it.
Two markets Apple has to get into. 1. Corporate. How many years has it taken AMD to do it, and they are only trying to sell a product that runs everything their competitor already does!
2. Games. That is going to be the hard sell. The big item in most retail stores are lots of junk software for web related stuff and then GAMES. Lots and lots of games. All of which require "Windows XP". How will Apple convince developers to write for their platform?
No, I don't see Apple competeing with Microsoft. The "Duopoloy" of Apple and Microsoft will continue on the desktop for some time. Just because they run on similar hardware doesn't mean they will compete or want to compete.
-- *
Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Ubuntu ...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
... just because the guy didn't know better - or maybe had that liveCD lying around. What you need to download is simply a small *nix-on-cd distro (say, dsl)
Or Apple could do it THIS way...
by
ScrappyLaptop
·
· Score: 1
We're all assuming that since Apple announced that they are switching to x86 CPU's and since the developer's kit runs on PC-compatible hardware that the final OS will, too.
Here's a thought: The final version of the OS runs on a x86 CPU, but it's connected to a motherboard with proprietary busses and chipsets. Hardware and Software are One...Again. Really wouldn't take much, and it would explain the minimal restrictive effort expended so far.
I don't care about the hardware
by
coljac
·
· Score: 1
I'm not so enthusiastic about running OSX on any old PC - as countless people have pointed out, that would probably lead to serious stability issues. What does excite me though is the possibility of a Rosetta that runs Windows binaries on OSX at a decent speed, enabling me to make the switch away from Windows while still running the Windows applications that I need to for work or other reasons. Surely this has to be in the pipeline - I mean, who would stick with Windows because of the UI? If Apple can give people access to the Windows software catalog from OSX, things will get pretty interesting.
-- Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
And don't forget: the more widespread your OS is, the more apps will be written for it. This is why Windows is still alive, and BeOS, NextStep, and OS/2 are dead, and Linux and BSD are fringe players.
Maybe Apple realized they can't win the hardware war (after all, nobody is putting serious effort in making CPUs for them), so they try to become a big player in the software market now. Of course, they will still have their good-looking and well engineered boxes for some time to come.
-- Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is faulty
by
guidryp
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It seems like half the comments here are along the lines of piracy will be great for Apple. I get the impression a lot of these folks think Dvorak still has a clue.
Let us think this through a bit. I am of the mind that selling the OS for generics, piracy or even giving it away for free! Will not have much positive effect on Mac market share. Reasons:
1: Statistically insignificant numbers of people change the OS that the machine came with. Plain and simple. Apples best bet for increasing market share is to sell more machines.
Why?
2: Installation is a pain, 99% of people never re-install.
Installing and maintaining multiple OS's is non trivial and is not undertaken lightly by most folks. I built my last 5 computers, install my own OS's, did dual and triple boot setups. But yet my windows is sufferring windows rot right now and I really dread the idea of doing another re-install. It is a royal PITA.
How about comparison to something else alternative:
3: Market share when something is universally acclaimed, trivial to install and Free! Firefox 10%. Think about this. The vast vast majority aren't even interested in upgrading their browser which is a trivial operation and free. I would estimate at least 100 fold uptake in browsers over whole OS's. So at best this would gain maybe.1 % market share due to even a free OSX.
Addressing the most tired simplistic argument:
3. Piracy worked for microsoft didn't it? Er No? Where you sleeping? Microsoft is a marketing juggernaut, that had essentially no competition. They also made sure, by hook or by crook that almost all PC's shipped with Windows. Piracy may have helped Office along, but windows was a done deal. One other tiny detail. MS wasn't facing an incumbent monopoly.
Finally the main point. Apple must sell more macs to raise market share.
He was just poking fun at some of the not-so-Tech-savvy words from the past that Mac Zealots have been guilty of.
Incidentally, if YOU are a Mac Zealot (its far from certain from your comment) it's simply DELICIOUS that you're now referring to 'PowerPC or whatever architecture.'
"Well, yeah, I suppose that "Unixen" would make sense if UNIX was a word with some sort of secret Anglo-Saxon heritage. However, it isn't the case."
So, let's get this straight:
You're expecting people who think that 32767 is a round number, 31337 is a word, that the naming conventions for konfabulator, kerobos, zope and *NIX make sense, to follow the rules of anglo-saxon pluralisation that they were told in high-school?
You're all looking at this backwards. Who says the idea is trying to run Mac OS X on non-Apple PCs. Apple may really be interested in getting people to buy their PCs to run Windows.
Remember that Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. Yes, Apple would love for Mac OS X have a bigger share of the market -- just like Apple would love each and every iPod buyer who has a PC to buy a Mac and use their iPod on the Mac. However, Apple doesn't seem too upset when people buy an iPod and use it with their PC.
Apple has an excellent reputation, massive sales abilities, high quality machines, striking designs, and with the use of Intel hardware, lower prices.
Yes, Apple would love to double their market share to 7% with this move, but their feelings wouldn't be too hurt if they grabbed a 15% market share, outsold Dell, but only 1/3 of those purchases were running Mac OS X. I think Apple would learn to live with it.
Re:Do we have it backwards?
by
ab8ten
·
· Score: 1
And what's more, the next generation of Intel chips will have Virtualization. How about having a windows/linux machine on one virtual machine and OSX on the other? Fill it with RAM and flip from one to the other.
-- I have no.sig
Re:The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is fau
by
argent
·
· Score: 1
The "piracy is good for Apple" argument has to deal with the fact that piracy really only helps if you have a lock-in to follow up with: a dominant position, or incompatible formats, or something. Apple's pretty damn open by comparison with Microsoft (not that this is hard), and if they did change to make piracy a useful technique they'd lose a lot of the market.
Piracy worked for microsoft didn't it? Er No? Where you sleeping?
Yeh, it worked really well. They had lock-in, a dominant position, AND cross-subsidy so even if they lost a Windows sale they still had a chance of getting Office, and vice-versa.
It didn't make them dominant, but it's had a HUGE part in killing off potential customers.
But, as you note, Apple is in a different situation. So I'm not sure I disagree with your overall position... I just think this point is off target.
However I think the Apple case is very different - Apple has a huge program going now, very early on, for developers to transition. I don't think SGI had anything much like it.
Also, wern't the SGI boxes running NT? I can't remember if they ported IRIX to them or not.
Also those boxes were very specialized and it seems Apple may not be customizing to quite that degree, instead possbliy leaning on Intel to provide MB chipsets.
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
None of which changes the fundamental fact...
by
Senjutsu
·
· Score: 1
That you cannot make enough money selling to Joe Average walking into Circuit City and buying your OS off the shelf to support a company of any real size. Be proved that. NeXT proved that. Even MS only makes a tiny fraction of their income off of box OS sales. Apple would suffer enormous lay-offs if they even tried to do it.
The real money, the money that supports companies of any size, is in OEM licensing to box manufacturers. Apple could easily survive if Dell, HP, e-Machines and the like were buying a license every time they sold a computer, but without that they'd be dead inside the year. And do you honestly believe MS would let OS X be included on the computers those companies shipped. They'd be right back to their "Oh, you can do that, but Windows licenses are now full cost" tactics, and Apple would be locked out just like Be was.
Re:None of which changes the fundamental fact...
by
NutscrapeSucks
·
· Score: 1
And do you honestly believe MS would let OS X be included on the computers those companies shipped.
Since then, Microsoft has been sued for monopolitic activity by everyone one in the industry, so yes I do believe that MS would "let" Apple OEM their OS. Futhermore, OS X is unlike BeOS in that it's arguably something consumers want.
In the short term, Apple keeps their hardware. But in 3-5 years, we're looking at $200 computers with a margin of maybe 20 bucks (or maybe $100 for "expensive" Macs). Then Apple has little choice but to go software-only and leave the PC distribution to the companies with a good supply or retail chain (Dell & HP).
-- Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
NextStep?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Last time I checked, NextStep was still alive and kicking. It is running more software now than any other platform. Microsoft makes software for it. You might not have heard, but they changed its name a few times. First, they changed it to OpenStep. That wasn't working out so well, so they changed it to Mac OS.
What else would you do with an axe but hack something?
Re:Hack a Gibson?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
+1 Funny for the pun
Re:Unixen? wtf?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
There will always be the the generic computer terms that we all put up with like you mentioned above. However, people shouldn't just be making up words (like "unixen" or "boxen") and passing them off in intelligent conversation.
OS X belongs to the customer if the license that the customer agreed to when they purchased it says so. You bought what you bought and nothing more. Maybe you never worked like a dog to produce something for customers but I have and no matter how many people agree with what you are trying to say it will never make it right or beneficial in the long run to anyone but yourself.
Legitimate useage is determined by the legally binding agreement that you committed to when you purchased OS X. If you want the law to change and you can get enough people on your side then by all means do it. The problem is that its the way it is and will stay that way because most people want it that way. Believe it or not people with a thought process like paying for good products and services because that means that there will be more of them in the future and it means that if they work their but off to make a good product that other people will pay for it in return. I know that is all a news flash and that it sounds like a wild and crazy new idea but there you have it, it seems to have caught on.
Microsoft breaks the law outright and gets away with it so I'm not sure what your point of comparison is. In any case their response to whining is to crush a few more competitors and stick lower quality and smellier poo in a box at even higher prices than they did before they crushed the poor idiots who were working like dogs thinking that people would appreciate their good products and services. Moreover Microsoft lives off of denying you the option to buy another solution. To have someone use Microsoft's behavior as an excuse to steal other peoples property who do provide excellent service and product for a living is the height of irony.
Whey you buy stuff from someone and you know that you bought it with an agreement do you feel in the least bit honor bound to stick with that agreement? Or do you think that if you read enough stuff written by other people that says it isn't fair then you can just do what you want with a clear conscience ?
If you feel that software should be free of licensing and other encumbrances then maybe you should only use software that people make available to you under those conditions. I would respect that and lots of other people would too. Maybe you even have a little time to commit some of your passion for free sotware to generate some of it yourself.
The coolaid you speak of is an MS product consumed by all of the people terrified that something different from what they have might be OK or, horror of horrors, actually better. So its always hilarious to me when I hear an MS advocate accusing other people of drinking the coolaid. Its a real window.
you've got it backwards. when a person or company produces a product, once that product is bought by a customer, the producer can no longer claim any ownership of said product. now software is slightly different in that the original is still with the producer. the tricky part is determining what rights the producer and customer have.
copyright law (not a license agreement/EULA) says that you cannot distribute any copies unless you are the copyright holder. there is no law, moral or legal which states that the customer must use products in only a way that the previous owner wants you to.
there are no licenses of which you speak in copyright law. the fact that so many (relatively few, since the majority of software purchasers haven't a clue that there is a mysterious document which they didn't sign has any control over them. imagine the horror and outrage when they discover en masse, such a situation) people believe that a EULA/license is binding is because the overpowerful overlords said so. i do not feel bound by any "contract" i did not sign or agree to. licenses themselves are against the agreement between the public and copyright holders. copyright doesn't allow holders to forbid anything other than making unauthorized copies.
and you are seriously in trouble. you believe someone who is even a tiny bit anti-apple must seriously be pro microsoft. i don't like the practices of just about most large corps. they behave like bullies not to mention the enormous criminal and unethical issues they get away with. to deny customers the ability to use their bought product in a way they see fit is evil. there's just no way around it that i can see. apple makes good software but they are big time bullies.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
So you are denying what you know when you buy software and break the red seal on it and you philosophize about the law and how it doesn't apply to you and you philosophize about morality and how it isn't applicable and how its really someone elses fault that you have this problem. Everyone wants to think that they are good guys and that the problems that they have with acquiring what they want and doing what they want to do is the other guy's fault. How tiresome can it all get.
This is so simple. If you don't want to buy their product on their terms then don't buy it. Its theirs and you are going around and around about it because you don't feel good about what you want to do and are trying to get the approval of others to feel good about it. I don't understand why you can't just buy or use something with an agreement that you believe in. If everyone does this then the whole problem goes away. Your alternative doesn't seem nearly as constructive or even moral or legal to me.
You raised the coolaid issue and that indicates to me that you don't feel strong enough in your position to defend it on a rational basis. I don't think that you really believe in the point that you are pushing.
If you think that someone is evil because they won't engage in an exchange with you on your terms then maybe you aren't right in that judgement.
I know lots of MS fanboys who love to shout out about how bad MS is and how bad the big corporations are blah blah. But when you get down to what they do and where they are comming from they are 5 bladed 3 speed gyrating blades for pushing MS air. They just do it by pushing more negative air at other companies in the same breath. Accusing other companies of being just like MS or worse isn't an honorable thing to do because you know better. People aren't intrinsically evil just because they are people and corporation aren't evil just because they are corporations. MS happens to be an evil corporation and you can't seem to manage to say that without saying that so and so is just as bad or worse and calling them evil to. It is a sure sign of a 5bladed 3 speed MS air pushing doohicky in spite of your protestations. I'd take your denials seriously if you didn't seem to be in denial of so many other basic things.
so you just want people to either take it or leave it. i'm guessing you have a mac (though i could be wrong), so obviously having osx on non-apple x86 is a non issue for you. but for me it brings up a rights issue. even if i don't personally do business with them, i see this as further eroding our rights... if you think "consumer protection" is a false concept, then that's your way of thinking... i humbly disagree.
the tiresome part is the that i'm advocating for things the way they should be and you're explaining what is. what is, is not a good enough situation for me and many others. i seek change.
the personal attacks have no place in here, so i'm very sorry about bringing that up.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
No, you are just wrong about this. The issue is a very simple one, its the issue of a company's power to restrain by condition only how you use what you have bought. Its not about their ability to restrain use technically by product features. Nor is it about piracy or copyright. In the same way that Apple cannot restrain by condition what kind of machine you install on, so MS cannot stop you running Office on Wine. Neither can Ford stop you installing a GM branded tape deck, or carpets, or whatever, in a Ford car. Ford can of course make connectors so that the other tape decks won't fit. That's completely different. You cannot restrain post sale use of products solely by conditions of purchase, and the world is a better place because you cannot.
Fundamentally its about what you agree to when you buy it. If you don't agree to their terms when you buy it then that isn't the honest or moral or constructive way to address the problem that you think you see.
The right way is not to do business with them if you don't agree to their terms.
Taking it or leaving it is a too simple a view of a negotiation. Buying or using only the things for which you accept the terms of exchange is power. You keep ignoring that option in your response. So why is that ? Is it because it would force you to acknowledge all the effort that went into producing something that had a quality that you want. Why can't you say one positive thing about the people who went to all that risk and effort in the face of the ugliest competitor in history and survived it ? Now you want their product so you get on the air and poop all over their name an say that they are worse than known criminals. The only motivations I can see for this are not good ones.
Its their stuff and your inability to accept that and deal with it in a constructive way does not bode well for the future of a competitive innovation in the computer industry. If it were your stuff the you could set the terms but if someone were forcing you to distribute your product on their terms you would feel differently about this issue. Be honest with yourself on this. You are so passionate about this that you call people names and accuse them of drinking coolaid. This suggest to me that you aren't facing the truth of your own motivations.
I want people to be honest in their dealings with others. You are advocating dishonesty. I understand that you want to have the right to force someone to deal with you only on your terms. I don't respect this attitude. It isn't right.
You are advocating for things that way that you want them to be. The notion that you advocate for what "should be" is some sort of self satisfying version of a moral justification for doing something that you don't feel is right.
i am not advocating that apple should support unauthorized configurations. what i want is for apple to allow the possibility of people who purchase the x86 version of osx to run it on computers they might already own. to not have them restrict osx artificially through the use of DRM. in this case DRM wouldn't be used to prevent copyright infringement, it would be used to prevent running osx on "unapproved" devices.
maybe you don't see osx as software. maybe you see it as an inseperable piece of the mac hardware. if that's the case, i can understand your inability to see any other point of view. but if you view osx as software, then why do you object to being able to run it on any computer able to execute the instructions? if one has purchased the software, why do you wish to prevent them in using it in a manner that is consistent with commerce (i.e. having the ability to use one's purchase in accordance with one's wishes).
my disagreement is on a single point... you say that even after they sell OSX to you, that apple still owns it. this flies in the face of the entire human history. what other products behave this way? if you buy something, don't you have the right to use it? why does the producer's rights trump the customer's?
tell me where in my argument that i'm being dishonest? that i'm expecting a merchant to allow me to use my purchased product is dishonest? the merchant is going out of their way to make sure i use a product in a way they don't want... if you cannot see why that is unethical, then i guess i have nothing more to say on this subject.
thanks for the discussion. i bid you a pleasant day.
-- Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
You are being honest when you say what you want to do with the product. It is dishonest to pretend some sort of altruistic motive or to argue that the company in question is worse than criminal because it won't agree to what you want. I cannot know what is in your mind so that I could never prove the dishonesty that I'm talking about. I can only look at the style of argumentation and extra-rational verbiage being put forth and reach some speculative conclusion based on similar patterns that I've seen before. I'm telling you what I've concluded on that score for your internal consumption and entertainment.
This is a side issue but I suspect that Apple believes that the quality of there product and their ability to stay in business are substantly tied to their ability to control integration. If you haven't made extensive use of their product then you might not share their perspective. But its their product so their perspective matters and that is not a side issue.
Based on personal experience I would say that their concern for quality associated with integration has merit. If your primary experience is with Windows and you are one of the many people who feel that that experience is very good then I could see how you would not assign any value to Apple's desire to ensure a better experience through better control of integration. No matter how you feel about it its not your product and their concerns matter more to me than yours because I am a software producer and I feel that my rights are at stake when people start pushing the selve serving perspective that you are pushing. If my rights are not respected in this basic regard then I and many others can't afford to be in business. Its not about getting rich, its about getting a return on a serious outlay of effort and real risk taking.
The most important right that is at stake here is the right of people and businesses to set the terms under which they sell their products and services within the social contract and the laws of our society. If you work hard to produce something to sell then you will feel like that is a right. For the sake of argument you refuse to acknowledge this.
If you want their product then you might consider paying for it the way that they want to sell it to you for a little while and see how you like it. If it doesn't live up to their claim then bring it back. Or try a used machine or a Mac mini. Suspend judgement for a little while and forget all your notions of value and performance that derive from your use of other companies products and propaganda. Try it the way they want to serve it to you for just a little while. All you have to lose is a little time and it seems that you are already committed to that.
i think you have to see it in a slightly different context. People who argue this are pro-Apple, and so they feel that Apple's strategy is legitimate and should be respected. The problem is that a legal system which approves post sales restraints gives rise to problems from companies you may not approve of. For example, how would you feel about being forbidden to run MS Office under Wine? How would you feel about being forbidden to play Sony CDs on Panasonic players? You would not like it, and the society that allowed these sorts of restraints - by condition of purchase only - would ossify very rapidly, because aftermarket competition would vanish. It would be too easy to extend a dominant position in one area into an adjacent area.
But to answer the fundamental point: should we respect and encourage Apple's strategy - closed source hardware and an OS tied to it. Not particularly. It makes life easy for Cupertino, but it raises prices and it diminishes competition. This may seem mistaken. But think: if you are the CIO of a big company, you will not give your desktops to a single source company with repeated supply problems and a history of overpricing. So, closed source hardware is a way of driving the customer to Microsoft. We, the economy in general, don't benefit from this. So we should not particularly respect Apple's strategy.
The two things add up to one conclusion. We don't want a society in which post sales restraints on use are lawful. And we don't particularly want to make it easy for Cupertino. So, there is neither a moral nor a legal reason why we should accept Apple telling us what to run X on.
Now, if they make it technically impossible, that's their right. But if they don't, take the same approach you would to Office under Wine, and do what you feel like doing.
I almost don't care what MS does with Office. I paid for that product and stick to the licensing agreement even though I don't like it and even though I think that it is overpriced and that the competition has been illegally destroyed. Holding up that software and its licensing as some reference point of rectitude is nothing short of ironic.
If Sony CD's wouldn't play on Panasonic players and I didn't like it then I wouldn't buy Sony CD's. Then Sony would have a choice if they wanted my business. One difference here is that a Sony CD sounds about the same on both players. If there were a significant difference in Sony's opinion then I woudn't blame them. I still wouldn't buy their product but then thats my choice and their choice and I would respect it.
While there are some basic similarities there are also some basic differences when it comes to software. I think that Apple feels that the quality of service they provide and their ability to continue to provide it depends on them having control of the platform. Software is a complicated product and your simplistic analogies and economic theories sound like pure rationalization to me.
I don't know who "we" are but it doesn't include me. The concept of "post sales restraints" is so broad that it wouldn't be wise to impose on every possible service, product and combination of the two.
If you don't like it don't buy it and this will be a self rectifying situation from your point of view. There's no need to advocate deceitful and dishonorable behavior.
They can't make it impossible to run OS X on generic hardware but they don't have to support it and it doesn't have to work well on junk. Nevertheless I feel certain that the whining will be endless in any case.
Look, this is a much simpler question than people seem to think. Please consider carefully. There are three issues. The first is, whether a company can, in law, stop you using a product as you choose after you have bought it, solely by means of conditions of sale. The answer is no, it cannot. No EC court will uphold such conditions and I greatly doubt if US ones will either. It doesn't matter if it is applications, OS, graphics cards or garden tools. This is just how it is. The reason is competition law.
The second question is whether companies OUGHT to be able to stop you using products in certain ways after you have bought them by conditions on sale. Should we change the law? The answer is no. Competition is generally good, and we don't allow anti competitive behaviour for that reason. You do not want to live in a society in which MS can prohibit you from running Office on Wine, or GM tell you what tires to use, or Wolf tell you what handles to use for their hoe attachments. These kinds of things are what you let in if you allow conditions of sale to limit product use. They are bad.
The third question is whether, if Apple's business model depends on your buying Apple hardware, you are being immoral in running X on non-Apple hardware, even if you totally comply with the law, including the law of copyright. The answer is no. It is up to Apple to adopt viable business strategies, taking account of the law and how people want to use their products. Buyers have no moral obligations to make sure any particular strategy works in the marketplace. The customer will buy and then use the product how he wants, and he is always right.
Now, faced with these circumstances, Apple may choose to use DRM or other technical means to stop X working on non-Apple hardware. They have a perfect right to do that. Whether this is wise from a business point of view or technically feasible is immaterial. They do have the legal power. But this is the only way they are going to stop it. Conditions on sale will not and should not stop it.
Well now, this really isn't news to Apple....
by
King_TJ
·
· Score: 1
In fact, as a Mac user myself, I'd say you're quite incorrect on Apple "not even requiring an authentication code" for many of their products.
Every last one of their "Pro" apps I've seen forces you to enter a fairly long and nasty registration key during installation. So did Keynote and Pages. And it looked to me like they went even further than that for products like Logic Pro. (Though I have no intention of ever really using it, because for my "hobby" music needs, even Logic Express is more than enough... I experimented with installing a warez version of Logic Pro 7.1 I grabbed off Usenet. Despite having a valid registration key and the ISO image of the original disc - the app refused to run after installation, complaining I didn't have the "original CD" in the drive.)
So no, I don't think for a minute that Steve Jobs is "learning" anything new by observing people making OS X for Intel work on platforms other than his own test machines right now. I'm sure it was fully expected, hence his strict rules enforcing the idea that the test systems were only "loaners" - not purchasable computers, and the strict NDA slapped down on everyone receiving one.
The very idea that Mac users, by nature, are somehow more "trustworthy" or "less likely to pirate" than Windows PC users is just more elitist B.S. The reality is, there's not nearly as much software out there for a Mac - so there's much less "need" for piracy. It's financially possible to buy every single native Mac commerical app you'd ever really use with your computer! By contrast, in Windows, there may be 40 or 50 competing apps that do the *same job*. So there's a much stronger tendency to pirate a few here and there, to see if one is really better than what you're already using, etc.
Apple hasn't done "product activation" like MS did with XP, but I have little doubt they'd move to it if they thought it would increase their profits. As you pointed out though, they've been in a position where it's a non-issue, because you pay for the OS in the purchase price of your Mac - and your Mac ultimately has to come from Apple. Apple has no qualmns about doing the same basic thing already when it comes to music purchased from their music store for use in iTunes, right?
Re:Well now, this really isn't news to Apple....
by
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF
·
· Score: 1
The very idea that Mac users, by nature, are somehow more "trustworthy" or "less likely to pirate" than Windows PC users is just more elitist B.S. The reality is, there's not nearly as much software out there for a Mac - so there's much less "need" for piracy. It's financially possible to buy every single native Mac commerical app you'd ever really use with your computer!
Wow, what a ridiculous argument. First, people buy the software they are going to use, which is going to be about the same amount no matter what platform you run on. But just assuming in some alternate reality the average user did want to buy all the software available for the mac, there are about 3000 applications for sale, just on the Apple.com store. At about $30 each that comes to over eighty thousand dollars. I don't know many users who could afford to shell that out for software. Your theory is tripe.
I don't know that mac users are less likely to pirate, but I strongly suspect it because of the demographic of mac users. Mac users are people who can afford to buy Apple hardware. That means they are willing to spend more for what they perceive as added value. It weeds out a large chunk of the cheapskates right there. Then there are the foreign markets where you can actually buy PCs without OS's and where piracy is much more common. That is a lot of stolen software and pretty much a Windows only ecosystem. Thus, it is quite probably Windows users are more likely to pirate software. I'll leave the anecdotal evidence to anyone else who cares to chime in.
As you pointed out though, they've been in a position where it's a non-issue, because you pay for the OS in the purchase price of your Mac - and your Mac ultimately has to come from Apple.
Both Apple and Microsoft make OS's and both insure that they are bundled with hardware so they don't have to worry about piracy at that point. There is a difference though. Apple does not require a serial number and a connection to a server to install and Windows does. The reason for this is that Apple would rather people pirate an upgrade to the latest OS than not have it, while Microsoft would rather you have to pay no matter what. This fits in with each company's profit strategy, but it also has a lot of side benefits for Apple users.
Why?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why would anyone want to that shitty Mac OS on a PC when we already have the greatest OS evar! Windows XP?
Re:The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is fau
by
OSXCPA
·
· Score: 1
I 'switched' to Mac when they came out with OSX. I ran every version of it since on my Tangerine iBook (aka 'the toilet seat') and just got a new iMac G5. I discovered something alluded to here on/. and in other forums, but which I think bears repeating.
Mac users, the hard-core, loyal buyers (including yours truly now) are not as price-sensitive as other consumers. Yah, I have a Linux box running, I kicked the M$ habit years ago, but I will cheerfully buy Mac hardware and software until my wife pries my cold dead hand off my trak-ball.
Why you ask?
Everything 'just works', the development environment rocks, the hardware is well-designed (iBook is 8 yrs old and the screen color is still perfect) and just looks damn good. My wife made me toss all the beige boxen, and she wasn't too hot over even the coolest of the higher-end cases on NewEgg. I got the iMac, and she's happy.
Apple doesn't want M$ users who will pirate anything they can, download crapware, malware and any virus that comes along, and put off upgrading for as long as possible. They don't want the uber-hobbyists who order components online and put their own systems together. Apple doesn't want the mega-gamers, either. Yet.They want the users who are frustrated by the lack of deep quality in M$ products on the Windows platform and the (perceived) lack of end-user-orientation on Linux or *BSD.
They know their strengths - a soup-to-nuts great user experience - and they play to them. Apple's core users don't need or want Warez. We'd rather buy the best tools we can from a vendor who has shown themselves willing and able to produce quality products at reasonable price/performance point.
Buying a Mac
by
Eminence
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This whole thing helped me decide to buy a Mac. You see, I have a two year 1.3 Gig Athlon based PC, so to really benefit from this hack I would have to upgrade it. That would mean I would have to spend about a $100 on a new processor, like AMD 64, and a new motherboard, possibly new memory and another hard-disk (to move stuff from my older, smaller drives to make room for the OSx86 image). I think I would reach $500, maybe less, but what I really need at this point is a laptop, not a beefed up desktop. So, I would be looking for laptops with Centrino Pentium 4M, like the Vaio they run it on, that would be at least $1000, but closer $1400 - $1500 I think. Whatever I choose I would be left with a PC while what I really want is a Mac, not a PC, I want to have a stable workstation, Unix based and pleasing to use - that's why I bother at all with OS-X.
So, in the end, I'm just buying a PowerBook next week. Unless I hear a really good rumor that a new major version of these would be coming out in Paris next month.
Re:Buying a Mac
by
dmarcoot
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Hey, good luck. I program on Windows all day at work and have a Powerbook at home and it's a fantastic machine. If you're unfamiliar with OS X, you might consider the purchase of a reference oriented towards Windows users, to get you thinking the Apple way.
Well, a 30MHz speed upgrade isn't worth waiting another month when I really need a laptop to get up to speed with a project from the beginning of September.
Product: PowerBook Last Release: January 31, 2005 Days Since Update: 199 (Average = 185) Recommendation: Don't Buy - Updates soon Special Notes: none.
Moore's Law and the Apple hardware tax
by
anon+coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A lot has been made of the fact that PC hardware is cheaper than Apple hardware. But Moore's Law degrades that argument at the standard rate.
The 50% Apple hardware tax is significant when computers cost $3000. When computers cost $500, the tax is still 50% but not so significant. And when computers cost $100, even less significant.
At that point, $50 for "looks cool" might be worth it to a lot more people. Like esr said, as the cost of the hardware approaches the cost of the OS, things get interesting.
No, No, No... Imagine a Beowolf Cluster...
by
ErnstKompressor
·
· Score: 1
...Oh, Nevermind...
-- We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have
been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Atleast Apple users will benefit from this
by
aliquis
·
· Score: 1
Imagine how many people will run MacOS X x86 in say 2 months, imagine how many it would be if it was the final version, imagine how much larger the Mac market just got and the opportunities for whatever software you want to bring out for the Mac people.
Re:but before you begin...
by
bpd1069
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Thanks you just snapped me back into reality... I was just calculating if i could manage to give it whirl/and give up while still having enough time to get my current workload done by sunday night...
So there's VMware image running around the net I gather.. but what I'm interested in is this: how'd the modify the developer install to get it to run on just any x86 box ? What'd they do to it.. did they remove this kernel extension we've been hearing about ?
surely just removing a file.. that would be too easy.. does anyone have any real details or where we can find out about it ?
Re:How cracked
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
dd the vmware image onto one of your harddisks, like:
dd if=/path/to/tiger-x86.img of=/dev/hdb bs=1MB
reboot, yank the power cable out of hda, and you'll start booting OSX
Yes, I was more specifically referring to what was actually protected and how that was overcome, rather than the exact method to take the prehacked version and use it.
As long as Mac OS stays below 10%
by
tentimestwenty
·
· Score: 0
I use Mac OS. I love Apple hardware. OS X does everything I need or want with perhaps the exception of IE compatibility or some Windows apps. Apple going to Intel will provide 100% of the features and service that Apple customers have always wanted. But, under no circumstance do I want OS X or Apple to have to deal with regular PC hardware. It will just dilute their efforts and my ability to enjoy the platform. If the user base grows to around 10% from going with Intel, that's great too, more support and more quality apps. But, I have no interest in it running on Joe Blow's PC because that's when the compatibility, viruses and Malware start to show up. Apple will run smoother with a smaller focussed market share. More than 10% and I don't think they'll be able to keep it together.
Re:As long as Mac OS stays below 10%
by
laffer1
·
· Score: 1
Yes and it will be nice to call American technical support again. It will be nice not to have to buy a substandard pc with crappy motherboards and try to run windows on it. I used to hate windows until i got my current system, but i paid through the teeth. Then i have this desire to have a mac for everyday stuff, graphics, programming, and a few games. It will save me money.
My only concert is the NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP fiasco when NeXT went Intel and later stopped selling NEXTSTEP all together. I hope steve jobs doesn't relive history!
My home contains 3 macs, 2 pcs and a sun sparc. I'm planning on selling the sparc as the macs and my freebsd box fulfill my needs. Two of the macs are my wife's and she got me to get into Apple boxes. As for the post above about hardware support, i'm concerned simply because of the *BSDs history with drivers. Try to get an ATI Radeon 9600 chipset to work in XORG without linux binary drivers. Worse yet, mine's an All in wonder 9600xt 128mb and the PCI id isn't even there. I've begged for them to add it. 2d acceleration sort of works, but forget 3d. Likewise, my old firegl 8800 chipset freezes the whole box when i try to use it accelerated. Apple could have serious problems ahead. Of course they have the advantage of being a real company so they can sign NDAs and so forth for drivers.
"Unixen" (Anglo-Saxon), "Unices" (Latin), and "Unixes" (English) are are used as plural for "Unix" (Arbitrary, made-up jargon). I personally prefer "Unices."
-- (%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Re:and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it
by
The+Lynxpro
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"2. Games. That is going to be the hard sell. The big item in most retail stores are lots of junk software for web related stuff and then GAMES. Lots and lots of games. All of which require "Windows XP". How will Apple convince developers to write for their platform?"
Your answer, Windows Vista. Thanks to the hubris of Microsoft, Windows Vista will be ignored by gamers just as they ignored Windows2000 and shunned WindowsME. Doing stupid deliberate things like retarding the performance of OpenGL in Vista in favor of DirectX is enough to alienate the likes of id Software. Combine that with the fact that the next generation console of choice will be the Sony Playstation3 (which supports OpenGL), the conversion to the computer platform of choice will be the Macs as long as videocard support becomes equal to the current Windows market and Apple offers some headless desktops that support end user expansion through PCIe cards (including SLI techniques too).
-- "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
... maybe I wasn't done ;/
by
aliquis
·
· Score: 1
... which in the ends brings more software too the current users.
Well,/dev/hda1 maybe./dev/hda will overwrite some essential data like the harddrive geometry (so e.g. you end up with your drive thinking it has thrice as many heads as it has), and completely screw it up. Nearest recovery path: Move the harddrive to a different computer, as a second one, or boot LiveCD. Visit the hdd manufacturer website or if you're lucky, read the geometry from the label on the drive (sometimes it's there, more often not.) Sometimes the website won't have the geometry so try again yet elsewhere, google is your friend, obscure mailing list archives are your hope. Write them down. Launch fdisk for that harddrive, in "expert" option enter all the geometry data. Repartition, reformat. Reboot and pray.
No this is precisely what you have to do. dd the image to a raw drive.
Asshats
Re:The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is fau
by
snuf23
·
· Score: 1
"Apple's core users don't need or want Warez."
Boy you sure are generalizing. I guess it's because you only jumped on the Mac bandwagon a little while ago. There is TONS of piracy on the Mac. I have worked with Macs in the design and printing industries for 15 years and can't count how many pirated copies of Mac applications I've seen. It really isn't any wonder that Adobe and Quark both moved to software activation schemes similar to what Windows XP uses. The piracy of core design and printing applications is severe. Claiming that Mac users sit up on some moral high ground when it comes to piracy is just as much crap as saying all Windows users are "w4r3z d00dz". The fact is, most general computer users (Mac or Windows) don't really think about the issue at all. They don't go out of their way to pirate, they buy software, but if someone says "oh here have this cd" they don't tend evaluate it morally - they most likely just take it and install it.
-- Sometimes my arms bend back.
Cowardly moderator. Show some stones.,
by
guidryp
·
· Score: 1
Hey at least have the balls to call it flamebait or something. It doesn't make any sense to mod something over-rated that no one rated.
This smacks of a cowardly moderator just modding down something that he doesn't agree with and taking the cowards "over-rated" category out.
I don't give a rats ass about my karma, but at least have the stones to categorize why you are downrating.
At least the next moderator will likely have the stones to call this one flamebait.
They got around the sse3 requirement but obviously that means you can't run some apps right now.
Does anyone have any thoughts on whether the AMD A64 with sse3 would qualify as a "real" sse3 capable cpu in OSX X86's eyes? Ie is the A64's sse3 exactly equivalant to Intel's sse3 in the view of Apple and OSX X86? Thanks.
-- If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
NEVER seen one in three years of daily use at work.
I run NT4 at home. I'm sure I have seen a blue screen, but not for about a year.
Re:Blue screen in W2k?
by
confused+one
·
· Score: 1
You just haven't tried hard enough. Write some code, say, for test and measurement applications. You'll BSOD your computer soon enough...
Re:Blue screen in W2k?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
install symantec AV 10 and there's a pretty good chance you'll see a BSOD.
Re:Blue screen in W2k?
by
ishmaelflood
·
· Score: 1
Well, sure. Are you saying that Macs or Linuxes are immune (or at least quantifiably less susceptible) to crashes caused by writing code that interfaces with hardware?
My limited experience with Linux is that it is very stable when used to run normal user stuff.
My experience with Macs, on systems 7.* and 8 admittedly, is that they used to crash or lockup or bomb about as much as Windows from the same era.
My experience with HP Unix is that it is the most likely of the modern operating systems I use to lock up (need a reboot) - but that may be crap hardware.
One of the cleverest marketing ploys ever made by MS was when they decided (by default) to just reboot Windows when a blue screen would normally occur. To revert to older behaviour, go to Control Panel -> System -> Advanced -> Startup and Recovery Settings and uncheck 'Automatically restart'. This is one of the first changes I make after a Windows install because, when there is a critical problem, I at least want to be aware of it.
Without this change, you will only ever see a BSOD if a serious error occurs during boot.
Re:Blue screen in W2k?
by
confused+one
·
· Score: 1
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply responding to "NEVER seen one in three years of daily use at work." with a little sarcasm thrown in, for good measure.
honestly, any OS is apt to be susceptible to problematic interface code. Even the micro-kernels will crash if you hang up the PCI bus.
Slashdot = site for clueless morons.
by
shippo
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I have never read so much utter crap in my life.
The development version of Mac OS X for Intel has been designed to run on a specific Intel motherboard, which co-incidentally is the same model as support by the PC port of Darwin. It's purely designed for proving that PPC code will run on an Intel chip when the source has been successfully tweaked - nothing more. It's just a quick and dirty hack.
YOU CAN'T READ ANYTHING INTO THIS PRE-PRODUCTION SYSTEM - JUST GET IT INTO YOUR THICK GEEKY SKULLS NOW!
When Apple finally release Intel machines the hardware will be significantly different to a run of the mill PC - some hardware devices appearing in a different place, others being present at all, and so on. The OS will need very specific drivers. Also it's more than likely that there will be some other forms of protection to further limit the hardware it will run on.
Don't bother replying to me as I can't be bothered to read the crap posted to this site any more.
Re:Slashdot = site for clueless morons.
by
kayen_telva
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Im not sure he was suggesting that it does. I think the poster was highlighting the possibility. Especially when you consider projects like wine and darwine.
-- Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
As someone else pointed out, it wouldn't. But given the same processor architecture, and the ability of Apple to produce software like Rosetta, wouldn't a fast windows compatibality layer seem like a real possibility?
-- Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
I have a spare system with an Athlon XP 2400+, and I was wondering if it would be possible to install this on that system. Has anyone tried it? Is there any technical reason why it couldn't be done? If anyone has actually tried it please respond.
thanks, even though it's a little disappointing, i'm glad I know. Now I can't wait to get my replacement mobo for my P4 system! Oh, also, would this run inside a virtual PC on my mac running os x?
I think that would just be really cool. Or is there no SSE 3 for a virtual machine either?
from what I've seen, you need sse2 support. That leaves all us athlon xp users out in the cold unfortunately (and damn it, I wanted to try it out on my main machine, a athlon xp 2800+). You need a p4, recent celeron, or amd 64 to run osx-x86.
-- "goodbye and hello, as always"
~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Re:The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is fau
by
dmarcoot
·
· Score: 1
your right, as a designer i have seen and been on both sides of that fence. As you know, design software is expensive and the design industry is tough bitch to work in, and when your a starting out, how do you do the work if you dont have the apps?
ethically weak excuse to be sure.. but i dont deny what it was like some people do to rationalize.
i recall when i was in art school in early 90's showing someone how easy it was to slap Photoshop 2.5 on to a SyQuest drive, his eye popped out of his head. it never occurred to him that at least then, that most apps were as easy to take as any file on os 9.
then there is rationale, if i take the home from work, i can do work from home, which some employers have no problem with. No confirms you delete what you used when you leave.
but i will say this about mac users, we have higher expectations in software and outside of games, are used to being treated to a better user experience by years over M$ users.
No NIC, Sound, or 3d accel
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Throw in:
No fan support
Uses a ton of battery
Unresponsive UI...and you've got my Fedora Core installation!
Re:Congrats --- me a Troll?
by
Gilmoure
·
· Score: 1
Well, that and the fact that even if you do pirate their software, they know that you have already given them several thousand dollars for the hardware you're running it on.
I just paid $575.00 to Apple for my first Mac and it came with an OSX CD. Is Apple going to be mad at me because I didn't spend thousands of dollars with them? All my previous Macs have been used. I have bought all the previous versions of OS X for them, though, all the way back to OSX beta.
-- I drank what? -- Socrates
What about running on an AMD chip...
by
enc0der
·
· Score: 1
...has that happened yet? The ultimate hack! *dun dun dun*
Wow, I just want to go watch Angelina Jolie talk about her coprocessor now:)
Apple is crazy like a fox
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Think about it. What would be the biggest nightmare for Apple if they decided to sell their OS for every x86 box on the planet? Hardware incompatibility. My prediction is Apple will do the same thing with this OS as they've done with all the others. They will sell you the OS with the huge caveat that is only supported on Apple branded hardware and Apple certified peripherals. You can still buy it and try to get it to run on your vanilla PC, but you won't be getting any help from Apple. Apple will include a limited number of drivers in the OS that vendors have paid to be certified. For the rest of the hardware in the world, you will be dependent on the vendor providing a decent driver that they will have to support or relying on the open source community to write the driver you need. In this way, Apple can get huge market penetration without the huge cost and support nightmares of making sure their OS is compatible with every piece of hardware known to man. Besides, Apple will probably make a lot more money and a lot more noise when they have licensed the OS to their first Apple certified PC manufacturer.
How could they market this then?
by
dirkstoop
·
· Score: 1
Well, lets assume the hypothetical situation that they do..
How in the heck would Apple, a brand that's built upon offering powerful features in a simple to understand way to its customers, market this generic x86 version of their os?
Would they put it in little letters on the side of the box? Hardware requirements:
chipset: one of the following: intel bla blabla bla bla bla bla
video card: one of the following: nvidea blabla bla, ati blablabla
usb controller: etc. etc etc
There's no way in hell that they'll be able to pull this one off, first thing is that people don't read manuals, let alone check if their dell pc matches the listed requirements. Simple because that's too much work for your average customer and secondly because people don't know + care what's in their machines.
Occasionally I get a customer who bought an iPod from our store or from some big electronics reseller and can't get it to work with their PoS pc because of the cheap-ass VIA usb controller in it or some other lame piece of hardware.
I don't have particularly bad people skills or something, but it's almost impossible for me to get them to understand that not all usb controllers are alike and that there's nothing wrong with the iPod, let alone make them understand that the fact that their PoS cheapest 17" ultrabrite superdualfcuklaptop they could find doesn't work with the brand new iPod does not make Apple an evil company for trying to sell their peripherals to windows users.
When they call our support dept. we often tell them plain honest that yes, there are a lot of problems with windows users and ipods, maybe we should not do that, because they always backfire with the idea that Apple should not market it for them if there are so many problems. But still, one should probably be honest about this stuff. The alternative is telling them it's their fault for not getting it to work.
Preferably I tell them to reinstall windows, get better hardware, or - if they don't want to do any of that - offer to give them their money back for the iPod. I still hate Apple for offering the iPod to windows users for this mess. Even if it goes alright >90% of the time, the few people for who it doesn't work out shout a lot louder then the rest.
Now extrapolate this to selling osx for generic x86 in shrink-wrap to the same people who got fed-up with windows messing up their pc's and lifes. Imagine what's going to happen then, with people buying it and not getting it to work on their pc's.
I think then it's time for me and any sane people left at the support dept. of any Apple Centre to quit our jobs before we go *completely* insane...
-- (may read 'IMHO' wherever omitted from above text)
Re:How could they market this then?
by
Tumbleweed
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure Apple will offer a generic x86 OS X to the masses, but what they *could* do is license it to large computer makers like Dell, who would handle the support for whatever hardware they wish to offer it on. Apple can turn into the OS & application vendor, and the hardware makers can deal with the drivers Apple doesn't want to bother with. I'd _love_ to see Apple get out of the hardware game.
Just in time for back to school
by
reversevampire
·
· Score: 1
Drinking beer in someones dorm room. What are you running? OSX? I want that too. Come over tommorow and install it for me. The new napster.
Re:What about solaris x86?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Dont know what problems you are having but I picked up an Nforce4 DFI motheboard, athlon 64 chip, Nvidia 6200, 250GB sata drive. I had to google for a couple of drivers but everything works fine for me. Faster and cleaner than the Fedora Core 3 I have installed in another partition. Seems more stable. Granted the more esoteric hardware may not work well under Solaris x86 yet, but certainly picking up a brand new system and installing it is quite reasonable. Less trouble than windows and faster and more stable than linux.
...get the geeks to use it. Then everyone else will use what the geeks are using.
Getting Windows applications to run at decent speeds on Mac OS X will be easier now that they're moving to x86 CPU's. That will help with both #1 and #2. Also note that Windows has been moving more and more hardware-independant... 3.11, 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP... That only helps.
-- My other first post is car post.
The future.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'd really like to hear Apple's comment on what's been happening. Not just a comment about Developers leaking the discs, but about the future of People hacking OSX for normal PC installations. However, I fear Apple is going to turn cheek and ignore the problem, and let it be hacked.
I'll be very surprised if Apple doesn't implement sometype of bootup and runtime hardware checking in an upcoming OSX update.
Re:and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it
by
Jack+William+Bell
·
· Score: 1
Apple isn't going to take on Microsoft. First Apple knows better than to waste their time trying to make an OS that supports every damn accessory; card or plugged in; as that only invites frustration on the consumer level.
They have labored under the misconception that they are a hardware company for years -- and it cost them world domination. If Apple had thought of themselves as a software company back in the early eighties Microsoft wouldn't have stood a chance. Seriously. Gates would still be selling computer languages and maybe an office productivity suite or two. But ninety percent of the world's PC's wouldn't be running Windoze.
I wrote up a little allegory called 'Coffee and Donuts' about this phenomenon a while back. Basically the truth isn't that Gates won by making a better product. We already know that isn't the case. So what was the secret? He won by simply understanding the market better.
And the PC market isn't there because of the hardware, no matter how cool it is.
hi i downloadeden variousen types of linuxen distributionens.
-- lameness filter thwarted.
Re:What's the point - RTFA
by
Frenchman113
·
· Score: 1
and yet... why bother comparing a top-end dual-core CPU to a mid-range single-core CPU? A waste of time and it proves nothing.
but...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How many hundreds of dollars extra would you be willing to pay for it to compensate Apple from the margin they're not getting on the hardware?
If you don't buy 1 k$ of hardware from them for 1.2 k$, where's that extra $200 coming from.
To most people the OS is the product. To Apple it's leverage to increase the extremely thin margins on hardware.
Re:and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it
by
Pulzar
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Your answer, Windows Vista. Thanks to the hubris of Microsoft, Windows Vista will be ignored by gamers just as they ignored Windows2000 and shunned WindowsME. Doing stupid deliberate things like retarding the performance of OpenGL in Vista in favor of DirectX is enough to alienate the likes of id Software.
There's nothing deliberate about what they are doing. Please try to understand what's going on before coming up with generalizations like "Vista will be bad for Open GL so all games will go to Mac because all games are written by Id Software".
The Vista desktop uses Direct X to render the new desktop features, so it can't run Open GL natively at the same time... so, they provided a wrapper, which causes a performance hit. As far as the full-screen games are concerned, though, they don't use the desktop, hence the aeroglass support goes away and ATI or nVidia native OpenGL driver kicks in.
So, don't be sad. Your OpenGL games will run just as fine as they used to.
The OpenGL windowed applications might suffer performance degradation, but that's another story.
-- Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
The usual problem with NIX distributions is the driver support. The hardware manufacturers have to develop drivers for many platforms, and as a result, do not write drivers for "non mainstream" OSs.
The hardware manufacturers need to tell the OS companies "Enough is enough! Instead of us writing drivers your way, you need to utilize a standard that is cross platform!"
Driver files should be something like a simple CSV file that describes the attributes of the device and how it can be utilized.
For example, the first field would be for Firewire capability. 0 would indicate it's not firewire capable. 1 would indicate firewire 400 capability, 2 would indicate firewire 800 capability, and you could add other values for future firewire speed bumps. Same thing goes for the various USB speeds out there. Need to specify the maximum display size or refresh rate of a display? Simple, have fields for those attributes with numbers indicating the capability.
That way the manufacturers only have to write ONE driver that will work on any OS.
The hardware manufacturers need to force the OS companies to come up with a standard. Only upon having a standard will you see less OS crashes and hardware no longer functioning after you upgrade.
"runs 'good' because it runs on Apple hardware"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, OS X runs 'good' - in fact, 'gooder' - on my 3.4ghz P4 than I've seen on all but the highest line of G5's...couple that with a WD Raptor and we're talking an almost instant boot. Everything's responsive and quick in a native installation; in my opinion, it runs more smoothly than a fresh XP install. However, it's true that drivers are still an issue for many people's hardware. ATI & Nvidia drivers are, in fact, included for those using the Darwin extension trick, but getting them implimented is another story.
In a tragic irony, I'm using a 23" HD Cinema display, but can't get my 6800U working. 1024x768 looks like a mudpie spread over 23.":P
Still, it's a start. As others have noted, now that this snowball is rolling, it WILL be done.
One thing I don't understand
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
So, a lot of people seem to think that legions of people will try OS X on their bargain-bin PC and then somehow get the Mac religion and buy Apple hardware so they can have the full OS X experience.
I say, bullplop!
Mac OS X has been ready for prime time since August of 2002 (Jaguar's release). In the three years since, Windows XP has been a complete and total mess, plagued by worms, spyware, viruses, etc. It's been a miserable computing experience, but only now is the 'switch to Mac' movement really starting to pick up steam, and that's mostly thanks to the iPod halo effect. For most of that time, the majority of people just put up with the crappy aspects of Windows, because they were too goddamned cheap to buy a Mac.
So what makes anyone think that those very same people will suddenly be willing to pay a premium for Apple hardware (assuming Apple maintains some semblance of their PowerPC-era margins) after the Intel switch? I'm inclined to think that they'll all just hang on to their $299 whiteboxes, run a hacked version of OS X, and put up with whatever incompatibilites arise.
Re:What's the point - RTFA
by
drsmithy
·
· Score: 1
From the wired coverage of this story: 'No one knows exactly why OSx86 appears to be running faster on the PCs than the Mac OS does on today's Macs. "To be honest, we're not sure," said a hacker nicknamed "cmoski," who said he works for a large software company.'
It is a tribute to the Steve Jobs RDF that none of these people are able to voice the most obvious reason -/that PCs are simply faster that Macs/.
Fool's errand/rope-a-dope
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Congratulations, hacking community! Too bad all of your hard work will be rendered meaningless once the *real* OS X/x86 ships on the first x86-based Macs, when you see the *real* method Apple worked up to make sure you cheap fucks have to buy their hardware if you want to run their software.
The cost of developing OS X isn't cheap, you know. Apple's got to make their money back somewhere, and it's gotta be by requiring their hardware to run it-- because you can't download hardware over BitTorrent. They know you bastards who gripe about how $129 is too much for a new version of OS X (when you don't even own a Mac!) would never be willing to pay ~$300 for a fully-supported version that'd run on your generic shitboxes.
Hmmm... I'll just go get the real thing, thanks
by
mildness
·
· Score: 1
After reading this story I briefly thought about doing this hack/theft.
Instead, I went to the Michigan Ave Apple Store three miles away and picked up a Mac Mini, a nice keyboard and a sweet-ass Mighty Mouse for $650 OTD.
Pirated OSx86 is already a success for Apple
by
FLoWCTRL
·
· Score: 1
Whether they intended it or not, and whether they like it or not, this very web page is evidence of a successful viral marketing campaign for Apple's products.
Critics and skeptics have made a lot of good points about the impossibility of piracy as a means to success for Apple's market share. In posting these good points, they contribute to the buzz that is quickly spreading across the 'net. As the buzz buzzes, greater numbers of geeks and hackers become curious and try out OSx86.
While this may not turn into direct sales from the geeks and hackers, those who like Apple's OS may very well recommend to friends, family and possibly even the procurement department for the enterprise whose network they manage, that the next computer purchased be one that runs OSX. Innocent bystanders who come across the Internet buzz may also suddenly be moved to consider Apple systems, when previously they had not.
Anyone who has been to a system administration conference knows that they are about the geekiest place on Earth. Although it may not be the geeks who sign the checks for big hardware orders, it is they who recommend what to buy. Technology companies are well aware of this fact, as evidenced by the vendor exhibitions at these conferences.
Apple should be very happy that people are spending their time to try out their OS, hacked, stolen or otherwise.
shrewd marketing maneuver
by
GebsBeard
·
· Score: 1
This has probably been mentioned but one interesting theory has this "leak" as a clever publicity stunt. Consider:
1. Leak an easily breakable x86 copy of OS X onto the internet.
2. Watch as it gets pirated to the nth degree.
3. Sit back and laugh as everyone gets attuned to using OS X and marvels at its quality, eye candy and stability.
4. Release a locked down version that runs only on Apple x86 hardware.
5. Watch as droves of people go to pick up your hardware after becoming hopelessly addicted to the OS.
Within this thread, there's a lot of talk about Apple deciding to sue or some elaborate explanation of a marketing technique ignoring theft of their operating system.
Hogwash, either or of the proposals!
Have we forgot, that not a single release of MacOS EVER required a product activation code? Not ONE. From MacOS 6 to MacOS Tiger, none of them during install ask for a activation code. Why, exactly would their original sentiment change regardless of hardware? It's also important to note, that there was a time when Apple WAS the big dog and it was hard to imagine they would ever be debunked. Yet, even with that much control, they never asked for an activation code; for those that seem to think Apples decision is based on their mid to late 90s business peril.
Apple has always assumed, perhaps as an explanation, that if you were installing MacOS then the hardware was likely Apples own. But, what about all the other 68k based solutions such as NeXT, Amiga, Atari and IBM workstations? Ah, yes, the ROM... whatever, we can't get around that? Apple has always been impartial about their OS, despite how anal they have appeared about their hardware propriety. Which makes sense, they are in the business of making money, and as a side with their own personal agendas and contracts. Now that they have decided to adopt Intel, I bet it will remain trivial, deductively, to install MacOS X on any ordinary Intel box. And the "why" is not "new", as I've pointed out that Apple has never jumped through fire to protect their OS.
torrent link
by
ThesQuid
·
· Score: 2, Informative
As a PC (x86) user, we always thought people who use Mac's as zeloits, non-geeks, idiot proofed gui, lame....etc..etc...
But, now the idea of putting the mac on x86's seems to bring out some type of OS envey....
People that would never touch a Mac, are sharring PIRATED versions over bittorrent, etc...
Have I been duped? Is the Mac REALLY a usefull OS afterall? Was Steve Jobs right all these years, and Bill Gates distorting MY reality field by the everpresent Windblows computers that could be build for cheap?
I don't know... but one cant help but wonder what took their marketing drones this long to come up with this brilliant way to prove that all the geeks really want to have a bitchen' fast Mac...
I'll stick to my axim for now... gee, if only I could port OS-X to that......;p
-- ---
Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
"Have I been duped? Is the Mac REALLY a usefull OS afterall? Was Steve Jobs right all these years"
yes.
Yeah ... the apple (hardware) experience
by
Fished
·
· Score: 1
Motherboards, chipsets, video cards, hell even computer cases are all part of the Apple experience.
Yeah, I'll say. You've never had the apple experience until you've had a broken hinge on your Titanium powerbook that requires you to unglue (!!) the screen to replace.
Or, for that matter, you've never had the apple experience until you've done body work to pull out the dings on your Aluminum powerbook.
Thanks, but no thanks buddy.:)
-- "He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Could it be... MICROSOFT?
by
Lead+Butthead
·
· Score: 1
I would hope that Apple does not ever release their OS for the standard PC.
I think it's fairly obvious the moment Apple enters PC OS market, Microsoft will discontinue all Office support for OSX. An OS without a killer app is... rather useless.
-- ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Re:Could it be... MICROSOFT?
by
yesheh
·
· Score: 1
Office is not the only killer app for OSx. What about iLife? anyway, iWork can almost replace office for new installations anyway... maybe not for those businesses with a million macros and all, but for most things it should be fine...
Anyone know what eternet cards/chips are supported by Apple, everything else works just dandy. Looks kinda like a tarted up windowmaker with a few enlightenment overtones, kinda lame actually. Oh well my own customzation is always nicer. It just works... who gives a fuck, that's for users.
PenGun
Do What Now ???... Standards and Practices !
Re:What about solaris x86?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Holeee shit, you are an idiot. Truly an idiot. Not only do you criticize someone, but you look down your mac zealot nose at them as if you are the cock of the walk. You are a cock; that much is true...
Listen up, Listen UP(107011): all of the shit you mentioned as working perfectly with your OSX damn well better. It is all standards based, plug and play, best buy sold, "grandma can buy this stuff" hardware. All of the stuff you mentioned works perfectly with Windows as well.
Try this: go buy any of the 457 off-brand nvidia video cards out there. It's easy for an OEM ATI card to work perfectly when it is OEM! I might be mistaken, but I think you can ONLY buy a Mac edition of a video card and have it actually work... and there are three Mac ATI cards versus nine for PC. Of those three, two are G5 ONLY; if you have a G4 you only have one choice for an ATI video card. Yes, that is great hardware support.
Oh, and btw, have fun buying a retail Nvidia card. You can't. You can buy the 6800GT from Apple, and that is about it (unless you want a geforce MX).
Here's the deal: Nvidia gives Apple the driver source code and Apple makes the driver. For one single card. They focus their energy to create a stable driver for one card. A hardware driver is NOT a hardware driver like you think. Many, many hours are spent trying to make a driver work acceptibly with the widest range of weird PC configs out there. And ATI can't make a stable driver for Windows... it will run fine on my PC and blue screen on another just like for no real reason. If they had a smaller and completely known set of configs, the driver would be more stable and more powerful.
You might be correct that OSX is technically and usably superior to Windows... I've never spent more than a few minutes on OSX so can't really remark. I do know that, contrary to what a non-hardware-driver-codewriter like you thinks, it is a lot easier to make a stable driver for a closed system like a Mac.
-- IANAL, but I play one on/.
Re:and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it
by
Johnny+Mnemonic
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The OpenGL windowed applications might suffer performance degradation, but that's another story.
That story is interesting in it's own right. My understanding is that CAD and other visualization tools depend on OpenGL, inasmuch as DirectX sucks for 2D, so assuming all that is true:
Will 2d stop sucking in DirectX?
Will AutoCAD move to DirectX?
Or will AutoCAD instead port to Linux and OS X?
I'd be interested in any observations.
--
-- $tar -xvf.sig.tar
Boot parameter to speed up VMware performance
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Enter boot parameter
platform=X86PC
and MacOSX x86 will be almost usable under VMware (no network support, yet).
OS X is unix-based. It has the same ability to handle hardware that all other unixen do.
Do you mean to say that Linux drivers can be ported to Darwin that easily? Or any other BSD?
It's hard enough sometimes to get the same driver working on different versions of Linux, unless it's got a specific patch for the version you want, or (like almost every driver I've ever needed) it's included in the standard kernel distribution.
I mean, sure, well writen unix apps that actually follow POSIX are ridiculously portable -- some of them even compile and run unmodified on Cygwin on Windows. But porting between kernels really is like porting between OSes -- you may as well say that just because there's a Linux driver, there's automatically a Windows driver. Or a DOS driver.
The only possible exception to this might be Nvidia. Nvidia, in their propeganda/hype, claim that some 95% of their code is shared across OSes. The 5% glue code is probably mostly open source -- I know that something compiles when I install it on Linux. For someone like nvidia, it probably wouldn't be hard at all to make OS X drivers -- in fact, they already have them. But it's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it's unix under the hood.
And, in case you haven't noticed, OS X on x86 is new, not even released yet. Even Darwin on x86 probably (I haven't checked) isn't more than a couple years old, at most. Linux on x86 is over ten years old, going on fifteen. So, with no pro-Mac or anti-Mac zealotry, I don't have any expectation for OS X86 to work on my PC, and I'm not even going to try, as I've got a Powerbook in the mail.
-- Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it
by
PitaBred
·
· Score: 1
Other apps that use windowed GL: Max VNS Blender Wings 3D Solidworks
And those are just off the top of my head. ALL of them will take a massive performance hit from this maneuver by MicroShaft. Direct3D will still suck as an API, DirectX will still suck, and even worse, even though OpenGL will be supported, it'll be frozen at 1.4. There go all your shaders and anything nice you might want to use in OpenGL 2.0 except in a full-screen app (read: games. MS ain't dumb enough to alienate their gamers, but they may just force the professionals to *nix).
But hey, they're MS. Now be a good little consumer and bend over.
Quite believable...
by
Rainer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Apple doesn't have to do much to prevent people from cracking the protection...
They can just create a kernel that runs on their boards only.
Then they overwrite the kernel with each update.
Result: Running OSX on generic hardware is easy enough for the hacker community, but inconvenient enough to make generic users swithch to Apple hardware sooner or later.
I'm glad there's been such a great effort to make this possible... it just makes it much more likely that Apple will employ stricter measures to stop it in a production release. Never seen so many people jump to the conclusion that the desire to keep the OS platform specific is EVIL... not that there might be a reason for it or anything.
1. Convert.dmg to.iso.... How to convert from.dmg to.iso:
Windows 1. Install UltraISO (you can get it here: http://www.ezbsystems.com/ultraiso/) 2. Now run UltraISO Start->Programs->UltraISO->UltraISO 4. After that go to Tools->Convert 5. Input Marklar-Tiger.dmg 6. Output your file to where you want it. Make sure Standard ISO is selected. 7. Click Convert and now your done.
3. Download Darwin Install iso http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/8.0.1/darwinx8 6-801.iso.gz 4. Open the file through WinRAR 5. Browse to System/Library/ in the iso. 6. Drag the extensions folder out into a temporary folder in Windows. Remember where you placed this for later. 7. Now open up the Mac OS x86 install dvd iso in TransMac (http://www.asy.com/sharetm.htm) 8. Browse to System/Library/Extensions in Transmac. 9. Delete IOATAFamily.kext from the Tiger ISO in Transmac. 10. Find the temporary folder with the extensions folder from earlier (from Darwin) in and browse into it. 11. Drag all the folders (first entry should be called ACard62xxM.kext) from the top section ("PC drive") of TransMac into the bottem section ("Mac drive"). Most of these folders are probably not neccessary, until we have narrowed them down all of them will be copied. 12. REMEMBER TO SELECT NO when it asks to replace a file. 13. Now add the folowing files to the ISO: CoreGraphics - http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/CoreGrap hics.tgz/System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.fra mework/Versions/A/Frameworks/CoreGraphics.framewor k/Versions/A/ oah750d - http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/05080721 0250_oah750d-patched.zip/usr/libexec/oah/ DS.Bundle - http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/DS.bundl e.tgz System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/NetInfo.framework /Versions/A/Resources/lookupd/Agents IOHDIXController.kext - http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/IOHDIXCo ntroller.kext.tgz/system/library/extensions 14. Close Transmac and burn! CREDIT GOES TO: MacIntelGuy
Sure, and Sony sells PS2 controllers separately
by
snowwrestler
·
· Score: 1
Sure, and Sony sells PS2 controllers separately--but not for XBox. In Apple's appliance model of computing, each new OS is an accessory sale, not a separate product line.
-- Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Coincidentally... (Target Disk Mode)
by
lullabud
·
· Score: 1
I've been worried about the BIOS. One of the reasons that Apple gets things like Target Disk Mode, and I think the graphical BIOS level boot-loader, is because of Open FirmWare which lets devices provide their own drivers to the bios, rather than having them stored within the BIOS itself. I'm not 100% sure on how it all works, but I do know that no X86 BIOS has Target Disk Mode, which is *invaluable* when you're in a bind. I'm worried about losing that function...
Plenty of words are occasionally seen without being right!
Unix = Unix = Uniplexed Information and Computing System
System takes an S in the plural.
You must understand however that some people prefer to come across as pretentious or just plain confused. For that purpose, "Unixen" is ideal.
-- No, your children are not the special ones.
Nor are your pets.
Runs fine on my ThinkPad T41.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Only needed to move the TPMACPI kext out of the way - it was using 99% cpu. Typing this using Deer Park Firefox pre-release for intel. Everything works: USB, audio. I just dd'ed the vmware image floating around to a spare disk...
This is simply amazing.
Re:Congrats - very, very expensive
by
walter_f
·
· Score: 1
It is a very, very different matter when you want to support every x86 chipset and SCSI controller in the world.
This would be a very, very expensive thing to do.
And, by the way, this might be the reason Microsoft doesn't do drivers at all - they simply pass this task to hardware manufacturers. A "distributed" approach, so to say.
Apple trying to provide drivers for most of the third-party PC hardware out there would be on a safe path to bankruptcy.
Okay, from all those things, Apple makes only the case, the motherboard, and the Firewire. that's it. Lucent, for example, created the Airport, it's got bugger all to do with Apple. Hell, the "Airport" card in my Powerbook is *exactly* the same as a Lucent integrated silver 806.11b wireless card, except for *one* thing... the PB is designed *not* to work with the Lucent brand card, and the Airport is designed *not* to work with anything but an Apple.
Sure, they *choose* their stuff reasonably well, and I'm a supporter of Apple, I own over twenty Macintosh computers, ranging from an Apple 1 board, to a dual processor 2.5Ghz G5 Powermac. but please, will you *learn* this crap before you write it? I know it would make you unique on Slashdot, but come on....
Also, that's a crap comparison... there is a huge difference in the price comparison between A) a Lexus and a Kia, and B) an Apple and a Dell, the ratios are completely off. And I mean, by miles.;)
Oh, a *noone*, and I mean *noone* should buy a Kia. I ride a 70s Ural, a cheap Russian bike, I bought it in pieces for about $300, and hell, I'd rather have that than a Kia.
That's a completely different sort of project.
by
porkchop_d_clown
·
· Score: 1
Cloning the Windows APIs has nothing to do with processor emulation.
Re:That's a completely different sort of project.
by
polyp2000
·
· Score: 1
neither was his post. It was concerned with windows compatibility which is not quite the same thing.
-- Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
wear appropriate protective gear
by
edxwelch
·
· Score: 1
I take it a condom isn't considered "appropriate protective gear"
Apple doesn't make Apple computers. Asustek does.
by
delire
·
· Score: 1
Asustek and Quanta do it for them, and they will continue to do so for the x86 range. There are rumours one can buy 'unbadged' Apple machines out the back door in Taiwan. Apple however does design the machines other companies make for them. How much Asustek's own x86 offerings will differ from the MacIntel's is, however, to be debated.
If you can point me to a PC manufacturer that makes well designed and high quality products like Apple does than I'd be very much obliged.
You can find native x86 Asustek similes of the 12" iBook here. See the gallery. This may be but a badge away from the MacIntel you'll be buying next year. It's a fabulous and rugged machine by the way, albeit sold out here in the EU.
IE6 'crashed' your hard disk ?!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>>installing IE6 caused a hard drive crash
Any you are seriously blaming an IE6 install for your hard drive crashing?
Software doesn't 'crash' hard disks you fucking numbnut! A hard disk crash is a *mechanical* failure. Your drive probably crashed because it was a cheap piece of Maxtore shit or something.
Jeezus! You web monkeys are such fucking tech-gods!
Go back and play with your crayons and leave the technical people alone.
Re:IE6 'crashed' your hard disk ?!!!
by
telbij
·
· Score: 1
Software doesn't 'crash' hard disks you fucking numbnut! A hard disk crash is a *mechanical* failure. Your drive probably crashed because it was a cheap piece of Maxtore shit or something.
Okay, my hard drive didn't crash, the boot blocks were scrambled. I reformatted the hard drive and reinstalled Win98, tried to install again and the same thing happened. Sure it was because of cheap hardware, but so what? This is the same inbred pedantry that led to my response in the first place. I'm guessing you didn't do too good on the reading comprehension portion of the ACT...
I got my BS in CSCI taking all graduate level courses for my upper division classes. I've built a ray tracer and a radiosity renderer, a compiler for a subset of Java, ethernet emulation in software, among other things. I work on the web because that's where the demand is these days, and allows for some creativity.
What are you, a fucking sysadmin? Do you even write code?
You're wrong, wrong, wrong - in so many ways!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
If you knew anything about Apple, or Microsoft, or the long-standing relationship they have, you'd never make such an ill-thought-out statement.
MS and Apple coexist quite nicethly thank you (despite the marketing rhetoric) and neither party wants to rock the other's boat.
That would be bad for both of them, but particularly bad for Apple.
Re:The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is fau
by
OSXCPA
·
· Score: 1
"Apple's CORE USERS don't need or want Warez."
Yes, I am generalizing. Deliberately.
My point was simply that using piracy as a distribution or marketing method is not likely to help them, as Apple's core users have already demonstrated that they are less price-sensitive than X86 users. Witness - when Quark came out for the PC, some of the users went to the cheaper platform. Some did not. What does that tell you about the ones who stayed? The ones who 'needed' a Mac for a particular Mac-only software title left as the PC took off, and at this point, is there any reason to stay with Macs just for application 'X'? No - one of the biggest complaints against Macs is that there are relatively fewer software packages written for it. So why do the core users stay? They like the whole "Apple way".
PS - I did not say, nor do I believe, that Mac users are morally superior to Windows users, nor do I suggest that Macs don't have any problems with virii and such, and sure, there's piracy. Both platforms have these problems, and they are not relevant to this thread.
What is relevant is what the 'core users' of each 'system' consider a priority: lower price sensitivity in Mac users implies price incentives will be less effective, in general, for Mac users than they will be for windows users. Hence, 'free' software is less likely to entice the Mac users, in general.
And yes, I've only been a Mac owner since 1998. So? Using a system for 7 years, I *might* have learned something about it. Maybe not as much as some, but hey... if it helps, I first started using Macs in 1989-92 when I was a newspaper reporter, then assistant editor. We ran Quark. I liked them then, too, but I couldn't afford one of my own. I had to wait until I got a real job to 'switch' my personal machine.
Buzz? Look at me I am l33t, is not Buzz.
by
guidryp
·
· Score: 1
The only people bothering are teen l33t boys (of any age), who post things like I got to work on my boxen..., then it is back to building their collection of pirated Appz/Gamez and PrOn.
I don't see anyone seriously running their system on this. This is simply a case of "I can do it" no recomendations are going to come from this. The people who DL and install this are not going to leave behind all those wonderful windows piracy tools and start actually running OSX.
Any recommendation from this group will probably be along the lines of it doesn't have much warez available.
Here is a startling thought. Millions of people actually use a Mac with OSX every day as their main machine. They are more likely to generate buzz than a pimply faced geek who tried it for 5 minutes just to say he could get it running.
I have read many claims of getting OSX running all sounded like teenage boasts to me. No sign from anyone that they actually plan to use it.
I wonder how OSX for x86 might actually benefit linux. Might this open up the possibilities of using device drivers intended for OSX intel under linux via some sort of wrapper? conversely does this open up the possibility of running OSX applications under linux via an equivalent "WINE" type project - perhaps with some sort of darwin runtime layer?
Anyone care to comment on what kinds of symbiotic benefits this might bring?
Certainly "Darwine" just got a big helping hand;)
Nick...
-- Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Re:The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is fau
by
snuf23
·
· Score: 1
If you'd like to define "core users" I would be happy to hear what you mean. Given that the users I'm talking about are Mac loving, Mac breathing, Mac owning and using both at home and a work for their entire lives. I'm talking about people that consistently buy Apple and consistently use Apple. People that would never consider doing otherwise. I should note that many of the ones I know have eMacs at home because their budgets could not afford PowerMac G5s. Oh and the other ones mostly have lower cost iBooks. A few have iMacs and only one I know of has a G5 at home (he does video work on the side). Price is an issue to Mac users - that's why Jobs offers lower cost options and has for years.
-- Sometimes my arms bend back.
iPod sticker says it all.
by
nuckin+futs
·
· Score: 1
Apple put a friggin sticker on the iPod to say "don't steal music". Do you think they will go out of their way to make sure that their OS can't be hacked or run in some non-Apple hardware?
Re:and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it
by
Moridineas
·
· Score: 1
Uhm...how do you know that the hit will be massive?
Not to mention, how many games do you know that use OpenGL?
Re:The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is fau
by
OSXCPA
·
· Score: 1
Again, my point is only that Mac users are less price-sensitive than X86. Someone who was truly price-sensitive would go to X86 and buy a beige box, not an eMac or Mini.
Even the Mini is more expensive than a similarly equipped X86 box.
If price is less of a consideration for Mac users, as is my contention, then piracy is less attractive.
this just paves the way for a MacMiniX86
by
rc3105-Riley
·
· Score: 1
possible featureset:
2ghz P4
256 ram, 40G hd
bring your own mouse/kb/mon/peripherals (hope for good drivers or buy apple certified devices)
anti-virus utils in rom (crypto verifies a signed kernel to prevent rootkits) + included with os
OS-X with a year's worth of updates for os + antivirus with subsequent monthly / yearly subs avail
$499
even starving college students could afford one - they'd sell faster than Apple could build 'em.
Dell, HP & Gateway could do HP-ipod style licensing so Apple gets paid w/o having to invest in massive manufacturing capacity (just gotta keep a close eye on licensee quality control). folks would KNOW that any box with an Apple sticker is rock solid (dude, I got an Apple-Dell!) and businesses could rely on good hardware with excellent support
bigger/faster macs would of course be more expensive, but Apple could start taking some real marketshare
You want ito reduce this to a simple thing that bolsters your position. Understood.
It isn't simple, there are many more than three issues, and you are deliberatly eliminating context. I understand that you would like to erase some of your earilier remarcks and perhaps dissociate yourself from the remarks made by others who take your position but I will address them nevertheless. Additionally your three simple points that you want to reduce this too are not sufficiently independent issues to pose them as you have.
Equating software and hardware-software service combinations with garden tools is a mistake. If enough people make the same mistake then the public in general will suffer the consequences.
Your view of and analogies with products and services is deliberately over simplified in order to make a destructive approach sound reasonable. In spite of the current market conditions and the 95% market share obtained through illegal means by a company that is still unchained you want to squash the remaining competitors with your self serving view of the rules which are ignored by the company who's behavior you indirectly idealize in your argument. Even though you probably don't intend it you are being a shill.
I understand what you want the law to be, how you want future court cases to be settled and how you would like to believe that the great masses agree with your superficial morality. You have constructed a world view to rationalize doing things at someone elses expense without regard for the consequenses for them and other people. The heart of this seemingly rational disposition is twisted and destructive.
The customer is not right when the customer steals. If its legal to put software on another machine then it is. What's your point ? The problem is that whatever the law is people who gather behind your banner will whine about the situation until they can make every business provide service on their terms under force of law. I doubt that laws like this will serve the public interest in the long term.
This isn't about MS and Apple per se. Its about them because they are all thats left in viable service providers for the desktop. If you and yours have your way there will soon be nothing left but MS and Linux. If you think that this combination provides a viable path into the future of a technology in its infance then you are mistaken, You need to think about the reality of the situation rather than about the cohesiveness of your rational disposition.
Finally, and to be a bit repetitive, there is no merit, honor, or morality in arguing for rules that you consider to be ideal in a game with a thousand pound gorrilla that ignores your rules with your implicit blessing.
I don't know where you get the idea from that I am either pro MS, anti Apple, or in favour of piracy, or stealing or any of these things. I am not. I am also generally strongly opposed to whining. I also do not think Apple has any obligation, legal or moral, to make its software generally available on non-Apple machines.
I am only saying, and this will be my last word, that if they do not want to do this, as the law stands, their only recourse is to make it technically impossible. They cannot, as the law stands, prevent it by conditions of sale. Like it or lump it, those are the facts.
Margaret Fuller: I have decided to accept the universe.
Thomas Carlyle: Madam, you'd better!
Apple's hidden ajenda?
by
SwitchToAMac
·
· Score: 1
- Did Apple intentionally release the developer version of OS X so that it could be hacked?
- Was Apple's ajenda to get current users of Windows and other OS's to try Mac OS X?
The fact that OS X has been hacked could be a blessing in disguise for Apple as it has potentially exposed OS X to an untold number of users. I'm sure that when OS X is offically released for X86, it won't be as easy to hack. What Apple may have done here is to get more people excited about OS X and this may draw more users to the platform once the Mactels are released. Either way, more people are going to get their hands dirty by playing with OS X and I'm sure many will find it appealing. I think that Apple has more to win here than loose as it will bring more "switchers" to OS X.
The fact that OS X has been hacked could be a blessing in disguise for Apple as it has potentially exposed OS X to an untold number of users.
I would give my testimonial to that effect. I had actually switched away from Macs in favor of AMD and Athlons. But I am interested in tinkering around with OS X, and who knows... considering on how it turns out, I'd be in the market to add a Mac to my heard by the end of this year.
-- To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Re:The "Piracy is good for Apple" reasoning is fau
by
snuf23
·
· Score: 1
I still don't agree. Consider, if someone is buying an eMac or Mac Mini because it's the cheapest Mac they can get, then they are also likely to want to save money by not paying for the software. This is what I have seen, for example with designers just entering the business. They don't make a lot of money, but they need a Mac to do work at home. I believe piracy has more to do with convenience and an individuals income. The more disposable income you have, the less you are going to care about piracy. On the other hand most people will take a free copy of software if it's given to them. A good example would be Mac OS X Tiger, which I've seen pirated extensively. Another example would be the student discounts that Apple gives out. At least four times in the last two months I've talked to someone who purchased a Mac for themselves but took a student in with them to the store to get the discounts or free ipod. And everyone seems to buy the student/teacher version of MS Office. They don't care that the license is supposed to be for use in education. They just see $150$400 for the same program.
-- Sometimes my arms bend back.
I'm using it now to post this :)
by
dave420
·
· Score: 1
It works, and works really well.
I have a prescott, so rosetta works unpatched. It can run iTunes, for example, perfectly. I downloaded that off the apple website.
The GUI is really quick, even though I don't have drivers for my graphics card (geforce). Sound, USB, FireWire, ATA, Networking all work perfectly.
I even have it dual-booting with my XP, and I didn't have to re-install XP or use another boot-loader to accomplish it, either. It was a very straight-forward process, involving a port of DD, a spare hard disk, and a couple of hours time.
aaah!:)
Apple hardware is NOT expensive
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When I was looking for a 12" portable I wanted a brand name computer. The Powerbook 12 and especially the iBook 12 are so far below the price of any PC laptop it's spooky.
So not only did I save money by buying Apple, I got a fully working BSD Unix box atraight off the bat - instead of buying a PC + Microsoft tax and then spending ages getting Linux to support all the peripherals and sleep mode.
My experience therefore of running Apple is that they have saved me a huge amount of time and money - plus the powerbook 12 (which I eventually got) is extremely cool, has excellent screen and sound and the scroll-pad feature just makes it so pleasant to use..
Re:and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it
by
PitaBred
·
· Score: 1
Because they said so. Massive will limit any opengl in a window to OpenGL 1.4. It's in the damn specs. So that hamstrings any app that wants to use the new OpenGL 2.0 features.
Secondly, let's see: Unreal Tournament, anything from id software off the top of my head. But that's neither here nor there... they run in full-screen, so they aren't limited by the massive (or whatever it's called) framework. It's the apps that do windowed 3D that have the problem.
If that doesn't explain it to you, nothing will.
Re:and I bet geeks pirate it more than pay for it
by
Moridineas
·
· Score: 1
Ah yes, because "they said so"... they being not microsoft, who, at this point, are really the only ones who know anything.
And yet
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm told that many PC video cards can be used in MACs as well as some other peripherals. Yeah, some video cards have a hardware mod or two in order to prevent the cheaper PC stuff from being dropped in but overall it's the same thing and apparently has been for awhile. The only thing valid here I see is that Apple has limited choices as best they can in order to only have to support a limited amount of hardware and to charge as much as they can.
How about Apple just go ahead and release this for X86 white boxes and let some of the peripheral manufacturers step up with the drivers. Think it wouldn't happen? It would quite quickly I'd bet - release it with announced support for only those companies who stepped up and let the rest scramble. It would make it pretty easy to decide between say an NVIDIA card or an ATI if only one had built drivers. It wouldn't be perfect but it would sell OSX like mad to all of us who use Windows but would prefer a desktop OS like OSX and want to skip the hassles of Linux. Oh wait, Apple won't be able to rape the consumer as easily for their hardware. Guess it won't happen...
Slashdot Mirror
The TPM chip has a very fast SHA-1 implementation on it. Apparently this helps a lot with Rosetta.
-mkb
It seems to me like there would be lots and lots of driver issue with installing on a regular PC...
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
skepticism ignored... but emoticons? there is no excuse.
I have always wanted to try out on my Intel box and my dream is finally coming true. I hope Steve learns a lesson from this and does not put DRM in the official version
I have heard good things about iLife and iCalendar..
I have heard that GNAA is trying to troll the P2P networks with an OSX_x86 torrent. Just a heads-up to anyone, prepare to be disappointed.
Does this mean I can get a copy of OS X and run it under VMware on my PC? I hope I have better luck with that than Darwin under VMware.
has anybody actually gotten this working and posted screenshots?
they get it running on toasters
yesterday...
Mac OS X Running on Non-Apple Hardware
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Thursday August 11, @10:20AM
When did Zonk gain access to CmdrTaco and "ScuttleMonkey"s logins?
Apple should take note of this surge of interest and really consider selling the OS only. I know I'd line up to buy one.
However, could this be just a hacker interest simply because it's the "latest and greatest challenge"?
I hear the sound of incoming Apple Lawyers.
I've suspected this was Apple's plan since the Intel announcement. They're going into direct competition with Microsoft.
About damn time.
and I'll say it again: Apple wants OS X to be pirated. First, you pirate OS X and start to like it, then next time you go to buy a computer you choose an Apple because, hey, you get some advantages to running a legit copy and you can still dual boot Windows or Linux if you want.
Apple should start sending out OS X on CD AOL-style. If they really are a hardware company, that will sell them a lot of hardware later on. If they're really smart, they'll send out Panther on CD to everyone. People will pirate Tiger anyway, but that would at least get OS X onto computers that would otherwise have never pirated it, then those people can buy Apple hardware in a year or two when they upgrade.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Running OS X on a Dell is like putting race car parts in your Yugo. You can, it is sort of funny, but... why?
Apple has to realize that there is a demand for their software of the x86 PC. Obviously, there would be problems if they had to support all the varieties of x86 PC hardware, but they could at least try to provide a version that works for the customers willing to use it.
I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that I'm preaching to.
Try this with Mac OS X when it's officially relased on x86 Macs. I'm sure they'll get it working, but Apple will lock it down somehow.
For those who are interested in learning more about Rosetta.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Ok I'm naïve on the politics of this, so my post is more of a question than a answer. I know this is an argument that has gone back and forth, but here goes again...
Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands? Sure, it might detract from them selling hardware (short term), but I can honestly say for me (average Joe) I've never purchased a Mac because they simply don't have the software titles I'm interested in and Windows does. I mean sure, they've got great stuff, but they lack in GAMES, yes games... I've said it, gotten it out. I'm a gamer and so are all of my friends. I'd venture to say a good chunk of those purchasing PC's are in the same group as me (surf the web and play games). So if the Apple OS became more popular, wouldn't more developers consider making a version of their game in the Apple OS flavor? Would it lead to an increase in dupe stories/comments?
This was surely the inevitable conclusion of Apple's x86 port all along? So if they knew the OS was going to be cracked and widely redistributed on the 'net, one wonders why they didn't just go ahead and offer ISO9660 images or links to BitTorrents of them on their own site. Looks like they missed an incredibly good opportunity to heighten public opinion of the company for no obvious reason.
I'm very interested to see performance numbers. I am a mac and linux person, and I think it is pretty much accepted that tools aren't quite as snappy on Mac OS X as on pc's. I'm interested to see if that is true on an apples to apples comparison. (That said, there is more to life than being snappy)
Wrong on both counts.
That was classic intercourse!
That's why you should read the title:
More OS X on Plain Old x86 Boxes.
Because that was one person getting it to run on a Toshiba laptop, this other guy got it onto a Sony. So two different people, or just two different laptops, getting it onto regular PC hardware.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wouldn't it benefit Apple in the long run to get more of its software into the public's hands?
Apple is clearly a hardware company, and so they make most of their money from selling hardware. Thus it's very unlikely that Apple would want to support generic x86 boxes.
But Apple has an interesting opportunity here. If they simply ignored people running unlicensed x86 copies, but prevented else anyone selling pre-installed Macs, then they probably wouldn't lose much business. The people who are willing to install MacOS themselves are unlikely to be the people who'd buy Mac hardware in the first place.
However, Apple would gain a lot of mindshare with the kids and with the technically savvy who are happy installing their own OS. In the long run, this will bring many more people to Apple hardware, and to influence their parents/family/employers to buy the supported Apple products.
Seems like Apple can't lose here. They didn't even do anything and they got this posted twice! Just like Google.
-Fzz
It seems to me that the philospophy behind OS X DRM is exactly the same as ITMS DRM - the DRM is just there to say "we'd rather you not do that" but they don't take a lot of steps to stop the people that work around it.
Really this makes the most sense. Any kind of DRM is going to be broken eventually, so it makes sense to do a quick and cheap effort to stop casual users but not to expend a huge amount of money or time on an effort that is, in the end, futile.
So the shipping version will also probably have some light protections on it but I'm sure it will be cracked and spread shortly.
The interesting thing I read is that as a result of being able to run this on other boxes, people are writing new drivers for devices not covered before - if the source for these drivers is public it could drive more devices to work under OSX (even on the PPC) than did before!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How do you make OS X run snappier? Install it on an Intel-based machine!
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
So simple.
Get tiger-x86.tar.bz2
Open
Ignore everything but tiger-x86-flat.img.
dd that to a raw drive, the partition is in the image.
Boot to it.
Enjoy
It's possible that Apple made it fairly easy to hack the prerelease. Think about it. Release an easily hackable version early on. Get lots of people running it then tighten things up as time goes on.
I were Apple I'd release a preview version that installed any where.
IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
Quick! Post observations which were modded up on this same topic yesterday! You will the t3h insightful!!!!1!eleventyone!!!
Yay, dupes!
Apples work well because they are made and controlled by apple.
:)
When was the last time you struggled to find a driver for something that came preinstalled with your mac - most likely never. Yet i need a plethora of disks and downloads to get my dell machine running.
The current situation is probably the best case for apple. People will run a hacked osx, but if driver support sucks then they'll assume "we'll OSX is cool, and when i get real apple hardware it'll run far better"
Whereas if they officially release it, then people will assume "OSX is cool, but it's pretty flaky"
If apple's can dual boot windows and cost less than the price of osx more than dells, then they should be set
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
When did Zonk gain access to CmdrTaco and "ScuttleMonkey"s logins?
Zonk = Michael
Where are these people getting drivers? My guess is this story is complete FUD. Look at Sun.. Solaris x86 cant really compete in the same market as the other x86 unix variants. Why? No hardware support. Just because you can load the kernel doesnt mean you can use any of your fancy video cards, and the like, unless someone writes a driver.
Apple should start sending out OS X on CD AOL-style.
No. They should not do that. Please no. Actually they should just release the thing like Linux, over torrents, if you ask me. But it will never happen. How would they explain the move to their stockholders? I mean really -- how do you explain a risky plan like that? "We are giving our merchandise away in hopes we will make up for losses with hardware sales." Many stock holders will applaud it. But what of the little old Granny who doesn't understand Open Source? It would be a nightmare for them...
But who knows. Maybe software distrobution is going to end up going that way anyway. If AJAX has it's way with us, we'll be skipping the OS layer altogether soon enough!!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Just like Microsoft got rich by allowing distribution of pirated windows.
Then, if at the appropriate time (let's say 4 or 5 months from now) they OFFICIALLY RELEASE Mac OS/X for Intel platforms...
The heck, release TWO versions: "Official Mac" (which is obviously going to be cheaper), and "Broad Intel".
And I, for one, would welcome our new Apple Overlords. And no, I'm not kidding.
HAXED! lOlz! LoLZ! haxornated!
From the wired coverage of this story: 'No one knows exactly why OSx86 appears to be running faster on the PCs than the Mac OS does on today's Macs. "To be honest, we're not sure," said a hacker nicknamed "cmoski," who said he works for a large software company.'
If someone can make a simple VMWare i386 image that has OSX installed on it, THEN I will believe this.
If its true, let them make the VMWare image and then I will download it and look.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
Alright, I've seen this argument a number of times, and for some reason people forget that OS X is unix-based. It has the same ability to handle hardware that all other unixen do.
In the above statements, if you could substitute the word "Linux" or "NetBSD" for every occurrence of Macintosh, and not sound like some sort of raving lunatic, I'd be surprised.
I don't understand how Linx and xBSDs can be expected to "run everywhere" on everything, yet, for some reason OS X, a very pretty GUI that is supported by the same technology as the other Unixes, is excluded from that. It just mystifies me.
Maybe it's just anti-Mac zealotry.
Reeses
What a coincidence. The same "random" thought can be found here from a similar article just a few days back.
I can't get it to run on my beige colored, sharp metal finger slicing and dicing case that reads "66" on the outside and has a 486-DX Intel on the inside. Nevermind that I'm using "Stacker" to double my disk drive storage amount so that I have enough space to triple boot (DOS, Win95 beta, and now a Mac OS)...maybe it will work on a plain new x86
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
It better run on my Athlon 64!
I see some people have this running in VMWare , but how about Virtual PC? Anyone?
believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
You goddamn moron.
They wouldn't release it officially for free because they are selling (renting) $999 Intel Developer Kits, and who would buy those if you could just get the whole thing for free?
So sorry to exapand your vocabulary.
From Wikipedia:
"The Anglo-Saxon plural form "Unixen" is not common, although occasionally seen."
Reeses
Will it run Linux?
Oh wait...
Michael Sims was actually fired from slashdot a while ago. Check your the "Authors" list in your slashdot "Homepage" preferences. Michael's gone (thank god).
Could anyone tell me how to become a kernel hacker? What would be the route? I know how to use Unix effieciently, but how to make the next step to really understand what's happening under the hood?
What does SHA-1 have to do with instruction translation?
i could mod the entire thread "redundant"
This way Apple can make money by selling legitimate copies of OS X to the geek/hacker/developer community, and not have to worry about fully supporting the operating system for the average computer user. This version would, after all, be for "development purposes only".
It would also have a legitimate purpose for Apple, too: It would further encourage software development for the company's MacIntel line.
The hacker/geek community gets to build their own gray box OS X systems, and Apple still makes most of its money with average computer users through its hardware. Furthermore, more software is developed by independent programmers. Everybody wins.
Okay, so Apple may not have to implement any DRM type scheme here, AND not have to support all hardware under the sun. They can do like any other x86 vendor does - here's what we sell. Our OS runs on this just fine. If you don't have drivers for YOUR system, that's an awful shame, but not really our problem, since it's not our hardware. We support OS what we sell _on what hardware we sell it_. Now, you may be able to build a system using similar enough hardware to what Apple sells, and that's okay - as long as you've bought a legal copy of the OS. :)
I'm _seriously_ jonesing for a Yonah-based 12" PowerBook. *Homer Simpson drooling sound here*
Hello, Peter. What's happening? We need to talk about your TPS reports.
PAGERANK++ Robsell.com
We have seen this time and time again in the computer industry: commodity hardware puts niche makers out of business. SGI toyed with Intel architecture, about a month before going belly up. DEC Alphas. Sega couldn't compete in the console market, and instead turned their efforts into porting their trademarks (e.g. Sonic) to other systems. Nintendo will soon follow, or die. Apple is just the latest in a very long list to have their hardware market commoditized right out from under them. They have some very cool software products that many people seem to like (iTunes notwithstanding). Maybe they can turn into a software only company, or a services-oriented company that gives their software away for free.
People are going to wonder what's wrong with it
What you can do is charge for it, if it's good enough to charge for, or else "let" people steal it. The last bit is the really really clever bit of marketing.
I run a rather successful software business (for the niche, mind you), and early on made the decission not to copy protect the software per se, but to personalize each copy sold with a user name. This way, anyone who wants to steal it can, but will have to look at someone else's name every time they start it. If they can live with that, they either can't afford the software anyway, and are welcome to it - it's assistive technology, which no-one sane or normal uses for "fun" - or they are just the kind of people who don't pay for software, and never will, so why bother trying to stop them?
Make it easy for them to steal it: The thrill will make it seem even sweeter to the last category - the people who just have to try stuff - and make them love, and thus recommend, it even more. You can't stop them anyway, and trying is only going to make them mad and negative.
People interested in installing this should checkout IRC SERVER irc.osbetaarchive.com CHANNEL #osx86 , they are the source of the release and can help with installation issues !
What is one to do if they don't wanna buy a new computer but don't wanna pirate?
why is pirating a forgone conclusion? I'm old fashion I guess and I think it's stealing. I don't even copy cds
The fact remains that prices of OS X and bundled applications are relatively low compared to their MSFT/Windows Third-party counterparts. This is due to the fact that the development of that software is subsidized by hardware purchases.
Apple does not care if you upgrade from Puma, Jaguar or Panther to Tiger as long as you are installing on hardware that is compatible with it.
They also do not enforce any form of copy protection to prevent you from installing on multiple machines because the "trust" users. That is a different philosophy from how MSFT does business.
These actions are a spit in the face of that very same company that not only trusts its users but also contributes to open source projects.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
"There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling!"
Any OS will be more reliable, secure, and just plain work better if it can be tweaked carefully for the exact hardware configuration it's running on. Linux and Unix allow anyone, including the end user, to customize their configuration to the exact hardware it's running on. It's not exactly easy though, is it?
Apple takes the opposite tack to achieve the same end result--rather than complete freedom to customize the software, they strictly limit the hardware.
Either way, the end result is a product in which the software and hardware are closely matched. Apple's way produces a much more limited set of final products, but at very little effort to the end user. Linux provides a lot more freedom, but at considerable cost to the user in terms of expertise or time.
But Microsoft tries to have it both ways. In order to realize the vast economy of scale that makes it so profitable, Windows is written once to accomodate a wide variety of hardware configurations. And you can't tweak it or modify it. So the end result is a generic software config running on generic hardware. It will never work as well as a dedicated OS on known hardware.
Finally it's important to understand Apple's approach to computing...they sell computers. Not computer parts. You can't buy a DVD player or a digital TV without its operating system, and you can't buy the operating system without the hardware. It's an appliance--you plug it in and use it. That's how Apple (Jobs) views computers, and it's why they won't license their OS. You might as well ask Sony to licence the OS running on their DVD player.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
My guess is that you don't know what FUD means.
To the ones bitching over the (very very low, IMHO) possibility that Apple will NOT release OS-X for generix x86:
It's theirs. They made it. They can do with it whatever they want. They have that right. If you don't like it, go code a better OS yourself or something, but don't bitch at them - that only makes you sound like a kid who can't get his/her way.
Or in playground terms: It is indeed their ball, and they can take it home with them if they feel like it.
Yes, it's software, so you can copy it without taking the original away from someone, but that it still stealing. Just because you want it, doesn't mean that you have a right to have it - no matter how much you want it.
Subject says it all.
Isn't the only version out so far the one shipped with dev kits? We could assume that various programs and features aren't complete yet, including the security allowing which hardware it'll run on.
He was referring to the last time Slashdot posted a story about there being a copy of OSX for x86 on BitTorrent. The disc booted up, into a full screen image of the Goatse guy. So, the GNAA managed to get slashdot to not only post the story, but have an untold number of people spend several hours doing nothing but downloading a goatse picture.
I haven't heard anything about the GNAA trying that again, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did release it again, with the intention of fooling some of the people downloading to download their image again. That's all the grandparent poster was trying to say.
Yeah, I did a little more looking around and discovered Solder Fumes was not being a GNAA Troll himself. I already attached another post to his to directly apologize to him.
And at the cost of karma, I hope my previous post gets modded down, so I don't cause any confusion by my knee jerk reaction.
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
hahahaha!! now this is funny!
- - - - - .
This sounds just like a set of open-source bomb defusing instructions I read:
1. Remove bomb housing
2. Unscrew blasting cap cover, counter-clockwise
3. Locate red wire with a white stripe
4. Cut red wire with white stripe near blast cap connector
5. Now the bomb should be defused, but before you begin, move the bomb to a remote, secured area and wear appropriate protective gear.
That means it's a followup. Ans *that* means it should be on Slashback instead of on a sepparate "new" story. Call me anal but they brought Slashback back for a reason.
Apple is not a hardware company, they are an image company.
If what you say is true then that should be extremely easy to test. Disassemble the TCPM driver, see what on earth it's doing. Remove it, and see what breaks. If you want to get really fancy replace the TCPM driver with a dummy driver that just waits for someone to call it, and then logs this so you know what in the OS is using TCPM and why.
However, they will never officially support it for non-Macs. The support costs alone would be unendurable trying to assist people will thousands of outdated and incompatible hardware issues. Not to mention the thousands of drivers that do not exist.
On the flip side... If Apple made is so you could us OS X as your desktop if you put for a bit of effort on your own, but you could never go to apple for support they would gain a market share in the shadows of people getting familiar with OS X.
Then of course this would hope to encourage the purchase of new OS X apps and the purchasing of a real Mac computer down the road.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I gather that the Dell Optiplex line is designed for that. They make models with limited configuration options precisely so that you can have a better idea of what's inside. But they don't, to my knowledge, have any software designed to track the changes over time or ensure that somebody hasn't added a forbidden video card/hard drive/game controller/etc.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, since we know once they pirate the OS, they are going to run out a buy lots of applications.
No, this is not in Apples interest and they do not want their OS pirated.
If you can point me to a PC manufacturer that makes well designed and high quality products like Apple does than I'd be very much obliged. Apple provides everything from a quality motherboard, quality case and parts (i.e. power supply and cooling fans that aren't 100db, etc.), and a simple and elegant design that is not only aesthetic but extremely functional. All brought to you buy a company that gives you decent customer support and you know will be around for a while. Again, if you can find me a PC manufacturer that comes close, that would be great because I'm in the market for one and I can't stand the crap I'm seeing (from Dell to Alienware). I know Apple's aren't perfect, but they are far closer to what I want in a computer from a hardware standpoint, x86 or not.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Like SGI, Apple should have the similarity between common x86 hardware and Apple specific x86 hardware end at the CPU pins. Just because Apple wants to use x86 CPU's does not mean they have to let anything else from the CPU pins back be common x86 compatible. That would easily solve the pirating problem.
How many of the millions of AOL customers do you think asked "What's wrong with it?"
Oh. Right...
Gabriel Ricard
Well, yeah, I suppose that "Unixen" would make sense if UNIX was a word with some sort of secret Anglo-Saxon heritage. However, it isn't the case.
It's about as reasonable as saying that "school bi" is the Latin plural of School bus. Perhaps the reason that "Unixen is not common, although occasionally seen" is there is always some dolt out there following their own rules of pluralization, rather than those that are commonly accepted by others.
But I rather like the idea of building my system from the ground up. Choosing my Mobo, CPU, RAM, GPU, etc. I like having that level of Quality Control. I'd also like to have a Posix or Unix Based OS, for stability, speed and security, while at the same time retaining a user friendly interface (nothing relying on Xfree or Xorg is ever going to be user friendly). Windows 2003, and Linux, and The BSDs are my only real options right now on x86.
When I look at the Apple configurations, I think; "I'd rather have more speed and greater amount of RAM than what is offered, and a higher Capacity SATA drive, and a Dual Core AMD processor." Possibly have My mac Running in a Blue case with Neon Lights, whatever.
Fact is I'd rather have it built by my own two hands, because I take a good bit of pride in that. Sadly for me and people like me, there really is no good option.
Check it out here folks,
A desktop video of it running on a P4
http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=osx86
enjoy
'Faster' is completely subjective.
Faster than the latest dual CPU G5 offerings? I doubt it.
Faster than the iBooks and Powerbooks running on 167mhz busses -- well, obviously.
no, this is still freeloading.
just because it is a developer release that is not yet for sale does not mean it is a free for all. you are not entitled to have it just because you have mad warez finding skillz. that's like going and stealing a concept car and saying it had to be done because you were not allowed to buy it. Apple released these machines and this version of the OS a year in advance to make it a smooth transition. that will make my life easier as a Mac user. sorry if i feel no empathy for x86 box owning pirates.
all this will do is make apple tighten up their developers.
if this happens in the wild it will probably also mean that Apple will start using serial numbers or some authentication for their OS releases (and iLife and all the other Apple stuff that is currently not protected). honestly i have bought every version of OS X going back to 10.0 and i used to buy some of the classic versions of the OS. i really liked that i did not have to do all kinds of validation to run it. i was genuinely paying for it as i was supposed to, and Apple seemed to be content with leaving it at that. Apple users seem to buy a lot of copies of the OS. their incoming money from OS X are significant enough that they mention them in quarterly earnings reports. i realize that they spend a ton of money on creating the OS, so who knows how much of it is actually profit? it's hard to argue when the same OS runs on so many machines (including 5 year old ones). the development is spread out over soooo much hardware.
The ONLY people who would hack OS X and get it installed on non-Apple hardware are the same people who don't want to shell out money for Apple hardware/software. Therefore, they will always continue to steal it. And this is NO THREAT to Microsoft, because I doubt seriously these technically-minded hackers are using Windows in the first place. Rather they have cheap PC hardware and a free distro OS.
This is not an ingenius plan by Apple to subversively take over the market. Rather it is harmful to their business and illegal. You can bet that things like this will only act as mobilizing forces for companies to embrace DRMs and trusted computing - because assholes break licensing agreements and steal software.
Even the biggest corporation has my support if someone's stealing what they created and using it for poorly thought-out reasons.
iTunes+DRM is important to protect the music industry's intellectual property. And you know what? THEY'RE RIGHT. If you have a problem with it - go buy a non-DRM CD. Thanks to music downloads, CDs are much cheaper these days. But don't expect the ease and organization of a downloaded song, and don't expect to get it so quickly. And don't expect freebies like music videos with your purchase.
Similarly, trusted computing will come into force in PART as a result of the same people who hate TC. Got a problem with it? Go buy some non-DRM computer. It'll be cheap (beer) and free (speech). Just don't expect a commercial world-class OS like Apple's to run on it.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
it's on EVERY TORRENT SITE, EVERYWHERE.
:)
christ people, look before you open your mouth
So many of these sites have them. Maybe I'm blind, but a screenshot of OS X running on a PC looks identical to OS X running on a Mac.
Maybe the hacking is being done by the same folks that review hardware and feature endless shots of the packaging it comes in.
They also do not enforce any form of copy protection to prevent you from installing on multiple machines because the "trust" users.
Well, that and the fact that even if you do pirate their software, they know that you have already given them several thousand dollars for the hardware you're running it on. It seems to me it has very little to do with "trust" and everything to do with promoting their hardware.
That will not be the case once they switch to Intel. They're already learning about the wild west of the Intel world (cue conspiracy theories, but I don't think this was all intentional). Once they realize that hey, people can install their software on multiple machines and not give Apple a dime, you can expect restrictive DRM and copy protection to be introduced right quick.
got it running on my Dell Optiplex GX280 at work. No network or sound support for the onboard stuff, but sticking in a generic network card with a RTL8139D chip and it's off and running.
it's got an X300 only, graphics acceleration doesn't seem to be all working, but 2D interface is plenty fast. Screen savers are a slideshow tho.
it just looks so WRONG! =D
I read that the estimated component cost on a $499 mini is about $275. Let's say Apple hits a home run and sells 4 million of them this year (1 million per quarter). Add $50 each for distribution, $20 for sales/marketing expense and overhead, and $30 for cost of software (OSX, iLife, Quicken etc). That means realistically, Apple makes $125 each (25% margin) or $500 million.
Now assume Apple lets Dell and eMachines build MacIntels with same basic hardware and drivers (all intel). Apple licenses OSX & iLife for $120 ($20 cost, $100 margin). That's probably less than windows so Dell can have price parity or lower than Wintel. If Dell sells 10 million units and eMachines sells 5 million units, thats $1.5 BILLION. Subtract the $500 million assuming that this canabalizes mac minis and Apple is still $1 BILLION better off.
Volumes of low end commodity MacIntels should go to the volume producers, Dell, HP, and Gateway, with limited diversity of components. Apple should keep the high-end which is where it really can leverage their hardware expertise.
Be, Inc. tried exactly that, they spewed the lightly crippled "Personal Edition" (very cool; it could chainboot from linux or windows) of their OS everywhere they could in the late 90s. While alot of people know about BeOS because of that effort, few people bought the full edition after their "trial", and Be went under, and the BeOS properties were sold to Palm, then YellowTAB, who is attempting to resuscitate BeOS (as seen on /. recently)
I have 3 servers in my house running ancient (although upgraded) Debian installations and am "perfectly" happy with my current Linux-based desktop.
I can get my work done. I can run many things. I can browse and play movies or whatever.
I've resisted dabbling with Gentoo. I've resisted many other new distributions.
I figure that these days I'm quite frankly not too interested in trying out multiple systems just to see what they have to offer.
Does Mac OS REALLY provide something different? I could never afford it before.
I've seen Mac OS on laptops and can't see that it's a world of difference. It was always the same story about this program not running or that.
Would a Mac OS let me run programs I cannot currently run? I'm not looking for snazzy graphics/clicking effects. I'm thinking that if I can download something that will only work on a Mac then it's worth a shot.
I'm thinking if I can buy a piece of software that will only run in Mac OS and be fantastic, it's worth a shot.
TIA
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
is that it turns you into an Ubuntu-loving, cock-smoking tea-bagger.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Look, if it offends you that much, post your address and we'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.
I don't think they should ever release a version for "normal" computers are some here suggest. I also don't think they will. But this would provide a decent opportunity for trial.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I wonder what it's like running OSX and Ubuntu simultaneously under VMWare. With clipboard integration, it could be as hot as toggling between just two Linux workspaces. Now, if someone can publish a tool to pipe processes STDIO between the instances, I'm ready for my dual-MobileP4 notebook, thank you.
--
make install -not war
Are you retarded? The OP was noting that the torrent you find, might, in fact, be a troll. Perpetuating hate and bigotry, indeed. Get a fucking clue.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Apple isn't going to take on Microsoft. First Apple knows better than to waste their time trying to make an OS that supports every damn accessory; card or plugged in; as that only invites frustration on the consumer level.
I believe it is more likely Apple was fully expecting this to happen and have already "written it off". There won't be enough geeks pirating it to matter and they don't have to support anyone who does. If anything it may help them because more people will become familar with how it looks and feel. By that I mean some of these basement dwellers will show it off to coworkers and relatives - bragging that they did it but at the same time spreading the Apple kool-aid without realizing it.
Two markets Apple has to get into.
1. Corporate. How many years has it taken AMD to do it, and they are only trying to sell a product that runs everything their competitor already does!
2. Games. That is going to be the hard sell. The big item in most retail stores are lots of junk software for web related stuff and then GAMES. Lots and lots of games. All of which require "Windows XP". How will Apple convince developers to write for their platform?
No, I don't see Apple competeing with Microsoft. The "Duopoloy" of Apple and Microsoft will continue on the desktop for some time. Just because they run on similar hardware doesn't mean they will compete or want to compete.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
... just because the guy didn't know better - or maybe had that liveCD lying around. What you need to download is simply a small *nix-on-cd distro (say, dsl)
Here's a thought: The final version of the OS runs on a x86 CPU, but it's connected to a motherboard with proprietary busses and chipsets. Hardware and Software are One...Again. Really wouldn't take much, and it would explain the minimal restrictive effort expended so far.
I'm not so enthusiastic about running OSX on any old PC - as countless people have pointed out, that would probably lead to serious stability issues. What does excite me though is the possibility of a Rosetta that runs Windows binaries on OSX at a decent speed, enabling me to make the switch away from Windows while still running the Windows applications that I need to for work or other reasons. Surely this has to be in the pipeline - I mean, who would stick with Windows because of the UI? If Apple can give people access to the Windows software catalog from OSX, things will get pretty interesting.
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
I'm sure glad I have a plus modifier on all troll posts, or else I'd miss all the comments like these that question the Slashdot mindset.
And don't forget: the more widespread your OS is, the more apps will be written for it. This is why Windows is still alive, and BeOS, NextStep, and OS/2 are dead, and Linux and BSD are fringe players.
Maybe Apple realized they can't win the hardware war (after all, nobody is putting serious effort in making CPUs for them), so they try to become a big player in the software market now. Of course, they will still have their good-looking and well engineered boxes for some time to come.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It seems like half the comments here are along the lines of piracy will be great for Apple. I get the impression a lot of these folks think Dvorak still has a clue.
.1 % market share due to even a free OSX.
Let us think this through a bit. I am of the mind that selling the OS for generics, piracy or even giving it away for free! Will not have much positive effect on Mac market share. Reasons:
1: Statistically insignificant numbers of people change the OS that the machine came with. Plain and simple. Apples best bet for increasing market share is to sell more machines.
Why?
2: Installation is a pain, 99% of people never re-install.
Installing and maintaining multiple OS's is non trivial and is not undertaken lightly by most folks. I built my last 5 computers, install my own OS's, did dual and triple boot setups. But yet my windows is sufferring windows rot right now and I really dread the idea of doing another re-install. It is a royal PITA.
How about comparison to something else alternative:
3: Market share when something is universally acclaimed, trivial to install and Free! Firefox 10%. Think about this. The vast vast majority aren't even interested in upgrading their browser which is a trivial operation and free.
I would estimate at least 100 fold uptake in browsers over whole OS's. So at best this would gain maybe
Addressing the most tired simplistic argument:
3. Piracy worked for microsoft didn't it? Er No? Where you sleeping? Microsoft is a marketing juggernaut, that had essentially no competition. They also made sure, by hook or by crook that almost all PC's shipped with Windows. Piracy may have helped Office along, but windows was a done deal. One other tiny detail. MS wasn't facing an incumbent monopoly.
Finally the main point. Apple must sell more macs to raise market share.
WTF are you babbling about? where did the GP wrote anything about the PowerPC or whatever architecture...???
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Im looking at the wenis, and i dont like what i see.
"Well, yeah, I suppose that "Unixen" would make sense if UNIX was a word with some sort of secret Anglo-Saxon heritage. However, it isn't the case."
So, let's get this straight:
You're expecting people who think that 32767 is a round number, 31337 is a word, that the naming conventions for konfabulator, kerobos, zope and *NIX make sense, to follow the rules of anglo-saxon pluralisation that they were told in high-school?
You're all looking at this backwards. Who says the idea is trying to run Mac OS X on non-Apple PCs. Apple may really be interested in getting people to buy their PCs to run Windows.
Remember that Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. Yes, Apple would love for Mac OS X have a bigger share of the market -- just like Apple would love each and every iPod buyer who has a PC to buy a Mac and use their iPod on the Mac. However, Apple doesn't seem too upset when people buy an iPod and use it with their PC.
Apple has an excellent reputation, massive sales abilities, high quality machines, striking designs, and with the use of Intel hardware, lower prices.
Yes, Apple would love to double their market share to 7% with this move, but their feelings wouldn't be too hurt if they grabbed a 15% market share, outsold Dell, but only 1/3 of those purchases were running Mac OS X. I think Apple would learn to live with it.
The "piracy is good for Apple" argument has to deal with the fact that piracy really only helps if you have a lock-in to follow up with: a dominant position, or incompatible formats, or something. Apple's pretty damn open by comparison with Microsoft (not that this is hard), and if they did change to make piracy a useful technique they'd lose a lot of the market.
Piracy worked for microsoft didn't it? Er No? Where you sleeping?
Yeh, it worked really well. They had lock-in, a dominant position, AND cross-subsidy so even if they lost a Windows sale they still had a chance of getting Office, and vice-versa.
It didn't make them dominant, but it's had a HUGE part in killing off potential customers.
But, as you note, Apple is in a different situation. So I'm not sure I disagree with your overall position... I just think this point is off target.
The comparison to SGI is very interesting...
However I think the Apple case is very different - Apple has a huge program going now, very early on, for developers to transition. I don't think SGI had anything much like it.
Also, wern't the SGI boxes running NT? I can't remember if they ported IRIX to them or not.
Also those boxes were very specialized and it seems Apple may not be customizing to quite that degree, instead possbliy leaning on Intel to provide MB chipsets.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That you cannot make enough money selling to Joe Average walking into Circuit City and buying your OS off the shelf to support a company of any real size. Be proved that. NeXT proved that. Even MS only makes a tiny fraction of their income off of box OS sales. Apple would suffer enormous lay-offs if they even tried to do it.
The real money, the money that supports companies of any size, is in OEM licensing to box manufacturers. Apple could easily survive if Dell, HP, e-Machines and the like were buying a license every time they sold a computer, but without that they'd be dead inside the year. And do you honestly believe MS would let OS X be included on the computers those companies shipped. They'd be right back to their "Oh, you can do that, but Windows licenses are now full cost" tactics, and Apple would be locked out just like Be was.
Last time I checked, NextStep was still alive and kicking. It is running more software now than any other platform. Microsoft makes software for it. You might not have heard, but they changed its name a few times. First, they changed it to OpenStep. That wasn't working out so well, so they changed it to Mac OS.
What can you do with a hacked guitar?
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
There will always be the the generic computer terms that we all put up with like you mentioned above. However, people shouldn't just be making up words (like "unixen" or "boxen") and passing them off in intelligent conversation.
OS X belongs to the customer if the license that the customer agreed to when they purchased it says so. You bought what you bought and nothing more. Maybe you never worked like a dog to produce something for customers but I have and no matter how many people agree with what you are trying to say it will never make it right or beneficial in the long run to anyone but yourself.
Legitimate useage is determined by the legally binding agreement that you committed to when you purchased OS X. If you want the law to change and you can get enough people on your side then by all means do it. The problem is that its the way it is and will stay that way because most people want it that way. Believe it or not people with a thought process like paying for good products and services because that means that there will be more of them in the future and it means that if they work their but off to make a good product that other people will pay for it in return. I know that is all a news flash and that it sounds like a wild and crazy new idea but there you have it, it seems to have caught on.
Microsoft breaks the law outright and gets away with it so I'm not sure what your point of comparison is. In any case their response to whining is to crush a few more competitors and stick lower quality and smellier poo in a box at even higher prices than they did before they crushed the poor idiots who were working like dogs thinking that people would appreciate their good products and services. Moreover Microsoft lives off of denying you the option to buy another solution. To have someone use Microsoft's behavior as an excuse to steal other peoples property who do provide excellent service and product for a living is the height of irony.
Whey you buy stuff from someone and you know that you bought it with an agreement do you feel in the least bit honor bound to stick with that agreement? Or do you think that if you read enough stuff written by other people that says it isn't fair then you can just do what you want with a clear conscience ?
If you feel that software should be free of licensing and other encumbrances then maybe you should only use software that people make available to you under those conditions. I would respect that and lots of other people would too. Maybe you even have a little time to commit some of your passion for free sotware to generate some of it yourself.
The coolaid you speak of is an MS product consumed by all of the people terrified that something different from what they have might be OK or, horror of horrors, actually better. So its always hilarious to me when I hear an MS advocate accusing other people of drinking the coolaid. Its a real window.
In fact, as a Mac user myself, I'd say you're quite incorrect on Apple "not even requiring an authentication code" for many of their products.
... I experimented with installing a warez version of Logic Pro 7.1 I grabbed off Usenet. Despite having a valid registration key and the ISO image of the original disc - the app refused to run after installation, complaining I didn't have the "original CD" in the drive.)
Every last one of their "Pro" apps I've seen forces you to enter a fairly long and nasty registration key during installation. So did Keynote and Pages. And it looked to me like they went even further than that for products like Logic Pro. (Though I have no intention of ever really using it, because for my "hobby" music needs, even Logic Express is more than enough
So no, I don't think for a minute that Steve Jobs is "learning" anything new by observing people making OS X for Intel work on platforms other than his own test machines right now. I'm sure it was fully expected, hence his strict rules enforcing the idea that the test systems were only "loaners" - not purchasable computers, and the strict NDA slapped down on everyone receiving one.
The very idea that Mac users, by nature, are somehow more "trustworthy" or "less likely to pirate" than Windows PC users is just more elitist B.S. The reality is, there's not nearly as much software out there for a Mac - so there's much less "need" for piracy. It's financially possible to buy every single native Mac commerical app you'd ever really use with your computer! By contrast, in Windows, there may be 40 or 50 competing apps that do the *same job*. So there's a much stronger tendency to pirate a few here and there, to see if one is really better than what you're already using, etc.
Apple hasn't done "product activation" like MS did with XP, but I have little doubt they'd move to it if they thought it would increase their profits. As you pointed out though, they've been in a position where it's a non-issue, because you pay for the OS in the purchase price of your Mac - and your Mac ultimately has to come from Apple. Apple has no qualmns about doing the same basic thing already when it comes to music purchased from their music store for use in iTunes, right?
Why would anyone want to that shitty Mac OS on a PC when we already have the greatest OS evar! Windows XP?
Are there any known guides out there.. there seems to be a lot of this "i did it , I did it !" but no "how"... or am I just missing the boat ?
I dont actually want to do it mind you, but i'm interested in the process... i.e. how easy it is...
anyone wanna link some guides/info ?
I got it running and my PC feels snappier now.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
I 'switched' to Mac when they came out with OSX. I ran every version of it since on my Tangerine iBook (aka 'the toilet seat') and just got a new iMac G5. I discovered something alluded to here on /. and in other forums, but which I think bears repeating.
Mac users, the hard-core, loyal buyers (including yours truly now) are not as price-sensitive as other consumers. Yah, I have a Linux box running, I kicked the M$ habit years ago, but I will cheerfully buy Mac hardware and software until my wife pries my cold dead hand off my trak-ball.
Why you ask?
Everything 'just works', the development environment rocks, the hardware is well-designed (iBook is 8 yrs old and the screen color is still perfect) and just looks damn good. My wife made me toss all the beige boxen, and she wasn't too hot over even the coolest of the higher-end cases on NewEgg. I got the iMac, and she's happy.
Apple doesn't want M$ users who will pirate anything they can, download crapware, malware and any virus that comes along, and put off upgrading for as long as possible. They don't want the uber-hobbyists who order components online and put their own systems together. Apple doesn't want the mega-gamers, either. Yet.They want the users who are frustrated by the lack of deep quality in M$ products on the Windows platform and the (perceived) lack of end-user-orientation on Linux or *BSD.
They know their strengths - a soup-to-nuts great user experience - and they play to them. Apple's core users don't need or want Warez. We'd rather buy the best tools we can from a vendor who has shown themselves willing and able to produce quality products at reasonable price/performance point.
So, in the end, I'm just buying a PowerBook next week. Unless I hear a really good rumor that a new major version of these would be coming out in Paris next month.
A lot has been made of the fact that PC hardware is cheaper than Apple hardware. But Moore's Law degrades that argument at the standard rate. The 50% Apple hardware tax is significant when computers cost $3000. When computers cost $500, the tax is still 50% but not so significant. And when computers cost $100, even less significant. At that point, $50 for "looks cool" might be worth it to a lot more people. Like esr said, as the cost of the hardware approaches the cost of the OS, things get interesting.
...Oh, Nevermind...
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Imagine how many people will run MacOS X x86 in say 2 months, imagine how many it would be if it was the final version, imagine how much larger the Mac market just got and the opportunities for whatever software you want to bring out for the Mac people.
Thanks you just snapped me back into reality... I was just calculating if i could manage to give it whirl/and give up while still having enough time to get my current workload done by sunday night...
--
So there's VMware image running around the net I gather.. but what I'm interested in is this: how'd the modify the developer install to get it to run on just any x86 box ? What'd they do to it.. did they remove this kernel extension we've been hearing about ?
surely just removing a file.. that would be too easy.. does anyone have any real details or where we can find out about it ?
I use Mac OS. I love Apple hardware. OS X does everything I need or want with perhaps the exception of IE compatibility or some Windows apps. Apple going to Intel will provide 100% of the features and service that Apple customers have always wanted. But, under no circumstance do I want OS X or Apple to have to deal with regular PC hardware. It will just dilute their efforts and my ability to enjoy the platform. If the user base grows to around 10% from going with Intel, that's great too, more support and more quality apps. But, I have no interest in it running on Joe Blow's PC because that's when the compatibility, viruses and Malware start to show up. Apple will run smoother with a smaller focussed market share. More than 10% and I don't think they'll be able to keep it together.
Its also illegal...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Unixen" (Anglo-Saxon), "Unices" (Latin), and "Unixes" (English) are are used as plural for "Unix" (Arbitrary, made-up jargon). I personally prefer "Unices."
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
"2. Games. That is going to be the hard sell. The big item in most retail stores are lots of junk software for web related stuff and then GAMES. Lots and lots of games. All of which require "Windows XP". How will Apple convince developers to write for their platform?"
Your answer, Windows Vista. Thanks to the hubris of Microsoft, Windows Vista will be ignored by gamers just as they ignored Windows2000 and shunned WindowsME. Doing stupid deliberate things like retarding the performance of OpenGL in Vista in favor of DirectX is enough to alienate the likes of id Software. Combine that with the fact that the next generation console of choice will be the Sony Playstation3 (which supports OpenGL), the conversion to the computer platform of choice will be the Macs as long as videocard support becomes equal to the current Windows market and Apple offers some headless desktops that support end user expansion through PCIe cards (including SLI techniques too).
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
... which in the ends brings more software too the current users.
Well, /dev/hda1 maybe. /dev/hda will overwrite some essential data like the harddrive geometry (so e.g. you end up with your drive thinking it has thrice as many heads as it has), and completely screw it up. Nearest recovery path: Move the harddrive to a different computer, as a second one, or boot LiveCD. Visit the hdd manufacturer website or if you're lucky, read the geometry from the label on the drive (sometimes it's there, more often not.) Sometimes the website won't have the geometry so try again yet elsewhere, google is your friend, obscure mailing list archives are your hope. Write them down. Launch fdisk for that harddrive, in "expert" option enter all the geometry data. Repartition, reformat. Reboot and pray.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
"Apple's core users don't need or want Warez."
Boy you sure are generalizing. I guess it's because you only jumped on the Mac bandwagon a little while ago. There is TONS of piracy on the Mac. I have worked with Macs in the design and printing industries for 15 years and can't count how many pirated copies of Mac applications I've seen. It really isn't any wonder that Adobe and Quark both moved to software activation schemes similar to what Windows XP uses. The piracy of core design and printing applications is severe.
Claiming that Mac users sit up on some moral high ground when it comes to piracy is just as much crap as saying all Windows users are "w4r3z d00dz". The fact is, most general computer users (Mac or Windows) don't really think about the issue at all. They don't go out of their way to pirate, they buy software, but if someone says "oh here have this cd" they don't tend evaluate it morally - they most likely just take it and install it.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Hey at least have the balls to call it flamebait or something. It doesn't make any sense to mod something over-rated that no one rated.
This smacks of a cowardly moderator just modding down something that he doesn't agree with and taking the cowards "over-rated" category out.
I don't give a rats ass about my karma, but at least have the stones to categorize why you are downrating.
At least the next moderator will likely have the stones to call this one flamebait.
They got around the sse3 requirement but obviously that means you can't run some apps right now.
Does anyone have any thoughts on whether the AMD A64 with sse3 would qualify as a "real" sse3 capable cpu in OSX X86's eyes? Ie is the A64's sse3 exactly equivalant to Intel's sse3 in the view of Apple and OSX X86? Thanks.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
NEVER seen one in three years of daily use at work.
I run NT4 at home. I'm sure I have seen a blue screen, but not for about a year.
I have never read so much utter crap in my life.
The development version of Mac OS X for Intel has been designed to run on a specific Intel motherboard, which co-incidentally is the same model as support by the PC port of Darwin. It's purely designed for proving that PPC code will run on an Intel chip when the source has been successfully tweaked - nothing more. It's just a quick and dirty hack.
YOU CAN'T READ ANYTHING INTO THIS PRE-PRODUCTION SYSTEM - JUST GET IT INTO YOUR THICK GEEKY SKULLS NOW!
When Apple finally release Intel machines the hardware will be significantly different to a run of the mill PC - some hardware devices appearing in a different place, others being present at all, and so on. The OS will need very specific drivers. Also it's more than likely that there will be some other forms of protection to further limit the hardware it will run on.
Don't bother replying to me as I can't be bothered to read the crap posted to this site any more.
Rosetta translates PPC instructions into X86 instructions. Why would it provide Windows compatibility?
Clear, Dark Skies
I have a spare system with an Athlon XP 2400+, and I was wondering if it would be possible to install this on that system. Has anyone tried it? Is there any technical reason why it couldn't be done? If anyone has actually tried it please respond.
your right, as a designer i have seen and been on both sides of that fence. As you know, design software is expensive and the design industry is tough bitch to work in, and when your a starting out, how do you do the work if you dont have the apps?
ethically weak excuse to be sure.. but i dont deny what it was like some people do to rationalize.
i recall when i was in art school in early 90's showing someone how easy it was to slap Photoshop 2.5 on to a SyQuest drive, his eye popped out of his head. it never occurred to him that at least then, that most apps were as easy to take as any file on os 9.
then there is rationale, if i take the home from work, i can do work from home, which some employers have no problem with. No confirms you delete what you used when you leave.
but i will say this about mac users, we have higher expectations in software and outside of games, are used to being treated to a better user experience by years over M$ users.
Well, if it's in Wikipedia it must be legit!
(sarcasm off)
Throw in: ...and you've got my Fedora Core installation!
No fan support
Uses a ton of battery
Unresponsive UI
Well, that and the fact that even if you do pirate their software, they know that you have already given them several thousand dollars for the hardware you're running it on.
I just paid $575.00 to Apple for my first Mac and it came with an OSX CD. Is Apple going to be mad at me because I didn't spend thousands of dollars with them? All my previous Macs have been used. I have bought all the previous versions of OS X for them, though, all the way back to OSX beta.
I drank what? -- Socrates
...has that happened yet? The ultimate hack! *dun dun dun* Wow, I just want to go watch Angelina Jolie talk about her coprocessor now :)
Think about it. What would be the biggest nightmare for Apple if they decided to sell their OS for every x86 box on the planet? Hardware incompatibility. My prediction is Apple will do the same thing with this OS as they've done with all the others. They will sell you the OS with the huge caveat that is only supported on Apple branded hardware and Apple certified peripherals. You can still buy it and try to get it to run on your vanilla PC, but you won't be getting any help from Apple. Apple will include a limited number of drivers in the OS that vendors have paid to be certified. For the rest of the hardware in the world, you will be dependent on the vendor providing a decent driver that they will have to support or relying on the open source community to write the driver you need. In this way, Apple can get huge market penetration without the huge cost and support nightmares of making sure their OS is compatible with every piece of hardware known to man. Besides, Apple will probably make a lot more money and a lot more noise when they have licensed the OS to their first Apple certified PC manufacturer.
Well, lets assume the hypothetical situation that they do..
How in the heck would Apple, a brand that's built upon offering powerful features in a simple to understand way to its customers, market this generic x86 version of their os?
Would they put it in little letters on the side of the box?
Hardware requirements:
chipset: one of the following: intel bla blabla bla bla bla bla
video card: one of the following: nvidea blabla bla, ati blablabla
usb controller: etc. etc etc
There's no way in hell that they'll be able to pull this one off, first thing is that people don't read manuals, let alone check if their dell pc matches the listed requirements. Simple because that's too much work for your average customer and secondly because people don't know + care what's in their machines.
Occasionally I get a customer who bought an iPod from our store or from some big electronics reseller and can't get it to work with their PoS pc because of the cheap-ass VIA usb controller in it or some other lame piece of hardware.
I don't have particularly bad people skills or something, but it's almost impossible for me to get them to understand that not all usb controllers are alike and that there's nothing wrong with the iPod, let alone make them understand that the fact that their PoS cheapest 17" ultrabrite superdualfcuklaptop they could find doesn't work with the brand new iPod does not make Apple an evil company for trying to sell their peripherals to windows users.
When they call our support dept. we often tell them plain honest that yes, there are a lot of problems with windows users and ipods, maybe we should not do that, because they always backfire with the idea that Apple should not market it for them if there are so many problems. But still, one should probably be honest about this stuff. The alternative is telling them it's their fault for not getting it to work.
Preferably I tell them to reinstall windows, get better hardware, or - if they don't want to do any of that - offer to give them their money back for the iPod. I still hate Apple for offering the iPod to windows users for this mess. Even if it goes alright >90% of the time, the few people for who it doesn't work out shout a lot louder then the rest.
Now extrapolate this to selling osx for generic x86 in shrink-wrap to the same people who got fed-up with windows messing up their pc's and lifes. Imagine what's going to happen then, with people buying it and not getting it to work on their pc's.
I think then it's time for me and any sane people left at the support dept. of any Apple Centre to quit our jobs before we go *completely* insane...
(may read 'IMHO' wherever omitted from above text)
Drinking beer in someones dorm room. What are you running? OSX? I want that too. Come over tommorow and install it for me. The new napster.
Dont know what problems you are having but I picked up an Nforce4 DFI motheboard, athlon 64 chip, Nvidia 6200, 250GB sata drive. I had to google for a couple of drivers but everything works fine for me. Faster and cleaner than the Fedora Core 3 I have installed in another partition. Seems more stable. Granted the more esoteric hardware may not work well under Solaris x86 yet, but certainly picking up a brand new system and installing it is quite reasonable. Less trouble than windows and faster and more stable than linux.
Totally friend you.
will be Elvis Costello
The two tracks most likely to be purchased by the Apple legal department will be...
Watching the Detectives
and
Goon Squad!
This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
...get the geeks to use it. Then everyone else will use what the geeks are using.
Getting Windows applications to run at decent speeds on Mac OS X will be easier now that they're moving to x86 CPU's. That will help with both #1 and #2. Also note that Windows has been moving more and more hardware-independant... 3.11, 95, 98, NT, 2000, XP... That only helps.
My other first post is car post.
I'd really like to hear Apple's comment on what's been happening. Not just a comment about Developers leaking the discs, but about the future of People hacking OSX for normal PC installations. However, I fear Apple is going to turn cheek and ignore the problem, and let it be hacked.
I'll be very surprised if Apple doesn't implement sometype of bootup and runtime hardware checking in an upcoming OSX update.
Money quote:
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
hi i downloadeden variousen types of linuxen distributionens.
lameness filter thwarted.
and yet... why bother comparing a top-end dual-core CPU to a mid-range single-core CPU? A waste of time and it proves nothing.
How many hundreds of dollars extra would you be willing to pay for it to compensate Apple from the margin they're not getting on the hardware?
If you don't buy 1 k$ of hardware from them for 1.2 k$, where's that extra $200 coming from.
To most people the OS is the product. To Apple it's leverage to increase the extremely thin margins on hardware.
Your answer, Windows Vista. Thanks to the hubris of Microsoft, Windows Vista will be ignored by gamers just as they ignored Windows2000 and shunned WindowsME. Doing stupid deliberate things like retarding the performance of OpenGL in Vista in favor of DirectX is enough to alienate the likes of id Software.
There's nothing deliberate about what they are doing. Please try to understand what's going on before coming up with generalizations like "Vista will be bad for Open GL so all games will go to Mac because all games are written by Id Software".
The Vista desktop uses Direct X to render the new desktop features, so it can't run Open GL natively at the same time... so, they provided a wrapper, which causes a performance hit. As far as the full-screen games are concerned, though, they don't use the desktop, hence the aeroglass support goes away and ATI or nVidia native OpenGL driver kicks in.
So, don't be sad. Your OpenGL games will run just as fine as they used to.
The OpenGL windowed applications might suffer performance degradation, but that's another story.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
The usual problem with NIX distributions is the driver support. The hardware manufacturers have to develop drivers for many platforms, and as a result, do not write drivers for "non mainstream" OSs.
The hardware manufacturers need to tell the OS companies "Enough is enough! Instead of us writing drivers your way, you need to utilize a standard that is cross platform!"
Driver files should be something like a simple CSV file that describes the attributes of the device and how it can be utilized.
For example, the first field would be for Firewire capability. 0 would indicate it's not firewire capable. 1 would indicate firewire 400 capability, 2 would indicate firewire 800 capability, and you could add other values for future firewire speed bumps. Same thing goes for the various USB speeds out there. Need to specify the maximum display size or refresh rate of a display? Simple, have fields for those attributes with numbers indicating the capability.
That way the manufacturers only have to write ONE driver that will work on any OS.
The hardware manufacturers need to force the OS companies to come up with a standard. Only upon having a standard will you see less OS crashes and hardware no longer functioning after you upgrade.
Actually, OS X runs 'good' - in fact, 'gooder' - on my 3.4ghz P4 than I've seen on all but the highest line of G5's...couple that with a WD Raptor and we're talking an almost instant boot. Everything's responsive and quick in a native installation; in my opinion, it runs more smoothly than a fresh XP install. However, it's true that drivers are still an issue for many people's hardware. ATI & Nvidia drivers are, in fact, included for those using the Darwin extension trick, but getting them implimented is another story.
:P
In a tragic irony, I'm using a 23" HD Cinema display, but can't get my 6800U working. 1024x768 looks like a mudpie spread over 23."
Still, it's a start. As others have noted, now that this snowball is rolling, it WILL be done.
So, a lot of people seem to think that legions of people will try OS X on their bargain-bin PC and then somehow get the Mac religion and buy Apple hardware so they can have the full OS X experience.
I say, bullplop!
Mac OS X has been ready for prime time since August of 2002 (Jaguar's release). In the three years since, Windows XP has been a complete and total mess, plagued by worms, spyware, viruses, etc. It's been a miserable computing experience, but only now is the 'switch to Mac' movement really starting to pick up steam, and that's mostly thanks to the iPod halo effect. For most of that time, the majority of people just put up with the crappy aspects of Windows, because they were too goddamned cheap to buy a Mac.
So what makes anyone think that those very same people will suddenly be willing to pay a premium for Apple hardware (assuming Apple maintains some semblance of their PowerPC-era margins) after the Intel switch? I'm inclined to think that they'll all just hang on to their $299 whiteboxes, run a hacked version of OS X, and put up with whatever incompatibilites arise.
It is a tribute to the Steve Jobs RDF that none of these people are able to voice the most obvious reason - /that PCs are simply faster that Macs/.
Congratulations, hacking community! Too bad all of your hard work will be rendered meaningless once the *real* OS X/x86 ships on the first x86-based Macs, when you see the *real* method Apple worked up to make sure you cheap fucks have to buy their hardware if you want to run their software.
The cost of developing OS X isn't cheap, you know. Apple's got to make their money back somewhere, and it's gotta be by requiring their hardware to run it-- because you can't download hardware over BitTorrent. They know you bastards who gripe about how $129 is too much for a new version of OS X (when you don't even own a Mac!) would never be willing to pay ~$300 for a fully-supported version that'd run on your generic shitboxes.
Instead, I went to the Michigan Ave Apple Store three miles away and picked up a Mac Mini, a nice keyboard and a sweet-ass Mighty Mouse for $650 OTD.
Check it out.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/
http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/
http://www.apple.com/keyboard/
Peace,
BillyBob
bamph
Whether they intended it or not, and whether they like it or not, this very web page is evidence of a successful viral marketing campaign for Apple's products.
Critics and skeptics have made a lot of good points about the impossibility of piracy as a means to success for Apple's market share. In posting these good points, they contribute to the buzz that is quickly spreading across the 'net. As the buzz buzzes, greater numbers of geeks and hackers become curious and try out OSx86.
While this may not turn into direct sales from the geeks and hackers, those who like Apple's OS may very well recommend to friends, family and possibly even the procurement department for the enterprise whose network they manage, that the next computer purchased be one that runs OSX. Innocent bystanders who come across the Internet buzz may also suddenly be moved to consider Apple systems, when previously they had not.
Anyone who has been to a system administration conference knows that they are about the geekiest place on Earth. Although it may not be the geeks who sign the checks for big hardware orders, it is they who recommend what to buy. Technology companies are well aware of this fact, as evidenced by the vendor exhibitions at these conferences.
Apple should be very happy that people are spending their time to try out their OS, hacked, stolen or otherwise.
1. Leak an easily breakable x86 copy of OS X onto the internet.
2. Watch as it gets pirated to the nth degree.
3. Sit back and laugh as everyone gets attuned to using OS X and marvels at its quality, eye candy and stability.
4. Release a locked down version that runs only on Apple x86 hardware.
5. Watch as droves of people go to pick up your hardware after becoming hopelessly addicted to the OS.
6. (note lack of ???) Profit.
Within this thread, there's a lot of talk about Apple deciding to sue or some elaborate explanation of a marketing technique ignoring theft of their operating system.
Hogwash, either or of the proposals!
Have we forgot, that not a single release of MacOS EVER required a product activation code? Not ONE. From MacOS 6 to MacOS Tiger, none of them during install ask for a activation code. Why, exactly would their original sentiment change regardless of hardware? It's also important to note, that there was a time when Apple WAS the big dog and it was hard to imagine they would ever be debunked. Yet, even with that much control, they never asked for an activation code; for those that seem to think Apples decision is based on their mid to late 90s business peril.
Apple has always assumed, perhaps as an explanation, that if you were installing MacOS then the hardware was likely Apples own. But, what about all the other 68k based solutions such as NeXT, Amiga, Atari and IBM workstations? Ah, yes, the ROM... whatever, we can't get around that? Apple has always been impartial about their OS, despite how anal they have appeared about their hardware propriety. Which makes sense, they are in the business of making money, and as a side with their own personal agendas and contracts. Now that they have decided to adopt Intel, I bet it will remain trivial, deductively, to install MacOS X on any ordinary Intel box. And the "why" is not "new", as I've pointed out that Apple has never jumped through fire to protect their OS.
http://torrentspy.com/directory.asp?mode=torrentde tails&id=379670
As a PC (x86) user, we always thought people who use Mac's as zeloits, non-geeks, idiot proofed gui, lame....etc..etc...
;p
But, now the idea of putting the mac on x86's seems to bring out some type of OS envey....
People that would never touch a Mac, are sharring PIRATED versions over bittorrent, etc...
Have I been duped? Is the Mac REALLY a usefull OS afterall? Was Steve Jobs right all these years, and Bill Gates distorting MY reality field by the everpresent Windblows computers that could be build for cheap?
I don't know... but one cant help but wonder what took their marketing drones this long to come up with this brilliant way to prove that all the geeks really want to have a bitchen' fast Mac...
I'll stick to my axim for now... gee, if only I could port OS-X to that......
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Or, for that matter, you've never had the apple experience until you've done body work to pull out the dings on your Aluminum powerbook.
Thanks, but no thanks buddy. :)
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
On your knees boy!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Note to self: Using acronymns you see once, and think you know the meaning of will get you called out on slashdot.. heh
Anyone know what eternet cards/chips are supported by Apple, everything else works just dandy. Looks kinda like a tarted up windowmaker with a few enlightenment overtones, kinda lame actually. Oh well my own customzation is always nicer. It just works ... who gives a fuck, that's for users.
... Standards and Practices !
PenGun
Do What Now ???
and use spellcheck.
But can it be dual-booted with other operating systems? If it can't I wouldn't see a point in installing it.
*MOVE SIG*---*FOR GREAT JUSTICE*
Mod parent up; If anything, just for the fight-club reference.
so no luck for AMD owners, as no there is no workaround.
Holeee shit, you are an idiot. Truly an idiot. Not only do you criticize someone, but you look down your mac zealot nose at them as if you are the cock of the walk. You are a cock; that much is true...
Listen up, Listen UP(107011): all of the shit you mentioned as working perfectly with your OSX damn well better. It is all standards based, plug and play, best buy sold, "grandma can buy this stuff" hardware. All of the stuff you mentioned works perfectly with Windows as well.
Try this: go buy any of the 457 off-brand nvidia video cards out there. It's easy for an OEM ATI card to work perfectly when it is OEM! I might be mistaken, but I think you can ONLY buy a Mac edition of a video card and have it actually work... and there are three Mac ATI cards versus nine for PC. Of those three, two are G5 ONLY; if you have a G4 you only have one choice for an ATI video card. Yes, that is great hardware support.
Oh, and btw, have fun buying a retail Nvidia card. You can't. You can buy the 6800GT from Apple, and that is about it (unless you want a geforce MX).
Here's the deal: Nvidia gives Apple the driver source code and Apple makes the driver. For one single card. They focus their energy to create a stable driver for one card. A hardware driver is NOT a hardware driver like you think. Many, many hours are spent trying to make a driver work acceptibly with the widest range of weird PC configs out there. And ATI can't make a stable driver for Windows... it will run fine on my PC and blue screen on another just like for no real reason. If they had a smaller and completely known set of configs, the driver would be more stable and more powerful.
You might be correct that OSX is technically and usably superior to Windows... I've never spent more than a few minutes on OSX so can't really remark. I do know that, contrary to what a non-hardware-driver-codewriter like you thinks, it is a lot easier to make a stable driver for a closed system like a Mac.
IANAL, but I play one on
The OpenGL windowed applications might suffer performance degradation, but that's another story.
That story is interesting in it's own right. My understanding is that CAD and other visualization tools depend on OpenGL, inasmuch as DirectX sucks for 2D, so assuming all that is true:
I'd be interested in any observations.
--
$tar -xvf
Enter boot parameter
? p=2631#2631
platform=X86PC
and MacOSX x86 will be almost usable under VMware (no network support, yet).
Courtesy of
http://www.concretesurf.co.nz/osx86/viewtopic.php
You, sir, are my hero.
OS X is unix-based. It has the same ability to handle hardware that all other unixen do.
Do you mean to say that Linux drivers can be ported to Darwin that easily? Or any other BSD?
It's hard enough sometimes to get the same driver working on different versions of Linux, unless it's got a specific patch for the version you want, or (like almost every driver I've ever needed) it's included in the standard kernel distribution.
I mean, sure, well writen unix apps that actually follow POSIX are ridiculously portable -- some of them even compile and run unmodified on Cygwin on Windows. But porting between kernels really is like porting between OSes -- you may as well say that just because there's a Linux driver, there's automatically a Windows driver. Or a DOS driver.
The only possible exception to this might be Nvidia. Nvidia, in their propeganda/hype, claim that some 95% of their code is shared across OSes. The 5% glue code is probably mostly open source -- I know that something compiles when I install it on Linux. For someone like nvidia, it probably wouldn't be hard at all to make OS X drivers -- in fact, they already have them. But it's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it's unix under the hood.
And, in case you haven't noticed, OS X on x86 is new, not even released yet. Even Darwin on x86 probably (I haven't checked) isn't more than a couple years old, at most. Linux on x86 is over ten years old, going on fifteen. So, with no pro-Mac or anti-Mac zealotry, I don't have any expectation for OS X86 to work on my PC, and I'm not even going to try, as I've got a Powerbook in the mail.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Other apps that use windowed GL:
Max
VNS
Blender
Wings 3D
Solidworks
And those are just off the top of my head. ALL of them will take a massive performance hit from this maneuver by MicroShaft. Direct3D will still suck as an API, DirectX will still suck, and even worse, even though OpenGL will be supported, it'll be frozen at 1.4. There go all your shaders and anything nice you might want to use in OpenGL 2.0 except in a full-screen app (read: games. MS ain't dumb enough to alienate their gamers, but they may just force the professionals to *nix).
But hey, they're MS. Now be a good little consumer and bend over.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Better buy spoon guard!
Apple doesn't have to do much to prevent people from cracking the protection...
They can just create a kernel that runs on their boards only.
Then they overwrite the kernel with each update.
Result: Running OSX on generic hardware is easy enough for the hacker community, but inconvenient enough to make generic users swithch to Apple hardware sooner or later.
I'm glad there's been such a great effort to make this possible... it just makes it much more likely that Apple will employ stricter measures to stop it in a production release. Never seen so many people jump to the conclusion that the desire to keep the OS platform specific is EVIL... not that there might be a reason for it or anything.
Thanks for the new sig!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
from: http://www.brucebeh.com/installosx86.txt
.dmg to .iso.... How to convert from .dmg to .iso:
c her.exec her.zip
8 6-801.iso.gzp hics.tgz /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.fra mework/Versions/A/Frameworks/CoreGraphics.framewor k/Versions/A/1 0250_oah750d-patched.zip /usr/libexec/oah/l e.tgzk /Versions/A/Resources/lookupd/Agentso ntroller.kext.tgz /system/library/extensions
THIRD SOLUTION MAKING A BOOTABLE DVD (WINDOWS)
1. Convert
Windows
1. Install UltraISO (you can get it here: http://www.ezbsystems.com/ultraiso/)
2. Now run UltraISO Start->Programs->UltraISO->UltraISO
4. After that go to Tools->Convert
5. Input Marklar-Tiger.dmg
6. Output your file to where you want it. Make sure Standard ISO is selected.
7. Click Convert and now your done.
2. Patch the ISO with this:
blex0rs sse3 patch: SSE3Patcher.exe or SSE3Patcher.zip
http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/SSE3Pat
OR
http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/SSE3Pat
3. Download Darwin Install iso
http://www.opendarwin.org/downloads/8.0.1/darwinx
4. Open the file through WinRAR
5. Browse to System/Library/ in the iso.
6. Drag the extensions folder out into a temporary folder in Windows. Remember where you placed this for later.
7. Now open up the Mac OS x86 install dvd iso in TransMac (http://www.asy.com/sharetm.htm)
8. Browse to System/Library/Extensions in Transmac.
9. Delete IOATAFamily.kext from the Tiger ISO in Transmac.
10. Find the temporary folder with the extensions folder from earlier (from Darwin) in and browse into it.
11. Drag all the folders (first entry should be called ACard62xxM.kext) from the top section ("PC drive") of TransMac into the bottem section ("Mac drive"). Most of these folders are probably not neccessary, until we have narrowed them down all of them will be copied.
12. REMEMBER TO SELECT NO when it asks to replace a file.
13. Now add the folowing files to the ISO:
CoreGraphics - http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/CoreGra
oah750d - http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/0508072
DS.Bundle - http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/DS.bund
System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/NetInfo.framewor
IOHDIXController.kext - http://www.strengholt-online.nl/osx_howto/IOHDIXC
14. Close Transmac and burn!
CREDIT GOES TO: MacIntelGuy
Sure, and Sony sells PS2 controllers separately--but not for XBox. In Apple's appliance model of computing, each new OS is an accessory sale, not a separate product line.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I've been worried about the BIOS. One of the reasons that Apple gets things like Target Disk Mode, and I think the graphical BIOS level boot-loader, is because of Open FirmWare which lets devices provide their own drivers to the bios, rather than having them stored within the BIOS itself. I'm not 100% sure on how it all works, but I do know that no X86 BIOS has Target Disk Mode, which is *invaluable* when you're in a bind. I'm worried about losing that function...
Plenty of words are occasionally seen without being right!
Unix = Unix = Uniplexed Information and Computing System
System takes an S in the plural.
You must understand however that some people prefer to come across as pretentious or just plain confused. For that purpose, "Unixen" is ideal.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Only needed to move the TPMACPI kext out of the way - it was using 99% cpu. Typing this using Deer Park Firefox pre-release for intel. Everything works: USB, audio. I just dd'ed the vmware image floating around to a spare disk...
This is simply amazing.
It is a very, very different matter when you want to support every x86 chipset and SCSI controller in the world.
This would be a very, very expensive thing to do.
And, by the way, this might be the reason Microsoft doesn't do drivers at all - they simply pass this task to hardware manufacturers. A "distributed" approach, so to say.
Apple trying to provide drivers for most of the third-party PC hardware out there would be on a safe path to bankruptcy.
Sure, they *choose* their stuff reasonably well, and I'm a supporter of Apple, I own over twenty Macintosh computers, ranging from an Apple 1 board, to a dual processor 2.5Ghz G5 Powermac. but please, will you *learn* this crap before you write it? I know it would make you unique on Slashdot, but come on....
Also, that's a crap comparison... there is a huge difference in the price comparison between A) a Lexus and a Kia, and B) an Apple and a Dell, the ratios are completely off. And I mean, by miles. ;)
Oh, a *noone*, and I mean *noone* should buy a Kia. I ride a 70s Ural, a cheap Russian bike, I bought it in pieces for about $300, and hell, I'd rather have that than a Kia.
Cloning the Windows APIs has nothing to do with processor emulation.
Clear, Dark Skies
I take it a condom isn't considered "appropriate protective gear"
Asustek and Quanta do it for them, and they will continue to do so for the x86 range. There are rumours one can buy 'unbadged' Apple machines out the back door in Taiwan. Apple however does design the machines other companies make for them. How much Asustek's own x86 offerings will differ from the MacIntel's is, however, to be debated.
You can find native x86 Asustek similes of the 12" iBook here. See the gallery. This may be but a badge away from the MacIntel you'll be buying next year. It's a fabulous and rugged machine by the way, albeit sold out here in the EU.
>>installing IE6 caused a hard drive crash
Any you are seriously blaming an IE6 install for your hard drive crashing?
Software doesn't 'crash' hard disks you fucking numbnut! A hard disk crash is a *mechanical* failure. Your drive probably crashed because it was a cheap piece of Maxtore shit or something.
Jeezus! You web monkeys are such fucking tech-gods!
Go back and play with your crayons and leave the technical people alone.
If you knew anything about Apple, or Microsoft, or the long-standing relationship they have, you'd never make such an ill-thought-out statement.
MS and Apple coexist quite nicethly thank you (despite the marketing rhetoric) and neither party wants to rock the other's boat.
That would be bad for both of them, but particularly bad for Apple.
"Apple's CORE USERS don't need or want Warez."
Yes, I am generalizing. Deliberately.
My point was simply that using piracy as a distribution or marketing method is not likely to help them, as Apple's core users have already demonstrated that they are less price-sensitive than X86 users. Witness - when Quark came out for the PC, some of the users went to the cheaper platform. Some did not. What does that tell you about the ones who stayed? The ones who 'needed' a Mac for a particular Mac-only software title left as the PC took off, and at this point, is there any reason to stay with Macs just for application 'X'? No - one of the biggest complaints against Macs is that there are relatively fewer software packages written for it. So why do the core users stay? They like the whole "Apple way".
PS - I did not say, nor do I believe, that Mac users are morally superior to Windows users, nor do I suggest that Macs don't have any problems with virii and such, and sure, there's piracy. Both platforms have these problems, and they are not relevant to this thread.
What is relevant is what the 'core users' of each 'system' consider a priority: lower price sensitivity in Mac users implies price incentives will be less effective, in general, for Mac users than they will be for windows users. Hence, 'free' software is less likely to entice the Mac users, in general.
And yes, I've only been a Mac owner since 1998. So? Using a system for 7 years, I *might* have learned something about it. Maybe not as much as some, but hey... if it helps, I first started using Macs in 1989-92 when I was a newspaper reporter, then assistant editor. We ran Quark. I liked them then, too, but I couldn't afford one of my own. I had to wait until I got a real job to 'switch' my personal machine.
The only people bothering are teen l33t boys (of any age), who post things like I got to work on my boxen..., then it is back to building their collection of pirated Appz/Gamez and PrOn.
I don't see anyone seriously running their system on this. This is simply a case of "I can do it" no recomendations are going to come from this. The people who DL and install this are not going to leave behind all those wonderful windows piracy tools and start actually running OSX.
Any recommendation from this group will probably be along the lines of it doesn't have much warez available.
Here is a startling thought. Millions of people actually use a Mac with OSX every day as their main machine. They are more likely to generate buzz than a pimply faced geek who tried it for 5 minutes just to say he could get it running.
I have read many claims of getting OSX running all sounded like teenage boasts to me. No sign from anyone that they actually plan to use it.
I wonder how OSX for x86 might actually benefit linux. Might this open up the possibilities of using device drivers intended for OSX intel under linux via some sort of wrapper? conversely does this open up the possibility of running OSX applications under linux via an equivalent "WINE" type project - perhaps with some sort of darwin runtime layer?
;)
...
Anyone care to comment on what kinds of symbiotic benefits this might bring?
Certainly "Darwine" just got a big helping hand
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
If you'd like to define "core users" I would be happy to hear what you mean. Given that the users I'm talking about are Mac loving, Mac breathing, Mac owning and using both at home and a work for their entire lives. I'm talking about people that consistently buy Apple and consistently use Apple. People that would never consider doing otherwise.
I should note that many of the ones I know have eMacs at home because their budgets could not afford PowerMac G5s. Oh and the other ones mostly have lower cost iBooks. A few have iMacs and only one I know of has a G5 at home (he does video work on the side). Price is an issue to Mac users - that's why Jobs offers lower cost options and has for years.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Apple put a friggin sticker on the iPod to say "don't steal music".
Do you think they will go out of their way to make sure that their OS can't be hacked or run in some non-Apple hardware?
Uhm...how do you know that the hit will be massive?
Not to mention, how many games do you know that use OpenGL?
Again, my point is only that Mac users are less price-sensitive than X86. Someone who was truly price-sensitive would go to X86 and buy a beige box, not an eMac or Mini.
Even the Mini is more expensive than a similarly equipped X86 box.
If price is less of a consideration for Mac users, as is my contention, then piracy is less attractive.
possible featureset:
2ghz P4
256 ram, 40G hd
bring your own mouse/kb/mon/peripherals (hope for good drivers or buy apple certified devices)
anti-virus utils in rom (crypto verifies a signed kernel to prevent rootkits) + included with os
OS-X with a year's worth of updates for os + antivirus with subsequent monthly / yearly subs avail
$499
even starving college students could afford one - they'd sell faster than Apple could build 'em.
Dell, HP & Gateway could do HP-ipod style licensing so Apple gets paid w/o having to invest in massive manufacturing capacity (just gotta keep a close eye on licensee quality control). folks would KNOW that any box with an Apple sticker is rock solid (dude, I got an Apple-Dell!) and businesses could rely on good hardware with excellent support
bigger/faster macs would of course be more expensive, but Apple could start taking some real marketshare
You want ito reduce this to a simple thing that bolsters your position. Understood.
It isn't simple, there are many more than three issues, and you are deliberatly eliminating context. I understand that you would like to erase some of your earilier remarcks and perhaps dissociate yourself from the remarks made by others who take your position but I will address them nevertheless. Additionally your three simple points that you want to reduce this too are not sufficiently independent issues to pose them as you have.
Equating software and hardware-software service combinations with garden tools is a mistake. If enough people make the same mistake then the public in general will suffer the consequences.
Your view of and analogies with products and services is deliberately over simplified in order to make a destructive approach sound reasonable. In spite of the current market conditions and the 95% market share obtained through illegal means by a company that is still unchained you want to squash the remaining competitors with your self serving view of the rules which are ignored by the company who's behavior you indirectly idealize in your argument. Even though you probably don't intend it you are being a shill.
I understand what you want the law to be, how you want future court cases to be settled and how you would like to believe that the great masses agree with your superficial morality. You have constructed a world view to rationalize doing things at someone elses expense without regard for the consequenses for them and other people. The heart of this seemingly rational disposition is twisted and destructive.
The customer is not right when the customer steals. If its legal to put software on another machine then it is. What's your point ? The problem is that whatever the law is people who gather behind your banner will whine about the situation until they can make every business provide service on their terms under force of law. I doubt that laws like this will serve the public interest in the long term.
This isn't about MS and Apple per se. Its about them because they are all thats left in viable service providers for the desktop. If you and yours have your way there will soon be nothing left but MS and Linux. If you think that this combination provides a viable path into the future of a technology in its infance then you are mistaken, You need to think about the reality of the situation rather than about the cohesiveness of your rational disposition.
Finally, and to be a bit repetitive, there is no merit, honor, or morality in arguing for rules that you consider to be ideal in a game with a thousand pound gorrilla that ignores your rules with your implicit blessing.
Later
- Was Apple's ajenda to get current users of Windows and other OS's to try Mac OS X?
The fact that OS X has been hacked could be a blessing in disguise for Apple as it has potentially exposed OS X to an untold number of users.
I'm sure that when OS X is offically released for X86, it won't be as easy to hack. What Apple may have done here is to get more people excited about OS X and this may draw more users to the platform once the Mactels are released. Either way, more people are going to get their hands dirty by playing with OS X and I'm sure many will find it appealing. I think that Apple has more to win here than loose as it will bring more "switchers" to OS X.
http://switchtoamac.blogspot.com/
I still don't agree. Consider, if someone is buying an eMac or Mac Mini because it's the cheapest Mac they can get, then they are also likely to want to save money by not paying for the software. This is what I have seen, for example with designers just entering the business. They don't make a lot of money, but they need a Mac to do work at home.
I believe piracy has more to do with convenience and an individuals income. The more disposable income you have, the less you are going to care about piracy. On the other hand most people will take a free copy of software if it's given to them. A good example would be Mac OS X Tiger, which I've seen pirated extensively.
Another example would be the student discounts that Apple gives out. At least four times in the last two months I've talked to someone who purchased a Mac for themselves but took a student in with them to the store to get the discounts or free ipod. And everyone seems to buy the student/teacher version of MS Office. They don't care that the license is supposed to be for use in education. They just see $150$400 for the same program.
Sometimes my arms bend back.
It works, and works really well. I have a prescott, so rosetta works unpatched. It can run iTunes, for example, perfectly. I downloaded that off the apple website. The GUI is really quick, even though I don't have drivers for my graphics card (geforce). Sound, USB, FireWire, ATA, Networking all work perfectly. I even have it dual-booting with my XP, and I didn't have to re-install XP or use another boot-loader to accomplish it, either. It was a very straight-forward process, involving a port of DD, a spare hard disk, and a couple of hours time. aaah! :)
When I was looking for a 12" portable I wanted a brand name computer. The Powerbook 12 and especially the iBook 12 are so far below the price of any PC laptop it's spooky.
So not only did I save money by buying Apple, I got a fully working BSD Unix box atraight off the bat - instead of buying a PC + Microsoft tax and then spending ages getting Linux to support all the peripherals and sleep mode.
My experience therefore of running Apple is that they have saved me a huge amount of time and money - plus the powerbook 12 (which I eventually got) is extremely cool, has excellent screen and sound and the scroll-pad feature just makes it so pleasant to use..
Because they said so. Massive will limit any opengl in a window to OpenGL 1.4. It's in the damn specs. So that hamstrings any app that wants to use the new OpenGL 2.0 features.
Secondly, let's see: Unreal Tournament, anything from id software off the top of my head. But that's neither here nor there... they run in full-screen, so they aren't limited by the massive (or whatever it's called) framework. It's the apps that do windowed 3D that have the problem.
If that doesn't explain it to you, nothing will.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Ah yes, because "they said so" ... they being not microsoft, who, at this point, are really the only ones who know anything.
I'm told that many PC video cards can be used in MACs as well as some other peripherals. Yeah, some video cards have a hardware mod or two in order to prevent the cheaper PC stuff from being dropped in but overall it's the same thing and apparently has been for awhile. The only thing valid here I see is that Apple has limited choices as best they can in order to only have to support a limited amount of hardware and to charge as much as they can.
How about Apple just go ahead and release this for X86 white boxes and let some of the peripheral manufacturers step up with the drivers. Think it wouldn't happen? It would quite quickly I'd bet - release it with announced support for only those companies who stepped up and let the rest scramble. It would make it pretty easy to decide between say an NVIDIA card or an ATI if only one had built drivers. It wouldn't be perfect but it would sell OSX like mad to all of us who use Windows but would prefer a desktop OS like OSX and want to skip the hassles of Linux. Oh wait, Apple won't be able to rape the consumer as easily for their hardware. Guess it won't happen...