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.
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.
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).
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.
skepticism ignored... but emoticons? there is no excuse.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Want to start a pool as to what day uspecting college student receive Apple supeonas. I call Monday.
-- You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
-- evil is as evil does
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?
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.
-- I am trolling
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
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"
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.
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.
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"
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.
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
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
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: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.
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: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
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
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?
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: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.'
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
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
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
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
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
CitizenJohnJohn
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Is that like Gore-Tex and Gore-Tices?
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.
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: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.
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
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
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.
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.
The TPM chip has a very fast SHA-1 implementation on it.
That'll be very useful when we need to hack a Gibson.
Hack the planet!
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.
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: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.
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: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.
round these parts we like to refer to it as a piehole.
-- music lover since 1969
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
-- --
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*
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
HA ! Caught you peeking at the replies !!
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: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: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.
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...
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
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: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).
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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
they get it running on toasters
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.
For those who are interested in learning more about Rosetta.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
That's why you should read the title:
More OS X on Plain Old x86 Boxes.
The articles have screenshots in them, but I didn't expect anyone to read that.
n d-running-on-an-ordinary-pc/
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000070054245/
http://www.uneasysilence.com/os-x-proven-hacked-a
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-----
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
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?
My guess is that Bill would drop support for Office on the Mac in about 1 second if OSX ever retailed in Best Buy
The Big Yuan - tracking mainland China
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
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.
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.'
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
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*
Apple's second biggest product is buzz.
Let's face it, nobody works the media like Apple. I love it.
photosMy Photostream
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.
The TPM chip has a very fast SHA-1 implementation on it.
That'll be very useful when we need to hack a Gibson.
Hack the planet!
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
it's on EVERY TORRENT SITE, EVERYWHERE.
:)
christ people, look before you open your mouth
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
--
"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*
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.
Throw in: ...and you've got my Fedora Core installation!
No fan support
Uses a ton of battery
Unresponsive UI
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.