Slashdot Mirror
Intel Mac OS X Catches Up With Older Brother
RetrogradeMotion writes "Apple is now one step closer to the Intel transition. According to the OSx86 Project, a recently leaked installation DVD of Mac OS X 10.4.3 reveals that the Intel version is in sync with the PowerPC version - the two are now identical. Initially, "OSx86" was substantially behind its PPC counterpart, but the recent update makes it ready for the public. The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections."
Time for the next hack to come along.
Until every byte of code verifies for itself that it is running on genuine Apple hardware before it will execute, I'm not sure if Apple can ever close this door.
Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it.
Hey, Steve, want to reconsider that move to Intel now?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Anyone want to place bets on how long it takes Lik Sang to sell mod chips
that allow PC's to run OSX?
I'm going to say within 12 months.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I don't think it will be possible to stop people from getting it running on non-apple hardware. It's just going to be a constant battle. There are too many people working on breaking it. Look at the Xbox, with its whole encryption/authentication scheme. That was broken after a few months.
Most of the people installing it on non-apple hardware probably wouldn't purchase apple hardware anyway. It's a good, non-official way, for apple to gain marketshare. The highschool/college kids of today are the decision makers of tomorrow. Get them hooked on OSX now (even if it's an illegal copy) means that they will likely influence their friends/family and employer to go with it.
Maybe apple should stop spending money on the resources to add copy protection and just let it go. If someone comes up with a good solution in the future, they can just roll it out in an update. In the meantime, let people get hooked.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it.
TPMs were never intended to be used for what Apple is using them for, thus the cracks only prove that a TPM isn't very useful for things it wasn't designed to do. The real TPM features like sealing and attestation still haven't been cracked.
nonfictional prose forming an independent part of a publication
Is it nonfictional? Check. Is it prose? Check. Is it an independent part of a publication? Check.
What, exactly, is your complaint? If it's that this is being treated seriously when it shouldn't, then say that instead of spouting nonsense about how this isn't an article, when it clearly is.
it's amazing how stuff always manages to get "leaked". It's too bad some extra money didn't get "leaked" in to my bank account. I suppose it's a good way to get stuff tested without being responsible for it's results.
Everyone wants a way to make it run on generic Intel hardware. The thing is, even if you could do that, OS X drivers are not going to be available for 95% of your periphrials. What good is running the OS with no network, sound, or perhaps even video?
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
One issue is the fact that they will probably use a different BIOS technology than standard IBM clones: Open Firmware or EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface). For compatibility's sake, your current PC uses more or less the same BIOS as the original PCs when it boots up, and uses tricks to access higher modes. That's one thing I've always loved about Macs - the booting. No matter how much they try to disguise it with logos, I still see it's booting to the same resolution as DOS.
Also, consider the fact that they might deliberately only include driver support for their stuff. Driver support in Darwin is already pretty limited, and they have no incentive to produce more drivers than they will use. That means more hacking.
Finally, I think one of the goals with the TPM is to make it so that you'd have to produce a unique hack for each case, rather than one generalized hack that can be mass-produced. Can't give you specifics, but at least they're moving away from "Let's make it impossible to crack!" which always fails, to "Let's make it so hard to crack that only a market-insignificant number of people will be able to crack it!"
Anyway, I'm sure it's possible and somebody will do it, but it might not be as simple as a little solder job. I don't have much first-hand knowledge of this kind of stuff, I just read a little here and there.
So Apple is dedicating enough resources to make it difficult to run OS X on a non-Apple box, but isn't wasting it's time and money trying to totally secure it.
Brilliant
The people hacking OS x86 for non-Apple hardware aren't going to buy Macs anyway, they are in it for some other technical purpose.
The people who want OS X for business will go legit - too much risk for a company to steal like that.
The people who want OS X for a home aren't going to either know how to or want to take the time to fuss with some illicit download of the OS that won't be supported.
So the extreme hackers get OS X without buying an Apple box and maybe they even develop some cool apps with their pirated copy of Xcode too.
The big winner is still Apple (and OS X users).
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Intel OS X 10.4.3 is still a 32-bit operating system, whereas the PPC iteration is 64-bits. One step forward, one step back.
So why can't this check for TPM_Owner be removed?
Why even go that far?
Chances are the TPM check will be part of the Install program and not the OSx86 itself. If true, someone can Ghost an Apple Mactel image and then use the Ghost to install on a Non-Apple PC.
Why not just modify the ISO copy of OSx86 to change an assembly language instruction from JE to JNE or vice-versa, and then burn the new ISO and distribute that?
That way it only runs on Hardware that does not have a TPM of Apple? Like Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, etc.
Or better yet change the JE to JMP and JNE to NOP, that way it can run on all hardware.
Take it from me, I used to write assembly language back in the day, and had to get copy protected software running on network drives, and the stupid software tried to check for a damaged sector on the hard drive which the Netware INT 21H did not allow. Almost everything is written in C/C++ now, which gets compiled into assembly or ML, which can be easily tweaked like I said.
I give the hackers a week, if not more than a month, to find a way around it and release the unprotected ISO on the P2P networks.
Not that I advocate piracy or cracking or hacking, I just know how it can be done.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
If you do have work to get done in the seven months we have to wait and you could easily afford one, I say just get a G5. Your stipulated G5 wouldn't die the exact moment Steve presents the Intel Macs on stage - it won't be cutting edge anymore, but that'll be as true if you were to buy an Intel Mac seven months before its next generation as well.
If the encoding time is really cut down (which looks like a gimme), you'll make it up in no time. If it's really about productivity, you're comparing the last release of an architecture that's been out for several years now (even the G5 is around 30 months old now) to the first round of machines of a new architecture *ever* - there's no way they'll be as reliable as the G5. Major kinks are worked out (except for the 2xSATA drive limit) and apps have had time to be optimized for them.
Also consider this: We don't even know which Macs will be Intelized first! We do know that the Intel switch is all about speeding up the cramped PowerBook, so they will probably come first. There's a chance (although not big) they'll have you waiting until this time next year for an Intel PowerMac, and it's not even sure the performance will match!
I think this "let's hold our horses for a year or so" attitude is getting a bit out of hand. If you were to buy a PowerBook, then maybe I could understand you, but the G5-based Macs are definitely the highlights of today's lineup, and there's no way in hell that the first revision Intel PowerMacs will be a better buy than they are based on what little you've said.
I just have to call bullshit on this one. It is such a myth that Mac prices are completely outrageous compared to generic x86 PCs. You should compare apples to apples - not that I invented that pun in this situation. Find me a comparably designed PC to a iMac G5 and you will come nowhere near 2x let alone 10x the price. You can get a 17 inch iMac G5 with built in WiFi, Bluetooth, and iSight camera. Please point me to a vendor that has these features for half the $1299 price of the iMac G5.
Do you pay a price premium for most Macs? Yep. Is it anywhere 2x the price of a "comparable" PC. Nope.
You cannot buy a Yugo with leather interior. There is no such thing as a McDonald's meal that is rated at 5 stars. Motel 66 is not a luxury hotel. And you should not perpetuate the myth that Mac prices are some super premium compared to equivalent x86 PCs. There are plenty of valid reasons to critize Apple, but you stretch yourself quite a bit when you rehash old bullshit that their prices are so outrageous.
And you can save yourself the typing if your reply is only that Macs are more expensive than even a comparable PC. You are right, but it isn't anywhere near 2x.
Current Macs run 2-10X more expensive than comparable PCs.
What? No. Macs are typically 1.1-1.5X as expensive as comparable PCs. And that's if you're just comparing technical specifications; if you start looking at really comparable PCs, with similar high-quality, well-designed and nice-looking cases and peripherals, then the Macs are pretty competitive.
What tends to make people think the gap is larger than it is is the large number of very low-end, very inexpensive PCs on the market. Apple doesn't really make any systems that compete with them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Dunno, I see things like this Mac Mini clone selling for more than a Mini ($900 for the clone vs. $600 for the Mini), and I have to wonder. I think that Apple will pick up the economies of scale from the x86 component vendors and run with it. Sure, they'll still set a 30%+ profit margin, but I imagine they'll save enough money that prices should be "roughly" comparable. C.f. the Dell XPS systems, which seem to have a solid following despite their price premium.
Just junk food for thought...
I have a DTK with 10.4.3, so some notes from someone with an actual clue:
1.) The PPC version of 10.4.3 is NOT a 64-bit OS as several commenters claim. It's a 32-bit OS with some 64-bit math libraries.
2.) While 10.4.3 Intel may have "caught up" to the PPC version, it's still far from release quality. For example, Spotlight seems to be seriously broke and not functioning correctly in Mail.app, iTunes is still a PPC app, Safari crashes often, and Bonjour is still a bit borked.
OK, so you're either trolling, or you haven't thought about this for more than five seconds:
-One vendor means more supply from that vendor == price breaks
-One "family" of chips (OK, they might use more than one Intel family, but still) allows the engineers to not have to learn two radically different chip families. This means less re-training and more skill.
-ATI doesn't make motherboards. Having the CPU+mobo+chipset come from the same place decreases complexity by orders of magnitude.
Doesn't really matter what your or his or my time is worth... we're not going to be the ones to crack it, it's gonna be some kid in a basement in Estonia who has got nothing but time and deep motivation, and when he does it, then you and I and the next guy all will have access to it, too. It was never worth my time to sit down and crack CSS, either, but I can rip DVDs just like Jon can now. It doesn't take massive individual effort on the part of everyone who wants to circumvent this stuff, just one or two people who figure out the easy way for the rest of us.
No relation to Happy Monkey
The Mac comes with tons of sweet software and a warranty, as well.
17" LCD - $200
AMD Athlon64 3000+ (1.8GHz) - $135
PCIe/Socket 939 motherboard with SATA - $70
512MB PC2-4200 (DDR2-533) - $50
SATA 160GB drive - $60
PCIe Radeon X600 Pro with 256MB RAM - $84
802.11g Wifi card - $40
Logitech bluetooth mouse/keyboard combo - $100
Case/PSU - $50
Dual-layer DVD burner - $50
Filling out rebate cards that somehow never get paid - PRICELESS.
Good! The harder they work on keeping people from using it, the less effort they can put in making it good, and the fewer developers will come to the platform.
And if Apple doesn't do anything, then cheap-ass folks who call themselves developers will pirate the software. I don't think Apple is missing out on the "big" developer pool by not making their OS free
To me, this says that Linux is going to improve compared to OS X,
In what way? Linux sucks when it comes to user experiences. Developers on Linux seem to think that offers 100 command line options is a good UI for the average user. That's fine for the techies, but real folks want a real, full-blown user experience that is pleasant and seamless.
because Apple is investing effort in making their OS worse instead of better, and because they will fail to attract as many hackers as they could.
The OS is worse because they won't let you run it on some two-bit piece of hardware you threw together? Give me a break. How cheap are you really? As for failing to attract hackers -- who cares. I want folks that actually understand users to be writing the software, not some command-line, script-happy "hacker". And the reality is that Apple is attracting UNIX guys that are realizing that they can have their UNIX power and a real interface.
I already switched from OS X to Linux because I find it technically superior
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, since technically superior is very vague. Windows is technically superior at running Active-X controls and if you need that, it would be the choice. In the end, it just sounds like you are trying to rationalize your decision to stay away from the mainstream desktop world. That's fine -- but don't expect 99% of the rest of the population to think like you. Linux has its uses, but running a Desktop is not one of them. Until there are folks that understand usability designing the entire Linux user experience, it won't make it into the mainstream.