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."
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 : )
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
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.
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.