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."

3 of 672 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Don't know, but by Golias · · Score: 4, Interesting

    it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts

    There were Intel Bashers because Pentium technology (the P4 in particular) was pathetic compared to AMD and PPC offerings of the time.

    Some of these people are becoming Intel cheerleaders because 1) Intel managed to surpass the performance of the G5, and has closed the gap a bit on AMD. 2) Early reports of the chips expected to come out of Intel around Q3 of next year are remarkable.

    "Mac fans" are actually rather split on the subject. Those who acknowledged that PC's were generally faster machines most of the time for most tasks could not be happier with the Intel switch. Those who rambled endlessly about "the Megahertz myth" (even after x86 chips were clearly lapping the G5) are still sore about it, and hoping that Jobs will change his mind about dropping PPC sometime between now and 2007.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  2. Re:"article"???? by rob_squared · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I think over the years it has been pointed out many times that its exactly that risk that can shut up the normal reporter, but not the blogger. The mistake here is thinking that one type of media must replace the other. But that's not true.

    Letters exist even with email.
    Radio exists with tv.
    Journalism can exist with blogs.

    --
    I don't get it.
  3. Re:Time For A Class Action Suit Against Apple & by akhomerun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    what suddenly gives you the right to decide that you should be allowed to run their OS on any hardware?

    do you sue companies that won't allow you to unlock the processing potential of fancy touch screen cash registers, palm pilots that can't run Windows Mobile, or a watch that doesn't allow you to change it's OS? do you sue palm pilot because they refuse to allow you to buy Palm OS and run it on any machine you please? or the cash register manufacterer for not selling you their cash register OS for normal PCs?

    no, because it's absurd. why is it absurd? because these companies depend on hardware sales. just like apple. this is not illegal to the slightest bit, and you can't prove it in court for the following reasons:

    the fact is that apple doesn't want to license their OS for any hardware but their own. whether it's Intel, IBM, or Motorola, it's no different. Intel does NOT have a monopoly on the market, as Intel does not hold even close to 100% marketshare of the PC microprocessor market.

    Apple has broken no law whatsoever in this regard, and the fact is that by restricting what type of hardware customers can use with OS X, apple can do a number of things that are GOOD for the consumer:

    1. integrated hardware/software means there are less drivers to deal with, more plug and play is easily achievable
    2. more features can be added to the computers without adding 3rd party programs. Things like the sudden motion sensor and the scrolling trackpad can be integrated in the OS. The OS can have custom versions that are optimized for their particular model.
    3. tech support doesn't have to deal with thousands of different parts in beige box PCs, which saves the consumer time on the phone with Apple's tech support representatives. in court, apple could argue that this makes their tech support cheaper than the competition (which it is in many cases).
    4. Lowering the hardware confusion makes documentation easier, and reduces to a small extent crashes/bugs/problems. Any bugs/crashes/problems can be detected faster when you know exactly what parts are in the computer and how they interact.
    5. Also in respect to #4, reduction of these general problems increases the quality of the product. reducing crash/bug/problem downtime makes for a more valuable, satisfying product.
    6. i'm guessing security is easier, too. knowing what hardware is in the computer means knowing exactly where and how information can leave and enter the computer.