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 know if this will run on regular Intel based hardware, or only a Mac-specified one?
It's a posting in a blog, which is a far cry from an "article".
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
So does anyone else find it funny that we get an Apple-Intel update on within 6 hours of a "Intel processors get their asses kicked" story?
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."
"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."
TPM protections = OSX locked to Apple hardware
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.
As you may or may not know, TPM stands for "Tensão Pré-Menstrual", which is the Portuguese term for Pre-Menstrual Syndrome. Exactly why hackers would want to get by those TPM protections is beyond me.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
That's because they never were Intel bashers. They are all Steve fans, and what Steve says - RULES! (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He's still living in yesterday's truths.)
It's rather a lot like Scientology. You just have to change the names of the players, and keep forking out the money.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
To all of you that thought an outdated version of the OS was actually "leaked".
:-)
Congrats, Apple just made you an unpaid security consultant.
Well, there's this tiny little guy with a magnifying lens who will live in your computer case, and- nah, I'm just kiddin' :)
Fork over $1500 and they'll give you (er, LEASE you) a full development kit and compatible hardware.
http://developer.apple.com/
http://developer.apple.com/membership/promo.html
The revolution will NOT be televised.
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
I own a G3 yosemite running LinuxPPC, it's my firewall,IMAP,WWW,PHP server.
And I own a VIA C3 Samuel running Linux x86, it's my firewall,IMAP,WWW,PHP,Shoutcast,DNS,File server. So whats your point?
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
on using the cover sheets on the TPM report?
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Continued improvements in both releases of 10.4.3 include an optimized table of system values organized in a hash known as a "registry," a simplified four-color theme, and a sophisticated AI-based Automator avatar known as "Guru" who appears at the bottom of your screen to anticipate Automator tasks by asking questions such as "It looks like you're writing a paper."
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
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.
I think it stands for Trusted Platform Module. Basically, the software does a check on the hardware to see if it's genuine or not.
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.
Um, no.
Either ppc or x86 machines can produce FAT^H^H^Huniversal binraries.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Leaked install DVD? HAH! That's for scriptkiddies. Where's the leaked kernel source code?
--
make install -not war
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.
"it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts"
While that may be true for some, I for one think the Intel move is shaping up to be a huge mistake. While I was at first willing to accept that transition, the more I see in regards to Intels recent failures, the more I don't like the shape of things to come in Apples future.
It's quite unfortunate that Apple chose not to go with the Cell and that IBM couldn't be bothered to deliver a laptop capable G5 in a reasonable timeframe.
Personally, I look forward to seeing the benchmarks between G5's and x86 Macs.
As I expect a rather sad and painfully ironic day. Where we see year old hardware outperforming the new gear when it comes to Apples core market... photo and video professionals.
What I have to ask is, why Intel?
At only 3% marketshare, I think AMD would have been quite capable of meeting their supply requirements.
If anything good comes from the Intel changeover in the immediate future, it will be the resurrection of the PowerBook, which has been left out in the cold to die thanks to IBM and their empty promises.
Anyone know what the status of the iLife apps is?
Final Cut Pro?
I'd love to cut my DVD encoding time down but I can't justify getting a new G5 for the 6-10 months we'll be waiting for the new CPUs.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I mean the beauty of OSX Macs is the tie between beautifully designed, robust, classy hardware and a Unixoid OS with eyecandy UI. If one runs illegal OSX in some crappy consumer PC, there is no support, no quarantee, nothing. The experience is kaput. I'd rather run Linux in a mainstream PC than a warexxored no-support hacked OSX.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
I want an OS that I can multi-boot MS-Windows and Linux on that runs on commodity hardware.
Apple has said they will not try to prevent other OS's from booting on intel boxes they sell. As for commodity hardware, well that will depend, I suspect Apple boxes will, as usual, implement lots of hardware that does not yet work in Windows. Apple will prevent OS X from running on hardware they don't sell, since the OS and all the other software they produce is a loss-leader to sell hardware and they would be losing money developing the OS and all the free applications and selling it at current market prices. Also it would put them in direct competition with MS, whose illegal contracts make business pretty much impossible. Four superior OS's (to Windows) have already died trying to sell into that market.
Otherwise, "Mac OSX on TPM'd Intel" is just another way of saying "Mac OSX on a proprieTary PlatforM." Not interested.
That will probably be your opinion of Apple boxes. They will run OSX , Linux, and the BSDs just fine, but Windows is anyone's guess. Windows will probably run fine in emulation ala VMWare and the like, and their will probably be some sort of WINE like way to run Windows programs, but I would not count on MS letting it boot out of the box. Of course Apple's PPC platform was technically even more open and runs Linux and the BSDs as well. It was even produced by multiple Vendors without reverse engineering (unlike x86). So when you say , "proprieTary PlatforM" I assume you really mean "platform that runs Windows."
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
Apple is on the cutting edge of making sure their OS runs on the slowest CPUs possible. For a while that was PPC, back when Intel was kicking ass and taking names, and Motorola couldn't find their ass with both hands. But now that IBM is starting to pop out high speed multi-core PPC chips, it's time to find a new slow chip.
;-)
Face it, Apple is cursed, what ever chip they use is doomed to be second rate. If intel was smart, they would have kept their distance
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.
I'd bet Apple knows that TPM will never be 100% successful and that that is OK by them (although I doubt they would admit it). People who really want to _try_ OS X will get a free hacked copy. People that really want to _use_ OS X in a production environment will buy it. I doubt that many people will want hacked version of OS X if they know that it means potential instabilities, lack of updates (or hassles to get updates), etc.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
If we brush capitalism aside, then yes, I guess you're right. Keep in mind that the more $3000 machines they sell, rather than $300 ones, the more likely they'll be able to stay afloat and/or keep maintaining high standards for their software. Making something "just work" costs money.
It also requires a completely locked down platform with the minimal amount of hardware variables. Windows is so crashy because there are a billion different hardware configurations and terrible drivers written by foreigners who can't read or write documentation for anything in English to save their life.
Sound will be a problem. Graphics will be a problem. Those two things, only because nobody buys a new sound chipset or graphics chipset to put in their Macs. But everything else will be OK.
If you want to write software that works cross-platform try looking into wxWidgets library (http://www.wxwidgets.org/)
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.
The G5, at least, isn't that efficient. I just bought a brand new PowerMac G5 (dual core 2.3GHz). It's certainly a fast machine, but for almost everything I do, its slower than the 2.2Ghz dual-core Athlon X2 that's sitting next to it. For compiling code, it's about 70% as fast as the X2 system. For SciMark, it ranges from 95% as fast (for the small in-cache dataset), to 80% as fast (for the large in-memory dataset). For nbench,if you leave out one really awful score that's probably the result of a bad compiler optimization, its about 80% as fast. These were all done with GCC 4.0, of course. The 970MP SPEC benchmarks suggest that if I used XLC (and EkoPath on the X2 to be fair), I could probably get it to be 90% as fast in integer as the X2 and 25% faster in floating-point, but considering those scores is entirely an act of intellectual mastrubation, since most stuff on OS X is compiled with GCC or CodeWarrior anyway.
Of course, I love the machine to death, because of OS X, but the way I see it, Apple is going to gain a good deal of performance by moving to x86.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The point is that the 5% of your peripherals that are supported are very common. Looking at the Intel HCL, I know I could easily dig up several of those cards (lying around the house). Most onboard AC/97 soundcards seem to be supported, which is what is used on the Mac anyway. The only sticky point is video (only Intel 900GMA cards are accelerated), and perhaps SATA (nForce4 SATA isn't supported, most PATA controllers are). Firewire and USB are standard EHCI and OCHI, so that's all good. What more does your average user have?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
It's quite unfortunate that Apple chose not to go with the Cell
Yeah, the Cell and it's completely branch-pessimizing architecture would have run a general purpose OS just great
And it's not as though it's a big port job to switch to AMD if Intel doesn't shape up. They're binary compatible. That's why the switch is a good thing; two competing, competent vendors to choose from with no porting cost if you switch between.
I didn't know that was a synonym for "download via bittorrent".
Free Hans!
Of course they can't and don't expect to. Their goal is to make sure it does not effect profits. People will always hack and pirate and Apple can't stop them. Their goal is to make it hard enough that most people won't bother and so that 99.9% of users would rather use a Apple system than deal with hacking another system to sort of work. Heck people ran Mac OS in emulators on x86 hardware years and years ago. It just was never enough to make any difference in the marketplace. Do you think Apple cares if 500 hackers get OS X sort of running on commodity boxes? Hell no, these people would probably never have bought a legitimate copy anyway and even if they would have it is not worth the effort to lock the system down more just to sell 500 more copies. Anyone who thinks more than a tiny percentage of the market will be running a hacked version is quite mistaken.
I agree, I have seen OS.X for Intel installed and running on a random PC laptop (and that was an older OS.X version with less security) and the problem isn't just the effort involved in cracking OS.X and getting it to work. It is the fact that once you have it installed and working all sorts of hardware, from a simple USB key to the display card and the CD/DVD recorder, don't work 100%, some programs won't work and what does work is often unstable. All in all you have to pour more effort into installing a hacked OS.X and keeping it going on a random PC (and it's not a given that your random PC will work very well enough for OS.X to even boot) as you would getting Linux to work and keeping it working (and Linux at least is practically guaranteed to boot on your random PC and likely to work better). So why bother?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
Actually they are not restricting with you do with the hardware.
TPM only ensures you can run OSX on validly TPM'ed machines, not restrict you from running other OSes.
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.
I'm more curious if the proprietary Apple machines will be able to dual boot into XP, or Longhorn, or Linux...
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.
Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger: Developer Overview. "...there is only one version of the kernel for all Apple hardware." (Which must be 32-bit in order to run on older hardware.)
64-Bit Transition Guide. "Because 64-bit applications will be supported using a 32-bit kernel, this 64-bit support will have no impact on most device driver or kernel extension writers."
Incorrect that 64-bit apps have to be limited to the command line. Just that the GUI has to run 32-bit code and the backend of the app can run as 64-bit code. Apple claims this is a better way to go as the GUI does not really need to be 64-bit anyway, so it's more efficient.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe people will end up compiling a list of hardware combinations that work fine, instead of throwing it at any random piece of hardware.
``1) "The harder they work on keeping people from using it, the less effort they can put in making it good"
And why would that be? There's this little thing called "hiring". They can actually have people work on both concepts.''
There is a finite amount of effort they can invest in their OS. They don't have infinite money, and even if they did, they couldn't hire infinitely many developers.
``2) "this says that Linux is going to improve compared to OS X,"
Uhuh. Linux - the powerhouse of well designed UIs.''
I wasn't arguing that.
``3) "they will fail to attract as many hackers as they could"
Why would they *want* to attract more hackers? As far as the infrastructure goes, they're using BSD - so infrastructure stuff runs just fine. As far as the UI goes - as soon as there are OSS projects with a decent UI, we can talk about this again. Not happening so far.''
There is always room for improvement. One of the major reasons I switched to Linux is that fork is horrendously slow on OS X. More hackers means more people to fix issues like that one. However, I wasn't thinking about the OS per se, I was more concerned with applications. Applications developed on Linux don't always port easily to OS X, and if OS X doesn't have enough mindshare among the people who write these applications, they will fall behind in application support.
Also, things like Reiser4, Xen, User Mode Linux, FUSE, etc. etc. are all interesting projects that work with Linux because that's what the hackers who work on these projects use, and they don't work with OS X, because the hackers don't use that.
``4) "I already switched from OS X to Linux because I find it technically superior"
Surprise message of the day - nobody cares about technical superiority.''
That's obviously false. I switched because I care. There are others like me. Many people switch from Windows to Linux because they find it superior. Others have switched from Linux to FreeBSD, or from HP-UX to Solaris - there are plenty of examples.
``What it's all about is that it's easy to use. And since most people consider configuring kernels or drivers not part of they want to do, Linux isn't easy to use. It might be for you. It isn't for me.''
There is no need to configure kernels or drivers to use Linux. Every time I see someone write that, it makes me angry. It just plain isn't true, and you're stating it as if it were a fact. Sure, there are certain things you can achieve by building a custom kernel, but just to use Linux, there is absolutely no need to bother.
``Because I *really* don't want to run XConfig and figure out PS2 mouse intricacies and resolve interrupt conflicts when I have actual work to do.''
If you have to do all these things, you have some seriously crappy hardware. If you want to see how user friendly Linux can be, take Ubuntu for a spin on almost any half-decent hardware. It has very good autodetection, leaving you with few questions to answer (like the country you're in, the timezone, what username you'd like to use, that sort of stuff). Of course, it doesn't work with all hardware, but I'm confident that it supports a whole lot more hardware out of the box than OS X, and maybe even Windows.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Only as long as they don't try to make it mass-market compatible and just continue to develop it only for the Apple x86 platform and silently accept some people are running it on non-Apple hardware.
But, since Apple is still a hardware company that sells the overall experience, it would still be a bad idea, IMHO. And Microsoft has more than one way to put a major barrier into the adoption of OS X/x86 as an alternative to Windows. The most likely and effective way would be to cease the development of Office/X - that would be a big blow for Apple!
Part of the mess that is Windows is that Microsoft basically has to offer support for every crappy video card, mainboard chipset or whatever and because of that, the complexity of the system goes beyond anything manageable.
I firmly believe that a major reason why OS X works so well is that the engineers at Apple can test their software with every piece of hardware Apple ever built. Try that with Windows. If Apple would try to go beyond their own platform, they would face the same problems.
Sven
I urge everyone to boycott Apple and OSx86 because of the draconian copy protection and spyware features
Spyware? Draconian copy protection? Wha?
Does the bag of bullshit you're carrying around ever get too heavy? In five years, every single PC and PC motherboard will have a TPM. You might as well boycott sand.
Look at what Microsoft did with Windows: they let Windows be freely pirated, and now they dominate the desktop.
Do you really think that's why MS dominates the desktop? You don't think it's because of all the licensing deals MS had with all the PC makers? And the fact PCs had become a commodity item long ago and were cheaper than Macs, thus Joe Blow would buy the PC based solely on price (thus, getting Windows)? Or maybe that the common (incorrect) perception for a long time was that PCs were for business, Macs for designers...so people kept buying the PCs. Why didn't OS/2 make it? Couldn't that be pirated? Wait...I do recall people loading up Mac OS on machines all around school. I don't think Microsoft dominates the desktop because they let Windows be pirated.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
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.
Right about now, some Linux noob is asking him/herself the same question.
The thing I don't understand is why Apple doesn't just switch the laptops and the Mac Mini to Pentium M, and leave the iMac and PowerMac on the G5. Developers are going to have to compile for both ISAs anyway, so why not just use the best CPU for the job all the time?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
In five years, every single PC and PC motherboard will have a TPM.
:)
Only if they start confiscating any computer over five years old.. They can have my pre-TPM machines when they pry them out of my cold dead hands
The real "older brother" might be NeXT on 68k.
[ReidNews]
No, it fucking isn't time for a class action suit every time someone mildly inconveniences you or fails to blow you just the way you like it.
NO DAMAGES. They are not damaging you. They are not breaking your toys, they are not promising you something other than what they sell, they are not stealing anything from you. You have NO DAMAGES. You are unharmed. They are not legally obliged to make you maximally happy.
If Apple promised that everyone who bought OS X could run it on commodity hardware, then reneged and said "no, wait, our hardware only", you might have a basis for a lawsuit.
I have been involved in a couple of class action lawsuits, such as a lawsuit against Allied Telesyn for sending junk faxes, or a lawsuit I have going with a local mortgage lender where they appear to be on the hook for about $12.5 million in liability. These cases are based on actual damage done to people, not on companies not making me happy enough or running themselves the way I'd like them to.
I would like it if everyone whose first response to a distant rumor that a future product will not be what you want to buy is to declare that it is "time for a class action" would just STFU and stop being such whiners. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Congratulations, you have managed to avoid being damaged and you have no need to waste your time going to court over the damages you were able to avoid by NOT EVEN DOING A DAMN THING.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Apple wasn't going to have completed the Intel transition till 2007 anyway, so it's not like the timing is a huge problem. The dual-core PA Semi chip is supposed to be out first, 3Q06;
Yeah, assuming absolutely no delays, and part of that plan is to scale down to a new 65 nm process, and new processes are always fraught with delays. It's like a freaking law of nature.
The PowerPC road is littered with the bloated corpses of aggressive young companies that were going to come in and shoot the moon with fantastic new advances; history is not on PA Semi's side. Freescale's got a magic new G4 that was due months and months ago. Remember Exponential Technologies and their revolutionary x704? Neither does anyone else, but in 1996 the tech world was enchanted with its promises of a new PowerPC (shipping in 12 months!) that was going to run circles around everything else. Good thing Apple didn't bet on their success.
And what's Apple supposed to do? Sit around with the portable lineup stagnant for another 18 months because of the vapourware promises of a startup with no experience delivering to a company as big as Apple? That sounds like a winning business plan to you? Betting the farm on a fringe player's completely unsubstantiated promises is suicide.
No, Apple's making the smart move: putting themselves where all the competition is. Now they don't have to worry about keeping up with the Joneses because they are the Joneses. Apple will finally have two suppliers driving each other in the same market space, which is a luxury they haven't had since the early days of the PowerPC. Hell, all reports are that the current x86 Mac dev boxes already kick the living shit out of the G5 lineup, speedwise.
> we're nowhere near the point where enough people will accept their programs phoning home in order to run them.
a tion and iTrustedComputing.
You're right. Everyone will surely switch to Linux once Microsoft and Apple start forcing that. Just like the droves who switched when Windows Activation was introduced. Just like the torrential flow of enterprise and home users that switch every day due to the myriad gaping security holes in Windows.
</sarcasm>
People are lazy. Not just regular lazy, but LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZY. And even more so, they're AFRAAAAAAAID of CHAAAAANGE. They ask, "What do I have to do in order to keep doing things exactly the way I've been doing them since 1995?" and even if the answer involves bodily harm, they'll do it. Even if it's harder than just friggin' learning a new way to do things.
If 50 zillion college students put up with the pile of dung that is MySpace, 100 zillion consumers and pointy-haired-bosses will put up with WinGenuineAdvantageHourlyPhoneHomeProductKeyValid
Count on it.