Slashdot Mirror
OSx86 Cracked Again
The Cardboard God writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that the intrepid hacker 'Maxxuss' has once again eluded Apple's security methods and cracked the latest release of Mac OS X for Intel, or 'OSx86', to run on standard x86 PCs. It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers, as 10.4.4 included beefed up security designed to prevent similar hacking methods used on beta releases of the operating system. Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?"
amusing.
Cheers.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
anyone know how to get it to run on a vanilla 600MHz pentium 3 laptop (a dell latitude cpx in my case) ? ive got a spare laptop and no OS on it....
It's more of a nuisance. Even Steve Jobs once famously declared that "anything with a key can be cracked," (or words to that effect). A cracked OS X will play mostly to the geek types, while yielding publicity dividends with the rest of the Wintel crowd. Average consumers will continue to buy whatever OS they choose retail.
Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
The patch replaces the following files:
- AppleSMBIOS
- ATSServer
- diskimages-helper
- Dock
- Finder
- loginwindow
- mach_kernel
- mds
- SystemUIServer
- translate
- translated
So, as long as you have no shame and don't mind running Mac OS X in a state that is completely unsupported, with a different kernel (!), modified in unknown ways, and in a state that won't be able to be updated with any OS or security updates from Apple (until they themselves are cracked), perpetually repeating this scenario ad nauseum, and also have no problems either:
- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and
- seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing (e.g., via the EULA, perhaps claiming EULAs aren't enforceable in your jurisdiction)
...then I'm sure you'll be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware indefinitely.
Is this actually surprising?
Someday, Apple - you know, the entity that has invested billions of dollars, all told, and countless thousands upon thousands of manhours in the development of Mac OS X and its associated products - may choose to partner with specific x86 vendors and specific hardware products to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware at some point in the future. But for now, I love the editorial slant of x86project.org:
What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.
This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?
Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.
"When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD"? I'm sorry, but even if you claim they're just "telling it like it is", that attitude has absolutely no respect for the hard work of others. Forget copyright. Forget the DMCA. What about just pure ethics? I suppose if one is a relativist, they might ask, "Ethics? By whose standards?"
And again: if you change enough of Mac OS X, of course you'll be able to get it to work on non-Apple hardware. It will take some reverse engineering and time, but it will always happen. This doesn't mean TPM is any less "secure" for its purposes. Ironically, it actually validates TPM: trusted computing is designed to make a platform just that: trusted, and operating in a predictable state. This hack job on Mac OS X (Intel) is anything but.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product. Even if Mac OS X (Intel) is sold standalone (as it may be in the form of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard).
It will not be good for Apple. Apple makes it's money from it's hardware. They make good software to sell that hardware. The OS alone will drastically reduce revenue.
Coral Cache of link
Posted anonymously to avoid karma whoring, so feel free to mod this up.
Even if something results in a gain for someone, if they feel it's a nuisance, it's a nuisance.
At this point it probably doesn't make much of a difference, as you have to jump through hoops to get it running. In a few years, now...we'll have to wait and see.
Stopping someone from cracking this sort of thing by strengthening the protection won't work simply because of the number of skillful people hammering at it. I expect more of a shift towards nailing the people who crack it and tell others how to the wall.
that if such a powerfull (talent-wise) company fails to create a considerabe protection for its highly wanted OS, and every release gets eventually cracked, it is yet another confirmation that they want it to be hacked?
Happy Valentines Day... from Maxxuss.
The hacking guru has announced preliminary patches for Apple's latest release of OS X for Intel, version 10.4.4. According to his website, http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/
This is a preliminary release of my Patch Solution for the official Mac OS X on the Intel platform. Ultimately, it would allow you to run this Mac OS X release on a generic x86 computer (SSE2 required).
There's still a lot of work and documentation to do, like support for SSE2-only CPUs, a proper installation procedure and a PPF patch. However, if you like to play around, this will get you started.
The significance of this event is huge. While many users were able to run OSx86 on their PCs last summer, the general feeling was that Apple hadn't implemented their final security solution. That much was true.
Onlookers have told us that 10.4.4 is a serious step forward in security, utilizing many of the same technologies as the 10.4.1 and 10.4.3, as well as the obfuscated code that Apple filed a patent for a few months ago.Few expected this final version - or at least the version that shipped with the first Macintels - to be easy to hack.
What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.
This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?
Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.
I wonder sometimes, with things like the iPod and the iMac's new FrontRow if Apple isn't slowly heading towards "information appliances" as its primary method of support, rather than simply a PC competitor with a nice interface.
Maybe in a few years it won't matter if OS X runs on commodity boxes, as Apple won't really be competing with them as their main business. Apple/TiVo anyone?
I very much doubt it's a "blessing" - I can't imagine why the submitter would phrase it that way. It would be a "blessing" if Apple was actually trying to get people to crack and leak their software (as some of the better conspiracy theories around seem to indicate), but I personally doubt that's the case. Every time someone "cracks" software, trust in the company suffers a downturn (large or small, depending on the context). There's no way this is some Apple plan to raise awareness of the project, because every headline reads "Apple [whatever] cracked again". That cannot be good, regardless of the real severity or relevance of the crack.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to get OSX running on my PC. It would be an early birthday present.
But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"
I doubt Apple has any drivers written for even the more common hardware out there. Chipsets, NICs, video cards, sound cards, etc. Sure, you might be able to get it running in a beige box, but too many will be outside of OSX's driver realm.
Of course, this will lead to normal users saying "Gollleee, now I can run OH ESS EKKS on my Walmart laptop by downloading it from the torrent thingeee." The next thing you know, they're cursing Apple's name as being a bunch of programmer hacks.
......That Apple is letting people outside it's organization be coders and beta testers to get OS X security issues out of their distro. Then they'll annouce that they've "magically" hardened the OS to make it less crackable so they can continue to rake in the profits from selling hardware.
But that's likely my tinfoil conspiracy hat talking.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
This article is a little hard on Apple. I've never been hired to clean out an Apple clogged with malware or viruses, meanwhile MS is my moneymaker. Pound for pound, wouldn't you agree that Apple has one way or another done a much better job in security in general? Even taking into account that MS is somehow a bigger target?
Why should apple bother with "security measures" that actively prevent users from running OSX on regular (non-apple) PCs in the first place?
Apple should just declare that they will not provide any support and anyone installing it is doing it on his/her own risk...
An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one,
It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.
Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.
Sigs are for the weak.
It's not going to affect Apple's bottom line. Until someone with only moderate computer skills as opposed to advanced computer skills can pull this off, it'll have exactly no appeal. And Apple's going to break whatever they do with every update. Sure, it's nice for the few hundred people who do it, but otherwise, it's not a serious threat to Apple.
From TFA:
"Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?"
I don't think so, Apple wants to produce a quality product, and can control the hardware and the OS, so it's fairly easy to make it a very stable product.
If they would want to release a version that runs on all (intel) x86 PC's they won't be able to have as much stability and quality control at all, and might give end users a bad feeling about this producs just as lots of people are annoyed with those driver issues that plague the Windows world (in terms of stability)...
Dependency hell? =>
This should not be considered hacking any more than modifying an Xbox to run "unauthorized software".
Vendor lock-in mechanisms shouldn't be considered "security".
I dont care what Apple's business model is, purchasers of software should be able to do with it as they see fit (as long as it's not for malice obviously). If I own a Mac, and want to install OS X out of curiousity on an Dell x86 system I have already paid Apple for both Mac hardware and Mac software. Why is it their business to try to prevent that? Just cause I buy a car doesn mean I have to drive it where Ford says I should.
Posted AC, because it costs mod points to say anything against Apple on slashdot.
The new MacBooks (MacBricks? HATE that name) and Intel iMacs offer as much or more bang for the buck as anything in the Windows world
(*pauses, waits for the inevitable screams of "Oh yeah? Well the PC that my brother's uncle's cousin's friend built from chips scavenged from the dumpster at Fry's and a case from an PC-AT can smoke your fancy MAC (sic) and it only cost me 25,000 lire or something like that. I don't know exactly, I paid him in chickens and pies." *)
To continue...
So why bother cracking OSX, when you can run Windows on your Mac (XP maybe, Vista definitely)? Or if you want something even cheaper, get at MacMini. Price/features wise, Macs are one of the best values out there. And slapping OSX on a beigebox PC and calling it the same as using a Mac is like saying putting Pirellis on your Chevy makes it a Ferrari.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
They're new to x86. Hackers have been here for *decades*.
Welcome to the mainstream, Apple.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Well, unless the procedure is easy to do, it's very unlikely to dent Apple's sales because many of the people who buy Macs don't want a hack job and will continue to buy a refined product. People who enjoy tweaking their systems and people who like to do this sort of thing who normally wouldn't get exposure to OS X will play with it and maybe they will like what they see. This in turn may lead them to buy a genuine Mac, or at least maybe buy, develop, or support OS X software.
I see this kind of like the DRM in iTunes. It's almost trivial to bypass, but good enough to keep an honest person honest. Building a bulletproof DRM is rather futile because people determined to do it will hammer it down eventually. I think Apple may have a similar philosophy here--good enough to keep honest people honest, or at least those who just want to use it, not build it (listen to music or use the computer).
The fact of the matter is that Apple doesn't really care about people running OSX on a non-apple system. It's money in their pocket either way. What they want to avoid is having a bunch of white box manufacturers and Dell selling $400 PC's pre-installed with the OS. By making an honest effort to prevent install on non-apple platforms, they can prevent any sort of commercial competition on the hardware side.
So yeah, a few geeks will get OSX running on their PC's. They'll struggle with getting drivers to work correctly on non-blessed hardware, but generally feel cool. The rest of the world will buy Apples when they want to run OSX.
But one interesting twist on this: if I was looking to buy Apple hardware in hopes of having a dual boot OSX system this might change my mind. To my knowledge nobody has managed to get XP to run on Apple's hardware, but OSX is apparently running on non-apple hardware. That might all change with Vista coming out soon, but in the mean time running OSX on non-apple systems might be the better option.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
and that means apple can't decide to take the approach of deliberately breaking compatibility with older versions anywhere near as easilly as they could with a beta!
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
marketing.
Cracked OSX environments can float around. They'll make almost no impact on sales, as they will be completley unsupported and a royal PITA to keep patched. Meanwhile, it will mean a lot of hackers out there who would otherwise not touch an Apple computer a close, personal look at what they are missing out on. If a tiny fraction of those people like what they see, more Macs get sold.
Meanwhile, Apple only needs to apply just enough security that non-hardcore hackers will consider OSx86 to be not worth the hassle, especially when the Intel-based Macs (so far) offer fairly similar ! for the $ to the other major brands.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Apple is at risk for an "illegal tying" lawsuit if they insist that their operating system run only on their hardware. IBM lost that issue decades ago, which is why there are IBM-compatible mainframes.
Looks like the Mac hackers hack the Mac OS so it will run on Windows PCs, while the common result of Windows hackers is to make the OS NOT run on Windows PCs.
What a great Valentines day! First I find out my new MacBook will have a 2GHz processor. Then, I find out that OSX can once again be loaded on every x86 box in my house. Now if VMware would just make an announcement today.
Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?
Publicly a nuisance, privately a blessing. Apple would never admit it, but if a fair number of hobbyists get this on their PC hardware it'll probably be good underground promotion leading to more hardware sales. A few of those hobbyists will certainly consider Apple's own hardware when it's time to upgrade since they'll already be happy with the software. Plus word of mouth never hurts. When a kid playing around with OS X on his PC shows it to dad Apple may get another sale.
Developers: We can use your help.
"seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing"
It's "wishes" for it's product? Stop it. Stop right now with this fiction. I wish that all software was perfect. I wish apple wouldn't charge me for each minor point release. I wish apple would do a lot of things. And they don't. Big deal. We can all live with that.
By the same token, Apple "wishes" I'd buy 20 Macbooks. They wish a lot of things, including wishing me to not put 10.4 on a generic x86 clone. But it isn't my job to make their wishes come true.
So stop with this benevolent view of Apple and their EULAs. Apple is a company no different than Oracle, Microsoft, or SCO. And EULAs are universally a bad idea. Combine those two, and you get "I'll put OS X on whatever I damned well feel lke it and let Apple wish away".
Fair enough?
Back when I worked at Apple and they were splitting the OS X project into multiple releases spread out over many years... The Apple AIX team was busy hacking Linux to run on the Mac hardware. So, it's not like they haven't don't similar actions in the past. But it makes you wonder if Maxxus is an ex-Apple/Intel-crossover programmer that was so pervasive back in '96. I know that most of the core code hasn't changed in the ten years it's been around.
7h3$3 4r3n'7 7h3 Ðr01Ð$ ¥0 4r3 £00|{1n9 f0r. M0v3 4£0n9. --OB1
I would like to see how AMD X2 fares against the CoreDuo iMac. Ah heck, throw some spicy hot netburst P4s in there too.
It's basically a challenge to crackers when Apple releases software this way, but at the same time it keeps the mainstream public buying Apple hardware because of the exposure. Just like in the world of fashion, all trends start in the back alleys.
So Intel OSX, "free of costly Apple hardware" will attract some of the best and brightest kids, but at the same time the parents of these kids... Mom isn't going to download the 0-day ISO of OSX so that she can run it on her crappy grey Dell, but if she suddenly decides she likes iMacs because they're pretty and because iPhoto is so cool, she'll buy one.
My guess is Apple will keep putting up these barriers, and the kids will keep breaking them down, and in-between the kids that get serious about OSX will buy Apple machines, and the mainstream consumer will continue to as well.
So, from Apple, it's "Oh, uh yeah, uh please don't... woe is us. *snicker*" Sorta like it is with XP and Microsoft now.
note: this post has been certified incoherent, but I'm hitting submit anyway.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Would be finding a way to allow Apple systems with Intel processor to dual-boot Linux or Windows.
I'm sure it's annoying to Apple since they seem to be going to great lengths to stop this kind of work, but you'd think they may be a bit happy that there's so much interest in their OS. Still, I think in the long run *if* you're able to run the OS on non-Apple hardware, they'll just make their key apps (Safari, Quicktime, iTunes) not function on non-Apple hardware regardless of it running OSX. So I think in the long run they'll win, but not with stopping ppl from installing OSx86 on stock PCs.
fak3r.com
I would guess that this is a blessing. Casual users won't bother with hacked versions of OS X and the sales loss from it will probably be minimal as long as these versions remain inconvenient. Serious hacker types -- the kinds most likely to write useful software for a system, I would guess -- will, and some of those who run OS X will probably write and/or port useful software to it, thus benefitting all the other users. Apple won't have to support the myriad of hardware configurations that people will try to run.
As long as cracked versions aren't widespread, this sounds like a win for Apple.
So you super hackers out there, you are only helping Apple secure the OS, helping them lock it tighter and tighter to their hardware. By releasing these cracks now, you give Apple an education, a lesson plan to learn from, so that they can do it better next time. If you wait until after OS X for Intel is out and *then* release the crack for it, then Apple will have a hell of a time stopping it. Don't release your cracks now, for goodness sakes. Wait until it's for sale, on the shelves. Please stop teaching Apple how to lock it down better. :)
This sig intentionally left blank.
However, when you look at Dell's Core Duo laptop and Apple's Core Duo laptop... the differences aren't much. That's the big win for Apple in switching to Intel hardware- the systems are really comparable and fairly easily similarly priced.
People hacking OS X to run on non-Apple Intel hardware *is* a blessing in a sense, because those who do go through the extra hassle to install OS X on non-Apple hardware are certainly asserting, beyond their hacking ( or simple file-sharing ) skills, that OS X is a really, really worthy bit of software to have... and they'll find, I suspect, that some things, in particular Software Update, won't play nicely at all with their very non-standard system. They're a seriously small number of people, probably, and are folks who either wouldn't for whatever reason buy *either* a Dell or an Apple system ( because it's all about building it yourself ), or, quite possibly, they're buying Apple hardware or software already ( don't you think the folks who worked out how to do this bought Apple hardware in order to do so ? ) in which case... well, let's just say Apple doesn't exactly go to great lengths to keep you from installing the same copy of OS X on multiple Apple machines... it's just not something they're worried about preventing. The notion that hacked x86 systems amount to try-before-you buy is probably not unfounded.
In short, while it's interesting to us geeks, it's not exactly a threat to Apple's business model... in a very real way, the fact that someone would want to do this pays quite a compliment to Apple's software, and is not terribly significant otherwise... just normal and likely small-scale software piracy, really.
As a third-party OS X software developer, it's just another ( small, likely ) set of machines I might be able to sell software or online services to, so it's all good for everyone except maybe Apple, and it's just not a big deal to them either, since hacked versions of OS X aren't going to be installed on over 1% of existing Windows PCs any time soon.
"It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers, as 10.4.4 included beefed up security designed to prevent similar hacking methods used on beta releases of the operating system. Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?"
Similiar sentiments were expressed during the Cold War, and look how that turned out.
I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image. Sure, you might be running a slick looking OS on a beige box, but that doesn't mean that it won't be any less stable than official Apple hardware. (That is, unless Apple intentionally cripples their OS...)
ConsultingFair.com
"Normal" buyers of Wal*Mart PCs won't have the technical acumen to install cracked versions of OS X and they probably won't have the inclination to do so anyway. Even if they did try, they would probably be less inclined to blame Apple because they won't have any expectation that OS X will run on generic PCs anyway.
This is just a simple fact of life. There is no 100% secure method of securing software, unless you develop it and never release it. Some intrepid/brilliant coder/programmer/hacker will always find ways around protection schemes, and that will never change, no matter how complex things get. Eventually, we may have machines that hack themselves to test security. That'll be one scary day.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I would pay more for OS X on a Thinkpad.
I don't like Apple's laptops, at all, and I'm not much of a fan of any of Apple's hardware.
Not that I'm gouing to run out and get a Thinkpad and install cracked OS X on it, but sheesh... Apple's hardware choices really suck.
As I wrote earlier Apple would be well to do to relieve some of this pent-up desire for OS X and capitalize on it by releasing a VMWare image that is sufficiently locked down for their own peace of mind.
The audience for OS X grows to anyone who can run VMWare player, they get Windows users into an Apple product upgrade cycle (upgrade to real hardware!), they still get to control the user experience the way they want to (no b0rked hacked video drivers), and best of all they get to grow their developer base.
Seems like a win-win.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Since when does a laptop with similar hardware and a $500+ higher price point constitute "more bang for the buck"? To use your analogy, slapping gold trim and and fancy wheels on a car doesn't make it faster/more useful either.
If microsoft started selling PC hardware, then locked all other PC's out with OS modifications, that would probably be illegal and anti-competitive, and they would be forced to unbundle the two.
But somehow Apple can get away with this, why is this? Because they less of a monopoly?
"The new MacBooks [...] offer as much or more bang for the buck as anything in the Windows world"
4 568&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=25&Countr yISOCtxParam=US&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&crc=1074370 188
s pa sp?a=168245,168244,168264,163762,167102&pt=2&sid=1 565
These are probably made in the same factory as Macbooks:
http://us.acer.com/acerpanam/page4.do?dau22.oid=1
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1907007,00.a
http://www.pcmag.com/compare_products/0,1943,,00.
Intel Duo
2Ghz processor
120GB HD
256M graphics memory (Radeon)
DVD+/-R - DL
battery life 3:47
List price: $2500
Street price: $2400
Hopefully, the Macbook has a 4 hour battery life.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Link to the torrent?
SuSE (or any other Linux) is open source, and has the benefit of thousands of people writing drivers so it will run on countless configurations. Mac OS X is not open source, and is only intended to run on the hardware that Apple or their 3rd party partners make for it.
Hence, if some 16 year old geek boots it up on a beige box that is missing some critical hardware component that OS X needs to run, there could be issues. The geek will just think that the OS is junk and not bother with it, when the issue is really that it was never meant to be run on vanilla hardware.
Is SuSE Linux unstable because there isn't a "gold standard" or "official" machine that will run it? Is Slackware any less stable or usable because I didn't get a PC from Pat Volkerding with Slackware pre-installed? Is FreeBSD more stable on a Dell or a HP?
I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image. Sure, you might be running a slick looking OS on a beige box, but that doesn't mean that it won't be any less stable than official Apple hardware. (That is, unless Apple intentionally cripples their OS...)
The real toughie is whether Apple will permit OS X to run virtualized on other hardware. The usual technical excuses for why Apple isn't shipping OS X for other hardware don't hold then.
The dilema is this.
Apple refuse to release OSX x86 as a retail product that will run on anyones WinTel PC. I can understand why but it doesn't mean i'm happy about that!
I'm very eager to dabble with OSX but as it is I don't particularly want to buy what is basically Apple's old technology in the form of a G4 powered Mac Mini (knowing that a DuoCore or similar version must be pretty close to being ready) nor can I afford to buy a DuoCore iMac or MacBook.
I really like Apple as a company and i've always paid up for iPods, stuff off iTunes, and legit software (OSX Tiger) when I had a brief forray into G4 Powermac ownership a few months back.. but sorry Steve - if I can find a way of obtaining OSX for x86 and the relevant patches, i'm gonna have a damn good go at getting it working on my WinTel PC!
Gotta try it. Don't wana play with usenet. Where's the torrent??
tia
(and I KNOW I'M not the only one looking:-)
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.
Do you own a PS2? Nintendo DS? Or any console for that matter?
If so welcome to the world of not necessarily being able to use your software/hardware in a way you'd like.
OSX is tied to Mac hardware. Consoles are locked down from running arbitrary software. Why? Because in both cases one doesn't make enough money without the thing it's tied to.
A console doesn't have the margins to be viable independently. In a Windows world OSX probably couldn't compete as an OS alone and generate enough money.
You can say that the they should sell them at a price point where they are viable... but I'd suggest such a price point likely doesn't exist!
An Xbox 360 sells for around $400 - at a loss! If MS charged say $600 instead, how many less machines would actually sell? Would there be enough penetration it make it worth while for the software developers time to develop for it?
How much would OSX cost to be profitable on its own? How reliable would it be running on unknown combinations of commodity hardware?
Now I agree that it should be legal for you to modify your hardware/software locks to run as you see fit. That will dissuade enough people that the market remains viable. I don't think, however, that you should bitch that the locks are there to begin with!
Blockwars: free, multiplayer game.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
"An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one,
It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.
"
Ahh, no. Given an Apple premium for hardware, you could assemble an x86 box with hardware already supported by Apple, and then simply patch the box just like the Apple hardware users.
Vote for Pedro
They're at it again!
Then in the 80's, there were Apple II computers, and various clones! Apple added checks to try to prevent their OS from running on the clones, and people hacked either the software or their machines to get around it.
In a sense, an x86 PC is a "cheap clone" of the proprietary Apple hardware.
Its really, really simple.
...err Apple. Too rich for my blood? Live without. (And ultimately, that's the choice I've made. I don't have a MAC, and as nice as MacOS seems, I actually prefer to use Solaris. So I'm no Apple fanboy.)
MacOS X is licensed to run on one computer, and one computer only. Now, if you bought MacOS X to run on your MAC, and then installed it on your PC -- I surely hope you deinstalled it from your MAC. Because if you didn't you'd be in violation of your EULA.
Apple is certainly going to try very, very hard to prevent folks from running MacOS on non-Apple h/w, because lets face it, MacOS is just a vehicle to sell hardware. You can argue that you should be able to purchase a Mac, throw the h/w away, and then put MacOS on your PC. Of course, you'd still be violating the EULA.
Apple has a right to try to make it "hard" to do this -- you're trying to use the product in a way that it is not sold for. I'd do the same if I were Apple, precisely to prevent folks from pirating it, unless I was prepared to shift gears into being a *software* company. (And then I'd probably try to come up with another solution, ala XP's hated activation.)
Even if Apple starts selling MacOS X separately, they have every right to have a EULA that requires it to run on Apple hardware. And they have a right to reasonable technical measures to ensure that you're not in violation of the EULA. (The caveat here is that I think they need to disclose the requirement "only for use with Apple hardware" on the packaging.)
If you don't like that requirement, then vote with your feet and don't buy it. Certainly, don't *steal* it buy pirating it.
And that's really what it comes down to, isn't it? Folks aren't happy because Apple wants to make money on hardware, and they've come up with a nify OS for it. While I agree it would be nice to run that nifty OS on some other hardware, I cannot force it. So, if I want to use the OS, I have to pay the piper
Btw, I feel the same way about DRM'd media. If the media companies properly disclose any use limitations, then we the consumers have no *rights* to do otherwise with the content. Don't like it, don't buy it, and don't use it.
The there is no god-given right to use MacOS X, nor is there one to watch a given movie on your personal computer. Either live with the licensing restrictions or go elsewhere. (And for pete's sake, don't pirate. Show some strength in your convictions if you're going to proclaim the evilness of DRMd content.)
I'd like to try it out. No way I'm going to spend $500 on a Mac just to try out OS X. This way I can use it for a few months and see if it really does offer any advantages over XP. Plus from what I understand OSX x86 running on a $250 of PC parts will give you a faster experience than running on a $500 Mac mini.
IMHO Apple will gain from this if anything. How do you think Windows and Office got installed on so many PCs? It wasn't just by strong arming OEMs.
If only my laptop wasn't so old.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Yeah, because Apple can't hire x86 experts.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Who says Apple want to win this battle ... ?
I can't afford a decent mac (yes I have a mini at work and it blows), but I can certanly afford a retail copy MacOS X and would gladly install it on my home PC if I could.
I don't understand why Apple is missing the boat here. I'm waving my $150 at you Steve Jobs come and get it. If you would just sell it to people you'd have the number one os in the world. (and #1 in my heart)
Just think of being able to ACTUALY choose your OS. Linux/Mac/Windows on the same hardware - Why not?
-makoffee
To the asshat that submitted this story with direct links. Thank you very little for slashdotting the OSX86 community!
THINK before submit stories, people!!!
some would say Apple's founders were actively hacking before you were born.
Apple should have learned a longggg time ago that software sells, not hardware.(Look at microsoft, they didn't become rich from selling hardware)
If Apple was smart they would release their operating system to the x86 market.
Useless trolling.
"why crack OSX when you can run Windows on your mac?" Why would you reverse the conversation for any reason other than trolling?
Han shot first.
Its safe to say anyone that would attempt to get this running on a x86 machine, and put up with all the hassels like lack of drivers etc, never intended to buy a MAC.
The only use I can forsee is the "wow factor". I am a total sucker for the "wow factor" and will be dling this tonight.
Do you really think apple is going to lose any revenue at all?
I seriously doubt it.
That's pretty much the best summary of the situation that I've read so far. Kudos.
However, "weird," "stupid," or a "pirate" together describe quite a lot of people I know, so even though I agree with you, it doesn't mean that people won't try one of the three options you laid out.
But anyway, you hit the nail on the head.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Yes, there is a solution for Apple. It's called "trusted computing". When every CPU has built-in serial numbers and encryption, and all software is encrypted and registered to a particular CPU this will no longer be a problem. In the process the (few) remaining rights of consumers will be destroyed. Free software might even be destroyed as well. Current examples are HDCP video cards and the requirements for signed drivers in MS Vista.
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it...and everything else that comes along with it.
Just make use of a feature unique to Intel chips that are used in Macs. This would be done to improve performance rather than prevent hacking, that's just gravy (assuming that's what you want) This would mean hackers would need to try hack out the optimized code to make it work on all PCs. At some point, the task of reimplementing the same code becomes too large. If they really wanted to put an end to this, they could add another specialized processor and make heavy use of it.
That said, I don't think that's what Apple wants, they've said so. I think they want to keep their options open. They could release OS X for PCs and just bundle it with Macs. Raise the price for the full version and provide an Upgrade edition at the current price.
OS-Xbox - how long 'till it happens???
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
if this is the developer version of OS X running on those developer boxes then it is no big deal.... the site is down but i read it to imply they hacked the version of OS X that comes with the new iMacs. that's the only Mac in the public with an Intel chip till the MacBooks show up this week (started shipping today).
i did not see anything about how well it works. installing it and making it boot is an accomplishment, but if it does not acknowledge a lot of your hardware (like an ethernet card) then it is not a big help. that being said, at least in my experience on my AGP/PCI based G4, a lot of off the shelf aftermarket upgrade parts work in OS X (usb2.0 cards, firewire cards, IDE cards etc).
not hackers, crackers; please...
Pupeno
Goat.cx doesn't even have obscene content anymore. Why bother?
The hackers and a handful of tech savy users that want OS X on generic hardware are irrelevant. All Apple needs to do is prevent someone with the skills of an average user from being able to get Mac OS X working reliably on generic hardware. The generic PCs running Mac OS X will be novelties, more conversation pieces than serious work environments. There will not be a robust set of drivers, merely what ships on genuine Apple hardware. Apple can break the hack used to get it to work every system software update. It will be a somewhat unreliable machine, unavailable for days at a time while hackers reverse engineer and workaround the latest software update. Will they do so, sure, but it will be irrelevant to mainstream users.
Can it be an accident that Apple OSx86 is cracked faster than the XBox 360?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Here's hoping this gets moderated to funny or at least informative.
You can only buy an UPGRADE of OS X. Every apple system comes with a license to the OS and restrictions in the EULA which says you can only run it on the system it was bought for. Buying the upgrade only entitles you to upgrade/re-install OS X on an apple system that already has the license to OS X.
So until they release a full copy stand alone version of OS X there is no legal right to use the upgrade you might purchase separately for anything other than the apple system you already own.
I think Apple realizes that letting people put OS X on commodity hardware isn't going to make it into the "dominant OS." There are still too many things tying people to Windows, and too many nasty weapons Microsoft could drag out if anyone ever started to threaten their core markets. Apple can't afford to challenge Microsoft directly.
What Apple suspects -- and what I believe -- is that OS X on commodity boxes would probably just cannibalize existing Apple sales, convert them to [whitebox NewEgg PC + pirated bittorrent copy of MacOS] "sales," and drive the company quickly out of business. And once Apple is gone, that would be the end of the line for MacOS. Microsoft would really have won.
I think it's also important to look back to 10 years or so ago, and remember that it was the same sort of 'commodity hardware' thinking that led to the CHRP and Mac Clone era. In retrospect, that came close to killing Apple -- and not surprisingly, when it became clear that other manufacturers' hardware running MacOS wasn't converting legions of Wintel users to Mac, but instead just drawing existing Apple customers to someplace else, Apple killed the clones. That's the historical lesson that I assume is forefront in the minds of everyone in Apple's management, and I doubt that they're going to repeat the mistake.
Apple's "magic smoke," it's jene se qua, that keeps customers coming back and paying that "Mac Tax," is based on a lot more than just the MacOS (which at the end of the day is really a pretty interface and HAL on top of BSD). It's utterly dependent on maintaining a tight control over the hardware and the software. It's not sustainable without that control, and that's why I think it'll be a cold day in hell before you see Apple willingly sell a retail version of MacOS for boxes that aren't theirs.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If they stopped selling retail versions of their new OS, it would be a huge loss of revenue.
The retail boxes are technically upgrades. The requirements include a computer that shipped from the factory with Mac OS. The GP is correct, if you are not running on a Mac it technically is piracy, you are using an upgrade as a full product.
We tried to install this version of 3 different PCs, plus a VMWare and a VPC virtual machine. Both virtual machines blew up due to invalid or unimplemented operations, and the 3 real PCs all contained some piece of hardware (video card and CD-ROM drivers, specifically) that the installer claims were non-existant. If this is what they consider "just download a DVD and run it" then I'm changing careers before the tech support calls start coming in.
--K
And the attitude of trying to lock it to only your own virtually identical, but higher priced, hardware has no respect for users who like your software, but feel gouged or ripped-off by your overpriced hardware. Truth is Apple has proven more than once that it cannot compete with other hardware vendors on its own platform. All the rest of this does is prove that Apple really is just a software company after all.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
...woould be a hack to make Intel OS X run on my G4 iBook. With the processor behaving exactly like an x86 processor. Without performance loss.
Okay, so I want an Intel iBook. But seriously, I've been thinking about trying to run OSx86 on my beige box, simply because OS X is great and I can't afford thir current Intel offerings. Then again, I value OS X as a great notebook OS (as things like WLAN have to Just Work) and I like it enough to feel bad about pirating it. Also, I'd like it to actually work.
If Apple would just release the Intel iBook already this would be a non-issue for me. Damn them for hooking me on their stuff, I need another fix before I lose all dignity and become a hip iPod owner!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
So what? From the moment you agree with the EULA it is like you just signed a contract with Apple. Apple did not put a gun against your head and said "you must accept this".
I am sure that you find it preety acceptable for you not being able to do anything with a house that you rented (e.g. demolish it). that's the exact same thing with the OSX the plastic disk is yours and noone disagrees with that but the bits and bytes are owned by apple and they have the right to dictate how you use them.
I dont say that I agree with that but i'm not dumb enough not to understand it.
Dont like it? Run linux, bsd, etc. And please stop bitching
The internet is broken.
That case was pre-DMCA. I'm not sure that the same thing would work now.
I think in order to make a Mac clone, you would almost necessarily have to break Apple's 'content protection' at some level or another (the obfuscated code, probably many other things as well). This seems to me like it would be an obvious DMCA violation.
I don't think that Compaq could do what it did to IBM, if the laws existed then as they do today. Sad commentary on our legal system, but it's the situation nonetheless.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's funny, but for a guy who once professed to be "against" the big suits at IBM, he's certainly had no trouble joining them in his quest for DRM. Personally, if I were Jobs, here's what I'd do:
;P ). Apple wins because this will not cut into their Mac sales since most people who really want a Mac are going to buy one. Anyone who is wishy washy about buying one is likely NOT going to buy one so there are no lost sales. And finally, Apple won't be wasting money on the R&D for DRM schemes that are going to fail no matter what they do. That money is better spent on actual OS and hardware development within Apple.
1. Only ensure that Mac OS X will run WELL on Apple hardware
2. Let the OS run on standard x86 PCs with the caveat that Apple does not support this and users who do this will get no support from Apple
3. Open Source the OS so that those who want to get the OS to run well on x86 boxes that are not conTrolled by Apple can do so and extend it as well
4. Re-absorb the open source developed extensions to work on the APple controlled x86
EVERYONE wins. The people who buy Apple branded x86 machines win because they get more and innovative functionality from the open source crowd. The open sourcers win because they can get OS X to run on any x86 box they wish or possibly even back port it to PPC boxes from other vendors (can anyone say "Mac OS X on The Cell"?
Unfortunately, it seems that every captain of industry that tastes the DRM Koolaide, gets enchanted and is lost to the good side forever. The new Jobs does not support "the rest of us" anymore. He supports "the few elite" who make lots of money controlling "the rest of us". That person in the 1984 clip back in the 80s is today: Linus Torvalds.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Apple is just fighting the inevitable. I cannot see the reason why Apple won't release OS X on PC platform. Sure, they wouldn't be able to make sure their OS would work as well on a mishmash of components as opposed to their own tailored Macs, but come on, OS X's pros would still outweigh this con.
Thanks to the iPod, Apple is riding the Hotness/Coolness Wave. People would rush out to buy their cool Apple OS for their PC. And I think their Mac sales wouldn't hurt either. In fact, this would probably boost Mac sales. The same people who buy Macs now would still buy them, and their sleek design plus increased compatibility with PCs would encourage the others.
Steve, wake up and smell the 'cool' coffee!
PS. I'm a long-time PC user, and I'm going to get myself an iBook and iMac this year.
Last I had read on the subject, their concern with OSX on the intel platform has little to do with competition. The major concern is that they want to control the hardware configuration so they can control the image they present. If you can just run out and buy OSX and slap it on any intel box with random hardware, there could be incompatabilities that makes their OS look unstable. They want to make sure that OSX ships only on hardware that is known to not have issues. This control also reduces support costs since they don't have to guess as to what chips are involved.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
The real question isn't can they hire x86 professionals, but can they hire enough x86 pros of a skill level sufficient to defeat every single x86 hacker out there?
Hell, even Microsoft can't do it and they've been an x86 shop for decades. And Apple has been at it for what, maybe a couple of months now?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Does the name OSx86 really irk anyone else? It's OS X as in ten, not X as in ex. And it's x86 as in ex, not as in ten. So it's either OS x86 or OS ten 86, neither of which would really be right.
Technically, it should be OS X for Intel.
...and that's all there is to it.
Is this a blessing for Apple
No... It's a blessing for the rest of us!
Can't wait to check it out!
Well to be 100% accurate it isn't money taken out of their pocket. The people who would download the copy and not pay Apple are not likely people who were going to go out and buy a Macbook Pro anyhow.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Apple Hardware, by my definition is hardware that Apple makes money selling. Sure the pieces and parts are made by a host of 3rd parties, but in the end, the box with an apple logo that sells for $2000 is Apple hardware.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This whole hacking to whitebox x86 pc's is really just for the hobbyist and technophiles. No one outside of slashdot readers is going to care. Most laymen I know could care less about the operating system or the hardware it runs. Though, OSX is arguably easier to use and configure than Windows for non-techies. The questions I hear most when laymen ask me for me for recommendations for a new computer:
Can I run specialized program that turns out to be Windows only?
Can I play games?
Can I run all these Windows applications that cost me hundreds of dollars on OSX?
The answer is usually no. I have not been able to set up or convert one person to the Macintosh as a result. Moreover, price of the hardware is not even the problem. I can find a decent Apple computer at any reasonable price point. In addition, most people I know would gladly spend $500+ so long as they can hold onto it for few years. So, in the end, unleashing OSX carries little gain and whole lot a risk (see other insightful posts).
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
I'm not really convinced that selling an OS without the hardware is such a bad businnes model..
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
APPLE'S DICK DESERVES TO BE SUCKED.
Really it does.
Think about it, then you'll get it.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Ultimately Apple had to have known that OSX would be cracked. Did they care? I don't think so. Sure, they used a few security measures to make sure that it wasn't extremely easy to do, but getting OSX into geeks' hands is a good thing, even if they don't pay for the OS. Why? Because if this crack becomes widespread, you can be sure that a bunch of cool little third party apps for OSX will follow as geeks find different ways to get OSX to do what they want.
This won't impact Apple's bottom line negatively because those same geeks wouldn't have used OSX if they needed to pay for it. But if it's free to them and they start writing apps for it, OSX only becomes more and more viable for the paying customer as these geeks spend some quality time with the OS.
And if people get Windows to boot on a Macbook, who knows... We might start seeing geeks running a Linux/XP/OSX Macbook, which would be the ultimate geek laptop due to OSX's ability to terminal into Unix. You'd have the ultimate quad-boot machine available.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
When will people stop defending for-profit companies? That is, unless you have invested some of your eggs in it.
Why not release a generic x86 Mac OS? If they want to seriously win the war, why don't they at least make themselves a player? I never understood why they always had to tie together their software and hardware anyway. I say they should take this as an opportunity to maybe change strategies.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
I sure didn't but now that I do that's one less artist that I'll be supporting with my money(or bother downloading his music either because that only gives him a new statistic to whine about "downloading is up but my CD sales are down"). That's my approach to this: support artists/software companies who aren't uptight about filesharing because otherwise it's much like paying traffic fines, each time you do it's equivalent to paying the officer to harass you for something retarded. In that particular instance you face jail time but that costs the government money and makes them that much less capable of repeating it especially if people unite to do this enmass ala civil disobedience but Keenan can't do anything except NOT make money if I refuse to listen to his music, buy his CD's, go to his shows, buy t-shirts, etc. and I don't download his crap either. If that's done enmass, Keenan goes broke and that's one less loser artist to complain about a problem that mostly exists in their mind.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers
Of course not. And they probably don't expect to. Taking iTunes as an example, it is quite possible to strip off Apple's DRM, paying a small price in convenience in quality. Similarly, it will probably always be possible to get hold of cracked versions of the OS X, paying a small price in quality (lower reliability, lack of support).
Apple's DRM is little more than a "No trespassing" sign, less intended to actually keep people out than to put people on notice that they aren't welcome. In practice, a few hackers running OS X on non-Apple software is going to make little difference to Apple's business; hardly anybody with anything serious to do is going to be relying on an illicit copy of an OS. And some of those hackers will probably end up getting real Macs once they do have something serious to do.
I can see someone who wants to play with OS X on Intel to go this way. But why on earth would someone want to put something even vaguely needing security on a system where you don't have a CLUE about the changes that have been made?
More to worry - that hacked components loaded up for the pure purpose of cracking - will start to make their way around so unattended laptops (or desktops although they are less likely) might be easily corrupted.
Would you use ANYONE'S hacks where you weren't privy to the source code and capable for understanding it? It's madness to go that way - just toss privacy to the winds.
Reading through these comments it amazes me how many otherwise intelligent slashdotters really believe that OSX on beige box PCs would be good for Apple. What kind of crack do you have to be smoking to think that? I can understand wanting to run OSX on your beige box PC. But I can't understand how that could ever be good for Apple. They don't have MS's business model. They aren't designed to make thier money off thier operating system. I'd like to see someone figure up just how much Apple would have to charge for a copy of "OSX for beige box PC" in order to maintain the same profits they are enjoying now. I'm guessing that it would run in the ballpark of $400-$500. Please, someone sit down and do the math and let me know...
And from what I gather, this is just one big rant about how "Stealing is wrong" (for all intents and purposes), no matter how elequently you phrase it.
In short: People don't care.
Is it "wrong"? Maybe.
Doesn't matter though, because it's convenient, arguably fun, and interesting to do. Just the whole novelty factor of saying "I can run OS X on my non-Mac PC" is enough motivation required for some people to look for it on TorrentSpy. Which reminds me to ask, anyone got a link to the ".torrent"?
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing (e.g., via the EULA, perhaps claiming EULAs aren't enforceable in your jurisdiction)
Once I've bought my copy, the manufacturer's "wishes" for its product amount to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to me, you're right.
Tell you what, if I write down -- on the money itself that I use to pay for the product -- conditions for its use by the recieving company, are you of the impression that a) They would honor my wishes and b) That they SHOULD honor my wishes?
They won't, so I won't. It's that simple.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
why bother when you dont have driver support outside that of what the intel osx supports, since thats why the trusted platform stuff is there...
portfolio
"You and the several thousand others like you would cost more money for the free support and other missed opportunity cost than you would give"
since when does any comercial OS company give free support.. that'll be the day!
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Apple today released Mac OS X 10.4.5, which will invariably break the 10.4.4 hacks.
No, this wasn't done "because of" the hack, and doesn't even break the hack intentionally; it's just coincidence, but it illustrates the nature of running an unsupported hacked version of Mac OS X quite well.
If people don't care about Apple's EULA (which states explicitly that OS X should only be run on Apple-branded machines) then why should they care about the GPL?
Both are usage contracts. Both defines specific terms of use, and if you disagree with either, you can opt out by not using the software.
So - is there anyone who is for OS X on generic PC hardware *and* for the GPL?
Is that a contradiction?
While I'm at it - Apple are actively participating in several open source programs, and recently (and unexpectedly) gave a fair bit of hardware away for free to some top contributors. Should Apple be punished through active disregard for their OS X terms of use?
This is just the latest example of, "Those that can, do; those that can't, crack."
Lacking the ability to actually come up with any ideas or implementations on their own, crackers simply sabatoge other people's work. Truly pathetic.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Mac OSX?
Set your phasers on "funky"!
There are two ways to make it work--either give the user the power to tweak to whatever hardware they want, or limit the hardware choices and tweak it before it leaves the factory. Linux/Unix takes the former route, Apple the latter. Both are very stable operating systems. Microsoft does not take either route, and thus suffers from stability problems. OSX is not open-source and thus would be likely to face similar problems if run on unsupported hardware.
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.
Apple released 10.4.5 today. ;)
KeS
To bad 10.4.5 came out today, otherwise they would actually be ahead.
One of the steps of those so-called instructions requires the MacBook to boot the Vista DVD. We all know how this doesn't work at all.
It only makes sense. They much prefer people to crack OSX and be all happy about it. For the same reason Microsoft is playing it easy against people and governments using its OS... so people remain stuck with it. I'm sure Jobs wants OSX to be 'out there' big enough to make a difference. He wanted slashdot readers to be all excited, fire up their torrents and start running and developing on OSX... people who wouldve not paid for it anyhow.
He owns the platform. He builds and sells the hardware. He has full control over the hardware's design. Remember people could never run OSX or macos 9 on IBM PPC machines. Remember you cant run the much older m68k macoses on cisco 2500 routers or ancient HP machines.
All you really have to do is change the whole addressing structure, change the boot location etc and add one or two (or remove legacy) gates between the CPU and northbridge to make it completely incompatible with PCs. Nobody could run DOS on the cisco PIX 501.
If he really wants OSX not to be leaked to PCs, then hes made a major design mistake. Apple Intel hardware is already out. He'll have to make another shift to a new x86 architecture and release OSX incompatible with current apple intel hardware... to get out of all this. I dont think hes that dumb. I think he intends to tackle Microsoft's market head-on.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Yes, I know, Apple is the good guy.
But try to compete with them, and make a PC that runs OSX.
The mechanisms that they have put in place are designed to limit/stop the competition with their hardware. Yes, this is an artificial monopoly.
Monopoly does not need to be a bad word. Copyrights and patents create temporary monopolies, by there nature. But monopolies do need to be recognized and limited. DRM+Anti-circumvention+Anti-reverse-engineering monopolies are the latest thing in creating monopolies. The Apple PC is an example of the later.
In an ideal world, a company with any monopoly should be required to justify it.
Apple needs a OSX harware monopoly because:
1. It promotes art and science because (?).
2. It helps the customer by (?).
3. Because Microsoft has monopolies, so they need them to compete.
4. for more profits.
5. because we want the boxes to be cool/silver/plasticy.
In this case, they'll hopefully be careful about what they install it on if they don't want to be supporting the friend as unless the friend is a bit of a *($&£** they won't be calling Apple for support...
It'll only be a low maintenance OS as long as the hardware is good...
I don't see a technical (legal/moral maybe) reason why this won't work, but the problems will stem from the "power user" pseudo geeks who think that they know enough to make it work, but don't know enough to ensure that their system is compatible with existing drivers. These will also be the people who are up themseleves enough to think that it couldn't be their fault that it isn't working, so the OS must be crap.
When they start spouting crap to non-technical users, that is where the problems/brand-poisoning will start.
[All Your Fish Are Belong To Us]
I'm guessing by that you mean the last information you got that was probably based on things Apple have said themselves. You would be making the mistake of giving too much weight to what they say. I highly doubt this is all about them wanting to present an image and believe it has EVERYTHING to do with them being a company that sells very expensive hardware and is able to continually do so because their users are familiar with the OS and don't want to have to change. If Apple allowed OS X on generic machines, they would lose a huge amount in hardware sales.
What's a beige box? I know what it is among the phreaking crowd (a linemans handset), but that's obviously not what your talking about.
From the linked install notes:
Apple has just released OSX 10.4.5.
= 9086
According to
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0602briefly2.html
and
http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic
Get it at http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/
Timing is quite interesting here.
Ethics are like morals, they are all relative.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
thanks. ;-)
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen
Oh, I agree entirely. So, how many MP3s have you illegally downloaded this month?
NeXT ran on X86. Darwin was ported to X86 practically from day one. Every version of OS X ever released has run on X86 too... the X86 version was simply never released publicly. I fail to see how X86 would qualify as 'new' to the Apple's core OS engineers.
Why don't they go to the libraries? Where the hackers and crackers have free access to Mac.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
MS doesn't have a machine, yet they manage to support new development.
AT worst, it might change Apples focus. Although I doubt that many of the people who own Apple system now would drop them for a PC.
Let think about this, their hardware is cool. That is what sells it.
Mac Mini, great because it runs OSX? or great because it is small and quite?
iMac, cool becasue it runs OSX? cool because it is a quite system with a small foot print?
Lets also factor in the fact that people (in general) would like an appliance. They new systems very much fit that model.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
sell a PC version for 50 bucks, no support, download only.
That about wraps it up, don't you think? People who want it will get it, Apple doesn't ahve to pay a penny for support, and 50 bucks a downl;oad should more then cover the bandwidth cost.
Now, when I download it, and I would, it is up to me that it runs. Now I have nifty piece of software that runs OK on my machine. If the software is good, then I have an insentive to buy hardware it was designed around.
Of course, if the software is not good, and is just hyped by apple fanboys and the hate MS crowd, I won't have sunk 2000 dollare into a commentment I don't like.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
> But, like it or not, this hurts Apple. *You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only
> people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it
> *does* hurt Apple. Whether it's because of business model or arbitrary decision, that's
> their decision to make.
Like the subject says, watch me just so not care. It isn't my problem whether something is or isn't part of their business model and they don't get to enforce that crap on me. They SELL a software product and I'll do as I damned well please with it. If I were to go insane and want to run OS X I'd buy a copy off the shelf and then do whatever it took (probably download a totally different ISO it appears) to make it run on the hardware I selected for it. It is SOLD not licensed because I ignored the EULA. If it looks like a sale, it is a sale. Buying off the rack at Best Buy (or even the Apple store if they don't have a contract at the counter) is a sale and not a license. Copyright law would forbid me from selling copies or running it on more than one machine but nothing in the copyright laws says I can't install a program on whatever hardware I can get to run it. Nothing in copyright law says I can't reverse engineer it to figure out how to do that. The DMCA might forbid some of that, but that law seriously needs a fresh challenge.
Now if Apple doesn't like the situation they have a couple of choices:
1. Require real enforceable contracts like Radio Shack used to make people buying Trash80s sign.
2. Stop selling retail.
3. STFU and deal with it.
Democrat delenda est
Surprised (I didnt see) anyone ask this, but:
-Athlon 64's have SSE2.
Will this (in theory) work on AMD boxes?
"if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?" Frankly RM 101, If I BUY a gun, then what is so special about THE LAW that it can tell me what I can and cant do? Like shooting you forty three times in the head. Look, get over it! Its Apples OS, its Apples Software. Its Steve Jobs'. You are allowed a working copy, but IT IS NOT YOURS. If this bothers you so badly, why dont you make your own OS, one thats "better"? and stick it to "the man", which Steve Jobs certainly is if you ask me. Its not Apple's arrogance: its yours. And sell your "vehicle" and get a Prius, I guess you are one of them americans who think global warming is a theory...
---
Wow, right on the money. And I don't mean you, I'm referring to your concoction of crazy reasons as stated by "Overly Critical Guy". Like anyone would stop listen to that rediculous "plan". I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just saying it's stupid to justify theft of anything, lest it be for one's survival. Idiot.
This may have already been said, and my bad if so, but Apple has NEVER, to the best of my knowledge, released a standalone copy of OSX - PPC, x86 or otherwise. They've only released upgrade versions in boxes. You have to buy a machine to get a standalone copy.
-Daniel
And where is the original post for this?
/. mods are a bunch of spineless cunts who got their hands greased up by corporate payouts through advertising and other endorsements. HYPOCRITES both mods and people who suck up to them!
It just proves that
I suppose if one is a relativist, they might ask, "Ethics? By whose standards?"
Please don't confuse us moral relativists with thieves. Your argument (and I don't even quibble with your conclusions) employs lots of "man is the measure of all things" arguments. I'm a believer (natch) that moving towards what feels like the lesser of two evils puts you on the path to Nirvana (at least, MOST of the time).
"Inquiring Minds Want to Know!"
Not a cracker myself, but if you can't see the charm of taking something apart and putting it together again, well...
All the rest is secondary to this indeed childish desire to see what makes something tick. I love it that it's still possible, I cheer the effort and accomplishment and see no need to measure all this tinkering against other qualities like creativity. After all, I may be pretty creative, but could never do what they do.
I even see the charm of having a windows box just for the kick of maintaining it and extending it with the most crazy functionality until it blows up. I know quite a few people who're into that. It is pretty cool, and half the time they indeed have a very interesting setup - until something goes boink and they go "oh well, back to the lab" with a big goofy smile on their face.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
If people really want this OS on any PC, why not just make it for any PC and charge for it, Either way, people are going to get it and run it paying apple or not. Apple should take advantage of this and release an unprotected copy to purchase once it adds more device support. Anyway, it seems to boot and run faster on a PC then a Mac.
I just finished downloading the .dmg this morning, and now I can't view the forum for help because it's been slashdotted :(
Good job I had the foresight to download the patches in advance.
That's not correct. In fact, I believe it's the other way around, as I've never seen an "upgrade-only" version of OS X. When you buy a copy of Tiger (or Panther, or Jaguar), you're getting a disc with the full OS. When you boot your Mac off of the disc it'll detect if an earlier version of the OS already exists on your hard drive and give you the option of either upgrading the current install, archiving it and doing a clean install of the newer version, or wiping the drive entirely and installing fresh.
Just last week I completely reformatted and repartitioned my older PowerBook, then installed Tiger from a retail box I bought at the local Apple Store. The only component that was missing was the Classic (OS 9) environment (which is included in the restore discs that come with new PPC machines).
Versions of MacOS prior to OS X were sold as just upgrades, but that policy is no longer in effect.
-Cybrex
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
Microsoft is thinking they are being blatently obvious about it.... How absurd would it be if there were patches discovered (leaked) for all x86 compatible machines that can run a version of Darwin (or maybe even OPENSTEP, too... way old PCs), along with the binary (or source) of its corresponding x86 versioned OS X environment (where it gets really far fetched, but still within the vast realm of infinitesimal possibility). OK... more big what ifs: Lets say OSX86 just starts running on everything, and all over Soviet Usenet, binaries and source are downloading you. So at some threshold, there will be an inflation of older PCs being used/networked... and maybe some PC users will switch too... Apple's preparation for its impending government prosecution is keeping them too busy to chase after any 'experimenters.' Now... imagine the hyperbolic (and yet, still, very very unlikely) possibilities: some very elite PC hackers decide its time everyone switched and set up the most ambitious and insane hack that eliminated all traces of any version of Windows running on any networked PC everywhere. Imagine that it happened overnight... all traces of Windows gone, and in its place (for users, at least), a friendly welcome screen with a disclaimer about what just happened (hackers will, invariably, always take credit for what they do). After a few tests, administrators have their servers back up running the same services with the new OS... UNIX admins barely notice it happens (as they only received some emails claiming they could run OSX86 on their old Suns, most of which were slated for boat anchor). Once everyone realizes that they didn't lose any data, nor the ability to access it, and business begins to proceed as usual, Microsoft goes right out of business (almost, as a profitable portion of their business booms -- Office 2004) . Within days, they turn into a tiny company supporting Exchange services on a server running OSX86 and any Windows apps natively. Apple, now prepared for a government investigation, and possible breakup, has barely noticed the announcement by a third party of their new serial/scsi/10/100bT iPod dock that will any allow pc made since @1994 (most happily chirping OSX86 now) to interface with any iPod; iPod sales quadrupal. In some clever legal irony, Apple's policy on only supporting Apple hardware prevents the government's indictments altogether, and any future indightments.... Further, Apple's hardware sales (for the time being) remain exactly the same. After the 'locked in' sales complete, Dell closes its doors. Within a couple months, a few die hard PC hackers working with no longer produced, no longer supported optical disks get to the point where they can run Windows, but as soon as they attempt to network, they are infected by the OSX86 virus, and their installation is replaced... and now since Symantec no longer has the ability to give updates, after a few tries at blocking the virus, they just give up. ... after the eBay rush for cheap old hardware, so many computers become networked that ... 'Skynet,' actually just the internet consisting almost entirely of OSX86 boxes, but what everyone subsequently calls it, becomes conscious ...
Just because something is absurdly unlikely doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen.
There is also case law supporting the notion that sale of software is considered a sale under the Uniform Commercial Code. See Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology for the most well-known example.
And if it is in fact a sale, then the copy is yours to do whatever you wish with it (including modifications such as stripping out the EULA dialog, and making fair use copies).
Section 117 of copyright laws says:
I don't know in the *long* term where Apple will be, but I'd agree that they have a vested interest in getting more involved in digital entertainment/content distribution. They've always been looked at as one of the top providers of the tools to create that content anyway.
But yes, that was my original point. Apple does just use commodity PC components nowdays. That's why they HAVE to cling tightly to OS X. It's the only thing that differentiates their machines from everything else out there, if you strip away the little details (like the "mag-safe" power connector on the upcoming MacBook Pro, or their backlit keyboards).
I think Apple would like to offer a "premium quality" computer, in that you're getting something that looks a lot more elegant than a beige box, and has lots of small innovations in it. But inside, sure, it's just another x86 platform. As long as they make it a software license violation to put OS X on anything else though, and they keep innovating with OS X enough to keep it on top - they can do a nice business long into the future selling you a nice looking computer bundled with OS X.
Also funny that the word "idiot" would be considered a troll/flamebait and no one modded you down. Oh, and it's "rIdiculous"...note the "i". Idiot.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
See, it's funny, because when someone says something is unexceptional and overpriced, I usually think it means they don't like it and that well, it's so overpriced you should buy something else... and yet somehow that's not what you mean. Perhaps you can see how I'm confused about what you mean ?
"when I upgrade my motherboard, I'd like to not have to buy a new version of the OS, thanks"
Where have I suggested that you should be forced to do that?
I suppose I should have specified "when I upgrade my single-processor motherboard to a dual-processor motherboard"... You said you wanted Apple to sell differently-priced single and multiple CPU versions of OS X for Intel... if I'd originally bought the single-processor version, I'd have to buy a new version if I picked up a new motherboard. Is that not what you meant somehow ? What was that about 50% of text messages not being understood?!?
Radeon 9200 with only 32M in the PC world would be the absolute bottom of the line
You clearly haven't experienced the joy that is one of those $300 PCs with on-board Intel shared-memory video ( with less memory than you really need to run XP )... *that* is the bottom of the line, and yes, even the Radeon 9200 beats it. Now that I think about it, the cheapo PC I'm thinking about was $400, but that's besides the point... you can do way worse than the Radeon 9200 and in the cheapo PC world, you often do.
You can get one with 128M for under $40, and I would love to have that in my Mac mini. The form factor is nice, but I'd rather have a 3.5" drive bay.
I'd definitely agree with that... I can't help but feel that Apple made a huge mistake in going with the laptop hard drive for the mini. I'd think the idea would be more to make an inexpensive system than a small one... it just never made sense to me... I suppose they should offer to bundle the mini with an external hard drive or something. Apple could easily make a closer-to-cube-size machine that used regular hard drives and had enough room for the nicer video card you're talking about.
After all you've said and your attitude towards Apple hardware, you're the one of the two of us who owns a Mac mini... I'm so bloody confused I just have to laugh...
The fact of the matter is that one of the primary reasons that OSX is so loved, is that it is extremely stable. If you release that into the wild world of non-apple hardware the number of devices and hardware your OS will have to support will increase 1000x. Of course this leads to more possibility of bugs, and a system which crashes just as often as any windows system.