Slashdot Mirror


Hacker Turns $300 Apple TV into Cheapest Mac Ever

An anonymous reader wrote with a link to a Wired story about a fun play-along-at-home project: Turning Apple TV into a very tiny workable computer. "Apple TV is dead, long live the Mac Nano. Sort of. Just two weeks after Apple released its streaming media box to the public, hackers successfully installed OS X, Apple's desktop operating system, on the $300 device, making it the cheapest PC Cupertino has ever sold. 'The breakthrough is done, OS X runs on Apple TV!' wrote Semthex, the anonymous hacker responsible for the mod, at his website. 'Now we got (the) low-budget Mac we ever wanted.'"

169 comments

  1. Of course.. by michaelhood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

    1. Re:Of course.. by nagora · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

      Just use a copy of a dead Mac; it's not like they're hard to find.

      TWW

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    2. Re:Of course.. by shmlco · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow. They got a computer than ran OS X to run OS X.

      What I want to know is when is it going to run Ubuntu... (grin)

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:Of course.. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't any of the three copies of OS X I have on CD now for my other Macs work? Why would it have to be pirated?

    4. Re:Of course.. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wow. They got a computer than ran OS X to run OS X.

      Well, but it's not that simple: many embedded devices run some kind of desktop OS (Windows, Linux, as opposed to an embedded OS like VxWorks), but running a generic version of the OS on the device is noteworthy because there's more to it than just sticking a shell in it: usually one has to reorganize the bootloading process, making a custom image of the OS, possibly make custom drivers, etc... So making an Apple embedded device running a custom OSX run a generic version of OSX isn't necessarily trivial, and is interesting.

      What I want to know is when is it going to run Ubuntu... (grin)

      If it can boot OSX, it surely can boot Linux without much work at all. That on the other hand is old news.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    5. Re:Of course.. by Anomolous+Cowturd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it's not pirated, then the price is not $300, but $300 + cost of OS. Duh.

      --
      Software patents delenda est.
    6. Re:Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

      But consider it the other way. If you already have a spare OS X license around it may be legal to install it there. Most Apple OS licenses these days say you can only install the software on "Apple branded hardware". Well, that's a nice big trademark on the top....

    7. Re:Of course.. by earthbound+kid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the relative lowness of the price compared to other Apple products is because the Apple TV is a pretty underpowered PC. If a computer like it were sold not running OS X but just Linux or something, you wouldn't expect to pay a full $300 for it. The cost of OS X is more or less built into the cost of the machine as is.

    8. Re:Of course.. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is if you have any dead Intel Macs just lying around, as PPC Macs wont do....

      OS X PPC and OS X Intel are different products.

    9. Re:Of course.. by 1110110001 · · Score: 3, Informative

      With the Mac mini you get: Mac OS 10.4, iLife 06, Comic Life and Big Bang Board Games. That's ~$260.

    10. Re:Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just use a copy of a dead Mac"
      So, how does one copy a dead Mac, please?

    11. Re:Of course.. by Megane · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the retail discs of Tiger (DVDs, not CDs, unless you special-ordered CDs) only contain the PPC version.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    12. Re:Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly right, because all $200 Linux boxes have an HDMI as well as component audio and video ports, come with a remote, run silently, and fit in a shoebox. And please don't reply with a "I don't care about X" post to justify your pricing. That's just retarded.

    13. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From three previous comments of mine, that address pretty much all the issues here:

      -----

      People have jumped through a lot of hoops to attempt to justify to themselves running the hacked Mac OS X on non-Apple systems, coming up with ridiculous sophistries like "What if I have an Intel iMac, but want to only run Linux on it, and then want to use that same OS X license on my Gateway laptop???" ...

      AppleTV is an interesting case, because it is an "Apple-labeled" product, which is what the Mac OS X license agreement stipulates. And that's the key.

      The license agreement specifies that Mac OS X can only be run on an Apple-labeled computer. And that is Apple's right. Now, you can ignore it, or ignore legal frameworks that may (or may not) enforce license agreements within certain countries/jurisdictions, and so on, but that's why running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is "illegal". There are NO prohibitions to doing things like hacking the kernel, etc. It's open source, and you can do with it what you wish regardless.

      But there are still some interesting considerations:

      - There is no way to legally get a standalone, retail copy of Mac OS X (Intel) for AppleTV, unless you make arguments about transferring an abandoned license from another Intel-based Mac. (And no, there is no conventional Mac OS X license that comes with AppleTV, either explicitly or implicitly.)

      - Technically, you could purchase and run Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (Universal) and legally run it on AppleTV - there would be no prohibitions to this.

      - Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) will be the first version of Mac OS X to have a legally purchasable standalone retail Intel version (actually, Leopard will be Universal).

      But there are some other things to think about:

      - Even when Leopard ships, at retail pricing, it's still $299 + $129 for AppleTV + Mac OS X. It's $171 more for a much more capable Mac mini. However, $171 may be enough to get people to consider this.

      - This will really be interesting if Leopard can run unmodified on AppleTV (i.e., without a hacked kernel).

      - This will still be relegated to the hobbyist/experimenter/hacker crowd, as you need to disassemble AppleTV in order to do this, image drives, have another Mac handy, and so on, not to mention that the warranty is likely void while OS X is installed on the machine (which of course is reversible, etc.)

      So while this is all very interesting, please consider the fact that there are no legal ways to get Mac OS X for it currently.

      This post is obviously not for people who think EULAs are BS, or that since it's an Apple product "it's okay", or that since it has some stripped down OS X on it already, "it's okay" to also install OS X from their friend's iMac, etc.

      I'm simply raising the legitimate concerns surrounding licensing on AppleTV, some of which get interesting with Leopard since it is, indeed, and Apple-labeled computer, and Leopard will be available standalone.

      There are also no prohibitions on using a modified kernel, but one very interesting question might be, does Apple consider AppleTV a "computer", since that is what the Mac OS X license agreement explicitly states?

      -----

      The point is that right now, there is NO way to buy Mac OS X (Intel) separately at all, license agreement or not.

      If people want to make ridiculous arguments like "what if I just dropped four grand on a Mac Pro, but now suddenly only want to run Windows Vista on it, but I still want to use the OS X license on my Sony Vaio," more power to them. They can make their own moral/ethical determinations. If they want to ask if it's "legal", the answer in many jurisdictions is still, "probably not", because of what the EULA says.

      The other consideration is that Apple is a hardware company and prices Mac OS X accordingly. They're also the ones who put hundreds of thousands of manhours and billions of dollars, collectively, into R

    14. Re:Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $300 + $129 (http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/) = $429.

      At a pricepoint that is probably breaking the license terms, but not pirating it.

    15. Re:Of course.. by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly right, because all $200 Linux boxes have an HDMI as well as component audio and video ports, come with a remote, run silently, and fit in a shoebox. And please don't reply with a "I don't care about X" post to justify your pricing. That's just retarded. Don't forget the investment that an appleTV is for Apple.
      When you buy an appleTV you're essentially guaranteeing that you will, in the future, be buying content for it too. The price of the content you buy for the appleTV makes it cheaper, just like most game consoles.

      This is why I expect Apple will do everything they can to fight against people running a flexible system that can run whatever content they want on their artificially cheap hardware. I would be surprised if Apple's lawyers didn't start coming out of the woodworks soon.
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    16. Re:Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a lawyer, this kind of hair-splitting must make you very good at your job.

      If you're not, this kind of unsolicited pedantry must make you a real bore at parties.

    17. Re:Of course.. by anothy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      okay, well i guess i ought to repost my correction to you from that thread, as well: --- Also keep in mind that there are other legal ways of acquiring Mac OS X 10.4.x for Intel Macs, such as membership in the Apple Developer Program. The license there has other restrictions on use, but it is acceptable in a large number of cases. --- generally, i find your post informative, but it'd be nice if you could stop repeating the false portion about there being no legal way to obtain Mac OS X for Intel.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    18. Re:Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it hair-splitting to point out a very practical issue?

      If you get an Apple TV with the intention of running OS X on it, where are you going to get that OS?

      If you happen to have another Intel Mac, you *might* be able to use the install discs from it (possibly not, since they're typically tailored to the hardware they ship with). Even then, your license won't allow you to install on an Apple TV, even if you keep the other Mac switched off in the closet.

        You can't just buy a copy of OS X for Intel, that's the point. You will have to run an illegal copy.

    19. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your correction wasn't correct then, and isn't now:

      There is not at present, and never has been, a standalone, installable version of Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) available via Apple Developer Programs.

      The only version that is available is Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (Universal), but that is Mac OS X Server, not Mac OS X.

      So the statements to this effect I have made in my post are correct:

      There is no legal way to get Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) separately. It only ships with CPUs.

      Further, even if Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) were available via the Apple Developer Programs, the cost would be a minimum of $500/year for a Select membership, or $3000/year for a Premier membership (the only kinds that come with software seed keys, required for access to operating systems).

      Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard), which will be Universal, will, of course, be available via Apple Developer Programs. But it will also be available for $129 ($69 edu/govt), so the Developer Programs argument doesn't make sense in the vast, vast majority of those potential cases, either.

    20. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 0

      I suppose I should follow up, as someone will inevitably respond saying "But Mac OS X Server *is* Mac OS X, just with the extra server pieces!@!@"

      Yes, I'm aware of that, thanks. It's also NOT "Mac OS X'. Further, it's still a ridiculous argument, because even Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 (Universal) (10-client) is $499 ($249 edu/govt), or needs be be obtained via Apple Developer Programs at a cost of at least $500/year.

      And regardless, Apple Developer Programs are NOT a solution for anywhere near a "large number of cases". They're suitable for people who are already paying $500 or $3000 a year to be a part of them, and the operating systems offer via the programs are to be used only for development and testing, not permanent use on a hacked Apple TV.

      But all that aside, this is just another version of the sophistry used in the "Mac OS X on non-Macs" argument.

      The point is that, even now, in order to use Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) on an Apple TV, it still MUST be pirated. The only argument that is REMOTELY applicable is the case of potentially re-using an unused license from another Intel-based Mac that is no longer running Mac OS X.

      So yes, basically everyone who has done this hack has pirated Mac OS X, either in spirit (e.g., using it under a Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) license or family pack license and thinking that it's therefore "okay"), or in fact (just outright pirating it).

      The only legal scenario I can see on the horizon (other than Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (Universal)) is buying a standalone retail copy of Leopard. You've bought it, and it appears to not violate the EULA, which states that it must be run on an "Apple-labeled computer". But even then there is still the consideration of whether Apple would consider Apple TV a "computer"...and push may come to shove if someone like TechRestore (which is already selling Apple TVs with upgraded hard drives and their own 1-year warranty, since Apple's is void at that point) starts selling Apple TVs preinstalled with Leopard alongside a Leopard license.

      Let me point out that *I don't care* what kind of arguments can be made for or against this, legal or otherwise. The point is that if Apple decides the behavior is not allowable under the EULA, etc., the activity WILL be relegated to the hobbyist/experimenter/hacker crowd, and will NEVER be a mainstream solution.

      I'd imagine all of the people who want to do this, and are pirating Mac OS X anyway, are fine with this.

    21. Re:Of course.. by keytohwy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I disagree. I own an AppleTV and have yet to buy any content. It's awesome for showing family photos on my HDTV. In addition, its a great, visual music browser for listening. And lastly, Apple makes availabe a shitload of podcasts on the ITMS. I have a lot of those. Some video (even HD), some audio, but all free. I think that the AppleTV will transcend people's initial reaction, which is like yours. There's plenty of content you already own that make this a worthwhile venture for many.

    22. Re:Of course.. by Greg+Titus · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is why I expect Apple will do everything they can to fight against people running a flexible system that can run whatever content they want on their artificially cheap hardware. I would be surprised if Apple's lawyers didn't start coming out of the woodworks soon. Yeah, that's why an Apple spokesman was quoted as saying "it's your box, do with it what you please -- but be mindful of voiding that warranty" a couple days ago. See http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/05/apple-not-fight ing-back-against-apple-tv-hacks/.
    23. Re:Of course.. by ResidntGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you know there was a time when people would see a hack like this and say "coooooool" instead of spending 10 minutes rattling off the various illegalities?

      --
      ResidntGeek
    24. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's called "today". It is "cool".

      But it's also not a "$300 Mac", since you still, you know, need Mac OS X to go along with it.

      If you want to pirate it and/or don't care about the legal side of it at all, fine: this argument isn't for you.

      If you actually do want to find a legal way to do it that doesn't run afoul of license agreements, and possibly laws, in some jurisdictions, then Apple TV is actually an interesting case, since the big prohibition in the Mac OS X EULA has always been that it needs to be run on an "Apple-labeled" computer. Well, Apple TV is certainly an "Apple-labeled" product in that sense.

      So yeah, some people care that they can go out and get an Apple TV for $300, and then legally get Leopard for $69 as a student, and then legally install it on their Apple TV.

      To some people, the fact that they have a full Mac for $370 in the Apple TV form factor - AND it would be legal - is also "cool".

    25. Re:Of course.. by fermion · · Score: 1
      I see no reason why Apple should care. Most people are not going to hack a TV computer instead of purchasing an iMac. Such as thing, as is true for *nix and MS OS, only saves money if your time is worth nothing.

      Instead I see the people doing this as people who like to hack macs and have an open licensee on their 5 pack. In this case I think apple would be happy. They sell a machine that otherwise would not be sold, and cost them nothing in support as they will not support that application.

      Apple has done good job positioning their computers. An mac mini, fully decked out, is more expensive than iMac, os the only people who will buy it are the people who need to replace a white box. An iMac is cheap, but essentially underpowered so people who want or need the power will buy a Mac pro. The apple TV is cheap, but clearly not a loss leader.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    26. Re:Of course.. by vertinox · · Score: 0, Redundant

      There is no way to legally get a standalone, retail copy of Mac OS X (Intel) for AppleTV

      For some reason, I would speculate you will be able to buy a stand alone copy of Leopard OS X for Intel when it comes out.

      Otherwise, plenty of Intel Tiger users will be stuck with the version they have.

      I do remember buying Panther in the store when it came out and upgrading my PPC and it wasn't an upgrade license.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    27. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Did you just stop reading when you got to that point in my post? Not only is it correct, currently, but two lines below what you quoted, I say:

      Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) will be the first version of Mac OS X to have a legally purchasable standalone retail Intel version (actually, Leopard will be Universal).

      And I have spoken about the fact that Leopard will be separately purchasable in the very post you replied to and others in this thread numerous times.

      In fact, that's a huge chunk of what I was talking about: Leopard will be very interesting in the context of Apple TV, because it WILL be purchasable separately AND running Leopard on Apple TV, since it is an "Apple-labeled" product, doesn't appear to violate the EULA, either (as you still technically would if you purchased Leopard and ran it on non-Apple hardware, for example).

    28. Re:Of course.. by maxume · · Score: 1

      If you feel up to going to court(which is presumably where legal push comes to shove right?), it doesn't matter if Apple considers it a computer, it matters if the court considers it a computer.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    29. Re:Of course.. by McBeth · · Score: 1

      Um, yes there is. I have a unattached legal copy of Mac OSX sitting right next to me. It is called "Family Pack", we currently have 2 unused licenses in our home.

    30. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Mac OS X 10.4.x Family Packs are for Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC), not Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel). They are not the same product.

      I spoke directly to this point in my post:

      While it may get you around your own personal moral qualms (and isn't a bad argument, frankly), Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) and Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) are simply not the same product, and you can't juggle licenses between them. Your family pack license is for Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) only.

      There already is standing precedent for this: Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (PowerPC) and Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 (Universal) are not the same product, and have different part numbers, and the license for the former does not entitle you to the latter: it is a separate product that must be repurchased.

      Let me reiterate I don't think the argument is fundamentally a bad one! I'm sure that people with family packs will feel they're well within the "spirit" of things if they then pirate or otherwise obtain Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) for their AppleTV.

      The only product I can see, right now, today, that could theoretically be purchased and run legally on AppleTV is Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 (Universal). In the future, of course, Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) gets added to the mix.


      So when Leopard (and presumably Leopard family packs) come out, you may have an argument.

      But right now, like it or not, you have a family pack for Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC), nothing more.

    31. Re:Of course.. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think apple would care one bit publicly. Sure some one sitting behind a desk is is probably constantly knotting his panties up.

      But from a real perspective, lets think about this. First, they are selling the Apple-TV at a profit (even if it is small). Next, using it like this doesn't stop it's intended use. And finally, even if it did change the intended use, people buying it to have a MAC light whatever, wouldn't be buying the thing or any of it's services in the first place so there isn't a loss at all to apple. And if they were likely to buy the extra services, all apple has to do is stop the altered versions from working with the service and presto, they sell more of them.

      I don't think this is much like the TIVO situation were you bought a discounted device based on the idea of paying for some service that came with it. Tivo could learn from this and offer the TIVO sets at a discount with so many years of service, block content in a different way that allows a person to pay full price for the system if they don't intend to use it according to their service agreement. The new GPLv3 allows for this and it could be a win win for everyone if they adopted a plan to this effect.

    32. Re:Of course.. by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Well if it can run Mac OSX, and do all the things that an OSX computer can do, it must be a computer.

    33. Re:Of course.. by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      When Steve rubs your belly, does it make your leg wiggle? What? He never has? Keep posting, I'm sure he'll notice someday.

      People are hacking this thing for the love of the machine and its software. But I'm glad people like you exist to highlight the true nature of Apple.

    34. Re:Of course.. by stewbacca · · Score: 2

      You aren't a Mac OS X user, I presume? Unlike Windows, OS X cds aren't copy protected nor do they need keys. If you buy a Mac, you get the OS. My point was that if you already own a Mac (like I do) and you want to hack a Mac TV, then there is no "+cost of OS".

    35. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Um, some people actually want to run Mac OS X legally.

      Sorry to, you know, actually discuss that aspect of it, and point out that for the first time, it will be a legitimate possibility with Apple TV and Leopard.

      I know it's disappointing to you when people actually discuss things like this, though.

    36. Re:Of course.. by theshibboleth · · Score: 1

      While you could do that, Apple would say that you only have a license to use the disk with the computer it was boxed with. Anything else is technically the equivalent of piracy.

    37. Re:Of course.. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      When you buy an appleTV you're essentially guaranteeing that you will, in the future, be buying content for it too.
      Because movies and TV shows, of course, are available for all countries. Oups, they're not.

      Just like there was no iTunes Music Store for other countries at first either, which didn't stop Apple from selling iPods outside of the USA.

      If you think Apple are selling the AppleTV at a loss, you're kidding yourself.

      If you think people only buy the AppleTV to buy online content via the iTunes Store, you're also kidding yourself. I, myself, bought one so I could finally have an easy-to-use movie jukebox. My Mac mini is currently busy compressing one of my DVDs into H.264/AAC as we speak. It will be added to my 90+ already ripped DVDs.

      If anything, Apple should start selling Apple-branded network storage devices for their next product.
    38. Re:Of course.. by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      I'm really not sure where you get this from the Apple Mac OS X SLA.

      It doesn't specify PowerPC. That's not in there anywhere.

      The Family Pack license for Tiger would cover using Mac OS X on an Apple TV, as long as it's an "Apple-labeled computer" and I can't imagine a court finding it isn't, since it contains all the elements of a computer by any definition I can think of.

      And Apple has made public statements that they don't care, which means that it's highly unlikely that this would ever end up in court anyway.

      Consult an attorney if you're really worried about it, but from my point of view, it's perfectly legal to install Mac OS X on the Apple TV, if you've got a Tiger Family Pack and haven't used all 5 copies, and it's for home use.

    39. Re:Of course.. by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      needs to be run on an "Apple-labeled" computer

      is certainly an "Apple-labeled" product

      And herein lies the crux. Is your Apple TV a computer? Certainly. Is it sold as such? No. They would argue it is an appliance, and ergo not covered by license. Is my DVR a computer? Absolutely. My PDA? It can use external displays, external keyboards, after all. And so on and so forth.

    40. Re:Of course.. by outZider · · Score: 2, Informative

      No one was quoted -- that was a summary of the feeling they get.

      --
      - oZ
      // i am here.
    41. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't need to specifically say PowerPC. It is the license agreement for the product, which, as Apple views it, is technically Mac OS X (PowerPC). The precedent with Mac OS X Server (PowerPC) and Mac OS X Server (Universal) makes this all too clear in the context of Mac OS X 10.4.x and Mac OS X Server 10.4.x.

      As I've said elsewhere, the Family Pack argument isn't a bad one, and frankly, it seems reasonable to believe it within the "spirit" of things. But even that doesn't change that there is still no way to get Mac OS X (Intel) other than pirating it. In the case where you happen to have an Intel Mac, or a friend does, then you can start kind of making up reasoning for why it's "okay" - and I'll agree, much of that reasoning isn't really bad.

      As to Apple's public statements, I'd say they're largely referring to the hacks to the Apple TV as-is, i.e., enabling ssh, Remote Desktop, and so on, not pirating Mac OS X (Intel) and installing it on Apple TV.

      But, to your larger point, I do agree that for home/hobbyist use, Apple probably will continue to take a hands-off approach; after all, individuals running Mac OS X on an Apple TV have, in fact, purchased an Apple TV. Those who actually have family pack licenses and/or other licenses for Mac OS X can certainly consider themselves to be within the spirit of the license. (However, from a purely legal standpoint, I'd take issue that an attorney would agree that it's "perfectly legal": your license for Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) and the associated family pack only covers that product, which can be argued to be only for Mac OS X (PowerPC), which is a distinct product from Mac OS X (Intel), which, itself, is not purchasable or available separately. This is especially true since there is a parallel precedent set by the two distinct versions of Mac OS X Server.)

      The landscape changes considerably with Leopard, since it will be separately purchasable, and will be Universal, and the licenses for it and that of the associated family pack that one would presume would be available definitely cover a version of the product able to run on Intel, including Apple TV. But even then, the question exists of whether Apple would strictly consider Apple TV a "computer" in the context of the license. The fact that Apple will probably ignore this in the context of home/hobbyist/experimenter use no doubt remains. But that doesn't remove the veracity of any of my statements, either. Overall, though, you're right that Apple probably will care a lot less since it's being run on their own hardware someone has purchased, even now before Leopard.

    42. Re:Of course.. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course, and I even raised that question in my initial post. However, I don't think Apple will do much about this in a home/hobbyist setting, and this question of whether Apple TV is really a "computer" would only be raised if a vendor tried to, for example, sell Apple TVs preloaded with Leopard (and an associated Leopard license). This question will continue to leave the business of installing Mac OS X on Apple TVs squarely in the fringe experimenter realm, and not that of the mainstream.

    43. Re:Of course.. by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      There is no "+cost of OS" if you just download Windows, either. If you have one copy of OS X licensed and you're using, then there absolutely is a "+cost of OS" to getting a second copy if you're doing a true comparison over-the-table. Unfortunately, there's no way to buy a copy of the OS legitimately for the Intel platform.

    44. Re:Of course.. by toddestan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly right, because all $200 Linux boxes have an HDMI as well as component audio and video ports, come with a remote, run silently, and fit in a shoebox. And please don't reply with a "I don't care about X" post to justify your pricing. That's just retarded.

      Yeah, except a lot of that hardware doesn't even work. From TFA:

      "... the resulting installation is unable to take advantage of all the Apple TV's hardware. Without video acceleration, games can't floor the graphic chip's throttle. There's no audio or ethernet support either, making the box useless for its original purpose as a media hub."

      Perhaps it may some time in the future, but at this point the $200 Linux box is going to be more functional.

    45. Re:Of course.. by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. Your family pack does not contain Intel binaries. Therefore, the only way for you to get this software is to download it from the Internet, which places you in an act of illegal distribution if you torrent it, and in possession of unlicensed software even if you're not using a torrent.

      There's no NEED to specify PowerPC in the license, because the license attached to the software is only applicable to that software--there IS NO Intel OS X available to license or to make the distinction. You could claim that your license to OS X does not specify which architecture (and you'd be correct), but when asked where you got unreleased software without its attached license agreement, you'd be stuck.

      It will depend on what the license says when the Intel version is actually released for sale with the launch of 10.5.

    46. Re:Of course.. by steve_bryan · · Score: 1

      So while this is all very interesting, please consider the fact that there are no legal ways to get Mac OS X for it currently.

      You forgot the section arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. If you want to run OS X on an AppleTV or any other hardware then grow a pair and just do it. Try to restrain yourself from breaking into an Apple Store and stealing anything. Other than that you are pretty much in the clear.

    47. Re:Of course.. by aetherworld · · Score: 1

      OS X PPC and OS X Intel are different products.


      Um. No?

      Mine installs on both machines.
    48. Re: Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap. It is worth nothing to someone who doesn't use it/need it/care about it. More people than you think. I use the OS, of course, but the rest is a waste of space.

    49. Re:Of course.. by Golias · · Score: 1

      Meh.

      Wouldn't it make more sense just to spend $300 on a used G4 mini or something? Then it would come with a DVD drive and everything.

      I mean, I can easily find computers that run OS X for $300, if that's all you really want. The used market is flooded with them.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    50. Re:Of course.. by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      You're speculating on what you think Apple sees in that SLA, which is not what the SLA says. And it does not appear to say that it's only a SLA for the version included in the box. It says it's a SLA for Mac OS X Tiger, not Mac OS X Tiger (PowerPC).

      The precedent set by Mac OS X Server is merely that a later release of the same software includes an Intel version as well as a PowerPC version on the same disk. The SLA is unchanged, and does not specify Intel or PowerPC.

      As Apple isn't shipping a retail version of Tiger with Universal Binaries at present, I would say that the only legal way to do this if the Apple TV doesn't already have a Mac OS X License would be to own both a Tiger Family Pack and an Intel Mac, but with both of those, I can't see a valid argument that it isn't legal.

      I do wonder if the Apple TV wouldn't be considered to already have its own Mac OS X license, though. It does run Mac OS X out of the box, it just has a few extra features and a custom boot sequence. I haven't seen its accompanying literature.

    51. Re: Of course.. by 1110110001 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. My monitor has 3 inputs, but I only use 2 of them. Why should I pay for the third port? It's worth nothing, because I never use it.

      If you don't like to pay for the whole package, buy something cheaper. Apple TV might be a good choice then. But at least don't claim the Mac mini would be more expensive. It's not. That's what the discussion is about.

    52. Re:Of course.. by Geminii · · Score: 1

      When you buy an appleTV you're essentially guaranteeing that you will, in the future, be buying content for it too. What a fascinating theory. Find it in the dumpster outside a marketing convention, did we?

    53. Re:Of course.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think this is much like the TIVO situation were you bought a discounted device based on the idea of paying for some service that came with it.


      Though some of us bought Tivos with lifetime subscriptions. They did successfully get me to get a S3 with the (now ended) temporary deal which allowed "transfer" of an existing lifetime subscription (for $200) to a S3. I don't even have a HDTV yet. However, I *really* don't like continuing monthly bills, and DO like Tivo. Plus, it helps keep resale value.
  2. Twice! by cabinetsoft · · Score: 4, Informative

    in same week... first mentioned here

    1. Re:Twice! by aarku · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, but there is actually a worthwhile update to the story, not that I know if it's mentioned in TFA. You can boot Mac OS X on it now without opening the box.

    2. Re:Twice! by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      So I watched that video, and it was interesting, but it left me with one question -- Why is OS X 10.4.2 read as "Oh ess ten, ten point four point two?" Are they going to have an OS X 11.1? Or will it be OS XI 11.1? Why not just "OS ten, four point 2" (OS X 4.2)? Saying the ten twice just seems entirely too redundant.

      That's my small rant.

    3. Re:Twice! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Informative

      The product name is 'OS X' (oh ess ten). This is similar to how the product name for windows is 'Windows XP' The version number of the program is 10.4, the same way the version number of XP is 5.1. On the Mac side, they refer to the product name + the version number (ie, OS X 10.4.8). On the Windows side, the version number is usually left off, instead being replaced by service pack number (ie, Windows XP Service Pack 2).

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    4. Re:Twice! by hey! · · Score: 1

      Actually, the ability to boot off of an USB driver was more interesting to me than being able to hack the internal drive.

      I'd actually be more interested if they could boot Linux on the thing. It'd be much easier to experiment with a USB flash drive before risking bricking your device. If you didn't need any ports the thing lacks, it'd be attractive relative to cobbling together a mini-itx system.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Twice! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      But there haven't been ten major versions of OSX at all. There have been 4 post-OS9 major versions. Which by any reasonable reckoning should put Macs at OSXIV or some other weird combination of "arabic" and roman numerals. The 10 clearly at one point was the iterator, and is what the 'X' stands for. Otherwise, it'd be pronounced "Oh ess ex." For some reason they've chosen to freeze it and use minor version numbers instead.

      Mac version numbering is, at least, piecewise logical, which while inferior to linux kernel numbering, is certainly superior to pretty much everyone elses.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Twice! by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      You clearly haven't paid any attention to how the Macintosh operating system has been named for the past 15+ years. Once upon a time, there was System 6 and System 7 (I think only the Finder had a version number before then), both of which had other version numberings after them (eg, System 7, 7.1.1). It was then changed to 'MacOS' from 'System' for the release of version 8 (eg, MacOS 8, 8.5.1). They've kept a similar naming scheme since then, with the 10 being replaced by a roman numeral X.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    7. Re:Twice! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      That seems to be inline with my claim of piecewise logical. Unless you want to make the claim that the OSX revisions have been only minor changes.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  3. What is the world coming to... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The breakthrough is done, OS X runs on Apple TV!'

    Wow, Slashdot is losing its mind. Usually stories that make it to the front page start with "The breakthrough is done: Linux runs on ". But Apple's OSX (which is essentially BSD, which has been dead or dying too for decades incidentally)? and running on Apple hardware? really...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:What is the world coming to... by Raptoer · · Score: 1

      yeah, but this wasn't made to run OSX, it was made to run whatever it came with, and nothing else. Since it is a TV(or at least streams video) then it was made to run the software it came with, which is most likely not OSX. My only analogy would be installing Linux on your cable box or dvr...

    2. Re:What is the world coming to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You wouldn't know a joke if it stuck a carnation in its arse and painted its bottom with bright blue letters saying "I'm a joke" would you?

    3. Re:What is the world coming to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did suggest installing linux on a DVR... Maybe your concept is flawed?

    4. Re:What is the world coming to... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Actually it runs OSX but has a couple things (USB for eample) Disabled.

      It is eq1uivelent to getting full Linux on the Linksys routers that run Linux, or a Tivo.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  4. This could get interesting by oddeirik · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Without video acceleration, games can't floor the graphic chip's throttle. There's no audio or ethernet support either[...]"

    Which means it's of fairly limited use, atleast for now. I'm guessing that'll improve over the next couple of months though.

    And if it's possible to clock the CPU up to 1 GHz (it's underclocked to 350 MHz?), maybe put in some more RAM and upgrade the HD, $300 ain't so bad for a HTPC with a design that your wife can accept in the living room. It having HDMI, DVI and WLAN isn't a bad thing either if they can get that working.

    1. Re:This could get interesting by phalse+phace · · Score: 4, Informative

      But why bother doing the upgrades to it when an Apple certified refurb Mac mini with

      # 1.66Ghz Intel Core Duo
      # 512MB memory
      # 60GB hard drive
      # combo drive

      is only $519?

      After doing all the upgrades, the price difference between it and the refurb Mac mini won't be that much.

    2. Re:This could get interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upgrading RAM will require soldering, seems like alot of work just to have a crappy-but-tiny computer. And if you overclock the processor it is likely it will require more cooling, which will make it noisier.

    3. Re:This could get interesting by xtracto · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh god, are macs *that* expensive?
      $520 for a 512MB/1.6Ghz/60GB *REFUBRISHED* PC is just plain wrong...

      You can get a *brand new* 512MB/1.8Ghz/120GB PC from dell... including mouse and keyboard and warranty.

      Posting AC because my comment wont be popular on this forum...
        and because I will mod you funny if I get mod points...

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:This could get interesting by setirw · · Score: 1
      That used to be the case, but not now:

      From the article:

      Without video acceleration, games can't floor the graphic chip's throttle. There's no audio or ethernet support either, making the box useless for its original purpose as a media hub.

      Over the past week, however, enthusiasts worked to solve these problems


      This story is really an addendum to the original, which we saw on Slashdot earlier this week.
      --
      This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
    5. Re:This could get interesting by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      you clicked on the wrong box.

      Also a mac Mini is One tenth the physical size and a heck of a lot quieter than any desktop PC I have come across.

      I can use my Mac mini in my living room and not hear it. Yet I can hear the steady hum from my pc's in the next room over.

      Compare Apple's to Apple's. At least price out a shuttle, or a custom mini-itx setup before you compare the tiny mac mini to a dud.

      Yes I said Dud. Both dell's I have bought were cheap pieces of crap. even the machine I custom built was better and cost a lot less. It wasn't always so. There is a dell at work that keeps on going. Of course it is now 13 years old.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    6. Re:This could get interesting by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Why do that when you can get the same Dell for $200? Oh yeah... Apple customers LOVE vendor lock-in.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    7. Re:This could get interesting by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      But that Dell will run Vista... well, "run" should be interpreted loosely... Vista won't actually "run" (crawl, maybe if you're lucky) on any cheap hardware, and you have no choice but to buy vista on a new PC (well, you can beg and whine for XP, and you might get it, but you'll have to fight with the powers that be).

      So that Dell $200 computer will just be a slow, useless, brick with its hard drive grinding endlessly into the night, while the slightly more expensive mini will actually run some stuff.

      Vista killed the cheap computer.... that makes macintoshes a much more viable option now.

      Thanks,

      Mike

    8. Re:This could get interesting by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the FSB that was underclocked to 350MHz. I've seen reports that Speedstep reduces the clock to 600MHZ when it's downclocked, meaning that 1GHz is probably the clock that it's really running.

    9. Re:This could get interesting by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Not true. Vista runs just fine on a 2-3 year old P4 (I don't know the speed) with 512 MB RAM. I'm typing this post on such a machine right not. The "recommended hardware" thing concerning Vista is largely hype.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    10. Re:This could get interesting by jmpeax · · Score: 1

      even the machine I custom built was better and cost a lot less [than a Dell] I should hope so. The best quality PCs are those we build ourselves! Dell, HP et al will not incorporate the best quality components in their pre-built systems because they are not the cheapest. That's fine for many people - for high-performance high-quality, custom-building or specialist companies like Alienware are, and always have been, the answer.
    11. Re:This could get interesting by toddestan · · Score: 1

      He has a point, the Mini is pretty underpowered for the price. Of course, it's still a good deal for an ultra small computer, but if size doesn't matter as much you can get more power/storage/expandability for less money in the PC world. Most OEM computers nowadays are also pretty quiet too. The PC world has moved away from the P4/Athlon XP windtunnels of yesteryear.

  5. This is a cool hack by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But it is honestly not that useful. With only a 1GHz processor and 256MB of RAM, it might run OSX but not well. If you are gonna hack OSX why not just build a beige box and put OSX86 on it- I recently put together a Pentium D system that would run OSX well with twice as much ram (in a MicroATX case) for less than the Apple TV. Also a well built hackintosh will have use of the audio and ethernet. For those that just want Apple hardware, for around the same price point as the Apple TV you could get an older mini that would be legit.



    I just don't see people going out to buy this for a new (even secondary) Mac.

    1. Re:This is a cool hack by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      I dunno... might make a great "always on" computer...

    2. Re:This is a cool hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "But it is honestly not that useful. With only a 1GHz processor and 256MB of RAM..."

      What are you smokin'? Show me something in a 1.1x7.7x7.7 inch package that looks good and can be a media PC (Xvid playpack!) or a auto PC for $300. The closest thing is the Mac mini at 2x6.5x6.5 inches at $600. Double the money will buy you a lot more, but $300 bucks is toy money. I be stackin' me web servers and slingboxes all over the place for that price point. Plug in a 10" LCD and a DC converter and this guy goes in my car. It would be a great web surfing appliance for the kitchen. Great possibilities are out there. It may not be quite ready for primetime yet, but there is a large community that won't stop until this box runs everything under the sun. It's only a matter of time. Just look at the XBMC project as an example.

    3. Re:This is a cool hack by harry666t · · Score: 0

      AFAIR running OSX on non-Apple hardware is illegal.

    4. Re:This is a cool hack by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AFAIR running OSX on non-Apple hardware is illegal.

      If I didn't buy a copy it would be illegal. But if I did buy a copy then in the UK at least it would be quite legal for me to run it anywhere I wanted. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the Software Directive / Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, any license terms which tried to prevent me from running OS X virtualised or on non-Apple hardware are sure to be tossed out in court.

      Rich.

    5. Re:This is a cool hack by daveschroeder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately, you can't buy a copy of Mac OS X (Intel) anywhere. Mac OS X (PowerPC) is a different product. Even in the UK.

      And all of these "hacked" instances of Mac OS X 10.4.x running on non-Apple hardware are using a hacked kernel from Mac OS X 10.4.3 (!) from the development systems that shipped with BIOS - nearly all of the work was done for them.

      Once Leopard ships, it will require a *significant* amount of work would be required to get Leopard running on non-Apple hardware, much less hardware with BIOS (including VMs). Even if someone does get Leopard running on non-Apple hardware, it will very likely require particular brands of motherboards, etc...meaning people have to go out and buy something anyway.

      None of the hacks from 10.4.x, especially the critical kernel, will be able to be reused on 10.5.x. Even now, no one has successfully used a newer 10.4.x kernel on non-Apple hardware - it's all still the old 10.4.3 development kernel that was never released that supported BIOS. Ugly, ugly hack.

      So no...there's no legal way for you to get Mac OS X for Intel, even in the UK. Unless you use sophistry to build ridiculous arguments about reusing the license from the Intel iMac that you "no longer want to run Mac OS X on" anymore, etc.

    6. Re:This is a cool hack by Megane · · Score: 2, Funny

      But if I did buy a copy then in the UK at least it would be quite legal for me to run it anywhere I wanted.

      Yes... on a PPC CPU. Apple does not include the x86 version of OS X Tiger in retail copies. You would not be running what you bought. ("I bought a copy of the Boston Pops doing Beethoven's Fifth symphony, so it should be quite legal for me to download any version of Beethoven's Fifth ever recorded.")

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:This is a cool hack by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      That's funny, the Old G3 I have here runs OSX on it well. and that is less than 500mhz. Works great for most office tasks and internet tasks which is 99% of what a computer is used for in the home.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:This is a cool hack by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I am interested in this. It might not be a great primary computer, but for a low-power electronics project where a "real" computer would be too large or power consuming, then this would be an ideal candidate. AppleTV is more compact than most miniITX, and is cheaper than miniITX hardware too.

      Unfortunately, one big problem is that I can't legally sell a product based on installing the real Mac OS X on this, so it would have to rely on non-Apple software upgrades to the machine.

    9. Re:This is a cool hack by vertinox · · Score: 1

      None of the hacks from 10.4.x, especially the critical kernel, will be able to be reused on 10.5.x. Even now, no one has successfully used a newer 10.4.x kernel on non-Apple hardware - it's all still the old 10.4.3 development kernel that was never released that supported BIOS. Ugly, ugly hack.

      Why not just create a VM layer that emulates the Apple hardware rather than try to get physical hardware to match what the OS wants? From my understanding the Parallels team can but don't because of legal restrictions.

      And if they won't sell Leopard in the store, then what happens to all the people with Intel + Tiger who can't upgrade?

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    10. Re:This is a cool hack by TJamieson · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...all of these "hacked" instances of Mac OS X 10.4.x running on non-Apple hardware are using a hacked kernel from Mac OS X 10.4.3 (!) from the development systems...

      Nope, sorry. The latest ones are using the Darwin 8.8.1 (aka 10.4.8) kernel. Built from public sources no less!

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
    11. Re:This is a cool hack by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      The latest ones for non-Apple hardware (i.e., not Apple TV)?

      If so, I stand corrected.

      That still doesn't change the fact that it violates the EULA, and is a system that is totally unsupported, not able to pull OS updates (that is, any update that could potentially touch/replace the hacked components) down via Software Update, etc.

      If people really are that hell-bent on pirating and/or running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, then that's their call.

      But because no mainstream company, vendor, or institution will ever rely on running a hacked OS X on non-Apple hardware, it will ALWAYS remain relegated to the small (yes, extremely small, even if it is thousands or tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people) hacker/hobbyist/experimenter crowd. Legitimate customers and enterprises will continue to properly license and purchase Mac OS X.

      And even if this did become a booming black market in, say, China, it would be no different from how any other software is pirated in those regions.

    12. Re:This is a cool hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      newer kernels HAVE been successfully used in OSX86. in fact semthex was part of that too, along with some other folks like mifki and the now infamous JAS

      10.4.8

    13. Re:This is a cool hack by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      As I said to the person directly above you who responded to me (doesn't anyone read the threads anymore?), I stand corrected.

      But that doesn't change the other points I raised here.

    14. Re:This is a cool hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you even want it as a pc?

      Second it's going to have subpar video playback. Pretty soon we're going to have standalone video players that do xvid, hdtv mpeg2 etc without a hitch. I have one right now that cost $210 based on a sigma chip running a scaled down version of linux. It can play everything perfectly except for some particularly high bit rate xvids that were made from rips of hdtv shows due to the limitations on that particular sigma chip, but it plays 17mbps hdtv streams perfectly. the apple tv thing is shit. it's only slightly better than an xbox with a mod chip and xbox media center, the one that I had years ago

    15. Re:This is a cool hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this all academic anyway? AppleTV come WITH a copy o OSX. If I download a copy of OSX to run on my AppleTV, dont I HAVE a license to run it?

    16. Re:This is a cool hack by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you can't buy a copy of Mac OS X (Intel) anywhere. Mac OS X (PowerPC) is a different product. Even in the UK. You could buy OS X Server.
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    17. Re:This is a cool hack by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Yep, and I already spoke to that in this and other numerous posts in that thread.

      But that's a minimum of $249 at education pricing for 10-client, and already over the price of a Mac mini.

      Considering the very small number of people who'd legitimately want an Apple TV running Mac OS X Server - and would actually BUY it - that's another sophist stretch, if one were to make that argument.

      I think the really interesting case, as I'd also said in that above thread, is Apple TV + Leopard.

    18. Re:This is a cool hack by TJamieson · · Score: 1

      Yep, non-Apple. SSE3-only, but it works. You were right regarding the kernel for SSE2-only machines though -- that is how kernels previous to 10.4.5 were built, but 10.4.5 and on required SSE3.

      I agree though; the fervor to get it running everywhere is a bit much, but seeing "Athlon 64 X2" in About This Mac is fun regardless.

      --
      For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
  6. PowerMac G4 Tower by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Was a whole $80 off eBay. With a $200 upgrade it's dual 1Ghz G4 now, but honestly it ran OSX fine without the upgrade so I could have skipped the big upgrade and saved some cash.

    I won't be impressed until someone shows me a programmable/extendable device for under $40 (for new, not used). The $300 price point is not really an exciting price point when you consider PCs have been under this for a while.

    I recently spent like $65 on an Athlon 64 X2 3600+ Brisbane cpu. a few other parts and it's a whole computer. Granted an Apple TV is a really tiny computer, and it hooks up to a TV in a very convenient way (but doesn't hook up to a CRT/LCD without some effort). For a tiny computer it's not a bad deal, but if smallness is not a priority then there are better bargains out there to be sure.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:PowerMac G4 Tower by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      You bought a used and very old extendable/programmable computer for $80, but you expect that a brand-new extendable/programmable product be cheaper than the used product that you bought? In what bizzaro world would that be realistic?

  7. Cheapest Mac ever by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    Is VMWare Player with OSX loaded: $0.

  8. low-budget Mac by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Isnt that the low end Mini?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. And if that counts, I can beat the price. by Mr2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bought a Dell Dimension 4600 from a pawn shop for $20, "as is" because someone said it wouldn't boot. When I brought it home, I discovered there was nothing wrong with it. I slapped an old Radeon inside, installed OS X, and that's what I call the cheapest Mac ever.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    1. Re:And if that counts, I can beat the price. by jcgf · · Score: 1

      How do you find OS X works on it? I tried something similar on an old Acer Veriton at work. It worked ok, but it only had intel's 8xx graphics not the 9xx that OSX wanted so I didn't get any accelerated video and I also had to put in an old startech nic because the onboard wasn't supported. Worked better than my system I built (athlon 64 3500+ on a soltek motherboard) on which I got most of it working but sound only came out of 1 speaker and I had similar problems with video and sound as before. I really liked OS X though and will probably buy a macbook come tax back time (should be the same time leopard comes out conveniently).

    2. Re:And if that counts, I can beat the price. by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      I only had a few issues... first, graphics acceleration works with my Radeon 9600XT, but the cursor would leave little mouse poops behind whenever the window below it scrolled. This was resolved by installing one of those programs that puts a big image behind your cursor (for hard-to-read laptop screens) and just giving it a transparent PNG. Now the cursor is a little flickery, but doesn't leave any artifacts.

      Second, the onboard audio works, but sound comes out of a different jack than it does under Windows. I've heard this can be fixed by messing with the speaker settings, but I haven't bothered. For single-boot systems this wouldn't really matter.

      Finally, I had to try three different wifi cards before I found one that OS X would recognize.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:And if that counts, I can beat the price. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll and Flamebait, WTF? The mods are sore because they paid way too much for a Mac.

  10. Blue & White G3 Tower by Megane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Blue and White G3s esentially cost nothing now beyond the cost of the RAM and HD inside (and the cost of shipping), and they run Tiger quite decently. They also take the same CPU upgrades as the early G4 systems. The only problem is they don't take 512M or larger DIMMs, and they don't take 8-chip 256M DIMMs (the 16-chip versions have been a bit hard for me to find as salvage). I've got two of them working quite well next to my (purchased new) MDD/Windtunnel dual 1G G4 (which is awesome for having four HD bays and two optical bays).

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:Blue & White G3 Tower by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have 1GB of ram in my B&W G3, and yes. they are dirt cheap. You can find 800Mhz G4 chips to drop into those G3 systems pretty easily. No AGP slot though, just a dual speed PCI slot for the video card.

      The little ATI Rage card handles Tiger's fancy graphics quite nicely though.

      I have 4 hdds in my B&W G3 after I put in a SATA controller and got the dual-drive trays to replace the single drive trays. (same trays fit in the early G4 systems too)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  11. Not exactly. by Narcogen · · Score: 1

    You might already own a license that allows for installing OS X on more than one Apple machine.

  12. Not necessarily by brokeninside · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With three Macs in the house, the most economical way for me to legally upgrade is Apple's household bundles that come with five licenses. Meaning that at any given time, I've usually got one or two licenses that I'm not using. I doubt that I'm the only person in this situation.

    1. Re:Not necessarily by tepples · · Score: 1

      With three Macs in the house, the most economical way for me to legally upgrade is Apple's household bundles that come with five licenses. But given that your three Intel Macs in the house already came with Tiger, what Intel OS is there to legally upgrade to until June when Leopard comes out?
  13. Expensive Embedded by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    If a new Mac can cost $300 like a cheap new PC, how come these new little embedded devices still cost $100? The embedded ones don't have HDs, much RAM, displays or even power supplies. They run Linux or other $free OS. And they're supposed to sell many more units to the general public than do Macs, so their scale economy should be better. Why do they cost about 50% their much bigger, more complex cousins?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  14. Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... by kosmosik · · Score: 1

    Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap. Apple TV - $300, MacOSX - $150. It means that it costs you $450. For $600 you can get Mac Mini which is far more capable.

    But I would love to see Linux running on Apple TV - for ultimate unix/linux hacker minibox Apple TV looks nice. :)

    1. Re:Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... by squiggleslash · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Try $500 for Mac OS X. The only legal ways of obtaining Mac OS X for Intel as of today are:

      1. Buy Mac OS X Server, 10 licenses ($500)
      2. Buy an Intel Mac. Remove OS, install something else (or destroy it or whatever.)

      You cannot buy the Intel version of Mac OS X for $130. You hopefully will once Leopard is released, but that's not happened yet. Kind of sucks, huh?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you Retarded or something? The Apple TV comes with a full blow OS loaded into it all you have to do is copy a couple components over to it from your system to get everything running smothly.

    3. Re:Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Are you retarded or something? Go read TFA. To get this working you basically install the AppleTV's harddrive into an Intel Mac, reformat it, install 10.4.8, modify the installation, then put it back into the AppleTV. The OS that comes with the AppleTV has nothing to do with it.

    4. Re:Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      For some reason, my reply has disappeared, so here it is again:

      Try $500 for Mac OS X. The only legal ways of obtaining Mac OS X for Intel as of today are:

      1. Buy Mac OS X Server, 10 licenses ($500) 2. Buy an Intel Mac. Remove OS, install something else (or destroy it or whatever.)

      You cannot buy the Intel version of Mac OS X for $130. You hopefully will once Leopard is released, but that's not happened yet. Kind of sucks, huh?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  15. we're almost there ..... by nblender · · Score: 1
    What I want is the AppleTV to act as a MythTV frontend. Either by running mythfrontend itself (unlikely) or by my mythbackend speaking DAAP such that I can use the native ATV software to access my mythbackend.

    Why? I want to velcro the ATV behind my LCD TV or on the ceiling with my projector (haven't decided which yet) and only have to deal with a single power cord. I don't want to put my 2TB mythbackend in the same room as my TV. I want it in my rack in the far corner of the basement where it can happily whine away.

    Once we have consumer devices that can inconspicuously tuck in behind a TV and speak some standard protocol from the household media server, I'd say we're done. Apple's "household media server" is not quite there. ie: it doesn't have DVR functionality yet, and the iTunes TV model doesn't have the content I want at the prices I'm currently paying.

    1. Re:we're almost there ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just run Linux on it, then you can run mythfrontend.

    2. Re:we're almost there ..... by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > What I want is the AppleTV to act as a MythTV frontend.

      I want a tiny and inexpensive box that can be a MythTV backend. As in do the actual recording. I doubt the AppleTV is up to the task. I'm not saying this cool hacked box sucks, but it's not what I'm pining for.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    3. Re:we're almost there ..... by nblender · · Score: 1

      I guess everyone has their optimal livingroom setup but I can't imagine why one would care about the size of the backend.. The backend has a bunch of tuners, a bunch of disk, and makes lots of noise.

  16. Tiny Mac, tiny hardware spec by nickovs · · Score: 1

    The AppleTV is cheap but it also has a spec too low to be very effective running OSX.

    The main problem is going to be the RAM; only 256MB and not upgradable. The Intel Macs seem to use more memory and I often find Safari using more than 256MB of physical memory on its own. Soldering on new TSOP memory chips is something I'd pay quite a bit to avoid having to do...

    Aside from the small memory, there a stack of other aspects that are missing or diminished compared to the Mac mini. At the top level, the CPU is 60% of the speed of the entry-level Mac mini and the disk is half the size. There's no audio input at all, the ethernet is 100Mb/s rather than 1Gb/s, no bluetooth, only one USB (so you end up needing an external hub for most activities). Most people will cope with the missing FireWire, not least because with only 256MB of RAM none of the Universal versions of video editing code are going to cope very well.

    It's sort of neat that you can run "full" OS X on the AppleTV but given the spec of the machine I think that the utility is somewhat limited. About the only thing it's good for would be as some sort of stand-alone appliance running a single application. Hey, hold on, that's what they designed it for!

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
  17. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still too expensive for a Mac

  18. Family Pack by tepples · · Score: 1

    This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

    Not if you've bought the family pack, and you have licenses left.

  19. Yep. by tivoKlr · · Score: 1

    You sir are correct. We are "pirating Mac OS X anyway" and we are enjoying your spirited discussion.

    --
    Ocean is land, covered with water.
    1. Re:Yep. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's your call.

      I'm simply laying out the arguments for the people who are looking for *legal* ways to justify it.

      And Leopard will present an interesting case, since:

      - It will be purchasable as a standalone product
      - Running Leopard on Apple TV does not appear to violate the Mac OS X license agreement on its face
      - Even more interesting if Leopard runs unmodified (i.e., without a kernel hack)
      - More interesting still if an installation method can be found that doesn't require disassembling Apple TV

    2. Re:Yep. by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

      More interesting still if an installation method can be found that doesn't require disassembling Apple TV

      And apparently this is now done as well:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swebzPG7p34&NR=1

  20. vlc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think everyone is missing the point of hacking this device. What we really need from it is the ability to stream anything we want out the hdmi port - for example things that have been captured from a cable company's DVR firewire output. Getting vlc running would be a good start.

  21. Dupe by dinojemr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    A dupe of this April Fools post. Did it need to be posted again for people to believe it?

  22. What gives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This same article came out on April 2 on slashdot as an April Fools joke. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/02/ 1017242&from=rss . Now it is being listed here as a non-april fools joke.

    Is this or is this not an April Fools Joke? If not; then why did Slashdot list it? Mistake or Apples crew of super ninja moneky lawyers?

  23. That would be classic Apple by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Be doing really well, producing cool stuff, and then do something monumentally boneheaded like not allow current owners to upgrade.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  24. Linux booting on AppleTV by kad77 · · Score: 3, Informative

    How's free for a pricepoint?

    Given we had OSX running on the AppleTV back on March 30, I'm not surprised that the article missed Linux is running with full nvidia hardware acceleration. After 5+ years, the journaled HFS support in the kernel is basically worthless though (FIXME).

    As usual, AwkwardTV has the scoop--

    http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Linux_on_Apple_TV

    thanks gimli!

  25. Wait for Leopard? by tepples · · Score: 1

    your license won't allow you to install on an Apple TV But is this restriction so enforceable? It would make the product as sold unfit for the purpose solely because of the license term. Though the text of the EULA disclaims warranties of fitness, local laws limit the enforceability of disclaimers of implied warranties, especially for consumer products such as home editions of operating systems.

    You can't just buy a copy of OS X for Intel, that's the point. When Leopard comes out this June, will the version for Mac computers with Intel CPU be available only as a paid-for digital download, or will DVD-ROM editions be available?
    1. Re:Wait for Leopard? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      your license won't allow you to install on an Apple TV But is this restriction so enforceable?

      Uh, isn't hacking a Mac TV a bigger legality issue than using my MacBook or my Intel iMac install cds?

    2. Re:Wait for Leopard? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Uh, isn't hacking a Mac TV a bigger legality issue than using my MacBook or my Intel iMac install cds?

      How so?

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:Wait for Leopard? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'm just guessing that Apple worries more about people hacking their hardware and getting it to do things they didn't design it to do than they do people using their Mac OS X cd from their iMac on their Mac TV.

  26. What model do you recommend by tepples · · Score: 1

    the Apple TV is a pretty underpowered PC. If a computer like it were sold not running OS X but just Linux or something, you wouldn't expect to pay a full $300 for it.

    Then where can I lawfully[1] buy such a new[2] underpowered PC with USB and Ethernet ports and a TV output, running GNU/Linux, for 289.99 USD or less?

    [1] A modded Xbox doesn't count. Modders have been prosecuted in the United Kingdom and some other countries. Are you willing to include emigration in the price?

    [2] Or does eBay provide a consistent supply of one model?

    1. Re:What model do you recommend by topham · · Score: 1

      And how about...

      One that might actually look ok in the living room.

    2. Re:What model do you recommend by toddestan · · Score: 1

      [1] A modded Xbox doesn't count. Modders have been prosecuted in the United Kingdom and some other countries. Are you willing to include emigration in the price?

      Well, to get your $300 OSX machine, you have to install a pirated version of OSX, and use a hacked kernel in possible violation of the EULA. So what's your problem with modding the XBox?

    3. Re:What model do you recommend by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      If a computer like it were sold not running OS X but just Linux or something, you wouldn't expect to pay a full $300 for it.

      Emphasis added for clarity. Yeah, such a computer doesn't exist. But the power in the AppleTV is in the general neighborhood of the original Xbox and Wii, which both sell for less. So, if someone did want to make a computer like the AppleTV but without the OS, and they mass produced it, they might be able to make it a little cheaper.

    4. Re:What model do you recommend by tepples · · Score: 1

      Well, to get your $300 OSX machine, you have to install a pirated version of OSX, and use a hacked kernel in possible violation of the EULA. So what's your problem with modding the XBox? My problem is that people have gone to prison for modding an Xbox. People have not gone to jail for installing a spare Mac OS X license from a family pack on an Apple brand device. But that's beside the point. Even if I'm willing to pay more than $300 (but less than the $600 price of a Mac mini), where do you recommend that I buy a new set-top computer?
    5. Re:What model do you recommend by tepples · · Score: 1

      But the power in the AppleTV is in the general neighborhood of the original Xbox and Wii, which both sell for less. So, if someone did want to make a computer like the AppleTV but without the OS, and they mass produced it, they might be able to make it a little cheaper. So why isn't there a company that mass-produces something like the Apple TV, or something like the Xbox or Wii without the lockout chip? What platform is there for a four-player shareware video game by a microstudio that could be the next Bomberman or Smash Bros.? The standard PC has a 17 to 19 inch monitor, which isn't large enough to accommodate four human bodies, and the consoles lock out microstudios using digital signatures.
  27. Still too laborious - how about a disk image? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
    I read through the scary, laborious 13-step setup procedure. It doesn't seem necessary. It would be much easier if some kind person who takes the time to do all this would post a disk image that we could just copy directly to the hard drive. Since all the Apple TV's are identical, the data in the disk image could already be from a tweaked and optimized install, hopefully running a good GUI for media playback, VNC, and every single audio and video decoder installed into quicktime.

    Is there a torrent like this already available? I think if there were, this hack would suddenly look a whole lot less intimidating.

    1. Re:Still too laborious - how about a disk image? by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

      It would be much easier if some kind person who takes the time to do all this would post a disk image that we could just copy directly to the hard drive. Except that posting instructions on how to do it is probably legal, whereas distributing Apple copyrighted software definitely isn't.
      --
      What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  28. hmm by sankekur · · Score: 1

    i think this whole thing is meant to show that they can actually run OS X on Apple TV. not that it is actually useful for anything.

  29. Phenomenal graphics power... by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

    On the other hand it's got a real GPU with real VRAM, not the apalling GMA950 integrated video that eats 64M of RAM, so it's more like the equivalent of a 320MB Intel mini. So long as you don't fire up Rosetta it's going to beat the original PPC minis, and those are still eBaying for more than the AppleTV costs.

    Phenomenal graphics power... itty bitty memory space.

  30. Forget stolen (ok-unlicensed) OSX; Where's MythTV? by karlandtanya · · Score: 3, Funny

    I didn't know this thing existed, but it looks like it's out-to-TV only.
    It's not difficult to cheez together a MythBox for ~$500.00, but it'd sure be nice to have some of that slick apple hardware running Myth.

    It's got a USB port, and a 40G HDD, so you'd still be at about $500.00 if you added an external USB video encoder (There are has some supported by Myth--Plextor makes 'em IIRC) and boxed up a spare HDD from another computer.

    Still, I'd buy one instead of the MicroATX setup I'm eyeballing today.

    Which is just an overly verbose way of saying...

    Nice...but will it run linux?

    (Sorry, had to do it).

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  31. Sneaky..... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

    Just use a copy of a dead Mac; it's not like they're hard to find.

    TWW

    That was a very sneaky troll/flamebait attempt. I almost missed it.
  32. i-opener by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its as if thousands of I-Openers cried out in terror and suddenly stopped...

  33. May I point out that... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

    $599+a USB keyboard lying around at home+a USB mouse lying around at home+a PC monitor you have lying around at home = a real Mac with Tiger on it.

    If you value the many hours it takes to hack an AppleTV at <$170.00, then maybe your argument flies. If you think your time is worth more, maybe this is a project that isn't worth the hack value.

    I wouldn't run such a Mac with only 512MB of RAM...I would advocate maxing it out to 2GB to make Tiger chuff happily. But it will run and it is a real Mac.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  34. Label on AppleTV box says it is a computer by hcbeck · · Score: 1

    Designed by Apple in California
    Computer assembled in China
    See unboxing picture at http://www.applegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/200 7/03/100_0966.JPG

  35. Who said that I have three Intel Macs? by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    I certainly didn't because I don't.

  36. Yawn... by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Putting full OS X on this is uninteresting...

    What I'd like to see is putting Linux on it and turning it into a full-blown living room appliance. In terms of hacking the Apple TV has much potential, it could easily replace the XBox as most useful hackable livingroom hardware. It has more powerful hardware, has an HDMI port, and appears to require less messing around with the hardware.

    The only thing that sucks is lack of RCA and S-Video outputs, for those of us who don't give a flying shit about HDTV. My existing TV set works fine, thank you very much. What the hell was Apple thinking?!

  37. Re:Did Steve Jobs Rape you as a kid? by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
    Apple Macintosh Computers are prices competitively.

    I agree for the most part. That is why I bought my Macbook (which this post is written on)- no better laptop for the money. Problem is Apple just doesn't offer the two most popular kinds of systems in the regular computer market- a 15 inch non professional notebook, or a computer tower that is capable of being upgraded at a non professional price. You can talk all day about how the Mac Mini or the iMac works great for most people, but don't tell that to my mom (who likes using Media Center to record TV) or me (who wants to use my two very nice LCD monitors at the same time). Or many other people that want the expandability that made the PC market what it is.

  38. Audio support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For about $20 on eBay anyone can buy those "virtual 5.1" USB audio cards that are the size of a thumbdrive. In reality they are a USB_Audio to stereo input and output chip wrapped in plastic, and "just work" with OSX (and are supported by ALSA). I've seen $40 versions of the same basic chip that do optical in and out too. The aTV has a USB 2.0 "diagnostic" port.

  39. Grammar Nazi by DorkusMasterus · · Score: 1

    'Now we got (the) low-budget Mac we ever wanted.'

    Duuuude! Come on! This almost sentence (even without the parenthetical 'the') is ridiculous!
    Who says that?

    And they lived happily all after...

  40. A bigger circle jerk of fanboys I've never seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read at 4 and all I see is a bunch of Apple fanboies spouting self-rightous crap and knocking someone for doing something interesting.

    And the moderators modding them up, well, it seems to me I'll have to find the password for my account so I can supply some much needed sanity.

    Shame on you all. You get yourself an Apple story and you crap all over it.

  41. far from cheap by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

    far from the cheapest mac ever though because first you need a mac to load it from don't you?

    It's the most expensive media player out there too because one could slap together a Linux media player to do the same thing. If a person wants to spend a bit more they can get XP MCE '05 and be able to do far more at the same price or just a smidge more than the apple tv.

    If Apple really wants to make money they'll contract out a chipset to cable tv dvr makers so that one's cablebox/dvr has the ability built in it. If they don't, they'll turn to Amazon.com like Tivo has and Apple will find themselves priced out of the market again.

  42. are you all that slow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a week after april fools day and people are still falling.

    the wired article:

    http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2007/04/appl etvhacks_0406

    links to:

    http://www.semthex.com/

    -look at the date that semthex posted 'OSX on AppleTV'.

    and

    http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/04/01/mac-os-x-ru nning-on-apple-tv/

    -check post date for the linked 'laborious 13-step procedure'.

    I've not researched this story any further because I don't need to.

    When are people going to understand the width and scope of april 1st on the internet?

    I don't even read anything on the net that day...just wait a few days
    and catch the 'best of'. ;-)

    1. Re:are you all that slow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really, I expect more out of slashdot visitors!

      (except for the mac zealots)

      now if this was digg, I wouldn't...but it isn't and I do.

  43. Re:Forget stolen (ok-unlicensed) OSX; Where's Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  44. You speak like you have a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the Mac mini you get: Mac OS 10.4, iLife 06, Comic Life and Big Bang Board Games. That's ~$260.

    I recently bought my first Macbook pro 17", and am pleased. Happy to have new and different bugs to annoy me and slightly better interface than XP with the taskbar (horray for the Dock), and dont feel Im missing out of all the XP balloons in the tray popping up..

    HOWEVER, I am NOT a Mac-fan. OS X has many bugs and missing features all on its own. I can count the number of times my Mac has frozen / kernel-paniced on TWO hands during the last half-year since my purchase, probably mostly due to parallells-beta, but it STILL is a user-program and shouldnt make my Mac unworkable. The Intel Mac does not have decent support for sleep, hibernate / resume either. Sometimes it just dies, wont wake up properly. I had to put certain hacks in to prevent latch-sensors to wake up the Mac and perform the China Syndrome in my bag etc., so Mac are not so perfect that enthusiasts wants us to believe. Maybe much of these are intel problems, but OS X also lacks in many usability regards (dare I mention the Finder?)

    However, I love the PDF-capabilities, iWork/Pages is bliss and really do bring quick & outstanding results compared to other programs. So there are slight benefits I am getting with this Mac, that Im not getting with XP, though I am always contemplating when/if I will go back to XP (I dont see why, and have a few why-nots).

    The argument that you get zillions of programs with Mac is ridiculous though. I never use any of those programs, have no use for either. Can I buy a Mac without them?

    One reason for Windows: It is possible to NOT be a pirate on XP. On Mac, you either have to shell out more than you did on the Mac, for simple shareware programs that you later find out are missing features, or just have to turn pirate. Freeware/Free Software on Mac is a sad affairs.

    1. Re:You speak like you have a choice by 1110110001 · · Score: 1

      Apple is not about unlimited options and choice. They offer hardware, which should make many people happy and add some software, which they think might be useful for the same people. I.e. I love OmniGraffle, which came with my Powerbook. But I still don't know what OmniOutliner could do for me.

      The upside of not having a choice is not to have to think about countless options. Don't make me thing, sell me something that works and I'll fix the little quirks.

  45. one more thing by imaroboninja · · Score: 1

    Another thing you should know about is the real story behind Hacker Turns $300 Apple TV into Cheapest Mac Ever