Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hacker Turns $300 Apple TV into Cheapest Mac Ever

Posted by Zonk on from the another-bite-at-the-buck dept.

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.'"

40 of 169 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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; }
    7. 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.

    8. 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

    9. 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);
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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/.
    14. 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
    15. 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".

    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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.

  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 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!
  3. 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 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.
  4. 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.

    --

    Open Source Sushi

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

      --
      libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
    3. 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.

    4. 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; }
    5. 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!
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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!

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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?!