Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Will Block Atom Processors
Archeopteryx writes "According to Wired's 'Gadget Lab' blog, Snow Leopard's next update, OS X 10.6.2, will block the Atom processor and will disable many 'Hackintosh' netbooks. It is indeed true that OS X will run just fine on some netbooks if you install the right drivers and ktexts, but Apple's EULA has always specified that the license was applicable only to Apple hardware. There have always been processor types specified in OS X and that have to be worked around now for those who want to use an Atom or similar non-Apple-adopted processor, so this is likely no more than a hiccup on the road for the OSX86 crowd. But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course — for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook? The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it."
Microsoft's customers are OEMs and retailers, not us. We're consumers. Apple is more of a self-contained ecosystem, having their own stores and selling their entire vertically integrated product stack directly to end users. In Microsoft's case, their actions make slightly more sense, however most Apple customers seem more than willing to just bend over and take it with regards to some of the b.s. that the company seems to want to perpetrate.
Now, I must admit that I'm pretty jealous over the fact that OS X is the only Unix I can think of that can run Photoshop natively alongside the likes of Matlab and everything else I can get on a BSD or GNU platform, and their hardware does have the shiny factor, but quite frankly, I can't really see the value added in running OS X on my EeePC and so really have no willingness to jump through the hoops to try and get it running, with out without the added steps to try and prevent me from doing so. It just doesn't really seem worth it to me.
What happened in the 90's would imply that the potential market for currently non-Apple users who want to run MacOS on non-Apple hardware is smaller than the pool of current Apple users who would switch to other hardware if provided an easy route. That means loss of market share in their own market.
I'd wager to say that it's probably not much different now.
Why can't I tell people they can't sell my book when they're done with it? Why can't I tell people where they can read my book? Why can't I forbid libraries from buying my books?
Why shouldn't I be able to restrict what you do with my book after you bought it? What about my rights? You don't have to buy my book. You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract. I don't have a monopoly on books.
Please tell me why the First Sale doctrine should apply to books but not to computer software.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
"Stole" my ass! I'm not sure where all the Apple FanBoys came up with the myth that the $29 Snow Leopard disc is an "upgrade." (Note, I'm a fanboy; I am currently typing on my new 27" iMac). I walked across the street to the Apple Store the day Snow Leopard was released, and paid $49 for my 5-user Family Pack edition. Nothing on the box, in the printed EULA, printed documentation, or electronic EULA at install time indicates my copy is intended to be an upgrade. In fact, I completely wiped a hard drive and installed it from scratch without any request for a disc containing a previous version. The requirements on my retail box state that it requires a "Mac computer with an Intel processor." That's it. Nothing about a previous OS is mentioned anywhere. Bottom line is it's a fully licensed copy, and purchasing and installing it one time (or five times in the case of the family pack) is not stealing. So stop calling this an upgrade only. It's not. I understand Apple's desire to keep OS X limited to their own hardware. The EULA is intended to prevent people like Psystar from making a dime on Apple's IP. Does Apple care about home enthusiasts getting the OS on unauthorized systems? Highly unlikely, if those enthusiasts are handing over $30 for the Snow Leopard disc. It's $30 in their pocket they wouldn't have had, to entertain someone's harmless fun. The removal of the Atom support is likely another cat and mouse game with the likes of Psystar more than it is with the home enthusiast community.
I don't know about the vastly overpriced bit. I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardware, and no one as of yet has come up with something as well put together and stylish and sturdy or classy as Macbook Pro, or Mac Pro at ANY price.
Even if I were in a market for Windows laptop, I would still buy a Macbook Pro. I don't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PC. But, on the other hand, overall user experience is completely different in OS X and coupled with Apple hardware is quite a pleasant experience. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I enjoyed my computer so much as my current Mac Pro (perhaps when I was a child and had an Amiga), and that tells you something.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Where the license and docs inside required as a contingent clause during the contractual exchange when he paid money for the product?
How exactly do you "agree" to be bound and restricted by the "license" and "document" that you cannot get access too until you purchase the product?
Shrink wrap license are unenforceable. If you are to be bound by terms and conditions, they must be present during the contractual exchange (i.e. paying money for the product).
Which had annoying legislation like the DMCA not passed, we could actually change that. Really we need sane copyright laws, yes, Apple should be allowed to block Atom CPUs but I should be able to hack in support if I feel like it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Your RIGHTS as software creator. What are you talking about?
Those "rights" stop when the sale is made. To give some bad analogies -
I can buy a prime roast, and feed it to my dog, or let it rot. The farmer has no say in this.
I can buy a car, and blow it up. The auto designer has no say in this.
Back to your software...
You sell me software, and I can use it per your demands.
You sell me software, and I can just let it sit and not use it.
You sell me software, and I can destroy it.
You sell me software, and I can resell it.
You sell me software, and I use it per my needs.
None of these choices has ANYTHING to do with you. You could, of course, engage me in a contract instead of a sale, which would involve a negotiation, and, if you wanted to limit what I wanted to do, a price negotiation.
I bought my OS X at a retail store. I didn't enter a contract at the time of sale. There is an EULA, but, since there was no meeting of minds, I don't think it qualifies as a legal contract (in my jurisdiction, anyway). Still, the wording was "use only on an Apple labeled system". And Apple was kind enough to include some Apple labels in the package.
#1 Apple didn't negotiate a contract with me.
#2 Apple seems to have provided stickers providing "Apple Labeling".
#3 I am fully willing to accept the terms of Copyright Law.
So, what IS your point?
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself. I don't know why this has to even be repeated, but Apple is a hardware company and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.
None, of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years, lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in, you may notice, wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on. Apparently, the natural conclusion goes right over their heads ... they are not Apple customers.
They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers. They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model. Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.
People buy Apple hardware because of the software. This is not by accident, it's not a secret, and it's been going on three decades now. You would think it would sink in at some point.
Now, for those who get OSX to run on whatever hardware they manage to get it to run on, why the uproar over the Atom? Aren't you guys supposed to be hackers?
Go hack. Half the fun, (for some all the fun) isn't running the software, it is figuring out how to get the software to do what you want.
If they're not hackers, but they want a pre-made boxed solution to their own pet OSX on x86 project, I suppose I understand all the whining.
It's all they know how to contribute to the whole project. Good luck with that.
How about a neo-luddite who buys a disc for the sole purpose of destroying it? Are they stealing?
No, of course not. That's retarded. Apple cannot and does not assume that everyone who purchases their OS own a Mac. You can't call someone's behaviour "stealing" if they're exchanging money for goods at the advertised price.
I suppose buying Gillette razor blades and then gluing them to popsicle sticks to shave with is stealing too, then?
And were these documents part of the contractual exchange prior to transfer of ownership of property?
Not supporting is one thing. Intentionally disabling is another.
Well, I think either is legal for Apple. I think intentionally disabling is very tacky, though.
Imagine that Apple's going to use a compiler which produces faster code for the Intel Core/Core 2 CPUs. Unfortunately, it is using instructions that are not available on the Intel Atom CPUs.
So you're improving your products which are based on the Intel Core/Core 2 CPUs and you're removing compatibility with the Intel Atom. Since you never shipped a computer with the Intel Atom, it isn't a problem. Since you never stated that your software will work with an Intel Atom CPU, there's no legal issue.
I mean, should I be upset because I can't install Mac OS X on a 80386-based PC just because I could NeXTStep?
Frankly, it's pretty easy to come up with a scenario where Apple broke compatibility with Intel Atom CPUs not through any nefarious scheme but because it makes their Core/Core 2 products better, which is a good thing.
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
The clones didn't expand the Mac market because Apple would not let them. The clone maker's designs had to be approved by Apple. At least some were required to use Apple motherboards. PowerComputing showed at trade shows several models in development that would have taken the Mac to new markets--but they could not get permission from Apple to sell them.
The net effect of Apple's restrictions was the all the clone makers really were licensed to do was put Macs in different cases.
Yeh sure. I buy lots of laptops for work these days. A hundred or so this year.
I would not trade my current Dell E6400for any Mac(ASUS really)laptop.
You cant get a processor this fast in a Mac at all. You can only get a Mac with a processor 2 levels of clock speed slower-and costs 30% more for the same spec otherwise.
My current Dell hibernates and resumes in less than 20 seconds for each. If you cant get a windows laptop to go to sleep in less than a minute you should hand in your geek card.
In fact a Mac is probably just the thing for you, particularly if you find computers a pleasure (as I have noted before thats why Apple round the corners, so it hurts less when you stick them where the sun dont shine). (-:
You need to get out more, to me computers are a tool and nothing more-after 30 years as a hardware tech, I have seen lots of cool tech come and go, and I simply choose the most cost effective tool to do the job reliably.
Nearly every post I have made in the past that does not follow the Apple fanboy line gets modded down, but its not OK to say so apparently.
Consider that code support for a processor is non-trivial. While they may have added support for the Atom at some point, there is a cost to keeping that support functional. When working on other features in the kernel, it may very well be easier to remove the support for a processor that isn't officially supported than to keep it working. This is especially true for OS X which frequently changes their power management scheme for Intel processors.
kc8apf
Prove that they intentionally blocked it. You are assuming that since the new version no longer boots on it, they intentionally blocked it. The more likely case is that they simply removed the support for it.
kc8apf
After seeing how you write about your "friends", I'm surprised you have any. You accuse them of an inflated self image, yet you write about your perceived superiority over them, based solely on the products they buy.
It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
This.
Every few weeks I think I want to try to put OS X on my netbook. I start reading the various how-tos, and they all look hideous. Dozens of links to dozens of forums, each one providing a tiny piece of the puzzle and execrably spelled.
Then once you get out the other end of this nightmare you have a netbook with no (or bad) power management and probably no sound. Oh, and you have to troll eBay for a wireless card to replace the included one.
No thanks.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.