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."
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.