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."
This right after the 'people who don't update because we've been known to harass and accuse them via patches have more malware' article. It's like Microsoft and Apple are trying to compete and see who can belittle and harass their customers the most.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Apple's target market aren't going to put up with the kinds of shenanigans it takes to get a hackintosh running, whether or not they pull this kind of stuff.
So basically Apple is saying "wait a few months, and we're releasing a netbook" ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Apple makes their bread and butter selling an image in an environment of artificial scarcity. A large percentage of Mac users do so just because Windows has become so pedestrian. Apple knows this....and capitalizes on it. As soon as you can get OS X on a $300 notebook, you've lost a percentage of the apple crowd who buy Mac just for exclusivity of it all.
Is the 13" MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability? Yes, it's more expensive, but we're talking about Apple and they're always a little more expensive because it's a higher quality product. The 13" MBP is very thin and light, it's not sub-12 inches but it travels well in bags or backpacks, if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X, Apple already makes one.
I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makers. Once they give up total control of the experience it's going to make things less pleasant for the end user, and there goes Apple's reputation for reliability and the integration of hardware and software which distinguishes them from other companies.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Does anybody actually use these "hackintosh" netbooks on a daily basis? I always assumed they were things people put together for fun. I understand that a number of people like Mac OS, but it seems to me that the OS would lose all of its appeal by not being linked to the hardware. If you have the technical prowess to install OS X on a netbook why are you using OS X on your netbook? Why not linux? (that wasn't meant as a flamebait question) Most people who use OS X instead of linux cite stability and support as their reasons. Wouldn't a hackintosh have neither of these?
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.
Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen. He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.
10.6.2 would have been the perfect opportunity for Apple to muck around with its DRM-- though getting cocky might look bad in front of the judge.
According to this Article, the latest version of OSX would cost $545 American dollars based on the cost of upgrading from Jaguar to Leopard (adding the additional 29 bucks for Snow Leopard).
A fully-featured standalone OSX release should be around $300 to be competitive. That would kill Win Se7en.
It's not like Apple uses every update to disable Hackintosh functionality, and the osx86 crack team finds the hole and fixes it.
This will only surprise those that upgraded without doing any research or those that upgrade without reading this first.
No genius, it's ~$129 for the full OS including the complete tool chain used to create software on the system. Windows 7 can't touch it for price and bang for the buck!
Why bother
If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware. A lot of companies have company-wide purchasing contracts with Dell or HP, and the typical user doesn't have the authority to buy anything different. A lot of those same people though, could spend $500 for a software package on their own authority.
That being said, Apple still has to consider Microsoft when deciding whether to do this. If Apple offered Mac OS X on generic hardware, you can bet that MS would pull the plug on all Mac products immediately. Maybe we'll see this happen when iWork is ready to replace MS Office, but not yet.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware. To do this, it creates nice, shiny software, and then deadbolts it as much as it can to the hardware, so people will pay the extra price for the hardware in order to get the software.
Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them, and would enable customers to (rightly) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does exactly the same thing for much much less.
It's not exactly rocket science here. Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Because the answer is no. Why increase support and development costs? Why go head to head with Microsoft when, as the world is today, Microsoft will win. Why make it easy for someone to have the "experience" without buying the iron? Why make it easier for Dell, HP, or Lenovo to sell their pcs? Because hackintoshers may have hurt feelings?
That was the last question this news item could possibly raise.
If you want to have Mac OS X, by an iMac or MBP 13". I never understood people who wanted to have Mac OS X on a tiny cheap bad quality laptop. Macs are not so much more expensive if you take into account what kind of hardware you get (and I do not mean just the computing power but the over all quality of the product).
Its hardly been tested in court, but it'd seem that my Dell Mini 9 with an apple sticker on the back qualifies as an "Apple Labeled Computer", especially since the apple sticker came from apple and shipped with my macbook pro.
This would satisfy the EULA agreement for OS X versions 10.5 and lower. They changed the wording in the 10.6 agreement to be "Apple Branded," which makes it a bit more difficult for a non-apple machine to qualify. That said, it all comes down to how you define "labeled" and "branded" ;-)
appleguru.org
Apple is a weird company. On the one hand you have many parts of it which work on open concepts, even encourage them and contribute. On the other you have what appears to be an old contingent of assholes who in any attempt to maintain relevant within the growing beast that is Apple (not Apple Computer) do anything they can to wrestle the slightest bit of profit or just be dicks in general.
I am a huge fan of OSX as a client OS and have been a fan ever since NeXT "bought" Apple. The laptops are great gear and some of their ideas for media consumption are still unmatched. However Apple the company is becoming harder to stomach for me personally as they become the big kids on the block, unafraid of quickly fading into irreverence like they were only half a decade ago, throwing their weight around, "just cuz". This is a perfect example as disabling support for the Atom is an *active* change that affords the company absolutely nothing.
--- I do not moderate.
No it doesn't! You did. YOU want that, so YOU asked it. It isn't inherit to the facts. An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?"
The statement in the summary is equivalent to:
"Apple stops supporting something it never supported". What a story. Is anyone surprised? In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do. Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.
I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS. Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.
No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.
How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?
Come on. I know people on /. want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise? This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Apples market has been Apple hardware and software only for as long as I have known it. Sure, there are software applications and services that got so popular that even Apple caved in on this principle (e.g. their movie player and multimedia applications). There were some licensed manufacturers of Apple hardware as well, but even that did not please Apple.
And after having literally tens to hundreds of issues with Linux on PC hardware one can see why. Currently my Lenovo SL300 laptop does not play nice with the screen settings because somewhere the hardware/firmware does not keep to specs. It's one of those hundreds of PITA's that will you get when you couple "generic" hardware with an unsuspecting OS.
Apple selling OSX to non-Apple hardware? They will go bust if they go that path now. If only because current consumer PC's have been tested for one OS family only.
So basically Apple is saying "wait a few months, and we're releasing a netbook" ?
I too can really only explain it that way. At this point Apple is not in the market for netbooks, save, perhaps, for the iPod touches that serve as nearly full-featured netbooks in their own right (IMHO!). Given that, these makers of generally high-end computers have nothing to gain by failing to serve the Atom PC market. If they were in this market, such a move would be in their interest...
But tell me this -- if Apple were to build a netbook, why would they eliminate Atom capability since that processor could serve as the basis for a ultra small, low-power mac?
Claims like this have been answered many times over. Just because Snow Leopard and Jaguar share the OS X prefix, it doesn't mean they are the same OS in the sense that XP SP1 and XP SP3 are the same OS. We're not just talking about the number of advancements or features introduced in between, rather, computers that shipped with Jaguar cannot run Snow Leopard and vice versa. They run on entirely different architectures (PPC vs x86). So no, there isn't this single release of "OS X" that costs $500+++.
Except you also have to pay an additional $1100 to use it without breaking their EULA.
Apple isn't going to sell you a freaking license for your generic PC.
Stop saying 'When is it going to happen?!@#!$' or 'They should sell it for generic PCs'.
They don't want your business. They want people who are willing to pay, not people who want to shoe horn OSX on to some POS craptop. They don't want to even joke about supporting random generic hardware. And unlike the typical combination of (insert random PC maker) and Microsoft, you actually CAN get support from Apple rather than 'its not our problem, its someone elses'.
Its fine that you don't want to buy a Mac but thats your choice, either buy one and run OS X or don't buy one and stop complaining. A MacBook Air isn't a whole lot different then a large netbook, and it weighs less then some I've seen sold as netbooks.
You have options, you just aren't willing to invest in one. Thats fine, but please stop with the 'OMG GIMME OSX ON GENERIC HARDWARE'.
No this isn't flamebait, regardless of how you feel, I speak for many people who are just tired of the same old chorus line from people unwilling to pay for something they want, but expect to get it anyway.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Why don't they just throw a $0.50 EEPROM on the SMBus, with a string consisting of "APPLE INC" on it, and deny machines that don't have this..?
That's how I'd do it. Not that you can't get around this either, but it would require work... Of course they would have to phase this in on hardware now, and on OS releases in several years.
I guess I don't see the fascination with OSX in the first place though.
Sent from my PDP-11
Intel Macs can't run 10.2 or 10.3. Powermacs can't run 10.6, and a 10.2 era powermac would probably struggle with 10.5
Why? You can get Windows 7 Professional for $139 and Visual Studio Express for free.
At one point in time it was rumored that Apple was working on an Atom-powered device or system, and then they bought PA Semi and decided to make their own low-power microprocessor instead. There is no value for Apple to retain Atom support anymore because it has no future at the moment with any product with an Apple logo on it. Hell, they don't support AMD processors, either. But is is dickery? Yeah, it is, but I don't think it's dickery for sheer purpose of dickery.
What the fuck is a ktext?
A LITTLE more expensive? Seriously man, what are you on? Base price is $1200. A 10" EEE PC (with XP not Linux) is only $320. The Mac is damn near four times the price! That is not a little more expensive, that is a whole different category of cost.
The appeal of netbooks isn't just the portability, though that is certainly part of it. The 7" ones in particular can fit in extremely small bags which is useful in some cases (some of our researchers use them to control devices in the field). A big part of the appeal is price. If you don't need much computer, if word processing and web surfing is pretty much all you do, you can have a computer for just a couple hundred bucks.
The MBP is not at all the same market at its price. You are in to the mid range, or upper mid range of normal laptops at this point. That's fine if that's what you need/want, but it is not at all a netbook competitor.
This has always been one of Apple's big problems. Not everyone wants expensive shit. They have somewhat diversified their desktop line, though a consumer tower is notably absent, as it always has been, but their portable line is as pricey as ever. You start upper mid range and go up from there. There's nothing for people who want a minimal system for minimal cost.
Uh yeah, same with Win 7! Gotta buy at least a minimum PC at about $600 bucks the same price as a Mac Mini genius!
Why bother
Try developing something with Visual Studio Express. In the license you are limited what you can develop and you can't use any 3rd party libraries. You also can't develop for Win Mobile with the express versions. There are free Dev environments for Windows but that Visual Studio Express isn't viable for professional development the FULL tool chain that comes with Mac OS X is.
Windows 7 Professional $149.99 + Free Shipping. is the cheapest I can find it?
Why bother
1) Charge more for software licenses. Seriously, if you are going to not make as much on hardware, make more on software. They could double their price and still be under what Windows runs retail. Also, software sales are where the real money is at, if you can get a large market. Cost per item is almost zero.
2) Offer more hardware that people want. Seems to me that the hackintosh computers you see are in the two markets that Apple steadfastly refuses to produce in: Consumer towers and netbooks. These also happen to be very popular markets. Well, start making shit in those areas, maybe it isn't such a problem.
3) Stop charging so damn much for your hardware. It isn't special, the games for that are over. It is all standard PC components made by the same vendors as everyone else.
You have to remember that a big part of the reason people jumped to clones wasn't just that Apple cost a lot, it was also that they offered products Apple refused to. Apple has always had large holes in their computer lineup and these are niche things. The consumer tower is a wonderful example. Maccies have been clamoring for one for years. It is the best selling desktop style of computer in the PC market. Businesses love them. Yet Apple refuses to make one. You get an all-in-one or a professional workstation. Nothing else.
I suspect if Apple filled out their line and adjusted their prices they'd have little problems. However the window for them may be closing rapidly. Part of their recent surge seems to be Vista antipathy. Well Windows 7 doesn't seem to get that at all. People are excited to get it. Thus if Apple doesn't offer what people want, their share may slip again.
and 10.6 is moving towards a full 64bit Architecture. This means the Atom Can't run it because it's a 32bit only CPU. In other words, this is a non-story
Voodoo Kernel to the rescue ? This won't stop hackintoshes since the core OS is open source, it'll just make it harder for some to keep your install "vanilla" as they call it. I've run the voodoo kernel myself on a netbookand it's perfectly stable.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
The only reason OSX is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms
Then that's your problem. As long as you pay for OSX, you can disregard the licensing terms all you want with not a shred of guilt. Apple may think it's their business what you do with a product you paid for, but there's no reason for you to share in their delusion.
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
I believe you are off on your price considerations. $129 only gets you an upgrade copy, roughly the same as what Microsoft charges for a Windows upgrade.
Yes, I know, unlike Windows it does not check to make sure it is an upgrade. But, like Windows, the license restricts its use to those who have already purchased the "full version." It is upgrade pricing. While only Apple knows for sure, I think we can assume that "full versions" of OS X are closer to that of Windows, if not more.
LISTEN TO THIS MAN.
Apple, I ask you, how is this different than classic reverse engineering:
IBM PC compatible computers are those generally similar to the original IBM PC, XT, and AT. Such computers used to be referred to as PC clones, or IBM clones since they almost exactly duplicated all the significant features of the PC architecture, facilitated by various manufacturers' ability to legally reverse engineer the BIOS through clean room design
There is legal precedent for an engineer's right to figure out the bits and bytes of your interface. Therefore, the lockdown of the software is futile. I am fully within my right run my legally purchased software on whatever hardware I chose. The referenced case does refer only to hardware reverse-engineering, but one could easily expand that to a piece of hardware that exactly emulates the secret signals sent from the hardware to the OS to determine the the platform, in effect rendering any "blocking" of third party hardware completely useless.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
That's not true at all. You can't use plugins with VSE, but you can certainly use 3rd party libraries.
Plus if you use C#, you can do pretty much anything in VSE, including making games using XNA.
Except when it doesn't. Current Atom offerings include the 32-bit, no-hyperthreading Z-series aimed for UMPCs, the 32-bit, hyperthreading N-series aimed for netbooks, and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, single-core 200-series aimed for "nettops", and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, dual-core 300-series aimed also aimed for "nettops".
Sorry if I'm being dense, but why not buy Snow Leopard by itself? ($29)
Even if you don't want to break the terms of the license (the $29 disk is supposed to be an upgrade disk for those who already have Leopard, but it works off of the honor system), you can buy it legitimately in the mac box set (something like $150, but it still comes with some other software).
Either way, you still come in way under that $545 figure. Moreover, each OSX release isn't like an expansion pack- they are standalone; you don't need to go back and buy every release from the last 9 years.
I'm not sure where the competitive aspect comes in- I'll assume you're referring to people switching to macs from something else. If so, the computer they get will come with Snow Leopard anyways. No upgrading to OSXEXTREMEPROULTIMATE version. The only possible cost would be future upgrades (optional, obviously) or the server version of the OS, which I doubt most end-users want/need.
If you're referring to Hackintoshes, Apple doesn't really want to compete in that market, since they make most of their money off of selling hardware.
CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
So your CPU cycles and IO are free?
Windows 7 Professional $149.99 + Free Shipping. is the cheapest I can find it?
Newegg has it for $139.99.
You don't have a right to impose hidden conditions when you sell a product. Nothing beyond what the law states.
Apple is open about the conditions, as open as they have to be under the law. I wish it weren't so, but there's nothing unusual about Apple's EULAs, however repugnant the practise may seem.
This solution is simple. Force customers to sign a contract at POS. You already do it whenever you buy things with a credit card. The customer must be provided a paper copy of the contract they signed.
That's fucking brilliant. And you can walk around with your lawyer, all day every day, to advise you whether to sign all those contracts that you're presented with, virtually every day. Awesome. When I graduate, can I be your lawyer? Do you have deep pockets?
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
I stand corrected, it is 3rd party plug-ins. I believe you will find that there are indeed limitations to what you can do. Even in the full version of Visual Studio you are forbidden to write word processing applications. It's in the EULA you should read it sometime.
Why bother
Does the Snow Leopard upgrade really sell for $129 in the US?
Because it's just 9 € in Germany. Full retail costs 29 €.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
I had two slices of pizza for breakfast, while I ran apt-get upgrade on my Ubuntu install.
Apple lost it's appeal when it dropped RISC architecture, the last time I actively used one I believe it was OS7, and you had to install "Colour" as a feature.
Now it's just the same shit that I could get from any brand name computer manufacturer, only with Apple polish, and assrape for a pricetag. Since I've never trusted a brand name manufacturer to make a decent system, as they all love to cut corners and fuck their customers out of decent working hardware, and then refuse to support it, for extremely stupid reasons: such as Dell will ship you a 64bit system w/ 64bit Windows, but they'll only support the system if it's running a 32bit operating system.
We had a Gold Tier Dell support package and bought all our systems from them at the last place I worked(I wasn't the decider just the peon in charge of fixing the endless problems we had with their machines), and they outright refused to assist us with any system that was running the 64bit OS they shipped it with.
So you pay with CPU cycles instead of cash, well that's true if you don't spend the cash, no FUD there is no Uncertainty about it. Happy to spread Fear and Doubt though.
Why bother
Sorry reality hasn't yet caught up with you there. Keep hoping though.
Why bother
He probably hates rabid mac fanboys like yourself asshole. A MAc fan calling someone else gay, now THAT is funny!
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.
on Virtualbox running on my Wintel box on a Kubuntu Karmic host if Apple would sell it to me. I already have XP installed. I want to run the best apps available on my data without having to care what OS they run on. I'd also like to be able to write reviews for apps running on the major platforms without changing machines.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Morally, they don't.
What?
Let's say, I want to slap you. But you say no? Well that's to bad because I have a "moral right" to do whatever the hell I want with your property regardless of your wishes.
Apple produces software with certain terms attached. If you dislike them, you have no "moral authority" to override them.
I don't see anything wrong with hackintoshes myself but I do so plenty wrong with claiming you have any kind of moral right to break agreements.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
By reading this comment, you agree to send me $5.
I've never signed a license agreement boxed software. I have for real software licenses. Without a signed licensing agreement, a software sale is just that, a sale. It's not a license, and has no terms.
My answer to Apple's attempts at vendor lock in have always been DON'T BUY THEIR CRAP.
This was true back when most Mac hardware such as cdrom drives or hard drives required tags in firmware for the computer to recognize it, even though there was nothing otherwise different about the unit whatsoever.
This is just the same old shit.
I don't have to worry about what OS-X will or will not run on because I do everything I can to avoid dealing with it in the first place.
Complaining about Apple will not hurt them, but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
... on non-Apple hardware because they get system stability with a strict controled hardware. If you put any non-apple hardware, they (Apple) cannot garantee anymore the stability or the behavior of the system.
And of course, they have a considerable profit on sell "apple hardware"
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Security Essentials uses about 1% of any modern CPU/HDD. It's a far cry from McAfee and Norton.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
There are countless free for end user solutions, search and be free.
avast,avg,spybot,enforcer
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
It's kext not ktext, lulz.
a 10.2 era powermac would probably struggle with 10.5
Not really. I'm running OS X 10.5.x on a first generation PPC G4 Mac mini and it does okay. Not that it's exactly speedy or anything but I couldn't say that about it even on the day it came out.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Apple did try selling their OS to run on other platforms. That nearly put then out of business. I think they have a good clue what will work for them and for their customers. We dont' see a whole lot of OS only companies out there. BEOS? even Linux business are tiny compared to apple. Even Oracle bought Sun. Microsoft has Xbox.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I know it's up in the air wether this is appropriate, but it's the truth with most software: You purchased a license to use their product and media from which to install it on your computer. You did not wholly purchase the product. Their license states among many other things, that it is for use on approved hardware only. As the law stands currently, it's their right to do so. Also, running OS X on these machines is often less than ideal. Apple spends lots of time and money on fine tuning hardware and software to work well together in the end product they sell to you. A company like Psystar is going out and selling a product that may have most the elements of a Mac, but will not have the same QA put into it and I don't believe Apple wants to be associated with any bad experience an end user may have. If it weren't for these licenses, the products themselves would eventually cease to make money and, inevitably, cease to exist. If you can find a better way to keep a product from being pirated, being misused, duplicated by a competitor, yet still be profitable.. morally, the software industry needs you. And I think it's also relevant to state that most, but I'm sure not all, hackintosh-style machines are using pre-built pirated copies of the operating system anyway. This isn't just breaking the EULA, it's also just stealing in general. If you spend many a late night hacking around trying to get Apple software to work on your unsupported hardware, you obviously think it's a good product else you wouldn't waste the time. A company that has employees that make a great product deserve to have the money to reimburse their employees for creating that product.
If they wouldn't license it to Dell, then they won't license it to you. Not as long as Steve is the boss.
Apple will not be selling OS X for other hardware ever.
Not having to support every wack piece of hardware and rely on manufacturers for info, SDKs, or even to write drivers is a blessing, and lets Apple both deliver excellent, reliable products, and focus on excellence, not merely surviving each minor update.
This is Microsoft's greatest problem.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Except that 10.6 runs on any intel Mac including the first MacBooks and Mac Minis and MacBook Pros and iMacs which weren't core 2 duo, which means they are not 64-bit.
Yup. The person to whom you responded was massively confused. What 10.6 does is
It does not, in any way, shape, or form, require a 64-bit processor to run at all.
Yes, the OS is subsidized by the hardware sales. Its apple's business model - deal with it. If you don't want to pay for apple hardware, then don't run apple software. Quite simple...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
No... They only modded the original comment.... Not any of my additions. You might just have to accept that Apple isn't the pinnacle of computing. As aaid, I recommend it to beta users, I recommend Wndows to Gamers and Power-Users who cannot get out of the paradigma...... Debian is for those of us, who know, who can learn..... Ubuntu is for those who don't want to bother (me at my work, my mom, my dad... my brother). There is no one solution. You just need someone to evaluate the sutuation and find the best path.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Great! now if I want something portable, it has to be a 1000$ machine. It gets worse if you want a desktop system. It's either an all-in-one type (mini and iMac) or a full-blown workstation . Their current lineup is missing a small netbook-type machine and a small tower (between iMac and MAC PRO).
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
Really? I paid under $500 for my mini...and under $1000 after tax for my macbook...you must be shopping at the wrong apple store.
They blocked iTunes from the Palm Pre...
They blocked Google Voice from the iPhone...
They will now block OSX from non-apple computers...
Isn't it time people get unblocked and get a PC already?
Life, without walls.
...is just cheap. A hackintosh isn't as quiet, cool, and well-built as Apple hardware. My iMac sits right next to a high-end PC and I use both daily and I can tell you that the Apple hardware AND software beats the PC/Windows thing hands down. I used to prefer Windows and Linux to Apple, but that has certainly changed for me in the past few years. The thought of running OSX on cheap PC hardware doesn't appeal to me at all. It's like running Solaris on a PC instead of a Sparc box. It just doesn't feel right.
They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on.
Well, yes they do, more or less. The license explicitly states that it is only to be used on authorized hardware. If you have a problem with that, then don't use OS X. You don't own the program, they do. You only have a license to use it as they allow.
I like OS X, and think it is, for the most part , an outstanding operating system. But I never understood the pass that Apple got from most Slashdotters just because they made the Mac Unix-based. Apple has more restrictive policies than Microsoft ever did. People here simply bought into the reality distortion field, whether they admit it or not.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
It was bound to happen the moment Apple moved to the intel platform and started using commodity hardware. What this article is saying is that Apple will not consider a low-cost low-power computer with an Atom inside it. Guess you won't find that option in the next refresh of the mac mini. They're being anal of course, since they're actually adding extra code to lock out that processor series.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
No you don't have any special "rights."
You certainly could put conditions on the sale, but only on the first sale. The doctrine of the right of first sale prohibits you from imposing conditions beyond this. If they then sold the product to a third party, your terms could not possibly have any force on the third party. You could, however, make customers sign a contract before selling them the software. Similarly book publishers make book resellers sign contracts that they will not sell a book without a cover. Hence if a lot of books cannot be sold, the bookstore rips off the covers, indicating that the lot has been "destroyed." And they are forbidden from selling these now coverless books not by law, but by contract. If I were to pull the coverless books out of the landfill, I could sell them to anyone I want without any repercussions. After all, I am not bound by that contract. The book seller might be sued for breach of contract for not properly disposing the coverless books. But they have not legal recourse against me.
Really, outside of copyright law, Apple has no special rights once they've sold a copy of the OS to you. Neither do you as a software creator have any rights when it comes to dictating how a customer uses your software within the bounds of copyright law, unless you arrange a contract with the user before the sale is completed. Many software companies that sell expensive, vertical market applications actually do this. But a EULA isn't the same thing. So while you may say that all these wannabe Mac users are whining about Apple playing dirty (they are whining and Apple is playing dirty), you are also whining. Your case simply has no grounds.
Mac isn't better, its just different. I'm a mac user for the past 3 years, and my next machine will be non-mac. To me the Pros do not weigh more than the cons+price.
Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...
apple probably won't notice.
but if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...
still probably not notice.
Badass Resumes
The exchange being referred to necessarily takes place *before* you set up the software.
I built a hackintosh. I have an slightly older mac tower and wanted a machine in the 1200$ price range to go with my existing monitor. I'm a part time photographer and like OSX. It works great. I love the OS but don't like Apple's forced hardware choices, way too limiting. They are shooting themselves in the foot, I know photogs who switched away and are never coming back because apple doesn't sell affordable towers.. Adobe lightroom makes it easy to move away.
I have a mac book and love the thing. I bought the Mac Leopard OS to install on it.
I wish Apple engineers would spend more time squashing bugs than removing support for other processors.
The summary is misleading. The original source of all this hubbub is http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news. Basically someone noted that a lot of stuff in the kernel has changed so that the Atom processor that developer was using no longer works after the build. They list three work around methods. There is no inside information that this is an intentional attempt to block Atom processors as the summary's wording strongly implies.
The summary then goes on to speculate about the improbable and impractical wet dream of the writer that Apple should start licensing OS X to generic PC makers, completely ignoring the economic realities involved. You might as well end a summary of an article about MS losing an antitrust case by claiming it raises speculation MS will open source Windows under the GPL.
The minute they do, their scheme of tighly controlled software on tightly controlled hardware goes out the window.
At that point, people buying OS X will see that it's no more or less stable on the gamut of hardware in the x86 sandbox than Windows is.
Additionally, the need to actually set up a full-time hardware testing lab (a'la WHQL) would eat, dramatically, into their famous profit margins).
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
So OS X can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware? What's Apple-branded hardware? Hardware with the Apple logo on it?
Every copy of OS X comes with about four stickers with the Apple logo. Take one, slap it on your PC and enjoy.
Problem solved.
It's a very dark ride.
Well said.
If you're whining so bloody much, don't buy Apple stuff. Simple.
And if you buy Mac OS X purely to run on a hackintosh, you're not a customer of Apple's, no matter how much you whine and protest.
The problems you mention in your post really have very little to do with the hardware-software interactions that Apple does so well. A digital microscope camera probably connects through some external interface. If you're using one of those, you certainly don't want Microsoft cracking down on esoteric external devices. The computer slowing down over time and "forgetting how to launch powerpoint" probably has to do with software and configuration changes that have happened over time. Same with the viruses -- being the target of hackers is the price of being the largest open software ecosystem. You certainly don't want Microsoft closing off their software ecosystem -- nobody using computers for non-trivial things wants that.
I will concede that Microsoft's focus on backwards compatibility has often kept misbehaving software in circulation longer than it should have been. Of course, their users demand it to some degree, so it's a hard road to walk. If Microsoft made continuity too hard their customers would bleed away; many corporate ones would leave for Linux, and you'd probably hate that even more -- those crazy Linux bastards won't rest until you're running a web server on your Palm Pilot!
Meanwhile, on the Mac, if you have problems with your vision and want to change the size of the menu bar font you have to change the screen resolution (really? In 2009?) or run some other OS. If you want a netbook to complement your desktop Mac, you'll have to read up on how to sync with Windows or Linux. If you want a mid-range computer without a widescreen display, Apple says, "Go fuck yourself." Well, to be fair, the whole computer industry is doing that. Fuck widescreens.
And, unless your employer is very small, or you are very rich, you probably aren't willing to cover the cost of overhauling your IT with Macs.
Well, I've got a PowerMac G4/1.25 GHz. The last time I used it was a month ago, booted into OS9, of all things. Its power supply is a bit flaky-- a loose cable perhaps, which probably will turn into something much worse if not fixed. Right now, it can only stay on if the case is open...
And the original G4 Software Install Disc is 10.2.7.
It can run OSX 10.5-- even with transparent menu bars, because the video card's been upgraded. But Time Machine tends to occupy an inordinate amount of cpu time on a single core G4.
By the, way, the Mac Mini G4 came out in 2005-- with Mac OSX 10.3.7
Apple wants to own your soul. You have to use their hardware for that to happen.
Isn't a firewire interface part of the hardware-software interaction? I think so. This is the source of all my camera problems. First off there exist (at least) two drivers for the Leica camera, one from Leica and one from ImagePro, each incompatible with each others software. Really, in 2009?. Now apparently the delicate balance has been disturbed by installing all this on a new computer (which is running the same version of WindowsXP as the old computer).
I was suggesting I would chip in for a Wintel computer that brought the tight integration of the Mac, just for my own use and sanity. But alas no amount of money can get me my wish in Wintel land.
Thou sayeth sooth, but that works for Apple. Over the years they created an image of what they are and how they build machines and, hey, they found a niche for it. The 10% of the market they cater to looks exactly for such things in a computer -- aesthetical, overpriced, different, easy to use systems. Apple sell hardware, not software, which is just an extra reason for potential customers to buy their hardware.
I have used Apple desktops for many years but I will never buy one for the resons you mentioned. They are nice to look at and work with, though.
I understand that apple sells hardware+software as a single package. That is their business model, and it is fairly successful keeping quality high and guaranteeing "the apple experience".
What I don't understand, is how apple intends to increase market share by continually, intentionally, limiting the ways that a non-apple user can experience their software.
You're a damn liar. I'm holding the Leopard box that I walked into an Apple Store and paid full retail price for. Looking at the label, it says "MAC OS X V10.5 RETAIL". The DVD inside says "Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD". WTF part of that sounds like "upgrade" to you?
The EULA part. That's the only part that matters. Words like "Upgrade" or "Full install" or "OEM" have no legal meaning.
Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...
apple probably won't notice.
but if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...
still probably not notice.
Funny, but it does add up.
I know of at least three people of my personal aquaintance (me plus a couple of others) who actively (a) avoid all Apple products and services and (b) discourage our friends and relatives from acquiring any Apple products or services.
For each of us this is motivated by a combination of: Apple's pricing; Apple's horrible approach to Windows software and, specifically, the existence of Quicktime for Windows in its present form; Apple's reliance on image and 'coolness'; Apple's horrendous and irritating TV ads; and Apple's horrible approach to DRM.
You'd be surprised how influential a tech person saying to a non-tech person "oh god, don't buy X, it's an over-hyped piece of junk made by a company who will screw you when you least expect it" can be. Or just, "you do realise that Apple reserves the right to pull the plug on anything you buy for your iphone if they decide it doesn't meet their random standards". Or "you can get a similarly specced Windows laptop from a reputable company for much less money". And now, thank Christ, "Windows 7 is actually pretty good".
Personally I have talked a couple of people out of buying Apple products (ipods, iphones and in one case a laptop) so right there word of mouth has cost them a couple of thousand $. If my two friends have done the same that's $5-6k just in my little circle... how much is it worldwide? Maybe not that much yet, but if they keep up their recent form it'll grow.
Piss off enough people and it DOES matter. Look at MS, they finally have a good product again and it's going to take everything they've got to overcome the giant mountain of hatred they have conditioned into tech people worldwide.
Read Pynchon.
...it'd probably just kill him if he found out someone hacked OSX onto some box then had volume control not work for instancce (I assume OSX has these problems just like any other OS...
Right now, building a Hackintosh is not unlike building a system to run NeXTStep back in the day... there's a list of supported (by OS X, not Apple) components to choose from, and you go from there. I just built one recently, and had to mess with a couple things to get everything working perfectly. Sound didn't work until I applied an edit to the DSDT (differentiated system description table) file for my motherboard, and added a custom kernel extension. I had to slightly edit an Apple kernel extension to get OS X to understand that my hard drives were internal and give them the appropriate icons. And I had to use a different ifconfig that can kick the network interface into promiscuous mode to get Bonjour networking to work.
I've got my Hackintosh set up so nearly all the "hacky" stuff is on a USB stick that has the EFI boot stuff OS X needs, the Chameleon bootloader, and the kernel extensions and stuff that fix the other issues. It's themed to look exactly like Boot Camp, and dual boots into Snow Leopard and Windows 7 (by default into OS X if I don't press a key to get the selection screen). The only thing it can't do is boot from a DVD, which as I understand it is a limitation of Chameleon that may one day be rectified, but booting from an 8GB USB key with the OS X install DVD copied onto it works great.
Putting it all together was pretty easy thanks to those who have gone before. I just had to do some googling, some downloading, some reading, and post a few questions on some forums when I got stuck.
If Apple ever does open up OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, I would guess they'd do much the same as NeXT did... you'd get a list of supported components to pick from, if you use something other than stuff on the list and get it to work, fine, but don't call Apple for help if you have problems.
~Philly
No, the core duo is also a 32bit chip and is supported by 10.6. In addition, the Atom has a 64bit variant. It is typically found on desktops where the 32bit version is found in netbooks.
People buy a Mac because it is easy to use and it just works. I have a couple Atom boxes (a single and dual core) and have thought about installing one of my family licenses (10.5 or 10.6) on one of them, but I haven't had the time (or I am to lazy). Originally it was a pain to install Linux on the Atom, because of the Ethernet drivers, but now they work good with Linux. I recommend Macs to my family and friends, because I don't have to do tech support for them, they can figure everything out themselves. We have a few Macs in my immediate family and a couple Windows boxes and few Linux boxes. I use the Linux boxes as servers/appliances and seldom use Windows. My kids use Windows at school, but mostly use Macs at home and have been syncing their iPods and now iPod Touches to the Macs since they were young. I still like to play with Linux, but when I want to use a computer I use a Mac, because it just works.
Next question, please.
It is their software if they want it to make it not work on some processor, it is their right.
There are plenty of perfectly fine and free operating systems out there. I have no idea why people waste so much effort trying to cross port OSX when they can get linux and BSD for free.
I suppose those are the same people that go to new york to buy fake luis vutton purses.
Hasn't Apple already released 10.6 XNU kernel source? I guess 10.6.2 _could_ be the version that Apple stops releasing x86 kernel sources forever, but quite frankly the rumour mill has been saying that Apple wouldn't be releasing x86 kernel source any more for at least the last two OS versions worth of x86 source code releases.
It wasn't sold to work on random hardware. It was sold to work on hardware that Apple sells. No promises were made, express or implied, that it would work on Atom processors.
It is an express case of disabling things so you can't use it in a certain manner. Hello! That's what the whole Free Software thing is about. Don't use the Apple software if you don't like it. No one misled you about this.
Apple is locking this processor out because it is a market that by their own intention represents 0% of their business. They know that any installation that is running on these processors, is not a legitimate install, so why not block a processor to cut down on pirating? Now if the hackers who want the OS on this processor paid a license out of good faith, I wonder if Apple would be so quick to shut them down?
That's fucking brilliant. And you can walk around with your lawyer, all day every day, to advise you whether to sign all those contracts that you're presented with, virtually every day. Awesome. When I graduate, can I be your lawyer? Do you have deep pockets?
Nobody in this thread is arguing that Apple can't conduct their business that way. The fact that, as you imply, it would put a ludicrous burden on their ability to 'make the sale' with anybody does not nullify the fact that it's entirely within their right to establish as part of the sale/license process for obtaining their product.
Simply put, if Apple wants to do business that way, they're entitled to give it a try. They aren't at present playing it that way, though. So they'd better suck up and deal with things as they are.
...when it gets down to it, the MacOS X platform is a Unix kernel and a collection of libraries and UI tools that ride on top of it. The collection that rides on top of it is based on the NeXT Step design and that already has an open source implementation called OpenStep.
The only thing preventing someone from going beyond that and implementing the remainder of the UI on a BSD kernel running OpenStep is either the fear of being stomped on legally by Apple, or the self-fulfilling belief that it can't be done.
OS X users are already benefiting from the experience gained in the development of Wine. If they want their favorite platform to do what it does so well, on the hardware they want to use it on, it is honestly going to be up to them to decide how they are going to deal with the fact that Apple is not only going to be opposed to that stance, Apple is going to act on that opposition.
You never know...
You are not purchasing the "copy" right but rather a license for a copy of said work regardless of whether it is a graphic, compiled software or source code. They are all protected by copyright law and are licensed in different ways by the copyright holders. If you do not agree with the license, do not use the product.
If the creative commons license is valid and the GPL is valid and supported by copyright law then so is the SLA of OS X. No copyright holder has to provide a non-upgrade copy separate from their preferred distribution method. OS X is no different than firmware in the sense that the full version is only distributed with macs and only upgrades can be purchased.
The SLA for OS X is available here:
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
If slashdot readers expect others to respect the GPL or the Creative Commons Licenses, then the SLA posted by Apple for Snow Leopard should be respected as well.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
As MacOS is not copy protected, there's nothing to circumvent there, DMCA-wise.
And meanwhile, those of us techies, without axes to grind, when asked why we never have trouble with our computers will say "I bought a Mac" and convince even more.
Anti-Mac people and Linux people... Do you have any idea what the average person thinks of you? They view your paranoid rantings and ravings with the same aversion as the panhandler on the street complaining about the CIA listening to his thoughts through the fillings in his teeth.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Could be sold as frisbies for all I care. Nobody has any right to prevent me from feeding their DVD to my pet lizard.
When I decide to start distributing their OS, I sure as hell will study their license.
who were introduced to os x via a hackintosh. who before that never had a plan on getting an apple computer but is now an owner of a macbook.
more often than not, a hackintosh will lead to an apple hardware purchase.
Apple should be using Atom based Mac Netbooks to sell under $300 Mac Netbooks that runs Mac OSX to compete with the Windows XP/7 Netbooks and Linux Netbooks.
Now if Apple wants to use Atom based processors they are SOL unless they modify the OS to allow it.
Not like they can stop the Hackintosh, Mac OSX86 Hackers patch the OSX kernel and code with code and the kernel from Darwin or even a version of *BSD Unix that supports the Non-Apple hardware like AMD 64 Bit CPUs for Non-Apple PCs to run OSX86 as it is called. Apple tried to close source the OSX kernel but the Darwin kernel is almost the same thing and the source code is available for it, and Hackintosh programmers just unassemble the OSX kernel and binaries, and then patch in the assembly from the Darwin and *BSD Unix code. You have to remember the Hackintosh OSX86 is a modified OSX with the DRM removed and the check for Non-Apple hardware removed and more support for Non-Apple hardware added like AMD and Atom chips. The Mac OSX weakness is that it is based on open sourced operating systems like Darwin and the MACH kernel, and *BSD Unix, which means Hackers can exchange code from the OSX install DVD with code from the OSS projects. Apple can stop a few hackers, but they cannot stop them all. But it will take time for the hackers to get around this latest version of OSX.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I have about five older Macintosh computers in my basement. I learned a long time ago that Apple was ripping off users by charging a high price for their hardware and limiting their OS to only Apple brand computers. What ticked me off for the last time was the killing of the Mac Clones like Power Computing, etc. I was going to buy one, but Apple killed them off. I instead got an iMac Bondi Blue G3 and that was the last Mac I got as it ran Mac OS9 and there was no upgrade path to Mac OSX, buy a new system. My iMac G3 didn't qualify for Mac OSX even if it was a slot loading CD Mac, they made a Firewire requirement and while it was possible to hack Mac OSX to install on a non-firewire iMac G3 it would require a hard drive upgrade, a RAM upgrade, and maybe even a CPU upgrade and I might as well have bought a newer Mac because the price Apple charges for the upgrades costs more than the PC versions of those upgrades as well. If I used PC parts it would void my warranty plus Apple claimed it would make the iMac unstable.
I was going to buy a Mac Mini, because finally it was the cheapest Mac, but because it is so small it is prone to over heating, plus upgrades for it are limited. Then the Intel Macs came out, and the Mac was just another PC but with a higher price tag and a different OS installed.
Yeah sure I could buy Mac OSX legally, but without an Apple hardware Macintosh I couldn't use it legally. My old Macs won't be able to run it, as the modern OSX no longer supports the old G3 series and requires more RAM than I can upgrade it with.
Truth be told the only reason why I won't buy a Mac is the price of the hardware, and on the lower priced models I won't buy them because of their limited upgrade status. What I really need is a Mac Book Pro for under $700 or a Macintosh Pro for under $300 as those are the prices of a PC with the same features, including mark downs and rebates at consumer electronic stores. But Apple doesn't sell them that cheap, so I consider them a rip-off. I consider using Linux on a cheap PC than Mac OSX on an expensive Mac.
Yeah Apple needs the Mac Clones again, but if they do most likely they will have an OEM agreement to keep the Mac Clones at the same price as the Apple brand Macs. Which would once again rip off the customers and drive people to the Hackintosh version of OSX86 on cheap PCs yet again.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
i was going to say coffee machine personally :)
How much is the average computer geek (notice the word 'geek', as I'm about to assume they are the type to install an OS on their own) willing to spend on that legal license of Mac OS X?
They could very easily charge the non-Apple hardware crowd MORE than they charge their Apple hardware customers. This would help them differentiate the market. The technical details are, of course, going to be hopped across by your average, driven computer geek. But those barriers wont be broken by less sophisticated customers.
Apple currently charges 130 for a full version of OS Snow Leopard. Would you be willing to pay another $200 for those Atom drivers? How about $300, and make the OS cost a full $430?
My point is this: Sure, they could easily release an OS for the masses. An OS that dell could license to put on their built to order machines and so forth. Further, they would need to subsidize the added cost of 'supporting' so many new combinations of hardware. Suddenly Mac OS X isn't just $130, it's probably a lot more like the going rate for Windows 7. The price is actually probably more simply because Microsoft's OS has years of experience in dealing with driver conflicts and other nasties caused by awkward combinations of hardware.
(Granted, the *nix/mach underpinning of OS X should make it less suspectible to said problems. This point could be less than I expect.)
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Then kill all the users.
So, you think you have it bad that your Atom Hackintosh will forever stay on 10.6.1?
Guess what, my PowerPC *genuine* Mac will forever stay on 10.5.8.
Apple is often not supportive even of older hardware they sold few years ago.
Examples:
As mentioned, Mac OS X 10.6.0 doesn't support the PowerPC CPUs while the 10.5.x did. I have a fairly strong (even by today's standards), last generation G5 PowerPC Mac that I bought in December 2005 (one month before they confirmed the Intel switchover rumors) that is now doomed to never run Snow Leopard. I could now go around and holler "APPLE BASTARDS BLOCKED PowerPC IN 10.6.0", right?
Or I could be annoyed by the fact that even when Leopard came out, PPC experience was already "downscaled" compared to Intel Leopard - i.e. no Java 6, no support for certain HD video codecs, etc.
Heck, not even Macs with 32-bit Intel CPUs could have Java 6 under Leopard. Curiously, they do in Snow Leopard, but I digress.
Recent news was that on some older (2006) Intel Mac models (some of them already 64-bit), you won't be able to install Windows 7 via BootCamp. (This one I don't care much about, but some people certainly will.)
As you can see, even their own hardware gets left in the dust. I'm not ruling out deliberate malice on their part, but I'd rather assume they recompiled the kernel and libraries with compiler options that benefit their current CPU lineup the most, and it turned out to be incompatible with Atom, and they shrugged and said, "so what? We aren't supporting any hardware with Atom CPU anyway". Even if they did it deliberately, they can just claim that they did it as an effort to optimize performance for their current hardware.
At the end of the day, there's many more Hackintoshes out there than just Atom-CPU based ones, why would they go after specifically after the Atom ones? Those aren't even competition to Apple's hardware business - Apple doesn't have a netbook offering, and they don't consider MacBook Air to be one. People buying a netbook aren't a market Apple targets.
So, I think it's much more plausible that end of (accidentally working until now) Atom support is being a collateral effect of them doing some improvements. However, if it's not deeply baked in, then I'm sure the Hackintosh crowd will manage to get around it.
In any case, they have much better chances of it than me seeing Snow Leopard on my PowerPC Mac.
Sig erased via substitution of an identical one.
Answer: breaking the law in as many localities as they possibly can, bullying international standard bodies, issuing patent threats to the competition.
Should I go on or do you need a bigger clue stick?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Since the power of the EULA comes from the assinine assumption that you make a copy when installing the program, the berne convention and the copyright laws that institute the application of that convention on copyrights state that copies necessary for the use of the product do not count.
So you do not need a license to install your program for the PC/Mac because you must install before you run.
And so copyright doesn't apply any restriction.
Therefore you don't need a license.
Use Linux.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The only reason people would want to use Mac OS X is because Apple computers are for people who had it with downloading drivers, reading the manuals, going threw slow as hell load-times for whatever is out there. People want a Mac because of the cut-the-crap please for the love of God give me something that works FFS!
And they buy a legal copy of Mac OS X and go threw the hassle of flashing their BIOSes, collecting parts, porting kernel drivers, compiling from source... sigh...
You can get a fscking tiny, beautiful and powerful Apple Mac Mini with a Core2DUO @ 2,53ghz, 2GB RAM, a GeForce 9400 mobile, DisplayPort and whatnot, passively cooled for $599 freaking US dollars. What the fsck is everyone's problem?
Why go threw the hassle by compiling kernels if you can run Gentoo with KDE4.3, Amarok, Kdenlive, Kopete, Rekonq and whatever quality apps and get a fast UNIX like system too?
I am a Windows and Linux user and I love Apple for their genious approach to computers. I watch every WWDC just because it' s awesome and I paid 1200 euro' s without the monitor on a desktop computer while I could have grabbed a Mac... So why does anyone wants to assemble a hackingtosh?!
Please enlighten me, because this is beyond logic.
PS: Oh and the overprised hardware? It runs faster than your Core i7 on Windows 7 and the enclosure is more expansive, so who cares? If you buy an Apple then you buy a computer, and not a CPU+RAM+whatever+OS... A laptop FFS costs $899 USD...
Here be signatures
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.
Are you stupid, just trolling, or a stupid troll? Buying something from Apple does not make you a Microsoft customer.
P.S. Buying a new release of OSX every year and paying for something Microsoft would give you for free, that makes you an Apple customer.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why not just focus on improving GNUstep?
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
" ... Truth be told the only reason why I won't buy a Mac is the price of the hardware, ..."
Yeah, we know.
" ... Yeah Apple needs the Mac Clones again ..."
I think you meant that you need Mac clones again, to save money and get the best the world offers, for as little as possible. A full install boxed set of OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard sells retail for $29.00.
Apple, on the other hand, relies on hardware sales to carry on it's business. I'm pretty sure you, I and Apple can figure out where this is going to lead. You won't be an Apple customer; and two of the three parties mentioned are OK with that.
Why don't you run Linux on generic x86 hardware; I have and still do it. It does a great job of the work I assign it; and it's within the budget you are willing to commit. Is there something wrong with a solution that works for you and meets your budget conditions? I fail to see a problem here.
But, Linux doesn't do a great job on the work I assign my OSX box; that's why I have the OSX box.
I recently went out and bought a used PPC 1.42 GHz Mini for under $300; the Intel boxes, due to pipeline issues with the architecture, were choking on certain audio tasks, which must be done in order and in near-real time. The PPC chip might be slower, but I can assign a batch downsampling process on 10,000 high resolution (24/96) audio files, and not one resulting file will have a data dropout or waveform error a week later (actually, 8 days, 24/7, unattended).
A multicore Intel machine with 2~4x the RAM pulls the same job off in about 5 days. But, no Intel machine, OSX or Windows (the necessary tools are not available on Linux) that I'm aware of has so far pulled that particular job off without errors; errors you have to spend 40,000 minutes listening to discover, and more time to correct, at $60/hr.
Life's too short. One job, at 3 cents a minute = total hardware outlay. Done, and done right.
You wouldn't want to be using OSX to write eMails, surf the web, play with a database, would you? Use your Linux box for that.
Why can MS make profits that dwarf Apple's without profiting from hardware?
Because the CP/M guy was off flying his plane and they got the gig to supply the OS for the (proprietary) IBM PC. IBM then used the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" meme to sell PCs to all the suits who refused to buy computers from hippies, and (as predicted by all the pundits the moment the IBM PC was announced) soon completely dominated the corporate market.
Then, when virtually all serious business software was only available for the PC, Compaq et. al. released cheap, unauthorised "clones" - which IBM tried, and failed, to block in the courts, eventually lost control of the PC market, and no longer makes computers. MS, however, still had a guaranteed sale with virtually every computer sold.
MS's position is the result of a unique series of events that leads back to IBMs dominance of the pre-PC mainframe market - Apple can't hope for something similar.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
If you really want to run OSX then maybe you should get Mac hardware. OSX runs that great not just becaused it has a good foundation(BSD I believe) but also because it only needs to perform on a restricted variety of hardware.
If you are looking for free linux is there and it's pretty good now even for the average user.
If you are looking for maximum hardware compatibility the market leader is still windows
Slightly OT but I'm curious, why not install eeebuntu? It runs great on my 8.9" eeePC900 ($199, SSD, amazing!!). Installs easily from a USB stick and with updated settings it flies... no lag on the multitouch trackpad, quick graphics, etc. It might be my main computer if my hands were smaller. Is it just the challenge and the principle of running MacOS on non-mac hardware? Seems like a lot of work to run a closed, proprietary OS.
to err is human, to forgive is divine, to forget is... umm...
Last time I looked, Apple didn't make any computers that use the Atom processor. They only write OS X for computers with supported processors - if they don't support the Atom that's really no big deal unless they came out with a computer that used it.
Yes, I know the Hackintosh community is in an uproar about it - but Apple never promised you could use it, nor does their license allow you to use it. If it works, great. If not, suck it up and use eeebuntu, some other distro, or Windows.
Me, I'm running Windows 7 Pro on my eee 901, and I save Mac OS X for my Macs. My only Ubuntu machine is a VM on the Macbook.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Operating systems are pirated more and more often. Apple doesn't expect a huge increase in software sales if they open it up to all machines, they see a piracy increase (as well as an increase in OTHER companies hardware).
Much like iTunes' purpose is to sell iPods and iPhones, Mac OS X is for selling Macs.
Apple's cheapest notebook is $999, much more expensive than a $299 netbook. They don't want that type of competition.
-- lol pwned
Kexts, not ktexts. Kernel EXTensionS.
Right now I'm wondering what will happen to people who purchase Apple MacBooks, mod 'em and resell 'em, like Axiotron and their ModBooks.
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.
It's true that some people only buy Apple hardware because of the software, but I think it's valid for Apple to argue that they aren't a hardware vendor or software vendor, but an integrated solution vendor. They make the hardware and the software and sell them together in a package. This has the advantage that so many people are pointing to when they say, "It just works."
Well yes, it does just work. It's not so much because Apple's engineers are better than Microsoft's or Dell's or whoever's (though they may be). The real reason things work so well is that they were designed to work well as a package. Apple sells you a laptop and they chose the LCD screen, the touchpad, the webcam, and all the other components for that laptop. In some cases the components are manufactured for that laptop. The drivers for those components are written not just for OSX, but for that notebook. In some cases, Apple rewrites parts of its OS for that notebook. If they include a new component that has a new feature, that feature is integrated on an OS level by the OS vendor, not by some 3rd party hack. Because everything is handled at the level of treating the notebook as a product instead of treating the various components and drivers and software packages as different (and sometimes competing) products, you end up with a notebook were everything is integrated and everything works pretty much as-advertised.
This works because Apple is selling a series of integrated products, and only sells a handful of models at a time. Even among the different models, the components and features and capabilities are fairly uniform. For Apple to sell a stand-alone OS would be more than the introduction of an additional product; it would mean a big change to their development philosophy. They would have to try to make their OS a widely supported vanilla software package with the ability to loosely take advantage of any mishmash of capabilities rather than a tightly integrated product. I'm sure that they could manage it, but it's not clear to me why they would want to.
Apple does not make software unless that software drives hardware in some way. Apple has always been a hardware company, that is how they make their money. The software is there to entice you to an experience on their hardware.
You will never see Apple sell just their software because that would ruin their market. It would also cripple their support system which relies heavily on standardized hardware to streamline technical issues. Customer support is easier on Apple products precisely because they know their hardware inside and out.
Get this point through your heads people... Apple will never shoot themselves in the foot and stop linking their software directly to their hardware. The hardware IS the Macintosh. The software drives the hardware but will never, ever get uncoupled from it (again).
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.
Here is why you are wrong.
First, they are not maximizing their hardware sales. Their limited offerings cede huge swathes of the desktop and laptop markets to other manufacturers. Why would a "hardware company" limit itself in this way? Especially given the myriad versions of the iPod that they churn out -- clearly they have no concerns about supporting a large array of devices.
Second, speaking of that iPod, even if they are a (curiously unambitious) "hardware company", a lot of that hardware is in the form of music players & smart phones which require Apple software running on something (at least for the maximum "experience"). That something can already be a non-Apple computer, and presumably they already have to support non-Apple computers running this software to some extent. What sense does it make for a "hardware company" to sell entry-level peripherals that require their software which will likely to be installed on a competitors hardware because this "hardware" company offers no price-point-equivalent hardware of its own.
Apple is not a "hardware company". They sell hardware, peripherals and software for non-Apple computers. They pick and choose what they offer among those categories based on some internal logic that we may assume maximizes their profits.
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.
Get over yourself. You are not more an Apple customer than the snot-nosed kid with a first gen iPod Shuffle.
If you buy an iPod shuffle and sync it with iTunes on a $300 PC, how are you not an Apple customer? How is Apple damaged by offering the option to run OSX on that same box and get a better iTunes experience, and possibly a better overall impression of Apple products?
I can't figure out what their angle is other than rigging their offerings to milk the most money out of self-regarding suckers before it becomes too obvious to ignore.
Buying a retail disc of OSX and thinking its legal, is like buying an Upgrade edition of Windows and thinking its legal. It isn't. They are only legal if you already own a fully licensed copy of the original OS, which you don't.
And I don't think they are crying about it, they are just stopping it from working. That's "taking action". For "crying" refer to the 902 pages above.
Your Firewire camera isn't part of the hardware-software interaction that Microsoft can do anything about. It's an external device, and not something that either Apple or Microsoft are going to bend over backwards for. As for a device having two different drivers, it happens sometimes, because sometimes a driver is general enough to cover devices the author didn't even know about. It's not Microsoft's fault, it's your fault for installing two incompatible drivers on your system. You could do it just as easily on MacOS or Linux, and you'd have the same results.
"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?"
Er, no.
A. You haven't got a clue what it takes to get software (let alone an OS) running on a vast variety of computers do you?
B. You haven't got a clue about their business model either, which is that hardware pays for the software.
OS X 10.5 to 10.6: $29
Windows Pro 6.0 to 6.1: $100
Installing software on random shit is a right specifically asserted in the US copyright law. Read it. By "it" I mean "it", not "random slashdotter's rant about it".
Besides, OS X being sold as an upgrade for anything is a myth.
I did not install these drivers together. I installed the Leica when the camera arrived, found out it was incompatible with ImagePro and then found out they had one and removed the Leica and installed ImagePro driver. I cant use the Leica software now, but ImagePro is required, too bad though.
But I still disagree - the Mac has firewire built in, so Apple is responsible for it being up to the IEEE standard and providing operating system access to any firewire device I plug in. Where as you state Microsoft doesn't make hardware so they don't care, and this is what I was asking for, for Windows to care to be integrated with hardware. The other players, SIIG and Leica and ImagePro all felt they had to hack something together because they knew Microsoft didn't care. Unfortunately they don't really work all that well together. Good discussion though.
Well the problem of Linux is that it lacks proper commercial game support like Civilization IV, but CIV4 exists for Windows and Mac OSX. WINE doesn't run everything and requires the DRM copy protection to be removed via a "crack" that may or may not contain malware.
I, in fact, already dual boot Windows and Linux on my Notebook. I got Fedora 11 installed.
$29 for Mac OSX is a great price, but universally, utterly, completely, and totally useless to me if I cannot afford an Apple branded PC to run it on. Sure that $300 Windows 7 Home Premium PC might run the Hackintosh version but it might not support the wireless, audio, or other devices. The $29 Mac OSX would be a great buy for me, if I could run it on a cheap $300 PC, but then Apple would claim that it is cutting into their profits.
One of the reasons why I want a Mac OSX box is to develop OSX software on it using the built in development tools, plus a platform to test out my OSX developed software. I know Linux can maybe GCC cross compile, but can it run OSX native code as well for testing?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
...for hackintoshes, period. If you want to run Mac OS X and Mac applications properly, you can just buy an Apple machine. Apple will not likely give away it's crown jewels to some cheap-ass laptop maker. Why is this so hard to understand? I mean people have been posing the same old question since 1984. Apple is, and has always been, the Mac OS (or, originally, the System), bundled software and hardware that's extremely tightly integrated with the software, and this will *never* change.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
How can you kill something that wasn't supported in the first place. Seriously folks the name hackintosh should give you a clue as to what would have happened.