Slashdot Mirror
Apple Not Disabling OS X Atom Support After All
bonch writes "Contrary to previous reports, Atom chip support is working fine in the latest 10C535 build of OS X 10.6.2. Apple's EULA still states that OS X is licensed to run only on Apple hardware, but it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now."
WOLF! WOLF!
Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.
I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.
Don't hold your breath.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
You sir win this whole discussion. There are not enough mod points in the world for you.
One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide. Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem. News at 11.
Of course some people are going to flip out and claim Apple is doing something evil. When it gets fixed in a later build, someone is probably going to claim that Apple backed down due to the outrage of Hackintosh owners. In reality, it's entirely possible that they had a bug in a development build that unintentionally broke Atom support, and then fixed the bug and unintentionally restored Atom support.
But perhaps not big enough of a market for the big guy. Perhaps he would like to sell you a 10" tablet for $1000 with a $300 profit margin than a $300 netbook with a $50 profit margin*.
*Numbers completely pulled out of the air, and not a MacBook Air, those numbers would be even higher.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Anti-trust? Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold? (Other than a monopoly on nice design. :)
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Look, Apple doesn't use the Atom in any products. Ergo, there's no guarantee that a shipping version of Mac OS X will support it. Since Atom is basically just a stripped-down x86, it probably will continue to run but no promises.
Just to remind everyone, Apple builds Macs. Macs are not available in every possible x86/chipset combo. Just a handful. That's one of the reasons why Macs are typically pretty reliable, but also why the average frankencomputer can't run OS X reliably.
Yes, Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you don't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac. Yes, they won't come after you with lawyers if you make a hackintosh. Yes, they will come after you if you then try to sell them (like Psystar). And yes, licenses like Apple's are restrictive.
But no, they aren't under any obligation at all to provide support for any computer other than what they expressly state on the box to be compatible and licensed. Which, in the case of Snow Leopard, is:
- Mac computer with an Intel processor
- 1GB of memory
- 5GB of available disk space
- DVD drive for installation
And all the other specs are on:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
If your computer doesn't fit that description, you're SOL. Period. If Snow Leopard runs now on your Atom-based netbook and 10.6.2 winds up killing it, suck it up or stick to 10.6.1. So it goes.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
There is a big difference between these two terms. Its ok for Apple to not support hardware that is not theirs. Its another thing to go out of your way, put time and resources into not allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product.
Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Or a bug in the code either works for me.
Why bother
I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads.
I just wish people would educate themselves on what constitutes a "trust" worthy of having anti-trust applied to it.
Why bother
I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be *really* stretching it.
Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.
Apple has no products that use the Atom, correct? So, there was never a bug or a feature
So, what makes everyone think that Apple is even concerned about anything to do with the Atom? They're developing their software for their products. If it just so happens to work on some other hardware, it's an accident. If a build doesn't work on other hardware, it's an accident. If it works again on a subsequent build, it's an accident.
God, you people are turning a non-issue into one.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.
Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker. Making a sub $1,000 netbook would be like Gucci making a handbag to be sold in Walmart.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.
1) All companies act in their own interests - that is the whole point! If those interests happen to coincide with the customer's then that is just a bonus. If I want a quick burger, McDonalds is going to sell be a quick burger. If I want a roast turkey dinner with all the trappings, McDonalds is going to sell a quick burger.
2) People with hackitoshes are, by definition, not Apple customers. OK, some people may go out a buy a copy of MacOSX, but I bet most people just "obtain" it or already have it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Indeed
sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
Yellow journalism?! For crying out loud, it was a facetious remark. It's common sense not to expect OS X to always support non-Apple hardware.
Besides, I'm not a journalist, and this isn't a newspaper. It's a user-submitted content site.
Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.
In one line you sum up why Apple has no interest in seeing OSX become the system builder's OS of choice.
iTunes LP format is closed and you have to pay $10,000 to Apple to have them make you one! Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, they released the format specs and anyone can make one.
OK, they took from open source and added Grand Central Dispatch without giving back to the community! Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, they released the GCD sources to Darwin.
OK, they nobbled the Atom processor in the latest OS build so people can't run Mac OS on some no-name brand PC! Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, it was probably just a bug.
And so on, and so on...
WTF? this is madness! I hate microsoft even more now.
Maybe, maybe not. You can't say for sure.
It would also cannibalise other Mac laptops, so they would lose quite a bit as well. You guys always seem to forget that.
It would also mean more support calls to Apple, more genius visits, more unhappy people. How do you put a price on that.
Try to look at the big picture for once.
Riiight, because whenever a Microsoft OS BSODs, people never think "Microsoft fucked up my machine! It wasn't that driver that I just installed, it was Microsoft!"
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
it;s 1Gig and I do no care how much ram windows support, windows is off faster than the stickers when i buy a netbook. And no, the same model without windows was not avaiable. They probably do not get the "cheaper OEM version of their OS" if they do not install it on all of them. So thay are limiting hardware choices on top of steeling my money with the microsoft tax.