Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Not Disabling OS X Atom Support After All

Posted by timothy on from the If-you-like-that-sort-of-thing dept.

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."

12 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. Veiled Threat by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now.

    Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!

    Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum. We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions. Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.

    I know. I know. I must be new here...

    1. Re:Veiled Threat by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:Just a reminder from Apple by aardwolf64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.

  3. Re:Just a reminder from Apple by s73v3r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?

  4. What a wonderful opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Goody! Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not. With luck, this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all. I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community.

  5. Re:WOLF! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are two likely explanations:

    1. Apple deliberately disabled Atom support. Due to bad PR, they reversed their position.
    2. Apple unintentionally introduced bugs that disabled Atom support. Hearing from developers, they quietly fixed it.

    I don't know about you but as a developer I only test the most likely scenarios before I pass it on to QA. I don't test every scenario real or imagined. In this case, Atom isn't officially supported by Apple and so the Apple developers probably didn't bother to ensure it would on Atom. When they heard that it didn't work, they went back and discovered why. Most likely the bug would cause other issues. So they fixed it.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. The dogcow says Moof not wolf by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    The dogcow says Moof not wolf

  7. Don't count on Atom support... by jht · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  8. Never ascribe... by sbeckstead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  9. Re:Just a reminder from Apple by sbeckstead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:WOLF! by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple deliberately disabled Atom support. Due to bad PR, they reversed their position.

    According to this MacRumors article, the developer who complained about lack of Atom support was in Build 10C531 which was a week before Oct 27, when build 10C535 came out which works fine with Atom. The developer who complained about lack of Atom support posted his complaint a day before. We're at 10C540 now - which was released yesterday or today.

    So to release the complaint a day before Apple releases a new build? In the few hours it takes to pick it up, Apple would then have to see all the "bad PR" and have time to fix it before the next build? (I suspect most of the "bad PR" happened after 10C535 came out.

    At best, it would be they broke Atom support accidentally, at worst, some guy just couldn't update his Hackintosh properly.

  11. Imaginations are running wild here! by NoYob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    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.