Those IBM machines with Atmel TPM are NOT in the consumer marketplace. And people buying something as "consumers" doesn't equal "consumer marketplace", and you know it. I love people who just can't admit that Apple is the innovator that it's widely recognized to be, and that it mainstreams technologies routinely *in the consumer marketplace* that have otherwise been unmanageable or unworkable in anything but managed corporate or enterprise settings previously (like 802.11, for example - worked great when your insitutional IT people set everything up for you, and if you had a grand to drop on an access point; Apple changed all that).
And if you don't know by now that Apple is widely recognized as forcing USB adoption across the industry by introducing the iMac with USB and no legacy ports, you must have missed a couple of years there.
And just in case you're not trolling, which is unlikely, I'll add: I'm not saying Apple is the end-all be-all inventor of everything, but they have consistently innovated in software and hardware in the *consumer* marketplace, and have been so widely recognized for it that it's almost a joke when people talk about Microsoft "copying" Apple, or when the next iMac/iPod/Mac mini/etc. lookalike comes out.
Apple innovates and mainstreams new technologies in the consumer sector, and others follow. Period.
If you want me to continue this discussion, please specifically address the points herein; otherwise, have a nice day.
Someday, TPM may be *required* to boot mainstream commercial operating systems, like Windows and Mac OS X, and be *required* to use mainstream consumer services, like, say, online video and music stores, and so on.
I'm not making any judgments about whether this is good or bad; just stating something that will likely happen.
So, if you want to go out and build a non-TPM PC and use a TPM-free OS on it, great. More power to you. But the commercial-quality products and the desirable consumer services (Iike movie downloads and mechanisms for mitigating or eliminating threats) will probably start requiring trusted computing. And most ordinary human beings will be using systems so-equipped.
TPM isn't any more or less inherently evil than any other technology. Yes, it is an element of control. And we've always had elements of control in societies based on rule of law and respect for property. There is always an authority in the form of the state that makes decisions about what is right and wrong, appropriate or no. Some may not appreciate or accept the balance, and that is their choice. Fundamentally, you can choose to ignore or circumvent such restrictions, or choose to avail yourself of products and technologies that aren't encumbered in this way.
The fact of the matter is that Apple has no interest in preventing the booting of alternate OSes on Intel-based Macs, and this proves that the current Intel-based Macs have no such restriction. You can argue that this could change in the future, but it could ALWAYS change in the future, with or without "TPM" proper. Some technology or mechanism could ALWAYS prevent or disallow something on some future iteration of machine. (If you think Apple could do that with the current machines, you'd be wrong, and lack a basic understanding of how a TPM implementation works. Read up at https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/)
Sure, they could change *anything* in a future product.
But Apple knows it's important for people to be boot and develop with other OSes, such as Linux and BSD variants, Darwin, and so on. This is how it's been on Macs as long as they've existed.
And since Trusted Computing is a direction the entire industry is moving, and since Apple has already made direct, explicit statements that they aren't doing anything to prevent any other OSes from booting, Apple is by no means unique here, with respect to TPM adoption. Just early.
Yes, OS X does not support USB booting on all configurations, but USB booting of OS X is actually possible on hardware other than Intel-based Macs. Also, the USB subsystems of all of these machines physically support USB booting, even if OS X does not on some hardware configurations.
In sum, it is correct that the machines support USB booting, period, and that OS X could functionally support USB booting on any machine whose hardware supports it.
Well, they didn't "make it difficult". In fact, they've done nothing to prevent the installation of any alternate OS on the Intel-based Macs.
The problem is that Apple's x86 platform is completely legacy free (BIOS/MBR/VGA) and uses all new platform technologies (EFI/GPT/UGA). Almost all current x86 OSes, and all current 32-bit versions of Windows, don't support these new technologies, effectively making it impossible to (easily) do anything with these OSes directly on the hardware. Now, this is going to change with Windows Vista, but still.
But your point is still well taken, and one that I made in my own response to which you replied.
Beginning with the Power Mac G4 (AGP Graphics) and the iMac (Slot-Loading), two new features to USB are most apparent: support for USB audio devices and booting from USB drives.
I'd like to see some of these cameras, since DV over USB isn't standardized and would be vendor-specific.
The proper transport for DV has always been FireWire, and the only transport for HDV is FIreWire.
Sure, you can *make* specialty drivers and software, and capabilities in the camera at the other end, that can let you transport data any way you wish...after all, it's just bits.
But DV and FireWire are intertwined, at least for proper, full quality DV transport, and it will be that way for quite some time.
Wow, a "professor" observed these things, Dvorak? Of psychology, no less? He must be right!
Ok, let's see what you've got...
Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched.
Um. Wow, okay.
First of all, the Switch campaign was just an ad campaign. Ad campaigns come and go. Even successful ones. (Think "Be all you can be" or "Dude, yer gettin' a Dell!" And yes, those were both very successful campaigns.)
Also, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever, and growing at a faster rate than, for example, Dell.
So, point 1, wrong.
The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience.
First of all, this is completely irrelevant to any discussion about whether or not Apple might switch operating systems, which is what I thought we were talking about. FireWire, or the lack of it, has zero to do with Windows. Additionally, since all DV and HDV cameras and decks have FireWire and require its use as the primary - and usually only - means of video transport, FireWire isn't going anywhere on Macs in general anytime soon. Further, since all Macs since the Power Mac G4 (AGP Graphics) support USB booting, and since all new Macs and PCs are universally guaranteed to have USB 2.0, going with USB on the iPod and eliminating additional support chipsets for things like FireWire - especially on a peripheral - seems prudent.
But I'm getting sidetracked by Dvorak, here, because the iPod not having FireWire is completely, utterly unrelated to any discussion about whether or not Apple might be switching to Windows.
Point 2, wrong. Actually, not even wrong...just utterly irrelevant.
Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen.
Um, no. The iPod was designed to be a product that, you know, sold well. Which it, you know, did. Wildly so.
This whole "iPod was deisgned to sell Macs" business was a fantasy created by press and analysts who attribute that guess to Apple as if it were their sole intent. So we'll just ignore that the iPod is one of the most successful consumer products ever, and at the same time say it failed at some imaginary goal and purpose that there is no solid proof Apple ever created it for.
And on top of it all, most of the anecdotal evidence suggests that the "halo effect", as it were, actually works in some areas, at least marginally. To say nothing of the fact that, as I said before, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever.
Point 3, wrong in both premise and substance.
And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.
Ahh, Dvorak must be feeling emboldened by his decade-plus of wrong predictions that Apple was on the verge of switching to Intel finally coming true.
There are many, many reasons Apple switched to Intel, all discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. "Switching to Windows" isn't one of them. Has Dvorak missed the amount of time, secrecy, and effort Apple has put into keeping it's options open for Mac OS X to run on alternate hardware platforms? Christ, Dvorak.
To say nothing of the fact that if Apple's secret purpose was to start a switch to Windows, you'd think they'd have at least made it possible to, oh, I don't know, RUN WINDOWS on the Intel-based Macs easily, which isn't possible at this time?
Point 4, wrong again. Well, at least Dvorak's consistent, if anything.
Dvorak is also actually missing the biggest play for Apple here: being able to run Windows and other x86 OSes in virtualization. That would be the holy grail for many academics, researchers, scientists, and other users, most of whom use Macs because they don't want to use Windows. With hardware partitio
There's no desktop eye candy, and this is hardly clever.
That's *social engineering*. Any Mac document or executable has been able to have the outward appearance of having any icon for 22 years. So that's not new.
This won't spread. It will be yet another social engineering/trojan/malware/"virus" novelty with little to no impact beyond the mock panic sure to ensue in the press.
All it's going to take is one major outlet to pick it up, and we'll have another "Mac OS X Just As Insecure As Windows" free-for-all.
Apple today released Mac OS X 10.4.5, which will invariably break the 10.4.4 hacks.
No, this wasn't done "because of" the hack, and doesn't even break the hack intentionally; it's just coincidence, but it illustrates the nature of running an unsupported hacked version of Mac OS X quite well.
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm surprised at the number of people who couldn't read between the lines here.
I'm well aware that Intel-based Macs are shipping, thank you.
But anyway, yes, you do have to "pirate" it. As far as Apple is concerned, installing it on non-Apple hardware, installing it on more than one machine, or obtaining it without purchasing it are all equally violative of the license. Therefore, if it's "pirating" it to download it from BitTorrent, it's just the same when you decide to install it on your PC, or even another Mac, just as it's "pirating" it when you buy one copy of OS X for PowerPC and install it on 5 Power Macs at home. If you personally think downloading it is "wrong", but taking the copy that came with your Intel-based Mac and also installing it on your PC is "okay", that's only because of your own arbitrary moral sense, not anything based on logic. Because if that's okay, it's just as okay to download it and install it on as many machines as you wish.
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
And the licence is justified because.....?
Broadly, because we live in a society based on the rule of law and respect for the property and work of others - including intangibles like "intellectual" property and work.
Software doesn't just want to be free, one must go to extraordinary lengths to make it un-free. If Apple want to put some ridiculous EULA in their shrink-wrapped software, fine. Expect me to laugh at it while I do whatever the hell I please with my purchase in the privacy of my own home.
Ok, humor me, here: so, you should be able to install it on as many machines as you wish, too? Say, 10? 100? If not, why not?
You don't "own" Mac OS X. Apple is granting you a license to use it under a legal framework in various jurisdictions, including one that is at least marginally clearly defined in the US. What you "own" is a ~5" circle-shaped piece of plastic and a cardboard box. If you have no respect for the license, fine; but then, why buy it at all? Why not just pirate it in the first place?
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I fail to understand why people are using such sophistry to justify this.
Do you really think that people will be doing that? Not to mention that the license also doesn't allow that. I'm only assuming you are giving some credence to the license here since you seem to be subscribing to the one-to-one idea in terms of operating systems on hardware.
But if you own it and think you can do whatever you want with it, why should you even follow the one-to-one principle? You should be able to do whatever you want to do with it, and install it on as many machines as you want, right?
If not, why not? Why buy multiple copies for multiple machines? It's only the "license" that is preventing you from doing otherwise...
This is what I love about slashdot: you think people will know what you mean - in this case, that there is no way to obtain Mac OS X (Intel) without buying an entire machine that ships with it - but instead, they'll ignore the actual substance of your argument and nitpick on one issue like this.
Let's just say you did buy one of these machines simply to get Mac OS X (Intel): since the license for Mac OS X only allows it to be installed on one machine, you'd have to dispose of or otherwise decommission the machine you just bought to even be halfway "okay" in your argument (and even then, it's still technically in violation of the EULA). In other words, you're still pirating Mac OS X in the same way as downloading it from the internet, even if you own an Intel-based Mac.
Re:If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think the problem here is twofold.
1. Apple may never release a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel) that you can actually buy without purchasing a machine. With Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), this may occur, but it is not yet guaranteed. In this scenario, I don't think there is any excusable way in any jurisdiction to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, since you *must* pirate Mac OS X to do so.
1a. To extend on the above, some people might justify their action by buying a copy of Mac OS X (PowerPC), and reasoning that they've "paid" for Mac OS X, and that therefore it's then okay to pirate Mac OS X (Intel) and use it as they wish. However, that's not an acceptable argument since it's not the same product.
2. Even if a standalone version of Mac OS X (Intel) (or a universal release of Mac OS X) is released at some point, I don't think you can get completely in the clear with your argument. Sure, it's just bits on a plastic disc. You should be able to install it on your Mac, run over it with your car, do nothing with it, juggle it, wipe your ass with it, or even hack it and install it on your PC. Right? Sure, I'm with you. I understand the argument you're making. But, like it or not, this hurts Apple. *You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it *does* hurt Apple. Whether it's because of business model or arbitrary decision, that's their decision to make. And if there is law in certain countries/jurisdictions that allows companies to make that kind of determination, I do not see how operating within the bounds of law to protect oneself from injury - whether you are a person or a corporation - is inappropriate.
To ratchet this argument down to being a little more practical, I'd submit that Mac OS X's pricepoint is predicated on the assumption that it's associated with Apple hardware, and that there will be continuing purchases of Apple hardware by satisfied customers running Mac OS X on Apple hardware, ostensibly becausse the quality, attention to detail, and software/hardware integration is so pleasant, and myriad other reasons. Apple loses this control when Mac OS X is not run on Apple hardware. Now, you might say, "tough shit." And in some locales in the world, the government might also agree with you. Great. Congratulations. But that still doesn't change the fundamental truth to what I've just said.
I see it as just a semblance of respect for the work of others.
If you replace enough files...
on
OSx86 Cracked Again
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...and are willing to wait some period of time after any official Apple release, you'll always be able to make Mac OS X (Intel) work on non-Apple hardware.
So, as long as you have no shame and don't mind running Mac OS X in a state that is completely unsupported, with a different kernel (!), modified in unknown ways, and in a state that won't be able to be updated with any OS or security updates from Apple (until they themselves are cracked), perpetually repeating this scenario ad nauseum, and also have no problems either:
- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and
- seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing (e.g., via the EULA, perhaps claiming EULAs aren't enforceable in your jurisdiction)
...then I'm sure you'll be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware indefinitely.
Is this actually surprising?
Someday, Apple - you know, the entity that has invested billions of dollars, all told, and countless thousands upon thousands of manhours in the development of Mac OS X and its associated products - may choose to partner with specific x86 vendors and specific hardware products to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware at some point in the future. But for now, I love the editorial slant of x86project.org:
What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.
This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?
Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.
"When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD"? I'm sorry, but even if you claim they're just "telling it like it is", that attitude has absolutely no respect for the hard work of others. Forget copyright. Forget the DMCA. What about just pure ethics? I suppose if one is a relativist, they might ask, "Ethics? By whose standards?"
And again: if you change enough of Mac OS X, of course you'll be able to get it to work on non-Apple hardware. It will take some reverse engineering and time, but it will always happen. This doesn't mean TPM is any less "secure" for its purposes. Ironically, it actually validates TPM: trusted computing is designed to make a platform just that: trusted, and operating in a predictable state. This hack job on Mac OS X (Intel) is anything but.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product. Even if Mac OS X (Intel) is sold standalone (as it may be in the form of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard).
Deflect the attention from yourselves, and pretend that you're just doing the same thing the West (read: United States) is doing: just trying to protect innocent children on the internet ("Who will think of the children?"), at the same time attempting to change the debate from your own despicable censorship of speech and thought to the alleged transgressions of Western governments.
Except that the reality is easy for anyone to see: you (attempt to) suppress sites dealing with politics, religion, dissent, and anything critical of the Chinese government or that doesn't support positions sanctioned by the Chinese government. The West and US don't do this (no matter how much our friendly, local conspiracy theorists might claim it).
Come on, China. I thought you could lie better than that.
Um, they weren't "prototypes", and never were. Yes, the MacBook Pros shown at Macworld were preproduction models (a far cry from something that could be called a "prototype"), and probably didn't have all their agency approvals, but is it any surprise that they were preproduction models since they weren't shipping yet, and Apple clearly stated that when they were announced?
Everyone who ordered a MacBook Pro simply gets the upgraded models that are actually the ones that will be shipping. Apple obviously knew it was going to be kicking the processor speed up for a while now, and just announced it today. The 1.67 changed to 1.83; the 1.83 changed to a 2.0; and there is a new option for a 2.16.
The Mac 128K was the first Macintosh ever released, and it was indeed released and available for purchase on January 24, 1984. There was no Macintosh computer with 64K of RAM.
The Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin (GLOW), a partnership between several research departments at the University of Wisconsin, have installed almost 200TB, or 200,000GB, of Xserve RAID arrays.
As a comparison, 200TB of storage is enough to hold 2.75 years of high definition video, 25,000 full length DVD movies, 323,000 CDs, 20 printed collections of the Library of Congress, or over 1000Wikipedias.
The GLOW storage installation is physically split between the departments of Computer Sciences and High Energy Physics. Each Xserve RAID is attached to a dedicated Linux node running Fedora Core via an Apple Fibre Channel PCI-X Card and is either directly accessed via various mechanisms, such as over the network via gigabit ethernet, or aggregated using tools such as dCache.
Slashdot Mirror
Those IBM machines with Atmel TPM are NOT in the consumer marketplace. And people buying something as "consumers" doesn't equal "consumer marketplace", and you know it. I love people who just can't admit that Apple is the innovator that it's widely recognized to be, and that it mainstreams technologies routinely *in the consumer marketplace* that have otherwise been unmanageable or unworkable in anything but managed corporate or enterprise settings previously (like 802.11, for example - worked great when your insitutional IT people set everything up for you, and if you had a grand to drop on an access point; Apple changed all that).
And if you don't know by now that Apple is widely recognized as forcing USB adoption across the industry by introducing the iMac with USB and no legacy ports, you must have missed a couple of years there.
And just in case you're not trolling, which is unlikely, I'll add: I'm not saying Apple is the end-all be-all inventor of everything, but they have consistently innovated in software and hardware in the *consumer* marketplace, and have been so widely recognized for it that it's almost a joke when people talk about Microsoft "copying" Apple, or when the next iMac/iPod/Mac mini/etc. lookalike comes out.
Apple innovates and mainstreams new technologies in the consumer sector, and others follow. Period.
If you want me to continue this discussion, please specifically address the points herein; otherwise, have a nice day.
*Sigh*
Someday, TPM may be *required* to boot mainstream commercial operating systems, like Windows and Mac OS X, and be *required* to use mainstream consumer services, like, say, online video and music stores, and so on.
I'm not making any judgments about whether this is good or bad; just stating something that will likely happen.
So, if you want to go out and build a non-TPM PC and use a TPM-free OS on it, great. More power to you. But the commercial-quality products and the desirable consumer services (Iike movie downloads and mechanisms for mitigating or eliminating threats) will probably start requiring trusted computing. And most ordinary human beings will be using systems so-equipped.
TPM isn't any more or less inherently evil than any other technology. Yes, it is an element of control. And we've always had elements of control in societies based on rule of law and respect for property. There is always an authority in the form of the state that makes decisions about what is right and wrong, appropriate or no. Some may not appreciate or accept the balance, and that is their choice. Fundamentally, you can choose to ignore or circumvent such restrictions, or choose to avail yourself of products and technologies that aren't encumbered in this way.
The fact of the matter is that Apple has no interest in preventing the booting of alternate OSes on Intel-based Macs, and this proves that the current Intel-based Macs have no such restriction. You can argue that this could change in the future, but it could ALWAYS change in the future, with or without "TPM" proper. Some technology or mechanism could ALWAYS prevent or disallow something on some future iteration of machine. (If you think Apple could do that with the current machines, you'd be wrong, and lack a basic understanding of how a TPM implementation works. Read up at https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/)
*Sigh*
They're the first mainstream consumer vendor doing it in the mainstream consumer marketplace.
Just like 802.11, USB, DVD writers, 64-bit processors, an online music store and a whole laundry list of other services and technologies.
You can argue Apple wasn't the "first" in any of these areas and be strictly correct.
But they were the first to do it in a widespread fashion in the consumer marketplace with a broad scope.
Sure, they could change *anything* in a future product.
;-)
But Apple knows it's important for people to be boot and develop with other OSes, such as Linux and BSD variants, Darwin, and so on. This is how it's been on Macs as long as they've existed.
And since Trusted Computing is a direction the entire industry is moving, and since Apple has already made direct, explicit statements that they aren't doing anything to prevent any other OSes from booting, Apple is by no means unique here, with respect to TPM adoption. Just early.
Like Apple is with all new technologies.
...that the TPM is not "preventing" alternate OSes from booting, as some conspiracy theorists have begun to suggest.
Yes, OS X does not support USB booting on all configurations, but USB booting of OS X is actually possible on hardware other than Intel-based Macs. Also, the USB subsystems of all of these machines physically support USB booting, even if OS X does not on some hardware configurations.
In sum, it is correct that the machines support USB booting, period, and that OS X could functionally support USB booting on any machine whose hardware supports it.
Well, they didn't "make it difficult". In fact, they've done nothing to prevent the installation of any alternate OS on the Intel-based Macs.
The problem is that Apple's x86 platform is completely legacy free (BIOS/MBR/VGA) and uses all new platform technologies (EFI/GPT/UGA). Almost all current x86 OSes, and all current 32-bit versions of Windows, don't support these new technologies, effectively making it impossible to (easily) do anything with these OSes directly on the hardware. Now, this is going to change with Windows Vista, but still.
But your point is still well taken, and one that I made in my own response to which you replied.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=584 30
What's New to USB?
Beginning with the Power Mac G4 (AGP Graphics) and the iMac (Slot-Loading), two new features to USB are most apparent: support for USB audio devices and booting from USB drives.
I'd like to see some of these cameras, since DV over USB isn't standardized and would be vendor-specific.
The proper transport for DV has always been FireWire, and the only transport for HDV is FIreWire.
Sure, you can *make* specialty drivers and software, and capabilities in the camera at the other end, that can let you transport data any way you wish...after all, it's just bits.
But DV and FireWire are intertwined, at least for proper, full quality DV transport, and it will be that way for quite some time.
Wow, a "professor" observed these things, Dvorak? Of psychology, no less? He must be right!
Ok, let's see what you've got...
Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched.
Um. Wow, okay.
First of all, the Switch campaign was just an ad campaign. Ad campaigns come and go. Even successful ones. (Think "Be all you can be" or "Dude, yer gettin' a Dell!" And yes, those were both very successful campaigns.)
Also, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever, and growing at a faster rate than, for example, Dell.
So, point 1, wrong.
The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience.
First of all, this is completely irrelevant to any discussion about whether or not Apple might switch operating systems, which is what I thought we were talking about. FireWire, or the lack of it, has zero to do with Windows. Additionally, since all DV and HDV cameras and decks have FireWire and require its use as the primary - and usually only - means of video transport, FireWire isn't going anywhere on Macs in general anytime soon. Further, since all Macs since the Power Mac G4 (AGP Graphics) support USB booting, and since all new Macs and PCs are universally guaranteed to have USB 2.0, going with USB on the iPod and eliminating additional support chipsets for things like FireWire - especially on a peripheral - seems prudent.
But I'm getting sidetracked by Dvorak, here, because the iPod not having FireWire is completely, utterly unrelated to any discussion about whether or not Apple might be switching to Windows.
Point 2, wrong. Actually, not even wrong...just utterly irrelevant.
Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen.
Um, no. The iPod was designed to be a product that, you know, sold well. Which it, you know, did. Wildly so.
This whole "iPod was deisgned to sell Macs" business was a fantasy created by press and analysts who attribute that guess to Apple as if it were their sole intent. So we'll just ignore that the iPod is one of the most successful consumer products ever, and at the same time say it failed at some imaginary goal and purpose that there is no solid proof Apple ever created it for.
And on top of it all, most of the anecdotal evidence suggests that the "halo effect", as it were, actually works in some areas, at least marginally. To say nothing of the fact that, as I said before, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever.
Point 3, wrong in both premise and substance.
And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.
Ahh, Dvorak must be feeling emboldened by his decade-plus of wrong predictions that Apple was on the verge of switching to Intel finally coming true.
There are many, many reasons Apple switched to Intel, all discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. "Switching to Windows" isn't one of them. Has Dvorak missed the amount of time, secrecy, and effort Apple has put into keeping it's options open for Mac OS X to run on alternate hardware platforms? Christ, Dvorak.
To say nothing of the fact that if Apple's secret purpose was to start a switch to Windows, you'd think they'd have at least made it possible to, oh, I don't know, RUN WINDOWS on the Intel-based Macs easily, which isn't possible at this time?
Point 4, wrong again. Well, at least Dvorak's consistent, if anything.
Dvorak is also actually missing the biggest play for Apple here: being able to run Windows and other x86 OSes in virtualization . That would be the holy grail for many academics, researchers, scientists, and other users, most of whom use Macs because they don't want to use Windows. With hardware partitio
Um, no.
There's no desktop eye candy, and this is hardly clever.
That's *social engineering*. Any Mac document or executable has been able to have the outward appearance of having any icon for 22 years. So that's not new.
This won't spread. It will be yet another social engineering/trojan/malware/"virus" novelty with little to no impact beyond the mock panic sure to ensue in the press.
All it's going to take is one major outlet to pick it up, and we'll have another "Mac OS X Just As Insecure As Windows" free-for-all.
Apple today released Mac OS X 10.4.5, which will invariably break the 10.4.4 hacks.
No, this wasn't done "because of" the hack, and doesn't even break the hack intentionally; it's just coincidence, but it illustrates the nature of running an unsupported hacked version of Mac OS X quite well.
I'm surprised at the number of people who couldn't read between the lines here.
I'm well aware that Intel-based Macs are shipping, thank you.
But anyway, yes, you do have to "pirate" it. As far as Apple is concerned, installing it on non-Apple hardware, installing it on more than one machine, or obtaining it without purchasing it are all equally violative of the license. Therefore, if it's "pirating" it to download it from BitTorrent, it's just the same when you decide to install it on your PC, or even another Mac, just as it's "pirating" it when you buy one copy of OS X for PowerPC and install it on 5 Power Macs at home. If you personally think downloading it is "wrong", but taking the copy that came with your Intel-based Mac and also installing it on your PC is "okay", that's only because of your own arbitrary moral sense, not anything based on logic. Because if that's okay, it's just as okay to download it and install it on as many machines as you wish.
And the licence is justified because.....?
Broadly, because we live in a society based on the rule of law and respect for the property and work of others - including intangibles like "intellectual" property and work.
Software doesn't just want to be free, one must go to extraordinary lengths to make it un-free. If Apple want to put some ridiculous EULA in their shrink-wrapped software, fine. Expect me to laugh at it while I do whatever the hell I please with my purchase in the privacy of my own home.
Ok, humor me, here: so, you should be able to install it on as many machines as you wish, too? Say, 10? 100? If not, why not?
You don't "own" Mac OS X. Apple is granting you a license to use it under a legal framework in various jurisdictions, including one that is at least marginally clearly defined in the US. What you "own" is a ~5" circle-shaped piece of plastic and a cardboard box. If you have no respect for the license, fine; but then, why buy it at all? Why not just pirate it in the first place?
I fail to understand why people are using such sophistry to justify this.
Do you really think that people will be doing that? Not to mention that the license also doesn't allow that. I'm only assuming you are giving some credence to the license here since you seem to be subscribing to the one-to-one idea in terms of operating systems on hardware.
But if you own it and think you can do whatever you want with it, why should you even follow the one-to-one principle? You should be able to do whatever you want to do with it, and install it on as many machines as you want, right?
If not, why not? Why buy multiple copies for multiple machines? It's only the "license" that is preventing you from doing otherwise...
Um, yes, I am aware there are shipping machines.
This is what I love about slashdot: you think people will know what you mean - in this case, that there is no way to obtain Mac OS X (Intel) without buying an entire machine that ships with it - but instead, they'll ignore the actual substance of your argument and nitpick on one issue like this.
Let's just say you did buy one of these machines simply to get Mac OS X (Intel): since the license for Mac OS X only allows it to be installed on one machine, you'd have to dispose of or otherwise decommission the machine you just bought to even be halfway "okay" in your argument (and even then, it's still technically in violation of the EULA). In other words, you're still pirating Mac OS X in the same way as downloading it from the internet, even if you own an Intel-based Mac.
I think the problem here is twofold.
1. Apple may never release a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel) that you can actually buy without purchasing a machine. With Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), this may occur, but it is not yet guaranteed. In this scenario, I don't think there is any excusable way in any jurisdiction to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, since you *must* pirate Mac OS X to do so.
1a. To extend on the above, some people might justify their action by buying a copy of Mac OS X (PowerPC), and reasoning that they've "paid" for Mac OS X, and that therefore it's then okay to pirate Mac OS X (Intel) and use it as they wish. However, that's not an acceptable argument since it's not the same product.
2. Even if a standalone version of Mac OS X (Intel) (or a universal release of Mac OS X) is released at some point, I don't think you can get completely in the clear with your argument. Sure, it's just bits on a plastic disc. You should be able to install it on your Mac, run over it with your car, do nothing with it, juggle it, wipe your ass with it, or even hack it and install it on your PC. Right? Sure, I'm with you. I understand the argument you're making. But, like it or not, this hurts Apple. *You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it *does* hurt Apple. Whether it's because of business model or arbitrary decision, that's their decision to make. And if there is law in certain countries/jurisdictions that allows companies to make that kind of determination, I do not see how operating within the bounds of law to protect oneself from injury - whether you are a person or a corporation - is inappropriate.
To ratchet this argument down to being a little more practical, I'd submit that Mac OS X's pricepoint is predicated on the assumption that it's associated with Apple hardware, and that there will be continuing purchases of Apple hardware by satisfied customers running Mac OS X on Apple hardware, ostensibly becausse the quality, attention to detail, and software/hardware integration is so pleasant, and myriad other reasons. Apple loses this control when Mac OS X is not run on Apple hardware. Now, you might say, "tough shit." And in some locales in the world, the government might also agree with you. Great. Congratulations. But that still doesn't change the fundamental truth to what I've just said.
I see it as just a semblance of respect for the work of others.
The patch replaces the following files:
- AppleSMBIOS
- ATSServer
- diskimages-helper
- Dock
- Finder
- loginwindow
- mach_kernel
- mds
- SystemUIServer
- translate
- translated
So, as long as you have no shame and don't mind running Mac OS X in a state that is completely unsupported, with a different kernel (!), modified in unknown ways, and in a state that won't be able to be updated with any OS or security updates from Apple (until they themselves are cracked), perpetually repeating this scenario ad nauseum, and also have no problems either:
- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and
- seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing (e.g., via the EULA, perhaps claiming EULAs aren't enforceable in your jurisdiction)
...then I'm sure you'll be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware indefinitely.
Is this actually surprising?
Someday, Apple - you know, the entity that has invested billions of dollars, all told, and countless thousands upon thousands of manhours in the development of Mac OS X and its associated products - may choose to partner with specific x86 vendors and specific hardware products to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware at some point in the future. But for now, I love the editorial slant of x86project.org:
What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.
This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?
Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.
"When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD"? I'm sorry, but even if you claim they're just "telling it like it is", that attitude has absolutely no respect for the hard work of others. Forget copyright. Forget the DMCA. What about just pure ethics? I suppose if one is a relativist, they might ask, "Ethics? By whose standards?"
And again: if you change enough of Mac OS X, of course you'll be able to get it to work on non-Apple hardware. It will take some reverse engineering and time, but it will always happen. This doesn't mean TPM is any less "secure" for its purposes. Ironically, it actually validates TPM: trusted computing is designed to make a platform just that: trusted, and operating in a predictable state. This hack job on Mac OS X (Intel) is anything but.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product. Even if Mac OS X (Intel) is sold standalone (as it may be in the form of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard).
Deflect the attention from yourselves, and pretend that you're just doing the same thing the West (read: United States) is doing: just trying to protect innocent children on the internet ("Who will think of the children?"), at the same time attempting to change the debate from your own despicable censorship of speech and thought to the alleged transgressions of Western governments.
Except that the reality is easy for anyone to see: you (attempt to) suppress sites dealing with politics, religion, dissent, and anything critical of the Chinese government or that doesn't support positions sanctioned by the Chinese government. The West and US don't do this (no matter how much our friendly, local conspiracy theorists might claim it).
Come on, China. I thought you could lie better than that.
Um, they weren't "prototypes", and never were. Yes, the MacBook Pros shown at Macworld were preproduction models (a far cry from something that could be called a "prototype"), and probably didn't have all their agency approvals, but is it any surprise that they were preproduction models since they weren't shipping yet, and Apple clearly stated that when they were announced?
Everyone who ordered a MacBook Pro simply gets the upgraded models that are actually the ones that will be shipping. Apple obviously knew it was going to be kicking the processor speed up for a while now, and just announced it today. The 1.67 changed to 1.83; the 1.83 changed to a 2.0; and there is a new option for a 2.16.
The Mac 128K was the first Macintosh ever released, and it was indeed released and available for purchase on January 24, 1984. There was no Macintosh computer with 64K of RAM.
/ stats/mac_128k.html
See:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_classic
Hmm, after re-thinking this, perhaps the bigger news here is that I found a wife.
Purchased on January 24, 1984, from, of all places, a Dillard's department store in Dallas, TX.
. jpg
;-)
There it is, next to a NeXT Cube and a CHRP box, on the top shelf in my office:
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/nostalgia/CHRP_128K_Cube
Also present are a 20th Anniversary Mac and a PowerBook Duo, with dock:
http://das.doit.wisc.edu/nostalgia/20th_Duo.jpg
And over 22 years later, I'm still using Macs. Even found a wife who loves Macs too.
200TB of Xserve RAID storage (link includes pictures)
Text of the article:
The University of Wisconsin - Madison has deployed 35 5.6TB Xserve RAID storage arrays in a single research installation as part of an ongoing scientific computing initiative.
The Grid Laboratory of Wisconsin (GLOW), a partnership between several research departments at the University of Wisconsin, have installed almost 200TB, or 200,000GB, of Xserve RAID arrays.
As a comparison, 200TB of storage is enough to hold 2.75 years of high definition video, 25,000 full length DVD movies, 323,000 CDs, 20 printed collections of the Library of Congress, or over 1000 Wikipedias.
The GLOW storage installation is physically split between the departments of Computer Sciences and High Energy Physics. Each Xserve RAID is attached to a dedicated Linux node running Fedora Core via an Apple Fibre Channel PCI-X Card and is either directly accessed via various mechanisms, such as over the network via gigabit ethernet, or aggregated using tools such as dCache.
The storage is primarily used to act as a holding area for large amounts of data from experiments such as the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) and ATLAS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
...the Infinium Phantom will be released next month!
(Seriously...this "Apple to buy Palm" rumor has been going on forever...)