PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X x86 on any PC


Pages : [1] 2

MacBytes
Aug 10, 2005, 09:09 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Tips and How To's
Link: Mac OS X x86 on any PC (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050810090936)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Mudbug
Aug 10, 2005, 09:10 AM
I'm curious to see how long this page stays up.

outerspaceapple
Aug 10, 2005, 09:23 AM
well its in french, so he's probably under different laws. Anyways, he doesn't host anything illegal there, and last time i checked we still have the freedom of speech, so he should be alright.

wowoah
Aug 10, 2005, 09:28 AM
This was bound to happen eventually. I'm curious to see how Apple will prevent it in the final incarnation of the Mactels.

Gizmotoy
Aug 10, 2005, 09:55 AM
Really, I'm surprised it took as long as it did... though I've heard rumblings around that people have had semi-functional versions running on Intel hardware for some time now. It looks like they've had enough time to figure out what works and why (hence the patches).

Like the previous poster, I'm curious how Apple plans on preventing this for the final release. I'd guess their short-term survival could hinge on if they can keep people from using it on budget PCs. I hope they've got some tricks, these guys are pretty crafty.

suntzu
Aug 10, 2005, 10:12 AM
Like the previous poster, I'm curious how Apple plans on preventing this for the final release.

Edit: Reread it. TPM is enabled but cracked.

Still, they could simply revision the TPM again. After all, from what I understand, it's programable.

jkhanson
Aug 10, 2005, 10:21 AM
if it can't be stopped. Probably even be a good thing. People with enough tech savvy to make this work are a very small part of the marketplace. I doubt that it will cost Apple many sales, if any at all. Anyone who wants to be sure they get a stable system with support from Apple will need to buy an Apple system.

Some people will enjoy the challenge of installing the Mac OS on a non-Apple system. They will expect some problems. Moreover, they are probably the type who serve as the "computer guy" for their family and friends. The more of them that grow to use and love the Mac, the more the Mac will be recommended to typical users.

dloomer
Aug 10, 2005, 10:22 AM
One would think this would have been Apple's first and foremost concern in going through with the Intel switch, and they wouldn't have even considered it without Steve being 100% convinced this couldn't happen once the Intel Macs are released to the public. As long as Steve is convinced, I'll humbly withhold judgment. There must be something up his sleeve...

eric67
Aug 10, 2005, 10:25 AM
well its in french, so he's probably under different laws. Anyways, he doesn't host anything illegal there, and last time i checked we still have the freedom of speech, so he should be alright.
well it is in english, macbytes was linking to the english version of macbidouille, known as hardmac.com ;)

for the rest you are right, there is no illegal piece of information, and the screenshot is quite nice, especially the explanation of the blue colored application name corresponding to non-fat binary coded applciation

One would think this would have been Apple's first and foremost concern in going through with the Intel switch, and they wouldn't have even considered it without Steve being 100% convinced this couldn't happen once the Intel Macs are released to the public. As long as Steve is convinced, I'll humbly withhold judgment. There must be something up his sleeve...

you are absolutely right, those so called "protection" are probably not really the definitive one that we will find in our MacIntel in 2006. I will even go further, I speculate that Apple/Intel have released a semi-protected hardware system to evaluate/study the way hackers will crack software/hardware DRM.

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 10:33 AM
Even if Apple can't TOTALLY stop it, one of the main blocks to putting OS X on a non-Apple box will be that it wasn't designed for that--as this article shows--and so it will need some--probably LOTS--of hacking and tinkering. Some people will get it to work--on a limited set of hardware--and instructions for that will probably continue to be available, with a small but active community of pirates wasting their time keeping it going.

But OS X on generic PCs won't be simple, it won't be universal, it won't be supported, it won't meet the stated reqs for most Mac SOFTWARE (so that too will be unsupported), it won't be advertised or sold, it won't be a reviewed product, it won't be possible on every machine, and it won't be legal... and therefore it WILL NOT be for the average computer shopper, that's for sure. It will be for pirates, few of whom were ever going to be valued Apple customers anyway.

So even if OS X continues to be pirated into the future, it's not a killer for Apple.

DeathChill
Aug 10, 2005, 11:06 AM
Even if Apple can't TOTALLY stop it, one of the main blocks to putting OS X on a non-Apple box will be that it wasn't designed for that--as this article shows--and so it will need some--probably LOTS--of hacking and tinkering. Some people will get it to work--on a limited set of hardware--and instructions for that will probably continue to be available, with a small but active community of pirates wasting their time keeping it going.

But OS X on generic PCs won't be simple, it won't be universal, it won't be supported, it won't meet the stated reqs for most Mac SOFTWARE (so that too will be unsupported), it won't be advertised or sold, it won't be a reviewed product, it won't be possible on every machine, and it won't be legal... and therefore it WILL NOT be for the average computer shopper, that's for sure. It will be for pirates, few of whom were ever going to be valued Apple customers anyway.

So even if OS X continues to be pirated into the future, it's not a killer for Apple.

It is definitely not a killer for Apple, HOWEVER it is not as hard as you make it sound. To get it to install on a machine with SSE3 and SATA drives all you do is replace one of the files and it boots as if it were on a development machine. EVERYTHING works perfectly (or so I hear ;)) once you have it installed (on an SSE3 machine, SSE2 support is being worked on) so it's not as if it's unstable or anything.

plinden
Aug 10, 2005, 11:24 AM
Like the previous poster, I'm curious how Apple plans on preventing this for the final release. I'd guess their short-term survival could hinge on if they can keep people from using it on budget PCs. I hope they've got some tricks, these guys are pretty crafty.

Meh ... I don't think Apple need to be concerned at all. I'm fairly computer literate and I'm certainly not going to try to hack my PC to do this. There will be a small number of enthusiasts who'll do this. Apple will go after any small computer makers who'll try to sell Intel Mac clones.

greatdevourer
Aug 10, 2005, 11:42 AM
I am soooo gonna try that

Lacero
Aug 10, 2005, 11:43 AM
I'm curious to see how long this page stays up.
Which page, this page or Hardmac's page? BTW, I love their french to english translations.

Yvan256
Aug 10, 2005, 12:27 PM
Well, it'll boost Intel's motherboards and processors sales, that's for sure. ;-)

As far as running OS X on other platforms, here's my GameBoy and GameBoy Advance screenshots. Enjoy. :D

csubear
Aug 10, 2005, 01:33 PM
There is no way that Apple can stop OS x86 from running a generic hardware, but they can make is hard.

It boils down to the simple fact that the only way to tie OS X to Apple hardware is by implmenting some sort of check in the kernel level, but since the kernel is open source, people will always be able to re-compile the kernel and kernel extensions to support. What they can do to make it harder is implement some custom southbridge,and create some custom non-open source kext to support it. Then you would have to reverse enginner the new southbridge ASIC and the non-open source kext to get OS X running on now Apple hardware.

eric67
Aug 10, 2005, 02:05 PM
everything is in the title:
http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2005-08-10#4354
quite fast for booting.

cgratti
Aug 10, 2005, 02:13 PM
Anyone who thinks that OS X wont be cracked to run on an average PC is nieve.

OS X (for Intel) will be cracked within days of it's release to run on any PC.

There is ALWAYS someone smarter than you. Bill Gates even knows that. Look at XP, everyone is laughing at the activation, it's useless. I can find 10 copies of XP PRO cracked to work around the activation. And they work flawlessly and can be fully updated.

It's just going to be a matter of time...

Yvan256
Aug 10, 2005, 02:26 PM
Anyone who thinks that OS X wont be cracked to run on an average PC is nieve.

OS X (for Intel) will be cracked within days of it's release to run on any PC.

There is ALWAYS someone smarter than you. Bill Gates even knows that. Look at XP, everyone is laughing at the activation, it's useless. I can find 10 copies of XP PRO cracked to work around the activation. And they work flawlessly and can be fully updated.

It's just going to be a matter of time...

Steve Jobs knows that too. Maybe he's planning for a "Apple Certified Hardware" licensing way of doing things in the future (kind of like there's "Nintendo Approved" stuff, and generic "GC stuff" (they won't even say "Nintendo" or "Gamecube" on their packages).

The first partner being, of course, Intel. They make processors and motherboards, after all. I'll assume Asus and Abit are the two others (they're the ones making the current Macs, aren't they?)

adam1185
Aug 10, 2005, 04:31 PM
Check out some of the posts on this forum http://www.concretesurf.co.nz/osx86/viewforum.php?f=1

People with Athlon processors are even getting it working

Fabio_gsilva
Aug 10, 2005, 04:33 PM
Well, everybody knew that it was just a matter fo time... Maybe it'll have a positive side efect for Apple Macs. Maybe people start using OSX in their grey PC and them, amazed by the power of the tiger, they start wondering how it would be great using a Mac...

Could be a very powerfull way to convert people, making them switch.

Or not...

iMacSE500
Aug 10, 2005, 04:34 PM
Why does it matter if someone can put OS X on a PC?

number61
Aug 10, 2005, 04:40 PM
Why does it matter if someone can put OS X on a PC?

It matters because Apple doesn't want their OS to run on non-Apple packaged machines.

That's telling the world, "just try and do it."

Sadly, the world answered their call. I wasn't suprised. When Apple made the annoucement official, my first comment was:
"Now that they moved to Intel, Apple will spend more time patching OS cracks to make their OS run on non-Apple hardware then actual OS advancements."

Maybe if they went with AMD for their x86 switch over Intel I wouldn't be as pissed.

rendezvouscp
Aug 10, 2005, 04:41 PM
Well, everybody knew that it was just a matter fo time... Maybe it'll have a positive side efect for Apple Macs. Maybe people start using OSX in their grey PC and them, amazed by the power of the tiger, they start wondering how it would be great using a Mac...

Could be a very powerfull way to convert people, making them switch.

Or not...

That's the thing: if it works, then why switch to an actual Mac? This is not good, and I'm sure that Apple will do something about an actual released version of Mac OS X, but it's not good that they already have Mac OS X running on generic PC's. An update could disable it, but even then, there will be PC's out there running Mac OS X.

Why is it bad? Because Apple needs to be able to make money off of their computers. Without the computer, Apple won't make much, and that'll hurt Apple, perhaps even hurting us as the real Mac users. This is not a good development, but it was bound to happen.
-Chase

Erendiox
Aug 10, 2005, 04:42 PM
Why does it matter if someone can put OS X on a PC?

If OSX could run on any budget PC, then apple computers would lose their edge of being the only computers that run OSX. Amazing software is one of the only things keeping apple in the buisiness, and if OSX were to become compatable with every computer, Apple computers, apart from excellent form factor, wouldn't be so special anymore.

rendezvouscp
Aug 10, 2005, 04:42 PM
It matters because Apple doesn't want their OS to run on non-Apple packaged machines.

That's telling the world, "just try and do it."

Sadly, the world answered their call. I wasn't suprised. When Apple made the annoucement official, my first comment was:
"Now that they moved to Intel, Apple will spend more time patching OS cracks to make their OS run on non-Apple hardware then actual OS advancements."

Maybe if they went with AMD for their x86 switch over Intel I wouldn't be as pissed.

Well, now we know that AMD chips can run Mac OS X too, so that fact isn't too bad. At least we have more options than just Intel; well, Apple has more options.
-Chase

digitalbiker
Aug 10, 2005, 04:43 PM
Come on! So someone cracked a developer machine, big deal. I'll bet when the final intel versions of the Mac are released they will contain proprietary boot roms on the motherboard. If the boot roms don't exist then the OS shuts down. Just like the old 68K machines.

There will also probably be language in the license agreement that prohibits the OS from being installed on non-authorized equipment. This will also allow the long arm of the Apple legal team to go after people who do manage to cheat the system.

Either way this will be a small problem for Apple and 99.9999% of the users of OSX will use Apple hardware. :D

adam1185
Aug 10, 2005, 04:47 PM
Why is it bad? Because Apple needs to be able to make money off of their computers. Without the computer, Apple won't make much, and that'll hurt Apple, perhaps even hurting us as the real Mac users. This is not a good development, but it was bound to happen.
-Chase

Because Microsoft makes mere pennies by only selling software...

rendezvouscp
Aug 10, 2005, 04:50 PM
Come on! So someone cracked a developer machine, big deal. I'll bet when the final intel versions of the Mac are released they will contain proprietary boot roms on the motherboard. If the boot roms don't exist then the OS shuts down. Just like the old 68K machines.

There will also probably be language in the license agreement that prohibits the OS from being installed on non-authorized equipment. This will also allow the long arm of the Apple legal team to go after people who do manage to cheat the system.

Either way this will be a small problem for Apple and 99.9999% of the users of OSX will use Apple hardware. :D

They've already got the language, if you had read the license agreement you would've know. ;)

As for the post above: huh?
-Chase

adam1185
Aug 10, 2005, 04:54 PM
As for the post above: huh?
-Chase

Well if Apple started selling millions of copies of OS X they'd make a ton of money. Look at Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in the world. They only sell software and made 3 billion dollars last quarter. It's not like Apple will go bankrupt if they sell a version of OS X for PC's.

tristan
Aug 10, 2005, 04:55 PM
Apple Software Update will probably bitch about any hacked systems. And by "bitch about" I mean "beep... beep... beep... beep... Predator-style nuclear explosion that takes out half the jungle."

DTphonehome
Aug 10, 2005, 04:59 PM
Well if Apple started selling millions of copies of OS X they'd make a ton of money. Look at Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in the world. They only sell software and made 3 billion dollars last quarter. It's not like Apple will go bankrupt if they sell a version of OS X for PC's.

MS has spent 20 years building up market share so that they can make $3 billion a year from software alone. Apple can't touch the penetration rates of MS for the foreseeable future. For them to make money off of software sales, OS X adoption would have to take off like wildfire.

I think that Apple will always be swatting away the pirates and hackers, but that's really a minor issue. You won't have hordes of people installing OS X on every PC they get their hands on, so it's no biggie. If someone wants to run OS X for their living room/family room/office, I don't think they will resort to hackery. Pay a little more, get all the benefits of having a tried-and-true, supported system.

Frisco
Aug 10, 2005, 04:59 PM
Well if Apple started selling millions of copies of OS X they'd make a ton of money. Look at Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in the world. They only sell software and made 3 billion dollars last quarter. It's not like Apple will go bankrupt if they sell a version of OS X for PC's.

I agree. Apple can either license their OS to other PC vendors if they want the slightest chance of gaining any market-share.

Steve: License, license! Or else say goodbye the Mac platform. I think Steve is too stubborn to do this. I know, I know, licensing failed in the past, but that was with OS Classic, which sucked big-time.

Once Windows Vista is out there isn't going to be many switchers around.

ReanimationLP
Aug 10, 2005, 05:00 PM
Mac OS X for Intel features built-in support for 2 Intel Chipsets -

The Intel 830 chipset, which is designed to work with the Mobile Intel Pentium III, which I have, and the Intel 915 chipset, which is at the heart of the Dev machines.

I wonder if theres a way to get past SSE2 >_> Or a way to drop in a P4 or PM onto it. (they use the same exact socket 478)

ProfSBrown
Aug 10, 2005, 05:01 PM
Why do people keep going on about Apple desperately preventing OSX from running on generic PC's? Listen: Apple do not care

As long as it isn't possible for Dell and co to make an OSX-compatible PC, and it isn't possible to legally sell software/hardware to make a generic PC OSX-compatible, Apple don't care. In the same way your average shop operates in spite of shoplifters, Apple aren't bothered if a few geeks can hack their OSX onto their beige boxes.

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 05:02 PM
That's the thing: if it works, then why switch to an actual Mac?

Because downloading a pirated OS prepared by crackers is NOT an option under consideration by most computer shoppers. We're talking a real subsegment that would ever do that.

A subsegment that will be even smaller when one of those cracks turns out to be a Trojan horse.

Apple may not want to lose those few sales (are pirates good customers to seek?) but it's inconceivable to me that we'd ever see pirated OS X gain any real mainstream marketshare. Easy or not, it's unsupported and illegal.

shawnce
Aug 10, 2005, 05:02 PM
Well if Apple started selling millions of copies of OS X they'd make a ton of money. Look at Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in the world. They only sell software and made 3 billion dollars last quarter. It's not like Apple will go bankrupt if they sell a version of OS X for PC's.
Apple is currently primarily a hardware company. They make most of their revenue off of hardware sales not software sales. It is not a trivial thing to change your revenue stream from hardware to software. For example starting to sell Mac OS X for generic PC would likely hurt Mac hardware sales. That would have to be offset by selling enough Mac OS X for generic PC. So it isn't a simple lets give a try, it has a lot of risk with it that isn't easy to manage.

jrhone
Aug 10, 2005, 05:08 PM
The version that was hacked is a disabled version...bare bones. The final version will have TONS of protection. And I bet that it will require ROMS or something hardware wise to operate. And IF you can emulate those things, I am sure the drivers for every supported device will also have to check hardware...They can make it so unless you have the EXACT same components and have ROM emulation then you will fail....Once you get OSX running, then try and get the software to run without crashing.....

potofgold
Aug 10, 2005, 05:11 PM
This should be interesting....OS X on a Compaq :cool: :p 7 hours to go...

manu chao
Aug 10, 2005, 05:12 PM
Well if Apple started selling millions of copies of OS X they'd make a ton of money. Look at Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in the world. They only sell software and made 3 billion dollars last quarter. It's not like Apple will go bankrupt if they sell a version of OS X for PC's.

Well, if.
I would guess that Apple's software development costs divided by the number of copies of OS X it sells (incl. the ones that come with new Macs) are far higher than the one Microsoft ones.

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 05:13 PM
Well if Apple started selling millions of copies of OS X they'd make a ton of money. Look at Microsoft, one of the biggest companies in the world. They only sell software and made 3 billion dollars last quarter. It's not like Apple will go bankrupt if they sell a version of OS X for PC's.

It COULD become profitable for Apple to sell OS X standalone someday (which is not what this article is about--it's about pirated OS X). When the time is right, Apple has that option, AND they could keep selling hardware too. MAYBE that will make sense one day. But I don't expect it any time soon.

Designing, maintaining, growing, and supporting OS X would become harder the more different hardware is involved. If there were twice as many Mac models it would be a little more work. If there were infinite different machines, not designed by Apple, with random components by dozens of suppliers, it would be a nightmare--one that Microsoft knows a bit about! In between those extremes would be Apple allowing other companies to design their own Macs (cloning returns!) but not allowing the full chaos of supporting "any" PC. (It would be simpler, though, just to let them re-brand an Apple-made Mac--just like HP iPods--which might well have no downside, as long as both companies found the arrangement useful.)

Some Mac software developers would face similar problems. MANY of them would face the same support nightmare. People with random configs calling and seeking help. Sales would increase, but there's no free lunch. It would be quite a burden Apple was dumping on their developers--which Apple would do, but not lightly.

Having a choice of hardware sounds good--competition!--but if OS quality, reliability, integrated hardware/OS design, support, and ultimate experience suffer, then no thanks. Macs are an integration of OS X and hardware designed TOGETHER--and while OS X is the piece I care most about, the integration is important too. I think that kind of integration SHOULD be an option in the computing world. So I say, let Apple and Macs compete against other platforms--that's plenty of reason to innovate, as Apple has shown--and not against each other.

But what about it being a second "just in case" scenario the way Intel was? Yes! I have no doubt that Apple is discussing the future possibility, and keeping options open for "some day."

All of the above could be different some day. Wintel hardware could be rigidly standardized by some future effort that makes each component easy to support (sounds far-fetched). Or even if supporting all that hardware WOULD have all those drawbacks, the day may come when it's worth that nightmare. I'm not saying Apple should sacrifice quality for profits (don't ask the shareholders that ;) ), but a sudden increase in user base would have its own benefits to the platform.

So it COULD happen someday. And I'm sure Microsoft is worried! You can say that Microsoft never has to care about anything, they already have enough sales to go on forever... but I think some things DO worry them LONG-term, and that this is one of them.

That POTENTIAL gives Apple some new power in the industry. For instance, I suspect Office on Mac is safe for a long, long time!

But I really don't think Apple will execute that option, at least not for a long time.

Now back to the pirated/cracked discussion :)

shawnce
Aug 10, 2005, 05:14 PM
I agree. Apple can either license their OS to other PC vendors if they want the slightest chance of gaining any market-share.
Yet Apple is gaining market share (slowly) even with existing hardware...

Anyway I doubt Apple would do any licensing of Mac OS X soon, not until they see how uptake of Macintels goes.

Think about it for one second... Apple has said Mac OS X for Macintels (not generic PC) and Apple will not block (nor support) folks using Windows/Linux on Macintels. So you buy a Macintel and you get the ability to run Mac OS X and the ability to run Window or Linux (even more likely you can do that via something like WINE from inside of Mac OS X in short order).

What a great deal! You by a Macintel and you get good Apple hardware, a great Apple operating system (on a supported system), and the ability to run the legacy stuff natively. That is a good, if not great, value proposition. Apple sales could benefit enough from that alone.

rendezvouscp
Aug 10, 2005, 05:16 PM
Because downloading a pirated OS prepared by crackers is NOT an option under consideration by most computer shoppers. We're talking a real subsegment that would ever do that.

A subsegment that will be even smaller when one of those cracks turns out to be a Trojan horse.

Apple may not want to lose those few sales (are pirates good customers to seek?) but it's inconceivable to me that we'd ever see pirated OS X gain any real mainstream marketshare. Easy or not, it's unsupported and illegal.

I said that with a specific context, that someone already has a PC running Mac OS X on it. If they've already gotten it to work, there might not be a point in someone deciding to get an actual make except for the support. Then again, if someone's got it working, I doubt that they'll want actual support since they'll know it's not a kosher way to go about running Mac OS X.

Otherwise, I agree. It's not an option for most computer users, specifically PC users.
-Chase

cr2sh
Aug 10, 2005, 05:21 PM
I can't believe this thread is getting a negative rating. What's wrong with a bunch of techs finding a loophole and using it?

I think its ****ing awesome and I'll prolly be trying it soon myself.

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 05:24 PM
Understood.

Also--pirated OS X could be good for mindshare in one twisted way--just like rumors of Apple someday SELLING it would be good: it dangles a carrot. It says "people WANT OS X, and they're going to unusual lengths to get it." That tends to go against the perception of Macs being useless and not options to consider.

nsjoker
Aug 10, 2005, 05:24 PM
man.. steve jobs must be pissed off right now.

atari
Aug 10, 2005, 05:27 PM
Even if Apple can't TOTALLY stop it, one of the main blocks to putting OS X on a non-Apple box will be that it wasn't designed for that--as this article shows--and so it will need some--probably LOTS--of hacking and tinkering. Some people will get it to work--on a limited set of hardware--and instructions for that will probably continue to be available, with a small but active community of pirates wasting their time keeping it going.

But OS X on generic PCs won't be simple, it won't be universal, it won't be supported, it won't meet the stated reqs for most Mac SOFTWARE (so that too will be unsupported), it won't be advertised or sold, it won't be a reviewed product, it won't be possible on every machine, and it won't be legal... and therefore it WILL NOT be for the average computer shopper, that's for sure. It will be for pirates, few of whom were ever going to be valued Apple customers anyway.

So even if OS X continues to be pirated into the future, it's not a killer for Apple.

Very nice summary mate,my thoughts exactly.

csubear
Aug 10, 2005, 05:29 PM
The version that was hacked is a disabled version...bare bones. The final version will have TONS of protection. And I bet that it will require ROMS or something hardware wise to operate. And IF you can emulate those things, I am sure the drivers for every supported device will also have to check hardware...They can make it so unless you have the EXACT same components and have ROM emulation then you will fail....Once you get OSX running, then try and get the software to run without crashing.....


Did you see my post?


There is no way that Apple can stop OS x86 from running a generic hardware, but they can make is hard.

It boils down to the simple fact that the only way to tie OS X to Apple hardware is by implmenting some sort of check in the kernel level, but since the kernel is open source, people will always be able to re-compile the kernel and kernel extensions to support. What they can do to make it harder is implement some custom southbridge,and create some custom non-open source kext to support it. Then you would have to reverse enginner the new southbridge ASIC and the non-open source kext to get OS X running on now Apple hardware.


Apple will never be able to stop this from happening.

Lacero
Aug 10, 2005, 05:30 PM
This is ingenious. Allow bootlegged copies to circulate among PC geeks and die-hards. Allow them to see how much better OSX is, and then when Apple upgrades to Leopard, the PC horde will either buy it or pirate it until OSX becomes so ingrained, it becomes market leader.

shawnce
Aug 10, 2005, 05:31 PM
man.. steve jobs must be pissed off right now.

No not likely... the developer version of Mac OS X for x86 is NOT the final form of Mac OS X for x86. The developer version supports a generic mother board (all that is in the developer system) not an Apple designed mother board which is likely what we will get in the real Macintels.

In other words he could careless at this point... he is more likely pissed about NDAs being broken then Mac OS X being "cracked"... since they really didn't do much to lock it down (as I said before it in the trusted computer thread, the use of TPM in developer system appears to be limited, mostly exposing hardware algorithms and so much for locking things down... that may always all it is for all we know at this point in time).

aussie_geek
Aug 10, 2005, 05:33 PM
Funny no-one has mentioned this yet.. We can see that the Laptop can boot into OSX and then open the System preferences etc. These apps are Apple software programs. Where's MS office? etc

What about other apps??

Seems like these hackers can just boot into OSX... What use will that be if they can't do anything with it. I can just imagine the moron who cracked it.. What's a bet they go over to their friends house and boot into Mac Os.. So cool man... and we thought you were a noob ..

C'mon gimme a break :rolleyes:

aussie_geek

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 05:42 PM
What about other apps??

PPC apps will run in Rosetta--as proven by PPC iTunes running on these pirate installations. Not all PPC apps, but very many--anything compatible with G3 Macs: Office and Photoshop were demo'd by Steve if I recall correctly.

And lots of x86-native Universal Binaries will be coming in a few months.

Meanwhile, I believe the rest of iLife, plus OS X's many included apps, are already ported, and that's a very productive suite of tools.

jhu
Aug 10, 2005, 05:47 PM
I agree. Apple can either license their OS to other PC vendors if they want the slightest chance of gaining any market-share.

Steve: License, license! Or else say goodbye the Mac platform. I think Steve is too stubborn to do this. I know, I know, licensing failed in the past, but that was with OS Classic, which sucked big-time.

Once Windows Vista is out there isn't going to be many switchers around.

microsoft makes most of their money from support, office, and oem licenses of windows. currently, i don't think most of the larger oems will be licensing osx, even if they could, because that would mean increased prices for oem version of windows. instead, apple could license do oem licensing to smaller computer manufacturers instead. of course, then we may get a rehash of 1995-1997

treblah
Aug 10, 2005, 05:49 PM
And lots of x86-native Universal Binaries will be coming in a few months.

Meanwhile, I believe the rest of iLife, plus OS X's many included apps, are already ported, and that's a very productive suite of tools.

Very true. Firefox and BBEdit have Universal binaries available. The rest will soon follow. :)

jhu
Aug 10, 2005, 05:51 PM
Because downloading a pirated OS prepared by crackers is NOT an option under consideration by most computer shoppers. We're talking a real subsegment that would ever do that.

A subsegment that will be even smaller when one of those cracks turns out to be a Trojan horse.

Apple may not want to lose those few sales (are pirates good customers to seek?) but it's inconceivable to me that we'd ever see pirated OS X gain any real mainstream marketshare. Easy or not, it's unsupported and illegal.

pirated versions of osx may not gain marketshare in the usa, but they sure could in asia, india, or africa. on the other hand, pirated versions of windows are so entrenched in those areas that osx probably won't take off over there either

jhu
Aug 10, 2005, 05:57 PM
Yet Apple is gaining market share (slowly) even with existing hardware...

Anyway I doubt Apple would do any licensing of Mac OS X soon, not until they see how uptake of Macintels goes.

Think about it for one second... Apple has said Mac OS X for Macintels (not generic PC) and Apple will not block (nor support) folks using Windows/Linux on Macintels. So you buy a Macintel and you get the ability to run Mac OS X and the ability to run Window or Linux (even more likely you can do that via something like WINE from inside of Mac OS X in short order).

What a great deal! You by a Macintel and you get good Apple hardware, a great Apple operating system (on a supported system), and the ability to run the legacy stuff natively. That is a good, if not great, value proposition. Apple sales could benefit enough from that alone.

if apple prices them too high (ie price > (generic x86 computer - price of windows + price of osx), then it won't be such a great deal.

~Shard~
Aug 10, 2005, 06:01 PM
Not surprising at all. It will be fun to follow the developments as more and mroe instances of this pop up, and see how Aplpe combats them. Personally I'm quite partial to running OS X on my Mac, but if I was ever in the position where I needed a new system and the PC world had some components (fatser/better memory, video cards, HDs, etc.) which I really wanted and that no Apple machine had, I might be tempted. OS X is sweet, so if it could run on a PC just as well as it can on a Mac, I might entertain the idea. The of course, the purist in me says that's just not right... ;) :cool:

Azurael
Aug 10, 2005, 06:04 PM
Funny no-one has mentioned this yet.. We can see that the Laptop can boot into OSX and then open the System preferences etc. These apps are Apple software programs. Where's MS office? etc

What about other apps??

Seems like these hackers can just boot into OSX... What use will that be if they can't do anything with it. I can just imagine the moron who cracked it.. What's a bet they go over to their friends house and boot into Mac Os.. So cool man... and we thought you were a noob ..

C'mon gimme a break :rolleyes:

aussie_geek

PPC apps run just fine... It's pretty useable beside the lack of display drivers (notice 1024x768 on a 1280x800 display = ugly), or so I've been told ;) Please act more maturely, these kind of flames just aren't necesary.

Edit: I'd like to establish that (in theory, of course) as long as the CoreGraphics binaries are turned back into a universal binary (i.e. the PPC part is put back with lipo) and the appropriate patch is applied to the rosetta executable, PPC applications still work even on SSE2 machines.

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 06:09 PM
Legal or not*, when people are running PowerPC Mac apps on Wintel boxes--at decent speed no less--we live in strange times.

* Not.

iMeowbot
Aug 10, 2005, 06:11 PM
Funny no-one has mentioned this yet.. We can see that the Laptop can boot into OSX and then open the System preferences etc. These apps are Apple software programs. Where's MS office? etc
Not all machines are fully compatible at the moment, and early workarounds to get the system booted did kill Rosetta. People with recent CPUs, not using the SSE butchery, are reporting success with PowerPC code.

oskar
Aug 10, 2005, 06:59 PM
I think that Apple will most likely NOT sale OS X for PC in the foreseeable future. OS X is created for Macs. For specific hardware. When new computers are released during the life of an OS version, it usually (I'm not sure its always) means a x.x.1 update (10.3.8 to 10.3.9 for example). OS X can't fully support all the different configurations of PC's out there. OS X's biggest feature (reliability) would dissapear if they tried to sell a PC version. It probably can be made more reliable, but I'm thinking that would mean thousands and thousands of developers would have to work with Apple directly to make tons of drivers for a lot of the hardware which Apple has no control over which is already out there.
On the other hand, I seem to recall how Jobs's been saying how good Jaguar did on it's release, then Panther, and now Tiger. He has given that quite some emphasis. So, who knows? Right?

As for pirated OS X? That's been around since OS X was released. I don't think every Mac owner has legally upgraded to Cougar, Jaguar, Panther, or Tiger legally. That's piracy too, you know.

Tastannin
Aug 10, 2005, 07:07 PM
From looking at the various sources, it appears that one can build a Mac OS X86 compatible system from scratch for about $500. At that price point, I'd just be happy with a Mac Mini. If it was more like $200-$250, it might be worth building a PC to run OS X86 - tho it'd be not very legal. Not to mention that the Mini is completely legal, and the OS can be upgraded, will be able to work with all existing software, hardware, etc. You don't have those guarantees with a X86 Mac at this point.

I predict that someone will start offering pre-built white-box PC's that will work with OS X86 and turn a fast buck. Of course nothing pre-loaded other than Darwin. ;) Hehehehehe.

rickvanr
Aug 10, 2005, 07:10 PM
I agree. Apple can either license their OS to other PC vendors if they want the slightest chance of gaining any market-share.

Apple makes money selling hardware, not software. If they stopped selling hardware, they could increase their market share, but profits would still decrease.

Steve: License, license! Or else say goodbye the Mac platform. I think Steve is too stubborn to do this. I know, I know, licensing failed in the past, but that was with OS Classic, which sucked big-time.

When Apple licensed it's OS, Steve wasn't with Apple and the OS that was available at the time of the clones was still better then the Windows version available at the time.

Once Windows Vista is out there isn't going to be many switchers around.

Windows Vista is still going to have viruses, spyware, malware, and IE. There will still be switchers, just as there was when MS released Windows XP.

JonMaker
Aug 10, 2005, 07:13 PM
Is nothing sacred? :eek:

Wonder Boy
Aug 10, 2005, 07:17 PM
if this happend in august 10, 2006 then id be worried/disapointed/concerned. but because its only 2005 and these are not the final versions of the hardware, i'm not. let the techies have their fun. let them figure out more ways to crack the system. it only provides apple with more info on how to prevent these things by the time the real versions ship.

Lucky736
Aug 10, 2005, 07:27 PM
To the person who had said for 500 I'd rather have a Mini.... ummmm no. I'd rather have a system I could dual boot so that things that I do need windows for I could run windows, and the rest of the time run a Mac. Before you say Virtual PC, let me tell you. Virtual PC sucks. From a Dual 2.7G5 to a Beige G3 Virtual PC sucks. Also, the Mini doesn't even support core image. I bet that PC would. I know we all love Apple, and it's software and hardware, but times change guys. I will buy an Intel/Apple Box for around a grand or whatever it is when it comes out, and be happy that I can dual boot and have everything I need finally, instead of having to switch from one machine to another.

Eric5h5
Aug 10, 2005, 07:29 PM
Legal or not*, when people are running PowerPC Mac apps on Wintel boxes--at decent speed no less--we live in strange times.

* Not.

Legal. In most of the U.S. anyway...license agreements aren't legally binding. As long as you don't pirate OS X, you can run it on anything you want.

Anyway, OS X already runs on generic PCs and has for quite some time, provided you want to mess about with PearPC and put up with slow-ish speeds.

--Eric

Stella
Aug 10, 2005, 07:33 PM
Well, now we know that AMD chips can run Mac OS X too, so that fact isn't too bad. At least we have more options than just Intel; well, Apple has more options.
-Chase

Its no real surprise that Intel OSX will run on AMD chips.

I wonder how fast OSX performs on a AMD 2.6 Althon? Hmmm...

jakemikey
Aug 10, 2005, 07:37 PM
I'm surprised that no one has commented on the performance of this baby (from the videos). I mean, this is a hacked version and the interface sure seems snappier than the 1.5 GHz PowerBook I use 8 hours a day at work. If a hacked version is this snappy on a laptop, I'd be interested to see how it would perform on my Pentium D desktop I just built.

Personally , I'm not sure why everyone has their panties in a bunch over this, I think it's fantastic! Go hackers! Why do people climb mountains? ...because they're there!

This will obviously never be mainstream enough to make a dent in Apple's sales, so why should Mac users cry over OS X being run on a PC? Does it make you feel "less special" now? That's the vibe I get from a lot of the messages posted here, and I'm a Machead!

Floop
Aug 10, 2005, 07:38 PM
Would anyone seriously buy songs from Real's Music Store and then expect them to work via Harmony on an iPod.

No. Apple deliberately keep breaking compatability with Harmony.

There will always be a hackable way of getting OS X to run on an Intel chip.

Apple will always figure out ways of breaking that possibility at the next possible moment (system update?).

How many hardware sales will Apple lose because of hackers? Very few. Anyone who seriously wants to run OS X will need to buy Apple hardware, until Apple decide otherwise.

digitalbiker
Aug 10, 2005, 07:58 PM
As for the post above: huh?
-Chase

What don't you understand about the post?

Trekkie
Aug 10, 2005, 08:04 PM
Apple computers, apart from excellent form factor, wouldn't be so special anymore.

Form factor, is everything. A quiet desktop, a laptop that runs for 6 hours on one battery charge, there are lots of things they can do differently.

The thing I'm most interested is if we'll be subjected to the 'blink and it is out of date' method or if we'll actually still have multi year life cycles.

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 08:08 PM
Legal. In most of the U.S. anyway...license agreements aren't legally binding. As long as you don't pirate OS X, you can run it on anything you want.
But we're talking about people pirating OS X, and sharing cracked copies.

To the person who had said for 500 I'd rather have a Mini.... ummmm no. I'd rather have a system I could dual boot so that things that I do need windows for I could run windows, and the rest of the time run a Mac.
The Mac Mini will be Intel-based. Best of both worlds--possibly with the help of some 3rd party app to get Windows running easily. VPC gets my vote: it already exists for Intel Windows PCs, and for obvious reasons is much faster than the current Mac version!

winmacguy
Aug 10, 2005, 08:19 PM
I'm curious to see how long this page stays up.

Well its 1.15pm Thursday 11th August and its still up ;)

dejo
Aug 10, 2005, 08:30 PM
pirated versions of osx may not gain marketshare in the usa, but they sure could in asia, india, or africa. on the other hand, pirated versions of windows are so entrenched in those areas that osx probably won't take off over there either

Plus, AFAIK, pirated installs of any software are not included in marketshare figures.

bebo
Aug 10, 2005, 08:32 PM
From looking at the various sources, it appears that one can build a Mac OS X86 compatible system from scratch for about $500. At that price point, I'd just be happy with a Mac Mini. If it was more like $200-$250, it might be worth building a PC to run OS X86 - tho it'd be not very legal. Not to mention that the Mini is completely legal, and the OS can be upgraded, will be able to work with all existing software, hardware, etc. You don't have those guarantees with a X86 Mac at this point.

I predict that someone will start offering pre-built white-box PC's that will work with OS X86 and turn a fast buck. Of course nothing pre-loaded other than Darwin. ;) Hehehehehe.


Just for kicks I priced together a system with the hardware requirements to run osx x86.

This isn't the speediest computer out there.

but with the mb with a celeron, 1 gig of ram, 80 gig 7200 rpm HD, dvd burner, mini tower case, 15" lcd, mouse/kb.

mb has the intal gma900 video card, audio, ethernet, etc.

all together comes out to $575.

definatly cheaper than a mac mini and I bet faster too.

with no lcd and kb/mouse = $370.

Dagless
Aug 10, 2005, 08:33 PM
Bad for Apple, good for consumers.

Good because it means i can stop using XP and move onto something more classy on my P4 systems.

however, Apple will tighten the protection... and hackers will crack it again. such is the way :)

Yvan256
Aug 10, 2005, 08:44 PM
but with the mb with a celeron, 1 gig of ram, 80 gig 7200 rpm HD, dvd burner, mini tower case, 15" lcd, mouse/kb.

mb has the intal gma900 video card, audio, ethernet, etc.

all together comes out to $575.

definatly cheaper than a mac mini and I bet faster too.

with no lcd and kb/mouse = $370.

Can you people tell me where you find those 150$US LCD displays? Here in Canada, the cheapest ones are around 350$CAD (and they're crap too, like 20ms, 400:1, etc)

DaveGee
Aug 10, 2005, 08:45 PM
Okay...

Lets TRY and clear a few things up!

1 - The people doing this and the people who will continue to make OS X work on non-Apple-hardware WOULD HAVE NEVER PURCHASED an Apple priced box.

2 - The people doing this are generally VSP's (very smart people) and it seems they LIKE how Tiger tastes! (THIS IS A GOOD THING)

Those two points being said lets see what this brings us. More people who like OS X - AND - VSP's at that!

What could that mean?

More software - in the long run I think it could!
More people bugging vendors for GOOD drivers for their hardware - most assuredly!
More people getting open source projects to run 'really well' on OS X - most assuredly!
More people 'talking up' OS X as a REAL alternative to WinBlows - I'd say yes!

Remember folks, "monkey see monkey do!" - How do you think linux grew to the levels it did and now take a second and compare it to OS X - it's no comparison - OS X cleans it's clock for getting things done.

I see quite a lot of upside to this.

Just my .02 cents

Dave

AP_piano295
Aug 10, 2005, 08:55 PM
Okay...

Lets TRY and clear a few things up!

1 - The people doing this and the people who will continue to make OS X work on non-Apple-hardware WOULD HAVE NEVER PURCHASED an Apple priced box.

2 - The people doing this are generally VSP's (very smart people) and it seems they LIKE how Tiger tastes! (THIS IS A GOOD THING)

Those two points being said lets see what this brings us. More people who like OS X - AND - VSP's at that!

What could that mean?

More software - in the long run I think it could!
More people bugging vendors for GOOD drivers for their hardware - most assuredly!
More people getting open source projects to run 'really well' on OS X - most assuredly!
More people 'talking up' OS X as a REAL alternative to WinBlows - I'd say yes!

Remember folks, "monkey see monkey do!" - How do you think linux grew to the levels it did and now take a second and compare it to OS X - it's no comparison - OS X cleans it's clock for getting things done.

I see quite a lot of upside to this.

Just my .02 cents

Dave


I agree
also remember that windows didnt make it's money selling computers.

LaMerVipere
Aug 10, 2005, 09:10 PM
I agree with people saying that this won't be a big problem for Apple if hackers do indeed figure out a way to put OS X on any x86 system.

The % of the computing population that would put that much effort into such a thing would likely be very small. Very small indeed.

tsk
Aug 10, 2005, 09:24 PM
if it can't be stopped. Probably even be a good thing. People with enough tech savvy to make this work are a very small part of the marketplace. I doubt that it will cost Apple many sales, if any at all. Anyone who wants to be sure they get a stable system with support from Apple will need to buy an Apple system.

Some people will enjoy the challenge of installing the Mac OS on a non-Apple system. They will expect some problems. Moreover, they are probably the type who serve as the "computer guy" for their family and friends. The more of them that grow to use and love the Mac, the more the Mac will be recommended to typical users.

Exactly! If this happens, it's not like it's going to kill Apple sales. Half the people on these boards (maybe an exhaggeration) don't even like to install their own memory. Are they really going to mess with OSX on a PC?

Yvan256
Aug 10, 2005, 09:28 PM
[...] What could that mean?

More software - in the long run I think it could!
More people bugging vendors for GOOD drivers for their hardware - most assuredly!
More people getting open source projects to run 'really well' on OS X - most assuredly!
More people 'talking up' OS X as a REAL alternative to WinBlows - I'd say yes!

Apple switching to a BSD core (for OS X), ditching their proprietary crap (ports, protocols, file formats), embracing open-source (Apache, PHP, MySQL included, PNG support, XML, etc) are all reasons why I've switched to Mac.

Apple are learning from their mistakes (heck, even the iPod can work without iTunes, it only requires an XML database file) are supporting standards (USB2, DVI, OpenGL, XML, PNG, etc). And that's a good thing (TM).

Yvan256
Aug 10, 2005, 09:36 PM
Exactly! If this happens, it's not like it's going to kill Apple sales. Half the people on these boards (maybe an exhaggeration) don't even like to install their own memory. Are they really going to mess with OSX on a PC?

Except that you're looking at the normal Apple users. As you say, about half of them are not technically-inclined.

But when you talk about the amount of users that'll try to install OS X on their PC, well, even if you say 5% of PC users, that's still 4.75% of all computer users. And these users will likely have to install OS X on the family, friend, relative, etc. computers. In the end we might be looking at as much as 20 to 25% "illegal" OS X installs (on an overall x86 OS X installed base).

Never underestimate the "techs" users. After all, they're the ones who keep the average Joe's computer running. First thing they'll want to do (to stop doing maintenance) is switch all those PCs to either Linux, BSD.... or that new x86 OS X which won't require as much user tech support for normal use as Linux or BSD (especially with iLife).

In any case, my prediction is an "Apple Certified Computer" hardware list, and Intel, Asus, Abit, etc. computers in a "near" future. And simple repackaged Intel systems from Apple in less than 10 years.

Then again, I've been wrong before. :cool:

kcartwri
Aug 10, 2005, 10:09 PM
I'm having a flashback to years gone by. I'm thinking of several companies that were in the bios cracking business. They did quite well for themselves. In fact their bios is in one of my customer's newest Dell system. History will repeat itself if things aren't done differently.

K.C.

amac4me
Aug 10, 2005, 10:09 PM
Apple has to be concerned about this development. A few questions:

- What will Steve have to say about this?
- What will be Apple's lockdown to prevent OS X on a non-Mac?
- If Apple is unable to prevent users from installing OS X on a non-Mac, will they move to require activation of OS X?
- Will Apple be forced to become a software company if they can't prevent OS X from freely being installed on any x86 system?
- Has Apple messed up here?
- Did Steve make BIG mistake #2 .... switching to Intel?
- And the kicker ... is this the beginning of the end for the Macintosh?

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 10:24 PM
In the end we might be looking at as much as 20 to 25% "illegal" OS X installs (on an overall x86 OS X installed base).

My guess is a much lower number, but even if 1 in 4 OS X users have illegally pirated it and make do with an unsupported config... Apple only has to gain a percent or two of market share to dwarf that loss. That much growth seems a sure bet, so I don't see Apple being in danger here.

But even if they ever ARE in danger of going out of business (extreme case--I know people aren't really saying that) because too few people care to have a legal copy of OS X, then Apple will take even further action: if they can't totally PREVENT piracy, they'll create consequences. Incompatibilities that people always have to keep on top of. Apps, updates, and downloads that won't work until the next crack comes along. And they'll go after those who distribute cracks and pirated copies on a large scale. They'll make running pirated OS X a struggle, and make sure that even if the whole world is made of dishonest people, some of them will still find value in paying for a supported OS.

Certain world markets are known for running lots of pirated software, and Apple will suffer like everyone else in those regions. But like everyone else, they'll stay in business even without those consumers.

As for Apple-approved limited "cloning" in SOME form... I too can see it happening in 10 years. Not quickly... not 2 years I don't think (Apple's own transition will barely be done) but 5 or 10? Very possibly. Wouldn't surprise me if it never happens, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did--in a carefully planned, controlled way. And if Apple plans it right--which they are likely to do--then I'm fine with that.

And as for what Steve thinks... he's having fun watching the commotion just like us :D

jrhone
Aug 10, 2005, 10:54 PM
One question.....if it goes like some of you say....how many friends and family members will be ok with a buggy and unsupported OSX on their system? Everytime Apple updates things they have system crashes, until the computer tech fixes 5 or 6 OSX systems.....and if each one has different CPU's or video cards, or hard drive controllers, then the fix may be different for all of them....It will be difficult for them to keep up. Apple will use very specific hardware and drivers for them. This is what makes macs great...the best peripheral dvices...Not the generic DVD burners or video cards, but the nice, reliable stuff.....and what about disk controllers? I think we will see these special things on the motherboard anf they wont be as generic as your build a PC systems.

oskar
Aug 10, 2005, 11:02 PM
C'mon how can you possibly think that someone would rather have a hacked OS which might eventually fail in certain configurations or updates, than a stable and reliable Mac (mini, emac or iMac). In case they want a better OS than Windows XP, Windows Vista is coming in 2006. As far as I've seen, Microsoft is doing a very good job at copying OS X's look and feel in many aspects. (No, I'm not saying it's better than OS X. NEVER!!! :p )

OK so people get Tiger running on a PC. You can bet Leopard will be a lot more difficult and probably require something specific from new Macs to run properly. (If a PPC version is released as well, their's really nothing to "worry" about besides the x86 version.)
Hackers who actually get OS X running on Xboxes or PC's or anything else merit the recognition for being able to run the OS on a system it wasn't designed for.
How can people actually think this will affect Apple's sales in any significant way?

applekid
Aug 10, 2005, 11:04 PM
No need for Apple to slap down an iron hand, yet. As someone mentioned, they *could* use Software Update to harass hackers. Let them try to update their machine, but fail because Software Update detects some abnormalities with the hardware. Not quite a Microsoft authentication, but it would leave a hacker stranded with a particular version of the OS.

Another deterrent already built in to all Apple hardware is the graphics card. I say Apple should ditch Intel integrated graphics and keep using ATI and nVidia cards. Apple could write particular drivers to prevent any CoreImage/Video and flavors of Quartz being enabled. Once again, this would make a hacked up OS X unappealing. And if I'm not mistaken, with the OSes different, ATI and nVidia can probably protect graphics cards with special firmware/BIOSes, like it is currently. The system could be locked to the graphics card.

Also, I don't see how a simple chip attached somewhere on the motherboard, in a special slot or soldered on, couldn't be enough protection. Apple could design and manufacture the motherboard (which could yet again lock out cracking if the system checks the manufacturer) or have the system look for a special chip to enable OS X. I understand emulation can break this, but if the chip was something as complex as another processor, emulator developers will have a hard time emulating that.

In the meantime, Apple can sue people and wield their lawyers by taking out the NDA breakers and pirates just for fun. :)

I don't think this is going to be a big deal, so no worries. This is going to stay a niche, hacker or pirate only interest if it were to last.

hottyson
Aug 10, 2005, 11:10 PM
Apple does not care too much about hacked versions of their OS. They don’t have to support these hacked versions.

Microsoft had always concerned themselves with hacked versions of their OS. They put a crap system of “activating” the software.

Now, lets say that John Doe has a non-Apple approved dual boot PC running both Microsoft Windows and Apple OS this year 2005 or beginning 2006. He gets used to using both and gets tired of all the problems that Windows users have to deal with such as virus’s, unfriendly software integration, spy ware, hd maintenance, horrid updates…………………..

What kind of computer do you think these John Doe’s are going to buy in 2007. I think that many if not most of them will finally make the switch in the next couple of years. There are too many of these people sitting on the fence right now who are curious to make the switch. With the iPod as the one of the greatest marketing tools Apple has ever had this is a fricken brilliant time to make such a move starting with the Mini and now to the x 86 platforms. I think that Steve Jobs has become a genius since his return. The guy has got some serious balls to have made the decisions that he has made and I think they are going to pay off big for Apple. Start buying your Apple stock as soon as possible. Mac may finally develop into the giant that it has always had the potential to become.

jiggie2g
Aug 10, 2005, 11:12 PM
http://www.xplodenet.com/


Enjoy ;)

Update check it out

http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=2

MontyZ
Aug 10, 2005, 11:16 PM
.

hob
Aug 10, 2005, 11:21 PM
Damn! My big bro and I have a $100 bet - he says he'll have OS X running on his Dell by 2006... I thought not. But he's the kind of person that'd get it running, and I didn't really think this all through! Damn!

nagromme
Aug 10, 2005, 11:45 PM
But, I'll bet lots of people will think, "gee, if the OS is this good, I'll bet Apple's hardware is great, too."

Or, they may not care about hardware but still think "this OS COULD be good if it were the real supported version and not a hack! Maybe I'll try the real OS this time around." Same result. And they can't very well blame their pirated OS X problems on poor quality of the OS--they're doing something it wasn't meant for. OS X crashing when you change screen res? Not OS X's fault... get a Mac....

jiggie2g
Aug 10, 2005, 11:51 PM
Its no real surprise that Intel OSX will run on AMD chips.

I wonder how fast OSX performs on a AMD 2.6 Althon? Hmmm...


Gimmie a few days i'll tell you :D

bretm
Aug 11, 2005, 12:39 AM
If OSX could run on any budget PC, then apple computers would lose their edge of being the only computers that run OSX. Amazing software is one of the only things keeping apple in the buisiness, and if OSX were to become compatable with every computer, Apple computers, apart from excellent form factor, wouldn't be so special anymore.

Dude, do you even realize that by default you're admitting that Apple hardware is no better than generic PC hardware? You admit why would they buy apple computers if they can run the software on generic machines. Well, why indeed? I love Apple for it's software and os. The boxes are pretty, but I don't stare at them all day. If Apple wants to turn into a software business instead of a hardware business, fantastic. Don't fall in love with a box. Fall in love with productivity. And if you're arguing that apple hardware is better, then they will still have a market. In fact, they'll have a 97% larger market to sell their computers to. The ENTIRE PC market, since their new machines will actually legally run Windows XP. There is no way Apple can lose in this race. And the best part is, Microsoft could care less. Microsoft is in the software biz. Apple is only supporting their software on their hardware. No different than before. But they'll be a new manufacturer of Intel boxes to run Windows. Both big players win in that the # of OS's and number of hardware units sold will increase. Microsoft will be able to sell to Mac hardware users. Windows users can buy Mac boxes. Apple is the only company selling hardware that can run both, supported.

bretm
Aug 11, 2005, 12:51 AM
Apple can't prevent piracy in their own community. Their OS requires no activation and the disks have no copy protection. They obviosly aren't worried about the OS being pirated in the least. Unlike Microsoft, the OS isn't their flagship. It's the base for everything else, but they make money off hardware, ipods, software, itunes, etc.

usarioclave
Aug 11, 2005, 12:52 AM
Back in the old days, the easiest way to crack a copy-protection check was to dive into the binary and change that "bne" to a "nop".

Heh.

It got to the point where resourcerer's code editor had a "change to nop" menu item, which is still there (bless their hearts). I think resedit's code editor had the same thing.

The fact is, when the naive write copy-protection, they do it pretty simply. There's one function that does the check, and the function(s) that call that function check the return value.

Sometimes the call to the copy protection function is on invocation of the app/module, which means you only have to change one or two bytes to bypass the check. Sometimes the call is inlined, which means you have to do a search-and-replace. Or you just change the copy protection function to return the value you want.

There are more, hardcore ways to perform copy protection. Most of the time it's not worth it to do, because by definition there's always a way around it. If it executes on a computer, it can be bypassed. The only question is how much work is it to bypass the protection.

That's not to say that CP is worthless, it's just a lot more complicated to do than most people would think.

bretm
Aug 11, 2005, 12:54 AM
Just for kicks I priced together a system with the hardware requirements to run osx x86.

This isn't the speediest computer out there.

but with the mb with a celeron, 1 gig of ram, 80 gig 7200 rpm HD, dvd burner, mini tower case, 15" lcd, mouse/kb.

mb has the intal gma900 video card, audio, ethernet, etc.

all together comes out to $575.

definatly cheaper than a mac mini and I bet faster too.

with no lcd and kb/mouse = $370.

Ok, now price it out with a really awesome looking case without a loud a$$ fan.

stephenli
Aug 11, 2005, 12:58 AM
PC users will anyway try to install OSX on their PC without costing any addition $$$ on hardware
This is nothing but just a nightmare to both Jobs and Gates
emotionally i don't want to see it happens as a Mac user
:(

paulypants
Aug 11, 2005, 12:58 AM
I agree
also remember that windows didnt make it's money selling computers.

uuuhhhh Windows is the software, Microsoft is the Corporation.

Microsoft was always a software company, whereas Apple has always been a hardware company. Just as Microsoft has made some hardware to support it's software, Apple has made great software to support and push it's hardware sales. Apple has a very profitable business model, they aren't about to give up their huge margins on hardware to gain marketshare in the software space while sacrificing profitability. Just as Microsoft would be nuts to dump its Software strategy to become a hardware company, it would be suicide for Apple to dump its hardware model for a software based one.

remingtonhill
Aug 11, 2005, 01:08 AM
That's the thing: if it works, then why switch to an actual Mac? This is not good, and I'm sure that Apple will do something about an actual released version of Mac OS X, but it's not good that they already have Mac OS X running on generic PC's. An update could disable it, but even then, there will be PC's out there running Mac OS X.

Why is it bad? Because Apple needs to be able to make money off of their computers. Without the computer, Apple won't make much, and that'll hurt Apple, perhaps even hurting us as the real Mac users. This is not a good development, but it was bound to happen.
-Chase

I suspect we will see a transition of Apple becoming a software/OS and IPOD company, and an end to Mac hardware. If you think about it, it really doesn't make sense for apple to sell intel hardware.

For example, IBM is well ahead of APPLE in market share but decided the PC market wasn't worth keeping, and sold that division.

"Apple placed seventh in rank behind Dell, HP, IBM, eMachines, Gateway and Toshiba." according to an article I read online.

Apple's profits lately aren't related to their computer hardware sales. It's all about iPods right now. Even Emachines has better hardware market penetration then apple. That should tell you something right there. Let's be honest here.

Performance will be VERY easy to compare. No more MHz "Myth" when apple computers are using the same intel chips as the windows world. Apple's hardware designs are very attractive, powerbooks are sexy and Powermacs look like powerful industrial machines compared to their wintel tower counterparts. iMacs are an impressive design, better implemented then wintel all in one systems. But these designs cost more to produce.

I suspect most people will not be interested in paying more for equal or lesser performance just because of the asthetics factor. Computers for most people are just tools. The mac fanatic community, though vocal, represents very small fraction of a percentage of the computer market.

It seems to me, IMHO, that apple would become much more relevant in the industry by opening up OSX to the HUGE installed base of windows computers worldwide.

I believe Jobs and his cronies have come to this same conclusion. Apple wants to sell hardware today, before the switch to intel. It's in Apple's best interest to pursuade people that only Apple computers will run OSX right now. Otherwise, potential customers may delay their purchase of Apple Computers.

gabefung
Aug 11, 2005, 01:11 AM
*deleted*

paulypants
Aug 11, 2005, 01:23 AM
I suspect we will see a transition of Apple becoming a software/OS and IPOD company, and an end to Mac hardware.

Apple's profits lately aren't related to their computer hardware sales. It's all about iPods right now. Even Emachines has better hardware market penetration then apple. That should tell you something right there. Let's be honest here.



If we are to be honest than correct your statement on Apple's profit margins because it is wholey inaccurate, Apple is very profitable on the mac side...it's where most of their profits come from. If you think Apple can survive on iPods alone you are kidding yourself, or have no concept of what their business model is.

Nermal
Aug 11, 2005, 01:45 AM
if OSX were to become compatable with every computer, Apple computers, apart from excellent form factor, wouldn't be so special anymore.

I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly don't buy Apple systems for the hardware. In fact, my G4 tower contains more "PC" components than Apple ones now.

Yarvin
Aug 11, 2005, 01:55 AM
If, as Steve Jobs said, the Mac OS is the heart of the Macintosh, then I say let everyone use it, even Mr. Average-Computer-User-Who-Can-Only-Afford-A-Crappy-Dell. The increase in sales due to the increase in compatibility should be worth the drop in hardware sales (which will probably not drop much, considering how loyal true Mac fans are).

eric67
Aug 11, 2005, 01:55 AM
If we are to be honest than correct your statement on Apple's profit margins because it is wholey inaccurate, Apple is very profitable on the mac side...it's where most of their profits come from. If you think Apple can survive on iPods alone you are kidding yourself, or have no concept of what their business model is.
yes and no.
Apple is still getting part of its profit from hardware sales, but if you look at numbers and figures, it is clear that since iPod launch, a big % of Apple's profits is coming from small hardware (iPod) and software; and the part coming from computer hardware has been reducing every quarter financial report. It will for sure stabilize by end of 2006; but for sure Apple computer hardware sales will decrease till the launch of MacIntel.

I do not think at all that the developer kit is the final version of Apple DRM to prevent OSX x86 to run on any PC :cool:

GregA
Aug 11, 2005, 02:06 AM
It COULD become profitable for Apple to sell OS X standalone someday (which is not what this article is about--it's about pirated OS X). When the time is right, Apple has that option, AND they could keep selling hardware too. MAYBE that will make sense one day. But I don't expect it any time soon.There's a few possibilities that make some sense. I do want to see Apple stay in hardware, and I agree that Apple will try to keep OSX exclusive to Apple hardware for some time (they don't care about hacks, especially if they still pay for OSX, or it leads to Mac sales eventually).

Anywa... for instance, Apple could make a deal with HP (yes, the same HP that just STOPPED selling iPods... hmmm maybe not...). Apple could stop making PowerMacs (the most "normal" of Apple products), and resell HP dual processor machines. As part of the deal, HP could sell OSX on any HP desktop, as well as market the Apple cinema display and iSight (to any HP customers, not just those buying OSX). OSX on HP is a FAR easier range of hardware to support than running on every clone. And Apple keeps making the cute stuff (iMac, iBook, Mini, speakers, etc, whatever).

Just thoughts

crees!
Aug 11, 2005, 02:13 AM
Moreover, they are probably the type who serve as the "computer guy" for their family and friends. The more of them that grow to use and love the Mac, the more the Mac will be recommended to typical users. And that my friend is me. I was a "PC guy" for many years for friends and family. Built my own PC, knew every nook and cranny... loved it! Now I'm all Mac and will never go back. I even tell friends and family they don't know what they're missing and that their computing lives will be painless.

kalisphoenix
Aug 11, 2005, 02:23 AM
Apple could definitely prevent people putting OS X on generic PCs. Here's how:

1. Put a flash memory device on the motherboard. Perhaps nothing more interesting than a proprietary RAM chip with some Open Firmware-esque tie-ins. The machine comes with an OS X kernel and the BSD subsystem loaded on it. You can even boot directly into a fully functioning Darwin environment with no hard drives attached. Think guts of a PDA embedded in a motherboard. I think this could be done for about $50 a mobo, maybe. Probably a hell of a lot less.

2. To install OS X, you power on the machine, insert the install DVD, and hold "C" as has been done since time immemorial. The change of behavior is internal, transparent to the end user. Instead of booting the entire OS (including kernel) off the CD, the kernel in the motherboard merely interprets the instructions passed on in a special file on the DVD.

If the kernel in the motherboard is outdated, then the DVD copies a new one to the device and the computer reboots. Naturally, messages to this effect appear upon the screen. If the kernel in the motherboard is up-to-date, then the installation continues. Nothing to see here, move along.

3. OS X behaves normally as one might expect. All of the operating quirks that this system necessitates are taken care of transparently.

Now, let's see how this would look to someone trying to put the OS on a beige PC:

1. The DVD isn't bootable without the motherboard device.
2. Hard drive images won't work because the essential parts of the OS still reside on a motherboard device.

If anyone has any ideas of how to circumvent this, I'd like to hear them. I have very little hardware knowledge or programming knowledge, but this seems like it sounds good on paper at least. I think it could be worked so that overhead losses are minimized.

This would also make some other neat features very easy to implement.
1. Full hard drive encryption, every single frigging sector and probably even the journal and partition tables too. Take that, FBI!
2. Bootable software RAID. Not saying this is a replacement for hardware RAID, but it makes redundancy a lot cheaper to implement. Not that RAID won't be standard in everyday PCs pretty soon...
3. 100% service-level uptime, even for people who dual-boot or put hard drives completely to sleep for power savings. How nice would it be to play games on the same PC that is, at the same time, serving your homemade horse pr0n to the world?
The possibilities are endless!

(Not saying Apple would even consider this. Definitely a KalisPC idea, to be filed with KalisOS and KalisKeyboard. But, Apple, if you implement this, send me an 8-way Power Mac G6)

potofgold
Aug 11, 2005, 02:26 AM
Hmm, now that is something you don't see everyday :cool:

http://home.comcast.net/~killershroom/apple-on-me.JPG

remingtonhill
Aug 11, 2005, 02:26 AM
If we are to be honest than correct your statement on Apple's profit margins because it is wholey inaccurate, Apple is very profitable on the mac side...it's where most of their profits come from. If you think Apple can survive on iPods alone you are kidding yourself, or have no concept of what their business model is.

You quoted me out of context.

I had provided evidence that Apple is not ranked very highly in market penetration of hardware. IBM was ranked higher, but sold the division. eMachines is ranked higher.

Apple can make more money and increase market share of their OS if OSX is opened up to the large installed base of wintel hardware.

Why would apple increase market share by a simple change to intel chips if OSX won't run on the large installed base of wintel machines? Are general consumers going to spend $500 more for equal or less then equal hardware simply because the hardware will run OSX?

The average consumer does not find OSX compelling enough to spend more now for Apple hardware in order to run OSX. Hence Apple's ranking of 7th in the hardware market.

Why would a switch to intel alone change that. Apple will have to spend more R&D $$ in order to compete with wintel boxes in performance. No more 1.5 years (or whatever) between iBook refreshes, for example.

Sorry, son. The writing is on the wall. Your beloved computer company is selling out. Can't blame them. Shareholders can be pretty demanding sometimes.

Marx55
Aug 11, 2005, 02:53 AM
I have said this before. The future of Mac OS X will be total oblivion or to become the new standard. It all depends on Apple.

One of the authors (John C. Dvorak) http://www.pcmag.com/author_bio/0,1908,a=123,00.asp predicted Mactel many years ago.

Windows and Linux will be history soon. Unless Apple does some stupid thing...

Enjoy reading!

---
The Mac-Intel Computer, Finally!
ARTICLE DATE: 06.06.05
By John C. Dvorak
http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=153517,00.asp

A more interesting scenario to me is examining the possibility that Windows users can switch to the Mac OS on their Intel machines. Is this going to be possible?
I have always believed that Apple could enter the PC arena with an Intel-based computer that could run OS-X or Windows and begin to take market share away from Dell and HP.—Continue reading
---
Windows Vista: Where's the Buzz?
ARTICLE DATE: 07.25.05
By John C. Dvorak
http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=156656,00.asp

THE FUTURE OF DESKTOP COMPUTING.

Apple. Vista will open the door to what I believe will be a radical change in the computing landscape. The trends are clear. Once the new Mac OS appears next year it will gravitate toward the existing x86 community much more rapidly than anticipated unless Apple does some incredibly dumb things to stop it. Personally I cannot see what they can do or why they'd want to stop it.

Right now, and as much as x86 users do not want to admit it, the Mac OS is already better than Windows in its modern look and feel as well as its functionality. I see too many smart people with Mac laptops nowadays.

Now looking over this scenario poses two questions: Is this wishful thinking, and is this what we want? I don't think it's wishful thinking, although it is always possible that Apple doesn't understand the power play position it's in and might actually believe that it's better off somehow keeping its OS in a small niche rather than the big market. If the world changed tomorrow to 85 percent Mac "OS x86" its laptop sales alone would triple overnight. Apple didn't put together what many consider the finest in-house industrial design teams in the world to fool around with piddly sales and more redesigns of the iPod.
---
Mac-Intel Aftermath
ARTICLE DATE: 06.13.05
http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=154019,00.asp

What's going to happen eventually is that Apple will see the increasing problems with spyware and viruses on PCs. With millions of dollars being invested in antispyware software it would be easy for Apple to sell a shrink-wrapped OS X86 to PC users. I'd guess that most PC users would give OS X86 a shot and the company could get $100 a box and sell at least 10 million copies. But initially Apple doesn't want the hassle of making its new OS work universally. Here's the scenario to expect:

1. Apple releases OS X86 as a proprietary system for its boxes. It's immediately pirated and goes into the wild.

2. Apple squawks about the piracy to draw attention to it, thus increasing the piracy, creating a virtual or shadow beta test. The complaining is necessary to assure Microsoft that Apple does not intend to compete with Windows. This keeps Microsoft selling MS Office for the Mac.

3. There are driver issues that get resolved by the hobbyists, and OS X86 now remains in shadow beta, being tested in a process that is apparently outside of Apple's control, but is in fact carefully monitored by the company.

4. Once the system stabilizes in the wild, Apple announces that it cannot do anything about the piracy situation and that it's apparent that everyone wants this OS rather than Windows. It's "the will of the public." Apple then makes the stupendous announcement that it will sell a generic boxed OS, "for the rest of you!" One claim is that it is a solution to spyware.

5. Microsoft freaks out and stops development of Office for the Mac. But in the interim, while not selling OS X86 "for the rest of you," Apple has been developing a complete Office suite, which it announces at the same time.
---
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Apple to add Trusted Computing to the new kernel?
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/07/31/apple_to_add_trusted.html

People working with early versions of the forthcoming Intel-based MacOS X operating system have discovered that Apple's new kernel makes use of Intel's Trusted Computing hardware. If this "feature" appears in a commercial, shipping version of Apple's OS, they'll lose me as a customer -- I've used Apple computers since 1979 and have a Mac tattooed on my right bicep, but this is a deal-breaker.
---

Nermal
Aug 11, 2005, 03:05 AM
If anyone has any ideas of how to circumvent this, I'd like to hear them.

It is ridiculously simple to clone flash memory. I actually just did this today for a Linux system - downloaded the flash image and wrote it out to a flash card (which can be added to virtually any motherboard cheaply).

Good idea, but it didn't work :(

NicP
Aug 11, 2005, 03:30 AM
I have said this before. The future of Mac OS X will be total oblivion or to become the new standard. It all depends on Apple.

One of the authors (John C. Dvorak) http://www.pcmag.com/author_bio/0,1908,a=123,00.asp predicted Mactel many years ago.

Windows and Linux will be history soon. Unless Apple does some stupid thing...

Enjoy reading!


...all i can say is lol

oskar
Aug 11, 2005, 04:04 AM
http://www.xplodenet.com/


Enjoy ;)

Update check it out

http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=2

That process is sooo easy even they could do it.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=27719

:D:D:D

Ok, seriously, I think it's good that people are interested in trying to make OS X work on PC's. But just remember nothing can be determined until the official Tiger x86 release surfaces.

toughboy
Aug 11, 2005, 04:08 AM
This is great news that after today, people who didnt have Macs will try and see how great Mac OS X is..

This is like a working-demo of a great product, Leopard is probably going to be full of protections not to be installed on PCs, so its like a commercial which will last a year, isn't this great for Apple?!

Can someone tell me which part of this is negative?!?

Platform
Aug 11, 2005, 04:39 AM
There will always be someone............ ;)

Let them try......the avrage person could not be bothred.......to much effort for them :p

Marx55
Aug 11, 2005, 04:42 AM
This is great news that after today, people who didnt have Macs will try and see how great Mac OS X is..

This is like a working-demo of a great product, Leopard is probably going to be full of protections not to be installed on PCs, so its like a commercial which will last a year, isn't this great for Apple?!

Can someone tell me which part of this is negative?!?

Quite simple: most members of this forum are Apple Dealers, reluctant of losing sales. What they do not know is that they would have not just 2% but 100% market share to sell their products. To them I say: wake up, this is fantastic good news!!!

eSnow
Aug 11, 2005, 04:43 AM
Get real, this was to be expected, and Apple will have no means to prevent this in the final versions released to the public either.

With the switch to intel, Jobs opened a can of worms, and we will see the consequences over the next years. The ultimate result will be that Apple will have to license out OS X one way or another - most likely to some mass-market co. like Dell and keep the high-end to themselves.

They can try to go the registration/activation route like Adobe and MS - but look how good this works. I have bought software requiring activation, but have rather used a keygen to create a key then go through the bs of sending in my personal data. Of course, the same will happen with any locked-down version of OS X.

This will impact Apple hardware margins - make no mistake. The lure of the sub-400 PC will be strong - and as Jobs remarked rightfully, it is not the hardware what makes a Mac a Mac, but the OS. Would I buy another Mac mini (the most beautiful computer I ever owned) or go with some cheap-**** PC offering three times the performance? the latter will be more likely.

Apple is transforming from a computer company to a digital media and lifestyle company, get over it. The days of the Mac as we knew it are limited and what remains is the software and the innovative company.

In all likelyhood, I will get myself a PC to try out the hack job by fall...

eSnow
Aug 11, 2005, 04:54 AM
Apple could definitely prevent people putting OS X on generic PCs. Here's how:

1. Put a flash memory device on the motherboard. Perhaps nothing more interesting than a proprietary RAM chip with some Open Firmware-esque tie-ins.

A passive flash chip won't cut it. What can be read, can be emulated in software. Hacker reads out flash chip, writes a virtual machine that tells the boot loader it contains a flash chip and the OS will happily boot.

You'd need to integrate it into the CPU so noone could read it out, but the CPU will start from it. This is called TPM aka Treacherous Computing. The concept is outlined here (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html) and it makes me puke. I don't want any company (including Apple) to take control of my computer in such an evil way.

GregA
Aug 11, 2005, 05:45 AM
Apple could definitely prevent people putting OS X on generic PCs. Here's how:
1. Put a flash memory device on the motherboard. <etc>
If anyone has any ideas of how to circumvent this, I'd like to hear them.Remember the core of OSX is open source. So if your flash boots a primitive darwin OS (as you suggested), then everything the flash does can already be done in Darwin, and then have the rest of OSX sitting on top of it.

Others have suggested other easy workarounds.

Face it.... OSX will be cloned. In the short term, if it takes a fair bit of effort for users then it won't hurt Apple. If Apple can rig it so they make $129 from those people AND gets some converts from the Linux community (the people able to "make it work"), so much the better.

ProfSBrown
Aug 11, 2005, 05:46 AM
Get real, this was to be expected, and Apple will have no means to prevent this in the final versions released to the public either...snip

AAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH

FFS stop writing BS like this! How many times do you have to read the same damn thing?

APPLE DO NOT CARE IF HACKERS CAN SHOE-HORN OS-X INTO GENERIC HARDWARE

As long as it is illegal for other people to produce and sell machines that are OS-X comaptible out of the box, Apple are happy. Trust me, the DRM that is in place now, and the DRM that will be in place when the final boxes ship, will be the bare minimum to make it illegal to sell OSX compatible boxes/modchips, and to give hackers a moderate PITA.

Read nagromme's excellent post again:
Even if Apple can't TOTALLY stop it, one of the main blocks to putting OS X on a non-Apple box will be that it wasn't designed for that--as this article shows--and so it will need some--probably LOTS--of hacking and tinkering. Some people will get it to work--on a limited set of hardware--and instructions for that will probably continue to be available, with a small but active community of pirates wasting their time keeping it going.

But OS X on generic PCs won't be simple, it won't be universal, it won't be supported, it won't meet the stated reqs for most Mac SOFTWARE (so that too will be unsupported), it won't be advertised or sold, it won't be a reviewed product, it won't be possible on every machine, and it won't be legal... and therefore it WILL NOT be for the average computer shopper, that's for sure. It will be for pirates, few of whom were ever going to be valued Apple customers anyway.

So even if OS X continues to be pirated into the future, it's not a killer for Apple.

36183
Aug 11, 2005, 06:08 AM
AAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH

FFS stop writing BS like this! How many times do you have to read the same damn thing?

APPLE DO NOT CARE IF HACKERS CAN SHOE-HORN OS-X INTO GENERIC HARDWARE

As long as it is illegal for other people to produce and sell machines that are OS-X comaptible out of the box, Apple are happy. Trust me, the DRM that is in place now, and the DRM that will be in place when the final boxes ship, will be the bare minimum to make it illegal to sell OSX compatible boxes/modchips, and to give hackers a moderate PITA.

Read nagromme's excellent post again:
Even if Apple can't TOTALLY stop it, one of the main blocks to putting OS X on a non-Apple box will be that it wasn't designed for that--as this article shows--and so it will need some--probably LOTS--of hacking and tinkering. Some people will get it to work--on a limited set of hardware--and instructions for that will probably continue to be available, with a small but active community of pirates wasting their time keeping it going.

But OS X on generic PCs won't be simple, it won't be universal, it won't be supported, it won't meet the stated reqs for most Mac SOFTWARE (so that too will be unsupported), it won't be advertised or sold, it won't be a reviewed product, it won't be possible on every machine, and it won't be legal... and therefore it WILL NOT be for the average computer shopper, that's for sure. It will be for pirates, few of whom were ever going to be valued Apple customers anyway.

So even if OS X continues to be pirated into the future, it's not a killer for Apple.

Clam down, there are plenty of people online that assume that all computing costumers will be pirating os x at the first opportunity, sure some people could do with getting out a bit more and seeing what people actually use computer for and how.

Can some people stop living in the illusion that they are working for apple, most of you guys in this forum will not be effected if a software company gets raided by pirates. i am quiet sure a company as big as apple knows how to deal with its own issues.

i am just interested in seeing some benchmarks on the performance of mac os x on these systems. i sure the results will be interesting.

twilson
Aug 11, 2005, 06:11 AM
AAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH

FFS stop writing BS like this! How many times do you have to read the same damn thing?

APPLE DO NOT CARE IF HACKERS CAN SHOE-HORN OS-X INTO GENERIC HARDWARE

As long as it is illegal for other people to produce and sell machines that are OS-X comaptible out of the box, Apple are happy. Trust me, the DRM that is in place now, and the DRM that will be in place when the final boxes ship, will be the bare minimum to make it illegal to sell OSX compatible boxes/modchips, and to give hackers a moderate PITA.

Read nagromme's excellent post again:
Even if Apple can't TOTALLY stop it, one of the main blocks to putting OS X on a non-Apple box will be that it wasn't designed for that--as this article shows--and so it will need some--probably LOTS--of hacking and tinkering. Some people will get it to work--on a limited set of hardware--and instructions for that will probably continue to be available, with a small but active community of pirates wasting their time keeping it going.

But OS X on generic PCs won't be simple, it won't be universal, it won't be supported, it won't meet the stated reqs for most Mac SOFTWARE (so that too will be unsupported), it won't be advertised or sold, it won't be a reviewed product, it won't be possible on every machine, and it won't be legal... and therefore it WILL NOT be for the average computer shopper, that's for sure. It will be for pirates, few of whom were ever going to be valued Apple customers anyway.

So even if OS X continues to be pirated into the future, it's not a killer for Apple.

It's amazing how much attention this is getting, mostly from people who probably haven't followed the original keynote from the WWDC. The developer boxes are running generic PCs at the moment, so OSX Intel has to install on a generic PC.

Apple have said that the developer boxes bare no reselemblance to the final released hardware.

When they are officially released machines there's a 90%+ chance that the machines won't use a BIOS, I believe they are looking at Intel's EFI technology, of something along those lines. Apart from being far superior to the whole 16-bit BIOS, generic PCs don't (and as long as Mr Gates gets his say [for backward compatibility], never will) have this EFI/BIOS replacement. So that will be a damned good way of stopping the OS booting on a generic PCs. If the EFI is somehow emulated, that will take an awful LONNNG time to emulate anyway, once this BIOS-replacement is confirmed.

So personally I think things will be pretty safe for quite some time. As an aside, Apple has been preventing installation of "bundled software", such as iLife, that comes with a new machine from installing on a different model of mac for quite some time now.

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 06:17 AM
*shrugs* It was only a matter of time. I AM going to get a 15" or 17" x86 PowerBook but if I could somehow get x86 Tiger to run on my 12" x31 Thinkpad I AM going to do it.

cloud 9
Aug 11, 2005, 06:23 AM
Shouldn't a developer be sued for doing this? Sharing that developer's box to hackers or something like that?

And why isn't Apple responding? Maybe it was their intention. So the hacker community can finally get some first hand experience of os x? And when the real product is released it will have some sort of definitive security, so the only way to buy os x is to buy an Apple?

some thoughts?

eSnow
Aug 11, 2005, 06:28 AM
generic PCs don't (and as long as Mr Gates gets his say [for backward compatibility], never will) have this EFI/BIOS replacement. So that will be a damned good way of stopping the OS booting on a generic PCs.

Uhm, Microsoft is supporting EFI in Longhorn (windows vista) and intel is developing Linux support. See http://developer.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm for some details straight from the horses mouth.
By the time the first x86-Macs hit the shelves, there should be some boards on the market sporting EFI.

mad jew
Aug 11, 2005, 06:35 AM
Maybe it was their intention. So the hacker community can finally get some first hand experience of os x?


Apple's done some stupid stuff in the past... Well, okay, not recently, but still, do you really think they'll be trying to encourage hacker migration to OSX. :p

hob
Aug 11, 2005, 06:50 AM
Seems to me this whole thing's blowing up way out of proportion just like when Macintel's were announced. Some posters around here can be really closed minded - and I get the impression we'll be going round in circles for quite some time.

Any way you look at this it's not going to be bad for us, the average Mac users. We have the best OS in the world, running on arguably the sexiest looking computers in the world, and soon we'll even have some of the best hardware in the world again.

If hackers want to do their little hacker thing and go oooo look at me, that's fine. I was a little surprised to see OS X on a PC, but after I sat down and thought about it a while, it wasn't going to take all that much to get the developer copy ported across. However, it is important to note that the user experience on a non-mac will not be anywhere near as good as it would be on a regular mac. Which means that either a)hackers will be dissatisfied and give up or b)hackers will be dissatisfied and realise it's still better than windows...


We're going to be fine. Apple shall continue making Macs. I don't think they'll be licensing OS X for non-macs ever, although the way Dvorak predicts it seems quite reasonable to me.

I thought about writing more, but it would only be repeating what has already been said.

Jesus
Aug 11, 2005, 07:03 AM
Apple does not care too much about hacked versions of their OS. [snip]. Start buying your Apple stock as soon as possible. Mac may finally develop into the giant that it has always had the potential to become.

glad to see my opinion double, recently I decided that I was going to spend £4000 on apple stock=166 shares which= $1100/£600 pounds of todays money next year in market growth (According to nasdaq), but wall street can be inaccurate, and i just missed a $4 jump from $39 to $43, which could have made me £400 richer, darn.

Jesus

pubwvj
Aug 11, 2005, 07:05 AM
This is all rather moot. It is relatively easy to play hide-and-seek with the pirates. It can even be automated on Apple's side. Every time any of their software is updated they simply include new and different code to cause problems for hacked hardware systems.

But the real question is does it really matter. 99.9% of the market in the US and Europe is going to buy the approved hardware from Apple. Do you really want to be using an unstable system and applications that can munge your data at any time, waste hours of your time, be a pain to update, etc? Sure you do, if you enjoy playing with that level of the system, but very few people want to do that.

The place where this is a threat is in China and the like who would love to replace windows as they have stated and have no qualms about pirating the system.

hob
Aug 11, 2005, 07:17 AM
Do you really want to be using an unstable system and applications that can munge your data at any time, waste hours of your time, be a pain to update, etc...
...but very few people want to do that.

Link (http://www.microsoft.com/windows)

bebo
Aug 11, 2005, 07:35 AM
I was just thinking. Wouldn't another issue preventing osx from really running os x on big variety of hardware out there be the lack of driver support.

many people running amd systems will probably have VIA or nvidia chipsets. I doubt these companies will be releasing driver support for osx.
Same with most other hardware.

Grant the system would boot in an unoptimized enviroment. But the user experience will probably not be as good as it will be, or as stable.

Gizmotoy
Aug 11, 2005, 07:44 AM
Like the previous poster, I'm curious how Apple plans on preventing this for the final release.
Edit: Reread it. TPM is enabled but cracked.

Still, they could simply revision the TPM again. After all, from what I understand, it's programable.

Please... so your opinion is that since someone was able to install the developer build on generic hardware Apple's going to throw their arms up in the air and say "Oh well, they got us!" :rolleyes:

No doubt they'll use hardware means to lock the OS to their machines as this has a much higher possibility for success than a software-only solution (Microsoft's, for example). I would be unsurprised to see custom Apple-designed motherboards (probably based on the Intel reference boards) and unmarked chips in the final Intel cases

bbyrdhouse
Aug 11, 2005, 08:02 AM
Really, I'm surprised it took as long as it did....

I think we all knew it was just a matter of time. It seems like therre is always somebody (probably a 14 year old kid with a lot of time on his hand) to do stuff like this just to prove that it can be done.

I can see it now OS X on a $299.00 Dell :(

cloud 9
Aug 11, 2005, 08:02 AM
Apple's done some stupid stuff in the past... Well, okay, not recently, but still, do you really think they'll be trying to encourage hacker migration to OSX. :p

why not, just to give them a glimpse of what a decent os should look like, only but to take it away when the real intel macs are coming out with good protection? ;)
like sample's in a shop...

Or maybe it's a bet between Bill and Steve. We can give os x to hackers and even still, no viruses :D

bbyrdhouse
Aug 11, 2005, 08:05 AM
Please... so your opinion is that since someone was able to install the developer build on generic hardware Apple's going to throw their arms up in the air and say "Oh well, they got us!" :rolleyes:

No doubt they'll use hardware means to lock the OS to their machines as this has a much higher possibility for success than a software-only solution (Microsoft's, for example). I would be unsurprised to see custom Apple-designed motherboards (probably based on the Intel reference boards) and unmarked chips in the final Intel cases

I think that when Apple moves to x86 they will have a never ending problem of "cracks", "hacks", and "workarounds". Way more than they have to deal with now.
There is no such thing as a full (of Fool) proof way to protect your Operating system. It was much safer on Power PC because there was such a small amount of people that used PPC, but 90% or more use x86.

mad jew
Aug 11, 2005, 08:11 AM
Or maybe it's a bet between Bill and Steve. We can give os x to hackers and even still, no viruses :D


That's much more likely. :D


...And probably justified too.

jocknerd
Aug 11, 2005, 08:12 AM
if it can't be stopped. Probably even be a good thing. People with enough tech savvy to make this work are a very small part of the marketplace. I doubt that it will cost Apple many sales, if any at all. Anyone who wants to be sure they get a stable system with support from Apple will need to buy an Apple system.

Some people will enjoy the challenge of installing the Mac OS on a non-Apple system. They will expect some problems. Moreover, they are probably the type who serve as the "computer guy" for their family and friends. The more of them that grow to use and love the Mac, the more the Mac will be recommended to typical users.

I can't see where allowing OS X to run on all x86 equipment would cost Apple many sales anyway. Apple fans are Apple fans. They want Apple hardware. If anything, the sales of OS X would offset any loss in hardware sales.

This is not the mid 90's. Times are different. People want OS X. It will sell millions. And at $100 a pop, thats a lot of revenue to offset any loss in hardware sales.

DeathChill
Aug 11, 2005, 08:51 AM
Link (http://www.microsoft.com/windows)
I'm not going to lie, that was pretty stupid. OS X crashes more then XP does. My XP install is rock solid, but OS X is prettier.

Fabio_gsilva
Aug 11, 2005, 08:54 AM
pirated versions of osx may not gain marketshare in the usa, but they sure could in asia, india, or africa. on the other hand, pirated versions of windows are so entrenched in those areas that osx probably won't take off over there either

I don't know... Here in Brazil only a few companys have official software in their machines, and almost 80% of all people uses illegal copies of Windows, Office and everything. So, including myself, if a have a chance of installing a OS better than Windows on my PC, I'll try it. And I know that I can convince at least 20 people to try it too. So, if you start thinking in the chain reaction this would be...

Please, forgive my english mistakes. It's definitely my first language...

Uragon
Aug 11, 2005, 09:45 AM
......

Like the previous poster, I'm curious how Apple plans on preventing this for the final release. .........


..by simply going back with IBM/MOTO PPC..... :D

toxicfreak
Aug 11, 2005, 09:47 AM
well well before i get the best beating since the cruxifixion of the christ :)
first english is not my first launguage thx you

well welll it a excellent moment , im very suprise that it took so long too crack osx ....
but its seem that is getting very close .

if job could only realise that the timing is excellent to give to Micro$oft the largest kick in the ball EVER ( and it will remember it for a very long time ) .

Job should see that poeple are sick and tired of M$ , linux is not ready of everyone (but soon) .

So apple should capitalize the moment and make a grand move to deploy its os very largely.

Because at 149$can for OSX and 99.99$can for Iwork there no reason to hack/pirate them if only Job could remove his head from is belly button .



but yes apple stuff better , yes it nicer ,yes its expensive.
as long as apple will refuse too port OSX to pc box they will be pirated .


if apple wanna goes for the big money be accessible be on every machine kick M$ is the ball , show that you have the better os prove that you have the better os start the OS war and win it .

OSX with X11 and linux app is a monster of power

isgoed
Aug 11, 2005, 09:57 AM
That process is sooo easy even they could do it.

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=27719

:D:D:DThat guy thinks it's so exciting that he wetted his pants.

But back on topic. I notice that macrumor members generally talk about macs kinda politically while other forums just talk about the technacalities. And all opinions are just repeated a thousand times. I myself read a tutorial on concretesurf.co.nz (http://www.concretesurf.co.nz/osx86/viewtopic.php?t=84&sid=6d8882a37663992c7c85109efb791c5c) and am wondering where to get VMWare. Is VMWare an opensource product or is it a commercial product? edit: ah, commercial for $189.

Interesting to see how appealing intels can become all in a sudden.

powerbookje
Aug 11, 2005, 10:11 AM
I'm not going to lie, that was pretty stupid. OS X crashes more then XP does. My XP install is rock solid, but OS X is prettier.


XP rock solid? what are you smoking? :confused:

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 10:24 AM
XP rock solid? what are you smoking? :confused:

My home XP system has been up since January. My 2003 home server has been up since last fall when I took it down for patches, SCSI upgrade, and Norton AV upgrade. He isn't smoking anything. As long as you have the system appropriately configured windows is as stable as OS X. Default security is another matter.....It can be fixed assuming you know Windows inside and out. Anyways. Sorry to get off topic. Just clarifying things.

RichCoder
Aug 11, 2005, 10:33 AM
I think we all knew it was just a matter of time. It seems like therre is always somebody (probably a 14 year old kid with a lot of time on his hand) to do stuff like this just to prove that it can be done.

I can see it now OS X on a $299.00 Dell :(

You make that sound like a bad thing. What is so bad about Apple making an extra $115US off of someone that wasn't likely to purchase a Mac anyway?

Plus, the profit potiential from software such as the OS is HUGE. Unlike the mark-up on computer hardware. Why do you think Microsoft is so big? Not from the Intellimouse.

-rich

edit: if you were refering to it being stolen then put on the cheap Dell, then that kind of stuff is going to happen no matter what. Piracy has been going strong since the Commadore 64/Apple II days

d.perel
Aug 11, 2005, 11:07 AM
So, will this be bad for us Mac users?

Ti_Poussin
Aug 11, 2005, 11:10 AM
Good news, I couldn't care less about who make my hardware, anyway Apple quality is no more better than other PC manufacturer those day, I want OS X that's all! Since Apple is no more using high end technologie to power there machine, there will be no more reason to have those high price anymore. Bring on the lower cost machine! Seriously they will have to lower there price it's no wounder, Intel can help them with integrate chipset and cheaper processor. I'm still a fan of PPC architecture through :(

What I fear the most is no software developpe specifically for OS X anymore if you can run Windows or Wine to run Windows appz along. Seriously, who want to throw a lot of money developing a version for a little part of market share that can already use it? Surely it will cost less to port (SSE optimization already done, no conversion to Altivec that we will miss, sniff...sniff).

Let wait and see, I can't wait to see the first benchmark of universal binary appz on OSX vs Windows appz (no more different hardware), let's see the speed of the OS! Anyway OSX is more productive IMO.

trose
Aug 11, 2005, 11:15 AM
Cool.
One of the reasons I put together a new AMD 64 machine for myself (besides gaming :P ) is to try and get OSX running on it sometime next year.

OSX, Windows and Linux on one blazing fast machine... ::drool::

RobHague
Aug 11, 2005, 11:26 AM
Feel free to tear this down but so far the Intel thing has brought them [Apple] nothing but misery it seems. What was their goal? I mean their ‘main’ reason for switching exactly?? They want more market share? They thought Intel could offer more power in the long-term? They always wanted to go x86 and now they have an excuse?

So far in announcing the switch it seems to me they:-

· Ruffled the feathers of die-hard Mac owners. And lets face it aren’t these the people that basically keep/kept the MAC’s going all these years? I’m sure they will learn to live with it but still …

· Opened up the whole OSX on a standard PC thing. If it can be done, not if its legal or not, surely then when its common knowledge/in the news and such, people considering buying a Mac will be thinking “Well why am I paying so much more if the hardware is the same anyway?”.

· Had rumours flying around upsetting and spreading doubt among current Mac Users (What does this mean for my PPC? What of my software? Etc)

· Killed most potential sales. What ‘switcher’ is going to get a new Mac when the news has all the latest on how apple are ditching PPC and going x86? I mean they don’t describe it as ‘just another update’ but a complete change. If someone wanted to get his or her foot in the door now might just seem a bad time.

· Made the apple hardwares main selling feature - Design & OSX. Wont this make them look a little foolish too since their site seems to have a lot of PPC vs P4 stuff. Now they are turning around and going “well actually we think they are pretty great now”.

Wont the new ”mactels” have to be pretty special to basically get rid of that name. Come on Mactel/Intellimac and the rest are used allover the place now, they have a new stigma attached (just what they needed :/)

· Haven’t they just made it even more of a headache for potential software coming to MAC?
I don’t see how they can say “mac compatible” on the box if it wont work on every mac that came before it (within reason). How the heck are games conversions going to go if it needs to work on PPC and x86?? Will there be a new slogan for x86 only software ”Built for G6 Only” or similar. Wont that then make choosing software even harder – Person X gets a new Mactel. Goes to shelf, see’s “mac logo” on box –buys. Finds out its PPC only and has issues. Do games for instance designed for PPC run under the x86 OSX emulation even?

· Oh and if they gain more market share, wont this open them up to the eyes of potential 'hackers'? Will we start seeing virus's aimed at OSX? and other malicious programs. Granted OSX is more secure by default but is it really 110% bulletproof?

I’m not sure if this makes sense to anyone else but it just seems the Intel switch is doing more harm than good at the moment. And come the release of these “uber new mactels” they are going to have to work EVEN HARDER to differentiate themselves from the average PC.

jamesnajera
Aug 11, 2005, 11:32 AM
Here is what I hope apple does do:

Apple PLEASE do not put a hardware or software or hardware/software protection on on you OSX x86 OS.


Why do I state this? Learn from the mistakes of others.

Look at Microsoft and their product activation, look at how much money they have to waste to hire people who can help customers install microsoft software. Look at how many businesses waste time an money calling Microsoft so that their copy of office is installed properly. Look at all the time, money, and energy for egineering product activation is wasted because A) They give bigger companies Volume License Keys (Corporate versions of Microsoft Software) and B) the Volume License Keys (Corporate Versions) become pirated on to the internet.

Next example is Sony. Look at all the time money support they put into trying to copy protect there cds. They spent millions of dollars on something that was circumvented by a black marker.

My point is copy protection gets hacked, cracked, and pirated all the time. There is nothing that can be done about it, so why waste company resources on trying to make new ways of protection which will be circumvented in the long run. In the end if you (Apple) just make a good product and continue to make good products people will eventually learn that it is easier and worth the support to BUY the real thing, instead of continually hacking and patching to keep there illeagel software up to date with the masses.

late

jhu
Aug 11, 2005, 12:21 PM
PC users will anyway try to install OSX on their PC without costing any addition $$$ on hardware
This is nothing but just a nightmare to both Jobs and Gates
emotionally i don't want to see it happens as a Mac user
:(

emotionally? hmmmm... someone needs to get out more.

jhu
Aug 11, 2005, 12:27 PM
Uhm, Microsoft is supporting EFI in Longhorn (windows vista) and intel is developing Linux support. See http://developer.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm for some details straight from the horses mouth.
By the time the first x86-Macs hit the shelves, there should be some boards on the market sporting EFI.

gateway already makes computers with efi

iDrinkKoolAid
Aug 11, 2005, 12:39 PM
They make most of their revenue off of hardware sales not software sales.

How? I seem to hear that assertion quite often. Do you care at all to elaborate with hard and cold numbers?

John Dvorak (which many consider the enemy) said that Apple should license Mac OS to PeeCee personal computers since people who love PowerBooks will always buy them anyway and not some ugly Dull Inspiron laptop.

webman2k
Aug 11, 2005, 12:40 PM
My point is copy protection gets hacked, cracked, and pirated all the time. There is nothing that can be done about it, so why waste company resources on trying to make new ways of protection which will be circumvented in the long run.

Forgive the extreme analogy, but why try to prevent terrorists from bombing whatever they want then, since they've already shown they can get through existing security?

Apple will make damn sure (if that's what they want) that "few" will be able to install the new OS on non Apple machines, because Apple is a hardware company - and they have a right to protect they're intellectual property from being misused. Using a combination of hardware and software checks, that would be invisible to a legal user on a Mactel machine. It doesn't have to be perfect - hardcore enthusiasts will get it to work, and get off on doing so and showing it off to others, but you're talking about such a small percentage...

It's not going to be as easy as just downloading a cracked version of the OS. I imagine there will be a hardware necessity (like the Applr ROMs). If the hardware isn't there and the user cracks the check - it won't work properly.

Apple's not stupid - I'm sure they've thought this through. In act, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't part of the strategy in releasing the dev version - to see how people were going to crack it.

heisetax
Aug 11, 2005, 12:53 PM
Really, I'm surprised it took as long as it did... though I've heard rumblings around that people have had semi-functional versions running on Intel hardware for some time now. It looks like they've had enough time to figure out what works and why (hence the patches).

Like the previous poster, I'm curious how Apple plans on preventing this for the final release. I'd guess their short-term survival could hinge on if they can keep people from using it on budget PCs. I hope they've got some tricks, these guys are pretty crafty.


Why would we want to purchase an overpriced Intel Mac when there are so many other choices available. At least Apple got a piece of the pie when they had licensed clones. Appled will do their best to make these things much more difficult in the future. Before the fact that people needed to make the non-Mac hardware, now they can just use an Intel based computer that they may already have. Apple still considers themselves as a hardware company. We'll soon see if Steve has opened the Mac hardware platform up to unlicensed clones. The future will be interesting. I have no plans to purchase an Intel based Mac. AMD makes much more interesting cpus than Intel. If people are able to get the Mac OS to run on non-Mac ROMed Intel machines, the next step will be to have it run on the AMD cpu machines like the dual core AMD64.

Will this move to Intel kill Apple because of the ability to produce unlicensed clones. Or will the Mac community wake up & refuse to make a complete hardware change just after they had to purchace all new software to run on OS X. I've made the software upgrades & replacements to go to OS X. It is too soon to throw all of that away. Now is the time for all of the Mac users to tell Steve Jobs that we will not be following him on another change so soon. Tell him no Intel in your Mac.

Ahappy non-Intel Mac user,
Bill the TaxMan

nagromme
Aug 11, 2005, 12:54 PM
· Made the apple hardwares main selling feature - Design & OSX. Wont this make them look a little foolish too since their site seems to have a lot of PPC vs P4 stuff. Now they are turning around and going “well actually we think they are pretty great now”.
No current Pentium 4 is going into a PowerMac. This is NOT about today's Intel chips vs. the G5. It's about NEXT year's Intel chips vs. the G5, and it's about the G4 already not offering top speed for laptops.


I’m not sure if this makes sense to anyone else but it just seems the Intel switch is doing more harm than good at the moment.
It has a short-term price--nobody would suggest otherwise--yet a HUGE long-term benefit. IBM and Motorola chips were not going to be able to keep up with where Intel is going next year. So Apple did what had to be done--they went to a well-planned backup plan 5 years in the making.


What I fear the most is no software developpe specifically for OS X anymore if you can run Windows or Wine to run Windows appz along. Seriously, who want to throw a lot of money developing a version for a little part of market share that can already use it?
I added bold to "can"--because most Mac users can, but won't :) It would make no sense to do so, so demand for Mac apps will remain--and that means SALES will remain. In fact, they will grow as the Mac market grows.

So the reason devs will dev for OS X is the same as always: to make ever-increasing amounts of money :)

There are two BIG reasons why Mac users will NOT be willing--on a large scale--to settle for running Windows on their Macs instead of demanding a Mac-native app. And with the Mac market growing (especially after the Intel change), developers will be more motivated than ever to sell to us :) (Besides, if they already have Mac experience and Mac apps to leverage, why throw them out?)

1. Cost. You have to BUY Windows. And possibly some helper app, either for installation or to actually host Windows like VPC. (Which also means a whole extra set of setup steps you have to go through before you can run Windows apps--not too difficult I'm sure, but not something your Mac can do out of the box.)

2. Usability. You give up the benefits of OS X, which gets better all the time and is the reason you HAVE a Mac. You either accept the time and effort and inconvenience to dual-boot--in which case you give up OS X entirely for those times, and cannot use those apps in conjunction with your Mac apps... or else you run Windows and Mac simultaneously (with a fast new VPC, or even WINE to run--some--apps without Windows itself). Running both at once is cool in a geeky way, but it's terrible usability: working back and forth between two GUIs at once! That's not Mac user friendliness. Not to mention a possible performance hit.

When you stop and think about it, can you really imagine most Mac users settling for Windows?

For these reasons, users will continue to DEMAND Mac apps. (Even games, to a lesser extent. The GUI is not always an issue for those, but the other issues remain. I know I'll give my money first for native Mac games.)

Running Windows on Mac WILL be great for certain things--such as to give a comfort zone to people fearful of straying from Windows, and thus grow the Mac platform hugely. And it's great as a last-resort option for Mac fans who need a certain Windows app for work or whatever. We use VPC for that, and VPC (or something) will soon be full-speed and work even better! But it won't make us LIKE running Windows, and won't make us want to buy Windows apps. We'll do it only when we HAVE to.

And we already do: if we HAVE to--and often by choice for games--we run VPC or simply own a PC. No change there. (And neither option is free!) So the people most likely to accept a Windows app or game on their Mac are the very people ALREADY buying Windows apps--for their PC game systems, or their old PC they keep around, or VPC to run some app from their employer, or whatever.

Conclusion: the market for native Mac apps is about to grow, not shrink, and developers will deliver! :)

gwangung
Aug 11, 2005, 01:06 PM
How? I seem to hear that assertion quite often. Do you care at all to elaborate with hard and cold numbers.

Well, there's always the 10K and 10Q reports that break down Apple's revenues from computer sales and software.....

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 01:17 PM
Feel free to tear this down but so far the Intel thing has brought them [Apple] nothing but misery it seems. What was their goal? I mean their ‘main’ reason for switching exactly?? They want more market share? They thought Intel could offer more power in the long-term? They always wanted to go x86 and now they have an excuse?

So far in announcing the switch it seems to me they:-


[Blah blah blah]





OH NO! The sky is falling, the sky is falling. You know what? In Minneapolis they are ripping up one of the biggest roads in the city. Its one of the biggest arteries in the metro area. When it closes it going to cause the entire city traffic jam nightmares for YEARS. But you know what? It needs to be done. Because traffic on that road is already a nighmare. I'm not going to get into specifics do a search on MR. There is about 100 threads out there.) but Apple has its reasons. If they weren't good they wouldn't have done it. Its that simple. Half of your list is simply transition pains. Would you perfer that Apple stay where it is and wither on the vine? Because that is where they are right now.

Oh and as for the Apple diehard users. Screw them. If they are going to be fair weather fans of Apple's and jump ship when they make a decision that WILL improve things in the long run screw them. Everyone is bitching moaning and complaining. Here is an in your face idea - How about everyone shut-up until Apple delivers the first Macintels. Because right now NOT a single person has a leg to stand on when it comes to complaints. The PPC platform was here before the announcement, it was here after, it is here today, and it will be around in 2 years. As for a bunch of hacker wannabes who have cracked OS X to work on their system. Who gives a flying crap. Unless they make it easy enough to install that Ma and Pa bumpkin can do it this will be relegated to only a handful of nerds who want OS X running on their system. I can NOT tell you how many people I know who simply throw their computer away instead of fixing the problem. Do you think these people are going to go to some bittorrent site, download an ISO, burn it to DVD, and go?! Not a chance.
Everyone else is going to see reviews on Computers.com or at the Apple store or at CompUSA and see that wow these new systems are fast...oh and I can run Windows at full speed next to it so I don't loose my software. Cool!
Could it be some of you are simple put off because your precious OS X is running on "crappy" PC hardware?
*Shakes his magic 8 ball* All signs point to elitist users.
Hmmm
*shakes again* All signs point to yes.
That's better.

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 01:22 PM
Well, there's always the 10K and 10Q reports that break down Apple's revenues from computer sales and software.....


Well that begs the question. How much would Apple have to charge to make the same amount that computer hardware brings in. Don't toss iPod sales in there. You would have to assume that a vast majority of PC users would want to pick up a copy and get a few OEM's in there but Apple has nixed the idea of clones before. The idea works but it has to be tweaked. You can't do what the did in the 90's. So? $120 a copy? $150? $200? $300? :confused: Also keep in mind that PC users aren't Mac users. You aren't going to get people to shell out $xxx every 18 months. So expect the initial sales of x86 OS X to drop after PC installs hit saturation. The problem is there are too many variables to really even guess. :confused:

ibook30
Aug 11, 2005, 01:31 PM
If this continues to be the case (hacks allowing OSX on any old box) then it could increase the illegal / unlicensed use of OSX - Why? 'cause folks who are willing to install OSX on a box it is not supposed to be on are not likely to pay for the operatng system in the first place. They are not expecting to get caught !

So- I think Apple will make it high priority to keep this from continuing. If they can't, and they break out the lawyers, it could be a disaster for Apple Public Relations / public perception.

Just one possible scenario. Who knows,, maybe they will be compelled to clone (Ugh)/ license it out to anyone. If my company could purchase OSX for all its Intel machines - I'd be thrilled. So would Apple ( at the sale of a couple million OS licenses).

bit density
Aug 11, 2005, 01:31 PM
Apple will not be able to keep OSx off of non-intel boxes. The required hardware is too similar (windows will run on the Apple Boxes) to existing PPC boxes.

The question will be distribution and hassle. If it is easily distributed and there is no hassle (IE it just works out of the box), lots of people will run OSx on non-apple boxes. Personally I think this would be a great thing, and would represent a unique challenge to the Microsoft monopoly and Apple would make more money, and we would get better operating systems out of both companies. But I don't think this will happen.

Apple will apparently not make it work out of the box. This on the surface will mean that the vast majority of possible users will just not do it. Then all apple has to do is re-enable hardware checking on each iteration of the OS, which Apple releases about every 2 months. This hassle will reduce the number of users by another large amount. Leaving the "enthusiasts" to play. Most of these are not customers, (IE weren't ever going to send a dollar to Apple at all). Some of these will buy a mac in the future.

So yes, it will get cracked. Bottom line, it will make no difference to Apple's bottom line when it does.

So lets turn it the otherway around...

I am a windows user, but I want the best manufactured and designed PC on the market... Where do I go? Now the answer to THAT question DOES drop to Apples bottom line!

jamesnajera
Aug 11, 2005, 01:33 PM
Forgive the extreme analogy, but why try to prevent terrorists from bombing whatever they want then, since they've already shown they can get through existing security?

Apple will make damn sure (if that's what they want) that "few" will be able to install the new OS on non Apple machines, because Apple is a hardware company - and they have a right to protect they're intellectual property from being misused. Using a combination of hardware and software checks, that would be invisible to a legal user on a Mactel machine. It doesn't have to be perfect - hardcore enthusiasts will get it to work, and get off on doing so and showing it off to others, but you're talking about such a small percentage...

It's not going to be as easy as just downloading a cracked version of the OS. I imagine there will be a hardware necessity (like the Applr ROMs). If the hardware isn't there and the user cracks the check - it won't work properly.

Apple's not stupid - I'm sure they've thought this through. In act, I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't part of the strategy in releasing the dev version - to see how people were going to crack it.

Your analogy is lame, and I am sorry you would trade your rights & freedoms away for these so called acts of terrorists.

Also, no ***** Apple has the right to protect there software, my point is do not waste the money on hardware software security checks, use EULA for protection. Anyone who violates the EULA can be taken to court. Then you can use the money you have saved to improve your products features or come out with new products.

Also stop saying Apple is a hardware company, that is simply not true anymore. And do not give me any ********* that Apple is this, or Apple is that, or Steve said this or Steve said that, Fact is Apple switched to intel, I know most people said that would never happen.

late

excalibur313
Aug 11, 2005, 01:34 PM
I'm not going to lie, that was pretty stupid. OS X crashes more then XP does. My XP install is rock solid, but OS X is prettier.

I don't think I could disagree with you more. Currently I am trying to fix a windows xp computer at work where it takes like 10 minutes to log in if the computer was restart and freezes when ever you try to run scan disk or a similar program. Come to think of it when I built an xp computer a few months ago I sold it two months later because I ran into so many problems with it crashing. A unix core beats windows anytime.

Edit: I know that to the cs major xp is very stable but it requires maticulous care and isn't as straight forward as os x.

jakemikey
Aug 11, 2005, 01:41 PM
...and I am sorry you would trade your rights & freedoms away for these so called acts of terrorists...


Non-sequitur, anyone...?

beatle888
Aug 11, 2005, 01:59 PM
OH NO! The sky is falling, the sky is falling. You know what? In Minneapolis they are ripping up one of the biggest roads in the city. Its one of the biggest arteries in the metro area. When it closes it going to cause the entire city traffic jam nightmares for YEARS. But you know what? It needs to be done. Because traffic on that road is already a nighmare. I'm not going to get into specifics do a search on MR. There is about 100 threads out there.) but Apple has its reasons. If they weren't good they wouldn't have done it. Its that simple. Half of your list is simply transition pains. Would you perfer that Apple stay where it is and wither on the vine? Because that is where they are right now.

Oh and as for the Apple diehard users. Screw them. If they are going to be fair weather fans of Apple's and jump ship when they make a decision that WILL improve things in the long run screw them. Everyone is bitching moaning and complaining. Here is an in your face idea - How about everyone shut-up until Apple delivers the first Macintels. Because right now NOT a single person has a leg to stand on when it comes to complaints. The PPC platform was here before the announcement, it was here after, it is here today, and it will be around in 2 years. As for a bunch of hacker wannabes who have cracked OS X to work on their system. Who gives a flying crap. Unless they make it easy enough to install that Ma and Pa bumpkin can do it this will be relegated to only a handful of nerds who want OS X running on their system. I can NOT tell you how many people I know who simply throw their computer away instead of fixing the problem. Do you think these people are going to go to some bittorrent site, download an ISO, burn it to DVD, and go?! Not a chance.
Everyone else is going to see reviews on Computers.com or at the Apple store or at CompUSA and see that wow these new systems are fast...oh and I can run Windows at full speed next to it so I don't loose my software. Cool!
Could it be some of you are simple put off because your precious OS X is running on "crappy" PC hardware?
*Shakes his magic 8 ball* All signs point to elitist users.
Hmmm
*shakes again* All signs point to yes.
That's better.



i was going to reply to the post you just replied to but just ended up shaking my head :D


and as far as thoughs "Die Hard" mac fans are concerend, they have already started to change their tune to "I cant wait for the new macs with intell processors". its pathetic really. when the news first hit they were ready to protest by slicing their wrists and now their on the band wagon. MacRumors is silly this way.

DrNeroCF
Aug 11, 2005, 02:06 PM
Okay, so wait, lets think about this another way...

Could this possibly mean that any of use mac-users with a decent amount of haxxoring skills be able to sit down at any old computer (be it work computer, school computer, library computer, friend's computer) and boot up our beloved OS X from a firewire hard drive / iPod, show it off, let others use it, break myths, and not have to use that crappy OS every time we need to work on an x86 computer?

Is this really a bad thing?

NWAMacTech
Aug 11, 2005, 02:07 PM
My home XP system has been up since January. .

BS, BS, and more BS!

oskar
Aug 11, 2005, 02:08 PM
I'm not going to lie, that was pretty stupid. OS X crashes more then XP does. My XP install is rock solid, but OS X is prettier.

I agree, on your first statement. I don't use XP as much as I've used OS X, but OS X does have quite a few problems or at least some apps often "unexpectedly quit". But the thing here is that many people refer to a crash when an application shuts down or you have to force quit the Finder which almost never affects the whole system. I've gotten maybe one kernal panic every 8 to 10 months for installing software that's not supported or for external hardware reasons. Those could be considered OS X crashes. Now if I count the times I've actually used Windows XP and the times it's crashed on me... I would say it's at least 30% of the times ...or maybe I just have a ****ed up configuration, who knows? But Vista looks like it's actually be different. Until people get a hold of it, we won't now how secure or reliable it is either. They're saying that's one of their top priorities with it, so maybe it'll actually be a decent OS.

oskar
Aug 11, 2005, 02:14 PM
My home XP system has been up since January. My 2003 home server has been up since last fall when I took it down for patches, SCSI upgrade, and Norton AV upgrade. He isn't smoking anything. As long as you have the system appropriately configured windows is as stable as OS X. Default security is another matter.....It can be fixed assuming you know Windows inside and out. Anyways. Sorry to get off topic. Just clarifying things.

I think if XP was my default system, it would actually be stable. The thing is that I usually use someone else's computer which they know nothing about controlling spyware, adware and viruses. They think just by installing Norton the computer is safe from harm.
It's not too off-topic. Some people are and will be comparing Windows XP to Tiger x86(?) and Leopard to Windows Vista more than any other operating systems in the past.

oskar
Aug 11, 2005, 02:29 PM
· Made the apple hardwares main selling feature - Design & OSX. Wont this make them look a little foolish too since their site seems to have a lot of PPC vs P4 stuff. Now they are turning around and going “well actually we think they are pretty great now”.

I am sooo bored of reading this misinformed comment once and over again and again. Ok first: PPC is an architecture, Pentium 4 is the name of one of Intel's x86-based processors.
Next: The PowerMac developer kits are NOT what final products will be like (at least from the inside). Apple is obviously planning on using the best processors Intel has to offer in the future, not the one's that are out currently.
Third: Everybody knows how fast a Dual 2.5 or 2.7 G5 PowerMac is. But in the future (maybe as early as next year) Intel will have better and more power efficient processors running.
Or at least, thats what they did say. They never said a Pentium 4 was better than they thought or anything like that.
People understand: the Intel roadmap was their official reason for opting for Intel's processors.

~Shard~
Aug 11, 2005, 02:34 PM
OS X crashes more then XP does. My XP install is rock solid, but OS X is prettier.

I would clarify that first statement with a "from my personal experience" caveat just to ensure there are no misunderstandings. ;) For me, both my OS X and my Windows box have been rock solid, and I have not had a crash on either in, well, I can't even remember how long!

csubear
Aug 11, 2005, 03:12 PM
I would clarify that first statement with a "from my personal experience" caveat just to ensure there are no misunderstandings. ;) For me, both my OS X and my Windows box have been rock solid, and I have not had a crash on either in, well, I can't even remember how long!


I run windows 2003 at work and Macs and linux at home. All three OSs are very stable. BUT as a developer i hate my windows box. DLL HELL, the term exists for a reason. You start pulling dlls and tlb in and out of the registry and you application will eventually stop running. This simply does not exist on my mac when i develop.

nsjoker
Aug 11, 2005, 03:17 PM
Feel free to tear this down but so far the Intel thing has brought them [Apple] nothing but misery it seems. What was their goal? I mean their ‘main’ reason for switching exactly?? They want more market share? They thought Intel could offer more power in the long-term? They always wanted to go x86 and now they have an excuse?

So far in announcing the switch it seems to me they:-

· Ruffled the feathers of die-hard Mac owners. And lets face it aren’t these the people that basically keep/kept the MAC’s going all these years? I’m sure they will learn to live with it but still …

· Opened up the whole OSX on a standard PC thing. If it can be done, not if its legal or not, surely then when its common knowledge/in the news and such, people considering buying a Mac will be thinking “Well why am I paying so much more if the hardware is the same anyway?”.

· Had rumours flying around upsetting and spreading doubt among current Mac Users (What does this mean for my PPC? What of my software? Etc)

· Killed most potential sales. What ‘switcher’ is going to get a new Mac when the news has all the latest on how apple are ditching PPC and going x86? I mean they don’t describe it as ‘just another update’ but a complete change. If someone wanted to get his or her foot in the door now might just seem a bad time.

· Made the apple hardwares main selling feature - Design & OSX. Wont this make them look a little foolish too since their site seems to have a lot of PPC vs P4 stuff. Now they are turning around and going “well actually we think they are pretty great now”.

Wont the new ”mactels” have to be pretty special to basically get rid of that name. Come on Mactel/Intellimac and the rest are used allover the place now, they have a new stigma attached (just what they needed :/)

· Haven’t they just made it even more of a headache for potential software coming to MAC?
I don’t see how they can say “mac compatible” on the box if it wont work on every mac that came before it (within reason). How the heck are games conversions going to go if it needs to work on PPC and x86?? Will there be a new slogan for x86 only software ”Built for G6 Only” or similar. Wont that then make choosing software even harder – Person X gets a new Mactel. Goes to shelf, see’s “mac logo” on box –buys. Finds out its PPC only and has issues. Do games for instance designed for PPC run under the x86 OSX emulation even?

· Oh and if they gain more market share, wont this open them up to the eyes of potential 'hackers'? Will we start seeing virus's aimed at OSX? and other malicious programs. Granted OSX is more secure by default but is it really 110% bulletproof?

I’m not sure if this makes sense to anyone else but it just seems the Intel switch is doing more harm than good at the moment. And come the release of these “uber new mactels” they are going to have to work EVEN HARDER to differentiate themselves from the average PC.

that's why it's a transition. nobody said it was going to be easy. of course this will hurt apple in the short term, and anybody who disagrees with that is retarded. steve said that the transition will start now and be complete by 2007.. so yeah it will be a hard year for apple.. but once the new x86 macs roll out things will ease up. the goal is for ppc to die and have no support, so don't even worry about apps not being ppc compatible in 2007 because their not supposed to be. apple is meeting us halfway and we should do the same. if this means upgrading a machine that is only 2 years... well then so be it. in return you'll get a dream machine in an x86 mac, and about pirated mac os x copies.. it's almost a non-issue. it'll require a lot of tweaking and will have no support for apple's software update. no more than 10% of OS X users will be pirates, if that much anyway. sit tight, the video ipod will get apple through this all without a hitch.

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 03:31 PM
BS, BS, and more BS!


I'll take a screen shot when I get home if you are really that ignorant. :rolleyes: Go to the command prompt and type systeminfo and hit enter. There you will find the uptime on a system along with just about every spec you want to know. Like it or not Windows can have up times that beat out OS X. It all depends on how often you install patches. With my firewall I only need to do it once a year. In the case of the computer in question I got the system in January otherwise it would prob have been up longer. My record on my normal desktops is 8 months. That is with utilities that constantly monitor the reg to keep it clean. FireFox. Norton AV Corp Edition linked to my home server for updates. Weekly defrags at 3AM that typ last 5 minutes. (I could push it out to monthly but why?) Plus spyware scanners. (Even though its never detected anything on my system. Thank you Firefox.) Basicly I have one heck of a tweaked system. OS X you don't have to do this out of the box which is the selling point of X IMHO but it IS doable on Windows.

NWAMacTech
Aug 11, 2005, 03:36 PM
I'll take a screen shot when I get home if you are really that ignorant. :rolleyes: Go to the command prompt and type systeminfo and hit enter. There you will find the uptime on a system along with just about every spec you want to know.


Here you go

20 years and counting... :rolleyes:

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 03:39 PM
Here you go

20 years and counting... :rolleyes:


Cute....so I guess there is no way to prove it other then to have everyone come over to my house. :rolleyes: Doesn't change the fact that my system has been up since Jan. If you can't deal with that *shrugs* You are just being dense then.

makeme
Aug 11, 2005, 03:41 PM
Restrict Mac OS X sales to those who have previously purchased a compatible mac and at time of purchase tie it to that Mac using Intel's DRM chip.

Bundle Mac OS X with new Macs and tie it to that Mac using Intel's DRM chip.


Circumvention would require emulation, modification or reverse engineering of the DRM and a stolen, unauthorized and illegal copy of Mac OS X.


Destroy the line between software and hardware by no longer selling Mac OS X. Have all Macs preloaded with Mac OS X tied to that Mac via DRM and all future updates and upgrades over software update and .mac respectively.


Circumvention would require a hard disk clone between a Mac and PC and emulation, modification or reverse engineering of DRM. No updates or upgrades would be possible without another clone. By creating separate disk images specially made for each Mac with and only with the drivers for that Mac's hardware, Apple could make this result in an unusable system in many cases.


These are just some of my radical ideas of how Apple might force Mac OS X to run only on their own hardware. Feel free to tear them apart and come up with your own as well. In addition, I know very well that Apple might very well not have to do such things to protect it's bottom line.

tgrimley
Aug 11, 2005, 03:43 PM
Here you go

20 years and counting... :rolleyes:

You need to learn to pay attention to details.. like the install date..

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 03:45 PM
Destroy the line between software and hardware by no longer selling Mac OS X. Have all Macs preloaded with Mac OS X tied to that Mac via DRM and all future updates and upgrades over software update and .mac respectively.

VERY bad idea. So what happens when the hard drives dies? Or if you have to reinstall the OS? Both of which do happen on Macs. Two people I've converted over to Mac Minis had this happen to them. HP Pavilians. Both of which didn't come with install media but had the installer on the HD. Funny thing happens when the drive the installer is on dies.....

NWAMacTech
Aug 11, 2005, 03:45 PM
You need to learn to pay attention to details.. like the install date..
Hehe, I know. Just being ridiculous. If it matters I can change that to. :p

makeme
Aug 11, 2005, 03:48 PM
VERY bad idea. So what happens when the hard drives dies? Or if you have to reinstall the OS? Both of which do happen on Macs. Two people I've converted over to Mac Minis had this happen to them. HP Pavilians. Both of which didn't come with install media but had the installer on the HD. Funny thing happens when the drive the installer is on dies.....

Obviously, you could just take it in and Apple would put a new disk image on it.

tgrimley
Aug 11, 2005, 03:51 PM
Hehe, I know. Just being ridiculous. If it matters I can change that to. :p

I know, nevermind the fact that windows xp wasn't even around..

My 2c on the stability thing is this: I've used tiger for only about an hour total in my life, in which time it's crashed twice. I've been using XP since it came out, and I don't remember the last time it crashed. The last 10 times I rebooted it were changing hardware. Granted, I treat my system like a baby...

Someone mentioned not having to upkeep OSX like windows, but isn't there a host of applications that run at 3am to fix permissions and what not?

In any case, crashing is going to happen, no matter what. The user experience is a lot more important (to me), and I think Tiger wins that hands down.

But then again, systems don't generally crash on me!

makeme
Aug 11, 2005, 03:56 PM
I know, nevermind the fact that windows xp wasn't even around..

My 2c on the stability thing is this: I've used tiger for only about an hour total in my life, in which time it's crashed twice. I've been using XP since it came out, and I don't remember the last time it crashed. The last 10 times I rebooted it were changing hardware. Granted, I treat my system like a baby...

Someone mentioned not having to upkeep OSX like windows, but isn't there a host of applications that run at 3am to fix permissions and what not?

In any case, crashing is going to happen, no matter what. The user experience is a lot more important (to me), and I think Tiger wins that hands down.

But then again, systems don't generally crash on me!


The only crash I've ever experienced with my Mac is with Safari, which needs a lot of work in the stability department, IMHO.

webman2k
Aug 11, 2005, 03:59 PM
Your analogy is lame, and I am sorry you would trade your rights & freedoms away for these so called acts of terrorists.

Ugghh.... my analogy was "extreme," yes, but I was merely reacting to a previous poster's thought that since it hasn't been stopped before Apple should stop trying. My analogy was that the thought of not trying to stop terrorists because they've succeeded before is just as rediculous.

I don't know where you got the idea that I would like to "trade my rights and freedoms away for these so called acts of terrorists." Do you understand what an analogy is?

Lord Kythe
Aug 11, 2005, 04:12 PM
I agree with the users in this thread who feel like this is no big deal. If some people who post here think that their little friend circle who can actually manage to run OS X on any (or even some) x86 PC represents 25%+ of PC users, they are kidding themselves.

If it takes so much as one patch, as easy as it can be to install, to make something work, you can bet anything most users won't be able to do it. I mean, a lot of users have difficulty understanding how to re-install their Mac OS on a Mac! Imagine if you need to patch and monitor the system (especially at updates) for it to work! No way this would take away any significant market share from Apple.

To back this up, let me say I've worked for an internet company (Bell Sympatico, biggest in Canada, support US and Canadian users) and I am an Apple Certified Technician, and I've had my share of troubleshooting average users. Most users know their computer as most drivers know their car: all they know is if it's working or not (and even then...), and if it stops working or shows any sign of abnormal activity, they bring it to the specialist and spend tons of cash on diagnostics/maintenance/repairs and they especially don't want the specialist to explain how to do it yourself; they just want it done.

With this said, I also believe Steve (or anyone else at Apple) will continuously find ways to prevent Mac OS X86 from running on mainstream PC boxes.

It's like viruses; new ones appear, new patches are released. Same thing. Hackers will always find ways to make it run on PC boxes despite the patches, and new patches will come and block them, for some time.

Really, no big deal.

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 04:13 PM
Obviously, you could just take it in and Apple would put a new disk image on it.


Take it in where? Not everyone has an Apple store located next to them. And really. If you need your computer back up and running NOW do you really want to drive somewhere to get it up and running again. Something like this would KILL Apple's sales.

Lord Kythe
Aug 11, 2005, 04:19 PM
Take it in where? Not everyone has an Apple store located next to them. And really. If you need your computer back up and running NOW do you really want to drive somewhere to get it up and running again. Something like this would KILL Apple's sales.

Come on, it's obvious this "no Mac OS X DVDs, only available as pre-installed on drives" scheme is worthless. It could not work for too many reasons. Let's concentrate on real solutions and stop even responding to such junk (no offense intended, let's just keep things constructive and moving!)

makeme
Aug 11, 2005, 04:36 PM
Come on, it's obvious this "no Mac OS X DVDs, only available as pre-installed on drives" scheme is worthless. It could not work for too many reasons. Let's concentrate on real solutions and stop even responding to such junk (no offense intended, let's just keep things constructive and moving!)

hehe, I knew I would be flamed for such a radical idea, but the truth is that we may see such high levels of control one day. The DRM on music is just the beginning. Hopefully, everyone will have insanely fast Internet and can just reimage their drive off of .Mac, Software Update or something.

ericschmerick
Aug 11, 2005, 04:41 PM
I agree with the users in this thread who feel like this is no big deal. If some people who post here think that their little friend circle who can actually manage to run OS X on any (or even some) x86 PC represents 25%+ of PC users, they are kidding themselves.


I've only posted maybe twice before ever, but I can't resist this thread.

First, I think you're spot on. When I was 24/5/6/7/8 and had nothing better to do, I'd willingly spend hours putting together bits of hardware from Fry's and hacking away at driver settings, applying patches to get stuff to work. I'd sit for hours while the latest hacked version of some great software package (office!) downloaded over my dial-up connection. All to save a few bucks. Of course, there would always be some weird error message, infrequent (or frequent) crash, etc, but I was willing to put up with it because I was young(er), stupid(er), poor(er), and less busy.

There is NO WAY I'd do that now. I think I'm technically capable of doing whatever patching or configuring needed to be done, but there's no way it's worth my time. I just want to go down to the store, buy my PC, turn it on, and use it for real work (and play). Hacking and patching to save $50 or $100 is no longer worth it for me, and I think that MOST computer users either start in this position, or reach that position after maturing a bit.

Having said all that, there were several posts that argue something like "if apple can't sell PCs, then they won't make money, they'll go out of business, and we'll all be sad." I guess I'd say two things about that -

1. The last time I checked, the largest SW company on the planet, and one of the planet's most profitable (if not the most profitable) companies, didn't make PCs. They seem to be surviving just fine. If I had a choice to buy OSX or WINXP on my fancy new Dell machine, I know which one I'd choose. Further, consider that Apple probably makes as much profit selling one copy of Tiger Family Pack than they do selling a mac mini or even an entry level iMac. I think they'd survive just fine in the SW business.

2. I'm actually optimistic that, if it is pretty "easy" to make OSX run on a generic box, that will put JUST ENOUGH pricing pressure on Mac HW (a reasonable defense against this sort of thing is to reduce the price differential between mac HW and other HW) so that we'll see lower prices in general on macs. I think Apple will find a way to leverage component standardization and volume to be able to bring price differentials down while maintaining their already thin margins.

Overall, I just do not see what the big deal is (either with the intel switch, or with the idea of OSX running on a generic box). It seems like a large number of folks just need something to be worked up about.

paulypants
Aug 11, 2005, 04:48 PM
You quoted me out of context.

I had provided evidence that Apple is not ranked very highly in market penetration of hardware. IBM was ranked higher, but sold the division. eMachines is ranked higher.

Apple can make more money and increase market share of their OS if OSX is opened up to the large installed base of wintel hardware.

Why would apple increase market share by a simple change to intel chips if OSX won't run on the large installed base of wintel machines? Are general consumers going to spend $500 more for equal or less then equal hardware simply because the hardware will run OSX?

The average consumer does not find OSX compelling enough to spend more now for Apple hardware in order to run OSX. Hence Apple's ranking of 7th in the hardware market.

Why would a switch to intel alone change that. Apple will have to spend more R&D $$ in order to compete with wintel boxes in performance. No more 1.5 years (or whatever) between iBook refreshes, for example.

Sorry, son. The writing is on the wall. Your beloved computer company is selling out. Can't blame them. Shareholders can be pretty demanding sometimes.

The only writing I see is that you seem to be utterly confused and misinformed. Apple cares about being as PROFITABLE as possible within their business model, market share is nice, but not at the expense of profitability. Take business 101...

makeme
Aug 11, 2005, 05:35 PM
Sales figures from Apple's latest report:

Macintosh 3,298,000 units for $4,664,000,000
iPod 16,046,000 for $3,328,000,000
Software $797,000,000

ericschmerick and anyone else who thinks Apple's business isn't all about the hardware, Apple sells around $8 billion in hardware and less than $1 billion in software.

If Apple started just selling software, you do realize they go from taking in more than 8 billion dollars to less than a billion. Worst business decision EVER!

wPod
Aug 11, 2005, 05:35 PM
this is inevitable. either apple will release a legit version for ANY x86 or people will hack it. i think apple should do the smart thing and sell it to anyone. . .and release it a few months before longhorn, er vista comes out!!!

SiliconAddict
Aug 11, 2005, 05:54 PM
this is inevitable. either apple will release a legit version for ANY x86 or people will hack it. i think apple should do the smart thing and sell it to anyone. . .and release it a few months before longhorn, er vista comes out!!!


As I said before though what kind of money would Apple make off of such sales? Yes they would sell more copies then hardware units but how many would Apple have to sell to make up the costs and could they maintain such sales over 2, 4, 8 years? PC users aren't Mac users.

Once X saturates Window systems the average PC user isn't going to upgrade every 18 months or whenever Apple releases a new OS. (MS is already seeing this effect with Windows 2000. Its good enough that users aren't moving to XP expect when they buy new computers.)

So after that first sales rush of PC users OS X sales would dry up and Apple would be well....doomed.

There is a formula in there. Somewhere between Apple doing everything....clones...and selling ind copies of OS X to PC users. Apple will find it. My bet is select licensing for the lower end Macs where they aren't making as much of a killing. (Don't get me wrong I KNOW Apple is still making money off the Mini just not as much as say a 15" or 17" PowerBook.)

Say they handpick a vendor like Dell\HP to make a Mini meeting strict hardware specs and QC and let them become the bottom feeders of the low end Mac Market. That was just off the top of my head. But there has to be an option out there other then one or the other. :confused:

jakemikey
Aug 11, 2005, 06:05 PM
Sales figures from Apple's latest report:

Macintosh 3,298,000 units for $4,664,000,000
iPod 16,046,000 for $3,328,000,000
Software $797,000,000


I hardly think that Apple's hardware sales would plummet to ZERO if they decided to license OS X. The drop in hardware sales would be at least equal to the rise in OS X sales. BTW, where are the units on software?

Anyway, if we're scared that Apple would die without exclusive use of OS X, then that speaks VOLUMES of what we (and everyone else) really thinks of the value of Apple's hardware.

Personally I think Apple needs a good excuse to compete on the quality of their hardware, because right now they're riding *exclusively* on the aesthetics of their machines. Not good enough. Where are things like SATA 2, DDR2, PCIe? What happened to Apple being an early adopter of new standards and technology?

Think about it. The only sales pitch for the Mac is

1) Looks nice.
2) Runs OS X.

It's a sad state when OS X is a life preserver to Mac hardware.

jhu
Aug 11, 2005, 06:09 PM
I think we all knew it was just a matter of time. It seems like therre is always somebody (probably a 14 year old kid with a lot of time on his hand) to do stuff like this just to prove that it can be done.

I can see it now OS X on a $299.00 Dell :(

wtf? what 14 year old kid has the money to obtain a developer license and the developer hardware platform?

makeme
Aug 11, 2005, 06:13 PM
I hardly think that Apple's hardware sales would plummet to ZERO if they decided to license OS X. The drop in hardware sales would be at least equal to the rise in OS X sales.

Average sales for Macintosh are $1,414 per unit while average sales for Software are about one tenth of that per unit.

BTW, where are the units on software?
They weren't in the report: http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/10/107357/reports/10QQ3FY05.pdf

Personally I think Apple needs a good excuse to compete on the quality of their hardware, because right now they're riding *exclusively* on the aesthetics of their machines. Not good enough. Where are things like SATA 2, DDR2, PCIe? What happened to Apple being an early adopter of new standards and technology?

Umm, perhaps this is why Apple switched to Intel.

dan-o-mac
Aug 11, 2005, 06:23 PM
Apple better ship every mac with the same protection they use for Logic 7 Pro. Seeing that no one has been able to crack that. :D

jakemikey
Aug 11, 2005, 06:31 PM
Average sales for Macintosh are $1,414 per unit while average sales for Software are about one tenth of that per unit.


I think in this situation profit would be a more relevant figure than sales. Hardware is obviously going to be ten times as expensive, but it says nothing as to how comparable the profit margins are.

makeme
Aug 11, 2005, 06:54 PM
I think in this situation profit would be a more relevant figure than sales. Hardware is obviously going to be ten times as expensive, but it says nothing as to how comparable the profit margins are.

I know, but the report does not divulge profit information. Software is not that profitable until you sell much much much more than Apple is selling. I'm willing to bet that Apple's profit margin on the hardware is higher. Why, well look at your signature!

Don.Key
Aug 11, 2005, 06:59 PM
Apple better ship every mac with the same protection they use for Logic 7 Pro. Seeing that no one has been able to crack that. :D

Once you move to X86 world, you have a much larger and determined crowd which will work on hacking software.

The only products in x86 realm which where never 100% cracked are those with very small target audience and(!) good copyright mechanisms. You can get patches for all other products.

OSX`s protection will be under some serious attack and I doubt that it will survive it for long.

damax452
Aug 11, 2005, 07:05 PM
Anyone who thinks that OS X wont be cracked to run on an average PC is nieve.

OS X (for Intel) will be cracked within days of it's release to run on any PC.

There is ALWAYS someone smarter than you. Bill Gates even knows that. Look at XP, everyone is laughing at the activation, it's useless. I can find 10 copies of XP PRO cracked to work around the activation. And they work flawlessly and can be fully updated.

It's just going to be a matter of time...

I agree. As soon as you bring Mac OS X into the x86 world (where 90+% of computer users are), it will be cracked. I cannot think of any software that has not been cracked that runs on windows (ie. x86) machines. MS Office, Nero, Photoshop, all PC games, all Stardock apps, AutoCAD, MathCAD, anything you can think of. This includes all DVD and CD protection schemes to date.

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to protect software from piracy. As noted above, hobbyist programmers are much more creative and able than software companies. EVERY version of windows has been cracked, some before they were officially released. I would be very impressed if Apple were able to keep OS X from running on any joe shmoe PC.

I use a PC, always have. But Apple's products have intrigued me over the past few years. I would have bought a Mac mini after rev B, but since the GPU was not upgraded, I decided not to. A mistake by Apple I think most of us can agree. It literally kept me from switching. Even at $500, why would I settle for such old technology? I know its marketed as low end, but 32mb? come on, thats like >5 yrs old.

Apple hardware is neat looking, very sleek and streamlined. There is no doubt that the physical design of Apple hardware and fluid-like GUI of OS X brings a lot of ppl to Apple. It sort of lured me as well, but then I realized that its sort of smoke and mirrors. My PC can do everything I want it to do, and I built it for much less than a comparably equipped Mac. Plus, every component is exactly what I wanted, no compromise whatsoever.

My guess is that I'll be dual booting Windows Vista and Mac OS X by the end of 2006 on my trusty PC. :D

vd0t
Aug 11, 2005, 07:07 PM
have u guys seen this.. (sorry if posted already)..
its a step by step guide on how to actually install it!
http://www.xplodenet.com/

anyone try that??
i dont have a copy of the x86 version of tiger so cant confirm

jakemikey
Aug 11, 2005, 07:20 PM
I know, but the report does not divulge profit information. Software is not that profitable until you sell much much much more than Apple is selling. I'm willing to bet that Apple's profit margin on the hardware is higher. Why, well look at your signature!


There is information on profitability (albeit vague) on page 29 of the report (gross margin). It reports that the overall margin is a smidge below 30%. This overall margin, it notes, is favorably impacted by "higher margin software sales". It also notes that the increases were offset by "lower margin iPod and deskop sales". So from this we can assume that iPod and desktop margins are probably a bit lower than the overall 30% margin (I'd guess more like 15-20%).

Elsewhere in the report you may find that OS X development costs range in the neighborhood of $10M per quarter (the figure was $30M over 9 months for Tiger). FileMaker Pro development was $2M. I think from that it's safe to assume that other Apple Apps run in the low single-digit-million per quarter. Lets be generous and round out software development costs at $30M per quarter.

Now let's look at sales. For the latest quarter, software sales were $345M. There's no information on distribution costs for software, but I'd guess that it's less than the development costs; probably significantly less - say $15M. So there's a hypothetical software profit of $300M per quarter.

Now let's look at hardware. Total Mac sales last quarter were $1.56 billion. Let's be generous and say that the hardware carried the 30% margin (we know it was less). That's ~$468M profit from the Mac side per quarter.

So hardware and software profits aren't as far apart as we thought. Personally I think it'd be far easier to double software sales through licensing than to double hardware sales of premium-priced computers. Best of all, the software development costs would stay fixed, having a huge impact on the software margin.

If anyone has more reliable numbers, feel free to correct me. But this math makes me feel that Apple isn't as reliant on its hardware as we all think it is. There's room for huge growth here through licensing.

lssmit02
Aug 11, 2005, 07:32 PM
Legal. In most of the U.S. anyway...license agreements aren't legally binding. --Eric
Just saw this. Not true. Most courts are upholding shrink/click wrap license agreements. It's not unanimous, but the majority say they're enforceable. So, yes, if you install OS X in violation of the click wrap agreement that pops up, you've breached an enforceable contract.

miltontong
Aug 11, 2005, 07:57 PM
personally i don't understand why so many MR members are upset that osx can be installed on x86 hardware. when asked why apple does not allow osx on non-mac computers, MR members usually reply that mac users like how osx is specifically designed to work with mac hardware and it is the hardware/software integration that makes osx so great. so that means if osx is available on x86 pcs then there won't be any loss on mac sales because all mac users love the hardware/software integration of macs and osx and therefore none of the current mac user base will buy x86 pcs to run osx. the market for macs will remain more or less the same as it is right now.

AidenShaw
Aug 11, 2005, 08:13 PM
Anywa... for instance, Apple could make a deal with HP (yes, the same HP that just STOPPED selling iPods... hmmm maybe not...). Apple could stop making PowerMacs (the most "normal" of Apple products), and resell HP dual processor machines. As part of the deal, HP could sell OSX on any HP desktop, as well as market the Apple cinema display and iSight (to any HP customers, not just those buying OSX).
Have you looked at the HP displays - they're actually better deals than the Cinema Displays....

HP has similar brightness, 20% higher contrast, adjust height, tilt, rotate portrait/landscape, and are $450 cheaper (for 23"). And, of course, it attachs to its stand with an industry-standard VESA mount, it isn't an extra-cost option.

Apple displays used to be the cream of the crop, but like the portable displays, today they're bottom feeders....

You really don't want to put a Cinema display side-by-side with an upper tier PC display - you'll be really disappointed with Apple.

http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/monitors/tft/images/l2035.jpg
and they're even brushed aluminum...

jhu
Aug 11, 2005, 08:24 PM
personally i don't understand why so many MR members are upset that osx can be installed on x86 hardware. when asked why apple does not allow osx on non-mac computers, MR members usually reply that mac users like how osx is specifically designed to work with mac hardware and it is the hardware/software integration that makes osx so great. so that means if osx is available on x86 pcs then there won't be any loss on mac sales because all mac users love the hardware/software integration of macs and osx and therefore none of the current mac user base will buy x86 pcs to run osx. the market for macs will remain more or less the same as it is right now.

it's just the elitest attitude

Quartz Extreme
Aug 11, 2005, 08:26 PM
EVERY version of windows has been cracked, some before they were officially released. I would be very impressed if Apple were able to keep OS X from running on any joe shmoe PC.

The difference is that Windows has to run on standard hardware made by all kinds of different companies. Apple, while they are switching over to x86 architecture, has complete control over the hardware and the software. Does that mean that they can't get hacked? No. Chips can be emulated or hacked not to be checked for. But they can be made more difficult.

Ghibli
Aug 11, 2005, 08:58 PM
Feel free to tear this down but so far the Intel thing has brought them [Apple] nothing but misery it seems.

I really do not think so. Apple stock was traded around 45$ in february BEFORE the 2-1 split (this means that the number of shares doubled, so its value should decrease). As of today Apple stock is trading at 44$. It's on a ramp since the Intel-switch announcement... and some analysts forecast a 50$ target value. This means that Apple almost doubled its value in just some months...

see

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

for details.

Tupring
Aug 11, 2005, 09:42 PM
This was bound to happen eventually. I'm curious to see how Apple will prevent it in the final incarnation of the Mactels.
They won't, it's too late... they have successfully killed themselves.

puuukeey
Aug 11, 2005, 09:57 PM
Why would posters justify users using an intelmac because of its stability and intergrated desing when apple uses emulator in its own hardware?

jhu
Aug 11, 2005, 10:21 PM
I really do not think so. Apple stock was traded around 45$ in february BEFORE the 2-1 split (this means that the number of shares doubled, so its value should decrease). As of today Apple stock is trading at 44$. It's on a ramp since the Intel-switch announcement... and some analysts forecast a 50$ target value. This means that Apple almost doubled its value in just some months...

see

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

for details.

not quite. that chart you linked to is split-adjusted retrospectively. thus apple stock is now back to the price it was prior to the split.

jiggie2g
Aug 12, 2005, 02:17 AM
reactions like these are why PC/Linux people hate Mac users. besides the OS , Mobo , CPU and fancy case what's the difference between a Mac and a Dell right now....????

So when the transition is over, besides the OS and the Fancy case what will be the difference then?????

Face the Future people , OSX has been CRACKED it will only be a few short months (if even that) when some one finally puts out an ISO image that will work every bit as well as a cracked Win XP installation.

To waste time fighting this is just plain stupid. there's an old saying " IF a thief really want's something he's going to get it" because he won't stop until then. This plays out with OSX on x86.

Apple will put out some kind of an update to close the holes and by the weekend the hackers open it back up , remember Itunes DRM stripping that's stil open. Don't believe me ask our good pal Bill Gates.

There are a million young guys like DVD John(among others) who will crack something that cost millions to make and all it cost him was a weekend.

However do not fear mac users. It is really such a bad thing for the People of Asia , South America , Africa ...and other low economy countries to run OSX. Isn't this was Open source was all about.

This will equal to more mac sales as market the user base increases. Apple cannot continue to Play the game it's been playing anymore. If Apple thinks it can charge $3000 for an Intel PowerMac or $2399 for a 15in PB it's going to get a rude awakening. Prices should be on Par with the rest of the industry. Competition is primarily going to come from Dell , as most people expect HP will sell off thier PC division like IBM did in the next 18-24 months.

For mac to remain a closed platform is just the slow road to oblivion or just remain afloat in obscurity. No one gives a Crap. keeping mac OS c,osed is a huge mistake and market share will continue to shink (if that still possible at this point). It's do or die for Apple as a hardware company.

Macs will still sell reguardless if the OS is on sale to work with a Generic PC, a good example of this is Sony. make a pretty PC it will sell. didn't that work with the iMac. sp long as they price competitive ly and stop acting like they are BMW cuz in the x86 PC industry thier is no room for that kind of crap...not with Dell breathing down thier backs.

If anything this proves 1 major step for Apple , that IF Geeks are willing to go through all this trouble to get OSX to work on thier DIY PC's then it's thier OS of choice , because they have finally realized Linux is never going to get it together.

The People have Spoken.

Platform
Aug 12, 2005, 04:38 AM
reactions like these are why PC/Linux people hate Mac users. besides the OS , Mobo , CPU and fancy case what's the difference between a Mac and a Dell right now....????

So when the transition is over, besides the OS and the Fancy case what will be the difference then?????

Face the Future people , OSX has been CRACKED it will only be a few short months (if even that) when some one finally puts out an ISO image that will work every bit as well as a cracked Win XP installation.

To waste time fighting this is just plain stupid. there's an old saying " IF a thief really want's something he's going to get it" because he won't stop until then. This plays out with OSX on x86.

Apple will put out some kind of an update to close the holes and by the weekend the hackers open it back up , remember Itunes DRM stripping that's stil open. Don't believe me ask our good pal Bill Gates.

There are a million young guys like DVD John(among others) who will crack something that cost millions to make and all it cost him was a weekend.

However do not fear mac users. It is really such a bad thing for the People of Asia , South America , Africa ...and other low economy countries to run OSX. Isn't this was Open source was all about.

This will equal to more mac sales as market the user base increases. Apple cannot continue to Play the game it's been playing anymore. If Apple thinks it can charge $3000 for an Intel PowerMac or $2399 for a 15in PB it's going to get a rude awakening. Prices should be on Par with the rest of the industry. Competition is primarily going to come from Dell , as most people expect HP will sell off thier PC division like IBM did in the next 18-24 months.

For mac to remain a closed platform is just the slow road to oblivion or just remain afloat in obscurity. No one gives a Crap. keeping mac OS c,osed is a huge mistake and market share will continue to shink (if that still possible at this point). It's do or die for Apple as a hardware company.

Macs will still sell reguardless if the OS is on sale to work with a Generic PC, a good example of this is Sony. make a pretty PC it will sell. didn't that work with the iMac. sp long as they price competitive ly and stop acting like they are BMW cuz in the x86 PC industry thier is no room for that kind of crap...not with Dell breathing down thier backs.

If anything this proves 1 major step for Apple , that IF Geeks are willing to go through all this trouble to get OSX to work on thier DIY PC's then it's thier OS of choice , because they have finally realized Linux is never going to get it together.

The People have Spoken.

OS X is cheaper than XP pro :p

Patch^
Aug 12, 2005, 05:45 AM
guys my m8 sent me this link on how to install OS X on any pc :O. He said he has it running but i'm not too sure...

here it is: -

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Vmware_how_to

He said he has it booting up natively from his HD!

I posted this in another link, sounds interesting :O

dan-o-mac
Aug 12, 2005, 07:41 AM
Once you move to X86 world, you have a much larger and determined crowd which will work on hacking software.

The only products in x86 realm which where never 100% cracked are those with very small target audience and(!) good copyright mechanisms. You can get patches for all other products.

OSX`s protection will be under some serious attack and I doubt that it will survive it for long.

Yeah I know. I have a feeling Apple knows this too, it's got to be a part of their strategy.

riversky
Aug 12, 2005, 12:22 PM
Just chatted with a developer friend in Germany that downloaded OSx86 from a server and he is using it on the latest Toshiba laptop and says it WORKS! In fact he said OS X is far, far faster on the Toshiba than it is on his 1.67 PowerBook....Looks like all the PowerPC's are faster stuff was nothing more than Apple PR hype.

Can't wait to see it run on the new Intel Cores that will be out in a year or so. It will blow the current PowerBooks away!

eSnow
Aug 12, 2005, 02:01 PM
Restrict Mac OS X sales to those who have previously purchased a compatible mac and at time of purchase tie it to that Mac using Intel's DRM chip.

Bundle Mac OS X with new Macs and tie it to that Mac using Intel's DRM chip

You know what? The moment Apple goes that road, the moment they lose a loyal customer over 15 years.

jkhanson
Aug 12, 2005, 02:27 PM
Just chatted with a developer friend in Germany that downloaded OSx86 from a server and he is using it on the latest Toshiba laptop and says it WORKS! In fact he said OS X is far, far faster on the Toshiba than it is on his 1.67 PowerBook....Looks like all the PowerPC's are faster stuff was nothing more than Apple PR hype.

There have been several comments on how fast OS X is running on these machines, but I haven't seen any hard data to back this up. Can you ask your friend to compare the time it takes to complete a task such as encoding a song in iTunes on his two systems (assuming that iTunes is a fat binary, something I am not sure of).

zakatov
Aug 12, 2005, 03:32 PM
Can you ask your friend to compare the time it takes to complete a task such as encoding a song in iTunes on his two systems (assuming that iTunes is a fat binary, something I am not sure of).

Or better yet, have him run XBench on both systems (now a universal binary)

271
Aug 12, 2005, 03:38 PM
i apologize if this has already been posted. i didn't notice it in the thread anywhere. Wired news has blurb on the hack as well-

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,68501,00.html

solvs
Aug 12, 2005, 03:44 PM
They won't, it's too late... they have successfully killed themselves.
Or... this is just a test so they can secure it better when the actual product ships. People are talking about how easy it is to install, but they aren't thinking about that fact. Nor the fact that it's a "dumbed down" version of OS X. Also explains the speed increase.

Darwin
Aug 12, 2005, 04:53 PM
Or... this is just a test so they can secure it better when the actual product ships. People are talking about how easy it is to install, but they aren't thinking about that fact. Nor the fact that it's a "dumbed down" version of OS X. Also explains the speed increase.

Also the fact that this Intel version is of Tiger and not Leopard which is what will complete the X86 switch

jhu
Aug 12, 2005, 05:07 PM
Or... this is just a test so they can secure it better when the actual product ships. People are talking about how easy it is to install, but they aren't thinking about that fact. Nor the fact that it's a "dumbed down" version of OS X. Also explains the speed increase.

perhaps apple seeded it themselves. if apple doesn't sue someone soon, it means they fully expected and wanted this to happen. also, what do you mean by "dumbed down?" how is the leaked version any more crippled than the mac version?

DeathChill
Aug 12, 2005, 05:07 PM
Or better yet, have him run XBench on both systems (now a universal binary)
XBench doesn't do any x86 tests yet, it just can run natively. Currently a 3.6 GHz P4 will get approximately a 22 on the CPU test and a G4 1.42 GHz gets a 55.99 when clearly the 3.6 is insanely faster then the Mini. So right now there's not much you can do short of opening apps. I know on 3.6 Ghz an app is opened before it completes half of a bounce (ANY app).

solvs
Aug 12, 2005, 05:25 PM
also, what do you mean by "dumbed down?" how is the leaked version any more crippled than the mac version?
I'm not sure, but that's what I've been told.

fyzle
Aug 12, 2005, 05:33 PM
I've got a copy of the video. It's impressive in an lack-luster kind of way.
Inside the mac.zip file, you will find a mac.mov file. Use Quicktime or VLC to play it. For some reason, playing it in Firefox 1.0.6 using the QT 7.0 preview 3 crashes the browser.

Download Video Here (http://snipurl.com.nyud.net:8090/gw1x)

Instructions on installing OSX natively on X86 (http://www.360hacker.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1108)

jkhanson
Aug 12, 2005, 07:26 PM
XBench doesn't do any x86 tests yet, it just can run natively. Currently a 3.6 GHz P4 will get approximately a 22 on the CPU test and a G4 1.42 GHz gets a 55.99 when clearly the 3.6 is insanely faster then the Mini. So right now there's not much you can do short of opening apps. I know on 3.6 Ghz an app is opened before it completes half of a bounce (ANY app).

Are you sure about that? The XBench web site reports as of July 30th that it has been built as a universal binary. Are there still parts of it that won't work? Serious question . . . I have never used it.

zakatov
Aug 12, 2005, 07:47 PM
XBench doesn't do any x86 tests yet, it just can run natively. Currently a 3.6 GHz P4 will get approximately a 22 on the CPU test and a G4 1.42 GHz gets a 55.99 when clearly the 3.6 is insanely faster then the Mini. So right now there's not much you can do short of opening apps. I know on 3.6 Ghz an app is opened before it completes half of a bounce (ANY app).
I think that if it's a fat binary now, it has to run all tests on all systems it runs on. Why woulnd't it? The low scores were from running the PPC version of XBench in Rossetta.

GregA
Aug 12, 2005, 08:47 PM
OS X development costs range in the neighborhood of $10M per quarter (the figure was $30M over 9 months for Tiger). <snip> Lets be generous and round out software development costs at $30M per quarter.

Now let's look at sales. For the latest quarter, software sales were $345M. There's no information on distribution costs for software, but I'd guess that it's less than the development costs; probably significantly less - say $15M. So there's a hypothetical software profit of $300M per quarter.

Now let's look at hardware. Total Mac sales last quarter were $1.56 billion. Let's be generous and say that the hardware carried the 30% margin (we know it was less). That's ~$468M profit from the Mac side per quarter.

So hardware and software profits aren't as far apart as we thought.A couple of things missing here.
1) Software sales were higher recently due to the release of Tiger, so that reduces the "$300M per quarter" profit figure
2) The Mac sales assume the OSX costs $0. Lets assume they were really $129 (btw I know that's Apple's OSX "upgrade" price, but lets use that figure anyway)... this reduces profit on Mac and increases profits on software. How many Macs were sold?

At $1414 per mac average, & $1.56Billion Mac sales, that's 1.1 Million Macs sold
1.1 Million x $129 is $140 million profit that should be taken off HARDWARE and added to SOFTWARE.

GregA
Aug 12, 2005, 08:55 PM
I agree that OSX will be cracked, but Apple can do many things to protect themselves that's not available to regular software companies.

Apple's main protection is the amount of software it makes for the Mac. If I pirated OSX for Intel, what's stopping Apple from
1) getting a copy of the pirate versions out there to learn what they changed to make it work,
and
2) having my iTunes regularly look for those kinds of changes, to identify pirate copies.

If it's not iTunes use iMovie, or iWork, or Quicktime, or FCP, or anything they own. Apple can make it difficult by requiring a pirate to modify EVERY piece of Apple software.

Personally I hope they do that, but rather than saying "you're running Tiger on non-Apple hardware", say "you're running a pirated version of Tiger, you have 30 days to purchase tiger, OR please click here to register your Tiger now".

Tupring
Aug 12, 2005, 09:44 PM
That's the thing: if it works, then why switch to an actual Mac? This is not good, and I'm sure that Apple will do something about an actual released version of Mac OS X, but it's not good that they already have Mac OS X running on generic PC's. An update could disable it, but even then, there will be PC's out there running Mac OS X.

Why is it bad? Because Apple needs to be able to make money off of their computers. Without the computer, Apple won't make much, and that'll hurt Apple, perhaps even hurting us as the real Mac users. This is not a good development, but it was bound to happen.
-Chase
I don't think Steve will even care, since he loves his cursed iPod so much. Just look how many songs they sell on iTMS. Apple (Computer) is dead...

wildworldofspor
Aug 13, 2005, 02:27 AM
The real problem with OSX is the greater acceptance it gets the more bloated it will get like windows as they try to cater to more people. Personally I like its BSD based for my unix stuff...but the gui is just a little overkill for my taste....i could care less about transparency, widgets with temperature,etc, all that stuff. Its stability and quality of apps that matter to me.

I can't imagine it getting worse ....XP killed GUI usability....its a joke. There is too much useless crap...and stability of it....nt4 was pretty stable. Nt2000 ok. XP I can't say enough about how big of a piece of crap it is.

Thats why I switched to mac. But i see these current events as being a bad sign ...

hell i originally bought my powerbook to run yellowdog figuring the dist would be better since the apple hardware configurations are generally known. But ended up liking OSX but i think if it started showing signs of bloat and tons of menus it would be time to bail back to linux.

jhu
Aug 13, 2005, 08:46 AM
The real problem with OSX is the greater acceptance it gets the more bloated it will get like windows as they try to cater to more people. Personally I like its BSD based for my unix stuff...but the gui is just a little overkill for my taste....i could care less about transparency, widgets with temperature,etc, all that stuff. Its stability and quality of apps that matter to me.

I can't imagine it getting worse ....XP killed GUI usability....its a joke. There is too much useless crap...and stability of it....nt4 was pretty stable. Nt2000 ok. XP I can't say enough about how big of a piece of crap it is.

Thats why I switched to mac. But i see these current events as being a bad sign ...

hell i originally bought my powerbook to run yellowdog figuring the dist would be better since the apple hardware configurations are generally known. But ended up liking OSX but i think if it started showing signs of bloat and tons of menus it would be time to bail back to linux.

or you can just boot into the command pormpt instead of aqua...

wildworldofspor
Aug 13, 2005, 01:19 PM
I use command line in terminal for most common tasks and simple apps, todo, calenders,crons, maintenance apps in perl or php...just faster if you're from a unix background...the gui's still waste alot of time for those clicking around. Untill you can 'think' a command to a computer any serious work station needs a robust command prompt.

That said however as long as you can disable alot of the eye candy,widget and resource hogs like indexing,etc its fine...find,grep,cat, and locate work fine for me. The whole dashboard thing is a little hokey to me...but i can see how people would like the eye candy.

XP you can disable most of the dumb items but it doesn't overcome the weak dos command line heritage, bad memory management, unoptimized apps, time wasting update process, and most importantly a notification popup, blink,light,dog,cat,turtle notice telling you blatently obvious stuff every 5 minutes 24/7 ....OSX gets like that it will suck except for mom,pop,grandma purchases.

MontyZ
Aug 13, 2005, 02:12 PM
.

rickvanr
Aug 13, 2005, 02:36 PM
I use command line in terminal for most common tasks and simple apps, todo, calenders,crons, maintenance apps in perl or php...just faster if you're from a unix background...the gui's still waste alot of time for those clicking around. Untill you can 'think' a command to a computer any serious work station needs a robust command prompt.

That said however as long as you can disable alot of the eye candy,widget and resource hogs like indexing,etc its fine...find,grep,cat, and locate work fine for me. The whole dashboard thing is a little hokey to me...but i can see how people would like the eye candy.

XP you can disable most of the dumb items but it doesn't overcome the weak dos command line heritage, bad memory management, unoptimized apps, time wasting update process, and most importantly a notification popup, blink,light,dog,cat,turtle notice telling you blatently obvious stuff every 5 minutes 24/7 ....OSX gets like that it will suck except for mom,pop,grandma purchases.

I see your point because you seem to know your way around Unix. On the other hand, most of the features of OS X you mentioned as being a waste of resources and such are in many aspects what makes the computing experience for me and why I love using OS X.

I see this thread has devolved into predicting the demise of OSX just because of the gui. Well, that's just stupid. Just because Windows got it wrong doesn't mean OSX won't continue to get it right. Apple is not Microsoft.

Exactly, I couldn't agree more.

Tupring
Aug 13, 2005, 03:14 PM
Apple is not Microsoft.

They might as well be now. It's the end of the Mac as we know it…

rickvanr
Aug 13, 2005, 04:01 PM
They might as well be now. It's the end of the Mac as we know it…

How do you come to this conclusion?

zap2
Aug 13, 2005, 04:26 PM
even so many people will not waste there time and juts but a Mac and it illegal so that stops soem people i know i'll buy the really thing so if anything goes wrong i can call apple up. Apple im sure has a plan Jobs is not a dumb mac

wildworldofspor
Aug 13, 2005, 04:45 PM
I see your point because you seem to know your way around Unix. On the other hand, most of the features of OS X you mentioned as being a waste of resources and such are in many aspects what makes the computing experience for me and why I love using OS X.




Oh i agree completely with you. Just hoping as OSX evolves it will continue to serve both types of users. No doubt alot of recent interest in OSX has been from linux folk who wanted a unix workstation that just works but still robust unix core. Would be great to have 2 editions, home edition then workstation...but really set a line somewhere.

For home users you have to include alot of stuff which to some of us is annoying (xp excessive prompts,notifications,etc) but for those of us using a workstation for gis,programming,database development,etc these things end up wasting alot of time and are distracting. Used to be we would be on sun workstations which you sure as heck didn't need to worry about this...but then again we didn't have finalcut pro either =)

I work in biology field and while most have been switched to XP workstations, a lot of people in science fields who would have been using sun workstations for modeling,etc ...theres quite a bit running dual g5s since alot of the science apps apps are from sun o2 days that have been ported to linux then osx. So thats all I'm saying...serve both types of users because the Xp route really does decrease stability and productivity.

-Jeff
Aug 13, 2005, 04:55 PM
Apple better ship every mac with the same protection they use for Logic 7 Pro. Seeing that no one has been able to crack that. :D

There are XS Key cracks for the earlier PC versions of Logic out there, so it is crackable.

Tupring
Aug 13, 2005, 06:00 PM
How do you come to this conclusion?
Well gee, I don't know... :confused: :mad:
Have you been keeping up with what's going on. Do you honestly think that if someone is going to buy a brand new Mac, they would rather spend 2000 dollars instead of 400??

Tupring
Aug 13, 2005, 06:23 PM
even so many people will not waste there time
yeah, because eveyone loves windoze :p

solvs
Aug 13, 2005, 07:54 PM
They might as well be now. It's the end of the Mac as we know it…
Is that such a bad thing? This could only be the beginning. You said it yourself above, people don't like Windows.

GregA
Aug 13, 2005, 09:11 PM
Well gee, I don't know... :confused: :mad:
Have you been keeping up with what's going on. Do you honestly think that if someone is going to buy a brand new Mac, they would rather spend 2000 dollars instead of 400??By the same token...

"do you honestly think that if someone wants Tiger, they would rather spend $129 than $0??"

"do you honestly think that if someone wants a good Plasma screen TV they would rather by a Sony than a chinese no-name?"

You may be right that it's the end of the Mac as we know it. Personally I am all for that, I'd hate the Mac to stagnate. Compare the original Mac and OS with today's iMac and OSX... things should continue to change and improve.

Perhaps OSX will be popular enough that lots of people will want it on non-Apple hardware, Perhaps Apple will only occassionally release a "showstopper" hardware release to show other companies how to do it. WHo knows.