Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?

[phineas]

Good Glad to hear Apple is doing this

Oh well either buy and Apple computer along with the OS or suffer the consequences / wrath of . Goto Ubuntu, Steve doesn't care.

And as far as disabling the synchronization for the Palm Pre, keep it coming.

 

[uberamd]

I grow tired of this whole "Apple is evil for only letting me put OS X on Apple branded hardware" argument.

• You can only play XBox 360 games on an XBox 360. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play PS3 games on a PS3. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play Wii games on a Wii. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play N64 games on a N64. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play blu-ray discs in a blu-ray licensed player. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• This list can go on and on forever

This thread is VERY funny because the justifications people come up with for why the EULA doesn't apply to them are insane. I bet some of you could convince yourselves that you are superman if you tried hard enough. Pathetic.

 

[flopticalcube]

Well, just read this:

http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/

It is a technical document, but I am sure you can handle it. Then tell Amit Singh he does not know how Mac OS X works inside.

Apple dropped TPM long ago. http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/01/apple-drops-trusted-.html

 

[blackcrayon]

Oh well either buy and Apple computer along with the OS or suffer the consequences / wrath of . Goto Ubuntu, Steve doesn't care.

And as far as disabling the synchronization for the Palm Pre, keep it coming.

There's no "wrath." Anyone running an unsupported system (whether a non apple branded computer, or a Mac Pro with unsupported sized RAM sticks, or whatever) knows that what they have now may or may not work tomorrow as Apple's software changes.

People running a version of OS X that still supports their system can continue using that system. Now maybe if software update forced itself on your computer, and if it was proven in the first place this was even done to curb "hackers", you might have a "wrath argument"

 

[DavidSan]

Windows costs the manufacturer about $50, Windows at retail doesn't cost anywhere near $500.

What do you expect? Decimal points? A Windows Vista busines Ultimate can be around 375 dollars (SRP). And Dell might get it in 37.5 dollars.

Not true, at least for XP as I called Microsoft up and asked them this question.

They tell you lies. Look at this links:

http://www.networkclue.com/os/Windows/licensing/index.aspx
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-The-Windows-OEM-License-Dies-with-Its-Computer-88220.shtml

Or better, read the license agreement your OEM Windows has. I am not copying it here, it is too long.

But google it: Windows OEM license.

And also. Microsoft is not responsible for your Windows OEM copy, but your hardware provider. Microsoft only deals with retails copies.

 

[Bafflefish]

True, it is, forgot about that.

Nevertheless, simply having an i5, i7 or whatever does not satiate my appetite for an upgradeable desktop computer. I need to pick my GPU. I need to pick my RAM upgrades. I need to pick my HDD upgrades, and I don't want a freaking external one... YUCK!

There is something to be said for a modest, desktop-class, modular computer - despite their usually disgusting appearance.

Oh, I am 100% for being able to completely customize a system.

As for standard case appearances, yeah, Apple is definitely in the lead (in my opinion) when it comes to case design (although the Mac Pro's appearance is a bit... dated at this point).

However, I rather like the mATX case I used for my i7 build - something to be said about cramming essentially a Mac Pro into a large shoebox-sized footprints, all with standard PC components.

 

[MH01]

I grow tired of this whole "Apple is evil for only letting me put OS X on Apple branded hardware" argument.

• You can only play XBox 360 games on an XBox 360. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play PS3 games on a PS3. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play Wii games on a Wii. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play N64 games on a N64. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play blu-ray discs in a blu-ray licensed player. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• This list can go on and on forever

This thread is VERY funny because the justifications people come up with for why the EULA doesn't apply to them are insane. I bet some of you could convince yourselves that you are superman if you tried hard enough. Pathetic.

Heard of Homebrew?

 

[Bafflefish]

I grow tired of this whole "Apple is evil for only letting me put OS X on Apple branded hardware" argument.

• You can only play XBox 360 games on an XBox 360. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play PS3 games on a PS3. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play Wii games on a Wii. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play N64 games on a N64. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• You can only play blu-ray discs in a blu-ray licensed player. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
• This list can go on and on forever

This thread is VERY funny because the justifications people come up with for why the EULA doesn't apply to them are insane. I bet some of you could convince yourselves that you are superman if you tried hard enough. Pathetic.

As others have mentioned, there are differences in hardware that prevent you from simply taking a XBOX 360 game and playing it in a PS3 or Wii.

One other hole in that "counter-argument", is the fact that most games are released across all platforms, and thus there's no reason to even need to do a drop-in, unless you wanted to use one copy across multiple systems. But then I'd have to ask: why? You have the console it's native too. It's optimized for that console's hardware.

As for Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray uses a specific laser wavelength that isn't the same as that of a DVD, HD-DVD, CD, Videodisc, etc. Once again, a technical limitation.

Note: I personally don't care whether Apple officially restricts OS X to only its hardware or not. I just hate when people use bad examples.

 

[uberamd]

Heard of Homebrew?

Show me a 360 emulator.

 

[wizard]

Your perspective isn't being supported buy the courts.

Contracts aren't law. But your violation of a contract puts you at risk for legal remedies that can be applied against you. You agree to something (such as clicking "agree") or sign something that amounts to a contract (which an EULA is) and you violate the terms of the contract, you're open to legal action. That's it. The manufacturer can file a claim against you and the contract can be tested in court.

First the EULA are not contracts!

Your ageement to a contract, however, already puts you in a position in which you were reasonable aware of the terms of the contract.

Nope clicking through a bunch of garbage implies nothing.

If you do not agree to the terms, Apple's EULA specifically tells you to click "disagree" and not use the product.

And you see that as legally binding? The fact is nothing is negotiated and no exchange or barter took place so there is no contract.

So we're talking about someone who is willing to break a contract after agreeing to its terms. Draw your own conclusions.

Show me where there is a LEGALLY binding contract. The problem is EULA are contracts in the way most states or the federal government would define them. Even if they where to be some how considered legal as a concept you still have documents that would be declared illegal anyways due to their content.

The reality is companies are loosing right and left with respect to these so called EULA. The latest is Autodesk a huge company that sunk a lot of money into trying to prevent resale of it's software. Look it up if you want, the decision came down a few months ago. Like wise the record companies lost one last year with respect to the resale of CDs. The right of first sale has been established for a very long time and can not be taken away with a simple EULA. That is only one component of an EULA that creates legal trouble for companies.

Then look at Apples attack on Pystar. They have pretty much ignored their own EULA and have instead tried to twist copyright law to their favor. Why? Well maybe they fear the judge taking the EULA to the outhouse and whipping his ass with it.

Respecting contracts is fair and accepted, when both parties agree to the the fair and legal terms. This is not at all what we are talking about here. It is obvious that the EULA are not legal and clicking a button or opening a shrink wrapped package is not agreeing to any thing. The obvious problem with the shrinked wrapped EULA agreement is that you can't even read the thing with out agreeing to it. In any event I be interested in any law or fragment of law that validates this idea that a contract can be agreed to by clicking on a button.


Dave

 

[uberamd]

As others have mentioned, there are differences in hardware that prevent you from simply taking a XBOX 360 game and playing it in a PS3 or Wii.

One other hole in that "counter-argument", is the fact that most games are released across all platforms, and thus there's no reason to even need to do a drop-in, unless you wanted to use one copy across multiple systems. But then I'd have to ask: why? You have the console it's native too. It's optimized for that console's hardware.

As for Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray uses a specific laser wavelength that isn't the same as that of a DVD, HD-DVD, CD, Videodisc, etc. One again, a technical limitation.

Note: I personally don't care whether Apple officially restricts OS X to only its hardware or not. I just hate when people use bad examples.

Meh, missing my point I think. The fact is that people don't s**t bricks over the fact that you need an XBox 360 to play 360 games. Instead, people accept that as the way things go. So why is it that hackintoshers feel that they are a special group that deserves the ability to use OS X on their non-Apple systems? OS X was specifically designed to work only with Apple hardware, just as 360 games are designed to only work with the 360 and blu-ray to only play in blu-ray players. So why do people have such a hard time accepting the fact that OS X is designed for Apple hardware?

 

[hitekalex]

You might be right, except for one thing:

In order to install and use Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, you have to violate DRM protection. This protection is achieved through the SMC chip that only Mac hardware has. The SMC chip has encryption keys.

All the Hackintoshes in order to function have to violate the encryption keys. All of them. So you are violating the Millenium Copyright. The protection is similar to what a DVD has. So, in those terms, you are pirating. Not because you broke an EULA, but because you circumvent piracy protection.

Circumvention of SMC validation isn't piracy either. And neither is violation of DMCA (which has no meaning outside of US anyway). When I rip DVD that I legally own in the US, I may be violating DMCA, but I am not engaging in "piracy" (as the term is commonly used).

 

[skate71290]

Reason No. 2 - Flash

Hope there is a reason other than just to force people to buy the iTablet..

Though it would make sense if they were entering the netbook market with something killer, and a low cost version.

Maybe... Jobs is magically making Flash not **** by disabling Atom Support... nobody would have seen it! I swear to god if Flash is not fixed i'm taking my Snow Leopard disc and chucking it at his head and fix quicktime X... its ****!!!!!

 

[DavidSan]

Apple dropped TPM long ago. http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/01/apple-drops-trusted-.html

Did you even read the link?

The article talks about how DRM chip is not used in Mac OS X encryption, but how non-Apple hardware is prevented from running Mac OS X.

From the article:

Around the same time in 2006, I also wrote about kernel-level binary protection in Mac OS X. As that article explains, it is actually binary protection that ties Mac OS X to a specific class of hardware. The mechanism is partly implemented as a special-purpose virtual memory (VM) pager that is interposed between the kernel's higher layer and the vnode pager.

And it explains how it is achieved:

What is the correct answer?

The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware security—it's merely obfuscation.


And then it explains:

Why Obfuscate?
view the obfuscation approach as engineering pragmaticism in solving difficult problems. The problem here was that of making Mac OS X reasonably difficult to deploy (from a legal standpoint—that is, would involve reverse engineering, breaking the EULA, etc.) on non-Apple hardware. A solution based on the TPM would have been fraught with numerous problems for the developers and maintainers of the solution. As is not uncommon in such cases, obfuscation can be an effective enough solution.


But read the article. Mac OS X has protection that from a legal stand point is as good as as encryption. In order to install and run Mac OS X no non Apple Hardware you have to by pass the protection.

Hackintoshes has to bypass the SMC chip... Yes it easy, but legally speaking, it is illegal.

The un-sophistication of a lock does not make legal to open it.

 

[Bafflefish]

Meh, missing my point I think. The fact is that people don't s**t bricks over the fact that you need an XBox 360 to play 360 games. Instead, people accept that as the way things go. So why is it that hackintoshers feel that they are a special group that deserves the ability to use OS X on their non-Apple systems? OS X was specifically designed to work only with Apple hardware, just as 360 games are designed to only work with the 360 and blu-ray to only play in blu-ray players. So why do people have such a hard time accepting the fact that OS X is designed for Apple hardware?

Well, I think it's only a few hackintoshers (out of the total group) that would likely truly have an issue with Apple attempting to restrict OS X to only Apple designed and supplied systems/hardware.

Most likely accept that it's Apple's right to modify OS X anyway they wish, and instead work on circumventing those restrictions in order to continue to use it. That's half the fun after all.

However, that having been said, this reminds me a lot of how nVidia recently attempted to prevent the use of their GPUs as PhysX PPUs when an AMD/ATI card was also present in the system (being used as the GPU). People circumvented that pretty quickly as well, lol.

 

[seedster2]

Apple are within their rights to support or not support whatever CPUs they want (within the limits of their promises).

Running Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer is not "piracy", btw. For all we know somebody might have legally bought a copy of Mac OS X and installed it on a non-Apple computer.

It's a violation of the licensing terms, but only in countries where the licensing terms mean anything. It's not "piracy".

I agree with you here. Violating a EULA is not piracy.

I think that there is a distinction between a violation of the End User License Agreement (EULA) and outright software piracy which means you basically steal the product without paying for it.

Nevertheless, it does clearly go against the grain of the Apple Ecosystem - but it is a risk assumed by those who choose to build their own systems. You can't very well ask Apple for support when things don't work.

I dont have a problem with it. Apple sells the discs with the full OS for whatever they deem reasonable. As long as the person isn't making copies to profit from, then it's apple's issue with their business model. I couldnt care less whether or not they want me to buy more hardware. Software alone doesn't compel me to upgrade my hardware.

They are no less legit than the Tiger users who are buying it, as recommended by Walt Mossberg in the Wall Street Journal.

That isn't true. Even Microsoft realized tolerating a certain amount of piracy is good for business. The same is true in Apple's case. Their sales are generally increased. An exception would be on something like the Mac Pro, where power users realize how overpriced they are and go Hackintosh instead.

Hackintosh community is only a big deal to the most righteous apple fans. Otherwise, who could care what John Doe is doing at their leisure. Apple doesnt have to provide support to them and they are making 30-120 bucks more than they would if the person couldnt access the software alone. Options are there and this small market decided they didnt want them and made their own. tough cookies for SJ and Co.

 

[MH01]

Show me a 360 emulator.

Alot of the devices you listed will run other OS / Emulators. SO now its just the 360? How about we talk about the Wii?

 

[FoxyKaye]

1. As was mentioned very early in this thread, buying and installing OS/X on a net book is not piracy.
2. Apples legal rights with respect to the OS/X disk are limited. It is very doubtful that Apple will have a clean sweep with all points on contention. See the recent ruling against Autodesk for one. Or a slightly older one brought against a radio station for reselling CDs.
3. There could be a number of reasons for the removal of ATOM support that have nothing to do with Hackentoshes. For one ATOMs in order execution method means that optimizations made for Intels mainstream CPUs won't work. In some cases optimizations for Core processor have an extremely negative impact on ATOM performance.
4. Along the same lines this isn't any different than removing support for 486 or PPC processors that are no longer current technology that you are targetting. It is an issue of code maintenance. This could simply be a code clean up made buy a programmer trying to keep the code base readable.
5. As nice as ATOM is powerwise, it is significantly different from Intels mainstream processors, likewise ARM. If your focus is now ARM then you need to add all the required changes to your current code base.
6. Not every move made by Apple is done with evil intent. Unless documentation can be found to indicate otherwise it is hard to blame Apple for the removal of code supporting hardware that was never shipped. From Apples standpoint it is a liability they don't need.
7. If cheap is your goal then run Linux on your netbook!! Really if cheap is what you are all about then Linux is your only choice. That is not to dis Linux, I run it my self, but does reflect on it's free nature.

Frankly I'm not sure how this ever became news! Netbooks are something Apple doesn't have to worry about in their code base anymore, with no sanctioned products this move impacts no one.


Dave

My vote's on #4 - straight-up code maintenance. The happy byproduct of which is that it makes running SL on an Atom netbook somewhat more difficult. Which, I'm sure Apple is fine with since they are preparing to release their own "netbook" sometime next year. I think this only makes the case as additional collaborative evidence that whatever Apple releases won't be Atom-based.

 

[uberamd]

Apple doesnt have to provide support to them and they are making 30-120 bucks more than they would if the person couldnt access the software alone. Options are there and this small market decided they didnt want them and made their own. tough cookies for SJ and Co.

I have never once met a hackintosher that paid for OS X. Not once in my life, and I have met a LOT of people who hackintosh.

 

[Bafflefish]

I have never once met a hackintosher that paid for OS X. Not once in my life, and I have met a LOT of people who hackintosh.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[MH01]

Meh, missing my point I think. The fact is that people don't s**t bricks over the fact that you need an XBox 360 to play 360 games. Instead, people accept that as the way things go. So why is it that hackintoshers feel that they are a special group that deserves the ability to use OS X on their non-Apple systems? OS X was specifically designed to work only with Apple hardware, just as 360 games are designed to only work with the 360 and blu-ray to only play in blu-ray players. So why do people have such a hard time accepting the fact that OS X is designed for Apple hardware?

Nope your missing the point, if they could hack it they would. People would love to have a PS3 run 360 games. Be nice if the 360 and PS3 had the same internals. OS X is designed to run on Intel hardware....hence why u get hackintosh

 

[DavidSan]

Circumvention of SMC validation isn't piracy either. And neither is violation of DMCA (which has no meaning outside of US anyway). When I rip DVD that I legally own in the US, I may be violating DMCA, but I am not engaging in "piracy" (as the term is commonly used).

By passing "any protection", (encryption, obfuscation, a serial number, a lock or whatever) is illegal if the protection is to prevent you from doing something the owner does not want.

In this case, Apple is the owner of the software, it puts a lock and people break it. You might call it whatever you want. But it is illegal.

 

[Nermal]

But read the article. Mac OS X has protection that from a legal stand point is as good as as encryption. In order to install and run Mac OS X no non Apple Hardware you have to by pass the protection.

Hackintoshes has to bypass the SMC chip... Yes it easy, but legally speaking, it is illegal.

The un-sophistication of a lock does not make legal to open it.

I'd like you to clarify something for me.

The article pretty much states that the keys are almost there in plain sight, and that if you look in the right place then you'll find them. From that perspective, hasn't Apple sold me the keys when I bought a Mac? I then use those purchased keys to decrypt OS X when I boot my system. That must be legal since it's the standard operating procedure when booting a Mac.

If I also own a Hackintosh system, what's stopping me from using those same purchased keys to decrypt OS X? I'm not obtaining the keys in a fraudulent manner as they were legitimately sold to me when I bought my Mac.

I have never once met a hackintosher that paid for OS X. Not once in my life, and I have met a LOT of people who hackintosh.

Conversely, I know two people that use a Hackintosh and bought OS X. I've seen the disks.

 

[*LTD*]

First the EULA are not contracts!

Nope clicking through a bunch of garbage implies nothing.

And you see that as legally binding? The fact is nothing is negotiated and no exchange or barter took place so there is no contract.


Show me where there is a LEGALLY binding contract. The problem is EULA are contracts in the way most states or the federal government would define them. Even if they where to be some how considered legal as a concept you still have documents that would be declared illegal anyways due to their content.

The reality is companies are loosing right and left with respect to these so called EULA. The latest is Autodesk a huge company that sunk a lot of money into trying to prevent resale of it's software. Look it up if you want, the decision came down a few months ago. Like wise the record companies lost one last year with respect to the resale of CDs. The right of first sale has been established for a very long time and can not be taken away with a simple EULA. That is only one component of an EULA that creates legal trouble for companies.

Then look at Apples attack on Pystar. They have pretty much ignored their own EULA and have instead tried to twist copyright law to their favor. Why? Well maybe they fear the judge taking the EULA to the outhouse and whipping his ass with it.

Respecting contracts is fair and accepted, when both parties agree to the the fair and legal terms. This is not at all what we are talking about here. It is obvious that the EULA are not legal and clicking a button or opening a shrink wrapped package is not agreeing to any thing. The obvious problem with the shrinked wrapped EULA agreement is that you can't even read the thing with out agreeing to it. In any event I be interested in any law or fragment of law that validates this idea that a contract can be agreed to by clicking on a button.


Dave

An EULA is a Software License Agreement. It is a contract between a producer and a purchaser of computer software that is included with software.

 

[DavidSan]

Circumvention of SMC validation isn't piracy either. And neither is violation of DMCA (which has no meaning outside of US anyway). When I rip DVD that I legally own in the US, I may be violating DMCA, but I am not engaging in "piracy" (as the term is commonly used).

By the way ?

What do you call when you use a serial number for shareware that you did not pay for it?

Most people would agree it is piracy, but you might have another name for it.