Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

Eidorian said:
Oh it's nothing new.
Click to expand...

mustve got lost between the countless posts of people who think there is actually something called "support for atom processors" built into prior version of osx that apple decided to stop writing, supporting, and implementing.

anyways, as a tech geek i find it amusingly annoying that a company would go out of their way to cripple something. but thats just me.

apparently many people defending apple are what i call "corporate fans." they justify everything apple does with "big sales, big money in recession". i can understand that point of view but dont agree with it as i dont admire technology from that aspect.

anyways, hackers will find a workaround in no time
 
Apple //e said:
mustve got lost between the countless posts of people who think there is actually something called "support for atom processors" built into prior version of osx that apple decided to stop writing, supporting, and implementing.

anyways, as a tech geek i find it amusingly annoying that a company would go out of their way to cripple something. but thats just me.
Click to expand...
I'm more interested in the hardware side of it as well. Atom support was always there. It's strange to see people believe otherwise. Apple just happened to disable it now.

Apple //e said:
apparently many people defending apple are what i call "corporate fans." they justify everything apple does with "big sales, big money in recession". i can understand that point of view but dont agree with it as i dont admire technology from that aspect.

anyways, hackers will find a workaround in no time
Click to expand...
The whole EULA war doesn't really interest me either.
 
hitekalex said:
Except that Apple does sell OS X separately from hardware: Apple Snow Leopard Mac Box Set

Whether I am "underpaying" or "overpaying" when I buy this $169 box set is just your speculation. If Apple wants to cross-subsidise MacOS with hopes of selling more Mac hardware - it's just their business decision. Buying MacOS and using it on my own hardware doesn't make me a "pirate". No more so than buying heavily subsidized Sony PS3 (because Sony hopes I buy bunch of games), but never buying any and just using it as a Blu-ray player ;)
Click to expand...

The difference is, Apple sells the OS X box set with the explicit requirement that is be used on an Apple computer.

Apple: Hey you, look at this. I've got this beautiful OS for sale.
Guy: Looks nice! How much?
Apple: If you've already got Leopard it's just a $29 upgrade.
Guy: Great price, but I don't have Leopard.
Apple: That's OK, we also offer it as part of the $169 box set.
Guy: That's pretty steep, but it's a great OS.
Apple: But the deal is, you can only install it on Apple hardware.
Guy: But I just want to install it on this crappy netbook I got from Dell.
Apple: Sorry, we don't sell it like that.
Guy: Why the h*** not?
Apple: Well, look, we have our reasons. But you can probably guess, since we almost went out of business in the nineties trying to sell like that.
Guy: Oh, OK. Well, in that case, I'll buy the box set.
Apple: Er, OK. Just remember, the deal is, you've got to install it on Apple hardware.
Guy: Yeah, right, whatever.
Apple: It's no big deal -- you don't have to buy it if you don't agree.
Guy: No, I agree.
Apple: Are you sure?
Guy: Yeah, I promise.
Apple: OK, here you go. $169 please.
Guy: Thanks... sucka. <runs off to install OS X on a crappy netbook>

Are you that guy?
 
Bafflefish said:
Oh please, piracy is quite high amongst Mac users and new OS X releases also.

I remember in college, how when 10.1 and 10.2 were released, it seemed like one person would obtain a copy, and then that one copy somehow was passed around to many different people, until finally the person would come looking for it.

I must be strange, but I've always purchased the OS when it wasn't otherwise available. Thankfully, there are easy and legal ways to get an OS for less than the retail cost. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe you forgot that 10.1 was free for all. Nobody needed to pass around copies of it.
 
macduke said:
IS NOT PIRACY!

I'm getting so sick and tired of people saying that using software that you purchased is piracy. I can do what I want! Get off my back.

I'm usually a rather calm person but the way everyone right now is trying to control my life, from Apple to the United States government, is really starting to piss me off.

Go ahead and flame me, but I could not care less.
Click to expand...

Yea but 99% of the Hackintosh World uses iPC or Aktos etc which is piracy.
 
Bafflefish said:
A Windows OEM license limits you to one specific "motherboard", not computer. *Every* other part in that computer can be changed, and you will still legally have the right to use that OEM license. There are even exceptions for when you can replace every component, including the motherboard, and still use it.
Click to expand...

While that is a nice factoid, I'm not sure what your point is. :confused:
 
HLdan said:
Maybe you forgot that 10.1 was free for all. Nobody needed to pass around copies of it.
Click to expand...
Not true. Apple did, in fact, release boxed versions of 10.1 for sale, at full retail pricing.

The "free" 10.1 disks were meant only for those who could show that they had purchased 10.0, or had purchased a system that came with 10.0.

In fact, there was a big snafu at the time over the fact that the 10.1 "upgrade" disk that Apple gave away for free, actually was a full installer, which is why at the time everyone was sharing it with everyone else. Apple ultimately ended up releasing a true upgrade-only disk. At that point, you could only obtain the full version if you purchased a retail copy or bought a new system.
 
Bafflefish said:
Simply correcting an inaccuracy.
Click to expand...

There was nothing inaccurate about what I wrote. I used the word "computer". Which part of the computer Microsoft chooses to tie the license to was irrelevant to the point that I was making.
 
BaldiMac said:
There was nothing inaccurate about what I wrote. I used the word "computer". Which part of the computer Microsoft chooses to tie the license to was irrelevant to the point that I was making.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, that's like people referring to the computer as a "hard drive".

You were trying to compare the fact that Apple's EULA ties OS X to an Apple-branded system, to the Windows OEM license tying Windows to the "computer" you purchased it with, which is inaccurate. The motherboard =/= a computer. The motherboard is simply a component of the computer.

Thus, to be accurate in your "point", you should have stated "A Windows OEM license limits you to the motherboard of the computer you purchased", and as I mentioned, even then, there are exceptions that Microsoft is more than willing to grant.

It's not a equal comparison.

I'm sure the follow up response will be "Semantics" or whatever, in which case the argument will simply become cyclical, so yeah, meh.
 
after reading so many absurd coments about hacking osx in netbooks, i have to say the following

- i hope apple can able to disable more 3 party software.
- is not correct people hacking the osx
- it looks like theres all types of switchers coming to osx in past 2 years, does who still have the windows mentality that can do piracy in everything and everywhere, you are not welcomed, and your intentions will fail in apples world.
-apple will never open their osx to you or anyone.
- your hacking voices will never pass the cupertinos walls
- all the other hardware companys are having less profit because of the netbook market,they make less money , and soon some of them will close doors.
- apple dont need to release a netbook
- apple is first in costumer service .because their interest is not exclusively in profit.
-apple prefer to sell 1000 well built macs , than 10.000 crap netbooks,because it offer better support and better quality, and have higher profit, with less expenses.
just to finish

a hackintosh user is a person that has no consideration and no respect for others hard work and effort.

so hackintoshers also dont deserve any respect from apple.
;)
 
Amdahl said:
Sega v. Accolade.

Fair use also allows violations to further interoperability with products produced by the infringing company.
Click to expand...

This summary of the case doesn't mention "interoperability" but says that the decision was based on a number of factors, including the public benefit vis a vis increasing the diversity of available games. Apple isn't stopping anyone from writing software for their systems (in fact, quite the opposite given the complete set of development tools included for free with every Mac). They're also not suing anyone for infringement like Sega was. So the parallels are extremely weak at best. On a practical level, the case has no relevance whatsoever.
 
couto27 said:
a hackintosh user is a person that has no consideration and no respect for others hard work and effort.

so hackintoshers also dont deserve any respect from apple.
;)
Click to expand...

seriously, i dont think this is an issue for hackers.
 
NSMonkey said:
This summary of the case doesn't mention "interoperability" but says that the decision was based on a number of factors, including the public benefit vis a vis increasing the diversity of available games. Apple isn't stopping anyone from writing software for their systems (in fact, quite the opposite given the complete set of development tools included for free with every Mac). They're also not suing anyone for infringement like Sega was. So the parallels are extremely weak at best. On a practical level, the case has no relevance whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Apple is doing the reverse of Sega in Sega v. Accolade: Trying to make a piece of software only work on one hardware, rather than making hardware only run their software. They are suing Psystar for infringement. What did you think they were suing for?

This summary is what I referred earlier in this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

The Sega v. Accolade case has been cited by Psystar in their filings in the case: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091024213209193

Unauthorized Copy Three.

Copying a computer program into RAM as a result of installing and running that program is precisely the copying that § 117 provides does not constitute copyright infringement for an owner of a computer program. As the Ninth Circuit explained, permitting copies like this was § 117’s purpose:

Section 117 was enacted on the recommendation of CONTU, which noted that “ecause the placement of any copyrighted work into a computer is the preparation of a copy [since the program is loaded into the computer’s memory], the law should provide that persons in rightful possession of copies of programs be able to use them freely without fear of exposure to copyright liability.” CONTU Report at 13.
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1520 (9th Cir. 1992).
Click to expand...


1. Psystar has not waived its § 117 defense.

Psystar has not waived its rights under § 117 because § 117 is a “limitation[] on [a copyright owner’s] exclusive rights.” 17 U.S.C. §117. Thus, § 117 does not excuse unauthorized copying that constitutes infringement but instead states that certain types of unauthorized copying do not infringe a copyright owner’s exclusive rights. As the Ninth Circuit explained in Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., “ection 117 defines a narrow category of copying that is lawful per se” and “ection 107, by contrast, establishes a defense [of fair use] to an otherwise valid claim of copyright infringement.” 977 F.2d 1510, 1521 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, Psystar did not need to raise § 117 as an affirmative defense.
However, to the extent that the court finds § 117 is an affirmative defense, Psystar has pled it. The eighth affirmative defense states that Psystar has not “infringed any alleged copyright” in this case. Psystar Corporation’s Answer to Apple Inc.’s First Amended Complaint, p. 18. While not mentioning the section by name, Psystar describes the substance of a § 117 defense: that a narrow category of copying is lawful.
Click to expand...
 
Bafflefish said:
Not true. Apple did, in fact, release boxed versions of 10.1 for sale, at full retail pricing.

The "free" 10.1 disks were meant only for those who could show that they had purchased 10.0, or had purchased a system that came with 10.0.

In fact, there was a big snafu at the time over the fact that the 10.1 "upgrade" disk that Apple gave away for free, actually was a full installer, which is why at the time everyone was sharing it with everyone else. Apple ultimately ended up releasing a true upgrade-only disk. At that point, you could only obtain the full version if you purchased a retail copy or bought a new system.
Click to expand...

Nope, not true, I've been there long before OS X was a twinkle in Apple's eye. I'm not disputing 10.1 being ever being sold as a full retail but it certainly was a free upgrade to anyone who showed up to Fry's electronics and asked for it. You had to fill out a form so it would show you've received your copy so you wouldn't come back for another free copy. You didn't have to show any proof that you bought a Mac or any purchase receipt.
 
It runs like a dream on a Dell Mini 10v, too!

Face it, fanboyz, Apple is not giving the world what it wants - an apple netbook. And it seems easy enough to simply *not* *upgrade* my 10.6.1 to 10.6.2 if it's going to brick my minimacbook.

::shrug::
 
Further connections to Sega v. Accolade

Just found this at http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise25.html#secV.A.

This section describes a similar case that followed, Sony v. Connectix, and background on DMCA. Connectix made VirtualPC(later sold to Microsoft), which let Macs run Windows. They also made a product that let Macs(and later, PCs) run Playstation games. Steve Jobs introduced the product at Mac World San Francisco. http://www.insanely-great.com/reviews/cvgs.html Watch steve here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8026649687541008431# at 1:24:00 in.

Obviously, Sony didn't like it, but they lost the case:
Such an approach would erect an artificial hurdle in the way of the public’s access to the ideas contained within copyrighted software programs. These are “aspects that were expressly denied copyright protection by Congress.” We decline to erect such a barrier in this case. If Sony wishes to obtain a lawful monopoly on the functional concepts in its software, it must satisfy the more stringent standards of the patent laws. {FN97: 203 F.3d at 605, 53 USPQ2d at 1711-1712 (citations omitted)}
It is clear that, at least in the Ninth Circuit, legitimate reverse engineering to learn how to interoperate with another computer program is a fair use. Congress appears to agree. In the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as part of the anticircumvention provisions added as Section 1201 of the Copyright Act, Congress specifically recognized reverse engineering needed for interoperability as an exception to the anticircumvention rules:
A person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. {FN98: 17 U.S.C. §1201(f)}
In its Committee Report explaining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary specifically cited Sega v. Accolade and indicated: “The purpose of this section is to foster competition and innovation in the computer and software industry.” {FN99: Sen. Rep. No. 105-190 at 12}
Click to expand...

Separately, Bleem made a program that let Dreamcast run Playstation games. They couldn't afford the lawsuit, and folded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleemcast!
 
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.301 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/176)

Having both a Mac Pro 13" and an HP Mini Netbook I can tell you that the netbook gets a lot more mileage than the apple. Its half the weight and a third of the cost. What's more it does everything I want with Win XP. I also thought of onstalling osx but why bother? 99% of the time I can do without it.
 
This is going to be funny given that Microsoft has also launched a signature product range in which OEM's and Microsoft deliver computers without crap installed on them - mark my words, with the Netbooks selling castrated versions of Windows (starter edition) and the price of laptops being driven up because OEM's don't want to have lower margins - the price difference between Mac's and PC's are going to become so small it'll be a boom for Apple in the end.

The only reason why you get cheap PC's is because of all the crap installed - take away the crap and you'll have OEM's pushing up the price to make up for the loss in cash from the crapware.

Suck it up PC trolls - your computers are going to be equal in price to Mac's.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
The only reason why you get cheap PC's is because of all the crap installed - take away the crap and you'll have OEM's pushing up the price to make up for the loss in cash from the crapware.
Click to expand...
The $287 Inspiron 546 I ordered only shipped with Adobe Acrobat Reader and the Dell Dock. HDMI out too and hardware accelerated playback.
 
macintoshtoffy said:
This is going to be funny given that Microsoft has also launched a signature product range in which OEM's and Microsoft deliver computers without crap installed on them - mark my words, with the Netbooks selling castrated versions of Windows (starter edition) and the price of laptops being driven up because OEM's don't want to have lower margins - the price difference between Mac's and PC's are going to become so small it'll be a boom for Apple in the end.

The only reason why you get cheap PC's is because of all the crap installed - take away the crap and you'll have OEM's pushing up the price to make up for the loss in cash from the crapware.

Suck it up PC trolls - your computers are going to be equal in price to Mac's.
Click to expand...

Dell Inspiron (545 brought up to specs of the mac)

Genuine Windows(R) 7 Professional 64bit (English)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Processor E8400 (3 GHz, 1333FSB, 6MB)
Dell(TM) SX2210 21.5 " Full HD Widescreen Flat Panel Monitor with Webcam
4GB (2X2GB) DDR2 800MHz SDRAM Memory
750GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache(TM)
16X DVD+/-RW with Dual Layer Write Capabilities
ATI(R) Radeon(TM) HD 4350 512MB DDR2
$2030.00 (Discounted Price)

Entry iMac
3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
Apple Wireless Keyboard (International English) and User Guide (English)
8x double-layer SuperDrive
Apple Magic Mouse
$1999.00

Its already happening in Oceania.

The dell still has no bluetooth, doesnt come with wireless Keybaord. No speakers. No SD reader.

The iMac has 250GB less (Its not really 250GB) and has a slower DVD burner. Uses mDP.

EDIT: Upon further investigation the Entry iMac is the cheapest All in One in New Zealand for the specs. No Joke, Not even Dell's All in ones beat it, and then they still have a slower processor and GPU.

http://www1.ap.dell.com/nz/en/home/...x?refid=desktop-studio-one-19&s=dhs&cs=nzdhs1

http://store.apple.com/nz/configure/MB950X/A?mco=MTMzNzUxMDM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back