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?

Bafflefish said:
The i5 and i7 used in the new 27" iMac is a "desktop-grade" processor ;)
Click to expand...

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.
 

Attachments

  • antecp180.jpg
    antecp180.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 77
bruinsrme said:
So you are comparing illegal drugs to a piece of software?

I wonder if there are any stats on how many people have overdosed from running OSX on netbooks.
Click to expand...

No, I am not comparing illegal drugs to software.

I was arguing about the idea that "because I am not doing anything wrong to anyone else it is not ethically questionable or legally punishable".

Which is not what law is about. Read the whole thread before.
 
The fact they even considered the Atom was stupid to begin with...

Somebody high in the food chain was so sure about the Atom that the supporting code was still included in SL. Which means the decision to use Atom processors was, "this close" to being fact. That's pretty freaking scary if you ask me.

If I wanted mid-nineties computing muscle in any device I'd just fire up my Acer tower with its Pentium 90.

Apple really worries me at times. :eek:
 
JAT said:
You might want to start checking the news every few years. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:confused: If you're implying that the EU represents a united legal system, you are very, very, wrong, and I check the news every day. Each country maintains different codices/statutes in many areas, with *some* common statutes. Try applying for a patent "in the EU". Then you find out there is no such thing--you have to file in EACH country, in that language, for patent protection.
 
flopticalcube said:
No, you were responding to this:
Click to expand...

Which was a response to something I said earlier. Read the whole discussion thread, not just the last sentence. If not, you are going to start arguing about things which are out of context.

In fact, this is a problem with MacRumors system. It only quotes the last response of the thread. It is very easy to loose track of the whole.
 
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...

I don't want to flame you, but I do have a reason I called it piracy, and I'm not talking about violating the EULA.

I called it piracy because, from Apple's perspective, you are taking money out of their pocket when you buy a netbook and put OS X on it rather than buying an Apple computer -- whether you pay for your copy of OS X or not.

That's because Apple doesn't make a significant amount of money developing and selling OS X. (They may in fact lose money on it.) Their real money comes from selling devices. OS X is one of two main ways Apple differentiates their computers from Dell's, etc. If you watch their commercials, you can tell they clearly think it is by far the most important way. (The other way is the design of the physical computer.)

Also, note that when you are buying the full retail copy of OS X, you are always really paying an upgrade price -- that's because all Macs come with OS X, so there's no separate pricing for a true full copy.

If you don't want to call it piracy, that's fine: just give me something better to call it.
 
thecartoonguy said:
It was bound to happen. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And why on Earth should Apple "support" something that is illegal in the first place? Do Atoms exist on Macs? NO. Can OS X legally run on anything else than Macs? NO.

Whoever defends this is a moron or, at the very least, acts in bad faith as the rest of the freeriding pirates out there.

WELL DONE, Apple.
 
nobody seems to be getting to my simple question. Is this as easy as inserting a Leopard/Snow Leopard disc into a PC and hitting install, and voila!

Or does this actually require a 3rd party tool to tweak the system into being able to install Leopard or Snow Leopard?

I have never done this before and know nothing about the process of getting OS X to run on a PC. As I recall I heard about the "hackintosh" project which required you to use a bootloader tool of somesort to get the OS X to properly install on the PC.

ie. - it will not just install from the disc and run 100% with no "hack" or tweak done to the machine first. Correct?
 
DavidSan said:
Which was a response to something I said earlier. Read the whole discussion thread, not just the last sentence. If not, you are going to start arguing about things which are out of context.

In fact, this is a problem with MacRumors system. It only quotes the last response of the thread. It is very easy to loose track of the whole.
Click to expand...
Its easy if you clarify your response in the first place. Five words. Europe is not the EU. Too many people use the words interchangeably which is where the problems start.
 
batchtaster said:
Spirit or not, that is not your place, or your right.

I'm not entitled to come into your house and sell off some of your stuff just by cutting you in on it afterwards, and without your consent. It's not my crap to be doing anything with.

Neither is Mac OS X yours.
Click to expand...

No, but If I sold you a stand mixer and then said you could not use it to mix anything with eggs in it, you'd probably think I was being ridiculous, no?

It's none of my business how you use a product I sell you after the point of sale.

hashholly said:
While this may be the intentions of the "powers that be" of the OSX community, im pretty confident if you were to poll the OSX86 you would find most do not buy OSX but pirate it.
Click to expand...

Congrats, you caught my words.

I do not know what "most" users do (and neither do you). Piracy is not a requirement of most hacks these days (some of them require a specially modified version, which, when distributed to another user is technically piracy, but again, in those cases, users are encouraged to purchase an "honorary" copy). The piracy problem within the OSX86 community is an independent issue from piracy altogether. Like I said earlier, there are plenty of GENUINE MAC USERS who pirate OS X and iLife as well...
 
dvkid said:
It concerns me, as well. But if Apple were to let the Psystar/Hackintosh crowd move forward unchecked, the retail price of each OS X upgrade will balloon. If the hardware and OS is no longer a bundle, then sales of the OS will have to make development financially viable without the subsidy of hardware, which would be sucky for all of us who own Apple hardware.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. We never see the actual full price of OS X because it is bundled into the hardware purchase. The full retail copies Apple sells are actually upgrade pricing. It would be painful if Apple had to jack up the price os OS X upgrades to at least make some money off of people installing it on non-OS X hardware.

By the way, I'm not an absolutist about obeying EULAs. It's just that I think Apple has a right to try to enforce theirs in this gentle way (no one's getting sued here), especially since it cuts directly into how they make their money.
 
batchtaster said:
Prove otherwise. Go on.

Is Apple expected to just trust your word? Everyone in jail claims to be innocent.
Click to expand...

What exactly am I supposed to prove?
Entitlement? I guess we never looked at it as entitlement nor expect anything from apple.

My word? Apple hasn't asked me anything.

The good thing is I can occassionaly play with OSX when I feel like it without spending $1000+.

I guess my friends and I will be sporting orange or stripes for jailbreaking and running a hackintosh.
 
Eidorian said:
I'd like to know the specifics about this as well.

Though we do have support going back to the Core Solo and GMA 950. Even further back to the Pentium 4/D and GMA 900 for the original kit. Atom does have quite the feature set over that older hardware.
Click to expand...

There are more variation re:"features" on different CPU families than the little things like SSE3 vs. SSE2, etc. Access registers, Machine State Register (MSR), etc. may be unique, which is why OSX uses a CPUID check so these differences can be "handled"...
 
hashholly said:
Apple makes software for the hardware they use, if they do not use Atom Processors (or rather no longer plan to) they don't NEED to support, it's that simple. Its not rather drastic, its just a waste for Apple to support something they aren't using.

If its a simple drop of support than a modified kernel will probably be required for hack's to work, if the new kernel is making calls for specific attributes that the Atom chip doesn't have, well.....just dont update.
Click to expand...

I understand that they don't have to support it, but it requires no extra effort to do so. It does take effort to make it not work though, such as "breaking" the Pre's ability to sync with iTunes.

But if it's something like a CPUID check, there's probably a very easy work around.
 
uberamd said:
Thats so true. So many Hackintosh people say "Well the EULA is bogus, it's my software I can do whatever I want with it because I said so! Screw the EULA!" That is entirely comical. I don't agree to the speed limit signs so I think I will drive as fast as I freaking want. Any fine I receive is also bogus so I think I won't pay it. That is the mindset of Hackintosh people.

They are very good at convincing themselves what they are doing is legal and morally right.
Click to expand...

The real question is why do you care so much what hackintosh users do with their systems? :confused:
 
iSee said:
That's a good point. We never see the actual full price of OS X because it is bundled into the hardware purchase. The full retail copies Apple sells are actually upgrade pricing. It would be painful if Apple had to jack up the price os OS X upgrades to at least make some money off of people installing it on non-OS X hardware.

By the way, I'm not an absolutist about obeying EULAs. It's just that I think Apple has a right to try to enforce theirs in this gentle way (no one's getting sued here), especially since it cuts directly into how they make their money.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Even if we, in our wildest dreams, imagined a situation where Apple's huge R&D investment cannot be defended in legal terms under the EULA as well as other copyrighted material, the company is still PERFECTLY allowed to block support for extraneous processors.

Nobody can say anything about it, especially when Apple itself does NOT profess or sell OS X as a hardware-independent piece of software...anyone defending the opposite simply wants the company to die, or to jack up the prices of OS X licenses by several hundreds of dollars.
 
Eidorian said:
It has sold out several times already. It's quiet the popular item with ION LE at that price.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have the dual-core 330 version on order for the princely sum of £151. Thinking of making it either an XMBC or Plex box stuck on the back of the TV. Acer cannot keep up with demand and the delivery date has slipped twice already.
 
spazzcat said:
Unfortunately, you can't do whatever you want when you buy software. You know that whole EULA thing. Right or wrong you don't really own the software...
Click to expand...

I think no EULA has been tested in court. There have been limited actions against aspects of the EULA but not he EULA as a whole. The fact that you cannot see or read the EULA until you open or even install the software is dumb - as once the software is opened or installed you cannot return it.

D
 
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