Apple vs. Mac OS X Hackers

[wala]

Ok guys, I'm not following this thread, but I was just thinking: if Microsoft were as creative as Apple, wouldn't the entire Windows OS be one long epic poem?

"I sing of arms and the man..."

 

[Tupring]

You'll also need to repurchase it for each ear you wish to listen with.



Why would they? The only machine it's 'supposed' to work on already comes with it installed and on DVD.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

[Tupring]

Not too off-topic here but, aren't PC's supposed to be "IBM compatible?" I always thought that was funny because Mac's had IBM processors but weren't.

 

[.Joel]

You obviously underestimate the ferocity of Apple's legal team, sir.

And look how they went with the [site name removed] claim. Site is still operating happily and Apple copped a response back.

Sorry but I think i just put your fire out.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

what O/S comes with a PC? lol

Mine came as a bunch of parts and I downloaded 4 discs from Debian.

I'm just talking generally when you buy not build a PC, it's pretty standard to get WIndows XP. I'd my prefer a choice of SuSE, Redhat or Windows.

 

[rjgjonker]

look man. i have already made an analogy about this (the religious books) If you want to be a big company, you have to keep people coming back to you for your new stuff. you make your product for a specific purpose,to be able to operate an Apple-built computer, and a specific audience, who are the Mac users.

If I correctly interpret your so-called analogy, I should treat Mac OS X like a holy book and Apple has created it, so of I own the book, I should do whatever Apple says, regardless of whether it makes sense and whether their requests are legally valid? Why do you think so?
By the way, I think it is really, really, bad analogy, since you're more or less trying to pull religion into a discussion that is utterly unrelated to it.

People who try to make the Mac OS run on their PC are clearly too cheap to buy a Mac.

Ah, clearly. Would you care to explain how not wanting to use Apple's el-cheapo components, but instead opting to build a computer which will cost a lot more than an off the shelve Intel Mac is being cheap? If I want a cheap computer, I'll buy a Mac mini.

As I said in almost all of my posts in this thread:

Yeah, would you mind to stop doing that? It's annoying.

"WHEN YOU BUY SOMETHING, YOU GET EVERYTHING THAT COMES WITH IT"
plain and simple. don't force the issue anymore. there is nothing you can do to change Apple's mind. it is a reality of life. you have to deal with it.

I don't care fror Apple's mind at all and I am not trying to force any issue. In fact, I think Apple should do as they please. They just won't be able to keep their OS from being installed to other computers on the same platform.

 

[duffman9000]

I don't need a link, most of the hardware is the same. But what Apple does is quality control. The control the hardware, it may be the same but they control what goes in and also their tolernances are much tighter for the quality of that stock hardware in comparison. That is what I meant, sorry for not making it clearer

Tolerances? Oh boy... here we go again.
Apple controls what specific components go into Mac's, that's it. Usually it's the safest and CHEAPEST components. Can't have high-speed, low latency RAM come as standard on that G5, right? When the G5 was introduced, and even after at least the first refresh, Apple used the CHEAPEST video cards to ever come as standard on high end machine. Yep, that's controlling tolerances alright.

 

[duffman9000]

Of course Apple designs their own hardware. They don't assemble it. Who else makes a computer with the same motherboard as the iMac Intel? MacBook Pro. The current crop of intel mac might be "off the shelf" parts but the design isn't.

Also, just an FYI. Apple designs chips. The vector processor in the G5 is Apples design. The i/o controller chip for the G5 (memory, PCI, etc) was an Apple chip design. Apple is sharing designs with Intel.

Who cares that Apple designed the G5's I/O controller? The G5 is dead.
I would entertain the idea that Apple is sharing "integrated home pc" solutions with Intel so Intel can better promote VIIV. But hardware wise? Jack squate is being shared since Intel doesn't need hardware advice from Apple.

 

[duffman9000]

A few points for all you cheap bastards clamoring for Apple to open OS X up to anyone with a Walmart PC clone..

1. Scenario...Apple licenses OS X to Dell. Cool you think? No..Imagine the response from Microsoft. I was an OS/2 user from 1992-2000. I know what it's like doing battle with the Microsoft FUD machine. For those of you who were too young to remember it, the Microsoft "behind the scenes" work to undermine OS/2 was something we don't need repeated with OS X. I'm quite sure Apple isn't that stupid..The last company they need to piss off is Microsoft.

2. OS X released to the "world" so to speak would destroy sales of Apple's hardware sales, plain and simple. And there would be no more Apple...Apple is company, they have to MAKE MONEY (wow, what a concept no one seems understand) to continue to produce the quality products everyone seems to want to steal, hack, feel they have the "right" to use wherever, etc..

3. Apple has EVERY RIGHT to control what hardware OS X runs on. It's their software. What law says they have to make their software run on anything? I don't see people clamoring at Microsoft to make their software compatible with Linux..or Linux users screaming that Microsoft needs to release Office for Linux?

Want to run something better than Windows on your PC? There's a zillion Linux distros out there, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Plan9, Solaris, the list goes on. Install one and expand your horizons.

I've been involved with computers and this industry for over 20 years. My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20 I got in 8th grade in 1981. First PC clone in 1988..Bought my first Mac 4 months ago..Still wondering what too me so long. Hope to get a another (PPC) Mini before they switch to Intel.

I understand better than most why people like OS X...Let's just keep it on Apple hardware..

-Lyserjic

Cheap bastards? As opposed to the stupid bastards that bought any PowerbookG4 based machine in the last year?
PC users that want OS X on generic hardware realize that it would be impossible for Apple to support all the cheap hardware that is so readily available in pc-land. They can restrict driver "support" for only a very narrow hardware configuration.
When the MacBook Pro was announced, i could feel a collective FINALLY come from everyone that i know.
FINALLY, no more overpriced Apple hardware!
FINALLY, its actually competive performance-wise!
FINALLY, a regular, competive, update cycle!
The only reason to buy a Mac was for OS X. Now we get good hardware also.
Of course Apple had to ruin it buy not allowing (not yet at least, if ever) these new systems to dual boot.

 

[nataku]

If I correctly interpret your so-called analogy, I should treat Mac OS X like a holy book and Apple has created it, so of I own the book, I should do whatever Apple says, regardless of whether it makes sense and whether their requests are legally valid? Why do you think so?
By the way, I think it is really, really, bad analogy, since you're more or less trying to pull religion into a discussion that is utterly unrelated to it.


Ah, clearly. Would you care to explain how not wanting to use Apple's el-cheapo components, but instead opting to build a computer which will cost a lot more than an off the shelve Intel Mac is being cheap? If I want a cheap computer, I'll buy a Mac mini.


Yeah, would you mind to stop doing that? It's annoying.


I don't care fror Apple's mind at all and I am not trying to force any issue. In fact, I think Apple should do as they please. They just won't be able to keep their OS from being installed to other computers on the same platform.

Apple does not tell you what to do. Apple tells you what NOT to do. don't you think that is obvious? The religious book is a perfect subject for analogy. I know that religion might be irrelevant but if it is the only way to make people like you understand, then i will use it. You can buy it because there is no restriction that it only be bought by their respective believers, however, you can't use it in ANY way you want. It is only meant to be read and that is it. Just like OS X, it is meant to be on a Mac. Plain and simple.


If you are annoyed by my posts then maybe you should stop reading them.

 

[nataku]

I don't care fror Apple's mind at all and I am not trying to force any issue. In fact, I think Apple should do as they please. They just won't be able to keep their OS from being installed to other computers on the same platform.

Don't talk as if Apple's battle is over. Their Intel platform is barely 2 months old. They can win if they are ferociously aggressive and determined.

 

[rjgjonker]

Apple does not tell you what to do. Apple tells you what NOT to do. don't you think that is obvious? The religious book is a perfect subject for analogy. I know that religion might be irrelevant but if it is the only way to make people like you understand, then i will use it. You can buy it because there is no restriction that it only be bought by their respective believers, however, you can't use it in ANY way you want. It is only meant to be read and that is it. Just like OS X, it is meant to be on a Mac. Plain and simple.

Why? You've still failed to explain why OS X should only be used on Macs. You make it sound like that's your religion, which is fine with me, but if other people don't adhere to your religion, then don't bother them.

Don't talk as if Apple's battle is over. Their Intel platform is barely 2 months old. They can win if they are ferociously aggressive and determined.

...because everybody likes companies that are 'ferociously aggressive and determined' against their customers! That has worked great for the RIAA as well. Everybody loves them!

 

[myamid]

If someone was to purchase a brand new iMac for example that has the Intel version of Mac OS X installed, and they build a PC and install OS X (that they bought) on it, surely that can't be stealing?

That most definatly is stealing!!!! No doubt about it. The only way you could conceivably install that version of OSX on another computer is if:
A- You buy another apple-made Mac
B- Destroy your previous iMac

All this because the licence allows you to install it on ONLY 1 mac... Not 2, 1. Add to that that your PC is not an "Apple labeled computer", that's would be a double no-no!

 

[myamid]

Apple, give us the chance to buy it legally for X86 and we would. The problem is you're forcing us to buy your hardware to run your software (as usual).

That's the whole point... Take it or leave it!! When you buy a car, you don't get choose the kind of engine that goes in, you take what the manufacturer makes available on that particular model.

 

[myamid]

Which is built on Open Source software!

Well if it's the Darwin part of OSX you want, it will work on your PC. The rest of it is proprietary and need to be paid for.

 

[rjgjonker]

That's the whole point... Take it or leave it!! When you buy a car, you don't get choose the kind of engine that goes in, you take what the manufacturer makes available on that particular model.

Yes, but Apple also sells the engine seperately and then tries to prevent the owner from using the engine in another car.

 

[myamid]

no they sell the full os. there is no requirement for having a previous os x installation in order to install a new version of os x (unlike windows).

They most definatly do sell ONLY upgrades!!! Sure, the box contains the whole thing (ie: WinXP upgrade boxes contained everything too, but it was still an upgrade!). Ready the requirements & EULA for the retail box correctly before you unload a false statement like that. There is no, and probably will never be a full retail version of OSX.

 

[rjgjonker]

They most definatly do sell ONLY upgrades!!! Sure, the box contains the whole thing (ie: WinXP upgrade boxes contained everything too, but it was still an upgrade!). Ready the requirements & EULA for the retail box correctly before you unload a false statement like that. There is no, and probably will never be a full retail version of OSX.

EULA's are not legally valid*. They are fictious and are to be treated as such.

*in most countries at least. I could imagine the US having some strange law (DMCA perhaps?) that makes them legally binding. IANAL, perhaps someone who is can tell more about it.

 

[myamid]

Yes, but Apple also sells the engine seperately and then tries to prevent the owner from using the engine in another car.

No they don't technically sell the engine separatly, the sell the upgrades to it (ie: spare parts if you will)

 

[myamid]

EULA's are not legally valid*. They are fictious and are to be treated as such.

*in most countries at least. I could imagine the US having some strange law (DMCA perhaps?) that makes them legally binding. IANAL, perhaps someone who is can tell more about it.

Well considering the govt. made me agree to a form EULA to submit my taxes electronically, I'd have the tendancy to consider them valid until proven otherwise. And you litterally have to agree to the EULA to install it... The argument of no signatures is hogwash (I don't remember signing a credit card receipt for internet purchases, yet by electronically agreeing to it it's just as good).

 

[rjgjonker]

No they don't technically sell the engine separatly, the sell the upgrades to it (ie: spare parts if you will)

They do. Apple sells Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" on the Apple Store and in a lot of retail shops, including their own. It is the full version, which is installable on any supported PowerMac. They did the same with 10.3 and 10.2 and I suppose they will do the same with 10.5 again. The difference will be that 10.5 supports the IA-32 platform as well as the PowerMac platform.

 

[myamid]

They do. Apple sells Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" on the Apple Store and in a lot of retail shops, including their own. It is the full version, which is installable on any supported PowerMac. They did the same with 10.3 and 10.2 and I suppose they will do the same with 10.5 again. The difference will be that 10.5 supports the IA-32 platform as well as the PowerMac platform.

It's still technically an upgrade package... I know this is semantics and to a certain extent a little anal, but that's still what it is. Notice that when you install from the retail DVD, the 3 upgrade choices are:
-Upgrade
-Archive & install
-Erase & install

They make perfect sense from an upgrade point of view, but would sound a little silly if it were a complete installation package... Wouldn't you expect a simple 'Install on blank machine' option or whatever...?

One user previously stated that they loved apple's SW because it didn't contain sweeping copy-protection measures. I happen to agree, and not being overly restrictive with their Upgrade boxes is one example.

 

[rjgjonker]

It's still technically an upgrade package... I know this is semantics and to a certain extent a little anal, but that's still what it is. Notice that when you install from the retail DVD, the 3 upgrade choices are:
-Upgrade
-Archive & install
-Erase & install

They make perfect sense from an upgrade point of view, but would sound a little silly if it were a complete installation package... Wouldn't you expect a simple 'Install on blank machine' option or whatever...?

Those are the options the Installer gives when the chosen target volume already contains Mac OS X. It is entirely possible to install Mac OS X on a volume not already containing Mac OS X. This option is simply called 'Install', I believe.

 

[Apple-Alt-Ctr]

Not too off-topic here but, aren't PC's supposed to be "IBM compatible?" I always thought that was funny because Mac's had IBM processors but weren't.

The original 'PC' was built by IBM using mainly off the shelf parts, which meant that others were able to quite easily build 'compatible' machines more cheaply without paying IBM for the privilege. After getting a little burnt here IBM went on to do many things including producing processors such as the excellent 68K serious and a whole load of business software something or other.

The only thing 'PCs' are meant to be are Personal Computers, which the Mac has always been. Have I in any way answered your question?

 

[zap2]

Of course Apple had to ruin it buy not allowing (not yet at least, if ever) these new systems to dual boot.

Apple did not stop you from dual booting, but there not going to help do you dual boot. If you want to dual boot Mac OS X and Windows have fun doing it, but remember doing in on a non-Apple HardWare is illegal