Meh. Some programming gurus out there will collaborate and have a patched kernel up and running pretty soon. Hackintosh users will just have to wait a little while to update, much like jailbroken iPhone/iPod Touch users.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well obviously they wouldn't, Microsoft is a software company and thats where they make their money. They want their software on as much hardware as possible. Which is also the reason their OS is inferior. Apple is a hardware company, therefore they really couldnt care less about supporting other hardware thats not their's, its not their prerogative...
Your kidding right?... Please tell me your kidding!!
Apple sells hardware and makes software to go along with it, Microsoft is almost ENTIRELY software based so comparing the two is not and apples to apples comparison. Microsoft could not limit the support of the CPU because they sell SOFTWARE to the HARDWARE manufacturers, unlike Apple who makes software and then puts it on THEIR hardware.
I don't know how much work it was to remove Atom support but frankly I don't care. The people running OS X on an Atom have obviously installed it on a non-Apple machine and therefore have no right to bitch and complain when/if it goes by by.
They take out a segment they don't compete in, and leave alone the section of competition they lose money in. Doubtful. Unless the netbook/tablet is coming out before Christmas (but Apple already said this was all thats coming before the Holidays)
I am leaning towards the "get rid of code that they don't need" ala their "tighter code, and better code" mantra for SL. Not because it allowed support of the atom processor, but because it was bulky code they didn't need for their supported hardware. The breaking of atom netbooks is just collateral damage.
All this means to me is that there is no requirements for OS X to actually run on an Atom processor.
So it must be that whatever is coming out of Cupertino next isn't running on an Atom.
Not sure how big a loss that is. I've never been too impressed by the Atom. Lot's of people do seem to like it, though.
So it must be that whatever is coming out of Cupertino next isn't running on an Atom.
Not sure how big a loss that is. I've never been too impressed by the Atom. Lot's of people do seem to like it, though.
UnreaL said:
It's Apple Computer's software and they have no obligation to maintain support for a processor on a piece of hardware that they don't support. How are they stifling creativity or competition? They're not in anyway preventing someone from writing their own operating system to run on Atom based netbooks- and they'll happily let other operating systems run on their hardware through Bootcamp. Of course Apple is going to restrict Pam devices from interfacing with iTunes. They developed iTunes to work with their hardware. They invested in the iTunes development costs, why should Palm be allowed to parasitize their efforts? In fact, the IEEE recently ruled that Palm was breaking USB licensing rules by allowing it to spoof itself as an iPod when connected to a computer in order to make use of the iTunes software.
Apple is a computer manufacturer- they make their money mostly off of selling computers, not operating systems.
You might even be able to make the argument that Apple has a legal responsibility to kill off support for hardware they're not selling. If people started using Apple's operating system on non-supported hardware, and then those same people lost important data on those computers as a result of the hardware not being properly supported by the software then they could try and sue Apple for damages. Apple would probably win the lawsuit, but not necessarily, and it'd take them time and money to fight a stupid frivolous fight. Just like thieves who break into business and homes and get themselves injured in the process have sued business and home owners, computer owners could attempt to do the same thing. Now Apple has clearly drawn a line in the sand and said "We're not supporting this movement".
Hmmm ... I guess that they stopped supporting it so that PEOPLE WOULD STOP STEALING THEIR OS ... LMAO
Apple have never supported the Atom, or any third party computers that are not Apple branded.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)
I disagree. I think it is a way to further trim the fat of Mac OS X. If Apple doesn't plan to use particular hardware I don't have any problem cutting support for it. I wouldn't be suprised if this was only the beginning. If it improves my experience of authentic Apple hardware I say bring it on.
UnreaL said:
I disagree. I think it is a way to further trim the fat of Mac OS X. If Apple doesn't plan to use particular hardware I don't have any problem cutting support for it. I wouldn't be suprised if this was only the beginning. If it improves my experience of authentic Apple hardware I say bring it on.
slightly OT but my only thoughts about Hackintoshs...
The more people use Mac OSX the more unsecure it will become - pragmatically.
Everything has its time - Hackintoshs time will be over soon. Everyone knew this can happen but a new path will become clear. Maybe, if OSX gets common hackers will have fun with it. Its relatively security will be over then.
The more people use Mac OSX the more unsecure it will become - pragmatically.
Everything has its time - Hackintoshs time will be over soon. Everyone knew this can happen but a new path will become clear. Maybe, if OSX gets common hackers will have fun with it. Its relatively security will be over then.
I'm flabbergasted at the tone of many of the responses here. If you see this as Apple shafting you, ask yourself how it was done? I see only two alternatives: (1) the operating system checks the processor id against a list of acceptable processors, or (2) Apple fixed a bug or added a feature that uses something that the Atom doesn't have.
I'll wager some large amount of money -- maybe a dime? -- that what happened was (2). It seems very unlikely that they ever put in anything to support the Atom, and it seems even more unlikely that they removed any such support. That earlier versions work is just an accident, that some people took advantage of.
I'll wager some large amount of money -- maybe a dime? -- that what happened was (2). It seems very unlikely that they ever put in anything to support the Atom, and it seems even more unlikely that they removed any such support. That earlier versions work is just an accident, that some people took advantage of.
Uh, money? If you want Mac OSX on a small computer (where it really shines), your only official option is a $1000 Macbook, which is a full featured computer with a 13" screen. Or, if you don't really need the "full featured," you could grab a Netbook for under $300. That's a $700 difference, and while not every Netbook owner is going to spend that, many sensible people would never buy the Macbook under these conditions.
True, some Netbook users paid for OSX. At upgrade prices. What's the chance that more than one person in 33 who bought a Netbook to put OSX on it would have bought a Macbook instead if they couldn't?
What they gain besides money is just icing -- one less platform to support through QA and a slightly smaller kernel.
Agreed. This makes the most sense. I don't believe Apple was ever going to release an Atom based product. Even if they were going to release a netbook of sorts, it is more likely that it would be a mini Air based on the low power C2D.
Hey, my Core i7 iMac is prepared for shipment! Can't wait.
I agree, but there is definitely some overlap - they are both designed for limited, portable computing - and that's likely Apple's motivation.
Well, if we were to assume that the reason the Mac OS is less expensive than Windows is because Apple is a hardware company and the price of the OS is subsidized by hardware sales, then any user who is running Mac OS on non-Apple hardware is, in fact, stealing.
ASIDE: This brings up an interesting question. Suppose Apple were to release a "Universal" version of Mac OS X that could be installed on third party hardware (so long as that hardware met certain hardware requirements), but charged twice as much for this version of their OS. Might be an interesting thought...
Okay, you're putting out arguments that don't make sense. While I can understand some people being frustrated with Apple over making a move like this (though I, personally, think that this is a perfectly legitimate move - CptnJustc makes a good argument as to why above), to liken this move to Apple's continued dispute with Palm knocks down your own argument. The situation with Palm is that Apple has an accepted method of developing conduits for third party music players to sync with iTunes, and Palm has chosen to ignore this and try to cheat and use a back door.
Also, the iPhone is a completely restricted ecosystem. I'm not sure why you only mention browsers. But, just like this situation with Atom based netbooks, if you want to, you can hack your way to it, have a jailbroken iPhone or a hacked (now doubly so) Mac OS X netbook. You may not be able to update as soon as an update comes out, but you'll just have to wait for a little while until a new hack comes out, as has already happened for the netbooks.
A most sensible post.
And you're right. The sense of entitlement in this thread is just astounding, but unsurprising, really.
Let them eat cake. We don't want their kind in our exclusive club anyway. Would somebody pass me the Grey Poupon, please ? That's a good chap, what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwaKixMWATQ
Fantastic. Did he read the licence agreement ? I assume he didn't even bought the bundle or upgrade from Leopard.
I cannot understand how someone tries to argue that doing the hackintosh is ok.
News flash, Developing OSX is not free and takes considerable resources - costs that are subsidized by Apple's hardware business along with the costs associated with getting that disc. Apple is not profiting by selling OSX alone, they legally profit by selling hardware.
I see what you did there. Technically even more egregious, as Microsoft is not a hardware company. Where do they get off telling my what hardware to use ?!?
Long time ago I remember toying with NT 3.51 on one of our macs...pretty decent Windows implementation, considering the complete lack of supported software.
observer said:
That's what makes me the most curious. I really wonder if Apple went out of their way to disable it or it just happened by chance because of the changes.
News flash, agreeing with my argument is not a news flash, especially when I stated things better than you did.
In other news, reading is FUN-damental!
Right, and did this brother-in-law buy the $29 "upgrade from Leopard" version of Snow Leopard or the Mac Box set for $169. I'm willing to assume he bought the upgrade version despite not having Leopard to upgrade from. Now that's not exactly legit is it...? Obviously correct me if he bought the box set...
But anyway, Apple's a hardware company, not a software company like Microsoft. Apple can't live off the fairly measly profit margins selling a major OS for $29. SL sells Macs. Macs make them money. Don't make out hackintosh users are helping Apple with their pathetic contributions of $29
Funny seeing all the "Hackintosh people buy OS X!" when I have 3 people around me running 10.6 on HP Minis (and with the kernel mod, running 10.6.2 to boot) and none of them bought a copy of OS X for their Netbook...
The hackintosh community is very small, and in that community, only a very small percentage actually buy OS X. Anyone saying otherwise is being disingenious...
The hackintosh community is very small, and in that community, only a very small percentage actually buy OS X. Anyone saying otherwise is being disingenious...