take note, this is a MAC rumors website. some of us aren't annoyed at all that people have hackintoshes, but we are annoyed that they come on here to b$tch about it when it doesn't work. go to a hackintosh website to do your complaining about apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
take note, this is a MAC rumors website. some of us aren't annoyed at all that people have hackintoshes, but we are annoyed that they come on here to b$tch about it when it doesn't work. go to a hackintosh website to do your complaining about apple.
I understand all the grumbling from netbook users, BUT look on the bright side. Apple isn't going to release any product based on a crippled processor (Core 2 Duo or better only) in the near future. Oh well, every silver lining has a cloud.
And if Microsoft attempted to adopt that strategy it would be jumped on by every anti-competitive body under the sun, so how come it's OK for Apple? I would love to see the part of Apple's EULA about only running OS X on Apple branded hardware tested in an EU court. I somehow doubt it would be enforceable.
I don't have a hackintosh and don't intend to make one as I'm happy with my real Mac, but on the other hand I don't see why someone who buys a legal copy of OS X shouldn't run it on whatever hardware they want, with the proviso that Apple are not obliged to support it, but certainly should not seek to deliberately break it. If it's just to piss people off who want a netbook when Apple don't deign to make one, that would be disgraceful. If there are sound technical reasons for it, then that would be acceptable. Since no-one knows the real reason, we will just have to choose which we think is more likely.
What do you mean? All intel macs can run snow Leopard and Leopard just fine. I have no idea what you are talking about with the "latest and greatest requirement.
No, not buying is exercising consumer choice. I have never argued otherwise. Apple, nor anybody else, holds a gun to your head and forces you to upgrade. They may create incenitives (like depreciating support for older OS's), but they cannot force you to buy something.
Now if you want to enter into licensing agreements with Apple (which you have to to use their software).
That doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter if a fee occurs or not - software that is distributed is licensed.
You do realize that Snow Leopard is sold and priced as an UPDATE for those that have a Mac with Leopard. You seriously can't believe that Apple is close to recouping their investment in developing Snow Leopard by charging only $29.
So by purchasing SL and then installing it on a non-Mac system you ARE benefiting from Apple's update pricing, in effect taking money away from Apple.
Now if Apple charged a full price for Snow Leopard you could claim you aren't taking anything away from Apple... but until then don't attempt claim otherwise.
Um, if you look at a Mac like you do a PS3, or Xbox360 you get the picture. If you look at it like a PC with a crazy version of Windows you don't. Apple sells a "package" not hardware alone and not software alone.
I'll bet alot more than 1/2 - you pretty much have to be a Mac fanboy already (or have WAY too much time on your hands) to a be motivated enough to build up a hackintosh and keep it running right.
I own 3 other "real Macs". All of them, plus my Hackintosh, were running unpirated copies of Leopard from a family pack when they were upgraded with Snow Leopard - again, from a family pack, which allows for for 5 installs. So we're fully legal here and no copyrighted works have been stolen - although Apple may have a civil beef with our interpretation of the EULA
I'd be MORE than happy to buy an Apple laptop in the same form factor as my Dell Mini 9 - even at twice the price - but it just ain't there. And I'm not interested in an Apple tablet if it's simply an overgrown iPhone.
Because MS is a convicted monopolist that has market control. Apple does not nor have they ever possessed this.
Apple should release a FULL Mac (not just a larger iPhone or iPod touch) as light as possible (400 to 600 g would be great), as small as possible (pocketable would be great) with video-out and USB-2 ports.
The ultimate Keynote and PowerPoint presentation tool.
As a tablet or as the OQO or Sony Vaio P form factors.
Otherwise, a hackintosh is the only alternative.
The ultimate Keynote and PowerPoint presentation tool.
As a tablet or as the OQO or Sony Vaio P form factors.
Otherwise, a hackintosh is the only alternative.
Microsoft did make a PPC version of Windows. They've obviously dropped the support for a CPU that's no longer made for the general public though.
On topic... I am shocked that Apple would do something like this, especially directly after the release of Windows 7. If I had a netbook running OS X, and then OS X stopped working, and I heard that 1) Apple is messing with netbooks, and 2) Windows 7 is a great OS, well, I would just get a copy of Windows 7.
Really, why is Apple cutting off their nose to spite their face?
sorry, but you have that backwards. apple saying you can't install OS X on non-aple machines is NOT anti-competitive. they aren't doing anything to keep you from putting another OS (ie the competition) on that same non-apple hardware. that is what MS got slapped for. they were leveraging hardware makers into agreeing that they would ONLY provide Windows OS on their machines when they were sold. effectively making Windows OS the ONLY option a buyer had to choose from when purchasing a PC (non apple).
apple locking down their hardware to keep you from installing other OSes could be construed as anti-competitive, which in my opinion is one reason why apple doesn't prevent it. not to mention allowing someone to pick the OS they want on their mac SELLS HARDWARE, which like so many on here have pointed out is what makes apple money. OS X attracts people to apple hardware.
apple doesn't enforce the EULA with consumers because at this time it's not financially practical. the EULA is mainly there as a way for apple to be able to REFUSE warranty or liability when people do put it on non-apple hardware. imagine if all the hackintosh people were going after apple for bricking their netbooks right now. as it stands, they can't because everyone knows they have no leg to stand on, because apple told them up front the OS isn't to be used in that manner.
Please, get serious. Companies can dictate how their products are used in EULA. Just because you choose to ignore the part of the EULA that says that the Mac OS X copy you own can only be installed on Apple hardware doesn't mean that it is invalid.
If it wasn't "enforceable" as you state, why hasn't any in the EU challenged Apple on this? You don't think that PC cloners in the EU wouldn't jump all over selling clones like Psystar is attempting to do here in the US?
Microsoft has a different business model than Apple. Here's a hint - Microsoft does sell a device that it doesn't allow it's OS to be transferred off of or used on another machine - it's called the Xbox.
I can fully appreciate wanting a netbook running OS X. I saw a Nokia Booklet 3G this weekend and thought "Man, if I could run OS X on this, it would be awesome.". But guess what - I can't, at least legally.
And if I tried to do it illegally, and Apple changed something that prevented me from doing that, I wouldn't go around whining about it. Because whining about it just makes you a whiner.
Don't be a whiner.
If it wasn't "enforceable" as you state, why hasn't any in the EU challenged Apple on this? You don't think that PC cloners in the EU wouldn't jump all over selling clones like Psystar is attempting to do here in the US?
Microsoft has a different business model than Apple. Here's a hint - Microsoft does sell a device that it doesn't allow it's OS to be transferred off of or used on another machine - it's called the Xbox.
I can fully appreciate wanting a netbook running OS X. I saw a Nokia Booklet 3G this weekend and thought "Man, if I could run OS X on this, it would be awesome.". But guess what - I can't, at least legally.
And if I tried to do it illegally, and Apple changed something that prevented me from doing that, I wouldn't go around whining about it. Because whining about it just makes you a whiner.
Don't be a whiner.
well... i guess this means it's goodbye to hackintosh netbooks.
Well... hackintosh's are illegal, technically. So you guys don't really have the right to cry when Apple try and stop you from doing it.
Help out old steve... he's ill, help to pay for his treatment, and treat yourself to a nice shiney new macbook.
likemyorbs said:
Well... hackintosh's are illegal, technically. So you guys don't really have the right to cry when Apple try and stop you from doing it.
Help out old steve... he's ill, help to pay for his treatment, and treat yourself to a nice shiney new macbook.
yup, and
Apple makes a 'product' (widget). Their widget is a combination of hardware and software as the unified product. Just because the software can be upgraded, does not separate the material fact of the unified product. If you take just one component and strip it out of the product and use it in an unintended manner, Apple loses potential revenue.
Of course, in my opinion, that's a risk they take doing business. But Apple has no obligation to support any of their hardware or software separately.
With that said, disabling support for the Atom processor would actually take some effort. It would have to be intentional. The Atom is a CPU running the x86 instruction set. Developers write to the instruction set. Any software or OS written for x86 should run (at least launch/boot) on any x86 compatible CPU without modification. It may not be optimized for a particular CPU's capabilities, but it will run. (You have noticed that the decade old WinXP still runs on the very latest Core i7 CPUs haven't you?) Apple had to intentionally identify the host CPU and disable operation on anything it deems "unacceptable".
Apple just slapped the hackintosh community, and they have a right to do whatever they wish with the product they create, but make no mistake, it was not accidental.
Apple makes a 'product' (widget). Their widget is a combination of hardware and software as the unified product. Just because the software can be upgraded, does not separate the material fact of the unified product. If you take just one component and strip it out of the product and use it in an unintended manner, Apple loses potential revenue.
Of course, in my opinion, that's a risk they take doing business. But Apple has no obligation to support any of their hardware or software separately.
With that said, disabling support for the Atom processor would actually take some effort. It would have to be intentional. The Atom is a CPU running the x86 instruction set. Developers write to the instruction set. Any software or OS written for x86 should run (at least launch/boot) on any x86 compatible CPU without modification. It may not be optimized for a particular CPU's capabilities, but it will run. (You have noticed that the decade old WinXP still runs on the very latest Core i7 CPUs haven't you?) Apple had to intentionally identify the host CPU and disable operation on anything it deems "unacceptable".
Apple just slapped the hackintosh community, and they have a right to do whatever they wish with the product they create, but make no mistake, it was not accidental.
1. Microsoft has more than 90% market share in the operating system market, Apple has less than 10%. Does that explain why one is jumped upon and the other is not?
2. For Apple's SLA, it would make a huge difference whether this is done by a company or by a private user. In Germany, Psystar would have been killed in the courts many months ago. Even without copyright protection, what they are doing is a clear case of unfair competition (German courts really don't like it when one company spends a billion dollars on developing an operating system to help selling their computers, and another company just rips off their work).
3. I could imagine that the netbook market is one where illegal copying of MacOS X hurts Apple most. Look at 10.6.2 as a first step: Support for Atom processors has been removed, but so far this is just a compatibility problem. People could add that support back in without it being a DMCA violation. But as the next step, Apple could not just remove support, but actively reject Atom processors at several points after boot time. That would be an active DRM measure, and getting around it would be a DMCA violation. And not only in the USA, also in many European countries.
It's not exactly a lot of work. One of the very first things an OS does while the computer is booting is to determine which CPU it is running, and obviously do something if the CPU is one that is known not to work, like if you tried to run MacOS X on a Pentium III processor. At that point, they can check the manufacturer, reject anything that isn't Intel, check the processor family and sub-family, and reject anything that isn't used in any computer still supported by Apple. That code is already there and it is obviously needed; it is up to Apple to make their checks more precise. And an Atom processor will clearly report that it is an Atom processor and is therefore easy to reject.
It may be "a locked in ecosystem", but it's THEIR ecosystem...they can do with it as they please. It may not be what YOU want, but it's THEIR product, and to use it you must agree to THEIR terms.
If you don't like it, use windows. Or, do what I did: bite the bullet and get one of the new, more affordable macs.
Your are correct, but a lot of people get mixed up because of the experience a lot of people at P.A. Semi have with the ARM processors.
As soon as it's 1/2 the weight of the MacBook, with a 10" screen or so, sure, I'll get one!
Because they're control freaks. Especially the CEO. They're more concerned about control than they are about market share, public perception, or even customer requests.
I guess you haven't tried upgrading a hard drive (to one that didn't come from MS) on an xbox 360
It's possible, but not easy
what i'm confused about is how people think apple even make any hardware? all they did was design the case and then choose what 3rd party parts are going inside it. last i checked, the video card is by nvidia, hard drive by hitachi, processor by INTEL, ram by hynix, etc etc.
That's exactly what I point out elsewhere in other threads. While it is true that Apple sells a widget (Hardware and software), hardware profits are much larger since software sales get calculated differently and their costs internally to Apple are calculated differently. In a sense Apple is a hardware company because the hardware profits pay off the software costs and leaves a profit.
Its more accurate to say that Apple markets a widget, but they sell hardware and software. Thats how Apple's financial probably see it.
In other words, we are arguing the same point, I just argue things from a technical/financial/legal view and you are viewing it from another angle.