Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors

[Legolover64]

I logged in just to reply to this post.

I would love for some of the people posting here to take a look at themselves. Owning an Apple computer that you paid for (or not, I bet a lot of the younger people here had their parents helping, am I right?) does not entitle you to be the decider as to who can and cannot use OS X on a certain piece of hardware.

First and foremost, I am against software piracy. I do think that open-source and free-as-in-freedom software are both great, and I do use lots of open products, but I do not believe that people should pirate software if it is not free or if it is not open. I advocate that people who write software, a laborious process, are deserving of compensation for that work. If you can't pay, you don't get the product, and if you don't want the product, you don't have to pay. I love capitalism.

However, this issue gets touchier. People who install OS X on a netbook are indeed violating the End User License Agreement. It specifies that you are agreeing to only install the software on Apple-branded hardware. However, I do not believe that violating a EULA is violating the law, because it's not. Breeching a contract is not something you can be arrested for directly, but you can definitely be brought to court for it.

Let's look beyond the EULA. Many people do not comply with them, including many Apple users, and I would be willing to wager that the majority of people do not even read EULAs on the software they own. For example, the iTunes EULA prohibits that you use iTunes to develop nuclear or biological weapons. I bet many of you didn't even know that.

Looking beyond the EULA, many people here are making the argument that the Snow Leopard upgrade disk is so cheap because Apple is placating the cost of the software to their higher-than-industry-average hardware costs.I would argue that this is not just true for OS X, but for other Apple software as well. You would be hard pressed to argue that Aperture only costs Apple $80 per license to develop, update, and produce. The DMCA permits reverse engineering to advocate interoperability purposes. Let's say I take a project like etoilé, an open source project to write a computing environment based on GNUStep/OpenStep (foundations of OSX) with lots of interoperability with OS X libraries. What if I were to modify etoilé to create my own implementations of the other libraries Aperture uses (CoreImage, CoreAnimation, etc.) and I get Aperture to work under this environment. How is this case any different? Apple's software is so cheap because their hardware is so expensive (they expect you to buy their computer if you're buying their photo software) but I'm getting that software without paying an arm and a leg for an Apple computer. And I'm doing so under the DMCA.

Let's take the DMCA argument further. Most of you would agree that these Hackintosh users modifying OS X is "reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes." Where is the line drawn here? Interoperability is never bad, it enables more people to communicate and use computers, and pushes humanity forward. And, the DMCA allows reverse engineering for the purpose of more interoperability.

My question to the Apple zealots who have appointed themselves as the morality police is:

Officer, how much does a standalone license of OSX really cost? $100? $300? $500? You tell me.

 

[kate-willbury]

What negative mindshare?

You mean the record Mac sales, record iPhone sales, skyrocketing customer satisfation, all in a recession?

This hacky-toshy business doesn't leave the Mac fansite bubble. No one else cares.

The whole Google Voice fiasco barely made a dent in the public consciousness. it's as if it barely registered. You think Apple dropping support for a processor that doesn't even have anything to do with Macs, and only really affects people (a minority) who are contravening Apple's policies is going to register with the average user?? You've got to be kidding.

i don't get why you bring up this 'no one cares' crap over and over for every single argument i've read you try to combat/curtail/etc etc. if you were to spread your scope further, one could easily say "who cares about macs since they're only about 5% (or whatever it is now) marketshare!"

'average users' obviously don't come to mac/computer forums on their spare time to discuss these types of things. why even bother bringing that fact up when services like google voice are clearly not going to be used by the 'average user'. i highly doubt the 'average user' is going to care about i5/i7 processors either. that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

the whole google voice/apple thing was a huge ordeal across all sorts of popular tech blogs etc etc. obviously people who want to use google voice are effected. thats about 1.4 million people. not bad for something thats only been out since march 2009.

 

[*LTD*]

I logged in just to reply to this post.

I would love for some of the people posting here to take a look at themselves. Owning an Apple computer that you paid for (or not, I bet a lot of the younger people here had their parents helping, am I right?) does not entitle you to be the decider as to who can and cannot use OS X on a certain piece of hardware.

No, but it does give me the right to complain. Hackintosh users aren't entitled to this, and they aren't by any means entitled to assume this right. If they want to so badly, they can appear in court to test Apple's EULA on a case-by-case basis. Until then, they're cut off and on their own.

The rest you can argue legally back and forth until you're blue in the face.

 

[KnightWRX]

Because Mac users never pirate software

No one claimed otherwise. In fact, the only people claiming they are "clean" and don't pirate are the hackintosh people in this thread. Why are you even trying to justify it because others do it ?

 

[Legolover64]

No, but it does give me the right to complain. Hackintosh users aren't entitled to this, and they aren't by any means entitled to assume this right. If they want to so badly, they can appear in court to test Apple's EULA on a case-by-case basis. Until then, they're cut off and on their own.

The rest you can argue legally back and forth until you're blue in the face.

First of all, this is a case of Apple intentionally blocking out the Atom. Processor design is pretty similar as far as instructions go between the Atom and Core 2 Duo, so it's hard/impossible to even contend that Apple "inadvertently" removed support. This is the same as the Pre. I'm a much bigger fan of compatibility than I am of close ecosystems. It makes more sense, it leads to more competition (never ever ever bad) and better products for the consumer.

Let's look at another quote of yours:

"$2,100 Canadian says that you figure very low on the scale and as a consumer I care even less about you than Apple. Nothing personal, but my money puts me waaaay ahead of you in terms of who has the right to complain about Apple. "

Take your classism elsewhere. Money doesn't entitle you to complain or not complain. I don't mean to start a flamewar, but wow, how's the weather up there?

 

[shawnce]

Officer, how much does a standalone license of OSX really cost? $100? $300? $500? You tell me.

That is up to Apple to decide. At this point in time Apple chooses to not sell it standalone (aka non-upgrade) so the price is unknown. Just because we don't know a price for it doesn't change the fact of what I have been saying (also please note I have made no comments on morality or legality of this situation in any of my posts)

 

[damacus]

Apple have never supported the Atom, or any third party computers that are not Apple branded.

Technically incorrect. The old third-party mac clones that used to be sold were Apple-supported Mac OS platforms.

 

[gnasher729]

Let's take the DMCA argument further. Most of you would agree that these Hackintosh users modifying OS X is "reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes." Where is the line drawn here? Interoperability is never bad, it enables more people to communicate and use computers, and pushes humanity forward. And, the DMCA allows reverse engineering for the purpose of more interoperability.

"Interoperability" is about different applications working together. Making Windows capable of reading HFS+ disks would be "interoperability". Making sure that an email sent from a Linux box can be read on a Macintosh would be "interoperability". If Apple released a new iPod that cannot read songs bought an iTMS with DRM, then making the iPod play these songs would be "interoperability" (because the iTunes store license _allows_ you to play those songs on _any_ iPod, so if it doesn't _work_ because of DRM then it is legal to get around this). If you could hack Snow Leopard to install on a PowerPC Macintosh, that would be "interoperability".

So "interoperability" covers things that you would normally be allowed to do, but which don't work for some reasons. The DMCA doesn't stop you from making it work if you were allowed to do it. The DMCA stops you as soon as you try to do something, or create tools for others to do things that they are not allowed to do. You have no license to install MacOS X on a netbook, so the "interoperability" argument does not give you any rights either.

Think about it: You could always claim that the copy-protected game that you bought and want to copy is not compatible with your DVD-copying application, and you are just trying to make it interoperable with your DVD-copying software. Do you think that argument would fly?

 

[pdjudd]

I was replying to your statement about Apple making money from the hardware which is why they sell the OS for so cheap. comes out).

That's not what I was stating though. I was not comententing directly on Apple's pricing of upgrades. Charging for upgrades is a business decision that is independent of their overall costs or anything else.

And that using a hackintosh denies Apple the money that they would have gotten from a hardware sale.

I understand that. That is not a point I have argued against ever. But that was not the point of my argument. I was describing Apple as a hardware company first and foremost. The two arguments are not incompatible with each other. Aple's pricing of OSX as a separate upgrade is a factor of how much development costs are along with many other factors. Obviously they bundle it with the hardware - that is their business and always has been. I wasn't taking about the widget though. I was talking about the widget components.

Just like with Windows, the OS has a cost - the end user does not see that cost (and unlike with MS, Apple does not reveal that or offer a return on that cost) since its factored into the hardware cost. That's where the issue for softwre ownership comes in. In reality, the pricing that you pay for awards you ownership of the hardware. The software, no matter how you get it is licensed.

What I was implying is if that was the case then they wouldn't allow older macs to upgrade to the new OS because they are losing money on hardware there too (by us not upgrading when new hardware

But thats where you are wrong. You are not depriving a company anything by not upgrading unless there is a prior agreement to do so. Consumer choice is not the same thing as a license violation. If you never enter into a license agreement with Apple, you have no obligations to them nor do you have something you can deprive them of. There is no net gain if you don't buy anything. BMW is not deprived of a car purcase simply becasue I don't want to buy their cars (even if I have done so before) the next year. My obligations to them end after the transaction is complete and any other agreements have expired. Now if I showed interest in a BMW and did a test drive and decided to take the car anyway (violating the test drive agreements), I would be in real big trouble since I took something I had no rights too and only "got it" under false pretenses (test drive).

Apple looses nothing when you refuse to upgrade. They also gain nothing. In turn you loose and gain nothing as well. Its a zero-sum.

 

[e12a]

while I see why this sucks for netbook users...


i can't say i'm surprised Apple did this. Despite netbook users purchasing the retail copy legally, the only reason why retail copies exist are for earlier intel Macs that shipped with Leopard and Tiger. You can argue all you want about how blah blah but Snow Leopard system spec requirements are this. I dont see 3rd party computers listed anywhere.

* Mac computer with an Intel processor
* 1GB of memory
* 5GB of available disk space
* DVD drive for installation
* Some features require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply.
* Some features require Apple’s MobileMe service; fees and terms apply.


to netbook hackintoshers: If you must, just do the kernel mod and stop whining.

 

[Amdahl]

What is MacRumors malfunction?

This is now TWO articles where PA Semi is described as an ARM producer. They are not. They made PowerPC chips. What is the deal here?

 

[*LTD*]

.. ... ..

First of all, this is a case of Apple intentionally blocking out the Atom.

So what. It's got nothing to do with shipping Macs. Big deal.

Processor design is pretty similar as far as instructions go between the Atom and Core 2 Duo, so it's hard/impossible to even contend that Apple "inadvertently" removed support.

Ok. It makes no difference.

This is the same as the Pre. I'm a much bigger fan of compatibility than I am of close ecosystems.

There's a fan for everything. Yes, there are even Zune fans, believe it or not.

It makes more sense, it leads to more competition (never ever ever bad) and better products for the consumer.

Purely incidental. You could argue it either way. Apple's closed ecosystem has been remarkably successful with consumers, and is the envy of the industry. It makes far more sense for a lot of people to benefit from Apple's closeed system. Hence its success. It's fact. The numbers are there to support it. Apple has been making "better products" for the consumer just fine with their closed system. Apple has *always* locked their software to their hardware . . . and look where they are now: the darling of the industry, loved by consumers, and recession-proof.


Let's look at another quote of yours:

"$2,100 Canadian says that you figure very low on the scale and as a consumer I care even less about you than Apple. Nothing personal, but my money puts me waaaay ahead of you in terms of who has the right to complain about Apple. "

Completely true. Glad it interested you.

Take your classism elsewhere. Money doesn't entitle you to complain or not complain. I don't mean to start a flamewar, but wow, how's the weather up there?

It does. It makes me a legitimate Apple customer. I paid for it. That gives me certain rights. You expect Apple to honour hackintosh users somehow?? ROFL.

Weather is fine, thanks. So is the support I get for my $2,100. I paid for my Mac, which runs OS X. Some people on this forum might want to try that sometime, or else stick with Windows or Linux.

Again, this doesn't mean hackintosh users can't run OS X on unauthorized hardware. Clearly they are, whether anyone likes it or not. It just doesn't give them the right to complain about how difficult it is at any given time. Apple doesn't owe them squat.

 

[scroto]

No, but it does give me the right to complain. Hackintosh users aren't entitled to this, and they aren't by any means entitled to assume this right. If they want to so badly, they can appear in court to test Apple's EULA on a case-by-case basis. Until then, they're cut off and on their own.

The rest you can argue legally back and forth until you're blue in the face.

What do you have against hackintosh users? Are you so in love with Apple that you can't stand to see them lose hardware sales to PC's? Or are you just jealous that they're smarter than you because they can have the "Mac Experience" without paying the Apple tax? Either way you look like a fool.

 

[*LTD*]

What do you have against hackintosh users?

Nothing, apart from their whining about something which they were never entitled to in the first place.

 

[Amdahl]

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.

Ah yes, the "Apple violates Sarbanes-Oxley" argument, but charges $10 to recover their immense costs on an iPhone update.

 

[uberamd]

What do you have against hackintosh users? Are you so in love with Apple that you can't stand to see them lose hardware sales to PC's? Or are you just jealous that they're smarter than you because they can have the "Mac Experience" without paying the Apple tax? Either way you look like a fool.

Seriously? Are you serious now?

First of all, my Mac Experience comes 75% from the HARDWARE. Yeah, thats right. My unibody 17" MacBook Pro is the best laptop I have ever purchased, and my MacBook Air and 15" MacBook Pro are in second and third place. Mac Experience? It isn't just about the OS, it has a LOT to do with the hardware you run it on, and if a crappy plastic netbook with a cramped keyboard, crappy trackpad and garbage display makes you happy, then so be it... run Windows or Linux, you are NOT entitled to run OS X on it or b***h about it not working.

And Hackintosh users are not smarter than anyone. They google some directions, simple as that. Hackintoshing is NOT hard to do. And don't even get me started on the Apple Tax.... my MacBook Pro 15" was just as expensive as my Dell E1505, and my Dell broke multiple times and was made of flimsy plastic.

 

[zweigand]

to netbook hackintoshers: If you must, just do the kernel mod and stop whining.

Indeed! …live up to your name.
Not complaining …congrats, you've got a hackintosh
Complaining …wannabee slackintosh

 

[wizard]

Nothing bad about using different OSes depending on need.

there will always be a way around these things, but since 10.6, I've been getting tired fiddling with hackintosh installs and being scared of updates, etc..

Obviously hackintoshing isn't for you! However Linux involves even more fiddling.

am looking at linux alternatives for Mac software to at least cover my lifestyle apps... I found the new Picasa from Google is a decent match for iPhoto, though linux version lacks facial recognition found in Winblowz version...

Funny but I went from being a primary Linux user to owning a early 2008 MBP. I don't see myself going back. That mostly due to Apples system being more stable and two apps. The apps are iTunes and Aperture. At least that is what got me off Linux because there was nothing competitive with them on Linux.

That got me to the Mac platform but the reality is the stability kept me there. With Linux you have to figure on a new OS install every six months. After awhile that sucks. Usually you have to update because everything is in flux on Linux thus requiring full system updates to keep everything running right.

Finally on the Mac my favorite Unix utilities run just as well on the Mac as they do on any other platform. YOu really don't loose anything on the Mac.

I still need a Mac for iPhone dev, so they may get a sale from me there, but likely in the form of a 1st gen Intel Mini , which can double as a slick media center

interesting! Somtimes I think a Linux platform would make a better Media center PC. The issues with drivers are slowly being resolved. Most importantly it is easy and cheap to build up a massive storage PC around Linux.

In any event, from a guy going in the other direction all I can say is lots of luck. Linux is great for netbooks, especially with a low impact desktop, but it is also very fiddly. If you think your Mac is bad, I suspect you won't find much improvement in Linux.


Dave

 

[*LTD*]

Indeed! …live up to your name.
Not complaining …congrats, you've got a hackintosh
Complaining …wannabee slackintosh

Well put.

LOL, hackers complaining to/about the manufacturer about how hard their product is to hack!

Priceless.

 

[Imhotep397]

This is much ado about nothing from my standpoint. Apple considered using the Atom processor and probably had a medium sized group testing Atom prototypes. When they finally decided they weren't going to use Atom in any hardware products and noticed the rumbling of people running the current Atom aware OS Hackintosh style, which they had no intention of supporting they flushed the code.

 

[pdjudd]

Ah yes, the "Apple violates Sarbanes-Oxley" argument, but charges $10 to recover their immense costs on an iPhone update.

What?!?!? Stop putting words in my mouth. Apple charges for updates like many other companies that sells software does. How that relates to SOX or Apple's hardware business is beyond me and is not what I am getting at. Not to mention that the requirement that you are talking about is no longer applicable. You are not making any sense.

There is no law that prevents tying two components together to subsidize the cost of one product. Companies do that all the time. I fail to see your point.

 

[zweigand]

LOL, hackers complaining to/about the manufacturer about how hard their product is to hack!

Priceless.

Linux guys can get their OS running on a toaster.

 

[Imhotep397]

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if inclusion of the Atom code in the OS was more to appease Intel than anything else, especially while Apple was trying to get Intel to adopt their "LightBeam" protocol. Intel could pull "LightBeam" at this point, but they've already announced it publicly as a forthcoming Intel technology. LightBeam is also feature complete, looks stable and it's clear that it's better than anything Intel has built completely in-house atm.

 

[Superchud]

So aside from the hackintosh bitching...

Has anyone noticed any improvements from 10.6.1 to 10.6.2? I've noticed small changes such as the graphic for when you use the Apple Remote to put the machine to sleep has changed. Looks like they updated the graphics drivers as well as there is a small performance increase in the UI. Thoughts?

 

[strike1555]

Hahaha. You *almost* made me spit my lunch all over my screen when I read this. Really, you did. Is this some sort of joke? You really mean to tell me you think a decent percentage of OSx86 users are running purchased copies? Wow, thats a good one.

And Apple doesn't make much from OS sales. Its the hardware, I don't think they are glad a few hackintosh users are spending $35 on an OS.

Can you prove otherwise? No? That's what I thought.

The stupidity of your statement DID make me spit my lunch out - LOL.