Mac OS X Intel Leaked?

[0098386]

perhaps Apple released this to see how many people would jump at the chance of running OSX on their home PC's? not so much to build up hype but just to see how many are interested?

 

[SiliconAddict]

What would the point of that be? If you had a copy of the final release of 10.4.1 for x86, why not juse use it?

Given that only a relatively small number of these dev machines will be handed out, and that they will have OS X already on the HDD, it is possible that Apple could embed some kind of unique ID into a system file which would give away the leaker should that copy ever appear on the internet.

Maybe because the final release won't RUN on any other hardware other then Mac hardware but the drivers are another matter.

 

[notjustjay]

What's the point?

Even if you did get it going... how long is it going to be before Intellified binaries of apps become available? What would you run on this thing?

I'd be cute to see my PC running OS X but unless there was something to DO with it, I'd get bored real fast...

 

[Mr. G4]

wouldn't work, with apple demo macs they put a lock on so external devices devices dont work i've tried to test WoW on a 2.7GHz powermac in the apple store.

Plus there were no firewire ports on the MacIntel
The plugs that are on the back had metal seals on them.

 

[Santaduck]

it is possible that Apple could embed some kind of unique ID into a system file which would give away the leaker should that copy ever appear on the internet.

That would be an attempt at deterrence, and not prevention. Big difference.

They caught the kids that leaked a seed of their OS already, but that doesn't change the fact that it got out into the wild. Same thing with 10.4.1-- they can either be sloppy about prevention (intentionally), or not... the repurcussions are so large that punishing the leaker really pales in comparison.

 

[Erased Citizen]

um...

um guys theres no such thing as "OSX for intel" steve said that OSX itself was processor independent therefore theres no special version for intel, you could run any OSX on pc probably, people just havent been aware of the possibility. there may be builds for developers but no special intel only version.

 

[cjc343]

um guys theres no such thing as "OSX for intel" steve said that OSX itself was processor independent therefore theres no special version for intel, you could run any OSX on pc probably, people just havent been aware of the possibility. there may be builds for developers but no special intel only version.

Go ahead and stick your OS install disk into a PC, trust me, it won't work. The version that is shipped is entirely dependent on the processor being PPC and the hardware configuration being just-so. The version that has been being coded for x86 processors in sync with the PPC version had probably not left that building that Jobs said it was being created in. The code for it is different, the binaries are different, it has NOT been shipped to you, or anyone else in an installable format.

The Dev boxes that were sent out have it pre-installed and, as others have said, probably carry unique ID#'s and in far more than one place. A clone of the hard drive would carry all these over too.

Anyone who thinks that Apple doesn't monitor sites such as FMA, MTKA, MSJ, BS, etc... is crazy. As soon as anything that claims to be a version of Mac OS is released, Apple WILL know. I have no doubt that a few Apple employees were quite disgusted today after having seen a picture of ****** after they finished their job of downloading the 'release' that was seeded.

A release will make it out there, but Apple's not THAT stupid...

Anyways, congrats to the GNAA, that was a funny stunt releasing a fake version of 10.4 for intel.

 

[SiliconAddict]

um guys theres no such thing as "OSX for intel"

Yes there is...

 

[Omen88]

Some point

As a reply to people asking what the point is. Well besides pure geekiness of showing of OS X on a dull PC box, there's also the opportunity for small time developers to test their apps if they work on x86.

It's a win-win situation. Big software companies sure wouldn't mind spending 999$, that's peanuts. But if you're a shareware programmer, that's big money.

If you could just download it and install it on some PC and test your recompiled application (and make necessary enhancements), that's another worry less for apple (broken little utilities). Next year most shareware will be universal binaries and everything runs smooth.

Now I doubt that Apple *wants* the x86 Tiger to be freely downloadable, but I'm sure they know it will happen and that there are benefits to it.

 

[MBHockey]

um guys theres no such thing as "OSX for intel" steve said that OSX itself was processor independent therefore theres no special version for intel, you could run any OSX on pc probably, people just havent been aware of the possibility. there may be builds for developers but no special intel only version.

Did you even watch they keynote? You are severely misinformed.

 

[Omen88]

um guys theres no such thing as "OSX for intel" steve said that OSX itself was processor independent therefore theres no special version for intel, you could run any OSX on pc probably, people just havent been aware of the possibility. there may be builds for developers but no special intel only version.

This defies all logic. I would argue that if it would have been possible to run OS X on PC, after all those years someone must have found out by now. But I don't think anyone would even bother to try such a pointless thing. So I can't really argue about it.

Only way to convince you would probably be to demonstrate it with such a developer box and a Mac OS X install CD from a PPC mac and show that it simply doesn't work.

 

[Omen88]

I have no doubt that a few Apple employees were quite disgusted today after having seen a picture of ****** after they finished their job of downloading the 'release' that was seeded.

Ah so it shows the infamous ****** picture. My friend will be in for a surprise then when he tries his download out.

 

[Azrel]

Being coned doesn't have anything to do with being an idiot...Unless you have some magical way of seeing into the ISO online and just knowing that it’s a fake. At least someone took the time to download it and see that it was a fake so the rest of us don't waste our bandwidth but in my case I'm on a T1 so I have bandwidth to spare.

Take a hex editor to the ISO, whilst downloading, you'll notice there is a repeating pattern in the letters...

 

[bubbalwz]

mods can you put this at the top as a warning.

if you find it on p2p networks DO NOT DOWNLOAD IT AND BOOT IT FROM A PC, i booted it with qemu and it has a rather disgusting image of gay porn, weather you think people who pirate software deserve to be inflicted by this or not people need to be warned.

if it's 900MB it's the fake version.

You have been ******.cx'ed.

 

[Xapplimatic]

IT's all fake...

I downloaded one at 1.4 GB size and it was nothing but some looser's collection of MP3s (LimeWire).. Goes great with the stupid "iPod" photos which are just ads for online advertising vampires which promise free Apple crap if you A. Successfully purchase something on a credit card you obtained through their service, B. Order a magazine, C. Buy something from a catalog.. you know the scam.....

THEY ARE ALL FAKE. OS X INTEL IS *NOT* ONLINE..(yet)

 

[jamesnajera]

Did you even watch they keynote? You are severely misinformed.

I think what the person is saying is that OSX on Intel is really just a version of OSX compiled for x86. And that OSX could be compiled for an other type of Architecture like sparc, cell (even though steve thinks it is crap, but he still could do it if he wanted), etc.

Remember the programming for the software has to be cpu independent, once the programmer is done doing the cpu independent coding the programmer can definitely go back and add special functions to take advantage of cpu specific features.

As far as you guys think OSX on intel/x86 will only work with the dev system, I highly doubt it. OSX on intel/x86 will probably run on the same hardware that is compatible with darwin, and a site to see the list of compatible hardware is at http://www.opendarwin.org/hardware/ this link is straight from the Darwin 8.0.1 Release Notes April 29, 2005. So check it out.

My final thought, OSX Leopard WILL BE released for PPC and x86. Steve will probably have licensing agreements with HP, and Dell. Reason this will happen, Steve wants turn up the competition on Microsoft, what better time than the release of Microsofts new OS, and my other reason, Steve will do it to allow all the people that are pirating OSX Tiger the chance to buy it. Apple shares will go up, and the times will be interesting.

late

 

[MBHockey]

I think what the person is saying is that OSX on Intel is really just a version of OSX compiled for x86. And that OSX could be compiled for an other type of Architecture like sparc, cell (even though steve thinks it is crap, but he still could do it if he wanted), etc.

Remember the programming for the software has to be cpu independent, once the programmer is done doing the cpu independent coding the programmer can definitely go back and add special functions to take advantage of cpu specific features.

As far as you guys think OSX on intel/x86 will only work with the dev system, I highly doubt it. OSX on intel/x86 will probably run on the same hardware that is compatible with darwin, and a site to see the list of compatible hardware is at http://www.opendarwin.org/hardware/ this link is straight from the Darwin 8.0.1 Release Notes April 29, 2005. So check it out.

My final thought, OSX Leopard WILL BE released for PPC and x86. Steve will probably have licensing agreements with HP, and Dell. Reason this will happen, Steve wants turn up the competition on Microsoft, what better time than the release of Microsofts new OS, and my other reason, Steve will do it to allow all the people that are pirating OSX Tiger the chance to buy it. Apple shares will go up, and the times will be interesting.

late

I don't think that's what he was saying, though. He thinks you could pop in any MacOS X installation disc into a PC and it would work.

He said "there's no special version for intel"...but yes, there is. It has to recompiled to work on the x86 architecture, and nobody has it except Apple employees and the devs with the $999 3.6GHz P4 dev kit.

Also...Steve has already said they will not license OS X for non-Mac hardware, so the last part of your post is simply incorrect.

 

[Erased Citizen]

I don't think that's what he was saying, though. He thinks you could pop in any MacOS X installation disc into a PC and it would work.

He said "there's no special version for intel"...but yes, there is. It has to recompiled to work on the x86 architecture, and nobody has it except Apple employees and the devs with the $999 3.6GHz P4 dev kit.

Also...Steve has already said they will not license OS X for non-Mac hardware, so the last part of your post is simply incorrect.

what i was saying was that steve did explicitly say that OSX has been leading a double life. osx is processor independent by design i wasnt meaning to say you can just buy osx and pop it in your pc because osx install discs are hfs formatted - something windows doesnt understand therefore you cannot execute the installer program. i was under the impression that the tiger disc i had running on my mac mini would also work in an intel mac because if what steve said is true (he should know ) about osx being processor independent then that would be true. you can install osx on a mac because apple machines support hfs filesystem which the disc is formatted in. thats why windows moans and wont let u see the files when u try to put tiger in an xp machine

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

what i was saying was that steve did explicitly say that OSX has been leading a double life. osx is processor independent by design i wasnt meaning to say you can just buy osx and pop it in your pc because osx install discs are hfs formatted - something windows doesnt understand

Even if Windows (or whatever else) could read HFS, the x86-specific bits (yes, there are some) simply are not in the x86 release.

 

[iMeowbot]

what i was saying was that steve did explicitly say that OSX has been leading a double life.

At Apple, not in public. There are no universal binaries (those are easy to spot) or alternative installation files on the retail Tiger discs.

 

[Erased Citizen]

At Apple, not in public. There are no universal binaries (those are easy to spot) or alternative installation files on the retail Tiger discs.

ah well im a n00b then

 

[sedarby]

what i was saying was that steve did explicitly say that OSX has been leading a double life. osx is processor independent by design i wasnt meaning to say you can just buy osx and pop it in your pc because osx install discs are hfs formatted - something windows doesnt understand therefore you cannot execute the installer program. i was under the impression that the tiger disc i had running on my mac mini would also work in an intel mac because if what steve said is true (he should know ) about osx being processor independent then that would be true. you can install osx on a mac because apple machines support hfs filesystem which the disc is formatted in. thats why windows moans and wont let u see the files when u try to put tiger in an xp machine

Get yourself to a local university and enroll in Introduction to Computers and maybe then you can understand that processor independent does not mean at the binary level but at the source level. Un*x flavored OS's are by nature processor agnostic because most of the low level code is actually C with the exception of some bootstrap and device driver code.

Processor independent means for the most part it can be recompiled for any architecture.

 

[iMeowbot]

ah well im a n00b then

We're all n00bs at this Macintel thingy! But that rumbling sound you heard last week was millions of Mac users flipping through their Tiger DVDs looking for stuff like that

 

[Rod Rod]

Even without support for updates it would still be interesting to use a computer with Dual G5 speeds for the price around a Mini.

Where do people get the idea that a $500 x86 PC can ever be faster than a dual G5? Maybe in 2009 it will be possible, when comparing the $500 x86 box to a late 2003 dual G5. However, that $500 x86 machine will be a Mac mini.

Of course it's safe to say that the $500 x86 PC of today that people compare in their imaginations with dual G5s do not figure the cost of software into the equation.

 

[unfaded]

Uh, guys... how could make a disk image of a DVD that doesn't exist?

Intel for OS X comes on the machines, and I severely doubt they included drivers for anything but those machines.