Security chip to limit OS X to Macs.


iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Bah, no information, Gartner are speculating about TPM, just like everyone else.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
Apple using Palladium stylse security? I think not. They'd have AppleCare techs screaming their heads off.





srobert said:
I wonder what this would mean for companies such as Sonnet.
It would mean that:

1: Their products would be cheaper for the Intel socket Macs than they were for the PPCs.

2: They'd probably still come out with an Intel Processor card for the MDD G4 and the G5, it'd just be large-ish so they could add whatever Hardware OSDRM Apple adds in.
 

ZildjianKX

macrumors 68000
May 18, 2003
1,610
0
Anyone else think after they read this that perhaps Apple would also use this to lock down the processor serial # to the mac, so you can't just go out and buy a new processor and swap it in?
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
ZildjianKX said:
Anyone else think after they read this that perhaps Apple would also use this to lock down the processor serial # to the mac, so you can't just go out and buy a new processor and swap it in?
I don't think that Apple will use DRM at all.
 

JeffTL

macrumors 6502a
Dec 18, 2003
733
0
It's too early to speculate what it will be, but I am pretty certain Apple will take some serious action to make sure a Mac stays a Mac, and that the OS can't be run on a Dell or on whitebox hardware; their business model depends upon it.
 

sonyrules

macrumors regular
Oct 26, 2001
191
0
Ohio
JeffTL said:
It's too early to speculate what it will be, but I am pretty certain Apple will take some serious action to make sure a Mac stays a Mac, and that the OS can't be run on a Dell or on whitebox hardware; their business model depends upon it.
i am sure its only time before someone write a program like virtual pc that "Fools" a pc to think its a mac....
 

yellow

Moderator emeritus
Oct 21, 2003
15,925
1
Portland, OR
I simply cannot believe that Apple would make the move to Intel without seriously identifying legitimate ways to ensure that only it's MacIntels can run OS X. Personally I suspect this 'security' will be hardware. Perhaps a user must cut their finger over a tiny altar to proove their loyalty to Apple before booting.

I find the claims that it'll be 'hacked' in a week to be spurious at best.
 

gwangung

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,106
19
Personally, Apple's "security" will be a very loose hardware key, which can be easily be hacked, but due to the rest of the custom ASICs and so forth, will be tuned most easily and work best with Apple hardware. You can run OS X on other hardware, but it'd be a tad unstable and only be worth it for hackers.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
Apple will do what they have to do, whether we like the sound of it or not.

Personally, I think making piracy difficult is all they need. They don't need to make it impossible. But whatever measures they take--I blame the pirates first and foremost.
 

narco

macrumors 65816
Dec 9, 2003
1,155
0
California.
All this speculation reminds me of all the police chase coverage on the news. They have a limited amount of information on why the police are chasing a vehicle, yet they can't just be silent while they film the entire chase, so they're left to speculate.

Same with all these "news" stories about Apple and Intel. People don't know enough and some are even downright guessing without simple research. This is all a joke, but whatever, everyone's eyes are on Apple now.

Fishes,
narco.
 

dejo

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 2, 2004
15,725
447
The Centennial State
The worst part of this is the headline: "Security chip to limit OS X to Macs." It makes it seem like it's a given when the article clearly states it is just big pile of ssss...peculation.
 

mainstreetmark

macrumors 68020
May 7, 2003
2,229
293
Saint Augustine, FL
nagromme said:
Apple will do what they have to do, whether we like the sound of it or not.

Personally, I think making piracy difficult is all they need. They don't need to make it impossible. But whatever measures they take--I blame the pirates first and foremost.
They won't be able to stop it, no matter what. All a pirate has to do is remove the stuff where it checks that chip, and replace it with code that says "yep, this is a mac", no matter what box it's running on. All they can hope to do is slow it down.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
yellow said:
Personally I suspect this 'security' will be hardware. Perhaps a user must cut their finger over a tiny altar to proove their loyalty to Apple before booting.
With the base OS as open source, they're clearly not planning to build Fort Knox. Simple incompatibility is all they need to keep a happy balance.
 

mischief

macrumors 68030
Aug 1, 2001
2,920
0
Santa Cruz Ca
Brother Michael said:
Why?

If it protects OS X isn't that a good thing?

Mike
Short version: The way these chips were originally to have been implemented ties the particular install of the OS, the particular physical drive, the particular mobo and the particular processor card together in such a manner that replacing or reformatting any of those components could likely render the machine un-useable without some sort of tedious unlocking procedure/fixture/software.

There are much more technician-friendly ways to secure the OS against piracy and installation on generic PC's. Custom EFI implementation combined with custom ASICs for example.
 

gwangung

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,106
19
mainstreetmark said:
They won't be able to stop it, no matter what. All a pirate has to do is remove the stuff where it checks that chip, and replace it with code that says "yep, this is a mac", no matter what box it's running on. All they can hope to do is slow it down.
That they can do this is probably not under question. How WELL they can do it is the question, though...Apple's forte is being able to integrate hardware and software well, and sometimes even they have trouble getting their products to run smoothly. I'm not so sure that it's going to be that easy for lone hackers to do this on a widely available basis.
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
sonyrules said:
i am sure its only time before someone write a program like virtual pc that "Fools" a pc to think its a mac....
It would still be like VPC running on the Mac, Windows runs slow. The proper hardware just isn't available. There is just nothing like the real think, Mac!
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
Slight correction: with the switch to Intel, Macs will be able (unofficially) to run Windows at full speed. The reverse is theoretically also possible.
 

Brother Michael

macrumors 6502a
Apr 14, 2004
717
0
mischief said:
Short version: The way these chips were originally to have been implemented ties the particular install of the OS, the particular physical drive, the particular mobo and the particular processor card together in such a manner that replacing or reformatting any of those components could likely render the machine un-useable without some sort of tedious unlocking procedure/fixture/software.

There are much more technician-friendly ways to secure the OS against piracy and installation on generic PC's. Custom EFI implementation combined with custom ASICs for example.
Ok. I follow you. I didn't know much about that chip except for all the privacy scare garbage going on.

Mike
 

shamino

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2004
3,386
130
Purcellville, VA
mischief said:
Short version: The way these chips were originally to have been implemented ties the particular install of the OS, the particular physical drive, the particular mobo and the particular processor card together in such a manner that replacing or reformatting any of those components could likely render the machine un-useable without some sort of tedious unlocking procedure/fixture/software.
Everything I've read about Palladium, TCP and similar technologies says that it is useful for corporate IT departments - so they can lock down their PCs and prevent their users from installing/replacing software without permission.

These technologies are almost completely useless in a personal environment where the user owns the computer, buys the software and performs all installations.