Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

275 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WOLF! (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000148)

WOLF! WOLF!

Re:WOLF! (2, Informative)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000220)

The OP was saying that the original person saying it didn't work was crying wolf. How is that offtopic?

Re:WOLF! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000270)

Because the previous testing build had it removed, and the current testing build has re-added it. That's not crying wolf, that's saying "Hey, that's odd", and then having it go away.

Re:WOLF! (5, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000474)

There are two likely explanations:

  1. Apple deliberately disabled Atom support. Due to bad PR, they reversed their position.
  2. Apple unintentionally introduced bugs that disabled Atom support. Hearing from developers, they quietly fixed it.

I don't know about you but as a developer I only test the most likely scenarios before I pass it on to QA. I don't test every scenario real or imagined. In this case, Atom isn't officially supported by Apple and so the Apple developers probably didn't bother to ensure it would on Atom. When they heard that it didn't work, they went back and discovered why. Most likely the bug would cause other issues. So they fixed it.

Re:WOLF! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000598)

It's too bad they did, because now all the hackintards who screamed and bitched will falsely think they have some power and so will do it again next time their stupid plans to pirate Apple's OS are thwarted. "We want FREE as in FREEDOM, but with Apple's OS!" What a bunch of lazy morons -- let them code their own OS, I say.

Re:WOLF! (2, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000846)

It's not piracy if you buy it. It's well established that EULAs are not legally binding.

Re:WOLF! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30001434)

It is well established that many geeks falsely believe that EULAs are not legally binding.

Re:WOLF! (1)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001456)

It's well established that EULAs are not legally binding.

EULAs have been repeatedly upheld in U.S. courts. Do you have a case citation from a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the past decade that supports your position?

Re:WOLF! (1)

atheistmonk (1268392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001208)

Ever heard of BSD?

Re:WOLF! (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000626)

Explanation 3:
Apple has an atom device in the works.....

Re:WOLF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000738)

Explanation 4: Apple never disabled Atom support, and the rumor was wrong the whole time.

Re:WOLF! (3, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001048)

Man, stop trying to buz-kill my rumor mill. Trolling slashdot is all I got anymore. :)

Re:WOLF! (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000872)

That may be so but working as a developer I know that sometimes supported platforms are inadvertently broken in developer builds. Anyone who has a hackintosh really should not complain too much that their unsupported platform suffers a glitch with a developer's build.

Re:WOLF! (5, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000764)

Apple deliberately disabled Atom support. Due to bad PR, they reversed their position.

According to this MacRumors article [macrumors.com] , the developer who complained about lack of Atom support was in Build 10C531 which was a week before Oct 27, when build 10C535 came out which works fine with Atom. The developer who complained about lack of Atom support posted his complaint a day before. We're at 10C540 now - which was released yesterday or today.

So to release the complaint a day before Apple releases a new build? In the few hours it takes to pick it up, Apple would then have to see all the "bad PR" and have time to fix it before the next build? (I suspect most of the "bad PR" happened after 10C535 came out.

At best, it would be they broke Atom support accidentally, at worst, some guy just couldn't update his Hackintosh properly.

Re:WOLF! (1)

thomthom (832970) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001212)

Are the released known beforehand? Would he have known there'd be a new version the next day?

Re:WOLF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000946)

I'd have to stick with your second explanation. Having OS X on PC computers is good marketing for Apple. Some people don't buy a Mac so they buy a PC and pirate OS X because they can. That's like free advertising to them, because most don't have the skills for this and they prefer to buy a shiny Mac. There are also those that can't afford to buy a Mac and they never will, so instead of pirating Windows they're pirating OS X. Again, free advertising.

Re:WOLF! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000862)

And i thought he just misspelled Woosh....

The dogcow says Moof not wolf (5, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000510)

The dogcow says Moof not wolf

Re:The dogcow says Moof not wolf (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000666)

I wonder how many Mac people will get the dogcow reference in 2009.

Re:The dogcow says Moof not wolf (1)

kurt_harlan (1648185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001226)

Dogcow says "MOOF" is old news when U R 56.

Re:The dogcow says Moof not wolf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30001330)

You have to admit, Clarus is getting on in dogcow years... and she's had no progeny due to the lack of 2D bulldogs (er...)

b-b-b-but.... (1)

weston (16146) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000522)

Apple still is a Wolf, right?

I mean, sure, even if they apparently haven't done this, they still could, right?

Why take a chance? Don't buy Apple's locked-down hard--- wait, that's the iPhone rant. Don't buy Apple's potentially locked-down software.

Re:b-b-b-but.... (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000722)

The phrase originates from a story where the crying of "WOLF! WOLF!" is about the wolf coming to town to devour the village – not that there are no wolves nearby, and certainly not that no wolves exist.

Apple could still be a wolf (whether they are or aren't is debatable), but they're not coming to devour the village right now.

Just a reminder from Apple (0, Flamebait)

bhsx (458600) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000152)

A reminder to all you Hackintoshers out there... Apple CAN pull the plug on you anytime they want to. This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you're doing.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (5, Insightful)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000194)

Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (4, Insightful)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000370)

You sir win this whole discussion. There are not enough mod points in the world for you.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (0, Offtopic)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000446)

Well, given a post gets capped out at "5," factoring his karma bonus and starting mod, it looks like 3 are all the mod points you would ever need in the world!

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (4, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000228)

I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000498)

I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.

But perhaps not big enough of a market for the big guy. Perhaps he would like to sell you a 10" tablet for $1000 with a $300 profit margin than a $300 netbook with a $50 profit margin*.

*Numbers completely pulled out of the air, and not a MacBook Air, those numbers would be even higher.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1)

marcobat (1178909) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000790)

Actually i would have been very happy to pay $1000 for a 10" or 11" Mac. Tired of waiting i installed Ubuntu on a $500 netbook and i'm now very happy with it. I bet i'm not alone :-)

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (4, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000706)

I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be *really* stretching it.

Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.

And cheapen the brand?! Gucci in Walmart. (3, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000888)

I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.

Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker. Making a sub $1,000 netbook would be like Gucci making a handbag to be sold in Walmart.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (0)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000232)

No, Steve is busy peeing on all those myPods
Mapple Store pt1 [youtube.com]
Mapple Store pt2 [youtube.com]

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (5, Interesting)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000242)

So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (4, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000368)

Don't hold your breath.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (0)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000388)

I didn't say Apple was 'evil', I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads. But I still wish that. And I DO use their OS.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (4, Insightful)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000520)

Anti-trust? Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold? (Other than a monopoly on nice design. :)

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001008)

Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (4, Insightful)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001364)

Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.

1) All companies act in their own interests - that is the whole point! If those interests happen to coincide with the customer's then that is just a bonus. If I want a quick burger, McDonalds is going to sell be a quick burger. If I want a roast turkey dinner with all the trappings, McDonalds is going to sell a quick burger.

2) People with hackitoshes are, by definition, not Apple customers. OK, some people may go out a buy a copy of MacOSX, but I bet most people just "obtain" it or already have it.

Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

Indeed

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001470)

Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than a tiny handful of customers of the company.

There fixed that for you. While there are people who would love to own a netbook with OS X on it, how many of them are willing to pay real money. Remember the netbook market is mostly for people who want small and cheap. Apple does not sell cheap computers. They could technically go into the low-end market, but they long ago decided they were not going to sell high volume, low margin computers, They don't want to compete with Dell.

Monopoly on handhelds with semi-open development (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001220)

Anti-trust? Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold? (Other than a monopoly on nice design. :)

iPod Touch is the only handheld video game system that 1. allows part-time developers to make and publish apps and 2. is sold in U.S. and European stores. There used to be PDAs, but over the course of this decade, PDAs became unavailable in U.S. stores as smartphones with a minimum commitment to voice service and data service from the wireless cartel have taken over shelf space. Sure, I can buy a GP2X and make games for that, but it won't even have enough of an audience to recoup development costs because one can't just walk into a Best Buy store (or even visit bestbuy.com) and buy the hardware.

ObTopic: The iPhone SDK, used to develop applications for iPod Touch, is a Mac OS X exclusive.

Re:Monopoly on handhelds with semi-open developmen (3, Interesting)

pohl (872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001372)

iPod Touch is the only handheld video game system that 1. allows part-time developers to make and publish apps and 2. is sold in U.S. and European stores.

This description does not rise to any legal standard for judging a monopoly that I'm aware of. You're attempting to describe a market in such a way that no other products match the description. Contrast this with what you see, for example, in T. Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact [justice.gov] document in the DoJ v MS case. (Note how it is defined in terms of market power, pricing, and what the alleged monopoly holder could do with that power to the prices)...

"33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

I think the question still stands: Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold?

       

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000580)

I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads

As long as Apple is fighting its way up out of the single digits in market share, you're not going to see any anti-trust action against them on the Macintosh side of the house. And the portable music player market is waning anyway. The iPhone is holding its own but it's certainly got no monopoly. In other words, don't hold your breath.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (5, Insightful)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000702)

I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads.
I just wish people would educate themselves on what constitutes a "trust" worthy of having anti-trust applied to it.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001306)

In order for any anti-trust to be remotely there has to be something regarding a monopoly. In this case, a development build didn't work on a platform that Apple doesn't support. So what? What violations are there? To use an analogy, suppose hackers got Windows 7 dev builds to work on a IBM PowerPC. RC2.1 breaks compatibility. Would people start complaining about anti-trust? I don't like MS as much as the next guy, but MS never supported that processor. Whether they deliberately or unintentionally disabled it, it doesn't matter.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000686)

So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?

I hope one day Slashdotters are known for being that classy. One day they'll figure out that owning up to something like that can earn them 'Insightful' mods, too.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000748)

Apple fans and Apple haters should be united in the hope that Apple will be able to stop people using Hackintoshes.

If you are a fan, you should hope that the Hackintosh users are forced to do the decent thing and buy the official hardware. The cost of developing the OS is said to be subsidised by the hardware cost, so the Hackintosh users are cheating Apple. Additionally, Hackintoshes may not work quite as well as real Macs, possibly giving a bad impression of the platform.

If you are a hater, you should also hope that the Hackintosh users are forced to abandon MacOS and install a more open OS on their machines. Hackintoshes promote Apple and their software, give the illusion that MacOS is an open platform (which it isn't) and encourage others to support Apple by buying their products.

I don't know how Apple might do this, but there are some ideas in the TCPA FAQ. Clearly it will always be possible to bypass the digital restrictions in the software itself, and I know that the Hackintosh people have already gone to bizarre lengths to get the software running on unauthorised machines such as implementing SSE3 in software. Therefore, the strategy would probably involve to deliberately breaking compatibility between Hackintoshes and authorised Macs. For example, without an authorised private key in your TCPA chip, you might not be able to compile programs to run on authorised Macs, or send Word documents to authorised Mac users, etc. Hackintosh users could also be locked out of applications that operate with online services such as iTunes. You might say that this would be bad public relations, but the fact is that people do not really care about Apple's business practices...

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1)

ezelkow1 (693205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001088)

The OS being subsidized is a BS argument. Do you feel that people who purchase an xbox or ps3 should be required to go out and purchase games and accessories just because the hardware was sold at a loss? What if the users solely wanted to use them as media players and never play games, or in the case of the original xbox, install a mod and use it as a media center? Can you honestly say that you would feel bad for microsoft that someone purchased the hardware and then used it in a way it was not intended but since the end user never purchased any games that MS never made their money back? Its the same situation just in reverse.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000432)

This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you're doing.

that and the price concessions they've been wanting for that Atom-based device just came through.

Re:Just a reminder from Apple (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000624)

...that assumes a whole lot of factors to which (apparently) you are not privy to.

(...now if apple pulled the plug on the Darwin project, then changed their TPM chip... well, the latter they couldn't really do w/o angering a lot of existing Macintosh users who suddenly could no longer upgrade, and the former would still have code floating around out there).

Well, nevermind - I'm guessing ol' Steve couldn't quite so easily pull the plug after all.

Atom (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000172)

Wouldn't OS X be underpowered and a bit sluggish on a processor that slow?

Re:Atom (2, Informative)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000244)

From what I've read, the 1GB RAM is more a problem than the Atom CPU.

Re:Atom (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000418)

Ram is cheap.

Re:Atom (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000452)

Then why are all netbooks still sold with only 1GB RAM?

Re:Atom (4, Informative)

weekendgeek (711624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000550)

Because of a license agreement with Microsoft that specified a max of 1GB of RAM and an 80GB HD (most got around that with splitting it into two or more partitions) to allow them to install Windows XP.

I'm not sure if the agreement has changed with the release of Windows 7 Starter.

Re:Atom (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000740)

Ah. So now apple has to cater to Microsoft's whims, else they get tarred as a monopolist.

Re:Atom (1)

RoboRay (735839) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000608)

Because they're VERY CHEAP!

Re:Atom (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000614)

Cheap assholes in the design department and Management of the companies that make them. That is the ONLY reason.

Re:Atom (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001132)

One more reason IIRC: Most netbooks are sold with XP on them, and if you (as a netbook manufacturer) want the cheep XP license from our old friends at MS, you can't put more than 1 GB in said netbook.
If I am wrong, please correct me.

Re:Atom (1)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001358)

Unortunately that's not the whole truth. Microsoft only licenses XP at netbook prices if the machine has at most 1 GB memory.

Re:Atom (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000664)

How hard is it to pop in a new SO-DIMM? And don't try to say that "there's no SO-DIMM slot", because that would be dumb.

My mac's activity monitor says that about 900 megabytes is "wired", although that may be because my video chipset uses 256 megs for graphics. 450 megabytes are devoted to Safari, 120 megabytes to mail, and 74 to iTunes.

  Mac OSX 10.6 recommends a minimum of 1 gigabyte. It's more comfortable with 2 GB, and zippier with four.

Re:Atom (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000996)

LG X110. No SODIMM slot because the space it occupied in the Wind now holds a 3G modem or some shit. 1GB RAM soldered on is all you get.

Grumble grumble.

Re:Atom (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000998)

Some netbook models have a soldered in ram, so you can't change the RAM. The RAM and CPU are together in one part. Many of these do have a RAM slot but not all. A lot of the Dell minis (10 and 12 models) have a fixed amount of RAM. Which is bad in my opinion, but I do not make decisions there. Personally I would like to see netbooks with 2 RAM slots. Many would still max out at 2GB (motherboard limit) but some of the newer atom based netbooks are said to support 4GB of RAM.

Re:Atom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30001354)

only?? A fully functional desktop setup with X11 and Opera will set you back 200 megabytes of RAM, no more.

Are you planning to run multiple virtual machines on your netbook or why do you need such humongous amounts of RAM?

Re:Atom (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000436)

So upgrade the RAM... Ram is cheep.
HP mini, 2GB RAM, Atom 1.6 GHz CPU, OS/X 10.6.1
Cheep and usable when I am commuting.

Re:Atom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000296)

Apple is working on an Atom-powered tablet, so I would have to say "no".

Re:Atom (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000466)

Apple is working on an Atom-powered tablet

cite please.

Re:Atom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000450)

You realize that Mac OS X is based directly on NeXTSTEP, right? And NeXTSTEP ran well on 25 MHz 68040 computers!

Something would be really fucked if Mac OS X couldn't run well on the Atom processors, which in terms of processing power are actually on par with high-end x86 systems from late 2006.

Re:Atom (1)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000830)

You realize that Mac OS X is based directly on NeXTSTEP, right? And NeXTSTEP ran well on 25 MHz 68040 computers!

Something would be really fucked if Mac OS X couldn't run well on the Atom processors, which in terms of processing power are actually on par with high-end x86 systems from late 2006.

So what? Software grows over time. Windows 7 is based on Windows NT 3.1, and it used to run just fine on 486s as well. Are you arguing that neither platform should be allowed to exceed the system requirements of their predecessors?

Re:Atom (2, Informative)

jhfry (829244) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000858)

That's like saying that Ubuntu is based directly on Unix, and I have seen Linux run on 12Mhz Mini Computers!

I promise, there is no way in HELL that your getting Ubuntu running on a 12Mhz Mini Computer. In fact, I'd wager that there isn't a Linux kernel that will work on an old 70's era Mini Computer (though I may be wrong).

Windows 7 is based on Windows NT, though I doubt you will be seeing Windows 7 running on a 386 with 12 MB of RAM like NT 3.5 did.

The Atom chip can't really compete with the first x86 CPU's that shipped in Mac PC's. It's close to the Core Solo found in the first Mac Mini, but the lack of out of order execution in the Atom gives the Solo a slight edge.

I would imaging for Netbook like tasks, OSX would be quite nice on Atom. Just don't try and use photoshop or possibly even iPhoto. But this has NOTHING to do with what NextStep could do on a 486, OSX will NEVER run remotely usably on a 25MHz 486 (if at all).

Veiled Threat (5, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000186)

...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now.

Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!

Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum. We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions. Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.

I know. I know. I must be new here...

Re:Veiled Threat (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000208)

tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum

And prophesying.

Re:Veiled Threat (2, Informative)

N3Roaster (888781) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000224)

Indeed, you must be new here. The correct response is to go to the previous story, copy and paste some +5 comments, and rake in the karma.

+5 Comments, search in vain (4, Funny)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000428)

So I went to the other thread, and searched for "+5 Comments".
--> Could not find text "+5 Comment"

Though, it was with Opera, maybe I need FireFox?

I did find a +5 Comment in this thread though: [slashdot.org]

Indeed, you must be new here. The correct response is to go to the previous story, copy and paste some +5 comments, and rake in the karma.

What to search for (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001270)

I guess you are new here. To search for the comments that N3Roaster mentioned, try searching the page for (Score:5 (include the opening parenthesis). Just make sure to edit them so that they actually apply to this article.

Nice idea... (0)

DMiax (915735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000438)

Good idea [slashdot.org] :

They blocked hardware - in this case, the Atom processor. That's not the same as "stop the support" of the hardware. They went out of their way to make sure it didn't work. That's different from dropping drivers or support.

Mods: this was +5 insightful, I expect no less.

Re:Veiled Threat (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001462)

Oh, are there people who haven't maxed their karma?

I thought killing off the numbered karma scale was supposed to cut down on that sort of thing. Silly me.

Re:Veiled Threat (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000334)

"OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now."

Am I the only one who imagined hearing "dun dun DUNNNNN" when reading that?

Re:Veiled Threat (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000358)

which reminds me of when RMS announced there was a backdoor in Apple software, then it was found to be false and he was spreading FUD. His retraction was like "yes I was wrong and sensationalist, but I was not really that wrong because there may be some undiscovered backdoor".

Re:Veiled Threat (1, Troll)

Devout_IPUite (1284636) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000410)

Not doing any worse than typical newspapers (of today and for the past two hundred years). But yes, yellow journalism makes me want to smack someone.

Re:Veiled Threat (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000490)

One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide. Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem. News at 11.

Of course some people are going to flip out and claim Apple is doing something evil. When it gets fixed in a later build, someone is probably going to claim that Apple backed down due to the outrage of Hackintosh owners. In reality, it's entirely possible that they had a bug in a development build that unintentionally broke Atom support, and then fixed the bug and unintentionally restored Atom support.

Imaginations are running wild here! (5, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000838)

In reality, it's entirely possible that they had a bug in a development build that unintentionally broke Atom support, and then fixed the bug and unintentionally restored Atom support.

Apple has no products that use the Atom, correct? So, there was never a bug or a feature

So, what makes everyone think that Apple is even concerned about anything to do with the Atom? They're developing their software for their products. If it just so happens to work on some other hardware, it's an accident. If a build doesn't work on other hardware, it's an accident. If it works again on a subsequent build, it's an accident.

God, you people are turning a non-issue into one.

Re:Imaginations are running wild here! (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001168)

I'm confused... do you think you're arguing with me, or with someone else? Am I part of "you people"?

Re:Imaginations are running wild here! (1)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001444)

It's not an accident at all. Apple have clearly taken steps to try to ensure OS X doesn't work on anything but so-called "Apple Labelled" machines, as shown by the "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" kernel module included since Tiger.

Re:Imaginations are running wild here! (1)

koiransuklaa (1502579) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001450)

Do you realize that atom supports the whole IA-32 instruction set (and x86-64 for some models)? Things can't just stop working on atom, Apple needed to actively prevent it from working. That's why this is slightly interesting (if it is true)...

Re:Imaginations are running wild here! (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001472)

You can bet Apple has OS X running on secret prototypes that use Atom processors.

After all, they had OS X running on Intel for years before they decided to tell the rest of us about it.

Re:Veiled Threat (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001190)

One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide. Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem. News at 11.

Never mind that; Snow Leopard won't run on my PowerPC-based Mac, and it's not even 6 years old! Oh, right, Apple has stated that they don't support it anymore. (just agreeing with you, showing the absurdity of expecting it to work on any x86 machine you throw at it)

Re:Veiled Threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000924)

First day:

I, incredible blogger-which-is-better-than-journalism, have come across a drastically urgent matter of urgent drasticness. Google's Street View teams will rape you and your children tomorrow as they do their next drive throughs! And if you don't have children yet, they'll wait. Don't believe me? Look at the evidence: The Street View teams have men in them. Why would they put men on any public team if not for the purposes of raping you and your children repeatedly? BEWARE! EVILZ!

Second day, when none of this bullshit happens:

Well, it looks like, thanks to my crack bloggering, which, as I feel I must remind everyone, is far superior to and most importantly faster than journalism, Google's Street View teams were obviously shamed out of their evil plans which I swear I did not just make up for sensationalistic purposes. So the world is safe... THIS TIME!!!!!!!1!

so plz leave comments kthx

What a wonderful opportunity! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000254)

Goody! Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not. With luck, this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all. I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community.

Re:What a wonderful opportunity! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000424)

By an amazing co-incidence, my EULA states that Steve Jobs has to suck my dick whenever I use OSX.

Apple must be OK with it, after all, or they wouldn't have accepted my money.

Ahem (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000500)

They can't disable it since it's on the upcoming Apple Slate.

It's all very well (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000512)

It's all very well to hack software, but to go against an EULA, and put something on something that wasn't designed for that something...

No, you're right, OSX86 FTW!

Don't count on Atom support... (5, Insightful)

jht (5006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000538)

Look, Apple doesn't use the Atom in any products. Ergo, there's no guarantee that a shipping version of Mac OS X will support it. Since Atom is basically just a stripped-down x86, it probably will continue to run but no promises.

Just to remind everyone, Apple builds Macs. Macs are not available in every possible x86/chipset combo. Just a handful. That's one of the reasons why Macs are typically pretty reliable, but also why the average frankencomputer can't run OS X reliably.

Yes, Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you don't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac. Yes, they won't come after you with lawyers if you make a hackintosh. Yes, they will come after you if you then try to sell them (like Psystar). And yes, licenses like Apple's are restrictive.

But no, they aren't under any obligation at all to provide support for any computer other than what they expressly state on the box to be compatible and licensed. Which, in the case of Snow Leopard, is:

- Mac computer with an Intel processor
- 1GB of memory
- 5GB of available disk space
- DVD drive for installation

And all the other specs are on:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html [apple.com]

If your computer doesn't fit that description, you're SOL. Period. If Snow Leopard runs now on your Atom-based netbook and 10.6.2 winds up killing it, suck it up or stick to 10.6.1. So it goes.

Re:Don't count on Atom support... (0, Troll)

MrPhilby (1493541) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001380)

Face it peeps, only Linux or Windows are man enough.

Not supporting v Disabling (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000604)

There is a big difference between these two terms. Its ok for Apple to not support hardware that is not theirs. Its another thing to go out of your way, put time and resources into not allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product.

I guess the lesson is (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30000618)

not to listen to unsourced blogs written by someone just because they might have overheard someone talking about it in a bar somewhere sometime. Quite why this was all over the internet is anyone's guess.

Never ascribe... (5, Insightful)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000644)

Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Or a bug in the code either works for me.

OS "Hacking" (0, Redundant)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30000852)

Except for the fun of it, why would anyone want to run an OS that is liable to die at any point? Never really saw the point of doing it other then the 'look what i did' bragging rights factor.

Re:OS "Hacking" (1)

MrPhilby (1493541) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001402)

Totally agree, I wouldn't build a house without foundations either.

So nerds screeched for nothing (3, Funny)

BrowncoatJedi (1006665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30001274)

Tired of seeing nerds freak out over nothing. Wow, embarrassment.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>