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!

Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 Leaked?

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the believe-it-when-i-boot-it dept.

OS X 864

patr1ck writes "Mac Daily News is reporting that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 processors has been leaked to the internet already. Apparently the version running on the development kit machines is easily transfered to run on any x86 machine. Conspiracy theorists unite: an Apple marketing scheme?"

cancel ×

864 comments

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

frist post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794208)

woohoo, suck it down Apple fags

Yawza! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794212)

First Post!

why aren't I surprised? (0)

jgionet (828557) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794213)

all of these guys use these types of strategies to stir up some publicity.. I bet there's a mac out there already running windows..

Re:why aren't I surprised? (2, Insightful)

Nimloth (704789) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794228)

I bet there's a mac out there already running windows
Why would they do that?
I bet there's a PC out there already running Tiger...

Re:why aren't I surprised? (1)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794286)

I believe that Xbox 360 dev kits are supposedly PowerMac G5s running some custom version of Windows. (Although they may've been replaced with final hardware by now). So there are Macs that are runnning Windows, but unless you're a game dev you'll never see them.

Re:why aren't I surprised? (1)

Celt (125318) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794234)

Considering the dev kits are standard intel chip/mobos I don't see why not, couldn't be that hard setup tbh

the apple strategy (4, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794282)

First to answer the question. I doubt its their strategy. First because it's almost certainly filled with debugging code, is not optimized and is thus not going to benchmark att that hot. Second even if they wanted to it's probably loaded with other people's IP, like rosetta, that they cant just give out.

Not to mention that their $999 lease is not much of an obstacle for serious developers. Apple does not need new Killer apps to seed the desire to purchase new apples. So such a broad based seeding of the OS does them little good in that respect.

Now to answer cringley's question. "Why would they pre-announce the swtich a year ahead if it is so easy to port apps". People fret they will "osbourne" themselves when current apple users hold off purchasing a new apple waiting for the intel ones.

I suspect that an equally large effect may work the opposite direction. There 10 times as many high-end PC people out there that are about to upgrade their machines and may start to think. Hmmmm this new apple hardware might run windows, maybe I'll put off buying my next Dell-shitbox machine and see what apple rolls out. So this way by pre-announcing they cant get that meme going for a year. Thought's like that lead over the course of a year to the thought of maybe trying out OSX while they are at it.

And of course there's the developers that need to be stroked. gotta give them a year's notice. and apple has the cash reserves to suck-up the osbourne effect.

Re:why aren't I surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794285)

Well, that would at least allow third-party developers to not shelve out $999 per devkit (to be returned in 2 years) to port their apps !

There is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794327)

I have a PowerPC Mac right here running Windows NT 4.0 [everything2.com] . MS stopped selling it in 1999 and it's all but obsolete now. However, it's still around if you look for it, as is the Alpha version.

it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (4, Informative)

pbjones (315127) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794218)

Apple has often put an expiry date into their software so it may only be good for a short period of time? enjoy

Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (2, Interesting)

ihatewinXP (638000) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794249)

Yeah but howabout the old "turn abck the clock" trick or given enough time regedit it into working. I know I for one would love to have Tiger 10.4.1 on a PC - I am typing this on Tiger right now and it is an amazing OS.

Conspiracy? Apple leaked this? Please..... Apple is making people buy this with an Apple PC they have to return. They took and will take any step possible to stop this from happening.

Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794264)

regedit?

You do realise we're talking about OS X?

Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (1)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794294)

regedit? wtf? registry edit? That's something in the Windows OS, dumby. The point is, past date xyz the OS won't be supported any more, patches wont work with it etc etc, so it basically becomes useless to anyone except developers. Next time rtfa. Notice how much marketshare? It's pirated like crazy, but MS still exists as a company. Do you really think people are going to say "hey, ive got a crippled, not to mention BETA (or even alpha?) of the OS, why buy the computer for real when I can run this for the next ten years? suck it apple!"?

Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794302)

Because that would be really hard to patch? Any newbie cracker with 5 minutes free time could defeat this. Hardly an issue. Won't stop anyobyd but the most clueless n00bs.

Sheesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794219)

I knew it was inevitable, but this is nuts.

So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794221)

...who has the torrent?

Who Has The Torrent? (4, Funny)

ihatewinXP (638000) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794262)

For a second when I read this story I thought the same thing......And then I realized that I have a Powerbook and am typing this on Tiger 10.4.

I am such a kleptomaniac.

Re:Who Has The Torrent? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794283)

You are a faggot.

Re:Who Has The Torrent? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794356)

lol @ AC

What warez sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794222)

The article says something about some piracy sites, which ones?

Wholly Shit Batman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794223)

Pirate tigers are on the loose tonight.

Marketing scheme? Interesting thought (2, Insightful)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794224)

I wondered why they threw iLife in there. It really would be of little interest to developers, but if your stealth market was someone pirating the software to try it out, it would be near-indespensible.

So perhaps there's something to the conspiracy theory after all. I wonder if it would run on my older Compaq PC with a Pentium III and all Intel components.

I have a PowerMac G5 dual, which would surely outperform my old 700mhz Compaq by miles, but I have to admit my curiosity is piqued.

D

Re:Marketing scheme? Interesting thought (3, Insightful)

DogcowX (888899) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794238)

"I wondered why they threw iLife in there." I can't even believe you asked that question. They put iLife in there because many developers write applications that interface (or supplement iLife).

Re:Marketing scheme? Interesting thought (1)

laird (2705) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794306)

"I wondered why they threw iLife in there."

And, of course, because they've compiled the iLife applications for x86, and want to prove that MacOS X on x86 runs real native applications. It's hard to argue that video editing, music playback, and photo organizing aren't "real". :-)

This may answer the question (3, Insightful)

ralphart (70342) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794229)

I doubt this was part of Apple's master marketing scheme. Still..this may help answer the question on whether or not the new x86 version of Mac OS X will run on generic hardware.

Re:This may answer the question (1)

mike518 (869465) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794328)

i highly highly double it would be useful if it could run on an x86 machine.

the reason windows it so flaky with hardware is because it has to work with so many different hardware configs... apple isnt really designed for that -- i think it would take a LOT of programming on apples part to make a version that would be smooth with so much generic hardware. But then who knows...

Re:This may answer the question (0)

ThePlague (30616) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794379)

Good luck finding drivers. For OSX. Running on Intel. Yeah, bet that works like a dream.

An era has passed (-1, Troll)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794233)

Well say goodbye to the age when Apple made the hardware and the OS as a complete system.

Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it. What will the Mac fanatics think now?

Re:An era has passed (1)

jokell82 (536447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794250)

What will the Mac fanatics think now?
We're thinking people like you don't know what you're talking about. Apple has said they will be tying the OS to the hardware. If someone can "hack" their PC to install OS X, that's fine, it just wont be supported at all.

And Apple is nowhere close to becoming another Microsoft. But thanks for playing.

Re:An era has passed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794288)

If someone can "hack" their PC to install OS X, that's fine, it just wont be supported at all.

I don't need support to use Windows. Surely MacOS can't be that much more dificult?

Re:An era has passed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794313)

>> What will the Mac fanatics think now?

> We're thinking people ...

*giggle*
Then you're not Mac fanatics.

Of course, you use plural maiestatis or think you're speaking for many others, so chances are you're not a thinking person and thus quite possibly a Mac fanatic.

I myself am a Mac (among many other systems) user.

Re:An era has passed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794378)

What Apple really said was: Windows can run on 10.4.1 but if someone wants to run 10.4.1 on a PC "we won't allow it".

That said, you can figure out here that Apple didn't say they wouldn't do it themselves.

Re:An era has passed (4, Insightful)

donnacha (161610) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794259)

Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it. What will the Mac fanatics think now?
Apple has never shown any hesitation in screwing over their fanatics and the fanatics, for their part, have never seemed to mind.

As for Apple becoming another Microsoft, I'm sure their shareholders would be delighted to see that happen.

FUCKING MOD PARENT UP!!!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794267)

n/t

Re:An era has passed (1)

BackInIraq (862952) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794269)

Well say goodbye to the age when Apple made the hardware and the OS as a complete system.

Apple has now just become another Microsoft by the looks of it. What will the Mac fanatics think now?


Not really a fanatic...but I think it sucks. Guess they gave up on trying to do things differently...sadly, it actually looked like it was starting to work for them, too.

Re:An era has passed (1)

Heisenbug (122836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794352)

I *am* really a fanatic, and I want to remind you that the reason it was starting to work for them was that they finally had hardware to sell that was competitive in terms of price and performance. That reason was slipping away as IBM screwed up all their promises, and Apple is doing what they have to to get it back. I'm one fanatic who's glad he won't have to justify buying drastically slower hardware anymore.

Re:An era has passed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794272)

Good! Let the old platform rot! NeXT step for Apple is to open the source of OS X, embrace the linux development community with a standard gui toolkit that has everything in there, gather the mobs of OpenSource developement and unite them under the sword of an all-compatible hardware platform, and make it to the Final Encounter with Microsoft.

At least, we'll have a leader-dictator that puts some weight in quality software and hardware.

Lousy journalism (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794236)

Where was it leaked to? Sheesh..

This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (5, Insightful)

donnacha (161610) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794237)

The OP said:
"Conspiracy theorists unite: an Apple marketing scheme?"
Accidental or not, you can bet that this development has MS in a cold sweat. Seriously, if it wasn't for piracy, MS would never have gained their stranglehold. Now, the sudden possibility of OSX spreading frictionlessly into Windows' marketshare signals a major change in the commercial landscape.

Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (1)

4nd3r5 (732488) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794253)

i wonder if this means the end to MS office for mac ?

Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (1)

ninjakoala (890584) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794263)

Nope. That Mac Business Unit at Microsoft representative was on-stage during the presentation of x86 MacOS X. They are fully committed to supporting MacOS on Intel.

Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (1)

bhalo05 (865352) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794312)

Not for now, anyway. The second OS X becomes a serious threat to windows, it's something Microsoft certainly will consider.

Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (1)

Drexus (826859) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794345)

Maybe this is why Steve already mentioned Leopard. If there is a taste... then when will the whole meal be served? Leopard?

Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794291)

Yes, within a year and a half. Microsoft already got pissy and dropped Internet Explorer. Jobs realised this some time ago of course; what do you think iWork is all about?

Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794298)

Windows 2/3 was popular when we were leeching warez from bbs and you were sitting in diapers. This wont have bill gates worrying...

Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (4, Funny)

nick-less (307628) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794337)

Windows 2/3 was popular when we were leeching warez from bbs and you were sitting in diapers. This wont have bill gates worrying...

What? You mean that Windows2 thing we needed to use to start Aldus Pagemaker was actually an operating system?

Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794335)

MS gained their stronghold, at least within the operating system universe, through having their operating system included with nearly every computer made for the last two decades.

I don't think piracy had much of an influence at that point.

Since corporations buy most word processors and they almost always buy their software instead of pirating, I doubt that piracy had much impact in the rise of Word over WordPerfect and the like. It was better than the competition, something hard to remember nowadays.

Piracy might help Apple at this point because most people have not been exposed to MacOS. Exposing them through illegal distribution would be better than no exposure at all -- at least as long as there's a way of getting them to buy when the software is released.

D

As microsoft prooved... (5, Insightful)

ratta (760424) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794240)

having a large market share is more important then being able to stop piracy...

Via Piracy, Apple market share at... (0)

Your Average Joe (303066) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794284)

Could Apple market share be at 50% in 6 months due to piracy?

If they could it would cause serious waves in the Microsoft monolithic culture. Home user software would see a serous shift in platform support. The honest people would buy the software and Apple would be in a great position.

Sure we run on Dell computers, but when you want a cool/sexy computer buy an Apple Mactel. Man if I quit super-sizing my fast food I can afford the apple for a nickel more rather than the Dell...

Doesn't a Dell computer remind you of Darth Vader???

Re:Via Piracy, Apple market share at... (1)

SirTalon42 (751509) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794372)

Your high if you think this leak will have a serious impact on OS X's market share. Considering that there will probably be ZERO programs released for it for a couple years, whos going to run it?

Also 75% of the computer using population wouldn't have the slightest clue on how to install it.

THAN not THEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794296)

THAN not THEN /this has been a message brought to you by the local grammar Nazi

the ire of popularity (3, Interesting)

Eric Coleman (833730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794241)

If this increases Mac's market share, at least in terms of software, how will it deal with an increase in viruses, worms, and trojans. Mac's will get them, that's for sure, but the deciding factor I think will be how well they respond to vulnerabilities.

Re:the ire of popularity (1)

Obsidian_AL (767205) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794332)

OS X is Unix. x86 Linux doesn't get worms... OS X should be fine unless the virii are specially brewed for OS X. =P

slashdotted, here's article text... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794251)

Report: Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hits piracy sites

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 12:14 PM EST

"There is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components," Jeff Harrell writes for The Shape of Days. "The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs... I estimate that we're down to a matter of hours before Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hardware is available for download on Internet software piracy sites and peer-to-peer piracy networks. (Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites.) If I can think through this stuff, Apple's management can think through this stuff. This is the most awe-inspiring stealth marketing move I've ever seen."

"According to reports, Apple's bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed... Given Apple's experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple's management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife '05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation. As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs. Apple's giving their potential future customers a free taste, that's what they're doing. It's a try-before-you-buy deal," Harrell writes.

Also, full article (by Jeff Harrell @ ShapeOfDays.com)...

Mac OS X on Intel: Try before you buy?

Item the first: Apple is not staffed entirely by idiots. This is self-evident, and it's important to what follows. Keep this in mind as we proceed.

Item the second: The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. This information has just become public in the past few hours. (Comments I made to the contrary yesterday and on Monday were erroneous. The source who fed me that information has been sent to bed without any supper, and says to tell you he's very sorry and that it won't happen again.)

Item the third: It's safe to assume, given the timeframe, that the developer transition kits that Apple will ship within a couple of weeks will be fundamentally similar to, if not outright identical to, the Power Macs on display at the conference.

Item the fourth: The Power Macs on display at the show run a one-off build of Mac OS X 10.4.1 that incorporates the few necessary changes that were required to get the operating system running on the Intel hardware. This build includes Apple's bundled iLife '05 suite of applications.

Item the fifth: Because Intel's LaGrande security technology is not yet incorporated into any shipping products, it's safe to assume that it's not present in these transition-kit computers.

Item the sixth: Given items two through five, apart from the constraints introduced by hardware-software interfaces, there is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components.

Item the seventh: Because the Intel version of Mac OS X that's being distributed to developers is a one-off build, future software patches, including all-important security patches, will not install on top of it, making it totally useless to anybody who's not a developer of Mac software.

Item the eighth: Given items two through seven, I estimate that we're down to a matter of hours before Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hardware is available for download on Internet software piracy sites and peer-to-peer piracy networks. (Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites.)

Item the ninth: If I can think through this stuff, Apple's management can think through this stuff. See item one.

Item the tenth: This is the most awe-inspiring stealth marketing move I've ever seen.

Think about it. Apple releases a developers-only preview release of Mac OS X for Intel. It's a fully functional release of the operating system, not a beta or prerelease copy. It will work reliably, and it will run the vast majority of existing Mac applications unmodified via the Rosetta translation technology. But because this is a one-off developer release, it's of very little value to computer owners. Future software updates, like the soon-to-be-released 10.4.2 update, won't install. Existing Mac software will run, but it will run in translation, which means it will be frustratingly slow. But according to reports, Apple's bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed.

Given Apple's experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple's management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife '05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation.

As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs.

Apple's giving their potential future customers a free taste, that's what they're doing. It's a try-before-you-buy deal.

It's possible that any one of the ten items above -- well, except number one -- is wrong either in detail or completely. It's possible that I'm totally off-base here. But I don't think so. I think there's a possibility, a very real possibility, that I'm right about this. And that thought gives me the chills. In a good way.

Bill Gates said to be ... (4, Funny)

KSobby (833882) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794254)

Bill Gates said to be muttering something about "Tiger Tiger. burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye. Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" Who knew he was a Blake fan?

Same hardware as Darwin (4, Insightful)

ninjakoala (890584) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794257)

It's most likely not "any" x86 machine, but rather those that Darwin already runs on. Whether it's a intentional or not, it's still good marketing though.

Re:Same hardware as Darwin (2, Interesting)

Crimson Dragon (809806) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794266)

You would probably find it interesting to know it just booted on my Athlon 64 X2.

mnb Re:Same hardware as Darwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794317)

Where is the '-1 Liar' mod when you need it?

Parent poster obviously doesn't understand that this release needs a P4.

Re:mnb Re:Same hardware as Darwin (1)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794355)

So if I get my hands on this, it's not going to run on my Athlon? Is it the Intel chip-set it's looking for (i.e. built in drivers for it...) or is it something in the instruction set on the processor?

Re:mnb Re:Same hardware as Darwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794377)

Why? Does the OS check the logo on boot?

Re:Same hardware as Darwin (2, Funny)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794342)

You would probably find it interesting to know it just booted on my Athlon 64 X2.

I'd be more interested to know where I could download it :)

Re:Same hardware as Darwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794374)

By "it" do you mean Darwin or Mac OS X for Intel?

Re:Same hardware as Darwin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794386)

I find lies amusing not interesting.

Must... find... torrent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794258)

Anybody seen it in the wild yet? I'd love to give this one a go...

Holy evil triad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794260)

Holy evil triad. The mean corporate zombies at intel, ms, and now apple (sun is no longer a player) is taking another swipe at derailing tux.

bat tux 2.6.12 and sidekick kde 3.4 to the rescue!

seriously doubt it was planned (1, Insightful)

toQDuj (806112) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794265)

I seriously doubt it was planned, considering Apple's desire to only publish something when it's 100% finished. Expect lawsuits to ensue, and heads to roll.
In my opinion, these people (read: the ones shamelessly distributing development software) ruin that which they have.

They may think they're doing it for the good of Apple, but in the endd, if the development 10.4_X86 has many bugs and crashes often, the X86 version is going to be reviewed in a bad light by "normal" (read: non-mac-fanatical) sites and journals.

grr.
B.

Re:seriously doubt it was planned (4, Insightful)

cowscows (103644) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794389)

I don't think it'll be much of a problem. First off, they've had this in development alongside the PPC version for years, so it's not like it's an ugly hack to get it working. It should be reasonably sound and stable.

Second, it'll be compared to Windows, which, despite massive improvements in stability, still has a reputation for crashing, not to mention malware problems. Simply stated, it's easier to look good when you're standing next to someone ugly. Windows is really ugly in a lot of ways. You don't have to be at the top of your game to look better than it.

Add in the fact that anyone tech savvy enough to track down a copy and install it, (ok, it probably won't be terribly hard, but there will be a knowledge barrier to stop my grandmother from doing it), anyone who can figure that out will understand that it's just a development version, that a lot of software is running slower through Rosetta, and that this is just a taste, not the total package Apple will be selling in a year or two.

I think Apple will come out looking pretty good after this. Sure, there will be some who criticize, but there always are. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy, but truly believe that there are plenty of compelling reasons to use OSX over Windows, that most people who get the chance to try it out will want to switch. Anything that gives people a good opportunity to try (moreso than dicking around on the machines in the Apple Store for a half hour), is a good thing.

Driver Modules (1)

dduardo (592868) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794268)

Since Darwin is based on FreeBSD, are all open source kernel modules for FreeBSD fair game to modprobe?

Re:Driver Modules (4, Informative)

TilJ (7607) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794329)

OS X doesn't use the FreeBSD kernel. And, more importantly, FreeBSD doesn't have a 'modprobe' (that's a sign of a Linux user who has never used a BSD if I've ever seen one). 'kldload' is probably the closest equivalent and OS X doesn't have it (just checked).

universal binaries (3, Interesting)

ftsf (886792) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794276)

Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years." http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate /index.php [macworld.com] why cant they just run the normal Max OS X binaries on X86 if they're universal binaries like they speak of?

Re:universal binaries (1)

Large Green Mallard (31462) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794315)

Because running PPC binaries on the Intel Macs requires emulation. Emulation = slow. The whole reason they're changing is speed :)

(For small values of whole)

Re:universal binaries (2, Informative)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794321)

Only Mac apps were universal. All the old PPC apps will run via Rosetta, so they will run, they just won't be "universal binaries". For example, Photoshop isn't a universal binary but it runs fine.

Re:universal binaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794366)

Apple never released any of these universal binaries in their shipments of Mac OS X. Otherwise, someone would have noticed 5 years ago, "Hey, these apps are twice as big as they need to be, and contain x86 machine code.. hmmm...". The universal binary version of OS X has only been released to developers just now.

Re:universal binaries (3, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794369)

Because the universal binaries were kept internal to Apple and the released versions of OS X were only capable of running on Apple hardware?

If they released versions of OS X that were fat binaries, someone outside of Apple would have noticed and said something, and we would all know about it already. Jobs is almost certainly talking about internal builds that Apple has been doing to ensure compatability for a possible transition.

AMD...?? (1, Interesting)

klaasb (523629) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794277)

Before I download it....does it run on systems with an AMD processor that is equal to an Intel G4???

Leak is Just a Blog Rumor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794289)

MacDailyNews' source for the fact that Mac OS x86 has been leaked is a weblog [shapeofdays.com] that says:

"Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites."

And further, the blog adds:

"It's possible that any one of the ten items above -- well, except number one -- is wrong either in detail or completely. It's possible that I'm totally off-base here."

Slashdot, always helping to spread rumors without fact.

legal? (1)

PrivateDonut (802017) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794293)

how many laws would I break by downloading and installing it? (laws affecting Australia that is...)

Re:legal? (1)

jsrlepage (696948) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794308)

many, though i personaly beleive you shouldn't care...

Re:legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794364)

> how many laws would I break by downloading and installing it?

All of them. Now STFU and seed another torrent already.

Vapor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794297)

This is just a dreamer who wants to stir up some real dust. But ultimately, there is nothing to see. The whole idea of developing an environment for the whole world is ridiculous.

Nobody seems to be thinking of how impossible it would be to have all the hardware in the world compatible with a now universal operating system.

The concept is so far off the mark to suggest that quietly an operating system that was on a Next cube swallows up the worlds computers over night - is a technical and infrastructure impossibility. Essentially it would require the support of every known hardware developer in the world... and do it in secret... with nobody saying anything the whole project?

Vapor!

Where???? (-1, Offtopic)

DiegoLM (838648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794303)

Where is the Iso or torrent or elink....nobody knows??????

If I wanted FreeBSD (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794304)

I'd run FreeBSD, not feeBSD.

Serial Number (4, Interesting)

scrotch (605605) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794309)

I would be surprised if there wasn't a hidden serial number in the OS on each PC they distributed. I bet Apple, and their lawyers, will know exactly who leaked this very soon.

I gots a new Chebby wid a new BMW engine in it! (-1, Flamebait)

rogerborn (236155) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794316)



How fast will it be? How cool? Huh?

What?

No. I don't have a kit to hook it to the Chebby transmission?

What?

No, none of the wires and hoses hooks up so well.

Its all up on blocks right now, you see.

But in a few days, I gonna have somethin' HOT!

(so by definition, OS X is on sumbudddy's X86, with-out drivers, software, fonts, etc., etc. - Big Whoop there! at least they can look at the startup screen, right?)

Allow me to speak for everyone when I say... (-1, Offtopic)

Moderator (189749) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794320)

Hahahahaha

QEMU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794323)

So if I go download this now, would I be able to run it via QEMU to take a look at OS X on x86, or would it require a full install?

As inevitable as it is good. (3, Insightful)

crovira (10242) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794338)

When Longhorn finally comes out, some tech people will have had OS X running on their boxes already and won't bother to switch and that is worrying Microsoft.

Apple makes killer hardware, which they make their money on, and set bar for what people are willing to pay for an OS AND for the quality that they should expect.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, that bar and the fact that people will have an alternative, means that Microsoft has less than three years to transform itself to be internet capable (If they already were, there wouldn't be viri, Trojeans, mal-, spy- and ad-ware all over their OS. Microsoft made a mistake are relied on third parties to take care of their problems for them.)

Either Microsoft can make the cut or it never could. They won't be able to rely on pulling anti-trust moves again. That sort of stuff goes on in backrooms and needs darkness to exist. Now, there's a light on in the room.

Finally I can play games on my x86 machine!!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794347)

Can anyone point me to a torrent for a mac version of Half-life 2 or Far Cry?

Fortuitous accident? (2, Interesting)

haggar (72771) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794350)

I have some doubts whether this was a leak or a "leak". However, even if it was an unintended (by Apple) event, it could turn out to be the best things to happen to Apple, ever. A sudden boom in OS-X86 (you heard it here, first) could shake some cojones in Apple's executives' pants, and cause a paradigm shift in that company's strategy.

Basically, a shift from hardware towards software-based revenue.

Or not. Apple might utilize this event just to market OS-X86 to new users, users that would otherwise not have bought a Mac, and increase their future sales of Intel-based Macs. However, this strategy would work only on a fraction of those who tried OS-X86 for size, so the effect would be limited.

I say, Apple, have some balls and start selling OS-X86 and related applications! Stick it to Microsoft and cause a stir in the desktop OS marketplace.

Finally a good move for Apple? (1)

AC-x (735297) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794359)

Releasing a version of OSX that runs on standard x86 hardware should allow Apple to be in direct competition with Windows (to "switch" is simply case of buying OSX rather then an entirely new computer)

Of course it'll only work if they can get get drivers and software backwards compatibility sorted, which given they announced the switch to Intel in more then a year away they might just make it.

AMD64 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794367)

Quit all this whining about Apple!

1. Where is the torrent?
2. Will it run on my AMD64 laptop!

Just moving to mainly Mac (1)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794373)

I'm just moving from x86 Linux (Debian) to "mainly Mac". Zero fuss out-of-the-box avantgarde functionality is the reason. Check out any online hardware store and view the list of current x86 CPU sockets and you now why.
I personaly couldn't care less wether my Mac runs on x86 or PPC. But you can bet your right arm that as soon as Mac gets to become the pissy fumbly ten-bazillion different component standards and driver issues DIY plattform the PC is today, I'm switching back. Unless, of course, anything Mac is cheaper by then. But I doubt it.
As long as Apple keeps a firm grip on a overseable list of components and I can get a good cinema screen with a good computer built into it that has me rolling the moment I unpack it and switch it on for the first time, they might aswell use VIA CPUs if they fancy that.

Pretty sneaky, sis... (4, Interesting)

amper (33785) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794375)

Of course, the only way that this would make sense is if the developer release is time-limited. Let's face it, Apple is not ready to take on Microsoft head-to-head right now; it would be suicide for Apple to allow an easily-hacked version of Mac OS X that could run on cheap-ass hardware out the door.

Now, assuming that the dev kit *will* time-bomb, this would be a brilliant move. Of course, it might still be hacked, but the fact of the matter is that only a very, very small subset of the potential market will bother will figuring out the hack to keep it running.

As I've said before, the only negative impacts I see of Apple moving to Intel are:

1. (Temporarily) Increased costs for current Apple hardware/software owners.
2. Decreased competition in the desktop CPU marketplace.

Other than these two items, this whole thing is a net plus for the entire world, even Microsoft, who will surely benefit from direct competition with Apple in the future. Dell could possibly turn out to suffer some losses from this, eventually, but Michael Dell is an arrogant ass who deserves being taken down a notch.

Which of course, is not to say that Steve Jobs isn't arrogant at times, as well, but at least Steve is a consistently proven innovator who constantly (and relentlessly) pushes the technology industry forward, whereas Dell is, and always will be, just a cloner.

So, by all means, grab a copy, check it out. If you haven't developed for Apple hw/sw before, I think you might be pleasantly surprised enough to switch.

good work fuck faces (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794380)

Only macs users are stupid and arrogant enough to think expanding the hardware OS X runs on is in some way devaluing the OS or making it less "cool".

As for the hardware switch angle it's for the better in the long run regardless of how painful or less cool it makes having a MAC. Sorry you can't feel special running around saying MY PC RUN ON PPOWOWOWOOWOWOWWOOOOOOER PC DDEWD!

It's a fake story to get web visitors (1, Insightful)

xirtam_work (560625) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794385)

I'm sorry, but you've been duped. This is a fake story, of this I am certain.

The Intel build of Mac OS X only runs on the chipset supplied in the development machines, so it won't run on *any* x86 machine. Furthermore, outside of Adobe and a few other companies none of the other developers would have receieved their Intel Dev Kits yet. Lastly, all builds would have had digital fingerprints inserted on the CD and in vital binaries to trace any leaks (If not then Apple are stupid).

If someone leaked this then they are likely to be sued for hundreds of millions of dollars. This would mean any company stupid enough to let their employees leak it would be in dire trouble. Hence, my reasoning for saying that this is fake.

worth a try but still not free (1)

shawn443 (882648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794388)

This is interesting and I would love to give Tiger a try. But unless this OS completely redefines for me what an operating system is, I will stay with Linux. Since I have already popped the cherry on a Mac, I doubt I will be blown away. I probably will download it for testing and learning purposes. But nonetheless, it is still encumbered by many of the same problems inherent with Windows. Of course I am speaking of limitiations on my freedom and as such Macs will have no place in my heart or personal work.

But this sure is good news for those of us who do not compete for Apple specific jobs because we cannot claim good faith expertise or even power-user familiarity with Apple products. This might just allow a new revenue stream for simplistic networking, routine upgrades, etc. So no doubt, this is a positive development.

Piracy++ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12794390)

"It's a try-before-you-buy deal"

Why does anyone who downloads the software from a .torrent site actually need to buy it?

is it buggy? (1)

Heisenbug (122836) | more than 9 years ago | (#12794396)

Is there any word on how well the Intel build actually works for serious use yet? I mean, I agree that there'll be tons of PC-only folks trying this out soon, but I'm not sure it'll be such a big win. It'll be an OS running most applications in emulation, with native code that's never been tested on any large scale, and no patches available. Sure I understand the reasons for all of that, but if you were predisposed to think Macs had sparse application support, ran slowly, and weren't really as stable as everyone claimed, this could easily reinforce everything you thought ...

I don't know, tell me I'm wrong. Am I not giving average warez-users enough credit? Is this build more usable than I think?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>