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 Intel Build Addresses Pirating

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the arrrr-keep-september-19th-in-mind dept.

OS X 319

aardwolf64 writes "ThinkSecret has an article up detailing information about the newest Mac OS X 10.4.3 builds (which is currently said to fix almost 500 bugs with 10.4.2.) What is more interesting is the release of 10.4.2 (Intel) to developers. Universal binaries built with the new version (and apparently all subsequent versions) will not work on systems running the older version of the OS."

cancel ×

319 comments

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

Forced obsolescence (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13550949)


Is a corporate wet dream

Re:Forced obsolescence (1)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551139)

Offtopic? It would appear that that *IS* the topic.

Re:Forced obsolescence (0, Redundant)

NaruVonWilkins (844204) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551212)

That's not off topic. Someone fix that moderation, it's a good point.

Re:Forced obsolescence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551224)

Whoever modded this down is a JACKASS

Re:Forced obsolescence (2, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551243)

Certainly offtopic by the tone of the post.

Forced obsolescence of a DEVELOPER product that is under development? I mean, that'd much worse than, say, writing an operating system kernel and altering the ABI to break binary modules every so often I reckon*.

* probably the reason that the new x86 build of Mac OS X has the compatibility issues.

omg (5, Funny)

swimmar132 (302744) | more than 9 years ago | (#13550954)

That's a lot of bugs. And I haven't even noticed any of them. :(

Re:omg (2)

camelmix (880071) | more than 9 years ago | (#13550981)

I was thinking the same exact thing, talk about perfectionists ;)

Bugs I have come across... (1)

Hamster Lover (558288) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551162)

I found one particular bug in Safari that has been improved with the release of 2.01 but still not completely squashed is certain Javascript buttons not working, at least for me. For example, if I attempt to print a map from Google maps the print button will many times do nothing. I have waited and waited, still nothing. Closing the page and re-opening usually fixes the problem, but sometimes I have to restart Safari. A similar problem I have found is links sometimes fail to change the mouse cursor to a hand icon indicating a link. Maybe they're both part of the same problem?

I also had a weird problem with Dashboard where widgets I installed (not the default) would disappear. I ran Disk Utility, fixed the permissions and received a message, "We are using special permissions for the file or directory ./Library/Widgets. New permissions are now XXXXXX" (or something similar). Which seemed to fix the problem for a few days until they disappeared again. I ran Disk Utility again and there was another permission problem which when fixed brought the widgets back. Once they were back, I deleted and re-installed them and haven't had the problem since.

There is also an update today to Java 1.3.1 release 2 and an Itunes phone driver for the ROKR phone from a few days ago.

Re:omg (1)

Nuclear Elephant (700938) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551252)

And that's what it's really about. The switch to Intel has been done so hastily that they're running into all kinds of issues now that third party developers are hacking on it. Change the binary format? Probably to fix some severe deficiencies... but marketed well under the anti-piracy guise.

Re:omg (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551445)

The previous developer release was an early-release alpha built for a completely new architecture that was intended to help developers get a jumpstart on porting apps to the new platform. I'd say it's natural to have flaws, even somewhat major ones. I don't think they're worried enough about people finding out that it might have bugs to "hide" it under the guise of stopping a handful of hobbyists (several thousand is still a handful) from running the OS as easily.

Patches... (2, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#13550958)

I remember old PC games being sold (illegally) in the streets. The CD included a directory called "crack" which contained some patches.

I wonder how long before someone hacks into the OS/X code and does this...

Re:Patches... (2, Interesting)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551008)

Think Windows XP SP2. I think the situation here is that the API has been "fixed" enough, that older binaries are no longer compatible.

Re:Patches... (1)

masonbrown (208074) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551010)

I wonder how long before someone hacks into the OS/X code and does this...

Wouldn't they just have to change something at the assembly-language level and it would be difficult to reverse engineer? Or some incompatability in a core runtime library?

Re:Patches... (1)

James_Aguilar (890772) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551249)

If someone wants to run the OS badly enough, there is nothing sufficiently difficult to reverse engineer that it will stop them.

Not really... (5, Informative)

fprog (552772) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551265)

Most cracks are extremely simple, crackers are simply looking for a conditional and unconditional jump instruction, that's it! Then it's all about stepping into the code step by step and having break points.

if ( !condition ) { error_message(); }

http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/x86-jumps.html [unixwiz.net]

So, one easy way is as simple as by passing the checks by renaming JZ into JNZ, JE into JNE, JO into JNO, or similar when the serial number is checked.

This way any invalid serial is now actually valid...
You might have to add a NOP to make the instruction the same length.

Other serials are simply generated by having the serial key code compare being blindly copied into another program to create a keygen.

if ( input_key != calculated_key ) { error(); }

Another way is to run it in debug mode and then see the content of the register having calculated_key.

The only product scheme which are more difficult to crack is those which they *seems* to be cracked, but fail unexpectively after a period of time which is very far apart the actual "test".
Days or weeks is a good delay.

And for products which prevent "debug mode" utilities, well, there exist other products to go around this issue by simply masquerading the WinIce/SoftIce application, so it doesn't get detected and prevented from running in "debug mode".

That's all I can tell.

Some of course are encrypted, but even then the code must be "decrypted" before being run so...
it's still possible to analyze it, just a bit harder.

In the end, the best way for a product is to be good, useful, have nice manuals and have a proper support at the right price, then the majority of people will buy it, especially if it's bundled with good hardware, since it wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Re:Not really... (2, Insightful)

mprinkey (1434) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551412)

I remember walking through 6502 assembly looking for those things on my C64. Programmers tried everything in the world to make things difficult. The undocumented instruction(s), self-modifying code, almost random JMPs to odd offsets. Anything to make it hard to disassemble. I was never really that successful at it, but it sure was fun trying. I was 13 and bored.

Re:Not really... (2, Informative)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551565)

On the Spectrum they used to use the exact execution time of the instruction as a decryption key (the R register on the Z80). The routines also decrypted themselves as they ran so you couldn't see the whole routine & couldn't (in theory) single step it.

Of course I knew off by heard all the timings of every instruction :)

Re:Patches... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551274)

ASM is pretty easy to reverse engineer. Especially compared to trying to reverse engineer a language like Visual Basic, which can be very difficult.

Re:Patches... (1)

galimore (461274) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551423)

No.

Re:Patches... (4, Funny)

matt me (850665) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551016)

You remember buying crack illegally from the streets... and now your posting on Slashdot. Drugs are a slippery slope :p

not necessarily... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551305)

I remember *SEEING* them. And I never said the info I got wasn't from a friend who actually bought it. In any case, the programs i'm talking about were from 10 years ago, and in my country information laws (if any) aren't retroactive :)

Re:Patches... (1)

kanazir (704999) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551319)

I remember old PC games being sold (illegally) in the streets. The CD included a directory called "crack" which contained some patches.
You're never visited Eastern Europe, right? :)

Re:Patches... (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551623)

and "crack" application is generally a alpha or even pre alpha copy of exe which was stolen from code studio before copy protection added.

For the thing you say. Its really possible but its a huge opportunity for trojan/malware authors. Remember "MS Office Trial downloader" ;)

Correction (4, Informative)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 9 years ago | (#13550961)

Mac OS X 10.4.3 build 8F23 includes about 75 new bug fixes to the OS, fast bringing the total number of specific improvements the update will deliver to nearly 500.

Looks like 75 bugs and 500 improvements.

Re:Correction NewRe: Nice try zealot (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551341)

Nice try but read on fanboy. Just because it's apple doesn't mean it's bug free. It's just a lower profile OS (like it or not it's true.) Therefore the bugs aren't made into such a big deal as it is with XP. "Improvements" are just apple's way of saying bugfixes.


August 31, 2005 - A new build of Mac OS X 10.4.3 landed in developers' hands Tuesday that fixes an additional 100 or so issues with the operating system, bringing the total number of fixes the update will deliver to about 400.

Give it a couple of days... (4, Insightful)

DogcowX (888899) | more than 9 years ago | (#13550966)

The hackers will be making it sing like Sinatra.

Re:Give it a couple of days... (1)

a.different.perspect (817184) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551091)

Or bray like Tony Branza! Whatever it'll be doing, it'll be doing it cooperatively.

Re:Give it a couple of days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551397)

Or bray like Tony Danza! Whatever it'll be doing, it'll be doing it cooperatively.

What is a Tony Danza? I think it is similar to a donkey punch only when you punch the girl/guy in the back of the neck you yell out "TONY DANZA!!" I want to see some homegrown pr0n where someone pulls a Tony Danza. I would lol all over myself.

Re:Give it a couple of days... (1)

mc900ftjesus (671151) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551100)

They will never figure out how to hack the gibson. Jobs, you're the man now dog.

Re:Give it a couple of days... (1)

druske (550305) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551300)

"The hackers will be making it sing like Sinatra."
Yeah, Nancy Sinatra. [shudder]

Re:Give it a couple of days... (1)

Nimrangul (599578) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551443)

Hey, she was hot when she was young [art.com] . With a body like she had her singing was irrelevant.

Re:Give it a couple of days... (2, Interesting)

Castar (67188) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551441)

I've lost faith in pirates, actually. I used to believe that a small army of people working in their free time would easily defeat a few people writing defenses 9-5, but it seems like on some fronts the companies are winning. The biggest one I can think of is streaming WMV - it seems like it hasn't been cracked at all.

Then there's the fact that DRM is successfully being sold as a feature - an MP3 player is considered better if it supports "PlaysForSure" technology. Since when do I want to pay extra to give up my rights?

Anyway, I think it's probably pretty likely that OSX will be cracked eventually. But I don't have the faith in crackers I once had. I think that Trusted Computing will probably lock up our freedoms forever.

Re:Give it a couple of days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551552)

The biggest one I can think of is streaming WMV - it seems like it hasn't been cracked at all.

Maybe noone gives a shit about a crappy format?

Re:Give it a couple of days... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551568)

Yes, they learned from the Republicans that if you name something the right way, people will think it's a good thing. For example, the Death Tax, the Clear Skies Initiative, Partial Birth Abortions. These are all bullshit but they've got millions of people siding with them because they picked a clever name. Of course, the dems are fucking morons and don't know how to deal with it so that helps too.

Re:Give it a couple of days... (1)

andrewski (113600) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551601)

You aren't guaranteed any freedoms to hack a commercial product to run on an unauthorized platform, especially if it breaks your agreement with the producer of said software.

However, Linux and FreeBSD both work fine on 'trusted computing' platforms.

I think you're mistaking the ability to pirate whatever the fuck you want with 'freedom'.

Re:Give it a couple of days... (1)

Usquebaugh (230216) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551604)

Just like the XBOX

Before we get the 'bad evil apple' comments ... (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#13550971)

Is that really so surprising? That a company will act to protect its products from people who are blatantly pirating it and enacting workarounds to bypass whatever security might have been present to ensure it only worked on developer workstations?

Oh no, your pirated pre-release software can't be upgraded! Teh horror!

Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (4, Insightful)

ihatewinXP (638000) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551065)

I flipped on this issue so fast that my head is still spinning. Aside from having the iPod and a huge cash reserve to keep them afloat I am honestly worried that piracy will crush the mac platform on intel.

And in all honesty I want my platform to continue living - I need Apple to stay proftiable in the computer business because I want to continue to buy their computers. Sadly this means that I now support any kind of gestapo like tactic that they use to keep the OS locked to their hardware.

Hopefully they can find a middle ground but the past few years have taught me that technology cannot build a wall that technology cannot also knock down - it will be a long uphill battle - I hope the FSB on the new powerbooks is worth it.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (2, Insightful)

coopaq (601975) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551105)

I am honestly worried that piracy will crush the mac platform on intel.

You mean like the same way it crushed Microsoft, the music industry and the movie industry?

Even with crappy products they succeed.

In that case sign me up for Apple stock.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551196)

I think Apple will do just fine, so long as they start addressing the gaps in their hardware lineup.

Personally, I have zero interest in buying a cheap beige box to run OS X. I'm running an old iBook G3, which I intend to keep until the new turd sandwich [xciv.org] PowerBooks are out.

However, I want a Mac tablet. And since Steve Jobs is apparently religiously opposed to Apple selling tablet computers, I might have to buy from another company and run hacked OS X to get what I want.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551226)

So, if I understand you correctly, your desire for apple computers means that you will endorse any kind of DRM (hardware, software) scheme that apple decides to enforce?

Some people value freedom, other people value branding (and as I understand it, with the switch to x86 what you'll be paying for is the brand name; not the quality hardware).

I don't know what RMS's thoughts on this one are, but I have a feeling I'd agree more with them than I do with yours.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (4, Interesting)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551229)

That's an interesting counterpoint to what I was thinking actually. While I fully support the whole "It's their OS, they don't have a monopoly, it's still beta, they can do what they like" idea, I was under the impression that Intel piracy could actually be good for them (something I want, since I, like you, want to continue using Apple's products). For now I'll ignore the debate of whether they could maintain their quality of software over a wider range of hardware or not.

If Apple released a generic version of OSX86, MS would jump up and crush them with all the marketers, lawyers and assasins in it's arsenal, so that's a bad plan. With OSX86 only on Apple hardware, nothing will change - MS don't care, you and I will still use it, everyone else will use Windows. With people pirating the OS, however, MS still won't react since they have nothing to react against, you and I still buy Apple products, but some of those Windows users try and like MacOS. After a while one of two things happens: they go out and buy a Mac, or Apple decides it's "unofficial" installed userbase is large enough for them to deploy a generic OS and still survive Microsoft's retaliation. End result: more tasty Apple goodness but with the advantages of PC or Mac hardware too. Maybe not the perfect plan, but plausible nonetheless.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (1)

hawkbug (94280) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551631)

That's a very well thought out comment, and I agree. One thing I think a little bit differently than you is that even if Apple released an OS for x86 that was competing with M$, they would still be successful. Microsoft can't stop them - people already know it, and while Microsoft might actually have to *gasp* innovate or lower prices to compete, Apple will still definitely have their nitch, and maybe some more.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (2, Interesting)

saha (615847) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551276)

Sadly this means that I now support any kind of gestapo like tactic that they use to keep the OS locked to their hardware

As a institutional buyer. Mac OSX on unsupported x86 Intel hardware doesn't appeal to me. I want to call someone who is accountable if something doesn't work. Who tests out the possible drivers, hardware, software all are working smoothly. Not start childish finger pointing that I've experience from other vendors and wasting my time. I'm glad as a system administrator I don't have to deal with product activation on Mac OSX, as with Windows XP. The latest version of Adobe Photoshop and Autodesk AutoCad are also going the way of product activation, which is pretty annoying as a paying customer. All I want is my cloned loadset to work without having to register it every time I modify, upgrade or replace hardware due to failures.

To hackers who have the time and inclination to experiment with Mac OSX on their hardware. Power to them if they figure out a way to make it run on their customized x86 hardware. Businesses and institutions in general don't have that time and in the end its these companies and facilities that by the bulk of the licenses. A few lose copies of Mac OSX doesn't bother me, because it helps raise the platforms awareness as a viable and attractive alternative.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (1)

bani (467531) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551331)

I want to call someone who is accountable if something doesn't work.

sadly that doesnt seem to be apple. look at what it took to get apple to address the ipod and ibook fiascos: class action lawsuits.

apple forum admins are vigilant and close/delete complaint threads on the support forums, actions which directly which led to the class action lawsuits. and it doesn't look like they will be changing their behavior any time soon.

if you are looking for support, you won't find it with apple. ibm or hp or sun would be a far, far better choice.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (4, Informative)

saha (615847) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551605)

ibm or hp or sun would be a far, far better choice

HP??? You are kidding right. They make great printers but I don't think HP support or the quality of their computers are good at all. We used to have a contract with HP and now they are out

Consumer Report June 2003: Desktop computers Readers report, surveying 39,000 readers
Shows Apple with the highest ratings for Repairs. Followed in order by Dell, HP, IBM ...etc. Then for Technical Support it was Apple, Dell, Gateway, Sony, HP...etc.

Now in June 2005. Consumer Reports Tech support: Desktops & laptops survey shows for Dekstops it was Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP, Sony ...etc. And for laptops Apple, IBM, Toshiba, Dell, Gateway, HP ...etc.

Based on my own experiences the data above is more or less correct, although I've felt Dell slide in the past two years. Dell used to have better support, but lacked testing their products thoroughly sometimes when the slap together components from five different suppliers. Which brings me to the issue of finger pointing.

We've had to fight PC manufacturers many times when our computers don't work, when the sound card driver causes a BSOD, PNY graphics board genlock doesn't work, when the OEM isn't able to control the OS enough to fix problems. Its frustrating as a customer. As for Sun we've had good experience with them so far. Although one black mark I can recall is for their flagship enterprise servers where having major problems two year ago. Sun traced the problem to memory chips from IBM and tried to differ the blame on IBM. Sun's corporate customers where unimpressed and just wanted the damn enterprise servers fixed. So even Sun can have issues, but less so in my experience.

The Apple software/hardware solution tends to work better and there are less people for them to blame, so I don't get the run around as a customer. They provide the whole solution and the buck stops with them when I have a problem, unlike other vendors that make me run around.

If Apple does come up with products that don't honor the warranty, which I have not experienced yet. I'm glad that those lawyers are out there to keep the company "honest" when there are legitimate issues with the product. However, your recommendation hasn't convinced me I would experience less problems from another vendor and the data I provided above speaks to that fact.

Piracy crush Apple? Piracy has SAVED Apple! (4, Insightful)

Sagarian (519668) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551369)

or do you think those 20, 40, and 60 GB iPods out there are all full of iTunes bought at 99 cents each?

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551473)

> Sadly this means that I now support any kind of gestapo like tactic that they use to keep the OS locked to their hardware.

Actually you could do the opposite. You could demand Apple work with MS to get a version of windows running on their Macs for people who want to dual-boot. If those people end up never using OSX, then Apple still made a sale. This gestapo crap is short-sighted.

If Apple wants to make it past its tiny niche, they need to open up the platform somewhat. Ideally, the Macs should be able to triple boot OSX, Windows, and Linux if need be.

Not to mention the opposite approach; a "OSX jr"' release for non-Apple hardware for dabblers, developers, etc. As long as it clearly states its unsupported and OSX best runs on Macs, it probably wont hurt the brand. In fact, exposing people to OSX might just sell a few extra macs here and there.

Re:Before we get the "beleagered apple' comments (1)

vought (160908) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551628)

You could demand Apple work with MS to get a version of windows running on their Macs for people who want to dual-boot. If those people end up never using OSX, then Apple still made a sale. This gestapo crap is short-sighted.

You can also sit in front of water oak and demand that you won't cut it down and use it to build your dream home unless it changes into a live oak.

I'll bet the tree won't change, and even if your house does get built, it'll be from water oak, not live oak.

Apple needs to learn (1)

RedLaggedTeut (216304) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551513)

Apple needs to learn that it can't control and sell hardware, OS, and software at the same time, because it will be working against the market all the time, not with it.

Re: Before we get the 'bad evil apple' comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551195)

'Pirating' is a word made up by those who actually believe in selling a peice of software to try to claim losses in a capitolist society. It is those who make up this blatent crap that stifle innovation.

OS X is a very advanced OS, and should be allowed for everyone, not just those who buy X hardware. I always have, and will continue to so called 'pirate' what I want. And always will. If I can see it, I can get it. If I pay for it, It is mine.

I paid for Tiger because I beleive in Apples innovation. I paid for Tiger, and I will damn well run it on what I want. Tiger is the only peice of software I have paid for since Doom3 first came out, and Quake3 before that.

So before you propritary software devs start moaning over your pathetic losses of a few meazly bucks over the millions you already have... remember this... If you try to protect it, I will break it, and you can't stop everyone. Its you, just you, against the entire 'pirate' community. Good luck Apple. You will need it.

Re: Before we get the 'bad evil apple' comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551358)

OS X is a very advanced OS, and should be allowed for everyone, not just those who buy X hardware

Right now Apple use profits from hardware to help fund the development of the OS. If they can't sell you hardware then they'd have to jack up the OS price something fierce to still make a profit selling it to you. So, are you willing to pay what it actually costs?

Re:Before we get the 'bad evil apple' comments ... (1)

assantisz (881107) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551384)

Does anybody really think that those incompatibilities are introduced on purpose to fight piracy? It's just a consequence of being a developer preview release. APIs and everything will constantly change until Apple eventually releases production versions of Mac OS X on Intel.

Problem is... (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551581)

Well I agree to your comment with one question in my mind...

just imagine if MS did such thing or even less and imagine the comments...

BTW strangely I'd be happy if they made a DRM based electronical OS X release (downloadable) after paying needless, stupid amounts to Fedex (or any courier).
 

Attention Apple Fags! (0, Flamebait)

Asshat Canada (804093) | more than 9 years ago | (#13550979)

x86 or not; your gayness shines through the ages!

Here's to being a ten-percenter!

Funny thing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551236)

I once experimented with Apple when I was in school, all the kids were doing it. Apple users, learn the error of your ways [operationsaveamerica.org]

To protect PPC-sales (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13550993)

Apple did this to protect PPC-mac sales. They don't want current Mac users to buy some crappy x86-boxen just to test their new software.

what's new? (5, Insightful)

Jsutton1027w (757650) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551015)

I'm sure when Rhapsody (the Pre-OSX betas just after the NeXT takeover) was being developed, that some of the same types of incompatibilities were there.

Think about it though, most apps from 10.3 don't work properly in 10.2, but that doesn't mean it's apple's way of keeping pirates away. Since all these X86 versions are beta quality anyway, they're probably working on a much faster development mode, and things break easier.

Then again, they could be doing it on purpose, in which case they have the right, since it's their OS. ;)

Re:what's new? (2, Informative)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551143)

Agreed, there is absolutely no reason for them to keep binary compatibility. Especially since all the people that have legal access to the DevKit can't release any of their stuff to consumers yet and are actively working on getting their application working on the Mactels so a simple recompile to them means nothing.

They were! (2, Interesting)

itomato (91092) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551178)

The system changed so much between Developer Releases that Apps for DR1 would not run on DR2, etc.

Major updates underneath between releases.

HOWEVER - this was when they were fleshing out the base of the OS. New libraries, new coding practices, new releases of major components that were incompatible with prior versions.

You could still coax some NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP apps to run, though. I imagine it's the same. Some Cocoa apps will run, some won't.

Is anything being done for straight ports of old X86 OPENSTEP code? It would be cool as rice to see a handful of the Unique apps (with source - no Lighthouse Suite, I know) running across the board (NS, OS, OSXPB, OSXPPC, OSX86).

I think it's more a matter of NeXT programming practice than anything. If the old version doesn't work, so be it - the old application doesn't need to go along for the ride anyway. Keeps people writing new software, keeps it fresh and in-tune with the theme of the system, & keeps the market alive.

Not that uncommon (5, Interesting)

tono (38883) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551020)

Since this is still not a publicly released Operating System available to buy, I'm not all that surprised they're taking care of this sort of thing now. There's no reason for them to care about the old versions of the Operating System if it is not available to the general public. Once the Operating System is actually available to buy this sort of thing will stop, but they want their developers to be using the most recent version available to give them the newest target. I don't really see a problem with this.

In case you were wondering... (4, Funny)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551030)

In case you were wondering whether Apple wanted everyone to pirate OS X onto their Dell and HP systems (for mindshare!), now you have your answer.

Anti-Piracy or simple incompatibility? (5, Insightful)

Soong (7225) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551031)

I was reading some publicly available Apple documentation on the transition to intel style chips, and they included a note that as of June they hadn't finalized their application-binary-interface (ABI) specification for MacOS X on intel. So, maybe it just means they changed the spec and now there's an incompatibility. It would be something most developers would never see, totally taken care of by the compiler, and a make clean and a recompile necessarily fixes everything.

Re:Anti-Piracy or simple incompatibility? (4, Interesting)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551277)

Yes, there have been a number of changes to the ABI, which is where I'm sure this break comes from. I'm sure Apple wouldn't bother doing this to stop pirates (they'll just repirate it) and breaking the ABI is sure to annoy the odd developer here and there (yes it should make no difference after a complete recompile, but of course it always does). There are also a couple more changes which quite a lot of people really think should be made, so I'd expect one more break before release :)

Re:Anti-Piracy or simple incompatibility? (4, Insightful)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551314)

But that story sells fewer ad views.

Current Binaries (3, Interesting)

kagaku (774787) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551036)

Will binaries built using the currently available builds of OSX and Xcode work on future versions of x86 OSX? I can understand newer builds not working on older versions of the operating system, but is the same true of the reverse?

Re:Current Binaries (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551082)

Well, Apple might have changed some of the APIs and the way your program interfaces with OS X now wont work. Just like Cisco's VPN when going from .3 to .4, it just breaks compatablility with some programs but not with others. Your milage may very on how deep into the OS your Program goes.

another crappy writeup (1)

Schlemphfer (556732) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551044)

Universal binaries built with the new version (and apparently all subsequent versions) will not work on systems running the older version of the OS.

Would somebody care to explain what aardwolf64 and Zonk think is too obvious to be worth stating in the summary? What exactly does this mean to people trying to pirate OSX, who exactly will be affected, and under what circumstances?

Re:another crappy writeup (1)

noisymime (816237) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551093)

The pirating is reduced because the earlier version is the only one that has been hacked. You can bet your last dollar that Apple have made it harder to hack this newer version and are twisting peoples arms to upgrade by not allowing newer binaries to be backward compatible.

Re:another crappy writeup (1)

tchristney (133268) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551639)

There is no "upgrade" arm twisting going on here. The versions are seeded to developers as part of their ADC membership. The new releases come in the mail at no additional cost. The problems you are talking about is totally irrelevant for legitimate uses of the developer releases.

Re:another crappy writeup (1)

P3NIS_CLEAVER (860022) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551175)

it just means that apps you build on the new os will not run on the older one. What does this have to do with pirating? Sounds like they dumped backward compatability, most likely they had no choice.

Re:another crappy writeup (2, Informative)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551361)

It means that people that still have the older pirated version of OS X will not be able to run any programs that are created after yesterday.

Re:another crappy writeup (1)

bkakes (676404) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551405)

It simply means that if you have version 1 of the Developer-only release of OS X on Intel, and some developer writes application Foo using version 2 of the Developer-only release on Intel, Foo won't run on your Developer-only version 1 OS. You'll need to upgrade to version 2 in order to run Foo.

So, in essence, it means that running version 1 will soon be pointless, since most / all software compiled natively for it will soon be compiled from a newer version of the OS. (Again, this affects only registered developers, and doesn't affect end-users in the slightest.) Why is it a strike against piracy? Well, people were clearly able to crack version 1. This move basically makes version 1 worthless over time. If version 2 is harder to crack, it's a stab against piracy, because it means that everyone will want to run the harder-to-crack version.

Does that help at all?

oh NO! (1, Funny)

pyrrho (167252) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551053)

Don't Panic! Just. Remain. Calm.

Everything will be OK. We're going to drop 3000 lb bags of sand from helicopters... wait, those aren't helicopters... those are hackers wearing propeller beanies.

Re:oh NO! (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551186)

And those bags AREN'T filled with SAND.

'universal' binaries ayyy (0, Troll)

noisymime (816237) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551059)

"Universal binaries built with Xcode 2.2 and the new copy of Mac OS X 10.4.2 for Intel will also fail to run on systems running the older version of the operating system."

I know that updating for bugfixes is the right things to do... But there's not much incentive to upgrade if your 'universal' binaries won't work on the previous developer system. Does anyone else think that the whole universal binaries idea is a waste of time? Sure its handy where writing two versions is next to impossible, but realistically, thats not very often.

Re:'universal' binaries ayyy (1)

macaulay805 (823467) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551111)

Then again, it might come in handy when Apple decides to change the arch again in the future. Who knows?

Re:'universal' binaries ayyy (1)

noisymime (816237) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551138)

ok keeping developers on their toes by switching platform might be good once in a while....But to see yet another platform change from Apple in the near future would just be painful.

Re:'universal' binaries ayyy (3, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551187)

They're kinda handy because all us PowerPC Mac owners aren't going to wake up in mid 2006 and find their processor has been replaced by the processor fairy with an Intel processor. Until 2008 or 2009 I expect that PowerPC will remain the dominant processor in the Mac user community.

Re:'universal' binaries ayyy (1)

noisymime (816237) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551239)

sure I agree. But if the developer of software xyz is going to the effort of making a universal binary then in 80% of cases they just need only VERY minor adjustments and a recompile to have a PPC version and a x86 version.
Yes I realise that maintaining two versions is a pain but you don't take the performance hit of universal binaries and really, the differences are tiny.

Re:'universal' binaries ayyy (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551372)

What performance hit? Universal binaries aren't bytecode like Java or .NET, they're simply application packages with both a PowerPC and an x86 version of the application inside. In fact, I believe that even now some applications are using them - for 32-bit PowerPC and 64-bit PowerPC.

Re:'universal' binaries ayyy (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551486)

Clarification:
A package in the NeXT/OS X world is just a directory and its subordinates, with metadata that describes the contents - an XML file in the latest incarnation, to keep with prevailing fashons in notation.

Re:'universal' binaries ayyy (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551602)

OTOH if you want compatibility to 10.3.x you can't use them anyway (since the gcc is different.. incompatible libraries), so you have to produce different versions.

The plan for us is PowerPC compiled on 10.3.x (currently 10.3.7), Intel compiled on whatever is available in about 12 months time.. separate packages.

No point in universal binaries if you need compatibility like that.

Or not? (5, Interesting)

GraWil (571101) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551087)

Well, the poster has one take on this, but perhaps the current release is incompatible because Apple has changed the compiler and some of the dynamic libraries? Perhaps this was not to specifically address pirating, but to fix bugs and to otherwise optimize the system. The OS X 86 project page has a slightly more informed discussion [osx86project.org] .

What about virtual servers? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551141)

This gives a clear indication that apple is (as expected) not going to let it's new intel OS run on non apple hardware. Does apple have the means to stop (legal use anyways) typical beige box users from using a virtual server to run OS X though?
Perhaps with proprietary hardware that the OS relies on in some way which would have to be emmulated in a typical intel pc?

Re:What about virtual servers? (1)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551246)

It will probably be stated in the license agreement that it is to be run on authorized Apple hardware only. It will probably also not be too long, however, until said hardware is emulated and the peasants will rejoice :-) Imagine pearpc but *much* faster since most instructions will be run natively rather than emulated.

Re:What about virtual servers? (1)

garote (682822) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551315)

Bits is bits is bits, so no, there's no way to make it impossible ... just improbably hard.

(Apple Logic Pro for example, uses a USB dongle with a keycode generator in it, and the application queries the dongle hundreds of times per second, in obscure ways, with hand-crafted assembly language calls. Exceedingly hard to reverse engineer, but theoretically possible, and eventually you'll end up with a software dongle emulator.)

Apple is banking on good old end-user sloth to keep piracy in check... The general public just isn't sophisticated enough to install a pirated and patched OS on their hardware, when they can shell out a reasonable chunk of change and get a nice integrated system with a year of free tech support. They key word, of course, is reasonable. Apple's also banking on the Intel switch to reduce the cost of their hardware even more.

Surprise, surprise! (oh, never mind...) (4, Insightful)

jht (5006) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551174)

Who among us in their right mind didn't expect this possibility? The whole idea of these utterly generic Intel PowerMacs were for them to be cheap development preview systems. ADC members who wanted to test and develop ahead of time could either build Universal Binaries on PPC (and cross their fingers), or actually buy one of these and test while the OS is being ported and finalized.

The point here being, these are not production Intel Macs! Why would you expect to have everything Just Work (which, of course, is the whole reason many folks buy Macs in the first place) - heck, you can only get one of these systems if you're an ADC member! Remember, Apple said that OS X would not work on a generic Intel PC, only on Apple's gear. So now it's starting to come true? Wah!

As for the breakage between 10.4.1 Intel and 10.4.2 Intel - Get used to it - this may well happen a few more times before live product ships next year. I don't think any legit developers are worried about it. Only the pirates. Right now is the "build, test, and learn" phase, anyhow.

Piracy (5, Interesting)

chowhound (136628) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551199)

Currently Apple requires NO serial number, registration, or any other verification to load OS X. People trade Jaguar, Panther & Tiger disk images on filesharing networks and they burn great. The same disks or legit copies can be used to load onto multiple machines on the same network. "Upgrades" bought from Apple require no previous version's SN to install, and cost the same as a brand new copy.

The big question is, does this new policy signal a change?I hope not, I appreciate Apple's laid back policy. Right now I'm trying to determine which flavor works best on my near-obsolete G3/333 "Lombard" Powerbook. It's convenient to be able to try out different options before I license a copy.

Re:Piracy (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551261)

quite frankly, it's a timesaver.

when we register them, we always make sure we have the license transferred, but sometimes certain old models won't work with the more recent OS.

wonder if Apple has any patents on the layouts used in MSFT Office.

Re:Piracy (1)

JohnsonWax (195390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551559)

Currently Apple requires NO serial number, registration, or any other verification to load OS X.

Well, aside from the $499 to $2999 hardware dongle that you've already purchased, you are correct.

What's more, it appears that Apple's policy hasn't changed one whit - so long as you spring for the $499 to $2999 Intel hardware dongle, you can install without repercussion.

Re:Piracy (1)

Chemical (49694) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551664)

Right now I'm trying to determine which flavor works best on my near-obsolete G3/333 "Lombard" Powerbook.

From my experience with old Macs, it seems to me that your 333Mhz Powerbook is well beyond obsolete. My friend gave me an old 400Mhz G3 iMac w/ 256MB RAM, and the thing is damn near useless. Navigating in the Finder is unresponsive and laggy. It can't play Divx or Xvid or any modern codes at all. Surfing the web is painfully slow because it takes so god damn long for the page to render (whether it be in Safari or Firefox) that it's like being on dialup. Flash is totally out of the question. Applications take an eternity to load. The only thing it's really good for is an MP3 jukebox, and it's not even very good at that as MP3s will skip if you try to do anything else while playing them in iTunes.

It's funny because I used to have a 400Mhz PII and it did all those things adequitly. I thought PPC processors were supposed to be faster than Intels at the same Mhz rating. So much for that.

".. on systems running the older version" (1)

Quadfreak0 (624555) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551285)

"Universal binaries built with the new version (and apparently all subsequent versions) will not work on systems running the older version of the OS." So you gotta do a fresh install? no biggie.

Re:".. on systems running the older version" (1)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551399)

Yes, but Apple is hoping you pay for the new OS version, once it is actually released.

Of course, the next version will likely be pirated just as quickly as the last one...

Re:".. on systems running the older version" (1)

bkakes (676404) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551455)

Again, this is for developer-only releases, for which all OS upgrades are free, if you're using the T1 hardware. None of this involves end-users at all.

Backward compability (-1, Flamebait)

sn0wflake (592745) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551286)

So the new OS isn't backward compatible? Yeah, I can see why MacOSX is so superior to Windows *LOL*

Re:Backward compability (1)

bkakes (676404) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551430)

You couldn't possibly be more mistaken about the details here. Applications written for version 2 of the Developer-only release are intentionally not backwards-compatible with version 1 of the Developer-only release.

Why OS X piracy doesn't scare me (0)

amichalo (132545) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551378)

When the OS X86 was first announced, I was immediately concerned piracy of my prefered OS would diminish Apple hardware sales and destroy the company I have switched to.

But Internet Explorer taught me not to worry.

As a web developer my office tries to build web apps that are cross browser compatible. But when the client starts running low on cash, and _they_ aren't concerned about FireFox users on Linux, then my boss stops being concerned and adds enough to my plate that I stop being concerned too.

So no matter how OS X gets on desktops, it is a win for Apple. Paying hardware customer - double win - but any win is a good win when you have 5% of the market and your next biggest competitor has sixteen to eighteen times that!

more fun !. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13551497)

So, we will need to do more then just edit just some plist files to get stuff going ?

BRING IT ON !.

I've been having so much fun with my hackintosh the last weeks, I just can't wait.

Vosnul.

What is Apple thinking? (0, Troll)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 9 years ago | (#13551540)

What is Apple thinking? They've got fans so dedicated that they're hacking OS-X to run on Intel boxes a full year before any mainstream applications are likely to arrive, and all Apple can think about is how to stop and discourage them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?