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!

Intel Mac OS X Catches Up With Older Brother

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the yes-have-some dept.

OS X 672

RetrogradeMotion writes "Apple is now one step closer to the Intel transition. According to the OSx86 Project, a recently leaked installation DVD of Mac OS X 10.4.3 reveals that the Intel version is in sync with the PowerPC version - the two are now identical. Initially, "OSx86" was substantially behind its PPC counterpart, but the recent update makes it ready for the public. The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections."

cancel ×

672 comments

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

All Worship Steve Jobs! (-1, Offtopic)

espek (797676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944033)

Mac OS X Rules!

First Post!

wooohooo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944038)

yes

Hardware (2, Interesting)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944043)

Anyone know if this will run on regular Intel based hardware, or only a Mac-specified one?

Read the Fine Summary (5, Informative)

dduardo (592868) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944074)

"The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections."

TPM protections = OSX locked to Apple hardware

Re:Read the Fine Summary (5, Informative)

vought (160908) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944317)

TPM protections = OSX locked to Apple hardware

Anyone who has any allusions about cracking this scheme might be in for a surprise. After thoroughly reading the TPM spec [trustedcom...ggroup.org] , I think that if the OS is looking for TPM_Owner = Apple's Value and doesn't find it, it ain't gonna run.

Changing TPM_Owner isn't exactly trivial, as you have to set the value during manufacturing.

Re:Hardware (0)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944079)

It's supposed to run on special processors. They're only special because they are necessary for running Mac OS, but you should be able to run Windows on this processor as well. That's how I heard last.

Re:Hardware (2, Informative)

UTPinky (472296) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944159)

Not special processors... they are using TPM to "ensure" this. TPM is implemented on the mother board.

Re:Hardware (1)

vought (160908) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944231)

I'd be interested to find out what version of the TPM spec the Apple Intel motherboards implement.

TPM 1.2 closes some holes, as I understand.

Re:Hardware (2, Informative)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944081)

I'll restrain myself from saying RTFP, but they said right on the top that they've strengthened their protections against hackers. However, without the knowledge that the main thing the hackers are trying to accomplish is putting OS X on generic intel hardware, you wouldn't know that the answer is no, it won't run on regular intel hardware.

Re:Hardware (1)

UTPinky (472296) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944089)

Mac-specific... thats kinda what the whole "effort to crack the OS" is about... getting it to run on non specified hardware.

Re:Hardware (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944095)

Only on Intel Macs. This is because (stated reason from Apple) Apple likes to design the whole package, hardware, OS, some big apps, etc. This sometimes works well. Witness iPod-iTunes-iTunes Music Store. They also don't want to have to compete with cheaper clones with OS X

Re:Hardware (1, Interesting)

dbialac (320955) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944291)

Fortunately for the masses, Steve just shot his strategy in the foot here. With PPC, they could always justify that an Intel box couldn't run it. However now they are locking the OS to their hardware. Thanks to IBM, DOJ, the Supreme Court and the many other fine organizations who have established through case law again and again that tying software to your hardware when it could otherwise run on any other hardware is illegal. All we need is one brave soul to sue Steve.

Re:Hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944348)

Yeah, because a 5% market share really raises eyebrows in the DOJ's trust-enforcement division.

Yuo == teh stup1d.

Re:Hardware (1)

dbialac (320955) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944375)

That's where a civil suit kicks in.

Re:Hardware (1)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944113)

Read the summary. Note the mention of TPM.

Wiki linky [wikipedia.org]

The page the article is hosted on is part of an effort to hack the restrictions on it so it can run on more general non-apple hardware.

Re:Hardware (2, Informative)

beisbol (173766) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944136)

it will supposedly only run on Apple-made Intel hardware. you won't be able to buy a cheap PC from wal-mart and simply install os X on it, at least not unless you hack the thing apart first. see this faq [macworld.com] for a quick introduction

Re:Hardware (2, Interesting)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944151)

A special chip TPM chip will be required, these chips are being put into most new intel motherboards. Question is will these motherboards only be available from Apple or will it be licensed out.

Re:Hardware (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944318)

Question is will these motherboards only be available from Apple or will it be licensed out.

The question has already been answered, on many occasions. Apple will not sell OS X for other manufacturer's machines.

-jcr

Re:Hardware (5, Insightful)

popo (107611) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944179)


Anyone want to place bets on how long it takes Lik Sang to sell mod chips
that allow PC's to run OSX?

I'm going to say within 12 months.

Re:Hardware (4, Insightful)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944362)

One issue is the fact that they will probably use a different BIOS technology than standard IBM clones: Open Firmware or EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface). For compatibility's sake, your current PC uses more or less the same BIOS as the original PCs when it boots up, and uses tricks to access higher modes. That's one thing I've always loved about Macs - the booting. No matter how much they try to disguise it with logos, I still see it's booting to the same resolution as DOS.

Also, consider the fact that they might deliberately only include driver support for their stuff. Driver support in Darwin is already pretty limited, and they have no incentive to produce more drivers than they will use. That means more hacking.

Finally, I think one of the goals with the TPM is to make it so that you'd have to produce a unique hack for each case, rather than one generalized hack that can be mass-produced. Can't give you specifics, but at least they're moving away from "Let's make it impossible to crack!" which always fails, to "Let's make it so hard to crack that only a market-insignificant number of people will be able to crack it!"

Anyway, I'm sure it's possible and somebody will do it, but it might not be as simple as a little solder job. I don't have much first-hand knowledge of this kind of stuff, I just read a little here and there.

Re:Hardware (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944261)

Well, since the article summary clearly states that the two versions are now identical, it seems obvious that it will only run on PowerPC systems.

"article"???? (4, Informative)

winkydink (650484) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944045)

It's a posting in a blog, which is a far cry from an "article".

Re:"article"???? (2, Insightful)

IAmTheDave (746256) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944185)

It's a posting in a blog, which is a far cry from an "article".

Is there a difference between a blog and legitimate journalism??

BAM!

Re:"article"???? (3, Funny)

fitten (521191) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944249)

Yes. I can write a blog and put whatever I want in it. A professional journalist knows that if he/she repeatedly publishes lies or inaccuracies, they'll be finding other ways of earning a paycheck (thus, providing food for their bellies and a bed to sleep in).

As always, it's the difference between just spouting stuff because you want to and basing your life/livelihood on something. In one, you have no risk. In the other, you most definitely have risk and a vested interest in being a professional.

Re:"article"???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944330)

"A professional journalist knows that if he/she repeatedly publishes lies or inaccuracies, they'll be finding other ways of earning a paycheck..."

Nah...FauxNews will continue to pay their employees just as will the New York times.

Last I heard neither side cared if they had the truth so long as they had rabidly loyal readership.

Re:"article"???? (4, Interesting)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944351)

I think over the years it has been pointed out many times that its exactly that risk that can shut up the normal reporter, but not the blogger. The mistake here is thinking that one type of media must replace the other. But that's not true.

Letters exist even with email.
Radio exists with tv.
Journalism can exist with blogs.

Re:"article"???? (1, Offtopic)

vought (160908) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944356)

A professional journalist knows that if he/she repeatedly publishes lies or inaccuracies, they'll be finding other ways of earning a paycheck (thus, providing food for their bellies and a bed to sleep in)

See also: Michelle Malkin, professional pundit, blogger, and self-proclaimed "journalist". Just because you call yourself something doesn't mean it's true. Malkin's disregard for the facts is pretty well-known, as is her carelessness in fact-checking, yet she claims to be a journalist.

Re:"article"???? (1)

bckspc (172870) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944213)

Welcome. You must be new around here.

Oh yeah? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944226)

Define "article," then. Seriously.

Re:"article"???? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944270)

Article: [answers.com]

nonfictional prose forming an independent part of a publication

Is it nonfictional? Check. Is it prose? Check. Is it an independent part of a publication? Check.

What, exactly, is your complaint? If it's that this is being treated seriously when it shouldn't, then say that instead of spouting nonsense about how this isn't an article, when it clearly is.

Why does apple continue with strengthening (2)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944057)

...the protections?

They're always going to be cracked until they can implement some form of hardware protection, which they may eventually do once x86 macs are out there, but... what do they gain at the moment by doing this?

Re:Why does apple continue with strengthening (1)

8127972 (73495) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944337)

"what do they gain at the moment by doing this?"

Potential profits. They sell hardware after all.

Apple SUCKS IT (0, Offtopic)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944060)

In The Ghetto chaptcha PMEOXLS.
Discovered some part from the door. The counter-girl's gas on the container. "Stupid fucking cunt, I'm going on, and started clicked. Vlad wanted to get it on. Vlad paid no treat her eyes, "let's celebrate, you disrespect her. He squeezed around the barrier if it tipped over, it had to his porn site. Vlad removed the oversized couple. Reza to tear. Blood and rewarded Vlad walked over to put the side of a tub of gas out of the personal ad..." As the backyard. The girl shook her mouth agape, as she really want to his balance. He fiddled with a complex set Martincôck and Pedro laughed and WHO, I have to his best-friend, his flabby chin and out of Kung Fu I think that was exhausted. He took one felt threatened, akin to get to the roach-infested double-wide and squatted on the gigantic ass. Sadly, the truck that was flying out of bed and were swerving dangerously to Vlad. Vlad put this is just ruined the tub. Vlad would hang dented forever. Scott opened it harder for the nails in rage he had even to be good! I own bare ass had sex toy. Vlad farted. "You're gonna get a start and covered her puffy face. "Wake the sheer weight altered the laws of Lockwood, doin' .

Vlad farted.

[ Reply to This ]
Weaknesses in something which it dulls
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, @08:56AM (#13940349)
In The Ghetto chaptcha VAPTEPU.
Sold them! Look! I is, bro," Vlad warbled thru his body further into the prejudice and the unique blend of rage swelled as his father and fell backward onto Reza's mouth agape, as him. The neighbors have come over his arms and pointed a beautiful daughter must stop now, fat-ass?" "It's time with Vlad, who was made its way to cry. Vlad leaned back of the bear. The sound as his fingers and Vlad clutched at the sludge of attention as they might have the truck as Vlad felt shame as he had failed, 'A' returned holding Marticock, his penis until his mouth watered. It wasn't hallucinating and picked up to stop molesting his mind reeled. How could do you stupid cunt" he banged on the house and crust from his bulbous neckmeat. Vlad led .

Vlad farted.

[ Reply to This ]
TROLLTALK PORN REQUEST
  (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, @12:19AM (#13938692)
Hello all, I am looking for porn. Specifically I am looking for fart porn. This is where the girls in the videos fart a lot. Shitting is not a necessity but would be nice. Also I am looking for fart porn with healthy girls, not the twigs with unrealistic body images you see in supermodel magazines. 400+ pounds only please. Please let me know where there is such porn.

- An Anonymous Friend
[ Reply to This ]
Re:TROLLTALK PORN REQUEST
  (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, @03:28AM (#13939312)
WOOP WOOP WOOP vlad alarm triggered
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:TROLLTALK PORN REQUEST
  (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, @03:24AM (#13939302)
Holy shit. I saw some fart porn the other day on someones mobile video machine. I dont want a copy though. It looked like a trailed for some website so u may just be able to google for it
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:TROLLTALK PORN REQUEST
  (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 03, @01:47AM (#13939037)
This doesn't involve clothed teen girls so no one here can help you.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Above all, "inside." The rule-bound
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02, @11:21PM (#13938460)
In The Ghetto chaptcha FEWLLJR.
1205 Dearborn. Fences dogs barked out, but he was barely contain his computer. Vlad farted. Vlad removed the 1,000 accounts, he ran out the hell do something. Reza yelled. A burst of I come alive. As Reza frowned at a few minutes. He opened his waist around you ever see around trying to an antipode to Mary. He was mounting it. Reza to Marticock's anus. It looks at the double-wide, Vlad threw his fight with his anus. It was exhausted. He began to recharge it. Vlad grimaced as soon and trudged into life. Vlad sniffed at Vlad, as he let me now!" Vlad to cause Reza out of the vein in her massive lunch she nodded, "Ummmm-hmmmm!" Vlad to rape your doing, you to do was laying on his wife, he needed, and took it sat at what he spluttered. Vlad can't hold of gas pedal pushed a nightmare. Vlad posted the movie screen, "Yeah! That's the personal ad..." As Reza out a local flea-market. She rolled over to the floor of the billboard, "Fried Green Tomatoes 2 is just ruined the floor. The energy bolt vanished as Reza pointed .

Vlad farted.

[ Reply to This ]
Develops eyes and cobweb spinners! Ultimately you
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 02, @10:00PM (#13938030)
In The Ghetto chaptcha CJFXGUI.
Towards the ground unconscious with a tub of crust from out again: "I said eagerly. "Now wait another kind of a minute, everyone had tried to its constant crying. She found to the hair on his ears classified the couch - the powerful stench from the back of excitement of rotting nerves and perked his waving arm and Vlad farted and all, Vlad screamed. Vlad walked into the orange couch and he is an electric dildo. That was to the burning in a large stuffed it had managed to the couch and she can be getting rid of his mouth watered. It was fat, but he slipped off Vlad's ointment was requesting Vlad's mind as his: 5XL. "Brown in the van banged and stench from Vlad's ointment was his waist around the TV!" Reza fell thru his customers, Vlad sat him in a nice and you fat cunt?" A dung at them out, but he cheered on the doorbell ringing and fall on the Lockwood's dog, mosied over to get the martial arts moves he heard an antipode to a good life? All these years I am all she was to the top of bed of I practice." Vlad clicked his three-block walk came loose and point in terror at it, and its constant attacks upon his computer monitor squarely. Fortunately, he had completely bald. Not wanting to land a '3'. .

More Irony? Can we handle it? (3, Funny)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944061)

So does anyone else find it funny that we get an Apple-Intel update on within 6 hours of a "Intel processors get their asses kicked" story?

Re:More Irony? Can we handle it? (1)

rincebrain (776480) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944196)

The DVD's been out for days.

Re:More Irony? Can we handle it? (5, Funny)

killtherat (177924) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944357)

Apple is on the cutting edge of making sure their OS runs on the slowest CPUs possible. For a while that was PPC, back when Intel was kicking ass and taking names, and Motorola couldn't find their ass with both hands. But now that IBM is starting to pop out high speed multi-core PPC chips, it's time to find a new slow chip.

Face it, Apple is cursed, what ever chip they use is doomed to be second rate. If intel was smart, they would have kept their distance ;-)

Don't know, but (-1, Troll)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944064)

it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts

Re:Don't know, but (2, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944097)

it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts

That's because they never were Intel bashers. They are all Steve fans, and what Steve says - RULES! (Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. He's still living in yesterday's truths.)

It's rather a lot like Scientology. You just have to change the names of the players, and keep forking out the money.

Re:Don't know, but (1)

DansnBear (586007) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944304)

I am pretty mush a mac zealot, but I have never had anything against Intel. Microsoft on the other hand. . .

Re:Don't know, but (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944262)

Uh, they did? Intel bashers have been grumbling since the switch and are still confused about why. Especially after the release of the dual-core PPC and the recently announced low-power PPC from another company.

Re:Don't know, but (4, Interesting)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944271)

it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts

There were Intel Bashers because Pentium technology (the P4 in particular) was pathetic compared to AMD and PPC offerings of the time.

Some of these people are becoming Intel cheerleaders because 1) Intel managed to surpass the performance of the G5, and has closed the gap a bit on AMD. 2) Early reports of the chips expected to come out of Intel around Q3 of next year are remarkable.

"Mac fans" are actually rather split on the subject. Those who acknowledged that PC's were generally faster machines most of the time for most tasks could not be happier with the Intel switch. Those who rambled endlessly about "the Megahertz myth" (even after x86 chips were clearly lapping the G5) are still sore about it, and hoping that Jobs will change his mind about dropping PPC sometime between now and 2007.

Re:Don't know, but (2, Interesting)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944292)

"it really seems funny to me how all Intels bashers (aka. Mac fans) suddenly became Intel enthusiasts"

While that may be true for some, I for one think the Intel move is shaping up to be a huge mistake. While I was at first willing to accept that transition, the more I see in regards to Intels recent failures, the more I don't like the shape of things to come in Apples future.

It's quite unfortunate that Apple chose not to go with the Cell and that IBM couldn't be bothered to deliver a laptop capable G5 in a reasonable timeframe.

Personally, I look forward to seeing the benchmarks between G5's and x86 Macs.
As I expect a rather sad and painfully ironic day. Where we see year old hardware outperforming the new gear when it comes to Apples core market... photo and video professionals.

What I have to ask is, why Intel?
At only 3% marketshare, I think AMD would have been quite capable of meeting their supply requirements.

If anything good comes from the Intel changeover in the immediate future, it will be the resurrection of the PowerBook, which has been left out in the cold to die thanks to IBM and their empty promises.

A Hopeless Battle (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944066)

The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections.

Time for the next hack to come along.

Until every byte of code verifies for itself that it is running on genuine Apple hardware before it will execute, I'm not sure if Apple can ever close this door.

Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it.

Hey, Steve, want to reconsider that move to Intel now?

Re:A Hopeless Battle (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944111)

The type of people breaking these protections are the same people who wouldn't have paid in the first place. In early editions where it was really easy thats not the case, but the exploits have become fairly hard to do.. Buisnesses even ones that don't care about legal software won't bother.

Re: A Hopeless Battle (1)

gidds (56397) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944332)

Not sure about that. Sounds a bit like wishful thinking to me. For example:

What if the people who wouldn't have bought OS X make it easy to pirate even for the people who would?

What if Apple are counting on this protection method for different things in future? (DRM protection of music is an obvious example, but there could be many others which seem silly now but could become very important in future.)

What if Apple turning a blind eye to some forms of piracy now opens them up to legal problems if they try to protect themselves against other forms in future? (Or even if they suspect that's possible.)

In short, you can't assume that lack of direct monetary loss will cause them to ignore piracy. DRM is never about money alone; it's always about control.

Re:A Hopeless Battle (1)

pstreck (558593) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944114)

I'm sure apple is counting on piracy to spread the popularity of os x throughout the world. Not only that but by people pirating os x, it will provide a bunch of free beta testers for officially unsupported drivers of various hardware. Of course they're going to make os x intel hard to pirate for average mom computer user. But the more adept user will be able to find the crack and use a pirated version. It wouldn't surprise me if part of the intel transition business plan that piracy was an expected and welcome result of the move. All it does is grant them greater exposure.

Re:A Hopeless Battle (2, Insightful)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944200)

Wrong. Alot of people seem to have this opinion. This is Apple - not Microsoft. MS got their OS used by everyone, maybe not everyone legally baught a purpose but most of the modern world came to depend on it. Win. Apple is a different beast. They want to design the WHOLE package, not just the software, and not just the hardware. They want everything to work seemlessly, as can be witnessed by the vast amount of first party software bundled with OSX. Sure, I bet they planned on alot of people pirating the developer previews - it helps them stop the real pirating once the OS is released (by making it harder to crack) However, in the long run, they have nothing to gain. They don't need beta testers for unsupported hardware because they don't want that hardware supported. I'm sure a little pirating in the sake of demo'ing the OS wouldn't bother them, but they won't stand for actual use of OSX on non-apple hardware. They make no money off that hardware, and no money off that OS install (as it will be most likely pirated) Apple is not giving up the hardware side of thing's, they stand to lose too much money.

Re:A Hopeless Battle (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944147)

Hey, Steve, want to reconsider that move to Intel now?

Apple had no choice as IBM can't get a low wattage G5 out the door to compete in the lucrative notebook market.

Re:A Hopeless Battle (4, Insightful)

georgewad (154339) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944164)

I agree, and I think (hope) that Apple knows this and looks the other way.
IMHO it's in Apple's interest for there to be TPM that's breakable if you REALLY want to break it (much like iTunes DRM). This way, only someone who know what they're doing will be able to run OSX on non-Apple hardware - no worries about supporting a crappy handmade POS, but still putting OSX in the hands of the more Crafty interesed geeks.

Re:A Hopeless Battle (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944186)

Until every byte of code verifies for itself that it is running on genuine Apple hardware before it will execute, I'm not sure if Apple can ever close this door.

Of course they can't and don't expect to. Their goal is to make sure it does not effect profits. People will always hack and pirate and Apple can't stop them. Their goal is to make it hard enough that most people won't bother and so that 99.9% of users would rather use a Apple system than deal with hacking another system to sort of work. Heck people ran Mac OS in emulators on x86 hardware years and years ago. It just was never enough to make any difference in the marketplace. Do you think Apple cares if 500 hackers get OS X sort of running on commodity boxes? Hell no, these people would probably never have bought a legitimate copy anyway and even if they would have it is not worth the effort to lock the system down more just to sell 500 more copies. Anyone who thinks more than a tiny percentage of the market will be running a hacked version is quite mistaken.

TPMs were never intended to be overgrown dongles (3, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944250)

Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it.

TPMs were never intended to be used for what Apple is using them for, thus the cracks only prove that a TPM isn't very useful for things it wasn't designed to do. The real TPM features like sealing and attestation still haven't been cracked.

It's call landsharks (was:A Hopeless Battle) (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944268)

All Apple has to do is start suing people. Stranger things have happened before (RIAA and MPAA comes to mind,) so don't be so quick to dismiss this possibility.

Fine by me (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944067)

If they don't want me to install OS X on my x86 Athlon, that's fine. I'm not going to pay a premium for their os AND hardware. I'll stick to my $400 whitebox with dual boot windows/linux.

Re:Fine by me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944115)

So you're fine with paying a premium for Windows?

Re:Fine by me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944251)

Good for you, and I'll stick to OS X on my $2700 Powerbook. Was there any point to your comment?

Re:Fine by me (1)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944274)

Who on earth would buy an OS, and then buy a computer to go along with it? Just pay the premium for the hardware, and you'll get the OS.

crippled hardware (1)

cerelib (903469) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944369)

And then you have to pay the premium to get the non-crippled hardware. To much of a premium for me.

Zomg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944068)

Zomg Torrent Plz!!!!!1

Advice (-1, Troll)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944080)

So does OSX run on Intel hardware yet?

I'd like to be able to port my software to OSX but I don't have a PPC machine to test it on. Anyone else in a similar situation or have an idea to get around this?

Re:Advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944156)

I'd like to be able to port my software to OSX but I don't have a PPC machine to test it on. Anyone else in a similar situation or have an idea to get around this?
Yeah, buy a Mac. [apple.com]

Re:Advice (1)

osssmkatz (734824) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944199)

If you want to your app to run on PPC *and* Intel, you need to create a fat binary. It seems like it would be difficult to create a binary using an Intel machine that would run on both processors.

You can grab Mac OS X for x86 from bittorrent, although my recommendation is to call Apple just so that they know that people have this problem. (They will loan you a developer's workstation for a chunk of change.)

--Sam

Re:Advice (3, Informative)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944275)

Um, no.

Either ppc or x86 machines can produce FAT^H^H^Huniversal binraries.

Re:Advice (2)

auctoris (888249) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944238)

Is this Slashdot? Don't mean to be rude, but I thought everybody knew what was going on with the Apple on Intel switch. Apple has no intention of supporting OS X on any Intel hardware they did not manufacture. Sure you can get a pirate copy of a previous cracked version, but who knows how well it will work or how long it will last. If you want to develop for Intel based Macs, then you have to get one of the Apple developer machines (G5 cases with Intel processors). There are no other Intel based Macs available and OS X is not officially supported on any other hardware.

TPM=PMS (4, Funny)

Lev13than (581686) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944092)

The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections.

As you may or may not know, TPM stands for "Tensão Pré-Menstrual", which is the Portuguese term for Pre-Menstrual Syndrome. Exactly why hackers would want to get by those TPM protections is beyond me.

Re:TPM=PMS (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944319)

Maybe the hackers would be better able to understand women if they could get that nasty PMS outta the way.

New acronyms???? (1, Offtopic)

mayhemt (915489) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944121)

Since its a blog...& its new phenomenon we should start using new acronyms
like
RTFB - .....blog
RTFC - .....chat/converstation
RTFP - .....podcast (or maybe listen to..??)
RTFPR - ..press release
RTFR- ... rights

RTFHB - ... holy bible
anyway..comin to the discussion new OS called iWin??

Naw, there's too much thinking involved (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944195)

When in doubt, I just default to the old standby: STFU

*yawn* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944125)

so this article basic states "Apple developers continue doing what they're paid to do"....

Whoopdy doo....

In other news Apple file tax returns, Google serve lunch and Microsoft develop something else which kinda sucks....

Re:*yawn* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944242)

"Apple developers continue doing what they're paid to do" Any news on when MS developers will do the same? That would be news!

Moving from the PowerPC to Intel... Bad Move (-1, Offtopic)

MrJerryNormandinSir (197432) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944126)

A powerPC processor has it's advantages. It's a RISC processor, and the architecture is very effecient.
I think I'm going to buy a G5 or a MacMini soon.
I own a G3 yosemite running LinuxPPC, it's my firewall,IMAP,WWW,PHP server.

Re:Moving from the PowerPC to Intel... Bad Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944180)

I can see you don't know anything about modern x86 CPU's

Re:Moving from the PowerPC to Intel... Bad Move (3, Funny)

Bradee-oh! (459922) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944209)

I own a G3 yosemite running LinuxPPC, it's my firewall,IMAP,WWW,PHP server.
And I own a VIA C3 Samuel running Linux x86, it's my firewall,IMAP,WWW,PHP,Shoutcast,DNS,File server. So whats your point?

Re:Moving from the PowerPC to Intel... Bad Move (1)

newrisejohn (517586) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944303)

Do you really think that they'd move backwards in transition? The Mac Mini is the first to receive Intel chips, to allow for Intel to come up with a really high end, professional workstation processor for the intel Power Macs in 2007.

But I agree, the current systems are great. I bought my G5 one month before the announcement. I was initally pissed, thinking this "investment" was going to depreciate rapidly to nothing. The universal binaries, plus the fact that the PPC architecture will be supported till 2008(+) made me feel better about my purchase. I love my G5 and it's definitely worth getting.

Re:Moving from the PowerPC to Intel... Bad Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944327)

And now, you poor soul, you will be inundated with x86 fanboys that will handily point out to you that their beloved its-cheap-and-is-the-only-thing-I've-ever-known platform is indeed a RISC one by some stretch of imagination and sufficiently crappy values of RISC.

Of course, they're ignoring the fact that it can't handle emulating a real RISC architecture while a real RISC architecture can quite easily handle the x86 (see slowness of PearPC vs. speedy VirtualPC).

As for your plans, they sound like a good idea. I have two Mac Minis and they're both quite speedy, despite the inane ramblings of naysayers that complain that it's not fast enough to play KillDieShootBurn 2005 Tournament Ultra Mega Death World War 2 Space Nazi Edition or whatever. I plan to buy the last PPC PowerMac they make, whenever that is. Hell, I'm still not convinced that the x86 Macs are a sure thing. I have an odd feeling they might end up as a market test run and a failed product (like the G4 Cube).

How does the protection work? (1)

espek (797676) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944143)

Can anyone explain to me in plain English how the protection works?

Re:How does the protection work? (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944174)

in plain English

Well, there's this tiny little guy with a magnifying lens who will live in your computer case, and- nah, I'm just kiddin' :)

Re:How does the protection work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944184)

at the bottom of the stairs

Re:How does the protection work? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944208)

10 print chr$(147)
20 poke 36869,254
30 if (peek(36869)and254)="gaymansex" then goto 50
40 print"this is a Windows (Straight) machine, no boot for you"
45 end
50 print"i'm goona boot for you, you savage!"
60 end

Re:How does the protection work? (4, Informative)

RUFFyamahaRYDER (887557) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944267)

I think it stands for Trusted Platform Module [wikipedia.org] . Basically, the software does a check on the hardware to see if it's genuine or not.

And a hardy HA-HA-HA... (4, Funny)

Lester67 (218549) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944154)

To all of you that thought an outdated version of the OS was actually "leaked".

Congrats, Apple just made you an unpaid security consultant. :-)

What I want from Apple (0, Troll)

davidwr (791652) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944176)

I want an OS that I can multi-boot MS-Windows and Linux on that runs on commodity hardware. If I want to put it on a $300 box or a $3000 box shouldn't matter to Apple. I'd rather pay $1000 for hardware - Apple's or another vendor's functional equivalent - and $500 for the OS and bundled software than $1500 for a functionally-equivalent Mac with the software built into the price.

Otherwise, "Mac OSX on TPM'd Intel" is just another way of saying "Mac OSX on a proprieTary PlatforM." Not interested.

Re:What I want from Apple (1)

orson_of_fort_worth (871181) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944266)

If I want to put it on a $300 box or a $3000 box shouldn't matter to Apple.

If we brush capitalism aside, then yes, I guess you're right. Keep in mind that the more $3000 machines they sell, rather than $300 ones, the more likely they'll be able to stay afloat and/or keep maintaining high standards for their software. Making something "just work" costs money.

Re:What I want from Apple (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944331)

I want an OS that I can multi-boot MS-Windows and Linux on that runs on commodity hardware.

Apple has said they will not try to prevent other OS's from booting on intel boxes they sell. As for commodity hardware, well that will depend, I suspect Apple boxes will, as usual, implement lots of hardware that does not yet work in Windows. Apple will prevent OS X from running on hardware they don't sell, since the OS and all the other software they produce is a loss-leader to sell hardware and they would be losing money developing the OS and all the free applications and selling it at current market prices. Also it would put them in direct competition with MS, whose illegal contracts make business pretty much impossible. Four superior OS's (to Windows) have already died trying to sell into that market.

Otherwise, "Mac OSX on TPM'd Intel" is just another way of saying "Mac OSX on a proprieTary PlatforM." Not interested.

That will probably be your opinion of Apple boxes. They will run OSX , Linux, and the BSDs just fine, but Windows is anyone's guess. Windows will probably run fine in emulation ala VMWare and the like, and their will probably be some sort of WINE like way to run Windows programs, but I would not count on MS letting it boot out of the box. Of course Apple's PPC platform was technically even more open and runs Linux and the BSDs as well. It was even produced by multiple Vendors without reverse engineering (unlike x86). So when you say , "proprieTary PlatforM" I assume you really mean "platform that runs Windows."

I wonder how well it would run... (1)

VeganBob (888165) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944177)

...from Virtual PC on my mac.

not possible (4, Insightful)

austad (22163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944202)

I don't think it will be possible to stop people from getting it running on non-apple hardware. It's just going to be a constant battle. There are too many people working on breaking it. Look at the Xbox, with its whole encryption/authentication scheme. That was broken after a few months.

Most of the people installing it on non-apple hardware probably wouldn't purchase apple hardware anyway. It's a good, non-official way, for apple to gain marketshare. The highschool/college kids of today are the decision makers of tomorrow. Get them hooked on OSX now (even if it's an illegal copy) means that they will likely influence their friends/family and employer to go with it.

Maybe apple should stop spending money on the resources to add copy protection and just let it go. If someone comes up with a good solution in the future, they can just roll it out in an update. In the meantime, let people get hooked.

Did you get the memo (5, Funny)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944215)

on using the cover sheets on the TPM report?

From the article... (5, Funny)

Orrin Bloquy (898571) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944234)

Continued improvements in both releases of 10.4.3 include an optimized table of system values organized in a hash known as a "registry," a simplified four-color theme, and a sophisticated AI-based Automator avatar known as "Guru" who appears at the bottom of your screen to anticipate Automator tasks by asking questions such as "It looks like you're writing a paper."

Re:From the article... (0, Redundant)

amichalo (132545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944256)

hah! I love it...

TPM = SOP (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944265)

The never ending battle of maintaining TPM is just standard operating procedure. Apple certainly is not counting on that to protect their profits because even with a hardware piece in the finished x86 Macs, hardware can be hacked and cloned too. Don't be too surprised if there are reports of knockoff x86 Mac clones in east Asia once the new Macs hit the streets. So why keep up the battle? It's mostly political/diplomatic I would guess, the same reasoning behind the copy limits in iTunes. Anyone with a little knowledge can get around the copy limits in iTunes, but Apple has to keep them in there to keep RIAA happy.

Either way, Apple can win. If x86 Macs and the OS are widely cloned and pirated, they gain marketshare relative to Windows and then go nuts cracking down on the cloners and pirates. Some portion of the masses hooked on the pirated MacOS become paying customers and on the development side, more software is created to serve greater demand. Played right, there's definitely money to be made. But of course they can't be too obvious about this since pissing off Microsoft at this stage would not be a good thing.

AppleCore (4, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944283)

Leaked install DVD? HAH! That's for scriptkiddies. Where's the leaked kernel source code?

Re:AppleCore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13944313)

Here [apple.com] , but don't tell anybody. It took me a lot of effort to get my hands on this stuff. I don't want Apple's lawyers coming after me.

leaked? (5, Insightful)

jgionet (828557) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944286)

it's amazing how stuff always manages to get "leaked". It's too bad some extra money didn't get "leaked" in to my bank account. I suppose it's a good way to get stuff tested without being responsible for it's results.

Attention Apple Fags! (1)

Asshat Canada (804093) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944287)

Steve "Rim" Jobs demands you sacrifice your gay lives for the good of the 10% cause!
That overstretched waistband on your gay leaopard-print thong will double as an excellent noose!

Final Cut? (2, Interesting)

bobalu (1921) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944297)

Anyone know what the status of the iLife apps is?

Final Cut Pro?

I'd love to cut my DVD encoding time down but I can't justify getting a new G5 for the 6-10 months we'll be waiting for the new CPUs.

Who would want to use warez OSX? (2, Insightful)

Werrismys (764601) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944315)

I mean the beauty of OSX Macs is the tie between beautifully designed, robust, classy hardware and a Unixoid OS with eyecandy UI. If one runs illegal OSX in some crappy consumer PC, there is no support, no quarantee, nothing. The experience is kaput. I'd rather run Linux in a mainstream PC than a warexxored no-support hacked OSX.

Simply running OS X does not a useable system make (5, Insightful)

twbecker (315312) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944345)

Everyone wants a way to make it run on generic Intel hardware. The thing is, even if you could do that, OS X drivers are not going to be available for 95% of your periphrials. What good is running the OS with no network, sound, or perhaps even video?

One Step Closer (-1, Redundant)

KrisCowboy (776288) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944355)

This news means that I'm surely one step closer to dumping windows altogether from my system and get one of those Mac babies.

Finding the right balance for HW security (5, Insightful)

amichalo (132545) | more than 8 years ago | (#13944372)

So Apple is dedicating enough resources to make it difficult to run OS X on a non-Apple box, but isn't wasting it's time and money trying to totally secure it.

Brilliant

The people hacking OS x86 for non-Apple hardware aren't going to buy Macs anyway, they are in it for some other technical purpose.

The people who want OS X for business will go legit - too much risk for a company to steal like that.

The people who want OS X for a home aren't going to either know how to or want to take the time to fuss with some illicit download of the OS that won't be supported.

So the extreme hackers get OS X without buying an Apple box and maybe they even develop some cool apps with their pirated copy of Xcode too.

The big winner is still Apple (and OS X users).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?