Intel Mac OS X Catches Up With Older Brother

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."

"article"????

[winkydink]

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

Re:"article"????

[IAmTheDave]

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"????

[fitten]

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"????

[rob_squared]

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"????

[toph42]

What? I was told that video killed the radio star!

Re:"article"????

[Anonymous Writer]

Nobody under 30 is going to get that one.

Re:"article"????

[JFitzsimmons]

I'm 18 and I got it.

Re:"article"????

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

More Irony? Can we handle it?

[ZachPruckowski]

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?

[killtherat]

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 ;-)

Re:More Irony? Can we handle it?

[mrchaotica]

The thing I don't understand is why Apple doesn't just switch the laptops and the Mac Mini to Pentium M, and leave the iMac and PowerMac on the G5. Developers are going to have to compile for both ISAs anyway, so why not just use the best CPU for the job all the time?

Re:More Irony? Can we handle it?

[Senjutsu]

Apple wasn't going to have completed the Intel transition till 2007 anyway, so it's not like the timing is a huge problem. The dual-core PA Semi chip is supposed to be out first, 3Q06;

Yeah, assuming absolutely no delays, and part of that plan is to scale down to a new 65 nm process, and new processes are always fraught with delays. It's like a freaking law of nature.

The PowerPC road is littered with the bloated corpses of aggressive young companies that were going to come in and shoot the moon with fanta

A Hopeless Battle

[Nom du Keyboard]

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

[georgewad]

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Running OS.X on a random PC

[Savage-Rabbit]

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

TPMs were never intended to be overgrown dongles

[Wesley Felter]

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.

Re:A Hopeless Battle

[FLAGGR]

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 dev

"run out and buy"?

[Apotsy]

I didn't know that was a synonym for "download via bittorrent".

TPM=PMS

[Lev13than]

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.

And a hardy HA-HA-HA...

[Lester67]

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

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

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:not possible

[ObligatoryUserName]

Most of the people installing it on non-apple hardware probably wouldn't purchase apple hardware anyway.

So... is it ok if I steal a new Pontiac Aztec off the lot? They're so unpopular that they've canceled that model, it probably wouldn't have sold anyway. It'll get the Pontiac name out there. They should be happy.

The way most people are morally retrograde about copyright violations (I'm not preventing anyone else from installing OS X) continues to piss me off. No, downloading warez is not the same thing as stealing, but it is just a bad. To say otherwise is to be either willfully ignorant or uninformed.

If Apple wants to give their OS away they will do so; making a half-assed guess about what would make them happy doesn't count as consent.

Re:not possible

[Em Adespoton]

So... is it ok if I steal a new Pontiac Aztec off the lot? They're so unpopular that they've canceled that model, it probably wouldn't have sold anyway. It'll get the Pontiac name out there. They should be happy.

Wrong illustration: more like "So... is it OK if I take a Volkswagen concept car apart and figure out exactly how it is built, and then build another one just like it? After all, Volkswagen isn't planning to sell the original, and my knockoff will get the Volkswagen name out there, as it's identical right down to the branding. They should be happy."

The way most people are morally retrograde about copyright violations (I'm not preventing anyone else from installing OS X) continues to piss me off. No, downloading warez is not the same thing as stealing, but it is just a bad. To say otherwise is to be either willfully ignorant or uninformed.

You're continuing to be pissed off by the wrong thing; Intellectual property is property; it's just not real property. The definitions of what is legal in the IP realm are much murkier than they are in the real property realm. You appear to be mixing morality and legality. To say otherwise is to be either willfully ignorant or uninformed.

Up until the DMCA, copyright was closer to a contract issue than a property issue in the US. Now it's closer to a personal rights violation.

If Apple wants to give their OS away they will do so; making a half-assed guess about what would make them happy doesn't count as consent.

This part I agree with.

Re:not possible

[ObligatoryUserName]

Wrong illustration:...

That's the thing that's pissing me off! Comments like that! :) It's not the wrong illustration if you are looking at things from the viewpoint of manufacturer->customer. It boils down to the same difference - loss of income. People get caught up in the absence of molecules and say that it's confusing. Think in terms of transactions, not in terms of boxes.

Honestly, while IP laws are more complex than real property laws, the morality of the thing never has been. The only thing that ma

Did you get the memo

[Bodhammer]

on using the cover sheets on the TPM report?

From the article...

[Orrin Bloquy]

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."

AppleCore

[Doc Ruby]

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

Re:AppleCore

[iphayd]

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ [apple.com]

Now that I gave you that, you have to find the source code to the Application and GUI layers.

leaked?

[jgionet]

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.

Final Cut?

[bobalu]

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.

Re:Final Cut?

[wootest]

If you do have work to get done in the seven months we have to wait and you could easily afford one, I say just get a G5. Your stipulated G5 wouldn't die the exact moment Steve presents the Intel Macs on stage - it won't be cutting edge anymore, but that'll be as true if you were to buy an Intel Mac seven months before its next generation as well.

If the encoding time is really cut down (which looks like a gimme), you'll make it up in no time. If it's really about productivity, you're comparing the last release of an architecture that's been out for several years now (even the G5 is around 30 months old now) to the first round of machines of a new architecture *ever* - there's no way they'll be as reliable as the G5. Major kinks are worked out (except for the 2xSATA drive limit) and apps have had time to be optimized for them.

Also consider this: We don't even know which Macs will be Intelized first! We do know that the Intel switch is all about speeding up the cramped PowerBook, so they will probably come first. There's a chance (although not big) they'll have you waiting until this time next year for an Intel PowerMac, and it's not even sure the performance will match!

I think this "let's hold our horses for a year or so" attitude is getting a bit out of hand. If you were to buy a PowerBook, then maybe I could understand you, but the G5-based Macs are definitely the highlights of today's lineup, and there's no way in hell that the first revision Intel PowerMacs will be a better buy than they are based on what little you've said.

Simply running OS X does not a useable system make

[twbecker]

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?

I reject your argument

[infernalC]

Sound will be a problem. Graphics will be a problem. Those two things, only because nobody buys a new sound chipset or graphics chipset to put in their Macs. But everything else will be OK.

Re:Simply running OS X does not a useable system m

[be-fan]

The point is that the 5% of your peripherals that are supported are very common. Looking at the Intel HCL, I know I could easily dig up several of those cards (lying around the house). Most onboard AC/97 soundcards seem to be supported, which is what is used on the Mac anyway. The only sticky point is video (only Intel 900GMA cards are accelerated), and perhaps SATA (nForce4 SATA isn't supported, most PATA controllers are). Firewire and USB are standard EHCI and OCHI, so that's all good. What more does your average user have?

Re:Simply running OS X does not a useable system m

[Sark666]

Maybe people will end up compiling a list of hardware combinations that work fine, instead of throwing it at any random piece of hardware.

Finding the right balance for HW security

[amichalo]

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).

Perhaps imperfect TPM is optimal

[G4from128k]

Having no TPM would be an open invitation to widespread unauthorized distribution of OS X - not good for the old revenue stream in either hardware or software. Having perfect TMP would stifle experimentation -- not good for letting prospects try before they buy. Having an evolving, imperfect TPM shield provides the best of both worlds.

I'd bet Apple knows that TPM will never be 100% successful and that that is OK by them (although I doubt they would admit it). People who really want to _try_ OS X will get a free hacked copy. People that really want to _use_ OS X in a production environment will buy it. I doubt that many people will want hacked version of OS X if they know that it means potential instabilities, lack of updates (or hassles to get updates), etc.

not quite caught up

[spirit_fingers]

Intel OS X 10.4.3 is still a 32-bit operating system, whereas the PPC iteration is 64-bits. One step forward, one step back.

Re:not quite caught up

[be-fan]

Wow. You managed to regurgitate something without actually understanding it. There is no way the OS would be able to run 64-bit applications without being compiled for 64-bits. On Tiger (different from Panther), which can run 64-bit apps, the kernel is compiled as 64-bit code. Then, there are two versions of a couple of the libraries (System and Accelerate), one 32-bit and one 64-bit. What's missing is 64-bit versions of stuff like Quartz or Cocoa, which means that 64-bit apps are basically limited to the command line.

Re:not quite caught up

[Guy Harris]

On Tiger (different from Panther), which can run 64-bit apps, the kernel is compiled as 64-bit code.

Wrong:

$ sw_vers
ProductName: Mac OS X
ProductVersion: 10.4.3
BuildVersion: 8F46
$ file /mach_kernel
/mach_kernel: Mach-O executable ppc

Not "ppc64", just "ppc", and not "Mach-O 64-bit", just "Mach-O", unlike libSystem:

$ file /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.d ylib: Mach-O fat file with 2 architectures
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (for architecture ppc64): Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library ppc64
/usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (for architecture ppc): Mach-O dynamically linked shared library ppc

You don't need a kernel built in 64-bit mode to run 64-bit binaries in userland. If you think you do, you've made an incorrect assumption somewhere.

Not limited

[SuperKendall]

Incorrect that 64-bit apps have to be limited to the command line. Just that the GUI has to run 32-bit code and the backend of the app can run as 64-bit code. Apple claims this is a better way to go as the GUI does not really need to be 64-bit anyway, so it's more efficient.

Notes from a clueful

[hkb]

I have a DTK with 10.4.3, so some notes from someone with an actual clue:

1.) The PPC version of 10.4.3 is NOT a 64-bit OS as several commenters claim. It's a 32-bit OS with some 64-bit math libraries.

2.) While 10.4.3 Intel may have "caught up" to the PPC version, it's still far from release quality. For example, Spotlight seems to be seriously broke and not functioning correctly in Mail.app, iTunes is still a PPC app, Safari crashes often, and Bonjour is still a bit borked.

Re:Notes from a clueful

[Erik K. Veland]

Well, spotlight isn't working for me either in Mail, Safari crashes now and again and I haven't really found a good use for Bonjour yet so I'd say that it's par for the course still.

OS X: the 64-bit OS with a 32-bit kernel

[Wesley Felter]

Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger: Developer Overview. [apple.com] "...there is only one version of the kernel for all Apple hardware." (Which must be 32-bit in order to run on older hardware.)

64-Bit Transition Guide. [apple.com] "Because 64-bit applications will be supported using a 32-bit kernel, this 64-bit support will have no impact on most device driver or kernel extension writers."

Re:Notes from a clueful

[hkb]

No, it is true. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but I'm getting them from my eyes and the following URL:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Co nceptual/64bitPorting/index.html#//apple_ref/doc/u id/TP40001064 [apple.com]

Wherein it is stated (amongst other things):

Because 64-bit applications will be supported using a 32-bit kernel, this 64-bit support will have no impact on most device driver or kernel extension writers.

How about the other way around?

[dissonant2005]

I'm more curious if the proprietary Apple machines will be able to dual boot into XP, or Longhorn, or Linux...

"Older Brother"??

[Clith]

The NeXT code base has been on Intel a *lot* longer than PowerPC (since 1993 [apple.com])!

The real "older brother" might be NeXT on 68k.

Read the Fine Summary

[dduardo]

"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

[vought]

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:Read the Fine Summary

[AuMatar]

Two methods

1)Hack the OS on the installation disk, so the hacked version is installed. THis is probably the easiest method.
2)Hack the hardware so it lies.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Orion Blastar]

Why even go that far?

Chances are the TPM check will be part of the Install program and not the OSx86 itself. If true, someone can Ghost an Apple Mactel image and then use the Ghost to install on a Non-Apple PC.

Why not just modify the ISO copy of OSx86 to change an assembly language instruction from JE to JNE or vice-versa, and then burn the new ISO and distribute that?

That way it only runs on Hardware that does not have a TPM of Apple? Like Dell, Gateway, Compaq/HP, etc.

Or better yet change the JE to JMP and JNE to NOP, that way it can run on all hardware.

Take it from me, I used to write assembly language back in the day, and had to get copy protected software running on network drives, and the stupid software tried to check for a damaged sector on the hard drive which the Netware INT 21H did not allow. Almost everything is written in C/C++ now, which gets compiled into assembly or ML, which can be easily tweaked like I said.

I give the hackers a week, if not more than a month, to find a way around it and release the unprotected ISO on the P2P networks.

Not that I advocate piracy or cracking or hacking, I just know how it can be done.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[mrchaotica]

This is why, sooner or later, "Trusted" machines will only be able to run signed applications. Good luck getting a certificate for your hacked binary....

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[masklinn]

That could get hacked too if the questions/answers schemes of the home-calling were known/cracked.

One would "merely" (yes, I am aware that this merely is non trivial) have to setup a home-server emulation and redirect communications to legit server to the fake one.

Re:Read the Fine Summary-godless machines.

[vought]

I urge everyone to boycott Apple and OSx86 because of the draconian copy protection and spyware features

Spyware? Draconian copy protection? Wha?

Does the bag of bullshit you're carrying around ever get too heavy? In five years, every single PC and PC motherboard will have a TPM. You might as well boycott sand.

Re:Read the Fine Summary-godless machines.

[senatorpjt]

In five years, every single PC and PC motherboard will have a TPM.

Only if they start confiscating any computer over five years old.. They can have my pre-TPM machines when they pry them out of my cold dead hands :)

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[vought]

Chances are the TPM check will be part of the Install program and not the OSx86 itself.

No, it's part of the kernel - and has been since the first developer versions were sent into the wild. Fooling the installer would be easier, but still far from trivial if it's relying on the TPM to authenticate the machine's origin.

Look, I'm not saying it can't or won't ever be hacked, but from what I've learned about TPM, it's going to be a LOT tougher than anyone here is thinking.

Put another way: how much is your time worth? If you want to crack TPM protection on OS X x86 for the glory, then it doesn't matter; if you want to avoid paying another two hundred bucks for an x86 Mac, it'll never be worth it - I think that at least in the near term, getting around this is going to involve some soldering.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[ScuzzMonkey]

Doesn't really matter what your or his or my time is worth... we're not going to be the ones to crack it, it's gonna be some kid in a basement in Estonia who has got nothing but time and deep motivation, and when he does it, then you and I and the next guy all will have access to it, too. It was never worth my time to sit down and crack CSS, either, but I can rip DVDs just like Jon can now. It doesn't take massive individual effort on the part of everyone who wants to circumvent this stuff, just one or two people who figure out the easy way for the rest of us.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[SEE]

The kernel? Wonderful. Just compile, from the Darwin source, a kernel that doesn't include it. Run the rest of the OS on that kernel.

Or run the OS under an emulator, figure out what's making the TPM request, and develop an always-return-true patch from the machine code. Somewhat harder, yes, but there's an entire army of people out there who do this sort of thing.

Or, say, run the OS under a virtualizer (a Mac-on-Linux for x86, say), trap the TPM call, and return a lie in software.

Is it worthwhile for me

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Ath]

Have you not looked at Mac prices in a while? Current Macs run 2-10X more expensive than comparable PCs.

I just have to call bullshit on this one. It is such a myth that Mac prices are completely outrageous compared to generic x86 PCs. You should compare apples to apples - not that I invented that pun in this situation. Find me a comparably designed PC to a iMac G5 and you will come nowhere near 2x let alone 10x the price. You can get a 17 inch iMac G5 with built in WiFi, Bluetooth, and iSight camera. Please point me to a vendor that has these features for half the $1299 price of the iMac G5.

Do you pay a price premium for most Macs? Yep. Is it anywhere 2x the price of a "comparable" PC. Nope.

You cannot buy a Yugo with leather interior. There is no such thing as a McDonald's meal that is rated at 5 stars. Motel 66 is not a luxury hotel. And you should not perpetuate the myth that Mac prices are some super premium compared to equivalent x86 PCs. There are plenty of valid reasons to critize Apple, but you stretch yourself quite a bit when you rehash old bullshit that their prices are so outrageous.

And you can save yourself the typing if your reply is only that Macs are more expensive than even a comparable PC. You are right, but it isn't anywhere near 2x.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[barthrh2]

Funny, I was just making that argument to my baker that his cakes were way over priced. I mean, $1 for flour, another $1.25 in sugar, an egg or two... his are a total rip off.

Your comparison is not fair. You are comparing a fully assembled PC with a single warranty to a bunch of parts that you need to assemble yourself (here Mom. It's a computer from Ikea. Good luck.) I won't even get into the quality differences. That 17" LCD compared to the Apple widscreen, the tin-can case you're quoting for $50, not to

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[stevejobsjr]

The Mac comes with tons of sweet software and a warranty, as well.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[cosmo7]

17" LCD - $200
AMD Athlon64 3000+ (1.8GHz) - $135
PCIe/Socket 939 motherboard with SATA - $70
512MB PC2-4200 (DDR2-533) - $50
SATA 160GB drive - $60
PCIe Radeon X600 Pro with 256MB RAM - $84
802.11g Wifi card - $40
Logitech bluetooth mouse/keyboard combo - $100
Case/PSU - $50
Dual-layer DVD burner - $50
Filling out rebate cards that somehow never get paid - PRICELESS.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Senjutsu]

Sure will be fun playing with the BIOS on that thing, since that's the only thing it'll boot into in your config. Let's continue, shall we?

Full copy of Windows XP Pro (for closer feature equivalence) - $135 OEM from NewEgg. We're up to $985.

Now, I'm a developer, and Apple ships their full RAD development environment with every Mac sold. I'm going to need the same for my new Windows box, so throw on a copy of Visual Studio Pro - A whopping $700 from NewEgg. Now it's costing $1685 and we haven't even started talking about the iLife equivalents...

Cheapness is largely a matter of expected use.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Hiro Antagonist]

Er, where the hell are you finding 160G SATA drives for $60 and DL 8x DVD burners for $50? Try *doubling* the prices on those and you'll be reflecting reality, at least where I live.

$50 for a case and PSU? Not only is that going to be ugly as sin, but you're going to need a more powerful PSU if you decide that you want your homebuilt PC to, you know, turn on.

Basically, you've listed a bunch of bargain-basement components, at prices below anything I've seen at Fry's, and are telling me that this is equivalent to an iMac. Except it's much uglier, built with substantially shittier components, and has no OS (unless you install Linux or steal a copy of Windows). And no software. Oh, and you forgot the webcam and a good set of speakers, and a microphone.

Add in those components, and then add a 20% 'reality factor' to reflect the price that this stuff will actually cost (shipping, rebates that never show up), and you're right up there with the iMac.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[admdrew]

Heh.. yeah, and the motherboard I had quoted didn't support DDR2 either... just wanted to throw out the price. :)

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[swillden]

Current Macs run 2-10X more expensive than comparable PCs.

What? No. Macs are typically 1.1-1.5X as expensive as comparable PCs. And that's if you're just comparing technical specifications; if you start looking at really comparable PCs, with similar high-quality, well-designed and nice-looking cases and peripherals, then the Macs are pretty competitive.

What tends to make people think the gap is larger than it is is the large number of very low-end, very inexpensive PCs on the market. Apple doesn't really make any systems that compete with them.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Ath]

If you want to forgoe something, try your ego. Apple isn't trying to sell their experience to you - a computer tinkerer. Their market is someone who looks at an iMac G5 and sees that it is a beautiful looking machine. Their market is someone who works with OSX and feels what a great user experience it is. Is that everyone who buys a computer? No. Is it most people? Not so far. But if you keep thinking Apple is trying to sell boxes, then you don't get their business strategy.

I have Windows machines, Linux

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Doctor Memory]

Dunno, I see things like this Mac Mini clone [theinquirer.net] selling for more than a Mini ($900 for the clone vs. $600 for the Mini), and I have to wonder. I think that Apple will pick up the economies of scale from the x86 component vendors and run with it. Sure, they'll still set a 30%+ profit margin, but I imagine they'll save enough money that prices should be "roughly" comparable. C.f. the Dell XPS systems, which seem to have a solid following despite their price premium.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Ffakr]

I have directly compared prices recently. A Quad core G5 tower (dual-dual) with the same drives and same video as a quad Core Opteron (dual-dual) is actually about a grand cheaper .
Yes, the Dual Processor Dual Core Opteron from Boxx (a very nice computer btw) was significantly cheaper.

I'll send you a 6pack of good beer if you can find me a quad core Opteron from a (as in one) reputable company (that won't go out of business) .. with a warranty and one number to call in case of problems.. and a supported OS

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[vought]

2)Hack the hardware so it lies.
Dude. I don't think you get it.

You can't change the TPM_Owner value in a TPM. The value is set during manufacturing. You have to BE the owner to CHANGE the owner. It's on a level of permission at least two levels away from userland.

Perhaps you can hack the OS so that it doesn't look for that value in hardware, but if Apple can do a reasonably good job of burying that check in the kernel and having the TPM verify the kernel's boot process itself, you won't be able to do that either.

For the same reason, installing the OS on a GenuineApple(TM) machine's disk and installing that disk into a computer that does not have Apple's TPM_Owner value won't work.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[BeBoxer]

Perhaps you can hack the OS so that it doesn't look for that value in hardware, but if Apple can do a reasonably good job of burying that check in the kernel and having the TPM verify the kernel's boot process itself, you won't be able to do that either.

Actually, it will be trivial to pull the check out. The underground community has literally decades of experience removing that stuff. The hardware isn't going to do anything to prevent a cracked version of MacOS from running. After all, we aren't even talki

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Wesley Felter]

You mean EFI. But as long as the Darwin bootloader is open source you can just modify it to do whatever you want. (For example, I think MOL uses a modified bootloader so that they don't have to fully emulate Open Firmware. Likewise I think ExPostFacto has a modified bootloader.) If the kernel is still talking to EFI after it's booted, then things could get tricky.

Re:Read the Fine Summary

[Lorphos]

So why can't this check for TPM_Owner be removed?

Re:Hardware

[happyemoticon]

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

[MindStalker]

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

[popo]

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

[happyemoticon]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this should be a new Slashdot poll:

How long after Apple officially releases its x86 version of OSX will it be cracked to run on generic hardware?

1) 12 Months
2) 12 Hours
3) 12 Minutes
4) Cowboy Neal already has it running on his Dell.

Re:Hardware

[eln]

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.

Re:Hardware

[UTPinky]

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

Re:Hardware

[Ariane 6]

tying software to your hardware when it could otherwise run on any other hardware is illegal.

And Apple is somehow completely ignorant that their entire corporate roadmap for the next decade is a criminal act?

Puh-lease.

Re:How does the protection work?

[Quiet_Desperation]

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?

[RUFFyamahaRYDER]

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.

Sure

[bobalu]

Fork over $1500 and they'll give you (er, LEASE you) a full development kit and compatible hardware.

http://developer.apple.com/ [apple.com]

http://developer.apple.com/membership/promo.html [apple.com]

Re:Advice

[Duncan3]

Um, no.

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

Re:Moving from the PowerPC to Intel... Bad Move

[Bradee-oh!]

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

[be-fan]

The G5, at least, isn't that efficient. I just bought a brand new PowerMac G5 (dual core 2.3GHz). It's certainly a fast machine, but for almost everything I do, its slower than the 2.2Ghz dual-core Athlon X2 that's sitting next to it. For compiling code, it's about 70% as fast as the X2 system. For SciMark, it ranges from 95% as fast (for the small in-cache dataset), to 80% as fast (for the large in-memory dataset). For nbench,if you leave out one really awful score that's probably the result of a bad compiler optimization, its about 80% as fast. These were all done with GCC 4.0, of course. The 970MP SPEC benchmarks suggest that if I used XLC (and EkoPath on the X2 to be fair), I could probably get it to be 90% as fast in integer as the X2 and 25% faster in floating-point, but considering those scores is entirely an act of intellectual mastrubation, since most stuff on OS X is compiled with GCC or CodeWarrior anyway.

Of course, I love the machine to death, because of OS X, but the way I see it, Apple is going to gain a good deal of performance by moving to x86.

Re:Don't know, but

[Golias]

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

[l0ungeb0y]

"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

Re:Don't know, but

[Senjutsu]

It's quite unfortunate that Apple chose not to go with the Cell

Yeah, the Cell and it's completely branch-pessimizing architecture would have run a general purpose OS just great

And it's not as though it's a big port job to switch to AMD if Intel doesn't shape up. They're binary compatible. That's why the switch is a good thing; two competing, competent vendors to choose from with no porting cost if you switch between.

Re:What I want from Apple

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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."

Re:What I want from Apple

[Synic]

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.

It also requires a completely locked down platform with the minimal amount of hardware variables. Windows is so crashy because there are a billion different hardware configurations and terrible drivers written by foreigners who

Re:Time For A Class Action Suit Against Apple &

[akhomerun]

what suddenly gives you the right to decide that you should be allowed to run their OS on any hardware?

do you sue companies that won't allow you to unlock the processing potential of fancy touch screen cash registers, palm pilots that can't run Windows Mobile, or a watch that doesn't allow you to change it's OS? do you sue palm pilot because they refuse to allow you to buy Palm OS and run it on any machine you please? or the cash register manufacterer for not selling you their cash register OS for normal PCs?

no, because it's absurd. why is it absurd? because these companies depend on hardware sales. just like apple. this is not illegal to the slightest bit, and you can't prove it in court for the following reasons:

the fact is that apple doesn't want to license their OS for any hardware but their own. whether it's Intel, IBM, or Motorola, it's no different. Intel does NOT have a monopoly on the market, as Intel does not hold even close to 100% marketshare of the PC microprocessor market.

Apple has broken no law whatsoever in this regard, and the fact is that by restricting what type of hardware customers can use with OS X, apple can do a number of things that are GOOD for the consumer:

1. integrated hardware/software means there are less drivers to deal with, more plug and play is easily achievable
2. more features can be added to the computers without adding 3rd party programs. Things like the sudden motion sensor and the scrolling trackpad can be integrated in the OS. The OS can have custom versions that are optimized for their particular model.
3. tech support doesn't have to deal with thousands of different parts in beige box PCs, which saves the consumer time on the phone with Apple's tech support representatives. in court, apple could argue that this makes their tech support cheaper than the competition (which it is in many cases).
4. Lowering the hardware confusion makes documentation easier, and reduces to a small extent crashes/bugs/problems. Any bugs/crashes/problems can be detected faster when you know exactly what parts are in the computer and how they interact.
5. Also in respect to #4, reduction of these general problems increases the quality of the product. reducing crash/bug/problem downtime makes for a more valuable, satisfying product.
6. i'm guessing security is easier, too. knowing what hardware is in the computer means knowing exactly where and how information can leave and enter the computer.

Re:Time For A Class Action Suit Against Apple &

[seebs]

No, it fucking isn't time for a class action suit every time someone mildly inconveniences you or fails to blow you just the way you like it.

NO DAMAGES. They are not damaging you. They are not breaking your toys, they are not promising you something other than what they sell, they are not stealing anything from you. You have NO DAMAGES. You are unharmed. They are not legally obliged to make you maximally happy.

If Apple promised that everyone who bought OS X could run it on commodity hardware, then reneged and said "no, wait, our hardware only", you might have a basis for a lawsuit.

I have been involved in a couple of class action lawsuits, such as a lawsuit against Allied Telesyn for sending junk faxes, or a lawsuit I have going with a local mortgage lender where they appear to be on the hook for about $12.5 million in liability. These cases are based on actual damage done to people, not on companies not making me happy enough or running themselves the way I'd like them to.

I would like it if everyone whose first response to a distant rumor that a future product will not be what you want to buy is to declare that it is "time for a class action" would just STFU and stop being such whiners. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Congratulations, you have managed to avoid being damaged and you have no need to waste your time going to court over the damages you were able to avoid by NOT EVEN DOING A DAMN THING.

Re:i still don't understand

[ClamIAm]

OK, so you're either trolling, or you haven't thought about this for more than five seconds:

-One vendor means more supply from that vendor == price breaks
-One "family" of chips (OK, they might use more than one Intel family, but still) allows the engineers to not have to learn two radically different chip families. This means less re-training and more skill.
-ATI doesn't make motherboards. Having the CPU+mobo+chipset come from the same place decreases complexity by orders of magnitude.

Re:TPM

[mmeister]

Good! The harder they work on keeping people from using it, the less effort they can put in making it good, and the fewer developers will come to the platform.

And if Apple doesn't do anything, then cheap-ass folks who call themselves developers will pirate the software. I don't think Apple is missing out on the "big" developer pool by not making their OS free

To me, this says that Linux is going to improve compared to OS X,

In what way? Linux sucks when it comes to user experiences. Developers on Linux seem to think that offers 100 command line options is a good UI for the average user. That's fine for the techies, but real folks want a real, full-blown user experience that is pleasant and seamless.

because Apple is investing effort in making their OS worse instead of better, and because they will fail to attract as many hackers as they could.

The OS is worse because they won't let you run it on some two-bit piece of hardware you threw together? Give me a break. How cheap are you really? As for failing to attract hackers -- who cares. I want folks that actually understand users to be writing the software, not some command-line, script-happy "hacker". And the reality is that Apple is attracting UNIX guys that are realizing that they can have their UNIX power and a real interface.

I already switched from OS X to Linux because I find it technically superior

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, since technically superior is very vague. Windows is technically superior at running Active-X controls and if you need that, it would be the choice. In the end, it just sounds like you are trying to rationalize your decision to stay away from the mainstream desktop world. That's fine -- but don't expect 99% of the rest of the population to think like you. Linux has its uses, but running a Desktop is not one of them. Until there are folks that understand usability designing the entire Linux user experience, it won't make it into the mainstream.

Re:TPM

[RAMMS+EIN]

``1) "The harder they work on keeping people from using it, the less effort they can put in making it good"

And why would that be? There's this little thing called "hiring". They can actually have people work on both concepts.''

There is a finite amount of effort they can invest in their OS. They don't have infinite money, and even if they did, they couldn't hire infinitely many developers.

``2) "this says that Linux is going to improve compared to OS X,"

Uhuh. Linux - the powerhouse of well designed UIs.''

I wa

Re:Apple would be a fool not to let OSX be pirated

[Star_Gazer]

Only as long as they don't try to make it mass-market compatible and just continue to develop it only for the Apple x86 platform and silently accept some people are running it on non-Apple hardware.

But, since Apple is still a hardware company that sells the overall experience, it would still be a bad idea, IMHO. And Microsoft has more than one way to put a major barrier into the adoption of OS X/x86 as an alternative to Windows. The most likely and effective way would be to cease the development of Office/

Do you really believe that?

[chia_monkey]

Look at what Microsoft did with Windows: they let Windows be freely pirated, and now they dominate the desktop.

Do you really think that's why MS dominates the desktop? You don't think it's because of all the licensing deals MS had with all the PC makers? And the fact PCs had become a commodity item long ago and were cheaper than Macs, thus Joe Blow would buy the PC based solely on price (thus, getting Windows)? Or maybe that the common (incorrect) perception for a long time was that PCs were for busine