×

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!

OSx86 Cracked Again

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the oneupmanship dept.

707

The Cardboard God writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that the intrepid hacker 'Maxxuss' has once again eluded Apple's security methods and cracked the latest release of Mac OS X for Intel, or 'OSx86', to run on standard x86 PCs. It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers, as 10.4.4 included beefed up security designed to prevent similar hacking methods used on beta releases of the operating system. Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

707 comments

No, it's... (0)

eyepeepackets (33477) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717514)

amusing.

Cheers.

Actually, it's (4, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717657)

marketing.

Cracked OSX environments can float around. They'll make almost no impact on sales, as they will be completley unsupported and a royal PITA to keep patched. Meanwhile, it will mean a lot of hackers out there who would otherwise not touch an Apple computer a close, personal look at what they are missing out on. If a tiny fraction of those people like what they see, more Macs get sold.

Meanwhile, Apple only needs to apply just enough security that non-hardcore hackers will consider OSx86 to be not worth the hassle, especially when the Intel-based Macs (so far) offer fairly similar ! for the $ to the other major brands.

Re:Actually, it's (4, Insightful)

utlemming (654269) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717755)

Except now spyware/virus writers/etc can produce their malicous wares with out having to buy a Mac. They can now run it in a virtual environment on the hardware they already own. It would be worth there effort to make sure that they don't want it out just for security reasons.

Re:Actually, it's (3, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717836)

Oh noes!!1!!!theloneliestnumberthatyou'lleverdo!!!

You make it sound like Malware writers had no access to Macs over the past 20 years. Behold my lack of worry.

duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717516)

anyone know how to get it to run on a vanilla 600MHz pentium 3 laptop (a dell latitude cpx in my case) ? ive got a spare laptop and no OS on it....

Nuisance. (5, Insightful)

pwnage (856708) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717518)

It's more of a nuisance. Even Steve Jobs once famously declared that "anything with a key can be cracked," (or words to that effect). A cracked OS X will play mostly to the geek types, while yielding publicity dividends with the rest of the Wintel crowd. Average consumers will continue to buy whatever OS they choose retail.

Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (5, Interesting)

sterno (16320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717651)

The fact of the matter is that Apple doesn't really care about people running OSX on a non-apple system. It's money in their pocket either way. What they want to avoid is having a bunch of white box manufacturers and Dell selling $400 PC's pre-installed with the OS. By making an honest effort to prevent install on non-apple platforms, they can prevent any sort of commercial competition on the hardware side.

So yeah, a few geeks will get OSX running on their PC's. They'll struggle with getting drivers to work correctly on non-blessed hardware, but generally feel cool. The rest of the world will buy Apples when they want to run OSX.

But one interesting twist on this: if I was looking to buy Apple hardware in hopes of having a dual boot OSX system this might change my mind. To my knowledge nobody has managed to get XP to run on Apple's hardware, but OSX is apparently running on non-apple hardware. That might all change with Vista coming out soon, but in the mean time running OSX on non-apple systems might be the better option.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (1)

rthille (8526) | more than 8 years ago | (#14718022)

Not sure some 'hacker' running OSX on a whitebox is money in Apple's pocket. I don't see them running down to the apple store to pay $139 retail for it to run on their $400 box.

If you replace enough files... (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717521)

...and are willing to wait some period of time after any official Apple release, you'll always be able to make Mac OS X (Intel) work on non-Apple hardware.

The patch replaces the following files:

- AppleSMBIOS
- ATSServer
- diskimages-helper
- Dock
- Finder
- loginwindow
- mach_kernel
- mds
- SystemUIServer
- translate
- translated

So, as long as you have no shame and don't mind running Mac OS X in a state that is completely unsupported, with a different kernel (!), modified in unknown ways, and in a state that won't be able to be updated with any OS or security updates from Apple (until they themselves are cracked), perpetually repeating this scenario ad nauseum, and also have no problems either:

- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and

- seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing (e.g., via the EULA, perhaps claiming EULAs aren't enforceable in your jurisdiction)

...then I'm sure you'll be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware indefinitely.

Is this actually surprising?

Someday, Apple - you know, the entity that has invested billions of dollars, all told, and countless thousands upon thousands of manhours in the development of Mac OS X and its associated products - may choose to partner with specific x86 vendors and specific hardware products to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware at some point in the future. But for now, I love the editorial slant of x86project.org:

What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.

This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?

Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.


"When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD"? I'm sorry, but even if you claim they're just "telling it like it is", that attitude has absolutely no respect for the hard work of others. Forget copyright. Forget the DMCA. What about just pure ethics? I suppose if one is a relativist, they might ask, "Ethics? By whose standards?"

And again: if you change enough of Mac OS X, of course you'll be able to get it to work on non-Apple hardware. It will take some reverse engineering and time, but it will always happen. This doesn't mean TPM is any less "secure" for its purposes. Ironically, it actually validates TPM: trusted computing is designed to make a platform just that: trusted, and operating in a predictable state. This hack job on Mac OS X (Intel) is anything but.

I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product. Even if Mac OS X (Intel) is sold standalone (as it may be in the form of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard).

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

J2000_ca (677619) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717587)

And I thought Apple was just based on BSD.

Re:If you replace enough files... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717659)

Based on the fact that almost no-one except a few hackers is capable of installing an operating system, *or is inclined to*, this is of minimal impact to Apple.

My MacBook Pro cost $2200. My Dell Precision cost $4800. You can save $2600 by buying the Mac. OS X comes preloaded.

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

Xabraxas (654195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717630)

Don't worry about it so much. You said it yourself:

So, as long as you...don't mind running Mac OS X in a state that is completely unsupported, with a different kernel (!), modified in unknown ways, and in a state that won't be able to be updated with any OS or security updates from Apple (until they themselves are cracked), perpetually repeating this scenario ad nauseum... No one but geeks are going to even attempt to do that and even then who would want to use such a beast as their main desktop? Apple won't lose any customers they don't already have. I don't know many current apple users that would even have a clue how to do any of the required steps to install OSX on unsupported hardware.

Re:If you replace enough files... (2, Funny)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717631)

I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product.

I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen. DigitalConvergence [wikipedia.org] has every right to choose the mechanism for selling its product.

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717678)

I still have half a case of :CueCats here, which I can't even give away. The owner of the radio shack store wanted me to take two cases! Good post, that was funny =_)

Re:If you replace enough files... (5, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717677)

I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?

This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!

Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.

Re:If you replace enough files... (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717797)

I think the problem here is twofold.

1. Apple may never release a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel) that you can actually buy without purchasing a machine. With Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), this may occur, but it is not yet guaranteed. In this scenario, I don't think there is any excusable way in any jurisdiction to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, since you *must* pirate Mac OS X to do so.

1a. To extend on the above, some people might justify their action by buying a copy of Mac OS X (PowerPC), and reasoning that they've "paid" for Mac OS X, and that therefore it's then okay to pirate Mac OS X (Intel) and use it as they wish. However, that's not an acceptable argument since it's not the same product.

2. Even if a standalone version of Mac OS X (Intel) (or a universal release of Mac OS X) is released at some point, I don't think you can get completely in the clear with your argument. Sure, it's just bits on a plastic disc. You should be able to install it on your Mac, run over it with your car, do nothing with it, juggle it, wipe your ass with it, or even hack it and install it on your PC. Right? Sure, I'm with you. I understand the argument you're making. But, like it or not, this hurts Apple. *You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it *does* hurt Apple. Whether it's because of business model or arbitrary decision, that's their decision to make. And if there is law in certain countries/jurisdictions that allows companies to make that kind of determination, I do not see how operating within the bounds of law to protect oneself from injury - whether you are a person or a corporation - is inappropriate.

To ratchet this argument down to being a little more practical, I'd submit that Mac OS X's pricepoint is predicated on the assumption that it's associated with Apple hardware, and that there will be continuing purchases of Apple hardware by satisfied customers running Mac OS X on Apple hardware, ostensibly becausse the quality, attention to detail, and software/hardware integration is so pleasant, and myriad other reasons. Apple loses this control when Mac OS X is not run on Apple hardware. Now, you might say, "tough shit." And in some locales in the world, the government might also agree with you. Great. Congratulations. But that still doesn't change the fundamental truth to what I've just said.

I see it as just a semblance of respect for the work of others.

Re:If you replace enough files... (4, Insightful)

fupeg (653970) | more than 8 years ago | (#14718027)

Apple may never release a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel) that you can actually buy without purchasing a machine.
Umm, you're talking about Apple here. They release a new version of their OS every ~18 months. They always make a big production about it, praising its new features, better performance, etc. so that all the Mac users will go out and shell out $120+ for the new OS. They've been doing this for years. If they stopped selling retail versions of their new OS, it would be a huge loss of revenue.

Re:If you replace enough files... (5, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717813)

Devil's Advocate: You've almost certainly never owned any software, unless you coded it yourself. It was licensed to you, and legally Steve Jobs has the power to dictate everything about how, when, where, and on what you run his sortware.

In other news: This has never stopped me from running any software the way I want to use it.

Re:If you replace enough files... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717830)

"This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!"

I don't remember Steve ever telling you personally that he was forbidding you from putting Real files on your iPod. He was just forbidding a 3rd company from cracking the encryption, and horning in on it. That doesn't forbid you the consumer from doing so -- it says don't build a business model around my patented works.

Same with De-Encrypting your files -- Apple hasn't stopped a single person from doing so. They have stopped groups that have publicly flaunted the fact that they are going to put applications out that can do this (and the funny thing is, a friend from Apple actually explained how weak the encryption is and how to get around it if you want...but you have to own an iPod to do it...much easier than the Hymn guys). Nothing preventing you from decrypting your files, just don't put copyrighted and patented information out on the net if it ain't yours.

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717843)

> suing Real

I take that more as Apple trying to control who can make money off their devices.
That is different from controlling what I can put on the device. (even though it has similar effects)

>Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy.

Lots of directions to go here... which one are you headed?
I personally don't have a problem with "The thing just ain't guaranteed to work well on stuff that ain't ours, and we don't want those bad experiences to color people's view of our product"
I also don't have a problem with "Use our OS on our machine because we want to sell machines"... That's their right if they choose.
It's not arrogance... it's a choice of business models.

(Not to say Teh Steve isn't arrogant... just I don't think those are symptoms of that arrogance)

Re:If you replace enough files... (3, Informative)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717965)

Apple could be so much more successful

Let's take a trip in the way back machine for moment. [wikipedia.org]

Once upon a time, Apple tried to open up its system to being cloned, and only achieved 7% market share.

Then Jobs came back, stopped allowing the Mac to be cloned, and introduced the iMac to the world. Jobs saved Apple and brought them to profitability.

So who's correct? You or Jobs?

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

Arandir (19206) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717978)

This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance.

Wow! You must really hate Microsoft as a company then too! Who the hell is Bill Gates to tell you what you can or cannot do with the software you bought from him?

p.s. I agree with your basic idea, that I should be able to do what I want with the software I have purchased (within the limits of a minimal copyright regime). It is your singling Steve Jobs out in particular that I object to.

Enough. Stop it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717692)

"seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing"

It's "wishes" for it's product? Stop it. Stop right now with this fiction. I wish that all software was perfect. I wish apple wouldn't charge me for each minor point release. I wish apple would do a lot of things. And they don't. Big deal. We can all live with that.

By the same token, Apple "wishes" I'd buy 20 Macbooks. They wish a lot of things, including wishing me to not put 10.4 on a generic x86 clone. But it isn't my job to make their wishes come true.

So stop with this benevolent view of Apple and their EULAs. Apple is a company no different than Oracle, Microsoft, or SCO. And EULAs are universally a bad idea. Combine those two, and you get "I'll put OS X on whatever I damned well feel lke it and let Apple wish away".

Fair enough?

Re:If you replace enough files... (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717739)

- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and

I don't know if they ship an "universal" upgrade, but if you have a legal license for OS X (for example from an old Mac) and a legal OS X upgrade to 10.4.4 that can upgrade it to a "dual-platform" OS X version, then you have a valid license. Bundling the hardware and OS is illegal in many places (I know at least in Germany the courts stuck Microsofts OEM license down) and whatever the EULA says is null and void. Theoretically you should be able to move your OS X license (paid in full) to a generic x86 machine. In any case, this seems to replace so much of OS X "under the hood" that I really wouldn't want to try...

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

macmaniac (734596) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717740)

pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel)
This is hardly the case. There are shipping machines with OSX/x86. Therefore, it is possible to obtain OS X for Intel without downloading it. It requires buying a new Mac, but that doesn't mean that the purchaser of a new iMac CD or MacBookPro will not want to try to install the OS on another machine.

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717858)

Um, yes, I am aware there are shipping machines.

This is what I love about slashdot: you think people will know what you mean - in this case, that there is no way to obtain Mac OS X (Intel) without buying an entire machine that ships with it - but instead, they'll ignore the actual substance of your argument and nitpick on one issue like this.

Let's just say you did buy one of these machines simply to get Mac OS X (Intel): since the license for Mac OS X only allows it to be installed on one machine, you'd have to dispose of or otherwise decommission the machine you just bought to even be halfway "okay" in your argument (and even then, it's still technically in violation of the EULA). In other words, you're still pirating Mac OS X in the same way as downloading it from the internet, even if you own an Intel-based Mac.

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717907)

> install the OS on another machine

The way I see it at the moment is you are either going to be weird, stupid, or a pirate:

If you uninstall the software from your original machine, and put it on your other box, fine...
What are you going to put on your shiny new Mac? Linux or XP? If that's the case, why not just put those on your "other" machine. (This is "weird" to me)

If you aren't going to install anything on the new Mac, you just paid $x,000 for a single copy of MacOS X... good job. (This is "stupid" to me)
Or if you're using the OS on both, you are infringing the copyright by making pirated copies of the software.

Re:If you replace enough files... (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717997)

with a different kernel (!),


Come on... Slashdot folks worried about a non-official kernel compile? I've recompiled the Darwin kernel on my MacOS X install before and run it off the custom compile. Yay open source, and stuff.

Apple is a hardware company (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717531)

It will not be good for Apple. Apple makes it's money from it's hardware. They make good software to sell that hardware. The OS alone will drastically reduce revenue.

Re:Apple is a hardware company (1)

Globby (764317) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717984)

...yeah. This worked great for Digital Equipment Corporation... Data General... Wang... etc.

Cache (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717532)

Coral Cache of link [nyud.net]
Posted anonymously to avoid karma whoring, so feel free to mod this up.

Furst Prost (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717533)

Gheys breathing dust again

Well, it's a "nuisance". (2, Interesting)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717546)

Even if something results in a gain for someone, if they feel it's a nuisance, it's a nuisance.

At this point it probably doesn't make much of a difference, as you have to jump through hoops to get it running. In a few years, now...we'll have to wait and see.

Stopping someone from cracking this sort of thing by strengthening the protection won't work simply because of the number of skillful people hammering at it. I expect more of a shift towards nailing the people who crack it and tell others how to the wall.

Re:Well, it's a "nuisance". (1)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717716)

Right, now instead of people hammering at the security part, imagine that people are hammering at getting their favorite devices to work on the platform. I can't believe Apple doesn't want OSX (or whatever) to be the dominant operating system.

Hell. If given a choice between XP and OSX for my existing x86 laptop, I'd rather have OSX. Why not just let me buy it in the store?

A Trick?.. (1, Troll)

Zx-man (759966) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717549)

that if such a powerfull (talent-wise) company fails to create a considerabe protection for its highly wanted OS, and every release gets eventually cracked, it is yet another confirmation that they want it to be hacked?

Re:A Trick?.. (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717674)

that if such a powerfull (talent-wise) company fails to create a considerabe protection for its highly wanted OS, and every release gets eventually cracked, it is yet another confirmation that they want it to be hacked?

Sigh. First this isn't a crack, per-se, more of a hack. If I take a Linux distro running on a x86 white box and replace the apache install with the modified one OS X uses what do I have? I have a nasty hybrid that is mostly Linux and a tiny bit OS X. This hack is basically replacing many core parts of OS X with different versions, including the entire kernel. It would be just as accurate to say someone got the OS X window management system running on a Linux system (sans several parts).

In any case, no Apple does not want people running their OS on generic hardware as it has a number of negative effects upon their business. At the same time, those negative effects are only significant is they are easy and common. Most people can't even install a regular OS, let alone rip out major components of OS X and replace them piecemeal. It makes business sense for them to spend some effort installing a roadblock, after that they face diminishing returns.

Every release will be cracked so long as people have the time and interest, but the results, like those mentioned here, are an unsupported Frankenstein's monster that is going to be a mess to use and likely very unstable.

Slashdoted . . . (5, Informative)

anandpur (303114) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717552)

Happy Valentines Day... from Maxxuss.

The hacking guru has announced preliminary patches for Apple's latest release of OS X for Intel, version 10.4.4. According to his website, http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/ [hotbox.ru]
This is a preliminary release of my Patch Solution for the official Mac OS X on the Intel platform. Ultimately, it would allow you to run this Mac OS X release on a generic x86 computer (SSE2 required).

There's still a lot of work and documentation to do, like support for SSE2-only CPUs, a proper installation procedure and a PPF patch. However, if you like to play around, this will get you started.
The significance of this event is huge. While many users were able to run OSx86 on their PCs last summer, the general feeling was that Apple hadn't implemented their final security solution. That much was true.

Onlookers have told us that 10.4.4 is a serious step forward in security, utilizing many of the same technologies as the 10.4.1 and 10.4.3, as well as the obfuscated code that Apple filed a patent for a few months ago.Few expected this final version - or at least the version that shipped with the first Macintels - to be easy to hack.

What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.

This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?

Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.

Re:Slashdoted . . . (1)

KaeloDest (220375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717865)

Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.

Well things definately will. See Apple is the Hardware arm and MacOS is the SW arm and the whole thing is a great big Aqua Octopus. I have a few older G3 and G4 upgraded Macs running OS X with 3rd party support (XPost Facto) and then a G4 800 and an iBook 1.2 running real OS X and I tell you this will only give people a taste of what they want. Then at some point they might go for a Real Apple - or not.
      Steve Jobs used to have a quote about a friend who spent waayy too much time and money hot rodding a 'long block' VW into a Psuedo-Porsche 911 it was too loud too slow and too expensive, did it hurt porsche's 'Name' or VW's bottem line - Does my G3 233 running EduBuntu hurt Apple's bottom line. Not in the least. I suspect that the desire to have a Mac running the MacOS will get the best of these hobbyest hacx0rs will sell more Macs in the long run.
          It would not be a matter of 'Ethics' if this was sold as a shareware kit like XPostFacto i.e. You buy an install DVD and the shareware kit and run the Mac on whatever you want. But feeling a false sense pride in getting a .torrent ready rolled is like slapping a Porsche badge on a turd and calling yourself an engineer from Stuttgart
BTW I am not saying Apple = Porsche but factory support means something if my iBook Can't run properly I can send it back and get another one. If My G3 can't then I fix it.

Apple Appliances? (3, Insightful)

QuantumFTL (197300) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717555)

I wonder sometimes, with things like the iPod and the iMac's new FrontRow [apple.com] if Apple isn't slowly heading towards "information appliances" as its primary method of support, rather than simply a PC competitor with a nice interface.

Maybe in a few years it won't matter if OS X runs on commodity boxes, as Apple won't really be competing with them as their main business. Apple/TiVo anyone?

Re:Apple Appliances? (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717634)

you fail to understand the issue here. It is not about the OS it is about the brand. OSX is part of the Apple brand where things just work. OSX running on a real Mac willjust work. The hardware support from apple is what makes OSX more viable than linux and windows. If OSx were running on unsupported harware, it will not "just work". If someone new to apple sees OSX crashing on a cheap dell, that will taint the Apple brand as they will assume it will crash like that on a ream Mac

Blessing? (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717560)

I very much doubt it's a "blessing" - I can't imagine why the submitter would phrase it that way. It would be a "blessing" if Apple was actually trying to get people to crack and leak their software (as some of the better conspiracy theories around seem to indicate), but I personally doubt that's the case. Every time someone "cracks" software, trust in the company suffers a downturn (large or small, depending on the context). There's no way this is some Apple plan to raise awareness of the project, because every headline reads "Apple [whatever] cracked again". That cannot be good, regardless of the real severity or relevance of the crack.

Curse (4, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717562)

Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to get OSX running on my PC. It would be an early birthday present.

But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"

I doubt Apple has any drivers written for even the more common hardware out there. Chipsets, NICs, video cards, sound cards, etc. Sure, you might be able to get it running in a beige box, but too many will be outside of OSX's driver realm.

Of course, this will lead to normal users saying "Gollleee, now I can run OH ESS EKKS on my Walmart laptop by downloading it from the torrent thingeee." The next thing you know, they're cursing Apple's name as being a bunch of programmer hacks.

Re:Curse (2, Insightful)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717675)

But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"

No matter how easy - short of retail packaging, Joe Sixpack, by definition, ain't going to be installing it in the first place.
The secret is safe!

Re:Curse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717732)

A- windows boxes keep crashing because of two things.
    The hardware is crap. The software is crap that was installed that is crashing theOS.

B- Apple's do not crash as much but a crap app can hose the system. They do not have many Hardware induced crashes because apple hardware is a minimum 4X hiher quality than the best dell you can buy. Acer and the other low grade dog food you can buy a curcuit city or Breast buy cant even understand the word stable.

Re:Curse (1)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717775)

"Of course, this will lead to normal users saying "Gollleee, now I can run OH ESS EKKS on my Walmart laptop by downloading it from the torrent thingeee." The next thing you know, they're cursing Apple's name as being a bunch of programmer hacks."

I'm not sure what a "normal" user is, but I've never met a "normal" user who would use anything other than the OS that came with the PC, and I've never heard of a "normal" user who downloads a DVD with an operating system on it.

Its the equivalent of saying "Well, if you replace the engine on your Geo Metro with a V8, it will go really fast". Yes, true, but it's so far beyond the skills of 99% of people that the people who do try are willing to deal with the fact that the combination doesn't really work that well.

So I don't believe Apple's Reputation (tm) is the primary concern here. I think it's a perception thing. If OS X is seen to run on a $300 PC, it's going to be hard for Apple to justify a $700 price premium, even if they're twice as good as the cheap PC.

Re:Curse -- I disagree (2, Interesting)

ThousandStars (556222) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717790)

Your argument is built on a faulty premise, because I doubt Apple will let the process become easy. I already wrote a comment [slashdot.org] about how this will probably be a net benefit to Apple.

"Normal" buyers of Wal*Mart PCs won't have the technical acumen to install cracked versions of OS X and they probably won't have the inclination to do so anyway. Even if they did try, they would probably be less inclined to blame Apple because they won't have any expectation that OS X will run on generic PCs anyway.

It almost seems....... (3, Insightful)

8127972 (73495) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717563)

......That Apple is letting people outside it's organization be coders and beta testers to get OS X security issues out of their distro. Then they'll annouce that they've "magically" hardened the OS to make it less crackable so they can continue to rake in the profits from selling hardware.

But that's likely my tinfoil conspiracy hat talking.

Who's less worse? (4, Insightful)

Douglas Simmons (628988) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717567)

This article is a little hard on Apple. I've never been hired to clean out an Apple clogged with malware or viruses, meanwhile MS is my moneymaker. Pound for pound, wouldn't you agree that Apple has one way or another done a much better job in security in general? Even taking into account that MS is somehow a bigger target?

Re:Who's less worse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717714)

Pound for pound, wouldn't you agree that Apple has one way or another done a much better job in security in general? Even taking into account that MS is somehow a bigger target?

No. There have been virus released that target the mac, similar spyware apps can infect the mac. I think you're grossly underestimating the "ms is a bigger target" angle. It's not just bigger, it's orders of magnitude bigger and so has VASTLY more problems with security just on numbers alone.

Re:Who's less worse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717759)

Not really, what type of person are you helping when you "clean out" their PC? Not the type to use or even be aware of Apple.

Re:Who's less worse? (1)

joeytmann (664434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717961)

Like the other poster, you are not taking into account that the availability of the OS to crack. Most malware/spyware/virus writers are going most bang for the buck. Why write something that has a far smaller install base, its usless and not worth the effort, unless they are a true hacker that does it for the challenge and wants to learn. If there were an equal number of market share for OSX and Windows I bet you'd see a lot more viruses for OSX and a little fewer for Windows.

Oh and by the way opinions aren't right or wrong, they just are, and this is mine.

Why bother? (3, Insightful)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717578)

Why should apple bother with "security measures" that actively prevent users from running OSX on regular (non-apple) PCs in the first place?

Apple should just declare that they will not provide any support and anyone installing it is doing it on his/her own risk...

An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one,
It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.

Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.

Re:Why bother? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717748)

Why should apple bother with "security measures... It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast... Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.

It will crash and have driver problems and generally be hard to use, but users won't figure out that this is due to running on unsupported hardware; instead it will develop a reputation as an unstable OS. Apple would prefer not to poison their brand.

Not a big deal (4, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717585)

It's not going to affect Apple's bottom line. Until someone with only moderate computer skills as opposed to advanced computer skills can pull this off, it'll have exactly no appeal. And Apple's going to break whatever they do with every update. Sure, it's nice for the few hundred people who do it, but otherwise, it's not a serious threat to Apple.

The won't release it easily (4, Insightful)

sucker_muts (776572) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717590)

From TFA:
"Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?"

I don't think so, Apple wants to produce a quality product, and can control the hardware and the OS, so it's fairly easy to make it a very stable product.

If they would want to release a version that runs on all (intel) x86 PC's they won't be able to have as much stability and quality control at all, and might give end users a bad feeling about this producs just as lots of people are annoyed with those driver issues that plague the Windows world (in terms of stability)...

Penis Bird (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717592)

)
  ( \
    X
8====D

The Penis Bird is a rare species found only in remote portions of Papua New Guinea.

This should not be considered hacking (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717596)

This should not be considered hacking any more than modifying an Xbox to run "unauthorized software".

Vendor lock-in mechanisms shouldn't be considered "security".
I dont care what Apple's business model is, purchasers of software should be able to do with it as they see fit (as long as it's not for malice obviously). If I own a Mac, and want to install OS X out of curiousity on an Dell x86 system I have already paid Apple for both Mac hardware and Mac software. Why is it their business to try to prevent that? Just cause I buy a car doesn mean I have to drive it where Ford says I should.

Posted AC, because it costs mod points to say anything against Apple on slashdot.

Re:This should not be considered hacking (1)

ABaumann (748617) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717715)

When you buy a mac, you buy the right to run the software on the computer you purchased, not on any computer you see fit. Just like, if you buy a copy of Windows, you can't go and install it on 40 different machines.

Arguably, if you could purchase OSX86 from the Apple store it would make sense that you should be able to hack it to get it to run on your Dell. But, you can't.

Posted logged in, cause AC's are generally trolling.

Re:This should not be considered hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717764)

bullshit. under fair use i can do anything i like WITH A PRODUCT I OWN. including sell it, reverse engineer it and install it on more than one machine as long as i own the machines.

Re:This should not be considered hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717777)

When you buy a mac, you buy the right to run the software on the computer you purchased, not on any computer you see fit. Just like, if you buy a copy of Windows, you can't go and install it on 40 different machines.

You can install Windows on any number of machines in sequence! Read the EULA. You just can't have it installed on 40 different machines simultaneously.

Re:This should not be considered hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717734)

Ummm... yeah.

Because these jokers "bought" the software and decided to run OS X on their beige box POS rather than the Apple machine that came with the software.

Hey, if you want to hack your legitimately purchased OS X to run on your beige box, go ahead. Just don't tell everyone else how you did it, make a DVD available that Joe Sixpack can throw in their "Duuuude! It's a Dell", and then expect legions of attack lawyers from ripping the flesh from your bones.

Vice versa, I suppose that you think that Microsoft, Sun, et al., should be able to take any GPL'd code they want and implement it into their products without any chance of legal recourse at all?

Whatever

This 'hacker' better hope that Apple has a more forgiving attitude than many of the Slashbots.

Re:This should not be considered hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14718013)

Just don't tell everyone else how you did it

Don't ask, don't tell worked so well for the US Army I suppose it was only inevitable Apple would adopt the policy.

Oh wait, it's a terrible idea.

No, it's pointless. (0, Flamebait)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717619)

The new MacBooks (MacBricks? HATE that name) and Intel iMacs offer as much or more bang for the buck as anything in the Windows world

(*pauses, waits for the inevitable screams of "Oh yeah? Well the PC that my brother's uncle's cousin's friend built from chips scavenged from the dumpster at Fry's and a case from an PC-AT can smoke your fancy MAC (sic) and it only cost me 25,000 lire or something like that. I don't know exactly, I paid him in chickens and pies." *)

To continue...

So why bother cracking OSX, when you can run Windows on your Mac (XP maybe, Vista definitely)? Or if you want something even cheaper, get at MacMini. Price/features wise, Macs are one of the best values out there. And slapping OSX on a beigebox PC and calling it the same as using a Mac is like saying putting Pirellis on your Chevy makes it a Ferrari.

Since when (1)

TheAxeMaster (762000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717941)

Since when does a laptop with similar hardware and a $500+ higher price point constitute "more bang for the buck"? To use your analogy, slapping gold trim and and fancy wheels on a car doesn't make it faster/more useful either.

Make up your own mind. (2, Interesting)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717963)

"The new MacBooks [...] offer as much or more bang for the buck as anything in the Windows world"

These are probably made in the same factory as Macbooks:

http://us.acer.com/acerpanam/page4.do?dau22.oid=14 568&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=25&Countr yISOCtxParam=US&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&crc=1074370 188 [acer.com]

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1907007,00.as p [pcmag.com]
http://www.pcmag.com/compare_products/0,1943,,00.a sp?a=168245,168244,168264,163762,167102&pt=2&sid=1 565 [pcmag.com]

Intel Duo
2Ghz processor
120GB HD
256M graphics memory (Radeon)
DVD+/-R - DL
battery life 3:47

List price: $2500
Street price: $2400

Hopefully, the Macbook has a 4 hour battery life.

Of course Apple can't win (4, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717621)

They're new to x86. Hackers have been here for *decades*.

Welcome to the mainstream, Apple.

Exposure (3, Insightful)

johndeerejedi (317878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717638)

Well, unless the procedure is easy to do, it's very unlikely to dent Apple's sales because many of the people who buy Macs don't want a hack job and will continue to buy a refined product. People who enjoy tweaking their systems and people who like to do this sort of thing who normally wouldn't get exposure to OS X will play with it and maybe they will like what they see. This in turn may lead them to buy a genuine Mac, or at least maybe buy, develop, or support OS X software.

I see this kind of like the DRM in iTunes. It's almost trivial to bypass, but good enough to keep an honest person honest. Building a bulletproof DRM is rather futile because people determined to do it will hammer it down eventually. I think Apple may have a similar philosophy here--good enough to keep honest people honest, or at least those who just want to use it, not build it (listen to music or use the computer).

so we have a release version of OSx86 cracked (2, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717653)

and that means apple can't decide to take the approach of deliberately breaking compatibility with older versions anywhere near as easilly as they could with a beta!

OS-X under Xen? (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717666)

The ability to run OS-X in a Xen partition would be a big win. It's probably easier than making it run on native hardware - you only need enough drivers to to talk to Xen.

Apple is at risk for an "illegal tying" lawsuit if they insist that their operating system run only on their hardware. IBM lost that issue decades ago, which is why there are IBM-compatible mainframes.

Re:OS-X under Xen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717828)

Digidyne v. Data General is still the law of the Circuit in the 9th Circuit where Apple is located.
That was Data General saying you could only run their OS on their hardware. 9th said it
was illegal tying.

Re:OS-X under Xen? (1)

data_securt (457670) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717839)

Which is why you can run Xbox titles on your PS2... oh, wait. Nevermind.

The legal and political realities are a little different now. I wouldn't hold my breath in the hope that Apple is going to be forced to open their OS or their hardware (nor should they, you don't like it, vote with your wallet).

Virtualization in general would be a big win. (2, Interesting)

pschmied (5648) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717903)

As I wrote earlier [thoughtspot.net] Apple would be well to do to relieve some of this pent-up desire for OS X and capitalize on it by releasing a VMWare image that is sufficiently locked down for their own peace of mind.

The audience for OS X grows to anyone who can run VMWare player, they get Windows users into an Apple product upgrade cycle (upgrade to real hardware!), they still get to control the user experience the way they want to (no b0rked hacked video drivers), and best of all they get to grow their developer base.

Seems like a win-win.

-Peter

The difference between Mac and Windows hackers (1)

sammeal (859766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717671)

Looks like the Mac hackers hack the Mac OS so it will run on Windows PCs, while the common result of Windows hackers is to make the OS NOT run on Windows PCs.

What a great Valentines day!! (3, Funny)

dwhittington (577769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717680)

What a great Valentines day! First I find out my new MacBook will have a 2GHz processor. Then, I find out that OSX can once again be loaded on every x86 box in my house. Now if VMware would just make an announcement today.

Re:What a great Valentines day!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717752)

You're in an awfully good mood for cheney shooting you the other day

Re:What a great Valentines day!! (1)

pixr99 (560799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717818)

Now if VMware would just make an announcement today.

As an aside... Last week, VMware made available a beta of VMware Server [vmware.com]. I gather it's based on the old ESX product. I've been testing it since Thursday with excellent results!

Both a blessing and a nuisance (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717690)

Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?

Publicly a nuisance, privately a blessing. Apple would never admit it, but if a fair number of hobbyists get this on their PC hardware it'll probably be good underground promotion leading to more hardware sales. A few of those hobbyists will certainly consider Apple's own hardware when it's time to upgrade since they'll already be happy with the software. Plus word of mouth never hurts. When a kid playing around with OS X on his PC shows it to dad Apple may get another sale.

I wonder who Maxxus is... (2, Interesting)

Doomedsnowball (921841) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717701)

Back when I worked at Apple and they were splitting the OS X project into multiple releases spread out over many years... The Apple AIX team was busy hacking Linux to run on the Mac hardware. So, it's not like they haven't don't similar actions in the past. But it makes you wonder if Maxxus is an ex-Apple/Intel-crossover programmer that was so pervasive back in '96. I know that most of the core code hasn't changed in the ten years it's been around.

Let me know when the benchmarks come out... (1)

MWales (686969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717704)

I would like to see how AMD X2 fares against the CoreDuo iMac. Ah heck, throw some spicy hot netburst P4s in there too.

A little from column A, a little from column B. (1)

Nijika (525558) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717724)

OSX will attract more hackers this way (hackers in the traditional, benevolent sense), which will lead to more interesting software, and honestly harder security. It will also attract virus writers, but I doubt it will be anything like what we see via Windows.

It's basically a challenge to crackers when Apple releases software this way, but at the same time it keeps the mainstream public buying Apple hardware because of the exposure. Just like in the world of fashion, all trends start in the back alleys.

So Intel OSX, "free of costly Apple hardware" will attract some of the best and brightest kids, but at the same time the parents of these kids... Mom isn't going to download the 0-day ISO of OSX so that she can run it on her crappy grey Dell, but if she suddenly decides she likes iMacs because they're pretty and because iPhoto is so cool, she'll buy one.

My guess is Apple will keep putting up these barriers, and the kids will keep breaking them down, and in-between the kids that get serious about OSX will buy Apple machines, and the mainstream consumer will continue to as well.

So, from Apple, it's "Oh, uh yeah, uh please don't... woe is us. *snicker*" Sorta like it is with XP and Microsoft now.

note: this post has been certified incoherent, but I'm hitting submit anyway.

Two sides (1)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717741)

I'm sure it's annoying to Apple since they seem to be going to great lengths to stop this kind of work, but you'd think they may be a bit happy that there's so much interest in their OS. Still, I think in the long run *if* you're able to run the OS on non-Apple hardware, they'll just make their key apps (Safari, Quicktime, iTunes) not function on non-Apple hardware regardless of it running OSX. So I think in the long run they'll win, but not with stopping ppl from installing OSx86 on stock PCs.

Blessing (1)

ThousandStars (556222) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717743)

Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?

I would guess that this is a blessing. Casual users won't bother with hacked versions of OS X and the sales loss from it will probably be minimal as long as these versions remain inconvenient. Serious hacker types -- the kinds most likely to write useful software for a system, I would guess -- will, and some of those who run OS X will probably write and/or port useful software to it, thus benefitting all the other users. Apple won't have to support the myriad of hardware configurations that people will try to run.

As long as cracked versions aren't widespread, this sounds like a win for Apple.

Wait till it's selling to release the crack! (3, Insightful)

thedarb (181754) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717765)

So you super hackers out there, you are only helping Apple secure the OS, helping them lock it tighter and tighter to their hardware. By releasing these cracks now, you give Apple an education, a lesson plan to learn from, so that they can do it better next time. If you wait until after OS X for Intel is out and *then* release the crack for it, then Apple will have a hell of a time stopping it. Don't release your cracks now, for goodness sakes. Wait until it's for sale, on the shelves. Please stop teaching Apple how to lock it down better. :)

Both nuisance and blessing... mostly nuisance. (4, Interesting)

javaxman (705658) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717768)

If Apple's hardware were really a lot more expensive than competing hardware, it would be a really serious nuisance, as there'd be a larger number of people willing to run a seriously hacked-up system in order to avoid paying extra.

However, when you look at Dell's Core Duo laptop and Apple's Core Duo laptop... the differences aren't much. That's the big win for Apple in switching to Intel hardware- the systems are really comparable and fairly easily similarly priced.

People hacking OS X to run on non-Apple Intel hardware *is* a blessing in a sense, because those who do go through the extra hassle to install OS X on non-Apple hardware are certainly asserting, beyond their hacking ( or simple file-sharing ) skills, that OS X is a really, really worthy bit of software to have... and they'll find, I suspect, that some things, in particular Software Update, won't play nicely at all with their very non-standard system. They're a seriously small number of people, probably, and are folks who either wouldn't for whatever reason buy *either* a Dell or an Apple system ( because it's all about building it yourself ), or, quite possibly, they're buying Apple hardware or software already ( don't you think the folks who worked out how to do this bought Apple hardware in order to do so ? ) in which case... well, let's just say Apple doesn't exactly go to great lengths to keep you from installing the same copy of OS X on multiple Apple machines... it's just not something they're worried about preventing. The notion that hacked x86 systems amount to try-before-you buy is probably not unfounded.

In short, while it's interesting to us geeks, it's not exactly a threat to Apple's business model... in a very real way, the fact that someone would want to do this pays quite a compliment to Apple's software, and is not terribly significant otherwise... just normal and likely small-scale software piracy, really.

As a third-party OS X software developer, it's just another ( small, likely ) set of machines I might be able to sell software or online services to, so it's all good for everyone except maybe Apple, and it's just not a big deal to them either, since hacked versions of OS X aren't going to be installed on over 1% of existing Windows PCs any time soon.

Don't be so dismissive of generic hardware. (3, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717822)

I would pay more for OS X on a Thinkpad.

I don't like Apple's laptops, at all, and I'm not much of a fan of any of Apple's hardware.

Not that I'm gouing to run out and get a Thinkpad and install cracked OS X on it, but sheesh... Apple's hardware choices really suck.

Re:Don't be so dismissive of generic hardware. (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14718047)

I dunno about really suck... but....

I would like TWO buttons on my touchpad ;-)

And maybe an SD card reader, and maybe the ability to boot Linux, and perhaps even a glass (plexiglass?) overlay on my LCD to make it scratch resistant?

These are features I would like on my mac :)

Re:Both nuisance and blessing... mostly nuisance. (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717891)

I'm an apple fan, however this is total bullshit:
However, when you look at Dell's Core Duo laptop and Apple's Core Duo laptop... the differences aren't much. That's the big win for Apple in switching to Intel hardware- the systems are really comparable and fairly easily similarly priced.

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?p roduct_code=336978&pfp=srch1 [compusa.com]

Slightly slower processor. 2 GB ram, base. Slightly slower video vard (ATI Radeon X1400). SD card reader, firewire, DVD burner, yadda yadda. 120 GB harddrive, which is slightly greater.
$1299.99

The MacBook Pros are vastly more expensive than similar PC hardware. The build quality of this Acer is not so bad, either; I just purchased one. It is most likely going back, in exchange for a MacBook Pro (ATI's complete lack of any kind of linux support is a big issue), but this notebook is functionally equivalent to a MacBook Pro for significantly less money.

Don't even get me started on other similar systems, like the Gateway NX860, or a variety of others. The simple fact of the matter is that PCs with similar specs are vastly cheaper. If I could get a dual core PC laptop with 100% functioning drivers on Linux, I'd purchase a PC. Hell; I did purchase a PC, but then found out that not even the VESA drivers support the native resolution on this ATI chipset. Damn Acer for not releasing the 5650 (same machine with a Geforce) in the U.S.

Re:Both nuisance and blessing... mostly nuisance. (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717918)

Oh, and the Acer comes with a free printer and a free wireless router. That's another $100 in value, even at discount prices.

Cold War. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14717774)

"It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers, as 10.4.4 included beefed up security designed to prevent similar hacking methods used on beta releases of the operating system. Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?"

Similiar sentiments were expressed during the Cold War, and look how that turned out.

generic hardware != unstable (3, Insightful)

slackaddict (950042) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717789)

Is SuSE Linux unstable because there isn't a "gold standard" or "official" machine that will run it? Is Slackware any less stable or usable because I didn't get a PC from Pat Volkerding with Slackware pre-installed? Is FreeBSD more stable on a Dell or a HP?

I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image. Sure, you might be running a slick looking OS on a beige box, but that doesn't mean that it won't be any less stable than official Apple hardware. (That is, unless Apple intentionally cripples their OS...)

This is neither nuisance nor blessing (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717801)

This is just a simple fact of life. There is no 100% secure method of securing software, unless you develop it and never release it. Some intrepid/brilliant coder/programmer/hacker will always find ways around protection schemes, and that will never change, no matter how complex things get. Eventually, we may have machines that hack themselves to test security. That'll be one scary day.

anti-competitive bundling (OS-PC) (3, Interesting)

GodWasAnAlien (206300) | more than 8 years ago | (#14717944)

If microsoft started selling PC hardware, then locked all other PC's out with OS modifications, that would probably be illegal and anti-competitive, and they would be forced to unbundle the two.

But somehow Apple can get away with this, why is this? Because they less of a monopoly?

torrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14718028)

Link to the torrent?

Linux and Vanilla hardware.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14718037)

SuSE (or any other Linux) is open source, and has the benefit of thousands of people writing drivers so it will run on countless configurations. Mac OS X is not open source, and is only intended to run on the hardware that Apple or their 3rd party partners make for it.

Hence, if some 16 year old geek boots it up on a beige box that is missing some critical hardware component that OS X needs to run, there could be issues. The geek will just think that the OS is junk and not bother with it, when the issue is really that it was never meant to be run on vanilla hardware.

Is SuSE Linux unstable because there isn't a "gold standard" or "official" machine that will run it? Is Slackware any less stable or usable because I didn't get a PC from Pat Volkerding with Slackware pre-installed? Is FreeBSD more stable on a Dell or a HP?
I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image. Sure, you might be running a slick looking OS on a beige box, but that doesn't mean that it won't be any less stable than official Apple hardware. (That is, unless Apple intentionally cripples their OS...)

virtualized? (1)

idlake (850372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14718043)

The real toughie is whether Apple will permit OS X to run virtualized on other hardware. The usual technical excuses for why Apple isn't shipping OS X for other hardware don't hold then.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...