Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hacker Turns $300 Apple TV into Cheapest Mac Ever

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the another-bite-at-the-buck dept.

The Almighty Buck 169

An anonymous reader wrote with a link to a Wired story about a fun play-along-at-home project: Turning Apple TV into a very tiny workable computer. "Apple TV is dead, long live the Mac Nano. Sort of. Just two weeks after Apple released its streaming media box to the public, hackers successfully installed OS X, Apple's desktop operating system, on the $300 device, making it the cheapest PC Cupertino has ever sold. 'The breakthrough is done, OS X runs on Apple TV!' wrote Semthex, the anonymous hacker responsible for the mod, at his website. 'Now we got (the) low-budget Mac we ever wanted.'"

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

iPhone batteries "die in 40 minutes" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18644583)

iPhone batteries "die in 40 minutes"

Apple fanboys kill the messenger

By Nick Farrell: Friday 06 April 2007, 07:14

APPLE FANBOYS have really been going for hack John C Dvorak after one of his sources in Cingular told him the iPhone's batteries lasted just 40 minutes.
During Episode 93 of the spodcast this Week in Tech (TWiT)Dvorak said he received information from "a guy at Cingular who's testing the product." The unnamed, male Cingular employee told Dvorak "there's lots of issues" with the iPhone.

Dvorak said that the iPhone was blighted with not having a removable battery, so "you run 20 minutes and you're using up half the battery power. You get 40 minutes total talk time. And the interface fouls up constantly."

The Cingular geezer or geezerette asked Dvorak not to tell anyone. OK it is a "man in the pub told me" style story, but it does not mean that there is no truth behind it. Certainly it is an odd thing to make up.

But the fan boys are up in arms about the comment and every where the story appears on the interweb there is a diatribe from at least three fanboys about how unreliable Dvorak is as a reporter.

One post said that Dvorak had a background in news and was therefore not qualified to write about technical stuff. Others sited a 1991 prediction he made that didn't come true.

One poster said that if Steve Jobs said that 40 minutes on the phone was long enough to speak to someone that must be OK and he would curtail his usage immediately. Another added that if people used their phones longer than 40 minutes there must be something wrong with them.

More here: http://www.twit.tv/93 [www.twit.tv]

Attn. Linux Users (-1, Flamebait)

alfs boner (963844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644587)

Q: Why does 'Open Source' software suck so bad? A: Because the programmers can't see the screen [ukdirtypanties.com] lol Typical Linux User. [ukdirtypanties.com]

First post again, faggos. GNAA 4 LYFE.

Of course.. (4, Interesting)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644593)

This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

Re:Of course.. (0, Flamebait)

nagora (177841) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644599)

This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

Just use a copy of a dead Mac; it's not like they're hard to find.

TWW

Re:Of course.. (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645089)

That is if you have any dead Intel Macs just lying around, as PPC Macs wont do....

OS X PPC and OS X Intel are different products.

Re:Of course.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645363)

"Just use a copy of a dead Mac"
So, how does one copy a dead Mac, please?

Re:Of course.. (1, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644629)

Wow. They got a computer than ran OS X to run OS X.

What I want to know is when is it going to run Ubuntu... (grin)

Re:Of course.. (4, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644663)

Wow. They got a computer than ran OS X to run OS X.

Well, but it's not that simple: many embedded devices run some kind of desktop OS (Windows, Linux, as opposed to an embedded OS like VxWorks), but running a generic version of the OS on the device is noteworthy because there's more to it than just sticking a shell in it: usually one has to reorganize the bootloading process, making a custom image of the OS, possibly make custom drivers, etc... So making an Apple embedded device running a custom OSX run a generic version of OSX isn't necessarily trivial, and is interesting.

What I want to know is when is it going to run Ubuntu... (grin)

If it can boot OSX, it surely can boot Linux without much work at all. That on the other hand is old news.

Re:Of course.. (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644649)

Wouldn't any of the three copies of OS X I have on CD now for my other Macs work? Why would it have to be pirated?

Re:Of course.. (2, Interesting)

Anomolous Cowturd (190524) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644743)

If it's not pirated, then the price is not $300, but $300 + cost of OS. Duh.

Re:Of course.. (3, Informative)

1110110001 (569602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645343)

With the Mac mini you get: Mac OS 10.4, iLife 06, Comic Life and Big Bang Board Games. That's ~$260.

Re:Of course.. (2, Informative)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645407)

Because the retail discs of Tiger (DVDs, not CDs, unless you special-ordered CDs) only contain the PPC version.

Re:Of course.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645723)

If you're a lawyer, this kind of hair-splitting must make you very good at your job.

If you're not, this kind of unsolicited pedantry must make you a real bore at parties.

Re:Of course.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646097)

How is it hair-splitting to point out a very practical issue?

If you get an Apple TV with the intention of running OS X on it, where are you going to get that OS?

If you happen to have another Intel Mac, you *might* be able to use the install discs from it (possibly not, since they're typically tailored to the hardware they ship with). Even then, your license won't allow you to install on an Apple TV, even if you keep the other Mac switched off in the closet.

  You can't just buy a copy of OS X for Intel, that's the point. You will have to run an illegal copy.

Wait for Leopard? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647473)

your license won't allow you to install on an Apple TV
But is this restriction so enforceable? It would make the product as sold unfit for the purpose solely because of the license term. Though the text of the EULA disclaims warranties of fitness, local laws limit the enforceability of disclaimers of implied warranties, especially for consumer products such as home editions of operating systems.

You can't just buy a copy of OS X for Intel, that's the point.
When Leopard comes out this June, will the version for Mac computers with Intel CPU be available only as a paid-for digital download, or will DVD-ROM editions be available?

Re:Of course.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18644841)

This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

But consider it the other way. If you already have a spare OS X license around it may be legal to install it there. Most Apple OS licenses these days say you can only install the software on "Apple branded hardware". Well, that's a nice big trademark on the top....

Re:Of course.. (2, Insightful)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644947)

No, the relative lowness of the price compared to other Apple products is because the Apple TV is a pretty underpowered PC. If a computer like it were sold not running OS X but just Linux or something, you wouldn't expect to pay a full $300 for it. The cost of OS X is more or less built into the cost of the machine as is.

Re:Of course.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645441)

Exactly right, because all $200 Linux boxes have an HDMI as well as component audio and video ports, come with a remote, run silently, and fit in a shoebox. And please don't reply with a "I don't care about X" post to justify your pricing. That's just retarded.

Re:Of course.. (4, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645553)

Exactly right, because all $200 Linux boxes have an HDMI as well as component audio and video ports, come with a remote, run silently, and fit in a shoebox. And please don't reply with a "I don't care about X" post to justify your pricing. That's just retarded.
Don't forget the investment that an appleTV is for Apple.
When you buy an appleTV you're essentially guaranteeing that you will, in the future, be buying content for it too. The price of the content you buy for the appleTV makes it cheaper, just like most game consoles.

This is why I expect Apple will do everything they can to fight against people running a flexible system that can run whatever content they want on their artificially cheap hardware. I would be surprised if Apple's lawyers didn't start coming out of the woodworks soon.

Re:Of course.. (5, Interesting)

keytohwy (975131) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646357)

I disagree. I own an AppleTV and have yet to buy any content. It's awesome for showing family photos on my HDTV. In addition, its a great, visual music browser for listening. And lastly, Apple makes availabe a shitload of podcasts on the ITMS. I have a lot of those. Some video (even HD), some audio, but all free. I think that the AppleTV will transcend people's initial reaction, which is like yours. There's plenty of content you already own that make this a worthwhile venture for many.

Re:Of course.. (5, Informative)

Greg Titus (11738) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646425)

This is why I expect Apple will do everything they can to fight against people running a flexible system that can run whatever content they want on their artificially cheap hardware. I would be surprised if Apple's lawyers didn't start coming out of the woodworks soon.
Yeah, that's why an Apple spokesman was quoted as saying "it's your box, do with it what you please -- but be mindful of voiding that warranty" a couple days ago. See http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/05/apple-not-fight ing-back-against-apple-tv-hacks/ [engadget.com] .

Re:Of course.. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647367)

I don't think apple would care one bit publicly. Sure some one sitting behind a desk is is probably constantly knotting his panties up.

But from a real perspective, lets think about this. First, they are selling the Apple-TV at a profit (even if it is small). Next, using it like this doesn't stop it's intended use. And finally, even if it did change the intended use, people buying it to have a MAC light whatever, wouldn't be buying the thing or any of it's services in the first place so there isn't a loss at all to apple. And if they were likely to buy the extra services, all apple has to do is stop the altered versions from working with the service and presto, they sell more of them.

I don't think this is much like the TIVO situation were you bought a discounted device based on the idea of paying for some service that came with it. Tivo could learn from this and offer the TIVO sets at a discount with so many years of service, block content in a different way that allows a person to pay full price for the system if they don't intend to use it according to their service agreement. The new GPLv3 allows for this and it could be a win win for everyone if they adopted a plan to this effect.

What model do you recommend (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647541)

the Apple TV is a pretty underpowered PC. If a computer like it were sold not running OS X but just Linux or something, you wouldn't expect to pay a full $300 for it.

Then where can I lawfully[1] buy such a new[2] underpowered PC with USB and Ethernet ports and a TV output, running GNU/Linux, for 289.99 USD or less?

[1] A modded Xbox doesn't count. Modders have been prosecuted in the United Kingdom and some other countries. Are you willing to include emigration in the price?

[2] Or does eBay provide a consistent supply of one model?

And if that counts, I can beat the price. (2, Interesting)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645387)

I bought a Dell Dimension 4600 from a pawn shop for $20, "as is" because someone said it wouldn't boot. When I brought it home, I discovered there was nothing wrong with it. I slapped an old Radeon inside, installed OS X, and that's what I call the cheapest Mac ever.

Re:Of course.. (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645481)

From three previous comments of mine, that address pretty much all the issues here:

-----

People have jumped through a lot of hoops to attempt to justify to themselves running the hacked Mac OS X on non-Apple systems, coming up with ridiculous sophistries like "What if I have an Intel iMac, but want to only run Linux on it, and then want to use that same OS X license on my Gateway laptop???" ...

AppleTV is an interesting case, because it is an "Apple-labeled" product, which is what the Mac OS X license agreement [apple.com] stipulates. And that's the key.

The license agreement specifies that Mac OS X can only be run on an Apple-labeled computer. And that is Apple's right. Now, you can ignore it, or ignore legal frameworks that may (or may not) enforce license agreements within certain countries/jurisdictions, and so on, but that's why running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is "illegal". There are NO prohibitions to doing things like hacking the kernel, etc. It's open source, and you can do with it what you wish regardless.

But there are still some interesting considerations:

- There is no way to legally get a standalone, retail copy of Mac OS X (Intel) for AppleTV, unless you make arguments about transferring an abandoned license from another Intel-based Mac. (And no, there is no conventional Mac OS X license that comes with AppleTV, either explicitly or implicitly.)

- Technically, you could purchase and run Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (Universal) and legally run it on AppleTV - there would be no prohibitions to this.

- Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) will be the first version of Mac OS X to have a legally purchasable standalone retail Intel version (actually, Leopard will be Universal).

But there are some other things to think about:

- Even when Leopard ships, at retail pricing, it's still $299 + $129 for AppleTV + Mac OS X. It's $171 more for a much more capable Mac mini. However, $171 may be enough to get people to consider this.

- This will really be interesting if Leopard can run unmodified on AppleTV (i.e., without a hacked kernel).

- This will still be relegated to the hobbyist/experimenter/hacker crowd, as you need to disassemble AppleTV in order to do this, image drives, have another Mac handy, and so on, not to mention that the warranty is likely void while OS X is installed on the machine (which of course is reversible, etc.)

So while this is all very interesting, please consider the fact that there are no legal ways to get Mac OS X for it currently.

This post is obviously not for people who think EULAs are BS, or that since it's an Apple product "it's okay", or that since it has some stripped down OS X on it already, "it's okay" to also install OS X from their friend's iMac, etc.

I'm simply raising the legitimate concerns surrounding licensing on AppleTV, some of which get interesting with Leopard since it is, indeed, and Apple-labeled computer, and Leopard will be available standalone.

There are also no prohibitions on using a modified kernel, but one very interesting question might be, does Apple consider AppleTV a "computer", since that is what the Mac OS X license agreement explicitly states?

-----

The point is that right now, there is NO way to buy Mac OS X (Intel) separately at all, license agreement or not.

If people want to make ridiculous arguments like "what if I just dropped four grand on a Mac Pro, but now suddenly only want to run Windows Vista on it, but I still want to use the OS X license on my Sony Vaio," more power to them. They can make their own moral/ethical determinations. If they want to ask if it's "legal", the answer in many jurisdictions is still, "probably not", because of what the EULA says.

The other consideration is that Apple is a hardware company and prices Mac OS X accordingly. They're also the ones who put hundreds of thousands of manhours and billions of dollars, collectively, into R&D and support of the product. If there are legal frameworks that allow them to specify that Mac OS X is intended only to be used on Apple computers, they're within their rights to use such frameworks, and you're certainly within your own personal rights to choose to ignore them.

Consider, though, that one major selling point for Mac OS X is its ease of use and how well things are seamlessly integrated with hardware, That's one of the reasons why people like, and want, Mac OS X. When it's all of a sudden run on random commodity hardware, that predictability quickly goes away. That may be Microsoft's model, but it's not Apple's. Mac OS X is also be priced under the assumption that it will be installed on existing Apple hardware.

You're certainly welcome to ignore all of this, but if you do, Mac OS X and the beloved PaintCo paint - which is presumably much better than the alternatives, thus why it's desirable - may not continue to be around. (Yes, that's an extreme argument, but it's no more extreme than your analogy is a stretch.)

-----

While it may get you around your own personal moral qualms (and isn't a bad argument, frankly), Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) and Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) are simply not the same product, and you can't juggle licenses between them. Your family pack license is for Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) only.

There already is standing precedent for this: Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (PowerPC) and Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 (Universal) are not the same product, and have different part numbers, and the license for the former does not entitle you to the latter: it is a separate product that must be repurchased.

Let me reiterate I don't think the argument is fundamentally a bad one! I'm sure that people with family packs will feel they're well within the "spirit" of things if they then pirate or otherwise obtain Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) for their AppleTV.

The only product I can see, right now, today, that could theoretically be purchased and run legally on AppleTV is Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 (Universal). In the future, of course, Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) gets added to the mix.

The final question, though, still stands: if legal push came to shove, would Apple consider AppleTV a "computer", since that's what the license agreement specifies? It's exactly that kind of legal gray area, lack of support, and the fact that it currently requires using a hacked kernel (making OS updates difficult, etc.), that will keep this to the hobbyist/hacker/experimenter crowd, and out of any kind of mainstream/business/institutional applications.

Re:Of course.. (2, Interesting)

anothy (83176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645893)

okay, well i guess i ought to repost my correction to you from that thread, as well: --- Also keep in mind that there are other legal ways of acquiring Mac OS X 10.4.x for Intel Macs, such as membership in the Apple Developer Program. The license there has other restrictions on use, but it is acceptable in a large number of cases. --- generally, i find your post informative, but it'd be nice if you could stop repeating the false portion about there being no legal way to obtain Mac OS X for Intel.

Re:Of course.. (2, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646131)

Your correction wasn't correct then, and isn't now:

There is not at present, and never has been, a standalone, installable version of Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) available via Apple Developer Programs.

The only version that is available is Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (Universal), but that is Mac OS X Server, not Mac OS X.

So the statements to this effect I have made in my post are correct:

There is no legal way to get Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) separately. It only ships with CPUs.

Further, even if Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) were available via the Apple Developer Programs, the cost would be a minimum of $500/year for a Select membership, or $3000/year for a Premier membership (the only kinds that come with software seed keys, required for access to operating systems).

Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard), which will be Universal, will, of course, be available via Apple Developer Programs. But it will also be available for $129 ($69 edu/govt), so the Developer Programs argument doesn't make sense in the vast, vast majority of those potential cases, either.

Re:Of course.. (0)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646257)

I suppose I should follow up, as someone will inevitably respond saying "But Mac OS X Server *is* Mac OS X, just with the extra server pieces!@!@"

Yes, I'm aware of that, thanks. It's also NOT "Mac OS X'. Further, it's still a ridiculous argument, because even Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 (Universal) (10-client) is $499 ($249 edu/govt), or needs be be obtained via Apple Developer Programs at a cost of at least $500/year.

And regardless, Apple Developer Programs are NOT a solution for anywhere near a "large number of cases". They're suitable for people who are already paying $500 or $3000 a year to be a part of them, and the operating systems offer via the programs are to be used only for development and testing, not permanent use on a hacked Apple TV.

But all that aside, this is just another version of the sophistry used in the "Mac OS X on non-Macs" argument.

The point is that, even now, in order to use Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) on an Apple TV, it still MUST be pirated. The only argument that is REMOTELY applicable is the case of potentially re-using an unused license from another Intel-based Mac that is no longer running Mac OS X.

So yes, basically everyone who has done this hack has pirated Mac OS X, either in spirit (e.g., using it under a Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) license or family pack license and thinking that it's therefore "okay"), or in fact (just outright pirating it).

The only legal scenario I can see on the horizon (other than Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (Universal)) is buying a standalone retail copy of Leopard. You've bought it, and it appears to not violate the EULA, which states that it must be run on an "Apple-labeled computer". But even then there is still the consideration of whether Apple would consider Apple TV a "computer"...and push may come to shove if someone like TechRestore (which is already selling Apple TVs with upgraded hard drives and their own 1-year warranty, since Apple's is void at that point) starts selling Apple TVs preinstalled with Leopard alongside a Leopard license.

Let me point out that *I don't care* what kind of arguments can be made for or against this, legal or otherwise. The point is that if Apple decides the behavior is not allowable under the EULA, etc., the activity WILL be relegated to the hobbyist/experimenter/hacker crowd, and will NEVER be a mainstream solution.

I'd imagine all of the people who want to do this, and are pirating Mac OS X anyway, are fine with this.

Yep. (1)

tivoKlr (659818) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646401)

You sir are correct. We are "pirating Mac OS X anyway" and we are enjoying your spirited discussion.

Re:Yep. (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646517)

Hey, that's your call.

I'm simply laying out the arguments for the people who are looking for *legal* ways to justify it.

And Leopard will present an interesting case, since:

- It will be purchasable as a standalone product
- Running Leopard on Apple TV does not appear to violate the Mac OS X license agreement on its face
- Even more interesting if Leopard runs unmodified (i.e., without a kernel hack)
- More interesting still if an installation method can be found that doesn't require disassembling Apple TV

Re:Yep. (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646787)

More interesting still if an installation method can be found that doesn't require disassembling Apple TV

And apparently this is now done as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swebzPG7p34&NR=1 [youtube.com]

Re:Of course.. (2, Insightful)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646575)

Do you know there was a time when people would see a hack like this and say "coooooool" instead of spending 10 minutes rattling off the various illegalities?

Re:Of course.. (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646663)

Yeah, it's called "today". It is "cool".

But it's also not a "$300 Mac", since you still, you know, need Mac OS X to go along with it.

If you want to pirate it and/or don't care about the legal side of it at all, fine: this argument isn't for you.

If you actually do want to find a legal way to do it that doesn't run afoul of license agreements, and possibly laws, in some jurisdictions, then Apple TV is actually an interesting case, since the big prohibition in the Mac OS X EULA has always been that it needs to be run on an "Apple-labeled" computer. Well, Apple TV is certainly an "Apple-labeled" product in that sense.

So yeah, some people care that they can go out and get an Apple TV for $300, and then legally get Leopard for $69 as a student, and then legally install it on their Apple TV.

To some people, the fact that they have a full Mac for $370 in the Apple TV form factor - AND it would be legal - is also "cool".

Re:Of course.. (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646739)

I see no reason why Apple should care. Most people are not going to hack a TV computer instead of purchasing an iMac. Such as thing, as is true for *nix and MS OS, only saves money if your time is worth nothing.

Instead I see the people doing this as people who like to hack macs and have an open licensee on their 5 pack. In this case I think apple would be happy. They sell a machine that otherwise would not be sold, and cost them nothing in support as they will not support that application.

Apple has done good job positioning their computers. An mac mini, fully decked out, is more expensive than iMac, os the only people who will buy it are the people who need to replace a white box. An iMac is cheap, but essentially underpowered so people who want or need the power will buy a Mac pro. The apple TV is cheap, but clearly not a loss leader.

Re:Of course.. (0, Redundant)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646839)

There is no way to legally get a standalone, retail copy of Mac OS X (Intel) for AppleTV

For some reason, I would speculate you will be able to buy a stand alone copy of Leopard OS X for Intel when it comes out.

Otherwise, plenty of Intel Tiger users will be stuck with the version they have.

I do remember buying Panther in the store when it came out and upgrading my PPC and it wasn't an upgrade license.

Re:Of course.. (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646935)

Did you just stop reading when you got to that point in my post? Not only is it correct, currently, but two lines below what you quoted, I say:

Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) will be the first version of Mac OS X to have a legally purchasable standalone retail Intel version (actually, Leopard will be Universal).

And I have spoken about the fact that Leopard will be separately purchasable in the very post you replied to and others in this thread numerous times.

In fact, that's a huge chunk of what I was talking about: Leopard will be very interesting in the context of Apple TV, because it WILL be purchasable separately AND running Leopard on Apple TV, since it is an "Apple-labeled" product, doesn't appear to violate the EULA, either (as you still technically would if you purchased Leopard and ran it on non-Apple hardware, for example).

Re:Of course.. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647037)

If you feel up to going to court(which is presumably where legal push comes to shove right?), it doesn't matter if Apple considers it a computer, it matters if the court considers it a computer.

Re:Of course.. (1)

McBeth (1724) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647085)

Um, yes there is. I have a unattached legal copy of Mac OSX sitting right next to me. It is called "Family Pack", we currently have 2 unused licenses in our home.

Re:Of course.. (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647107)

Wrong.

Mac OS X 10.4.x Family Packs are for Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC), not Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel). They are not the same product.

I spoke directly to this point in my post:

While it may get you around your own personal moral qualms (and isn't a bad argument, frankly), Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) and Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) are simply not the same product, and you can't juggle licenses between them. Your family pack license is for Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC) only.

There already is standing precedent for this: Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (PowerPC) and Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 (Universal) are not the same product, and have different part numbers, and the license for the former does not entitle you to the latter: it is a separate product that must be repurchased.

Let me reiterate I don't think the argument is fundamentally a bad one! I'm sure that people with family packs will feel they're well within the "spirit" of things if they then pirate or otherwise obtain Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) for their AppleTV.

The only product I can see, right now, today, that could theoretically be purchased and run legally on AppleTV is Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 (Universal). In the future, of course, Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) gets added to the mix.


So when Leopard (and presumably Leopard family packs) come out, you may have an argument.

But right now, like it or not, you have a family pack for Mac OS X 10.4.x (PowerPC), nothing more.

Re:Of course.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645505)

$300 + $129 (http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/ [apple.com] ) = $429.

At a pricepoint that is probably breaking the license terms, but not pirating it.

Not exactly. (1)

Narcogen (666692) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645591)

You might already own a license that allows for installing OS X on more than one Apple machine.

Not necessarily (3, Interesting)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645685)

With three Macs in the house, the most economical way for me to legally upgrade is Apple's household bundles that come with five licenses. Meaning that at any given time, I've usually got one or two licenses that I'm not using. I doubt that I'm the only person in this situation.

Family Pack (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646365)

This pricepoint is pretty much based on pirating a copy of OS X.

Not if you've bought the family pack, and you have licenses left.

Linux booting on AppleTV (3, Informative)

kad77 (805601) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647453)

How's free for a pricepoint?

Given we had OSX running on the AppleTV back on March 30, I'm not surprised that the article missed Linux is running with full nvidia hardware acceleration. After 5+ years, the journaled HFS support in the kernel is basically worthless though (FIXME).

As usual, AwkwardTV has the scoop--

http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Linux_on_Apple_TV [awkwardtv.org]

thanks gimli!

Twice! (4, Informative)

cabinetsoft (923481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644597)

in same week... first mentioned here [slashdot.org]

Re:Twice! (3, Informative)

aarku (151823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644739)

True, but there is actually a worthwhile update to the story, not that I know if it's mentioned in TFA. You can boot Mac OS X on it now without opening the box [youtube.com] .

Re:Twice! (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644849)

So I watched that video, and it was interesting, but it left me with one question -- Why is OS X 10.4.2 read as "Oh ess ten, ten point four point two?" Are they going to have an OS X 11.1? Or will it be OS XI 11.1? Why not just "OS ten, four point 2" (OS X 4.2)? Saying the ten twice just seems entirely too redundant.

That's my small rant.

Re:Twice! (2, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645351)

The product name is 'OS X' (oh ess ten). This is similar to how the product name for windows is 'Windows XP' The version number of the program is 10.4, the same way the version number of XP is 5.1. On the Mac side, they refer to the product name + the version number (ie, OS X 10.4.8). On the Windows side, the version number is usually left off, instead being replaced by service pack number (ie, Windows XP Service Pack 2).

Re:Twice! (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645641)

Actually, the ability to boot off of an USB driver was more interesting to me than being able to hack the internal drive.

I'd actually be more interested if they could boot Linux on the thing. It'd be much easier to experiment with a USB flash drive before risking bricking your device. If you didn't need any ports the thing lacks, it'd be attractive relative to cobbling together a mini-itx system.

What is the world coming to... (0, Flamebait)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644615)

The breakthrough is done, OS X runs on Apple TV!'

Wow, Slashdot is losing its mind. Usually stories that make it to the front page start with "The breakthrough is done: Linux runs on ". But Apple's OSX (which is essentially BSD, which has been dead or dying too for decades incidentally)? and running on Apple hardware? really...

Re:What is the world coming to... (1)

Raptoer (984438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644633)

yeah, but this wasn't made to run OSX, it was made to run whatever it came with, and nothing else. Since it is a TV(or at least streams video) then it was made to run the software it came with, which is most likely not OSX. My only analogy would be installing Linux on your cable box or dvr...

Re:What is the world coming to... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18644689)

You wouldn't know a joke if it stuck a carnation in its arse and painted its bottom with bright blue letters saying "I'm a joke" would you?

Re:What is the world coming to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18645297)

He did suggest installing linux on a DVR... Maybe your concept is flawed?

Re:What is the world coming to... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645307)

Actually it runs OSX but has a couple things (USB for eample) Disabled.

It is eq1uivelent to getting full Linux on the Linksys routers that run Linux, or a Tivo.

This could get interesting (3, Interesting)

oddeirik (970950) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644635)

"Without video acceleration, games can't floor the graphic chip's throttle. There's no audio or ethernet support either[...]"

Which means it's of fairly limited use, atleast for now. I'm guessing that'll improve over the next couple of months though.

And if it's possible to clock the CPU up to 1 GHz (it's underclocked to 350 MHz?), maybe put in some more RAM and upgrade the HD, $300 ain't so bad for a HTPC with a design that your wife can accept in the living room. It having HDMI, DVI and WLAN isn't a bad thing either if they can get that working.

Re:This could get interesting (4, Informative)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644765)

But why bother doing the upgrades to it when an Apple certified refurb Mac mini with

# 1.66Ghz Intel Core Duo
# 512MB memory
# 60GB hard drive
# combo drive

is only $519?

After doing all the upgrades, the price difference between it and the refurb Mac mini won't be that much.

Re:This could get interesting (0, Troll)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645117)

Oh god, are macs *that* expensive?
$520 for a 512MB/1.6Ghz/60GB *REFUBRISHED* PC is just plain wrong...

You can get a *brand new* 512MB/1.8Ghz/120GB PC from dell... including mouse and keyboard and warranty.

Posting AC because my comment wont be popular on this forum...
  and because I will mod you funny if I get mod points...

Re:This could get interesting (4, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645249)

you clicked on the wrong box.

Also a mac Mini is One tenth the physical size and a heck of a lot quieter than any desktop PC I have come across.

I can use my Mac mini in my living room and not hear it. Yet I can hear the steady hum from my pc's in the next room over.

Compare Apple's to Apple's. At least price out a shuttle, or a custom mini-itx setup before you compare the tiny mac mini to a dud.

Yes I said Dud. Both dell's I have bought were cheap pieces of crap. even the machine I custom built was better and cost a lot less. It wasn't always so. There is a dell at work that keeps on going. Of course it is now 13 years old.

Re:This could get interesting (1)

jmpeax (936370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646943)

even the machine I custom built was better and cost a lot less [than a Dell]
I should hope so. The best quality PCs are those we build ourselves! Dell, HP et al will not incorporate the best quality components in their pre-built systems because they are not the cheapest. That's fine for many people - for high-performance high-quality, custom-building or specialist companies like Alienware are, and always have been, the answer.

Re:This could get interesting (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646199)

Why do that when you can get the same Dell for $200? Oh yeah... Apple customers LOVE vendor lock-in.

Re:This could get interesting (1)

lord_mike (567148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646341)

But that Dell will run Vista... well, "run" should be interpreted loosely... Vista won't actually "run" (crawl, maybe if you're lucky) on any cheap hardware, and you have no choice but to buy vista on a new PC (well, you can beg and whine for XP, and you might get it, but you'll have to fight with the powers that be).

So that Dell $200 computer will just be a slow, useless, brick with its hard drive grinding endlessly into the night, while the slightly more expensive mini will actually run some stuff.

Vista killed the cheap computer.... that makes macintoshes a much more viable option now.

Thanks,

Mike

Re:This could get interesting (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646469)

Not true. Vista runs just fine on a 2-3 year old P4 (I don't know the speed) with 512 MB RAM. I'm typing this post on such a machine right not. The "recommended hardware" thing concerning Vista is largely hype.

Re:This could get interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18644999)

Upgrading RAM will require soldering, seems like alot of work just to have a crappy-but-tiny computer. And if you overclock the processor it is likely it will require more cooling, which will make it noisier.

Re:This could get interesting (1)

setirw (854029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645189)

That used to be the case, but not now:

From the article:

Without video acceleration, games can't floor the graphic chip's throttle. There's no audio or ethernet support either, making the box useless for its original purpose as a media hub.

Over the past week, however, enthusiasts worked to solve these problems


This story is really an addendum to the original, which we saw [slashdot.org] on Slashdot earlier this week.

Re:This could get interesting (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646381)

I thought it was the FSB that was underclocked to 350MHz. I've seen reports that Speedstep reduces the clock to 600MHZ when it's downclocked, meaning that 1GHz is probably the clock that it's really running.

This is a cool hack (4, Insightful)

poofyhairguy82 (635386) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644647)

But it is honestly not that useful. With only a 1GHz processor and 256MB of RAM, it might run OSX but not well. If you are gonna hack OSX why not just build a beige box and put OSX86 on it- I recently put together a Pentium D system that would run OSX well with twice as much ram (in a MicroATX case) for less than the Apple TV. Also a well built hackintosh will have use of the audio and ethernet. For those that just want Apple hardware, for around the same price point as the Apple TV you could get an older mini that would be legit.



I just don't see people going out to buy this for a new (even secondary) Mac.

Re:This is a cool hack (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644683)

I dunno... might make a great "always on" computer...

Re:This is a cool hack (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18644837)

"But it is honestly not that useful. With only a 1GHz processor and 256MB of RAM..."

What are you smokin'? Show me something in a 1.1x7.7x7.7 inch package that looks good and can be a media PC (Xvid playpack!) or a auto PC for $300. The closest thing is the Mac mini at 2x6.5x6.5 inches at $600. Double the money will buy you a lot more, but $300 bucks is toy money. I be stackin' me web servers and slingboxes all over the place for that price point. Plug in a 10" LCD and a DC converter and this guy goes in my car. It would be a great web surfing appliance for the kitchen. Great possibilities are out there. It may not be quite ready for primetime yet, but there is a large community that won't stop until this box runs everything under the sun. It's only a matter of time. Just look at the XBMC project as an example.

Re:This is a cool hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647347)

Why would you even want it as a pc?

Second it's going to have subpar video playback. Pretty soon we're going to have standalone video players that do xvid, hdtv mpeg2 etc without a hitch. I have one right now that cost $210 based on a sigma chip running a scaled down version of linux. It can play everything perfectly except for some particularly high bit rate xvids that were made from rips of hdtv shows due to the limitations on that particular sigma chip, but it plays 17mbps hdtv streams perfectly. the apple tv thing is shit. it's only slightly better than an xbox with a mod chip and xbox media center, the one that I had years ago

Did Steve Jobs Rape you as a kid? (-1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644993)

It is kinda funny it seems like people are trying for find ways for them not to buy a Mac. The One button mouse, issues of The Classic OS, The PowerPC Processors, now it is the price.

Now repeat after me.
Apple Macintosh Computers are prices competitively.

No really it is true. I you match every feature (not just the features that you personally care about or have have on high priority) you will find that very close systems are priced about the same or more or less +/- $100 if you can match all the specs.

Apples perceived problem with price is the fact that Apple has a small range of systems. The low end mac Mac-Mini is actually a mid range PC And priced simular to a mid range PC bought prebuilt, and still you may not get the small form factor. Dells and HP have a wider range of Systems to very low end cheap systems to very high end expensive systems. And you can pick and choose what you want so you get the system that you want, That is a fault in apple which I would agree. But if you compare the computers spec for spec you will see it is fairly priced.
t
This is true with the AppleTV. (1 GHZ and 256 Megs of RAM can run OS X well) Plus you have the ultra small form factor, A wide range of video and audio outputs. It would be good for making kayos systems, where you can hook it up to a nice screen and system. and work as a wireless access point. There is actually quite a lot of nice things you could do with a hacked AppleTV that you couldn't do with a Hacked PC just because it is small enough to fit in many places where a PC even a Mac Mini wouldn't

Re:This is a cool hack (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645143)

AFAIR running OSX on non-Apple hardware is illegal.

Re:This is a cool hack (3, Interesting)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645215)

AFAIR running OSX on non-Apple hardware is illegal.

If I didn't buy a copy it would be illegal. But if I did buy a copy then in the UK at least it would be quite legal for me to run it anywhere I wanted. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the Software Directive / Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, any license terms which tried to prevent me from running OS X virtualised or on non-Apple hardware are sure to be tossed out in court.

Rich.

Re:This is a cool hack (3, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645439)

Unfortunately, you can't buy a copy of Mac OS X (Intel) anywhere. Mac OS X (PowerPC) is a different product. Even in the UK.

And all of these "hacked" instances of Mac OS X 10.4.x running on non-Apple hardware are using a hacked kernel from Mac OS X 10.4.3 (!) from the development systems that shipped with BIOS - nearly all of the work was done for them.

Once Leopard ships, it will require a *significant* amount of work would be required to get Leopard running on non-Apple hardware, much less hardware with BIOS (including VMs). Even if someone does get Leopard running on non-Apple hardware, it will very likely require particular brands of motherboards, etc...meaning people have to go out and buy something anyway.

None of the hacks from 10.4.x, especially the critical kernel, will be able to be reused on 10.5.x. Even now, no one has successfully used a newer 10.4.x kernel on non-Apple hardware - it's all still the old 10.4.3 development kernel that was never released that supported BIOS. Ugly, ugly hack.

So no...there's no legal way for you to get Mac OS X for Intel, even in the UK. Unless you use sophistry to build ridiculous arguments about reusing the license from the Intel iMac that you "no longer want to run Mac OS X on" anymore, etc.

Re:This is a cool hack (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646905)

None of the hacks from 10.4.x, especially the critical kernel, will be able to be reused on 10.5.x. Even now, no one has successfully used a newer 10.4.x kernel on non-Apple hardware - it's all still the old 10.4.3 development kernel that was never released that supported BIOS. Ugly, ugly hack.

Why not just create a VM layer that emulates the Apple hardware rather than try to get physical hardware to match what the OS wants? From my understanding the Parallels team can but don't because of legal restrictions.

And if they won't sell Leopard in the store, then what happens to all the people with Intel + Tiger who can't upgrade?

That would be classic Apple (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#18647195)

Be doing really well, producing cool stuff, and then do something monumentally boneheaded like not allow current owners to upgrade.

Re:This is a cool hack (2, Informative)

TJamieson (218336) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646925)

...all of these "hacked" instances of Mac OS X 10.4.x running on non-Apple hardware are using a hacked kernel from Mac OS X 10.4.3 (!) from the development systems...

Nope, sorry. The latest ones are using the Darwin 8.8.1 (aka 10.4.8) kernel. Built from public sources no less!

Re:This is a cool hack (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646995)

The latest ones for non-Apple hardware (i.e., not Apple TV)?

If so, I stand corrected.

That still doesn't change the fact that it violates the EULA, and is a system that is totally unsupported, not able to pull OS updates (that is, any update that could potentially touch/replace the hacked components) down via Software Update, etc.

If people really are that hell-bent on pirating and/or running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, then that's their call.

But because no mainstream company, vendor, or institution will ever rely on running a hacked OS X on non-Apple hardware, it will ALWAYS remain relegated to the small (yes, extremely small, even if it is thousands or tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of people) hacker/hobbyist/experimenter crowd. Legitimate customers and enterprises will continue to properly license and purchase Mac OS X.

And even if this did become a booming black market in, say, China, it would be no different from how any other software is pirated in those regions.

Re:This is a cool hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647051)

newer kernels HAVE been successfully used in OSX86. in fact semthex was part of that too, along with some other folks like mifki and the now infamous JAS

10.4.8 [freeflux.net]

Re:This is a cool hack (2, Funny)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645451)

But if I did buy a copy then in the UK at least it would be quite legal for me to run it anywhere I wanted.

Yes... on a PPC CPU. Apple does not include the x86 version of OS X Tiger in retail copies. You would not be running what you bought. ("I bought a copy of the Boston Pops doing Beethoven's Fifth symphony, so it should be quite legal for me to download any version of Beethoven's Fifth ever recorded.")

Re:This is a cool hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647587)

Isn't this all academic anyway? AppleTV come WITH a copy o OSX. If I download a copy of OSX to run on my AppleTV, dont I HAVE a license to run it?

Re:This is a cool hack (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645671)

That's funny, the Old G3 I have here runs OSX on it well. and that is less than 500mhz. Works great for most office tasks and internet tasks which is 99% of what a computer is used for in the home.

Re:This is a cool hack (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646481)

I am interested in this. It might not be a great primary computer, but for a low-power electronics project where a "real" computer would be too large or power consuming, then this would be an ideal candidate. AppleTV is more compact than most miniITX, and is cheaper than miniITX hardware too.

Unfortunately, one big problem is that I can't legally sell a product based on installing the real Mac OS X on this, so it would have to rely on non-Apple software upgrades to the machine.

OMFG Ponies! (-1, Redundant)

ThanatosMinor (1046978) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644669)

Wasn't this posted less than a week ago?

Dupe, da-dupe... (Pink Panther) (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18644699)

Dupe Dupe Dupe dupe duuuuuupe.... dupe dupe dupe dupe!

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/02/ 1017242 [slashdot.org]

PowerMac G4 Tower (3, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644763)

Was a whole $80 off eBay. With a $200 upgrade it's dual 1Ghz G4 now, but honestly it ran OSX fine without the upgrade so I could have skipped the big upgrade and saved some cash.

I won't be impressed until someone shows me a programmable/extendable device for under $40 (for new, not used). The $300 price point is not really an exciting price point when you consider PCs have been under this for a while.

I recently spent like $65 on an Athlon 64 X2 3600+ Brisbane cpu. a few other parts and it's a whole computer. Granted an Apple TV is a really tiny computer, and it hooks up to a TV in a very convenient way (but doesn't hook up to a CRT/LCD without some effort). For a tiny computer it's not a bad deal, but if smallness is not a priority then there are better bargains out there to be sure.

Blue & White G3 Tower (2, Interesting)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645489)

Blue and White G3s esentially cost nothing now beyond the cost of the RAM and HD inside (and the cost of shipping), and they run Tiger quite decently. They also take the same CPU upgrades as the early G4 systems. The only problem is they don't take 512M or larger DIMMs, and they don't take 8-chip 256M DIMMs (the 16-chip versions have been a bit hard for me to find as salvage). I've got two of them working quite well next to my (purchased new) MDD/Windtunnel dual 1G G4 (which is awesome for having four HD bays and two optical bays).

Re:PowerMac G4 Tower (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646555)

You bought a used and very old extendable/programmable computer for $80, but you expect that a brand-new extendable/programmable product be cheaper than the used product that you bought? In what bizzaro world would that be realistic?

Cheapest Mac ever (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18644977)

Is VMWare Player with OSX loaded: $0.

low-budget Mac (0, Redundant)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645169)

Isnt that the low end Mini?

Expensive Embedded (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645699)

If a new Mac can cost $300 like a cheap new PC, how come these new little embedded devices still cost $100? The embedded ones don't have HDs, much RAM, displays or even power supplies. They run Linux or other $free OS. And they're supposed to sell many more units to the general public than do Macs, so their scale economy should be better. Why do they cost about 50% their much bigger, more complex cousins?

Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... (1)

kosmosik (654958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645719)

Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap. Apple TV - $300, MacOSX - $150. It means that it costs you $450. For $600 you can get Mac Mini which is far more capable.

But I would love to see Linux running on Apple TV - for ultimate unix/linux hacker minibox Apple TV looks nice. :)

Re:Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... (0, Flamebait)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645903)

Try $500 for Mac OS X. The only legal ways of obtaining Mac OS X for Intel as of today are:

1. Buy Mac OS X Server, 10 licenses ($500)
2. Buy an Intel Mac. Remove OS, install something else (or destroy it or whatever.)

You cannot buy the Intel version of Mac OS X for $130. You hopefully will once Leopard is released, but that's not happened yet. Kind of sucks, huh?

Re:Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646859)

Are you Retarded or something? The Apple TV comes with a full blow OS loaded into it all you have to do is copy a couple components over to it from your system to get everything running smothly.

we're almost there ..... (1)

nblender (741424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645871)

What I want is the AppleTV to act as a MythTV frontend. Either by running mythfrontend itself (unlikely) or by my mythbackend speaking DAAP such that I can use the native ATV software to access my mythbackend.

Why? I want to velcro the ATV behind my LCD TV or on the ceiling with my projector (haven't decided which yet) and only have to deal with a single power cord. I don't want to put my 2TB mythbackend in the same room as my TV. I want it in my rack in the far corner of the basement where it can happily whine away.

Once we have consumer devices that can inconspicuously tuck in behind a TV and speak some standard protocol from the household media server, I'd say we're done. Apple's "household media server" is not quite there. ie: it doesn't have DVR functionality yet, and the iTunes TV model doesn't have the content I want at the prices I'm currently paying.

Tiny Mac, tiny hardware spec (1)

nickovs (115935) | more than 7 years ago | (#18645883)

The AppleTV is cheap but it also has a spec too low to be very effective running OSX.

The main problem is going to be the RAM; only 256MB and not upgradable. The Intel Macs seem to use more memory and I often find Safari using more than 256MB of physical memory on its own. Soldering on new TSOP memory chips is something I'd pay quite a bit to avoid having to do...

Aside from the small memory, there a stack of other aspects that are missing or diminished compared to the Mac mini. At the top level, the CPU is 60% of the speed of the entry-level Mac mini and the disk is half the size. There's no audio input at all, the ethernet is 100Mb/s rather than 1Gb/s, no bluetooth, only one USB (so you end up needing an external hub for most activities). Most people will cope with the missing FireWire, not least because with only 256MB of RAM none of the Universal versions of video editing code are going to cope very well.

It's sort of neat that you can run "full" OS X on the AppleTV but given the spec of the machine I think that the utility is somewhat limited. About the only thing it's good for would be as some sort of stand-alone appliance running a single application. Hey, hold on, that's what they designed it for!

hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646275)

Still too expensive for a Mac

vlc? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18646835)

I think everyone is missing the point of hacking this device. What we really need from it is the ability to stream anything we want out the hdmi port - for example things that have been captured from a cable company's DVR firewire output. Getting vlc running would be a good start.

Dupe (0, Redundant)

dinojemr (261460) | more than 7 years ago | (#18646989)

A dupe of this April Fools post [slashdot.org] . Did it need to be posted again for people to believe it?

What gives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18647141)

This same article came out on April 2 on slashdot as an April Fools joke. http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/02/ 1017242&from=rss [slashdot.org] . Now it is being listed here as a non-april fools joke.

Is this or is this not an April Fools Joke? If not; then why did Slashdot list it? Mistake or Apples crew of super ninja moneky lawyers?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?