Slashdot Log In
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 Leaked?
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Jun 12, 2005 08:19 AM
from the believe-it-when-i-boot-it dept.
from the believe-it-when-i-boot-it dept.
patr1ck writes "Mac Daily News is reporting that Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 processors has been leaked to the internet already. Apparently the version running on the development kit machines is easily transfered to run on any x86 machine. Conspiracy theorists unite: an Apple marketing scheme?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch your words. Apple doesn't trust its users, it has done research indicating either that its demographic won't pirate, or that coding anti-piracy systems wouldn't be worth the investment. Apple is a company, not a person.
Parent
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple makes its money on Software. Apple is a software company. Apple makes hardware because they want their software to run well.
The idea that Apple is a hardware company is common, but misguided. Yes, they make hardware, but that's not the focus of their business model.
Apple makes more money selling an OS upgrade than selling a Mac. Apple makes as much from selling a piece of hardware that you could call that profit profit of the OS with free hardware, or profit of the hardware with free softwware.
If there were 40 million Mac clones being sold every year and Apple made as much from each one of them as it does from an iPod, Apple would be about 8 times more net revenue than it is now. IF it made as much as it does frome each OS upgrade, it would be 16 times as much revenue.
Macs are just a box for Apple software.
This is why so many people are perplexed at apple's actions.
The purpose of limiting OS X on intel to Apple hardware is to give them a chance to make the transition first *before* organizing a profitable cloning arrangement, assuming there are enough people who want to sell mac clones.
But you will never see Apple authorized crap hardware that doesn't work, like you do in the PC world.
Parent
So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl (Score:5, Funny)
Who Has The Torrent? (Score:5, Funny)
I am such a kleptomaniac.
Parent
Re:Who Has The Torrent? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
agreed (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:agreed (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
This may answer the question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This may answer the question (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:This may answer the question (Score:5, Insightful)
This version will no doubt expire at the end of 2006 when you have to return the development machines to Apple.
Parent
This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Insightful)
Accidental or not, you can bet that this development has MS in a cold sweat. Seriously, if it wasn't for piracy, MS would never have gained their stranglehold. Now, the sudden possibility of OSX spreading frictionlessly into Windows' marketshare signals a major change in the commercial landscape.
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Funny)
What? You mean that Windows2 thing we needed to use to start Aldus Pagemaker was actually an operating system?
Parent
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, the widespread uptake driven by piracy is what got their software to "that Point".
Parent
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Informative)
1. They weren't sold.
2. They haven't shipped yet.
3. They're for any higher-level developers, not WWDC attendees.
4. They don't come with an installer, it's pre-loaded.
5. They will be individually watermarked.
Other than that, your post was quite helpful.
Parent
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:5, Funny)
WILLIAM the Conquerer died in 1086 (X86), 20 YEARS after INVADING England and beating KING HAROLD who received an ARROW (ie: pointer) in his EYE (i).
HAROLD is also the name of HAROLD EDGERTON, who became famous for his high-speed images of bullets piercing APPLES.
So, twenty years ago WILLIAM (Gates) killed APPLE. But now WILLIAM is dying. WILLIAM was followed by his son, RUFUS THE RED (ie: Longhorn), who was incredibly unpopular and ironically died from an ARROW in his EYE.
It ALL FITS.
Parent
As microsoft prooved... (Score:5, Insightful)
slashdotted, here's article text... (Score:5, Informative)
Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 12:14 PM EST
"There is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components," Jeff Harrell writes for The Shape of Days. "The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs... I estimate that we're down to a matter of hours before Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hardware is available for download on Internet software piracy sites and peer-to-peer piracy networks. (Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites.) If I can think through this stuff, Apple's management can think through this stuff. This is the most awe-inspiring stealth marketing move I've ever seen."
"According to reports, Apple's bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed... Given Apple's experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple's management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife '05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation. As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs. Apple's giving their potential future customers a free taste, that's what they're doing. It's a try-before-you-buy deal," Harrell writes.
Also, full article (by Jeff Harrell @ ShapeOfDays.com)...
Mac OS X on Intel: Try before you buy?
Item the first: Apple is not staffed entirely by idiots. This is self-evident, and it's important to what follows. Keep this in mind as we proceed.
Item the second: The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. This information has just become public in the past few hours. (Comments I made to the contrary yesterday and on Monday were erroneous. The source who fed me that information has been sent to bed without any supper, and says to tell you he's very sorry and that it won't happen again.)
Item the third: It's safe to assume, given the timeframe, that the developer transition kits that Apple will ship within a couple of weeks will be fundamentally similar to, if not outright identical to, the Power Macs on display at the conference.
Item the fourth: The Power Macs on display at the show run a one-off build of Mac OS X 10.4.1 that incorporates the few necessary changes that were required to get the operating system running on the Intel hardware. This build includes Apple's bundled iLife '05 suite of applications.
Item the fifth: Because Intel's LaGrande security technology is not yet incorporated into any shipping products, it's safe to assume that it's not present in these transition-kit computers.
Item the sixth: Given items two through five, apart from the constraints introduced by hardware-software interfaces, there is nothing at all that prevents the version of Mac OS X that runs on the developer transition machines from running on any PC with compatible components.
Item the seventh: Because the Intel version of Mac OS X that's being distributed to developers is a one-off build, future software patches, including all-important security patches, will not install on top of it, making it totally useless to anybody who's not a developer of Mac software.
Item the eighth: Given it
Bill Gates said to be ... (Score:4, Funny)
Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Serial Number (Score:5, Interesting)
Serial Number: SJOBS_000001 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
As inevitable as it is good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple makes killer hardware, which they make their money on, and set bar for what people are willing to pay for an OS AND for the quality that they should expect.
Unfortunately for Microsoft, that bar and the fact that people will have an alternative, means that Microsoft has less than three years to transform itself to be internet capable (If they already were, there wouldn't be viri, Trojeans, mal-, spy- and ad-ware all over their OS. Microsoft made a mistake are relied on third parties to take care of their problems for them.)
Either Microsoft can make the cut or it never could. They won't be able to rely on pulling anti-trust moves again. That sort of stuff goes on in backrooms and needs darkness to exist. Now, there's a light on in the room.
Pretty sneaky, sis... (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, assuming that the dev kit *will* time-bomb, this would be a brilliant move. Of course, it might still be hacked, but the fact of the matter is that only a very, very small subset of the potential market will bother will figuring out the hack to keep it running.
As I've said before, the only negative impacts I see of Apple moving to Intel are:
1. (Temporarily) Increased costs for current Apple hardware/software owners.
2. Decreased competition in the desktop CPU marketplace.
Other than these two items, this whole thing is a net plus for the entire world, even Microsoft, who will surely benefit from direct competition with Apple in the future. Dell could possibly turn out to suffer some losses from this, eventually, but Michael Dell is an arrogant ass who deserves being taken down a notch.
Which of course, is not to say that Steve Jobs isn't arrogant at times, as well, but at least Steve is a consistently proven innovator who constantly (and relentlessly) pushes the technology industry forward, whereas Dell is, and always will be, just a cloner.
So, by all means, grab a copy, check it out. If you haven't developed for Apple hw/sw before, I think you might be pleasantly surprised enough to switch.
Anyone wonder .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac OS X x86 fixes this.
It's got a unix touch yet it is user friendly (unlike almost any other flavor of unix). It performs well and doesn't suffer from any of the trademark Microsoft deficiencies (security fixes every week, poor usability, an indifferent software vendor, the occasional BSOD & a hefty pricetag). Users apparently seem to like it and there's a decent selection of OSS and commercial desktop apps (including MS office!).
Apple should be able to get 5% marketshare of the PC OS market within a year or so. I expect that there is a turning point where the marketshare will grow rapidly at the cost of windows. For example, a deal with Dell might be such a turningpoint. That means a steady flow of revenue that outperforms anything that can be realized through Apple hardware sales. Most of it is profits because they already did the hard work of writing & porting the software.
I'm actually wondering why they wouldn't do this.
Re:Anyone wonder .. (Score:4, Insightful)
I comparison, Apple has a proven OS with real life applications written for it. They have mindshare. They have the iPod. They have the brand. With the possible exception of Dell, I think Microsoft have shown the world that the real big bucks in the PC world is in software, not hardware.
So if someone, someday, propoes to Apple that they should sell OS X separately for PCs, I'd say that's a bet that they should be willing to take.
Parent
No real Windows users.... (Score:4, Funny)
I just downloaded it... (Score:5, Funny)
I want it (Score:4, Funny)
Can you run it under Virtual PC on the G5?
The specs on the Intel PowerMac (Score:5, Informative)
Re:An era has passed (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Apple becoming another Microsoft, I'm sure their shareholders would be delighted to see that happen.
Parent
the apple strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that their $999 lease is not much of an obstacle for serious developers. Apple does not need new Killer apps to seed the desire to purchase new apples. So such a broad based seeding of the OS does them little good in that respect.
Now to answer cringley's question. "Why would they pre-announce the swtich a year ahead if it is so easy to port apps". People fret they will "osbourne" themselves when current apple users hold off purchasing a new apple waiting for the intel ones.
I suspect that an equally large effect may work the opposite direction. There 10 times as many high-end PC people out there that are about to upgrade their machines and may start to think. Hmmmm this new apple hardware might run windows, maybe I'll put off buying my next Dell-shitbox machine and see what apple rolls out. So this way by pre-announcing they cant get that meme going for a year. Thought's like that lead over the course of a year to the thought of maybe trying out OSX while they are at it.
And of course there's the developers that need to be stroked. gotta give them a year's notice. and apple has the cash reserves to suck-up the osbourne effect.
Parent
the apple strategy as a lymeric (Score:5, Funny)
Who smiled as he rode on a Tiger
They returned from the ride
with intel inside
and the smile on the face of the Tiger.
Parent
Re:the apple strategy (Score:5, Informative)
Phil Schiller is on record stating that Apple won't do anything to stop people from booting Windows.
Parent
Re:probably buggy too (Score:5, Insightful)
It was entertaining to hear that every release of OS X was built for PPC and x86. Something a lot of people thought but couldn't confirm.
And do you really think Windows has security issues because it runs on an x86 chip?
Parent
Re:Driver Modules (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Driver Modules (Score:4, Informative)
OS X kernel modules are kernel "extensions," so the tools are all kext*. kextload, kextstat, and kextunload.
But yeah, no dice on "well let's just load up FreeBSD drivers." Not gonna happen.
Parent
Re:seriously doubt it was planned (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, it'll be compared to Windows, which, despite massive improvements in stability, still has a reputation for crashing, not to mention malware problems. Simply stated, it's easier to look good when you're standing next to someone ugly. Windows is really ugly in a lot of ways. You don't have to be at the top of your game to look better than it.
Add in the fact that anyone tech savvy enough to track down a copy and install it, (ok, it probably won't be terribly hard, but there will be a knowledge barrier to stop my grandmother from doing it), anyone who can figure that out will understand that it's just a development version, that a lot of software is running slower through Rosetta, and that this is just a taste, not the total package Apple will be selling in a year or two.
I think Apple will come out looking pretty good after this. Sure, there will be some who criticize, but there always are. Sure, I'm an Apple fanboy, but truly believe that there are plenty of compelling reasons to use OSX over Windows, that most people who get the chance to try it out will want to switch. Anything that gives people a good opportunity to try (moreso than dicking around on the machines in the Apple Store for a half hour), is a good thing.
Parent
Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors (Score:5, Insightful)
The development machine uses an Intel chipset, an Intel CPU, a Phoenix BIOS, an Intel GPU. This, btw, is largely different from the actual 2006+ Intel-based Macintoshes, which I'm almost positive will use an Apple chipset, an Intel CPU, an ATI or nVidia GPU, an Apple motherboard, and some custom form of BIOS, EFI (most likely) or Open Firmware. But either way: Mac OS X obviously runs on a machine that's pretty much a typical vanilla x86 machine.
"Furthermore, outside of Adobe and a few other companies none of the other developers would have receieved their Intel Dev Kits yet."
Jobs said two weeks. That was Monday, so it's been almost a week. Furthermore, of the thosuands of WWDC attendees, all were allowed to use development machines on site. There's no reason to believe that it was hard for them to just do a straight copy of the entire hard drive and burn it on DVD, then look into it further at home and try and make an installable OS out of it.
"Lastly, all builds would have had digital fingerprints inserted on the CD and in vital binaries to trace any leaks (If not then Apple are stupid)."
Because we all know that Apple uses serial numbers, copy protection and fingerprinting all over their place in Mac OS X. Not. While the server versions have a serial number, the client versions have *no* protection against piracy whatsoever. They never did, and there's no reason to believe they will now.
"This would mean any company stupid enough to let their employees leak it would be in dire trouble."
Why do you assume large companies, when small shareware houses like Panic are at WWDC as well?
Parent
Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors (Score:5, Funny)
Now all we need is a dupe of this story tomorrow.
Parent
Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:If I wanted FreeBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:If I wanted FreeBSD (Score:4, Interesting)
No, not really - the grandparent poster was pointing out that OS X is not equal to FreeBSD and followed up with a rhetorical question - if this *was* equal to FreeBSD, then how come there are applications, such as iPhoto, that won't run on FreeBSD but will run on OS X? Because it's not equal to FreeBSD, obviously.
Without resorting to trolling and/or name-calling or casting people into stereotypes (as every other direct ascendent of this comment), let's settle for the facts that a) FreeBSD and OS X are both good, solid OSes with their own benefits, and that b) FreeBSD and OS X are not equal. If you think that OS X has absolutely nothing useful over plain FreeBSD and that you're just happy using FreeBSD, then good for you! Keep using FreeBSD, and keep not using OS X, but there's no need for you to flame others over it (or for others to flame you over it, for that matter).
Parent
Re:the ire of popularity (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
A minor suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry for being offtopic, but I think the next slashdot poll should be "What sort of scripted and automated action should we take against posts containg the phrase 'Soviet Russia'?"
Options should range from "Instant permaban" and "Slashdot their servers" to "Order nasty russian hitmen to do what's necessary".
Seriously though. There should be a slashdot poll on that exact topic.
Parent
Re:So why haven't they bought Macs? (Score:4, Insightful)
This hasn't changed with a move to x86. If the Mac OS is all they need, why didn't they all buy Mini's?
These non technocratic folks, as you put it, seem unlikely to install a totally new OS. You don't need to be a geek to use Linux, just to install it.
There is one simple critical fact that will never change. The vast majority of people will use the OS that ships with their computers and that will never change.
Windows succeeds on the sales of Dells, OSX will sink or swim on the sales of Macs.
Selling an OS that is not tied to HW is a doomed enterprise. A big part of the Microsoft push has always been about getting their OS bundled with Hardware.
Parent