Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 Leaked? 864
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?"
Marketing scheme? Interesting thought (Score:2, Insightful)
So perhaps there's something to the conspiracy theory after all. I wonder if it would run on my older Compaq PC with a Pentium III and all Intel components.
I have a PowerMac G5 dual, which would surely outperform my old 700mhz Compaq by miles, but I have to admit my curiosity is piqued.
D
Re:why aren't I surprised? (Score:1, Insightful)
I bet there's a PC out there already running Tiger...
This may answer the question (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Marketing scheme? Interesting thought (Score:2, Insightful)
As microsoft prooved... (Score:5, Insightful)
Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
seriously doubt it was planned (Score:1, Insightful)
In my opinion, these people (read: the ones shamelessly distributing development software) ruin that which they have.
They may think they're doing it for the good of Apple, but in the endd, if the development 10.4_X86 has many bugs and crashes often, the X86 version is going to be reviewed in a bad light by "normal" (read: non-mac-fanatical) sites and journals.
grr.
B.
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.
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.
It's a fake story to get web visitors (Score:1, Insightful)
The Intel build of Mac OS X only runs on the chipset supplied in the development machines, so it won't run on *any* x86 machine. Furthermore, outside of Adobe and a few other companies none of the other developers would have receieved their Intel Dev Kits yet. 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).
If someone leaked this then they are likely to be sued for hundreds of millions of dollars. This would mean any company stupid enough to let their employees leak it would be in dire trouble. Hence, my reasoning for saying that this is fake.
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.
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".
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.
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?
Re:It's a fake story to get web visitors (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So...http://apple.slashdot.org/users.pl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From where came the ipod? (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, no. Apple was doing fine, just not "great", before the iPod.
"Without song swapping on the net, that was around long before Apple"
Song swapping on the net was around long before Apple was founded in 76? Interesting. What net is this you're speaking of? ARPAnet?
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:2, Insightful)
No, no, NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
----------
Look, you guys just can't get it through your heads that the reason why OS X works so well is because it runs on such a limited pool of hardware-- this allows the engineers coding OS X to make assumptions THAT CANNOT BE MADE in the x86 world, where a machine could be using one of thousands of motherboards, network cards, graphics cards, sound cards, etc. Windows developers have to code for the lowest common denominator. OS X developers code for specific hardware. Even the version of NeXTStep that ran on Intel ran on a tiny subset of the available PC hardware. If your CD-ROM drive and motherboard weren't on the "supported hardware" list that came with NeXTStep, you were SOL.
That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.
Do you think Jobs could just snap his fingers one day and a few months later have a product on the shelves that would run perfectly on every PC capable of running XP today? It's impossible. And even if it were possible, you wouldn't buy it. Why? Because Apple uses their software to sell their hardware, so a copy of OS X for x86 would have to be priced to ease the pain of a lost hardware sale-- you'd either do without it and bitterly bitch about the price here on
~Philly
Re:Anyone wonder .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because a similar business model led to the bankruptcy of Be Inc.?
Re:Time to get to work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it will possibly expire on 31DEC2005 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Torrent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Fortuitous accident? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox is free and easy to install, but the vast majority of people still use IE6 (and even IE5) which most agree is inferior. If people can't be buggered to install a simple browser, why would they ever bother to switch their entire OS without OEMs being in on it?
Re:Fortuitous accident? (Score:2, Insightful)
First, the iPod has become their cash cow. They make more on iPods than they do on "Mac Hardware."
Second, Apple currently is credited with a 10%-15% "market share." Most Mac users are considered "zealots" that buy Mac because Macs are "better." Sony Viao computers are 10-20% more expensive than "generic hardware." how many computers sold are Sonys? Mac is a "Brand" name. Even if 100% of computers can install OS X, Apple can still manage their same 10% market share on Brand name status alone. Meaning they lose nothing in hardware sales. They gain in OS install base and revenue. This pressures Windows developers to support OS X. Broader software support will increase the OS X marketshare even more.
Third, Getting drivers for the generic hardware should be no problem since they run on a BSD kernel anyways. The drivers for the most part will already be there. Just a few tweaks and optimizations and you're set.
There is no reason not to do this. Apple could have 30-40% of the OS market in one years time if they allow OS X to run on any intel computer.
Re:If I wanted FreeBSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This Will RUIN Bill Gates' Weekend (Score:3, Insightful)
ie: if it runs like crap, people who see it are going to implicitly blame Apple--even though it is totally not their fault. This will hurt Apple's image.
The ability to run MacOSX on anything but official Apple hardware is very bad for Apple.
One nice thing about running on Intel chips is that VirtualPC can run at full speed. Weeeeeeeeeeeee.
Re:Same hardware as Darwin (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Anyone wonder .. (Score:1, Insightful)
- Apple would need to support multiple configurations of PCs. It would create the same mess and support problems you see in Wintel world now.
- Apple would need to sell boat loads of this to offset the development of OS costs. ATM, the hardware subsidizes the software. You can't achieve this simply by selling retail boxes off the counter.
- Which leads to Apple signing contracts with PC hardware manufacturers. Can Apple actually get them to sell Mac PCs? Do you think Microsoft will stay quiet when Apple is trying to steal their partners?
- Apple would need to be like Microsoft: putting stupid guards against piracy.
The end game, maybe, is on divorcing the OS from the hardware, but that would take years and years to execute. My feeling is it would not happen though. Apple can be comfortable in its own niche. Apple is not Microsoft and Jobs is a control freak, not a world-domination type guy like Gates.
Re:Anyone wonder .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I agree.
"[Apple has] mindshare."
Yes, and tons of it. They also have great reputation and brand recognition, in most regards.
But look at IBM. Does IBM have mindshare? Hell yes. Does IBM have good reputation? Arguable, but certainly not all too negative these days. What happened to OS/2? It never took off, and since it let Windows apps run inside, developers just coded for Windows and let OS/2 users eat the emulated software.
BeOS and OS/2 are just two examples of why I believe commercial operating systems that don't go by the name of Windows currently cannot work in the x86 mass-user field, thanks to Microsoft.
Letting Mac OS X run on any x86 machine would be a great idea for customers, a great threat to Microsoft, and a great risk for Apple. Will they take it? Not according to Phil Schiller.
Re:the ire of popularity (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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.
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.
Re:slashdotted, here's article text... (Score:1, Insightful)
Additionally, wouldn't it be interesting if that serialiation was added "under the hood" to development machines, in a manner that is not readily apparent to developers but could be found by Apple developers if a torrent of the build was distribuited?
I'm not saying that's what HAS happened; simply that it could happen, and anyone with a developer machine might want to consider that if they post the version of OS X that it may well be easily tracked back.
And it occurs to me that Apple can be very litigious when need be, yes?
Re:They do fingerprint developer seeds. (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, Apple also distributes media via snail mail, rather than images through downloading, and as I've explained, it unfeasible to fingerprint those.
Great potential for Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
1. To secure the final production version, Apple could run a third train of the Darwin kernel leaving PPC, x86 and a new MacIntel version. Assuring than only OSXx86 only runs on Apple hardware and accommodating the speculated differences between generic x86 PCs and proprietary Apple x86 powered computers. For instance, just because the XBOX360 can run on a PowerMac G5 doesn't meant the the final production version will or ever will again.
2. Give out a live CD based on the generic x86 Darwin kernel to entice PC users to switch. Similar to what Be did, but actually get people to switch..
3. If MS chooses not to continue development of VPC as a defensive move, Apple could still look to VMWare to provide virtualization for running Windows applications for those that have switched. Or integrate Bochs, Plex86, WINE, etc..
4. Apple could allow dual-booting of Windows and OSXx86. Although this is less likely to happen --remember Win95 / Dos6.22-Win3.11?
Apple's employees aren't dumb. They're primarily interested in keeping existing Mac users and developers happy by creating things like Rosetta and universal binaries. To think that Apple wouldn't apply the same philosophies towards disatisfied Windows users would be ignorant.
Re:Live CDs / DVDs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This may answer the question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I just downloaded it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Horrible for their current business model, but an excellent business model none the less. Or do you think Apple's business model is better than Microsoft's? Making 50 bucks a pop off the sale of 1 billion units of an OS is a little bit more than making 500 bucks a pop off the sale of a couple million Macs. About 49 billion dollars more, just ask Bill.
I also feel it is a dream that will be long in coming, if ever, true. However, that is their own fault. Either they will greedily cling to the high margin business model that has kept them where they are because their greed has blinded them into thinking that they can somehow, someday have a total and complete monopoly on the entire industry. Or they simply don't belive their OS is really good enough to take on Windows head to head.
Look at all the free publicity Apple got over this Intel announcement. Imagine the impact of announcing, "OS X has a little secret, it's been running on PCs all along, and today is the day we let the Tiger out of the cage."
EVERYONE would be talking about that, everyone. Not just some tech sites, and a blurb on TV business shows. It would be front page headline news on every paper across the globe. It would be on every news show, Letterman and Leno would be joking about what Bill Gates was going to do to answer this, Opra would have Jobs on her show giving away free copies to everyone in the audience... just imagine the rest for yourself.
I honestly believe that had Steve said that last Monday, the only thing stopping Apple from having more market share than Microsoft today would be the long lines in stores.
Now, if he does announce it next year, or the year after, people will have been expecting it and it won't have near the impact it would have had Monday.
Since it is almost a fact that OS X does run on plain Jane PCs, meeting the minimum system requirements. Since the general perception of most people is that OS X is superior. Since people are fed up with spyware and viruses. Since Steve Jobs has the vaccine. I think this proves he isn't the business genius people think he is. People give him far too much credit. He just gave Bill another chance to steal his thunder.
Drivers (Score:3, Insightful)
So I say the idea of running MacOS X on any commodity PC is, at the moment, a complete myth.
Re:Message to Steve Jobs or anyone else (Score:3, Insightful)
Even with hardware, that 10% margin you quote does not go completely into the profit column of the ledger, in fact most projects (hardware or software) will be in the red for the first two quarters as amortized costs are recouped, if not longer.
Any bug fixes and support will be charged against those margins for the project.
Welcome to the "real" world where beer is not "free".
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.
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.
Re:probably buggy too (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I think a lot of people have missed an interesting dynamic with all this: Apple are doing the opposite replacement to the usual one - LOW END Macs will be the first on Intel - HIGH END the year after, the exact opposite to the usual "filter down" policy.
Personally I think this is because a lot of the "high end" applications lean hard on AltiVec, and the Intel chips have nothing as good - it'll take a while for Intel to have performance that beats the PowerPC970FX in ALL areas...
The Mac "fanboys" had it right that the PPC has better performance in areas that matter to the Mac (mostly as Apple have favoured applications well suited to that chip). I think the biggest problem was that the G5 (as Apple call it) seems no closer to fitting in a PowerBook, and laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales (in all PCs not just Macs). This has been forced on Apple, not chosen by them, and not because the top end Macs are too slow. (though the need for liquid cooling isn't a good sign!)
However I'll admit, I was wrong - I didn't think this would happen (mostly because of Apple using AltiVec so much).