Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Operating Systems Intel

Intel Mac OS X Catches Up With Older Brother 672

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the yes-have-some dept.
RetrogradeMotion writes "Apple is now one step closer to the Intel transition. According to the OSx86 Project, a recently leaked installation DVD of Mac OS X 10.4.3 reveals that the Intel version is in sync with the PowerPC version - the two are now identical. Initially, "OSx86" was substantially behind its PPC counterpart, but the recent update makes it ready for the public. The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel Mac OS X Catches Up With Older Brother

Comments Filter:
  • "article"???? (Score:4, Informative)

    by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:03PM (#13944045) Homepage Journal
    It's a posting in a blog, which is a far cry from an "article".
  • by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:04PM (#13944061)
    So does anyone else find it funny that we get an Apple-Intel update on within 6 hours of a "Intel processors get their asses kicked" story?
    • by killtherat (177924) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:29PM (#13944357)
      Apple is on the cutting edge of making sure their OS runs on the slowest CPUs possible. For a while that was PPC, back when Intel was kicking ass and taking names, and Motorola couldn't find their ass with both hands. But now that IBM is starting to pop out high speed multi-core PPC chips, it's time to find a new slow chip.

      Face it, Apple is cursed, what ever chip they use is doomed to be second rate. If intel was smart, they would have kept their distance ;-)
  • A Hopeless Battle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:04PM (#13944066)
    The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections.

    Time for the next hack to come along.

    Until every byte of code verifies for itself that it is running on genuine Apple hardware before it will execute, I'm not sure if Apple can ever close this door.

    Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it.

    Hey, Steve, want to reconsider that move to Intel now?

    • by georgewad (154339) <georgewad.mac@com> on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:13PM (#13944164) Homepage
      I agree, and I think (hope) that Apple knows this and looks the other way.
      IMHO it's in Apple's interest for there to be TPM that's breakable if you REALLY want to break it (much like iTunes DRM). This way, only someone who know what they're doing will be able to run OSX on non-Apple hardware - no worries about supporting a crappy handmade POS, but still putting OSX in the hands of the more Crafty interesed geeks.
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:15PM (#13944186)

      Until every byte of code verifies for itself that it is running on genuine Apple hardware before it will execute, I'm not sure if Apple can ever close this door.

      Of course they can't and don't expect to. Their goal is to make sure it does not effect profits. People will always hack and pirate and Apple can't stop them. Their goal is to make it hard enough that most people won't bother and so that 99.9% of users would rather use a Apple system than deal with hacking another system to sort of work. Heck people ran Mac OS in emulators on x86 hardware years and years ago. It just was never enough to make any difference in the marketplace. Do you think Apple cares if 500 hackers get OS X sort of running on commodity boxes? Hell no, these people would probably never have bought a legitimate copy anyway and even if they would have it is not worth the effort to lock the system down more just to sell 500 more copies. Anyone who thinks more than a tiny percentage of the market will be running a hacked version is quite mistaken.

      • Of course they can't and don't expect to. Their goal is to make sure it does not effect profits. People will always hack and pirate and Apple can't stop them. Their goal is to make it hard enough that most people won't bother and so that 99.9% of users would rather use a Apple system than deal with hacking another system to sort of work. Heck people ran Mac OS in emulators on x86 hardware years and years ago. It just was never enough to make any difference in the marketplace. Do you think Apple cares if 500
    • by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:20PM (#13944250) Homepage
      Maybe this experiment will eventually prove that TPM itself is impossible to achieve when more people are working to break your system than are employeed by Apple to defend it.

      TPMs were never intended to be used for what Apple is using them for, thus the cracks only prove that a TPM isn't very useful for things it wasn't designed to do. The real TPM features like sealing and attestation still haven't been cracked.
  • TPM=PMS (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lev13than (581686) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:07PM (#13944092) Homepage
    The article also notes that Apple has continued to learn from hackers' efforts to crack the operating system and has greatly strengthened the TPM protections.

    As you may or may not know, TPM stands for "Tensão Pré-Menstrual", which is the Portuguese term for Pre-Menstrual Syndrome. Exactly why hackers would want to get by those TPM protections is beyond me.
  • by Lester67 (218549) <`ten.skcapym' `ta' `28027sletar'> on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:12PM (#13944154)
    To all of you that thought an outdated version of the OS was actually "leaked".

    Congrats, Apple just made you an unpaid security consultant. :-)
  • not possible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by austad (22163) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:16PM (#13944202) Homepage
    I don't think it will be possible to stop people from getting it running on non-apple hardware. It's just going to be a constant battle. There are too many people working on breaking it. Look at the Xbox, with its whole encryption/authentication scheme. That was broken after a few months.

    Most of the people installing it on non-apple hardware probably wouldn't purchase apple hardware anyway. It's a good, non-official way, for apple to gain marketshare. The highschool/college kids of today are the decision makers of tomorrow. Get them hooked on OSX now (even if it's an illegal copy) means that they will likely influence their friends/family and employer to go with it.

    Maybe apple should stop spending money on the resources to add copy protection and just let it go. If someone comes up with a good solution in the future, they can just roll it out in an update. In the meantime, let people get hooked.
    • Re:not possible (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ObligatoryUserName (126027) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:33PM (#13944411) Journal
      Most of the people installing it on non-apple hardware probably wouldn't purchase apple hardware anyway.

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

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

      If Apple wants to give their OS away they will do so; making a half-assed guess about what would make them happy doesn't count as consent.
      • Re:not possible (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Em Adespoton (792954) <slashdotonly.1.adespoton@spamgourmet.com> on Thursday November 03, 2005 @06:06PM (#13945371) Homepage Journal
        So... is it ok if I steal a new Pontiac Aztec off the lot? They're so unpopular that they've canceled that model, it probably wouldn't have sold anyway. It'll get the Pontiac name out there. They should be happy.

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

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

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

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

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

        This part I agree with.

        • Wrong illustration:...

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

          Honestly, while IP laws are more complex than real property laws, the morality of the thing never has been. The only thing that ma
  • by Bodhammer (559311) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:17PM (#13944215)
    on using the cover sheets on the TPM report?
  • by Orrin Bloquy (898571) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:19PM (#13944234) Journal
    Continued improvements in both releases of 10.4.3 include an optimized table of system values organized in a hash known as a "registry," a simplified four-color theme, and a sophisticated AI-based Automator avatar known as "Guru" who appears at the bottom of your screen to anticipate Automator tasks by asking questions such as "It looks like you're writing a paper."
  • AppleCore (Score:5, Funny)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:22PM (#13944283) Homepage Journal
    Leaked install DVD? HAH! That's for scriptkiddies. Where's the leaked kernel source code?
  • leaked? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jgionet (828557) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:23PM (#13944286)
    it's amazing how stuff always manages to get "leaked". It's too bad some extra money didn't get "leaked" in to my bank account. I suppose it's a good way to get stuff tested without being responsible for it's results.
  • Final Cut? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bobalu (1921) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:23PM (#13944297)
    Anyone know what the status of the iLife apps is?

    Final Cut Pro?

    I'd love to cut my DVD encoding time down but I can't justify getting a new G5 for the 6-10 months we'll be waiting for the new CPUs.

    • Re:Final Cut? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wootest (694923) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:59PM (#13944677)
      If you do have work to get done in the seven months we have to wait and you could easily afford one, I say just get a G5. Your stipulated G5 wouldn't die the exact moment Steve presents the Intel Macs on stage - it won't be cutting edge anymore, but that'll be as true if you were to buy an Intel Mac seven months before its next generation as well.

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

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

      I think this "let's hold our horses for a year or so" attitude is getting a bit out of hand. If you were to buy a PowerBook, then maybe I could understand you, but the G5-based Macs are definitely the highlights of today's lineup, and there's no way in hell that the first revision Intel PowerMacs will be a better buy than they are based on what little you've said.
  • by twbecker (315312) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:27PM (#13944345)
    Everyone wants a way to make it run on generic Intel hardware. The thing is, even if you could do that, OS X drivers are not going to be available for 95% of your periphrials. What good is running the OS with no network, sound, or perhaps even video?
    • by infernalC (51228)
      Sound will be a problem. Graphics will be a problem. Those two things, only because nobody buys a new sound chipset or graphics chipset to put in their Macs. But everything else will be OK.
    • by be-fan (61476) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:52PM (#13944602)
      The point is that the 5% of your peripherals that are supported are very common. Looking at the Intel HCL, I know I could easily dig up several of those cards (lying around the house). Most onboard AC/97 soundcards seem to be supported, which is what is used on the Mac anyway. The only sticky point is video (only Intel 900GMA cards are accelerated), and perhaps SATA (nForce4 SATA isn't supported, most PATA controllers are). Firewire and USB are standard EHCI and OCHI, so that's all good. What more does your average user have?
    • Maybe people will end up compiling a list of hardware combinations that work fine, instead of throwing it at any random piece of hardware.
  • by amichalo (132545) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:30PM (#13944372)
    So Apple is dedicating enough resources to make it difficult to run OS X on a non-Apple box, but isn't wasting it's time and money trying to totally secure it.

    Brilliant

    The people hacking OS x86 for non-Apple hardware aren't going to buy Macs anyway, they are in it for some other technical purpose.

    The people who want OS X for business will go legit - too much risk for a company to steal like that.

    The people who want OS X for a home aren't going to either know how to or want to take the time to fuss with some illicit download of the OS that won't be supported.

    So the extreme hackers get OS X without buying an Apple box and maybe they even develop some cool apps with their pirated copy of Xcode too.

    The big winner is still Apple (and OS X users).
  • by G4from128k (686170) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:32PM (#13944391)
    Having no TPM would be an open invitation to widespread unauthorized distribution of OS X - not good for the old revenue stream in either hardware or software. Having perfect TMP would stifle experimentation -- not good for letting prospects try before they buy. Having an evolving, imperfect TPM shield provides the best of both worlds.

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

  • by spirit_fingers (777604) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @04:35PM (#13944433)
    Intel OS X 10.4.3 is still a 32-bit operating system, whereas the PPC iteration is 64-bits. One step forward, one step back.
  • by hkb (777908) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @06:02PM (#13945329)
    I have a DTK with 10.4.3, so some notes from someone with an actual clue:

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

    2.) While 10.4.3 Intel may have "caught up" to the PPC version, it's still far from release quality. For example, Spotlight seems to be seriously broke and not functioning correctly in Mail.app, iTunes is still a PPC app, Safari crashes often, and Bonjour is still a bit borked.
  • by dissonant2005 (907516) on Thursday November 03, 2005 @06:30PM (#13945572)
    I'm more curious if the proprietary Apple machines will be able to dual boot into XP, or Longhorn, or Linux...
  • "Older Brother"?? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Clith (5063) <rae@tnir.org> on Thursday November 03, 2005 @11:45PM (#13947574) Homepage Journal
    The NeXT code base has been on Intel a *lot* longer than PowerPC (since 1993 [apple.com])!

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

You can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. - Al Capone

Working...