Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
OS X Operating Systems

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger for x86 Leaked?

Comments Filter:
  • by pbjones ( 315127 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:23AM (#12794218)
    Apple has often put an expiry date into their software so it may only be good for a short period of time? enjoy
    • Yeah but howabout the old "turn abck the clock" trick or given enough time regedit it into working. I know I for one would love to have Tiger 10.4.1 on a PC - I am typing this on Tiger right now and it is an amazing OS.

      Conspiracy? Apple leaked this? Please..... Apple is making people buy this with an Apple PC they have to return. They took and will take any step possible to stop this from happening.
      • regedit? wtf? registry edit? That's something in the Windows OS, dumby. The point is, past date xyz the OS won't be supported any more, patches wont work with it etc etc, so it basically becomes useless to anyone except developers. Next time rtfa. Notice how much marketshare? It's pirated like crazy, but MS still exists as a company. Do you really think people are going to say "hey, ive got a crippled, not to mention BETA (or even alpha?) of the OS, why buy the computer for real when I can run this for the
    • by ceeam ( 39911 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @10:50AM (#12794714)
      Are you serious? If it runs it can be cracked. Period. Even complicated (reasonably) schemes like Windows Activation are only a nuisance for legal users. Timebomb? - there are probably several 100s of thousands people in the world capable of cracking it in 20 minutes.
      • If it runs it can be cracked. Period

        Right. That's why Apple will never switch to Int... No, wait. That's one thing I don't understand about the switch. Apple makes its money on hardware. If OS X can be hacked to run on every Intel box, Apple stands to lose big time. They must have some way figured out how to insure that OS X runs only on Apple hardware.

        • by BitGeek ( 19506 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @07:29PM (#12798092) Homepage

          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.
          • No. Apple's two most hyped products now are being marketed to sell software (music through iTunes) at loss to sell hardware (iPods) at huge profit. Apple loses money in the iTMS []

            In computers it's the same story. If Apple is a software company, why did it kill the Mac Clones Program? [] Acording to Wikipedia, Jobs said that the clone program was doomed to failure from the start; and since Apple mostly made money by selling computer hardware, for the most part, it ought not engage in a licensing program to reduc

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:23AM (#12794221)
    ...who has the torrent?
  • I wondered why they threw iLife in there. It really would be of little interest to developers, but if your stealth market was someone pirating the software to try it out, it would be near-indespensible.

    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.

    • "I wondered why they threw iLife in there." I can't even believe you asked that question. They put iLife in there because many developers write applications that interface (or supplement iLife).
      • "I wondered why they threw iLife in there."

        And, of course, because they've compiled the iLife applications for x86, and want to prove that MacOS X on x86 runs real native applications. It's hard to argue that video editing, music playback, and photo organizing aren't "real". :-)
  • by ralphart ( 70342 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:26AM (#12794229)
    I doubt this was part of Apple's master marketing scheme. Still..this may help answer the question on whether or not the new x86 version of Mac OS X will run on generic hardware.
    • ... I would expect that it would be a lot like the old Rhapsody DR1 and DR2 releases were on x86 (anybody else remember those things?), except with newer and shinier "eye candy." That is to say, assuming it can even be booted, hardware support will be *extremely* limited. In fact, it may be even worse because while the Rhapsody DR releases on x86 were intended to target beige-box PCs (if only a few models thereof), this build of Mac OS X was only intended to target a single, very specific "PC"... namely the
    • by bsharitt ( 580506 ) <> on Sunday June 12, 2005 @10:13AM (#12794464) Homepage Journal
      This is probably why they are leasing the dev machines until 2006. The "real" releases probably wont run on them, and supporting them would mean supporting generic PCs. Steve did say they are leasing them becasue they dodn't want any of them floating around. This is proabably why.
    • by yabos ( 719499 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @10:16AM (#12794480)
      That question has already been answered. This development version obviously doesn't have any kind of protections on it yet to make it only run on Apple hardware. Phil Shiller has already said that the final version will only run on Apple hardware and not any x86 computer.

      This version will no doubt expire at the end of 2006 when you have to return the development machines to Apple.
  • by donnacha ( 161610 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:27AM (#12794237) Homepage
    The OP said:
    "Conspiracy theorists unite: an Apple marketing scheme?"
    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.

    • MS gained their stronghold, at least within the operating system universe, through having their operating system included with nearly every computer made for the last two decades.

      I don't think piracy had much of an influence at that point.

      Since corporations buy most word processors and they almost always buy their software instead of pirating, I doubt that piracy had much impact in the rise of Word over WordPerfect and the like. It was better than the competition, something hard to remember nowadays.

    • []

      The "developer machines" running P4, about 4GHZ, were sold to attendants (some 2000-4000 people, I'd say) for $999, I'd say a bargain price. Now what's the chance a brand spanking new computer with brand spanking new ultra secret operating system gets stolen from one of 2000 nerds? Conspiracy or not, the leak was something that had to happen.

      Now the tricky news. The machines are just for development before the official release and are to be returned somewhere aro
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:26PM (#12795355)
        Boy, you're just fast and loose with the facts, aren't you?

        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.

    • Windows will never lose its stranglehold on OS marketshare.

      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?
    • What would be really ideal for Apple is if people get a version of OSX running POORLY on generic x86 machines. Like, you know, it works well enough to see what's nice about the OS, but there are enough problems and bugs that most people will say, "screw this, I'll just buy an Apple."

      After all, once Apple makes the switch to Intel, people should be able to run Windows and Linux on them. So you'll get everything you'll get from buying any other x86 machine, but you'll also be able to run OSX trouble-free.

      • I believe it will be the opposite effect -- if people get MacOSX to run at all, people (generally assumed to be stupid) will still think that it should still "just work" even though it is pirated and not running on official hardware.

        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 Int
  • by ratta ( 760424 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:28AM (#12794240)
    having a large market share is more important then being able to stop piracy...
  • by Eric Coleman ( 833730 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:28AM (#12794241)
    If this increases Mac's market share, at least in terms of software, how will it deal with an increase in viruses, worms, and trojans. Mac's will get them, that's for sure, but the deciding factor I think will be how well they respond to vulnerabilities.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:31AM (#12794251)
    Report: Apple Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hits piracy sites

    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 @

    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
    • I wish I could agree with the conclusion. I just don't think it's true.

      If you want to market OS X to non-Mac users, you have to get it to them. Limiting yourself to a handful of technologically knowledgable geeks, and then only those who do not have a problem with blatant copyright infringment, is going to "get it to" a very small group of people, relative to the population Apple wants to get it to.

      And yes, it's going to be a subset of geeks who do this. Why? Because relatively few people are willing t

  • by KSobby ( 833882 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:32AM (#12794254)
    Bill Gates said to be muttering something about "Tiger Tiger. burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye. Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" Who knew he was a Blake fan?
  • by ninjakoala ( 890584 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:32AM (#12794257)
    It's most likely not "any" x86 machine, but rather those that Darwin already runs on. Whether it's a intentional or not, it's still good marketing though.
  • Since Darwin is based on FreeBSD, are all open source kernel modules for FreeBSD fair game to modprobe?
    • Re:Driver Modules (Score:5, Informative)

      by TilJ ( 7607 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:48AM (#12794329) Homepage
      OS X doesn't use the FreeBSD kernel. And, more importantly, FreeBSD doesn't have a 'modprobe' (that's a sign of a Linux user who has never used a BSD if I've ever seen one). 'kldload' is probably the closest equivalent and OS X doesn't have it (just checked).
      • Re:Driver Modules (Score:4, Informative)

        by Colol ( 35104 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:32PM (#12795400)
        'kldload' is probably the closest equivalent and OS X doesn't have it (just checked).

        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.

  • universal binaries (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ftsf ( 886792 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:37AM (#12794276) Homepage
    Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years." /index.php [] why cant they just run the normal Max OS X binaries on X86 if they're universal binaries like they speak of?
    • Because running PPC binaries on the Intel Macs requires emulation. Emulation = slow. The whole reason they're changing is speed :)

      (For small values of whole)
    • Only Mac apps were universal. All the old PPC apps will run via Rosetta, so they will run, they just won't be "universal binaries". For example, Photoshop isn't a universal binary but it runs fine.
    • by maxume ( 22995 )
      Because the universal binaries were kept internal to Apple and the released versions of OS X were only capable of running on Apple hardware?

      If they released versions of OS X that were fat binaries, someone outside of Apple would have noticed and said something, and we would all know about it already. Jobs is almost certainly talking about internal builds that Apple has been doing to ensure compatability for a possible transition.
  • Serial Number (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scrotch ( 605605 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:44AM (#12794309)
    I would be surprised if there wasn't a hidden serial number in the OS on each PC they distributed. I bet Apple, and their lawyers, will know exactly who leaked this very soon.
  • by crovira ( 10242 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:50AM (#12794338) Homepage
    When Longhorn finally comes out, some tech people will have had OS X running on their boxes already and won't bother to switch and that is worrying Microsoft.

    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.

  • Fortuitous accident? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by haggar ( 72771 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:52AM (#12794350) Homepage Journal
    I have some doubts whether this was a leak or a "leak". However, even if it was an unintended (by Apple) event, it could turn out to be the best things to happen to Apple, ever. A sudden boom in OS-X86 (you heard it here, first) could shake some cojones in Apple's executives' pants, and cause a paradigm shift in that company's strategy.

    Basically, a shift from hardware towards software-based revenue.

    Or not. Apple might utilize this event just to market OS-X86 to new users, users that would otherwise not have bought a Mac, and increase their future sales of Intel-based Macs. However, this strategy would work only on a fraction of those who tried OS-X86 for size, so the effect would be limited.

    I say, Apple, have some balls and start selling OS-X86 and related applications! Stick it to Microsoft and cause a stir in the desktop OS marketplace.
  • by amper ( 33785 ) * on Sunday June 12, 2005 @09:58AM (#12794375) Journal
    Of course, the only way that this would make sense is if the developer release is time-limited. Let's face it, Apple is not ready to take on Microsoft head-to-head right now; it would be suicide for Apple to allow an easily-hacked version of Mac OS X that could run on cheap-ass hardware out the door.

    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.
  • Leaked?? (Score:3, Funny)

    by base_chakra ( 230686 ) * on Sunday June 12, 2005 @10:08AM (#12794433)
    I, for one, am shocked.
  • Anyone wonder .. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jilles ( 20976 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @10:23AM (#12794520) Homepage
    .. what would happen if Apple decided to just offer the OS without the hardware? MS is in an enviable position of having a monopoly on x86 pc operating systems. There is some competition but none of it is taken seriously at the moment (except for servers). Even cost conscious companies choose windows over linux for their desktops.

    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.
    • "I'm actually wondering why they wouldn't do this."

      Because a similar business model led to the bankruptcy of Be Inc.?
      • by joeykiller ( 119489 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:27PM (#12795367) Journal
        You can hardly compare an eventual Apple strategy of selling their OS for non-Apple boxes with Be's history. Be, inc. had an unfinished OS and little else. No wonder they went bankrupt.

        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.

        • "Be, inc. had an unfinished OS and little else. No wonder they went bankrupt."

          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
  • by callipygian-showsyst ( 631222 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @10:41AM (#12794642) Homepage
    ...will even care about this. It's not like I'm going to take my wonderfully stable Windows XP Pro installation, that runs 98% of all software out there (either Windows, or Un*x software via Microsoft SFU or Cygwin), and replace it with some flakey old NeXT software....

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12, 2005 @10:43AM (#12794661)
    jeez guys about 100 comments posted already and not a single link?

    slashdot is slacking today!

    a disturbence in the force, I sense...
  • by meisterk ( 658216 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @11:19AM (#12794930)
    ... it definitely feels snappier.
  • I want it (Score:4, Funny)

    by Viadd ( 173388 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @11:48AM (#12795118)
    Sounds great, but I don't have any intel machines.

    Can you run it under Virtual PC on the G5?
  • by nbahi15 ( 163501 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:12PM (#12795267) Homepage
    Based upon the specs and pictures of the box the Intel PowerMac it is most likely an Intel Desktop Board D915GUX []. This has the GMA900 onboard graphics adapter and DDR-2 memory that []mentioned. It also has the same layout as the photos [] of the PowerMac board.
  • by libra-dragon ( 701553 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @02:58PM (#12796337)
    There are several directions that Apple could take with furthering the adoption of "OSXx86":

    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.

  • Drivers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SecretAsianMan ( 45389 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @05:25PM (#12797393) Homepage
    I seem to recall that most operating systems for personal computing need drivers to interface with hardware. Given Apple's ostensible plans that MacOS X x86 will run only on Apple hardware, it is highly unlikely that Apple has created such a comprehensive set of drivers as would allow MacOS X to run on any majority of PCs. The greater probability is a hardware requirement set so stringent that only PCs closely resembling the Apple developer box will run the OS with an acceptable degree of functionality.

    So I say the idea of running MacOS X on any commodity PC is, at the moment, a complete myth.
  • by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @05:32PM (#12797440)
    The rar files consist of "GNAA" repeated over and over.

    Like shooting fish in a barrel, really.

  • GNAA? (Score:3, Informative)

    by MemeSpitter ( 781288 ) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @06:58PM (#12797938)
    Several people who have gotten pieces of it from torrents have reported that if you open the file up in a hex editor, it's just "GNAA" [] over and over again... surprised?
  • by BobVila ( 592015 ) on Monday June 13, 2005 @12:44AM (#12800062) Homepage
    the torrent that is floating around is fake. if you unrar, burn, and boot like the .nfo file says, it just boots it to a very lovely goatse image. no joke, wasted two hours of my life and made a coaster out of some DVD+R media. HILARIOUS!
  • It's a fake (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2005 @06:13AM (#12801043)
    It shows the guy, yuck.

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas