Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

AppleTV Becomes OSX Workstation 140

Posted by Hemos from the reconstruction dept.
An anonymous reader writes "AppleTVhacks published a full howto install guide with 12 easy steps to turn your AppleTV into a full blown OSX workstation. With a processor emulation, hacker Semthex of hackint0sh.org, managed to get full blown OSX working on a AppleTV. The kernel for this hack is freely available under APSL and opens the legal way to a really cheap Mac Nano. With 300$ difference to the Mac Mini, this is becoming a fairly interesting deal." April Fool's, btw.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AppleTV Becomes OSX Workstation More

AppleTV Becomes OSX Workstation

Comments Filter:

  • I dont get it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy ( 963289 ) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:06AM (#18571919) Homepage Journal

    The kernel for this hack is freely available under APSL and opens the legal way to a really cheap Mac Nano. With 300$ difference to the Mac Mini, this is becoming a fairly interesting deal."
    and from TFA:

    Semthex wrote a processor emulation for the kernel, to sidestep the hardware restrictions that previously disallowed Mac OS X from running on the Apple TV.
    Is there something I'm missing? If that's legal, what's to stop me putting a (legal) copy os OS X on any common-or-garden x86 box?

    • Re:I dont get it? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:16AM (#18571963)

      Is there something I'm missing? If that's legal, what's to stop me putting a (legal) copy os OS X on any common-or-garden x86 box?
      Nothing.

      The problem with this (for me) is that you have to install the Intel version of OS X. As far as I know you can't get the Intel version without buying an Intel Mac (something I don't have). So basically you'll have to wait until Leopard before you can buy an Intel version of OS X.
      • Or...
        You could wait till a disk image of the hacked A.TV shows up on the seedy underbelly of the Internet.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jim Hall ( 2985 )

        The problem with this (for me) is that you have to install the Intel version of OS X. As far as I know you can't get the Intel version without buying an Intel Mac (something I don't have). So basically you'll have to wait until Leopard before you can buy an Intel version of OS X.

        Apple's store [apple.com] sells MacOSX Tiger for $129.

        That said, the cost of Apple TV + MacOSX Tiger is only $170 less than buying a Mac Mini with MacOSX pre-installed. And Apple TV doesn't come with a DVD/CD drive, and it's hard drive

        • Re:I dont get it? (Score:5, Informative)

          by catseye ( 96076 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:56AM (#18572325)
          The retail version of Tiger is 10.4.6, and is PPC only. Apple didn't combine OS X versions into a universal install until 10.4.8. Right now, the only way to install OS X on an Apple Intel machine is with the system disks that come with the computer.

          One presumes this would change with Leopard (10.5), which should be the first retail-available install of OS X that would work on Intel or PPC machines.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aliquis ( 678370 )
        I got one with ADC (Apple developer connection) Student membership, the price is $99 for one year if I remember it right but atleast then you got OS X tiger, a dvd each month with the latest development tools and so on, a t-shirt, 10% discount on many machines and 20% on the pro models (various among region.)

        So well, you can get a version for $99, and then you even get a better price on a real mac if you want one.

        I suppose the regular ADC select and above versions also supplies OS discs.
        • Never mind, saw the post about 10.4.6 beeing PPC and checked the disc, it only mention PPC models so well then yes, it's not Intel version. Close enough for me thought ;D

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by artaxerxes ( 94297 )
      The Apple Mac OS X license extends only to Apple Badged Hardware. So legally the Apple TV is, and your hackintosh is not.

    • Re:I dont get it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Constantine XVI ( 880691 ) <[trash.eighty+slashdot] [at] [gmail.com]> on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:21AM (#18572013)
      The hack is legal because he just modified the kernel, like the ASPL lets you.
      However, note the little bit in the OSX license that says you may only run OSX on Apple hardware. The A.TV is still Apple hardware. Your Dell isin't.

      • Re:I dont get it? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Splab ( 574204 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:27AM (#18572067)
        You should also note that while they may say that you are only allowed to run it on their hardware you bought the license for the software and you (at least here in Denmark) are pretty much in your own right to do damned well whatever pleases you with said license.

        • You should also note that while they may say that you are only allowed to run it on their hardware you bought the license for the software and you (at least here in Denmark) are pretty much in your own right to do damned well whatever pleases you with said license.

          So far, nobody has bought a retail copy of OSX for Intel - it only comes bundled with hardware "for free", so everybody is running a 'stolen' copy on their non-Apple hardware. This will change when Leopard is released in a couple months and you c
          • In quite a few countries, there is no way to legally enforce such bundling. That is, if one buys an Intel Mac with Mac OS X for x86, he can freely install it on his PC, any license clauses preventing that notwithstanding.
            • '' In quite a few countries, there is no way to legally enforce such bundling. That is, if one buys an Intel Mac with Mac OS X for x86, he can freely install it on his PC, any license clauses preventing that notwithstanding. ''

              AFTER removing it from the Macintosh it came on. Otherwise it is a clear case of copyright infringement.

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by Stewie241 ( 1035724 )
                Otherwise it is a clear case of copyright infringement.

                no, rather license violation.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by SEE ( 7681 )
                  Er, no. The point was that the special license restrictions don't apply in many countries, so there'd be no violation in installing the program on the PC.

                  However, if you take a singly-purchased copy of a program (even if it came in a bundle) and install it on two machines without explicit permission to do so, you are infringing the copyright by making an unauthorized copy. You're not breaking the license restrictions, you're breaking the copyright laws.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by AnyThingButWindows ( 939158 )
        And if you guy buy an apple dial-up modem, and put it on your Hackintosh?
        Thats Apple hardware. It doesn't say that % of system has to be be Apple Hardware.
        It doesn't say that the machine in question has to be an Apple. It says "Apple Hardware".

        So yes. A hackintosh is legal, as long as you have a piece of "Apple Hardware" on it, such as an Apple Keyboard.

        • doesn't say that % of system has to be be Apple Hardware. It doesn't say that the machine in question has to be an Apple. It says "Apple Hardware".

          From what I've read, it doesn't say that either. I believe it was "Apple labeled personal computer" or some such and I believe it does have a legal description of what that refers to.

          So yes. A hackintosh is legal, as long as you have a piece of "Apple Hardware" on it, such as an Apple Keyboard.

          Anyone who gets their legal advice free on Slashdot, probably gets what they paid for.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Megane ( 129182 )

      Is there something I'm missing? If that's legal, what's to stop me putting a (legal) copy os OS X on any common-or-garden x86 box?

      Two things:

      • 1. The OS X lincense states that you can only run OS X on Apple hardware. Guess what? The AppleTV is Apple hardware!
      • 2. There is no way at this time to buy a boxed copy of OS X x86 at a store, because... they don't sell it in stores! Right now all the boxed copies of OS X are PPC-only. When Leopard comes out, then things should start to get interesting.
      • The OS X lincense states that you can only run OS X on Apple hardware. Guess what? The AppleTV is Apple hardware!

        Devil's advocate on this one: the license agreement says an Apple-labled computer. If push comes to shove, does Apple consider the AppleTV a computer (aside from the fact that it obviously is - but keep in mind that you can consider nearly anything with a microprocessor a "computer" - the point is does Apple consider AppleTV a "computer", or an appliance?).

        There is no way at this time to buy a b

        • Devil's advocate on this one: the license agreement says an Apple-labled computer. If push comes to shove, does Apple consider the AppleTV a computer (aside from the fact that it obviously is - but keep in mind that you can consider nearly anything with a microprocessor a "computer" - the point is does Apple consider AppleTV a "computer", or an appliance?)

          Apple isn't free to redefine the meaning of computer at will. Unless there is specific verbage to the contrary in the EULA, then the Apple TV most certai

          • Apple isn't free to redefine the meaning of computer at will. Unless there is specific verbage to the contrary in the EULA, then the Apple TV most certainly IS a computer and Apple can't just say "No it isn't!".

            The DVR box I lease from my cable company has a CPU, OS, I/O ports, and HDD. It is not a personal computer, in the legal sense of the word. AppleTV, from what I've heard of it, is in the same boat.

            You can try and be pendantic and say "it's a computer technically!" and you're right -- but so are (de
            • Your DVR and the the Apple TV could be considered by many, many people to be a personal computer, and not just in the technical sense. They both use a visual output device/monitor (a TV is still a monitor), and both have GUI interfaces with an I/O device with which the user interacts.

              That is much beside the point though. The technical meaning of a word generally IS the legal meaning. If the EULA mentions that it must be run on an Apple branded computer then if you can find an Apple coffee pot with a CPU
              • Contracts are not real life - they don't take into account "common sense" or personal interpretations.

                No, they do. That's why a lawyer can find a loophole.

                In your proposed case, your lawyer (IANAL, RU?) would need to prove that there's no definition in the Apple EULA, that the EULA is "vauge", and that "Apple TV is a computer" is a reasonable interpretation of the EULA.

                If the term is "personal computer" or "general computer", you're even technically off base. If it's only "computer", well, then there's pr

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Anonymous Coward
              You can try and be pendantic

              What, hang around?
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • If push comes to shove, does Apple consider the AppleTV a computer

          If they don't, they'll end up in very deep trouble, because they aren't following the restrictions (required by law) for audio/video recording devices.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Megane ( 129182 )

            If they don't, they'll end up in very deep trouble, because they aren't following the restrictions (required by law) for audio/video recording devices.

            The AppleTV can record? I thought it was just a player for iTunes videos.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by mdwh2 ( 535323 )
          Devil's advocate on this one: the license agreement says an Apple-labled computer

          And similarly, I'll be fine when I try to install MacOS on a PC with Apple sticker ;)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )

            Devil's advocate on this one: the license agreement says an Apple-labled computer

            And similarly, I'll be fine when I try to install MacOS on a PC with Apple sticker ;)

            Actually, the term could easily be interpreted as a computer labeled by Apple, not by the end user or third party. Earlier versions of that license agreement though had different language which had that loophole (something like "hardware displaying the Apple logo" I think), so I interpret the change of language is intended to close that loo

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Firehed ( 942385 )
        And is violating a EULA suddenly illegal? Once I buy the software, I believe I'm legally entitled to do whatever the fuck I want with it, short of uploading it to somewhere that would allow for it to be pirated. I think the most that happens is that I'm no longer entitled to some amount of support through Apple. We always laugh about things like Vista's virtualization EULA clause, but we'll follow Apple's to the letter?

        Your latter point is certainly valid, but like you said, that'll almost certainly chan
        • I don't think that's exactly why people are calling this out. I know I for one am far more interested in the amazing hypocrisy shown by some Apple fanboys - witness any story about OSx86 and how they scream bloody murder about those hackers causing "irreparable harm" to Apple by making it so you don't have to buy Apple PCs to use OS X. They scream and point to the EULA, even for people who say (whether or not they do) that they would buy (as best they can, all comments about "upgrades only" aside) a retail

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rm69990 ( 885744 )
            Can you point to a single poster who has taken both positions, as opposed to two entirely different Apple users who have taken the 2 positions? If not, then it can hardly be called hypocrisy... I'm sure some Apple users think killing people is OK too, yet I don't.

    • Don't play dumb. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:33AM (#18572121)
      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?

      • Re:Don't play dumb. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by knewter ( 62953 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:55AM (#18572311)
        I'm always so upset when I read about stuff like this. If a paint manufacturer put a label on the paint can seal that was 'accepted upon opening' that stated that you couldn't use the paint except on PaintCo Brand Wood, would we call 'pirate' painters criminals or would we all just laugh in unison at PaintCo for misunderstanding freedom?
        • 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 t

          • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

            by knewter ( 62953 )
            This is why I personally would prefer that everyone laugh at the PaintCo for assuming they'd agree to the ridiculous demands and just go buy Linux. At some point, computers must become raw commodities the way lumber is a raw commodity. I worry that this 'just good enough' subservience to these companies and conglomerations will continue.

            As it stands though, I would personally advocate anyone that has legally obtained the digital media to stick it wherever you please. I understand that this is 'technicall

            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by TuringTest ( 533084 )
              This is why I personally would prefer that everyone laugh at the PaintCo for assuming they'd agree to the ridiculous demands and just go buy Linux.

              Yes, but does Linux run in wood fences?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by shmlco ( 594907 )
              "... just go buy Linux... that this 'just good enough' subservience."

              Having several flavors of Linux installed on my computer and running under a VM for testing, I'd say it's Linux that's king of the 'just good enough' camp, and barely, at that.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by knewter ( 62953 )
                Oh nonsense. I run linux daily on many many machines serving multiple purposes. Amateur music recording (Audacity, which I used in win anyway - it's half-featured). Graphics (GIMP's passable, and it's been at that state since I can remember...it needs to get better IMHO). Web Development (vim ftw). Web Server (duh). Media Center (MythTV is awesome, and I have oh so many more features than any of my proprietary dvr friends...downside? It's broken right now, but it's a hardware problem).

                Things it can't
          • right now apple has no mid-range head less mac so people may want to make there own with a hacked mac os.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )

            The point is that right now, there is NO way to buy Mac OS X (Intel) separately at all, license agreement or not.
            You could be a Leopard beta tester. Tiger betas were bundled with beta hardware, but I don't think Leopard betas come with hardware.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by warrior ( 15708 )
            It's like the companies selling photo printers and photo paper. They tune their printers to their specific type of paper, if you use their paper (like Mac hardware) you'll get the best experience. Try using Kodak paper with your HP and vice versa and you'll see what I mean. But you're free to use any paper you wish, but YMMV. You can argue about the "vendor lock-in" and how it's evil, but controlling both the printer and the paper is what allows HP to make a printer so cheap that prints so well. The ma

        • If a paint manufacturer put a label on the paint can seal that was 'accepted upon opening' that stated that you couldn't use the paint except on PaintCo Brand Wood, would we call 'pirate' painters criminals or would we all just laugh in unison at PaintCo for misunderstanding freedom?

          For your analogy to be be consistent with the current market, some other company would have to have a monopoly on paint and have tied that paint monopoly to other markets. All wood would ship pre-painted with that other paint company's paint and a significant part of your lumber purchase price would go to paying that other paint company.

          What Apple is doing is playing by the rules of the game. EULAs are generally accepted as valid in the computer industry. Thus Apple uses the EULA as a way to cement thei

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )

          If a paint manufacturer put a label on the paint can seal that was 'accepted upon opening' that stated that you couldn't use the paint except on PaintCo Brand Wood...

          Punching a hole in the can and attaching a spout to transfer the contents to another container doesn't break the labeled seal.

          BTW, the clauses that say you can't modify the software are part of the license agreement. Though they tend to survive termination of the agreement in perpetuity, they aren't binding until you agree to them.

          It helps if

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by nsayer ( 86181 ) *
          If a paint manufacturer put a label on the paint can seal that was 'accepted upon opening' that stated that you couldn't use the paint except on PaintCo Brand Wood, would we call 'pirate' painters criminals or would we all just laugh in unison at PaintCo for misunderstanding freedom?

          Sigh.

          What about the freedom to negotiate contract terms as you like?

          IF the paint manufacturer had a seal on the paint can that was indeed 'accepted upon opening,' AND if that same seal said that if you didn't agree to the

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Heliode ( 856187 )
        In theory, it might be possible to install OSX without having to open the case, thus avoiding waranty issues; the Apple TV can be made to boot from the USB port: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTgC_dmp8vE [youtube.com]
        Projects are already underway that aim to create something you can put on a USB thumbdrive and boot the Apple TV with, while automatically enabling SSH for you. Once this is done you could make the USB port functional for regular use (which has already been done with a hex edit hack, allowing you to conne
        • I'm not saying opening it voids the warranty.

          I'm saying that the warranty is effectively void while Mac OS X is installed on it: Mac OS X is not supported in any way, shape, or form on AppleTV; so, if you need warranty service, it's obviously not going to be able to be serviced by Apple if it doesn't even have its own OS on it, will it? Even if the problem is not OS related, Apple still will likely need to test/boot/etc. the unit, and I can't imagine a scenario where Apple would be amenable to stock Mac OS

          • Mac OS X is not supported in any way, shape, or form on AppleTV
            Yes it is. The AppleTV comes with a pretty complete OS X install, including things like WebKit, but missing a few applications. I haven't R'd TFA, but from what I've seen turning it into a full OS X box is pretty much a matter of telling Launchd not to launch the AppleTV application. Of course, it's an OS X box with a slow CPU, hardly any RAM, and no optical drive...
            • I'm well aware of what AppleTV is running.

              Apple does not consider that to be Mac OS X, the product, period.

              "Mac OS X" is not supported on AppleTV. The fact that it is running a custom Mac OS X variant is irrelevant. It is an appliance, and "Mac OS X", in the form we know it on conventional desktop computers is not supported from an end-user technical, support, legal, or business perspective on AppleTV.

              Now, knowing that the AppleTV is essentially running Mac OS X gives us some comfort that AppleTV is indeed
      • There is no way to legally get a standalone, retail copy of Mac OS X (Intel) for AppleTV

        What if I bought a family pack [apple.com] of licenses to tiger from Apple?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) *
          Yeah, this is another common thing people bring up.

          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 num

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by anothy ( 83176 )
            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.
      • "The license agreement specifies that Mac OS X can only be run on an Apple-labeled computer. " What if Apple says its not a Computer?
        • The license agreement specifies that Mac OS X can only be run on an Apple-labeled computer. " What if Apple says its not a Computer?

          That's why the last sentence of my post says:

          [...] one very interesting question might be, does Apple consider AppleTV a "computer", since that is what the Mac OS X license agreement explicitly states?

          I know slashdot folks don't read the articles, but are we now also not reading the posts we reply to?

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by maxume ( 22995 )
            If legal push comes to legal shove, it really doesn't matter if Apple considers it a computer, it matters if a court thinks it's a computer(and I would think that the court would base their decision on whether a typical person would reasonable consider it a computer...).
            • '' If legal push comes to legal shove, it really doesn't matter if Apple considers it a computer, it matters if a court thinks it's a computer(and I would think that the court would base their decision on whether a typical person would reasonable consider it a computer...). ''

              No, what really matters is whether Apple would take you to court or not. If you are taken to court, it will cost you lots of money, whether you are right or not, as long as Apple wasn't acting completely unreasonable in taking you to c

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jhfry ( 829244 )

        it's $171 more for a much more capable Mac mini /quote

        The Mac mini is more capable... but lacks a few things that the aTV has. Most notably is HDMI and component video output. Add that to the cost of the mini in your example.

        There is no way anyone will by the aTV to use for desktop use, but for connecting to their TV as the frontend for mythtv server it's perfect!
        • The Mac mini is more capable... but lacks a few things that the aTV has. Most notably is HDMI and component video output. Add that to the cost of the mini in your example.

          Oh yeah, I agree. But the Mac mini does have DVI and digital/optical audio out, and that's the same as what's included in HDMI (DVI video + digital audio).

          And if you need component, yeah, there's no easy way to add that to a mini.

          There is no way anyone will by the aTV to use for desktop use, but for connecting to their TV as the frontend f

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jhfry ( 829244 )

            I'm just saying there's a small jump from a legally-configured AppleTV (i.e., with a purchased Leopard license) and a Mac mini.
            To that I'd agree... I was even going to purchase a couple of minis to use as mythtv frontends... but with the aTV I am considering going that route. Just waiting for a confirmed success in doing it first.
    • Has anyone taken a good look at the (now /.ed) URI for TFA???

      www.appletvhacks.net/ 2007/04/01 /mac-os-x-running-on-apple-tv/

      Come on...

      • Yes, it's a Hoax. (Score:3, Informative)

        by sakusha ( 441986 )
        You are correct, it's a hoax. It's not even a very convincing hoax. The Dell monitor he used has two inputs so he could easily switch between video sources, and there's obviously a second Mac nearby since it's running other software from another system before the demo. Notice how the video cuts off part of the Mac screen (like the Dock) when he launches apps. And everybody knows how easy it is to fake the contents of the System Profiler screen. More evidence: notice how there are two disk drives mounted on

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nsayer ( 86181 ) *
      what's to stop me putting a (legal) copy os OS X on any common-or-garden x86 box?

      As others have said, there is no way to get a legal (that is, one whose license doesn't tie it directly to the hardware with which it was distributed) copy of the Intel version of OS X.

      But let's take a time-warp ahead to when Leopard (10.5) comes out. It won't be possible to buy a retail copy of OS X and install it on a beige box legally. In order to get OS X to run on a beige box, you would have to defeat the "Dont Steal

  • What day is it again? (Score:5, Funny)

    by crazyjeremy ( 857410 ) * on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:07AM (#18571925) Homepage Journal
    It is April 2nd now right? *pinches self* Weird... this all seems so real. He even posted videos!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Corporate Troll ( 537873 )

      True, I don't think it's real either. The thing is: if you manage to do such a hack on or around Fools Day, I'd wait a few days before releasing the information. That way you're less likely to be considered a fake.

      Many of the comments on that page were made on April 1st, including the one where the guy claims it's not an April Fools joke. I'm not buying it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • True, I expect that the AppleTV will be hacked sometime in the future... What I criticize is the day of announcement. If you have such a thing at hand, why not wait two days and come over with full credibility?

          Just my opinion...

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Lars T. ( 470328 )

            True, I expect that the AppleTV will be hacked sometime in the future... What I criticize is the day of announcement. If you have such a thing at hand, why not wait two days and come over with full credibility?

            Just my opinion...

            Well, maybe Apple delayed the AppleTV so all the hacks would be written off as April fool's?

  • Great progress so far. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FauxReal ( 653820 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:12AM (#18571947)
    They've gone quite far in a short amount of time opening up the hardware to more use. Now if they can get it to dual boot OSX and the ATV version. Or better yet some sorta mashup retaining the ATV interface so you can browse samba shares and stream any media format you want via the remote. A better (more informational/snazzy looking) music player would be nice too.

    Hopefully Apple won't try too hard to prevent this from happening in future revisions of the hardware. Though I doubt the content providers are all that excited about the news. But then again... the amount of hacked ATVs vs. every other multimedia capable device is rater insignificant.

    I'm sure this will be a hit with the I need a pretty little file server on a shelf crowd.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Heliode ( 856187 )
      There are already projects underway to add all sorts of functionality to the Apple TV. Check http://www.awkwardtv.org/ [awkwardtv.org], esp. the wiki: http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Main_Page [awkwardtv.org]
      The patchstick project (enabling SSH without opening the case) and ATVfiles (play divx movies on the file system, and files not in the iTunes library) look particularly interesting.

      I've been keeping a close eye on this from the beginning and I find it amazing how quickly they are figuring things out. It almost looks like this thing

      • Yeah this would be great... as long as you don't have to sit next to your TV to read tiny fonts or work a keyboard.
  • What processor does the Apple-TV ship with? Pentium -m or Core Solo? Seems like apache crashed on the linked site already.
    • http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Parts [awkwardtv.org]

      Processor
      1.0GHz Intel Pentium M-based "Crofton" CPU, based on SSE2 Dothan model # 7645A966 0159
  • Trying to RTFA, but dark gray text on a black background?!?!? Why stop there? Why not #010101 on #000000?

    Oh, and the site is now dead.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Agret ( 752467 )
      Sounds like your browser was unable to load the CSS file due to the site being under slashdot load.
  • The first link is no longer there, it's a 404.

    Anyone get a mirror up?
  • ...a great thing for Apples market share, considering they now have something out there at a dell like price point. If they truly get the geeks, then everyone else will eventually follow.

  • April Fools (Score:1, Redundant)

    by DiamondGeezer ( 872237 )
    It was posted on April 1st. On April 2nd it was slashdotted.

    The webpage doesn't exist and the home page is an Apache webserver running on CentOS (linux). What are the chances?

    • The webpage doesn't exist and the home page is an Apache webserver running on CentOS (linux). What are the chances?


      What hardware is it running? What kind of pipe does it have? No matter what OS you're on, you're still limited by other factors. Just because a website is running Apache on CentOS, or even Apache on OpenBSD, it doesn't necessarily mean that it won't crash or become overburdened.

  • 1/2 the price, less than 1/2 the performance (Score:4, Informative)

    by PrescriptionWarning ( 932687 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:42AM (#18572191)
    the 600 dollar mac mini comes with a core duo 1.66 Ghz processor (maybe soon even a core 2 duo)... so how exactly is turning a 300 dollar machine with less than 1/3 the speed make sense economically? especially since you'll still have to somehow acquire OSX by some means.

    granted the apple tv is tiny and cool, but if you're looking for a super cheap PC, you might as well go ahead and grab a mini for a little extra for the total package. Besides I'm sure you can find them for 500 bucks or so since they've been around for so long...
    • > so how exactly is turning a 300 dollar machine with less than 1/3 the speed make sense economically?

      Because sometimes speed doesn't matter. Most desktop applications are not processor bound any more. Processor speed is not the only thing to consider when buying a computer. Sure, it's worth considering, but you make it sound like it is the only factor to consider when buying a computer.

      > Besides I'm sure you can find them for 500 bucks or so since they've been around for so long...

      Why are you compari

  • Here's the videos (Score:4, Insightful)

    by objekt ( 232270 ) on Monday April 02, 2007 @07:52AM (#18572279) Homepage
    I don't think these will get slashdotted anytime soon

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3qvJSMojBQ [youtube.com]
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1840427990 015549546 [google.com]

  • Call Me Crazy but...... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tecker ( 793737 )
    Would this not be an amazing MythTV frontend [mythtv.org] Albeit low in power it could probably with some things added or the optimizations do HD content and would work wonders for SD content with no troubles.

    An important addendum applies to all of you wishing to use HDTV with a PCHDTV card. Playback of HDTV is *very* computationally intensive, and requires a Pentium class processor of at least 1.3GHz or equivalent in conjunction with a graphics card with accelerated drivers, according to the documents at http://www.pch [www.pchdtv.com]

    • FINALLY someone gets it! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BLKMGK ( 34057 )
      You hit the nail on the head! This is the PERFECT Myth front-end and with a USB tuner maybe even a full on box. the problem I see with Myth right now is getting the damned thing configured for whatever silly hardware you dug out of your closet or buying all new hardware to match some recipe and then still finding out you have to swing a dead cat to get it running! XBMC on the old XBOX works great for a reason and that reaosn is that the damned platform is dead nutz STANDARD. Now per haps MythTV would work b
  • The best thing is how many people commented about the price of a mac mini vs the price of an apple tv that got hacked, but they didn't even take the time to read the whole original post.

    April fools? No we have them every month here at slashdot!!!!!!

  • MythTV? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <slashdot@nOSpam.keirstead.org> on Monday April 02, 2007 @10:05AM (#18574019)
    Anyone know if you can run MythTV under OSX? This thing would make a great myth frontend.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by corychristison ( 951993 )
      I, personally, am waiting for the hackers to produce step by step instructions to install some flavour of GNU/Linux on it. Gentoo would be my personal choice, but really anything would be good. Since they have already made it possible to install Gentoo on 'full' Mac's, so I think it would be the best choice, since it is a lot easier to install. After one person installs it, then they could just push a disk image out on a torrent for everyone to enjoy.

      Anyway, my reasoning for wanting to install Linux on i
    • I'm working on getting MythFrontend running. That was actually the main driver behind me getting this working, as I'm a big MythTV user. My main backend has 500GB and 2 HDTV tuners. I'd love to get this box running in my bedroom with the 24" HD LCD I have on the wall (Dell). I'll post back when I have MythFrontend running....just need to configure my backend for remote frontend access and install the OS X MythFrontend which has already been compiled for Intel OS X. Oh yeah, I'm the guy in the video.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by kmo ( 203708 )
      Anyone know if you can run MythTV under OSX? This thing would make a great myth frontend.

      Yes, MythTV runs just fine on OSX [mythtv.org], both Intel and PPC.

  • Go and test it yourself, it is not a joke :o

  • Wow /. (Score:2, Informative)

    by heyyou_overhere ( 1070428 )
    Ok, April 1st was retarded enough since the April Fools jokes weren't even funny. Now you have to tag REAL stories as "april fools" and "omgponies (what the hell?)".

    semthex: Seems like someone on Slashdot got drunk and marked the news of AppleTV as April fools. No it is not. Please read up on the forum, download the kernel, read the guide and test yourself. AppleTVHacks.net is currently down, possibly because of the monster traffic currently. I already contacted the owner about it but so far not got an

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close