Sources indicate that OSx86 10.4.3 – which contains increased hardware restrictions – has now been cracked in the same fashion as 10.4.1. It was initially thought that these restrictions would slow the progress of hackers, but it appears that it has done little to deter those tackling the challenge. It appears that “Maxxuss” has outdone Apple yet again.
I wonder if Apple used their patented tamper-proof code in 10.4.3 …
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_files_patent_sy…
Time to reinstall OSX…
The first release gave me a maximum refresh rate
of 60Hz on my CRT monitor and I deleted the partition.
Now they have fully working ATI drivers in this release,
so the problem should be solved.
I don’t conceptually have a problem with people purchasing OS X x86 and running it on a typical x86, but the people who are currently running OS X x86 can’t be getting it through legal distribution channels (save those using official developer platforms).
OS X is an incredibly good product that has been in development for years and has cost Apple a phenomenal amount of money to create. Wait until the product is officially launched, buy a copy, and do what you want to run a hacked copy on your own hardware…. I don’t see much harm in that. Just buy the product and support a company that makes good software and embraces the open source community.
OS X is just a proprietary package of open source software. To say that they embrace the open source community is overstating it a bit. Taking without giving is not embracing.
“Taking without giving is not embracing.”
He’s overstating, you’re understating. Apple may not give the way you feel they should give, but they do contribute back. And that’s all that the GPL asks of others. Live with it, or pick a license with tougher demands.
Well, the last time I had a look; Webkit is available, in its full source, the full source for the core of MacOS X, aka, Darwin is also available; they give back for SQLlite and other projects which they use. Just because they don’t muck in with opensource projects, doesn’t mean they don’t give back.
Apple post the source code with all the changes, it is up the respective opensource projects to scour through those bits of source and yanking out the parts that they deem as worthwhile to include in the mainline of their project.
As far as I am concerned, Apple is doing exactly what is required by the GPL – just because they aren’t willing to muck in with opensource coders, doesn’t make then anti-social, it just means that they have no desire having to have their embraced version being held to ransom – imagine if they were held hostage to the GCC developmenet group, you would never see MacOS X get off the ground because there would be no Objective-C support – thats how stupid it is.
It’s proper practice that when you find a bug and create a fix for the open source code, you should then send the patch along with a description of the solution to the maintainers of the project. It’s not the role of the developers to use google to try to find some obscure patch some company coughed up at 10am EST.
I think the real issue people seem to be having is that Apple is making use of fair amounts of open source code, but the origonating projects fail to get any major press other than “UNIX stability” from Apple. The the majority of people come to the conclusion “Apple is teh win OMG”, but fail to see all the hard work Apple borrowed from along the way.
Silly me, and they find it so hard to log onto Apple’s opensource download site, and download the latest and greatest source code for their compilers and darwin core?
I mean, to be completely honest, if they find that idea of downloading something off Apple difficult, then maybe they should programming and find a job working at Walmart.
I don’t claim to be an authority on this but why are you talking about GPL issues? Isn’t Darwin a BSD-licensed project? And doesn’t that mean that they aren’t required to give anything back?
From my perspective, subject to re-eval in the face of supporting evidence, Apple is not only embracing open source in the spirit of the license that they are using but also contributing back through Webkit, Darwin, etc. It’s not (L)GPL but it’s open source and it’s working. Even crackers are contributing to it by “porting” it to open hardware.
Darwin is APSL not BSD.
Thank you. That clears up at least one misconception of mine. {0^%)<
I went to the OpenDarwin.org site and was unable to find any licensing info there.
My point is that FreeBSD, where Darwin and OpenDarwin came from, is a BSD-licensed product that doesn’t require users of the code to contribute anything at all back. One may simply take and use what is offered under that license like MS did with the TCP/IP stack.
I must admit that I was unaware of the APSL aspect of Darwin. Or, more likely, it’s been so long since I looked into it that I have forgotten. Is APSL an Open Source license (per OSI or anyone else qualified to make such declarations about it)? If so, does Apple seem to be violating the spirit of that license or the spirit of Open Source?
(I realize that it’s their own license. Not all vendors play by the rules that they themselves establish.)
APSL is OSI approved, but it has some unfriendly restrictions in it. I don’t know how enforcable the restrictions are, but they are there.
The impression that I got from reading (after falling asleep three or four times) was that it is very similiar to the various commercial OSI approved licenses, and it’s enough to staisfy the OSI, but is only community oriented if you consider community to be held and controlled by the licensing entity. It’s not BSD, MIT/X11, but it is free as in beer, and you do have access to the source.
EG, it’s not so restrictive that I personally won’t use it (I do have a Darwin box running as a build machine)
yes, darwin is bsd-licensed. if they were eg using a linux kernel/service which are GPL’ed ..then as far as i understand it at least they would be required to released more of the added and altered surrounding code than they do..
If they were modifying a GPL kernel, then yes they would have to release their changes? Just using a kernel doesn’t mean that they have to release anything outside that body of code. Otherwise there would be no proprietary apps running on Linux.
“He’s overstating, you’re understating. Apple may not give the way you feel they should give, but they do contribute back. And that’s all that the GPL asks of others. Live with it, or pick a license with tougher demands.”
Apple is totally within their legally binding rights. They don’t have to do any more to meet their license requirements. They just look like jerks when they do the bare minimum.
Mac OS X is a proprietary package that happens to contain quite a lot of open source software. That is very different from the position you put forward.
It could also be said that “RedHat is just a proprietary package of open source software”. I wouldn’t personally suggest that though.
Apple has put a lot of work into the open source parts of Mac OS X. Some of it is taken from other projects, some from their own. They have fed back into several projects, and released a sizable chunk of code themselves to the community.
Apple is entitled to build closed source software, and entitled to make parts of their OS closed source. This is entirely consistent with the applicable licenses.
It is a blatent lie to say that they take without giving.
I … can’ t … resist … this … one
Mac OS X is a proprietary package that happens to contain quite a lot of open source software. That is very different from the position you put forward.
Yes, a LOT of free software
It could also be said that “RedHat is just a proprietary package of open source software”. I wouldn’t personally suggest that though.
You actualy believe RH OSS way of doing things could be compared to Apple? RH opensources everything.
Apple has put a lot of work into the open source parts of Mac OS X. Some of it is taken from other projects, some from their own. They have fed back into several projects, and released a sizable chunk of code themselves to the community.
Now, which projects would that be?
OpenDarwin? Apple provides drivers for their hardware only. Who uses it or better who could use it except for running OSX?
Quicktime Streaming Server? Yeah, after I read the license I simply deleted it. The greediest opensource license ever existed (it can be simply translated as “All your base belong to us”).
KHTML? Forking project, reimplementing basics in something that does not exists in other systems? Not the way it should be done.
Which other?
p.s. I expect to be moded down. I was modded down every time I posted this question, but funny,… never received answer which project they contributed so much.
I can remember far more patented implementations from Apple restricted to OSS than OSS implementations that can be freely used. And second, I really don’t know one single world usable Apple OSS project with a fair license
In fact, I don’t like Sun (I don’t have a good opinion about their OSS game) for example, but Sun still much better OSS player, not best but much better than Apple.
Apple is entitled to build closed source software, and entitled to make parts of their OS closed source. This is entirely consistent with the applicable licenses.
Agreed, and I for one would respect them if they would stay there. Hell, I even respect MS for being what it is.
Proclaiming about being OSS and contributing only the things THEY NEED (and until they need) is not how OSS players should behave.
It is a blatent lie to say that they take without giving.
In current situation? NO, IT IS NOT. It would be if Apple would give back at least a little percetage of what it takes.
Yeah.
Embracing open source, by providing iTunes for Windows, but absoultely no sign of it for any real Open Source OS.
Embracing open source, by providing iTunes for Windows, but absoultely no sign of it for any real Open Source OS.
This sounds more like bitterness towards Apple over the lack of iTunes for an OSS. The question is which one ? do you build RH, SUSE, Deb, Solaris, Ubuntu, Mandriva or some otehr platform? Can you afford to support many ? you can’t release the source code as it compromises the RIAA dictated DRM?
That’s only part of the problem. Not a single one of those other OSS environments has a percentage point more desktop installed base than Apple themselves. It’s not a marketting slam dunk, while Windows was. The only argument in favor of the other OSS environments is to quiet the critics, and it would be dang tough to justify a minimum of 1 mil per year in development resources alone to do something that will only curry favor among a group of users that have been notoriously anti-Apple regarding other OSS projects?
Tough sell man. Tough sell.
Get educated before you bleat like a lamb.
What don’t you like about Sun, Apple? WHY exactly? because they don’t fulfill your narrow world-view? Grow up.
b.t.w. Apple are contributing home-grown projects back in to the community – for example, launchd is making it’s way back to BSD.
“Taking without giving is not embracing.”
Apple gave WebCore (and got lambasted because they didn’t put in enough comments in the large patch)
Apple gave ObjectiveC++ to GCC (it still isn’t in the main trunk because the GCC team has issues with it)
Apple gave Darwin to the community (and sees few people outside the company working on it)
Apple has engineers and patches submitted to almost every major OSS package they use and ship, and yet there are people that feel that it isn’t enough, and yet it’s perfectly alright for IBM, who ships an equally large number of OSS apps in AIX. The differenct? End users don’t want AIX, but they do want OS X.
To say they don’t give back is a gross exageration of the situation. To say that what they have given has not been embraced by the OSS community would be more accurate.
“OS X is just a proprietary package of open source software.”
You just made my day, man. If that was true, OS X would feel like a flavor of Linux, which it really doesn’t at all.
“I don’t see much harm in that. Just buy the product and support a company that makes good software and embraces the open source community.”
I completely agree — what harm is there is paying for good software? People really *should* donate when they use Linux or *BSD — it’s great software! What does this have to do with *Apple* though?
»OS X is an incredibly good product that has been in development for years and has cost Apple a phenomenal amount of money to create. Wait until the product is officially launched, buy a copy, and do what you want to run a hacked copy on your own hardware…. I don’t see much harm in that. Just buy the product and support a company that makes good software and embraces the open source community.«
I installed Mac OSX on my amd64 system a while ago.
The first thing I thought was: “That is it? That is all?”.
I played with it a while and then deleted it completely.
Now I would not even install it on my machine if Apple
would make it available for free.
Don’t believe the hype…
Do believe the hype. I’ve been a multi-OS user for 20 years now and Mac OS X is good. And even if KDE/GNOME on Linux/BSD ever reach the quality of OS X (GUI fit and finish, ease-of-use/simplicity, etc.) I would still say believe the hype about OS X, and also about Linux and BSD.
Look they are all good OS’s. Even XP is. But the original poster of this thread is correct, Apple HAS spent a ton of money, so did NeXT before them, to create a very good, very useful and obviously demanded operating system (hey, people can run Linux on Apple hardware, even NetBSD on older G4’s instead if they want the hardware only).
OS X is NOT all openSource, and is not all based on openSource. Darwin is, in part, not whole, openSource, but it ends there. The OS as a whole is a complex intertwining of open and very clever, very complex closed source code. To say “Oh they should give back! It’s all open source!” is a big load of BS. And nowhere in the free licensing schemes does it say “you must not take free code and use it to make unfree code by mixing it with proprietary code!” Apple DOES give back the OPEN code they modify.
So you people who think “the man” owes you a free copy of OS X should think again. I hate to bring it up, but it IS stealing and why would you ever think that stealing is the right thing to do. Society has laws (whether they are written or unwritten) for a reason, that is because without laws there is anarchy. Apparently open source advocates are all anarchists?
«Apparently open source advocates are all anarchists?
Yup,
I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Don’t know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passer by…
😛
The problem is, Apple refuses to listen to its customers and sell them what they want to buy. Your customers are not just the ones who have bought. They are everyone who might buy.
You cannot just sit around saying, if I sell them what they want my business model will not work, and so I won’t do it. That’s true Soviet style thinking, and as you can see from the hackers antics, it will not work here in the West.
Your problem in a free market is to sell them what they want and also, change your business model so it works for you too. The music industry is having a similar problem, treating all their customers like potential criminals. This too will not work, is not working, cannot work.
We cannot always see what sort of disaster will fall on companies who refuse to listen to their customers, but some kind of disaster always does.
I really don’t understand this desperate desire people seem to have to buy copies of OSX and then run it on the hardware of their choice. But it is obviously real, so the only thing to do is accomodate it. Take their money. Otherwise…they will still get the product, but you won’t have the money. Now, which is better?
but you want them to produce a OS that you can load on your own machine what ever it is, they don’t do that, so you have yet to buy
So ou are not a customer, maybe a potential customer and as such, what you have written is actually false
There is a famous question in management training that is asked of people new to business management and marketing. It is ‘who are our customers’.
One of the classic mistakes is to hold up your hand and offer ‘people who have bought our products’.
Wrong. Quickest way in the world to go out of business is thinking like this.
But isn’t that Apple’s choice? Their decision? And if they screw up enough, they will go out of business! The ultimate punishment for not listening to their base.
But isn’t that Apple’s choice? Their decision? And if they screw up enough, they will go out of business! The ultimate punishment for not listening to their base.
————————————————
But they are not their user base, mac users are their user base.
This is like saying Coca Cola drinkers want Pepsi to change there flavour and proclaiming that they are Pepsi user base, when they are not
“This is like saying Coca Cola drinkers want Pepsi to change there flavour and proclaiming that they are Pepsi user base, when they are not”
Offtopic perhaps, but, didn’t Coke actually convince themselves of that and change their formula once?
(glad they changed back)
I work in retail. If I bent over backwards to do things the way my customers wanted, then my store wouldn’t make any money at all. Yeah, Jobs is just a commie I guess because he wants his business model to work a certain way but there are a few cheapscates who who don’t like it. Here’s a idea…
Most of these hackers that are hacking OSx86 probably could contribute a lot to making linux a better product for the desktop. So why not focus their efforts on that. Jobs will probably never have OSX run on regular non-apple boxes, so if someone doesn’t like his business model, why shop with him? Why spend all their time trying to break his model that work on building a better one. THAT is what free trade is all about here in the west, not about bitching a moaning because apple won’t lower their prices or make OSX available to download legally from bit torrent.
What I don’t understand is the mindset that because it is technically possible to run an OS on certain hardware, it is the consumer’s right to demand that the vendor publishes the software in such a way. This is not how OS X is supposed to work at all.
It is called Mac OS X for a reason. WIth Dell etc. you buy a piece of computer hardware and a license to run Windows. With Apple, you a buying a Personal Computer, a Mac. The whole point is that the two are tied together.
Quite frankly, I find the idea of being able to run OS X on whatever piece of hardware I come across almost unimaginable. If OS X were to operate this way, you would be in one of two positions:
1. Attempt to support every available piece of hardware out of the box. This results in a huge installation disk, and a large install size, although it does mean OS X can operate in much the same way that it does today.
2. Go the Windows way. Force the end user to mess around with numerous drivers, and other installation issues. No thank you!
For me a major part of the beauty of OS X is just how well it and the hardware works together. My Powerbook is the first laptop that I have come across that actually feels like a laptop. Everything else seems to me to be some computer hardware, crammed into a laptop container, and with a specially configured Windows setup on top.
As to those running illegally OS X for Intel illegally? Well, I have no real moral issue with those who have paid for an OS X 10.4 license that they are not using. However, those people who think it is quite acceptable to download a copy off BitTorrent and get it running, without ever paying for a license, then no, it’s just wrong – illegal and immoral.
Whether it is right or wrong to do it is morally interesting but irrelevant to corporate strategy. For that the interesting question is, if it is going to happen, what do you do about it?
Imagine, you are sent for by Jobs. He says to you: we decided to go to Intel, we knew it this was a risk. Well, now we see that it is going to happen. I need advice on what to do next.
What do you tell him? Its wrong for people to do this to us? He’ll throw you out of the room in a flash. And quite right too. No, you tell him what you think he should do next.
Now, what is that exactly?
Well, I have no real moral issue with those who have paid for an OS X 10.4 license that they are not using. However, those people who think it is quite acceptable to download a copy off BitTorrent and get it running, without ever paying for a license, then no, it’s just wrong – illegal and immoral.
Interesting perspective but…
Is the license for the Intel version of OSX 10.4 transferable? So, if I’m not using mine, am I allowed to give or sell it to someone else? Or is it only available to me as an approved Apple developer under other restrictions that disallow transfer of the license? (Remember, I don’t own it, I’m just a licensed user.)
Let’s say that I don’t work for a national publication and haven’t been given an eval copy by Apple. Am I violating the copyright if I am researching Mac OSX from an interoperability point of view or simply learning how to use it as an academic pursuit?
If I am not using the OS as a for-profit entity am I in violation, either moral or legal? Suppose I only use it for the purpose of writing a review of it for a local user group publication and am even using it on someone else’s machine. Is this immoral or illegal? What if I want to evaluate it to see if I want to switch and I try it in order to see if I want to buy it? Am I sinning until I pay for it and am I also a criminal even after I do buy it because I used it before I bought my own license?
If I am simply a born-again cheapskate and refuse to pay for OSX specifically or OSes in general but I still use it for my personal e-mail, music listening, web-browsing. etc. am I more reprehensible than just being a cheap@ss, or am I sinning and/or breaking the law?
I see a lot more shades of gray in this than just whether or not I gave Apple money at a specific point in time. If I buy one copy of OSX for my business and then install it on every computer in the company that’s a pretty black-and-white case of wrongdoing. If I acquire a copy of it for zero dollars and use it to create artwork, publications or music that I profit from then I see that as a license violation, even though I never agreed to the license, since it isn’t available for those uses without being licensed.
You may however feel that simply having the Mac experience without paying for it is [somehow] wrong. I think that’s carrying things a bit too far.
Is the license for the Intel version of OSX 10.4 transferable? So, if I’m not using mine, am I allowed to give or sell it to someone else? Or is it only available to me as an approved Apple developer under other restrictions that disallow transfer of the license? (Remember, I don’t own it, I’m just a licensed user.)
The answer is no, this is explicitly stated in the NDA agreement that is part of the rental of a DTK.
Let’s say that I don’t work for a national publication and haven’t been given an eval copy by Apple. Am I violating the copyright if I am researching Mac OSX from an interoperability point of view or simply learning how to use it as an academic pursuit?
Yes, because you have obtained it through illegal means. This is like being in possession of stolen goods. You didn’t steal them, but you are in possession.
If I am not using the OS as a for-profit entity am I in violation, either moral or legal? Suppose I only use it for the purpose of writing a review of it for a local user group publication and am even using it on someone else’s machine. Is this immoral or illegal? What if I want to evaluate it to see if I want to switch and I try it in order to see if I want to buy it? Am I sinning until I pay for it and am I also a criminal even after I do buy it because I used it before I bought my own license
Legally your in violation, morally, it’s a pretty grey area. Further, right now, since anyone that has a copy should be under a NDA, there is very little wiggle room. Once the product is shipping and is available for purchase, that changes, but right this minute, there just isn’t much grey area. If you have an unsanctioned copy, you are in both legal and moral violation.
see a lot more shades of gray in this than just whether or not I gave Apple money at a specific point in time. If I buy one copy of OSX for my business and then install it on every computer in the company that’s a pretty black-and-white case of wrongdoing. If I acquire a copy of it for zero dollars and use it to create artwork, publications or music that I profit from then I see that as a license violation, even though I never agreed to the license, since it isn’t available for those uses without being licensed.
And yet, Apple has one of the most interesting licensing option around for Families. the 5 user Family license at $199 is a steal.
You may however feel that simply having the Mac experience without paying for it is [somehow] wrong. I think that’s carrying things a bit too far.
Zealots tend to do that. This whole argument is, at this time, too early to be had. There simply isn’t any grey area right now. Once OS X for Intel is available in a black box (which it won’t be until OS X 10.5 is released since all Intel Mac’s that come out between now and then will have the latest OS, and there will be no need for upgrade boxes on the shelves), the entire argument is a moot point. If you don’t have a legitimate copy of OS X for Intel, you are in legal violation of of the license, the NDA and a few other little laws. It really is that simple (today). It won’t be in the future, because that retail box clouds things quite a bit.
Quite frankly, on most of these “grey areas,” I don’t really feel that I can say.
Personally, I don’t really have time to thoroughly read and understand every software license I accept. I find it’s best just to try and work on what seems moral. Legal grey areas? Yes, but an easier life, definitely!
“What I don’t understand is the mindset that because it is technically possible to run an OS on certain hardware, it is the consumer’s right to demand that the vendor publishes the software in such a way. This is not how OS X is supposed to work at all.
”
Very well put. And with Apple you are not required to “activate” the software within 30 days. You do not have to register it at all if you choose not to.
As for running the software on, say, a Dell, as long as they buy it who cares? One more sale for Apple and they don’t have to support it. I do see a lot of sales to people who want to run it on non Apple HW. Which is good for Apple.
Bill
“The problem is, Apple refuses to listen to its customers and sell them what they want to buy. Your customers are not just the ones who have bought. They are everyone who might buy. ”
Obviously that leaves “I wouldn’t have bought it, so it’s not a loss” pirates out of the “customer” equation. So what does that leave? How about those that Apple has made something desirable (judging by the fact that this topic once again has made an apperance. I’d say that Apple has succeded admirably)? That leaves the “Burger King customer”. The “I want it my way, even if my demand is unreasonable” aka “The customer IS ALWAYS right, even if we’re wrong”. Trying to please these “DELL”* customers will be the ruin of any good company.
*An allusion to a story about what the CEO of Dell would do if he ran Apple?
“Trying to please these “DELL”* customers will be the ruin of any good company. ”
The road to ruin starts with despising the potential purchasers of your products – something Apple and its devotees seem to do all the time. This leads to all the offensive and snobbish contempt for WalMart customers and Dell customers. Its similar to racism, just about class, but equally offensive.
The first principle is to respect them, and listen to what they want, even if it at first seems to conflict with your current business model. If you cannot make money selling them what you want, simply because of your business model, it is your failure not theirs.
Yes, the Burger King example is quite reasonable. People seemed to want to specify the flavorings. You could say, our business model doesn’t allow this, take what you’re given. Or you could say, lets find a way to do this, if enough people want it. Its about respect. And respect is not just good. Its a way of making money.
theres a lot of failed business out there if you think a company doesn’t do what you want is a failure
If you had all been in meetings considering whether to launch the iPod, you would have said:
– these are not our customers, they don’t own any of our products
– people who use walkmans, they are fat rednecks who shop at Walmart
– worse still, they buy Dells and drive Chevys
– why should we spend our time developing fine technology to sell to these losers?
– lets do our best for our sensitive graphics designers who drink latte and appreciate the finer things in life
Fortunately Jobs knew better.
Apparently open source advocates are all anarchists?
No. I do like and support Open Source software (and am not fundamental about licences) and at the same time, I’m not an anarchist.
And there is a difference between stealing and copyright violation.
“Apparently open source advocates are all anarchists?”
[In a Homer Simpson voice]. “Communists. Open source advocates are all communists”.
Humor asise, g-d forbid that a company that has spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a product
a. determines how that product is to be sold/marketed.
b. charge money for it.
“And there is a difference between stealing and copyright violation.”
One is a criminal violation, and the other a civil one. Aside from that, THEY ARE BOTH ILLEGAL! So what was your point, exactly?
If law school has taught me anything, and it hasn’t, it is that most people don’t know squat about the law.
Humor asise, g-d forbid that a company that has spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a product
a. determines how that product is to be sold/marketed.
b. charge money for it.
I never said that. I only said that I like and support open source software and at the same time, my political orientation is not anarchist. Nor communist. Actually, I grew up in a communist country, I _know_ how it looked like and how the fallout still affects us 16 years later. Open source is very far from communism. Comparing open source to communism is a lame attempt to create bad feelings about it.
You are probaly mixing up two sub-threads together. If you read my comments, I agreed with the opinion that it is up to Apple to decide, what they will do with their products.
One is a criminal violation, and the other a civil one. Aside from that, THEY ARE BOTH ILLEGAL! So what was your point, exactly?
Short answer: read in a different sub-thread.
Long answer: if you _steal_ something, the thing goes missing from the owner. The owner does not have it anymore. He cannot sell it anymore. If you illegaly copy something, the copyright-holder still _owns_ the original and can do whatever he pleases with it. She still can create copies of it, put them on some physical media (or even place them on the net) and receive money for buying (or should I say licensing?
the said copies.
If I steal your car, you can’t drive it anymore, can’t rent it, can’t sell it. If I illegaly copy an audio CD containing your new album, you can still create thousands of CDs with the very same music and market them. That was my point.
I dislike, when people confuse these things. I dislike even more, when the dumber people create such a pressure, that the wrong meaning replaces the correct one in use. E.g. hacker vs. cracker. 10-15 years ago, you could use “cracker” and “hacker”. Now you have to use “blackhat hacker” and “whitehat hacker”. Then came “illegal copiers” vs. “pirates” and “stealing” vs. “illegal copying”.
It offends me that ignorant people with are able to dictate the more informed people how to use the (English) language. I discussed “your” vs. “you’re” with my English lector. The result was – it is the evolution of the language. WTF? I spent years learning English and now a mass of dumb people will make this knowledge and investment obsolete, because _they_ don’t want to learn?
That was my point. That people are abusing a word and using it in a wrong way, possibly intentionally (lame propaganda, again).
“Short answer: read in a different sub-thread.
Long answer: if you _steal_ something, the thing goes missing from the owner. The owner does not have it anymore. He cannot sell it anymore. If you illegaly copy something, the copyright-holder still _owns_ the original and can do whatever he pleases with it. She still can create copies of it, put them on some physical media (or even place them on the net) and receive money for buying (or should I say licensing?
the said copies. ”
Market dilution, Brand corruption, Breaking of a social contract, disrespectful, etc.
Just because the copyright holder has the original doesn’t make the situation alright. One may not like the words being used, but the intent behind the act shouldn’t be forgotten.
I never said it is allright. I only said it is not the same thing as stealing.
“I never said it is allright. I only said it is not the same thing as stealing.”
The intent is the same even if the acts are dissimiliar (debatable but that’s another long discussion for another time).
Reprehensible both are.
you know, anarchist thought and open source thought have a lot in common, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
>I installed Mac OSX on my amd64 system a while ago.
>The first thing I thought was: “That is it? That is >all?”.
>I played with it a while and then deleted it completely.
>Now I would not even install it on my machine if Apple
>would make it available for free.
>Don’t believe the hype…
What exactly were you expecting from an OS? DId you think that OSX would change the way you see the world? The way you breath? It is an Operating System after all.
People (including me) like OS X, beacuse it feels smooth. It feels clean, carefully designed… It is a feeling that some people definitely love… Some others, do not care…
Actually you are right, some of the Mac lovers unfortunately talk about it as if it is the second coming. The truth is, it is not. It is a good solution and a quality product (IMHO), but that is pretty much about it.
Cheers,
Irtek
the way the macolites act…yes i expected that
“I played with in a while then deleted it completely… Don’t believe the hype.”
WOW! You played with it a while. What did you do? Open some windows and change the desktop background? Try using it everyday and see how much it doesn’t get in the way of doing things for you (unlike windows… which blows) and then maybe you’ll see the value of it.
“Try using it everyday and see how much it doesn’t get in the way of doing things for you (unlike windows… which blows) and then maybe you’ll see the value of it.”
I’m sure he compared it to only windows…Yep. No way he would ever think of installing something other than windows or OS X.
At our home, my wife runs OS X on Apple hardware (a G4), while I use Linux on my X86 hardware.
After seeing both in action, I would not install OS X on my x86 hardware if it was free – IMHO Linux is *better* from every point of view except one: the availability of commercial apps like Photoshop and Illustrator and Painter for the Mac.
My wife needs those apps, so she uses the Mac. But she still can’t print to our two networked printers (the printer wizard fails silently in OS X) while my free Linux distros have no trouble at all. She cannot easily play wmv or divx files, which I have no trouble with on Linux. And so on, and so on.
The truth: OS X is pretty, but limited, compared to modern Linux distros.
-Gnobuddy
At our home, my wife runs OS X on Apple hardware (a G4), while I use Linux on my X86 hardware.
After seeing both in action, I would not install OS X on my x86 hardware if it was free – IMHO Linux is *better* from every point of view except one: the availability of commercial apps like Photoshop and Illustrator and Painter for the Mac.
My wife needs those apps, so she uses the Mac. But she still can’t print to our two networked printers (the printer wizard fails silently in OS X) while my free Linux distros have no trouble at all. She cannot easily play wmv or divx files, which I have no trouble with on Linux. And so on, and so on.
The truth: OS X is pretty, but limited, compared to modern Linux distros.
You’re opinion, a lot of people think the total opposite, does that make you right or them?
some people can’t print to networked printers in Linux is that there failing or Linuxs?
and I will do exactly that if someone figures out how to crack a retail copy of intel OS X. I’m all for purchasing it. I’d pony up the money today if they had it available for the x86 platform so I could install it. I so want to try it.
If you read Anandtech’s article on OS X performance…it is the OS X users I feel sad for. Just because it is UNIX and has on a pretty user interface does not make a great OS. And Apple trying to lock OS X down on an inferior platform like Intel is not going to help their cause any. Try reading http://sekhon.polisci.berkeley.edu/macosx/ and the links it provides…it is amazing how much people will take before they realize OS X is overhyped. It is a good product…better than XP but in no way is it an incredibly good product. And as for the comment about embracing the open source community….Apple? Please…dont make me laugh.
If they spent money developing it, people have overpaid to use it. And besides the OSX that some people have been able to install on x86 box is just for the kicks, I bet no one is using it as their primary desktop.
Crackers Again Crack OS X for x86
Hey, enough with the racial slurs!
Either way it’s not going to become mainstream – some hacked version of OS running on god-knows-what, geeks may run it of course, but not your average home user (potential Apple customer).
Either way it’s not going to become mainstream – some hacked version of OS running on god-knows-what, geeks may run it of course, but not your average home user (potential Apple customer).
Don’t be so sure about that…look how many average Joes got their geek friends to install that latest pirated Windows XP Pro corporate edition with all the slipstreamed service packs onto their home computers. I think this has great potential of becoming a mainstream OS.
Obviously you know little of the fads and trends of what strange pieces of software most Windows users embrace.
I will put this on a dell for my mom.
> but the people who are currently running OS X x86 can’t
> be getting it through legal distribution channels
The reason why they cant get it through the “legal” distribution channels is because Apple doesnt want them to get it legally at all for their hardware.
Those people want OS X, but they dont want to throw away their current and buy completely new hardware just to play around with OS X, why is this so difficult to comprehend?
> OS X is an incredibly good product
Its different, but not necessarily better than Windows.
> that has been in development for years and has cost
> Apple a phenomenal amount of money to create.
They surely didnt invest more money in OS X development that MS did for WIndows, so dont exaggregate.
> I don’t see much harm in that. Just buy the product
It can’t be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to get OS X for their hardware at all, although it runs on it almost without a flaw. Apple cripples their OS intentionally, just to force anybody interested in OS X to buy their overpriced hardware too.
> and support a company that makes good software and
> embraces the open source community.
Stop spreading lies, besides open sourcing their kernel no one uses, Apple doesnt embrace the Open Source community at all.
“The reason why they cant get it through the “legal” distribution channels is because Apple doesnt want them to get it legally at all for their hardware. ”
Nothing wrong with that.
“Those people want OS X, but they dont want to throw away their current and buy completely new hardware just to play around with OS X, why is this so difficult to comprehend? ”
Apparently buying an experience is hard to comprehend too.
“Its different, but not necessarily better than Windows.”
Sometimes it’s the little things in life that counts.
“They surely didnt invest more money in OS X development that MS did for WIndows, so dont exaggregate. ”
How do you know?
“It can’t be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to get OS X for their hardware at all, although it runs on it almost without a flaw. Apple cripples their OS intentionally, just to force anybody interested in OS X to buy their overpriced hardware too. ”
Gee $499 for a Mac Mini and people STILL bring out the “it’s overpriced” excuse. Now who’s exaggerating?
“Stop spreading lies, besides open sourcing their kernel no one uses, Apple doesnt embrace the Open Source community at all.”
No one uses? Embraces? Maybe they don’t go around hugging you all, but they do contribute back.
“Gee $499 for a Mac Mini and people STILL bring out the “it’s overpriced” excuse. Now who’s exaggerating?”
For $499 I can get a PC that will outpreform a $3000 Mac G5, that is what people mean by ‘overpriced’.
The Mac Mini is a toy, and if you want it to run decent dish out another $200-$300 for more ram, faster CPU, and bigger hard drive. I can still beat it for $499 with a PC, that I can easily upgrade latter. I can pay someone to upgrade it for less then Apple will charge also. Compition leads to lower prices.
>For $499 I can get a PC that will outpreform a $3000
>Mac G5, that is what people mean by ‘overpriced’.
Apparently you steal hardware along with software.
Ok, I guess this “overpriced” issue is getting silly …
Look my friend, for you “Performance” may be number of floating point operations per second. But look from another perspective:
What if I put (at the end of the specs sheet of Mac Mini):
– It has no fan noise
– It takes up 1/20 th space of comparable PC
– It is designed by world accalimed industry designers
– It comes with many additional applications (Which are consistent with each other)
– It is more likely to run longer than a comparable PC
– It is designed for “ease of use”, “longer durability” for common computing tasks..
Now, in my book, Mac Mini outbeats, 2000$ PC’s which have better graphical card but lack these features…
For some people, “metrics” are different than yours…
For instance, I am willing to pay 400$ more for an alluminium notebook with baclid keyboard, slot loading drive, a FAR BETTER DESIGN. In my world, clever design is worth money… (Plus, I trully belive that iBooks and iMacs are a bargain)…
Go, get a life…
What if I put (at the end of the specs sheet of Mac Mini):
And what if response would be
– It has no fan noise
So what, buy a decent cooling system and every system will be without noise
– It takes up 1/20 th space of comparable PC
And speed is comparable to space
– It is designed by world accalimed industry designers
Well, those designers didn’t do anything special. Still looks like cheap plastic
– It comes with many additional applications (Which are consistent with each other)
Really? OSX has at least 5 different looks of applications. And most of the software doesn’t exist. And not counting Java, X11…
– It is more likely to run longer than a comparable PC
Sold 3, one broke after 2 months.
– It is designed for “ease of use”, “longer durability” for common computing tasks..
Ever seen a commercial where they would say something like “It is not good for…, it has problem with…”
Now, in my book, Mac Mini outbeats, 2000$ PC’s which have better graphical card but lack these features…
For some people, “metrics” are different than yours…
It only matters that you’re happy. Some of us “think different”
For instance, I am willing to pay 400$ more for an alluminium notebook with baclid keyboard, slot loading drive, a FAR BETTER DESIGN. In my world, clever design is worth money… (Plus, I trully belive that iBooks and iMacs are a bargain)…
So do I. But because powerbook has shitty lcd screen (even worster than cinema display. if you don’t believe just look at contrast ratio and other specs from cinema display and compareable monitors. Then look at the price), I haven’t bought it. Keyboard on 17″ is the same size as 12″. Don’t know about new ones, but all my powerbooks started squeaking whan opening or closing after a while.
But, it matters that you believe.
Go, get a life…
Some of us do have a life.
“It is more likely to run longer than a comparable PC”
Yeah, try telling that to the thousands of iBook users whose logic boards failed — just one of many many recent problems with Apple Quality Control.
The mistake in your post is that Apple uses the SAME components that mid-range PC makers uses (aside from the CPU, and even that’s changing). The _same_ components.
Sure, Apple is better than el-cheapo eMachines junk, but it’s no different than an equally priced Dell (and below solid IBM stuff). There’ve been lots of issues with Apple QA over the last few years, and even Apple fans and commentators would agree that the quality has slipped.
Not sure if my sister’s belong to that category as I sent the IBook for repair. Gradually, I started to have problem with Apple in term of services for the following reason:
– Power supply for the IBook: the plug that connect Ibook was damaged but the power adapter was not. I have looked in many Apple Retail store to find an accesory to replace that plug. Result, I have to shell CAD 100.00 to replace the whole power adapter including the plug.
– Four months after I brought this power supply, my sister reported to have a big problem with the IBook such as weird screen. While she let it recharged, the plug got blown. Fortunately, nobody was around. I had to send back the IBook and the damaged power supply plug as well (the box still not damaged). I am currently waiting for the result.
– The technician tried to convince me to buy another power supply. I pointed out it was the IBook that damaged it and I refuse to shell another power adapter.
All of this happened in after within a year of purchase of IBook.
Design does not matter, my PC is under the table, so nobody sees it.
There are nearly no games to the OSX.
The amount of software is very low compared to Windows.
The GUI is very different, which annoys people, including me very much.
Apple are to late to do any difference on the market.
Yes the iPod is okay, but has a lot of problems, like forcing you to use iTunes, which also uses close DRM for they music you buy (very irritating).
What really annoys me about Apple’s software is, they think they know better than i do, about how to keep my music. Only click on the wrong marker in iTunes setup, and all my music was one big mess. Sorted by artist instead of album. and how to undo it ? You can’t except copying around by hand 🙁 🙁
OSX and Apple is no replacement for PC’s and Windows, some people can use it (those who just surt and write emails) but people like me who develop software can’t. I need Visual Studio, Ultraedit, Total Command, and more like it.
I have not seen 1 good reason to switch to Mac’s but i have found a lot of reasons why it would be very very stupid to do so.
>Design does not matter, my PC is under the table, so nobody sees it.
>There are nearly no games to the OSX.
>The amount of software is very low compared to Windows.
>The GUI is very different, which annoys people, including me very much.
> Apple are to late to do any difference on the market.
4 years ago i was just like you… hated Apple Macintosh, but i tried a mac and bought one ibook g3… since then i bought a PowerMac G5 1.8 and a PowerBook G4 15″ 1,5GHz and im totally satisfied with these machines. They are fast enought to do what i want (Filemaker, PHP, Xcode, and lately Mono).
I installed Fink and now i have KDE, Gnome, WindowMaker, etc installed in my powerbook. Went i want to use applications like Monodevelop or Gimp, i just click my X11 Icon in the dock, and Kde or Gnome starts and i have a desktop similar to Ubuntu, Solaris or any other *NIX.
I am waiting to buy my next macintosh next year with an intel processor. I think things like wine and possibly vmware running natively in my macintosh will be wonderful.
I understand that a macintosh could not be the best machine for some of you, but at least dont say some kind of things if you havent tried a macintosh for at least an week. Some of the best things in mac os x are “under the hood” like core image or core video. You will not notice that if you dont use a macintosh (or Mac os X for x86) for some time. I have a lot of software installed in my powerbook and i can find almost anything i want in **tp://www.macupdate.com or **tp://www.versiontracker.com/macosx. If i want opensource software i could go to **tp://www.darwinports.org or **tp://fink.sourceforge.net.
The GUI at beginning its not easy if you come from windows, but if you start using it it will become very simple, you can use drag and drop for almost anything… If you want to creat a shortcut in your Dock for anyapplication, Just drag that application to your dock. etc etc.
Sorry about my english and the desorganisation.
You truly believe it, eh? Making you a…true believer, I guess?
http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
Check that out sometime, you’d be surprised how much of it applies to you.
Uh, I can make a Shuttle box that’s essentially your iMac “feature list” but with my choice of hardware.
For $499 I can get a PC that will outpreform a $3000 Mac G5, that is what people mean by ‘overpriced’.
Sure I can get a $12000 supercharged Kia that will out perform a $40000 BMW, So what? Would I drive one? not on your life.
The Mac Mini is a toy, and if you want it to run decent dish out another $200-$300 for more ram, faster CPU, and bigger hard drive. I can still beat it for $499 with a PC, that I can easily upgrade latter. I can pay someone to upgrade it for less then Apple will charge also. Compition leads to lower prices.
Sure and what software would you run on that PC, linux or windows. The mac mini is the cheapest computer that will run MacOS X legally.
I am sure you buy the cheapest things in life. You shop at dollar stores and are amazingly responsible financially. But you must understand that you are living lie with compromises ever single day. May be spending the least amount of money gives you great statisfaction, more power to you.
For people like me, we don’t like to make too many compromises and buy where we find vlaue not necessarily things that are cheaper.
Take mountain bikes. You can get a mountain bike for $100 bucks at target or Kmart. But avid mountain bikers buy more expensive bikes, order of magnitude more, some times 5 to 25 times more.
People that buy the G5 use the computing power by running final cut studio and the like. The software cost alone out weight the hardware costs most of the time in a professional environment.
Edited 2005-11-21 16:21
For $499 I can get a PC that will outpreform a $3000 Mac G5, that is what people mean by ‘overpriced’.
—————————
Sure I can get a $12000 supercharged Kia that will out perform a $40000 BMW, So what? Would I drive one? not on your life.
Any particular reason, aside from one being more fashionable than the other?
If not – then how is it any better to choose a computer based largely on its value as a social status symbol? You know, as opposed to choosing one based soley on price or raw performance.
I am sure you buy the cheapest things in life. You shop at dollar stor…. For people like me, we don’t like to make too many compromises and …
zzzzzz…. *hurble burble, snort, waking up* Sorry, I dozed while you were busy patting yourself on the back for your oh-so-refined tastes.
Take mountain bikes. You can get a mountain bike for $100 bucks at target or Kmart. But avid mountain bikers buy more expensive bikes, order of magnitude more, some times 5 to 25 times more.
Flawed analogy. It might be a valid analogy, if a Norco or a Trek started trying to sell a $1500 bike with bushings instead of bearings, v-brakes instead of disc brakes, and an el cheap-o steel frame. But for the difference in price between a wal-mart bike and a good bike, you actually do get different, signgicantly-better components.
>ure I can get a $12000 supercharged Kia that will out >perform a $40000 BMW, So what? Would I drive one? not >on your life.
>Any particular reason, aside from one being more >fashionable than the other?
Yes, my friend. Design, attention to details. In cars, if you check the magazines, they do actually measure the gaps between chassis parts, the plastic type of the buttons on the console and so fort.. Overall, qualilty engineering and attention to details come up with a way more better experience…
As I said before, not everyone appreciates these factos, but people who appreciate it, are ready to pay premium (or in some other cases, rather than buying a 2005 Kia, same person would go for 1998 BMW for the same money)…
>If not – then how is it any better to choose a >computer based largely on its value as a social status >symbol? You know, as opposed to choosing one based >soley on price or raw performance.
See, anyone who does not like “designed” stuff has a hard time understanding this. You masturbate over “raw performance” , I care something else… And “social status” thing is just soo childish…
>zzzzzz…. *hurble burble, snort, waking up* Sorry, I >dozed while you were busy patting yourself on the back >for your oh-so-refined tastes.
Yes, you are a kid.
>Flawed analogy. It might be a valid analogy, if a >Norco or a Trek started trying to sell a $1500 bike >with bushings instead of bearings, v-brakes instead of >disc brakes, and an el cheap-o steel frame. But for >the difference in price between a wal-mart bike and a >good bike, you actually do get different, >signgicantly-better components.
You always look things in 1D right? “Components”… It is not only the pieces that matter, but the way they are put together… Every single car has 4 tires (and most of the brands share same brand of tires), but at the end, one has M5 engine on it, the other has 4Cylinder 100 HP.
See, I guess, most of this boils down to personal preferences. Which is completely okay. THe problem is, calling people “gay”, “Social status maniacs” “idiots”… UNfortunately, most of the geeks are full of anger to these type of people, beacuse somehow they keep banging the best babes… (Guess why?)
It is sad. But someone had to say it…
See, anyone who does not like “designed” stuff has a hard time understanding this. You masturbate over “raw performance” , I care something else…
Such as…. phsychological transference and self-congratulation? Let me guess, do you also own lots of Bose audio hardware?
Yes, you are a kid.
And you’re free to assume whatever you want, as I’m not in the habbit of disabusing people of those sorts of presuppositions.
See, I guess, most of this boils down to personal preferences. Which is completely okay. THe problem is, calling people “gay”, “Social status maniacs” “idiots”…
…or trying to affect an attitude of superiority based on the purchase of a assembly-line manufactured computer made by one specific multinational corporation?
You always look things in 1D right?
Hrm, let me look over at my Treo 650, Thinkpad x30, linotype-hell scanner, or Norco CRD2… yep, I guess must just be a price/specs-obsessed dollar store philistine.
UNfortunately, most of the geeks are full of anger to these type of people, beacuse somehow they keep banging the best babes… (Guess why?)
That’s an odd coincidence, because I’ve noticed that most wannabe-elitsts are filled with insecurity and the need to constantly try to convince others (read: themselves) that buying more expensive toys somehow makes them more savvy consumers.
For the record, I think that both extremes of the argument are laughably facile – and usually come from people too narrow-minded and myopic to realize that their choices and preferences aren’t universally-applicable to everyone.
“People only buy PCs because they’re cheap philistines without any taste!” “People only buy Macs because they have too much money to spend on pretty cases!”
Hell, I think Windows is ridiculously over-engineered for most typical computer users – and I usually suggest Macs to those I think are more interested in being computer users than Windows system administrators. But to argue that Macs are not more expensive than PCs of comparable specs (latest/greatest PMacs excepted) takes some real sophist gymnastics.
Any particular reason, aside from one being more fashionable than the other?
Spoken like a person who has never driven a BMW. Many reasons 1. I’d be safer in a BMW. 2. The BMW will stop better. 3. Out handle the kia. 4. Be more comfortable. 5. Provide more luxury.
If not – then how is it any better to choose a computer based largely on its value as a social status symbol? You know, as opposed to choosing one based soley on price or raw performance.
Because as the kia example was supposed to illustrate raw performance is never the only metric.
zzzzzz…. *hurble burble, snort, waking up* Sorry, I dozed while you were busy patting yourself on the back for your oh-so-refined tastes.
Thanks for waking up. Welcome to the realworld.
Flawed analogy. It might be a valid analogy, if a Norco or a Trek started trying to sell a $1500 bike with bushings instead of bearings, v-brakes instead of disc brakes, and an el cheap-o steel frame. But for the difference in price between a wal-mart bike and a good bike, you actually do get different, signgicantly-better components.
If the trek hardtail that had XTR components and v brakes would it be over priced for $1500 vs a $450 target jeep full suspension with disc brakes?
I can garauntee that you get better components out of the cheapest PowerMac than any PC you can build for $499 ( everything included ofcourse case+MB+HDD+memory+ODD+video+keyboard+mouse the whole deal identical to the powermac or even an iMac for instance ignore the AIO design).
Any particular reason, aside from one being more fashionable than the other?
—————-
Spoken like a person who has never driven a BMW. Many reasons 1. I’d be safer in a BMW. 2. The BMW will stop better. 3. Out handle the kia. 4. Be more comfortable. 5. Provide more luxury.
I’m not arguing that the BMW isn’t a better car, but the original post made it sound as if your primary objection to the Kia was that it would be beneath you.
Because as the kia example was supposed to illustrate raw performance is never the only metric.
Of course not. I’m not sure it’s really comparable though – as you pointed out, the BMW would actually outperform the Kia in tangible, quantifiable ways. The performance differences between a Mini and a $500 PC would tend to favour the PC. There are factors in favour of the Mini, but price and performance aren’t among them – and they’re certainly less tangible than the differences between a Kia and a BMW.
If the trek hardtail that had XTR components and v brakes would it be over priced for $1500 vs a $450 target jeep full suspension with disc brakes?
Clearly not. But it would be overpriced compared to a comparably-priced front suspension bike with better components.
I can garauntee that you get better components out of the cheapest PowerMac than any PC you can build for $499
I would hope so, considering the cheapest PowerMac would be about 4x the price. The components in the only comparably-priced Mac (the Mini) wouldn’t stack up as well and other things being relatively equal, bang-for-buck is a legitimate consideration when choosing a computer. At LEAST as legitimate as size, noise, etc – and arguably much more tangible.
“For $499 I can get a PC that will outpreform a $3000 Mac G5, that is what people mean by ‘overpriced’. ”
Talk about an exaggeration. You will not get a $499 PC that will outperform the Mac that I paid $3000 for two years ago. I will bring your $499 PC to a standstill less than two minutes after booting it up. And before you flame me as a zealot Mac user I just started using them 2 years ago after 20 years of Windows use. And I still use Windows for several non critical tasks.
The real fun will begin when more people get OS X running on intel machines. I am looking forward to some side by side comparisons with multiple applications running at the same time. I routinely keep about a dozen running. I was unable to do that under Windows. I want to see if this carries over to Intel based HW from other manufacturers.
Bill
“For $499 I can get a PC that will outpreform a $3000 Mac G5, that is what people mean by ‘overpriced’.
The Mac Mini is a toy”
The fact of the matter is you can buy a Mac that runs OS X for $499. Yes, you can get a more powerful PC for that amount, but you can still get a machine that legally runs OS X for an affordable price. You can’t use price as a moral loophole for stealing a product. It just doesn’t equate.
Disclaimer: I don’t use OS X or like it very much. I’m just appalled by the absence of integrity and morals that some try to justify through dubious arguments.
I can still beat it for $499 with a PC, that I can easily upgrade latter. I can pay someone to upgrade it for less then Apple will charge also.
But at the end of the upgrade cycle you still don’t have a Mac. Of course you didn’t really want one either. (o;
I could upgrade my own Mac mini (if I actually had one) and replace the slow laptop hard disk with something faster or simply hook it up to a Firewire drive or a network drive that is faster. I could further void my warranty by installing RAM that I happen to have lying around from when I upgraded my PC. Both of these things would bring the mini closer in operational speed to the theoretically less-expensive PC. These things aren’t impossible, people simply don’t commonly do them.
What you actually can’t do is get your $499 PC to run on a maximum continuous power drain of 85 watts like the Mac mini is rated at. You’ll wind up paying more for the electricity to run the darn thing than the difference in hardware price that you claim is so important. Enron thanks you for this. Well, OK, they don’t, but they still liked it when they were reaming you for being component speed-to-cost ratio wise and electricity usage foolish.
Still, you might have a faster machine for less initial cash outlay. But it will cost you more in the long run just to have it plugged in and turned on so that during the few seconds when you are paying attention to what you are doing it will finish sooner. Does the computer rest up during that time the way the first car to the red light rests up during the Stoplight Grand Prix? I’m trying to visualize the advantage this would confer over the long haul.
The best way to look at it is that during those few seconds or fractions of a second you are more productive. Also be sure to ignore any time lost to system patching, antivirus or anti-spyware operational overhead, installation or updating (we’ll just ignore any associated software costs since it’s not hardware related). Otherwise the picture becomes too complicated to make a snap judgement about and we wind up with one of those messy “your mileage may vary” real world situations.
>The reason why they cant get it through the “legal” >distribution channels is because Apple doesnt want them >to get it legally at all for their hardware.
Correct. So? That is a business decision. They want to create a stylish (subjective) package by combining the hardware THEY created with the software THEY created.
>Those people want OS X, but they dont want to
>throw away their current and buy completely
>new hardware just to >play around with OS X, why
>is this so difficult to comprehend?
Oh well. Then they should just NOT use OS X and continue using whatever OS they are using on their “old hardware”. OR they should save some money and buy a mac.
>Its different, but not necessarily better
>than Windows.
I did not see where the poster made that comparison, but so what? Yes, Windows is a good product too. What is your point?
>They surely didnt invest more money in OS X >development that MS did for WIndows, so dont >exaggregate.
That is ridiculous. Microsoft has spent a crapload of money on developing and continuing to develop Windows. Again, what kind of nonsensical arguments are you trying to present here?? They probably keep 100 developers on full pay to maintain Windows, and another 50 do develop the new OS. I worked for DEC in OpenVMS engineering, and I worked in a tiny subdivision that was dedicated to OS security ONLY. We had a group of 10 people. THat was for one, small part of the OS?!?!!!! The company paid about 200,000 for each developer (benefits, salary) + costs for hardware, a place for us to work, fees for gov’t testing (security stuff), etc. Each year our small little group cost DEC WELL over 20,000,000 just to maintain and develop new security aspects of the OS.
The software these companies produce IS NOT CHEAP and if you just TAKE IT you are STEALING and that is wrong.
>It can’t be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to
>get OS X for their hardware at all, although it
>runs on it almost without a flaw. Apple cripples >their OS intentionally, just to force
>anybody interested in OS X to buy their >
>overpriced hardware too.
Again, SO WHAT? What points are you trying to make? You are just trying to justify (very weakly at that) stealing. I cannot believe other people mod-up your comment either. Apparently no one cares.
I’d be saying the same thing about any other company for any other product that they produce.
Errrr…. 20,000,000 = 2,000,000 got all worked up when typing the zeros.
The software these companies produce IS NOT CHEAP and if you just TAKE IT you are STEALING and that is wrong.
No, it’s not. It is copyright violation. Maybe an violation of an EULA, maybe unlawful competition, but not stealing. Stealing, by definition, would take away the stolen goods from their owner. The owner would have NOTHING. In this case, they still have their product. They still have the software. It just got copied one more time and one _hypothetical_ buyer is lost. Hypothetical, because in no way can you prove that every unlawful copy is a lost sale.
I tend to agree with the general idea of the rest of your post. It’s Apple’s only decision, how they wish to distribute their products and we should accept this decision.
Perhaps you are correct. I guess I should mull it over. But I think part of my issue is: where are they getting the OS X to hack up? Did they subscribe to Apple Dev and purchase a machine with OS X on it? If so, these machines are “loaners” and Apple wants them, and the OS on it, back. They are not “selling” OS X at this point. That is part of the contract/agreement that they must sign.
“Stealing, by definition, would take away the stolen goods from their owner. The owner would have NOTHING.”
If that’s the case then everything that is owned on the planet is stolen goods. After all… Everything comes from the environment at some point. However, a person or group at some point laid claim to it and therefore stole it.
I only dealt with persons as owners, without stating that, but actually, you are right
.
> The reason why they cant get it through the “legal” distribution
> channels is because Apple doesnt want them to get it legally at all
> for their hardware.
Incorrect. The reason that they can’t get it through legal distribution channels is because the product is not available for sale to anyone at this point in time. Only developers have access to the x86 version of OS X. Anyone else who has a copy of OS X x86 stole it.
>Those people want OS X, but they dont want to throw away their
>current and buy completely new hardware just to play around with OS
>X, why is this so difficult to comprehend?
Then let them wait like the rest of us. I am eagerly looking forward to OS X x86. The possibilities for gaming alone are amazing (running games under Wine as well as more native ports).
However, the product has not yet been released. As a result anyone who is not an official ADC developer who has a copy of OS X x86 stole it. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
> [OS X is] different, but not necessarily better than Windows.
Though I personally believe OS X to be superior to Windows for general computer purposes as well as server usage, I did not claim that it was better than Windows. I completely understand that Windows may be a better option for some users.
Additionally, I feel that individuals stealing copies of Longhorn/Vista are equally immoral. Theivery is theivery regardless of the product under consideration.
>They surely didnt invest more money in OS X development that MS
>did for WIndows, so dont exaggregate.
You seem to have an understanding that I’m comparing OS X to Windows. I’m not.
MS may have spent more money developing Windows, but that doesn’t invalidate my statement. OS X has been in development for years and has cost Apple a phenomenal amount of money to create.
> It can’t be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to get OS X for their
> hardware at all, although it runs on it almost without a flaw. Apple
> cripples their OS intentionally, just to force anybody interested in OS
> X to buy their overpriced hardware too.
This is Apple’s choice; however, I disagree with their position. I think that individuals should be able to run the software on their own system IF they purchase it legally. I’m not criticizing individuals who will buy a copy of OS X x86 and then install it on non-Apple hardware. I’m criticizing individuals who have stolen a software product.
On a sidenote, I don’t feel that Apple hardware is overpriced. Especially with respect to their high-end offerings and their storage solutions, Apple can sometimes provide the best value for the dollar.
I’ll agree that Apple’s prices are far greater than eMachines and the like (and even Dell products). However, I find their hardware to be supperior in design and function. For the small price difference, you get a great deal of added value, in my opinion. Again, I understand that some users prefer to build their own systems or purchase bargain computers… this is their choice.
> Stop spreading lies, besides open sourcing their kernel no one uses,
> Apple doesnt embrace the Open Source community at all.
Well, they actually have opensourced an entire OS (Darwin). This includes their kernel, the userland BSD toolset, and a number of other foundation libraries (“Core” libraries and others). They have also released as OSS WebCore, their Streaming Server, their Bonjour (ZeroConf) implementation, OpenPlay, Open Directory, and others.
Certainly Apple could do more to help the OSS community. They are doing more than the OSS licenses require of them, which is a step in the right direction. Hopefully they will continue to work with OSS.
Also, since you are so ready to compare Apple and Microsoft, I invite you to consider the contributions of each to the open source community and tell me who has done more to embrace it.
>he reason why they cant get it through the “legal” >distribution channels is because Apple doesnt want them >to get it legally at all for their hardware.
>Those people want OS X, but they dont want to throw away >their current and buy completely new hardware just to >play around with OS X, why is this so difficult to >comprehend?
I want to play around with an Aston Martin, but damn company would not let me buy one for 10K. So I am going to steal one. Totally, cool, right?
>They surely didnt invest more money in OS X >development that MS did for WIndows, so dont >exaggregate.
Compare the size/investment… Plus, who said it is okay to Pirate Windows? No one…
And, OS X is a fine piece of software. Take it out from the OS market today, you will see how much other companies “innovate”… Most of the research done by Apple is actually being used by both open source and MS itslef. THey are leading the way, others say “Hey, this Quartz thing is nice, we should have one”… Capis?
>It can’t be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to get >OS X for their hardware at all, although it runs on it >almost without a flaw. Apple cripples their OS >intentionally, just to force anybody interested in OS >X to buy their overpriced hardware too.
My god,what are you talking about? Mac OS, is Apple’s product, so are Macintosh computers. It is at their disposal to do whatever they want. They are not have to please guys like you, who do not have any apreciation for style, integration and innovation. Even if they price their PC’s for 300$, I am sure that you will find something else to bitch about… Look, I don’t know if “Open source” people are that much out of touch with the world , but, “Products are owned by companies and companies are the ones who set the price”… If they want to sell their PowerMacs $10K tomorrow, there is nothing you can do. It is their decision, and if the go Chapter 11, theirs fault. Get serios…
And in terms of Open Source… Apple does not have to contribute to open source… But , they do… Maybe not by uploading code chuncks to CVS, but for sure by embracing term “Open Source” and products across their offerings. (Visit MacOS X Server web site). Yes, they may be making money out of it, but Open Source products get a very good marketing stream for free…
I just to not understand people like you. Everything is soo 1 dimensional for you guys. “I look at the specs, Dell is cheaper, Apple is overpriced”. “Apple is not commiting to CVS, they are a.. holes”.
Wake up… Please…
“They are not have to please guys like you, who do not have any apreciation for style, integration and innovation.”
It is not about any of this, its not about whether they have any obligation to please anyone. It is just about whether the current strategy is sensible and likely to succeed. Who cares whether any of us likes it? That isn’t the issue.
Need to raise our gaze above our navels, and focus on corporate strategy. We and our desires are only of interest to the extent they are representative of broad market segments. We would have a lot more interesting discussions on OSNews if people would just realise this, instead of talking about me me me all the time.
It is not about any of this, its not about whether they have any obligation to please anyone. It is just about whether the current strategy is sensible and likely to succeed. Who cares whether any of us likes it? That isn’t the issue.
May be you haven’t takena look at Apple’s financial statements recently. Thier strategy is working brilliantly. The have been profitable ever since Jobs took over. They sell about 4.25 million macs a year up from 3 million a few years ago and growing steadily y-o-y. They have the most successful music players and online music store in the world. Their stock
has almost quintupled in the past year and half.
What has changed is the switch to X86. Before the switch, it was simple. People who might have wanted X on their own hardware could infallibly be stopped because it would not run.
Now, that is apparently not going to be true. It seems that Apple is decreasingly likely to stop X running on commodity X86 hardware. This is apparently a fact. It doesn’t matter what anyone feels about it, it is just a fact that strategy has to confront.
Given this, what should they do? Most people here say, try harder – or they lapse into tirades about what a terrible situation it is and how terrible these people are who want this. Handwringing is not corporate strategy however. Trying harder seems unlikely to succeed.
The other line is, they are doing all right now. Yes, but that was in a different situation. Staring out of the rear window is not corporate strategy either.
Or, you can say how disastrous clones were, and they were right to stop them. Yes, they could stop them. Corporate strategy is not focussing on things you could do then but cannot do now. We could just charge them with the cavalry. Yes General, but now they seem to have machine guns. Oh.
The other alternative is sell it and take their money. The problem is, it seems likely that one way or another its going to get out. The question is how to make the best of it. To think clearly about this what is needed is to focus on the key issues, and stop emoting.
Microsoft wanted people to buy their os, and nudge nudge wink wink accepted that people would copy it. In turn, all the major applications were developed on windows.
It would be terribly, terribly ironic if apple, which never wanted us to run their OS on anything that they didn’t make us mortgage the house on, should end up becoming popular through the same means..
that let crackers do such things. If news sites wouldn’t care at all, then “Maxxuss” et al. wouldn’t care as well.
Just blame OSNews for everything…
🙂
I’m not a proponent of this cracking stuff either– but hey, that is no reason for me not to report on it. Fact remains, this is major news, and the fact that OSX for x86 (I refuse to use the silly names) gets cracked fairly easily each time, despite new security measures, could shape the future of the OS landscape.
Therefor, I must report on it, even though I *highly* dissaprove of it. Highly.
There, maybe that will satisfy Jobs’ army of lawyers
.
Edited 2005-11-21 14:19
How can you justify the statement that you’re “reporting” anything at all, when all you ever do is just copy and paste the first paragraph of someone else’s article in with your name on it?
How can you justify the statement that you’re “reporting” anything at all, when all you ever do is just copy and paste the first paragraph of someone else’s article in with your name on it?
If you’re seeing it how can you imply that it’s not being reported in the forum that you not only electronically attend, but also contribute replies to? Did you actually see it somewhere else first? Did everyone else see it there first as well? Can ideas or news only be spread by the originators or first hand witnesses? We’d certainly have a lot less news and information that way. Is that your goal?
Ever read a newspaper? Are any of the articles from API, UPI, Reuters or any other news organization? Or are they all written by the writers and/or editors of your local newspaper? Is this also a case of not “reporting” or is it somehow different? Thom didn’t claim this to be his content. He’s just reporting that it happened and giving us pointers back to where it came from. It’s not like he republishes the whole article under his own byline. In a newspaper all of the workers are listed in one place instead of right by the work that they did. Does this added level of obscurity make it more legitimate or does it just save ink and paper?
Ever visit ZDNet or CNet/TechRepublic in the same week and see the same article posted 3, 4, or even more times at those sites?
I leave it up to you to enforce corrections on the world to make it conform to your standard of what real reporting may (or should) be. I’m guessing that starting here is the longest possible route to getting the job completed though. Starting at the top of the “food chain” in limiting the number of places original content can be “reported” will probably be faster. Beware of what you wish for though…
What makes anyone believe Steve Jobs is going to lose any sleep over the possibility of taking sales away from Microsoft? Personally, I think he would get a tremendous amount of satisfaction if it did. Keep up the articles. They serve to point out the uselessness of protection schemes in general.
I think the whole protection thing on OS X is designed for show rather than to actually stop someone from hacking it. Steve is smart enough to realize that is pretty much impossible to prevent.
Bill
OSX 10.5 is gonna rock on my new dual dual core amd system I’m preparing to build. can’t hardly wait!
What if i buy a copy of OSX from apple store, keep it in its box, then download the cracked version and install it on a PC. Is it still illegal?
The only thing that prevents me from running it is the EULA, which is one of those ‘accept ‘, ‘next’, ‘accept’, ‘accept to all’ type of licenses that has never been tested in court. Just because its written by Apple or Microsoft doesn’t make it the law.
I’m still using one copy of the OS, which i purchased legally, just like the “DVD John” case: “I couldn’t get OSX to run on my PC so I patched it to do so”.
Edited 2005-11-21 14:36
Well, that is a good point. But don’t you see the difference between people that DO buy it and do NOT buy it at all??
Anyway, that argument runs right into what the RIAA and all have been battling with music trading CD/ripping, etc. Admittedly it is not exactly the same thing, but I can see where it gets grey.
“What if i buy a copy of OSX from apple store, keep it in its box, then download the cracked version and install it on a PC. Is it still illegal?”
Yes, it would. The copy that you “bought” is only a license which lets you use the software as long as you abide by its terms. This would be a clear violation of that licence.
“The copy that you “bought” is only a license which lets you use the software as long as you abide by its terms.”
First, you have bought a copy. Just as when you buy a book.
Second, this is seriously misleading on the law in these matters. In the EU you cannot impose conditions on sale which are either anti competitive or in violation of consumer protection regulations. Conditions in a EULA can be valid and binding, but the prohibition to use what you have bought on other hardware will never be – has never been – upheld in court. If you maintain the contrary, produce a case.
For the same reason, MS will never be able to prevent Office running under Wine by means of the software license, and Apple will never be able to stop X running on whatever by means of the software license. As long as you don’t run more than one copy, or make unauthorized copies.
Similarly, Sony will not be able to stop you playing your CDs and DVDs on Panasonic players, and Random House cannot stop you reading your novels in the bath, or lending them to other people to read. By conditions of sale. Random House can of course make them of moisture sensitive paper….
But if Apple doesn’t sell it for generic x86 hardware then here I come alt.binaries.warez
Great! I think this is very cool and only shows how people underestimate hackers and how Apple is really not concerned about OSX running elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure someone will awnser that running OSX on other platafors is steal, crimial, evil and not the right thing to do. It even remembers me of those silly ads about downloading music for kazaa and such.
The sillyness isn’t in comparing it to ‘real would’ theft but trying to make you fell bad about it… ’cause I steal and theft in the ‘real world’ whenever I can and I don’t feel bad about it. So much for all your whinning X-D
BTW my previous posts are filled with errors X-D
Especially the ‘real would’ I mean’t ‘real world’ like that nice pen I got yesterday… for free ^_^
>The sillyness isn’t in comparing it to ‘real would’
>theft but trying to make you fell bad about it…
>’cause I steal and theft in the ‘real world’
>whenever I can and I don’t feel bad about it.
That’s too bad. You seem nice enough otherwise. Be careful, it might catch up with you someday.
I’m nice alright! Everyone that doesn’t hate or ignore me says I’m nice. I just like to borrow permanently for myself other persons objects and software, like OSX ^_^
BTW don’t fear for my judicial security since my computer is too old to run OSX, but thank for your kind attention.
…
What? You don’t care for my security… oh… whatever I still love you anyway!
It is too bad that Apple does not have enough confidence in it’s business model to let consumers off their training wheels to use OSX on x86 machines of their choice.
These hacker situations are from unauthorized OSX distributions, but in the future, will Apple go after people who buy OSX and use tools to install it on x86 machines?
It is pretty arrogant of Apple to think that only Apple can make a choice of acceptable x86 hardware. Why not sell Apple machines on merits, and let people install X86 machines with no support from apple.
If universal install threatens Apple’s bottom line, then they are on the wrong track in the first place.
This is only because you can’t escape your “OS should be separate from hardware” mentality. The WHOLE reason everybody wants OS X is because they think it will make their PCs “Just Work”. Well, this certainly WOULDN’T be the case if users were allowed to use any old hardware. Why should Apple dilute the whole Mac experience just so a few knuckleheads can have their way?
“Why should Apple dilute the whole Mac experience just so a few knuckleheads can have their way?”
Because there’s more than a few. And because they will have their way either by paying, or by hacking. They don’t want ‘the whole mac experience’. All they want, and all they are going to take, is the OS.
Which would you prefer? To have them take it, or to have them pay for it? Those are your only choices, it seems.
LOL:
wierd why this is acceptable in the Computer world but wouldn’t be in any other business
I want your house, but if you don’t give it to at a price I want, hell FU, I’ll dam well take it anyway
You’re forgetting, they might have tamper proof bars up and so you’re just going to have to suck it.
I always thought it was amusing how many folks there are online who are unable to distinguish between copyright infringement and criminal larceny. But for sheer inane stupidity, the cake is certainly taken by those who can’t disguish theft from violating a clause in a questionably-enforceable EULA. Especially when that clause attempts to prohibit something which many nations consider a legal right.
“Which would you prefer? To have them take it, or to have them pay for it? Those are your only choices, it seems.”
*raised eyebrow*
Sounds like something the mob would say.
This is only because you can’t escape your “OS should be separate from hardware” mentality.
Given the obvious benefits of that “mentality” – price, choice, competition, and flexibility – I fail to see why that’s a bad thing.
The WHOLE reason everybody wants OS X is because they think it will make their PCs “Just Work”.
What gives you that impression?
Well, this certainly WOULDN’T be the case if users were allowed to use any old hardware.
Is OS X truly that fragile and inflexible?
BeOS managed to implement seamless “It just works” hardware detection and driver loading on x86 hardware… almost a decade ago. I would be pretty disappointed if the “world’s most advanced Operating System” couldn’t handle something that BeOS did easily back in ’98.
Don’t assume that the problems of Windows are inherent to the x86 platform.
“Given the obvious benefits of that “mentality” – price, choice, competition, and flexibility – I fail to see why that’s a bad thing. ”
Or the downside of cheap “cut every corner including standards” hardware plus drivers we outsourced to the cheapest programmer.
“What gives you that impression? ”
The Mac OS X gleam in Windows eyes.
“Is OS X truly that fragile and inflexible?”
And Windows was (and still is to some) the poster child for the BSOD partialy due to poor drivers and cut-rate hardware.
“BeOS managed to implement seamless “It just works” hardware detection and driver loading on x86 hardware… almost a decade ago. I would be pretty disappointed if the “world’s most advanced Operating System” couldn’t handle something that BeOS did easily back in ’98. ”
Sounds more like an argument FOR Macs. Easy to have a “it just works” when the number of supported devices can be counted on fingers and toes.
“Don’t assume that the problems of Windows are inherent to the x86 platform.”
No, just the attitudes around it.
I don’t get it: does this really suprise you ?
Do you know of *any* protection that hasn’t been cracked ?
…
Btw, this kind of posts is inciting piracy as I see it… Well done.
I think Apple knew what was the problem to switching to Intel.
Now they are facing the problem.
Who will win?
Probably both the hackers and Apple.
Many PC users will use cracked version of OS X, part of them will switch to Apple hardware in future and Apple market will grow.
If I’m wrong and they will lose money then I hope they could turn back to PowerPC processors. I don’t like Intel at all.
I don’t think that people in Apple truly belive that they can make non-crackable OS. I know that Microsoft has financed Apple in the past, and there is probably some kind of agreement that Apple never releases OS for plain PC.
I think that Aplle restrictions are only an effort to comply with the deal. Apple people are too long in the business and surely know that hack proof OS can not be made.
DG
Btw, this kind of posts is inciting piracy as I see it… Well done.
Ah, in that case news networks are guilty of inciting warcrimes, terrorist acts, murders, and what not. You know what, let’s prohibit the spreading of news! Who knows what news might incite!
Apple continues to use hackers to test their Various security measures. Free testers,,, SMART!!!
>>I installed Mac OSX on my amd64 system a while ago.
>>The first thing I thought was: “That is it? That is >>all?”.
>>I played with it a while and then deleted it
>>completely.
>>Now I would not even install it on my machine if
>>Apple
>>would make it available for free.
>>Don’t believe the hype…
>
>What exactly were you expecting from an OS? DId you
>think that OSX would change the way you see the world?
>The way you breath? It is an Operating System after
>all.
No decent antivirus, no antispyware… how can I live without?? 🙂
“That is it? That is all?” — yes, that’s all. But if you work a little bit more with it you can see that, incredibly, you can do all you need on a desktop system. And it’s just that simple! This is what nortmal people expect from a desktop OS. If Linux won’t get there it will never win the desktop.
Tjhe bottom line is, this group really does not know how to think about these issues.
One set of people thinks that if a given market segment has not actually bought your present products, its irrelevant to you, they are not customers. Of course they are customers, perhaps important ones, you just haven’t sold them yet. Should you? Yes, if you have something they want, find a way to make money selling it to them.
Another group seems to think that the question of what Apple should do is the same as what they want, and who they want to please. It has nothing to do with any of that, its about return on investment.
The ultimate problem Apple faces is this. It has been obliged to move to standard hardware. It now has large numbers of people who are willing to buy its software, able to run it on their own hardware, but who are not willing to buy Apple’s hardware. It has two choices. It can sell them what they want, and find a way to make money doing it. That is the correct, management school, marketing guru approach. The reason it will be advocated by these guys is, its the only secure way of managing the situation, and it will be good for the vitality and creativity of the company. Not its technical creativity, but for its business model flexibility. It needs this.
The second way is, it can refuse to sell, and try to criminalize its customers, or turn them into enemies.
There are a number of problems Apple does not have at this point, and they all begin with ‘Why should we?’. As in, why should we please all these idiots who shop at Walmart? Why should we pay attention to people who don’t want the integrated experience? Why should we listen to anyone who has not already bought from us?
Answer: they are customers, and the customer is always right, even and especially when you cannot see that.
If you want to think properly about this and other questions of business strategy, you have to eliminate the personal, and personal likes and dislikes.
Nice try…but….
1. The customer is not always right, but the customer should always be treated in a respectful manner and reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the customer is satisfied.
2. Also, if they have not purchased an Apple product, they are not a customer, only a potential customer.
3. You do not want all possible customers. You want good customers, crappy customers take away resources that could be applied to good customers.
4. By allowing uncontrolled deployment on any HW, it will lower the perceived quality of OS X, because it will be running on unsupported HW, which will be less stable. Apple would then be faced with the prospect of supporting all of that HW to maintain their brand. This would drastically increase development costs for OS X, which would raise the price, etc.
– Kelson
Answer: they are customers, and the customer is always right, even and especially when you cannot see that.
That is the same nonsense argument given in retail. I have seen enough customers who are niether right nor deserving of the level of service provided. Mind you I don’t work in retail my self. Just saying that there are enough goof balls out there that don’t want to pay and measure everything with cost and not value. All monetary transcations time immorial have been about percieved value.
The problem with your arguement is that Apple is alienating potential customers by not selling OS X for x86 shrink wrapped sans hardware. The problem is you think that the people who want to run OS X on x86 are all going to purchase it and pay apple money. So they really aren’t customers.
The second problem is that if MacOS X gets to be popular in the privacy market it won’t run on majority of the hardware due to lack of drivers and might be extremely unstable. This eventually tarnish Apple’s image of selling rock solid systems and driver real customers away thinking computers are unreliable and Apple’s software is no more stable that Microsoft’s so i might as well just buy that Dell which is cheaper.
The proof is in the real world. Linux is compatible with most hardware and is available free I haver never visited any one who had linux runnign as thier main desktop OS. Most people I know run only windows. The people I know who used to run linux, including me, have since then bought macs.
Linux hasn’t been able to displace windows even though it is considered superior and free.
“Testing it, just for playing around, don’t/can’t want to buy Apple products, too expensive ($499 anybody), Apple doesn’t really support open standards”. I’m sick of it. Quit being such complete hypocrites. Thieves are thieves, stealing is stealing. That’s what you’re doing, and that’s what you are.
I for one consider them excellent, and also not expensive.
And the guy who said he valued lack of noise and size and design more than megagflops is right. It’s just another silly war of cheapo long-haired geeks who have to buy AMDs because they’re so damn cheap and rich elitists who could care less about that 3% speed improvement or 30% price increase. Really. I for one would rather earn more money and go with a Mac than live a shitty life and think of pirating OSX to run on AMD64 or some generic hardware. Luckily, not every computer customer IS a geek!
I use a Macintosh because I’m simply better than you. Take my coffee for instance – it’s French. You, I bet you don’t even know what France is.
My name is Raven and I’m an elitist asshole.
What I think what most of us want for $599 to $699 “real price of Mac Mini” is a computer that does actual work. I want at least a 200GB 7200 RPM hard disk, 128mb of video memory, and a 64bit processor. Does Apple offer this? I think not. eMachine does and so do the majority that sell lowend AMD systems. It may not look like much but it has it where it counts and is not an overpriced door stop.
I do not, however, agree with people pirating OSX. I would prefer that people would not use it at all until Apple considered releasing it as a stand alone product.
This is the only way I will buy it. I’ve had a Mac in the past and did not like the experience. I equate consumer position to nothing more than technoogical dependence (think drug). One is are utterly at the mercy of the industry.
I do not want this. I want to be free to make my own decision and not have to “think inside the box.” I do this through the ability to mix and match the hardware that I do want and what I do not.
If this means that I can not use OSX, so be it. I could care less. Something better will eventually come along.
Whenever there is a story related to Apple, Microsoft fanboys come out of the woodwork to spread their usual FUD. It seems like quintessential “Macs are expensive” outcry will be here until our sun goes supernova. Of course that may be half true at best. If you compare the home built beige box’s performance specs with a $500 mac mini’s hardware specs you might come to the conclusion that macs are indeed expensive. However if you look at what mac mini comes with in terms of software, then the price is quite good. iLife is pleasant to use because it’s exactly what many people need. Just the Mac OS X alone means you don’t have to run antivirus and antispyware software. It’s hard to find anyone who switched to a Mac regretting their decision. Speaking of hardware, when Apple does come out with an x86 mac mini, lot of the performance gap will close and the MS fanboys will have one less thing to fud about. But then again, I’m sure they’ll still FUD because that’s what they do.
It will be very interesting when Apple finishes their migration to x86. I look forward to the day when they have identical hardware for Windows XP (or Vista) and Mac OS X while running an Adobe Photoshop benchmarks.
Every time another iDiot comes onto one of these comments, and compares the cost of a Mac against the cost of an Intel / AMD box, they always come up with the assumption that Windows is being used, and therefore we all need to factor the value of iLife in to it.
Some of us are quite happy running Linux on the desktop, and find it perfectly useable. And I have never had to pay for any software (and it does everything I need it to and more, and fast).
And I can upgrade a DVD burner for less than half the price a mini mac one would cost. In fact I reckon nearly any bit of hardware could be upgraded for about half the price equivalent Mac hardware.
Also Mac hardware may or may not be better quality, but at least I can trim linux down so that my box will still be useable well into the future while Windows and OS X bloat will have declared equivalent machines out of date.
“Crackers Again Crack OS X for x86”
Nice syntax.
Is this a grammatical mistake or is this how Americans write and speak ?
“Crackers Again Crack OS X for x86”
Nice syntax.
Is this a grammatical mistake or is this how Americans write and speak ?
I’m not American so I really wouldn’t know. All I do know is that in English one can put emphasis on a word by placing it before the clause. Which is what I’ve done. This way, emphasis is put on the word “again”
Next.
—
Thom Holwerda
“Crackers Again Crack OS X for x86”
Nice syntax.
Is this a grammatical mistake or is this how Americans write and speak ?
It is correct syntax. One could phrase it as “Crackers [once] Again Crack OS X for x86,” but “once” is not required. It’s implied.
Americans are not the only ones who speak “English.”
Americans are not the only ones who speak “English.”
Americans speak English? I thought they spoke American – the language where there’s no difference between adjectives and adverbs.
s this a grammatical mistake or is this how Americans write and speak ?
As an American I think you’re overfocused on “or” when it can be “and”.
The actual Apple x86 developer platform is a simple Intel motherboard in the PowerMac case. It’s for software development. It’s in NO F***ING WAYS a Mactel at all!!! It’s a simple F***ING PC!!! And said that, this Mac OS X 1.4.x Developement Edition for Intel runs OBVIUSLY on a simple F***ING PC with the supported specs.
WHY DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS F***ING CONCEPT??? WHAT PART OF “THERE ISN’T YET THE MACTEL PLATFORM” DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND???
Most headlines are not prime examples of grammer.
Perhaps if you may read a newspaper it may enlighten you.
It is also how most of us Aussies write and speak as well.
At any rate, brilliant way to get one to consider putting MacOSX on their PC. “Oh no stop, don’t crack it.. darn” Apple’s just a girl playing hard to get but knows how to get it.
“Is this a grammatical mistake or is this how Americans write and speak ?”
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! The second one, brother, the second one… 😀
I don’t know if Macs are really expensive. Everyone who argues they can be cheap points to the Mini, let me point to some other axamples:
The 12″ Powerbook and the small screen iBooks. With Apple it’s less display, less money. All other vendors actually charge more for the smaller machines.
And the regular x86 hardware or not debate, I’m looking foreward to the Harvard-Case-Study about it because this really is a classic in strategic management.
And all this cracking of apple software, it’s like a trip down memory lane. Apple should know how to handle that, won’t be the ][nd time (as an old “texan” saying goes
).
p.s.: I own a 15″ Powerbook because I think it’s just a nice machine. I’m running OpenBSD 3.8 on it btw.
p.p.s.: The great apple design. I’m sick of it, just look at their international laptop keyboards (or keyboards that won’t allow you to remap capslock easily)
The 12″ Powerbook and the small screen iBooks. With Apple it’s less display, less money. All other vendors actually charge more for the smaller machines.
Charging more for a small form-factor… Hrm, why does that remind me of a certain cube-shaped computer Apple released a few years ago?
And almost all other vendors sell small laptops that would probably fit inside an empty 12″ Powerbook case. Apple doesn’t offer anything remotely comparable to the Thinkpad x series, or Sharp’s Actius series, or any of a dozen other laptop models that are truly small/light.
mac mini a toy….lol right! i have a new hp pavilion laptop, but love my mac mini so much more than this oversized nice boat anchor of a laptop.
Pay for OS X
Disclaimer: I don’t use OS X or like it very much. I’m just appalled by the absence of integrity and morals that some try to justify through dubious arguments.
Yes one can’t deny there’s a illegal part in it in one way or another.
Look at it in this way:If they can’t code something challenging that doesn’t hold for at least 1 year,i just wonder how well thought the rest is.And i assume they really tried to a reasonable mechanism against unauthorised install.
There is NO restriction they could put in place that cannot be bypassed by anyone with a decent command of machine language and a good dissassembler… ESPECIALLY if you do profiling through a virtualization(as you can instantly tell exactly where in the code it’s bombing).
I’m amazed they are even bothering – I figure by the time it’s released it will be a bit like the Windows WGA check and windows activation… Such a total pain in the ass that everyone I know who legally owns windows is running the cracked 2600 build with the trixie script WGA workaround.
When your security measures to stop people from making illegal copies only inconveniences people legally using your product… All you are doing is pissing off the legal owners. Games (especially SAFEDISC ones) do this all the time, resulting in hassles that people running the cracked versions never see.
Apple should take a serious and objective look at other companies (like microsofts) efforts in this regard, as any sane analysis should quickly come to the conclusion they aren’t going to be able to block out the other platforms, and wasting time attempting to do so is just throwing money away on something that will likely be cracked before it even goes on public sale. (anyone else remember the FCKGW version of XP?)
“There is NO restriction they could put in place that cannot be bypassed by anyone with a decent command of machine language and a good dissassembler… ESPECIALLY if you do profiling through a virtualization(as you can instantly tell exactly where in the code it’s bombing). ”
There’s more to it than that. Part of the reason it’s easy is because much like everything else. Making reverse-engineering hard is a set of compromises. Try this new wonder-cure, but it makes your whole program three times slower.
Something tells me this problem isn’t going away. I guess we will see OSX for the masses one way or another.
No shiny Apple computer required.
heres a nice list
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
“No shiny Apple computer required.”
Are you sure? I don’t think so! 🙂
“[…] I really wouldn’t know.”
Yes, this is right, Thom! 🙂
I spent $560 USD on a Mac Mini
1.33ghz 512MB DDR 40GB 7200RPM 32MB ATI AGP 2.1 matching Speakers, USB 2.0, Firewire 400, 10/100, 56k
Beat it with a PC that also gives me something relatively like
small footprint
total silence
iTunes
Widgets
Apple Works
iMovie HD
Quicken
iDVD
Garage Band
XCode
Nanosaur 2
Marble Blast Gold
Firewall
Keychain
Voice Command
Note the the PC you are going to build for me should also be virus free and run all features (or like features) and applications (or like applications) reasonably well. It should also have all this set up upon boot and/or restore. No shareware, demoware, spyware. All software listed besides the games should share a one-click-update tool. So they can all be automatically updated with one click from the same location.
Please provide links. If you start to run over your budget, go ahead and forego the keyboard, mouse, and monitor.
If you can’t meet the challenge, then shut the hell up about how Mac’s are “expensive” or how you could blow away a mini at the same price. You can’t do it – – period.
You can’t do it – – period.
And what if you already own all that software and are replacing an older computer? Which is most likely the case in the westrn world?
—
Thom Holwerda
so what you are saying is:
you’ll keep altering the rules until you’ll find one that will work
You can’t do it – – period.
And what if you already own all that software and are replacing an older computer? Which is most likely the case in the westrn world?
—
Thom Holwerda
Fine. Please list the “old” PC you are replacing and list all the software you already own that give you the features I listed. Then provide links to the new hardware that matches or beats.
Remember:
Note the the PC you are going to build for me should also be virus free and run all features (or like features) and applications (or like applications) reasonably well. It should also have all this set up upon boot and/or restore. No shareware, demoware, spyware. All software listed besides the games should share a one-click-update tool. So they can all be automatically updated with one click from the same location.
Go ahead, we’re waiting . . .
Go ahead, we’re waiting . . .
I already have a Mac.
—
Thom Holwerda
I could just as easily post a counter-challenge based on my PC, which cost about the same as a Mini, and my requirements. As I use the computer for work, I was more interested in bang-for-buck than size or noise – and for those requirements, my $500 PC contains faster/more modern hardware than the mini (AthlonXP 2800, nforce2, 1GB RAM, 80GB HDD, 128MB GF 5200). And that was $500 Canadian, a little over a year ago, so there’s room in that price for a Windows license if I were running it.
“I could just as easily post a counter-challenge based on my PC, which cost about the same as a Mini, and my requirements. ”
Actually, the original post is more correct than you realize. I normally buy high end when I get a new computer. When I bought my present system, a dual processor G5 at 2 ghz, I also priced an equivalent system from Intel and AMD. After factoring in the cost of additional software needed on all three systems the Mac came in several hundred dollars cheaper. The difference was that with the Mac about 90% of the software I needed was included.
I do quite a bit of computer work for people and most are just looking for the basics. You get almost everything you need with the Mac. With Windows you do need to purchase additional software. The iLife suite has no free equivalents on a Windows machine. Buying the same functionality will cost you at least $200 on Windows. And lest I offend you Opensource fans, the average user doesn’t know anything about it and doesn’t want to learn about it. The only way they get it is when I install free versions of programs and tell them to dump all the Symantec stuff.
And I see you are fully vested in the MHZ myth. Take the average Mom & Pop user and they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a system with a 1.5 ghz CPU and one with a 3 ghz CPU. And as I stated in a previous post, I could choke that $500 Windows machine in less than 2 minutes after booting up. And I could probably force a reboot in less than 10 minutes. Windows is great as long as you don’t try to do too many things at once. Unfortunately, I don’t work that way.
Bill
Hey I would love to run OS X on my AMD, Windows is getting stale with all the security. Ofcourse I am a gamer, mostly what I use windows for. That might be a prob. in OS X geting games.
Big deal, same shoe different foot
if you really want freedom use GNU/Linux
f–k coporate whores
cool! someone gimme a downliad-link, please!
MAC zealots are such a bunch of losers. First they were talking about their superior processor, They lost that. They thought they had the most secure OS. How funny is this Whole of Apple Corporation come with TPM only to be defeated by 2 or 3 guys. I see no backbone in people still using OSX.
Many interesting arguments back and forth about the semantics of being “entitled” to use OS X on any x86 platform. And yes, if you own a license for OS X 10.whatever for Intel, you probably could get away with installing it on any x86 system you chose, not likely that any jurisdiction is going to go after you for it (except in the US where I presume you’d be violating the DMCA by hacking the DRM).
But where does that “license” come from? I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that it will be included with every intel-based Mac desktop. So, yes, you can go ahead and purchase a brand new intel-based Mac desktop and then proceed to install OS X on the system of your choosing, because you have the “license”. Of course, that license would also require you to either pack up your brand new intel-based Mac and put it in the closet or use it to run Windows/linux/bsd exclusively, because even fair use provisions with posessing that “license” will not permit you to have the OS installed on multiple machines.
But you can purchase OS X retail and use that, you say? Really? Does it seem logical that, given that there are no intel-based Macs in the public domain, and OS X will come included with every intel-based Mac, that Apple would go to the trouble of releasing a retail standalone-version? Particularly given the trouble they’re going to with incorporating DRM for the OS (effectiveness aside)?
But you have a license for OS X on your existing ppc-based Mac, or you’ll just purchase a retail pack from the store, you counter? Sure, and that will give you a license to run OS X for ppc. OS X for Intel will be a different product. Doesn’t matter that they look the same, act the same or are based on the same code. OS X for ppc will not give you fair-use protection to “obtain” a version of OS X intel and install it anywhere you like, that is just plain piracy.
So, really, the only way one can legitimately install OS X on an x86 platform is to purchase a brand new intel-based Mac, that gives you the fair use protection you need to hack it onto the platform of your choice. Maybe it’s just me, but if I was to throw away the money to buy an intel-based Mac just so I could use OS X for intel, I’d probably choose to use the intel-based Mac that comes bundled with OS X for intel. Seems more cost effective.
So frankly, I think Apple’s strategy of rights management to tie the OS to the platform makes sense. Of course it’s hackable, and of course there will be people that manage to install it on a whitebox, and fair use (depending on jurisdiction of course) will likely protect them regardless of the licensing and EULA. But the point is that they will HAVE to purchase a mac to get that license, and they will not be able to use that mac with OS X if they install OS X somewhere else. Fair use does not provide for that.
If people want to use a “legitimate” license for OS X to install it on whatever platform they want, they can do so and Apple will laugh all the way to the bank, one more desktop sold.
Of course there are also the illegitimate users and cracked bittorrents to deal with, but that will just be a fact of life. Every consumer-oriented software company has to deal with it. But at the end of the day, I suspect that will be a small percentage. Joe Average is not going to run a cracked version of OS X he got his hands on and deal with potential hardware problems just for that “Mac” experience. Maybe the people on this forum would, but this crowd is hardly representative of the typical user.
I could be wrong, nobody will know how it shakes out until it happens, but even if I am and pirated versions of OS X flood the torrents, it won’t change apple’s stance and those users will simply be in violation of the law.
IANAL, but I don’t think you need to be one to see the basics of how the licensing works when you cut throw the hype, hysteria and speculation.
Just throwing in my 2c
EDIT: Er, subject should read “About the licensing…”
Edited 2005-11-22 05:01
Is there any point to installing OSX on x86 now? Is there much software support? How about drivers? Nvidia drivers? Soundblaster drivers?
Would it be possible to install mac games on it and play them?
Well, if you insist that Apple returns back (useful) code, then i suggest that they give to the community their proprietary X11 OpenGL hw accelerated code.
Unix needs BADLY this stuff to keep-up with Vista.
I don’t give a fsck about darwin.
Hopefully with X11R7, Xgl development could speed up…
>Ah, in that case news networks are guilty of inciting warcrimes, terrorist acts, murders, and what not. You know what, let’s prohibit the spreading of news! Who knows what news might incite!
To a certain extent, yes they are. This is the “power” of media…
Come on: how many people did run their favourite Emule program and typed some “osx x86” just beceause they read that ?
How many of them wouldn’t have done it if they did not hear about it here ?
– More than 100 million PCs are sold worldwide each year.
– Several millions (let’s say 5) Macs are sold worldwide each year.
You can’t compare both in terms of price and software available. Period.
Microsoft Word has beaten Wordperfect by offering a slightly more user friendly product (it included also a new gadget: the crash), and the freedom to install it on as many machines as the user wished, while wordperfect was cracking down on illegal copies. After a short time, enterprises bought the product (for the home needs of the employees) and wordperfect was history.
Not only that, MS also made sure WP was not really compatible with their OS, while their own Word was (have a look on google for the full story).
While I don’t approve of piracy I do see coders being able to hack OSX to prove that it can run on a variety of x86 hardware as a good thing. Reason is that consumers will at least be aware that it’s Apple’s policy, not a software incompatibility why OSX x86 will not run on anything but systems sold by Apple. Not all OSX fans are defending Apple’s EULA on running OSX only on systems sold by Apple. I have met several OSX users that would prefer to purchase OSX from Apple as can be done with Windows from Microsoft then be allowed to install on current systems in their LAN. The comments from some people here at OSNews is that consumers would prefer to purchase turnkey systems from Apple instead of just buying OSX to install on current hardware would appear to be a false assumption. Windows has a large market share and Linux market share is growing. One reason is they both offer consumers choice. Consumers can install a Windows or Linux distribution on a variety of systems where as with Apple they are continually attempting to restrict consumers choice to do so. Unfortunately no matter how much marketing Apple does the reality is they will remain a niche market which is similar to the fate of companies like SGI.
Edited 2005-11-22 17:29
“Unfortunately no matter how much marketing Apple does the reality is they will remain a niche market which is similar to the fate of companies like SGI. ”
The Microsoft mindset. If your not utterly dominating your market, then you’re a SGI niche.
“Reason is that consumers will at least be aware that it’s Apple’s policy, not a software incompatibility why OSX x86 will not run on anything but systems sold by Apple.”
But the only “customers” who will really care (and benifit) will be geeks.
“The comments from some people here at OSNews is that consumers would prefer to purchase turnkey systems from Apple instead of just buying OSX to install on current hardware would appear to be a false assumption. ”
It’s based on the fact that most Apple users aren’t of the “Hack everything till it works” variety.
“Windows has a large market share and Linux market share is growing. ”
Only if one ignores their Windows history, and think that Apple is trying to compete with Linux.
“Consumers can install a Windows or Linux distribution on a variety of systems where as with Apple they are continually attempting to restrict consumers choice to do so.”*
Everything in life is a choice. Some people choose Windows. Some choose Apple. Apparently a group that boasts about “freedom” can’t deal with that fact. Apple users get what they want out of the deal, as Windows users get something out of their deal.
*Apparently what’s ment by “restrict consumers choice” is that THEY (whomever the complainer is) don’t have unlimited freedom to have the world on their terms.
173 comments later, and you are all insulting each other, casting aspersions on each other’s sexuality, and talking about “why should” various people have various things, and about your tastes in cars, and the integrated experience, and what OSX was “meant” to be.
I do sincerely hope none of you have any role in strategic thinking for any company, if this is what strikes you as important about this topic.
Just ask yourself the question as it puts itself to Jobs and team this week.
It seems like we will not be able to stop OSX being cracked to run on whatever hardware people choose to run it on. In the light of that, what should we do?
Answers should be specific, and cover the one year period starting in December. Acceptable answers include, try harder to lock it, use dongles, use product activation, unbundle and sell the OS separately….
“Answers should be specific, and cover the one year period starting in December. Acceptable answers include, try harder to lock it, use dongles, use product activation, unbundle and sell the OS separately….”
How about, do nothing different than we already are? As has been pointed out repeatedly, the only people who this will make a difference is GEEKS. That’s IT! A minority. Geeks have been able to run Apple OS’s on x86 hardware for years, and in the grand scheme it didn’t make a lick of difference. It still doesn’t. And for those GEEKS (I believe Torvald’s has a Mac) that are crossing over, they’re buying the bundled package, legally, because they know what’s important about Macs is the *whole Apple experience*. Not the DELL experience, the APPLE experience, and until you all realize that, we will continue to be having these pointless discussions.