 |
 |
How will Apple stop PC users from running the Mac OS?
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
I doubt it. Apple will require some special piece of hardware, or maybe Intel will make a custom chip for Apple that the OS requires to run. Believe me, they'll be all over this one like stink on a monkey.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Outfield - #24
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by JoshuaZ
I doubt it. Apple will require some special piece of hardware, or maybe Intel will make a custom chip for Apple that the OS requires to run. Believe me, they'll be all over this one like stink on a monkey.
That will really bring costs up and intel might be in the same boat as IBM where the 2% of chips they sell to Apple isn't worth the effort.
Even if it is a dongle or ROM someone will reverse engineer it within a month or 2.
|
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
That will really bring costs up and intel might be in the same boat as IBM where the 2% of chips they sell to Apple isn't worth the effort.
Even if it is a dongle or ROM someone will reverse engineer it within a month or 2.
Someone always reverse engineers it. If people wanted to build their own Macs, they'd be buying parts from IBM right now.
Plus I'm sure Intel will be a much better bedfellow then IBM was. I mean, that jingle!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
If Apple sticks to Open Firmware, that will make it much more difficult for regular PCs to run OSX, simply because no PC out there uses it at this point. Although there's a group of Open-Source folks trying to implement Open Firmware on top of a regular PC BIOS, it's not ready yet and probably won't be for some time.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by JoshuaZ
Someone always reverse engineers it. If people wanted to build their own Macs, they'd be buying parts from IBM right now.
Plus I'm sure Intel will be a much better bedfellow then IBM was. I mean, that jingle!
True but it is not easy or economical to slap together a Mac from IBM parts. A cheap PC can be thrown together though easily.
|
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
True but it is not easy or economical to slap together a Mac from IBM parts. A cheap PC can be thrown together though easily.
I would imagine that custom motherboards would prevent people from slapping together a 'cheap
' mac. But honestly, who cares. If someone has to go through a ton of work to get OS X on a cheap clone, is it really worth it.
Plus darwin already runs on x86 computers. So in a way, part of Mac OS X is always on cheap PCs.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
If Apple sticks to Open Firmware, that will make it much more difficult for regular PCs to run OSX, simply because no PC out there uses it at this point. Although there's a group of Open-Source folks trying to implement Open Firmware on top of a regular PC BIOS, it's not ready yet and probably won't be for some time.
Open Firmware is dead.
I'm sure SOMEONE will hack OS X to run on generic PCs, but it would be a major PITA. No drivers, and no support, and weird compatibility issues. It's going to be a geek thing only.
Remember, just about nobody runs Linux on their Xbox, but it can be done.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The bottom of Cloud City
Status:
Offline
|
|
How can Pear PC work without the Mac firmware?
|
"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Open Firmware is dead.
I'm sure SOMEONE will hack OS X to run on generic PCs, but it would be a major PITA. No drivers, and no support, and weird compatibility issues. It's going to be a geek thing only.
Remember, just about nobody runs Linux on their Xbox, but it can be done.
We'll just leave that task to the Slashdot crowd. Why bother. Really.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
True but it is not easy or economical to slap together a Mac from IBM parts. A cheap PC can be thrown together though easily.
I'm sure there will be some geeks building their own Frankenmacs. This is a small price to pay. The general public are not going to buy warranty-less Frankenmacs, and I'm sure Apple will not license any major vendors to sell these machines unless Apple can make the arrangement work in their favor.
This is not too much different than geeks breaking Apple's iTunes store DRM, CherryOS/PearPC, whatever else. I don't think Apple is worried too much about the geek population.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Open Firmware is dead.
Wonderful. So Apple's moving to inferior technology in not just one but two areas.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
Wonderful. So Apple's moving to inferior technology in not just one but two areas.
There are people that would argue that the Mach kernel is inferior to the monolithic kernel. There are people that would argue that AFP is inferior, that HFS is inferior, etc. etc.
It isn't always about choosing the superior technology, it is about meeting the needs of your target audience, user-centered design. If you believe otherwise, you will continue to be burned.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New York
Status:
Offline
|
|
My impression is that the software people will use to get the Apple Intel OS onto a homebrew box will be akin to XPost-Facto link putting OS X on Legacy Macs (non-G3 PPC's, like the 604e).
|
"I stand accused, just like you, for being born without a silver spoon." Richard Ashcroft
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Carolina
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm going to predict that it'll be easier than a lot of you think. Intel doesn't just make processors, they're an entire platform. From the chipset, to integrated video, integrated networking, and their own motherboards. Apple stands to benefit from all of this, and I don't see why they wouldn't take advantage of it. In fact, I can see that being a big part of the reason that Apple didn't go with AMD.
I'd expect to see Apple's low end systems using Intel's chipsets with integrated video, audio, networking (wired and wireless). That being the case, Apple's systems wouldn't be (hardware wise) much different than any other integrated Intel based system.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
Wonderful. So Apple's moving to inferior technology in not just one but two areas.
As long as I get Target Firewire mode, Apple ease-of-use and what not, I'm happy. Otherwise, I really don't care.
I'll be very annoyed if I lose that though.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think it will be MUCH more than just a ROM. I see you requiring a motherboard.
Even if they do hack it, Apple will keep it annoying enough to keep the honest people buying their hardware by changing things for every little .1 upgrade.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Perhaps some kind of activation that ties in with the DRM of the P4+ chips?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
As long as I get Target Firewire mode, Apple ease-of-use and what not, I'm happy. Otherwise, I really don't care.
I'll be very annoyed if I lose that though.
Hmmm... The current Intel Macs do not boot Firewire, but they boot USB 2.
Also:
"Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands."
What does it mean? Open Firmware is responsible for a great deal of seamless work and a great deal of so-called "Macintosh experience" is thanks to Open Firmware. With Intel-based Mac the Open Firmware is gone. What we will have instead? There could be two choices: the new 64-bit EFI boot driver initiative from major players like Intel/Microsoft/Adaptec/etc (http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/) or... the standard BIOS which would reflect the ancient PC motherboard architecture. How a BIOS works? An x86 computer always boots in the IA-32 "real mode" -- an emulation of the 8086/8088 Intel processors. The BIOS executes in this mode "emulated" mode. Compared with the Open Firmware it is severely limited. For instance the address of a certain memory location is calculated by multiplying the segment (a 16-bit number) by 16, and adding the offset (another 16-bit number) to it. For instance, the 1000:0016 or 1001:0006 is the same address. The IP (instruction) register is also 16-bits wide -- placing a 64 KB size limit on the code segment. Memory is a very limited resource in real mode. This ancient 'real mode' is responsible for severe boot drive limitations. PC partitions may be primary, extended, or logical, with no more than 4 primary partitions allowed on a single disk. The first 512-byte sector is called 'Master Boot Record' (MBR). These 512 bytes are strictly structured: 446 bytes for bootstrap code and the rest 64 bytes for max. four partition table entries of 16 bytes each. The last and 2 bytes are the signature.
Compared with any 68K or PowerPC Mac, the BIOS is an enormous step backwards to times before Mac Plus. An X86 Mac based on the EFI inititive http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/efi.htm or Open Firmware could well be the future. To base the Mac on BIOS seems to be a bad joke. Looking at the EFI feature set and combining the information under 1) and 2) I fear the worst did happen. If we are going to get the BIOS, it is time to stand up and strongly push back.
The information in this e-mail in NOT confident. It is NOT based on any NDA or any other info I received from Apple. Due time shortage we are not even attending WWDC (which would automatically mean, we are under NDA what we learn from there). What I do see was made public by Apple.
Cheers.
George Rath
FirmTek, LLC"
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apple will NOT use BIOS. They have no reason to. They will have their own custom design of some kind, probably the latest in PC booting technology BEFORE anyone else implements it. Why? Because Macs do NOT boot older OSes and will not need any legacy BIOS instructions.
As for running oSX on a PC? Whatever BIOS-like system they use, I'm sure it will look for Mac hardware that no PC has. After all, Apple will be designing their own mobo. They can do anything they want, and Jobs will be certain they do!
|
I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Arizona Wasteland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Introduce a bug that wipes NTFS volumes on boot up.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
Apple will NOT use BIOS. They have no reason to. They will have their own custom design of some kind, probably the latest in PC booting technology BEFORE anyone else implements it. Why? Because Macs do NOT boot older OSes and will not need any legacy BIOS instructions.
As for running oSX on a PC? Whatever BIOS-like system they use, I'm sure it will look for Mac hardware that no PC has. After all, Apple will be designing their own mobo. They can do anything they want, and Jobs will be certain they do!
EFI
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
In Apple's own Binary Compatibility Guide, available on the developer's website, as is written above, they say that Open Firmware will not be available and that things like complete device trees will not be available in the pre-boot environment. So, at the moment at least, it looks like Intel based Apple Macs will be using legacy BIOS. The developer Intel Mac uses BIOS. In fact the developer Mac would be exceedingly easy to crack since it's basically a standard Intel motherboard.
However, one year is a long time and many things could change by the time Apple's first Intel based Macs are released. Apple could use the new EFI firmware, and they could implement a custom chip on their board so that OSX would not boot on other systems. I don't think they will do that for the simple reason that it would increase the cost of an Apple motherboard and Apple is going to have to be very careful with costs on their Intel platform.
I personally don't think Apple will do anything apart from putting some code in the installer to check if it's an Apple machine. I'm pretty sure it will get cracked and that OSX will be happily running on commodity PCs by the time Apple's first Intel Macs are out, but I don't think Apple is really worried about that. No professionals will use cracks for support and guarantee reasons if nothing else and the people that do wouldn't buy Macs in any case. It will also be free advertising and PR for Apple, so I'm quite sure they'll turn a blind eye on it.
Apple is about the only company that was wise enough to actually have a paid employee (As See On TV) from their marketing department openly admit he works for Apple and post semi-insider information and tidbits on slashdot. It's a brilliant way to control rumours and give a very techy crowd the feeling that they are something special.
|
|
weird wabbit
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status:
Offline
|
|
EFI it is then. Anyone wanna bet against it?
|
I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Mac OS X 10.5 will have Serial Numbers.
-Owl
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Central Texas
Status:
Offline
|
|
Apple is about the only company that was wise enough to actually have a paid employee (As See On TV) from their marketing department openly admit he works for Apple and post semi-insider information and tidbits on slashdot. It's a brilliant way to control rumours and give a very techy crowd the feeling that they are something special.
Where are these posts? I can't find them...but I'm not sure whom to look for.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OwlBoy
Mac OS X 10.5 will have Serial Numbers.
-Owl
Do you have it on authority that 10.5 (other than 10.5 Server, since OS X Server has ALWAYS had them) will have serial numbers?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by alex_kac
Where are these posts? I can't find them...but I'm not sure whom to look for.
Look for "As Seen On TV"
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker
its impossible, it will happen. Just a matter of when. And a perfect example of recent attempts to make something hack proof, the Xbox
|
|
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Status:
Offline
|
|
Included with every copy of OS X will be a sheet of paper that says "Don't install on PCs."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Parker, Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by jasonsRX7
I'm going to predict that it'll be easier than a lot of you think. Intel doesn't just make processors, they're an entire platform. From the chipset, to integrated video, integrated networking, and their own motherboards. Apple stands to benefit from all of this, and I don't see why they wouldn't take advantage of it. In fact, I can see that being a big part of the reason that Apple didn't go with AMD.
I'd expect to see Apple's low end systems using Intel's chipsets with integrated video, audio, networking (wired and wireless). That being the case, Apple's systems wouldn't be (hardware wise) much different than any other integrated Intel based system.
As long as we can get smokin' Integrated Intel Graphics on future Macs, I'll be tickled pink.
|
|
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Hmmm... The current Intel Macs do not boot Firewire, but they boot USB 2.
Also:
"Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands."
What does it mean? Open Firmware is responsible for a great deal of seamless work and a great deal of so-called "Macintosh experience" is thanks to Open Firmware. With Intel-based Mac the Open Firmware is gone. What we will have instead? There could be two choices: the new 64-bit EFI boot driver initiative from major players like Intel/Microsoft/Adaptec/etc (http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/) or... the standard BIOS which would reflect the ancient PC motherboard architecture. How a BIOS works? An x86 computer always boots in the IA-32 "real mode" -- an emulation of the 8086/8088 Intel processors. The BIOS executes in this mode "emulated" mode. Compared with the Open Firmware it is severely limited. For instance the address of a certain memory location is calculated by multiplying the segment (a 16-bit number) by 16, and adding the offset (another 16-bit number) to it. For instance, the 1000:0016 or 1001:0006 is the same address. The IP (instruction) register is also 16-bits wide -- placing a 64 KB size limit on the code segment. Memory is a very limited resource in real mode. This ancient 'real mode' is responsible for severe boot drive limitations. PC partitions may be primary, extended, or logical, with no more than 4 primary partitions allowed on a single disk. The first 512-byte sector is called 'Master Boot Record' (MBR). These 512 bytes are strictly structured: 446 bytes for bootstrap code and the rest 64 bytes for max. four partition table entries of 16 bytes each. The last and 2 bytes are the signature. . . ."
It's pretty safe to assume that the Mactels will be BIOS based. Schiller confirmed it by saying Apple will not preclude Windows dual-boot. Anyway, there's no reason for Apple to distinguish its new hardware from other PCs, right?
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status:
Offline
|
|
If Apple wants to be really smart they could also simply price the Intel Macs on par with Windows-running machines. If you can get beautifully designed Apple hardware with the world's most advanced OS already installed (and supported) for the same price as a stinkin Dell with that other x86 operating system pre-installed, then the most people's primary motivation for deviance disappears. I really hope Apple does it this way.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delray Beach, Florida
Status:
Offline
|
|
They can't....... Apple is getting out of the hardware business...... Apple is going to be a Software Company like Microsoft...
|
|
Mark
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by joltguy
If Apple wants to be really smart they could also simply price the Intel Macs on par with Windows-running machines. If you can get beautifully designed Apple hardware with the world's most advanced OS already installed (and supported) for the same price as a stinkin Dell with that other x86 operating system pre-installed, then the most people's primary motivation for deviance disappears. I really hope Apple does it this way.
. . . joltguy, price parity with Dell will never be achieved, unless Apple wants to take losses. Consider it: 1. Apple, as the only hardware vendor, has to support an alternate hardware platform on its own. That fact is mitigated by Apple selling out.. er, Apple's "transition" to the Intel world. 2. Apple has to support an alternate software platform on its own. Apple has to fund the development of OS X and all its first party applications. Now what does Dell have to support? Only the boxes it assembles at cutthroat prices. Get it?
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Big Mac
It's pretty safe to assume that the Mactels will be BIOS based. Schiller confirmed it by saying Apple will not preclude Windows dual-boot. Anyway, there's no reason for Apple to distinguish its new hardware from other PCs, right?
That's not what he said at all. He said nothing about dual-boot.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Amboy Navada, Canadia.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Simply because Apple won't stop people from using Windows does not mean the hardware will be Windows compatible (at least without hacks), could be, no one seems to know at this point.
Few people run Linux on their xbox because they have proper computers to do that, and the xbox is more valuable to them when it plays games. A PC running Windows would be more valuable (IMO) running MacOS X, and so people will run that when possible.
Now that thats out of the way. People can run the MacOS using Mac-On-Linux with little speed loss on PPC hardware with a copy of the ROM, so this will be possible when the protections of an Intel-based Apple machine are emulated on an x86-based PC. In fact the Mac can be emulated very slowly on current PCs, I've known people who do this without owning a Macintosh (and thus not being legally allowed to use the Mac ROM). Apple has a few choices for protection, and they're mentioned above, all of them can be broken through using emulation (of dongles, hardware, etc) or boot loader tricks. Someone suggested that Apple would be using some specific part of Intel's chips, some DRM or encryption thing that neither I nor anyone else seems to know much about, but this could be emulated and perhaps even broken to boot the actual OS alone. It seems almost a certainty that, as long as the Apple PC uses x86 chips and a chipset that isn't entirely proprietary, non-Apple PCs will run this ported MacOS X and there will hardly be any speed loss on non-Apple machines.
"We have Ph.D.s here who know the stuff cold, and we don’t believe it’s possible to protect digital content."
Steve Jobs, Rolling Stone interview, December 3, 2003 (info copied from freedom-to-tinker.com)
|
|
[img]broken link[/img]
This insanity brought to you by:
The French CBC, driving antenna users mad since 1937.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status:
Offline
|
|
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Big Mac
. . . joltguy, price parity with Dell will never be achieved, unless Apple wants to take losses. Consider it: 1. Apple, as the only hardware vendor, has to support an alternate hardware platform on its own. That fact is mitigated by Apple selling out.. er, Apple's "transition" to the Intel world. 2. Apple has to support an alternate software platform on its own. Apple has to fund the development of OS X and all its first party applications. Now what does Dell have to support? Only the boxes it assembles at cutthroat prices. Get it?
Except that Apple has this very significant secondary stream of revenue that Dell doesn't have: iPod. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that this should be factored into the calculations.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Capital of the World
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by yukon
could be, no one seems to know at this point.
“ We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.” - - - -schiller
Seems to me they're going to do whatever it takes to make sure that the PC geeks and hackers will not be able to do this, at least in a way that could be considered reasonable.
If Apple ever allowed for this I'd be way more upset than even the angriest person is now at the whole intel transition.
That right there would be the death of the Mac, IMHO.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by PacHead
“ We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.” - - - -schiller
Seems to me they're going to do whatever it takes to make sure that the PC geeks and hackers will not be able to do this, at least in a way that could be considered reasonable.
If Apple ever allowed for this I'd be way more upset than even the angriest person is now at the whole intel transition.
That right there would be the death of the Mac, IMHO.
Prepare yourself, PacHead, for that scenario is definitely plausible. Don't you think Microsoft, which is completely reliant on its software revenue, would have succeeded by now if it were possible? If there were a way to secure a PC operating system, don't you think Microsoft would have figured out the logistics? Apple is now an IBM PC Clone maker, and Mac OS X is a PC OS.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Singapore
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by PacHead
“ We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac.” - - - -schiller
Seems to me they're going to do whatever it takes to make sure that the PC geeks and hackers will not be able to do this, at least in a way that could be considered reasonable.
If Apple ever allowed for this I'd be way more upset than even the angriest person is now at the whole intel transition.
That right there would be the death of the Mac, IMHO.
I totally agree. 
|
mac.goodies webstore / Switched to an iBook in November 2002. Never looking back.
iBook R.I.P. 20 Nov 2002 - 2 Aug 2005
Hello Leopard! On iMac 17" Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz 2GB, iPod 5th gen 30GB and iPhone
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status:
Offline
|
|
How will Apple stop PC users from running the Mac OS?
One word . . .
Lawyers!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spliff
How will Apple stop PC users from running the Mac OS?
One word . . .
Lawyers!
This is very true. It will be hacked, and Apple will fight it with their legal team.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spliff
How will Apple stop PC users from running the Mac OS?
One word . . .
Lawyers!
So Apple is going to go RIAA on the geeks? Doubtful. Assuming they have legally purchased OS X, you think Apple will have the audacity to go after them?
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
It will be more than Geeks doing it...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
As long as I get Target Firewire mode, Apple ease-of-use and what not, I'm happy. Otherwise, I really don't care.
I'll be very annoyed if I lose that though.
I want bootable Firewire. I also want to be able to boot from a CD to run DiskWarrior or TechTool Pro. Don't Windows users still have to create a boot floppy that contains CD drivers before they can boot from a CD?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
No modern PCs support CD booting. However, there isn't anything as easy as Target Firewire mode. That is a god-send as far as I'm concerned. I use it a ton.
(
Last edited by osxpinot; Jun 9, 2005 at 03:17 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by osxpinot
No modern PCs support CD booting. However, there isn't as easy as Target Firewire mode. That is a god-send as far as I'm concerned. I use it a ton.
Come again?
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top