[kman42]

So it is apparently in the wild now and supposedly works on any old garden variety PC. Has anyone tried it?

[Randman]

Ibl.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by kman42

So it is apparently in the wild now and supposedly works on any old garden variety PC. Has anyone tried it?

Dude...it's a fake.

Even the assumption that 'it works on any old garden variety PC' makes the whole thing blatantly false simply because there's no way Apple could have written or gotten people to write so many drivers for all the PC hardware that already exists.

Oh...BTW, I looked up 'gullible' in the dictionary to give you a definition of it...but it's not even in the dictionary!!!

[ShotgunEd]

That's because the word gullable, as it is actually spelt, is derived from the two words, gull and able because gulls have an unusual epiglotis which allows them to suppress their gag reflex and swallow fish whole. This was warped into the modern meaning of the word. Some one who is able like a gull to swallow things whole, or in other words, will believe everything they hear.

[Macola]

gullible

adj 1: naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age she had been gullible and in love" [syn: fleeceable, green] 2: easily tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible tourists taken in by the shell game"

From Dictionary.com

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Macola

gullible

adj 1: naive and easily deceived or tricked; "at that early age she had been gullible and in love" [syn: fleeceable, green] 2: easily tricked because of being too trusting; "gullible tourists taken in by the shell game"

From Dictionary.com

Did you know that Webster's left the word 'gullible' out of the last edition by mistake?

[DylanG]

I don't know. Then this is a pretty good fake.

http://rssmac.altervista.org/video/

I'm downloading something now that claims to be osx for intel. We'll see.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by DylanG

I don't know. Then this is a pretty good fake.

http://rssmac.altervista.org/video/

I'm downloading something now that claims to be osx for intel. We'll see.

Not necessarily a fake or real. It could simply be PearPC. It can go fullscreen and look as if you're running OS X on any old PC. And by the jerkiness of the graphics, I'd say thats what this is. (although newer versions of pearpc arnt jerky anymore)


Chris

[techweenie1]

Could even be a VNC Client, perhaps?

[cybergoober]

Originally Posted by techweenie1

Could even be a VNC Client, perhaps?

That's my guess

[clarkgoble]

Yeah, it was too slow to actually be the OSX for Intel build. From the way the updates were going I'd say VNC as well.

[kmkkid]

Hmmm...







& a movie


http://maconmac.bastix.net/intel.mov


Source: http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...=331263&st=255

[techweenie1]

now that looks pretty legit

[Brass]

Mac OS X GUI files are very easy to modify, once you find where they're stored.

[brapper]

so? what's the word from those who've downloaded it?

[zerostar]

The screen on that laptop looks pretty skewed to me....

I have heard it was a fake, but there is a lot of smoke going around

[brapper]

it's running on the laptop like OS X would over VNC in full screen.
I just want to know what's in the file everyone's been downloading.

[shatten22]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

http://maconmac.bastix.net/intel.mov


Source: http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...=331263&st=255

THAT looks real to me.

g

[Ganesha]

Some points:

Darwin 8 for x86 (the pre-compiled one) will only boot on a SSE2 capable processor on a very limited number of Intel chipsets. Which rules out many systems already.

How do you install it? If it's stolen from the WWDC, then it's image of a hard drive, and since the iApps are on those drives they image size should be many GBs.

There are probably few enough developers ordering these boxes, that Apple can custom burn 'restore DVD' for them loaded with unique identifiers. Assuming, Apple gives them one at all. It could be the case if you hose the system, you have to call Apple to get it restored.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by brapper

it's running on the laptop like OS X would over VNC in full screen.
I just want to know what's in the file everyone's been downloading.

Apparently it's the goat-se guy

[brapper]

yuck.

[koko64]

If I can do this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomasz/19208457/

in 5 minutes, with a bit more time, it's all too easy to fake.

What would be more interesting to see is what details we get when we click More Info...

We know what the About This Mac window looks like, as Steve has shown us.
(which is why I think the original video at http://rssmac.altervista.org/video/ is fake - that window contains a Startup Disk line, where as Steve's Intel mac only shows Processor and Memory)

Here you can see the two side by side:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomasz/19204151/

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by DylanG

I don't know. Then this is a pretty good fake.

http://rssmac.altervista.org/video/

I'm downloading something now that claims to be osx for intel. We'll see.

The person who posted that already admitted it was over VNC.

[Sebastien]

Originally Posted by shatten22

THAT looks real to me.

g

Yeah, running a movie on any laptop, then filming it with an out-of-focus camera is so hard!

[WaltFrench]

I'm not terribly surprised at the idea that generic hardware can run the developer preview.

I WOULD be terribly surprised if the DP shows up on the file-sharing sites.

Given Apple's intensity of paranoia, and the tens of thousands of files in the release, how hard would it be for ever-so-slightly customized versions to be licensed to each developer? One might be the error message, "the file could not be opened" and another, "the requested file was not opened" etc., ad nauseum. It'd allow Apple absolute certainty (for the cost of a simple database of released info) to know EXACTLY WHICH developer violated his agreement and posted the software.

Now, if you were a developer willing to pony up a few thousand dollars for your Developer membership and a test machine, it'd presumably be because you wanted to release your program on the new machines ASAP. Insetead, for God-knows-what cheap thrills, you could find yourself sued by Apple for violating your agreement, and shortly thereafter out of business. (What customer would want to do business with a firm that treats agreements so cavalierly?)

I certainly have no idea as to whether Apple has done anything like this, but find it near-inconceivable that developers won't do the basic logic that Blaise Pascal applied almost 400 years ago -- maybe Apple HASN'T somehow registered the files, but it makes sense to assume that it HAS.

[Chips G]

I talked to the person who created the intel.mov video. It is a fake, it is OSX running ontop of X86/Darwin, but it runs VERY slowly and does not work well. He is the developer of Mac on Mac, and has it running to try to create a classic environment for when the real intel OSX version is released.

[Sebastien]

Originally Posted by Chris Gilpin

I talked to the person who created the intel.mov video. It is a fake, it is OSX running ontop of X86/Darwin, but it runs VERY slowly and does not work well. He is the developer of Mac on Mac, and has it running to try to create a classic environment for when the real intel OSX version is released.

I wonder: couldn't Apple simply use StarTrek to get classic apps to run under the new systems?

[jasonsRX7]

Originally Posted by koko64

IWe know what the About This Mac window looks like, as Steve has shown us.
(which is why I think the original video at http://rssmac.altervista.org/video/ is fake - that window contains a Startup Disk line, where as Steve's Intel mac only shows Processor and Memory)

Here you can see the two side by side:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomasz/19204151/

That doesn't mean anything. If you have more than one drive installed, it will show you which one is your startup disk. If you only have one drive, you won't see that line.

[osxpinot]

Originally Posted by Sebastien

I wonder: couldn't Apple simply use StarTrek to get classic apps to run under the new systems?

None of this is fact, but I highly doubt that they maintained the Star Trek project.

[osxpinot]

Also, classic is an OS X application, so possibly it could run under Rosetta.

[osxpinot]

FYI- be very careful if this out on P2P stuff. Apple legal will be collecting IP addresses.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by osxpinot

Also, classic is an OS X application, so possibly it could run under Rosetta.

Apple's docs specifically say otherwise.

[osxpinot]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Apple's docs specifically say otherwise.

Could I see that Doc? (I don't doubt you, at all. Actually, I didn't expect it to run on OS X intel. I just think it isn't something to rule out at this point.)

[Link]

FWIW, torrentreactor shows 2 x86 OS X listings. I'm not about to go and try testing the validity but that pretty much holds up my "x86 OS X to p2p by the end of the month" bet

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by osxpinot

Could I see that Doc? (I don't doubt you, at all. Actually, I didn't expect it to run on OS X intel. I just think it isn't something to rule out at this point.)

http://developer.apple.com/documenta...sal_binary.pdf

[dru]

Despite media claims, the leaks are fake and boot to a picture of the ******** guy. If you don't know what that means you're better off not knowing.

In the mean time, grab XCode 2.1 and start coding on your PPC hardware.

[grokman27]

In 2001 a friend of mine that was in the CS program at the University of Colorado was hired off by Apple to work on OSX for Intel processors. At that time he told me that much of OSX was already functional on the processors. I'm not surprised to hear people running it on "garden variety" PCs. Just look at Linux and FreeBSD (which Darwin shares code with), they have drivers for tons of hardware.

Just my 2 cents.

Shane

[ApeInTheShell]

I think it would have been believable if there was better lighting, applications besides the basic ones in the Dock running, some demonstrations of using iChat AV with video conferencing, and some iLife and iWork use. Maybe even automator running a workflow? This either shows PC users inability to tell the truth or use the tools in Quicktime or iMovie to make a better movie.

[osxpinot]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

http://developer.apple.com/documenta...sal_binary.pdf

All that I see is that Rosetta does not translate the stand alone applications from OS 9. That doesn't necessarily preclude Rosetta from translating the Classic virtual machine.

[osxpinot]

Originally Posted by grokman27

In 2001 a friend of mine that was in the CS program at the University of Colorado was hired off by Apple to work on OSX for Intel processors. At that time he told me that much of OSX was already functional on the processors. I'm not surprised to hear people running it on "garden variety" PCs. Just look at Linux and FreeBSD (which Darwin shares code with), they have drivers for tons of hardware.

Just my 2 cents.

Shane

This is true, but I'm not sure OS X86 has leaked yet. Somebody download a 4G OS X86 image only to find that it opened up the picture on ********.

[ApeInTheShell]

The slow boot up time also reminds me of Mac OS X Jaguar. Ugh.

[osxpinot]

HAHA, it censors g0at.cx

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by WaltFrench

I'm not terribly surprised at the idea that generic hardware can run the developer preview.

I WOULD be terribly surprised if the DP shows up on the file-sharing sites.

Given Apple's intensity of paranoia, and the tens of thousands of files in the release, how hard would it be for ever-so-slightly customized versions to be licensed to each developer?

Why would Apple do that, especially when it's in their best interests to have this spread like wildfire?

By Apple being "blind" to the spread of this developer preview, they are drastically increasing the developer pool. Subsequent forum discussions all over the internet would provide some of the best user feedback one could want.

If I were Apple, I'd leak it. Let the masses touch it, play with it, and learn to love it. And when it's ready, sell it to them.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by osxpinot

HAHA, it censors g0at.cx

Yes, because there were a bunch of people who couldn't stop linking that damn picture as an inline image around here a while back.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by osxpinot

All that I see is that Rosetta does not translate the stand alone applications from OS 9. That doesn't necessarily preclude Rosetta from translating the Classic virtual machine.

The trouble is that OS 9 apps in the Classic environment never were emulated. They ran more or less natively. So if they're not emulated now, there's not going to be any way for them to run on an Intel machine. Sad but true...

[Link]

The image is only ~960mb, I'd be surprised if they put all that crap on a disk image and it only opened to a g0atcx pic though.. are you SURE that's so?

I aint touching this.

[koko64]

That doesn't mean anything. If you have more than one drive installed, it will show you which one is your startup disk. If you only have one drive, you won't see that line.

I have one drive, and it shows.

But yeah, it's not a sure fire way of validating anything.

[tigas]

Well, and 959MB of "GNAA" text as filler...

[osxpinot]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The trouble is that OS 9 apps in the Classic environment never were emulated. They ran more or less natively. So if they're not emulated now, there's not going to be any way for them to run on an Intel machine. Sad but true...

What I'm saying is that Apple has already coded the environment for classic to run inside OS X. So, with transitive's technology, it will convert the PPC instructions from MacOS.app to x86 instructions. I'm not AT ALL an expert on this subject, but it certainly seems logical. If that's not the case, I'm sure that somebody will compile Sheepshaver for OS X86, and that runs pretty decently on P4.

[neilmcg]

Oh...BTW, I looked up 'gullible' in the dictionary to give you a definition of it...but it's not even in the dictionary!!![/QUOTE]

Apple Dictionary says "gullible |ˈgələbəl| adjective easily persuaded to believe something; credulous : an attempt to persuade a gullible public to spend their money. DERIVATIVES gullibility |ˌgələˈbilitē| noun gullibly |-blē| adverb ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from gull 2 + -ible .THE RIGHT WORDSome people will believe anything. Those who are truly gullible are the easiest to deceive, which is why they so often make fools of themselves.Those who are merely credulous might be a little too quick to believe something, but they usually aren't stupid enough to act on it. Trusting suggests the same willingness to believe (: a trusting child), but it isn't necessarily a bad way to be ( | a person so trusting he completely disarmed his enemies).No one likes to be called naive because it implies a lack of street smarts (: she's so naive she'd accept a ride from a stranger), but when applied to things other than people, it can describe a simplicity and absence of artificiality that is quite charming ( | the naive style in which nineteenth-century American portraits were often painted).Most people would rather be thought of as ingenuous, meaning straightforward and sincere (: an ingenuous confession of the truth), because it implies the simplicity of a child without the negative overtones. Callow, however, comes down a little more heavily on the side of immaturity and almost always goes hand-in-hand with youth.Whether young or old, someone who is unsophisticated lacks experience in worldly and cultural matters."