 |
 |
Man.. OS X must be really giving Gates fits.
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
This may be old news, but holy cow is he lying through his teeth here.
MacDailyNews - Bill Gates has lost his mind: calls Apple liars, copiers; slams Mac OS X security vs. Windows
Gates: You can go through and look at who showed any of these things first, if you care about the facts. If you just want to say, "Steve Jobs invented the world, and then the rest of us came along," that's fine. If you’re interested, [Vista development chief] Jim Allchin will be glad to educate you feature by feature what the truth is. I mean, it’s fascinating, maybe we shouldn't have showed so publicly the stuff we were doing, because we knew how long the new security base was going to take us to get done. Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine. So, yes, it took us longer, and they had what we were doing, user interface-wise. Let’s be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?
He's obviously worried about 10.5
BTW I wasn't sure were to post this, and if it was posted in the wrong place, feel free to move it.
(
Last edited by Kevin; Oct 21, 2007 at 09:33 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow... just wow. Outright lies, or delusions? He's not stupid enough to lie about such things, but surely he knows he's wrong... >_>
I'd wonder how accurate the quote is.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status:
Offline
|
|
The quote is from the time of the "Month of Apple Bugs" when it was kind of correct to say that.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nothing he said was ever true at any point. Bunch of lies and FUD.
That is all that Bill knows. He knows he can beat the comp by virtue.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Didn't we discuss this one to death when it was published - back in February?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin 
This may be old news....
If it was discussed, I obviously didn't remember it. And if the mods want to lock the thread because it was already discussed, then they can freely do so.
However, since 10.5 came out there has been a lot of Vista vs Leopard conversations popping up in threads that have nothing to do with Vista. I thought this thread may fill that positions so that other star syst... er threads wont fall into the same fate as Alderan.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
I'm still amazed he said this. If you need to understand why Windows is so ridiculous, there's the root of it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm having a hard time believing Bill really said that.
Is that as (half-)factual as many of the other things attributed to him ?
-t
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
This just in - the head of a major software company disses a competitor's product in a not-entirely-factual way, something that's clearly never happened before. More on this at 8 - months from now, that is.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status:
Offline
|
|
Friday, February 02, 2007 - 10:01 AM EDT
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I know this is old, but it just occurred to me: Isn't Jim Allchin the guy whose e-mails were leaked and there were a bunch talking about how Apple is so much more innovative and the Mac OS is vastly superior to Windows? That's the guy Gates wants people to ask about how creative Microsoft has been?
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status:
Offline
|
|
Chuckit,
MS has been talking about doing WinFS since NT5 (win2000).
WinFS replaces NTFS, and enables spotlight-like searches.
So in 2005, Allchin wrote in email something like "they have our WinFS, and they have it today." as he was talking about Spotlight on Mac. Gates figures "we had it first, we just haven't implemented it even today in 2007. They still copied us, even if they were first to market."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna
"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine."
I'm still amazed he said this. If you need to understand why Windows is so ridiculous, there's the root of it.
exactly
Originally Posted by turtle777
I'm having a hard time believing Bill really said that.
Is that as (half-)factual as many of the other things attributed to him
I believe there is a video of it.
Originally Posted by vmarks
Chuckit,
MS has been talking about doing WinFS since NT5 (win2000).
WinFS replaces NTFS, and enables spotlight-like searches.
So in 2005, Allchin wrote in email something like "they have our WinFS, and they have it today." as he was talking about Spotlight on Mac. Gates figures "we had it first, we just haven't implemented it even today in 2007. They still copied us, even if they were first to market."
And it's not like MS was the first to think of such things. MS has always been poor at the execution. Taking far too long to do something and come back with poor results. While Apple does the opposite for the most part.
And if Apple did do this to them. They have a right to. A few more times actually. With the amount of crap MS has ripped off Apple.
PARC's GUI didn't really work or act like Apple's GUI. MS took it's ideas from Apple, NOT Parc as they claimed. As their GUI resembled Mac's more so than PARC's.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Gates has always lied about PARC. It's part of his M.O..
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by vmarks
MS has been talking about doing WinFS since NT5 (win2000).
WinFS replaces NTFS, and enables spotlight-like searches.
Actually they have been talking about that ever since they started developing Windows 95: they wanted to include that functionality, but soon found out that it was way too much for systems at that time. (My printer runs circles around the PC I had back then.)
You're absolutely right, though: WinFS is not a new idea (nor were they the first, anyone remember the original BeFS (which is not the same as the BeFS that was used in the last reincarnation of BeOS)), but MS hasn't delivered yet.
(
Last edited by OreoCookie; Oct 22, 2007 at 10:06 AM.
)
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status:
Offline
|
|
Microsoft has always been notorious for announcing far too much, cutting out most of it, and then wondering why the public isn't welcoming their new product with open arms.
Microsoft's idea is that they can announce everything and when it doesn't make it into the next version of Windows and someone else comes out with it, say that they were copied.
Gates and co. must be furious that Apple has so much media attention nowadays and that the general public has started giving Mac OS X notice.
Competition is good, but Bill's comments are inexcusable for someone in his position. Everyone, who doesn't have an intention to spread F.U.D, knows just how well the Month of Apple bugs worked out.
(
Last edited by mdc; Oct 22, 2007 at 10:12 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just keep reading this part over again. And how it reminds me of people i've spoken to here when it comes to extremes and it makes me laugh  .
Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.
TOTALLY CONSTANTLY AND OTHER EXTREME WORDS.
Not that I don't do it myself. But then again I am not in charge of a multi-billion dollar company.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
He's not really in charge anymore, though. Monkey boy is.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Suuuuure he isn't. They just keep monkey boy embarrassing himself so BIll wont.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
This may be old news, but holy cow is he lying through his teeth here.
MacDailyNews - Bill Gates has lost his mind: calls Apple liars, copiers; slams Mac OS X security vs. Windows
Gates: You can go through and look at who showed any of these things first, if you care about the facts. If you just want to say, "Steve Jobs invented the world, and then the rest of us came along," that's fine. If you’re interested, [Vista development chief] Jim Allchin will be glad to educate you feature by feature what the truth is. I mean, it’s fascinating, maybe we shouldn't have showed so publicly the stuff we were doing, because we knew how long the new security base was going to take us to get done. Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine. So, yes, it took us longer, and they had what we were doing, user interface-wise. Let’s be realistic, who came up with [the] file, edit, view, help [menu bar]? Do you want to go back to the original Mac and think about where those interface concepts came from?
He's obviously worried about 10.5
BTW I wasn't sure were to post this, and if it was posted in the wrong place, feel free to move it.
Wait. Is Gates saying that Apple didn't have the file/edit/view/help menu before MS did?
Look at the apple lisa screenshot on this page: A History of the GUI: Page 4
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
I just keep reading this part over again. And how it reminds me of people i've spoken to here when it comes to extremes and it makes me laugh .
TOTALLY CONSTANTLY AND OTHER EXTREME WORDS.
Not that I don't do it myself. But then again I am not in charge of a multi-billion dollar company.
I know I quake in my boots everyday worrying about how my home mac will be exploited. I have like 10 different security apps running on it. (that's not real. I have 0 and download torrents like a man possessed.)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by scaught
Wait. Is Gates saying that Apple didn't have the file/edit/view/help menu before MS did?
Look at the apple lisa screenshot on this page: A History of the GUI: Page 4
No, he's referring to PARC. His infamous remark to Steve years and years ago went something like, "just because you broke in first and stole the TV doesn't mean we can't break in later and steal the radio." That's the basic attitude he's maintained all this time. Conveniently he forgets that a) Apple paid for a tour for PARC, and b) Apple used PARC as a creative spark that put them on the path to the far more advanced Lisa/Mac GUI, not as a template from which they copied directly - as M$ did to Apple.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yeah MS acting like they got their "spark" from Parc is dishonest. They didn't start getting windows ideas till Apple started showing them early copies of their Macintosh system. "Make it work like a Mac" is another famous quote of Bill's
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: detroit,mi,usa
Status:
Offline
|
|
That makes sense. I was looking at the old PARC GUI screenshots and didn't see that titlebar thing that Gates mentions in their GUI.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
There are two versions targeted at home users : Basic ($199, which is about what OS X costs)
Um, what???
|
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Rumor
Um, what???
He was talking about Windows. And the last time I looked OS X costs $189
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status:
Offline
|
|
OSX Home, Home Premium, Business, Corporate, Ultimate, Supreme Ultimate with Cheese
|
|
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Rumor
OSX Home, Home Premium, Business, Corporate, Ultimate, Supreme Ultimate with Cheese
I don't get what's so difficult. There are only 20 different versions of Windows Vista.
Vista Starter
Vista Starter N
Vista Basic
Vista Basic N
Vista Home Premium
Vista Home Premium N
Vista Home Premium 64
Vista Home Premium 64 N
Vista Business
Vista Business N
Vista Business 64
Vista Business 64 N
Vista Enterprise
Vista Enterprise N
Vista Enterprise 64
Vista Enterprise 64 N
Vista Ultimate
Vista Ultimate N
Vista Ultimate 64
Vista Ultimate 64 N
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
And that is $129 for the WHOLE OS. Not just the "upgrade" Like Windows sells you.
$129 is technically just for an upgrade.
There is no "whole" OS in the sense that there are no naked machines sold that you could install it on. Any retail OS X install is by definition an upgrade, since it can only be installed on a machine that's already running some version of Mac OS.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
I don't get what's so difficult. There are only 20 different versions of Windows Vista.
15, AFAIK.
Only Home Basic and Business are available as "N" versions (without Windows Media Player due to anti-competitive behavior and subsequent prosecution in Europe), and Starter is 32-bit only.
Vista Home Starter
Vista Home Basic
Vista Home Basic N
Vista Home Basic 64
Vista Home Basic 64 N
Vista Home Premium
Vista Home Premium 64
Vista Business
Vista Business N
Vista Business 64
Vista Business 64 N
Vista Enterprise
Vista Enterprise 64
Vista Ultimate
Vista Ultimate 64
See? - much better!
Now! New! Microsoft Windows Vista! - Less confusing than Ever!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
$129 is technically just for an upgrade.
There is no "whole" OS in the sense that there are no naked machines sold that you could install it on. Any retail OS X install is by definition an upgrade, since it can only be installed on a machine that's already running some version of Mac OS.
You can wipe your drive and install the OS X CD you bought. You can't do that with windows UPGRADES. Not the ones I've used anyhow. Things may have changed since then.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Status:
Offline
|
|
Legally an upgrade, technically a full version. I think you must have an "Apple ROM" which always came with an OS, but you may install it on a new unformatted HD. Thus PC or clone -> No.
|
|
I'm-a trying to wonder, wonder, wonder why you, wonder, wonder why you act so.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
So basically you are agreeing with what I am saying. 
A version of Windows that you need to buy to install on a blank HD costs a lot more than $199. 
And I like to backup, and wipe my drive with each MAJOR OS install.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by fhoubi
Legally an upgrade...
I disagree. It's a full version, no matter how you look at it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
You may be right - Apple is not labeling it as an upgrade online.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
The 10.X.X versions are upgrades. The 10.X versions are usually full installs.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
But they were classically labeled as upgrades. Apple may have made this change to capitalize a bit on Vista discontent.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
Most Windows users I know think the $129 OS X price was just to upgrade. They took that for granted since a FULL version of Windows costs so much.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Kevin
The 10.X.X versions are upgrades. The 10.X versions are usually full installs.
They're full installs, yeah, but anyone that can legitimately use it already owns a previous copy of Mac OS X. I suppose the differentiation comes when we decide whether 10.x to 10.(x+1) is considered an upgrade or a new version, à la Win2K to XP.
Either way, can't wait for my $12 AUD copy to arrive 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogika
Any retail OS X install is by definition an upgrade, since it can only be installed on a machine that's already running some version of Mac OS.
I've installed Tiger on machines whose hard disks had never had OS X on them before.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
I've installed Tiger on machines whose hard disks had never had OS X on them before.
Yeah, the disks let you format the hard drive and install the OS. Therefore they are full install disks.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status:
Offline
|
|
Any retail OS X install is by definition an upgrade, since it can only be installed on a machine that's already running some version of Mac OS.
Wah wah WaaaaaH? What are you smoking? All retail editions of OSX are FULL INSTALLs.
I have heard of upgrade discs, but never actually ever seen them in real life.
|
I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've had seen a few upgrade disks that they sent here to me at the office. But it told you that you needed a previous version before installing. I never payed for it.
I think It was Apple's way of making sure certain customers update their OS.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
Wah wah WaaaaaH? What are you smoking? All retail editions of OSX are FULL INSTALLs.
I have heard of upgrade discs, but never actually ever seen them in real life.
You guys are just splitting hairs, the distinction is meaningless (at least, until this Friday). I hope you'll all tolerate a little diversion from the topic at hand....
All retail OS X copies are, in fact, full installs. But analogika's point is that every computer that can have Mac OS X installed on it is a Mac that originally shipped with OS X. In that respect, even if the CD contains a full install, you can make the argument that you're theoretically just upgrading from the version that originally shipped with it. It's not an upgrade in the MS sense of the word -- you don't need the old OS present to install the upgrade.
Up until Friday, every retail OS X Copy that Apple has sold has been PPC-only, and Apple was the only provider of desktop PPC's that were compatible with OS X. You could not install OS X legally on a plain vanilla PC, because the only way you could get OS X for Intel was to use an OEM copy of OS X that originally came with an Intel Mac.
Once Apple ships retail OS X software for Intel Macs, nothing is stopping you from buying the box and legally installing it on a PC that did not originally ship with OS X. Well, nothing but the EULA, which will no doubt state that you are limited to installing the software on Apple-branded hardware. But I doubt that clause of the EULA will be enforceable. Once you buy the software at retail, why should Apple restrict where you use it?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status:
Offline
|
|
I like the fact that I can spend less than $150 and I am able to wipe my drive clean, and reinstall OS X on it. I guess that is what makes the difference.
The full versions of Windows that allow you to do this cost twice as much as OS X
Amazon.com: Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate FULL VERSION [DVD]: Software
Which according to them is $319. And that's a deal! It lists for $399.
BTW I love one of the few positive comments left
"by nashlarry "nashlarry" (Milwaukee, WI) - See all my reviews
I own Vista Ultimate and the support you receive from Microsoft is exceptional; please do not purchase any other operating system because Vista Ultimate is what you truly want for security and ease of use. I know the price can make you consider buying one of their cheaper versions but cut back on something else and join the elite Vista Ultimate end user society. I truly love my Vista Ultimate "Geek Love for Vista Ultimate, Forever".
And the reply to it even funnier
"thank you fake STOOGE writer! i'll see you at the MS Xmas party in redmond. if the jerks which make up the American public keep reading great STOOGE REVIEWS like yours, I'm sure our Xmas bonuses will be extra green this year!
keep up the good work.
your boss,
Stephen "Sweaty" Balms-er,
CEO & Queso Grande, MicroBoob Corp."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY²
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Dork.
Once Apple ships retail OS X software for Intel Macs, nothing is stopping you from buying the box and legally installing it on a PC that did not originally ship with OS X. Well, nothing but the EULA, which will no doubt state that you are limited to installing the software on Apple-branded hardware. But I doubt that clause of the EULA will be enforceable. Once you buy the software at retail, why should Apple restrict where you use it?
I have a feeling there will be a lot stopping people from installing 10.5 on a regular PC.
I don't think that the 10.5 disc is just going to boot on a PC and let you install it. Unless I'm mistaken there was a lot of 'hackery' that was involved in getting Intel Mac OS booting on a PC.
I'm sure 10.5 will eventually be hacked, people will torrent it, and install it on their PC.
Apple has every right to restrict you to install their OS on devices that they say are eligible. aka. Apple-branded hardware.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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