[Link]

Originally Posted by koko64

I have one drive, and it shows.

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

All of our tiger-running machines don't show it.

Originally Posted by tigas

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

LOL. For real?!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by osxpinot

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.

The Apple docs specifically say that OS 9 apps won't be emulated. Since the Intel Macs obviously won't be able to boot into OS 9, the only thing that can refer to is the Classic environment.

It makes sense since, as I understand it, the Transitive technology is intended to be a dynamic translator for individual binaries, not a full system emulator, which is essentially what Classic + emulation would be.

Thanks for the tip about Sheepshaver - that indeed probably won't take too long to get ported, since it looks like it already works on Darwin/ppc and Linux/x86. Kind of a shame, though, that it needs to be segregated onto a disk image. Ah well, c'est la vie...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

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. T..."

Two suckers just on the front page.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by 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.

Where does the word gullible come from?
First, it doesn't have anything to do with seagulls. English gets that word gull from the Celtic languages: Welsh gwylan and Cornish guilan.

Gullible, meaning 'easily deceived or cheated; naive; credulous', first appeared in English in the 19th century. Carlyle wrote in 1825: "The king of quacks, the renowned Cagliostro,...harrowing up the souls of the curious and gullible of all ranks...by various thaumaturgic feats." George Eliot wrote in 1879 of "the very fishes of our rivers, gullible as they look." It is sometimes spelled gullable.

In Modern English, gull is both a verb meaning 'to deceive, trick, or cheat' and a noun meaning 'a person who is easily deceived or cheated'. So if you're gulled, you've been cheated. From gull comes not only gullible, but other words that we have now lost, such as gullage, gullery, guller, and gullified.

From the 14th to the 17th centuries, there was an adjective gull of Germanic origin meaning 'yellow or pale'. During approximately the same period, the noun gull meant 'an unfledged bird, especially a gosling'. Wycliffe used this noun in his translation of the Bible in 1382: "A nest of briddis...and the moder to the gollis...." And Shakespeare used it in Henry IV, Part I: "As that vngentle gull the Cuckowes bird, Vseth the Sparrow." It's possible that the noun derived from the adjective since baby birds are pale and yellow.

The transition to gull in our modern sense is more problematic. An unfledged bird might be assumed to be easily deceived, so that's one possible origin. In that case, the verb came from the noun. The first recorded use of the noun was in 1594 when Nashe wrote: "Liues there anie such slowe yce-braind beefe-witted gull." (How's that for an insult?) Shakespeare used the noun gull the same year in Richard III.

The verb gull appeared in 1550: "They...do but gull, and follow beggery, Feynyng tru doyng by ypocrysy." Fifty years later Shakespeare wrote in one of the sonnets: "That affable familiar ghost Which nightly gulls him with intelligence." So maybe the verb preceded the noun. In that case, it is likely that it came from another meaning of gull, common in the 16th and 17th centuries, but now obsolete, 'to swallow or guzzle'. There was also a noun gull, probably of French origin, first found in the 15th century and meaning 'throat or gullet', from which we also get gully. If we take this etymological path, we assume that if you're gullible, you'll swallow anything.

[Mosfet]

I was reading this and thinking "Didn't anyone remember Darwin for x86? Wasn't that a clue in for something?" but then I saw some smart people mentioned it, so I realized I wasn't living with false memories.

If I can run vMac on an intel Mac, then thats all the "Classic" I need!

[WaltFrench]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

Why would Apple do that, especially when it's in their best interests to have this spread like wildfire?... If I were Apple, I'd leak it...

I didn't intend my post to be read as giving advice to Apple, which has a strong sense of direction (even when it seems random to me).

Rather, I thought readers might focus their energies elsewhere than on Apple having a secret "share the love" agenda (in explicit contrast to their statements to developers).

Whatever spacefreak's agenda is, Apple isn't amused and doesn't see itself as helped, by people who give away its intellectual property. Hackers who violate their contracts weaken Apple's arguments that it can protect the motion picture and recording industries' interests. This makes iTunes Music and whatever movie store more threatening to the content people and inevitably will make it more restrictive, later and more expensive to people who want to buy music etc thru these stores.

CD's are cheap. Apple could have a million copies of buggy, slow, erratic software of OSX86 released any day they wanted. They obviously think differently than spacefreak.

[wataru]

Will you idiots please stop falling for that old "gullible" trick?

[ShotgunEd]

I thought there might be a chuckle or two, but it turns out people really are gullible.

[crazeazn]

anyone think this is photoshopped? i just noticed this on my cellphone forum/computer section. notice the post date, its pre apple/intel wwdc

http://www.howardforums.com/showpost...1&postcount=65

[Dog Like Nature]

Originally Posted by crazeazn

anyone think this is photoshopped? i just noticed this on my cellphone forum/computer section. notice the post date, its pre apple/intel wwdc

http://www.howardforums.com/showpost...1&postcount=65

Looks like a Linux desktop to me. Notice the window controls are all on the right?
Also, in the second picture, there's a window title in the menu bar?!

[crazeazn]

then thats one heck of a linux skin??

[techweenie1]

That's totally Windows with a fancy skin...look at the mIRC icon in the "dock" and that weather app I've seen on windows machines before.

[jay3ld]

has to be windows.

i just want to know if you notice that the finder is not running? all the other apps in the dock are but not finder.

and unless i am mistaken doesnt it say Log out Username... ?

[Anubis IV]

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6012/

[nforcer]

Originally Posted by Anubis IV

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/6012/

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.p...4&cid=12812990

[himself]

The one reason you won't find Classic/OS 9 apps running on Macintel: Apple wants it to die.

I expect Apple to announce the Classic environment will no longer be supported in Leopard.

[Dog Like Nature]

Well, whatever it is, it most certainly is not OSX!

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by himself

The one reason you won't find Classic/OS 9 apps running on Macintel: Apple wants it to die.

Do you have any evidence for that?

The one reason you won't find Classic running on the Intel Macs is because while keeping it running on PowerPC is a trivial task, getting it to run on Intel is not.

I expect Apple to announce the Classic environment will no longer be supported in Leopard.

Aren't you people happy enough that the Intel machines are going to break it? What is with this religious opposition to backwards compatibility, anyway?

[osxpinot]

If Apple doesn't support classic (which I doubt), it will be supported by third party.

[himself]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Do you have any evidence for that?

None whatsoever. Just looking at the situation and taking a wild guess. Call me a risk-taker.

The one reason you won't find Classic running on the Intel Macs is because while keeping it running on PowerPC is a trivial task, getting it to run on Intel is not.

Absolutely. It also presents the perfect opportunity for Apple to detach itself (for good) from a technology that it declared dead long ago. I don't know this as a fact, I'm just placing my bet.

Aren't you people happy enough that the Intel machines are going to break it? What is with this religious opposition to backwards compatibility, anyway?

I'm all for backward compatibility, if they can manage to get it to work. I've just looked at Apple's past and recent behavior and came to what I thought would be a logical deduction. To be honest, it personally wouldn't affect me much whatever Apple does with Classic, since I haven't used it in nearly two years.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Dog Like Nature

Well, whatever it is, it most certainly is not OSX!

It's new Goats.OSX!

[Anubis IV]

Originally Posted by nforcer

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.p...4&cid=12812990

*coughs*

Glad I didn't try and download it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

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.

Agreed, Apple wants it to leak.

[themexican]

Re not supporting classic, I agree that Apple wants classic to die (remember the "funeral" Steve had a few years ago. It's hard enough for developers to support classic/OS X. Now they will have to support OS X Intel/OS X PPC... My own guess is that they are trying to make things easier for developers... And btw, who uses classic anyway? I honestly don't think I've booted it in years... the last time I think was when I was running a copy of fullwrite a very very old word processor to grab some text. Nobody I know uses classic under X, although I do know a few OS 9 holdouts that run 9 exclusively...

[macamac]

I read this entire thread.

[clarkgoble]

The problem is always some essential app for Sys9. It'll affect only a few people, but I'm not sure we can neglect those people.

[Mr Scruff]

Originally Posted by nforcer

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.p...4&cid=12812990

Haha that's fantastic. It actually is a bootable image that boots to a framebuffer of ******!

You have to give it to the slashdot trolls, they're certainly imaginative.

[Superchicken]

I doubt we'll ever see Classic dead on the PPC. Likely it simply won't be a feature of the x86 version. I don't see why they'd kill off Classic for the PPC before they kill off the PPC. Odds are they simply won't keep updating it. But it's pretty self contained as it is. It's not as if Apple's going to do anything to break it in the future so the development time associated with it is just about nill.

[aristotles]

Why would anybody care about Classic anyway?

It should be dead, forgotten and buried by now.

[andretan]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Why would anybody care about Classic anyway?

It should be dead, forgotten and buried by now.

Yeah. I mean, what's the point of running OS X when you still want to run your Classic apps?

Isn't it a bit like -->

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Why would anybody care about Classic anyway?

It should be dead, forgotten and buried by now.

ResEdit for one, Claris HomePage is another and finally I still sell OS 9 software. Not that much now, but it was enough last year to buy a new Mac, Cinema Display and a PowerBook.

[GreenwoodMO]

1. OSX Intel is hacked to run on any ordinary i86 box.
2. Apple sees loss of sales on hardware because of hacked versions of Intel OSX running on once M$ machines.
3. Apple releases unbound version of OSX Intel.
4. Virus proliferation on OSX Intel

What do you think?

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by GreenwoodMO

1. OSX Intel is hacked to run on any ordinary i86 box.
2. Apple sees loss of sales on hardware because of hacked versions of Intel OSX running on once M$ machines.
3. Apple releases unbound version of OSX Intel.
4. Virus proliferation on OSX Intel

What do you think?

I think Apple will make it damn near impossible to run OS X on a non-Mactel box. Probably through a ROM device or some such piece of hardware that will require buying a Mac.

The Mac OS X security model will make viruses and other malware much, much more difficult to install on a Mac. Of course, users who routinely authenticate software installs w/o thinking will become victims but there's nothing that can be done about that. Education is the key.

[Simon]

Apple will probably use some kind of proprietary hardware like a dongle to prevent using OS X on PCs. If anybody manages to reverse engineer the thing and tries to circumvent the system, Apple legal will just use the DMCA to shut them down. I think that's really not Apple's big worry right now.

[biscuit]

A dongle? You mean a ROM or similar right? If it was a dongle then what's to stop you unplugging it and plugging it into any old PC?

I think there will be hardware blocks, including of course the lack of drivers for anything other than the stuff Apple uses. However, somebody is going to get it running on other machines and some vendors might even write drivers for their stuff.

biscuit

[Simon]

Yeah, of course a soldered piece of hardware. I just meant *like* a dongle.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by biscuit

However, somebody is going to get it running on other machines

I'm not sure. I'm thinking more along the line of

Hack -> DMCA -> jail

[Hi I'm Ben]

Honestly not enough people give apple any credit. Raise your hand if you think you're smarter than Apple! and maybe you are, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if people could hack Apple onto their PCs that they'd have a loss in profit. Come on guys, APPLE IS NOT STUPID. All these arguements about what is going to happen to apple, what if apple drops their Hardware line, they're pointless.

Yes it's possible that MAYBE, jUST MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE OS X could be hacked to work on PC. I'm sure it won't come without a world of problems. So let's pretend you figure out how to hack Mac. Okay I hope you also know how to write drivers. Given you COULD purchase all the exact hardware apple uses on the inside of the PC. How many people are going to do this? Very few, maybe geeks and people that would have never bought an Apple to begin with. No average joe computer illiterate person is going to know how or care how to do this not only that it's going to create a world of problems for the people who eventually do want to do that. Generic drivers? AWESOME, nothing better than those.

Instead of predicting the demise of Apple with "oooo viruses are going to eat my computer" Why not think positively. Your Apple will run faster, have better resources to Video cards, and maybe finally having mainstream developers writing some optimized Applications for the OS.

In a year from now it's going to be no than different today only faster more compatible Macs. Do you really think Apple would do it any other way?

[biscuit]

Sorry to misread Simon, that word just leapt out at me

People hacking OS X to run on standard PCs would the DMCA risk, but I have a feeling someone's going to try anyway.

biscuit

[turtle777]

*yawn*

-t

[ghporter]

I really don't see any extra virus susceptibility because OS X is running on an Intel platform. Listen carefully: IT'S THE OPERATING SYSTEM, NOT THE PROCESSOR THAT IS TARGETED BY VIRUSES. There is absolutely no reason for OS X to be more in danger of virus infection on an Intel platform than it is on the PPC platform. Viruses may include processor-specific machine code (not much anymore!), but they work through holes in the OS. OS X has few holes, and is built completely different from Windows, so any that are there are not nearly as serious.

Take a deep breath and relax. Viruses are NOT going to rule your life because of the processor change.

[seanc]

Viruses might attack if we are able to run Windows programs natively or use Wine.
We probably wouldn't get native Windows app support, and the Viruses would probably attack only Windows programs anyway.

On a slightly different subject, Do you think we will get a new chime with X86? I do.

We did with the transition from Mac Plus etc to 68k and then to PPC.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ghporter

IT'S THE OPERATING SYSTEM, NOT THE PROCESSOR THAT IS TARGETED BY VIRUSES.

In most cases. There have been a small handful of viruses that have targetted motherboard ROMs ... but, again, that has nothing to do with the CPU

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Hi I'm Ben

. . .Instead of predicting the demise of Apple with "oooo viruses are going to eat my computer" Why not think positively. Your Apple will run faster, have better resources to Video cards, and maybe finally having mainstream developers writing some optimized Applications for the OS.

In a year from now it's going to be no than different today only faster more compatible Macs. Do you really think Apple would do it any other way?

On the one hand we have people saying the processor switch won't have much of an effect on the Mac, but on the other hand there is the widespread presumption that suddenly a range of PC hardware will be so much more compatible. There's a lot of wishful thinking being put forth around here. The thing that makes PC hardware incompatible with the Mac is mostly the lack of OS X drivers, and an Intel architecture won't do much to bridge that gap.

[Detrius]

Originally Posted by biscuit

Sorry to misread Simon, that word just leapt out at me

People hacking OS X to run on standard PCs would the DMCA risk, but I have a feeling someone's going to try anyway.

biscuit

There would be no risk of getting OS X to run on standard PCs. The portion of the OS that boots the machine is open source. You aren't breaking DMCA by reading and modifying that. All you have to do is read through it and figure out what portions make it incapable of booting on another machine. Then you remove/modify those portions and recompile. This is no different from using Xpostfacto to get PPC OS X to run on unsupported Macs. It's not illegal.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Detrius

There would be no risk of getting OS X to run on standard PCs. The portion of the OS that boots the machine is open source. You aren't breaking DMCA by reading and modifying that. All you have to do is read through it and figure out what portions make it incapable of booting on another machine. Then you remove/modify those portions and recompile. This is no different from using Xpostfacto to get PPC OS X to run on unsupported Macs. It's not illegal.

When you click on the Accept button on the EULA screen when installing OS X, you are agreeing to install OS X on Apple-branded Macs only. So it is illegal.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Detrius

There would be no risk of getting OS X to run on standard PCs. The portion of the OS that boots the machine is open source. You aren't breaking DMCA by reading and modifying that. All you have to do is read through it and figure out what portions make it incapable of booting on another machine. Then you remove/modify those portions and recompile. This is no different from using Xpostfacto to get PPC OS X to run on unsupported Macs. It's not illegal.

Unless Apple sticks some sort of block in the closed-source, GUI part of the OS that prevents the window server from starting if it's not running on Apple hardware. Cracking this would probably violate the DMCA. Not that it wouldn't happen anyway, because I'm sure that it will...

[Simon]

Yeah, but that's assuming they don't use some kind of proprietary hardware to prevent using it on generic PCs - and that's probably exactly what they'll do to make sure they don;t lose their hardware business. Something like the old boot ROM. Closed and secret. If you would reverse engineer it in order to hack around it, that's breaking the DMCA AFAIK.

[bewebste]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I really don't see any extra virus susceptibility because OS X is running on an Intel platform. Listen carefully: IT'S THE OPERATING SYSTEM, NOT THE PROCESSOR THAT IS TARGETED BY VIRUSES. There is absolutely no reason for OS X to be more in danger of virus infection on an Intel platform than it is on the PPC platform. Viruses may include processor-specific machine code (not much anymore!), but they work through holes in the OS. OS X has few holes, and is built completely different from Windows, so any that are there are not nearly as serious.

Take a deep breath and relax. Viruses are NOT going to rule your life because of the processor change.

This is true, but I don't think the original poster was saying viruses would be on OS X because it was on an Intel chip, it was because it would be getting a much larger market share than it is today, and that if it ran on even 50% of machines instead of 5%, it would then be worth the time for the spyware writers et al to make OS X versions of their swill.

That being said, I don't think even this is going to be true, as it's not just Windows' marketshare that makes it the target of viruses, it's more because of the dismal security. I think if OS X gains marketshare, it may start to see a few viruses/spyware aimed at it, but they won't be nearly as successful at proliferating as they are on Windows.

[Detrius]

Originally Posted by Simon

Yeah, but that's assuming they don't use some kind of proprietary hardware to prevent using it on generic PCs - and that's probably exactly what they'll do to make sure they don;t lose their hardware business. Something like the old boot ROM. Closed and secret. If you would reverse engineer it in order to hack around it, that's breaking the DMCA AFAIK.

That's exactly what I was saying. You wouldn't have to reverse engineer anything. Darwin is open source. Anything they do has to go through the kernel. Assuming there is a limitation, it will either be in Darwin or in the GUI. If it's in Darwin, the source is available and is easily removed. If it's not in Darwin, it has to go through Darwin to do its thing. Therefore, you watch for what happens right before some error message comes up, and you duplicate that on unsupported hardware. You don't have to reverse engineer anything. If it's a ROM on the logic board, Darwin will be able to get to it, you will be able to copy it, and you will be able to duplicate it on other machines.

The only thing that comes to mind that has a remote chance of working is the possibility of putting restrictions in the processor itself. I haven't read enough about the new security stuff Intel has to make an informed claim here, but I would imagine it would be possible to compile the closed source software in such a way that only certain processors are supported. Then, only these processors are shipped to Apple. Still, nothing is perfect. There would be ways around this too, but they would be more questionable in practice.