RIP OSx86 Project?
Well, that didn't take long. The week started er, innocent
enough with the OSx86
Project announcing a "Patch Solution" to the current-at-the-time OS X for Intel followed by an OSx86
forum post detailing the steps to install the same OS from the System Restore DVD. Big news since that release
presumably featured Apple's best attempts to lock the OS to their hardware. Now, rather than wait for the hacks to get
all dolled-up as a torrented OS X installer for any ol' x86 box, Apple likely unleashed the DMCA goons who have
effectively shut down the OSx86 Project's forums -- the stage where the likes of Maxxuss danced around OS X security
and kicked out a chorus of hacks. The rest of the site remains unaffected. Doubtful this move will do much more than
create a temporary delay in efforts as either the forum or hacking community en masse find respite beyond the gnarled
fingers of the DMCA's reach.[Thanks Aaron]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
skype_fan @ Feb 17th 2006 6:14AM
Apple sucks, just hope they will get a big lawsuit coming after them soon, doesn't matter for what, just they should spend plenty of their money on legal :D.
MaC01 @ Feb 17th 2006 6:22AM
hahahahhahahaha, suck shite
strider_mt2k @ Feb 17th 2006 6:40AM
HA Ha!
XiozTzu @ Feb 17th 2006 7:14AM
Good for Apple. They are trying to produce an OS on a specific platform creating a specific product experience. It's Apples right to restrict OSX any way they like; its their property.
Everyones sense of entitlement makes me sick.
skype_fan @ Feb 17th 2006 7:19AM
@XiozTzu
Apple says they are a tech company then compete on technology and not with lawyers. Mr. Jobs in reality is light years away from the image of a cool guy he uses to sell his stuff.
John P. @ Feb 17th 2006 7:21AM
XiozTzu,
I completely agree! I don't see where people feel that they have a *right* to install OS X on any commodity hardware. I don't have the EULA for an Intel OS X mac, but I'm guessing there is a clause in there for restricting it to Mac hardware. And for comparison, I do not believe there is ANY restriction on what kind of hardware you can install Windows on, as long as a legitimate copy is bought.
John @ Feb 17th 2006 7:37AM
PLEASE, people! If that were a forum dedicated to hacking Vista and installing it on any PC without any registration/ key requirements and Microsoft came down on the forum, this would be a total NON-EVENT. Business as usual, right?
Yes, they are a "tech company" and they are "competint with technology," but it's kinda hard to compete when people steal what should be bought and paid for, then distribute it illegally across the internet.
I realize that this hacker was trying to get Mac OS X to run on a "in the clear" PC, but that does involve cracking into a lot of proprietary code..........it would eventually lead to people distributing Mac OS X thru BitTorrent, etc. Apple makes quite a bit of money on OS X, and I think that the major updates are worth the price of admission.
Plain and simple- this guy KNEW he was violating the law, you KNOW he was violating the law.........yet you champion his cause and vilify Apple?
XiozTzu @ Feb 17th 2006 7:37AM
@ skype_fan
OK, then if Apple can't sue. Then the hackers should build their own OS, from scratch. Hackers claim they are programmers don't they?
If hackers are going to play dirty by hacking protected IP then Apple can play dirty by taking legal action. Fair?
What does Steve Job's have to do with this? Is he any less a dick than the guy that feels like they need to take Apples property? Hackers are light-years away from the cool persona they think THEY have.
SuperFly @ Feb 17th 2006 7:37AM
Uh-oh, with apple getting all mob-handed its only a matter of time until the script-kiddies get their own back and hack attack OSX with all manner of viruses and trojans. Soon enough Mr Jobs will become as hated at Mr Gates. Then OSX will be as vunerable as Windoze (if that's actually possible, which I doubt!). Just let it be said that I don't agree condone this kind of behaviour - its just kind of inevitable. Everyone used to love Gates before he practically monopolised the home computing industry!
thomas_h @ Feb 17th 2006 7:54AM
if they say they are a tech company first.... how come the laptop im using now, an asus a6ja, has the exact same hardware as the macbooks except for the efi. it has a core duo, same chipset & wifi, same graphics card..
and offcourse they'd much rather hack os x than to make their own os, it's much more fun =D + i would'nt mind being able to dual boot os x + win xp on my lappie.
GO MAXXUSS GO!!!
Sander @ Feb 17th 2006 8:20AM
So, what you apple fanboys are saying, is that when I choose to spend a stupidly high amount on an Apple, I don't own it? That it is still Apple's property? Or that if I buy a copy of OSX to install on a blank PC, Apple has a right to stop me... under what grounds? If I buy a table, I have no rights to modify, paint or add a leg to that table? It still belongs to the table's creator? Thats ludicrous. Sounds a lot like the tripe the RIAA are spouting recently
Altheus @ Feb 17th 2006 8:34AM
I think this is great, another Apple vs. MS comment section. Settle down fellas, settle down. This project may just have spread some unity between our warring factions, and as such I'm sad to see it temporarily down.
We'll see what exactly broke the DMCA, but all in all, it seem like a pretty weighted attack. Apple call in the goons just as they're on the verge of a nice patch... Now just watch the hacker community respond. (not the warez or cracker... hacker community)
The fact is that NOBODY thinks they're entitled to a copy of the program, that's not what hacking is about. Ultimately it's a challenge and a curiousity, a proof of concept. For some of us, it's a chance to use Mac OS X on non Mac hardware. That's about the extent of my desire for this project.
Either way, it's just that, I'll install it, test it, use it for a while and throw it away. Just like Redhat and BeOS before it.
Zappy @ Feb 17th 2006 8:34AM
who cares.... http://win2osx.net has been better for months and its where actual hacker hang out....
Carlton Bale @ Feb 17th 2006 8:35AM
Quoting thomas_h: 10. "i would'nt mind being able to dual boot os x + win xp on my lappie."
I think a lot of people would like to do that, myself included. Unfortunately, many would rather steal OS X than pay Apple for it, and that is where I have a problem.
Altheus @ Feb 17th 2006 8:40AM
Oh by the way, this is just a forum, Maxxuss isn't in the US so the overreaching laws of the Bush adminstration can't touch him.
http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/
seesaydo @ Feb 17th 2006 8:44AM
Sander, you are completely missing the point of the DMCA and the licensing that accompanies software. When you buy a table, your table doesn't come with any kind of a license. You can do anything you want to it. When you buy software, by breaking the seal, you agree to a license and the terms of that license. So when you "break the seal," you are agreeing that you will NOT install that software in a manner that the creator does not see fit. That includes windows, OSX or anything else you might buy. If you don't agree to these terms, the choice is plain and simple: do not buy the product and support open source where (usually) you can do as you please with the software. And as a second point, when you chose to spend a "a stupidly high amount on an Apple[,]" you do own it and you can add a leg to it, paint it or do whatever you wish to it because as far as I know, it does not come with the same licensing agreements that ALL SOFTWARE (not just from Apple) comes with. I don't know enough about Vista or it's compatibility with the Intel Mac, however, I am sure if there was a similar project in the works to install Vista on a MacIntel which required some "hacking," then I am sure Mr. Gates and his "DMCA Goons" would come after that project as well.
Sander @ Feb 17th 2006 8:51AM
I am not discussing the legality of the situation, I understand that hacking is illegal under the law and the agreements you abide by when you purchase software. I am contesting the morality of this. What happens when this DRM/DMCAA stuff gets truly out of hand? What happens when you have to pay for a song or program every single time you USE it? Whats stopping them? The current copyright and practically any law relating to virtual goods or rights are outdated and new laws must be made. If you take a table from someones shop, that is stealing. What about if you were to walk up to the table, and simply copy it, atom for atom, and create another table. Is that stealing? Is that wrong? Am I depriving the shop keeper of table? Am I depriving shop keeper of my money? Maybe. If I did not have the capability to copy said table, would I spend money and buy one? I would argue that maybe no, therefore, is it lost revenue?
We need to reevaluate our entire legal and propery system to reflect that infinite copies can be made, perfectly, quickly, and totally free, of anything virtual. The old laws cannot hold true.
Malfoy Roark @ Feb 17th 2006 8:55AM
News flash to the fanboys and 'morally' superior: Had Jobs and company not been bragging about the OS not being able to be booted on normal machines, this probably wouldn't have been that big of deal. I'd even go as far as to say, why make it uninstallable on a non mac anyway? Just send the lawyers in the moment you see it being distributed on the internet. Or even better for PR, why not have the OSX phone home and nail people who paid money and then had the audacity to install it on a non mac.
Apple, just like every other arrogant company and their anti copy protection, thought it couldnt be hacked, and claimed it couldn't be hacked. It has, and every iteration will be. Apple should just show a little sportsmanship and not b!tch because their highly paid staff got outclassed by some kids on a homework break.
Maybe the next Windows/Palladium combo will have better luck backing up the 'unhackable claim'.
This post being typed on a Quad PM w/ a 30" Cinema running 10.4.4 (no updates for me!). I paid for the right to laugh at this and I'll get my money's worth =)
Logician @ Feb 17th 2006 9:08AM
I would like to say something totally original that I came up with by myself.
17. I am not discussing the legality of the situation, I understand that hacking is illegal under the law and the agreements you abide by when you purchase software. I am contesting the morality of this. What happens when this DRM/DMCAA stuff gets truly out of hand? What happens when you have to pay for a song or program every single time you USE it? Whats stopping them? The current copyright and practically any law relating to virtual goods or rights are outdated and new laws must be made. If you take a table from someones shop, that is stealing. What about if you were to walk up to the table, and simply copy it, atom for atom, and create another table. Is that stealing? Is that wrong? Am I depriving the shop keeper of table? Am I depriving shop keeper of my money? Maybe. If I did not have the capability to copy said table, would I spend money and buy one? I would argue that maybe no, therefore, is it lost revenue?
We need to reevaluate our entire legal and propery system to reflect that infinite copies can be made, perfectly, quickly, and totally free, of anything virtual. The old laws cannot hold true.
The point is that if you wanted to get paid for your ideas and I could copy them and sell them in a better way than you could, I will put you out of business. All this "DRM Stuff" will not get out of hand because consumers choose what they want. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. If enough of us don't buy it, they won't make it.
Sander, I'm sure you don't mind that I copied your idea, based on your comments above. Did I say copied? I meant came up with all on my own and fully had the rights to because it didn't hurt you at all.
CajunLuke @ Feb 17th 2006 9:09AM
Yes. You own your table, and you can do whatever with it. Most software, however, is still owned by the creator, and you merely purchased a license to use it. If tables were sold like software, then, yes, you couldn't paint it or change it.
From my Apple iWork '06 EULA:
"The software (including all content), documentation and any fonts accompanying the software (if any), whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the Apple Software) is licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple) for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you herein. " (the first sentence of the first paragraph of section 1)
It's like a book: you may own the paper and the ink, but you license the words on the page from the author. With software, you own the computer hardware, but you license the software from the author.
So, yes, when you "choose to spend a stupidly high amount on an Apple" software, you don't own it. When you spend money on Apple hardware, however, you own it. Apple can decide that I'm evil and restrict my use of iWork '06 because they own iWork '06 and they can change my license. Apple can't restrict my use of my iBook hardware: they don't own my iBook. If they were to try to, they'd have to restrict (or rescind) my use of MacOS (which they could), but I could boot into Ubuntu and they couldn't do anything whatsoever. And it's not just Apple. If you were to buy Windows, you don't own Windows, you own a license. I don't even own Ubuntu - Canonical owns that and I merely have a license to use it, albeit the license was free.
(Granted, if Apple restricted my ability to use iWork or MacOS, I'd have a pretty good court case, as I've never violated the license agreement. That aside, they still /could/.)
And, yes, this is exactly what the RIAA and MPAA spout: you don't own music or movies, you simply own a license to use.
jsmcd20 @ Feb 17th 2006 9:09AM
This is where open-source OSes really make themselves most useful. Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS, and others allow and encourage programmers to have their fun installing it on their PCs, laptops, and toasters. This lets programmers satisfy their "tinkering" itch. But, unfortunately, Linux isn't as polished as OSX and therefore presents less of a challenge. There's an inherent "cool" factor in installing Apple's latest closed OS on custom hardware.
The tech community is a culture of challenges. If a challenge presents itself, hackers will attack it--the larger the challenge, the greater number of attempts. Take, for example, the challeng of getting Windows onto an iMac. Even Steve Jobs and Apple itself both thrive on being challenged. (Can we make a smaller iPod!? Conquer the living room? Take on Dell and HP?) But unfortunately, this DMCA move by Apple may be presenting a challenge to the hacking/cracking community that hasn't existed previously and will therefore only incite MORE programmers to attack OSX, both through viruses and illegal installations.
Apple has the right to protect their product. They even have the right to through hackers in jail. But to do so would unleash a firestorm of (very talented) backlash that may well knock Apple of the top of the security pedestal and ultimately kill their product. Maybe Apple's best PR move would be to open-source the OS and concentrate on making money by selling the best-designed computers in the world. (and the iPod.) The hackers would love them for it, the typical consumer wouldn't notice, and the virus writers would (maybe) grant OSX a reprieve.
LD @ Feb 17th 2006 9:18AM
Simple move the hosting of the site to a country that doesn't have such laws as the DMCA. Problem solved. I'm pretty sure France supports open pirating (no, not a joke).
James @ Feb 17th 2006 9:37AM
I think Apple has every right to do this. They are making a product to make a profit. If you don't want to buy their hardware then you will not be using their OS. Plain and simple.
Sander @ Feb 17th 2006 9:44AM
I never said, nor will I, that plagiarism or simply downloading movies off the internet is legal or moral...I'm just saying that society's attitude and the laws pertaining to digital rights and copyright laws are flawed, and that they're stifling the growing technology. Which is bad.
bazald @ Feb 17th 2006 9:47AM
Yeah, Apple wrote around 1% of the code behind OS X, why shouldn't they have complete control of it...
EatingPie @ Feb 17th 2006 10:18AM
Apple wrote 1% of the OSX Code? Oh, yeah, you believe NeXT wrote most of it.
Hey, I remembner there being a lot of "NeXT Step Porting" positions available somewhere in Cupertino around the same time!
To be more obvious: when Apple bought NeXT, the OS Engineers went along with it. (They're responsible for ignoring the old Apple HIG and giving us the new craptastic Finder.)
Also, NeXT was built on Mach 2.0, while OSX used Mach 3.0 -- a HUGE (good) difference, and a lot of rewriting of core OS elements. In Mach 3.0, UNIX is not even part of the microkernel.
Oh, and the fact that Apple OWNS 100% of the code (except the OpenSource Darwin)... and that it's much of their (computer-side) bread-and-butter... was obviously lost on you!
:p
-Pie
uomolinux @ Feb 17th 2006 10:24AM
Apple could launch X on x86 platform, thus they would probably cannibalize their hardware offer. Take a look at what you get when you buy an iMac for example: A SILENT computer imbedded in a superb ACL screen(1400x900p), iSight webcam, super drive DVD,CD... a 160gigs(for the 17inc) drive 7200RPM, great software and of course OSX, a safe and stable OS. Instead of trying to crack OSX why not consider selling your bug ridden Windows PC and take that money to buy the real thing? That's what I did a few moths ago and I must admit that it was a smart move from my part.
If you dont know what an iMac is : http://www.apple.com/fr/imac/
ben @ Feb 17th 2006 10:25AM
sounds to me like there's a bunch of people trying to justify the high price they paid for apple hardware. the fact is that OSX will soon be available on PCs, and apple hardware will become a luxury that sells mainly on an aethetic basis. if you remove OSX as a variable, who would pay $1299 for an entry-level machine (apple.com's starting price for the iMac)?
EatingPie @ Feb 17th 2006 10:26AM
>never said, nor will I, that plagiarism or simply
>downloading movies off the internet is legal or moral...
>I'm just saying that society's attitude and the laws
>pertaining to digital rights and copyright laws are
>flawed, and that they're stifling the growing
>technology. Which is bad."
Bad... Why? How? I'm interested to hear.
At this point in time we have a mix of both Open Source (Linux, Darwin) and Closed Source (Apple, Microsoft, HPUX, etc.) projects. In a sense, we get the best of both worlds, and in the end we can see which model will actually works best.
You don't hear it, but there are advantages to BOTH paradigms... and there's nothing wrong with making money off the work you did on a Closed Source (software) project.
-Pie
Dave @ Feb 17th 2006 10:44AM
If I sell you my car, and you scratch it, can I sue you?
uomolinux @ Feb 17th 2006 10:54AM
Your affirmation is false about the Apple high price .
A few year ago, Apple products were very expensive compare to x86 offer. You cant say that today. In fact, the iMac offer or Mini offer is an offer difficult to beat, but if you buy the laptop series, its a different thing. I urge peoples who make false statement about Apple high price to visit their web site and compare the software/hardware offer to x86 offer, sorry to disappoint you but the bug ridden, nosy, unsafe, energy thirsty Wondows PC dont come close to that offer in price/software/hardware offer.
Mac mini page : http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/72002/wo/wW3QvAxlMLT82VS2r831PNtHIPh/0.SLID?nclm=Macmini&mco=45974843
diJenerate @ Feb 17th 2006 11:04AM
So what about the fact that OSX is a linux distro and as such is protected from the likes of [wealthy, stock news gloating, money grubbing, balding industry scrooges like] Jobs by the GPL? and for this very reason... What, does he think he can exploit the entre Open Source community then encroach upon the freedoms of speech exercised by the very people he is making himself filthy rich through? I was a Mac supporter ever since MacOS turned linux and I was an admirer of Jobs vision but now I can't support the vision of a man who only sees Dollar Signs regardless of whom he must exploit to get them.
diJenerate
Dave @ Feb 17th 2006 11:05AM
If I buy a book, and then decide to write a program that will scan and transcribe the words of that book onto a computer so that it can be printed to braille, you're telling me that's wrong? What does that have to do with the author? It's ludicrous.
Nobody is proposing stealing OSX. Everyone who wants a copy would still have to pay for it. Creating a tool that would allow others to use the software should NOT be illegal--don't let the lawyers fool you: no sticker in the world should prevent people from thinking for themselves.
We are not slaves. We can own a thing. Posession is 9/10 of the law. Apparently, that other 1/10 is stickers.
If I buy some crutches, can I give them to my friend to use if he's involved in an accident? What if there's a sticker on it that says I can't give, loan or sell them? Well, then I guess he should just go buy another set of crutches, huh? What amazing financial wizardry--as long as you can find people to fall for it.
Arses McGee @ Feb 17th 2006 11:27AM
No one is dealing with the important issue here.
Forget the issue of whether this is illegal or not, or moral or not:
Apple shut down a FORUM!!!!
A forum cannot distribute software*, or "circumvention devices." a forum is just that; A forum for speech. Facts can't be copyrighted, and spouting facts, however evil it may be, cannot be stopped by a law (in the US) unless it's inflammatory and violent.
So how can a company justify shutting down a forum for speech? This is like those best-buy takedown notices.
(*If the forum had LINKS to actual pirated code or actual circumvention material like patches, then disregard this rant. Then they are probably culpable.)
CajunLuke @ Feb 17th 2006 12:39PM
"If I buy a book, and then decide to write a program that will scan and transcribe the words of that book onto a computer so that it can be printed to braille, you're telling me that's wrong? What does that have to do with the author? It's ludicrous."
Yes, that's wrong. Your sale of the book - the author's intellectual property - infringes on the authorized sales and the author's royalties.
"If I buy some crutches, can I give them to my friend to use if he's involved in an accident? What if there's a sticker on it that says I can't give, loan or sell them? Well, then I guess he should just go buy another set of crutches, huh? What amazing financial wizardry--as long as you can find people to fall for it."
Again, that's hardware. Hardware is yours to do whatever the heck you want with. Software (or intellectual property in general) is owned by the copyright holder, and they grant you the limited rights to do certain, limited things with their property.
squigit @ Feb 17th 2006 1:19PM
32. OS X has nothing to do with Linux. Its based on BSD, which doesn't use the GPL.
arrhhgg i be a pirate @ Feb 17th 2006 1:25PM
i steal software
i will steal the hacked version of OSX86
I will run it for about 5 min and then reboot to a real OS
then I will buy a sexy intel mac and it will be running windows
I will steal that too
I don't try and reason my crime ... i just like it and want it ..... may not even use it .... but i will steal it
thankyou apple fanboys for paying for my software
Dave @ Feb 17th 2006 2:13PM
I never said I sold the book. I created a tool to transcribe the book into braille.
ben @ Feb 17th 2006 2:20PM
nope, sorry...apple gear is expensive. you can't even get a monitor from apple for less than $800. you can't get anywhere near the PC's bang-for-the-buck factor at the apple store.
i won't deny that apple hardware is high quality stuff, but it's a terribly poor purchase for someone who doesn't specifically need an apple. a casual computer user (i.e. browses the web, word processes, emails, plays a simple game or two) has two reasons to pay stacks of cash for mac hardware: (1) sweet visual design and (2) OSX. if you use your comp for certain tasks like graphic design, video, or audio, mac hardware makes some sense, but even audio is going PC.
Tim Quernemoen @ Feb 17th 2006 2:26PM
This is typical Apple. The unfortunate thing for them is their small-mindedness. If they really want to capture market share they are going to actually start competing with Microsoft. Their close-mindedness is what keeps them at 5%. They want their cake and want to eat it too. Yes, their products are more protected the harder they make it for people to put OSX on a PC. The problem is they are less profitable.
Here is a tip for Apple. Make your products work better with Microsoft products then their own do. Give people options to use your products on PCs. Get people on your side first, then once they are used to using your products they will want to buy your hardware anyway. This whole idea that people have to "Switch", this pain in the rear idea that we PC users don't want to deal with, is keeping people away.
I see the entire allure of Apple; I even bought a Mac mini. Do I use it? No. Sorry its a pain to switch!
Mikey @ Feb 17th 2006 2:37PM
I'm not a fan of any one OS. I have my own PC, I have played with a few distros of linux, and there have been Macs in the labs of every school I have been in. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages. I wouldn't mind dual booting XP & OS X on my pc, even if I had to pay for it.
So, to get to the point: If so many people want to be able to boot multiple OSs, then why doesn't Apple create a version they can sell to the public and make some money off of it?
Daikon @ Feb 17th 2006 9:21PM
Give me a break.
I'd like to give OSX a try on my PC and there's no technical reason anymore why I shouldn't be able to, and I'm willing to pay for it.
However Mr Jobs wants me to splash out extra on a nicely designed box containing standard PC parts, sold at a 200% markup.
Ironic how a company which has no qualms about people ripping their legally owned CDs with iTunes does a flip-flop when folks try to get their legally owned OSX running on a non-Apple PC.
dede @ Feb 18th 2006 3:07AM
Altheus #15. wrote... "Oh by the way, this is just a forum, Maxxuss isn't in the US so the overreaching laws of the Bush adminstration can't touch him."
May I remind you that the DMCA Apple is using to "protect" it's property, was enacted by the CLINTON administration in 1998.
jason @ Feb 18th 2006 11:43PM
Yeah, the DMCA WAS under the Clinton administration. It's unconstitutional, right-depriving bullcrap. Standard logic dictates that, if people buy a product, they have the right to do whatever the hell they want to it.
I understand that brainwashed, Apple corporate-whore fanboys will back Apple, regardless of how fascistic the company acts. However, for those of us with reason: let's not buy into the notion that modifying software we own is wrong. What is legal is not always what is moral.
SiLiCoN VaLLeY @ Feb 25th 2006 9:43PM
When Apple announced the introduction of Intel hardware on their systems, I salivated so much I had to get a bucket.
I've been in this valley since the beginning, and my kids went to school in the Santa Cruz mountains with Wozniak's kids. I remember the champagne parties of the good years, and the sadness of what I call Apple's COMA.
Here are a few things to consider:
Apple final realized they would never dominate the PC market. Reasonable sales were the true reflection of the loyalty of die-hard users. Increases in market share how little or less never made the impact of the Apple dream (less the Apple II / Macintosh introductions.
You sit, you ponder, you get some increases with the IPOD bringing in needed revenues. Let's not forget so fast the struggling years of Apple, when a collapse was once very near.
So, you have machines that are based on the same hardware basically as those runnings Windows, and you've realized the your PC market (in it's old form) although useable, isn't gaining you market share, so how do we create more revenues.
Hmmmmm....what if we could sell more software like Microsoft? Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. The IPOD is a big money winner, cheap to make. The PC/Laptop devision is over priced and not OPEN SOURCE.
Don't think for one moment that introduction to Apple/Intel doesn't have more to do with the whole scope of the decision other than (we couldnt' get the G5 laptop to perform). If you think the rivalry ended years ago with Microsoft/Apple, well, I have a fast Osborne computer for sale when your ready.
The increased hunger by the world for rich, fast, multimedia on the go will drive the demand for a more unified operating system environment. The idea of multi-boot machines, or unified operating systems is not far fetched. As we stand today, there are many out there running multi-boot (WindowsXP/OSX 10.4.4) systems.
Comments from buddy "Steve O Guru Meister" at Apple don't surprise me. He has every intention to one day release APPLE FOR INTEL 1.0.1 (the .1 is because the first version will have a horrific bug that will redirect you to the Internet Explorer home page).
It's going to be a wonderful year or two coming for us with the changes to architecture from Apple. Soon to be clones on Ebay that have Apple spec's. Hardware patches abundant for the taking. If Steve Jobs doesn't take this opportunity to become a "Microsoft" and take the profits where the real money is, SOFTWARE. As much as I find real displeasure in hearing the name Bill Gates, he, like Jobs is like a little mouse, sneaking around in the corner of the closet looking for his next piece of cheese.
My final note is this. Don't criticize those who take and patch kernels to run OSX on an Intel platform. These are not those would pirate for profit, or do such things to harm anyone. These are the same spirits that helped create the personal computer revolution. It's the tinkering mentality that every enthusiast has to make something work that they were told couldn't. This is invention and creation at it's best, and it's been missing for many years as the buzz died down as Gates and Intel swallowed Apple up like the whale in Pinnochio.
Can you imagine if IBM had actually purchased DOS, or licensed windows and dumped OS2? Thank GOD for that little weezle Bill Gates. Otherwise we'd all still be running those crappy IBM Aptiva's while IBM spent another 10 years trying to decide anything.
SO, to end this post, I thank all of those out there that wear fingers to the bone, and pour blood through their eyes innovating, creating, and experimenting so that we can reach the next computer plateau.
Peace....
Pieter @ Mar 3rd 2006 2:08AM
I want OSX x86. I Will pay for it! Please let me know if you have it and willing to post it to me in South Africa. My town does not have ADSL so i cant download it. pieter@katkol.co.za
Thanks
James Jackaman @ Mar 13th 2006 5:46AM
hummm, this is a hard one. Was Apple wrong for shutting down a Forum. Well Legally NO. But morally, yes I think so. I love Apple products, I use Apple products, they just work is a comment I have heard so many times, and yes that alone is worth paying the extra 20% price tag in my oppinion. (I am for ever correcting my wifes PC, she doesnt abuse it, and yes I know about windows software too, it just goes wrong. I also correct a hell of a lot of my freinds windows PC's, strange that I never need to correct ANY of my friends Macs). OK back to the point, I think Apple pulled the plug on this route because it is a route that they themselfs are following. They want to put this together on their own terms, right or wrong. They dont want it leaked and in circulation before they believe it is ready. I think they should not have made too much of a fuss over the event, and quietly offerd the guy a job (if his code was worth while)
Well that's my 2 pence worth. Apple have been over reacting, which is a shame
nove @ Jan 11th 2008 7:10PM
If apple would allow this and even help ppl out with it, they would put windows out of buisiness. More applications would be created and also games. This is an excellent time to do so with new os Vista on its knees.
/pc user