Apple killing Atom support, dreams of netbook hackintoshers in next Snow Leopard release?
By Tim Stevens 
posted November 2nd 2009 6:59AM
posted November 2nd 2009 6:59AM
Nobody said running a netbook hackintosh would be easy -- but nobody said they'd make it this hard. Apple is currently engaged in a war of compatibility with Palm and, if the developer build of Snow Leopard version 10.6.2 is any indication, the Atom processor is next on the smack down list. Word on coder street is that the upcoming revision of OS X will kill support for Intel's little powerhouse. That could certainly change before it hits the world at large, but we wouldn't bet on it. So, if you're viewing this on an netbook install of your own devising, you may be stuck at version 10.6.1 (or earlier) for awhile -- or you may need to do a little custom kernel building. Either way, we're thinking that if Apple ever gets around to making a netbook it probably won't be an Atom-powered one.
Apple make decision to protect obscenely large revenue stream?
Surely not.
Tim - the restriction to Apple hardware doesn't seem to do much good... Just as someone who has just splashed a bunch of cash on a 27" iMac.
Kinda like Nokia.
@Itchy
Uh... what?
Well if they didn't have an "obscenely large revenue stream" they wouldn't be much of a company. You do realize that in business, the name of the game is to make money right?
Yes, that's why they're protecting their revenue. It's not rocket science.
When Apple's competition makes changes to protect their revenue stream, like implementing WGA, people have fits, saying that the competition should be spending their resources fixing bugs rather than trying to block people out.
When Apple's competition locks out pirates from installing patches and fixes, people have fits saying that the competition is exposing their users to viruses, data loss, etc.
Apple has commercials making fun of how their competition for diverting resources (money) from fixing problems to other areas just to protect their revenue stream, and they are cheered for it.
Apple does what they criticize the competition for, and they are justly protecting their revenue stream.
"Apple (made a) decision to protect (an) obscenely large revenue stream?"
Looks like it, though why there is this uproar over a rumour is beyond me. Having run OSX on a netbook I found it ill suited in its current iteration so having the Atom dropped is pretty much a non-issue for 99% or the market. Surely the several flavours of Linux are a far better choice :)
Apple should start selling the OS standalone. This is getting ridiculous.
Yes it is ridiculous that we bought MBP for 1,400£ while some people just install Snow Leopard on 200£ netbook :)
keep dreaming
So, why did you buy the MBP if you're pissed at people who hacked SL on a netbook? Besides, a MBP vs. Netbook shouldn't even be attempted to compare, apples vs. oranges.
The main good thing (IMHO) about OS X is the way apple know the exact hardware configurations of all target machines; loose this and that's their main advantage over windows gone.
iJay, get over yourself. I didn't get pissed off when 2 of my classmates got MS Office for free, and I paid $29 for it. It's none of my concern, and it shouldn't be yours unless you coded and developed the damn thing.
Why do you pay 29 euro/usd anyways for what MS calls a servicepack? The whole pricing comparison between MS/Apple always boggled my mind. MS makes an OS release every 4 years and the in between updates are for free while Apple touts that their OS only costs 30 usd/euro, a small detail they leave out is that every minor update/bug-squash runs you another x euro. I wonder how expensive the OS actually is if you compare it on a day to day basis.
Now that Apple releases an OS dirt-cheap it´s no wonder people will try to install it on a piece of hardware which isnt Apple. The chance this happens increases even more thanks to Apple refusing to provide the mass. Ofcourse you could say... well its Apple if you don´t like it don´t buy it. But what right has Apple to tell me on which equipment I can install it? Apple is being attacked on all sides due their closed model which is kind of odd as I remember in the old days that users would scream their lungs out about MS doing exactly the same.
Apple sure produces something nice but its rediculous that they lock in their user-base as much as they do and lock-out their developers equally as bad.
I am not defending Apple at all but why should they start selling a standalone OS? It's up Apple's execs to decide what they should make and what they should TRY to sell. The fact that you and a few others wish Apple would start supporting more platforms is nice but really doesn't mean squat.
Did you guys really expect Apple to stand still and NOT protect their assets when they are being constantly attacked by companies like Palm and Psystar? Plus Apple is about to release a table with is more or less a netbook. I most likely does not have an Atom CPU but is something similar so it makes a lot of sense to lock Atom out. Don't get me wrong the news of Atom being locked out of SL is both great news and quite bad ones. For one the tablet is very likely to be running a full blown version of the OS but on the other hand Apple is most definitely going to position it in a price range above that of netbooks if they are making sure that netbooks are nor supported.
I really wish Apple would focus a little bit more attention on budget computers but then again my wish really doesn't change the company policy ...
@Tim:
That is their advantage and their disadvantage. More people would try OSX if they didn't have to use it on a Mac. More people would be able to afford it while being able to eat at the same time.
It will be a cold day in hell before Apple allows their OS to be sold standalone. As of now their OS is meant for a niche set of hardware that they specify and control. They don't have the infrastructure or drivers in place to handle the sheer multitude of hardware out there. While OS X is a fantastic OS in it's own right. The moment you put it in the same playing field (hardware and software) as Microsoft, it's going to implode.
Microsoft went towards being usable by pretty much anyone regardless of hardware (for the most part). Apple went towards usability and a very limited set of hardware. It's much easier to go from a large hardware ecosystem and focus on usability (since the hard part is done). It substantially more difficult to go from having a very easy and good OS to start with and then expanding the hardware ecosystem dramatically (mostly because you risk stability doing so).
yes apple should definitely take your advice considering they are performing at a loss every quarter
wait, shit
it only seems ridiculous to you because you are a cheapskate.
@JZ, wasn't the Snow Leopard upgrade a service pack that cost about the same? Funny how when Apple does it, it's okay.
@ i Jay, that's just the price you pay for the MBP man. If you wanted to have a netbook with OSX you have plenty of choice, ... Iphone 3G, Iphone 3GS and... Oh yes! Ipod Touch ..........................
They never will.
Every company has a business plan. Just because Microsoft sells standalone operating systems doesn't mean that Apple should too! Just because Apple has it's own retail stores doesn't mean that Microsoft..... well you get the point. Obviously both Microsoft and Apple are good at what they do. As long as they stick to what they do well, they are both going to be doing fine. Apple likes to keep it's products niche with higher revenue margin and Microsoft likes to cater to the masses. There are obvious advantages/disadvantages to both those strategies, but the last thing each company needs to do derail from their business plan. Apple has always tried to create the ultimate personal computing experience while Bill Gate's vision was a computer in very home.
I'm happy running windows 7 pro on my netbook. However apple will never sell OS X alone. That would mean that would mean that they would have to raise the cost; in order to try to offset what they would lose on their pc's. Who would by a Mac if they could get OS X on a Dell?
If OS X were to go mainstream as a stand alone OS then it would probably be Apples version of XP (2001 version).
It's one thing to decide not to release a netbook but it's something else entirely to specifically block the netbook processor. Oh well, c'est la vie. Good job protecting the large profit margin macbook.
I didn't realize c'est la vie was spelled like that. I felt really American as I mentally pronounced it as SEST LA VEE and had to do a mental double take.
Literally, Ca est la vie ... That is the Life... without contraction.
Re the removal of atom support... i'm not upset because idon't. :)
it's their OS and they don't have a device on which the OS is installed, so I don't even see the problem with this... they have every right to restrict where their OS goes...
Sucks for Hackintoshers but makes sense. Why support a processor where the OS has never been released on (I think). Its really just a waste of space if they had no plans to release on ATOM processors.
So what sort of processor would the speculated iPad or iTablet use?
Although if it's not running OS X, I guess it still could have Atom, but it looks unlikely.
As if Apple stopped hackintoshers from running OSX on AMD hardware or even processors without required instruction sets (various SSEs). OSX will run on Atom CPUs just fine.
This isn't about "support" it's not like I could walk into a Genius bar with a Dell mini for support. It's not like there were specific Eee patches being released by bemused devs in Cupertino. They went through code and are specifically REMOVING support. Deliberately breaking something is not the same as looking at your books and removing something that your people tell you is costing you money to support.
Have they actively removed support, or have they just added a requirement for SSE4 or some other feature that is unsupported by the atom?
@Paradox: I've been assuming that Apple would roll their own CPU or use another Cortex A8 ARM CPU if they release a tablet. I've also been assuming that the tablet OS would be a variant of the iPhone OS, with a new UI template based on screen size. I honestly don't see the advantage of running full OSX on an Apple tablet (whether it's 5" or 10"), and given that the iPhone OS seems to run well enough on the iPhone, the Atom CPU simply doesn't have a good enough CPU performance to power usage ratio or whatever to be worthwhile.
I've never owned an Atom-based computer, but I kind of don't see it as being that great. The Fujitsu Lifebook P1510 had a Core Solo ULV CPU at 1.0 or 1.2 GHz, and with their extended battery it weighed around 2 lbs. and had a battery life of 6 hours. Of course, at release it cost around $1500, not $300 like netbooks do now.
Intel plans to introduce Atom CPUs for cellphones. But it seems to me that Intel needs to do something better than the Atom if they want to compete with ARM based CPUs.
They may possibly turn to Samsung for their mobile processors since that Is who they have used for mobile devices.
It is easy - if apple will ever made a netbook, it will be in so distant future, that it will not be the Atom. That is not so strange - in few months we will have here the descendant (codename Pineview), and there are also some interesting competitors. But Apple has a power to push intel to create something special for them only (as they did it for Apple Air processor).
They didn't push Intel for anything, they just got their hands on the ULV thin C2D's before anyone else, stop reading marketing blurbs they are all lies.
PA semi design based on ARM Cortex 9 with two cores.
You stay classy Apple
Wow. Jobs is turning into everything he used to criticize others for.
Draconian app approval process, suing Pystar, blocking Palm, now killing off individual chip support. What's next eliminating support for Google Maps and developing their own in-house maps? Oh wait...
++
"turning into"?
Hasn't Apple always been such a douche company?
Freetards FTW!
Apple has always been like this however they've gotten much, much worse since the introduction of the iPod. It's to the point where I'm seriously considering moving to Windows 7 after 15 years of being on the Mac. Don't get me wrong, I *LOVE* the Mac OS far more than any OS I've ever used, however this draconian nonsense is starting to get the best of me.
Right now I want an affordable mid-range tower than can drive quad monitors, a netbook and a low cost laptop to round out my computing nirvanna. Apple's cheapest unit that can drive quad monitors is $2500 (ouch), they don't even make a netbook and their low cost laptops start at $1000 (with non-user replaceable batteries, no less).
If I complain about this in the usual Mac circles, the Mac faithful make it very clear that I'm simply not in Apple's target market and I should deal with it. To this point I've resisted that idea, but I'm starting to see that they're right. If I want an easy to use, flexible, affordable computer then I need to start looking at Windows 7.
Ouch. Dell mini 10v sales will be way down after hearing this news.
Well, when the price goes down, I might have to buy one for Linux.
There's an interesting article up on Slashdot right now about Apple and Psystar (again...). Only this time, it seems Apple is making the claim that the act of loading Mac OS X into RAM alongside any third party modifications renders it an "unauthorized copy".
Obviously, they're referring to modifications relevant to the Psystar case, but taken the wrong way, this could imply that anyone who installs 3rd party software that uses items like kernel extensions to enhance functionality would effectively be running a pirated copy of Mac OS X upon rebooting their system.
So, after shitting on the Atom in every single other article, it's suddenly "Intel's little powerhouse" when it runs Snow Leopard?
I see...
This is what L said in picture form
http://www.boilingclay.com/caught_red_handed.bmp
I'm glad someone noticed this :D