http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/ Engadget Comments for Mac OS X 10.6.2 hacked to allow Atom support http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
*TOO ....*sigh*]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
Indeed, it does seem logical to Apple. Which is why Windows remains the operating system of choice. Microsoft doesn't make PC hardware, yet makes more money off it's flagship OS than Apple's hardware + software.]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
I hear that argument all the time, but how exactly is allowing users to install OS X on an HP going to hurt Apple? People who want a Mac are still going to get a Mac for everything else they represent in terms of design, status, etc. If Apple opened up OS X, they would rake in the dough in software sales, on top of hardware sales.]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
No shit, sherlock. However, locking down an OS to very specific hardware does not create choice for the consumer. What if Google could only be used on eMachines with a 1.6GHz or faster Intel processor? Broken business model is broken (for the consumer anyways.)]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
A. Buy Apple computers
B. Buy a prebuilt Windows box.
C. Build your own Windows box and buy the OS separate.
D. Build a linux box
E. Create your own OS

Looks like plenty of choices to me.]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
just let me install it on my MBP PLEASE! what?]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
Absolutely. However, OS X to Linux, relatively, has a bigger user base and some very fantastic native applications. If I could get OS X as a secondary OS to dick around with, I would take it over Linux for it's usability and interface.]]>Nov 19th 2009 9:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 9:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
My car must have a sign on it that reads: I don't have a car.]]>Nov 19th 2009 9:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 9:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
Except games for consoles are almost always released on every platform. Game consoles =/= computers.]]>Nov 19th 2009 9:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 9:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/A possibly Mac buyer would be faced with two choices: Get the full Apple experience or get a cheaper Mac experience with HP or a similar maker.

This would do two things:
1. It would completely dilute the brandname. It's the same reason why you won't see Apple releasing a $25 phone. If everyone can get OS X on the cheap, more people will have it. If more people have it, the elite status wears off and people begin to crave something new. I am sure people will call Apple "greedy" for this, but I am sure any person capable of thinking with an ounce of logic could see why Apple keeps their prices high. Without the prestige of owning a Mac, there would be no desire to own one.

2. It could ruin the quality of OS X. If Apple has no control over the hardware, they would have to support every little thing like Windows does. For years, the legacy support provided by Microsoft has been bogging down their OS. It has gotten better recently, but it still is worrisome. Apple just cut out who knows how many people with the Snow Leopard release but cutting support for PPC Macs and going Intel-only, something that Microsoft couldn't possibly due without killing their revenue intake.

So, while it would be great for the consumer, it would be death for Apple. I doubt they would be able to survive such a change. ]]>Nov 19th 2009 10:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 20th 2009 12:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 20th 2009 2:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 20th 2009 2:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
No surprise here. Why do companies waste their time with things like this? Note to Apple: Hackintosh community = Mac OS X sales you wouldn't normally get]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
No it doesn't. Most of them aren't going to buy the OS at all and will just pirate it. Don't kid yourself.]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 9:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
My point exactly. And, if Mr. Unverified is going to use the piracy argument, then Microsoft should follow Apple's business model, since people pirate Windows all the time.]]>Nov 19th 2009 10:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 11:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
Case in point, Microsoft tried competing with the iPod by forcing the market to adopt Play4Sure into 3rd party MP3 players. Result: failure. Microsoft then backstabbed all their Play4Sure partners and introduced the Zune. Microsoft developed WinMo for 3rd party handsets; now that the competition has arrived nobody want's WinMo any more. Soon to be released: The MS phone (Project Pink).

The Zune failed. Project Pink already failed before it delivered a product. The only camp where MS is having a win is with the XBOX. But then, Apple doesn't compete in gaming consoles that way.]]>Nov 20th 2009 12:41AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 20th 2009 8:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
I really can't tell if your being serious or sarcastic...]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/I'll take one. I think hackers do this just to stick it to the MAN, no matter who he is. :-P]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
lol.]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
Truly.]]>Nov 19th 2009 9:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
"Why not just buy a real computer", I certainly hope you mean buy something more capable than a netbook. It reads like you're saying why buy a netbook, get a mac instead. The reason people buy netbooks vary, but a lot of people I know have very capable desktops, and then a cheap netbook so they have something to use on the go, but they don't need a full-blown laptop.]]>Nov 19th 2009 9:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 11:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 20th 2009 11:49AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
What? Replacing a kernel isn't tough business.]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 8:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/I would assume the kernel hack just changes a few bits of information that are returned when querying the type of cpu - the things apple check higher up in the OS to make sure you are running real apple hardware]]>Nov 19th 2009 9:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
way to go engadget... just get rid of the times new roman please]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
Other than that, love the new site ^^]]>Nov 21st 2009 11:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/
i just wanna find the guy who took trevor before me...

[you hear me! i challenge you to a duel!!!!]]]>Nov 19th 2009 8:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/mac-os-x-10-6-2-hacked-to-allow-atom-support/Nov 19th 2009 9:11PM