or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2 - Page 5

post #161 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Actually, it says:

"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."

Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.

You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.

Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.
post #162 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

...However, I don't see how Apple saying that "our software on our hardware only" is a violation of any law. As far as I know there is no constitutional law that say everyone have the right to install Mac OS on any computer

It's not that it is a violation under any law, but they can't dictate a contract that restricts rights given by a law, in this case the fair use doctrine specified under Copyright law. That would invalidate the contract.

You're right, there is no constitutional law that says I have the right to install OS X on a computer and you could argue the same applies to Apple (if you want to take the law (or absence there of) literally). That's why there are other laws that clarify the rights we do have such as the provisions under Copyright law regarding the fair use of software.
post #163 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.

Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.

There claus in Apple EULA says "Install" as well. How do you explain Psystar claim that Apple is abusing the copyright law by limiting the installation of Mac OS to Apple's hardware?!

Apple never bothered with individuals installing Mac OS on their hackintosh. The main issue here is sellers like Psystar. Apple need to show that they trying to enforce their EULA especially that someone started a business selling the hack.
post #164 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use

Psystar != personal use.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #165 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhowarth View Post

Because it's an upgrade - not a full retail copy. You're only allowed to use it to upgrade a machine with an existing licensed copy of Mac OS X on it. If you copy it other than in accordance with the license that's illegal and no different from any other breach of copyright.

I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.

"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).

The listed requirements are for an Intel Mac with 1GB RAM, a DVD drive (and that doesn't even have to be physically connected to the Mac), and 5GB free disk space. There is no mention of requiring that the Mac have any previous version of MacOS X installed on it, and in fact it is not required in theory or practice.

Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
post #166 of 226
The first generation Macbook Air uses the 1.6 GHz P7500 intel processor

Its the atom processor with a different name.
at least according to wiki
the first macbook air uses the P7500 intel processor which is the N270 Chipset which, guess what!

Is code named the intel ATOM processor

So apple does in fact use the processors for their own registered products and will not be discontinuing it anytime soon.

However they will probably discontinue a lot of other functions such as 3rd party wireless cards, computers running the N270 chipset with VGA outputs, etc.,....

Otherwise my dell 9 hackintosh would not think it was a macbook air, or work so well!

Thank You
Whiskey
www.WFKU.org Gotham's Dark Alternative
post #167 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Actually, Apple could have decided to dop support for that chipset for completely different reasons.

I don't see how. The chipsets used by Atom are lower power versions of the Intel 945 and Nvidia 9400, both used by Apple with full driver support in the O.S. The reasons that these netbooks work so well is that all the drivers needed are already there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Copyright law is inexorably bound up in contract law since the licenses granted by copyright holders, licenses that govern the right to make copies and for what purposes, are in fact a kind of contract. So, to say that a violation of a EULA is a license contract violation, it to admit that it is a violation of copyright law. Under United States law, there are both civil and criminal penalties applicable to copyright violations.

Problem with EULA and contract laws is you "agree" after money has changed hands.
post #168 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

The exception doesn't say anything about the purposes for which the original copy was distributed or obtained. It only places conditions on the purpose for which the additional copy will be produced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation.

Well, but if you fraudulently obtain a copy -- by implicitly representing that you intend to use it as an upgrade when you in fact do not -- you can hardly claim protection under copyright law for your intended use, since you obtained the copy illegally.
post #169 of 226
Meh, at least there is still desktop hackingtoshing. Been waiting to buy like a $300 dollar desktop and put OSx on it, just for the experience, but if that goes away i can stay with linux mint.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #170 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH View Post

I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.

"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
[...]
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.

From the Apple Store:

"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack

Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]

Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
post #171 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by WFKU View Post

The first generation Macbook Air uses the 1.6 GHz P7500 intel processor

Its the atom processor with a different name.
at least according to wiki
the first macbook air uses the P7500 intel processor which is the N270 Chipset which, guess what!

Is code named the intel ATOM processor

So apple does in fact use the processors for their own registered products and will not be discontinuing it anytime soon.

However they will probably discontinue a lot of other functions such as 3rd party wireless cards, computers running the N270 chipset with VGA outputs, etc.,....

Otherwise my dell 9 hackintosh would not think it was a macbook air, or work so well!

The MBA uses a small-formfactor ultralow-voltage Core2 Duo, sometimes written as SFF ULV C2D. The first two MBA releases used the P7500 and P7700. These are Merom processors with 4MB L2 cache and 800Mhz system bus. The current revision moved to L9300 and L9400. These are Penryn with 6MB L2 cache and 1066Mhz system bus. They are all dual-core and 64-bit.

You can verify this information from Intel’s CPU price lit and the AnandTech review. Note the price of the CPU itself on Intel’s site.

http://www.intc.com/priceList.cfm
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3203

Welcome to the forum.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #172 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

There claus in Apple EULA says "Install" as well. How do you explain Psystar claim that Apple is abusing the copyright law by limiting the installation of Mac OS to Apple's hardware?!

Apple never bothered with individuals installing Mac OS on their hackintosh. The main issue here is sellers like Psystar. Apple need to show that they trying to enforce their EULA especially that someone started a business selling the hack.

I absolutely agree that Psystar is wrong, this debate was purely around the grounds of what Copyright allows and disallows. Psystar has no rights under Copyright because their violation is commercial in nature. So you won't get any argument from me there. What prompted all of this is Apple blocking Atom processors, which has nothing to do with Psystar. This is Apple's attempt to go after Hackintoshes through technical means which is perfectly valid -though very draconian in nature.

I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.
post #173 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Psystar != personal use.

Agreed and I already mentioned that several times. This story is all about personal Hackintoshes and the bricking of Atom-based systems.
post #174 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

Yes. The cost of developing and maintaining OS X is covered by the sale of hardware. Apple was overly generous to sell Snow Leopard at such a bargain price.

I thought Sarbanes-Oxley makes this illegal.. So illegal, they have to charge for iPhone software updates. At least, that was the excuse the first time they did it!
post #175 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Or how about fixing the SATA II issue with third-party HDDs and SSDs on the June '09 13" and 15" MacBook Pros.

I am all with you. Mine has been escalated to engineering and there has been talk about a motherboard replacement (which I highly doubt will fix the problem).
post #176 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, but if you fraudulently obtain a copy -- by implicitly representing that you intend to use it as an upgrade when you in fact do not -- you can hardly claim protection under copyright law for your intended use, since you obtained the copy illegally.

Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.

The EULA is the only thing restricting what you can do with it (on a personal basis), and I know that I wasn't asked by the Apple store employee what my intention was, so shame on Apple (BTW I bought it to upgrade my MacBook - I don't have a Hackintosh because it won't work with my Pentium D processor in my desktop unless someone wants to post a link to a tutorial ).
post #177 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

I absolutely agree that Psystar is wrong, this debate was purely around the grounds of what Copyright allows and disallows. Psystar has no rights under Copyright because their violation is commercial in nature. So you won't get any argument from me there. What prompted all of this is Apple blocking Atom processors, which has nothing to do with Psystar. This is Apple's attempt to go after Hackintoshes through technical means which is perfectly valid -though very draconian in nature.

The debate started regarding whether Mac OS was copyrighted material or not


Quote:
I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.

I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it
post #178 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by daniel84 View Post

Building a hackintosh requires lots of patience and a fair bit of technical know how. Most people wouldn't even bother trying, so why not let the tinkerers tinker.

I know there are lots of downloadable custom build's of OS X out there but if you actually look at a good hackintosh tutorial, a lot of them use a retail disc to install from. I say as long you paid for that disc and only intend to use it privately, why not?

Of course, you seem like the sort of person who's word (your personal integrity) is worthless.

You bought that DVD with conditions attached. Those conditions are that the DVD is to used on only Apple hardware. You had to tell a lie to even install it. Hence, your word is meaningless.

If Apple were selling its operating system to PC owners, it should charge between 500 to a thousand dollars. Perhaps, that is the way to nip this illegality in the bud. Apple should charge an outrageous sum with a rebate attached to people who register their legitimately Apple hardware. Then if the Mac OS is put out on Bit Torrent, then anyone who is using the Mac OS illegitimately can be sued in small claims court for the difference between what they bought the upgrade DVD for and the legal price. Should be a slam dunk case.
post #179 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it

PowerPC kernel up to Tiger is open, the Intel kernel is closed, or at least not available to the public:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic..._Piracy_Fears/
post #180 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.

Only with a legally obtained copy. You have no rights under any law for what you can do with a copy obtained illegally. Apple clearly sells it as an upgrade, so, if you purchase it for some other purpose, you do not have any rights to use it for any purpose. It may be a gray area, although forbidden by the EULA, if you buy it to upgrade a Mac and later decide you want to use it on some other computer. You would, however, certainly have to "destroy" the copy installed on the Mac if you install it on another computer.
post #181 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

It's a start...

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on ripping DVDs you've purchased?

Well, since I don't travel a lot, don't have a long commute and don't have any kids, I haven't had any need for ripping DVDs. I've been buying Blu-rays in favor of their DVD counterparts and many come with digital copies, but I haven't watched or used any of them yet. All that said, I guess one could rationalize ripping a DVD under "fair use" if it would still be for private personal use but that's a grey area. The one thing I will say is that Hollywood is insane if they think people will buy multiple copies of the same title simply to be able to use it on a home media server or equivalent. And, given what they're doing with many Blu-ray titles, I don't think they expect you to. If every movie came with a digital copy, then I think there would be a lot less call for ripping your own DVDs.
post #182 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

If I'm not mistaken, the Dell Mini 9/10 works PERFECTLY as an OS X machine and can be had for under $300. Can't argue with that

Well, if dog-slow speed and poor battery life is considered "PERFECTLY" then I guess so.
post #183 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

This is a big logic jump

And you somehow find that appalling here on AI?!?!
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #184 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesy mogul View Post

I don't think you can call someone a thief, who takes the effort to figure it out how to run his favorite OS on a computer model category Apple is obviously too lazy to offer!
No matter how thin the MBA is, a 13" screen notebook is NOT a netbook .

Apple thinks they know what people want, but the exploding number of netbook hackintoshs proof them WRONG!

Apple's financial results tells me Apple knows what they are doing. It doesn't matter if you really want an Apple-branded netbook. If they don't make one, too bad. That doesn't make pirating OS X (even if you paid for it) any more justified.
post #185 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

The debate started regarding whether Mac OS was copyrighted material or not




I think they only need to give access to the code they modified not the code they created. I think they do otherwise we would have heard about it

Forgot a link: http://darwinbuild.macosforge.org/

That is the UNIX underbelly that allows OS X to be all it can be!
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #186 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

I think the interesting aspect of all this, which was mentioned earlier, is the fact that Apple doesn't own all the copyrights to the code base of OS X. I also find interesting that no one has gone after Apple for not providing access to the source code of the Intel kernel, which is, as far as I know, still based on the Mach BSD kernel. It is my understanding that they should have to provide the source code because it is Open Source, however, I'm more familiar with the terms of GPL licensed software and there may be loopholes in the BSD license that give them an out.

BSD style licenses only require that the original authors are attributed. There are no loopholes in those licenses: they explicitly allow that.

Examples:

3 clause BSD license
Quote:
Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY <copyright holder> ''AS IS'' AND ANY
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <copyright holder> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

ISC license
Quote:
Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person's Name <E-mail address>

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

It is unfortunate that many people think all open source code has to be licensed with conditions similar to the GPL. While the GPL certainly serves a purpose, it does not serve every purpose, even when restricted to the domain of free software.

Regarding Apple, even though Apple doesn't have to, most of the BSD licensed code in OSX does have the source publicly available, and GCC and other GPL'd software have the source code and modifications posted in the same place as the source for the BSD code.
post #187 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

You can copy something for personal use and that is a valid form of Fair Use. If I copy a magazine article to read later at my house, that is a fair use. If I copy it and then send it to a bunch of people, that is not.

However, if you copy the entire magazine in the library and take it home to read later, that is also not fair use. That's probably the closest think to what the Hackintosh people are doing. They're not excerpting a small amount of OS X. They're copying the entire thing for their own use - in violation of Apple's intent and the license agreement (and, in the case of the people using the $30 version of SL, the statement that it's an upgrade , not a full version).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #188 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by bokuwaomar View Post

BSD style licenses only require that the original authors are attributed. There are no loopholes in those licenses: they explicitly allow that.

Examples:

3 clause BSD license


ISC license


It is unfortunate that many people think all open source code has to be licensed with conditions similar to the GPL. While the GPL certainly serves a purpose, it does not serve every purpose, even when restricted to the domain of free software.

Regarding Apple, even though Apple doesn't have to, most of the BSD licensed code in OSX does have the source publicly available, and GCC and other GPL'd software have the source code and modifications posted in the same place as the source for the BSD code.

Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.
post #189 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.

Clearly the one that encourages them to be a community player is best.
post #190 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

However, if you copy the entire magazine in the library and take it home to read later, that is also not fair use. That's probably the closest think to what the Hackintosh people are doing. They're not excerpting a small amount of OS X. They're copying the entire thing for their own use - in violation of Apple's intent and the license agreement (and, in the case of the people using the $30 version of SL, the statement that it's an upgrade , not a full version).

Please educate us where in the Copyright law that there is a limit to what you can copy for personal use. The law has been posted from several times here and no where has there been such a stipulation.

There is so many different ways in how to build a Hackintosh, that I don't care to comment one way or another on whether a particular approach is any more legal than another and frankly it doesn't really matter because unless they change non-Open Source code, they haven't violated copyright only Apple's EULA.

Frankly I don't know why you all care so much about whether they violate Apple's EULA or not because it doesn't effect you - you (and I) still got an upgrade for $30 so it can't be hurting Apple too much. Me, I'll stick to my MacBook and wait it out until Apple finally decides to come out with a desktop that works for me. Till then, I'll run both my MacBook and my Windows 7 desktop that each play their own role in my computing needs.
post #191 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Like I said, I wasn't familiar with the specifics with BSD licensing, so I now stand educated. I won't get into a software licensing debate because it is way too religious, however, you can see where companies would like BSD because it allows them to be good community players - when they want to be. GPL on the other hand requires them to be a full-time community player by contributing back source code improvements. Which approach is better I'll leave up to the reader, but there are advantages to both approaches.

I don't wish to get into a debate either. My point was that not all developers have the same goals. Some want others to share back, other simply want the code to be used by as many people as possible (even if they're selfish). They are good reasons for either and developers should choose the license that suits their needs. While I'd rather not conform my beliefs to those of any one religion, there are quite a few I'd rather partake in over the GPL vs BSD vs non-free arguments; those are just plain silly.
post #192 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Clearly the one that encourages them to be a community player is best.

Then you should be as mad as hell with them because they sure didn't pick the GPL. Closing or hiding the source to the Intel kernel isn't exactly being a community player seeing how Open Source allowed you to accomplish what you have so far. I certainly can understand wanting to prevent piracy, but there are lots of more community friendly ways they could of done that. Crippling support for the Atom processor (the point of the story these posts are all attached to) is another poor example of Apple's support of the Open Source community.
post #193 of 226
Getting back to the direct topic, could this simply be a matter of Apple setting themselves up for 64-bit on older Macs? Apparently 10.6.2 has new 64-bit drivers for the older intel 945 chipset, something commonly used in netbooks today. Could it be that the kernel has just been modified to run in 64-bit mode, while the Atom is only a 32-bit processor?

http://netkas.org/?p=243
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
Video editor, tech enthusiast, developer.

http://www.yuusharo.com
http://www.studioyuu.com
Reply
post #194 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

Then you should be as mad as hell with them because they sure didn't pick the GPL. Closing or hiding the source to the Intel kernel isn't exactly being a community player seeing how Open Source allowed you to accomplish what you have so far. I certainly can understand wanting to prevent piracy, but there are lots of more community friendly ways they could of done that. Crippling support for the Atom processor (the point of the story these posts are all attached to) is another poor example of Apple's support of the Open Source community.

I guess the GPL didn't encourage them to be a community player.
post #195 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuusharo View Post

Getting back to the direct topic, could this simply be a matter of Apple setting themselves up for 64-bit on older Macs? Apparently 10.6.2 has new 64-bit drivers for the older intel 945 chipset, something commonly used in netbooks today. Could it be that the kernel has just been modified to run in 64-bit mode, while the Atom is only a 32-bit processor?

http://netkas.org/?p=243

That is the best theory Ive read.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #196 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Thieves?

IP thieves, for sure.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #197 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

From the Apple Store:
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH
I'm looking at the $49 Snow Leopard family pack box right now.

"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
[...]
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.

From the Apple Store:

"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack

Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]

Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
\t
"Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Family Pack

Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]

Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."

Non sequitur much?

That's not what it says on the package, outside or inside. You *can* install it as an upgrade on a system currently running Leopard (or Tiger, for that matter, since the earliest MacBooks and MacBook Pros predate Leopard). Leopard being installed is not a prerequisite, explicit or implied.

The statement "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]" is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Statements on Apple's online store, or in their brick and mortar siblings, don't change what's printed on/in the retail package itself.

Nor do they make any difference to the fact that you can very well install SL on a Mac with a completely-scrubbed hard drive. The which would be a bit of a problem for a pure upgrade.
post #198 of 226
Yes, then Apple can be like Dell, a company that has to sell a lot of computers to scrap by. Further, Apple's customers can be like Dell customers who according to Dell often times regret the purchase of a net book. If Apple were to offer a low cost net book many of the sales would be to Mac users who would have bought a higher end Mac with higher over all margins if it were not for the net books. Last I checked, Apple just had it's highest profitable quarter in it's history all while not offering the low costed net books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

So, sell an Atom based netbook for 600 bucks. Margins kept in hand
post #199 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH View Post

Non sequitur much?

No, I don't think it's a non sequitur at all. You clearly understand that it is an upgrade product, yet engage in a quibble about whether it says it here or there and what does it really mean.

Yes, you can install it on a clean hard drive, because it's sold with the understanding that you have already purchased a Mac so have a right to install the upgrade and because Apple chooses not to make it's user's lives more complicated than necessary.

You know you're in the wrong, ethically and legally, so please don't pretend to innocence.
post #200 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH View Post

Non sequitur much?

That's not what it says on the package, outside or inside. You *can* install it as an upgrade on a system currently running Leopard (or Tiger, for that matter, since the earliest MacBooks and MacBook Pros predate Leopard). Leopard being installed is not a prerequisite, explicit or implied.

The statement "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]" is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Statements on Apple's online store, or in their brick and mortar siblings, don't change what's printed on/in the retail package itself.

Nor do they make any difference to the fact that you can very well install SL on a Mac with a completely-scrubbed hard drive. The which would be a bit of a problem for a pure upgrade.

Suppose it were clearly labeled as an 'upgrade for Apple branded computers only' on all retail boxes going forward, and just as an extra measure, on the disk itself, so that it's obviously licensed as an upgrade. Would people stop legitimizing installing OS X on non-Apple software, or would they simply use another argument? My bet's on the latter: anyone competent enough to make a hackintosh knows the retail OS X disks are supposed to be upgrades, and not standalone licenses. They just simply don't care and do what they want.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2