or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Intel Atom support officially missing from Mac OS X 10.6.2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel Atom support officially missing from Mac OS X 10.6.2 - Page 3

post #81 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

That's completely wrong. Whether OS X is running on Apple hardware or not has absolutely no bearing on the presence or absence of malware.

You're absolutely right but I meant there will be more than what there is now because OS X is more abundant therefore more inciting to infect, steal credentials, whatever. I'm sure there are a quite a few out there and growing. I'm an enthusiast not a guru so correct me if I'm wrong. Learning never gets old
post #82 of 101
That headline implies Apple has announced officially something about Atom and OS 10.6.2. How can that be when they never supported Atom in the first place, and nowhere in the article is a quote from Apple. So now Hackers are official AI sources speaking for Apple?

I've read some AI headline winners, but this one takes the cake. Do you really need the click traffic that much?
post #83 of 101
Are all Atom processors out of the game with 10.6.2 or only 32 bit Atom processors?
post #84 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Are all Atom processors out of the game with 10.6.2 or only 32 bit Atom processors?

That is a good question.
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 #85 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon111122223333 View Post

You're absolutely right but I meant there will be more than what there is now because OS X is more abundant therefore more inciting to infect, steal credentials, whatever. I'm sure there are a quite a few out there and growing. I'm an enthusiast not a guru so correct me if I'm wrong. Learning never gets old

That argument about limited market share protecting the Mac is nothing new. It's been around for ages. Even has a formal name: "Security through obscurity."
post #86 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I also agreed with the 'meat' of what was said, but it was a poor choice of words, and inflammatory (flamebait). No need to encourage that kind of attitude IMO.

The biggest problem with this attitude ^ can be seen in Congress every single day. If people were able to stand up and say what needed to be said, things would get done, points would get across, and people would wake up.

Beating around the bush for the sake of "sensitivities" is for the 1950s. Again, maturity is the key to understanding.
post #87 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

That headline implies Apple has announced officially something about Atom and OS 10.6.2. How can that be when they never supported Atom in the first place, and nowhere in the article is a quote from Apple. So now Hackers are official AI sources speaking for Apple?

I've read some AI headline winners, but this one takes the cake. Do you really need the click traffic that much?

I agree, I really don't understand the authors of leading websites acting like their was support that no longer exists.

Its reasonable to assume that it was only a matter of a time before certain configurations and changes to OSX unavoidably cuts out its ability to run on hardware configurations that its not designed for. That IS reasonable. That could be right where we are now, with Apple Inc. looking at this news, shaking their heads and shrugging, thinking, "what is all the hooplah? Dropped support for Intel Atom? Did we ever include it?"
post #88 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

LOL. Noob!

Centrino is the brand name for the Mobo+CPU+GPU+WiFi combo provided by Intel. The CPUs initially started out as Pentiums (4s I think), but Centrino actually includes whatever the current generation of CPUs happen to be.

I'm far from being a "noob", but you're right. Didn't mean to confuse. I meant any Intel processors aside from the Core 2s and Xeons that Apple is using in their current computers. If they're going to disable one chip line, why not all the others that they have no use for? What are you thoughts on that observation?
"Picasso had a saying, 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
Reply
"Picasso had a saying, 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
Reply
post #89 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Its reasonable to assume that it was only a matter of a time before certain configurations and changes to OSX unavoidably cuts out its ability to run on hardware configurations that its not designed for. That IS reasonable.

How is this unavoidable at this time? There are no major changes from 10.6.1, no new features. Just bug fixes. 10.6.2 is architecturally identical to its predecessor. There is no reason it should block Atom except that Apple added new code specifically to disable it. It's a point release, after all, not a new version of the OS. It's still Snow Leopard.
post #90 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Anyone else finding the size of this update to be substantially less than the 400 MB? On all 4 of my Mac's, it's coming in at 200 MB or so.

sometimes it has to do with how much updating you do before. that. if you got the previous X baby updates you don't need those bits. but if you are one of those folks that only updates once a month, you might not have them. so you need the big bad boy that has them in there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

I'm talking about Apple missing the netbook boat.

well Apple is, and has always been, more about leading than following. so just cause everyone else is making netbooks doesn't mean that Apple is going to make one also. And if they do make a netbook it will be a real one not some scaled down 9 inch laptop with netbook slapped on the box.

and a $200+ stock value suggests that Apple doesn't really need to worry about those cheap netbooks or the potential loss of sales cause they didn't make one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifail View Post

Everyone loves to act like a fucking snob here because they think owning anything Mac puts them in some elite class but simply put Apple COULD make a netbook and price it aggressively at 499 or 549

sure they could. if they want to. That's not the issue. the issue is this belief that they must. because everyone else is doing it. and if they don't, they are morons, doomed to fail, etc.

Quote:
that glorious apple tax apple likes to rape consumers on and mac users love to spout on about

The reason that Mac users don't feel 'raped' by the so called Apple Tax is that they understand why it exists. they get that it is helping to pay for the stores, the techs, the trainers, the online support materials etc that help them to use their computers. Maybe you are just a total genius you don't need any of that, but you and yours are only perhaps 5% of the Apple users out there. the other 95% need those things and are happy to pay for them.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #91 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

How is this unavoidable at this time? There are no major changes from 10.6.1, no new features. Just bug fixes. 10.6.2 is architecturally identical to its predecessor. There is no reason it should block Atom except that Apple added new code specifically to disable it. It's a point release, after all, not a new version of the OS. It's still Snow Leopard.

As has been stated multiple times in this thread, just because OS X once ran on an Atom motherboard doesn't mean it ever was "supported". As for it being disabled, blocked, whatever in 10.6.2... how do you know what you say you know?
post #92 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

As has been stated multiple times in this thread, just because OS X once ran on an Atom motherboard doesn't mean it ever was "supported". As for it being disabled, blocked, whatever in 10.6.2... how do you know what you say you know?

Good grief. How many times does it take before it gets through some people's thick heads. Nobody ever said it was officially "supported." Do you have any idea what it takes to "support" Atom? What is "an Atom motherboard"? It sounds like you don't know anything about what Atom actually is.

Listen up, there are two factors: the CPU and the chipset. Atom N270, which is used in most netbooks, runs the industry standard x86 instruction set. You can't just suddenly "drop support" for that if you continue to use Intel CPUs, as Apple does, and if you continue to support older legacy systems like the Core Solo Mac mini. The chipset, usually a 945GSE in the most compatible netbooks, likewise is similar to the 945GM the Mac minis have. That's why netbooks like the MSI Wind are popular for OSX86, because the OS sees it pretty much as a Mac mini, except for a few differences like audio chip and Wifi chip. A few additional drivers (just like OS X has its own audio and Wifi drivers) or a quick replacement with a Broadcom wireless card (exact same chipset as Airport Extreme cards) and the OS is none the wiser. Have the first generation Mac minis suddenly become unsupported by Snow Leopard? No. Why not? Because Apple isn't disabling it. How does Apple know what CPU you're using? Look at your "About This Mac" window or use System Profiler and you'll see how easy it is for the OS to sniff your config. Look at the system requirements for Snow Leopard. All it says is Mac with Intel processor. Guess what? Atom is an Intel processor. Any version of Windows including Windows 7 will work with an Atom. It doesn't take any special support from Microsoft. It doesn't take any from Apple.

Finally, answer me this. If it's a technological issue and Apple just can't "support" it with new APIs or kernel, then why did it shift back and forth before 10.6.2's final release?
post #93 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Finally, answer me this. If it's a technological issue and Apple just can't "support" it with new APIs or kernel, then why did it shift back and forth before 10.6.2's final release?

Lets see, because they were updating their OS. Do you really think they were having some internal debate where they added it, removed it, added it again and then finally removed it because of hackintosh netbooks? That makes no sense.

What you need to consider is, if Hackintoshes were such a problem since moving to Intel why did they wait so long to do anything about it. Not once have never gone after the OSx86 Project. Also consider that Apple doesnt compete in the netbook market so suggesting that Apples on the rampage to quash netbooks is illogical.

Fianlly, consider that you are suggesting that Apple didnt choose to attack netbooks when Snow Leopard was in beta, but at the 2nd point update out of the blue. This last one is important because its a trivial task to simply use the 10.6.1 kernel with any netbook and you still have Snow Leopard running. You can still add the app updates of 10.6.2. Those images will be on torrent sites soon if they arent already there.
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 #94 of 101
Whatever. We'll know shortly just what Apple has done. The community will have it figured out and worked around, and my bet would be exactly what I've written, that it's not some kind of code that absolutely has to be incompatible, just something Apple added. At worst, something that uses x86-64 code where x86 would have worked perfectly well.
post #95 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Whatever. We'll know shortly just what Apple has done. The community will have it figured out and worked around, and my bet would be exactly what I've written, that it's not some kind of code that absolutely has to be incompatible, just something Apple added. At worst, something that uses x86-64 code where x86 would have worked perfectly well.

Apple does wonky things. The last MBP released dropped SATA from 3Gbps to 1.5Gbps apparently because Apple made a custom connector. They later added a firmware update to push it back up to 3Gps with the caveat that it’s not actually supported. There are many drives that simply aren’t working either, because of what they did. This is your storage component, the one piece that should work in a PC regardless of who made it.

They can’t get rid of x86_32 just yet because of the Core Duos and I don’t think anyone has tested x86_64 Atoms yet. Regardless, stopped a certain processor that you don’t even use for a device type you don’t even compete with makes no sense. It’s like using an umbrella in rain storm while wading through a river. Pointless.
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 #96 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post

Finally, answer me this. If it's a technological issue and Apple just can't "support" it with new APIs or kernel, then why did it shift back and forth before 10.6.2's final release?

Obviously it isn't.

They went back and forth because the other upgrades to the OS were being done independently from blocking the Atoms. Blocking the Atoms could have been done 10.6.3 if they wanted. But this is so kluge-y...couldn't somone just copy the old kernel on top of this new one?
post #97 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy Davis View Post

But this is so kluge-y...couldn't somone just copy the old kernel on top of this new one?

That is what is so bizarre about these conspiracies. Its making it seem Apples coders were going back and forth abotu including Atom support for hackintoshes -AND- that they decided to do it with 10.6.2, a point update, and not with 10.6.0 the actual release of a new version of Mac OS X.
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 #98 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That is what is so bizarre about these conspiracies. Its making it seem Apples coders were going back and forth abotu including Atom support for hackintoshes -AND- that they decided to do it with 10.6.2, a point update, and not with 10.6.0 the actual release of a new version of Mac OS X.

I think someone on the business or legal end changed their mind about whether accommodating "hobbyists" now could hurt them down the road with bigger players. I would see this as a signal more than anything because it would seem anyone who can get 10.6.1 running on a netbook can get around this and get all the features of 10.6.2.
post #99 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeronPrometheus View Post

I'm far from being a "noob", but you're right. Didn't mean to confuse. I meant any Intel processors aside from the Core 2s and Xeons that Apple is using in their current computers. If they're going to disable one chip line, why not all the others that they have no use for? What are you thoughts on that observation?

Heck this is waaaaat ot but way back when and I can't remember why, there was a time for pc users to buy the centrino over the p3/4. It had something to do with a higher FPU which translates into hiw many virtual instruments you can load up. Could of also been that they overcocked much higher too. I worked in a clean room once, the way CPUs work is they test them and if it's supposed to be for 2.8 and they run across a few thar fail, they just
mark it as a 2.6 or even 2.4 then the overclocker gets a gem. Pays cheap price but clocks it stable at 3.0'llll. There was a batch a long time ago that certain centrinos overclocker really high although a dinosaur by todays standards.

Peace.
post #100 of 101
I dint want to get in the midde of this feud but the days of elitism are long gone. It ended when Pro Care and One to One seperated, Aple stopedcfocusing the 3% Pro user base, dropped .Mac to MM, droped computer from their name, released the iPhone and became more of a mainstream consumer company, even though there's still no mid range headless mac, insert iMac but that's mostly for consumers, cloud computing and iLife users thsan it is a prosumer device, which it clearly is not.

Cheers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

sometimes it has to do with how much updating you do before. that. if you got the previous X baby updates you don't need those bits. but if you are one of those folks that only updates once a month, you might not have them. so you need the big bad boy that has them in there.



well Apple is, and has always been, more about leading than following. so just cause everyone else is making netbooks doesn't mean that Apple is going to make one also. And if they do make a netbook it will be a real one not some scaled down 9 inch laptop with netbook slapped on the box.

and a $200+ stock value suggests that Apple doesn't really need to worry about those cheap netbooks or the potential loss of sales cause they didn't make one.



sure they could. if they want to. That's not the issue. the issue is this belief that they must. because everyone else is doing it. and if they don't, they are morons, doomed to fail, etc.



The reason that Mac users don't feel 'raped' by the so called Apple Tax is that they understand why it exists. they get that it is helping to pay for the stores, the techs, the trainers, the online support materials etc that help them to use their computers. Maybe you are just a total genius you don't need any of that, but you and yours are only perhaps 5% of the Apple users out there. the other 95% need those things and are happy to pay for them.
post #101 of 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiimamac View Post

I dint want to get in the midde of this feud but the days of elitism are long gone. It ended when Pro Care and One to One seperated, Aple stopedcfocusing the 3% Pro user base, dropped .Mac to MM, droped computer from their name, released the iPhone and became more of a mainstream consumer company, even though there's still no mid range headless mac, insert iMac but that's mostly for consumers, cloud computing and iLife users thsan it is a prosumer device, which it clearly is not.

Cheers.


I like the comment, but 1) I don't quite agree with it and 2) it is getting away from the OS topic. I don't think a company that as a matter of principle, refuses to do focus group type market testing is a "mainstream consumer company." They figured out that it is more profitable to appeal to a different kind of elitism than when they were doing photoshop bakeoffs.

I don't care all that much that 10.6.2 drops support for the Atom. My buying a netbook was about wanting something cheap I could take on the road and not worry about it falling off my bike. Obviously not an Apple product niche. Ubuntu works for me, too. And is cheaper.

Also, FWIW, I am hardly a consumer level purchaser, but I do use an iMac in a lot of my technical work.

cheers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Intel Atom support officially missing from Mac OS X 10.6.2