Latest Snow Leopard build resurrects Atom compatibility

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Development build 10C535 of Snow Leopard update 10.6.2 retains Intel Atom support after the previous build had killed compatibility with the processor.



According to the developer blog which initially told of the Atom incompatibility, the latest build of OS X 10.6.2 does retain support for Atom chips. It was previously reported that support for the Intel chip had been dropped, a move that many believed was Apple's attempt to stop the small but burgeoning "Hackintosh" netbook community. This all may change when the final 10.6.2 build is released, but as of now Atom support has returned.



Intel's Atom processor is a low-power, low-cost chip which is intended for notebooks and ultra-mobile PCs. No current Apple products use the chip, but a community has formed around installing Snow Leopard on so called "Hackintosh" netbook PCs which use the Atom processor. This unauthorized use of Apple's operating system has grown in popularity since the release of small, inexpensive notebooks such as the Dell Mini 10v, which allowed for easy installs of OS X.



Last year, it was reported that an executive at Intel had publicly vouched for the Atom processor to be used in Apple's tablet. With the buyout of chip designer P.A. Semi, many believe that Apple is instead designing its own chips for the platform.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    29922992 Posts: 202member
    rumoring around... it's soo cool!
  • Reply 2 of 42
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Maybe it was just a bug? Incomplete work? Details in that blog post on exactly what broke and why are practically nonexistent. Developer seeds aren't the final word anyway. It sounds like something in the software was refactored and the work wasn't finished.



    I don't think it matters what you're running, hackintosh or not, you should do a backup before doing any updates. Updates change system files, you never know if the software encounters an unexpected condition or there is some kind of power loss or data hiccup in the computer.
  • Reply 3 of 42
    tofinotofino Posts: 697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 2992 View Post


    rumoring around... it's soo cool!



    brings in the eyballs though, doesn't it?
  • Reply 4 of 42
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Even if it was intentional, I suspect Apple realized that anything they could do, the Hackintosh community can undo (with time). They're already in an arms race with regards to iPhone jailbreaking. They don't need to open another front. It just eats up limited programming resources that would be better used stomping bugs and improving features.
  • Reply 5 of 42
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    It was either a bug that happened to also break other things and was corrected or there was just a little too much bad press on the subject and Apple figured the effort wasn't worth it.
  • Reply 6 of 42
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,744member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    Even if it was intentional, I suspect Apple realized that anything they could do, the Hackintosh community can undo (with time). They're already in an arms race with regards to iPhone jailbreaking. They don't need to open another front. It just eats up limited programming resources that would be better used stomping bugs and improving features.



    I doubt it had anything to do with Apple feeling pressure from the hackintosh community or anything like that.
  • Reply 7 of 42
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,744member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    It was either a bug that happened to also break other things and was corrected or there was just a little too much bad press on the subject and Apple figured the effort wasn't worth it.



    What bad press? Bad press about Apple making it more difficult for infringers to install OS X on unauthorized hardware?? The bulk of Apple's market doesn't even know what hackintoshes are and wouldn't give a sweet damn even if they did.



    The Atom issue had nothing to do with the hackintosh community - that is actually a minority of the minority Mac fan community on the ass end of the web.



    The first part of your post was dollars-to-donuts closer to the truth: it was a bug.
  • Reply 8 of 42
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    I doubt it had anything to do with Apple feeling pressure from the hackintosh community or anything like that.



    I never said there was pressure. But why waste limited resources trying to kill a small segment of the illicit market, especially when there's a good chance it could be undone? It's not like jailbreaking and unlocking iPhones, which a ton of people would do if Apple didn't keep fighting against it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    The Atom issue had nothing to do with the hackintosh community - that is actually a minority of the minority Mac fan community on the ass end of the web.



    Yeah, we get it. You don't like Hackintoshes. But you're also awfully ignorant about them. At any given moment, there are hundreds of people on any of several torrents of OSX86 bootloaders and hacked Snow Leopard installs. Thousands more on the various forums dedicated to the craft. I'd even venture to say a lot of these people know a lot more about their systems than you, me or other "average" Mac owners. Some of their instructions with detailed Terminal commands leave me stumped, and I do a lot of support for Mac-owning friends and family.



    By the way, have you ever wondered what the "multi-quote" button is for?
  • Reply 9 of 42
    Technically speaking, the update never actually "killed" Atom support. At worst, atom users would simply have to revert to an older or patched kernel to get back up an running, something that many hackintoshes, especially AMD, have to do anyway. There was never really any cause for so much fuss.



    Anyway, I remember reading buried reports of people with legitimate macs having issues with that last build, so it was most likely just a bug in the kernel. Squashed, and now the sensational story can rest for now.
  • Reply 10 of 42
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,744member
    delete.
  • Reply 11 of 42
    Apple is not the least bit concerned with home enthusiasts who make a hobby out of getting OSX running on unauthorized machines. Rather, they are concerned with the likes of Psystar who are looking to make a dime by exploiting Apple's IP. Efforts to block these hobbyists would cost Apple more R&D than it's really worth.
  • Reply 12 of 42
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Maybe it was just a bug? Incomplete work? Details in that blog post on exactly what broke and why are practically nonexistent. Developer seeds aren't the final word anyway. It sounds like something in the software was refactored and the work wasn't finished.



    I don't think it matters what you're running, hackintosh or not, you should do a backup before doing any updates. Updates change system files, you never know if the software encounters an unexpected condition or there is some kind of power loss or data hiccup in the computer.



    The whole ?theory? was silly. If you want to bring down the hobbiest you don?t do it for a crappy Atom CPU a couple of point updates in. You build it into a new major version of the OS X and you do it by tightening up the whole system. On top of that, Apple?s overall lack of concern for them, sans Psystar.
  • Reply 13 of 42
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Just the usual AppleInsider spreading FUD about INCOMPLETE beta versions of software.
  • Reply 14 of 42
    mactrippermactripper Posts: 1,328member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    It was either a bug that happened to also break other things and was corrected or there was just a little too much bad press on the subject and Apple figured the effort wasn't worth it.





    Nope, I'm willing to bet Apple just figured out a better method than disabling. Where as hackers would then enable with a hacked version of OS X and promote downloads instead of buying a legal copy of OS X and installing it that way.



    I suspect Apple will instead alter OS X to the point that it will run like molasses on Atom processors with some new features, integrate existing ones to run in the background or something.



    Get all those netbook babies to trade up to a real Mac.
  • Reply 15 of 42
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Nope, I'm willing to bet Apple just figured out a better method than disabling. Where as hackers would then enable with a hacked version of OS X and promote downloads instead of buying a legal copy of OS X and installing it that way.



    I suspect Apple will instead alter OS X to the point that it will run like molasses on Atom processors with some new features, integrate existing ones to run in the background or something.



    Get all those netbook babies to trade up to a real Mac.



    None of that makes sense from a tactical standpoint. If they were going to do this, building it into SL was the time to do it.



    Say, for instance, Apple did make it impossible for all Hackintoshes to install 10.6.2, not just netbooks where Apple doesn’t even compete. All they’d have to do is keep running 10.6.1. It’s not overly buggy and there is nothing exciting to make them want to even update. Plus, it gives the savvy OSx86 hackers plenty of time to figure it all out before 10.7 hits. That will likely have a completely redesigned UI, and OpenCL and GDC apps should be in full effect by then. That is what they should be planning for if they plan to keep out the hobbyists, which I don’t think they worry about.
  • Reply 16 of 42
    cubertcubert Posts: 728member
    OK. I know some about programing in Cocoa and the structure of OS X, but can someone explain what exactly needs to be removed to eliminate support for a particular processor class?
  • Reply 17 of 42
    What kills me is this "build" is more than a week old! While the Mac press was going on and on about this the build they are saying has the support was already out!



    What ever...you guys need to verify things and not just feed off one another like lemmings.



    This has truly been a Mac press fiasco!

  • Reply 18 of 42
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffsters View Post


    What kills me is this "build" is more than a week old! While the Mac press was going on and on about this the build they are saying has the support was already out!



    What ever...you guys need to verify things and not just feed off one another like lemmings.



    This has truly been a Mac press fiasco!





    "Latest Snow Leopard build resurrects Atom compatibility.? That is build 10C540, which was released today, hence the follow up article.
  • Reply 19 of 42
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranson View Post


    Apple is not the least bit concerned with home enthusiasts who make a hobby out of getting OSX running on unauthorized machines. Rather, they are concerned with the likes of Psystar who are looking to make a dime by exploiting Apple's IP.



    Except Psystar doesn't make or sell any systems that use Atom processors. Only netbooks and nettops use them, and Psystar doesn't do either. Although if they could find a very compatible motherboard, such a nettop would make a good competitor for the Mac mini.



    Quote:

    Efforts to block these hobbyists would cost Apple more R&D than it's really worth.



    I believe that's what I previously wrote.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    Get all those netbook babies to trade up to a real Mac.



    No, thanks. I have "real Macs." I also own a Hackintosh with a much better price/performance ratio than Mac Pros. And I have a netbook running 10.6.1. When Apple makes a supersmall, superlight system that I can type things on and do other light work up to and including running Adobe CS4 apps, maybe I'll "trade up." And no, an iPhone doesn't count. Last I saw, it doesn't run Mac apps.
  • Reply 20 of 42
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post


    I suspect Apple will instead alter OS X to the point that it will run like molasses on Atom processors



    That won't take much. Atom runs most things like molasses.
Sign In or Register to comment.