Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

OQO Hacker Claims World's Smallest OS X Machine

Posted by timothy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 08:19 AM
from the blurry-youtube-always-convinces-me dept.
Portables (Apple) OS X Operating Systems Hardware Hacking Hardware
TechRadar writes "A hacker has turned his OQO ultraportable into the world's smallest Mac running Leopard. 'I will warn you this project is not for the plug and play crowd but definitely do-able,' the hacker, 'TRF' says. Interesting, given the OQO was designed by ex-Apple employees." It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac.
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: OQO UMPC turned into world's smallest Mac by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

OQO Hacker Claims World's Smallest OS X Machine 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Apple already has that beat (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:23AM (#23237060)
    My iPod Touch is running a cut-down version of OS X, and it's even smaller.
  • Given that the OS is what most people interact with all day, is it really so wrong to call it a Mac? Most the purported Mac advantages are to do with usability after all. You're certainly getting more of the Mac experience than a PC one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Farmer Tim (530755)
      You're certainly getting more of the Mac experience than a PC one.

      Having installed OS X on an EeePC, I'd say all you're getting is an Aqua interface for a PC experience. When it's completely painless and everything "just works" I might agree with you.

  • Time for Apple to cede some control? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:24AM (#23237074)
    Clones like this and the Psystar [macobserver.com] machine must have Jobs and the other control freaks at Apple screaming bloody murder right now. For years, their bread-and-butter has been tying their OS to their (IMHO overpriced) hardware. Now it seems that a lot of people are getting sick of it (if the preorders at Psystar are any indication, a *LOT* of people). Not only that, but the more heavy-handed Apple gets, the more they risk that cool-chique image as they appear more and more like just another greedy corporation (i.e., more like MS).

    It might well be time for them to consider doing what they could have done years ago, realeasing a general version of Leopard that will run on non-Apple PC's. They might even consider doing an "Apple Certified" program for Dell and other companies wanting to offer OS X as an option for their customers. If their hardware is truly superior, then it won't cost them much hardware business and will cut deeply into Windows' market dominance. In the end, everyone would win--most noteably the consumer (and those who like building their own machines).

    • Re:Time for Apple to cede some control? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by peragrin (659227) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:30AM (#23237150)
      This isn't a clone, it's hack like installing netBSD on a toaster, with a remote bread loader.

      Second neither this or Pystar systems can receive updates via Apple system updater.

      Thirdly Pystar has pissed off the guy who makes the OS X boot on generic hardware software. I am waiting for him to sue Pystar, Apple won't even have to get their hands dirty.

    • Uhm, so how many have preordered psystars systems? Compared to the amount of machines Apple sell? Compared to total PC sales?

      I already have a hack-compatible mac system, and a real macbook pro, and I would never buy psystars system, and can't understand why anyone else does either.
    • And btw Apple would probably not "win-win", atleast they don't seem to think so. And it's Apples property so they don't give a shit about what you belive.
      • Well, I'm assuming they one day want to gain at least a modicum of market share. They're certainly not going to do it by forever staying in the niche.

        Now, maybe they like it in the niche market. But I doubt it. And it certainly doesn't help consumers.

        • Re:Time for Apple to cede some control? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ObiWanKenblowme (718510) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:56AM (#23237424)
          Maybe they'll start to worry more about market share once they're done counting the piles and piles of money they're currently making. Seriously, how hard is it to grasp that market share != financial success, and financial success != market share?
        • I think Apple is playing a different game than you imagine them to be playing. Market share isn't as important as influence. They aren't playing Monopoly or Risk, but instead it's a sort of race game where the goal is to lead the pack in "coolness points".

          I think that's been the source of the friction between Microsoft and Apple since the Seventies: Apple was more interested in making neat stuff, whereas Microsoft has always been about the profits and dominating the market.
          • No, the goal is to make a huge profit. Coolness doesn't have shit to do with it, unless it makes you more money.

            Of course both wanted profits, it's just that Apple failed more so to speak. And yes, back in the days Steve Jobs may have cared about what the consumers wanted/should be getting. Nowadays it seems less so.
            • That's the meta-game. The game which rewards how well you play the chosen game.

              Microsoft: "We can ensure long-term value by dominating the playing field!" (the Monopoly/Risk way)

              Apple: "We can ensure long-term value by being better and doing new, cool stuff!" (the race/exploration game way)

              Both methods are risky. Microsoft's risk is that they trap themselves into only defining themselves through comparison. Apple risks ignoring the competition too much. But in the end, I think Apple's approach is better in
          • I seriously doubt Apple shareholders would buy the "Sure we could be making you more money, but what we really want to do is make cool stuff" argument.
        • If they can choose from say 80$ in profit of average OS sale, $150 for OS + low-end designed PC or $600 for high-end PC with some options I wouldn't be so sure about that.

          Two years ago everyone was complaining how dead Nintendo was because their sales was so low, but atleast they made a profit of their products. Sure Microsoft sold more Xboxes, but at a loss ... And sure Sony sold more consoles, but they (eventually, I don't remember the numbers, so don't trust me on this one:) didn't earned as much money.

          A

    • Not only that, but the more heavy-handed Apple gets, the more they risk that cool-chique image as they appear more and more like just another greedy corporation (i.e., more like MS).

      Most people interested in hardware Apple doesn't already sell are techies/enthusiasts and businesses. None of them should hold any illusions about Apple being anything other than another greedy corporation (just like Microsoft).

      If their hardware is truly superior, then it won't cost them much hardware business [...]

      Of cour

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dogzilla (83896)
      What makes you say that "a lot of" people are "sick of it"? It seems pretty clear that a majority of people buy Macs because they don't want to deal with the hassle attached to using Windows and Linux computers. Hacking OSX to run on non-Apple hardware isn't easy, so the folks doing aren't really Apple's target market anyway. In any case, I find it hard to believe that the folks jumping through these hoops represent "a lot of people".

      Let me repeat that because so few people seem to get it: hackers are not

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by trolltalk.com (1108067)

      Clones like this and the Psystar machine must have Jobs and the other control freaks at Apple screaming bloody murder right now.

      I doubt it. The psystar is a *noisy* pc, the first thing most people notice about the iMac is it's QUIET!

      People will pay a couple of hundred bucks for quiet, hardware and software support, updates, and the ability to just walk into a brick-and-mortar and pick one up off the shelf, etc.

    • Can't fight the Hackers without getting even more fascist than Apple already is right now.

      Might as well license an OEM copy of OSX to a few PC Makers, in exchange for 10% of the sale and a small fee per machine OSX is installed on.

      Apple makes most of its money via iPods, iPhones, iTunes, etc now. It isn't the old 1990's Apple that bled money via Newton, Printer, Scanner, Pippin, etc support and sales that cost more to support than they brought in. That is what really killed the Mac Clones in the first place
    • They won't do it because of two and a half fundamental reasons:

      1. MSOffice
      2. Profit Margins
      3. History as Computer Maker

      If Apple put MacOS onto other machines, MS would pull support for MSOffice on MacOS in a New York Nanosecond. That would seriously batter Apple computer sales, because many of us (myself included) are forced by our employers to use MSOffice. Yes, OpenOffice is a lovely thing, but our IT dept and management doesn't give a flying fuck about OpenOffice, and never will. It's an MS shop an

      • Please point me towards a Dell laptop with motion sensors.
      • Indeed. It's almost laughable the veiled attempt at pseudo-elitism.

        It might run Mac OS X, but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac.

        No shit. To be a Mac it needs to be made by Apple. And perhaps have a faulty wireless card (yes, I have a MacBook, and that shitty Airport is a recurring problem, "just works" doesn't really extend to wireless [google.com]).

        There is nothing that separates a "Mac" from a PC: the Mac is, for all purposes, an Intel, IBM-compatible PC. Generally the Mac fans say that "OSX makes the Mac", but when they see OSX running on non-Apple PCs then confusion settles and vague sentences appear, like the above, that seem to be based on some mystical characteristic of a "Mac".
        • wrong - the cases are unique to Apple.

          oh - you meant the guts ;)
        • The Apple Mac is a known hardware platform.

          This adds stability since Apple doesn't have to worry about every $10 video card in existence working on it.

          Make it work on generic PC hardware will likely decrease the stability of the OS.

          Apple certified systems is interesting, in that they would probably only certify closed systems that are not readily extensible.
      • What does the binary language of the CPU have to do with the quality of the hardware? Who cares? By "quality hardware", I'm sure that we would mean something more important than that.
        • By "quality hardware", I'm sure that we would mean something more important than that.

          Indeed. My Thinkpad had my Macbook Pro beat to hell in the quality of the hardware. It was more solidly built, had a far superior keyboard, and came with a mini dock (port extender) so I could just bring it in to work in the morning and set it down and go straight to work... no fumbling around for cables or having the stupid "magsafe" connector come out without my noticing it when someone drops a pile of books on my desk..

      • Re:Superior Hardware? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nano2nd (205661) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @09:05AM (#23237538) Homepage
        I'm a long time Mac user who recently made the switch - to a Hackintosh. The OS really is central to the Apple proposition. But.. the hardware is also a big part of it - in terms of the reliability that only comes with total control of hardware and software.

        Hardware is also important in terms of the user's perception of quality. I'm using the Apple Cinema Display I previously used on my Powermac and it is still far superior to the Samsung panel I bought recently for my kid.

        But all that said, I like the fact that my Hackintosh cost me a lot less than the new top of the range iMac (granted, I already owned the Cinema Display), and it still outperforms the real deal.

        However, 10.5.3 may be the end of the road for Hackintosh as I'm sure all the recent noise around this and Psystar will have Apple bringing down the hammer and breaking OS X for non-Apple hardware very soon.

      • Most interesting to me is the processor - it's not AMD or Intel - it's a Via C7M. Via owns Centaur technology, the Texas based owner of the Cyrix IP, which they acquired from National Semiconductor. They still release chips 2-3 generations behind the leaders at larger form factors, but apparently quality control is much better than Cyrix (at least I haven't read of anything horrible about them).

        I didn't even know that chip supported SSE2 or better, but that was ignorance (see wiki [wikipedia.org])

  • iPhone? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:25AM (#23237082)
    I'm pretty sure the iPhone is the smallest machine running OS X.

    Yes, it's kind of kiosk-style, but it is OS X.
  • The artical doesn't give dimensions or shoe something in the picture for size comparisons, so it may be the smallest but is it the size of a football pitch or the size of an apple?
  • Why oh why does everyone insist on using Wikipeda links instead of direct company links?
    • My guess is that Wiki links are more "trustworthy". That means they look less like pure PR (or like a misleading goatse-like link). Wikipedia isn't unimpeachable, but more flagrant troll-edits would get quashed soon.

      There's another thing that may play a role here as well: slashdotting the site. The Wiki can handle the tonnes of Slashdotters out to RTFA (including all 23 of you who actually read it) better than a small company or a private page can.

      Hmmm, now that I think of it, that /.-effect deflection make
    • So, for instance, You'd prefer this [wikipedia.org] to this? [wikipedia.org]

  • hm (Score:4, Funny)

    by virgil_disgr4ce (909068) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:31AM (#23237164) Homepage
    Is the new /. meme going to be "does it run OS X?"

    --Ted

  • The new black? (Score:3, Funny)

    by pzs (857406) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:33AM (#23237192)

    Is cramming MacOS onto a wholly unsuitable machine the new version of doing the same thing with Linux?

    I want a dock on my watch and my microwave to make that *DNNGGG!* noise when I open the door.

    • Re:The new black? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ford Prefect (8777) on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:59AM (#23237458) Homepage

      Is cramming MacOS onto a wholly unsuitable machine the new version of doing the same thing with Linux?

      I'm reminded of this [mactalk.com.au] - Mac OS X running on a Centris 650. 68MB RAM, 25MHz 68040.

      No, not even a PowerPC processor. Fully software emulation.

      Running? Well, booting. Sort of. Excruciatingly, glacially slowly!
  • The article links to a fuzzy YouTube video [youtube.com] of the device going through what looks like a boot loader, then booting Leopard, then flipping through a variety of Mac applications.One can also hear what I think are the OQO's fans working overtime to keep up.

    The video looks credible, but it would be nice if it were recorded with something that could focus in closer.
  • Hackintoshes apparently are Slashdot-worthy now. Ridiculous.

    As with relation to this post, 90% of the work is done with the hacked ISO of Leopard you get off where you want (Google is your friend) by people like Zephyroth. He might have done a little hacking, but I do not care really. This is not ground-breaking. The Psystar article was more ground-breaking because if Psystar exists it is a company trying to market 'clone Macs' without sanction from Apple. I bravely say, anyone (who knows about osx86 and on
    • Lol, I love the way you say Slashdot-worthy, like slashdot is some great and highbrow institution. Hello, Lego cases are slashdot worthy. Saying 'Slashdot-worthy' is like saying Karaoke-worthy, or gutter-worthy, or rubbish bin-worthy.

  • "It might run Mac OS X..." (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 29 2008, @08:54AM (#23237406)
    "but one thing this OQO is not is a Mac."

    Forget the weird grammatical structure, what exactly is this supposed to mean? That it runs OS X poorly? That it is not Apple hardware? That it's not authorized? Thanks for the enlightening comment Timothy!

    "I just put my dick in your moms mouth, but one thing your mom is not is a condom."
  • I don't understand people tagging stuff like this "hard hack". Sure, it's not as trivial as installing XP or even Linux or some flavor of BSD, but let's see. Is there any original development done? Nope... just leveraging existing OSx86 work and other odds and ends around Darwin/x86. You're doing the work of an OEM. All you need to do is find a hardare platform reasonably close to one of the Macs (not hard, it's all Intel based), or pluck and pick some third-party drivers. Yay. Is it a hack? Yes. Hard hac

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.