Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Hardware Hacking Intel Software Apple Build

Apple Not Disabling OS X Atom Support After All 275

Posted by timothy
from the If-you-like-that-sort-of-thing dept.
bonch writes "Contrary to previous reports, Atom chip support is working fine in the latest 10C535 build of OS X 10.6.2. Apple's EULA still states that OS X is licensed to run only on Apple hardware, but it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Not Disabling OS X Atom Support After All

Comments Filter:
  • WOLF! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by russotto (537200) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:37PM (#30000148) Journal

    WOLF! WOLF!

  • by aardwolf64 (160070) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:41PM (#30000194) Homepage

    Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.

  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:43PM (#30000228) Homepage Journal

    I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.

  • by onefriedrice (1171917) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:54PM (#30000368)
    Don't hold your breath.
  • by Devout_IPUite (1284636) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:54PM (#30000370)

    You sir win this whole discussion. There are not enough mod points in the world for you.

  • Re:WOLF! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:02PM (#30000474)

    There are two likely explanations:

    1. Apple deliberately disabled Atom support. Due to bad PR, they reversed their position.
    2. Apple unintentionally introduced bugs that disabled Atom support. Hearing from developers, they quietly fixed it.

    I don't know about you but as a developer I only test the most likely scenarios before I pass it on to QA. I don't test every scenario real or imagined. In this case, Atom isn't officially supported by Apple and so the Apple developers probably didn't bother to ensure it would on Atom. When they heard that it didn't work, they went back and discovered why. Most likely the bug would cause other issues. So they fixed it.

  • Re:Veiled Threat (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:03PM (#30000490) Homepage

    One specific development build of OSX didn't work properly on a completely unsupported platform, affecting perhaps tens of people nationwide. Subsequent builds did not exhibit this problem. News at 11.

    Of course some people are going to flip out and claim Apple is doing something evil. When it gets fixed in a later build, someone is probably going to claim that Apple backed down due to the outrage of Hackintosh owners. In reality, it's entirely possible that they had a bug in a development build that unintentionally broke Atom support, and then fixed the bug and unintentionally restored Atom support.

  • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:04PM (#30000498) Homepage

    I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.

    But perhaps not big enough of a market for the big guy. Perhaps he would like to sell you a 10" tablet for $1000 with a $300 profit margin than a $300 netbook with a $50 profit margin*.

    *Numbers completely pulled out of the air, and not a MacBook Air, those numbers would be even higher.

  • by That's Unpossible! (722232) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:05PM (#30000520)

    Anti-trust? Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold? (Other than a monopoly on nice design. :)

  • by jht (5006) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:07PM (#30000538) Homepage Journal

    Look, Apple doesn't use the Atom in any products. Ergo, there's no guarantee that a shipping version of Mac OS X will support it. Since Atom is basically just a stripped-down x86, it probably will continue to run but no promises.

    Just to remind everyone, Apple builds Macs. Macs are not available in every possible x86/chipset combo. Just a handful. That's one of the reasons why Macs are typically pretty reliable, but also why the average frankencomputer can't run OS X reliably.

    Yes, Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you don't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac. Yes, they won't come after you with lawyers if you make a hackintosh. Yes, they will come after you if you then try to sell them (like Psystar). And yes, licenses like Apple's are restrictive.

    But no, they aren't under any obligation at all to provide support for any computer other than what they expressly state on the box to be compatible and licensed. Which, in the case of Snow Leopard, is:

    - Mac computer with an Intel processor
    - 1GB of memory
    - 5GB of available disk space
    - DVD drive for installation

    And all the other specs are on:

    http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html [apple.com]

    If your computer doesn't fit that description, you're SOL. Period. If Snow Leopard runs now on your Atom-based netbook and 10.6.2 winds up killing it, suck it up or stick to 10.6.1. So it goes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:12PM (#30000604)

    There is a big difference between these two terms. Its ok for Apple to not support hardware that is not theirs. Its another thing to go out of your way, put time and resources into not allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product.

  • Never ascribe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sbeckstead (555647) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:14PM (#30000644) Homepage Journal
    Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Or a bug in the code either works for me.
  • by sbeckstead (555647) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:20PM (#30000702) Homepage Journal
    I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads.
    I just wish people would educate themselves on what constitutes a "trust" worthy of having anti-trust applied to it.
  • by Duradin (1261418) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:20PM (#30000706)

    I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be *really* stretching it.

    Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.

  • by NoYob (1630681) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:31PM (#30000838)
    In reality, it's entirely possible that they had a bug in a development build that unintentionally broke Atom support, and then fixed the bug and unintentionally restored Atom support.

    Apple has no products that use the Atom, correct? So, there was never a bug or a feature

    So, what makes everyone think that Apple is even concerned about anything to do with the Atom? They're developing their software for their products. If it just so happens to work on some other hardware, it's an accident. If a build doesn't work on other hardware, it's an accident. If it works again on a subsequent build, it's an accident.

    God, you people are turning a non-issue into one.

  • Re:WOLF! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by calmofthestorm (1344385) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:31PM (#30000846)

    It's not piracy if you buy it. It's well established that EULAs are not legally binding.

  • Re:WOLF! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:34PM (#30000872)
    That may be so but working as a developer I know that sometimes supported platforms are inadvertently broken in developer builds. Anyone who has a hackintosh really should not complain too much that their unsupported platform suffers a glitch with a developer's build.
  • by NoYob (1630681) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:35PM (#30000888)

    I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.

    Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker. Making a sub $1,000 netbook would be like Gucci making a handbag to be sold in Walmart.

  • by maxume (22995) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:45PM (#30001008)

    Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.

  • by AndrewStephens (815287) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @07:15PM (#30001364) Homepage

    Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.

    1) All companies act in their own interests - that is the whole point! If those interests happen to coincide with the customer's then that is just a bonus. If I want a quick burger, McDonalds is going to sell be a quick burger. If I want a roast turkey dinner with all the trappings, McDonalds is going to sell a quick burger.

    2) People with hackitoshes are, by definition, not Apple customers. OK, some people may go out a buy a copy of MacOSX, but I bet most people just "obtain" it or already have it.

    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

    Indeed

  • Re:Veiled Threat (Score:2, Insightful)

    by bonch (38532) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @08:05PM (#30001738)

    Yellow journalism?! For crying out loud, it was a facetious remark. It's common sense not to expect OS X to always support non-Apple hardware.

    Besides, I'm not a journalist, and this isn't a newspaper. It's a user-submitted content site.

  • by westlake (615356) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @09:16PM (#30002166)

    Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.

    In one line you sum up why Apple has no interest in seeing OSX become the system builder's OS of choice.

  • Apple are EVIL!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GrahamCox (741991) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @10:30PM (#30002592) Homepage
    iTunes LP format is closed and you have to pay $10,000 to Apple to have them make you one! Apple are EVIL!!

    Oh wait, they released the format specs and anyone can make one.

    OK, they took from open source and added Grand Central Dispatch without giving back to the community! Apple are EVIL!!

    Oh wait, they released the GCD sources to Darwin.

    OK, they nobbled the Atom processor in the latest OS build so people can't run Mac OS on some no-name brand PC! Apple are EVIL!!

    Oh wait, it was probably just a bug.

    And so on, and so on...
  • Re:WOLF! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by base3 (539820) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @11:15PM (#30002790)
    The GPL is not a EULA and you know it. It's a distribution license (i.e. to RUN a GPLd program, the end user needn't agree to it) and it's raison d'être is being a hack to turn copyright on itself--in order for the GPL to be invalid, so must be copyright law itself.
  • Re:Atom (Score:3, Insightful)

    by McGiraf (196030) on Friday November 06, 2009 @12:20AM (#30003002) Homepage

    WTF? this is madness! I hate microsoft even more now.

  • by mgblst (80109) on Friday November 06, 2009 @02:33AM (#30003410) Homepage

    Maybe, maybe not. You can't say for sure.

    It would also cannibalise other Mac laptops, so they would lose quite a bit as well. You guys always seem to forget that.

    It would also mean more support calls to Apple, more genius visits, more unhappy people. How do you put a price on that.

    Try to look at the big picture for once.

  • Re:WOLF! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by theun4gven (1024069) on Friday November 06, 2009 @09:28AM (#30004914)

    Are the released known beforehand? Would he have known there'd be a new version the next day?

    No, but I think you are missing his point. Apple released a build that fixed Atom support the day after the report about losing Atom support came out. He's saying that this implies the fix had nothing to do with bad PR since there wasn't enough time for the bad PR to occur, Apple to come up with a fix, implement it, and release it in only one day.

  • by Golddess (1361003) on Friday November 06, 2009 @11:39AM (#30006012)
    Riiight, because whenever a Microsoft OS BSODs, people never think "Microsoft fucked up my machine! It wasn't that driver that I just installed, it was Microsoft!"
  • Re:Atom (Score:3, Insightful)

    by McGiraf (196030) on Friday November 06, 2009 @10:44PM (#30012112) Homepage

    it;s 1Gig and I do no care how much ram windows support, windows is off faster than the stickers when i buy a netbook. And no, the same model without windows was not avaiable. They probably do not get the "cheaper OEM version of their OS" if they do not install it on all of them. So thay are limiting hardware choices on top of steeling my money with the microsoft tax.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -- William James

Working...