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."
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday November 05, @04:46PM (#30000270)
Because the previous testing build had it removed, and the current testing build has re-added it. That's not crying wolf, that's saying "Hey, that's odd", and then having it go away.
Apple deliberately disabled Atom support. Due to bad PR, they reversed their position.
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.
Apple deliberately disabled Atom support. Due to bad PR, they reversed their position.
According to this MacRumors article [macrumors.com], the developer who complained about lack of Atom support was in Build 10C531 which was a week before Oct 27, when build 10C535 came out which works fine with Atom. The developer who complained about lack of Atom support posted his complaint a day before. We're at 10C540 now - which was released yesterday or today.
So to release the complaint a day before Apple releases a new build? In the few hours it takes to pick it up, Apple would then have to see all the "bad PR" and have time to fix it before the next build? (I suspect most of the "bad PR" happened after 10C535 came out.
At best, it would be they broke Atom support accidentally, at worst, some guy just couldn't update his Hackintosh properly.
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.
...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy... for now.
Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!
Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum. We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions. Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.
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.
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.
Their OS, until quite recently, had to work on x86, x86_64, PPC, PPC64, and ARM. Deliberately excluding one particular variant of one of these in a nontrivial way just means they will have to deal with increased complexity in their codebase, because the Hackintosh community is just going to work around it anyway. So it doesn't make business sense to do that.
Apple has had and continues to have many, many opportunities to do stuff in their OS that breaks it for non-Macs. They haven't yet, for good reason.
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.
I know MainStream Media pablum when I hear it... you guys are missing the real story: Apple broke Atom support to make it less likely that people would suspect their new Tablet will be running... an Atom! These guys are geniuses, that's for sure!!! (or I'm off my medication again).
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday November 05, @04:44PM (#30000254)
Goody! Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not. With luck, this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all. I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community.
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
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, @05:12PM (#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.
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!"
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.
But that $300 Netbook with the $50 profit margin will
#1 Sell ten times more than the $1000 tablet with a $300 profit margin. Thus earning $500 in profits for every ten Netbooks sold at $300 for every one $1000 Tablet sold with a $300 margin. Net sum of $200 more in profits.
#2 Raise the Apple marketshare of Mac OSX based devices.
#3 Put a lid on the Hackintosh market as a $300 Mac based Netbook is cheap enough to buy that even the stingiest of Hackintosh users can't pass up the $300 Mac OSX Netbook.
#1 Be a general POS compared to most Apple hardware and tarnish their brand.
#2 Canabalize the sales of their more expensive (and higher margin) laptops.
For that matter, I can't say I agree with your points:
#1 How many of those sales will come at the price of a $300 profit laptop or tablet? If they lose 1 high profit sale for every 5 low profit sales they gain, it's a losing strategy.
#2 If they honestly cared about market share over all else they would have taken t
I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be *really* stretching it.
Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.
I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.
Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker. Making a sub $1,000 netbook would be like Gucci making a handbag to be sold in Walmart.
So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?
Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.
1) All companies act in their own interests - that is the whole point! If those interests happen to coincide with the customer's then that is just a bonus. If I want a quick burger, McDonalds is going to sell be a quick burger. If I want a roast turkey dinner with all the trappings, McDonalds is going to sell a quick burger.
2) People with hackitoshes are, by definition, not Apple customers. OK, some people may go out a buy a copy of MacOSX, but I bet most people just "obtain" it or already have it.
iPod Touch is the only handheld video game system that 1. allows part-time developers to make and publish apps and 2. is sold in U.S. and European stores.
This description does not rise to any legal standard for judging a monopoly that I'm aware of. You're attempting to describe a market in such a way that no other products match the description. Contrast this with what you see, for example, in T. Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact [justice.gov] document in the DoJ v MS case. (Note how it is defined in terms of ma
Legal standards for judging a monopoly are described relative to a given country, not the worldwide market. So by considering legal standards alone, I can narrow the field to products marketed in one country. Because you mentioned United States v. Microsoft, I'll consider the United States market, composed of Nintendo DS, Sony's PSP, Apple's iPod Touch, and a few players that are collectively as insignificant as desktop Linux was a decade ago when US v. M$ was argued. Of these, Nintendo and Sony have a his
In order to assert your point, you've had to conflate Apple's competitors (Nintendo and Sony) with users of the iPhone SDK. If this were to go before a court, they would ask what Nintendo and Sony could do to compete if apple were to attempt to exercise their market power "soley in terms of price". If they raised the $99 annual fee, as you suggest, this would actually put the iPod Touch in the same market as the Nintendo and Sony platforms (mobile gaming platforms with a high barrier to entry). This cut
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.
Because of a license agreement with Microsoft that specified a max of 1GB of RAM and an 80GB HD (most got around that with splitting it into two or more partitions) to allow them to install Windows XP.
I'm not sure if the agreement has changed with the release of Windows 7 Starter.
That's like saying that Ubuntu is based directly on Unix, and I have seen Linux run on 12Mhz Mini Computers!
I promise, there is no way in HELL that your getting Ubuntu running on a 12Mhz Mini Computer. In fact, I'd wager that there isn't a Linux kernel that will work on an old 70's era Mini Computer (though I may be wrong).
Windows 7 is based on Windows NT, though I doubt you will be seeing Windows 7 running on a 386 with 12 MB of RAM like NT 3.5 did.
The Atom chip can't really compete with the first x86 CPU
I know an open source game developer who builds and tests new Mac OS X releases of his cross-platform game on a Hackintosh. Since it's a rather demanding 3D game, a Mac Mini wouldn't be up for the task. Getting a Mac Pro just to compile & test your hobby open source game just seems like a waste of money.
He's got beta testers with real Macs though. It seems to work out pretty well.
WOLF! (Score:3, Insightful)
WOLF! WOLF!
The dogcow says Moof not wolf (Score:5, Funny)
The dogcow says Moof not wolf
Parent
Re:The dogcow says Moof not wolf (Score:4, Funny)
Sosumi.
Parent
Re:WOLF! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:WOLF! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two likely explanations:
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.
Parent
Re:WOLF! (Score:5, Interesting)
According to this MacRumors article [macrumors.com], the developer who complained about lack of Atom support was in Build 10C531 which was a week before Oct 27, when build 10C535 came out which works fine with Atom. The developer who complained about lack of Atom support posted his complaint a day before. We're at 10C540 now - which was released yesterday or today.
So to release the complaint a day before Apple releases a new build? In the few hours it takes to pick it up, Apple would then have to see all the "bad PR" and have time to fix it before the next build? (I suspect most of the "bad PR" happened after 10C535 came out.
At best, it would be they broke Atom support accidentally, at worst, some guy just couldn't update his Hackintosh properly.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WOLF! (Score:4, Funny)
Man, stop trying to buz-kill my rumor mill. Trolling slashdot is all I got anymore. :)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How many times ?
US != World !!!
Veiled Threat (Score:5, Informative)
...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now.
Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!
Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum. We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions. Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.
I know. I know. I must be new here...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Indeed, you must be new here. The correct response is to go to the previous story, copy and paste some +5 comments, and rake in the karma.
+5 Comments, search in vain (Score:5, Funny)
--> Could not find text "+5 Comment"
Though, it was with Opera, maybe I need FireFox?
I did find a +5 Comment in this thread though: [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re:Veiled Threat (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Imaginations are running wild here! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Their OS, until quite recently, had to work on x86, x86_64, PPC, PPC64, and ARM. Deliberately excluding one particular variant of one of these in a nontrivial way just means they will have to deal with increased complexity in their codebase, because the Hackintosh community is just going to work around it anyway. So it doesn't make business sense to do that.
Apple has had and continues to have many, many opportunities to do stuff in their OS that breaks it for non-Macs. They haven't yet, for good reason.
Conspiracy Theory: Atom will power new tablet (Score:3, Funny)
I know MainStream Media pablum when I hear it... you guys are missing the real story: Apple broke Atom support to make it less likely that people would suspect their new Tablet will be running... an Atom! These guys are geniuses, that's for sure!!! (or I'm off my medication again).
What a wonderful opportunity! (Score:5, Funny)
Goody! Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not. With luck, this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all. I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community.
Don't count on Atom support... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't count on Atom support... (Score:4, Funny)
Face it peeps, only Linux or Windows are man enough.
Well. Except for Windows.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Linux is too mainstream to be man. Try OpenSolaris.
Not supporting v Disabling (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Apple are EVIL!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.
Parent
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
You sir win this whole discussion. There are not enough mod points in the world for you.
Parent
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When was the last time you heard a rumor that Microsoft was disabling support for some line of processors on Windows?
Back when they dropped support for NT on MIPS and Alpha? :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
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$.
Parent
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But that $300 Netbook with the $50 profit margin will
#1 Sell ten times more than the $1000 tablet with a $300 profit margin. Thus earning $500 in profits for every ten Netbooks sold at $300 for every one $1000 Tablet sold with a $300 margin. Net sum of $200 more in profits.
#2 Raise the Apple marketshare of Mac OSX based devices.
#3 Put a lid on the Hackintosh market as a $300 Mac based Netbook is cheap enough to buy that even the stingiest of Hackintosh users can't pass up the $300 Mac OSX Netbook.
#4 Apple r
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
#1 Be a general POS compared to most Apple hardware and tarnish their brand.
#2 Canabalize the sales of their more expensive (and higher margin) laptops.
For that matter, I can't say I agree with your points:
#1 How many of those sales will come at the price of a $300 profit laptop or tablet? If they lose 1 high profit sale for every 5 low profit sales they gain, it's a losing strategy.
#2 If they honestly cared about market share over all else they would have taken t
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be *really* stretching it.
Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.
Parent
And cheapen the brand?! Gucci in Walmart. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The 13" macbook pro is their "netbook"...
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Anti-trust? Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold? (Other than a monopoly on nice design. :)
Parent
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:Monopoly on handhelds with semi-open developmen (Score:3, Interesting)
iPod Touch is the only handheld video game system that 1. allows part-time developers to make and publish apps and 2. is sold in U.S. and European stores.
This description does not rise to any legal standard for judging a monopoly that I'm aware of. You're attempting to describe a market in such a way that no other products match the description. Contrast this with what you see, for example, in T. Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact [justice.gov] document in the DoJ v MS case. (Note how it is defined in terms of ma
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Legal standards for judging a monopoly are described relative to a given country, not the worldwide market. So by considering legal standards alone, I can narrow the field to products marketed in one country. Because you mentioned United States v. Microsoft, I'll consider the United States market, composed of Nintendo DS, Sony's PSP, Apple's iPod Touch, and a few players that are collectively as insignificant as desktop Linux was a decade ago when US v. M$ was argued. Of these, Nintendo and Sony have a his
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In order to assert your point, you've had to conflate Apple's competitors (Nintendo and Sony) with users of the iPhone SDK. If this were to go before a court, they would ask what Nintendo and Sony could do to compete if apple were to attempt to exercise their market power "soley in terms of price". If they raised the $99 annual fee, as you suggest, this would actually put the iPod Touch in the same market as the Nintendo and Sony platforms (mobile gaming platforms with a high barrier to entry). This cut
Re:Just a reminder from Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I just wish people would educate themselves on what constitutes a "trust" worthy of having anti-trust applied to it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From what I've read, the 1GB RAM is more a problem than the Atom CPU.
Re:Atom (Score:4, Informative)
Because of a license agreement with Microsoft that specified a max of 1GB of RAM and an 80GB HD (most got around that with splitting it into two or more partitions) to allow them to install Windows XP.
I'm not sure if the agreement has changed with the release of Windows 7 Starter.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? this is madness! I hate microsoft even more now.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
WTF? this is madness! I hate microsoft even more now.
Ballmer: Madness?? THIS . IS . MICROSOFT!!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's like saying that Ubuntu is based directly on Unix, and I have seen Linux run on 12Mhz Mini Computers!
I promise, there is no way in HELL that your getting Ubuntu running on a 12Mhz Mini Computer. In fact, I'd wager that there isn't a Linux kernel that will work on an old 70's era Mini Computer (though I may be wrong).
Windows 7 is based on Windows NT, though I doubt you will be seeing Windows 7 running on a 386 with 12 MB of RAM like NT 3.5 did.
The Atom chip can't really compete with the first x86 CPU
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know an open source game developer who builds and tests new Mac OS X releases of his cross-platform game on a Hackintosh. Since it's a rather demanding 3D game, a Mac Mini wouldn't be up for the task. Getting a Mac Pro just to compile & test your hobby open source game just seems like a waste of money.
He's got beta testers with real Macs though. It seems to work out pretty well.