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This discussion has been archived.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!

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by aardwolf64 (160070)

      The OP was saying that the original person saying it didn't work was crying wolf. How is that offtopic?

      • Re:WOLF! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:46PM (#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.
        • 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.

          • Explanation 3:
            Apple has an atom device in the works.....

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by UnknowingFool (672806)
              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.
          • Re:WOLF! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by tlhIngan (30335) <(ten.frow) (ta) (todhsals)> on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:24PM (#30000764)

            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.

            • by smash (1351)
              Yeah, i seriously doubt apple would have broken Atom support intentionally. I mean, sure - maybe on released os x media perhaps - but developer builds i wouldn't think so.

              Reasoning? They run os x on the iphone. They run OS X on appleTV, the ipod touch, and likely various other future devices. At least some of those potential future markets are likely to be well suited to the Atom processor.

          • by mr_josh (1001605)
            Well if you tested every scenario, you'd know about all of the bugs and vulnerabilities, now, wouldn't you? ;)
          • by burne (686114)

            You missed the third explanation.

            The single reporter that said Atom support was missing screwed up. He f*cked his sh*t up and cried wolf.

            WOLF! WOLF!

            HTH, HAND

    • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:05PM (#30000510)

      The dogcow says Moof not wolf

    • Apple still is a Wolf, right?

      I mean, sure, even if they apparently haven't done this, they still could, right?

      Why take a chance? Don't buy Apple's locked-down hard--- wait, that's the iPhone rant. Don't buy Apple's potentially locked-down software.

      • The phrase originates from a story where the crying of "WOLF! WOLF!" is about the wolf coming to town to devour the village – not that there are no wolves nearby, and certainly not that no wolves exist.

        Apple could still be a wolf (whether they are or aren't is debatable), but they're not coming to devour the village right now.

  • Veiled Threat (Score:5, Informative)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:40PM (#30000186)

    ...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...

    • tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum

      And prophesying.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by N3Roaster (888781)

      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.

      • by CrashNBrn (1143981) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:59PM (#30000428)
        So I went to the other thread, and searched for "+5 Comments".
        --> 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]

        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.

        • I guess you are new here. To search for the comments that N3Roaster mentioned, try searching the page for (Score:5 (include the opening parenthesis). Just make sure to edit them so that they actually apply to this article.
        • by PitaBred (632671)
          Being stupidly literal? Not that clever or funny.
      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        Oh, are there people who haven't maxed their karma?

        I thought killing off the numbered karma scale was supposed to cut down on that sort of thing. Silly me.

    • by sootman (158191)

      "OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now."

      Am I the only one who imagined hearing "dun dun DUNNNNN" when reading that?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      which reminds me of when RMS announced there was a backdoor in Apple software, then it was found to be false and he was spreading FUD. His retraction was like "yes I was wrong and sensationalist, but I was not really that wrong because there may be some undiscovered backdoor".

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      Not doing any worse than typical newspapers (of today and for the past two hundred years). But yes, yellow journalism makes me want to smack someone.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bonch (38532)

        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.

    • 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 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.

        • I'm confused... do you think you're arguing with me, or with someone else? Am I part of "you people"?
        • It's not an accident at all. Apple have clearly taken steps to try to ensure OS X doesn't work on anything but so-called "Apple Labelled" machines, as shown by the "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" kernel module included since Tiger.
        • Do you realize that atom supports the whole IA-32 instruction set (and x86-64 for some models)? Things can't just stop working on atom, Apple needed to actively prevent it from working. That's why this is slightly interesting (if it is true)...

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          You can bet Apple has OS X running on secret prototypes that use Atom processors.

          After all, they had OS X running on Intel for years before they decided to tell the rest of us about it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by idiot900 (166952) *

          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, 2009 @05:44PM (#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.

  • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    not to listen to unsourced blogs written by someone just because they might have overheard someone talking about it in a bar somewhere sometime. Quite why this was all over the internet is anyone's guess.

  • 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.
  • Tired of seeing nerds freak out over nothing. Wow, embarrassment.
  • 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...

Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.

Working...