OS X Update Officially Kills Intel Atom Support 610
bonch writes "After apparently disabling and then re-enabling support for the Atom chipset in test builds of their 10.6.2 update, Apple has officially disabled support for the chipset in the final update. This makes it impossible for OSX86 users to run 10.6.2 on their Atom-based netbooks until a modified kernel shows up."
Re:No biggie (Score:3, Interesting)
Tightens the code and all that.
I must be unfamiliar with the x86 architecture. Can you explain to me how blacklisting x86 devices as opposed to other x86 devices "tightens the code and all that"?
Maybe they should just build a white list that checks the firmware of the motherboard to make sure that the device is an approved "user experience" device before booting? I mean, they're suing Psystar when they could just let the problem take care of itself, right?
In my opinion what Apple is doing is bad for the market and bad for end consumers who want choices. They should explicitly state their product's system requirements and let the consumer decide (like everyone else). Sure, they think they're protecting us from bad situations but where will that mothering stop and at what cost?
Re:No biggie (Score:3, Interesting)
You see, the Atom is an X86 (or, on some, X86-64) based processor, so they didn't have to change their code at all for it to work on it in the first place. Now, they must look at the Processor ID and specifically disable support.
Bill
Re:Dell Zino (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No biggie (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dell Zino (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely not, Apple has sold machines and sells machines to that demographic already. It's netbooks that challenge Apple, because they don't actually offer anything in that market.
Not in Darwin? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing that, since the actual kernel is open source [apple.com] that they are doing some additional check further up the chain in a non-open source module. Otherwise wouldn't it be trivial to do a diff, search for the code that checks for the stepping, and if it's an Atom, call exit(0)?
Re:Start complaining, "free" software people (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple's kernel is OPEN SOURCE, isn't it? Isn't the whole theory of open source that if something doesn't work for you, go write some code to make it work? If folks are so pissed that the Xnu kernel that underlies MacOS X is now missing Atom support, then why not go add atom support, recompile your kernel, and use your own kernel?
I haven't installed a custom-compiled Xnu kernel on my own MacOS X box in a couple years, but as I recall the process isn't even very onerous...
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2, Interesting)
They own the copyright on the OS,...
Yes, they do
so they can tell you how they want you to use it.
They can tell you anything they like; it doesn't necessarily have any legal force.
In some jurisdictions EULAs (I assume that's want you're referring to) are completely unenforceable and you can do anything that basic copyright law allows (e.g. run it on any machine you like but not make copies for others); in other jurisdictions specific EULA clauses may be partly or wholly invalidated by consumer law. As far as I am aware there is *no* jurisdiction in which a EULA is automatically fully enforceable even if it conflicts with other laws or is impossible or unreasonable to follow.
There seems to be a significant strand of opinion on slashdot that believes that *every* clause in Apple's EULAs automatically have the full force of law beind them in every respect and that *any* EULA 'breach' automatically means you are illegally running the Apple software in breach of copyright law, which is a pretty bizarre position not supported by case law.
Re:Mods on crack today? (Score:3, Interesting)
(shrug)
Amigas had plug-n-play back in 1985. I always find it amusing when Mac or IBM PC users get all excited about stuff I was already doing in the 80s. "Hey look. My OSX can do true preemptive multitasking!" or "My Linux can detect when I plug in my printer!"
"That's nice. Been there; done that."
Re:Start complaining, "free" software people (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay.
Switch your Debian laptop to 640x480 mode. Done? Now change it back to your previous resolution without using some secret keyboard combo. It can't be done because the Desktop Properties window doesn't fit in the 480p height, and therefore no way to mouse-click the "okay" button. I got stuck like that for several hours until finally I said "fuck it" and reinstalled the whole damn OS from a CD.
So much for your "user friendly" claim.
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2, Interesting)
You had me up until here:
They own the copyright on the OS, so they can tell you how they want you to use it.
Because, no; no they can't. Once I've bought it, I can do with it as I please, including hacking it to make it compatible with my hardware.
Re: load of crock? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not completely. Sure, Apple is a *business* and as such, they're very interested in turning a good profit.
But to say they don't really care about the "user experience" as long as they rake in a lot of money? There are FAR too many facts that refute it to genuinely make that claim.
I'll give you just one story from last week. A woman I know convinced her best female friend to purchase an Apple Macbook, when she was in the market for a new laptop last year. (She already owned an iMac she was really pleased with, and wanted her friend to switch to Mac too so they'd be running the same type of computer, not have all the potential virus or spyware issues, etc.)
Well, unfortunately, her friend isn't very computer literate in the first place, and on top of that, it seems her Macbook's chicklet keyboard had an issue with one of the letter keys sticking occasionally. She managed to screw all sorts of things up that were simply user-error (locked herself out of visiting any web sites while trying to play with the parental controls feature, for example), and kept getting frustrated. The Apple store was a good 1 1/2 hour drive away from her house, making matters worse. When she did vist, the Genius Bar people helped straighten out her software issues ... but she was still upset about the sticking keyboard key. They had her mail it back to Apple for service at that point, but for some reason, Apple shipped it back without her issue being addressed.
So at THIS point, despite it all being relatively minor stuff - she was PISSED at Apple and their products and service. She stormed back to the Apple store to complain about the repair not being done properly, and you know what? They "bent some rules" for her, and swapped her for a BRAND NEW Macbook Pro which had more RAM, a better graphics card, faster processor and more drive space than her low-end Macbook that was just out of the 1 year warranty!
Now she's finally "seen the light" on Apple customer service, and is buying an iMac as her next desktop machine at Xmas time.
There's a reason Apple consistently gets top ratings in magazines like Consumer Reports for customer service. They screw things up like ALL companies do, but they're known for resolving issues to people's satisfaction, eventually ... not just saying "Sucks to be you!" or wasting hours of your time on hold with someone who can't speak your language very well, reading off a card to you.
Re:No biggie (Score:4, Interesting)
"If its 'similar' and not 'the same', (I don't know, I am taking your word for it) "
If that was the case, Microsoft would have to provide a special version of XP, Vista and 7 just for netbooks, which clearly they don't: you can install the common x86 or x64 version on any Atom cpu.
XP particularly was made before the Atoms appeared, so it would never work.
Re:If this were another company... (Score:5, Interesting)
Part of the reason Microsoft got shat on was its history.
1. They illegally tied the sale of Windows to the sale of MS-DOS, a product which they had a number of legitimate competitors for.
2. When they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they voluntarily settled rather than go to court. Part of their settlement was they would never ever tie their products together in that way again.
3. They then loosely tied IE (an existing product with an existing competitor) into Windows 95.
On the reverse side of this coin, as much as we might have liked it if they had, Apple has never really had a legitimate competitor to their hardware or OS. The only "Mac clones" that were ever legally sold were still licensed by Apple. Additionally, they've never explictly agreed not to tie their products together in order to avoid a spanking from the Department of Justice.
I'm not a particular fan of Apple, the company is just as arrogant as MS. And though I haven't seen as much unethical behavior (just agressive asshattery) from them as from MS, they still stomp all over the consumer and their rights as a matter of routine.
That said, comparing MS's antitrust trials to Apples current situation shows either a lack of perspective and history or a talent at hyperbole.
Re:It's about money (Score:3, Interesting)
OS X was never meant to be compatible on that hardware, and hackers have to use all sorts of tricks to get it to run. I looked into it myself, at one point. It wasn't a trivial procedure, even then.
As for your use of the word monopoly, it's essentially meaningless. Many companies have a "monopoly" on the particular product they sell, in the sense that they're the only supplier of that particular product. And many companies go to great lengths to protect the unique nature of their product. You've defined the "market" too narrowly. Of course Apple has a "monopoly" on Apple products, that's a tautology, not an argument. There is no moral or legal reason for Apple to make its OS compatible with any other hardware.
Using the term monopoly the way you do is abusing a term of art. Would you think it okay if I referred to Apple's computers (or worse, monitors) as CPU's or hard-drives? It's not a nitpick to correct your usage of the term when that term -- and its meaning -- is at the heart of your argument.
Re:It's about money (Score:3, Interesting)
Forget about the word monopoly if you prefer. It's a small point.
You used it. You've been around here long enough to know better than to try mis-using a term of art to make a point. Suck it up, low-UID-boy. :-p
The important point is that OSX is tied to Apple hardware through artificial means, and that Apple does this in order to protect its position as the sole supplier of hardware that can run OSX without the need to circumvent Apple's anti-competitive technical measures.
Ah, the meat of the argument (you'll note that I said essentially the same thing somewhere up there, but without the moral pissiness). So here's my question.
What's wrong with that?
Re: Any other company? (Score:3, Interesting)
what USB device has Palm broken?
Re:No biggie (Score:3, Interesting)
for apple to deliberately disable their systems from working is just not nice.
But they didn't disable anyone's systems from working, all they did was prevent them from updating to the next version of OS X. As long as the netbook Hackintoshers use their current version of OS X, their machines will continue to work. There's no legitimate reason--ethical, legal or otherwise--that Apple should be obligated to continue supporting a processor they don't use in any of their own products.
Re:No biggie (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like the Atom doesn't support SSE4.1. If you wanted to optimize your program for a Core 2 Duo, you'd turn on your SSE4.1 compiler flags. I'm sure there's a lot of other stuff, too - they took a lot of stuff out of the Atom to make it power efficient.
Re: load of crock? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No biggie (Score:3, Interesting)
They sell placation of the buyers ego.
Counterpoint: They sell Unix-based systems with UI infrastructure and frameworks that kick the tar out of what's available on Windows or Linux, which have actual third-party support for a breadth of (gasp) commercial software, and which has a large, healthy native FOSS community. Oh, and which can run virtually all *nix-based FOSS software I've cared to look as well.
And just for a data point, look up the stats on a Dell Studio 13 compared to the current Macbook. They're nearly identical. Price, disk, RAM are all identical. The Macbook has a .13 GHz "edge" on its clock speed; yawn. So there's no "ego placation" going on by way of price status here.
Re:No biggie (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious if apple even has the legal right to restrict installation to apple hardware.
If it's presented after purchase, then you are not obliged to agree to it.
Yet if the store you're supposed to return it to says "all sales final" then wouldn't apple be on the hook for handling refunds of the "refused to consent to the EULA" variety
The MacOS X retail package has a note "sale is subject to acceptance of the license". A sale only happens when both sides agree that it happens. And since Apple doesn't agree to the sales contract unless you accept the license, there is no sale up to that point. No sale, no license, no right to do anything.
And of course Apple is on the hook for refunds if you don't agree to the license. That is what Apple itself says; they say that they will refund your money, as long as either (1) you didn't break the seal on software that was accompanied by a printed license, or (2) the software was not sealed or not accompanied by a printed license, and it is not installed on your computer.
My copy of 10.6 was neither sealed nor accompanied by a printed license, so I would have fully expected to get my money back if I didn't accept the license. On the other hand, without accepting the license there is no purchase (until you accept the license, you just hold a box that belongs to Apple, and Apple holds some money that belongs to you).
Re:Once again, so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
eee k. thank you, mr. apple spokesman who posts on /. with his real name in his sig. brilliant!!!11
I like my real name and my online persona. They're one and the same. I prefer that to "l33td00d1" or Anonymous Coward. If you don't mind saying what you actually think, there's no reason to be an AC here, and handles have never really been my thing either. Been around long enough to not give a damn, either - as my UID here might point out.
And I'm not an Apple anything, though in my consulting business I and my employees work about half on Macs and half on Windows. I'm Apple-certified because that's a requirement to be in their consultant program. I'm registered with Microsoft and Novell, too.
Most importantly, I like Apple stuff. I've got quite a bit of it. And an iPhone. I like it, too. It'd be nice if I could run any unsigned app on my iPhone without jailbreaking it, but I'm OK with it as-is. I've got a bunch of PCs, too. And an eee901. And lots of other gear. I like it, too.
But I still don't care if you can't run Snow Leopard on your netbook. Suck it up.