Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


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

Apple Not Disabling OS X Atom Support After All 275

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Veiled Threat (Score:5, Informative)

    by whisper_jeff ( 680366 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:40PM (#30000186) 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:WOLF! (Score:2, Informative)

    by aardwolf64 ( 160070 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:42PM (#30000220) Homepage

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

  • Re:Veiled Threat (Score:3, Informative)

    by N3Roaster ( 888781 ) <> on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:42PM (#30000224) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:Atom (Score:3, Informative)

    by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @05:44PM (#30000244) Homepage Journal

    From what I've read, the 1GB RAM is more a problem than the Atom CPU.

  • Re:Atom (Score:4, Informative)

    by weekendgeek ( 711624 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:08PM (#30000550)

    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.

  • Re:Atom (Score:3, Informative)

    by jhfry ( 829244 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @06:33PM (#30000858)

    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's that shipped in Mac PC's. It's close to the Core Solo found in the first Mac Mini, but the lack of out of order execution in the Atom gives the Solo a slight edge.

    I would imaging for Netbook like tasks, OSX would be quite nice on Atom. Just don't try and use photoshop or possibly even iPhoto. But this has NOTHING to do with what NextStep could do on a 486, OSX will NEVER run remotely usably on a 25MHz 486 (if at all).

  • Re:OS "Hacking" (Score:2, Informative)

    by jciarlan ( 1152991 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @08:27PM (#30001910) Homepage
    I am an extremely cheap person and I want to develop iPhone apps
  • by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @10:38PM (#30002620) Journal

    The 13" macbook pro is their "netbook"...

  • Re:WOLF! (Score:3, Informative)

    by daveime ( 1253762 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @11:59PM (#30002936)

    How many times ?

    US != World !!!

  • by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Friday November 06, 2009 @09:13AM (#30004782)

    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? :-)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 06, 2009 @07:49PM (#30011274)

    I work within a group at Apple. I'd rather remain 'anonymous' but I can assure you it was this 'bug' was NOT in our builds. I know because we do test against ATOM, and also several other hacked machines to verify clean builds, and all the builds worked on similar hardware.

    No idea what this guy's issue was, but for people to assume that it had anything to do with us willfully disabling support is just stupid.

    With each point release we have a set of objects, we don't have 3 builds of 10.6.2 that WORK on ATOM, and magically in between spend large amounts of time and effort to go through code and put in a new 'feature' to disable support. The fact that the internet community thinks we would go back and disable something like this in the MIDDLE of a release cycle is silly.

  • by sincewhen ( 640526 ) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @04:15AM (#30013050)

    #4 Apple really needs a Netbook to compete with the PC companies who have their own Netbook.

    Do they? []

    I don't think they need advice on how to run their business from slashdotters (including me).

  • by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @11:38AM (#30014434)

    Given that the monitor-less, keyboard-less and mouse-less Mac mini costs twice as much as a Netbook, I would bet on the "jumbo iPod touch" scenario.

    Yet my EEE PC netbook is gathering dust on a shelf, while my Mac Mini currently has an uptime of 271 days (and that was after an intentional reboot)...

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.