OSX For All x86 Users - Security already cracked

[Avid6eek]

Looks like an x86 processor is all you need to run OSX from now on. The security has been cracked allowing you to run the OS on non-Mac hardware.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Mac_OS_X_for_Intel_Leaked_Cracked/1123771902

 

[rman]

Interesting. Now it appears to be Apples move now.

 

[rman]

I wonder, if each of the developers Intel OS X has a imbedded serial number.

 

[timswim78]

It does look like the devkit got leaked and hacked. However, I watched the video of the guy running the OS, and it ran VERY slowly.

In my opinion, it would be nice if Apple would sell OS X to people with x86 machines, but I doubt that it will happen.

In any case, Apple has always tied their OS to specific hardware. For example, people with a G4 or G5 cannot throw just any old DVD burner or video card into their system and have it work. The options are very limited, and I suspect that they will continue to be limited with the Mactel OSX.

 

[rman]

If Apple were to sell OS X to all. Who would buy their hardware? remember that Apple is a hardware company, who happens to create some software for their hardware.

 

[mraya]

I finally downloaded the video, is just me or the resolution is not right? looks to me like a 4:3 resolution streched to widescreen.

 

[timswim78]

If Apple were to sell OS X to all. Who would buy their hardware? remember that Apple is a hardware company, who happens to create some software for their hardware.

Although I think that it would be nice for Apple to sell OS X to everyone, I really doubt that it will happen in the near future.

You are absolutely correct about Apple being a hardware company, and I think that they would have to sell Tiger for a lot more than $129 in order to make a profit on software alone.

 

[scooter]

If Apple were to sell OS X to all. Who would buy their hardware? remember that Apple is a hardware company, who happens to create some software for their hardware.

i disagree a tiny bit.

i think apple itself is a package. a solution, if you will.

what type of people usually use a mac? switchers or dual users. switchers are tryingto get away from an OS, not hardware. (i can put most major apple hardware in my PC and it will work) dual users find some things on a mac work better and some things on a PC work better. (Best of both worlds thing!)

so IMO apple is not hardware nor software alone but a synthesis of both; and it needs to remain a synthesist to remain a distinctive product.

(G5 Box running WinXP = why? there's better solutions out there)
(G5 Box running OS-X = that's a mac!)

 

[timswim78]

i disagree a tiny bit.

i think apple itself is a package. a solution, if you will.

what type of people usually use a mac? switchers or dual users. switchers are tryingto get away from an OS, not hardware. (i can put most major apple hardware in my PC and it will work) dual users find some things on a mac work better and some things on a PC work better. (Best of both worlds thing!)

so IMO apple is not hardware nor software alone but a synthesis of both; and it needs to remain a synthesist to remain a distinctive product.

(G5 Box running WinXP = why? there's better solutions out there)
(G5 Box running OS-X = that's a mac!)

I took his statement as meaning that Apple makes their money on their marked up hardware systems, not from their software. I don't think that he intended to take away anything from Apple's software capabilities.

Sun does something similar. They make their money on hardware and support sales, and they give their OS away for free.

Here is an interesting blog from the COO of Sun asking Steve Jobs to consider Sun's Solaris as the basis for the next Apple OS.
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20050605

 

[Avid6eek]

It does look like the devkit got leaked and hacked. However, I watched the video of the guy running the OS, and it ran VERY slowly.

I watched the video as well, and everything ran great considering OSX isn't supposed to be supporting the hardware it was running on. That looked like a very usable OS to me. A little more tweaking and that system would be good for mainstream use.

Apple was K.O.'ed in the first round

 

[rs2sensen]

Apple was K.O.'ed in the first round

Personally, I'm not surprised. However, this isn't some huge thing that Apple got beat a little bit on this. Look at Windows Vista, I remember reading that it had a virus made for it already, and it's not out yet. Apple is a great company, they'll come up with a solution to this.

 

[Avid6eek]

The current Vista beta is only a varient of WinXP, so most current viruses should take little or no modification to attack the OS.

Microsoft is a much larger software company than Apple with far more development resources, and even they can't prevent piracy of Windows. Apple will never be able to keep x86 compatable software off Wintel systems. Most forum members in here would probably disagree, but that's only because the only computer knowledge they have has been given to them straight from Apple's marketing department. Apple's software is no more perfect than anything offered by Microsoft. Apple just brushed up against the "dark side" with the switch to Intel, and look the evil already coming of it.

 

[timswim78]

I watched the video as well, and everything ran great considering OSX isn't supposed to be supporting the hardware it was running on. That looked like a very usable OS to me. A little more tweaking and that system would be good for mainstream use.

Apple was K.O.'ed in the first round

OK, the video that I saw was something else. It turned out that the guy was using PearPC in the video that I watched.

 

[Aptmunich]

The videos I watched were also pretty impressive..
I think the guy was using 1,7Ghz Pentium M and it actually seemed a lot snappier than my current macs..

The blue loadup bar before the login screen just flew by and when he selected the 'All items' button in system preferences, it seemed to show up a lot quicker too...


But the version he was running was presumably fairly "bare-bones" compared to a fully-kitted mac...

But even so it looked impressive! (As in "I want" impressive...)

 

[trpnmonkey41]

The blue loadup bar before the login screen just flew by and when he selected the 'All items' button in system preferences, it seemed to show up a lot quicker too...

I don't even see the blue bar go across on my iMac with Tiger

 

[D3v1L80Y]

I watched the video as well, and everything ran great considering OSX isn't supposed to be supporting the hardware it was running on. That looked like a very usable OS to me. A little more tweaking and that system would be good for mainstream use.

Apple was K.O.'ed in the first round

I don't see where Apple was K.O.'ed. Seeing that it is clearly the devkit version of Tiger, then it is supposed to be supporting the hardware it was running on. The "Processor" pref pane is only part of the devkit version of OS X. The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple gave to the developers at WWDC are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. That being the case, there would be no reason why the devkit version of Tiger wouldn't work on a similarly equipped PC. The devkit version is only doing what it was designed to do. What a lot of people aren't realizing here is the version of Mac OS X that’s being distributed to developers is a one-off build. Future software patches, including all-important security patches, will not install on top of it. Sure they will be able to use OS X, but without patches and updates it is pretty pointless.

EDIT: And before anyone jumps in and attmepts to discredit this, I offer this... All of these supposed screenshots, and videos all have the PC running the Tiger devkit OS. If it is truly as easy to crack OS X for a PC as it is claimed, then any version of it should work. Why then are there no screenshots/videos with older versions of OS X (Panther, Jaguar, etc.) or even an off the shelf retail version of Tiger? Simple, it can't be done with a retail version of the OS. So, the only way anyone is going to install any version of OS X on a PC is to pirate the devkit version. So again, I don't see how this is a crushing blow to Apple at all. If anything, it is also a detriment to Microsoft. If so many people intend on installing OS X and using it on their PC's and not Windows, then it hurts Microsoft as well.

 

[sarahsboy18]

I'm with D3v1L80Y on this one... These were off the shelf development machines with a hash together x86 version of OSX that was designed to get the developers testing their products. It means nothing for a general user and nothing to Apple or Microsoft's success or failure. And if they hack the final version it won't mean anything either... I love the way people get bent out of shape like somehow Apple has been "beaten" by the hackers. Get it out of your heads that Apple even cares about the "hacker market"... Those guys aren't buying Apple's software anyway. All Apple cares about is it corporate and general home users. And those folks pay for the products they use whether there is a hacked version out there or not.

Until somebody figures out a way to take OSX-x86 and put it in a box and sell it in Best Buy I don't think Apple has anything to worry about. And somehow I just don't see Apple's lawyers letting that happen.

I gotta say though... Seeing that video of the laptop running OSX was really cool... All I could think is WOW... I want that on my HP. Maybe then I'd actually use it for something other than collecting dust.

 

[scooter]

I don't even see the blue bar go across on my iMac with Tiger

i do on mine, but it's only a 1ghz G4.

 

[spaeschke]

EDIT: And before anyone jumps in and attmepts to discredit this, I offer this... All of these supposed screenshots, and videos all have the PC running the Tiger devkit OS. If it is truly as easy to crack OS X for a PC as it is claimed, then any version of it should work. Why then are there no screenshots/videos with older versions of OS X (Panther, Jaguar, etc.) or even an off the shelf retail version of Tiger?

Actually, we've already run those versions, but in a less than optimal form; PearPC. The difference between the dev version of OSX86 and previous versions of OSX running in PearPC is that the dev kit is native to the PC architecture. There's no abstraction layer translating the PPC calls to X86, and it signifigantly speeds things up. It's still got problems to be sure, but from what I've seen on my own box (a 3.4 gHz AMD) it's just as snappy, if not more snappy than a MacMini.

I have little doubt that the official version of OSX86, when it comes out, will be cracked within the month. There will just be too many eyeballs looking at this thing, so many that no security feature is going to be able to stand up to that level of scrutiny. Personally I think that Apple is aware of this, and they've very cleverly decided that this is the way to dip their toe in the water. Were they to come right out and say, "We're releasing OSX for all commodity PC hardware" they'd essentially be declaring war on Microsoft who'd immediately yank Office away and go after Apple guns 'a blazing. This way they have plausible deniability.

Steve Jobs may be an arrogant *******, but he's not stupid. He's got to realize that Apple's superiority in the OS realm isn't something that can be taken for granted, especially considering that MS has been putting out decent OSes since Win2K. The only lure that Apple has to sell the hardware they depend on to survive is the OS. The answer to that, then, is to slowly but surely take the hardware out of the equation and increase your revenue streams through stuff like increased OS sales, iPods, etc.

Of course, I could be completely wrong and Apple just believed too much in their own infallibility. I don't think I'm wrong about this, though.

 

[rman]

The profit margin is not in the software, it is in the hardware. As stated earlier Apple is a complete system/solution. That is what people are buying when they buy Apple hardware.