Linked by David Adams on Thu 4th Aug 2005 05:32 UTC, submitted by tbutler
Apple OfB is reporting that, contrary to widely-published and discussed rumors, Apple is not including the controversial Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip in its Intel-based Macs. An anonymous registered Apple developer claims that the Apple x86 test boxes do not have DRM or TCPA components. Developers are forbidden from discussing the units by the nondisclosure agreements they've signed with Apple. so they've been unable to counter the rumors.
Order by: Score:
hmmm
by gdanko on Thu 4th Aug 2005 05:46 UTC
gdanko
Member since:
2005-07-15

This means nothing. It's a pre-alpha machine.

Reply Score: 3

Let's wait and see
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 05:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I am a young mac user (thanks to mac mini) and I will say this : only time will tell.

DRM or no DRM, I don't care. I only want - if I buy one Intel based mac - to run my software.

That's all I want ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Let's wait and see
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 06:00 UTC in reply to "Let's wait and see"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Only time will tell as to how the Apple user's wants and needs will develop. Who knows maybe dual booting your OSX with some future Linux distro in the year 2010 will be all the rage.

Reply Score: 0

by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 06:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Personally, I'm hoping that the technology is included. That's just me...

Reply Score: 0

it's true, there is no DRM !!!
by pravda on Thu 4th Aug 2005 06:24 UTC
pravda
Member since:
2005-07-06

Instead, there will be the Apple Secure System chip.

Using ASS, Apple guarantees that Mac users will have access to the genuine secure Apple user experience that is available only on the Apple Certified Macintosh Platform.

When you purchase a new Apple "Intel Inside" system, you sign over to Apple the special power of attorney to control your ASS.

The brave new partnership of Intel and Apple is a bold step into the future of the New American Century.

Reply Score: 3

hmmm take 2
by Andrew Youll on Thu 4th Aug 2005 06:25 UTC
Andrew Youll
Member since:
2005-06-29

It was my understanding that MacOS X x86 still has certain hardware requirements like; an Intel CPU, an Intel Motherboard and 1Gb of RAM, basically utilising some form of Software DRM.

For me it makes sense for Apple to utilise hardware DRM, otherwise crackers will crack any form of software lock-out preventing general x86 circulation.

I don't own a Mac, well a modern one atleast I have an old m68k based mac sat in my loft, but Apple does need to implement some form of lock-out strategy to prevent MacOS X being installed willy nilly on any machine someone has lying around.

Although that said, with Darwin being a FreeBSD derivative, I would have thought it would be safe to assume FreeBSD's driver interface would still be in place, and as such all of FreeBSD's x86 drivers would be at MacOS X's disposal on x86.

Reply Score: 1

RE: hmmm take 2
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 06:32 UTC in reply to "hmmm take 2"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Although that said, with Darwin being a FreeBSD derivative, I would have thought it would be safe to assume FreeBSD's driver interface would still be in place, and as such all of FreeBSD's x86 drivers would be at MacOS X's disposal on x86."

They don't work, as Darwin's kernel is based on Mach. The BSD layer in the kernel doesn't include much if any support for FreeBSD drivers.

I suppose that it'd be possible to port thr FreeBSD drivers to make use of IOKit, but from what I've heard, you'd be further along writing many such drivers from scratch.

IIRC, only VFS and network protocol drivers have been ported, and I'm sure that they're plenty different from stock FreeBSD code.

http://developer.apple.com/referencelibrary/Darwin/index.html

Reply Score: 0

no DRM, thank god.... if this is real
by re_re on Thu 4th Aug 2005 06:33 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

@ anonymous.... do you understand what DRM means?

it's not all about copywrite and antipiracy control.... that's only a very small part of it.... it's about big brother, it's about controlling and knowing what you do and see on your comp

it could mean a total loss of freedom

now.... look at history

.... if freedom can be lost... it will be lost .... so .. DRM=loss of freedom

people rarely if ever learn from history. History shows us this is bad.... DRM is bad.... It all goes back to a free society.... we will lose this free society with DRM

If this is true that Mac will not use drm... I will buy one and i will send a thank you note to jobs himself that he didin't use DRM.... and i will encourage all other anti-DRM users to send him the same.... so he knows DRM will cost him revenue.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

The problem we have today is that to many people are abusing their freedom. Just because they can they do, unfortunately this way of thinking leads to a reduction of freedom. Because when a threshold of people start abusing their freedoms then society will decline. That is why stuff like this gets in place. We can complain until we are blue in the face that we are loosing freedom but until we start teaching our kids and others not to abuse their freedom there will be immense pressure to restrict it.

Reply Score: 0

Not so simple
by Marciano on Thu 4th Aug 2005 06:50 UTC
Marciano
Member since:
2005-07-08

Unfortunately, the situation is not so simple or clear-cut. Windows Vista (or some subsequent version thereof) *will* include "support" for TPM. This means that it is highly likely that Windows Media audio/video files will be protected via TPM. If the music and movie industry perceive TPM as a safer way to protect their copyright, this may be a substantial blow to iTunes and whatever DRM video solution Apple is developing. So, Apple might *have* to offer a TPM-based solution, too.

An even worse (and more likely) scenario is that Office documents will feature secure access control via TPM. Again, if Apple does not offer something similar on the x86 platform (indeed, on the PPC platform too!), Mac users won't be ablle to access "protected" Office documents.

So, it may be the case that adding TPM is a necessary evil for Apple. The fact that it can also be used to lock out non-Apple boxes may be just gravy.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Not so simple
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 09:15 UTC in reply to "Not so simple"
RE[2]: Not so simple
by segedunum on Thu 4th Aug 2005 10:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Not so simple"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, Windows Vista will have TPM support, but for corporate usage mostly.

Yer, whatever.

It's also highly possible that Office will have TPM support in one day. It's very good way to protect your Office documents in business world.

Wow, is it really? There are many protection mechanisms for corporate networks today for this sort of thing, and in many cases they are too restrictive because the right person never gets access to the right document at the right time. Additionally, hardware based encryption is absolutely useless for this sort of thing.

All it does is encrypt documents using hardware-based encryption, the only net result being that you won't be able to open Office documents with any other application other than Office.

Again you all zealots TPM is very good thing in business world and it's very possible that it will never come to consumer world.

That's a pretty meaningless and stupid distinction you make there.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not so simple
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Not so simple"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well you are little wrong here. Yes, Windows Vista will have TPM support, but for corporate usage mostly.

Microsoft has dropped the TPM support from Vista (the Nexus APIs) but promises it for the future.

Consumer resistance to this technology is what caused Intel to drop the PID program (Pentium III serial numbers). Consumer resistance to this technology is what has caused Microsoft and TCPA to constantly change the name and description of this stuff. Consumer resistance to this technology is probably why Microsoft put it on the Longhorn back-burner. People are fearful of hardware-based lockdown and identity technology for good reason: although they may have legitimate uses, the potential for abuse is tremendous. Do a Google search if you're unfamiliar with the dangers - this is not simply about DRM. This is about handing the "keys" to your computer over to the vendor, and then forever after trusting them to do right by you.

I hope this article is correct, and there will be no TPM in the Intel Macs. I'm not convinced yet - we've seen photos of the developer kit motherboard with an Infineon TPM (sure, could be fakes) and multiple sources have written about a TCPA kernel extension in the x86 Mac OS X (sure, could be lies). Only time will tell, I guess.

But what shocks me is how easily many Mac fans were willing to roll over on this one. Hell, half of them seemed happy and eager to roll over. I like Apple and own a Mac, but TCPA tech is both dangerous and not at all required for either iTunes-style DRM or locking Mac OS X to Apple hardware. It's just not - there are many other options. But most of the fanboys had no problem at all with this, as their opinion suddenly and magically shifted from against this Microsoft and Intel-backed system to for this suddenly Apple-blessed scheme.

The only reason we haven't had similar technology embedded in all of our computers since 1999 is consumer resistance. It's the only thing that has kept TCPA at bay so far, with the possible exception of Longhorn delays. Don't roll over so easily, folks. And if you don't understand why this technology is so different and so much more dangeous than the existing DRM schemes you've learned to live with, then please resist the urge to troll on OSNews about how you support Apple 100% no matter what they do -- find out about the technology and the issues at hand. And when you do, raise your hand and make your voice heard at Apple headquarters. Continue the consumer resistance that has been successful so far! Apple won't do this if we won't let them.

Reply Score: 3

Says nothing
by GrimStranger on Thu 4th Aug 2005 06:57 UTC
GrimStranger
Member since:
2005-07-19

The article only says that the dev boxes are not DRM or TCPA protected. But it doesn't indicate whether Apple will include the new restriction scheme in shipping boxes.

The news means very little for most end users out there waiting for a Intel Mac.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous
Member since:
---

The only x86 machine you will be able to buy with OS X loaded on it will be a Mac, and the only way you will be able to get OS X on a non-Apple machine is to break the EULA. Nobody else will be able to legally sell OS X on Intel.

Apple won't license OS X to third parties, and won't support 3rd party hardware, but if you can do without support, I dont see what problem Apple would have with you buying a copy of OS X to run on your crappy beige box. More power to you if you can get it to work.

Reply Score: 0

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I won't attack you, because what you said is exactly right; the fact is, the end user weighs up, either learn how to use a computer or pay a bit extra and get all the 'bits and bytes' sorted out by someone else - humans have priorities, if the end user doesn't see their priority as learning IT, but rather utiltise it, to them, it is more cost and time effective for them to pay the extra up front for convienence and ease of use.

If everyone was computer knowledgable, no one would purchase HPs, everyone would simply assemble their own, or 9/10, find that Dell is cheaper, purchase the computer off them, dump Windows, throw on a *BSD or *NIX of their choice, customise it from the ground up and voila, have something specially designed for their needs.

The fact remains, that isn't the case, hence the reason why there is a whole industry centred around providing solutions to end users not interested in the inner workings of technology.

Its like politics, people don't care how things are done or why things are done; what they want to hear are the policies, track record, then make a decision on those two bits of information - yes, it does affect them by the lack of knowledge, but they're happy with that situation, just as they're happy with passing over the support responsibility to a third party rather than doing it themselves.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, for me, the *ONLY* reason I run a Mac is because I need the applications that are available on the Mac and Windows; I can't stand Windows, leaving me Mac as the only alternative out there.

Believe me, if Adobe and a few other companies came out and said they were going to creative native, first class versions of their applications for Linux, FreeBSD or Solaris - I'd be the first person onboard to purchase an Opteron system loaded with one of those operating systems; heck, I ran a FreeBSD system for many years as my primary desktop - so I'm no stranger to the UNIX world.

What keeps me on MacOS X is the crappy software availability on the x86 *NIX platform - heck, I've got mates who have said they would instantly move off Apple Macs if Adobe and other software producers made their software available for an alternative operating system on the x86 platform.

Reply Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

I should be more careful about what I say.

Kawai, I am not accusing you of being a Mac zealot. Don't see my "venting" as an attack. You don't need to defend your choice.

Heck, if you can do your computing more effectively on the Mac and you can live with its conditions, I am the last person in the world to tell you that you shouldn't use it.

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry, I wasn't trying to attack you, if that is the way I came across. If any offence is taken, sorry - I need to fix up my sentence forming :-D

For me, a computer is a tool, if it does what I want, thats all I am worried about - hence the reason I find the whole religious arguments relating to operating systems so amusing.

Reply Score: 1

Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Confronted to a perceived elitism from Mac users you answer with another elitism, boasting your computer skills in front of those lazy, ignorant, pretentious Mac users.

Don't you have an ego problem ?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Wow now we have PC users manufacturing their own chips. Do you also build your own stereo systems, MP3 players, toasters, microwave ovens, TVs, automobiles, bikes, clothes, detergents...?

Hats off to you. Now only if you could become God and make the universe.

Reply Score: 0

Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Are you sure you're fighting fire with fire, and not a complex of inferiority by developping a complex of superiority ?

I happen to use a Mac now because it suits me (after years with PCs, Linux, FreeBSD, BeOS and occasionally Windows, sometimes building my boxes), have no idea of what I'll use tomorrow (I may find something that will suit me better), and what others use isn't a problem.

I'm not at war with anybody.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

I don't agree with Ahem, crappy beige box????
For years I've been hearing that Mac users pay ridiculous amounts of money for the same thing when home-brew guys build their machines from the spare parts of old aircraft engines, all at such marginal costs that it puts a North-Korean manure farmer to shame.
I'm still hearing it. Have you seen the pictures of a guy trying to put a complete PC into a Mac Mini casing?
It can't be cheap enough. Money spent is too much.
A buddy of mine bolted his parts into a beige case too [fried his motherboard, the dumbass] and let's face it, they're not exactly the most sexy things on the face of the planet, are they? Seriously.
I'm not being elitist when I say that my machine looks better, anymore than when the owner of a BMW claims his car looks better than a 1950s Trabant [ever heard of those?]. It just is, it's designed to look better.
Of course I'm more concerned with what's IN the machine, and I -can- work with the hardware as well as with the software. But on top of that the thing also looks great. Can I say at least that much?
I didn't make the point of el cheapo gizmo, the PC guys did. They make it a point of not spending money on their computer.
You get what you pay for. A really nice looking PC[and I never said they don't exist] is also going to cost more than the standard beige box. I think Dell makes absolutely craptastic machines [the low end brings tears to my eyes], but I have seen case mods that are REALLY cool [but that is also spending money to get a nicer machine and it's not free either].

Like you're saying, and I have not said anything else, you do what you want to do. I don't think myself elitist. I'm just running apps on my computer. Like you, I have a clue about what I'm doing. I'm only doing it on a Mac.

Reply Score: 0

japail Member since:
2005-06-30

Using a BMW analogy for your computer purchase decisions: -1000 points, full stop.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Actually Mac OS X has quite big support for 3rd party hardware. Mostly likely this will be problem in only some stranger systems. And also someone can always write the driver for it. Apple will lose lots of money if people will start using Mac OS in good looking aluminium PC boxes(you call them crappy beige box).

Reply Score: 0

Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Apple kept OS X from running on other PPC machines by using some sort of rom chip if I'm not mistaken, Mac OS would only run on computers that had this chip.

DRM could be used to implement the same idea, but chances are equally good that Apple will just continue to use the rom chip idea. The difference between the rom chip and DRM is that one can currently be emulated in software like PearPC, the other would be a lot more difficult, so Apple could keep people from running OS X x86 on their non-Apple hardware by using the DRM.

QEmu now has a module to speed things up, Win4Lin does something very much along these lines too, and I don't doubt for a second that VirtualPC and VMWare do as well. Basically how it works is the emulation software run the x86 instructions directly on the x86 processor, and with OS X going x86 the same could be possible with it in PearPC meaning that the speed under emulation will improve significantly. Apple might end up using DRM anyway to prevent PearPC from being able to run OS X at a fast enough speed on all those x86 boxes out there to harm sales of Apple's own hardware.

Reply Score: 1

My guess...
by ValiantSoul on Thu 4th Aug 2005 07:04 UTC
ValiantSoul
Member since:
2005-07-20

If there is any type of DRM, it will simply be for the OS to determine that you are using Mac hardware (I may be using the wrong term but digital rights management and software license can be coupled yes?)

Reply Score: 1

RE: My guess...
by kaiwai on Thu 4th Aug 2005 08:21 UTC in reply to "My guess..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I doubt that they'd go back to the old EEPROM based serials - they've been proven to already be too easy to crack, hence the reason SUN has done away with their machine based licencing programme; there are already numerous cracks to work around SGI based software licencing.

I'd say that if they're going to use something, it'll be based around something more secure than a serial; it'll probably involve a signature on the hardware, which combines a special "Apple signature" plus something based on all the motherboard hardware, and the software itself - MacOS X, will compare that combination to something on the cd/dvd to comfirm its a genuine Mac.

As for other uses; a more secure, like linking the filevault to the hardware, and the password file signatured to the hardware as to confirm whether whether not not the hard disk is on another machine, and whether the file holding the password has been compromised.

There is more to DRM than just, "dem fat cats are trying control ma mooosic!"

As for software; unless the software actually hooks INTO the technology, you have nothing to worry about; you can continue to pirate your music for ever and a day, and it won't make a difference. Software without the connection back to the hardware will not create a secure solution - hence the reason, if the freemarket does actually work, you'll find that there will be developers willing to jump on the anti-DRM train and provide non-DRM compatible software, or atleast the ability to disable DRM protection, within their software.

Reply Score: 4

Obvious
by BWhaler on Thu 4th Aug 2005 07:18 UTC
BWhaler
Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course, Apple is going to do the right thing.

It's the culture of the company.

(And spare the retort about iTMS. That is because of the will of the music labels, and even then Apple went to battle for consumers for over a year to get the rights they thought were fair.)

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Obvious
by pravda on Thu 4th Aug 2005 09:07 UTC in reply to "Obvious"
RE[2]: Obvious
by VeryPuzzled on Thu 4th Aug 2005 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Obvious"
VeryPuzzled Member since:
2005-08-03

Sure, and Apple is the Devil...
What was it again? Oh yeah, Apple' OS X is called Darwin and use Demons as software process. Darwin is the opposite of creationnist, thus it's the Devil's way. Conclusion, Apple is the Devil!

Please spare us of those unconstructive comments and take a pill!

>;-)

But seriously, if the issue is attracting some much flamebait and other type of useless comments, it's because it's sensitive. When (hardware / software) abuses were not as widespread in IT, these kinds of restrictions were not needed. But as the masses warmed up and cought up with technology, abuses became a reality in cyberspace, just as it has always been in the real world. DRMs is like being told that because others misbehaved, they have to prevent anyone from further abusing their rights and hurting others interrests in the process. No one like to be restricted, especially when they have not been doing anything wrong in the first place; it's kinda insulting. Of course, companies can start abusing the DRM, but at that point, won't everyone else start complainig and figure out a way to legally prevent them from doing so?

See, I said it without being flame bait or a troll! ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Obvious
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Obvious"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Of course, companies can start abusing the DRM, but at that point, won't everyone else start complainig and figure out a way to legally prevent them from doing so?

Sometimes the best way to prevent companies or governments from abusing their power is to not give them the opportunity to do so in the first place. Nothing in your post could not be prevented without TCPA - this isn't an argument about DRM or Apple locking Mac OS X onto Apple hardware, no matter how many people say so. A TPM module and full support for TCPA in the kernel (beating Microsoft at their own game - impressive!) opens the doors to far more than that, and much of that usage will be outside Apple's control - once TCPA is widely deployed, will give employers and governments vast new capabilities, which can be used for good or evil. So, why TCPA? Why give them that kind of power when it isn't at all necessary for Apple's requirements? Why isn't Apple being forced to defend this move?

Reply Score: 0

Smoke screen
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 07:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The developer offers nothing but his own opinions.

Reply Score: 0

Apple should respond
by Tyr. on Thu 4th Aug 2005 07:58 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

We have to hear this from anonymous sources ? Apple should just issue a statement already. The longer they wait the more uncertainty there will be and more and more (an ever more fantastic) rumors will spread.

Even if they will include DRM, just say it already and let's get the controversy behind us.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple should respond
by BartholoMeD on Thu 4th Aug 2005 08:21 UTC in reply to "Apple should respond"
BartholoMeD Member since:
2005-07-06

The more Apple is talked about the better for Apple. Showing cards year before premiere wouldn't be smart move.

Reply Score: 1

Infineon 1.1 chip
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 08:10 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Perhaps the screen shot of the Dev PC with the Infineon Chips is bogus. I wounder what Apple would say about that pic.

http://www.appleinsider.com/image.php?i=appledevkit1&id=1146

Here is some additional commentary:
http://www.tuxtalk.org/files/phenix.nfo

Reply Score: 0

locking MacOS to Macs using TPM
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 08:29 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It wouldn't be very secure anyway.

The TPM chip on the Mac would need to securely hold a private key from Apple. The actual check would be along these lines: MacOS creates some random data, encrypts it with Apple's public key, sends it to the TPM to decrypt with the private key, and checks that the result is the same is the original.

So the same private key would be in every Mac, thus giving every hacker a go at trying to extract it from the TPM and create some kind of emulator for duping MacOS into thinking it's on a real mac. (Unless it leaks from within Apple anyway.)

And if that doesn't work, the MacOS code can always be patched to remove the check. Obscuring the check(s) can make this harder, but not impossible.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

And if that doesn't work, the MacOS code can always be patched to remove the check. Obscuring the check(s) can make this harder, but not impossible.

Think a bit further - it's an encryption key, right? The obvious way to implement protection is to encrypt some core element of the system so that only a machine with the correct key can decrypt and run it.

Patching to remove the check isn't possible, since you'd still be unable to access the protected functionality. Yes, you could replace it entirely, but that certainly doesn't encourage a stable system...

Reply Score: 0

What!?
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 09:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I am shocked and appalled that this is a news item at osnews. It is 100 percent untrue! The TPMA chip can be seen clearly under the sata connector on the motherboard. Not only that, but when you install Windows on the dev kit it prompts you for drivers for a trusted computing platform module.

Reply Score: 0

DRM
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 09:35 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I'm not looking forward to a DRM-crippled machine. Unlike what r_a_trip is saying, I'm never going to claim "it's a good thing" because there is nothing in it for me. This technology does not serve me at all.
I don't want the system locked down the motherboard, I'm only ever going to use a Mac. The gorgeous miracle of the beige box is not my cup of tea. It's not tested, it's not certified, it's not supported. Welcome to hell. "I've thisandthat problem." "What Mac are you using?" "I don't have a Mac I'm using BeigeBox, the galactic cheapo option from barfco." "I'm sorry sir, we only support Mac OS X on the Macintosh platform.", and they'll hand you your ass right back. Besides, it's never going to work like I'm used to working with my Mac. Although I'm just a drooling sample of humanity, as r_a_trip so graciously puts it, I actually know my way around the system. I actually appreciate the environment that Apple has created. I don't need to rip out the circuits out of a 1960s hearing aid, tie it to a real His Master's Voice grammpohone and run SuSe 8.2 on it with drivers banged together from a vintage Ford Cosworth. I actually like using an Apple computer.

What I won't like and vocally protest against, if it is actually implemented, is a DRM-scheme which monitors my activities when I work with my computer. And why? Because it's nobody's goddamn business what I do on my computer. I'm not a terrorist, I'm not into the horror of kiddie porn and I'm not writing threatening letters to the POTAS. I don't need anybody interfering with my system because I'm a big boy and I would like to be left alone if you don't mind. I don't want anybody's permission to do as I like and I don't need anybody's judgment of what may or may not be appropriate. You are not God, I don't like him anyway and we both know that your reasons for wanting to look into my computer are outright lies. Stay the hell out of my life.

And that stanze, r_a_trip will not chance whoever puts the logo on my computer.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: DRM
by r_a_trip on Thu 4th Aug 2005 11:06 UTC in reply to "DRM"
RE[2]: DRM
by Manik on Thu 4th Aug 2005 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE: DRM"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Quod erat demonstrandum ! (see my previous post)

Reply Score: 1

Apple have the wrong model
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 09:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Apple should continue to work on their Intel boxes.

However, they are missing the boat. Totally.

What Apple needs to do is offer 'Apple' Components. You sell the Motherboard with OEM license as a package.
You can then sell your Ipod 'style gear, cases, CD roms, Hard disks, Power supplies, Keyboards JUST like you do now. You can stick DRM on these motherboards if you want so only the OEM OS works. Everyone can live with that. Intel can ship the boards, this is easy.

You get the vendors to join an 'Apple' program where their gear gets certified and Apple gets 5% of every DVD drive, hard disk, motherboard, whatever.

You keep control of what hardware is certified, and take a hardline 'we do not support uncertified hardware'.

Within months, Apple gains (compared to their current levels) a huge jump in sales of computers. This increases the numbers of end users, meaning its more attractive to developers AND other end users.

Endpoint: OSX finally goes head to head with microsoft and Apple gets back to being a big boy on the block.

Reply Score: 1

lies
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 09:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

beinhg someone eho is mangling the the x86 dev dvd-iso right now to run on his machine . i have to say that ther is interaction iwth the tpm chip and it is being circumvented. ergo, this story is false.

Reply Score: 0

v Of Course It's In
by segedunum on Thu 4th Aug 2005 10:22 UTC
no it won't
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 11:19 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>Only time will tell as to how the Apple user's wants and needs will develop

No it won't. These companies cram whatevery THEY want down our throats giving us no choice whatsoever. The old idea that consumers win died long ago. The name of the game now is "accept it" and we have to because every other company does as well like some monopoly conspiracy where all the companies are actually one and the same anyway.

Reply Score: 1

pipe dream
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 11:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>>you'll find that there will be developers willing to jump on the anti-DRM train and provide non-DRM compatible software, or atleast the ability to disable DRM protection, within their software.

No they won't. Apple and MSFT will stick a restriction on them that if they want to develop for their systems it has to include DRM - period. Just like MSFT's antitrust tactic in the past that kept computer manufacturers from shipping anything other than Windows boxes.

Reply Score: 0

RE: pipe dream
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 13:15 UTC in reply to "pipe dream"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Hey, have you heard of people developing software for free or out of a desire to counter something they believe to be unjust? So before you speak for every software developer out there why don't you do a quick search around the web and see how many open source projects there are that were started because somebody didn't like the way software already was, be it it's license or functionality.

Apple and Microsoft don't own the world my all-knowing friend and they can't 'stick restrictions' (whatever that means) on people at will.

Reply Score: 0

Update....
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 11:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I've been following the #osx86 irc channels for the past 48 hours where a lot of people are trying to make the Mactel work on generic hardware.

Yesterday it appears that the Rosetta TPM hurtle (whether it was really hardware or not) was cleared with an absolutely trivial patch, and with a hybrid install of Darwin and the Macintel devkit hackers (in the finest meaning of the word) were successfully loading up the desktop (but since it isn't a full/clean install only question marks are showing up on the task bar and not much works yet). Several screenshots have been posted of various installer GUI screens.

A lot of problems are being caused because almost all of the guys are using non-SSE3 hardware, but parts of the devkit were compiled with SSE3 extensions...they've actually gone throught some of the libraries and have replaced SSE3 assembly calls just to get this far. SSE3 is proving a far greater hurtle for now than whatever was reported as being TPM has been.

-dock

Reply Score: 0

Mac os on non apple pc's
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 13:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

So then what is preventing Mac OS from being loaded on non-Apple pc's?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Mac os on non apple pc's
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 14:33 UTC in reply to "Mac os on non apple pc's"
Anonymous Member since:
---

So then what is preventing Mac OS from being loaded on non-Apple pc's?

Personally, I think it's still a TPM module and TCPA kernel extensions (i.e., I think this article is bunk). But we don't know yet.

But, hypothetically, how could Apple do this otherwise? Plenty of ways. A custom BIOS, hardware dongle tech built into the motherboard, or a monitor ID chip built into the motherboard (as had originally been rumored prior to the TPM revelation). Mac OS X can check for any of these at intall or boot time.

Are they hackable? Possibly, but so is TCPA. The same people who first broke the TPM story now claim some success in circumventing it (a criminal act in the U.S. under the DMCA, by the way). Everything is hackable.

But "everything is hackable" is no excuse for letting our guard down about TCPA technology. I'm convinced that most of the people who blow off the threat simply don't understand it. They think this has something to do with iTunes-style DRM (it doesn't - notice how that works just fine on your system now?) or locking Mac OS X to Apple hardware (see above). I'm not sure what Apple's reasons for doing this are - pressure from Microsoft, part of the deal with Intel, or just plain cost savings (when Intel builds a TPM into their LaGrande chipsets, Apple will get this tech for "free"). Either way, they're leaving the barn doors open and exposing their customers to huge risk by adopting this technology. We need to tell Apple in a loud voice that this pig ain't gonna fly.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Obvious
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 13:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"It's the culture of the company."

Yeah, the kind of culture that sues fansites and patents
trashbins....

Reply Score: 0

It's just not true.
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:26 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

From http://www.osx86.classicbeta.com:

Slashdot and others are referencing this article from Ofb.biz which states that our reports of the TPM module in the Developers Kits "were incorrect." As you can see by visiting our TPM Resource Center however, the evidence is quite conclusive. Physically, there is quite obviously an Infineon TPM chip on the motherboard. Internally, however, we've also found function calls to important kernel extensions that are exclusive to the TPM. All of their information for this article comes from one anonymous developer, which proves nothing - nothing was verified with a second source and it's highly possible that he simply didn't know what to look for. Regardless, you can be assured that the TPM does exist in the Developers Transition Kit. Visit our Knowledge Base for more.

Reply Score: 1

Apple is a hardware company.
by Sabon on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:36 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

For those people that are seriously confused. EVERYTHING Apple does is centered around selling more hardware that THEY have their name on. So they are going to be very sure that Mac OS X requires a computer with their name (logo) on it.

If you think you are going to be able to install Mac OS X on a non Apple box you will find it VERY difficult to do, if you can do it at all.

Just as cracking is the only interest of some people. Apple's only interest is in selling more of their computers. So ... all the applications (Mac versions) including Mac OS X will be written using whatever they need to be secure that it won't install (or at least won't run) on non Apple computers.

If you are still confused. Just keep reading this over and over and over and over and over and over and ...

Reply Score: 1

freeplay
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 15:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

They(Apple) will stop OS X on any other computer than one they sell. Like they did with Freeplay.

They are Apple, they can invent anything.

Reply Score: 0

RE: freeplay
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 23:52 UTC in reply to "freeplay"
Anonymous Member since:
---

They did not invent anything. Thank Intel...

Reply Score: 0

OS X and Genuine Macs
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:02 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I dont get it,

why does everybody make a big deal of it.

I dont care if it runs on non mac computers or not,

THE PROBLEM IS DRM,TPM or any other technology of their kind.

I cant cope with it on any platform, and dont want anybody's control or supervision over my computer.

Reply Score: 0

Put it to them.
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Ask them if they will or will not impliment hardware DRM!

Reply Score: 0

So what?
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 16:36 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

You know all this babble about how DRM is the devil and it's like "whoa man big brother can now effectively control your life man" is just a bunch of garbage. I hate to be the one sounding like a troll but I have been reading this over and over for teh last few years and I'm sick of it. DRM= Digital RIGHTS Management. The only people that should be pissed off at it are those that plan on using their computers to BREAK THE LAW, or steal from people ie. downloading and/or using copyright material for which they HAVE NOT been authorized teh right to have or view. C'mon I understood the arguments when all this copyright crap hit the fan with the DMCA because prior people understood that they bought the software itself not just the right to use it. But now get a grip. We are living in a new age where you buy LICENSES. Nothing wrong with requiring people to abide by the EULA. But also I think the EULA should be posted outside the package not just when installing.

Reply Score: 0

v RE: It Matters to Most People
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 17:28 UTC in reply to "So what?"
RE: So what?
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 18:49 UTC in reply to "So what?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The only people that should be pissed off at it are those that plan on using their computers to BREAK THE LAW, or steal from people ie. downloading and/or using copyright material for which they HAVE NOT been authorized teh right to have or view.

What nonsense! Let's take this outside the scope of DRM for a minute. Would you agree to a plan to implant RFID chips in all products (CDs, DVDs, and everything else) and install RFID monitoring equipment at your door? That way, the minute ANY stolen good is brought into your home, the authorities can be alerted. Only criminals should fear technology like that, right? Of course not. Any sensible person who appreciates freedom and privacy would understand that such a system would be rife for abuse, with government suddenly able to not only track your movements, but the movements of your friends, family, and associates, and give them broad access to all sorts of personal information about you that is and should remain private until they have legitimate cause and a warrant is issued. Sure, such a system could be used only for good, but the broad and sweeping powers presented by such a system are so rife for abuse that any person who lives in a democracy who would agree to such a scheme should have their head examined. The argument that "only criminals should worry about" draconian schemes is ridiculous.

Am I comparing TCPA to the above scenario? No, TCPA is in fact far worse from a computing perspective. Since computers are just mysterious black boxes to most people, I expect the average consumer not to understand the dangers. But this is OSNews, and such willful blindness is shocking. More on the threat of TCPA below.

For now, back to DRM. First off, let's be very clear here: this isn't just about DRM! iTunes already has DRM, and doesn't require a TPM or TCPA support in the kernel. And this isn't about locking Mac OS X to Apple hardware - there are dozens of potential solutions to that which do not embrace the Trusted Computing initiative. Possibly Apple is embracing this because it's their cheapest option (Intel will integrate a TPM in their LaGrande chipset), but it is by no means their only option. When are people going to understand: Apple does not need TCPA to lock Mac OS X to Apple hardware, and they don't need it for DRM. There are many alternatives, most of them far more proven from an engineering perspective than TCPA.

While I use some free and open source software at home, and have purchased hundreds of Linux boxes as servers for work, I'm no great fan of Richard Stallman. I disagree with much of his philosophy and tactics. Nonetheless, I think Stallman best summed up the problems with TCPA in his "treacherous computing" article, and I'm going to quote him extensively:


Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't use the email to show that the decision was not yours. "Getting it in writing" doesn't protect you when the order is written in disappearing ink.

Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her. Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.

Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community won't have a chance of developing software to read them--and if we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.


Full text is here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html

All of the above is possible in a world where TCPA technology is ubiquitous. And it won't require Apple's blessing; if the public kernel interfaces are there, as we now know they are, they will be used. Sure, Stallman is an alarmist, but all of the potential abuses Stallman has mentioned can be defended with "only criminals need to worry" rhetoric. We know from Microsoft leaks that they are already working on integrating their Word document security system with the TPM. This isn't tin-foil hat stuff, as much as you wish it to be. Stallman doesn't even delve into the possible abuses presented by the identification system that is also part of TCPA. His opinion is backed not only by the EFF but by consumer groups such as Public Citizen. Go look at the wave of FTC complaints when Intel tried to introduce PID. Reasonable people are concerned about this for reasonable reasons.

This is not simply about standard DRM as we know it today. This is not simply about locking Mac OS X to Apple hardware. None of that requires a TPM or full TCPA support in the kernel. This is about handing over the keys to your computer to the vendor, and forever after trusting that vendor to respect your rights - once in place, they and your application vendors will have a veto over what code can be run, what code can be run concurrently, and how documents are shared and used. This is far, far worse than the "secret ID" some printer manufacturers are including in our printouts.

Accepting TCPA hands over to vendors an incredible power over your private use of your private property - one that you may believe will never be used. But why hand vendors a loaded gun when it is simply not needed to accomplish what Apple wants to accomplish?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: So what?
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 11:02 UTC in reply to "RE: So what?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Like as if we have a right to develop software that can read and interopt with MS Word. And the email scenario, it's called cut and paste. Slam it into another email and send that one away. Archive the old file and so what if the reporter can't read it, the court system will subpoena the file and if the employer won't give up rights for the file then obstruction of justice rules apply. Continually downloading? I doubt it, I'll just set up my network to not allow it. Or maybe just not install it.

Now I am not saying that it would be right to make someone install a chip into a computer they already own, but why is it wrong to require that chip for new versions of software? We don't have a right to the latest and greatest and still demand our own terms.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: So what?
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So what?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Like as if we have a right to develop software that can read and interopt with MS Word.

An argument for another time, but I very strongly feel that we do. Go look up reverse engineering for interoperability and discover that this has been a fundamental value in computer science for decades.

And the email scenario, it's called cut and paste. Slam it into another email and send that one away. Archive the old file and so what if the reporter can't read it, the court system will subpoena the file and if the employer won't give up rights for the file then obstruction of justice rules apply. Continually downloading? I doubt it, I'll just set up my network to not allow it. Or maybe just not install it.

And this is your argument that TCPA integrated into the Mac's hardware and software is a good idea? Everything is hackable. Some of your workarounds may work, some may be blocked - but others will appear. So what? I have a better idea. Don't allow TCPA to be integrated into the Mac's hardware and software in the first place, and then we won't have to worry about working around systems built into our machines designed to prevent us from doing things we have every right to do.

We don't have a right to the latest and greatest and still demand our own terms.

Consumers can demand whatever terms they like. And anyone thinking clearly about this will demand that Apple not install chips and kernel extensions in their computers that are designed to limit their rights in stupid, unnecessary ways, nor will they be making up weak excuses for said technology.

As a Mac user, I have never been as disappointed in the Mac community as I have been over the past few days. It's incredibly sad how eager and willing most of you seem to be to open yourself up to potential abuse. Where is the demand for Apple to explain this move, which is not necessary to meet their goals (neither DRM nor locking Mac OS X to Apple hardware require TCPA) and exposes their customers to a large amount of potential abuse?

Nobody seems willing to educate themselves to the threat (you know they haven't actually researched this because they keep repeating the same misconceptions) - nobody seems to care. Things sure were different in 1999 with Intel's PID, a more primitive form of the same idenitity tech found in TCPA. People went so ballistic that consumer pressure forced the program off the shelves. In the intervening years, somehow, people just decided to stop giving a damn about their rights and their privacy, I guess. How terribly sad for the Mac community.

Reply Score: 0

v Rebuttal
by Captain N. on Thu 4th Aug 2005 17:47 UTC
alarmism
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 19:55 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Those scenerios sound scary and all, but guess what:

If vendors are controlling computers like that, people won't buy them. If they try it, the free market will kick and, and some bright entrepenuer will sell a computer free of such control. Furthermore, US government collaboration as described above would *never* fly. Please take the spooky stories and conspiracy theories back to the alien sightings forums.

Reply Score: 0

RE: alarmism
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:01 UTC in reply to "alarmism"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Those scenerios sound scary and all, but guess what:
If vendors are controlling computers like that, people won't buy them.


The question is, why would you allow your vendor to build that technology into their computers - and full support for it in their operating systems - in the first place? Why hand them a loaded gun? Especially when other technologies exist which meet their needs equally well, without the potential danger.

If they try it, the free market will kick and, and some bright entrepenuer will sell a computer free of such control.

Several problems with this. First, the free market is great, and the best system we have, but it is far from perfect. Look at Microsoft - government bodies have ruled on multiple continents that they not only have monopoly power but have abused it, twisting the free market. Yet those same government bodies have, ultimately, been powerless to do anything to change that. I don't want to turn this into a big Microsoft debate here, but those are facts.

Second, for that to work you have to believe that the market is rational - that when the frog's water finally boils, people will understand and react appropriately. I'm not sure they will. Apple is building this technology into their future machines, with only our faith in the company to lead us to believe they (or associated vendors) won't fire that loaded gun. And nobody seems to care. Reactions in these threads range from "good idea" to "only criminals should care." Where do you think the bright red line is, if it's not to be drawn at building the capability for and possibility of abuse right into the hardware and operating system? In 1999, when Intel tried to introduce the PID, it was front page news on CNN.com. Where have you heard a peep about this aside from insular websites like OSNews or Slashdot? If the respect for civil liberties and privacy and worry about the potential for abuse has sunk SO low even among techies who should know better, what makes you think the mainstream is going to give a damn?

Please take the spooky stories and conspiracy theories back to the alien sightings forums.

The only conspiracy theory here is yours - the idea that somehow computer companies are going to build this technology into their hardware and operating systems, with public interfaces... and then somehow, magically, nobody is ever going to use it.

Apple doesn't need this technology for either DRM or locking Mac OS X to their hardware. The technology they have chosen can be used for good or evil, but is rife for abuse on a level never before seen in the personal computing industry. So why should we accept having it designed into our Macs? The onus is on Apple, and apologists like yourself, to explain that.

Reply Score: 0

RE: alarmism
by Anonymous on Thu 4th Aug 2005 22:40 UTC in reply to "alarmism"
Anonymous Member since:
---

It's not something that could happen overnight, but rather in steps, and TPM is a not-so-small step in that direction.

Reply Score: 0

RE: alarmism
by Celerate on Fri 5th Aug 2005 06:44 UTC in reply to "alarmism"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"If vendors are controlling computers like that, people won't buy them. If they try it, the free market will kick and, and some bright entrepenuer will sell a computer free of such control."

What if people don't know any better; Be inc. presented a very good OS, one that was far more advanced than Windows was at the time but becasue it had a monopoly there weren't enough people who knew this to make a difference.

You example sounds like common sense, but the truth is you're putting far too much faith in the average Joe Sixpack who makes up a very large percentage of the computer market. Those of us who know better just don't make up a large enough percentage of computer consumers to really affect the markets imo. I think the only way we are going to get DRM free computers later on is with custom built machines, and that's if DRM doesn't become a legal requirement thanks to twisted politics in several countries, not just the US.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: alarmism
by pravda on Fri 5th Aug 2005 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE: alarmism"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

Be was never a mainstream OS. It was a half-finished developer OS that never even put in the effort to build a strong ISV community. And no OS without ISVs is going to be a successful mainstream OS.

While Microsoft certainly is the OS monopoly, it does not change the truth that Be was just a well-funded research lab. The company produced an interesting operating system with some innovative ideas and technologies but never got to the point of producing a strong mainstream OS offering.

Even if Microsoft had allowed OEMs to bundle BeOS, there would be basically little to no software for the end-user to run on BeOS. The whole thing was dead before it began.

And it certainly didn't help that Gassee drank from the PowerPC koolaid and pissed away years of development time. If BeOS had been focused on the mainstream OS market, they would have never done all that work with BeBox and PowerPC. That stuff was always a dead end.

I've still got a bunch of BeOS stuff and it was a good development OS. Certainly a lot better than Linux. Sadly the company suffering from bad strategy and bad timing. Otherwise it might have made a difference and its fate been something a bit more glorious.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: alarmism
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: alarmism"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Even if Microsoft had allowed OEMs to bundle BeOS, there would be basically little to no software for the end-user to run on BeOS. The whole thing was dead before it began.

I was never a huge BeOS fan, and I know we're in the midst of a nest of them here on OSNews, but I think you're missing his point. How do you know what would've happened if they had been allowed to compete fairly? These things take time to evolve. If the Fujitsu or other OEM deals had gone through... If OEMs had been allowed to setup BeOS (or anything else) with dual-boot rather than being forbidden by MS contract and threats to ever dual-boot... There's no way to know how things might have evolved. Sure, it might have gone nowhere. But we don't know, because the free market was not allowed to operate - it still isn't. Those who believe the free market will take care of the TCPA problem are ignoring the realities of the PC marketplace.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: alarmism
by Celerate on Fri 5th Aug 2005 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: alarmism"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

You say you've used BeOS, I found out about it a little late but I still tried R5 and it was far better than the versions of Windows available at the time. BeOS R5 had all of the main applications people would use, it had a web browser, e-mail clients, and office suite, and more which can still be found at BeBits.

Microsoft kept Be from building up a user base by preventing it from getting OEM contracts, Be also needed money to advertise and without enough sales that wouldn't have worked.

This compares to the entire DRM idea and your saying that if people don't like "Trusted Computing" they will simply buy computers that come without it. Do you really think companies like Microsoft, Apple, Dell, etc... are going to allow someone to sever their control over everyone's desktop? The answer is no, they will resort to doing exactly what MS did to kill BeOS: they will use their size and connections to prevent people from finding out about or obtaining the computers that don't comply with their "trusted computing" ideals. Really all Microsoft has to do to keep the public opinion on such DRM free computers down is not sell Windows for it, we all know that would only leave Linux and BSD which the majority of people still don't use.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: alarmism
by pravda on Sat 6th Aug 2005 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: alarmism"
pravda Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not saying that if Microsoft had not helped kill Be that the company would have been the same.

Be went up against the great software monopoly and got their ass kicked.

Some part of getting their ass kicked was due to crappy management and lack of focus.

And some part of getting their ass kicked was Microsoft locking them out of the market.

However, Microsoft's ecosystem did have far more apps than Be. There were a few for Be and due to Microsoft's iron grip over data formats, these apps did not work with Microsoft data/apps.

I believe Be could have had more of a chance if they have never made BeBox, never worked on PowerPC, and developed an ISV program. The technology itself was good, but there were few apps and these apps were not very polished for the most part.

If you look the story of Be and what is happening with Linux, you will see Linux is a giant version of Be. There are precious few apps once again and there is no real ISV support with 10000 versions of Linux. It is not a recipe for good soup.

Reply Score: 1

Parameter RAM(PRAM)
by Anonymous on Fri 5th Aug 2005 03:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Apple is the only company that uses PRAM in their computers(ever since the first Macintosh). For those who don't know what it does, it holds key information for the Mac OS(date, time, desktop pattern, mouse settings, volume settings, and other control data set with control panels).

I think Apple will ship their x86 computers with PRAM and that will prevent the generic x86 computers from running MacOS X(this is how they prevent Mac OS X running on generic PowerPCs).

Reply Score: 0