OSNews

I am not expert either, but could it be because Apple Open Sources the low level stuff i.e. Darwin. Therefore if they did it at boot time they would either have to keep some low level stuff closed and therefore cutom OS X kernels could not be built or move the protection into the layers which are not open source.

But like I said I am no authority.

Something that only runs at boot is trivial to circumvent. Something which perpetually runs (e.g. Finder, Dock) and is theoretically necessary to continued operation of the OS is a much more robust mechanism.

The underlying question here is what does dsmos do that could not be replaced by a more permissive kext. I suspect dsmos does not do the decryption itself but rather passes the work along to a chip on the Intel mobo which returns the decrypted pages.

If the chip is missing, the kext fails and Finder cannot run. The downside to this approach is that eventually what the decoder chip does in hardware, a replacement kext could do in software.

You'll note that Apple has left XPostFacto out in the cold, and I would not be surprised if most of this decision had to do with source-closing key aspects of the OS X installer's sanity/hardware checks. XPostFacto worked by slipstreaming replacement kexts into the OS X installer that overrode the installer's hardware checks (which is how I got Jaguar running on a G4 7500).

As late as Tiger, it was possible to remaster a PPC installer DVD with a replacement 'acceptable hardware' list on it: if I were a betting man, I'd guess that the new installer discs run checksums on directories to prevent this sort of thing.

They are making sure that they have money to spend on real development. I don't think that a lot of work went into this protection, sooner or later it will be broken. Casual users won't try to install OSX on regular PCs and that's the point.

Instead of fixing Windows issues MS spends time and money revamping WGA and activation.

No offense, but you're either woefully ignorant about what MS is doing in Vista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista) or you're trolling. Which is it? Either way, it ain't pretty.

Sure your reply is a good and valid one, but you do have to bear in mind that what is being delivered in Vista is much less than what was promised.

So from that point of view it is fair to say that Microsoft really didn't deliver as much as they said they would - and we the end-user are going to notice only a few of the changes, the visual ones and the ones which will cause us problems such as the activation/validation checks.

WGA has nothing to do with cutting other features. They are handled by totally seperate teams. The features that were cut failed to ship because they just weren't ready, couldn't meet the ship date because the were dependent on constantly changing infrastructure underneeath or were dependent on the standardization of other technologies, or required architectual changes based on feedback or the need to support new scenarios.

Last, a number of the technologies people think were cut are still present in Vista. Others are still in development and will ship before Vista or in the Vista timeframe. In neither case was WGA the cause of schedule changes for that code.

Definitely agreed. Finite resources, etc.

However the point stands that the featureset will have been chosen by the project managers on the Windows team.
At some point it became obvious that a feature was going to be too hard, too unstable, or not useful enough and will have been canned.

Adding in WGA, etc, will have taken developers from elsewhere...

I'm sure there are a lot of valid business concerns which resulted in the particular choices made. However the end result is that lots of promised/expected features were cut and things that did get added were not necessarily things that home-users and small business owners would appreciate.

Anyway I dont have a particular axe to grind so I'll stop here. I just though that the OP did have an interesting point.

No offense, but you're either woefully ignorant about what MS is doing in Vista (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista) or you're trolling. Which is it? Either way, it ain't pretty.

Oh I've seen the list and heck I've been running the betas, even got a good friend I grew up with who is currently at MS working on the vista team. I'm well aware of what they are doing.

MS has revamped WGA and activation, thats a fact.

Apple plays their own little lock in game(s)

Its not trolling to point this out and yes it annoys me to think that development dollars are spent on it.

MS has revamped WGA and activation, thats a fact.

Duh. But your implication that WGA and activation are the only features MS is adding in Vista is a load of bull.

Its not trolling to point this out and yes it annoys me to think that development dollars are spent on it.

WGA and activation don't prevent you from choosing a Mac. Or Linux. If you still want to run Windows on those platforms, you can run VMWare or WINE.

I suppose you mean 'simple solution, DON"T RUN LEOPARD!' instead of 'simple solution, DON"T RUN PANTHER!'...

10.0 = Cheetah
10.1 = Puma
10.2 = Jaguar
10.3 = Panther
10.4 = Tiger
10.5 = Leopard

What did you just mean?
Tiger was released after Panther; this mechanism has been implemented in Tiger.

This is not crippleware, stop whinning.

How was that whining? How is it not crippleware? That was not spelt properly, use a spellchecker

Very simple, it is not crippleware because of the old same story. Apple makes its OS to be run on its hardware. If you don't like it: go somewhere else. Reasons for this: it is the way it is and it won't change in the near future, not matter how much you cry.

Crippleware: software distributed with reduced functionality with a view to attracting payment for a fully functional version.

How does Apple force you to buy a fully functional version? My Jaguar, Panther and Tiger copies were/are fully functional on my Macintosh computers; I can't see a "full or pro" version on Apple's website.

Stay on topic, a typo is just a typo, don't try to add unneeded and undesired elements to the thread. Go flame somewhere else, please.

Hmm, I don't think you're in a position to tell others to stop flaming.

Hmm, I don't think you're in a position to tell others to stop flaming.

Except yes.
But I couldn't care less about what you have to say; you only seem to be interested in writting about things that have got nothing to do with the topic at hand. Go run whatever you want in your G5 box and since Leopard will be crippled, run Linux.

When will some Free Operating System users will understand that your "freedom" ends where the Business/Profit starts for the company in question? That is the way it works, but if you don't like it, you can always go back to your OS of choice.

Don't worry, be happy.

P.S.: I didn't mod you down, in case you were wondering who did it.

Hmm, I don't think you're in a position to tell others to stop flaming.

Except yes.

Or no.

But I couldn't care less about what you have to say;

I would never have guessed. You hide it so well.

you only seem to be interested in writting about things that have got nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Such as?

Go run whatever you want in your G5 box and since Leopard will be crippled, run Linux.

Ah, so now you admit it'll be crippled? And I don't have a G5.

When will some Free Operating System users will understand that your "freedom" ends where the Business/Profit starts for the company in question?

When will some - I don't quite know what the right term is, though "greedy bastards" will do for the moment - understand that free software is not about price or being against making a profit? Or that "freedom" does NOT stop when "profit" starts. YOU may be interested in creating (or rather maintaining) a world which is run for the benefit of businesses; I'M interested in creating a world where people cannot be exploited.

-------------Very simple, it is not crippleware because of the old same story. Apple makes its OS to be run on its hardware. If you don't like it: go somewhere else. Reasons for this: it is the way it is and it won't change in the near future, not matter how much you cry.-----------

That's why I run linux. I get to have my cake and eat it too. Apple doesn't want me, so I don't want them.

---------Crippleware: software distributed with reduced functionality with a view to attracting payment for a fully functional version. ------------

Technically you've proven him right. It's crippled in order to attract payment, although it's not for fully functional software, it's goal is to attract payment for a fully functional Mac.

It's crippleware if you try to run it on a non-Mac.

You have a G5, so I don't see why you're whining.

In theory, someone could make OS X work on a standard PC.

And as far as we have seen, in practice too, albeit not without difficulties and less functionality.

I couldn't care less about the EULA and stuff like that, but really haven't tried it; I don't have the time to experiment (nor a non-Mac box to "play with"). All non-Macs are "busy".

;)

No one has managed to run the current kernel on a PC yet. All patches are based on a modified older version of the Tiger kernel. Currently, this doesn't matter much, but if Leopard is to run normal PCs, the hackers have to overcome that - Leopard certainly won't run with a 10.4.4 kernel.

Right, it's an old developer release that was compromised.

Apple are a hardware company, not a charity. It's not necessary for them to make their software available to people unwilling to buy the necessary hardware.

If you want to see the show, you pay for the ticket, you don't sneak in the back door.

Apple are a hardware company, not a charity. It's not necessary for them to make their software available to people unwilling to buy the necessary hardware.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with making sure that only apple-approved binaries can be run/installed on a system? If *I* buy Apple software and hardware, (or any other), it's mine; I don't and shouldn't need Apple's permission to run anything on it. Sure, if I use Adobe Illustrator on it to draw up plans for bombs, I should be penalized for drawing up plans for bombs, but NOT for running Adobe Illustrator.

"and now even tiger works"

Another piece of news about Leopard is its reliance on TrustedBSD and even more code signing. While it may not be unbreakable, the point is that the trend is clear: signing and authentication are going to be kernel-level operations happening nearly continuously while your Mac is on, and disabling all of these functions is going to be a headache.

No one is legally obligated to make their OS run on your hardware just because you want it to run there. Most of Windows' troubles come from two places: unknown hardware and poor security models. Apple nips that first one in the bud here.

No one is legally obligated to make their OS run on your hardware just because you want it to run there.

No, but perhaps in some jurisdictions they may be obligated not to *prevent* you running your OS on any reasonably compatible hardware they didn't make. It's called, "competition".

No, but perhaps in some jurisdictions they may be obligated not to *prevent* you running your OS on any reasonably compatible hardware they didn't make. It's called, "competition".

And five minutes into your imaginary court case, when an engineer explains that much of Windows' problems stem directly from third-party hardware causing BSODs, the judge calls a mistrial and you go home DENIED.

It ain't illegal, that dog don't hunt, give it up.

Except that I want you to find me another EFI-based x86 PC that is intuitively designed inside as the Mac Pro.

Listen, not everyone is a Freedom Fighter like you. Some of us simply like OS X. :-)