Anyone who hangs around on websites with information about installing Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled computers has probably already encountered this report, but it's newsworthy anyway. The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.6.2 will remove support for the Intel Atom line of processors from Mac OS X.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-15
Not understanding the first thing about EULAs, contract or copyright law, check.
If you have ANY legal training, by all means, make me eat my words.
To take some part in the discussion I have to say that you didn't say anything intelligent about EULAs, contracts or copyright laws yourself either.
First of all, pre-sale contracts can restrict the use of software sold in any way or form the seller wishes, but that contract is signed by all parties before the sales takes place. It is a binding agreement and all parties may examine the agreement before agreeing to it.
EULA however is a very different beast. I can't say how it works in the US or similar countries, but atleast in most European countries EULA can only restrict or grant rights as long as they themselves fit withing the copyright law. Copyright law does _not_ allow you to restrict f.ex. on which kind of a table you are allowed to eat your food. Equally, it can't restrict on what kind of a computer you are allowed to run the software on. Any such restrictions specified in the EULA which do not fall under the copyright law itself are invalid and can't be enforced legally. And yes, this has already been tested several times in courts.
As such, atleast here it is perfectly legal to run OSX on anything you wish and you own.
Member since:2008-06-02
Unwarranted self-importance and confirmation bias, check.
Boy, this is fun!
And we should take your word instead, because some random guy named "wirespot" posting comments on a news site is just so much more credible.
That's okay, I won't hold it against you.
Actually, your "response" was nothing more than empty bombast. Sorry, but the burden is still on you have to offer a counter-argument of some actual substance before.
Or, to phrase that in a way that you're more likely to understand: "Dodging the point, check."
And what particular law have they been found guilty of breaking? Oh that's right, the trial hasn't even started yet, let alone concluded.
Unfounded claim, check.
I hear there are medications which can effectively manage those sorts of delusions.
Really now, no need to be so hard on yourself.
You might want to try educating yourself on what the word "steal" actually means. By the Apple (and Apple fanboy) definition, anyone who resells software is "stealing," same with anyone selling used software.
What Apple is doing is NO different from a game company trying to use EULAs to prohibit sales of used copies of their games, or a music distributor trying to prohibit used CDs, or a movie studio trying to block used DVD sales, etc etc etc. And if Apple wins their case with Psystar, you can bet on those things happening; Apple will have generously handed them a set of ready-made arguments.
Member since:
2006-06-21
Wow, let's count the ways you're mentally challenged:
Assuming that Apple intentionally disabled Atom support, check.
I've done some looking around and so far it all boils down to some random guy going by the nick "stellarolla" and the description "I like to say things and eat stuff", saying Apple "killed" Atom support in 10.6.2. There's no word on who this guy is, whether it's more than just a rumor or any evidence for the lack of Atom support or whether it was their explicit intention to do so or a side-effect of another update.
BTW, here's looking at you, Thom. Way to do reporting, buddy. We're down to rumors and links to random blogs now, eh? Great going, OSNews.
Not understanding the first thing about EULAs, contract or copyright law, check.
If you have ANY legal training, by all means, make me eat my words.
Twisted logic supporting Pystar yet not seeing how what they're doing might go wrong, check.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Apple actually will disable Atom on purpose; what the hell do you think the outcome of Psystar's blatant disregard for the law will be? Here's how the real world works: there's gonna be a lawsuit, and Psystar will lose.
Furthermore, Apple might just feel that they've been too nice to their users. The honor system instead of copy protection? Letting them install OS X on anything they wanted? What were we thinking? Let's lock this baby down. Oh, thank you Psystar! You really opened our eyes!
Being a complete moron, check.
Seriously. You really expected a random company to go to another, say "I think I'm gonna steal your business from you", and the 2nd company should just roll over and let them. "Reasonable". Seriously?
Being out of touch with reality, check.
Apple has no copy protection in OS X, they don't pursue hackintosh projects, they made the record labels take DRM out of all the music on the iTunes Store, they're not a monopoly, not trying to limit choice of consumers, not trying to sell their stuff as cheap as possible just to make people buy it. But they do dare to go against a company who is trying to illegally steal their business from them. Yes, typical control freak.