We reported on the lack of Atom support in development builds of Mac OS X 10.6.2, but a more recent build re-enables support for Intel's Atom line, popular in netbooks. "In the latest development build Atom appears to have resurrected itself zombie style in 10C535. The Atom lives another day, but nothing is concrete until the final version of 10.6.2 is out."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-07-15
Well, not everyone who builds a hackintosh has a legal copy of OS X. I know quite a few people who simply download one of the hacked ISOs from their favorite bittorrent mirror and never buy a license at all. So, whether it's legal or not isn't something you can say, Thom. More to the point, though, I'd say this is supposed to be reported here since it's news about an operating system and this is osnews. Imagine that. Perhaps a bit less sensationalism in the original article when Atom support was removed would've been better though, you made it sound like Apple was intentionally breaking hackintosh netbooks. I'd not put it past them to do such a thing, but it's always best to have proof first.
Member since:2005-11-10
And I could have shoplifted my copy of Snow Leopard or Windows, so what point are you trying to make? That bad people do bad things, and we shouldn’t report on things that affect the good people because of that? I’ll personally agree that it was sensationalist (Oh noes, something breaks that Apple was never testing with in the first place), but then that’s all down to whoever picks up the story here at OSnews.
Member since:2005-06-29
I'm getting sick of that stupid sensationalism claim. These days it is used whenever someone dislikes an article - merit, or no merit.
Explain to me: what is the sensationalism? The article was careful, and clearly stated that Apple has no obligation to maintain Atom support. The article also made NO mention about intentional breakage.
Seriously dude, where's the sensationalism? Back up those frakking claims, for god's sake.
Edited 2009-11-05 10:40 UTC
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2005-12-13
Well I don't know about the legality of installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, but since Thom seems to think he knows what's up and down on this matter, why doesn't he go ahead and make a ruling on that pathetic matter of Apple vs. Psystar, while he's at it?
Member since:
2005-06-29
Why is it crappy reporting to inform my readers that an upcoming operating system update might break their legally installed operating systems?