OSNews

And pray tell why not? They don't actually sell any netbooks, what incentive do they have to let people install it on a netbook? Good will? Its all fairy dust, and magic with you guy. Apple is a BUSINESS, not a charity. I just don't get why people don't understand that

And pray tell why not? They don't actually sell any netbooks, what incentive do they have to let people install it on a netbook? Good will? Its all fairy dust, and magic with you guy. Apple is a BUSINESS, not a charity. I just don't get why people don't understand that "

Perfectly correct. As the authors of OSX, Apple have full rights to dictate how people may, or may not, use Apple software.

Absolutely.

Of course, having that right doesn't help Apple one tiny bit towards gaining a customer who wants the capability at low price offered by netbooks.

Yes, they are under no obligation to sell anything they do not want to sell. There is no reason why they should make OSX support Atom or anything else.

That is not the issue. The issue is, once they have sold it to you, do they have the right to tell you how to use it?

Lets ask a simple question. Do you think MS has the right to sell you a retail copy of Windows, and stipulate that, though it is perfectly technically possible to do it, you are not permitted to install it on a Mac?

You need to be real careful about them apples. Some of them are actually pears...

Apple is a BUSINESS, not a charity.

Which is why it is strange that Apple wastes time and resources on writing specific code to disable Atom. Atom is after all a (low power) x86 CPU, not quite unlike the Core CPU's Apple uses. It is only a matter of time before the Hackintosh scene puts support back in.

These are halfhearted measures to keep OS X exclusive to Apple manufactured hardware. If Apple really wants to end the efforts of the OSX86 group, they should just use the TPM and lock OS X cryptographically to their own motherboards. Make it clear to everybody that OS X is an updatable firmware OS.

This dilly-dallying with semi-DRM is just wasting money.

Well, there's a question - *is* Atom capable of running this version of MacOS? More specifically, is it broken because Apple have deliberately blacklisted Atom?

Or is it for legitimate technical reasons, such as being compiled with CPU optimisations which don't work on Atom? In which case Apple are being entirely reasonable, making sure it works as well as possible on their supported platforms, even if it upsets people trying to do things that Apple have no obligation to help them with?

Stop being reasonable, this is an outrage! OUTRAGE I TELL YOU!

I find it silly all the sites claiming "apple drops support for atom!", it never supported atom, what apple supports is an apple branded machine made my apple computers.

It should read, hacked os x will need to be hacked some more to work with this update, apple machines continue to work as advertised.

Obviously it's not any longer.

Regardless of whatever EULAs would be legal or not I still think the developer/creator should have the right to decide over how their work is allowed to be used.

If you don't like "the artists" (depending on the product) wish then don't use the product.

People know how Apple want OS X to run. Also even if people bought the OS which I doubt many people installing it on regular PCs do I see the price more like an upgrade price set by Apple rather than a retail first install price since all macs ships with OS X and there are no "upgrade"-branded boxes. That part is Apples own fault though.