Sources indicate that OSx86 10.4.3 - which contains increased hardware restrictions - has now been cracked in the same fashion as 10.4.1. It was initially thought that these restrictions would slow the progress of hackers, but it appears that it has done little to deter those tackling the challenge. It appears that "Maxxuss" has outdone Apple yet again.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:"The reason why they cant get it through the "legal" distribution channels is because Apple doesnt want them to get it legally at all for their hardware. "
Nothing wrong with that.
"Those people want OS X, but they dont want to throw away their current and buy completely new hardware just to play around with OS X, why is this so difficult to comprehend? "
Apparently buying an experience is hard to comprehend too.
"Its different, but not necessarily better than Windows."
Sometimes it's the little things in life that counts.
"They surely didnt invest more money in OS X development that MS did for WIndows, so dont exaggregate. "
How do you know?
"It can't be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to get OS X for their hardware at all, although it runs on it almost without a flaw. Apple cripples their OS intentionally, just to force anybody interested in OS X to buy their overpriced hardware too. "
Gee $499 for a Mac Mini and people STILL bring out the "it's overpriced" excuse. Now who's exaggerating?
"Stop spreading lies, besides open sourcing their kernel no one uses, Apple doesnt embrace the Open Source community at all."
No one uses? Embraces? Maybe they don't go around hugging you all, but they do contribute back.
Member since:"Gee $499 for a Mac Mini and people STILL bring out the "it's overpriced" excuse. Now who's exaggerating?"
For $499 I can get a PC that will outpreform a $3000 Mac G5, that is what people mean by 'overpriced'.
The Mac Mini is a toy, and if you want it to run decent dish out another $200-$300 for more ram, faster CPU, and bigger hard drive. I can still beat it for $499 with a PC, that I can easily upgrade latter. I can pay someone to upgrade it for less then Apple will charge also. Compition leads to lower prices.
Member since:2005-07-06
>The reason why they cant get it through the "legal" >distribution channels is because Apple doesnt want them >to get it legally at all for their hardware.
Correct. So? That is a business decision. They want to create a stylish (subjective) package by combining the hardware THEY created with the software THEY created.
>Those people want OS X, but they dont want to
>throw away their current and buy completely
>new hardware just to >play around with OS X, why
>is this so difficult to comprehend?
Oh well. Then they should just NOT use OS X and continue using whatever OS they are using on their "old hardware". OR they should save some money and buy a mac.
>Its different, but not necessarily better
>than Windows.
I did not see where the poster made that comparison, but so what? Yes, Windows is a good product too. What is your point?
>They surely didnt invest more money in OS X >development that MS did for WIndows, so dont >exaggregate.
That is ridiculous. Microsoft has spent a crapload of money on developing and continuing to develop Windows. Again, what kind of nonsensical arguments are you trying to present here?? They probably keep 100 developers on full pay to maintain Windows, and another 50 do develop the new OS. I worked for DEC in OpenVMS engineering, and I worked in a tiny subdivision that was dedicated to OS security ONLY. We had a group of 10 people. THat was for one, small part of the OS?!?!!!! The company paid about 200,000 for each developer (benefits, salary) + costs for hardware, a place for us to work, fees for gov't testing (security stuff), etc. Each year our small little group cost DEC WELL over 20,000,000 just to maintain and develop new security aspects of the OS.
The software these companies produce IS NOT CHEAP and if you just TAKE IT you are STEALING and that is wrong.
>It can't be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to
>get OS X for their hardware at all, although it
>runs on it almost without a flaw. Apple cripples >their OS intentionally, just to force
>anybody interested in OS X to buy their >
>overpriced hardware too.
Again, SO WHAT? What points are you trying to make? You are just trying to justify (very weakly at that) stealing. I cannot believe other people mod-up your comment either. Apparently no one cares.
I'd be saying the same thing about any other company for any other product that they produce.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-14
The software these companies produce IS NOT CHEAP and if you just TAKE IT you are STEALING and that is wrong.
No, it's not. It is copyright violation. Maybe an violation of an EULA, maybe unlawful competition, but not stealing. Stealing, by definition, would take away the stolen goods from their owner. The owner would have NOTHING. In this case, they still have their product. They still have the software. It just got copied one more time and one _hypothetical_ buyer is lost. Hypothetical, because in no way can you prove that every unlawful copy is a lost sale.
I tend to agree with the general idea of the rest of your post. It's Apple's only decision, how they wish to distribute their products and we should accept this decision.
Member since:> The reason why they cant get it through the "legal" distribution
> channels is because Apple doesnt want them to get it legally at all
> for their hardware.
Incorrect. The reason that they can't get it through legal distribution channels is because the product is not available for sale to anyone at this point in time. Only developers have access to the x86 version of OS X. Anyone else who has a copy of OS X x86 stole it.
>Those people want OS X, but they dont want to throw away their
>current and buy completely new hardware just to play around with OS
>X, why is this so difficult to comprehend?
Then let them wait like the rest of us. I am eagerly looking forward to OS X x86. The possibilities for gaming alone are amazing (running games under Wine as well as more native ports).
However, the product has not yet been released. As a result anyone who is not an official ADC developer who has a copy of OS X x86 stole it. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
> [OS X is] different, but not necessarily better than Windows.
Though I personally believe OS X to be superior to Windows for general computer purposes as well as server usage, I did not claim that it was better than Windows. I completely understand that Windows may be a better option for some users.
Additionally, I feel that individuals stealing copies of Longhorn/Vista are equally immoral. Theivery is theivery regardless of the product under consideration.
>They surely didnt invest more money in OS X development that MS
>did for WIndows, so dont exaggregate.
You seem to have an understanding that I'm comparing OS X to Windows. I'm not.
MS may have spent more money developing Windows, but that doesn't invalidate my statement. OS X has been in development for years and has cost Apple a phenomenal amount of money to create.
> It can't be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to get OS X for their
> hardware at all, although it runs on it almost without a flaw. Apple
> cripples their OS intentionally, just to force anybody interested in OS
> X to buy their overpriced hardware too.
This is Apple's choice; however, I disagree with their position. I think that individuals should be able to run the software on their own system IF they purchase it legally. I'm not criticizing individuals who will buy a copy of OS X x86 and then install it on non-Apple hardware. I'm criticizing individuals who have stolen a software product.
On a sidenote, I don't feel that Apple hardware is overpriced. Especially with respect to their high-end offerings and their storage solutions, Apple can sometimes provide the best value for the dollar.
I'll agree that Apple's prices are far greater than eMachines and the like (and even Dell products). However, I find their hardware to be supperior in design and function. For the small price difference, you get a great deal of added value, in my opinion. Again, I understand that some users prefer to build their own systems or purchase bargain computers... this is their choice.
> Stop spreading lies, besides open sourcing their kernel no one uses,
> Apple doesnt embrace the Open Source community at all.
Well, they actually have opensourced an entire OS (Darwin). This includes their kernel, the userland BSD toolset, and a number of other foundation libraries ("Core" libraries and others). They have also released as OSS WebCore, their Streaming Server, their Bonjour (ZeroConf) implementation, OpenPlay, Open Directory, and others.
Certainly Apple could do more to help the OSS community. They are doing more than the OSS licenses require of them, which is a step in the right direction. Hopefully they will continue to work with OSS.
Also, since you are so ready to compare Apple and Microsoft, I invite you to consider the contributions of each to the open source community and tell me who has done more to embrace it.
Member since:>he reason why they cant get it through the "legal" >distribution channels is because Apple doesnt want them >to get it legally at all for their hardware.
>Those people want OS X, but they dont want to throw away >their current and buy completely new hardware just to >play around with OS X, why is this so difficult to >comprehend?
I want to play around with an Aston Martin, but damn company would not let me buy one for 10K. So I am going to steal one. Totally, cool, right?
>They surely didnt invest more money in OS X >development that MS did for WIndows, so dont >exaggregate.
Compare the size/investment... Plus, who said it is okay to Pirate Windows? No one...
And, OS X is a fine piece of software. Take it out from the OS market today, you will see how much other companies "innovate"... Most of the research done by Apple is actually being used by both open source and MS itslef. THey are leading the way, others say "Hey, this Quartz thing is nice, we should have one"... Capis?
>It can't be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to get >OS X for their hardware at all, although it runs on it >almost without a flaw. Apple cripples their OS >intentionally, just to force anybody interested in OS >X to buy their overpriced hardware too.
My god,what are you talking about? Mac OS, is Apple's product, so are Macintosh computers. It is at their disposal to do whatever they want. They are not have to please guys like you, who do not have any apreciation for style, integration and innovation. Even if they price their PC's for 300$, I am sure that you will find something else to bitch about... Look, I don't know if "Open source" people are that much out of touch with the world , but, "Products are owned by companies and companies are the ones who set the price"... If they want to sell their PowerMacs $10K tomorrow, there is nothing you can do. It is their decision, and if the go Chapter 11, theirs fault. Get serios...
And in terms of Open Source... Apple does not have to contribute to open source... But , they do... Maybe not by uploading code chuncks to CVS, but for sure by embracing term "Open Source" and products across their offerings. (Visit MacOS X Server web site). Yes, they may be making money out of it, but Open Source products get a very good marketing stream for free...
I just to not understand people like you. Everything is soo 1 dimensional for you guys. "I look at the specs, Dell is cheaper, Apple is overpriced". "Apple is not commiting to CVS, they are a.. holes".
Wake up... Please...
Member since:"They are not have to please guys like you, who do not have any apreciation for style, integration and innovation."
It is not about any of this, its not about whether they have any obligation to please anyone. It is just about whether the current strategy is sensible and likely to succeed. Who cares whether any of us likes it? That isn't the issue.
Need to raise our gaze above our navels, and focus on corporate strategy. We and our desires are only of interest to the extent they are representative of broad market segments. We would have a lot more interesting discussions on OSNews if people would just realise this, instead of talking about me me me all the time.
Member since:
> but the people who are currently running OS X x86 can't
> be getting it through legal distribution channels
The reason why they cant get it through the "legal" distribution channels is because Apple doesnt want them to get it legally at all for their hardware.
Those people want OS X, but they dont want to throw away their current and buy completely new hardware just to play around with OS X, why is this so difficult to comprehend?
> OS X is an incredibly good product
Its different, but not necessarily better than Windows.
> that has been in development for years and has cost
> Apple a phenomenal amount of money to create.
They surely didnt invest more money in OS X development that MS did for WIndows, so dont exaggregate.
> I don't see much harm in that. Just buy the product
It can't be bought yet. Apple doesnt want them to get OS X for their hardware at all, although it runs on it almost without a flaw. Apple cripples their OS intentionally, just to force anybody interested in OS X to buy their overpriced hardware too.
> and support a company that makes good software and
> embraces the open source community.
Stop spreading lies, besides open sourcing their kernel no one uses, Apple doesnt embrace the Open Source community at all.