Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Sebastian Thrun: Google's Driverless Car
Apple breaks Atom Hackintoshes with upcoming OS X 10.6.2 update
According to OSXDaily, Apple's next scheduled update to Snow Leopard, OS X 10.6.2, doesn't support Intel Atom processors. This is no problem for anyone on Apple hardware, because no Mac product runs an Atom. If you're on a hacked netbook, though, it looks like this is the end of the line for your OS X updates.Although it's not confirmed, rumor has it that next update to Apple's previous Leopard OS (10.5.9) will also knock out Atom support. Until a workaround pops up from netbook hacker circles, Atom machines running 10.6.1 and 10.5.8 should probably avoid upgrading. Is Apple sending a message to users running its software on third-party machines? It seems likely, but it also doesn't seem like it will do much to stop determined netbook enthusiasts.
Comments
18
Subscribe to commentsJamusNov 2nd 2009 10:01AM
If it is intentional, it is a baaaad move.
Level 5Nov 2nd 2009 10:21AM
I see where you're coming from, but a bad move for who? Not for Apple, that's for sure. Nobody I know who's built an OS X netbook bought their copy of Leopard so I'd say there's not much money to be made for Jobs & Co. Apple needs the Core 2 Duo and Core iSeries support for their Mac's, but they don't need the Atom so in a small move to kill piracy, they cut the Atom off. Like I said, smart for Apple, sucks for the community.
JamusNov 2nd 2009 5:23PM
Actually one of the guys I work with bought his very first copy of OS X, just to try a hackintosh! Surprised me too. I think it was a good move to get potential users.
(Thank you Apple for not being such a freak about upgrades vs installs like with Win7)
pristy.siteNov 2nd 2009 10:56AM
That's normal not just for Atom, Apple always goes deep with the update of firmware. It's time wasting with Hack MAC, just load with Ubuntu you can have all web browsers there too.
mNov 2nd 2009 11:15AM
Level 5: It could be a bad move for Apple because people seem to start off on hackintosh systems and move on to more reliable solutions (Apple hardware) after they've fallen in love with OS X.
JoshNov 2nd 2009 12:51PM
I'd be willing to bet that Hackintosh-to-Mac converts are negligible in the end. So very few people run Hackintosh (there is a sizable community, sure, but compared to the 3+ million Macs that Apple sold last quarter, what is a thousand Hackintosh users?) that it really is a daft argument. This is a move to stop a little piracy. I have no number to support this but I'd think that the majority of Hackintosh users didn't go out and buy [Snow]Leopard. I could be wrong though.
tyraxNov 2nd 2009 11:31AM
Looks like software to enfore that you Digital Rights are being Managed.
Drew GreenNov 2nd 2009 11:31AM
Screw Apple and their hardware/software dependencies. I'm glad I STOLE (you heard me) my copy of Snow Leopard for my Dell Mini.
sybgtwyNov 2nd 2009 12:54PM
Corporate disobedience is a valid response to corporate greed.
Drew GreenNov 2nd 2009 1:15PM
I wonder what could happen if I purchased my copy of SL, installed it on my Mini, Apple broke compatibility deliberately, and then I sued. Does Apple stating in their EULA that I can't install their software on any hardware I want constitute a valid legal argument for them intentionally breaking compatibility?
iTunes/Pre compatibility breaking is one thing, since it's free software, but for something I paid for? I don't think Apple has much ground.
awholeianNov 2nd 2009 2:20PM
so you like the os enough to install and use it, but refuse to pay money for it, let alone the hardware that subsidizes it? having your machine disabled is exactly what you deserve.
Drew GreenNov 2nd 2009 2:35PM
If I had paid for it I'd be in the same place I am now. So sorry awholeian, but I still feel the same way.
ComoNov 2nd 2009 2:48PM
It is stated in the eula that (paraphrasing here) you can't use OS X on anthing other then a Mac. You would unfortunately have no case, which kinda pisses me off since I actually bought a copy of os x. Apple sucks plain and simple with this kind of shit.
semiloonNov 2nd 2009 2:23PM
>I wonder what could happen if I purchased my copy of SL, installed it on my Mini, Apple broke compatibility deliberately, and then I sued<
What are you, like 5 years old? Sue Apple for what? It says right there in the EULA that SL is to be installed only on Apple hardware.
Everybody knows that in doing the hackintosh thing you are taking a chance with future updates that could break you system. Apple is under no obligation to support hardware they don't sell.
ComoNov 2nd 2009 2:51PM
I agree with your comment about how he has nothing to sue over but, "Apple is under no obligation to support hardware they don't sell."
Please, this is not a support issue, no one in their right mind who has a hackintosh expects support for it from apple. They are intentionally breaking compatibility to maintian their high hardware prices, plain and simple. Do they have the legal right to do this, yes. It it a dick move, resounding yes.
CorsecNov 2nd 2009 4:31PM
Just because it's in EULA doesn't make them any less monopolistic. I should be able to try installing the OS on any hardware I want, regardless if the OS lacks the ability to run on anything but their proprietary hardware.
semiloonNov 2nd 2009 5:14PM
>They are intentionally breaking compatibility to maintian their high hardware prices, plain and simple.<
And your proof of this is what? Somebody jumping to conclusions about Atom compatibility with a seed build of 10.6.2? All we know is that 10.6.2 seed doesn't work on Atom processors. We don't know why. Anything else is premature speculation.
wormyNov 9th 2009 12:30PM
Well first of all some people have broken real Macs by trying to upgrade to Snow Leopard. The Migration Assistant feature is buggy too: it does NOT copy your user profiles flawlessly. But I would be satisfied if they just fixed the huge mess with the file permissions database which they created in 10.5.8. That update broke a few things on real Macs too, but Apple will not even admit these problems exist. It also makes troubleshooting bugs and security holes more difficult.
They should worry about making real Macs function properly before they waste all of this time trying to break a few Atom machines. Don't they realize that people who buy those things would not have bought a Mac immediately anyhow? Apple should learn from Microsoft: it's better to sell them a copy of Mac OS than sell them nothing at all. Selling Mac OS for netbooks would have the side effect of improving Apple desktop sales:
Many Windows desktop users are just not going to switch unless you give them a chance to try Mac OS without risking lots of money and downtime. Store displays don't accomplish this... it's got to be hands-on. Apple's advertising claims they want a greater market share, but they don't know how to accomplish this because the management in their ivory tower is totally out of touch with how the typical working class user thinks and feels. Most people buy a new desktop machine to replace an old (or broken) machine of the same type. If their regular production machine is still working, they will not just go buy an expensive Mac desktop in order to learn Mac OS. So much for Steve's stated goal of "changing the world." Apple's high prices and stubbornness virtually guarantees that Mac OS users will always remain a minority.