(EDIT: FALSE ALARM!) Apple kills hackintosh netbooks with recent snow leopard update

[aphex]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/181163/apple_kills_hackintosh_netbooks_with_snow_leopard_update.html

Doesn't look good for the future of hackintosh on Netbooks, Apple is removing support for Intel Atom chips.

Edit: as pointed out below, it was a false alarm; http://gizmodo.com/5397241/os-x-1062-does-not-ditch-atom-support-hackintosh-safe

 

[Tristicus]

Now that's just a dick move. Way to go Apple, fucking people over even more.

 

[mmntech]

Now that's just a dick move. Way to go Apple, fucking people over even more.

Not really as it does violate the EULA. The real stupid move is that Apple won't release their own netbook as there is obviously a huge demand for it. Not many people will buy a tablet but a Mac Mini-styled netbook would sell like hotcakes.

 

[Tristicus]

Not really as it does violate the EULA. The real stupid move is that Apple won't release their own netbook as there is obviously a huge demand for it. Not many people will buy a tablet but a Mac Mini-styled netbook would sell like hotcakes.

So just because it violates something means it isn't mean? It's a dick move to not let your OS be usable on the platforms REGARDLESS.

Don't see why people want to use the shitty thing anyways...

 

[Kaido]

If the past is any indication, you can just use the previous point release's kernel in the new point release to keep CPU support.

 

[Nothinman]

Now that's just a dick move. Way to go Apple, fucking people over even more.

That's how Apple rolls, always has been and will be until they've got incentive to change. And with the way their current profit margins are, I doubt that day will come any time soon.

 

[ViRGE]

If the past is any indication, you can just use the previous point release's kernel in the new point release to keep CPU support.

And since the kernel is open source, once they release the source someone can just build one that works on the Atom.

 

[Kaido]

And since the kernel is open source, once they release the source someone can just build one that works on the Atom.

Yeah, I'm sure the Voodoo team or somebody is already on it.

 

[CKTurbo128]

Although the news only announced that Apple is killing hackintoshes using Intel Atoms in the latest Leopard & Snow Leopard updates, I wonder how long it'll be until Apple tries to kill off hackintoshes with other processors not normally found in macs (i.e. AMD-based, Pentiums, and Celerons) as well.

Even so, I'm sure this will be bypassed, as all of Apple's attempts to "lock out" their hardware and software has met with little success.

 

[ViRGE]

Although the news only announced that Apple is killing hackintoshes using Intel Atoms in the latest Leopard & Snow Leopard updates, I wonder how long it'll be until Apple tries to kill off hackintoshes with other processors not normally found in macs (i.e. AMD-based, Pentiums, and Celerons) as well.

Even so, I'm sure this will be bypassed, as all of Apple's attempts to "lock out" their hardware and software has met with little success.

AMD processors already don't work without a custom kernel.

 

[dmw16]

I wonder if this is in preperation for the release of their tablet device...

 

[revMedia]

I think there is a lot of misinformation going around about this. There is really no indication Apple is targeting the OSx86 scene with this. Just because a new kernel is causing issues with a processor Apple doesn't support doesn't mean it was intentional. You should try running OSX on the new core i5 cpus...OMG what a headache.

Also, Apple can never kill the hack scene. As noted above, the kernel is open source, so forks will always exsist.

 

[Zaap]

One thing I don't quite understand with Apple in general is why is there even the need to constantly update the OS anyway? I mean, what's the real purpose?

I suppose Windows gets minor updates often too, but it's not like one goes through 9 or 10 service packs with each version of Windows. And even so, it's been RARE that a Windows update is actually required in order to keep the basic function of your system and software intact.

Okay, gee whiz, so I'll just keep my Atom system at 10.6.1. What will I really be missing?

I know sometimes Apple has tied new updates of software like iTunes and Suckfari, but other than that (which I can usually live without), why does anyone give a good crap that their hacked Atom system isn't running the latest number revision of the OS?

I can recount many Apple system updates that did NOTHING outwardly useful other than change a number in the system profiler. I've even seen where an update causes people huge headaches and nightmares (on both hacks and Apple hardware) that people will spend lots of time dicking with- when just sticking with the previous working version has ZERO ill-effects.

It's always made me scratch my head wondering what all this constant update addiction nonsense is really about. I suspect it's mostly a total artificial and largely unnecessary situation created by Apple- they could probably update most minor things with small patches that address specific issues, and serve their customers just fine with maybe 3 or so major point updates, rather than 9 or so.

 

[MrChad]

One thing I don't quite understand with Apple in general is why is there even the need to constantly update the OS anyway? I mean, what's the real purpose?

I suppose Windows gets minor updates often too, but it's not like one goes through 9 or 10 service packs with each version of Windows. And even so, it's been RARE that a Windows update is actually required in order to keep the basic function of your system and software intact.

Okay, gee whiz, so I'll just keep my Atom system at 10.6.1. What will I really be missing?

I know sometimes Apple has tied new updates of software like iTunes and Suckfari, but other than that (which I can usually live without), why does anyone give a good crap that their hacked Atom system isn't running the latest number revision of the OS?

I can recount many Apple system updates that did NOTHING outwardly useful other than change a number in the system profiler. I've even seen where an update causes people huge headaches and nightmares (on both hacks and Apple hardware) that people will spend lots of time dicking with- when just sticking with the previous working version has ZERO ill-effects.

It's always made me scratch my head wondering what all this constant update addiction nonsense is really about. I suspect it's mostly a total artificial and largely unnecessary situation created by Apple- they could probably update most minor things with small patches that address specific issues, and serve their customers just fine with maybe 3 or so major point updates, rather than 9 or so.

Security updates, I would guess.

 

[TheStu]

Quite a few of them are security updates, and also often compatibility updates. The 10.n.x updates are usually there to fix a wide variety of problems. LIke, 'this update fixes the following problems with Mail, iChat, iSync, Dictionary...' that sort of thing.

So, the kind of stuff that Microsoft would break out into individual small updates Apple packages into one larger update.

On the topic of the Atom CPU though... if Apple isn't using it, and doesn't plan to use it, then if their update break functionality with it, why should they care?

The Palm Pre thing is intentional, but seriously, if Palm can't be bothered to join up with any number of alternatives that are cross platform (even more so than iTunes) that can utilize the iTunes Library file, then they deserve to be repeatedly shut out. The governing body over USB has already told them to cut it out, at this point they are just being children. Both sides.

 

[msi1337]

;-(

 

[xanis]

You know what else SL killed? My MBP's Superdrive.

 

[Zaap]

Quite a few of them are security updates, and also often compatibility updates. The 10.n.x updates are usually there to fix a wide variety of problems. LIke, 'this update fixes the following problems with Mail, iChat, iSync, Dictionary...' that sort of thing.

True, but Apple also releases separate security updates as well. That even begs an additional question- just how much security updating does an OS that is marketed by putting down its competition for needing the same thing, really need?

I understand the need to fix problems, but as per the example- wouldn't it make sense to just release application patches via Software Update for Mail, iChat, iSync, etc. rather than to shotgun-fix them with a point update for the entire OS?

One thing I like about Windows update, is if a particular update doesn't pertain to my machine, I simply don't have to bother installing it. It'd really get annoying if every other month I had to concern myself about "okay, time to update Windows 7.1.5 to Windows 7.1.6 etc. etc... Even more annoying if I got some message: "X-needed application requires an update to Windows 7.1.6..."

I should note I'm not really complaining about any of this because I'm very happy with OSX, just curious exactly why Apple does things the way they do with a nearly constant stream of 10.x.x updates.

 

[Nothinman]

True, but Apple also releases separate security updates as well. That even begs an additional question- just how much security updating does an OS that is marketed by putting down its competition for needing the same thing, really need?

Considering that marketing is just that, pretty much close to the same amount.

I understand the need to fix problems, but as per the example- wouldn't it make sense to just release application patches via Software Update for Mail, iChat, iSync, etc. rather than to shotgun-fix them with a point update for the entire OS?

Technically both should be done. Individual updates should be released via Software Update with something equivalent to Service Packs which are essentially a bundle of all of the updated since the last SP being released periodically. MS gets this close but still tends to bundle other crap in their SPs.

One thing I like about Windows update, is if a particular update doesn't pertain to my machine, I simply don't have to bother installing it. It'd really get annoying if every other month I had to concern myself about "okay, time to update Windows 7.1.5 to Windows 7.1.6 etc. etc... Even more annoying if I got some message: "X-needed application requires an update to Windows 7.1.6..."

But in general you still do, it's just that instead of saying that it just says "Patch for Windows XXXX KBXXXX" in the AU window.

 

[Kaido]

If you wanna get a little weird:

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/04...el-atom-support-in-mac-os-x-10-6-2-unfounded/

The latest developer's build of 10.6.2...supports Atom chips again. /twilight zone music plays

 

[mmntech]

Yep, looks like a hoax after all. Man are we dumb...
http://gizmodo.com/5397241/os-x-1062-does-not-ditch-atom-support-hackintosh-safe
... though it is believable.

 

[mugs]

One thing I like about Windows update, is if a particular update doesn't pertain to my machine, I simply don't have to bother installing it. It'd really get annoying if every other month I had to concern myself about "okay, time to update Windows 7.1.5 to Windows 7.1.6 etc. etc... Even more annoying if I got some message: "X-needed application requires an update to Windows 7.1.6..."

Who cares what the version number is? Apple's updates are really no different from Microsoft's monthly patches. Click a button, restart, BAM you're done. There's no functional difference between the two, they just use different version numbering standards.

 

[Zaap]

m/p

 

[Zaap]

m/p

 

[Zaap]

sorry for mulitple posts- last night the forum wasn't updating