> From: "johnpitcairn" <johnp@...> >--- In logic-users@y..., Howard Wooten <hwooten@d...> wrote: >> Has this article been posted before... >> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp > >I'm continually amazed by the way practically all these articles >totally miss the point: > >Apple is a hardware company, not a software-only vendor like >Microsoft. If Apple does move to an x86-compatible platform, the >hardware required WILL STILL BE APPLE HARDWARE! They'll >simply be using a different CPU & supporting chipset. > >It's extremely unlikely you'd ever be able to use an off-the-shelf >Dell, or build an x86-clone from generic parts and run OSX on it. >Even if that's what Apple are using for these rumoured versions, >you can bet they'll add enough proprietary Apple hardware >dependencies to make sure only _their_ x86 box will run OSX, >if/when it's available. > >John Pitcairn Hi John, Running OS-X on an off the shelf PC-clone didn't seem the point of the article at all. I saw it as Apple keeping options open and even putting a little heat on Motorola to ramp things up. OTOH... if they do have a x86 version at 10.2 it must be running on something more substantial than a MacWin emulator. Anyway, I posted the article as color commentary only... H p.s. If they did release a x46 version tied to hardware it would only be a matter of weeks before PC hackers had it running on generic machines. http://www.dakotacom.net/~hwooten/ http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/167/cool_breeze.html

On 9/2/02 2:51 AM, "Howard Wooten" <hwooten@...> wrote: > p.s. If they did release a x46 version tied to hardware it would only be a > matter of weeks before PC hackers had it running on generic machines. You're right, and that's exactly why Apple will never do it. It's WAY too risky.

Hi there, On Tuesday, September 3, 2002, at 01:41 AM, Abby Normal wrote: > On 9/2/02 2:51 AM, "Howard Wooten" <hwooten@...> wrote: > >> p.s. If they did release a x46 version tied to hardware it would only >> be a >> matter of weeks before PC hackers had it running on generic machines. > > You're right, and that's exactly why Apple will never do it. It's WAY > too > risky. I have to disagree. Darwin (the under-the-hood OS of OS X) _already_ runs on x86. It is _already_ open source. What is not open source is all the stuff from Apple on top of darwin - good luck cracking that one... with regards, -- Lachlan Deck ldeck@...

"Howard Wooten" <hwooten@...> wrote: > p.s. If they did release a x46 version tied to hardware >it would only be a matter of weeks before PC hackers >had it running on generic machines. You grossly misunderstand and miscalculate what a "hacker" can do. It's one thing to crack a piece of software that is intended to run on certain machine. It's an entirely different thing to "crack" a piece of software (ie.... an operating system) that is not intended to run on a certain computer. Remember, the processor itself isn't the entire computer. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" I use a Mac because I'm in the business of computing my work, not working my computer.

> You grossly misunderstand and miscalculate what a "hacker" > can do. It's one thing to crack a piece of software that is > intended to run on certain machine. It's an entirely different > thing to "crack" a piece of software (ie.... an operating system) > that is not intended to run on a certain computer. > > Remember, the processor itself isn't the entire computer. > > > f-erenc szabo, smarty pants > Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T on the other hand, plenty of "hackers" have involved themselves in the X-Box Linux project (porting linux to the MS XBOX platform--which has been very successful)-- i'm sure there are MANY slashdotters out there who would jump at the chance to port X to x86-- given a few months, and a large framework of people, the system would function just fine on intel hardware. about the only practical thing apple could do to try and stem "un-authorized" hardware from running an x86 compatible version of X is to write a proprietary BIOS for the motherboard-- i'm sure people would be able to aquire the logic boards (ebay) with relative ease-- the rest is all software checksums; which again, can be rooted. also, please be advised that "hackers" don't crack software-- that's a cracker, or "script kiddie". hackers are an entirely different animal-- it's generally considered an insult to mention cracking in relation to white-hats. ds. <quotes repositioned by admin>