that's got to be a hackers worst nightmare tho... having a poem thrown in your face while working at it. damn, I'm surprised they're getting it hacked at all...

just release it on PC dammit, and atleast get money from the people wiling to pay for it. Now the people willing will have to resort to piracy because it's the only way to get it (well, besides coughing up the glory (?!!) money for owning an apple)

Apple says it has no plans to implement advanced authentication mechanisms.

i dont know what the point it, running os 10.4 under xp by way of an emulator works for me.

and yes i do own a mac but it is just sitting there collecting dust because i use it as a license

well, its hardly rocket science. Apple charge a fortune for these stuff, its hardly used by the massess and then they try and break into the PC market by offering an OS that runs on Intel.
Beats me, if they have a small market because of there inflated prices now, how will putting out a new OS using Intel help.

At the end of the day apple has to have a decent margin on it's hardware to make money, it can't shift the volumes of machines dell shifts to be able to do it at thoose prices and make any realy money. So low volume means higher prices, this also means it has to retain that model and thus not release OSX to anyone to install on their own budget machine. If they did and the likes of dell were offing it as an os choice where would that leave apple?

At the end of the day if you want to run OSX get an apple, if you don't stick with a PC. To be honest OSX holds no interest for me and i threw out my old G3 ages ago.

It's dumb the fact that Apple's only marketing strategy is that of stealing money from people by forcing them to buy low quality PCs at higher prices.
They should just sell OS and applications, Apple is part of Microsoft after all, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to sell hardware in any form, including the XBox/XBox360 if only there were some serious antitrust regulations worldwide. Bill Gates avoids any laws like no one else before, he destroyed the IT market and that's the reason why software prices are so high. If the disgusting sue-your-customers DRM gets successful with Vista due to general people ignorance then there will be a real Big Brother in action.

"forcing them to buy low quality PCs at higher prices."

Where to begin...

Low quality? Please back it up or go home.

Forcing? They put a gun to your friggin' head? No? Then shut up.

The rest of your post is crap. Apple is part of MS? Lay off the crack-pipe, buddy.

They should just sell the OS and apps? Says who? You? You a business God now? Give 'em one, juse one good business reason to do so. How would doing something like that *ever* make them more money?

I really wish people would quit thinking Apple has some stranglehold on it's users. They aren'tmorons, ya know. They know they are paying more, and they willingly do so.

Just because you want it cheaper doesn't mean they have to do it. I want a jaguar, but I highly doubt they'll lower their prices to that of a chevy just because I want them to.

"I want a jaguar"

Why would you want one of those over priced ugly pieces of metal??:)

'Tis a question of taste. I, apparently, have none. ;)

none is the angel here!
both win and macos are expensive
both companies file suits against people and so on

I wouldn't be suprised if Apple were secretly happy about all the free testing they've been getting curtesy of the OpenHacking community. Think of all the security fixes they have come out with for the Intel macs all because of one rouge torrent. I would be suprised if the DMCA comes and goes by the end of next week. Rock on osx86project!!! Don't let the big dog get you down!

Apple will protect its products, but by not enforcing strict authentication like Microsoft, Apple is leaving the door open for piracy (while condoning it). I think that it's better for Apple to leave this door open for a while to help increase their own market share.

I wonder why regular volkswagen drivers dont get upset when they cannot get porsche's latest gimmicks to perform on their car...or a toyota drivers that gets the urge to run a lexus motor in his/her cars and on top of that feels frustrated because those attempts are made impossible by hardware/software design...

But here's the problem - now the hardware is extremely similar - so much so, that tweakers from outside of apple can modify it to run OSX on the standard intel pc. They just made an arbitrary lock to keep people out. Apple angers me for this reason; it's about as stupid as the 100 song limit on the ROKR; An arbitrary limitation to benefit them and not the consumer. I wonder if apple/motorola would sue if someone broke the 100 song limit.

Personally, I honestly would pay for a copy of OS X(x86) to run on my machine; maybe even pay more than the cost of a copy of XP; I'd even pay to switch out hardware that isn't compatible; it'd still be massively cheaper than buying a whole new pc.

Why?

Why should Apple do this? Give me one good *business* reason. Just one.

You'd be willing to pay more for the OS? Good. Buy the OS by paying a little more for your hardware. Done deal. :)

"An arbitrary limitation to benefit them and not the consumer."

Except it's in the consumer's benefit to have an OS guaranteed to work on approved hardware. It is not in the consumer's benefit to run an unreliable setup. It is not in the consumer's benefit to allow the consumer to be screwed over by running the OS on cheap hardware.

The complaints about how Apple won't allow you to install their OS on a toaster are all getting old. If you want an inexpensive Mac, go buy a Mini. Otherwise, quit complaining.

For every "microchip" installed, there will always be a workaround. Just look at the playstation chip hacks that are out there to play burned or other region disks.

Oh no, is apple sweying towards the dark side (Microsoft). First the intel chip what next?

Faster processors? I'm usually good at these probability questions... but this one is difficult...

OK Apple, you're playing in the Big Sandbox now. You decided to leave your little self-imposed Bubble Of Isolation and enter the Real World. Your typical modus operandi of whining and snivelling at every little thing that befalls you (real or imagined) won't cut it here. There's no one for you to sue - the targets are too fast and too fleet of foot.

If you can't take the heat, make sure you're indoors by 6:00PM with the doors locked and double-bolted. Better yet, run home to momma in the aforementioned Bubble Of Isolation (translation: your niche world where the Apple Faithful hang on your every breath). This world is not for the timid or the proprietary - crybaby wannabes aren't welcome here and WILL be b****-slapped. You didn't expect to be "opened"? Well, it's the cost of doing business here, baby.

'nuff said.

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...

Was there a point to that, or are you just high?

There is ALWAYS a point. ;)

Let's take it in baby steps:

Apple finally appeared to acquired intelligence by deciding to appeal to a mass market audience. However, in typical myopic Apple fashion, it wanted it all its own way and that spells P-R-O-P-R-I-E-T-A-R-Y and C-L-O-S-E-D. Furthermore, Apple has a long history of whining in court whenever it felt that someone somehow (real or imagined - usually imagined) encroached on what it considered its "intellectual property" (I use the term loosly) even when that IP was a blatant ripoff of someone else's (Xerox Parc, for example).

So let's return to the presernt.

Apple tables an OS that is in essence FreeBSD with a nice little GUI grafted on - in short, the typical Apple repackaging of someone else's work with their name on it and more money charged. It tries to make it a closed system (again in typical Apple fashion), thus forcing people to buy its overpriced bundle. However, it made a critical miscalculation. - it picked the wrong market to have that mindset with. Why? Because the PC market (since the early days of the ISA bus) was, is and always will be *wide open*. Furthermore, to make matters worse, even the stuff that isn't open is made to be that way by the community of electronic Rob Hoods out there who happily reverse engineer anything and everything they can "just for the halibut". But yet, Apple in its shortsightedness and naivete STILL expects it to happen on its own terms.

My post was a sarcastic observation of one simple phrase:

"Not Gonna Happen"

and that Apple should ditch its Rose Colored Glasses if it expects to survive in this market, specifically the Real World.

Clearer now?

Clearer that you have no concept of what's really going on here.

Apple is *not* entering the PC market.

I don't know where you got that. Using an Intel CPU does not make it a PC.

Miscalculation? Aside from the fact they aren't going where you think they are going, they also don't care for, or want the PC market. Why do you think they focus on Style and Visual Appeal? To *seperate* themselves from the PC market. They are proprietary and closed for a reason. It's not a mistake or miscalculation.

Clearer? Yeah. At least now I know why you don't own a Mac. :)

Apple is in no danger of bankruptcy, nor of losing their current installed-base. The fact that many people here seem to think that in order to survive they have to take on Dell or MS directly speaks volumes to the lack of understanding peple have of this company.

But you are right...Apple taking on Dell or MS?

"Not Gonna Happen"

Simply because that isn't anywhere near their goal.

They're interested in Money, are they not?

I do believe that says it all.

And no, they're in no danger of bankruptcy but not for the reason you may think. They were propped up by MS before (much as Corel was) and will be for as long as any spectre of anti-trust remains. They're a convenience, nothing more. They could never make a profit and still remian in business if for no other reason than that.

Yes, Apple has long traded on mindless coffee-table elitist nonsense. However, why enter a broader market if not to take a piece of it? Surely not just for the purposes of small talk around the aforementioned coffee table with a latte in tow? :) :) ;)

"They're interested in Money, are they not?"

Yes, they are. What you don't understand is that they make plenty of money using their current business model: in fact, Apple just set record revenues.

Apple is not going to become another OEM ala Dell, HP, Gateway, or any of the other interchangable names that sell PCs. Get over it.

Apple got "bailed" out by MS once. Once. A long time ago. (In a galaxy far, far away).

They posted record revenues recently and are doign quite well without any help using their curent business model.

"However, why enter a broader market if not to take a piece of it?"

WTH?

Where do you come up with this stuff? Entered a borader market? No, sir. You are mistaken. They did no such thing. They may have switched to a different architecture, but their intended market remains *EXACTLY* the same. This seems to be the basic flaw in all of your arguments here.

They are *not*, I repeat *not* after the PC market. Never have been, and switching to Intel is just a hardware descision, not a feeble attempt to enter another market.

I love that poem!

cool lol

What exactly is the problem with cloning their software to run on generic hardware? That means they can get more support for their product, and therefore increase market share, oh wait we already know that..

So if that's the case, are the people at Apple this stupid?

They learned nothing from 81 when IBM/CLones ate their lunch. I guess they are perpetually stupid. I *WAS* interested in Apple, but I am officially done with them now. This goes beyond stupid.

They learned that IBM/PC clones would eat their lunch.

Considering their in business to *gasp* make money, it makes sense that they would not want to go down that road again.

And if they did? The additional support costs would ruin them before lack of hardware sales even touched them. All of the sudden having to support an increasingly inane amount of hardware would kill them.

They always have and will always remain a niche computer company, building computers for folks who have the money and desire for a fully integrated, 100% supported, elegant and well designed system. This is their goal and their drive.

It won't break their hearts to know you've decided never to buy one. They obviously aren't selling to you. When folks say Mac Users and Apple themselves are "elitist", they are right, and have reason to be. They pay extra for that right.

Stupid? No. Not even close. Just not built like "every other" company out there....just different.

Well put.

No it's not, because support isn't something they would have to do. So it's irrelavant. Why not allow people to install OSX on generic hardware with no support? Product activation is gotta be cheaper than a TPM chip.

The real reason they have to put a stop to this, is they don't want their customers to see how badly they've been raped on hardware costs.

Apple can be careless about their OS market share, since they're making money mainly out of their hardware, not software. If Apple make OSX 10.4.5 available to generic Intel x86 hardware, yes it will probably boost the marketshare, but it'll probably cause a decline on profit since their hardware sales is probably declining...

To me, I'll still buy Apple's hardware but run Windows on it, since the hardware is really what I'm buying from Apple :)

"The real reason they have to put a stop to this, is they don't want their customers to see how badly they've been raped on hardware costs."

Dumb. Just dumb.

You are assuming all Mac users are idiots. You are wrong. Just as people will pay a premium for a luxury car, so to will they pay a premium for a luxury computer. Quality, reliability, due to a thoroughly tested platform end-toend.

No suprises.

Why should they stop doing this? Because PC-boy wants one? Pony up the cash and buy one, just like anyone else.

TPM more expensive? It's a chip. Commodity. 10 cents at best. No updates, no support costs, no worries. It might be more expensive from the starting line, but it will outlast and outperform WPA wihtout the added costs of servers, updates, and support-lines.

"Why not allow people to install OSX on generic hardware with no support?"

Why should they? What's the point? Will it make them more money? No. Will it increase their hardware sales? No. How short is you memory? They did it before and got their assess handed to them on a platter by the clone market. They are not likely to make this mistake ever again.

Apple's decision to continue users to buy their hardware is what will keep them at 5% of the PC market forever, or until they go bankrupt.

And by God...they seem to be happy at 5%.

Infuriating, isn't it?

You say it like it's a bad thing...do you have any idea how much money that 5% is raking in? I'd *kill* to have 5% of the computer market.

I know, I know... They are a Company and therefor *must* be absolutely and completely consumed by Greed, right?

It's strange how even with 5% of the PC market, 85% of the digital audio player market and a $60 billion market cap, people still think Apple is on the road to bankruptcy.

I don't know about you, but I'd be happy with 5% of the PC market.

lmao..

From the post you replied to:

"I'd *kill* to have 5% of the computer market."

So yeah, I think that' be a safe bet. ;P

Apple shoots itself in the foot yet again.

How exactly?

They were once #1 30 years ago.

How does that relate? "They were #1 once" does not at all answer my question.

Thanks for trying.

It's a horrible time to find help for my OSX problems...

http://www.apple.com/support/

Touche! :P

Heh, I was just being cheeky.

Apple just want to keep their old business model. Charge over priced hardware. Like how they over their their IPOD with their garbage iTune media software.

"the company has said it prefers to trust its users."

ha...good luck with that one.

Trust doesn't really work in the computer world... But Apple's approach to no activation or license keys is a good idea.

Activation is one of the worst ideas ever, without a doubt, but I don't mind product keys just so people can't randomly grab a CD off my desk at work.

I have to agree.

"Apple also left a poetic warning to those trying to hack its operating system in the latest 10.4.5 release."

Who would give a damn about that? poor Apple :( the company should be more realistic and face the serious problem that might come up one day :(

Does Apple ever think that some of us would like to BUY (as in PAY FOR) MacOSX, but make it Duelboot along with Windows XP and Linux 2.6 on our EXISTING systems.

More sales for them = more money... Are they blind or stupid :(

They make their $$ from forcing you to buy the HARDWARE, not the software.

No, not more sales for them..
Less sales for them. Apple Computer is primarily a hardware company, NOT a software company.. If they begin offering the software for sale, there is no incentive to buy their hardware. They can't sell enough software to make up what they would lose from the decrease in hardware sales.

Did they hold a gun to your head?

I ask because I *chose* to buy their hardware, they didn't need to force me.

Friends don't let friends make stupid, sweeping generalizations. I take it you have no friends?

Man!
Never would have guessed that PC_Fool, I mean PC_Tool was a Mac user.

I really like the rumor floating around that Apple is going to kill OSX in the future in favor of vista...

I am a switcher and made the change to Apple's Mac & OS X after years of Windows use for two reasons:

1. I like the styling of Apple's hardware. In my opinion PC makers are incapable of making nice looking machines - even Sony's Vaio fails to match Apple's good looks. Why? (OK AOpen has tried to copy the Mac Mini but missed the mark.)
2. I like OS X's ease of use combined with UNIX robustness & flexibility.

Would I buy OS X to run on a standard PC? Possibly, its certainly good enough. It would be better than running Windows. But I would be missing out half of the Apple experience.

What makes Apple Macs so good is the combination of hardware PLUS software. Either on its own would not be the same.

I can understand why Apple want to control the hardware that it's OS runs on - it makes support so much cheaper if nothing else. Apple can guarantee a level of performance because it controls the environment and I believe this has a lot to do with why Macs are perceived to be so much more stable than Windows. Sure, Apple could make money from selling boxed OSes. But that would affect its hardware business greatly ...

Will Apple dump OS X for Windows? I sincerely hope not (and doubt it). OS X is a far superior OS for many reasons. From I've read of Vista its only just catching up with - not surpassing - what OS X is now. And we have OS X 10.5 to look forward to at about the time Vista arrives.

(BTW. I run a Windows based IT department for a .NET development company so I know Windows and I wouldn't switch back.)

bia***.

Mac, Windows, Linux....hell, even QNX when I get bored.

"(BTW. I run a Windows based IT department for a .NET development company so I know Windows and I wouldn't switch back.)"

Sadly, you'd probably say the opposite if you worked for a Mac development house...especially within the last year.

I'm a Windows user but I have to admit if I could do it legally I would put OS X on my system as well. I don't buy Mac for 2 reasons.

1) Mac doesn't have as many programs especially games than Windows has.
2) Mac over charges for their system. I build my own systems for much less than a I can buy a Mac for.

Apple is a hardware/software company. If they said "Ok you can put Mac OS X on your pc" then when problems happen they would have to support them and like you said Apple can now guarantee a level of performence when if everyone was mixing and matching hardware on their systems with OS X then they couldn't do that.

The thing I don't understand is why someone doesn't take unix and just make another OS thats comperable to Mac? Or maybe Apple could sell the source code to OS X to someone who can like different Linux distros can call it their own and they can support it instead of Apple.

I see two sides of the story 1) Apple wants to keep using their hardware because they don't want to support all the other motherboards, ram, video cards, Intel and AMD processors, sound cards and so fourth. I also see 2) that if they did they could make more money. I see Mac people buying Mac hardware weather or not they let you put Mac OS X on another platform or not. Mac people know Apple use specific hardware for a reason. But if they allowed Mac OS X to be put on other hardware (or if they made a second company that would support it and keep it seperate from Apple, they would make more money. There are plenty of people like me who would duel boot OS X and Windows.

The other thing I have against Apple is they charge for each upgrade to OS X. 10.0, 10.2, 10.4, 10.5. Microsoft only charges for each major realease and they have service packs which add functions that they give out for free. From 10.0 to 10.5 its not like the difference between 98 to XP or XP to Vista, its more like the difference between XP to SP2 and they charge for that. When Microsoft came out with 98 then 98 SE and charged for it I think they learned their lesson that charging for patches and minor upgrades doesn't make customers happy. Apple should charge between OS X and OS XI and the rest should be to download as updates.

I was reading a comment on an article from someone on another internet magazine and he brought up an interesting thought. Apple could sell the rights to Dell, HP or other pc makers to make Macs in the future. Kind of like the HP Ipod.

So, can I assume that Apple will not force me to buy their DRM-infested (Palladium) hardware to use Mac OSX? Where can I buy it?

Have you seen the specs on macs servers ....
LOL :P osx performance my a**

i also run the IT on my company and i would never switch from windows ... specially after server 2003 ....

Part of the MacOS experience is the stability/reliability of the system. This is only achieved when you have an OS that runs in a closed and limited set of hardware.

In the Windows world, drivers are not always written by Microsoft, but the peripherals manufacturers and their quality levels are very diverse. It will be much harder for Apple and will require much more resources to properly test and support the OS with all these variables if they make available MacOS X to non-Apple hardware.

More sales for them...

*I* Would buy MacOSX if it run on the same system my Linux 2.6 or Windows XP does.

I have no experience of OS X based servers so I wouldn't want to comment other than to say you're not comparing like for like because of the different hardware architectures. If/when Apple ports its server OS to Intel then you might be able to make the argument.

But Windows Server 2003 is a good server platform. Of course, it's all horses for courses ...

But this discussion seems to centered around the desktop OSes. And my experience is that OS X is a nicer to use and work with than Windows XP.

Apple has licensed it's OS in past (albeit to run on PPC based architecture) so it was possible to by cheaper, non-Apple badged 'Mac clones'.

But the project was canned. Presumably because there wasn't enough money to be made from it. So I doubt Steve Jobs will do that again.

Don't let the decimal point fool you. Each Mac OS X "upgrade" is a major release. 10.2 to 10.3 is equivalent to Windows 95 to Windows 98. And 10.3 to 10.4 is like Windows 98 to Windows 2000. Just check out Apple's web site to see the hundreds of new features in each release.

There are additional "free" service packs that come out every one-to-two months and are numbered 10.4.1, 10.4.2, etc. I'd like to see Microsoft actually give OS updates (besides the monthly critical security fixes) that often.

A boxed OS X release costs less ($129) than a Windows XP Professional 'Upgrade' ($199). Apple charges for each major release, just like Microsoft, but actually produces that new OS on a 12-month (now 18-month) cycle. ...Windows hasn't had a new release since October 2001!

I disagree if Apple was to say make a list of standards to become Mac certified and charged a fee for the hardware companies to have a Mac certified sticker on the box the would make up for lost hardware sales people would pay a little more to get rid of the confusion of if the hardware would be compatable and Apple would still be in control by setting the standards required to be certified.

Hell depending on how they plan to have the graghics cards(hopefully pci-express) between Nvidia and Ati they could make a fortune then add ontop of that cd/dvd drives motherboards keyboards mice ect ect ect.(would say processors to but i don't know the deal they got with Intel so AMD might not be able to be certified for a while)

That was stupid.

1.) The OS was written for specific hardware. If you want to run the OS, you need the hardware. They made a choice not to limit the ability of their OS by dumbing it down to commodity hardware and instead of spending money on those masive support costs can spend it on R&D. Don't like it? Good for you.

2.) DRM infested? Like XP isn't? Like Vista won't be? Like Linux wion't be(If it wants to support any of the new hardware)? Get a clue. Why is DRM so bad? It's implementation? If that is the case, Apple's implementation is *far* better than anyone elses.

The clone market handed Apple their a** in a can.

Apple lost a fortune on hardware sales because every other manufacturer undercut them and there was no way they could hope to make that up in OS sales.

No, it's not a mistake they are likely to make again.

Neither. They realize the desire, but will not capitalize on it because it would, pu plain and simply, ruin them.

They make money on the whole package, not just parts of it.

Hellcat_M,
You are ABSOLUTELY right. Apple has decided to open up their software to the Intel world so that ANYONE can pick up a copy and use it. It's not to affect market share or put anyone out of business.
They are doing it so that Programmers, Publishers, Etc. can port their GAMES, their small business Applications, productivity, etc etc etc software to MacOS.
The problem with Limited Software on MacOS is not a problem of different OSs. It's not a Linux-to-Windows problem.

The problem is and has ALWAYS been, that most publishers don't want to have to re-code their software to work with Apple HARDWARE. (Recall that most software companies have a "flagship" software title. They can't spend 80% of their revenue to re-work it to work on a Machintosh to sell to 10% of the population). Making Windows applications work on *Nix gets easier every year, as long as you're on x86 compatible hardware.

Solution: move MacOS to "common" (x86) hardware and *problem solved.* In addition, Apple is a Company, created to make money. At $129 a pop, they make a quick buck in the process. Excellent Business Decision.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/
Take a look at the Intel Duo link and the Universal Link on the right hand side. Give me a Unix core and all the 'hacking' tools (mmmmm nmap) of a BSD machine and give me the kiddie-ease of a Windows XP machine.

Now, Tell me you aren't going to go pick up a copy of x86 OS X and Dual Boot this mother ***ker RIGHT NOW. I am.

I thought the point of moving to Intel processors is because IBM can't make PPC chips fast enough and yet cool enough to power Apple's PowerBooks and iMacs. G5 chips run too hot. Apple was in danger of losing too much ground to PCs on the basis of performance. G5s will be around in Power Macs for a while I bet though.

A nice side effect of all this is that it is possibly easier for developers to port their PC/x86 code of to MacTel but I'm not sure that was Apple's goal.

Apple aren't going to release OS X for Intel in retail (boxed copy) form anytime soon. Not before they're happy they can prevent installation on non-Apple hardware at least.