I'm posting this on my brother-in0law's fridge tonight. Very good arguments for something that shouldn't need to be argued.

Thanks!

I think Apple will win over alot of people strictly because you will be able to double and triple boot OSX, Windows, and Linux ...

I know many people who run Windows for 1-2 apps (Outlook, Quicken, ...etc) because they prefer the Windows version ... If Apple include some sort of decent Window emulation, things would be perfect.

A Mac wouldn't be Mac unless it had the tight integration between hardware and software ... I love how Apple has all their drivers on the OS CDs so after you install the OS, everything works.

I have fixed numerous PCs ... and one of the most annoying things to do is to look for drivers ... If you have a Dell and you lose your Resource CD ... good luck ... there is no way a non-computer savy person would be able to figure out which drivers he needs. You have to dig through their FTP of thousands of drivers ... I guess that is what happens when you buy a $299 computer.

It's so nice to see someone post some logical perspective to this whole TPM issue.

Yeah if you like Apple I don't see how you could be against them using this chip. As nice as it might seem to save some $ buy installing OS X on a regular PC, the fact is that would put Apple out of business. And if you like Apple, thats not so good!

The lack of existence of the TPM until now is probably one major reason Apple never made the switch before. They weren't about to go Intel and have cracked OS X running on every PC out there.

I hate them and their little seeds! Cans oemone please de-seed my blackberries? Steve?

You're making sense here, Mr. Seward.

I have no problem with keeping OSX running on Apple-only hardware. Big surprise - I own an Apple computer! But my worry is that hardware DRM will show up in iTunes, iDVD, etc. If that day comes...

Well, it'll be a sad day.

Those of us who have been forced to use PCs, have had to deal with the clunky keyboard, wheezy clickity hard-drive syndrome before even negotiating the ugly Windows U.I.

Why would anybody in their right mind want to install OS X on such a technological sub-standard, sub-genre?

Quote

Guest wrote:
Those of us who have been forced to use PCs, have had to deal with the clunky keyboard, wheezy clickity hard-drive syndrome before even negotiating the ugly Windows U.I.

Why would anybody in their right mind want to install OS X on such a technological sub-standard, sub-genre?

eh? thats stupid.. if you think all PCs have crap keyboards and hardrives you are dead wrong.

Great article Vern. I was going to offer a tirade in similar flavor in another thread, but work and sleep got in the way. I'm sure some enterprising hacker will come up with a workaround within 7 days of the new Intel Macs hitting the market.Good for them. No doubt it will be difficult and result in an "iffy" machine that neither Apple nor the hardware manufacurer will support. Have fun with that.

Dude, I don't think there is an OS alive that you can get which will automatically install on any hardware you choose. There is a bit of porting involved and if you wish to do it, as the response says, let everyone know and include pictures.

Just because we get a wink and a nod that the TPM BS will only be used to keep MacOS X running on Apple built PCs, doesn't mean we have to quietly march like lemmings without asking "Why TPM? How do we know this won't be used to control *our* data?" and other reasonable questions we have every fscking *right* to be asking and be concerned about.

Just because Jobs is getting in bed w/ Intel and Gates, and RIAA and MPAA as much as the Bush family is in bed with the Saudi royal family, doesn't mean we have to just shrug our shoulders and put up with it.

I may trust Jobs to hire great designers to build some great hardware and software, but why should I trust *anyone*, even Jobs/Apple, so much as to potentially surrender that much control of *MY* data, without asking questions that are very reasonable to be asking?

I'm not saying everyone should be storming the gates demanding Jobs head... But I think it's just as unreasonable to expect quiet lemmingesk obedience and unquestioning loyalty when it comes to *OUR* data. Apple should make a very public, very legal commitment making it clear that our data is our data, and no one will prevent us from using it as we see fit when we have it on Apple built PCs. Otherwise, we have every right to continue to be cautious and doubtful.

This is not the hardware that Apple will ship.

These are just developer boxes.

There is no reason to think OS X for Intel will even run on them.

This whole flurry of stories is based on assumptions.

People are so damn stupid.

Very true.. I think very few that have read about this gives a flying fig if MacOS X will run on a POS Dell... Most that are concerned, and yes perhaps too concerned, about the TPM are concerned about how TPM could potentially be used to control their use of their own data.

And it is reasonable to be concerned. But at this point, it's just not going to be productive for either side to be calling each other names (Tin foil hat, etc).

Apple should clear things up at some point, if they care to continue in the PC market. Allot of recent switchers I know ran from Wintel as they saw TPM looming, now to only see Apple join in the TPM BS potential.. None are very happy with this even floating around as a rumor. Apple would be wise to clear things up ASAP. TPM could kill off any chance of increased market share before Apple gets MacIntels out of the gate.As a shareholder, this makes me very concerned.

My bet is that you will be able to install a hacked version of OS X on your pentium 4 or AMD 64 in about a month or two. People are working on this as we post. The developer dvd is already out and now it is just a matter of time before you can install on your pentium. Be patient.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Just because we get a wink and a nod that the TPM BS will only be used to keep MacOS X running on Apple built PCs, doesn't mean we have to quietly march like lemmings without asking "Why TPM? How do we know this won't be used to control *our* data?" and other reasonable questions we have every fscking *right* to be asking and be concerned about.

Just because Jobs is getting in bed w/ Intel and Gates, and RIAA and MPAA as much as the Bush family is in bed with the Saudi royal family, doesn't mean we have to just shrug our shoulders and put up with it.

I may trust Jobs to hire great designers to build some great hardware and software, but why should I trust *anyone*, even Jobs/Apple, so much as to potentially surrender that much control of *MY* data, without asking questions that are very reasonable to be asking?

I'm not saying everyone should be storming the gates demanding Jobs head... But I think it's just as unreasonable to expect quiet lemmingesk obedience and unquestioning loyalty when it comes to *OUR* data. Apple should make a very public, very legal commitment making it clear that our data is our data, and no one will prevent us from using it as we see fit when we have it on Apple built PCs. Otherwise, we have every right to continue to be cautious and doubtful.

This is by far one of the top 5 dumbest things I've read this week.

You all knew this was coming. As Vern so eloquently (and rightly) pointed out: You can't run OSX on any PC NOW, so why should a change in processor make any difference.

Find something worthwhile to b*tch about.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Just because we get a wink and a nod that the TPM BS will only be used to keep MacOS X running on Apple built PCs, doesn't mean we have to quietly march like lemmings without asking "Why TPM? How do we know this won't be used to control *our* data?" and other reasonable questions we have every fscking *right* to be asking and be concerned about.

Just because Jobs is getting in bed w/ Intel and Gates, and RIAA and MPAA as much as the Bush family is in bed with the Saudi royal family, doesn't mean we have to just shrug our shoulders and put up with it.

I may trust Jobs to hire great designers to build some great hardware and software, but why should I trust *anyone*, even Jobs/Apple, so much as to potentially surrender that much control of *MY* data, without asking questions that are very reasonable to be asking?

I'm not saying everyone should be storming the gates demanding Jobs head... But I think it's just as unreasonable to expect quiet lemmingesk obedience and unquestioning loyalty when it comes to *OUR* data. Apple should make a very public, very legal commitment making it clear that our data is our data, and no one will prevent us from using it as we see fit when we have it on Apple built PCs. Otherwise, we have every right to continue to be cautious and doubtful.

This is by far one of the top 5 dumbest things I've read this week.

You all knew this was coming. As Vern so eloquently (and rightly) pointed out: You can't run OSX on any PC NOW, so why should a change in processor make any difference.

Find something worthwhile to b*tch about.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Just because we get a wink and a nod that the TPM BS will only be used to keep MacOS X running on Apple built PCs, doesn't mean we have to quietly march like lemmings without asking "Why TPM? How do we know this won't be used to control *our* data?" and other reasonable questions we have every fscking *right* to be asking and be concerned about.

Just because Jobs is getting in bed w/ Intel and Gates, and RIAA and MPAA as much as the Bush family is in bed with the Saudi royal family, doesn't mean we have to just shrug our shoulders and put up with it.

I may trust Jobs to hire great designers to build some great hardware and software, but why should I trust *anyone*, even Jobs/Apple, so much as to potentially surrender that much control of *MY* data, without asking questions that are very reasonable to be asking?

I'm not saying everyone should be storming the gates demanding Jobs head... But I think it's just as unreasonable to expect quiet lemmingesk obedience and unquestioning loyalty when it comes to *OUR* data. Apple should make a very public, very legal commitment making it clear that our data is our data, and no one will prevent us from using it as we see fit when we have it on Apple built PCs. Otherwise, we have every right to continue to be cautious and doubtful.

Since when did this become a "data" issue? No one is rifling through your folders now, and even if they were, why should the appearance of a chip make any difference one way or another? If people were out to get your data they can do it without a TPM.

It is not a matter of loyalty or lemmingesk (nice word) behavior, it is a matter of what makes sense.

Jobs and Apple are just doing what ever it takes to stay in business and turn a profit legally. I'm not saying that Apple has an eternal halo hanging over it, or that Steve Jobs only has your ultimate pleasure and welfare in mind when he makes his decisions, but I do believe that he and Apple are doing what they do to make a buck or 2. Your "data" matters little in these decisions.

As for "getting in bed with" all the folks and organizations you mentioned, believe what you will, but it was Jobs making deals with the geek's version of The Axis of Evil, that has kept Apple relavent, and profitable, and has kept MS Word on our Macs, and iPods in our pockets. Often to the chagrin of those very people and organizations you claim Apple is in bed with.

Sorry, but I can only see baseless paranoia in your arguement. I cannot agree. Still, it is your opinion and i thank you for sharing it.

Vern Seward

lol, I believe I share an office with at least one of the people you claim to be paranoid and b*tching, shrug. They are all wound up tight re: TPM in general, here, and see it as the PC industry taking too much power over how we use our own data and equipment. Weather you care to agree with that, is of little issue. The main issue, is how that type of concern is laughed off as "Tin Foil Hat" paranoia... I think the real level of concern should lie somewhere in-between.

I think a little paranoia is a good thing, given that some reported capabilities of TPM would be to prevent someone from opening a Word, or Pages document, in another app. This is the data the author is talking about. Weather either of you see that as a legitimate issue or not, depends on how much data you create or manage I guess. I know people with over 20,000 emails alone stored and archived in various forms, that are very sensitive about being able to open, edit, modify, (what they see as their data) as they see fit. Allot of people, right or wrong, see TPM as a threat to this on a few levels. That is the "data issue".

Shrug.

I see no comments that he made re: MacOS X on non Apple Macs, the author of this comment and someone replaying to it both seem, like me, to see it as a non-issue. Why would we want to run MacOS X on a POS Dell??? The concern, a valid one from what I have read, is other possible uses of TPM, that you are both ignoring, for some unknown reason, and accusing others that see it as an issue as being paranoid.

I see no reason for name calling on either side. As I already said, a little paranoia is a healthy thing. I agree with two of the above posters (not just because I think I may work with at least one of them, based on writing style, lol) that a "Why TPM?" question is justified. It is seen in many circles as the most evil thing to come out of the tech world since the A Bomb. If you believe that level of paranoia or not, it begs the question of why Apple would get within 100 ft of it, given many peoples opinions about it.

Shrug. It's the weekend, chill and relax, you all may be wrong... it may not be TPM Apple ends up using at all in the end, and whatever is used may very well be power users's data editing/management nightmare.

For now, I drink, and watch some NASCAR on TV. To Hell wit all ya for taking me away from it this long.

I don't believe for one second that ANYONE is concerned about their Word documents not being able to be opened by Pages, or whatever nonsensical example is put forward. What all the griping is about is that some people are scared their pirated music and movies won't play on their new macs, plain and simple. Get over it. If you are that worried about it, you better burn it to a CD,VCD or DVD soon so you can view and listen till your heart's content, but PLEASE stop trying to make this an issue of personal freedom.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
lol, I believe I share an office with at least one of the people you claim to be paranoid and b*tching, shrug. They are all wound up tight re: TPM in general, here, and see it as the PC industry taking too much power over how we use our own data and equipment. Weather you care to agree with that, is of little issue. The main issue, is how that type of concern is laughed off as "Tin Foil Hat" paranoia... I think the real level of concern should lie somewhere in-between.

I think a little paranoia is a good thing, given that some reported capabilities of TPM would be to prevent someone from opening a Word, or Pages document, in another app. This is the data the author is talking about. Weather either of you see that as a legitimate issue or not, depends on how much data you create or manage I guess. I know people with over 20,000 emails alone stored and archived in various forms, that are very sensitive about being able to open, edit, modify, (what they see as their data) as they see fit. Allot of people, right or wrong, see TPM as a threat to this on a few levels. That is the "data issue".

And what is different on your computer today that is preventing data from being bent, folded, or manipulated by the nefarious unseen? Have you looked inside a PC or Mac lately? It's so full of chips that it wouldn't be hard for a small, unassuming bit of silicon to go unnoticed; could go unnoticed for years. Such a chip could secretly open your data and glean private info and send it, one bit at a time to the nefarious unseen.

Maybe you're right, maybe Apple could shove a DRM chip into up coming Macs, preventing you from using pirated data as well as software. They could, but they won't for one simple reason: Money.

You guys are quick to point to Big Redmond and RIAA as reason to believe Apple is heading down the DARK PATH, all the while ignoring the fact that Apple's core OS is Open Source. Darwin is available for the world to use for free. In fact, Apple, along with IBM and others, are embracing openess. Why? Because there's money in it.

Also, if Apple prevented anyone from using data, regardless of the source, Apple would very soon be out of business. Remember that Apple has made a name from making the complicated easy, why would they shot themselves in the foot by complicating the environment with chips that check data for source? There's no money in it.

The only way I can seen the sort of data checking that you and other are concerned about working is if everyone agreed to incorporate such a device in every new computer. Again, such a move would still be news.

However, there IS money in making sure that Apple products work only on Apple products; hence the TPM, which, as I've said before, really won't change a thing from the way it is now.

Paranoia is healthy, in small doses. If it is a concern then keep an eye out for signs of a problem and letting me know; I give you my word I'll report any real problem for public consideration.

I honestly don't believe I'll ever have anything to report.

Vern Seward

You're being short sighted Vern and very naive. I'm surprised you can't see the real purpose of these types of chips. Their purpose is control. They want to control you so they can get more money from you. Don't you see how companies are trying everything in their power to suck every drop of money out of you that they possibly can? I don't blame them by the way, but I will speak up about it. Companies are in business for one reason... to make as much money as they possibly can. That's their nature after all.

Let's look at a couple examples. Take television commercials for example. If you're old enough you'll remember when cable television began. It was sold as a way to be rid of commercials. They told us if we pay for our television then we could do away with advertising because the producers/actors/suppliers would be getting paid. And early on in the cable TV business there were many channels that were commercial free. Don't you remember? But then the producers and actors decided that they needed more money, and they knew we wouldn't shell out more money for cable TV, so they re-implemented commercials. Do you see the state of commercials today? They now even stick commercials in our face while our TV shows are running. They put commercials over the programming during the beginning and the end of shows. Every TV station now has permanent logos in our face at all times. It all happened gradually such that people wouldn't revolt and turn the TV off, but it did happen. And it will slowly continue to get more pervasive.

Let's look at cell phones as an example. Do people really need 2 telephone numbers? Do people need to be paying twice for phone service? The only reason it is this way is because people are willing to pay it. What about ring tones? We have to pay extra money to add a stupid ring tone? And we can't add something to the phone from our computer for free, no, we have to use their bandwidth... and pay for it. The same goes for adding music to your phone. I can't add music that I've already purchased to my phone, no, I have to pay again because the phone companies want more money. Why was it that we had to lose our phone number if we changed our service provider? Why do they want to lock us into multi-year contracts? Why can't we buy cheap phones without all the added functionality any more? Why can't we buy any phone and have it work with any service? CONTROL. MONEY!

Look all around you and you'll see this behavior of sucking us dry. Look at sports. How much does it cost a family of 4 to go to a baseball game? Aren't these people paid well enough already that they need more money? When in our history did it become necessary for both parents in a family to work, just to make enough money to survive and maybe enjoy life a little.

The list of examples is endless. I don't blame anyone from trying to get more money, but I at least recognize that's the way of the world. If you don't see these DRM chips as another way for this end then you're naive. These chips initially will be used as you describe, they'll only control the hardware that you can install OSX on. But that's just the start. Little by little the chips will be used to gain more control in an effort to get more money out of you. It will happen slowly, but you can be certain it will happen. That's the nature of the world.

Am I being paranoid or am I being a realist?

Quote

acdc1174 wrote:
Great article Vern. I was going to offer a tirade in similar flavor in another thread, but work and sleep got in the way. I'm sure some enterprising hacker will come up with a workaround within 7 days of the new Intel Macs hitting the market.Good for them. No doubt it will be difficult and result in an "iffy" machine that neither Apple nor the hardware manufacurer will support. Have fun with that.

Going to have a field day buster. The trouble with Apple Computers IS that they are overpriced in comparison to their PC Brothren. Whatever Apple is building for 1500 dollars I can build for 800, with better video cards, more hard drive or at least as much and about 2gb RAM. Oh also in an UPGRADEABLE computer as well, something Apple reserves for their high end. So just mosey along lil Apple sheep.
Seriously there will be nothing much separating a Mac from a clone except the DRM chip. THAT can be hacked, and will. Apple better start competing price point if they want ANY sales because the perception is that the only difference between a clone and an Apple is price and some styling.
Also fully 50% of all clones are white boxes,and yes the Mac will be immediately hacked upon delivery. Nothing any of you can do about this reality. Two things Apple cannot do anything about except keep mediocre people from building white boxes. Who was it yes Einstein said great spirits encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds. Well the HELL with you mediocre minds with more money than sense!!! Boy it feels good to say this.
Finally those of us who choose to build hacked Mac clones will not put bad hardware in, Apple will be using off the shelf except for their motherboards with the TPM and their ROM. So thats okay pay another 1/3rd more for a glitzy unupgradeable iMac or worse for a SUPERexpensive high end machine will you? Stay smug and go away.... I am just waiting for some of you folks, who will pay money to build their boxes, provide support that Apple won't AND make money from the whole affair....hehehehe....No I should THANK you people for giving some of us CAREERS!!!!! YOU get a grip. You call Apple up for $50 a phone call to fix your software when you shouldve just run Diskwarrior, or buy AppleCare.....OR have a white hat build you something you'll really like!

"You guys are quick to point to Big Redmond and RIAA as reason to believe Apple is heading down the DARK PATH, all the while ignoring the fact that Apple's core OS is Open Source."

That's the biggest worry I have about the possibility that Apple will implement strong DRM in Leopard. Whether they do or not, whether the TPM module is there just for copy protection or whether they used it for copy protection because it was there anyway, all that is background. The real concern is what will Apple need to do if they are pushed into strong DRM by the MPAA and other goons.

If they are, will they continue to release Darwin updates? How could they, when keeping the implementation secret and untouchable is essential to a strong DRM system?

Will Darwin 8 be the end of the line?

Quote

Guest wrote:
Am I being paranoid or am I being a realist?

Answer: Paranoid. As is a number of people postying here.

Are any of you operating system programmers? Do you have a clue what a TPM actually does, I mean really does at the code level? Do you know what an OS can do utilizing custom ASICs and System Controllers (which all Macs have had since day one)? I don't think so.

Every day all Mac users trust Apple with their data. As much as you also trust your application vendors, your hardware device vendors, even your graphics chip and WiFi chip vendors. They all provide the software you are using right now and all have to make it work without limiting what you expect it to do. They also all make money off you or they wouldn't be developing the software you are now using.

The fact that any of you are drawaing a connection between Apple doing business today with the music comapnies to get you CHEAPER music with a potential in the future to control your personal data or drive up higher prices on unrelated things is absolutely paranoid.

To quote my convenient Oxford dictionary - that came built into Mac OS X Tiger for no more cost to me - "Paranoid: adj. unreasonably or obsessively anxious, suspicious, or mistrustful"

That's you bub.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is going to cripple OS X in a very minor way to keep it Mac only. Someone will easily hack it to run on any PC, but Apple will in no way support such an installation.

Apple tech guy: Apply tech support. How may I help you?

OS X user: Yeah, I just got this SuperDuperX5 I/O card at a swap meet and OS X doesn't recognize it. And the system crashes every 10 minutes or so.

Apple tech guy: WOW, I'm sorry to hear that. Now, what model of Mac did you install that card in?

OS X user: Oh, it's not installed in a Mac. OS X is running on my Dell with a patch I got off the internet.

Apple tech guy: I'm sorry, we don't support that installation.

Apple will get OS X into the hands of a lot of PC users without having to support every cheap piece of crap hardware out there. If a user wants or needs support, They will just have to buy a Mac. It's pure genius.

Quote

C-weed wrote:
I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is going to cripple OS X in a very minor way to keep it Mac only.

Hello Clueless - Apple already said that Mac OS X will not run on non-Apple PC hardware when they announce Mac OS X on Intel this past summer.

There is nothing "sneaky" or "crippling" about it - they chose to not run in on other brand PCs and are up front about it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But save us the moronic clairvoyance.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
You're being short sighted Vern and very naive. I'm surprised you can't see the real purpose of these types of chips. Their purpose is control. They want to control you so they can get more money from you. Don't you see how companies are trying everything in their power to suck every drop of money out of you that they possibly can? I don't blame them by the way, but I will speak up about it. Companies are in business for one reason... to make as much money as they possibly can. That's their nature after all.

Let's look at a couple examples. Take television commercials for example. If you're old enough you'll remember when cable television began. It was sold as a way to be rid of commercials. They told us if we pay for our television then we could do away with advertising because the producers/actors/suppliers would be getting paid. And early on in the cable TV business there were many channels that were commercial free. Don't you remember? But then the producers and actors decided that they needed more money, and they knew we wouldn't shell out more money for cable TV, so they re-implemented commercials. Do you see the state of commercials today? They now even stick commercials in our face while our TV shows are running. They put commercials over the programming during the beginning and the end of shows. Every TV station now has permanent logos in our face at all times. It all happened gradually such that people wouldn't revolt and turn the TV off, but it did happen. And it will slowly continue to get more pervasive.

Am I being paranoid or am I being a realist?

Shortsighted? Naive?

Is it shortsighted to not go looking for something that isn't there?

Is it naive to think that a business is in business to earn money?

Until I see evidence that Apple, or any other computer maker is actively sensoring or monitoring my data, I will continue to think of this as a nonissue.

There's nothing real about anything you've pointed to, every point is twisted without regard to the reality that you claim to embrace.

For instance: You claim that cable TV was a way to avoid commercials and that it has been subverted to be a platform for more commercialization, not less.

You fail to mention that cable NEVER said that broadcast channels would be commercial free, only premium channels like HBO and Showtime. Has that change? Do I see Budwieser commecials on HBO? Nike Commercials on Showtime? Nope! I do see them on other non-premium channels but those are fair game because many of them are actually being broadcast.

As for products appearing in cable programming, is cable to blame for that, or the movie industry? Many of us are still trying to forget that stinker of a movie, Evolution, which was basically a 90 minute commercial for Head and Shoulders shampoo. Once people realized the real purpose of that movie, people stopped watching and now you can find in the $5.50 bin at Walmart. The point is that people aren't stupid. Try to pull a fast one and the company takes a hit where it hurts, in the pocketbook.

And as for products logos appearing in movies today, we, the ticket buying public, have allowed it to happen, and we've set a limit as to how much of it we will take. Splash too much Addidas or Sony on the screen and the movie tanks; include a logo in the normal course of the movie and we don't mind, and that is as it should be. Movies are suppose to reflect life, and our lives are full of these logos.

Could it be less obvious? Sure. I'm happy to watch a movie without an Apple or Dell logo on the computer, but it doesn't bother me if one appears ever so often, as long as it doesn't detact from the movie.

Sports. like movies, are a problem, I will agree, but that is a symtom of larger social issues. It's always easy to point to some evil entity and the culprit when, in fact, those entities are little more than the results of their environment. We allowed Microsoft to overtake OS/2 with our ignorance, we let the Japanese beat us in producing the better cars and electronics, we made it possible for India to claim our IT jobs. These are social/economic issues that manifest themselves in ways keep us scurrying about. Change the priorities of a society and you fix the problems. Of course, that won't happen overnight. So, we deal with what we can when it becomes apparent.

So, who's being naive or real here? I pay attention to what is going on and react accordingly. If something smells fishy I avoid it and will tell others about it if I can. (I point to my articles about AppleWorks and Best Buy as proof.)

Nothing you've said holds weight under any real scrutiny; they are suppositions based on conjecture, which is fine for thought fodder, but not as an indication of real or probable wrong doing.

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't buy it. I can't see you changing your mind, and unless you come up with a better arguement, I won't be changing mine, so, I'll not post any more responses.

Vern Seward

Well guest, or should I call you More Clueless, If you knew anything about the OS X development process you would know that a large chunk of OS X is already running on standard X86 hardware. It's called Darwin.

If you had done any research into the current Intel development system, you would also know that it is based on a standard Intel motherboard. All indications are that software developed on this system will run on the new Intel based Macs. In fact Apple is encouraging this. So, while neither of us have any real idea as to what the hardware will look like when it's released, it doesn't appear that it will deviate much from an Intel design.

Yes, Apple says they won't allow OS X to run on any hardware other than a Mac. At this point, no one knows how easy or difficult Apple will make it to do so. It is my opinion, or as I said "sneaking suspicion", that Apple will not make it very difficult for OS X to be hacked to run on a standard PC. However, they are then off the hook in supporting such an installation. They sell more copies of OS X, and at hardware upgrade time, they sell more Macs. Call it the OS X halo effect.

So, if your small mind can wrap itself around that, maybe you can present something other than your little opinions.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

C-weed wrote:
I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple is going to cripple OS X in a very minor way to keep it Mac only.

Hello Clueless - Apple already said that Mac OS X will not run on non-Apple PC hardware when they announce Mac OS X on Intel this past summer.

There is nothing "sneaky" or "crippling" about it - they chose to not run in on other brand PCs and are up front about it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But save us the moronic clairvoyance.