OSx86: Are You Serious?

[cfleck]

First, my stance:

I was very unhappy about the switch to x86 in the beginning. There were many reasons for this. For instance, I personally like the fact that the PowerPC chip is somewhat unique in this x86 world. I makes me feel good to be a bit different. Also, I see the move to x86 as destroying my mac resale value as the upgrade time for x86 chips seems to move at a much faster pace. There are other reasons as well, but since this is not the point of this "letter", I'll leave that to, perhaps, a future memo.

In time, I came to terms with the move. I deemed it as something I had no control over and, hence, must get over. So I did. I told myself that this is how it will be and I am crossing my fingers that they don't screw up a great system.

Well, I've always had my doubts, but my doubts have grown to the point that I must ask this open question to anyone with an educated clue for an answer. Before I state said question I have to make a plea. Please do not post a response that you read on Slashdot, or that you heard someone said that you heard you heard. Only thoughts with some basis in fact need be submitted. That out of the way, I ask in two parts:

Is it possible for OS X for x86 to be out there and only run on Mac hardware?

What DRM/protection scheme can they possibly implement that won't be broken in relatively short order?

[Mikuro]

It's conceivable that they could do something wild with proprietary hardware, but I doubt they would, and I don't think they should. I think Apple will be using more or less standard PC motherboards (like in the development kits), and that makes sense. The dev kits are using Intel's TPM (Trusted Platform Module — a name that makes me gag just typing it) to limit what hardware it can run on, and this has already been hacked to allow OS X to run on any ol' PC.

There's no saying Apple won't change the system they use to limit hardware compatibility. That's quite likely, even. But whatever they do, really, it's only a matter of time before it's hacked to run natively on general PCs, or at the very least run in a near-full-speed "virtual machine" à la Virtual PC for Windows. Apple can make it hard, but realistically, they can't make it impossible.

That said, whatever Apple does will be enough to keep 99+% of the PC using world from running OS X on non-Apple hardware, and that's what really matters. Apple needs to keep selling their own hardware. I don't really like that attitude (since it is, after all, a completely artificial limitation), but hey, that's the truth of the matter.

They could, however, start a little cat-and-mouse game with the hackers. Imagine every little security update somehow breaking compatibility with all the hacks. It would make it very impractical to bother running OS X on non-Apple machines. I imagine this kind of thing will happen even without Apple specifically trying to do it. (Actually, this already happens on the Mac side with people installing OS X on older, unsupported Apple hardware, like pre-G3 Macs with processor upgrades. You can do it using something like XPostFacto, but it's rarely easy, and every new version of OS X makes it harder and harder.)

So, there's my answer. If you don't mind my asking, why exactly do you feel this is important one way or another? Just wondering.

[ElDiabloConCaca]

I don't think Apple will use standard PC motherboards. They don't use standard PowerPC motherboards now, so I don't think they'll do it with Intel motherboards, either. In addition, the Apple product lines with strange, non-standard form factors far outnumbers the Apple product lines with familiar, standard form factors... Mac mini, iBook, PowerBook, iMac, eMac, etc. Look at any of those motherboard and you won't find a single one like them in any other computer.

The processor is changing, and that's it. The Macs will look the same -- they won't suddenly change into ugly PC boxes. For all intents and purposes, it should be impossible to tell a PowerPC motherboard from an Intel motherboard without knowing what each processor socket looks like.

Unless Apple decides to drop their prices to match current run-of-the-mill PC boxes, which I don't think they will, I think they'll keep the guts of their computers as proprietary as ever and charge about the same. This isn't a huge paradigm shift at Apple -- just a simple processor change that only affects programmers... home users will be able to use their applications as they normally would, and if they decide to upgrade their machine to an Intel machine, they'd better be ready to upgrade their software as well -- this is a given. Don't wanna upgrade your software? Don't upgrade your hardware, then, as you are asking for incompatibility issues. The condition your Macintosh is currently in is all you can ask of it -- you can't be assured that your stuff will work with all future machines to come.

I think Apple will use a combination of hardware and software to combat illegal installs of OS X. Using Intel's TPM chip as well as simple software checks (like they currently do with system-specific Restore CDs and certain applications), as Mikuro said, will combat the majority of tinkerers. I don't think they'll be successful at keeping OS X Intel off of all generic PCs...

I'm excited. I want an Intel-based Mac now. Especially after reading the reports about how fast it runs on Intel hardware. Sure, I liked the fact that I could brag about differences in endian-ness, RISC vs. CISC, pipeline depth and so forth, but that's not the meat of why I really enjoyed using my Mac. It's the user experience that really sucked me in and is what's keeping me a faithful member of the platform. Intel or PowerPC, as long as it's a Mac, it'll suit my needs happily.

[fryke]

It's an old thing. Say you want to protect your real-world snailmail. You can build a super-duper super-safe mailbox. Won't hinder a thief from getting to the postman before the mail even _enters_ the mailbox. See?

Now... Apple can make use of those DRM chips. They've done so now, someone circumvented that protection (i.e. got to the mail before it was in the protected mailbox...). They can use proprietary chips on the motherboard. But then, too, maybe some mind will find a patch for the OS X code, so it never even checks for those chips for some reason or other.

It breaks down to a basic philosophy thing. Apple has to decide how much energy they want to waste. In my opinion, people are going to find ways around. And it only takes ONE bright mind to find a way around Apple's protection for the many who want to make use of it. It's like with protected music files. I've never understood why music labels copy-protect Audio-CDs. Because it only takes ONE pirate to create a copy. The millions just download copies of that first copy and never have to even CARE about the protection...

In my opinion, Apple should go on as prepared. Light protection. Prevents the casual user from simply using a friend's original DVD on his vanilla PC. So those who want to pirate really have to pirate. They have to know they're doing something illegal, have to visit a site that offers the illegal code and have to illegally install the code on their machine(s). Apple will still make enough money with their Macs.

And if it _really_ becomes a problem, they should be ready to _sell_ OS X licenses to vanilla PC users. Maybe it's time. Who knows... Let's take a look at it...

1.) iPod has generated 'good vibes', generally, for Apple. Soft factor, but a fact.
2.) The transition to X86 has generated quite some interest in the 'X86 community' for OS X. It's a fact, too, although I couldn't put any numbers to it.
3.) Viruses and malware plague Windows users.
4.) Longhorn is always some years off, it seems. It's now called Vista and expected at the end of 2006 _earliest_.

Hey, Apple: Finish your work on a working Tiger version for OS X _now_ until the end of 2005. Release it at the beginning of 2006 - or even before the end of 2005. Sell millions of copies. Make them work on, say, a specific motherboard from intel and only chips that include SSE3, let's say. THEN if someone finds a hack to also make it work on AMD machines and intel machines that only have SSE2, that's THEIR problem. You're selling licenses. Millions of. And if you're ready to also provide the best notebooks and desktop machines, people will actually BUY those Macs. If they run Windows, too, people who like and love their iPods will buy Macs. Even if they're about to install Windows, they still count as "Mac users" in the market-share statistics, because they actually bought a license with the Mac. And if you can get 10 or 15 percent, you've started a revolution. And isn't this almost the wording of EVERY BLOODY Apple press release? Isn't it about starting computer revolutions...?

[powermac]

I don't understand the Technology behind computers much. Cfleck, does bring up a non tech issue, in that using the PPC chip does give Mac users a different sense. It is too bad that between IBM & Motorola, either could not get the PPC chip competitive enough against intel.

My only concern with the switch is quality. In my limited understanding of Processors, I am afraid of the quantity over quality issue with intel. (Perhaps my worry is not warranted). Intel is a company that mass produces processors. Recently, an article was published on the internet where they have admitted to pushing a processor out to the market before they should have. The PPC is known for is efficient use, and reliability, although it may not be the fastest.

A live long Mac user, and a person who enjoys quality products, I am sure Apple will continue to make great, reliable products. I don't believe the demand for Apple computers is high enough that they must depend on the mass produced Intel chip to keep up with demand. It is my believe the switch appears premature, and it is a course that can't be reversed. There is no turning back to the PPC chip. From a programmers stand point, the switch makes sense, and I believe the market will be flooded with software, which will benefit Apple initially. In the long-term I am concerned that consumers will not see the benefit of purchasing an Apple. In the end their computing solutions can be met by either PC or Apple.
These are just some concerns I have, and perhaps they are not legitimate concerns.

[nixgeek]

Well, consider back in the days of the 680x0 CPUs. Atari and Amiga also used them, as did NeXT. However, none of them could have the Mac OS installed unless they had the hardware ROM from Apple, and even then it couldn't install all by itself. It had to run using an emulator on top of the native OS for that system. So this definitely didn't hurt Apple's image at all. Neither will the change to Intel processors.

[TommyWillB]

Originally Posted by cfleck

Is it possible for OS X for x86 to be out there and only run on Mac hardware?

What DRM/protection scheme can they possibly implement that won't be broken in relatively short order?

Yes, this is a very simple extension of what Apple already does today with various OS installers.

The OS gives all applications access to hardware level identifications. This is some of the very detailed information you see in Apple System Profiler.

Like applications, the OS can simply look at this information and refuse to run unless is sees propritary Apple identifications on various component, not limited to the CPU.

It would not be difficult for Intel to make otherwise vanilla CPU's that identify themselves as "apple...". Even lacking this cooperation from Intel, Apple makes thier own motherboards, which also have unique id's.


Be clear, this is not a Digital Rights Management (DRM) sort of thing like in iTunes Music Store files. This is simply some logic built into the OS to do a very specific hardware check.

To break this, hackers would need to ge the hardware to "report" the Apple specific info. So this is quite a bit more difficult than hacking sofware. (Although I'm not sure if this can be done at the ROM/BIOS levels... [Hey... Will x86 Mac's have a ROM or BIOS?])

This is why Apple always has to do a x.x.1 point release each time they release new hardware. All they are doing with these releases is giving the OS the info it needs to check and okay the new hardware codes.

[cfleck]

Why does this concern me? There are many reasons, but perhaps the most important to me isn't easily explained.

Mac users tend to be a unique breed of individual when it comes to computer use. By and large, if I go to a mac-related site looking for help/reviews/tips whatever, I can be relatively confident that the site will be well designed and the content helpful. The same is not true for Windows or Linux sites.

If I go anywhere with my powerbook, it isn't entirely unlikely that a fellow mac user will come up to "shoot the breeze" and just talk mac. There is sort of an unspoken bond, that mac users all have something in common that gives them a bit more confidence.

Maybe the real kicker is the relative lack of Toppers (yes I stole that term from a recent Dilbert). That is, when I owned a Gateway, there was always someone wanting to know what was under the hood so they could rave about how great their own system was, and how I should upgrade to this that or the next so I could get 8E100 frames per second while playing Doom 87.

There are other reasons I have concern as well (technical), but they've all been beaten to death by others so I'll avoid them.

Maybe there is something else at work, but I have a bad feeling that x86 is going to break up this little "club".

For the Dilbert I speak of...
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/ar...-20050816.html
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/ar...-20050817.html
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/ar...-20050818.html