New Tiger build prevents use on non-authorized Intel boxes

g/re/p

I can haz cigar?
The newest build of Mac OS X 10.4.3 includes the usual laundry list of bug fixes and improvements. However, there’s also something unusual about the latest Intel build — it includes anti-piracy measures that will supposedly prevent it from running smoothly on Intel-based machines that haven’t been authorized by Apple. Software applications included with the build won’t run on previous versions of the Intel pre-release. This likely means the party’s over until this build is hacked up all over again.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000627058539/
 

lurk

Mitä?
I would not read too much into the fact that applications have to be recompiled. They told us form the beginning that the ABI (application binary Interface) was still in flux. If they changed any of it it will break stuff. Well it is a developer preview so that is not a big surprise.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Sounds like an interim anti-piracy solution. Once the system is final, they can't do _that_ anymore. There are other measures, of course, that are possible. Well: Maybe Apple will - with every build that might leak out - try a new anti-piracy scheme. And the one which holds the longest will be implemented in the end? ;)
 

Satcomer

In Geostationary Orbit
This surprises anyone?! I am shocked it has taken Apple this long with all the posted hacks to run OS X on other x86 computers. I wouldn't be surprised that from now on the OS X x86 version for developers will have some kind of tracing protocol on the (on the root level) that will trace said developer down. The wrath of Apple Lawyers will come down on said developer(s).
 

mindbend

Registered
The problem is that it doesn't really matter so much how LONG it takes to hack. Once it's hacked, it's hacked. I guess all Apple can hope to do is keep "breaking" the hacks with each incremental update.
 

kainjow

Registered
The more effort Apple puts into making it harder to hack, the more people will work to hack it to run on any PC. It's simply a matter of time.
 

CreativeEye

Registered
its the same principle as when people have hacked itunes - when apple upgrade the software - they break the hack.

so if you love the hack so much and dont want to upgrade some people would still be on itunes 3.6 or whatever...

it'll be the same with the OS - the hacks will exist only with the hackers - and they'll be flakey... as a hackee you'll have the option to stay on OSX.5 when Apple update the OS to OSX.5.1 or to upgrade and therefore re-hack - its a development race - and Apple will always be ahead of the curve. Because they are forced to innovate and push the OS forward because they exist in a market - the hackers merely sit and... well - hack.

they'll soon tire of it as those who were hacking iTunes have - remember that itunes was getting 'broken' into with regularity - there are still cases - but not so much anymore...

...that is - unless you're still on iTunes 3.6 or whatever...
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Well, actually it's not entirely like that. For example, software to circumvent the iPod-to-iTunes restriction still exist. Sure: The 'hackers' are always one step behind, but that doesn't matter much, if the goal is to keep a specific function alive. And as long as there's interest to run Mac OS X on PCs, there's going to be attempts to make it run. And if those run 10.5.1 whereas Mac users can run 10.5.3: That's still quite a recent OS. I mean: There are LOTS of Mac users right now using Jaguar and Panther, so 10.4.1 sounds like a viable solution (I'm just talking version numbers, I'm aware of the fact that the intel Mac OS X builds are beta currently...).
 

CreativeEye

Registered
i see what you're getting at.

maybe a better anology would have been cracked / or downloaded software.

your upgrade path is cut off - and you are generally left with software that crashes - is a bit flakey around the edges - basically inperfect software.

as if it wasnt bad enough - i know people who have 'cracked' versions of windows XP running - they can get little or no real support - upgrade paths are cut off (they wait for the hacks - so like we've both said - constantly one step behind) and the OS falls over more frequently than if it was a real installation.

with software (such as photoshop) the 'cracks' are very rarely broken. once the upgrade patches and serials come along you simply install the new version. but apple havea track record of finding the cracks (and holes) and plugging them with updates.

for these reasons i can't see the (intel) OS being so widely adopted by home users looking to download it via the likes of limewire - install it on their windows boxes and hope for the best. 1) its a totally new entity that you won't be accustomed to taking over your computer - if it all goes wrong - you'd better have those XP install disks at hand becaue you'll essentially have nowhere else to go. 2) upgrade path gone / less than robust OS on your desktop. 3) want to use the latest version of itunes / ilife? - with apples track record - the installation process will look to verify the OS version - the same with security updates - as soon as it see the OS is not real / running on apple hardware - well you know the rest...

i guess it remains to be seen what action apple will take when its 'software update' encounters a box that is not apple hardware... can they simply disable the machine? maybe - who would pipe up and say - "i downloaded a cracked version of OS X and now apple broke it! it won't work! i'm going to sue apple!!!"...
 

ksv

web developer
fryke said:
Well, actually it's not entirely like that. For example, software to circumvent the iPod-to-iTunes restriction still exist. Sure: The 'hackers' are always one step behind, but that doesn't matter much, if the goal is to keep a specific function alive. And as long as there's interest to run Mac OS X on PCs, there's going to be attempts to make it run. And if those run 10.5.1 whereas Mac users can run 10.5.3: That's still quite a recent OS. I mean: There are LOTS of Mac users right now using Jaguar and Panther, so 10.4.1 sounds like a viable solution (I'm just talking version numbers, I'm aware of the fact that the intel Mac OS X builds are beta currently...).
10.4.1 for x86 can't be called beta; it's an incomplete early developmental version, probably not much more than what the x86 team at Apple has been maintaining for the last years. The 10.4.2 build is more complete in this regard, with all cocoa frameworks ported to x86 and an SSE implementation of vecLib for vector processing.

Because vecLib and the other newly ported frameworks are so widely used in Mac OS X applications, this is obviously a reason itself that applications built for 10.4.2 are not backwards-compatible.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Nitpicking. I said I was just talking version numbers... ;) But thanks for the info.
 

Viro

Registered
What about the rumours of Apple implementing some sort of hardware DRM into the final x86 Macs? That should make hacking them nearly impossible since you would have to have the same DRM chip installed on a generic PC in order to fool the OS.
 

chevy

Marvelous Da Vinci
Staff member
Mod
There is already HW DRM. And there will be more.

I just hope we shall never have the "registration" system of W_XP Home. This is really not very convenient for home usage when you regularly change your hardware.
 

fryke

Moderator
Staff member
Mod
Viro: Unless you simply take out the code that actually _checks_ for the DRM-chip. And I guess that's what hackers did for the 10.4.1 build. I really guess it's too early - and quite probably everyone will have to see what the first actual intel Mac will do. If they can let OS X think their PC is one of _those_ machines, the thing's done, basically.
 

g/re/p

I can haz cigar?
Multiple reports confirm that hardcore advanced PC users have been downloading illegally distributed copies of Apple’s developer version of OS X for Intel processors. They have been hacking the system to make it install on all manner of PC processors, including those from Intel and AMD. Jobs confirmed that while they might be able to do that now, they won’t allow that to happen in the future.

“We don’t know how having OS X available for PCs would affect Macs,” said Jobs. “We will have technology in OS X for Intel so that it cannot be installed in other PCs.”
 
Top