OSX x86 leaked?

MBHockey said:
Yeah -- I'd like to know.

And if they did supply a disk, which i could definitely see as a feasible thing to do since it's such an early release of the OS for x86 architecture, why wouldn't they go to some length to prevent it from being leaked? Do they really trust the 3800+ developers that much, or did they not care (to some extent) if it leaked?
Click to expand...
Which developer release of MacOS X do you think was not leaked?
 
Well, my friend is downloading a copy of it....... Serious it looks real so far. But time will tell. I'll get back to you guys about this one. It's on illegal filesharing services. Not going to say much more then this....But yea this is going to be interesting test
 
If it's true, I sincerely hope whoever 'leaked' it, whoever downloads it and whoever runs it, get's what they really deserve.

That's all I have to say on piracy.
 
Every PC kiddie with a cable modem is going to download, try it for 5 minutes, confirm that it sucks since it's not optimized for the masses yet, and post to their blogs about how Macs still suck.
 
Do you really think that a company who managed to keep it not only internal, but SECRET for five years is going to be that vulnerable to a leak? I'm willing to bet only a few select people at Apple can even get their hands on it. The fact that it was nothing but unconfirmed rumors since 10.0 existed shows how well they're able to control this. I also suspect that these developer machines are probably heavily weighted down with software lojacks, fingerprints, and a buttload of paperwork that will bring the developer to financial ruin if it were leaked out. Finally, only offering this to premier developers who are willing to pay $999 for equipment *rental* suggests that the companies coding on this platform are serious about development, and therefore very strong anti-piracy advocates.
 
Yes. That company is vulnerable to leaks. Mac OS X has leaked since the public beta. Of course they've had the locks down on it internally, but as soon as the devkits are out, Apple hasn't got much control over it. There's the NDAs, but it seems that _some_ developers still shared the developer versions of OS X. Also, the devkits are for Select and Premier members, not only Premier.
 
There are several fake OSX_86 torrents kicking around the net. Most are about 956MB too small for an OSX installer, they are an .iso that just does a pornographic splash screen on startup, so don't waste you time looking for them.
 
why would anyone bother looking for these torrents? It's a prerelease version of OS X which is not working completely. Also it was not meant to run on grey boxes so you are facing two obstacles there. Why not wait????
 
Why would anyone bother? Why? Because half the fun of being an Apple user is the company itself, and it's secrecy about it's hardware/software... it's not out of line to believe that some people would find it extremely exciting to get their hands on an x86 copy of Mac OS X and "test" it out...

I highly doubt that people in a professional environment would want to get their hands on "Mac OS x86" for use in a production environment, but I can see a very high desire among Apple fans to run pre-release software to tinker with it.
 
AdmiralAK said:
why would anyone bother looking for these torrents? It's a prerelease version of OS X which is not working completely. Also it was not meant to run on grey boxes so you are facing two obstacles there. Why not wait????
Click to expand...

The rumors on slashdot are saying it's a generic Intel motherboard in the developer boxes, so the chances of it running on "grey boxes" is quite good compared to when Apple ship a full blown system that they have had time to design and lock down. I would personally be quite happy to be able to purchase OSX_86 to run on generic hardware as well as regular Mac hardware, because I have numerous different requirements that I am sure Apple wont bother making exactly the right hardware for.
 
Do you really think that a company who managed to keep it not only internal, but SECRET for five years is going to be that vulnerable to a leak?
Click to expand...

Controlling something that only exists in your own in-house lab is possible. Controlling something that is on the computers of several thousand people is something else.

The rumors on slashdot are saying it's a generic Intel motherboard in the developer boxes, so the chances of it running on "grey boxes" is quite good
Click to expand...

My bet is that it is highly likely that it will run on 'grey boxes' that have the same motherboard chipset, sound, network and graphics cards as in the developer box.

I think it is highly unlikely that the devel version of OSX x86 will include support for the multitude of motherboard chipsets, sound cards, video cards, ethernet cards, IDE / SATA / SCSI / USB / IEEE1394 / WiFi / ISDN / whatever hardware that is used in 'grey boxes'. So successfully booting to default 640x480x16color VGA without sound or network is probably the best one can hope for on most PClones.
 
Apple is planning to use EFI, not BIOS. So I doubt OS X/intel will boot on a BIOS "grey box". Likewise, I'm not so sure windows would boot on a Mac/intel. The developer boxes are not representative of the finished product. Windows will not run without some hacking on a Mac/intel and OS X will not run without some hacking on a "grey box".
 
I would love a copy.. to run OSX on my work HP laptop would be very cool! hehehe

But I think I will stick out and wait for new fast intel macs to ship and just buy one of those.
 
Cat: What's EFI, where did you learn about Apple using it and is it impossible for Windows to use EFI?
 
Okay. I've read that EFI is to be "the next BIOS standard". I don't think Apple using EFI would hinder Windows installations.
 
EFI is Intel's extensible firmware interface, I BELIEVE Longhorn will use it.

Theres some introductory information at:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/index.htm

quote:

"The EFI specification defines a new model for the interface between operating systems and platform firmware. The interface consists of data tables that contain platform-related information, plus boot and runtime service calls that are available to the operating system and its loader. Together, these provide a standard environment for booting an operating system and running pre-boot applications.
The EFI specification is primarily intended for the next generation of IA-32 and Intel® Itanium® architecture-based computers, and is an outgrowth of the "Intel® Boot Initiative" (IBI) program that began in 1998."
 
Interesting. Guess we'll only have definite information when the products actually ship. Either way, the question was BIOS/OF/EFI and whether Windows would boot. I guess BIOS is out, anyway, EFI would lead to Windows being bootable and OF - which I don't think will be used, but that's just guessing - would make it harder - but probably not impossible.
 
There's a story on /. about the dev kits; apparently they come with a CD, but they do not install on standard PC's. Hopefully someone will leak out a copy so we can get to looking at its clockwork.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top