OSX For All x86 Users - Security already cracked

[D3v1L80Y]

Actually, we've already run those versions, but in a less than optimal form; PearPC. The difference between the dev version of OSX86 and previous versions of OSX running in PearPC is that the dev kit is native to the PC architecture.

And that was my point. As you know, PearPC is an emulator and is not a true, native install. You aren't cracking OS X to install it on a PC if you are using PearPC. No more than a Mac user cracks Windows when he installs it via VPC. Despite the claims, OS X has not been "cracked" for PC. OS X has not been cracked or hacked at all. It is only running as it(the devkit) was designed. People are running a variant of OS X, specially designed for PC's. When people are stating that OS X is being cracked and hacked to run on PC's, this is a false statement. I have read some of the supposed guides, telling you how to install it on any PC, but most failed to mention that you need to violate copyright laws and nondisclosure agreements, and pirate a copy of the devkit version to so do. I have seen others make claims that they could install any version of OS X in this manner (native install, not emulated). This is an all out impossibility, and those claims are what are getting people up in arms about the situation.

 

[spaeschke]

The profit margin is not in the software, it is in the hardware. As stated earlier Apple is a complete system/solution. That is what people are buying when they buy Apple hardware.

Yeah, because selling software is such an unprofitable business.

The only reason Apple's margins are so thin on the OS side of things is because of the obscene margins they've collected on the slow, overpriced hardware of yesteryear. They get more people using their OS, regardless of whether it's Apple hardware or not, and all of a sudden charging $200 a pop for the OS becomes a viable (and much more lucrative) business model.

As for this "complete system/solution"... Well, whatever gets you through the night. If you need to believe that Apple runs their company like a group of Swiss watch makers and that the megahertz myth was what was holding Apple back then that's your business. It's a computer. It's not a box stuffed with magical elves who grease the electrons to make your computer run better.

 

[spaeschke]

And that was my point. As you know, PearPC is an emulator and is not a true, native install. You aren't cracking OS X to install it on a PC if you are using PearPC.

What in the **** are you talking about? In your first post you say that if they could get the devkit working then why couldn't they get previous versions to work. It's not exactly a shock considering that those versions were created for a completely different architecture. You simply can't run those versions in x86 without using an emulation layer anymore than you could run Windows on a PPC without an emulation layer.

When people are stating that OS X is being cracked and hacked to run on Windows, this is a false statement.

Correct. It's being run on an x86, Windows doesn't enter into the equation.

I have read some of the supposed guides, telling you how to install it on any PC, but most failed to mention that you need to violate copyright laws and nondisclosure agreements, and pirate a copy of the devkit version to so do.

Welcome to the PC world.

 

[timswim78]

I don't see where Apple was K.O.'ed. Seeing that it is clearly the devkit version of Tiger, then it is supposed to be supporting the hardware it was running on. The "Processor" pref pane is only part of the devkit version of OS X. The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple gave to the developers at WWDC are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs. That being the case, there would be no reason why the devkit version of Tiger wouldn't work on a similarly equipped PC. The devkit version is only doing what it was designed to do. What a lot of people aren't realizing here is the version of Mac OS X that’s being distributed to developers is a one-off build. Future software patches, including all-important security patches, will not install on top of it. Sure they will be able to use OS X, but without patches and updates it is pretty pointless.

EDIT: And before anyone jumps in and attmepts to discredit this, I offer this... All of these supposed screenshots, and videos all have the PC running the Tiger devkit OS. If it is truly as easy to crack OS X for a PC as it is claimed, then any version of it should work. Why then are there no screenshots/videos with older versions of OS X (Panther, Jaguar, etc.) or even an off the shelf retail version of Tiger? Simple, it can't be done with a retail version of the OS. So, the only way anyone is going to install any version of OS X on a PC is to pirate the devkit version. So again, I don't see how this is a crushing blow to Apple at all. If anything, it is also a detriment to Microsoft. If so many people intend on installing OS X and using it on their PC's and not Windows, then it hurts Microsoft as well.

There seems to be a part of the OS that you are not understanding. Panther and other versions of OS X were not cracked because they were not compiled for x86 processors. Without the source code, it is not something that can be done. For example, you can't run Linux that was compiled for a PowerPC chip on an Athlon 64 system. It just doesn't work.

 

[timswim78]

What in the **** are you talking about? In your first post you say that if they could get the devkit working then why couldn't they get previous versions to work. It's not exactly a shock considering that those versions were created for a completely different architecture. You simply can't run those versions in x86 without using an emulation layer anymore than you could run Windows on a PPC without an emulation layer.



Correct. It's being run on an x86, Windows doesn't enter into the equation.



Welcome to the PC world.

Actually, in some articles, the author says that he ran OS X in windows using VMWARE.

 

[johnnyluu]

Looks like an x86 processor is all you need to run OSX from now on. The security has been cracked allowing you to run the OS on non-Mac hardware.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Mac_OS_X_for_Intel_Leaked_Cracked/1123771902

Running a cracked version of OS X specifically not designed to run as such defeats it's purpose. Apple computers aren't just the processor, it's the whole architecture. Components are put together to ensure maximum performance, stability and compatibility paired with an OS that has been programmed to work in harmony with such hardware. If you could put together a PC with all the right parts cheaply, then this is great news. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[spaeschke]

Actually, in some articles, the author says that he ran OS X in windows using VMWARE.

That's the easiest way to do it, yep. However, you can run it straight off of hardware, as I currently am. There's much more tweaking involved, and your processor needs to support SSE3, but it's currently being done as we speak.

 

[spaeschke]

Otherwise, what's the point?

The point is choice. Right now Apple is locked into their own little ghetto (although it's a very nice ghetto) where the choices of what software you can run and what hardware you can buy are extremely limited.

For people like me that's an unacceptable situation. I like the fact that I can shop around, buy whatever hardware I want and run whatever OS I want on that hardware. I'm not looking for a "total solution" because I like to make my own solutions, thank you very much.

OSX is a great operating system, no doubt about that. However, the price of using it in the past was that you were forced into buying overpriced, underperforming hardware with an extremely restrictive upgrade path. Any steps taken towards getting rid of that model are to be applauded.

 

[badmojo]

I suggest all readers of this thread read John C Dvorak's latest column here:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1845259,00.asp There's two pages to it and the second page is at the heart of the matter.

 

[scooter]

great article, thanks!

come on people, OSX x86 will be hacked or released at sometime in the future and will run on any PC. apple knows this as does the rest of the computing world. even if apple decided to keep OSX to itself, there are more people trying to hack it for the PC market, especially after it is compiled for x86 architecture, than would be trying to secure it for apple only hardware.

the PC pond is much bigger than the Apple puddle. with that in mind, who needs to move where to make a bigger splash? :yinyang:

 

[iMe]

the PC pond is much bigger than the Apple puddle. with that in mind, who needs to move where to make a bigger splash? :yinyang:

True that, but the PC pond is the dirtiest pond. Were talking about Apple here people. "The Great Innovators of Tomorrow" If Apple claims they've been working on this project for the past 5 years, I'm convident that Steve and his crew have been working on back-up plans after back-up plans after back-up plans and so one to keep OSX running on x86 chips. Apple isnt known for "Half-stepping" on developing their products and I dont think they'll start now.

 

[spaeschke]

True that, but the PC pond is the dirtiest pond. Were talking about Apple here people. "The Great Innovators of Tomorrow"

Oh, puhlease. Apple is hardly "the great innovator". All of their "unique" features have been taken from more obscure, truly innovative projects. If anything, Apple is the great populizer. And that isn't a knock on Apple, it's simply owning up to the realities of who and what they are.

The fact that the PC pond is "dirty" isn't a reflection of Windows per se, it's more a reflection of the fact that folks who write virii, adware, etc want to hit the largest target market they can, which in this case is Windows. Don't think for a second that if Mac held 95% market share that they wouldn't be hit with just as many problems as MS has. You're delusional if you think that Apple is somehow immune to malfeasance when in reality they're just a much, much smaller target.

Likewise, don't think that if Apple held the marketshare that MS has that computing would be some blissful utopia. If anything, Apple's instincts towards how they treat their customer base are far, far worse than Microsoft's. Switch their roles and Apple would be a much more harsh monopoly than Microsoft has ever been.

 

[rman]

Intel to Shift Microprocessor Technology

 

[damontgo]

I think everyone knows that Apple is a hardware company... but what is it that everyoner loves about Apple? Sure i like iPods, and the iMac line is certainly easy on the eyes, but people buy Apple for the OS, plain and simple. I really hope apple will retail OSX for many x86 machines, because obviously the market is there. I mean if there's a chance it's going to get hacked onto x86 machines anyways, why not maake a buck off of it? And don't say b/c it would start a war with MS. MS doesn't matter. What matters is that there's a market for something Apple can offer to current x86 users that MS can't, and Apple stands to benefit.

 

[sarahsboy18]

I think everyone knows that Apple is a hardware company... but what is it that everyoner loves about Apple? Sure i like iPods, and the iMac line is certainly easy on the eyes, but people buy Apple for the OS, plain and simple. I really hope apple will retail OSX for many x86 machines, because obviously the market is there. I mean if there's a chance it's going to get hacked onto x86 machines anyways, why not maake a buck off of it? And don't say b/c it would start a war with MS. MS doesn't matter. What matters is that there's a market for something Apple can offer to current x86 users that MS can't, and Apple stands to benefit.

The advantage OSX has on the other UNIX bases operating systems out there is that it only has to be tuned for a small group of hardware configurations. If they go to all x86 machines then OSX will become as flaky as any other OS out there. I would say a huge percentage of PC problems are more hardware related than software. I have an HP running XP and I have never seen a blue screen... It runs great. I have a friend who put together his own AMD machine and he can't keep it running for more than a couple months at a time. Apple will not make the same mistake. They have learned from watching Microsoft's mistakes. I personally think Jobs is more interested in being the 'best' solution... than being the 'biggest'.

It's a great position for Apple if you really think about it... Microsoft takes all the heat for all the viruses and malware... They take all the heat for flaky hardware and software. While Apple investors make a decent profit by showing them up with every time they release a product and catering to the "high-class" crowd. It's a great ego situation. It's like many here have said before... Mercedes may not sell as many cars as honda... But I doubt you hear the Benz board or directors complaining about it.

Also, you can't discount the war MS would start... They would eat Apple alive through OEMs. Apple simply couldn't make enough off of retail to survive... And since it would undercut their hardware sales... It would be 'game over' for them at this point.

 

[rs2sensen]

As of today, there is one company in the world who is a threat to Microsoft. GOOGLE. Apple still maintains such a niche market, that to go after Microsoft now would be absolute suicide.
....
It's not just the OS. And it's not just the hardware. It is, as had been said before, the complete package. Find a laptop with a 17" screen and equivalent speed that is as attractive as mine anywhere on the market? I'd buy a mac just for it's hardware. Then again, I'm one of the people who if Apple went to every intel computer, would still buy Apple Hardware.

OS X's strongest sales point is it's stability. That stability is the result of excellent development teams of software and hardware designers. The synergy they created allows OS X to be what it is today.
.....

Sure, Apple stole stuff from other small developers. Everyone in the market does, and has done from the start of the PC Revolution. Sometimes, those innovations have been given away, sometimes Apple has purchased them. I remember the quote, which went something like "...I think we both have a rich neighbor named Xerox..." This isn't a new thing.
......
If OS X were to go to the mainstream public, greater spyware and virus threats would become a reality. OS X does have a large advantage over Windows though, being that OS X is UNIX based. Also, no programs can currently run in the background of OS X, w/out the users permission. People will find a way to get around those, but they are at least first lines of defense.
.......
Apple treats their customers badly compared to Microsoft? I strongly disagree with this. Give some more information relating to that, please.

 

[zap2]

i findit hard to think of apple ever die many( all the ones on forums) apple fans seem like the like OSX more the window user like Xp. So would scale back but i think they could stay around for a long time

 

[spaeschke]

Mercedes may not sell as many cars as honda... But I doubt you hear the Benz board or directors complaining about it.

You mean like how Mercedes merged with Chrysler? Or how Ford bought Jaguar? Or how Fiat bought Ferrarri?

Software has a consistent price with very large margins. Once you've ponied up for creating the software (which Apple is already doing anyway) it costs peanuts to press a DVD.

Apple is the abberration in that they've consistently charged very high margins for hardware, which is basically a losers game and will lock you into a niche market. It's classic economies of scale. Bic learned it long ago, you only make money once on the razor, you make the money on the blades.

If you're putting your margins on hardware you're going to have very, very few people who will put down the kind of money you're looking for when another, less expensive and more universally accepted standard is around. The solution is to switch your margins to the less expensive to produce, margin rich products like software and sell in volume.

 

[rs2sensen]

I have no problem using a computer from a niche market. Mercedes may not have been the best choice, let's use Porsche as a better example.

 

[technologist]

The fact that the PC pond is "dirty" isn't a reflection of Windows per se, it's more a reflection of the fact that folks who write virii, adware, etc want to hit the largest target market they can, which in this case is Windows. Don't think for a second that if Mac held 95% market share that they wouldn't be hit with just as many problems as MS has. You're delusional if you think that Apple is somehow immune to malfeasance when in reality they're just a much, much smaller target.

Oh, give it up. Market share has nothing to do with security problems. Security problems are caused by 1) Bad engineering decisions 2) Programmer error and 3) Failure to quickly respond to #1 and #2.

The people who create exploits target the weakest link. "Most Exploited" does not always mean "Most popular." There were dozens of viruses for minority platforms in the '80s, and for the classic Mac OS (Which had a whopping 12% market share at its peak...target that big must have drawn virus writers like honey )