What if x86 just won't boot after July 2007?

[fundidor]

I have been thinking:

 

What if Apple has built in a feature into x86 that it simply won't let it boot after July 2006?

 

I have seen it before, as it happend with the first Safari's beta.

 

What if you press the on button, and instead of a login screen you have a window saying that your "Developer kit has expired"?

 

Have you thought about this?

[antic]

Why don't you set the date and time to Aug 2006 and see what happens

[stryder]

Why don't you set the date and time to Aug 2006 and see what happens 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't have mine up and running yet, so I can't try. Someone should disconnect their pc from the 'net (so it can't check the real time with a time server) and set the clock in the bios to something like 2010 and then try and _INSTALL_ it and see if it installs and runs...

[DeathChill]

I don't have mine up and running yet, so I can't try.  Someone should disconnect their pc from the 'net (so it can't check the real time with a time server) and set the clock in the bios to something like 2010 and then try and _INSTALL_ it and see if it installs and runs...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I figured that if there was any sort of date shutdown that it would be stored in the TPM chip leaving us unaffected. But I could be wrong.

[cstrippie]

I figured that if there was any sort of date shutdown that it would be stored in the TPM chip leaving us unaffected. But I could be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that occurs someone will patch it, I have no doubt.

[lane]

To test that theory just set your date to 2044 in the bios on your pc and see if it still boots that is if tiger is y2k044 compatible....

[stryder]

To test that theory just set your date to 2044 in the bios on your pc and see if it still boots that is if tiger is y2k044 compatible....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe 2038 is the max... I could be wrong.

[fundidor]

I believe 2038 is the max...  I could be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Folks,

 

 

I am an applescript programer, I am sure that messing around with date in BIOS is not enough.

 

I mean that there are other ways of checking for real time.

 

Like it was said above, the system can connect to time servers and check for real time and write it on a file on a local disk.

 

Then when you change BIOS date, the system checks it again, if no Internet access is detected, and BIOS time is SMALLER than WRITTEN TIME, the daemon can start its own counting, independently of what you set as BIOS time.

 

Once the daemon accesses Internet again, it checks for real TIME again, and continues counting.

 

So the daemon can count time, no matter what you set to BIOS or if Internet is off. The first minute you access Internet again, it is checking for time.

 

Remenber:

 

There is also "Software Update", lots of folks will try to update their system...

 

What if there is a routine to check for TPM, and detect a copied system and simply shut down the whole thing?

[stryder]

Folks,

I am an applescript programer, I am sure that messing around with date in BIOS is not enough.

 

I mean that there are other ways of checking for real time.

 

Like it was said above, the system can connect to time servers and check for real time and write it on a file on a local disk.

 

Then when you change BIOS date, the system checks it again, if no Internet access is detected, and BIOS time is SMALLER than WRITTEN TIME, the daemon can start its own counting, independently of what you set as BIOS time.

 

Once the daemon accesses Internet again, it checks for real TIME again, and continues counting.

 

So the daemon can count time, no matter what you set to BIOS or if Internet is off. The first minute you access Internet again, it is checking for time.

 

Remenber:

 

There is also "Software Update", lots of folks will try to update their system...

 

What if there is a routine to check for TPM, and detect a copied system and simply shut down the whole thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's why I suggest changing the bios date to 2010, unplugging from internet, and installing from scratch... if it boots after install, no check. If not, well...

[domino]

Lots of speculations and "what if"s. I personally didn't install OSX86 to cheat Apple from there hard work. Many of us now know the capabilities of OSX86 and know that it is very crippled ware. But as soon as the real thing is released to the public, you betcha i'm gonna runout and get one. Can you imagine the speed and potentials of MacTel? It would be great to have USB, WiFi, Graphics, and sound working 100%. Well worth the hard earned cash IMHO.

[nobm]

I believe 2038 is the max...  I could be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AFAIK, thats only in the Linux kernel because of the limitations in the programming language used.

[judy]

AFAIK, thats only in the Linux kernel because of the limitations in the programming language used.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the programming language is probably the same in the linux and the mach kernel.

 

That being said, who cares if this thing will still run in two years? Who cares if Windows ME still runs? This version is meant for developers, and the official boxes have to be returned by the end of 2006. When the "real things" come out, anybody can buy one and get full support. And most people are buying new computers every two years or so anyway, so what?

[blahsucks]

Actually, I think that was the limit on the 1984 mac. It's been updated to something between 2500 and 10000, I think.

[llothar]

I'm a shareware programmer who also writes code that at least tries to keep the most stupid hackers out.

 

One rule, never check for the BIOS time, take it from filestamps. So if you want check it also "touch" all files.

[stryder]

I'm a shareware programmer who also writes code that at least tries to keep the most stupid hackers out.

 

One rule, never check for the BIOS time, take it from filestamps. So if you want check it also "touch" all files.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, my G4 maxes out at December 31, 2037 - running OS X 10.4.2

 

It's a real max set in the real software...

[evildante70]

Well, my G4 maxes out at December 31, 2037 - running OS X 10.4.2

 

It's a real max set in the real software...

 

It is a limitation of UNIX, which OSX is made from (FreeBSD).

 

The Year 2038 Bug

[myluvnttl]

I don't think you have to worry about the 2038 Bug,,, by the time it's 2038, I would think it would be fix by then and Mac OS X would be very outdated,,,,,,,hhehehehe. Maybe it be the Mac OS XXX.

[Pnutster]

I have been thinking:

 

What if Apple has built in a feature into x86 that it simply won't let it boot after July 2006?

 

I have seen it before, as it happend with the first Safari's beta.

 

What if you press the on button, and instead of a login screen you have a window saying that your "Developer kit has expired"?

 

Have you thought about this?

 

Anyone who has ever used a Developer Version build or seed from Apple knows this is a normal thing in Apple Dev versions. Those who are running Mac OS x86 thinking it is a 100% retail System and talk about having dumped Windows XP etc. etc. Waaaakkkkeee up!!!!

 

There will be a period that is bound to come, where this developer version of Mac OX x86 will be renewed several times within like a week until the GM (Golden Master) comes out!!! I expect like 15 new versions/builds/seeds to follow this 10.4.1 mac-intel one we are all gladly abusing (me included).

 

And the poor souls outthere talking about 10.4.2 being developed with more/better hacking security and talk about apps being not compatible on purpose to avoid 10.4.1 users to use this 10.4.2... Nonsense. This is Apples' way to make sure Developers don't use old tools and use the newer tools Apple provides with the newer build.

[Mr. Bond]

Yes....Just clearing some stuff up about the 10.4.2 update, contrary to many people's beliefs....

 

Several other fixes are noted with this build, such as completed programming frameworks, improved OpenGL support, and proper localization, as well as a few minor stability improvements.

 

Yes, there are measures that have been put into place, most likely to deter hackers. Is this a bad thing? No. It is simply Apple trying to defend it's Intellectual Property. Apple's main focus for this update seems to simply priovide better support and functionality for developers. Others will beg the question, "Why, then, is Apple breaking support for some older tools and apps in this new version? Is this to stop us hackers from running Os X in the wild?". As some have pointed out, this is simply the evolution of the operating system, which is still very much in it's Alpha stages. As Apple tries to improve the functionality and provide a better envornment for the developers - the traget audience of the developer transition kit, not the average joe user - things will be broken, while others improved. This is simply the lifecycle of an operating system. Apple realises the fact that, as this is a developer release and still not all the complete, there is not a large audience of people using the system for everyday purposes. It's like not continuing to include classic support in OSX; it isn't to screw all those harcore classic fans, but Apple realising that the audience just isn't that large anymore, and the evolution of an OS. Most people I know don't even know theres a copy of Mac OS X that can run on an x86 PC, and think I'm some sort of god when they see me use it. The fact is, whether Apple is intentionally putting measures such as this in to stop hackers, or is simply a convient roadblock while improving performance for the devs, we must all take this release with a grain of salt, and recognize who this release is aimed for, before bitching about why our ATI radeon's don't work.

[Guest terry]

As some have pointed out, this is simply the evolution of the operating system, which is still very much in it's Alpha stages.

Obviously you've never seen any operating system in its alpha stage. Mac OS X for Intel is pretty much sophisticated and complete.

[stryder]

Obviously you've never seen any operating system in its alpha stage. Mac OS X for Intel is pretty much sophisticated and complete.

 

However, the librarys, kexts, compilers, etc., are all changing and evolving as Apple tweaks them. Remember, they are now getting help from Intel for everything. That may mean help with tweaking the code of the OS to be even more stable, or faster and more efficient.

 

In the glory days of OSX for PowerPC, when 10.0 came out, everytime an update was released (10.0.1, 10.0.2., etc.) it usually broke applications. That was due to different things changing all the time.

 

Quote Ars:

 

Tiger also represents a milestone in Mac OS X's development process. Apple has promised developers that there will be "no API disruption for the foreseeable future." Starting with Tiger, Apple will add new APIs to Mac OS X, but will not change any existing APIs in an incompatible way. This has not been the case during the first four years of Mac OS X's development, and Mac developers have often had to scramble to keep their applications running after each new major release.

 

(end quote)

 

You can find the Ars review of 10.4 here:

 

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars

[Mr. Bond]

Obviously you've never seen any operating system in its alpha stage. Mac OS X for Intel is pretty much sophisticated and complete.

 

al·pha (ăl'fə)

n.

The first letter of the Greek alphabet.

The first one; the beginning.

Chemistry. The first position from a designated carbon atom in an organic molecule at which an atom or radical may be substituted.

Astronomy. The brightest or main star in a constellation.

The mathematical estimate of the return on a security when the return on the market as a whole is zero. Alpha is derived from a in the formula Ri = a + bRm, which measures the return on a security (Ri) for a given return on the market (Rm) where b is beta.

 

This is the first version of Mac OSX for intel, which has pretty much been released to anyone outside of Apple. It is very much incomplete, which can be seen through the lack of hardware/software support, and the many bugs and issues that exist withinin it. This was not released to developers for beta testing, but to give them a headstart at developing for the platform, and a rough outline as to how the final product will look and feel. It's like saying that house you bought doesn't have any finished rooms, but still looks like a house, so is pretty much the final product. These are what my views are, and yours may or may not differ, but I am not going to get into an argument over what each of believe should be considered alpha.

[buwie]

It is very much incomplete, which can be seen through the lack of hardware/software support

R U kidding? This is exactly what Apple doesn't care about, they only have to support their own hardware, remember? This release is way beyond alpha, no argument needed about that

[Guest terry]

Seems like I have to restate my arguments in the view of such ignorance.

 

It is very much incomplete,

Incomplete? In which respect? Please elaborate. Apple even decided to include the Rosetta emulation layer with this release although the transition kits are not meant to demo the compatibility of Mac OS X with existing PPC applications, but to author completely new native x86 code.

 

which can be seen through the lack of hardware/software support,

AFAIK, the developer transition kits -- the one and only hardware platform for which this very special public release of Mac OS X for Intel has been designed -- are running quite well for what their purpose is.

 

and the many bugs and issues that exist withinin it.

Which bugs and issues? Can you explain? And I just want to hear about problems associated with the original Apple developer transition kits, because this is the only environment on which this release of OS X for Intel we're talking about is intended to run on. Everything else is irrelevant, because it is out of the specs.

 

a rough outline as to how the final product will look and feel. It's like saying that house you bought doesn't have any finished rooms, but still looks like a house, so is pretty much the final product.

That's plain ridiculous. So you're insinuating a time frame in which five+ years are spent on developing in a crude alpha stage and then the product is suddenly pushed through beta testing and release candidates in about half a year? Funny idea, and way off bound. Get real, kid. The current public release of Mac OS X for Intel does not give a "rough outline" of Mac OS X's look and feel, but is almost on par with the production version for PPC that you can find in the stores.

 

I find it quite startling that of all people a person like you who shows such gross incompetence is moderator on this board.

 

However, the librarys, kexts, compilers, etc., are all changing and evolving as Apple tweaks them. Remember, they are now getting help from Intel for everything. That may mean help with tweaking the code of the OS to be even more stable, or faster and more efficient.

Yep, I think this is very probably true.

[Pnutster]

The current public release of Mac OS X for Intel does not give a "rough outline" of Mac OS X's look and feel, but is almost on par with the production version for PPC that you can find in the stores.

 

Having 3 Macs running beside the Mac OS x86 I can pretty much agree... x86 look and feel is almost on par with PPC versions of OS X.

 

No doubt about it. Not an early Alpha stage. Years of x86 development are in this babe for sure!!! Didn't you hear Steve Jobs in his Keynote about this. Every single Mac PPC OS X version was 'shadowed' by an x86 version! From the first one on!!!