News and Editorial: Apple Seeds New 10.4.2 Build

[sHARD>>]

After the recent seed of OS X for Intel version 10.4.2 (build 8B1072) to Apple ADC members, we've received confirmed today reports that Apple has seeded a new update, available through the "Software Update" system. Known as 10.4.2 build 8B1072A, this new version fixes graphics and performance issues and is purported to prevent current workarounds for running the system. Weighing in at 26.6MB, this update is quite small, but provides radical changes.

 

After much speculation has been tossed around as to how Apple would lockdown their new Intel operating system, perhaps we have found the answer. Many popular blogs and websites have begun to think that Apple may, in fact, be using the community of enthusiasts to find the bugs in their new OS and crush them, leaving a truly user tested final product which is almost uncrackable. When looking at Apple's track record, it would almost seem ludicrous, why would the company for the people use the people as a tool? Well, it's a few elements working together. Most importantly, Apple isn't for the people. Apple is for the cash. As it's been said before, Apple IS a hardware company, and until they change their focus (not something to be ruled out), they will still make their cash selling you iBooks and PowerMacs. It's a simple fact of life. Any company which doesn't watch out for profits will die.

 

Most interesting, however, is the method this update was delivered. Ponder this: Apple adds support for new features and fixes security flaws, seeding these updates through Software Update. However, these updates also lock out any cracks and holes that have recently been discovered. Sounds like a good deal right? Just don't update. Except for one problem. Imagine that Apple then strongly "advises" publishers to only allow their software to work with these updated versions. Suddenly users without updates are locked out.

 

While this may seem like a smart measure to prevent piracy, let’s look at the whole picture. Many Apple users love their legacy hardware and Apple famously supports them past their death date. Look at the number of computers still running 10.3, 10.2, or even 10.1 and 10.0, simply because they can't handle the latest updates. Although these are major revisions, which, of course, have some incompatibilities, imagine this process compressed to the point where a single update stops you from running that latest programs. Perhaps this update breaks something in your hardware as Apple phases out support, perhaps it just has a new bug, either way, it could spell trouble.

 

 

At this point I think many Apple fanboys put too much trust in Apple. Yes, they could do it right and only break compatibility between major revisions, yes, they could debug the updates incredibly well and keep out all but the smallest bugs. But Apple is really out there to make money. Can we really trust that? Maybe Apple isn't God's gift to the geek, but then again, do we really need one? Perhaps we should love the product and not the company, because the two just don't go hand in hand.

[slau98006]

May be this is part of Apple's business plan to grow the hardware business..Think of it this way - some users may go out and buy a Apple-certified PC and this PC can run both Operating systems - OSX and Windows. This will take business away from hardware vendor, such as Dell and HP.

[myzar]

May be this is part of Apple's business plan to grow the hardware business..Think of it this way - some users may go out and buy a Apple-certified PC and this PC can run both Operating systems - OSX and Windows. This will take business away from hardware vendor, such as Dell and HP.

 

hahaha sorry but if it can run windows it must be a regular pc so the theory about something uncrackable goes to hell, and apple can't have a plan about hardware grow they can't sell a sub par intel powered system and hope to even tempt the x86 world, they can only hope apple to keep their fan boy base and be in their 4% market niche, i'm sure that sj will regret this lost opportunity when he will forced to close his hw division in 2 or years

[johnniecarcinogen]

hahaha sorry but if it can run windows it must be a regular pc so the theory about something uncrackable goes to hell, and apple can't have a plan about hardware grow they can't sell a sub par intel powered system and hope to even tempt the x86 world, they can only hope apple to keep their fan boy base and be in their 4% market niche, i'm sure that sj will regret this lost opportunity when he will forced to close his hw division in 2 or years

 

just because windows can be installed on the hardware does not mean that the public release of OSx86 won't require a specific hardware configuration, TPM, or a special instruction set.

[RideTheCliche]

What's with the crybaby tone of that pointless little editorial?

 

Perhaps we should love the product and not the company, because the two just don't go hand in hand.

 

I call BS. People love the company *because* products like OSX and elegantly designed hardware don't come from companies with mindsets like Dell and MS.

 

Look at the number of computers still running 10.3, 10.2, or even 10.1 and 10.0, simply because they can't handle the latest updates.

 

Dude, have you even owned a real Mac for very long? First of all *nobody* still runs 10.0. 10.1 Was a free upgrade for just about everyone because 10.0 was an admitted work in progress. Next, with very minor exceptions, 10.4 runs on everything 10.0 did. Hell, a TEN YEAR OLD beige PowerMac 7500 with a G3 Upgrade card and XpostFacto (awesome S/W btw) will run Tiger. And again, with very minor exception, every new version of OSX has been faster than it's predecessor.

 

Imagine that Apple then strongly "advises" publishers to only allow their software to work with these updated versions. Suddenly users without updates are locked out.

 

Who cares? 10 Years from now I'll still have a P4 clone running OSX 10.4.1 -- Didn't cost me a thing! Why you expecting updates -- like the company -owes- you something all of the sudden. I'll be happy to play with my x86 Tiger clone a long time from now regardless of whether or not I get updates. Lots of other folks will too. My cheezy little $999 iBook G4 will still be a great machine years from now, and so will an Apple x86 box years after that -- with updates!

 

As long as all these new 'core' updates continue to be seen in the Darwin 8.xx branch -- especially the drivers -- it's a *huge* win for OS hackers, illegitimate OSX survival or not. It could be a whole new OS ballgame with a broadly-supported (hardware-wise) Darwin OS. Polish-up an ObjC environment like GNUstep and next thing you've got a legit, "Free" development environment that you can actually do some work on.

 

I think Apple knows how to make money for it's shareholders better than you do, mate (or me!). Be happy with what's working today, and if you're going to lend any credence to that little editorial tantrum, get to know the facts before judging.

 

~RTC

[johnniecarcinogen]

Is this 8B1072"a" update only available to people running 10.4.2 8B1072 because I get nothing from "Software Update"?

[sHARD>>]

What's with the crybaby tone of that pointless little editorial?

 

Crybaby tone? Get your hearing checked. That's one vicious comment to start off your counterpoints, so you've just engaged "ruthless mode". Thanks a lot for turning a friendly speculation and editorial into a flameware.

 

I call BS. People love the company *because* products like OSX and elegantly designed hardware don't come from companies with mindsets like Dell and MS.

 

And that's what's dumb. That's the consumer being a slave to the company. Companies do release bad products, and when you blindly love the company, you'll never see that.

 

Dude, have you even owned a real Mac for very long? First of all *nobody* still runs 10.0. 10.1 Was a free upgrade for just about everyone because 10.0 was an admitted work in progress. Next, with very minor exceptions, 10.4 runs on everything 10.0 did. Hell, a TEN YEAR OLD beige PowerMac 7500 with a G3 Upgrade card and XpostFacto (awesome S/W btw) will run Tiger. And again, with very minor exception, every new version of OSX has been faster than it's predecessor.

 

To continue your hostile tone, "Dude, have you ever met a real enthusiast on the internet?". First of all, *some people* run 10.0. 10.1 was a free upgrade for "just about" (you admit it yourself eh?) everyone. I've known many people tinkering around with old hardware and fooling with 10.0 and 10.1 to see what works best for them. In other news, you seem very hung up on the details. You just had to, for some reason, attack the useless little details instead of my main points. Thanks for trying to start a real debate here instead of nitpicking. Oh wait...

 

To continue, my point isn't forward compatability at all? Why bother responding to an article you didn't take the time to understand?

 

Who cares? 10 Years from now I'll still have a P4 clone running OSX 10.4.1 -- Didn't cost me a thing! Why you expecting updates -- like the company -owes- you something all of the sudden. I'll be happy to play with my x86 Tiger clone a long time from now regardless of whether or not I get updates. Lots of other folks will too. My cheezy little $999 iBook G4 will still be a great machine years from now, and so will an Apple x86 box years after that -- with updates!

 

They don't owe me a thing, and you just admitted that. So when they decide to grab more money, suddenly the users who love Apple for supporting their legacy hardware will be left with nothing to love. Once again, don't love the company, love the product. Yes, even if Apple turns evil, 10.4.1 will still be great. The product, not the company (have I chanted that enough yet?).

 

As long as all these new 'core' updates continue to be seen in the Darwin 8.xx branch -- especially the drivers -- it's a *huge* win for OS hackers, illegitimate OSX survival or not. It could be a whole new OS ballgame with a broadly-supported (hardware-wise) Darwin OS. Polish-up an ObjC environment like GNUstep and next thing you've got a legit, "Free" development environment that you can actually do some work on.

 

I really don't understand where this arguement is coming from or going to, so I'm just going to ignore it. Oh, and if I want a free OS, I'll take one without a corporate agenda thank you.

 

I think Apple knows how to make money for it's shareholders better than you do, mate (or me!).

 

Do they? Apple's only having good days because a bright little development team created the iPod and projected Apple into the spotlight.

 

Be happy with what's working today

 

I'm looking to the future.

 

and if you're going to lend any credence to that little editorial tantrum, get to know the facts before judging.

 

Take your own advise.

 

~RTC

 

That's one original nick you have there.

[RideTheCliche]

LOL... Okie-Dokey!!!

 

Cheers!

~RTC

[SUBMarcos]

So how's that update?? where can it be obained??

Is the OS would be able to run or it will lock up? like some users have been reporting no boot after updating some apps.

 

Please @RideTheCliche, keep on-topic... your second post and is quite deviating the topic that Shard gently exposed.

[bofors]

The attitude of Phil Schiller caught on video while he was mingling at the WWDC supports the idea that Apple is not paranoid about people running OSx86 on generic hardware:

Jump to 2:54 in the video to see Apple's Vice President of Marketing saying he's not so sure that they will be able to stop people from running Mac OS X on their Intel machines. Phil Schiller: "Who knows what the future holds? Who knows what people will do?"

http://digg.com/apple/Video_of_Apple_Marke...ned_about_OSx86

 

The video referred is here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?&docid=-...&q=hackers&sb=1

 

 

Now to state what should be obvious:

 

(1) Apple would rather that people run OSx86 on their PCs rather than Windows or Linux (and that is really what this come down to in most cases because an overwhelming majority of people do not have and will not buy Apple computer hardware).

 

(2) If Apple was paranoid about people running OSx86, they would have tried to shut down this site already.

[johnniecarcinogen]

Jobs said: “We don’t know how having OS X available for PCs would affect Macs”, and promised, “we will have technology in OS X for Intel so that it cannot be installed in other PCs”. He also promised that the final version should not be judged on the basis of the developer versions.

 

He uses the word "will" because the public release will be 10.4.4 or later. Ofcourse they aren't paranoid. I don't see what I was supposed to learn from that video Schiller was in besides the fact that the food Apple was serving that day may contain traces of nuts.

[bofors]

I don't see what I was supposed to learn from that video Schiller

 

Previously, Schiller had been widely quoted as saying "We will _not allow_ running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." The video captures Schiller taking a significantly different view point, one that is much more favorable to the OSx86 project and likely explains in part why Apple has not taken any action against this site.

 

To emphasize my point, Apple's official line, that is the original one where Schiller said "We will _not allow_ ... ", is clearly to some extent nonsense because Apple is at best passively dealling with the "problem" of people running OSx86 on non-Apple hardware, whereas the Schiller attitude presented in the video is likely to be much closer to the truth of the matter. Futhermore, the video presents a position similiar to what Jobs took in Paris when he said, “We don’t know how having OS X available for PCs would affect Macs."

 

Thus, I do not think that Apple is being as manipulative as suggested by this editorial because Apple executives have made it very clear that they truly do not know exactly how this game is going to play out and that they are trying to keep a balanced perspective.

[johnniecarcinogen]

Previously, Schiller had been widely quoted as saying "We will _not allow_ running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." The video captures Schiller taking a significantly different view point, one that is much more favorable to the OSx86 project and likely explains in part why Apple has not taken any action against this site.

 

To emphasize my point, Apple's official line, that is the original one where Schiller said "We will _not allow_ ... ", is clearly to some extent nonsense because Apple is at best passively dealling with the "problem" of people running OSx86 on non-Apple hardware, whereas the Schiller attitude presented in the video is likely to be much closer to the truth of the matter. Futhermore, the video presents a position to similiar to what Jobs took at Paris when he said, “We don’t know how having OS X available for PCs would affect Macs."

 

Thus, I do think that Apple is being as manipulative as suggested by this editorial as Apple executives have made it very clear that they truly do not know exactly how this game is going to play out, so they are trying to keep a balanced perspective.

 

This video was at WWDC2005 which was the day OSx86 was announced. Anything else Schiller has said about OSx86 I'd assume was more recent making it more relevent.

[Takuro]

............................................

[bofors]

This video was at WWDC2005 which was the day OSx86 was announced. Anything else Schiller has said about OSx86 I'd assume was more recent making it more relevent.

 

The "We will _not allow..." quote by Schiller was made on the same day OSx86 was announced by Apple, June 6: http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switc...html?tag=st.num

(see very bottom of text.)

[SUBMarcos]

@Takuro, Since we do not want to quote more, I agree with the 1st paragraph of your post.

 

None of my questions have been answered explicitly yet.

[philter]

At this point I think many Apple fanboys put too much trust in Apple.

 

Shocking!!

[stryder]

Dude, have you even owned a real Mac for very long? First of all *nobody* still runs 10.0. 10.1 Was a free upgrade for just about everyone because 10.0 was an admitted work in progress. Next, with very minor exceptions, 10.4 runs on everything 10.0 did. Hell, a TEN YEAR OLD beige PowerMac 7500 with a G3 Upgrade card and XpostFacto (awesome S/W btw) will run Tiger. And again, with very minor exception, every new version of OSX has been faster than it's predecessor.

~RTC

 

Um... we ran 10.0.4 on our servers at work for years, even after 10.2 was out. Why? Well... 10.1 had bugs in it that affected our servers. It took 6 ours to upgrade our servers, find out it wouldn't work, then downgrade. I wasn't about to go any further until I was sure that future updates would work. If it ain't broke, why fix it? We _STILL_ have servers running 10.2 and 9.2.2 because THEY WORK. Why change what still works?

 

We are in the process of migrating our 9.2.2 servers to 10.4 and all their internal apps from HyperCard to Revolution CGIs and Darwin engine apps. Some of our servers run OS X, some need 9.2.2 for internal databasing with HyperCard (yes, we have a multi-million-dollar company running 50,000 customers through a HyperCard database!). Eventually we'll go, but testing takes time, and if something doesn't work, that takes even more time. Why waste all that time with the "latest and greatest".

 

When I setup a new server a couple of months ago, I chose 10.3 for its OS. Why? Because it was proven at the time. 10.4 was too new, and as you can see, LOTS of bugs are currently and still need to be fixed in 10.4

 

Recently our iMac 9.2 server died, and I stuck in a G4 capable of booting into OS 9 as a temporary while I decided what to do. I tested our environment with that server being in OS X, and the necessary apps that need to run on it in Classic. Classic didn't work with them (kept crashing), so I kept with OS X and setup a secondary machine that connects to it and boots into OS 9 for the apps that need it. I decided to test this setup extensively before committing our company to a G5 Server running OS X 10.4 to make sure it worked.

 

So... to sum it up... as far as I'm concerned, the _ONLY_ people who jump on the "latest-and-greatest OS X" bandwaggon are end users, and corps. who buy new machines that have it already installed. Those of us using it and don't need Spotlight, Dashboard, etc., have absolutely no need to upgrade into another boat of problems. Again, if it ain't broke, why fix it? I learned that the hard way with the OS X 10.0.4 -> 10.1 "upgrade" we did.

 

PS: Have you actually tried to run OS X Tiger on a 7500 with a G3? I have a 7600 with a 300 MHz G3 and it's downright SLOW!

[joostpossemiers]

OS X Tiger works on all Macs who ran 10.0. OS X gets faster with the years.

[bofors]

OS X Tiger works on all Macs who ran 10.0. OS X gets faster with the years.

 

This is has also been my experience and what is widely reported in the Mac community, Tiger runs great on my Cube. It is the responsibility of software developers to make whatever, usually minor, changes to their programs for compatibility with evolutions of OS X.

 

However, I did have a problem with the 10.0 to 10.1 transition that was essentially unsolvable. Apple changed their Java graphics implementation in some way that rendered it incompatible with an open source tool kit that I was using. I had to switch to a different toolkit and ultimately left Java for Cocoa.

[jreate]

We should STOP trying to hack any further releases of Mac OS X for intel until the final release is out. It seems quite obvious that apple is using the community here to make OS X less hackable to run on non-apple pcs. If we stop trying to hack each upcoming version then when they get to the final release sometime mid next year, we will still be able to make it work on non apple pcs.

 

We need to be patient and wait for the final release, for the meantime just play with 10.4.2 not rev A.

 

hopefully this makes sense...

[johnniecarcinogen]

We should STOP trying to hack any further releases of Mac OS X for intel until the final release is out. It seems quite obvious that apple is using the community here to make OS X less hackable to run on non-apple pcs. If we stop trying to hack each upcoming version then when they get to the final release sometime mid next year, we will still be able to make it work on non apple pcs.

 

We need to be patient and wait for the final release, for the meantime just play with 10.4.2 not rev A.

 

hopefully this makes sense...

 

BS. We can evolve alongside OS X rather than stagnate.

[sHARD>>]

As a follow up to this article, I'd like to address some more critiques and...eh...flames found on various sites. Let's begin:

 

M$ fanboys coming over to Apple with too much distrust--lifetime of being a Wintel user I guess. Apple has historically supported older hardware and will continue to do so for the simple fact that it helps their market share. But also because many content producing business have older hardware that they don't update as often as you or I would. So this idea that Apple will just cut them off and stop supporting a certain area of users is preposterous and short sited. You'll all learn. But don't sit there and try to tell us Apple Fanboys what Apple is all about.

 

My point is exactly this. You are blinded by love of Apple. Once day Jobs may well wake up and say "screw those G4 users, we need $$!". And poof. Then end of support. That's how the buisness works. No matter how many users still use a technology, if the company will make more money by dropping support in the long run, they may well do so. I know exactly what fanboys are about, and you sir, and in denial.

 

Apple not supporting 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 ect is suicide, too many people still using that system. Anyway, things like Universal Binaries show that Apple is still looking out for the laggards, even though we don't make any money, lol.

 

I'll agree with you on that one, it was just an example to give the picture of what may happen. See my comment above, I'm just saying that sometimes, it IS good buisness to drop support. Which is what I fear for future OS X versions.

 

Apple might not be perfect (no company can be), but they are a lot better than M$, both in their products and their practices

 

Will they always be?

 

Why do people keep saying Apple charges too much money for their product?

 

Did you even read the article? No one said anything about charging too much. If you are referring to another comment someone else made that I cannot access, I am sorry, but if your talking about the article, I am greatly confused.

 

this article is a complete waste of time. i dont see how apple, in releasing an update to beta software has anything to do with them becomming microsoft.. lets all put on our tin foil hats!!!1one

 

It could be a sign of the future. Plus what's more important is the delivery and content of the update, not the update itself.

 

MacOSX86 was never designed for a normal x86 computer. Apple updated it build to stop people from using it. If you all don't like it, sucks for you then doesn't it.

 

Okay, I'm just going to guess here you saw OSx86 project and didn't bother to even read the article. Please, please, read the article before you post conclusions. I feel like I'm on Slashdot here.

 

Flame wars I can deal with... it's this evil corporation {censored} that is silly...But "evil corporations?"... cmon... corporations are out to make money. It's what they do.

 

I respect this comment, but I hope it is referencing a comment and not the article. I agree, companies just want to make $$, which doesn't make them evil, just a-holes sometimes.

 

This is a load of rubbish. They're running developer only beta software, and Apple are telling software makers to make sure their products only run on the newest builds, that legitimate users have got hold of. There is no problem here. Unless you're pirating your copy. Which I'm sure you're not are you?

 

Please read for carefully and you will see that is not the point at all.

 

tell that guy to shut the hell up. He's wining because they updated the software? It's stil a freaking year away from release, does he think they are going to stop development because it works on his cracked system?

 

what a {censored}.

 

Why do I even bother anymore? READ. Thank you.

 

To continue:

 

a good report.

when will folks grow out of thinking that, because they spent some money with a company they need to defend it?

 

reminds me of the old ford vs/ chevys idiocy

 

This guy got it. That's exactly the point. At least one of my points that is. Good job. Uber respect points for you for RTFAing

 

A good report? Are you kidding? The whole complaint here is that Apple is simply insuring that Mac OS X runs on Mac hardware. They have never claimed that it would run on non-Mac hardware. If you're running on MacTel hardware, there is no problem here.

 

The backward compatibility issue is nothing more than a red herring. He's pissed because he can't run his pirated version of Mac OS X anymore.

 

Not really, I have a nice Macintosh lying around here somewhere. Maybe you don't agree with the backward compatability issue, that's just speculative, but there is more here than that. If you ever read this post, I'd like to see you address some of the other issues I bring up. I'm interested in your opinion.

 

Give me a break.

 

Apple is in it for the money - Yeah, we know... like most businesses, their goal is to make money (something they have been quite good at for the last decade or so)

 

Apple wants OS X intel to run on Mac hardware only - Yes, they've said that in no uncertain terms. This is no different than what they do now. Why does everyone keep acting like this is debatable? Apple has said very clearly that this is the case.

 

Apple wants vendors to lock out previous versions of the software - Yes... does anyone forget this is in beta? You want to keep your devs as current as possible, and this is one way to do that.

 

This is also image management. If they allow the pirated versions to run for a long time, then one day lock it out, a lot MORE people start getting (wrongly) pissed off and it makes apple look bad. If they make a point of locking out each new version, it keeps things more manageable from a PR point of view.

 

I don't blindly defend apple.. but I'm an apple customer. I expect my software and hardware to work, and work well (and it does). When it doesn't, I expect apple to fix it (they do). When it comes to beta developer releases... I have no right to whine.

 

Well okay, you disagree with me on some points, I get that, but as a whole we are actually saying the same thing.

 

I'm not siding with Apple on this one (i think they definitely have the potential to be evil) but this article is all blind speculation. Sure apple doesn't officially support OS9 anymore, but this guy's just making guesses.

 

That's what an editorial often is.

 

I really wish we can ban users from this site. Rice would be the first to go.

 

[walkingmac]

let me reiterate... CRY BABY! You want to lull people into rallying against a company for updating a development OS against illegitimate piracy on unsanctioned boxes. Bad form. If you want to use Mac OS X, then get a mac. OS X is a feature of a Mac, not the other way around. If you want to tinker with an OS like that then use Linux or some other Open Source OS, or have fun bashing the daylights out M$'s exploits. Apple has every right to cut off the exploits made by OSx86 to run it on a generic PC. Apple has shown no sign (to my recollection) of cutting off the masses from using their hardware/software through a Software Update (that is between a major OS release). Sure, some systems can not (without a little finagling) install 10.4 based on hardware limitations, but in all honesty (being a previous owner of such machine) that machine lived well passed it's life expectancy. Lighten up, use your ba$tard of an OS while you can, then get a real machine, get a mac, it comes with Mac OS X.

[bofors]

If you want to use Mac OS X, then get a mac.

Umm, I think that you are on the wrong board... this is not wholewidgetbusinessmodel.com.