OSx86 10.4.4 Leaked

What all of you ppl don't realise is that a few years ago Micro$oft saved Apple by donating a few millions $$$. Obviously this was done with some mutual agreements between the 2 companies. I strongly believe that one o/t agreements was that OSX would never arrive in shops to be bought by the general public. The ppl at Microsoft are not stupid; they know how easy a Unix variant can be ported to another architecture (as demonstrated with Linux)

Just to correct that horribly inaccurate portrayal: In 1997 MS did not just give Apple a few million dollars. They had to give them $150 million dollars in settlement fees and agree to continue supplying and updating both IE and MS Office for a further five years in response to Apple dropping any patent cases against MS wrt Windows. Arguably, it was the continuation of Office that helped save Apple, not the money, as without Office the markets would have considered the Mac platform completely non-viable (even if that wasn't true in the real world). The people at MS weren't stupid because part of the settlement was that Apple would push IE over Netscape on the Mac desktop thus (successfully) further eroding NS share of the browser market, and because they knew they would make a bundle of money from people buying MS Office for the Mac. It also helped them a lot because the DoJ was on their backs wrt to their abusing their monopoly position and it wouldn't have looked very good for MS to kill their only apparently viable potential desktop competitor at the time.

MS didn't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts (and still don't) - they had to do it.

The bit about OS X is just laughable. In 1997, even if OS X existed in any usable form (and it didn't - they'd only just bought out NeXT in '97 and Jobs had only recently returned to Apple), for Apple to have considered releasing it for purchase by the PC using public within that 5 year time frame would have killed Apple stone dead. Not only would it have destroyed all their finances from loss of hardware sales to the consumer, but all the major pro apps (Photoshop, Quark, etc) would have been totally incompatible with the OS on X86 architecture and totally impossible to be ported. So not only would they have lost their consumer hardware sales, but they would have lost their entire pro market too. An OS running on a different architecture is useless without its apps.

<end of history lesson>

Apple is in a tricky position right now - they could very easily see their pro market erode over the next year if Adobe doesn't get on the ball and ship an Intel version of the CS suite before the end of '06. The irony this time around, is that Quark might get an Intel version of Express out before Adobe ship anything...

IMO, you won't see Apple shipping OS X for use on any old x86 machine until either:

A) ever, or

their market share is greater than 10 to 15% (at which point they may be able to recoup their hardware-sales losses from increased software sales)... which probably sends you right back to a) again as that market share figure just isn't going to happen.

Apple is in a tricky position right now - they could very easily see their pro market erode over the next year if Adobe doesn't get on the ball and ship an Intel version of the CS suite before the end of '06. The irony this time around, is that Quark might get an Intel version of Express out before Adobe ship anything...

 

IMO, you won't see Apple shipping OS X for use on any old x86 machine until either:

 

A) ever, or

their market share is greater than 10 to 15% (at which point they may be able to recoup their hardware-sales losses from increased software sales)... which probably sends you right back to a) again as that market share figure just isn't going to happen.

Don't worry, the pro market won't erode. Not in 2006 anyway. No serious designer is going to switch to a Power MacTel (much less an ordinary PC) until Adobe CS goes UniBin, even if it's in 2007 (the thought of touching up 500 MB Photoshop files using Rosetta scares the hell out of me personally). The audio/video wonks will have Final Cut Studio as a UniBin in March, and the math/science geeks write their own programs anyway, so they won't care. (Now will Apple sell many new G5s this year? Extremely doubtful, but that's another topic.)

And as for your IMO, I agree with you -- but I'm guessing Apple's market share would have to reach … maybe 50% instead before Apple would consider porting OS X?

First off, it doesn't fit on a standard DVD, you need a DL to burn it, IF Apple was going to go down that route, they would have included all the Bundled Software on it and not have to supply a 2nd disc. Apple has always supplied 2 regular DVD's with thier latest machines. 1 for the install, and 1 for the Bundled Software.

Well, actually I think that it's entirely possible that they would have to ship two DVD's anyway, since iLife '06 requires a dual layer DVD all by itself (and it is of course bundled with the new iMacs).

there's also a posting in the newsgroups. i'll let u know when i get it if it's in fact the same one as the torrent. looks like just one disk in the group....

Yes, it is the same as the torrent. I'm the one who posted the one in the newsgroup, and I got it straight from the torrent.

Yes, it is the same as the torrent. I'm the one who posted the one in the newsgroup, and I got it straight from the torrent.

This would all be solved very quickly if someone trusted (actually better if 2 or more trusted people) would simply md5sum their iso. Ive md5sum'd 4.4gb iso's before on a P4 3.0 and it took about 13 minutes. So give us a MD5 hash of an actual official 10.4.4 DVD/ISO and there will be no guessing.

lol the poor p4 is really a junk cpu but don't worry about the md5 because it's very unlikely that a ppf against the original dmg would be released you would prolly need to do manually patching or to download a new iso

http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060208080547741

http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?...1691409#1691409

According to some posts on Apple's Discussion boards, users are able to resolve this issue by re-installing Mac OS X for Intel from a disc that contains the 8G1165 build rather than the 8G1171 build (two separate builds are currently circulating).

Can someone confirm?

quote from Apple Discussion board:

"An Apple 2nd Level rep just told me that the video tearing is present on Build 1165 as well as 1171. Therefore, Apple will not send me any new disks.

He went on to say that this forum's belief that 1165 will clear up the issue is wrong and needs to be cleared up. Apple clearly has no idea what is going on with this problem."

oh dear.... maybe someone on here can fix it for them lol

Then I guess all those members posting otherwise are wrong and don't know what they are talking about. The last time I talked to a rep, he said that it wasn't possible to walk on water...

In previous news, we have mentioned the different problems encountered by iMacIntel Core Duo users. The first problem noticed was related to a non-responding keyboard issue, the second was video bug especially annoying when using FrontRow. Apple has acknowledged the last problem and claims to be working on it. This could explain why many users have seen their order for an iMacIntel Core Duo postponed by 2 weeks.

This would all be solved very quickly if someone trusted (actually better if 2 or more trusted people) would simply md5sum their iso. Ive md5sum'd 4.4gb iso's before on a P4 3.0 and it took about 13 minutes. So give us a MD5 hash of an actual official 10.4.4 DVD/ISO and there will be no guessing.

This is the MD5 of the Pirate Bay torrent DMG:

C:\OSX10.4>md5 "Mac OS X 10.4.4 Restore Disc.dmg"

ABA5740A1F9E9265DFB5EA2F91B6B284 Mac OS X 10.4.4 Restore Disc.dmg

No idea how that compares to the release discs.

Don't worry, the pro market won't erode. Not in 2006 anyway. No serious designer is going to switch to a Power MacTel (much less an ordinary PC) until Adobe CS goes UniBin, even if it's in 2007 (the thought of touching up 500 MB Photoshop files using Rosetta scares the hell out of me personally). The audio/video wonks will have Final Cut Studio as a UniBin in March, and the math/science geeks write their own programs anyway, so they won't care. (Now will Apple sell many new G5s this year? Extremely doubtful, but that's another topic.)

 

And as for your IMO, I agree with you -- but I'm guessing Apple's market share would have to reach … maybe 50% instead before Apple would consider porting OS X?

When you say Unibin, are you referring to a program where the cd/dvd can be installed and run on either a standard or x86 macintosh? I just want to make sure I am using the right terminology.

Well Maxxuss has released his patches, it turns out some of the files are encrypted and you need the tpm chip to unencrypt, however, included in his patch are the unencrypted files.....and a script to replace them for you.

I'm off to install 10.4.4....

When you say Unibin, are you referring to a program where the cd/dvd can be installed and run on either a standard or x86 macintosh? I just want to make sure I am using the right terminology.

UniBin probably = Universal Binary (a FAT application that can be installed on either the PPC Macs or Intel Macs and run natively on each platform because it includes the necessary code to do so).

Well Maxxuss has released his patches, it turns out some of the files are encrypted and you need the tpm chip to unencrypt, however, included in his patch are the unencrypted files.....and a script to replace them for you.

 

I'm off to install 10.4.4....

Am I reading this correctly... as in I see the message that it is actually possible?

Let us know how your efforts go!!!

Welcome to the Forums!

 

Just so ya know, I'm sure JE isn't on crack - like you mention above, hackers like him can barely afford to buy the warez they steal, let alone buy crack.

/Sarcasm

 

You make some good points, like the logistical problems with releasing OS X for everyone. But JE still has a good point. There are a ton of us who are just too poor to buy a Mac - I can't afford too much more than the 700-800 bucks that it costs to build a computer, not the twice that that a comparable Mac would cost . I don't want this to be a Mac vs PC pricewar thread, but building it yourself saves a lot.

 

But there are also many of us who love what Apple is doing with OS X and would gladly buy a copy of OS X if we could. Heck, there have been many people on this forum who have used the hacked version on their PCs and then went out and bought a copy of the PPC version, just so Apple would get money.

 

You make some great points, but it's also important to remember that there is a huge demographic of poor people (or college students) who would gladly give Apple 100-200 for OS X rather than 1000-2000 for a computer.

I completely agree with you. I would gladly purchase a copy of OS X. I can't afford a Mac for the life of me, college is just too expensive. I'm surprised that Apple hasn't realized that a crapload of Intel PC users WANT OS X. Because..well..Windows...yeah.