|
 |  Apple Insider -
Nov-05-2009Apple's latest 10.6.2 beta packs fixes for vmware, imacs, Apple TV(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
Earlier this week, a report surfaced claiming that Apple had apparently disabled support for Intel's Atom processors in the latest developer build of Mac OS X 10.6.2. The revelation set off a firestorm around the Internet, riling many users who have modified their Atom-based netbook models to run OS X and sparking speculation that Apple may have been moving to hamper such "Hackintosh" netbook projects as it prepares to launch its much-rumored tablet computer. In an update to his original blog post about the discovery, Tumblr user "stellarola" reveals that the latest Mac OS X 10.6.2 developer seed (Build 10C535) is apparently working just fine on his Atom-based netbook hardware. [1] Approximately a half dozen areas of change since the previous seed are documented, including fixes for issues related to AirPort on Apple's latest iMac models and VMware, as well as graphics-related issues affecting certain graphics cards and the Apple TV. Mac OS X 10.6.2 reportedly addresses a serious bug involving Guest accounts that has resulted in some users losing all data from their regular user accounts. It also appears to bring full native support for Apple's new multi-touch Magic Mouse, allowing future purchasers of the mouse once the update is released to the public to skip the step of installing a separate software update to enable full Magic Mouse functionality. Developer seeds of Mac OS X 10.6.2 have received significant attention this week after it was revealed that Apple had apparently disabled support for Intel's Atom processors that are power many netbooks modified by users to run OS X in a build released two weeks ago.[2]
Two days ago we reported that Apple would kill Intel Atom support when they release their Mac OS X 10.6.2 update, many now believe that the real reason behind this is to kill off competition for the highly rumored Apple Tablet. An online community known as the "Hackint0sh Netbook community" have developed ways in which they can run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, most of these are devices running Intel Atom processors. Obviously once Apple release this particular update all of Hackint0sh's hard work will become undone, therefore Hackint0sh are recommending anyone running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware to not install the update, find out more on Techtree. Personally I don't understand how Apple can get away with this, yet Microsoft cannot even bundle a web browser with their OS without being investigated by the EU antitrust regulators. Do you think Apple should be allowed to release this update? We would like to hear your arguments both supporting and apposing Apple's decision.[3] We reported earlier this week that Apple had seemingly dropped support for Intel's Atom processor from the most recent developer seed of Mac OS X 10.6.2, leading some to speculate that Apple did so to thwart some users from running the operating system on non-Apple hardware.[4]
As The Reg noted on Monday, Apple's deAtomization of the Snow Leopard OS was reported by a blogger named Stell. If true, such a shunning of Intel's low-power processor would have thrown a spanner into the works of netbook hackintoshers who are creating a well-organized cottage industry out of running Mac OS X on those bargain-basement minis. After mulling over what possible reason Apple might have had for disabling Mac OS X support for the Atom, we further mulled that "Stell may simply have got his or her wires crossed."[5] The other day the blogosphere was aflutter with the news that OS X 10.6.2 seemed to kill support for the Intel Atom processor, which would mean that virtually every netbook on the market would be unable to run the upcoming version of Apple's Snow Leopard operating system.[6] The news left many Netbook users running Snow Leopard fearing the worst. It was truly a "here today, gone tomorrow" scenario. The source of the news, who was quite surprised that their post received all the attention it did, is now reporting that the most recent build of OS X 10.6.2, 10C535, has seen the rise of Atom support from the ashes like some sort of software phoenix. The question arises: what happened? The bottom line is that we're not sure, and anyone that claims to be in the know is probably exaggerating the extent of their knowledge unless they work for Apple. At this point we just need to accept that we'll likely never know whether the omission was intentional or not, or what purpose it served. While we welcome Atom support back with open arms, it's important to greet its return with an air of skepticismit wouldn't surprise any of us if support were gone again in the next build, or completely removed from the final release.[4]
No current Apple products use the chip, but a community has formed around installing Snow Leopard on so called "Hackintosh" netbook PCs which use the Atom processor. This unauthorized use of Apple's operating system has grown in popularity since the release of small, inexpensive notebooks such as the Dell Mini 10v, which allowed for easy installs of OS X.[7] Anyways, in the latest development build Atom appears to have resurrected itself zombie style in 10C535. Of course, nothing's certain until Apple actually ships OS X 10.6.2 and, for my money, I'm betting this little incident was just a forewarning that netbooks run Snow Leopard or any other Apple operating system at the complete discretion of Cupertino.[8]
According to the developer blog which initially told of the Atom incompatibility, the latest build of OS X 10.6.2 does retain support for Atom chips. It was previously reported that support for the Intel chip had been dropped, a move that many believed was Apple's attempt to stop the small but burgeoning "Hackintosh" netbook community. This all may change when the final 10.6.2 build is released, but as of now Atom support has returned.[7] We reported on the lack of Atom support in development builds of Mac OS X 10.6.2, but a more recent build re-enables support for Intel's Atom line, popular in netbooks.[9]
Word that Apple had disabled Atom support in a Mac OS X 10.6.2 beta seed may have been premature, an update from the same discoverer says.[10]
Apple's code doesn't have any immediate clues as to whether or not the move was intentional. Those with access to the developer seeds are cautioned that no guarantee exists of Atom support continuing on to the publicly released version of the Snow Leopard patch. Apple is known to regularly allow at least basic support of processors outside of those used in Macs but often doesn't provide full feature support or any guarantees that this support will persist. Recognition of Atom processors has been relatively unique but has usually required unofficial hacks to work properly; the Mac creator hasn't signaled any intentions of its own to produce Atom-based systems and routinely criticizes netbooks that use it for being too slow.[10] Apple is currently engaged in a war of compatibility with Palm and, if the developer build of Snow Leopard version 10.6.2 is any indication, the Atom processor is next on the smack down list.[11]
The latest Snow Leopard OS X update, 10.6.2 that is still in beta form, which is why there is the warning above, has restored functionality with Atom processors and thus Hackintoshers can celebrate for the time being. It could be a temporary thing, or it could be permanent, keep your fingers crossed and check back for updates when they become available.[12] Hackintoshers rejoice! It looks like Max OS X Snow Leopard 10.6.2 will be supporting Intel Atom Processors after all.[13]
Why support a processor where the OS has never been released on (I think). Its really just a waste of space if they had no plans to release on ATOM processors. Although if it's not running OS X, I guess it still could have Atom, but it looks unlikely.[11] The discovery that developer builds of OS X 10.6.2 had removed support for the Atom processor kicked off a storm on the web.[14]
Breakage unbroke again, move along. Remember how a report recently zipped around the blogosphere about Apple disabling support for Intel's Atom processor in its most recent build of the soon-to-be-released Mac OS 10.6.2? Well, fuggedaboutit.[5]
Apple has released a new beta of the Mac OS X 10.6.2 update with fixes for various performance issues dealing with AirPort, graphics drivers, and Apple TV, among others. Those familiar with the build, titled 10C540 have said that it contains fixes for AirPort performance issues on the newly released iMacs and also resolves a problem which arose when plugging and unplugging a system to an Apple TV. A VMWare fix is also included, presumably for the newly released Fusion version 3.0.[15] Apple today seeded a new version of Mac OS X 10.6.2, termed Build 10C540, to developers.[2]
There's an interesting article up on Slashdot right now about Apple and Psystar (again. ). Only this time, it seems Apple is making the claim that the act of loading Mac OS X into RAM alongside any third party modifications renders it an "unauthorized copy". Obviously, they're referring to modifications relevant to the Psystar case, but taken the wrong way, this could imply that anyone who installs 3rd party software that uses items like kernel extensions to enhance functionality would effectively be running a pirated copy of Mac OS X upon rebooting their system.[11]
More people would be able to afford it while being able to eat at the same time. It will be a cold day in hell before Apple allows their OS to be sold standalone. As of now their OS is meant for a niche set of hardware that they specify and control. They don't have the infrastructure or drivers in place to handle the sheer multitude of hardware out there. While OS X is a fantastic OS in it's own right. The moment you put it in the same playing field (hardware and software) as Microsoft, it's going to implode.[11] Now that Apple releases an OS dirt-cheap it''s no wonder people will try to install it on a piece of hardware which isnt Apple. The chance this happens increases even more thanks to Apple refusing to provide the mass. Ofcourse you could say. well its Apple if you don''t like it don''t buy it. What right has Apple to tell me on which equipment I can install it? Apple is being attacked on all sides due their closed model which is kind of odd as I remember in the old days that users would scream their lungs out about MS doing exactly the same. Apple sure produces something nice but its rediculous that they lock in their user-base as much as they do and lock-out their developers equally as bad. I am not defending Apple at all but why should they start selling a standalone OS? It's up Apple's execs to decide what they should make and what they should TRY to sell.[11]
Why did you buy the MBP if you're pissed at people who hacked SL on a netbook? Besides, a MBP vs. Netbook shouldn't even be attempted to compare, apples vs. oranges. The main good thing (IMHO) about OS X is the way apple know the exact hardware configurations of all target machines; loose this and that's their main advantage over windows gone.[11] On the surface it seemed that the only reason for Apple to remove the hardware support that was already in the OS was to kill off the "Hackintosh" projects. Those are the projects that have hardy souls installing OS X on netbooks and UMPCs to fill the void that Apple is reluctant to fill.[14]
If OS X were to go mainstream as a stand alone OS then it would probably be Apples version of XP (2001 version). It's one thing to decide not to release a netbook but it's something else entirely to specifically block the netbook processor.[11] Word on coder street is that the upcoming revision of OS X will kill support for Intel's little powerhouse. That could certainly change before it hits the world at large, but we wouldn't bet on it. If you're viewing this on an netbook install of your own devising, you may be stuck at version 10.6.1 (or earlier) for awhile -- or you may need to do a little custom kernel building.[11]
The Atom lives another day, but nothing is concrete until the final version of 10.6.2 is out. The original post describing the lack of Atom support was made on October 27th, one day before Apple seeded Build 10C535 to developers, meaning that the poster was experiencing difficulties on his Atom-based netbook with the then-current Build 10C531. It is unclear at this time whether the lack of Atom support in that build was intentional on Apple's part or if it was simply a bug that the company addressed in the next developer version.[1] The Atom lives another day, but nothing is concrete until the final version of 10.6.2 is out." I'd advise you''not to get your hopes up just yet, as nothing is official at this time.[13]
I most likely does not have an Atom CPU but is something similar so it makes a lot of sense to lock Atom out. Don't get me wrong the news of Atom being locked out of SL is both great news and quite bad ones. For one the tablet is very likely to be running a full blown version of the OS but on the other hand Apple is most definitely going to position it in a price range above that of netbooks if they are making sure that netbooks are nor supported. [11] I've also been assuming that the tablet OS would be a variant of the iPhone OS, with a new UI template based on screen size. I honestly don't see the advantage of running full OSX on an Apple tablet (whether it's 5" or 10"), and given that the iPhone OS seems to run well enough on the iPhone, the Atom CPU simply doesn't have a good enough CPU performance to power usage ratio or whatever to be worthwhile.[11]
Intel plans to introduce Atom CPUs for cellphones. It seems to me that Intel needs to do something better than the Atom if they want to compete with ARM based CPUs. They may possibly turn to Samsung for their mobile processors since that Is who they have used for mobile devices. It is easy - if apple will ever made a netbook, it will be in so distant future, that it will not be the Atom. That is not so strange - in few months we will have here the descendant (codename Pineview), and there are also some interesting competitors. Apple has a power to push intel to create something special for them only (as they did it for Apple Air processor). They didn't push Intel for anything, they just got their hands on the ULV thin C2D's before anyone else, stop reading marketing blurbs they are all lies.[11] Last year, it was reported that an executive at Intel had publicly vouched for the Atom processor to be used in Apple's tablet. With the buyout of chip designer P.A. Semi, many believe that Apple is instead designing its own chips for the platform.[7] Apple apparently was going to stop supporting the Atom processor, which basically meant that turning your PC into, well, a Mac would become impossible. It probably made more than a few people let out blood curdling screams or salty tears of sadness.[12] Intel's Atom processor is a low-power, low-cost chip which is intended for notebooks and ultra-mobile PCs.[7]
Development build 10C535 of Snow Leopard update 10.6.2 retains Intel Atom support after the previous build had killed compatibility with the processor.[7] The news come once again from Stell’s Blog, who first discovered and started the rumor that''the new version of Snow Leopard would kill Atom support, last week. "Wow, didn'''t expect to get linked all over the internet for this damn post.[13]
The headline says "10.6.2 build restores Atom support " and the text reads ". an update from the same discoverer says.[10] A newer build, 10C535, now appears to have brought the feature back and hints that the lack of Atom support may have been a bug or an otherwise temporary action.[10]
Word has surfaced that the current beta build opnbrkt10C535clsbrkt of 10.6.2 has regained support for Atom processors. Whether this is due to the reaction to its removal, or to fixing an accidental removal we will likely never know.[14]
Well, it turns out that the latest developer build b rings back Atom suppor t, so the crisis appears to be averted or maybe it never really existed. Either way, this is good news.[6] As with the previous two developer seeds, Apple lists no known issues in the new build.[2] The new build also fixes reported panic issues with USB, Apple Filing Protocol, and some video cards.[15]
Why do you pay 29 euro/usd anyways for what MS calls a servicepack? The whole pricing comparison between MS/Apple always boggled my mind. MS makes an OS release every 4 years and the in between updates are for free while Apple touts that their OS only costs 30 usd/euro, a small detail they leave out is that every minor update/bug-squash runs you another x euro. [11] In the 10.6.2 update, Apple plans on fixing and tweaking nearly 150 OS X components.[15] However apple will never sell OS X alone. That would mean that would mean that they would have to raise the cost; in order to try to offset what they would lose on their pc's.[11]
Mac OS X 10.6.2 is expected to be released sometime in November and will reportedly be around 480 MB in size.[15]
OSX will run on Atom CPUs just fine. This isn't about "support" it's not like I could walk into a Genius bar with a Dell mini for support. It's not like there were specific Eee patches being released by bemused devs in Cupertino. They went through code and are specifically REMOVING support. [11] Looks like it, though why there is this uproar over a rumour is beyond me. Having run OSX on a netbook I found it ill suited in its current iteration so having the Atom dropped is pretty much a non-issue for 99% or the market.[11]
The fact that you and a few others wish Apple would start supporting more platforms is nice but really doesn't mean squat. Did you guys really expect Apple to stand still and NOT protect their assets when they are being constantly attacked by companies like Palm and Psystar? Plus Apple is about to release a table with is more or less a netbook.[11] With incidents like this, you've gotta wonder if Apple's just testing to see if we're 1.) paying attention and 2.) actually care. In this particular case, we don't know what if any purpose Cupertino had in removing and returning support for the processors used in most netbooks, but folks were definitely paying attention.[8]
That's why they're protecting their revenue. It's not rocket science. When Apple's competition makes changes to protect their revenue stream, like implementing WGA, people have fits, saying that the competition should be spending their resources fixing bugs rather than trying to block people out. When Apple's competition locks out pirates from installing patches and fixes, people have fits saying that the competition is exposing their users to viruses, data loss, etc. Apple has commercials making fun of how their competition for diverting resources (money) from fixing problems to other areas just to protect their revenue stream, and they are cheered for it. Apple does what they criticize the competition for, and they are justly protecting their revenue stream.[11] Every company has a business plan. Just because Microsoft sells standalone operating systems doesn't mean that Apple should too! Just because Apple has it's own retail stores doesn't mean that Microsoft. well you get the point. Obviously both Microsoft and Apple are good at what they do. As long as they stick to what they do well, they are both going to be doing fine. Apple likes to keep it's products niche with higher revenue margin and Microsoft likes to cater to the masses. There are obvious advantages/disadvantages to both those strategies, but the last thing each company needs to do derail from their business plan.[11]
@Paradox: I've been assuming that Apple would roll their own CPU or use another Cortex A8 ARM CPU if they release a tablet.[11]
Right now I want an affordable mid-range tower than can drive quad monitors, a netbook and a low cost laptop to round out my computing nirvanna. Apple's cheapest unit that can drive quad monitors is $2500 (ouch), they don't even make a netbook and their low cost laptops start at $1000 (with non-user replaceable batteries, no less). If I complain about this in the usual Mac circles, the Mac faithful make it very clear that I'm simply not in Apple's target market and I should deal with it. To this point I've resisted that idea, but I'm starting to see that they're right.[11] Apple has always been like this however they've gotten much, much worse since the introduction of the iPod. It's to the point where I'm seriously considering moving to Windows 7 after 15 years of being on the Mac.[11]
Apple went towards usability and a very limited set of hardware. It's much easier to go from a large hardware ecosystem and focus on usability (since the hard part is done). It substantially more difficult to go from having a very easy and good OS to start with and then expanding the hardware ecosystem dramatically (mostly because you risk stability doing so).[11] As if Apple stopped hackintoshers from running OSX on AMD hardware or even processors without required instruction sets (various SSEs).[11]
The latest build is once again netbook friendly and here's screen cap showing just that. Wow, didn'''t expect to get linked all over the internet for this damn post. [8] Anyways, in the latest development build Atom appears to have resurrected itself zombie style in 10C535.[13]
SOURCES
1. Rumors of Disabled Intel Atom Support in Mac OS X 10.6.2 Unfounded? - Mac Rumors
2. Mac OS X 10.6.2 Build 10C540 Seeded to Developers - Mac Rumors
3. Apple Mac Tablet: Killing support for other netbooks first : Product Reviews Net
4. Gone yesterday, here today; Atom support back in dev seed - Ars Technica
5. Apple not plotting to slay netbook hackintoshes after all ''' The Register
6. Quickies: Hackintosh future is bright, Eee PC turns 2
7. AppleInsider | Latest Snow Leopard build resurrects Atom compatibility
8. Don't have a cow, man! OS X 10.6.2 supports Atom [again] - MAC.BLORGE
9. Atom Support Returns in More Recent Mac OS X 10.6.2 Seed
10. New Mac OS X 10.6.2 build restores Atom support | Electronista
11. Apple killing Atom support, dreams of netbook hackintoshers in next Snow Leopard release?
12. Snow Leopard update will not kill Hackintosh computers, for now
13. Mac OS X 10.6.2 Not Killing Intel Atom Processor Support After All | Erictric
14. OS X Atom Processor Support Revived (For Now)
15. AppleInsider | Apple's latest 10.6.2 beta packs fixes for VMWare, iMacs, Apple TV
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on Apple's latest 10.6.2 beta packs fixes for vmware, imacs, Apple TV by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
