# Mac OS X Tiger Intel Edition on piracy sites



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

From MDN:

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/w...or_intel_hits_internet_software_piracy_sites/. 

Jeff Harrell writes for The Shape of Days. "The Intel-based Power Macintoshes that Apple is showing at their developer conference are based on an Intel motherboard, generic Intel graphics and off-the-shelf Pentium 4 CPUs... I estimate that we’re down to a matter of hours before Mac OS X 10.4.1 for Intel hardware is available for download on Internet software piracy sites and peer-to-peer piracy networks. (Update: A reader who for obvious reasons wishes to remain anonymous just demonstrated to me that the software is, in fact, already available on Internet software piracy sites.) If I can think through this stuff, Apple’s management can think through this stuff. This is the most awe-inspiring stealth marketing move I’ve ever seen."

"According to reports, Apple’s bundled iLife applications, major selling points for the Mac operating system, are already Intel-native and run at full speed... Given Apple’s experiences with software piracy, particularly the rampant software piracy that spread developer builds of Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger all over the Internet this past spring, Apple’s management from the top down knows full well that this developer preview will be in the hands of every kid with a cable modem within days of its release. Most of them will be able to install it on their own computers and run it and the full suite of iLife ’05 applications at full speed, and run most existing Mac software in translation. As a result, Apple will give thousands, possibly millions, of people a taste of Mac OS X running full speed on their own PCs. Apple’s giving their potential future customers a free taste, that’s what they’re doing. It’s a try-before-you-buy deal," Harrell writes


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

I thought it didnt work on regular PCs?


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

And who says Piracy isn't good for marketing?


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Howard2k (Feb 9, 2005)

I doubt that this is an intentional ploy by Apple.

It would be like a car salesman letting you take out the banged up Ferrari instead of the new shiny one. It's likely to put you off with sub-optimal and sub-standard performance.


----------



## Klaatu (Jun 3, 2003)

Now THIS (if true) is very cool

Remember, Jobs used to fly pirate flags at Apple headquarters

"Arrrr Matie! Stand back. We're storming aboard!"


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

They aren't going to release the final version.. in fact.. they aren't probably going to release the Developer version. However, they know it's going to happen on P2P sites. It just states that they probably won't try and stop it.

All this would do, would enable people to install the developer preview of the OS. In which, could be great marketing for Apple. Every Geek kid wants to install OS X on their PC. This way, they can.. however, the developers version can't be upgraded. If they really like it, they'll have to buy a "Legal" copy.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> Vexel: If they really like it, they'll have to buy a "Legal" copy.


Ummmm... don't you think that if they've illegally downloaded a developer copy, that they are more likely to download a bootleg final copy?

I think the issue here is whether the final released OS software is somehow keyed to new Intel processors/mobos or ASICs. The developer version looks like it isn't (which makes me wonder why they bothered to release developer Intel hardware.....).


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

used to be jwoodget said:


> Ummmm... don't you think that if they've illegally downloaded a developer copy, that they are more likely to download a bootleg final copy?
> 
> I think the issue here is whether the final released OS software is somehow keyed to new Intel processors/mobos or ASICs. The developer version looks like it isn't (which makes me wonder why they bothered to release developer Intel hardware.....).


You answered your own question. Phil Schiller already stated that OS X will only run on Macs in it's final release. However, the Developer version was just a product so developers could use it on the developer machines which aren't locked down to any specific hardware/software locks.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

THAT will be a tough genie to put back in the bottle.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I think it's perfect. Muah-hahahahhaha!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Well, I have a software engineer friend who claimed that within days of the developer Mactels arriving in developers hands, OSX for Intel would be out in the wild. This is even sooner - if it's actually true that it is out there on p2p sites.

Don't know if this is BS or not, but an anonymous poster on MacDailyNews claims to already have it running side by side with XP on his Dell. He says it blows away XP.

Of course when Apple contemplated moving to Intel, they thought through this possibility from every single possible angle. If a copy is out there that isn't protected it is not an accident, it is by design.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

YEAH!!!! WOOOOOO!!!! Remember my thread from before, wondering when it'd float down the undernet.... well this is my dream come true!! I'm crossing my fingers it runs on PC... how cool would that be??


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

An excellent marketing opportunity. Give some PC users a chance to see what the hubbub is about with OS X. Considering the fact that Apple will not hinder running Windows on Macintels, many PC jockies just might see them as the ulttimatee in dual boot -- make that TRIPLE boot (Linux) systems.

You can bet that Apple will be making every effort to prevent commercial releases from being used on non-Apple PCs. And used to be jwoodget is bang on, IMHO. Why didn't Apple go with AMD, the current speed leader (with great 64 bit processing going on to boot)? Because INTEL has hardware-based DRM and authorization technologies going for them. And THAT my friends, is the future... and the reason why Apple went Intel. That is where Apple "wants to go", to quote Jobs. In fact, they NEED to go there, as content suppliers (Hollywood) will accept nothing less.


----------



## district (Sep 14, 2003)

Macaholic said:


> ...INTEL has hardware-based DRM and authorization technologies going for them. And THAT my friends, is the future... and the reason why Apple went Intel. That is where Apple "wants to go", to quote Jobs. In fact, they NEED to go there, as content suppliers (Hollywood) will accept nothing less...


Like some media theorist, who's name escapes me, often says about DRM... encryption technologies will always be broken because people don't like being told what they can and cannot do with their property. Only when people start to side with the industries will these technologies be successful. 


I don't think that Apple is behind the leak, as this would constitute going after a PC loyal market that doesn't like to pay for software. Nonetheless, I haven't managed to find this leaked copy on any of the major BT sites, so I have my doubts that it even exists.


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> Why didn't Apple go with AMD, the current speed leader (with great 64 bit processing going on to boot)? Because INTEL has hardware-based DRM and authorization technologies going for them. And THAT my friends, is the future... and the reason why Apple went Intel. That is where Apple "wants to go", to quote Jobs. In fact, they NEED to go there, as content suppliers (Hollywood) will accept nothing less.


Nobody knows for sure if Apple will leverage any kind of hardware-based DRM. Its pretty obvious that Apple doesn't even give a damn about software-based DRM, either...they implement it loosely to appease the RIAA.

However, it is quite obvious why Apple did not go with AMD, and that reason is supply issues. If Apple went with AMD they'd be in virtually the same boat as they are with IBM; technically superior processors, but who the hell can get enough of them to meet demand? However, if AMD can start pumping out a lot more CPUs to meet all the demand then there is no technical reason why Apple can't go with AMD.

Trev


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

In the big picture this won't make a dent in anything. It will be something for the true "geeks" to play with while they sit in their darkened rooms drinking carbonated beverages & munching chips.Plus they'll also get the full benefits of getting any wares off the piracy sites.


----------



## green_ears (Feb 26, 2005)

Vexel said:


> And who says Piracy isn't good for marketing?


Behold... Apple better start pumping up its enterprise products... Home use of OSX on non-Apple x86 will surely be mostly pirated like MS Windows.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

green_ears said:


> Behold... Apple better start pumping up its enterprise products... Home use of OSX on non-Apple x86 will surely be mostly pirated like MS Windows.


It's going to be a heck of a lot harder to port Mac OS X to non-Apple x86 gear than Windows. I think OS X is going to be very specific on it's hardware. The drivers have to be built for the hardware to work. If that's not built into OS X, then it's simply not going to recognize the hardware. Windows HAS to support a multitude of hardware, it's one of the reasons it's so flawwed.

Apple's not stupid, while I know it will probably be done, it will not be done in the vast majority of users. The one's that will do it are going to be the ones which have the time and the patience. In this industry, you know how many have patience. If it doesn't work, off the bat, most will just give up.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I'm with Vexel on this. So far we've heard that OS X Tiger intel edition requires an intel motherboard and processor, doesn't have drivers for any video except Intel integrated graphics, and pirated versions won't get any support from Apple. A few hard core geeks are going to try this thing out, realize they like it, and buy a Mac.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

even then, there hasn't been proof of this thing being in the wild yet. I've been scanning all the Torrent sites I have access to (from the good ol' Windows days...I swear) and nobody on them have even _seen_ a copy


----------



## district (Sep 14, 2003)

trump said:


> even then, there hasn't been proof of this thing being in the wild yet. I've been scanning all the Torrent sites I have access to (from the good ol' Windows days...I swear) and nobody on them have even _seen_ a copy


The good old days of PC computing? I can't remember that far back  .


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

trump said:


> even then, there hasn't been proof of this thing being in the wild yet. I've been scanning all the Torrent sites I have access to (from the good ol' Windows days...I swear) and nobody on them have even _seen_ a copy



Agreed, it's not out there yet in "wide release". If it's anywhere it might be on some usenet group somewhere but I've seen no direct proof that a) it's out there or b) that some one has this running on their PC.

I thought that (as usual) Jack Campbell was blowing smoke last week when he predicted on his blog that this release would run out of the box on std. Intel h/w (video card driver issues aside) but he might actually have been right. Oh the irony.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I think perhaps it's just a bunch of BS from anonymous posters. A red herring is not uncommon in the computer industry.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

gmark2000 said:


> I think perhaps it's just a bunch of BS from anonymous posters. A red herring is not uncommon in the computer industry.


Could be, I guess we'll see.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I wonder if this will increase the resale value of PC boxes? I wonder when the first OS X PC is listed on eBay? Probably 2.5 milliseconds prior to Apple legal parachuting down the guys chimney....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

or how about PC ads that say; "OS X ready"


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

It's real.

Expect to see confirmation on the mainstream tech news sites this week.


Or maybe not  right now the balance b/w "real" and fake" posts is about equal.

Edit - fake vs. legit opinion now seems about 90:10 (at least for what is easily accessible "out there")

Edit 2 - Final verdict says - Fake. Stay tuned to see if the real thing does emerge.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

For interest, this is the one image online that is purporting to demonstrate X on generic Intel is for real:










Let the [scoffing] ...begin


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I don't know, the image looks funny.


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

wow they hooked up a Mini to a CRT monitor next to a Compaq tower...still not convinced. As Someone said, I wanna see the cables...show me the cables!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

Looks like he emptied the Dock. I see Limewire and Terminal on there.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

gmark2000 said:


> Looks like he emptied the Dock. I see Limewire and Terminal on there.


LOL, either that is it's someone playing who has just done a fresh install and those are the first things he could think of to run . Personally I would expect to see the iLife suite running since that is apparently native and is part of the "package" (which is still nowhere to be found btw). It seems fishy that some PC owner would've gone to the trouble of d/ling LW and then installing it when they were in a hurry to got a snapshot out the door.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

keyboard cable seems to go way off to the left and PC computer is on the right


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> keyboard cable seems to go way off to the left and PC computer is on the right


I agree, there's a MINI SOMEWHERE!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You DO realize the key is in the detail in that Box - 

*Processor* ....????

Got a link for a closer look??


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

That's hard to tell. I zoomed the picture but can't decipher it. Regarding the keyboard, the cord verring to the right appears thinner than the one coming from the keyboard.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I've been playing around with the image and what ever the processor might be it certainly appears NOT to be a PowerPC - the letters look all wrong to be *PowerPC G4 or G5*

Anyone got the link.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

That's funny I was trying to remember where I saw a pic of the bona fide info window with the Intel h/w indicated as the processor. I think the only place was the Steve note. If anyone's got a still from it it would probably show us the "shape" of the right lines.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> I've been playing around with the image and what ever the processor might be it certainly appears NOT to be a PowerPC - the letters look all wrong to be *PowerPC G4 or G5*
> 
> Anyone got the link.


It says Unknown Processor followed by two digits. 

stick a really new CPU upgrade into a machine running 10.0 and it will say the same thing.

The Apple developer machine is based on the Intel D915GAG, so it would just about have to run on a standard PC in its present form.

The first demonstration I saw of what would become Mac OS X was demonstrated on a standard Compaq Pentium PRO workstation that also had Windows NT 4 installed on it.


----------



## green_ears (Feb 26, 2005)

Trevor... said:


> It says Unknown Processor followed by two digits.
> 
> stick a really new CPU upgrade into a machine running 10.0 and it will say the same thing.
> 
> ...


Anyone tried the x86 version of Tiger yet? I've seen it on some sites...


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

It's not on any sites. The files are fakes.

Mystery solved re: the HP "running" X. Clue - look for the VNC logo in the dock.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

from www.macobserver.com :

Build Your Own Mac Site Aims to Show Users How to Do It


by Staff, 1:20 PM EDT, June 13th, 2005






BuildYourOwnMac.com went live over the weekend. While the Web site's owner, Pualo, acknowledges that Apple won't get back into the cloning game and will use legal means to shut down any company that tries to sell x86-based hardware with the Mac OS, he feels that hobbyists should be able to build their own x86-based systems and run Mac OS X on them. The site will be geared toward users who want to either build their own systems or figure out how to run Mac OS X on existing machines.


The site's forums aren't very active at the moment, but that's likely to change as more people start pondering those options. Pualo realizes that his potential audience will never be huge, since most consumers don't want to build their own computers or hack their operating systems, but he wants to interact with users who are interested in one of those avenues. He expects Apple to use off-the-shelf parts to assemble the new "MacIntel" systems, so he thinks he should be able to figure out which ones are used and build his own. He also expects that volunteers will write drivers for the parts that Apple doesn't use, so that enthusiasts can build their own machines and run Mac OS X on them.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Well, I'm downloading something called "Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO". No one has posted any comments on it, so it could very well be fake.. so we'll see! 

I did read the NFO, and here's what it suggests for hardware: 133MHZ/128MB RAM/1GB HD

I dunno bout that...


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

kloan said:


> Well, I'm downloading something called "Mac.OS.X.Tiger.X86.READNFO-XISO". No one has posted any comments on it, so it could very well be fake.. so we'll see!
> 
> I did read the NFO, and here's what it suggests for hardware: 133MHZ/128MB RAM/1GB HD
> 
> I dunno bout that...


Is that the 900 and something meg version or the 600 and something meg version? If it's the 9 then I'll save you the trouble - just google GNAA and you'll get the joke. If it's the 6 then I'll leave the surprise for you to experience.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Well I figured the 600 something was fake, and I just read a few posts over on redflagdeals that the 900 one is fake too... ce la vie.


----------



## mycatsnameis (Mar 3, 2000)

If there ever is a bona fide leak, I would expect that it would have to clock in at 3-4 gigs b/c the highly touted iLife suite (native on Intel) is apparently installed on the dev machines as well. That being said, the early reports are that the OS comes pre-installed with no back up discs. On one hand I find it hard to believe but on the other it would make sense from a security standpoint (although someone somewhere will find a way of cloning a disk image and leaking it I'm sure).


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

mycatsnameis said:


> although someone somewhere will find a way of cloning a disk image and leaking it I'm sure.


We can only hope <img src="http://www.surromomsonline.com/support/images/smilies/praying.gif">

Laterz


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

So the install kit is available now... but it is locked. Let's hope someone is smart enough to hack this baby!


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I personally don't want Apple's code to be pirated. This could spell the demise of the company and the products that you enjoy. I hope that there's serial # cloaked in the leak and that developer gets jailed.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

gmark2000 - According to the people who are trying to reverse engineer the OS in order to make it work on any x86 machine it doesn't look like it's going to be too possible without the necessary TPM chip found inside the Intel Macs. Hacking around this and then making a reasonable version may be possible, but simply not feasible because the amount of work necessary to bypass the calls to that module (which many speculate also has bits that assist in the binary conversion that makes Rosetta run so well).

That said, ehMac has a decidedly anti-piracy policy, so don't post any links to where one may obtain the disk image that may or may not be another fake.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Yeah, after some more reading it doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon.. a few people have managed to install it through VMware and Darwin.. but the whole process is beyond tedious.. still, there are some trying to bypass the security.

I doubt if it actually was hacked and was usable, would cause any serious impact on Apple sales. Apple hardware is still nice, and has been coming down in price, although it'd be nice if it came down more. The version requires fast processors, and pretty high end equipment overall, so there wouldn't be much savings over Apple hardware anyway.

Chealion, don't worry.. I'm not about to post where to get it. I'm sure anyone who wants it can find it themselves. No point right now anyway, because it's pretty much useless to anyone who doesn't have the developer kit hardware.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

An article about the "Trusted Platform Technlogy chips" Intel is using:

http://www.bestsyndication.com/2005/Dan-WILSON/Whats_NEW/08/080805-apples-security-chip.htm


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

Best Syndication said:


> Will the chip be used to monitor, log and track a client’s Internet browsing habits?


This is a perfect example of FUD.

The computer industry really gets picked on too much. You don't see articles about the Shoppers' Optimum Card saying, "Will the card be used to identify condom users for the Roman Catholic Church?". 

Privacy and the right to control distribution of your personal information is important, but the level of paranoia is too high when we focus too much on the PC. There are way more important privacy rights issues to deal with, without muddying the waters with this kind of stuff. Lets let companies build software business models without this kind of harassment.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 18, 2005)

Wow.

I have seen many of these hoaxes.
We need to remember a few things though:
1) Darwin exists for X86 (OS X w/ no GUI and some other features such as CI/CV etc)
2) These dev's must sign NDA's before these machines ship out to them. Apple will be extemely vigilant over what is happening at the moment. 
3) The internet spreads information quickly. An internet connected machine could (assuming it was doable w/ one of these dev's) spread an ISO of the OS very quickly. We haven't seen that. In fact we've just seen files that don't result in anything. You are more then welcome to download these ISO's. You may even get lucky and it'll contain Darwin and will actually boot you to a CLI. At the very least any self respecting l337 h4x0r would make a movie of the thing booting or running or something. All of these claim's talk about the leaked software but never say anything other then 'it's leaked'.

I just haven't seen anything (other then the Steve note) that couldn't be made w/ Darwin, OS X and Photoshop.


----------



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

Privacy is a genuine concern. If it wasn't, you would have posted your address, SIN, phone number, visa number, bank account balance, etc in your signature.

The computer industry is not to be trusted, Apple included.
Until proven innocent - let's assume they are up to shenanigans, ok?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 18, 2005)

ice_hackey said:


> Privacy is a genuine concern. If it wasn't, you would have posted your address, SIN, phone number, visa number, bank account balance, etc in your signature.
> 
> The computer industry is not to be trusted, Apple included.
> Until proven innocent - let's assume they are up to shenanigans, ok?


No.

Let's assume they are watching out for their business and livelihood and not up to shenanigans. They don't gain by having pirated software out there. No matter how you spin it. 

Sorry it's early and I need coffee.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Yaaaar! Ye hear of Xerox matey? Arrrr


----------



## DBerG (May 24, 2005)

Anyway if that ever happen, it'll make OS X more popular to PC users. That's why windows is everywhere now. Piracy.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

DBerG said:
 

> Anyway if that ever happen, it'll make OS X more popular to PC users. That's why windows is everywhere now. Piracy.


Not quite. The PC clone platform was EVERYWHERE long before the Internet went mainstream and LONG before P2P swapping started. PCs are everywhere because:

1) Apple chose to NOT license their hardware design or operating system for the Macintosh. Knowing they had a unique technology for sale to the public, they chose to set hardware prices high if anybody wanted to utilize their superior technologies -- AND get it ONLY from Apple. The resulting higher price compared to PC clones running DOS severely limited the Mac from gaining a decent foothold in corporate use; which is the TRUE birthplace of Windows' huge marketshare.

2) IBM licensed the "PC" hardware design.

3) Bill Gates and his awesome knack for business allowed him to land a major lynchpin position in licensing DOS to IBM and ALL the other PC clone manufacturers. This happened years before Windows 1.0 got released and LONG before Windows became actually USABLE (version 3.1). As a matter of fact, Gates sealed the deal with IBM _without even having DOS developed!_. It was only AFTER IBM signed an agreement with Microsoft that Gates was able to find an operating system to purchase, which he did by purchasing DOS from The Seattle Computer Company for $70,000.00 IIRC.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> Wow.
> 
> I have seen many of these hoaxes.


What I just got isn't a hoax. But it is useless to me because I know squat about code.

EDIT: Correction, looks like the regular Tiger installation DVD for Mac... huh.. whatever... I give up.


----------

