StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Slashdot.org wrote: An anonymous reader submits "Several people have discovered that the new Intel kernel Apple has included with the Developer Kit DVD uses TCPA/TPM DRM. More specifically, it includes "a TCPA/Palladium implementation that uses a Infineon 1.1 chip which will prevent certain parts of the OS from working unless authorized."

Intresting.

I'm not suprised. I figured Apple would use something to keep any old x86 machine from running OSX. Knowing firsthand with my adventures involving Basilisk II.

DRM is a tool, one that is useful if used properly. Apple doesn't want to, or have to, support every peice of x86 hardware under the sun. This is a way to cut out the hardware base so that only certain hardware works on it. Therefore cutting down on the support costs.


Now, if you will excuse me, there is an RDF being generated somewhere around here that I need to switch off.

It, like all things, will be hacked. Given time.

Interestingly enough, the TCPA kernel extension is only used when Rosetta is executing code. That means that it's only there for PowerPC code. Since certain parts of the display server are still in PowerPC, you can't have Aqua without Rosetta, which means that Aqua is going through TCPA. However, people have been able to get OS X successfully booted into a command prompt on non-Apple x86 hardware.

Whether I get annoyed or not depends on the usage.

If the only usage is to prevent people from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware, I won't mind.

But they better not start using it to restrict the user

Wait, I'm not completely sure I understand... is this so a mac can only take OSX?

YT300000 wrote:Wait, I'm not completely sure I understand... is this so a mac can only take OSX?

This makes it so that you can't install OS X on a non-Mac (specificly, one that does not have an infinion 1.1 chip).

But you can install any other OS on the Mac as well, including Linux and Windows.

YT300000 wrote:Wait, I'm not completely sure I understand... is this so a mac can only take OSX?

That's what it sounds like. This is Apple we're talking about, remember? These are the same folks whom, for years, made their money off of offering a proprietary hardware/software package better known as the Macintosh.

Now that they're moving to x86, they're moving to a much less proprietary hardware solution than before. However, since Apple makes its money off of this proprietary hardware/software package calle the Mac, this gives them a bit of a headache. The solution, use DRM to restrict the software to recognizing a very specific subset of the x86 hardware solution (i.e. the x86 Macintosh.)

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:That's what it sounds like. This is Apple we're talking about, remember? These are the same folks whom, for years, made their money off of offering a proprietary hardware/software package better known as the Macintosh.

They've publicly stated that nothing will prevent a user from running Windows or Linux or whatever else on Apple Intel boxes.

Now that they're moving to x86, they're moving to a much less proprietary hardware solution than before. However, since Apple makes its money off of this proprietary hardware/software package calle the Mac, this gives them a bit of a headache. The solution, use DRM to restrict the software to recognizing a very specific subset of the x86 hardware solution (i.e. the x86 Macintosh.)

Of course, that's the only thing that makes sense. Apple are not Microsoft. They don't have anywhere near the resources to feasibly test OS X on all the possible x86 configurations out there. Aside from that, I've heard that OS X on Intel may require SSE3 or an equivalent on-chip SIMD.

Thats what the OSX wiki linked in the article says, but they do not have anything other then vague rumours.

I tend to think that it's because of a desire to force people who want Mac software to buy overpriced Mac hardware, and not because of support costs.

Steve Jobs doesn't want to compete with Microsoft on the software level and sacrifice all the hardware sales if it doesn't immediately pay off. They could stand to lose a vast amount of money.

Further, he wants to prevent piracy. Microsoft is doing the same thing by requiring a registration. Apple has a better solution here. Simply make it so it won't run on a non-Mac, and bam, you have to buy a Mac anyway to pirate OS X.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:I tend to think that it's because of a desire to force people who want Mac software to buy overpriced Mac hardware, and not because of support costs.

It has to do with reliability. Apple's entire basis is providing the "whole widget" in such a manner that it just works. If people buy Intel Macs and they work well, Apple gets positive brand recognition. If they buy a shrink-wrapped copy of OS X that may or may not work on their computer, Apple gets bad recognition.