Filed under: Hacks, Apple, Beta Beat, Snow Leopard
Mac OS X 10.6.2 rumored to block Atom support, foil netbook OS X booting
In a move sure to rile up the crowds of people (including our very own Erica Sadun) who have converted cheap Intel Atom-powered netbooks into tiny MacBook-like hackintoshes, several sites are reporting that Apple will kill support for the battery-sipping CPU in the next release of Snow Leopard.For most netbook manufacturers like MSI, Dell, and ASUS, the Intel Atom line of energy-efficient microprocessors has been the perfect CPU due to its low cost. Cheap prices on these netbooks, often below US$300, have made them the choice of many Mac users who want a very portable and affordable laptop solution that they're not currently getting from Apple.
The word from many developers who are testing the most recent build of Mac OS X 10.6.2 Snow Leopard is that support for the Atom CPU is gone. Either the hackintosh owners will have to run Mac OS X 10.6.1 for the foreseeable future, or some enterprising hacker will build a patch to add Atom support back to the upcoming OS release.
Like the current syncing struggle between iTunes 9 and the Palm Pre, this may turn into a tit-for-tat battle between Apple and the hackintosh community -- or it might be the end of the road for Mac OS X on the featherlight PCs.
[via Engadget, OS X Daily]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Tom said 11:28AM on 11-02-2009
I do have to wonder why people assume this is specifically to block Atom hackintoshes. This is likely something as simple as a new SSE4 optimization in some code, and the Atom doesn't support SSE4 whereas every Intel CPU Apple has shipped does support it. Why should Apple hinder their own OS because of what hackers are doing to run the OS on non Apple hardware? Odds are, a hack will be released soon after 10.6.2 that gets things working again anyhow.
This is no different then Apple "blocking" AMD chips by not specifically supporting them.
Reply
KomputarGuy said 11:30AM on 11-02-2009
Good point, everyone jumps on the bandwagon that Apple does this on purpose just to block people from doing something. when that may not specifically be the case at all.
Brian said 11:33AM on 11-02-2009
+1 at last some common sense.
edddeduck said 11:42AM on 11-02-2009
Nice one Tom your post pretty much sums everything up perfectly.
Brian said 11:49AM on 11-02-2009
Oh and I have a Dell Mini 9 with SL on it but I still don't think Apple owes me anything.
Carl F. said 12:55PM on 11-02-2009
In fact, many Apple Intel machines used CPUs that don't support SSE4. The older Core Solos, Core Duos, and Core 2 Duos don't have SSE4.
Ari said 3:34PM on 11-02-2009
ROFL
damn the Apple faithful are a trusting bunch
Ari said 3:37PM on 11-02-2009
Tom, do you really have to wonder why people think this is block hackintoshes? Is Apple's great track record, an exercise in openness, throwing you off?
Tom said 6:02PM on 11-02-2009
@Ari : I try not to be quick to judge. All anyone has at this point is a brief statement by someone claiming to have 10.6.2. No proof beyond that, but yet there are now tons of stories out there about Apple killing hackintosh netbooks. Until I see actual proof that this is a malicious attempt by Apple to enforce their EULA, I'll wait for more information. I guess that stance will rule me out of ever being a blog writer.
Also, I've been on the other side of the fence before. An innocent little change I made to a software project I worked on was received by the hacker community as a deliberate attempt to lock them out. In reality, it was a simple update of a third party library to add some features to the program.
tony d said 11:34AM on 11-02-2009
I agree with Tom above. Why should Apple support a chip it doesn't use. Wasn't the whole purpose of Snow Leopard to shrink down the size of the OS? I know this will piss off those that have hacked a netbook (or plan on doing so) but thats what why they call it hacking.
Reply
Wheels said 11:40AM on 11-02-2009
Erica Sadun isn't going to be happy.
Oh wahhhhhhhhhh
I have no sympathy.
Reply
hzink said 12:05PM on 11-02-2009
Yeah, someone better call the Whaaaaambulance!
She'll go off on Apple (again) with half-cocked information, because, after all, it's all about her.... (rolls eyes)
macmatte2009 said 11:51AM on 11-02-2009
The reason why Apple should at least other Mac users to use Atom processors in netbooks is because Apple REFUSES to make a netbook. Certain people, like me, need a compact notebook that has a keyboard that we can use with word processing software, that doesn't require us to type on glass. Hence, if Apple refuses to make a netbook then at least they should turn a blind eye to people using SL on netbooks. This really gets me.
Reply
ethan said 12:08PM on 11-02-2009
But obviously your not in a segment that is large enough to make the $$$ worth apple's effort. Why put engineers on making sure it works with atom CPU's? They lose money on the deal. You assume they are doing directly vs it simply not being a cpu with the right stuff so it fails the code checker.
Nothing says you have the RIGHT to have os x on whatever you like. If your hacking then you live the hackers life-pull up your coding apps and write a patch for it.
Joseph said 12:36PM on 11-02-2009
This comment is weird.
Why should apple cater to you when you don't purchase their hardware?
What do you do for a living that this translates?
Let's assume you work at a McDonalds and someone comes in with their own cup and buns and wants to order the liquid for $.50 and the patty for $0.50. Would you sell it to them?
Josh said 12:54PM on 11-02-2009
They don't offer a netbook. You want a netbook. You don't get a Mac. Simple.
If you want a Netbook, your choices are Windows and Linux. Nothing else.
oZ said 1:52PM on 11-02-2009
... or FreeBSD, or OpenSolaris.
Nick said 2:10PM on 11-02-2009
"But obviously your not in a segment that is large enough to make the $$$ worth apple's effort."
1.4 million hits on Google for "hackintosh" disagree with you, sir. I think if Apple made a netbook, the people installing Hackintosh on their Dell netbooks would buy it. The demand is obviously there, and Apple refuses to cash in.
Don't mind me, just going down to half a star.
JD said 2:21PM on 11-02-2009
"Why should apple cater to you when you don't purchase their hardware? "
Because most of these "you"s are heavy purchasers of Apple hardware in general? And indeed, it makes little sense for Apple to piss of anyone if it doesn't lead to increased (hardware) sales. So the question is, does Apple make more people buy its stuff by preventing them from buying cheaper alternatives, than it looses from pissed-of heavy purchasers (like Erica) foreswearing their next Apple purchase in pique?
Apple is probably gambling that the loyalists are probably not going to leave Apple hardware en masse over this. But that's the logic Apple has to use: not, does this act make me a bit more cash now, but does this action lead to long-term profit maximization. A single instance of hardware not purchased from Apple does not mean that those users are purchasing none -- as Erica clearly illustrates. So don't make such simplistic defenses of Apple. They are a rapacious greedy corporation, like any corporation, care only for their profits, and have no actual concern for their users despite what their billions of dollars of ads might suggest -- there I agree with you. (Though it's strange that so many clear-eyed capitalists frequent such fan publications as this one.) But at least try to understand the logic of greed with a bit more nuance.
azuravian said 3:15PM on 11-02-2009
I'm not sure about the liquid, but many fast food POS systems support getting a "side" of almost anything they have, including meat patties.