mad_onion Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 lol a lot of pages are gone wow. clearly this leaked release isnt up to scratch but i still dont think i understand, would a full version on a dev dvd need to use darwin or could it be done without it? and have the developers already got their machines? because if they have it would suggest it wont be leaked doesnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxdesmus Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I personally think I had a very valid point, How is this any different than talking about a leak of longhorn? :rolleyes: :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagger Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 screenshots dont mean ****.proof enough: ^ That is NOT a photoshop job... Movie of it Apple makes it REALLY easy to change dialogs :happy: 586080180[/snapback] 13.37 dual proccessor? and each at 6.5185 ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pootis Spencer Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Read it again carefully.... 13.37......1337........l33t.....LEET. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XiXora Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 er two atari 2600's at 13.37ghz... surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ad345zAdZ0d9_ Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Read it again carefully.... 13.37......1337........l33t.....LEET. :) 586147800[/snapback] i think we all got the joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulletRobZ Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Good lord. Well if Windows XP can be run on Apple Intel machines, then Apple will have no choice but to make their OS available on other PC's unless if they want to bankrupt themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chadwick Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 there is no logic in what you just said webgraph, absolutely no logic at all, in fact, you are completely wrong even if it were to make any sense. -For windows to run on an apple machine, a user still has to buy an apple machine, so apple makes money. -To run osx you need an apple machine, apple makes money. -To run osx on a windows machine, you DONT buy an apple machine, you spend 130 bucks on osx, apple makes very little money. So apple makes money no matter what, very few people would buy osx to run on a windows box, but if someone is willing to buy an apple for its hardware and design to run windows, apple still makes out, big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huy Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I think what he meant to say was: "If Mac OS X can run on x86... " <same conclusion he made> But you're right Chadwick, in that they'll make money (unless people start pirating Mac OS big time or something?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I personally think I had a very valid point,How is this any different than talking about a leak of longhorn? :rolleyes: :whistle: 586147746[/snapback] You go into a court of law without any solid proof, they'll laugh you out of the building. No different here. Unless we have proof someone is using a leaked copy of Longhorn, they are presumed innocent. There's no real way to tell who has it legally, even those most probably don't. With this it's quite easy to know because there is no legal copy up for download. the only legal way to get it is to buy the $1000 dev system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten T Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I just found out hat OS X uses SSE2 therefore you will need a Pentium 4/D, Pentium M, Anthlon 64/FX/X2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pootis Spencer Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 i think we all got the joke 586147961[/snapback] Well he obviously didnt hence why I pointed it out. No need to be sarcastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougal.s Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I just found out hat OS X uses SSE2 therefore you will need a Pentium 4/D, Pentium M, Anthlon 64/FX/X2 586148128[/snapback] Source? It is quite likely that Apple would take advantage of some of the more advanced instruction sets on the Intel chips. It would however make it (even) harder to runon other systems if this were possible. Dougal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWW Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 (edited) would a full version on a dev dvd need to use darwin or could it be done without it?and have the developers already got their machines? because if they have it would suggest it wont be leaked doesnt it? 586147743[/snapback] Its doubtful you would need to use darwin if a dev dvd was leaked... but we dont know for sure because it hasnt happened yet. Developers are getting there machines now or very very soon, so its no surprise that that leak hasnt happened yet. With this it's quite easy to know because there is no legal copy up for download.? the only legal way to get it is to buy the $1000 dev system. 586148119[/snapback] I'm sorry Chad...just a minor correction...this leak that has happened is not from a dev system... it is in fact a totally custom build that apple made (without the dev flag checked to my knowledge).... and therefore, adding to your argument, absolutely no one should have this leak legally, not even those that purchased the dev kit.... only a few apple employees would have had access to this leak. I just found out hat OS X uses SSE2 therefore you will need a Pentium 4/D, Pentium M, Anthlon 64/FX/X2 586148128[/snapback] You are kind of correct with this statement... but lets clarify something... you are able to make OSX not use SSE2 instructions by doing a little bit of "undocumented" configuration.... and this is exactly what has been done by some people with this leak to get it to work (at least as much as it does work) on P3's and AthlonXP's Edited July 1, 2005 by VWW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nerokill Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 how can i download at 5mb p/s on a 2mb BB ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ad345zAdZ0d9_ Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 Why have a whole load of threads been deleted. They were really useful. Neowin is really starting to suck with its control Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 I'm sorry Chad...just a minor correction...this leak that has happened is not from a dev system... it is in fact a totally custom build that apple made (without the dev flag checked to my knowledge).... and therefore, adding to your argument, absolutely no one should have this leak legally, not even those that purchased the dev kit.... only a few apple employees would have had access to this leak. 586148684[/snapback] Hmm, I hadn't heard that. Is there anything that would confirm this? Why have a whole load of threads been deleted. They were really useful. Neowin is really starting to suck with its control 586149009[/snapback] A whole load of POSTS were deleted because they were against the rules. We wouldn't have anything to censor if people would follow the rules we have. Blame the people who break them, not us for upholding them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corrosive23 Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 My post saying this wasnt illegal because EULA's have been found to be not legaly binding was deleted. Good job :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 My post saying this wasnt illegal because EULA's have been found to be not legaly binding was deleted. Good job?:rolleyes:: 586149400[/snapback] EULAs ARE legally binding. You enter into a binding agreement when you purchase the software. What exactly do you think these companies use against the 'warez machine'? What courts have ruled against are certain points in a company's eula that are trumped by federal law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andareed Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 The 'warez machine' violates copyright laws by illegally distributing files. This has nothing to do with any EULA. I've never heard of a case of anyone being sued for violating a EULA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaidiir Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glitch409 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 OT: EULAs ARE legally binding. You enter into a binding agreement when you purchase the software. What exactly do you think these companies use against the 'warez machine'?What courts have ruled against are certain points in a company's eula that are trumped by federal law. 586149491[/snapback] Untrue. Since you(as a customer) buy software(at your local Circuit City, Compusa, and ect) without being able to read the EULAs, they were deamed not legaly binding. I could be wrong though :unsure: . Hmm, I hadn't heard that. Is there anything that would confirm this? I beleive the person who leacked this said he swiped it from the machine they were showing at some convention(I forget the name). Hence, it's just the image of a drive, not the install CD that leaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWW Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Hmm, I hadn't heard that. Is there anything that would confirm this?A whole load of POSTS were deleted because they were against the rules. We wouldn't have anything to censor if people would follow the rules we have. Blame the people who break them, not us for upholding them 586149219[/snapback] well i dont really want to post any links at all (because of the moderating)... but i have been following this whole thing very closely and the leak that occured was from the Mactel machine that Jobs used as a demo during his presentation... this machine was not a dev machine and looked and acted liked an ordinary powerpc mac... hence the surprise to the audience when jobs revealed it was actually an intel machine. There are more details that confirm this inside the actual leak but yeah, cant really say anything here. To be totally honest with you i dont have the leak... i've just been following the developments of it very closely on forums and IRC.... i thought it would be a waste to get it since it didnt work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 OT:Untrue. Since you(as a customer) buy software(at your local Circuit City, Compusa, and ect) without being able to read the EULAs, they were deamed not legaly binding. I could be wrong though :unsure: . I beleive the person who leacked this said he swiped it from the machine they were showing at some convention(I forget the name). Hence, it's just the image of a drive, not the install CD that leaked. 586150710[/snapback] That is true. People have sued and won in court about EULAs not being posted visibly. I don't have a link, but I remember reading about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Behelit Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 finally managed to install it on my amd... runs pretty well... if you want the how-to, go HERE!!! 586151040[/snapback] :sleep: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts