Snow Leopard and Trusted Computing
From Ed Booher:
Dan,
I've seen snippets of Snow Leopard information on sites such as
TUAW, Ars Technica and of course your own site. Now, I will admit, I
don't always pay extremely close attention to all articles and read in
more of a skim by mode in a lot of respects. However, the one thing I
have been looking for I haven't seen yet.
When the Intel platform first appeared, it was announced that Apple
was going with Intel particularly for EFI, CPU and the iTPM. Everyone,
everywhere, went completely insane over Apple including TPM hardware
in the Mac. Certain sites went on for months about it ad nauseam, only
for it to quietly go away. To the point of being eerie because no one
is mentioning it as the reason Snow Leopard will never run on the
PPC.
To date, Apple has been fairly lackluster about the whole OSx86
movement. Certain really geeky peoples can take the Darwin kernel, use
it to replace the shipping OS X kernel, and get Aqua/OS X up
and running on pretty much any x86 level PC, and Apple just kind of
goes, "Hmm, maybe they will buy a Mac next." This all changed just a
little over a month ago when Psystar Corp came out of nowhere with
their OpenMac . . . oops, Mac is trademarked, I mean, their
OpenPro.
Psystar has beat, and beat, on the "It is illegal to tie x software
to only x hardware if it can also be run on y hardware." To date, they
are still selling their OpenPro without even so much as a C&D out
of Cupertino. This leads me to believe that Psystar does, in fact, have
a legal leg to stand on, and even though it may be shaky, Apple does
not want to risk time and money giving the court an option to side with
the "enemy."
Suddenly, out of nowhere, comes "Snow Leopard." It isn't even a
whole new big cat, it's a Leopard. Every major iteration of OS X
has been it's own cat, as you well know. We weren't even really in the
"pipeline" for a 10.6 this soon. The only reason that I personally can
think of is that Apple is getting ready to exercise the very right they
told us wasn't really an issue when the first Intel system came out
from under the Black Cloth of Cloaking.
Out of Apple's own PR it has been shown that Snow Leopard is not
really going to introduce anything insanely new. It's not introducing
all new 100+ cool features like Leopard itself did. It's a point
release, at best, but has to become a major point release for one
reason alone. Apple must cut the weight of PPC and leave them behind
forever, because when OS X 10.6 hits the market one, and only one,
important bit will be set: "Force TPM Encryption Verification - 1"
At which point Psystar can say it's legal for them to offer a retail
copy of 10.5 on their own hardware until they go blue and pass out.
10.6 will be a completely different legal issue. It will become a
matter of the DMCA to "reverse engineer, or suitably break, or
circumvent an encryption algorithm" which will be in place to make sure
that 10.6 is run only on Intel Macs and nothing else.
Psystar has single handily killed the OSx86 scene. OSx86 is dead.
Love live OS X.
EdB
Ed,
That's a very plausible conjecture. Thanks for sharing
your thoughts.
Dan
Apple Shouldn't Charge iPhone and iPod touch Users
for New Features
From Sam Esting:
Dear Dan,
Since the iPhone and iPod touch OS 2.0 update was released, I found
out there charging $9.95 for current customers for the update. I think
it's ridiculous to charge people for features that should be already
included as application support. I know there "new" features, but Apple
shouldn't charge people for updates; I feel that it is wrong.
/\Sam/\
Sam,
Apple has a long history of charging for operating
system updates - it goes way back to Macintosh System 7.1, which was
released in June 1991. This isn't even the first time Apple has charged
iPod touch owners for a software upgrade - they did that this past
January, when it cost $20 to add software that was included with newer
versions of that iPod.
$10 for a new operating system isn't a bad deal at
all. On Macs, we're used to paying $129.
Dan
My Two Cents on Linux
From Dan Finegan:
Hi Dan -
I've been following the various articles on Low End Mac concerning
Linux on various old Macs.
I've recently tried Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora on my 800 MHz Quicksilver, and
while it has been educational to use a different OS, I just can't see
that the Linux distributions are a viable replacement for OS X, or
even for OS 9.
My major issues with Linux is the complicated process of adding new
software, and most of all, the lack of a Linux version of iTunes. Plus
the fact that my kids and wife are resistant to learning a new way of
computing, it just makes the thought of switching to Linux a
no-starter.
Just my two cents, but I'm sticking with OS X - it really "just
works".
Regards -
Dan Finegan
Dan,
You raise a valid point. While there are lots of free
apps for Linux users, there is no iTunes - and I'm sure that's just the
tip of the iceberg. And nothing matches the Mac for ease of use.
Of course, you don't need a lot of horsepower to
handle music in iTunes - even a G3 iMac or iBook is more than
sufficient to the task. The problem we're anticipating is the day when
browsers are no longer being developed to Tiger, the last version of
the Mac OS that runs on the old hardware.
We're experimenting with Linux to see if it can be a
real world alternative when your Mac is too old for up-to-date
software. Thus far we've found it works very nicely for email,
browsing, and word processing.
Dan
Linux Quest - Fedora Core 9
From Zach Tuckwiller:
Dan,
In your Linux search, have you checked out Fedora Core 9? Fedora
still has official PPC support, and it has been serving me well for a
few moths on a 733 MHz
Quicksilver. Just hadn't heard you mention that flavor yet, and
thought I'd see if you'd looked at it.
Take care,
Zach
Zach,
No, I haven't looked at it yet. I'll put it on my list
of distros to look into.
Thanks for writing!
Dan
The Importance of Application Commonality
From Jeffrey Kafer, following up on Moving to Fewer Macs:
Dan,
I agree with you on all counts. All of my computers are doing things
today that they were not doing, or capable of doing, when they were
new. I have many, and I work most of them hard.
But what I have today is OS, and where beneficial, application
commonality (with the exception of iListen vs. Dictate) between four
machines:
- a 2.1 GHz iMac G5
used at my wife's work (I provide support)
- a Quicksilver
2x800 used at home for projects like encoding video and such
- a TiBook 867
used as a general purpose machine for me at home and on the road,
including web and email
- a MacBook Pro used by my wife
OS and application commonality makes it much easier for us all to
use, and for me to support, multiple machines. Up to this point this
has been a good reason to stay "all Mac." But as soon as I migrate one
machine and not any of the others, then this benefit weakens.
This is not a matter of whether Apple will provide updates for
Leopard, because like you, I expect that they will. What I am
questioning is whether, or for how long, Safari will, Microsoft will,
and other software vendors will. In this case, I am concerned that they
will not be very long. History suggests that many will switch soon.
MacSpeech has already jumped. I'm not prepared to bet that they
won't.
Certainly, I am not going to purchase three new Intel Macs, even at
Mac mini prices, just to stay current while maintaining the
capabilities and commonality that I have now. The fact that Apple and
other software vendors have cutoff relatively quickly before and Apple
cutoff official support for my the highly capable Quicksilver as
recently as Leopard (without any performance basis for doing so, IMHO),
gives me reason to plan for a minimum number of Macs in the future. As
for my other computer needs, I will choose to address them in another
way. I am not going to continue to invest in all Macs, only to run the
risk that Apple cuts things off again at 3-4 years with the release
that follows Snow Leopard.
Please don't get me wrong. I believe that your message is a good
message. I believe that for most people, the impact of an Intel-only
release may be small or none. I am not suggesting that those who stay
Mac are making a bad choice. I am just trying to say why I am not going
to invest in an all-Mac solution in the future. If Apple is going to
give me good reason to support two different OSes and two different
software suites, then I think I have some good reasons (for me at
least) why the second one is not going to be on Apple computers.
Without good information, I cannot make good plans. I am the kind of
person who doesn't like unpleasant surprises undoing my plans. My
reaction to that kind of thing is to avoid sources of perceived
instability.
Dan, your willingness to correspond with me on this subject and the
investment of time that you've made are exceptional, welcomed, beyond
what any low-end reader could expect, and is greatly appreciated.
Please accept my apology for the negative vibes that I've conveyed
in the past. It's partly that I think I've had a good thing with
all-Mac in the past, and I am not happy with the prospect that I'll be
losing that. I commented that buying low end is a gamble. In the case
of my TiBook, I think I failed well. In the case of the iMac G5 for my
wife's office, I did not fare so well. That machine was purchased less
than 2 years old, at a time when word in the press was that G5's were
expected to be supported until at least in 10.6. I think that might be
a source of my previous negativity too.
I am still a low-end Mac user and a respectful reader of your site.
I expect to be both in the future as well, just maybe a little bit
less. I look forward to reading what is said and contributing
positively to discussions, where I can, in the future.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey
PS-> extracts from my e-mail to Charles is included below:
Skeptical: As an example, I have observed Apple release a Safari
version (or more) that is not compatible with anything but the newest
Mac OS. And in these days of growing web-based security threats, who
can afford to be running anything but the latest browser version?
And then what about other applications developed by folks other than
Apple? What good is it to have an OS that is getting bug and security
fixes, but won't run the current versions of the applications that I
use. I am concerned that software developers have already stopped
developing for PPC simply because of recent articles on Apple's plans.
Wasn't Microsoft rather quick to stop supporting Office on 68K once PPC
machines were was available. I am frustrated that iListen is no longer
being sold, and apparently is no longer under development, in favor of
MacSpeech Dictate, an Intel-only voice recognition solution. In my mix
of Macs, most of them are PPC today. Now I have two different software
applications to do the same function, on machines running the same OS
version, driven purely as a function of the chip inside.
Value: You know, I like Apple's Mac OS Family Pack for all of my
machines at home. That way the three most current machines can run the
same thing. Of course, I find it easier to support a bunch of machines
that way. But Family Pack doesn't do me any good if the next OS only
supports one machine in my household. So then, I will get to support
two OS where I was previously supporting one. And that might be a seven
year proposition, since I strongly suspect that it would take me just
as many years to replace them all as it took me to get them in the
first place. Oh joy!
Jeffrey,
Thanks for sharing your further thoughts. As someone
who once did computer support, I remember what a trauma it was when the
first Macs came out that couldn't boot System 7.5.5 - every Mac the
company owned (there were dozens upon dozens) had been using 7.5.5. We
eventually found a really good deal on OEM Mac OS 8.1 CDs (about $15
each, if I recall correctly) and migrated to that. Of course, by then
some newer Mac required 8.5 or later....
I'm very comfortable in Tiger after almost 3 years,
and it's a bit confusing figuring out some things in Leopard. That's
why I have it on an external drive, so I can get comfortable with it.
When Waverly needs support on the MacBook Pro, which only runs Leopard,
I often have to research the answer.
We are fortunate that Apple doesn't have sufficient
stranglehold on the Mac browser market that there are no alternatives
to Safari. If we want to, we can run Firefox, Camino, Opera, iCab, or
even that ancient copy of Internet Explorer 5.2 (it still works on
Tiger!). If Macs benefit from security through obscurity, running
something other than Safari should make us more secure.
I suggest you stick with Leopard as long as you can.
We'll know sometime next year how similar or different Snow Leopard is.
It may be so similar that we won't even notice the difference when
working, in which case supporting 10.5 and 10.6 shouldn't prove to be a
problem at all.
Time will tell.
Dan
VHS to Mac: Avoid Dazzle
From Jim Haudenshield:
Dan,
Chris Kilner in response to VHS to Mac, wrote:
Since many older Macs lack USB 2.0 but have FireWire,
a FireWire video converter would be the solution for pre-USB 2.0
Macs.
I've used a Canopus model and a Dazzle Hollywood
DV-bridge . . . as well as analog pass-thru on a MiniDV camcorder. I've
also found that B TV from www.bensoftware.com is a good viewing
app.
The Dazzle devices usually go for <$100 when they
come up on eBay.
I tried the Dazzle device, 7 years ago when I was trying to preserve
my VHS family movies to DVD. It was a disaster, not only requiring huge
amounts of drive space (a non-issue in today's world of cheap 500 GB
drives), but mainly because it suffered a vertical-lock problem with
any video after a couple of minutes. The picture would gradually
"roll", and soon image was unwatchable. And the sound never quite
synched properly. I abandoned Dazzle and other such devices, and got a
DVD+R (Lite-On brand, which was a gem and a value at $300, now selling
for under $100). That worked to preserve my home movies.
But Chris K. wants to watch his VHS tapes on his Mac, not
necessarily capture the images. Because I quit watching TV and sold the
TV set last year, I had the same problem with my remaining commercial
VHS tapes, except that I am using my 19" external flat-panel monitor
instead of the built-in Pismo display. So I didn't want to even run the
VHS signal into my Mac, I just wanted to view it on a VGA monitor.
That's when I discovered a nifty solution for under $50 from computer
geeks, called a "TV Box". This is an amazing device!
http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=TV-BOX-HD&cpc=SCH
The TV Box has variety of input ports, including S-video, composite
RCA, RF (coaxial), and VGA, and outputs on VGA and audio jacks. It also
has a remote control and a built-in TV tuner. So I plug my PowerBook
"video out" into the TV Box VGA input, my VCR into the TV Box RF input,
my external consumer DVD player into the TV Box composite A/V RCA
jacks, and connected my 19" flat panel monitor to the TV Box VGA
output. Result: I can pass-through the VGA from my Mac most of the
time, and when I want to watch a VHS tape or DVD disc, the TV Box
converts their signal into VGA, allowing me to watch that content on
the same monitor. Furthermore, it allows picture-in-picture, so that I
can watch the VHS or DVD at the same time that I'm continuing to work
on on the Mac! The TV Box supports broadcast HD, but has only an analog
tuner, so it won't work for broadcast when the USA goes digital in Feb
2009 without a D/A converter. But since my VCR won't be going digital,
I won't need it to. It solved my VHS problem for $50 and gives me
flexibility that I didn't expect. Bravo!
- Jim H.
Jim,
Thanks for the information. In the back of my head, I
knew such devices were available, although I've never looked into
them.
I bought a Lite-On DVD recorder once upon a time with
the intent of dubbing VHS to DVD. I had some significant problems with
it: (1) the clock would get out of step within a day or two, which is
inexcusable in this day and age, (2) the remote had to be very
precisely pointed at the right spot on the recorder or it wouldn't
register, and (3) the discs it created were more often than not
unreadable on other DVD players.
I also have Pioneer VHS/DVD recorder, and it has the
same problem with burned DVDs - they are generally not playable on
other DVD players and may not even be recognized on my Mac. That's why
I investigated the XLR8 device. I still haven't found the magic
combination that gives me good quality without interlace problems, but
I can burn DVD-R and DVD+R discs, so odds are at least one will be
readable on a given DVD player.
Thanks for your suggestion of the TV Box.
Dan
Vintage Macs Everywhere
From Fletch:
After I left that TV station last year and moved from North Carolina
to Austin, Texas, I started finding vintage Macs everywhere. For
example, out in the sticks at a small-town recycling center, I found a
functional Power Mac
5400/180.
Just last week, I found four B&W Power Macs at a very
small thrift store (the same day that model was the Mac of the Day).
They were all cosmetically in bad shape, but they all powered up, and a
couple of them were very clean inside. The first thing I checked was to
see if they were Revision 2 motherboards, and the IDE chip indeed had
the 402 number on it in all four machines. But then I noticed that all
four had 300 MHz processors. What gives? I thought the Revision 2
motherboards only came with 350, 400, and 450 MHz processors. One
possibility - I think they might've been educational models. No
"PROPERTY OF" tags to be found, but their ATI Rage cards might've had
video capture ports, and three of them had Zip drives.
I was about to buy one of them to fix up (with parts left over from
my experimental beige G3 motherboard that I kept in a copy paper box
lid), when a friend of mine told me his office was closing, and they
were selling their Macs. I picked up their 400 MHz G4 Gigabit for $50,
and the same day found someone local selling their 733 MHz Digital
Audio CPU on Craigslist for $10.
But the real find was a PowerBook Duo 2300C with the
DuoDock II. I had been wanting one of those for years, but it was the
first time I'd ever actually seen one. They told me last week they had
it up and running, both in and out of its dock, but they couldn't wipe
the hard drives because they were missing an ADB mouse. I brought mine
over, and when we tried to reinsert it into the dock, it wouldn't take.
I remembered it had to have power for the motor to engage the dock, but
when I powered it up, I heard the motor (I think) making a rhythmic
ticking sound. Nothing we tried manually would get it to engage. When I
removed the power cord, the ticking sound kind of "wound down" like a
fan hitting a small obstruction until it came to a stop. (It wasn't the
fan.)
So I'm hoping this is a common problem among Duo owners and you, or
someone out there, will read this and go "Oh yeah, it's this problem,
all you gotta do is _____" and then I'll have a working Duo and DuoDock
in my collection. I'm already interested in the Debian idea recently
mentioned on your site. I guess I'm off to join the Duo list,
maybe they'll have some advice.
Thanks again.
Fletch,
There are many mysteries surrounding the Power Mac G3
models, both the beige variety and the Blue & White. I think we've
covered most of them, but we keep learning more even a decade after
their release.
I've never had my hands on a PowerBook Duo, but
between the Duo list and our readership, someone is bound to have an
answer for you.
Dan
Dan Knight has been publishing Low
End Mac since April 1997. Mailbag columns come from email responses to his Mac Musings, Mac Daniel, Online Tech Journal, and other columns on the site.
