apple designs totally custom chips for their computers now and lets not forget that the new modular VLIW archetecture planned for the new intel chips (or so it has been posited) means that they could even have a slightly customized chip

I had predicted a temporary scheme and a better one down the line and I think I was correct...

From apple4ever "I do care about being able to do what I want with what I buy."

Yea, right. So, you go out and buy a shot gun so you DEMAND the right to shoot people.

You go out and buy a crotchrocket motorcycle and DEMAND to drive 120 MPH on public highways.

You go out and buy a pad of paper and pen and write a note and DEMAND a bankteller to give them all the money in her cash drawer.

You go out and buy an audio CD album and DEMAND to distribute bootleg copies on the internet for $1 each.

All because you want to be able to do with what you want with what you buy...

I want, I want, I want...

Who cares that you break the law, steal credit and deserved income from those who worked hard to produce the products you DEMAND to do with whatever you want to do with.

Grow up and stop acting like a baby.

What all the discussions about DRM and Intel chips are missing is Apple's history of secrecy. Isn't it great for hackers to let Apple know just how to crack the OS locks so that its programmers have plenty of time to devise tougher security. Is Steve Jobs going to announce these measures before hand? Yeah, right.

I don't get it.

*Every* service an OS provides is provided through some kind of library. You want to draw on the screen? You create the proper data structure and call the appropriate functions from that library.

And, nowadays, almost all libraries are dynamically linked. That's how it is for 99% of services an OS provides. That's in spite of the fact that calling a function is slow and also in spite of the fact that dynamical linking is slow.

Now, what Mr. Loeb is claiming is that for apps to run hackers will have to go through and remove TPM calls for each application. That means that the TPM calls aren't being done from within a dynamically linked library. If they were, hackers would just patch one libary and all apps would be instantly patched.

In fact, the OS, being 99% a collection of apps itself, uses its own libraries so I'll bet this is already done and the rest of this post is just academic.

But suppose the TPM libraries were statically linked, that would mean that the TPM is copied in to each application on compilation. But even if this were the case, it's going to be the *same* library code in every application. It's almost bit for bit identical, and so you could write a tool that would scan new apps and patch each app.

Not an insignificant undertaking, but doable. And it would even be quite doable if the TPM code were inlined such that there was no actual library. The reason is that most application logic centers around fiddling with the memory and doing arithmetic so calls directly to hardware require special instructions that are quite obvious in a disassembly.

It would be a far more significant undertaking for Apple and the developers simply because Apple couldn't upgrade their TPM services! Bugs in the original TPM libraries couldn't be patched without users downloading patches for *every* application that used TPM. All of a sudden, that TPM trademark would become a huge headache for consumers. That, of course, is why dynamic linking was so popular in the first place.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

The new Macs will not use a Wintel motherboard like the current developer units. They will have an Apple designed board with an Intel processor using a complely different architecture from the Wintel design. Windows will not run unless MS releases a Mac version or Updates Virtual PC. Mac will not run on PC boxes due to the architecture difference.

You're right, Larry. It'll never happen.

By the way, Man will never walk on the moon, cell phones will always be the size of bricks, the Twin Towers wil always be there and Space Invaders will never be played on home consoles...

Protools can be hacked to run without the hardware.. oh wait it hasn't been

Man, you people must all live in a cave. This has nothing to do with people wanting to run OS X on intel hardware. Most of these people waste their time to do this c*** to basically see if they can do it. That's why they hack Linux on an xbox or PS2, why they hack it onto an iPod (hey, its great, except music playback, which sucks). They do it to see if they can do it, and try to beat all the other people who are trying to do it.

As for this When Apple starts selling regular Intel Macs, many of them will probably buy one. If not, there'll probably be some other copy protection to keep them from updating the OS. That'll be worse than anything for these cutting-edge folks. Their machine'll suffer from bit rot as security goes unpatched and new features don't get implemented. Then they'll probably install the Linux-of-the-moment (Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, Darwin, whatever) on that box and then buy a Mac if they want the real experience.

Well, first, they don't want the mac experience (if they did, I don't know, they'd already own a mac?). Plus, if they can hack the copy protection to run it, how do you think they'd be unable to hack the updates to run them? And, by the way, as people keep pointing out, most of the security updates in OS X are for open source software, and these people aren't the type to shy away from updating their software (in fact, they probably already would be running the later versions before apple releases a copy).

As for hacking the TPM, if it were just about hacking the libraries, as people claim, then wouldn't this stuff be pretty useless for the kind of DRM protection that Intel is touting it for (music, movies, etc)? As someone wrote, I'm sure its more of a case of apple using it as a soft lock, not "this is our copy protection scheme" and now saying "Oh, s***! WTF? Its been broken?" Keep in mind, also, these aren't even the CPUs Apple will be using, let alone chipsets and other pieces.