View Full Version : Mac OS Intel Torrent Out and it's cracked...
Tizerfish
08-01-2005, 02:42 PM
http://www.randomtype.com/archives/2005/08/torrent_of_mac.html#more
Torrent of Mac OS X for intel starts spreading
this morning, checking one of the most famous torrents sites around, our friend Ralph bumps into a discovery.
Apple.OS.X.x86.Developer.Kit.Install.DVD-phe*NIX
it's not cracked or what.
it's just an install DVD image, and here's the .nfo file by phe*NIX (the releasing group), which describes how the protection system is going to work.
after less than one hour, another .nfo and release (this time from PROPER) come out and you know what?
they joke the phe*NIX guys mentioning them in the .nfo, and release a working version (cracked and patched to work on normal PC's).
have fun reading the two .nfo files, but go looking for the torrents somewhere else
:rrg:
It's a fake, still hasn't been cracked.
I don't mind paying for Apple software or OS's. At least they function properly unlike some other OS's out there!
Digiital
08-11-2005, 01:32 PM
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/08/11/1523221.shtml?tid=179&tid=174&tid=190
Tizerfish
08-11-2005, 06:24 PM
would be nice if thos videos worked..... just says the server isn't availible...
Digiital
08-12-2005, 12:58 AM
It was Slashdot'ed
Mr. Apollo
08-12-2005, 01:26 AM
It's a fake, still hasn't been cracked.
Nope, that's quite real but the guy himself says it's very unstable.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7537/31078074afe4a537f80on.jpg
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9915/31177305a8016c4bc21wo.jpg
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5678/31041634b68865c296o2wu.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1552/osx8614uu.png
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3820/osx8620lw.png
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3964/osx8637lo.png
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5554/osx8643ga.png
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5990/osx8659gc.png
http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/986/osx8667ue.png
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5257/osx8676du.png
Video: http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=osx86
Progres Page:http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Nope, that's quite real but the guy himself says it's very unstable.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7537/31078074afe4a537f80on.jpg
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9915/31177305a8016c4bc21wo.jpg
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5678/31041634b68865c296o2wu.jpg
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/1552/osx8614uu.png
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3820/osx8620lw.png
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/3964/osx8637lo.png
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5554/osx8643ga.png
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/5990/osx8659gc.png
http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/986/osx8667ue.png
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5257/osx8676du.png
Video: http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=osx86
Progres Page:http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Yeah it's real now, but only within the last week. As a matter of fact I tried it myself but it's really slooow.
It looks very linux-ish. (with gnome gui)
Might as will just run Linux on a PC. :rolleyes:
glitch
08-12-2005, 03:41 AM
It looks very linux-ish. (with gnome gui)
Might as will just run Linux on a PC. :rolleyes:
I would rather use MacOS though...and from the looks of it I might get the chance.
It looks very linux-ish. (with gnome gui)
Might as will just run Linux on a PC. :rolleyes:
thats fine if you don't need to run any commercial apps...
although I realize you're more about the look and coolness rather than usability.
;)
Mr. Apollo
08-12-2005, 03:19 PM
I would by a Mac and run Windows on it just becuase I LOVE the way they design their machines.
I would by a Mac and run Windows on it just becuase I LOVE the way they design their machines.
The irony of that, is the design of their machines is about maybe 10% of what we love about it. The OS is the deal...
Otherwise, why spend money on a nice looking machine only to run an OS that runs like garbage compared to OS X?
Waste of money...
Child of Cupertino
08-13-2005, 04:40 PM
Might as will just run Linux on a PC. :rolleyes:
Yeah. RIGHT! You go on thinking that :hys:
simplysic
08-13-2005, 07:06 PM
Yeah it's real now, but only within the last week. As a matter of fact I tried it myself but it's really slooow.
So if i somehow got it...installed it...my system would run slower than XP?...
wat are the specs to run the crack....look at my sig to tell me if i can do it. Please.
Mr. Apollo
08-13-2005, 07:10 PM
The irony of that, is the design of their machines is about maybe 10% of what we love about it. The OS is the deal...
Otherwise, why spend money on a nice looking machine only to run an OS that runs like garbage compared to OS X?
Waste of money...
I've used both and I prefer XP. OSX is nice but it's not like it's some sort of uncrashable ultimate OS. I've seen a few crashes of OSX.
Here's a brand new site that has OSX running on x86 machines. http://xplodenet.com/
Mr. Apollo
08-13-2005, 07:12 PM
So if i somehow got it...installed it...my system would run slower than XP?...
wat are the specs to run the crack....look at my sig to tell me if i can do it. Please.If you have to ask, don't bother. You really need to know what you're doing to get it to "work". I put work in quotes since it's more for show then anything. It's extremely unstable at this point.
I've used both and I prefer XP. OSX is nice but it's not like it's some sort of uncrashable ultimate OS. I've seen a few crashes of OSX.
Here's a brand new site that has OSX running on x86 machines. http://xplodenet.com/
That's fine that's your opinion we all have our favorite OSs, however the majority who have used both will disagree, windows is by far more crash prone than OS X hands down. I have had 'app crashes' on occasion in OS X, and have seen the OS handle crashes far more efficiently, and I can be back working productively almost ALL the time compared to any of the crashes XP pro have presented me on several machines. If you prefer the style of XP and don't mind the higher crash rates, all the power to you. ;)
Tizerfish
08-13-2005, 07:42 PM
So if i somehow got it...installed it...my system would run slower than XP?...
wat are the specs to run the crack....look at my sig to tell me if i can do it. Please.
You need SSE2 and your CPU doenst support it,
you also need SSE3 to run it normaly, as alot of people have said it's VERY slow with out SSE3
That's fine that's your opinion we all have our favorite OSs, however the majority who have used both will disagree, windows is by far more crash prone than OS X hands down. I have had 'app crashes' on occasion in OS X, and have seen the OS handle crashes far more efficiently, and I can be back working productively almost ALL the time compared to any of the crashes XP pro have presented me on several machines. If you prefer the style of XP and don't mind the higher crash rates, all the power to you. ;)
The reality is that NT based versions of windows are not prone to crashes when set up properly. Yes, you need to screw around with drivers more and there is a heck of a lot more spyware + viruses written for the platform. However, much of it has to do with crappy hardware (all those systems built upon POS noname motherboards with VIA chipsets) and not problems with the operating system itself. With everyone going for $400 Dell, MDG and compaq specials, no one should be surprised.
The Mac on the other hand is a proprietary machine from a company that thoroughly tests each setup before sale. Of course, it's a lot easier when you're dealing with only a handful of hardware combinations. (drivers designed by the same company which produces the OS also helps)
although I realize you're more about the look and coolness rather than usability.
I couldn't care less about the look; but there's no point of paying for Mac's alternative to windows when there are plenty of similar Linux user interfaces which are just as stable. (there's lots of software available too - just not the standard stuff)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they're smart enough, they'll skip the crappy 3Ghz+ prescotts and go for a similar design to the mobile processors. Anything which puts out 100W+ worth of heat isn't worth considering.
The reality is that NT based versions of windows are not prone to crashes when set up properly. Yes, you need to screw around with drivers more and there is a heck of a lot more spyware + viruses written for the platform. However, much of it has to do with crappy hardware (all those systems built upon POS noname motherboards with VIA chipsets) and not problems with the operating system itself. With everyone going for $400 Dell, MDG and compaq specials, no one should be surprised.
The Mac on the other hand is a proprietary machine from a company that thoroughly tests each setup before sale. Of course, it's a lot easier when you're dealing with only a handful of hardware combinations. (drivers designed by the same company which produces the OS also helps)
I couldn't care less about the look; but there's no point of paying for Mac's alternative to windows when there are plenty of similar Linux user interfaces which are just as stable. (there's lots of software available too - just not the standard stuff)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If they're smart enough, they'll skip the crappy 3Ghz+ prescotts and go for a similar design to the mobile processors. Anything which puts out 100W+ worth of heat isn't worth considering.
actually the reality is you're talking through your hat it has nothing to do with the fact there are more hardware pieces available for PC than mac. Incidentally, there are far far more hardware combinations available with lots and lots of drivers written by third parties than you would care to know. The OS is at fault for all the virus spyware activity, and if you read what I posted I said that OS X does have 'app crashes' (I and many others have YET to see an OS crash where we need to reboot). What I and many others find much superior is the way OS X handles problems with applications. It is very quick, efficient, and *everytime* I've had a problem with an app, I've reopened the app like 5 seconds later, and continued on as if nothing happened. I'm afraid windows XP has a lot to learn from OS X's handling of problems. This hardware BS is just that, BS and I've heard many who think they know what they're talking about trumpet this crap several times as their excuse for windows being a bug ridden wide open target for the majority of users. That's fine if you and a handful of others are interested and spend lots of time learning how to set up windows and protect it from spyware/virus/hackers etc etc. but the point is 90% of the users out there don't and couldn't care less what firewall settings you have to have this week blah blah. They want to turn it on, and use it.
hmmm, last check at symantec shows 70,000 viruses for PC. I looked for OS X nd it seemes... er... zero. I've never said it's impossible, but jeez couldn't someone write just *one*???
And as for linux, like I said before which seems to go over your head, knock yourself out if you don't need to run any commercial applications. Linux is a fine OS, I have it running on a PC upstairs used for browsing/office stuff and it's great. If that's all you as a personal user need to do...
Mr. Apollo
08-14-2005, 08:06 PM
actually the reality is you're talking through your hat it has nothing to do with the fact there are more hardware pieces available for PC than mac. Incidentally, there are far far more hardware combinations available with lots and lots of drivers written by third parties than you would care to know. The OS is at fault for all the virus spyware activity, and if you read what I posted I said that OS X does have 'app crashes' (I and many others have YET to see an OS crash where we need to reboot). What I and many others find much superior is the way OS X handles problems with applications. It is very quick, efficient, and *everytime* I've had a problem with an app, I've reopened the app like 5 seconds later, and continued on as if nothing happened. I'm afraid windows XP has a lot to learn from OS X's handling of problems. This hardware BS is just that, BS and I've heard many who think they know what they're talking about trumpet this crap several times as their excuse for windows being a bug ridden wide open target for the majority of users. That's fine if you and a handful of others are interested and spend lots of time learning how to set up windows and protect it from spyware/virus/hackers etc etc. but the point is 90% of the users out there don't and couldn't care less what firewall settings you have to have this week blah blah. They want to turn it on, and use it.
hmmm, last check at symantec shows 70,000 viruses for PC. I looked for OS X nd it seemes... er... zero. I've never said it's impossible, but jeez couldn't someone write just *one*???
And as for linux, like I said before which seems to go over your head, knock yourself out if you don't need to run any commercial applications. Linux is a fine OS, I have it running on a PC upstairs used for browsing/office stuff and it's great. If that's all you as a personal user need to do...
One of the reasons why Apple is being so tight about the OS is they want to control hardware configurations to guarantee stability. If people strat putting it on all sorts of x86 systems and hacking drivers for it, there are going to be problems. Apple doesn't want people doing this to give OSX a bad name.
Also there is a virus for OS X, it's called switchback. http://www.lowendmac.com/lite/03/0813.html
One of the reasons why Apple is being so tight about the OS is they want to control hardware configurations to guarantee stability. If people strat putting it on all sorts of x86 systems and hacking drivers for it, there are going to be problems. Apple doesn't want people doing this to give OSX a bad name.
Nope. The real reason is Apple makes big money on their hardware and they will do anything to protect that revenue. Sure it helps that the platform is a tighter one. It also helps that OS X is a unix based OS and wipes windows arse so bad it isn't funny. Hands down. I'm afraid there isn't a leg to stand on when it comes to which one has the edge on stability and power. That said, I still run a windows XP pro machine (2 actually) and buy software for it to this day.
Also there is a virus for OS X, it's called switchback. http://www.lowendmac.com/lite/03/0813.html
Hah! yea.... um... in other news...http://www.lowendmac.com/lite/03/0923.html lmfao :d
..
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.