EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

EFi-X (http://www.efi-x.com/) is the latest commercial product to allow PCs to boot Mac OS X. A company called Psystar made headlines (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/14/openmac-promises-399-headless-mac-but-not-from-apple/) in April when it introduced their "Open Computer" which was build from generic PC parts which also allowed users to boot Mac OS X Leopard. Psystar advertised the computer as an affordable alternative to an official Apple Mac. Psystar would install a modified version of Mac OS X on their computers to allow them to boot into Apple's operating system. Apple has since sued the company (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/15/apple-sues-psystar-over-opencomputer/) citing copyright infringement.

EFi-X takes a different approach by offering a hardware add-on that allows you to install an unmodified Mac OS X onto certain PC configurations. EFi-X is offering it as a tool for enthusiasts, and not necessarily for those looking to save money:EFI-X™ is not for everyone. It is not for who wants to save money, at all. It is for enthusiasts that put expandability and extreme performances before anything else in their computing needs. We heard those voices, and we answered.Only specific hardware configurations (http://www.efi-x.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&language=english) are supported, but if your PC fits those specifications, the EFi-X add-on promises headache free installation and upgrades.

Gizmodo reviews the EFi-X device (http://gizmodo.com/5049756/review-efix-dongle-perfectly-transforms-pc-to-mac) and finds it lives up to its promises. Well, I used it to turn my gaming PC into a Mac Pro over the weekend, and I'm somewhat amazed to say this, but it works perfectly. I grabbed all the updates straight from Apple—including 10.5.5 last night, so you don't have to wait for a hacked patch like you would running a typical Hackintosh—installed a whole bunch of software and have been using it for several days. It runs beautifully, just like a real Mac Pro.The installation requires you to plug the device straight into the motherboard, and upon boot does slow down the Leopard boot process (up to 2 minutes), but once up and running the experience is described as seamless. The product sells for $170 and is now shipping (http://www.efixusa.net/).


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/09/16/efix-allows-mac-os-x-to-boot-on-a-pc/)

[gibbz]

Wonder if Apple will go after these people as well?

[Brother Michael]

Wonder if Apple will go after these people as well?

If they aren't screwing with the software, I cannot for the life of me see how, but I haven't read the EULA in awhile so I cannot say for sure. in any case, what an interesting approach, I am going to rate this positive.

[Chaszmyr]

I'm amazed by Gizmodo's review. It sounds too good* to be true.


*How "good" it is depends on your perspective...

[oldwatery]

So do Apple sue?
Or do we get the expandable desktop computer we have been begging for?

Money on door one? :(

[EricNau]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

[Voidness]

If they aren't screwing with the software, I cannot for the life of me see how, but I haven't read the EULA in awhile so I cannot say for sure. in any case, what an interesting approach, I am going to rate this positive.
True, but the device itself might contain Apple intellectual property.

[rillo]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

Maybe because they like OS X, but don't have the funds for a Mac. I say this is a positive also.

[Phrasikleia]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

It could be saving money if the cost of the machine is factored in. We all know that Macs are relatively expensive.

[deggs37]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

How could it not save money? You have no idea do you?

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.

[Small White Car]

I am normally opposed to these sort of things because they usually boil down to cheapskates trying to run OSX on inferior, crummy hardware which degrades the Mac experience into something much worse. I have no use for those kinds of people.

But these folks don't seem to be like that. In fact, the stress that it's NOT about saving money. They have a much better attitude about it and seem to be doing it for the right reasons.

So, ok, I'm gonna say 'good luck' to 'em this time.

[Ryox]

That is craaazy. Especially when not saving money... Why bother :confused:
Besides if you want "Ultimate Performance" Get a Mac Pro...

[Munix88]

With Apple's recent treatment of apps that don't seem to violate any rules but "compete" with them, I don't think it matters if there's anything against it in the EULA. I'm sure they'll find a reason to sue or at least stop the sale of it.

[chr1s60]

The whole Mac package will always be a beautiful thing and will continue to sell because of it.

However, this product could be nice for people who are considering a Mac in the future, but are scared to go all in on a $2,000 machine without first getting familiar with the OS.

[iMacZealot]

Sorry, but I just have to fix this:

A company called Psystar made headlines in April when it introduced its "Open Computer" which was built from generic PC parts which also allowed users to boot Mac OS X Leopard.

[dontwalkhand]

The text in all of their pages say "blah blah blah" goes here. Such as "Support information goes here"

very slapped together website, and it seems its just vaporware anyway.

[EricNau]

Maybe because they like OS X, but don't have the funds for a Mac. I say this is a positive also.

It could be saving money if the cost of the machine is factored in. We all know that Macs are relatively expensive.

How could it not save money? You have no idea do you?

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.
Did you read the article?

Here it is again:
EFI-X™ is not for everyone. It is not for who wants to save money, at all.

Link (http://www.efi-x.com)

[kjs862]

I never liked osx running on non apple branded computers.

[nagromme]

It could be saving money if the cost of the machine is factored in. We all know that Macs are relatively expensive.

Someone has to say it so I'll bite :p

They're not. Compare equivalent hardware between Apple and other name brands--looking at ALL the specs for an honest and complete comparison--and Macs are right in the same price range. Sometimes more than a given competitor, sometimes less.

What they ARE is:

a) More expensive than building your own or getting a cheap (for a reason) brand like an Acer. The same is true of Dell, HP, Sony, etc., so you can't call Macs relatively expensive on that basis. Rather, you should say that ALL name brand PCs are expensive. (Or even that any PC you didn't build at home is expensive.)

and

b) Available in fewer configurations. So you might find a particular name-brand PC config that meets your needs for cheaper--but you have to admit that it does so by omitting some things. Things you don't personally want, so that's perfectly reasonable to take into account--but it doesn't make the Mac overpriced.

This new product addresses b) rather than any price difference between comparable Macs and PCs.

[macphisto]

If they are using this to side step an Apple EFI firmware check or have a modified EFI it to boot on a machine with the correct specs, my guess is Apple will sue for infringing on that code.

BTW, price has now dropped to $150 from $170.

[swarmster]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

What? I know EFiX hides behind the "we're not playing the cheap-Mac" game, likely to slow, if even a little bit, the stampeding of Apple's lawyers (also to avoid having any tech support) but Gizmodo built a sub-$800 computer in May (meaning it's probably about $400 now) that mostly trounces the 2.6GHz Mac Pro. Sounds like the money savings might be a perfectly valid reason to be "obsessed" with Hackintosh.

[Small White Car]

It could be saving money if the cost of the machine is factored in. We all know that Macs are relatively expensive.

Sez who?

And don't give me that "I could build one" stuff. Building computers is a totally different game than buying one. I can fix my car for cheaper than my mechanic. That fact has NOTHING to do with comparing mechanic A with mechanic B, however. If we're comparing mechanics, I really don't care what you can do on your own.

So, who can you buy a pre-built computer from that's cheaper than Apple? 'Cause most of their machines are very competitive these days.

[brywalker]

There are far better alternatives for about $170 less....

[EricNau]

Am I correct in assuming that any user using this device would be violating Apple's EULA?

[DakotaGuy]

Heck Psystar can just start installing these little gizmos into their Open Computer and their in business.

[Saladinos]

I wonder why they only support internal USB. They all go through the asme controller, so it shouldn't make a difference if it was an external USB stick.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw an image for standard USB sticks soon. I'd do it that way - I was thinking about getting a netbook, and installing OSX without the hassle would be fantastic.

[caprica]

Just a conspiracy theory, but ... it sounds like some PC manufacturers are getting concerned that thier market share is under threat by apple so they are providing the gateway to allow for mac compatibles

I reckon if apples market share gets to much bigger this is just the tip of the ice berg. we could see some antitrust lawsuits in the pipeline.

[MacTheSpoon]

Go, go, Apple legal.

Lots of parasites coming out of the woodwork and trying to attach themselves to Apple.

In the long run, this is no good for us, the consumers. Apple makes its money by selling hardware. In the long run if people can run OSX on PCs, Apple will lose its revenue stream, go belly up, and then NOBODY gets to run OSX any more.

[mdntcallr]

So do Apple sue?
Or do we get the expandable desktop computer we have been begging for?

Money on door one? :(

Hell, If apple will not build the mythical Midrange Mac, I may as well consider this option.

I ain't buying a Mac Pro Tower without Blu-Ray and HDCP compliance....

so i may as well consider this!!!

[macintel4me]

Wow. This could have 1000 times the impact of Pystar.

[Cromulent]

How could it not save money? You have no idea do you?

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.

No you couldn't.

[bplein]

Since when is a dual-core 3.0GHz machine more powerful than a 2-by-quad core (read: 8-core) Mac Pro?

The CPU test shows how fast a single 3.0 core is vs a single 2.6 core.

So start comparing a dual-quad motherboard with 2 quad core CPUs and see what the price is going to be. It won't be $400.

[!¡ V ¡!]

Hell, If apple will not build the mythical Midrange Mac, I may as well consider this option.

I ain't buying a Mac Pro Tower without Blu-Ray and HDCP compliance....

so i may as well consider this!!!

You said it m8, if :apple: refuses to build a Mid-Tower then this is the next best thing. The Mac Pro is great an all, however for some its overkill and don't even mention the Mac Mini. Let me clear things up:

Mobile Processors:

iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro and, MacMini

Workstation/ Server Processors:

MacPro and, Xserve


Something is clearly missing and if not filled this is the solution. :D

[PCMacUser]

In the long run, this is no good for us, the consumers. Apple makes its money by selling hardware. In the long run if people can run OSX on PCs, Apple will lose its revenue stream, go belly up, and then NOBODY gets to run OSX any more.
Yes, Apple does make a lot of money by selling hardware. Particularly iPods.

Note, that this product is NOT designed to run on your non-Apple branded music player. Please do not attempt this as it may void your warranty.

But seriously. This is evolution at work. Apple have a product people want, but refuse to package it in a way that a lot of people want. So, nature finds a way. It's how the universe works.

If Apple make OS X available for PC, then they can stop these upstarts in their tracks.

[Saladinos]

Just a conspiracy theory, but ... it sounds like some PC manufacturers are getting concerned that thier market share is under threat by apple so they are providing the gateway to allow for mac compatibles

I reckon if apples market share gets to much bigger this is just the tip of the ice berg. we could see some antitrust lawsuits in the pipeline.

Very unlikely.

1. If OSX becomes a selling point for those products, Apple has a hold on their business without any contracts. Once people are using OSX, Apple can lock it down.
2. If that comes out in court, those companies will be fined heavily for sabotage of Apple's business model. It's anticompetitive, and really not worth the risk.

[!¡ V ¡!]

Since when is a dual-core 3.0GHz machine more powerful than a 2-by-quad core (read: 8-core) Mac Pro?

The CPU test shows how fast a single 3.0 core is vs a single 2.6 core.

So start comparing a dual-quad motherboard with 2 quad core CPUs and see what the price is going to be. It won't be $400.

It is about :apple: controlling and selling outdated technology for initial release prices. Gimme a break, with every quarter Apple should comply with the market and lower prices. This is what happens when Apple was against IBM to begin with and now they are becoming the ones they disliked. How ironic? :rolleyes:

Either give your consumer base more choice and smarter pricing or let someone else fill the void, if there is no demand then this company will fold if there is then Apple is the clear loser. :p;)

[PCMacUser]

Since when is a dual-core 3.0GHz machine more powerful than a 2-by-quad core (read: 8-core) Mac Pro?

A dual core 3.0GHz machine (that's what I have), is faster than many quad and eight core machines when it comes to games. Check out any hardware website for verification, eg. Tom's, Anandtech, etc.

They are also much better for the environment (not to mention your power bill), as they consume far less energy.

[!¡ V ¡!]

Yes, Apple does make a lot of money by selling hardware. Particularly iPods.

Note, that this product is NOT designed to run on your non-Apple branded music player. Please do not attempt this as it may void your warranty.

But seriously. This is evolution at work. Apple have a product people want, but refuse to package it in a way that a lot of people want. So, nature finds a way. It's how the universe works.

If Apple make OS X available for PC, then they can stop these upstarts in their tracks.

Why do you think Apple has shifted its focus from the Mac to iPods and iPhones, since they knew this day is coming and even if they fight it, it will be drawn out. :p:)

[Small White Car]

A dual core 3.0GHz machine (that's what I have), is faster than many quad and eight core machines when it comes to games. Check out any hardware website for verification, eg. Tom's, Anandtech, etc.

They are also much better for the environment (not to mention your power bill), as they consume far less energy.

He: You're wrong.

You: Not if you change the question entirely from what we were talking about!

lol - Nice work. Does that ever work for you in real life?

[!¡ V ¡!]

A dual core 3.0GHz machine (that's what I have), is faster than many quad and eight core machines when it comes to games. Check out any hardware website for verification, eg. Tom's, Anandtech, etc.

They are also much better for the environment (not to mention your power bill), as they consume far less energy.

Indeed for the moment, while OS 10.6 Snow Leopard will change this. Then again when that happens the price will drop dramatically and the people ringing the MacPro spec and pricing argument will lose yet again. :p;):D

On the flip side, I am happy that those MacPro customers are donating a healthy profit for Apple as it keeps them in business and we all benefit. ;):D

[HLdan]

Maybe because they like OS X, but don't have the funds for a Mac.

Riiiiggghht! But it's interesting how these same people have an iPhone, an iPod, an Xbox 360 or a Wii and upgrade their custom built PC with the latest $300+ GPU every year....but they can't afford a Mac.:rolleyes:

[BaldiMac]

But seriously. This is evolution at work. Apple have a product people want, but refuse to package it in a way that a lot of people want. So, nature finds a way. It's how the universe works.

If Apple make OS X available for PC, then they can stop these upstarts in their tracks.

Maybe de-evolution at work. Apple has a product that people want - OS X. They only want to sell it under certain conditions. They created it. They invested in it. Why do people feel they have a right to steal it just because Apple doesn't sell it under the conditions they want?

[!¡ V ¡!]

He: You're wrong.

You: Not if you change the question entirely from what we were talking about!

lol - Nice work. Does that ever work for you in real life?

Point being that the PC sector is always lowering prices on every component on a daily basis, can you say the same thing for Apple. You would be lucky if they dropped prices once a year. :p:rolleyes::eek:

[mdntcallr]

You said it m8, if :apple: refuses to build a Mid-Tower then this is the next best thing. The Mac Pro is great an all, however for some its overkill and don't even mention the Mac Mini. Let me clear things up:

Mobile Processors:

iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro and, MacMini

Workstation/ Server Processors:

MacPro and, Xserve

Something is clearly missing and if not filled this is the solution. :D

We are on the same page, it is so freaking sad Apple is ignoring this sizable market. Apple keeps getting more sales, but they are doing everything they can to avoid something midrange and upgradable. so sad!

and.... they keep ignoring Blu-Ray

[Small White Car]

Point being that the PC sector is always lowering prices on every component on a daily basis, can you say the same thing for Apple. You would be lucky if they dropped prices once a year. :p:rolleyes::eek:

Hmm. No, I'd say that sounds like a completely unrelated point to what I said.

[!¡ V ¡!]

Maybe de-evolution at work. Apple has a product that people want - OS X. They only want to sell it under certain conditions. They created it. They invested in it. Why do people feel they have a right to steal it just because Apple doesn't sell it under the conditions they want?

How is this stealing?

You are legally buying Mac OS 10.x.

You are buying EFiX.

You are not taking away from Mac Software sales.


Only thing you are doing is not running it on Mac Hardware and that seems more of a shortcoming on Apple behalf since the only thing they offer is a MacMini and MacPro with nothing in the middle ground. :rolleyes::)

[twoodcc]

i wonder if apple will respond to this? i guess it will depend on how this sells

[williedigital]

Since when is a dual-core 3.0GHz machine more powerful than a 2-by-quad core (read: 8-core) Mac Pro?

The CPU test shows how fast a single 3.0 core is vs a single 2.6 core.

So start comparing a dual-quad motherboard with 2 quad core CPUs and see what the price is going to be. It won't be $400.

To be fair, "equivalent" motherboards are not so expensive really. Dual-quad server boards can be had for $200-$300. Slap in some bsel modded clovertowns and you're well on your way to the expensive part of a mac pro...

I actually built a "real" mac pro from used mac pro parts off of ebay, and the total cost was around $1500 for an 8-core 2.0 ghz machine, 2gb ram, equivalent superdrive, etc. The only "feature" it is missing is the apple heatsinks (I have my own installed), but otherwise, someone on the outside would not be able to tell the difference.

It serves my needs well:

1. Use apple's built-in raid for a very fast/large system drive (the primary reason I could never use a laptop as my main machine)

2. Drive two 30" monitors

3. Lots of processing power for encoding videos.

----

If I could do it over, I would probably go with the efi-x solution (which I am highly impressed by), but I would be concerned that apple could kill the workability of the solution through a system update, especially as part of the jump to snow leopard. If I could be shown some solid evidence that efi-x could definitely make that jump to 10.6 I would think long and hard about it.

[!¡ V ¡!]

Hmm. No, I'd say that sounds like a completely unrelated point to what I said.

The OP already mentioned that it works for him/her, so I don't see what the problem is.

If (s)he is happy with 2 or 4 processors rather than 4 and 8, then that is they preferences. Besides OS 10.5 does not completely utilize more than 2 processors anyhow and only a select app base are multi core/processor aware.

Snow Leopard will change all this, however by that time the hardware would have decreased dramatically in price. A Null argument. ;):)

[jbrenn]

it is illegal to install osx on any non apple branded hardware. no matter how you manage to get it to work. my prediction is this company will be sued by the end of the week.

[slick50zd1]

I am going to go out on a limb here, but I am not sure that Apple officially introducing OSX for a standard PC would be such a bad thing.

One thing I have noticed is that apple seems to have a pretty loyal fan base. I mean, Say they did allow this... Other than the initial disappointment that some may express due apples decision, I just can't see any of them leaving for windows. Correct me If I'm wrong here. Granted it opens up this to a lot more people. I'm sure there are quite a few who would install OSX in a heart beat on their PC's. Myself being one of them. And yes for the record I can build it cheaper. As I don't have to pay 500$ for an extra 2 Gigs of ram. But I digress, This immediately opens up a whole new revenue stream from the sales of the OS. Now in addition, I am sure, this will convince many more to switch after having experienced OSX... say those who are now in the market for a laptop, and decide that they want a Macbook. I think there are an infinite amount of scenarios that could help Apple.

I just wish that some of you hardcore apple guys would at least hear the argument about Apples pricing. And even if we agree that they may be close, certain things just make an apple desktop so inaccessible to people like me who want a good strong tower... and the iMac is too little, and a MacPro is just over the top (not too mention how much they charge you to change any little thing)

but I'm done now...

[bplein]

A dual core 3.0GHz machine (that's what I have), is faster than many quad and eight core machines when it comes to games. Check out any hardware website for verification, eg. Tom's, Anandtech, etc.

They are also much better for the environment (not to mention your power bill), as they consume far less energy.

What game will you be playing? A Windows game? You don't need OS X to play a Windows game, and you don't need a Mac Pro to play a Windows game. Mac Pro applications are designed to use multi-core machines and will scale with the extra cores.

Mac Pros are for professionals. Getting work done. Sure, they can also play games, but that is NOT why people buy them. Do you get it?

???

[Joe The Dragon]

Someone has to say it so I'll bite :p

They're not. Compare equivalent hardware between Apple and other name brands--looking at ALL the specs for an honest and complete comparison--and Macs are right in the same price range. Sometimes more than a given competitor, sometimes less.

What they ARE is:

a) More expensive than building your own or getting a cheap (for a reason) brand like an Acer. The same is true of Dell, HP, Sony, etc., so you can't call Macs relatively expensive on that basis. Rather, you should say that ALL name brand PCs are expensive. (Or even that any PC you didn't build at home is expensive.)

and

b) Available in fewer configurations. So you might find a particular name-brand PC config that meets your needs for cheaper--but you have to admit that it does so by omitting some things. Things you don't personally want, so that's perfectly reasonable to take into account--but it doesn't make the Mac overpriced.

This new product addresses b) rather than any price difference between comparable Macs and PCs.
no a $600 to $800 dell , hp and others will be faster, come with more faster ram with more slots then the mini and a bigger and faster HD, better video, then the mini with room to add on.

[BaldiMac]

How is this stealing?

You are legally buying Mac OS 10.x.

You are buying EFiX.

You are not taking away from Mac Software sales.


Only thing you are doing is not running it on Mac Hardware and that seems more of a shortcoming on Apple behalf since the only thing they offer is a MacMini and MacPro with nothing in the middle ground. :rolleyes::)

You are not legally buying OS X. You are buying a license to OS X. If you violate the terms of the license agreement, then the license is void. It's not a complicated concept. :rolleyes:

[Small White Car]

How is this stealing?

You are legally buying Mac OS 10.x.

You are buying EFiX.

You are not taking away from Mac Software sales.


Only thing you are doing is not running it on Mac Hardware and that seems more of a shortcoming on Apple behalf since the only thing they offer is a MacMini and MacPro with nothing in the middle ground. :rolleyes::)

It's "stealing" in the sense that if this becomes normal, Apple will have to raise the price of OSX. The current price assumes a hardware sale occurred at some point, either now or in the past.

It's just like how the iPhone is less because AT&T knows they'll get the monthly fee from you. They can kick in some of the price because they know they'll make it up. A (hypothetical) unlocked phone would have to cost more.

Likewise, an "unlocked" OSX would cost more, no about. So you're getting an unlocked OSX for a locked price.

Not exactly "stealing," but it is cheating, in a sense.

[!¡ V ¡!]

If I could do it over, I would probably go with the efi-x solution (which I am highly impressed by), but I would be concerned that apple could kill the workability of the solution through a system update, especially as part of the jump to snow leopard. If I could be shown some solid evidence that efi-x could definitely make that jump to 10.6 I would think long and hard about it.

Good point, however I do not see why it would not be possible for a firmware update later on when OS 10.6 SL is released.

Good point nonetheless. :)

[bplein]

I actually built a "real" mac pro from used mac pro parts off of ebay, and the total cost was around $1500 for an 8-core 2.0 ghz machine, 2gb ram, equivalent superdrive, etc. The only "feature" it is missing is the apple heatsinks (I have my own installed), but otherwise, someone on the outside would not be able to tell the difference.


Thank you for proving my point. TFA says that you can build a Mac Pro for under $800, when it's patently false. It compares desktop CPUs to workstation/server CPUs. It compares dual core to 8 core.

This is the cheap solution for the missing expandable desktop solution, not a replacement for the Mac Pro for under $800 as claimed.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

[!¡ V ¡!]

You are not legally buying OS X. You are buying a license to OS X. If you violate the terms of the license agreement, then the license is void. It's not a complicated concept. :rolleyes:

Actually you are legally buying Mac OS X, if you are considering the Apple Hardware and Mac OS X as Mac OS X then you are running the risk of a monopoly and locked in solution, something that got Microsoft in trouble a while back.

At best you are violating the usage agreement, however in that case when you return Mac OS X in an open box do they give you a full refund or take out a stocking fee or better yet not take it back at all. ;):p:)

[sharp65]

it is illegal to install osx on any non apple branded hardware. no matter how you manage to get it to work. my prediction is this company will be sued by the end of the week.

Yea good luck with that...

[Joe The Dragon]

Maybe de-evolution at work. Apple has a product that people want - OS X. They only want to sell it under certain conditions. They created it. They invested in it. Why do people feel they have a right to steal it just because Apple doesn't sell it under the conditions they want?

they are not stealing it they are paying for mac ox at $129.00. vista home premium oem is just about the same price.

The power g4 and g5 when for $1200 to $1900+ now the mac pro start at $2300 with a weak video card.

[Xavier]

Now why didnt Psystar think of this?

[!¡ V ¡!]

Not exactly "stealing," but it is cheating, in a sense.

Cheating sure, I can agree with you on that. That being said it still does not allow Apple to play with its loyal customers like fools by overcharging for outdated hardware and not fulfilling a void in its product line.


Who wants a MacPro for thousands of dollars when all I want it some of its functionality scaled down. Amazing how you are fueling Apples greed and to rip its customer base. :rolleyes:

[!¡ V ¡!]

Now why didnt Psystar think of this?

Something tells me that Psystar was going for an End-to-End solution, basically similar to Apple however without the designer casing. ;):p:D

[winmacguy]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

That's easy to answer - its NOT built by Apple which means that you CAN build a tower cheaper (well outside of the US you can) than a Mac Pro tower since you don't have any profit margins to worry about- and - you can still run OS X on it with no worries at all :D - so you can game away and run OS X happily.

[MacOSX86User]

Hell, If apple will not build the mythical Midrange Mac, I may as well consider this option.

I ain't buying a Mac Pro Tower without Blu-Ray and HDCP compliance....

so i may as well consider this!!!

I installed Leopard onto my PC about 8 months ago, and I have to say, hardware had very little to do with the Mac experience - from my point of view that is. It was OS X that sucked me in.

Of course, it helped that I had an AMD Radeon HD3870 (512MB) video card - a heck of a lot better than the standard HD2600 XT on the Mac Pro base config, certainly at par with nVidia's 8800 with most apps. Probably won't match the $2850 Quadro FX, but my vanilla PC with the $150 video card runs Maya, WoW, Age of Empires, Command and Conquer, Sims, all the Adobe apps, Final Cut and just about anything you throw at it. It won't match the Mac Pro, of course (what with those Quad-core Xeons), but it handily beats my buddy's iMac when rendering my animation.

There is a real demand from former peecee users like me, who lack the cash but appreciate the superiority of OS X. I have been trying to move to the Mac platform for years, and cash was always the only issue.

I was only able to finally buy my first Mac (G4 Cube) on eBay for $75 (yes, you read it correctly) 2 yrs ago, then I upgraded the video card for $75, and there I was--happy with my Mac. I never ever bothered buying from other peecee makers like Dell, HP, etc. so I can't really comment on how their hardware compares with Apple's. Though I still use WinXP, I have since used my homebrew Mac as my main machine.

The point is there is a market for the mid-range Mac for the pro-sumer, and I'm sorry, the iMac just doesn't cut it for me, especially when running Maya. That's why EFi-X has appeal, because it will allow an easier install of OS X on vanilla hardware (not the kind of drama I had to go through to make OS X work on my hardware).

It's not about bragging rights. We like Apple's work. That's why I saved enough cash and buying the next Macbook Pro rev. And keeping my OS X peecee as my main power cruncher.

[Joe The Dragon]

it is illegal to install osx on any non apple branded hardware. no matter how you manage to get it to work. my prediction is this company will be sued by the end of the week.

no it's not and in the EU it may be illegal to have that kind of lock in.

[Small White Car]

Who wants a MacPro for thousands of dollars when all I want it some of its functionality scaled down. Amazing how you are fueling Apples greed and to rip its customer base. :rolleyes:

Give me a break. You asked a question. I tried to answer it. That's "fueling Apple greed?"

What does that make your response? The same as "kicking puppies?" Sure, why not...that makes sense too.

Heck, this whole forum is the same thing as "robbing a bank." Yeah, I like the sound of that too!

[!¡ V ¡!]

That's easy to answer - its NOT built by Apple which means that you CAN build a tower cheaper (well outside of the US you can) than a Mac Pro tower since you don't have any profit margins to worry about- and - you can still run OS X on it with no worries at all :D - so you can game away and run OS X happily.

For VAT customers this is a hugh deal. :D

Heck being Canadian we still get ripped off. :rolleyes::mad:

[BaldiMac]

Actually you are legally buying Mac OS X

No. You are not. You are buying a license to use OS X under the terms of the license agreement.

if you are considering the Apple Hardware and Mac OS X as Mac OS X then you are running the risk of a monopoly and locked in solution, something that got Microsoft in trouble a while back.

Microsoft did not get in trouble for being a monopoly. They got in trouble for abusing monopoly powers. But Apple has a market share around 7% which is nowhere near any definition of a monopoly.

At best you are violating the usage agreement, however in that case when you return Mac OS X in an open box do they give you a full refund or take out a stocking fee or better yet not take it back at all. ;):p:)

If you return software because you do not agree to the EULA, you are entitled to a full refund.

[!¡ V ¡!]

Give me a break. You asked a question. I tried to answer it. That's "fueling Apple greed?"

What does that make your response? The same as "kicking puppies?" Sure, why not...that makes sense too.

Heck, this whole forum is the same thing as "robbing a bank." Sure, why not?

Supply and Demand, Apple does not supply a Mid Tower for it's demanding customer, and you are willing to upsize to a MacPro due to a lack of is greed on Apples part. Locking you into they hardware choices and specification is even worse. When you boil right down to it, Apple would not be perceived greedy if there was a choice other than the MacMini and iMac for a decent upgradable Tower. As mentioned some people are not looking for a workstation which is the MacPro.

So if Apple wants to be greedy and you don't mind paying them for it then you are fueling it. :rolleyes:;):p

[Durendal]

$155? The hell with that. I'll take my chances with a plain vanilla Hackintosh before I blow that much money on something that can be done essentially for free, even if it is more of a pain.

[!¡ V ¡!]

No. You are not. You are buying a license to use OS X under the terms of the license agreement.

This falls under anti-competitive laws, considering the country you reside in.



Microsoft did not get in trouble for being a monopoly. They got in trouble for abusing monopoly powers. But Apple has a market share around 7% which is nowhere near any definition of a monopoly.

So you are suggesting it is alright for a company to have a monopolistic practice as long as they do not get too big. :rolleyes:



If you return software because you do not agree to the EULA, you are entitled to a full refund.

Again depends on the country you reside in. I have never been able to return any software purchase when opened for a full refund if any.

[stainlessliquid]

Boot-132 does the same thing as EFI-X but you burn it to a cd-r and its free. Granted you have to do some work like get all the drivers you need and burn the cd (or just download an iso someone else made for their motherboard) and it doesnt have a fancy graphical boot loader, but it still allows you to install from retail Leopard discs and 10.5.x updates.

[kresh]

Just like the content providers with multimedia; with OS X, Apple is leasing rights and not selling ownership of anything.

I am in the anti-drm camp. I want to own the things I purchase and not lease the rights to use it as the provider sees fit. So long as I only use the content I've paid for (music or OS) on one device it should not matter which device it is.

[BaldiMac]

Supply and Demand, Apple does not supply a Mid Tower for it's demanding customer, and you are willing to upsize to a MacPro due to a lack of is greed on Apples part. Locking you into they hardware choices and specification is even worse. When you boil right down to it, Apple would not be perceived greedy if there was a choice other than the MacMini and iMac for a decent upgradable Tower. As mentioned some people are not looking for a workstation which is the MacPro.

So if Apple wants to be greedy and you don't mind paying them for it then you are fueling it. :rolleyes:;):p

Who do you consider more greedy - Apple or Microsoft? Apple's profit margin is consistently in the 20%-25% range. As a small business owner, I think that is a very reasonable profit margin.

"They don't make what I want" is not the same as "greed."

Microsoft's profit margin is in the 80% range for Windows and Office.

[williedigital]

Thank you for proving my point. TFA says that you can build a Mac Pro for under $800, when it's patently false. It compares desktop CPUs to workstation/server CPUs. It compares dual core to 8 core.

This is the cheap solution for the missing expandable desktop solution, not a replacement for the Mac Pro for under $800 as claimed.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with you either. If you're talking about benchmarking and overall performance, a hackintosh based on a quad core core2duo cpu will provide relatively equivalent performance to a 1st generation (2X2.66 dual core) mac pro. Honestly, I think that for most people, that is more than enough performance, and can be built for well under $800. Apple uses workstation parts for the mac pro, but really they aren't necessary for the vast majority of things these machines get used for. I mainly just wanted to make sure that my machine could install system updates without trouble and could make the important jump to 10.6. I've built hackintoshes before and was never disappointed in the performance they provided. I was disappointed in the amount of upkeep they required if you wanted to have the latest software updates, etc.

It's kinda like comparing two guys with too much money for their own good who both own hot cars. One owns the $80k porche and the other owns the $250k Ferrari. Sure, the Ferrari is probably built to some higher specs and can go from zero to 100 a few tenths of a second faster, but for everyday driving, for the vast majority of people craving power in the pedal, the porche will give you all the speed that you'll need--the Ferrari is overkill.

[Small White Car]

Apple does not supply a Mid Tower for it's demanding customer, and you are willing to upsize to a MacPro

I bought a Mac Pro because it's what I need. I edit HD video and it still takes me several hours to compress a DVD. If they made an even faster Mac Pro, I'd buy it.

Which means you're just making up lies about me. That's kind of dumb since I'm here to point that out. If you're going to lie about people, do it in places where they don't hang out.

That's, like, the first rule of lying. Come on.

[mdntcallr]

The point is there is a market for the mid-range Mac for the pro-sumer, and I'm sorry, the iMac just doesn't cut it for me, especially when running Maya. That's why EFi-X has appeal, because it will allow an easier install of OS X on vanilla hardware (not the kind of drama I had to go through to make OS X work on my hardware).

It's not about bragging rights. We like Apple's work. That's why I saved enough cash and buying the next Macbook Pro rev. And keeping my OS X peecee as my main power cruncher.

yep, i feel for you too. Apple is seriously missing a big market. and they do offer pretty lame graphics cards options. very limited and not even hdcp compliant.

i'd love to know how you did a pc with mac os

[jbrenn]

no it's not and in the EU it may be illegal to have that kind of lock in.

it is illegal
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more tcomputer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

[bboucher790]

I just orgasmed. If this turns out to be legit....buh bye iMac.

Did you read the article?

Here it is again:
EFI-X™ is not for everyone. It is not for who wants to save money, at all.

Link (http://www.efi-x.com)

You, my friend, have no idea what you are talking about.

[williedigital]

No. You are not. You are buying a license to use OS X under the terms of the license agreement.



Microsoft did not get in trouble for being a monopoly. They got in trouble for abusing monopoly powers. But Apple has a market share around 7% which is nowhere near any definition of a monopoly.



If you return software because you do not agree to the EULA, you are entitled to a full refund.

I thought that the sticky legal issue is that apple's current license is so restrictive that it may be invalid if challenged in court? Everyone agrees that software carries a license, but obviously a company couldn't put in blanket statements that could place potentially any customer in violation at any time the company chooses. Or, I suppose they technically could, but the company would be pressured to rigorously enforce the license, in which case it could seriously damage apple's reputation.

Imagine if the Ipod was sold with a clause that only apple branded headphones were allowed to be used with it. Would this be legal? Could apple, now that millions were sold, file suit against any and all users whom they have evidence are using non-apple headphones? I just don't think that consumer law is so black and white, especially in intellectual property instances.

[!¡ V ¡!]

I bought a Mac Pro because it's what I need. I edit HD video and it still takes me several hours to compress a DVD. If they made an even faster Mac Pro, I'd buy it.

Which means you're just making up lies about me. That's kind of dumb since I'm here to point that out. If you're going to lie about people, do it in places where they don't hang out.

That's, like, the first rule of lying. Come on.

According to your previous posts regarding this topic, you did not mention that you edit HD video. That would make you a lier for withholding information that only you are privy to at the time.

Chances are the application you are using to encode and compress HD to a DVD is not 4-8 core/processor aware. Ram could also be another facto. Then again since none of this information regarding your system specifics is available right away and I do not consider myself a physic then someone is pointing the remaining majority of they fingers at oneself. ;):p:)

[matticus008]

Actually you are legally buying Mac OS X
No. You are not. You are buying a license to use OS X under the terms of the license agreement.
You are both correct and both incorrect.

You are buying a copy of OS X, but you are buying it under the terms of a license agreement. You have the exhaustive rights of possession of all physical components of the package, and you have a right to use the software, subject to the particular limitations imposed by the owner of OS X, Apple. Buying a copy does not make you an owner of OS X, but the owner of one copy.
If you return software because you do not agree to the EULA, you are entitled to a full refund.
Yes, you absolutely are.
if you are considering the Apple Hardware and Mac OS X as Mac OS X then you are running the risk of a monopoly
One does not flow from the other.
At best you are violating the usage agreement, however in that case when you return Mac OS X in an open box
Again, the two are separate. If you violate the agreement, you are guilty of copyright infringement, as your license is terminated.

If, on the other hand, you wish to reject the license terms on software, you have the right to do so, and generally have at least three opportunities to do just that before breaking the seal on the disc. You can still do so after breaking the seal, but it may involve extra effort on your part.
Apple would not be perceived greedy if there was a choice other than the MacMini and iMac for a decent upgradable Tower.
Perception of "greed" is nothing more than a weak justification for thuggery. You get them to act by rewarding competitors for their progress. They will follow the money based on their wishes.

At the moment, this device facilitates copyright infringement. Assuming the device is itself noninfringing (which is no guarantee), there's still doubt as to its legitimate use. If such use can be established, they will be able to sell it.

Customers will be able to buy a copy of OS X, and customers will take it upon themselves to infringe copyright. However, so long as customers are spending $300 to add OS X to their own computers, and no one is turning it into a profit source a la Psystar, there's not likely going to be a particularly strong reaction. Apple has never cared about a niche market of hobbyists or the Hackintosh market, as long as it stays small and personal. Commercial enterprises cannot be tolerated, for obvious reasons.

[wheelhot]

Customers will be able to buy a copy of OS X, and customers will take it upon themselves to infringe copyright. However, so long as customers are spending $300 to add OS X to their own computers, and no one is turning it into a profit source a la Psystar, there's not likely going to be a particularly strong reaction. Apple has never cared about a niche market of hobbyists or the Hackintosh market, as long as it stays small and personal. Commercial enterprises cannot be tolerated, for obvious reasons.

True, as long as EFI stays low and dont make a big deal about it, then Apple will keep quiet but I think they might not because its product is being shipped globally.

The more people start installing OS X on generic PC the more Apple will create their own chipset, so I guess in OS X SL, Im quite sure Apple will find a way how to prevent people from installing OS X on generic PC.

[carlos700]

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.

I'd like to see that. Considering the Intel Xeon E5462, which is the 2.8GHz quad-core chip in the Mac Pro, runs you about $850 a piece. Nice try. ;)

[BaldiMac]

This falls under anti-competitive laws, considering the country you reside in.

How is Apple being anti-competitive? They are not preventing another company from developing an OS to rival OS X. And they are not preventing any other company from selling computer hardware.

So you are suggesting it is alright for a company to have a monopolistic practice as long as they do not get too big. :rolleyes:

I'm suggesting that you are not understanding what a monopoly is. A large market share is a prerequisite to being classified as a monopoly.

Again depends on the country you reside in. I have never been able to return any software purchase when opened for a full refund if any.

I'm in the US. I can't imagine that any major country would force you to agree to a license agreement that you haven't seen.

[PCMacUser]

What game will you be playing? A Windows game? You don't need OS X to play a Windows game, and you don't need a Mac Pro to play a Windows game. Mac Pro applications are designed to use multi-core machines and will scale with the extra cores.

Mac Pros are for professionals. Getting work done. Sure, they can also play games, but that is NOT why people buy them. Do you get it?

???
Sorry I think you missed the point of my post. But thanks for trying!

[elgruga]

I'd like to see that. Considering the Intel Xeon E5462, which is the 2.8GHz quad-core chip in the Mac Pro, runs you about $850 a piece. Nice try. ;)

Exactly - so much BS in this thread.

Lets not forget that Apple doesnt hassle us users about registering the OS on different machines. There is, at present, NO serial number that must be input when you install OSX.

If these people have their way, Apple MUST enforce the EULA rules, and life will become like the miserable Windows world, entering serials, weird piracy crap, etc. etc.

Dont all you fools realise how easy life is with a Mac?

As for the 'headless iMac' mantra - I believe it is a WORTHLESS argument - buy a MacPro or move to the Dark Side.

[BaldiMac]

You are both correct and both incorrect.

You are buying a copy of OS X, but you are buying it under the terms of a license agreement. You have the exhaustive rights of possession of all physical components of the package, and you have a right to use the software, subject to the particular limitations imposed by the owner of OS X, Apple. Buying a copy does not make you an owner of OS X, but the owner of one copy.

I appreciate the clarification. :)

[richard.mac]

why bother paying for a device which emulates EFI when you can just install EFI v8 and then install a retail version of Leopard for free using guides on InsanelyMac.com. EFI v8 is open source and is freely from netkas.

[carlos700]

As for the 'headless iMac' mantra - I believe it is a WORTHLESS argument - buy a MacPro or move to the Dark Side.

I agree. I'd be a little cautious before introducing yet another Mac. I like how Apple has simple product lines with their computers in comparison to numerous models like Dell has with severe overlap that only confuses people. A headless Mac would be nice in theory, but completely undermines the elegance of an iMac. Just my opinion...

[matticus008]

Imagine if the Ipod was sold with a clause that only apple branded headphones were allowed to be used with it. Would this be legal?
No, it would not be without express waiver. However, this, like many other off-the-cuff examples, doesn't not capture the situation in a germane hypothetical. Apple could, however, sell their own headphones only to iPod owners.
This falls under anti-competitive laws, considering the country you reside in.
No it doesn't. What you're quoting from his post falls under copyright laws, and does so in every country in which OS X is sold.
Again depends on the country you reside in. I have never been able to return any software purchase when opened for a full refund if any.
I'm aware of no country where this is the case. I suspect you were trying to return to the wrong party or did not otherwise properly pursue the matter.
I'm in the US. I can't imagine that any major country would force you to agree to a license agreement that you haven't seen.
Seeing an agreement of any kind is not a requirement; one must merely have the option to see what they are agreeing to before issuing assent. For example, a retail store's return policy is agreed to simply by purchasing from the store, whether you've taken the time to read the return policy or not.

[freiheit]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

Expandability, support for standards (not like Apple's 2nd-gen-Mac-Pro-only GeForce 8800 for instance), saving money, bragging rights -- they're all worthy reasons to someone.

[nanofrog]

why bother paying for a device which emulates EFI when you can just install EFI v8 and then install a retail version of Leopard for free <removed link>
At least there are options for those who are interested in a hackintosh. ;)
The EFiX may be easier to get a system up and running, and if someone it, they'll have to pay for it. :p

[philbeeney]

i wonder if apple will respond to this? i guess it will depend on how this sells

I think Apple's best bet would be to update all of their Mac models with the latest components and perhaps introduce a mid level desktop. Perhaps even dropping the prices to near PC levels. That would just blow away the competition with all the switchers being able afford the Mac experience.

Apple did say that they would be taking profit drop this quarter. Who knows, perhaps this is what they have been anticipating.?

[doug in albq]

I have looked into my crystal ball and,

one way or another, for better or worse,

in the future,

Mac OS will be available for purchase by Apple to be installed on any PC that meets the minimum specs.

it is going to happen.

(who knows if a change of CEO will be needed for above to come true, not going to speculate that far....)

[zombitronic]

Am I correct in assuming that any user using this device would be violating Apple's EULA?

Of course it does. For anyone who sees nothing wrong in this:

Mac OS X (Leopard) Software License (PDF) (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf)

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

These guys either didn't read it, or they're ready to go to court over it.

[wolfenkraft]

it is illegal
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more tcomputer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

Doesn't anyone here actually know what "illegal" means? For the love of christ, that's violating a EULA. Punishable only by being forced to pay damages in a civil court, you cannot go to jail.
There is no law saying, "thou shalt not use this software on unlicensed hardware." Therefore, it is not ILLEGAL! Stop throwing around words you obviously don't understand.
Saying that violating a EULA is against the law means you are allowing Apple to write the law, seriously? Do you people even think these things through?

[zombitronic]

From EFI-X's home page:

With EFI-X™ you will be able to enter a new computing dimension.
Installation of Apple® and Microsoft® operating systems, as well as open source ones, is now possible. And it is not only possible, it is also straightforward!

Ability to install Apple® and Microsoft® operating systems from original, unmodified retail DVD.

And from the FAQ:

It is used to run original and unmodified copies of Apple® Mac OSX™ legally and without any post install hacks on compatible hardware PCs.

Except that would be in violation of the Leopard Software License. They've got lawsuit worthy admission scrawled all over their website.

They mention Apple twice on the homepage, specifically stating that the purpose of their product is to assist the user in installing Apple operating systems, which violates Apple's Mac OS X (Leopard) Software License (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf). That's not good for EFI-eX.

[thechidz]

so will there be a list of pcs coming off the line that will already meet the specs to work with this?

[BenRoethig]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

In many cases it is saving money, its just not for the cheap dell users. $2200 is unaffordable to most of the old PowerMac users and the iMac isn't close to being up to the task.

He: You're wrong.

You: Not if you change the question entirely from what we were talking about!

lol - Nice work. Does that ever work for you in real life?

He's not wrong. In single dual threaded apps like games a DC 3.0ghz is going to be faster than a lower clocked quad or eight core. The additional 2 or 6 cores are either dormant or run background apps. Because OSX is designed for multi-processing doesn't mean that apps automatically take advantage of it.

[SiliconAddict]

Too bad this doesn't really extend to laptops. The new Precision M4400 is a heck of a nice system and with next day business repairs I don't have to be without my MBP, that I'm in the process of selling in the next couple months, for a week just to replace the optical drive. plan is to sell the system with the original Tiger install and use my PURCHASED Leopard DVD on it, assuming I can get everything working which is going to take some futzing. Apple's draconian EULA be danged. They got my money and I have a paid for license. That is all I care about.

Honestly its the lack of a higher end turn around options that has finally turned me off of the Mac experiment. Not the OS. Love OS X. Since I got my MBP in Feb '06 I have been without my laptop for just under a month. In one case the result caused me to turn in a project 3 days late. Because of course these things are just used for play and no one ever needs fast turn around time for repairs.
Unacceptable for a company who touts themselves as a premium computer company. Even Dell, for all their screw-ups, will send a tech out to my location, be it home or work, to repair the system. Apple? Depot or drop it off at the Apple store. Is it any wonder why people want to hack OS X on other company's hardware?
At any rate. this is a good thing AFAIC.

PS- The HD, RAM, and CPU on the M4400 is user accessible and upgradable. When was the last time a Mac laptop could have its processor upgraded by normal means?

[nanofrog]

In many cases it is saving money, its just not for the cheap dell users. $2200 is unaffordable to most of the old PowerMac users and the iMac isn't close to being up to the task.
It may also be quite attractive to those who already spent $$$ on a recent PC, particularly gamers, and those who like to experiment. The process of a hackintosh could be a good learning expirience for anyone in IT, Software Engineering, and a few others. ;)
He's not wrong. In single dual threaded apps like games a DC 3.0ghz is going to be faster than a lower clocked quad or eight core. The additional 2 or 6 cores are either dormant or run background apps. Because OSX is designed for multi-processing doesn't mean that apps automatically take advantage of it.
Hopefully, Snow Leopard will help this issue. I've seriously thought that 3rd party developers have been waiting on the OS developers to make a move, and vice versa to better utilize multiple cores.

Ye old "chicken and the egg" thing. :p

[macidiot]

The text in all of their pages say "blah blah blah" goes here. Such as "Support information goes here"

very slapped together website, and it seems its just vaporware anyway.

Never mind that it is a hardware device, but Gizmodo, a very legitimate site, tested the device themselves.

So hardly vaporware.

[isoceles]

My question is what happens when the EFI-X chip shorts out because you forgot to turn off your neon case lights and fans. :p:D

As far as the crying goes over price, there is always going to be a few left out in the dark. Do what a lot of us Mac owners did and SAVE your money and buy a refurb from the Apple site or take your chances on Ebay.

I bought my PowerBook 1.33 around 4 years ago and I am more than happy with it. I guess it's all about what you are getting a Mac for. I would definitely pay the premium for Mac over a slightly faster PC for the following:

OSX:
1. Mac Fonts (PC Fonts look like doodoo) Can't have that when presenting to clients
2. User Experience - Intuitive OS loaded with solid features that I use daily to help me work faster
3. Drastically less Spyware/Viruses = Less time wasted = Less money wasted. What is your time worth?

Hardware:
1. Backlit keyboard
2. Monitor stays true to color longer
3. Case/Keyboard has good build quality and is silent
4. I love the design

The only gripe that I have had is of how hot the laptop gets. It's prbably not safe to have all that electronic stuff near your crouch anyway.:rolleyes:

I hope this makes sense. I'm too tired to proof this.
A little Advice: "Save your money and buy good whiskey.":apple::D

[danbirchall]

Or do other people here remember the days of x86 plug-in boards for Macs? (And Sun workstations, for that matter.)

Thanks, akoblentz, for saving me the trouble of explaining that EULAs are not law. :)

[loafyucf]

here are some solid numbers

a dual g5 1.8 which runs at about 145f and could x-bench about 100 points with upgraded ram and video card originally cost $2500 in 2005, could be had on ebay for $800 - $1000 now

a quad core hack at 2.4ghz runs at 85f with a custom heatsync (not water cooled). Cost $1000 now. x-bench at 200 points. and the upgraded video card doesnt have a premium for having an apple bios. comes with pci and pci-e slots, and you might have to work a little to get the video card working.

a core 2 duo iMac at 2.8ghz runs somewhere in the 120f. with no expandability x-bench at about 140 points.... I could go on

I like apple and I've owned a bunch of em. I just bought a new MBP. When they switched to intel the made a statement that when u take away all the flash and smudgable aluminum, inside they are just a pc. OSX is derived from open source materials. It's a very refined and polished linux distribution.

If your serious about working in the digital realm, the means to the end of the day, the next big break through, putting food on the table... these are all that matters.

Also time waisted in hacking up a hack will pay for buying the MacPro. Spend more time with your loved ones. Buy from the Apple store :apple:.

Sources -> My own experience, http://www.intelmactemp.com, http://db.xbench.com/

[macidiot]

You are not legally buying OS X. You are buying a license to OS X. If you violate the terms of the license agreement, then the license is void. It's not a complicated concept. :rolleyes:

Yes, but efi-x isn't selling or installing osx. afaik they are selling a hardware dongle which makes osx think the pc is a mac.

Now if Apple's efi instruction set contains proprietary code and efix stole it, then there is cause for legal action. This would probably be the basis of any Apple suit.

While installing osx on a non-apple product might technically be a violation, its irrelevant in this case. You don't really sue a company for illegal actions that its customers might do. I highly doubt Apple will start going around checking each and every end user installation of osx, let alone start suing individuals. They don't even copy protect osx.

[hajime]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

Here is one reason: The MBPs have faulty Nvidia GPU and the Macbooks are not powerful enough to do high-end stuffs.

[gifford]

How could it not save money? You have no idea do you?

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.

I would prefer my money went to a company that deserves it. OSX would not exist if we all bought these ****** knock offs.

[johnasmith1914]

Unbelievable. They are taking something that is free (OS X on PCs) and trying to make people pay for it!!!! and it doesn't even run as smoothly as if you did it yourself!!!!

and it only works on gigabyte motherboards!?!?!?!?! retarded.

kalyway needs to sue these mofos for trying to make money off a free thing.

[richard.mac]

…

kalyway needs to sue these mofos for trying to make money off a free thing.

actually netkas created PC EFI emulation. Kalyway, iATKOS, Leo4All etc. use it. netkas was screwed around by Psystar too by using his open source work for profit. not cool.

[johnasmith1914]

netkas made OS X???? I can't believe it was one dude that made an entire OS.


Netkas needs to sue these EFIX dudes, Apple, and Psystar.

[bolibic]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

Not everybody wants the hardware configurations apple provides. For example, and for a desktop PC, the iMac 20" has a really bad screen. The graphic card options, in general, are limited.

So or you become an Apple "fanboy" and swallow the things you don't like, or you just simply look for another way to get them.

[bolibic]

I never liked osx running on non apple branded computers.

Tastes are like colors, so you're free to like whatever you decide, but.... That attitude smells to "Apple fan-guy".

A mac is made of many parts, some times is good to realize that not all are perfect for some people.

[bolibic]

Agree! +1
Someone has to say it so I'll bite :p

They're not. Compare equivalent hardware between Apple and other name brands--looking at ALL the specs for an honest and complete comparison--and Macs are right in the same price range. Sometimes more than a given competitor, sometimes less.

What they ARE is:

a) More expensive than building your own or getting a cheap (for a reason) brand like an Acer. The same is true of Dell, HP, Sony, etc., so you can't call Macs relatively expensive on that basis. Rather, you should say that ALL name brand PCs are expensive. (Or even that any PC you didn't build at home is expensive.)

and

b) Available in fewer configurations. So you might find a particular name-brand PC config that meets your needs for cheaper--but you have to admit that it does so by omitting some things. Things you don't personally want, so that's perfectly reasonable to take into account--but it doesn't make the Mac overpriced.

This new product addresses b) rather than any price difference between comparable Macs and PCs.

[richard.mac]

netkas made OS X???? I can't believe it was one dude that made an entire OS.


Netkas needs to sue these EFIX dudes, Apple, and Psystar.

no, Netkas created PC EFI v8 which allows EFI emulation on a PC which in turn allows the install of patched versions of Mac OS X made by Jas, Kalyway, iATKOS etc.

[bolibic]

Just a conspiracy theory, but ... it sounds like some PC manufacturers are getting concerned that thier market share is under threat by apple so they are providing the gateway to allow for mac compatibles

I reckon if apples market share gets to much bigger this is just the tip of the ice berg. we could see some antitrust lawsuits in the pipeline.

The conspiracy comment. Second page. I guess you were late :P

We, consumers, install Leopard in a crappy PC. So we, consumers, decide that we need something that Apple doesn't give to us.

Of course when consumers want to spend their money, it's better for you, business, to get the sales. This are market rules.

[bolibic]

Maybe de-evolution at work. Apple has a product that people want - OS X. They only want to sell it under certain conditions. They created it. They invested in it. Why do people feel they have a right to steal it just because Apple doesn't sell it under the conditions they want?

Steal? Well, I paid for my copy of Leopard. Mainly for my notebook, but I did try it on a PC (With my notebook off and the famous Apple label). So please, apologize for your F.U.D. about stealing.

People, we, consumers, want other products, and if no one is gonna build them, we will build them, because is what we want for our needs. Companies helping us in our "mission" of getting what we need, will get the money.

But what kind of consumer are you when you buy things you don like, don't fulfill your needs and in the end, you don really like.

[deggs37]

No you couldn't.

Uhh yeah I can, run on over to newegg.com and take a look around. You would be surprised to find 4 gigs of ram doesn't actually cost $400.

But whatever. Ignorance is bliss for fanboys I suppose.

[HyperZboy]

HINT: Remove the AppleHWSensor.kext from your SYSTEM/LIBRARY/EXTENSIONS folder and you'll probably also solve that 2 minute Leopard boot time assuming we're talking about an NVIDIA graphics card.

A little birdie told me the delay has to do with Apple's OSX heat sensing extension on proprietary Apple graphics cards, which the average PC graphics card may or may not have or may have different causing an operating system hang during boot when all the temps are originally tested. :D

Oh, and the Hackintosh craze will most likely continue until Steve Jobs jumps off his high horse and releases the mythical low-rise mid-range lower cost TOWER that so many consumers want, but yet Steve Jobs stubbornly continues to think they don't want beyond all sense of reason!

[bolibic]

What game will you be playing? A Windows game? You don't need OS X to play a Windows game, and you don't need a Mac Pro to play a Windows game. Mac Pro applications are designed to use multi-core machines and will scale with the extra cores.

Mac Pros are for professionals. Getting work done. Sure, they can also play games, but that is NOT why people buy them. Do you get it?

???

And professionals don't play? Are professionals always serious? They don't smile, they don't have fun?

Do not consider me a professional then. I have my Wii, my guitar hero and my trackmania. Unfortunately.... we all know... even you, yes you.... that windows is only for games. Boot, play, close... like a game console.

:P

[deggs37]

I'd like to see that. Considering the Intel Xeon E5462, which is the 2.8GHz quad-core chip in the Mac Pro, runs you about $850 a piece. Nice try. ;)

Well I wouldn't waste money on a server chip. Instead I would buy this http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115041

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Cache

Gets the exact same benchmark scores and you wouldn't notice a difference in performance. Plus $500 dollars richer to go buy an iPhone or two.

[bolibic]

At the moment, this device facilitates copyright infringement. Assuming the device is itself noninfringing (which is no guarantee), there's still doubt as to its legitimate use. If such use can be established, they will be able to sell it.

Customers will be able to buy a copy of OS X, and customers will take it upon themselves to infringe copyright. However, so long as customers are spending $300 to add OS X to their own computers, and no one is turning it into a profit source a la Psystar, there's not likely going to be a particularly strong reaction. Apple has never cared about a niche market of hobbyists or the Hackintosh market, as long as it stays small and personal. Commercial enterprises cannot be tolerated, for obvious reasons.

F.U.D.

[Marx55]

The day Apple allows the great Mac OS X to run on any PC-Windows out there, Microsoft will be history in three years. It is amazing that Apple did not learn from the mistakes made 25 years ago. And now is the time! Grow market share to two digits and beyond. It is that easy!

[richard.mac]

Uhh yeah I can, run on over to newegg.com and take a look around. You would be surprised to find 4 gigs of ram doesn't actually cost $400.

But whatever. Ignorance is bliss for fanboys I suppose.

hey newbie take a look at this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6184523&postcount=649). pretty much exactly the same as specs as a Mac Pro except it can only handle up to 24 GB of RAM.

i guess you havent realised that a standard Mac Pro has a server grade motherboard, dual quad core Xeons, FB-DIMM memory, dual LAN, support for up to 32 GB of RAM (in both hardware and OS), best case on the market and very good cooling and acoustics. its easy to not realise this… ill let you go on this one.

[wheelhot]

Oh I think people who dont support hackintosh should have this similar phrase in their post signature.

Love OS X? Buy Apple products (iMac, PM, MB, MBP), dont support hackintosh cause it will hurt your beloved OS X development. Nuff said.

To me, that phrase make sense, for now maybe not but if the growing number of hackintosh users become huge until it effects Apple PC market, then OSX will be in trouble and MSoft will be jumping on their feet cheering at the fall of OSX. :rolleyes:

[kis]

Rather, you should say that ALL name brand PCs are expensive. (Or even that any PC you didn't build at home is expensive.)


Not true - sorry. An HP business notebook with similar or identical specs as a Macbook Pro costs about 30-40% less.

Apart from that, Apple's bang-for-the-buck ratio varies widely throughout its product range:

- iMacs: excellent value but not professionally usable due to glossy screens and not upgradable.

- Macbooks: not so good value - the cheapest macbook doesn't contain a DVD-burner which factually makes most people buy the medium range model, which costs about 30% more than other manufacturer's midrange products

- Mac Mini - very bad value, in desperate need of an overhaul. It's cheap, but specs-wise it's a joke

- Mac Pro - excellent performance (probably too much of it) but hardly affordable, even for pros.

Apple doesn't have an affordable midrange headless desktop computer, which is why people are paying so much attention to solutions like the efix thing.

They're saying the product isn't for people who are trying to save money. Well, that's only partly true. For those people who want a regularly powerful desktop computer that they can later upgrade by themselves (e.g. by exchanging the graphics board, adding a bigger harddrive etc.) the efix dongle might be the only solution at this time. I agree it's not for everyone - but those who are able to build a computer by themselves or exchange a mainboard can save massively with this thing.

I'd greatly prefer it if Apple made a regular desktop Mac without an integrated screen - but until then, I think efix is on the right track.

peter

[kis]

i guess you havent realised that a standard Mac Pro has a rver grade motherboard, dual quad core Xeons, fully buffered memory, dual LAN, support for up to 32 GB of RAM (in both hardware and OS), best case on the market and very good cooling and acoustics. its easy to not realise this… ill let you go on this one.

That may be true - the Mac Pro is definitely a dream machine. However, I'm a photo semi-pro who needs a professional, upgradable computer that doesn't have a glossy screen like the iMac but also costs less than 3600 CHF. I simply can't afford a Mac Pro. Apple doesn't have anything in the normal business class of computers.

peter

[MacFly123]

If you can't afford a Lamborghini you just scrap together a kit car as a substitute.

And that is what it will always boil down to! :rolleyes: I'll continue to go for Lamborghinis!

[kis]

No you couldn't.

Umm yes, you could.

[Peace]

Expandability, support for standards (not like Apple's 2nd-gen-Mac-Pro-only GeForce 8800 for instance), saving money, bragging rights -- they're all worthy reasons to someone.

Standards? Have you seen what this company supports?. Look at the motherboard list. They don't even support the board needed to house the Quad Xeon with a 1600Mhz FSB. The Mac Pro does.

And I can guarantee you. It would be very hard if not impossible to find OSX drivers for a LOT of video cards.

here are some solid numbers

a dual g5 1.8 which runs at about 145f and could x-bench about 100 points with upgraded ram and video card originally cost $2500 in 2005, could be had on ebay for $800 - $1000 now

a quad core hack at 2.4ghz runs at 85f with a custom heatsync (not water cooled). Cost $1000 now. x-bench at 200 points. and the upgraded video card doesnt have a premium for having an apple bios. comes with pci and pci-e slots, and you might have to work a little to get the video card working.

a core 2 duo iMac at 2.8ghz runs somewhere in the 120f. with no expandability x-bench at about 140 points.... I could go on

Comparing a 3 year old G5 to a new system is kind of useless

If your serious about working in the digital realm, the means to the end of the day, the next big break through, putting food on the table... these are all that matters.

Also time waisted in hacking up a hack will pay for buying the MacPro. Spend more time with your loved ones. Buy from the Apple store :apple:.

Sources -> My own experience, http://www.intelmactemp.com, http://db.xbench.com/

Uhh yeah I can, run on over to newegg.com and take a look around. You would be surprised to find 4 gigs of ram doesn't actually cost $400.

But whatever. Ignorance is bliss for fanboys I suppose.

Take a look at how much a Quad Core Xeon Processor costs. Double that cost.
Take a look at pricewatch.com. The components in the 8-core Mac Pro are very expensive even if your building your own system.


This new company is just another company trying to take advantage of the true innovator.

It will pass.


It's not even available in the U.S.

[gifford]

The day Apple allows the great Mac OS X to run on any PC-Windows out there, Microsoft will be history in three years. It is amazing that Apple did not learn from the mistakes made 25 years ago. And now is the time! Grow market share to two digits and beyond. It is that easy!

You have no idea.

[richard.mac]

That may be true - the Mac Pro is definitely a dream machine. However, I'm a photo semi-pro who needs a professional, upgradable computer that doesn't have a glossy screen like the iMac but also costs less than 3600 CHF. I simply can't afford a Mac Pro. Apple doesn't have anything in the normal business class of computers.

peter

exactly. there too much power and its too expensive for a novice user IMO. but for a professional that will utilise the power its a great price. ive noticed a lot more people these days are using a MacBook Pro as a desktop as its affordable and competes with the power of a desktop computer.

[kis]

If you can't afford a Lamborghini you just scrap together a kit car as a substitute.

And that is what it will always boil down to! :rolleyes: I'll continue to go for Lamborghinis!

Your example should be like this:
If there were only Lamborghinis and SMARTs, then yes, people would probably scrap together kit cars.

I'm glad you're buying Lamborghinis but 99.9% of the population can't afford them.

peter

[theBB]

While installing osx on a non-apple product might technically be a violation, its irrelevant in this case. You don't really sue a company for illegal actions that its customers might do.
That line of argument did not work for Napster.

If Apple releases a $1000 headless desktop, the need for all this struggle would fade away, but Apple seems to believe that the potential market is too small to make a new product line worthwhile.

[richard.mac]

Umm yes, you could.

"bow-bow"… nope, sorry youre wrong!

protip: press your home button.

[kis]

exactly. there too much power and its too expensive for a novice user IMO. but for a professional that will utilise the power its a great price. ive noticed a lot more people these days are using a MacBook Pro as a desktop as its affordable and competes with the power of a desktop computer.

I have a Macbook Pro (and use it exclusively for photo editing) and am looking to replace it for two reasons:

- It's a tad too slow because of the notebook harddrive
- It's not expandable. I have 5 external harddrives sitting on my desk and frankly, that's a bit messy.

peter

[richard.mac]

^ this is why people enter the Hackintosh realm.

take a look at this build (https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.aspx?ID=6904734).
disclaimer: in no way am i supporting OSx86 with this link. its purely to show the price of a mid ranged desktop computer.

[Peace]

I have a Macbook Pro (and use it exclusively for photo editing) and am looking to replace it for two reasons:

- It's a tad too slow because of the notebook harddrive
- It's not expandable. I have 5 external harddrives sitting on my desk and frankly, that's a bit messy.

peter

Can you point me to any portable that you can "expand" an additional five hard drives inside ?


I swear. Half the people here don't make any sense. Or lack common sense.

[kis]

"bow-bow"… nope, sorry youre wrong!

protip: press your home button.

Well, we can continue this ad nauseam but I can assure you, I can build a machine with the same power specs as a Mac Pro for half the price. You're right in that I can't "build" the sexy case and the intelligently solved space allocation inside but that wouldn't make my pictures look better, anyway.

I have nothing against the Mac Pro. I'd love to own one. But I can't afford one. The Mac Pro had a better bang-for-the-buck ratio when it was released but since then, the competition's prices have fallen by 50% while the Mac Pro is still sold for the same money.

peter

[gifford]

So basically, many of you are part time thieves, and have a copy of Economics For Simpletons.

[Peace]

Well, we can continue this ad nauseam but I can assure you, I can build a machine with the same power specs as a Mac Pro for half the price. You're right in that I can't "build" the sexy case and the intelligently solved space allocation inside but that wouldn't make my pictures look better, anyway.

I have nothing against the Mac Pro. I'd love to own one. But I can't afford one. The Mac Pro had a better bang-for-the-buck ratio when it was released but since than, the competition's prices have fallen by 50% while the Mac Pro is still sold for the same money.

peter


Links please ?

[kis]

Can you point me to any portable that you can "expand" an additional five hard drives inside ?


I swear. Half the people here don't make any sense. Or lack common sense.

Yes, and you're one of them.
I have a Macbook Pro because I can't afford a Mac Pro and because Apple doesn't have a midrange computer. I'd like to replace my Macbook Pro with a desktop computer, not with a portable that can take 5 additional hardrives. I'd love that desktop computer to be a mac but as Apple doesn't throw one at me, I'll have to consider the efix thing.

peter

[kis]

Links please ?

Links to what? To your brain?

[Bonte]

That is craaazy. Especially when not saving money... Why bother :confused:
Besides if you want "Ultimate Performance" Get a Mac Pro...

Next year or so the device will cost $30 and every home-brew PC shop will have it standard installed if you want to. We'll have a dual booting $300 PC, this is a major milestone.

Don't know yet if i would want to rate this positive or negative. :confused:

[deggs37]

hey newbie take a look at this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6184523&postcount=649). pretty much exactly the same as specs as a Mac Pro except it can only handle up to 24 GB of RAM.

i guess you havent realised that a standard Mac Pro has a server grade motherboard, dual quad core Xeons, FB-DIMM memory, dual LAN, support for up to 32 GB of RAM (in both hardware and OS), best case on the market and very good cooling and acoustics. its easy to not realise this… ill let you go on this one.

Hey newbie, what normal user needs a $1500 SERVER processor???? Nice try though.
Even though some of your selections are questionable on that list you made. You could still subtract $1200 from your list if you were smarter about your processor and get the same performance.

And the standard Mac Pro does not have dual-quad core.

[Peace]

I have a Macbook Pro (and use it exclusively for photo editing) and am looking to replace it for two reasons:

- It's a tad too slow because of the notebook harddrive
- It's not expandable. I have 5 external harddrives sitting on my desk and frankly, that's a bit messy.

peter

Yes, and you're one of them.
I have a Macbook Pro because I can't afford a Mac Pro and because Apple doesn't have a midrange computer. I'd like to replace my Macbook Pro with a desktop computer, not with a portable that can take 5 additional hardrives. I'd love that desktop computer to be a mac but as Apple doesn't throw one at me, I'll have to consider the efix thing.

peter

Your first post implied you were looking for a portable.


Links to what? To your brain?

Links to prices for barebone components that are the same as the Mac Pro but half as expensive.:rolleyes:



Here's a link for you.

http://castle.pricewatch.com/s/search.asp?s=quad+core+XEON+2.8GHZ&srt=t&mi=0&m=&view=

That's the typical price for a quad core Xeon CPU. $845. Just for one.

$1700 just for the CPU's

You can do the rest of the math I hope.

[Tensakun]

Heck Psystar can just start installing these little gizmos into their Open Computer and their in business.

Well, I suppose. But considering their childish attempts at a promo video and stumbles thru court, why buy from them when you could get it to work on a mainstream Dell or IBM or a grounds-up homebuilt PC?

Personally, I'm going to watch this carefully and give these guys the benefit of the doubt for now. And watch how Apple reacts;)

[Beric]

Wow, this discussion is intense and personal. I'll stay out and go to sleep.

Just one thing - I'm really excited about this. Looks great. I'll see how it goes, but if everything goes well, I might sell my Macbook, buy a powerful 17" laptop PC for $1500, and install OS X through this.

Only time will tell, though.

[richard.mac]

Hey newbie, what normal user needs a $1500 SERVER processor???? Nice try though.

err thats the processors that come with the stock Mac Pro. show me where i said "normal user". for a professional video editor, musician, graphics renderer 2 Xeon CPUs is crucial as time is money.

And the standard Mac Pro does not have dual-quad core.

err yes it does! :rolleyes::p im talking about the stock Mac Pro. go here (http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro) and click "Configure Now". what is selected under "Processor"? and then have a closer look at the Newegg build.

only purchasing a single CPU Mac Pro doesnt make a difference. choosing the dual CPU option is actually cheaper from buying the same CPU and heatsink elsewhere.

argument over!

[matticus008]

Doesn't anyone here actually know what "illegal" means? For the love of christ, that's violating a EULA. Punishable only by being forced to pay damages in a civil court, you cannot go to jail.
I don't know where this idea got started, but 'illegal' does not mean 'tried in criminal court'. It does not mean that you face jail time. It never has. It is defined as "Forbidden by law; unlawful." Black's, 8th.

A court is not permitted to impose punishment for anything not constituting a violation of law. Even in matters of equity, there must be some wrong committed that is recognized in the corpus of law that demands relief. Consider something like divorce: a court may only authorize a divorce based on the idea that failure to do so would violate a legally recognized right or entitlement.

Other things that are illegal but do not necessarily involve jail time: speeding, discrimination in the workplace, failure of a landlord to make timely repairs, sexual harassment, smoking within 25 feet of entrances, keeping certain animals as pets, parking contrary to posted limits.
There is no law saying, "thou shalt not use this software on unlicensed hardware."
Sure there is, premised both on copyright law and on contract law. A contract establishes a legally binding obligation. Breach of contract is against the law. It is illegal. Infringement of copyright is against the law. It is illegal.

Furthermore, copyright infringement is a criminal offense and is punishable by jail time under certain circumstances.
Stop throwing around words you obviously don't understand.
Please do.

[deggs37]

err thats the processors that come with the stock Mac Pro. show me where i said "normal user". for a professional video editor, musician, graphics renderer 2 Xeon CPUs is crucial as time is money.



err yes it does! :rolleyes::p im talking about the stock Mac Pro. go here (http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_pro) and click "Configure Now". what is selected under "Processor"? and then have a closer look at the Newegg build.

only purchasing a single CPU Mac Pro doesnt make a difference. choosing the dual CPU option is actually cheaper from buying the same CPU and heatsink elsewhere.

We are arguing for different sakes then, I am talking about the normal user and not professionals. I know it is called Mac Pro, but the iMac just isn't good enough for more than basic needs. If only Apple would release a sub $2000 desktop without laptop parts.

[fuziwuzi]

Am I correct in assuming that any user using this device would be violating Apple's EULA?

yeah there is an off quote i can't remember. something like u can install on only apple logo'ed hardware. it's kinda iffy.

[richard.mac]

We are arguing for different sakes then, I am talking about the normal user and not professionals. I know it is called Mac Pro, but the iMac just isn't good enough for more than basic needs. If only Apple would release a sub $2000 desktop without laptop parts.

i was simply stating that the Mac Pro is of impeccable value. i agree that theres too big of a gap between the iMac and Mac Pro. where art thou mid-ranged Mac? condolences.

[Peace]

We are arguing for different sakes then, I am talking about the normal user and not professionals. I know it is called Mac Pro, but the iMac just isn't good enough for more than basic needs. If only Apple would release a sub $2000 desktop without laptop parts.

That is the crux of the PC/Mac argument. If Apple did make a "mini-tower" for a cheaper price these companies wouldn't even exist.

[gifford]

That is the crux of the PC/Mac argument. If Apple did make a "mini-tower" for a cheaper price these companies wouldn't even exist.

And if Apple made every device everyone wanted, Apple also would not exist.

[richard.mac]

And if Apple made every device everyone wanted, Apple also would not exist.

GREAT SCOTT!

[OriginalMacRat]

So do Apple sue?
Or do we get the expandable desktop computer we have been begging for?

Go buy Windows already.

[nick9191]

How could it not save money? You have no idea do you?

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.

You cannot build a Mac Pro cheaper than they sell it.

You fail.

[kis]

Links to prices for barebone components that are the same as the Mac Pro but half as expensive.:rolleyes:


Mainboard 565.05.-

http://www.techmania.ch/empty/empty/499311/empty/empty/details.htm?sessionID=1408

Proz: 2x 1095.50

http://www.internet.ch/product_info.php?products_id=770146&ad=Toppreise&language=en

RAM: 109.-

http://www.tradeplus.ch/index.php?artikel=84995&refer=toppreise

Case + Power Supply: 149.90.-

http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=arc-eco-t4

Graphics:

149.90.-
nVidia Geforce 8800

Harddisk 320gb:

69.90.-

http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=sam-hd322hj

DVD Burner:

44.90.-
http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=lit-20a4h

Expansion to dual gigabit Ethernet (1x onboard)

1x 39.90
http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=int-8391gt


3319.55.- Vs. Mac Pro 4928.99 - difference: 1600 CHF

You're right, it's not half as much (although I have to say that I'd probably find most components cheaper if I looked more carefully) - but the price difference is 1600 CHF - which buys me an additional Macbook.

Also, if you start adding additional components like more RAM, bigger harddrives etc., the differences become even bigger as Apple charges way too much for their stuff. They're also selling models with obsolete hardware (like the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB they put in the standard config and the 2.8ghz Xeon Processor which doesn't seem to be available anymore).

Would I still prefer a Mac Pro to this? Heck yeah. But as I said, I can't afford one.

peter

[kis]

You cannot build a Mac Pro cheaper than they sell it.

You fail.

look at my post above.

[Ironduke]

I hope this helps change apples strategy.

We all want the latest and greatest, and that is why apple should always have its latest OSX only on the mac's but I cant see why apple dont allow Tiger to be licensed by the likes of Sony for the PS3, all apple has to do is make them pay through the r sole and its all good.

I would pay double to have a clean working version of Tiger on my PS3, if it had certain optimisations for the ps3 gfx

[gifford]

Look at the craftsmanship ...
http://www.stegcomputer.ch/prodspics/arctic/arc-eco-t4.jpg
pure elegance.

[gnasher729]

Heck Psystar can just start installing these little gizmos into their Open Computer and their in business.

Apple has written a complaint of about 30 pages against Psystar. From a legal point of view, I think we can ignore Psystar's counterclaims, which were written either for purposes of entertaining the public, as a practical joke, or for purposes of harassment. Most of Apple's complaint are about copyright infringement, which have already happened, and stopping to commit copyright infringement will not help them. So Psystar is toast.

[kis]

Look at the craftsmanship ...
http://www.stegcomputer.ch/prodspics/arctic/arc-eco-t4.jpg
pure elegance.

Well, sure enough now the "better looks are worth 1400$ to me" people are bound to show up.

[kis]

Apple has written a complaint of about 30 pages against Psystar. From a legal point of view, I think we can ignore Psystar's counterclaims, which were written either for purposes of entertaining the public, as a practical joke, or for purposes of harassment. Most of Apple's complaint are about copyright infringement, which have already happened, and stopping to commit copyright infringement will not help them. So Psystar is toast.

yes, they're toast because they sold computers with modified versions of mac OS installed - and that's illegal. efix don't sell any kind of modified software

[Peace]

Mainboard 565.05.-

http://www.techmania.ch/empty/empty/499311/empty/empty/details.htm?sessionID=1408

That motherboard isn't even on the list of compatible boards and it doesn't have a 1600Mhz FSB like the Mac Pro. And you forgot the price of $650

Proz: 2x 1095.50

You didn't read my post. These processors only support a 1333Mhz FSB unlike the 1600 Mhz in the Mac Pro.

My link had a better price too.:rolleyes:

http://www.internet.ch/product_info.php?products_id=770146&ad=Toppreise&language=en

RAM: 109.-

http://www.tradeplus.ch/index.php?artikel=84995&refer=toppreise[/url}

That memory won't even fit on your motherboard...
2 GB Ram Set für iMac Intel, MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac mini Intel, SO-DIMM DDR2 PC667 (200 Pin)
Das Set besteht aus 2 x 1GB Modulen

The Mac Pro uses FB-DIMM PC2-6400
Much more expensive

http://cgi.ebay.com/2GB-DDR2-PC2-6400-Memory-Apple-Mac-Pro-Quad-8-Core_W0QQitemZ270230672281QQihZ017QQcategoryZ44936QQcmdZViewItem?refid=store
$165 for 2 GB


Case + Power Supply: 149.90.-

[url]http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=arc-eco-t4

Graphics:

149.90.-
nVidia Geforce 8800

You won't find one that has a BIOS for OSX at that price. Maybe $225

Harddisk 320gb:

69.90.-

http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=sam-hd322hj

DVD Burner:

44.90.-
http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=lit-20a4h

Expansion to dual gigabit Ethernet (1x onboard)

1x 39.90
http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=int-8391gt


3319.55.- Vs. Mac Pro 4928.99 - difference: 1600 CHF

You're right, it's not half as much (although I have to say that I'd probably find most components cheaper if I looked more carefully) - but the price difference is 1600 CHF - which buys me an additional Macbook.

Would prefer a Mac Pro to this? Heck yeah. But as I said, I can't afford one.

peter

Your motherboard---$650.00 + S+H and slower FSB
Your CPU's ( not as good as the Mac Pro CPU's. Slower FSB---$1950
The correct memory--$165 +S+H

Just those parts add up to the base price of a Mac Pro.


You really should study more.

[macidiot]

That line of argument did not work for Napster.

If Apple releases a $1000 headless desktop, the need for all this struggle would fade away, but Apple seems to believe that the potential market is too small to make a new product line worthwhile.

Yes, but the circumstances are completely different. Apple is not the RIAA. While Apple is quick to protect its IP, I haven't heard of them resorting to draconian and/or illegal practices to falsely prosecute people. Or suing dead people for infringement. And even so, I believe there were issues with Napster directly facilitating illegal filesharing, leaving them liable. A better example would be bittorrent software. While some of the torrent aggregators have been found liable, the software developers have not.

And again, suing for osx license violations, while possibly valid, seems a waste of time if Apple can sue for efi code theft. The osx violation argument is a red herring.

Additionally, as someone else pointed out, this is hardly a dire threat to Apple. The vast majority of customers have little or no interest in this. For example, how many people actually take the trouble to setup or use bootcamp or virtualization solutions on the Mac? Apple tends to generally put up token resistance or ignore such hacking attempts. Examples would be hackintosh efforts or jailbreaking iPhones.

If Apple cared so much about osx installations, they'd have started using registration codes long ago.

[Tensakun]

Just one thing - I'm really excited about this. Looks great. I'll see how it goes, but if everything goes well, I might sell my Macbook, buy a powerful 17" laptop PC for $1500, and install OS X through this.

Right on. But note on their site that now they just have units for desktops, with notebook units to come sometime in the future.

I sometimes give seminars at the main Panasonic training center outside Osaka. Would love to walk in with a Let's Note (US: Toughbook), watch their smirks as they mutter "that nut finally gave up Mac!", hook up to the projector, and watch their eyes pop out as OS X fills the screen.

[gifford]

Well, sure now the "better looks are worth 1400$ to me" people are bound to show up.

haha. Well, the point is, if we all started buying cheapo boxes, there would be no iPhones, no elegant designs, no further development of osx, no Apple.

Apples business model allows me to use cutting edge integrated hardware and software that I find a pleasure to use. Take the current model away, the innovation will die, and Apple will be forced to shift tactics, adopting a model similar to MSFT, which we all know works so well...

[kis]

Your motherboard---$650.00 + S+H and slower FSB
Your CPU's ( not as good as the Mac Pro CPU's. Slower FSB---$1950
The correct memory--$165 +S+H

Just those parts add up to the base price of a Mac Pro.




Hard to tell - the X5472 isn't available in retail in Switzerland. And I maintain that building it yourself is still a lot cheaper.

[kis]

haha. Well, the point is, if we all started buying cheapo boxes, there would be no iPhones, no elegant designs, no further development of osx, no Apple.

Read my post. I'm not in favor of buying cheapo boxes if I can afford the one Apple makes.

Apart from that - the iPhone 3G is definitely cheapo compared to the 1st version.


Anyway, the fanboys here have their opinion, I have my own.

[Peace]

Read my post. I'm not in favor of buying cheapo boxes if I can afford the one Apple makes.

Apart from that - the iPhone 3G is definitely cheapo compared to the 1st version.


Anyway, the fanboys here have their opinion, I have my own.

My post wasn't an opinion. It was a fact. If you can't see that you are in for trouble when you build your own "Mac Pro".

[kis]

Just those parts add up to the base price of a Mac Pro.


You really should study more.

I didn't use the base model in my comparison - I changed the graphics card to something useful and used the 3ghz processor instead of the base model's 2.8ghz.

Anyway, I don't see a point in discussing this any further - I believe I've made my point. I'm glad that there seem to be plenty of people who are able to afford Mac Pros, so I guess Apple is right in ignoring the mid-range market.

peter

[kis]

My post wasn't an opinion. It was a fact. If you can't see that you are in for trouble when you build your own "Mac Pro".

a "there would be" sentence hardly states a "fact" per definition.

[richard.mac]

Mainboard 565.05.-

http://www.techmania.ch/empty/empty/499311/empty/empty/details.htm?sessionID=1408

Proz: 2x 1095.50

http://www.internet.ch/product_info.php?products_id=770146&ad=Toppreise&language=en

RAM: 109.-

http://www.tradeplus.ch/index.php?artikel=84995&refer=toppreise

Case + Power Supply: 149.90.-

http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=arc-eco-t4

Graphics:

149.90.-
nVidia Geforce 8800

Harddisk 320gb:

69.90.-

http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=sam-hd322hj

DVD Burner:

44.90.-
http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=lit-20a4h

Expansion to dual gigabit Ethernet (1x onboard)

1x 39.90
http://www.stegcomputer.ch/details.asp?prodid=int-8391gt


3319.55.- Vs. Mac Pro 4928.99 - difference: 1600 CHF

You're right, it's not half as much (although I have to say that I'd probably find most components cheaper if I looked more carefully) - but the price difference is 1600 CHF - which buys me an additional Macbook.

Also, if you start adding additional components like more RAM, bigger harddrives etc., the differences become even bigger as Apple charges way too much for their stuff. They're also selling models with obsolete hardware (like the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB they put in the standard config and the 2.8ghz Xeon Processor which doesn't seem to be available anymore).

Would I still prefer a Mac Pro to this? Heck yeah. But as I said, I can't afford one.

peter

that RAM is not the same as the Mac Pro's. firstly its SO-DIMM and secondly its unbuffered. the Mac Pro uses fully buffered RAM which costs a lot more + it needs heatsinks, youre mainboard doesnt even support FB-DIMM RAM, that case only has a 550W PSU whilst the Mac Pro has a 1KW PSU, and you missed the heatsinks for the dual Xeons which would add another US$60. plus you missed firewire, bluetooth, iLife, Leopard, keyboard & mouse… it all adds up! you fail.

my Mac Pro build with home built parts is a complete list and uses parts from Newegg which is very cheap… but still it its more expensive than buying from Apple (important: at the stock config).

[gifford]

Read my post. I'm not in favor of buying cheapo boxes if I can afford the one Apple makes.

Thats exactly it, if you cant afford one, dont buy one.
What you are saying is "Apples business model does not cater for my needs, therefore I advocate a change in business model that will cannibalize sales, tarnish its reputation and jeopardize it's long term survival"


Anyway, the fanboys here have their opinion, I have my own.

Intelligent conversation lowered to the ole 'fanboy' stab again I see, how eighth grade.

[nanofrog]

Right on. But note on their site that now they just have units for desktops, with notebook units to come sometime in the future.

I sometimes give seminars at the main Panasonic training center outside Osaka. Would love to walk in with a Let's Note (US: Toughbook), watch their smirks as they mutter "that nut finally gave up Mac!", hook up to the projector, and watch their eyes pop out as OS X fills the screen.
LOL I'd love to see that! :D

[kis]

Thats exactly it, if you cant afford one, dont buy one.
What you are saying is "Apples business model does not cater for my needs, therefore I advocate a change in business model that will cannibalize sales and jeopardize it's long term survival"


You're putting words in my mouth. Apple doesn't offer a normally upgradable mid-range desktop computer. Agreed? So if people build such a machine themselves using the dongle and then buy a valid Leopard license to install on that machine - how exactly are they cannibalizing sales and jeopardize anyone's long term survival? They're building machines that aren't sold as such by Apple. They're simply building machines that Apple isn't willing to build and sell.

What you're implying is that competition cannibalizes sales - that way you're implying that the laws of a free market should be changed to accommodate the need of a single company. Which then implies that you're in favor of creating new monopolies. Now I'm putting words in your mouth.

peter

[Ploki]

kis: where's 96khz/24bit audio interface? add that too. (probably 100$ extra, the quality of converters is discussable)
add an optical audio I/O.
and a decent Firewire interface that will run (semi)professional audio interfaces. (Texas Instruments based interfaces do that.)
also, my 8800GT shows 512 vram. and the gizmodos review states that it recognises only 256 out of 512 in their's 8800GT.
also, with 8 RAM Modules and two CPU's, be prepare to invest in a proper cooling solution. the average midtower does not have that. add some extra money

Alsoo, competition for Apple computers is not "Hacked apple's" rather then microsoft windows based computers. stealing someones software is not competition. making another software is.

btw, im not a fanboy, ive deleted every "iApp" (except iTunes, because im too lazy to bother with Mp3 proggie) on my mac.
im a mac user for i dont know, 4months.
and the integration of hardware/software is what makes apple computers solid.
its the concept that makes it what it is.
take Protools system for example, they work on the same principle. (you need HW to run SW)
if apple were to approve and license a certain hardware manufacturer (like Digidesign Apogee?) that would be a different story.

[Schizoid]

I have a PC, can I install this chip and boot into Mac OS X, then run Parallels and run Windows too?

I like the idea of having cheap hardware that boots into Windows and also boots into Mac OS X, and running a virtual Windows environment.

All I need now is some kind of virtual Mac OS X, so I can boot into OS X, run Windows then run a virtual Mac OS X inside my virtual Windows...

I also like Matryoshka dolls!

[DanielJvdBerg]

I find this completely stupid.
First because it is only limited to a very few hardware specifications, mine for say isn't compatible.

I often get to talk to people in my class, who try to hack OS X on a PC. I'm doing an ICT (IT) study, and people find it oh so interesting to put a skin over Windows that makes it look like OS X. Leopard background, but a Tiger dock. Fools... And when someone finally has OS X running on a PC they go bragging wow I did it, and within 10 days they somehow break it because it just doesn't work so seamless.

And then they ask me for a solution how to fix it?

Simple, buy a mac, stupid;):apple:

[mrpeteyguy]

Dear "Peace" and others who contend that one cannot build a Mac Pro equivalent for less money,

You forget the ease with which one can overclock components to achieve far higher performance than they are rated for. This is all but impossible to do well on a Mac, whereas it would be a piece of cake on a Hackintosh.

The 45nm Harpertown chips used in the Mac Pro are especially conducive to overclocking. To wit (all prices from everyone's favorite Egg):

Skulltrail 2 CPU MoBo: $630
Two 2.5 GHz E5420 Harpertown Quad Cores (same cache as that in the $2799 Mac Pro): $350 each, $700 total
Two Super Talent 1GB FB-DIMMS, DDR2 800, $48 each, $96 total.

If my math is correct, these core components come out to be right around $1,426. That leaves us $1,400 to play with for storage, optical drives, case and power supply, and a video card that isn't as anemic as the 2600 XT that the base Mac Pro comes with. I think one could probably come in at right about $2,000 total, for a savings of about $800.

As for the overclock, going from 2.5 to 2.8 is a very modest bump, and could easily be accomplished by bumping the FSB up a few MHz (both the MoBo and the RAM are capable of such speeds). Tom's Hardware found the Skulltrail board to be fairly decent at overclocking. I would venture to say that with luck, one could crank the Xeons up to a full 1600 MHz FSB, yielding a speed of 3.0 GHz (an option that, when specified on the Mac Pro, raises the total price to $3,600). For those who would like to argue that this would require an exotic cooling solution, I would point out that the higher spec'd chips come with the same heatsink as the lower ones do, and so they should be more than capable of dealing with the excess heat.

Whether or not this is what the Mac experience is supposed to be like is irrelevant; the point is, one can indeed build a system that performs equivalently for less money, and it would not be terribly difficult. Once the settings are made and tested, such a system will be as fast as (and possibly faster than) a Mac Pro for far less money.

[JesterJJZ]

I wonder why they only support internal USB. They all go through the asme controller, so it shouldn't make a difference if it was an external USB stick.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw an image for standard USB sticks soon. I'd do it that way - I was thinking about getting a netbook, and installing OSX without the hassle would be fantastic.

The return of the dreaded dongle! :D

[gifford]

You're putting words in my mouth. Apple doesn't offer a normally upgradable mid-range desktop computer. Agreed?

agreed.

So if people build such a machine themselves using the dongle and then buy a valid Leopard license to install on that machine - how exactly are they cannibalizing sales and jeopardize anyone's long term survival?

You are failing to see the bigger picture, and the long term implications of what you are suggesting.
If apple were to do as you suggest (above), the model would be no different than MSFT. Agreed?
And MSFT's model is currently different to Apples. Agreed?


They're building machines that aren't sold as such by Apple. They're simply building machines that Apple isn't willing to build and sell.

We have been here before, in the 90's this was attempted and failed miserably. Apple is not willing to build and sell these machines, not for a fun, but because they will eat into sales of higher margin products. Reducing profits, reducing r & d etc

What you're implying is that competition cannibalizes sales - that way you're implying that the laws of a free market should be changed to accommodate the need of a single company. Which then implies that you're in favor of creating new monopolies. Now I'm putting words in your mouth.

I'm well up for a free market. I'm all for other companies (or maybe yourself) developing competition for Apple by designing their own OSX equivalent and integrated hardware.
The recent success of Apple has done wonders for the industry and competition in general, RIMM, GOOG and others pushing forward with devices/OS such as blackberry and Android. Even the sleeping dinosaur MSFT has had to wake up, take notice, and (attempt to) improve their products.

And how did Apple survive and flourish under MSFT's monopoly? Because they had a business model that differentiated itself, that ensured tight integration of technologies, that encouraged innovation and increased brand awareness. It's ALL about the model man :) No seriously, and there is room for more models in the future, Android being a perfect example of what will become an advertisement driven OS affordable by the masses.

If all companies were forced to allow others to use their IP, what would be the incentive to innovate?

There is no mcdonalds in my town, and certain portions of society may like one built. But that does not give me the right to start a restaurant under the mcdonalds brand name without prior permission just because I have noticed a niche.

[calisurfboy]

I'd buy this to boot up into mac os x and then run parallels software to get into windows vista. Why? Simply because I can! Then I would load up a windows skin to make it look like apple os x. Oh man ..... that would make for a crazy Friday night!

In all seriousness though, it does address the need for a midrange / lower end desktop computer. The Mac Pro is way overkill for most individuals and the mac mini is just really really sad. It is half assed just like the apple tv (* I say kill apple tv, overhaul the mac mini and make it a media center like what pc's do) The imacs are nice but I do not have a need for a monitor and I know a lot of individuals that want the monitor seperate from the desktop itself.

There were many individuals that jumped at the pystar. It shows there is a market there if only apple would take it seriously.......

The belief of volume over profit. Lower price point, attract more buyers, increase market share, then also cash in on accessories to the apple brand.

[Peace]

Dear "Peace" and others who contend that one cannot build a Mac Pro equivalent for less money,

You forget the ease with which one can overclock components to achieve far higher performance than they are rated for. This is all but impossible to do well on a Mac, whereas it would be a piece of cake on a Hackintosh.

The 45nm Harpertown chips used in the Mac Pro are especially conducive to overclocking. To wit (all prices from everyone's favorite Egg):

Skulltrail 2 CPU MoBo: $630
Two 2.5 GHz E5420 Harpertown Quad Cores (same cache as that in the $2799 Mac Pro): $350 each, $700 total

Those CPU's only support a 1333 Mhz FSB and they are not 2.8Ghz

Two Super Talent 1GB FB-DIMMS, DDR2 800, $48 each, $96 total.

That memory will burn out if you over-clock. There's very little heat dissipation ability.

If my math is correct, these core components come out to be right around $1,426. That leaves us $1,400 to play with for storage, optical drives, case and power supply, and a video card that isn't as anemic as the 2600 XT that the base Mac Pro comes with. I think one could probably come in at right about $2,000 total, for a savings of about $800.

As for the overclock, going from 2.5 to 2.8 is a very modest bump, and could easily be accomplished by bumping the FSB up a few MHz (both the MoBo and the RAM are capable of such speeds). Tom's Hardware found the Skulltrail board to be fairly decent at overclocking. I would venture to say that with luck, one could crank the Xeons up to a full 1600 MHz FSB, yielding a speed of 3.0 GHz (an option that, when specified on the Mac Pro, raises the total price to $3,600). For those who would like to argue that this would require an exotic cooling solution, I would point out that the higher spec'd chips come with the same heatsink as the lower ones do, and so they should be more than capable of dealing with the excess heat.

Whether or not this is what the Mac experience is supposed to be like is irrelevant; the point is, one can indeed build a system that performs equivalently for less money, and it would not be terribly difficult. Once the settings are made and tested, such a system will be as fast as (and possibly faster than) a Mac Pro for far less money.


Go for it and when it burns out who are you going to call ?

[richard.mac]

Dear "Peace" and others who contend that one cannot build a Mac Pro equivalent for less money,

You forget the ease with which one can overclock components to achieve far higher performance than they are rated for. This is all but impossible to do well on a Mac, whereas it would be a piece of cake on a Hackintosh.

The 45nm Harpertown chips used in the Mac Pro are especially conducive to overclocking. To wit (all prices from everyone's favorite Egg):

Skulltrail 2 CPU MoBo: $630
Two 2.5 GHz E5420 Harpertown Quad Cores (same cache as that in the $2799 Mac Pro): $350 each, $700 total
Two Super Talent 1GB FB-DIMMS, DDR2 800, $48 each, $96 total.

If my math is correct, these core components come out to be right around $1,426. That leaves us $1,400 to play with for storage, optical drives, case and power supply, and a video card that isn't as anemic as the 2600 XT that the base Mac Pro comes with. I think one could probably come in at right about $2,000 total, for a savings of about $800.

As for the overclock, going from 2.5 to 2.8 is a very modest bump, and could easily be accomplished by bumping the FSB up a few MHz (both the MoBo and the RAM are capable of such speeds). Tom's Hardware found the Skulltrail board to be fairly decent at overclocking. I would venture to say that with luck, one could crank the Xeons up to a full 1600 MHz FSB, yielding a speed of 3.0 GHz (an option that, when specified on the Mac Pro, raises the total price to $3,600). For those who would like to argue that this would require an exotic cooling solution, I would point out that the higher spec'd chips come with the same heatsink as the lower ones do, and so they should be more than capable of dealing with the excess heat.

Whether or not this is what the Mac experience is supposed to be like is irrelevant; the point is, one can indeed build a system that performs equivalently for less money, and it would not be terribly difficult. Once the settings are made and tested, such a system will be as fast as (and possibly faster than) a Mac Pro for far less money.

2.5 GHz Hackintosh (see attachment)

2.8 GHz Mac Pro (http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/configure/MA970LL/A?mco=NzQ3Njkz) (add 8800GT)
$2,949

OK so its $400 cheaper and all but professional users arent going to be overclocking 2 processors up 300 MHz just to save money creating more heat and unstability. 2x 2.8 GHz Xeons at the Mac Pros price is a great deal. plus the extra money for an aluminium and well designed case, better cooling and stability that comes with a Mac is defiantely worth the extra money.

so whos going to buy a Hackintosh with the same specs as a Mac Pro? no-one! but what people are going to buy is a Hackintosh with a single Core 2 CPU, desktop grade board, RAM and good video card for consumer gaming and video editing. thats my point!

[andyr2120]

I actually built a "real" mac pro from used mac pro parts off of ebay, and the total cost was around $1500 for an 8-core 2.0 ghz machine, 2gb ram, equivalent superdrive, etc. The only "feature" it is missing is the apple heatsinks (I have my own installed), but otherwise, someone on the outside would not be able to tell the difference.



Hmm, I think I'll keep an eye out for used Mac Pros on Ebay that are being sold as "parts only". If I stay on top of it and know what I am doing (probably won't and probably do), then I might be able to pull this off....

this will last until I replace my current machine, anyway.

Andy

[xix]

How could it not save money? You have no idea do you?

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.

Really? You could get a dual socket Xeon motherboard and a few gigs of FB-DIMM memory? Unless you are buying each by the ten thousand from a distributor in China, I think it's safe to say you CANNOT do that.

You probably think a Core2Quad chip and some DDR2 RAM is "about the same" as a Mac Pro. Well, let me tell you, as a Mac Pro owner, your hacked together solution comes nowhere near the performance level of an ACTUAL Mac Pro.

Now I guess we see who has "no idea"... ;)


Edit: it appears that people are doing it for cheaper by buying used parts and overclocking them. As for used parts, ...well, need I say more? And overclocking reduces the stability and reliability of your computer. Enjoy your piecemealed computer.

[Don.Key]

Interesting.

I would surely get 2 of those, once they support HP or DELL SFF desktops.
All I need is a dual core C2D CPU with a GFX card capable of supporting the 30 inch displays.

Those little machines are really good today, silent and stable.

[kis]

agreed.

You are failing to see the bigger picture, and the long term implications of what you are suggesting.
If apple were to do as you suggest (above), the model would be no different than MSFT. Agreed?
And MSFT's model is currently different to Apples. Agreed?



I think we aren't talking about the same thing here. I'm not postulating that Apple should build cheapo computers. Neither am I implying that Apple should license OS X to 3rd party hardware manufacturers (which, btw., was Apple's problem in the 90s, not that they didn't make mid-range computers). All I'm asking of Apple is to build a desktop computer that's equally or slightly more powerful than the iMac, that's upgradable like the Mac Pro and that's competitively priced, also like the iMac. In short: I fail to understand why Apple is continuing to ignore the mid-range market.

Businesses yearn for such a computer - why doesn't Apple deliver it?

peter

[kis]

Go for it and when it burns out who are you going to call ?

Don't worry, I wouldn't whine about it. If I built it myself, I definitely wouldn't complain. Although I do see other people doing that.

[kis]

but what people are going to buy is a Hackintosh with a single Core 2 CPU, desktop grade board, RAM and good video card for consumer gaming and video editing. thats my point!

Well, if you read my first posts in this discussion you'll see that that was my thought as well - I (and some other people) got carried away a bit here.

And my point is: if people are going to build their own mid-range machines, why doesn't Apple offer a computer that fills the gap and makes building such "hackintoshes" unnecessary?

[nanofrog]

Edit: it appears that people are doing it for cheaper by buying used parts and overclocking them. As for used parts, ...well, need I say more? And overclocking reduces the stability and reliability of your computer. Enjoy your piecemealed computer.
Older parts (available longer, but still new), can be used with overclocking. Even now, when I compare part by part, the Mac Pro is still cheaper than building one.

For workstation/servers, overclocking is dangerous, as it can kill reliability. May not be much of a problem for a home user, but unacceptable to a business that must have the computers up 24/7.

[Hattig]

No. You are not. You are buying a license to use OS X under the terms of the license agreement.


Which would apply if you are a business customer.

EULAs are pretty much unenforceable for standard consumers, and often have unfair clauses that *if* it ended up in court, would be struck out. The only things that would apply would be things like the number of machines you could install it on, etc. Apple wouldn't want their EULA tested, so if you're a standard consumer you can install the software on other machines without an issue. This USB EFI dongle isn't turning the hardware into a Mac, it's just creating hardware that happens to be compatible with Mac OS X. I don't think Apple can do much about it.

What Apple can do however is not provide support for non-Apple hardware configurations, and refuse to take back the product if opened because it didn't install on the non-Apple hardware.

[nplima]

so whos going to buy a Hackintosh with the same specs as a Mac Pro? no-one! but what people are going to buy is a Hackintosh with a single Core 2 CPU, desktop grade board, RAM and good video card for consumer gaming and video editing. thats my point!

QFT

This of course leads us to another issue. In what is this medium tower PC better than one dual booting Windows and your favourite flavour of Linux?

iTunes?
Safari?

[polaris20]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

Please show me the quad core processor equipped tower for less than a grand in Apple's line-up, please.

If you can't, I'll show you my Intel motherboard equipped tower with 1.5TB of drive space that costs less than an iMac, that I built myself.

I'm not saying I dislike Apple's hardware, just that there's a gaping whole in their desktop line. They need a real headless iMac with expandability, not the Mac Mini.

[MrCrowbar]

Older parts (available longer, but still new), can be used with overclocking. Even now, when I compare part by part, the Mac Pro is still cheaper than building one.

For workstation/servers, overclocking is dangerous, as it can kill reliability. May not be much of a problem for a home user, but unacceptable to a business that must have the computers up 24/7.

OVerclocking also calls for glitches because the components are not designed for that speed. After a certain threshold calculations get wrong results, overclocked GPUs do some pixels wrong, physics in games become weird etc. In normal office use, you probably wouldn't notice until some files would be corrupt and the system crashes because addresses were wrongly computed from time to time.

Then again, it's all about the threshold. CPU makers like to produce fewer chip models than they market. So a 3 GHz chip would be sold as 2.6 GHz version, 2.8 GHz and 3.0 GHz with some technology to keep them from reaching maximum speed. If you're lucky, your 2.6 GHz chip can be unlocked with certain tools and safely be overclocked to 3.0 GHz. If you're not lucky, your chip was chosen to be a 2.6 GHz one because testing in the factory determined that it wasn't perfect enough to work at full speed.

Just don't overclock laptops. They can't handle the extra need and it's very hard to swap out a fried CPU when it's soldered onto the board.

[Marx55]

You have no idea.

Sure... the same "no idea" (sic) that Microsoft had when fighting the Mac with Windows --sorry-- with DOS back in 1984. Guess who won!!!

If you sell to 1 person there is no point, but if you sell to 1,000 million people as today, there is the profit and the strategy. That is the M$ business! It seems that both Apple and you are blind on this. Again, the same mistake. History repeats.

[polaris20]

Dear "Peace" and others who contend that one cannot build a Mac Pro equivalent for less money,

You forget the ease with which one can overclock components to achieve far higher performance than they are rated for. This is all but impossible to do well on a Mac, whereas it would be a piece of cake on a Hackintosh.

The 45nm Harpertown chips used in the Mac Pro are especially conducive to overclocking. To wit (all prices from everyone's favorite Egg):

Skulltrail 2 CPU MoBo: $630
Two 2.5 GHz E5420 Harpertown Quad Cores (same cache as that in the $2799 Mac Pro): $350 each, $700 total
Two Super Talent 1GB FB-DIMMS, DDR2 800, $48 each, $96 total.

If my math is correct, these core components come out to be right around $1,426. That leaves us $1,400 to play with for storage, optical drives, case and power supply, and a video card that isn't as anemic as the 2600 XT that the base Mac Pro comes with. I think one could probably come in at right about $2,000 total, for a savings of about $800.

As for the overclock, going from 2.5 to 2.8 is a very modest bump, and could easily be accomplished by bumping the FSB up a few MHz (both the MoBo and the RAM are capable of such speeds). Tom's Hardware found the Skulltrail board to be fairly decent at overclocking. I would venture to say that with luck, one could crank the Xeons up to a full 1600 MHz FSB, yielding a speed of 3.0 GHz (an option that, when specified on the Mac Pro, raises the total price to $3,600). For those who would like to argue that this would require an exotic cooling solution, I would point out that the higher spec'd chips come with the same heatsink as the lower ones do, and so they should be more than capable of dealing with the excess heat.

Whether or not this is what the Mac experience is supposed to be like is irrelevant; the point is, one can indeed build a system that performs equivalently for less money, and it would not be terribly difficult. Once the settings are made and tested, such a system will be as fast as (and possibly faster than) a Mac Pro for far less money.

If I'm going to go the route of twin Xeons and all that, I would just buy a Mac Pro. That's not really what this device is targeted at. It's for the guy (or girl) that wants a expandable computer with say a 3.0Ghz Core 2 Duo. It just doesn't exist in Apple's line, therefore this product makes sense.

[nathanh]

This is the cheap solution for the missing expandable desktop solution, not a replacement for the Mac Pro for under $800 as claimed.

You are correct. The article also neglects to include the cost of Leopard and the EFI-X dongle. The "home grown Mac Pro" is already well past $1000 for dual core Core 2 instead of eight core Xeon. You couldn't buy two quad Xeons for $1000, let alone a complete "Mac Pro equivalent".

Not comparing apples to Apples.

[owdin]

I think if it bothers Apple, they wouldn't be able to sue them, but probably make some changes in the software.

[dernhelm]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

Think of it as an upgrade - without changing your hardware...

[NT1440]

Sure... the same "no idea" (sic) that Microsoft had when fighting the Mac with Windows --sorry-- with DOS back in 1984. Guess who won!!!

If you sell to 1 person there is no point, but if you sell to 1,000 million people as today, there is the profit and the strategy. That is the M$ business! It seems that both Apple and you are blind on this. Again, the same mistake. History repeats.
Are you assuming that Apple is out to be number 1?

I'm sure like any company they want a higher market share, but not every company is out to be the biggest.

[MacinDoc]

I am still amazed by how few people grasp the true significance of these sort of developments. If Apple is losing money by selling OS X at a relatively low price to those who are not selling Apple hardware (where most of Apple's profit is, then Apple will solve this problem by increasing the price of OS X updates and add copy protection and mandatory registration. After all, the current low price of OS X reflects the fact that buyers have already invested in Apple hardware, and the cost of the software is built into that initial hardware investment. So, OS X will be the next Windows - expensive, and a pain to install.

Is that what we all really want?

[Hattig]

If you need a Mac Pro, then the Mac Pro hardware is actually worth getting.

Most people don't need a Mac Pro, but because Apple provide them with such a smorgasbord of options ... well, Mac Mini and Mac Pro.

Now if Apple did introduce a mid-line desktop solution without a built-in display, then they would inevitably sell fewer Mac Pros. In my opinion the extra volume of sales would more than make up for it. I really don't understand why there isn't a product available here, it's a gaping wide hole.

You can build a decent system for a few hundred dollars/quid/euros. With this dongle, or any other EFI system, and a copy of Mac OS X, you can have your own mid-line Mac. It's not an ideal setup, but it's better than a Mac Mini, and good enough for the uses you may have in mind for it.

[Hattig]

OSX is derived from open source materials. It's a very refined and polished linux distribution.


Mac OS X is not based on Linux, in any form.

It is based upon Mach and BSD, and the latter is a proper Unix. Leopard is Unix certified.

What makes the Mac OS X experience is the proprietary frameworks on top however.

[gifford]

Sure... the same "no idea" (sic) that Microsoft had when fighting the Mac with Windows --sorry-- with DOS back in 1984. Guess who won!!!
To have won would imply there was a finish, computers are evolving, and its still very much game on. Thats if one was to consider computing a game in the first place.

MSFT's strategy 'won' in terms of numbers in the short term, during the computing era of old. I'm fairly confident the next decade is Apples for the taking, and what you are suggesting is that Apple should deviate from what is clearly a 'winning' strategy. To suggest different would back my questioning of the existence of your "idea" or not.


If you sell to 1 person there is no point, but if you sell to 1,000 million people as today, there is the profit and the strategy. That is the M$ business! It seems that both Apple and you are blind on this. Again, the same mistake. History repeats.


The profit on 1000million rubber dingy's may well be > than 1 luxury yacht
But if you can sell luxury yachts to 20% of the 1000million potential customers...

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)

This seems really cool but it is a bit of a novelty. It is a really good thing for those with a really nice gaming PC that would like to run OS X though.

[Fidgetyrat]

The part of me that loves Apple hates that people keep trying to do this. What always made Apple products work so well was that they weren't running on gobs of different hardware..

What I LOVE about this, is maybe it will start to prod apple into producing hardware that is at least in RANGE of the PC counterparts price-wise.

Mac OS X is not based on Linux, in any form.


There are actually people out there that believe UNIX is based on Linux...

[Kar98]

Maybe because they like OS X, but don't have the funds for a Mac.

Not so much not having the funds, but not wanting to deal with Apple the company. Especially not with their East German attitude lately. "This is what we offer, and that's what you'll get, citizen!"

[headfuzz]

I am going to go out on a limb here, but I am not sure that Apple officially introducing OSX for a standard PC would be such a bad thing.


+1

If Apple are going to stay out of the mid tower market they could still gain a large customer base by buying the rights to these dongles and allowing hobbyists and the like to build their own home grade (ie not a competitor to the Mac Pro - and yes it does cost more or less the same to build a Hackintosh equivalent to a Mac Pro with Quad core Xeons! :rolleyes:) machines from an Apple authorised Hardware Compatibility List. Apple could code OS X to take a regular snapshot of machine specs and if the user were to phone up with a problem, provided from the last several snapshots there were no unsupported pieces of hardware, they could get help from Apple's Tech Support line.

Having bought the rights Apple could then insist that they were only sold with a retail Leopard DVD too.

I can't ever see them doing it, but it wouldn't be such a bad idea.

[MrZebra]

Now if Apple did introduce a mid-line desktop solution without a built-in display, then they would inevitably sell fewer Mac Pros.

Exactly, like introducing a 15" macbook would cut into MBP sales.

[gifford]

Hi This is the wonderful forum,which i was often search for the new things.But i think apple product do good things.It has good updation.The people who like programming usually selects the apple products.This PC has excellent features.I love it a lot.Thanks


Errm OK

[WannaGoMac]

I love these threads, because it shows nothing ever changes here: :)

Step 1 -- People A point out how macs are expensive for whatever reason

Step 2 -- People B say they are not expensive for x , y, or z reason

Step 3 -- People A refute said reasons

Step 4 -- Insults


I agree with People A. Macs are more expensive, but I think they are worth the extra cost. I also would love a normal Mac PC and not the Mac Pro, but Apple will not do this so hackintosh ahoy...

[booksacool1]

Wow thats pretty cool. Only PC enthusiasts generally use gigabyte boards with p35/p45/x48 chipsets. Those people wouldn't buy a mac anyway, so this poses no real threat to apple in its current stage.

Still very interesting.

[wheelhot]

I am still amazed by how few people grasp the true significance of these sort of developments. If Apple is losing money by selling OS X at a relatively low price to those who are not selling Apple hardware (where most of Apple's profit is, then Apple will solve this problem by increasing the price of OS X updates and add copy protection and mandatory registration. After all, the current low price of OS X reflects the fact that buyers have already invested in Apple hardware, and the cost of the software is built into that initial hardware investment. So, OS X will be the next Windows - expensive, and a pain to install.

Yeah, I tried explaining that but people seem not to care, see my signature it even has a link to that article saying what happen last time when Apple allows OSX on generic PC

[Digitalclips]

So do Apple sue?
Or do we get the expandable desktop computer we have been begging for?

Money on door one? :(

We already do! It's called a Mac Pro. Mine is running OS X, Vista Business, XP Pro, and Unix. I can run in parallel (VMWare) or Boot directly. Plus this keeps sales of Apple hardware going and therefore the only creative company in the computer market healthy. Why would you prefer a PC with a dubiously legal Mac add on instead?

[dernhelm]

The part of me that loves Apple hates that people keep trying to do this. What always made Apple products work so well was that they weren't running on gobs of different hardware..

What I LOVE about this, is maybe it will start to prod apple into producing hardware that is at least in RANGE of the PC counterparts price-wise.


It still won't be running on gobs of different hardware. This is a hardware "dongle" for lack of a better term that makes the user's PC appear to be hardware compliant with OS/X. In a sense, you are purchasing $155 worth of hardware to make your current PC compliant with OS/X specifications, not the other way around.


There are actually people out there that believe UNIX is based on Linux...

That's the price of notoriety. Linux is a specific named OS, Unix is more a family of OS's. Most casual users wouldn't get the difference, they know there is some relationship there, and they assume the one they hear the most about is the older - more "important" one.

[teh_pwnerer]

I don't understand why every OS X on PC article gets so many negative votes.

[fishmoose]

This can't be legal right? My guess is that this company will get sued bye Apple rather soon.

[gifford]

I don't understand why every OS X on PC article gets so many negative votes.

Because it has the potential to undermine the very reason why people want OSX on their PC's in the first place.

[goosnarrggh]

If all companies were forced to allow others to use their IP...

EFI in general, is not Apple's intellectual property. I would be curious, though, to learn whether Apple has added any unique extensions to their implementation, necessary to OSX's unmodified operation, that aren't owned by Intel or the Unified EFI Forum.

I'd also be curious to learn what impact, if any, the existence of Intel or MSI's EFI-enabled generic motherboards (eg. MSI's P45D3 Platinum) is having on the necessity to modify OSX prior to installation.

[Digitalclips]

Sure... the same "no idea" (sic) that Microsoft had when fighting the Mac with Windows --sorry-- with DOS back in 1984. Guess who won!!!

If you sell to 1 person there is no point, but if you sell to 1,000 million people as today, there is the profit and the strategy. That is the M$ business! It seems that both Apple and you are blind on this. Again, the same mistake. History repeats.

History is always a little more complicated than it seems and volumes have been written on this. For instance, had DOS rather than Windows had to compete with the Mac who knows what might have happened. Granted IBM were helping DOS against Apple in mainframe environments. It was Jobs who made the catastrophic mistake of trusting Gates with a developer agreement to create Word, Multiplan etc. for the Mac and supplied a Mac and early Mac OS to MS. As I am sure you know, Gates had this reverse engineered it to develop Windows, all non disclosure agreements aside lol.

Yes, opening up Mac OS (now called Windows) to all comers made MS a **** load of money. Had Jobs been of the mind set then to license Mac OS to the likes of IBM in 1983/84 rather than stick to his guns to be a hardware developer it would have been interesting for sure. It is most likely Apple would have been the better partner since they were the true developers and they could have left MS in the dust one has to assume. MS had not developed anything much themselves at that stage, even DOS was purchased (or shall we say one version of DOS was).

Somewhere in a parallel universe .... ;)

[teh_pwnerer]

Because it has the potential to undermine the very reason why people want OSX on their PC's in the first place.

Considering Apple makes decent products, they're not in danger of going away anytime soon. The more OS X the better.

[aliasfox]

My dual 1 GHz Quicksilver is being used as my HTPC right now - fairly heavily upgraded, and on certain tasks (eg games), it can blow a Mac Mini out of the water (not to say it's fast, but it gets the job done better than a Mac Mini would).

I'd like to get something current, but a Mac Mini wouldn't cut it for three reasons:
- 2.5" HD is too slow and they max out at 500 GB right now
- Intel graphics are beyond a joke
- Two RAM slots severely limits longevity

So tell me, if I want to spend under $2k, don't need a display (my 46" TV works well enough, thank you), want to be able to play a new game every so often, and want to feel like I can store unlimited media on the machine, what, from Apple, could I buy?

I'll be looking out for an EFi-X review in the next few weeks.

[tekmoe]

This is great news for the consumer!

This just goes to show that Apple is charging way too much for a Mac Pro when one can build a PC with the same specs for less money. With the ability to use this EFiX box, this pretty much eliminates the need to own a Mac Pro at all.

Maybe this will make Apple rethink their pricepoints. Then again, maybe not.

[I WAS the one]

You know, I've been a Mac User for a long time, I mean I started with a Mac SE/30... I've never use a Windows PC in my life, never needed to.

BUT.... If I can Buy a OQO (http://www.oqo.com) and install leopard on it I will be very happy. Apple need to build certain machines for certain individuals ...

[gifford]

Considering Apple makes decent products, they're not in danger of going away anytime soon. The more OS X the better.

...would be the short sighted way of looking at things, yes. Looking past the nose, the ramifications could lead to increased OSX price, less use of open standards, hoops and general unmacishness, bla.

Many times now I have watched the freedoms enjoyed by the many eroded by the selfish actions of a few, and I would prefer the Mac not to go the same way.

[kalex]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

People already have hardware. so there is no need to buy anything extra, which can be good savings. I started my Mac conversion doing exactly the samething. I ran OSX on my Dell XPS desktop and it worked great. it wasn't as easy as this but I did get it running. Fast forward a year and now I'm happy with my Mac Pro and my macbook :)

[richard.mac]

This is great news for the consumer!

This just goes to show that Apple is charging way too much for a Mac Pro when one can build a PC with the same specs for less money. With the ability to use this EFiX box, this pretty much eliminates the need to own a Mac Pro at all.

Maybe this will make Apple rethink their pricepoints. Then again, maybe not.

please read starting from here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6251345#post6251345)

[Dagless]

I never liked osx running on non apple branded computers.

Same. If I was pressed for money then I could just convert any of my PC's (so long as they fit the spec criteria) to a Mac. But it just wouldn't have that high quality Mac feel. It'd just be a beige box with a bow in its hair.

[Col127]

haha nice... i wonder if apple will go after them too? seems like everyone wants to put mac on a PC :P

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

EFi-X (http://www.efi-x.com/) is the latest commercial product to allow PCs to boot Mac OS X. A company called Psystar made headlines (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/14/openmac-promises-399-headless-mac-but-not-from-apple/) in April when it introduced their "Open Computer" which was build from generic PC parts which also allowed users to boot Mac OS X Leopard. Psystar advertised the computer as an affordable alternative to an official Apple Mac. Psystar would install a modified version of Mac OS X on their computers to allow them to boot into Apple's operating system. Apple has since sued the company (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/15/apple-sues-psystar-over-opencomputer/) citing copyright infringement.

EFi-X takes a different approach by offering a hardware add-on that allows you to install an unmodified Mac OS X onto certain PC configurations. EFi-X is offering it as a tool for enthusiasts, and not necessarily for those looking to save money:Only specific hardware configurations (http://www.efi-x.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&language=english) are supported, but if your PC fits those specifications, the EFi-X add-on promises headache free installation and upgrades.

Gizmodo reviews the EFi-X device (http://gizmodo.com/5049756/review-efix-dongle-perfectly-transforms-pc-to-mac) and finds it lives up to its promises. The installation requires you to plug the device straight into the motherboard, and upon boot does slow down the Leopard boot process (up to 2 minutes), but once up and running the experience is described as seamless. The product sells for $170 and is now shipping (http://www.efixusa.net/).


Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/09/16/efix-allows-mac-os-x-to-boot-on-a-pc/)

[eastcoastsurfer]

I just don't understand people's obsession with running OS X on PCs, especially if it's not saving money. ...Bragging rights I suppose.

Um, a Mac is a generic PC now. The only difference between the hardware can apparently be duplicated on a USB dongle now.

[eastcoastsurfer]

But it just wouldn't have that high quality Mac feel.

You mean the high quality MBP feel that still drops keystrokes? The same problem they said didn't exist and deleted threads on, but then released a fix for (which doesn't fix it)? Gotcha!

I've been building my own computers for years and have never had any hardware issues until I bought a mac...sigh.

[thejadedmonkey]

Your first post implied you were looking for a portable.

Links to prices for barebone components that are the same as the Mac Pro but half as expensive.:rolleyes:

Here's a link for you.

http://castle.pricewatch.com/s/search.asp?s=quad+core+XEON+2.8GHZ&srt=t&mi=0&m=&view=

That's the typical price for a quad core Xeon CPU. $845. Just for one.

$1700 just for the CPU's

You can do the rest of the math I hope.

Peace, what' you're not seeing (or choosing not to see) is that I can go to newegg and build myself a capable PC for $300. This is $300 less then a mac mini. Lets say I then add another $300 for OS X and this dongle thing. That's $600, the same price as a mac mini, but the computer is faster and upgradable. Sure, it's not in a pint size case, but if it just goes under my desk, who cares? This is the market that Apple's missing out on, and what people are trying to create themselves...

[Digital Skunk]

You mean the high quality MBP feel that still drops keystrokes? The same problem they said didn't exist and deleted threads on, but then released a fix for (which doesn't fix it)? Gotcha!

I've been building my own computers for years and have never had any hardware issues until I bought a mac...sigh.

MEH! I have owned PCs for years and never had compatibility issues, hardware/driver issues, inconsistent operation once I switched to Mac.

And I never had that keystroke issue.

This sounds great but I am still waiting for the one that will allow me to run MacOS X on a Sony TZ or something without any major opening up of the machine.

It would be nice to have that OSX mini tower, but 2 minutes to boot is retarded.

[mrgreen4242]

it is illegal to install osx on any non apple branded hardware. no matter how you manage to get it to work. my prediction is this company will be sued by the end of the week.

No, it's not illegal. It's a breech of contract at worse. People need to realize that EULA are not law, nor are most of them even legally binding. These things are being thrown out in court all the time. A contract (in the US) is only legally binding when some advantage has been negotiated for both parties, nor can a contract sign away any rights you already have under the law.

Anyways, as was already mentioned, this is just an extention of the ongoing battle of corporate controlled DRM and customer usability. I'm always shocked by people on this board, who are typically otherwise rational, defending Apple's practices. If MS released a Vista service pack, fixing all of the issues with it and turning it into a working OS, but through a contract with one manufacturer, say HP, limited the installation of the SP to only HP computers, even if you bought Vista for your Dell/custom built/whatever machine you'd all freak about it. But Apple does it and it's OK.

[7on]

Imagine if the Ipod was sold with a clause that only apple branded headphones were allowed to be used with it. Would this be legal? Could apple, now that millions were sold, file suit against any and all users whom they have evidence are using non-apple headphones? I just don't think that consumer law is so black and white, especially in intellectual property instances.

HTC almost does this. A lot of their phones are sold with mini-USB headphones and only have mini-USB posrts on the phones. So yes, you can only use HTC branded headphones.

[zeon101]

Listen guys... i'm buying an EFIX. Let me tell you why!

I'm a full time college student, I don't have a job because i'm too busy. I'm doing a Digital and Graphics Design course at college, and all the students and lecturers have Macs. As they're ideal for Graphics and Video editing.

I love Macs, but with my financial situation I can't afford one. And no matter how much i'd LOVE one, I can't afford it.

Don't get me wrong... i'm all for the whole Mac experience. But with EFIX, i'll be able to use a LEGAL copy of OSX and run it on my pc, therefore contributing to Apple in some extent, rather than downloading a patched copy of OSX (stealing) and have to deal with patches etc...

Plus there's the factor of upgrading the machine. With Macs, I don't want to spend £2000 on an iMac and not be able to upgrade its video card/CPU etc..

With EFIX, I can afford to run OSX on my main pc, contribute to Apple by buying their OS, and upgrade my pc when I need to.

I know you guys with Macs feel cheated? or angry at the fact people can run OSX on something other than a Mac, after buying one yourself. But some of us just cant afford to spend alot of Money on a computer that isn't future proof :(

[BaldiMac]

Yes, but efi-x isn't selling or installing osx. afaik they are selling a hardware dongle which makes osx think the pc is a mac.

Now if Apple's efi instruction set contains proprietary code and efix stole it, then there is cause for legal action. This would probably be the basis of any Apple suit.

While installing osx on a non-apple product might technically be a violation, its irrelevant in this case. You don't really sue a company for illegal actions that its customers might do. I highly doubt Apple will start going around checking each and every end user installation of osx, let alone start suing individuals. They don't even copy protect osx.

Actually, you can successfully sue a company for distributing a product that has little or no use other than facilitating copyright infringement. Think about the music sharing case.

Steal? Well, I paid for my copy of Leopard. Mainly for my notebook, but I did try it on a PC (With my notebook off and the famous Apple label). So please, apologize for your F.U.D. about stealing.

People, we, consumers, want other products, and if no one is gonna build them, we will build them, because is what we want for our needs. Companies helping us in our "mission" of getting what we need, will get the money.

But what kind of consumer are you when you buy things you don like, don't fulfill your needs and in the end, you don really like.

Paying for a copy of Leopard does not entitle you to install it in violation of the license agreement. Stealing may be the wrong word, but the concept is the same.

The fact that you want something, does not mean that you have the right to it.

[gifford]

Anyways, as was already mentioned, this is just an extention of the ongoing battle of corporate controlled DRM and customer usability. I'm always shocked by people on this board, who are typically otherwise rational, defending Apple's practices. If MS released a Vista service pack, fixing all of the issues with it and turning it into a working OS, but through a contract with one manufacturer, say HP, limited the installation of the SP to only HP computers, even if you bought Vista for your Dell/custom built/whatever machine you'd all freak about it. But Apple does it and it's OK.

Your comparing two very different beasts.
OSX would not exist as it is today had they not kept tight ship.
MSFT is a PROVEN monopoly. If Apple ever reaches 80% of installed OS's you are welcome to whack them with the same stick.
And if Apple have sense they will deliberately stay clear of majority OS, by not catering for cheapo market, and not allowing anyone else to either.

[markgamber]

Wow! I'm so there! Should be interesting to see how this in my desktop stacks up against the MBP.

[dlewis23]

How could it not save money? You have no idea do you?

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.


No you couldn't. You would spend $1400 on the processors alone http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117143

Then you gotta buy a dual processor motherboard, a decent one is $300 + a good one is over $400

[7on]

Listen guys... i'm buying an EFIX. Let me tell you why!

I'm a full time college student, I don't have a job because i'm too busy. I'm doing a Digital and Graphics Design course at college, and all the students and lecturers have Macs. As they're ideal for Graphics and Video editing.

I love Macs, but with my financial situation I can't afford one. And no matter how much i'd LOVE one, I can't afford it.

Don't get me wrong... i'm all for the whole Mac experience. But with EFIX, i'll be able to use a LEGAL copy of OSX and run it on my pc, therefore contributing to Apple in some extent, rather than downloading a patched copy of OSX (stealing) and have to deal with patches etc...

Plus there's the factor of upgrading the machine. With Macs, I don't want to spend £2000 on an iMac and not be able to upgrade its video card/CPU etc..

With EFIX, I can afford to run OSX on my main pc, contribute to Apple by buying their OS, and upgrade my pc when I need to.

I know you guys with Macs feel cheated? or angry at the fact people can run OSX on something other than a Mac, after buying one yourself. But some of us just cant afford to spend alot of Money on a computer that isn't future proof :(

Just so you know, I went through college with a 1Ghz G4 TiBook. 2003-2007 and it served me fine and was plenty fast enough to do my work. That said, the Mac Mini is 10x the speed I did my college work with. And don't tell me that over a year software has gotten faster to require 10x the hardware.

Spend £2000 on an iMac? Want to upgrade in a year? Sell the iMac for £1800 and then buy a new one that's faster for £2000. Upgrade cost? £200. And you'll most likely get faster everything and not only one piece as opposed to spending £200 for a GFX card.

And nothing is Future Proof.

[g4cubed]

I may have missed it here but what's the difference between the EFi- X™ USB V1 and the EFi- X™ USB V2 Developers Unit. Both pages are the same and can't find what the differences are on their site, even the prices are the same.

Anyone know? :confused:

[teh_pwnerer]

...would be the short sighted way of looking at things, yes. Looking past the nose, the ramifications could lead to increased OSX price, less use of open standards, hoops and general unmacishness, bla.

Many times now I have watched the freedoms enjoyed by the many eroded by the selfish actions of a few, and I would prefer the Mac not to go the same way.

Apple doesn't just sell hardware, or software, or any one particular thing. They sell a platform and consumer services. Being able to install OS X on an unsupported PC with about 90-95% functionality (if you're lucky) is not a threat to the Apple consumer base, which is growing.
In order to properly challenge Apple someone would have to come along with their own popular brand and platform that offers the same or better top to bottom products and service that customers want.
Running OS X on PCs is a cute show-off; it's not a legitimate competitor to Apple, Inc.
Putting the paranoia aside, A larger OS X install base is going to grow the Mac brand, open up their market potential and more importantly squeeze out Microsoft, who have stagnated this industry for over 20 years.

[corygreenwell]

So do Apple sue?
Or do we get the expandable desktop computer we have been begging for?

Money on door one? :(

Unless its a breach of the EULA, I cannot see the basis for a lawsuit? Apple actually seems to run a little afoul of antitrust laws themselves by tying their products together. By suing, they would be saying "if you want OSX, you have to buy a mac" and that is product tying. They got away with it in the first instance because there was an actual breach of copyright and/or patent laws for the OSX, but in this instance, unless the special configuration of the PC is in some way an infringement of Apple's technology, then there would be no basis for a suit and to bring it would only point out their antitrust issues...

Most people are not going to want to run OSx on a PC, so that this exists & Apples allows it to happen could show good faith on their part and help them get out of what could be a sticky situation.