Not necessarily lower end, really. Nothing would make me happier than a mini tower with the same specs as the mid-higher end iMacs.
Why does Apple hate PCI slots?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar Case Comes to a Close as U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not necessarily lower end, really. Nothing would make me happier than a mini tower with the same specs as the mid-higher end iMacs.
Why does Apple hate PCI slots?
Glad copyright infringement is just a hobby for you! It's a risky profession, though it can be profitable.
Nobody said it was a good clone. When you try to clone on the cheap, sometimes the clone comes out horribly disfigured.
Why you smile?
I bet they run just fine.
I have a Hackintosh I built about 4 years ago and the thing still runs like a champ. I don't use it really anymore, mainly my roommate but it hasn't given me much problems once I got the OS on there.
I have no idea what kind of parts they used though.
os x authorized clones?
I don't think Apple ever licensed OS X to clone makers. I think it was Mac OS 8 and Steve pulled them out in OS 9.
I don't think Apple ever licensed OS X to clone makers. I think it was Mac OS 8 and Steve pulled them out in OS 9.
Yeah, the 700-800 (IIRC) computers that Psystar sold really proves a lot.
It proves people want a Mac desktop but don't want the overly expensive un-upradable Mini, the giant glass iMac or the $2,500 entry level Pro.
Not necessarily lower end, really. Nothing would make me happier than a mini tower with the same specs as the mid-higher end iMacs.
Why does Apple hate PCI slots?
A mini tower or at least a Pro that didn't break the bank for prosumers or someone that just wants expandability. What we all want is the old Power Mac G4 pricing and set up. Cheap lower specced single CPUs and more expensive dual CPUs.
Well, you can still buy a PC with OS X on it in Germany: http://pearc.de.
German laws are different than US American laws. Microsoft learned that lesson back in the year 2000 with the so-called "OEM Urteil" when the German Bundesgerichtshof made it clear that several of Microsoft's EULA terms were illegal. This significantly changed Microsoft's business model in German and since then OEM and SystemBuilder versions can be sold and re-sold WITHOUT being bundled with a specific hardware.
Now Apple's EULA for OS X basically tries to force a bundle between their operating system and very specific hardware -- which essentially is the same what Microsoft tried to do with their OEM software license agreements.
PearC does not pre-install Apple's operating system software. They just provide the hardware and certain software that allows for booting and installing a RETAIL BOX VERSION of OS X. No copyright infringement there. No modification of Apple's software. And since German laws make certain EULA terms illegal that Apple nevertheless still have in their EULA, Apple's legal department has zero case against those guys.
On a technical note, I do not know how well those PearC machines work. I know from own experiments that OS X runs pretty well on certain Dell machines. I also know that Windows and Ubuntu Linux run very well on Apple hardware. And none of this is very surprising, because a Mac is basically just a standard, off-the-shelf Intel PC in a pretty designer case. So as long as the PC hardware resembles the hardware configuration of a Mac, there is no technical reason why OS X should not work on it.
German laws are different than US American laws. Microsoft learned that lesson back in the year 2000 with the so-called "OEM Urteil" when the German Bundesgerichtshof made it clear that several of Microsoft's EULA terms were illegal. This significantly changed Microsoft's business model in German and since then OEM and SystemBuilder versions can be sold and re-sold WITHOUT being bundled with a specific hardware.
Now Apple's EULA for OS X basically tries to force a bundle between their operating system and very specific hardware -- which essentially is the same what Microsoft tried to do with their OEM software license agreements.
PearC does not pre-install Apple's operating system software. They just provide the hardware and certain software that allows for booting and installing a RETAIL BOX VERSION of OS X. No copyright infringement there. No modification of Apple's software. And since German laws make certain EULA terms illegal that Apple nevertheless still have in their EULA, Apple's legal department has zero case against those guys.
On a technical note, I do not know how well those PearC machines work. I know from own experiments that OS X runs pretty well on certain Dell machines. I also know that Windows and Ubuntu Linux run very well on Apple hardware. And none of this is very surprising, because a Mac is basically just a standard, off-the-shelf Intel PC in a pretty designer case. So as long as the PC hardware resembles the hardware configuration of a Mac, there is no technical reason why OS X should not work on it.
Yup, Psystar did find workarounds mainly by Google searches. Essentially, it was using the work of the OSx86 community e.g. the EFI emulator used was created by Netkas.
IIRC, when Psystar asked to produce receipts to demonstrate that it had purchase boxed OS X copies, it claimed it had lost the receipts a bold legal move that didnt pan out.
That's the sad part....
Psystar wasn't really that widely known outside circles like these. Yet so far, not a single user has posted saying they actually purchased or used one of these machines. That makes me wonder how many they ever really built and sold, vs. just keeping the company alive for the sake of the lawsuit?
In any case? People supporting their efforts are missing the point. Although sure, it would be great to find faster/cheaper machines supporting OS X, the OS belongs entirely to Apple. With the money Psystar spent on the lawsuit and appeals, they would have been better served to hire some programmers to develop an alternative OS to sell on their machines instead.
Remember how IBM used to sell the OS/2 operating system, which had 16-bit Windows compatibility built in? That would actually be cool ... developing something similar; a unique OS that offered Mac software compatibility too.
Psystar wasn't really that widely known outside circles like these. Yet so far, not a single user has posted saying they actually purchased or used one of these machines. That makes me wonder how many they ever really built and sold, vs. just keeping the company alive for the sake of the lawsuit?
In any case? People supporting their efforts are missing the point. Although sure, it would be great to find faster/cheaper machines supporting OS X, the OS belongs entirely to Apple. With the money Psystar spent on the lawsuit and appeals, they would have been better served to hire some programmers to develop an alternative OS to sell on their machines instead.
Remember how IBM used to sell the OS/2 operating system, which had 16-bit Windows compatibility built in? That would actually be cool ... developing something similar; a unique OS that offered Mac software compatibility too.
Yep. 700-800 people. Not exactly the scale that Apple operates at.
As demonstrated in the Psystar case, modification of OS X is required to run OS X on a non-Mac. Specifically, replacement of the bootloader and specific kexts. I have no experience with German copyright law, so I can't comment on the rest of your claims.
I put OSX on a Dell 9 mini computer, and would never do that again. Way too much work whenever an update in the OS occurred, just to make sure it didn't break the computer.
Psystar's big problem was that they were putting pirated copies of OSX onto the computers they sold. At the end of the day, they were doomed.
I would have liked the court to taken up this case though. I see software as just another part of a whole. I should be able to do with it what I want. Of course, the original manufacturer doesn't have to support the installation, and can make it as difficult as they want to make the part incompatible.
Psystar's big problem was that they were putting pirated copies of OSX onto the computers they sold. At the end of the day, they were doomed.
I would have liked the court to taken up this case though. I see software as just another part of a whole. I should be able to do with it what I want. Of course, the original manufacturer doesn't have to support the installation, and can make it as difficult as they want to make the part incompatible.
re: Germany and legal differences
Yeah... that's interesting. But I think the problem we run into with your logic (at least according to U.S. laws), is that Apple (unlike Microsoft), doesn't really sell such a thing as a "full retail version" of OS X that's intended to constitute a legal license when purchased and loaded on a brand new machine that didn't first ship with another copy of OS X.
You can buy a copy of Mac OS X that's in retail packaging, and will do a full installation on a blank hard drive in a Mac. But the license agreement included with it is worded so it's still viewed as more of an "upgrade license" -- because every single Apple Mac system someone buys is bundled with a copy of some version or another of OS X.
When Microsoft tries to force bundling of hardware and software as "one unit", it's a more complex legal situation because Microsoft doesn't even make their own PCs. Any such situation is fabricated by them, thanks to agreements they force other manufacturers to sign and abide by in return for special favors on pricing of the operating system.
Yeah... that's interesting. But I think the problem we run into with your logic (at least according to U.S. laws), is that Apple (unlike Microsoft), doesn't really sell such a thing as a "full retail version" of OS X that's intended to constitute a legal license when purchased and loaded on a brand new machine that didn't first ship with another copy of OS X.
You can buy a copy of Mac OS X that's in retail packaging, and will do a full installation on a blank hard drive in a Mac. But the license agreement included with it is worded so it's still viewed as more of an "upgrade license" -- because every single Apple Mac system someone buys is bundled with a copy of some version or another of OS X.
When Microsoft tries to force bundling of hardware and software as "one unit", it's a more complex legal situation because Microsoft doesn't even make their own PCs. Any such situation is fabricated by them, thanks to agreements they force other manufacturers to sign and abide by in return for special favors on pricing of the operating system.
Still have that one from apr. 1994, a few upgrades from OWC, blown out ethernet on motherboard repaired and this is still a fine machine.
Maybe a good idea to use the chassis and get the innards from customac info
and make an ÜberMacPro
Really, Because I know no off the self Intel PC that can go up to 64GB of ram or support 4 HDD and 2 CPU... PC motherboards can only go up to 24GB (Max 32GB) of ram, only support only 2 HDDs and 1 CPU.... I am sorry but Mac are not standard of any thing..
Last edited:
That's not actually what happened. During discovery, Apple requested to get some Psystar computers to examine. Those were shipped to Apple without an OS disc - assuming (correctly) that Apple would have plenty of those around.
The problems that Psystar had were mostly these: 1. There is no legal way to install MacOS X on a computer that isn't Apple branded, and there are no legal manoeuvres to get around this, so whether Psystar paid for boxes with MacOS X or not didn't make any difference. But that didn't matter because 2. To make the installation process more efficient, Psystar created one master copy and duplicated that onto the machines they sold. That is pure copyright infringement. (If you have ten Macs, buy ten copies of MacOS X, and install one copy on each Mac, Apple won't care. But if you are in a court case with Apple, things are obviously different). And that didn't matter that much either, because 3. MacOS X has copy protection that prevents it from running on any computer that isn't made by Apple, and getting around this means you are violating the DMCA.
Total result was that Psystar was ordered to pay $30,000 in statutory damages for copyright infringement (probably because Apple couldn't be bothered to prove actual damages), but $2,500 _per computer_ for DMCA infringement.
The $30,000 in statutory damages should really be noted by everyone looking at the RIAA suing music file sharers: Psystar was ordered to pay $30,000 for making about 800 copies of software that Apple could easily sell for $299 a piece, while in one case a music file sharer was ordered to pay $80,000 for each of 24 songs that they made available to others, without payment. For a song that you can buy for $0.99.
Ummm, I bought a Jaguar with a small block chevy engine from a small company in Los Angeles that produced them.
Could also buy the adapters and stuff for a DIY project.
Same thing?
----------
Here is something else, check my public profile.
A 128er with hand soldered ram upgrade to 512, so as to drive a new laserwriter, two manual Shugart drives and an A+ optical mouse.
Could also buy the adapters and stuff for a DIY project.
Same thing?
----------
Here is something else, check my public profile.
A 128er with hand soldered ram upgrade to 512, so as to drive a new laserwriter, two manual Shugart drives and an A+ optical mouse.
This. Now, if Apple sold a full retail version of OS X, then one could justify installing that on any machine. OTOH, a full retail version of OS X would cost $300, similar to the retail price of Windows 7 Pro. This is why Lion is $29.99. It's just an upgrade. To have the right to install it, you must have a legitimate copy of a previous version of OS X (which you would only have if you purchased a Mac, since as you point out, Apple never sold OS X as a standalone full install product).
the problem I have with apples model
for sales is they simply don't offer enough choice in systems. I now own a diy pc and 4 mac minis. I would rather not have the diy pc but I built it for 1k and it is a little bit better then the base 2010 mac pro 2.5k.
I like the fact the macs can run windows 7 and lion. Too bad my diy pc can't legally do this.
Mac/apple has continued to not build a midsize tower that will do it all. Tv recording HT CD Gaming and computing. You have to own a mac pro for this> Or build a diy pc like I did.
My ht has a 46 inch tv a 1k diy pc and a 600 dollar mac mini.
I rather have a mini mac pro well one can only hope.
for sales is they simply don't offer enough choice in systems. I now own a diy pc and 4 mac minis. I would rather not have the diy pc but I built it for 1k and it is a little bit better then the base 2010 mac pro 2.5k.
I like the fact the macs can run windows 7 and lion. Too bad my diy pc can't legally do this.
Mac/apple has continued to not build a midsize tower that will do it all. Tv recording HT CD Gaming and computing. You have to own a mac pro for this> Or build a diy pc like I did.
My ht has a 46 inch tv a 1k diy pc and a 600 dollar mac mini.
I rather have a mini mac pro well one can only hope.
Last edited:
Except almost nobody did!
They told investors that they would sell 70,000 computers in 2009, 470,000 systems in 2010, and 1.45 million machines in 2011, and gave much higher "aggressive growth" numbers of 130,000 in 2009, 1.87 million in 2010, and 12 million in 2011, but evidence of only 768 computer sales could be found, and Psystar never attempted to dispute this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar
After all this time, still alive and kicking, eh?
Of course people would buy them. But Apple will not offer it. They have a Mac mini; that's really as cheap as they need to get to maintain their position as a premium computer manufacturer.
Of course people would buy them. But Apple will not offer it. They have a Mac mini; that's really as cheap as they need to get to maintain their position as a premium computer manufacturer.
Last edited:
The problem I have with Exxon's model is that they simply don't offer any tacos. Taco Tuesday is very important to me.