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.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Which indicates that the only difference between an "upgrade" and a "full version" as asserted by some here is the presence of a previous version check, not the completeness of the new software install.
"Upgrade" is therefore not a technical distinction - it's merely a difference in the way a product is sold, rewarding users who have purchased previous versions of software. This makes sense primarily when dealing with expensive professional applications or suites, like Adobe's Creative Suites.
Correct. The fact that Apple decided to skip the check, since everyone should be installing it on Apple hardware, is irrelevant.
Agreed.
Also, the vendor is free to decide what criteria - if any - are needed in order to be able to install an upgrade.
With OS X, Apple has chosen to not require any type of "proof" or "check" to ensure that you currently have a valid previous edition of OS X installed or in your possession (via a restore or retail disc). Just because they don't demand such a check does not de facto make the version of OS X bought at retail a "non-upgrade version".
Microsoft used to allow people to insert a previous OS CD into the drive to verify eligibility. Evidently enough people burned CD-Rs to circumvent this that I believe now Vista Upgrade versions require an actual installation of the OS to exist on the HDD before it will allow the upgrade installation to proceed.
In which case you have bought Apple-branded hardware, which shipped from the factory with an Apple OS and therefore fulfills the requirement.
Well, if OS X Leopard was an upgrade, the licence would require that you had a license to a previous version. Yet the license does not require that. Thus, it is not an upgrade, and you are free to install it, even though you don't own a previous version.
I did get update and upgrade mixed up, but Leopard is still not an upgrade.
Then again, it really doen't matter, because nobody disputes that installing OS X on non-Apple hardware is in breach of the EULA.
Whether the law itself is unfair or not the fact is it's the law and has to be adhered to by everyone. Believe it or not, I think it's unfair and I feel sympathy for Psystar but in reality they are breaking the law and we can't bend the rules for one company.
It something is an upgrade, just because someone says it's an upgrade then the term is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion.
That said, I bid you goodnight
Now THIS is someone who should be making decisions in Cupertino!
cupertino? is that where apple HQ is at?
Yes that is where Apple's Head Quarters are although I think they are registered in Nevada.
FYI, I don't know if anyone mentioned it already, but Psystar hardware is running UNMODIFIED OSX kernels. Also, Psystar is selling computers- to END USERS. I don't see how they are breaking the EULA.
I was actually thinking about getting one of the regular towers just to check it out. You can configure it, an get and 8800GT. It will be awesome if they manage to get new hardware products into desktops faster than Apple. Everyone hates the Apple lag on graphics cards.
Competition can only be a good thing. I believe the free market should sort this out.
EDIT: Also, the repeated argument is that Apple doesn't have a mid-tower, and if they did, what to call it. I was just thinking, the Mac Box. Then it wouldn't be confusing. (What kind of mac? The box.)
I was actually thinking about getting one of the regular towers just to check it out. You can configure it, an get and 8800GT. It will be awesome if they manage to get new hardware products into desktops faster than Apple.
Everyone hates the Apple lag on graphics cards.Competition can only be a good thing. I believe the free market should sort this out.
EDIT: Also, the repeated argument is that Apple doesn't have a mid-tower, and if they did, what to call it. I was just thinking, the Mac Box. Then it wouldn't be confusing. (What kind of mac? The box.)
Just because it's able to run the vanilla kernel doesn't mean other OS files weren't modified.
A full install contains all files and does not require any check for an operating system of any kind.
An upgrade contains all files and may or may not require a check for an existing *valid* operating system from which you can upgrade. (ie You could not upgrade from some Windows 95/98/Me type OS to the Windows NT/XP OS directly). An upgrade needs to contain the same files as a full install as you must be able to reformat the hard drive and start over.
An update contains only the required files to complete the update, more commonly a Service Pack is offered in a cd/dvd format for people who are unable to download the service pack online, ie areas where dial up is only available.
The Windows Vista boxes contain all versions of the OS but the License Key you "buy" determines what can or cannot be installed. This being said the box does indicate an upgrade or full install, though you will generally find that the "full install" is just labelled "Company Name, Product name" where as an upgrade will be labeled "Company Name, Product name - UPGRADE"
An upgrade contains all files and may or may not require a check for an existing *valid* operating system from which you can upgrade. (ie You could not upgrade from some Windows 95/98/Me type OS to the Windows NT/XP OS directly). An upgrade needs to contain the same files as a full install as you must be able to reformat the hard drive and start over.
An update contains only the required files to complete the update, more commonly a Service Pack is offered in a cd/dvd format for people who are unable to download the service pack online, ie areas where dial up is only available.
The Windows Vista boxes contain all versions of the OS but the License Key you "buy" determines what can or cannot be installed. This being said the box does indicate an upgrade or full install, though you will generally find that the "full install" is just labelled "Company Name, Product name" where as an upgrade will be labeled "Company Name, Product name - UPGRADE"
Ya'll can bicker about it all you want, but what matters it what the court decides.
If the court decides against Apple, they (Apple) are not just going to roll over and let some copycat flood the market with clones. Apple will change their hardware or software to include some form of verification that the OS will look for or some other nonsense.
In the end the user will have a more difficult time as a result. I'm sure Apple knew this was likely when they switched to the Intel platform. Likely they have a plan lined up already for just such a situation.
If the court decides against Apple, they (Apple) are not just going to roll over and let some copycat flood the market with clones. Apple will change their hardware or software to include some form of verification that the OS will look for or some other nonsense.
In the end the user will have a more difficult time as a result. I'm sure Apple knew this was likely when they switched to the Intel platform. Likely they have a plan lined up already for just such a situation.
And they waited until after someone "cloned" their hardware to implement this clever, preconceived idea because.....?
Good question, you would think they knew full well that switching to the Intel processor would bring this about no matter what, that or they didn't expect anyone other than the home user would try and take advantage of it.
I don't think anyone expected such a cynical attempt as Psystar's this early. They are trying to apply the Windows OS model to the Apple world, and for some bizarre reason either expected Apple to let it slide or (even more bizarrely) believed their activities would hold up in court.
I would argue that the wholesale replacement of one file with another (in this case, the relevant driver for the TPM module), is not a "modification". It's no different, for example, than a PC reseller replacing a standard Windows driver for a particular component with a different one.
If they're taking the driver, disassembling it and modifying it, that's a somewhat different matter. But I don't believe they are.
An entry in /etc/hosts (or the OS X equivalent, not entirely sure how "UNIXy" it is) could trivially do this.
In this context, the points should be made that, in some (most ?) European countries, copyright is, indeed, considered a "human right".
Indeed, I would be astounded if several major - possibly even most - European countries did not consider copyright to be a more signficant "humand right" than "the right to bear arms".
The issue here is not "forcing me to use OS X", the issue is that if I go out and buy a copy of OS X, I can't use it except in certain, arbitrary circumstances.
It should never even have gotten that far. Microsoft were doing nothing that competitors hadn't done before (eg: Cyberdog) and, further, since then, every major platform has gone on to do exactly the same thing (OS X, KDE, GNOME).