EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC

[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 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

 

[0098386]

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

EFi-X is the latest commercial product to allow PCs to boot Mac OS X. A company called Psystar made headlines 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 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 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 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.


Article Link

 

[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.

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?

 

[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.