EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC

[Hattig]

Why do you think you are contributing to Apple? It's common knowledge that Apple subsidizes their OS development with hardware profits. You are cheating Apple out of these profits. If this practice continues, Apple will start charging for the OS what it really costs to develop it and be forced to put in "features" like product activation and DRM.

"Common knowledge"? Did you make that up?

I am certain that Apple makes back all development work on the OS from individual sales to consumers. At $129 each, every 2 years, and tens of millions of Mac owners, and the high uptake rate, Apple makes hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from OS sales alone. Never mind the portion of every bit of hardware that is counted as income towards OS development, third party licensing, software patent income, and so on.

By cheating Apple out of profits, they will be forced to add activation and raise the price of MacOS X by hundreds of dollars (look at the price of Vista Ultimate and then consider the size of the Mac market vs. the PC market). Then we'll all be cheated.

Microsoft like to make 80%+ margins on their products. Vista is a complete rip off for what you get. Remember that it was also their first consumer OS release for 6 years, so they're covering 3x as much development time, and probably a whole load more developers.

 

[econoline06]

If you read earlier in the thread, someone did try to price comparable components in an attempt to come in at 50% of the price of a stock Mac Pro. And they failed. By a wide margin. If you are sure you can do it, then post the prices and specs. I'm sure you could do it for 25-30% less that a stock Mac Pro, but I think it is reasonable for Apple to charge for design and labor and still make a profit.

Also, where would you get this copy of OS X that could legitimately be installed on the machine that you put together? I have a feeling that Apple would charge more than $129 when they are not subsidizing it with a hardware sale.

There is always some self proclaimed god of computer building who can do anything for $100, if you know what I mean. We all know "that guy" who has claimed to build a 3.2GHz 8 core system for $500 (and of course it runs OS X)....*sigh*

For the record: BUILDING A PC IS NOT HARD AT ALL!!! Stop acting like it is an accomplishment!

 

[gnasher729]

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..

Installing MacOS X on a PC is illegal. It is not _criminal_, but it is illegal. Breaking a contract is illegal. Of course EULAs are not law; they are however valid contracts. Your assertion that "most of them are not even legally binding" is completely unfounded. Of course some get thrown out in courts; but obviously the ones that get thrown out are the ones that were illegal in the first place. There is no reason to believe that Apple's EULA falls into that category. The contract is legally binding: You gave money to Apple, Apple gave you the right to install MacOS X on a single Mac. If you find out that installing MacOS X on a single Mac is not what you wanted, you can ask for a refund.

 

[BaldiMac]

And the courts have gone both ways on this issue. Think about the Betamax case.

In Betamax, the courts found that there was significant non-infringing uses. At this point, it appears there is no other use for EFiX other than to facilitate the installation of OS X in violation of the license agreement.

Granted.

Additionally, though, using a legitimately obtained copy of a piece of copyrighted work in ways that are not codified as part of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, does not constitute copyright violation and therefore can be done without needing to enter into an agreement with the copyright holder.

According to the letter of USA copyright law, the exclusive rights of a copyright holder are codified as follows:

Which of these rights is being violated by running a piece of software on a personal computer?

In answering that, keep in mind that in the case of computer software, the act of producing copies of the computer software as part of the act of running the software is specifically exempted:

I don't know. The exclusion you quoted would seem to allow it under copyright law. Other laws and judicial decisions may clarify this further.

But there is also the issue of contract law.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

By cheating Apple out of profits, they will be forced to add activation and raise the price of MacOS X by hundreds of dollars (look at the price of Vista Ultimate and then consider the size of the Mac market vs. the PC market). Then we'll all be cheated.

Cheating? lol... I doubt anyone who was going to buy a mac pro will buy one of these dongles instead. Only enthusiast would use something like that.

BTW, Vista Ultimate OEM is only $169 and an Retail Ultimate Upgrade is $184.

It surprises me the number of people who attack MS for their business practices yet defend Apple for theirs. Apple has been way more closed than MS for a very long time.

 

[Jiddick ExRex]

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.

It is not illegal. It is against the EULA which hardly can be considered a law .
If so, Apple would be writing the laws and not your government...

 

[BaldiMac]

It is not illegal. It is against the EULA which hardly can be considered a law .
If so, Apple would be writing the laws and not your government...

However, violating a legal contract is illegal.

 

[ddTaylor]

If you read earlier in the thread, someone did try to price comparable components in an attempt to come in at 50% of the price of a stock Mac Pro. And they failed. By a wide margin. If you are sure you can do it, then post the prices and specs. I'm sure you could do it for 25-30% less that a stock Mac Pro, but I think it is reasonable for Apple to charge for design and labor and still make a profit.

Also, where would you get this copy of OS X that could legitimately be installed on the machine that you put together? I have a feeling that Apple would charge more than $129 when they are not subsidizing it with a hardware sale.

I am speaking merely of a legally PURCHASED copy of OSX and NOT one I already have. Wise-up. And YES - 1/2 at least the cost of a top-end Mac Pro. I did the research - I do not have anything to prove to you or anyone else here. You think it cannot be done? Good for you. I simply do not care. Those that actually researched the parts (like myself) know it can be done for MUCH less - 1/2 and in some cases even LESS than a Mac Pro.

I give up...you win.

D

 

[notjustjay]

My fiancee got the top of the line iMac when it was refreshed in the spring, it's a great system. I'm actually impressed with the performance but I still could not do it. I tinker too much, I like upgrading things. So despite the fact that it packs a decent punch if you buy a nice model and it's look great, I could not own an iMac as my primary system.

I certainly can't claim to speak for you, but I wanted to point out that after I bought my first "clone shop" PC, I said the same as you: I resolved always to build my own systems piece by piece, for the same reasons you said: I wanted to tinker, I wanted to choose the best components, I wanted to be able to upgrade. It was only after building a few PC's and looking back, that I realized that, other than the hard drive and RAM and maybe the odd video card, I wasn't actually able to upgrade anything. By the time I was ready to upgrade a CPU, the socket/slot architecture had changed so I needed a new motherboard too, and that also entailed a new kind of RAM, and in one case a switch from AT to ATX-style cases and power supplies, by that point it was easier just to buy another box and start over...

After I realized this, my next machines were Dell laptops, followed by my PowerBook, and now an iMac. I've never missed the ability to "tinker" beyond upgrading hard drives and RAM.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

However, violating a legal contract is illegal.

You're assuming the contract, and every clause within, is legal. For example, I can't sign a contract putting myself into slavery.

 

[Lynxpro]

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.

There are some computer users that - get this - like to be able to swap out video cards as new models come to the market. You can't exactly do that with a Mac Mini or an iMac, and having to spend a lot more money to buy a Mac Pro is not a valid answer. This goes to show that there is a need for a mid-range mini-tower Mac that doesn't use laptop parts.

Hell, after seeing the video, I'm considering it too. It would be an easy way to get a "Mac" with an internal Blu-ray drive - obviously using Toast - which is yet something else that Apple hasn't embraced yet.

 

[kis]

If you read Apple's claims against Psystar, you will find that some of Apple's claims would apply against efix as well, although others obviously wouldn't.

Of course, just because Apple is claiming that Pystar is instigating contract breach doesn't mean they actually get through with this in court. Until they do, Pystar haven't done anything illegal in this respect.

TBH I somewhat doubt that a court will rule in favor of Apple in this respect (some of Apple's other claims are probably much easier to get through). If I buy a car and run over a pedestrian, no court would find the car manufacturer guilty of instigating murder. Same goes for weapons.

peter

 

[trip1ex]

The question is can Apple patch OS/X to render this thing useless? Not that you couldn't get around that, but I don't want to play the patch game.

 

[mrgreen4242]

just because you dont go to jail does not mean it is legal. speeding is illegal but you usually do not go to jail. It is under copyright laws that makes it illegal. if you are a big enough offender you can go to jail by breaking copyright laws.

Installing MacOS X on a PC is illegal. It is not _criminal_, but it is illegal. Breaking a contract is illegal. Of course EULAs are not law; they are however valid contracts. Your assertion that "most of them are not even legally binding" is completely unfounded. Of course some get thrown out in courts; but obviously the ones that get thrown out are the ones that were illegal in the first place. There is no reason to believe that Apple's EULA falls into that category. The contract is legally binding: You gave money to Apple, Apple gave you the right to install MacOS X on a single Mac. If you find out that installing MacOS X on a single Mac is not what you wanted, you can ask for a refund.

However, violating a legal contract is illegal.

Violating the terms of a contract is not a crime. It's a civil infraction. There's no law setting out punishments for contract violation. The contracts themselves include violation caluses. The only time the government enters into a contract is as a mediator. Stop saying that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're assuming the contract, and every clause within, is legal. For example, I can't sign a contract putting myself into slavery.

I'm assuming no such thing. That is why I specifed that "violating a legal contract is illegal." Apple's EULA is legal unless the court decides otherwise.

 

[BenRoethig]

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

These knockoffs wouldn't exist if Apple didn't decide that they should be making decisions for you based on what they think you need. Users, especially those who had been using Macs for over a decade don't like having the rug pulled out from under them to feed someone's ego. This is Apple's fault. If they hadn't stopped making desktops they wouldn't be in this situation.

 

[BaldiMac]

Violating the terms of a contract is not a crime. It's a civil infraction.

Just because something is not criminal, does not mean it is not illegal.

There's no law setting out punishments for contract violation.

Yes. There is.

The contracts themselves include violation caluses. The only time the government enters into a contract is as a mediator. Stop saying that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Contract Law exists. Contracts are legally binding. As in bound by law.

 

[polaris20]

There is always some self proclaimed god of computer building who can do anything for $100, if you know what I mean. We all know "that guy" who has claimed to build a 3.2GHz 8 core system for $500 (and of course it runs OS X)....*sigh*

For the record: BUILDING A PC IS NOT HARD AT ALL!!! Stop acting like it is an accomplishment!

Buying this to do a Mac Pro clone is retarded, because even if you could do it, the parts would be subpar.

A more logical path would be a Core 2 Duo -based machine that Apple doesn't offer. For example, I "built" one on Newegg.com (wishlist) based on EFI-X's specs, using Crucial memory, Seagate drive, and Antec case and power supply for $703 (shipping not included). It's got a 3Ghz Wolfdale proc, 4GB of RAM, 7600GT, 750GB HD, and a Pioneer DVD-R/W. Not bad for a well built PC.

Add $160 for the EFI-X and $120 for OSX and you've got an OSX computer you can expand for under a grand.

 

[Clive At Five]

Okay, I'll be that guy.

I built a hackintosh (bought a copy of Leopard for it) for under $800. Its XBench score matches that of last generation's MacPro. In the meantime, I exchanged the motherboard to something a little more hack-friendly and I've also learned how to overclock. I haven't benched it yet, but I'd bet I can easily rival today's MacPro.

I'm very happy with my xHack, and I'm VERY glad I didn't wait for a refreshed MacMini.

-Clive

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

I'm assuming no such thing. That is why I specifed that "violating a legal contract is illegal." Apple's EULA is legal unless the court decides otherwise.

Until the court rules you're assuming every clause in Apples EULA is legal. IMHO, no software maker wants to take their EULA to court b/c most know that many of the clauses are so anti-consumer, etc... that they will be struck down.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Buying this to do a Mac Pro clone is retarded, because even if you could do it, the parts would be subpar.

A more logical path would be a Core 2 Duo -based machine that Apple doesn't offer. For example, I "built" one on Newegg.com (wishlist) based on EFI-X's specs, using Crucial memory, Seagate drive, and Antec case and power supply for $703 (shipping not included). It's got a 3Ghz Wolfdale proc, 4GB of RAM, 7600GT, 750GB HD, and a Pioneer DVD-R/W. Not bad for a well built PC.

Add $160 for the EFI-X and $120 for OSX and you've got an OSX computer you can expand for under a grand.

It at $150 with planes to drop the price as they start to make more of them.

 

[Garissimo]

The question for all you zealot nutbags saying Apple will sue is, do you really think the EFI-X market is big enough for Apple to give a crap?

Careful there skippy, not everyone who thinks it's a dead certainty Apple will sue is a nutbag. It isn't a question of the size of the potential market either, it's the legal precedent. Psystar wasn't all that big and they got served pretty quickly.

Out of all the PCs sold, and all the Macs sold, how many people build their PCs? And out of those, how many would want to run OSX?

I think it's a smaller fish to fry than Psystar, considering that not only are they not selling OSX on a prebuilt computer, they're not even selling a computer. It's a dongle.

It's a dongle designed to enable an end user to install and operate OS X unlawfully.

Also, EFI is not an Apple-only thing. It's Intel. Unless there's something special going on with the EFI on Macs that's proprietary to Apple, there's nothing to be sued over.


Otherwise, Apple would have already sued MSI.

That's wishful thinking. A company the size of Apple isn't going to sue overnight. They'll carefully build their case, maybe even allow EFiX to make a few bucks so they have something to sue for, and then lay the hammer down.

 

[ChrisA]

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.

No, Apple simply does NOT make the desktop computer that most people want.

People want a "normal" computer. Apple used to make one, the G4 towers sold for $1500 in the 1990's You's think Apple would package an Intel quad core mainboard inside a midsize tower and sell it for the same price that HP sells their quad core midsize tower. If they did, Apple could double the volume of their desktop sales overnight.

 

[milo]

Anyone know how this thing actually works?

If their usb dongle contains any apple code (including code hard coded into chips), or any hardware that violates Apple patents, Apple can probably sue them and win.

And I doubt they could do this without their hardware containing any Apple intellectual property.

I wouldn't be surprised if apple can shut these guys down without even mentioning EULA. It's not like that would be the only thing preventing things like this.

UPDATE: Looks like this "dongle" is just a USB drive, so if it has any Apple code on it, it should be a piece of cake for apple to figure that out and take action.

So if this is just a USB drive with their stuff on it, wouldn't it seem likely that it's possible to just copy it over to a generic USB drive instead of buying their "dongle"?

 

[BenRoethig]

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.

The Q9550 and the E5462 are basically the same core too. The only thing a Mac Pro with the Xeon E5462, 5400 server motherboard, and FB-DIMMs adds over a Q9550 based machine with a x48 motherboard and regular DDR3 memory is about $500. Apple would have been much better off if the had lowest option in the xeon Mac Pros. with 2-2.5ghz chips with a core 2 Quad Mac Pro below it with single quads in 2.5 and 2.8ghz.