EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC

[daveporter]

It's really unfortunate that people will come up with every excuse as to why they have a sense of entitlement in regards to OSX on a PC. Is it simply pure ignorance? It's really sad that a few vocal players may end up ruining it for the rest of the legitimate users.

Just because I can walk into a store and purchase an OSX box does not mean I can install it on my PC. Licensing/Ownership-jargon aside, a purchased OSX CD is an "upgrade" CD, and not an OEM CD. Just because Apple decided to include the entire OS on the CD (as opposed to just the upgraded binaries) is besides the point. The CD is meant for installation on an existing Apple-branded machine that already has an Apple OS. Whine all you want about conspiracies, greed, or doing-evil part of Apple, but that is the simple fact.

Apple is a hardware company. They are not interested in supporting other hardware configurations. Who cares that you can build a "better" machine for "less" money. They really don't care.

This would be a moot point and possibly in Apple's best interest if they just decide to remove the ability to purchase OSX at a retail/online store and only allow it as a download to a real Apple Computer and have the binaries locked to that particular Apple machine so that the buyer can copy the binaries to a CD for recovery or to purchase it at a store providing the machine's serial number and have the CD made there.

If no one can buy it shrink-wrapped, then it pretty much eliminates this discussion and Apple can go back to R&D instead of throwing money at the lawyers.

This is not specific to Apple. Any other hardware company would do the same thing.

And don't try to apply this to Microsoft. They are a software-only provider with a different business model. And in the case of the Xbox, would you honestly believe they would sit idling in the back if someone figured out a way to install the Xbox system on a non-xbox console or PC?

Here, here. Well said!

The sad thing is that this type of product and the Hacintosh guys are going to force Apple to tighten up the whole OS X distribution process which will make life mach more complicated for all of us honest folks. The low-lifes always seem to find a way to screw up every good thing.

Dave

 

[macsmurf]

The "power user" consumer, however, is another story. These people are concerned with getting the highest possible frame-rates in 3D games, or having the best possible benchmark scores on everything from hard disk access to video, while still paying less than "the other guy" for it all. They tend to be "know it alls" who shun ideas like the "Apple geniuses" (because they don't have the depth of knowledge they demand for free, when they come in to ask questions). They demand as many *options* as possible be able to plug into their machine and work properly, rather than accepting the notion that "perhaps, less is more?".

Hmm, I think your idea of a power user is a bit strange and rather condescending. I use my computer for loads of stuff and I do like to use something with ample power, whether it be processing power or graphics power, but I don't need a server-grade system. I'm perfectly happy with my 3.2 GHz quad-core.

I think Apple geniuses are a good idea, but I doubt I'll ever use one, even if the nearest one wasn't several countries away. I wouldn't characterize myself as a "know-it-all", but I do know stuff about computers, and I'm not particularly ashamed to admit it.

There's clearly a niche market for people like me, and if Apple won't sell me an upgradeable computer in the upper mid-range, then that's fair enough. I'll just go somewhere else, and install OS X on that computer instead.

Apple should be asking themselves how they can get me to buy some of their hardware instead of trying to sue themselves out of the problem (which seldom works).

 

[enb141]

I think apple should release a mac desktop for this:

1) Add support to internal cards like TV Cards, Audio Cards (Asus Sonar D2X, XFi, etc)
2) Blue Ray Support
3) Higher than 8800 GT Video cards (GTX260, 4870, etc.)
4) More than one Hard Drive

All this is possible with a mac pro but a lot of users don't want FD-DIMM RAM, 8 Cores, 2 or 4 are OK, the motherboard for two CPUs is much more expensive than a motherboard for one CPU.

I think this EFIX device is good for starters that want to see how OSX is but then a mac with Desktop User needs will be needed as well if not apple will lose this kind of customers.

 

[oban14]

I will refrain from name calling and denigrating you, however, you have not made it easy. The tone of your post is inappropriate and hostile; that type of attitude serves no purpose and does not foster discussion and debate, only hostility.

What you are trying to describe is the effects of marginal cost on the cost of goods and services.

There are both elastic and inelastic costs of goods and services; inelastic costs do not not respond to the marginal cost theory as you have stated.

With goods with subsidized price points (like Apple has with OS X) where the true production costs are spread over related items (hardware in this case), marginal costs have no bearing what-so-ever. In essence, unless Apple collects both parts of the cost of the product, they loose money on each copy of the software no mater how many copies they sell. Reduced marginal costs only help reduce sales and overhead costs when the production components of the costs (elastic costs) are a large portion of the total costs of the item being sold AND the item is sold as a prime product and not a loss leader,as OS X is. OS X is in essence a marketing tool to get folks to buy a Macintosh.

What you suggest here is that if you lose $10 on one copy of a piece of software, if you sell 1,000,000 you will suddenly become profitable. Lots of businesses have tried this trick and all are now out of business.

Your premise is wrong.

No, your premise is wrong. It's entirely faulty, because you assume that Apple somehow loses money with every copy of OSX sold. You should read Clive at Five's post below, as you clearly can't seem to wrap your head around the rather simple concept that Apple makes a profit for every copy of OSX they sell. Yes, they spend x dollars developing it, they make back x dollars once they've sold a certain number of copies, and any number of copies they sell over that point is pure profit, minus the cost of the DVD and packaging, which is fairly negligible. I'm sorry, I feel I may have insulted you by implying that you are having difficulty understanding the facts here... It's really a tacky approach to a debate, and I'm sure you'd never do such a thing.

You missed my point. What I said was if Apple loses $10 on the first copy of OS X they sell (unless they also sell the hardware) then selling 1,000,000 copies only results in a loss of $10,000,000, not a profit (providing no hardware is sold for any of the 1,000,000 million copies of OS X sold).

The point is that Apple spreads the cost of producing OS X over both the price you pay for OS X AND the price you pay for a Macintosh. Therefore, if Apple no longer sold hardware they would loose their shirts if they sold OS X at the same price as they did when they sold hardware too.

I hope that this helps. This is a difficult concept for many people to understand. We have all been told that if you sell more units costs of production come down and you can either make more money by selling at the original price or cut your price and still make money. The reality is that this is not always true as many new business owners learn often too late. That is one of the reasons so many new businesses fail in the first two years.

Oh, wait... you went and used the same approach to your argument! I stand corrected. So please, explain to me how it is possible for Apple to lose 10 dollars per copy of OSX sold, and how if they sold 1,000,000,000 copies it would cost them 10,000,000,000 dollars.

that's obvious to everyone who has ever bought a mac or ever looked at the prices and the specs. clearly apple is making massive amounts of money on the hardware that you can buy anywhere else by making you buy it from apple at an extra cost if you want to use os x.

Wait a minute - I thought Apple's hardware was actually priced quite competitively with the hardware provided by the PC makers. There are a dozen posts in this thread making that assertion. Can't you fanbois get your argument together?

Apparently it's not sticking that the price of developing Leopard does not scale with the number of copies sold. Let me restate it in a way that all might understand.

Cost = $100,000,000 flat development cost (an estimate erring on the side of caution) + $1.50 packaging cost (per unit) * N (number of units sold)
Revenue = $130 * N (number of units sold)

So basically, sell a million copies and Apple is set. Apple does that opening month of each new OS deployment. That means the additional 14 million copies being sold are 99% profit. Apple literally cannot lose money on OS X. even a few hundred thousand hackers who don't buy the hardware will barely put a dent in Apple's bank account.

Besides, if Apple doesn't want people to "misuse" OS X, they shouldn't sell it in stores.

"Available only via paid software update" would solve all of their problems.

And would force me to actually go out and buy an effing Mac.

-Clive

You're the second poster in this thread who truly gets it. And you're right - just make the software require a hardware serial code and all of Apple's hackintosh problems will go away (until the hackers figure a way around that, of course!)

It's really unfortunate that people will come up with every excuse as to why they have a sense of entitlement in regards to OSX on a PC. Is it simply pure ignorance? It's really sad that a few vocal players may end up ruining it for the rest of the legitimate users.

Just because I can walk into a store and purchase an OSX box does not mean I can install it on my PC. Licensing/Ownership-jargon aside, a purchased OSX CD is an "upgrade" CD, and not an OEM CD. Just because Apple decided to include the entire OS on the CD (as opposed to just the upgraded binaries) is besides the point. The CD is meant for installation on an existing Apple-branded machine that already has an Apple OS. Whine all you want about conspiracies, greed, or doing-evil part of Apple, but that is the simple fact.

Apple is a hardware company. They are not interested in supporting other hardware configurations. Who cares that you can build a "better" machine for "less" money. They really don't care.

This would be a moot point and possibly in Apple's best interest if they just decide to remove the ability to purchase OSX at a retail/online store and only allow it as a download to a real Apple Computer and have the binaries locked to that particular Apple machine so that the buyer can copy the binaries to a CD for recovery or to purchase it at a store providing the machine's serial number and have the CD made there.

If no one can buy it shrink-wrapped, then it pretty much eliminates this discussion and Apple can go back to R&D instead of throwing money at the lawyers.

This is not specific to Apple. Any other hardware company would do the same thing.

And don't try to apply this to Microsoft. They are a software-only provider with a different business model. And in the case of the Xbox, would you honestly believe they would sit idling in the back if someone figured out a way to install the Xbox system on a non-xbox console or PC?

I don't ask Apple to support my hackintosh. I bought a copy of OSX and will install it on one computer. I don't expect them to support it, and fully accept that any hardware that doesn't work, that any problems caused by it not functioning as designed on Apple hardware, are my problems and my problems alone.

 

[oban14]

You are assuming that the cost of development of OS X is the total cost that needs to be recovered in sales. This is not correct. The cost of overhead and profit also need to be included. Also, you assumed that the total cost of OS X is a value less then the potential income from the sale of retail copies of OS X; again this is not rational. Why would M$'s costs for a copy of Vista be so much more then OS X if you were correct? Do you really think that the cost to develop OS X is somehow less then Vista? No, the answer is that the cost of OS X is spread out over the price of the software ($129) and the portion of the cost of a Macintosh allocated to the remainder of the cost of developing OS X.

I give up, there are those of you that will never get it since it does not support your view that if you don't like what limits Apple sets on the use of its intellectual property you will just steal it and you see no problem with that. What has happened to our society?

I have stolen nothing and resent your implication. I have purchased a copy of OSX and installed it on a computer. If you insist that I use an Apple branded computer, I will happily buy an Apple II or Performa case and put my motherboard and components in there. Or will I still be a thief as far as you're concerned?

Here, here. Well said!

The sad thing is that this type of product and the Hacintosh guys are going to force Apple to tighten up the whole OS X distribution process which will make life mach more complicated for all of us honest folks. The low-lifes always seem to find a way to screw up every good thing.

Dave

How am I a low life? Why are you calling me names? I'm insulted.

I think apple should release a mac desktop for this:

1) Add support to internal cards like TV Cards, Audio Cards (Asus Sonar D2X, XFi, etc)
2) Blue Ray Support
3) Higher than 8800 GT Video cards (GTX260, 4870, etc.)
4) More than one Hard Drive

All this is possible with a mac pro but a lot of users don't want FD-DIMM RAM, 8 Cores, 2 or 4 are OK, the motherboard for two CPUs is much more expensive than a motherboard for one CPU.

I think this EFIX device is good for starters that want to see how OSX is but then a mac with Desktop User needs will be needed as well if not apple will lose this kind of customers.

You and millions of others. Didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to buy an iMac, a Mac Pro, or a mac mini. Please ignore that gaping hole in the product line, after all, Apple knows what you need better than you do.

 

[enb141]

You and millions of others. Didn't you get the memo? You're supposed to buy an iMac, a Mac Pro, or a mac mini. Please ignore that gaping hole in the product line, after all, Apple knows what you need better than you do.

That's why we don't have an iMac, Mac Pro or Mac Mini because is not in our needs, by the way the closer mac to us was the last G5 single CPU that mac Pro was priced at $1300 so that Mac Pro doesn't exists anymore and guess what a million of users like us are not going to buy a $2000+ Mac Pro.

abut this Mac Desktop is not only mac loosing, also hardware vendors who used to sell PCI cards for this kind of macs but since the price was skyrocketed that market has gone too.

 

[oban14]

That's why we don't have an iMac, Mac Pro or Mac Mini because is not in our needs, by the way the closer mac to us was the last G5 single CPU that mac Pro was priced at $1300 so that Mac Pro doesn't exists anymore and guess what a million of users like us are not going to buy a $2000+ Mac Pro.

abut this Mac Desktop is not only mac loosing, also hardware vendors who used to sell PCI cards for this kind of macs but since the price was skyrocketed that market has gone too.

Personally, I'd just buy an EFI-X (I will as soon as they're for sale in the US) and build a hackintosh. Despite what the wingnuts here will tell you, if you follow the hardware buying guide it'll basically run flawlessly.

I actually did go and buy a Mac Pro. Great piece of hardware, overkill for my needs, and more money than I wanted to spend. I encourage anyone in your shoes to buy/build a hackintosh.

 

[daveporter]

No, your premise is wrong. It's entirely faulty, because you assume that Apple somehow loses money with every copy of OSX sold. You should read Clive at Five's post below, as you clearly can't seem to wrap your head around the rather simple concept that Apple makes a profit for every copy of OSX they sell. Yes, they spend x dollars developing it, they make back x dollars once they've sold a certain number of copies, and any number of copies they sell over that point is pure profit, minus the cost of the DVD and packaging, which is fairly negligible. I'm sorry, I feel I may have insulted you by implying that you are having difficulty understanding the facts here... It's really a tacky approach to a debate, and I'm sure you'd never do such a thing.



Oh, wait... you went and used the same approach to your argument! I stand corrected. So please, explain to me how it is possible for Apple to lose 10 dollars per copy of OSX sold, and how if they sold 1,000,000,000 copies it would cost them 10,000,000,000 dollars.



Wait a minute - I thought Apple's hardware was actually priced quite competitively with the hardware provided by the PC makers. There are a dozen posts in this thread making that assertion. Can't you fanbois get your argument together?



You're the second poster in this thread who truly gets it. And you're right - just make the software require a hardware serial code and all of Apple's hackintosh problems will go away (until the hackers figure a way around that, of course!)



I don't ask Apple to support my hackintosh. I bought a copy of OSX and will install it on one computer. I don't expect them to support it, and fully accept that any hardware that doesn't work, that any problems caused by it not functioning as designed on Apple hardware, are my problems and my problems alone.

No one can be as ignorant as you appear, therefore, I must assume that your just a troll. I won't play any more. Go bother someone else.

 

[Digital Skunk]

That's what they're done for me as well. Even with the crappy 1-year basic warranty.

Okay, I checked the old docs. I was mistaken about the onsite repair for a year.

We all make mistakes right?

 

[rhpenguin]

Despite what the wingnuts here will tell you, if you follow the hardware buying guide it'll basically run flawlessly.

I've been saying that for a while and no one around here seems to believe me. Once you figure out what your hardware needs to run happy, it's really actually simple to maintain. The last two point updates I actually installed directly from Software Update. No Kernel Panics, No lockups, just smooth sailing.

Actually as I type this, my Hacintosh has been of and running hard for 33 days straight.

 

[richard.mac]

Personally, I'd just buy an EFI-X (I will as soon as they're for sale in the US) and build a hackintosh. Despite what the wingnuts here will tell you, if you follow the hardware buying guide it'll basically run flawlessly.

why buy EFiX and have some huge dongle sticking out the back of your tower when you can install the open source EFI v8 and then use one of the many guides on forum.insanelymac.com to install a retail or patched version of Leopard.

… I actually did go and buy a Mac Pro. Great piece of hardware, overkill for my needs, and more money than I wanted to spend. …

QFT

… I encourage anyone in your shoes to buy/build a hackintosh.

QFT

 

[Eidorian]

Okay, I checked the old docs. I was mistaken about the onsite repair for a year.

We all make mistakes right?

I was surprised myself when I ordered the machines! The basic desktop warranty does give you on-site next/second business day.

For laptops it's mail-in unless you upgrade.

 

[chris200x9]

only thing 1333 fsb but suck on this: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/TemporaryWishList.aspx?BundleExist=N&ChangeQty=0


cheaper can be done...not much but cheaper EXACT mac pro (minus what I said above) $360 cheaper.....Oh yea!

plus stock = best option play around and see the single processor version = like $500 cheaper!

 

[richard.mac]

^ we cant see your wish list… go to "My Saved Wish lists", select it and then click "Share".

 

[oban14]

No one can be as ignorant as you appear, therefore, I must assume that your just a troll. I won't play any more. Go bother someone else.

I accept your concession. Better luck in your next online debate.

I've been saying that for a while and no one around here seems to believe me. Once you figure out what your hardware needs to run happy, it's really actually simple to maintain. The last two point updates I actually installed directly from Software Update. No Kernel Panics, No lockups, just smooth sailing.

Actually as I type this, my Hacintosh has been of and running hard for 33 days straight.

There is a reason I'm proud to hate fanbois. They stand for everything the original spirit of Apple and computing was against - the status quo, big business knows what's best for you, don't you dare hack, etc. Sad, really.

why buy EFiX and have some huge dongle sticking out the back of your tower when you can install the open source EFI v8 and then use one of the many guides on forum.insanelymac.com to install a retail or patched version of Leopard.



QFT



QFT

I would probably use the dongle because I like to bypass software patching/modification whenever possible. I'm just more of a hardware guy and would rather have the entire process consider my hackintosh a mac from the get go. But I'll look closer at your suggestion, thanks.

only thing 1333 fsb but suck on this: http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/TemporaryWishList.aspx?BundleExist=N&ChangeQty=0


cheaper can be done...not much but cheaper EXACT mac pro (minus what I said above) $360 cheaper.....Oh yea!

plus stock = best option play around and see the single processor version = like $500 cheaper!

The Mac Pro actually wasn't a bad deal when it came out in January. Of course, it is now 9 months later and the price is the same... I also think you could probably get better performance out of a much cheaper design, but I understand you were trying to go "identical".

 

[gnasher729]

You are assuming that the cost of development of OS X is the total cost that needs to be recovered in sales. This is not correct. The cost of overhead and profit also need to be included. Also, you assumed that the total cost of OS X is a value less then the potential income from the sale of retail copies of OS X; again this is not rational. Why would M$'s costs for a copy of Vista be so much more then OS X if you were correct? Do you really think that the cost to develop OS X is somehow less then Vista? No, the answer is that the cost of OS X is spread out over the price of the software ($129) and the portion of the cost of a Macintosh allocated to the remainder of the cost of developing OS X.

No company would develop some software just to recoup its investment. Apple uses MacOS X to get a competitive advantage in its competition with other computer manufacturers. That competitive advantage made Apple the most profitable PC maker in the world, because everyone else has the choice of offering the same two operating systems (Windows and Linux), so everyone else is competing mostly on price, which is killing their profits.

The money generated by sales of Leopard retail packages is miniscule compared to the money that MacOS X generates for Apple by enabling Macintosh hardware sales. And as any good company would do, Apple is not trying to make a tiny profit from MacOS X sales, but instead they are trying to optimise their total company profit.

 

[polaris20]

I never realized there'd be such a hard division of people who like to use the same OS.

Some of us want to use the OS......some of us want to use the OS while simultaneously admiring the box that contains it.

I care more about the OS and stability than what it's running on, but that's just me.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

It's not like buying a car. If you must use that analogy, then it would be more like buying a car at a reduced price with the condition that you only use it as specified in a contract.

How would a software company make money if they could not limit your use of the software?

We're not talking about unlimited copying of the software. That would violate copyright law. What he's talking about is being able to use the product you bought in any manner you see fit. If I want to buy OSX discs and use them as coasters, then I should be able to. If I want to buy OSX and attempt to install in on my old Commodore 64, I should be able to do that too. I'm not sure when people decided to give up some basic consumer rights (first sale, resell, backup copies), for a product you supposedly purchased, in the name of fanboism.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

I usually don't post here. But I have to say that this above statement is absolutely WRONG WRONG WRONG.

I was once offered a free hotdog in NYC one day buy a guy who was playing a guitar out on the street. I asked him what brand it was, and he said he didn't know, that he got it off some other guy for a dollar but wasn't hungry.

in that case free did NOT equal BEST. The hotdog was a 7.33 on a 10 point scale.

That same day I had a Nathan's hotdog, that wasn't the best, but it was decent, i had it rated, and the man who was grading it said it was a 8.25 on the same rating scale as the other one. Sorry dude, you are wrong.

OS X RULES. LINUX DRoOLS

In another case, I was offered free Trombone lessons from a guy that said he was pretty good at it. Unfortunately, it didn't go down so well.

Then another time, I paid $250 an hour for a professional to teach me. I believe that those lessons were better than the other ones.

I just corrupted your statement about Linux being the best.

Linux absolutely sucks and will never become the dominant OS.

ROFL, tell that to the internet. More than likely the majority runs on free software. Check linux, apache, bind, etc... You should think before posting. BTW, if it will make you feel better I'd be happy to sell you an Ubuntu CD for $500 since obviously the more it costs the better it must be!

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

You can do anything you want with the software, but if you modify the source code, you have to make it available to everyone.

And Linux comes with a license that limits what you can do with the software.

That's my point. I think you would see a drop off in Linux development if the GNU license was not enforceable.

License != EULA. Copyright law handles copying and distribution. If I am a publisher and want to sell a book I have to make copies and sell it. I can get a license from the author to do that. In the license the author will probably have some clause that the publisher owes him money for every copy sold. The GPL is about copying and distribution and instead of owing money to people you license the software from you owe your changes. You are free to do whatever you want with the software. Run it, hack it, whatever, BUT if you make changes AND distribute it you must release those changes back to the community.

Could you imagine buying a book that had a EULA that said you could only read it using a certain light bulb? That's basically what Apple is doing with OSXs EULA.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Licensing/Ownership-jargon aside, a purchased OSX CD is an "upgrade" CD

Technically this may be correct, but I think you are missing the point here. Only the licensing-BS makes it an "upgrade" CD. Otherwise it's a complete operating system (albeit with limited compatibility) and you can even legally install and use it on computers coming with no operating whatsoever (say, for instance: 2nd hand Macs without operating system). There's really nothing needing to be "upgraded".

Why would M$'s costs for a copy of Vista be so much more then OS X

They aren't.
They really aren't.
You can legally buy, install and use a copy of Windows Vista for around 60 EUR in Europe. That less than 100$ (US). And it will supported for a longer time than OS X, while Microsoft doesn't churn out small upgrades at full prices as often as Apple does.

Do you really think that the cost to develop OS X is somehow less then Vista?

No way OS X cost as much to develop as Vista. I won't even bother to look this up in financial statements. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Great parts of OS X are open-source and essentially don't cost Apple a cent. Sure, they are doing some open-source development on their own payroll but they still grabbed up large parts for free. Additionally, Microsoft probably spends loads of money on backwards compatibility, drivers, etc.

 

[Wondercow]

Where can I get a stripped down version of OSX, by the way?

iPhone, iPod Touch, or Apple TV

 

[Digital Skunk]

I want to know if I can get THIS! to run OS X effectively.

Then I'll spend the cash for a hack.

This machine is the one all of us 12" PowerBook lovers have been waiting for.

 

[Wondercow]

did you know "lose" and "loose" are two different words? i don't want to insult you or anything, i only want to point it out so you don't make that mistake in the future, on a resume or something... maybe english is a second language for you.

Did you know that the words "I" and "English" are always capitalized?

 

[thechidz]

I want to know if I can get THIS! to run OS X effectively.

Then I'll spend the cash for a hack.

This machine is the one all of us 12" PowerBook lovers have been waiting for.

im curious too. check the specs and see if they match up