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.
EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I thought that Mac Pro is actually competitive with PCs in the same category when it comes to price?
Which is in clear violation of the agreement into which you entered.
If I gut my old G4 case and turn it into a hamster habitat does that mean that I have Apple-branded hamsters?
I thought that Mac Pro is actually competitive with PCs in the same category when it comes to price?
it is at the beginning of the year when they're new, but now they use older parts that have all been surpassed by other products and are cheaper to get else where. It really only makes sense to buy one in January/February. It's a shame that Apple sort of ignores such an awesome computer.
Apple is under no obligation to cater to all market segmentsor those that you wantno matter how much sense it may make.
And I have a feeling Apple will only update them once a year from now on (January) unless Intel moves faster with their future processor plans.
I agree and that is why Apple should never let any company dilute its intellectual property.
I thought that Mac Pro is actually competitive with PCs in the same category when it comes to price?
It is on a strict apples to apples comparison.
The problem is that it's overkill for most folks.
You can do what you like with the mediumno one can stop you from using the CD as a coaster, burning it in your microwave oven, or playing frisbee with it. You don't, however, own the software on the disc. You are merely licensed to use it. It's made very clear that you don't actually purchase the software, so if you have "supposed its purchase" you're in the wrong.
I thought that Mac Pro is actually competitive with PCs in the same category when it comes to price?
Who is making dual socket, quad core (8-way) non-server systems? Very few companies are doing this.
by the way, I just tried to build an HP workstation out similar to the Mac Pro.... Very expensive!
It certainly would be. It remains, however, Apple's prerogative to compete in whichever markets they like (as is true of any company). The feeling of entitlement that has sprung up over the past few years is simply disgusting: people see it as their right to get what they want, regardless of the illegality of their actions.
Humans are even stupider than i thought.
If i could package foresight, reason, and logic I would send you all a well needed present. Alas, I cant.
If i could package foresight, reason, and logic I would send you all a well needed present. Alas, I cant.
yo i just want to say that I used linix like 30 years. And it SUCKS.
I use OS Leopard for like 30 years too, and I say that it is much better than Linix.
I am an expert. my recommendation is to use OS X LEOPARD
I use OS Leopard for like 30 years too, and I say that it is much better than Linix.
I am an expert. my recommendation is to use OS X LEOPARD
If you can RUN WINDOWS on a MAC, why not the opposite?
If I were BILL GATES, I would turn up the HEAT, use the new commercial with the HI IM A MAC dude, and end it with you can also run MAC OSX.
MSFT has 10000 times more money for lawyers.
I will itch and moan until the MAC PRO has a decent GPU that's not $10,000, uses DDR that is $120 for 4GB, and ALL MACS have dedicated GPU.
Until then I say hurray for EFI X and want to see some bench marks.
Are there any?
In one PRO SCHOOL (AVID SYMPHONY, BURBANK) they are ALL VISTA, 8 cores, some 16 server blades, something like that.
Was told they scale really well for POST PRODUCTION and you can add tons of memory. This is AVID training. This is the area MACS used to own. So Pro Tools and Avid are really focusing on Vista these days. I was shocked but hey, if Apple uses special RAM (for MAC PRO to keeo you from buying normal EEC 4GB for $150 and wants to charge a fortune, I can't blame them.
I mean, really, just look at the employee's - was talking to a genius who says they are way under paid. It used to be 80K a year when the position first came out, now its like 17 an hour. Yeah, like Apple can't afford it.
Specialist sell millions (I know a few who sold more than 1 million for Apple in one year) and he didn't even get acknowledged. Know why? He didn't sell APPLE CARE or .MAC, oh but if you do sell 1 million US dollars and attachments? You get a piece of paper to go with your less than starbucks wages. WOW. That's pretty bad.
Oh, did I ever show you the pictures I got from the back of house?
They are running Norton virsus protection on their BACK OF HOUSE systems.
What's up with that?!
Haven't we been through this? The reason is the EULA doesn't allow it. MS will happily take money from anyone for a license to use Windows because they are a software company (Zune notwithstanding). Apple is mainly a hardware company that uses software to drive hardware.
For what it's worth MS forbade the use of a virtualized environment for lower-end Vista versions. They changed this stance eventually.
If you're going to deride someone or something you should at least have some knowledge of the topic. Apple doesn't use "special RAM" in the Mac Pro; they use industry-standard EEC DDR2 FB-DIMMS.
Uh yeah, OK. "Knowledge of the topic" and all that.
This paragraph makes no sense. Paper? Starbucks wages?
And you can use the article in any way you see fit. You cannot, however, use the work embodied in it, except as specifically authorized by law or the owner.
What we have here is a failure of parallelism.
First sale is a right of the copyright holder (you are probably think of the Doctrine of First Sale, which is so named because of its implications once the owner completes that first sale). Resale and backup copies are rights preserved by statutory authorization. You'll find no support for "supposedly purchasing" the work. In fact, the law quite plainly spells out that "[o]wnership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied."
Yes. But EULA = license. Technically, a license agreement containing a license interest, but Internet people lose their minds when you start dealing in facts.
What we have here is another failure of parallelism. What's "basically" happening is the common scenario of provisioning by price. Since you start out with neither a copy nor any kind of rights to exercise, you can acquire a copy, but nothing requires that you receive an unlimited copy, and nothing prevents an owner from placing conditions on that copy. As an author, you could add some conditions to the sale of books (it's not that uncommon; price discounts for teachers, copies additionally licensed for public performance, and so on). But there's no particular rationale or interest on the copyright owner's part in your example.
Someone has to say it so I'll bite
They're not. Compare equivalent hardware between Apple and other name brands--looking at ALL the specs for an honest and complete comparison--and Macs are right in the same price range. Sometimes more than a given competitor, sometimes less.
What you and people like you don't seem to 'get' is that not everyone NEEDS all the hardware Apple forces upon you with something like the Mac Pro in order to get an expandable, headless Mac. Who CARES if a fully rigged Dell that matches the Mac Pro costs as much? The whole point is not everyone needs EVERY feature of the Mac Pro. You can get a machine that BETTERS the Mac Pro for things like gaming (even if in Boot Camp) and has all the expandability of one (there are no consumer expandable Macs other than the Mac Pro, which is pretty darn steep at $2700 for the base model or $2300 for a cut-down one). People have been begging Apple for years to release a consumer level mid-sized tower and they just keep ignoring those people. It's why Psystar came about and now thanks to this device, you can easily build your own clone with whatever features you want (within the device driver limits). You'll be able to build one that is more powerful than a Mac Pro because Mac hardware updates are far and few between compared to the PC World.
As for their claims this isn't for those looking to save money, that's just not true (I imagine they're downplaying that aspect for a reason OR they don't want to be confused with $399 PC projects), but I'm talking about compared to a Mac Pro when you don't NEED all the Mac Pro features. You could get something quite comparable to a Mac Pro when used with applications that only really use 1-2 cores to begin with and still potentially have better gaming capability for around $1200. Add in this device and Mac OS X and you're still over a thousand less than a Mac Pro. I don't need 8 Xeon processors. But I do want a high-end GPU, internal expansion slots and room for internal hard drives, etc. This is near ideal. I can build a machine with any high-end PC case I might desire and not be stuck with a ridiculously expensive cheese grater or all-in-one piece of crap and still get the vastly superior OS X instead of Windows OR have both with Boot Camp and/or Fusion or Parallels.
But the bottom line is this device and even the whole Psystar business has happened because Apple is NOT listening to their customers that WANT more choices than what they are offering. If they truly filled all the major niches and are at competitive prices, these things wouldn't happen or have to happen. It's because Steve Jobs thinks he knows better than his own customers that these sorts of products will continue to pop up. He must have known moving to generic PC hardware would trigger things like this if they don't meet their markets' needs. But I'm sure some of you think there is no market for it and iMacs are for everybody.
This device does not install OS X on such a computer so how could they be sued for something they're not doing. YOU the consumer have to install it yourself so unless you're going to rat on yourself to Apple, who are they going to sue, pray tell? Some of us believe that Eula will fail when challenged in court anyway, since Apple is impeding trade in a significant market with it, namely the OS X hardware market. And while some don't believe such a market exists, that only means this device is for a non-existent market so Apple doesn't have to worry about it since you can't sell things for a market that doesn't exist. That also means Apple sales are imaginary by extension.
Is it really that hard to add those two parts together instead of presenting them separately? They're preventing other companies from selling HARDWARE for the OS X operating system market. In other words, if you want to run OS X, you're not allowed to buy it and install it on the hardware of your choice. You have to buy generic clone hardware from Apple and Apple alone. Thus, Dell, Lenovo, etc. aren't able to compete with Apple because Apple is telling them they aren't allowed to install OS X. And if you need to run Mac software, you need OS X so that hardware from Dell becomes useless and irrelevant for your needs so how can their hardware compete with Apple's hardware at that point when you NEED Apple's to run Mac software?
Thus all "Mac" sales have to be from Apple and therefore Apple controls 100% of the "Mac" market. The problem is their operating system is entirely separate from their hardware (which is generic) and they're using one to leverage the other with a Eula that forbids any other choices for the consumer and prevents Dell, etc. from competing directly with their hardware. If you need OS X for work, for example, you have NO other hardware choices but Apple. How is that NOT a Monopoly? Because separately, they don't control a market? But a Mac *IS* the software. The hardware is irrelevant except for that Eula which guarantees Apple 100% of all hardware sales for OS X. And THAT is a monopoly on computer hardware for that operating system market. Their sales are significant (enough to beat Dell, etc. without competing on their turf) and their market share is 100% for OS X save Psystar and Hackintoshes and now this device. This device simply levels the playing field. The consumer can FINALLY choose their hardware from Dell or Lenovo or HP or whomever they want and still run Mac software. Apple is allowed to install Windows, Linux or any other operating system on their hardware to aid in sales of that hardware, so what makes people think it's fair for them to deny installation on their competitor's hardware? Let Apple's operating system compete with other operating systems and their hardware compete with other hardware. Combining the two to get all the profit from the other is artificially cornering the market on that hardware for that system.
Clearly, Psystar's lawyers believe they have an anti-trust case despite the beliefs of some on here that they do not and the courts will have to decide in the end, but this device appears at least to avoid the entire legal argument save for the consumer installing the OS himself, which is for an individual to decide.
As for arguments that OS X's cost will rise, if it's undervalued then it SHOULD rise. That won't change the fact that I can get a machine for $1200 that meets my needs for half the cost of a 4-core Mac Pro. Even if OS X cost $400, it'd still be $1000 less than the Mac Pro. I shouldn't be forced to pay twice as much to get hardware features I don't need. An iMac is out of the question. It has no expansion and poor GPU options. Thus no matter how you slice it, a more expensive OS X is still vastly preferable to some of us than limited hardware choices for OS X. So go ahead Apple, raise OS X's retail price and let us have the hardware we want, not the hardware you think we should have.
"Technically" IS correct. However, you are distorting my comments to fit your claim. It is an "upgrade" CD with full binaries. If you buy a 2nd-hand Mac without an OS (i.e. a dead hard drive??), go right ahead and slap that CD in there. It's a legitimate purchase. That 2nd-hand Mac had a valid OS license at one point in its life. It's an upgrade to the machine itself and you very well know that.
The ignorance comes from people that think they can walk into a store and buy the OSX CD thinking they are entitled to having it load on their non-Apple computer because it was a "legitimate" purchase.
It becomes a problem when products like EFIx become mainstream and begins to dilute the Apple brand when players like Psystar try to hitch a ride on Apple's efforts and begin selling systems without Apple's approval.
In many ways, this thread would just reinforce to many that it is probably best that Apple discontinue sale of shrinkwrapped OSX CD's. It will cause more headaches for the majority (and legitimate) users.
Apple doesn't care about joe-hacker that can crack code and load OSX on a PC. That is a really small group of people. But they will be able to seriously (and easily) clamp down on any company that tries to sell OSX on any non-Apple PC or on any firm that tries to sell firmware (EFIx) whose sole purpose is to allow non-Apple OSX systems to be made.
Off-topic, but if Geniuses were getting $80,000 back at the outset of the stores they were substantially overpaid, IMO. Apple's cheap with its employees, yes. We know Apple's engineers are underpaid and angry about it, so certainly their unappreciated retail employees will be underpaid as well. If they don't like it, they don't have to work for Apple. Tough but true.
For the record, I am an enthusiastic proponent of the XMac prosumer tower campaign, and I think any developments that keep Apple aware of consumer demand for an XMac are good for the platform.