EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC

[rollsroyce442]

Too cheap? How many get pick Five grand out of thin air? To get the same capability of my $1299 iBook you now have to spend $2000 for a less than portable 15" Macbook Pro. To get the same capability that my PowerMac gave me for $1299, you have to spend a minimum of $2200. Or you can do what I did spend $1499 and get the iMac which combines the expansion and performance disadvantages of a laptop with the portability disadvantage of a desktop with the added disadvantage of throwing away the display when the hardware very rapidly reaches its useful life. Please, take off, the white robe and rose colored classes, stop sipping the koolaid for a little bit and take a look at reality for a change. Apple is taking its customers down a road many of them don't want to go.

My point exactly, don't take that road if you can't afford it

 

[kis]

Key word being legally acquired. It's not legally acquired if it's not used consistent with the terms under which it was conveyed.

that'll depend on local law. It's legal here - because EULAs aren't legally binding if they're not printed on the package, so the customers can read them BEFORE purchasing the software. There have been several precedents dealing with this. So I really don't worry about that here.

 

[kis]

If a vendor does not offer what you want at a price you're willing to pay, go elsewhere. If that means losing something distinctive, like OS X, so be it. Taking what you want because you can is not an acceptable form of protest.

I'm not taking anything - I'd pay for it.

 

[BenRoethig]

Key word being legally acquired. It's not legally acquired if it's not used consistent with the terms under which it was conveyed. The owner has a right to sell a product, or copies of that product, with whatever terms he sees fit, subject to independent illegality.

Yes, but not the difference you imply.

You "heavily invested" in a platform you knew to be closed and subject to determinations outside of your control.

Then they should leave. They should not take it upon themselves to take Apple and remaining Apple customers down a road toward increasingly drastic protection schemes. They should certainly not exploit Apple's resistance to said invasive schemes for their own gain, for doing so simply proves the other side's case.

If Apple loses business or market share because of a choice, it will make a different choice. If those "customers" you speak of were acting out of principle, they would do without, not rationalize and blame Apple for their misconduct. If a vendor does not offer what you want at a price you're willing to pay, go elsewhere. If that means losing something distinctive, like OS X, so be it. Taking what you want because you can is not an acceptable form of protest.

And go where? What other computers can I use my Mac OS X programs and files on in a legal and reliable way? There is no other choice. Jobs set it up that way.

My point exactly, don't take that road if you can't afford it

Do you understand economics at all or are going from the belief that Apple can magically survive with just a handful of the cult types? If they start driving away the committed professional base who long do you think the fad windows switchers will stay?

 

[rollsroyce442]

Do you understand economics at all or are going from the belief that Apple can magically survive with just a handful of the cult types? If they start driving away the committed professional base who long do you think the fad windows switchers will stay?

I understand that but I also know that not all committed professionals will leave on the same day and I also know that when people start leaving, demand will cause one of two things. Either apple will lower prices on all their overly expensive aluminum hardware, of they will begin offering legitimate low priced and fully functional computers that are competitive. If apple is stupid enough not to respond to the market, then I hope they go out of business, but thats not going to happen. If you don't feel that it's illegal to use the OS, thats on your conscience, but I don't see how you could justify compromising your word when you hit "agree" to the terms of service. If lying is not wrong, then go ahead and do whatever you want.

 

[millar876]

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.

I do get what you are trying to say, BUT, they are not the exact same, and by that deductive logic you gust used i could argue that a Grapefruit and an unripe orange are basicly the same thing, afterall, they are both citrus fruits, you eat the inner part of both which is revealed by pealing back a mostly innedible rind and are both a little bitter and both provide callorific and nutritional values when cosumed, so they must be the same.

AND to the guy with the 1/2 price clone, well done for finding a computer that is almost comparable and almost the same and almost performs to the same level for that price. Kudos to you even, however, Server class components, and motherboards with 2xCPU sockets and the slots to accomodate 32GB of EEC registered DDR3 RAM usually come in at arround about the price you quoted for your entire PC which only had 1x4core desktop processor let alone 2x Server 4 core ones. if you are going to compare like for like, please compare like for like, not like for kind of almost like-ish if you squint a bit with one eye closed.

I mean I priced up a PC for my old air caded squadron for about £700 UK, and chances are that it would play games better than a mac pro, but ANY mac pro would anhialate it for proper computing tasks, i.e. CS3/4 and final Cut studio.

 

[PCMacUser]

I do get what you are trying to say, BUT, they are not the exact same, and by that deductive logic you gust used i could argue that a Grapefruit and an unripe orange are basicly the same thing, afterall, they are both citrus fruits, you eat the inner part of both which is revealed by pealing back a mostly innedible rind and are both a little bitter and both provide callorific and nutritional values when cosumed, so they must be the same.

You win the prize for most original analogy I've read in a long time.

 

[BenRoethig]

I understand that but I also know that not all committed professionals will leave on the same day and I also know that when people start leaving, demand will cause one of two things. Either apple will lower prices on all their overly expensive aluminum hardware, of they will begin offering legitimate low priced and fully functional computers that are competitive. If apple is stupid enough not to respond to the market, then I hope they go out of business, but thats not going to happen.

I would prefer it doesn't get to that point. That is why customers should voice their opinions. You seem to think that everyone who doesn't agree should just shut up and switch to windows.

If you don't feel that it's illegal to use the OS, thats on your conscience, but I don't see how you could justify compromising your word when you hit "agree" to the terms of service. If lying is not wrong, then go ahead and do whatever you want.

Where the Hell is this coming from? I have not nor will ever own a hackintosh. I have bit the bullet so far on Apple's increasingly less capable hardware. That being said, I think Apple has gotten to a point where they are so narrowly focused that for survival of Mac OS X as a professional operating system a need for licensed third party systems has arrived. What would that entail?

First, the motherboard must have the same implementation of EFI as Apple. Your bios PC will not be compatible without hacking.

Second, your machine must use Intel 945, 965, x3, x4, or Nvidia Geforce 9000-series motherboard running intel CPUs. Why these chipsets? Because Mac OS X already has driver support for them.

Third, for every finished computer, retail motherboard, or retail video card shipped the manufacturer must pay apple a certification fee of say $50 for the computer or motherboard and $10 dollars for the video card. This fee allows apple to keep only one boxed version of Mac OS X and partially protects against piracy. Also note that this, is just the certification fee, PC maker and customer alike will pay the flat $129 fee for the OS itself. Those who choose to run Mac OS X on uncertified hardware will not be eligible for support.

 

[dejo]

If you look at how much other OSs cost, Mac OS is right in line with what Microsoft charges. With the difference that Apple has a much more stream-lined development process involving fewer people, which in turn reduces costs. Why would Apple sell Mac OS at a loss? They'd be nuts to do so.

Most of what you argue here is more or less conjecture. I was looking for some actual information that proves that Apple is selling Max OS X at a profit.

 

[BenRoethig]

I do get what you are trying to say, BUT, they are not the exact same, and by that deductive logic you gust used i could argue that a Grapefruit and an unripe orange are basicly the same thing, afterall, they are both citrus fruits, you eat the inner part of both which is revealed by pealing back a mostly innedible rind and are both a little bitter and both provide callorific and nutritional values when cosumed, so they must be the same.

AND to the guy with the 1/2 price clone, well done for finding a computer that is almost comparable and almost the same and almost performs to the same level for that price. Kudos to you even, however, Server class components, and motherboards with 2xCPU sockets and the slots to accomodate 32GB of EEC registered DDR3 RAM usually come in at arround about the price you quoted for your entire PC which only had 1x4core desktop processor let alone 2x Server 4 core ones. if you are going to compare like for like, please compare like for like, not like for kind of almost like-ish if you squint a bit with one eye closed.

I mean I priced up a PC for my old air caded squadron for about £700 UK, and chances are that it would play games better than a mac pro, but ANY mac pro would anhialate it for proper computing tasks, i.e. CS3/4 and final Cut studio.

Not every professional or semi professional user needs a workstation. What I'm saying is this, the workstation owners would be better off with a 2x quad 2.5 ghz option and we lower professionals and semi professionals would be better off with a sub-$2000 desktop solution like Apple used to give us. The Mac Pro as it exists isn't a replacement for the PowerMac, it's the machine above the PowerMac that the higher end users wanted.

 

[QuantumLo0p]

Checked the EFI-X U.S. site today, they have resumed shipping and price is now $179 USD.

I have not heard much about Apple legal action as of yet but I want to follow this.

What an interesting turn of events!

 

[kis]

Most of what you argue here is more or less conjecture. I was looking for some actual information that proves that Apple is selling Max OS X at a profit.

Ok, let's see some evidence that they're making a loss.

 

[dejo]

Ok, let's see some evidence that they're making a loss.

You made the claim. So, it is up to you to provide proof.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

I would prefer it doesn't get to that point. That is why customers should voice their opinions. You seem to think that everyone who doesn't agree should just shut up and switch to windows.



Where the Hell is this coming from? I have not nor will ever own a hackintosh. I have bit the bullet so far on Apple's increasingly less capable hardware. That being said, I think Apple has gotten to a point where they are so narrowly focused that for survival of Mac OS X as a professional operating system a need for licensed third party systems has arrived. What would that entail?

First, the motherboard must have the same implementation of EFI as Apple. Your bios PC will not be compatible without hacking.

Second, your machine must use Intel 945, 965, x3, x4, or Nvidia Geforce 9000-series motherboard running intel CPUs. Why these chipsets? Because Mac OS X already has driver support for them.

Third, for every finished computer, retail motherboard, or retail video card shipped the manufacturer must pay apple a certification fee of say $50 for the computer or motherboard and $10 dollars for the video card. This fee allows apple to keep only one boxed version of Mac OS X and partially protects against piracy. Also note that this, is just the certification fee, PC maker and customer alike will pay the flat $129 fee for the OS itself. Those who choose to run Mac OS X on uncertified hardware will not be eligible for support.

Now days all ati video cards have a common base. All nvidia cards have a common base as well. Intel on board video is part of the chip set drivers. So there is no need to certified each video card. MB chip sets are the same way just have drivers for ati 6xx, 7xx, nvidia 7xxx, 9xxx, 8xxx, intel 3x, 4x, 5x, g3x, g4x, and any new ones as they come out. Amd, nvidai, and Intel can make good drivers on there own. So the issues likely will be with some of the other lesser used chips like SIS, matrox, via and so on.

Also will need to remove any intel cpu only locks when they open it up or the amd / intel lawsuit will hit them hard. All other os work with amd and intel cpus.

 

[kis]

You made the claim. So, it is up to you to provide proof.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/30/leopard.could.add.92.mil/

Piper Jaffray say Apple gets a 60% profit margin for leopard. I doubt Piper's off by that much.

So now let's see your sources for your implicit claim that Apple sells Leopard at a loss.

 

[dejo]

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/30/leopard.could.add.92.mil/

It also assumes a $115 average selling price and a 60% margin on the software.

Well, who can dispute an assumption. So, I guess you're right.

 

[kis]

Well, who can dispute an assumption. So, I guess you're right.

You can stop now. I think we both agree that you're wrong here.
While analysts certainly aren't always right, they sure as heck won't say a product has a 60% profit margin if it is sold at a loss instead.

 

[rollsroyce442]

I would prefer it doesn't get to that point. That is why customers should voice their opinions. You seem to think that everyone who doesn't agree should just shut up and switch to windows.

Where the Hell is this coming from? I have not nor will ever own a hackintosh. I have bit the bullet so far on Apple's increasingly less capable hardware. That being said, I think Apple has gotten to a point where they are so narrowly focused that for survival of Mac OS X as a professional operating system a need for licensed third party systems has arrived. What would that entail?

Agree

 

[BenRoethig]

Checked the U.S. today, they are shipping and price is now $179 USD.

I have not heard much about Apple legal action as of yet but I want to follow this.

What an interesting turn of events!

I don't think there's much Apple legal can do with the exception of having EFIX stop using Apple images and trademarks. This device does not hack OSX, its a USB device containing an EFI ROM for OSX to boot on. EFI is an open standard.

 

[BenRoethig]

Now days all ati video cards have a common base. All nvidia cards have a common base as well. Intel on board video is part of the chip set drivers. So there is no need to certified each video card. MB chip sets are the same way just have drivers for ati 6xx, 7xx, nvidia 7xxx, 9xxx, 8xxx, intel 3x, 4x, 5x, g3x, g4x, and any new ones as they come out. Amd, nvidai, and Intel can make good drivers on there own. So the issues likely will be with some of the other lesser used chips like SIS, matrox, via and so on.

Certification would serve three purposes.
1) As a way to keep a tight grip on the platform. This wouldn't be Laissez-faire licensing like windows. The Basic chipsets and video cards come in common families, but there are variations in support chips such as audio or firewire. The idea would be to keep the driver additions at a minimum to keep stability. This wouldn't be something you could install on your HP or Dell at home.

2) To have a branding available for the customer to be aware this device is compatible with their EFI based Mac. There would be no BIOS support, other than EFI's BIOS emulation mode for running windows. Video cards would need an EFI ROM to work with Mac OS X.

3) As a revenue stream for Apple. If there is no certification fee, Apple might have to sell different licenses or raise the price of the OS. With this licensing fee, the user basically pays for the difference between a full license and an upgrade license when they purchase the computer or motherboard. That way should the the user want to install OSX later on or are building their own machine using an approved motherboard, all they would need is the $129 upgrade copy. The whole point is to bring the simplicity of the Mac to a wider audience, not bring the complexity of the Microsoft world to the Mac.

Also will need to remove any intel cpu only locks when they open it up or the amd / intel lawsuit will hit them hard. All other os work with amd and intel cpus.

AMD would require additional drivers for chipsets. Support might be possible if the additional driver support wasn't that much of a burden.

 

[dejo]

You can stop now. I think we both agree that you're wrong here.
While analysts certainly aren't always right, they sure as heck won't say a product has a 60% profit margin if it is sold at a loss instead.

The only thing I'll agree to is that Apple is the only one that knows for sure whether they sell Mac OS X for a profit or not and they're not saying.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Certification would serve three purposes.
1) As a way to keep a tight grip on the platform. This wouldn't be Laissez-faire licensing like windows. The Basic chipsets and video cards come in common families, but there are variations in support chips such as audio or firewire. The idea would be to keep the driver additions at a minimum to keep stability. This wouldn't be something you could install on your HP or Dell at home.

I think are only a few firewire chipsets out there and sound has common families now days as well also you can use pci sound cards as well.

2) To have a branding available for the customer to be aware this device is compatible with their EFI based Mac. There would be no BIOS support, other than EFI's BIOS emulation mode for running windows. Video cards would need an EFI ROM to work with Mac OS X.

AMD would require additional drivers for chipsets. Support might be possible if the additional driver support wasn't that much of a burden.

EFI ROM is not mac only and OSX86 does not need it. It just needed for pre os boot on mac systems pc don't need that.

 

[rickag]

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/10/30/leopard.could.add.92.mil/

Piper Jaffray say Apple gets a 60% profit margin for leopard. I doubt Piper's off by that much.

So now let's see your sources for your implicit claim that Apple sells Leopard at a loss.

Thank you for the link. This argument about Apple making a profit on their operating system sales was getting tiring. It was just brain dead to think that Apple would be selling their operating system at a loss.

 

[BenRoethig]

EFI ROM is not mac only and OSX86 does not need it. It just needed for pre os boot on mac systems pc don't need that.

Actually OSX86 does need it, but the OS is fooled into thinking that the system firmware is EFI. I'm not talking about hacks with no support like OSX86 where things may or may not work. I'm talking a full Apple supported license program. As for EFI, while it is an open standard, Microsoft wants nothing to do with it. You won't see third party EFI boards (save the server) sector or video cards with EFI support without a reason.

 

[matticus008]

And go where?

Wherever you like. There are dozens of operating systems, and an even greater number of hardware manufacturers. You're always free to build your own hardware and software, too. It may not be practical, but life is about choices.

There is no other choice. Jobs set it up that way.

There are many other choices. You set it up that way by choosing to buy into a closed ecosystem. The blame does not lie with Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, or anyone else, but solely with the user.