EFiX Allows Mac OS X to Boot on a PC

[williedigital]

Thank you for proving my point. TFA says that you can build a Mac Pro for under $800, when it's patently false. It compares desktop CPUs to workstation/server CPUs. It compares dual core to 8 core.

This is the cheap solution for the missing expandable desktop solution, not a replacement for the Mac Pro for under $800 as claimed.

Again, thanks for proving my point.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with you either. If you're talking about benchmarking and overall performance, a hackintosh based on a quad core core2duo cpu will provide relatively equivalent performance to a 1st generation (2X2.66 dual core) mac pro. Honestly, I think that for most people, that is more than enough performance, and can be built for well under $800. Apple uses workstation parts for the mac pro, but really they aren't necessary for the vast majority of things these machines get used for. I mainly just wanted to make sure that my machine could install system updates without trouble and could make the important jump to 10.6. I've built hackintoshes before and was never disappointed in the performance they provided. I was disappointed in the amount of upkeep they required if you wanted to have the latest software updates, etc.

It's kinda like comparing two guys with too much money for their own good who both own hot cars. One owns the $80k porche and the other owns the $250k Ferrari. Sure, the Ferrari is probably built to some higher specs and can go from zero to 100 a few tenths of a second faster, but for everyday driving, for the vast majority of people craving power in the pedal, the porche will give you all the speed that you'll need--the Ferrari is overkill.

 

[Small White Car]

Apple does not supply a Mid Tower for it's demanding customer, and you are willing to upsize to a MacPro

I bought a Mac Pro because it's what I need. I edit HD video and it still takes me several hours to compress a DVD. If they made an even faster Mac Pro, I'd buy it.

Which means you're just making up lies about me. That's kind of dumb since I'm here to point that out. If you're going to lie about people, do it in places where they don't hang out.

That's, like, the first rule of lying. Come on.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

The point is there is a market for the mid-range Mac for the pro-sumer, and I'm sorry, the iMac just doesn't cut it for me, especially when running Maya. That's why EFi-X has appeal, because it will allow an easier install of OS X on vanilla hardware (not the kind of drama I had to go through to make OS X work on my hardware).

It's not about bragging rights. We like Apple's work. That's why I saved enough cash and buying the next Macbook Pro rev. And keeping my OS X peecee as my main power cruncher.

yep, i feel for you too. Apple is seriously missing a big market. and they do offer pretty lame graphics cards options. very limited and not even hdcp compliant.

i'd love to know how you did a pc with mac os

 

[jbrenn]

osx on pc

no it's not and in the EU it may be illegal to have that kind of lock in.

it is illegal
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more tcomputer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

 

[_Refurbished_]

I just orgasmed. If this turns out to be legit....buh bye iMac.

Did you read the article?

Here it is again:

EFI-X™ is not for everyone. It is not for who wants to save money, at all.

Link​

You, my friend, have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[williedigital]

No. You are not. You are buying a license to use OS X under the terms of the license agreement.



Microsoft did not get in trouble for being a monopoly. They got in trouble for abusing monopoly powers. But Apple has a market share around 7% which is nowhere near any definition of a monopoly.



If you return software because you do not agree to the EULA, you are entitled to a full refund.

I thought that the sticky legal issue is that apple's current license is so restrictive that it may be invalid if challenged in court? Everyone agrees that software carries a license, but obviously a company couldn't put in blanket statements that could place potentially any customer in violation at any time the company chooses. Or, I suppose they technically could, but the company would be pressured to rigorously enforce the license, in which case it could seriously damage apple's reputation.

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.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

I bought a Mac Pro because it's what I need. I edit HD video and it still takes me several hours to compress a DVD. If they made an even faster Mac Pro, I'd buy it.

Which means you're just making up lies about me. That's kind of dumb since I'm here to point that out. If you're going to lie about people, do it in places where they don't hang out.

That's, like, the first rule of lying. Come on.

According to your previous posts regarding this topic, you did not mention that you edit HD video. That would make you a lier for withholding information that only you are privy to at the time.

Chances are the application you are using to encode and compress HD to a DVD is not 4-8 core/processor aware. Ram could also be another facto. Then again since none of this information regarding your system specifics is available right away and I do not consider myself a physic then someone is pointing the remaining majority of they fingers at oneself.

 

[matticus008]

Actually you are legally buying Mac OS X

No. You are not. You are buying a license to use OS X under the terms of the license agreement.

You are both correct and both incorrect.

You are buying a copy of OS X, but you are buying it under the terms of a license agreement. You have the exhaustive rights of possession of all physical components of the package, and you have a right to use the software, subject to the particular limitations imposed by the owner of OS X, Apple. Buying a copy does not make you an owner of OS X, but the owner of one copy.

If you return software because you do not agree to the EULA, you are entitled to a full refund.

Yes, you absolutely are.

if you are considering the Apple Hardware and Mac OS X as Mac OS X then you are running the risk of a monopoly

One does not flow from the other.

At best you are violating the usage agreement, however in that case when you return Mac OS X in an open box

Again, the two are separate. If you violate the agreement, you are guilty of copyright infringement, as your license is terminated.

If, on the other hand, you wish to reject the license terms on software, you have the right to do so, and generally have at least three opportunities to do just that before breaking the seal on the disc. You can still do so after breaking the seal, but it may involve extra effort on your part.

Apple would not be perceived greedy if there was a choice other than the MacMini and iMac for a decent upgradable Tower.

Perception of "greed" is nothing more than a weak justification for thuggery. You get them to act by rewarding competitors for their progress. They will follow the money based on their wishes.

At the moment, this device facilitates copyright infringement. Assuming the device is itself noninfringing (which is no guarantee), there's still doubt as to its legitimate use. If such use can be established, they will be able to sell it.

Customers will be able to buy a copy of OS X, and customers will take it upon themselves to infringe copyright. However, so long as customers are spending $300 to add OS X to their own computers, and no one is turning it into a profit source a la Psystar, there's not likely going to be a particularly strong reaction. Apple has never cared about a niche market of hobbyists or the Hackintosh market, as long as it stays small and personal. Commercial enterprises cannot be tolerated, for obvious reasons.

 

[wheelhot]

Customers will be able to buy a copy of OS X, and customers will take it upon themselves to infringe copyright. However, so long as customers are spending $300 to add OS X to their own computers, and no one is turning it into a profit source a la Psystar, there's not likely going to be a particularly strong reaction. Apple has never cared about a niche market of hobbyists or the Hackintosh market, as long as it stays small and personal. Commercial enterprises cannot be tolerated, for obvious reasons.

True, as long as EFI stays low and dont make a big deal about it, then Apple will keep quiet but I think they might not because its product is being shipped globally.

The more people start installing OS X on generic PC the more Apple will create their own chipset, so I guess in OS X SL, Im quite sure Apple will find a way how to prevent people from installing OS X on generic PC.

 

[carlos700]

I could build a $3000 mac pro for $1200 tops.

I'd like to see that. Considering the Intel Xeon E5462, which is the 2.8GHz quad-core chip in the Mac Pro, runs you about $850 a piece. Nice try.

 

[BaldiMac]

This falls under anti-competitive laws, considering the country you reside in.

How is Apple being anti-competitive? They are not preventing another company from developing an OS to rival OS X. And they are not preventing any other company from selling computer hardware.

So you are suggesting it is alright for a company to have a monopolistic practice as long as they do not get too big.

I'm suggesting that you are not understanding what a monopoly is. A large market share is a prerequisite to being classified as a monopoly.

Again depends on the country you reside in. I have never been able to return any software purchase when opened for a full refund if any.

I'm in the US. I can't imagine that any major country would force you to agree to a license agreement that you haven't seen.

 

[PCMacUser]

What game will you be playing? A Windows game? You don't need OS X to play a Windows game, and you don't need a Mac Pro to play a Windows game. Mac Pro applications are designed to use multi-core machines and will scale with the extra cores.

Mac Pros are for professionals. Getting work done. Sure, they can also play games, but that is NOT why people buy them. Do you get it?

???

Sorry I think you missed the point of my post. But thanks for trying!

 

[elgruga]

I'd like to see that. Considering the Intel Xeon E5462, which is the 2.8GHz quad-core chip in the Mac Pro, runs you about $850 a piece. Nice try.

Exactly - so much BS in this thread.

Lets not forget that Apple doesnt hassle us users about registering the OS on different machines. There is, at present, NO serial number that must be input when you install OSX.

If these people have their way, Apple MUST enforce the EULA rules, and life will become like the miserable Windows world, entering serials, weird piracy crap, etc. etc.

Dont all you fools realise how easy life is with a Mac?

As for the 'headless iMac' mantra - I believe it is a WORTHLESS argument - buy a MacPro or move to the Dark Side.

 

[BaldiMac]

You are both correct and both incorrect.

You are buying a copy of OS X, but you are buying it under the terms of a license agreement. You have the exhaustive rights of possession of all physical components of the package, and you have a right to use the software, subject to the particular limitations imposed by the owner of OS X, Apple. Buying a copy does not make you an owner of OS X, but the owner of one copy.

I appreciate the clarification.

 

[richard.mac]

why bother paying for a device which emulates EFI when you can just install EFI v8 and then install a retail version of Leopard for free using guides on InsanelyMac.com. EFI v8 is open source and is freely from netkas.

 

[carlos700]

As for the 'headless iMac' mantra - I believe it is a WORTHLESS argument - buy a MacPro or move to the Dark Side.

I agree. I'd be a little cautious before introducing yet another Mac. I like how Apple has simple product lines with their computers in comparison to numerous models like Dell has with severe overlap that only confuses people. A headless Mac would be nice in theory, but completely undermines the elegance of an iMac. Just my opinion...

 

[matticus008]

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?

No, it would not be without express waiver. However, this, like many other off-the-cuff examples, doesn't not capture the situation in a germane hypothetical. Apple could, however, sell their own headphones only to iPod owners.

This falls under anti-competitive laws, considering the country you reside in.

No it doesn't. What you're quoting from his post falls under copyright laws, and does so in every country in which OS X is sold.

Again depends on the country you reside in. I have never been able to return any software purchase when opened for a full refund if any.

I'm aware of no country where this is the case. I suspect you were trying to return to the wrong party or did not otherwise properly pursue the matter.

I'm in the US. I can't imagine that any major country would force you to agree to a license agreement that you haven't seen.

Seeing an agreement of any kind is not a requirement; one must merely have the option to see what they are agreeing to before issuing assent. For example, a retail store's return policy is agreed to simply by purchasing from the store, whether you've taken the time to read the return policy or not.

 

[freiheit]

Many reasons

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.

Expandability, support for standards (not like Apple's 2nd-gen-Mac-Pro-only GeForce 8800 for instance), saving money, bragging rights -- they're all worthy reasons to someone.

 

[nanofrog]

why bother paying for a device which emulates EFI when you can just install EFI v8 and then install a retail version of Leopard for free <removed link>

At least there are options for those who are interested in a hackintosh.
The EFiX may be easier to get a system up and running, and if someone it, they'll have to pay for it.

 

[philbeeney]

i wonder if apple will respond to this? i guess it will depend on how this sells

I think Apple's best bet would be to update all of their Mac models with the latest components and perhaps introduce a mid level desktop. Perhaps even dropping the prices to near PC levels. That would just blow away the competition with all the switchers being able afford the Mac experience.

Apple did say that they would be taking profit drop this quarter. Who knows, perhaps this is what they have been anticipating.?

 

[doug in albq]

I have looked into my crystal ball and,

one way or another, for better or worse,

in the future,

Mac OS will be available for purchase by Apple to be installed on any PC that meets the minimum specs.

it is going to happen.

(who knows if a change of CEO will be needed for above to come true, not going to speculate that far....)

 

[zombitronic]

Am I correct in assuming that any user using this device would be violating Apple's EULA?

Of course it does. For anyone who sees nothing wrong in this:

Mac OS X (Leopard) Software License (PDF)

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

These guys either didn't read it, or they're ready to go to court over it.

 

[wolfenkraft]

no... it isn't.

it is illegal
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more tcomputer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

Doesn't anyone here actually know what "illegal" means? For the love of christ, that's violating a EULA. Punishable only by being forced to pay damages in a civil court, you cannot go to jail.
There is no law saying, "thou shalt not use this software on unlicensed hardware." Therefore, it is not ILLEGAL! Stop throwing around words you obviously don't understand.
Saying that violating a EULA is against the law means you are allowing Apple to write the law, seriously? Do you people even think these things through?

 

[zombitronic]

From EFI-X's home page:

With EFI-X™ you will be able to enter a new computing dimension.
Installation of Apple® and Microsoft® operating systems, as well as open source ones, is now possible. And it is not only possible, it is also straightforward!

Ability to install Apple® and Microsoft® operating systems from original, unmodified retail DVD.

And from the FAQ:

It is used to run original and unmodified copies of Apple® Mac OSX™ legally and without any post install hacks on compatible hardware PCs.

Except that would be in violation of the Leopard Software License. They've got lawsuit worthy admission scrawled all over their website.

They mention Apple twice on the homepage, specifically stating that the purpose of their product is to assist the user in installing Apple operating systems, which violates Apple's Mac OS X (Leopard) Software License. That's not good for EFI-eX.

 

[thechidz]

so will there be a list of pcs coming off the line that will already meet the specs to work with this?