Non Hackintosh Osx-pc?

[Tallest Skil]

Yet apple gets away with being a monopoly on their software.. i love apple but i hate fanboys

Ha. Monopoly. That's funny. 10% marketshare is a monopoly. Tee hee. How, exactly, is it a monopoly? You can't modify Windows and install it for a profit without paying Microsoft.

Aside: Duff-Man... your theme rules. The fact that you've been able to keep it up into the 68030s is a testament to... well, something. It's great.

 

[pdjudd]

Ha. Monopoly. That's funny. 10% marketshare is a monopoly. Tee hee. How, exactly, is it a monopoly? You can't modify Windows and install it for a profit without paying Microsoft.

Indeed. I find it absolutely hilarious on how people seems to continuously abuse and incorrectly apply the term "monopoly" even after it has been explained many times over.

That and the difference between "Licensing" and "Buying"

Aside: Duff-Man... your theme rules. The fact that you've been able to keep it up into the 68030s is a testament to... well, something. It's great.

Indeed. You can't get around Apple's licensing unless it is ruled absolutely null and void - which is not going to happen - because its only clause involves Apple's own trademarks.

And I agree with the Duff-man theme. I always get a good laugh from his posts.

 

[Macky-Mac]

People mistakenly believe that monopolies are inherently illegal but that isn't true....indeed, the intention of patents and copyrights is to give the owner a "monopoly" when it comes to commercial exploitation of whatever is covered by the patent or copyright

 

[MacUser2525]

Duff-Man says....exactly...and to expand on that, the license agreement for OS X specifically states that it is licensed for use on "Apple branded" computers only (as has been pointed out many times every time this subject comes up)...oh yeah!

Yeah I would just point out Apple does not own the copyright on all the code they ship/install by default with those discs. Some of it being GPL code which gives you the right as an end user to do whatever the hell you want with it, as a distributor of GPL code they have the obligation not to place any further restrictions on the code other than was there when they received/used it and limiting where you can install that code is a restriction that is not in the GPL...

 

[Demosthenes X]

That would be true if you did indeed buy it. As it stands right now, you do no such thing with retail copies. You license it upon purchase. You may insist that its the same thing but I assure you it is not. You do not "own" OSX

The entire of "licensing" software remains a point of contention. Because the Apple EULA has never been challenged in court, whether it's legal or not to install it on non-Apple branded hardware remains up in the air. So yes, it's accurate to say that the EULA says you do not own it. But whether that EULA is even valid remains questionable.

IMO, "licensing" software is a load of BS. If you pay money for it, you're entitled to do what you like with it, as long as you're not copying/distributing it, or passing it off as your own work, or otherwise infringing on it. The part of the EULA that says you can't install it on non-Apple hardware is BS. It would be like BMW selling you a car, but saying you can only drive it on approved roads.

 

[J&JPolangin]

...not worth it, I'd build it myself if I were interested in something cheaper than a true product...

 

[pdjudd]

Yeah I would just point out Apple does not own the copyright on all the code they ship/install by default with those discs. Some of it being GPL code which gives you the right as an end user to do whatever the hell you want with it, as a distributor of GPL code they have the obligation not to place any further restrictions on the code other than was there when they received/used it and limiting where you can install that code is a restriction that is not in the GPL...

Two points:

1) Apple licenses the parts of the code they do not own for commercial purposes (legally). Apple actually even distributes a good chunk of code (the darwin core is freely available).
2) It still doesn't mean much as far as cloning as the vast majority of the Apple OS is private code which Apple owns and controls. Even though parts of OSX are GPL, doesn't mean that the entire OS is GPL in any way.

Otherwise, your point is valid. They can restrict the portions that they own - which is a lot.

 

[pdjudd]

The entire of "licensing" software remains a point of contention.

Please provide a cite that licensing is on the whole invalid. I doubt that you will.

Because the Apple EULA has never been challenged in court, whether it's legal or not to install it on non-Apple branded hardware remains up in the air. So yes, it's accurate to say that the EULA says you do not own it. But whether that EULA is even valid remains questionable.

Until it has been ruled invalid, it is assumed to be valid. And business operate under a higher standard than individuals are held to. Businesses cannot just go and violate licensing or abuse copyright.

IMO, "licensing" software is a load of BS. If you pay money for it, you're entitled to do what you like with it, as long as you're not copying/distributing it, or passing it off as your own work, or otherwise infringing on it. The part of the EULA that says you can't install it on non-Apple hardware is BS. It would be like BMW selling you a car, but saying you can only drive it on approved roads.

That is laughable and an invalid comparison. The statements you make are not even comparable. You understand nothing about how licensing and copyright actually work.

You are making the same arguments that psyatar has made and have been summarily rejected by the courts. They already said that Apples terms of licensing are perfectly valid.

 

[MacUser2525]

Two points:

1) Apple licenses the parts of the code they do not own for commercial purposes (legally). Apple actually even distributes a good chunk of code (the darwin core is freely available).
2) It still doesn't mean much as far as cloning as the vast majority of the Apple OS is private code which Apple owns and controls. Even though parts of OSX are GPL, doesn't mean that the entire OS is GPL in any way.

Otherwise, your point is valid. They can restrict the portions that they own - which is a lot.

MacUser2525s-Mac-Pro:~ MacUser2525$ bash -version
GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (i386-apple-darwin9.0)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

MacUser2525s-Mac-Pro:~ MacUser2525$ file /bin/bash 
/bin/bash: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/bin/bash (for architecture i386):	Mach-O executable i386
/bin/bash (for architecture ppc7400):	Mach-O executable ppc

Without this code contained in the GPL version of bash OS X does not boot period. Me in exercising my right under the GPL to run this code have to run it under OS X as that is what it is compiled for and since it is required to launch the graphic shell that runs on top of it using its functions, I am at all times running bash while using anything on OS X therefore I have the right to run this on any hardware I choose too without restriction.

 

[DELLsFan]

While I recommend buying a real Mac to start (I have a 17" MBP and a original release QuadCore MacPro) I will give you this suggestion based on personal experience.

Buy an Efix chip get the parts in their hardware list from newegg, etc. Be happy...

I have a Mac to start. Now what the duece is an Efix chip? What hardware list? Forgive me, I am still a virgin Hackintosher.

 

[MacUser2525]

I have a Mac to start. Now what the duece is an Efix chip? What hardware list? Forgive me, I am still a virgin Hackintosher.

It is a hardware dongle that fits into a USB header on your motherboard thus taking the two ports that would normally be there for your use. Then you set it to be booted from in the BIOS which then allows you to among other things boot the OS X install DVD and install just like a real Mac once done the install you can continue to use the machine you installed on without hacking any .kext at least that is the theory. Last time I looked at it there was rather limtied motherboard support and it is relatively expensive.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Please provide a cite that licensing is on the whole invalid. I doubt that you will.

Before you criticize my posts, I suggest you lay your hands on a dictionary. I did not say Apple's licensing was invalid. I said it was under contention. If you'd read and understood the piece of my post you quoted, you would have realized that.

And yes, Apple's licensing is under contention. That Psystar case you cited, remember?

Until it has been ruled invalid, it is assumed to be valid. And business operate under a higher standard than individuals are held to. Businesses cannot just go and violate licensing or abuse copyright.

That's an arguable truth. Just because something is in writing does not make it uniformly valid. You can put whatever you want in a contract, but if those clauses violate the law, they are not valid. So just because the law is not clear, does not automatically make those clauses in the EULA valid. It simply makes them untested.

That is laughable and an invalid comparison. The statements you make are not even comparable. You understand nothing about how licensing and copyright actually work.

It's called an analogy. Maybe when you're looking up "contention", you can look that one up too. The point is, you bought something. Now the person you bought it from is trying to tell you how you are allowed to use it. Whether that product is software or a physical product makes no difference. You paid money for it, you should have the right to use it as you see fit (within the confines of the law, obviously). It has nothing to do with copyright.

If a BMW came with an EULA that said you could only drive it in California, would that be acceptable? Because if they were so inclined, BMW could very easily sell you a "license" to use the vehicle, and they could say "may only be used in CA". But that does not by itself make that "license" valid.

 

[Macky-Mac]

...... It's called an analogy. ...... The point is, you bought something......

you bought a piece of plastic! You can stomp on it! break it! hit it with a hammer! toast it in the microwave! toss it out the window if you want cuz you own that piece of plastic.....but alas, all you bought was the plastic.....well yeah, you want it to be that you bought the software that's on the plastic but that's not what the people selling it said when it was offered to you, and you bought it knowing they weren't offering you ownership of the software itself.....but now you want it to be different!

...... It's called an analogy. ...... If a BMW came with an EULA that said you could only drive it in California, would that be acceptable? Because if they were so inclined, BMW could very easily sell you a "license" to use the vehicle, and they could say "may only be used in CA". But that does not by itself make that "license" valid.

Maybe a better analogy would be that it's more like you rented a BMW and the rental agreement gives you the right to drive it but limits where you can drive. You rented it in California but the rental agreement doesn't allow you to take it to Mexico.

All that said, I don't know that the whole argument about the EULA end user limits means much here if this company is installing copies of OS X on these computers without requiring the buyer to actually buy a retail copy.

 

[MacUser2525]

you bought a piece of plastic! You can stomp on it! break it! hit it with a hammer! toast it in the microwave! toss it out the window if you want cuz you own that piece of plastic.....but alas, all you bought was the plastic.....well yeah, you want it to be that you bought the software that's on the plastic but that's not what the people selling it said when it was offered to you, and you bought it knowing they weren't offering you ownership of the software itself.....but now you want it to be different!

Just looked at the Family Pack here on my desk nowhere on it does it say you are not buying the software in fact it says you are buying a DVD containing OS X among other items included in the contents description.

 

[Macky-Mac]

Just looked at the Family Pack here on my desk nowhere on it does it say you are not buying the software in fact it says you are buying a DVD containing OS X among other items included in the contents description.

yeah? Well look again and you'll find that on the outside of the package it says:

"Important: Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreements(s) included in this package. Don't steal software."

Look at the package and you'll find it

 

[MacUser2525]

yeah? Well look again and you'll find that on the outside of the package it says:

"Important: Use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreements(s) included in this package. Don't steal software."

Look at the package and you'll find it

Yeah I seen that useless piece of drivel imagine "Don't steal software" when I have obviously just F'n bought it!! and no one can make you agree to any terms you do not have the opportunity to view and agree too before you buy it.

 

[Sun Baked]

If you buy a product (OSX), you're entitled to do what you like with it. As long as they're not pirating OSX, their use of Apple's "intellectual property" is legitimate.

But they DO NOT include a legitimate copy of OS X with their computer.

You get OS X with the machine, and have to pay extra for an actual DVD.

Which makes me wonder how you would do a software restore.

 

[Macky-Mac]

Yeah I seen that useless piece of drivel ......

well there you go! you seen it!

 

[MacUser2525]

well there you go! you seen it!

So unless they get you to sign a contract stating their exact terms printing on the outside of a box is useless, even then if anything in their terms go against existing law in your country they are null and void. Anyways I have had enough of feeding the trolls this evening perhaps you'll come out to play tomorrow when I get up...

 

[J&JPolangin]

...at least the apple software products I've seen that need to be purchased are reasonably priced (compared to say MS)

 

[Cave Man]

Since I am a mac-win user, I have people complaining on the apple tax. In that context, someone approached me the other day and told me about this vendor Apple Open Systems. Are this guys more legit than Psystar?

I don't know if they're any more (or less) legit as Psystar, but their "silent" quad-core and their i7 boxes look interesting.

 

[Demosthenes X]

you bought a piece of plastic! You can stomp on it! break it! hit it with a hammer! toast it in the microwave! toss it out the window if you want cuz you own that piece of plastic.....but alas, all you bought was the plastic.....well yeah, you want it to be that you bought the software that's on the plastic but that's not what the people selling it said when it was offered to you, and you bought it knowing they weren't offering you ownership of the software itself.....but now you want it to be different!

Ah. That explains why my OSX box only says "Piece of Plastic" on the outside. Because that's all I bought.

Apple is selling OSX. When you purchase a retail copy, you are buying the Operating System. Apple can say that you can only install that OS on Apple-branded hardware, but unless that clause in the EULA is enforceable, it's meaningless. It's like writing a clause into a contract that violates existing legislation. You can write it in, but it means nothing.

Maybe a better analogy would be that it's more like you rented a BMW and the rental agreement gives you the right to drive it but limits where you can drive. You rented it in California but the rental agreement doesn't allow you to take it to Mexico.

I wasn't aware we were expected to return those OSX CDs after a given period of time. I'm not sure why so many people think it's all right that Apple try and restrict how and where you use your property that you've paid for. If Sony suddenly started telling people they are only allowed to use their TVs with Sony DVD players, would people defend that policy, too?

 

[Tallest Skil]

and no one can make you agree to any terms you do not have the opportunity to view and agree too before you buy it.

Well, what do I have here.

Your move, hacker.

 

[zmttoxics]

Augh. I hate OSx86 and the pages of arguments that follow it...


In relation to the thread topic. The website looks like a bad idea - I would stay away.

 

[fokket]

People easily forget the fact that Authorized Mac Clones from Motorola nearly destroyed Apple back in the 90s.