They're not all that different it build quality, but the designs are becoming smaller and more experimental. The closer you get to the edge of the operating envelope, the more likely something is going to fail.
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.
'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple
- Thread starter star555
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They're not all that different it build quality, but the designs are becoming smaller and more experimental. The closer you get to the edge of the operating envelope, the more likely something is going to fail.
I'm with you on this. People really do know who to bow down to Apple. Yes their products are great, but does that stop you asking questions when somebody can do it cheaper???
1000 points for mentioning Fight Club too!
Drivers??? What the heck are Drivers??? If you need 'em, it ain't a Mac.
You seriously think Mac OS X doesn't user drivers?
The target market that OpenMac is going for is the type of consumer that buys computers more often, and doesn't give a damn about warranty. Most Gamers will fix problems themselves. If a computer is overheating, they open the case, and leave it that way. If it's got bad RAM, they replace it. If it's got a bad motherboard, they buy a new machine.
"Built to last a few years"? Doubtful. "Parts bought from the same manufacturers", you betcha.
Don't be ridiculous, Apple have a niche that they will retain unless they are completely stupid, which at this point they are not. Let's hope they don't drop the ball.
EXACTLY. They are just selling hardware. If you happen to install the MacOS on it, then you do it at your own risk, and Apple doesn't have to support it.
Apple can't do anything as long as they don't ship it with Leopard.
I agree that the comment on welfare was probably derogatory. However if Apple hadn't targeted rich people who actually buy a lot of software and created a brand that people like, they really would be dead.
Sure, but poor people buy considerably less software than rich people, its morally wrong, but if you can't afford it then you are far more likely to steal it, regardless of whether you consider it "wrong".
If you only earn $3000 a year, like a large proportion of the world, how can you seriously be expected to buy software, especially if it costs $100 to buy legitimately? Whereas if you earn $100000 you can spare the cash.
Im sorry but you seem to be missing my point entirely. Yes I understand that the guts of a Mac arent greatly different to anything else but thats not the point.
If you cant afford it then thats tough luck no matter what it is, a Mac, a nice car whatever, if you cant afford it, its not the problem and wrongdoing of the company that makes that product its your problem for not having enough funds to be able to obtain it.
Are you bitter as well because you cant afford one?
Haven't read many posts but...
Sure there are legal/EULA issues with this, but if it does make it out the door and sells like hotcakes then Apple I could see lawyer up on them and then come out with something similar. Remember, if it comes down to being a money maker Apple will be on it.
Sure there are legal/EULA issues with this, but if it does make it out the door and sells like hotcakes then Apple I could see lawyer up on them and then come out with something similar. Remember, if it comes down to being a money maker Apple will be on it.
Ugh, bad idea! I looked into laptops a little over 2yrs ago and went with Apple over a cheaper T60 option from the volume pricing offered from the firm I work for. I justified the extra price with the camera, IR remote, widescreen, backlit keyboard, etc etc etc. Now that I am decently familiar with OS X I find it runs MUCH better than Windows. I'll have to agree that this is is mostly due to the fact that Apple knows exactly what hardware its software is running on. 
Looks like Seth has his shout out on the matter, big up as well to the Macrumors crew:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/return_of_the_clones
http://blogs.computerworld.com/return_of_the_clones
I don't agree, I think he's just being realistic about how the world works.
Not likely at all.
You rock!, its something like I always dreamed of owning a Lamborghini, but I can never own one, so is the company to blame for selling expensive prices?. Its just the same for Mac.
Anyway, creating a lot of upgradeability option on a Mac is not a good idea, it could lead to instability and it might take a longer time for Apple to fix the bug created by those hardwares.
Accept the fact people, Mac is stable cause Apple being ass by limiting the hardware upgradeability. Would you want to own a Mac OS X if its not stable?
By supporting this kind of company, you are contributing to the instability of Mac OS X.
Besides to strengthen some of the forum posters about Leopard price, I say its true, because Apple makes their own hardware and software, Leopard dont need to be in different suites like Vista (Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate) so again by supporting this kind of company you are in a way causing the development of future OS X to be halted.
The number of hackintosh in the world is not that many cause Apple is not giving support and many people are not computer literate, thats why Apple decide not to do anything much about it cause its sort of giving a free promotion to Apple. And for those who want to upgrade so much, just get a Dell and hackintosh it, and if your files are lost, dont blame anyone.
Let's make some quick assumptions/estimates.
20% of Mac desktop customers aren't terribly happy with their choice:
- They buy a mini even though they would prefer more power, better graphics, upgrades.
- They buy an iMac even though they would prefer a different/separate screen.
- They buy a Mac Pro even though they don't need eight cores, would prefer a more reasonably priced quad core, or even a high-end dual core.
25% of these people are tech savvy enough to deal with a clone built from compatible components but that may need to have some additional patches applied for future OS X updates.
10% of these people actually think it's worth the hassle and are willing to give it a try.
That would make around 0.5% of Apple's desktop sales given perfect (e. g. a lot of free) marketing, which I assume they will get. 0.5% of Apple's 1 million in Q1 is 5000 units. They are a small company and they didn't expect a lot of web traffic (site down). My guess is that they didn't expect that many orders either. They are probably able to build and ship 5-20 computers a day, 500/month max, but more likely around 100. And I guess they forgot about all the necessary support too.
So, this is what will happen:
First they will have to deal with Apple. Then they will be unable to meet demand. Then they will face massive support problems. And then the copy cats.
20% of Mac desktop customers aren't terribly happy with their choice:
- They buy a mini even though they would prefer more power, better graphics, upgrades.
- They buy an iMac even though they would prefer a different/separate screen.
- They buy a Mac Pro even though they don't need eight cores, would prefer a more reasonably priced quad core, or even a high-end dual core.
25% of these people are tech savvy enough to deal with a clone built from compatible components but that may need to have some additional patches applied for future OS X updates.
10% of these people actually think it's worth the hassle and are willing to give it a try.
That would make around 0.5% of Apple's desktop sales given perfect (e. g. a lot of free) marketing, which I assume they will get. 0.5% of Apple's 1 million in Q1 is 5000 units. They are a small company and they didn't expect a lot of web traffic (site down). My guess is that they didn't expect that many orders either. They are probably able to build and ship 5-20 computers a day, 500/month max, but more likely around 100. And I guess they forgot about all the necessary support too.
So, this is what will happen:
First they will have to deal with Apple. Then they will be unable to meet demand. Then they will face massive support problems. And then the copy cats.
Ugh, bad idea! I looked into laptops a little over 2yrs ago and went with Apple over a cheaper T60 option from the volume pricing offered from the firm I work for. I justified the extra price with the camera, IR remote, widescreen, backlit keyboard, etc etc etc. Now that I am decently familiar with OS X I find it runs MUCH better than Windows. I'll have to agree that this is is mostly due to the fact that Apple knows exactly what hardware its software is running on.
I think need to differentiate between Apple laptops and desktops. I have a MBP that was very price competitive at the time (this is usually the case only right after an update) I bought it. The problem is that many of Apples desktop machines are overpriced compared to the hardware that's in them.
Good call. I bet Apple nearly wishes it *could* sell this box, though for a hundred or so more. No support needed, cheap hardware, off-brand, no direct competition for the mainstream public, and gamers finally stop complaining about the $1000 Mac gaming tax.
Fwiw, there's a page in Google's cache of the site. Here's a screengrab:
a little off topic but....
everybody keeps saying that non-pro users are missing an expandable mid range tower somewhere between a mac pro and imac. What I don't understand is what do these non pro home users need extra PCI slots for? e-SATA maybe? Firewire 800 and USB2 not fast enough for home use? I get that you might want to upgrade the graphics card to keep everything up to date for gaming but if you need a computer for gaming why not get a PC? or better still a console (which gives you pretty much upgrade free hassle for its whole life span). For the record I have a MBP (original 1.83 GHz core duo witha 128MB X1600) that I use at home with photoshop and aperture, itunes web browsing etc, a pimped up G4 Dual 450 at work running panther for using VectorNTI (DNA sequencing software) and an Xbox for games.
In a way maybe I just answered my own question, my G4 dual 450 just got a new graphics card and USB 2 card which lets it run pretty comfortably and crunch through the most heavy sequencing stuff.
My recommendation, if you are a home user that wants and affordable mid range apple tower, buy second hand mac pro (that might be a couple of years old) and just go wild, most MDD G4s are still leopard compatable and are pretty respectable machines for home "non-pro" usage.
everybody keeps saying that non-pro users are missing an expandable mid range tower somewhere between a mac pro and imac. What I don't understand is what do these non pro home users need extra PCI slots for? e-SATA maybe? Firewire 800 and USB2 not fast enough for home use? I get that you might want to upgrade the graphics card to keep everything up to date for gaming but if you need a computer for gaming why not get a PC? or better still a console (which gives you pretty much upgrade free hassle for its whole life span). For the record I have a MBP (original 1.83 GHz core duo witha 128MB X1600) that I use at home with photoshop and aperture, itunes web browsing etc, a pimped up G4 Dual 450 at work running panther for using VectorNTI (DNA sequencing software) and an Xbox for games.
In a way maybe I just answered my own question, my G4 dual 450 just got a new graphics card and USB 2 card which lets it run pretty comfortably and crunch through the most heavy sequencing stuff.
My recommendation, if you are a home user that wants and affordable mid range apple tower, buy second hand mac pro (that might be a couple of years old) and just go wild, most MDD G4s are still leopard compatable and are pretty respectable machines for home "non-pro" usage.
Hmm I don't buy the common consensus about OS stability here. These days it's very rare you get instability in an OS. Even on obscure hardware. Most PCs these days have very similar hardware (lowish end has C2d/Intel graphics/std on board sound etc).
That holds for XP and Linux.