Exactly - they don't have a clue how much they've been shafted. Perhaps they should.
Doug
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
Exactly - they don't have a clue how much they've been shafted. Perhaps they should.
Doug
I have no problem with the OpenComputer (nee OpenMac). I went to their website and speced out the $999. Not a bad piece of kit actually. Don't like the looks of course but I don't buy a computer solely on looks either.
However, a couple of things gave me pause. The website is very shoddy. Doesn't necessarily reflect on their work as a computer integrator, but doesn't inspire a lot of confidence either. The other thing is support. Sure i can get a lot of support from the hackintosh community and i think would be pretty reliable overall but there is no way to know if this company is going to be around in two year, two months, or tomorrow. Knowing that Apple is going to be around at least for the lifetime of whatever computer i buy is comforting. And i know that i will get reliable support from Apple.
5 years ago I would not have hesitated to buy an OpenComputer. But i am getting older and less willing to futz with my computer. I like knowing that if it goes tits up, I can send it away with no hassle.
However, a couple of things gave me pause. The website is very shoddy. Doesn't necessarily reflect on their work as a computer integrator, but doesn't inspire a lot of confidence either. The other thing is support. Sure i can get a lot of support from the hackintosh community and i think would be pretty reliable overall but there is no way to know if this company is going to be around in two year, two months, or tomorrow. Knowing that Apple is going to be around at least for the lifetime of whatever computer i buy is comforting. And i know that i will get reliable support from Apple.
5 years ago I would not have hesitated to buy an OpenComputer. But i am getting older and less willing to futz with my computer. I like knowing that if it goes tits up, I can send it away with no hassle.
Or you could just make a small bonfire out of your money. Has anyone discussed what they would do with this machine if the hardware broke down? In all honesty as someone has already stated, their website doesnt inspire any confidence.
please link the company making it for you. hell forget even that please link all the components to make it. i also can list a bunch or numbers and say hey it's cheaper. if you read any of my post i was trying point out alot of people are saying this is cheaper but no one backs up there claim. if you can i will give you props. but if your only willing to post unsupported evidence then what the point your just call people names and thinking high of your self.
please get i am not saying macs are better. i am pointing out no one has shown me and exact same spec machine to the mini as being much cheaper.
I'm not suggesting its good idea to buy this machine but you could replace the parts yourself cheaply. Granted still not free and easy like a mac under warranty.
This site should be much more transparent in what they are selling. This needs to be marketed to hobbyists instead of anyone that wants a cheap mac. Those hobbyists however will (and have already) build their own systems. Also keeping it running smooth really isn't a pain at all........ for those that don't mind tinkering and have the knowledge to do so.
I can't really vouch for using a hackintosh as your primary computer but if you have a little patience and a little more know how I don't see why you couldn't.
Also I don't recommend installing Tiger, its a whole 'nother ballgame in this situation.
The vast majority of people owning Hackintoshes tell you (in this very thread) that this is not for everyone. For some reason a lot of people ignore that completely. The people at osx86project are not exactly thrilled with the idea that a company is trying to make money off their work and referring to them for technical support.
If you don't have the skills to build your own, and you don't have the time to find out how, then you probably don't have the time and skills to maintain the system either. This has been repeated ad nauseum.
This company is advertising their computer as a cheaper Mac, not to the Hackintosh community. That I have a serious problem with.
I agree. I think the people who would be attracted to this offer would be better off building their own or buying from Apple.
I don't think anyone makes anything like the mini with similar specs. Anything I have noticed is generally underpowered compared to the mini. Of course outside of the Appleshere I don't really see many clamoring for something with that niche form factor so any comparison might be impossible.
Truth be told, don't build, buy or covet a Hackintosh just because it's cheaper.
Sorry to interject, but my iBook G4 HAS worked flawlessly for five years. I cannot even begin to explain how happy I am with it. I could count the number of software crashes in five years on one hand and have fingers left over. Last week I used it to assemble and present a Keynote slideshow for two-dozen very grizzled executives. Afterwards they told me it was the single best "Powerpoint" they ever saw, and I'd obviously worked on it for weeks. It took me two hours to put it together, and it was flawless. My refrigerator causes me more stress than this computer does! And for the record, my brand-new 24" iMac has also been perfect, although I've only owned it for three months. And come to think of it, my 2001 iMac G3 has worked flawlessly too, although I don't use it so much anymore. I am sorry that you're having such terrible luck with your computers, perhaps they just don't like you.
If you want to get really specific with numbers, why have you selected the cheaper of the two mini systems for comparison. Just keeping it to the headless computer you have:
Mac Mini - 2.0 GHz, with SD, 120 GB HDD, and leopard stock for $799. To attempt to bring the specs in line, add $100 for RAM and $50 to get to 160 GB HDD. Total $949.
Open Computer - 2.2 Ghz, 250 GB HDD, 2GB RAM stock for $399. Add OS for $155 and 3xFW for $50. Total $604.
157.1% x $604 approx= $949
So that's an increase of more than 57% to purchase a Mac Mini. I'm not advocating one or the other, just trying to be clear with the numbers. Please don't jump all over the post about how awful the Open Computer components must be. At this point, we simply don't know until a unit is cracked open.
But take note. You can't have it both ways by call the industry parts awful and Mac parts superior, then complain that bad capacitors, drive planes, overheating etc are the result of third party parts and not Apple's fault. How many of us buy a Mac stock, then load in our own cheap RAM and HDD and operate without issue?
Doesn't "flawless" imply that there should be no crashes? I'm not trying to stir it up, but c'mon. Realistically my Macs operate so much better than PCs I used to own and my wife's still-PC. However, my machines do encounter the occasional lock-up or hiccup and I would never try to give anyone the impression that there are no issues. If that were the case, we would never need updates to correct problems with the OS or software.
I think they'd be on a lot better footing if they didn't "pre-install" OS-X and just sold the disc along with the machine. They probably won't last long.
But the more of these kinds of things that come out, the more pressure Apple will have to fill the hole in their line. Eventually it will make more sense to provide people with what they are begging for than to chase around everyone else that's willing to do it for them.
But the more of these kinds of things that come out, the more pressure Apple will have to fill the hole in their line. Eventually it will make more sense to provide people with what they are begging for than to chase around everyone else that's willing to do it for them.
I've read through 44 pages and...
I am not the biggest fan of this computer. I have seen the even split in the opinion, but I think that there is a difference buying Leopard and installing it on you own Hackintosh, than selling a Hackintosh. I also do not think that the people who would be inclined to run this system would buy it, because I think that they would rather build their own machine. For some people who aren't very inclined technologically, it may sound great, but I do not think it will work for them, because if they aren't inclined technologically, how could they fix the issues that updates would cause? I also am curious as to how they would work on fixing the computer if it breaks down?
I understand that mac's are more expensive, but, they are a business. And the job of a business is to make money, and that is what they are doing. It is your choice to do what you want, but I think that if you want cheap, build your own computer, or buy something that isn't a mac. I understand that OS X is the main feature of a mac, and the reason I plan to buy one this summer, but if you want that experience, than you go with who provides it, and they can charge the prices they desire. I wouldn't go to an expensive restaurant, and then say that the my steak and potatoes, while really good, wasn't worth the $28.99, and I can get a burger and fries for $5.00 at McDonald's. They are both beef and potatoes, packaged differently, and the quality of the steak and potatoes is higher than McDonald's food, and the experience is much better than McDonald's. Mac's may have the same basic components of a PC, but OS X is like the steak and potatoes, while Windows is like the burger and fries.
I currently run XP, and while it is the most stable OS that Microstink has, it freezes and crashes on me consistently. I actually had to reinstall the OS a few weeks ago, because of a massive virus, and was lucky to retain my documents and pictures. So, IMHO, I think that OS X is much more stable and secure, and has a better experience overall. Apple has the right to charge whatever they please for their computers. They don't need to change anything if people are buying their computers, and they obviously are, because their market share is growing like crazy.
So in conclusion, I think that the only people who should buy this are the people who are technologically inclined enough to maintain this computer, but I think that those people might be better off building their own computer. I think this company will get stamped out by Apple's legal department. However, I also hope that this will move Apple towards offering a headless Mac, between the iMac and the MacPro.
I am not the biggest fan of this computer. I have seen the even split in the opinion, but I think that there is a difference buying Leopard and installing it on you own Hackintosh, than selling a Hackintosh. I also do not think that the people who would be inclined to run this system would buy it, because I think that they would rather build their own machine. For some people who aren't very inclined technologically, it may sound great, but I do not think it will work for them, because if they aren't inclined technologically, how could they fix the issues that updates would cause? I also am curious as to how they would work on fixing the computer if it breaks down?
I understand that mac's are more expensive, but, they are a business. And the job of a business is to make money, and that is what they are doing. It is your choice to do what you want, but I think that if you want cheap, build your own computer, or buy something that isn't a mac. I understand that OS X is the main feature of a mac, and the reason I plan to buy one this summer, but if you want that experience, than you go with who provides it, and they can charge the prices they desire. I wouldn't go to an expensive restaurant, and then say that the my steak and potatoes, while really good, wasn't worth the $28.99, and I can get a burger and fries for $5.00 at McDonald's. They are both beef and potatoes, packaged differently, and the quality of the steak and potatoes is higher than McDonald's food, and the experience is much better than McDonald's. Mac's may have the same basic components of a PC, but OS X is like the steak and potatoes, while Windows is like the burger and fries.
I currently run XP, and while it is the most stable OS that Microstink has, it freezes and crashes on me consistently. I actually had to reinstall the OS a few weeks ago, because of a massive virus, and was lucky to retain my documents and pictures. So, IMHO, I think that OS X is much more stable and secure, and has a better experience overall. Apple has the right to charge whatever they please for their computers. They don't need to change anything if people are buying their computers, and they obviously are, because their market share is growing like crazy.
So in conclusion, I think that the only people who should buy this are the people who are technologically inclined enough to maintain this computer, but I think that those people might be better off building their own computer. I think this company will get stamped out by Apple's legal department. However, I also hope that this will move Apple towards offering a headless Mac, between the iMac and the MacPro.
I'm a couple of pages in replies behind so bear with me...
Thank goodness there's fair use to protect these users, who are not going on to sell or otherwise distribute pirated software.
If a person bought a painting, made a duplicate and kept the original in an airtight vault in his basement, meanwhile hanging the copy in his livingroom, is a court of law going to find him guilty of copyright infringement? No, because there was no market impact as a result of his copying on the image.
Likewise with a disk-image of OS X.
While individual hackers might have a difficult time finding a solution, a company (in this case, Psystar) could easily release a patch that would make the nescessary updates automatically, especially since the "open" hardware will be basically identical.
-Clive
Thank goodness there's fair use to protect these users, who are not going on to sell or otherwise distribute pirated software.
If a person bought a painting, made a duplicate and kept the original in an airtight vault in his basement, meanwhile hanging the copy in his livingroom, is a court of law going to find him guilty of copyright infringement? No, because there was no market impact as a result of his copying on the image.
Likewise with a disk-image of OS X.
While individual hackers might have a difficult time finding a solution, a company (in this case, Psystar) could easily release a patch that would make the nescessary updates automatically, especially since the "open" hardware will be basically identical.
-Clive
PC Home movie
There's no way to get a Mac without iLife.
By the way, you've just remind me about the "PC home movie" get a Mac TV ad.
There's no way to get a Mac without iLife.
By the way, you've just remind me about the "PC home movie" get a Mac TV ad.
You do realize that Psystar is, in fact, selling and distributing modified versions of OS X, right? Oh sure, they claim it's a Vanilla kernel, but they do in fact have to install some patches in order to run OS X properly on their machines, so they are in fact selling a modified version. That's perhaps one of the most important points, which I hadn't even recognized until your post brought it up.
jW
Actually, I would refer to the fact that the actual hardware is labeled with apple logos or the apple name itself. Heck, they are even nice enough to label the ide cable that goes from the optical drive to the motherboard. If you would like, I could show you pictures...
I was specifically talking about the case where a user fails to comply with the EULA.
As people are possibly aware, under US copyright law, you are allowed to make a backup copy of software you are legally entitled to use for the purposes of Archive or Backup only. If an EULA is valid, then the "fair use" provisions won't allow you to make any copies / install the software if you breach it.
Incidentally, breach of copyright in the US can leave you liable to statutory damages of up to $30,000, or $150,000 for "willful infringement"
Details from here
If you have to image an office full of computers then you're going to need a license per seat. I only have a retail Leopard disc to work off of since we do have a volume Leopard license.There's no way to get a Mac without iLife.
By the way, you've just remind me about the "PC home movie" get a Mac TV ad.
Yes it is quite easy to have Macs without iLife. I don't see much of a reason to pay the licensing fees for an application we're not going to use. I'm not going to spend the time to make sure each model has the correct version of iLife that it shipped with either. Some of these machines are G4s to Mac Pros.
We've officially passed up the age-old "MacMini End-of-Life?" thread, currently at 1086 posts. Congrats, everyone.
I think we agree on this point alone. I can tell you that I, though looking to build my own hackintosh, would never buy this, as I can build one better and cheaper myself. So you are spot-on there.
I also have to side with the Hackintosh community having a problem with Psystar not only commercializing their process without permission but also dumping all “support” on them. Building, owning and running a Hackintosh is definitely an “at your own risk” endeavor. It’s certainly not for the feint of heart and would NOT be well-suited for the consumer market. It should definitely NOT be advertised as a cheaper Mac, as it is not a Mac. It’s an experimental, unsupported, OS X-running Franken-computer. Consumers need to know that.
I can’t help but support the move toward a generic installer for OS X, though. While some are predicting that would spell doom for Apple, I'm thinking the worst-case-scenario for Apple is that they will simply be forced to sell licenses to third parties. No one, however, will force them to stop making Macs. And as long as the Mac is superior to and competitive with other clones, Apple will do fine. It’s the last part I’m worried about. I don’t think Apple knows how to compete head-to-head in the market.
I do realize that, and I don't think Psystar should be able to load Leopard onto their hackintoshs before they sell them or provide these alleged "restore disks." That part is clearly a breach of some sort. Perhaps they should release a tool to take an original Install DVD and patch/alter/burn a la OSx86 method on the user's own computer. That would clearly be the least controversial way to do it.
-Clive
Congrats, everyone.I think we agree on this point alone. I can tell you that I, though looking to build my own hackintosh, would never buy this, as I can build one better and cheaper myself. So you are spot-on there.
I also have to side with the Hackintosh community having a problem with Psystar not only commercializing their process without permission but also dumping all “support” on them. Building, owning and running a Hackintosh is definitely an “at your own risk” endeavor. It’s certainly not for the feint of heart and would NOT be well-suited for the consumer market. It should definitely NOT be advertised as a cheaper Mac, as it is not a Mac. It’s an experimental, unsupported, OS X-running Franken-computer. Consumers need to know that.
I can’t help but support the move toward a generic installer for OS X, though. While some are predicting that would spell doom for Apple, I'm thinking the worst-case-scenario for Apple is that they will simply be forced to sell licenses to third parties. No one, however, will force them to stop making Macs. And as long as the Mac is superior to and competitive with other clones, Apple will do fine. It’s the last part I’m worried about. I don’t think Apple knows how to compete head-to-head in the market.
I do realize that, and I don't think Psystar should be able to load Leopard onto their hackintoshs before they sell them or provide these alleged "restore disks." That part is clearly a breach of some sort. Perhaps they should release a tool to take an original Install DVD and patch/alter/burn a la OSx86 method on the user's own computer. That would clearly be the least controversial way to do it.
-Clive
different kind of snobs;
no the kind of mindless rich idiots I saw paying $400 to replace an airport card are the kind of people we don't need.
I dont' want "snobs" in the community; but how it used to be;
"apple nerds" guys who could buy a mid ranged apple computer and tinker with it; those days are dead. you are not even supposed to install your own RAM in most apple systems these days.
Because that's just what the Mac community needs, elitist geek snobbery and "Macs are only used for high end graphics, audio and video" mindsets, which in the end deter would be developers from porting their popular consumer apps to OS X.
The same geek snobbery has done the Linux community no end of favours.
Skype 3.6 on a par with Windows? Do me a favour. They've only had 2.0 stable for a month, and Skype are one of the better companies when it comes to porting their app to non Windows platforms.
no the kind of mindless rich idiots I saw paying $400 to replace an airport card are the kind of people we don't need.
I dont' want "snobs" in the community; but how it used to be;
"apple nerds" guys who could buy a mid ranged apple computer and tinker with it; those days are dead. you are not even supposed to install your own RAM in most apple systems these days.
That was my question earlier, are the hacks additional files in addition to the plain vanilla install ... or do those patches replace actual Apple, ATI, Nvidia, etc. files.
If they are selling a hacked OS, they aren't just selling a plain vanilla install using the EFI bootloader -- but selling a cracked OS for PROFIT (since they are charging $150 for a hacked version of a $129 SW package onto the machine.)
That gets it out of the realm of simple EULA and license violations and puts them square into copyright and possible piracy violations.