Would it be illegal to sell the modification that enables OS X to run on a non-Mac system? It seems like that is what the $21 "charge" is for.
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
Would it be illegal to sell the modification that enables OS X to run on a non-Mac system? It seems like that is what the $21 "charge" is for.
apple support above poor?
have you ever had to deal with apple?
and i assume you didn't purchase any of the 1st gen macbooks with overheating/random shutdown/faulty main board issues huh?
if someone is savvy enough to even search for an alternative OS X machine hopefully they'll be a bit more at ease about repairing it themselves and if not, with the money they save, surely they can give the old 'friend of a friend' $50 bucks to clear the friggin cache in safari when it gets stuck, if you take my meaning.
have you ever had to deal with apple?
and i assume you didn't purchase any of the 1st gen macbooks with overheating/random shutdown/faulty main board issues huh?
if someone is savvy enough to even search for an alternative OS X machine hopefully they'll be a bit more at ease about repairing it themselves and if not, with the money they save, surely they can give the old 'friend of a friend' $50 bucks to clear the friggin cache in safari when it gets stuck, if you take my meaning.
I think its great - in fact, due to the OSX86 project, I built a mac, then bought one. While we always used them in the studio, I never had one at home.
Regarding stability, I never, ever had a problem with the BUILD it yourself.
I see it like this, if APPLE is going to be PARANOID and basically CRIPPLE MACBOOKS and MINIS with their *****ty on board GMA, then I am all for this.
Apples problem is they still think PRO USERS (FCP/MOTION) would run to the cheap-o-matic macbook and mini if they had good GPU. Problem is, the PRO market makes up a fraction of their sales (retail is only 22% anyway), yet they still act like the PRO's dictate the market. So not true.
Apple needs to release a cheap gaming system, put a mac in every users hands, and face the fact, so what if the small % of PROS buy into a mini or macbook. At least if its stolen, there is
loss. Until then, I am all for this as I see this as a good thing.Apple really needs to get a grip on the GPU fear and get over it.
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.
-Clive
Good point - in fact, my hack was a on-board GMA, then I bought a Dual DVI 7900GT which runs circles around many of the current offerings for about $100.00. Doesn't Apple charge like $300 for an old AGP card?
Yeah, okay and I'll pay $600.00 for RAM that Apple tests and puts their logo on. LOL. Actually, they don't even put their logo on it. I love Apple, but man, sometimes I think Jobs is more out of touch than Bush is......
".......oh no, the Pro's might use the Macbook or Mini for extra power, hurry, quick, release a GMA onboard...."
I remember when the first gen macbooks had Leopard installed, the overall GPU went up from 93%to 172%, then they released the so called new X300, this basically brought the GPU test to 71%. Cripple ware.
Its things like this that make me root for these underdogs, especially considering that most mac genius' will no little, if not anything, about editing KEXT files, and then of course you have the one way street of an iPod. I mean really, you can't take music from an iPod and put it back on a computer without going through hoops and barrels. Thank goodness for 3rd party software.
If you are going to try and make the machines closer in spec, you would need to add wireless, bluetooth, infrared, optical audio, and iLife to the Open Computer.
Then of course there is the reason Apple PROS use ECC memory with the HUGE heat sink. Why not use regular memory? Wait, I know, its because Server memory is more stable and less prone to errors correct?
Or is it had Apple released a MAC PRO with normal 1066 or 667 FSB memory, that you could get 4 GB for less than $100? If you buy it from Apple, its $500 for 2 more gig, $1500 for 8. Shoot, even a non Xeon would have been a better option, faster FSB and cheaper memory. But hey, thats
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/similar/51746/3
Check the benchmarks yourself. There are several different configurations of Hackintosh there for you to compare.
We've officially passed up the age-old "MacMini End-of-Life?" thread, currently at 1086 posts.
Oh, there are far longer threads than this one or the aforementioned one. Keep posting, you've got a long way to go if you want to become one of the largest threads here on MacRumors.
Then of course there is the reason Apple PROS use ECC memory with the HUGE heat sink. Why not use regular memory? Wait, I know, its because Server memory is more stable and less prone to errors correct?
Or is it had Apple released a MAC PRO with normal 1066 or 667 FSB memory, that you could get 4 GB for less than $100? If you buy it from Apple, its $500 for 2 more gig, $1500 for 8. Shoot, even a non Xeon would have been a better option, faster FSB and cheaper memory. But hey, thats
Actually it is due to Intel not offering a consumer board that can accept more than 8GB of RAM. In the Intel world FB DIMM is the only current option for more than that.
Oh, there are far longer threads than this one or the aforementioned one. Keep posting, you've got a long way to go if you want to become one of the largest threads here on MacRumors.
Oh, I know, but it's the only other one with a thousand posts of people arguing over the lack on an xMac.
This Psystar news has kicked it square in the teeth.
Nowever everyone's talking about it. I can only hope this will provoke something out of Apple. But then again, to hope that would to be kidding myself. -Clive
Oh, I know, but it's the only other one with a thousand posts of people arguing over the lack on an xMac.
This Psystar news has kicked it square in the teeth.
Haha, fair enough - the debate rages on.
I hear what you're saying though - I, too, have wished for a headless mini-tower option from Apple to fill the void between the underperforming and un-upgradeable Mac mini and the overkill Mac Pro (according to my needs, that is). My 24" iMac is great and has all the power I need, but upgrading the HDD and graphics card at some point sure would be a nice option to have - or, for that matter, if the HDD dies without warning. Yes, connecting an external is always an option, but I'd sure like to have easy access to the guts in case I ever do need or want to tinker. Regardless of one's stance on the issue though, as you say, this sure has brought the debate to the forefront.
All depends on the files you change to get it to run on the System.
If you charge $21 for modified/hacked copies of actual Apple copyrighted files, you may be in trouble.
If you add additional files without molesting any file deposited by the Mac OS X install discs, then you would just have to worry about the EULA and the authors of those additional files.
Apple is likely going to argue that you are selling hacked and pirated OS copies for $21 (and they will look hard for modified copies of copyrighted Apple files) -- since the Mac OS X box they send you in the mail with the machine will likely arrive with the seals intact.
Nobody is going to spend the time to hack the OS 100 times a day, they would keep cloning a hacked copy off a master drive. And charging $21 for this service may bite you in the ass.
Haha, that's pretty interesting stuff.
I like the thought that Apple is actually secretly behind this and is simply testing the market for a new machine.
And, "psystar" is quite similar to "daystar", one of the Apple resellers of times past...
Looks Fake because how is Apple letting this happen and why? Also, Maxed out components is only $1,044? Yeah right, not even dell would sell their computers for that low with full settings.
I don't like that thought of Apple "testing the water". Regardless, there's no point in Apple doing anything until Psystar starts Walking the Walk, at the moment there is nothing but Talk.I like the thought that Apple is actually secretly behind this and is simply testing the market for a new machine.
Same here, at this point these things are nothing but vaporware until one actually ships to a real live customer.
And, "psystar" is quite similar to "daystar", one of the Apple resellers of times past...
NO WAY ... The people at Daystar were some of the smartest cookies around, they were able to write drivers on their own (including the daystar multiprocessing extensions).
A lot of the upgrade companies had some seriously talented people able to write code for their products and extension hacks to get their products working with Macs through OS 9.
I'd be surprised if these people can write their own name without misspelling it.
I suppose you're right, so here we go:
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, $136 for after-market 250GB SATA laptop drive (Seagate from Directcanada.com), $29 for 3 port Firewire Hub (also directcanada), $41 to go from 2.0 to 2.2 GHz (difference in price on Newegg) . Total $1105.
Open Computer - 2.2 Ghz, 250 GB HDD, 2GB RAM stock for $399. Add OS for $155, $79 iLife, $18 USB bluetooth adapter, $24 for remote & USB IR receiver, $38 Turtle Beach USB optical audio card(although, from pictures, it looks as though the unit already has 5.1 surround jacks. Kind of a trade off), 3xFW for $50. Total $763.
144.8% x $763 approx= $1105
A significant difference from the original comparison, but still almost a 45% price increase. You might argue that you could sell that 120 GB drive, but most people likely would use the built in ethernet on the Open machine and would likely forego the optical audio. The point being, there will be users who need one bit, but not the other on either unit, so I'll just leave it at this noting the spec is as close as possible.
Actually I was joking...
I meant the company names are similar, that's all - I agree that the companies themselves are nothing alike...
Wow, people are taking this whole thing very seriously from the looks of it - no joking allowed apparently!
far from prime-tyme ready?
Good analysis. I've toyed with the idea of throwing together a Hackintosh as a weekend project, but would probably loose interest in keeping it going thru OSX upgrades big and small. Would end up a pile of junk in a closet.
Some people might go for this based on their desire to save money and try out Mac, neglecting the fine print about limitations, etc. Down the road (probably not too far down it...) these people would get exasperated and most likely go back to Win junk.
For licensing to work, Apple would have to be solid behind it. Doesn't seem likely. Such semi-legit efforts could probably be beat down more decisively and cheaply thru technological rather than legal means.
Good analysis. I've toyed with the idea of throwing together a Hackintosh as a weekend project, but would probably loose interest in keeping it going thru OSX upgrades big and small. Would end up a pile of junk in a closet.
Some people might go for this based on their desire to save money and try out Mac, neglecting the fine print about limitations, etc. Down the road (probably not too far down it...) these people would get exasperated and most likely go back to Win junk.
For licensing to work, Apple would have to be solid behind it. Doesn't seem likely. Such semi-legit efforts could probably be beat down more decisively and cheaply thru technological rather than legal means.
That's because most PCs are generally faster than Macs, depending on the system configuration.
I would still have to ask what it was running however? And what were the specs of the PC?