Psystar Demos 'Open Computer' on Video

[subsonix]

Devils Advocate: If this is true explain why is it every week that advid Mac users comment on the following new HW announcement;

Hope the Processors is X.XXGHz,

Hope the HDD is XXXGB larger,

Hope the GPU has XXX amount of ram,

Hope the system has XXX Gigs of default ram,

Hope the memory bus is XXX thicker; and

Feel free to add anything else I have not included.

The only answer I can think of is that those are probably nerds. But seriously, most people dont max out their processing power when using mail or safari or writing documents in word or doing presentations etc. which is what 90% of people do with their computers.

Don't fool yourself, or try to fool others in the process. If there was no improvement in any of the mentioned areas above, we would not had the requirement to upgrade ever.

There is always a bottleneck and nothing will change that unless we move to a light based computing system.

I never said there was no improvement I just said that there are other factors to look at when you decide how good a computer is than the specs, as how easy it is to use for it´s intended audience or how much its weigh is etc etc. It all depends of cource.

 

[fraggle]

The psystar only comes standard w. GMA 950. Give me a break. The next Mini should have a 3100 which is marginally better but to sell one with that standard to compare w. the Mini is lame.

An upgraded vid. card should be standard in a build-it-yourself such as theirs.

The point is that you CAN change the graphics card. Not everyone needs a Xeon CPU but a lot of people would like a better graphics card for playing games.

 

[IJ Reilly]

For everyone who'd like to buy a non-Apple Mac, how much would you be willing to pay for a copy of OSX which can be installed on this computer?

 

[NC MacGuy]

The technology is there and is dropping rather fast in price, that is why your office is integrating wifi. Plus its cheaper to have wifi rather than run wires from one end of the office to the next.

wifi is unsafe regardless if your company is using WPA 2 Enterprise. There are consumer available methods to take your entire companies computer network down with minimal amount of work, just for the fact that it runs on wifi. Your companies managers clearly don't care about security and downtime, rather the cheapest solution.

Hard-line Optical Fiber is the only secure method to date.

Uhh, thanks. I own the company Leased building and I can put a new office wherever I want Very aware of pitfalls and do all in my power to make sure we are secure as can be.

Secure website hosted elsewhere so no real worry w. intra-office network

There has been no compromises in seven years we've been in business and in reality, only downtime we've had is with a hub/router that died once and random local power outages.

 

[NC MacGuy]

For everyone who'd like to buy a non-Apple Mac, how much would you be willing to pay for a copy of OSX which can be installed on this computer?

Tricky one you are

I'd pay $500 for license to install OSX on a system of my choice. Only one system at a time but can change systems if I please.

I wouldn't pay diddly to install it on the aforementioned POS.

 

[SDDave2007]

Uh... was I the only one that noticed?

In the picture the "OpenComputer" is on the left of the monitor...

BUT ALL THE WIRES GO TO THE RIGHT?!

picture looks totally posed, and I'd bet there is a MacMini off to the right out of frame

 

[IJ Reilly]

Tricky one you are

I'd pay $500 for license to install OSX on a system of my choice. Only one system at a time but can change systems if I please.

I wouldn't pay diddly to install it on the aforementioned POS.

Seriously? $500.00? I'd be interested to know if anyone else would be willing to fork over that much just for the privilege installing OSX on a non-Apple computer.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Uhh, thanks. I own the company Leased building and I can put a new office wherever I want Very aware of pitfalls and do all in my power to make sure we are secure as can be.

Secure website hosted elsewhere so no real worry w. intra-office network

There has been no compromises in seven years we've been in business and in reality, only downtime we've had is with a hub/router that died once and random local power outages.

Glad to hear your customer service pleases.

 

[NC MacGuy]

Seriously? $500.00? I'd be interested to know if anyone else would be willing to fork over that much just for the privilege installing OSX on a non-Apple computer.

Absolutely! As long as it is recognized by Apple and I can update software and everything runs like an Apple (only faster...)- which isn't out of the realm of possibility.

I got into this before on another thread, Apple certifies quality manufacturers w. licensing option and has some control over what hardware their OS runs on to make sure user has an Apples to Apples experience.

I'm not talking crapstars.

Sony?? Do it tomorrow.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Tricky one you are

I'd pay $500 for license to install OSX on a system of my choice. Only one system at a time but can change systems if I please.

I wouldn't pay diddly to install it on the aforementioned POS.

$250 sounds better with all updates, not upgrades.

Imagine the savings, a self-built box running 10.5 for less than 600.

 

[NC MacGuy]

$250 sounds better with all updates, not upgrades.

Imagine the savings, a self-built box running 10.5 for less than 600.

Problem is in my scenario, Apple has right to dictate hardware parameters so a $600 quality box might not be the same as one could cobble together on their own.

This would be done to ensure compatibility and avoid hardware vs. software problems.

$500, copy of sftwre. plus license. Software can be installed on Apple hardware compliant x,d,s,r,t,k, etc.
Only one machine w. MS type OS authentication. Change machines, software goes to. Free updates, pay for upgrades.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Absolutely! As long as it is recognized by Apple and I can update software and everything runs like an Apple (only faster...)- which isn't out of the realm of possibility.

That's a given. If Apple could sell unrestricted copies of OSX for $500.00, they might well do it -- but I doubt the market would be very large. Tacking $500.00 on top of the hardware costs would not make OSX box-building very economical, if at all.

 

[Breckreation]

Something is weird here....

I don't quite understand why such an advanced company like this would post such a ghetto video...are we hiding something here?

 

[NC MacGuy]

That's a given. If Apple could sell unrestricted copies of OSX for $500.00, they might well do it -- but I doubt the market would be very large. Tacking $500.00 on top of the hardware costs would not make OSX box-building very economical, if at all.

But it does provide an option. I'm not for the build your own box licensing. Would have to be something that wouldn't tarnish Apples image more than they could on their own.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

I never said there was no improvement I just said that there are other factors to look at when you decide how good a computer is than the specs, as how easy it is to use for it´s intended audience or how much its weigh is etc etc. It all depends of cource.

Care to explain why then is the iMac dropping the pounds when its a desktop system.

You statement holds true to a point for portables. The MBA seems to fit between an iPhone and a MB/P at the price point of a powerful laptop however with a fraction of its power.

Economically it makes no sense, one is better off with a MPB 15.4" since it will not be so restricted.

 

[NC MacGuy]

I don't quite understand why such an advanced company like this would post such a ghetto video...are we hiding something here?

Because the company is not advanced at all! Do a google and read through gizmodo and others findings about them.

 

[BenRoethig]

$250-300. It would still save me close to $1000 getting a desktop instead of spending $3100 I don't have on a Mac Pro and accessories.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Problem is in my scenario, Apple has right to dictate hardware parameters so a $600 quality box might not be the same as one could cobble together on their own.

This would be done to ensure compatibility and avoid hardware vs. software problems.

$500, copy of sftwre. plus license. Software can be installed on Apple hardware compliant x,d,s,r,t,k, etc.
Only one machine w. MS type OS authentication. Change machines, software goes to. Free updates, pay for upgrades.

This would leave to make up BS requirements so the cost of a self-built or 3rd party vendor to seem pricier than the own hardware.

This would not work.

Running 10.5 and if need be any other software, does not require specific guidelines, just drivers.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Seriously? $500.00? I'd be interested to know if anyone else would be willing to fork over that much just for the privilege installing OSX on a non-Apple computer.

You asked the question to begin with, why not post it as a poll of the week/day.


"What are you willing to pay for Mac OS X, to be legally installed on any hardware of choice?"

 

[BenRoethig]

Care to explain why then is the iMac dropping the pounds when its a desktop system.

Its an all in one, not a desktop. It saves weight by using mostly mobile parts, and ditching all but basic features.

 

[subsonix]

Care to explain why then is the iMac dropping the pounds when its a desktop system.

I dont know wat you mean here drop the pounds?

You statement holds true to a point for portables. The MBA seems to fit between an iPhone and a MB/P at the price point of a powerful laptop however with a fraction of its power.

Economically it makes no sense, one is better off with a MPB 15.4" since it will not be so restricted.

Not true, you can only speak for yourself in this case. If you dont use the ports, need a ligthweight computer for normal office work then there is no reason why the pro is better suited.

This type of comparisons only happens with computers oddly enough. You never hear of people complaining that you cant upgrade the motor of their new blender in the kitchen or how many watts it has etc.

 

[NC MacGuy]

You asked the question to begin with, why not post it as a poll of the week/day.


"What are you willing to pay for Mac OS X, to be legally installed on any hardware of choice?"

The astute and revered IJ Reilly's question was concerning "a non-Apple Mac." There's a big difference than hardware of your choice. This model could never, ever have any feasibility.

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

$250-300. It would still save me close to $1000 getting a desktop instead of spending $3100 I don't have on a Mac Pro and accessories.

My concern is that I do not mind the MacMini, the iMac or even the MacPro. All I am asking for is since its already x86 architecture why note offer the same GPU from Nvidia or AMD ATi when its released for Windows.

Once the GPU can be user upgraded for the MacMini and the iMac and a better upgrade solution for the MacPro, gaming and other visual processing will not be a pain to compete with the graphics industry.

Once this also happens you will see no requirement to keep buying a new Mac as you can upgrade the HDD, RAM, GPU. is afraid this will hurt they bottom line, give me a break.

 

[subsonix]

Its an all in one, not a desktop. It saves weight by using mostly mobile parts, and ditching all but basic features.

Although the recent imacs are pretty powerful. The HD´s are regular 3.5" AFAIK and there is a dedicated graphics card.

 

[BenRoethig]

Although the recent imacs are pretty powerful.

As a family machine, yes. It's an absolutely amazing machine for most. However, coming from PowerMacs I am extremely disappointed with mine. I guess I'm kind of used to computers beating my expectations.