Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You missed nothing...

"And what happens to Psystar when Apple stops selling full-install retail OS X boxes?

OS X already comes with every Mac, the only reason why you'd need a retail copy is to upgrade to a newer version. And Apple can simply sell upgrade-only discs for that and require your Mac serial number to upgrade."

And that is the easy way for Apple to end this, regardless of how the court case comes out. Apple put themselves in this pickle by selling full-install OS X packages at retail, and with NO external warning that they were "upgrade only." If they claim that now, they get in trouble for false advertising, so you may have noticed that they are not making that legal claim. ;)

And of course they switched to Intel chips, and commodity PC parts. The second side of the pickle. So you have an operating system that runs on PC hardware, and is available off the shelf, protected only by the EULA. And only one line in the EULA at that.

AND there are two court cases, Digidyne vs Data General, and Vernor Vs Autodesk that could imply that that line in the EULA is invalid and unenforcable. So here we are.
 
again. there is such a thing as dektop components vs laptop components vs worstation components
Intel's mobile chips are branded as such because they are designed for use in systems that cannot support the heat and power requirements of a normal chip. These systems are normally laptops, hence the branding. If a manufacturer wants to use these chips in a desktop because of there heat and power properties, it doesn't become a laptop. It may use mobile components, but it's still a desktop. Not to mention the iMac uses a desktop hard drive, screen etc. I have yet to find a laptop with no battery, a 24" screen and a desktop hard drive.


ill define a desktop by the components it uses
Then your definition would be wrong.


if i want laptop performance, ill buy a laptop

Many desktops (and by desktop I mean your definition of a desktop) are slower than an iMac.
 
As for discussion in regards to the "chip". I heard that Snow Leopard will utilize this type of feature, so that it can only be run on legitimate Macs, so goodbye to hackintosh, is this true?

Where did you hear this? It seems highly implausible because these ships would have to be in all x86 macs, before SL was in development.
Regardless, there is nothing in the world that cant be hacked. I see it all the time, when a company updates it stuff people run around in a panic thinking it cant be hacked, then a month later someone hacks it.
 
l
....
how you went from that to this (note the bold)
...

perhaps should have been looking at the part not in bold from the document.
The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC)


is baffling

Baffling is how the System Management Controller is not a "chip".
Your are fixated that TPM was Apple's control mechanism. That whole article is about how it
never was Apple's control mechanism. That the whole TPM spin that it was (or going to be) is a myth.



The bigger stumbling block is that Mac OS X needs EFI to boot up. Most PCs don't have it. Once you start to uncork that problem and jam EFI into the box, SMC/key solution is likely to slide right in. When the funky memory page probe comes through, trap it and send back the key. Have to do similar things for EFI.

It doesn't specially have to be that specific SMC chip, if can be trapped and redirected, but some chip has the data value to pass back when probed.
 
let me point this out again



in fact let me allow to contradict you with your own post



how you went from that to this (note the bold)



is baffling

a key is not a TPM chip

the article even says clearly there has been no TPM chips since 2006

There was a post by quagmire where he wrote:
Seeing how Macs have a chip that the OS scans to look for when booting up, Psystar will have to do something to OS X in order to remove that coding or trick it to think the chip is there, but is not.

to which you replied:
um wrong. there is no such chip

The article that I linked to explains clearly and beyond any doubt that 1. There is no "TPM" chip in a modern Macintosh (which is irrelevant to this discussion), and that 2. There is a chip whose existence the operating system tests, exactly as I claimed. Nobody in this thread has every claimed the existence of a TPM chip in Macs, so when you cite that article you don't disprove anything that anyone has actually claimed. The second part of the article makes it very, very clear that quaqmire's original statement was correct and your reply to it was incorrect.

To recount this:
Quamire said: "There is a chip".
You said: "There is no chip".
I said: "Here is a link to an article that says there is a chip".
Article says: "There is no chip of type A and anyone who claims it is stupid, but there is a chip of type B".
You say: "You didn't read the article, it says there is no chip of type A".

and so on.

I think you are concentrating too much on what you believe people are writing, and not what they _are_ actually writing.
 
If I was Apple I would want to teach Plystar a lesson and set an example,,,

How ???

Well i dont know exactly but something on the lines of making there OS work only on Macs. Giving time moving forward to set the OS up with a way to make an upgrade that would lock down systems that were NOT operating on Macs. Meaning as people who had a Plystar did the newest updates to there OS X it would lock the the OS down :D


Hey its just a thought
 
Well i dont know exactly but something on the lines of making there OS work only on Macs. Giving time moving forward to set the OS up with a way to make an upgrade that would lock down systems that were NOT operating on Macs. Meaning as people who had a Plystar did the newest updates to there OS X it would lock the the OS down :D

They did this back in Tiger, right when osx86 was taking off. Apple sent out an update that broke hackinstosh installs. A week or two later it was fixed and everyone could update. The next day apple released another update. A little while later it was hacked, and everyone was back to normal. There is nothing apple can do to stop this. They can try, but why would the spend a ton of time/money on a security system that will inevitably be broken, especially considering how many incredibly talented people there are in the hackintosh scene.

Apple may stop Psystar, but the can never stop the individuals. I have 2 hacs at my house, i installed leo on my friend's laptop, and i plan on building another soon (if i can sell one of my current rigs). I dont car either way if Psystar dies, because one company is not the face of a hacking community, the nameless individual is.
 
for a workstation....not a desktop



i dont want a workstation, i want a desktop

and no, the imac is not a desktop in any form of the word

Frankly, I've owned a G5 Powermac several years (as a desktop...). Slightly expensive as a desktop I agree, but that's not it's market. But you know what, after 3 years, I had only upgraded the RAM and I was starting to contemplate either updating the GFX card or buying a new computer. In the end, as a desktop, I realized that the benefits I got from having an upgradable tower were practically non-existant. Macs are so well equiped out of the box that that I have trouble justifying updates. In then end, I ended up buying a new iMac a little over 2 years ago, and again juste upgraded the RAM.... So the money I saved was quite worth it ;)

So I disagree, the iMac is a great desktop. the clunkiness of a tower really can't be justified just for the sake of upgrades. I think apple's got it's product mix right.
 
apple is all about providing the entire ecosystem, which is what makes their products so appealing. most of their users don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of doing their own systems. I see exactly where you're coming from and agree to a point, but you represent a miniscule minority that Apple doesn't see as part of their agenda. I'm guilty of this as well, but it's hard to remember that informed communities like MacRumors represent a very small fraction of the total potential and actual Mac user base.

I agree that the build-your-own market is insignificant, but the consumer priced desktop market is still huge.

When Apple started their Intel migration the market for standard desktop towers was several times the size of the entire OS X market. Apple decided they didn't want to sell towers except to "pros" and have stood by that decision even though it could have dramatically increased the number of switchers.

Today the demand for desktops is dropping, although I still believe a powerful desktop plus a handheld is the best possible computing combo, so Apple has less incentive to produce a desktop computer than they had in 2006. However, leaving an easily filled hole in their lineup has opened up the specter of commercial cloners like Psystar. Even a victory in US court won't stop cloners from operating in other countries. As we're seeing, Psystar has moved beyond simply filling the consumer desktop hole to actively targeting Apple's most valuable customers, those buying Mac Pros.

I am shocked that Steve Jobs didn't see this day coming. After all, Power Computing was doing the same thing back in 1997 when Steve rejoined Apple. They actually had to compete against Apple whereas Psystar and the other cloners today have been handed an entire market category so they could get a running start. Had Apple simply turned off it's arrogance engine for a few minutes and shipped a boring desktop tower, none of this would be happening.

I would gladly pay the usual Apple premium but they simply don't make what I want.
 
The "fake mac" is much faster than the iMac. It is about on par with the Mac Pro, which is thousands more (for a comparable system). The iMac uses a mobile Core 2 Duo processor compared to the quad core "fake mac" or Mac Pro.

Not true! Configuring the new Psystar model as close as possible to a low-end Mac Pro ends up with a computer that is about $2000. The low-end Mac Pro, similarly configured, is $2500. I'd hardly call $500 "thousands more".

Mark
 
bought

Just Ordered two, can't wait to get my hands on the Rack-mount

You actually bought two of their computers? :eek: If Apple wins the case you will get no support or warranty. Not to mention that Apple is asking Psystar to buy back all the systems they sold. :confused:

Hugh
 
Psystar have been going easy on Apple, so far. What if they made a product Apple's customers have been demanding, like a mini-tower or a netbook? Apple has repeatedly and publicly stated that they are not interested in these customers.

Apple needs to think differently on this one. If they don't want these customers, let Psystar sell Apple's software to an untapped market. Apple is under no obligation to support other manufacturer's hardware. Let Psystar handle support for Psystar's customers. Neither should Apple impede other manufacturers if they are creating additional markets for Apple software.

Apple is totally anti-DRM when they're selling other people's intellectual property (music for example). How about they take their own advice? The entire industry should be behind Psystar and ensure this one gets to court. Free the majority from Windows' monopoly. "Would you like Vista or Mac OS with that?" After buying crap hardware and seeing how good Mac OS is, the next computer they will buy will be from the best manufacturer - Apple.

As Steve Jobs told the music industry - removing DRM is good for everybody.
 
You actually bought two of their computers? :eek: If Apple wins the case you will get no support or warranty. Not to mention that Apple is asking Psystar to buy back all the systems they sold. :confused:

Hugh
Based on my experience with AppleCare I'd happily take a computer with no support or warranty. The PsyStar would basically have to MELT before the total cost of purchase + repairs surpasses the price of a Mac Pro + 3Y APP.
 
You actually bought two of their computers? :eek: If Apple wins the case you will get no support or warranty. Not to mention that Apple is asking Psystar to buy back all the systems they sold. :confused:

Hugh
Pure FUD, sorry
No support or warranty? :rolleyes:
First apple has to win the case (years down the road)
Second Psystar has to buy back all the computers they sold, laughable again (not if they go bankrupt.
 
Frankly, I've owned a G5 Powermac several years (as a desktop...). Slightly expensive as a desktop I agree, but that's not it's market. But you know what, after 3 years, I had only upgraded the RAM and I was starting to contemplate either updating the GFX card or buying a new computer. In the end, as a desktop, I realized that the benefits I got from having an upgradable tower were practically non-existant. Macs are so well equiped out of the box that that I have trouble justifying updates. In then end, I ended up buying a new iMac a little over 2 years ago, and again juste upgraded the RAM.... So the money I saved was quite worth it ;)

So I disagree, the iMac is a great desktop. the clunkiness of a tower really can't be justified just for the sake of upgrades. I think apple's got it's product mix right.

The iMac is a weak desktop with low performance parts, no ability to change/upgrade anything except RAM to extend its lifespan and a lock-in to a display that should last twice as long as the computer it's attached to if it didn't have defects like uneven backlighting and mirror-like gloss.

I've owned over a dozen desktop Macs since 1992. I've upgraded the internal hard drive and RAM in every one of them, sometimes several times, changed video cards, upgraded processors and even overclocked a few. My current G5 has been upgraded the least of all, currently using its third and fourth hard drives, but that's because processor upgrades have been non-existent, lack of a technology like OpenCL has meant I haven't needed a better video card and I've spent all my upgrade money on a second Mac for my kids.

With the advent of Snow Leopard I'm looking for an Intel based desktop, but there is nothing besides the Mac Pro offering the ability to upgrade the hard drive(s). The iMac is still using a dual core processor and is therefore slower than a lot of two year old hackintosh machines. In fact my next Mac might very well be one of those 2007 era hackintoshes because the friend who owns one is moving to a Core i7 based machine.

For a used hackintosh that cost less to build than the entry level iMac to still be outperforming the entire iMac lineup two years later should embarrass Apple, but that emotion doesn't exist in Cupertino.
 
Not true! Configuring the new Psystar model as close as possible to a low-end Mac Pro ends up with a computer that is about $2000. The low-end Mac Pro, similarly configured, is $2500. I'd hardly call $500 "thousands more".

Mark

What are you adding to the clone to get it to cost $2000? Adding FireWire 800, BlueTooth, iLife, iWork and a wired keyboard and mouse only takes the total to $1709.

On the flip side the clone comes with twice as much RAM and a bigger hard drive than the Mac Pro. Adding those plus iWork (included with iLife on the clone) brings the total to $2798.

The "equivalent" Apple machine costs $1089 more than the clone.
 
Apple is totally anti-DRM when they're selling other people's intellectual property (music for example). How about they take their own advice?
...
As Steve Jobs told the music industry - removing DRM is good for everybody.

They already do. There is no DRM / License Certification Engine / etc. on Mac OS X. There is a EULA but there is no deep DRM. Apple's position is that draconian DRM doesn't work well.

What folks who hack the kernel are doing is close to someone tweaking someones music ( inject a small sample of something else) and then resell that as music. Apple isn't down with that on other folks music. Neither are they down with that for their own IP.

If sell a machine that boots EFI and kicks out the magic cookie/code then Mac OS X will boot. If folks sold that and let end users buy Mac OS X, Apple probably would be miffed but pretty quiet.

Reselling a modified Mac OS X for your own purposes and bundled with a machine is where they will be after you like bloodhounds.

As Apple grows in Market share the fact that they are leaving somewhat significant niches open is annoying to some consumers. However, if folks who buy dongles and/or native EFI PCs install , use unmodified Mac OS X, and don't call Apple for support..... they probably won't complain too loudly at the Mac OS X retail sales increases. Just don't provide a holistic solution.

If consumer Windows ever went EFI and PC vendors went EFI in a big way then Apple would be pushed into a corner. For inertia reasons though BIOS is stuck in the loop. That's why hacks like BootCamp if tilting toward Windows and EFI-kits if titling toward Mac OS X are needed.

There are increasing BIOS motherboards with USB dongles on the so that can direct boot into VMWare ESXi , Zen , Hyper-V, etc. from a flash. Similar mechanism can be used to enable a Mac OS X boot even if EFI doesn't become pervasive.

Likewise if Apple just more deliberatively ported to some standard VMs wouldn't be a big deal either. That has nothing to do with DRM and the OS.
since the virtual VM is standard hardware Mac OS X would be decoupled. Kicking Apple in the shins on that front would expose whether they are being hypocritical or not. The spin is that the standardized hardware brings benefits. Virtual machines are standardized.
 
Based on my experience with AppleCare I'd happily take a computer with no support or warranty. The PsyStar would basically have to MELT before the total cost of purchase + repairs surpasses the price of a Mac Pro + 3Y APP.

You must be the disgruntled prick that is outside the norm.

I bought the iBook G4 14" with Apple Care. I received a new LCD display, logic board, HDD, CD-Rom Drive and all was covered inside the Apple Care. Two returns to Apple each returned within 5 business days.

The system sits as a 4th system on a drafting table running 10.4.11 just fine with me adding a 120GB Drive and 1.5GB RAM.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.