Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How about we at least stick to only counting people whose annual income is above the price of a Mac! :D And who live in a country where Macs are sold.

My income is not above the price of the mac i want. But that's does not stop me from buying one. ;)
 
*sigh*

Just die Psystar. Die. Apple can kill them can't they? How hard can this be?:confused:

Apple doesn't want to just kill them. They plan to exact revenge for all the revenue that has been lost, and all the legal fees they had to pay. I'm all for competition, but this is the wrong way to go about it. I would rather see competition in a version of Windows that can actually compete. This will only help to increase prices as more legal fees pile up. But I am sure it will be over soon.
 
There is one enormous difference between Palm and Psystar. To see the difference, you have to read the license for the iTunes application, and the license for using the iTunes Music Store, just to be sure, and the license for MacOS X. Palm doesn't make any copies of iTunes, and the license for iTunes doesn't seem to mention anything that would make it illegal in the first place to use iTunes with a Palm Pre (it seems to me it might have been illegal to install music with DRM bought from the Apple Store on a Palm Pre, but first, it doesn't work anyway, and second, it doesn't matter much anymore. But the MacOS X license clearly says that copying MacOS X is illegal.

Whoa! Slow down there, tiger. I'm not saying Prystar should be allowed to do it, and I fully support Apple squashing them like a bug.

All I'm saying that it shouldn't be hard for Prystar to fool OS X into thinking their hackintoshes are genuine Apple products, so that the OS will work...ala Palm and the Pre.
 
and no, the imac is not a desktop in any form of the word
Strangely enough, the definition of a desktop doesn't stretch to it being upgradeable, or it being separate from its monitor. The iMac is a desktop, in every sense of the word. It is a personal computer, it sits on your desk.
 
Why are people even arguing about this anymore? Members here don't have any ethics( just look at the iPhone forum where people are trying to help others commit fraud because they feel Apple is screwing them over and that since they make billions in profits, they won't feel a thing.......).
 
Strangely enough, the definition of a desktop doesn't stretch to it being upgradeable, or it being separate from its monitor. The iMac is a desktop, in every sense of the word. It is a personal computer, it sits on your desk.

it uses laptop components. so no, its not a desktop. its merely a mbp that isnt mobile
 
1. Apple makes high end desktop.
2. People want it on cheaper hardware.
3. Mom and Pop shop builds cheap hardware and pre-hacks it to run OS X
4. Mom and Pop shop goes Chapter 11
5. Mom and Pop shop re-opens with high end hardware pre-hacked to run OS X

What is the point when you can just go back to step one and have better hardware anyway????
 
1. Apple makes high end desktop.
2. People want it on cheaper hardware.
3. Mom and Pop shop builds cheap hardware and pre-hacks it to run OS X
4. Mom and Pop shop goes Chapter 11
5. Mom and Pop shop re-opens with high end hardware pre-hacked to run OS X

What is the point when you can just go back to step one and have better hardware anyway????
You might want to take a look at number one again.
 
That chip and its exact function are actually quite well documented by Amit Singh, who I believe is today the manager for MacOS X development at Google:

http://osxinternals.com/book/bonus/chapter7/tpmdrmmyth/

did you even read your link......

In the summer of 2006, when the Mac Pro was introduced, x86-based Macs stopped having onboard TPMs altogether.

Around the same time in 2006, I also wrote about kernel-level binary protection in Mac OS X. As that article explains, it is actually binary protection that ties Mac OS X to a specific class of hardware. The mechanism is partly implemented as a special-purpose virtual memory (VM) pager that is interposed between the kernel's higher layer and the vnode pager.

kinda supports my statement saying there is no such chip..

i never said there wasnt such a chip in the past but currently there is no such chip and it certainly isnt what hackintoshes have to get around today
 
What do you mean "up there with macs"? Mac Pro starts at $2499. You can't compare it to an iMac. It's a Nehalem Xeon based system... it runs circles around iMac. Heck, it runs circles around 3-4 iMacs.
The sad reality is that your right. Its a great bargain for $1499.

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?
 
it uses laptop components. so no, its not a desktop. its merely a mbp that isnt mobile
Again, the definition of a desktop does not specify in detail the components required. It sits on your desk, it's not portable, it has no battery, it can't be used on your lap. It's a desktop.
 
And how do we know that Prystar doesn't employ some disgruntled former Apple engineers? :eek:

I don't think anyone who is good enough in his profession to have been an Apple employee at some point in time would start with no-hopers like Psystar. Revenge is a weak motive; a paycheck every month is much stronger.

And it's not as if there are any secrets needed that only Apple employees would know to get MacOS X running on a non-Apple computer. You need some decent engineering, which people in the Hackintosh community have done, that is all.
 
The sad reality is that your right. Its a great bargain for $1499.

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?

Nope. Snow Leopard is running nicely on Hackintosh parts right now.
 
Again, the definition of a desktop does not specify in detail the components required. It sits on your desk, it's not portable, it has no battery, it can't be used on your lap. It's a desktop.

again. there is such a thing as dektop components vs laptop components vs worstation components

ill define a desktop by the components it uses

if i want laptop performance, ill buy a laptop
 
Psystar sells really good open OSX computers. I'd like to know what's inside a little more but they aren't giving out that info. Sorry Psystar, I don't need another desktop at the moment.
 
did you even read your link......



kinda supports my statement saying there is no such chip..

i never said there wasnt such a chip in the past but currently there is no such chip and it certainly isnt what hackintoshes have to get around today

I read the link. You only read the first few lines. To quote the article: "The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware security—it's merely obfuscation. Just as you can use I/O Kit interfaces to retrieve motion sensor data and numerous other readings from the SMC, you can retrieve the key—no number crunching involved. You don't even need superuser privileges. In fact, assuming you know how to access hardware from user-space, a program to do this would be quite straightforward to write on Mac OS X—perhaps around 50 lines of C. "

Yes, there is a chip in each modern Apple Macintosh containing a 64 bit key that is needed to make some parts of the operating system work. It is not particularly well hidden; not hidden enough to keep any hacker from copying it, but hidden enough to make that a DMCA violation.

Psystar sells really good open OSX computers.
Since it is unlikely that Psystar has suddenly become a reseller for Apple Inc., could you try to give us any justification for your statement? I mean "really cheap" I could understand, as long as you exclude build quality and service and forget about that zero percent probability of getting warranty repairs, but "really good" and "open"?
 
I don't think anyone who is good enough in his profession to have been an Apple employee at some point in time would start with no-hopers like Psystar. Revenge is a weak motive; a paycheck every month is much stronger.

And it's not as if there are any secrets needed that only Apple employees would know to get MacOS X running on a non-Apple computer. You need some decent engineering, which people in the Hackintosh community have done, that is all.

You're joking, right? Do you think that Apple only employs rocket scientists and brain surgeons? I'm sure they've got their fair share of mediocre employees who would jump at the chance to make more money.

And it isn't just about revenge. Greed is a powerful motivator for some.
 
I read the link. You only read the first few lines. To quote the article: "The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware security—it's merely obfuscation. Just as you can use I/O Kit interfaces to retrieve motion sensor data and numerous other readings from the SMC, you can retrieve the key—no number crunching involved. You don't even need superuser privileges. In fact, assuming you know how to access hardware from user-space, a program to do this would be quite straightforward to write on Mac OS X—perhaps around 50 lines of C. "

Yes, there is a chip in each modern Apple Macintosh containing a 64 bit key that is needed to make some parts of the operating system work. It is not particularly well hidden; not hidden enough to keep any hacker from copying it, but hidden enough to make that a DMCA violation.



let me point this out again

In the summer of 2006, when the Mac Pro was introduced, x86-based Macs stopped having onboard TPMs altogether.

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

"The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware security—it's merely obfuscation."

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

Yes, there is a chip in each modern Apple Macintosh containing a 64 bit key that is needed to make some parts of the operating system work. It is not particularly well hidden; not hidden enough to keep any hacker from copying it, but hidden enough to make that a DMCA violation.

is baffling

a key is not a TPM chip

the article even says clearly there has been no TPM chips since 2006
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.