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.
Psystar Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No they aren't. The Mac Mini supports two video inputs (mini-dvi and mini display port. With the correct adapters you can run the same two screens. Apple even advertises it. That feature has been available for well over a year. True, you cannot change the video card, but the integrated graphics card is more than capable of doing dual screen.
ETA: The iMac offers the ability to use a second monitor as well albeit it won't be the same size or anything.
* 27" iMac required.Or you can just buy your iMac's equivalent and plug it into the Mini display port...
Or you can just buy your iMac's equivalent and plug it into the Mini display port...
Sure, but those will not be identical screens.
Or do you propose me to buy two 27" iMacs and use one as a display?
Everyone knows that decision of apple not to offer a decent mid-range system is purely to push ppl into purchasing the Mac Pro.
I paid for my Hackintoshes around 1k each (I do not build them myself, no time), I would have easily paid this money and even slightly more to Apple for a decent system with one full size PCI-E slot, but......
The European Union has the Copyright Directive which is the EU's version of the DMCA. Its Article 6 serves the same function as the DMCA's Section 1201 but unlike Section 1201 as it has no fair use exception clause. In short, Article 6 is even stricter than Section 1201.
I dare Apple to actually attempt this kind of Lawsuit in Europe. They will be smacked hard, because unlike in USA, Consumer rights in Europe are much more developed and I can do with my OSX *whatever* I wish as long as I am the only user of it.
I still proved you wrong with the Mac Mini though...
There is nothing stopping you from doing just that. Runnjing a dual screen configuration does not require that the second screen be identical. I know dozens of people who run things like that.
Prove it. Provide a quote of somebody at Apple who says just that. Otherwise it is just pure conjecture.
I really don't think that would work. As it has been pointed out, Europe already has laws (stricter ones at that) that prevent copyright circumvention, softwre licensing is still very valid unless you can provide case lay that states that the end user in fact has 100% ownership of intellectual property, and you can address the matter of how Apple is able to conduct business internationally for over 30 years (since you seen to think that a company cannot tie related products together. Also note that Apple is a US based company first and foremost.
In other words - Prove it. Show me case law, show precedent. Cite actual conclusion and not conjecture.
A sign that I need to correct my spelling.What is 'case lay' ?
I meant to say "case law" i.e. a court decision.I misspell words sometimes as most humans do. I correct them as I see them.
I am not a lawyer, so anyone may correct any errors I make. I concede copyright law is evolving and especially software is an evolving area.
Re: ProCD v Zeidenberg
This is how I read this case. ProCD collected telephone numbers from public sources and thus the database itself was not subject to copyright protection per se. In order to protect their effort, the collecting process, ProCD placed a license agreement that you must accept when you start the program in which you agree not to disseminate the database, or roughly something like that. Zeidenberg, not wanting to collect the phone numbers, used the ProCD database on the web and charged for access. Zeidenberg believing that since the database itself was not copyrighted material, he was free to do as he wished. The court said that while the database itself was not copyrighted, that Zeidenberg had agreed to the license agreement upon starting the program.
While this is an interesting case, I do not believe this example will apply to the Psystar case and thus will not be used as precedent. Lawyers, Y or N?
Again, I am not a lawyer, but my reading of some of these cases makes me think the courts value equity more than they value technicality, within reason. Thus, while the database was not protected, the court did not allow Zeidenberg to use the work of ProCD for Zeidenberg's profit.
Much has been made of Apple's not attacking individuals for violation of the EULA. This is just an opinion, but if Apple sued me, I would ask for a jury trial and I would make the point that I purchased the software and by virtue of the money I invested, I should be free to use it on any hardware I wished. I am betting that I could find a friendly jury to rule in my favor. I don't think Apple would want to establish that legal precedent. They should just take the money.
If Apple can uphold their EULA in the Psystar suit, then they can continue to frighten individuals into thinking that OS X can only be run on Intel chips shipped by Apple Computer.
The reason that Apple doesn't go after individuals is that it costs them money to do so and the likelihood of getting anything meaningful from individuals is rather low. It simply a waste.
However Psystar is not an individual - they are a business. Business have expectations that individuals do not necessarily require. For example, companies have the obligation to maintain financial records regarding purchasing rights to other people's property. They are also expected to have the resources to understand contracts and other legal concepts related to business practices.
Apple cares little about consumer hackintoshes because the damages are insignificant, businesses however are far more able to damage apples bottom line because their motives are profit based as well. A hackintosh builder has no such motives. Business are always different than individuals which is why I suggest not mentioning them or other personal desires. This case has nothing to do with individuals - its about a business ursupping rights that do not belong to them.
* 27" iMac required.
Uh ? the iMacs have had Mini display port for a while. 27" is only required for Mini display port INPUT (using your Mac as a monitor).
Just get a screen of the same diagonal size with the same native resolution and then calibrate both using the same screen color calibrator. Why would they need to be identical ? Oh I know, just adding unnecessary requirements so you can make your otherwise ridiculous notion somehow seem valid.
And if you really need that, the Mac Mini as already been pointed out, or you could you use something like Matrox's dualhead or triplehead products to output to both your "identical" monitors from the single display port on the iMac or on your Macbook.
I don't feel like reading through 20 pages, however here are my thoughts
1) Apple wouldn't be in this mess if they didn't convert over to Intel a few years ago. Snow Leopard would have been drastically coded differently to support IBM's cell processor. Now all that 3rd parties need to do is spoof a bios and ensure drivers are compatible.
2) The long lawsuit with Psystar is an indication there are complexities to Apple owning the monopoly on where their software is installed. Furthermore, it can be argued that if Apple allows Windows via Boot Camp AND supports it, then why not allow OSX on a PC?
3) Apple really needs to reduce the price of their hardware to easily win this. It's difficult to fathom for MOST folks paying double+ for a mac than a PC.
1) Apple wouldn't be in this mess if they didn't convert over to Intel a few years ago. Snow Leopard would have been drastically coded differently to support IBM's cell processor. Now all that 3rd parties need to do is spoof a bios and ensure drivers are compatible.
2) The long lawsuit with Psystar is an indication there are complexities to Apple owning the monopoly on where their software is installed. Furthermore, it can be argued that if Apple allows Windows via Boot Camp AND supports it, then why not allow OSX on a PC?
3) Apple really needs to reduce the price of their hardware to easily win this. It's difficult to fathom for MOST folks paying double+ for a mac than a PC.
Yeah, that's what I was alluding to. But now that I go back and re-read the posts that generated my comment, I'm not even sure what Don.Key wants. My apologies for confusing the matter even further.
It doesn't matter what is technologically possible. I can install an upgrade copy of Windows, override their serial number system to make them think that it is a full version, and that it is genuine. Doesn't mean that it is legal. (By the way, what I described is probably illegal)
If you know anything about the civil law system, you should know that cases take a loong time. Especially when companies like psystar use delay tactics. Second MS LICENSES WINDOWS TO BE USED IN BOOTCAMP! They do that via, you guessed it, licensing!. The two are not comparable.
Except thats not what happens. And the financial records consistently show that people are in fact willing to pay for premium end products. Even in a recession.
It really doesn't matter what his standards are - they are still wrong.Yeah, that's what I was alluding to. But now that I go back and re-read the posts that generated my comment, I'm not even sure what Don.Key wants. My apologies for confusing the matter even further.
Who's crying?
You're the one getting all upset cos you can't run the OS you like on the computer you own.
I personally don't care as long as your actions don't force Apple to change their policy of only supporting their own hardware.
Psystar isn't a consumer, so what do consumer rights and individual usage have to do with anything?
I called the company and found out some additional information.
The software comes in 2 parts - the OS Install and the OS X software. The software you download from their website you burn to a CD to allow you to boot the OS X disc.
Once OS X is installed, you install the OS X software package which is unusable unless you purchase a license (stupid). You can't run the hardware detector (for sound, ethernet, etc) to even find out if your hardware is compatible before you purchase it.
Once you purchase a license, Rebel EFI is locked to that machine, that is until someone cracks it. If some of your hardware is not compatible then Rebel EFI will send Psystar a hardware report, where Psystar will fix any incompatibility problems with your machine.
In order to install any OS X updates you have to use Rebel EFI.
If Psystar goes out of business you won't be able to install any further OS X updates.
The software comes in 2 parts - the OS Install and the OS X software. The software you download from their website you burn to a CD to allow you to boot the OS X disc.
Once OS X is installed, you install the OS X software package which is unusable unless you purchase a license (stupid). You can't run the hardware detector (for sound, ethernet, etc) to even find out if your hardware is compatible before you purchase it.
Once you purchase a license, Rebel EFI is locked to that machine, that is until someone cracks it. If some of your hardware is not compatible then Rebel EFI will send Psystar a hardware report, where Psystar will fix any incompatibility problems with your machine.
In order to install any OS X updates you have to use Rebel EFI.
If Psystar goes out of business you won't be able to install any further OS X updates.
I think he meant that if I, for example, bought a copy of OS X and modified the install DVD to include compatible drivers for my hardware it would be OK.
I don't really have a problem with that. But I don't think Psystar is an authorized reseller. To me, that brings about a boatload of problems.
This is actually the funny part to me. Psystar has definitely been a part of the OSX86 community - hell, I'm using one of their kexts on my hackintosh. The idea that they can take a product born out of that environment, where files and software flow like water, and then sell it for money, is either the dumbest thing I've ever heard of or the ballsiest thing I've ever heard of. Possibly both.
I like Psystar. They are a company that is making an earnest effort to make a buck using methods that are probably highly illegal, and they just keep pushing. I feel like I'm cheering on modern day pirates. Sometimes the bad guys are so plucky and determined you can actually admire them for it.
I cant wait till this gets torrented and cracked.....wonder if Psystar will complain then??
Psystar will be the death of the Hackintosh community. It's one thing for someone to use a hack to install a legally purchased copy of OSX on their PC, its another to make a profit off of it.....
Are you serious? I wish you developed a paid product so i could pirate the ever loving crap out of it.
I'm totally serious. I admire Psystar for the unbelievable moxie it takes to do such ridiculous things and expect to have a legitimate company. That doesn't mean that I think what they're doing is RIGHT. I mean damn, don't we all have a grudging respect for a villain that really thinks he's right? Darth Vader kicks ass not because he thinks he's an evil bastard, he kicks ass because he truly believes the dark side is SUPERIOR. He doesn't think he's wrong, he believes he's right.
And anyways take a deep breath. Like Apple is REALLY gonna lose any money from Psystar's shenanigans. They are a gnat on the ass of a hippo. What, all of a sudden hordes of windoze users are gonna rush to Psystar's website and buy Rebel EFI? 99% of people couldn't tell you if "EFI" is a part of their computer or their microwave, let alone go through the trouble and expense of buying it and using it.
Look at the bigger picture. Apple is not the underdog they once were, they are much larger and have a different kind of role in the industry now. DVD Jon (creator of Doubletwist) and Psystar are recognizing that and acting accordingly. It's the spirit of competition, it's part of human nature. If you get big enough, people WILL mess with you and try to take you down. These kinds of challenges are what any company of Apple's size, stature, and standing are going to face in today's marketplace. They are probably pleased as punch to not only have the financial/legal muscle to deal with things like this, but to have a good excuse to put that muscle on display. Meanwhile Psystar gets to have their David and Goliath moment, and all the profit and advantage that goes along with that. Why do you think it's called Rebel EFI?
Who cares, most people buy Mac's because they aren't ugly bricks like PC's
I rather pay extra to get design and convenience, more or less the the hardware/software, because I know however much I pay 5x that for a PC I will never get the beauty that comes with a Mac.
I rather pay extra to get design and convenience, more or less the the hardware/software, because I know however much I pay 5x that for a PC I will never get the beauty that comes with a Mac.
F*ckers.
I hope this becomes the most pirated thing on BitTorrent. So they leech off of OSX86 and yet want to make money off of it?
No way. Some of you are seriously standing by their decision to rip-off a FREE project to make some money to help finance their ever poorer pockets?
F*** off Psystar.
I hope this becomes the most pirated thing on BitTorrent. So they leech off of OSX86 and yet want to make money off of it?
No way. Some of you are seriously standing by their decision to rip-off a FREE project to make some money to help finance their ever poorer pockets?
F*** off Psystar.