Psystar Working on Mac Laptop Clone, Apple Files DMCA Charges

[BanjoBanker]

Said it before, but I'm a Mac user since the late '80's and as far as I'm concerned Jan 6th is High Noon for Apple hardware. If we get more of the same and no midrange tower or equivalent, it's a Psystar for me on Jan 7th. Actually, if there's no Mac mini update it'll be two Psystars. It genuinely pains me to say all this, but I'm not kidding. Still keeping my fingers crossed though - going down the Psystar route would not be a happy day for me.

If indeed, you have using Macs since the late 80s, I would like to know when you had a mid range tower. I too have been on board since the Macintosh SE, and they have never offered anything "mid-range," Apple products have always been limited to a small selection of high end machines. The clones from the 90s were awful at best. That is what happens when a soda salesman tries to run a computer company. The Mac Mini was an answer looking for a question. The iMac fits the bill nicely for those who do not want or need a Mac Pro.

 

[Tallest Skil]

In less than two weeks. Cheap hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price.

By faster, he means it doesn't weigh as much, so if you were to tie them both to skateboards and push them down a steep hill, this mystery computer would get to the bottom more quickly.

 

[Paladinkn00be]

Extreme?

Said it before, but I'm a Mac user since the late '80's and as far as I'm concerned Jan 6th is High Noon for Apple hardware. If we get more of the same and no midrange tower or equivalent, it's a Psystar for me on Jan 7th. Actually, if there's no Mac mini update it'll be two Psystars. It genuinely pains me to say all this, but I'm not kidding. Still keeping my fingers crossed though - going down the Psystar route would not be a happy day for me.

That is a bit extreme, I did see what you said in response to another post. But, What do you want a mac mini to do??? I have an old G4 1.42 Ghz, 1gb ram and I was running Adobe CS fine on it for a while. I then used it as a web/printer/music/ftp server because I was then using a macbook for Adobe CS. You do have your various lines. Low: Mini, Mid: iMac (which is an amazing computer for the midrange) and High: Pro
There isnt much between Mini and iMac because there isnt a need for a crappy but better than a mini computer.

 

[apull]

I'm a bit sceptical. Can't think why.

considering that was from efixusa, i wouldn't be surprised. efix, bring it. give us an expresscard efix for notebooks and things would be even better. (who uses expresscard anyways?)

 

[ImageWrangler]

Wow, out come the newbie trolls for this threat. Weird.

Next will come the mid-range tower zanies professing how it's a must have item, well, for them at least, but the rest of the collective sigh a massive "meh" as the majority has for quite some time.

I'm all for a cheaper Mac, hell, the Mac Mini, despite what Apple brass wants to say about it, is overpriced, that or sticking an LCD screen on a machine costs less than $100 bucks, and I doubt it.

There's your "midrange" tower in that, excepting the Mac Pro, Apple seems to not like people having an ability to upgrade their GPU, and very very very slim market for people who use expansion cards anymore (add another very, and add another very and a "the majority of those people buy Mac Pros). It's not like Apple doesn't do their market research on these things.

And some of us, especially us designers, DO care about what a machine looks like, and we're willing to pay a slight charge for something not cringeworthy in our offices, sorry those aesthetically challenged types who don't get this. Pyster make a currently pretty FUGLY machine, can't imagine their laptop wouldn't look like a bad block of soap carved up with keys and a screen shoved in it. No thanks.

 

[Roderick Usher]

I too have been on board since the Macintosh SE, and they have never offered anything "mid-range," Apple products have always been limited to a small selection of high end machines.

I think it is reasonable to characterize both G3 towers (beige and blue-and-white), as well as the "outrigger" desktop models, as mid-range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_G3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_G3_(Blue_&_White)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrigger_Macintosh

 

[localoid]

In less than two weeks. Cheaper hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price of one.

i7 Hackintosh...?

 

[motulist]

Awesome, I'm all for competition. IMO, Apple's computer hardware quality and diversity have gone into a serious decline over the past couple of years. Since the day I've been able to make my own computer buying choices (which is a long time), I've always greatly preferred Apple's OS and Apple's hardware over the competition's offerings. But starting about 2 years ago Apple's new hardware has really begun to suck compared to the competition. This is all IMO of course.

Psystar is acting in accordance with law as far as I can tell, so until the court rules otherwise, I hope Psystar keeps rockin out new OS X compatible hardware. Even if I never buy a Psystar product, the competition will force Apple to start making more and better products again.

 

[SPUY767]

In less than two weeks. Cheaper hardware, not illegal, faster than a Mac Pro and half the price of one.

Considering that it still costs one a pretty penny to best the original mac pro, I can't imagine why I'd be skeptical of your claim.

 

[air-ick]

And some of us, especially us designers, DO care about what a machine looks like, and we're willing to pay a slight charge for something not cringeworthy in our offices, sorry those aesthetically challenged types who don't get this. Pyster make a currently pretty FUGLY machine, can't imagine their laptop wouldn't look like a bad block of soap carved up with keys and a screen shoved in it. No thanks.

Slight charge?

I own a macbook because I like the aesthetics. It's thin and looks nice. But I think that Apple could use a little OSX competition. It would only make for better pricing and a better product line. I seriously wonder what they are thinking sometimes.

Eric

 

[motulist]

I think it is reasonable to characterize both G3 towers (beige and blue-and-white), as well as the "outrigger" desktop models, as mid-range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_G3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Macintosh_G3_(Blue_&_White)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrigger_Macintosh

The G4 generations all had midrange priced models too. The last G4 midrange tower was still around through the beginning of 2004.

http://lowendmac.com/ppc/mdd-power-mac-g4-1.25-ghz.html

 

[rhpenguin]

I would NEVER use a Hackie as a production/main computer.

I have been for about two years now. Not one hiccup.

 

[slolifesux]

i wish apple would worry about fixing their products rather than stopping someone from possibly making a better product. and i wish the courts would throw this kind of stuff out. as long as kids are going to bed hungry in this country and rapists and murderers are walking the streets.....some company trying to make a mac clone just doesnt sound that big of a deal anymore!

 

[mcnallym]

Psystar works on Mac Clone Laptop shocka

search osx86 forums for most compatible system, find oem and get built with Psystar badge.

End of story.

What are they really going to DESIGN a laptop. I don't think so somehow.

 

[skellener]

IMO, Apple's computer hardware quality and diversity have gone into a serious decline over the past couple of years.

I'll disagree. My 24" iMac is the best Mac I have ever had.

 

[motulist]

I'll disagree. My 24" iMac is the best Mac I have ever had.

Weird, on and off I kept getting errors from Apple's iMac page that say "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable." It happened on a few different iMac pages for about a minute or two, then it stopped happening. It only happened on the iMac pages, not any other pages. Could this be a sign that they're updating something on their servers in preparation of an imminent update? Probably not, but it's fun to imagine.

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs/

 

[Slidemonster]

Because a Psystar may be a dead end. What if Snow Leopard includes additional bits and pieces that mean your Psystar is stuck on Leopard for the forseeable future? What about real support, especially if Psystar will go byebye? You wont be getting OS support, that's for sure. There are far too many loose, dangling ends with Psystar for me to even think of getting one. If I want a Hackintosh, I'll build one myself as more of a hobby machine. I would NEVER use a Hackie as a production/main computer.

You mean like the Apple iMac G5 (PPC) which is limited to the latest OS of Tiger 10.4? I think a computer should last more than 2-3 years, especially with the higher cost of Apple Hardware - so why not pay 1/2 the price for a clone, support Apple for the OS and applications with the expectations (and limitations) if the iMac G5?

 

[50548]

I'll disagree. My 24" iMac is the best Mac I have ever had.

Ditto here. The build quality of Macs is as best as ever...what a wonderful machine.

Wonderful screen and faster, more stable, more integrated, more silent, more beautiful and more compatible than any PC on Earth. Not to mention zero viruses and the most advanced OS ever.

There is simply no reason not to buy Macs nowadays...even if it's for running Crappindows.

 

[Tallest Skil]

You mean like the Apple iMac G5 (PPC) which is limited to the latest OS of Tiger 10.4? I think a computer should last more than 2-3 years, especially with the higher cost of Apple Hardware - so why not pay 1/2 the price for a clone, support Apple for the OS and applications with the expectations (and limitations) if the iMac G5?

It can run Leopard.

 

[Slidemonster]

It can run Leopard.

My sincerest apologies..... I was unaware of this.

 

[slolifesux]

a G5 can run leopard, just not well. leopards big deal was full integration with intel chips..........who cares who buys what and who cares about support. you should know and research what your buying. apple should not be stepping in the way. either they will continue to reign supreme or competition will build and we the consumers will win with better products and more options.

 

[motulist]

There is simply no reason not to buy Macs nowadays...

Sorry, but that's completely untrue. Would you like me to make a list? How about the most obvious one that's staring you in the face right this second - the glossy screen. You and many others may prefer a glossy screen, but there are TONS of people out there that can't stand them. And before anyone tries to dismiss this argument, dislike of glossy screens is NOT just limited to visual industry professionals. (and not that that would be a legitimate dismissal anyway, but that doesn't stop a lot of pro-glossy people from saying it.) I do not work in a visual industry job, but a glossy screen is an absolute deal breaker for me. And I am far, far, far from alone on this. If you prefer a glossy screen, there's nothing wrong with that and the current generation Apple hardware may be great for you, but there are LOTS of us out there that glossy screens are a deal breaker for.

 

[vellocet]

The G4 generations all had midrange priced models too. The last G4 midrange tower was still around through the beginning of 2004.

http://lowendmac.com/ppc/mdd-power-mac-g4-1.25-ghz.html

I would guess that wasn't by choice - apple probably had a pile of G4 processors they needed to sell, but I don't really know. Plus they may have wanted to continue supply a machine that could still run OS9 after the G5s were out.

 

[rhpenguin]

If you prefer a glossy screen, there's nothing wrong with that and the current generation Apple hardware may be great for you, but there are LOTS of us out there that glossy screens are a deal breaker for.

I'm a design professional. I need matte. And I need two matched displays.

I do not need a Mac Pro to run Photoshop. Nor do I want to foot the power bill for said machine.

 

[motulist]

I would guess that wasn't by choice - apple probably had a pile of G4 processors they needed to sell, but I don't really know. Plus they may have wanted to continue supply a machine that could still run OS9 after the G5s were out.

No, your analysis is completely off. The G4 models ALWAYS had a midrange model, not just in the last gen because they were trying to clear out stock. In fact, it was quite the opposite. The G4s were continually plagued with an UNDERSUPPLY of CPUs forever, yet even so Apple always sold a midrange model anyway. And OS 9 support ended long before the G5 came out.