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.
Reports of Psystar's Demise Appear Premature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would be highly unlikely that MS would be behind this crap, though, as they would have the most to lose, in regard to licensing fees, etc.
You, of course, have a right to your opinion. We all do. But as for your right to freedom of speech, I'm afraid that right does not apply in these (private) forums. But keep up the discussion! It's entertaining, to say the least.
Hehe . . . at the end of the day, none of this really matters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
A "proper" crystal (No not crystal display) screen will enhance every colour and not dull the blacks. Why doesn't Apple use crystal? Synthetic Led Oxide doesnt cost much. I had the pleasure of seeing one at a photographers custom build, cost him a few grand...
What, now you want friggin Swarovsky in your Mac??
You joke now but the crystal overlay really is THAT good.
I believe you. But do you foresee any way it might be impractical or inefficient or costly, etc? What might Apple's objections be, if any?
It uses lead. Around about 25% in making crystal glass. Leads expensive and toxic. They would probably loose their energy star rating.
I don't think the glass has much to do with power consumption and efficiency.
Maybe im thinking of another standard.
Do they take manufacturing and disposal effects into account for that rating?
Ha! Well played.
Seems with the lead issue, Apple would be less "green." I forget what the term for that measure is, though.
Ha! Well played.
Seems with the lead issue, Apple would be less "green." I forget what the term for that measure is, though.
Lead content would be assessed using EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) standards.
How about the Geekbench results browser?
1284 pages of Hackintosh benchmark results, 10 results per page. You do the math.
Yes, some are multiple benchmarks from the same machine during overclock testing, but by the same token, only a small percentage of Hackintosh builders bother benchmarking.
As of 2009 (and 2010), the freedom and convenience of modular PC hardware is much better than any consumer desktop Mac, and it is a fraction of the cost of the pro systems. Because of this, there are tens of thousands of Hackintoshes out there, mine included.
If you look through the benchmarks, there are an awful lot of high end Hackintoshes being built. These are not people getting something for nothing, but those that are willing to put time and money into building the precise system that meets their needs. You know, the whole "But it is just as cheap to buy an iMac" argument. Perfectly true. My Hackintosh cost pretty much the same as the equivalent iMac, but has a much better graphics card with the downside of no support and warranty.
Apple IS missing out on netbook and midrange desktop sales. The whole Psystar debacle is just a distraction.
The sad thing is, most Hackintosh builders (myself included) would LOVE an official Apple product that meets their needs.
Yes and people like you also want a Ferrari to meet their needs - e.g - Cheap, fast and to have the wow factor.
Ent gunna happen mate, you pay for quality.
What has Ferrari got to do with it? What a load of toss.
Apple computers are built using the same chipsets as any generic PC. That is why Hackintoshes are trivial to build. Buy one of dozens of generic motherboards based on the intel reference design (as iMacs and Mac Pros are) and you are good to go. The exact same chips, on boards coming out of the exact same factory as your 'Ferrari'.
Let me spell it out for you. People are not building Hackintoshes because they are cheaper. They are in fact barely 'cost effective'.
People are building Hackintoshes because you can upgrade the display, processor and graphics card at will. And judging by the specs of machines on the Geekbench browser they are willing to pay just as much as an iMac for their ugly, but screaming fast machines.
Apple can either meet the market demand and take a cut of the profit, or they can ignore it and let PC parts manufacturers share in the spoils of Apples good work.
Could you please share any market research that you have come across on how this product would affect sales of iMacs and Mac Pros? In addition, an analysis of how further dividing Apple's engineering resources would affect product quality and support would also be important.
Psystar ceases sales of Rebel EFI (again); enters the t-Shirt/donation business in an
As of this morning, each product description on their web site provides the following statement:
We have chosen to temporarily halt sales of Rebel EFI. Due to our ongoing litigation with Apple, Inc., we are seeking legal sanctions to continue selling our software products. We will continue to work with the Mac OS and bringing it to generic PC hardware. We will continue to support of all our products, both hardware and software. There are also plans to distribute Rebel EFI versions specific to computer configurations, such as Rebel EFI: HP mini and Rebel EFI: Dell 9 mini. Our hope is that in the weeks to come, an expedited judgment will validate the legality of Rebel EFI and all future Psystar software products.
Pathetic is the emphasis here: while Psystar states that t-shirts are now available, they dont even bother posting a picture. Alas, it seems that formerly all-defiant Psystar, which touted facilities and a vision of beating Apples proprietary rights on OS X, is now on the curb, becoming the lone pauper that promises the public that the donations will help pull Psystar from the brink, but may very well be only enough to buy a cheeseburger to survive the day.
As of this morning, each product description on their web site provides the following statement:
We have chosen to temporarily halt sales of Rebel EFI. Due to our ongoing litigation with Apple, Inc., we are seeking legal sanctions to continue selling our software products. We will continue to work with the Mac OS and bringing it to generic PC hardware. We will continue to support of all our products, both hardware and software. There are also plans to distribute Rebel EFI versions specific to computer configurations, such as Rebel EFI: HP mini and Rebel EFI: Dell 9 mini. Our hope is that in the weeks to come, an expedited judgment will validate the legality of Rebel EFI and all future Psystar software products.
Pathetic is the emphasis here: while Psystar states that t-shirts are now available, they dont even bother posting a picture. Alas, it seems that formerly all-defiant Psystar, which touted facilities and a vision of beating Apples proprietary rights on OS X, is now on the curb, becoming the lone pauper that promises the public that the donations will help pull Psystar from the brink, but may very well be only enough to buy a cheeseburger to survive the day.
Well, that case didn't work out well for Camara's client... Swapping a $220,000 judgement for a $1.92 million judgement...
I guess Kiwi Camara would have wanted the Apple case first, because where Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $80,000 for each of 24 songs that were found in your sharing folder (each worth less than $1, with no evidence and not even much likelihood that many copies were made), Apple asked for $30,000 each for copying Leopard and Snow Leopard, which are each worth not $1 but probably somewhere around $200 to $400 (because the low price Apple charges is exclusively for people who gave Apple lots of money for a computer with an earlier version of MacOS X installed), and there was evidence of around 800 copies made and distributed for commercial reasons. (The real charge was Apple asking for $2500 per DMCA violation, and each copy installed was a violation, something that Jammie Thomas never did).
So in the Apple case, the total value of the products copied was probably 40 times higher, the number of copies made probably 100 times higher, so keeping these numbers in mind, Jammie Thomas should have paid $60000, divided by 40, divided by 100, which makes it $15. Instead she was ordered to pay $1.92 million.
I think if Camara could have shown the jury in the Jammie Thomas case that Apple asked for $30,000 for making 800 copies of their operating system, he should have managed to convince them that just putting a $1 song into a shared folder should not be worth $80,000.