The Merged Hackintosh Thread

[DoFoT9]

now you might say, what the hell is this guy going on about these benchmarks, which bring me back to your point about time, when you can cut your rendering time when bouncing down a 32 track song on audio logic or save hours rendering a 60 minute movie on final cut pro on a system equivalent in cost of a mini mac that brings me great satisfaction

if only we could overclock the MP's... then there would be some interesting competition

 

[MacUser2525]

@ SnowLeopard2008

now you might say, what the hell is this guy going on about these benchmarks, which bring me back to your point about time, when you can cut your rendering time when bouncing down a 32 track song on audio logic or save hours rendering a 60 minute movie on final cut pro on a system equivalent in cost of a mini mac that brings me great satisfaction

Not to mention the additional money you save in electricity costs there is a reason Mac Pro's have that large power supply in them. My machine with two LCD monitors (20 & 24) with the router, cable modem, speakers plugged in containing a Q6600@3.15ghz with 8gb ram, four hard drives, 8800gt, six x 120mm fans draws less than 400w from the plug in the wall according to my Kill-A-Watt meter this running flat out 100% load all cores try that with a Mac Pro oh it gets 6795 on the Geekbench 64bit as well.

 

[MatLane]

I would rather buy the real thing.

 

[MacUser2525]

I would rather buy the real thing.

Your prerogative most of us running these are cheap SOBs who like getting the best bang for their hardware dollar.

 

[icoffee]

Can anyone please answer this question?

For the love of Leopard, why hasn't Insanelymac been shut down?

 

[dukebound85]

For the love of Leopard, why hasn't Insanelymac been shut down?

why should it? it doesnt host any illegal files it also doesnt break any eulas as its the end user that does, not insanely mac

you against access to information?

 

[icoffee]

why should it? it doesnt host any illegal files it also doesnt break any eulas as its the end user that does, not insanely mac

you against access to information?

To answer your question, I'm not against access to information per se, but your question is very general. My question is about a specific site whose main intent is to help the end user break Apple's Eula.

I don't want InsanelyMac to be shut down, it just seems as if the intent and files on the site are obvious, and I can't seem to understand how it has lasted this long when PsyStar and other clone makers take "one more step" and sell the "fruits" of insanelymac's work. So again, I ask, "Why hasn't Insanelymac been shut down?"

It would seem to me that in some ways, Apple hasn't issued a C&D, because the site benefits Apple. But what kind of benefits would be so great as to allow Mac OS to be pirated and modified (as in the various distros) to run on non-Apple hardware (hardware that Apple didn't make a profit off of)? There's has to be something more to this, and while I don't usually go for conspiracy theories, could it be a good possibility that Apple is, in some obscure way, behind Insanelymac?

 

[DoFoT9]

To answer your question, I'm not against access to information per se, but your question is very general. My question is about a specific site whose main intent is to help the end user break Apple's Eula.

I don't want InsanelyMac to be shut down, it just seems as if the intent and files on the site are obvious, and I can't seem to understand how it has lasted this long when PsyStar and other clone makers take "one more step" and sell the "fruits" of insanelymac's work. So again, I ask, "Why hasn't Insanelymac been shut down?"

It would seem to me that in some ways, Apple hasn't issued a C&D, because the site benefits Apple. But what kind of benefits would be so great as to allow Mac OS to be pirated and modified (as in the various distros) to run on non-Apple hardware (hardware that Apple didn't make a profit off of)? There's has to be something more to this, and while I don't usually go for conspiracy theories, could it be a good possibility that Apple is, in some obscure way, behind Insanelymac?

wow you are seriously trippin'. lol apple isnt 'behind' instaneymac.

it doesnt break any EULA, you can purchase your own copy of Leopard and install it onto your PC, there is nothing wrong nor illegal with that. maybe thats the reason why they havent followed it up. moreover, it is quite difficult to get a hackintosh to work, paystar's method was easy..just give them money and your set. at least with the hackintosh way you must buy your own Leopard (for it to be legal anyway).

 

[dukebound85]

wow you are seriously trippin'. lol apple isnt 'behind' instaneymac.

it doesnt break any EULA, you can purchase your own copy of Leopard and install it onto your PC, there is nothing wrong nor illegal with that. maybe thats the reason why they havent followed it up. moreover, it is quite difficult to get a hackintosh to work, paystar's method was easy..just give them money and your set. at least with the hackintosh way you must buy your own Leopard (for it to be legal anyway).

it is breaking the eula even if you buy a retail copy to put on a pc

however, its not illegal and i dont really care as its my computer and frankly my hackintsoh isnt affecting anyone but me lol. it was just a pc until i decided to experiment with the hackintosh scene and im glad i did

 

[DoFoT9]

it is breaking the eula even if you buy a retail copy to put on a pc

however, its not illegal and i dont really care as its my computer and frankly my hackintsoh isnt affecting anyone but me lol. it was just a pc until i decided to experiment with the hackintosh scene and im glad i did

ok thats great, it isnt illegal however some people frown upon it.

out of interest, id love to see where it says that in the EULA agreement.

my old PC was crap, i bought a new PC for $500AUS and built it up, it wasnt getting used that much with XP. i found InsanelyMac and this thread and decided to give it a try, and it is working perfectly. a $500 computer works better than my $3000 iMac! so yea pretty happy with it, it does what i ask of it lol

 

[Muncher]

It my not be illegal, but you can be sued. EULAs are binding contracts; once you click agree, you're liable.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

It my not be illegal, but you can be sued. EULAs are binding contracts; once you click agree, you're liable.

You just completely contradicted yourself.
If the EULA is indeed a legitimate contract then it is illegal to install osx on a pc. What some people fail to realize is that agreeing to a contract doesnt bind you to anything if the terms of the contract itself arent legal. Apple is tip-toeing around anti-trust laws and if someone who was smart enough wanted to challenge them im sure the courts would rule that the EULA is not a valid contract.

 

[MacUser2525]

You just completely contradicted yourself.
If the EULA is indeed a legitimate contract then it is illegal to install osx on a pc. What some people fail to realize is that agreeing to a contract doesnt bind you to anything if the terms of the contract itself arent legal. Apple is tip-toeing around anti-trust laws and if someone who was smart enough wanted to challenge them im sure the courts would rule that the EULA is not a valid contract.

Exactly I think the best way to do it would be for violations of the GPL software licenses for the software that is installed by default on every OS X system out there. Apple has no right to tell you when, where or how you run that GPL software and since OS X will not even boot let alone run without it you are always using/running GPL software when running the graphics shell that runs on top of the already running bash shell which is GPL software.

 

[Muncher]

You just completely contradicted yourself.
If the EULA is indeed a legitimate contract then it is illegal to install osx on a pc. What some people fail to realize is that agreeing to a contract doesnt bind you to anything if the terms of the contract itself arent legal. Apple is tip-toeing around anti-trust laws and if someone who was smart enough wanted to challenge them im sure the courts would rule that the EULA is not a valid contract.

I didn't really. It's not illegal in that it's not a felony. But you can be sued in a civil court.

And not only is anyone wanting a fight with apple going to be fighting an up-hill battle (EULAs, for better or worse can bind people to a lot of things legally), only few have the money and time.

 

[MacUser2525]

I didn't really. It's not illegal in that it's not a felony. But you can be sued in a civil court.

And not only is anyone wanting a fight with apple going to be fighting an up-hill battle (EULAs, for better or worse can bind people to a lot of things legally), only few have the money and time.

EULAs are only as binding as is legally applicable in your country in every one I have ever read there is always a clause that states the following "Not withstanding any thing in this agreement your local laws always have precedence over what we have stated in this agreement" or words to that effect and surprising enough there are more than a few countries on this planet that are not subject to the American judicial system.

 

[paduck]

I think the reason insanelymac.com hasn't been shut down is because they aren't selling anything for their own profit and they are not torrenting Apple's product. There is a whole lot of informational web sites out there telling people how to do things that aren't fully kosher. Violating Apple's EULA is on the very low end of that scale. Apple probably isn't particularly concerned about homemade Hackintoshes - they sell over a million Macs a quarter. They are concerned about Psystar and industrial cloners who have the capability to cut into those sales.

The MS Windows license used to (maybe still does) not allow installation on Windows in a virtual environment. Same premise - only worse since Windows is supposed to be all about hardware independence.

And what about Boot Camp? That is an interesting application. Basically, Apple will let you put other operating systems on their hardware, but not their operating system on someone else's...

 

[VenomousSVT]

funny.. the eula in my copy was blank.. i agreed to nothing! sue that

 

[justind.clark]

The real problem with Insanely Mac is that its research is leading to companies like Psystar. These companies are coming up with ways to provide OS X with their computers and do it for significantly cheaper effectively screwing Apple over. Since Apple uses OS X to subsidize it's hardware sales, it will not be able to open it's OS without destroying the Mac altogether. If these companies continue then Apple will no longer be able to make computers or OS X, Apple will degrade into nothing but a music and phone company.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

The real problem with Insanely Mac is that its research is leading to companies like Psystar. These companies are coming up with ways to provide OS X with their computers and do it for significantly cheaper effectively screwing Apple over. Since Apple uses OS X to subsidize it's hardware sales, it will not be able to open it's OS without destroying the Mac altogether. If these companies continue then Apple will no longer be able to make computers or OS X, Apple will degrade into nothing but a music and phone company.

Companies like PsyStar just show us how the market is constantly evolving. People want a great os without paying twice as much for the computer to run it on. Apple could just as easily charge more for its OS and charge the market standard for computers, but they like to say that their OS is cheaper to maintain than windows.
If apple falls because someone else is making hardware at a better cost/performance ratio and apple is too arrogant to change their market strategy then they deserve to fall. People like myself dont want to spend $3000+ for a mac pro and also dont want to be stuck with a laptop sans battery (the imac) so we look elsewhere to solve our problems since apple doesnt want to tackle that part of the market. Unfortunately, apple's eula restricts the mid-range desktop market (with osx that is) which isnt exactly abiding by anti-trust laws.
Lets look at this scenario: Rickenbacker made the first guitar with an electric pickup onboard in 1932. This would, of course, be a huge selling point for the guitar. By your logic, no other company should be able to put pickups in guitars because Rickenbacker might lose sales and eventually go under for it. What did happen is that the Les Paul and Strat ended up having their own pickups and onboard electronics so Rickenbacker kept shifting along with the market and what the customer desired instead of standing still expecting the world to cater to their sales prediction. Had rickenbacker failed to move with the market they would not be around today.

Apple was very close to going under and with OSX people are really looking at macs as great tools. The bad thing is that most people cant drop $1300 on a laptop that has half the ram and half the hdd space as a lappy i saw in the Circuit City ad in my paper this morning. So what are they going to do? Look elsewhere, and that brings us to the osx86 project. Sure, the privelaged few who can afford to spend a ton on a computer will still buy apple's hardware, but those with more sense than money will have someone set up a hac for them. Shoot, for the most part, any system will work with updates if you set it up right, so there is almost no hassle at all.

 

[icoffee]

Companies like PsyStar just show us how the market is constantly evolving. People want a great os without paying twice as much for the computer to run it on. Apple could just as easily charge more for its OS and charge the market standard for computers, but they like to say that their OS is cheaper to maintain than windows.
If apple falls because someone else is making hardware at a better cost/performance ratio and apple is too arrogant to change their market strategy then they deserve to fall. People like myself dont want to spend $3000+ for a mac pro and also dont want to be stuck with a laptop sans battery (the imac) so we look elsewhere to solve our problems since apple doesnt want to tackle that part of the market. Unfortunately, apple's eula restricts the mid-range desktop market (with osx that is) which isnt exactly abiding by anti-trust laws.
Lets look at this scenario: Rickenbacker made the first guitar with an electric pickup onboard in 1932. This would, of course, be a huge selling point for the guitar. By your logic, no other company should be able to put pickups in guitars because Rickenbacker might lose sales and eventually go under for it. What did happen is that the Les Paul and Strat ended up having their own pickups and onboard electronics so Rickenbacker kept shifting along with the market and what the customer desired instead of standing still expecting the world to cater to their sales prediction. Had rickenbacker failed to move with the market they would not be around today.

Apple was very close to going under and with OSX people are really looking at macs as great tools. The bad thing is that most people cant drop $1300 on a laptop that has half the ram and half the hdd space as a lappy i saw in the Circuit City ad in my paper this morning. So what are they going to do? Look elsewhere, and that brings us to the osx86 project. Sure, the privelaged few who can afford to spend a ton on a computer will still buy apple's hardware, but those with more sense than money will have someone set up a hac for them. Shoot, for the most part, any system will work with updates if you set it up right, so there is almost no hassle at all.

You make it sound as if people have "a right" to use Mac OS X without paying for Apple hardware, as long as they have enough skill to read and use the info they find online. So while you've described some of the users and why they went the hackintosh route, I still don't see how the presence of hackintosh sites work in Apple's favor.

The real problem with Insanely Mac is that its research is leading to companies like Psystar. These companies are coming up with ways to provide OS X with their computers and do it for significantly cheaper effectively screwing Apple over. Since Apple uses OS X to subsidize it's hardware sales, it will not be able to open it's OS without destroying the Mac altogether. If these companies continue then Apple will no longer be able to make computers or OS X, Apple will degrade into nothing but a music and phone company.

I agree, and that's where it looks like they're headed unless their business plans continue to evolve. Is Apple tolerating and/or preparing for a larger hardware base (over many years)? They've already done it with Safari, iTunes, iPhone, iPod and Quicktime. I can't imagine them not wanting more Redmond piE.

 

[Vivaldi]

The PC that I built myself was originally intended to be a Hackintosh to replace the Mac Mini that I owned, but given the technical difficulties and legal repercussions of the project, I decided against it and decided to install openSUSE on the machine instead.

Ever since I got my MacBook, however, I've seen less and less use with my PC, which is a shame, because I did put a lot of effort in building it.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

I neve said that hac's work in apple's favor, but they do work in the consumers favor where apple has failed. My concern is not what i can do for apple, but what apple can do for me. As the customer, apple is at my mercy for sales and they have not satisfied me so i went elsewhere. Some people may not have a problem paying 2x the market standard, and thats ok, but i dont so i wont buy their hardware.

And yes, i don believe that customers have the right to use a piece of software on any hardware that will support it. Just because i dont want to use one apple product doesnt mean i shouldnt be able to use the other products. Thats why we have anti-trust laws. The only things restricting a plain osx disc to mac hardware is strictly a synthetic restriction unlike the ppc days where it was actually impossible to run the apple os on anything but the ppc platform. Apple is forcing customers to buy two things from them: OSX and a Mac. I cant use osx without a mac, but they advertise and sell osx a separate product, so i treat it as one and use it on the hardware i find pleasing.

What you must keep in mind is that apple is losing absolutely nothing when i build a hac. I would never have bought apple's hardware to begin with so they have no loss there. I buy a copy os leo and apple gains $130 from me. This only benefits apple, though not as much as they would like, but im ok with that because i shouldnt have to bend to apples will in order to use osx.

 

[localoid]

The real problem with Insanely Mac is that its research is leading to companies like Psystar. ....

Re: "Insanely Mac leads to Psystar"

That's quite a leap... You might as well be claiming sex education leads to rape.

Re: OSX on x86 machines

Don't blame Insanely Mac, or any of the zillion or so other sites around the Net that cover the topic of running OSX on x86 machines. Pandora's box was opened when Apple switched from PPC to x86. Blame Apple.

OSX is the best thing Apple produces. How could anyone really believe some would not find it desirable to make use of it on more user configurable and upgradable machines? As a scientist in a movie once said, "life will find a way..." (The Lost World: Jurassic Park)

Re: The Fall of the Apple Empire

Avoid needless worrying about things you have no real control over. The percentage of people running Hackintoshes probably only amounts to 1% of all OSX users. Is Apple that bad off financially that a tiny little amount of money that they might (in theory) lose due to lost Mac sales going to cause the company to fold?

Re: OSX is subsidized

I just bought a copy of Vista Home Premium 64-bit for $80, but paid ~$120 for a copy of OSX Leopard. Any yet you claim that Leopard is something Apple sells at a loss, in order to sell hardware? Any credible source you can cite to back that claim up?

Re: Pystar is just the tip of the iceberg

Any companies ignorant of trademark, copyright, etc. law that starts offering OSX Hachintoshes w/OSX installed on a commercial basis will end spending any small profits they might make on legal fees. Problem solved.

 

[Muncher]

That's quite a leap... You might as well be claiming sex education leads to rape.

Hahaha... I agree.

Unfortunately, apple's eula restricts the mid-range desktop market (with osx that is) which isnt exactly abiding by anti-trust laws.
Lets look at this scenario: Rickenbacker made the first guitar with an electric pickup onboard in 1932. This would, of course, be a huge selling point for the guitar. By your logic, no other company should be able to put pickups in guitars because Rickenbacker might lose sales and eventually go under for it.

You're wrong. Apple has their own product, and to force them to sell it for other machines would only be possible if they have at least the majority market share. Do you think you could seriously make a case that OS X is it's own system? No. It's an operating system, just like windows. If you don't like it, you don;t have to use it. By similar logic, I could force verizon and at&t to sell their phone OSes for all phones.

EULAs are only as binding as is legally applicable in your country...

That's true.

By the way, I just had a solution to this entire problem. If apple were to sell their product normally, and then a "PC" version for $1 Trillion Dollars + Tax, where Steve Jobs would fly the person into apple headquarters and give them the box amidst the cheers of hundreds of apple employees about to get the biggest bonus of their lives.

 

[nomar383]

By the way, I just had a solution to this entire problem. If apple were to sell their product normally, and then a "PC" version for $1 Trillion Dollars + Tax, where Steve Jobs would fly the person into apple headquarters and give them the box amidst the cheers of hundreds of apple employees about to get the biggest bonus of their lives.

lmao, yes!