Psystar's Open Computer gets new case, video card

We weren't terribly impressed with Psystar's Open Computer the first time around, but hopefully this new revision will perk things up a bit -- along with dealing with that insufferable fan noise. Psystar is making no such promises, but it has quietly rolled out a new case design, along with tossing in a NVIDIA GeForce 7200GS 256MB graphics card -- a decent bump over the original's integrated graphics. The price is still $399, and it still costs $155 extra to get Leopard pre-installed on the system.

[Thanks, iPod Macman]

[Pochi @ May 27th 2008 11:05AM]

Hey Psystar.

http://www.silenx.com/index.asp

Problem solved.

[omf @ May 27th 2008 12:07PM]

Backwards:
"Huh? Here's the problem: Leopard runs fine on most PCs including those that run Windows XP."

The only reason it "runs fine" is that lots of people in the "hacking" community spent a lot of time reverse-engineering and coming up with the changes required to make it work on non-Apple hardware. This company is stealing that work and trying to make a buck off of it, giving absolutely nothing back to anyone and increasing the likelihood that Apple will employ stricter enforcement measures.

They're doing worse than stealing: they're endangering the community that made their "product" possible.

[omf @ May 27th 2008 12:08PM]

Oops! Replied to wrong poster!

[Eh @ May 27th 2008 5:52PM]

Case fans have nothing to do with why it was so loud. They were using a piece of garbage EVGA budget card, which only spins at 100% speed. They are EXTREMELY loud video cards, hopefully they tested this new video card to make sure its not as loud as the terrible EVGA one.

[iEye @ May 27th 2008 11:17AM]

Rest assured, Apple will deal with these low life scumbags... After the release of the much anticipated 3G iPhone...

Psystar, your death clock is ticking...

[brickwood @ May 27th 2008 11:19AM]

low life scumbags?..

...gimp.

[pillowmask @ May 27th 2008 11:28AM]

Yea I would use those terms as well :)

I find it strange that we even hear about this company and its products on these major news sites - considering their business is based around software piracy.

Most upstanding messageboards will even moderate out questions about how to pirate software.

[Backwards People @ May 27th 2008 11:27AM]

Huh? Here's the problem: Leopard runs fine on most PCs including those that run Windows XP.

But Apple chooses to play the "r-tard" by not providing support for Leopard, unless it's on Apple's own over-priced hardware.

If there's anyone you should be upset at, it's Apple. They think they are 'elite' with their Apple hardware.

Apple should get a clue and GBTW.

[toxicpiano @ May 27th 2008 11:37AM]

@backwards people
One would assume that the reason apple only support their hardware is because they have a specific hardware base to make drivers for. It's easier for them I suppose, they have done this for as long as I can remember, so why would they stop now? I have hackintoshed a laptop before and the driver problems were a real bitch (wifi, USB, etc) The people that make the drivers are doing a magnificant job though. (I've been using windows for 8 years and OSX for about 6 months on a new intel imac)

[toxicpiano @ May 27th 2008 11:38AM]

*windows for 10 years

[Peter @ May 27th 2008 11:41AM]

@pillowmask
There is no real piracy involved. They send you a retail copy of Leopard if you buy that system ergo...you have a legal license for OS X. You may have violated the EULA, but that too is not piracy. Know your terms first, no piracy involved.

The only incident of possibly unethical content I've read about is using an EFI-emulator without permission.

[Stormwater @ May 27th 2008 11:44AM]

That does seem a bit harsh. You can't really fault their entrepreneurship, can you?

http://www.filterra.com/index.php/product/

[Zak @ May 27th 2008 11:50AM]

@backwards people: Er, not exactly. Apple is a hardware company, they make money on hardware. Not software. While the OS is tuned specifically to work with Apple's hardware, it exists pretty much to sell Apple's hardware. Licensing the OS to anybody in general would cause an immediate and vast decline in Apple's hardware sales. Apple has licensed the OS to clones before, it was disastrous.

Why would Apple do that to themselves? Is shooting yourself in the foot standard business practice in your mind or something? Yes, Apple is in fact a business, not a charity. You may not like it, but it is damn well within Apple's rights to do whatever the hell they want with their own OS.

[Alan @ May 27th 2008 11:53AM]

quote - "pillowmask @ May 27th 2008 11:28AM

Yea I would use those terms as well :)

I find it strange that we even hear about this company and its products on these major news sites - considering their business is based around software piracy.

Most upstanding messageboards will even moderate out questions about how to pirate software." - end quote

Are you idiotic? They aren't pirating software they are legitimately buying copies of OSX and providing it to their customers.

They are however violating the EULA, which specifically states that OSX can only be installed on Apple hardware. Pull your head out of your arse and think before you post please?

[omf @ May 27th 2008 12:08PM]

Backwards:
"Huh? Here's the problem: Leopard runs fine on most PCs including those that run Windows XP."

The only reason it "runs fine" is that lots of people in the "hacking" community spent a lot of time reverse-engineering and coming up with the changes required to make it work on non-Apple hardware. This company is stealing that work and trying to make a buck off of it, giving absolutely nothing back to anyone and increasing the likelihood that Apple will employ stricter enforcement measures.

They're doing worse than stealing: they're endangering the community that made their "product" possible.

[fred @ May 27th 2008 12:17PM]

"Rest assured, Apple will deal with these low life scumbags... After the release of the much anticipated 3G iPhone...

Psystar, your death clock is ticking..."

I cant make head or tails of this frankly disturbing statement.

These guys are "low life scumbags" for installing a legally purchased OS on a computer and selling it? Or are they "low life scumbags" because if people buy them, that will eat into Apple's profits and thus make people like you angry, and therefore they are "low life scumbags" because of it?

"After the release of the much anticipated 3G iPhone..."

That makes me believe that the OP was just being outrageous on purpose, because altogether the whole statement just reeks of beyond fanaticism.

"Psystar, your death clock is ticking..."

Is or you hope?

[CraigJ @ May 27th 2008 12:24PM]

@Backwards People: Your name is appropriate.

[fred @ May 27th 2008 12:24PM]

"
The only reason it "runs fine" is that lots of people in the "hacking" community spent a lot of time reverse-engineering and coming up with the changes required to make it work on non-Apple hardware. This company is stealing that work and trying to make a buck off of it....."

The reverse-engineering was never a for-sale product and is not the product of a single person. You cant "steal" that no matter how much you twist the definition. If these hackers didnt want their efforts to be part of a for-sale device, then they should have stated as much.

I

[CraigJ @ May 27th 2008 12:33PM]

@fred: Take off the Apple Hate Glasses for a minute and understand. They are low-life scumbags, because they are taking the work of a community of people that worked hard to make OSX run on systems other than Macs, and using that work to make a profit without contributing to the community, while at the same time raising the visibility of that community and placing it at risk.

They are also in violation of the EULA. Personally I feel that if I buy something I should be able to do with it what I like, but in the case of software, technically what you are buying is a license to use the software, and that use has constraints. All commercial software companies restrict the use of their software, Apple does it, Microsoft does it, my company does it. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

So hate on Apple all you want 'cause we know it makes you feel better, but their EULA, and there possible enforcement of it are not unique to Apple.

[Mikey @ May 27th 2008 12:36PM]

@ Zak "You may not like it, but it is damn well within Apple's rights to do whatever the hell they want with their own OS."

No they can't... not when it is a antitrust violation, and Apple's EULA probably is. Everyone wonders why Apple hasn't sued Psystar (they certainly have the attorney bandwidth to file a complaint). It's because Apple doesn't want its EULA invalidated, or worse have the DoJ come after them.

[Zak @ May 27th 2008 12:51PM]

... antitrust? What? Kindly explain how antitrust is involved when Apple owns both the OS and their hardware. I mean isn't that a bit like saying Apple has a monopoly... on their own products?

[Mikey @ May 27th 2008 1:39PM]

Apple is requiring that its software be used on its hardware. That's called tying, and its a big no-no (Microsoft got into similar trouble when it tied the use of Internet Explorer to Windows). Once Apple sells Leopard, it can't limit its use if its limitations have anticompetative effects. Since Apple's EULA prevents other computer manufacturers from using Leopard on their hardware, the EULA has the requisite anticompetative effect, and thus it probably is an antitrust violation.

And I love how I get low ranked for pointing out the law here. Oh well, I guess it was too much to ask for an objective audience when Apple is involved.

[clak @ May 27th 2008 2:17PM]

@Mikey

You're getting Low Ranked because you don't know what you're talking about. Microsoft didn't get sued for Internet Explorer. Microsoft got sued for threatening PC manufacturers with revoking their licenses to distribute Windows if they removed the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop, thereby killing Netscape.

Monopolies in themselves are NOT illegal. Leveraging a monopoly to destroy competition however, IS illegal.


A Keyboard... How quaint—Scotty, Star Trek IV

[fred @ May 27th 2008 3:22PM]

"So hate on Apple all you want 'cause we know it makes you feel better, but their EULA, and there possible enforcement of it are not unique to Apple."

Where do I "hate on Apple"?

Unless Apple's EULA clearly states that OSX cannot be installed on a non-Apple computer, then Apple is up a creek. It's as simple as that.

Shouting curses at Psystar isnt going to change that

[Mikey @ May 27th 2008 3:24PM]

@ :"Monopolies in themselves are NOT illegal. Leveraging a monopoly to destroy competition however, IS illegal."

How is that not what Apple is doing here? They have a monopoly in what hardware can use their operating system, and they are leveraging that to harm competition.

[clak @ May 27th 2008 3:56PM]

Listen closely Mikey, YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON YOUR OWN PRODUCT. What part of that do you not understand?

When Apple was created by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak there was NO separation between software and hardware. Companies like IBM created all their software in house and often in collaboration between universities. In fact, software wasn't even considered important in the early days of computing. Microsoft is the company that created the phenomenon of selling software to OEMs.

So to say Apple is doing something illegal when the business model you're comparing them to, didn't even exist at the time of its inception, is pure and utter BULLSHIT. Apple competes with other computer companies, not Microsoft. That's why those Get-A-Mac commercials feature a Mac and PC. PCs are an integrated product, just like Macs. The fact that PC companies decided to accept Windows instead of making their own operating systems doesn't change that.

Microsoft created a good business model and it has been very successful for them, but they are a monopoly, NOT because they make WINDOWS, but because 90 percent of personal computers companies decided to license Microsoft software, giving them de facto control of the computer industry.

For Apple to be a monopoly there would have to be a Mac market, but Apple isn't competing in the Mac market, just like BMW isn't competing in the BMW market. There is no such thing as a Mac or BMW market. Macs and BMWs are products, not markets in themselves. Get it?


No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!—Goldfinger

[phanbouy @ May 27th 2008 3:56PM]

up a creek? i feel a Ween song coming on...

You ride my ass like a horse in a saddle
Now you're up shits creek with a turd for a paddle
And I can't cope -- piss up a rope

[TheGeektoriousBIG @ May 27th 2008 11:17AM]

Extra 4 a DVDR drive? Oh, please. Throw a Blu-Ray in it if you want to charge extra for something that supposed to be included. I can find the cheapest barebone config out there for half the starting price and it comes with a optical drive.

[shamrock593 @ May 27th 2008 11:21AM]

It looks like a Dell. :P

[Xepol @ May 27th 2008 11:26AM]

MemoryExpress( http://www.memoryexpress.com/ ) in Calgary uses the same cheap, ugly cases (only with a snap-on plastic cover over the side fan intake) for their custom system . The case itself only has one large fan, which keeps noise down. Insides and power supply will make the difference I suppose.

It seems to have good airflow throught the front (the perforated metal isn't just ugly, its functional too), so you don't need a trillion fans to keep it at reasonable temperature.

I suppose ultra mass production keeps the cost of the case down at least.

[conor @ May 27th 2008 4:47PM]

Linkworld 431-06 C.2828 Silver SECC/SGCC rustproof and galvanized steel available ATX Mid Tower Computer Case 500W Power Supply - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811164060 $32.99
Perfect case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[omnicloud @ May 27th 2008 11:27AM]

Compared with the design of the old case (which I rather liked actually), this is a downgrade.

[Danial @ May 27th 2008 11:28AM]

It is a nice touch to go with that InWin case, I use it on my own builds all the time and love it. It's the best MicroATX case I've ever had to work with. Besides that, meh, I'll stick to building my own PCs and if I want pretty I'll use compiz, creating a true open computer.

[ethana2 @ May 27th 2008 12:55PM]

compiz FTW

[Jeff McCord @ May 27th 2008 11:31AM]

So when is this company going to get sued by Apple? I thought Apple sues everyone?!??!

[Backwards People @ May 27th 2008 11:40AM]

I don't think that's going to solve the problem.

[Kizorblade @ May 27th 2008 11:41AM]

They sue people with excessive exclamation and question mark usage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jeff McCord @ May 27th 2008 11:45AM]

They do?>!?!>!>!>!>!>!>!>!~?!??~?~?~??!@?!?!@>@$#@>@>

OH MY GOD!!!@!@!42(#&@(#&!(!*@*!@&@!

[ethana2 @ May 27th 2008 12:52PM]

When they've got drivers for OSX that work properly..

[UbiquitousGeek @ May 27th 2008 12:04PM]

A lot of you don't seem to understand that Apple's business model is very different from Microsoft's. Microsoft makes money selling software. Apple makes money selling hardware. Apple creates software as a means to sell it's hardware. If Apple allowed Mac OS X to be installed on PCs, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. It's never going to happen. Get over it. Apple is a hardware company. This company is doing real damage to Apple's hardware sales and for that, a lawsuit is eminent. They're probably just waiting until this company has sold a number of machines so they can maximize their damages and sue them to oblivion.

Apple's decision to keep Mac OS X on nothing but the Macintosh isn't about "elitism", it's about selling hardware. If Apple doesn't sell hardware, Apple doesn't exist. Steve Jobs has already tried licensing Mac OS X. Yes, it's true. Before it was known as Mac OS X, it was NeXTSTEP. NeXTSTEP was licensed outside of NeXT hardware to PC manufacturers. Steve Jobs isn't going to kill his lucrative hardware sales to make a measly profit selling software licenses.

[MeatyPi @ May 27th 2008 12:10PM]

OS X and NeXTSTEP aren't the same, NeXTSTEP, is the basis for OS X but to say Jobs tried to license OS X under a different name is totally stupid because they are not the same OS.

[fred @ May 27th 2008 12:32PM]

"This company is doing real damage to Apple's hardware sales and for that, a lawsuit is eminent."

Apple: Your honor, I'm suing this company for eating into my profits!

Judge: Get out.

[ethana2 @ May 27th 2008 12:41PM]

I say go Ubuntu and if they end up on the street it's their own frigging problem.

Their business model isn't sustainable. Time for some real competition.
Dell? Proceed.

[LarryLarryLarry @ May 27th 2008 6:38PM]

It's not that we "don't understand", it's that we don't care. Apple is doing something completely and totally illegal by insisting that their software, legally purchased, can only be installed on their hardware. Once you buy the software, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you respect copyright.

Software companies have long tried to get around this basic legal right by claiming to sell us LICENSES instead of software. It's total bullshit and has never held up in court.

Apple knows that. Psystar is like the first tiny crack in the damn. You know it's only going to get worse and there's nothing to be done about it. So you can start throwing dirt around without any hope, or you can just pretend you don't notice the crack.

Apple chooses to pretend.

There is no lawsuit coming. Ever. Write that down.

I'm ordering a Psystar today. I had a clone the last time they were available, and it was great. I'm getting another one. I've used Apple computers for 30+ years and I totally hate what they have become.

Fuck Apple.

[Russell de Pina @ May 28th 2008 2:02AM]

Are you trying to say that OS X is built on NextSTEP and not Unix, as its makers claim? It has been pretty well documented that a key difference between Mac OS 9 to OS X was the use of a Unix (BSD, I believe) kernel with the Mac GUI built on top of it.

[Flamehaze @ May 27th 2008 12:16PM]

I want one of these with Vista installed on it...

[Zak @ May 27th 2008 12:17PM]

Here's a timely article on this very subject. Those of you who think Apple should license their OS, you need to pay attention and read this article.

http://www.macworld.com/article/133598/2008/05/macclones.html

In case anybody cares, I actually owned a Radius clone myself. It was a Radius 81/110, basically a clone of the Power Mac 8100/80, but with a higher clock speed. I have nothing against clones myself, BUT:

1. Psystar's machines are not clones. They are breaking Apple's EULA and using hacked drivers to run Leopard on generic PCs.

2. Even licensed clones cut directly into Apple's bottom line.

Read the article.

[fred @ May 27th 2008 12:31PM]

So people should be locked in Apple hardware because our highest priority is to protect Apple's profits. Why should I as a consumer, not as an Apple fanatic, care about that?

If Apple's OS is so desirable, then it will bring in new users, who now have a variety of PCs to choose from in order to run it. Apple will make more money from the sale of the licenses, or a they will have to mark up in order to make up for the loss in Apple hardware sales. Either way, my choice as a consumer is higher than Apple's ability to ring as much money out of me as possible

[generally @ May 27th 2008 12:44PM]

@fred

Thank you! Perfectly justified, no BS answer!

[ethana2 @ May 27th 2008 12:44PM]

Apple can let their OS out into the real world,
or
they can let /other/ people do it
or
they can let FOSS mow them over.

Two will happen. I don't care what happens to Apple, I don't give pity to companies like them.