Psystar's Open Computer gets new case, video card
By Paul Miller 
posted May 27th 2008 11:01AM
posted May 27th 2008 11:01AM
[Thanks, iPod Macman]
posted May 27th 2008 11:01AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@fred,
Our highest priority as consumers is to get what suits us best, not simply to maximize someone else's profits, though the profits gained is connected to its suitability. Your choice as a consumer is not restricted by their integration scheme, and you can buy your own hardware and buy their OS and do what you wish.
How do you figure that Apple would make more money? What are the chances of Apple completely restructuring, vying to get sweet OEM deals with manufacturers and being able to make back the profits lost from the closure of their Mac hardware division with even a 200% markup on OS X? My guess is that they'd go bankrupt, as Mac sales fund their OS X development venture.
In either case, Apple's Mac endeavor is actually very profitable, and they've actually been pulling in better profits than Dell. What incentive, other than to please you, do they have to change at all?
> "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."
It's not just the Apple OS... it's the fact that Apple designed their hardware and OS to work together. It's the whole package, not just an OS. That's what makes a Mac a Mac.
The whole point of a Mac is that you bring it home and it does everything you want it to. The Psystar machine doesn't. It's a hacked up, duct-taped piece of junk. It's an illusion.
Psystar believed that the Mac OS should be put onto any type of hardware. While they achieved that... they also missed the point.
Fred: "Apple will make more money from the sale of the licenses"
Ah yes, you didn't read the article apparently. Apple doesn't make money on software. They make money on hardware. HARDWARE. You think Apple has over 10 billion in cash from OS sales? Do you think OS sales can compensate for the loss of hardware sales? Do you believe $129 is the same thing as $2000?
Furthermore, Apple has established a very successful business model. Why should they give that up again? Oh right, because you have some bizarre sense of entitlement regarding OS X. Yeah, that's not quite good enough.
Ethana2 - Yes yes, Apple will go out of business any day now just like they have been for the last 24 years, blah blah blah. Your opinion changes nothing regarding the reality of the situation.
@zak
That's the same argument the RIAA makes.
You guys who keep saying Apple is doing something wrong by "tying" an operating system to hardware, don't understand the history of computers. In the early days, it was common practice for companies like IBM to develop their own software, often in collaboration with universities like MIT. Early software like CP/CMS was essentially open source, but in those days, computers were too big and expensive to be practical for home use, so companies like IBM focused solely on selling mainframes to universities and large businesses. The software wasn't even an important element until the introduction of miniprocessors and personal computers.
When the Apple ][ came along, like IBM, Apple focused on hardware and there was never anything illegal about this, because despite what you might think, software wasn't even considered to be intellectual property at the time.
In fact, the precedent for code as intellectual property was established by Apple's lawsuit against Franklin Computers, a company that copied parts of the Apple ][ operating system and firmware (see Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp). Apple's defense of their software was held up by an appeals court.
Microsoft was essentially the company that created the software model that has become the de facto standard for all PCs (with DOS, not BASIC), so how it is that you guys can say that Apple is doing something illegal, based solely on a model of business that didn't even exist at Apple's inception?
It's naive for you guys to think this and it bears repeating that you CANNOT have a monopoly on your own product. If that's the case, every company has a fucking monopoly. Get a grip.
For me, love is very deep, but sex only has to go a few inches—Rita, Bullets Over Broadway
Sure Fred, just ignore the points I bought up and don't bother proving me wrong. Everything I said still stands.
A Turkish OEM manufacturer called Exper also uses this case, as a matter of fact my computer at work (a university) has the exact same case. It is awfully noisy, plus the power buttons on these cases have the tendency to break down, and there is no reset button. After struggling to turn on the pc for half an hour everyday for a couple of days, I had to disconnect the power button cord from the mainboard as a last resort. Now I have to shut down from windows then plug it out. I simply plug it in to turn it on. It's medieval but effective :)
load of junk! this company shall be brought to the court and its executives shall be put behind bars for infringing copyrights and ruining apple's brand value.
and to all those pathetic people who're interested in buying one of those, they'd never be admitted to the mac community by all means and they shall be brought to court too!
Nice, I hope Apple learns from this. Maybe then I could actually afford a Mac.
Yes Apple's business model is much different from Microsoft's. But at least Microsoft is a monopoly by consequence, not by striving to be the monopoly, like Apple.
Oh, they did some striving too.
I hope to be rid of both of them soon.
I mean like, /I/ already am, but you know, society in general.
You're nuts if you think Microsoft didn't strive to become and maintain a monopoly.
I'd love for somebody to try to explain how Apple has a monopoly on anything. Or how they're trying to have a monopoly on anything. You can't have a monopoly on your own products, so I don't see how this applies to Apple in any way.
And you can afford a Psystar but you can't afford a Mac? The Psystar with Leopard is $550, a Mac Mini with Leopard, and iLife, and none of the problems you get when using hacked drivers is $599. That $50 is the difference between "I can afford this" and "this is out of my price range" for you? Really?
Mac mini, nuff said. Affordable, decent, runs OSX and gives you all the benefits that come from being a mac owner. Check the refurb store often and you'll be amazed at what you can afford.
I recently made the change to trying a mac...bought myself a refurbished macbook with a 2.16 duo core, 1 gb of ram and a 120 GB superdrive, and as I recall it came out to 1100 bucks, shipped, plus an extra year of apple care. I've purchased refurbed ipods in the past, and even a refurbed iphone for my wife, and I can honestly say that apple does the best job of any company I've done business with in cleaning up and supporting their refurbs.
I'm by no means an apple fanboi...I'm very late to the party having just recently discovered what a mac can do for me (you add fusion and a copy of xp and there's not much it CANT do)...but I admit, if I'm going to buy a mac, I want the whole kitten kaboodle...I want the OS, I want the hardware, and I want the tech support/warranty service. I'd rather save a little extra bread now and fork over for the genuine article than relying on a fly by night company's homebrew and already established as "poor" tech support.
@Zak
Simple. Apple has a monopoly on all hardware the goes into an Apple computers.
"You can't have a monopoly on your own products, so I don't see how this applies to Apple in any way."
Well that's exactly it. Most of the hardware isn't straight from Apple. It's stuff that Apple has custom-ordered and willingly manufactured so that OSX can work on that hardware alone. They only make slight modifications to the original designs which are unnecessary at any functional level, but are only in place so that an Apple computer can't be made with regular parts. So it's not their product, but by rigging both the OS and the hardware to work together specifically, this denies anyone else the opportunity to buy the hardware and put one together themselves. That sounds a lot like a monopoly to me.
These Pystar "hacks" are simply trying to reverse the need for Apple's unnecessary modifications to the regular hardware that makes their computers. I see no problem with it. If Apple based their whole business model around this, well, they are in the wrong business. Make smartphones for the rest of your days if you want to make all of your money off of hardware. Don't expect it to happen with computers.
generally, you're somewhat displaced from reality, aren't you?
"Simple. Apple has a monopoly on all hardware the goes into an Apple computers. "
That may be the worst argument I've ever seen. You must be catastrophically stupid if you actually believe any of what you said.
It's been said maybe 8 or 10 times already in this thread but obviously it needs to be said again: YOU CANNOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON YOUR OWN PRODUCTS. This isn't an opinion, it's a simple reality. What market is this alleged monopoly controlling? The Mac market? What other players are there in the Mac market? None. You know why? Because Apple OWNS everything related to Macs. They own the trademarks, they own the OS and they own the hardware.
Is simply owning products a monopoly? No. If you knew what a monopoly was, you would know that. I mean really, your "arguments" are bordering on retardation.
@Zak
You still don't get it. The hardware in Apple's computers is not Apple's products.
The hardware in Apple computers are regular computer parts; it's their configuration of existing products which are rigged up with OSX so that OSX cannot run on a the original designed parts. Deliberately. For the sole purpose that only those hardware products can be used with the OS, and are only available from one company. Products which anyone else is prevented from buying directly from any manufacturer.
If Apple had designed a hardware system which was far more advanced than others, and actually used different hardware than regular PCs, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If this were the case, there would actually be a reason to buy from Apple and Apple alone. I would gladly pay whatever they say X hardware piece costs, regardless of if I'm just paying an extra "Apple" mark-up fee because of the useless custom design implemented. A design only there to restrict my OS.
But since they use essentially the same hardware, slightly modified, I just can't justify Apple bumping up the price and forcing me to buy from them. It just doesn't make sense when there are more obvious economical solutions available. These solutions don't (normally) restrict the OS that I choose.
@fred
Why should a company not protect it's profits? Apple is not a charity. Licensing Mac OS X to PCs will not bring profits to Apple. Profit is not an evil, it's how a company sustains itself and brings new products to market via research and development. Why is it that when Apple makes a profit, they're trying to steal your money? Every company on Earth exists for the sole purpose of making money!
You can't see past your anti-Apple bias, I understand that. That's very clear. Apple is just like any other company. Get over it.
That's /kind of/ up to them, but people won't put up with crap like that much longer at all. ..and Ubuntu is out for blood.
@ethan....
Ubuntu looks more like a threat to Windows than anything.
"Why should a company not protect it's profits? Apple is not a charity. Licensing Mac OS X to PCs will not bring profits to Apple."
So? This company did not make illegal copies of the OS. They PAID Apple for the OS and installed it on a PC. "Doh!" moment for Apple.
"Profit is not an evil, it's how a company sustains itself and brings new products to market via research and development."
Yeah but suing someone for being more clever than yourself is stupid. Kinda like the RIAA.
"Why is it that when Apple makes a profit, they're trying to steal your money?"
When did I ever say that? It's not like I coined a term like "Micro$oft" to denounce the making of money by a company, because I dont have issues with making profits.
"You can't see past your anti-Apple bias, I understand that. That's very clear. Apple is just like any other company. Get over it."
Im advocating for the expansion of Apple's OS on more computers, and I have an anti-Apple bias? Go figure!
So, with the 7200GS now in this machine, I couldn't find the specs on their site, but there is a possibility of running a 30" with this thing in it's stock config.
So $399 (+ $155) vs. Apple's $2400 for a machine that will run OSX at 2560x1600.
If they promise to do the relevant research so I can call a support number/hit a forum thread for the exact, brainless, step-by-step patch to 10.5.3 when it hits and beyond, this may be a winner. Having to wipe/re-load every time an update hits with a new slipstreamed and hacked image would be a drag though.
Note to Apple, update your mini with Dual-DVI and I'll buy one as fast as I can click. Otherwise, stuff like this becomes tempting.
You know, the only reason this ever came about is because Apple continues to neglect that segment of the market that wants a mid-level tower entry. Some of us don't want the Mac Mini, at least in its current configuration, and we don't want that high-end tower currently offered. Had they done this, Psystar wouldn't have that much of a pot to piss in (then again, they may have still com out with simply a relatively cheaper version).
Remember when engadget called this vaporware?
They were wrong, but you can't seriously say that their assessment wasn't justified. If Dell, Lenovo or the like pulled something like this, you know that it wouldn't just be Apple out for blood.
@ Zak.
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.
Ooh, swing and a miss. Apple OWNS the hardware AND the software. Therefore anything they do with those things is completely up to them. The trouble Microsoft got into was that they were disallowing the uninstallation of Internet Explorer. THAT is a big no-no and it's anticompetitive because there are other browsers that can legally run on Windows.
See the difference there? Microsoft doesn't own Firefox, so the prevention of using it as the main browser was anticompetitive. Apple owns OS X and their own hardware. There is no anticompetition there. If Apple chooses to only allow OS X to run on their own hardware, that is entirely their choice to make.
What you're suggesting is the same thing as saying Ford being the only company able to build the Mustang is anticompetitive. It doesn't really make any sense. You think Chevy should be able to build a Mustang too?
Apple doesn't have to let anybody use OS X on anything other than Macs. They're under no obligation whatsoever to license it out. There is nothing antitrust about it... at all. It's their product. It doesn't matter how much you *want* them to license it out, yelling "it's not fair" doesn't change any of the facts. Tying to your own product is not a big no-no. If it were, every company who makes anything would be having antitrust issues.
The Zune doesn't work with Macs, so I'm going to sue Microsoft for antitrust. According to you, that's how this works, right? It should work with everything regardless of what Microsoft wants? I can't access the Zune Marketplace on my iPod. I'm going to sue Microsoft. I can't play Xbox games on my PS3, I'm going to sue Microsoft. For that matter I can't play PS3 games on my Wii, so I'm suing Sony and Nintendo too. And I'm suing PC game manufactures for not making Mac versions of their games.
You have what we like to call a false sense of entitlement. You like to think OS X is public domain, when it really isn't. Apple owns it. It belongs to Apple. How is this not clear enough?
@fred
What makes you think that PCs are entitled to Mac OS X? A Macintosh i is a complete product. Who are you to decide that the Mac should be chopped in half and sold off at fire sale prices? Sure, it would be great if everyone could have OS X, but OS X exists because Apple spends large amounts of R&D dollars developing it. R&D dollars that came from sales of Apple hardware.
Who cares how many copies of Mac OS X Psystar has bought and paid for. Mac OS X is not intended and licensed to for use on anything other than a Mac. That's Apple choice. I'm sorry that it upsets you, but it's not you or anyone else's choice. When you're the CEO of Apple, Inc., you can make these decisions. Until then, shut up. Get over it. It's their intellectual property and they can do with it what they please.
Apple wants to expand their hardware sales, not their software sales. This is in the best interest of the company. Running Mac OS X on cheap PC hardware is not in the best interest of anyone. Windows might actually be a stable OS if Microsoft had a closed hardware architecture like Apple. I don't know if you realize this or not, but Microsoft is actually using the Xbox 360 as a test platform for that very purpose.
Amen brotha.
There's a reason that OSX is reasonably priced, as compared to traditional windows operating systems. They want you to come for the OS and stay for the hardware...and sure they gouge a little bit on the hardware but you know what? You are paying for a full package...stable OS, solid attractive hardware, and yes, that great feeling that comes from having a laptop that you can skip rebooting for 4 months at a clip.
"Who cares how many copies of Mac OS X Psystar has bought and paid for. Mac OS X is not intended and licensed to for use on anything other than a Mac. "
That's too damn bad what Apple "intended". Someone found a way, and Apple, if they did not explicity state it in their EULA, is f*cked if they take this to court. And so far has anyone actually found this sentence in the EULA saying that you cant?
What I think many Apple users here have an issue with is the potential that these guys will hurt Apple's bottom line more than anything else, so they lash out at this company instead of blasting Apple for not seeing this years ago.
And also it's telling how dead-set some of them are in making it clear that you HAVE NO RIGHT to use software you bought in the way you want. Microsoft never put up such a fight against having Windows on a Mac, and their wasn't some huge outcry form anyone when it happened. And I believe that Apple even makes note of their ability to run Windows on a Mac in one of their ads.
But for some reason their OS is to holy to be run on anything other than their companies machines.
Think different? Think not.
@Mikey
That would be like calling BMW a monopoly because they only sell BMW engines in BMW cars. Your argument is ignorant. Apple has every right to keep their software on their hardware, just as all kinds of other devices use proprietary software, such as cellular phones, game consoles, GPS units, DVD players, MP3 players...
Get a grip. This is reality, not fantasy.
Lot's of ignorant posts today.
So Apple owns Linux now? OSX was built on BSD Linux.
So what if Apple software runs on PCs (with the correct hardware drivers)? That's the whole point!
Apparently, if Apple wants to be a jerk, you're all for that? ... OK.... right back at ya slick!
Um... no? I don't recall anybody saying Apple owned Linux. OS X was built on BSD, NOT Linux. Those are two different things. Furthermore, BSD and OS X are two different things. OS X is *based* on BSD.
And the whole point is that running OS X on hardware other than Apple's is breaking the EULA for OS X. Some people seem to think breaking Apple's EULA is perfectly fine, and this is the false sense of entitlement I was talking about.
I fail to see how Apple is "being a jerk" for protecting their property, intellectual or otherwise. Are all companies who protect their property just being jerks too? Again, you have a false sense of entitlement. You think OS X should be public domain, and it's not. Period. End of discussion.
So yes, lots of ignorant comments today. Most of them from you and people who agree with you.
still damn ugly
AMEN! No matter what OS it runs, it still looks like crap.
Once Apple sells the software, they don't own it anymore... that's black letter property law. They also have no intellectual property rights in the article they sold, that's the first sale doctrine (or exhaustion, depending on which term you prefer). The only control they have over the software at that point is the EULA, which is improper.
Your argument about Ford and Chevy makes no sense. Once Ford sells the Mustange they made, the guy who bought it can do whatever he wants with it, including putting a Chevy engine in it. That is not the same thing as preventing Chevy from building a Mustang (which they couldn't do because of trademark law, not antitrust law... if there wasn't a trademark on Mustang and trade dress protection on how it looks, yes then Chevy could make the exact same car and call it a Mustang).
Your Zune to Mac argument also makes no sense. Of course that can't be anticompetative, because Microsoft has no control over Apple and vice versa.
I think your misunderstanding is that I am talking about the physical copies of Apple's operating system (i.e. the disks of software that Psystar is installing on their computer) NOT the intellectual property behind it. Apple can't control those disks once they sold them in an uncompetative manner.
"You have what we like to call a false sense of entitlement. You like to think OS X is public domain, when it really isn't. Apple owns it."
I could care less about whether OS X is available on Psystar or not. I also know OS X isn't in the public doman (I'm a patent attorney, if stuff like this was easily able to be in the public domain, I'd be out of a job). I was merely pointing out an angle that I don't think people even realize is there. Personally attacking me for it adds nothing to the debate.
yes. once an individual buys a chevy he can then put a BMW engine into it (perhaps the whole EULA business is a bit shaky here). S/he will probably void the warranty but what the hell right? That said, it is another thing entirely for chevy to buy the BMW engine, install it and sell the chevy with a BMW engine as a oBMW (Open BMW). In this instance Chevy's business model is an illegal taking from BMW by making money off of BMW's brand. BMW is under NO obligation to sell those engines to any other company so that they can make profit off of the BMW brand. This is essentially what Paystar is doing.
It is my belief that Apple did not go nuts on the hacking community because they were essentially not profiting from what they were doing. Also, their EULA might be successfully challenged in this instance. However, Paystar's entire business model is predicated on the idea that they will reap their profits from their use of Apple's intellectual property. Apple is completely within their rights to decide how their IP will be sold and used by other corporations. Paystar, this sort of behavior is a no no.
How would Microsoft or any other company that sells an OS react if some other company decided to buy their product, put it on a computer, destroy their business model and reap profit? What if Microsoft took the iPod, cleaned out the OS, installed their Zune software and sold it as an oPod (open iPod)?
What is different here is that one company is MAKING PROFIT by using the IP of another company without their permission. This is what Paystar is guilty of doing. This is what they will get their ass smacked for.
@Mikey
thats not actually how copywright laws work when you buy software you are paying for the right to use said software not to asume ownership of it.
@Ubiquitousgeek. That's not what I'm saying at all. Once BMW sells its car, it can't have a contract that tells the purchaser they can't modify the car and put in a different engine in the car. That is what is wrong with Apple's EULA. If Apple wanted to only wanted its software to run on Apple computers, it should only sell the computer with the OS installed.
But, it sells the OS by itself, and requires that the OS be used on its hardware. In your BMW example, it would be as if BMW sold you an engine alone (which it doesn't do) and said "Sorry, you can't put that in your Mercedes body."
... with the added understanding that there is a contract you sign when you buy that BMW that specifically says you can't put another engine in it, and that by signing it, you agree to those terms. When you buy and install OS X, you are agreeing to the EULA's terms. When you install OS X on anything other than a Mac, you are breaking the EULA.
And not selling OS X on its own isn't even slightly realistic. How would people with older Macs upgrade to a new version of OS X if they couldn't buy it? Legally, I mean.
No, Apple can't enforce its rules on the end user, but it can enforce its rules on Psystar. Psystar doesn't have an OEM licensing deal with Apple, so they are basically end users purchasing the OS in bulk then selling a hacked version to make a profit. There is the difference.
@Zak
Its pretty simple really...you roll it out via a push in pieces. rather than saying "On or about X/X/XXXX you will receive a huge download" you start slipping pieces of the new OS in with the regular updates. Then on day X, whatever hasn't been sent out, gets sent and voila, upgrade is there.
Alternatively, if you want to charge for the upgrade, it isn't terribly challenging to allow users to download it and verify that it will only be downloaded and usable on the mac to which is was downloaded.
Mitch - DRM? Really? That's your solution? What about Macs that aren't connected to the internet? What about multi-Mac remote installs? There has to be a local installer of some kind. Currently, there is no copy protection on the Mac OS, and there never has been.
What about disk utility? Currently you can boot off the system DVD to run it and repair. A DRM'd download-only solution is just stupid, honestly.
Not for nothing, the idea of a hackintosh does appeal to me...that having been said, it's not because I want to take a bite out of apple so much as I want to have the freedom to change out/upgrade parts at will. One of the things that has always made me a big win XP fan was my ability to create a home brew box, and then mod it as times (and prices of hardware) changed...the ability to upgrade from a p4 1.8 with a gig of ram to a duo or quad core with 4+ gb of ram is very appealing to people who know what they're doing and like staying on the cutting edge of hardware.
That having been said, apple aint dumb...and I'm the first to admit that their hardware, while perhaps less impressive specwise in a lot of ways, stretches much further than on a win based PC. I have a macbook sporting a duo core 2.0 and 1 GB of ram, and the ONLY time I've felt it wasn't enough was when I was running microsoft products (i.e. office suitte etc). Apple's OS works in a different way...and being based in unix it stretches resources FAR further than any windows PC will, and grants additional stability. Is it necessary to boast about your PCs stats enough that you want a homebrew mac? Personally I've never felt a need to do more than what was offered...that having been said, not so much for laptops but for desktops, being able to pop open the "case" and replace parts would certainly encourage me to completely convert to macs.
Anybody who wants to "change/upgrade parts" in a Mac clearly doesn't UNDERSTAND the Mac at all. Everything you'd need to upgrade is upgradable, and if you hit a wall due to time and new hardware/software developments, Macs retain high resale value (BECAUSE they have such nice hardware) and you can simply sell your old Mac and get a newer, better, faster one with the proceeds from that sale.
That's how I do it. I bought my first new Mac with Apple credit. I paid that off, but I'm still rolling on the same dime. I sell my Mac at the end of a year or two, and usually get around $250 less than I paid for it initially. I add the $250 out of pocket, add a little more if I want a model higher on Apple's scale (say going from a MacBook to a MacBook Pro) and then I'm all upgraded and good to go.
The ONLY reason most people bitch about Apple "not being upgradable" is because they want to put a monster video card in it and overlock it for hardcore gaming. If that's what you want a Mac for, then stick to your PC. It's better for games, and it's dumb to soup up a Mac just to boot into Windows anyway.
For the FEW people who need a powerful 3D card, they're already in a career that warrants having a Mac Pro.
EVERY OTHER THING is upgradable on a modern Mac. All the peripherals (card reader, input devices, etc.), hard drive (I can swap out my MacBook hard drive much faster and easier than you can swap out most Toshiba or Dell laptop HDDs), sound device, memory, and display are easily upgraded. CPU is fully upgradable in the Mac mini and Mac Pro. You don't NEED to upgrade the Airport card. You don't need to change the sound chipset (most Macs have built-in TOSLINK and support surround sound out of the box) and you can swap out the video card in the Mac Pro.
If you have ANY reason to need a super high-end video card, then you're either a gamer, or you're a professional 3D artist who would be best served by a Mac Pro.
Just you try getting a decent resale value out of this Psystar piece of crap...
Some of Apple's business methods over the years could be called into question, But I can't really see why people think they have the right to demand that Apple should allow OS X to run on any hardware.
Your not forced to buy or use OS X. As for Windows running on third party hardware as a comparison, Microsoft made the choice to allow this to happen.
Just use Linux or Windows if your pissed at Apple and stop complaining.
@LarryLarryLarry and fred (sounds like an intelligent pair, eh?)
You're naive to assume that this is perfectly legal and there's nothing that Apple can do about it. First of all, this machine is butt-ugly. Second, it's not officially supported by Apple. There will be no software updates. It will not be guaranteed to run any software. Third, whether you like it or not, it is against the EULA, which is a legally binding contract. There's not one good reason for Apple to license Mac OS X to PCs. PC manufacturers are not entitled to it. You are not entitled to it. It's always been a part of the Macintosh and it will always be a part of the Macintosh. Apple is not going to destroy their profitable business model to appease your sense of entitlement. Psystar is no different from any of the Chinese companies that produce fake video game consoles and cell phones. Psystar is nothing but a counterfeit computer company. Maybe we should just allow counterfeit products so our kids can be exposed to toxic lead paint in their toys and we can take counterfeit prescription medications made with yellow road paint (yes, it's true and there were several deaths because of it). Counterfeit products are no joke. Oh, but it's okay as long as it suits your needs, right? The law should only apply as you see fit, right? Get a clue. You make me sick.
Just in case anyone cared, the case looks like an In-Win mATX mid-tower. Interesting choice on the case, InWin has a reputation for incredibly sturdy cases. Now back to the flame war...
...Okay, I've thought it over, and the ultimate computer would run...
4 OSs: Vista Premium, OSX, and two versions of Linux for the heck of it.