Psystar bounces back from Chapter 11, intros new high-end hardware

Everybody's favorite fuzzy little Apple clone maker is back from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (we're still waiting on that revelatory outing of creditors that Apple is so hungry for), and already has a new product in the offering. Psystar's new Open(7) hardware runs Intel Nehalem Xeon, which should provide a nice performance jolt to hackintosh land. Psystar is also going to start using a new bootloader called Darwin Universal Boot Loader, which will eventually be released to open source. Oh, and just in case you were wondering: a little bit of bankruptcy hasn't softened the company's confrontational spirit: Psystar says it's ready to "emerge and again battle Goliath," and that when "life gives you apples, make applesauce." It's kind of cute, really.

[Via TUAW]

[GEremy @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:19AM]

I need me one...

[Linhares @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:26AM]

izza nice!

[Kamokazi @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:36AM]

Oh, a Paul comment. So enlightening as always. I have some spare cookies so I'll feed the troll. Although I'm rather disappointed, this time it's little more than taking an expression way too literally. There was also a hint of highly flawed logical reasoning in there, too: "...company that provides them with the operating system that they didn't code?" That kind of sounds like EVERY OTHER COMPUTER MANUFACTURER ON THE PLANET, seeing as how they all generally use Microsoft's OS, or Linux, which most of it they probably didn't code themselves.

Please, improve your trolling skills so this is more entertaining next time.

[Tim Brown @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:55AM]

What iPaC seams to forget, is that Apple did not code the bulk of OSX. At its heart beats Unix, and if I am not mistaken that was coded by Sun Micro Systems. All Apple have done is slapped a pretty front end on it, added a few widgets, which have made it less secure BTW (hence all the patches), and claimed it as their own. So what does Sun think of this, since Apple only licence the Kernel from them, so in effect it is more of an infringement on Sun

[dj-kenpo @ Jul 2nd 2009 12:07PM]

oh my god paul keeps going....

paul please enlighten us with more wisdom.

[raredesign @ Jul 2nd 2009 12:51PM]

@Paul
Nevertheless, it is a derivative, and age does not change the fact that it smells like BSD.
You said 10.5 as if it was some great achievement of new OS's. Apple hasn't had a major OS upgrade since 10. They just market their patches as new OS's.

[Eh @ Jul 2nd 2009 12:58PM]

paul you just dont get it

[Excelsium @ Jul 2nd 2009 12:59PM]

What's the point of this? is the OS even updateable? Your missing out on half the experience with one of these.

[tyler @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:00PM]

@ everyone

Stop feeding the troll.. let him get back to living in his mom's basement..

[raredesign @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:07PM]

@Paul
"they take the time out to actually make their own operating system, specially tailored to their hardware."
Seriously! that is what this whole thing is about. I hope you really don't feel as though they are doing something special in the interest of all the world. It is market strategy that has kept them refined and high priced, yet with a unique image.
Apple is like an eco-car with a sealed hood. Looks pretty; its nice an quite; it even does its job well, but you have what you have.
Now, give me a musle car any day, so I can watch the gas gauge drop, but can also replace every part in the car until the entire machine is no longer stock and will blow the panels off our little eco-buddy.
Sorry to compare, since this is a PC debate and does not necessarily scream Microsoft, but the MS has had to cater to everyone's needs and wants; even those that haven't been presented yet. It is all about expandability, and being modular. There is more room for error, but it is what makes technology what it is today.
just think, if every company was like Apple, where would the world be today? Definately not as advanced, but full of snobby people who expect, expect, expect, rather than learning to do for themselves.

[Nohone @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:07PM]

"That's what makes Apple special."

Yep, special. Special in that "short bus" kind of way.

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:33PM]

Actually, most of those apple "inventions" have been seen in the X window system for years before apple....

And all that doesn't change the fact that OSX is just a nerfed BSD clone with some icing on top....

[Byrdman @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:39PM]

Paul, just because Microsoft made some changes to make Windows more ascetically pleasing doesn't mean they were copying Apple.

[raredesign @ Jul 2nd 2009 2:17PM]

@Paul
Given the change that I may be speaking to someone new in the field, and quite possibly still looking to reach the eighth grade, I will try to keep my comments to a more educational approach.
Having said that, do you wish for me to post even a partial list of all of the applications, platforms, frameworks, languages, environments, virtual technologies, web applications and technologies that Microsoft has created? Even the mere mention of a few is enough to make Apple fans either squirm, or plead ignorance.
Microsoft does not tag behind. On a few occasions, they looked at Apple’s techniques as any company should do with any other company. Microsoft is not a graphically focused company. Rather, they are the backbone of much of the world; a company that easily holds respectful heights along with Sun Microsystems, IBM, and other enterprise companies.
Apple is the rich child that acts all tough, but then cries out not to hurt him when directly accused.
Microsoft, IBM, Sun Microsystems, CISCO, and VMWare are the pioneers; companies that add value and choice. They don’t just create something pretty and charge people for the artistic appearance. Nor will they try to make claims that they don’t crash or get hacked. If I designed a system and OS with limited ability, and threw it online, do you think it would be hacked? If you say yes, then you truly are a beginner. There wouldn’t be anything to hack, no similarities, applications with known vulnerabilities, etc, but most of all, there would be no interest. Why would someone waste their time on my system, when they could affect the majority? (For the record, there have been horrible Apple viruses that actually are legend, so you might want to check that if you are an unbeliever). Alright, I will stop ranting now, but before I do, one last thing.
I am not anti-Apple; I am only against certain perspectives that are closed-minded, selfish, and egotistical. I am not bias, but I will use what works. In some cases, that may be a MAC, PC, Sun system, or some other locked down box that no one has heard about.
Psystar has simply gone to battle for the millions that Apple has tried to take advantage of for so long. Many choose PC because they are flexible platforms at a low cost…very simply put. Psystar is just doing their part because they can.

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 2:13PM]

They could. Well not in a week or so but in about 6-12 months you can do OSX like operating system from BSD unix.

The problem isn't making a operating system. Do you know why windows is such a popular operating system? Because it's better than others? Because it's more secure? Cheaper? Third party applications!

Third party applications is the reason not every mom and pop pc shop make their own operating system. Guess why microsoft and apple keeps popping up new versions of theiir operating systems? Heard about wine for linux? Theres nothing to stop making similar emulator for OSX programs. If operating systems stayed long time same there would pop up legal clones of them but tweaking APIs etc discourages clonemakers. Its cheaper and faster to make a complete new operating system but clones take more time, esppecially as some of the APIs are undocumented, but to entice third party application makers is really hard. You need a large userbase for it and that's why Windows is such a popular operating system.

[raredesign @ Jul 2nd 2009 3:10PM]

@Paul,

you might want to read Jim's blog before jumping up and down.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/12/12/title.aspx
It was well known that Longhorn was having a hard time, hence the insane development time.
Even now, the final product of Vista wasn't what we had hoped. Even still, you ignored most of what I stated, and rather, just picked apart what you liked.
I don't have any more time for this. All of the readers get the point by now.

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 3:10PM]

@Paul a. Chapel

Will all OSX programs work with all OSX versions? That icing is largely about graphics APIs and they differ in OSX versions and OSX to BSD and with different unix distributions. Even all linux programs wont work with all linux versions without tweaking.

Third party applications is a problem because that tweaking costs money. Not mutch if the application had been made protability in mind but it still costs money. No third party program maker is willing to invest that if there isn't large enough userbase. So its a chicken and egg problem. You cant get enough user for applications ports without ported applications.

[John @ Jul 2nd 2009 3:59PM]

@paul

Longhorn was having a hard time because they kept deciding to add new features, then after adding so many things that hadn't been designed in from the ground up, they would start over with everything planned out.... until they wanted to add a new feature.

While OSX does have some of its roots in NeXTStep, it is ultimately built on Darwin, which was created in 2000 (by Apple) and includes components taken (quite legally) from FreeBSD. All of OSX's roots however do ultimately trace down to BSD. Just because it has its roots in BSD does not mean that millions (billions even, perhaps) of dollars of effort have not gone into OSX.

Your argument that OSX cannot just be a BSD variant because it's not "easy to rewrite" is flawed because a commercial OS is more than just a kernel. Consider Windows - even if you were to copy line for line the NT kernel, you would still not have .NET, and without that you would have pretty much the most worthless operating system on the planet as a huge number of applications would cease to work.

How you ended up down this route from "David and Goliath", I am not sure; the simile is used most often to refer to triumph rather than ultimate defeat. Psystar does not want to destroy Apple; they want to lead a mutually beneficial relationship where they feed sales of Apple's software and open the market for computers running OSX to markets where Apple does not have significant penetration.

The argument you should be making is simply that Apple's image of reliability goes out the 'Windows', if you will, if they are forced to account for situations out of their control with respect to hardware, and they are quite happy with the margin they make on their hardware sales. It is their software; quite arguably they should be able to dictate to other corporations policies with reselling. However, you, as a consumer that no company 'cares' about, should not be concerned with Apple's image and should want what is best for you - inexpensive, well made products. This is not to say that even from that perspective there are not reasons to wish for Apple's current status quo to be maintained - it ensures that Apple will continue to exist and be able to keep releasing updates to OSX for one thing - but you should frame things from your perspective and not from that of a massive corporation whose success is ultimately unrelated to you.

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 3:59PM]

@Paul a. Chapel

Lamest thing ive read today is calling somebody as apple hater when trying to correct the facts. The programmers in apple corp aren't superhuman, many of them look like the pc-guy in the apples pc-mac adverts. Their just regular tom dick harry run of the mill programmers. Not some alien superhumans that have neeb beamed down from planet fruit next to betelquese.

This is what wikipedia says about OSX:"Since Mac OS X is POSIX compliant, many software packages written for the *BSDs or Linux can be recompiled to run on it." Basicly this restates what ive been telling, OSX is BSD unix with icing on it. The icing is the OSX graphics apis that make it hard to recompile osx specific apps to bsd but opposite is easy.

As to why it takes apple 18 months to release new version? They could do it more often if they wanted but 18-24 months is a good rate to keep up marketing hype and to discourage making a emulator or clone of the operating system.

There hasn't been mutch point of making osx emulator for linux like there is a windows emulator as there arent that many osx programs without windows versions but there is nothing hard to make one.Youll just have to make linux version of the OSX apis and you could run osx programs in linux.

[CheshireCat @ Jul 2nd 2009 5:25PM]

I , for one, welcome competition.

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 5:37PM]

@Paul

I'm sorry if you feel that youve been scammed with OSX if most of it is just icing on BSD, I never claimed that. Doesn't that make YOU an apple hater. How can you live with yourself now...

So, NeXTStep, software and hardware house, was bought with 427 million... And Novell bought Suse, purely software house for 210 million and suse is even thinner icing on top of linux...

You clearly have no idea of the operating systems inner works or programming or marketing so the fact that everything you say is senseless doesn't come as a great surprice.

[Nohone @ Jul 2nd 2009 5:45PM]

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" - Exodus 20:3
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them" - Exodus 20:5
“Thou shall not steal." - Exodus 20:15
"Thou shall not bear false witness" - Exodus 20:16


Paul, with your new found "Christianity", or, at least your gimmick of the week, let's compare your actions. You have lied, you treat Steve Jobs and Apple like a god, you have admitted to piracy which is theft. So try fixing yourself before you start criticizing others.

[Nohone @ Jul 2nd 2009 6:11PM]

Paul, you just called Apple an Apple hater once again, because as we know that any dissent from what Apple says means you hate Apple. Apple seems to be contradicting themselves (if you are to be believed that OSX is not BSD based) if what is written in Apple's own press release at http://www.apple.com/ca/press/1999/01/MacOS_X_Server.html

"MACWORLD EXPO, SAN FRANCISCO - Jan. 5, 1999 - Apple Computer, Inc. today announced Mac® OS X Server, the Company's new server operating system, which combines the proven strength of Unix with the simplicity of Macintosh®. Mac OS X is built on the high-performance Mach microkernel and BSD 4.4, and includes the Apache HTTP web server and WebObjects® application server."

And they also say from that web page:
"A modern foundation, based on Mach and BSD 4.4, which provides performance and stability through full preemptive multitasking, protected memory and advanced virtual memory."

So there is indisputable proof that Apple based OS X on BSD. Afterall, Apple would not lie, would they? So Apple claims that OSX is built on BSD 4.4, but you say it is not. Which is it? Should I believe you, or should I believe Apple? For somebody you claim is an "Apple hater", I am willing to believe Apple over you any day.

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 6:17PM]

Think ive answered all of these but here goes.

1. I never claimed icing is cheap. What apple bought is time. With nextstep they could didnt have to start programming from scratch. And btw the sum was 429, not 427. Now tell me why novell paid 210M for Suse?

2. How did microsoft freak out with 10.4? Is that some apple boards inner joke?

3. Linux has about same codebase, and theres distribution releases every 12-20 months. The time between releases doesnt change minor to major. Not even size of distribution package. If you change linker optimatisation switches slightly the upgrade packages get large.

4. I've answered that already. If they develop their own version of bsd they need to entice third party application programmers to make versions for their os, but they wont get any third party programs as theres no userbase and they cant get userbase without third party programs.

5. If everybody downloaded BSD would it change OSX from "proprietary" and "closed" to something else.

For complaining about insults you are in even shakier ground as they are exactly same ones you directed to me earlier. So if you don't want to get insulted tone down yours.

[irdepesca @ Jul 2nd 2009 6:23PM]

on and on....

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 7:18PM]

I never claimed OSX is a BSD clone, I claimed it is a BSD clone with icing on top. The fact that you can run BSD programs on it with just compiling source code proves it. Even apple says OSX is based on BSD unix. What's so hard to stomach in it?

"That's absurd. Either OS X is a BSD clone with little changes like you originally suggested or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. If it's basically a BSD clone then Psystar should be able to download BSD, install it on their computers and then tell potential customers that they can buy or download OS X software and run it without any trouble. ."

It isn't absurd. Firstly you need to compile BSD source code to work with OSX so any OSX program would have to be compiled to work for BSD. But it isnt that simple. Firstly OSX has its own APIs that you can't find in BSD. Those APIs are part of what I call icing. Anybody done a bit of programming can add a new API to BSD and then make a program that calls that API so that it wont run in any other operating system. Does that one API make it not a BSD with icing but something greater?

[Nohone @ Jul 2nd 2009 7:27PM]

Paul wrote: "Jesus Christ, is that all you got?"

Exodus 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Paul, you are going to need to spend a lot of time in confession for all the commandments you are breaking in this new found religion you have.



From the web page http://developer.apple.com/opensource/ Apple says that OS X is built upon FreeBSD 5. FreeBSD was released in 2003, a full 7 years after Apple bought NeXT and Steve returned to Apple. So to say that there is no connection between OS X and BSD is, once again, just rewriting history to fit your needs. That page also details how you can run X11 apps on OS X. So OS X is not a clone of BSD, but it is BSD.

[MrNuclear @ Jul 2nd 2009 7:40PM]

That's quite an entertaining analogy.

And that's a lot of icing...

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 7:57PM]

Paul

Seems even Paul realised he's fighting a losing battle as he's changing the subject....

[Newone @ Jul 2nd 2009 8:06PM]

Wikipedia definition of a clone in computing:

"In computing, a clone is a hardware or software system that is designed to mimic another system. Compatibility with the original system is usually the explicit purpose of cloning hardware or low-level software such as operating systems."

So my definition of clone is spot on if apple has done some serious rewriting of the original BSD. If not and OSX:s BSD part is in it original untouched form then it isnt a clone but just BSD with icing. Maybe ive been fooled by apple PR machinery. :P

[jonlongbeard @ Jul 3rd 2009 12:21PM]

I've always loved the idea, but who would actually pay money for it? Future support would be iffy, right?

[ProfessorKaos @ Jul 6th 2009 2:51PM]

Paul never responded to this:

NoHone:

"From the web page http://developer.apple.com/opensource/ Apple says that OS X is built upon FreeBSD 5. FreeBSD was released in 2003, a full 7 years after Apple bought NeXT and Steve returned to Apple. So to say that there is no connection between OS X and BSD is, once again, just rewriting history to fit your needs. That page also details how you can run X11 apps on OS X. So OS X is not a clone of BSD, but it is BSD."

Guess that shut him up, since it was FROM APPLE'S own website

[hangfire @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:20AM]

who on earth is psystar ????

[TRLK @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:22AM]

The Anti-Apple, fanbois hide in fear...............

[thatrotierkid @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:40AM]

its a company that provides an alternative to Apple for purchasing computers with Mac OSX.

[K @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:37PM]

An illegal 'alternative'. These new systems won't even get out the door. Apple already has a stay on this 'bankruptcy'. Cya Psystar.

[Mikey @ Jul 2nd 2009 5:21PM]

@K the illegality or legality of Psystar's business is still quite up in the air, so I don't think you can make this statement yet. Until the Apple-Psystar litigation plays out, you can't say it is "illegal." I for one think Psystar has a plausible argument that actually does have a chance of prevailing (not necessarily one that *will* carry the day, just one that *could* carry the day)

[Matt @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:21AM]

w00t!

I love cheering for this company.

Apple: We'll teach you for trying to Think Different! *smacks lawsuit papers*

[jean @ Jul 3rd 2009 6:10AM]

What are you talking about, do you even understand what is going on?

Think different? all they are doing is putting Apple's OSX into machines they make, without the permission of Apple.

In other words, they are trying to sell something they didn't make.

I hardly think that is thinking differently.

[the4thheat @ Jul 3rd 2009 9:06AM]

It's perfectly legal to use something you didn't make as a component of something you sell. Which is why no company mines the metal, makes the screws, drills for oil to make the plastic, makes the plastic, makes the glass, makes the LCDs, and writes the OS to make a computer.
By law you're allowed to purchase what you want and resell it. So basically the legal argument boils down to whether EULA's can override the legality of reselling something and whether it's anti-competition.

[Jose @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:21AM]

I'm surprised this company is going back to clonning macs again. I might actually consider buying one since I have a mac mini that I want to upgrade from

[---- @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:07PM]

guess you havent heard about the internal fan issues .. their hardware does not run properly with OSX. but if your ok with having a loud ass computer .....

[Icchansan @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:26AM]

Come on you guys, you can build one of those, is really easy ;P hackint0sh ftw~

[Excelsium @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:22PM]

this is a D-I-Y job. oh yea.

[AtomicPlayboy @ Jul 2nd 2009 1:59PM]

Indeed. I don't know where the audience for Pystar exists: anyone who's willing to do business with such a company is also probably technically proficient enough to a) make their own hackintosh using the hacked OSX distros, or b) make their own hackintosh by purchasing an EFI bypass chip.

[Icchansan @ Jul 2nd 2009 2:07PM]

Dont even need to buy EFIX, you can install Retail with 132 Bootloader :P

[John @ Jul 2nd 2009 7:31PM]

They presumably take care of the drivers and whatnot for the machines they sell though. Getting OSX to run on most computers is pretty trivial thanks to the hard work of others (for the most part) but getting random laptop wifi adapters is a whole 'nother ballpark

[dredg96 @ Jul 2nd 2009 11:28AM]

Even with the price drop from apple there computer are still too expensive people should go the Psystar way. i know i am.

[Shenanigans @ Jul 2nd 2009 12:41PM]

Apple is expensive?

Mac mini is $599
Similar Psystar is $599 but does not include iLife (add $60) plus shipping

iMac 20" is $1199
Similar Psystar is $1000 with slower processor and 19" monitor but does not shipping

Mac Pro is indeed $750 more ($1750 (with shipping) vs $2499) but model is designed for pros. Pros aren't going to risk buying from a hole-in-wall shop (comparatively speaking) to save money. And $1700 (even $1499) is too high for most buying a computer. Many in this price range anyways will build their own computer so pricing is somewhat irrelevant.

Not dissing Psystar and loving Apple here, just trying to add facts to your comment.

[Flaystus @ Jul 2nd 2009 12:57PM]

Shenanigans:

You consumer models listed however are not upgradable.




If you ask me Psystar is legally gonna eventually get destroyed but I gotta admit I'm enjoying a small company with such large balls.