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]
posted Jul 2nd 2009 11:16AM
I need me one...
izza nice!
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.
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
oh my god paul keeps going....
paul please enlighten us with more wisdom.
@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.
paul you just dont get it
What's the point of this? is the OS even updateable? Your missing out on half the experience with one of these.
@ everyone
Stop feeding the troll.. let him get back to living in his mom's basement..
@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.
"That's what makes Apple special."
Yep, special. Special in that "short bus" kind of way.
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....
Paul, just because Microsoft made some changes to make Windows more ascetically pleasing doesn't mean they were copying Apple.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
I , for one, welcome competition.
@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.
"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.
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.
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.
on and on....
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?
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.
That's quite an entertaining analogy.
And that's a lot of icing...
Paul
Seems even Paul realised he's fighting a losing battle as he's changing the subject....
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
I've always loved the idea, but who would actually pay money for it? Future support would be iffy, right?
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
who on earth is psystar ????
The Anti-Apple, fanbois hide in fear...............
its a company that provides an alternative to Apple for purchasing computers with Mac OSX.
An illegal 'alternative'. These new systems won't even get out the door. Apple already has a stay on this 'bankruptcy'. Cya Psystar.
@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)
w00t!
I love cheering for this company.
Apple: We'll teach you for trying to Think Different! *smacks lawsuit papers*
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.
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.
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
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 .....
Come on you guys, you can build one of those, is really easy ;P hackint0sh ftw~
this is a D-I-Y job. oh yea.
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.
Dont even need to buy EFIX, you can install Retail with 132 Bootloader :P
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
Even with the price drop from apple there computer are still too expensive people should go the Psystar way. i know i am.
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.
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.
Actually, all of Apple's desktop models are upgradable. All have processors that can be removed and upgraded, all can upgrade the RAM and HD. It's all the same stuff, just in a package a little harder to get in to.
Many people upgrade their Macs. I've seen sellers on eBay upgrade the crap out of the mini and resell it as new.
Base your comments on fact bro.
Yeah, you can upgrade RAM and hard drives, but what about a new graphics card in a mac mini? Or a RAID Array in an iMac? Don't really think that that is possible with stock Apple hardware.
What percentage of computer users upgrade their video cards or do RAID arrays? Of these users, how many buy pre-built computers? I would say very few.... I can't say I know a single person. Most of the population does an 'upgrade' buy buying a new computer, not adding a new graphics card or setup RAID for more storage.
If you want customization, you build your own computer. You don't go out and buy a pre-made machine and then go to town on it.
Nice try though.
@Shenanigans
For a second, I believed you about the prices, but you are lying through your teeth. I went on Psystar's website and just looked at the Open(3), in which I can get more ram, a better processor, and a bigger (and faster) hard drive for $699. Arguably, if you already own a monitor and keyboard, you can easily get a better Psystar computer for much less than all of the iMacs.
Please stop trolling.
I love the concept of a dual boot setup with OSX and Windows. You might as well throw in a Linus distribution in there too.
How slow are you....?
Boot camp ring a bell?
Psystar needs a TV ad based around 1984 to show them throwing off mind controlled masses of Apple that would be fun !
Apple's nonsense about backers for Psystar is simply Steve trying to bend reality again, Microsoft never would because if successful Apple would be forced to release OSX for PCs something which must keep Balmer awake at nights, who else has an agenda really ?
I'm surprised the fanboy brigade are not out in force yet, but remember people Psystar emulate EFI which is designed and owned by INTEL not Apple, Once people like Psystar manage to reverse engineer enough code to get around Apple's patents, Apple will have no choice but to release OSX for PCs or switch all their computer to Cell or something like it (good luck making laptops without Intel or AMD)
This is exactly how the PC revolution began with cloners trying to break IBM's BIOS.
What has happened before shall happen again !
they are here. you are the anti-apple fanboy which is just as sickening.
Hey look, it's a pile of wahrrgarbl.
Who knows if anyone is behind Psystar. It's possible, though completely idiotic.
>>remember people Psystar emulate EFI which is designed and owned by INTEL not Apple
Well yes, but there's a (tiny) bit of DRM in the xnu kernel that tries to ensure that the hardware is Apple built. Psystar has to alter this file to make it run (even with EFI emulation, which no one gives a shit about, not even Apple) and then they redistribute that. Which is a violation of copyright.
>>Once people like Psystar manage to reverse engineer enough code to get around Apple's patents
What patents?
>>Apple will have no choice but to release OSX for PCs or switch all their computer to Cell or something like it (good luck making laptops without Intel or AMD)
Yay for stupid. Nice troll, you got me. 5/10
Oh dear, a well thought out comment is obviously trolling if you don't like what it says eh ?
Don't keep throwing your toys out of the pram you are making a mess.
Has any of the Engadget coverage of Psystar ever mentioned they sell the systems with the option of Linux / Mac OS X / Windows? It's not like they are JUST doing Hackintoshes (although it's the Hackintoshes that make them noteworthy.)
Good for Psystar. Apple needs competition, badly.
They have competition, their names are Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, Fujitsu...
Oh you mean the fact that Apple has their own OS, which is their exclusive value-add. Well, the above named companies are -welcome- to produce their own operating systems but somehow I doubt they will.
Those companies are no competition for Apple.
None. ..to compete with Apple you have to have decent hardware AND a decent OS.
@ethana2
Wow, and you have the Ubuntu symbol as your picture?
A computer/os manufacturer with less than 10% of the market needs competition? Right... I'm also still not sure how this is different from them making Nintendo games to work on a PS3. Anyone care to clarify?
You don't consider Microsoft to be competition for Apple? Despite that they have 90% of the same OS software market that Apple is in?
What are you, an idiot?
Oh and by the way, nobody is stopping anybody from making their own hardware and software.
Who is running Psystar? They need to take a mood stabilizer because they're obviously having a bit of psychotic mania. "We're gonna fight you, company the product of who we're using!" I may not like Apple, but they made the software, they have the rights to it.
Nothing better than pursuing something that is at best a Pyrrhic victory that gains system vendors absolutely nothing.
Sweet! A mac finally worth buying!
No, no, it merely doesn't stand in support of the egotistical few that think they can buy their way into being technically savvy.
@ Paul
Yes, it's true, there hasn't ever been one PC made on the planet that isn't hideous, cheaply made, or noisy.
You're just a walking stereotype, bro.
LOL.......
My daily chuckle at Paul's expense. Perhaps if he had of recognised the case used here, he may not have made the comment regarding hideous, cheap or noisy.
This is system is likely quieter than any Apple machine, and that case is fantastic looking, the photos do not do it justice, it is also amongst the top build quality you can get.
Hardware speaking:
Psystar > Apple (and for almost half the price).
And personally i loves to have many chooses.
If you make a laptop with osx installed and reasonably priced/specd I'll buy from you
I cant have a desktop as the whole family own their own laptop
Just use a VMware appliance
DOMINATING!
Well at least the messiah came back to apple in time to fight the dirty hordes of evil.
this just shows what Apple pricing could have been like, but unlucky they never went down that route. Personally i hope they do well and show Apple that their outrageous prices is not good
All right finally a nice high end system that can run OS X! I can't believe someone finally built it.
I'll stick with building my own pc's with Linux than sinking more money into a system that doesn't have all the options I want, or carries either that Twilight Zone-looking window logo or that pear-shaped thingy. I want expandability, and the option to upgrade a piece of hardware when I want. Do people still buy new computers every 6-12 months, or even 18 months? What a waste of money. I built my first pc at 18 with little knowledge, and have yet to damage a part. It's simple, and saves you a some money, and you may learn a few new things.
@Tim Brown
Lots of bad or outright wrong information in your post.
>>Apple did not code the bulk of OSX.
Yes, they did. Most of the user-level design and the kernel comes from NeXT, which they got when they bought Steve Jobs back in 1996.
>>At its heart beats Unix, and if I am not mistaken that was coded by Sun Micro Systems.
The unix level environment is a compatibility layer on the kernel, combined with a BSD userland (based on FreeBSD.) It has nothing to do with Sun.
>>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
Hahahahaha. What's with the idiots on Engadget? Do they pay you to come here and spread bad info?
Should be interesting to see how apple respond. In all honesty, they could do with a kick in the arse.
Don't we all, though...don't we all.
I'm starting to think Pystar is nothing more than a viral stunt being done by apple itself.
who buys it?
yo'd either buy an apple, or build a hackintosh yourself...
My God, this company's still going?!?!?!?! I give it about 3 months before it's bankrupt, again. Good ol American law eh, let's you get sued for ripping someone else's hard work off and then also let's you continue to do so despite going to court already???? LOL
Only in America.
Oh and my widgets are way more stable then mr MS thanks and that thing looks like a right ugly plastic box and I've no doubt it's loud as hell too. It also CANNOT take more then 12GB of ram OR take two Xeons CPU's, only one hahaha. So they've captured what a Mac Pro is used for perfectly! Yeah, I can see professional HiDef Final Cut on that in a production suite.
Basically it's the same machine they've been building already with a Xeon shoved in instead of an i7:
http://www.psystar.com/featured/open7-osx.html
How the hell are they even making this happen? Mind boggling, really. I was so expecting that earth shattering early June announcement about their backers but it never happened. :(
contrary to popular belief EULAs have been tested and do stand up. Here's what you agree to when you choose to install OS X - the two most relevant clauses regarding Pystar:
1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-labeled hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple's and its licensors' intellectual property rights in the Apple Software as licensed hereunder and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.Title and intellectual property rights in and to any content displayed by or accessed through the Apple Software belongs to the respective content owner. Such content
may be protected by copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties, and may be subject to terms of use of the third party providing such content. This License does not grant you any rights to use such content nor does it guarantee that such content will continue to be available to you.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9933896-37.html?tag=nefd.top
Personally, I get really tired of hearing the same old worn out "Apple has a monopoly on OS X and needs to be forced to open it up" This is just incorrect and ignorance speaking. The closest any company has to a monopoly is Microsoft, and I would argue that not even they have a monopoly on operating systems, although it's pretty clear that Microsoft abused their position with IE back in the day. Using the monopoly argument, Microsoft has a monopoly on the XBox and needs to allow the XBox OS to run on any generic hardware.
Before the anti-Apple fan boys jump all over this, this is not "Apple love". This is based on analysis of the license and legal precedent, but then again IANAL...
Should Apple choose to sue Pystar, I think Apple will crush them and quickly. On the off chance that Apple somehow loses such a confrontation I think Apple will simply choose to change the distribution model of OS X. I'd love to hear Nilay's fresh analysis of this.
Personally I think this is a case of "if you don't like the agreement, get something else." Ubuntu 9 is pretty kick ass from what I've seen, and it doesn't cost ANYTHING at all...
YAWN!
Quite a legal examination there, but really if i buy a copy of Leopard I will put it on anything I want and no matter what the EULA says noone can stop me.
Good luck handing over all control over your computer to Apple, I'm sure that couldn't come back to bite you in the ass in 10 years.
And you will be perfectly safe to do so because Apple is not going to come after you for breaking the EULA. And just to clarify, you don't buy OS X, or Windows for that matter. You are paying for a license to use it and those licenses have terms. As an individual you can generally break EULAs with complete impunity, I do it, hell, most people do it. On the other hand, if you start a business that makes money from violating the EULA and are able to build up a significant volume, then you will need to worry about what Apple, Microsoft, insert copyright holder here... might do.
Also, I don't hand my Mac over to Apple any more than you and I hand our PCs over to Microsoft. You should try reading the Windows EULA some time - it's not pretty either.
So, yawn all you want. I predict an ugly death for Pystar if they keep this up. If nothing else it will be fun to watch.
The pc people are drones that make crap. They just crank out assembled hardware that runs windows. Look at Best Buy, they are waiting for W7 to drop so they can get all that pc shit moving. However, Apple makes it own OS and has so since day one! Apple's method is a philosophy and it works to a tune of 29 billion in the bank and no debt. Now look at the pc... Any dumb fuck can crank out one. Get enough investor money in, a logo and call up an over seas ODM and BAM! You got a pc. Just pop in windows, intel/Amd(intel's shit really) and price point it to about $299.00 and stack'm high in the electronic section of Walmart and there you go. Easy and cheap.
I totally agree with you. I mean, it's stupid how Microsoft didn't even MAKE THEIR OWN OS or anything. They just got it from somewhere and then went with a totally worse business model than Apple's. Selling it separate from the hardware and letting the end user decide what hardware to put it on is a stupid idea that really ends up restricting the user.
/sarcasm
You really can't argue that it wouldn't be nice to be able to install MacOS on any hardware. What would be the downside for you if that option was available?
Hey t, I have a secret for you...
Guess who makes Macbooks?
Quanta and Asustek, the same people that make Dells, Toshibas, HPs, Lenovos, and all the other brands of "crap" you're talking about. Did you really think there was a workshop full of elves and fairy dust at Infinite Loop cranking out lovely little notebooks?
The hardware is all made by the same people. I'm not defending Psystar, clearly they're making money off abusing license agreements and that's not cool, but to say that there's any real difference in the quality of the hardware just because there's a glowing apple on it shows complete ignorance of the way the computer industry works.
Go Psystar!! if apple won't make an affordable computer, than someone will at least!
I'm hoping psystar gets popular, apple will then wake up and make sub $700 desktops/midrange towers and notebooks
You people are funny. Pleny of companies make "cheap" computers. They just don't get to sell OS X and there's not a whole lot they can do about it (except file specious lawsuits.)
You talk as if you are going to let a crooked cop kidnap your parents and then come to your house asking you to forgive him.
"You people"
Oh ! now we have racist Apple fans, most people who want OSX opened up to everyone also own macs but have the know-how to build their own PC, if you pay for a copy of Leopard it is not illegal to do this just breaking an EULA which is very different from piracy.
Mac fanboys are running scared if people can install OSX on PCs I will no longer be a special individual LOL
@Major4Play
Racist? Your thought process is truly bizzare.
If -you- pay for a copy (or warez it, whatever) of Leopard and install it on your own hardware, Apple could care less. Not once have they pursued any individual who has done so, or anyone who has distributed a tool to allow it.
They pursue Psystar because they modify the OS and then redistribute it. But more importantly, they are selling OS X with no means of legitimately supporting it.
Everyone (like you) who spews nonsense and misinformation only make fools out of yourselves. Not once has anyone cheering Psystar on put in an ounce of thought into this.
@microlith - a world without the ignorant and the stupid would be boring. Although as I get older I think I'd prefer that, because stupid people make life more difficult for the rest of us.
GO CHOICE!
When they release that bootloader, I wonder how long it'll take to port its features over to Grub 2..
Not impressed at all. Love it or hate it, there is a reason why copyright exists - it's designed to stop frivolous bullshit like this Psystar reverse-engineering of Apple software. The last time this happened, the inventor of the cotton gin got absolutely nothing because people copied his invention left and right.
This isn't about pro- or anti-Apple, this is legal stuff, and Psystar's still playing on the wrong side of the law. Note to Psystar, you want to survive, move all your operations to China. Major4Play got this all ass-backwards.
This coming from a former Apple user.