First Psystar Mac Clones Ship

An anonymous reader writes "According to Gizmodo, Psystar has begun shipping its Macintosh clones, thus proving that the company is not a hoax. Initial impressions seem to be positive, though Software Update does not work."

Operation Unsuccessful

I think that honestly if Software Update doesn't work, the machine can't be considered to be a successful model. If you downloaded windows or Linux and could never update, would you consider it a successful install?

Re:Operation Unsuccessful

If you downloaded windows or Linux and could never update, would you consider it a successful install? You know, there was a time before we all updated our operating systems on a daily basis. And I recall being able to do some pretty successful things with my computer back then.

There are some of us (music and video producers, artists, etc.) who even occasionally work on computers that are not connected to the Internets.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful

Except that in the MacMini, the expansion slots are needed OUT OF THE BOX if you want to do anything remotely graphics related. Your argument would carry a lot more weight if the machine wasn't so crippled in the first place.

The sad truth is that if you want a Macintosh with upgradeable graphics hardware, it's going to cost your $2200+. I can upgrade the graphics card on virtually any $199 Wal-mart PC. There's a problem here.

Me personally, I've put almost as much money into my homebrew Mac as a Mac Mini would have cost. I have a slightly bigger hard drive (160gb) and more ram than the base (2gb), but those are both options that could be accomodated. The difference is that my system is running an 8600GTS video card. You can't get that out of a Mac Mini at all.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful

What "EFI layer"? Netkas's PC EFI is a marketing name that Netkas put on his branch of my branch of the Apple-supplied Darwin/x86 bootloader.

The only thing EFI about it is that he supplies some of the runtime services functions. I do this as well except in my version everything returns EFI_NOT_SUPPORTED. It is enough that the EFI system and runtime services tables exist and have halfway-valid information and that where a function pointer is expected that it point to some function. The implementation can be as simple as mov $EFI_NOT_SUPPORTED, %eax; ret.

Nothing bad happens when the runtime services functions do not exist. Even if the one for rebooting the system instead returns EFI_NOT_SUPPORTED the system will still reboot because Apple still has legacy code to do this without EFI runtime services.

The point of my booter is to allow Apple to focus on their own systems and to not maintain legacy code yet still continue to provide open source code that will work unmodified on non-Apple machines. The idea is that anyone can take the code they do release as Darwin and boot it unmodified on most PCs. As a side-effect anyone can also take the Apple-compiled binaries from OS X and do the same. That is, after all, the point of it.

Of course, what I provide does not enable you to run OS X. You still have to provide a decryption engine and decryption keys and I don't help with that. Nor does Netkas PC EFI since the decryption engine, as explained by Amit Singh, is in the "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext"

None of this has anything to do with EFI. Once the kernel is going, EFI is gone except for two tables and a handful of runtime services functions.

Apple legal

I'm waiting for Apple's lawyers to arrive with the attitude of a school of hungry piranha any time now...

Loud!

Yikes! Who brought the vacuum cleaner to the party! Wow, that video is loud!

Mac Mini

Am I the only one who thinks it would be hilarious if every model they shipped out contained a faulty motherboard, with signals rerouted to hide the fact everything is running from a Mac Mini stashed in the "powersupply"?

That would be great.

I've got to say, for a scam they are really committed.

At first, I thought this was all interesting and going to have an interesting legal battle attached to it. Then it was clear this was a scam and there would be no fun to watch. Now I'm starting to wonder if I'll get to see the legal fight after all. Maybe it's not a scam?

Re:Mac Mini

Am I the only one who thinks it would be hilarious if every model they shipped out contained a faulty motherboard...

Well, the hardware would have the same functionality as the 800 Mhz G3 iBook.

You Don't Actually Need Software Update

I prefer not to use it except to check for what I need to download. I download all my updates manually from Apple's download page [apple.com], then keep all the updates backed up both on hard drive and burned to CD.

That way if I need to reinstall, which does happen now and then, I don't need to download again.

There's no serial number check on manual downloads, but I expect that soon we'll be seeing the Apple version of Windows Genuine Advantage.

Uh oh

I think I just heard the sound of an iChair being thrown against a wall....

First thing's first

These aren't clones. They're Hackintoshes [insanelymac.com] done for you and then shipped out. The OS isn't legit, iLife isn't legit, and you're dumping entirely too much money on the hardware that they're shipping out as there's no software cost at all.

I've got to wonder why Software Update isn't working on them, even though they've admitted to using the EFI loader hack. In my experience, only OS updates (ie 10.5.1->10.5.2) are potentially dangerous anymore, and I managed to update from 10.5.1 to 10.5.2 without issue on an oldish Shuttle AMD barebones box here after patching EFI/Vanilla kernel.

It's almost trivial to get a vanilla kernel up & running on an Intel hackintosh now, only slightly more difficult on an AMD box -- there are even several quite good pre-packaged installers now with 10.5.2 that do everything for you if you don't like to get your hands dirty.

All that said, it's going to be funny when all of the people duped into buying these can't update to 10.5.4 or whatever and end up with a bricked box. At least if you do it yourself, you develop the skillset to boot into single user mode, disable kexts, remove caches etc.

Maintaining a functioning, stable, up-to-date Hackintosh (with Quartz Extreme running properly etc) is a lot like keeping a '60s Volkswagen running. Not particularly difficult, but you build up the skills over time and it takes quite a bit of patience. I think there are going to be a lot of pissed off people once they realize what they've bought into.

Re:Software Update does not work.

Because, if it did, Apple could brick the box. (Sort of, you could probably install Linux on it.)

The operating not booting because of a bad patch is not "bricking". You could indeed still install Linux, or even just reinstall your hacked copy of OS X and just not do the software update the next time.

Annoying over-used buzzwords aside, my guess is that the update situation on these will be just like other hackintosh setups, where you can update, but you have to obtain a hacked update installer, or go through a very manual process to do it.

My original hackintosh setup for example was running 10.4.8 and couldn't use software updates, but I was able to move it over to 10.4.10 eventually (though I'm now running on 10.5.1).

Re:Meh

I hear you there. It's sad that a hacked box is an attractive purchase option for a Mac not really because of price (well, in a way), but rather because it's a reasonable config that Apple doesn't make: a consumer level expandable desktop. The Mac Pro is full of undeeded workstation grade parts that the home user doesn't need. The iMac is not expandable AND has an unneeded LCD duct-taped on. The Mac Mini is just plain non-expandable (which MIGHT be acceptable as the base specs aren't bad, expect for the insanely crippled graphics chip). The laptops are, well, laptops (I have a laptop that I like for traveling, but no way I'd ever use one for home use).

Plop the mini's hardware into a mini-tower case, and tack on 1 PCI-E x16 slot, 1 PCI-E x1 slot, and 1 regular PCI slot, and then we'd have a machine worthy of my purchase. Until that point I'll keep on using my hacked up generic "mac" and my old PowerMac G4.

Re:Meh

... it's a reasonable config that Apple doesn't make: a consumer level expandable desktop ...

Do you equate "expandable" with "has slots for cards?" If Apple's marketing research group has done their homework, well, obviously, they don't think most consumers need (and thus not want) such a desktop. Most people just want to plug in a printer and maybe a digital camera for which USB is sufficient. Everything else (GigE, 802.11n, USB2, FireWire, DVD, webcam) is already built-in. Out of curiosity, what exactly would you put in those PCI slots if Apple made such a consumer machine? Gamers and geeks simply aren't their target consumer market.

Re:What would I use expandability for?

Most consumers simply don't need or want what you want.

First, I distinguished between "need" and "want". The desires you chose to ridicule were not in the "needs". You didn't ask what our "needs" were, you asked what we would do with expandability. If you asked "what do you need expandability for" you'd get a different answer.

So once you eliminate that straw man, what I need is an adequate GPU, an adequate hard drive, and no integrated display... and a consumer price. Maybe 40% over what Psystar is asking for their box? That would give Apple their usual markup.

The argument that "most consumers don't need" those features is a bit circular, since they're not available from Apple and haven't been available from Apple at a consumer price since Steve Jobs took over. On the other hand, they *are* available from Wintel box shippers, and most consumers are still buying Wintel boxes.

Don't assume you know all the reasons why they do that. I know I'm regularly surprised by people's answers to why they still use Windows after they express desire for my desktop.

And do consider that you'll never find out if you just ask Mac users, because that's a sample that's pre-selected to only include people for whom the current line of Macs is at least minimally acceptable.

Re:Meh

Plop the mini's hardware into a mini-tower case, and tack on 1 PCI-E x16 slot, 1 PCI-E x1 slot, and 1 regular PCI slot, and then we'd have a machine worthy of my purchase. Until that point I'll keep on using my hacked up generic "mac" and my old PowerMac G4.

What they need is a Mac Pro Mini (or Mini Mac Pro). Basically, half a Mac Pro:

* Single dual or quad-core CPU
* 4 DIMM slots for 8G-16G RAM (2G standard)
* PCIe x16 slot (with room for dual-width cards)
* PCIe x4 slot
* PCIe x1 slot
* Two internal 3.5" bays, w/RAID1 or RAID0 on the chipset.
* One internal 5.25" bay (Dual layer DVDRW standard)
* Priced from about US$1100.

Of course, Apple will never do this because it would absolutely slaughter higher-margin Mac Pro sales.

Re:Meh

Thinking about this a little, it appears you should buy a secondhand PowerMac G5. I am almost serious about this.

Re:Sure, they shipped...

Surely it would have been easier just to buy one and find out, rather than to go to all that effort?

Re:Sure, they shipped...

I've already saved myself the trouble of doing either by buying a Mac Mini and installing it inside a loud PC case with crazy glue.

Oh wait...

Re:Unless the gizmod article or the posting is a h

You sure about the sober thing? I find Apple's visual effects much more entertaining when I'm not sober.

Re:So.. shall the bets begine

Here's the relevant EULA excerpt: "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

Re:Why no cease and desist from Apple?

On what grounds? Psystar is installing a retail boxed product of MacOS X on Psystar hardware. There's no copyright violation, so none of the extreme remedies in the Copyright Act apply. Any legal restriction Apple seeks to impose that their software can only be run on their hardware runs afoul of "tying" restrictions in antitrust law. Apple would have to win an antitrust case before they could get a cease and desist order.

What we'll probably see is heavily restrictive DRM in future Macs to prevent this. Or an end to retail sales of MacOS.

Re:Why no cese and desist from Apple?

I have to wonder why they have not tried to get a preliminary injunction to halt shipment pending legal matters. They probably could get that fairly easily.

They're probably weighing it against the possibility of having their "you can only install the copy of OS X you bought onto our list of blessed hardware" clause in the OS X EULA ruled invalid.

Thanx for the cheap, easy threadjack

LOL. My Hackintosh supports software updates from Apple. Can't they at least install PC EFI? They're a fuckin integrator, they could BUY EFI boards. Morons.

Re:It is a fraud

BUT, Apple is still being paid for their OS, which is the only item that many people are interested in. Their EULA says that you can only install it on their hardware, but it's a clause that is QUITE likely to be shot down in court.

As to "profiting off someone else's work", EVERYBODY does that to some extent. ISP's are "profiting" off of Google, Ebay, etc because people buy internet access because of those items. Gas stations are profiting off of car manufaturers because they supply fuel for something that someone else made. Paper companies profit from fax/copier manufacturers because they generate a need for their product.

The bottom line is that Apple sells an operating system. They have a legally questionable clause in there stating that when you buy it you can't install it except on computers that they deem appropriate (namely, ones they made themselves). If that clause is successfully shot down, things will likely return to a semblance of fairness: people who purchase software from a company can install it wherever and on whatever they want to.

I mean seriously: if Microsoft came out with EULA stipulations tomorrow that stated that regardless of how well it worked, you couldn't install MS Office (even a legally purchased copy) on a WINE-equipped Linux machine, Slashdot would shit a jagged brick coated in hot sauce. Apple does the same though and it's reasonable behavior.