Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Operating Systems Hardware Hacking

First Psystar Mac Clones Ship 466

Posted by CmdrTaco
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Psystar Mac Clones Ship

Comments Filter:
  • by CSMatt (1175471)
    ...but do they work?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CSMatt (1175471)
      Damn. Should have read the article.
      • by somersault (912633) on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:52AM (#23225308) Homepage Journal
        Surely it would have been easier just to buy one and find out, rather than to go to all that effort?
        • by vertinox (846076) on Monday April 28, 2008 @12:01PM (#23226454)
          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            let us know how installing 4-6 desktop SATA drives and a PCI express video card goes, will ya?

            most people interested in this dont want a cheap mac, they want an expandable mac that isnt complete overkill (like he Mac Pro). The number of people who'd install extra hard drives or replace their graphics card easily outnumber the number of people who can actually make use of 8 cores and dual sockets. the Mac Pro may be fan-fucking-tastic value for what it is, but its baseline configuration is ridiculously over
    • Until I've seen one with my own eyes, and I've played with it, and I'm sober, nothing is proven.
    • If he wanted to verify authenticity he should have gone further than just following the cable. He should have run this with the case open.

      Here are the instructions to make your own.
      Acquire Mac Mini, PC case, screwdriver. You might need some extension cables too.
      Open case. Put Mac Mini inside.
      Close case.
      Profit!! Err, I mean loss!

  • by AmonEzhno (1276076) on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:33AM (#23224990)
    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      While the auto update will not work, they (well any "custom" OSX box) can be updated.

      Download the full update from the Apple developer site, do some major moving and backup magic with some of the kext's (apples loadable modules), and run the install. Some people have scripts out that will resolve the issue, but its a doable manual process.

      The major issue with the updates, is that some of the modifications (even when using EFI installed OSX with a stock kernel) to the modules that Apple does, breaks the har
      • Download the full update from the Apple developer site, do some major moving and backup magic with some of the kext's (apples loadable modules), and run the install. Some people have scripts out that will resolve the issue, but its a doable manual process.

        This is stupid. There are very few things that require continual modification of OS X after each update. The one big one is if your CPU is not supported.

        Psystar as far as I know ships a machine with a supported CPU and a supported chipset. So why the hell can't they make it update proof?

        I keep a Pentium 4 box around for research purposes. It is almost upgradeable without thinking about it. The only issue it ever has is that Apple's kernel source has checks for an Intel CPU with family 6. The Penti

        • by NMerriam (15122)
          Presumably they disable the updater so that if/when Apple starts shipping updates that bork the EFI emulator it won't get installed by users who don't check the compatibility first. You're right, there's no reason it shouldn't be using all vanilla Apple code with extra kexts, but the EFI layer is where incompatibility can cause problems.
          • by Jimithing DMB (29796) <dfe AT tgwbd DOT org> on Monday April 28, 2008 @02:32PM (#23228580) Homepage

            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.

    • 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?

      That is a very bug issue. Not only that but if something doesn't work, who are you going to turn to. Psystar will probably blame Apple and Apple will say you have an unsupported system. Sure, you save $200 (the price difference for a Mac mini), but are the headaches you are getting for saving the
      • by MBGMorden (803437)

        Sure, you save $200 (the price difference for a Mac mini), but are the headaches you are getting for saving the money worth it?

        If the Mini was in a tower case with expansion slots like this thing had, I'd gladly pay extra (though I'm not buying a Pystar either - I made my own). As it is though, the Mac Mini is a laptop with no keyboard or screen. Non-officialness aside, I'd consider the Pystar a better system if it has Apple's blessing. I'd actually be willing to pay more for it than a Mini.

        • by mmeister (862972)
          Of course, it helps if you're deaf too - the Pstar has to be one of the loudest fans I've heard in years. Not even the my G5 tower at full blast was that loud. I think the expansion slots argument is overrated. If I had to guess, I would say that the % of people where slots are actually used is in the area of 20% max.
          • by MBGMorden (803437) on Monday April 28, 2008 @11:09AM (#23225586)
            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.
            • by mmeister (862972)
              Then the argument should be that the mini needs better video card support, not that Macs need slots. That's a big difference.

              As for video upgrades, even on Macs that have sep. video cards, I've never found the need to upgrade after the fact. I usually by the video card with the most amount of memory available at the time and it serves me for the life of the machine.

              Integrating the video chip onto the motherboard is going to reduce costs and space requirements- so creating a separate slot for a video card is
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        more like you save $1000 - $1500 to get a mac with a real VIDEO CARD and DESKTOP PARTS the mini is has laptop parts and no dvdrw in the base system it is also stuck it the POS gma 950.

        apple does not make a HEAD LESS mid-range system.
    • 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?
      No, I guess not. On the other hand, if you pirate Mac OS X and never run updates, how different are you from the typical clueless Windows home user?
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Monday April 28, 2008 @12:47PM (#23227120) Homepage Journal
      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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CastrTroy (595695)
      It worked for SUSE 10.1 [linuxforums.org].
  • Meh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by tab_b (1279858)
    Looks like a noisy piece of crap PC, but if it goads Apple into releasing something with a similar form factor, then I'm all for it.
    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MBGMorden (803437) on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:46AM (#23225198)
      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.
      • by log0n (18224)
        If that's what you want, why don't you just run Windows/Linux/BSD/whathaveyou? If the hardware specs are the driving factor behind your wants/needs, you should use the system that accommodates them. I use a MBP/OSX (both as a laptop and desktop) so I get why you would want your preferred OSX setup, but really, shouldn't the software accommodate what you want to do with the hardware? For the most part, the same software is available for both platforms. Computers are just tools to be used to accomplish yo
        • by log0n (18224)
          To clarify.. my use for Mac/OSX is Logic Pro (musician/composer - specific software needs), something not available for Windows AFAIK. As that is the program I use, my choice of OSX makes sense for my situation. But as you seemed to focus more on hardware, your needs sound more hardware specific and would be solved with the appropriate hardware.
        • by MBGMorden (803437)
          I do run both Windows and Linux on other machines. I like to use OS X as a daily OS for personal preferences. That plays a role, as does the hardware in other things (afterall, you use a MacBook Pro over a Macbook - I'm sure you had your reasons for doing so, just as I'd have my reasons for wanting a hypothetical MacTower over a MacMini).
           
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by misleb (129952)

          I use a MBP/OSX (both as a laptop and desktop) so I get why you would want your preferred OSX setup, but really, shouldn't the software accommodate what you want to do with the hardware? For the most part, the same software is available for both platforms. Computers are just tools to be used to accomplish your task.

          I hear this sentiment a lot.. but what does it really mean? Are there people who aren't using computers as tools to accomplish a task? Is hacking an OS to work on X piece of hardware NOT an app

      • by vijayiyer (728590)
        I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the market you mention is really small...probably the vast majority of "mid range" customers won't ever expand or customize their machine. Think of the population as a whole - what percentage even knows what a PCI slot is?
      • by grm_wnr (781219)
        So you just want a cheap Mac with enough PCIe to stick a video card into to drive a monitor of your choosing? Seriously, what do you NEED PCIe these days for apart from graphics cards? Well, you might want to stick in a RAID card or something, but if you want to do that you are in the market for a Mac Pro. If you want non-integrated graphics, get an iMac and use its mini-DVI slot to drive a display for your choosing. Don't want to pay for the integrated display? Tough luck, Apple soes not want to support yo
      • Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pauljlucas (529435) on Monday April 28, 2008 @11:08AM (#23225578) Homepage Journal

        ... 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.
        • Out of curiosity, what exactly would you put in those PCI slots if Apple made such a consumer machine?

          What I would want to put in it would depend on what it starts with. Since I don't expect them to build my ideal machine, I just want to be able to make something that's got what I need without having to pay 3 times as much as I can afford for a bunch of stuff I don't need.

          If it had intel integrated video, I'd definitely need a video card.

          I need at least one 3.5" drive bay.

          I'd want two 3.5" drive bays, so I
      • Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy@gmailSLACKWARE.com minus distro> on Monday April 28, 2008 @11:09AM (#23225596)

        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.

    • by aliquis (678370)
      It _IS_ a noisy piece of crap PC.
      Anyone can do it themself with whatever (almost) PC they already have and a downloaded DVD from TPB or whatever. These people are just trying to make money of the work by both people over at Apple and the people who made it possible.

      And it sounds like fuck, I'd pay $200 to get rid of that noise alone.
  • On when Apples lawyers come crashing down on Psystar. I'm going to hazard a guess that since they are supplying a legal copy (according to their website) of the OS install disks, that there is not much Apple can do about it.

    On the other hand, the EFI bootloader they are using from netkas, thats another story...

    I actually have OSX running on my Dell Vostro 1500, and while everything in the base model works perfectly with OSX, my customized model, the intel wireless card does not work.. *sigh*
    • by Kenja (541830)
      Yup, they (Paystar) are not breaking Apples license. However, anyone that trys to get support from Apple for these boxes is going to be in for a bit of a shock.

      I fully expect there to be something in future OSX patches that will be incompatible with these computers.
  • Apple legal (Score:4, Funny)

    by Glock27 (446276) on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:34AM (#23225028)
    I'm waiting for Apple's lawyers to arrive with the attitude of a school of hungry piranha any time now...
    • by oahazmatt (868057)
      It shouldn't be long. I believe that the Apple legal team was actually waiting to see if one of these units actually shipped (up until that point, it's fraud I believe, not any sort of infringement). I'm certain that Apple had someone within the company purchase one as well so they can evaluate it up close.
      • by berashith (222128)
        I hope the clones have a EULA banning Apple employees or agents from using this for use in establishing fraud or infringement cases.

        Not that it would matter, but because it would be cute
  • Because, if it did, Apple could brick the box. (Sort of, you could probably install Linux on it.)

    No software update means no fixes for any security vulnerabilities that turn up. Lovely.

    • by MBGMorden (803437) on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:41AM (#23225126)

      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).
  • Loud! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MightyYar (622222) on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:38AM (#23225090)
    Yikes! Who brought the vacuum cleaner to the party! Wow, that video is loud!
  • Step One Complete! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by creature124 (1148937)
    They shipped. Thats only step one though. Next, they have to function just as well as a real Mac, which according to the article isn't quite right.

    Plus, they have another hurdle - Apple C&D letters should be rolling in by now, if they haven't already.

    It should be an interesting court battle. Yet another challenge for intellectual property in relation to software. Lets hope this one goes the way be all want.
    • I hope for their sake they don't ship with OSX bundled/installed. But then that would make it no better than just doing an OSx86 yourself.

      ps - the camera work in that video was just terrible! why follow the video cable for a quarter of the clip? wtf. yes we know the video cable attaches to a monitor. I trust them not to just hid a MacPro under the desk (pretty obvious with the PC bios boot up)
  • Mac Mini (Score:4, Funny)

    by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:39AM (#23225100) Homepage

    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?

    • 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.

      For $400 bucks, that would be great! ; )
      • by Mr Z (6791)

        Well, lessee... Take 10,000 paid orders, ship 100 units, skip town. Sure, those 100 units might cost $1500 to build, but that's still a heck of a profit margin.

    • Re:Mac Mini (Score:4, Insightful)

      by oahazmatt (868057) on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:57AM (#23225400) Journal

      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.
  • That movie can be extremely easy to create, it's probably a fake.

    He films the normal PC in the back with the cable and so on, everything is fine...
    When the turns to the front of the screen someone takes out the VGA cable, puts it in a display switcher or something, while the monitor is still turned off, and connects a Mac laptop to that display switch.

    Then the dude turns on the PC, starts recording the screen, waits until the windows starts showing and the other guy switches the signal to the laptop. This w
    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      The motherboard is also a Gigabyte based on the "setup-q-flash" message shown on the screen... i don't know if gigabyte would agree to make a Mac clone...

      Gigabyte wouldn't be agreeing to make a Mac clone anymore than ECS agreed to make my own homebrew mac. The reality is that with a little tweaking MacOS will run on just about about anything with a modern Intel chipset. With a little more serious tweaking it will run on AMD-based machines. Plenty of people have been doing this for years now. All this company did was pick out some generic hardware off the shelf that works with Mac OS X, and then install the hacked copy (note that while you do RECEIVE a v

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by nawcom (941663)

      That movie can be extremely easy to create, it's probably a fake. He films the normal PC in the back with the cable and so on, everything is fine... When the turns to the front of the screen someone takes out the VGA cable, puts it in a display switcher or something, while the monitor is still turned off, and connects a Mac laptop to that display switch. Then the dude turns on the PC, starts recording the screen, waits until the windows starts showing and the other guy switches the signal to the laptop. This was his hand with the camera remains in the same position and it's easy to cut out the transition.. especially since the eyes of the people are focused on the flash where the mac screen is shown. So the movie for me it says nothing, it can be so easily faked i could do it myself if i had a fake. The motherboard is also a Gigabyte based on the "setup-q-flash" message shown on the screen... i don't know if gigabyte would agree to make a Mac clone... Just my two cents

      ... and let me guess, you don't believe in the moon landing either?

      Installing OS X on PCs is old news. Certain Gigabyte motherboards come with hardware that OS X has driver pre-installed for, and everything else is community supported.

      Here's a "fake" forum if you are lookiung for more info: http://www.insanelymac.com/ [insanelymac.com]

    • by drsmithy (35869)

      That movie can be extremely easy to create, it's probably a fake.

      Nowhere near as easy as just installing 10.5 on a suitable PC.

      Seriously, why would anyone think the video is a fake ? It's not difficult to install 10.5 on EFI-capable PC hardware (which is both common and cheap).

  • by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Monday April 28, 2008 @10:43AM (#23225156) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • by MightyYar (622222)

      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.

      I don't think that will happen. I think Apple will shut down clone makers, and leave the hackers to their own devices. Apple already has a "WGA" style protection built-in to their hardware. I'd be surprised if going the Windows route protected them any more than the hardware solution that they have in place. Either system is not sufficient to protect against a determined individual.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by stoofa (524247)
      Why don't you just select 'download and keep package' from the software update menu and then just routinely burn your packages folder to CD?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nine-times (778537)

      I don't think the problem is just that Apple's "Software Update" doesn't work. More likely the problem is that you can't update your OS without causing it to stop functioning. Psystar hacked the OS to run on generic hardware. If you install an update that overwrites part of that hack, your machine doesn't work anymore.

    • by edalytical (671270) on Monday April 28, 2008 @01:17PM (#23227558)

      If there is ever an Apple version of Windows Genuine Advantage I'll quit using OS X, it will be erased from my drive and I'll never develop software for the Mac again.

      My computer, once I purchase it, should always function as long as there is not a hardware issue. I shouldn't have to prove I'm not stealing from the company, I shouldn't need an internet connection to unlock software, I _should_ be able to replace hardware components of the computer and I _should_ be able to transfer the software to another computer.

      End of story. I use a Mac because I think Apple understands that these are rights and they improve usability.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Orion Blastar (457579)
      First we'll see a CD-Key to install Mac OSX, and then a Macintosh Genuine Advantage check. Mac OSX already has DRM for media files, adding in DRM to prevent pirated copies would be the next logical step.

      Of course the Mac Pirates will just find a way around that as the Windows Pirates did with XP and Vista. So maybe Apple wouldn't bother and just allow OEM installs for Non-Apple branded hardware?
  • I haven't seen an explanation yet. If, as claimed, you can load an "actual Leopard retail package with genuine installation disc..." then why wouldn't it load the next version of the actual Leopard retail package? If it runs the next version, then what's the difference between loading it from a disc and making the same updates via Software Update?

    If, in fact, it replaces parts of Leopard with custom-tailored substitutes for this specific hardware, then I don't think it's accurate to say it's really running
  • 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.
    • by Animats (122034) on Monday April 28, 2008 @11:05AM (#23225516) Homepage

      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.

    • 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.

    • Bad PR? If Apple went after "Psystar," then pretty soon everyone would realize that "Psystar" is just some random guy, and that Apple was basically suing an individual. That's quite a difference than if Psystar was a larger outfit, faceless or not. Apple will most likely settle it out of the courts by offering a bunch of money.

      That's how they handled the ThinkSecret guy. Apple would have no problem suing a (real) corporation, but they're afraid to look like the RIAA if they use the courts to go after i
    • Probably because they can't find them. Psystar kept changing addresses all last week.
  • why they didn't invest in a quiet power supply and cpu cooler is beyond me! core 2 chips run so cool that it's laughably easy to build a silent pc these days...
  • I'm more worried about it not being able to update than how well it functions. The more people who pick this up, the more stories you'll hear about mac viruses and vulnerabilities. Apple will have to make a choice... if they choose not to sue Pystar into oblivion, they would need to decide if they should allow such systems to be updateable. Apple probably will not, the more systems they end up supporting, the less secure their os becomes overall.

    If they choose to allow these hackintoshes to update, th
  • Apple legal isn't going to let this stand. Even IF everything is legit, they won't have the money to defend themselves against Apple.
  • Uh oh (Score:4, Funny)

    by moosesocks (264553) on Monday April 28, 2008 @11:40AM (#23226106) Homepage
    I think I just heard the sound of an iChair being thrown against a wall....
  • by Arcturax (454188) on Monday April 28, 2008 @12:48PM (#23227150)
    I just had to add a hard disk for Mac OS X and some more ram (upped to 4GB or corsair 800 mhz) and off I went. I used a Gigabyte P35-DS3L and a Core 2 Duo e6750 processor, evga Nvidia 8800 GT graphics for the gaming rig and the Kalyway installer to put it on the new 500 GB western digital hard disk.

    It is fast fast fast fast fast.

    Only few things I have to put up with.

    1. You have to turn on AHCI in the BIOS or you will kernel panic randomly. This makes the machine sit for about 20-30 seconds probing SATA ports and whatnot until it finally launches into the OS bootloader. This is a bios/board problem, not an OS X problem. Annoying at worst.

    2. Machine will sleep (using kernel patch) but upon wake, I have to manually assign an IP then go back to DHCP to get the machine to go back online.

    3. If I boot into windows and want to go back to Mac OS, I have to turn off the computer, unplug it and wait 15 seconds before plugging in and starting back up. If I don't, after the white screen with the apple, the graphics card will shut down and I can't see. Must be some flag in the card or board that windows sets that the drivers I'm using isn't resetting.

    4. Switching resolution can cause a blue screen where you can't see anything. Rebooting will take care of it.

    5. Some 3D apps won't work. Second Life is one example.
  • First thing's first (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dr00g911 (531736) on Monday April 28, 2008 @01:01PM (#23227360)
    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.
  • by rudy_wayne (414635) on Monday April 28, 2008 @03:20PM (#23229142)
    All $399 gets you (or $999 for the "Pro" version) is a box full of generic PC components that are known to be more or less compatible with OSX. No monitor, no keyboard or mouse and *NO OPERATING SYSTEM*. An installed copy of OSX will cost you an extra $150. Since a genuine Apple Mac is really just a PC running OSX, it would make no sense for someone to buy a "Mac Clone" without OSX so I'm figuring that almost all the units Psystar sells will probably have OSX on them.

    Does Psystar's installation of OSX violate Apple's EULA? Is Apple's EULA even legal? I have no idea, but Psystar is not the company who is going to spend millions slugging it out in court trying to get Apple's EULA declared invalid. This is a Fly-By-Night operation and Psystar's behaviour so far -- from the constantly changing addresses to the questionable background of its owners to the fact that they have built their entire business model on selling freely available OSX hacks -- tells me exactly what is going to happen next:

    When Apple Apple sues -- and make no mistake, they will sue -- Psystar will fold and disappear. That's been the Psystar game plan all along. Take as many orders and collect as much money as possible before they get shut down. And if you happen to be one of the people waiting for delivery when Apple's lawyers attack, well, it sucks to be you.

System going down in 5 minutes.

Working...