First Psystar Mac Clones Ship 466
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."
Meh (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Operation Unsuccessful (Score:3, Interesting)
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 hardware drivers (this was my issue), usually related to power management and ACPI, which causes the dreaded rainbow circle of death and a reboot loop
Re:So.. shall the bets begine (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Operation Unsuccessful (Score:3, Interesting)
apple does not make a HEAD LESS mid-range system.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Why no cese and desist from Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I converted my gaming machine into one (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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:You Don't Actually Need Software Update (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
What is Psystar really selling? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
That is just a hypothesis (granted it's a very plausible and reasonable one). OSX already does run on a variety of hardware -- just not as big a variety as Windows. While you probably can't run OSX on just any PC, you could probably spec a system out for it specifically (as Psystar has apparently done). The most interesting thing about this company might be that it is a chance to see the hypothesis tested. Linux users are already quite willing to accept hardware limitations to avoid OS instability.