Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Psystar Mac Clones Ship

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago

OS X 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."

cancel ×

466 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

eat my shorts slashdot !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23224970)

Eat my shorts slashdot !!

Thanx for the cheap, easy threadjack (5, Insightful)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225526)

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.

Sure, they shipped... (1, Insightful)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23224986)

...but do they work?

Re:Sure, they shipped... (2, Funny)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225044)

Damn. Should have read the article.

Re:Sure, they shipped... (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225308)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225166)

...but does it run Linux?

Re:Sure, they shipped... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225300)

Yes. It's a computer.

Bias...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225274)

So, hardly they have shipped this, so called 'doubter' start wondering if it even works.

Even if you want to doubt them, at least give them fair trial, read what they have done, and then at least put up a show that you have tried not to be another apple douchebag.

But this is just another example of how Apple, the so-called-media and their fan-base go defensive and start an outright attack on anything remotely coming close to Apple or their product. Perhaps, this siege mentality is showing something deeper.

/. assumes they are hoax in every article, wired publishes their address (along with Google map image!) as if they are criminals. Let's not even go to Gizmodo or Engadget - they already have their heads inside the Apple ass and they enjoy it.

Unless the gizmod article or the posting is a hoax (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225442)

Until I've seen one with my own eyes, and I've played with it, and I'm sober, nothing is proven.

Re:Unless the gizmod article or the posting is a h (2, Insightful)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225508)

Of course, guilty until proven not to be. Good show!

Re:Unless the gizmod article or the posting is a h (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225678)

Innocent until proven guilty is (was? seems to be out of fashion these days) a necessary legal concept.

However, for consumers, it is a very dangerous approach when dealing with questionable businesses. Caveat emptor and all that.

I see a box with a Mac mini inside! (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225592)

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!

Operation Unsuccessful (5, Insightful)

AmonEzhno (1276076) | more than 6 years ago | (#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:Operation Unsuccessful (2, Interesting)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225118)

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 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:Operation Unsuccessful (1)

Jimithing DMB (29796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225648)

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 Pentium 4 reports itself as family 0xf so you have to change the source and recompile or alternatively binary patch the kernel to nuke the check against family 6.

Everything else, including the GMA900 video (note: NOT 950) and ICH6 (note: NOT ICH7) ATA controller, can be handled with additional kernel extensions. That is, I don't ever patch an Apple kernel extension.

It is supremely stupid to patch Apple kexts. They are "owned" by Apple which is to say that Apple supplies them and keeps them updated. If you don't modify them but instead add new ones that are not owned by Apple then you don't have problems when Apple updates their kexts.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful (1)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225708)

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.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225204)

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 money worth it?

Re:Operation Unsuccessful (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225288)

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.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful (1)

mmeister (862972) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225408)

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.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful (3, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225374)

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.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful (1)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225416)

If you downloaded windows or Linux and could never update, would you consider it a successful install?

You bet I would...especially if I try to update to Vista and the machine flat-out refuses. :-D

=Smidge=

Re:Operation Unsuccessful (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225472)

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?

Meh (2, Interesting)

tab_b (1279858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23224996)

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 (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Meh (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225458)

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 your task.

Re:Meh (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225504)

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.

Re:Meh (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225826)

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:Meh (1)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225518)

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?

Re:Meh (1)

grm_wnr (781219) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225536)

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 your niche. They have been historically only interested in filling niches they want, not what everybody is screaming at them to do, with pretty good success, especially lately. Also do keep in mind that the mid-90s desaster when they did exactly what you want burns on the mind of everyone at Apple; the company nearly died back then. YOu migh have forgotten, but they themseves sure haven't.

That said, I wish Apple would include an ExpressCard slot on the iMac. That would make the machine reasonably expandable without breaking their stylish case designs.

Re:Meh (0, Flamebait)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225560)

If Apple charged twice the price for it I'd buy one from Apple.

Re:Meh (3, Insightful)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225578)

... 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.

What would I use expandibility for? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225868)

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 can run RAID-1 internal.

I want to be able to upgrade the internal CDROM.

It would be nice to be able to add eSATA... it's got less latency than Firewire. That's not a requirement but it's something I'd be likely to add if it was an option.

Adequate cooling is a must. That's a big drawback on the mini.

What I *don't* need: I don't need the Mac Pro's 8 cores. Two cores is plenty. Two cores socketed so I could upgrade to four later on would be more than ample.

What I don't even want: integrated display. I have a perfectly good display already... and a KVM.

Alternatives that would make my happy: a "Mini pro" with two 3.5" drive bays and a decent GPU, or an "iSwitch", an iMac with an internal KVM so I can toggle between it and my wintendo, or maybe a networked window system that virtualized OpenGL ove the network so I could get decent video performance over the network from the Mac. Screen scrapers like VNC and RDP need not apply.

Re:Meh (4, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#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.

Re:Meh (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225538)

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.

So.. shall the bets begine (1)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225008)

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*

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (1)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225080)

If they are indeed pre-installing Leopard on these systems then Apple will pounce. Of course, that's what they (actually the one guy who seems to be running the show there) promised to do from the outset and they're now apparently delivering computers - I would have expected Apple to take the company down just based on that promise. It's only a matter of time before Apple goes after Pystar , unfortunately, since Apple wants to try to enforce its EULAs. I personally think it's healthy for Apple to have some competition; I think this guy is doing a good thing by addressing a market segment that Apple is completely ignoring right now (consumer towers).

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225082)

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.

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (1)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225158)

Apple's EULA says that OS X can only be installed on Apple branded hardware, so if Pystar is pre-installing Leopard on these computers Apple will certainly respond.

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225172)

My impression is that they dont pre-install the OS but provide Apple media.

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225272)

From what I recall being offered, they would install the OS for an additional fee.

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (1, Interesting)

Blimey85 (609949) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225230)

What if they order all of their hard drives from Apple and then use cheap commodity hardware for the rest? Technically the os gets installed on the hard drive right? So if you install it on an Apple hard drive would that work? Then again, Apple doesn't actually make the hard drives so the hard drive, even if ordered from Apple, would not technically be an Apple branded item. Hmm...

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225252)

With what Apple charges for hard drives, they would be operating at a major loss.

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (5, Informative)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225324)

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:So.. shall the bets begine (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225366)

since when have EULA's been legal? (or illegal for that matter) anyhow there not end users.

Apple-labeled peripherals (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225378)

Apple's EULA says that OS X can only be installed on Apple branded hardware
So plug an iPod Shuffle or a Mighty Mouse into one of the USB ports. Congratulations; your PC now contains Apple-labeled hardware.

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (1)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225454)

I disagree. Sure the car analogy gets tossed around all the time, and in some cases a manufacturer might be able to get around fixing a problem due to a potential aftermarket product being installed, but they cannot sue you for installing a Kenwood radio in a Ford when Ford specifies only authorized Ford equipment can be used (yes I know, this has been hashed out in the courts, and it was probably a bad example, and no they cannot void a warranty for using an aftermarket part), but the point is the same, you can write whatever you want in a document, but it needs to be tested in a court of law, and these days, who knows who would win (and bankrupting your opponent does not constitute a win, thats more a forfeit by the losing side, but would still probably set a precedent of sorts).

I would hope that the legal system would rule in favour of you being able to use whatever equipment you want, but who knows :/

Re:So.. shall the bets begine (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225650)

Nice spelling on your subject, fucking hayseed.

Litigation (1)

damicatz (711271) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225010)

I'll give it about a week before Apple starts litigating.

I didn't know... (1)

HetMes (1074585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225018)

... cloning abilities were in the specs...

Can't Wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225024)

for the girlfriend review.

Apple legal (3, Funny)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225028)

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

Re:Apple legal (1)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225134)

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.

Re:Apple legal (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225240)

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

Software Update does not work. (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225036)

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.

Re:Software Update does not work. (5, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#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).

Re:Software Update does not work. (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225286)

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.

You understand that these aren't what you would call mac clones, but PCs with os x compatible hardware (with a patched kernel to skip hardware checks of course), right? I've had OS X on my AMD system for years, and it runs world of warcraft better than windows ever did. And I don't even want to start about the use of the term "bricking".

The only problem with the update risk is that your basic consumer won't know the difference between what patch updates the kernel or not.

Since most things people do on OS X are non-administrative, it will take a while for it to reach its equivalent of administrative-always windows. As of now, most vulnerabilities are equivalent to Linux vulnerabilities; most are buffer and stack related. No going to a website and getting your computer taken over.

With Apple's Blessing... (1)

rainhill (86347) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225070)

I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar had Apple's blessing behind the curtain on this..

It would be perfect for Apple if this caches up, yet safe way out if not.

Re:With Apple's Blessing... (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225630)

It would be perfect for Apple ...
Why?

Loud! (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225090)

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

Step One Complete! (2, Insightful)

creature124 (1148937) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225094)

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.

Re:Step One Complete! (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225700)

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 (3, Funny)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225100)

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 (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225164)

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! ; )

Re:Mac Mini (1)

Mr Z (6791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225228)

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 (3, Insightful)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225400)

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.

Movie doesn't show anything (2, Insightful)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225132)

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

Sorry, typos (1)

mariushm (1022195) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225144)

This was his hand with - > this way his hand with

i could do it myself if i had a mac.

sorry for the typos

Re:Movie doesn't show anything (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225444)

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 vanilla Mac OS X CD with these purchases, if it's preinstalled it's not vanilla OS X. The preinstalled copy is a hacked version using PC_EFI by netkas).

Re:Movie doesn't show anything (2, Informative)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225460)

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]

Re:Movie doesn't show anything (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225764)

I know that forum is all part of your elaborate ruse!

-Peter

Re:Movie doesn't show anything (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225670)

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).

Re:Movie doesn't show anything (1)

seandiggity (992657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225882)

Seems like a KVM switch could do the job, and there are many other ways to fake this. That said, there are hackintosh boxes out there that run OSX with non-Apple hardware so it's certainly possible this is legit. I just find it hard to believe that Psystar isn't a hoax/fraud after all the shenanigans with their changes of address etc.

You Don't Actually Need Software Update (5, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225156)

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.

Re:You Don't Actually Need Software Update (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225476)

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:You Don't Actually Need Software Update (2, Informative)

stoofa (524247) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225528)

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?

Well I'll be damned - I never noticed that (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225690)

I owe you a debt of gratitude.

Mac vs PC vs MacClone commercials (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225174)

Oh please oh please let someone release one of these into the wild...

No software updates mean.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225208)

..that it's a plain "BIOS PC". The only item on the list that today is used by OS X for verification during both installation and software update is whether or not the machine is an EFI machine (contra an older BIOS machine; a normal PC). The TPM junk is currently not in use.

So it's verified: they actually do modify the OS X installation, because that is the only way to have a vanilla OS X disc to install on a non-EFI machine.

WHY doesn't Software Update work? (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225284)

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 retail Leopard.

Is there any technical reason for believing that whatever it is that prevents Software Update from working can't affect other software as well? Have the SQAed the product with iDVD, with Aperture, with Epson's printer drivers, etc.? If not, who has?

This sounds like one of those boring "99%-compatible" PC clones of the early 1980s... a friend of mine bought one for use ina a research laboratory, found that it wouldn't work with some Tecmar I/O card, called the company, and their response was to thank him for the information and say that they would be sure to add it to their list of products that was known to be incompatible.

Re:WHY doesn't Software Update work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225348)

Because it's a "normal" PC, using BIOS. Mac's use the modern EFI system instead. This is what OS X tries to verify during installation and via the Software Updates tool. If it's found to be a plain ol' BIOS PC, updates (and installation, without hacking) is denied.

Re:WHY doesn't Software Update work? (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225652)

Why didn't Psystar "use the modern EFI system," then?

Why does this interfere with Software Update, but not with installing from an installation DVD? How does it boot from the installation DVD?

To say that this is capable of running "unmodified OS X Leopard kernels" is either logic-choppping with the word "kernel," or it's like saying a NASCAR vehicle is an "unmodified" retail car...

Re:WHY doesn't Software Update work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225880)

BIOS PC's are readily available in abundance, for little money. If you'd like to google for resellers and manufacturers of EFI PC's, I can refer you to the largest manufacturer and reseller on the planet to save you time: Apple.

Also, this _does_ interfere with installation: OS X -refuses- to be installed on a BIOS PC. The process of "hacking" OS X onto a BIOS PC is by using an EFI emulation layer, such as netkas or iatkos, as done for all "hackintosh" systems, including this one.

OS X does not care for the platform when booting. It does care for it during installation, and under Software Updates. Psystar has simply not installed a modified version of OS X, but in order to have it install at all they have done so under a modified environment, likely the normal iatkos EFI bootloader thingy.

Re:WHY doesn't Software Update work? (1)

Jimithing DMB (29796) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225726)

This is complete bullshit. The software update tool does check the model name and internally (e.g. without sending data to Apple) displays additional model-specific updates.

For instance, if you have an iMac with a particular firmware version then Software Update will display the firmware update for it. If you don't have that particular model of iMac then it will hide it from you. But the program still knows it exists because it grabs the full list of updates from Apple.

Re:WHY doesn't Software Update work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225426)

Why doesn't Software Update work? Well, for starters, the guy doesn't have an ethernet cable plugged in in the video. Do these machines have wireless? I'd hate to find out that the reason it doesn't "work" is because the guy didn't plug in the ethernet cable.

Why no cese and desist from Apple? (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225304)

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.

Re:Why no cease and desist from Apple? (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225516)

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? (4, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225710)

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.

Re:Why no cese and desist from Apple? (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225728)

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 individuals for EULA issues.

Re:Why no cese and desist from Apple? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225746)

Probably because they can't find them. Psystar kept changing addresses all last week.

hmm (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225334)

So are all the people who've posted on slashdot how it had to be a hoax, and anyone who paid money for a pre-order was an idiot, are they going to admit they were wrong?

Re:hmm (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225550)

I'd reserve reversing the hoax judgment until they fulfill the majority if not the entirety of the pre-orders.

It may hurt their profit a bit to kick out a few machines, but some profit is better than no profit.

Has anyone checked to see if they have an actual physical location (or at least a front) yet?

Re:hmm (1)

StingRay02 (640085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225824)

They may have been wrong about it being a hoax. Whether the people who bought one are idiots is yet to be determined.

Re:hmm (2, Funny)

umStefa (583709) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225846)

Admit we where wrong? This is Slashdot, where baseless inflammatory accusations are NEVER wrong!!!!

the fans are so loud! (1)

denominateur (194939) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225354)

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...

No Updates (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225502)

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, the more systems they end up supporting and the more money they would have to spend. Don't expect any support from Pystar or other such dealers. They run a risky business as it is. The best thing you can do when your Mac operating system becomes too unstable or too old is either buy an entirely new MacOS CD, install Windows, or install Linux.

isn't history repeating (1)

cremat (2727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225562)

To some extent, this looks like when the first clone PCs appeared in the market. IBM claimed their hardware was better... at the end cloned pcs won the battle.

What dept. is this article from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23225642)

What department is this article from? (The line below the title)

attack-of-the-clones dept.?

Ok, riddle me this (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225646)

How do you clone a ship? You can do it with a Mac?

Idiots (2, Informative)

RavenChild (854835) | more than 6 years ago | (#23225852)

The people commenting on the linked paged are idiots. This is not a typical "Hackintosh." They claim to have EFI emulated so that there is no need to hack your copy of OSX. You are able to install right from the Leopard CD. This isn't using OSx86.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>