Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mmcnally

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé
  1. I can't say I am suprised. When I read Apples response to the Psystar counter sue, it made good sense, showing how Psystar tried to show that MacOS was it's own market but sells the same machines running Linux and Windows, so surely Windows and Linux must compete with MacOS. Bit of a schoolboy error there really. I can't see Apple going after individuals still as wouldn't be worth the hassle to them. Of course the big difference is that no-one on the forum is trying to sell Mac OSX computers. Wonder if this means that Apple are going to move onto EFI-X now and sue them.
  2. Yep, I bet that they are busily scurrying through this forum to see which laptops work best with OSX86, and that will then approach the manufacturer to OEM it for them, in a slightly different case. Putting in real design work here and adding real value! For what they are adding you may as well build an EFI-X system. If building your own system is too risky then why risk going with a 3rd Party Mac anyway. And yes I am aware that can't get an EFI-X device for a notebook.
  3. Mac Mini updates around the corner...

    Apple have already said that no new products till after christmas.
  4. Now all that they need to is wait for Apple or this community to get BluRay playback working. Nice headline for them but hardly innovation. Now if they had actually gotten something new to work I would be impressed. Hackintosh builders could already burn to Bluray. Apple aren't going to bother adding Bluray whilst they would rather sell the content on iTunes for download to your machine and then playback on the AppleTV, and your iPod. The majority of Apple purchasers (ie not people on this forum) will go the Apple route for HD which is iTunes, if they don't just buy a BluRay player anyway. Why would Apple rather let you buy your content elsewhere and playback on your Mac rather then have you buy from the iTunes where Apple will make more money. People who are going to be buying iPod, AppleTV and Mac will buy them anyway. Sales are up in terms of $ and also units shipped with Market Share increasing. BluRay playback or lack of clearly isn't holding Apple back with there chosen target audience. If Bluray playback comes then it is going to be with QuicktimeX which is supposed to be a complete overhaul. So likely to hit with 10.6 which is due for release when?
  5. For a person who doesn't seem to like hackintoshes you seem to spend a fair amount of time here on a forum that is mainly about hackintoshes. My personal view on them is that I will go the EFI-X route for building mine, whilst restrictive on the hardware at least it works without having to faff about. I did build a hackintosh but I don't want the effort of maintaining it. Whilst I am not convinced about the legality of hackintoshes, my main area of concern with Psystar is that they are forcing the subject. Apple don't seem to be bothering with EFI-X or OSX86 as a not going to get many "average joe" users bothering with it. However Psystar are making it public and selling a product, making it visible. They are basically also taking the work done by forum members on getting OSX86 working and selling commercially. Whilst it is relatively well hidden Apple will turn a blind eye ( this forum is still going) to OSX86 whilst it remains an enthusiasts system, afterall most people on here are unlikely to buy an Apple system anyway. If people start selling in competition then they are more likely to start cracking down on preventing OSX running on non-Apple systems. It wouldn't be that hard for Apple to stop selling the upgrade packs that most hackintosh users buy to cover a license, this way theres no way anyone can argue that there OSX on a PC is legal.
  6. Would be nice but can't see it happening. Apple needs to support things like Active Directory/Exchange if they are to survive in the modern office environment where MS dominates and you find the need to integrate with AD and Exchange, or you don't survive. OSX Server isn't suddenly going to decimate the Windows Server market. Apple needed to get iTunes onto Windows or iPod would be restricted to Mac Only Users. Would cut off the vast majority of the market. Would iTunes/iPod be as popular if Mac only. I certainly would not but a Mac just to get a music store/mp3 player. Apple needed to goto x86 as PPC just isn't moving forward fast enough and is basically dead in the desktop market. POWER is surviving in the high end big tin from IBM and thriving in consoles / embedded devices but the desktop no. If you put Safari onto Windows then as what most people at home use will be the Browser for Internet surfing, and webmail then people can get used to it and more likely to feel more comfortable switching to a mac in the long run. If they were targetting the generic Intel PC's and looking to launch a generic OSX for Intel then why the hassle with Psystar, why not just come to an agreement with them as the first OSX 10.6 license builder, rather then a cease and desist. It would be nice but I just don't see it.
  7. Apple has always been a closed system apart from the few years when they licensed clones to be made after Steve Jobs left to go do Next. I didn't see a huge upswing in the market share of computers running Mac OS during the clone years of 95 through 97. In fact the market share and sales actually dropped during those years when it had been opened up to other manufacturers. 95 was 8%, 96 was 7.2%, some reports show as low as 5.4% so despite making the system open to anyone that wanted to license Mac OS7 market share still fell. To be fair it had be slowing for years before hand so wasn't anything new, but was why Apple tried the licensing route. So despite being made open to people who wanted to license build mac clones sales still fell. OPENED UP the system and sales FELL! This was down from the 20% Apple had in 1985. 16% with the Apple 2 and 4% with the Mac. It may just be that Win95 seemed to be a good alternative at last to a lot of potential mac buyers. Windows machines were more attractive then MacOS machines. I remember in 95 or 96 using a MacOS computer preferring Win95. Yet I prefer OSX to XP/Vista. Apple started there comeback in 98 with the iMac whilst still a closed system and sales of Mac's are continuing to grow despite being a closed system and not licensing clones to be made. Current figures seem to be showing that Apple Laptops in the US are around 20% of the market, 10% worldwide and this is just the official Apple machines, not counting hackintoshes. Being a closed system doesn't seem to have had a negative impact or positive impact on sales. Although it can be shown that since 97 the sales have improved despite going back to a closed system. That and the iPod factor. Apple are simply making better products then they used too, products that people want. Why pay the premium for an Apple if you are only interested in running Windows on it.
  8. Apple moved to Intel x86 as IBM wouldn't gaurantee the PPC development as IBM can sell more PPC to the console boys. If IBM had developed the PPC further to meet Apples requirements would Apple have shifted. Why have the effort and bother, also makes it easy to differentiate between yourself and Wintel boxes. Plus you know that OSX only going to be found on Macs. Once you take away PPC what are the other options other then an x86 Sun - They are really going to get enough chips from TI for this. Itanium - You think apple is expensive now, see what it would be if gone Itanium. Cell - not ready at the time. Develop a new CPU from scratch - Fantasy.
  9. Linux is Not Windows

    Be Ubuntu
  10. This is real easy for Apple to solve and legal too. When you purchase your Apple Computer you never actually purchase your OS. OSX is supplied with the computer. This is how it is currently sold in the Apple Store. You buy an Apple Computer, not an Apple Computer and an OS license. This is one product. Show me a non doctored AppleStore page of an Apple Computer that lists OSX 10.5 as a purchase item, without adding on the OSX 10.5 product on it' s own. You see no item for your Operating System at all unless you are buying Mac Pro in which case if you buy OSX Server you do see an item or an xserver, and if buying either of these you aren't interested in Mac Clone or hackintosh are you! Apple announce that upon release of OSX 10.6. They will not make any upgrade available in the stores from 10.5 to 10.6. They allow no on-line or physical stores to sell upgrade licenses for 10.6 All new Macs will ship with 10.6 upon release, and you haven't purchased OSX 10.6 at all. You buy the hardware to use as you see fit and they provide the OS to make it fit for purpose. Instead they make make the software upgrades for OSX part of the Apple Care product. No Apple Care, no software Upgrade to 10.6 To register for Apple Care you have to create an account on the Apple Website and supply the serial number of the Apple Product that you purchased so that they can tie the Support to the product you purchased. No serial number, no account, no upgrade. You do NOT have to purchase the Apple Care product, merely that Apple will not supply software upgrades or support after the minimum legal requirement to do so to you. You are buying a Hardware Support contract so again nothing to do with the OS. Apple do not force you to purchase Apple Care and will provide updates for 10.6 to all, ie 10.6.1, 10.6.2 etc. If you buy a MAC preloaded with 10.6 They will still supply patches and fixes for 10.5 for a period of time afterwards. Whatever the legal requirement is now for supporting previous versions of OSX. How do you now get a legal copy of OSX 10.6 and later without first purchasing a Genuine Apple Computer? Even purchasing the computer does not get you a purchase of the Operating System license so at no time do you purchase an OS or an upgrade to the OS. The Apple Care is a hardware support contract so not an Operating System. You have no contract regarding the use of the OS, which remains purely the property of Apple. You don't even get a license for the use of OSX. You already have to purchase 10.4 to 10.5 etc upgrades so these have never been free. Apple simply choose not to release such an upgrade as a product. There is nothing illegal in not making a product available for sale. As long as the product is fit for purpose as advertised Apple do not have to provide an upgrade to the software, only provide a patch to make the product fit for purpose. If you purchase a genuine apple computer, then take your OSX Media and install onto a non-apple computer, you really think Apple will care. You have already paid them for a computer and they made the sale. To get from 10.6 to 10.7 you will need to have an Apple Care product for your Apple Computer still so you still need to purchase the Apple Care to get the upgrade to 10.7, but you will still need to have a registered genuine apple computer. If you resell the Apple computer then the use OSX goes with it and the Media would need to go as well. They then register the computer and either they can't as registered to you or Apple take away your account so you can't get the upgrade. End Users now are having to purchase a genuine Apple Computer to obtain genuine legal usage of OSX. Apple simply do not make the product available to purchase to ANYONE at all. Resellers such as Psystar cannot purchase OSX to sell on an Open System without first purchasing an Apple Computer. Suddenly that OpenComputer running OSX gets mighty expensive to buy as paying for the Apple Computer and Apple Care as well. As a side benefit to Apple as well as cutting Psystar and any like minded companies off at the knees you also kill off sales of EFI-X to people looking to run OSX as they can no longer get OSX without an Apple Computer. They may be selling as a Boot Device but lets be honest here, Hackintosh the lazy way, they do all the hardwork for you but leave the End User to install the OS. And none of this is illegal. They provide patches to 10.5 to fix problems, they do not have to provide an upgrade to 10.6 or later.
  11. Can you cite a case where a manufacturer took an end user to court over installing the OS to different hardware, irrespective of the result. I don't think that you will as it is only now with Apple running on Intel x86 processors and chipsets that the end user is in a position to do so. Apples response to Psystar counter sue, cites cases where companies have tried to take other computer companies to court to allow them to run an OS on different hardware. The courts ruled that a manufacturer cannot be compelled to license there software to run on other platforms. Apple do not license there software to be installed on any other hardware then Apple hardware, and courts have previously ruled that the manufacturer cannot be compelled to allow this to happen. This means that it is legal for an OS to be tied to specific hardware, and there illegal for anyone else to sell machines running OSX unless Apple license them too. As it has been proven in court that it is legal to restrict an OS to specific manufacturers hardware, why do you believe that it is legal to install an OS onto hardware that the OS developer did not intend it to be installed onto, other then that Apple haven't taken you to court and had a court case against you. A court has already ruled that it is legal for the OS to be tied to hardware. If the definition of an Apple Computer is an Apple Labelled Computer then if you can prove that you have an Apple Labelled computer you are not being illegal as your machine matches the EULA. This may mean that the definition of an Apple Computer is changed by Apple but that is a different argument altogether. At the moment you are going on the basis that the manufacturers haven't taken an End User to court then it must be legal. It is only now with Apple on Intel Processors that you are having a situtation where an End User can do this. With Dec, HP and IBM then the machines were way beyond the realm of the enthusiast buying, so would only be corporates that had the machine. These are the kinds of machines that you simply won't find at an end user. If you are the sort of company that wants Big Tin Operating System machines then it simply isn't worth the effort of trying to find cheaper hardware. Linux and Unix on x86 PC's aren't tied to there machines. Nearest you would get is Sun and Open Solaris from Sun is available to download for free from Sun so Solaris is not tied to Sun Machines. So far EFI-X have not been taken to court, however they are not attempting to sell OSX machines and when people ask about getting a laptop product out they are straight back with that not trying to make a cheap mac, and that the product is not for them. They are selling a device that allows an End User to install an unmodfied Leopard DVD simply by plugging in a USB device. They are advertising the device as a Boot Device that allows you to select from multiple OS which one to Boot. This can be Windows, Linux, Unix or OSX. This is way less effort then what Psystar are making people do to get OSX up and running, but so far not been sued. It is also upto the end user to then actually install the OSX OS. A person kills another person, but the prosecutor cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person who did the killing did actually kill that person. Is the jury going to convinct and decide that the person is a murderer, or is there doubt and they find no-guilty. A judge/jury found OJ Simpson not-guilty of killing his ex-wife, the judge/jury did not believe that the prosecution had proved beyond all reasonable doubt that OJ Simpson was the person that did it. This does not mean however that the act of killing OJ's wife was not illegal, merely that it was not proven satisfactorily that OJ was the person that did the act. Please do not turn this into an OJ Simpson thread, and I do not believe the consequences are of equal significance at all, the killing of another human being is a serious issue, by comaprison OSX on non-Apple machines is trivial, but this was the most shocking way I could think of showing a clearly illegal act, and the difficulty of proving an inidividuals guilt with an actual example that most people will have heard of. Is the act of installation of OSX onto a non-Apple hardware legal, can Apple prove beyond all reasonable doubt the individual that did the installation. Whilst Apple can prove that OSX was installed on your PC, can they prove that it was YOU as an individual that did the installation. You are unlikely to see Apple sue an individual for installation of OSX onto their PC due to the difficulty. The mere act of using OSX on your PC is not proof that you installed the OSX onto the machine. This is before we even get to the cost of suing you, along with what would be the damages that they could actually recover from you if they were awarded costs. Apple would lose a lot of money even if they won and what would they actually gain. Court case rulings have shown that tying an OS to specific hardware is legal. Check Apples response to Psystar Counter Sue. This is where other companies tried to sue to be allowed to install the OS to other hardware. The court ruled that they could not force the manufacturer to license the OS to other parties to install on other hardware. It was accepted by the people bringing the case that they couldn't currently but they wanted too. Court case rulings quoted in this thread have also shown that EULA are enforceable contracts With this I can show that Apple are perfectly legal to restrict OSX to Apple PC's and that courts have ruled that Apple are not compelled to license OSX to non-Apple Hardware. It is therefore illegal to install OSX onto non-Apple PC's whoever you are. A court has ruled that a computer company can tie there own OS to there own hardware. You cannot ignore this ruling. This is not me saying that it is illegal to install an OS onto other hardware, a court has ruled that this is illegal. Apple can to legal definitions prove Psystar are installing OSX onto non-Apple PC's as they are advertising that they do this, part of the argument is that they want to be able to do this. Psystar have admitted that they are installing OSX on non-Apple PCs. Apple however are unlikely to be able to prove to a legal definition that YOU as an individual made a specific installation of OSX onto a non-Apple PC. Apple are therefore very unlikely to take an End User to court as unlikely to be able to prove (if you are smart) that it was you that installed the OSX onto the non-Apple PC thus breaking the EULA. If they can prove this to a level necessary to convict then they are still very unlikely to recoup the costs involved. They would need to get yout to admit is court that you did the installation, otherwise you can introduce reasonable doubt and you as an individual are found not guilty of the offence. This is not however the same as saying that it is legal to install OSX onto non-Apple Hardware. It is merely that they cannot prove you did the act of installation. Whilst Apple cannot prove that YOU are guilty of installing OSX they can prove with previous court rulings that the act of installation of OSX on non-Apple Hardware is illegal, just not who did the act. As such trying to find a court case where a computer company took an End User to court for illegally installing OS onto other hardware irrespectibe of result is NOT going to happen, as it is all but impossible to prove to a court that the individual did this, unless they stand up in court and say I did it. This does not however mean that the act of installation of OSX onto a non-Apple PC is legal. Can you find a court rulling where an End User has taken a Computer company to court for the legal right to install an OS onto other hardware and Won, (or Lost). You won't find them as it is not possible for the Computer company to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that an individual did the instalation. You can however find court rulings where companies have taken other computer companies to court for the right to install an OS on other hardware and LOST. I am not aware of anyone challenging the EULA yet. Please show me if I am wrong with an actual case, not just someone saying that the EULA is illegal. Perhaps you would like to challenge Apple on there EULA in court, maybe Psystar can sponsor you as they are doing this to champion the cause of making OSX more accessible to end users. I am not having a go at anyone, nor hopefully have I offended anyone I am merely pointing to facts, that can show that Apple can legally restrict OSX to Apple Machines, and therefore the installation of OSX onto non-Apple Hardware is not legal. People do not have a legal right to install OSX onto non-Apple PC's merely that it is however almost impossible to show an individual that did the installation, unless you are stupid, and so you are not going to see Apple taking End Users to court over this. At best they could get the OSX installation removed, but not get a conviction in a court of law.
  12. Has anyone else here taken the time to read Apples 23 page motion to dismiss Psystars counter claim. It is actually an interesting read http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/images/app...iss_psystar.pdf Apples lawyers have sure done there homework on this one.
  13. When did this go from Psystar to end user. If Apple was after the end users then everyone registered on this forum would be hearing from Apples lawyers.
  14. If Psystar then I would have done things slightly differently. 1.) Sell the hardware machines without an OS pre-installed. 2.) Distribute in the same way as iAtkos and Kalway Distributions instructions and patches to get the OSX installed onto the machine. After all is this really any different to the existing threads on how to install onto specific boards or presold machines. On these forums you cannot post where to download these distributions from but it doesn't exactly slow anyone down does it. 3.) Sell a legal copy of OSX Leopard which Psystar have a legal ability to do already I understand. There are UK sellers that sell OSX Leopard CD's without machines so clearly this initself is not illegal. It is then upto the individual user to install the OSX software onto the Psystar machine, however you cannot sue Psystar for the end users behaviour. After all the OSX86 contributors aren't being sued by Apple as they aren't attempting to make money. If you want to go down this route then you would need to sue Gigabyte/Asus etc for making motherboards that run OSX as well. Apple is not a monopoly in that there is no competition/alternative. There is ample competition from other OS such as Windows and the umpteen Linux Distro's out there. Apple already have bespoke motherboards made for them, and whilst the chipsets and processors etc are standard it would not be much for Apple to implement an additional chip to ensure that they are no longer just standard components, and that there is specific apple hardware there. Also start stripping the extra hardware drivers out from the retail CD's so that only the Apple Hardware has drivers there. Whilst I am sure that the individuals here would be able to get round this it is more likely to get the community noticed by Apple. If you want to determine that a Apple have a monopoly on computers running OSX then you also have to say that Microsoft has a monopoly on systems running xBox360 software, Sony has a monopoly on systems running Playstation and Nintendo have a monopoly on systems running Wii software. This may be an inconvenient truth but it is unfortunately the same, whether we are interested in them or not. The same also goes for HP-UX, AIX from IBM, Mainframes and various other enterprise Big-Tin solutions that are all proprietary. On this definition then these are all monopolies, wether we want to actually make a HP-UX or AIX system or not. However it seems that it is seen that Playstation, Nintendo Wii and xBox are not monopolies as they compete with each other. Apple competes with Windows based systems so I would find it very difficult to believe that they will be able to successfully argue that Apple is a monopoly. Although this is the USA where you can sucessfully sue McDonalds for serving hot coffee as it isn't labelled that it is hot, so maybe I shouldn't.
  15. Apple TV EyeTV Plugin

    Why not get the Turbo Encoder as should speed that up for you!