Jump to content

laptopleon

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About laptopleon

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Protégé

Recent Profile Visitors

282 profile views
  1. I must have forgotton to check the option "Clover for UEFI booting only" in Clover. Now it worked
  2. Hi, I'm trying to create an install USB stick for my first hackintosh. Following a YouTube video how-to, in the final step, (using Clover_v2.4k_r4813.pkg) I get the warning: This package is incompatible with this version of macOS and may fail to install. Google-ing about, I found a comment suggesting to compile it myself (Build the package yourself from scratch. Look on insanelymac for the clover build command script. ) . I never compiled something before. Is this topic about it?
  3. Update: Apparently, the driver wil only update after system update. After system update the system won't boot.. Therefore, I can't even log in remotely. (Worked around it by temporarily using an old GT 8800) Is there a more elegant way to do this, like still being able to log in remotely?
  4. Hi, Thanks for maintaining this thread. I noticed my web driver panel (OS X 10.11.6 El Capitan) still doesn't show the Nvidia Web Driver - 346.03.15f16 update.. even if I click Check Now. Is this just my Mac Pro that is acting weird? Shouldn't it just automatically update like always? (using a GT730 in a Mac Pro 3,1)
  5. Weird. I had the same thing. Had to install it manually. Had to use an old card as an in-between.
  6. laptopleon

    I got banned on tonyMacx86, what do I do?

    Many people seem to think you can put anything in an agreement and that then agreeing to it makes it final and legally binding. Psystar sold non-Apple computers with Mac OS X installed on it in the US. Apparently, Apple can put this in an agreement and legally force users to only use it only on their Macs. However, I'm sure you'll agree US law does not apply in Europe or Australia for that matter. Something is not illegal, just because a company says so it in its user or other agreements. For example: Apple used to have an sales agreement that stated that buyers had the right to a 1 year guarantee on hardware. They kept it like that in the Netherlands, even when the Dutch law said, that guarantees on such hardware should be 'as expected for such goods', meaning at least a few years. Apple didn't like this, and kept denying guarantees to customers after 1 year. For example: In 2001, I bought the € / $ 4.500 1st generation Titanium Powerbook that broke after 14 months and Apple refused to repair it. I had to pay the € / $ 1450 repair myself, even though the whole series of this model had the same problem (I learned much later). I could have gone to court about it and would have a good case but it would have taken years and would've been very expensive. Apple knew this and took advantage of it. Then, years later, the European Union (which the Netherlands is a member of) agreed upon a EU-wide consumer law that stated that computer (etc) hardware should have at least a two year guarantee. You'd think that Apple would change the agreement to '2 years'. Instead they changed it to '1 year, unless local law states otherwise'. This is quite ironic since this was put in the EULA, more specifically in the Dutch version of the EULA that was only used in the Netherlands. Still, they wrote it down in such a way, hoping to make people think it was shorter and less buyers would claim guarantees. EU and even member states, like the Netherlands' laws can a points be very different from others. It is uncertain to say the least if this particular claim of Apple (not permitting OS X installation on non-Apple hardware) will stand in a Dutch (or other) court of law. I think Apple is very aware of this, since they never 'bothered' to test this AFAIK, although they are extremely fanatic against any of such practices in the US. From a legal point of view, it would make much more sense to just sell a license to use it, like is common for software. I would not be surprised if the Dutch court would rule there is not enough ground for Apple to limit the usage of OS X in such a way. Frankly I don't understand why this isn't the case in the US either, since they are always such strong believers in freedom and against a strong government and its laws.
×