vidgameking Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 @Mysticus C* Just because they are using "off-the-shelf" hardware, does not mean that customers have an unalienable right to do whatever they want. I've said my opinion before, but based on the previous courts rulings in similar cases, I'm thinking Apple may loose. And if Apple looses, they WILL close things down and prevent others like us from hacking it all together. It's their software, and it's their right. No one not even the courts can take that away. Sure we can all have 10.5.4 on our machines from now until hell freezes over, but we could loose all abilities to update, forever. As far as other hardware companies making compatible hardware and what not, I'm sure for a fee any company can pay to license the development tools to make hardware for a Mac. But your CPU and mobo will always be from Apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cebit Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 @Mysticus C* Just because they are using "off-the-shelf" hardware, does not mean that customers have an unalienable right to do whatever they want. I've said my opinion before, but based on the previous courts rulings in similar cases, I'm thinking Apple may loose. And if Apple looses, they WILL close things down and prevent others like us from hacking it all together. It's their software, and it's their right. No one not even the courts can take that away. Sure we can all have 10.5.4 on our machines from now until hell freezes over, but we could loose all abilities to update, forever. As far as other hardware companies making compatible hardware and what not, I'm sure for a fee any company can pay to license the development tools to make hardware for a Mac. But your CPU and mobo will always be from Apple. As long as talented people stay active in the scene, I believe there's no fear for that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Source (CNET) Pretty big news for OSx86 perhaps as an outcome of this we will be fully 'legal' and not in violation of Apple's restrictive EULA. Rudy Pedraza is right on the money when he claims that people are open towards using OS 10, but don't want to pay Apple's ridiculous price premiums on normal (and often out of date) hardware. Personally I'm going to have to side with Psystar on this one as I feel that Apple's current EULA for Mac OS 10 is absurd: You pay $125 for software, and then can only install it on certain machines? How do you guys think? I totally, absolutely agree with you. If Psystar wins, that could completely change the operating systems landscape. And it would be good also for Apple, in the long run. There has never been a better time to replace M$ {censored} with a better OS. And if Apple had a lot more people using their OS, they'd probably sell a lot more iPhones and iPods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulin Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 I totally, absolutely agree with you.If Psystar wins, that could completely change the operating systems landscape. And it would be good also for Apple, in the long run. There has never been a better time to replace M$ {censored} with a better OS. And if Apple had a lot more people using their OS, they'd probably sell a lot more iPhones and iPods. Don't think Bill Gates would like to see that. Gates and Jobs must have some sort of a deal going on anyway. But if court rules it ... what will Gates be able to do about it? Remains to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeavasile Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Oh boy! Lawsuits again on the frontpage... Samo, samo... Wish I had seen new ideas and discussions about the issue... My point of view on the matter is HERE and HERE The only new concept to chat about is the chance of turning OS-X "back" to proprietary hardware... which will presumably end the free great publicity for Apple on the InsanelyMac-like communities... which is so ...implausible... because it's so wedded to it... and because it works so well so far. Hackintosh convinced me to buy a real Mac, not Apple! Maybe Apple and all the Psy-companies will go all the way... and make some light around here... This time it's big time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokr Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Sorry to be so negative, but if this goes through apple could screw you all out of osx86. Macs have had built in hardware decoders to increase the performance and reliability of quicktime, itunes, garageband, recording software, etc. It also powers core video. (why I have not seen one hackintosh with core video working, aka the black hole in time machine being animated). It also makes it run windows better than computers designed for windows of the same specs. That Chip is proprietary. Also macs do not use bois. They use efi which is way different. (there are few pcs that have an efi capable motherboard. So apple at any time could make that decoder chip mandatory for startup. Thus screwing all OSx86. The way that they got macintosh to run on the pc your using is by emulating the efi. However it would be next to impossible to emulate that decoder chip without serious performance issues. Once again sorry for being so negative. Just reminding you your in dangerous waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InteliMac Pro Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Well can any one specifi what makes a apple computer an Apple? If i swap my drives ram cpu hell for that matter my case is it still an apple computer? Or if i build my hackintosh in to a G3 blue and white tower would it be an apple computer? I find this a rather intriguing point. I have an old PowerMac Cube that I have upgraded the ram, hard drive, video card, and processor in. The only thing that is still Apple is the motherboard. It is capable of installing Leopard with no modifications, but is essentially 75% (guestimation) not a "Mac." So if you are to take the guts of a mac mini and put them in a model of the Millenium Falcon (which has been done) or the chassis of a cube and put it into a slightly larger case for better airflow (also done), neither of which is Apple labeled, is it no longer a Mac and therefore in violation of the EULA? What about my Cube that is still in a Mac case but no longer filled with Mac components on the inside? Is it in violation of the EULA? Apple can support only what they want to support, but they can't tell anybody what they can install the software on. If you want to install the software on a generic PC build go ahead, just don't expect it to be supported or endorsed. If a company wants to sell a computer with OS X on it, they should be able to, but they should be expected to support what they sell. They also should not be expected to support a machine they sell if somebody takes it and changes the components. It's like with Vista. You buy a Vista compatible computer, change the video card, and it stops working correctly. MS says, "tough rocks buddy. wait 'till the vendor supplies the drivers for that card." That's what you do. OS X should be available for everybody and allow other vendors to supply drivers for other configurations that Apple doesn't support. Dell sells computers with Windows on them because they pay Microsoft for the OS. Psystar (or anybody else) should be allowed to sell computers with OS X on them IF they are legally purchasing the OS from Apple. If they were to buy old G4's and G5's with Tiger on them and then bought Leopard and installed it and included the disks with the machine, what's the difference? The only difference is Apple would still support them because it's Apple's unmodified hardware. Try getting Apple to support the Mini Falcon... Nobody's saying that Apple has to support it or develop for it, but they can't stop it either. In any case, it would be virtually impossible for Apple to take legal action against us for installing OS X on a generic PC for personal use. How could they find us all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badeavasile Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 it would be next to impossible to I like that part. Steve like it too, some time ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrhoudat Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 I think if you buy the software you should be able to put on any 1 pc no mater who makes it or you build it your self thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokr Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 I dont see what you think is so funny. it is actually correct grammar (english is stupid), that you can laugh at. im just trying to make sure this does not happen to our osx86 install . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolied Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Well can any one specifi what makes a apple computer an Apple? If i swap my drives ram cpu hell for that matter my case is it still an apple computer? Or if i build my hackintosh in to a G3 blue and white tower would it be an apple computer? Since the Apple Boot ROM code is part of the EFI chip's code, i'd say it's the motherboard. Everything else is just 3rd party hardware anyways, or a flashy case. Just like in the PC world, the ability of say an HP restore disc to successfully boot and restore is based on the HP BIOS on the motherboard. I could take a Mac Pro, mod it into a HP server chassis, and it would still be a Mac Pro in the eyes of OSX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alessandro17 Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Don't think Bill Gates would like to see that. Gates and Jobs must have some sort of a deal going on anyway. But if court rules it ... what will Gates be able to do about it? Remains to be seen. Exactly, that is the point. That would be a good excuse to license OS X to all and sundry (but more likely to Dell, HP...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolied Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 My opinion is that no matter how "expensive" macs are, Apple has a right to sell it's software (the Mac OS) however they want to. Everyone knows you agree to a EULA when you install software, they tell you right up front that if you don't agree to the EULA then you're not allowed to install it. Apple's EULA says you have to install on a real mac. Yup, only problem with that is, you need to OPEN the software before you can read the EULA. Once said software is opened, it is generally impossible to return it. I believe that argument MIGHT stand up in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dillon31292 Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Sorry to be so negative, but if this goes through apple could screw you all out of osx86. Macs have had built in hardware decoders to increase the performance and reliability of quicktime, itunes, garageband, recording software, etc. It also powers core video. (why I have not seen one hackintosh with core video working, aka the black hole in time machine being animated). It also makes it run windows better than computers designed for windows of the same specs. That Chip is proprietary. Also macs do not use bois. They use efi which is way different. (there are few pcs that have an efi capable motherboard. So apple at any time could make that decoder chip mandatory for startup. Thus screwing all OSx86. The way that they got macintosh to run on the pc your using is by emulating the efi. However it would be next to impossible to emulate that decoder chip without serious performance issues. Once again sorry for being so negative. Just reminding you your in dangerous waters. Sherlock wins the {censored}ting comp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rokr Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Sherlock wins the {censored}ting comp! wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thegodfaza Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 This is the same as suing Palm because they don't have the OS supported for non-palm devices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanLuc7 Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Sorry to be so negative, but if this goes through apple could screw you all out of osx86. ... So apple at any time could make that decoder chip mandatory for startup. Thus screwing all OSx86. The way that they got macintosh to run on the pc your using is by emulating the efi. However it would be next to impossible to emulate that decoder chip without serious performance issues. Once again sorry for being so negative. Just reminding you your in dangerous waters. I said it before: This "making Apple's incompatible to normal PC's" is not so easy as it looks like. As Apple has sold millions of Intel MacBook&Co with compatible hardware, they have to support them in the future - even with Snow Leopard. Of course they can use dongle chips - but this would only affect new hardware. Their usual politics was to support older hardware a minimum of 3 years (current example are older PPCs). So we don't have to think about an early end of OSX86. JL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InteliMac Pro Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 This is the same as suing Palm because they don't have the OS supported for non-palm devices. Who gives a {censored} about Apple supporting it. It's a matter of not blocking it's use on non-apple (labeled) hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John the Geek Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Who gives a {censored} about Apple supporting it. It's a matter of not blocking it's use on non-apple (labeled) hardware. Wow this room is getting crowded with everyone's sense of entitlement inflating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erwin15155 Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 waaaaa..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigPimpin Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 .... Macs have had built in hardware decoders to increase the performance and reliability of quicktime, itunes, garageband, recording software, etc. Well, that's incorrect. Apple uses off-the-shelf components in most, if not all, of their Macs. Up until now they haven't used a TPM. Very early Intel Macs had them, but they still weren't really using them. That could change, making it much harder to run OS-whatever on vanilla hardware but, as someone else pointed out, there are already a lot of Macs without them in circulation. Any such change is at least 5 years away and if Apple chooses to go down that road the transition will be a gradual one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InteliMac Pro Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 Wow this room is getting crowded with everyone's sense of entitlement inflating. It's not a sense of entitlement so much as it is an issue of fair use. Just as i want to be able to buy my music free of DRM to use on any music player that supports it, i want to be able to install the OS i paid for on any hardware that is capable of running it. I'm not asking Apple to support it or even like it. I'm just suggesting they get out of the way. If something in the dynamic changes in the future and we are no longer able to do it, then doom on us, but there's no reason for them to actively try and discourage the effort. I've built a hack, and i've owned a mac, and a true mac experience is on a mac machine. The hackintosh is a great way to introduce people to OS X and i'm sure a lot of people who have had a hackintosh will buy a real mac eventually. I'm not condoning downloading the distros without actually buying the OS. I know it's something we rationalize to ourselves and it's still illegal, but it wouldn't be if Apple would allow for it to be installed unmodified. You can't tell me that Apple's market share wouldn't grow by allowing OS X to be installed on non Apple systems when most people who would like to try a Mac don't simply because of price. It really has nothing to do with entitlement other than being able to do what i want with what i have purchased. I don't think that's unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeedfreaK Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 if apple looses this, it will be a total disaster for os x! they will have to make drivers for all hardware and they have to support it all. i'm totally against psystar! maybe apple will understand now it's overpriced, that's the only positive thing that can happen in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InteliMac Pro Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 if apple looses this, it will be a total disaster for os x! they will have to make drivers for all hardware and they have to support it all. i'm totally against psystar! maybe apple will understand now it's overpriced, that's the only positive thing that can happen in this case I disagree. I think it would open the door for 3rd parties to develop OS X drivers for their own hardware, like Nvidia and the 9600. Apple doesn't have to have drivers for any hardware other than what they use in their own machines. If other distributors (like, say, Dell) were to ship OS X on their hardware, they would be responsible for putting it on compatible hardware and supporting that hardware if it doesn't perform correctly. If you go to Microcenter and have them put in a larger hard drive in your Macbook, Apple won't support it, but Microcenter will. It should be up to the consumer whether or not they want to buy a Mac and have the advantages of Mac support or go with a different company and risk possibly less competent support, or go the extreme route and build your own machine and get support from the companies that built all the components you used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulin Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 if apple looses this, it will be a total disaster for os x! they will have to make drivers for all hardware and they have to support it all. i'm totally against psystar! maybe apple will understand now it's overpriced, that's the only positive thing that can happen in this case Does Microsoft write device drivers for non Microsoft hardware? They simply give you an API to Windows and you write your driver for the hardware you manufacture so that you can sell it. You write crappy driver, Apple is happy since they'll tell you "buy a Macintosh and it'll "just work"". Apple can't "lose" this. Whatever happens, Apple is already getting free publicity as it is at the moment. If a judge rules they have to support "other" x86 computers they'll receive 100% free advertisement for Macintoshes PLUS they'll increase the sales of their OS and their software. Don't forget Apple is a very large _software_ player as well: pro apps (Shake, FinalCut), iLife, iWork etc. they would all sell a lot more. People would get used to OSX at home and demand their companies let them work on it and since Apple would only offer support with Macintoshes companies would buy Macs. Win - win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts