Mac on PC for sale....wow..."open Computer"...

rook

rook

Veteran
Followers of the Hackintosh and OS/86 project will not be surprised but it is pretty cool that some one is selling them....for 400 bucks!!

Specs:
Base Configuration
2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 Processor
2GB of DDR2 667 memory
Integrated Intel GMA 950 Graphics
20x DVD+/-R SATA drive that is Lightscribe-capable
4 rear USB Ports

You can also upgrade these components.

From the site:

Why spend $1999 to get the least expensive Apple computer with a decent video card when you can pay less than a fourth of that for an equivalent sleek and small form-factor desktop with the same hardware. Sometimes reinventing the wheel is a good thing. The Open Computer can work for new Mac users and Mac geniuses, alike.

The Open Computer mops the floor with the average Intel Mac Mini as can be seen from the XBench results (but the Open Computer shows up as a Mac Pro in XBench and isn't too far off from the average Mac Pro in it's base base base configuration.

Take a peek:

http://www.psystar.com/index.php?&p...facturer_id=4&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=72
 
Thanks so much my friend was looking for this!
Anyway if you configure it more you can get a awesome computer for 600$
 
rook said:
Why spend $1999 to get the least expensive Apple computer with a decent video card when you can pay less than a fourth of that for an equivalent sleek and small form-factor desktop with the same hardware.
Click to expand...
Maybe so you can spend more time being productive and less time dicking around w/hacks, patches, and work-arounds just to get the machine to boot up properly.:laugh:


-A
 
Yeah every Hackintosh owner I know is 100% satisfied and they had to build their computers and use a hacked version.

From what I cant tell ... this is not an official endorsement of the Open Computer version ... is that the OS is licensed and not hacked, so that would be one advantage of getting it from them vs. building your own and using a hacked version.

All I can say is that I wish this was an option when I got my $1200 imac.
 
Jack Daniel Stanley said:
Yeah every Hackintosh owner I know is 100% satisfied and they had to build their computers and use a hacked version.

From what I cant tell ... this is not an official endorsement of the Open Computer version ... is that the OS is licensed and not hacked, so that would be one advantage of getting it from them vs. building your own and using a hacked version.

All I can say is that I wish this was an option when I got my $1200 imac.
Click to expand...

Apple does not License OSX.
 
David Jimerson said:
There are a number of Hackintoshers I know who would disagree with that assessment.
Click to expand...
So those Hackintoshers would agree that acquiring and maintaining a Hackintosh is as easy as acquiring and maintaining a real mac? I'm not saying it's a near impossible task. I'm just saying that it requires more effort. And if you are talking about a machine that works for a living that extra effort is productivity, time, and money out the window. I used to build my own computers (and would love to get back into it) so it's no like I'm technophobe luddite or anything. I was just giving a tongue-in-cheek answer to a rhetorical Q in the Open Mac's marketing spiel.

From Their FAQ
Can I run updates on my Open Computer?
The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It's best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.


I think there's an old saying that's applicable here, "Linux is only free if your time is worthless." :D


-A
 
Loki said:
Apple does not License OSX.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you mean since a "software license" is a contract between the consumer end user and the software publisher. So in that since they do license OSX. You're not supposed to copy it, resell it, etc. that's the end user agreement which is part of the license.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license

... were you thinking I meant they licensed these guys to do something with their software ? No, I said the OS itself is licensed ... maybe it's copy of a licensed version, but it is not altered or hacked and that's what I meant. Seems they figured out a way to fool the software into seeing whatever it looks for on an apple made machine, again, as far as I understand it.
 
From the OS X license agreement:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
Click to expand...

There's no way this "Open Computer" enterprise will survive the wrath of Apple legal. Nor should it.
 
Jared Meyer said:
There's no way this "Open Computer" enterprise will survive the wrath of Apple legal. Nor should it.
Click to expand...
Ah, but what is the definition of "apple labeled"? Some of the hackintoshers seem to think that sticking an Apple label on the outside satisfies the requirement, and while obviously not complying with the spirit of the agreement, perhaps it satisfies the letter of the agreement? We'll see, the courts will undoubtedly decide.

Okay, on the upgradeability issue: yes InsanelyMac says updating is a big problem. But the OpenMac guys say it isn't. How can this be? I'm not 110% sure, but it sounds to me like what the Apple OS does is check for a certain feature or capability in the system, to see whether it will install. Most PC boxes don't have that capability, and so the hackintosh guys have had to go in and edit or modify the OS in order to get it to install. But the OpenMac guys say that no, they're not modifying the OS in any way. Apparently they have emulated that hardware feature that Apple checks for. If so, it should be 100% upgradeable -- and they advertise it as such.

Any purchase like this is likely to be risky though, because Apple may very well find some way to punish any customer who dares to step outside the official channels.
 
Barry_Green said:
Okay, on the upgradeability issue: yes InsanelyMac says updating is a big problem. But the OpenMac guys say it isn't. How can this be? I'm not 110% sure, but it sounds to me like what the Apple OS does is check for a certain feature or capability in the system, to see whether it will install. Most PC boxes don't have that capability, and so the hackintosh guys have had to go in and edit or modify the OS in order to get it to install. But the OpenMac guys say that no, they're not modifying the OS in any way. Apparently they have emulated that hardware feature that Apple checks for. If so, it should be 100% upgradeable -- and they advertise it as such.
Click to expand...

I'd assume it's a cat and mouse game similar to people who "jail break" the iPhone. Someone creates third party code to "trick" the OS into doing something it's not supposed to do (in this case probably modifying the EFI so OS X will run on "unofficial" hardware) and updates could slightly change the way the Apple software operates thus "breaking" the 3rd party code and rendering the machine useless, or at least handicapped, until the 3rd party can release their own update to adjust to the changes caused by the Apple update.

For a hobby machine I'd probably do it just for the experience (just like I want to setup a Linux machine just for the experience), but for any other machine no thanks. To go back to the iPhone comparison for a second. My cell is my only phone (haven't had a land line for years) so if I had an iPhone I wouldn't want to jailbreak it and run a good risk of bricking my primary means of communication. Other people are obviously cool w/it, but that risk/reward just doesn't pan out for me.


-A
 
How likely is it that they will get sued out of existence, like Apple did to Franklin way back when Franklin came out with a Mac clone...?
 
Jared Meyer said:
More likely "guy," singular, according to new info about the operation.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...at_shadiness_of_would_be_mac_clone_maker.html

Shady indeed.
Click to expand...
Scandalous ... the Better Business Bureau has ...
NEVER HEARD OF THEM! :eek:

and ... (fainter readers should not really continue beyond this point, you've been warned)...
THEY USED A ... I can't even bring myself to say it ... A ... A ... A WEBSITE TEMPLATE!!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek:

OMG ... have the feds been notified about this!!!!

Now they could very well turn out to be major scammers, but all of the above could be said about the Letus Bros. when they started out as well as a lot of small vendors that we love here at DVXuser.

While I obviously don't think it's necessarily shady, not making fun of your post Jared, making fun of the Apple Insider for turning the fact that Psystar is a brand new small start up into something scandalous. When it's really just a blank slate. Not as reassuring as dealing with a 50 year old company, but it doesn't remotely suggest that someone is behind the scenes twirling their mustache either :)
 
Barry_Green said:
Ah, but what is the definition of "apple labeled"? Some of the hackintoshers seem to think that sticking an Apple label on the outside satisfies the requirement, and while obviously not complying with the spirit of the agreement, perhaps it satisfies the letter of the agreement? We'll see, the courts will undoubtedly decide.
Click to expand...

This is a tough one, but there has been legal action in the past. It just never stuck. And, I think Apple is taking a Microsoft approach. Windows is the most pirated software in the world. I think the US has the most actual purchases of the software in the world, everyone else pirates.

Okay, on the upgradeability issue: yes InsanelyMac says updating is a big problem. But the OpenMac guys say it isn't. How can this be? I'm not 110% sure, but it sounds to me like what the Apple OS does is check for a certain feature or capability in the system, to see whether it will install. Most PC boxes don't have that capability, and so the hackintosh guys have had to go in and edit or modify the OS in order to get it to install. But the OpenMac guys say that no, they're not modifying the OS in any way. Apparently they have emulated that hardware feature that Apple checks for. If so, it should be 100% upgradeable -- and they advertise it as such.
Click to expand...
Easy answer: leopard. Leopard is what's allowing this to happen. Tiger was still based on G5 and Intel technology, the two platforms co-exist in Tiger. Leopard is primarily Intel Based systems. That's why upgrading is no longer an issue. If you have a box built for Tiger (easy to death) then your Leopard box will more than likely work at 100 percent even with updates. So, OpenMac isn't lying. It's the truth. Leopard Kernels were not and are not modified. Howbeer, they may be "fluffing". It's as easy as finding an install disk, adjusting some Bios settings and installing the software.

Any purchase like this is likely to be risky though, because Apple may very well find some way to punish any customer who dares to step outside the official channels.
Click to expand...
This is likely. Apple makes most of it's money off of hardware which is the main reason why the OS has not been universal. That could change, but it's fair to say that you run a major risk in playing in Hackintosh land.

Whether that risk is worth it to an individual is another thing. Sure has been worth it for me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top