First Psystar Mac Clones Ship

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."

Comments

Operation Unsuccessful

[AmonEzhno]

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

[MBGMorden]

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

[PopeRatzo]

If you downloaded windows or Linux and could never update, would you consider it a successful install? You know, there was a time before we all updated our operating systems on a daily basis. And I recall being able to do some pretty successful things with my computer back then.

There are some of us (music and video producers, artists, etc.) who even occasionally work on computers that are not connected to the Internets.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful

[Jimithing DMB]

What "EFI layer"? Netkas's PC EFI is a marketing name that Netkas put on his branch of my branch of the Apple-supplied Darwin/x86 bootloader.

The only thing EFI about it is that he supplies some of the runtime services functions. I do this as well except in my version everything returns EFI_NOT_SUPPORTED. It is enough that the EFI system and runtime services tables exist and have halfway-valid information and that where a function pointer is expected that it point to some function. The implementation can be as simple as mov $EFI_NOT_SUPPORTED, %eax; ret.

Nothing bad happens when the runtime services functions do not exist. Even if the one for rebooting the system instead returns EFI_NOT_SUPPORTED the system will still reboot because Apple still has legacy code to do this without EFI runtime services.

The point of my booter is to allow Apple to focus on their own systems and to not maintain legacy code yet still continue to provide open source code that will work unmodified on non-Apple machines. The idea is that anyone can take the code they do release as Darwin and boot it unmodified on most PCs. As a side-effect anyone can also take the Apple-compiled binaries from OS X and do the same. That is, after all, the point of it.

Of course, what I provide does not enable you to run OS X. You still have to provide a decryption engine and decryption keys and I don't help with that. Nor does Netkas PC EFI since the decryption engine, as explained by Amit Singh, is in the "Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext"

None of this has anything to do with EFI. Once the kernel is going, EFI is gone except for two tables and a handful of runtime services functions.

Re:Operation Unsuccessful

[Jimithing DMB]

What you don't realize is that you don't have to modify kexts on disk to modify their behavior at runtime.

The way Apple has structured the IOKit you can do everything that needs to be done purely by adding kernel extensions. It is never actually necessary to remove or modify kernel extensions but the hackintosh scene hasn't figured this out yet.

I plan to update my website in due time with the specifics of how exactly you accomplish this. Aside from the issue of the kernel simply not being able to boot unmodified on a P4 I have an otherwise completely update-proof test box with hardware that is not supported out of the box by OS X. It's no different from any other OS really. Add drivers for hardware support. Add drivers that support hardware better than the OS-supplied drivers and keep the OS-supplied drivers from loading when they would cause problems.

For example, consider a typical Windows installation. Microsoft provides a driver for basic ATA support. Once you install a more appropriate driver, it matches the hardware and drives it in lieu of the MS-supplied driver. The biggest difference is that on Windows NT (and derivatives) the plug'n'play aspect is done once when installing the driver. The system records which driver needs to load for a given piece of hardware. In OS X the plug'n'play happens upon each boot. The kernel builds up the IOCatalogue with information about available drivers and then passively matches the hardware using that information. That usually reduces it down to 1 or 2 potentials, usually just one. Then active matching occurs where each driver has a chance to probe the hardware and actively test whether or not it is able to drive it.

All of this is fully documented by Apple. Once you read the effing manual you realize that the current hackintosh methods are insanely stupid.

As an aside, this is why Windows fails to boot on a different machine to that which it was installed on. The Windows bootloader will not load drivers except those declared in the configuration control set registry hive. An OS X installation, if actually done properly, is able to boot on anything. But so far no one has really done an OS X installation properly which is why we see all these stupid machine-specific installation options in hackintosh spins.

As for the ACPI tables, I'm theorizing on that now. I think the clear answer is to write an open ACPI platform expert as such an animal is needed for Darwin to really be considered an open platform. Doing a fully open ACPI PE kext means that various ACPI hacks employed in Linux can be ported to Darwin. Not having a fully open ACPI PE means that it's somewhat questionable as to whether Darwin can be used freely, depending mostly on whether you consider the Apple-supplied kexts to be parts of OS X or parts of Darwin.

Apple legal

[Glock27]

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

Loud!

[MightyYar]

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

Mac Mini

[MBCook]

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

[oahazmatt]

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.

Re:Software Update does not work.

[MBGMorden]

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).

You Don't Actually Need Software Update

[MichaelCrawford]

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, 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

[edalytical]

If there is ever an Apple version of Windows Genuine Advantage I'll quit using OS X, it will be erased from my drive and I'll never develop software for the Mac again.

My computer, once I purchase it, should always function as long as there is not a hardware issue. I shouldn't have to prove I'm not stealing from the company, I shouldn't need an internet connection to unlock software, I _should_ be able to replace hardware components of the computer and I _should_ be able to transfer the software to another computer.

End of story. I use a Mac because I think Apple understands that these are rights and they improve usability.

Re:Meh

[MBGMorden]

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:Sure, they shipped...

[somersault]

Surely it would have been easier just to buy one and find out, rather than to go to all that effort?

Re:So.. shall the bets begine

[Apple Acolyte]

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:Why no cease and desist from Apple?

[Animats]

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.

Thanx for the cheap, easy threadjack

[Corwn of Amber]

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.

Re:Meh

[pauljlucas]

... 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.

Re:Meh

[drsmithy]

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:Why no cese and desist from Apple?

[drsmithy]

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:Sure, they shipped...

[Lulfas]

But will it blend?

Re:Meh

[grm_wnr]

Thinking about this a little, it appears you should buy a secondhand PowerMac G5. I am almost serious about this.

Re:Unless the gizmod article or the posting is a h

[Malevolyn]

You sure about the sober thing? I find Apple's visual effects much more entertaining when I'm not sober.

Uh oh

[moosesocks]

I think I just heard the sound of an iChair being thrown against a wall....

Re:Mac vs PC vs MacClone commercials

[MistrBlank]

"Hi, I'm a Mac" "and I am a PC" "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR and I be a MacCLone!" (the Mac guy wearing a pirate outfit).

Re:Sure, they shipped...

[vertinox]

I've already saved myself the trouble of doing either by buying a Mac Mini and installing it inside a loud PC case with crazy glue.

Oh wait...

Re:What would I use expandability for?

[argent]

Most consumers simply don't need or want what you want.

First, I distinguished between "need" and "want". The desires you chose to ridicule were not in the "needs". You didn't ask what our "needs" were, you asked what we would do with expandability. If you asked "what do you need expandability for" you'd get a different answer.

So once you eliminate that straw man, what I need is an adequate GPU, an adequate hard drive, and no integrated display... and a consumer price. Maybe 40% over what Psystar is asking for their box? That would give Apple their usual markup.

The argument that "most consumers don't need" those features is a bit circular, since they're not available from Apple and haven't been available from Apple at a consumer price since Steve Jobs took over. On the other hand, they *are* available from Wintel box shippers, and most consumers are still buying Wintel boxes.

Don't assume you know all the reasons why they do that. I know I'm regularly surprised by people's answers to why they still use Windows after they express desire for my desktop.

And do consider that you'll never find out if you just ask Mac users, because that's a sample that's pre-selected to only include people for whom the current line of Macs is at least minimally acceptable.

Re:It is a fraud

[MBGMorden]

BUT, Apple is still being paid for their OS, which is the only item that many people are interested in. Their EULA says that you can only install it on their hardware, but it's a clause that is QUITE likely to be shot down in court.

As to "profiting off someone else's work", EVERYBODY does that to some extent. ISP's are "profiting" off of Google, Ebay, etc because people buy internet access because of those items. Gas stations are profiting off of car manufaturers because they supply fuel for something that someone else made. Paper companies profit from fax/copier manufacturers because they generate a need for their product.

The bottom line is that Apple sells an operating system. They have a legally questionable clause in there stating that when you buy it you can't install it except on computers that they deem appropriate (namely, ones they made themselves). If that clause is successfully shot down, things will likely return to a semblance of fairness: people who purchase software from a company can install it wherever and on whatever they want to.

I mean seriously: if Microsoft came out with EULA stipulations tomorrow that stated that regardless of how well it worked, you couldn't install MS Office (even a legally purchased copy) on a WINE-equipped Linux machine, Slashdot would shit a jagged brick coated in hot sauce. Apple does the same though and it's reasonable behavior.

First thing's first

[dr00g911]

These aren't clones. They're Hackintoshes done for you and then shipped out. The OS isn't legit, iLife isn't legit, and you're dumping entirely too much money on the hardware that they're shipping out as there's no software cost at all.

I've got to wonder why Software Update isn't working on them, even though they've admitted to using the EFI loader hack. In my experience, only OS updates (ie 10.5.1->10.5.2) are potentially dangerous anymore, and I managed to update from 10.5.1 to 10.5.2 without issue on an oldish Shuttle AMD barebones box here after patching EFI/Vanilla kernel.

It's almost trivial to get a vanilla kernel up & running on an Intel hackintosh now, only slightly more difficult on an AMD box -- there are even several quite good pre-packaged installers now with 10.5.2 that do everything for you if you don't like to get your hands dirty.

All that said, it's going to be funny when all of the people duped into buying these can't update to 10.5.4 or whatever and end up with a bricked box. At least if you do it yourself, you develop the skillset to boot into single user mode, disable kexts, remove caches etc.

Maintaining a functioning, stable, up-to-date Hackintosh (with Quartz Extreme running properly etc) is a lot like keeping a '60s Volkswagen running. Not particularly difficult, but you build up the skills over time and it takes quite a bit of patience. I think there are going to be a lot of pissed off people once they realize what they've bought into.

Re:What's the point?

[lawn.ninja]

I still find it amusing that so many people think that if you put OSX on a OC you'll get the same experience as you do on Mac hardware... You folks know that if Mac ran on anything it would be just a buggy and fucked up as windows right? The only reason it runs smoothly now is because Apple controls the hardware. The day you can run it on any machine in the world will be the day that Mac zealots finally shut the fuck up about how superior their shit ass OS is. The world will one day learn that Linux is the true way through. Until then clever marketing will sell hunks of shit, and create a cult around them. iFag.

What is Psystar really selling?

[rudy_wayne]

All $399 gets you (or $999 for the "Pro" version) is a box full of generic PC components that are known to be more or less compatible with OSX. No monitor, no keyboard or mouse and *NO OPERATING SYSTEM*. An installed copy of OSX will cost you an extra $150. Since a genuine Apple Mac is really just a PC running OSX, it would make no sense for someone to buy a "Mac Clone" without OSX so I'm figuring that almost all the units Psystar sells will probably have OSX on them.

Does Psystar's installation of OSX violate Apple's EULA? Is Apple's EULA even legal? I have no idea, but Psystar is not the company who is going to spend millions slugging it out in court trying to get Apple's EULA declared invalid. This is a Fly-By-Night operation and Psystar's behaviour so far -- from the constantly changing addresses to the questionable background of its owners to the fact that they have built their entire business model on selling freely available OSX hacks -- tells me exactly what is going to happen next:

When Apple Apple sues -- and make no mistake, they will sue -- Psystar will fold and disappear. That's been the Psystar game plan all along. Take as many orders and collect as much money as possible before they get shut down. And if you happen to be one of the people waiting for delivery when Apple's lawyers attack, well, it sucks to be you.

Re:Sure, they shipped...

[lucas teh geek]

no matter how you configure it it still has a quad core xeon processor and buffered ECC memory which is overkill for most, and hideously overpriced compared to the consumer grade equivalents.

lets just say that the cheapest configured mac pro with edu discount is $2k (it's more, but lets stick with round numbers), and lets say that the psystar clone is $500 (it's less, but again round numbers). I can handle paying an apple premium, sometimes as much as 30-40% extra for the exact same components because it's from apple, but 300% extra is pushing it a little far. what's that I hear? the specs arent comparable? that's exactly my point. dont want or need a mac pro, it's complete overkill when I just want a graphics card and an extra internal drive. I'd be completely happy with an expandable mini