Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Psystar's Rebel EFI Hackintosh Tool Reviewed, Found Wanting

Posted by timothy on from the weighed-in-the-balance dept.

CWmike writes "While the world focused on Microsoft's launch of Windows 7, Florida-based Psystar quietly launched Rebel EFI, a software product that should worry Apple a lot more than Microsoft's latest operating system. Rebel EFI allows users to run Apple's flagship operating system, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, on non-Apple hardware. Computerworld test drove the making of a Hackintosh out of a generic PC with the company's new software package and found a product that has a lot of homework still to do. Reviewer Frank Ohlhorst's final analysis: 'Psystar's Rebel EFI (a free trial is available) is an interesting tool, but it is very limited when it comes to the selection of hardware that you can use. The company really needs to create a compatible hardware list and post that on its Web site — and it also needs to create some usable documentation. As it stands right now, you can use Rebel EFI to build a Mac clone, but unless you stick to relatively generic hardware, you will be disappointed.'"

7 of 328 comments (clear)

  1. So in other words... by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As it stands right now, you can use Rebel EFI to build a Mac clone, but unless you stick to relatively generic hardware, you will be disappointed

    So in other words an OS made to run and tested only on 6 or 7 different major configurations of computers is going to need some tweaking before it can run on other, untested and unsupported hardware? This is hardly a suprise. Next thing is we're going to have a story saying that iPhone OS doesn't run so great on the G1...

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  2. Or, if we are about the open source, by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://chameleon.osx86.hu/
    The same, but FOSS. Some even suggest the same codebase, but I of course would never be cynical enough to suggest that or that running strings on both if someone had a spare moment might be interesting.

    --
    "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    1. Re:Or, if we are about the open source, by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is it with unethically derivative commercial tools for running OSX on PCs? Back in the PPC days, there was the whole CherryOS thing, that turned out to be a straight rip-off of pearPC. And now this.

    2. Re:Or, if we are about the open source, by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Informative

      As for unethical, it's not unethical in the least unless you're stealing the code directly

      Which is basically what CherryOS was doing. They took the PearPC code, slapped a CherryOS logo on it and distributed/sold it.

      It's hypocritical beyond belief whenever somebody says that it's unethical to use Apple software in a way that Apple doesn't approve. Makes me wonder what that makes anybody that runs software based heavily on designs lifted from elsewhere.

      I don't think you understand what he was saying. He wasn't saying that it was unethical to use this to run Mac OS X but rather it seems to be heavily borrowed from a F/OSS project much as how CherryOS basically took PearPC and changed it to make it look like a different product. That is unethical.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:Or, if we are about the open source, by lurker-11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If someone else tries to make profit off of Apples product without license from Apple, then Apple is absolutely within their rights to prevent it.

      It's perfectly legitimate to resell products at a profit without permission or "license" from the manufacturer. That's exactly what any retail store does to make money (in the case where they buy from a distributor and aren't the original manufacturer).

    4. Re:Or, if we are about the open source, by Bobartig · · Score: 5, Informative

      I just searched WestLaw for "EULA End User License Agreement", and came up with 100+ documents, most of them reading over and over "the EULA clearly restricted blah blah", "...were clearly enforceable under California law", "EULA... was a validly binding contract.", "EULA.. was enforceable", etc. etc. Way to post nonsense with absolutely NO research to back it up.

      So let me fix that for you.

      *HUNDREDS* of cases about violating EULAs have been brought to court in the US, and in many cases, they were found enforceable.

      Just a couple weeks ago I was in district court listening to a case regarding an EULA, and discussing various aspects of it. There was no discussion of whether it was enforceable. Clearly it was, but that there was dispute as to the scope of the contract itself.

      --
      This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
  3. Re:Athiests as a Majority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sir. You are not supposed to drink the bong water.