[SOLVED] Building a mac

[i2cub4]

Is it different to build a mac computer or is the os the only thing that is.
where could one search to find the hardware to build a mac

 

[LePhuronn]

just make sure that if you do this, you purchase your own copy of OS X to be above-board, even though you plan on violating the EULA, and remember that Apple is not responsible for supporting your computer since you will violate the EULA.

I thought the whole hooha was Apple are claiming violating the EULA is an illegal act and therefore punishable by law, even though you've bought a legit copy - you do not agree to the terms of the licence, therefore you are not a licenced user, therefore your usage if their software is illegal, etc. etc.

 

[Houndsteeth]

IANAL, but I have dealt with some software legalities before in the past. It is not criminally illegal, but rather that you, as the end user, have broken a contract (which, by the way, in many jurisdictions is not able to be upheld in a court of law) and that the terms of the contract are null and void. The difference is that any penalties, if brought to court, would be civil, not criminal, unless you are party to violating DMCA. It is also the responsibility of the aggrieved party to pursue justice, not the state, since this is a civil matter, not criminal. That is the way it works in the USA, at least.

Apple can sue you for damages for loss of business, or at the very least a cease and desist order, but if your intention is to make use of the software personally and you do not plan to resell or mass distribute the software, then the amount of business they have lost is fairly small and very few judges or juries would find merit in "throwing the book" at any given individual. Chasing after such small fries would be prohibitively expensive and result in very upset potential customers and a very busy legal department. In the end, Apple is better off spending that money making it more difficult to install OS X on non-Apple hardware than they are trying to pursue legal redress. Besides, if you buy a legal copy, you are at least in good stead for remunerating the company which wrote (most of) the software for their work.

As it is now, Apple is banking on the fact that anyone who pursues this endeavor will have a difficult time both in getting the software to run and in maintaining it, thus limiting this endeavor to a niche in a fringe community (PC enthusiasts who want to just about anything run on a toaster, etc.). If you do follow this route and build a computer for your own personal use (both for business or pleasure) then chances are extremely good that you will be well under the radar for Apple to pursue you for EULA violation, since that agreement is there mostly for large institutional violators who are looking at honing in on some of Apple's market without paying their due share (i.e., Psystar).

 

[LePhuronn]

Right I getcha. I did think it was something along those lines, but Apple's done a lot of sabre-rattling regarding "clone" manufacturers so I wasn't sure what was what any more.

Speaking of Psystar...

since that agreement is there mostly for large institutional violators who are looking at honing in on some of Apple's market without paying their due share (i.e., Psystar).

Psystar bought every single copy of OSX they installed on their systems, so it was always a stretch that they didn't "pay their share". Shame really because I could never see in any sensible and rational argument (i.e. every argument Apple DIDN'T make) Apple was losing money - I should imagine most if not all of Psystar's customers went this route because they couldn't afford/wouldn't pay Apple's prices, so Apple never had a sale with them anyway.

Ah well, such is life.

 

[Houndsteeth]

Psystar really didn't "pay their share," either to Apple who has invested a good deal of research and development on their operating system and software (largely subsidized by hardware sales), or to the open community who gave them the roadmap to making computers that could run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware without violating DMCA. What Psystar was looking to do was patently illegal and performed on a scale that could drastically impinge on Apple's ability to do business, to the point that Apple had to pursue them in court or risk losing their business model altogether.

 

[pleasenoname]

I vaguely remember 10+ years ago Apple opening the Market to independent 3rd party manufacturers to sell systems with the mac OS. I remember seeing a catalog with different models. Am I remembering correctly?
It was short lived and in a few years I never heard of it again. Perhaps Apple realized that it conflicted with their established marketing strategy, and brand recognition?

Edit: P.S.: I have a friend who only buys Macs(the first one he ever bought had a faulty hard drive).
He still has One of those cubes from the late 90's(estimated date) though.

 

[i2cub4]

Best answer selected by i2cub4.