Exclusive Report: EFI-X Mac Booter, A Scam?

[blppt]

[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]By no measure is a machine with a Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Intel P45 chipset comparable to a Mac Pro with a (Nehalem based) Xeon X5550 and P58 chipset. Nor does the clone you linked include ANY OS or other software, while the Mac includes Mac OS X, iLife, and a variety of other software. "

The processor speed difference Yorkfield vs Nehalem is made up for by the much better video card (a GT120 is pretty weak, about the same speed as a 9500GT), more than twice the RAM, almost twice the hard drive space, etc. Overall, I would say then that the systems pretty much end up on equal ground, processor speed inferior, but superior video card among other things. As for the OS, add $170 for SL standalone with ilife, etc.

Despite the already considerable price advantage, this EFI-X machine is STILL considered to be overpriced for that hardware, likely due to the EFI-X dongle included being so ridiculously overpriced.

So, buy an Nehalem-equipped equivelent Psystar machine for considerably cheaper WITH 10.6/Ilife, etc:

Open(7) with Mac OS X
Operating System
Mac OS X Snow Leopard v10.6 + iLife + iWork
Processor
2.66GHz Quad-Core Xeon Nehalem
Memory
6GB DDR3 1333
Hard Drive
1TB 7,200RPM SATA2 w/32MB CACHE
Optical Drive
20x DVD±RW DL
Graphics Card
GeForce 9500GT 512MB
Firewire
1 Port Firewire 400 (Onboard)
Warranty
Three Year Parts and Support**
$1,569.98 $1,569.98

Better stuff for approximately $900 cheaper.

OR, buy your own components and build it yourself.

I have never said that you can't get a PC for less, only that a comparable PC isn't significantly less.

Even the marked up psystar machine with OSX above costs significantly less. And is superior in certain hardware areas. Nevermind a regular PC without paying extra to have a hackintosh installation done for you.

With an Apple, you are going to pay more in most cases, that pays for their industrial design, the included software, their support, integration, seamless setup, and Apple's markup.

Support, I will agree with. Industrial design? What, their pretty cases? Surely you arent suggesting that there is some sort of 'extra special' Apple motherboard inside? Granted, I like the design of my G5 Quad's case, but I doubt its any better at cooling quietly than a good Antec 900 case.

Also, after you have set up your hackintosh, it works as flawlessly as any real mac in my experience. No kernel panics yet....but yes, you do need to do it right. I'd assume the people at psystar would be at least as competent as myself at doing so.

But you'll pay about the same price for comparable equipment from Dell, HP/CPQ, or any other major PC vendor, and you still won't get Mac OS.

No you wont. Even with psystar's OSX install markup, you still pay $900 less for equivalent hardware.

As for Dell, you can get various systems with Core i7-920 or 940 (the 2.66 W3520 Xeon Nehalem is somewhere in between these in performance) processors for considerably less, along with twice as much RAM (they dont let you even choose lower than 6GB on the i7 chipset systems), larger HDs, etc. I'd assume HP and Gateway offer similarly priced setups....to say nothing of the vast amounts of weekly Dell coupons all over the web to make it even cheaper.

With these vendors, you dont have to go with a workstation to get a nehalem-based quad core system, unlike Apple: Its slow mini, dual-core limited imac, or super-expensive workstation....theres NOTHING in-between.

For those of us that just want an OSX quad core, and dont have $2500 laying around, we're pretty much forced to go the hackintosh route, or go ebaying for an older Mac Pro, which STILL go for insane prices.

No one is forcing you to buy one, so stop complaining.

And nobody is forcing you to use a hackintosh. But my original point still stands: Regardless of Nehalem, you CANT buy ANY quad core mac new from Apple for under $2400-2500. You CAN get an OSX-running quad core system from other sources for considerably less.

 

[Guest]

Tuan Nguyen connection with ASEM will be exposed as well.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]blppt[/nom]The processor speed difference Yorkfield vs Nehalem is made up for by the much better video card (a GT120 is pretty weak, about the same speed as a 9500GT), more than twice the RAM, almost twice the hard drive space, etc. Overall, I would say then that the systems pretty much end up on equal ground, processor speed inferior, but superior video card among other things.[/citation]It's NOT comparable. If you want to play the "it's similarly fast" game, fine, I can play that game. In which case, all you really need is a fast Core 2 Duo, because unless you're running one of a very few apps that can actually take advantage of 4 cores, you'll get comparable performance out of an entry level iMac and only slightly lower performance out of a Mac Mini. Unless, of course, you're trying to use it for gaming, and you don't by a Mac for gaming.

As for the OS, add $170 for SL standalone with ilife, etc.

Bogus comparison, the reason it's only $170 is because it's priced as if it's an UPGRADE for the OS and iLife apps you already paid for when you (supposedly) purchased an "Apple Labeled" computer in the first place. That's why the EULA ties it to Apple hardware. It's the same as OEM versions of MS software being tied to the machine with which it is purchased. If you want a version (of MS software) you can legally install on any computer, you have to by the full retail version. Apple doesn't offer a full retail version of Mac OS X or iLife. Apple doesn't need to list it as an "upgrade" because the EULA terms guarantee that it's an upgrade for a Mac that already came with older versions of that software.

So, buy an Nehalem-equipped equivalent Psystar machine for considerably cheaper ... Warranty - Three Year Parts and Support**
Better stuff ....

Better stuff? Not. Good luck taking advantage of that 3 year warranty and support, Psystar will be bankrupt in less than a year.

Industrial design? What, their pretty cases? ... Granted, I like the design of my G5 Quad's case...

Exactly, those "pretty", quiet, and easy to service cases don't just fall from the sky, it costs money to design and build them.

With these vendors, you dont have to go with a workstation to get a nehalem-based quad core system, unlike Apple: Its slow mini, dual-core limited imac, or super-expensive workstation....there's NOTHING in-between.

Agreed, Apple needs more options. Frankly, there's no reason I can think of to use a Xeon X5500 over an i7-9x0 CPU on the single CPU Mac Pro. I would also like to see quad core options for the iMac and MacBook Pro, not that most people can benefit from them, but for those who can, I would like the option. Given the price difference between the i7-920 and the X5500, Apple should be able to offer a Mac Pro with i7-920 for $1599 or less and still make similar profit. I consider the choice to use only the Xeon in the Mac Pro to be foolish on Apple's part. It's also disgusting that the stock RAM is only 3GB, should be at least 6GB for that price. It would also be nice if there were another option between the Mini and iMac, something with 2-3 PCIe slots, built from desktop (not laptop) components, available with Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad, without a built-in monitor. If Apple hires me and takes my advice on configurations, most of the issues that Psystar/hackintosh attempt to address cease to be big issues, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

For those of us that just want an OSX quad core, and dont have $2500 laying around, we're pretty much forced to go the hackintosh route, or go ebaying for an older Mac Pro, which STILL go for insane prices.And nobody is forcing you to use a hackintosh. But my original point still stands: Regardless of Nehalem, you CANT buy ANY quad core mac new from Apple for under $2400-2500. You CAN get an OSX-running quad core system from other sources for considerably less.

But the fact that Apple doesn't offer a system configured the way you (or I) want doesn't give us the right to break the law by using Apple's software in violation of the contract terms. See the link I gave earlier on the Davidson Associates, Inc. (Blizzard Entertainment) vs. Internet Gateway case for details. I know it's a lot of reading, but every point in that ruling has a direct correlation to Apple's EULA and hackintosh. "I can't afford it" is not a valid defense for theft (other than food).

The difficulty with Intellectual Property (e.g. software) is that all the design/development/support costs are in "intangibles", and the production (copying) costs are low, so people mistake it for being "cheap". You can't use most "hard goods" analogies, for instance:
Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Tesla build cars I want, but I can't afford. I could get a similarly powerful Corvette for a lot less, but it won't look, feel, or handle quite the same. I can buy a number of "fast enough" sporty cars for about half the price of the 'vette, with a few more compromises, but none of them are from Ferrari, Lamborghini, or Tesla. But there is NO WAY to make a Ferrari work alike from a Toyota Celica, which would be the rough equivalent of making a hackintosh using Apple's software, and that's why hard goods analogies breakdown in dealing with IP and it's at the core of why people think it's acceptable to violate the EULA.

 

[opensky]

As you may have read above, one of the people who first stepped to the plate to speak out against ASEM's misgivings and dissected his EFI-X dongle in the name of the greater good is being strong-armed by ASEM and their lawyers. AsereBLN, aka Jurgen Selent, is but one man, and does not have the resources to go up against ASEM. He is being forced to remove his blog and all of his findings that suggest that the EFI-X is not everything that it claimed. But we have already seen the evidence for ourselves, and know that something is fishy. Needless to say, this has racked up some legal bills for Jurgen. Please show your support by donating a few dollars or euros to him to cover these expenses by going to http://supportaserebln.wordpress.com/ The link on that page will take you to a secure PayPal website, and the money will be deposited directly into Jurgen's account. If you have used the information posted by AsereBLN to make the move from EFI-X to Chameleon and have sold your EFI-X device, please consider donating some of that money to the man who helped make it possible for you. Thanks for your support.

 

[blppt]

[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]In which case, all you really need is a fast Core 2 Duo, because unless you're running one of a very few apps that can actually take advantage of 4 cores, you'll get comparable performance out of an entry level iMac and only slightly lower performance out of a Mac Mini. [/citation]

Mac mini? Are you nuts? ;-) 5400rpm hard drive? integrated 9400M? 4GB limit for RAM???? 🙂

Granted, few apps would saturate 4 cores BY THEMSELVES, but just about everybody out there always overlooks multitasking. Even with a slower c2q vs c2d you CAN tell the difference. Now, gaming, you will not see much if any difference with a slower quad over a fast duo, but thats somewhat irrelevant to macs anyways at the present time.

BTW, Photoshop 5 mac will take advantage of that 'useless' fast video card...CS4 already does to some extent, even on my ancient 6600 in the G5 quad...and I can tell you from experience that Aqua does indeed run smoother on significantly faster video cards. Even noticably using 'hacked' drivers on my Hackintosh. SL will bolster development of GPU assisted acceleration for apps with OpenCL as well.

[citation]Bogus comparison, the reason it's only $170 is because it's priced as if it's an UPGRADE for the OS and iLife apps you already paid for when you (supposedly) purchased an "Apple Labeled" computer in the first place. [/citation]

Uh, no, the 'upgrade' price is $29....the $170 is much like the install of Leopard that psystar was doing before, legal or no...Apple wants you to install it on their own hardware regardless of which you buy...granted it IS their software and such, but they just dont offer a reasonably priced quad core system to use it on. Or really, any sort of expandable tower under $2500... Psystar and the osx86 community offer a way to do so.

Like that guy before said, its a question of legality of apple's EULA. Not really arguing anything on that front until there is a definite conclusion in the courts....assuming you actually buy SL/Leopard and not *just* download a free iatkos/kalyway/etc distro.

[citation]Better stuff? Not. Good luck taking advantage of that 3 year warranty and support, Psystar will be bankrupt in less than a year.[/citation]

Other than support, what exactly doesnt match up there? You get better hardware in a couple of areas, nevermind equivalent.

[citation]Exactly, those "pretty", quiet, and easy to service cases don't just fall from the sky, it costs money to design and build them.[/citation]

But....if it serves no useful purpose other than looking nice..what is the point, really? Like I said, an Antec 900, while not looking "pretty" is very quiet and probably cools just as well. I also dont see $900 worth of innovation even in my WATER-COOLED G5 Quad block, and thats not even part of a Mac Pro.

[citation]But there is NO WAY to make a Ferrari work alike from a Toyota Celica, which would be the rough equivalent of making a hackintosh using Apple's software, and that's why hard goods analogies breakdown in dealing with IP and it's at the core of why people think it's acceptable to violate the EULA.[/citation]

If the Celica started out with all of the same underpinnings as a Ferrari, and just needed a Ferrari engine transplant (while still, of course, completely resembling a Celica) you can pretty much guarantee that other than the prestige, it would likely perform almost as well as a Ferrari. Would Ferrari complain about using one of their engines in a Celica? Probably. Like many have said, if/when Apple's EULA is enforced and Psystar goes OOB, then maybe we will have some sort of answer, but as of now, nothing concrete in this area (assuming you do the proper thing and buy SL along with using the hackintosh distros).

 

[Humans think]

Very nice article by Tuan Nguyen. Thank you.

I also own an Efi-x v1 module and I am pretty satisfied by the product, although it seems I paid a lot of money for my laziness. Not offering SL update is sth that is plain unacceptable for paying efi-x customers. When you have bought a 10$ usb dongle for so much money for an easy carefree solution at least you expect support... and you expect a donation from ASEM to the open-source community that made their financial success possible.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]blppt[/nom]Mac mini? Are you nuts? ;-) 5400rpm hard drive? integrated 9400M? 4GB limit for RAM???? 🙂 Granted, few apps would saturate 4 cores BY THEMSELVES, but just about everybody out there always overlooks multitasking. Even with a slower c2q vs c2d you CAN tell the difference. Now, gaming, you will not see much if any difference with a slower quad over a fast duo, but thats somewhat irrelevant to macs anyways at the present time.[/citation]Let's see, 4GB RAM, 2GHz Core 2 Duo, 5400 RPM laptop drive, multi-tasking. Yep, sounds like the MBP I'm using right now. Works great. I rarely saturate both CPU cores, even when I'm running Windows under VMware Fusion and running the hog known as MS Office 2004 (PPC only, so it's running under Rosetta emulation).

[citation]BTW, Photoshop 5 mac will take advantage of that 'useless' fast video card...CS4 already does to some extent, even on my ancient 6600 in the G5 quad...and I can tell you from experience that Aqua does indeed run smoother on significantly faster video cards. Even noticably using 'hacked' drivers on my Hackintosh. SL will bolster development of GPU assisted acceleration for apps with OpenCL as well.[/citation]In a year when SL is widely deployed and a significant number of apps have been updated to use Grand Central Dispatch, we can revisit this discussion, but right now, some video encoding apps, a few scientific or distributed computing apps, and (to a lesser degree) Photoshop are the only things that actually benefit from more than 2 cores or GPU acceleration. If you're doing heavy video work or scientific computing, spend the money to get sufficient hardware. If you're not, then it's not relevant. Even with multi-tasking, 2 most users will rarely saturate 2 cores.

[citation]Uh, no, the 'upgrade' price is $29....the $170 is much like the install of Leopard that psystar was doing before, legal or no[/citation]No, Snow Leopard is ridiculously low priced because it doesn't offer many USER VISIBLE enhancements. Apple's normal $129 for the OS only (no iLife/iWork upgrades) IS the UPGRADE PRICE. The EULA restriction requiring an "Apple labeled" computer GUARANTEES that the user is already license for a previous version of the OS and iLife apps, therefore, it's an upgrade. Hackintosh users are NOT licensed for a prior version.

Like that guy before said, its a question of legality of apple's EULA. Not really arguing anything on that front until there is a definite conclusion in the courts.

Read the ruling in the case I cited. In that case, the courts already ruled on every point Psystar has raised, and Psystar will lose. Apple's EULA will be upheld.

[citation]If the Celica started out with all of the same underpinnings as a Ferrari, and just needed a Ferrari engine transplant (while still, of course, completely resembling a Celica) you can pretty much guarantee that other than the prestige, it would likely perform almost as well as a Ferrari.[/citation]And therein lies the whole issue and the reason hard goods analogies don't work well. Which part of a car corresponds to the software? The Engine? That's more like the CPU isn't it. The Transmission? That's more like the chipset. The Suspension? Again, more like the chipset. There is nothing that is the equivalent of the software (other than the software that's built in to the engine and transmission control systems and that's very specialized and has no user interface, so it's not comparable)

Ignoring those flaws for a moment. To make the above example as similar as practical, not only would you need the engine, you would need the suspension, transmission, etc. You would pay Ferrari a lot for those components, so Ferrari probably would NOT complain. Completely different business model, so everything you "know" from a lifetime of experience with hard goods does NOT apply.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]blppt[/nom]Like many have said, if/when Apple's EULA is enforced and Psystar goes OOB, then maybe we will have some sort of answer, but as of now, nothing concrete in this area (assuming you do the proper thing and buy SL along with using the hackintosh distros).[/citation]The courts have already ruled, go read the case I cited. You can try to dance around it all you want, but there are multiple precedents for each and every point that Psystar and hackintosh users have raised, and the courts have ruled in a way that supports Apple's EULA. That particular case is useful because it alone addresses every one of the points and ruled in favor of Blizzard's EULA and against the defendants on every single point. In each claim, the judge cites relevant prior cases and laws supporting the ruling. If Apple's lawyers aren't citing it as a blueprint of why Psystar should lose, they should be.

Beyond that, every computer user should hope that Apple's EULA is ruled to be valid and enforceable. Think about the implications if it's not valid to use a EULA to tie software to specific hardware.

1. Since OEM licenses won't be able to tie software to a machine, OEM editions will disappear or OEM prices will increase to the wholesale price of the full "retail" version. Net increase in the cost of every computer (PC or otherwise) you purchase after that.

2. Only chip manufacturers will have any incentive to develop better firmware or drivers. Companies who make computers or devices using those components won't want to spend the effort because anyone can simply make a work-alike device and use the original developers software updates. Alternatively, everything will come as "updates" that require that you have a previous version installed and/or enter a registration code from the original version to install it. If you're "lucky", you can get an upgrade price by paying for the full retail version and get a mail-in rebate by sending in proof of purchase of a qualifying earlier version.

3. Or, worse yet, you won't be able to buy upgrades at all. Want a new OS, buy a new computer that includes that OS. No upgrades of existing systems since they can't enforce EULA restrictions on who can install the new version.

Basically, you'll see some combination of higher prices, inconvenient or non-existent upgrades, and/or stifled innovation in software. No matter how much you want a hackintosh or how much you dislike Apple's pricing, if Apple loses, every computer user in the world loses and you will NOT like the resulting fallout. Dislike Apple all you want, but you should be rooting for them to win this one, and they will win.

 

[blppt]

[citation][nom]geoffs[/nom]Let's see, 4GB RAM, 2GHz Core 2 Duo, 5400 RPM laptop drive, multi-tasking. Yep, sounds like the MBP I'm using right now. Works great. [/citation]

Please dont try and compare notebooks to desktops...what is considered "great" for a portable computer on the go does not equal great for a workstation. I multitasked just fine on a Celery 520 notebook (single core), but I wouldnt dream of attempting to do multiple fairly decent cpu-usage apps at the same time on it without getting frustrated.

The courts have already ruled, go read the case I cited. You can try to dance around it all you want, but there are multiple precedents for each and every point that Psystar and hackintosh users have raised, and the courts have ruled in a way that supports Apple's EULA. That particular case is useful because it alone addresses every one of the points and ruled in favor of Blizzard's EULA and against the defendants on every single point. In each claim, the judge cites relevant prior cases and laws supporting the ruling. If Apple's lawyers aren't citing it as a blueprint of why Psystar should lose, they should be.

If the courts had ruled definitively in Apple vs Psystar, Psystar would no longer be in business. As of right now, they are in business. You dont think Stevie would have his goons burying Psystar under 6 feet of dirt if he could right now? He's gone after people for a lot less than what Psystar is doing. The best Apple has done so far is to break hacked kernels via Software Update, and those breaks generally dont last long before a patch is released by the community and/or psystar. Nevermind people who are able to get away with vanilla Leopard kernels, which Apple has had trouble breaking.

The fact that Psystar remains in business today alone should tell you that despite the legal precedences you cite, Apple has been unable to squash Psystar like a bug legally. Not saying it wont happen; matter of fact I'd be shocked if they dont run Psystar out of business at some point. At the very least, Apple has far more lawyers and money to throw at this than Psystar does.

But thats not the point anyways. The point is, you can get a $1600
Psystar machine with the same and better hardware than a $2500 Mac Pro.
Tell me, where exactly is the $900+ worth of innovation going? It *has* to be either markup or Apple recouping some extra OSX development cost, or both. If the second part is true, then yes, I would agree that the Hackintosh user paying $170 for a new copy of Snow Leopard is not actually paying full, accepted price for the OS.

Hell, the price difference is probably even greater than that since we all know that Apple gets a sweet deal on chips from Intel, probably ATI and Nvidia too, which I very much doubt they offer to the tiny, irrelevant Psystar.

And, you can get a quad core non-nehalem/Xeon running OSX with solid hardware for under $1000, which is LESS than a new c2d imac, nevermind the Pro.

And therein lies the whole issue and the reason hard goods analogies don't work well. Which part of a car corresponds to the software?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you were the one who brought up that analogy, not I.

And in this case, you would have to assume that there are other vendor(s) of the transmission, engine, or whatever you want to equate to Mac vs PC, that can offer nearly the exact same thing, and even at times, make something better and more capable than say, a 360 Modena engine. That fits into the exact same chassis.

Say for some reason Ferrari started putting ZR1 engines + chassis + transmissions + everything into a new Ferrari model with distinctive Ferrari styling. Then they put in an OBD module that forbade their otherwise same GM motor from running in any Corvette.

Once again, lets say that the new corvette had the exact same chassis + transmission + whatever as a new ferrari, the only difference being the body style, and that the otherwise same motor in the ZR1 made oh, say, 50hp less than the one in ferraris (SL vs vista). Otherwise IDENTICAL.

Ferrari then goes out and sells their car for $250,000, but you can buy a ZR1 chassis for say $80,000 sans engine, or a FULL ZR-1 for whatever they go for, $110K? You then go out and buy that Ferrari engine for say, $30,000, bypass the OBD lockout, and other than the body style, you now have a car that should perform identically to that $250,000 Ferrari (aerodynamic differences notwithstanding).

I'm not sure, but you seem to not be grasping the fact that other than the EFI chip on the motherboard, OSX should run as well as any PC as it does on any Apple machine, given that you buy/assemble the hackintosh with verified compatible parts like a sound card or graphics card.

Gone are the days when Apple used different cpus and chipsets (e.g. PPC) than mass market PCs. Its just a regular core 2 series or nehalem series cpu that you can buy at newegg, on a motherboard with various Intel PC chipsets. They used to be able to say "well, you will pay that extra $900 because the G5 is superior to that Pentium 3 from Dell".

The only thing that even makes them remotely special nowadays is their OS software. Everything else inside that case can be put into a PC, except for the EFI chip, which serves little purpose in everyday use in its current form other than to lock out people from popping a Leopard DVD into their Dell PC.

This is why I look at the $2500 Mac Pro and wonder where that money went. And even so, I would rather buy a genuine Apple Quad for slightly more money given that Psystar could be crushed into oblivion by Jobs and not be able to support their system anymore---although the osx86 community will still be around to help if you bricked it with a Software Update.

But Apple simply doesnt offer a consumer-grade quad core. Nevermind that unless that $900 contains hidden OSX development costs, the "entry-level" quad they do have is wayyy overpriced.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]blppt[/nom]If the courts had ruled definitively in Apple vs Psystar, Psystar would no longer be in business. As of right now, they are in business. You dont think Stevie would have his goons burying Psystar under 6 feet of dirt if he could right now?... The fact that Psystar remains in business today alone should tell you that despite the legal precedences you cite, Apple has been unable to squash Psystar like a bug legally.[/citation]That's exactly what Apple is in the process of doing right now. Even when the law is clearly on your side, it takes time to get a ruling or injunction, just look at the i4i vs MS Word case. 4 years of legal procedings, i4i won and got an injunction against MS selling Word, but MS got it stayed and is still selling Word/Office. Or, look at SCO vs the world.... The fact that Psystar is still in business doesn't say anything about the validity of Apple's EULA or the legal clarity of the case. Don't you just love our legal system?

The point is, you can get a $1600 Psystar machine with the same and better hardware than a $2500 Mac Pro. Tell me, where exactly is the $900+ worth of innovation going? It *has* to be either markup or Apple recouping some extra OSX development cost, or both.

And, it could be that part of it is the cost of Apple's proprietary motherboards, cases, etc. Some of it, and likely much of it is Apple's markup, but some is their R&D for software and hardware development. Also, don't forget that Apple has much higher advertising expenses than Psystar or any of the EFI clone vendors. Apple does all the R&D to create the software, apps, marketplace, advertising, and Psystar and others want to hop on for a free ride.

Economics:
MS sells over 100M copies of Windows every year, Apple sells about 10M Macs. Mac OS X is essentially as complex as Windows. So why is it that Apple offers new versions of Mac OS X for $129 (to Mac owners, and I'm ignoring the ridiculously low $29 for SL) while MS sells Windows for at least $99 (cheapest upgrade) and up to $329 (Vista Ultimate MSRP)? At least 10x the volume and about 2x the price. It's certainly not plausible that Apple is 10x-20x as efficient as MS at writing an OS. The only plausible explanation is that Apple is selling Mac OS X as a reasonably priced UPGRADE for existing Mac owners. While the term "upgrade" may not appear on the package, the terms of the EULA make it clear that you must already own an "Apple Labeled" computer capable of running that software, therefore, you already have a copy of Mac OS X that was included with that Mac. Therefore, the "new" OS you're getting is actually just an upgrade for your existing copy of Mac OS X.

Given all of that, if you're already a Mac owner (as you apparently are), you could make a case that building a hackintosh for your own personal use and using Mac OS X on that machine (in place of using your Mac) should be allowed. A technical violation of the terms, but one that definitely compensated Apple for their work. However, if you DON'T already own a Mac which can run Mac OS X, even when you "buy" the retail Mac OS X package, you have not compensated Apple for using their software because the price/terms under which you got it were for use on an existing Mac.

If the second part is true, then yes, I would agree that the Hackintosh user paying $170 for a new copy of Snow Leopard is not actually paying full, accepted price for the OS.

See above.

Hell, the price difference is probably even greater than that since we all know that Apple gets a sweet deal on chips from Intel, probably ATI and Nvidia too, which I very much doubt they offer to the tiny, irrelevant Psystar.And, you can get a quad core non-nehalem/Xeon running OSX with solid hardware for under $1000, which is LESS than a new c2d imac, nevermind the Pro.

Starbucks charges "too much" for coffee, but people keep buying it because they like it better. We don't have to like Apple's markup/margins, but they did do the work and they have a right to sell their products for whatever the market will pay. I doubt Apple gets significantly lower prices from Intel, just earlier product availability, but I don't have any hard info either way.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you were the one who brought up that analogy, not I.

Correct, I brought it up (and stated from the beginning that it doesn't work) simply as an example of WHY you can't apply all the things you have learned from a lifetime of dealing with hard goods when talking about software. IP (including software) is completely different than hard goods and you have to apply different "rules", "laws", or "logic" to it. There is no hard goods analogy that makes any sense when IP involved. I think the analogy demonstrated that pretty clearly as it's impossible to even identify a part of a car that is comparable to an OS.

I'm not sure, but you seem to not be grasping the fact that other than the EFI chip on the motherboard, OSX should run as well as any PC as it does on any Apple machine, given that you buy/assemble the hackintosh with verified compatible parts like a sound card or graphics card.

That it's technically possible is completely irrelevant. That's where all your hard goods experience fails you. Patents, copyrights, contracts, and licenses can and do restrict what you're allowed to do.

Here I can give good analogies. It's technically possible to drive without a drivers license, but it's illegal. When you get a drivers license, you agree to abide by certain rules, and you don't get to negotiate what those rules are. You don't get to choose which rules should apply to you and which ones don't, they all apply whether you agree with them or not. Fail to follow those rules, you take a risk. A license to drive a car, doesn't mean you can legally drive a motorcycle, passenger van, bus, or commercial truck. You get a license, and it has restrictions.

Maybe a better example is buying a hunting license. Just because you have a license, doesn't mean you can hunt whenever, wherever, and however you want. The license allows you to hunt under specific terms. Hunt in the wrong place, or at the wrong time, or with the wrong weapon, and you might end up in jail. Just because you paid for a license, doesn't mean you get to do as you please. Just because it's possible, doesn't mean it is or should be legal.

This is why I look at the $2500 Mac Pro and wonder where that money went.

You can wonder all you want. How you spend you money is your business. How Apple arrives at their pricing and how they spend their money is not your business (unless you're a shareholder, etc). You get to choose whether or not to buy Apple products, but only Apple gets to set pricing and licensing terms. You can try to negotiate the pricing and terms, but when it comes to the end of negotiation, you take it or leave it. That's not just Apple, same applies to every other product you buy.

But Apple simply doesnt offer a consumer-grade quad core.

Agreed. But, as I pointed out, right now, very few consumers can even max out a dual core, it's only an issue for a very small set of users. It's an EXPENSIVE issue for that set of users. And, as I pointed out, if I were in charge of Apple's product selection, there would be notable changes in available configurations so that there would be an affordable quad core option. Unfortunately, Apple hasn't hired me (for that or anything else).

 

[Guest]

Just wanted to let you know that i've been permanently banned from the "Official Efi-X support and user forum" for linking to AsereBLN's last article.
http://aserebln.blogspot.com/2009/09/dear-readers.html

That's what they are taking care of. But a statement to the V1/Snow Leopard situation is still missing. I was unhappy before but now I am really angry!!!

 

[Guest]

I bought an EFI-X module and it worked fine for 4 months, then nothing. Nothing, just didn't appear in the BIOS, not recognised as being present when I booted windows using another drive.

The dealer in the UK I bought it from is dropping the product after less than 8 months for the reason in this article, it's a piece of crap with poor support.

I've since switched to Chameleon and am more than happy, though £175 poorer.

 

[Guest]

So when is the class-action suite against ASEM going to be filed? Hasn't some enterprising ambulance-chaser jumped on this yet?

 

[math1337]

And, it could be that part of it is the cost of Apple's proprietary motherboards, cases, etc. Some of it, and likely much of it is Apple's markup,

And why should we pay more for proprietary parts if THEY ARE THE SAME except for an EFI chip. For example, if Dell or HP or another OEM puts their ram DIMM's in a proprietary location or maybe hooks up their PSU's with proprietary connectors. Does that mean they should cost more? No, the changes do not offer a benefit so they should not demand a premium

 

[Draven35]

I wonder if its the epoxy itself messing them up. Any of you who are synth nerds might be familiar with the epoxy packaging on the voice chips for the Juno 106 that eventually pulls the chips off the boards and kills the voice chips. Might be the same thing....

 

[palladin9479]

Current Apple PC's are nothing but fancy cases with standard x86 components inside of them and a chip designed to lock the software to the hardware.

I can design a system with identical components and have it come out significantly cheaper then what Apple makes. Not to mention they want to sell you something with a powerful CPU setup but some really sh1tty GPU's.

And what gets me is, I can then design a system with MUCH better components for the exact same price as the Apple, doing everything in my power to maintain compatibility. And when necessary recompile drivers to fit their OS, its nothing but a modified BSD so shouldn't be too difficult to get working.

In the end, your buying the brand name and coolness factor, that is where all that extra money (from OEM its more then $900 difference) is going. Its the same for any iProduct, just like Nike and other clothing brands.

 

[Guest]

That hardware and the behaviour of the company is very, very similar to the Nintendo DS flashcard pirates.. mmmm

 

[ddaley]

I used a V1.0 EFI-X device for about a week. Then, I found out that it wouldn't support Snow Leopard... so I switched to Chameleon. If only more EFI-X users could be made aware of this. Of course, ASEM is driving them away on their own.

 

[Guest]

Just incredible! Stealing open source code & building a USB card onto a piece of plastic, then selling it for $40 profit! Outright T-H-E-F-T.

 

[Guest]

There are no dual quad core XENON PC's priced significantly different that a mac pro. The generic comparison machine is a server, not a $400 eMachine or Dell.

There are no generic PC's capable of handling 32GB of RAM.
There are no silent generic PC's running Mac OS X that don't require you to stop the updates or that you can hand to your mother and let her run it without it breaking.

You can get cheaper generic PC's than macs but NOT comparable machines.

 

[aka-none]

google E5440 price and you'll get ~$700+ each
google xeon 550 price and you'll get $2100 - $2500 for the top end models used in the mac pro (each)

if you google the specs you'll get servers at $10,000 and up.

You can't compare a generic machine against a workstation. you don't HAVE to pay extra for apple memory.

So I don't know about what 'much better quality' parts your talking about. Oh and you can't compare a workstation video card against a cheap nvidia knockoff for $35.

So before you start talking go out and compare the cost of quality parts. Unless maybe you also know how to build a cheap SunFire 4450 box for $600 too?

We won't even get into how much better the scheduler is in the mac kernel than it is in the microsoft one.

 

[Guest]

EFI-X looked ideal at first....but the high price and lack of clear user experience put me off from buying one. Putting OS X on a PC is a fun puzzle to solve for tinkering minds like mine but to expect a perfect Mac from a hacked PC is a pipe dream. I enjoyed installing OS X on a PC. It was a fun weekend of tinkering and I succeeded......... in the end! BUT...as a experienced Mac user I would never rely on such a system. The cheapest way to get a the full Mac experience is to buy a used one... ;-)

 

[Guest]

Well, iam using efi-x 1.1 module on my computer since 2008. I swiched from chamelon because i didnt wanted to spend so much time coniguring my System (but everithing was working fine). I have to say that I never had problems science then beside some slow efi-x firmware update release which made me not always be up to day with the latest osx version. I never had any problems with the module and also none of my hardware has ever died. Iam running a very stable computer with 7x 2tb hard drive, 24 gb ddr3 fast ram, intel i7 and a complete water cooling system. I don't know if I was lucky but I never expirienced any problems. I really can't say if asem support is good or not because I never needed it. I have a nice fully upgradable system (like it because it's much more greener than buying always a hole new computer) which is much more silent than any Mac pro (because of the water cooling) and with a good energy efficiency( because I hand picked the hardware). But who knows why Iam some kind of wired exception.