Psystar Sues Apple Over Snow Leopard

[belardo]

[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]Oh, this is just sad. Very very sad. 1. You forgot the LED backlit. 2. You forgot to upgrade the battery. MBP has 7-hour battery.3. There is no multi-touch trackpad option. Add $30 just for the feature.4. You forgot to add bluetooth.5. You forgot to add a webcam. 6. You forgot to upgrade the OS to Ultimate.7. You forgot to add SD card reader. Oops. Just a simple mistake I bet. Here, I will correct it for you. +$149 for Vista Ultimate+$50 for Web Cam/LED Backlight+$30 for Touchpad+$20 for Bluetooth+$10 for Card Reader+$90 for the batteryTotal: $349So your $950 Thinkpad just became a $1,300 Thinkpad when the features were actually evenly matched. Wait, what was the price of that Macbook Pro again? Idiot.[/citation]

You're on Crack, right? You're pulling numbers out of the air.
Most people DON'T buy Vista Ultimate. And Windows7 will be out in less than 2 months. Its not crappy Vista. When you start making up crap (FOX?) - you lose credibility. Nothing WRONG with opinions. But made up crap is just that... crap.

Most ThinkPads include LED backlight, touchpad is standard, bluetooth and card-reader. Now, battery is not as good as Apple, usually. But 2-3 hours is fine for most... and I'd take that over paying an extra $500 for a computer.

Lets compare two simular notebooks of high quality. I'll admit I'm NOT choosing the best ThinkPad. But I'm comparing Apples CHEAPEST 15" notebook with a 256GB HD, C2D CPU... 15" is popular and a good size.

Apple = $1700 - 2.5Ghz C2D / 4GB / 250GB HD / GF9400m graphics
SL500 = $1130 - 2.5Ghz C2D / 4GB / 250GB HD / GF105m graphics (same)
T500 = $1205 - 2.5Ghz C2D / 4GB / 250GB HD / ATI3650 graphics (LED display)

(ThinkPad SL includes HDMI output & at&t 3G / but no LED backlit display)

HP HDX = $1000 - 2.2Ghz C2D / 4GB / 500GB HD / GF130m graphics

Thats $700 cheaper than Apples 15" typical notebook. Ouch!

 

[elbert]

[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Right, but we are not comparing high end gaming rigs here (there is no such thing as a gaming rig when it comes to Apple anyways). We are talking standard laptop comparisons. For now, the average user who browses the internet and listens to iTunes has no need for more than 4 GB, for them Ultimate is quite pointless and not necessary for this comparison.Anyways, 12 GB of RAM is ridiculous for a desktop. The most amount of RAM on a gaming video card I've seen is 2 GB. So with 12 GB and 4 GB in VRAM I think you should still be safe with Home Premium.[/citation]
No just the simple point that Ultimate isn't a workstations OS. 12GB + 4GB is 16GB. Now all that only the 16GB limit all the nice large cache, bois, and others count. No your not safe with 12GB's and 2X2GB GPU's.

The point is you could make this rig already and its not a workstation.

 

[belardo]

Oh... wait!

Apple includes a lighted keyboard... only on their top-end models.

Pretty much all ThinkPads have Light on Keyboards... A tiny light in the LCD screen is pointed at the keyboard... which does actually work somewhat.

Not all computers are exactly the same apples to apples, etc.

 

[elbert]

[citation][nom]manjyomethunder[/nom]12GB of RAM for a gaming rig!?!? Are you mad man? Games do NOT require that much RAM to perform well, nor does the performance continue to scale when the RAM is increased to that much.[/citation]
Ever read the WOW story's about a player running full raids by themselves? That is 25 clients which to run good WOW needs at least 1GB of RAM.

The point of Ultimate isn't a workstation OS eludes you. The point that any home version has an extremely short life eludes you. I wouldn't waste money on a trashy home version requiring a $150 upgrade in the next year. That $150 will only upgrade me to another home version while I could have just purchase Ultimate. Do not get me wrong I like Ultimate and wouldn't have to upgrade it after each memory upgrade.

 

[TFBundy]

[citation][nom]deck[/nom]tayb,I berate Apple because they stole the linux kernel and returned nothing to the open source community. .[/citation]

BS, first of all, OSX uses MACH not linux kernel. Second, all the development work done on the open source remains open source (http://www.opensource.apple.com/) and all their work on the BSD/kernel can be downloaded including the source code. The only thing apple copywrite is the GUI which is proprietary.
Stop spreading FUD you fool.

 

[TFBundy]

Also:
Good luck finding a PC with equivalent industrial engineering/design. Find me one (just one) PC laptop that does not have crappy air vents at the bottom of the laptop. Yes, placing your dell on a pillow will void your warranty. Apple got rid of that crap way baack in 90s. But, all those heatpipes and unobstructable vents cost more to manufacture. (FYI, the screen hinge hides the air in/outtakes on a mac - they face up, not down where they would act as a crappy, expensive vacuum cleaner) Same with decent, multi-touch pads and height that's half of your average pc laptop. Don't get me wrong, if you get by with a budget lappy that's all good; but, there's a reason why some people buy a BMW and some a Toyota - even if they both come with 2L engines... Apple occupy the top shelf, well engineered niche; there's a good reason for that.

 

[TFBundy]

Sorry for chain post ppl. but, if you are seriously going to discuss the merits of OSX than, at least read
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars

If you are happy with windows fine, but most of the ppl knocking OSX on this board sound like they have never used it. It's sad, are some of you seriously so afraid of anyone doing things differently from you?

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]Ever read the WOW story's about a player running full raids by themselves? That is 25 clients which to run good WOW needs at least 1GB of RAM.The point of Ultimate isn't a workstation OS eludes you. The point that any home version has an extremely short life eludes you. I wouldn't waste money on a trashy home version requiring a $150 upgrade in the next year. That $150 will only upgrade me to another home version while I could have just purchase Ultimate. Do not get me wrong I like Ultimate and wouldn't have to upgrade it after each memory upgrade.[/citation]

I still haven't seen a gamer need more than an average of 2-4GB of Ram, period.

The WoW player running 25 seperate instances of WoW at once, does not count as your average gamer. Who the hell is going to pay for 25 accounts anyway?

I've never seen the reason to pay for the "Ultimate" edition. My 64-bit Home Edition of Vista has a 16GB Ram limit anyway, not 4GB. Hell, Vista Business 64 has a 128GB limit. Why would you bother running 32-bit Windows anymore? Especially if you're a serious gamer.

 

[elbert]

[citation][nom]Eccentric909[/nom]I still haven't seen a gamer need more than an average of 2-4GB of Ram, period.The WoW player running 25 seperate instances of WoW at once, does not count as your average gamer. Who the hell is going to pay for 25 accounts anyway?I've never seen the reason to pay for the "Ultimate" edition. My 64-bit Home Edition of Vista has a 16GB Ram limit anyway, not 4GB. Hell, Vista Business 64 has a 128GB limit. Why would you bother running 32-bit Windows anymore? Especially if you're a serious gamer.[/citation]
True the wow player wouldn't be average but a gamer none the less. He wouldn't be using a workstation either. True your home premium doesn't have 4GB limit like 32bit but it's limit will slap you in the face next year just the same. Currently you can buy 12GB's of RAM for under $250 which by next year will be about $100.

Unlike past video card todays eat up a lot of memory addressing. The next year we will see main stream 1gb GPU's and 4GB X2 high end HD5xxx's. I expect M$ to come with a 24~32GB limited Win7 OS next year for home users. I don't think its fun or right to pay $100 upgrade for memory addressing an extra 16GB's of RAM. Ill skip that for an OS I can use for 7~10 years with a 192GB memory addressing. Come to think of it that about the years of use I got out of XP.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]falchard[/nom]I think Psystar might actually have a case. Since Snow Leopard is based on a Linux Iteration, it has to comply to the GNU agreement. It isn't which makes this suite possible.[/citation]It's based upon NextStep (which is based upon Mach, and the original developer of Mach at CMU was the chief architect at Next) and upon BSD. Mac OS X IS NOT based upon Linux. And, all of the UI is based upon Apple's original Mac OS with a few things from Next.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]True the wow player wouldn't be average but a gamer none the less. He wouldn't be using a workstation either. True your home premium doesn't have 4GB limit like 32bit but it's limit will slap you in the face next year just the same. Currently you can buy 12GB's of RAM for under $250 which by next year will be about $100.Unlike past video card todays eat up a lot of memory addressing.[/citation]

You smoking the good or the bad crack? Next year, memory demands won't be higher than this year... if anything, maybe a bit less. Vista is fine with at least 4GB. But we have Windows7 coming out... it doesn't have vista's memory issues. I have Windows7 running on 3 computers... even installed it on a POS P3-1000Mhz with 512mb of RAM and IT still ran better, booted and shut down Vista on a new clean notebook.

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]Unlike past video card todays eat up a lot of memory addressing. The next year we will see main stream 1gb GPU's and 4GB X2 high end HD5xxx's. I expect M$ to come with a 24~32GB limited Win7 OS next year for home users. I don't think its fun or right to pay $100 upgrade for memory addressing an extra 16GB's of RAM. Ill skip that for an OS I can use for 7~10 years with a 192GB memory addressing. Come to think of it that about the years of use I got out of XP.[/citation]
Again... you seem to have little understanding how memory works, even for 64bit. Yeah, its stupid that A Vista Email machine needs at least 2/3GB of RAM (When XP with 512mb would be just as good) - but Next year, pretty much only a retard will be buying Vista. In two years time, there will still be more XP users than Vista, I bet - Vista will never ever exceed the XP user base.

If a person has a 4GB of RAM and a 4GB video card, the user with a 64bit OS will still have 4GB of system memory.

A typical NON-gaming Windows7 user will get by FINE with 1~2GB of RAM and a $40 CPU. A Win7 gamer will be fine with 2GB, but with memory so cheap, why not 4~8GB. And that should last them for the next 2-4 years.

The HD 5x00 cards (higher end) have 1~2GB of video memory. 4GB video won't be needed for quite a while... won't matter. 24~32GB of RAM? How many consumer motherboards support over 16GB? AMD = none (ECS says they can support 32GB, but never tested... because NOBODY makes 8GB DDR2 (never will) and ECS is not on the "high end" on peoples lists. Intel = X58 chipsets go up to 24GB (4GB x 6). Nope, nowhere near 32. Now $500 Server boards support 32/64/128GB of RAM...

I don't think Vista is THAT Crappy of an OS.

So... you going to buy a mobo that is supposed to last you 7+ year? LOL - you're either funny or crazy. You'd have to spend $$$ on a server board and use slow ECC 667mhz DDR 2 memory (also not cheap) and you'll need to buy two server class CPUs ($300~1500 each) and only some boards have two 16x PCIe slots.

All that to play a few games?

Then next year, we have USB3 (maybe this year), SATA 3, PCIe 3... uh oh, gotta buy a new board.

You got 7 years out of XP because even today, XP does fine with 1GB, not much better with 2GB... XP doesn't need it. And mobos from 7 years ago supported up to 4GB of RAM... which would have costs about $800+.

Vista will soon be dead. Windows7 users will be happy and fine with 1~2GB of memory on a $300~400 computer.

24GB of RAM... LOL... yeah, someday... If we toss out the Vista Mess and scale by year for min. memory. In 8 years, 512mb > 1GB (doubles every 8 years). 2018 4GB min. 2026 = 8GB min. 2034 = 16GB min. In 24years, you won't remember how to USE Vista or Windows7.

Have fun.

 

[geoffs]

[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]Most people DON'T buy Vista Ultimate. And Windows7 will be out in less than 2 months. Its not crappy Vista.[/citation]Are you telling me Vista isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread? M$ keeps telling me otherwise. 😉
On a more serious note, I am looking forward to checking out Win7, sounds like it might actually be an improvement on XP.

Now, battery is not as good as Apple, usually. But 2-3 hours is fine for most... and I'd take that over paying an extra $500 for a computer.

For most users maybe, but only because they don't actually use their laptop as a mobile machine. They buy a notebook computer because it's small, or cool, or stylish, or because they can use it while sitting on the couch. 3 hours not nearly enough for me, or millions of others. 2-3 hours is not enough to get through a school day, or a work day, or a flight half-way across the country, etc., and 2-3 hours is optimistic for most machines.

Lets compare two simular notebooks of high quality. I'll admit I'm NOT choosing the best ThinkPad. But I'm comparing Apples CHEAPEST 15" notebook with a 256GB HD, C2D CPU... 15" is popular and a good size.Apple = $1700 - 2.5Ghz C2D / 4GB / 250GB HD / GF9400m graphicsSL500 = $1130 - 2.5Ghz C2D / 4GB / 250GB HD / GF105m graphics (same)T500 = $1205 - 2.5Ghz C2D / 4GB / 250GB HD / ATI3650 graphics (LED display)(ThinkPad SL includes HDMI output & at&t 3G / but no LED backlit display)HP HDX = $1000 - 2.2Ghz C2D / 4GB / 500GB HD / GF130m graphicsThats $700 cheaper than Apples 15" typical notebook. Ouch!

Yes, you can buy a good Wintel computer (laptop or desktop) for less than you can buy a similarly capable Mac (ignoring the OS differences). There is no arguing that. If a Wintel machine suits your needs, buy one. Not everyone has the same needs in a notebook/laptop.

When you're actually using a laptop/notebook, size and travel weight (including adapters, batteries, etc) are important factors. Smaller and lighter components cost more. Carry a heavier laptop and you can easily spend $500-$1000 per year on chiropractic adjustments. There is no other notebook that compares with the MacBook Pros on size, weight, features, capabilities, and battery life. For people to whom those features are important, a MacBook may be the best machine and best value (even if they mostly want to run Windows on it).

Since I support clients and running Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X, a MacBook Pro is the cheapest option as I can use 1 laptop to support any environment. Beats the heck out of buying and carrying two or more laptops. The fact that it's got much better battery life than any full featured laptop that is anywhere near it's size and weight is far more important to me than a $500 price difference.

They're not for everyone, but quit trying to claim they're "overpriced". When you can show a quality PC laptop that comes close on size, weight, features, performance, and battery life at a significantly lower price than a MacBook, then we can revisit the "overpriced" discussion. Until then, it's rather like comparing Nike, Addidas, and New Balance shoes. Nike and Addidas are probably cheaper, but they don't make shoes that fit some people (e.g. me) properly, so they pay a little more for New Balance shoes that do fit. People who have different wants and needs aren't always served by the mainstream vendors.

 

[belardo]

yeah.... Vista is NOT gods gifts to the computer world.

Anyways... I have nothing against anyone willing or wanting to spend $500~1000 more for a Mac Computer. I think its legal.. so who gives a crap? More power to Apple, really.

*I* won't spend it. My Thinkpad runs about 3hrs or so on batteries... on a good deal of constant usage... I do run the SCREEN on max brightness. But an area I think that causes Mac books to be more expensive with longer batteries is the battery tech itself... they are not Li-Ion like most or the rest of the notebooks.

- I agree with what you SAY about weight and size, etc. When I was originally looking for a notebook, I knew I could get a cheap 17" anywhere. But after using them a bit and lugging them around - I found the 15" to be fine. ThinkPads have the smallest power bricks which helps the overall weight to be about 5lbs.

For the most part, I end up finding that a Netbook has enough power for my needs... a tad slow, but 2~3lbs, 4~7hrs battery life. $300. Wish they where on the market when I got my thinkpad 🙁 Not going to sell what I have thou... of course.

There are NEW intel Core-class CPU notebooks hitting the market with a smaller and lighter bodies... about $500~700 with 14" screens. Tossing out the optical drive helps a lot.

 

[Guest]

Hey tayb, last time I checked, Apple AND Linux BOTH stole from the Unix kernel.