Pesky Psystar to emerge from Chapter 11 with new Mac offering - Page 6

Again, you're looking at this issue from entirely the wrong perspective. Consumers do have alot of rights, but forcing a company to change its business strategy simply because they disagree with it isn't one of those rights.

The sense of entitlement some of you people have is entirely unjustifiable. Those bodies have every right to want to protect their profits and, yes, looking around some college campuses, it's not hard to see why (more stolen movies than the eye can see). That's not to say they don't sometimes overdo it, but one can at least understand why.

I'm sure businesses would be alot more open to allowing things like Blu-Ray's "Managed Copy" were, again, there not a generation full of kids with not respect for IP law walking around. Hell, one of my friends has a netflix account solely for the purpose of ripping the movies he rents from it. People simply can't be trusted. I was reading a forum just the other day complaining about Palm not licensing WebOS out (ostensibly because they wanted it on a Blackberry). Just because you don't like something, doesn't give you the right to change it by force.

Are an IP holder's rights a holy grail? No, but neither are those of a consumer in that same vein. I can bitch and moan all day long that I can't buy Tommy Hilfiger's clothes at Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean Tommy has to submit to my demands. I can also bitch about how Tommy doesn't make a certain kind of shirt I like, but that doesn't give me the right to make one myself and put his logo on it (I believe Lil' Wayne is actually being sued by Louis Vuitton for wearing knock-off sunglasses on a magazine cover). I may feel his conditions are unfair, but that doesn't give me a right to change them.

Just cause I can see it, doesn't make it mine. More parents should teach their children that concept.

I agree fully: the key here is choice. You have every right to not accept the terms Apple has set out and buy from another company as a result. I'm sure Dell especially would love to have your business right now.

You look at Apple as a software company and that simply is not true. Apple is and always has been a registered hardware producer. The entire point in OS X is to make you desire its hardware more because that's where its profits come from. Take iTunes as an example: Apple has made billions on the sales of iPods, but it barely makes more than what it takes to actually run and maintenance the iTunes servers from the sales of the actual music.

Microsoft is and always has been a software company. Beyond its keyboards/mice and the Xbox, the company produces no hardware of its own (which is probably a good thing given the failure rate of the Xbox360).

Companies like Dell, HP, & Toshiba could easily create their own OS if they wanted to entice customers in such a way, but they choose to use Windows, Apple doesn't. Apple is unique in this regard and it's what fuels its business success and forcing it out of a successful strategy ostensibly because a small percentage of people are annoyed by it or don't understand the inherent benefits in it is just plain dumb.

Grasp the difference between want and forced. If you were forced to run OS X and thus only on Apple hardware in order to use a computer you'd have a beef. You aren't forced and have zero foundation to stand on about your wants and desires.

Is it just me or was everyone back there referring to "buying/purchasing" a "copy" of Mac OS X?

Are they idiots?

To clear up a few issues:
When you buy a boxed copy on CD of the OS, you only purchase the upgrade, not a licence for the whole OS. That requires a "full" purchase, which Apple chooses not to sell. They bundle it with their computers.

You never buy a copy of the OS. You purchase a licence to use it. Not to resell it. Not to install on 100 devices. To use it. As defined by the agreement you agree to.

You do not, at any time, have full control and ownership over the actual product.
It's called intellectual property. If you want to argue you should completely own it, think about that, and what that means for software businesses. You sell one copy and anyone can resell that one copy you sold.

Use your brains guys. Apple has ownership of the property. And anyone who thinks that buying a $129 box of leopard is buying a full version is an idiot. Maybe it is all there - but the licence to use it isn't. It's only for those who already have an existing OSX licence.

Get your head out of the clouds guys, and smell reality. Not everything is under your selfish control. It's called fairness. What you want isn't fairness - it's power.

I have a legitimate beef, just not one you agree with. This isn't about money. I am learning disabled, including low vision. I could buy a Windows machine and all the extra software, and in a better economy, the state of California might even pick up the tab through the Department of Rehabilitation. And they would not buy me a Mac! This is not about wants. I need assistive technologies if I am going to use a computer and enjoy any kind of productivity. With Windows alone, I am crippled. I would like to have one of these Psystar machines, but I won't. If something goes wrong, I'm screwed. Even without Apple Care on my iMac, at least there are others who could assist me if needed. All Apple products with a built-in monitor are hard for me to use. DR, for example, would never buy me a notebook. Never! I am bitter as I cannot resolve my situation, just live with it. I simply want Apple to make more options for me than the mini or the Pro. I don't really care about the legal side. That isn't my job. Psystar wants to sell me something to better fit my needs. Tell me why Apple makes it possible (and easy) to install Windows on a Mac, but not the other way around? And before you call Windows a monopoly in the OS biz, realize nobody did anything to compete.

Speaking of the upcoming SL release may be the first signs of how Psystars anti-free market actions can hurt the consumer. The $29/$49 copies of SL appear to require that Leopard be preinstalled for you to upgrade. This is taking away a great deal of simplicity away from the consumer who in years past could buy the OS upgrade and do a clean install without the rigamarole and time of finding their previous OS system disc and installing that first.

Apple makes OS X to sell their PC HW, just like Dell includes WIndows to help sell their PC HW. The difference is that Dell has decided not to make their own OS the way Apple does. You can go to Apple’s site and DL a full copy of iPhone OS X 3.0, but I doubt you’d say that anyone should be able to DL that free OS and build a business around Apple’s IP. So why think it’s okay with Mac OS X, but not any other copyrighted material. Just because you want something doesn’t mean you are entitled to it. The price of Mac OS X on the shelf in retail boxes is not the price it would cost if Apple’s Mac HW wasn’t supplementing the price of that OS upgrade.

Again, Apple makes OS X to sell their brand of PCs; Microsoft makes Windows to sell to other PC vendors, including Apple.

I'm confused here. My iMac came with Tiger. When purchased from my local Apple Store, the sales guy slit open the box to add the Leopard upgrade DVD. I don't need my original OEM type Tiger DVDs. In fact they won't load on my machine. If I were to erase the HD with Disk Utility, then the Leopard upgrade DVD would not work. It must see the presence of Tiger on the HD. Unless Apple plans to do something way different, the SL DVD will load and install as long as Leopard is present. I suspect you will have the option, as my Leopard upgrade DVD does, to either upgrade Leopard, or do a clean install. So far, it looks like Tiger users will need to buy the Mac Box Set. http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html I would guess that a Leopard user like me, could still take advantage of the Mac Box Set, upgrading my iLife '08 and adding iWork.

Those are the discs they include during the quasi time right after an OS lands and with current stock HW, I’m talking about the retail discs which have never required the presence of the previous OS present before checking the HW and doing the install. This appears to now be moving into the Windows-style upgrade disc which require the previous OS to be installed first.

•

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/06/08macosx.html I guess we’ll have to wait until September to see exactly how they handle it but having to have Leopard installed to install SL will is not what I call user friendly.

We have not exactly agreed on anything in a while, but I am mostly with you here. We will have to wait to be sure. I would think the Mac Box Set is the equivalent to the stand alone install DVD that would otherwise sell for $129. I must give Apple credit for not using the Key Code method as Microsoft does. I can totally mess up my iMac and simply restore the original OS. Apple Care sent me a true Leopard install DVD, since the Tiger discs were of no use. I don't have to enter a Key Code and have one less tick remaining on the life of the DVD. Apple puts us on our honor and I respect them for it. My experience with Windows XP and beyond, is that even an upgrade disc has the option of doing a clean install.

To be clear, there is nothing altruistic or very trusting about that honour system. Since they easily assumed you had a Mac purchased there was no real need for the extra hurdles that Windows users have to endure. I am not sure they will even be able to keep that up indefinitely as more people get Macs. Itll be too easy to pass that disc around, especially in colleges and high schools where Mac use is very high.

I thought the WIndows upgrade disc full install was something that had to be hacked, not something that was on by default if you put it into a machine without Windows present.

That isn't what I mean. In my experience, a Windows XP upgrade disc would allow you to do a clean install, but a previous OS, 98+ had to be present. As I recall, it has been a while, previous upgrade only discs of Windows would only upgrade. I have heard Mac people claim doing a clean install is often better than doing an upgrade. I don't know. I have to agree again. Apple may have to resort to other tools for keeping users on the straight and narrow. I noticed your spelling of honour. Are you from the other side of the pond? Use to have pals in South Africa, where I first learned to hold thumbs.

Im a Yankee, but Ive traveled quite extensively and have studied in countries that speak/write the Queens English.

Can you explain why Psystar offer a product that better fits your needs, because frankly I am confused?

From your own posts I understand that OS X is a better solution for your sight problems than Windows. I assume, therefore that the problem lies with the resolution and clarity of your iMac's screen.

Does Psystar offer a better screen than the iMac? I have already suggested this before (but I don't remember you responding), but why couldn't you buy a suitable monitor and team it up with a Mac Mini?

I have probably responded, maybe in a different thread. I have yet to see a non-CRT monitor that was comfortable for my eyes. I am not implying Psystar makes a monitor better than the iMac either. I don't drive, so getting around to look at monitors is a little more challenging. In theory, the 18.5 inch widescreen @ 1366 x 768 might work. As Mr. H. has suggested, using an HDMI connection on a TV might work as well. Perhaps I simply want a machine besides my current iMac or a mini. Little things get on my nerves like not being able to use 3 inch media in my slot load optical drive. The guy who sold me my iMac said it was okay to use 3 inch CD/DVD discs. Good thing I didn't listen to him. So much for Apple Store employees being right all the time.

As I've mentioned before, this is my second iMac. The best voice in OS 9 was Victoria. She was just enough British sounding to be rather lovely. Had someone been able to help me understand OS 9, things might have been different and I might still be using an eMac.

Apple, makes it possible because it's easy and it helps Apple's Mac business (giving some Windows switchers an easier migration path). Apple, makes money... and so does Microsoft. In fact Microsoft will make a lot more on each retail copy of Windows than an equivalent OEM version.

I realise you are trying to make some kind of point... but I don't know what it is. Try and remember that Microsoft's business is selling software.


Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS business. I't not an opinion, it's simply a fact. There is competition, but controlling 90%+ (USA) of the market means that Microsoft benefits from "market power". Once again, I don't understand your point.

If you have bad eyes, then Windows is a much better fit from what Ive seen. OS X doesnt scale as well as Windows has done since Win95. Mac OS X will probably be the first of the two to offer full, real Resolution Independence, but right now the Windows Presentation Foundation is a nice placeholder until full, real RI can be developed. I have turned a couple people away from Mac OS X because of their poor eyesight.



Think about what Stephen Hawking had to go through. The digital voice is his voice and I think only recently has he had a machine that could do a decent British-ish accent.

PS: I remember getting one of his books on audio and was disappointed that it was not read by his electronic voice machine. I felt a little cheated.

I missed this line until Piots post.


There were other OSes out there trying to compete but MS was very savvy in business (if not in coding) and they had IBMs long history to back them up. While there are many reasons, one of the main reasons Apple was able to exist today through all those different PC HW and PS OS companies battling it out is because of the business model, not in spite of it.

Here is a list of OSes, note that most of these arent consumer OSes. I am trying to find a good timeline of PC OSes but I am coming up short. The history is quite remarkable and amazing that there are so many seemingly little things that were done or not done that changed the world we know it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems

Could that be because more and more people are building their own boxes (or having them built by someone)? I honestly can't remember when was the last time I've seen branded box in any house (businesses are different, pretty much brand names only, and they are shifting from branded towers to branded notebooks).

I haven't really checked any numbers, but sheer number of "build-your-own" parts - cases, keyboards, mice, monitors and components - seem to be bigger than ever, not only in numbers but also in variety. Much more luxurious parts, too. I'd expect that part of the market is growing, mildly at least.

Perhaps, but my anecdotal evidence points to notebooks as being the main computer for pretty much every one I know. In fact, the only people I know with towers at this point are all older non-Mac towers, Mac Pros, none of which complements your evidence.

If it helps any, IBM originally wanted the PC to run 16-bit CP/M, but the only version available at the time (from Digital Research) was 8-bit. IBM turned to Microsoft who purchased a 16-bit clone of CP/M from Seattle Computing and adapted it to the PC. To make a long story short, Digital Research later released their version, called DR-DOS, which was quite popular in Europe. Microsoft worked very hard and in some extremely devious ways to compel the OEMs to sell MS-DOS exclusively. In fairly short order DR was erased as a threat on the PC platform, and we ended up with the peculiar world where although IBM-PCs were made by hundreds if not thousands companies, nearly all of them ran the same OS.

That BTW is where you get potential antitrust issues -- it wasn't entirely because Microsoft developed a 95% market share, but because this market share was used to prevent others from becoming competitors on the PC hardware platform, which (and this is critical) was not manufactured by Microsoft.

Could Apple have duplicated this feat? In a word, no. The first ingredient in this formula was IBM inventing and then losing control of the PC platform, which they certainly did not anticipate, and at the same time, having no control over the operating system. So IBM ended up with the worst of both worlds -- hardware which could be sold as "IBM-PC compatible," for which they received zero dollars, and Microsoft raking in the bucks for the OS, over which they had exclusive control. IBM tried to recover some degree of control over their hardware platform with OS/2 (and Microchannel) but we know how that worked out. (Part of the reason for the failure of OS/2 is that IBM trusted Microsoft as a partner, and Microsoft screwed them royally.)

The damage to IBM from this course of events was incalculable. Actually it is somewhat calculable -- during the early '90s IBM posted the largest dollar loss by any company in the world to that date.

I don't see how anyone, knowing the history of how Microsoft came to dominate the industry, could see a way for Apple to chart the same course and succeed. And this is even before we talk about Apple's disastrous experiment with clone licensing.

You are wrong as to the kind of processor that the entry level Mac Pro 2.66 Quad comes with.

It is NOT the higher end Intel X5550 2.66GHz Quad core that is the DP Xeon Nehalem variant - only available in as a BTO option in the higher end 8-core Mac Pro's which would cost nearly $4700 from Apple. The actual processor that comes with the 'entry-level' $2499 Quad-core Mac Pro (used by Nano_tubes for his price comparisons) is the very same 'lowest-end' W3520 Xeon Nehalem variant used in the Pystar "Open 7". So the $$$$ difference is in fact over $700 - as Nano_tubes correctly itemized.

Next time, before you post technical specifications of Apple's computers to be used in rebutting what turned out to be factually correct technical information, I suggest that you take the time to find out what those specifications actually are.
http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...lem-specs.html

You are correct. Though I did look it up at Apple.com, which is a better than 3rd party site, I just missed the listed for the quad.

Just for giggles, I have to look back at this post. Is regarding the fact that Dell and Sony make AOI computers too. If I recall correctly, again just for giggles, the TRS-80 Model III was the first all in one, back in the summer of 1980. Then came Apple with the first Macintosh. TRS-80 included keyboard, no mouse. What's a mouse?

The Commodore PET was even earlier (1977). Love that integrated cassette tape drive!

1975! But a 5 inches, hard to call it a monitor. Looks like there IS a place to keep your sandwich warm though.

http://oldcomputers.net/ibm5100.html

Actually, I think that's a pod bay door (early prototype).