- Thread View
- Flat View
1. Digging into Psystar
phamiltonsmith - 04/16/08
Two options:
1) too good to be true, or
2) They really did not plan or prepare for the media
EVERYONE knows this kind on news attracts a GREAT deal of attention, so I?m afraid its number one... Its all a sand castle...
2. SHould have looked deeper
s_souche - 04/16/08
psystar.corp was incorporated July 6 2007.
Tthe web site registrar is one of the directors of the copr.
These informatins - and some more - come from florida department of state / division of corporation web site.
Googling that person, I see the information is all over the web, so some were more successfull in getting information on the compagny than your source
2.1. You mean this document ...
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes - 04/16/08
2.1.1. Yes that one
s_souche - 04/16/08
PsyStar has two directors, Roberto and Rodolfo
Web site which have had contact with psystar talked to two persons, Rudy ( Rodolpho ) and robert/Roberto only. Rudy was refered to as an employee, but it was not his claim, but an assumption by his interlocutor.
Rodolpho is also co manager of floridatek, which seems to have been named EXPRESSI NETWORKS INC before 2005.
It seems to me that it is a small familly business that opened as an integrator/IT Consulting and that thought it would be a great idee to sell macos compatible boxes - If i am right they will have hard time satisfying customerrs brought by recent buzz - I whish them i'm wrong.
Anyway their move is a great one as it is having a lot of people exerting their brain on the specificities f apple hardware...
2.1.1.1. My thoughts exactly
Stuka - 04/16/08
It was a small IT company that did local work. Then they came up with this idea, and suddenly they are the biggest news on the net. The change of address from a residential to a light industrial/comercial are is not a surprise either if they are still settng up shop.
2.1.1.1.1. Even if they did bite off more than they can chew
Michael Kelly - 04/16/08
I'm sure some other more enterprising small OEMs are noticing what's going on and wouldn't mind a piece of the action.
2.1.2. Not sure what you did
markbn - 04/16/08
1) You said they never heard of that company but a Florida Department of State's website states something different
2) You are not sure the new location are suites but you are "trying to clear up which company is actually at the address - I?ll get back to you when I find out." Why did not you clear it out first before creating this post?
Do you realize your post can be linked to a gazillion sites and that people will think PSystar : 1) does not exist as a company, and/or 2) They are providing a false address?
Were you short of cash to buy an iPhone and needed to make a post with a lot of replies to get money instead of doing a better investigative job?
2.1.2.1. You are harsh
meryllogue@... - 04/17/08
Did you not have your morning java yet?
2.1.2.1.1. My response was posted yesterday
markbn - 04/17/08
In the afternoon I believe, so yep, I had already had my morning Java.
I also pointed out the truth. However, the blog's post you can read today and the one that is present now (the day of *your post*) are different. Adrian rewritten most of it.
2.1.2.1.1.1. It's called "breaking news"
laura.b - 04/17/08
They do it all the time. It's when a story is important to people or they are highly interested, and you continue to give them updates on what the status of information is. In order to let people know that the info is coming in in bits and pieces, you simply tell people "we are still working on this bit and we'll let you know when we know more."
Your evening news does it all the time, I promise. Do you needlessly ***** them out like you did Adrian?
2.1.2.1.1.1.1. small difference
markbn - 04/17/08
=========
It's when a story is important to people or they are highly interested, and you continue to give them updates on what the status of information is.
=========
You said it right: the status of the information (i.e., something confirmed) not the status of your *lack* of information. But, you still can report lack of information when you came up with some facts, unlike something like this:
"The Miami Chamber of Commerces (sic) ... never heard of it."
Despite the information was on a public page!
2.1.2.1.1.1.2. No, you are wrong
laura.b - 04/18/08
The Miami Chamber of Commerce had never heard of the company. That wasn't a lie, and it wasn't deceitful. The Florida Department of State is where the information came from, and sorry to say they are not the same boards.
It is logically inferred that if they are located in Miami, the COC should have had some record of them, particularly because they need an operational license. The fact that they don't indicates that the company is, at best, a brand-new start up, but it doesn't mean they are fraudulent, and no one claimed as much.
But you miss the point entirely, anyway. It doesn't matter if he got it wrong or right, as he clearly stated that there was more digging to be done. You went off for no reason and then continued to do so. You deserve called out for it, whether you like it or not. Someone needs to tell you that you are behaving like a child. Hate that it had to be me, but oh well. It was worth it to see what irrationality you would put forth next in your desperate attempt to not be viewed as an overly-dramatic troll with an agenda. Tough luck this time around, however. Better luck with the next attempt.
LOL
2.1.2.1.1.1.3. or perhaps you are but have not noticed
markbn - 04/18/08
=========
The Miami Chamber of Commerce had never heard of the company. That wasn't a lie, and it wasn't deceitful. The Florida Department of State is where the information came from, and sorry to say they are not the same boards.
=========
I guess laurab that you do not only have limited reasoning capacity, but also you just don't have reading comprehension abilities. I am not saying it was a lie. When did I call him a liar? That's ridiculous. I believe they (he?) called that organization. I just pointed out the other information, which as I already said to Adrian (and he did not make a big deal of this, because he is not like you) it seemed that the other link was obtained after the post not before.
=========
It is logically inferred that if they are located in Miami, the COC should have had some record of them, particularly because they need an operational license.
=========
It's unnecessary to infer things (logically or not,
=========
The fact that they don't indicates that the company is, at best, a brand-new start up, but it doesn't mean they are fraudulent, and no one claimed as much.
=========
So you just agreed in that it is possible they are a legit company despite the people of the chamber of commerce "never hearing of them". It's good you are starting to understand things. Good.
=========
But you miss the point entirely, anyway. It doesn't matter if he got it wrong or right, as he clearly stated that there was more digging to be done. You went off for no reason and then continued to do so.
=========
Look, I really don't want to continue this pointless discussion. Nobody appointed you as the chief of the blog police dpt. I already stated my reasons and you keep confusing things, calling names and debating things I did not say/defend in the first place. In one sense you are battling against your misinterpretation of my post not with its real contents.
=========
You deserve called out for it, whether you like it or not.
=========
You accused me of having invested in Psystar. If there is one liar here that misses points completely is you, not me. It absurd that you say "you deserver" this or that. You just talk as a frustrated teenager.
=========
Someone needs to tell you that you are behaving like a child. Hate that it had to be me, but oh well.
=========
Yeah, you call me retarded and pathetic and accused me of having an interest in Psystar as the only possible reason your brain could think of me making specific points. And I am the one behaving like a child? Excuse me but that's ridiculous.
=========
It was worth it to see what irrationality you would put forth next in your desperate attempt to not be viewed as an overly-dramatic troll with an agenda. Tough luck this time around, however. Better luck with the next attempt.
=========
I am not desperate at all, I just answered your accusations avoiding name calling unlike you who exhibit poor logic. Think that nonsense if that makes you feel happy. I guess delusional people find joy in things like that.
=========
LOL
=========
Are you really an adult? If so, it's truly sad.
2.1.2.2. Collaboration vs. Expert Omniscience
tssz - 04/17/08
To Mr. markbn:
1) Isn't this a blog story? If it is, then I would think that it is something that would not be expected to be complete and definitive. Mr. Kingsley-Hughes is simply informing us of what he's been able to find out, thus far, about PSystar. If you're expecting a full dossier, then you are visiting the wrong place.
2) Anyone who has spent time on the web trying to figure out where a company is physically/geographically located knows how sometimes it can be very frustrating. In fact, luddite that I am, I found it to be down right annoying. It makes me wonder what has a company, or an individual for that matter, got to hide that they would not want to be identified in the "real" world? Anyway...I digress.
3) Why not bring up suspicions about a company that makes wild claims and cannot back them up??? Mr. Kingsley-Hughes is actually providing the consumer with valuable information by implicitly warning them to be cautious about their enthusiasm for a product.
4) This web format of a threaded conversation can serve as a way of collaborating to find out more about PSystar. Case in point: Someone posted what they found out by going to the State of Florida Corporations Site. This dissemination of information helps clear some things up for some of us interested in this thread.
Thanks Mr. Kingsley-Hughes.
2.1.2.2.1. And to add to this...
jhurst747 - 04/17/08
He's not claiming that this is investigative journalism. It's news and opinion style blog. He's not preaching the gospel of technocracy but rather offering his diverse opinion based upon the information he pulls up through normal channels. I for one, enjoy the articles.
2.1.2.2.1.1. keep your ridiculously low standards for yourself ...
markbn - 04/17/08
I could not care less ...
2.1.2.2.1.1.1. Boo Hoo...
tssz - 04/17/08
Not caring by responding...Hmmm. Why should any of us readers care about your response then?
2.1.2.2.1.1.2. My intention
markbn - 04/17/08
is to say that I do not care about HIS low standards which I do not have. He could keep reading half backed stories and unsubstantiated claims from any blogger he wants if that makes him happy. I do not care about THAT, but I can state my opinion if I want. Also, did you notice that I did not address what he said? Because I cared to state my position, not about his rant. Hopefully, you understood.
2.1.2.2.2. You are utterly wrong
markbn - 04/17/08
First of all, I want to say one more time that his post of yesterday has a lot of it augmented and changed in many way, so what was there yesterday is not completely what's here now, so just that observation invalidates most of what you say. However ...
============
3) Why not bring up suspicions about a company that makes wild claims and cannot back them up??? Mr. Kingsley-Hughes is actually providing the consumer with valuable information by implicitly warning them to be cautious about their enthusiasm for a product.
============
Valuable information? Did you read the information was on the Florida State of Dpt. web site? Anyone could have access it, but Adrian did not. I will forgive that if it were a obscure site, but it's not.
============
2) Anyone who has spent time on the web trying to figure out where a company is physically/geographically located knows how sometimes it can be very frustrating. In fact, luddite that I am, I found it to be down right annoying. It makes me wonder what has a company, or an individual for that matter, got to hide that they would not want to be identified in the "real" world? Anyway...I digress.
============
Actually he was out to try to come up with an explanation for the company using the same address as Psystar:
[quote]
I?m now trying to clear up which company is actually at the address - I?ll get back to you when I find out. Maybe the address as suites, but so far I can?t confirm that.
[/quote]
Why don't find out and then give us some credible information? (or just said: I tried but was unable to verify that. I think that's OK). I myself have used one time an address that were like a PO Box but not exactly, it was a series of "suites". Several people could give their address there and actually the management will take phone calls confirming that such address was yours!! By the way, I just remembered that the address I had was in Florida too, so maybe this is a common option there.
===========
1) Isn't this a blog story? If it is, then I would think that it is something that would not be expected to be complete and definitive. Mr. Kingsley-Hughes is simply informing us of what he's been able to find out, thus far, about PSystar. If you're expecting a full dossier, then you are visiting the wrong place.
===========
In principle you are right about being a blog story, however 1) I have never had read a story so lousy from Adrian before so he make me get used to high standards when I read his blog, that's why I keep reading it, and 2) Whether he wants or not, he is a popular blogger people could take this post as any of his other posts: very well informed and researched while in fact it's a developing story.
Quite frankly I think YOU were looking in the wrong place. You seems to have been expected that any blog is a mess of undeveloped stories and that this one was no exception. I think you should read his posts more often, or if you already do, pay more attention to them
===========
4) This web format of a threaded conversation can serve as a way of collaborating to find out more about PSystar. Case in point: Someone posted what they found out by going to the State of Florida Corporations Site. This dissemination of information helps clear some things up for some of us interested in this thread.
===========
I agree that the talkback is intended to give feedback to the author and that s/he could alter what he posted to reflect this. But in my opinion that's far different than throwing some half-researched and some unsubstantiated things in a blog post and expect somebody else proves you wrong.
One more time please avoid the idiotic responses. For example, I saw that the company changed address one more time, so that does not change what I said about the post, which was YESTERDAY!!
2.1.2.2.2.1. Very well...then.
tssz - 04/17/08
OK...Points taken. It sounds like you're a bit angry and I didn't have any intention of flaming. Relax...
2.1.2.2.2.2. Just to add a little perspective ...
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes - 04/17/08
Just a brief note to add a little perspective.
This story is a complex one and one that has changed a lot over the past 24 - 48 hours. I've augmented the initial story a few times with new information as I've been able to confirm new finding.
As to the Florida State website link you refer to, I already had that link before I wrote the story. I didn't post it here because at no time did I make any claims about the validity of Psystar as a corporate entity, and as such, the link seemed irrelevant. If you look in the TalkBack section here you'll find that I actually posted the link.
Another issue here is one of having to be careful. I've noticed sites such as Gizmodo outright calling Psystar a hoax. I'm not going to do that without a LOT of evidence.
Finally, I, along with many others had been digging into Psystar. Since Charles Arthur of the Guardian was the first to break the story, I referenced his post extensively and added extra information that I'd discovered to the post. I've since added more.
2.1.2.2.2.2.1. Hmmm, where did the page breaks go?
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes - 04/17/08
Just a brief note to add a little perspective. This story is a complex one and one that has changed a lot over the past 24 - 48 hours. I've augmented the initial story a few times with new information as I've been able to confirm new finding. As to the Florida State website link you refer to, I already had that link before I wrote the story. I didn't post it here because at no time did I make any claims about the validity of Psystar as a corporate entity, and as such, the link seemed irrelevant. If you look in the TalkBack section here you'll find that I actually posted the link.
Another issue here is one of having to be careful. I've noticed sites such as Gizmodo outright calling Psystar a hoax. I'm not going to do that without a LOT of evidence.
Finally, I, along with many others had been digging into Psystar. Since Charles Arthur of the Guardian was the first to break the story, I referenced his post extensively and added extra information that I'd discovered to the post. I've since added more.
2.1.2.2.2.2.2. Thanks.
tssz - 04/17/08
Thanks for putting this back into perspective.
I had figured as much that this type of story would require more time to develop and thus more investigation--as you are engaged in. Yours is a cautionary tale without jumping to any conclusions.
On the one hand, web-based media allows for the quick evolution of your story; and on the other, it often doesn't allow for as refined a product that print media might call for--except after the posting of several iterations (which takes time to develop). I realize I'm not saying anything new here, yet all of us need to remember this.
2.1.2.2.2.2.3. As I said
markbn - 04/17/08
The reason I read your blog is because I regard it of having high standards and a balanced opinion. For that same reason I do not read blogs that lack that, so mentioning Gizmodo (which I do not read) really does not add things to the topic (because of what I said in the previous sentence)
I do know you posted the link, but it *seemed* that you found it AFTER you posting on the blog. Had you mentioned that before I probably would not had posted my critique.
====
I make any claims about the validity of Psystar as a corporate entity
====
Implicitly you did the part of your post talking about a Florida Bureau that did not know anything about Psystar. Now, I mention that so that you can know why I posted what I posted not because I am trying to discredit your opinion.
====
This story is a complex one and one that has changed a lot over the past 24 - 48 hours. I've augmented the initial story a few times with new information as I've been able to confirm new finding.
===
I would rather you confirm at least some of those "findings" before the post. However, I really do not want to argue about that. It's your blog, so do with it whatever you prefer (it sounds harsh, sorry, but I am short of time now and wanted to communicate the idea somehow). Also, I will keep posting my opinions if nobody else minds (I know you don't)
2.1.2.2.2.3. So, how much money do you have invested in Psystar?
laura.b - 04/17/08
Can't think of any other reason you would be vigilantly against a standard news story, just like one you would see on the nightly news.
Seriously, are you always like this? If so I feel really bad for the people who have to be around you.
2.1.2.2.2.3.1. The same money you invested in Apple
markbn - 04/17/08
Your accusation of me receiving money by Psystar is fallacious: if you can beat them, accuse them.
Shame on you who thinks the only reason I can enter into this argument is because I am a greedy and principle-lacking person hungry for money. I guess that's they way YOU and the people around you act but please do not think the rest of the world is as bad as that. I also feel bad for people around you.
For the records: I am not affiliated with them and have not bought anything from them, etc.
2.1.2.2.2.3.2. Are you completely retarded, or completely insane?
laura.b - 04/18/08
It has to be one or the other, because you can neither read nor understand what's going on around you.
Investing in Psystar is not receiving money from them unless they have made some, it's giving money to them, in the hopes that they will make something.
I have nothing invested in Apple, no stocks, and no purchases from them. I don't even own an iPod, and I never will. My pre-hubs used to have an iMac, but it wasn't mine, and it's gone now.
The reason I called you our for it is because you are being so insanely irrational. No one I have ever met has behaved as you are over something completely pointless. You lash out for no good reason whatsoever. Therefore, I maintain that you don't want Psystar to get bad press, so you must have an interest in them. Otherwise, you're just a total nutjob.
But, you answered one question, in a certain way. You clearly ARE always like this. Either that or the seriously pitiful mood you're in has lasted WAY to long to be taken seriously anymore.
You are so pathetic. It would be funny, but instead its sad.
Have a nice life (though I doubt you will, with an attitude like yours).
2.1.2.2.2.3.3. I am neither
markbn - 04/18/08
=========
Investing in Psystar is not receiving money from them unless they have made some,
=========
Yes, when one invests in a company that later receives enough profits, one receives money "from them". Nothing wrong with that
=========
I have nothing invested in Apple, no stocks, and no purchases from them. I don't even own an iPod, and I never will. My pre-hubs used to have an iMac, but it wasn't mine, and it's gone now.
=========
Thanks for sharing that, but with all due respect, I don't care. You accused me of having invested in Psystar and it seems that you think that's the only reason I can say something about it. That's plainly stupid. Sorry, for using that word, but it is.
=========
The reason I called you our for it is because you are being so insanely irrational.
=========
On the contrary, I rationalized and explained every decision I made about things I said unlike you that react with accusations whenever people don't think like you.
=========
No one I have ever met has behaved as you are over something completely pointless.
=========
irst of all you have never met. Second, if it's pointless don't start with your accusations in the first place. You are the one making a big deal of this.
=========
You lash out for no good reason whatsoever. Therefore, I maintain that you don't want Psystar to get bad press,
=========
I did not say that. I said specific things and you are confusing everything.
=========
so you must have an interest in them. Otherwise, you're just a total nutjob.
=========
Look, your process of reaching conclusions is flawed. Everyone that says things that disagree with you must have an interest in this or that company. I am sorry but it's absurd. I'm not going to call you retarded or nut, unlike you, I don't have such low standards.
=========
But, you answered one question, in a certain way. You clearly ARE always like this. Either that or the seriously pitiful mood you're in has lasted WAY to long to be taken seriously anymore.
You are so pathetic. It would be funny, but instead its sad.
Have a nice life (though I doubt you will, with an attitude like yours).
=========
Oh I see, your attitude of name calling and unfounded accusations and fallacious arguments is a happy one. OK, good for you, but if your thinking capacity is so limited just as you showed, then I guess the one that is sad and pathetic are you. Grow up baby, stop whining every time somebody says things that you disagree with.
3. Isn't it interesting
frgough - 04/16/08
That it is some blogger that actually engages in true
investigative journalism. The big news houses like ZDNet,
ComputerWorld, etc. simply re-printed press releases.
Methinks the small mammals are going to outlive the aging,
soon to be extinct dinosaurs.
New by fax machine isn't going to keep you alive.
3.1. If it bothers you so much...
James T. Kirk - 04/16/08
...why are you here?
3.1.1. I've found the Apple zealot response more interesting than the story
NonZealot - 04/16/08
The story to me wasn't anywhere near as interesting as the Apple zealot response.
For years now, we've been saying that there is no full install OS X SKU and that all OS X boxes for $129 are upgrades. The Apple zealots claimed we were wrong. Suddenly they have to defend the hive and we have [url=http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11408-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=46646&messageID=865795&start=0] Ken_z admitting that all OS X installs are upgrades. [/url]
For years now, we've been saying that you can't directly compare prices of OS X to Windows because the cost of OS X is subsidized by the outrageous markup on Mac hardware. The Apple zealots claimed we were wrong. Suddenly they have to defend the hive and we have [url=http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=46615&messageID=865832&start=0] croberts admitting that OS X is heavily subsidized by Mac hardware. [/url]
We have people like Harry who have always been talking about CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE yet he is emotionally shaken by this move that will actually increase choice, all because some multi-billion $$$/year, multi-national company that doesn't know who Harry is may not like the actions of a start-up in a garage!
We have legions of Apple zealots who tell us that Mac hardware is superior to PC hardware but if that was the case, then they really shouldn't care if some $399 PC claims to run OS X since it will still be noticeably inferior to the Mac. The fact that they are up in arms over this proves that they have no confidence in the superiority of Apple hardware. They have been lying to us for years now.
So, if this story turns out to be a hoax, or fake, or if no Psystar ever actually ships, it won't bother me a bit. To me, the responses to this story is where the real story lies! 
3.1.1.1. What I've found interesting ...
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes - 04/16/08
... is how Mac zealots on some sites (not so much here on ZDNet because your tech IQ is much higher than the norm) seem to be suffering emotional meltdown over discovering that once you strip away much of the veneer on a Mac, the parts inside that make it work are pretty generic. It seems that there are legions of folks out there who think that Apple make everything inside a Mac (down to planting the trees that will become the cardboard box, and refining and smelting the ores that will go into the components).
3.1.1.1.1. Wait...
Stuka - 04/16/08
You mean they don't grow the trees?!?
*sigh* This hurts to hear.
But for what its worth,Macs have had a lot of generic parts ever since ~1998 when they switched to stanadard memory, HD's, optical drives, etc. And while the newer machines are more so, the motherboards are hardly generic in layout and design. Functionally they are similar, but thats about all. And despite them being generic, their asthetic design is still far above that of any PC makers. There arent any desktops as small as a mini, or any machines as 'neat and tidy' as an iMac. And while the MacBook's may be missing card readers and such, they are a much cleaner design than any PC counterparts. I love how sleek and nice my MacBook is. It did cost a tiny bit more than a similar windows based notebook, but its been a long time since I have seen a dell or hp laptop that I actually enjoyed using.
3.1.1.1.1.1. Small as a Mini
Michael Kelly - 04/16/08
We have several of [url=http://www.targacomputers.com/showpages.asp?pid=1008&gclid=CIOywYeD4JICFQ03gQodLw1U6A]these[/url] in our office. Do a search on ITX cases and you'll find plenty more.
3.1.1.1.1.1.1. Question for you..
msalzberg - 04/16/08
how are yours configured? The base configuration seems
pretty Spartan.
3.1.1.1.1.1.2. Re: Question for you..
Michael Kelly - 04/16/08
Sure the base configuration is sparse. That means if you don't need much you don't have to spend much, but if you want more you can have it. Ours are a year old now, but they have Core Duos, 1 GB RAM, 80 GB 7200RPM hard drives, DVD CDR combos, wireless cards, with XP Pro. The cost with 19" widescreen LCDs and sets of wireless keyboards/mice was $1100 a pop, which was an excellent price at the time.
The only thing they don't offer that Mac Mini's do is Bluetooth, however you can go off on your own and get an internal wireless / Bluetooth combo card that fits the same slot. And you don't need a putty knife to open these things, you just pop off the plastic top (you do need a mini Phillips screwdriver once you've got that off).
3.1.1.1.1.1.3. I know of ITX, but those cost more
Stuka - 04/16/08
If I configure one of those machines to be identical to a MacMini that I have at home, it ends up costing more. And thats just the hardware, thats without putting windows on it, which would make it substantially more.
And so you can compare yourself, here is the Mini that I have:
2GHz Core2Duo 4MB
1GB DDR2 memory (stock, it now has 2GB)
120GB 5400rpm 2.5" HD
DVD-R/RW
4USB
1 firewire
Digital/Optical Audio Out
Line-In
802.11 B/G
Bluetooth 2.0 EDR
All for $799
3.1.1.1.1.1.4. @Stuka...Some/Many may not Need or want Windows
LazLong - 04/16/08
(or Mac, yet they (each) do have their own advantages)
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/04/review-mac-mini.html
and
http://system76.com/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=83
and
Many others which you can configure to your want and/or need.
Yet the Mac has its advantages even if you don't care for OSX.
Am I delusional or was this being called PlayStar yesterday?
3.1.1.1.1.1.5. @Laz
Stuka - 04/16/08
Yeah, I am not saying windows not being included is a bad thing. I would be fine with Linux on the machine you showed. And it is priced quite a bit better than the previous one that was listed.
On a side note, the next Mini (if rumors are true) is going to be much smaller than the current model. Apples current obsession with 'thinner is bettter' will get spread to it. Which wont be hard to so, lot fo wasted space in it now. Just be like a small notebook without the display.
3.1.1.1.1.1.6. Thanks for the link and the info...
msalzberg - 04/16/08
I was hoping for more. These seem underpowered and not
inexpensive.
3.1.1.1.1.2. 'Neat and tidy' as an iMac
Michael Kelly - 04/16/08
[url=http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_one?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04]Maybe not identical in design[/url] but Dell does make some pretty nice all-in-ones, certainly nice enough to convince a potential buyer that an iMac is the only way to go.
3.1.1.1.1.3. When Apple Stopped Using SCSI
djchandler - 04/17/08
IMO, that's when the perceived hardware platform superiority disappearred. To continue getting SCSI exclusively in your Mac then cost a premium. Then they cut it out altogether when FireWire came along abouy the same time as USB was being deployed. Losing SCSI reliability is one of the several reasons I quit using Macs. That goes back before the PowerPC models were introduced, about the same time as the Mac Classic, Quadras and some stripped down systems were introduced. Packard Bell was outselling everybody then, just before NEC absorbed them. Cheap, cheap, cheap. Apple did it to cut costs and increase margin.
There are far more similarities than differences these days between an Apple and other brands. Apple is a company, not a religion. It's all about profit, i.e., taking money from Apple fanboys. Now they can do it just by putting generic hardware in a pretty box. Nice work if you can get it.
Maybe I'll consult an interior designer before I build my next box.
3.1.1.1.2. Taken a step further.....
LazLong - 04/16/08
The Whole "Can Be" greater than the Sum of its Parts,,,,Synergy?
MS uses the same 1's & 0's
Dell uses the same Parts & ODM's as HPaq or Apple
etc, etc..
3.1.1.1.3. Really?
pecosbill - 04/16/08
I cannot imagine any Mac fan thinks that an Intel based Mac is any better than a generic PC with the same specs. There once was a time that Apple assembled their own computers in the US. Back then, the quality was superior (I'm too lazy to see if those studies still are online especially as it's moot). These days, Apple doesn't make the hardware (except the cases). I never checked to see if they designed the motherboard but I HIGHLY doubt it. There was also a time when SCSI ruled over ATA/IDE for sheer ease of use. The Mac video was also better (thousands or millions of colors at 640x480 compared to PC video in 1987 doing dithered color) but that also has gone. We've faced it long ago. The PC hardware caught up and then surpassed the PPC Macs. Those who don't know that are living in the past.
Thankfully, OS X from my actual experience trounces Vista (pretty but miserable to use). Oh, in general and only since the G3, Apple's tower cases and internal layouts have surpassed the clunk of PCs -- which remains today. Much easier and less risky to work in. Laptops, however, are best left to those with service contracts backing them. They can be a royal pain. Thinnovation comes at a tear apart price.
The key about the entire thing is Apple was nearly killed by Mac clones. Having them again would NOT help. Simple comparison: gross revenue on a sale of an OS vs the sale of a computer.
As for the OS Installer (top level person), there are two installs: one that will start with a blank disk and one that requires the prior OS be present. That's the designation for upgrade. If you want to argue that you're upgrading an initial install because the hardware that came with an OS is required, you're not talking mechanics but existentialism. What's the point of the latter?
3.1.1.1.4. OK Adrian put down that crack pipe .
Intellihence - 04/17/08
Enough with your bs . If anything you didn't catch me with this one , just wanted to say no matter how much you bs , you aren't getting all the peeps who used to visit this site on a regular basis . Why ? ZDNET has lost sight , and the peeps who work here on ZDNET are probably bottom of the barrel workers .
3.1.1.1.4.1. The Apple Jihad
jhurst747 - 04/17/08
Yes folks. The above jargon was learned at an Apple training camp where Apple Jihadists are taught that PC users deserve to be ridiculed and demeaned for their computing equipment. There is no other way than that of Apple. Sadly, like most badly trained and brainwashed individuals, they suffer from Cantfightmywayoutofawetpaperbagitis. Luckily though, it's not terminal. Or is it?
3.1.1.1.5. What's your point?
macbill - 04/17/08
Sure, all computers are made of component parts. So are cars. The way the parts are chosen, machined, tested to work together, assembled and packaged is one of the big differences between a Mercedes and a Yugo. I'll take the Maccedes any day!
3.1.1.1.5.1. Exactly!
vikingnyc@... - 04/17/08
Great car analogy. My Subaru, a "Japanese" car, was assembled in Indiana from components made all over the world - even some from Japan. Computer hardware is NO different. What makes the difference is this hard-to-define thing we call the "user experience" - and THAT is largely driven by things individuals care about, be it the OS, ability to customizer, scale up, etc.
3.1.1.2. PyStar taking advantage of a little known fact
DonBurnett - 04/16/08
OS X only boots on things with EFI firmware. Guess what, all new pc motherboards are moving to EFI (UEFI). Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows Server 2008 will both boot up on EFI equipped systems. Unless Apple did some proprietary stuff with their Intel motherboard, SP1 and Server or 08 will now boot directly on those machines.
Some PC OSes still require BIOS which this is meant to replace and that's done through firmware emulation. EFI is faster and more efficient than legacy BIOS of course. So if you have an intel PC EFI board, it should boot Mac OSX. Doesn't mean it's legal to do though (Apple's EULA says OSX only on Apple hardware).
What will no doubt save PyStar is the fact that the machine boots Vista or Server 2008 via EFI, and it just looks like a Mac.
There hardware really is just a part of the new generation intel type motherboard spec.
It's not a clone..
3.1.1.2.1. Proprietary?
DonBurnett - 04/16/08
Apple could also add identity bits, to their OS to check to make sure the EFI identifies it as real Apple hardware..
Can Apple shut down emulation of this, on something that's obviously a generic pc hardware clone, that's just switching the identity in the hardware? Looks like they can if they do a little bit more interrogation of the hardware at booting (wonder how fast that would end up being to do)..
3.1.1.2.2. Not quite
pecosbill - 04/16/08
Apple does not solely rely on EFI to lock the OS to the Mac. It uses specific code written to look for the TPM.
3.1.1.2.2.1. yes, but that probably could be faked out too
DonBurnett - 04/16/08
I am sure TPM could be gotten around. I am not sure how legal any of that is in the first place, but I wonder how locked down it is at this point..
3.1.1.3. You're missing it Non
Ken_z - 04/16/08
When a new cat comes out Mac
users can upgrade older Macs with
older cats to the new cat.
"Upgrade" in this way is directed at
the computer, not the OS. I should
have said "install a full copy of the
new OS" in order to avoid
confusing you.
To verify full copy -v- upgrade:
you can buy a new HD for an older
Mac and install your $129 version
without making any reference to
the older version. You don't even
have to call 1-800-Mommy-May-I
to start using your old Mac with a
new $129 OS X? Does that help
you understand it's a full OS
without requiring proof of owning
a previous version?
3.1.1.3.1. You've just proven my point
NonZealot - 04/17/08
"Upgrade" in this way is directed at the computer, not the OS.
You did yourself in right here. It is an upgrade of the computer but wait, not just any computer, specifically, it is an upgrade of a Mac and only a Mac. You can't upgrade a Dell with this copy, you can't upgrade a home built computer with this copy, you can only upgrade a Mac. Apple, like many insurance companies, gives you a discount when you purchase a second product from that company because the margins on the first product help subsidize the price of the second product. That is the true test of an upgrade price vs a full install price and that is why you can't compare the $129 cost of OS X to the price of a full SKU of Windows. The full SKU of Windows is higher because it requires no proof of owning any previous Microsoft product. The upgrade SKU is cheaper because you have to provide proof. The only difference is that MS and Apple use different methods for allowing you to prove your loyalty: Apple uses the hardware, MS uses an install disk.
I like that argument above because it is much more direct but I'll also fall back to the old argument which is just as valid but seems harder for Apple zealots to comprehend. I'll do it by quoting your post that I linked to above:
Apple includes OS X with every Mac sold
So you can't buy a Mac without OS X.
it (OS X upgrade for $129) only be installed on genuine Apple hardware.
So you can't install the $129 OS X on any computer that was not sold with a previous version of OS X and you helped prove it. Note that no such proof of ownership exists with the full SKU of Windows. It can be installed on any computer, whether that computer has ever had anything installed on it ever.
Why is this important? It is only important because people try to compare the $129 upgrade price of OS X to the full SKU price of Windows. Comparisons should instead be made to either the upgrade SKU or the OEM SKU.
Again, this is why the replies to the Psystar story are so much more interesting than the story itself. Last week, we wouldn't have Apple zealots scrambling to prove things that we've been saying for years now.
3.1.1.3.1.1. Wrong again, WinblowsBrain
macbill - 04/17/08
NonZ says "So you can't install the $129 OS X on any computer that was not sold with a previous version of OS X..."
I guess my computer isn't running, because it came with OS9 (OK, it's my backup) and, with a new hard drive, a *blank* hard drive, it's now running OSX without a hitch. Doncha hate it when someone has facts, rather than opnions? Sorry to burst your tired bubble, NonZ...
3.1.1.3.1.1.1. Yeah right, because you got the OS 9 for free, right?
ajole - 04/17/08
Except that, EXACTLY as he said, you DID already pay for the OS by paying too much for that pesky computer you bought, which you could NOT buy without the OS, because Apple won't let you. The fact that he said OS X does not mean OX 9 is not part of the same equation, which any human would see, as we can actually think, reason and synthesize. Would you feel better if his statement had been, " you can't install the $129 OS X on any computer that was not sold with a previous version of ANY MAC OS."? Which he would argue means you already subsidized your own upgrade.
So much for your silly facts. You were correct, but Oh, So Wrong!
3.1.1.3.1.1.2. Shrinkwrapped OS X is not an "upgrade" - it's a full version
vikingnyc@... - 04/17/08
I bought Tiger off the shelf and installed it (to test it) on all sorts of HW configs, both G4 and G5 based. (I get paid to do this, BTW). All I had to do was throw in a blank hard disk, boot from the Tiger DVD, and I was off and running. What is this guy talking about.
3.1.1.3.1.1.3. Actually, you just
alaniane@... - 04/17/08
proved his point. OS 9 and OS X are versions of the same OS. X stands for version 10.
Other examples
Wordperfect 5.1
Wordperfect 5.2
Wordperfect 6
Wordperfect 9
Borland C/C++ 3.0
Borland C/C++ 5.0
There was a time when all software sold included the version number in the title instead of the year of release.
3.1.1.3.1.1.4. @alaniane...
msalzberg - 04/17/08
Just because a product has a similar name does not
make it the same product.
Some examples: The recent Lincoln Zephyr had
nothing in common with the 1948 V-12 powered
Zephyr.
The current USS Enterprise has nothing to do with the first
USS Enterprise.
I doubt that Windows Vista shares any code with Windows
1.0.
OS X is completely different from OS9.
3.1.1.3.1.1.5. To msalzberg
alaniane@... - 04/17/08
I'm software developer. OS X maybe completely different to the user than OS 9, but its versioning is just another iteration of Mac's OS.
To many users Win 95 was completely different from Win 3.1 or 3.11; however, in reality Win 95 was just Win 4.0. It was a different version of the DOS based Windows line.
Software versioning is different from manufactured products.
3.1.1.3.1.1.6. re: msalzberg - further info
alaniane@... - 04/17/08
If you want to see how software versioning works, here's a link in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
Basically, it works along the lines of
major_revision.minor_revision
so that a jump from 1.0 to 2.0 means a major revision in the functionality of the software, whereas, a jump from 1.1 to 1.2 means a minor revision (some additional features, etc.).
I can still remember articles in some tech magazines when MS DOS 6.0 was released. Many felt that it should have been only 5.1 because it didn't add a whole lot of new functionality to the DOS kernel. It only added some utilities like defrag and disk compression. So, I'm not surprised that OS X is radically different than OS 9. The jump from 9 to 10 indicates a major revision.
3.1.1.3.1.1.7. Thanks ajole, you are right
NonZealot - 04/17/08
I only said OS X because the poster I was replying to said:
Apple includes OS X with every Mac sold
I thought most people would be smart enough to figure out what I meant but then I forgot that most people here are Mac zealots and can't really think for themselves.
3.1.1.3.1.1.8. alaniane, you're ridiculous
bmerc - 04/18/08
A Wikipedia article describing software versioning has NOTHING to do with product naming for marketing purposes. If you really don't know this, you're an idiot. But it's more likely you know this perfectly well, and are just blowing smoke to cover your original goof.
You are actually trying to make the claim that OS X is just a major revision of OS 9, rather than a completely different OS with a totally different kernel, written from the ground up. Nobody who is even casually informed on the subject is gonna buy that stupidity.
Nonzealot, just shut up already, your puerile yammering is annoying the grownups.
3.1.1.3.1.1.9. bmerc your the one
alaniane@... - 04/18/08
who doesn't know what he's talking about. The version number from Apple's own website for Leopard is
Mac OS X v10.5 (notice it says version 10.5 and not OS X version 1.5). As far as Apple is concerned OS X is another iteration of its previous OSes and not a entirely different line.
A major revision can include different funtionality and can even be a complete re-write of the software. The point is that Apple considers it an upgrade of their OS and as such sells it to previous Mac owners at an upgrade price.
3.1.1.4. Would Microsoft mind being ripped off ?
Intellihence - 04/17/08
Answer that zealot , and you will see how biased you are .
3.1.1.4.1. How does buying their product and using it rip them off?
ajole - 04/17/08
I know they made a little rule that says they don't agree to let you use their product that you bought on any machine they didn't create, but how does that rip them off? I paid what they asked for the product! It may be a silly argument, and it might be unethical to violate their EULA, or even illegal, but I don't see how that "rips them off". Unless, wait, you mean they lose money by selling their OS for that price? Isn't that a monopolistic behavior?
So I guess you proved Non Zealot right again. He must be loving every minute of this
3.1.1.4.1.1. Apples and Oranges
vikingnyc@... - 04/17/08
Microsoft isn't in the "tightly integrated user experience" business - they are in the OS business. You buy a legal license from them, they don't give a shite what cheap POS hardware system you try to throw it on. Not their problem. They're the majority platform, and they'll do it their way until huge numbers of customers scream at them.
Apple is in a different position. As the minority platform, overall "user experience" is the largest jewel in their crown. Allowing their OS to be tossed onto any old generic junk box risks having that jewel tarnished, doing potentially irrevocable harm to Apple's reputation as having the best customer support in the business [source: Consumer Reports]. And who at Apple wants to tell someone: "Sorry but we don't support that particular model."?
3.1.1.4.1.2. Ajole/Nonzealot, you're not fooling anyone
bmerc - 04/18/08
This sock puppet nonsense needs to stop. Please just post from your original account and stop making up pretend allies.
3.1.1.5. I certainly have more confidence in my Mac
labarker - 04/18/08
hardware than my friends have in their Windows boxes,
which are always giving trouble. Used to be a time when I
would say if you must have a Windows box buy a Dell
(though my friends never took any notice because Dells
were more expensive) but even Dell have gone cheap and
nasty.
4. RE: Digging into Psystar
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes - 04/16/08
Just to clarify ... as far as I can tell, Psystar never issued a press release.
6. RE: Digging into Psystar
meatclone - 04/16/08
Great idea.Let's spread the news that we are selling mac clones.(We don't)We don't even have to set up a website we can just say "It crashed".That would accomplish two things:No web site set up/maintenance and it would show Apple that we are a small time operation.
They have a couple choices.Alert their lawyers and steamroll over us (Bad PR for BIG BAD APPLE)or maybe
they will offer us a couple millions quietly to stop.
Our investment $0,potential loss $0.Gain? Sky's the limit.
Psystar = Psychological star = Bright idea
7. I think they are looking for a payout
Taz_z - 04/16/08
Here is who owns psystar.com:
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=PSYSTAR.COM
From the looks of a search on the owner's name, he might have been the one that answered the phone. It looks like they are floating attention-getting information and hoping for some attention (good or bad) without divulging much of anything else. I'll bet Apple stays mum on this until it shows some teeth, which does not seem likely at this point considering the "company" history, or the lack thereof.
7.1. But, it will cost PsyStar money for lawyers!
AtlantaTerry - 04/17/08
While they may have been raising a trial balloon, dollars to doughnuts it's gonna cost them big bucks in lawyer fees.
Terry Thomas
President
PC Tech Support
Atlanta, Georgia USA
8. Even stranger ...
Jens T. - 04/16/08
The developer of the efi v8 emulator (in use in the
"OpenComputer") claims that the people behind Psystar have
ripped off his work without attribution ...
http://netkas.org/?p=62
I wonder how NonZealot will spin this ...
8.1. Interesting
Badgered - 04/16/08
From the link you provided.
So, this is violation of my authorship rights on pc efi v8. pc_efi v8 now had been reloaded, and includes very basic license which denies any commercial using.
Interesting. But I wonder when it was "reloaded".
8.2. ... and stranger still
Jens T. - 04/16/08
NOW there is a page up at Psystar, where they acknowledge
"the Open Source community" and Netkas as the author of PC
EFI.
http://www.psystar.com/open_source.html
Wonder what's next ...
8.2.1. How is that strange?
Michael Kelly - 04/16/08
A violation was cited, and the violator immediately corrected the problem. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
8.2.1.1. Violation was not corrected.
msalzberg - 04/17/08
The author of the EFI emulator does not allow anyone to use
his program for commercial purposes, which is exactly what
PsyStar proposes to do.
9. RE: Digging into Psystar
pecosbill - 04/16/08
There's been a lot of clamor in the Mac web that Apple needs to release an "xMac." That would be a tower (mini, most likely) that has core2duo chips instead of Xeons. The only thing I can see why that hasn't been done is it's an affront to Job's sense of style. The PowerMac/Mac Pro is a conciliation to power users that are willing to pay big $$ for a workstation class to do PShop/movies. Jobs really wants to be in the consumer space but bows to the artists, etc at corporations that kept the company floating during the dark years. Apple's support for corporations is barely bare bones.
9.1. It's a Chicken/Egg problem
vikingnyc@... - 04/17/08
Why should Jobs crank out a 'generic' xMac box for corporate use when there is no evidence corporate America will run to embrace it? Why would the Board and the shareholders want to lay out a lot of risk capital on a corporate hardware strategy without even modest assurances of success (like a behind-the-scenes deal with IBM, for example)?
10. Psystar has learned what a CCP is
Ken_z - 04/16/08
Credit Card Processors can
hold back a percentage of
funds to cover any potential
losses when customers want
their money back. Frontier
Airlines went into Ch 11 last
week because their CP
wanted to raise the Hold Back
to 100%.
So guess what the potential
of Psystar's CCP increasing
the Hold Back is. I'd guess
100% and I'd guess that the
hold Back is 100%.
11. RE: Digging into Psystar
netzd - 04/16/08
Since I can be a little crazy at times, I posted today this
crazy theory that maybe, just maybe: Psystar is, in fact,
really Apple?
( http://my2cents4theday.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-
apple-behind-psystars-cheap-mac.html )
Yes, I know it's a crazy idea, but there are a few reasons,
as I state in my post, that I think that this might be the
case.
I won't go into the reasons, but as I said, "It's just a crazy
theory," and one that I wrote about for the fun of it - but
still, the idea that Psyster is an Apple dummy corporation
still could be true, couldn't it?
12. Awesome Investigative Reporting
Marcos El Malo - 04/16/08
by Charles Arthur at Guardian.
Adrian, you couldn't investigate your rear end if someone
gave you a map. You got scooped by the second commenter
for gosh sakes! Didn't they teach you to use Google on your
first day at ZDnet?
12.1. Huh?
jhurst747 - 04/17/08
Maybe you should hire this guy. He seems to be a pillar of wisdom and knowledge.
Get a grip guy. This is stuff reported as it's found. It's not like he's in a race to get the news out. I rely on him to keep me up-to-date with stuff like this since I have a real job that prevents me from doing as much investigation on everyone else's work like yourself.
13. Wait some more
Marcos El Malo - 04/16/08
YHBT HTH HAND
I think it really says something about the desperation for
page hits when the bog other is down here in the comments,
trolling the mac users. Is this a new low for Adrian?
13.1. a troll "Marcos El Malo" trying to call someone else a troll now thats
SO.CAL Guy - 04/17/08
a troll "Marcos El Malo" trying to call someone else a troll now thats funny.
Marcos El Malo why don't you go out side and play and let the grown ups talk.
14. Their address has changed again.
msalzberg - 04/16/08
As of now, 2.24AM Eastern Time, they are now at:
10475 NW 28th St
Miami, FL 33172
I wonder how much they paid to the moving company so far,
and if they've had to reprint their stationery.
15. Check the Business Registration
donden@... - 04/17/08
Stop by www.sunbiz.org and you can find out the Registered Agent for Psystar is:
Registered Agent Name & Address
PEDRAZA, RODOLFO
10645 SW 112 ST
MIAMI FL 33176 US
and the corporation was formed effective July 1, 2007.
They have not yet filed an annual report, but then they don't need to until July 2008.
It's a business. I've piggybacked web sites for fledgelings to cut costs at times. Don't know how many other business this guy has, though. That might be interesting.
18. OH MY GOD!
davey23 - 04/17/08
You mean that this could be a couple of guys in a garage building an idea and NOT a huge national Micro-Goog-oho corporation?
Say it ain't so, joe!
You people need to stop being corporate sycophants.
19. RE: Digging into Psystar
winegirl - 04/17/08
Then Oh Wise one please explain how I was able to install
Mac OSX 10.39 on a 10 year old Mac 8600/350 that shipped
with Mac OS8.6 and never had OSX installed on it.
19.1. You are talking to NonZ?
ajole - 04/17/08
If you are, then the answer is that you paid the Apple tax and subsidized your "upgrade" by paying too much when you bought the old computer, which means he was wrong to say OSX, he should have said, ANY MAC OS. You subsidize ALL Apple OS upgrades when you buy ANY Mac with ANY MAC OS. Since you can't buy a Mac box without a Mac OS, can you refute that? Especially considering the years that the MS fans have been telling you that you are paying too much for the hardware? Really especially now that you are paying more for the exact same hardware?
20. RE: Digging into Psystar
cwallen19803@... - 04/17/08
What mystery? This is an example of how blogging is NOT news reporting.
see http://www.psystar.com/
We're in the process of moving to a new location which is now listed on our contact page. The first new address posted (10481) was in error and our correct address is 10475 NW 28th Street. PSYSTAR was, prior to this past week, not ready to handle the enormous production capacity demanded by the online community. Due to the incredible response we have now expanded to a larger commercial unit to handle the supplies and assembly of Open Computers. THANK YOU for all of your orders.
Midday yesterday our store was not receiving any orders. This was due to the fact that our merchant gateway, Powerpay, dropped the ball on us and refused to process any more transactions from our company. We have reverted to Paypal until we can find a high-volume merchant. Apparently Powerpay was not ready to handle the community's demand for Open Computing.
20.1. Would you buy...
msalzberg - 04/17/08
technology from a technology company that can't even put
their proper address on their Web Site?
20.1.1. Sadly, that's the case with LOTS of tech companies.
ajole - 04/17/08
Really good at 1s and 0's, soldering and outsourcing, really bad at English, spelling, and geography.
21. RE: Digging into Psystar
Mastermindxs@... - 04/17/08
After reading this article I tried the Psystar store my self and
everything seems to be working fine. I even called Psystar
and was properly greeted by a Psystar rep welcoming me to
Psystar. I asked him if there had been any problems with the
online store and he said that there have been no problems
and the online store has not been down at all, not even any
technical difficulties have occurred. Where is Adrian digging
up his facts? They seems to be blatantly wrong.
22. iTaliban vs. Microsoft Militia
tssz - 04/17/08
I got sucked into your black hole of virtual pointlessness. And now I will add some hot air inflation to this Bozo Balloon of Bytes).
It is sometimes interesting to listen to the iTaliban operatives and the Microsoft Militants go at it--but it actually seems rather tedious, pointless, and boring. It's not soap opera, but silicone-fueled geek opera. (And now I'm contributing to the wastage of thought. Or is it neural neurosis? Humans arguing amongst themselves because they have nothing better to do? Much ado about nothing? Hypocritical Irony on my part? Perhaps.)
So for my worthless two-bits (made of lead mind you...). I am not a tech professional, but rather a medium-power user/tinkerer. I have five computers at my disposal: 1 Toshiba-XP Laptop, 1 Dell-XP Laptop, 1 PowerBook G4, 1 iBook G4, and 1 Linux/XP PC desktop that I built from generic parts.
By far my PowerBook G4 has been the most pleasurable to use and I have never had any problems with it. It's never crashed nor frozen on me like all the others and I've been using it almost everyday for two and a half years. It has even been dropped by my students with nary a dent. Yes, it was expensive, but it's been worth it. My other computers, however, have all crashed or had some kind of problem over the years. For example, a virus-infested hard drive on my PC desktop leading to reformatting, etc. My least favorite machine to use is the Dell; I only use it for work-related stuff when it's absolutely necessary.
Is it my imagination or do the members of the iTaliban write longer (perhaps long-winded) posts??? Why is that??? Is it because they are more literate or is it just more defensive??? Or neither??? Why DOES a MacUser have to justify the use of their machine to anyone??? And, on the other hand, why does a Microsoftie have to be so snide and cynical when replying to MacCrackhead???
Don't get too excited please. This was written in jest to bring levity.
23. Apple - Marketing idiots
sbass@... - 04/17/08
Apple has protected their proprietary machines long enough. If they simply allow users to run their O.S. on any machine they would clean up in the O.S. market. How many vista users do you think might switch if they did. Microsoft must pay them to control the OS to keep in off their coveted pc clones. One of the reasons why I can?t stand apple is they want to control every aspect of my life. Sorry but I need options and not limitations. Wake up Apple!
23.1. Appleocracy
tssz - 04/17/08
Though I have am fond of my Mac, I'd have to agree that their proprietary BS is irksome at times. Their old marketing campaign: "Think Different" definitely ain't their by-line now. They have become the autocrats in the bubble-world of the Mac Theocracy.
23.2. Of course.
djchandler - 04/17/08
Remember the infusion of cash from MS several years back? It was about the same time as the last release of MS Office for Mac as I recall. Follow the money and you find the motive.
23.2.1. Simply wrong, wrong, wrong
frabjous - 04/17/08
Rarely seen a posting that was so absolutely wrong!
The "infusion of cash" from MS to Apple was to settle some
legal issues between them, as MS got caught blatantly
copying Apple GUI. At the time, the $150 million stock
purchase (later sold at a large profit) was equal to 4 days'
revenue for Apple, hardly enough to "save the company" as
many MS zealots seem to think.
MS Office for Mac has had several new releases since that
time, and you can see Office 2008 for Mac here: www.microsoft.com/mac/default.mspx
Motive? What do you think you mean?
23.2.1.1. rewriting history there sdwood most apple zealots would believe your
SO.CAL Guy - 04/17/08
rewriting history there sdwood? most apple zealots would believe your revision of history but people who were around know what happened. what you posted did not.
23.2.1.1.1. Here's factual history, what do you have?
frabjous - 04/17/08
I was there, clearly you weren't. No rewrite, just the facts:
from CNET News.com published: August 6, 1997
http://ecoustics-
cnet.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/210
0-1001_3-202143.html
Even in a tough year, Apple had 1997 revenues of $7.1
billion (check any stock market reference website) so that
makes Microsoft's investment equal to less than 8 business
days of revenue for Apple that year. Oops, I was off by 4
days. You were off by--wait, you didn't mention any facts,
right?
23.3. the problem is as soon as apple did port their os to everything
SO.CAL Guy - 04/17/08
the problem is as soon as apple did port their os to everything it would have the same problems as windows.
coding an os to work on everything is not as easy as making it for your own hardware.
Steve knows this and does not want the headaches Microsoft has to put up with. mostly dumb users who have a hard time clicking a mouse. or something as simple as installing software.
let me ask you this if you were Steve would you want the truth out there that your os is no better than Linux or windows? your only salvation is that it's written for select hardware.
having the EU and the DOJ breathing down your shoulder every time you want to do something with your code. having every black hat cracker writing worms maleware and viruses for your code.
losing control over your code having other software companies taking you to court every time you try to change something they don't like. i think not. this is why apple does not and will not open osx for non apple hardware.
24. @markbn
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes - 04/17/08
Just to clarify, the quote you have in this TalkBack post was as written by Charles Arthur. My opinion followed that:
"So far, nothing interesting my opinion and just points to Psystar being a small start up."
25. Digging into Psystar: 100% Hoax?
djchandler - 04/17/08
This could turn out to be the biggest hoax of 2008, intentional or not. I'm guessing this is nothing but vaporware.
If you don't want to build your own "clone," the OSx86 Project has a list of off-the-shelf systems that can run OSX. Take you pick.
Way to follow-up, AKH. Good job of sticking with this to find the real story.
26. A little clarity on some minor points.
nancyjones36507@... - 04/17/08
In Miami and many metro areas, one physical address can house many businesses. And if they're not C of C members, and just got started, there's no particulare reason Chamber of Commerce would know anything about them. And if nobody has filed a BBB complaint, there's no reason the BBB would have heard of them.
That said, *GASP* Mac OS Runs on NON_MAC HARDWARE??? Say it ain't so!!
Okay, and what they did was almost certainly a violation of the license agreement, although I haven't read it word for word. If there IS a loophole in the EULA, and they are cleared of all wrongdoing, and will offer a warranty for the boxes they build, then I gotta say GO FOR IT!
27. RE: Digging into Psystar
shawn.crawford@... - 04/17/08
No kidding, for what it's worth I have several *4 year old* HP/Compaq machines with TPM chips.
28. Computing dejavu?
pfyearwood - 04/17/08
This is starting to sound like those cheap laptops that were advertised last year. What were they? $75 US? Did anyone get one of those delivered?
paul
29. Business as usuall for a small company...
Narg - 04/18/08
Your findings Adrian are normal for a small business. They are growing and need to move to expand, and the take over a location that had a previous business in it. That's why you get another business at the new address DUH!
No, they were obviously not ready for the wreaking ball that the Internet can provide a cutting edge company. Very few are. Why do you feel the need to hurt rather than help? Got a clue yet?
30. RE: Digging into Psystar
dbisse@... - 04/18/08
Get back to the real story. Why can you not go to the local geek store, buy parts, build a PC, go to the software store, buy Mac V2010 (whatever it is up too now), install it on your home built PC, and then use it for whatever you do?
Another Example: Order a Dell XPS 1234, format it, install a brand new license for Mac OS 5678 and expect it to work.
The fact that a fly-by-night company is bringing up the matter and sticking it our faces doesn't matter. Is this even news worthy is what should matter. The way these articals are written, I could only think that somehow Steve Jobs called you up and asked you to do some digging up on Psystar to discredit them.
The very 1st artical I read on this "Event", I thought, yeah, another no name never heard of company trying to get money for nothing. Then I thought about the issue that is in question, and deduced it to be legitimate. Or at least court worthy.
The thing is that a company such as Apple would drag it out in court until everyone was bankrupt and couldn't go on. Settleling a case would have no impact on them other than to get the name out of the press for a week. The case would be 7 years long, the judge would say that Apple was in the wrong, award Psystar 100,000 dollars in damages and fine Apple 2 million. Which will later be reduce to community service. And you still wont be able to install the new OS2020 onto your AlienWare Area Q PC.
31. RE: Digging into Psystar
done@... - 04/18/08
Isn't any pathetic Linux geek gonna bring up how Linux would make this a non-issue?
Com'on people - you're falling asleep at the wheel here...
31.1. Since you're behind on this topic...
djchandler - 04/18/08
I refer you back to AKH's article of April 15, "Psystar: Apple?s terms violate U.S. monopoly laws." I posted a response there something along those lines.
As for pathetic, your take is obviously biased. You lack understanding. Some of us actually like our computers and enjoy tinkering.
As you infer, this issue is somewhat idiotic. Anybody really wanting to run OSX on their own hardware, i.e., not Apple's, probably already know about the OSx86 Project or are content to run Apple's Darwin (free) if not Linux or FreeBSD. There are plenty of options without Psystar.
32. RE: Digging into Psystar
phatkat - 04/18/08
I think in this economic times a smart start up will begin small and then ramp up as needed. With the possible issue of violating the Apple Macintosh boot ROM license I think they wanted make sure this will work before investing money to possible dead company.
33. Just an elaborate Apple marketing SCAM?
daryl@... - 04/18/08
Ever thought it could just be an elaborate marketing SCAM by Apple. Setup a dummy company, get your CEO to make a comment about he may even buy one and then show how swiftly Apple will stomp on them for copyright infringements?
May just give any other potential clone makers second thoughts about going down the same road???
33.1. Why?
djchandler - 04/18/08
That's an awful lot of trouble to go to just to make people aware of the possibility. It also points out that there's hardly any differences anymore between computer brands, and hardware is nothing more than a commodity.
The only real difference is the OS. And Google is doing its best to make that a non-issue too.