[Macworld]

Post your comments for Mac clone maker Psystar dupes Apple's updates here

[AndrewRodney]

Psystar? Any relation to the old Daystar clone makers?

[k2director]

Somebody's cruisin' for a bruisin'.

[alansky]

You'd have to be nuts to install "modified versions" of Apple's OS X updates on any computer you intend to use for actual work. Sounds a little like asking the gardener to tune up your car because he charges less than your mechanic. Let's not even mention who built the car in this analogy...

Whoever buys this piece of crap deserves exactly what they get.

[vfx2k4]

You are a moron if you do anything critically important with these machines. Apple can and most likely will make a change to the OS to render them useless in the near future. They are under zero obligation to assure compatibility with these machines...

[mrbach]

If these are Intel machines, what makes them any different than a Mac? Apple doesn't use anything special or extra delicious in their machines, they just have that shiny Apple logo on them. I suppose that might be delicious though.

[NW_Mike]

"If these are Intel machines, what makes them any different than a Mac?"
Here's a clue, go buy any pc off the shelf and a retail copy of Mac OS X, then try and install it.
There are many ways for Apple to accomplish this. Believe me it is a lot of work to get Leopard to install on non-Apple hardware.

[scotts13]

These guys are really pushing it! It's one thing to install an existing piece of software in violation of the EULA; modifying someone's software and re-distributing it is something else entirely.
I'm starting to get really puzzled by the lack of response from Apple. What's their game here?

[garyi]

The game is Apple want to see how this pans out.

[macFanDave]

Quote

{quote:title=garyi wrote:}The game is Apple want to see how this pans out.{quote}

I don't think they have that luxury. Apple has to act promptly to enforce its EULA or run the risk of not having it taken seriously by Psystar now and others in the future.

I really don't know why anyone would want to buy this thing anyways. The only audience would be uber-geeks with really tight budgets. One of the great features of using a Mac is that one company makes the hardware, OS and some of the software, so the few problems I've ever had have been easily solved by Apple. I can't tell you how nice that feels after you've had a software problem on a PC that your ISV says is a Microsoft problem who then, in turn, lays the blame at Dell's feet. Even among uber-geeks, there must be some respect paid to well-designed hardware and a terrific OS, so even on a tight budget, many would dig deep to get the real McCoy.

Seven hundred dollars plus (the actual cost of a feature-equivalent Psystar) is a pretty steep cost for a one-way ticket to FUD-ville. Apple can easily render your investment into a quaint museum piece, frozen at OS X 10.5.2, which sounds good today, but when we move on to OS X 10.7 Garfield (the biggest cat of them all) with direct brain-computer interface (look, ma, no hands!), you'll rue the day you decided to stick it to Apple to save a few pieces of silver.

[Lord_Meroving]

Actually it is not a lot of work. I have 10.5.1 running on a custom made tower that also houses Win XP on separate HD's. Did i really need to do it seeing that i already have a MBP and an iMac (my main "bonnie and clyde"), no, but i just wanted to see if i could. It runs fast and great.
A mate of mine who's absolutely not spending $2500 on a MacPro when his existing quad-core rig that cost a third of the MacPro is just as powerful also has a hackintosh (we did it together) and it runs smooth.

[zarmanto]

I'm sure Apple is responding to this in the background... I'm just confused that the media hasn't yet identified and publicized the relevant court filings associated with whatever Apple IS doing. IMHO, that HAS to mean that something odd is going on here, aside from those details which we already know about Psystar. I keep thinking in the back of my head: What if Psystar is actually a shell company with someone else behind the curtain pulling all the strings? If you think about it, this mystery manipulator could be someone in Microsoft... or some terrorist organization... or possibly even Apple themselves. After all, since Psystar appears to be able to hijack the built-in software update routine now, (thereby providing what appears to be a fully functional system while simultaneously making it impossible for Apple to remotely cripple these non-Apple-sanctioned systems) any of the above could conceivably use this situation to their advantage: Microsoft could be interested in undermining Apple's profitability, a terrorist might be interested in creating his own zombie network or in outright identity theft on a mass scale... and Apple? It seems to me that they might actually stand to benefit the most from pulling Psystar's strings, as they could use such a puppet in a number of different ways, including gauging customers' attitudes about Apple's current business paradigms or testing out the marketability of otherwise unproven system configurations.

Of course, conspiracy theories being what they are... I'm probably just chasing after ghosts here. ;-) Still it makes for some interesting ponderables. In any case: regardless of who might or might not be pulling the strings, I still agree with previous posters, in that it would be a tremendous mistake to rely upon a Psystar system for... well, for anything at all, quite frankly.

[NW_Mike]

I disagree that it is not a lot of work. Your average joe is not going to enjoy the experience getting this to work and any time you have an update from Apple you run the risk of hosing your computer. Running a hackintosh is anti-Mac, meaning it is really not plug and play, more like plug and pray (I know, not original). For people who want the ordeal that's fine, but it will not be a truly "Mac' experience. Your friends $800 pc is as powerful as a Mac Pro? Hmmm, I doubt it.

[Lord_Meroving]

There's nothing plug-n-pray about it. You very obviously have not used one or played around with one, so you don't know. Yes, for the average joe, they wouldn't be doing this as it's a bit complex for an average person, but for someone who wants to save thousands of dollars....he'll tell you it's worth the hassle.

Like i previously stated, my friend's not going to spend the kind of money MacPro's go for. I get the feeling that his sweet spot would be no more than $1500 for a decent upgradeable Mac tower (maybe mini-MacPro-ish) if Apple ever comes out with one. For me personally, i like my iMac just fine.

Yes, indeed. My mate and i built a custom quad-core rig for less than a thousand dollars. You just have to know where to get good prices.