• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Psystar sells a $399 Mac clone

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: mitchel
Why would you want to install OS X on a PC?
Click to expand...

Because OSX is an excellent OS, unlike Vista and XP.
Click to expand...

Well I agree with you Vista is a crap sandwich. I think as far as OS's go, XP is pretty darn good.
Now I haven't used OS X or any of the latest incarnations of Linux in a while so I can't compare to those.
 
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: mitchel
Why would you want to install OS X on a PC?
Click to expand...

Because OSX is an excellent OS, unlike Vista and XP.
Click to expand...

LOL. OS X is just like every other Apple product: Overpriced for what you are getting and completely unnecessary.
 
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: mitchel
Why would you want to install OS X on a PC?
Click to expand...

Because OSX is an excellent OS, unlike Vista and XP.
Click to expand...

I agree that Vista is pretty bad, but XP is either one of the best or THE best OS that Microsoft has ever made, in my opinion.

Right now I have a PC back at home running XP and a laptop (which I'm using now) running OS X Leopard.

Each operating system has it's shares of pros and cons. For example, OS X seems to be more user-friendly on a day-to-day basis for whatever reason, especially in installing/uninstalling applications. However, I can't run ANY of my current PC games on my Mac because none of them are supported. Setting up hard drives and partitions is definitely easier on a PC. I've been working with Bootcamp for longer than I care to remember and nothing about it works for me.

 
Originally posted by: mitchel
Why would you want to install OS X on a PC?
Click to expand...

Because it's great operating system, there are some pro applications that are only available on OS X and (if you're not too concerned about aesthetics and support) it's a lot cheaper than buying a real Mac.
 
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: mitchel
Why would you want to install OS X on a PC?
Click to expand...

Because OSX is an excellent OS, unlike Vista and XP.
Click to expand...

LOL. OS X is just like every other Apple product: Overpriced for what you are getting and completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

bullsh*t, apple o/s packs are reasonably priced, 5 licenses for the family pack at less than one of microsofts licenses. whats over priced is microsoft os. i know they recently slashed prices but they really had some ridiculous prices on vista before which was esp galling considering vista was less than revolutionary and more like xp 1.5😛
 
So these clones won't have the magic fairy dust that makes authentic Apple hardware with the same exact specs as a non authentic Apple hardware run faster.

Piff, noobs.

In this months Popular Mechanics they had MAC vs PC and it was just a joke.

If you're going to compare one versus the other, then at least make sure it has the same exact specs!
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: mitchel
Why would you want to install OS X on a PC?
Click to expand...

Because OSX is an excellent OS, unlike Vista and XP.
Click to expand...

LOL. OS X is just like every other Apple product: Overpriced for what you are getting and completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

bullsh*t, apple o/s packs are reasonably priced, 5 licenses for the family pack at less than one of microsofts licenses. whats over priced is microsoft os. i know they recently slashed prices but they really had some ridiculous prices on vista before which was esp galling considering vista was less than revolutionary and more like xp 1.5😛
Click to expand...

What about the fact that OSX has had a handful of these OS updates in between XP and Vista? So yeah, the license may be cheaper, but it only lasts a year or two. In the time that Apple has released OS X, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 & 10.4, my $99 copy of Windows XP has worked. How much did those upgrades cost the Apple people? $100 a pop each time? Those in the Windows world tend to call these "major updates" to the OS's "Service Packs" and Microsoft distributes the Windows equivalent for free.

Leopard is nice, but $129 is ludicrous for what amounts to just some visual changes and a couple utilities for the majority of users.
 
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: mitchel
Why would you want to install OS X on a PC?
Click to expand...

Because OSX is an excellent OS, unlike Vista and XP.
Click to expand...

LOL. OS X is just like every other Apple product: Overpriced for what you are getting and completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Wow, I never thought I would agree with Barak Obama.
Hmm, I can buy OS X for ~$150 or download Ubuntu for free
 
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Originally posted by: Shawn
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: mitchel
Why would you want to install OS X on a PC?
Click to expand...

Because OSX is an excellent OS, unlike Vista and XP.
Click to expand...

LOL. OS X is just like every other Apple product: Overpriced for what you are getting and completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

bullsh*t, apple o/s packs are reasonably priced, 5 licenses for the family pack at less than one of microsofts licenses. whats over priced is microsoft os. i know they recently slashed prices but they really had some ridiculous prices on vista before which was esp galling considering vista was less than revolutionary and more like xp 1.5😛
Click to expand...

What about the fact that OSX has had a handful of these OS updates in between XP and Vista? So yeah, the license may be cheaper, but it only lasts a year or two. In the time that Apple has released OS X, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 & 10.4, my $99 copy of Windows XP has worked. How much did those upgrades cost the Apple people? $100 a pop each time? Those in the Windows world tend to call these "major updates" to the OS's "Service Packs" and Microsoft distributes the Windows equivalent for free.

Leopard is nice, but $129 is ludicrous for what amounts to just some visual changes and a couple utilities for the majority of users.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about what the majority of users experience, then clearly Vista is just "some visual changes and a couple utilities".

Plus you can hardly compare most of the updates to service packs. It'd be like saying the difference between OS X 10.0 and OS X 10.5 is the comparable to the difference between XP and XP SP2. Which if you've used both is clearly ridiculous. The fact they occurred over a similar timescale is irrelevant.
 
Originally posted by: rikadik
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
bullsh*t, apple o/s packs are reasonably priced, 5 licenses for the family pack at less than one of microsofts licenses. whats over priced is microsoft os. i know they recently slashed prices but they really had some ridiculous prices on vista before which was esp galling considering vista was less than revolutionary and more like xp 1.5😛
Click to expand...

What about the fact that OSX has had a handful of these OS updates in between XP and Vista? So yeah, the license may be cheaper, but it only lasts a year or two. In the time that Apple has released OS X, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 & 10.4, my $99 copy of Windows XP has worked. How much did those upgrades cost the Apple people? $100 a pop each time? Those in the Windows world tend to call these "major updates" to the OS's "Service Packs" and Microsoft distributes the Windows equivalent for free.

Leopard is nice, but $129 is ludicrous for what amounts to just some visual changes and a couple utilities for the majority of users.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about what the majority of users experience, then clearly Vista is just "some visual changes and a couple utilities".

Plus you can hardly compare most of the updates to service packs. It'd be like saying the difference between OS X 10.0 and OS X 10.5 is the comparable to the difference between XP and XP SP2. Which if you've used both is clearly ridiculous. The fact they occurred over a similar timescale is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the point here is that OS X isn't loads cheaper than Windows OS'es as the previous person was trying to say. Apple could have easily loosened up the purse strings a little bit more with their OSes and treated their customers better through the years, especially considering that OS X has only been out for around 7 or 8 years and there has been 5 revisions to it.

You're missing the point when you think there I'm implying that the difference between 10.0 and 10.5 is a service pack. I'm not saying that a big stretch like that should be a free download, but between the individual ones mostly is. Apple could have EASILY turned all 5 revisions into only 2 or 3 and offered other updates as downloads. Regardless, the point is that the 5 revisions have set people back each time and haven't always offered changes worth the price point.

The bottom line and point I'm trying to make is that OS X is not cheaper to get a license for because the updates come more frequently. Quick math. Which is cheaper... $300 for an XP in 2000 and Vista in 2007, or $600+ for OS X at all the respective update periods.
 
Originally posted by: Barack Obama
Haha some of the apple fanboy comments on the link are awesome. such losers indeed
Click to expand...
i think a lot of them were not apple owners. most of the replies were far too level-headed.

except for, of course, that one guy that kept claiming a PC comparable to any given mac would cost $200 to $1000 more 😕
 
Originally posted by: ryan256
Originally posted by: Baked
Won't stay in business for long. Apple's gonna sue them to the ground.
Click to expand...

Or just release an OS "patch" that bricks these machines.
Click to expand...

I would almost guarantee this will happen. Apple is not going to let a "clone" take away potential customers. I'll admit that I am actually interested in this product myself, but I don't trust that it will last very long.

If there was one buggy ass Operating System out there that is in dire need of patches, its Mac OSX. I wouldn't want to take the chance of getting stuck with OSX 10.5.x when 10.5.x+y is out.
 
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: rikadik
Originally posted by: Injury
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
bullsh*t, apple o/s packs are reasonably priced, 5 licenses for the family pack at less than one of microsofts licenses. whats over priced is microsoft os. i know they recently slashed prices but they really had some ridiculous prices on vista before which was esp galling considering vista was less than revolutionary and more like xp 1.5😛
Click to expand...

What about the fact that OSX has had a handful of these OS updates in between XP and Vista? So yeah, the license may be cheaper, but it only lasts a year or two. In the time that Apple has released OS X, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 & 10.4, my $99 copy of Windows XP has worked. How much did those upgrades cost the Apple people? $100 a pop each time? Those in the Windows world tend to call these "major updates" to the OS's "Service Packs" and Microsoft distributes the Windows equivalent for free.

Leopard is nice, but $129 is ludicrous for what amounts to just some visual changes and a couple utilities for the majority of users.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about what the majority of users experience, then clearly Vista is just "some visual changes and a couple utilities".

Plus you can hardly compare most of the updates to service packs. It'd be like saying the difference between OS X 10.0 and OS X 10.5 is the comparable to the difference between XP and XP SP2. Which if you've used both is clearly ridiculous. The fact they occurred over a similar timescale is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the point here is that OS X isn't loads cheaper than Windows OS'es as the previous person was trying to say. Apple could have easily loosened up the purse strings a little bit more with their OSes and treated their customers better through the years, especially considering that OS X has only been out for around 7 or 8 years and there has been 5 revisions to it.

You're missing the point if you think there I'm implying that the difference between 10.0 and 10.5 is a service pack. I'm not saying that a big stretch like that should be a free download, but between the individual ones mostly is. Apple could have EASILY turned all 5 revisions into only 2 or 3 and offered other updates as downloads. Regardless, the point is that the 5 revisions have set people back each time and haven't always offered changes worth the price point.

The bottom line and point I'm trying to make is that OS X is not cheaper to get a license for because the updates come more frequently. Quick math. Which is cheaper... $300 for an XP in 2000 and Vista in 2007, or $600+ for OS X at all the respective update periods.
Click to expand...

Well to be honest yeah, I wasn't really disagreeing with the point that it's more expensive if you were to buy every single version. As 10.1 was a free update, it would have costed in the region of $500 to buy every iteration of OS X, so if you were into the practice updating your OS everytime a new one was released you would be around $200 worse off over that 7 year period than if you bought Windows instead.

But the difficulty in what you are arguing is the assumption that someone is always going to buy the latest retail release of the OS. Admittedly most Apple users want the latest and greatest, but not everyone bothers. Most of the other people I know who use Macs are acutally still on OS X 10.3, albeit probably out of laziness.

And then there's the fact that the vast majority of people (which is the class of people we seem to be talking out) don't build their own PCs and buy a new PC every few years with a bundled OS, which they're paying for Windows again but for no added functionality. So the price of Windows can be a lot more than just 1 licence.

I guess my point is that it's an understandable but, in my opinion, slightly tenuous argument to say the OS actually costs more to own just because newer ones are released every two years where the previous versions are still supported and updated for a significant time.
 
Damn it, I was just gonna post that. No matter what name they change it to, Apple is on their ass now. If it runs MacOS, Apple's gonna slap court order on them.
 
http://netkas.org/

Turns out this company is just using some guys emulator, that is freely downloadable (and legal to use) by anyone. I might give it a go on my dual-core laptop later tonight.

Kinda sucks that they'd charge for money for someone else's hard work.
 
As someone has mentioned, the OSx86 Project has full hardware compatibility lists and step by step instructions for you to easily build a hackintosh on the cheap.
 
Welcome to the 80's, people were cloning Apple's then too.

You don't run into a problem really of selling the hardware...however; I believe Apples' EULA states the software is only to be run on Apple branded hardware. So as a consumer using the Psystar, you'd be out of licensing rules...Psystar would not be.
 
Can you imagine the outcry and anti-trust action if Microsoft created its own computer company and forced everyone to buy its overpriced hardware to run Windows?
At least with Windows you are only in an ecosystem with an OS monopoly. With Mac OS ecosystem, you are in a OS and Hardware monopoly by same vendor. I'll stick with Windows, thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top