Psystar wins legal round against Apple

In an interesting twist, Computer World is reporting that a federal judge ruled last week that the Mac clone maker Psystar can continue its countersuit against computer maker and Mac OS developer Apple Corporation.

Psystar is (in)famous for legally battling Apple for the last seven months, calling them out for breaking antitrust laws, and the Judge hinted that if Psystar can prove its allegations, other manufacturers may be able to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed. This is bad news for Apple, as currently they are the only company legally allowed to sell computers with Mac OS X, but many people criticize them for charging an "Apple tax". On the contrary, if other companies can sell Mac OS X, it may lead to a decline in Mac sales, but it could lead to an increase in Apple's OS market share.

The Judge in question, one William Alsup, originally shot Psystar's claims down, but left the door open for a 'modified' complaint, which he approved on Friday. Alsup said, "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop."

Those looking to get into the Mac OS game on the cheap, don't get excited. Computer World noted, "Alsup also acknowledged Apple's argument that it had the right to decide how its software was licensed and used, but said that that would have to be decided as the case plays out."

The case is scheduled to go to trial on November the 9th this year.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google maps Australia's bushfires to help emergency services

Next Story

Google Maps street view rips hole in space-time fabric

80 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

For the sake of argument: assume that the bundling provision of the EULA is ruled invalid. Apple simply has to move OS X from a retail box to included with Macs only. They could sell 'updates' as a subscription the way anti-virus vendors do, or they could offer free upgrades for the life of hardware (and it just so happens that new operating systems require features that aren't found on 4 year old computers).

By not shipping retail-boxed copies of their OS the only real way to obtain Mac OS X would be to purchase a Mac and then move the OS off of it. While there could be some market for computers where Mac Mini licenses are moved to Mac Pro featured machines the proposition would be notably less appealing for 3rd party manufacturers.

I'm not in favor of a ruling one way or the other, but Apple "losing" the case does not in any significant way open the door to low-cost Mac clones.

While losing the ability to sell boxed copies of their operating system would be a hit to their bottom line it is certainly within reason to consider the option if Apple felt that losing this case was a significant threat to their hardware markets. Right now all of Apple's software sales represents about $600 million / quarter (for comparison, Keyboards, mice, iPhone docks, etc. were about $400 million, see last quarters 10-Q filing for more info). By comparison, Macintosh hardware was 3.5 billion, iPods were 3.3 billion, iPhone and iTMS was 2.2 billion.


How very true about the decline in apple hardware. This could potentially threaten the mac hardware industry, and make Apple a phone / software dealership

Here is a solution: Stop selling Mac OS X in boxes.

The tech-nerd in me would love to see Apple openly embrace other hardware vendors to see their equipment pre-installed w/ Mac OS X. The free-market enthusiast in me would like to see Apple win their fight against Psystar.

The stability of a system is mostly related to the stability of the drivers.

Probably some hacktintosh will have some stability problems at the beginning (and that's normal), but it is not a permanent problem. Stability comes with experience.

As much as I hate Apple, I don't agree with this. They developed their OS to run on their hardware. It should be up to them who uses it. Just because it can be hacked up to run on any x86 machine doesn't mean that they should automatically be obligated to allow it to happen. I would love to know how the law says that Apple has to allow other people to clone their work. Personally, if you want to compete with Apple then you need to build your own hardware/software. This is a joke.

And again, I am as anti Apple as they come. Dig up any of my posts here. I try to not be bias.

Apple stole their UI concept from Xerox and they stole their kernel from the free software community. Why should they care if other people want to use it?

Apple did not steal anything; they paid Xerox in stock worth millions to visit them and take a look at their technology and had an agreement to use it. The OS X kernel is open source, they didn't steal it either. Don't you just hate those pesky facts, they do so get in the way of a good Apple bashing post.

TRC said,
Apple did not steal anything; they paid Xerox in stock worth millions to visit them and take a look at their technology and had an agreement to use it. The OS X kernel is open source, they didn't steal it either. Don't you just hate those pesky facts, they do so get in the way of a good Apple bashing post.

Fact: Your argument doesn't change the fact that the GUI wasn't their idea.
Fact: Your argument doesn't change the fact that BSD wasn't their creation.
Fact: Now that they use standard off-the-rack components the only thing Apple creates is cases.
Fact: You took my post too literally.

The GUI not being their idea does not equal them stealing it.

Fact: They licensed it legally, they didn't steal it.
Fact: They're allowed to use open source software.

You clearly said they stole it, now I wonder how would anyone take that too literally? :P

Just because OS X is based on the concept of a GUI doesn't mean it contains no intellectual property.

You are writing complete BS. I dare you to cite your sources. I will go ahead and cite mine:

New York Times
Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994)

Apple never "licensed" the rights to ALTO. They stole the interface by snatching up the Xerox programmers who worked on the GUI. Xerox simply wasn't interested in pursuing litigation at the time. It's the same thing as snatching $5 from my hand and running away; If I don't bother chasing you down, you are not exonerated from being a thief.

Xerox believed that a "Graphical user Interface" is much like a mechanical one(the speedometer in your car), and should be impossible to copyright. Remember, this is back when the copyright system was not a complete embarrassment. It was only after Apple tried to sue Microsoft over copyright claims that Windows GUI looked too similar to MacOS, Xerox then filed suit claiming MacOS looked too similar to ALTO. Xerox knew they still owned the copyrights to ALTO, not Apple, and any sucessful litigation against Microsoft would automatically apply to Apple themselves. When the suit against Microsoft fell apart, so did Xerox's suit against Apple.

You can blow smoke all you want about Saint Jobs until your cheecks turn blue; facts are facts. Apple stole the MacOS GUI from Xerox's ALTO. They never bought the rights, just the programmers. Programmers =/= rights. End of story.

Is there really people who think Apple and MS created what OS are today ???

Both company just copy others idea. Both have awesome marketing dept.

other manufacturers may be able to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed.

Yes but why on Earth would you want to do that? If you are anti-Microsoft but refuse to pay the Apple Tax just run Linux.

I hope Apple wins this case. It's their software, let them license it however they want. The consumer shall decide whether to agree to it's terms or not. Just as iTunes owners understand that their purchases won't work on portable devices other than iPods.

C_Guy said,
other manufacturers may be able to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed.

Yes but why on Earth would you want to do that? If you are anti-Microsoft but refuse to pay the Apple Tax just run Linux.

I hope Apple wins this case. It's their software, let them license it however they want. The consumer shall decide whether to agree to it's terms or not. Just as iTunes owners understand that their purchases won't work on portable devices other than iPods.

So why can't MS do what they want with Windows?

Because MS has big pockets and the EU is low on funds again...

MS should be allowed to do what they want with Windows, there should be no double standard here.

nevann said,

So why can't MS do what they want with Windows?

MS can't do what they want, but IMHO should be able to. If consumers don't want what MS is offering, there are perfectly good alternatives available for them. I wish that the EU would get that through their thick bureaucratic skulls.

C_Guy said,
other manufacturers may be able to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed.

Yes but why on Earth would you want to do that? If you are anti-Microsoft but refuse to pay the Apple Tax just run Linux.

I hope Apple wins this case. It's their software, let them license it however they want. The consumer shall decide whether to agree to it's terms or not. Just as iTunes owners understand that their purchases won't work on portable devices other than iPods.

LTD might not be there but sure C-Guy is ...

Get over it OSX is as good as Windows. Both really are nothing to write home about.

You mean the LTD that thought this same judge's previous ruling was an exoneration of Apple in the matter of antitrust?

WOW... Too many Fanboys in here. Locking down s/w or OS to specific platform/hardware is so stupid. Who wants to pay the Apple Tax for their overpriced products. Seriously Apple products are way too overpriced at least in my country (India) and i find no compelling reason to spend money as i can find way too cheap alternatives in the market

Long live hackintosh

rakeshishere said,
WOW... Too many Fanboys in here. Locking down s/w or OS to specific platform/hardware is so stupid. Who wants to pay the Apple Tax for their overpriced products. Seriously Apple products are way too overpriced at least in my country (India) and i find no compelling reason to spend money as i can find way too cheap alternatives in the market

Apple hardware is way too overpriced pretty much anywhere.
It's about time something like this happens. Hope they win.
MS gets sued when they lock out the competition (and deservedly so), why should it be any different for Apple?

Good, About time Apple is looked into for this crap. MS gets fined the second they release something even though its not a monopoly. Apple on the other hand basically forces you to use only their products and doesn't allow for others to get into the area... sounds more monopolistic than ms.... Down with apple i say.

shakey said,
Good, About time Apple is looked into for this crap. MS gets fined the second they release something even though its not a monopoly. Apple on the other hand basically forces you to use only their products and doesn't allow for others to get into the area... sounds more monopolistic than ms.... Down with apple i say.

You are not forced to use OSX, are you? What does apple force you?
Or you use mac + osx or use windows + dell... no one forces you anything...

I agree. MS wants to finally release its best OS so far (Windows 7) but the EU wants to change it. I don't see EU even looking at Apple because they will not allow the Mac OS software to be installed on other hardware. To me, this is Anti competitive and should be looked at by the EU.

shakey said,
Good, About time Apple is looked into for this crap. MS gets fined the second they release something even though its not a monopoly. Apple on the other hand basically forces you to use only their products and doesn't allow for others to get into the area... sounds more monopolistic than ms.... Down with apple i say.

CoolBits said,
You are not forced to use OSX, are you? What does apple force you?
Or you use mac + osx or use windows + dell... no one forces you anything...

He means that Apple has total control over their systems. If you want to use OSX, you have to purchase a Mac. There's currently no legal way around it.

Fanon said,
He means that Apple has total control over their systems. If you want to use OSX, you have to purchase a Mac. There's currently no legal way around it.

Sure apple has complete control over THEIR system... thats normal :)
MS could close their system to work only on MS computers... oh wait... MS does not make computers.

If you want to use OSX, you have to purchase a Mac. There's currently no legal way around it.

Yeah, so, is that a problem? It's their software let them do what they want with it.

Microsoft gets bashed enough as it is for putting their browser and media player, something common for all OSes to have, in their operating system.

People would breathe fire if Microsoft did something like that.

C_Guy said,
If you want to use OSX, you have to purchase a Mac. There's currently no legal way around it.

Yeah, so, is that a problem? It's their software let them do what they want with it.

Because Microsoft is allowed to just do what they want with their OS... Oh, wait....

Fanon said,
He means that Apple has total control over their systems. If you want to use OSX, you have to purchase a Mac. There's currently no legal way around it.

So why is it so wrong that Microsoft bundles IE or WMP?

Just like a Mac, you can install another OS.
In Windows, you can install another browser / media player.

Ones tying hardware to software, ones trying software apps to an OS.

CoolBits said,
MS could close their system to work only on MS computers... oh wait... MS does not make computers.

It's still THEIR software, no one is forcing anyone to use it.

cybertimber2008 said,
So why is it so wrong that Microsoft bundles IE or WMP?

Just like a Mac, you can install another OS.
In Windows, you can install another browser / media player.

Ones tying hardware to software, ones trying software apps to an OS.


That's comparing apples to oranges. Media players, browsers, ect are features of the OS. The hardware of a Mac isn't a feature of the OS.

Right or wrong, provided you follow basic hardware compatibility guidelines (and nominally do the right thing by buying a copy of Leopard and iLife, albeit that you are buying upgrade disks at an upgrade price, and not the full priced product, which presently does not exist...) installing a very slightly modified version OS X on non Mac hardware has for some time been as easy as installing Linux; anyone who could follow a non technical instruction sheet could do it; all you needed to know was what (compatible) hardware your computer was using and select the relevant options from a customized installer. At one time it was argued that Apple were too small a company to try and compete with Microsoft in supporting every hardware kit out there, but now so many people in the open source community have shown that it doesn't take a vast effort to bring out OS X drivers. The demand is certainly there. Most dual Windows/OS X users, if not all, will tell you that anything Microsoft can do, Apple can do vastly better - greater stability, faster, less time phaffing around and getting anxious over security Internet security packages, bloat and lag. Heck, you can run XP or Vista within a virtualised environment, within a window in OS X, with little drop off in performance, unless you are a games player. So what is stopping Apple releasing OS X, beyond Job's very vocal loathing of poorly made and ugly PCs?

Apple tell us that they make their money from hardware, not software; the components used may be the same as in a Dell, etc, but Apple's cases and aesthetics are in a league of their own, plus you are getting the amazing OS X operating system, which is all about productivity and stability. You can't put a price on that. You are also getting your money's worth in terms of the whole sales/after-sales/support Apple store experience. Still, a lot of students, and so on, feel hammered on price. At the other end of the user spectrum, video editors, for instance, want the most powerful kit they can scrimp and save for, and Apple, apart from at the very top end, always seem to be using relatively old-ish spec machines that, in the case of the midrange iMacs, wretchedly can't be upgraded. Apple have never, never, never seemed disposed to addressing the upgrade grievance, so a hard-to-swallow solution for them might be that they nip this thing in the bud by getting into bed with Dell and a couple of other big firms to make ultra low budget and ultra high end machines, rather than just sell OS X os to everyone. The latter senario would surely dent Mac and Macbook sales badly. I don't see that happening, or at least not while Jobs is around. He has an almost patriotic zeal about the Apple brand ethos, thinks non Apple PCs are a false ecconomy and ugly.

I too hope Pystar fail but that Apple broaden their business model to shake off the mantle of near megalomaniac snobbery and eliteism. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. In terms of carrot and stick, the Apple operating system is a BIG carrot in people shelling out for a Mac.

While You Were Art said,
I too hope Pystar fail but that Apple broaden their business model to shake off the mantle of near megalomaniac snobbery and eliteism. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. In terms of carrot and stick, the Apple operating system is a BIG carrot in people shelling out for a Mac.

That would eliminate a huge part of why Mac users buy Apple systems in the first place. If they didn't feel "special", the allure would be gone.

Infusion- said,
That would eliminate a huge part of why Mac users buy Apple systems in the first place. If they didn't feel "special", the allure would be gone.
'PCs' are generally clunky but pro Mac fascism and elitism is uglier still. What infuriates me almost as much is the reverse snobbery from the 'PC' community. Not everyone will agree, and I quite like Windows 7 beta, but there is a functional aspect that makes using a Mac a pleasure. I boot up in ten seconds, the software is generally fast and snappy and never crashes on me, I get the job done quickly and can then turn the damn thing off. I prefer my PC for games, obviously, and there are more freeware options on a PC for encoding Videos, Yahoo Instant Messenger works better. I hate Mac keyboards. My ideal would be a fusion of the two platforms on my own terms but I don't see Jobs compromising and moving away from the 'I'm a Mac and I'm a PC' ugliness, which comes close to being hate crime and incitement. Macs as productivity platforms are a pleasure, right up until the point where you realize you can't upgrade the spec and you have to sell it and buy a new one. What the hell...

Anyway you get full OSX license only with a new MAC... in store you get only UPGRADE dvd for existing macs...
Apple could just stop selling upgrade DVD or require a mac serial on purchase... beat that.

A mac is a device and doesnt matter what components are inside... you buy it as a fully functional device.
Its not same as windows world, where one company makes an os and zilion others makes the hardware... thats why you get that separated.
As i said once before... why not install symbian on a motorola then... its just NO GO :)

So let's say that Apple is allowed to decide who gets to "decide how its software was licensed and used"...what stops pystar from going to best buy and purchasing a copy of OSX and shipping that out with the computer?

That's what the suit is about. Pystar legally obtained every copy of OS X from retailers, installed it on the system, and shipped it out with that system. They didn't buy one copy and install it on a bunch of PCs.

(yes I said PERSONAL COMPUTERS cause thats what even Mac's are)

cybertimber2008 said,
That's what the suit is about. Pystar legally obtained every copy of OS X from retailers, installed it on the system, and shipped it out with that system. They didn't buy one copy and install it on a bunch of PCs.

(yes I said PERSONAL COMPUTERS cause thats what even Mac's are)

But they are distributing altered code (breaking the DMCA) to get their computers working.

Even if and it is a big if, Psystar wins then they can sell the hardware but doesn't take any harder for changing the OS code so it keeps Psystar under water all the time or smoke them out. Then Apple can argue, it's our OS we can change it the way we want.

what? I didn't understand that at all. If you mean that Pystar can sell the hardware but Apple can change the OS anytime they want then yea, they can. But so what? Once the order is given for Pystar to make clones there wouldn't be much Apple could do to undercut them. Apple uses the same hardware that everyone else uses.

Oh, but wasn't there a big fuss about Microsoft supposedly changing code specifically to make it hard on their competitors? I ask this because I think LTD or someone had brought this up before. While I'll take that with a grain of salt, seeing Apple do something like that would surely make them look bad, no?

Also, what harm would they do to their own OS by making changes like this? And how much time would they have to invest into doing stuff like this?

I take it, if that's their plan B, that's it'll definitely be a thorn in their side. Apple will want to nip this in the bud as soon as possible because, should Psystar win, it would only create problems for Apple.

As for the general users, those that intend to buy it should definitely be aware of just how solid this is. I'm no OSx86 user so I can't speak for its stability personally. But if it works great, go for it!

LTD is referring to a story where Netscape claimed their browser was crashed purposefully using specific code within Microsoft's msn.com webpage, in an attempt to weaken their browser's image and convert people to IE. I don't know the details of that story, or whether not it is true.

What I DO know is true(LTD doesn't talk about it), is when Apple was accused of making iTunes 7 deliberately crash during the release of Windows Vista, even after iTunes had many stable beta and RC builds almost a year in advance. While many Windows users were disgruntled over this, it was the Mac users that became furious over Apple's shady attempt to derail Vista's release. It was the outcry of both the Windows and Mac community that finally got Apple to release a working build of iTunes for Windows Vista.

Kojio said,
LTD is referring to a story where Netscape claimed their browser was crashed purposefully using specific code within Microsoft's msn.com webpage, in an attempt to weaken their browser's image and convert people to IE. I don't know the details of that story, or whether not it is true.

What I DO know is true(LTD doesn't talk about it), is when Apple was accused of making iTunes 7 deliberately crash during the release of Windows Vista, even after iTunes had many stable beta and RC builds almost a year in advance. While many Windows users were disgruntled over this, it was the Mac users that became furious over Apple's shady attempt to derail Vista's release. It was the outcry of both the Windows and Mac community that finally got Apple to release a working build of iTunes for Windows Vista.

That's some interesting stuff there.

The part I find truly ironic though, and I'll never forget seeing this, is when Steve Jobs called iTunes on Windows a glass of water to those in hell (that is, those using Windows). How Jobs could have even said that with a straight face is truly incredible. While iTunes may be known for being decent on OS X, it's hardly known for having the same reputation on Windows. Safari too was a disgusting turd at its release...

There goes the judge enjoying his power to make everyone agitated...

I'm personally on Apple's side in this one, not because I believe they're right, but because I think that the general quality of their OS / ecosystem would go down if they were forced to open up their OS (open OS -> no one wants to buy actual Macs -> death of Macs as a hardware system -> death of a truly well-engineered platform (seriously, whatever you think about them, you have to give it to Apple for making the Mac experience pretty decent - from the hardware design, to the way the whole thing feels well-integrated and nice in general), and also, open OS -> Mac OS becomes popular -> malware and other kinds of **** / lack of adherence to Apple guidelines in designing apps becomes prevalent -> Mac OS as a platform starts to suck).

Oh well. :/

(Too long a parenthesis.)

wctaiwan

wctaiwan said,
There goes the judge enjoying his power to make everyone agitated...

I'm personally on Apple's side in this one, not because I believe they're right, but because I think that the general quality of their OS / ecosystem would go down if they were forced to open up their OS (open OS -> no one wants to buy actual Macs -> death of Macs as a hardware system -> death of a truly well-engineered platform (seriously, whatever you think about them, you have to give it to Apple for making the Mac experience pretty decent - from the hardware design, to the way the whole thing feels well-integrated and nice in general), and also, open OS -> Mac OS becomes popular -> malware and other kinds of **** / lack of adherence to Apple guidelines in designing apps becomes prevalent -> Mac OS as a platform starts to suck).

Oh well. :/

(Too long a parenthesis.)

wctaiwan


+1

wctaiwan said,
There goes the judge enjoying his power to make everyone agitated...

I'm personally on Apple's side in this one, not because I believe they're right, but because I think that the general quality of their OS / ecosystem would go down if they were forced to open up their OS (open OS -> no one wants to buy actual Macs -> death of Macs as a hardware system -> death of a truly well-engineered platform (seriously, whatever you think about them, you have to give it to Apple for making the Mac experience pretty decent - from the hardware design, to the way the whole thing feels well-integrated and nice in general), and also, open OS -> Mac OS becomes popular -> malware and other kinds of **** / lack of adherence to Apple guidelines in designing apps becomes prevalent -> Mac OS as a platform starts to suck).

Oh well. :/

(Too long a parenthesis.)

wctaiwan


+2. I think the judge could very well be a PC user.

+2. I think the judge could very well be a PC user.

Or he might think legally... that is the thing to do.


Judges are not supposed to think of implications to the market... that is not their business, they deal with law.

Legally, Psystar are allowed to continue suit.

wctaiwan said,
There goes the judge enjoying his power to make everyone agitated...

I'm personally on Apple's side in this one, not because I believe they're right, but because I think that the general quality of their OS / ecosystem would go down if they were forced to open up their OS (open OS -> no one wants to buy actual Macs -> death of Macs as a hardware system -> death of a truly well-engineered platform (seriously, whatever you think about them, you have to give it to Apple for making the Mac experience pretty decent - from the hardware design, to the way the whole thing feels well-integrated and nice in general), and also, open OS -> Mac OS becomes popular -> malware and other kinds of **** / lack of adherence to Apple guidelines in designing apps becomes prevalent -> Mac OS as a platform starts to suck).

Oh well. :/

(Too long a parenthesis.)

wctaiwan

Sorry but it is FUD.

Im pretty sick of my original macbook pro, mainly because the damn video card, and the latest macbook pro also present problem on it, and Apple (by a weird reason) dropped the sales of matte screen (i.e. professional screen). So, the only way that a professional will upgrade their apple notebook is to switch to a Windows platform.

One manufacturer means you are choose-less without counting to pay premium price for a regular piece of hardware.


I'm willing to bet that the majority of Mac users use their Apple product as a status symbol and will continue to buy overpriced products from Apple to maintain that image.

Fanon said,
I'm willing to bet that the majority of Mac users use their Apple product as a status symbol and will continue to buy overpriced products from Apple to maintain that image.

unfortunately i see this all too often.. within my own circles of friends even.. pretty sad..... not because i like macs (cuz i dont) i just can't stand being in the same room with a mac user because they all think they're superior and that their beloved savior Jobs and Apple are superior in every manner... they try to argue a case against me which is even funnier because they (as most mac users i've ever talked to) they dont know crap about anything technical and yet they try to argue as though they do and therefore have some inherent right to argue with someone (like me) whose profession is computers and all the nitty-gritty technical things. i've used so many macs the last few years and my hatred continues to build, based partially on the OS instability and slowness (and closed hardware) as well as the REALLY ANNOYING culture of 'superior' fanatics (there are a few people here who are so annoyingly in love with apple it makes me want to gag.. three-letter usernames, anyone???)
that's my rant.. that said, i do like a lot of apple products.. i own and have owned several ipods, and just purchased a new nano for my gf, and osx is 'pretty' but the slowness even on the most powerful of machines is unacceptable to me.

people can waste their money as they see fit, however, as im sure i have spent money on things questionable to some, so theres that..

back on topic: i'm still torn as to my feelings on this lawsuit... i dont have any desire to put the crap-of-an-os on any of my machines in its current state of crap.. but i see psystar's argument.. but at the same time if i wrote a piece of software i'd be annoyed if i was required to make it hardware-agnostic... at the same time the only reason i would want to make it general-compatible would be if i didn't make my own hardware to which the software was locked [dependent]

the simple fact that the hardware that apple uses is crap, and yet they charge such a ridiculous premium over much better enthusiast pc hardware, is enough for me to root for the little guy every single time.

d3nuo said,
unfortunately i see this all too often.. within my own circles of friends even.. pretty sad..... not because i like macs (cuz i dont) i just can't stand being in the same room with a mac user because they all think they're superior and that their beloved savior Jobs and Apple are superior in every manner... they try to argue a case against me which is even funnier because they (as most mac users i've ever talked to) they dont know crap about anything technical and yet they try to argue as though they do and therefore have some inherent right to argue with someone (like me) whose profession is computers and all the nitty-gritty technical things. i've used so many macs the last few years and my hatred continues to build, based partially on the OS instability and slowness (and closed hardware) as well as the REALLY ANNOYING culture of 'superior' fanatics (there are a few people here who are so annoyingly in love with apple it makes me want to gag.. three-letter usernames, anyone???)
that's my rant.. that said, i do like a lot of apple products.. i own and have owned several ipods, and just purchased a new nano for my gf, and osx is 'pretty' but the slowness even on the most powerful of machines is unacceptable to me.

people can waste their money as they see fit, however, as im sure i have spent money on things questionable to some, so theres that..

back on topic: i'm still torn as to my feelings on this lawsuit... i dont have any desire to put the crap-of-an-os on any of my machines in its current state of crap.. but i see psystar's argument.. but at the same time if i wrote a piece of software i'd be annoyed if i was required to make it hardware-agnostic... at the same time the only reason i would want to make it general-compatible would be if i didn't make my own hardware to which the software was locked [dependent]

the simple fact that the hardware that apple uses is crap, and yet they charge such a ridiculous premium over much better enthusiast pc hardware, is enough for me to root for the little guy every single time.

Well it's obvious your profession isn't anything to do with english.

If you were using a Mac at least it would correct your spelling and grammar. ;)

And wtf are you talking about slowness? My 2006 iMac flies with Leopard, and will be even faster with Snow Leopard.

Now, do you really want us to get on the topic of how "fast" vista is?

Now, do you really want us to get on the topic of how "fast" vista is?

I would love that. As far as any mac user is concerned, "Windoze" is ultra-slow compared to Mac and mac is so freaking awsome!

If any of you used vista today, and not have it for 5 seconds, install XP drivers on it that were not made for Vista, you would be surprised. Yes, maybe there is a program that's not compatible. That's all.

All the vista hating came from not having drivers, because Microsoft is so ****, they couldn't include drivers from hardware they didn't make! :rofl:

Ok, fair enough. Some people may have problems. But people go on with how Mac's and Linux have a alternative. Wow! Thats great! Who really cares? Its a clone that most likely WONT do better than the Windows equivalent, and its only one. Guess what people? Windows has free software too! Its hard to believe, but it actually does. The only reason I would see to swap, is if there is 100% no drivers for your computer (yeah, and linux would have them?) or if you like to pay a massive premium for a sticker on the front of your computer.

The only other thing that annoys me, is XP. Wow. Its smart, to stay on a 9 year old OS. Only reason for this, is compatibility.

*end rant.

It seems like I am turning into a Three Letter Person for Windows.

At first this sounds good, but if companies like Paystar force Apple to allow their OS onto other hardware, we are I am sure, heading to instability such as we are used to having with Windows. Part of their power is the hardware it runs on. I hope Paystar looses.

Hahaha, are you being serious. I own a Mac Mini and it falls on its @ss all the time. It isn't the hardware, so must be the hardware drivers or OSX itself. Both provided by Apple.

dwarhya said,
Hahaha, are you being serious. I own a Mac Mini and it falls on its @ss all the time. It isn't the hardware, so must be the hardware drivers or OSX itself. Both provided by Apple.

Doing what? I've never had an issue with mine.

Co-ords said,
At first this sounds good, but if companies like Paystar force Apple to allow their OS onto other hardware, we are I am sure, heading to instability such as we are used to having with Windows. Part of their power is the hardware it runs on. I hope Paystar looses.

Then primarily on non-Mac computers though. Apple won't care to support these systems, so their own systems will show a higher stability than the competition.

Co-ords said,
At first this sounds good, but if companies like Paystar force Apple to allow their OS onto other hardware, we are I am sure, heading to instability such as we are used to having with Windows. Part of their power is the hardware it runs on. I hope Paystar looses.

Please, I have had Apple hardware fail on me all the time. Not to mention a Mac shutting down out network while 4 other identical Macs worked. My PC/Windows box works flawlessly with no instability issues. Instability has a lot to do with what people install/screw up on their systems.

I agree, no flame bait intended here, when pushing OSX around a bit it can crash and complain just as Windows will if you stress it. The ultimate and rock solid OS that's always being talked about feels like a myth to me.

But what I really hope is that this stuff leads to Apple beginning to retail OSX for any x86 hardware. I would and probably a lot more people would consider using it instead of buying Vista.

Timing a release right before launch of Windows 7 would be very nice for us poor consumers

Co-ords said,
At first this sounds good, but if companies like Paystar force Apple to allow their OS onto other hardware, we are I am sure, heading to instability such as we are used to having with Windows. Part of their power is the hardware it runs on. I hope Paystar looses.

Instability? I use windows all the time and very rarely do I have the OS crash. On the other hand I have already seen Mac's crash really bad. Now then I am not biased one way or the other. All OS's have their target market. I personally like Mac OS X but never liked the high price with it which is why I stuck to Windows. I may very well switch if Psystar wins.

Now then the big thing here. Apple may be forced to reduce prices even further to remain competitive.

You may think there are stability issues on non apple hardware but you would be wrong. Run a hackintosh and you'll see. Apple supports a great deal of hardware already out there and due to it's unix base other drivers can be made to work for hardware that apple has never supported. And very stable too.

Instability with Windows? Maybe if you're from the past. I've been using XP since it came out and I don't recall having any OS crashes in all that time. Buy quality hardware and there should be no problems.

shockz said,
Doing what? I've never had an issue with mine.

I have had problems with mine :(. Despite what some of you people think, everything that comes out of Apple's ass isn't covered in gold.

archer75 said,
You may think there are stability issues on non apple hardware but you would be wrong. Run a hackintosh and you'll see. Apple supports a great deal of hardware already out there and due to it's unix base other drivers can be made to work for hardware that apple has never supported. And very stable too.

Huh? From what I've read, you have to use a suggested list of hardware to run OS X on a non-apple computer. How that compares in any light as to what Windows supports is beyond me.

shinji257 said,
Instability? I use windows all the time and very rarely do I have the OS crash. On the other hand I have already seen Mac's crash really bad. Now then I am not biased one way or the other. All OS's have their target market. I personally like Mac OS X but never liked the high price with it which is why I stuck to Windows. I may very well switch if Psystar wins.

Now then the big thing here. Apple may be forced to reduce prices even further to remain competitive.


Well, me too using Windows for really long time starting from 98 to XP to Vista and to be honest I never saw those "very unstable" behaviors, only in very rare cases when trying to do some geeky stuff but for the normal using of everyday it is really stable OS.