

Psystar releases the software they use to install MacOS on non-Apple hardware - thaumaturgy
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/10/22/psystars-rebel-efi-allows-you-to-install-mac-os-x-on-any-pc-no-crazy-hackintoshing-required/

======
wmf
I give it 24 hours before someone discovers which uncredited open source
project this code was borrowed from.

~~~
omouse
Which project(s) do you think it borrowed from?

~~~
dnewcome
I think it was the netkas pc_efi bootloader. They have been using it for a
while it looks like: <http://netkas.org/?p=62>

------
there
_Hackintoshing isn’t for the weak of heart!_

so here are 38 steps to make it easy

~~~
buugs
As you can see though there are only 8 or 9 steps for the psystar thingy and
the 30 others are for the mac os install.

------
idm
From the Psystar site:

"Rebel EFI is free to try and download, though it will have limited hardware
functionality and a run-time of two hours."

Huh? Has anyone tried this yet, and do you know what that means? ...have they
somehow crippled the OSX install, or do they mean that the installer needs to
run within 2 hours?

Anyway, I'm going to take a shot...

~~~
idm
Just a followup... I was sucked deep into a rabbit hole on the basis of this
article, and I ended up experimenting with Chameleon:

<http://chameleon.osx86.hu/>

I don't have anything to report about the Rebel EFI (the "limited trial"
aspect scared me off), but I can confirm that there has been TONS of progress
with other EFI emulators, and that I am extremely impressed...

------
gojomo
Apple could offer a 'lite' MacOSX inside a virtualized environment (like
VMWare 'appliances') for Windows, to give more potential "switchers" a taste
before their first Apple hardware purchase.

To be really sneaky, they could include it in one of their automatic software
updates to people who already have Windows ITunes or Safari... or even require
its use in order to run ITunes on Windows.

~~~
elblanco
They'd have to stop the practice of charging for every single minor point
release update of their OS.

~~~
elblanco
I got downvoted, but I was serious. A major reason that Windows users don't
switch to Macs is the cost. _Everything_ in the Mac ecosystem costs more. The
mice, the monitors, the software.

Case in point: Windows XP was released in 2001. Users didn't have to pay a
dime to go through three fairly major updates to the software (SP1, SP2 and
SP3) and many many _many_ minor updates. Each one making the OS better,
faster, more stable, more secure, etc.

That's 7 years of support for the initial purchase price, which was probably
for most people either hidden in the cost of the machine as an OEM price,(AND
the hardware was likely 20-40% lower than the cost of a similarly equipped
Mac) or an upgrade from Windows 98, which probably ran around $50.

So 10 years of fairly major operating system updates cost < $150 depending.

rimantas said "and upgrade from 10.5 "Leopard" to 10.6 "Snow Leopard" is only
$29."

But in Microsoft land, the update from 10.5 -> 10.6 would have been $0
considering how minor the differences are between the two versions.

This is really the great divide that Apple fans simply don't understand. If I
have to pay $25 for a text editor (WriteRoom) on a Mac, or $0 for a choice of
thousands of similar tools on a PC. I'll choose $0.

If I have to pay $70 for a mouse on a Mac, or $10 for a mouse on a PC, I'll
choose $10.

The thread above is about ways to entice Windows users to Macs. The thrust
was, "if Apple just stuck a VM out there with Snow Leopard on it for Windows
users to bang on, they would loose their minds and run out and buy an entire
office full of Apple stuff".

My response is, "no they won't". Modern Windows OSs are actually pretty nice
places to be(even Vista to a point), the delta between OSX 10.6 and Windows 7
is not as great as say 10.1 and Windows XP used to be. Thus "getting hands on"
will not be the same kind of enticement as it used to be. If Apple seriously
wants to pull over more Windows users and grow their user base, they have to
adjust their pricing model.

That's unlikely to happen though because: a) Seriously, Apple won't take over
the computing world anytime soon even if their hardware was $0, there is too
much momentum. b) Apple is wildly profitable with a smaller userbase. All they
have to do is maintain the userbase and if they can grow it a few percent a
year without adjusting pricing, fantastic. c) The Apple software/hardware
ecosystem _still_ doesn't have the depth and breadth of the equivalent Windows
one. Lots of people have lots of things they need to do that they can't on a
Mac. Many times there simply isn't "an app for that".

The current response is "well just install Parallels". Which is again, another
fantastic demonstration of pricing insensitivity. So for the average Windows
user to switch 100% to a Mac, they have to a) Buy new hardware with a 20-40%
markup over similarly equipped PC hardware b) Buy new software, in many cases
old freeware software many people get by with on the PCs simply isn't
available at $0, and instead we end up with $25 text editors as replacements.
c) Buy parallels at $xxx dollars d) Buy the Windows OS again

So to switch to a Mac and achieve equivalent levels of functionality I'm
already well over the $499 for an average level PC + the cost of my Office
2007 variant to get up to speed.

And it's not really clear that the buy-in price really bought anything special
or new to the end-user.

 _edit_

Here's a perfect example [http://www.techdealdigger.com/pr/cheap-dell-
vostro-220-deskt...](http://www.techdealdigger.com/pr/cheap-dell-
vostro-220-desktop-core-2-duo-4gb-ddr2-win7-premium-deals/2412) "Dell Vostro
220 Desktop Core 2 Duo E5300, 4GB DDR2, 320 GB HDD, DVD Burner, Windows 7
Premium bundled with a 1TB Western Digital My Book Essential Drive for just
$394 plus shipping." Comes with a mouse and keyboard. Add in 21.5" monitor for
$150 and $10 speakers and I could buy two of these for the price of the
lowest, bargain basement iMac.

This kind of pricing doesn't even exist in the world of Apple. At this price
point, the system is practically disposable in a year. Who cares if the build
quality is such that it won't take a bullet? I have a spare in the closet!

~~~
mbreese
Apple has just come out with OS updates faster than Microsoft. Back in the
day, you could have bought Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, and XP in the same time
that it took Microsoft to come out with Vista after XP. (You can even go back
further if you ignore Vista like most did). And if you bought each of those at
retail, it cost a lot more than $129 each time (even for upgrades).

Apple's OSs have usually been $129 at retail. How much does Windows 7 cost at
retail? Sure, most people get it from the OEM when they buy a new computer and
it costs far less than the retail price. But, so do most people that buy Macs.

* Macs can use the same mice/monitors as PCs (assuming you don't have an all-in-one like an iMac), so that argument is moot. Funny thing. I'm using this great new mouse with my Mac. I like it a lot, but it did cost $50. It's a Microsoft wireless mobile 5000. Works great.

* You can use any number of text editors on a Mac or PC. Some are free, some cost money. It's silly to pick a random Mac-only editor that costs money and compare it to "thousands" of PC ones that are free.

* In Microsoft land, I don't think that the Leopard -> Snow Leopard transition would ever have happened. Microsoft would never have made that upgrade. They might have pushed it to a service pack, but I doubt it. Microsoft probably would have held it back to wait for the next major update. There were major differences in the underlying system, but not much that was user visible. This is why it cost $29. It's not because it was only worth $29... it's because it's worth it to Apple to push people to upgrade. So, instead of getting the updates out as fast as possible, I think Microsoft would have waited. Also, $29 is more than worth it for those of us who wanted Exchange support built in.

~~~
elblanco
I'll reply to each point (including the other replies).

But before I do: The question here is not, _"are PCs better than Macs?"_ or
_"are Macs better than PCs"_. That's a stupid religious war to get into. The
question is "how to convince a PC user to switch?"

1) Given that the two platforms are ~ equivalent w/r to features and
capabilities, there is no compelling reason to switch one way or the other
between the two platforms given features.

2) My contentions is that moving users PC->Mac is stymied by the large factual
price delta to "go Mac" between the platforms. Given #1 above, overcoming the
price delta between the two platforms requires something fairly compelling.

3) There is no quantifiable compelling reason to switch PC->Mac and several
quantifiable compelling reasons not to, price being one of the major ones.

In response to your points.

The typical user upgrade path between Microsoft OSs has been 95->98->XP->Vista
(and now I suppose XP->7 and Vista->7 depending). Me was DOA and 2000 was not
generally used by consumers, rather it existed principally as a server OS.
_"Apple has just come out with OS updates faster than Microsoft. Back in the
day, you could have bought Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000, and XP in the same time
that it took Microsoft to come out with Vista after XP. (You can even go back
further if you ignore Vista like most did). And if you bought each of those at
retail, it cost a lot more than $129 each time (even for upgrades)."_

In actuality MS has released a similar number of updates from Windows 95 ->
Windows 7 as Apple has from System 7.5.1 to OSX 10.6.1. Ignoring the
differences in versioning schemes used by the two companies. The actual OS
path for Windows users has been
95->95SP1->98->98SE->XP->XPSP1->XPSP2->XPSP2b->XPSP2c->XPSP3->Vista->Vista
SP1->Vista SP2->Vista Platform update Which, going by what Apple calls "major
releases" is 14 major releases.

The only purchase cost was on major name changes (so 95->98->XP->Vista). These
were typically upgrade costs or shipped with new systems and bundled in at OEM
pricing. So for example, I got XP for ~$50 (OEM) and now 8 years later still
have a modern, updated OS to play on at $0 additional dollars.

In a similar time period Apple has released 7.5, 7.6 (which was DOA), OS 8, OS
9 and OS X (10). It's confusing because there is quite a bit of overlap
between some of the versions (X came out when 8.5 was still being serviced)...
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the typical upgrade path was
7.5->7.6->8->X...which is fairly similar to the Windows world. Even figuring
the need to purchase new hardware in the transition from 680x0 to PowerPC to
Intel, it really wasn't that different than buying new Windows Boxes for new
Windows. So that's a pass.

But let's look at contemporary OS's. XP v X. They came out ~ the same time.
But I'm still using a fully updated XP OS at $0. Can you say that X10.6 had a
$0 migration path from X10.0?

> Macs can use the same mice/monitors as PCs (assuming you don't have an all-
> in-one like an iMac), so that argument is moot. Funny thing. I'm using this
> great new mouse with my Mac. I like it a lot, but it did cost $50. It's a
> Microsoft wireless mobile 5000. Works great.

Good, another reason not to switch. And proves my price point, err...point.
You can get reasonably good hardware for MS boxes, that work on Apple boxes,
at better prices. This is what you ultimately ended up doing.

> You can use any number of text editors on a Mac or PC. Some are free, some
> cost money. It's silly to pick a random Mac-only editor that costs money and
> compare it to "thousands" of PC ones that are free.

It's by way of an example. Other examples of overpriced basic featured
software abound in the Mac World. They are usually released with quite a bit
of fanfare and Jonny Ive style breathless showcase videos filmed with too much
zoom talking about how this piece of underpowered software will change your
life if you spend $25-$50 on it.

Not a reason to switch.

> In Microsoft land, I don't think that the Leopard -> Snow Leopard transition
> would ever have happened. Microsoft would never have made that upgrade. They
> might have pushed it to a service pack, but I doubt it. Microsoft probably
> would have held it back to wait for the next major update. There were major
> differences in the underlying system, but not much that was user visible.
> This is why it cost $29. It's not because it was only worth $29... it's
> because it's worth it to Apple to push people to upgrade. So, instead of
> getting the updates out as fast as possible, I think Microsoft would have
> waited. Also, $29 is more than worth it for those of us who wanted Exchange
> support built in.

Which is exactly the point. In Microsoft land 10.5->10.6 would have just been
a SP release.

Again, paying $29 for something I can get for free on the other platform is
not a reason to switch.

Digging deeper, your argument is that I can spend 2x for a box to run an OS I
have to pay to do minor version updates on, so I can just use all the same
bargain hardware I'm using on my PC (and oh yeah, you'll have to repurchase
all your software again, or buy a VM and Windows again at even more cost)?

Not the strongest line of why someone should switch I've heard yet.

This carries over even into Apple's advertising, which basically amounts to
either "buy a Mac to be cool" or "buy a Mac so you can appear to be smart".
Great. Not sold.

