# Cheap Mac clone



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

*Cheap Mac clone $399*

Well will this last Apple is already starting a law suit.

John

Psystar Corporation - Open Computer


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Cheap is correct...

For $400, one gets stuck with just that, a cheap and inferior Apple wannabe. The real cost is in the "options", which are a must have, like a video card that is somehow an option. The real cost, by my reckoning is more like $660 for what amounts to be a minimal system for Leopard, and more like $845 for one that is decent. Then add $200 for a monitor, $75 for keyboard and mouse and one arrives at a $1,120 wannabe machine, which is pretty much the same price as an actual Apple. Wait, Leopard is an extra $155...

It is cheap though, if one had a monitor and such, and can put up with the inferior performance and memory robbing capabilities of the dismal Intel fake video card, and if one wants to put up with ultra slow external drives, and almost forgotten in the mix, one would perhaps want to have a network adapter...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

The interview with these clowns reveals a 2-year-old's grasp of the law.

This will get laughed out of court even more heartily that Bill O'Lielly's lawsuit against Al Franken.


----------



## johnnyspade (Aug 24, 2007)

Accept no substitutes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> This will get laughed out of court even more heartily that Bill O'Lielly's lawsuit against Al Franken.


This product will drop out of sight faster than Air America personality Randi Rhodes after an anti-Hillary rant!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

This comes across as a Mac Clone in their initial advertizing:










and I thought - great - a mid-sized Mac tower, just what I need.

But when you read a bit more, it's just a pre-packaged bunch of hardware tied into the X86 project with all their problems and incompatibilities, some of which the company does mention when you dig further into the FAQs etc.
I quickly configured one for my needs - if came out at $803.-; I would probably pay between $1000 and $1200 for a real Mac mid-size tower.

Would be interesting to read a review of that unit.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Looks like a good deal to me.

For an extra $100, I get a faster CPU, more RAM, bigger HD, and the ability to customize the hardware more.


----------



## heebie (Dec 28, 2007)

At first sight I was considering it and then running Leo Server on it nonstop. Hook it up to my cinema display onetime to set it up, set it going and then leave it and access it with the config that you can install on the desktop version... I think I might leave it now... I mean buying the cheapest one for $400 is no bad thing. I'm not a hardcore Apple supporter so I dont really mind... .


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

They only people who make money from this will be the lawyers...


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> It is cheap though, if one had a monitor and such, and can put up with the inferior performance and memory robbing capabilities of the dismal Intel fake video card, and if one wants to put up with ultra slow external drives, and almost forgotten in the mix, one would perhaps want to have a network adapter...


I'm no huge supporter of the Psystar computer either, but the GMA950 is a graphics card that's in a LOT of Macs. The Minis and the MacBooks, which probably account for about 1/2 of Apple's sales. It's by no means a good graphics card, but it's hardly a "fake" and it's also the card Apple itself passes on to the masses.

And Re: Slow External Drives - there's room in the OpenMac to put more internal drives, UNLIKE any Apple computer other than the $2K+ MacPro. Every other Mac (Mini, iMac, MB, MBP) also needs to use "ultra slow external drives" for extra storage.

I do agree the absence of info about the network adapter is interesting... and from what little I know about x86 stuff, the wireless networking is not necessarily the easiest thing to get working.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

fyrefly said:


> I'm no huge supporter of the Psystar computer either, but the GMA950 is a graphics card that's in a LOT of Macs. The Minis and the MacBooks, which probably account for about 1/2 of Apple's sales. It's by no means a good graphics card, but it's hardly a "fake" and it's also the card Apple itself passes on to the masses.


FYI, MacBooks use the GMA X3100 graphics. Have since last fall.

Regardless, will this thing work in the future? Are you willing to take a gamble? Given that Apple's hardware sales subsidizes MacOS development, do you feel comfortable purchasing this machine? It's a lot of risk to save a few dollars.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fyrefly said:


> ...but the GMA950 is a graphics card that's in a LOT of Macs... It's by no means a good graphics card, but it's hardly a "fake"...


I'd never buy a machine that had a fake video system like the Intel chipset. Poor quality and poor performance, and it gobbles up valuable memory space - when video should have it's own. Plus, the machine's CPU ends up having to do much of the work that would normally be done by the video card itself. Just because Apple uses it doesn't mean it is good, look at the Mighty Mouse... I wouldn't recommend fake video to even my worst enemy. You can't even get rid of it, even if you wanted to, because it is stuffed on the motherboard and is bound to cause problems. With a real video system, there are no problems like this.



> And Re: Slow External Drives - there's room in the OpenMac to put more internal drives, UNLIKE any Apple computer other than the $2K+ MacPro. Every other Mac (Mini, iMac, MB, MBP) also needs to use "ultra slow external drives" for extra storage.


Any modern Apple I have run across, with the exception of the MacBook Air, has Firewire. With this "clone" computer, one is stuck with crummy USB unless one purchases a special add on card. So once one adds a video card, network adapter and Firewire card, pretty much every slot will be used up.



> I do agree the absence of info about the network adapter is interesting...


Not only is wireless a finagle under OSx86... They do not include a standard network adapter. This is a very real lack considering that one can not even connect it to a wired or wireless router, nor can one connect it to any practical cable or DSL modems (well, except the el cheapo slow USB style ones).

I think it has a flashy price point, but it is nowhere near being an Apple clone, and I truly doubt that it would have much shelf life... One could not just do a Software Update - they would have to download the appropriate packages via Torrent - which are being throttled and capped like craziness...

I think the costs posted above tell the story, especially when one has to go out and buy a boatload of software that will have to be hacked like crazy to get it to work. This is definitely a machine for hardware hackers, not for people that want to have a machine they can rely on for work.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I had to double-check the date, someone is a little late with their April fool's joke.

These guys aren't only going to be sued by Apple, but by any customer they might con. Talk about false advertising - first they say Leopard is free, then they say it costs $155.

Has noone started a pool yet on when Apple will get them to close down?


----------



## neufelni (Sep 17, 2007)

Kosh said:


> These guys aren't only going to be sued by Apple, but by any customer they might con. Talk about false advertising - first they say Leopard is free, then they say it costs $155.


They never said Leopard was free. They just install it for free.


> If you *purchase* Leopard with your Open Computer we will not only include the actual Leopard retail package with genuine installation disc, but we also *preinstall Leopard for free*


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> I think the costs posted above tell the story, especially when one has to go out and buy a boatload of software that will have to be hacked like crazy to get it to work. This is definitely a machine for hardware hackers, not for people that want to have a machine they can rely on for work.


I take it that means you haven't placed your order yet and are unlikely to do so.  

Actually - if Apple came out with a mid-sized tower like that for the iMac crowd that is looking for a bit of expansion capability, extra hard drive and a few PCI type slots, and no integrated monitor, I really think that would sell well.
Make it less powerful that the MacPro to minimize impacting it's sales and going forward it may also help alleviate the flak Apple is getting about the 20-inch TN panel.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

hayesk said:


> FYI, MacBooks use the GMA X3100 graphics. Have since last fall.


I know that... but my point was that for almost two years, Apple's #1 seller was the MacBook with a GMA950 in it. Not that the x3100 is all that much better...

MacBook 2.2GHz versus others


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Looks like a good deal to me.
> 
> For an extra $100, I get a faster CPU, more RAM, bigger HD, and the ability to customize the hardware more.


Forgot the iSight and microphone...  

Maybe it makes more sense to compare it to a Mac mini, since there's no monitor. So scratch the FW 800, but knock the price down to $800. Add the tiger direct monitor: $1050. Hmmm...


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

These machines aren't without their annoyances though...

I built a Hackintosh over the weekend because I was getting sick of the crappy PC I was using (had to sell my Macbook for rent deposit).

I have similar specs:

Core 2 Duo 2.2Ghz (which can be safely overclocked to 2.6 w/o extra cooling)
Asus P5K-SE mobo (BIG mistake, should've done more research)
2GB OCZ Platinum 800Mhz ram
250GB SATAII hdd
ATI Radeon 2600 PRO
Belkin 10/100 PCI ethernet (no working driver for P5K built-in ethernet)

The above cost me ~$450.

The machine itself is actually very fast, but with the mobo I have, the audio is only 2 channel (and sometimes produces weird pops and clicks - bad driver?), had to buy the network card, video card works well with the driver I found on insanelymac, so far, haven't tested it properly, I also had to buy a new hard drive because IDE isn't recognized by Leopard for this mobo.

For the price, you can't match it with any Mac on the market, period. I don't know about these guys and their pre-built machines, but you can certainly build your own for a lot less that it'd cost to buy something similar that's not even remotely as configurable and upgradeable. Just don't make the same mistake I did and just buy whatever.... apparently even with the whole EFI hack Leopard is still quite fussy with what hardware it likes.

There are also some pretty big cons to the whole thing. You can't use Software Update (Apple kills Hackintoshes purposely with the update), drivers may be hard to find or hardware may be limited in function (my audio input doesn't work), shut down sometimes doesn't completely turn the machine off, sleep doesn't work, etc, etc....

All in all, I still MUCH prefer the real thing.... 

I hope things turn around for me so I can replace my Macbook soon.....


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

That machine is UUuuuugggly!!


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

Vader :"You underestimate the power of the Dark Side."

That computer is a poor example, there are more compatible configurations, with only very minor patches for audio, but all else work 100% out of the box, even apple update is fooled.

What this means is you can build a fire breathing quad core nvidia beast for a fraction of what a real apple costs. Yes it will be ugly and won't have that classic apple design that we all love, but it makes you take notice.

Yoda : "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

If audio is a concern, just pick up a cheap USB audio adapter. It should have no problem working, since USB audio support is built into the Mac OS. No need to fiddle with motherboard drivers.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I'd never buy a machine that had a fake video system like the Intel chipset. Poor quality and poor performance, and it gobbles up valuable memory space - when video should have it's own. Plus, the machine's CPU ends up having to do much of the work that would normally be done by the video card itself.


Doesn't it really depend on the use to which the machine will be put? There are several millions of MacBook users who are, it seems, getting perfectly good use from integrated graphics. If your uses require a dedicated video card, then go for it. But if they do not, why would it be necessary? Would their user experience be dramatically better with a dedicated video card? 

What surely matters is that the Mac works well, and that users purchase appropriate to their needs.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Oops...



> Thank you for visiting Psystar. We're sorry but the store is temporarily down due to the fact that we are currently unable to process any credit card transactions.Please send an e-mail to [email protected] with the subject line "UPDATE" so that we can update you when the store comes back online.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

krs said:


> I take it that means you haven't placed your order yet and are unlikely to do so.


You are correct! :lmao: 



> Actually - if Apple came out with a mid-sized tower like that for the iMac crowd that is looking for a bit of expansion capability, extra hard drive and a few PCI type slots, and no integrated monitor, I really think that would sell well.


And similar machines did sell well, like the B&W G3/G4 systems; though they could slim down those systems into something suitable. I am not a fan of tower cases. Something like the G4 cube (without the problems and with enough room for real sized cards) would be better. Sort of like a Mini, but taller so one could put in some expansion without going crazy.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Sort of like a Mini, but taller so one could put in some expansion without going crazy.


Along those lines, I have been toying with the idea of building a simple frame to hold the Mini and a few of the Mini-sized expansion units and put that all together as a "mini-tower".

Basically a compartment at the bottom to hold the Mini power brick, then variable space to stack one or two or three mini-size modules on top (or below) the mini, and a cable channel in the back for interconnection.
This could look like these Micro Stereo systems that are being sold.
Something like the box in the middle but with a much cleaner front:


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

LIKE THIS


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

Looks like nothing more than utter b/s.

AppleInsider | Report waves caution at shadiness of would-be Mac clone maker


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

jeepguy said:


> LIKE THIS


I was actually thinking of something a bit more integrated and a single unit - maybe something like this. Although I would flip the Mini the other way to have the power cord connector at the bottom. Actually best would be to house the power brick inside the box rather than have another external box.










However, all those solutions look expensive - the initial idea was to just provide a skeleton housing with a place for the power brick, a cable channel and the rest are standard Mini size modules of various types that the buyer choses as requires and just koos up with standard cables.
I wouldn't try to copy the MacPro or G5 housing design at all.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jeepguy said:


> Vader :"You underestimate the power of the Dark Side."
> 
> That computer is a poor example, there are more compatible configurations, with only very minor patches for audio, but all else work 100% out of the box, even apple update is fooled.
> 
> ...



"Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you?"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Pelao said:


> Doesn't it really depend on the use to which the machine will be put? There are several millions of MacBook users who are, it seems, getting perfectly good use from integrated graphics.


People will like it because they don't know that it is bad, until they run into some task that demands more memory and the system starts to beachball. And in these cases, which are becoming more and more prevalent as people use their machines to watch movies, edit photographs, and such tasks, the cheap and nasty Intel video will cause no end of problems. People are already complaining that they have put 4GB of memory into their Vista boxes, but can't use much more than 3GB. Wait until that same problem faces Mac users.



> Would their user experience be dramatically better with a dedicated video card?


Yes it would, in all cases. Not only in performance, but in the reliability of the system. If it comes down to what is popular must also be good and reliable, then people would not be running Macs, but rather, would be running Vista. Even the Evil Empire has derided the Intel Integrated Graphics platform, and is up to their eyeballs with all of the lawsuits and technical problems that they are facing. There is no reason for Apple to have gone to this scheme in the first place, every video system Apple used prior was far superior...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

krs said:


> I was actually thinking of something a bit more integrated and a single unit - maybe something like this. Although I would flip the Mini the other way to have the power cord connector at the bottom.


That would be pretty cool; though I would prefer a desktop style myself because I don't like leaving my computer on the floor. I don't think Macs need much expansion. Perhaps space for 3.5" hard drives, and a backplane so one does not need to have the collection of USB dongles all over the place.



> However, all those solutions look expensive - the initial idea was to just provide a skeleton housing with a place for the power brick, a cable channel...


I'd put one into an old style XT case. That way, when someone breaks in, they are not liable to steal a 25 year old computer...


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

FYI: AppleInsider | Report waves caution at shadiness of would-be Mac clone maker [u x2]


----------



## seymorerage (Feb 28, 2008)

I wouldn't buy it. Sounds crappy and no apple care.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

powz said:


> FYI: AppleInsider | Report waves caution at shadiness of would-be Mac clone maker [u x2]


Yeah I saw that. It sounds like some guy creating them in his garage... is Woz at work again? :lmao:


----------



## psychodad (Apr 30, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> People will like it because they don't know that it is bad, until they run into some task that demands more memory and the system starts to beachball. And in these cases, which are becoming more and more prevalent as people use their machines to watch movies, edit photographs, and such tasks, the cheap and nasty Intel video will cause no end of problems. People are already complaining that they have put 4GB of memory into their Vista boxes, but can't use much more than 3GB. Wait until that same problem faces Mac users.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it would, in all cases. Not only in performance, but in the reliability of the system. If it comes down to what is popular must also be good and reliable, then people would not be running Macs, but rather, would be running Vista. Even the Evil Empire has derided the Intel Integrated Graphics platform, and is up to their eyeballs with all of the lawsuits and technical problems that they are facing. There is no reason for Apple to have gone to this scheme in the first place, every video system Apple used prior was far superior...


I feel you are making some pretty strong statements there - would you be able to back them up with any hard evidence? The MacBooks seem fairly highly regarded by most users and observers, and their benchmarks show them to be of excellent speed when compared to the MBPs except in frame rate, which is expected. But for people who do not require a high frame rate, where are the issues? 

Perhaps you are overstating the case of the impact provided by dedicated video cards for many general users.


----------



## gadgetguy (Sep 27, 2007)

Not sure if someone has already mentioned this (don't have time to read through the entire thing) but this is DEFINITELY illegal. This is the Leopard PC thing where you can install Leopard on an Intel PC with a (n illegal) hack.

The Apple Software Agreement states that OSX is ONLY to be used on Apple hardware.

These guys are gonna be screwed pretty quickly!


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

These guys are going to be irrelevant once somebody hacks their EFI bootloader emulator and that is going to be irrelivant once EFI becomes mainstream in PC's and somebody bothers to hack it. At which point a bios flash is all a PC will need to think it is a Mac.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

this will drop out of the sky faster than an MD-80


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Pelao said:


> Doesn't it really depend on the use to which the machine will be put? There are several millions of MacBook users who are, it seems, getting perfectly good use from integrated graphics. If your uses require a dedicated video card, then go for it. But if they do not, why would it be necessary? Would their user experience be dramatically better with a dedicated video card?





EvanPitts said:


> Yes it would, in all cases.


This is flat-out NOT TRUE, Evan.

The entire MacBook and Mac mini line use these chipsets and sell IN THE MILLIONS. Furthermore, contrary to your worldview most computer users have VERY LITTLE USE for any kind of 3D (which, btw, the GMA950 and X1300 can handle). Most computer users live almost 100% of the time in a "2D" world -- office programs, web surfing/email, video, audio -- and the Intel chipsets handle those things up to AND INCLUDING most forms of HDTV just fine, thank you very much.

Would I want/need a dedicated video card IF I worked more with 3D stuff? You betcha! What if I'm a professional editing video for a living? It's a must! What about the most robust gaming experience possible? The GMA chipsets are out of the question.

But those of us in reality-land know that the GMA chipsets do a very nice job with NORMAL computer demands, including undemanding 3D and HDTV.

Pelao is right and you are wrong. Simple as that.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

gadgetguy said:


> Not sure if someone has already mentioned this (don't have time to read through the entire thing) but this is DEFINITELY illegal. This is the Leopard PC thing where you can install Leopard on an Intel PC with a (n illegal) hack.
> 
> The Apple Software Agreement states that OSX is ONLY to be used on Apple hardware.
> 
> These guys are gonna be screwed pretty quickly!


OSX (darwin) is open source, Mac desktop is not (this makes a mac a mac).


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

Foot, meet mouth!!!   :lmao: 

I've read a lot of ignorant, misinformed kerfluffle over the past while
on what once was a fairly literate board- unusually, blissfully free of and from the usual PC dyslexics and leet haxor dweebs-and usually just bite my tongue and roll my eyes (to self), but this, and previous comments from this "expert" are bound to provoke a stronger reaction... Sorry, just can't help it.

Never realized the level some's people self-righteous opinion mongering could take on...

Sometimes it seems ChasM may be monopolizing the board with his advice, opinions, etc. but at least he (mostly) KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT!!!

Thank that God guy that he is here- otherwise I might also, once again, be busy here every day correcting base false suppositions and quite often BAD advice, from some of the most Luddite-type Mac users I've ever encountered. eMacMan is another example- won't upgrade past Panther, cause he doesn't like Spotlight-and mentions it in almost every post...

Why do some people seem to pride themselves in proving to be fools? Wake up and smell the coffee, drink my milkshake, etc.

I.E. Spotlight can be turned off, avoided, ignored, disabled easily, efficiently- and those options have been available since it was introduced.

But back to the topic -- I've been using/working with/on various "MacClones" for some time, and they are a fabulous, stable, powerful, very viable alternative to Apple's current line-up- perfect fit for the mid-range and can be custom made to exactly fit/fill that expandable mid-tower powerhouse that Apple has neglected, missed out on for too long. Most Intel machines are using commodity parts, interchangeable in almost every way. Often, only the case is the difference- and an unused TPM...

I also live in a house I share with hundreds of "real" Macs and parts from earliest 512k on-besides gf, dog and cat-and TVs, etc ;-)...and have bought every OS Apple has ever released. Leo is the cat's meow- and I'm running it on a QuadCore MacPro killer, on an SLI board(dual Nvidia, dual link, etc.), in an Antec case, with 8g ram, 2TB drive space, 2x DL burner, 6 USB, 4FW, 7.1 sound, etc. etc. etc. Of course, this is not for noobs or people who just want/need an iMac that plugs-in and works. Those users are the ones who support my tobacco and fine liquor consumption....and I love helping them get the most out of their machines...

What I feel about this commercial Mac Clone venture is that it has already drawn too much undue and unwanted notice to this once "underground" movement. Many PC guys installed OSX86 for kicks, just to play with this cool toy Mac OS they'd heard about/often disparaged, and often are immediately wowed, won over to the "Light" at the end of the Windows no-funnel.... and either build custom machines, or more often, avoid the hassles and go out and buy the latest Mac appropriate to their needs/desires. Apple still makes the most beautiful consumer-available machines out there- I have two hi-res MBP 17" 2.6 machines/200g 7200 rpm- here right now- WOW! But I also have Tiger installed on the the Wallstreet I've owned since 1999(bought used)-and use it wirelessly on my network when I need to. It is a mint example of excellent Apple engineering and design. So is my PB100, 540c, etc. etc. etc.

The tides are changing...

Something is happening, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. J?

or was it/is it part of the plan for total OSX domination???:clap: :clap: :clap: :heybaby: :heybaby: 

In any, case, a final paraphrased quote:

Remember, the first rule of Fight Club, is not to talk about...

I love this country, but am too often reminded, sadly at times on this board, unfortunately, why I chose to live elsewhere for almost twenty years beejacon beejacon beejacon 

(always wanted to use that little devil)

Only wish that MacNutt was still around to (not so subtly) electronically slap some sense into some of the miswits around here...  



EvanPitts said:


> I'd never buy a machine that had a fake video system like the Intel chipset. Poor quality and poor performance, and it gobbles up valuable memory space - when video should have it's own. Plus, the machine's CPU ends up having to do much of the work that would normally be done by the video card itself. Just because Apple uses it doesn't mean it is good, look at the Mighty Mouse... I wouldn't recommend fake video to even my worst enemy. You can't even get rid of it, even if you wanted to, because it is stuffed on the motherboard and is bound to cause problems. With a real video system, there are no problems like this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

psychodad said:


> I feel you are making some pretty strong statements there - would you be able to back them up with any hard evidence?


In essence, it is quite simple. Since the "video card" uses regular system memory instead of actual dedicated video memory, there are a number of performance hits. Less memory is available to the various programs one may want to use. Performance is degraded because operations done in video detract from operations done in the users memory space. Operations that make heavy use of memory will end up having to swap the much slower hard drive more often and for more time. All of this will yield to the spinning beach ball. This is particularily oppressive when one is not only using an extremely fast processor, but a multiple core processor as well. Everything that happens with video will stall out the processor, leading to a great deal of latency. Latency is perhaps the greatest robber of performance that Intel processors have traditionally suffered from.

The other conundrum is that, without separate memory, the video is no longer protected from the user space, and the user space is no longer protected from video. Thus, any memory leaks or stack pointer overflows will tend to nuke the system or the video. Again, these are problems that Intel processors have suffered from. Not that dedicated video memory solves these problems of program design, but they surely make the crashes even more spectacular. This is actually the core of the complaint that Micro$oft has leveled at Intel.

So does this affect the user? The first problem will remain the frame rate, which is degraded by the poor design of the integrated video in the first place. There will also be problems with arbitrating access to memory, with video operations stalling the CPU cores, and the CPU stalling the video. The only reason why one may not "see" the problem is simply because of the speed of the system to start with. However, the user will never really be satisfied, and instead of acknowledging the fact that the concept of the Intel video system is a very real limitation, they will tend to either blame the hard drive (and hence, want a faster one), or blame the speed of the CPU (and hence, want a faster one.)

If one was to stick to the core programs, one would not see any real world difference. But then, the core programs will run on a much slower G4 systems as well without much noticable hit in performance. Once someone starts to use more advanced programs, that place much more stress on CPU for rendering speeds and such, the system will never attain the ultimate performace that it could attain.

Do users care? Many users do not even understand how a computer works, and may be happy with Apple's version of integrated video. But then, they are probably migrants from the nasty world of Windoze, a world where in essence, shared video memory is the least of the performance hits hamptered by the various forms of dain bramage of the PC platform.

Have I overstated a case? Well, perhaps, until one runs a video codec and encounters stuttering, and various problems with memory leaks and such. But then, they would never know to blame the true culprit, rather, they would want to blame the software, or the hard drive, or pretty much anything else.

For myself, I would never run such trash. If other people want it, they should go for it; just like the hoards of people that love Windoze, even though that system is entirely defective in practically all regards.


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

Guess Mr. E. Pitts realized he has two feet, one mouth. Some people just don't know when to quit, to stay ahead...etc. :yawn: Not to belabor a point, or anything... but where do you get/make up your information? Sounds like it comes out of your (ass)hat...:yikes: 

And a PS to my post above- I think I finally know why I chose Montreal when I returned to "the true north, strong and free" and not beautiful Vancouver(based there for almost five years) or lucre producing TO (6 yrs or so, too long- though, ugh-the place(mainly many of its yupples) still repels me  

Montreal's laissez-faire, joie de vivre essence should be bottled and sold, worldwide; like a fine Unibroue -but hopefully not also bought by Slee(ze)man/men. :love2:


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

> Foot, meet mouth!!!
> 
> I've read a lot of ignorant, misinformed kerfluffle over the past while
> on what once was a fairly literate board- unusually, blissfully free of and from the usual PC dyslexics and leet haxor dweebs-and usually just bite my tongue and roll my eyes (to self), but this, and previous comments from this "expert" are bound to provoke a stronger reaction... Sorry, just can't help it.
> ...


I'm not taking any sides in this debate, but your posts elicit a reaction of their own. What's with the ad hominem attacks??? If you're concerned with the level of discussion on this board, such comments don't help... Let's keep things civil!


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

powz said:


> I'm not taking any sides in this debate, but your posts elicit a reaction of their own. What's with the ad hominem attacks??? If you're concerned with the level of discussion on this board, such comments don't help... Let's keep things civil!


Maybe you'd be happier back in nursery school???tptptptp tptptptp
Or you've never ventured out of network tv land???

Such comments I think are part of what's been missing here...you know, spice? Tasteful, and effective in small doses...

Let's see if the truth hurts, or at least stings a bit 

Do you get the point, or want it spelled out further??? :baby:


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> In essence, it is quite simple. Since the "video card" uses regular system memory instead of actual dedicated video memory, there are a number of performance hits. Less memory is available to the various programs one may want to use. Performance is degraded because operations done in video detract from operations done in the users memory space. Operations that make heavy use of memory will end up having to swap the much slower hard drive more often and for more time. All of this will yield to the spinning beach ball. This is particularily oppressive when one is not only using an extremely fast processor, but a multiple core processor as well. Everything that happens with video will stall out the processor, leading to a great deal of latency. Latency is perhaps the greatest robber of performance that Intel processors have traditionally suffered from.
> 
> The other conundrum is that, without separate memory, the video is no longer protected from the user space, and the user space is no longer protected from video. Thus, any memory leaks or stack pointer overflows will tend to nuke the system or the video. Again, these are problems that Intel processors have suffered from. Not that dedicated video memory solves these problems of program design, but they surely make the crashes even more spectacular. This is actually the core of the complaint that Micro$oft has leveled at Intel.
> 
> ...


An interesting technical explanation. Of course users will indeed be frustrated if they experience slowdowns. But where is the evidence that this is happening? So what if people do not know how a computer works - as long as it works and works well. The choice of how video is managed certainly can influence performance and in some cases it matters, but equally in many it does not.

When Apple decided to drop dedicated video cards in lower end Macs there was some initial outcry. But these Macs outperform the earlier Macs with dedicated cards.

The technical solution may not be to our liking, but it seems to work very well - and to the people spending the money on a Mac, this is perhaps what matters.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

I had two Macbooks, both never game me any troubles. Never saw that beachball like I did with the Powerbooks... THOSE were awful, and you know what? They had separate video cards... so there goes that 'theory'.

FWIW, I could play 720p movies just fine with the Macbook. What more could you ask for in a consumer entry level notebook? If someone wants to do serious video or 3D, they're obviously going to want to get the Pro. Otherwise, the Macbook is a very capable machine.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kloan said:


> I had two Macbooks, both never game me any troubles. Never saw that beachball like I did with the Powerbooks... THOSE were awful, and you know what? They had separate video cards... so there goes that 'theory'.


But you are comparing a single G4 processor (perhaps, or a G3!) to that of a much faster processor, or should I say, two faster processors in parallel. If the PowerBook had integrated video, and you compared it to one that had real video, you would really notice the difference. The same could be said if you had otherwise identical machines, one with integrated video and one with a real video card: the one with a real video card would perform better and be more reliable, and hence, would be a better investment.

However, the discussion was derailed, since the discussion did start with a "clone" machine that is a tower based machine, and as such, is a machine that is more comparable to a MacPro (or perhaps an iMac). One would probably put a machine like this to heavier tasks than a notebook. A person that is serious with video or gaming would not select a MacBook, but rather, a machine like a MacPro or a outfitted iMac.

Integrated video may be passable on a laptop, since people are not really stressing those machines out; but I would certainly pass on such a system, based on my own opinions and the reasons that I have outlined. If other people want it, then they should go for it because in the end, consumers do not always make wise decisions.


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> ... bla bla bla... because in the end, consumers do not always make wise decisions.


But wise consumers try to look for GOOD advice, not half-baked opinions.:heybaby:  :yikes:

The base Mac Clone is more comparable to a current Mac Mini, spec wise; or previous , white iMac intel models... definitely not a Mac Pro.

But most of this I believe will be rhetorical soon- I'm sure Apple Legal has already sharpened a wooden stake and gathered cloves of garlic (fields). Anyone remember the last Mac Clone attempt, happymac, etc. that was made with mostly Genuine Apple Parts? Very short-lived...


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> ntegrated video may be passable on a laptop, since people are not really stressing those machines out; but I would certainly pass on such a system, based on my own opinions and the reasons that I have outlined. If other people want it, then they should go for it because in the end, consumers do not always make wise decisions.


Indeed they do not, and there are likely more than a few folks out there with nice juicy dedicated video cards in MBPs that are simply not needed. In the end it's not an opinion thing - it's a thing about capabilities and results and budget.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

While Evan is clear in his opinion on on-board video, he neglects the fact that most people by a computer because, as a whole, it does tasks. The GMA950 is perfectly capable of displaying high definition videos, photos, etc. Quite frankly, I don't care if it takes a CPU hit and a RAM hit if the entire computer itself does the job I want it to. It could have hamsters running on tiny wheels in the computer, and I couldn't care less.


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

> Maybe you'd be happier back in nursery school???
> Or you've never ventured out of network tv land???
> 
> Such comments I think are part of what's been missing here...you know, spice? Tasteful, and effective in small doses...
> ...


Frankly, it's usually the people who are incapable of winning an argument on the merits that resort to your kind of attacks. Your posts weren't "tasteful", they were crude, petty and childish. You're right that someone would be better suited arguing with children, but it's not me...


----------



## gadgetguy (Sep 27, 2007)

powz said:


> Frankly, it's usually the people who are incapable of winning an argument on the merits that resort to your kind of attacks. Your posts weren't "tasteful", they were crude, petty and childish. You're right that someone would be better suited arguing with children, but it's not me...


Don't want to make enemies but I agree completely. Childish is EXACTLY the word.


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

Pelao said:


> . But these Macs outperform the earlier Macs with dedicated cards.


What? A PowerBook with a dedicated 64Mb video card is slower than the Mac Mini with shared graphics?


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

While my Core Duo Mac Mini certainly out-performs my old G4, my G4 had a GeForce 3 and would still out-perform my mini in a highly graphics intensive application. 

The issue with Intel graphics is that they lack many of the hardware features found in even the earliest modern 3D accelerators because Intel doesn't want to waste the silicon on the northbridge die or increase the heat generated by the northbridge so that it would require a fan of its own.


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

There was no argument- I was outright calling Mr.E Pitts a fool, telling him his bloated opinions were outrageously fallacious; though perhaps a bit too subtly or in too an obtuse and round-about way for the semi-literate twiddle-dees that seem to lurk in the wings here and emerge only to tut-tut when something offends their overtuned PC (politically correct, in this case) sensibilities. You know what, the world is not always correct, especially politically. You wouldn't stand a chance even in a sandbox 

Why bother to ATTACK ME or comment on my methods in expressing my feelings, instead of examining the basis of what I reacted to. He was wrong, I wasn't the first to notice, he was already corrected, fairly convincingly-and this wasn't the first incident of malarkey, likely won't be the last, so why shouldn't a false (misinformed) prophet be exposed for what (nearly) everyone can see???

Nothing ad hominem in any of my comments- I'm telling you exactly what I feel, in rather polite terms, to maintain the decorum that our Mayor has always strived to maintain. I didn't draw the phooey on youey smiley just to stick my tongue out at you- it's freely available in the smilies sidebar  It was designed to express a certain response, perhaps less common among teens, but still effective

I was also not the first to call the Pitts on his blather, if you bothered to read before you spoke.... I was mostly 
calling attention to the blatant misinformation that he still sees fit to spew.

Most of my post was to make a point about the TOPIC at hand, which seems to have been derailed into whether onboard graphics were ever viable, whether a G4 was ever a decent Mac. Give me a break!!!

No wonder I hardly bother to "contribute" here any longer. The twits are content to listen only to their own twitterings, it seems. Must be scary when a grown-up with real world experience should dare to frown.  

etc, etc, etc.

In other words, you're a clown/a straw man/ a paper mache referee, that should stick to being a ball/water boy...

Your arguments indeed have no basis in fact. I have not said anything that I would not say to someone's face, as directly as possible...  



powz said:


> Frankly, it's usually the people who are incapable of winning an argument on the merits that resort to your kind of attacks. Your posts weren't "tasteful", they were crude, petty and childish. You're right that someone would be better suited arguing with children, but it's not me...


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Quicksilver G4 said:


> What? A PowerBook with a dedicated 64Mb video card is slower than the Mac Mini with shared graphics?


Well, let's compare two notebooks: a 1.67 PowerBook and a MacBook (not pro). While benchmarks can be debated, they do offer some indications. Have a look at the benchmarks in this review:

Macworld | Review: MacBook Core 2 Duo/2.1GHz and 2.4GHz

In this review, the frame rate of a Mini exceeds that of the PB in the review above:

Macworld | Review: Mac mini Core 2 Duo

While the dedicated PB card probably still has some advantages, the raw numbers are good for the integrated cards.

My point is really that the integrated video is far from a disaster, and for many users work very, very well. For some users a dedicated card is necessary - but to say one is 'bad' is, I believe, kinda dumb...


----------



## Abysmal (Mar 14, 2005)

jlcinc said:


> Well will this last Apple is already starting a law suit.
> 
> John
> 
> Psystar Corporation - Open Computer


I've been do this exact thing for myself for the past 2 and a half years.. These guys are slow!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

HJS said:


> in rather polite terms, to maintain the decorum that our Mayor has always strived to maintain...
> 
> No wonder I hardly bother to "contribute" here any longer. The twits are content to listen only to their own twitterings, it seems. Must be scary when a grown-up with real world experience should dare to frown.
> 
> ...


HJS I personally have no problem with your taking exception to the ramblings of Mr. Pitts, he can be at times rather annoying and seems to be stuck in the past.

But the statements you made above seem to be at odds with each other. First you say that you try to maintain the decorum that our Mayor has always striven to maintain and yet you then go on to take pot shots, passing wholesale judgement and derision on someone, for merely calling into question the "diplomacy" of your postings.

Perhaps you find it more "spicy" to contribute in such a manner, but to pass judgement on a whole group of people, "No wonder I hardly bother to "contribute" here any longer. The twits are content to listen only to their own twitterings, it seems. Must be scary when a grown-up with real world experience should dare to frown.", with your self congratulatory tone, I do find that to be uncalled for and rather arrogant.

Clearly you have no problem with the notion of calling a spade a spade as you see it, so hopefully you will not take offence when I say that you come across in this series of postings as a pompous self important blow hard. Which is not to say that you are, it is just the impression that I get from your postings.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I love lamp!


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

Sometimes a agree with the folks on this forum and sometimes I don't. I have, also, be corrected on a number of occasions. The main thing that I get out of all of this forum that I seem to learn something new every day. EvanPitts has delivered some long, useful and interesting posts in the past. And his post on this forum about graphics cards isn't the best. Low end graphics are suitable for some but not for me. 

There are quite a few people on this forum I would like to meet in person. There are many I hold in high esteem. Even the ones I hold in high esteem put their foot in their mouth occasionally. (Sometimes I trash my own posts before I submit them because I've figured I've got both feet in mouth !)

In the end ladies and gentlemen there is more to unite us then divide us. Lets work together to solve common problems, give great advise to the nubies (how do you spell that?), get the iPhone in Canada, support the creation of some of the greatest software ever written, have a good time and ensure that the powers that be (the government, Bell, Rogers etc.) doesn't do anything to ruin our enjoyment of computing.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

Pelao said:


> Well, let's compare two notebooks: a 1.67 PowerBook and a MacBook (not pro). While benchmarks can be debated, they do offer some indications. Have a look at the benchmarks in this review:
> 
> Macworld | Review: MacBook Core 2 Duo/2.1GHz and 2.4GHz
> 
> ...


frame rate was the only one it lost, and by a wide margin. That's where it would hurt for 1080p-HD as well.


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

Their website isn't working, I checked yesterday and it said that the store is down, same thing today.


----------



## rhrechka (Jan 6, 2008)

bgw said:


> In the end ladies and gentlemen there is more to unite us then divide us. Lets work together to solve common problems, give great advise to the nubies (how do you spell that?), get the iPhone in Canada, support the creation of some of the greatest software ever written, have a good time and ensure that the powers that be (the government, Bell, Rogers etc.) doesn't do anything to ruin our enjoyment of computing.


AMEN Brother!


----------



## powz (Apr 25, 2007)

HJS,

I have no desire to get into a pointless flame war with you. As others have noted, you're doing a much better job of making yourself look like a fool than I ever could... 



> In the end ladies and gentlemen there is more to unite us then divide us. Lets work together to solve common problems, give great advise to the nubies (how do you spell that?), get the iPhone in Canada, support the creation of some of the greatest software ever written, have a good time and ensure that the powers that be (the government, Bell, Rogers etc.) doesn't do anything to ruin our enjoyment of computing.


I agree; let's get back to what's really interesting and not get distracted by the games people play...


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

Look at this:



> Why spend $1999 to get the least expensive Apple computer with a decent video card when you can pay less than a fourth of that for an equivalent sleek and small form-factor desktop with the same hardware. Sometimes reinventing the wheel is a good thing. The Open Computer can work for new Mac users and Mac geniuses, alike.
> 
> 
> New to Mac: I Want a Mac
> ...


Whay they didn't say is that it's the most ugly and illegally sold Mac out there.


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

They also said they will install leopard for free if it is purchased, but if you look at the cost they charge $155 for leopard so in reality it is $25 extra to install Leopard.


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

*Wow!*

WOW! Look at how much the Open Costs in reality with Leopard installed, WITH INTEL GMA GRAPHICS AND 2.2 GHZ PROCESSOR!!!!

Just for 400 MHZ more and the Mac Mini is much smaller? What a ripoff.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

$50 for firewire???????? I bought the same PCI card for $8.


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

screature said:


> HJS I personally have no problem with your taking exception to the ramblings of Mr. Pitts, he can be at times rather annoying and seems to be stuck in the past... edit...more stuff I liked  ...
> ...so hopefully you will not take offence when I say that you come across in this series of postings as a pompous self important blow hard. Which is not to say that you are, it is just the impression that I get from your postings.


Don't forget condescending  someone else got the arrogant in...
You know, it's hard :-( :-( being smarter, more talented than most but the greatest curse is being better looking, too...Just part of the deal I made with some guy I met at a carnival, but I'm learning to live with it    
Most people that do know me (are paid to) appreciate my down to earth, self-effacing side- how "human" I can be, compared to other aristos burdened with too much money and fame...  :lmao: 

Now if I were being paid to write here, I'd make sure to edit out the redundancies and contradictions- and put up some charts/screen caps, etc.

Again, BACK TO THE TOPIC: 

As mentioned, I have experience with building/using these "bastard" machines.
Some have GMA950 onboard, and, unlike the Macs with this chipset, PCIe slots. The 950 is very good, even with streaming 1080p, if the processor is fast enough.
For motion, etc. (I don't game) a 7300 is adequate. 7900 is a screamer(will soon buy an 8800gt for less than half the price of the Mac offering)...but for most day to day stuff, like what 90% of typical users do including playing almost every type of video file out there, I could easily remove any of the add-on cards and run with the onboard 950. The Cinebench score is still pretty impressive; I have a dual g4 with Radeon 9800 as well. I often re-open a Safari session with 500-700 tabs or so flashing back up on the screen- the 950 can handle it, the Core 2 Duo can handle it, but don't even think about trying the same thing on the G4, even if I splurged on a 7800 for it 

So maybe, in this case, maybe I have some basis to express my opinion... 
GMA950, various other cards on the same mobo, same OS, same apps, etc.

But E. Pitts was debunked even before I posted. I just can't abide FUD, esp from Mac people.

As for the Mac Clone project/concept:

I don't need(or want) a Mac Pro-it's overkill, for now. I just need something that runs all the software I need to, with plenty of storage and room for further expansion. I am not alone in this-which is part of why the whole OSX86 thing has really taken off with a lot of diehard MacHeads as well... Apple, so far, doesn't produce a machine like this.

For someone to attempt to market an OSX machine, other than Apple themselves, is pure FOLLY. And it could really f* things up for the "underground"

Clear enough?

(used to think ChasM used too many boldings in his posts, esp for a former editor, but am now beginning to see why-some people just skim/speed-read here)
the down arrow keys in above text are due to some screw up with my keyboard, or fingers, but can't seem to edit or delete them...maybe it's the insert key on this PC keyboard? Must investigate


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

powz said:


> HJS,
> 
> I have no desire to get into a pointless flame war with you. As others have noted, you're doing a much better job of making yourself look like a fool than I ever could...
> 
> I agree; let's get back to what's really interesting and not get distracted by the games people play...


Again, you miss the point- I was calling Mr. Pitts bluff, and then got back to the topic. You, however, have no point to make other than that my posting style/tone displeased you- like I give a fart... Have YOU got anything to say/contribute to this Mac Clone debate/debacle otherwise? 

Flame war? It's not even a church basement bingo...tard. Have you ever been on a non child-safe, unmoderated forum? To a hockey game(without your mother)???tptptptp tptptptp 

Remember, we're all bozos on this bus...

Besides, one of my hobbies is trying to work up novel insults, and 
in this case(thread), some one poked a stick into a sleeping bear...
(metaphorically, of course-actually it's more like a pebble in my sock)beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I do not get involved in useless flame wars.

If someone wants to use a fake video system that has to use the regular system memory because it has none of it's own, and they think it makes no difference because they can't "see" the different, that is their opinion. My opinion is that it is fake video, and a poor chipset that is only used to save a few dimes to boost profits, and the quickest way to stack overflows and crashes from memory leaks. I would not use a machine so equiped, and like it or not, that is just my opinion; just like I wouldn't use Windoze because it is a fake operating system that is both low performance and highly irritating.

If someone wants to say "oh, but I really do not want a Mac Pro because it is too powerful", so be it, but they should step out of the discussion because the "clone" machine in question is intended to compete with iMacs or perhaps Mac Pros - not on low end MacBooks, where the paradigm is different.

If someone wants to compare the experince of the video subsystem of a 2 generation old Powerbook to that of a MacBook, it is valid but remember that the benchmarks will obviously be skewed because the new system has a three times raw clock speed advantage over the old system. In that light, the benchmarks look quite a bit worse.

If someone wants to prattle on about different models of video cards, and their virtues, then perhaps this is not the thread because the discussion at hand is actually in comparing a "clone" to the real deal. My point is the default machine, marketed in competition the Mac Pro, that has Intel video, is pretty useless because of the video, so the price would obviously have to be jacked up so one could have a decent video card of some sort. Same with the extra they charge for Firewire, which is, in my opinion, an essential because external drives are so useful, but perhaps not needed by other users. Curiously, because of the lack of Firewire on the default machine, one could not run Tiger without even more hacks to the system. Remember, the comparison is not between this tower case "clone", which is obviously not a portable machine; with optional monitor to a MacBook, which is obviously a portable machine, and the low end one at that.

I see other bothersome rants. From what I see, this is a site for Mac users - ALL MAC USERS. Introduced into this thread are rants aimed at users that do not run the most modern possible machines and OSes. One does not have to be a fan of everything Apple, but one should respect other users and their preferences. Engaging in personal attacks against people that may run different hardware, or live in different circumstances, or have different experiences or opinions, is entirely worthless.

For that, I put the matter of the personal attacks to rest, and if they continue, the issue will have to be turned over to The Mayor and his crew.


----------



## heebie (Dec 28, 2007)

Just rejoined this thread; knew it would be a big hit.

Evan, I agree with you: no-one should expect this clone to be anything quite as like the real deal. Breaking Apple's EULA is a bad idea and Pystar will feel Steve's lawyers' wrath sooner or later.

But on the other hand, I was considering buying one. *Not* (I hastily add) to run as a day-to-day computer but as a VPN server using Leopard Server.

I set it up, and leave it. Done. For $200, that's a steal. Thank you Psytar, while you're still alive.


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

Wow, I'm speechless-some people never stop...surprising 
The Emperor with no clothes is back...

Anyway, if anyone is wondering how big this Hack Mac thing is/has gotten, and don't mind a little finger wagging from Tom Merritt, Executive Editor at CNet.com before he tells you how to install OSX on a PC, here he is in a CNet YouTube video, from LAST AUGUST  

YouTube - How to install OSX to a PC

Anyone in doubt can look at some of the related videos, and then check out some of the top Geekbench scores. The sky hasn't fallen, Chicken Littles- it's called REALITY :lmao: :love2: :lmao: 



EvanPitts said:


> I do not get involved in useless flame wars.
> 
> If someone wants to use a fake video system that has to use the regular system memory because it has none of it's own, and they think it makes no difference because they can't "see" the different, that is their opinion... bs...more bs, etc...even more bs...
> 
> For that, I put the matter of the personal attacks to rest, and if they continue, the issue will have to be turned over to The Mayor and his crew.


Go ahead-wtf personal attacks? It was an attack against everything you've been saying, not that you may be bald or fat, or because you live in Hamilton, or drive a truck, as if that mattered....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I shall quote from the Wikipedia:

"Integrated graphics solutions, or shared graphics solutions are graphics processors that utilize a portion of a computer's system RAM rather than dedicated graphics memory. Such solutions are cheaper to implement than dedicated graphics solutions, *but are less capable*. Historically, integrated solutions were often considered unfit to play 3D games or *run graphically intensive programs such as Adobe Flash*. (Examples of such IGPs would be offerings from SiS and VIA circa 2004.) However, today's integrated solutions such as the Intel's GMA X3000 (Intel G965), AMD's Radeon X1250 (AMD 690G) and NVIDIA's GeForce 7050 PV (NVIDIA nForce 630a) are more than capable of handling 2D graphics from Adobe Flash or low stress 3D graphics. Of course the aforementioned GPUs still *struggle with high-end video games*. Modern desktop motherboards often include an integrated graphics solution and have expansion slots available to add a dedicated graphics card later.

As a *GPU is extremely memory intensive*, an integrated solution finds itself *competing for the already slow system RAM with the CPU as it has no dedicated video memory*. System RAM may be 2 GB/s to 12.8 GB/s, yet dedicated GPUs enjoy between 10 GB/s to over 100 GB/s of bandwidth depending on the model."

Add to that a number of problems that have creeped up lately with QuickTime, in particular, flashing or corrupted video that is evident on some MacBooks. Looks like the end of the story, and fake video remains utterly fake and relegated to only those tasks where one may not notice the degradation in system performance, ie. a user does not use QuickTime to view MPG movies...

And cut out the personal insults, it just makes you look like a fool. If you have proof that integrated video is superior to dedicated video in speed, reliability and software compatibility, you should bring those points forth instead of insulting various Mac users, various operating systems, programs, cities, and the intelligence of EhMac users...


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

Please, just give it a rest- nobody denied integrated graphics was "less capable", just not incapable, as you seem to be saying, over and over. It's also a total misnomer to call integrated video "fake" video... 

Just because you appear to be less capable, does not imply you are incapable, but I am calling you a "fake" Mac expert(have from my first post), who continues to spew specious data to prove what? You won't buy a machine with integrated graphics. Fine with me-I'm not trying to sell you one . 

What do you really know, that you haven't read or misinterpreted to fit what you want to believe??? Do you even have an Intel Mac(hine)?????

How many other people have to chime in on this thread to state that THEIR machines with integrated graphics are perfectly adequate for what THEY do? I already mentioned I was happy with the performance of my 98 Wallstreet with various apps. Indeed, I could write this post just as easily on ittptptptp 

Besides, it's YOU that keeps derailing this thread with your GPU theories. Who cares? At least you grew enough skin to direct a post directly at me. Skol!

This thread is about some stupid company, which may just be a scam, trying to sell "fake" Macs. Ballsy, for sure, and I'm surprised that after all the noise, all over the world over the last few days, that they're still around. It's creating quite a crap-storm in the Mac World- this is just a little Canadian hobbyist site, after all.

See, right back on topic...:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

I feel like there's also been a lot of misinformed "This is what I think and I think it based on reading small bits of out of context information" in this thread.

My personal belief is that the OpenMac is made to be a headless iMac/Mini Competitor. The Graphics card arguement can be made, but for ~$100 or so, you can add a video card to the machine (a GForce 8600GT) and be happy with your superior video card. 

The OpenMac Pro also exists... for $999. That includes A Core2Duo (option to go Core2Quad) and an 8600GT Video card. That system competes much more with a MacPro and is already a fraction of the cost.

Again, I'm not in the market for these machines, but the fact that Psystar is fighting so hard to keep existing and that this has received so much attention shows that there *is* a market. (even for a "fake" GMA950 lol)


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

But it's essentialy a PC that is hacked to run Mac OS. It's not a steal or anything, as long as you have a PC lying around you can run leopard on it.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

HJS said:


> Anyway, if anyone is wondering how big this Hack Mac thing is/has gotten, and don't mind a little finger wagging from Tom Merritt, Executive Editor at CNet.com before he tells you how to install OSX on a PC, here he is in a CNet YouTube video, from LAST AUGUST
> 
> YouTube - How to install OSX to a PC


There is a lot of garbage on YouTube, but I'm a bit surprised that CNet allowed this to be posted.
Talk about Tom spouting from both side of his mouth. 
CNet (as in Tom) keeps reminding everyone over and over again how you should get a legitimate copy of OS X and how pirating is illegal but then he has no qualms about breaking the Apple EULA and doing an illegal install on that laptop.
What the h... is the difference? Does CNet now get to chose what is legal and what is not?

And at the end, we get the wonderful news: "WiFi doesn't work, but (great news), ethernet does.  
Ridiculous!


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

Before it was on the internet/on YouTube; it was on TV- I first saw it on a re-run on G4TechTV (but isn't it mostly re-runs?)

You see, what makes this whole thing interesting- some say that the EULA enclosed with various softwares has apparently never been established, in court, as a legal document- or something like that. I'm not a lawyer, don't even play one on the tube  and apparently, the intrepretation is dependent on the laws of the jurisdiction-state, federal, Vulcan- that might apply. In other words, there has to be a law on the books, before there is an offence that someone can commit. Dozens of threads in dozens of forums around the web are now debating these finer points...with some very informed opinions/viewpoints surfacing.

I'm still surprised Apple hasn't acted sooner- maybe just calculating whether one ton or two of bricks would be enough to drop on this enterprise...and maybe finally deciding to activate the TPM module, or adapting some MS style of 
online activation...or calling up a Columbian Death Squad  

Of course he had to put a disclaimer on the one side, but he was visibly excited by the experience of booting X on his StinkPad :lmao: 



krs said:


> There is a lot of garbage on YouTube, but I'm a bit surprised that CNet allowed this to be posted.
> Talk about Tom spouting from both side of his mouth.
> CNet (as in Tom) keeps reminding everyone over and over again how you should get a legitimate copy of OS X and how pirating is illegal but then he has no qualms about breaking the Apple EULA and doing an illegal install on that laptop.
> What the h... is the difference? Does CNet now get to chose what is legal and what is not?
> ...


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Wow. This thread is a bloody mess. It has been completely hijacked by this argument over integrated graphics. It's really too bad because this Psystar "Mockintosh" fiasco is an excellent case study in the reasons concerning the QUALITY end-user experience that we as Mac users enjoy thanks to Apple's vertical integration... an experience that clearly goes down the toilet with Psystar selling a hacked OS to an unknowing public -- not to mention their bait-and-switch tactics over the not-so-optional add-ons... like an operating system!

Did anybody in here mention the point in Psystar's FAQ about OS updates? It's gotta be the funniest of ALL!  They say to NOT install updates published by Apple and only install updates "approved by Psystar". Translation: _"Downloading updates from Apple might "brick" your illegal copy of Mac OS X. We here at Psystar will lurk the hacker forums and, as soon as some kid in their basement hacks the latest sub-release of OS X we'll snag it, slap our name on it and post it for you to install."_

MOST heinous.

Two more things:

1) Integrated graphics have their place. It serves many folk just fine. Apple's revenue model -- PRICES -- just won't let them put dedicated GPUs in their cheaper systems. DEAL with it... And guess what? They don't have to. Their market-share is climbing at a higher percentage than other computer makers, selling more Macs than ever before.

2) The fellow ehMac member -- a virtual "buddy" of mine here who PM'd me to "jump in on the fun"-- is acting like an arse. You know who you are. Cool it, baby. Cool it.


----------



## Orion (Apr 16, 2004)

*Maybe a bad idea...*

I probably shouldn't post this but the little angel/devil guys seem to be on a coffee break.

Topic 1:
Psystar (or whatever they change their name to and wherever they move) is indicative of something that Apple is very aware of: There is a demand by a small but dedicated group of people who want something that Apple doesn't offer. The Mac Mini is a good computer so long as you don't want more than it comes with. The Mac Pro is completely customisable but far too expensive if you don't need top-end power.

*** Warning: Car analogy ***
If I was only able to choose between a 2-door hatchback with 120hp and a pickup truck with 350hp I would likely not bother with a vehicle at all. Some would be perfectly happy with one of those two options.

(Yes I know the analogy is thin and doesn't include a laptop equivalent. Not my point. It's a question of options and Apple simply doesn't provide at least one major option that is, frankly, the mainstay of almost every other computer company: The easily customisable and *relatively cheap* box.
*** Car analogy ends ***

The Psystar computer (legalities and capabilities aside) is something that a small percentage of people have been looking for. How Apple and possibly some legal authorities react is a matter of speculation for the moment.


Topic 2:
I have a Macbook. It has "fake" video. The images still show up on the screen, they still move when and where they're supposed to, and when I turn off the machine they go away. There isn't a piece of paper taped to my screen with a phenomenally capable pixie zipping around with crayons; there is a proper LCD screen being powered by something that someone made that does what it is claimed to be able to do.

I watch videos and edit some too. I'm not a pro user, but I do stretch the system little every once in a while. Hooray for me. 

The G5 iMac (iSight, if you care ) I had worked wonderfully and was an exceptional improvement in useability and sound (soooo quiet) vs. the G4 tower I had. It had a "real" video card as did the G4 before it. Not a pixie to be seen. Worked fine. I did the same things then as I do now (video, etc.). The iMac's "real" video card would stutter and lurch on simple things like Exposé and Dashboard. Reinstalls and the like were performed with no benefit. Otherwise it was just fine. Didn't really care.

I was one of the "ignorant ones" who would rather not sweat something I couldn't change due to limited money and technical skills. 

The MacBook and its "fake" video suffer no such limitations. No stuttering and no dropped video frames unless doing something that is already taxing the machine, such as video encoding. Even then it is rarely present.

Does it make me ignorant that I didn't need a machine that could do everything at exactly the same speed for more money? I didn't (and frankly still don't) need the capabilities afforded by the "real" video cards in an iMac or Mac Pro. I got what I needed with a "fake" video card and it is working very well, thank you.

[sigh]

There are broad brushes being waved back and forth across various parts of this board and the online community in general. If you're swishing one of them, please try and look at who and what you're painting. Don't get your hackles up if someone you've painted comes back at you.

If anyone feels offended by this post, I ask only that you re-read it once before replying. If, after that review, you still feel a need to reply then please let fly with whatever you feel is necessary.

I'm going to take little break now.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

Actually, Orion, the Psystar in reality winds up giving the purchaser LESS than what a Mac Mini is in terms of a fluent feature set and FAR less of a genuine Apple user experience.

Folks that focus on the hardware aspect alone will get a pretty cold wake-up call as they actually try to use this computer. Basement hackers are one thing. Some dude wants to hack OS X onto his PC? Fine. Whatever. But then slap a website together with an online store (that doesn't work but that's beside the point) and start looking "legit"? This is a bad BAD thing for average people who might be looking at this crap as "just the right Mac for them". Like, even _mainstream_ news outlets like ABC news are covering Psystar! They could wind up with a lot of peed-off purchasers once the warts of this system start coming through (and that starts when you;'re still pushing your shopping cart around their online store).


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Macaholic said:


> Folks that focus on the hardware aspect alone will get a pretty cold wake-up call as they actually try to use this computer. Basement hackers are one thing. Some dude wants to hack OS X onto his PC? Fine. Whatever. But then slap a website together with an online store (that doesn't work but that's beside the point) and start looking "legit"? This is a bad BAD thing for average people who might be looking at this crap as "just the right Mac for them". Like, even _mainstream_ news outlets like ABC news are covering Psystar! They could wind up with a lot of peed-off purchasers once the warts of this system start coming through (and that starts when you;'re still pushing your shopping cart around their online store).


Anyone who is dumb enough to buy that PC deserve what they get.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

HJS said:


> Don't forget condescending  someone else got the arrogant in...
> You know, it's hard :-( :-( being smarter, more talented than most but the greatest curse is being better looking, too...


You forgot humble, polite, classy, genteel, diplomatic, respectful, tactful, and well just the kind of guy everyone aspires to be. It's too bad the good die young. :-(


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Owning a Mac is a lot like owning a Rolls Royce or a Porsche or a Lambourgini. Sure, they're more expensive and many people are not interested in spending that much money for a vehicle. But those that own them know what quality means and can appreciate their vehicles in a way that most of the rest of the population just doesn't get. I'll pay extra for quality 100 times out of 100. With a Mac I know I'm going to get quality and not just a virus-catcher. Anyone who thinks that paying the cheapest price is the most important think probably won't understand why Mac owners are so loyal. They're probably not going to fork out for a luxury car either.

Another analogy would be houses. Take bungalows versus two storeys. Where I live, about 90% of people building houses are building two storeys. Why? Because two storeys are better? Hardly. But they're cheaper. To get the same square footage, a bungalow takes up a bigger footprint on the land, therefore requiring more concrete, more roof tresses, etcetera. Dollar for dollar, and all things being equal, a bungalow would be a higher quality purchase, reserved for the minority that can afford it. Empty nesters, often, or folks who want the kids' rooms on a separate floor from the master bedroom. Better quality usually costs more money, but for those who can afford quality, the difference in longevity or value or usefulness often pays for itself.

You cannot convince a PC person why a Mac is a better purchase, or why an actual Apple product will work better than some DIY workaround. This $400 Pieholestar computer Mac wannabe that is the subject of this thread might work great, but I wouldn't be willing to spend my hard-earned cash to find out. I used to own a Rio 800 MP3 player (with a whopping 160 Mb of memory) before iPods hit the scene and it was cool because not very many people had an MP3 player back in 2001. I hummed and hawed for quite some time before getting an iPod, but now that I have a year and a half later, there's no looking back. The simplicity of navigation, ease of connectivity with iTunes, and reliability have been worth the cost to me. And about 80% of the MP3 market as well, apparently. People will pay for quality if they can see the difference it makes. Apple doesn't even need to sell computers if they can make such a profit on iPods.

Which brings up another point: piracy. Sure, iPods probably cost about $20 for Apple to make and then sell for $150, but Apple has also set up the fairest (and now most popular) music distribution channel as well. When you purchase a song for a relatively cheap 99 cents, some money will go back to the actual artist. Compare this with the plethora of Napster, Limewire, Bit-torrent or whatever download for free options, and it's obvious which one is cheaper. However, if the artist or recording company is never renumerated for the cost of making the songs in the first place, they will stop making music. They have to make a living too. I have a few free downloads in my collection (usually songs that I've already purchased on vinyl, cassette or CD), but I have no problem paying to download from iTunes if I know the quality will be consistently good. 

This entitlement attitude of much of the public really p!sses me off (though it's better to be p!ssed off than p!ssed on, I always say). We all need to make a living, and it's not always about paying the cheapest price. A fool and his money are soon parted, sooner or later. And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## HJS (Sep 12, 2003)

*Multiple responses:*

*To Orion:*

No, your post was a very good idea- when I first got into this thread, I tried to tell the guy he was just wrong, in about 3 lines-since a few people had already presented quite valid counter arguments/opinions- almost just like yours(but yours is best yet)- then got to the thread topic. But he wouldn't let it go...

Then someone didn't like how I expressed myself- so I let him know how i felt about that-then I got back to the topic.

Then the integrated graphics basher hopped in again-my reaction-then back to the topic...

etc. etc. see a pattern?

Lets see what he has to say to your well-expressed viewpoint. I had Cinebench scores ready, but he's already one click away from my ignore list  
Though maybe he now knows when to let sleeping dogs lie, when to stop beating a dead horse, etc.

I for one wasn't on coffee break-just went back to real life, which is where I usually live ;-) Hey, it's Saturday Night!

*Maca, ole buddy*
I have cooled it-didn't you notice? I just wanted the thread to get back on topic, and make a few points about my experiences on a mockintosh(love it, is it your invention?) and so the thread inadvertently became my official coming out as a hack Macher/Maker...

Also, didn't you know I was a professional, world-class Arse even before I touched a Mac??? My father was a plain Arsch, my grandfather was a Von Arschloch - only changed the name to Arse when we came to the new world,(easier to pronounce) since we'd already lost the Schloss(castle) & estate lands to the Nazis, then what was left to the dirty commies...

*screature*-you know what all those smilies, grins, winks mean in my posts? It means I'm JOKING (mostly) but maybe the South Park era killed other, more subtle or twisted forms of comic expression...

We obviously don't share the same sense of humour, but that's ok- part of what keeps the world interesting.

In England, they call it taking the p- word (is pee-pee allowed?)

Google is everyone's friend...:love2: 

Hey, *Mr. Mayor*- Please fine them if they can't take a joke. 

As for the topic, I've expressed my opinion, even posted a link.
This used to be such a lively, intelligent board- at least this thread has a bit of life now beejacon

oh, and *fjnmusic* You're expressing the typical party-line of a Mac Snob/Elitist- no wonder the PC plebes hate us :lmao:


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

LOL!

Okay dude. Then perhaps ease off on the meds a bit.(??)


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> "Integrated graphics solutions, or shared graphics solutions are graphics processors that utilize a portion of a computer's system RAM rather than dedicated graphics memory. Such solutions are cheaper to implement than dedicated graphics solutions, but are less capable. Historically, integrated solutions were often considered unfit to play 3D games or run graphically intensive programs such as Adobe Flash. (Examples of such IGPs would be offerings from SiS and VIA circa 2004.) However, today's integrated solutions such as the Intel's GMA X3000 (Intel G965), AMD's Radeon X1250 (AMD 690G) and NVIDIA's GeForce 7050 PV (NVIDIA nForce 630a) are more than capable of handling 2D graphics from Adobe Flash or low stress 3D graphics. Of course the aforementioned GPUs still struggle with high-end video games. Modern desktop motherboards often include an integrated graphics solution and have expansion slots available to add a dedicated graphics card later.


Good old Wikipedia. Thanks for posting this - although I am sure you did so in error because it kinda undermines your point. You highlight that the integrated graphics are 'less capable'. Indeed they are - but less capable does not mean bad, or poor or even fake. It just means, um, less capable. So for those who don't need the most capable solution, it's just maybe possible that their MacBooks and Minis are doing just fine.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

HJS said:


> oh, and *fjnmusic* You're expressing the typical party-line of a Mac Snob/Elitist- no wonder the PC plebes hate us :lmao:


That's kind of dismissive. I spent some time coming up with what I thought were some pretty good analogies and quite frankly, was getting annoyed with how personal the attacks were becoming, including yours. Sure, you can hack out a great cheaper option if you want to, but that's exactly what you'll get: a cheaper option. Where I live, there's a difference between a real Fender Stratocaster and a $200 guitar you get at Wal-Mart. If someone really wants to think they are equivalent, then I suppose they're free to live that delusion. But if you're going to try to convince the rest of the world you've found the magical cure for higher prices that's eluded the rest of the world…well, then, you'd best be darned sure of yourself.

I am no Mac snob/elitist. We owned a 486 or 386 for several years because that's all our parents could afford to donate to us. I buy old Macs on eBay because I don't want to fork out too much for a new one. That said, we have newish iMac desktop and four older Macs that date back to as early as 2001. They all still work and all connect to each other wirelessly. No anti-virus software anywhere in sight. No viruses either. That point alone suffices. I'm as frugal as the next guy. The point I was making, which I think you missed entirely, is that sometimes it's worth it to pay for quality. I've seen no compelling evidence otherwise.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Oc course, _elitism_ can go both ways…


----------



## StageDive (Feb 8, 2008)

I hate it when mom and dad fight.....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Looks like the dude broke his Caps Lock key...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Why doesn't everybody just leave it alone for a long, long time.


----------



## Quicksilver G4 (Jan 29, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> Looks like the dude broke his Caps Lock key...


LOL!!!!!! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :baby: :baby:


----------



## TrevX (May 10, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Add to that a number of problems that have creeped up lately with QuickTime, in particular, flashing or corrupted video that is evident on some MacBooks. Looks like the end of the story, and fake video remains utterly fake and relegated to only those tasks where one may not notice the degradation in system performance, ie. a user does not use QuickTime to view MPG movies...


This issue is not a problem strictly with integrated video. My mother's latest edition iMac suffers from the same problem, and it has a dedicated graphics card. 

Integrated graphics are fine for most tasks, even games if the games you play are not that demanding (Halo, for example, plays fine on a Macbook). Nobody buys a Macbook for 3D animation and HD video editing anyway, so who cares?

Trev


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

HJS: why are you so angry? It seems to me you must be carrying a very heavy pain-body, as Eckhart Tolle would say. Perhaps you may want to listen to the podcast with Tolle and Oprah this evening. Inner peace would look good on you.

A New Earth Web Event


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Good grief...I think it's time to *lock *this puppy up.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Aww. Just when it was getting fun, too.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Aww. Just when it was getting fun, too.


It's actually getting boring for me. This guy clearly has issues, I just wish he would work them out in private rather than forcing the rest of us to endure his megalomaniacal rants. If he thinks he is funny, well I guess that is also a symptom of his aforementioned condition.

My sympathies to powz for having to endure his relentless B.S.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Further posts jabbing at each other will be deleted with users given a week off.


----------

