backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 49 comment(s) - last by audiomaniaca.. on May 4 at 2:26 AM

The Psystar machine actually got delivered and came actually slightly better than described, with a snazzier memory card.  (Source: Engadget)

The Psystar computer runs OS X 10.5.2 and performs admirably, albeit very noisily.  (Source: Engadget)
Psystar hopes to prove its haters and doubters wrong by shipping units for preview

Earlier this month, DailyTech reported on a brewing legal battle between Apple Inc. and a small Mac-clone startup, Psystar.  Later it was reported the whole site appeared to be a major sham and that the address it was registered to was a home address.

However, it appears to some extent that Psystar is on level as it shipped Engadget its newly renamed Psystar Open Computer. The system will allegedly soon ship to customers for $399.  After some hurried benchmarking, one thing appears clear -- Psystar is producing serious machines that can indeed run OS X, despite having some flaws.

The Psystar shipped to Engadget featured a Gigabyte motherboard with an Intel G31 Express chipset.  It features rather strong graphical power, using the NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT.  The card is reported on the site to be 256 MB, but the shipped card actually featured 512 MB of memory -- and unexpected bonus.  The computer features a decent 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo processor, similar to previous generation/low-end iMacs.

The box runs on OS X Leopard 10.5.2, build 9C31.  Currently Apple is on build, so this is slightly behind the curve.

Now for the bad and the ugly -- first, the machine has a very noisy fan setup.  The noise, likely exacerbated by a cheap case, is so loud that it is reportedly hard to make phone calls when the computer is in use.  Also, while Leopard is included with box, reinstalls do not appear to work, as it would not recognize the disk at boot.  Also the DHCP lease drops every 15 minutes, requiring a manual renew.

A couple more issues that aren't quite as severe include the fact that there is no iPhoto or iLife, as these don't come with Leopard, but are purchased separately.  Also, memory and audio don't properly show up in the Apple System Profiler.  This is not a horrible problem, as the memory and sound work fine,  but it might become a roadblock to upgrades.

The initial benchmarks show a rather solid performer.  In CPU tests, it only comes up short to the pricier Penryn-sporting MacBook Pros and 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac.  In memory, its roughly meets or beats all Mac's desktop and notebook offerings, besides the high end 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac.  Graphically it noticeably beats almost every Mac offering, notebook or otherwise, only being barely edged out by the 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac.  Finally, hard drive performance is, unsurprisingly (due to rpm speeds) ahead of the notebooks from Apple, though it trails just slightly (and likely unnoticeably) behind Apple's desktop offerings.

Overall, if you can deal with the noise, the system seems to be a relatively good deal for those wanting a Mac.  Given that you can use boot camp to dual boot, likely (was not tested), this could be a good all around system with a Windows install for gaming. 

This said, the apparent small scale nature of the operation and looming threat of legal action from Apple offers a sort of Catch 22 for prospective buyers -- should they jump on it, despite fears that the setup might not be completely legitimate or production ready, before Apple can shut them down, or should they wait and make sure the company can actually deliver to customers, risking possibly missing the opportunity due to potential legal action from Apple.

A tough question indeed, but at least for now it appears like Psystar may be on level, and may actually be delivering a decent product and a lower price than Apple.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
For real?
By JustTom on 5/1/2008 11:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
So basically we have evidence they slapped together one machine. This is hardly evidence that this is a real on going operation; I hope it is because opening up the Mac market would in my mind be a great thing. But I will believe it when customers start getting the product.




RE: For real?
By lightfoot on 5/1/2008 11:49:02 AM , Rating: 5
What really matters is that they proved that they can produce the product - that is a HUGE first step. Duplicating what they have already done should be a fairly simple and straight forward process.


RE: For real?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/1/2008 11:56:21 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
But I will believe it when customers start getting the product.


Your assuming there is a market for this. Companies have done this before and failed because nobody wants a cheaper half broken Mac.

The Mac isn't a computer, its a social club. Spending more money for less is part of the requirements.


RE: For real?
By jimbojimbo on 5/1/2008 12:48:12 PM , Rating: 3
Not to mention most Apple owners don't care if their running OSX. They care that it's got a big apple symbol on it.


RE: For real?
By headbox on 5/1/2008 12:57:09 PM , Rating: 1
Based on what evidence?

OS X is the PRIMARY reason people want to use a Mac.

I can understand being an Apple fanboi because it's trendy, but I'll never understand the motivation behind being a Microsoft fanboi.


RE: For real?
By 16nm on 5/1/2008 3:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't want to argue with anyone regarding OSX vs MS. I just want to point out that all the free press Psystar is getting must really be helping the bottom line of this new company. What a boon! I wish them the best.


RE: For real?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/2/2008 1:02:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I can understand being an Apple fanboi because it's trendy, but I'll never understand the motivation behind being a Microsoft fanboi.


So its better to be trendy then sensible ?

I didn't know I was a fanboi. I'm using Windows because its always been able to run any and all software I could possibly want. Its guaranteed to be 100% compatible with any piece of hardware I have or will have. And, of course, its great for gaming.

quote:
OS X is the PRIMARY reason people want to use a Mac.


The intricacies of an OS are likely far beyond the average Mac user's knowledge. I hate making sweeping statements like that, but I have a feeling those people would buy anything as long as its got an Apple logo slapped on the side.


RE: For real?
By Locutus465 on 5/1/2008 1:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
You're wrong here... Most Mac people I know love Mac because OSX is so easy to use as is the prepackaged software they get with their computers. This is one point I can't argue with, due to Apple's closed box solution it is in fact easier to use. There's just a whole lot more choice for Windows, not to mention a host of other "PC" advantages including at least nearly every (includeing Windows now with Vista) PC OS ACTUALLY being more secure than OSX.

That said, if I ever find my self with the disposable income I'll probably end up buying a Mac to toy around with and such. There's no denying that apple does have a nice thing going with that OS... And I'm sure it would work better wtih my iPod than the crapware that itunes windows is :P


RE: For real?
By Smartless on 5/1/2008 3:14:11 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Forgive the overall generalizing but its a simple tradeoff. Apple's sell because they're highly innovative, user friendly, trendy Monarchy. You trade-off user-friendly with less freedom. PC's are much more flexible in terms of price, software, hardware, security, but you run the risk that it won't work the first time you set it up.

I know I've said the same thing before. Maybe I'm over-compensating for my in-laws who are so smug about their macs. lol.


RE: For real?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/2/2008 12:57:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Apple's sell because they're highly innovative


I don't know about that. They run Windows now and use Intel CPU's. They just started using two button mice last year. And most software people credit them with came from companies which Apple simply bought. Innovative ? I don't know.


RE: For real?
By afkrotch on 5/2/2008 12:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say majority of their "innovation" came from someone else. Not to mention, they're usually late on it too.

Timemachine, been done. Windows 3.1 had built-in backup utilities.

Spaces, been done. Unix, Linux, and apps for Windows.

Widgets, been done. Actually by some randomly dude. So Apple took that idea, refined it, then released it.

Stacks, WTF is that aside from having a start menu? A little late on that one. Unix and Linux has that crap.

The only real innovation coming from Apple is their innovative means of getting ppl to actually spend more money on less and make them happy to do so.


RE: For real?
By nitrous9200 on 5/1/2008 5:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't get what's "easier" about the Mac OS. After having used them for about 4 months for a video production class, all I have to say is that it's just different and filled with eye candy, but no less difficult than Windows. I wasn't even able to save a Word document onto my flash drive or move it from the hard drive. There were no error messages, it looked like it moved, but it never showed up. And no, I'm not an idiot, I can figure these things out. (I ended up emailing the file so I could move the file onto the flash drive from a Windows machine.) Not to mention they have crashed on random occasions for no reason at all. People continue to boast about how easy their Mac is, and I just tell them that they're spouting BS.


RE: For real?
By VashHT on 5/1/2008 5:38:41 PM , Rating: 3
Totally agree with you there, Macs are not easier to use, just different, its just popular rhetoric to spout it as being more intuitive and easier to use, maybe because its an often used marketing line. Anyway in the end they're both different, whichever OS you're used to is the one that will be easier to use, and neither have a big learning curve as far as I'm concerned.


RE: For real?
By pxavierperez on 5/1/2008 6:49:20 PM , Rating: 3
I've been using XP for a long while and had just been recently given a chance to install OS X. I admit in some ways it is easier to use. It also handles multithreading better than XP. Although I like it mainly because it is so much easier to develop and program applications, especially server and client side applications with OS X. Everything you need comes right out of the box.

Still the bottom line is whatever get the job done. If you work faster in XP then XP it is. Both ways are the same. That's how I view any OS. If it helps me get the job done then I am all for it. That's why i never get into useless emotional debates about which OS is better than this or that. I see it as a tool, not someone i go to bed with.

As how one could fail to copy files onto a flash drive that is completely beyond me. I never had that problem with such a simple task in OS X.


RE: For real?
By Ksyder on 5/1/2008 9:54:46 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I can relate with the person who had trouble copying files to a flash drive. I had a similar problem recently when a customer asked me to create MS Word shortcuts on the desktop of an old G3 tower they had. After spending 15 minutes or so trying to find the executable (or whatever Mac uses) it took me another 15 minutes of searching the help files to find out you had to hold down the ctrl + apple key (or whatever it was) while dragging the file in order to make a copy instead of moving if you just dragged it by itself. If you just moved it the program would not work. I don't really have any problem with Macs but that is just lame.


RE: For real?
By pxavierperez on 5/2/2008 12:53:58 AM , Rating: 1
er, it's the same with XP. you move the icon of an app to another directory it won't make a copy of it. Unless you move it to another directory in another drive which then again works exactly the same in OS X. Then there's the right click pull down menu to copy a file which works similarly in both XP and OS X.

i'm beginning to wonder whether knowledge of basic usage of computers in general or the lack of is the problem here rather than the specific OS functionality.


RE: For real?
By FITCamaro on 5/2/2008 7:40:22 AM , Rating: 3
Except its hard to right click on a Mac when you don't have a second mouse button. Macs are too good and expensive for these simple, commoner features.


RE: For real?
By audiomaniaca on 5/2/2008 7:53:23 AM , Rating: 3
Easier to use?? Haha, tell me more about it.

I've been using computers for almost three decades (macs, pcs, silicons, apple IIs, C64s and the list goes like that), and i've never found anything easier and faster to use than Windows. Of course, if for you "easy to use" means connecting the ipod cable to the usb port, I agree.

Let's face reality without distortion and delirium:

Windows is faster
Windows is better
Windows is cheaper
Windows is easier to use
Windows is less cool looking
Windows is not fashionable or trendy
Windows is 1000x more useful, in any way.
MS does not innovate, as apple doesn't. Both just copy and re-invent things other companies invented before.

I've got the iphone. Interface is amazing (cool), but my old nokia could be used 10x faster in an easier way.

I'm not a MS fanboy, I'm just a computer expert who cannot be affected by marketing and trendisms. Sorry.