Apple thinks that the fact there is no evidence implies that it was destroyed. I'm sure Psystar will claim that no evidence implies no act or evidence of act ever existed and Apples claims are false.

Hi, Glenn.

Congrats for managing to get OS X on your PC with such a method. From your sayings, I presume you modified your hardware (motherboard) to trick the OS X disc into thinking your PC is a mac.

Can you please send the link on how exactly to do such a procedure? All the results I get on google is how to install patched (aka "reversed enginered") versions of OS X and virtual machine stuff.
Any guide to makr my machine into a mac clone?

The reason i want this is that i would never say bye to 1500$ to get a laptop with no bluray support, flimsy casing that breaks for no reason and a dvd drive that wears out every 2 years. Better go to linux mint. But it would be nice to get it on my exisiting machine. Just for a try.

The most beautiful Apple Mac's generations was Apple PowerMac that they uses the best architecture in the world. I hope they could back to the days without Intel.

Lets see what is inside each of those "overpriced" laptops that everyone loves to bash about is completely useless arguments. People are forgetting simple facts and simple things that are in one PC and in another PC to start with. Like - how slow your cheep laptop will work if you put on bed, and you block all the ventilation system that is designed to push hot air to the bottom of laptop? How good is your mic in your craptop? When you enable bluetooth in your crapt what happens to your wireless link? How good is camera integration? As far as i have seen - you have to have some weird dongle to use bluatooth, your mic sux in such a bad whay, that noone hears you, or everyone hears you typing and clicking mouse. Ventilation is nonexistent if you put it on bed or some other soft surface. If you see laptop with these flaws removed it will cost the same, maybe a bit less. If i want these features, my only option is to buy something that is not cheep, and as result some vendors like sony think that i want high end laptop and stuffs it full with other crap i dont need, like dual GPU. On the other hand, if you put your laptopn only on desk, you dont want to talk to eveyone through voicechat and dont care about bluetooth - buy any reasonable laptop, but dont claim that you have laptop on par with macbook. People just cut the crap.

Well, if Apple wants to sell their OS to all PC owners they would end up in the same mess as M$, different HW means different drivers and necessary testing and support. By selling their os on their HW they need to support only products they sell, much easier to maintain/develop. By supporting only their hw they can tweak OS so it runs perfectly on their HW.
To be honest, if i was in their position i wouldn't think about selling the os to other PC users at all.

So if Microsoft locked software to certain hardware they would be sued. Remind me why it's legal for Apple to lock software to what is essentially a regular PC with a huge price markup? This is so backwards.

Tomshardware's article is skewed badly. They compare the top end overpriced laptops to the top end over priced mac hardware.

Of course they are going to be the same. But try going midrange with a Macintosh or low end. You have to create a hackintosh in order to get a midrange or low end laptop. Apple refuses to give up their profit margin and that is what this bollock-laced lawsuit is all about.

Your argument is so flawed I needed to point this out.

I hope apple loses. They have been fighting off clones since the power mac era.

At last an Article thats not full of bashing anything. We might actually see some journalism on The Inq.

About the more expensive Macs, just read some articles.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9023959/Mac_vs._PC_cost_analysis_How_does_it_all_add_up_?taxonomyId=12&pageNumber=1

It just comes down to choice, not price.

most companies would be glad of a potential expansion to the market for their software.

Not Apple because they think they must prevent others using OSX so they can monopolise it to sell hardware at twice the going rate. There is a case for anti-trust here, shirley.

For all their pretended belief in their own technical prowess Apple cannot seem to grasp the simple math which suggests the total potential sales of OSX in the PC market is vastly greater than the profit margin on sales of overpriced Apple branded hardware. Thus disproving the myth of their own intelligence.

QED

"I've built a mac-clone myself with no reverse engineering."

"There was an article that circulated on the web 3 years ago on how to run MacOSX on a PC"

Did it ever occur to you that the article you use on "how to" WAS the reverse engineering that you so astutely claimed not to do! LOL

Geez! :D

There was an article that circulated on the web 3 years ago on how to run MacOSX on a PC so I built one. ECS motherboard and all. It works fine to this day. I didn't reverse engineer anything.

And, it could be more Apple smoke and mirrors. It could be false or even malicious, it could be anything but the things SPECULATED here.

It is well known that Apple is as heavy handed with it's legal romping as is the music industry. They just choose bigger targets, though are careful to avoid the really big ones.

You'd have thought Apple would have anonymously bought one of them Psystar machines anyway as proof.

I thought reverse engineering was legal anyway (look at Compaq for instance cloning the IBM PC), or has all that been stopped due to the DMCA?

Rob