The number of Mac clone makers is growing by the week, so it seems. We have Psystar in the United States, a clone maker in Russia, another one in the UK, and PearC who now cover Germany, The Netherlands, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. We can add a new one to the list, one that I personally thought was a fake, but is apparently very real. One that has a retail store. In California. Quo Computer (in case you’re wondering, you use that thing on the right to navigate – it’s weird).
Other websites have reported on Quo Computer as early as late May, but I decided not to since we had no way to confirm the store’s existence (it opened on June 1), and their website wasn’t up (placeholder only) for a long time after that. I kept trying to reach their website a week or so into June, and then stopped caring.
However, I just got an email from Quo Computer’s founder, Rashantha De Silva, pointing me to their website, which is now up and running. Apparently, they don’t do online sales – real-world retail only. This appears to be the next step for clone makers, a move forward from selling Mac clones online.
Just like the guys and girls behind PearC, they claim to be enthusiastic fans of Apple’s software, but not of the company’s hardware. They even detail the Mac history of the company’s founder. Apparently, he bought the first Macintosh in 1984, went on to follow NEXT, and came back to Apple as Steve Jobs returned to Cupertino.
They have three machines on offer with varying configurations, and offer 1 year warranty with 3 month phone support. You can find Quo Computer at 2401 West Main Street, Alhambra, CA 91801. If any OSNews readers live close to this location, and would like to help us out, feel free to take a look around the store, maybe take a few photos, and send us in your impressions. I’ll also try and see if I can get an interview with Rashantha De Silva.
Their website looks nice and they have some decent specs. I wonder if Apple will sue them since they are not selling their computers online… Btw, did anyone notice that their logo looks a bit like compaq’s Q ?
Neither the site nor this story explicitly state whether OSX is preloaded. I get the impression that the computers are configured to run OSX, but is it up to the user to install it him or herself?
I’ll see if I can stop by do the interview bit, take pics.
Please Do!
Pfft, yeah right. I’m a PC/Gnu Linux user and the one thing I lament is there is no-one who makes kit as well as Apple, have you seen the inside of the Mac Pros, yummy.
The only reason why they “aren’t fans” of Mac hardware is because they can’t copy that and sell it!!
Or because it’s ridiculously expensive.
+1
Who copies hardware?
“Who copies hardware…”
Um yeah, that was exactly my point.
Also it is bloody expensive but it is also bloody good, you get what you pay for.
Apple hardware in a lot of ways reminds me of the internals of the IBM System/38 and AS/400 that the company was using for administration.
Most machines are slopped together with seemingly loose wires running every which way, but Apple and that IBM equipment is quite purposeful from most angles.
I can affirm IBM’s builds. They are rather sweet. Everything is nicely compartmentalized. We have some X3500 models that we deal with, and while they are heavy suckers, everything in them is hot-swappable (except maybe the memory / cpu) including fans, power supplies etc.
Well, now Lenovo owned but the thinkcentre machines are very well layed out inside. Push buttons, pivot case panel up. Pivot drive rack up. Tada.. a little bit of art in the way these machines layed out. I was stunned the first time I opened one simply because it was too easy and everything was right there waiting for whatever part was being replaced (in this case, bigger ram sticks).
Apple’s factory clean tower cases look nice inside but they are not the only one’s. Other factory builds meant for little or no internal maintenance look similar; custom length cables, clean wrapping, good placement.
A few years back there was also a custom game rig maker interviewed. They’d hired an origami artist to dot he cabling and I’ve yet to see anything come close to what that artist could do with ribon. Hell, I take my own rig to a friend for re-cabling after I’ve done the initial build of a new system. I usually have to leave the case open for a week while I gauk at it.
To be sure, Apple makes some pretty hardware with good quality but I can’t feel envy over the idea that they are the only one’s who can do a clean case. If this company’s feelings about the hardware is based on number of ports and component selections rather than just a marketing angle, they may have a valid point.
“The slewth of other Mac software makes our day to day lives easy, fun and productive”… Slewth is not productive.
I am sure others have seen worse, but their website is possibly the worst designed I have ever visited.
to clever by half and counter intuitive..
THe nav section doesnt even move logically (click bottom left takes you to bottom left of the ‘sheet’)
This is what happens when you let programers do design.
Sales
Design
Programers
never shall the breeds meet :-p
Back in ’91 I built a computer from Domino Computers INC at the time.
You purchased the hardware and the software (including the OS which was DOS 5.0 and built it on their sight.
Personal was there to help as technical support.
My computer back then was a 386 with a wietek mathco processor with a 1 meg video card!!
Since the company is only providing support (if any) and you are the one actually putting together a computer, would this be a way to build a legal Hackentosh?
Just Curious.
Bty, that computer lasted 14 years before going on to silicon heaven.
If you’re building it yourself, why bother with an outfit like this? Just build it. People were building hackintoshes long before the “cloners” popped up and there wasn’t a peep from Apple.
Apple have been fairly tolerant of the hackintosh scene so far but I wouldn’t be too surprised if people *selling* clones isn’t the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
I just hope the end result is not some kind of shitty hardware validation/activation program which inconveniences genuine Mac owners.
While Apple is a more restrictive company that Microsoft, they tend to do a much better job of implementation. I suspect it wouldn’t be noticeable when dealing with official hardware. Maybe an identifying chip on the board or some such non-standard hardware component.
It wouldn’t take too long for the hackintosh folks to work around but could cause a legal problems requiring actual hardware patent infringement for resellers.
Either way, it can’t be implemented as badly as Genuine Advantage and UAC. From that benchmark, the only way to go is up.
I am worried people will buy these ‘Mac Clones’ thinking they get the normal system updates and security updates when infact any one of them could brick their system. The other option is don’t update leaving your system with known security holes…
I hope someone comes down hard on these companies. I think it should be govenments, not apple itself, as it is misleading customers to sell these systems without big red writing saying ‘can never be updated and MAY not be stable'(in my opinion)
I don’t want to see the government come down on it but I’d love to see each computer on the website to have in big bold letters that, “this machine is not supported by Apple in any shape or form; when you purchase this computer with Mac OS X, you are entirely on your own”. If people still want to purchase it even after knowing they’ll be left high and dry – then I say let them go ahead and purchase it. I’ll laugh my self to sleep knowing that to save a few dollars they purchase a machine where updates are like Russian Roulette.
Side note though; those who want to purchase Mac’s, will buy them regardless of whether there is a midi-tower. Quite frankly, I can’t work out why there are people here who have a ‘midi-tower’ fetish; something to do with feeling in adequate about their manhood? I think so given how those who towers seem to be at the same time more than willing to boast about how they’re better than others (look at people on this website who boast about their towers and how all those who have all in ones are ‘moronic idiots who are slaves to the Apple corporation”).
Edited 2009-07-10 09:56 UTC
The reason I want to involve governments is because I think it contravines (uk) trading standards in its current form. Not because of licence issues (gov should not get involved in this in my opinion)
The reason people want a midi tower is so they can ‘cheaply’ upgrade their systems. Also its the jump in the product line from the mini to the Mac Pro for those who dont want an all-in-one iMac.
I’ve always held the opinion that as long as all the information is fully disclosed in an understandable manner – buyer beware.
For everyone I hear who claims to the upgradability, I’m hard pressed to find someone who does piece meal upgrading outside that of some niche areas – gamers etc. The revulsion of the ‘all in one’ is little more than the ‘real men have towers’, the same sort of mentality of some guys refusing to ever buy a VW Beetle. It has less to do with practicality and everything to do with ‘what will my friends think – an all in one computer is so girly and designed for first time users, I don’t want to be classified as that”.
The only problem I have with an All-In-One setup is why would I want to trash my existing monitor to switch to Mac. They would get a lot more converts if they had a reasonably priced, decently spec’ed tower option. Pro or Mini as choices is like feast or famine for potential switchers.
Now when Apple decides to implement touch screens as the default in iMacs…. that could make switching seem more worthwhile.
Ugh, you’d want to be constantly reaching up on the desk to touch your monitor when you could just use the keyboard or move the mouse? To each their own I suppose, but I know my arms at least would be dirt tired by the end of the day if I had to do that. On a laptop, now, that could have its uses.
Not so much to use it exclusively, but having touchscreen available for certain uses would be a nice feature that could make a Mac switch much more attractive.
Doing a quick flip through your music albums to start something playing, checking a document that you saved to the desktop or a quick email check; those types of things are where a touchscreen could come in handy.
Pretty much every computer sold these days in New Zealand include a monitor by default – and I’ve yet to see a regular end user (not the IT literate people on this site) recycle the monitor from their last computer on their new computer. I question whether there are the numbers in the US alone of people recycling old components when they use a computer – outside that of their external devices like an external hard disk or printer.
People don’t switch because of the assumption that they can’t continue as they always have; I’ve met so many people who have considered purchasing a Mac but then thought that they couldn’t share files, Microsoft Office wasn’t available (or a compatible suite), that their hardware wouldn’t work. They are the issues that are holding back adoption – nothing to do with the desire of people to recycle old and rickety components with a new computer.
Edited 2009-07-11 02:36 UTC
Customers not reading the documentation is far different from a company intentionally misleading them in a case of false advertisement. So far, it seems pretty clear that it’s not Apple hardware they are selling though. Where I buying, I’d be confirming how they support updates and upgrades but I’d do that for any software.
when was the last time you saw the average consumer read the support terms before buying a product?
There’s no license for stupid. The retailer can only do so much and provided they have shown due diligence in notifying the customer, what more can they do? Even laws can’t protect people from themselves so at some point, the consumer hast to take some responsibility for there choices.
I’m happy to see these Mac clones. Microsoft needs the competition, and Apple (mostly alone) has provided at least a little of that. I’ve got plenty of respect for Mac.
What I don’t understand is why Linux isn’t doing at least as well, if not better. Especially if you’ve got to install your own OSX, and you get no updates. How is that better than Linux, which is free and updated almost daily, and doesn’t require any special hardware?
Please, no one misinterpret this to mean I hate Apple, or OSX. Apple (original equipment) is quality (I’m less sure about the clones), and OSX is very capable. I’m glad that Mac+OSX exists. But it’s hard to argue with free – yet non-free is what the overwhelming majority seems to want. I can see why people stick with Windows if that’s all they know, but if they’re going to “think different” and experiment, then why not go all the way and at least give Linux a try?
Hopefully I won’t be too badly savaged for the above comments. Now, I’ve also got a technical question. Since Mac went to Intel processors, exactly what is the difference between Mac clones and PC clones? Is it simply that BIOS thing that’s different, or is there more to it? And if you do have a Mac clone, can you dual-boot it with Windows and/or Linux? If you can, that would really add value, like getting two or three computers in one.
best regards to all,
Oz
Edited 2009-07-10 10:23 UTC
Simple reasons, software and marketing. With OS X you get big brand name software like that from Adobe, and you also get Microsoft Office (even though the version for Mac is a bit of a joke imho). They are brands that people know, and trust at least to some extent. Don’t start off about Wine and how that software all works in Wine, no average consumer wants to be bothered working out how to do that. Consider as well that the average user probably has never heard of Linux, no matter which variant, and probably doesn’t know someone who can help them with it. At least, if they need help with their Mac, they’re likely to find someone who can–hell, they probably already know several people with Macs.
Also, do note that most average consumers are going to by Macs, not these hackintoshes, and those who are building hackintoshes are doing it either because they want to see if they can or because they want a Mac-like system that Apple doesn’t provide and are willing and able to deal with the possible issues that may crop up.
Insert disk
Double-click “Setup.exe”
Click through installer
Click menu and find the software you just installed.
…yeah, I see how confusing that must be. In your defense, you probably haven’t used Wine for quite a while, but it’s really no harder than installing anything in Windows these days.
Let me fix that for you: Install Wine, configure Wine, insert disk, click setup.exe, hope that Wine is associated with the exe filetype, install, choose program from Applications/Wine menu if your distro is configured to set that up.
Not every distro has a streamlined Wine configuration like the one you’re implying. Ubuntu, for example, doesn’t seem to always associate .exe files with Wine so that has to be done manually and, with the typical consumer, working right away matters so that would depend on the distro. That’s, of course, leaving out the users who get panicked if the CD doesn’t autoplay (yes, they really do exist). For those people, even telling them to double click setup.exe flusters them and sends them into a fit of complaining about things not working properly.
And get off your high horse with that “in your defense” crap. You know nothing about me or what I have and have not used recently.
No need. It works just fine thanks.
Touch a nerve did I? Take a deep breath and relax mate. Your insecurities are showing.
Interesting to see that you completely failed to address most of the points raised in the post that you replied to.
Dodge noted.
Err…my original response details my experience precisely, so there’s nothing to dodge. The issues raised with Wine aren’t what I’ve experienced for some time, so those ‘points’ are, as far as I can tell, no longer relevant. As he stated himself, not all distro’s are created equal.
That would be convenient.
The last time I tried to install something with WINE 0.9.x, I put the discs away and shutdown the machine.
Like the other comment; marketing. Microsoft and Apple fantastic marketing companies. Microsoft even compensates for it’s poor design decisions through brilliant marketing. The most easily infected OS on the planet but the marketing manages to even spin that sad fact.
With Linux based OS it’s the silent majority syndrome. Embedded just work without advertising themselves as any particular OS back end. Red Hat and Novell target server and business markets with there marketing. Specialty distributions only market too security consumers or similar small areas of focus so you’ll never hear about those. Connonical is about the only company making any noise about the desktop market. Dell, while offering it preinstalled, hides it so far down in the website that it remains a third class citizen. Netbooks got smoked by the MS marketing and loss-leader strategies though that machine class is probably closest to a healthy consumer driven market.
Then, you have the conservative minded IT folks who “never got fired for buying IBM or Microsoft”; the single OS techs that only know MCSE; the general fan club that think anything which can’t run Crysis is crap; the myth based constant droners spouting “Linux is hard” in that talking barbie “Math is hard” kind of way.
For the osX clone retailers, they need only mention that they offer osX or “Apple’s software” and they can play off the hype that Apple has spent so much time and money generating. That’s probably the closest point of infringement but there is no a law against benefiting from others advertising unless through false trademark.
Probably because Linux still has a LONG way to go before it gets anywhere near the usability of OSX, or even Windows. And, no this is not flame bait.
Don’ t get me wrong, I use Linux, a lot, we use it as the compute node OS in a very large cluster.
On the desktop though, on a Mac, you have drag and drop install, a program is packaged up into a directory, and the user simply copies this over, does not like it, delete it, that simple. When I write a Mac program, I don’t need to send it over to packagers to put it into a repository, I don’t need to worry about 5000 flavors of Linux, each with different libraries, etc…
Sure, you say, just publish the source code (which I do), but MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO COMPILE THIER OWN SOFTWARE. They just want a program that just works.
OpenGL also just works on a Mac, no need to re-compile the kernel just to install the latest nVidia driver.
So, while the Linux kernel and GNU user land / compilers are VERY GOOD, they need some consistency.
You forgot about the larger applications that come in pkg files with installers. You know, the ones that aren’t so easy to uninstall if the app developer doesn’t provide an uninstall tool? Speaking of uninstall, you do know that deleting a .app bundle doesn’t remove any other components that app may have installed, such as items in the services menu or folder actions? Yes, installing apps on a Mac is usually simple… uninstallation, on the other hand, is a real pain. It’s actually quite amazing how cluttered OS X can become over a year or two of use.
Yup, that’s a major advantage on having a tightly controlled platform. That’s why I’ve eventually just had to slip into this mindset that there’s no such thing as Linux “distributions.” They are operating systems, separate oses that share source code compatibility but not binary compatibility necessarily, similar to Darwin and *BSD (mostly compatible on the source level, but not a compatible ABI at all).
Agreed, but in all fairness, the majority of users won’t have to compile their own software as it is usually packaged at least in the major oses. I actually haven’t compiled much software manually recently at all, the one exception being a program that I chose to keep up with the latest development branch, and that’s not something I’d advise anyone to do unless they’re comfortable with such things in the first place.
Woe there, how long has it been since you’ve dealt with the nVidia drivers? MOst major linux oses have made this extremely simple, and they’ve not needed kernel recompiles usually anyway. More broadly speaking though, it’s a good point regarding drivers. While the nVidia drivers are generally simple to install and don’t need a kernel recompilation, there are many other drivers that are not so simple. There are projects such as dkms to handle these situations automatically, but I for one don’t think recompiling a driver should be necessary on the user side of things under any circumstance. To me, it’s a symptom of a much larger issue, that being the Linux kernel, even within a major version, is a moving target with no real effort put into keeping its API and ABI stable. I suppose it’s inevitable given how fast-paced its development is, but that doesn’t make it any less frustrating.
Agreed. Personally I think it’s time to treat one Linux os as the de facto standard. To an extent, this is starting to happen with Ubuntu and, no matter what one may think of Ubuntu, I think the standardization even by degrees will help both end users and developers in the end though no doubt some will be dragged kicking and screaming.
I won’t switch to the mighty MAC until an Haiku OS install CD presents itself. And for the Linux faction, I have yet to see a simple install, where I can just point to an already existing partition and it just puts it there. No I have to configure SWAP and the rest.
They are not the only ones but they all offer a slick install from scratch wizard. When it comes time to partition your drive, they have default “just do it for me please” or custom partitioning options. The liveCD are even easier as they just stamp the image on to empty drive space or along side your existing OS after doing the dualboot partitioning for you.
For Debian:
(X) use the entire disk (recommended for new users)
( ) separate /home partition
( ) separate /boot /home /var /usr partitions
( ) manual partitioning
It’s probably the most complicated out of the three since the other’s have a nicer GUI partition tool for that fourth option.
I’d also like to see Haiku mature much more though too as it’s BeOS heritage has some very nice design decisions.
Everytiime I think we have put to bed the “Linux is hard to install” myth, I see it creep up again. Linux is brain-dead easy to install. You hit the next button a couple times – the defaults are fine for most. You then fill in your timezone, username, type a password and go. In fact, if I am facing a totally blank computer, Linux installs are usually WAY easier, becuase normally all the drivers I need are automatically installed. On Windows, I often have to hunt down a list of drivers for video card, sound card, network, sometimes even a motherboard chipset driver.
However, few people ever install Windows from scratch. They either have it preloaded, or they have a rescue disk that came with their computer that blasts all the bits back on the drive (which can be done for any OS).
But the myth lives on…
The “Linux is hard” myth had some validity in the mid nineties. it’s often people who tried it back then and never since that are so sure of there ongoing claims.
Heck, Debian with full disc encryption from blank machine to full graphic desktop is an hour or less and a few clicks of the next buttons. It’s not meant to be the most user friendly of the major brands either.
Actually, my Win/Deb dual boot notebook is fully encrypted under both OS. sound, wifi, graphics.. not a problem. Initial test build was Deb 32bit, rebuilt Deb 64bit over it in forty minutes one evening at home wile doing other stuff about the house.
Ubuntu is dead easy, for the most part you boot up the Live CD (you can hit enter a few times right?) then you click next a bunch of times. The only choice really is if you need to change your time zone. Granted there IS the option to specify your entire drive lay out, but you don’t have to. It’s called a ‘guided’ install.
Besides, if you even know what a partition is to point Haiku to, then you should know what partition to set as swap.
I just wish Haiku would have more hardware support. Then again, in keeping with the topic, I wish Mac OS X had better hardware support as well! But of course I think Apple thinks the opposite…
It looks so easy to do, that I could nearly start one to cover Canada!
Slightly off topic, but what is with these cheap generic PC cases and their love of 5 1/4″ drives? Why do they need to make the tower twice as tall as it needs to be to fill the front with 5 1/4″ drive bays?
Sure, the Mac Pro may be a little expensive, but it engineered like a Rolex, perfectly quiet, large fans blow through the case, stays cool, made of 3/16″ solid aluminum plate.
Why can’t generic PC cases have a similar design with large blow though fans.
Honestly, how many 5 1/4″ floppy drives to people still use these days?
I always have 2 of those bays filled. They are for CD/DVD/BD drives, or tape drives, etc.
I wouldn’t build a personal machine without one. 1.4 meg isn’t enough to store anything but it separates my boot loader from the hard drive. If Grub bakes, I pop the diskette out and let the hard drive default load. I can come back and fix Grub later. Pull the drive and only someone with a SuperGrub liveCD is going to load anything but the hard drive default also. If I reinstall Windows, it assumes it’s the only OS in existence so it overwrites the hard drive boot record.. not a problem.. diskette has the dual boot loader untouched.
Cases of the highest quality are also made with plenty of front bays. My Lian Li, for example has 5+3, and other models have more.
There are plenty of reasons for a large case that have nothing to do with the amount of front bays. Better cooling, more interior drive bays, dual graphics, etc. It’s nice to work in a case that doesn’t require removing half of the components to change out a stick of RAM.
They do look sharp, and much higher quality than that plastic crap that Dell sells. One of the crappiest cases I’ve ever used (at work), a high end Dell XPS with the front door covering the drives.
That would be nice. But cases from many computer companies do have intake air in the front and exhaust at the back. Not sure how that’s different than the Pro-Mac setup; I’d love to read a quick explanation.
I doubt very many people at all use 5-1/4″ floppies. A few vintage computer hobbiests, and probably no one else. But those 5″ bays have a lot of uses besides obsolete floppy drives. For instance I’m using 5 bays (three 5-1/4″ and two 3-1/2″) total: DVD drive, DVD-RW drive, sound card front panel, multi-card reader, and a 3-1/2″ floppy. And there are plenty of other things I can add if I wish – fan or light controllers, removable hard drives, zip drives, tape drives, more optical drives, or heck even a cup holder. And that’s the whole point, to have a machine that’s flexible and expandable enough to work the way that I want it to.
Edited 2009-07-11 03:27 UTC
Did you honestly not know that 5,25″ drive bays were used for CD/DVD drives?
/me suppresses urge to make “Mac users are too dumb to use PCs” joke