Slashdot Mirror
The Hackintosh Guide
An anonymous reader writes "A 'Hackintosh' is a computer that runs Apple's OS X operating system on non-Apple hardware. This has been possible since Apple's switch from IBM's PowerPC processors to Intel processors a few years ago. Until recently, building a PC-based Mac was something done only by hard-core hackers and technophiles, but in the last few months, building a Hackintosh PC has become much easier. Benchmark Reviews looks at what it's possible to do with PC hardware and the Mac Snow Leopard OS today, and the pros and cons of building a Hackintosh computer system over purchasing a supported Apple Mac Pro."
A mac is a personal computer. PC stands for personal computer. Can we please stop using the terms as if they are mutually exclusive? It makes you sound ignorant, and renders the term "personal computer" useless as a means of differentiating a computer for personal use from any other kind of computer. K thanks.
I know of no DRM in Amiga OS to make sure it wasn't running on hardware Commodre hadn't been paid for.
Apple sells copies of an operating system that can run on commodity hardware.
Just as it is my right to play my legally-purchased music on any hardware that can play it, it's my right to run my legally-purchased software on any hardware that can run it.
By the way, it's utterly ridiculous for Apple to claim the DMCA has anything to do with this; it's not about pirating their software.
Except Windows NT 4 had a PPC build/install disc option ...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
This is the truth. According to Jack Sams, IBM Boca Raton started what they initially called 'Project Chess' after noting the success of the Apple II.
However, what made the Apple II successful and what made the Macintosh successful are two completely different stories.
My blog
What made the Macintosh successful and what made OS X successful are two different stories as well.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
...so then it should be a trivial matter to pop my Snow Leopard disks into a PC that lacks an Apple logo and create virtual machines to my hearts content in either vmware or virtualbox.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Just to see if I could. Later that day I got bored and ditched OSX for a Linux distro. Other than as an intellectual exercise, I don't really see much of a point in this. If you really want a Mac, just buy one. Sure they cost more, but all your hardware will work without any effort on your part.
I have setup several Hackintosh's at home for my family, a dell 9 mini and a couple of desktops, and I have to say it's just not worth the time and effort. I should have just bought a Mac mini and a Macbook that "just worked" out of the box.
Actually let me amend that, it is worth your time if your time is worthless. :) The money I could have made (as a freelancer contracter) in the time it took to setup and support them would have more than offset the cost of a real Apple machine.
Apple puts development work into OS X to support the current generation of Macintosh computers. Because Apple only has to support a very small slice of hardware, they can concentrate their development work on building features and improving the OS. Sorry for not supporting third party hardware. That's their business model and it works for them.
fanboi.. you cant deny it, your nick has Mac IN IT.
Because your an obvious fanboi, your opinion automatically means less then any other user on this site. congrats.
10.6 was released in late 2009, not 2008.
One year's of no updates appears much less stagnant than 2 years.
But the problem is, that if Apple releases updates every year or year and a half, people complain about costs of upgrades. If Apple waits too long to release an update everyone thinks that the sky is falling and MacOS is DYING. (Oh NOES!)
The Mac is not dead.
I think the reason that Apple doesn't have a $1000-1500 mini desktop is because that market is heavily saturated and competitive. All of their desktops are in very select markets with little competition. They can get much more profit per unit. If they released a mini desktop as you suggested they would be competing with Dell, HP, Lenovo which are low margin on each unit but overall makes profit by selling high volume. Apple wouldn't make much money selling low volume (relatively) so it's not worth it.
As for the Mac Pro, people always forget/don't seem to realize that the Mac Pro is not a consumer desktop; it's a professional workstation. As such it is priced competitively with other workstations. People who are buying one are using it to edit sound/music/video/graphics for a living not simply to play games/edit their home movies/surf the web, etc. It's the same reason a professional DSLR camera costs a scale more than a digital consumer model.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Ubuntu is easier to install and supports more hardware and software.
Hackintoshes are like teaching a pig to sing. Even if you succeed, it just wastes your time and annoys Apple.
Long ago (in computer industry terms), OSX got Apple back on the road to financial success. OSX has become a favored, octogenarian at Apple. Treated well, but generally irrelevant to other projects.
Every time there's a consumer buying content for one of Apple's dedicated entertainment devices, they are made richer. The best part of this scheme is two-fold.
1. It's early days for dedicated entertainment devices like the ipad and even the iphone. Tons of money yet to be taken from the consumer while the personal use doctrine is being dismantled.
2. The distribution of entertainment is a U.S. government sanctioned oligopoly. Apple has become an blessed member of the oligopoly.
Contrast the scale of those revenue generating opportunities with the general purpose computer (OSX) where once the tower/laptop is sold, that's about the end of the revenue stream.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Sorry I am not going to spell it out. FTC should be involved whenever (paying) consumers are being held back by artificial means.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Except Windows NT 4 had a PPC build/install disc option ...
But how many publishers of applications for Windows provided universal binaries?
The industrial design of Apple computers is simply the best in the world
Ok, so esentially they are really good at putting the components together, but the components have no real difference from PC components?
I get the impression that they are just more asthetically pleasing, with some nice peripherals.
Again, I'm not trying to be a troll, just trying to understand the rabid fanbois.. I mean the software isnt the best, the basic hardware is comparable to a PC's... Is there a reason I should consider Apple computers in the future... Will I get what I pay for, or will I pay for the privilege of being locked in a walled garden?
If there is a good reason to look into Macs, I will consider them the next time I'm purchasing a computer.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Apple doesn't like OS/X anymore. The platform has basically been stagnant since the inception of 10.6, in 2008. Hardware support is poor, even worse than Linux. For instance there is no way to make a Nvidia GTX460 run under OS/X at the moment, in spite of it being the best bang-for-the-buck video card right now. It was impossible to have an AMD 5xxx series run until only a few months ago!
This is hardly a new issue. Apple doesn't care about supporting hardware configurations they don't ship. It allows them to focus on supporting a small number of hardware configurations and giving the maximum stability and ease-of-use for their users.
The cost is that they have always been and will always be behind the performance curve on supporting the latest add-in hardware that is available on the PC. Plus if you were really interested in "the best bang-for-the-buck", you probably aren't buying an expandable Mac Pro (which is $2,500 / $3,500 / $5,000 depending on model you select).
In OSX, AMD 5XXX support came because they are shipping all 3 of these configs with the AMD5770 standard -- again, they really only support hardware they ship.
FWIW, on the PC, MS doesn't write the drivers for Windows. The hardware manufacturers do. If there was an actual GFX card after-market on the Mac, NVidia and AMD would write the drivers for the Mac (and there's a good chance AMD did write them for Apple when they won the bid to include 5770's in Mac Pros).
but $2500 for a 1 cpu base system is too high cut it down to $2000.
Why don't you build a similar model on Dell and see how much it costs you. I think if you matched specs, it's close to what Apple charges. Most of the time you come within $200 but there are still enough differences to say whether it's a difference. i.e. iLife comes with OS X, etc. And don't build one with a iCore i5 and call it the same as a Xeon. They're not the same processor.
also apple should make the mini more like $500-$600.
Again price out what it takes. Also take into account the form factor. A micro-ITX form factor costs much more to build than a regular size because parts are more specialized. If a small form factor isn't worth it to you, then it's not for you. The only thing that comes close to the mini is the Dell Inspiron Zino HD which isn't as small.
and why not have a imac like system without the screen or at least a mate imac.
Read my post above about why Apple doesn't make a generic desktop. They won't make much money as the market is saturated and they have to compete with the likes of Dell whose business model is to sell at very little profit for lots of volume. It's not a matter of can't; it's a matter of that there isn't enough profit in it for them. And businesses are in it to make money for them.
apples pushing games on mac and the video cards are not there and with the imac the card in the system is weak for the screen size.
I don't think Apple has ever advertised any of their computers are hardcore "gaming machines" like Alienware. They've advertised you can play games on them which is true. It's more a problem of you what you want.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's why auto mechanics drop $40k on a Snap-on/Mac setup.
And it's why I'm happy to spend the money on Macs today. If a stint as a pro auto mechanic taught me anything, it's not to go cheap on your tools. Yeah, Craftsman may have the same lifetime warranty as Snap-On, may still turn a 10mm bolt, but when you're using that wrench a dozen or more times a day Snap-On doesn't look so expensive. There are differences that don't show up on a spec sheet.
I've since given up turning wrenches for a living and make my living with computers as my primary tool. I can save some pennies and get a laptop that I'll use because I have to, or spend more and get a Macbook Pro that is the first laptop that I actually enjoy using. Same with my 27" i7 iMac. I like good tools. Whipping out spec sheets and telling me how you could build "the same thing" for less isn't going to sell me. Because in the end, what you're really saying is, "I want what's cheapest". That's fine if I'm buying a set of coffee mugs. Not so fine when we're talking about what I use to make my living.