Modern 'Hackintoshes' Show That Apple Should Probably Just Build a Mac Tower (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a report written by Andrew Cunningham via Ars Technica: Apple is working on new desktop Macs, including a ground-up redesign of the tiny-but-controversial 2013 Mac Pro. We're also due for some new iMacs, which Apple says will include some features that will make less-demanding pro users happy. But we don't know when they're coming, and the Mac Pro in particular is going to take at least a year to get here. Apple's reassurances are nice, but it's a small comfort to anyone who wants high-end processing power in a Mac right now. Apple hasn't put out a new desktop since it refreshed the iMacs in October of 2015, and the older, slower components in these computers keeps Apple out of new high-end fields like VR. This is a problem for people who prefer or need macOS, since Apple's operating system is only really designed to work on Apple's hardware. But for the truly adventurous and desperate, there's another place to turn: fake Macs built with standard PC components, popularly known as "Hackintoshes." They've been around for a long time, but the state of Apple's desktop lineup is making them feel newly relevant these days. So we spoke with people who currently rely on Hackintoshes to see how the computers are being used -- and what they'd like to see from Apple.

Comments

What they'd like to see

[farble1670]

So we spoke with people who currently rely on Hackintoshes to see how the computers are being used -- and what they'd like to see from Apple.

2TB NVME m.2 boot drive (+2x NVME m.2 slots)
Intel Core i7 6950X overclockable liquid cooled
2x NVidia Titan X
4x empty drive bays for expansion
8x PCIE 16x slots
Subwoofer built into case
RGB lighting
-------
$900

Re:What they'd like to see

[by (1706743)]

I think it's safe to say OP exhibited a humorous and very intentional disconnect from reality...

Re:Pro = expandable

[ewhac]

You say "cheese grater" semi-sarcastically, but I rather liked that box. It was very well designed, solid, easy to get in to, and plenty of expansion. Its only real drawback was that it was heavy.

Hey, Apple! If you're really interested in maintaining control of the HW design -- and I mean in a meaningful way, not the cheeseball gee-whiz pretentious way where indicator LEDs are entirely absent because they disrupt the "line" of the machine -- then may I suggest you start selling... Motherboards. Yes, design a motherboard you're happy with, then stick it in an anti-static bag alongside an OS X DVD. The owner can then add their preferred CPU, RAM (quad-channel DDR4, natch), and GPU, and put the whole thing in a case that meets their needs. Hell, you'll probably be able to squeeze even higher margins out of the thing, since you won't have to design or build custom casework, which can get kinda spendy.

Re:Why a Hackintosh?

[rs1n]

For Hackintoshes to become popular, presumably, there is some software on a Mac that isn't available elsewhere. What is driving the Hackintosh need? Personally (note the qualifier), I totally fail to see the need for a Hackintosh - I think all operating systems are fairly advanced and usable now, and it doesn't take long to be proficient in Linux or Windows (or FreeBSD or whatever). Why push a path that isn't supported by Apple? Just use Linux (or Windows) instead - whatever alternate platform your preferred tools work on.

Final Cut is exclusive to Mac OS. A lot of folks who work with audio and visual media will likely find Final Cut useful and perhaps necessary.

But beyond that, because is is much more "closed", has a much more uniform interface. Look at the hodge-podge of different widgets for a Linux desktop system. And on Windows, it's the same -- even the interfaces aren't uniform between different MS products, let alone between different vendors.

My own personal preference is that it has a nice UI and was built on top of *nix. As someone who used to be a die-hard Linux fan, OS X has become a preferred operating system for reasons above.

Re:Pro = expandable

[Dogtanian]

You say "cheese grater" semi-sarcastically

Damn right- have you ever tried grating cheese with one? They're completely useless.

Too Little Too Late?

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

I went Mac-exclusive in 2001 and stopped buying Apple products entirely in 2014. No Apple laptop made since my 17" 2010 MacBook Pro is as durable or expandable. No Apple desktop holds as much storage as my 2010 Mac Pro, and iPhones are no fun to use if I have to run iTunes on Windows. I've made peace with the notion that Apple makes more money selling gateways to their 30%-commissioned walled garden than they do by selling tools to people who write code and run lots of virtual machines. Rather than selling me a $3000 machine every other year, they passively collect constant income from easily-distracted end-users. Even if the numbers didn't make sense, the reduced level of effort certainly does. See also: Valve and why Half Life 3 is vaporware.

In the time since it became really clear that Apple didn't want to chase the business of people like me, I've switched away from software that's OS X-specific. I built a CentOS desktop and a Windows 10 desktop to see which one I'd run next. Either is fine. I'd prefer FreeBSD, but graphics and power management are a little behind the curve.

You see, Apple's disdain for pro customers isn't new, and it comes in long stretches. When they had the educational market in the US sewn up, they didn't need professional users. When that dried up, they successfully sold GUI Unix to hackers. If they need us, they know how to get in touch, but until they need us, they won't.

That said, I do love my last two Macs. They mostly Just Work. They're not fast anymore (8 years of software bloat will do that), but they're acceptable. I lament that they won't be replaced by other Macs, but life goes on. In the interim, I have work to do that I can't do efficiently on a single-disk/single-screen machine or a tiny notebook with soldered-in storage.

Re:Why a Hackintosh?

[PhunkySchtuff]

It's familiarity with the platform that is the #1 driver.

I've been using a Mac since the 90's, it took me a while to become as proficient with Mac OS X as I was with Classic MacOS when it first came out, by now I've been using the OS for so long that there are a multitude of tiny things that all add up to make a significant difference.

I'm sitting at my desk here - I have a 2013 Mac pro and a newly built PC with i7 7700K, fast SSD, Decent GeForce graphics card and Windows 10 Enterprise.

I have been forcing myself to use the PC on a regular basis to become more proficient with Windows 10, but there are so many little things that are just different that it makes life harder for me. It's not even application support, other than Sketch (which I don't really use) all the major software I use is on Windows and macOS - Office 2016, Adobe Creative Cloud, Fusion 360, TeamViewer, Sublime Text, Chrome, Firefox etc... I've even got a bash shell running natively in Windows 10 for when I need it.

I won't deny that I find the Mac easier because that's what I know - but I have grown to work with what macOS delivers and when Windows doesn't do this, it grates.

Little things like automatic spelling and text replacement that on macOS largely gets it right. I'm not a perfect typer and macOS usually doesn't get in my way (except, of course, when it does) when correcting mis-typed words as I'm typing. Support for adding extended characters and emoji easily to text. Built-in password management with the Keychain.

Even some of the built-in apps - I much prefer Terminal.app over cmd.exe by defaults it uses a more readable font and it wraps text nicely (although I think Windows 10 now wraps text in cmd?)

It's also the general look of it - Windows 10 looks sharper (largely due to it's font rendering trying to align on pixel boundaries) whereas macOS is a bit softer, but to my eyes at least, easier to read (again, probably due to font rendering not aligning to pixel boundaries for individual glyphs, but trying to space characters more closely to the printed page)

I've begun the path to a hackintosh, but honestly it's too much trouble considering I've got a perfectly good Mac sitting on my desk at the moment.

The main driver for hacintosh builds that I see are either creative professionals that want to tinker and don't mind wasting some time faffing around trying to get things working and are happy that they can save some money over the cost of purchasing a comparable Mac (when you factor in your time to get it working, this equation doesn't look so one-sided) and professionals that need more than Apple is able to offer - current generation, fast NVIDIA GPUs (for CUDA), expandable internal storage and RAID, lower-cost M.2 PCIe SSD storage. Whilst some pros are getting last-generation tower Mac Pro workstations and upgrading everything in them (faster Xeon CPUs, PCIe SSDs, GTX 1080 graphics cards etc), others prefer to deal with newer hardware and work though the hassles of hacking it to run macOS.