From Hackintosh to Macintosh

[cavemonkey50]

Hello everyone, I'm cavemonkey50 and I'm the new guy on OSx86 Project. Well, I'm not really the new guy. I've been around here for a while, but I'm the new writer. You may have read some of my OSx86 articles from my personal site on Digg in the past. Mashugly has asked me to write for OSx86 Project, and that's exactly what I'm going to do.

 

To start off this article, you should know a little bit about my Mac background. About a year ago I had never used Mac OS X in my life. Back then I never even saw a Mac computer in real life. Sure, I knew what they looked like, and I saw demos of OS X during Steve Jobs' keynotes, but I had never used a Mac. Although I had never used a Mac, I was still Mac-curious. Being an iPod and iTunes user, I was already familiar with the design and functionality of Apple, and being fed up with Windows at the time, I looked toward Mac OS. There was one problem, though. Macs were expensive, I had a limited budget, and I wasn't going to spend everything I had to buy a computer I had never even used.

 

Then Steve Jobs revealed the future of Macs at WWDC 2005. Macs were going to be running on Intel. That announcement instantly got my head spinning. Maybe I could run Mac OS X on my current PC? I apparently wasn't alone. Since there was a number of people who wanted OS X on generic hardware, fake copies started spreading around. After several fake copies, a real leak was finally released, and thus began my journey into OSx86.

 

The first time I ran OSx86 was at school using the Deadmoo image. I had to run OSx86 on a computer at school since my home computer did not support SSE2 CPU instructions, a requirement for Mac on x86 hardware. My first OS X experience was rather crappy, since the computer at school sucked, but that didn't stop me. When Christmas rolled around, I took that as a great opportunity to build a "real" OSx86 machine; one that could support accelerated graphics and supposedly run as well as a real Mac. So, that's exactly what I did. I built a machine that was identical to Apple's Intel developer kits, and installed OS X on it. From then until now, I have been manually installing every single OS X update, mainly using Maxxuss' instructions.

 

Enough about my OS X history. Flash forward to today. I bought an Intel MacBook on Thursday and sold my Hackintosh on Friday. To keep the lawyers happy, I should mention that I sold my Hackintosh with the hard drive wiped clean, and did not provide the disks necessary to install OS X on the machine. So, basically I went from never using OS X in my life, to buying my first Mac in about nine months. I would have bought my Mac sooner, but it took me this long to save up for one. So, with that said, I thought it would be interesting to compare an install of OSx86 to a real Mac and see how well OSx86 stacks up.

 

The Updates

 

I guess I should start with the most obvious, updates. The major difference between a real Mac and OSx86 is updates. The minute Apple releases an update, I can now download it. Back when I used OSx86, that processes took quite a while. You could never tell if an update was safe. You had to wait for someone to test the update to see if it was safe. Then if it wasn't safe, you had to wait a few days for someone to come up with instructions on how to install the update; usually bypassing the files that were causing problems. Then a week or two later someone would crack the files that were troublesome, you would add those files to your update, and then the easy installers would start appearing for the people who didn't want to manually install. So, if you manually installed, you usually had the updates in days, with a second update a couple of weeks later, and if you were a noob, the update took a few weeks until you could install. Now with a real Mac, updating is no longer a problem.

 

Within the updating process, it should be mentioned that OSx86 users couldn't always take advantage of updates. Often the OS point updates contained performance enhancements tailored to specific Apple hardware, so while Mac users may have been reporting major performance enhancements, OSx86 users were still running at the initial speed. The reasoning to that is along the way Apple has caught onto what the OSx86 scene has been doing, so they have been removing things that apply to generic hardware, forcing OSx86 users to use the original files. The best example of this is the kernel. In 10.4.5 Apple pulled the power instructions for generic x86 CPUs and started using power instructions tailored to the Intel Core chips. Since the majority of the OSx86 scene do not have Core CPUs, the 10.4.4 kernel has been used ever since. So, whatever performance enhancements Apple applies to the kernel, OSx86 users never see. The same thing apply to the drivers. While OSx86 users are seeing the new features and bug fixes of every release, they never fully take advantage of hardware fixes and enhancements.

 

Everything Works

 

The next major difference between Hackintosh and Macintosh is everything works. To run a perfect OSx86 install you either need to be lucky, or build a machine tailored to running OS X. Many OSx86 users have sound cards that don't work, wireless cards with no connectivity, and do not have accelerated graphics. Sure, OS X runs on those machines, but people miss out on a lot of the functionality.

 

Looking at my own install of OSx86, I had to do some wacky things to get certain functionality. Since OSx86 didn't like my wireless card, I had to run a wire from my Hackintosh to my Windows machine, using Windows' to share its wireless connection with my Hackintosh. Sure I got internet, but my Hackintosh was never part of my real network. The Windows machine created a network just between it and the Hackintosh, thus preventing my Hackintosh from sharing files with the rest of the network. Then there is Front Row. In order for Front Row to work, I had to hook up an separate USB mouse, using the mouse's USB profile to fake it was a Front Row IR receiver. So, the majority of OSx86 users either have something that doesn't work, or they're doing something crazy to get it to work.

 

Performance

 

The next major difference I noticed between OSx86 and the real OS X is performance. Now I'm going out on a limb here, since my switch from Hack to Mac was a substantial hardware upgrade. I went from a 2.5 GHz Intel Celeron to a 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, from 1GB of RAM to 2GB of RAM, and from an Intel GMA 900 to an Intel GMA 950. As you can see, I have a feeling the majority of what I'm noticing is from that hardware upgrade and does not have anything to do with custom tailored Apple hardware. I'm still going to mention my findings though, because they may mean something to someone.

 

The first major difference I noticed is with the video. Animations run smoother, and things just feel snappier. On top of that, colors look more vibrant. Previously I felt that the colors of OS X were washed out and never looked that good. I calibrated the color profile several times, and could never get it looking the way I wanted. Now with my MacBook, the colors look great and no longer suffer from that washed out look. I should probably clarify here, since I know I'm going to get some person tell me it's because of the glossy screen on the MacBook. I'm not comparing the screen of the MacBook at all. I'm comparing the colors of OS X through my LCD monitor. I should also mention that I have re-calibrated the MacBook's color profile, so it has nothing to do with the color profile that ships with the MacBook.

 

Yet another performance enhancement I have noticed has been Rosetta. Previously on OSx86, I dreaded every time I had to use a PowerPC application. The performance of Rosetta was so bad I could barely use it at all. Word was so slow it couldn't even keep up with my typing speed. I couldn't even get Photoshop to load without leaving my computer on overnight. Alright, that last statement was a bit exaggerated, but it certainly did take a while. Now with a real Mac, Rosetta runs like Apple's been demoing since day one. I can barely tell that Word is a PowerPC application and Photoshop runs well enough that I no longer have to switch to Windows for my Photoshop work.

 

Conclusions

 

So, that brings me to the crux of this article, is OSx86 good enough as a real Mac? Being an OSx86 user for sometime, I can say that the hacked version of OS X isn't too far off from the real thing. By running OSx86 you certainly have all the features that real Macs have, but you miss out when it comes to performance. You can keep your operating system up to date, but it takes some time until you can finally install the updates, and on larger updates you often miss out on hardware enhancements. On top of that, just to run OSx86 you need to have the right hardware, otherwise you'll be missing out on key features of the OS, or end up doing some funky things to get them to work. So overall, it's not bad, you just have to do some work to maintain the operating system.

 

Now of course, you need to keep in mind that there is always the threat of Apple putting an end to the OSx86 community altogether. Sure, OS X may work on generic PCs now, but when 10.5 Leopard comes around, Apple could easily add things that prevent generic machines from functioning. You could always use the last version, but I know how I function when I don't have the latest and greatest. I feel like I'm missing out on something, and I hate that feeling.

 

I personally think that OSx86 is perfect for what it's there for. I look at it as a transition point. It's a way for geeks who might not have the chance to try OS X and give it a test run. If they're curious like I was on using Mac, they can try it without the high costs of buying a Mac. If they like it and they're interested in becoming a serious Mac user, they'll buy a Mac sometime down the road. It may not be immediately, but at some point they will buy one. I say that because I can't see anyone going through all the trouble of updating the OS for the rest of their lives. Eventually it will get annoying and the person will either buy a Mac or go back to using Windows.

 

So, in my opinion, OSx86 is a perfect for a certain group of people. It's not something that you're going to run as your main machine for the rest of your life. You're going to try it for a while and then either go back to Windows or buy a real Mac. I don't think Apple has to fear OSx86, since it's not meant for everyone. The people who are going to use it are potential Mac users, and OSx86 is simply their trial disk.

[WiZMaC]

Excellent writeup on your experiences with OSx86 & 'The Real Thing' cavemonkey!

 

I'll have to be the first and not the only one to disagree with you on the performance of OSx86 machines. You ran yours, and I'm sorry to say this, on a crappy computer- a celeron!!! I'm running mine @ 4Ghz (3.97), 2MB L2 Cache, with 4GB RAM OCZ Platinum DDR2 PC2 5400 LL series @ 3-3-3-12, FSB of 1052Mhz, 10k Raptor drive, ATI X1600/256MB with full audio/video support and I can assure you that this little baby would wipe the floor with any Duo Core Macbooks & G5s out there...

 

You need to plan for and have the right hardware if you were to have a valid comparison.

 

Anyway, congrats on your new purchase- I'm actually considering a laptop with OS X Tiger but haven't yet decided on whether to go for the real thing or build one.

 

EDIT :: Best part is- I paid half of what you paid for your macbook... I think I'll wait until they iron out all current pending issues with macbooks/pros and then we'll see

[xiberia]

I'd love to own a real mac, but I can't afford one, and doubt I ever will.

 

I CAN afford to cobble together a few bits of hardware into a tower case and install an OS on it though. And since I can't buy an OSX install disk, I guess I'm going out to the shop and buying a Windows one. Ah well, your loss Jobs. Twice.

 

its no biggy really, the apps I use most exist on Mac and Windows, so its just a workflow choice more than anything. I prefer the workflow/UI of OSX, but I'm not going without food just so I can get a nice UI. Stupid.

[moon God]

Well, running osx on a celeron doesn't do any justice when you compare it when you're on a macbook. anyway, i think, having a fast machine with lots of ram will really overthrow any macbook. like stated before. but the point of cavemonkey is that there's a great advantage in using a real mac when it comes to software updates. of course the osx is really tailored to be used on a geniune mac machine.

 

like cavemonkey, i haven't had any chance to use the mac osx, but since this community provided me with the info i needed to run the osx on my pc i was able to use it. infact since i liked the osx i'm planning to buy a macbook pro. windows sucks big time. i'm not even looking forward to vista. Linux, well its ok but there's nothing better than a mac osx.

 

anyway, thanks to this osx86 community for the info and letting me get the chance to use the osx. this site is actually good for any person who doesn't consider buying a mac but wants to run an osx on a pc. later on maybe he/she will have the urge to buy a real mac because of the benefits that the osx can deliver (especially on a real mac).

 

sorry guys (to those using osx on a pc) i know its great using it but the osx is happier in its own natural habitat.

[Niveck]

i came to this community because i was curious about OSX but didn't want to pay $1600 for a mac. thanks for the right up cause this is why i came here. i'll use osx86 for a while but end up buying a mac later on. of course, i'm using it on a AMD 3200+ and not a cheapo celeron.

[butelo]

I bought a minimac which cost me 639 € after a week in home I decided to take it back to the store, poor performance in all apps I tested It. With that money I bought a PC following the specs that you have in this web and there's no color

1,5 Ghz against 3.5 Ghz

512 Ram against 1Gb

60 Gb HD 5400 rpm against 200 Gb 7200 rpm

ATI 250 Mb Saphire X1600 or whatever instead an Intel GMA950 graphics processor who can hardly run any 3D soft

and so on

 

 

I've now a PC that can run windows linux and mac os x perfectly I can use F.C.P., Shake or any high end pro soft in it

And it's the same price and I don't care to lose some "security" updates

[gwprod12]

I spent less on my pc and 17" lcd (90ish xBench) then I would have on a mac mini. HUGE ripoff.

[michael_hunt]

The thing i dislike about this forum is the way you guys say macs are overpriced, which is the only reason your not going to buy.

 

You steal from apple and tell us all that your computers are the fastest in the world, and frankly i think that any real mac user (like myself) would be laughing at you.

 

People buy macs for simplicity, and having to hack the installers, drivers and other things to even get OSX to run doesnt appear to be simple enough for my gran to do.

 

And once installed, you have to keep hacking for when the updates are released.

 

So really, you may have a super fast pc, but thats all it is. Its a bog standard, home made pc, like any other 13 year makes to show off to his friends.

 

and finally. xiberia, do you really think steve jobs cares that your not buying his hardware?

 

No, becuase most of you (look at my 4GHZ pc folks) wont have bought a mac in the first place. Your the kind of idiots who think that Linux is a usable operating system for the masses, and if it hadnt have been for OSX to have been hacked. I would imagine you would be using KDE to theme your version of linux to look just like the worlds most advanced operating system.

[se7en]

"I went from a 2.5 GHz Intel Celeron to a 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, from 1GB of RAM to 2GB of RAM, and from an Intel GMA 900 to an Intel GMA 950"

 

This can say a lot...!! if you talk about performance...

 

I think we only can made compare with 2 computers with the same processor...etc... Intel Celeron vs Core Duo... ??.. hum... I think we can see much difference here...

[moon God]

Thing about ppl bragging how fast their pc running on a mac osx is really absurd. i mean a computer is for different purposes. it can be fast or slow but it greatly differs on the user. you may have a really fast top of the line pc but your brain works like an 80c51 microprocessor. Just kidding. I do not mean to insult anyone.

 

But let's keep it in perspective. All of the "fast "pc running here running a mac osx are illegal.

[gwprod12]

Jaywalking is illegal. Call the police.

 

And we're talking about a $600 computer, the Mac Mini, that has an incredible lack of performance. It's junk.

[Colonel]

"I went from a 2.5 GHz Intel Celeron to a 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, from 1GB of RAM to 2GB of RAM, and from an Intel GMA 900 to an Intel GMA 950"

 

This can say a lot...!! if you talk about performance...

 

I think we only can made compare with 2 computers with the same processor...etc... Intel Celeron vs Core Duo... ??.. hum... I think we can see much difference here...

 

I went through a similar thing. I went from a 2.7 GHz Celeron to a 1.83 GHz Core Duo, from 1 GB RAM to

512 MB, and from Intel GMA 900 to Intel GMA 950. Even with less RAM and a slower processor, my Macbook beats my Hackintosh's performance by a mile.

[gwprod12]

I'd be interested in seeing a macbook's xbench. Do you know if one is posted here somewhere?

[munky]

nice post cavemonkey - most informative.

 

i'm currently trying to decide between getting a macbook and keeping my hackintosh, or selling the latter and buying a macbook pro as all-in-one portable + desktop replacement. my 'real mac' during these hackintosh days was a powerbook g4 12'' (1.33Ghz), and the hackintosh kicked its arse in terms of performance (obviously). it would be very interesting to see how it compares to a macbook (or mbp).

[gwprod12]

I saw an xbench for a macbook pro... it was in the low 50s. I dont know why that was, I thought maybe a few comparison xbenches would be good.

[Swad]

Great article, cavemonkey!

 

What a total cop out!

 

You don't happen to work for Apple since that is the biggest pro-Apple statement I think i've seen for a long time.

 

Why not just tell us all to buy a :censored2: Mac?

 

Good one Steve

 

Please. Why is it a cop out to enjoy OS X and want to use it in its native environment, where everything "just works?" There's nothing wrong with that. And what's so "pro-Apple" about stating that his new Mac works better, looks better, and just feels better than his hackintosh?

 

Claiming that everyone should stick with OSx86 is just as obtuse as the people who say that everyone should just use real Macs, if not more so (since it's the route that's not so legal).

 

The thing i dislike about this forum is the way you guys say macs are overpriced, which is the only reason your not going to buy.

 

You steal from apple and tell us all that your computers are the fastest in the world, and frankly i think that any real mac user (like myself) would be laughing at you.

 

I'm pretty sure that not everyone on this forum feels that way - this article is case in point. We've got a lot of Mac owners here - you are a case in point.

 

Here's what I think we're forgetting... it's all relative. Sometimes the hackintosh will win in benchmarks - sometimes it loses. Sometimes it'll be cheaper than a real mac and not have everything work - sometimes to get everything to work it is more expensive. Hackintoshes and Macintoshes fit different people differently for different needs. All that counts is what works for them. Telling people what they should or shouldn't use doesn't make much sense.

[gwprod12]

I have to admit, money isnt the primary consideration for me not buying a mac. I love the mac os, though it is somewhat annoying sometimes. But it feels good to use it. Being a die-hard windows zealot isnt my reasoning either. Windows is okay. It works when I want it to work. I've never had it be a different way.

 

My primary consideration as far as buying a mac is concerned is one of ideology. As much as I might want to own a sweet Mac Pro, or an iMac Core Duo, or a MBP, it feels... evil... to give money to Apple.

 

I feel like a libertarian in this, because on one side, you have people who equate dislike of Apple with dislike of Macs. Another side cannot help trashing on windows in any way it can.

 

I like the idea of being bad and doing something Apple doesnt want, along with other people who are being a little naughty. I like Mac users. I like Macs. I dislike Knights of Jobs and the Apple Crusade.

 

I cant in good concience ever support Apple in any way. I'm still on the fence about whether buying a Mac secondhand qualifies as supporting them, tho.

 

I just dont think Apple people need to act like Jehova's Witnesses or Scientologists

[John the Geek]

I saw an xbench for a macbook pro... it was in the low 50s. I dont know why that was, I thought maybe a few comparison xbenches would be good.

 

1.8GHz 15" MBP

 

 

Results 52.31

System Info

-- -- Xbench Version 1.2

-- -- System Version 10.4.7 (8J2134)

-- -- Physical RAM 1024 MB

-- -- Model MacBookPro1,1

-- -- Drive Type ST98823AS

CPU Test 66.96

-- -- GCD Loop 230.94 12.17 Mops/sec

-- -- Floating Point Basic 83.12 1.97 Gflop/sec

-- -- vecLib FFT 37.18 1.23 Gflop/sec

-- -- Floating Point Library 60.66 10.56 Mops/sec

Thread Test 179.42

-- -- Computation 163.03 3.30 Mops/sec, 4 threads

-- -- Lock Contention 199.47 8.58 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads

Memory Test 110.31

-- -- System 102.53

-- -- -- -- Allocate 112.31 412.43 Kalloc/sec

-- -- -- -- Fill 97.92 4760.86 MB/sec

-- -- -- -- Copy 98.60 2036.52 MB/sec

-- -- Stream 119.37

-- -- -- -- Copy 114.40 2362.99 MB/sec

-- -- -- -- Scale 115.88 2394.14 MB/sec

-- -- -- -- Add 125.03 2663.40 MB/sec

-- -- -- -- Triad 122.85 2628.15 MB/sec

Quartz Graphics Test 52.31

-- -- Line 51.11 3.40 Klines/sec [50% alpha]

-- -- Rectangle 48.21 14.39 Krects/sec [50% alpha]

-- -- Circle 47.93 3.91 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]

-- -- Bezier 75.13 1.89 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]

-- -- Text 47.39 2.96 Kchars/sec

OpenGL Graphics Test 131.93

-- -- Spinning Squares 131.93 167.36 frames/sec

User Interface Test 25.59

-- -- Elements 25.59 117.46 refresh/sec

Disk Test 26.00

-- -- Sequential 39.84

-- -- -- -- Uncached Write 24.36 14.96 MB/sec [4K blocks]

-- -- -- -- Uncached Write 50.85 28.77 MB/sec [256K blocks]

-- -- -- -- Uncached Read 46.15 13.51 MB/sec [4K blocks]

-- -- -- -- Uncached Read 55.54 27.92 MB/sec [256K blocks]

-- -- Random 19.29

-- -- -- -- Uncached Write 6.15 0.65 MB/sec [4K blocks]

-- -- -- -- Uncached Write 55.09 17.64 MB/sec [256K blocks]

-- -- -- -- Uncached Read 68.25 0.48 MB/sec [4K blocks]

-- -- -- -- Uncached Read 83.79 15.55 MB/sec [256K blocks]

 

That does seem a bit slow, but it's a heavily-used system, not a fresh install, and an almost-full/fragmented HD. So that might contribute. Your mileage may vary.

 

=)

[gwprod12]

I dont suppose you'd wanna do a Cinebench too, while you're at it ;-p

 

If Apple would sell a motherboard that was fully supported (software wise), and allowed the full support of ATI video cards on it (like the x1600), I'd pay $500 for one.

 

I dont care about Applecare BS. People who cant fix their own computers should buy a webtv in my opinion.

[John the Geek]

I dont suppose you'd wanna do a Cinebench too, while you're at it ;-p

 

CINEBENCH 9.5

****************************************************

 

Tester : John the Geek

 

Processor : MacBook Pro

MHz : 1830

Number of CPUs : 2

Operating System : Mac OS X 10.4.7

 

Graphics Card : x1600

Resolution : 1440x900

Color Depth : Millions of colors

 

****************************************************

 

Rendering (Single CPU): 276 CB-CPU

Rendering (Multiple CPU): 483 CB-CPU

 

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.75

 

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 327 CB-GFX

Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 1289 CB-GFX

Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 2565 CB-GFX

 

OpenGL Speedup: 7.84

 

****************************************************

[gwprod12]

Yeah, I think cinebench is a more accurate benchmark. My hackintosh does only slightly better than those scores.

[moon God]

I dont care about Applecare BS. People who cant fix their own computers should buy a webtv in my opinion.

 

and people who can't fix their own webtv should buy what?

[Urbz]

and people who can't fix their own webtv should buy what?

 

A Mac with AppleCare?

[moon God]

So following gwprod12's logic would be people who can't fix their pc's should buy a webtv but in turn if they can't fix their webtv should buy a mac with apple care? haha

[Elrithranduil]

Good article..

 

Iam now considering to buy a macbook (non pro).. I really would want to own a real mac for it's simplicity etc... not having to do those annoying methods to get everything to work.. no mouse tearing... but one thing I really do not like is the price of the real macs and the hardware you are getting for that (Read: Video Card, No Dvd Burner on the standard model) So Iam forced to buy the 2nd model with a dvd burner... but still a crappy onboard intel gma.. But still Iam saving for it saving as hell. The Macbook Pro however is a dream laptop and would be excellent for my study. but its not affordable... so I think if Apple computers would be cheaper and have decent video cards they would sell a lot more computers..