From Hackintosh to Macintosh

[Moredread]

Hi,

 

I dislike the price comparing here. I agree that Macs are more expensive, but not that much.

 

I work as a pc administrator for long years. If I would compare prices between Mac and PC, I would choose PC-Series that are choosed from big companys. They have the advantage, that the parts (graphic, network etc.) are all the same - that is real important for system administration. For example, I remember that we bought 50 identical Compaq Computers. One serial number follow each other, like 4324891, 4324892, 4324893, 4324894... but we had three different systems: Different video card, different graphic card and so on.

 

You pay very much money if you want to make sure that computers all have identical hardware. And as far as I know, the differences between identical macs are very small.

 

Apple could build cheaper computers, if they would accept more different hardware. But that ends up, as every PC user know, in more hardware-trouble issues.

 

The last thing people forget: The PC is cheaper... but you have no legal operating system. If you would buy one, the difference between Macintosh and Hacintosh would melt away. Remember that you dont only pay your hardware as on most PC-Systems.

 

I agree that Apple should be more open to other possibilities. For example, what is about a MacOS Version, that runs under VMware? In VMware the Hardware is always the same, there shouldnt be much trouble for Apple to develop drivers. They should sell it for a small amount of money, so that people can test OSX on a normal PC. The system would be slow (for example, you cant watch video on VMware) but it will be ok for testing reasons. Or they can start selling Mainboards and graphic cards, so that people who wish can build their own macs.

 

Just my two cents

 

bye

 

JM

[John the Geek]

And as far as I know, the differences between identical macs are very small.

 

You are correct. In fact, the differences between any Mac is very small when it comes to OS support.

 

If I boot my laptop into Target Disk Mode (essentially make it into a firewire hard drive) and hook it up to any other Mac (say a tower), I can boot from my laptops internal hard drive and OS on the tower with no problems whatsoever. Just hold OPT at startup and choose the laptop drive to boot from. The tower would boot with all of my apps and settings without any "new hardware detected" {censored}. It's all there, drivers and all, for every Mac supported. It makes cloning and deploying labs a breeze (No sys prep!!) It just works. G4s, G5s... doesn't matter. (Well, ok. I admit it matters between PPC and Intel Macs... but by 10.5 that may not matter either.)

 

=)

[Bart86]

Just tested my GX620 with the integrated Intel GMA950. (64mb)

Works great now, I kept the PCI realtek NIC as it works great and only cost me 3 euro (I think).

Only thing I needed to "hack" was the sound.

 

Everything is working fine now, no mouse tearing!

 

Getting a 67 score with XBench (is that an OK score?)

 

This makes my choice for a real MacBook or Hackintosh a bit more difficult!!

 

Thats about what I get. I don't care much for xbench. For 2D and light 3D I think the GMA950 offers exceptional peformance. I'm finding OpenGL games on the low end aren't bad at all. Definatley not as bad as most people {censored} about.

[Colonel]

Just tested my GX620 with the integrated Intel GMA950. (64mb)

Works great now, I kept the PCI realtek NIC as it works great and only cost me 3 euro (I think).

Only thing I needed to "hack" was the sound.

 

Everything is working fine now, no mouse tearing!

 

Getting a 67 score with XBench (is that an OK score?)

 

This makes my choice for a real MacBook or Hackintosh a bit more difficult!!

 

Hey, your Xbench is better than what my MacBook gets. It only gets a 50.

[Bushido]

DKelley: I've never ever had a philosophical problem with Microsoft. Or Amazon, or Google, or whoever.

 

I have a problem with Apple for the same reason I have a problem with the Bush administration. Lies, Lies, Lies and More Lies. And, you're bad and barely human for resisting reeducation.

 

I dont want to be an Applie for the same reason I dont want to be a Christian.

 

Apple makes a nice operating system. But they're just evil.

 

Honestly, whenever I walk by an Apple store, I'm forced to walk in, and tell the losers who work there that my Hackintosh outperforms their MacBook Pro in every benchmark and real-world test. And I'm not shy about raising my voice when I do it.

 

Hmm. You don't like Apple well enough to buy from them, but you do seem to like them well enough to steal from them.

 

Since your ethical compass is busted, I'll help you out: a thief is no better than a liar.

 

You have no high ground to stand on. And if you can't pirate software without your delusional rationalizations then you shouldn't do it at all.

[gizbug]

So by what I read in this article, this OSx86 isn't as good performance wise as running a legit/real Mac OS on a real mac?

[Colonel]

So by what I read in this article, this OSx86 isn't as good performance wise as running a legit/real Mac OS on a real mac?

 

It depends on what system that you are running it on. In my case, my real Intel Mac is much faster than my Hackintosh.

[ooZberg]

Celeron sucks, thats for sure. I score 130+ in xbench (without OpenGL though, probably more with fully functional nv driver)

[Leopardman]

This is my first post here i registered after i read the article and it was a good one. I dont think I'd ever go through al that trouble of using Osx86, I'm glad to have a nice iBook 14".

[Colonel]

I'm glad to have a nice iBook 14".

 

I'm glad to have a nice 13.3" MacBook.

[niteman1969]

I find my Hackintosh to be very good and very fast for what i want

and gets an xbench score of 97-98 at the moment consistently.

 

Although i would like to have the latest darwin Kernel etc..

 

Eventually i may buy a real mac...

 

But for now I think for what they are, they are slightly overpriced compared

to a similar branded laptop / desktop with equivalent hardware.

 

Regards

 

Niteman1969

[aberracus]

i run my Hackintosh for all purpose day work and leisure, really my mobo is much faster than any Mac really, it is superfast in Pro Applications and in Rosseta, i even can play games in rosseta without any problem. And everything works, i tailord made it for it to happen this way.

 

The only factor in wich i consider the real mac is superior is the sotware updates, so the solution is cracking EFI

 

 

Anyway i will sooner o r later buy a MAC now i am a Macaddict, but it will be a laptop one, for a desktop computer i need one i can mess with , upgrade the hardware and replace parts and keep it to actual times.

 

Anyway, i love Mac now and wouldnt go back to crappy windows or vista or whatever.

 

PD we need more games on the mac

[retroz]

i run my Hackintosh for all purpose day work and leisure, really my mobo is much faster than any Mac really, it is superfast in Pro Applications and in Rosseta, i even can play games in rosseta without any problem. And everything works, i tailord made it for it to happen this way.

 

The only factor in wich i consider the real mac is superior is the sotware updates, so the solution is cracking EFI

Anyway i will sooner o r later buy a MAC now i am a Macaddict, but it will be a laptop one, for a desktop computer i need one i can mess with , upgrade the hardware and replace parts and keep it to actual times.

 

Anyway, i love Mac now and wouldnt go back to crappy windows or vista or whatever.

 

PD we need more games on the mac

 

Agreed, a $300 machine on par with a macbook? I got a D930 for $100, 1GB DDR, microATX intel chipset.

 

Runs everything I need.

 

Of course, we can't experience the FULL experience but the apple HARDWARE (paying for quality) is out the door right now.

 

The marketing plan is snobby and t-r-i-c-k-e-r-y, WHITE $1099, go to 2.0, only $200 more, but wait, for $200 more you can get black, but wait, now I am almost at a MBP!!

Both by the way have problems.

 

Going the way of the iMAC and you get no FW800, translation, no PRO work for video, so cornered once again.

 

And still, over in Apple discussions, there are talks of systems going off, not booting up, etc, etc, plus running for example Photoshop or Audio program on AMD vs say Intel (rosetta) and they are slow as a dog.

 

It used to be they made quality products, but in my opinion, this is no longer true. It is good that apple has addressed MBP problem as well as white/orange burn marks on white MB.

 

What amazes me is being a MAC HACK user for a few months I know more than the MAC SUPPORT or GENIOUS sales people at the store. Where do they get these people?!? And why is it the PC user in the ad's are actually reversed? Overclockers, are the skater boyz/girlz, not the other way around.

 

The one thing Apple does have going for them, is the bundled iLIFE and other programs and I hope the market share stays where it is as I finally figure out, the reason mac creatives seem to impress is that the programs that they use have no PC counter part (iLIFE, iWORK, Final Cut, Motion) and makes it easy to create work that looks code with less pull down windows than a PC.

 

Case point. Try Adobe InDesign for a newsletter, great, powerful program, can do the same thing with iWORKS pages, has many templates, and works much easier. It's simple stuff like this that makes Macs so cool. I will do one of two things - depending on what happens, either build a new desktop with new parts when desktops come out, or get a MBP or MB if they offer MORE bang for the buck, or iMAC with FW800, PCMIA cards, or dedicated GPU with MB, which could happen as Intel is rumored to be working on a chip that will be on par with Nvidia/ATI for OpenGL, etc.

[xiberia]

in other news, Apple are soon announcing their pro desktops... I've been waiting for these. Lets hope they set their base towers at SENSIBLE prices, not stupid money like £4000. although it wouldn't surprise me.

[John the Geek]

in other news, Apple are soon announcing their pro desktops... I've been waiting for these. Lets hope they set their base towers at SENSIBLE prices, not stupid money like £4000. although it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Apple's Pro towers will be on par with the current G5 prices. Low end at about $2000, high end about $3200.

 

They'll put two Core Duo 2 chips in there and it will rock. And maybe after the first of the year I'll buy one to replace my aging G4 tower in my studio.

 

=)

[baysie]

Nice post,

 

But alas, you need it to run on some better hardware.........

 

now my pc does everything my G4 Laptop does, but faster, I benchmarked my pc runx86

 

it topped out at 74.9 way higher than ANY mac........(that I know of)

[sandmanfvrga]

When Macs were, read that WERE, PowerPc only, then Jobs had an arguement that Macs could be higher due to unique hardware. Other than the case an the EFI stuff, the Mac Mini, MB, MBP, and iMac have NOTHING unique or "Apple Only". If you think they do, get your but to Google and get the specs and look it up for yourself.

 

I will NOT buy a Mac from that douche/prick Jobs. Why? Why should I? Whether he likes it or not, OSX86 is here to stay and when 10.5 is out and we can pick up 10.5 install DVDs off the shelf, the OSX86 community will explode since we will get the OS hacked easier and faster. Finally in the end, if he is smart which I doubt, he will let PC users install OS X.

 

I have an Athlon XP system for my main and a nice Pentium 4 system I was given. I haven't went OSX86 but I am going to. All I need from OS X is:

 

1) Web stuff, done in OSX86

2) Do photos, again done in OSX86

3) Capture video in dvd and analog, wondering about that

4) General apps to run, duh OSX86 can run universal

 

I don't need a pc to do much. I can game in Winblows. If the OSX86 can capture video fine, then I can move to OSX86. Linux isn't what I need and I agree with a post here that Linux isn't for the masses. I have tried it for years. It is ok, but just ok. I am a system admin at work and just want ot use my pc at home.

 

What pisses me off is the Mac users that think their Intel Macs are SO great when they are to dumb realize they go ripped off. I am NOT saying all Intel Mac users are dumb, just those that think their Macs are so "unique". Hah! Whatever.

[xiberia]

Apple's Pro towers will be on par with the current G5 prices. Low end at about $2000, high end about $3200.

 

They'll put two Core Duo 2 chips in there and it will rock. And maybe after the first of the year I'll buy one to replace my aging G4 tower in my studio.

 

=)

 

hmmm.... geekalicious

 

in the real world, $2000 = £1000, which is would be fine. except in Apple's world, $2000 = £2000, which is... a ripoff in any language. I'm importing one from the US, to hell with the warranty

[ampTK]

They'll put two Core Duo 2 chips in there and it will rock. And maybe after the first of the year I'll buy one to replace my aging G4 tower in my studio.

You can't put two Core 2 Duos on the same machine, they will probably use woodcrest for the higer end models

 

When Macs were, read that WERE, PowerPc only, then Jobs had an arguement that Macs could be higher due to unique hardware. Other than the case an the EFI stuff, the Mac Mini, MB, MBP, and iMac have NOTHING unique or "Apple Only". If you think they do, get your but to Google and get the specs and look it up for yourself.

Only one thing, industrial design, a fashionable vaio laptop is more expensive than a dell of the same specs, all companies charge more for good design (no matter what industry), it's an added value, if you don't care for that, you are paying for something you don't want, and probabbly macs aren't for you, that's fine, but many people care, and they do buy macs or other good designed products. and it's not like all the extra money charged for design is net gain, design costs to create, and to manufacture, because of the materials or the characteristics of the design it self, and

(although the holy grail of industrial design is to make something that at the same time is completely functional, easy and cheap to manufacture and aesthetically pleasant, but that's hardly ever accomplished)

[John the Geek]

You can't put two Core 2 Duos on the same machine, they will probably use woodcrest for the higer end models

 

Why not? OS X has support for up to 255 CPUs.

 

Apple put two Dual Core PPC chips in the current G5s. I don't see why two Core Duo chips (or even Core Duo 2 chips) would be a problem?

 

EDIT: Ok, I just learnt that there is also a Quad-Core processor on the way too. (Code Name: Tukwila) While they could put two of those in a machine (8 cores total, and I surmise they will do this eventually!) I expect we'll first see twin Core 2 Duo chips (or Core 2 Extreme chips) in the first Mac Pro models for a total of 4 cores. They won't go from selling a 4-Core G5 to a 2-Core Intel. It would look bad.

[shadowmoses]

This is an awesome thread really enjoyed reading it....

 

My opinion on the topic is that if you want the full OS X experience you have to get a real Mac but I can see why people who want a pro model see the Higher end macs are expensive and they obviously will be when the intel Pro Mac's come out. Also there is something cool about building your own hackintosh it makes you more proud and gives you a sense of achievement that you won't get from buying a normal mac....

 

Personally I have a 1.83ghz MacBook which I love and it is currently my main computer, but in the next months probably after the summer I plan to build a Hackintosh for my desktop which I see as a project which will be fun and if all goes to lan will give me a nice cheap desktop customised to my taste running OS X....

 

SHadoW

[ampTK]

Why not? OS X has support for up to 255 CPUs.

 

Apple put two Dual Core PPC chips in the current G5s. I don't see why two Core Duo chips (or even Core Duo 2 chips) would be a problem?

 

EDIT: Ok, I just learnt that there is also a Quad-Core processor on the way too. (Code Name: Tukwila) While they could put two of those in a machine (8 cores total, and I surmise they will do this eventually!) I expect we'll first see twin Core 2 Duo chips (or Core 2 Extreme chips) in the first Mac Pro models for a total of 4 cores. They won't go from selling a 4-Core G5 to a 2-Core Intel. It would look bad.

 

John the problem is not OS X, is the chip, core 2 duo doesn't support multiple processors, just like the p4. I don't know of any Tukwila, but ketsfield is a quad core desktop core microarchitecture processor, I think is expected in Q1 2007

 

Woodcrest does support multiple processors being a server/workstation chip

[John the Geek]

John the problem is not OS X, is the chip, core 2 duo doesn't support multiple processors, just like the p4. I don't know of any Tukwila, but ketsfield is a quad core desktop core microarchitecture processor, I think is expected in Q1 2007

 

Woodcrest does support multiple processors being a server/workstation chip

 

I don't understand how a chip can define it's own quantity but the Spec Sheet does show the P4 as not being DP compatible. I would presume the logic board would dictate how many processors the frontside bus could physically support. I'm no engineer, so I don't really know.

 

The Core Duo spec sheet said nothing about dual processors, either way.

 

Anyway, we're getting off-topic.

[ampTK]

I really hope they go for woodcrest at least on the higer end versions, it's supposed to be a powerful workstation, not a regular consumer desktop.

 

Imagine a dual quad-core Mac pro as soon as january. mmmm... power

 

 

EDIT: we should move this discussion to one of the Mac Pro threads

[bwhsh8r]

I am glad that you took the dive and went Apple Does it really run faster? I personially prefer amd tho....

 

 

 

max