From Hackintosh to Macintosh

[asap18]

Add me to the list, It seems the new macbooks theyve shipped dont have any problems. Mine is as silent as can be. Best investment ever, cant even compare the screen to my samsung lcd 20 inch.

 

GO BUY ONE!!!

[John the Geek]

Add me to the list, It seems the new macbooks theyve shipped dont have any problems. Mine is as silent as can be. Best investment ever, cant even compare the screen to my samsung lcd 20 inch.

 

GO BUY ONE!!!

 

I'm really happy to see that Apple changed the plastic to prevent the staining. I may pick one up eventually. =)

[Colonel]

Add me to the list, It seems the new macbooks theyve shipped dont have any problems. Mine is as silent as can be. Best investment ever, cant even compare the screen to my samsung lcd 20 inch.

 

GO BUY ONE!!!

 

Yours is slient? Lucky! Mine whines.

[EPDM]

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.

 

So you think what "we"do is wrong but what Apple does is right. Selling badlly assembled mediocre computers at premium prices is fine as long as they "look" flashy?

 

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.

 

You seem to forget that many ppl here are willing to buy MacOS if it would run on the computers of their choice not on that overpriced {censored} of Apple's choice. Why because some ppl rightly believe they can build BETTER computers with the components of their own choice that that prefab {censored} that all those monopolistic corporations ram through our throats.

 

As for simplicity. It's all a charade. Some things are "simple" Sure. As long as it means starting an application and pressing the right buttons. But for many things YOU also require that socalled power-user knowledge to accomplish things. In that respect Mac OS is no different than Windows or Linux. Granted the primary learning curve "apear" less steep. But it's just an apearance.

 

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.

 

A bog standard PC? IMHO Bog standard PC's are HP, Packard Bell etc... kinda machines. The 2 PC's I have at home are build each with a special purpose in mind. I doubt that any 13-year old with a screwdriver can build them. But perhaps that's excactly why those Macbook (pro) systems are badly assembled.... they're build for Apple by underpayd 13-year old's in a econimically retarded, overexploited third world country.

 

As for your childish sneer at xiberia. Well Steve Jobs might better care! Because a customer is a customer. And Steve should better put more efforts in obtaining trust from his potential customers so they really buy the Apple stuff that Steve need to get sold for his company to survive.

 

As for the reason why I haven't bought a Mac. Well, I really intended to buy a Mac Mini. I saw the ads which were quite sensable at that time : Why buy a cheap PC with lame onboard video if you can buy a Mac Mini for the same price with a real videocard. But then Apple turned 360 degrees and decides that onboard video is suddenly a "Good Thing". That is pure hypocrite.

 

And then all that talk about: We're a hardware company. But in the mean time selling badly build laptops at premium prices. Sure that'll raise credibility. And then when too many ppl complain about the mediocre build Macbooks the way they "solve" matters.... just awfull. Any other company would be sued its ass off.

 

Needles to say that after expiencing these things I decided NOT to buy that Mac Mini after all. Apple hasn't earned my trust (yet).

 

Then you're remarks about Linux. Well some of us DO run Linux. In my own case I'd mostly ran enlightenment as window manager (which is still the best looking UI IMHO). In fact for most things I nowadays do Linux would be far better than any properiatery OS considering it'sprice and stability. But if you just mean that we don't want ppl to earn many on their properiatery systems. Then you can't be more wrong. I personally fought for the last remaining properiatery OS in Europe. Because I believe the best computers were European systems and because that particular OS was absolutly great. It had wonderfull apps and was a delight to work with both as beginner and expert. Those systems had a similar price range as Apple computers so they too were way more expensive compared to PC's. Nonetheless I bought such systems (hardware, OS AND Applications). That was battle fought ONLY by believers and enthousiast for that particular platform. So don't come to me with that {censored} about how cheapskates we are.

 

I've probably spend a lot more on my home computers both in terms of hardware, OS and applicationsoftware then you.

 

Now as for OSx86. What could Apple expect when they turned to Intel-machines as their new hardware platform? The cracker and hacker community is the most widespread on the Intel-(compatible) platform so evidentally it was just a matter of time before OSX for Intel would be hacked. But that isn't neccesary a bad thing. The experts who need to hackit to get things rolling will evidentally show off OSX to less experienced computer users and they in their turn might be "switched over" as Apple puts it. So its indirectly in Apple's advantage to maintain this hacintosh community as it WILL indirectly generate more sales and familiarity with Mac OS and Apple hardware. Besides we're not going to get away so stop bitching about it.

 

Get on with it.

[Tiger K]

My three cents...

 

First of all, thanks to cavemonkey for a great editorial.

 

Here are few points I agree with:

1) Real Mac's work great (out-of-the-box) without any modifications.

2) Updates on real Mac's are whole lot easier (no need for patching).

3) Performance can be better on Real Mac's compared to OSx86 counterparts.

4) You have to be lucky or build a machine to match Apple's specs.

 

I'm a former Mac User and current OSx86 user. I used to own iMac G3 (green) along with iBook G3 (white). I'm used to run OS X 10.2 on both Mac's (although the iMac came with OS 9).

 

I got interested in OSx86 in February 2006 when I found this website. On a whim, I installed deadmoo's image on my Dell Inspiron 1150. After much effort, I was able to get graphics, sound and wireless network to work properly. The laptop running OSx86 10.4.1 runs very fast compared to my older Mac's.

 

During the summer, I bought my custom-built OSx86 Box (MSI PC) for around $400 (used my old monitor, keyboard and mouse). The computer runs amazingly well and supports the graphical 'extras'. The computer compares well to real MacMini. Although I'll give the performance edge to MacMini (probably due to CoreDuo) and design edge (MacMini is smaller and more stylish than mine - IMHO

 

One thing that no one has failed to mention: OSx86 on generic hardware 'looks' better than Windows on the same hardware. When using OSx86 to run Quicktime Movie Trailers, the colors look more vibrant and crisp compared to Windows running on same box and monitor!

 

OSx86 is great for people who like to tinker and hack in order to get to work. Real Mac's are better for people who want computers that "just work" out-of-the-box.

 

--daniel

 

How did you get the graphics working on your 1150? I keep getting the low-res problem.

[Savvycat]

It's quite sad really, that in my country (New Zealand), I have to pay $3,899 US for a 17" Macbook Pro... if I were in America I would only have to pay $2,799 US for the same system.

 

Consider yourselves lucky.

[me@home]

Xbench 125 - see my hardware down.

 

I've got in touch with Apple last Christmas, bought an used Mac Mini G4 (1,25Ghz, 1GB, 80GB HD) liked Tiger on it...tried to put all my digi photos from PC to Mini...well did not perform well...too slow.

Sold the Mini, bought a G5 iMac 20" (put 2Gb Ram into it, 250GB HD) and here all was fine. Everything worked OK, games, iphoto, iDVD...then heard of the more powerful intel macs (Core2 Duo) and now it was time to sell the old G5 Hardware.

Since then I started to use X86 OSX which isn't that bad but FAR away from being as good as my G5 and I guess the new Core2 Duo iMac 20 or my maybe next one 24" iMac will all be better.

Ok the OSX loads fast, on the G5 it took twice the time, here it's about 25sec. and I don't have it on a Raid 0 !

 

When I can get DVI working on OSX and there maybe come a few more major updates I'll keep it for another year and safe some money to get then an iMac again - where I guess will be Core4 in at that time and then with 4GB Ram that will rock.

 

Apple isn't a cult it's a company that wants to make money and I appreciate their great work on OS (X) and designing cool stuff - but I like steeling from the rich and giving to the poor

[Alessandro17]

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.

 

It has been said countless times, but I want to stress it once again: for many (most?) of us this has been a "try before you buy" project. And that is probably why Apple seems to be rather tolerant with it.

 

Apple's idea of "try before you buy" is the Mini, but that is an overpriced, severely underspecced piece of...whatever.

 

I built a generic desktop instead, following the excellent bofor's howto.

It wasn't cheap, but I was able to chose every single part, and from an hardware point of view it was almost my dream box, for what was available a few months ago. I can run virtually every OS ever created for x86, and that is very important for me.

Would I buy a Mac? Almost likely yes, but I would only consider a Merom notebook or a mid-range desktop.

 

This forum is a golden opportunity for Apple to understand what its more geek users might want, and the geek users of an OS should never be underestimated: it seems that even Microsoft understands that very well now.

[Hackercool]

EPDM "I doubt that any 13-year old with a screwdriver can build them. But perhaps that's excactly why those Macbook (pro) systems are badly assembled.... they're build for Apple by underpayd 13-year old's in a econimically retarded, overexploited third world country."

Hey Man lay off im thirteen and i builtt a powerbook g4 1.33.ghz 1.25 GB ram from scrach

[aliquis]

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

If you have poor performance with the mac mini it's one or two of two reasons:

Slow 2.5" drive.

Integrated graphics.

 

The first issue can be fixed by using an external drive, the later one can't be fixed but it's a very cheap system so what do you expect?

 

Also noone cares that you bought a "3.5GHz cpu", doesn't say {censored}, or well, I suppose it's a P4, the Core Duo in the mac mini are probably faster, but belive whatever you want.

 

Stupid to buy only 512MB ram for the mac mini, you should have bought more.

 

Drive performance issue are mostly from 2.5" vs 3.5".

 

Much nicer graphics, thought this is a huge box..

 

But could you and other people just STFU when it comes to comparing prices of the machine? With the mac mini you get kick ass software which you steal in the other situation, beeing able to / buying mac os x and iLife is a huge reason for paying more for the mac mini.

 

Don't complain on the performance on the system when it's you who isn't knowledgable enough to know what you have bought and why it doesn't perform.

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

Because you haven't paid {censored} for the software.

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.

It's because it cost $600 WITH THE f***ing SOFTWARE and is a small slim system with notebook components, a lot of people are very happy with their mac minis, they don't think it's junk. Some even use 24" TFTs and such for their minis, maybe they just aren't 15 year old CS gamers who have never paid for anything but just taken whatever they wanted.

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

How can it be evil to support Apple? What evil has Apple done? It's also the only real option against Windows (can be discussed, but atleast everyone wins on a healthy Apple competing with Microsoft.)

 

 

 

 

 

Apple machines are NOT more expensive, if you include all the stuff you get and software, if there are any problems it's the balancy of the configurations and limited options. If someone installs OS X because he or she want to run the OS but can't afford a new machine from Apple that is quite ok imho, but if someone want to run OS X but then goes out and buy another f***ing non-apple branded PC and install the OS on it they should be shoot ;/

 

I would go as far as saying I think it's sad the project exists.

 

It has been said countless times, but I want to stress it once again: for many (most?) of us this has been a "try before you buy" project. And that is probably why Apple seems to be rather tolerant with it.

 

Apple's idea of "try before you buy" is the Mini, but that is an overpriced, severely underspecced piece of...whatever.

Yeah, but what about the idiots who TRY and then BUY SOMETHING ELSE because they figure the software isn't worth anything yet they sooo much wanna run it so they just steal it and brag about how much more computer they got by spending part of the software cash on hardware instead. Hate 'em.

 

 

It's quite sad really, that in my country (New Zealand), I have to pay $3,899 US for a 17" Macbook Pro... if I were in America I would only have to pay $2,799 US for the same system.

 

Consider yourselves lucky.

They cost 37% more than in the US here in Sweden aswell, but our prices are including 25% VAT and we have much better warrantys by law so I suppose that is what makes the difference.

 

Even if i wished to buy a real MacBook, it would be same to take low powered system at higher rates, which till date is not a good strategy atleast from my side..

Eventhough, if i would buy a MacBook, it will not be tweakable as far as other Operating Systems r concerned..

And i'll have to depend on Apple for each and every update to run other operating systems on my Mac(if i had one) like thats the case to run Windows Operating System with the help of BootCamp???

But who wants to run Windows anyway? The real reason to get a mac for me is to get a UNIX which works and got some commercial apps and games, free software does great on applications which more or less everyone use, but not so great on specialised applications for only a few. I'm sure that will change in the future thought, but the question is how long it will take?

[aliquis]

Which one would you rather have?

 

Exactly, hack:

OS X hack deluxe:

 

The real {censored}:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those guys would probably not touch those Dell PCs and home built ugly mofos of {censored} with a stick.

 

 

Final picture to prove my point:

http://static.flickr.com/105/259699384_9156cc35b7_b.jpg

 

Heck, even http://home.no/roglar/temp/mac.jpg is better than a Dell machine.

 

(sorry for image spam, are there a limit on the amount of images?) ;D

[aliquis]

Just a question. Wasn't the Amiga an Atari invention? (Just got done reading the Dkelley post after the above). I take from that the question of innovation. Apple lies, maybe. Apple innovates, definitely. I like google, although they have started the rounds with recent aquisitions. M$, for me, is lying anytime they claim to have innovated anything other than the way to make money off of someone else's idea. Professionally, I thank them for a decent income fixing and managing systems relient on their OS. Personally, I've become a mac user for all the reasons above.

Amiga was made by some doctors if I'm not misstaken, I don't know who they tried to sell it to before they sold it to Commodore but yes, one of those companies might have been Atari. Anyway Commodore bought it but screwed up in the end, Amiga passed by Escom, Gateway and now some old Amiga people but haven't been resurrected but only dragged in the mud some more. So now it's definitly dead

 

You can probably google for a longer story, I could write one aswell but what is the use.

[mmk]

Anyone who want to comment on the new MBP (I went from hackintosh to macintosh yesterday ) please do so here:

 

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?sho...c=31756&hl=

[aliquis]

So. Tell me again why Apple would lose money just selling the OS for Vanilla PCs?

 

Obviously it would hurt the Mac Martyr community, because they wouldnt be able to say "Hey, my super expensive piece of junk Apple-branded Mac is better than your cheap, faster non-branded Mac!"

Because Apples current business model is to buy up good software, scrap the Windows version, make it mac only and even better, sell it for a very good price as a mac exclusive, earn the money on the hardware.

 

If people don't but the hardware that model doesn't work, and what shall they do then? Only sell software? For the same low prices? Doesn't work, for more expensive prices? Will someone really buy them?

 

How do explain that a $400 built system with 2GB DDR, a $100 GPU (ATIX1600) can match the MBP?

Where is all that extra money going? It's certainly not going toward QC!

Oh, guess what idiot?

 

.. or well, not worth it.

 

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

But you pay extra because it's a mac, not a {censored} wintel PC or Linux-spend-more-time-when-it's-worth-machine (And yes, I've very likely run more UNIX oses when you have but in the end you get tired of the {censored}, only reason I haven't had a mac for long is because I haven't had any money.)

 

PD we need more games on the mac

Yeah pirate them to and that will surely happen.

 

 

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.

But it should be as simple as:

You wanna run OS X and think it's worth the small hardware premium? So buy a mac.

You don't think it's worth it? So don't use it and be cheap and get that few percent extra cheap PC and buy a Vista license (yeah, those are probably free aswell...) or install a free OS.

 

 

So you think what "we"do is wrong but what Apple does is right. Selling badlly assembled mediocre computers at premium prices is fine as long as they "look" flashy?

Noone forces you to buy them, but if you don't don't steal part of their product.

[Max Volume]

The first thing I gotta do is echo the earlier comment that the original

post seemed more like pro-Apple propaganda than an objective comparison.

However, I agree with the core sentiment that, as the song goes, "ain't

nothin' like the real thing, baby..." Still, I am well on my way to

joining the ranks of Hackintosh owners. I currently own an 800MHz 17"

iMac G4, an 800MHz iBook G4, an old B&W G3 that's pretty much an

internet-only machine, and an original graphite iMac DV that isn't

really used for anything at the moment. I even have a couple ancient

beige Macs around that are landfill-bound, so I guess I've given Steve

Jobs enough money up to now (although all but the G4 iMac were purchased

used). I'll probably buy more "real" Macs in the future, but not any of

the current Intel Macs. Earlier models I haven't yet owned, like the G4

cube and the various G5 models, might be purchased used if the

opportunity arises, but no Intel Macs for now.

 

A co-worker of mine jumped on the Hackintosh bandwagon about 30 seconds

after WWDC 2005, but I've resisted until just recently. I am definitely

not the kind of person who has to have the very latest of anything,

least of all being computer operating systems, but I have been curious

about Tiger since it was first announced. I'm wary of trying to run it

on either of my 800MHz G4s, and since I don't have the funds to shell

out for a new Mac of any kind, building a Hackintosh seemed like a good

idea. Unlike my co-worker and other Windows users who set up their

existing machines to dual-boot both Windows and MacOS (and consequently

deal with lots of hardware issues), I'm building my machine using the

HCLs provided for OSx86 so that I can hopefully get something together

that will be as close to a "real" Mac as possible. At this point, I'm

not sure whether building an exact clone of Apple's development box

would be better, or if I should take advantage of the wider range of

compatible hardware to build a slightly better machine than they were

offering developers. I'm assuming the latter, but feel free to correct

me if I'm wrong.

 

I haven't built a PC in ages (my last was a 300MHz AMD K6-2), so I'm

kind of excited about getting back into the DIY side of things now that

I don't have to deal with Windows. Of course that excitement has been

tempered by the other problems of DIY PC-building, like how cheaply-made

most PC parts and accessories seem compared to Mac stuff. After finally

finding a case that seemed right for the project, I almost immediately

started developing a case of buyer's remorse because of how cheap the

case felt, but I think once I get some components in there I may not

notice as much. I have no use for Windows whatsoever, and I know that

the very PC-centric people I'm likely to show the Hackintosh to once

it's finished will probably assume it's just a Mac emulator running

under Windows if I include it as a dual-boot option. I don't mind

advertising that it's running on Intel hardware, but I don't want

anybody thinking I broke down and bought a Windows box.

 

If this project goes well, I'll probably build more Hackintosh machines,

especially since I have plans for a small render farm (only 3 machines,

but my budget is limited). Given unlimited funds, however, I'd scrap

any Hackintosh plans and stick with genuine Apple hardware, although I'd

probably gravitate towards the proven G5 machines instead of jumping

into all this Intel nonsense before Apple can really make the machines

sufficiently their own, and not just Pentium-powered Macs. I have no

problem giving Steve Jobs more money, because I don't think he's evil at

all. I just can't justify paying $699 for a display when it's only

slightly better than a $300 one, and I certainly can't shell out a

couple grand for a machine that equals most off-the-shelf PC hardware.

I'm not saying that genuine Macs aren't worth paying for, just that I

don't have that kind of cash.

 

As with my older machines, once my Hackintosh is built, it's gonna get

the latest kernel and after that, I'll update only once a no-fuss

installer has been worked out. I may upgrade to 10.5 if it becomes

Hackintosh-ready and is stable, but I'm sure I'll always be way behind

the latest version, simply because a stable machine is more important to

me than a bleeding-edge one. The Hackintosh won't actually be my main

machine anyway, since my G4 iMac is perfectly suitable for all the

graphics and video work I do, as is my G4 iBook. I envision the

Hackintosh (dubbed "Blackintosh" because I had to settle for a black

case... long story) as pretty much a widget-server and a giant iPod. I

haven't actively looked for Dashboard widgets, but the ones I've heard

about definitely make me anxious to run Tiger on something, although not

anxious enough to bog down an 800MHz machine with it. If nothing else,

it'll just be nice to free up my G4 iMac to be a dedicated studio

machine and not have all the general-purpose {censored} on it that I have now.

Having the iBook has helped, but I don't feel comfortable dumping all my

stuff onto a laptop that can be lost, destroyed or stolen. Having a

desktop machine that doesn't need to serve any serious purpose will be a

real treat, and my B&W G3 is far too old to have any real fun with,

especially since running Tiger on it is a pipe dream.

 

I sympathize with the folks who point out that any Hackintosh is running

illegal software, but not enough for it to be unpalatable to me. Of

course I also don't believe the people who claim they'd buy the software

if it were made available for generic PCs, because most of them would

just download a pirated copy of the PC version if it were made available

instead of actually buying it. I do have a problem with people

rationalizing what pretty much amounts to not only piracy of the OS, but

in this case actual "hardware piracy" since you avoid buying Apple's

hardware. People say it's because Steve Jobs is rich already and

charges too much for his hardware. I agree that when a situation like

that exists, you might as well go the cheaper route if that's all you

can afford, but unfortunately the rationalization has become so rampant

that people regard anyone who sells something they can't afford as

greedy and evil, which is hardly the case, especially with Steve Jobs,

since he's also trying to give people VALUE for their money, which is

more than can be said of Microsoft, or indeed the entire PC industry.

Of course he's also trying to keep his company afloat and he's vilified

for that, but it's not like he's killing people's grandmothers to do it.

 

I guess my take on it is that I feel like Jean Valjean, who stole bread

because he was hungry. I'd be happy to pay for it if I could, and I'm

only taking what I need. I'm sure there are people building these just

for the sake of screwing Apple, and I wouldn't be surprised if some

Hackintoshes are being sold on eBay. I can't really draw much of a line

and say my limited budget justifies building a Hackintosh, I can only

say that I mean well, and am reacting to the circumstances I find myself

in, not deliberately trying to get something for nothing. Maybe that'll

be enough to keep me from burning in hell, as it would seem some of the

posters in this thread think Hackintosh builders should.

 

Thanks for reading, folks!

 

 

P.S. There's been some mention of Linux, so I have to throw in my two

cents' worth. To me, every negative misconception Windows users have

had about the Mac OS is actually true of Linux. Sure, I might not be

able to walk into WAL-MART and pick up software for my Mac, but try

buying ANY commercial software for Linux that's not some utility to help

you actually INSTALL it. The reason we Mac folks have overlooked the

foibles of the Mac OS over the years is because we really love these

machines, and it's still a damn sight better than Windows. In the same

way (only to a much greater extent), the reason Linux devotees overlook

the fact that OpenOffice is about the extent of the major software

packages for Linux is that it'll run on their beloved Intel boxes. When

you've been stuck with Windows for a decade or so, seeing any other OS

do so much as boot up on your machine is like an oasis in the desert.

Of course now that Mac OS, which is also Unix-based, will run on many

Intel machines, I expect a large portion of the Linux community to

defect, with the possible exception of the hardcore open-source

loyalists. We all know that the same folks who are tech-savvy enough to

use Linux are more than capable of handling the intricacies of getting

OSX86 running, so it's not like we have to wait until Apple offers a

retail-boxed PC version of OS X for the Linux crowd to shrink.

 

P.P.S. Regarding the Amiga, it was initially developed by R.J. Mical

(later of 3DO) and others as the ultimate gaming machine. They sold it

to Commodore, and for reasons ranging from the ingrained belief that

Commodore computers were kids' toys and all serious machines were either

Windows business PCs or Macintosh graphics workstations to the apparent

poor marketing from Commodore (I tend to blame the former rather than

the latter -- I mean, they had plenty of Amiga TV spots, and tons of

magazine ads, albeit in mostly Commodore-centric magazines) it failed

just when it realized the gaming dreams of its creators and also became

the "Mac" of the video world. I've never seen any evidence to support

claims that it was "ripped off" from the Atari ST -- in fact, the ST was

Atari's "me too" answer to the Amiga. The only connection was that

Commodore founder Jack Tramiel left to run Atari (okay, ruin Atari) in

the mid-eighties, and the original Amiga company did produce a couple

games for the Atari 2600 before the Amiga computer was conceived. Even

though the Amiga, ST and Mac all used Motorola 68000-series chips, the

Amiga OS was doing more with them than the Mac and ST ever dreamed of at

that time. Definitely check out the Wikipedia links given earlier in

the thread to learn more about this amazing machine. Okay, I'm really

done now.

[Alessandro17]

When you've been stuck with Windows for a decade or so, seeing any other OS

do so much as boot up on your machine is like an oasis in the desert.

Of course now that Mac OS, which is also Unix-based, will run on many

Intel machines, I expect a large portion of the Linux community to

defect, with the possible exception of the hardcore open-source

loyalists. We all know that the same folks who are tech-savvy enough to

use Linux are more than capable of handling the intricacies of getting

OSX86 running, so it's not like we have to wait until Apple offers a

retail-boxed PC version of OS X for the Linux crowd to shrink.

 

 

Very good point. Something like that has been in my mind for a while. Now I have tried OS X I can't stand the (many) Linux shortcomings any longer: bugs, other issues (SUSE for instance could be OK, but it is a dreadful resources hog)...

And let's be honest: we can't forget the arrogance of many members of the Linux community.

 

However we Linux users are so used to dual/multiple booting that I don't believe we are going to give up Linux any time soon.

[fewtrees]

An interesting thread with some good points..

 

I've been running OSX86 for about 2-3 months and initially was impressed with the Hackintosh experience. However it dawns on me that I can only really use this as a test bed. The OSX86 community is a pin-head number of people compared to either Windows or Linux or even legal OSX users. The available support is negligable (both in time and money) and certainly not responsive or robust enough for production use.

 

I've read about folks upgrading their OSX86 kernels and zap, they no longer have a working computer. Rescue disks, boot sectors and single user logins later you might be able to recover but all for the sake of an upgrade! I prefer my hard earned data to be safer than that.

 

Software designed to run on genuine Apple hardware and OS's obviously have zero support available for the Hackintosh community but the problem is that I use this software and I *need* it to work.

 

I don't want to put my data in jeopardy, yes you can put it onto a FAT based filesystem but that's inefficient for any OS to access and store data on.

 

It boils down to this: How much time do I want to spend hacking an OS because a) it doesn't work there's an upgrade which might make my screen work etc... OSX86 requires major hacking in order to deliver standard functionality a modern computer normally delivers with legal OS's. I wonder how many of you would do this if it wasn't for the fact that OSX86 is pretty and a good UI experience.

 

Secondly, people wonder why Apple don't embrace a generic OSX for Intel platforms. 2 reasons I can think of..

 

1. It's because Windows does that and when you can choose your competitors you'd better be prepared for the fight over market share. Apple clearly aren't prepared and are making enough headway producing luxury computing platforms so why fight microsoft who are clearly a hundred times or more bigger!

 

2. If Apple slashed it's prices a number of things would happen that aren't beneficial to Apple...

a) it would undermine the perceived luxury value of its products and alienate Apple's traditional customers who buy the "brand" first and performance second.

It would be a move only to sell more units but there isn't the market share to sell more units

 

Even if Apple and "generic pc" were equivalent in price and performance, the same old reasons to choose Windows would invariably rear it's head. i.e. There isn't the software for the Mac. That's not the kind of decision Apple wants people to make when faced with buying Apple or anything else.

 

 

Anyway, I think OSX86 is a completely worthwhile movement and if anything has convinced me to buy a Mac as soon as money allows. Keep up the good work guys because afterall, it is in Apple's interests to allow more people to sample this OS first hand.

[robotskip]

aliquis, some of us put usability, price, choice, etc above pretty photos of nice set ups.

 

Oh, and I've seen photos of set ups for non-Mac machines which look as nice (If not more) than the ones you posted, big deal.

 

So, nice photos don't mean anything and posting those messy PC ones shows how silly and biased what your trying to say is. =/

 

> The real reason to get a mac for me is to get a UNIX

 

From that above line and other things you [and others] have said I've come to the conclusion not many of you understand the whole UNIX / Mac OS thing.

[sev7en]

I did the same: now I'm with a wonderful MBP 17" C2D and... OSX is faster than light!!! There is no ways of comparison between the hackintosh version (I was playing an SSE2-only version due to Centrino limitations) and the speed of a native system by Merom processors.

[niteman1969]

Hi There,

I must admit to being a gadget fiend and on finding out about OSX86

near enough immediatley built my current PC to run OSX86.

 

I installed JaS 10.4.6 and was very pleased with it but to be honest

I was Initially very impressed with it until I started messing about

with encoding video.

 

idvd takes ages to make a DVD from an XVID much longer than on

Windows.

 

The same applies to most video stuff I have tried on the Mac side.

 

I have eventually switched back to Windows for my video encoding

and OSX86 for most other daily usage.

 

 

I would however get a mac as I do like the OS

but would have to dual boot windows on it for video stuff..

 

 

Regards

 

Niteman1969

[Gatot]

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

 

100% Agreeable

 

[bptba93]

On pages 3 and 4 of this post and probably other pages i just didn't bother reading...what's with the 13 yr old deal here???i feel offended!

[INFNITE]

100% Agreeable

 

 

real Mac's are great because of the user experience. Everything works right out of the box. It's beautifully designed by one of the top industrial design teams in the computer industry and you don't need to do any tweaks here and there or worry about driver compatibility. If your Mac breaks, just go to the Genius Bar at your local Apple Retail Store and they'll have it fixed and ready to go in no time. In fact, when you step into an Apple Store...you just feel the urge that you need to buy something there. That's something building a fake Mac will never replicate.

[aberracus]

i agree 1000% an ihack is a wonder of our days but its only for we ppl who LIKE to hack, for every friend of mine or family, i suggest allways, come on, forget about windows , and go for mac, its wonderfull, is secure and ts fun, until now i have helped Apple to sell like 4 macs...

[sandmanfvrga]

real Mac's are great because of the user experience. Everything works right out of the box. It's beautifully designed by one of the top industrial design teams in the computer industry and you don't need to do any tweaks here and there or worry about driver compatibility. If your Mac breaks, just go to the Genius Bar at your local Apple Retail Store and they'll have it fixed and ready to go in no time. In fact, when you step into an Apple Store...you just feel the urge that you need to buy something there. That's something building a fake Mac will never replicate.

 

And hackintosh systems, built with 100% compatible parts, is just like a Mac. I have zero issues in my hackintosh. It runs great.

 

I am getting a mac, around tax refunds, but Apple does over charge in some models. The way the laptop scene is in Apple, I will never own one.