Jump to content

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.


User Feedback

Recommended Comments



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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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???

I dont think thats cool.. :tomato:

If Apple takes a long time to releases updates regarding support of other Operating System then what??

Am i screwed!!!!!

No doubt that Mac OS X works fine on the real Mac, but its not the case with other operating System either with the EFI thing that totally discourages me....

And above all, whats the use of osx86project.org , if ur running Mac OS on a real Mac :)

 

And 4 sure ive not learnt so much about the Mac OS, it it wasnt for this site 4 sure!!!!!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit I've had an illegal installation of OS X on my Vaio for almost a year now. (Look at the sig :)) Since then, I've bought an iPod, a universal dock, an Apple keyboard and mouse, and recently purchased an iSight. I did all of this because I'm trying to get the Mac-experience, but not no avail. I know the only way I can get the most out of OS X is by dumping the Vaio tower and getting a Mac Pro when they come out.

 

You, like myself, might be running the GUI, but it just doesn't feel right...

 

See what I mean:

 

phony1tc.png

 

Which would you want to have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From one monkey to another - Oooook.

 

Translation:

 

A very insightfull write-up and right on the money, pardon the pun. I agree the Apple has nothing to loose from this community, in fact it will gain as more and more people find that they will eventually buy a real mac.

 

I'm one of those people, I've had a hacintosh since deadmoo just like you and order my Mac Book Pro. 2 months after.

 

Cheers

 

[Edited by Mash since the entire editorial was quoted... :)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Hum.. but dont forget one thing... Celeron dont have great performance... eighter on Windows... and dont forget.. you are talking about a "CORE DUO" processor... twice fast... even slower on clock but is a core duo...

And other think... Celeron have a poor L2cache... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

LOL LOL :) you can't compare the 2,7 GHz celeron craps to the 1.83 Ghz Core Duo since celeron is very slower than the Core Duo, especially we can not compare the GHz between a desktop CPU and a mobile CPU ;)

 

for a fair comparation i would choose e.g a Pentium D (dual core)/ AMD 64 X2(run osx86) and a core duo 1.83 or 2.00GHz :):tomato:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

:D

 

Rigggghttt!

 

I did not post my specs to bloat about what I had- I was pointing out what mac's don't have and will never be capable off! Nothing wrong with a 'real' customization. Sure, a mac is a beautiful piece of hardware- I owned one, once upon a time- back in the days when it used to crawl. That's the only reason why I gave it up.

 

You think we're idiots? Ha! far from it .... We're a community that loves challenges better yet we've got brains- what do you have? a nut or 2 @ the most- don't be jealous now ;) . You have no right to be referring to the masses like that! Did you even read my post?! I think not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: gwprod12: "I have to admit money isn't..."

 

This is directed at the point made by gwprod12 (which I do agree with, but I wanted to shed my wordy light on it a bit and maybe put that idea in perspective). Start of a long rant - this isn't meant to disagree with your post gwprod12, I'm just putting in other examples that might expand on things a bit. This isn't actually directed at you accusingly, just amusingly. :-)

 

so you only use an opensource linux distro that has no corporate funding behind it then? Since if you have a problem with Steve Jobs and his management of Apple, the only successful manafacturer of non-windows consumer pcs in the world (IE, only real direct microsoft AND compaq and HP and dell etc etc competitor), then I guess you must have a problem with how every other major entrepeneur pc/computer software ceo runs his business (and I wouldn't blame you). Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Fiorina and Capellas, those are people you wouldn't want to buy a used car from. They're incredibly tough people who have proven themselves as business leaders. The only difference is that Jobs is fighting against all of the others single handedly. He's the opposition. Sort of like Szulik of Red Hat. Another person I wouldn't buy a used car from.

 

So you must be using one of the publicly freely maintained linux systems and using one of the alternative motherboard manufacturers out there like ASrock (good heavens, inconsistent build quality there, I know I own some ASrock stuff myself). Because if you use any pc from any major manufacturer out there, whether or not you run windows on it currently, there was a small $$$ paid to microsoft by the company. And if you hate Steve Jobs, the underdog who is trying to regain his original position as the true creator of the modern personal computer (I know he bought the technology from Xerox, but he's the one who thought to put it into a small complete personal computer).... well then you must just DESPISE the other ceos who team up every day and thank each other for their multibillion dollar share of the world's computing pie. Red hat, mandrake, and many other distributions included.

 

Maybe you use debian on a custom part pc as I do. My linux box is purely mine, I didn't pay the big guys anything to make it. Of course, it's parts wouldn't exist if it weren't for Bill Gates, so in a way even that machine is cause for me not to sleep at night.

 

That's why I'd rather pay for a new Apple product from the man who is single handedly trying to fight the world's computing corporations together as a whole and release his own unique system with it's own ways of doing things. Sure Jobs is a great salesman, a tough leader, sure he used to be famous for firing anyone who looked at him the wrong way (my brother used to work for Apple, although he left on his own terms by his own decision many many eons ago). But if Jobs weren't in charge of Apple it would require someone equally egomaniacal to lead the company or Apple would no longer exist. Remember Commodore? Recall Atari? Great products, great companies, good kind thoughtful reasonable men in charge of the companies. The commodore Amiga was technologically the best computer of it's day. By the way, it was the first computer with a custom created unix-based graphical operating system with unix shells and an alertative windowing environment. It beat out OSX on an Apple computer by about 15 years. But those companies don't exist any more because people like Jobs weren't in charge.

 

Ok, I'm done. that was a fun rant! I feel much better now. Please disregard the whole thing, you're a smart guy, I like your posts, I just had to try to put some equality on this scene - for those people who might be influenced incorrectly by your post, it's not just Steve Jobs who is evil based on your standards. It's every successful computer company's CEO.

 

Of course, like you, that's just my own opinion. Don't bother backing up your claims, I'm not saying I disagree with you. I just wanted to add some other examples to it that, at least for me, are equal or worse than the example of Steve Jobs.

 

Cheers,

 

Dkelley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Takuro:

 

Yeah, I know what you mean by the 'real' Mac Experience. I went to my local Apple Store and was able to try out Mac Mini with 20" Widescreen Display. The experience was very nice (even on lowly MacMini). May it had to do with the nice surroundings. Maybe it was the widescreen monitor.

 

What kind of display ar you running? I'm running my OSx86 Box with smallish 15" LCD Monitor. Would love to purchase larger widescreen display some day... :D

 

--daniel ;)

 

I'll admit I've had an illegal installation of OS X on my Vaio for almost a year now. (Look at the sig :P) Since then, I've bought an iPod, a universal dock, an Apple keyboard and mouse, and recently purchased an iSight. I did all of this because I'm trying to get the Mac-experience, but not no avail. I know the only way I can get the most out of OS X is by dumping the Vaio tower and getting a Mac Pro when they come out.

 

You, like myself, might be running the GUI, but it just doesn't feel right...

 

See what I mean:

 

Which would you want to have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think mac are expensive, in fact other PC's like HP or Sony Vaio or similars are more or less the same. I only think that they're expensive for the performance they have.

In fact as an ex Mac user I felt stolen by the performance of a MiniMac , It can hardly run a Photopshop for God's sake! I'm not going to tell Apple about their commercial politics but nowadays Macs are hacked PC's, that is a fact, and not viceversa. They became, the not long time ago, enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also thinking about buying an iMac Core Duo. My PC was running OS X fine, untill I didn't use it for over a week and it was broken again (black screen). So I removed it as I was getting tired of it.

 

The only thing I need now is money :), but my next computer will be a Mac, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i actually never had a hac. I downloaded the 10.4.1 torrent but i didnt have a computer to install it on, so i just said screw it and got rid of it. I knew i liked OS X because i used them at school. I bought a macbook pro because i wanted a laptop, as well as a mac i could game on. once boot camp was launched, i jumped on the 2.0 GHZ 256 MBvram MBP and i havent looked back. Im quite happy with the entire mac experience, as well as being abe to dual boot to play my games. I wouldnt even think about building a hackintosh, but i would consider buying an osx capable laptop. I am truly happy with my decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Takuro:

 

Which one would you rather have?

 

55cc8d7344647e1447385cde9b54c37c.jpg

 

Hint: Mine is on the left... :)

 

--daniel :)

 

I'd rather have the one that doesn't look like an over-sized rubix cube. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to buy a real mac, but here we dont have service backup / support. If apple releases OSX for generic PC. I will get a legal one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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???

I dont think thats cool.. :tomato:

If Apple takes a long time to releases updates regarding support of other Operating System then what??

Am i screwed!!!!!

No doubt that Mac OS X works fine on the real Mac, but its not the case with other operating System either with the EFI thing that totally discourages me....

And above all, whats the use of osx86project.org , if ur running Mac OS on a real Mac :graduated:

 

And 4 sure ive not learnt so much about the Mac OS, it it wasnt for this site 4 sure!!!!!

:angel:

 

Once you have installed the Boot Camp firmware update, you don't have to do anything else special to install any other OS on your system. It apparently installs the BIOS emulation layer to the EFI, so non-EFI OS's install just as they would on any other computer. You aren't "dependent on Apple" to release updates for other OS's, you use the same updates as anyone else using any other brand of computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice article - I'm also one who thanks to OSX86 ended up purchasing an additional Mac. I agree 100% that those who use OSX86 will either give up and return to windows, or will eventually buy Apple hardware. That is unless Apple decides to sell the OS seperately for installation legally and in a supported fashion on beige boxes.

 

As much as I hope they do, in the mean time, I'm using my Macbook Pro happily, legally, and without compromise. The reality is this site is good PR in my opinion, so long as nothing changes either with 1 - the content linking or 2 - the compatibility level of hackintosh.

 

It's close, but it isn't the real thing people. Don't kid yourself.

 

I prefer the one on the right. If you want compact, it appears much smaller. Isn't that the point of "mini"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

:angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard Microsoft make any claims about anything? Granted, they probably would if they had to, but they dont have to, so they dont brag excessively about what they cant deliver.

 

Amiga was developed by Commodore. If i'm not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Gates standard response, isn't it? Innovation.

 

Regarding Amiga, from the history I remember, and possibly incorrectly, Commodore brought it to market, but only after they acquired (or was it lifted, I don't remember) the design from Atari.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that Bill Gates never said HE did the innovating.

 

"Why is Microsoft the biggest software company in the world, Bill?"

"Because of [our insatiable lust for purchasing] innovation"

 

:angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...