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



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.

 

Not quite correct. You might want to start by reading the Wikipedia entry for "history of the Amiga" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Amiga

 

Then read more about the history at the Atari ST entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_st#Amiga_contract

 

 

 

Amiga was a mess in an of itself.

 

The marketing was a mess, Commodore's management was a mess, but the computer and OS was light years ahead of it's time. They were doing things in 1985 that Microsoft was struggling to do in 1995!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as the Amiga saga has always fascinated me...

 

... it might make things little simpler to keep this thread discussion cavemonkey's provocative article. :star_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

But if it had been so simple on apple parts to implement the BIOS over EFI, and that the emulation layer for EFI that works as BIOS means, other OS's including OS X itself uses the BIOS functionality isn't..

Then every Hackintosh would have been converted into the mac clone isnt...

 

And also what about the PRICE to POWER ratio, its always higher when apple comes into picture..

Also, its quite difficult to upgrade Processing Power and Graphics capability of the Computer System designed by Apple that comes in the lower budget range..

As the design of Mac restricts anyone to upgrade those component..

 

PLS dont take this offensive, its just my views...

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.

 

exactly the reason i CAN'T buy. its not a case of stubbornly refusing to. its a case of being priced out.

 

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 you have a bog-standard, factory built pc in an Apple box. the kind any 13 year old would show off to his friends. your point?

 

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

 

if Steve Jobs DOESN'T care whether or not we buy his hardware then he should step down as CO and get someone in to run the company that DOES care that people aren't buying Apple hardware. They are a business, are they not?

 

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.

 

Buy into the propaganda machine all you want, but the fact is that you can buy a PC that IS faster than the top range intelMac, for almost half the price. Thats not fantasy, thats benchmarks. So what exactly are you paying for? The design of the case? not worth an extra £400. So, in essence, you're paying and extra £400 for the privilage of using OSX. Wow.... thats the most expensive OS I've ever heard of! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple ][ states: "Apple is Evil..." I'm not sure about that. I always thought of Apple as David to Microsoft's Goliath... :) Apple always seems to be the underdog.

 

Yeah, I prefer the design looks of MacMini too. My "Rubic's Cube" computer is smaller than most computers, but still bigger than the MacMini.

 

I hope that OSx86 can continue to generate interest in the Mac platform. I downloaded Windows Vista Beta 2 to try it out. Although the interface is nice, it doesn't seem as simple and elegant as OS X (IMHO). :D

 

--daniel :spam:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I built a hackintosh machine, Penitum D 920 dual core 2.8ghz, 1gb ram and after patching the NIC, patching the sound card, fixing the ati drivers to run my x840xt, having to fix the screen tearing, waiting for the updates to be installable, always downloading pre-patched 4gb iso installs I got fed up and got a macbook 2.0

 

Now I have them side by side and honestly the macbook boots faster, FinalCut Pro runs quicker, as does Photoshop, the macbook's graphics look crisper and clearer. I like having a machine that runs os x flawlessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO no no no no no no no no no!!!

 

We pirates don't want to hear that!! Apple is BAD, evil, a CULT I say!!! Their hardware and OS can't be designed symbiotically for performance!! It's supposed to be slow, it's supposed to be inferior to my box of random parts!!! NO!!! I don't believe it!!! Nah nah nah nah!!!

 

I can't hear you!! You say it's better so you must be bought by Apple to say those things!!!1! Apple is evil for creating an all-in-one solution for efficient computing. I'm supposed to be able to take the frosting without buying the whole cake!!! YOU ALL ARE APPLE BRAINWASHED!!! CULTISTS!!!

 

Oh, sorry... Just playing devil's advocate for a sec.

 

=)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious, which ATI X1600 did you use.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO no no no no no no no no no!!!

 

We pirates don't want to hear that!! Apple is BAD, evil, a CULT I say!!! Their hardware and OS can't be designed symbiotically for performance!! It's supposed to be slow, it's supposed to be inferior to my box of random parts!!! NO!!! I don't believe it!!! Nah nah nah nah!!!

 

I can't hear you!! You say it's better so you must be bought by Apple to say those things!!!1! Apple is evil for creating an all-in-one solution for efficient computing. I'm supposed to be able to take the frosting without buying the whole cake!!! YOU ALL ARE APPLE BRAINWASHED!!! CULTISTS!!!

 

Oh, sorry... Just playing devil's advocate for a sec.

 

=)

 

of course is supposed to be slower than my box with chosen parts if i build it for performance or mine will be alot cheaper if i build one to save money.

 

Really a desktop apple assembled pc doesn't make any sense for me, apple only future is in notebooks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks cavemonkey50 for a nice story/writing.

 

I have tried every single release that was released: 10.4.1 - 10.4.6

At the moment I'm running 10.4.6 on a Dell Optiplex gx620.

Nothing worked out of the box, I had to "hack" the sound, graphics and install a cheap realtek nic.

It's working now but still the graphics are {censored} (mouse tearing) and it just doesn't feel like the real thing.

 

As a Desktop Support Technician / System Administrator my day is filled with M$ Windows.

When I'm home I just want a system that works and does not need any modifications.

That's why I think about buying a MacBook. No need for "hacking" stuff and no {censored} graphics, just a system that works.

Also I'm a gadget freak and the MacBook looks so damn pretty, you can't ignore that :)

 

I agree on the money thing, Apple computers are not the cheapest.

But than again they look awesome :)

 

I'm not completly sure if I will buy one as money comes in to play but Hackintosh and your story (cavemonkey50) made me think about a real Mac...

Hackintosh is just a great way to introduce yourself in the world of computing how it's supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks cavemonkey50 for a nice story/writing.

 

I have tried every single release that was released: 10.4.1 - 10.4.6

At the moment I'm running 10.4.6 on a Dell Optiplex gx620.

Nothing worked out of the box, I had to "hack" the sound, graphics and install a cheap realtek nic.

It's working now but still the graphics are {censored} (mouse tearing) and it just doesn't feel like the real thing.

 

As a Desktop Support Technician / System Administrator my day is filled with M$ Windows.

When I'm home I just want a system that works and does not need any modifications.

That's why I think about buying a MacBook. No need for "hacking" stuff and no {censored} graphics, just a system that works.

Also I'm a gadget freak and the MacBook looks so damn pretty, you can't ignore that :hysterical:

 

I agree on the money thing, Apple computers are not the cheapest.

But than again they look awesome :)

 

I'm not completly sure if I will buy one as money comes in to play but Hackintosh and your story (cavemonkey50) made me think about a real Mac...

Hackintosh is just a great way to introduce yourself in the world of computing how it's supposed to be.

 

 

uh...if your running a gx620 - why aren't you using the GMA950 which is built onto your motherboard??? It doesn't need to be hacked and would get rid of your mouse tearing and likely be much faster too.... Same video as the MacBook

 

Oh, and edit a couple of lines in a plist and your onboard NIC would work. I have the same machine and it's flawless once you make 2 or 3 quickie hacks.

 

Just curious. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, I'm cavemonkey50 and I'm the new guy on OSx86 Project.

 

 

All very good points indeed, but less look at a few things first shall we?

 

First, Apple's QC has some issues right now.

 

MBP = too hot on the top of the keyboard

MB=too hot on the bottom

iMAC=No 800FW, No 32/PCMIA card read, i.e. no expansion.

MB has GPU artifact issues, not to mention the $150 for a black model.

 

With that said, let's take a look shall we and see how Apples pricing structure works.

 

A noob, or not, walks in sees MB at $1099, but wait no DVD, so I will get the $1299 model, but wait, ORANGE stains on the white not to mention the on-board GMA and no PCMIA card reader, I might as well go for the black, but wait, now I am only $500 from the MBP, and that has dedicated GPU, but wait, that GPU is underclocked, hmmmm, what to do. I know, I will get a iMAC, but wait, no PCMIA card slot, no FW800, darn, limited again.

 

Ok, so for $400 you can build a machine, use onboard GMA950 have QE/CI working, add in the price of another monitor (if you wish) and a ADD2 card and now you have dual display, plus you can add some ATIX1600 cards, have 4 more Hard Drives (all final cut books talk over and over how you MUST use an external drive), with that said, there has been a published article that shows internal 7200 beats 800FW not to mention the newer SATAII.

 

So, do you think since the MB beats the dual G5, Apple will reduce the price? No, they won't!

 

They will charge an arm and a leg for the newest generation towers at which time, drivers will be developed for OSX86 org one way or another.

 

The only solution I see Apple doing, if they really, REALLY want to grow is to slash the G5 models, make the MBP the MAC BOOK at MB price points, make the MBP the dual dual core and the desktops the higher end CPU's and offer quad dual core.

 

 

You think it's going to get easier for Apple to cripple things? Once the desktops come out, the drivers will start to be developed for GPU's and devices, making it easier, not harder for OSX86.

 

Right now, Apple and their products (not to mention that HARDWARE SNOBBERY IS DEAD) as QC (Quality Control) is a mess. Every PC product from them has problems, or is set up (price points) in a way to lure you higher and higher into spending a fortune!

 

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!

 

Basically Apple is a rip off and always will be until they stop making crippleware (the same thing Digidesign did for years, until they finally scooped up M-Audio) and start offering Mac's at price points that are equal to the PC conter parts while also allowing for the upgradability without voiding one's warranty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10.4.7 coming down now ;-). MacBook Pro, legit, gets the updates first. Released today?!

 

Sorry about the amiga distraction mash.

 

I really like the article, as I said before. What is your funniest story of trying to get your hackintosh to work?

 

Anyone else return a half dozen peripherals in their search for a working network adapter. Then, BTW, it ended up broke once I did get one as my son snapped it out of the back of the laptop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is still one issue which over-priced macs dont have. Legal OS X. With a Legal OS X for normal pcs, there would be global piece. :hysterical: I'd hope, but at least people could buy cheap PCs and put OS X on them without the worry of the FBI sending them to jail! :)

 

by the way, just checked and 10.4.7 is out!

 

by the way, just checked and 10.4.7 is out!

post-18780-1151439921_thumb.png

post-18780-1151439927_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Legal OS X for generic PCs would have to be purposely crippled, since Apple can't control the hardware you try and put it on. No target disk mode. No Boot picker. No Netboot/network imaging or restore. No Firmware password. And no (whatever Apple has planned for the future.)

 

Apple is a hardware company. There is a collaboration between their software and their hardware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uh...if your running a gx620 - why aren't you using the GMA950 which is built onto your motherboard??? It doesn't need to be hacked and would get rid of your mouse tearing and likely be much faster too.... Same video as the MacBook

 

Oh, and edit a couple of lines in a plist and your onboard NIC would work. I have the same machine and it's flawless once you make 2 or 3 quickie hacks.

 

Just curious. Thanks

 

Bart,

 

Thanks for your feedback.

I'm not using the integrated graphics as its limited to 8mb video memory max.

In my BIOS I can only set it to either 1 or 8mb.

8mb wont do OSx86 any good I think...

 

About the nic, if you can post the lines for in the plist, that would be cool :hysterical:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another SMC firmware update also in the software updates. Can't wait. . .hopefully it deals with heat, which as I've said before is the ONLY thing I miss from my hackintosh adventures - the feeling of a cool laptop bottom in bed ;-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bart,

 

Thanks for your feedback.

I'm not using the integrated graphics as its limited to 8mb video memory max.

In my BIOS I can only set it to either 1 or 8mb.

8mb wont do OSx86 any good I think...

 

About the nic, if you can post the lines for in the plist, that would be cool :)

 

The BIOS RAM setting is for booting only. Once the driver is loaded is goes to either 64 or 128mb. The fix for the NIC is in the forums:

 

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=105666

 

Bart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...