Build your own Intel Mac?

[livingfortoday]

Hypothetical- this wouldn't be cost effective and might not be feasible, but...

Coudn't you buy parts from intel macs and assemble them in your own case?

I seem to recall livingfortoday doing something like this with a sawtooth (minus the intel)...

You could, but the cost would be prohibitive. It's easy enough to get RAM, CPU's, hard drives, etc, but the motherboards are impossible to find, so that would cost a bundle.

And yeah, I did that with a Sawtooth (which I still have), but it was chap for me since there are so many parted ones on the market. It's really hard to find a motherboard for an Intel Mac at a low price nowadays. maybe in a few years...

 

[jmsait19]

u can just buy a new osx disk for $129.

for OP, u can't coz OSX is restricted technically and legally to "apple's" hardwares, which are, actually re-branded from normal pc parts producers. (There is illegal ways to install OSX on "non-apple" hardwares)

So, clearly, I think those argument of "apple softwares and hardwares works seamlessly together" are fake. coz apple produce no hardwares of computers.

None of the retail copies are compiled for Intel Macs yet. There is no reason to sell a boxed copy of Tiger for Intel. Anyone with an Intel Mac already has Tiger.

Plus, those boxed copies are only upgrades. Apple does not sell full blown copies of OSX... one is included with each new Apple Computer, the boxes are upgrade copies for owners of previous releases.

It states in the user agreement that OSX can only be installed on an Apple Computer, to my best recollection. In addition to the fact that you cannot acquire a full copy of OSX legally (the copy for your Mac is contained on your system restore discs, which are only legally to be used with your system.) If Apple doesn't explicitly state it they sure beat around it...

Basically... if you have to ask, then it isn't for you. Though I know that is a crappy answer. It is just quite an amount of work and the legallity is seriously in question, and it doesn't seem like you want to do something illegal... if you did you wouldn't have asked...

 

[gnasher729]

Just wondering what makes it "illegal" to build a computer that can run OSX? Can't be anything in the hardware, so a section in the OSX license agreement? I just read it, and the license agreement simply says you may install it on one computer at a time (single use license). Or do the hacks required to make it work require "modification" of OSX? (That clearly is a prohibited use...)

Building such a computer is completely legal.

The first problem is that you cannot buy MacOS X for Intel at all, except by buying a Macintosh. Making a _copy_ of MacOS X to use on your computer is obviously not legal, so you would have to buy a Macintosh, remove MacOS X from it, and _then_ copyright law doesn't prevent you from installing MacOS X.

The second problem is that MacOS X won't run on a computer that is not a Macintosh. To make it run, you'd have to modify MacOS X, which is tricky, and prone to breaking every time you do a software update, and if it doesn't work properly then Apple will tell you to go away.

The third problem is that the EULA coming with MacOS X only allows you to install it on an Apple labeled computer. Whether that EULA is binding depends on the country where you live and the laws there. In European countries, it is very unlikely to stand in a court - you bought a Mac with MacOS X, you can do with it whatever you like (except copying the OS), so if for some strange reason you want a Mac Pro running Windows and a Dell laptop running MacOS X, and you can figure out how to do it, there is no law stopping you. (MacOS X would have to be completely removed from the Mac Pro, and Windows would have to be completely removed from the Dell). Why you would want to do that, I don't know.

 

[stainlessliquid]

Legality aside, if you enjoy tinkering with code and like trying to get something to "work" then OSx86 can be a lot of fun. The installation isnt nearly as hard as it used to be and is for the most part has the same installation process as a real mac (it used to be VERY hard and almost impossible to newbies), its getting your hardware to work with all the bells and whistles that can be tricky and is where the "fun" comes in. Of course it depends on your hardware too, some hardware works perfect right away, some needs an incredible amount of tweaking. Stability also depends on hardware, some hardware is just as good as a real mac, some hardware is really bad with OSX. As for speed... currently the highest xbench score comes from a "hackintosh" running a C2D extreme chip and ramdisk (its not vastly faster, just a few points, but it shows that a hackintosh can be just as fast or faster than the fastest mac pro)

It is definately not for someone who is afraid of messing with their system though and I dont think I would ever use it as the only OS on a computer even though a lot of people do it, and I surely wouldnt put any vital files on the same partition. If you have an extra hdd laying around and just want to play with it then I dont see the harm in that despite the legal issues of downloading it (especially if you already own a mac), if it becomes too complicated and you cant get it to work right then just reformat the hdd and no harm no foul. If you want to put it on a laptop then its hit or miss, Ive never tried but apparently trying to get it to wake up from sleep is extremely difficult and totally impossible for most people, if you cant put your laptop/pc to sleep then that could be a big problem for some people

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Copyright law.

Also, the DMCA (in the US) and EUCD (European Union) and similar laws in some other countries.

Copyright law and the DMCA have nothing to do with anything.

Copyright law: civil codes which concern the distribution (not use) of creative works.

DMCA: an un-Constitutional law that forbids circumventing copyright protection (encryption) under some circumstances.

…neither of which have anything to do with installing software on unsupported hardware, whether it's OS X on your home-made computer or Amiga OS on your toaster.

 

[TechHistorian]

Copyright law and the DMCA have nothing to do with anything.

Copyright law: civil codes which concern the distribution (not use) of creative works.

DMCA: an un-Constitutional law that forbids circumventing copyright protection (encryption) under some circumstances.

…neither of which have anything to do with installing software on unsupported hardware, whether it's OS X on your home-made computer or Amiga OS on your toaster.

Unless you happen to be one of the nine Supreme Court justices, one's opinion on the constitutionality of the DMCA is irrelevant in an American court of law (and even then you need to be one of at least five).

And since you have to copy the EFI code Apple uses to make OS X work on a non-Apple mobo (either in EFI itself or in BIOS), you are, de facto, violating both copyright and the DMCA. The odd hobbyist probably doesn't have to worry. Any company manufacturing such machines, however, will probably feel the full weight of Apple's legal team fall on their shoulders.

 

[schmintan]

At the same time, I wouldn't suggest buying a Mac if you want to primarily stay in the Windows world as a Parallels or Boot Camp Mac is - whatever people say - not a full Windows machine. It's enough for the occasional Windows user, but it's certainly not as stable for a start as a 'real' current Windows machine of similar spec.

i thought the new intel mac's would run windows as a windows machine if loaded on with bootcamp. how is this setup a lesser intallation of windows than having windows on a regular pc?

 

[booksacool1]

Is this a good idea?
Will it save me money?
Will it be more/less powerful?
Where should I buy parts?
What processor should I buy?
Can I have a dual processor machine?

any other advice or links are much appreciated. Thanks.

Its a great idea if you don't mind the copyright issue(s), and have a reasonably high level of computer competency.
It will save you lots of money, probably end up costing you only about a third of the equivalent mac. However I know from experience that it will be noisy and less stable. Acronis (the boot-loader) has a tendency of going arse over tits and requiring some boot records to be altered (easy to do... if you know how). Also you won't be able OSX using software update, but rather will have to wait for special 'cracked' releases which may or may not use an older kernel.
It will probably be more powerful then a normal intel mac, depending on how much money you spend
You can get the parts from any PC shop. For compatibility go for an intel brand motherboard/processor, ati graphics card and everything else is up to you.
Processor-wise, I would recommend any reasonably modern intel with SSE3 (Pentium D, Core, Core 2).
And you most certainly can have a dual processor machine. Even a quad processor machine if you feel like it.

There are many many options with making a mac compatible pc. However remember that it won't be a 'mac' but merely a weak substitute.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Unless you happen to be one of the nine Supreme Court justices, one's opinion on the constitutionality of the DMCA is irrelevant in an American court of law (and even then you need to be one of at least five).

I just threw that in for a bonus. Heck, I ain't even American, but I know there's no clause in your Constitution giving Congress the powers to criminalize the hacking of one's own computer.

And since you have to copy the EFI code Apple uses to make OS X work on a non-Apple mobo (either in EFI itself or in BIOS), you are, de facto, violating both copyright and the DMCA.

You can argue the copyright issue there (talk about a fine hair), but there's no distribution going on. Plus, you might just be emulating the EFI or otherwise tricking the OS, which is perfectly fine.

 

[Pressure]

i thought the new intel mac's would run windows as a windows machine if loaded on with bootcamp. how is this setup a lesser intallation of windows than having windows on a regular pc?

It isn't. It works just as another Windows based laptop or PC for that matter.

 

[Sesshi]

i thought the new intel mac's would run windows as a windows machine if loaded on with bootcamp. how is this setup a lesser intallation of windows than having windows on a regular pc?

Drivers in the main. We'll see how reliable it is when it's officially released as part of Leopard.

 

[atszyman]

Will it save me money?
Will it be more/less powerful?

These should be easy to answer. You can save money by buying cheaper parts to run on the PC but part of what makes Macs stable and easy to use is the limited subset of drivers that Apple has to support so by using the cheaper parts you will sacrifice stability and possibly cripple many OS features resulting in a far less powerful machine.

To build a more powerful machine you'd need to find MB, Video Cards, and peripherals all supported by OSX. AFAIK there are no commercially available MBs identical to what Apple uses so the MB alone would probably kill any cost advantage and probably be prohibitively expensive. However, if you could come across such a MB you could definitely put in the most powerful video card supported by OSX and the fastest/highest core count processor that fits in the socket(s) to push the machine beyond currently available Macs. But due to the costs of all the latest/greatest and the (probably illegally obtained) MB you'd probably end up spending around 2x what a regular MacPro would cost and you would not have any of the bundled iLife apps and no support should anything go wrong.

In short you could build cheaper at the cost of power and stability, or you could build more powerful at a premium cost but your best bet would be to just buy a baseline MacPro at the clock speed you want (I'm not sure if processors in them are easily removed/replaced if they are you could get by with a lesser processor and upgrade to a faster socket compatible CPU but you'd probably void your warrantee) and upgrade the RAM/VideoCard to boost the performance.

Makes me wonder if Apple could create a "tinkerer/builder" market by selling their own motherboards at a slight premium and list supported processors/video cards to allow some to build their own Macs. This would still give them some of the hardware sales and they could create a "retail" version of OSX for installation on the built computers that would allow some people the illusion of saving some money on building by going with cheap cases, and very little included software.

 

[pubb]

u can just buy a new osx disk for $129.

You can buy replacement install discs (2 DVDs for Intel Macs) for your computer from Apple tech support. If you were missing the originals from your box, they're free. I imagine there a time limit to claiming they were missing, or else nobody would ever have to pay for them. You have to provide a serial number so they can get you the right install set, because the replacement disks will work for your series computer only. That is, you cannot use a MBP install kit for an iMac or a PBG4.

The Tiger retail box is not an upgrade, you can do a complete wipe ('erase & install') of your system with it when you install. It is for PPC-based computers only.

For the Intel-based Macs, OS X Install disc 1 contains the OS, disc 2 contains optional installs. iLife/XCode and other optional installs are on the 2nd disc and does not come with the retail kit because they are bundled with the computer, not the OS.

Pubb

 

[roland.g]

Plus, those boxed copies are only upgrades. Apple does not sell full blown copies of OSX... one is included with each new Apple Computer, the boxes are upgrade copies for owners of previous releases.

I don't think that part is true.
A lot of people didn't upgrade from 9 to X until 10.2 or even 10.3 or 10.4. A lot of people stayed back. That's a full install of X not an upgrade if there is no prior version of it.

Also, when you get 10.3 or 10.4 or 10.5 when it comes out and you want to upgrade from an earlier version, you have the option to boot off the install disc, wipe the drive with disc utilty or without (level of wiping), and install a clean install of that version of X, with only the items you want.

The thing that makes it only run on a Mac is the hardware that it specifically looks for, can't remember the name of the chip, I'm sure someone said it.

 

[Squonk]

Makes me wonder if Apple could create a "tinkerer/builder" market by selling their own motherboards at a slight premium and list supported processors/video cards to allow some to build their own Macs. This would still give them some of the hardware sales and they could create a "retail" version of OSX for installation on the built computers that would allow some people the illusion of saving some money on building by going with cheap cases, and very little included software.

Now that is an interesting idea actually! I'm definately a tinkerer, but since I'm a software developer, I do not want to be illegal with my OS. I'd gladly pay Apple for a copy of OSX that I could run on my choice of hardware. That being said, I'd still want a MBP as my daily user for stability. I'd like the tinker version for my home media server.

 

[zero2dash]

I've used OSX86 10.43 and been able to update it to 10.48 through Software Update, but driver and instability issues plague it; I hate to say it but on non-Apple hardware, Win2k or XP runs better. Video card drivers are near non-existant for anything but a gpu that is actually in a Mac computer. (ie I have a Radeon 9500 therefore - no real drivers for it, since no Mac ships with a 9500)

If you want OSX, buy a Mac because you know it'll work and you'll never have a problem.

As much as I'd love to build a (comparable) headless iMac for $1,000, I convinced myself a long time ago that I'd be better off paying the iMac price to get an iMac and not have any issues.

 

[Angrist]

None of the retail copies are compiled for Intel Macs yet. There is no reason to sell a boxed copy of Tiger for Intel. Anyone with an Intel Mac already has Tiger.

Plus, those boxed copies are only upgrades. Apple does not sell full blown copies of OSX... one is included with each new Apple Computer, the boxes are upgrade copies for owners of previous releases.

It states in the user agreement that OSX can only be installed on an Apple Computer, to my best recollection. In addition to the fact that you cannot acquire a full copy of OSX legally (the copy for your Mac is contained on your system restore discs, which are only legally to be used with your system.) If Apple doesn't explicitly state it they sure beat around it...

Kinda sorta not true. There were OSX capable machines that were never sold with a copy of OSX on them to begin with. So the retail copy could be considered a "full copy" of OSX. It's also entirely possible and legal to purchase a used mac with NO operating system, usually when the original disks are lost and the owner keeps their recent version license.

 

[Naimfan]

Captain Haddock said: Heck, I ain't even American, but I know there's no clause in your Constitution giving Congress the powers to criminalize the hacking of one's own computer." That is not accurate. Article 2, § 8, Clause 8, best known as the Patent and Copyright Clause, gives Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts. . ." The problem is that when you hack an OS, you are modifying it. With Apple, such modifications are expressly prohibited in the EULA. And Congress has indeed "criminalized" such action in Title 17, U.S.C. Take a look at 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1): (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. . .

So if someone is trying to hack OSX to save a few dollars on a computer, they could be criminally charged. I would like to believe, however, that the FBI and US Attorneys' offices have bigger fish to fry...

As for the DMCA being unconstitutional, until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a case involving the DMCA and holds the specific sections unconstitutional, the DMCA is constitutional. Parts of it are certainly open to challenge on constitutional grounds, but as of right now, all of it is constitutional.

Best,

Bob

 

[drake]

Which one of you guys is a copyright lawyer? As for the guy who says it has to be in an Apple labeled computer, no problem. Buy an old G3, toss in some new pc components and you're good to go.

 

[Sdashiki]

sounds like an un-enforceable law.

even if you posted it on the internet, its for "educational purposes only"

right?

im not condoning it, nor am i damning it; everyone is entitled to do w/e they want with their belongings, legally speaking, so long as it doesnt harm (etc) anyone/thing else in the process.

 

[Naimfan]

Drake: "Which one of you guys is a copyright lawyer?"

Actually....... it IS a part of my practice....

Dashiki--It's enforced every day.... Posting on the web would be to "distribute" the hack..... And although you're mostly correct in that you can do what you want with your belongings, you do not "own" OSX--you are simply licensing the use of it from Apple. And the OSX license (just like every other license I can think of) has certain conditions placed on your exercise of that license.

Best,

Bob

 

[thebeephaha]

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showforum=85

If you want to, go there. I say no more.

 

[AlexisV]

Putting aside legality, it's near enough impossible to build a Mac. The fact you asked the question makes me think your a PC man who's heard good things about Macs and want to save money by 'building one'.

What you'll end up with is a PC. If you managed to get hold of 6x86 OS X, it would do diddly squat when you put it in the machine. So you'd have to do some serious research on the internet and get hacking .

You need a custom motherboard to build a Mac, with firmware as opposed to a BIOS, and the only way to get one of those is to steal one from a Mac factory in China or buy a Mac.

 

[zimtheinvader]

Why????

wow this is a bad idea imho, a Mac is an investment, and the best PC money can buy, for XP *or* OSX. The warranty/HW stability is the best part! Now getting OSX up on a tablet, that might be worth doing...

...You can get a C2D macbook for under 1K, why would this even be a consideration??

 

[gnasher729]

A lot of people didn't upgrade from 9 to X until 10.2 or even 10.3 or 10.4. A lot of people stayed back. That's a full install of X not an upgrade if there is no prior version of it.

MacOS X 10.4 Tiger is theoretically a full version, in practice it is an upgrade in the sense that more than 99.9 percent of the customers buying it have a license for an earlier version of MacOS X. So Apple could have made a full version for $399 and an upgrade version for $129 but they wouldn't have sold more than a few hundred of the full version (except for those strange people who will buy the more expensive item as a principle). It just wouldn't have been worth the money.