Hackintosh? More like crap-intosh.

[MTI]

I have a Dell Mini 9 (2gb/16gb) running OS X 10.5.7 nicely. Boots up fast and the 1.6ghz Atom performs much like a Powerbook G4 . . . for way less and in a much more convenient footprint.

When I read comments like "cheap plastic" or "unreliable" . . . it tells me that the "talking points" are coming out, not actual user experience. Yes, the Dell, built by the same folks that make the HP and Asus, has plastic parts, may not have the nicest keyboard or trackpad . . . but considering the size and, more importantly, the cost . . . those are mere fair compromises. It works quite nicely, too.

As for performance or its ranking in your computer arsenal . . . again, considering the price point, it's the portable companion that you won't mind hauling to the internet cafe, through airport security or actually fitting on a coach seat back tray table. It may not stroke egos, enhance your social status or make lesser mortals swoon . . . it does get most folks jobs done. Take into consideration that most users aren't doing processor intentsive apps on their portable devices, but they are reading, watching streaming videos, checking mail and keeping connected. I rarely hear folks complaing that their iPhones aren't powerful enough to run CS4 . . .

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

A core 2 Quad is only about $100 less than the 2.66GHz i7.

Where are you finding a Nehalem Xeon cpu for $300?

 

[Matrixfan]

Homebuilt PC-s have no resale value

The bigest drawback of a hackintosh is that they have no resale value compared to a Mac Pro. If you are on a tight budget then a hackintosh is the only way to get i7 power. However if you own a Mac Pro you can upgrade to the next one for the same price. Sometimes even for less... The first purchase is the realy hard decision to make, because that is when you "buy in".

Sadly the 09 Mac Pro has gone down in terms of value. I could build a PC similar to the base modell for half the price. Including a very expensive case and a very high quality PSU. I know that brand PC-s should not be compared to homebuilt systems, but even this way the 08 Mac Pro had much better value back then. I have a feeling that there will be a modell refresh which will be a much better decision to upgrade to from a 08 modell.

 

[nanofrog]

Where are you finding a Nehalem Xeon cpu for $300?

It's the Core i7 version. Which in quantity, has the same pricing as the Xeon W35xx parts. Retail is slightly different of course.

If you're interested, the W3520 (2.66GHz), can be found here. Slightly more, but not by that much IMO, as $17 or so isn't that bad for ECC capability.

 

[MTI]

The bigest drawback of a hackintosh is that they have no resale value compared to a Mac Pro.

I think if you look at the ROI of either machine, you can get what you put into it. However, you raise an interesting point. Before the switch to Intel processors, if a person wanted a budget platform for their Mac needs . . . used Macs were your only purchase option. Ergo, used equipment prices were traditionally higher than similar period Windows boxes . . . but . . . what if that buyer has another option for their lower budget needs?

Hmmm.

 

[hitekalex]

The bigest drawback of a hackintosh is that they have no resale value compared to a Mac Pro. If you are on a tight budget then a hackintosh is the only way to get i7 power. However if you own a Mac Pro you can upgrade to the next one for the same price. Sometimes even for less... The first purchase is the realy hard decision to make, because that is when you "buy in".

The point about a well built Hackintosh vs Mac Pro is that you never need to sell the whole thing just to upgrade it. I can upgrade my "xMac" incrementally. For example, I can easily upgrade my ATX motherboard/CPU in a few years when a new architecture comes along. Or a video card, where I have a variety of options (not just a couple of artificially overpriced video cards on Apple Store). Everything in my machine is standards based and I don't need to wait for Apple to give me a option to upgrade something (and completely screw me on the pricing of commodity component in the process!)

On the other hand, to upgrade a previous gen Mac Pro to Nehalam, you had to swap out the whole machine.. since Apple uses proprietary case, and you can't easily replace most of the components (like motherboard, power supply) in it.

So.. I can incrementally upgrade my machine when I please, while MacPro owners have to put their whole system on eBay every couple of years to stay current.

 

[paduck]

You completely missed the point most people are trying to make. A lot of people want something that performs between the iMac and the Mac Pro. A Core2Quad tower priced reasonably would make a lot of people happy, because at the moment there are no macs made with desktop parts unless you want to pay $2500. I dont need an i7 chip, but i would like a core2quad, and apple doesnt even offer the c2q on any model. I dont want a desktop built from laptop parts, and i dont have $2500 to spend on a computer. Its not a price issue, its a selection issue.

There is a hole in Apple's lineup for a mid-size tower with some user upgradability. However, it is a hole by design. Apple used to have many more models, but people were confused. They simplified to where we are today:

Mac Mini (low-end desktop)
MacBook (consumer laptop)
iMac (consumer all-in-one desktop)
MacBook Pro (high-end laptop)
Mac Pro (high-end tower)

You see this throughout Apple's product line with the iPod and Airport as well - a progression of capabilities, but not too many as to be confusing. It is very clearly market segmentation. Apple has obviously looked at the mid-range headless product and decided not to go there. I bet the primary reasons are: confusing to the customer, cannibalizes the high-margin Mac Pro, and creates additional support requirements. They do have room for a low-end laptop/netbook, but as Apple has repeatedly said, they can't find a way to deliver a premium product in that market segment - the keyboards and screens become too small and cramped (in Apple's opinion) especially with an underpowered computer. They prefer to stick with the iPhone/iPod Touch as their portable offerings.

If an Apple mini-tower product existed (they used to), the Hackintosh market would be considerably less robust. Just being able to pop HDD's in and out would probably be sufficient for many people - probably me. I think they could make a reasonable headless mini-tower for about $1100 with the right margin and plenty of processor power. If I can build one for ~$800 with off-the-shelf parts, Apple can certainly benefit from economies of scale and their own industrial design department to get a superior product. Just look at the Mini - clearly they are making money off that.

 

[Cave Man]

Mac Mini (low-end desktop)
MacBook (consumer laptop)
iMac (consumer all-in-one desktop)
xMac (prosumer)
MacBook Pro (high-end laptop)
Mac Pro (high-end tower)

There's the segment that's missing.

 

[paduck]

Quote [paduck]:
Originally Posted by paduck
Mac Mini (low-end desktop)
MacBook (consumer laptop)
iMac (consumer all-in-one desktop)
xMax (prosumer)
MacBook Pro (high-end laptop)
Mac Pro (high-end tower)

There's the segment that's missing.

I agree 100%. But Apple doesn't think it will be a profitable segment for them - or it will be profitable, but at the expense of the Mac Pro with little to no step-up from the iMac, so it won't be a net gain for them. With the growth of the Hackintosh scene, I think that most of the people that type of computer would appeal to (those who want to take apart their computer for limited upgrades) now have a path to go to meet their needs. Albeit, not as convenient as an Apple product in that niche would be.

 

[MTI]

I agree that Apple cannot cater to every market segment and that's one reason why "hacking" exists and flourishes. There will always be consumers that will never open an electronic device, the hood of their cars or any other "DIY" project around the house . . . and there will always be those that can't resist it.

 

[Enigmafan420]

. . . and there will always be those that can't resist it.

Put me in that second group. I really do LOVE my dell mini 9 running 10.5.7.

I am sitting in bed using it right now. The thing ALMOST fits in my pocket.

And I must confess that there is a certain amount of self satisfaction when it booted the first time to OS-X without any input from me. Because even though I didn't do ANY of the work related to custom boot records or drivers, it did mean I understand enough to still be able to follow someone else's hack.

 

[Sewje]

There are so many reasons some people hack, its usually related to money ofcourse but, a hack also has certain advantages.
Having already built a non-apple PC to a spec that feels perfect, being able to put OSX on it and have it functional enough to work on is really just a plus.

If OSX didn't work on it, then its no big deal as it was mean't for Windows or Linux OS anyway.

I wouldn't understand building a hack soley for have OSX on it. It's definitely the options available which makes it so appealing, why limit yourself!

Most people who use hacks usually dual boot with other OS' so if it breaks then no big deal you have something to fall back to.
I would say Hackintosers aren't really the usual Mac users, they are like another group altogether, they are better, faster, stronger!(sarc here lol)

A Hackintoser would definitely know if his hack was stable enough for the type of work he needs it for.
The knowledgable will always get the best value. That value however varies from person to person.

 

[eelpout]

xMax (prosumer)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cave Man
There's the segment that's missing.

I agree 100%. But Apple doesn't think it will be a profitable segment for them - or it will be profitable, but at the expense of the Mac Pro with little to no step-up from the iMac, so it won't be a net gain for them.

I've heard this argument a lot and I've always thought it was created out of thin air, trying to rationalize what Apple is doing. That and the "a small tower would confuse the consumer" justification. They have freakin' 16 computers in their lineup, with micro differences within the various types. They have the wherewithal to tool up a slightly larger Mini case for better air-flow when using faster components and manufacturing-wise would not be a big deal for them. They could sell more Cinema Displays in combo packages for profit.

No, I think it has more to do with design and their current idea of branding. Mac Pro's and Mini's are meant to be either in workplaces under desks or with the latter, likely placed in home theater cabinets: where they aren't seen. MacBook's and especially iMac's are on public display where the sleek design is in your face, with the Apple logo. If they built small towers, which could be their biggest desktop seller (because that's what consumers are use to buying), they'd be tucked away under desks, likely attached to existing generic monitors, unseen. They're selling a brand and I think it's all about exposure, style and the perception of the ease of use of that brand. Plus, all-in-one, attached display "sealed" boxes push one to upgrade whole hog every 2-3 years to keep one on the current technology path and allow Apple to get back in your wallet.

 

[michael.lauden]

There's the segment that's missing.

i don't understand how a 2.93GHz processor isn't 'prosuumerz'

 

[Cave Man]

i don't understand how a 2.93GHz processor isn't 'prosuumerz'

Make it a quad core and put it in a mid-tower and it would be.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

i don't understand how a 2.93GHz processor isn't 'prosuumerz'

Because its a laptop processor, coupled with a laptop video card and laptop ram. And its the 2nd most powerful computer they make and its coupled with a monitor that the user may or may not want.

If it were made with desktop components, had a quad core in it, and didnt force you to use an apple monitor it could be considered "prosumer."

 

[Tesselator]

Hold the phone, What? The new iMacs aren't quads? LOL!!! Really? Oh my...

 

[dryjoy]

It works for Apple

Deleted - posted in wrong thread!

 

[michael.lauden]

Because its a laptop processor, coupled with a laptop video card and laptop ram. And its the 2nd most powerful computer they make and its coupled with a monitor that the user may or may not want.

If it were made with desktop components, had a quad core in it, and didnt force you to use an apple monitor it could be considered "prosumer."

i mean... 2.93 in my experience is more like +3.5GHz on a windows machine... the video card isn't that great, but on the other hand it isn't that bad either...

i can see wanting more, but if you do - then you aren't a prosumer...

 

[Eidorian]

i mean... 2.93 in my experience is more like +3.5GHz on a windows machine...

How? It's all Core 2 Duo.

the video card isn't that great, but on the other hand it isn't that bad either...

Too ambiguous

i can see wanting more, but if you do - then you aren't a prosumer...

In terms of the hardware the iMac isn't very prosumer in this day in age. You're either stuck going with the Mac Pro or a Windows tower.

 

[Tesselator]

i mean... 2.93 in my experience is more like +3.5GHz on a windows machine...

You mean when it's running windows? Yes, that may actually be true. But when it's running Linux or OSX it's of course not true at all. This thread is about running OS X on such a machine so your comment doesn't really seem to apply at all.

i can see wanting more, but if you do - then you aren't a prosumer...

This also doesn't make any sense to me. You're saying that if a person wants more than an iMac then they aren't a prosumer? iMac? Tho this is the first time I've been on this page in a very long time: http://store.apple.com/us/tab?node=home/shop_mac/family/imac&tcid=tg_tabcontroller&tab=1 these specs are a low grade consumer home PC and not at all prosumer. These would have been prosumer 3 or 4 years ago.

 

[Softy]

I'm sure tons of people on this forum "know what they're doing," but would rather be using their computers instead of trying to troubleshoot as software updates become available. Yes, yours works now -- but it's only a matter of time until a software update breaks it. The draw of using a mac in the first place is the whole "it just works" thing. If you remove "it just works" and replace that with troubleshooting, installing drivers and patches, what's the point? We bought real macs to avoid that stuff.

Well in general, I am somebody who knows what he's doing, and have been building computers since 1974. I'm new to hackintoshes, and am reading about them in various forums. But just to address your point, one reason for someone to build a hackintosh rather than just buy a real Apple Mac is to get higher performance and greater hardware options. Another reason is to be able to configure his Windows and/or Linux systems in such a manner as to allow for booting up OS X on the same systems he uses for Windows or Linux, or to make a bunch of "Macs" out of some spare parts sitting around, etc. And it is possible to build hackintoshes that can use software update without breaking the working machine.

So no, maybe YOU bought real Macs to avoid "that stuff," but I didn't. I do by the way have several real Apple Macs. I have no aversion to that.

 

[thedude69]

the OSX of apple is really good stuff but personally i wont be willing to pay for way overpriced hardware like the mac pro.as for macbooks etc. i dont need any mobile computer but it seems more reasonable.if you take a closer look at the components used it´s quite easy to do if you take some time.

lets take the mac pro e.g. its all completly standard hardware used with only minor modifictaions done by apple.so if i would like to have the performance of a mac pro nehalem 2xquad 2,93 jez i would get myself a tyan server board two cpus and lets go.......there is no reason why anybody shouldnt do it...same performance half price......and personally i dont care what brand is on the PC and how my case looks like.most important factor is the reliability of the system.mine is running 24/7 with no hardware crashes up to date.
so if apple thinks about it´s price tag of course i would buy an apple then but paying twice the money for half the performance is no option.

same issue with upgrades e.g. to the mac pro......i can get updates of bios drivers etc. whatever for nearly every board...the only guys that wont do it is apple in the end.they are more interessted in selling new hardware as in getting the people hardware support for their older machines.......e.g. cpu upgrade Mac Pro 1.1 ........

so personally i am more flexible in getting the components in my machine and replacing them by the years instead of buying a completly new machine...

btw. if you know what youre doing you do a native install of OSX on your hackintosh and all the updates will work properly without modifications