I think it is now possible to easily build a Hackintosh that will most likely have better performance, more upgradable in the next few years (and lower cost?) than the up-coming Mac Pro. Why so many people seem to be desperately waiting for the upcoming MP day by day?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why are we still waiting for the upcoming Mac Pro?
- Thread starter hajime
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't want to go through the hassle of building a hackintosh.
Cost vs. labour.
I've dealt with too many problems in the Linux world (one reason why I've gone with Mac) and I don't really care for having any more like it.
Also I like having peace of mind that the machines that come from Apple have good environmental ratings - can't say that can be true of a hackintosh.
Cost vs. labour.
I've dealt with too many problems in the Linux world (one reason why I've gone with Mac) and I don't really care for having any more like it.
Also I like having peace of mind that the machines that come from Apple have good environmental ratings - can't say that can be true of a hackintosh.
I have to admit, I considered building a Hackintosh. But after reading around, nobody running a hackintosh can say its as stable as a Mac. A quick Google for "stable hackintosh" (without quotes) reveals (at least in the top 3 listings) that people don't find them to be very stable.
If I'm going to spend that sort of money, I expect a stable product.
A hackintosh will be louder, uglier, unreliable, unsupported, and no where near as environmentally friendly as a Mac
Trust me, I went back and fourth, priced up, everything -- its just not worth it.
If I'm going to spend that sort of money, I expect a stable product.
A hackintosh will be louder, uglier, unreliable, unsupported, and no where near as environmentally friendly as a Mac
Trust me, I went back and fourth, priced up, everything -- its just not worth it.
A hackintosh will be louder, uglier, unreliable, unsupported, and no where near as environmentally friendly as a Mac
Not necessarily, besides unsupported, I don't think the rest would be the issue. You can easily build one with quite parts and nice looking case like
Lian Li aluminum case or velociMicro ones.
Reliability? It really depends. I have my mac crashes for no reasons, very occasionally but it does happen. I built a Hackintosh for fun and ran 24/7 for simulations. It only had very few crashes (due to the non-Ecc memory).
Nonetheless, I am still waiting for the Mac Pro update
take it from me, a hackintosh builder ( see signature ).
a hackintosh is a pc that runs osx, it's not a mac. you have to worry about updates potentionally breaking sleep or graphics all the time. if an error occurs you have to do all the troubleshooting yourself. it's a really fun project but nothing I want for my main computer experience.
a hackintosh is a pc that runs osx, it's not a mac. you have to worry about updates potentionally breaking sleep or graphics all the time. if an error occurs you have to do all the troubleshooting yourself. it's a really fun project but nothing I want for my main computer experience.
so true. I built an i7-930 not just for a hackintosh but certainly that was one of my goals. I was fairly careful in selecting my components including the motherboard, gpu, etc. I checked in at insanelymac on what I had done.
I'm now discovering my motherboard is not as compatible with OSX (p6t). After doing a lot of digging, its seems its possible to load OSX on that but it requires a lot of work and managing some kexts and even installing a special version 10.5 before making the jump to 10.6. More work then I really want to do.
What I did do was get OSX running under vmware, its performance is very good, better then my MacBook Pro under VMware! The only part that is not is 2D, so if your doing anything graphical it is a bit more sluggish. Not too bad, but for my needs I'm happy.
Moral of the story: cutting corners may not be helpful
True, the sleep is a noxious problem even editing dsdt won't help, that's why
I turned off the sleep function permanently
Graphics has less problem as long as you use mainstream nvidia cards (including workstation cards).True, the sleep is a noxious problem even editing dsdt won't help, that's why
I turned off the sleep function permanently
yes but these are compromises, nothing to do winky smileys about turning off functions because they fail to be supported properly on the hackintosh scene.
Exactly my feeling. However, if Apple ordained generic drivers for more widespread components it might be viable. Hardware is hardware after all, but hackintoshes are POTENTIALLY way too limiting for my taste and hard earned bucks.
This all depends on the equipment you choose. As you can get 80+ Gold Certified PSU's and other "environmentally friendly" parts. You can end up with a more "environmentally friendly" computer.
I have to admit, I considered building a Hackintosh. But after reading around, nobody running a hackintosh can say its as stable as a Mac. A quick Google for "stable hackintosh" (without quotes) reveals (at least in the top 3 listings) that people don't find them to be very stable.
If I'm going to spend that sort of money, I expect a stable product.
A hackintosh will be louder, uglier, unreliable, unsupported, and no where near as environmentally friendly as a Mac
Again this has to do with parts chosen. You can go nearly dead silent with high end cooling equipment. Appearance goes to an individuals tastes I find current desktop Mac's to pale in comparison to the beauty of the various Apple II's, Mac II's, Centrises and Quadra's.
I certainly agree on the unsupported though reliability varies. I built one for my sister that is used constantly for nearly two years without a single problem with Mac OS X. Though my own had problems with the video card. It really came down to parts chosen they were identical machines besides the GPU and CPU. That was my fault as in each instance on mine I cheaped out with a Radeon 3850 then a 4850 rather than getting the higher end 3870 to 4870 which are much more compatible.
A bothersome problem is not being able to run OS updates. Then again if you are having no problems the update is not really needed.
All in all it really comes down to how well you understand OS X, how thoroughly you research components, if it interests you to do so and cost. Not only did I enjoy getting my sisters computer working. $500 plus 8 hours labor is much better than the $2000 an equivalent speed iMac would cost. As for my gaming rig not working if I had really cared I would have bought the better video card my only real use for the computer was gaming in Windows getting OS X functional was a passing interest.
I have to admit, I considered building a Hackintosh. But after reading around, nobody running a hackintosh can say its as stable as a Mac. A quick Google for "stable hackintosh" (without quotes) reveals (at least in the top 3 listings) that people don't find them to be very stable.
If I'm going to spend that sort of money, I expect a stable product.
A hackintosh will be louder, uglier, unreliable, unsupported, and no where near as environmentally friendly as a Mac
Trust me, I went back and fourth, priced up, everything -- its just not worth it.
Nobody? You're wrong. My hackintosh is just as stable as my Mac Pro and MacBook. It's quieter, just as reliable, and equally environmentally friendly. Uglier? Depends on the case. Unsupported? Yes, but that's part of the challenge and interest.
I'd never recommend one as a main work computer, but as a hobby and a personal computer it's very nice.
I'd build a hackintosh but it's the updates to OS X that have me worried. OS X has to be essentially reinstalled from scratch on my Dell Mini 9 every time there is an update to OS X. It's a fun hobby but there's no way I'd depend on it for a main machine.
This is why I went with the vmware option, on my i7. After looking at the very involved steps, it didn't take me very long to realize how this could go south very quickly.
for me and needs, vmware works even better because I can use win7, fedora and osx at the same time on my i7 which is a very fast machine.
I know some have posted that theirs is very stable (which is very good!) however I still stand by my last post. I really, really wish I could do a hackintosh. Heck I managed to get an Acer Aspire One converted to OS X before anyone even released anything about how to do it.
My point is, that for professional (even personal) use, its just not worth the effort. Being worried it may break when you update, the risk of getting kernel panics (granted not in all cases), etc.
For those that have it working perfectly, that's great and I'm happy for you! But I just don't think its for me. :/
My point is, that for professional (even personal) use, its just not worth the effort. Being worried it may break when you update, the risk of getting kernel panics (granted not in all cases), etc.
For those that have it working perfectly, that's great and I'm happy for you! But I just don't think its for me. :/
This is not accurate if you look at the Mac as a system ( hardware + software). If someone is looking to run the machine for 3-8 years there is no guarantee that the next version of Mac OS X will run on the box. At 6-8 years no guarantee it will run on the new Mac Pro, so hope for a hackintosh is going to be less.
If want to install and tweak a version of Mac OS X and then just stick with it forever then sure perhaps a plausibly cheaper idea. Even more so if your billable hourly rate is less than $15/hr.
One of the key differentials is whether you buy Mac Pro as a tool to get done what you want or buy the Mac Pro as a framework to assemble various different hacking configurations. Apple isn't completely adverse to people doing the latter. However, they are not trying to compete with or directly enable those systems.
I love the new machine I built. I've never gotten a kernel panic, Mac OS was really easy to install, and it's faster than any next gen Mac Pro could be. Aperture runs awesomely on it.
I've tried the Hackint0sh route many times and always I go back to the original. Hackint0sh feels too broken and feels too bootleg. Nothing beats the original.
I have to say, the whole issue of stability and updating a hackintosh is something not really discussed much on hackintosh forums, and one I think should be more prominent.
I could build a hackintosh for a lot less than a new Pro would cost, but it wouldn't be quite as powerful. It'd also lack support. And it's a $1600 gamble I'd rather not take.
I priced out what it would cost to build a machine with what I expect to be in a MacPro update (whenever that happens), and it came to somewhere around $2500. Granted, it had more memory, but that's not that expensive to install myself on a Mac Pro. Either way, I'd have to pay top dollar for a machine.
While I still love my Dual G5 machine (which can, so long as I am patient with it, edit 21MP RAW photos), getting semi-nerfed by Snow Leopard has given me a taste of real computer dependency. Cynics may say it's Apple keeping me on a short leash, and that's fair. But as soon as I'm not taking a 16 month hit on a pro machine, I'm all over it.
For me, it's a question of cost over time. (Also, at what I make, the labor for a hackintosh would probably be quite a bit.) I'm waiting for a refresh so that when I pay for something, it avoids obsolescence that much longer. Granted, I don't particularly *need* it right now, so I have that luxury. However, I'd really enjoy editing photos as fast as I can do them and playing on Steam. Not dealbreakers... not... yet.
I could build a hackintosh for a lot less than a new Pro would cost, but it wouldn't be quite as powerful. It'd also lack support. And it's a $1600 gamble I'd rather not take.
I priced out what it would cost to build a machine with what I expect to be in a MacPro update (whenever that happens), and it came to somewhere around $2500. Granted, it had more memory, but that's not that expensive to install myself on a Mac Pro. Either way, I'd have to pay top dollar for a machine.
While I still love my Dual G5 machine (which can, so long as I am patient with it, edit 21MP RAW photos), getting semi-nerfed by Snow Leopard has given me a taste of real computer dependency. Cynics may say it's Apple keeping me on a short leash, and that's fair. But as soon as I'm not taking a 16 month hit on a pro machine, I'm all over it.
For me, it's a question of cost over time. (Also, at what I make, the labor for a hackintosh would probably be quite a bit.) I'm waiting for a refresh so that when I pay for something, it avoids obsolescence that much longer. Granted, I don't particularly *need* it right now, so I have that luxury. However, I'd really enjoy editing photos as fast as I can do them and playing on Steam. Not dealbreakers... not... yet.
I was asking myself this same question not too long ago. The conclusion I came to was I couldn't logically go with a hackintosh. When you make your living with a computer you want things to run smoothly all the time. What am I going to do... tell a client that I can't make the deadline because I spent 6 hours troubleshooting why my capture card doesn't work? I have enough problems with software being finicky I don't need to add an unsupported system into the mix.
Am I going to eventually build one for another home system? You betcha. But I can't logically use one for business as my main system.
My $.02
Am I going to eventually build one for another home system? You betcha. But I can't logically use one for business as my main system.
My $.02
Hackintosh is more for enthusiasts. Commercial use? No. If I want to
get a production machine without the cost of premium, I would go for Linux.
By the way, I just turned Thinkstation S20 at home to a hackintosh, it runs quiet and as stable as Linux.
The problem is that there is no way of telling when the new Mac Pro will be available. Even I want to buy from Apple, Apple does not make this happen. I am not going to buy an expensive machine which is going to be replaced anytime from now. I have been waiting and holding on a project for a long long time...
Even one buys the original Mac Pro, there is no guarantee that the system will be perfect. As you know, there are often issues with new Apple products.
As for the possibility that future Mac OS may not be compatibility with the Hackintosh, can I assume that there are always smart people out there who can make it works?
Even one buys the original Mac Pro, there is no guarantee that the system will be perfect. As you know, there are often issues with new Apple products.
As for the possibility that future Mac OS may not be compatibility with the Hackintosh, can I assume that there are always smart people out there who can make it works?
Environmental ratings? LOL! Apple is very good at advertising.
Compared to a home-made computer, Mac Pros do not clearly have an environmental advantage. A good standard case can last for many years and can be reused for many upgrades. The proprietary Mac Pro case? Perhaps it can be recycled after the machine is obsolete but the recycling/melting takes a lot of energy with a greater carbon footprint / environmental cost than reuse of a standard form factor case.
Motherboards, hard drives, optical drives, video cards are going to be quite similar in their environmental impact once their lives end (with the possible exception of toxins, discussed blow). But, a home-made computer can be upgraded incrementally, and many of the parts do not need to be replaced when the motherboard and processor are upgraded.
Apple also claims low toxins and high energy efficiency. These are good things but it's not clear someone could evaluate this claim against the specifications of other equipment. I would look to the particular Intel CPU to get a broad idea of energy usage. Toxins? Who knows? If someone has additional information please post.
Compared to a home-made computer, Mac Pros do not clearly have an environmental advantage. A good standard case can last for many years and can be reused for many upgrades. The proprietary Mac Pro case? Perhaps it can be recycled after the machine is obsolete but the recycling/melting takes a lot of energy with a greater carbon footprint / environmental cost than reuse of a standard form factor case.
Motherboards, hard drives, optical drives, video cards are going to be quite similar in their environmental impact once their lives end (with the possible exception of toxins, discussed blow). But, a home-made computer can be upgraded incrementally, and many of the parts do not need to be replaced when the motherboard and processor are upgraded.
Apple also claims low toxins and high energy efficiency. These are good things but it's not clear someone could evaluate this claim against the specifications of other equipment. I would look to the particular Intel CPU to get a broad idea of energy usage. Toxins? Who knows? If someone has additional information please post.
Its not just the alu metals that are friendly about it...
They are BFR and PVC free - meaning a LOT less toxins used during production. Meaning when it does eventually end up in the ground, it'll decompose as it should. The metal is completely recyclable.
Put it this way, compared to your standard computer chassis from your local PC shop, its very Environmentally Friendly. No plastic bezels made from BFR plastics, no plexiglass windows, etc. Obviously there is probably some cases/parts out there that are more environmentally friendly, but in the broad scale of things, the pro beats them hands down.
You can take a look at the details here: http://www.apple.com/macpro/environment.html
I know some people don't give a rats about the environment, but I personally feel that every little helps.