Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Would you use a hackintosh in business?

W

webcity

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 16, 2011
94
0
United Kingdom
Quick question really. I've got a Macbook Pro and I purchased Office 2008 and Adobe CS5 Design Premium for it a few months ago. Now I'm moving into a commercial office and I want a higher spec 'desktop' computer.

As I can't afford an iMac/Mac Pro/etc and I can't afford to replace my software with Windows versions I've been thinking about going down the hackintosh route. I've got a friend can build me a pc running OSX 10.7.1 with 16GB Ram and a Sandybridge i5 cpu for £500 or would I be better off going with a Mac Mini?

What would you suggest?
 
MacDawg said:
If I had to depend on it for business, I would buy the Mini
I would consider the hackintosh route only for a hobby
Click to expand...

That's what I initially thought but my friend said he built a hackintosh with the same specs and has had zero issues with it and his geek bench score is almost double that of the i5 mini.

Obviously. my main concern would be applying software updates. etc, but to be honest, with the difference in spec/price, I'd be even more tempted to go down the PC route... if only I hadn't bought Adobe CS5 for Mac :(
 
I personally wouldn't use a hackintosh at all, but one factor to consider is the type of business and the type of work, and how much you depend on a computer for it. For example, if your business is mowing yards and you use a computer for creating advertising flyers, dependability wouldn't be as much of a concern as if you're doing graphic design work for corporate clients on a tight schedule. Why not just use your existing MBP? There are very few situations where the MBP wouldn't be sufficient.
 
Stablity is not an issue with most hackintosh systems if you use supported hardware. If you tryto make a system with an AMD processor I could see where problems would arrise. Updates are not too bad. People who say one update will break a system don't know what they are talking about because you can rollback certain drivers if for example your Ethernet or audio doesn't work. Lion has been working on hackintosh systems for a while now. So while a real Mac would be better and nicer and will require way less work and tinkering, hackintosh is certainly not bad
 
GGJstudios said:
I personally wouldn't use a hackintosh at all, but one factor to consider is the type of business and the type of work, and how much you depend on a computer for it. For example, if your business is mowing yards and you use a computer for creating advertising flyers, dependability wouldn't be as much of a concern as if you're doing graphic design work for corporate clients on a tight schedule. Why not just use your existing MBP? There are very few situations where the MBP wouldn't be sufficient.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%. And for the situations where the MBP wouldn't be sufficient and you need more power you *really* couldn't afford the issues with a hackintosh.

My friend, I'd say just use the MBP. If you really, really need a desktop machine a Mini will do fine though for most uses.
 
webcity said:
That's what I initially thought but my friend said he built a hackintosh with the same specs and has had zero issues with it and his geek bench score is almost double that of the i5 mini.

Obviously. my main concern would be applying software updates. etc, but to be honest, with the difference in spec/price, I'd be even more tempted to go down the PC route... if only I hadn't bought Adobe CS5 for Mac :(
Click to expand...

You can call Adobe and exchange CS5 for Mac for CS5 for Windows. I should say they used to do it. I assume that they still do. I exchanged a Windows version for a Mac version last year. The old policy was very nice. Provided you had a receipt.

As far as a hackintosh for business, it's one thing to play with one as hobby but, why would you risk your business?
 
webcity said:
That's what I initially thought but my friend said he built a hackintosh with the same specs and has had zero issues with it and his geek bench score is almost double that of the i5 mini.

Obviously. my main concern would be applying software updates. etc, but to be honest, with the difference in spec/price, I'd be even more tempted to go down the PC route... if only I hadn't bought Adobe CS5 for Mac :(
Click to expand...

Using MacOS X on a non-Macintosh is copyright infringement and a DMCA violation. That's not a good basis for a business. And it's not a good idea at all if your customers notice. Copyright infringement for financial gains (which it would be for business use) might also go into criminal territory, so you better should ask a lawyer. In which case all your financial gains are gone.
 
gnasher729 said:
Using MacOS X on a non-Macintosh is copyright infringement and a DMCA violation. That's not a good basis for a business. And it's not a good idea at all if your customers notice. Copyright infringement for financial gains (which it would be for business use) might also go into criminal territory, so you better should ask a lawyer. In which case all your financial gains are gone.
Click to expand...

Who cares about the DMCA? That is a cross for USians to bear, not the OP.
 
weckart said:
Who cares about the DMCA? That is a cross for USians to bear, not the OP.
Click to expand...

1. I see no mention of his location.
2. Other countries have similar laws.

3. For a US based business, it is an important consideration unless you expect to go bankrupt anyway. Psystar was ordered to pay about $2 million for DMCA infringement.
 
Thanks for all the comments.

I have spoken to Adobe this morning and because the CS version is CS5 and not CS5.5 they cannot change the platform unless I pay to upgrade to CS5.5.

gnasher729 - I'm based in UK but using OSX on a non-apple computer is not copyright infringement at all! I haven't copied the software, I have a legal OSX product and license. It may be a breach of the EULA but it's certainly not copyright infringement.

Psystar is a completely different situation. They were selling computers with OSX on them. So I don't really see how that's relevant.
 
I think that the cheap way is not always (and in this case never) the best way.
If you want a reliable Mac to work with yo'd better buy the proper one.

Otherwise just stick with windows and a normal pc.
 
gnasher729 said:
1. I see no mention of his location.
2. Other countries have similar laws.
3. For a US based business, it is an important consideration unless you expect to go bankrupt anyway. Psystar was ordered to pay about $2 million for DMCA infringement.
Click to expand...

1. Then you could not have read the OP because his location was crystal clear.
2. No.
3. Interesting, but irrelevant. Psystar was based in the US and was supplying OSX.
 
webcity said:
Thanks for all the comments.
gnasher729 - I'm based in UK but using OSX on a non-apple computer is not copyright infringement at all! I haven't copied the software, I have a legal OSX product and license. It may be a breach of the EULA but it's certainly not copyright infringement..
Click to expand...

Um... I'm not so sure about that. Honestly, I'd really recommend you speak to an experienced digital copyrights lawyer about this idea. Personally, there's no way I'd risk my business or job to save a few hundred. In the big picture, isn't that a dumb reason to loose a job or business?

Stay legit, you can sleep better.
 
weckart said:
3. Interesting, but irrelevant. Psystar was based in the US and was supplying OSX.
Click to expand...

The "supplying OSX" part gave them $30,000 total for copyright infringement, making about 800 illegal copies of MacOS X. The DMCA part gave them $2,500 per infringement. And since every version of MacOS X has code built in that prevents it from running on any computer that is not a Mac, there is no way to get around that legal problem. (The fact that it isn't very hard to get around the technical restriction, so easy that some people actually think there is no restriction, doesn't change that).
 
Penny wise, pound foolish

This is your reputation and livelihood -- is it worth risking that for a few hundred pounds of upfront savings?

Whose throat are going to choke when there is a problem? It sounds like your friend is offering to do you a favor and you should not rely on them to support this thing in the future.

Is it worth your time, potentially missed deadlines and projects due to delays, to support this thing yourself? If something goes wrong, you will have to diagnose it, buy new parts for it, repair it (or hope your friend is available to do so), and do whatever else is necessary to get it into working condition. You may be totally out of your initial investment and need to buy something else.

If you need a better machine for your business, then it sounds important. So invest (i.e., get a small business loan) in your business properly instead of trying to cut corners and hope that it works out.

Good luck!
 
gnasher729 said:
And since every version of MacOS X has code built in that prevents it from running on any computer that is not a Mac, there is no way to get around that legal problem. (The fact that it isn't very hard to get around the technical restriction, so easy that some people actually think there is no restriction, doesn't change that).
Click to expand...

Yet this still has nothing to do with copyright infringement. Hmm.
 
Thanks for all the comments.

I can see where you're all coming from but,

@ehoui - saying I would have to buy parts, etc, if something goes wrong is a bit irrelevant because say I build the computer and stick Windows 7 on it, I would still have the same hardware and you can't tell me you'd only ever buy a Mac or an 'off-shelf' PC. Plus, PC components still have warranties so any outlay for replacement parts could be partially recouped when an RMA replacement arrives and I choose to sell it.

Anyway, I'm not asking necessarily about the legality of running OSX on non-apple hardware so can we please drop that subject? @gnasher729 - I don't care what happened to Psystar. As I said, going against an EULA is NOT copyright infringement, no matter which way you look at it.

However, thank you to everyone that's posted so far. The responses have really given me much to think about.
 
From a business perspective I would not do it. While hackintoshes are fairly stable, its better not to deal with making sure that it is operating but rather focus on your business.

That is, buy a mac, and spend your time and money on your business.
 
To all those saying that making a hackintosh is illegal and a copyright violation. I would consider that a false assumption. Apple's EULA has not yet been contested in court yet for a decision to be reached.

However given that:

The Copyright office stated: “while a copyright owner might try to restrict the programs that can be run on a particular operating system, copyright law is not the vehicle for imposition of such restrictions.”

The Library of Congress: "The Librarian of Congress has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. Persons making non-infringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking . . ."

The Federal Appeals court stated in regards to "keys" and "dongles": “The owner’s technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing,”

Federal Regulators stated: “the activity of an iPhone owner who modifies his or her iPhone’s firmware/operating system in order to make it interoperable with an application that Apple has not approved, but that the iPhone owner wishes to run on the iPhone, fits comfortably within the four corners of fair use.”

I would consider it safe to say Apple no way of preventing hackintoshes other than attempting to block it in the OS. If contested in court the hackintosh would be considered legal as long as the software was not pirated. Nor would workarounds like the Chameleon boot loader, DSDT settings, modified kexts &c. The purpose of copyright is to protect against unauthorized reproduction and sale of works not how those works are used by the end user.

Before Psystar is pointed out. These rulings are in reference to the end user.

As to the op. I would say go for the hackintosh. Only if you are very comfortable with hardware and fiddling with the operating system. Unless you research the hardware exhaustively. You will likely have to fiddle with the bootloader, remove some troublesome extensions and fiddle with editing .plist entries residing within extensions.
 
velocityg4 said:
To all those saying that making a hackintosh is illegal and a copyright violation. I would consider that a false assumption. Apple's EULA has not yet been contested in court yet for a decision to be reached.
Click to expand...

So, basically, you're saying that all contracts are invalid until they've been challenged and upheld in court?

I'm not an attorney, but that sounds ludicrous to me.
 
I would not. for one, you have to do all the support yourself, since I'm guessing you're not about to hire that friend of yours to be your IT support. if you have the time to deal with that, fine, but if it's critical to your business, you'll lose more than a few hundred pounds in no time.

building your own Windows box has the same risks, but you know the OS will be compatible with the hardware out-of-the-box. a hackintosh requires you know how the hack works so you can fix it if something goes wrong.

also, if a client notices, you might end up being sued, or take a hit to your reputation. I realize it's not exactly rare for businesses to use pirated software, but using a cracked copy of (say) Photoshop isn't exactly obvious like a hackintosh is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back