Oh please. You came here making the claim that Hack users shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they're getting the same caliber box. I'm refuting that claim by asserting that people that don't care about Apple's aesthetic, want to put the effort into making a Hack, and are capable of making well built, stable, high performing and reliable Hacks, intending to use them productively, are getting the same caliber box in every relevant respect to what they want the damn thing for; and they're getting it for less money. Furthermore, in no way does that imply that people that buy real Macs are stupid.
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.
Xeon vs i7?
- Thread starter Macpropro80
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh please. You came here making the claim that Hack users shouldn't fool themselves into thinking they're getting the same caliber box. I'm refuting that claim by asserting that people that don't care about Apple's aesthetic, want to put the effort into making a Hack, and are capable of making well built, stable, high performing and reliable Hacks, intending to use them productively, are getting the same caliber box in every relevant respect to what they want the damn thing for; and they're getting it for less money. Furthermore, in no way does that imply that people that buy real Macs are stupid.
You aren't getting the same box. Again, you were the one who made the point that the person going for all out speed is going to pick cheaper components, etc, but "wins" somehow because their machine benches well, regardless if it uses workstation class components, etc.
Bravo. Guess what. Some of us have longer histories than you of home building rigs and don't care that you saved some money on your hack. Some of us are very good at building rigs but want something that runs quiet, uses top notch components and is backed by the manufacturer. Not to mention that in some cases it literally isn't worth our time, money wise, to build a hackentosh.
It's like someone in the Subaru WRX forums going on and on about how their Subie smokes Audis and BMWs at 1/2 the cost and never understanding that the guy buying the Audi or BMW could give a crap if the WRX is .5 seconds quicker going 0-60.
Of course they're not getting the same box. And yes, they do win because they paid significantly less and are getting a significantly faster machine. But guess what, the person that buys the authentic Mac also wins. Can you guess why? Come on. It's not tought...they win because they get what they want. Do you see it now? It's about getting what you want. And that's why the Hack person gets, I'll say it again, "the same caliber box in every relevant respect to what they want the damn thing for." And just for clarity, since you seem to be confused about what the referent of the expression 'box' is as I used it; it points to the entirety of the machine and not just the literal case.
If you don't want a manufacturers warranty, or a nice Apple labeled case, but do want the same sort of performance and don't want to pay as much, then you're winning when you get that. And, as it turns out you just simply can get better performance that way. No surprise. No "gotcha". If you do want warranty support, Apple labels, legitimate OSX support, and good performance then you win when you get that. See.
But that still doesn't change the fact that when you put the two systems under a cardboard box and have a Photoshop render test or an encode test or whatever and then have some idiot point to the one that did the job faster, he's going to point to the Hack.
I'm sure most of us do understand why, we've seen the megaphone commercial.
Speaking in regards to your anlogy, he knows why, he just thinks they're foolish for spending all that money on a car that they'll never drive up to it's potential.
Apple is missing a mid-size desktop, most people who buy Mac Pro's hardly even utilize it's true computing power and it ends up being just plain overkill.
Cosigned.
It's not even that. If somebody spends $100,000 on some beautiful sports car that's their business. The fact that they were willing to spend that is at least some evidence of their wanting that car; and the fact that they have that car is evidence of them getting what they want. I generally don't think it's stupid when people get what they want.
But here's what would be stupid. One day the guy with the fancy car is speeding about. He pulls up to a stop light right next to an ugly looking car. The ugly looking car cost significantly less. The guy in the ugly car challenges him to a race. The ugly car wins by a large margin. The guy with the fancy car says "Well, he really didn't win because his car was ugly." Do you think that matters to the ugly car guy? Do you think that even matters at all with respect to the issue at hand; namely, which one got from point A to point B first? No! If ugly car guy's goal was to have the same car as fancy car guy then he failed. But that wasn't his goal. His goal was to have a car that performs better than fancy car guy's car. In that respect he did not fail.
Or, suppose they race and tie. Fancy car guy says "Well, I actually won because I have fancy car." Ugly car guy says "I don't want a fancy car. I just want to get around as fast as you do for less money." If that's his goal, ugly car guy did not fail in that case either. But, if fancy car guys goal is to have (1) the fanciest car and (2) the fastest car, then he fails; because he doesn't have the fastest car. He just has a type of car as fast as another type of car. But if his goal is to have a fast and fancy looking car, then he does not fail. And if performance was about how fancy your car, or whatever, looked then fancy guy would always win. But, performance isn't about that at all.
If I put a v12 in big go cart with some nice Dunlop tires and a milk crate for a seat, I've got every bit the same amount of horsepower, and far more acceleration (less mass/hp ratio) than a Jaguar. Do I have the same caliber car for less money? I suppose if I don't mind the fact that my butt hurts and it's an eyesore, sure I guess I do. If I want a stereo, leather seats, or to take a date to the movies in it, maybe not; it's relegated to the test track.
Building a hackintosh is fun, challenging, and, like any intellectual venture, like chasing a high. It only lasts for a while, and once you're done you either have to mod it again or race around the internet bragging because the reality is that you're stuck with an often unsightly, unsupported, cheap imitation...that goes really fast. One could make the same argument that Psystar is an awesome deal but you'll notice that Apple isn't losing much market share to them. Why hack a tosh when you can buy an "Openstar" for hundreds cheaper?
For me, I like Apple engineering, and I can wait another 4 seconds for my Handbrake encode. I respect the Hackintosh community for what they've accomplished but come on, while we all want to build a Hackintosh, who really wants to own one?
Why does it only last "a while?" I don't understand this. Since I installed OSX on this machine I've not had to fiddle with it at all. It's been going just as long as some guys quad core Mac Pro bought around the same time (1.5 years ago). I've been happily Photoshopping, Final Cutting, Artraging, Zbrushing, and Lightwaving without any headache. Everything's stable.
Maybe Psytar's systems are a good choice for some people. I don't know what everyone wants. I do know that you can still build a perfectly fine system cheaper than what Psystar sells them for. Home built systems aren't some assault on Apple. Home built systems are cheaper than any manufacturer system. And if you're comfortable building and supporting them and are capable of building systems just as reliable, and you want to do it, then you'll end up with a system that performs just as well or better for less.
There you go. If you like Apple engineering, want the warranty and support and are happy with the performance being offered, then it's a good idea for you to buy Apple products. But that still doesn't change the fact that people are out there doing real work with their Hack systems and they're doing it reliably at less cost and faster.
On this, we are 100% in agreement. Apple has managed to get themselves into a tight spot though.
The profit margins on a consumer level i7 based desktop system will almost certainly not be as good as they are on either the Pro or the iMac.
So, if Apple introduces a $1500 tower with upgradeable components then they run the risk of losing lots of Mac Pro sales.
Unless they limit it to 8GB of RAM, 1 processor (of however many cores), less PCI slots, less HD slots, no optical audio etc.
I think they are going to start that trend, as step 1 and 2 already exist. They just forgot to carry the 1 when they chose the price
I'd love a single proc MP the same way it is now, just with 2 double wide PCI slots + 1 regular, 2 HD (ok, I acutally plan to use all 4), only 1 FW port, no optical audio, maybe support 16GB of ram (but at a high price for 4GB), and for a lower price. Gives me the ability to upgrade HDs, optical drive, graphics cards, PCI cards for extra ports or whatever, even upgrade the processor so long it's compatible with the mobo. All that for $1999 would be an excellent consumer desktop, with apple's style and build quality + OSX. Considering the quad procs cost $500 less than octo, it wouldn't make them loose much profit. Competitive with the iMac, but no screen, lots more space taken up, similar high-end price...
Unless they limit it to 8GB of RAM, 1 processor (of however many cores), less PCI slots, less HD slots, no optical audio etc.
I think they are going to start that trend, as step 1 and 2 already exist. They just forgot to carry the 1 when they chose the price
I'd love a single proc MP the same way it is now, just with 2 double wide PCI slots + 1 regular, 2 HD (ok, I acutally plan to use all 4), only 1 FW port, no optical audio, maybe support 16GB of ram (but at a high price for 4GB), and for a lower price. Gives me the ability to upgrade HDs, optical drive, graphics cards, PCI cards for extra ports or whatever, even upgrade the processor so long it's compatible with the mobo. All that for $1999 would be an excellent consumer desktop, with apple's style and build quality + OSX. Considering the quad procs cost $500 less than octo, it wouldn't make them loose much profit. Competitive with the iMac, but no screen, lots more space taken up, similar high-end price...
It would be great if they would release such a machine, but it's probably more likely we'd see a price cut on the Mac Pro than that they spend the money designing a lower grade tower machine.
Perhaps this was the logic Apple used for the Quad and Octo split of the MP line?
Both a Hack and genuine MP have their merits. Everyone's priorities may not be the same, and they choose accordingly. Rather simple. I went with the DIY route, as I'm comfortable with doing so, and was able to place the savings into other components that I have to add-on anyway.
There are a lot of consumers who can't justify the purchase of iMac's and Mac Pro's which is why Apple's Notebook was/seeing the most growth. If they offered a mid-range desktop priced around iMac's and had the possibility of upgrading the CPU, GPU, HD and Optical Drives, I think they would gain more desktop market shares. They would lose some Mac Pro sales, but they would also gain new customers.
People who build hackintosh's like Apple Software. The components I used in my build cost substantially less than a Mac Pro, but I wouldn't consider it cheap hardware. Average consumers won't migrate to a relatively unknown manufacture.
I would agree most home built rig's are pretty ugly. I'll pass on the cathode lights, led fans, and clear cases with shiney blue lights which is why I use the Antec P180 (rev. b) case
the P180 is sexier than you 
Perhaps this was the logic Apple used for the Quad and Octo split of the MP line?
I think it just made sense to offer quad core solutions and then not use $1000 Xeons for them.
It would likely cut too deeply into the iMac sales, which is why it hasn't happened.
Generally speaking, those that DIY want specific components, and usually from a particular manufacturer as well. I tend to pour over various specs before buying, as to at least attempt to avoid as many issues as possible. Particularly with cables and dimensions. Sucks if the PSU won't fit the case or you're missing a needed cable.
So it certainly seems reasonable that quite a few DIY'ers go for top notch components.
Not always.I would agree most home built rig's are pretty ugly. I'll pass on the cathode lights, led fans, and clear cases with shiney blue lights which is why I use the Antec P180 (rev. b) case
I stuffed my gear into a full tower Lian Li PC-V2010 (silver). Looks quite decent, and has plenty of room.
I'm also not a big fan of LED's, clear side panels, and loads of plastic everywhere. Generally speaking, those that DIY want specific components, and usually from a particular manufacturer as well. I tend to pour over various specs before buying, as to at least attempt to avoid as many issues as possible. Particularly with cables and dimensions. Sucks if the PSU won't fit the case or you're missing a needed cable.
So it certainly seems reasonable that quite a few DIY'ers go for top notch components.
This ^
Not always.
I stuffed my gear into a full tower Lian Li PC-V2010 (silver). Looks quite decent, and has plenty of room.
That's one of the few cases I like other than the Antec P1XX series
The thing that drew me torwards the Antec Performance series it the Dual-Chamber Design and the sound deadning/anti-vibration measures taken into the case.Quite jealous of that case though
It would likely cut too deeply into the iMac sales, which is why it hasn't happened.
I agree, but I think it's more than that. Apple engineers (thanks to SJ) are minimalist designers. The iMac is an all-in-one, the mini is simple and small, the iPhone has one button on the front, etc. The Mac Pro is a nice tower, but the fact that it's a tower, separate from the monitor, has probably got to irk a lot of the Apple design purists. I don't think they want to put a tower, even if it's more profitable at the same price/performace, head to head with an iMac simply for aesthetic reasons.
Plus, you don't necessarily make more money by offering a zillion different models (case in point: Dell). The support, marketing, etc. can be a nightmare, aside from the fact that you'll use up existing manufacturing capacity to make a machine that may not even be in large demand. Compare how many people are hankering for tower computers in Apple's demo compared to those that are satisfied with a fast iMac that doesn't take up much desk space. And desktop machines in the whole industry are contributing to less and less of total hardware market share; I think Apple desktops made up less than 30% of their sales in the most recent quarter. I bet Mac Pros were less than 4 or 5%, easily.
As much as we all love computers, talking about computers, fixing computers, hacking computers, Apple is in the business of making money and they are better at it than anyone in the business.
It is a dual chamber design.That's one of the few cases I like other than the Antec P1XX series
Quite jealous of that case though
Upper section contains the board and 5.25" bays, while the lower houses the PSU (dual if you want), and 3.5" bays. Nice cross flow for cooling.
As for the sound absorption material, I really don't see a need for it.
The system I put together isn't loud, and perhaps arguably, might help keep temps slightly lower. The case fans are quiet, and the Noctua cooler I used isn't loud either. It only hits 20dBA at full RPM. Of course, I chose that cooler based on noise as well as it's cooling capacity.
Lol nice, mine is always at 20dBA =/ The antec tri-cool fans suck at their lowest settings they're 20dBA. I haven't upgraded/removed the case fans yet, but I've been eyeballing a few on newegg.. So hoping it makes it a bit more quiet.
My water cooling system is currently too good for my relatively cheap CPU/MOBO combo :eek" but it's my hope that I eventually upgrade it. It has served me good for nearly a solid year!
at their lowest settings they're 20dBA. I haven't upgraded/removed the case fans yet, but I've been eyeballing a few on newegg.. So hoping it makes it a bit more quiet.My water cooling system is currently too good for my relatively cheap CPU/MOBO combo :eek" but it's my hope that I eventually upgrade it. It has served me good for nearly a solid year!
20dBA isn't bad for 120mm fans, but quieter do exist.Lol nice, mine is always at 20dBA =/ The antec tri-cool fans suck
My water cooling system is currently too good for my relatively cheap CPU/MOBO combo :eek" but it's my hope that I eventually upgrade it. It has served me good for nearly a solid year!
Mine hovers about the same I think. I haven't the equipment ATM to test it myself. Never quite got around to building a sound chamber...I tend to avoid water cooling, as I like the simplicity of air, and particularly, not having to worry about electricity + water.
Mineral Oil immersion is just too messy, and the "fish tank" look is too ugly for me. LMAO! Exactly.
Now if chips ran cool enough for natural convection, we could toss the fans. Unfortunately, I don't see this ever resurfacing.
LMAO! Exactly.
Now if chips ran cool enough for natural convection, we could toss the fans. Unfortunately, I don't see this ever resurfacing.
Even if it did, I really like the low temperatures. I'm looking for a strange combination of performance, longevity, and price, and keeping cool running components allow me to spend a little more on each computer because I know I can rely on them for a longer time.
Even without the risk of zapping everything because a radiator decided to retire, water cooling is just too impractical and expensive. I'm perfectly happy to not touch the thing for months once it's stable. Watching for algae (LOL, this is not something I should have to consider with regard to a computer), replacing the coolant once a year, etc, doesn't sound fun.
Then there's always the crappy liquid kits that make me cringe when people buy them. D:
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't think it a "strange combination" at all.
I seem to have the same goal. Meh... Fans do require cleaning though.
But the lower risk, complexity, and as you mention cost, water isn't worth it.
At least a little ethylene glycol can eliminate the algae issue though. It happens to improve cooling too, but at the unfortunate cost of it's affinity for the metals used to make the coolers, and even the case if it leaks. It just isn't worth the hassles IMO, so I prefer to loose a little clock speed and stick with air.
Pre-test your system, Pre-soak your o-rings, don't buy crappy coolant and porous tubing, don't go cheap on a pump and your water cooling system should last you years. If people in the automotive industry were this paranoid about water cooling, we'd still be driving air cooled vw's. The most I have to worry about is the pump dying on me and even then there are redundancies to prevent the chips from over heating.
Evaporation and algae should not be an issue, if it is an issue you're doing it wrong.
If people in the automotive industry were this paranoid about water cooling, we'd still be driving air cooled vw's. The most I have to worry about is the pump dying on me and even then there are redundancies to prevent the chips from over heating.Evaporation and algae should not be an issue, if it is an issue you're doing it wrong.