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.
Cmon apple wheres a mini mac pro lol
- Thread starter drexl5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nah, it really is easy. It's almost to the point where you can just buy some hardware, pop in a CD, and you're done. I'm oversimplifying, yes, but not by much.
CaveMan lives in Germany, where Apple's EULA has been ruled to hold no force. For him, everything is completely legal. Even in the USA it's more of a gray area than anything.And a different definition of legality than most...
Does the iMac hold two internal hard drives and an optical drive? Does it allow me to choose my monitor? I have no problems with the capability of the guts inside of the iMac. It is the other limitations of the all in one design I have a problem with. I would love to have the processor and faster drives of the iMac in a Mac mini that was big enough for two HDs and optical drive.
Iamgine ordering your favorite steak and wanting to have A-1 or Heinz 57 with it. But the restaurant telling you that you can only have catsup? That's how some of us feel about the monitor limitations of an all in one.
Then just buy a Mac Pro and be done with it... or go Hackintosh and create a hacked up mess. There isnt a large enough market for the xMac in apples opinion, so their not gonna make it. You can have 2 Internal HDs on the latest iMac (1 SSD, 1 HD), and it has an optical drive. You can also choose your monitor by using an external and then leaving the iMac in a cupboard, or leaving it with its screen turned off... there ya go, imaginative (or not), and clever (definitely not) suggestions on how to use a iMac as you want to...
I've had fewer problems with my hackintosh than I did with my PowerMac G4. It needed a new graphics card and CD drive in the first year. Fortunately, Apple covered the repairs.
On the other hand, with my hackintosh, upgrading from a Core 2 Quad core to an i7 would only cost me about $500 since I can reuse all but the logic board, cpu and RAM. I can even use a large number of graphics cards that you can't get for Mac Pros. There are trade-offs, but with MultiBeast installation it's really quite simple to do - and maintain.
Last edited:
If you need to dump a sugary vinegar tomato sauce all over your steak, you need to go somewhere else to get your steaks.
I did a little research and went running. All I saw were some success stories for very limited sets of hardware. Success was typically defined as MOST things working. It seemed common for updates, wifi, and sleep modes to not work properly. The failures seemed to greatly outweigh the success stories. Many, many requests for help were not responded to. Even with identical sets of hardware, there seemed to be both success and failure.
At least two or three times over the years I've seen claims of each 1-disc install, no messing around with strange configs, only to find a bazillion replies mentioning failure or asking for help.
To define that as "easy" is a bit of a stretch. It might be easy for you with your extensive knowledge, skills, and background. I doubt it would be easy for the typical MAC buyer.
Its Mac... but still its definitely easier (and when OS X dies on a Hackintosh - you cant phone Apple and moan or go and moan at a genius bar - with a proper Mac, you can.)
This might have been true at one point, but not anymore. If you stick with a P55 Gigabyte board and a Broadcom Wifi card you are pretty much golden. Also, keep in mind that the people who have problems are the ones more likely to post.
...That said, I agree with you here. I wouldn't recommend it to the typical Mac buyer, but anybody with even just a bit of technical awareness (i.e anyone visiting this site) can do it easily, provided they buy the right parts.
No, but if one part dies and it's still under warranty, you can get it replaced. If not, you can just buy the part and install it yourself.
Better than having your iMac's logic board die right after your warranty expires and being SOL.
And I thought the whole point of Hackintosh was to use the hardware you wanted... oh dear dear dear.
Apple makes a LOT of money off of people just buying new personal computers from them every few years instead of upgrading their machines. They aren't giving that cash cow up for anything.
Also, that probably would be the point of a hackintosh is people actually bothered to make drivers anymore.
Also, that probably would be the point of a hackintosh is people actually bothered to make drivers anymore.
It is the whole point. Buying the "right parts" doesn't equate to "buy the few parts that will work." I was able to choose my processor, RAM, and graphics at a price that I could afford. I would've had to pay Apple $2500 for the GPU I wanted. I was able to add a blu-ray drive as well. The list of compatible motherboards is quite extensive, allowing you to add features that Apple doesn't provide, such as eSata and USB 3.0.
it is clear to me apple wants to keep hackintosh around. It would be easy for them to build a few machines to compete against hackintosh and they choose not to.
I think they would build a machine that could compete with those machines if it wouldn't cannibalize their Mac Pro sales. And I think it would. My work does this with windows pcs. We should definitely have something equivalent to a Mac Pro workstation but the company cheaps out on mid range machines - and they can definitely afford better machines.
There are far more options for hackintoshes than there are for Apple OEM. Do you have on-board eSATA? How about coaxial digital audio output (along with optical)? How about the ability to use and upgrade a variety of video cards from NVidia or ATI? There's no doubt that a few cons exist for hackintoshes, but there are a lot of pros and for many of us those pros outweigh the cons.
I know several Windows guys who installed OS X on their PCs just to see if they could do it. After using OS X, they ended up buying Mac laptops. I think hackintoshes have positively impacted Apple's sales because most people who build them would never have bought a Mac anyway; those who did, did so because of their great OS X experience.
Last edited:
Yeah if you think about if it feeds into each other why not let hackintosh exist.
What has to the best way to suck someone in is to make the user think he is getting over!
You can have 2 Internal HDs on the latest iMac (1 SSD, 1 HD), and it has an optical drive. You can also choose your monitor by using an external and then leaving the iMac in a cupboard, or leaving it with its screen turned off... there ya go, imaginative (or not), and clever (definitely not) suggestions on how to use a iMac as you want to...
Apple. The green computer company. Producing and making you buy monitors you don't want and won't use. That's a good slogan.
I did say turn it off (hell you could probably even unplug it internally - I know you could with the G3 iMacs). I still maintain that just having the Pro is a good idea - mainly as I like having a full-size high-performance workstation as an option, and the xMac would cause them to stop producing or certainly update less often the Pro, which would be terrible.
So what if I turn it off? Apple is still using energy and resources building the iMac screen I wouldn't be using. I agree that the Mac Pro is great. I'd love to have one. But it is overkill for me. I simply don't want a computer that big. I wish you could offer proof that an xMac would be so detrimental to the Pro. Maybe the release of a xMac would be a sign to more businesses and higher education facilities that Apple is serious about maintaining and even growing its professional presence. Marketing a smaller Mac Pro would not kill development of the larger case Mac Pro. More higher end parts would be produced and sold which would strengthen the position of Apple making serious workstation level computers.
Workspace is a variable that Apple isn't taking into account by offering only the Mac Pro. I think a Mac Pro scaled down to 2/3rds size (room for only two hard drives and one PCI slot) would bring in lots of new customers. The architecture of the Mac Pro would still be there. It would still be developed. Just Apple would be making it in two case sizes.
I'm optimistic that a xMac would not be bad for sales of either the iMac or the Mac Pro. I think a xMac would open more opportunities to sell more Macs to more and different types of customers.
The Toyota Camry (mid sized Mac) hasn't been the death knell of the Corolla(mini). It also hasn't stopped Toyota from selling Avalons (Mac Pros). And Toyota still sells lots of assorted all in one type of vehicles (iMacs) like a minivan, several crossovers and some SUVs.
If mid sized products are so bad why does Apple make the iPod Nano? Just sell the shuffle and the Touch.
(1) You cannot equate computers to cars - different things completely.
(2) If Apple made an xMac, all of us Pro people would buy them instead of Pros at home, unless we work from home. We buy the Pro for the expansion as well as the cores. All the people who want the expansion would just get the xMac over a base MP.
(3) If Apple creates an xMac, they will not only lose Pro sales, but all the people who bought iMacs over a theoretical xMac would switch, probably losing Apple Money, as they couldnt sell it at the same price as the iMac, because people like YOU would complain that its too expensive, and not buy one anyway if they did, defeating the propsed point of the machine.
(4) Again Different Market. Mid-size makes sense in the music business, but it doesnt fit in with Apples Business Model for Desktop computers - they have 3 products in the matrix: Low-End-Desktop, Consumer Desktop, Pro Desktop - theres no room in that for some pointless xMac to satisfy just a few people like you while potentially usurping Mac Pro sales and costing the company money.
(5) Many of the people who would buy an xMac already have a hackintosh and wouldnt go official Apple as it would still be more expensive than building one
(6) Thus, there just isnt really a market for a Apple-Branded mid-range tower, as only a very few people would want one, namely people like you who would complain its too costly or it isnt expandable enough or have some other issue with whatever they did.
I don't think more options would hurt Apple. I would find good use for a Mini-Pro. I'd buy one, whereas I won't buy an iMac or a Mac Mini, so they would MAKE money from me where they currently have no sale.
the iMac sells better. If they do anything they will make the iMac with more options. USB3 esata 1 pci e slot low or high screen choice..
It would be made to decrease mac pro sales a little. It will would increase iMac sales a lot. It fits Apple slick presentation better.
I am sure a lot of mac pro users such as myself would have purchased a boosted iMac instead of the Mac pro.
It would be made to decrease mac pro sales a little. It will would increase iMac sales a lot. It fits Apple slick presentation better.
I am sure a lot of mac pro users such as myself would have purchased a boosted iMac instead of the Mac pro.
I need the Mac Pro for editing movies. I wish it had even more room inside for more drives, but I could still use another machine with PCI slots.
The only way a iMac would work as a go between would be:
1: capable of at least 2 removable hard disks from the side.
2: light peak or esata and usb3.
3. 24GB max ram.
4. SB at minimum 3Ghz.
Otherwise, double the size tall for the mini with the same capabilities as above with a dedicated graphics card.
1: capable of at least 2 removable hard disks from the side.
2: light peak or esata and usb3.
3. 24GB max ram.
4. SB at minimum 3Ghz.
Otherwise, double the size tall for the mini with the same capabilities as above with a dedicated graphics card.