I'm in this boat right now...
I have a self built PC, it was 2.4Ghz C2D on an Intel Mobo with 4GB of RAM, with a GTS 250 with 1GB of RAM. Being dated as it was I dropped in a quad core Xeon (socket compatible) at 2.83Ghz and 8GB of RAM.
After kicking around in Ubuntu & Mint for a while, (running windows in a VM), I wanted that 'nix feel but with native popular program compatibility, so I bought a copy of Lion and I've been off to the races, happy with the UI/UX for the most part. Extremely happy with the performance and platform compatibility.
Probably a fine machine for kicking around at home. For a business enterprise, running a Hackintosh can be a calculated risk and has to be carefully weighed its costs vs benefits.
Now I'm in between do I want to buy a new MP if they ever get announced/released or do I want to a build a workstation class equivalent (with a dual Xeon board, ECC memory, etc), in which case I may as well buy a MP.
With a dual Xeon configuration, the MP has generally been pretty cost competitive; its more typically the single CPU that the MP is criticized for a relatively poor price : performance ratio.
Aside from the back and forth going in this thread, the one point of anxiety I have about my hack is OS upgradeability.
That's the unquantified risk going forward on lifecycle management and how long can a particular hardware solution remain viable both from its "today" performance as well as its level of future-proofing for future enhancements in OS and/or Applications.
Part of the Linux community is quite upset about how Microsoft's UEFI "Secure Boot" (to combat piracy) supposedly marginalizing them out of hardware...I've not kept tabs to know for sure if this is paranoia or truth, but it does illustrate that Apple could choose to invoke additional hardware checks on Macs to counter Hackintosh-ery if they so chose...they waged this war with iPod emulators, for example.
I think I may buy a "bare" MP, if a 2012 model ever gets announced and just pimp out the memory, video (if hopefully supported) and storage on my own.
Which is precisely what a lot of personal and Small/Medium Businesses do. It isn't uncommon even in larger Enterprise, although it depends on how their procurement system is set up ... some don't really like the idea of buying RAM/HDDs separately for a variety of reasons and thus pay the 'Apple Tax' and depending on how much it costs them to process a single PO#, it might actually be cheaper.
This thread has not alleviated any of my confusion 😉
Mostly because of sidedbar distractions, unfortunately. In rereading from the top, I see a few fairly common comments:
1) a common point of view is that a Hackintosh may be sufficient for a home machine, but for Enterprise, its a calculated risk in several ways that would need to be weighed versus its benefits.
2) the 'worst case' while staying with Apple would probably be considered to be an i7 based iMac, probably with a Promise Thunderbolt RAID. The implications are: (a) minimal (if any) cost savings potential in initial purchase price; (b) healthy risk of a higher lifecycle costs; (c) severely reduced capability on the upper tier of horsepower (CPU+GPU) & RAM.
3) a general expectation that if there is an EOL announcement that there's probably going to be a bit of a run on the current Mac Pro model: it is a reasonably logical move for businesses in particular to "buy time" by deferring having to make a major platform change decision in the near term.
-hh