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.
Mac Pro/Hackintosh...
- Thread starter Liquinn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.
I edit a major network television show... on a Hackintosh. Have for the past 5 years now.
In the studio I work for, deep in the bowels where no one but authorized personel are ever allowed- you'll find quite a few Hackintoshes at work- not exactly sanctioned by the company, but in use none-the-less. Because true pros recognize a great machine is a great machine and don't really care about anyone's marketing hype to the contrary. And pretending that only Apple can make a machine to run OSX on reliably in 2013 is just that- hype. It's simply not true anymore, no matter how much anyone may want it to be the case.
I'm the type, and I work with others that are the same way (and who all have Hackintoshes at home that they do professional work on) that would never rely on someone else to service my hardware if my life depended on it. If there's a problem- I'LL fix it. I like it that way, won't have it any other way. And it's the same if Apple put the parts in a box, or if I put the same parts in a box myself.
Being that type of user (the idea that all pros are averse to technology is a really silly idea to me) using a Hackintosh because I can build 3 or 4 of them for the price of a single workstation doesn't worry or scare me in the least. It's simply a slightly different set of rules to abide by, requires some built in redundancy (easy to do) and just an average amount of tech know-how. I didn't get into editing and doing a very tech-oriented job because I was afraid of technology. I don't know many others in my business that are much different in that respect.
Fairly slow in understanding my point, which is completely valid.
It's a given, you're a techy guy and love fiddling with computers.
Have it your way. You have a valid point and I have a valid point. My point is extremely valid, yours is in the greyer area which falls under "unsupported devices" and "will not work as intended."
This has nothing to do with marketing hype. This is the 4th time I'm reiterating that OS X was not meant to work with any other hardware besides a Mac (Intel or PowerPC). Take it or leave it, that is the truth. It feels like I'm talking to an empty wall here.
"Marketing hype."
So what you're saying is, if you have a Hackintosh, you do not have a "backup machine", which is definitely a Mac? So if the Hackintosh is the only one you can use and your IT can't switch it out?
If you're telling me your Hackintosh is the only machine you have and your IT didn't specify a backup for you, I call complete B.S. If you are working at 4am in the morning and have a deadline for a client at 8am and have to stay up to finish, you're telling me your IT department will be there to switch it out for you? Or will you do it yourself and not make the deadline? I call B.S. and you're definitely not in those types of shoes.
You're also definitely working off a network, so your computer is just a "head unit." and can be replaced quickly by a backup machine.
Smaller and more talented studios cannot function with Hackintoshes. This is coming from someone who has 22 hour days and knows what he's talking about, as pretentious as it may sound. I held off pulling that card out for a while..
because you're telling people who do it that it's unsupported and unstable and can't nor should be used for work. i.e. you don't have any valid points.
If you'd like to buy a computer that you need to drop off to get fixed that's great but that doesn't speak anything against the hackintosh as viable.
If my work is so time sensitive that I will loose 8 million dollars if I'm three minutes late I'm not going to be using a mac to perform the task. The have no on site support so the computer needs to be pulled taken to the store and be fixed on their schedule. As a matter of fact if it's that critical then it will probably be done on render farm with it's inherent built in redundancies.
If time is critical but as drastic as you make out, then having industry standard parts in my computer is a plus because I can locate the part locally and replace it quickly and keep going vs. toting my mac pro the store to let some dude fix it.
If you are so tech averse you should keep an IT guy around and use HP/Dell/Sun cause those folks will put a tech at your front door.
OSX is meant to work with particular HW the issue is Apple doesn't manufacture the HW so if I buy the same HW it works just like an Apple. The worst part is the are getting lazy and making this easier as time progresses no kext injecting no fuss. If you can install Windows/Linux/OSX you can build a hackintosh.
You are not making valid points against hackintosh you are telling us what you don't like about them and why they don't work for you.
How is OS X not being supported on anything than a Mac not a valid point? I don't want to point fingers, but someone's dense here, and it's definitely not me.
I did not say anything about my personal interests. Actually I wouldn't mind a Hackintosh for home use, but I'd definitely have a Mac on the side. I always have a MacBook Pro on the side, so at home I won't mind it. On the downside, for me personally, using any case besides a Mac Pro somewhat defeats the purpose of having a Mac in the first place, so I would be super anal about it and try to fit stuff in a Mac Pro case, and then I would just give up because I have actual things to do.
Are you serious? Macs are used in the high end design industry, mostly in the motion design, print and interactive. Also for high end films, $100 million budget The Girl With a Dragon Tattoo, etc. Hope you're joking here, bud.
So if your onboard network card goes out (just to be drastic) on a Hackintosh, you will need to find a replacemen PCIe card because you can't access the network anymore. Good luck finding a compatible network card and the proper KEXT within 5 minutes. If you were in my shoes with this problem, your boss would have fired up a s***-storm.
We have IT guys every studio I go to. They all have spare Mac Pro's, that's not the point.
When people like you think IT and Tech they think HP/Dell/Sun. The design world mostly uses Macs. It's mostly the film world, IE Pixar, Blur, etc that uses PC's because they just do high-end 3D work. No one uses PC in the design world, they use After Effects, Photoshop, Illustrator on the Mac.
Once again, wrong. OS X is NOT meant to work on anything. Besides. A. Mac. Understand that.
Just because you can match a chipset for a particular sound card with a supported KEXT's doesn't mean much.
Also wrong about Windows, once again. Windows pretty much can work with hardware from 10 years ago. It uses a driver model, Apple does not. The system either comes with it or it doesn't. People "hack" and add EFI's to the GPU bioses or what not, get EFI dumps, etc. It's a great community, but YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT.
?
I mentioned many times that I like Hackintoshes and wouldn't mind building one myself, but do not have the time nor the patience nowadays as people like me who are super busy can't afford to lose time.
I understand if English is not your first language, so if you need me to clarify certain things, let me know via PM.
Which brings us back to perspective is reality..
It's been discussed over and over on this forum, you cherry picked so I will to. Pixar uses Linux on the back end..
That's real tough TP Link TP-3468 works native in OSX along with there WiFi..I have a two in my drawer they cost $15 and work in anything without drivers.
There are many creative types that use Windows, because you have not experienced them doesn't mean they don't exist. We have two shops here on windows and one on OSX. The local screen printers design and print on Windows he likes the better graphics support whether it's perceived or real.
OSX is meant to work on a particular HW spec, that HW spec is not unique to Apple.
Hasn't been necessary in a couple years and even the most basic "Hack" of using a DSDT to get OSX to recognize your board is no longer necessary.
This is not rocket science, it's installing software on a computer you needn't be particularly tech savvy.
===================
If you deviate from established working systems you will have some issues and that is for the "brave and the bold"
In this part of the thread i agree with Chris and Zaap. I'm recently semi-retired but I've spent many long hours in 20+ story television studios:
as an independent content creator. And lots of other locations (including my bedroom) doing the same.
Macs and hackintoshes are rare in the first place so it's pretty silly to assume most creative types use OS X. I guess it's like 70% windows, 20% OS X, 5% linux and 5% other - generally speaking... Of course while beating the pavement for work I visit 5 or 10 smaller boutiques per week and some of those defy the average - either being all Mac, all SGI, or something else. But generally speaking as I say Windows is the norm - no question about it.
As far as who makes the hardware no one in the industry with any common sense really cares. If it can be shown that the system is stable then its acceptable to implement. If that's a hackintosh then fine - again, no one cares. There's usually plenty of on-site duplication so if your system goes down (weather an HP, Dell, SGI, or DIY) you can be back up and running in just a few minutes (time to get the data over). So this is also a very silly argument: that some brand is preferable over another or over a DIY system.
And I'm not really speaking for myself. If you ask me on a personal level I want my systems to be Macintosh and made by Apple. But when examining the broadcast television industry and post production CG/Video houses working on films there is no such preference from anyone sane enough to keep their jobs for very long. So far what works best in those industries is Windows - and usually running on workstation grade systems. Sure, I dunno, all the employees may go home to their macs but at work it'll be pretty rare to see any Macs running. (not none... just rare).
There's always this self dilution that seems to go with product brands when takling about hardware and software tho. Someone likes Maya or Houdini and when you talk to them; EVERYONE uses it and nothing else is good enough - same for OS X vs Windoze vs Linux, etc. Same with hardware venders too: SGI, Dell, Apple... whatever the user happens to be in love with is all tits and everything else is balls. I guess i do it too to some extent but when I stop and think about it's not very rational.
as an independent content creator. And lots of other locations (including my bedroom) doing the same.
Macs and hackintoshes are rare in the first place so it's pretty silly to assume most creative types use OS X. I guess it's like 70% windows, 20% OS X, 5% linux and 5% other - generally speaking... Of course while beating the pavement for work I visit 5 or 10 smaller boutiques per week and some of those defy the average - either being all Mac, all SGI, or something else. But generally speaking as I say Windows is the norm - no question about it.
As far as who makes the hardware no one in the industry with any common sense really cares. If it can be shown that the system is stable then its acceptable to implement. If that's a hackintosh then fine - again, no one cares. There's usually plenty of on-site duplication so if your system goes down (weather an HP, Dell, SGI, or DIY) you can be back up and running in just a few minutes (time to get the data over). So this is also a very silly argument: that some brand is preferable over another or over a DIY system.
And I'm not really speaking for myself. If you ask me on a personal level I want my systems to be Macintosh and made by Apple. But when examining the broadcast television industry and post production CG/Video houses working on films there is no such preference from anyone sane enough to keep their jobs for very long. So far what works best in those industries is Windows - and usually running on workstation grade systems. Sure, I dunno, all the employees may go home to their macs but at work it'll be pretty rare to see any Macs running. (not none... just rare).
There's always this self dilution that seems to go with product brands when takling about hardware and software tho. Someone likes Maya or Houdini and when you talk to them; EVERYONE uses it and nothing else is good enough - same for OS X vs Windoze vs Linux, etc. Same with hardware venders too: SGI, Dell, Apple... whatever the user happens to be in love with is all tits and everything else is balls. I guess i do it too to some extent but when I stop and think about it's not very rational.
You seem to have a sizable chip on your shoulder about all this, so I can tell it's pointless to respond to you. You make silly assumptions and strawmen that aren't based on anyone's reality but your own, then joust away at your own strawmen, not what anyone is actually telling you. I find that counterproductive.
So moving on...
I'm mainly more in a generic sense curious why the idea of running OSX on non-Apple hardware (of which there's plenty of irrefutable evidence works just fine, so arguing as if it's not possible is just pointless) makes some people lose their minds so much?
Is it that people like to stump for Apple so much they can't stand that some of us have found a way around their hardware monopoly?
Is it that they want to justify having bought a MacPro (which hasn't been updated in FAR too long) and can't stand that others have opted to go a different route and do-it-themselves? Does it make people feel insecure or something?
I just don't quite understand all the irrationalness about it.
For me, tech is all about whatever works, not about blind brand loyalty and nonsense. I know people that are seriously into cars. The very LAST thing they would want is something 'stock' directly from a factory that's just like everyone else's, but something they put time into making just like they want it.
Many of the best directors in Hollywood are hands-on technical types. If the camera system or software package or lighting rig or what-the-heck-ever doesn't exist to achieve what they're going for, many have no problem with modifying or even building their own stuff from the ground up if needed to get what they want.
Many of the innovations are driven by the creative teams dictating back to manufacturers what they're looking for, from stuff they had to make themselves, not just by companies coming out with something and saying "Here, now you figure out what to do with it."
I don't get why people think it's so different when creative types get their hands on computers. Not all, but many DO enjoy doing things themselves. The types that can't function at 4am or whenever without crying to an IT guy to come bail them out don't last long in my business. (And IT people despise that sort anyway, they're usually the ones always breaking something then crying about it.) Those are wankers that maybe should go do spreadsheets in the front office or something. I'm amazed people present that type like that's representative of the shining stars in ANY field. Please.
I think it's due to a lot of things in the case of Apple. It's partly the RDF. It's partly Apple's historical position as an American manufacturer (kinda like Harley), and then just mix whatever personal factors that people so often apply to brands. Defense of personal choice, defense/justification of expenditure, bandwagon brand loyalty, simplification of technological complexities is probably another reason... and so on...
Don't want to get drawn in to the minutiae of this debate, but I have an i72600K machine which was bought for use as a PC but which just happens to make a great Hackintosh as well. I agree with folks on here saying it's no big deal these days to build a Hack, and until Apple make a machine I want to buy again I'm sticking with this way of doing things.
My only concern with the hardware is stability which Hackintoshes have these days. My Hack has been stable for 10 months or so, much faster than my aging 3,1 machine and is now my default computer for day to day, critical paid work. The box is sat underneath my desk out of the way, I don't care what it looks like to be honest.
Personally speaking, it's OS X which is the big draw, and I'll take the most sensible approach towards having it on a powerful workstation. I don't feel bad since I regularly give Apple my money in other ways such as a very expensive Macbook Pro last year, iPhones, iPads, software etc. I don't understand people getting bent out of shape over the Hackintosh scene....Even Apple don't seem that concerned about it as long as it's done quietly by people who aren't looking to profiteer from it....At least it's keeping people in the OS X eco system instead of driving them back to Windows (which would have happened to me had I not found this alternative).
My only concern with the hardware is stability which Hackintoshes have these days. My Hack has been stable for 10 months or so, much faster than my aging 3,1 machine and is now my default computer for day to day, critical paid work. The box is sat underneath my desk out of the way, I don't care what it looks like to be honest.
Personally speaking, it's OS X which is the big draw, and I'll take the most sensible approach towards having it on a powerful workstation. I don't feel bad since I regularly give Apple my money in other ways such as a very expensive Macbook Pro last year, iPhones, iPads, software etc. I don't understand people getting bent out of shape over the Hackintosh scene....Even Apple don't seem that concerned about it as long as it's done quietly by people who aren't looking to profiteer from it....At least it's keeping people in the OS X eco system instead of driving them back to Windows (which would have happened to me had I not found this alternative).
Just want to add.. Even my Gateway P-7805U FX laptop works great with Snow Leopard and Lion, though I use Snow much more because its the best of all the Mac OS X versions bar none.
The only devices that don't work are ethernet and the built in camera and also the card reader. These can all work via the help with USB..
I still can't figure out how come Mountain Lion won't work, and my machine has 8GB DDR3 1066 and uses a Core 2 Extreme 3.06 and its all pure 64-bit.
But Snow and Lion work very well.. and this is all I need.
The only devices that don't work are ethernet and the built in camera and also the card reader. These can all work via the help with USB..
I still can't figure out how come Mountain Lion won't work, and my machine has 8GB DDR3 1066 and uses a Core 2 Extreme 3.06 and its all pure 64-bit.
But Snow and Lion work very well.. and this is all I need.
to answer the OP's original question... i think a mac pro is better than a hackintosh. and i am saying that after having built one recently. i got a "gaming pc" and did not intend to make it into a hackintosh, but i was curious and bored and had time (read: unemployed). lol. anyway, i don't feel bad since i have spent all "big items" on apple products in the last decade, ever since i started earning money:
2003: 12" powerbook, 3rd gen iPod
2007: 20" iMac, 1st gen iphone
2008: ipod shuffle that i lost
2010: hooked up 15" MBP, iphone 3GS
2011: mac mini i7 w/ amd gpu
2012: iphone 4s
2013: hackintosh (had to sell mac mini and ps3)
and numerous accessories like the apple earphones multiple times since i lose them, keyboards, mice, apps, music, etc....
so, yeah, a mac pro is better than my hackintosh and i can admit that. for instance, everything works with a mac pro. out of the box. the build quality of the mac pro case and its components are also excellent. i don't think there is an equivalent in the pc world, in terms, of quality. just like the MBP doesn't have a PC laptop equivalent and the same thing with the iphone with phones.
whatever. for what i do, my hackintosh is not as good as a mac pro, but, it's different
anyway, here is a photo of my desktop and the hackintosh itself:
really proud of the about this mac mod showcasing my actual computer.... the arctic white fractal design r4 case also reminds me of the late 1990's quadra macs, i think.
2003: 12" powerbook, 3rd gen iPod
2007: 20" iMac, 1st gen iphone
2008: ipod shuffle that i lost
2010: hooked up 15" MBP, iphone 3GS
2011: mac mini i7 w/ amd gpu
2012: iphone 4s
2013: hackintosh (had to sell mac mini and ps3)
and numerous accessories like the apple earphones multiple times since i lose them, keyboards, mice, apps, music, etc....
so, yeah, a mac pro is better than my hackintosh and i can admit that. for instance, everything works with a mac pro. out of the box. the build quality of the mac pro case and its components are also excellent. i don't think there is an equivalent in the pc world, in terms, of quality. just like the MBP doesn't have a PC laptop equivalent and the same thing with the iphone with phones.
whatever. for what i do, my hackintosh is not as good as a mac pro, but, it's different
anyway, here is a photo of my desktop and the hackintosh itself:
really proud of the about this mac mod showcasing my actual computer.... the arctic white fractal design r4 case also reminds me of the late 1990's quadra macs, i think.
They certainly don't appear to anything to actively discourage people building a Hackintosh. If they wanted to they could quite easily make it very difficult for OS X to run on non-Apple hardware but they choose not to.
----------
HP Z800 dual Xeon workstation would be the nearest equivalent and is around the same price range too although it has been updated more recently.
You haven't read the usage license ?
Apple expects people to read and either aggree or disagree but respect their request.
They expect some very small fraction to do rogue, Frankenstein experiments in the basement as part of the "lunatic fringe". ( Jobs and Woz build blue boxes before got serious about doing something commercially productive). As long as it is a small fraction and vast majority of folks are doing the right thing they will spend more time catering to those that do than those that don't.
If Hackintosh started to eat into Mac platform growth you'd likely see a change in policy and resource allocation.
If Microsoft and Intel put into place a context of future UEFI firmware that will only run "signed' operating systems, I'm sure Apple will have no problems leveraging that so that OS X only runs well on Apple motherboards and will need more hackery to get booted up on boards that require validatio before boot.
In short, so far more folks are stealing millions more in Microsoft software than Apple software. If Apple leverages whatever Microsoft does and it leads to better, cleaner enforcement of the license agreement they aren't going to loose alot of sleep.
The tricky part is making it difficult for them but have little to no impact on users who are following the rules.
The Mac Pro is between the HP Z800's (820) or Dell 7000's (7600 ) and the HP 600's (620) or Dell 5000's (5600 ).
Apple's Mac Pro attempts to "kill two birds with one stone" and does a decent job of it. Apple isn't going to produce 3-4 different workstation offerings. There aren't even 4 different "desktop" models for the whole Mac line up yet alone a subcategory of "desktop"/"laptop".
At this point have
Mac Mini / iMac / Mac Pro
MBA / MBP / rMBP
there are more variences within the laptop line up with screen size but that market has been growing at a substnatially higher rate. There is little rational reason to "fork" a shrinking or stagnant product segment into even smaller models.
Mac Mini isn't a desktop. It's a laptop in a box without an LCD.
Available as a tablet or "laptop"...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r843NPTd4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFy8OFkHfic
Last edited:
I think the word stealing is an inflammatory one in this instance. Most hackintosh owners I know (myself included) are also mac owners and / or have paid for their OS X license. All the hackintosh guides I've seen have "go to the app store and buy OS X" as step one.
I'm not contesting the fact that there's a license violation happening but let's not get into criminal terminology here. I suspect Apple aren't keen to criminalise a section of their user base either.
Mac Mini isn't a desktop. It's a laptop in a box without an LCD.
Attempt to use the Mac Mini without plugging it in. That is the one of the primary distinctions between the two broad categories of laptop and desktop.
You mean just like they expect people to read those 197 pages of T&Cs for using iTunes? Nobody reads licence agreements.
How is that even remotely an Apple activity? That is a user activity that the user chooses to skip. Apple actively throws their licensing at you even on some minor updates let alone significant upgrades.
No. It is actually more accurate than trying to side track the discussion into criminal theft (which I didn't use) and hand waving about how white collar (civil) crime is not as criminal as felony/misdemeanor crime.
Fire up the English dictionary app on OS X and look up "stealing". Use without permission is part of what the word means.
Paying for the license is not paying for the software (bundled or not with a Mac ).
This is often just a fig leaf. Apple will ignore it longer if folks are paying, but not dong what Apple actually is asking for in the license. As the price comes down though that fig leaf is going to shrink smaller.
That is largely the point though. These folks can't be in the Mac user base if they are not buying Macs.
There is this notion that Apple is really just a software company. They aren't. Nor are they a hardware company. Again not. They sell systems. There is nothing in Apple's discussions or licensing that attempts to decouple the software from the hardware or vice versa.
I wonder... I bet given the resources I could tear a pretty big hole in the current state of things and show that most EULAs (especially Apple's) are not binding at all.
I think it's rather absurd to expect or assume that anyone not part of a legal department actually reads those things. And the law supplies recourse for common usage and reasonable expectations.
Your situation is probably extremely rare. Not many large companies would allow their employees to use or work on non-standard hardware/software configurations such as that. They have an IT department for that.
Can't be bothered to get into a big argument over semantics. You obviously care about this stuff a lot more than I do.
I disagree with pretty much everything you've said though. I think your arguments are all very conformist which is the antithesis of what Apple as a company once stood for.