Jump to content

Zaap

Zaap

Member Since 22 May 2008
Offline Last Active Jan 24 2014 06:32 AM
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: A Thread for "Mac Pro Switchers" (June 2012 Exodus Edition)

15 June 2012 - 07:11 PM

Just for the record - to benefit people that may read this thread, which is all I care about, not some blowhard stroking his ego and barely-desguised Apple fanboi bias- the original question posed was answered. Building some wanna-be copy of a MacPro using Xeon CPU and server-grade hardware IS possible, and fairly easy to accomplish. It's rarely cost-effective as the MacPro is actually a good deal for what it offers. (IE: You can't even get the two 6 core CPUs in the dual MP for the same cost as the entire MP from Apple.) If you need an actual MacPro, get a MacPro.

Beyond that, it's rarely necessarily, as most people, even working pros, don't actually require the dual MP performance, and the single MP performance can easily be surpassed by consumer hardware. (The current single processor MP as of this writing isn't all that hot of a machine, despite any hype otherwise by people blinded by CPU product names and 'server hardware' and such.)

Someone who desires a Hackintosh to do critcal work with can do so with excellent results- I have for the past 4 years now with no regrets. Every day I'm thankful I didn't waste more money on a MacPro which now would be outdated and much slower than my current hardware.

It's misleading though to suggest in every case that one constantly has to deal with system support and maintenance, instability, or rely on hacked and patched drivers. . For the record- this doesn't have to be the experience at all if you stick with tried and tested hardware. The goal is to be as native as possible, if not 100% native, and you can easily achieve this by using hardware that has full support.

One has to understand that actual Mac hardware isn't anything all that special. Apple doesn't make any of it themselves- they use commissioned motherboards from Foxconn, chipsets and CPU from Intel, graphics from ATI, nVidia or Intel, etc. etc. All the crucial components like audio, networking, I/O and such are all third party. The best Hackintoshes simply have the right combination of the exact same components Apple uses, and therefore for which drivers already exist. So one doesn't need to rely solely on the OSx86 community for support with these since native support exists, rather just for information on how best to set things up.

If a person wants to build a Hack for work, they need to understand this. Right now, if one wants to build an IvyBridge system for example, then yes, you're going to be relying on community support, because Apple has only just started to build in native support, as most current Macs aren't yet IvyBridge. But one can easily build a Sandybridge system where every component has a natively supported driver. (Eventually, IvyBridge will have this too).

If you're the type that typically has never relied heavily on tech support for your computers, you can read and follow instructions, aren't a know-it-all wanker, and doesn't run to Geek Squad or Apple Care every time something needs to be figured out, then you can easily build and maintain a Hackintosh and use it for critical work. If you're the type that can't fathom cracking a case, has a bias toward DIY because you believe the magic Apple fairies watch over the same hardware branded by someone else, and break out in a sweat without being under a full warranty by whoever made your computer (and definitely if you're a shill for one box-maker or another) then you should stay far, far away from Hackintoshing.

In Topic: Is Hackintosh scene nearing its end , judging from the new MBP?

14 June 2012 - 12:21 AM

I heard this same silly notion when the iPad first came out. (Yeah, I wasn't sure what it had to do with anything either.)

"OMG! The Hackintosh is dead because you can't build an iPad!" Huh? Why would I want to build an iPad and what has that got to do with my desktop Hack anyway?

Now I guess it's going to be "The Hackintosh is dead because every single Mac user will instantly have a brand new top of the line MacBook with retina display and your dual monitor Hackintosh with full sized graphic card will be obsolete overnight!" Yes, of course, that's EXACTLY what will happen.

Why would it make sense that Apple could even if they wanted to drop support for 100% of the existing Mac user base to the point where it would affect me building a Hackintosh? It's awesome that Apple does things first a lot of times, but by the time it even remotely approaches enough people using retina display Macs to drop support for current applications using current resolutions, it'll be the industry standard and the Hackintosh will have moved on to match. Probably (following the usual pattern) with a much greater choice of hardware, for less money.

The new MacBook is awesome, but let's not get carried away It'll take years before even a fraction of Apple's user base has this kind of hardware and like I said, by then everyone else will likely have followed suit.

Also as for this "Apple could kill Hackintoshing anytime they wanted' stuff- the dirty little secret is that Apple can only do what they've been doing, placing restrictions on the OSX install media they sell to only officially work on their own hardware. Once that's been bypassed by OSx86 install methods, there's nothing else they can do. It's a myth that they could throw some magically kill switch and 'kill everybody's hack'. The truth is,'Apple hardware' isn't magical. It's really just the same stuff we're all using, with custom motherboards in a package designed by Apple. Any dreamed-of kill switch would kill most real Macs as well!

And even though they don't encourage Hackintoshing, Apple knows damne well they make a lot of money off of it, and definitely leverages the installed base as OSX users. They'd be insane not to, there's no upshot for them in not wanting to show they have as many users as they actually do. Of course they'd rather everyone buy iMacs and Minis, but the reality is, they also like selling the OS at $30 a pop (and any fool doing simple accounting of the bottom line could figure out they're selling copies beyond what lines up with the number of compatible Macs sold) and they're more than happy to sell software/peripherals/iPhones/iPads and eventually MacBooks etc. once people start to like OSX. Even if it was possible, Apple's not really interested in shutting down OSx86, or else they'd move selling OSX to a serial-only system tied to only the hardware they sell.

In Topic: A Thread for "Mac Pro Switchers" (June 2012 Exodus Edition)

13 June 2012 - 11:27 PM

Pretty much you're a classic example of the mindset I touched on. You just want to rant about MacPros and 'Xeons' and 'high end' hardware and other things, without hearing anything that's being said.

Seen it all before. At the heart of it, it's simple: you're someone that feels threatened because my $800 machine rivals what you wasted $4,000 on. The truth is, just to babble on the internet, check a few emails, and be a shill for Apple, you didn't even need to spend $800. A $150 used emachine would suit you.

I'm all for helping people that are serious about Hackintoshes. Don't have time for the wankers going "I know all about what you've been doing for years, even though I've never done it! Mac Pro! Xeon! Blahhh!"

Go buy a MacPro then. For you, a Hackintosh is merely a hobby, because you don't approach things willing to learn anything, rather you form a preconcieved notion based on FUD, and then react to everything accordingly. That's not the type that should even attempt something like a Hack, it requires paying attention, learning a few things, and not acting like a know-it-all-prick ranting about Xeons and such.

Don't presume to tell others that "it's just a hobby" when you don't have a clue what anyone else does with their computer. Your pretense to be asking a question because you actually want an answer- but really you're just here to {censored} on about the MacPro- Just proves you're a noob with a chip on your shoulder. Personally, I don't have much time for that, so have a nice time with whatever hardware you waste your money on, but don't waste my time with it.

In Topic: A Thread for "Mac Pro Switchers" (June 2012 Exodus Edition)

13 June 2012 - 05:55 PM

We see this ever so often in the Hackintosh world, people taking the MacPro comparison a little too literally and in the meantime missing the whole point of a Hackintosh in the first place. Getting caught up with processor brand names (Xeon sounds so cool, doesn't it? That must make it faster/better than everything else automagically!) is part of missing the point.

First things to understand: most of the MacPros sold are not the $4,000+ dual six core Xeon models, rather its the single $2,400 quad core model. But you'll notice that whenever this little debate comes up, stats and prices start to slide around all over the place and almost inevitably someone arguing from the Apple-hardware side will mix up the entry level $2,400 type MacPro with the stats of the $4k plus model, with the inference "See! You can't build a dual Xeon Hackintosh for less than a MacPro!"

Well of course you can't! Nor can you buy one from Apple at the entry level price either.

Second thing to understand: most people, including a lot of working pros, not just people that {censored} around with computers and tally up stats they never use, don't actually NEED a dual processor workstation with sever hardare (Xeons, ECC RAM). For people that just use a computer for average use, wasting $4k+ on a system is insane. One can build 4 or 5 decent Hacintoshes for that amount of money.

Third: the whole point of Hackintoshing isn't to out-do Apple's top of the line dual CPU MacPro. It's not to remake what Apple already makes. It's to make what Apple DOESN'T make: a decent full-sized, non-All-in-one tower PC that runs OSX, for a pricetag well less than the entry level MacPro, let alone the high end MacPro.

I do video editing for a living- a high end task that requires a very capable machine, and even I don't actually need dual 6 core Xeons to get my work done quickly. I don't need a 4k+ machine for that. (Sure, it would be NICE, but it's not a requirement).

So my current machine -a decent Sandybridge system- cost me $800. That's with a 2600k, 16GB of DDR3, a better graphic card than I'd get with ANY MacPro (Radeon 6870 1GB DDR5) an SSD boot drive, etc.

It blazes through my video editing tasks much faster than the 2010 model single CPU MacPro I have at work. (And by the way, there isn't a newer model) That machine's older Xeon doesn't best a more modern 2600k CPU for the tasks I do. What people fail to understand is Xeons and ECC server memory are actually slightly slower than their desktop counterparts due to the redundant microcode they use. They are built for workstation/server stability more than speed. So just because the name Xeon sounds really cool- it doesn't do squat to actually get anything done faster for me, and it does even less for my wallet.

Now of course the dual Xeon 12 core MacPro would beat the heck out of my Sandybridge, but then we're talking a 4k+ system vs. $800. I would sure hope you'd get more speed once you spend FIVE TIMES the amount on your hardware!

So put things in perspective. I spent FIVE TIMES less on my system than one I don't really need. I spent exactly around THREE TIMES less than the entry level MacPro that won't actually do my work any faster, in fact, just a slight bit slower due to the lesser graphics, slower RAM/older CPU.

I could build 3 of the same machine and pit all 3 of them against the entry MacPro, or FIVE of my machines against the dual CPU MacPro! If we were talking about a small movie production or system, you're damned straight I'd rather have redundant machines splitting the workload, than one supposedly 'better' machine that'd get tied down during tasks like rendering.

As for the whole stability thing: this has been hashed over a million times. My original Hackintosh that I built in 2008 ran Leopard 10.5.1 to start with. I swapped the motherboard and CPU once since 2008, upgraded to more RAM, etc. but that machine ran every single version of OSX from 10.5.1 to 10.7.3 FLAWLESSLY. In all that time, it was never once out of commission. I edited hundreds of hours of footage on it. Stability was never a problem.

I don't even understand the question about it 'staying put' for long periods of time. Most people who have been building and using Hackintoshes know that this is rarely if ever a problem. If you have say, 10.7.3 running stable on your Hack, and you never touch Software Update, it'll stay running 10.7.3 perfectly forever. The only thing that would change that is somehow your kexts or system files getting corrupted- but that'd be the same thing on any 'real' Mac. So long as your harddrive maintains data integrity, then an installed stable system isn't suddenly going to become unstable for no reason. I'm not really even sure what would cause that to happen.

Updates are where problems can come in, not 'not updating'. New updates can sometimes introduce incompatible kext files (drivers) that your Hack depends on to run. Sometimes a kernel change can be an issue until there's a workaround. Most of us who've come to rely on our Hacks know this, expect it, and always are cautious about updates. I never run an untested update on my main system partitions, I always test them on a backup partition. In all the updates since 10.5.1, there haven't been but a handful that were crucial to me. IE: I'm currently running 10.7.3 and there's absolutely NOTHING that 10.7.4 will add to my machine that makes it worth jumping through hoops to update to.

The only one I can recall that made an actual difference to anything, was 10.6.6 which I believe introduced the Apple App Store.

So anyway, building and using a Hackintosh is all about understanding the pros and cons. The pros are clearly price and virtually unlimited hardware choice. I can choose from a wide range of graphic cards as well. I don't need to spend at least $2,400 just to have the advantages of a full tower machine.

Far from just emulating building a MacPro, I can build cheap task-built Macs with most of these advantages, and an extremely low price. (My own record is a $300 mini-Mac that we use as a kitchen PC).

The cons are that system Updates can be a hassle sometimes, and upgrading a full version of OSX can be a PITA. But once you have a stable OS, you're generally good to go.

Also, one can't just use ANY hardware. The people having the most trouble with Hackintoshes are those that just buy any old motherboard and expect it to work. (Exactly the problem, as stated, if you just buy some machine from Dell or HP or whoever.) Not only won't the motherboards likely be hackable, but the graphic cards won't either. This is also generally the problem with most PC laptops and Hackintoshing. If you really want good results, you MUST choose compatible parts and follow a good guide. There's no shortage of either, so people that fux this up mainly have only themselves to blame.

One last thing: If one really WANTS to, you CAN actually build a dual Xeon Hackintosh, there are several known dual CPU motherboards that work. It's generally not all that cost-effective though, as the final pricetag will probably end up close to or even more than the 4k you'll spend getting a dual CPU machine from Apple. Again, I'd say most people don't even really need a machine with such hardware, it's mainly just for bragging rights if you're spending anywhere near 4k on a Hackintosh.

In Topic: Computer Building Questions

05 June 2012 - 07:05 AM

Motherboard seems pretty outdated.
$641 for that CPU? Why?

Personally, I would look into a newer/more cost effective SandyBridge build.

Also if you're planning to dual boot using just that one hard drive, I'd say save yourself the headache and get two 6Gb/s 1TB drives.

As for setup, look into kakewalk or tonymacx86.
© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy