Jump to content

What would get me off a Hackintosh...


xienze
 Share

28 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I have to say, in the past two years or so Apple has made some really good moves. When the original Mac Mini was released, it actually made me consider buying an Apple product (a computer that is -- I already had an iPod). I pondered it for a while, and took the plunge. Apple had finally released something with an agreeable price (this was when the base model was $499). Hurrah.

 

While it was a lot of fun getting some real experience with my own Mac, I eventually sold it off because it was just too slow, even after a RAM upgrade. I'm sure the new Minis are much nicer obviously.

 

But my biggest problem with Apple is that they just don't cater to people like me, who are "power users" that don't want to buy low-end {censored} and scoff at paying outrageous sums of money for overpowered hardware. I want to be able to upgrade my video card, hard drive, and/or CPU. I don't want integrated graphics because it eats away at my RAM. But at the same time, I don't want to buy a Mac Pro which costs, at a minimum, $2500.

 

There's just no in-between, and it bugs the hell out of me. It's the reason I'm using a Hackintosh. The Mac Mini is just too low-end for me (although, as I've noted, I think that's changing somewhat with the new Minis) and, while the Mac Pro is the kind of machine I'm looking for (upgradeable), there's no way in hell I'd ever drop $2500 at one time on a computer, much less one that doesn't come with a display.

 

Sure, there's the iMacs, but the cheaper ones come with integrated graphics, and (even worse), an integrated monitor. No thanks.

 

Why can't Apple just release a line of Macs that complement the Mini? Sell it as just a case with some basic (but upgradeable!) hardware in it. I would instantly hand over $800-$1000 (that's about where I draw the line) for something like that, provided the hardware wasn't too barebones (i.e., we're talking a C2D processor, 1GB RAM, 7300 GT graphics card, etc.).

 

Until then, I'll have to stick with the Hackintosh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Mac Pro isn't overpriced. You are talking quad core processing there. You CAN configure it and get the Mac Pro down to $2000, but if you want a mac that is configurable then you need to get a Pro. Then again, you CAN go for a PowerPC PowerMac. The only issue is with a PowerPC chip, like my iBook, you can NOT run Parallels, Crossover, or Windows on it. You can upgrade stuff on it and such. Though the only thing on the old PowerMacs is they are AGP and AGP cards are going away. Big question: DO YOU GAME ON WINDOWS/PC? If you do, then I would strongly suggest to go Mac Pro. That rig is so awesome for gaming. OR, you could keep you gaming rig and get a PowerMac and tweak all you want and have OS X on the mac and windows free. Either way, if you are considering this, like I did, DO something. I got an iBook cause I like to computer and do what I need to do anywhere and then I have my pc at home. *shrugs* works for me. I hope you find something you like.

 

EDIT: Here you go:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Powermac-G4-DUAL...1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Dual chip to. Oh I agree and mid tower system is what Apple needs.

Edited by sandmanfvrga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I understand that there's a lot under the Mac Pro's hood, but the fact remains that I don't want that much horepower, at least not right away. It's just too much money upfront. I've never dumped more than $1000 or so into a single machine over the course of its life so there's no way I'd blow $2000-$2500 at one time for a computer. Plus, FB-DIMMS? Get real. Talk about overkill for someone who just wants an upgradeable desktop.

 

Hopefully Apple will come to their senses about making the Mac mid-tower. I'm thinking perhaps now that the Mac Mini "experiment" has been a success, maybe they'll try their hand at making the kind of machine I'm looking for.

 

And trust me, my Hackintosh blows away any G4/G5-based Mac (and they can't run Windows), so I wouldn't even bother with one of those things...

Edited by xienze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with both of you , I'd love to see a single processor upgradable Mac (Mac SemiPro). The price of the MacPro is not an issue for me other than I just can't afford it and I have put a bit of money into my current Hackintosh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember right, the G4 Cube was somewhat upgradeable. Unfortunately it was a huge flop. Now that Macs are Intel and starting to take hold of the PC market, it might be wise to bring it (or something similar) back.

It was small and stylish like the Mac Mini (which is considered the evolution of the G4 cube), but it also capable of RAM, HDD, video card, and (unofficial) CPU upgrades. If it were Intel, I'd say it would be exactly what you need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of you STOP complaining about Apple's prices. The 24" iMac costs $1999hat means the 24" iMac takes about $1000 to make. Apple gets about 50-55% of that, so about $1000-1100. That is good compared to Dells 60-65% and HPs 55-60%. If HP made a computer that costs $1000 to make, it would cost $2200-2300.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why cant Apple release a MacPro with Core 2 Duo Processors??? Seriously, I dont need XEON power, also I guess it would reduce prices. A single Core2Duo would be even better. They could probably call it a MacDesk or DeskMac or some retarded name like that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Core2Duo's are not SMP capable thats why the use Xeon. A single Core2Dou MacPro would be awesome!

 

My hackintosh has not crashed on me once and that with 2.4 GHz cpu overclocked to 3.4 GHz. 100% stability is already in my hands.

 

I will never buy an iMac. Never so the price is an issue where the only Mac I would consider buying is a Mac Pro. Hmmm wonder how much I have in my 401k... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never buy an iMac. Never so the price is an issue where the only Mac I would consider buying is a Mac Pro. Hmmm wonder how much I have in my 401k... :tomato:

 

So I am not the only one who wouldn't buy an iMac.

 

Sooner or later Mr S.J. will have to cater for people like us, if he doesn't want to disappoint a large number of potential customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I am not the only one who wouldn't buy an iMac.

 

Sooner or later Mr S.J. will have to cater for people like us, if he doesn't want to disappoint a large number of potential customers.

 

If my needs were strictly web/email an iMac (as well as a Mini) would work but I do music. I know a lot of people run Logic Pro on an iMac but I need something with expandability and some future proofing ( :tomato: yeah I know). Its because of Logic that I even got into a hackintosh. It was one of the few DAW programs I had not tried. I was feed up with the choices on Windows and having dumped a good big of money into my Windows rig, I figured if I could get OS X running then I would try Logic.

 

Well I got it running, tried Logic Express and loved it for the most part then bought Logic Pro to get the features I was needing.

 

If I could get a desktop Mac that was expandable for around $1500, I would do it.

 

Well sorry for the rant.... just bored at work :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering the same thing since the Mac Pro Xeon was announced. Apart from expandability, quality/price ratio etc I also tried to imagine what's easier for me to bear if a part craps out - to send the Mac in not caring what's wrong and have Apple deal with it or troubleshoot a Hac myself, buy a new part or RMA the faulty one, assemble it myself etc. As for desktop the choice was not as easy as for laptop. The last laptop I bought was a Macbook (actually my wife did after her Toshiba died from spontaneous combustion :mellow:) and we don't regret it so far. Since OSX86 though I reckon generic DIY machines (assuming you choose your hardware wisely) demand less effort to set up for native multi-booting OSX and Linux distros (well yea... Windows too anyway but I live in an M$-free zone for quite some time now).

Edited by solaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hackintosh has not crashed on me once and that with 2.4 GHz cpu overclocked to 3.4 GHz. 100% stability is already in my hands.

Well, my PowerBook never crashed in 4 years (the multilanguage message), it hanged a very few times, that I can count with my fingers, and a few more of the beachball of death.

 

Also my OC'ed Hackintosh crashed only at new installations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from, a mid tower is a niche market Apple needs to get into.

 

But those G4's and G5's can do MUCH more than you think my friend. Trust me. :(

 

yup

 

they can do just about everything a hackintosh can do plus 100% support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xienze, you don't know what you are talking about. No offense. The G5 PowerMacs we have in advertising here fly. Now I know technically they are "not as fast in benchmark tests" but when you say "not very quickly", then why do you think they still sell on ebay for alot and get snatched up? G5's and G4's still can run alot of apps, really fast and are still used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I say that because I had a G4 Mac Mini. It was really slow.

 

My Hackintosh is a C2D 1.83Ghz, 2GB PC6400 DDR2, Nvidia 7600GT, SATA 3Gb/s drives, etc. I'm pretty sure it'll blow the doors off any G4 you put it up against. For that matter, any Intel Mac you can buy today will do the same. Take a look at the average XBench scores for G4s versus even the Minis. No comparison. I'm sure they're still decent, capable systems and affordable, but let's face it, they don't compare to even today's low-end Macs. G5 machines come a little closer, but my 133+ XBench score beats the average of the PowerMac G5s and, checking EBay just now, my machine cost less to put together. So G4s and G5s just don't seem worth it to me, from a price/performance perspective. I'm not knocking on anyone's machines -- if you have one and are happy with it, that's great. They just don't do it for me, especially considering that you can't use Parallels on them.

 

Hence, my desire for Apple to come out with an affordable Intel tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I say that because I had a G4 Mac Mini. It was really slow.

 

My Hackintosh is a C2D 1.83Ghz, 2GB PC6400 DDR2, Nvidia 7600GT, SATA 3Gb/s drives, etc. I'm pretty sure it'll blow the doors off any G4 you put it up against. For that matter, any Intel Mac you can buy today will do the same. Take a look at the average XBench scores for G4s versus even the Minis. No comparison. I'm sure they're still decent, capable systems and affordable, but let's face it, they don't compare to even today's low-end Macs. G5 machines come a little closer, but my 133+ XBench score beats the average of the PowerMac G5s and, checking EBay just now, my machine cost less to put together. So G4s and G5s just don't seem worth it to me, from a price/performance perspective. I'm not knocking on anyone's machines -- if you have one and are happy with it, that's great. They just don't do it for me, especially considering that you can't use Parallels on them.

 

Hence, my desire for Apple to come out with an affordable Intel tower.

 

 

I think you're neglecting the fact that a G4 MacMini is like a bottom of the totem pole e-machine, or comparable wal-mart brand when it comes to performace. Just think about this. The G4 has been around how long compared to your Core2Duo? I mean, honestly, the comparison there really just isn't fair. Comparing the G4 to the G5 is no different than comparing the C2D to the P4.

 

I've personally been running on a 1.33 GHZ G4 for almost two years now. It's survived a deployment to Iraq, and still keeps on ticking. Like mac-girl, I love the fact that my computer is extremely stable, and I can count on one hand the number of times it's crashed or hanged so I had to re-start. I think you're neglecting what has made apple so easy and user friendly.

 

Apple's are some of the easiest computers to use BECAUSE of, not despite the fact that they aren't easily upgradeable. Tearing apart a computer, and throwing 80 new components at it, installing conflicting drivers. . .all of that adds to OS instability, which is half the reason why I STILL get that damned blue screen of death in windows XP sometimes on my desktop. So, I don't remember where I was really going with this, but I guess that's what happens when you start venting. Anyway, thanks for reading :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I had a G4 Mac Mini one time off ebay (one time I tried Mac and got rid of it) and my G4 iBook blows it away. It just was a slow model. I think I read the hard drives were slow, etc etc. The machine was nice, but all in all it was slow SOMEWHERE and I couldn't put my finger on it. I got the 1.25 ghz model and 512 ram. Now I know 512 makes it slow when you run alot of apps, but internet browser and ichat wasn't alot. I mean when I do things on my iBook, they just run fast and it gets done. If I run things (click on apps all at the same time) they all load and load fast. The G4 Mac Mini's were just slow, and I think it was when Apple was trying with IBM's chips to make a cheaper computer. Also my friend at work has a PowerBook 12 inch G4 and it flies. His ram is only 768 megs so me having 1.5 gigs doesn't make mine faster due to ram since his is close the 512 I ran on the Mac Mini. I think the Mac Mini G4's were just slow and you had a bad opinion of them like I did. I think the hard drives were slow (know from experience), the bus wasn't as fast on memory and the chips.

Edited by sandmanfvrga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...