Build Your Own Mac for $199

I just told Mashugly about this on IRC so I'll post it here because it's funny as hell.

Consider that it's a $199.66 PC that can run OSx86 - now consider that with a slight modification the price could come down and you could boost the CPU speed by almost 700 MHz.

How?

Check it:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...79398&CatId=191

After rebates that package is $49.99 and includes a mobo that you could keep as a spare but it's got a Celeron D running at 2.93 GHz - that's the kicker to this deal. Of course you'd have to put out $129.99 for the thing first then get the rebates (hopefully) but...

It would bring the cost of the "Hackintosh" down about another $12 roughly... soooo...

Funny stuff we're working on, ain't it?

Have fun, always...

bb

CEpeep.. That name rings a bell from somewhere.

CEpeep, recall UniTY?

I have one of those Lope cases and they are really nice and have a lot of drive expansion slots for a mini-tower. It's fairly stylish and the hard drive cover is a nice touch to hide your mismatched drive color faces.

Has anyone actually purchased this board to test if all the chipsets are supported? GMA,Sound,Lan?

If you want the bare minimum, OS X Tiger only requires 256 MB of RAM, so you might be able to squeeze out another $20. By the way, Intel just cut the prices on the 6XX series of Pentiums which include the 630 that looks likes the best performer per dollar in the Pentium P4 line.

Intel yesterday pruned the prices of its Pentium 4 6xx processor series by up to 34 per cent. The cuts had been expected.

The EM64T-enabled single-core CPUs all feature 2MB of L2 cache and support the customary 800MHz frontside bus speed. They are fabbed at 90nm.

 

 

All five 6xx-class processors had their prices cut. The 3.8GHz 670 fell from $851 to $605, a fall of 28.9 per cent. The 3.6GHz 660 was cut to $401, 33.7 per cent off its previous price, $605. The 3.4GHz 650 now costs $273, down from $401, a cut of 31.9 per cent. The 3.2GHz 640 dropped 20.2 per cent, from $273 to $218. And the 3GHz 630 now costs $178, down 20.5 per cent from $224.

The rest of the chip giant's price list remained unchanged. Intel most recently cut its prices at the start of the month, when it knocked up to 13.6 per cent off the price of selected Celeron D processors. Its Centrino bundle prices were also trimmed, to reflect the addition of a pair of new Pentium M processors, the 780 and 778, to the line-up.

CEpeep.. That name rings a bell from somewhere.

 

CEpeep, recall UniTY?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. MMORPG-Net.

Has anyone actually purchased this board to test if all the chipsets are supported? GMA,Sound,Lan?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Everything is supported.

Yep.  MMORPG-Net.

Yes.  Everything is supported.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. Small world.

If you want the bare minimum, OS X Tiger only requires 256 MB of RAM, so you might be able to squeeze out another $20.  By the way, Intel just cut the prices on the 6XX series of Pentiums which include the 630 that looks likes the best performer per dollar in the Pentium P4 line.

 

Intel yesterday pruned the prices of its Pentium 4 6xx processor series by up to 34 per cent. The cuts had been expected.

The EM64T-enabled single-core CPUs all feature 2MB of L2 cache and support the customary 800MHz frontside bus speed. They are fabbed at 90nm.

All five 6xx-class processors had their prices cut. The 3.8GHz 670 fell from $851 to $605, a fall of 28.9 per cent. The 3.6GHz 660 was cut to $401, 33.7 per cent off its previous price, $605. The 3.4GHz 650 now costs $273, down from $401, a cut of 31.9 per cent. The 3.2GHz 640 dropped 20.2 per cent, from $273 to $218. And the 3GHz 630 now costs $178, down 20.5 per cent from $224.

The rest of the chip giant's price list remained unchanged. Intel most recently cut its prices at the start of the month, when it knocked up to 13.6 per cent off the price of selected Celeron D processors. Its Centrino bundle prices were also trimmed, to reflect the addition of a pair of new Pentium M processors, the 780 and 778, to the line-up.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/15/intel_p4_price_cuts/

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are all of these cpus supported?

I just purchased all of those parts. I hope everything will work.

Are you able to install OS X native with the developer DVD and no modifications, or do you still have to use a method to put the OS X image on the drive?

And assuming the system runs real well, are the chances good it won't be fairly difficult to get the OSX X86 retail version (when released) up and running on this?

And assuming the system runs real well, are the chances good it won't be fairly difficult to get the OSX X86 retail version (when released) up and running on this?

It's people actually being SERIOUS about such questions that really make my day.

Oh yeah, and in fact, Apple will set up a special sub-division just to support kiddies pirating their OS on non-Apple hardware.

Dream on.

he asks a fair question... nobody is certain what kind of protection Apple will use in the final release.

it might be cracked as easy as the Dev Kits.... or could be a total nightmare getting it working.... only time will tell.

he never asked if Apple would support his hacked copy u douchebag

How about someone tell us how to get MAC OS X x86 that's the most necessary part of this equation. Hit me on my email or something. I heard of cracked version, but still don't believe it. It's like bigfoot or the Lochnest Monster in my book.

I forget, is there a patched copy of the Dev kit that can install to thic computer directly? And as far as speed-wise, does OSX run all right? Can't check at the moment (Damn filters) but is that a processor with SSE3 (Original or br0adband's link)?

And I think it couldn't hurt to spend $15 more to get an 80 GB HDD from Fry's. If you get the processor listed in br0adband's post it almost comes out even again.

Are all of these cpus supported?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, they are all the "socket 775" type.

It's people actually being SERIOUS about such questions that really make my day.

 

Oh yeah, and in fact, Apple will set up a special sub-division just to support kiddies pirating their OS on non-Apple hardware.

 

Dream on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, if you lawfully purchase a copy of Apple's OSx86 when it is released to the public, it may be perfectly legal to modify it as necessary to get it to work on your own generic PC computer. Of course, we can expect Apple to make a legal case out of this issue in the USA.

True.

While loads of integrator-candidates went really low-ball with their configurations, I targeted the existing Mac mini...and wound up building practically an anti-mini for about the price of the high-end mini ($899.99 USD, including shipping; all parts are from Newegg; http://www.newegg.com)

Antec Lifestyle SONATA II mid-tower ATX case (includes Antec 450W PSU) - $99

Lite-ON SOHW-1639 DL DVD Burner - Black (2) - OEM - $87.98

Maxtor DiamondMax 10 80 GB PATA ATA-133 HDD - OEM - $58

Microsoft Wired Desktop (USB-PS/2 keyboard and mouse package - Black) - $32

Corsair XMS DDR2-800 240-pin DIMM (512 MB x 2) - $218

ASUS P5GDC-V Deluxe LGA775 motherboard (Intel 915G chipset) - Retail - $151

Intel P4 540J (3.2 GHz) LGA775 CPU (Retail, with fan) - $214.50

The entire system is slavishly to specs of the x86 Development Platform except that I used a slower processor, and went with dual MegaDrives (unlike the SuperDrive of the Mac mini, the matched Lite-Ons both read and write to dual-layer media) and went with a gigabite of DDR2 (the motherboard supports both DDR and DDR2, so I didn't sacrifice anything). I am confident in the system I designed, because I stuck to the known working components.

Actually, if you lawfully purchase a copy of Apple's OSx86 when it is released to the public, it may be perfectly legal to modify it as necessary to get it to work on your own generic PC computer.  Of course, we can expect Apple to make a legal case out of this issue in the USA.

Okay, let's stop dreaming here, shall we?

While, certainly, there is a utopian possibility that Apple will change their EULA to allow users to freely modify the OS (Why would they do that, tell me?), it is far more likely that the license will remain in place as it is right now, which does not permit any modifications to the product - the use of which Apple only licenses to you.

But, let's go one further step down the track of reality (as harsh and unpleasant as it may seem), but why exactly would you be able to 'lawfully purchae a copy of Apple's OSx86"? Currently, the only reason you can currently purchase OS X as a consumer product, in stores, is in order to provide earlier an upgrade path to earlier users of OS X, on older platforms (2-3 years old, but usually being cut-off at 2 years).

The first intel based Macs will be shipping (or, 'available') on June 6th, 2006, during MacWorld - these will all have OSx86 included, and pre-installed (as is common). This will hypothetically be OS X 10.5 (Leopard), which is the first REAL version of OS X to support the intel platform.

Since there will be no 'older' Macs out there on intel, needing OS X 10.5 (the intel variant), there is absolutely no reason for Apple to ship a copy of OS X that supports intel, as a consumer porduct. Mind you, there will be tons of legacy PowerPC users that want to upgrade to 10.5 - but those upgrade kits have no practical and reasonable need to support intel processors, now would they?

Thus, all Apple needs to do in order to undercut arguments such as yours, is to make sure that when OS X 10.5 ships as a consumer product, that it only support PowerPC and NOT intel. Easy enough.

Thus, we are left with the only installation DVDs that come with the shipping hardware - and chance are these are pretty much married to that hardware (as most recent disks shipping with new hardware are).

Lastly, if by your own argument it is perfectly legal to make such mods, why would Apple make a legal case out of it? Fact is, no matter what one ends up doing in order to get 10.5 to run on generic hardware, you will end up being on shky legal ground (i.e. it will not be lawful to do so, as you would be in violation of a private contract). This isn't to say that people won't try (bless them), and it's not to say that it will be impossible (heck, I'm banking that someone will figure out on some way to make it happen, under very controlled circumstances), but PLEASE, stop creating unrealistic hypothetical scenarios, like claiming perfect legality of being able to modify the shipping product such -- yeah, and monkeys will fly out of my ass.

he asks a fair question... nobody is certain what kind of protection Apple will use in the final release.

 

it might be cracked as easy as the Dev Kits.... or could be a total nightmare getting it working.... only time will tell.

Speculation is all fine and dandy, but can I at least expect for it to be grounded in reality, and applied with a minimum of common sense?

I think it is not unrealistic to assume that:

- Apple has left hardware protection on the dev kit deliberately weak, both because they were in a rush, but also because having 10.4 leak into the wild was not going to be a deal-breaker of any sorts.

- That Apple also had a vested interest in seeing how fast this would happen, and what methods would be employed in the liberation of OSx86.

- That they are so unconcerned (again, I'd like to point out the lack of legal threats) indicates further that the final hardware and Mac configuration will be very different from what is shipping now, and that the dev kits will be useless by then (which is another reason why they need to be returned)

None of this is rocket science, or fortune telling -- I've been tracking Apple for over 20 years, and this is all in keeping with their standard M.O.

Could you please provide the required MoBo and processor from that cheapest one to a 400, 500, 600 US$ ones ?

Thanks,

Since there will be no 'older' Macs out there on intel, needing OS X 10.5 (the intel variant), there is absolutely no reason for Apple to ship a copy of OS X that supports intel, as a consumer porduct.

I'm sure Leopard will be released with fat binary files. Otherwise maintaining and supporting of several code bases will be a nightmare for Apple.

Is it only Socket 755 type processors that work? Can I run it on my Athlon 64 3500+ (Socket 939)?

Also, any possibility of a dual-boot? I laready have grub so could I slot it in there if I installed on a lone drive and then put that drive into my grub system?

Regards,

Kev

Edit: Also, I'm having problems installing this under VMWare. Once Darwin is completely installed I reboot and get a message saying that it can't read the HFS file system. anyone else have this problem?

Okay, don't worry. Both my questions were answered elsewhere:

Yes, it works on all chipsets and yes it is possible to Dual-Boot.

KP

Okay, don't worry. Both my questions were answered elsewhere:

 

Yes, it works on all chipsets and yes it is possible to Dual-Boot.

 

KP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yea, for me i just hit F8 on boot and pick the drive i installed it on. definitely sluggish on an athlon 64 3000+ though, I guess the intel chipset etc makes a big difference..

If I buy this, can I run all OSX software with Rosetta? The CPU is SSE3??

Thanks,

SeBsZ

P.S. I like that case! :>

While, certainly, there is a utopian possibility that Apple will change their EULA to allow users to freely modify the OS (Why would they do that, tell me?), it is far more likely that the license will remain in place as it is right now, which does not permit any modifications to the product - the use of which Apple only licenses to you.

The issue here is the enforceability of the EULA, this is hardly settled in the USA and will not be until the Surpreme Court hears such a case. Furthermore, it would appear that the EULA is not enforceable in numerous jurisdictions with the USA.

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court that the case is heard in. Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license have found them to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. Step-Saver (939 F.2d 91)—see, for instance, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), and Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu).

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "license" and "not sold" arguments, while most other circuits do not. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that's passed UCITA.

Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages to make it impossible for a user to install the software without agreeing to the license or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and foreign counterparts.

Of course, we should expect the EU to be more liberal with customer's rights and most less developed jurisdictions to totally ignore something like a EULA (or copyright for that matter).

But, let's go one further step down the track of reality (as harsh and unpleasant as it may seem), but why exactly would you be able to 'lawfully purchae a copy of Apple's OSx86"? Currently, the only reason you can currently purchase OS X as a consumer product, in stores, is in order to provide earlier an upgrade path to earlier users of OS X, on older platforms (2-3 years old, but usually being cut-off at 2 years).

 

The first intel based Macs will be shipping (or, 'available') on June 6th, 2006, during MacWorld - these will all have OSx86 included, and pre-installed (as is common). This will hypothetically be OS X 10.5 (Leopard), which is the first REAL version of OS X to support the intel platform.

 

Since there will be no 'older' Macs out there on intel, needing OS X 10.5 (the intel variant), there is absolutely no reason for Apple to ship a copy of OS X that supports intel, as a consumer porduct. Mind you, there will be tons of legacy PowerPC users that want to upgrade to 10.5 - but those upgrade kits have no practical and reasonable need to support intel processors, now would they?

You seem to be ignoring a few facts here. To begin with, the first x86 Macs will be shipping with Tiger (OS X 10.4). We know this because Steve made it plain that they will be released "before" the 2006 World Wide Developer Conference and that Leopard (OS X 10.5) will not be released until late 2006. So, we certainly can expect OSx86 to be availible for public purchase next year.

Next, let's consider the implication of the fact that the actually Dev. Kit Install DVD is itself "universal," i.e. it will install OS X on both x86 and PPC architectures. Why would Apple do that? There really is only one good answer to this question, Apple plans on having only one OS X install DVD next year, not two. So, I think that by the time x86 are actually released, the version of Tiger that people can buy off the shelf, might be a "universal" version. Of course, this also might not be the case until Leopard arrives either.

Finally, you seem to be missing the big picture here. With respect to OS X, Apple does not have a problem with people unlawfully running it and if Apple did they certainly could take the minium steps of using a serial number and requiring internet registration to activate OS X, as Microsoft does Windows. No, Apple's real problem with OS X is market share. If people want to buy a copy of OS X and run it unsupported on their PC, ultimately Apple should not have a problem with that because it helps them gain market share, which I think this switch to x86 is really all about (not integer performance per watt or Intel glorious roadmap). I mean, so far we have not heard a peep from Apple Legal about this site or related activities, and I would have expected at least some kind of "cease and desist" letter by now.