Jump to content

From Hackintosh to Macintosh


cavemonkey50

Hello everyone, I'm cavemonkey50 and I'm the new guy on OSx86 Project. Well, I'm not really the new guy. I've been around here for a while, but I'm the new writer. You may have read some of my OSx86 articles from my personal site on Digg in the past. Mashugly has asked me to write for OSx86 Project, and that's exactly what I'm going to do.

 

To start off this article, you should know a little bit about my Mac background. About a year ago I had never used Mac OS X in my life. Back then I never even saw a Mac computer in real life. Sure, I knew what they looked like, and I saw demos of OS X during Steve Jobs' keynotes, but I had never used a Mac. Although I had never used a Mac, I was still Mac-curious. Being an iPod and iTunes user, I was already familiar with the design and functionality of Apple, and being fed up with Windows at the time, I looked toward Mac OS. There was one problem, though. Macs were expensive, I had a limited budget, and I wasn't going to spend everything I had to buy a computer I had never even used.

 

Then Steve Jobs revealed the future of Macs at WWDC 2005. Macs were going to be running on Intel. That announcement instantly got my head spinning. Maybe I could run Mac OS X on my current PC? I apparently wasn't alone. Since there was a number of people who wanted OS X on generic hardware, fake copies started spreading around. After several fake copies, a real leak was finally released, and thus began my journey into OSx86.

 

The first time I ran OSx86 was at school using the Deadmoo image. I had to run OSx86 on a computer at school since my home computer did not support SSE2 CPU instructions, a requirement for Mac on x86 hardware. My first OS X experience was rather crappy, since the computer at school sucked, but that didn't stop me. When Christmas rolled around, I took that as a great opportunity to build a "real" OSx86 machine; one that could support accelerated graphics and supposedly run as well as a real Mac. So, that's exactly what I did. I built a machine that was identical to Apple's Intel developer kits, and installed OS X on it. From then until now, I have been manually installing every single OS X update, mainly using Maxxuss' instructions.

 

Enough about my OS X history. Flash forward to today. I bought an Intel MacBook on Thursday and sold my Hackintosh on Friday. To keep the lawyers happy, I should mention that I sold my Hackintosh with the hard drive wiped clean, and did not provide the disks necessary to install OS X on the machine. So, basically I went from never using OS X in my life, to buying my first Mac in about nine months. I would have bought my Mac sooner, but it took me this long to save up for one. So, with that said, I thought it would be interesting to compare an install of OSx86 to a real Mac and see how well OSx86 stacks up.

 

The Updates

 

I guess I should start with the most obvious, updates. The major difference between a real Mac and OSx86 is updates. The minute Apple releases an update, I can now download it. Back when I used OSx86, that processes took quite a while. You could never tell if an update was safe. You had to wait for someone to test the update to see if it was safe. Then if it wasn't safe, you had to wait a few days for someone to come up with instructions on how to install the update; usually bypassing the files that were causing problems. Then a week or two later someone would crack the files that were troublesome, you would add those files to your update, and then the easy installers would start appearing for the people who didn't want to manually install. So, if you manually installed, you usually had the updates in days, with a second update a couple of weeks later, and if you were a noob, the update took a few weeks until you could install. Now with a real Mac, updating is no longer a problem.

 

Within the updating process, it should be mentioned that OSx86 users couldn't always take advantage of updates. Often the OS point updates contained performance enhancements tailored to specific Apple hardware, so while Mac users may have been reporting major performance enhancements, OSx86 users were still running at the initial speed. The reasoning to that is along the way Apple has caught onto what the OSx86 scene has been doing, so they have been removing things that apply to generic hardware, forcing OSx86 users to use the original files. The best example of this is the kernel. In 10.4.5 Apple pulled the power instructions for generic x86 CPUs and started using power instructions tailored to the Intel Core chips. Since the majority of the OSx86 scene do not have Core CPUs, the 10.4.4 kernel has been used ever since. So, whatever performance enhancements Apple applies to the kernel, OSx86 users never see. The same thing apply to the drivers. While OSx86 users are seeing the new features and bug fixes of every release, they never fully take advantage of hardware fixes and enhancements.

 

Everything Works

 

The next major difference between Hackintosh and Macintosh is everything works. To run a perfect OSx86 install you either need to be lucky, or build a machine tailored to running OS X. Many OSx86 users have sound cards that don't work, wireless cards with no connectivity, and do not have accelerated graphics. Sure, OS X runs on those machines, but people miss out on a lot of the functionality.

 

Looking at my own install of OSx86, I had to do some wacky things to get certain functionality. Since OSx86 didn't like my wireless card, I had to run a wire from my Hackintosh to my Windows machine, using Windows' to share its wireless connection with my Hackintosh. Sure I got internet, but my Hackintosh was never part of my real network. The Windows machine created a network just between it and the Hackintosh, thus preventing my Hackintosh from sharing files with the rest of the network. Then there is Front Row. In order for Front Row to work, I had to hook up an separate USB mouse, using the mouse's USB profile to fake it was a Front Row IR receiver. So, the majority of OSx86 users either have something that doesn't work, or they're doing something crazy to get it to work.

 

Performance

 

The next major difference I noticed between OSx86 and the real OS X is performance. Now I'm going out on a limb here, since my switch from Hack to Mac was a substantial hardware upgrade. I went from a 2.5 GHz Intel Celeron to a 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, from 1GB of RAM to 2GB of RAM, and from an Intel GMA 900 to an Intel GMA 950. As you can see, I have a feeling the majority of what I'm noticing is from that hardware upgrade and does not have anything to do with custom tailored Apple hardware. I'm still going to mention my findings though, because they may mean something to someone.

 

The first major difference I noticed is with the video. Animations run smoother, and things just feel snappier. On top of that, colors look more vibrant. Previously I felt that the colors of OS X were washed out and never looked that good. I calibrated the color profile several times, and could never get it looking the way I wanted. Now with my MacBook, the colors look great and no longer suffer from that washed out look. I should probably clarify here, since I know I'm going to get some person tell me it's because of the glossy screen on the MacBook. I'm not comparing the screen of the MacBook at all. I'm comparing the colors of OS X through my LCD monitor. I should also mention that I have re-calibrated the MacBook's color profile, so it has nothing to do with the color profile that ships with the MacBook.

 

Yet another performance enhancement I have noticed has been Rosetta. Previously on OSx86, I dreaded every time I had to use a PowerPC application. The performance of Rosetta was so bad I could barely use it at all. Word was so slow it couldn't even keep up with my typing speed. I couldn't even get Photoshop to load without leaving my computer on overnight. Alright, that last statement was a bit exaggerated, but it certainly did take a while. Now with a real Mac, Rosetta runs like Apple's been demoing since day one. I can barely tell that Word is a PowerPC application and Photoshop runs well enough that I no longer have to switch to Windows for my Photoshop work.

 

Conclusions

 

So, that brings me to the crux of this article, is OSx86 good enough as a real Mac? Being an OSx86 user for sometime, I can say that the hacked version of OS X isn't too far off from the real thing. By running OSx86 you certainly have all the features that real Macs have, but you miss out when it comes to performance. You can keep your operating system up to date, but it takes some time until you can finally install the updates, and on larger updates you often miss out on hardware enhancements. On top of that, just to run OSx86 you need to have the right hardware, otherwise you'll be missing out on key features of the OS, or end up doing some funky things to get them to work. So overall, it's not bad, you just have to do some work to maintain the operating system.

 

Now of course, you need to keep in mind that there is always the threat of Apple putting an end to the OSx86 community altogether. Sure, OS X may work on generic PCs now, but when 10.5 Leopard comes around, Apple could easily add things that prevent generic machines from functioning. You could always use the last version, but I know how I function when I don't have the latest and greatest. I feel like I'm missing out on something, and I hate that feeling.

 

I personally think that OSx86 is perfect for what it's there for. I look at it as a transition point. It's a way for geeks who might not have the chance to try OS X and give it a test run. If they're curious like I was on using Mac, they can try it without the high costs of buying a Mac. If they like it and they're interested in becoming a serious Mac user, they'll buy a Mac sometime down the road. It may not be immediately, but at some point they will buy one. I say that because I can't see anyone going through all the trouble of updating the OS for the rest of their lives. Eventually it will get annoying and the person will either buy a Mac or go back to using Windows.

 

So, in my opinion, OSx86 is a perfect for a certain group of people. It's not something that you're going to run as your main machine for the rest of your life. You're going to try it for a while and then either go back to Windows or buy a real Mac. I don't think Apple has to fear OSx86, since it's not meant for everyone. The people who are going to use it are potential Mac users, and OSx86 is simply their trial disk.


User Feedback

Recommended Comments



And as far as I know, the differences between identical macs are very small.

 

You are correct. In fact, the differences between any Mac is very small when it comes to OS support.

 

If I boot my laptop into Target Disk Mode (essentially make it into a firewire hard drive) and hook it up to any other Mac (say a tower), I can boot from my laptops internal hard drive and OS on the tower with no problems whatsoever. Just hold OPT at startup and choose the laptop drive to boot from. The tower would boot with all of my apps and settings without any "new hardware detected" {censored}. It's all there, drivers and all, for every Mac supported. It makes cloning and deploying labs a breeze (No sys prep!!) It just works. G4s, G5s... doesn't matter. (Well, ok. I admit it matters between PPC and Intel Macs... but by 10.5 that may not matter either.)

 

=)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tested my GX620 with the integrated Intel GMA950. (64mb)

Works great now, I kept the PCI realtek NIC as it works great and only cost me 3 euro (I think).

Only thing I needed to "hack" was the sound.

 

Everything is working fine now, no mouse tearing!

 

Getting a 67 score with XBench (is that an OK score?)

 

This makes my choice for a real MacBook or Hackintosh a bit more difficult!!

 

Thats about what I get. I don't care much for xbench. For 2D and light 3D I think the GMA950 offers exceptional peformance. I'm finding OpenGL games on the low end aren't bad at all. Definatley not as bad as most people {censored} about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tested my GX620 with the integrated Intel GMA950. (64mb)

Works great now, I kept the PCI realtek NIC as it works great and only cost me 3 euro (I think).

Only thing I needed to "hack" was the sound.

 

Everything is working fine now, no mouse tearing!

 

Getting a 67 score with XBench (is that an OK score?)

 

This makes my choice for a real MacBook or Hackintosh a bit more difficult!!

 

Hey, your Xbench is better than what my MacBook gets. It only gets a 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DKelley: I've never ever had a philosophical problem with Microsoft. Or Amazon, or Google, or whoever.

 

I have a problem with Apple for the same reason I have a problem with the Bush administration. Lies, Lies, Lies and More Lies. And, you're bad and barely human for resisting reeducation.

 

I dont want to be an Applie for the same reason I dont want to be a Christian.

 

Apple makes a nice operating system. But they're just evil.

 

Honestly, whenever I walk by an Apple store, I'm forced to walk in, and tell the losers who work there that my Hackintosh outperforms their MacBook Pro in every benchmark and real-world test. And I'm not shy about raising my voice when I do it.

 

:gun:

Hmm. You don't like Apple well enough to buy from them, but you do seem to like them well enough to steal from them.

 

Since your ethical compass is busted, I'll help you out: a thief is no better than a liar.

 

You have no high ground to stand on. And if you can't pirate software without your delusional rationalizations then you shouldn't do it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by what I read in this article, this OSx86 isn't as good performance wise as running a legit/real Mac OS on a real mac?

 

It depends on what system that you are running it on. In my case, my real Intel Mac is much faster than my Hackintosh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my first post here i registered after i read the article and it was a good one. I dont think I'd ever go through al that trouble of using Osx86, I'm glad to have a nice iBook 14".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find my Hackintosh to be very good and very fast for what i want

and gets an xbench score of 97-98 at the moment consistently.

 

Although i would like to have the latest darwin Kernel etc..

 

Eventually i may buy a real mac...

 

But for now I think for what they are, they are slightly overpriced compared

to a similar branded laptop / desktop with equivalent hardware.

 

Regards

 

Niteman1969

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i run my Hackintosh for all purpose day work and leisure, really my mobo is much faster than any Mac really, it is superfast in Pro Applications and in Rosseta, i even can play games in rosseta without any problem. And everything works, i tailord made it for it to happen this way.

 

The only factor in wich i consider the real mac is superior is the sotware updates, so the solution is cracking EFI :whistle:

 

 

Anyway i will sooner o r later buy a MAC now i am a Macaddict, but it will be a laptop one, for a desktop computer i need one i can mess with , upgrade the hardware and replace parts and keep it to actual times.

 

Anyway, i love Mac now and wouldnt go back to crappy windows or vista or whatever.

 

PD we need more games on the mac :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i run my Hackintosh for all purpose day work and leisure, really my mobo is much faster than any Mac really, it is superfast in Pro Applications and in Rosseta, i even can play games in rosseta without any problem. And everything works, i tailord made it for it to happen this way.

 

The only factor in wich i consider the real mac is superior is the sotware updates, so the solution is cracking EFI :happymac:

Anyway i will sooner o r later buy a MAC now i am a Macaddict, but it will be a laptop one, for a desktop computer i need one i can mess with , upgrade the hardware and replace parts and keep it to actual times.

 

Anyway, i love Mac now and wouldnt go back to crappy windows or vista or whatever.

 

PD we need more games on the mac :angel:

 

Agreed, a $300 machine on par with a macbook? I got a D930 for $100, 1GB DDR, microATX intel chipset.

 

Runs everything I need.

 

Of course, we can't experience the FULL experience but the apple HARDWARE (paying for quality) is out the door right now.

 

The marketing plan is snobby and t-r-i-c-k-e-r-y, WHITE $1099, go to 2.0, only $200 more, but wait, for $200 more you can get black, but wait, now I am almost at a MBP!! :happymac:

Both by the way have problems.

 

Going the way of the iMAC and you get no FW800, translation, no PRO work for video, so cornered once again.

 

And still, over in Apple discussions, there are talks of systems going off, not booting up, etc, etc, plus running for example Photoshop or Audio program on AMD vs say Intel (rosetta) and they are slow as a dog.

 

It used to be they made quality products, but in my opinion, this is no longer true. It is good that apple has addressed MBP problem as well as white/orange burn marks on white MB.

 

What amazes me is being a MAC HACK user for a few months I know more than the MAC SUPPORT or GENIOUS sales people at the store. Where do they get these people?!? And why is it the PC user in the ad's are actually reversed? Overclockers, are the skater boyz/girlz, not the other way around.

 

The one thing Apple does have going for them, is the bundled iLIFE and other programs and I hope the market share stays where it is as I finally figure out, the reason mac creatives seem to impress is that the programs that they use have no PC counter part (iLIFE, iWORK, Final Cut, Motion) and makes it easy to create work that looks code with less pull down windows than a PC.

 

Case point. Try Adobe InDesign for a newsletter, great, powerful program, can do the same thing with iWORKS pages, has many templates, and works much easier. It's simple stuff like this that makes Macs so cool. I will do one of two things - depending on what happens, either build a new desktop with new parts when desktops come out, or get a MBP or MB if they offer MORE bang for the buck, or iMAC with FW800, PCMIA cards, or dedicated GPU with MB, which could happen as Intel is rumored to be working on a chip that will be on par with Nvidia/ATI for OpenGL, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in other news, Apple are soon announcing their pro desktops... I've been waiting for these. Lets hope they set their base towers at SENSIBLE prices, not stupid money like £4000. although it wouldn't surprise me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in other news, Apple are soon announcing their pro desktops... I've been waiting for these. Lets hope they set their base towers at SENSIBLE prices, not stupid money like £4000. although it wouldn't surprise me.

 

Apple's Pro towers will be on par with the current G5 prices. Low end at about $2000, high end about $3200.

 

They'll put two Core Duo 2 chips in there and it will rock. And maybe after the first of the year I'll buy one to replace my aging G4 tower in my studio.

 

=)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice post,

 

But alas, you need it to run on some better hardware.........

 

now my pc does everything my G4 Laptop does, but faster, I benchmarked my pc runx86

 

it topped out at 74.9 way higher than ANY mac........(that I know of)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Macs were, read that WERE, PowerPc only, then Jobs had an arguement that Macs could be higher due to unique hardware. Other than the case an the EFI stuff, the Mac Mini, MB, MBP, and iMac have NOTHING unique or "Apple Only". If you think they do, get your but to Google and get the specs and look it up for yourself.

 

I will NOT buy a Mac from that douche/prick Jobs. Why? Why should I? Whether he likes it or not, OSX86 is here to stay and when 10.5 is out and we can pick up 10.5 install DVDs off the shelf, the OSX86 community will explode since we will get the OS hacked easier and faster. Finally in the end, if he is smart which I doubt, he will let PC users install OS X.

 

I have an Athlon XP system for my main and a nice Pentium 4 system I was given. I haven't went OSX86 but I am going to. All I need from OS X is:

 

1) Web stuff, done in OSX86

2) Do photos, again done in OSX86

3) Capture video in dvd and analog, wondering about that

4) General apps to run, duh OSX86 can run universal

 

I don't need a pc to do much. I can game in Winblows. If the OSX86 can capture video fine, then I can move to OSX86. Linux isn't what I need and I agree with a post here that Linux isn't for the masses. I have tried it for years. It is ok, but just ok. I am a system admin at work and just want ot use my pc at home.

 

What pisses me off is the Mac users that think their Intel Macs are SO great when they are to dumb realize they go ripped off. I am NOT saying all Intel Mac users are dumb, just those that think their Macs are so "unique". Hah! Whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apple's Pro towers will be on par with the current G5 prices. Low end at about $2000, high end about $3200.

 

They'll put two Core Duo 2 chips in there and it will rock. And maybe after the first of the year I'll buy one to replace my aging G4 tower in my studio.

 

=)

 

hmmm.... geekalicious :happymac:

 

in the real world, $2000 = £1000, which is would be fine. except in Apple's world, $2000 = £2000, which is... a ripoff in any language. I'm importing one from the US, to hell with the warranty ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll put two Core Duo 2 chips in there and it will rock. And maybe after the first of the year I'll buy one to replace my aging G4 tower in my studio.

You can't put two Core 2 Duos on the same machine, they will probably use woodcrest for the higer end models

 

When Macs were, read that WERE, PowerPc only, then Jobs had an arguement that Macs could be higher due to unique hardware. Other than the case an the EFI stuff, the Mac Mini, MB, MBP, and iMac have NOTHING unique or "Apple Only". If you think they do, get your but to Google and get the specs and look it up for yourself.

Only one thing, industrial design, a fashionable vaio laptop is more expensive than a dell of the same specs, all companies charge more for good design (no matter what industry), it's an added value, if you don't care for that, you are paying for something you don't want, and probabbly macs aren't for you, that's fine, but many people care, and they do buy macs or other good designed products. and it's not like all the extra money charged for design is net gain, design costs to create, and to manufacture, because of the materials or the characteristics of the design it self, and

(although the holy grail of industrial design is to make something that at the same time is completely functional, easy and cheap to manufacture and aesthetically pleasant, but that's hardly ever accomplished)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't put two Core 2 Duos on the same machine, they will probably use woodcrest for the higer end models

 

Why not? OS X has support for up to 255 CPUs.

 

Apple put two Dual Core PPC chips in the current G5s. I don't see why two Core Duo chips (or even Core Duo 2 chips) would be a problem?

 

EDIT: Ok, I just learnt that there is also a Quad-Core processor on the way too. (Code Name: Tukwila) While they could put two of those in a machine (8 cores total, and I surmise they will do this eventually!) I expect we'll first see twin Core 2 Duo chips (or Core 2 Extreme chips) in the first Mac Pro models for a total of 4 cores. They won't go from selling a 4-Core G5 to a 2-Core Intel. It would look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an awesome thread really enjoyed reading it....

 

My opinion on the topic is that if you want the full OS X experience you have to get a real Mac but I can see why people who want a pro model see the Higher end macs are expensive and they obviously will be when the intel Pro Mac's come out. Also there is something cool about building your own hackintosh it makes you more proud and gives you a sense of achievement that you won't get from buying a normal mac....

 

Personally I have a 1.83ghz MacBook which I love and it is currently my main computer, but in the next months probably after the summer I plan to build a Hackintosh for my desktop which I see as a project which will be fun and if all goes to lan will give me a nice cheap desktop customised to my taste running OS X....

 

SHadoW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? OS X has support for up to 255 CPUs.

 

Apple put two Dual Core PPC chips in the current G5s. I don't see why two Core Duo chips (or even Core Duo 2 chips) would be a problem?

 

EDIT: Ok, I just learnt that there is also a Quad-Core processor on the way too. (Code Name: Tukwila) While they could put two of those in a machine (8 cores total, and I surmise they will do this eventually!) I expect we'll first see twin Core 2 Duo chips (or Core 2 Extreme chips) in the first Mac Pro models for a total of 4 cores. They won't go from selling a 4-Core G5 to a 2-Core Intel. It would look bad.

 

John the problem is not OS X, is the chip, core 2 duo doesn't support multiple processors, just like the p4. I don't know of any Tukwila, but ketsfield is a quad core desktop core microarchitecture processor, I think is expected in Q1 2007

 

Woodcrest does support multiple processors being a server/workstation chip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John the problem is not OS X, is the chip, core 2 duo doesn't support multiple processors, just like the p4. I don't know of any Tukwila, but ketsfield is a quad core desktop core microarchitecture processor, I think is expected in Q1 2007

 

Woodcrest does support multiple processors being a server/workstation chip

 

I don't understand how a chip can define it's own quantity but the Spec Sheet does show the P4 as not being DP compatible. I would presume the logic board would dictate how many processors the frontside bus could physically support. I'm no engineer, so I don't really know.

 

The Core Duo spec sheet said nothing about dual processors, either way.

 

Anyway, we're getting off-topic. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope they go for woodcrest at least on the higer end versions, it's supposed to be a powerful workstation, not a regular consumer desktop.

 

Imagine a dual quad-core Mac pro as soon as january. mmmm... power

 

 

EDIT: we should move this discussion to one of the Mac Pro threads

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add me to the list, It seems the new macbooks theyve shipped dont have any problems. Mine is as silent as can be. Best investment ever, cant even compare the screen to my samsung lcd 20 inch.

 

GO BUY ONE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...