Building a CustoMac: Buyer's Guide October 2016(tonymacx86.com)
tonymacx86.com
Building a CustoMac: Buyer's Guide October 2016
https://www.tonymacx86.com/buyersguide/october/2016
12 comments
No Apple will never go back to licensing their OS. It nearly killed them after Power Computing went straight for Apple's profit margins instead of trying to entice new customers to the ecosystem.
The fact is that many of the innovations we come to appreciate Apple for come from their ownership of both the hardware and the software.
The fact is that many of the innovations we come to appreciate Apple for come from their ownership of both the hardware and the software.
> The fact is that many of the innovations we come to appreciate Apple for come from their ownership of both the hardware and the software.
Since they switched to Intel, what are these innovations that I cannot just buy? I see the new Touch Bar, but even that I can skip[1]. I really wonder what would be different?
I doubt they will ever go back, but Apple sure isn't doing a whole lot to satisfy my desktop love. What exactly on the Mac mini and Mac Pro cannot be bought by a third party?
1) The whole idea of something that make me move my eyes to the keyboard is unwelcome.
Since they switched to Intel, what are these innovations that I cannot just buy? I see the new Touch Bar, but even that I can skip[1]. I really wonder what would be different?
I doubt they will ever go back, but Apple sure isn't doing a whole lot to satisfy my desktop love. What exactly on the Mac mini and Mac Pro cannot be bought by a third party?
1) The whole idea of something that make me move my eyes to the keyboard is unwelcome.
I don't know if you would count this as innovations, but magsafe, the glass trackpad still ahead of anything else and the full unibody enclosure in my mind are clear innovations that made a mac a much better alternative than the competition. I also think they were only possible because people are willing to pay a little more to get macOS, thus allowing Apple a higher price point to develop and include those features.
Neither of which helps the desktop computers. Hackintoshes aren't all about getting a cheaper computer these days. They are about buying current chips and higher memory. I'm now one of those willing to pay for macOS, but the hardware is a big downside to the OS experience.
For example, being limited to 16gb because of power consumption because they picked LPDDR3 memory instead of LPDDR4.
For example, being limited to 16gb because of power consumption because they picked LPDDR3 memory instead of LPDDR4.
[deleted]
RIP Magsafe...
I was for a while thinking of the case where Apple bought NeXT but Gil Amelio and later Ellen Hancock stayed as CEO, and CHRP actually happened. While PC margins was declining, I was thinking that Apple could mostly focus on the higher-end PC and workstation markets. I wonder how this would have compared to Tim Cook today.
I experimented with Hackkntoshes years ago. It was a fun toy, but overall not the best use of my time. Upgrades required effort even if they didn't outright break my system.
More importantly, Hackintosh requires custom kexts, at a minimum FakeSMC.kext. That kext is used to bypass Apple's hardware locks. Has it been audited? If so, can you trust that the installer you use to wedge the kext in actually uses the clean kext and not a rooted version that puts you at risk? What happens when you load that kext? Even if it isn't overtly trying to compromise your system, does it open security holes? Does it silently corrupt your disk due to a bug somewhere?
Let's say you're ok with all that. What happens when you make it big, and Apple decides to sue you for breaking the EULA of MacOS? I wouldn't base my business on it.
More importantly, Hackintosh requires custom kexts, at a minimum FakeSMC.kext. That kext is used to bypass Apple's hardware locks. Has it been audited? If so, can you trust that the installer you use to wedge the kext in actually uses the clean kext and not a rooted version that puts you at risk? What happens when you load that kext? Even if it isn't overtly trying to compromise your system, does it open security holes? Does it silently corrupt your disk due to a bug somewhere?
Let's say you're ok with all that. What happens when you make it big, and Apple decides to sue you for breaking the EULA of MacOS? I wouldn't base my business on it.
Base your business on it? No.
However I did put a Hackintosh into mission critical use for a bit. The machine was a ~$300 Dell Mini 9 which remains one of the all time easiest and most stable Hackintosh builds. To be fair it was a puny computer, but I upgraded mine with a larger SSD which made it pretty quick, and it was rock-solid stable. TBH I don't think it ever crashed or hang. And it was tiny.
I used this as my onstage computer for about a year running Reaktor and Sampletank. It took many falls. I never once had a problem with it. Its teensy size meant it could perch in a blank area on top of my keyboard.
However you're right about updates. They could be fatal and had to be well-researched and planned.
However I did put a Hackintosh into mission critical use for a bit. The machine was a ~$300 Dell Mini 9 which remains one of the all time easiest and most stable Hackintosh builds. To be fair it was a puny computer, but I upgraded mine with a larger SSD which made it pretty quick, and it was rock-solid stable. TBH I don't think it ever crashed or hang. And it was tiny.
I used this as my onstage computer for about a year running Reaktor and Sampletank. It took many falls. I never once had a problem with it. Its teensy size meant it could perch in a blank area on top of my keyboard.
However you're right about updates. They could be fatal and had to be well-researched and planned.
Why not get a refurbished MacBook Air 11"[1] which is guaranteed to work?
[1]: http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbo...
[1]: http://www.apple.com/shop/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbo...
Guaranteed to work, really? I guess no Macs are in for service, ever? My rMBPs, 13" and 15", have been in for service numerous times.
I’m looking forward to see how many times my new pre-ordered MBP 2016 will need to be serviced.
Meanwhile, I would bet good money that my two hackintosh systems will keep running.
I’m looking forward to see how many times my new pre-ordered MBP 2016 will need to be serviced.
Meanwhile, I would bet good money that my two hackintosh systems will keep running.
I ran a Dell Mini 9 too. An excellent little machine with OSX, wish mine still worked.
The non-audited code is a concern for people I speak with about building a custoMac. I have built a Hackintosh using the forum on tonymacx86 that I only use as video workstation. I do not use it for personal computing. I use my MacBook Pro for that. I also keep it air gapped, and I use sneakernet USB sticks for any updates that were downloaded from my laptop. Adobe Creative Cloud doesn't like this, and does require extra steps to keep it working.
The only reason I chose Hackintosh over actual hardware is that Apple seems to have given up on the desktop market. When their current top of the line machine costs $9400 for 3+ year old tech, of course people are going to look for alternatives. In the life of GPU tech, the Dual D700s are as useful and relevant as T-Rex arms. CPU tech hasn't changed, but preventing me from keeping up to date with GPUS is unforgivable in a desktop.
The only reason I chose Hackintosh over actual hardware is that Apple seems to have given up on the desktop market. When their current top of the line machine costs $9400 for 3+ year old tech, of course people are going to look for alternatives. In the life of GPU tech, the Dual D700s are as useful and relevant as T-Rex arms. CPU tech hasn't changed, but preventing me from keeping up to date with GPUS is unforgivable in a desktop.
I've been using my Hackintosh PC for 5 years now and every update/new OS upgrade was hassle free. With custom builds that is the norm.
As long as EULAs are concerned, in the EU they are unenforceable.
As long as EULAs are concerned, in the EU they are unenforceable.
>As long as EULAs are concerned, in the EU they are unenforceable.
No, that's a myth. It's only that certain clauses in RULAs are unenforceable
No, that's a myth. It's only that certain clauses in RULAs are unenforceable
Myth or no, has any business or user come under fire for just using hackintosh systems? Not to my knowledge.
However, making hackintosh a commercial business (Psystar), actually selling pre-configured, ready-to-go systems, yes, that is a law suit.
However, making hackintosh a commercial business (Psystar), actually selling pre-configured, ready-to-go systems, yes, that is a law suit.
I did the Hackintosh thing for a couple of years. It was painful, but even more so since I wanted a RAID 1 on my main boot disk. That, it turns out, is not supported that well. If someone claims it is, then I'd say it definitely adds extra steps, and it can sometimes be tricky and tense.
I never dual booted Windows, but I read about lots of problems people had in the forums.
It was like removing a large pebble from my shoe when I got my Mac Pro.
I never dual booted Windows, but I read about lots of problems people had in the forums.
It was like removing a large pebble from my shoe when I got my Mac Pro.
Did you run your business on the Hackintosh? I'm curious of people who do this - what's the calculus that makes this decision (time, security risk, etc) a viable choice?
I could see it in the Mac Pro sort of setup, say if rendering is part of your flow, so that you can shove OSX onto Xeons with 64GB RAM or whatever. I personally wouldn't take that risk, but I can see why someone would.
> I wouldn't base my business on it.
Who even said anything about business?
But if you're worried about security you can run OS X well enough in a VM (optionally with real hardware) doesn't need any 3rd party kexts AFAIK.
Who even said anything about business?
But if you're worried about security you can run OS X well enough in a VM (optionally with real hardware) doesn't need any 3rd party kexts AFAIK.
> OS X well enough in a VM
At least in VirtualBox, OS X dev tools short circuit on illegal instructions pretty quickly
At least in VirtualBox, OS X dev tools short circuit on illegal instructions pretty quickly
Everything works fine in QEMU for me.
Alternative route is to build a VFIO capable computer and run OS X or whatever your heart desires in a VM with real hardware (read GPU) passed through.
You can even run several VMs with several GPUs at the same time. Essentially you can have 2+ computers at the price of one.
You can even run several VMs with several GPUs at the same time. Essentially you can have 2+ computers at the price of one.
I use a configuration like this (with Proxmox) to send content to the various TVs in my house (HDMI over Cat 5e). 4 cheap GPUs in the machine allow for up to 4 VMs running OS X (my preferred OS for media) to simultaneously play HD content, run classic emulated games, web browsing, etc. (haven't bothered with UHD yet, and probably won't for a while).
Of course, a lot of HD content can run with very modest specs (as long as the codecs are accelerated on the GPU), but for occasional content that requires CPU decoding or players/sites that aren't yet supported on standalone devices (Apple TV, Roku, etc), it's a really nice solution. Plus, it keeps each TV very clean in terms of cables and hardware.
I've done hackintosh on bare metal in the past, but even if I were setting up a single-headed hackintosh now, I'd still go the VFIO route - it makes updates much less stressful since you can quickly roll back to a snapshot if you break something.
Of course, a lot of HD content can run with very modest specs (as long as the codecs are accelerated on the GPU), but for occasional content that requires CPU decoding or players/sites that aren't yet supported on standalone devices (Apple TV, Roku, etc), it's a really nice solution. Plus, it keeps each TV very clean in terms of cables and hardware.
I've done hackintosh on bare metal in the past, but even if I were setting up a single-headed hackintosh now, I'd still go the VFIO route - it makes updates much less stressful since you can quickly roll back to a snapshot if you break something.
Do you have this configuration by chance as a GIST on GitHub? There are KVM/Qemu configurations, but especially ProxMox would be nice
Kind of a late response, but here are the basics of my setup (maybe I'll publish some specifics in a gist at some point):
- Hardware (which is dated now): Asus Z87 Pro with i7 4770, 16 GB Memory, 4x AMD Radeon 6450 cards (< $20/ea used)
- Proxmox/host config: vfiobind the PCI device IDs for graphics cards on boot, slightly modified pve-q35.cfg (workaround for some OS X issues on q35), using fairly standard VM args for booting OS X
- GPUs work fine after a standard OS X install, but to get audio working over HDMI, I needed a couple of edits to my DSDT (basically just inserting a GFX0 device with "hda-gfx" = "onboard-1", a standard HDAU device, and a DTGP device), and boot with the Enoch bootloader (this can be specified in the VM args to avoid having to install to disk). No extra kexts needed.
That's about it. Some of those things may no longer be necessary in the latest version of Proxmox (I haven't updated my base system in a while). Once I got things working, it's been completely stable for more than a year.
- Hardware (which is dated now): Asus Z87 Pro with i7 4770, 16 GB Memory, 4x AMD Radeon 6450 cards (< $20/ea used)
- Proxmox/host config: vfiobind the PCI device IDs for graphics cards on boot, slightly modified pve-q35.cfg (workaround for some OS X issues on q35), using fairly standard VM args for booting OS X
- GPUs work fine after a standard OS X install, but to get audio working over HDMI, I needed a couple of edits to my DSDT (basically just inserting a GFX0 device with "hda-gfx" = "onboard-1", a standard HDAU device, and a DTGP device), and boot with the Enoch bootloader (this can be specified in the VM args to avoid having to install to disk). No extra kexts needed.
That's about it. Some of those things may no longer be necessary in the latest version of Proxmox (I haven't updated my base system in a while). Once I got things working, it's been completely stable for more than a year.
What is your hardware setup like? How much physical RAM and what mobo/GPUs?
How do you do input to the different VMs/TVs?
It's a bit overkill (that's what we do as engineers though, right?) - I have a Raspberry Pi attached to the back of each TV that receives input from a small Bluetooth keyboard/trackpad/remote and passes the input (over UDP) to the appropriate VM.
Depending on the environment, wireless devices could be used with separate USB receivers (e.g. Bluetooth adapters) for each screen (passed directly to the VMs), but the distance in my setup was proving to be a bit too far for a stable Bluetooth connection.
I'm just using some of my own scripts right now to configure everything and allow for some meta commands (things like powering on/off the TV, switching inputs, etc). I'd love to clean it up and publish it at some point, but just haven't had the time.
Depending on the environment, wireless devices could be used with separate USB receivers (e.g. Bluetooth adapters) for each screen (passed directly to the VMs), but the distance in my setup was proving to be a bit too far for a stable Bluetooth connection.
I'm just using some of my own scripts right now to configure everything and allow for some meta commands (things like powering on/off the TV, switching inputs, etc). I'd love to clean it up and publish it at some point, but just haven't had the time.
This sounds interesting. Know of any unusually good guides/resources for this?
I can't judge from the beginners standpoint, here are few places to start looking
https://nixos.org/wiki/QEMU_guest_with_VGA_passthrough
https://www.reddit.com/r/VFIO
https://www.reddit.com/r/unRAID
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PCI_passthrough_via_OVM...
I'd recommend going with NixOS and libvirt, but other communities such as around unRAID or Arch might be bigger.
https://nixos.org/wiki/QEMU_guest_with_VGA_passthrough
https://www.reddit.com/r/VFIO
https://www.reddit.com/r/unRAID
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PCI_passthrough_via_OVM...
I'd recommend going with NixOS and libvirt, but other communities such as around unRAID or Arch might be bigger.
Can you describe your current setup(HW/OS)?
i7-3770 (no K), ATI GPU, Gigabyte B75-D3V board. I boot into NixOS without X server and launch a Windows VM with libvirt using this config (redacted a bit).
https://gist.github.com/xaduha/226ff1b991bd54db09ff0bbd1df79...
snapshot=on option allows me to discard changes to the image with every launch, folders like Desktop, Downloads, etc are not part of the image.
When I do need to keep the changes I use a commit command, not mucking with actual snapshots anymore.
$ virsh qemu-monitor-command MAIN --hmp commit all
As for macOS VM, I haven't used one recently, but it's totally possible.
https://gist.github.com/xaduha/226ff1b991bd54db09ff0bbd1df79...
snapshot=on option allows me to discard changes to the image with every launch, folders like Desktop, Downloads, etc are not part of the image.
When I do need to keep the changes I use a commit command, not mucking with actual snapshots anymore.
$ virsh qemu-monitor-command MAIN --hmp commit all
As for macOS VM, I haven't used one recently, but it's totally possible.
That's nice, but further down the thread you say you haven't tried OSX at all. Anyone else have a useful data point for this scenario?
You misread, I said I haven't tried it recently, as in I haven't tried it with macOS Sierra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qadiAp1aiJM
https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qadiAp1aiJM
https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM
Thanks for the links!
You can run OS X with qemu on Linux.
It crawls, even under KVM.
Is qemu better than KVM? Currently using KVM and the performance is to be desired.
It runs fine, you probably misconfigured something.
"fine" for me encompasses fluid rendering of the interface.
It's pretty damn fluid with real GPU passed through, literally no difference compared to running on bare metal.
If you're not passing a real GPU then you're doing it wrong and shouldn't expect much anyway.
If you're not passing a real GPU then you're doing it wrong and shouldn't expect much anyway.
Are you using VMware for this?
I'm using kvm, which is basically qemu with hardware acceleration. VT-x is minimum, VT-d is better.
Also by default qemu/kvm only uses one processor core I think, what are using to launch it? A script?
Also by default qemu/kvm only uses one processor core I think, what are using to launch it? A script?
Are you able to pass through USB devices?
I have VT-d, so for me it's more convenient to pass a whole USB controller, not individual devices. But I did pass USB devices in the past, yes.
When I built my current CustoMac, I selected an Gigabyte X99 chipset motherboard that supported an optional Thunderbolt2 expansion card. This was an important part in my decision making as I have a lot of peripheral video equipment that I need in day to day work. It worked, with the caveat that it was not plug-n-play. Devices were only detected at boot. Cool, I can handle that.
However, when I upgraded the OS to El Capitan, I needed to update the firwmare of the mobo. After upgrading the firmware, Gigabyte removed support for the Thunderbolt expansion card. Suddenly, I can no longer use any of those devices. I searched, but there was no mention of the loss of thunderbolt with the use of that firmware. I have seen online where others are also in the same Thunderboltless boat, even if they are running Windows.
Just and FYI to consider if anyone reading this thread is thinking of the CustoMac route. This isn't the Hackintosh community's issue for something they changed. It's the hardware vendor's decision.
However, when I upgraded the OS to El Capitan, I needed to update the firwmare of the mobo. After upgrading the firmware, Gigabyte removed support for the Thunderbolt expansion card. Suddenly, I can no longer use any of those devices. I searched, but there was no mention of the loss of thunderbolt with the use of that firmware. I have seen online where others are also in the same Thunderboltless boat, even if they are running Windows.
Just and FYI to consider if anyone reading this thread is thinking of the CustoMac route. This isn't the Hackintosh community's issue for something they changed. It's the hardware vendor's decision.
I think this trend becomes popular every time Apple's product line becomes stale.
Yeah, it's kind of a catch 22 as the product line has to stop innovating for these guides to stay relevant.
Has anyone here actually made a custom mac? I thought Apple tried to stop this by preventing the OS from installing and you had to do some hacky stuff to get it to work?
Last year i7, 32gb ram.
You install via USB.
I seem to have to update my video card driver after an OS X update, but it takes less than 3 minutes.
I built it figuring worse-case scenario, I can slap Linux or Windows on it, and it will still be good hardware.
I spent more on the monitor than the system build.
If you do, I recommend purchasing the PCI-E adapter for the Apple Broadcom BCM94360CD card to have native wifi+bluetooth.
Very stable.
You install via USB.
I seem to have to update my video card driver after an OS X update, but it takes less than 3 minutes.
I built it figuring worse-case scenario, I can slap Linux or Windows on it, and it will still be good hardware.
I spent more on the monitor than the system build.
If you do, I recommend purchasing the PCI-E adapter for the Apple Broadcom BCM94360CD card to have native wifi+bluetooth.
Very stable.
Any indication anywhere of the software noticing it's not running on official Apple hardware?
Not yet.
Here is an overview of the bootloader used, Clover.
https://clover-wiki.zetam.org/Technical-Background
Here is an overview of the bootloader used, Clover.
https://clover-wiki.zetam.org/Technical-Background
Apple can totally see what hardware is installed. FakeSMC, IIRC, uses a spoofed serial number for the hardware which can easily be detected. I assume sending hardware profiles are a part of using iCloud or other Apple services. It isn't a stretch for them to see what you're up to.
1. iMessage App uses hardware serial and usually doesn't work on Hackintoshes without copying a serial from another working Mac.
2. DRM protected iTunes movies (the ones that don't work if you don't have a DRM capable monitor attached) won't play.
Those are the only two issues with Hackintoshes that can't be fixed by buying right hardware.
2. DRM protected iTunes movies (the ones that don't work if you don't have a DRM capable monitor attached) won't play.
Those are the only two issues with Hackintoshes that can't be fixed by buying right hardware.
iMessage works just fine here, on two hackintosh systems, all I had to do was generate a unique serial, I did certainly not copy one from another Mac.
I did in the past (2011). Had an i7 with 16GB of RAM. It was pretty stable. Though I had problems with iMessage & OS X upgrades. Nevertheless I think it's fairly easy to build one and there is big benefit, since Apple's iMac is now the only 32GB capable machine that they sell.
> iMac is now the only 32GB capable machine that they sell.
The Mac Pro supports up to 64GB of RAM.
The Mac Pro supports up to 64GB of RAM.
I doubt they sell many, if any mac pros any more.
The Mac Pro hasn't changed internally since 2013, calling it a professional computer is a joke at this point.
The reasoning was that newer Xeons were not fast enough to warrant a redesign. I am curious about the kind of usage a fully loaded Mac Pro is inadequate for.
Of course, you can buy a similarly capable Dell (OSX not included) for less, but you lose the hassle-free Macintoshness.
Of course, you can buy a similarly capable Dell (OSX not included) for less, but you lose the hassle-free Macintoshness.
> I am curious about the kind of usage a fully loaded Mac Pro is inadequate.
Financial sanity, mostly. Those things cost $10,000+
Financial sanity, mostly. Those things cost $10,000+
If you spend more than 2 weeks of lost productivity over the lifetime of the machine because the hardware is not supported, the financials no longer make sense.
Not everyone is a rich guy with dream-like paychecks. With iOS you are stuck with OSX and currently the value proposition is bad.
Building iOS apps doesn't require 32GB of memory.
You don't need a mac pro if your only reason for having a Mac is to run Xcode.
You don't need a mac pro if your only reason for having a Mac is to run Xcode.
No. But building the backend and development for other things aside iOS, YES. Is not the current fad "Full-Stack developers"? I'm one since I start this 17 years ago (way before it was called "Desperate developer do anything for food!" instead of be "full-stack" ;).
Is not ideal to have more than 1 machine.
Is not ideal to have more than 1 machine.
Very few development environments need 32gb. Would I like 32gb in my mbp? Yes. But 16gb gets the job done.
The inconveniences of using another platform (or lack of support with macOS on unsupported hardware) far outweighs the slight benefit of 32gb vs 16gb of ram.
The inconveniences of using another platform (or lack of support with macOS on unsupported hardware) far outweighs the slight benefit of 32gb vs 16gb of ram.
Like 5 years old machine. So why upgrade?
We don't buy for years-ago needs, but for now-and-future.
And even ignoring this: Is also signaling. We expect top-of-the-line machine for work.
IF we use at FULL capacity OR NOT, is not the business of Apple.
We don't buy for years-ago needs, but for now-and-future.
And even ignoring this: Is also signaling. We expect top-of-the-line machine for work.
IF we use at FULL capacity OR NOT, is not the business of Apple.
This is a business decision. Being unable to be sure whether deadlines will be met is a cost you should factor in when acquiring hardware.
[deleted]
however Apple should be ashamed that they still sell this in the configuration it has and worse for the price they want.
No machine should be left so long without updates. I really don't understand why Apple does that, they should be embarrassed
No machine should be left so long without updates. I really don't understand why Apple does that, they should be embarrassed
> I really don't understand why Apple does that
Margins. The more they can flog the same hardware, the higher the margins: you need less changes to the production chain (which are the real cost) and components get cheaper over time.
Guess who's in charge of Apple since 2013? A production-chain guy.
Margins. The more they can flog the same hardware, the higher the margins: you need less changes to the production chain (which are the real cost) and components get cheaper over time.
Guess who's in charge of Apple since 2013? A production-chain guy.
Or a Hackintosh for less than $1,200?
Built one less than a month ago. i7 6700K, 16GB RAM, Samsung 840 EVO pilfered from an old laptop, 1TB HD pulled from a Dell Poweredge T20 before filling it with NAS drives, and a GTX 950 that will be upgraded as soon as OS X drivers for the latest gen AMD or Nvidia cards are available. The motherboard I selected has tons of ports available, including USB 3.1/TB 3, and I bought an exceptionally nice case, PSU, and CPU cooler for it. It's blazing fast for everything — my top of the line 2015 15" rMBP is nearly 2x slower at tasks like compiling large projects with Xcode. The whole build costed me less than $1k.
The prevalence of hackintoshes is a direct result of a gaping hole existing in Apple's product line. Mac Pros are badly priced given their age and not everyone needs dual GPUs, but you don't have the option to reduce costs by dropping the second GPU if it's not needed. You can't opt for a more CPU/less GPU config either. The iMac is nice, but it has the reverse problem: its graphics are terribly weak for the display it drives and can never be upgraded. And of course there's the Mac Mini, which is little more than a low end headless 13" MacBook Pro, complete with the limitations of that model. There is no midrange Mac desktop that can be tailored to an individual's needs at a reasonable cost, and that's where hackintoshes come into the picture.
If Apple wants to slow down hackintoshing dramatically all they have to do is release a tower akin to the old aluminum Mac Pros and start its pricing at $1500 - $2000. People will gladly pay the price for a real Mac as long as they feel like they're getting a machine that caters to their needs. It's mostly alienated Mac fans who hackintosh, not cheapskates.
The prevalence of hackintoshes is a direct result of a gaping hole existing in Apple's product line. Mac Pros are badly priced given their age and not everyone needs dual GPUs, but you don't have the option to reduce costs by dropping the second GPU if it's not needed. You can't opt for a more CPU/less GPU config either. The iMac is nice, but it has the reverse problem: its graphics are terribly weak for the display it drives and can never be upgraded. And of course there's the Mac Mini, which is little more than a low end headless 13" MacBook Pro, complete with the limitations of that model. There is no midrange Mac desktop that can be tailored to an individual's needs at a reasonable cost, and that's where hackintoshes come into the picture.
If Apple wants to slow down hackintoshing dramatically all they have to do is release a tower akin to the old aluminum Mac Pros and start its pricing at $1500 - $2000. People will gladly pay the price for a real Mac as long as they feel like they're getting a machine that caters to their needs. It's mostly alienated Mac fans who hackintosh, not cheapskates.
Yes. I have two running systems.
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7319000
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7246385
They are both equipped with GTX 970.
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7319000
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/7246385
They are both equipped with GTX 970.
I7 (2014) with GTX780 on 16GB. Got 2x256GB SSD for each system, and works very well. Haven't got around to upgrade to Sierra as I suspect something may break.
[deleted]
I was lucky to infact have the components that I built for my gaming computer also tick the boxes for a hackintosh build. I had a spare SSD that I was running arch on, so thought I'd give it a whirl. I use a MBP for work, and having a similar system to work on is quite nice (especially since it's great for labwork with 32GB of RAM).
It's been rock solid, and I want to write my own boxen so that I can mimic my MBP build
It's been rock solid, and I want to write my own boxen so that I can mimic my MBP build
I understand not wanting to pay the Apple tax, but I think what makes a desktop experience great is the whole package.
How hardware and software come together in an unified user experience.
This is why people talk about Spectrums, Commodores, Ataris, Amigas, Macs, and game consoles.
This is why hardly anyone talks about nice memorable experiences with PC clones.
How hardware and software come together in an unified user experience.
This is why people talk about Spectrums, Commodores, Ataris, Amigas, Macs, and game consoles.
This is why hardly anyone talks about nice memorable experiences with PC clones.
Based on the comments of people doing this, the vast majority are far less motivated by saving money than by getting macOS on great hardware. It's a frustrating fact for those willing to pay that the Mac "Pro" is very far behind the bleeding edge.
Why do people do this? Is it only for fun? I would think that any GNU/Linux system could provide similar or better tooling and most likely results in a less painful upgrade process.
I actually switched to Hackintoshes from Linux PCs because the upgrade/install process is less painful. Used Ubuntu and Arch in the past, tinkering with the system was almost a daily thing.
Also, the UX/UI of OS X is just miles ahead of anything on Linux. Same for 3rd party software.
Also, the UX/UI of OS X is just miles ahead of anything on Linux. Same for 3rd party software.
Referring to my other comment, could you quantify your UX/UX assessment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829832
To me it comes down to: sane default settings, ease of customisability and ability to discover stuff on my own. Add to this applications that just work™.
I still remember having to write a Bash script on Ubuntu to move the mouse every 2 minutes because the screensaver couldn't detect VLC was running in fullscreen. Or having to reboot because the audio driver crashed randomly.
Even xkcd has a strip about something similar https://xkcd.com/196/
I still remember having to write a Bash script on Ubuntu to move the mouse every 2 minutes because the screensaver couldn't detect VLC was running in fullscreen. Or having to reboot because the audio driver crashed randomly.
Even xkcd has a strip about something similar https://xkcd.com/196/
I think a lot of it has to do with polish. Linux GUIs can be beautiful, but the interactions with the UI tend to be functional first and stay that way.
I remember when compiz came out and it was supposed to make the UIs really pop with a good graphics card. It really bridged the gap a lot, but the physics in the animation lacked a bit of timing finesse. The animations weren't terribly clunky, but they lacked a certain fluidity with the interaction. When interacting with a mouse or finger, certain things like input speed wouldn't be taken account for. Like on MacOS, a fast moving mouse cursor travels more across the screen than a slow moving mouse cursor. When scrolling, moving the scrollbars faster increase the scrolling speed while slowing down the movements slow things down proportionately in a very intuitive fashion, while a similar concept on Linux may do something very similar, it doesn't quite hit the nail on the head. It usually requires adjusting ones input and getting used to the tool.
Even when the OS UI improved, individual applications also needed appropriate UI updates and UX. Since a lot of GUI apps were wrappers for underlying command-line utilities, they felt a lot like thinking in command-line mode for a GUI app or were unapproachable unless one came from a technical background.
But even for people who may only use a browser, when starting a browser, the default set of fonts in a given browser were usually not that great. Not sure how much it has improved now, but I think the main culprit lies in the font rendering settings and available fonts. Getting prettier fonts have improved slightly, but a lot of the system feel comes from these fonts, especially in things like menus. So reading a webpage in some standard sans-serif may be fine on Windows & Mac, but just look slightly off on Linux. Functionally, nothing was wrong, but maybe the text box slightly overflowed outside of a div that was sized well for MacOS and Windows, but not Linux.
Small things like these add up and make people feel like desktop Linux is just not quite there. I think Canonical has done a tremendous amount of work getting desktop Linux closer to being viable. This is coming from someone that's on 14.04 ubuntu. I haven't tried the lastest 16.x series, but I'm guessing it will get closer.
The other challenge outside of UI/UX improvements really is commercial support that comes along with 3rd party products. When you purchase some printer and you see there is included productivity software, it will 100% work on Windows, 20% chance there is a Mac port, and usually 0% chance that it has a Linux port/version. Even when you purchase something OS agnostic like a cable modem, there will be Windows/Mac Compatible logos, but no Linux Compatible sticker making one feel like desktop Linux is relevant or even a prudent choice for someone non-technical to use.
I remember when compiz came out and it was supposed to make the UIs really pop with a good graphics card. It really bridged the gap a lot, but the physics in the animation lacked a bit of timing finesse. The animations weren't terribly clunky, but they lacked a certain fluidity with the interaction. When interacting with a mouse or finger, certain things like input speed wouldn't be taken account for. Like on MacOS, a fast moving mouse cursor travels more across the screen than a slow moving mouse cursor. When scrolling, moving the scrollbars faster increase the scrolling speed while slowing down the movements slow things down proportionately in a very intuitive fashion, while a similar concept on Linux may do something very similar, it doesn't quite hit the nail on the head. It usually requires adjusting ones input and getting used to the tool.
Even when the OS UI improved, individual applications also needed appropriate UI updates and UX. Since a lot of GUI apps were wrappers for underlying command-line utilities, they felt a lot like thinking in command-line mode for a GUI app or were unapproachable unless one came from a technical background.
But even for people who may only use a browser, when starting a browser, the default set of fonts in a given browser were usually not that great. Not sure how much it has improved now, but I think the main culprit lies in the font rendering settings and available fonts. Getting prettier fonts have improved slightly, but a lot of the system feel comes from these fonts, especially in things like menus. So reading a webpage in some standard sans-serif may be fine on Windows & Mac, but just look slightly off on Linux. Functionally, nothing was wrong, but maybe the text box slightly overflowed outside of a div that was sized well for MacOS and Windows, but not Linux.
Small things like these add up and make people feel like desktop Linux is just not quite there. I think Canonical has done a tremendous amount of work getting desktop Linux closer to being viable. This is coming from someone that's on 14.04 ubuntu. I haven't tried the lastest 16.x series, but I'm guessing it will get closer.
The other challenge outside of UI/UX improvements really is commercial support that comes along with 3rd party products. When you purchase some printer and you see there is included productivity software, it will 100% work on Windows, 20% chance there is a Mac port, and usually 0% chance that it has a Linux port/version. Even when you purchase something OS agnostic like a cable modem, there will be Windows/Mac Compatible logos, but no Linux Compatible sticker making one feel like desktop Linux is relevant or even a prudent choice for someone non-technical to use.
> the UX/UI of OS X is just miles ahead of anything on Linux.
I thought the same, but I spent the last few days surveying the field and it's not actually the case anymore. ElementaryOS and LinuxMint have top-notch desktop managers (Pantheon and Cinnamon respectively) and provide a really polished experience. After a few hours on Elementary in a VM, I am really tempted to format my rMBP and see if it can be my main OS going forward.
I thought the same, but I spent the last few days surveying the field and it's not actually the case anymore. ElementaryOS and LinuxMint have top-notch desktop managers (Pantheon and Cinnamon respectively) and provide a really polished experience. After a few hours on Elementary in a VM, I am really tempted to format my rMBP and see if it can be my main OS going forward.
I've been a Mac user since the late 90s. Believe it or not you used to be able to get a Mac for under $1k. Usually, through student discounts and back to school sales. My last desktop Mac was a Powermac G4 tower. The next gen was the Powermac G5 with double the price! There was no upgrade plan going forward. $2500 was wildly out of my budget.
A few years later, after Apple released the first intel macs, I discovered the osx86 wiki, gave it a shot and it worked! I built a Hackintosh that was almost as powerful as a full MacPro, Intel Q6600, 16GB RAM, RAID10 HDD, for 1/3 of the price.
I've always enjoyed using a Mac since the System 7 days. But in this day and age paying >$1500 for a laptop just seems ludicrous. I'm typing this from a 2011 MBP. I anticipated purchasing a newer 2016 MBP. After this announcement I'll probably look into a refurbished rMBP.
Sadly, I believe the entry level xMac is never going to happen. the Mac mini gets no love, the MacPro gets no attention, the iMac gets and it appears the focus is mobile and laptops. So I'll be back on the OSX86 wiki making my shopping list and doing my research once again.
A few years later, after Apple released the first intel macs, I discovered the osx86 wiki, gave it a shot and it worked! I built a Hackintosh that was almost as powerful as a full MacPro, Intel Q6600, 16GB RAM, RAID10 HDD, for 1/3 of the price.
I've always enjoyed using a Mac since the System 7 days. But in this day and age paying >$1500 for a laptop just seems ludicrous. I'm typing this from a 2011 MBP. I anticipated purchasing a newer 2016 MBP. After this announcement I'll probably look into a refurbished rMBP.
Sadly, I believe the entry level xMac is never going to happen. the Mac mini gets no love, the MacPro gets no attention, the iMac gets and it appears the focus is mobile and laptops. So I'll be back on the OSX86 wiki making my shopping list and doing my research once again.
You do realize a lot of people work with software like Adobe’s Photoshop, Premiere, Illustrator, After Effects, Ableton Live, Pro Tools, Cubase, Sonar, Final Cut, Avid tools++?
Do not even bother to mention Wine, or Linux native alternatives, because there are non that are good enough for most professional users.
Also, less painful? I spend less time installing and configuring a hackintosh system and upgrades than I do configuring and maintaining most Linux distros.
Making a stable hackintosh system these days is as easy as picking parts from something like OP’s post and following install and configure guides on the same site. Very little pain involved actually.
My preferred work environment is OS X/macOS as host and a Linux distro as guest.
I also prefer a hackintosh system to a Mac Pro for price/performance ratio, and the flexibility of selecting my own hardware and upgrading whenever I feel like it.
Do not even bother to mention Wine, or Linux native alternatives, because there are non that are good enough for most professional users.
Also, less painful? I spend less time installing and configuring a hackintosh system and upgrades than I do configuring and maintaining most Linux distros.
Making a stable hackintosh system these days is as easy as picking parts from something like OP’s post and following install and configure guides on the same site. Very little pain involved actually.
My preferred work environment is OS X/macOS as host and a Linux distro as guest.
I also prefer a hackintosh system to a Mac Pro for price/performance ratio, and the flexibility of selecting my own hardware and upgrading whenever I feel like it.
In some countries macs are ridiculously expensive for students and even for professionals and people just install MacOs on their already available PCs so that they can mess around with XCode or the tooling for web development. Sure you can have most of the tooling on Linux for example but the MacOs UI is much better than anything available for Linux distros.
Also, curiosity.
Also, curiosity.
Could you quantify how you judge UI? I actually found that the OS X UI to be consistently less featureful and more cumbersome to use than most GNU/Linux stuff. Maybe I have different expectations regarding operating system features?
Take window management, for example: If I want my windows to fill exactly half the screen, have one window on top of all others or move them from anywhere (just not the title bar), last time I checked it was just impossible out of the box.
Package management is another thing where GNU/Linux excels. On Debian, I am usually just a single “apt-get” away from having exactly what I need. The UI for such tasks does not seem to exist at all on OS X without third party tools.
In practical terms, Apple delivering outdated GNU utilities that are by now nine years old is something that should not happen with a modern operating system. I have encountered a lot of (non-developer) Apple users who do not know this and then wonder why something does not work.
If you would explain what makes the “UI being much better” in your eyes, it might help us to understand why exactly we think differently (heh) here.
Take window management, for example: If I want my windows to fill exactly half the screen, have one window on top of all others or move them from anywhere (just not the title bar), last time I checked it was just impossible out of the box.
Package management is another thing where GNU/Linux excels. On Debian, I am usually just a single “apt-get” away from having exactly what I need. The UI for such tasks does not seem to exist at all on OS X without third party tools.
In practical terms, Apple delivering outdated GNU utilities that are by now nine years old is something that should not happen with a modern operating system. I have encountered a lot of (non-developer) Apple users who do not know this and then wonder why something does not work.
If you would explain what makes the “UI being much better” in your eyes, it might help us to understand why exactly we think differently (heh) here.
No I can't but for me it means that it always performs well no matter if I am watching video or messing on sublime text or I am on the terminal. Also, the terminal for me is only about the work I do and almost never about managing my computer because my computer works as expected.
My blood boils when I hear about linux on desktop because my experience always involved up keeping linux doing millions of easy things all the time just to make the thing run.
Some funny glitch when running Chrome? Oh that's because of the display driver, update it and you'll be fine but to update it you need to install some dependencies and to install these dependencies you need to add some repo. Oh great now the app that worked is no longer working because installing drivers somehow messed to the permissions of some folder, just run this command to fix the permissions and now you are all good. Remember that app that was crashing due to permissions? Yeah, it was due to a bug that is fixed on the new version now you need to run this command o undo the permissions change because the bug was fixed and now it's not working with the hack.
I like not maintaining my tools, I don't maintain my macbook except for installing updates when prompted and cleaning the screen and the keyboard every now and then. My uptime tends to be from OS update to OS update.
My blood boils when I hear about linux on desktop because my experience always involved up keeping linux doing millions of easy things all the time just to make the thing run.
Some funny glitch when running Chrome? Oh that's because of the display driver, update it and you'll be fine but to update it you need to install some dependencies and to install these dependencies you need to add some repo. Oh great now the app that worked is no longer working because installing drivers somehow messed to the permissions of some folder, just run this command to fix the permissions and now you are all good. Remember that app that was crashing due to permissions? Yeah, it was due to a bug that is fixed on the new version now you need to run this command o undo the permissions change because the bug was fixed and now it's not working with the hack.
I like not maintaining my tools, I don't maintain my macbook except for installing updates when prompted and cleaning the screen and the keyboard every now and then. My uptime tends to be from OS update to OS update.
Not op but this is my experience. I mainly use macOS but use Linux occasionally.
First, the argument against third party software to me is irrelevant, after all I use macOS and not, say iOS, because you can install these kinds of applications. Besides, from my point of view, almost all software on Linux is third party software anyway so I don't get the difference. For window management I install Spectacle and for package management I install HomeBrew and call it a day.
The UI to me seems superior because a) it looks better, b) it's more integrated with the system, and c) it doesn't bother me every 5 minutes trying to get my attention. I realize that looks are subjective but Linux has always looked "wrong", like it's unfinished; typography looks wrong, and the dimensions of the elements look wrong, some too big, some too small. Lately it has gotten better but still, the more deep you go, the less finished it gets. I guess one tends to like what one's used to. On my second point, macOS is the UI, not like on Linux where you can tell the Windowing System seats on top of the OS. It feels disconnected somehow, and as soon as something goes wrong, you are back on the terminal trying to hack your way back to stability. Lastly, macOS is not constantly begging for my attention. Windows is much more guilty of this than Linux is, but it still happens, showing you bubbles and messages for non critical tasks that ruin concentration. It also provides the information you need and very little else, the information is there if you want it, but it's not in your face. It gets out of the way, and lets me focus on the application and task I'm really interested in, not in managing the system.
And don't get me started on installing applications. Apt-get is fine if all you try to install is a low level package that is not dependent on anything else. As soon as things get more complicated you think about it twice before attempting to install something out of fear of it requiring a kernel recompile. In my opinion, dependencies and repositories are two words no normal user should be familiar with.
Of course, if you are a developer, or if you spend all day on the terminal I can see how your point of view might be different, or why you would care about your GNU tools being up to date. And I get how macOS might seem to someone coming from Linux, or even Windows, more limiting. But the truth is I don't care about the system that much, I want it not to bother me.
Lastly, and perhaps my strongest and more frivolous point, command-H to hide applications is the best shortcut ever. I haven't minimized a window in years.
First, the argument against third party software to me is irrelevant, after all I use macOS and not, say iOS, because you can install these kinds of applications. Besides, from my point of view, almost all software on Linux is third party software anyway so I don't get the difference. For window management I install Spectacle and for package management I install HomeBrew and call it a day.
The UI to me seems superior because a) it looks better, b) it's more integrated with the system, and c) it doesn't bother me every 5 minutes trying to get my attention. I realize that looks are subjective but Linux has always looked "wrong", like it's unfinished; typography looks wrong, and the dimensions of the elements look wrong, some too big, some too small. Lately it has gotten better but still, the more deep you go, the less finished it gets. I guess one tends to like what one's used to. On my second point, macOS is the UI, not like on Linux where you can tell the Windowing System seats on top of the OS. It feels disconnected somehow, and as soon as something goes wrong, you are back on the terminal trying to hack your way back to stability. Lastly, macOS is not constantly begging for my attention. Windows is much more guilty of this than Linux is, but it still happens, showing you bubbles and messages for non critical tasks that ruin concentration. It also provides the information you need and very little else, the information is there if you want it, but it's not in your face. It gets out of the way, and lets me focus on the application and task I'm really interested in, not in managing the system.
And don't get me started on installing applications. Apt-get is fine if all you try to install is a low level package that is not dependent on anything else. As soon as things get more complicated you think about it twice before attempting to install something out of fear of it requiring a kernel recompile. In my opinion, dependencies and repositories are two words no normal user should be familiar with.
Of course, if you are a developer, or if you spend all day on the terminal I can see how your point of view might be different, or why you would care about your GNU tools being up to date. And I get how macOS might seem to someone coming from Linux, or even Windows, more limiting. But the truth is I don't care about the system that much, I want it not to bother me.
Lastly, and perhaps my strongest and more frivolous point, command-H to hide applications is the best shortcut ever. I haven't minimized a window in years.
I doubt that. Sketch / Photoshop does not run on GNU / Linux as well as Safari.
These are a must for any front-end developer these days and personally although I like some window managers for X11, I can't afford to go that way, because they don't feel mature enough.
Not to mention iTunes, Photos and all the nice software that comes with OS X.
These are a must for any front-end developer these days and personally although I like some window managers for X11, I can't afford to go that way, because they don't feel mature enough.
Not to mention iTunes, Photos and all the nice software that comes with OS X.
Also there is no dtrace on Linux.
Because of the software we use. Lightroom and MS Office (please don't suggest Libre Office is good enough, it's not for legal and accounting documented exchange, as I had many spreadsheets that were broken on LO).
As a Lightroom user, how do you think Darktable compares to it for amateur and semi-professional use cases? http://www.darktable.org/
I've tried and liked it, but it seems that it isn't really meant to replicate Lightroom's cataloguing functionality. I tried importing the 20 or 25K photos I have, which Lightroom cruises through (I've met people with hundreds of thousands of photos in their catalogues) and Darktable gacks. That's on a relatively recent 5K iMac too, so I don't think hardware limitations are the problem.
Right now Darktable seems to be more of an editing tool and less of a cataloguing tool.
Right now Darktable seems to be more of an editing tool and less of a cataloguing tool.
MS Office 2013 runs fine on Wine! At least, I can confirm that the equation editing and change tracking stuff was worth the effort to set up Wine. If you have custom plugins 'n stuff, maybe it won't work well.
You can have a 32GB i7 running OS X for iOS or native app development for less than $1000.
UPDATE:
Oh yeah, you can upgrade the various components too.
UPDATE:
Oh yeah, you can upgrade the various components too.
How much do you need to put towards an attorney retainer for fighting the copyright infringement lawsuit Apple can bring against you? Does that count toward the less than $1000 price tag?
Oh please, Apple has never gone after a user for making a Hackintosh for themselves.
Contract law, due to the user not abiding by the license agreement, is more relevant than copyright infringement. Apple gives the OS away freely and there's no copying act that you do for yourself that would be infringing (e.g. copy the OS to a Mackintosh's drive and you're still okay), it's only the use of the OS which is a problem and that's not a copyright problem, it's a license problem.
Contract law, due to the user not abiding by the license agreement, is more relevant than copyright infringement. Apple gives the OS away freely and there's no copying act that you do for yourself that would be infringing (e.g. copy the OS to a Mackintosh's drive and you're still okay), it's only the use of the OS which is a problem and that's not a copyright problem, it's a license problem.
Please explain?
The only way to get a license for a modern MacOS is to purchase a mac. The license is nontransferrable, forever attached to the specific system purchased. It is a violation of the EULA and most likely Apple's copyright to install MacOS on systems that are not entitled for the OS, which is every system that's not a Mac.
In other words, you're violating Apples copyright by running MacOS on a Hackintosh, and Apple is well within their rights to sue you for damages. Defending these types of lawsuits are expensive.
In other words, you're violating Apples copyright by running MacOS on a Hackintosh, and Apple is well within their rights to sue you for damages. Defending these types of lawsuits are expensive.
Breaking your OS's EULA is not the same as violating copyright. Not even close.
You are spreading misinformation. EULA is completely different from copyright and in a lot of countries EULAs are not enforceable.
Technically speaking if I have a Mac mini and I plug 8 more gigs of non-apple RAM or another hard-disk I'm violating their EULA.
IMHO they did the copyright, because they don't want someone to put a stamp "MacOS X - tested" or something on their hardware.
IMHO they did the copyright, because they don't want someone to put a stamp "MacOS X - tested" or something on their hardware.
I don't believe your assertion that upgrading Macs breaks the EULA. Can you explain this statement?
Does Apple really document how to break their EULA on their website: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205041
Does Apple really document how to break their EULA on their website: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205041
Precisely. So how do you explain Hackintosh then? If I upgrade the CPU of a Mac Pro, I am obviously running OS X on a non-apple hardware.
Or the other way around. If I take the HDD of a MacBook Pro and put it on my Hackintosh, am I violating the EULA?
So I think the line is so thin and you can argue about anything on that topic.
Or the other way around. If I take the HDD of a MacBook Pro and put it on my Hackintosh, am I violating the EULA?
So I think the line is so thin and you can argue about anything on that topic.
I saw this from your link:
"Removing or installing memory
You should not manually upgrade or replace the memory in these Mac mini models. Instead, contact an Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple Retail Store to install memory for you."
"Removing or installing memory
You should not manually upgrade or replace the memory in these Mac mini models. Instead, contact an Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple Retail Store to install memory for you."
Yes. Upgrading the memory on some older Minis requires you basically disassembling the entire machine. I've done it. It's not brain surgery, but it's also not as easy as turning the little circle thing on other Minis. Nowhere does it say it violates any license agreements, just that Apple doesn't suggest you do it.
Oh - I forgot to add, the $150,000 statutory damages for copyright infringement if Apple decides to make an example of you. Might want to put a few hundred $k away just in case.
This is patent nonsense.
Which doesn't prevent them from still being bullies (I'm assuming patent was a double entendre?).
The user experience completely blows Linux out of the water, and the tooling is superior because you can use ports from Linux/BSD _and_ native tools.
Gnome and KDE are painful to use when you're used to Aqua, not to mention all the great Mac-only apps.
I've tried a few Linux distributions in the last few days, I suggest you try LinuxMint - it seems to be the less painful option. I'm not sure what desktop manager they use, but it's definitely better than stock KDE or stock GNOME.
For KDE, the best experience at the moment seems to be Neon, although I've not tried OpenSUSE.
For KDE, the best experience at the moment seems to be Neon, although I've not tried OpenSUSE.
Openbox + compton gets me the same smoothness as Aqua, and is much more configurable. You can make it look and feel 99% like Aqua, or you can go another direction and make it exactly what works for you instead of cloning another interface.
Can't disagree with that. The way it functions and the plethora of apps you get with it are good enough for me
Has anyone built a Hackintosh laptop that works? Even one that booted into Linux (with proper sleep/hibernation support) to run an OSX VM using PCI passthru would be useful.
Last time I tried this is it was a complete ballache to get iMessage working - I expect other services are similarly problematic. Is this still a problem?
I installed Sierra just a few days ago on an Intel server board (S5000XALR). I had to change a single setting in my bootloader (clover) to make all the services work (Admittedly, it did take a bit of googling to find that setting).
I think Intel boards are ideal because they are presumably quite similar in hardware to the Mac Pro motherboards. All my hardware (including GTX480) worked without any additional configuration.
I think Intel boards are ideal because they are presumably quite similar in hardware to the Mac Pro motherboards. All my hardware (including GTX480) worked without any additional configuration.
iMessage working on both my systems, it was not a pain in the ass at all. The only thing I did was make sure my two boxes had unique serial numbers.
I never use it, though guides constantly mention you gotta have the right system profile and some other low level settings for it to work.
I know they won't, but I still have dreams. I do wonder what was the real story when Steve Jobs made his public comments on clones[3] and what the price was they refused[4].
1) Lord knows I paid more for NeXTSTEP back in the day.
2) It was kinda fun to call a number and get a fax back with the list of hardware you could buy.
3) https://youtu.be/a3MrpLyUOo8?t=34m41s
4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLuoahTP_s