[Simon]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

This was one of my concerns with Apple switching to Intel. I don't know how long Apple can justify the prices of their computers; and with Intel churning out new chips every few months, Apple's struggling to keep up.

Many were concerned about that. But as we know Apple is making more money than ever. And they manage to sell only one real desktop: the MP at an awesome high price. The dirty secret is that bottom line is it's working for them. And that in turn means that people who'd like a real desktop Mac get shafted pushed towards PCs.

Unless desktops become very important, Apple starts losing money, or they want to attract some serious market share, none of this will have to change.

The real solution for the OS X aficionado might just be a Hackintosh. Uncomfortable as that may be.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The real solution for the OS X aficionado might just be a Hackintosh. Uncomfortable as that may be.

My employer refuses to by Apple products (they don't want to set a precedent that forces them to officially support OS X in addition to Windows) but they have no issue with me running OS X. End result, I'm running Snow Leopard on the Dell D630 they supplied me with (I'm amazed at how easy it was to get it working) and I'm currently building an i7 desktop (at their expense) that will be running Snow Leopard as well. Although I write software for Windows for a living, I really despise using the OS. (For every Hackintosh I've used I have bought a license of Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard...it helps ease the guilt). Although I'm still breaking Apple's license agreement I'm compelled to use OS X exclusively. If it's any consolation, all of my computing hardware at home is made by Apple.

[Big Mac]

Glad to hear your D630 setup went so easily. I just wonder if it's safe to trust the homebrew drivers that are generally necessary with Hackintoshes unless you go the efi-x route. The next desktop I get will probably be one I build because I want a Mac Pro without paying an arm and a leg, but I'll probably also go the efi-x route because I want to avoid dicey homebrew drivers. Having to resort to them makes me fear silent rootkits.

As for violating licenses, it seems like Microsoft and Apple both don't really care all that much. With Windows 7 for example, M$ gives you trouble if you clean install using an Upgrade disc, but Paul Thurrot gives you the bulletproof way to circumvent that problem. I just got done doing a Windows 7 installation, and I have to say that Win 7 is not bad at all and probably the best M$ can ever do with Windows without completely revamping some of its internal architectural aspects and interface conventions, thereby breaking all backward compatibility. Win 7 also takes even more from OS X - most notable to me is the revised taskbar that may as well be called the Dock. As for Apple, it doesn't bother with license codes at all, and the company has left both the underground Hackintosh as well as the efi-x people alone, only going after blatant violators like Psystar.

[P]

Big Mac, you should probably Google EFI-X a bit. It looked good to begin with, but the shine is off the apple if you pardon the pun. Many of their customers are seriously pissed off at EFI-X because of the way they treat paying customers. You will also still need drivers for everything that is not standard on a Mac, even if you use EFI-X - it only plays the part of the bootloader, and there are other software-only bootloaders out there.

The lack of drivers is not quite as bad as it seems - the newest iMacs mean that any motherboard with a P55 chipset will work, and there are graphics drivers for most things except the Radeon 5x00 series. You will typically need drivers for audio and wireless networking, but at least the machine will boot and run once you've installed it.

[Big Mac]

I know that many EFI-X customers are angry because they have the first version of the product that got dead-ended, but technically I think most are satisfied (at least those with newer version). Also, I thought that if one stays with the compatible hardware they list then support for those devices is provided through it. Am I just believing the hype? The reviews I've read say that it lives up to its promises.

[mduell]

You still need OS X drivers for your hardware, but if EFI-X supports it there's probably a driver for it.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by P 

Big Mac, you should probably Google EFI-X a bit. It looked good to begin with, but the shine is off the apple if you pardon the pun. Many of their customers are seriously pissed off at EFI-X because of the way they treat paying customers. You will also still need drivers for everything that is not standard on a Mac, even if you use EFI-X - it only plays the part of the bootloader, and there are other software-only bootloaders out there.

The lack of drivers is not quite as bad as it seems - the newest iMacs mean that any motherboard with a P55 chipset will work, and there are graphics drivers for most things except the Radeon 5x00 series. You will typically need drivers for audio and wireless networking, but at least the machine will boot and run once you've installed it.

How much money do you actually save if you build a workstation yourself?

Is it really worth the trouble to get all those problems usually only Windows machines have: to be always hunting for drivers?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

How much money do you actually save if you build a workstation yourself?

About 50% (or another way $1000+) for a single socket. Smaller percentage but bigger dollar numbers for dual socket.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Is it really worth the trouble to get all those problems usually only Windows machines have: to be always hunting for drivers?

1993 called, wants its meme back. Windows supports more hardware than any other OS.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mduell 

You still need OS X drivers for your hardware, but if EFI-X supports it there's probably a driver for it.

And you have to find the drivers on your own even if it's on the EFI-X list?

[Veltliner]

I'm not sure if I wanted to go through the hassle putting a hackintosh together.

It's not just click-click-screw-together, and then install the OS. From what I heard you have to mess around with hardware drivers, and many things can go wrong. And do.

Hackintosh owners experience kernel panics, can't wake their FrankenApples from sleep, experience crashes.

I want a reliable computer.

It's probably not a bad thing that Windows 7 is a good OS (so I heard). Apple will have to get it's pricing and its customer service straight. In short: the advantage of competition.

[Big Mac]

If you stick closely to the range of components that Apple uses and are known to be compatible, most things work, Veltliner. I share some of your concerns about it, but I still think I'm going to go that route for my next desktop. Apple just doesn't serve my needs anymore.

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And you have to find the drivers on your own even if it's on the EFI-X list?

Yes. EFI-X is just a bootloader. It was marginally impressive until others acheived the same thing without extra hardware. There is the usability gain in that you don't have to fiddle with setting up the bootloader on the HD manually, but nothing more than that.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by P 

Yes. EFI-X is just a bootloader. It was marginally impressive until others acheived the same thing without extra hardware. There is the usability gain in that you don't have to fiddle with setting up the bootloader on the HD manually, but nothing more than that.

Interesting. Their forum seems to indicate that they release updated firmware packages that do contain drivers. If EFI-X only provides a bootloader, no different than Chameleon, then I don't think they'd have so many buyers.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you stick closely to the range of components that Apple uses and are known to be compatible, most things work, Veltliner. I share some of your concerns about it, but I still think I'm going to go that route for my next desktop. Apple just doesn't serve my needs anymore.

I'm totally with you here.

If you can do it, do it, and post about it. I'd like to see the Big Mac Workstation humming with processing power.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If you stick closely to the range of components that Apple uses and are known to be compatible, most things work, Veltliner. I share some of your concerns about it, but I still think I'm going to go that route for my next desktop. Apple just doesn't serve my needs anymore.

You can get a PowerPC-based Hackintosh!?

[P]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Interesting. Their forum seems to indicate that they release updated firmware packages that do contain drivers. If EFI-X only provides a bootloader, no different than Chameleon, then I don't think they'd have so many buyers.

Oh, the installer might contain some pre-packaged drivers, that's more than I know. That still doesn't mean that you won't have driver problems - I doubt that whoever stands behind EFI-X makes any drivers, so they're just repackaging what's already out there, and there are some significant gaps in that.

[Veltliner]

I have the impression that, for now, building a hackintosh is for the technically well informed.

But I may be wrong.

What exactly is the process of building one?

I'll try a guess:

1. A list of parts you need, and you need to check if they are compatible (compatible with what?) so OS X will run.

2. You will need drivers for each piece of hardware that is put in. Does that mean a driver for the motherboard, one for the RAM sockets, one for the bus, one for each CPU unit... or how does this exactly look like?

I repeatedly heard about EFI-X. What service do they provide? Do they give you a list of compatible parts, you screw them together, put their bootloader in (what does this looks like and where is it attached to?), and it puts all the necessary drivers into your system automatically. Is this right?

3. I also read that you need to, in a way, enable each and every feature that OS X has, e.g. wake and sleep, etc.

So, how well am I guessing?

[mduell]

Is this a joke? Are you trolling? On the off chance you're not...

1) Compatible with... OS X. A few big hackintosh sites have lists of motherboards, video cards, etc known to work. Art-Studios has their own list for EFI-X.

2) You don't need to find drivers for your RAM sockets and CPU bus! If you pick a motherboard known to work it uses the drivers that ship with OS X or the hackintosh sites provide drivers (in the form of kexts) for support.

EFI-X attaches to an internal USB header; most boards have several of them. EFI-X doesn't provide any drivers AFAIK.

3) There are a couple features that are finnicky, notably sleep and wake due to their intimacy with ACPI. Generally falls into the category of "just works", "may mostly work after fiddling" (least common), and "doesn't work." It's not like you have to manually enable ethernet and dhcp and dns and ntpd and mdworker and blah blah.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

So, how well am I guessing?

Well, you've gone all wrong to be honest.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You can get a PowerPC-based Hackintosh!?

Hey, that's a great idea, SH - I'd be the first in line for such a system!

[P]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

I have the impression that, for now, building a hackintosh is for the technically well informed.

But I may be wrong.

What exactly is the process of building one?

I'll try a guess:

1. A list of parts you need, and you need to check if they are compatible (compatible with what?) so OS X will run.

2. You will need drivers for each piece of hardware that is put in. Does that mean a driver for the motherboard, one for the RAM sockets, one for the bus, one for each CPU unit... or how does this exactly look like?

These are the same question. You need drivers for everything in the computer, or that thing won't work. Compability checking before building is simply checking that the parts you're using have drivers available. Drivers can be boiled down to:

* Chipset, or more specifically the southbridge. You need to pick one that Apple already supports, which fortunately is most everything recent from Intel plus of course the Geforce 9400. The closer you are to any existing Mac, the better.

* Graphics. It will boot without a dedicated graphics driver, but you will be very limited in what you can do. I'm not talking about no Quartz Extreme, I'm talking about not changing the resolution from 1024*768. Again, drivers exist for anything that Apple has used. Notable missing pieces are later Intel graphics (after the X3100) and the Radeon 5x00 series. Support is often added in point updates.

* Audio. These things are often made by enthusiasts, and it's hit and miss. Many of the common Realtek chipsets do have drivers.

* Network, especially wireless. This is the hard bit - support is spotty at best.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

I repeatedly heard about EFI-X. What service do they provide? Do they give you a list of compatible parts, you screw them together, put their bootloader in (what does this looks like and where is it attached to?), and it puts all the necessary drivers into your system automatically. Is this right?

No, this is what so many seem to believe. Some background: before the OS boots, there must be something that starts the process of loading the OS into RAM - the computer needs to find necessary hardware such as the HD and be pointed to where it should start reading. The thing that does this on a PC is called BIOS. BIOS is very very old - it started back with the original PC in 1981 and was the one thing you had to license from IBM to build an IBM PC compatible. (Eventually someone reverse-engineered it so they didn't need a license from IBM and could do what they wanted - such as make PCs with 386 in them, which is what Compaq did.)

Anyway: Some years back, Intel decided that BIOS needed to be replaced with something more modern, in the interest of speeding up the booting process. Their answer was Extensible Firmware Interface - EFI.

To use EFI, the computer needs to be made for it and the OS needs to support it. Longhorn, the Windows that became Vista, was supposed to include EFI support, but it got canned along with so much else in the big kernel reset. Windows still uses BIOS, and for this reason all commodity motherboards use BIOS. Intel Macs, on the other hand, use EFI - they never used BIOS to begin with, and EFI was better anyway. To make Windows work on a Mac, you have to emulate a BIOS on top of EFI. This is part of Bootcamp does.

Initial efforts into OSX86 focused on hacking the OS to somehow boot from BIOS. This was something Apple tried to prevent, and the hacking was imperfect anyway, so eventually a new method appeared: emulate EFI on top of BIOS. Basically, you install an operating system (usually some Linux variant) that boots from BIOS, emulates EFI and then boots OS X. The most famous version of this is boot-132.

EFI-X is simply hardware version of this. Whether it actually executes anything itself or if it's just a flashdrive is more than I know - I don't really care, either. It does the same thing as boot-132: boot, emulate EFI, load OS X. Once EFI has been installed, you can install firmware updates from inside OS X. These updates apparently include some of the most common drivers required, but it won't magically make everything work. If there is a driver in that package, it works. If not, sorry.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

3. I also read that you need to, in a way, enable each and every feature that OS X has, e.g. wake and sleep, etc.

Not each and every feature, but sleep and wake is troublesome. Macs use the SMC to handle such, and the OS expects to have an SMC handing over the computer after wake is initiated. If there is no SMC...I think you see the problem. Again, stuff like this can be handled, but it's more hacking.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Many were concerned about that. But as we know Apple is making more money than ever. And they manage to sell only one real desktop: the MP at an awesome high price.

You have probably argued this in a pevious thread or ten, but the iMac line are 'real' desktops. Some might say that the Mini is a desktop as well.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

You have probably argued this in a pevious thread or ten, but the iMac line are 'real' desktops. Some might say that the Mini is a desktop as well.

It's quite well established that what sets the iMac and the Mac mini apart from the regular desktop PC are things like:
- swappable GPU (read actual PCIe graphics cards)
- extra PCIe slots
- extra drive bays
- swappable CPUs (read socketed, not soldered)
- desktop class components (GPU, optical drive, PS, etc...)

Note that these come standard with any sub-$1k desktop PC. Strangely, Apple believes such things are only required on a $2500 Mac Pro (which by the way sucks compared to a $2k iMac). And hence people who want/need some (or all) of the above will be driven away from Apple and either go Hackintosh or PC.

You can call the Mac mini whatever you want. But the fact remains that the 'regular desktop PC' simply doesn't exist in Apple world. End of story.

[mattyb]

Well, I don't agree with your use of desktop as one in which you can change the innards. I bet that over 90% of people that buy what I and others call a desktop PC never change any hardware.

[dedalus]

The way it looks to me is that Apple are left with the pro market in this respect. Come on, if I’m going to spend several thousands of dollars on software to begin with, I honestly do not give a shit whether the computer I'm going to be running it on costs $2k, $3k, $5k, or even $8k, to be perfectly honest, I’ll make that back in a couple of months. The way it looks at the moment, the amount of effort I would have to be investing into maintaining a Hackintosh fails to compensate for the profit I could be making working on a properly supported set‑up in the interim.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

You have probably argued this in a pevious thread or ten, but the iMac line are 'real' desktops. Some might say that the Mini is a desktop as well.

The 27" iMac is finally using desktop CPU, although I don't know about the GPU.

The Mac mini is a laptop CPU with a laptop chipset and a laptop hard drive and laptop RAM. Add a battery and a display it's ready to be a MacBook.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The 27" iMac is finally using desktop CPU, although I don't know about the GPU.

It uses laptop versions of the chips that Apple advertises, clocked to the default laptop speeds within a percent or so - first thing I checked once I got the Bootcamp partition going. They are apparently standard MXM (or Axiom if you prefer) cards, which makes a lot of sense from a manufacturing standpoint - for Apple to make their own boards based on the desktop chips would be lots of trouble for little benefit. The desktop 4800 series wouldn't fit thermally anyway, as they have an infamously terrible idle power draw.

If anyone wants to keep score, it uses a desktop CPU, desktop chipset, desktop HD and a display panel that isn't exactly meant for a laptop. Meanwhile, the GPU and the DIMMs are laptop style, and I guess that the slim optical drive fits into that category as well. I have seen "proper" desktops with equally slim opical drives though.

[P]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

The way it looks to me is that Apple are left with the pro market in this respect. Come on, if I’m going to spend several thousands of dollars on software to begin with, I honestly do not give a shit whether the computer I'm going to be running it on costs $2k, $3k, $5k, or even $8k, to be perfectly honest, I’ll make that back in a couple of months. The way it looks at the moment, the amount of effort I would have to be investing into maintaining a Hackintosh fails to compensate for the profit I could be making working on a properly supported set‑up in the interim.

Which is exactly why they keep charging the prices they do. A Hackintosh isn't a serious competitor to the MP in the segement the MP is aimed at. I hate that they overpriced the lower-end Nehalem MP so heavily, because it feels almost dishonest to do so if you know what the component parts cost, but I can understand why they did it. It's shortsighted, but in the meantime they make lots of shiny dollars on them.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Is this a joke? Are you trolling? On the off chance you're not...

1) Compatible with... OS X. A few big hackintosh sites have lists of motherboards, video cards, etc known to work. Art-Studios has their own list for EFI-X.

2) You don't need to find drivers for your RAM sockets and CPU bus! If you pick a motherboard known to work it uses the drivers that ship with OS X or the hackintosh sites provide drivers (in the form of kexts) for support.

EFI-X attaches to an internal USB header; most boards have several of them. EFI-X doesn't provide any drivers AFAIK.

3) There are a couple features that are finnicky, notably sleep and wake due to their intimacy with ACPI. Generally falls into the category of "just works", "may mostly work after fiddling" (least common), and "doesn't work." It's not like you have to manually enable ethernet and dhcp and dns and ntpd and mdworker and blah blah.

I just have never thought of building a computer myself.

I also think that admitting what you don't know paves the quickest way to get knowledge. So I'm being completely off at the beginning.

So, what I get from your post building a hackintosh is not as difficult as I thought it to be. There are a few problematic points like wake/sleep, and if you keep to known, compatible parts, even a less experienced person should be able to put a hackintosh together.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by P 

These are the same question. You need drivers for everything in the computer, or that thing won't work. Compability checking before building is simply checking that the parts you're using have drivers available. Drivers can be boiled down to:

* Chipset, or more specifically the southbridge. You need to pick one that Apple already supports, which fortunately is most everything recent from Intel plus of course the Geforce 9400. The closer you are to any existing Mac, the better.

* Graphics. It will boot without a dedicated graphics driver, but you will be very limited in what you can do. I'm not talking about no Quartz Extreme, I'm talking about not changing the resolution from 1024*768. Again, drivers exist for anything that Apple has used. Notable missing pieces are later Intel graphics (after the X3100) and the Radeon 5x00 series. Support is often added in point updates.

* Audio. These things are often made by enthusiasts, and it's hit and miss. Many of the common Realtek chipsets do have drivers.

* Network, especially wireless. This is the hard bit - support is spotty at best.



No, this is what so many seem to believe. Some background: before the OS boots, there must be something that starts the process of loading the OS into RAM - the computer needs to find necessary hardware such as the HD and be pointed to where it should start reading. The thing that does this on a PC is called BIOS. BIOS is very very old - it started back with the original PC in 1981 and was the one thing you had to license from IBM to build an IBM PC compatible. (Eventually someone reverse-engineered it so they didn't need a license from IBM and could do what they wanted - such as make PCs with 386 in them, which is what Compaq did.)

Anyway: Some years back, Intel decided that BIOS needed to be replaced with something more modern, in the interest of speeding up the booting process. Their answer was Extensible Firmware Interface - EFI.

To use EFI, the computer needs to be made for it and the OS needs to support it. Longhorn, the Windows that became Vista, was supposed to include EFI support, but it got canned along with so much else in the big kernel reset. Windows still uses BIOS, and for this reason all commodity motherboards use BIOS. Intel Macs, on the other hand, use EFI - they never used BIOS to begin with, and EFI was better anyway. To make Windows work on a Mac, you have to emulate a BIOS on top of EFI. This is part of Bootcamp does.

Initial efforts into OSX86 focused on hacking the OS to somehow boot from BIOS. This was something Apple tried to prevent, and the hacking was imperfect anyway, so eventually a new method appeared: emulate EFI on top of BIOS. Basically, you install an operating system (usually some Linux variant) that boots from BIOS, emulates EFI and then boots OS X. The most famous version of this is boot-132.

EFI-X is simply hardware version of this. Whether it actually executes anything itself or if it's just a flashdrive is more than I know - I don't really care, either. It does the same thing as boot-132: boot, emulate EFI, load OS X. Once EFI has been installed, you can install firmware updates from inside OS X. These updates apparently include some of the most common drivers required, but it won't magically make everything work. If there is a driver in that package, it works. If not, sorry.



Not each and every feature, but sleep and wake is troublesome. Macs use the SMC to handle such, and the OS expects to have an SMC handing over the computer after wake is initiated. If there is no SMC...I think you see the problem. Again, stuff like this can be handled, but it's more hacking.

Thanks very much, P! This was very informative and well written up.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The 27" iMac is finally using desktop CPU, although I don't know about the GPU.

The iMac still uses a mobile GPU (reduced clock) along with mobile memory (SO-DIMMs) and a mobile optical drive (slim slot-loader). Also like a notebook it isn't designed to accomodate any extra drives or expansion cards. In fact even less. Whereas most PC notebooks (and the older MBPs *sigh*) come with ExpressCard, the iMac doesn't even have that. IOW once you want to upgrade its components, you're essentially expected to toss it out and buy a new one.

What I find so ironic about the iMac is that while Apple likes to appear all green and environmentally conscious, their desktop strategy is basically throw away instead of expand/upgrade.

[Big Mac]

I've been doing more research on Hackintoshing, EFI-X, etc. I've found that I was wrong to think that EFI-X was much more than a bootloader, which is unfortunate and contrary to the marketing they use. I also found that it seems like dealing with DSDT configurations is the real weak spot in getting a Hackintosh up and running. It can be done, but it's a pain to do unless you have a well known motherboard with the right firmware that others have already configured and shared their work on (or, failing that, a knack for cryptic hacking and tinkering with low level configuration files). Building a Hackintosh is still something I'd like to try in the near future, but it's not as easy as I thought, which is bothersome and comforting at the same time - at least I know that despite the Intel defection Apple does still maintain some special characteristics in its hardware.

[mduell]

Apparently Psystars activation servers are down, rendering Rebel EFI mostly useless.

The irony of DRM preventing you using a tool designed to help boot OS X on x86.

[Big Mac]

Psystar has nothing to do with EFI-X. EFI-X is developed by Art Studios Entertainment Media.

Psystar was trying to sell their own software-based Hackintosh tool as a final act of rebellion against Apple.

[P]

Yes, Psystar's thing is Rebel EFI, which is basically the same a boot-132 - a software tool to emulate EFI. Dark rumors also surround where the code of Rebel EFI comes from - it may very well be boot-132 that they've used to make it.

[mduell]

Oops, corrected my post.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The iMac still uses a mobile GPU (reduced clock) along with mobile memory (SO-DIMMs) and a mobile optical drive (slim slot-loader). Also like a notebook it isn't designed to accomodate any extra drives or expansion cards. In fact even less. Whereas most PC notebooks (and the older MBPs *sigh*) come with ExpressCard, the iMac doesn't even have that. IOW once you want to upgrade its components, you're essentially expected to toss it out and buy a new one.

What I find so ironic about the iMac is that while Apple likes to appear all green and environmentally conscious, their desktop strategy is basically throw away instead of expand/upgrade.

This is why I'm not going to get another iMac.

They are outdated so quickly. My iMac is 2 1/2 years old and with its 3 Gb RAM maximum it's just tough to work with.

[Simon]

I hear you. Nowadays a 3 GB RAM limit is acceptable only for simple low-end consumer application. If you want to do anything more demanding or even some semi-pro work you're going to need at least 4 GB. And that's with just two cores.

[Salty]

Really? Cause I do some pretty pro level graphics work on a 2Ghz Core Duo with 2 gigs of RAM. Believe it or not in the last three years there haven't been that many apps coming out that need much more. I'm I find myself itching for new hardware without a terribly good reason. I've tried a few friends newer Macs and there just doesn't seem to be that big of a difference. Actually my roomie recently bought a G5 iMac off Kijiji and I think there really isn't that much of a reason for him to want a newer machine.

[shabbasuraj]

hack hack hackintosh without EFI

Exclusive Report: EFI-X Mac Booter, A Scam? - Tom's Hardware

[Atheist]

Hey guys... I finally got all the parts for my Core i7 Hackintosh. Typing on it now. Blazing fast and I haven't overclocked it yet. I'm going to replace the stock cpu cooler with an aftermarket one. Every indication is that I'll be able to easily get this thing up to 3.8Ghz with air cooling.

I had my share of problems at the start. For whatever reason, the Chameleon bootloader just refused to boot when installed on my 1.5 TB drives. Once I figured out that was the problem I installed the OS on my 500GB drive and am using the larger drives for my user data and Time Machine backup. The installation couldn't have been simpler. I was up and running in under an hour. I'm using a Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 motherboard. It has digital audio, dual ethernet, a gazillion USB ports, a Firewire 400 port, and 2 eSata ports. I've got a GeForce 9600GT card with dual DVI out.

I doubt Hackintosh's will ever be mainstream... actually I'm hoping that's the case so it stays under Apple's radar. If you've got some basic Unix skills and persistence it may be worth your while. Definitely have to do your research to make sure you get the right hardware components.

Almost forgot. I was able to run Software Update to bring it up to 10.6.2 with no trouble at all and I'm even booting into the 64-bit kernel.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I hear you. Nowadays a 3 GB RAM limit is acceptable only for simple low-end consumer application. If you want to do anything more demanding or even some semi-pro work you're going to need at least 4 GB. And that's with just two cores.

Not completely true.

Photoshop, for example, can only accept about 2,5 Gb RAM. That is, in the Mac World. Once we get our 64 bit version, it'll be able to accept much more RAM.

Lots of professionals work with underpowered machines. Business isn't that great in this economy, and Apple has even increased its pricing of the Mac Pros in this abysmal 2009.

That said, when you work so much in Photoshop, you'd like everything to be a little bit snappier. I have to wait for a minute sometimes for saving a 300 Mb layered TIFF file. I'm so glad I'm not a smoker. I'd kill myself with all those involuntary cigarette breaks.

But, generally, there is no flexibility on the iMac. I'm going to start learning a 3D software. That will definitely be too much for my iMac as soon as I get into more advanced stuff.

Not to speak of video editing.

So, it all comes down on the Mac Pro prices 2010. And if those problems get fixed, that turn the MacPro into a heater when you play music.

I'm just fantasizing sometimes to have 8 or 12 cores and 30 or 40 Gb RAM.

Zip!

[Simon]

PS is actually not very demanding compared to many other pro applications.

[sadpandas]

There are people who build theme here in l.a. that will build you one for 'your needs'. I was thinking of going that route back in 08. The refresh early 08 mac pros just came out so i spent an arm and a leg on this machine. Upgrading the video card and aftermarket ram not to mention the drives and again, as i have said in earlier posts. I can't really tax this machine out even with 15 audio tracks all playing back with real time vsts and automation going.... Thats with an insane amount of VI's going as well. I don't see me needing anything different any time soon with the new logic and SL running at 64.... anyway, my thoughts on it were, i paid a lot more than what the builder was asking for the 'same machine' but i know all the software and ad/da that use core audio etc. i am in good hands... if things break i can always bring it into a shop.... I love making music with my MP and don't have room for a lot of down time or debugging. I just want to sit down and hit play and record and get to work.

Everyone using hackint0shs successfully that is awesome, i however am not one of the tech savvy diy people when it comes to macs... sure, i can build a p.c. just fine. I have built 3 of them now for friends and family but i just think i wouldn't be lucky even trying this project out.

love,
p

[shabbasuraj]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Hey guys... I finally got all the parts for my Core i7 Hackintosh. Typing on it now. Blazing fast and I haven't overclocked it yet. I'm going to replace the stock cpu cooler with an aftermarket one. Every indication is that I'll be able to easily get this thing up to 3.8Ghz with air cooling.

I had my share of problems at the start. For whatever reason, the Chameleon bootloader just refused to boot when installed on my 1.5 TB drives. Once I figured out that was the problem I installed the OS on my 500GB drive and am using the larger drives for my user data and Time Machine backup. The installation couldn't have been simpler. I was up and running in under an hour. I'm using a Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 motherboard. It has digital audio, dual ethernet, a gazillion USB ports, a Firewire 400 port, and 2 eSata ports. I've got a GeForce 9600GT card with dual DVI out.

I doubt Hackintosh's will ever be mainstream... actually I'm hoping that's the case so it stays under Apple's radar. If you've got some basic Unix skills and persistence it may be worth your while. Definitely have to do your research to make sure you get the right hardware components.

Almost forgot. I was able to run Software Update to bring it up to 10.6.2 with no trouble at all and I'm even booting into the 64-bit kernel.

got pics?

[sadpandas]

could i build a p.c. in my old G5 chassis? Thats kind of a 'neat' project, no?

p

[dedalus]

Well, of course you could. Other people have done it before, there’s no reason why you can’t.

What baffles me is ‘why?’ You’ll have built a friggin’ PC inside a G5 chassis. It’s still a friggin’ PC.

You wanna do something useful, build an Amiga 500 laptop, that’d do it for me.

[sadpandas]

I meant a hackint0sh p.c. not a windows machine....

[Googer-Giger]

It doesn't really work out very smoothly, you end up not being able to use the awesome fans that came in the G5, the custom form factor of a PC power supply doesn't fit under in the secret area of the case like the G5's did, so you end up having to mount it somewhere else in the case. You have a make a custom plate to cover the ports in the back, and cut out the old G5 one. It is a lot of customizing for something that really doesn't look very good in the end.

http://www.lubzny.org/Images/Buildpics/mockup3.jpg
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/7465/paint12vn0.jpg

It's really the kind of thing you do to say you did it, I really don't think it looks that good, personally.