Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hackintosh Guide

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the because-you-can dept.

Hardware Hacking 453

An anonymous reader writes "A 'Hackintosh' is a computer that runs Apple's OS X operating system on non-Apple hardware. This has been possible since Apple's switch from IBM's PowerPC processors to Intel processors a few years ago. Until recently, building a PC-based Mac was something done only by hard-core hackers and technophiles, but in the last few months, building a Hackintosh PC has become much easier. Benchmark Reviews looks at what it's possible to do with PC hardware and the Mac Snow Leopard OS today, and the pros and cons of building a Hackintosh computer system over purchasing a supported Apple Mac Pro."

cancel ×

453 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

apple ][ clones (5, Funny)

johnrpenner (40054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33858992)

its apple ][ clones all over again..

and look what it did for the popularity of apple hardware.. they got so big, that ibm decided to make its own PC too.. stirring the behomoth into action.

the best thing steve jobs could do on his his death is to open-source Mac OSX (maybe..)

2cents from toronto
jp

Re:apple ][ clones (2, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859180)

and look what it did for the popularity of apple hardware.. they got so big, that ibm decided to make its own PC too.. stirring the behomoth into action.

This is the truth. According to Jack Sams, IBM Boca Raton started what they initially called 'Project Chess' after noting the success of the Apple II.

However, what made the Apple II successful and what made the Macintosh successful are two completely different stories.

Re:apple ][ clones (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859266)

What made the Macintosh successful and what made OS X successful are two different stories as well.

Knee Growz (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33858998)

A supposedly intelligent person claimed that blacks are at least as intelligent as whites because they are so ?innovative.? His example was that blacks would take an old steel oil-drum (which whites considered to be rubbish) and turn it into something useful ? a steel drum. Leaving aside whether or not a steel-drum band of muds is, in any way, shape or form, ?useful,? let?s look at his argument.

The white man had made the steel oil-drum as a means of transporting oil around the world. This involved creating an industrial technology, and developing mining industry to a point where oil wells could be sunk in the North Sea (or Gulf of Mexico), and crude oil successfully removed. Then a world-wide trading network had to be established. Let us gloss over the need for international economic transactions, international credit and banking, electronic money transfers, telephonic and satellite communications, and the stable economies and governments needed to make this possible.

Instead, let?s look at the need to produce oil tankers to transport the oil. The need for computers to navigate the ships, the level of technology needed to produce the ships, the schools needed to educate those who will serve on the ships, the engineering skills and training for those making them.

Let us now think about the products kept going by the oil. The plastics, the chemicals, the cars, and so on. And all this on a world-wide scale, over generations. And we haven?t even touched on road and rail systems, intensive farming and refrigeration to feed those in the industrialised cities, the factories, the building trade, power generation, written and computerised record keeping, or a thousand and one other things, all associated with the world oil production and trade.

And of all this, the oil drum is a minor by-product, a practical but simple and fairly primitive form of storage whilst in temporary transit.

And if, by some chance or accident, one of these oil drums washes up on the shore of dusky Africa, what do the native inhabitants do? Use it in their own oil industry? No. Use it as a spring-board towards future development? No. They turn it upside-down and hit it with sticks! Call me pedantic, but that doesn?t make them my equal. Not one of the dozens of items I listed above has appeared in Africa, ever. Not even writing. A continent surrounded by ocean, watered by massive lakes and rivers, and the black natives never dreamt a sail. Thousands of miles of flat grasslands, and they never fashioned a wheel, nor domesticated animals. Surrounded by stone, they never constructed a building better than a hut. Acres of diamonds and the world?s largest gold fields, and they never glanced at them until shown their beauty by white men. And all this for tens of thousands of years, thousands of generations living with no change, no progress. But they are our "equal" or so the brainwashed politically correct morons would have you believe.

I'm tired of... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859002)

all these fuckintosh news!

Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a Mac (-1, Flamebait)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859024)

The nerd rage would be endless.

Apple gets away with monopoly.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859074)

Until (relatively recently) you *couldn't* run Windows on a Mac.
Saying Apple has a monopoly is absurd. That's like saying Commodore had an monopoly on the Amiga OS because it only ran on their hardware.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859136)

I know of no DRM in Amiga OS to make sure it wasn't running on hardware Commodre hadn't been paid for.
Apple sells copies of an operating system that can run on commodity hardware.
Just as it is my right to play my legally-purchased music on any hardware that can play it, it's my right to run my legally-purchased software on any hardware that can run it.
By the way, it's utterly ridiculous for Apple to claim the DMCA has anything to do with this; it's not about pirating their software.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (4, Informative)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859194)

"I know of no DRM in Amiga OS to make sure it wasn't running on hardware Commodre hadn't been paid for."

There isn't any DRM in OS X either. It's a matter of drivers, and EFI.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859350)

...so then it should be a trivial matter to pop my Snow Leopard disks into a PC that lacks an Apple logo and create virtual machines to my hearts content in either vmware or virtualbox.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859520)

That's correct. Google is your friend. There's numerous ways to do it. VMware, Virtualbox as mentioned, maybe some others.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859626)

Last time I checked, OSX guests on Virtualbox only worked on OSX hosts.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859392)

I know of no DRM in Amiga OS to make sure it wasn't running on hardware Commodre hadn't been paid for.

Amiga OS didn't need DRM to do that. The Amiga had custom chips that Amiga OS expected to be there for it to work at all.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (2, Insightful)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859178)

Except Windows NT 4 had a PPC build/install disc option ...

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

SmilingSalmon (1143805) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859494)

Sure, but that was just Bill Gates demonstrating to Intel how he could bring down the sales of Intel chips by offering his OS for other chips like PPC or DEC Alpha. All because Intel said they were interested in supporting Java in hardware. When Intel backed down [www.ecis.eu] (see page 14), suddenly Microsoft lost interest in other chip architectures.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (3, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859282)

Connectix Virtual PC was released in 1997. That was, what, 13 years ago? I wouldn't call that "relatively recently."

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859310)

Sorry, I assumed that the topic was running the OS in question on native hardware, not through emulation.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859362)

Ah, but you didn't say that.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859294)

Commodore didn't have a monopoly on Amiga OS?

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859398)

Until (relatively recently) you *couldn't* run Windows on a Mac

No, that just isn't true. It just didn't run natively. Connectix Virtual PC [wikipedia.org] for the Mac came out in 1997 (It was a Mac product before MS bought it), Soft PC [wikipedia.org] was around in 1996. And later there was the FOSS Bochs x86 PC emulator [sourceforge.net] . Those products had to emulate an Intel CPU, so there was a significant performance hit. I recall MS-DOS running in emulation on a Mac even before the switch the PPC processors.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859528)

The article is about building a "Hackintosh". Silly me, I assumed the topic at hand would be running the OS on native hardware.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859638)

Heh.... I remember running Windows 3.1 on a Mac IIsi via Soft PC ^_^ You could also buy x86 cards that you could plug into a Mac's buss and run Windows strait on intel hardware and get a pop-up window on the Mac Desktop.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (0)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859088)

Yes, a monopoly....of their own computers that own less than 10% of the market. Boo hoo.

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

earls (1367951) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859090)

Re:Imagine if you had to Hack Windows to run on a (1)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859108)

Cool story bro.

It's not "the" guide (4, Informative)

Artifex (18308) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859028)

It even says on the first page,

This is not a detailed guide on building your own Hackintosh; it's a description of my personal experience building one, and how the result compared with my existing Mac Pro. If you want to build your own Hackintosh, there are many comprehensive resources on the Web. I've found Insanely Mac to be very useful.

Re:It's not "the" guide (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859116)

Bah. Who needs to build a Hackintosh? I have Snow Leopard running in VirtualBox.

Re:It's not "the" guide (1)

sgtstein (1219216) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859248)

Yea, I completely agree. I'm a software and web dev and I need multiple environments to test stuff out. I run Win XP, Win 7, Leopard(10.5) and Snow Leopard(10.6) running in VirtualBox very well. All on Fedora 13 and an encrypted hard drive. No issues at all. Why build a dedicated rig and even dual-boot when VB works so much better?

Re:It's not "the" guide (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859264)

Bah. Who needs to build a Hackintosh? I have Snow Leopard running in VirtualBox.

What's AV performance like? One reason it would be nice to build a Hackintosh is to have a cheap, fast box to run something like Logic Pro on.

Re:It's not "the" guide (1, Troll)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859370)

AV performance? I get better performance out of AirVideo running in a single CPU VM (WinXP) than I do from a dual core Mac running on bare metal.

Re:It's not "the" guide (2, Funny)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859428)

Yeah. Mac hardware is nice. Their software, however, is turning into bloatware.

There is a social network inside of iTunes.

There is a social network inside of iTunes.

Re:It's not "the" guide (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859480)

Good to know.

I should have mentioned, what really matters for audio is latency -- for example, if you're playing an electric guitar through GarageBand or Logic's amp simulators, latency in the sound card can be very noticeable (I've had issues even with GarageBand running natively on a G4 Mac Mini).

It "feels" as if a virtualised OSX would introduce extra latency, but I don't want to jump to conclusions. Does anyone have experience with doing latency-sensitive audio work in VirtualBox?

Re:It's not "the" guide (2, Funny)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859596)

Just play a little faster, jeez. :)

Re:It's not "the" guide (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859438)

About the same as the AV performance of any other OS running in VirtualBox. Definitely inadequate for doing professional or even prosumer level A/V production. I agree that you'd definitely want a dedicated box for that. Dabblers with sufficiently fast CPUs and lots of RAM would be able to see what Logic Pro can do, though.

Re:It's not "the" guide (1)

Elbowgeek (633324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859302)

Same here, and it runs quite nicely, albeit a bit slow. But it's fun to play with.

Re:It's not "the" guide (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859386)

Actually, it's telling me:

Pardon our server... it's being serviced at the moment. Please refresh this page (F5) or use your browsers "Back" button.

Mac vs. PC (3, Insightful)

ReneeJade (1649107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859060)

A mac is a personal computer. PC stands for personal computer. Can we please stop using the terms as if they are mutually exclusive? It makes you sound ignorant, and renders the term "personal computer" useless as a means of differentiating a computer for personal use from any other kind of computer. K thanks.

Re:Mac vs. PC (4, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859096)

While I agree with your point, separating them into Mac and PC labels makes it easy for conversation regarding the two. It's a convenience thing.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

broggyr (924379) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859132)

Macs and Unmacs

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859272)

I feel the same way about RAM versus ROM being used as mutually exclusive terms. It's not often you come across Read-Only Memory where you cannot randomly access the data. But unfortunately these are the labels we're stuck with since RWM is not pronounceable.

Re:Mac vs. PC (2, Interesting)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859614)

While I agree with your point, separating them into Mac and PC labels makes it easy for conversation regarding the two. It's a convenience thing.

Saying "OS X" and "Windows" works quite well too. See, a "Mac" is a computer made by Apple. "Macs" run Windows (and Linux) quite well.

The problem is that a massive breakdown occurs in your differentiation when one runs Windows on a Mac instead of running OS X on a Mac.

  • "Hi, I'm a Mac and I'm full of all the same problems I constantly berate the overweight bastard in the suit for. I'm also utterly full of shit an won't give said fat bastard the satisfaction of calling him by his real name."

Re:Mac vs. PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859110)

Worse still, it reinforces the idea that a "PC" is a computer which runs Microsoft Windows.

Re:Mac vs. PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859118)

Never seen the commercial?

"I'm a Mac"
"I'm a PC"

Therefore Apple agrees with us and disagrees with you.

Re:Mac vs. PC (3, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859124)

Can we please stop using the terms as if they are mutually exclusive?

No.

They're in the vernacular now. Can't speak for other languages, but in English, to say "My PC is busted" generally means "My windows PC is busted."

"My mac is busted" is straightforward. When further differentiation is required on the PC front we say "My Linux PC is busted" (although more than likely, we'd say "My Linux Box is busted.")

A parallel is saying "I'm American" - While not technically correct, this is understood in the vernacular to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States." Canadians like me have to say "I'm Canadian" even though I live in the Americas. It's the understood vernacular.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

justleavealonemmmkay (1207142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859220)

The United Mexican States ?

Re:Mac vs. PC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859490)

The official name of the country of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. or Mexico for short.

The official name of the country of US is United States of America. or America for short.

The official name of the country of Brazil is Republica Federativa do Brasil. or Brazil for short.

The official name of the country of Canada is....Canada.

Would the farking Canadians that still can't get over the fact that USAians are called americans and no one else get over themselves. And yes, I'm referring to Canadians because they are the only ones that get their knickers in a twist over this,

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859554)

Used to be the Dominion of Canada, until they dropped it in 1982. Why? Probably something to do with Hockey or Lumberjacks.

Re:Mac vs. PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859616)

Just to be fair to CohibaVancouver, he didn't seem to have his knickers in a twist.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1, Insightful)

ReneeJade (1649107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859234)

Can we please stop using the terms as if they are mutually exclusive?

No. They're in the vernacular now. Can't speak for other languages, but in English, to say "My PC is busted" generally means "My windows PC is busted." "My mac is busted" is straightforward. When further differentiation is required on the PC front we say "My Linux PC is busted" (although more than likely, we'd say "My Linux Box is busted.") A parallel is saying "I'm American" - While not technically correct, this is understood in the vernacular to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States." Canadians like me have to say "I'm Canadian" even though I live in the Americas. It's the understood vernacular.

Yeah I know, you have a point. I guess I'm just stubborn and obsessed with semantics. If I was Canadian, I would happily say that I was from America, and let people interpret it however they like. But the term "American", when referring to people, is quite exclusively reserved for referring to people from the USA. At least that's my understanding of it."PC", on the other hand, is not used exclusively to refer to a personal computer running Microsoft Windows. It can just as easily refer to any personal computer. One of the meanings is logical and useful, the other one isn't. Not that I really mind. I sort of enjoy calling Macs PCs and then watching the inevitable rage or confusion that follows.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859356)

Well, its history is derived from "I have an IBM-compatible PC", rather than "I have a Personal Computer" proper. IBM PC had a history of being used to describe PCs compatible with Windows.

Re:Mac vs. PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859710)

IBM got trademark for the PC. IBM PC was first PC and later there came PC-compatibles. Then Compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS and they opened the markets for PC-Clones.

All that times, Macs (Macintoshes, LISA etc) were own branch of the personal computers while (IBM's) PC's were own. Both (PC&Mac) belonged to personal computer markets where were at same time many other personal computer (!=PC) manufacturers as well.

PC got popular because IBM understanded that get success for personal computer, it needs standards and compability between software vendors and hardware manufacturers. PC was exactly that, big company bringing standard for messy personal computer markets with the PC.

Personal computers has been in markets since 1949. PC's (PC + PC-compatible + PC-clones) just from 1981.

Today all PC's are clones. Mac is still manufactured by original maker. Even that a while Apple licensed Mac system to Mac-Clones manufacturers but it withdraw (read: Forced) them to drop off the licenses so Apple got the control back.

People has lots of problems to understand that PC was a registered trademark what IBM invented for their personal computer. The whole trademark was "IBM PC". But people just talked about PC's as it was the standard (PC-DOS, periphelals, PC-compatibility etc). And it really got out of the hand when the PC-clones came to personal computer markets.

Then there are other "nicknames" as "Wintel" as well what means Windows + Intel CPU and MS monopoly.

IBM tried later to get back the control of the PC markets with IBM-AT, IBM-XT and PC Jr. But it failed because PC-Clones were already saturated markets by HP, Compaq and many other clone manufacturers. No one cared about IBM quest to get control back.

Apple did something what not even IBM could do (Mac-clones).

And since then, Apple has strictly controlled Mac markets as it is the only manufacturer. There is no competition but it is not problem because Mac is Apples own personal computer line what it does not offer others and it is not open for competition. PC's in otherhand is all about competition and Microsoft is the key player in that arena. It controls every PC manufacturers success as hadrware and software for personal computer is useless without a OS. Without OS operating the hardware the software can not run. OS controlling all the processes, offering low level networking, filesystems etc, none of the programs or libraries would work in multitask. Their development would be impossible as they are now as every hardware command codes should be written in every software itself and if you change the hardware, you need to rewrite everything.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859456)

"PC", on the other hand, is not used exclusively to refer to a personal computer running Microsoft Windows. It can just as easily refer to any personal computer. One of the meanings is logical and useful, the other one isn't. Not that I really mind. I sort of enjoy calling Macs PCs and then watching the inevitable rage or confusion that follows.

If confusion follows then you are not using the word in its commonly accepted fashion. Languages evolve - and words take on new meanings. There are plenty of words whose modern meaning differs from the older meaning; or whose meaning is very context specific.

Re:Mac vs. PC (3, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859652)

Yeah I know, you have a point. I guess I'm just stubborn and obsessed with semantics. If I was Canadian, I would happily say that I was from America, and let people interpret it however they like.

That seems somewhat silly, and I actually think you're wrong about the semantics.

What does "America" mean? The most obvious answer (and ignoring the handful of towns around the world named America) is that it's an abbreviated form of "The United States of America." To what else could it possibly refer? North America? No, that doesn't make sense because if you say "America" referring to a continent, how do you differentiate between North and South America. Likewise, if you're referring to both continents it doesn't make sense, because they -- the landmass as a whole -- is referred to as the Americas (pl). It's possible that in a historical sense "America" (s) could be used to refer to the entire landmass, but this is most certainly not a modern usage. Deprecated!

So, if you were a Canadian it would make perfect sense to say you were either from North America or from the Americas. Neither statement is particularly useful nor descriptive but they would be accurate. Saying you were "from America" would mean you were from the United States of America (unless as I said earlier you were from the handful of towns or cities around the world named America).

So is this a pedantic semantic argument? I guess so, but I don't see how you could possibly justify that usage of America.

Re:Mac vs. PC (4, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859724)

If I was Canadian, I would happily say that I was from America, and let people interpret it however they like.

I sort of enjoy calling Macs PCs and then watching the inevitable rage or confusion that follows.

So you value pedantic correctness over effective communication with your fellow humans? That says volumes about you, and very little of it positive.

But the term "American", when referring to people, is quite exclusively reserved for referring to people from the USA. At least that's my understanding of it.

It is exclusively reserved for referring to people from the USA only by informal convention & long-standing usage, not from some inflexible rule of language. Just like "Macs" are "Macintosh PCs" and "PCs" are "Windows PCs," in long-standing usage and informal convention. This is mindless semantic argument, made solely for the sake of argument. What is the point? You know what's meant, I know what's meant, and everybody else reading knows what's meant by the "Mac" vs. "PC" distinction.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859420)

A parallel is saying "I'm American" - While not technically correct, this is understood in the vernacular to mean "I'm a citizen of the United States." Canadians like me have to say "I'm Canadian" even though I live in the Americas. It's the understood vernacular.

A well kept secret is how many Canadians like you have immigrated to America... Maybe we should start a swap program - say 1 Canadian for 2 Americans? You still have a lot a of space...

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859146)

Sheesh, you sound so much not ignorant, I am in awe.

Re:Mac vs. PC (5, Informative)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859166)

A mac is a personal computer. PC stands for personal computer. Can we please stop using the terms as if they are mutually exclusive?

  I can tell you are an old-school Mac fan from the 1980's - pre-Jobs '90s from the pedantry. Now please go tell Apple what you just told us since they just finished a years long "Mac vs. PC" ad campaign that flies in the face of what you just said. I'm not even going to bother with the YouTube links at this point.

Re:Mac vs. PC (0, Offtopic)

ReneeJade (1649107) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859274)

A mac is a personal computer. PC stands for personal computer. Can we please stop using the terms as if they are mutually exclusive?

I can tell you are an old-school Mac fan from the 1980's - pre-Jobs '90s from the pedantry. Now please go tell Apple what you just told us since they just finished a years long "Mac vs. PC" ad campaign that flies in the face of what you just said. I'm not even going to bother with the YouTube links at this point.

LOL. Actually I'm 20 years old. And the only computers I've ever owned are a Dell laptop that has run a variety of different Windows and Linuxs, and a home built gaming machine that dual boots Linux and Widows. But nice try.

Re:Mac vs. PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859368)

You're still missing the point. But nice try.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859450)

dual boots Linux and Widows

I've heard widows are fun but this takes the cake!

-l

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859170)

Yes, but the term PC initially was used to identify the IBM PC. Then the PC clones came out (that mimicked the operation of the IBM PC), hence the term PC. It wasn't saying it's the only personal computer, but was used in reference as IBM PC clone/compatible. It's just like you don't Xerox something, you copy something, but the term Xerox was used in that manor

Re:Mac vs. PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859324)

No, the term PC was originally used to identify person computers. Those were made by a variety of companies, not just IBM, and in fact IBM was a bit late to the PC market.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859530)

can I use xerox in my house, not just in a manor?

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859182)

The hardware certainly isn't "personal" whatsoever. I would think that is the first test to determine if a computer really is "personal."

Re:Mac vs. PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859196)

I agree, this pisses me off constantly.
All computers are PCs. Running OS X does not make a piece of hardware into a magical dream machine that is not somehow a computer.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859604)

All computers are PCs.

You must be very wealthy.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859250)

A mac is a personal computer. PC stands for personal computer. Can we please stop using the terms as if they are mutually exclusive? It makes you sound ignorant, and renders the term "personal computer" useless as a means of differentiating a computer for personal use from any other kind of computer. K thanks.

PC is and has been for a long time a synonym with IBM PC-compatible. If you really want to be anal about it then sure, we can start using PC for Personal Computer, but how do you separate Macs from non-Macs then? And how exactly do you define a Personal Computer nowadays when absolutely everything IS a computer: your phone, some TVs themselves, consoles, a tiny plug that can just be plugged straight into wall, hell, even some watches are Personal Computers nowadays if we go with the traditional definition.

The problem is, the traditional definition of Personal Computer is WAY too broad for today's computing landscape. Even arbitrary limitations like e.g. "it must have a keyboard" don't fly: touch interfaces are becoming all the more common every single day, and I do definitely consider a computer I use for personal business a personal computer, no matter what input device it actually employs.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

netsuhi.com (1867770) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859442)

Back when I was a kid we had these definitions: Micro computer: 8 bit computer Mini Computer: 16 bit computer Mainframe: 32 bit computer Super Computer: 64 bit computer. Nobody talked about PC apert from IBM PC (or IBM PC-compatible) which has now been shortened to PC. However wouldent the Mac adds be funny if it was Mac verses PC when PC stands for Police Constable? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Constable [wikipedia.org]

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859698)

Just because an acronym literally meant something at the time of its creation does not mean that it is being used that way today. Regardless of what the initials stand for, today 'PC' means an intel (or AMD) based consumer level machine running a Microsoft OS.

Re:Mac vs. PC (1)

murpium (1310525) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859746)

"Great Scott! PC stands for Personal Computer - I just this moment got that. It's alright if you want to laugh." -Killface

What? (3, Informative)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859104)

building a PC-based Mac was something done only by hard-core hackers and technophiles

What? This is a load of crap. Granted, it's not the simpest thing to do, but I'd say it was two years ago that hackintoshing became simple enough for the somewhat technical to figure it out.

Re:What? (4, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859186)

Indeed...for example, the Dell Mini 9 has been notoriously easy to make into a Hackintosh for quite a while. Hell, even Gizmodo posted a walkthrough [gizmodo.com] in early 2009.

Re:What? (2, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859482)

10v works fine too http://twitpic.com/tywtq [twitpic.com]

Re:What? (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859630)

I have a 10v running Snow Leopard that works great. It didn't take all that long to do, either. I didn't want to spend the money on a mac mini just to dabble in some iPhone development. And my other laptop is too old to virtualize os x.

Re:What? (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859318)

What? That is completely wrong. It used to be something only done by people willing to spend a lot of time on it (one might call them hard-core), but it has recently become much easier.

Hahaha (-1, Flamebait)

Codename Dutchess (1782238) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859120)

Building a cheap version of an expensive piece of junk is for 'hard-core hackers'? Oh Slashdot...

Pros and cons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859160)

Pro: your not paying 4x as much for the same hardware

Con: it requires OSX which you cant legally acquire without buying a mac first.

Re:Pros and cons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859278)

Con: it requires OSX which you cant legally acquire without buying a mac first.

Wrong. You can buy OSX without buying a mac. You can get it from Amazon or something. And it's significantly cheaper than buying a new Mac.

Re:Pros and cons (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859418)

Nope.

That $29 Snow Leopard is an upgrade from Leopard. That $169 Mac Box Set is an upgrade from Tiger or Leopard. Only way you can get an original copy of Mac OS X is with a Mac, and it's licensed for use with that Mac. Sure, they don't serialize or put registration restrictions on the software, but you're still breaking the license agreement.

In closing, if you're building a Hackintosh you may as well pirate it, because purchasing a disc isn't going to change anything.

Re:Pros and cons (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859538)

That $29 Snow Leopard is an upgrade from Leopard. That $169 Mac Box Set is an upgrade from Tiger or Leopard. Only way you can get an original copy of Mac OS X is with a Mac, and it's licensed for use with that Mac. Sure, they don't serialize or put registration restrictions on the software, but you're still breaking the license agreement.

You can use the "upgrade" disc to do a full install. The main difference between the Snow Leopard upgrade and the Mac Box Set is that the Box Set includes the latest version of iLife. Normally iLife does not get upgraded when you upgrade the OS. That is worth about $100 separately at retail. And if you're installing OS X on a hackintosh, you're breaking the license agreement anyways.

Re:Pros and cons (1)

GordonBX (1059078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859478)

But you can't legally run it on hardware that isn't "Apple Branded" according to the EULA.

Re:Pros and cons (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859404)

You can get OS X pretty easily at Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, etc. The current price for Snow Leopard upgrade is $29. Although it's an "upgrade", I've heard you can use it as an install disc.

Slashdotted! (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859172)

I wonder if the server is a Hackintosh?

Somewhat aside (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859226)

From TFA:

Topower 1.1kW power supply

People are actually building home rigs with kW rated PSU's? I've been out of the game for too long.

Re:Somewhat aside (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859390)

I guess. Have you ever hooked a Kill-a-Watt up to a computer while running a video game with 2x SLI video cards on a high-end system?

I have trouble passing 250W, no matter how many things I leave running, or purposefully try to bog down the hard drive and video cards.

Re:Somewhat aside (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859542)

building computers at home has turned into a willy-waving contest... the average cheap home computer is more powerful than anyone ever needs, unless they're running vista :-)

Re:Somewhat aside (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859730)

Not really. I personally build my own systems at home just so that I can upgrade piecemeal as needed. I also run into performance problems on some games. Now, I'm NOT the type to go out and drop $500 on a video card - I typically make it by with budget components, but you still have to upgrade every once in a while.

My current gaming PC for example is a dual-core Pentium 1.8Ghz with 2GB of RAM, a Geforce 9600GT vid card, and Windows XP. It's starting to show some age in newer games. My next upgrade will be ordered within the next week or two. Plan is to go to a dual-core Pentium 3.2Ghz, 4GB RAM, Radeon 5770 video card, and Windows 7 Home. Total upgrade cost ~$450. Certainly not "willy waving". Just taking the system to a modest level where it needs to be to run more modern games.

You may have a point on regular home usage, but not for everything.

/.ted (1)

LordAzuzu (1701760) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859292)

at teh moment

Support is the main thing (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859352)

I would surmise that the support is the main difference. Getting your own patches, testing, and applying them will probably constitute the bulk of your time. Also in some cases it's variable on when you can to get a patch.

I did this once (4, Insightful)

tpstigers (1075021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859454)

Just to see if I could. Later that day I got bored and ditched OSX for a Linux distro. Other than as an intellectual exercise, I don't really see much of a point in this. If you really want a Mac, just buy one. Sure they cost more, but all your hardware will work without any effort on your part.

Wish Apple put some work on OSX (3, Informative)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859476)

Sorry if this sounds like a lament,

Apple doesn't like OS/X anymore. The platform has basically been stagnant since the inception of 10.6, in 2008. Hardware support is poor, even worse than Linux. For instance there is no way to make a Nvidia GTX460 run under OS/X at the moment, in spite of it being the best bang-for-the-buck video card right now. It was impossible to have an AMD 5xxx series run until only a few months ago! Performance is not good enough. From experience OS/X guzzle memory like no other OS I know. I use two boxes at work, a Linux HP PC with 4GB of RAM that never ever swaps, and a MBP laptop with 4GB of RAM that becomes slow as molasses after a week of use due to memory issues.

I'm extremely disappointed in Apple's focus on the mobile platform at the moment. There is only so much that can be done with a telephone and a hobbled tablet, nice though it may be.

I have some experience with Hackintosh. In my opinion, be prepared for a world of hurt, very comparable to the Linux experience of 10 years ago. Basic features not working (e.g suspend-to-disk), no support, needing to be very careful about what hardware can be accommodated, performance issues, and very shaky future. Apple could basically pull the plug anyday. At the end of it a little more software is available, from the big editors. Realistically a lot of the free software tools that I like do not run as well as under Linux (for instance Inkscape).

I used to like the OSX development tools but they are not portable, I wasted a lot of time with them, so this is as basic as I can make it now, so my software runs everywhere.

Re:Wish Apple put some work on OSX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859606)

Agreed, the only thing OSX has over Linux is printing. Printing is Linux's Achilles heel as it has been all along. They keep trying to fix it but for some reason it never does get fixed. My LaserJet 1200 used to work pretty good in Linux but they broke it at some point and it hasn't worked in about 4 years. Something about the USB in Linux gets wedged and even when it works it's slow as hell. Works fine and fast in Windows and OSX.

Re:Wish Apple put some work on OSX (2, Insightful)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859676)

Apple puts development work into OS X to support the current generation of Macintosh computers. Because Apple only has to support a very small slice of hardware, they can concentrate their development work on building features and improving the OS. Sorry for not supporting third party hardware. That's their business model and it works for them.

Don't forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33859486)

his little brother, the Hackberry!

Hackintosh? (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859532)

... I have an Amoeba 3000, it's even better.

Not worth the trouble (4, Insightful)

tylersoze (789256) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859558)

I have setup several Hackintosh's at home for my family, a dell 9 mini and a couple of desktops, and I have to say it's just not worth the time and effort. I should have just bought a Mac mini and a Macbook that "just worked" out of the box.

Actually let me amend that, it is worth your time if your time is worthless. :) The money I could have made (as a freelancer contracter) in the time it took to setup and support them would have more than offset the cost of a real Apple machine.

Apple needs a desktop mini tower at $1000-$1500 (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859684)

Apple needs a desktop mini tower at $1000-$1500

The mini is priced a little to high and only a core2 cpu?

the imac are nice but the price is a little and high + the lack of a mate screen is a trun off and there lots of people who don't want to be locked in to a screen.

also the imac is weak in video card area for it's price.

The mac pro is cool but the base system needs to take $1000+ off it's price and boast the ram to 4gb min.

unfair practices (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#33859722)

What is unfair, of course, is that it is allowed to run Windows on a Mac, while it is not allowed to run OSX on a PC.
Time for the FTC to look into this, I would suggest.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?