digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Build a Hackintosh Mac for Under $800

lifehacker.com — If the high price tag for Apple hardware has kept you from buying a Mac but you're willing to roll up your sleeves and get adventurous, you can build your own "Hackintosh" —a PC that runs a patched version of OS X Leopard. Today, I'll show you how to build your own high end computer running Leopard from start to finish for under $800.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • internjack, on 11/14/2007, -8/+119Now this is the kind of "How to" I like to read!
    Thx mklopez.
    • prototypeangel, on 11/14/2007, -7/+6I'd like to see *one* proper tutorial on how to dual boot mac and windows (xp/vista) and possibly linux/etc

      If someone finds a detailed one, please submit it to digg, thanks.
      • puppetj, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4yeah here, http://manvspc.com/smf/index.php?PHPSESSID=eb1a26f ...
      • hexydes, on 11/14/2007, -0/+6Acronis Boot Loader is the real trick here (as is mentioned in that link). Just install Windows XP. Make two blank partitions, whatever size you want. Install Acronis (in Windows). Boot Linux, install that to one partition (well, you might need to do two, for the swap space). Now you have Linux and Windows installed. Boot your patched OS X disc. Install that. Now you have MacOS X installed (and likely that overwrote the boot record, so now you can't boot Linux and Windows). Put your Acronis startup disc in. It will start. Tell it to take over booting. It will find your other OS's, and then let you choose which one you want to use. If you ever get in trouble again, just use the boot disc.

        Please support Acronis also, and buy their software. It is very fairly priced, and does a GREAT job at just completely man-handling your computer. :)
      • NiteShdw, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2I just installed Mac OS X yesterday, just for fun. It's really simple if you have a second hard drive to install it to. Once installed on the other drive, use EasyBCD to add Mac OS X to the Vista boot menu.

        If you just want to play around, it'll install just fine in VMWare.
    • toetagger, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3If you have Tiger with Boot Camp installed, or Leopard- which has Boot Camp built-in, you simply launch BC and follow the VERY easy wizard. It is just a few simple steps, BC does the rest. Try it!
  • CrossfireCurt, on 11/14/2007, -10/+37Lifehacker has some of the best stuff. Thanks a ton!
  • SuperFluke, on 11/14/2007, -19/+5Nice find. Thanks for the post, it would be worth the money just to do it.
  • mountchuck, on 11/14/2007, -18/+8Good article, but I think the caveat that you need to have the Leopard install disc in the DVD drive upon start-up should be stated up front, rather than at the end of the article. Otherwise, good read.
    • mingistech, on 11/14/2007, -0/+11you can patch the boot sector so that isn't needed.
  • mjaleo, on 11/14/2007, -6/+42Be warned that it can be fragile. I had to update a few kexts to get it to run correctly, and after the power went out and my UPS died so the machine was simply powered down without shutting down, I was unable to boot back into Leopard. Wouldn't have happened on a real mac. YMMV.
    • tupperbacharach, on 11/14/2007, -34/+5On a real Mac, you would have lost all the folders and files that you were moving when the power went out.
      • Vash265, on 11/13/2007, -3/+4....no?
      • jj101, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1tit.
      • edicius, on 11/14/2007, -2/+10You probably would on any computer if the power goes out while the disc is writing.
      • Terc, on 11/14/2007, -4/+5He's refering to a glitch in Leopard... which exists in patched versions of the gold final disk also. Apple, being Apple, fixed this already with an update, less than a week after the glitch was found.
        • themonkielives, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6No, the update is not released yet, only ADC memebers have access to the beta of the 10.5.1 update.

          And how nice of Apple to take the time to fix such a minor issue as losing your data, its not like that is a big deal or anything that should ever be tested for in the normal course of QA. God bless glorious Apple for bestowing upon us the miracle that is OS X.
      • Terc, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1He's refering to a glitch in Leopard... which exists in patched versions of the gold final disk also. Apple, being Apple, fixed this already with an update, less than a week after the glitch was found.
        • DaffyDuck, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2The fix is not yet released to the general public.
    • RyeBrye, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Are you using journaling? strange.
    • ZeRux, on 11/14/2007, -6/+3I've installed Mac OS X once on my PC using guides from x86 project, it turned to be less stale than Windows ME, some applications couldn't start and I couldn't install anything (not even flash plugin for Safari). So I booted to it only a couple of times, just to learn the OS and its interface a bit, then I removed it from my computer.
      • RobotBuddha, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2It's very dependent on hardware selection. I put one together for a friend, and last I heard it's still running like a champ about half a year later. She says it's actually more stable than the ubuntu install she was using on her laptop.
    • ninetimes, on 11/14/2007, -2/+14I would stress that point a lot: your resulting system might have problems. Really, I don't see the point unless you want to spend $800 just for a little pointless hacking project. If you want to use OSX on the cheap, go ahead and buy a Mac mini. they aren't that expensive, you won't have to jump through hoops to get OSX installed, you'll be able to install updates to OSX without fear, and you can still run Linux or Windows if you really want to.

      Building a Hackintosh for normal use is a bad idea. Go ahead and buy a Mac.
      • hexydes, on 11/14/2007, -1/+7Or, for under $275, buy the following parts, and install (should work on anything less than Leopard very, very well; not sure about Leopard, but you shouldn't be installing that anyway, as it is too new, and not enough has been worked out in the OSX86 community yet).

        https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/Publ ...
        • Tenoq, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I was gunna say why are we talk $800? If I wanted to build a project Mac, I'd be looking at more like $200 + software. :p
      • Buckeye70, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Compare the mac mini specs, to the specs of the project. That is why you would want to do it.
      • DaffyDuck, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Will a Mac Mini hold 4 hard drives? No. And no, I don't want external drives. I plan to buy a Mac Pro eventually but I'm actually considering this in the meantime to replace my windows tower.
      • koweja, on 11/14/2007, -0/+5It's not entirely pointless, as it can be under $600 with some adjustments. For instance, LH uses a $150 case, which isn't necessary. Obviously nobody wants a POS $30 case, but you can get very nice ones in the $50 - $75 range. Same with the HDD. If you only need an 80GB drive, you can get one for $45, cutting another $75 off the price without making the system in any way weaker than the base Mini.
    • tlimon, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Try SpinRite I bet it will fix that HD...
  • slayerab, on 11/14/2007, -39/+2Mac on a generic pc? Ugh. How do you eject discs?
    • tnoy, on 11/14/2007, -1/+43Use the Apple keyboard, set up some kind of keyboard shortcut, or press the little eject button that is on every generic CD/DVD.
      • mburk, on 11/14/2007, -5/+19Or hit the eject button on the drive. PCs have those.
      • tophu, on 11/14/2007, -0/+8Even on a non-Apple keyboard, holding down F12 will simulate the media eject key.
    • eatsushi, on 11/13/2007, -0/+6opt + f12
    • Raptor007, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3My G5 had a problem where the DVD drive would ignore the OS's eject command... and I'd have to pull the little flap down and poke the drive's eject button (yep, it has one in here). So you can eject on a real Mac the same way most Windows users do it. (Finally fixed the problem by replacing the DVD burner with a Pioneer one from NewEgg, btw.)
    • InorganicMatter, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4You push the button on the front of the drive, or you push the eject symbol on the taskbar next to the clock.
    • ZeRux, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4There's an eject button on OS X's menu.
    • anjinash, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4You can also just drag the CD to the trash icon on the dock, a tried and true method.
  • ender52, on 11/14/2007, -13/+140Hackintoshes make baby Jobs cry...
    • Bostocks, on 11/14/2007, -11/+10Hey could just open up osx to third party vendors. That would stop all this crying.
      • mrsteveman1, on 11/14/2007, -0/+7That won't happen, even if they had Microsoft-like marketshare they would still pull this crap.

        the iPod vertical tying is a similar situation, and having 80%+ marketshare in music players hasn't changed Apple one bit, they still keep the iTunes store entirely closed. Apple may be unable to sell DRM-less songs without the labels approval, but they certainly could license FairPlay.
        • Tenoq, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2They haven't because the media companies don't want a compromised licensing system. Not that it's hard to work around anyway.
        • buggu, on 11/14/2007, -0/+0If anything is apparent now, it's that Apple calls the shots.

          Maybe that was true when Apple was a newcomer, but not anymore. Now Apple dictates what do to, not the other way round (see NBC withdrawing from iTunes).
      • technoredneck, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2~*~*~*~*~*~~*~~*no apple is a hardware company~~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*
        • LeeSoong, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Lately, when Steve Jobs was interviewed along side Bill Gates, he said Apple is a software company.

          Many people silently gasped - because they understood the momentous shift in Apple's strategy.
        • Syphon8, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1*Hardware resellers*
    • banmaster, on 11/14/2007, -5/+20Nah, he'll NEVER let apple do that. How else can he keep people locked into the apple ecosystem and force folks to pay outrageous prices for the products and support.
      • mlopes, on 11/14/2007, -2/+5No one's forcing people to buy Apple hardware or software. They do it on their own will, contrary to having Windows installed on a laptop, although some would rather have Linux instead. Except for a couple of models, you're stuck to paying for Windows when buying a laptop.
        • aznhomig, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2I guess you don't know where to buy laptops, then. Dell, HP, or Apple isn't the only option.

          Check websites like Powernotebooks.com or XoticPC.com and you can order good laptops without operating systems at your choice.
      • Tenoq, on 11/14/2007, -4/+2Newsflash: OS X is cheaper than Vista. It also doesn't come in 'value' (read: crippled) versions to make you think it's a better deal. More to the point, the hardware isn't significantly different in price to your average OEM seller, when taking into account warranties and what-not. This Apple bashing based solely on price is wearing a little thin, and I'm a PC fan through and through. :p
        • buggu, on 11/14/2007, -1/+4>OS X is cheaper than Vista.

          Wrong.

          A Windows version lasts four-five years easily. That's why a Windows release is such a big event. If you factor in all the OSX incremental upgrades in the duration of a single Windows release, then it comes up to be significantly more expensive. Secondly, Microsoft provides its upgrads for free in the form of Service Packs, while Apple packages the same thing (albeit with a bunch of new features) in a new version and slaps the same price tag on it.
    • Litespeed, on 11/14/2007, -4/+3No they make him laugh because thousands of people around the world are doing all his alpha testing for free.
    • cjvino, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2Dugg for the Simpsons reference.
  • Po0py, on 11/14/2007, -4/+21This is cool and everything and I'm seriously thinking of giving it a go just for the hell of it, but most people who do try it say that it is not a viable option for everyday computer use.
    • uahgekido, on 11/14/2007, -0/+15I'm on my third week without booting into Vista on my now-Hackintosh. I've not had any reliability problems, although I won't lie and say I'm not still gun-shy at the idea of moving completely over to it. I'm actually considering buying an iMac now to fix that little problem (I've never owned a Mac before).
      • Po0py, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5And even further to my first point: Most people who try it say that they are seriously considering buying a Mac. :-)

        See that, Mr Jobs? Hackintosh makes you richer.
        • tophu, on 11/14/2007, -4/+7*Unsupported* Hackintosh makes people want to buy the real thing. *Supported* Hackintosh would just make people think that it sucked when they ran into strange hardware problems (you know, like Windows).
        • RobotBuddha, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2It's fairly up in the air. I know someone who's had no problems after something like half a year, and see it often enough to verify that. A lot of others online have had the same luck. Then again there's a lot of people who've had it wind up being the most unstable setup they've ever used. Personally, I think a lot of it just comes down to people not doing enough research on the hardware before they put a machine for it together.
        • kevyn, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1I would love to try the Mac experience... but there is no way I'm forking out to actually buy before I try
    • tyns, on 11/13/2007, -4/+5Fully Agreed. Speaking from experience.. As a fun experiment, I tried building a hackintosh last year (with recommended parts).. I actually own a Powermac and macbook pro as well. There are MANY things that are not supported properly on these hackintosh devices. To the point it is really not worth the effort. Even if you manage to find the ideal parts to get a current OS X installed onto the box, system updates do not work as it would patch the kernel. I can't recall, but i think Tiger Hack was always running an old kernel build. My GFX Card would never output through the DVI port, wireless "worked" but it was a struggle to get working. Sound was a nightmare.. None of the ports mapped to the corresponding port labeling. To get nice quality components that worked with a nice display.. It ended up costing exactly what an imac would have cost at the time.
      I ran it for about 1-2 weeks then reformatted and put windows on it.. (just sold it recently).. Seriously, it is way less hassle just to buy an actual mac. And you're guaranteed everything will work, including updates. That is, the mac experience.

      • Muyoso, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Well you obviously didnt follow a build guide for ***** then. I took a computer I had laying around, didnt follow a build guide at all, and EVERYTHING works. Wireless, sound, graphics fully working. If you would have followed a recommended hardware list, you would have had everything working without a problem at all. You obviously didnt read the OSX85 forums or follow the wiki even in the slightest if you had so many problems. As for the Updates not working, boo hoo. Its only the system updates that you cannot install, and even then you can do it manually if you follow the forum updates. Been running OSx86 for over a year now, very stable, even on Old ass hardware.
        • tyns, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I built this actually in May of 2006. And yes.. I researched like a mad man.. I followed a particular build guide at the time too. It was even before they moved the forums to insanelymac. I was running a Intel GNTLKR Mobo with D930. Core duo was not available for sale at the time. Onboard sound was working but mapped to different output ports. I ran a Dlink Wireless card with the atheros chipset, Had an ATI 1600xt card with boris hack on it... it was a hit or miss with these cards.. some manufacturers of these cards had a bios that would correctly output to the DVI port... I had one that apparently didn't. At the time I had THE most compatible components.... Also, as I said.. you cannot truly run the system updates. You always need to stay at the kernel version that was hacked. You have to go through with pacifist to pick out bits and pieces... Trust me.. I am not a retard.. Not to mention a lot of the system preferences do not function properly. Display resolutions never did detect the true resolution output that the card was capable of.
          For you to say that EVERYTHING works is a blatant lie.. It might "work" .. but there is no WAY that it would work exactly how a manufactured apple machine with tweaked drivers and customized Bios and EFI woudl function.. NO WAY. Sure the machine could function and get the job done. but it is not 100% the same.
          It was a fun project, If you have time on your hands...
    • mercurysquad, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Lots of misinformation. I have had a great experience with OSx86 versions as early as 10.4.7. Everything works and it's suitable for almost every kind of work you could/would do on a regular Mac (depending on your Hackintosh's specs).
    • asskicker32, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Mine installed in about 4-6 hours. The only issues I had were the WiFi and sound. I never did get sound working (but I didnt try too hard) I just did without it. Wifi took about another 4 hours to get working, because I had no experience compiling the kexts and library files. I ended up screwing it all up a couple of times becuase I didnt follow the directions and reinstalled.

      It was REALLY easy (not installing ubuntu easy, but easier than I thought it was going to be) and it was really FAST. MUCH faster than Vista.
  • basic0, on 11/14/2007, -65/+90Y'know, a Mac Mini is less than $800...just sayin'...
    • Teej, on 11/14/2007, -46/+41Whoops. Meant to bury you. I'm sure other people will. Look at the hardware configuration of the PC he assembled versus your paltry Mac Mini. Apples and oranges my friend, literally.
      • seattle98104, on 11/14/2007, -11/+34That word, literally, I do not think it means what you think it means
        • Teej, on 11/14/2007, -4/+9That was a joke involving the word Apple. Maybe you have trouble picking up on humor. And everyone else around here.

          I still don't understand why people think that a Mac Mini can compete with this hardware configuration. Spec for spec, this is closer to a Mac Pro than a Mac Mini, yet a Mac Pro is 2000 dollars or something.
        • Teej, on 11/14/2007, -2/+4I apologise about the slightly aggressive nature of my post above, I read your response slightly differently than I think you may have wrote it.
          Also, I own a Macbook Pro, so it’s not like I’m an Apple hater, I’m simply stating what I see to be the facts.
        • qualish, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1Pioneer Square represent!
      • MadKennyP, on 11/13/2007, -11/+4Whaddya trying to build, a Mac gaming machine?
        • aaronm67, on 11/14/2007, -1/+12Just because you're not going to use a computer for gaming doesn't mean you want it to be slow as hell.
      • drunkenoaf, on 11/14/2007, -6/+5No, not "literally". You really need to look up that word in a dictionary.
        • earlycj5, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5I did, (LIT er-e-lee) adv, 1. In a literal or strict sense. 2. Really, actually.

          #2 fits here as intended, a pun if you will.
        • Teej, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1I guess you've called yourself "drunkenoaf" for a reason. See above.
      • daveheinzel, on 11/14/2007, -1/+8Somewhere in a tiny room, the word "figuratively" is crying. Nobody calls upon him anymore since his big brother Literally got so popular.
        • Teej, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1However, we're dealing with Apple branded computers. Literally.
      • Tenoq, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1There's also a slight difference in form-factor, Teej. For $600 you could have a tiny, unobtrusive computer, working 100% and some included support. Or for $800 you could have a powerhouse midi-tower (and the Sonata 3 case isn't particularly quiet, unlike the earlier models), with *most* of the functions working but no support.
        • IndigoMoss, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Which can also be a decent gaming machine with Boot Camp installed. The Mac Mini vs. the PC in this guide equals a Civic vs. Corvette. He could easily put a 8800GT in that bad boy and it'd be full-blow gaming rig. Plus you can overclock the crap out of the processor with that mobo.
      • Syphon8, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1That is, "Apples, literally, and oranges (figuratively)."

        Now quit crying about semantics, kids.
    • PtoS382, on 11/14/2007, -24/+48But the point is Mac Minis suck. This computer has the performance
      • Odweaver, on 11/14/2007, -6/+4and the chance of being bricked during updates due to unsupported hardware in an unsupported configuration
        • hexydes, on 11/14/2007, -3/+7True, but why would you want to give money to a company who breaks things just because they don't like what people are doing with them anyway?
      • darkamster07, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5I'm running os x on a coputer right now that is half the power of a mac mini, and it preforms pretty well for me, mac mini's don't suck
    • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -21/+74600 for whats in the mac mini is insulting.
      • pierre, on 11/14/2007, -16/+5its really not actually. core 2 due. gig of game. awesome form factor. os x (LEGIT) and iLIfe......totally worth 599. oh and you wont have any hassles and will be able to get updates, etc.
        • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -2/+10just browsing newegg:
          Core 2 duo 127.99
          compatible motherboard with onboard video: 194.99
          gig of memory: 20.99
          sub total: 343.97
          add in another 60 bucks for a case and power supply: 403.97
          so another 200 for leopard(which includes ilife)? I mean there's perceived value but also if they went with a norlmal formfactor they'd have a even better lowend pc. Instead of a mac which costs a lot because it's needlessely small.
          • chad78, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Leopard does *NOT* come with iLife. Why does everyone think that? New Macs come with iLife - but not the OS itself. It's just when you buy a Windows machine - other software (MS Office perhaps) comes with the computer - but not when you buy Windows Vista.
          • Tenoq, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1Laptop owners would disagree with the 'needlessly small' stance. I like Shuttle computers too - you pay more for a smaller box. I have no qualms about that, and I don't see why anyone would, TBH. If it was in a midi-tower then maybe having a whinge would be valid. :p
        • meepus, on 11/14/2007, -1/+8How the hell did this comment get upmodded? What kinda coke-snorting sentence fragment is 'gig of game?' The hardware in a Mac costs a hell of a lot less than the Mac itself costs. Always. If I purchase OSX (LEGIT) and all of the parts in a Mac Mini, I have spent less than Apple retails it for by a significant amount. What do I receive for my trouble if I shell out the extra cash for the Mini? Software updates that I should've been able to get in the first place if I purchased the OS.
          • Tenoq, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1And an OEM warranty and support. How is this different to me building a PC cheaper & better than what Dell wants to sell to me?
          • IndigoMoss, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Actually you get a better warranty if you build it yourself. I'll use my self as an example. All of my parts are covered by Newegg for 1 year, except for my CPU. They will replace any item within that year with a brand new one, free of charge, and that's just my Newegg warranty Here's a part by part manufacturer warranty stats.

            CPU - Covered by Intel for 3 years
            Motherboard - Covered by eVGA for a lifetime (They have great customer support btw)
            Video Card - Covered by XFX with a double life-time warranty (not sure what that means)
            Hard Drive - Covered with a 5 year warranty by Seagate
            Optical Drive - I have no idea (They are like 30 bucks anyways)
            RAM - Covered by Gskill with a lifetime warranty
            CPU Fan - Covered by Scythe for a year.

            As you can see, most of my stuff is covered by warranty a lot longer than an OEM will cover it by with out paying them extra. Plus I don't have to talk to some idiot trying to diagnose the problem. I just return the part that is bad and wait until my new one arrives. I doubt any of my parts in my computer will fail to begin with though.
        • Chirp08, on 11/14/2007, -7/+3logialnoise all you did was prove that the mac mini is competitively priced and not a ripoff, what point are you trying to make? Show me a picture of that $600 pc next to a mac mini, form factor might not mean much to someone like you, but to almost every AVERAGE consumer out there that alone would sell a mac mini over a slightly better spec'd pc anyday.. this site is biased because nobody on here is your average consumer, your opinion is one of few.
          You forgot the cost of Vista and Office basic, thats an easy 300 bucks on top of your pc..
          • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4yeah it's competitevly rpiced for compact pcs. Apple offers no middle chocie for macs. It's either cramped un-upgradeable lowend or over priced locked down imac with a monitor you HAVE to buy.
          • nascarnate326, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1If you dont like what Apple offers...dont buy it. Some mac fanboys *me* like being the underdog.
          • IndigoMoss, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1The thing is, he's saying they aren't giving him a viable choice in their current line-up. If they'd offer a PC that's upgradeable and doesn't include a built-in monitor, then a lot of users that don't want a Mac for the reasons he mentioned, might actually buy one. It would also help Apple establish a better gaming platform, the Mac Pro is way too much and it's default card isn't even that great.
        • Burn, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3Logical Noise:
          iLife is not included with Leopard, but rather is an extra $99 unless you get it with your Mac (All new Macs come with iLife pre-installed, thus it's included in the price). That brings your own final price up to $502.97. There's a few other things you didn't include in your price like a hard disk (I believe the Mac Mini uses a 2.5" laptop drive, which are fairly expensive) or Super Drive and I really don't think that $60 would cover the cost of the Mac Mini case.
          That easily bring the retail parts costs up to the cost of the Mac Mini if not more...so I think you just proved yourself that the Mac Mini is very competitively priced.
    • basic0, on 11/14/2007, -15/+10Well, for most uses a Mac Mini is fast enough. You can run all the Mac apps, a virtual machine, even some games like WoW. It's not like a high-end power user system, but I think a lot of people overestimate their computer needs. I have a friend who thinks he needs a 3Ghz quad-core and 200fps SLI graphics setup so that Guild Wars will run nice and smooth for him. We've tried explaining to him that the human eye can't process 200fps, but he doesn't care. He just wants more power. People like that, I'm sure, would not see the value in a Mac Mini.
      • mrsteveman1, on 11/14/2007, -0/+9You might not be able to see 200fps but it smooths out when your going really fast in a game instead of jumping around.
      • merreborn, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6Monitors can't display 200 FPS either. Most max out at 75.
      • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6some CS players feel that the game needs to run that fast to get proper reaction times. SO even if they don't see 200fps they might fire a bit faster than teh guy rendering at only 30 fps.
        • Burn, on 11/14/2007, -1/+4And they are right, it's the difference between 75fps and 200fps that you wont notice (Because as merreborn stated, most monitors don't display more than 75hz anyway, and most LCD monitors get set to 60hz, and guess what a 'hz' is).
    • over90000, on 11/14/2007, -1/+12Yeah and nowhere near in the specs.
    • MikeCerm, on 11/14/2007, -3/+78For $800 you could build a Quad-core Hackintosh with 2GB of RAM. Just sayin'. If you wanted a similarly powerful Mac, you'd need a $2500 Mac Pro. Some people can't afford that. If the alternative is to spend an extra 2 hours getting your Hackintosh up and running, that's probably pretty appealing.
      • hexydes, on 11/14/2007, -0/+17This is, quite simply, the only comment that needs to be dugg up in this entire page. Some people like OS X, and are willing to pay more to get it from Apple. Some people like OS X, know about computers, evaluated the parts, found that you can buy everything off the shelf and build one for 1/2 as much, and choose that route.

        This is not meant for the masses, it is meant for those that know how to do it, want to use OS X, and don't want to pay a premium to Apple.
    • naonao, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2True, and if anyone has experience OS X86 then you will know that it can be quite different from the comparable hardware on a Mac. I might give this a go anyway, if it can run Adium, Photoshop, and Twitterific I'll be happy.
      • hexydes, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2This completely depends on the hardware you use. If you have an AMD processor, and a dedicated video card, and LAN/audio chipsets that aren't what Apple uses, then yes, YMMV. If you stick to the hardware list that OSX86 community has put out, and make sure to pick chipsets and parts that are standard to what Apple uses, then you can build an "Apple" computer that will be about 99.99% as fast as the comparable parts from Apple (at a cost of 1/2 to 1/3rd, depending on what you build).
  • zorlok, on 11/14/2007, -48/+91You can buy a real Mac mini for $599 or a Macbook for $1099 direct from Apple (cheaper if you buy from Amazon and use their rebates) that includes a Legal copy of Leopard. You can have a totally legal real Apple with Leopard for less than $800.
    • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -16/+39which should only be worth around 400-500 but in the end you pay the apple tax.
      • ElectroBot, on 11/13/2007, -14/+7Not really considering that you're getting such a small computer - the mac mini is tiny and the aopen clones had way worse specs and were almost the same price.
        • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -2/+13so I should pay 600 for a low end computer because it's super small? and even then why is their next model up 1100? that's sort of a big leap.
        • drunkenoaf, on 11/14/2007, -11/+5No, you should pay $600 for the computer because it runs OSX. Otherwise you should stick to XP or Vista on your new Dell.
        • Burn, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2logicalnoise:
          That's why it's called the Mac 'Mini', part of the point of it's existence is that it's so small. The next model up is a /laptop/, which explains why it's so much more expensive.
      • Me1000, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2The added stability of buying a real mac is probably worth it. IMO
        I use a hackintosh desktop, and I have a macbook, the stability on the hackintosh almost makes me cry!
    • SeBBBe, on 11/14/2007, -3/+48No offense, but the stock MacBooks and Mac Minis have crappy specs. The PC built here has 2.2GHz C2D, 4 GB RAM, 500 GB hdd and a 7300GT, which are some pretty good specs. That said, the description might be kinda inaccurate in a way, yes (the whole "cant afford"-bit).
    • over90000, on 11/14/2007, -4/+11Who says that you can't have a legal copy of Leopard running on a Hackintosh. I buy a Leopard DVD, I can install it wherever i want.
      • edicius, on 11/14/2007, -8/+5No you can't because you have to "Hack" it to make it work, thus breaking the EULA.
        • fangorious, on 11/14/2007, -2/+8prove that that clause of the EULA is legally enforceable.
        • mrsteveman1, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6Fsck the EULA, no one cares.
        • hexydes, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4A lot of people getting taken to court over breaking EULAs eh?

          That is Apple's license, not a license from an official governing body. As far as I'm aware, EULAs have never been really tested in a court of law. At best, you could say you are breaking Apple's EULA, which will void any support that they may or may not owe you, and it could be questionably gray in a court of law.
      • scyon, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Sorry, Apple doesn't want you doing that. It's not your software, you just purchased a license to install it on approved Apple branded hardware.
        Should you want to build your own computer, Apple doesn't want your money, Microsoft does want your money and Linux doesn't need your money. Make your decision on what OS to use however you see fit, but at least follow the license agreement you agreed to by opening the plastic wrap.
    • Tippis, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5And how much would you pay for something that actually compares to what's being built here?
      • DarkDx, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Don't even waste your energies, he's just getting dugg up by apple hates and windows fanboys-
    • bsonline, on 11/14/2007, -4/+32I don't have a "Legal copy" of Windows, why would I want a "Legal copy" of Leopard?
    • fuzzynyanko, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2For desktop cases, Apple requires you to get a Mac Pro.
    • thenome, on 11/14/2007, -4/+2I agree you can buy a real mac fro less than $800, this story is over hyped... besides apple could just break support.
    • blackjack75, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Being legal isn't the most important reason to get a real mac.

      A hackintosh is fun to play with and show off or experiment, but if you're doing stuff that you don't want to lose it's always as bit risky to have a system that you can't update without risking of breaking it. I had OSX86 on my PC for over a year now and it's always been interesting to tinker with but there's no way in hell I'd do my actual work on this machine.
    • idiotwithastick, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3He could've gotten the price down to $600 or so, if he cut down a bit on ram and motherboard, and hard disk space. And it still would've been more powerful than a mac.
  • dukeochutney, on 11/14/2007, -42/+37pay $200 for a PC and realize how moronic you are for spending $800 on a pos mac. bury me mac tools i love how to see how many there on digg.
    • solo1181, on 11/14/2007, -23/+9Agree macs are equivalent to those $2000 dollar purses that broads buy, that do the same thing a plastic bag does. Macs are just a way for idiots to say I have a mac. What it really is saying is i'm a retard that overpaid for a computer, but that is okay because now i am more creative and hip. Such Bs, I also herd that macs also come with a free set of black framed glasses that are called iGlasses. God I hate apple.
      • BoneheadFarker, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3So I take it you were forced to carry your books in a plastic bag when you were in school? Just because an old P2 can surf the net doesn't mean I want it as my main machine...
      • RedHerringHack, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6God I hate you. Buried for "broads". moron.
      • B1663r, on 11/14/2007, -4/+3Well no... They don't even get to claim the creative and hip design work anymore because all that happens on Autodesk products... which don't run on OSX...
    • fangorious, on 11/13/2007, -6/+14I have yet to see a $200 PC I would actually want, or would recommend. Please, provide a link.
      • djpants428, on 11/13/2007, -2/+11Trolls don't ever provide links...
      • mrsteveman1, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Lego Troll (TM), snaptite link not included.
    • wal9000, on 11/13/2007, -3/+2If you get buried it's going to be because of your aversion to punctuation, grammar, and capitalization. Learning the basics of the English language can greatly improve how people perceive your statements online.
    • anjinash, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Don't get me wrong, I have a huge problem with Apple apologists and blatant fanboys of all stripes. One needs to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their chosen systems without wearing blinders. Macs ARE overpriced. OSX SHOULD be released into the wild. You CAN get more performance per dollar with a standard PC.

      But... Macs are more than just the hardware. I scoffed at OSX for a long time because the fanboys pissed me off so much. Now that I've started using it on a regular basis I can see the real value in it. I still love Windows and it has served me well over the last decade, but it's such a great experience to just sit down and USE my machine instead of constantly tinkering with it. Not worrying about malware constantly, and actually seeing value in the upgrades to the OS.

      I still love tinkering and hacking around on PCs, but as I get older and now have a wife and other responsibilities.. my time is a valuable asset. It's worth the extra money to have a reliable machine with a good OS that I can get work done without much hassle.

      I still advocate using whatever hardware/software/OS that fits your needs. I use all three OS's, with OSX being my "main" OS. Until I can run the latest and greatest from Adobe in Ubuntu, it'll likely stay that way.
    • graderguy, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I dugg you up, just to prove you wrong. I just bought a
  • plarp, on 11/14/2007, -18/+40legal notice from apple in.. 3..2..1
    • mrsteveman1, on 11/14/2007, -6/+30 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
    • hexydes, on 11/14/2007, -5/+2Legal notice for what?
      • IEatHamburgers, on 11/13/2007, -3/+1You think they would just give away Leopard for people to put on their PC's, therefore allowing them to receive absolutely no money from you?
  • SonicRush, on 11/14/2007, -28/+19High end for $800? Buried as inaccurate.
    • logandurand, on 11/14/2007, -0/+21If you were to step outside of your bubble for a moment and head on over to a hardware site or store, you would find that $800 will buy you some great hardware. It's even better if you already own a case and/or PSU. Just because Apple, Dell, and the like charge you over a thousand dollars for a computer doesn't mean it's worth that much.
    • joshuaer, on 11/14/2007, -4/+4I agree high end means at least 4 cores 6gb of ram a 256 video card and more then 500gb of HD space.

      Also did you notice how he left out the price of the OS in his total!
      • Tippis, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1The 6GB of RAM is particularly useful, since you need Vista 64bit to have any use of it whatsoever ;)
        ...well, or Leopard, of course.
    • faet, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4$250: Xeon 3210 @ 2.8ghz Quad core
      $260: 8800gts Superclock 320meg
      $60: 2gb Corsair Ballistix
      $130: Gigabyte P35-DS3R
      $0: Windows XP 64 / Vista Business 32 (through school)
      $0: *nix flavor of choice.
      reused case/hd/fans/dvd drive.
      total: 700$
      sure it isn't sli, but it is still fairly high end.
      • meepus, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Where would you get that xeon? Newegg doesn't have it. I'd get this instead: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ...
      • bobartig, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1Dude, your rig screams midrange at best. How can you tell? Go to any major PC vendor, spec out a customizable box, and all your hardware picks come from the middle! =P
      • xNIBx, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Why not get a 8800gt which is faster and has more memory? Xeon 3210 is at 2.1ghz, get a q6600, much better. And abit ip35 pro is better too. In any case, this is a pretty high end pc. In fact, wasting more money on your pc is extremely idiotic because after that, the value for money drops insanely. But then again, people who buy macs have no idea about hardware, pcs or value for money. They just like shiny things.
      • shifty2, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1remember NOT all PC hardware will not work with OSX of any version. I put a vanilla 1900xt card in my mac pro only to get a black screen. other website have done this with the same results. the 8800 whatever will not work with OSX.

        apple has the 1900xt for $400.... hmm... newegg has non-mac one for $250 less.
  • databoy, on 11/14/2007, -19/+9How does Leopard compare to Vista? At the end of the day an OS is just an OS. What can you do with Leopard that you cannot do with Vista?
    • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -5/+20NOT play half life 2?
    • mingistech, on 11/14/2007, -6/+12Run Final Cut Pro, Aperture, Motion, Shake, ect. Many high end video apps that are not available for the PeeCee.
      • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -2/+12I don't run a production studio so why would I need all that?
        • B1663r, on 11/13/2007, -2/+3Well then the product you want is Vegas Video... Waayyyyyy better than the prosumer versions of final cut pro.
          • logicalnoise, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4I actually do use vegas for my few small video projects.
      • tupperbacharach, on 11/13/2007, -2/+9Right. In Windows and Linux, you don't get to watch FCP/OSX crash a lot and wait for FCP to render every little thing.

        All the high-end video apps are made by Apple, that's why the big studios use Avid, Piranha, CinePaint, etc.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2"wait for FCP to render every little thing."

          You obviously don't know anything about FCP. Or what "big studios" do.
        • tupperbacharach, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2A personal attack... alright.
          Hey, lococrybaby, err... I mean chicofaraby, I have had to work with FCP hands-on for the past four years, and I have also sat in a lot of Avid edit bays and bays with malfunctioning/slow FCP setups. Since I don't know what I am talking about (and you obviously do), why don't you enlighten the Digg crowd on FCP compared to Avid and list the dominant post-production and animation software used by the studios?
          • chicofaraby, on 11/14/2007, -3/+2I'm sure you are very smart and know everything about post production with your four years of experience. But sitting in edit bays doesn't make you right. FCPs rendering needs are determined by hardware. Depending on your hardware and the format of your footage and timeline, FCP does do real time effects. And it does it at a fraction of the cost of Avid Media Composer. I'll never go back to Media Composer. It's almost as good a move as the one from linear to Avid was. It's just easier to use for me.

            While Avid is probably the largest single installed edit platform, it's no longer the only game in post production. Many big budget features have been posted on FCP. You can google up a list of features if you want, but that's not the point, the point is that you are making claims about "the big studios" based on what you've seen, not based on real numbers. There are very few "big studios" that don't have both systems plus After Effects. Many have those plus one or more of the Autodesk products; Smoke, Flame, Maya etc, and/or something from Quantel or Sony. It just depends on how big is big.
          • tupperbacharach, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2***I'm sure you are very smart and know everything about post production with your four years of experience.***

            That's 4 years of "forced" experience with FCP, lococrybaby -- before that, was Avid, Media 100 and Video Toaster.


            ***But sitting in edit bays doesn't make you right.***

            Correct. What makes me right is the unnecessary rendering that I have had to sit through using FCP and supervising FCP edits. Regardless of hardware and footage formats, FCP consistently renders more elements that do not need to be rendered on other NLEs.


            ***I'll never go back to Media Composer. It's almost as good a move as the one from linear to Avid was. It's just easier to use for me.***

            Congratulations.


            ***While Avid is probably the largest single installed edit platform, it's no longer the only game in post production. Many big budget features have been posted on FCP... the point is that you are making claims about "the big studios" based on what you've seen, not based on real numbers.***

            FCP is probably the most prevalent NLE, but Avid is used way more than FCP on "big budget" features.


            ***There are very few "big studios" that don't have both systems plus After Effects. Many have those plus one or more of the Autodesk products; Smoke, Flame, Maya etc, and/or something from Quantel or Sony. It just depends on how big is big.***

            Open source is used heavily in high-end post-production -- not just for render farms, but also because it allows development of in-house, proprietary effects, "plug-ins" and code mods that are not permitted with proprietary licenses and/or are not possible without the source code.
          • chicofaraby, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2My, aren't you good at name calling. Pretty funny coming from a guy who claimed I was making a personal attack by simply pointing out you were wrong about FCP needing to render "every little thing." Like I said, your limited experience with Final Cut is only your experience and frankly, it sounds like you don't have that much experience. I never claimed FCP was used on more features than Avid, so I'm not sure why you are trying to make that point. And yes, there are many custom software builds used in render farms. That doesn't change the fact that FCP won't run on this FrankenMac. Which, upon looking back up the thread, was the claim you responded to.

            BTW, in your original post you twisted the earlier posters point that many high end video apps run on Macs by claiming he said "all." He didn't. You are just bashing for some reason. Maybe you should stop trying to prove how smart you are and just admit you are wrong on the real time effects claim you made. FCP doesn't have to render "every little thing" like you claimed. You were wrong. It's that simple. Have a nice day.
          • tupperbacharach, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Well, the first personal attack originated with your singling me out, saying that I did not know anything about FCP or high-end production (even though I have had to suffer through every FCP version for the past four years). I see nothing wrong in responding in kind.

            You certainly came to some creative conclusions about statements made in these post -- perhaps you are caught in the same reality distortion field that afflicts most of the mac fanboys who post on Digg. At any rate, I see no reason to keep repeating the same points.
      • mrsteve007, on 11/13/2007, -1/+6You mean 'real' high end products like Avid and the Adobe Suite (after effects). One is designed to run only on the PC and the other works on both.
        • jj101, on 11/14/2007, -4/+3Avid used to run on macs by preference because they are more stable. They don't any longer for political reasons - Final cut is decimating their market. And if you want to talk about super proprietary, ridiculously priced hardware you need look no further than Avid.
          • B1663r, on 11/14/2007, -1/+4Actually Avid was going to leave the Mac product because the Mac was less stable... until OSX.

            Also Avid doesn't run all in software like final cut pro does. Avid just uses the computer as a control surface to your digital video editor hardware... Which is why you can do the real time stuff in Avid that Final Cut is missing.
          • jj101, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4@B1663r

            That might be what they say but I worked in numerous post facilities in London and that is not the experience i had.

            FCP is practically all real-time, depending on the number of video streams you are working with, the ability of your storage to provide appropriate bandwidth for the format you are editing at and the use of certain effects. Really high end Avids, like adrenaline, have more features and more realtime capabilites but they are also incredibly expensive.

            I am not debating that an Avid is a powerful tool - it is clearly the perfect tool for certain workflows - just that for teh majority of work FCP is a more efficient solution in terms of cost and ease of use.
          • mrsteveman1, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2All those apps used to run on Macs because they were the leader at the time and retained those apps for a while until Microsoft stepped all over Apples misdirection and lack of goals. Now Apple is regaining a bit but oh well.
          • B1663r, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2Well that is fine and all, just don't be mystified about why all the news rooms around the world are using Avid and not FCP. Then even in third party editing facilities they will have the "real editor" which is an avid system, and then alternate editing bays which are invariably FCP, for the editors with special needs.
          • jj101, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2I can almost guarantee that this will change drastically in the near future. The newsrooms are the last bastion because the turnaround is so tight that there is zero margin for error. They have been using Avid for a long time and are reluctant to change because it works. Eventually though they will have to upgrade their systems and then they will switch due to FCP proving itself in other depts and cost. In the past 2 years I have worked on projects installing hundreds of FCP systems into broadcasters all over London, including the BBC, ITV and MTV. I havent been in there but I know channel 4 have a lot too. People are resistant but the prevailing wind is change.
        • chicofaraby, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2I have both Avid and After Effects running on Macs. You don't know what you are talking about.
    • fangorious, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8I haven't used Leopard or Vista, but as far as Tiger vs XP vs Gutsy is concerned, it's less about what I can do and more about how I can get it done. I just finds things simpler to do on my Mac. I can't think of anything I can do on one and not the other two.
      • banmaster, on 11/14/2007, -4/+2Seriously, I've never understood this 'reason' that mac users keep trotting out all the time. The whole "it makes me more productive" thing just makes NO sense. Its not the computer that makes you more or less productive, its the software you stick on it.
        MS Office is the same on both platforms (well, apart from how the mac version always seems to lag by a year or so) so can someone please tell me when running the same office app on mac Vs PC one will be more productive than the other?
        Its the same with a LOT of stuff, its NOT the computer or its OS, its the application and the way the publisher implements things.
        Then we have the whole 'you can run windows apps on your mac using bootcamp'. Now I'm sorry, but having to dual-boot into another OS so you can run the 90% of software that isn't available for the mac IS NOT MORE PRODUCTIVE!!
        • ElBob, on 11/13/2007, -1/+5Actually, that's wrong. See, its hard to quantify. You can't just say "Macs have this one button that makes everything happen faster", it's more of a culmination of things. Exposé makes everything faster, spotlight makes finding documents easier, Spaces cleans up your work, its a whole bunch of things. The other thing is how much easier it is to fix problems on a mac. If a program crashes, I can go in to the terminal and hit "kill -9 (program)*" and it dies. Simple as that. If a file isn't letting me write to it, I can fix it with one command. I realize that most users won't be able to do that, but having a real command line where you can actually do useful stuff is honestly the one thing I can not live without.

          See this is the problem. I can't give you a simple formula as to why Macs make me more productive. You kinda just have to believe me when I say that I work with both Windows and Mac computers, and I am far faster on a Mac. But why the hell am I writing this? This is a story about a hackintosh, not a debate between the two.
    • B1663r, on 11/13/2007, -2/+5Be hip and cool , and sticking it to the man?
    • InorganicMatter, on 11/13/2007, -5/+5The number one reason I switched was that Mac OS is ready to work instantly after booting, instead of "warm booting" for 10 minutes after the initial "cold boot." That right there is the one thing that drove me from Windows. It was really bad in XP, and after all the promising that Microsoft made to fix it, Vista is even worse than XP about it.
      • tupperbacharach, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6A lot of folks would disagree with the assertion that Macs "just work."
      • Tippis, on 11/14/2007, -2/+4Activate the same amount of optional extras in OS X as most people are running in XP, and you'll see pretty much the same waiting period in both.
      • logandurand, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5Just because you screwed up your XP install with tons of crapware doesn't mean that the rest of us did. My relatively old PC running XP boots in seconds. Tippis is right - if you had as many programs running in OS X as you do in XP, you'd get about the same speed.
      • mrsteveman1, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2Most people don't need to shutdown and restart their computers all the time, I would rather have an OS that runs cleanly while I'm actually using it, which Vista does pretty well considering all the legacy crap.
    • meatmcguffin, on 11/13/2007, -0/+2Find some figures about how many people are downgrading to XP from Vista and how many people are downgrading from Leopard to Tiger.
  • Roger, on 11/14/2007, -4/+38$800 is a bit much.

    A fast Hackintosh for less than $500 would be more interesting and probably not that hard to find.
    • 0xFEEDFACE, on 11/14/2007, -1/+30Damn. Now not only do people complain that Macs are expensive -- they complain that the *imitations* of Macs are expensive. :-D
    • digitalarcanum, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1actually considering the build has considerable hard disk space, a fairly fast core2, and 4GB of ram, that's a hell of a deal. The article said you could cut corners here and there. Personally, I wouldn't buy the antec case, because I think sonatas are over-priced. I'd opt for a cheaper, well-vented case. I also wouldn't invest in 4GB of RAM, I think 2 is fairly reasonable. you don't have to use that exact core2 either. I'd opt for a slightly cheaper one. using the money saved, I'd check out the hackintosh wiki/forums to see what other video cards are compatible with the hackintosh OS and upgrade.. a 7300 is a ***** video card imo. my current windows rig runs a 7600GT and I installed that over a year ago. additionally, the article states that the power supply blew when he attemped to power on the system, so I'd use some of the saved money and invest in a quality, modular power supply.
      • Burn, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1The MacBook Pro runs a mobile 7600GT, so I think it would be a fairly safe bet that the 7600GT is well supported.
        • Stirk, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2The Macbook Pro has an 8600M GT
          • Burn, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4You are absolutely correct, and I should know that since I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro. Face, meet egg.
    • Me1000, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1With the lower price you get less stability!

  • waterdrop, on 11/14/2007, -10/+30Sure you could buy a Mac for $800, but it would not have near the specs and upgrade ability of this $800 build.
    • joshuaer, on 11/14/2007, -6/+4the price of the computer is really 930.00 Building a hackintosh is one thing but stealing software is another!.
      • phlll, on 11/14/2007, -1/+9It isn't stealing, it's "copyright infringement."
        • joshuaer, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1i should log in with all 40 of my digg account snd dig you down stealing copy right same damn thing!! / end sarcasm
        • Krechet, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Ahm. No. Stealing is when the owner has less of something after you steal it from them. Think about it this way: my fair market value for OS X is $0.00. I would never buy it. Ever. So Apple isn't losing any revenue by me downloading it. Digg on this for a while.
      • idiotwithastick, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1$930 is still cheaper than a mac.
        • Me1000, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1I can buy a pretty bad ass referb macbook which is just as good as a new one, other than it doesnt come in a pretty box for $930
  • bonds, on 11/14/2007, -3/+9With previous patched versions you couldn't do software updates. Has this been fixed or is that even possible?
    • RyeBrye, on 11/14/2007, -3/+12Until Apple starts pushing down 2 versions of the system updates - 1 for their macs, and 1 for Hackint0sh macs with pre-hacked kernels, the answer will be: "Obviously not"
      • bonds, on 11/13/2007, -2/+3Didn't know if they had a way to tell or not....which is why I asked. Thanks for the sarcasm though, although it leads me to question the validity of your answer. Maybe someone who knows will respond.

        Warmest regards.
      • mrsteveman1, on 11/13/2007, -1/+1Apple really has little ability to "find" hacked copies of OS X, but they do in fact put things in the official system files to stop those machines from running upon reboot. When Apple releases updates they usually include updates to the kernel, and sometimes replacements for bundles (frameworks, drivers, etc).

        Those things overwrite the hacked versions you had installed and thus need to be taken care of before you restart the system.
    • banmaster, on 11/14/2007, -8/+6B b but apple stuff "just works". Why do we need updates?!
    • adude, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2Actually there was a recent discovery of how to boot up Leopard with an unpatched kernel by messing with the Darwin bootloader and EFI. There is good potential that one day Hackintosh comps may be able to do software updates officially.
      http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=7 ...
  • kittytibet, on 11/14/2007, -32/+46If you have $800 to blow on a stupid geek experiment, maybe you should just wait another month until you can save up a bit more money and get a real Mac with a warranty and software.
    • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -6/+17nah I'll go with something that will out perform a amc cost less and be easier to upgrade later on(instead of buying The new version).
      • drunkenoaf, on 11/14/2007, -8/+3And not run OSX?
      • err404, on 11/14/2007, -5/+5I ran a Hackintosh for a while, and trust me, it's NOT worth it. It's a fun experiment, but it misses what a Mac is. Mac are about integration with hardware and software. Hardware wise, the benefit comes from having a "known" configuration that can be reliably supported by Apple. If that doesn't interest you, then ask yourself, why do you care about running OS X in first place?
        If you are curious, try it out on an existing machine that you own.
        BTW - After using Hacked Tiger for a few months I bought a real Apple. If I had spent money on a PC to run it, that box would just be in a corner right now gathering dust.
        • hexydes, on 11/14/2007, -2/+4Or, you would have found that actually installing it on hardware it was meant to install on (instead of whatever you used), it performs near identically to the "official" Apple counterpart.
      • edicius, on 11/14/2007, -6/+2WTF is a amc?
        • mrsteveman1, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2They show movies on TV, and apparently make computers now too. :D
        • webcrumb, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2I thought it was the make of van the A-Team drove. Then I thought nothing could outperform the A-Team van. Then I realised that was a GMC.
        • mercurysquad, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1A typo
    • fangorious, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2push button, receive win
    • Tippis, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3Because the same specs in Apple hardware would more than double the price.
    • Axim, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3the point being that even if this didn't work you still have a great box that would run any other os you put on it... or in a language you can understand --

      hurr hurr durr hurr durr
    • MooMaster716, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5The Segate hard drive has a standard 5 year warranty, memory is usually lifetime and everything else has the same 1 year warranty as a Mac. Besides the thing that usually breaks first is the hard drive which is covered for 2 years more than a mac with apple care. Also both an Imac and mac mini have worse specs than this machine. Hell you can probably drop a quad in there for $200 more.
      • faet, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Don't forget most video card manufac have lifetime now. BFG/EVGA/XFX to name a few.
    • computerfreedom, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Oh freedom...why do people turn their back on you to adore Mac and Windows....(I've never owned a mac, but I've run their OS's for quite some time...you're an idiot, I'll accept being a geek)
    • digitalarcanum, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3I'd do it for the lulz.
  • PtoS382, on 11/14/2007, -21/+16This is truly a testament that one pays for design over power when buying a mac.

    And for all of you who think I'm a Windows fanboy: This comment was written on my MacBook Pro
    • drlha, on 11/13/2007, -5/+7To be fair to Apple, that $800 doesn't include the cost of the operating system (mainly because you can't buy a copy of Leopard that is legal to run on a "Hackintosh"). Apple are clearly including that cost into the cost of a Mac.
      • over90000, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6If Apple is a hardware company why don't they provide free upgrades to the hardware's OS? If I already have a mac then surely I am eligible to all the software upgrades.
        • mrBitch, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Apple do provide free upgrades to OSX :
          http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/10/31/ten-myths ...

          " Regular minor releases of Mac OS X have added similar fixes for device support and new hardware, security improvements, and minor new features and applications. That’s a service pack. "
        • drlha, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1You got dugg up for such a stupid comment? Honestly, digg! Apple is not a "hardware company", they are a computer company, they provide OS and Hardware, and upgrades to both cost money, just like from any other computer company that bundles software and hardware together. Your comment is like saying "If Dell is a hardware company why don't they provide my RAM upgrade for free".
    • jj101, on 11/14/2007, -4/+2You do pay for design. Design is important. Most people that own a mac use it everyday so it makes sense for it to be well designed and "pretty" looking. You also pay fro the software design in the OS, which is very intuitive and simple to use for the most part and for the integrated suite of apps that it ships with that are similarly well designed. You also pay for the free updates to that OS and these apps that you will get until the next OS release -ie tiger to leopard. And you pay for the ability to purchase, at incredibly low prices, apps that were previously only afforable by dedicated companies. The release of Color this year as part of the Final Cut studio package, is incredible. Studio is $1300 and includes multiple apps. Color was previously called Final Touch, by Silicon Color, and had a rrp of $25,000 per license.

      Apple seem expensive because they do not cater to the low cost market. That can make them exclusionary, which may seem unfair, but it also means your computer will be viable to use for a 2 year minimum.

      • Terrk, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2Apple is less concerned about "Design" and more concerned about what looks pretty. There is a difference.

        • jj101, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Thats not true at all. The ipod/iphone/osx/imac are all revolutionary in design. Jobs is often quoted as saying "If i cant do it in 3 clicks, I cant do it". It is very hard to reduce complex tasks to such simple actions. It requires a lot of time spent a the design stage.
  • carlwalton, on 06/02/2008, -30/+25Why would anyone bother doing this when a default iMac is only $1199 (or much cheaper through the education store)? By the time you buy a decent monitor, keyboard and mouse, your $850 "Hackintosh" will cost about as much as the real thing.
    Plus... http://images.apple.com/imac/images/gallery/imacke ...
    • stevealford, on 11/14/2007, -5/+24Does a default iMac have 4 gigs of RAM? How about any of the other specs from this config except the video card?
    • fangorious, on 11/14/2007, -1/+16an iMac isn't as upgradable (can't replace the video card, can only upgrade the LCD to a different native res, rather than a larger size).
    • over90000, on 11/14/2007, -1/+16Yeah and ignore the specs.
    • Lewie, on 11/14/2007, -0/+20I already have a monitor. Because, when I get rid of my current computer, I don't have to throw the monitor out with it.
    • chourobin, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3I bought a Mac Pro case and put my own PC parts in it. running leopard right now : P. Looks just like a mac.
      • Tippis, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3Hmm.... since the computer is obviously "Apple lablelled", does this mean that you're not even breaking the EULA? ;)
      • banmaster, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3I got a shiny mac Pro look-alike case for a client recently. Its got bits in it that would make any mac fan start to sob with jealousy for way under a real pro's price.
        Apparently he wanted it so he could piss off his brother who just spent a fortune on his mac pro.
      • soopafly, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1Poser
    • koweja, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Did you not get the part where this is a substitute for the Mini, not the iMac? You need to get a monitor, keyboard, and mouse for the Mini, so it would cost more than $600 as well. Or, you could reuse parts you already have: HDDs, DVD drives, k/m, monitor. That's one of the benefits of choice in hardware. Perhaps you've heard of that concept?

      Fact of the matter is that if you're going to be building your own computer there is little to no difference in difficulty, effort, time, or cost required for building this. So, you might as well toss OSX on and dual (or triple) boot.

      Oh, and regarding that dumb picture. A lot of people put their PCs on the floor. In which case it doesn't matter what it looks like or how big it is, since all that's on the desk is the monitor. Stop trying to pass advertisements off as original thoughts.
  • theutopian, on 11/14/2007, -25/+39This article is misleading. He only got the cheap price because of rebates and he didn't include the cost of Leopard which is $130. Really, when you consider the actual cost, the amount of time involved in doing this, my new iMac Core Duo was cheaper.
    • RapeApe, on 11/14/2007, -4/+30So your new iMac also has a 500 GB hard drive and 4 GB of RAM? Of course he didn't include the cost of Leopard cause it's free. Maybe if Apple allowed him to install it on his own rig he might have forked over some cash.
      • theutopian, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3You can get it with such specs. But I have a hefty external, so I didn't need 500gb. And I have 2gb RAM, which is plenty.
      • SatansSpatula, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1Dude, how much is your time worth? Drives are cheap and fast. RAM is cheap. ***** around for a day? Priceless.
        • 1town, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Working for a day, earning enough money to afford whatever you might save on building your own pc that runs an unstable hacked copy of leopard, and buying a proper mac instead: Priceless
    • Tippis, on 11/14/2007, -1/+10It was also less capable than this build.
    • banmaster, on 11/13/2007, -1/+4And you can pick up leopard for $110 if you don't just blindly go to your local apple rip-off store and take it up the ass!
      • theutopian, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2No, I picked it up for $109, I didn't buy it at the Apple Store.
    • sigmaman2, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1To be fair, he did mention that you could download a copy of leopard from a Bittorrent site. So, if you can get a copy of OSX that way, there is no cost. Remember, if you don't get caught, it's free!

      /sarcasm
    • TridenTBoy, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1You probably are not even allowed to have leopard on a non-mac.(Some Apple TOS I am sure)
  • missingnoh4x, on 11/14/2007, -12/+31When it comes to assembling your own machine for a different operating system, just go with Linux.
    • Kythas, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1Word
    • banmaster, on 11/14/2007, -4/+6Or, well, windows. No hardware compatibility worth mentioning, access to the largest numbers of apps, and finally, GAMES.
      • bmartin, on 11/14/2007, -5/+2Unless you get Vista, which is known to have driver issues with Nvidia cards, older hardware, and all the small-time vendors that didn't feel like creating a new driver when Vista came out. You also take a big performance hit when running Vista. It's a bloated piece of crap.

        I personally don't know anyone who runs Vista. Everyone nukes it and installs either XP or Ubuntu on their new machine. Sure, they play around with Vista for a bit, but it doesn't have anything great to offer to 99% of the users... it just eats up your RAM.
        • BlackCow, on 11/14/2007, -1/+5I'm so tired of people saying ***** about Vista when they don't know what the ***** they are talking about. Vista supports a ton of hardware without special drivers, more than apple can, but thats because apple is all about the proprietary hardware. And bloated, have you used Vista on a modern machine, the super prefetch makes programs load up blazing fast. Over all its a better OS considering you don't have an old POS computer that chokes on super prefetch.
    • archer75, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6because I want something that actually works. Not something I have to fight with.
      • phlll, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4Linux has come a long way... I've been trying to use it since 2000, and have always gone back to MSomething that worked without needing hours of tweaking. I think it's finally here, been dual-booting for a few months now and spending more and more time with the Penguin.

        If MS wasn't required for some work stuff, I think I'd be about done with it.
  • monkeyrun, on 11/14/2007, -23/+20I love how he got the Dell LCD and a copy of Leopard for free ..... Oh wait .....

    You could get a Mac Mini for 599 bundled with a copy of Leopard.
    • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -1/+18and it's still too much for the components included.
    • over90000, on 11/14/2007, -3/+19and nowhere near the same specs.
      • monkeyrun, on 11/14/2007, -12/+1After all his goal is to get a Mac for cheap, why do you care about the spec.
        • over90000, on 11/14/2007, -1/+12If I had a option of a fast computer or a slow computer for the same price, which one do you think I would pick?
          • monkeyrun, on 11/14/2007, -9/+1I frankly don't care.
            $800 vs &599.

            Plus for 599 I don't need to pay an extra $130 for the OS.
          • monkeyrun, on 11/14/2007, -6/+3...
        • BlackCow, on 11/14/2007, -1/+4Du'h, your not thinking like a Mac noob, they don't care what the specs are as long as they can check their e-mail.
    • archer75, on 11/14/2007, -1/+8and you can't upgrade the video card.
    • sonnybobiche, on 11/14/2007, -2/+7and still no lcd...
    • IndigoMoss, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3Actually he just used his monitor from his old PC. With a regular PC you don't have to buy a new monitor every time you purchase a computer.
  • tnoy, on 11/14/2007, -2/+18For those of you who are going to be daring enough to try this, be warned it can be very picky with hardware. You cannot assume all Core 2 motherboards will work. You can run into issues with some, for example some 965 based boards with a Marvell or JMicron PATA chipsets are spotty at best. Your success might be better with Leopard, but I wouldn't expect it.

    Best to check the HCL derived by osx86project.org, http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/HCL_10 ...

    • InorganicMatter, on 11/13/2007, -0/+3If you stick to Intel-branded 965 and 975 boards, low-end NVIDIA 7000 cards, and Core 2 Duo processors, it's pretty happy with your hardware.
      • tnoy, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1I have an Intel-branded 965 board and have zero access to PATA devices.
    • monkeyboy7706, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1The problem is apple control which hardware they support making development of the software easier. Windows and Linux support a much larger range of hardware making them better systems for using on PCs.

      i think that Apple software should no longer be compared with windows or linux till they make a version compatible with generic PCs as opposed to just the hardware they want to sell.
  • PhpProgrammer, on 11/14/2007, -8/+3I might just do that.
  • brainScan, on 11/14/2007, -13/+7How do you add the Apple emblem??? Buried for lack of details. /sarcasm
    • fangorious, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1the article wasn't sarcastic enough for you? Ok Posh, go back to Benny Hill then.
    • chugger1992, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1STICKERS
  • hokie47, on 11/13/2007, -10/+4I think articles like this show that yes many people like Apple computes but do not want to pay a premium for it. Apple please lower your prices, trust me the people will come.
    • monkeyrun, on 11/13/2007, -2/+4This just shows that some people are really bad at math.

      btw, sell anything for cheap people will come.
      It's not even Econ 101, it's grocery shopping 101.
    • drunkenoaf, on 11/13/2007, -1/+3You tell Apple's market researchers and accountants that. Perhaps they overlooked your point there in their business model. ffs.
      • hokie47, on 11/14/2007, -2/+1I will tell them that. The Apple market is changing. They can no longer keep their same business model because their share holders require massive growth. I am not saying that their current model is not good, but I think that they need to take away market share from Dell and HP to keep their stock holders happy, and I think one way to do that is to lower prices.
      • exothermic, on 11/14/2007, -0/+2I think shareholders would be content to keep prices where they are. Competing for price-sensitive customers has been the death of many company, not just computer manufacturers.
  • timgolf2002, on 11/14/2007, -11/+16Isn't doing this, like, illegal?
    • InorganicMatter, on 11/14/2007, -3/+9It is by no means illegal, if you purchase the software legally, and patch it yourself. It is against the EULA that you agree to when installing, but seriously, who's going to enforce that?
      • McInternet, on 11/14/2007, -1/+8The people who bricked your iPhone.
      • arjung, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3if it is against the EULA, which is a licensing agreement, doesn't that make it illegal? i have no problem with people doing this, but it is illegal because you are 1) pirating leopard, or 2) breaking a contract you signed with apple (the EULA when you bought it).
        just call it what it is.
        • meepus, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3If a law hasn't ever been enforced, is it really a law?
      • blackjack75, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1You assume an EULA is a valid contract, which still remains to be proved. I don't remember signing anything.
    • TridenTBoy, on 11/14/2007, -0/+3Yes.
      InorganicMatter is simply wrong.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1No.
      You could be sued, but it's not against the law. (Where I Live)
      Breaking EULA doe not mean breaking laws.
    • minigamer1896, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1Acc to the article, you only need to get an official Apple sticker for it to be quasi-legal or legal under the Leopard EULA.
  • najdorf, on 11/14/2007, -11/+5Having my operating system "patched" by hackers is not something I am very comfortable with.
    • kaeves, on 11/14/2007, -2/+6Then stay away from Linux. Stick with the professional hackers. You can trust those who are in it for the money.
    • 0xFEEDFACE, on 11/14/2007, -2/+5Personally, I'd rather have it patched by people who understand assembly, and who were smart enough (and motivated enough) to bypass the TPM stuff than the people who added it in the first place.
      • Burn, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Apparently Apple doesn't even use the TPM, so what good would that do?
    • najdorf, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I trust those that get caught for sure if they put in malicious stuff, as opposed to anonymous developers.
  • InorganicMatter, on 11/14/2007, -3/+6The article is really outdated. Using the new EFI method, no patching is necessary, and it's not fragile any more.
  • mingistech, on 11/14/2007, -3/+4I did this with an older Dell I have in my basement. Very cool project.
  • rebornempowered, on 11/14/2007, -12/+40Can you people even read?

    Look at his wishlist on New Egg that will explain why it is $800.

    $150 for a case
    $180 for the MOBO with built in WiFi.
    Plus he put in 4 GB of RAM.
    I could put together a system skimping on the MOBO, processor, and case and probably be in below $500.

    Yet you compare a $1100 iMac to a build with 4 GB of RAM.

    An iMac from Apple with 4 GB of RAM and a 500 GB HD (with a slower processor) costs almost $2200.
    • monkeyrun, on 11/14/2007, -11/+4oh please, 4 GB of RAM is nothing, don't make it sound like it's some sort of breakthrough in the hacker scene.
      Nowadays, you could easily get 4GB of Ram for under $140
      • rebornempowered, on 11/13/2007, -3/+4Did I even mention the price of the RAM? I said how much a prepared one FROM Apple.
        I have purchased that much RAM for around the cost you reference.
        • monkeyrun, on 11/14/2007, -3/+6Let's say the setup is $800, Plus the Dell LCD Monitor for 299 and $130 for the OS.
          You end up with a $1229 setup.

          If I get an iMac ($1099), upgrade the RAM to 4 GB ($140)
          I end up paying $1239.

          My bad you saved $10.
          • MooMaster716, on 11/13/2007, -2/+1Your not buying the OS just ***** steal it.
          • MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/14/2007, -1/+1I think the LCD is included in the price.

            Even if it isn't. The specs on the Hackintosh blow the 1099 mac away. And when the computer gets old, only a few parts need to be replaced and it's competing with then 1099 computers from Apple.
    • theutopian, on 11/14/2007, -4/+5Buried for innaccuracy. Only an idiot would buy overpriced RAM from Apple. Fanboys know this. I upgraded by iMac's RAM for $30.
    • prozoc, on 11/14/2007, -0/+4You're forgetting to add a 24" monitor to your totals. Still less, but it certainly brings it closer.
  • mbthompson, on 11/14/2007, -4/+5Some of the best stuff I've ever seen on digg. As soon as I get the cash together, this is my next project for certain.
  • djadamjay, on 11/14/2007, -13/+13time is money. so why spend all that time frankensteining a mac together when you can do spend it doing other things that make you money in the name of buying a REAL mac?

    oh yea and with a real mac you'll get REAL bonuses like support and updates
    • logicalnoise, on 11/14/2007, -9/+6sucking dick for mac seems to be most peoples avenues.
    • Lewie, on 11/14/2007, -2/+7Some people like building things. Like a hobby, only you get something useful in the end. If you're knowledgeable enough to build a computer, I don't think the lack of support will mean anything.
    • archer75, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3because I can't upgrade the video card on a "real" mac and I don't need a monitor, aka imac.
    • blackjack75, on 11/14/2007, -2/+2"If you're knowledgeable enough to build a computer, I don't think the lack of support will mean anything."

      I think by support he means: apple/ATI releases a new driver that fixes issues with your graphics card but you don't get it because you need a patched version and suddenly the hacker that builds them for you is on holiday. That's the kind of support I am glad to pay for. Or try to write to a shareware vendor telling them for some reason their app doesn't work on your machine...
  • mmcxiiad, on 11/14/2007, -7/+2As far as i know, though i haven't tried it, this dell computer can run leopard for $450 shipped (doesn't include tax). It ships immediately, you don't have to build it, add more ram after market, and don't deal with rebates for a less expensive option. You would still have to acquire leopard. Though I agree that the legality is definitely gray.

    http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx ...


    • DarkDx, on 11/13/2007, -2/+2…………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
      ……………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
      …………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
      ………,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
      …….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll
      ……..lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
      ……...lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
      ……….llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-..*`*;..)
      ………..,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
      ………...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.
      ………../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...
      ……….|.../…/…/.*`......……………………)….)¯`~,
      ……….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
      ………/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...…./…../..|……...¯```*~-,,,,
      ……...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………
      ……….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…………..
      ………….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…………
      ................f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,……….
  • rocky1138, on 11/14/2007, -10/+6I wish the world would switch to Linux instead of Windows but I'm just as glad to have everyone go to Mac. Anything but Windows!!!
    • banmaster, on 11/14/2007, -2/+5Why? Apple is a far worse company for openness and pricing etc than MS has/will ever be. Don't let your fondness for linux cloud your judgment.
      • Darksider, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3banmaster has a good point. For all its hippie public image. Apple is as cutthroat as they get.
  • davewelsh79, on 11/14/2007, -2/+3I'd like to know what other video cards are supported by Leopard. A GeForce 7300 GT isn't that impressive.
  • uncertain, on 11/14/2007, -2/+4Can't you simply put Leopard on any PC with sufficient horsepower to run it. I thought once Apple went to Intel, there weren't many roadblocks.
    • davewelsh79, on 11/13/2007, -0/+5I think only a few specific video cards have OS X drivers for them. So that's a roadbloack. The other main one is that OS X uses EFI, which isn't on some motherboards.
    • DarkDx, on 11/14/2007, -4/+1The most important (and maybe only) roadblocks are:

      1. TPM chip verification, if your motherboard doesn't have that chip, it won't run, of course that chip is only present on macs.
      2. EFI.
  • ClockworksNine, on 11/14/2007, -3/+4Oddly enough, my computer is running with nearly the same hardware (a 7900GT and a Quad instead). I'll try this out during Thanksgiving break (many exams so far, poop). Thanks for the link, OP
  • Vermifax, on 11/14/2007, -7/+2Yawn.
  • jaredvolkl, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6Dugg for showing me how to make a patched Leopard DVD from my retail disk.
    • Raptor007, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1Yeah, that's the reason I dugg it too. Definitely not for them to show me what I should do with my $800.
  • over90000, on 11/14/2007, -4/+25All you people saying that you can get a real mac for the same money are just ignoring the fact that the specs are not going to be anywhere close.
  • griz, on 11/13/2007, -9/+4My Refurb 1.83 mini cost me $479. I added on 2GB of ram and a 500GB external MiniStack drive. My total cost was around $800 and it's 1000 times cleaner looking than this beast. Not to mention legal. I think Apple is foolish not to license their OS. The people who want to put it on a "beige" box aren't likely to buy Mac hardware anyhow so they only gain from it. They just sell it for more because they would need to offset their costs for additional tech support for the variety of hardware they would need to support.
    • evo8ftw, on 11/13/2007, -2/+8FYI no one kives 2 ***** about your mini fanboi
    • Tippis, on 11/13/2007, -0/+4...which still leaves the work