digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at wildwobby.com

Build a Mac for $350

wildwobby.com — This guide shows you how to get a 100% working hackintosh for only $350! It is VERY easy to follow and uses no command line stuff!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • RoxStar1968, on 02/03/2008, -10/+56A home cooked mac mini :D
    • 31213121, on 02/03/2008, -3/+21yeah, though if you don't want to buy a completely new PC for OSX, and want to dual boot with Windows, you need this guide: http://osx86.thefreesuite.com/ (which tells you how to dual boot leopard or Tiger with Windows on your Intel or AMD PC)
      • GawtMilk, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1This will work on all Intel processors, correct? I would be able to get a, say, 2GHz Core 2 Duo, with the only restriction being heat?
    • slamtv7, on 02/03/2008, -2/+16Here is a google cache, since the site is down.
      http://209.85.165.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2co ...
    • wafflez, on 02/03/2008, -9/+6I hate to comment hijack, but I feel this belongs near the top:
      http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3865071/osx86_Leopard_ ...
      all you need is a spare hard drive/partition, and you just click the .bat file, from WITHIN windows. when turning on you computer, it's as easy as simply selecting which hard drive you want to boot off of to select leopard or whatever other os you have. enjoy =D. (for any driver issues, there's insanelymac.com, but just for reference, it worked without a hitch on a gigabyte p35-ds3r, q6600 (though it kills the overclock), and 8800gts. my pci wifi card wouldn't work though, so check before you install.
      • JDRay, on 02/03/2008, -8/+6You mean I'd need to install Windows on my Ubuntu box to get this to work?
        • mrsteveman1, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Its just a disk image, in fact they use dd to write the image to disk.

          It is a whole disk image though, complete with an MBR and partition table, so if you want to write it to an existing partition you need to use bs=32256 skip=1 to get the partition itself out of the image (32256 is 512*63 which is the HFS partition offset in the image).
    • streak, on 02/03/2008, -5/+14a home cooked mac mini with copyright infringement built right in.
      • SPECOPS, on 02/04/2008, -5/+0True copyright infringement involves making some sort of money off of it, please explain how this, as written, will allow you to make money off of it. Oh you mean the OTHER definition of copyright infringement, the one being forced through our legal system - well it's not there yet, maybe in a few more years.
        • streak, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4Sorry, bunky, copyright infringement doesn't have to have any monetary component to it.
      • neocognitism, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2I could ***** care less. Oh, and I have downloaded music, TV, and movies too.
    • Piyh, on 02/03/2008, -10/+5I have a iBook G3 800MHZ processor, 256MB of ram and a 30gig hard drive, running Tiger and it STILL runs faster than my dual core 2.0 Ghz 1.5gigs of ram 250 gig hard drive, on vista
      • Elranzer, on 02/04/2008, -2/+6No it doesn't.
      • joelhardi, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5I have a Powerbook 1.5 Ghz, 1.5 GB of RAM, and it doesn't hold a candle speed-wise to my 4-year-old P4 2.4 Ghz Dell Poweredge 400, which I bought for about $300. Compile times on the Powerbook are 3-4x longer. I love it, but the PPC Macs are definitely not fast.

        The G4 400 Mhz was a nice machine for 1999, though.
    • RevToTheRedline, on 02/04/2008, -5/+14A Mac Mini would rape that things specs, a ***** Celeron are you kidding me? I'd rathe spend the $490 on a base Mac Mini
      • bjornski, on 02/04/2008, -9/+6Something comes around that might interest enough Windows users to check it out, and you just have to piss all over it, don't you?

        Shut up, fanboi. Let the people experiment. Go play with your Mini.
        • zongamin, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1Think about it you idiot. What you are building here will work, but it will be *****. For the extra money you are going to get a lot more.
      • leamanc, on 02/04/2008, -2/+2He brings up a valid point. For $140 more, you get a machine with vastly superior specs, a legit license of the OS (which is guaranteed to get OS updates, something you can't say for sure with the Hackintosh), a remote, Bluetooth, DVI...the list goes on and on. While it is cool that people are doing this, it still doesn't make it practical. Surely your time just by itself (time spent putting the Hackintosh together, and lost time later with your Celeron processor) is worth $140.
    • MalDON, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1I am typing this comment on a 3Ghz amd hackintosh.
  • wildwobby, on 02/03/2008, -14/+35Yeah, and cheaper!
    • MrWally, on 02/03/2008, -9/+17Not to mention 100% compatible.
      • ataylor32, on 02/03/2008, -5/+21You weren't supposed to mention that
        • OutlawSamurai, on 02/03/2008, -0/+12Also, there's things like Firewire Target Disk mode that become very handy and definitely part of the "Mac experience" that I miss with other x86 hardware.
          • bjornski, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3Very true.

            But if the experimenters like this enough, maybe they'll decide it's worth getting that hardware on their next machine.

            This is a hackintosh, don't expect 100% fully computable/working everything for what you're doing.

            It's pretty cool tho.
      • nixfu, on 02/03/2008, -4/+30Actually not quite 100%....updates become a major pain because they all ALSO have to be hacked to get them to install so your always chasing down hacks keep your system updated.
        • Steeple, on 02/03/2008, -1/+19not anymore..efi emulation cured that
        • monkeyvoodoo, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Just wanted to "ditto" that. The Kalyway DVD can install on a GUID partition, and boots an unmodified kernel. The only thing you might need to add is drivers. Software Update is no longer dangerous to run.
    • championchap, on 02/03/2008, -5/+20And with a crappy spec!
      Celeron?
      Vile..
      • thcobbs, on 02/03/2008, -21/+4Ok, go pay twice as much for a 10% better processor.
        • digitalpencil, on 02/03/2008, -2/+18I think you underestimate just how crappy celerons are!
          • bjornski, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3This gets people's toes in the door to a new platform.

            Stop slamming it on them and being condescending with your elitist *****. SO WHAT if someone wants to run it with a little weaker specs. What does it harm you? Shut up and let people try something new. If they like it enough, they'll pay for better specs next time.

            ***** fanboys. Sheesh.
    • triskele, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1There's a reason it's way cheaper. ***** specs (especially when compared to a Mac Mini) and an (illegal) copy of OSX. Sorry, that's two reasons.
  • RoxStar1968, on 02/03/2008, -7/+67With some fiddling, one can make an equally priced hackintosh with 2 gb of the same ram by buying this hard drive
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N8 ...
    • chingy1788, on 02/03/2008, -12/+29or have a saving of $20

      whats a super drive? some new fancy term for CDRW/DVDRW?
      • otatop, on 02/03/2008, -1/+68It's what Apple calls their CD/DVD burners.
        • houndeyex, on 02/03/2008, -23/+9Wow that's dumb. Why not call them "DVD Burners" like the rest of the world?
          • troye, on 02/03/2008, -1/+23Apple does what pleases Apple.
          • Hosalabad, on 02/03/2008, -2/+20Haha is this the first time you have ever heard of anything Apple has done? Wait until you hear about their mouse.
          • KAMiKAZOW, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1The term "SuperDrive" is used by Apple since 1988.
        • bliz, on 02/03/2008, -2/+12It used to refer to a floppy drive too.
          • stevealford, on 02/03/2008, -12/+7I'd rather have a SUPER drive than a floppy drive any day of the week. I don't care how much it costs... I want one NOW!

            /sarcasm
          • gandhii, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I thought that that was what he was talking about... I was surprised to read that they were still making those.. ;]
    • TheImmigrant, on 02/03/2008, -1/+7woahh I just got a HUGE erection my friend!!
    • rushco, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1That's like almost double what the Air has. No way.
  • windowi, on 02/03/2008, -33/+10... go on ....
  • wildwobby, on 02/03/2008, -93/+9I'm actually working on a django-powered site to start up a PC building company. Just stay tuned on the blog (wildwobby.com).
    • Birdoftruth, on 02/03/2008, -52/+2hmm I said something that I edited so now this post is nulled. but for your entertainment I provide ascii

      _____ _____ __ _ _ _____
      | _ | ____| | | | | | / ___/
      | |_| | | |__ | | | | | | |___
      | ___/ | __| | | | | | ___
      | | | |___ | | | | | ___| |
      |_| |_____| |_| _| |_| /_____/

      well fail
  • Birdoftruth, on 02/03/2008, -18/+83wow this sure beats the hell out of lifehacker's $850.
    • bobartig, on 02/03/2008, -0/+37Erm, the Lifehacker's machine had better hardware, and was also built from off-the shelf components. I don't want to blow your mind here, but better hardware costs more =P
      • RaiKitsune, on 02/03/2008, -13/+8Unless the hardware is Apple distributed
    • zongamin, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2You're an idiot. The lifehacker one was high spec'd machine - basically a 'pro' wannabe - this is as basic as it gets.
      If I could reach you I would smack you in the face.
  • cactus476, on 02/03/2008, -25/+6Could someone upload the .torrent file in a zip or rar? My ISP likes to corrupt .torrent files :(
  • Roger, on 02/03/2008, -16/+19Doesn't OSX support newer integrated graphics than the outdated GMA950 ?
    • Tippis, on 02/03/2008, -1/+27It supports X3100 as well.
      • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3Supports my 8800GTS, too, although it isn't optimal.

        Posting from my gaming rig turned hackintosh. Bad Axe 2 motherboard, 1.86GHz core2duo (being upgraded asap), 4 gigs of RAM, and over 1.5TB of hard drive space. Cost less than my Macbook Pro did, too...
        • apologeticus, on 02/03/2008, -20/+3I would certainly hope so, since a Mac Pro is far better than the "hackintosh" you just listed.
          • Ebulating, on 02/03/2008, -1/+13He said a MacBOOK pro.
          • starkruzr, on 02/03/2008, -15/+4Mac Pro: Stuffed with features no one needs or wants for the express purpose of cranking up the price and trying to convince people to buy ***** iMacs since 2006.
        • houndeyex, on 02/03/2008, -13/+4*****, apologeticus. That machine blows a Mac Pro straight to hell.
          • Lyph5, on 02/03/2008, -1/+8It's a Macbook Pro, and even the cheapest Mac Pro blows both my Hackintosh and my MBP (combined) away.
  • basic0, on 02/03/2008, -6/+119The author doesn't mention what the performance is like. The CPU he used has 1/8th of the L2 cache that the base model iMac CPU does and is 400 Mhz slower.
    • jerryparid, on 02/03/2008, -4/+58Or pay $100 more and get an even better CPU. $450 still.
      • Nogger, on 02/03/2008, -7/+6Website is down, so: what about the noise? Do the $350 include quiet fans / harddrive etc.? I can hardly hear my Mac and would not want to miss it in a clone.
        • RaiKitsune, on 02/03/2008, -4/+4Spend $1000 sound-proofing it, it still works out cheaper.
      • johnpaul191, on 02/03/2008, -2/+17so at some point you approach the cost of an actual Mac? The current Mini is $599 (refurbs are less). The 20" iMac is $1200, but used to be less when they had a 17" model. Fun project, but if you are buying it all raw i am not sure it's cheaper in the end. Obviously the cost scales also ignore the bundled software (OS X, iLife bla bla bla bla).
        When i bought my current iMac, i almost bought a Mini instead. The thinking was that when it got upgraded, the Mini would go to the living room. The price difference between the Mini and the iMac (Fall 2006) was really close to the cost of a Mini + 3rd party 17" display, keyboard and mouse. The iMac generally has a better graphics chip etc.
        If you are going to spec slower components than Apple, then you should actually compare the final product to older (refurb?) systems, and those are a lot less. Anyway, before you do this as a money saver, do the math and make sure it's worth it.
    • Kerrigore, on 02/03/2008, -0/+22It's more comparable to the Mac mini than the iMac.
    • 4d669, on 02/03/2008, -11/+6It's still going to run better than in a regular Mac.
      • Phatt138, on 02/04/2008, -2/+3You ever seen the way that OS X runs on a real Mac vs a generic PC? Yeah, didn't think so. I'vd got both and my high-end desktop runs the OS much less smoothly overall than my MacBook Pro. Optimization means a lot...
  • jerryparid, on 02/03/2008, -84/+444A Mac is not a Mac if it is not expensive.
    • pirloui, on 02/03/2008, -13/+29-_-
    • johnpaul191, on 02/03/2008, -19/+43I don't think Macs are expensive when you consider how long they are usable. I don't know if this will change in the Intel era, but i don't think so. It's an OS thing. As OS X matured, it actually ran faster on older PPC Macs than the previous version (G3 or G4 chips). Ask anyone that had the same machine and went from 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.4.
      I used a G4 tower from early 200 till late 2006. It ran everything from OS 9 to 10.4. I did some upgrades along the way (processor, vid card etc), but a 6 year old machine running the current OS and most new software is pretty ok to me.
      • CHalCogen, on 02/03/2008, -9/+54That's one hell of a G4 tower, to have been made in 200, and to have gotten 1806 years of service. It must have had 3 galena-iron transistors.
        • snugglebear, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4He didn't specify BC or AD, it could be even longer :-O
        • Piyh, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1I have a iBook G3 800 mhz 256 megs of ram running 10.4 and it boots just seconds behind a brand new macbook
          • monkeyvoodoo, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Yeah, the big limiting factor in the boot sequence is the hard drive, and all laptop hard drives are crap when it comes to speed.
      • Alegoo92, on 02/03/2008, -2/+6Well I'm not sure. It's been two years since i bought my iMac G5, and the performance is definitely not what it used to be: even with the leopard upgrade.
        • skealoha86, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3That's because Leopard was designed from the ground up for the Intel Core Duo chip... on the dual core chips it's muuuuuch faster, but on the PPC chips it's muuuuuuchhhh slower...
          • monkeyvoodoo, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3It wasn't designed "from the ground up" for the Core Duo. It was built with compiler flags that optimize for core chips, but certainly it wasn't an all-out rewrite. That'd take decades.

            Also, the reason Apple dropped PPC is because their suppliers (IBM/Motorola) weren't keeping up with Intel in terms of speed. I have a last-generation 17" PBG4 1.67GHz that's WAAAAY slower than my 1.67GHz Mac Mini Core Duo with one core disabled.
        • lharrod, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I run Tiger on a 6 yr. old Mac (Quicksilver) and a 12 yr. old Powerbook (Pismo), and it runs like butter on both machines. Haven't upgraded to Leopard yet. Perhaps I will wait until I get a new Mac one day.
      • houndeyex, on 02/03/2008, -1/+16Start playing one of the few games they make available for Mac. Your "lifetime" will take a steep turn for the normal. Additionally, if you're replacing the main guts of the machine (processor, vid card, etc.) I'm not so sure that it's the same computer anymore. Sure I've been using the same case for 6 years and one of the hard drives was the same until recently, but I don't call it the same "computer" anymore.
        • fauxXenophanes, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4Still a great point, try running Vista (full Aeros) on a PII 300 Mhtz.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -6/+5Try running Leopard on one of the Candy Apple laptops that also are 300mhz. See? No dice.
          • awhiteflame, on 02/03/2008, -5/+5@ShrimpCrackers:
            No, not true. I run Leopard on my old Powerbook 450MHz G4. It's not even "supported" hardware, and it runs no problems at all.
          • Fisos, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3@awhiteflame
            I don't know about you, but 300+0=300 in my book, at what point did your 0 turn into a 150? damn you all damn mac users.
          • elmafudd911, on 02/03/2008, -5/+1Ok, try running vista on a 450mhz machine.
      • TheCount, on 02/03/2008, -0/+11That's over 1800 years! Sign me up!
      • jhaks, on 02/03/2008, -0/+9Upgrading the most important parts of a six year old computer doesn't make it six years old anymore.
      • Brasky, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2XP actually ran better on older hardware also. At work there are still a few 400 mhz machines floating around for parts management on production lines. Run XP Pro w/SP2 and are solid. Sadly, I don't think this will ever be the case with vista...
    • sroop, on 02/03/2008, -0/+7Hac-Pro: way better and cheaper at $2,508 in comparison to the Mac Pro's base price of $2800.
      https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/Wishlist/Publ ...
      • kturner, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5Not bad... but drop the processor down to 2.3ghz from 2.83 and you save $400 (it's still a quad xeon) . I don't know as I haven't built it, but I'm sure it's still a kick ass box.

        Any one know if OS X supports Blue Ray burners?
      • thecheatah, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3I just ordered a similar computer. Mine came out to be around 1700. I only got one 2.4 xeon harpertown (ill get the second one at some other time) 4 gb ram, same video card.

        I hope it runs good. Wish me luck!

        Dont mean to bust your bubble but that MB doesnt support 16x pci, so the card probably wont fit. If anyone knows better please tell me!
  • getrealnow, on 02/03/2008, -10/+59Who doesn't love mods/hacks ? Keep up the good work.
    • triskele, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3I built something like this for my father years ago with Ubuntu on it. Nothing revolutionary here. Oh, and I didn't have to steal anything.
  • digitallysick, on 02/03/2008, -17/+6try a core 2 duo for 78 dollars, it would be far better, its 64bit, then, overclock it
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ...
    • vsLAN, on 02/03/2008, -1/+58That is a Pentium Dual-Core, not a Core 2 Duo... There is a major difference.
      • KloroFormd, on 02/03/2008, -11/+1The Allendale chip is also sold at higher clocks under the Core 2 Duo name. I fail to see how this is a major difference.
      • safetyseal, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5Not true the new Pent E and even the new Celerons are all based off of the core architecture....the only thing that differs is amount of cache and mhz.
      • EXreaction, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2The cache was gimped...but for the price it kicks ass.
    • pirloui, on 02/03/2008, -1/+5Anyhow, the Pentium D is compatible; for what I know.
  • cyberdork, on 02/03/2008, -9/+49Hackintoshs are great. I installed OSX on my PC at work a year ago.
    But be aware that there are some drawbacks. Most importantly: if there is an update of the OS you can't simply install it, you will most likely have to once again download a hacked disk image and reinstall the entire OS. For that reason I'm still running 10.4.8.
    I also have the feeling that performance wise a Hackintosh is slower than a real Mac. My PC with a P4 3.2GHz and 4GB of RAM often doesn't feel much faster than my iBook G4 1.2GHz. Eventhough I have full SSE3 support and even QE is working.
    • estvir, on 02/03/2008, -1/+29A lot has changed in a year, for example, if there is an update for the OS you /can/ simply install it if you have EFI+Vanilla kernel which all the major releases (Kalyways, iATKOS, etc) of Leopard support.

      Oh, and even a year ago you wouldn't have to reinstall it to install big updates like 10.4.x or so.
    • DarkDx, on 02/03/2008, -1/+17It feels the same? wtf, try playing HD video in that ibook...
      • jim1977, on 02/03/2008, -2/+4Actually, it runs fine...
        • monkeyvoodoo, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Not with any modern video codec. I have a 1.67GHz PowerBook G4, which can't even handle 720p h.264. It'll play MPEG2 at that resolution, but the sheer size of the file for a full 1080p movie encoded MPEG2 would be ridiculous.
        • KAMiKAZOW, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1@monkeyvoodoo: That's true. However 720p Xvid files play fine on my iBook.
      • TechCF, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1powerpc power :)
    • posure, on 02/03/2008, -3/+7My Hackintosh can update itself just fine (EFI+Vanilla kernel like estvir said). I wish Apple would just make OS X available for non-Apple hardware, my Hackintosh is so much better than my MacBook Pro.
      • 24imac, on 02/03/2008, -1/+16When Apple does that, they will be no different from Microsoft in Driver issues, having to instal drivers for simple things like scanners, printers, etc.

        OSX runs good due to having a limited hardware base that code need to be created for. Throw in a few hundred different motherboards alone and the problems start, then they have to write for AMD gear, older PC parts, videos cards, etc. lets not forget cheap no name network cards, you then have the same thing that Windows has, issues with hardware, another Vista.

        • Steeple, on 02/03/2008, -6/+3they just have to have a recommended parts list, it's not rocket surgery!
          • 24imac, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3That would be called Vista.
          • skribble, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4They do have a recommended parts list, you can choose any of the following parts:
            Mac Book
            Mac Book Pro
            Mac Book Air
            iMac
            Mac Pro
            Mac Mini


          • estvir, on 02/03/2008, -4/+2"Rocket surgery" (?)

            I think you mixed 'brain surgery' and 'rocket science.'
        • monospaced, on 02/03/2008, -4/+7Just want to let you know that Mac OS X does install just about every printer and scanner driver available. It's how most products work out of the box without installing drivers on a Mac. One of theperks.
          • persept, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4Why is he being dugg down? He's right, OS X would have the printer and scanner drivers, but you would still need your sound and network drivers, which is where some bigger problems would be.
        • MalDON, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Funny, my hardware all worked out of the box.
          I did have to change my graphics kext around a bit. Nothing ATI couldn't fix.
      • KAMiKAZOW, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1If Apple thought that selling Mac OS X for all PCs is a better business than selling its own computers with Mac OS X as unique feature, they'd do it. However selling Macs is very profitable.
    • devmaster, on 02/03/2008, -5/+1a P4 runs slow on a hackintosh because p4s are outdated and never ran any legit macs (besides the Developer boxes sent out in early '05) and sse3 can only help so much, and OSX was built to run on power series processors, so their really isent much comparison
      • EllimistX, on 02/03/2008, -0/+7Wasn't OS X concurrently developed for intel as well?
        • turpenine, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3since the beginning as a just in case scenario.
      • kodek, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Considering Darwin already ran in x86 hardware, and I doubt the rest of OS X (the window manager, the applications, etc...) has much assembly (if any) in it, porting or developing for intel would be as simple as a recompile after a few tweaks.
      • ispshadow, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Devmaster,

        OS X was developed side-by-side on Intel years before they announced it. Running on Intel isn't a hack job. As far as OS X is concerned, it was built for it. P4s run it just fine. I'm sorry you spent that god awful amount of money and you need to feel good about PowerPC. I only bought one after they jumped to the Intel side.

  • colincornaby, on 02/03/2008, -13/+239More like build a really crappy Mac for $350. A Celeron? Even a Mac Mini would kick the crap out of this rig...
    • ShyGuy91284, on 02/03/2008, -17/+6You forget what architectures OS X is made to run on. PPC CPU's are vastly behind x86 CPUs for general usage, and Apple is still supporting PPC. Sure, a Celeron might not be as fast as current Apple hardware, but it would probably kick the crap out of my iBook G4 (which is still chugging along with Leopard fine), so I wouldn't be concerned. Although as another poster pointed out, this is close enough to the cost of a Mac Mini that you might want to consider just buying that....
      • griz, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1OS X is made to run on intel and PPC. But a Celeron is far from a Core 2 Duo.
    • 35263526, on 02/03/2008, -9/+11No *****, a $250 more expensive machine could kick its ass. I've learned from using my Eee that you really don't need an obscene amount of computing power to do 90% of what most people use their machines for, and even with the extra bloat of Leopard that thing is more than powerful enough for most everything short of gaming and video editting.
      • Kelmon, on 02/03/2008, -1/+8I would just like to note that Leopard is faster than Tiger, based on benchmarks I've run and general use on a C2D MacBook Pro, so I don't think you can call it "bloated" beyond the addition of new features. However, Leopard is slower on older hardware (again, based on own benchmarks using a G4 PowerBook) so I can only recommend that you use the latest kit to get the best from it.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5You guys are retarded and are just arguing little technical points for whatever purpose and are totally missing the point.

        As stated above, just spend $60 or less to get the same or in some sites, a better processor. The author was aiming at an easy to build cheap model that is half constructed (Shuttles come more or less assembled). All you had to do was pop in a few parts like ram and you're done. He could have easily built a cheaper model that involved far more construction.
    • jhaks, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2The E2160 can be bought for just a little more and with much better performance since it has a larger L2 cache. These processors are also very good at overclocking, able to double processor speeds which puts them at the performance level of much higher CPUs. This process can easily be overclocked to 3Ghz+.
    • diggingaround, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2How about running OS X on eee PC?
      http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/os-x-on-asus-eee-pc/399 ...
    • peestandingup, on 02/03/2008, -5/+2Yeah, this is kinda crappy. Apple would never even release a system this ***** in today's market. Some will (Dell), but Apple won't.

      I mean, no DVI?? Screw that.
    • MikeCerm, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1For the price difference between this and a Mini, you could put a Q6600 in this. Mini's use laptop hard drives, and are limited to 2GB of memory, and have no option to upgrade the video card (to support dual monitors, or a single 30").

      So, dollar-for-dollar, this thing will obliterate a Mac Mini.
  • NinjaPirateDude, on 02/03/2008, -21/+3i wanna be so rich that i can make as many of these as i want!
    • zapperdude60, on 02/03/2008, -8/+4i want to be so rich that i can hire someone to kill you
  • Diggtatorship, on 02/03/2008, -22/+483Ok, I hate to be a dick, but this $350 hackintosh emits one vital piece of the puzzle. If you want to do this and make it even semi-legal you've got to buy Lepoard for another $130 which brings you to $480 at which point you're $20 short of just buying a real mac mini from the apple refurb store. That extra $20 gets you so much more, including a Core 2 Duo at 1.83Ghz, Bluetooth, 802.11g Wireless, a remote for Front Row, and iLife.

    If Mac is what you want then you really can't beat the Mini in a dollar for dollar showdown. In fact, here's what you'd be paying if you stuck to all the cheapest components on Newegg and wanted to build a near-exact replica Mac Mini:

    Shuttle Barebone - $174.99
    Intel Core 2 Duo 1.86GHz - $169.99
    1GB (2 x 512MB) DDR2 SDRAM - $21.99
    80GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - $36.99
    LITE-ON DVD/CR-RW Black - $22.99
    Pinnacle USB Remote - $29.99
    Rosewill 802.11b/g PCI Wireless Card - $14.99
    USB 2.0 Bluetooth Adapter - $7.99
    Mac OS X Leopard - $129.00
    iLife '08 - $74.00
    Shipping - $26.00

    Total - $709.00
    • Diggtatorship, on 02/03/2008, -27/+85Of course, if you have no qualms about pirating software then, by all means, carry-on with your $350 hackintosh :)

      Also wanted to add that the high-end Macs are a completely different story and are severely severely over-priced when you consider the component costs. So while you're going hackintosh you might as well take it all the way and actually get your money's worth.
      • buddhistMonkey, on 02/03/2008, -10/+79You're wrong on the high-end Macs. From ZDNet's George Ou (who is no friend of Apple):

        "Now that the new Mac Pro with updated specifications and a much lower price has come out, I figured it’s time to do an updated comparison. But during my research I came to a stunning conclusion: it’s the cheapest name brand dual-processor workstation on the market IF you know how to buy third party memory and storage. It’s not only cheaper than the slower $3817 Dell workstation I looked at earlier this month, but I CAN’T EVEN BUILD A CHEAPER GENERIC PC CLONE UNLESS I SWITCHED TO A LOWER-END CPU." [emphasis mine]

        http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=979
        • TacticalPenguin, on 02/03/2008, -27/+3build your own? never crossed your mind?
          • wordsofwisedumb, on 02/03/2008, -3/+20Read the whole comment? Never crossed your mind?
          • threemagic, on 02/03/2008, -4/+3Way to spread the myth even if the comment it was debunked.
          • Kelmon, on 02/03/2008, -3/+1Muppet
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -2/+8Please, read the article. Its more expensive because George Ou thinks "building a computer" means buying it from Dell. You can indeed build a better computer off NewEgg or ZipZoomFly. Try it now, same specs, $2390 on NewEgg.
        • Acolyte357, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1"I CAN’T EVEN BUILD A CHEAPER GENERIC PC CLONE UNLESS I SWITCHED TO A LOWER-END CPU"
          I can, I guess he needs help picking out parts.
      • Eminemdrdre00, on 02/03/2008, -4/+22Since when do Digg users have a problem with piracy?
        • jsebrech, on 02/03/2008, -3/+10I'm a Digg user, I have a problem with piracy. I buy all the software I use. Then again, I'm a commercial software developer, so that sort of biases my opinion about paying for commercial software. However, I was anti-piracy before I became a commercial software developer.

          It's simple really: if someone does some form of investment (be it time, effort or money), and they require compensation if you make the choice to benefit from that investment, it is immoral to deny them that compensation. Ofcourse, this always applies only if there is choice, which in this case there is (you could always use linux if you don't want to pay for software).
        • Kelmon, on 02/03/2008, -4/+7Speak for yourself, sunshine. I'm happy to pay for good software in the same way that I don't steal from my local shops.
        • BloKKem, on 02/03/2008, -2/+3You don't steal from your local shops because you would get caught. Don't even try to compare the two.
      • RockinRoel, on 02/03/2008, -2/+11As buddhistMonkey says, the Mac Pro isn't overpriced for the 2x4-core Xeon workstation beast it is. About the MacBook Pro: For its form factor, it's very well-priced. You can't expect the MacBook Pro to cost as much as a fatter laptop with a desktop processor that eats power. The MacBook Pro costs what it costs compared to its performance because of mobile components, same for the iMac, which is a pity. Also, the screen is simply amazing and the MacBook Pro's battery life is pretty cool for a laptop in its class.
        • turbofan, on 02/04/2008, -2/+2While I agree with most of your praise for the MacBook Pro, the battery life is average at best. My C2D MacBook Pro averages a couple of hours under light usage. My old HP NX7000 got 5 hours of battery and still gets 3-4 with it's 4 year old battery. Granted the MacBook Pro is light years faster, but the battery life is hardly noteworthy.
    • Cronus6, on 02/03/2008, -32/+8I think the whole point was NOT to give Apple any money.
      • noahhoward, on 02/03/2008, -3/+23In other words stealing something you want?
        • skidooer, on 02/03/2008, -6/+6Stealing requires that you take something away. This is copyright infringement.
          • aeiou, on 02/03/2008, -5/+2Copyright infringement = Stealing
            You are taking away their means for making a living.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Please read Larry Lessig's Free Culture, and then you might change your mind and perspective about the whole thing.
        • aeiou, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1 I really don't care if they will make that money anyways. They deserve to be compensated for their work. This comes from a Photographer (even though I'm no a pro at this point). I would never want anyone to use (read: steal) my work without my permision
        • aeiou, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1You are taking away their means for making a living. I really don't care if they will make that money anyways. They deserve to be compensated for their work. This comes from a Photographer (even though I'm no a pro at this point). I would never want anyone to use (read: steal) my work without my permision
      • pirloui, on 02/03/2008, -4/+15No, the point was a cheap Mac.
        • bjornski, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3This isn't even a way to replace a Mac, it's more a way to ***** around and test one out for almost no money. Yeah, the specs are lower, but if I like the "Mac Experience" enough that I want to upgrade the machine to experience it better, well, I can either upgrade the components here, or as many other posters said, spend just a little bit more money and go official, and get a Mac Mini or something. If you try and and hate it, boom. You can make a Linux file server out of it or something. If you commit to a Mac Mini right away and hate it, well, you still have a Mac Mini.

          No, this won't outperform (or even keep up to) most Macs. It was never meant to. It's a home-built project, to screw around, and try somethig new out. If the people like what they experience, they might go all the way, and go legit with it. If not, it's a cheap, useful machine that's easily converted to another use. And who doesn't like having extra file servers and storage, no matter what OS you run, am I right?

          This is a weekend project, to play with. It's not a Mac replacement. It's a sampler platter.

          Let the geeks play. This is fun stuff.
      • aeiou, on 02/03/2008, -2/+11So you think its a good idea to steal an awesome operating system just because you want to use it but can't be bothered to pay for it? Come on, man, support the people who make the software! They deserve to be compensated for their great product.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 02/03/2008, -0/+34omits
    • skidooer, on 02/03/2008, -24/+63You are already breaking the law by installing OS X on non-Apple branded hardware, why pay $130 to do so?
      • balthisar, on 02/03/2008, -7/+79Not breaking the law! Breaking a license agreement.
        • posure, on 02/03/2008, -2/+7You still don't have a valid license whether you buy it or not. Same end result.
        • kahrytan, on 02/03/2008, -4/+9Which means you can't use OSX on your homebrew Mac. Using it on the homebrew constitutes breaking the law.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -2/+4Actually no one has ever been successfully sued due to the special license agreements inside software... Even Microsoft failed in that. Companies are now weary to sue over those agreements because they're legally shaky.
          • digichris, on 02/04/2008, -2/+2...Breaking a license agreement.
        • skidooer, on 02/03/2008, -1/+10Using OS X without a valid license is breaking the law. You don't have a valid license unless you are running it on Apple-branded hardware.
          • redmaxx, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Wrong. Copyright law gives you the right to use software that you purchase. Try...you know...not drinking the Kool Aide.
        • redmaxx, on 02/03/2008, -7/+1Have you actually read the license? #1) It says "Apple branded", not "Apple manufactured". Get an Apple sticker and you're done. #2) You aren't informed of the fact that you can't install the software on a non-Mac before purchase, so the license agreement can't limit you to that after sale.

          Brainwashing. Great ain't it?
        • turpenine, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3you can install it but you can't expect them to support it.
        • passedoutghost, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1A license agreement is effectively a contract when you click the "ok" button. Breaking a contract means that Apple can have you prosecuted. Not that they'll know of course.
          • redmaxx, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1So explain to me what my recourse is if I *don't* agree to the license. Apple sure as hell won't take it back. And there is no information before the sale that this is restricted to installation on Apple machines only. Copyright law gives you the right to use the software that you legally purchased. Apple cannot restrict this.
          • poppieprong, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure what could be clearer than "Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor" on the technical specifications blurbage. Now, if you want to talk about Apple restraining trade, I'm all for it, but this argument that "there is not information before the sale that this is restricted to installation on Apple machines only" doesn't hold water. Copyright law grants the copyright holder the exclusive right to distribute the work in the manner it desires (17 U.S.C. § 106).
      • cave, on 02/03/2008, -12/+46Please show me where Leopard is mentioned in the constitution and I'll ***** my pants.
        • skidooer, on 02/03/2008, -8/+11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

          Violation of the license is copyright infringement. Copyright is covered by the constitution.
        • Mizzike, on 02/03/2008, -7/+6...you may commence pant-*****. Please post video as proof. Title: 1 Cave, 1 Cup. ;-)
        • redmaxx, on 02/03/2008, -6/+7@skidooer

          The software is sold, not licensed. Apple would like you to believe that you have to accept the license, but the law just doesn't support this. When you buy the software you have a *right* to use it. You are *not* required to accept that license.
          • spectre_25gt, on 02/03/2008, -1/+8That's a load of crap. Using someone else's IP can be handled in one of two ways: a complete buyout of the copyright which makes you the copyright holder or a license to use said IP as per whatever terms are set in the licensing agreement. Guess which Apple's software falls under.
          • heyphyuckyou, on 02/03/2008, -1/+8Ok, think about this for half a second. To install the software you have to click "Agree" on the End User License Agreement, without agreeing to the license, you cannot complete the installation. Therefore, to install the OS on non-Apple hardware is illegal.
          • griz, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3I love how you choose to interpret the law in your own way. I suppose you think that by buying music on CD entitles you to rip it and upload it to pirate bay.
          • redmaxx, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Apparently you all forgot that the law gives you the right to use the software that you purchased. You don't need a license agreement for that. As for clicking on "I agree", it:

            A) Doesn't allow the company to include terms that are unconscionable. Restricting the use to a very small set of hardware after sale without recourse of return is definitely unconscionable.

            B) You have the legal right to make modifications to the license agreement before clicking on I Agree.


            You guys are definitely brainwashed. There is nothing immoral or illegal about buying software and installing it on your machine, regardless of whether or not Apple likes it. As long as I paid for it and don't share it (sheesh, griz can't read, because I never said anything about uploading it), I haven't broken any laws.
          • skidooer, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1"A) Doesn't allow the company to include terms that are unconscionable."

            If that is true of the OS X license, the license is invalid. Therefore you still aren't able to use OS X legally.

            "B) You have the legal right to make modifications to the license agreement before clicking on I Agree."

            The only way to modify the license would be to modify the data on the DVD. But because you have not yet agreed to the license, you do not have a legal right to touch the contents of the DVD.
          • skidooer, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1"(sheesh, griz can't read, because I never said anything about uploading it)"

            It's the license that prevents unauthorized duplication. You told us that it's not legally binding. Therefore, you are free to redistribute the software as you see fit.
      • jsebrech, on 02/03/2008, -10/+10Breaking the law is irrelevant, doing something immoral is relevant. Using OS X on non-apple hardware has shady morality, but an argument can be made in favor of it. Pirating OS X, however, is indefensible (if you don't want to pay for it, put a linux install on that hackintosh).
        • skidooer, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3Agreeing to pay for a copy of OS X is just another term in the license agreement. It's no more important than any other point outlined in the agreement.
          • spectre_25gt, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Legally, your statement may be correct. Morally, it's questionable at best.
          • skidooer, on 02/04/2008, -1/+1@spectre_25gt - Is it morally okay to purchase and use an upgrade copy of Windows without owning any prior versions of Windows? Morally, you are depriving Microsoft of the money they wanted you to pay; the difference between the full version and the upgrade copy.

            It's the same deal with Apple. The boxed copy is sold at upgrade pricing. You pay the full cost of OS X only when you purchase the hardware.


          • redmaxx, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1@skidooer
            Then that's Apple's own damn fault. They need to mark on the box that it's an upgrade. If they don't, they are selling a full version of the software.
          • skidooer, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1@redmaxx - It's Apple's fault because you chose to ignore the terms of the license they presented to you? I don't understand.
        • niczar, on 02/03/2008, -1/+9Killing people is immoral.
          Copying software is not.
        • cave, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2Morality is completely relative, unless you're religious.
          • spectre_25gt, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2It's relative no matter what. Not every religion holds the same moral ideals.
      • deadbaby, on 02/03/2008, -5/+15Actually the Apple EULA says you can OSX on an "Apple Labeled Computer" Get yourself an Apple sticker and you're all set.
      • atomicfox, on 02/03/2008, -7/+1It viloates Microsoft's license agreement to install Vista Home Basic or Premium on a Mac. Yet that hasn't stopped the bootcamp crowd from doing so.
        • firstpost, on 02/03/2008, -1/+7uuhm, no it doesn't
        • bjornski, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4Microsoft doesn't care what you install it on.

          They may not support it, but they fully encourage you to buy it and do it.
    • DiggLive, on 02/03/2008, -18/+4You're completely forgetting the point of NOT having a Mac and running OSX. Some people actually like being in control of their hardware, and like building their own boxes. Why would I want some mini box as a computer for? I'll never use OSX86 though because the DVDs can be tampered with and altered.
    • joshuagor44, on 02/03/2008, -33/+9Get iLife? More like "a life!" HAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAhahahhahahaa......
    • Jerk, on 02/03/2008, -1/+9If by near-exact, you mean about 3-4 times the size of a Mac mini, sure. It's cheap, but it doesn't always go well. I have a Core 2 Duo desktop with a well-known supported board (GA-P35 DS3L), and I get an error on install that nobody knows how to fix.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Actually, you probably didn't read the "entire manual"/post. Try troubleshooting: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=8 ... I had the same problem during install that was fixed easily.
      • bobartig, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2The MacMini is 6.5x6.5x2 inches, the shuttle case is 11.8" x 7.9" x 7.3" which is almost exactly 8x as large volumetrically (8.05). Just pointing out that the MacMini is AMAZINGLY small. It's specs are obviously not that hard to beat, but its practically impossible to get anything with comparable specs in a similar form factor at a remotely comparable price.
        Since I can get discounts on apple stuff, my Mini was only $460, which made it an obvious choice (1.86 core 2 duo).
        • bjornski, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1That's cool, that's getting to about the price where I'd almost consider getting one on a whim just to play with.

          I don't see it replacing my Windows machine, because I like the software selection that I run on it. I'm trained on it, and very ingrained. But I AM a technology junkie, and it's fun to have more than one kind of computer around. Just for giggles.

          And if I liked it enough? Well, I might just have to use both.....
        • aaabatteries, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1@bjornski

          ...or.......dual-boot/use virtualization?
          • bjornski, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1It depends. If I built a Hackintosh, yeah, I could do that. Because I'd want to run it on my own hardware. If I ran Mac hardware, I'd still have a second PC that I made just because of the power/dollar ratio and the hardware variety. I like PC's. That's not going to change.

            But if I had a second machine (a MBP would be my ideal plaything), I'd probably use it if I liked it. I just do that. I like having two machines sometimes. You go ahead and make one neat looking machine. Some people like that. I like having multiple, even if ugly, machines. It's a nerd thing. I have one set up by the TV upstairs, I have another in the living room. I'd have another in each bedroom. Why not? They're cheap and fun, at this point. It's tech, WHEEEEE! I really don't care what it runs, as long as I enjoy running them.

            But I'll always have a PC.
    • dm33, on 02/03/2008, -10/+5Sounds like you priced in a 3.5" 80 gig hard drive. The Mini uses a 2.5" laptop drive. Cheapest at Newegg is $54.
      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ...
      • dcmjzero, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5why would you put a 2.5" drive in a computer that is built for 3.5" drives? he is trying to get components to be comparable, not exactly replace. you missed the point.
    • archer75, on 02/03/2008, -6/+4I'll pay more to have a case that allows me to put in a video card of my choice.
      • MeMongo, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Will OS X support it?
        • MalDON, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Actually ... yes. I post this using an x1900GT
          • MeMongo, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1I was speaking to archer75 and his claim that he can use the "video card of [his] choice". I'm happy for you and your x1900GT and I hope you two have a long and blissful life together.
    • EXreaction, on 02/03/2008, -8/+61GB of ram for $22?

      You can get 2GB of ram for a few $ more.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4You can get 2gb of ram for just $25 after rebates!
      • MalDON, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2NOt sure why you're getting dugg down. 2 gigs of ram at frys is always 19 bucks or so.
    • posure, on 02/03/2008, -11/+4Having a *true* PC architecture is worth not buying the Apple hardware imo.
      • olsonjj, on 02/03/2008, -1/+9If you mean "true" PC architecture, then you must mean crappy case and low-end components, because last I checked, the architecture in any of the newer Intel-based Macs are "true PC architecture". That is why you can run Windows XP and Vista on it by just dual booting into it.
        • thecompkid, on 02/03/2008, -1/+6Hell yes it's a true PC. My mac is the best Windows PC in the house, actually.
        • aeiou, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2True, except that Macs now use EFI instead of BIOS, something that PC's should be using, but haven't gotten around to yet. But that is part of what makes it hard to actually build your own mac.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3What are you talking about, you can flash EFI into the Bios now! The OSX86 scene has changed a lot since the early weeks of its inception.
    • illdourmum, on 02/03/2008, -12/+4buried for this particular reason!

      you cant beat the quality of apple's hardware for the price
    • spiker12, on 02/03/2008, -11/+5www.thepiratebay.org
    • bobartig, on 02/03/2008, -2/+11Shuttle PC is still missing 802.11n, powered firewire, DVI out. It's also the Mini is built on a mobile Core2Duo, and consumes a measly 24W at idle, and has a max under 85W.
      • bjornski, on 02/04/2008, -1/+3If you're ***** around building a $350 plaything, you obviously don't give a ***** about the firewire.

        This is to play with. A toy. Nothing more.

        Get over your Apple elitism.

        If the people who try this $350 experiment out like it enough, they'll GET that *****. Relax.
    • jhaks, on 02/03/2008, -2/+3You overpaid for the HD and and RAM. My 320GB SATA drive cost the same as that 80GB. For about $30 or slightly less you can get 2GB of higher performance RAM.
    • Stevethegreat, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2....or you would better buy Thermaltake's Lanbox http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 ... , save $100 in the process and with $40 of them buy extra 1gb of memory and the E2160, which you would subsequently overclock to 3GHz w/t extra cooling, just by upping the FSB.....

      In which case for $60 less ($290) you would have a better looking, twice as powerful Mac Mini, which would be more powerful than most Macs even....
      • triskele, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1That Lanbox isn't even barebones. It's just the case. The amount you'd pay for a power supply and board would probably come out to more than the Shuttle barebones.
    • VotingFraud, on 02/04/2008, -6/+1So when it comes to movies and music, it's ***** THE **AA and when it comes to Apple it's ILLEGAL?
    • grindmygears, on 02/04/2008, -1/+0Wow, you mean you have to pay for Mac OS X? I thought it was just the hardware that was overpriced and the OS was free. Can you get Mac hardware without OS X and just install Ubuntu or something or is the price of the OS 'included' when you buy the hardware, just like Windows?
  • otis12, on 02/03/2008, -55/+20I like my Windows thankyouverymuch
    • wilhoitm, on 02/03/2008, -11/+1You poor sole!
    • Kerrigore, on 02/03/2008, -1/+10So basically, you clicked on an article called "Build a mac for $350" just to... what, troll?
  • fartbuttes, on 02/03/2008, -38/+3how do i bought Eee PC
  • pr5owner, on 02/03/2008, -33/+13"If you have never built a computer before, it is pretty straight foward"

    how typical of a mac user lol (not saying all but most)
    • sykopath79, on 02/03/2008, -0/+9Well, it kind of, um, IS pretty straight forward. So I suppose that's why he said that.
    • Kelmon, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3How stupid to assume that everyone knows how to build a computer or what one even looks like without its clothes on.
      • aeiou, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1It would be silly to give step by step directions, as the majority of the crowd the article is targeted to already knows how and if they don't there are plenty of places to figure it out easily enough.
      • Acolyte357, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1"How stupid to assume that everyone knows how to build a computer or what one even looks like without its clothes on."
        Gawd I know like the readers on a TECH site have no idea what a computer looks like w/o it's case! Gawd pffft
        /Face Palm
  • bootle, on 02/03/2008, -14/+52Buried for the phrase "100% working"
    • cave, on 02/03/2008, -0/+17If you ever tried to use a Linux distro on obscure hardware, you'd know what they mean...
      • twtmc, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Any OS other than the one that it was built for.
      • bootle, on 02/03/2008, -5/+2I used linux exclusively for 2.5 years before I could afford a mac. Don't presume to know me, pal!
    • Jeezoflip, on 02/04/2008, -1/+4how is it not 100% working. He uses the vanilla kernel which lets u install the real apple updates without having to patch them.
  • TheActionCombo, on 02/03/2008, -31/+30I'd rather buy the real thing and get the awesome feeling of pretentiousness that comes along with it. I don't know what you guys do with your computers, but I use mine as a fashion statement.
  • f3l1x, on 02/03/2008, -20/+148haxed osx from your favorite torrent site: $0
    hardware to build your hackintosh: $350
    hosting your blog on said hardware then getting slathered in FAIL after submitting to digg: Priceless
    • mjPayne, on 02/03/2008, -23/+3osx is not server material. Not even close.
      • totalnet, on 02/03/2008, -4/+15Underneath OSX is something call BSD Unix. It has pretty good history of being server material.
      • f3l1x, on 02/03/2008, -0/+8OSX is fantastic hosting material... especially the server flavor. The hardware the poster used is bargain and I was criticizing the hoster if anything. Your comment just makes you an official idiot.
        • mjPayne, on 02/03/2008, -3/+1Got you point. I was criticizing his choice of servers. You think OSX is a good server and I'm the idiot ? Let's debate why OSX and why is not before calling names. "totalnerd" tried something but he missed by a nose. So, about "fantastic hosting material": how many hosters out there in OSX ?
          About people digging me down: truth is a bitch, aint it ?
    • fasm, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1"slathered in fail" .. do you know how stupid that makes you seem?
  • stackered, on 02/03/2008, -5/+10mirror?
  • ensleader, on 02/03/2008, -8/+21I had an extra $350 to spend (from my loan check/tax refund) so I went ahead and purchased one of these guys off of newegg. I'll let everyone know how it works. Hopefully it shouldn't be that bad to set up.
    • pasher1221, on 02/03/2008, -7/+5Buried for getting a loan check/tax refund. Was it really worth the $ you spent on the short term loan to get your refund in your hands 2 weeks earlier?
      • kingsaliva, on 02/03/2008, -4/+2Ditto. Filed last night. Waiting 8-15 days for the direct deposit is worth it. The fee for a loan check in my case would be 500$.
    • pjpark, on 02/03/2008, -0/+21Thanks! I'll send you everyones email address.
    • melonhedd, on 02/03/2008, -7/+2Way to overpay on your taxes, champ.
    • Eminemdrdre00, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2Im really interested in how this goes for you, Im considering it myself! How will you be able to tell us how it goes?
    • ensleader, on 02/03/2008, -8/+4For those of you who are interested to know how i am going to update you on my Mac Journey:
      I have several connections at engadget. You'll be seeing an article in a couple of weeks :-)
  • lionpirate, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4So guys there is absolutely no point doing this to a laptop with only 512mb of ram right?
    I'm sure the article said so but its down.
    • pirloui, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4512MB is livable, just as with XP. 1GB is obviously more comfy, but not a necessity.
      • lionpirate, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1thanks!
      • thecompkid, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Sorry, but I beg to differ. 1gb should probably be considered the minimum. Remember that Leopard is pretty graphics intense (for an OS), more so than even Vista.
      • Kanidia, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1We got a rapper in the house.
    • jordn, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4I wouldn't attempt to run Leopard with 512MB, unless all you are doing is browsing the web and listening to the odd song, otherwise it will crawl.
    • jsebrech, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1I used to run tiger (10.4) with 512 MB (on a 1.2 ghz G4). It was fine for single-tasking and light multi-tasking. I've since upgraded to 1 GB, and that is fine for serious multi-tasking. Leopard is supposed to be a little bit more memory hungry though, so I don't know how that affects the liveability of 512 MB. I suspect for single-tasking or stuff like browsing the web and listening to music at the same time, it will be fine.

    • cadmiumpaint, on 02/03/2008, -3/+2anything under 1GBram = frustration.
  • moisie, on 02/03/2008, -7/+19Since its a Hacintosh then it isn't a Mac, it's a Hac.
  • SweetChinMusic, on 02/03/2008, -6/+1Does anyone know what the article says? It's down already.
  • kamk2k8, on 02/03/2008, -15/+3you mean you can build a horrible mac for 350 dollars without even the OS? Huzzah all this time i thought i had to settle for a decent pc for less than $200
    • blowjustinup, on 02/03/2008, -1/+0"Decent PC for $200"? Assuming you're using Windows XP, that OS still costs $100.. So, please tell me where you're getting the "decent" hardware for $100..
      • kamk2k8, on 02/03/2008, -2/+0i have seen them online and at best buy
  • cbeach, on 02/03/2008, -31/+23Apple, as a computer manufacturer, is known for it's customer support, specialist hardware designs, 100% hardware/software integration and cutting-edge micro-form-factor logic boards (aka motherboards to PC builders).

    With a Hackintosh you get none of that. You've got to assemble the thing yourself and set up the software. And, what's more, you pay more for it - getting a lower spec than you could afford with genuine Apple hardware.

    I know it's fun to experiment, but beyond that, what is the point?
    • DeFex, on 02/03/2008, -8/+22except they dont manufacture anything.

      motherboard designed by intel.
      computer made by asus.
      white plastic designed by apple!
      • cadmiumpaint, on 02/03/2008, -4/+2neither does any other PC manufacturer. Buried.
        • aliguana, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4yeah, but other PC manufacturers charge you £499. Apple charge you £1299. Even factoring in the case, the copy of OSX and the flash Apple packaging, that's WAY over the odds.
          • cadmiumpaint, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1then go to wallmart and buy the cheapest, most generic beige box PC made. Stop complaining that luxury items cost too much. Go to a Porsche dealer and fight with them about price because STI's cost a third less than a twin turbo 911.
    • DonCarcharo, on 02/03/2008, -3/+9Because if I want a Mac with a user-upgradable video card I have to shell out $2800.
      • melonhedd, on 02/03/2008, -8/+0If you want a mac that support multiple monitors, too.
        • WebCester, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3Not true. My 17" Intel iMac has no problems running an external monitor, all you need is a Mini-DVI to DVI adapter. The graphics card in those things is pretty beefy for a low-budget mac, I have no problems running Bioshock or CoD4.
        • thecompkid, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4WTF are you talking about? Hell, even my 18 month old macbook does multiple monitors.
        • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Let me fix your comment. "If you want a mac that supports more than 2/3 monitors too". There! fixed.
        • cadmiumpaint, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1my 3 year old powerbook supports multiple monitors. Get informed. Apple has been doing that for along time in their pro lines.
      • jsebrech, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3You only need that if you're a gamer or into 3D graphic design (and even then the issue is debateable). If you're a gamer, macs aren't your thing anyway. In short: not being able to replace the video card is mostly a non-issue.
        • cadmiumpaint, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1If you can't afford it, don't buy it.
    • eternalatoms, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1overclocking and cooling are the biggest reason in my opinion. Apple may make nice cases but their cooling designs has been problematic for years accross many models.
    • hertzsae, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3Some people have lots of money, some have lots of time. This computer is for people with more time and less money.
    • heystoopid, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2just what are you smoking ?
  • doctordbx, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4I fiddled with installing MacOSX on a couple of rigs but there was always some hardware incompatibility. On the Laptop, only one of the cores could be enabled and the webcam wouldn't work. On the PCs I had chipset issues.

    I guess if you go out and buy specific components you know will work, you'll get closer, but I feel the claims of 100% working are way off.
    • Jeezoflip, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2...or u just cant take the time to figure out how to get it to work. Mine works 100% right now, sure it took me a while to get it to work, but i got it to work.
      • doctordbx, on 02/04/2008, -0/+0Yah I just don't see myself investing the time to make it work... sounds fragile.
        I guess that's the 'hack' in hackintosh.
      • MalDON, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I spent all day today doing this after getting fed up with vista, and I have never been happier. Sure it takes some tweaking here and there, but it does work. The Insanely Mac community is a great place for solutions to pretty much all problems.
  • rippin1700, on 02/03/2008, -10/+1I'll just stick with my PC running Suse 10.3 and Slack 12.
  • aerotive, on 02/03/2008, -15/+6Some of those prices are massively overvalued. What maniac pays $175 for a mini PC case? An equivalent Mac Mini case should cost no more than $75. Your processor price is $50 too high. You can get 160GB drives for $30 after rebate. 1GB of memory for $10 after rebate. iLife is worth maybe $10, sure as hell not $75.
    • cbeach, on 02/03/2008, -5/+15aerotive: "iLife is worth maybe $10, sure as hell not $75"

      iLife is actually a pretty amazing suite of software. Name a product that excels in the following and retails for $10:

      - MIDI/Sampling and sequencing
      - Photo catalog and editing
      - HD movie editing
      - DVD authoring
      - Web development
      • Andytom, on 02/03/2008, -11/+10KDE
        • Flummoxer, on 02/03/2008, -1/+5KDE doesn't come with a ***** of loops.
        • kris33, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5KDE doesn't retail for $10. /sarcasm

          Kidding aside though, the free KDE versions unfortunately can't be compared to iLife right now, there is still a long way left. Hope it will get there eventually.
      • iceschade, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2There are tons of Open Source tools available to do everything iLife can do. You might have to download them all seperately, instead of having them all conveniently located on one DVD, and they might not come with the support Apple will give you, but they're free (and often times more powerful).
        • starkruzr, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2What is an Open Source iMovie equivalent?
      • starkruzr, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1except iMovie sucks in iLife 08.
    • deadbaby, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2GarageBand alone is worth $75 to me. The other stuff is just a nice bonus.
  • dm33, on 02/03/2008, -15/+61This proves that Apple's are NOT overpriced. For a little more you can buy a Mac Mini with more expensive small components that is super quiet, cool and small. AND you legally purchase Mac OS X. And it came with a year warranty and you didn't have to mess with trying to build your own mess.
    • LowRentDiggs, on 02/03/2008, -0/+12Agree for the most part. My time is worth more to me than the savings but I like seeing stuff like this for the DIYers and people who live in areas not supported by Apple. The DIY route can be fun sometimes.
    • gotamd, on 02/03/2008, -0/+14It doesn't really. Apple does not pay retail prices for every individual component. They get components much, much cheaper than you and I could ever hope to find. This is why with almost all other PC brands, you can buy a low-end computer for less than you can build one with the same specifications. The high-end is a different story.
    • loneraven, on 02/03/2008, -2/+3Yea... they're not that overpriced I guess, but it's still cheaper for me to build computers with spare parts that I have after upgrading other computers.

      Hell, I have enough parts to nearly build three computers. All that's missing is a case.
      • ShrimpCrackers, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3You don't always need a case. I built mine from a cardboard box I got from the 99 cents store.

        I also have a FedEx box computer.
    • buggu, on 02/03/2008, -12/+9BS. This doesn't prove anything. I'll be downmodded into oblivion by the Apple fanboys, but see it yourself.
      A Macbook Pro starts at $2000, laptops from competing brands (IBM, HP and Dell) retail around a $1000 less and you get better specs in those machines.
      Anyone who had made built a custom PC, hell, even people who simply do it without a lot of bargain hunting, will surely produce a machine that not only costs less than Apple's iMac/Mac Pro offerings but exceeds their specs.
      Sing whatever praise for Apple you can but there's no escaping the fact that their products are way overpriced for the specs on offer.
      • deadbaby, on 02/03/2008, -1/+6$1000 less? Where? I'd say a competing PC laptop is probably $200 cheaper than the MacBook Pro if you want a comparable machine. (that includes weight, 802.11N, LED LCD, FireWire, etc)
        • SpeedSteamBoat, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1No. This is an outright lie. Do some research and try again.
      • gudnbluts, on 02/03/2008, -3/+2Firewire? Nobody uses Firewire.Oops. Wrong reply button - meant to be aimed at deadbaby
    • Skitals, on 02/03/2008, -6/+6No. This proves Mac Minis are not overpriced, not all Macs. And of course the Mac Mini is the cheapest mac.
      • spectre_25gt, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Go look up the prices for a system comparable to a Mac Pro. They're very well priced for the components.
    • sodoh, on 02/03/2008, -2/+3Sorry but your wrong. Your assuming that Apple buy the parts at retail prices. They pay buttons for the parts, as do most companies (eg. Dell have over x10 markup on some items).
    • jhaks, on 02/03/2008, -2/+4I'm sorry. You are VERY WRONG. Here, I'll show you:

      Core 2 Quad 6600 = $279
      Good motherboard = $140
      8800GT = $240
      2GB RAM = $40
      Good PSU = $100
      500GB HD = $100
      Decent case = $70
      DVD Writer = $70
      OSX + iLife = $204

      Kick ass computer that out performs the highest spec'd iMac for about the price of the lowest spec'd iMac.
      • elmafudd911, on 02/03/2008, -3/+320" Monitor?
      • jhaks, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Add $180~200 for 20" monitor. Total comes out to $1443; still less expensive than the 2nd lowest iMac.
    • joelito, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Kick ass computer that out performs the highest spec'd iMac for about the price of the lowest spec'd iMac.

      Priceless?
  • idiggeverything, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2a mirror?
  • WaterMedia, on 02/03/2008, -23/+81This is without:
    iCal
    iPhoto
    iMovie
    iMovieHD
    Font Book
    Front Row
    iChat
    iDVD

    The real value of Apple's computers is in their excellent and integrated software. I'd go spend the $200 and get a real Mac...
    • Raphyy, on 02/03/2008, -20/+10There are other software that do what those do better. ;)
      • jsebrech, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3Better? Depends.

        More powerful? Yes. As easy? No, I don't think so.

        The iLife suite is VERY easy to use. I edited a set of interviews into a DVD once. Well, I cleaned up the sound in garageband, cut the movies together in iMovie, while adding title screens and transitions, and burned it to a DVD with a fancy menu, and all of this took me about 2 and a half hours. Without having any experience with those apps prior to this I thought that was pretty neat.

        So, show me a set of software I can do the same thing in as quickly, and I'll agree with your statement.
        • Vorin, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3ease is the pinnacle of apples designs. I will likely never buy one because I find a large part of enjoying my computers in tweaking, changing, and otherwise tuning them. Apple seems to limit this, and in doing so, produces a computer that is not suited to my computing goals.
    • allyant, on 02/03/2008, -2/+32Well seen that most people got the Leo disk from torrents, i'm sure they will be able to find all that software too.
    • archer75, on 02/03/2008, -2/+23You can still have all those apps. They are on my hackintosh.
      • RevToTheRedline, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2If you pay for them and then you might as well spend the $120 extra to buy a real mac like he said. Which is faster and smaller
    • Philbert, on 02/03/2008, -14/+8Hahaha "excellent software". Classic!
      • Kelmon, on 02/03/2008, -4/+3What's funny? The software for OS X is THE reason why I won't go back to Windows and have no interest in Linux (at this time).
    • pattink, on 02/03/2008, -1/+7iChat comes on the install disc so don't try to put that in as software you need to get after you install.
    • djsim, on 02/03/2008, -1/+8Actually, Front Row, iChat, iCal and Font Book are on the Leopard install disk. iMovie HD (version 6) is a free download for iMovie (version 7) owners.
    • Kelmon, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2Yes, the iLife software is a separate install disk but the rest you listed are normal applications that come on the install disk, although Front Row's value is limited unless you have an IR remote.
  • llamasonic, on 02/03/2008, -7/+9i live in a part of the world where the nearest mac store is an hour away and if anything needed repair i'd likely not see it for a month. recently my hackintosh was taken out by lightning. i had everything back up and running later that day by replacing the mb and my fried dsl modem. recently i bought a macbook though - u can't fix laptops yourself anyways..
    for people like me the hackintosh route makes allot of sense, macs are decent value for money but for a DIY guy or people who can't afford to be without a desktop when something breaks.. go for the hack.
    • JesterJDT, on 02/04/2008, -1/+0Why not? I've fixed my Powerbook G4 before.
  • johnfritz, on 02/03/2008, -3/+7Mirror puh-leeze? I want to get busy.
  • jeclone, on 02/03/2008, -5/+0google Cache Here
  • elmetald00d, on 02/03/2008, -7/+2in all seriousness, the osx86 community hates people like you wildwobby.
    • pirloui, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Why?
      • elmetald00d, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1because then IRC channels will FLOOD with ***** people who dont care about learning, just want answers why the kext wont load or why I got a stupid kp. that ***** gets ANNOYING.
    • iLemon, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I guess its like the opposite of the open source movement
    • 89vision, on 02/03/2008, -2/+3Lets see your contributions dickwad.
      • elmetald00d, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1my contribution is not announcing it to the public *****
  • ebaymag0t, on 02/03/2008, -1/+10how does this article get dugg from 518 to 541 if the page is not loading?
    • fotoman, on 02/03/2008, -2/+1Umm... people either digging the title or reading it through one of the mirrors (I have a greasemonkey script which prints 4 mirror links under the 'Digg it' text)
    • airj1012, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1I hate when that happens.
    • karabunga, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1Some people digg a story to check on it later...
  • Ryan85, on 02/03/2008, -18/+5macs suck why bother =D
    • jellygraph, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2i used to say that, but now im buying a macbook... with parallels i can have all my operating systems side by side... cant beat that
      • CarzorStelatis, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Yeah but if you hadn't bought a Macbook you wouldn't need to have multiple operating systems installed.
  • lilricky, on 02/03/2008, -2/+4Google cache, slow, but working:
    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Ex2zjoTBbKsJ: ...
  • jabberwolf, on 02/03/2008, -8/+6I agree "Why bother" !!?,
    Why not spend the money and get a useful PC laptop with a decent (non-intel integrated)graphics processor for about 700-800 ?!
    • jsebrech, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4Why get a laptop for gaming? And if not for gaming, why not integrated graphics?
  • zbarsky, on 02/03/2008, -4/+5It would be great to build your own budget mac, except its a pain in the ass to update and get everything just right. Not worth the effort in the long run, and as usual the apple software updates will break the install.
    • Skitals, on 02/03/2008, -1/+3That's not true anymore. With the latest hacks, you run almost ALL stock files and a stock kernel. That means you can now use Software Update without worries.
  • zbarsky, on 02/03/2008, -10/+2It would be great to build your own budget mac, except its a pain in the ass to update and get everything just right. Not worth the effort in the long run, and as usual the apple software updates will break the install.
  • Philbert, on 02/03/2008, -4/+4This may be worth a shot just so I could get to know it in the even that a job or something forces me to use one.
    • deepbl, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1Thanks for sharing your thrilling perspective on this.
  • Juo100, on 02/03/2008, -9/+7Apple software updates breaking the installation = not worth it (for me anyway)
    • flibblesan, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5Really? Updates work just fine for myself, thanks to Netkas and his pc_efi
    • starkruzr, on 02/03/2008, -0/+6This is no longer the case.
  • georgetds, on 02/03/2008, -5/+46My G5 iMac recently stopped working, I took it into local Apple retailer for repairs. A week and a bit later, I get a call to come pick it up. The invoice valued the repairs of the power supply ($120) and the logic board ($735) but I was not charged a dime. Why? I really don't know - my computer is around 3 years old, long past its warranty and yet for some reason, Apple is covering for a flaw that was in it all the same.
    So my question is, can I hope to expect that kind of service from a heaped together hackintosh?
    • Skitals, on 02/03/2008, -11/+22My "heaped together hackintosh" has a 5-year warrently on the PSU and MB. So yes, I've got you beat. In fact, ALL the parts in my machine have >=3 year warranty. And I have the peace of mind of knowing how all the parts relate to eachother, and that a monkey didn't put it together. Oh, and I paid about 1/5th what you would pay from a comparable "real" mac.
      • localzuk, on 02/03/2008, -9/+7Lol, don't you just love it when someone posts some real facts? > 3 year warranty on all parts? Doubt it. 1/5th of the price for a comparable real mac? Seriously doubt it. As an example, a base model imac is what $1200 in the US? Plus $200 for the 3 year warranty? So you're saying that for $280 you built a machine of comparable power? And that would include a core 2 duo 2Ghz processor, 1GB RAM, 20" high resolution TFT screen, 250GB HDD, DVDRW, ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics? All in one nice stylish case? Or were you referring to a mac mini? At $599 + what, $120 for 3 year warranty - so you'd be building a machine at $144? Well you should go into business!! You'd make a mint!

        Really, what components did you use that had >3 year warranties and were still dirt cheap?
        • Skitals, on 02/03/2008, -3/+7You sir, are a toolbag. If you read my post, you would see my computer has 4 times the ram, 4 times the hdd space, and a a 50% faster CPU than the imac you quoted. It is more comparable to a MAC PRO of it's time. And as you may know, a Mac Pro starts at $2800.

          And if you doubt my parts have >= 3 year warranties, you've obviously never put together a computer with name brand parts. Check the warranty information for gigabyte, seagate, OCZ, crucial, etc.
          • localzuk, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Haha, wow. Your post, the one I replied to, said the following: "My "heaped together hackintosh" has a 5-year warrently on the PSU and MB. So yes, I've got you beat. In fact, ALL the parts in my machine have >=3 year warranty. And I have the peace of mind of knowing how all the parts relate to eachother, and that a monkey didn't put it together. Oh, and I paid about 1/5th what you would pay from a comparable "real" mac."

            There are no spec's mentioned there, and you replied to a comment about an imac G5... So, my comment stands - you state you can make a machine equivalent to an iMac for a fifth of its price.

            But even still, you try building a machine as powerful as the Mac Pro for $560...

            Put simply, stop trying to show off, you are not impressive. You just sound like a high school brat who knows very little.
          • UltramegaOK, on 02/04/2008, -1/+0wow shut up dude
        • gamedtx, on 02/03/2008, -3/+6Just shut up already localzuk. Macs are overpriced machines. You can get the PC equivalent (or better) for a lot cheaper as Skitals is saying.

          hackentosh ftw.
      • tschetter5, on 02/03/2008, -5/+45 year warranty on the PSU and MB, ya but do the manufacturers have a store in town where you can go in and talk to a person directly? No, thats what makes Apple cust