Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a Hackintosh Pro

dancounsell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 272 posts

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#161

Post by thanksgiving »

Klover wrote: post #138
wmf wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android ROMs are the same way. Maybe something about the semi-illegality of it brings out the old DOS scene culture.

There's no reason to say an Android ROM is illegal. Or whatever semi-illegal might be. Maybe it's like semi-falling-off-a-cliff? Semi-hit-by-a-train? I don't mean to mock. I always guessed Android ROMs were such a misery in the community aspect, because they're very easy and relatively useless. All you need is a computer, which is easy enough, then some open and free software, and you're ready to go and compile your…

> I find CyanogenMod, or LineageOS or something now, to be pleasant to use on a phone. It gives the option to run apps as root, and it comes with a terminal, and it tries to remain as open as it can.

Absolutely. I especially like it because it gives me the ability to restrict network access from apps (I usually just deny background cellular access but some apps I think have no business talking to the network even over WiFi). Moreover, the permission model is much better which brings me to the reason I uninstalled Facebook Messenger: denying start at boot or any other permission to Facebook Messenger (Or Facebook) on Lineage crashes the permission manager. Whatsapp and Instagram have no such issue. They will happily accept not being able to run at boot (I haven't looked into whether it actually works but at least I can set the permission as I want).

I guess my number one request for a custom rom would be the ability to say I don't want any app to run in background/run at boot/use network connections unless I specifically white list the app for the purpose.

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#162

Post by coldtea »

dom0 wrote: post #132
coldtea wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, are technologists so effete that they can't handle a 5lb laptop anymore? Apparently they are. Just read this effete technologist's comment: I’m personally just hoping that I’m ahead of the curve in my strict requirement for “small and silent”. (...) I want my office to be quiet. The loudest thing in the room – by far – should be the occasional purring of the cat. And when I travel, I want to travel light. A no…

> I want my office to be quiet. The loudest thing in the room – by far – should be the occasional purring of the cat. Any reasonably well built desktop PC does that. It's a matter of applying a modest amount of care when selecting and assembling components.

>Any reasonably well built desktop PC does that.

When it comes to off the shelve towers and laptops, you'd be surprised.

And if you mean it's easy if one personally "selects and assembles components." you'd be surprised again on how atypical this is for the average PC buyer.

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#163

Post by coldtea »

izacus wrote: post #88
coldtea wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 'thin iMac' - whose thin-ness was absolutely pointless. For you maybe. Many of us (millions, judging from the sales numbers) appreciate the thin-ness, even if it's for a desktop machine. I had to drag my old non-thin iMac several times to different locations, and it was no joy. Nor do I need a behemoth on my desktop.

Hmm, you're implying that everyone that bought a new iMac appreciates the thinness and bought it because of that? Or perhaps they bought them because they had no other choice when choosing a reasonably fast desktop machine compatible with their software? Seriously, the argument "oh, this feature must be popular because the whole machine is popular" really doesn't hold water in complex machines like computers, phones…

>Hmm, you're implying that everyone that bought a new iMac appreciates the thinness and bought it because of that? Or perhaps they bought them because they had no other choice when choosing a reasonably fast desktop machine compatible with their software?

iMacs sold better even when the "cheese graters" were available, so yes.

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#164

Post by coldtea »

FireBeyond wrote: post #123
coldtea wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A 'thin iMac' - whose thin-ness was absolutely pointless. For you maybe. Many of us (millions, judging from the sales numbers) appreciate the thin-ness, even if it's for a desktop machine. I had to drag my old non-thin iMac several times to different locations, and it was no joy. Nor do I need a behemoth on my desktop.

As someone who owned both an older iMac and a new iMac, I really fail to see much difference. Form factor, overall, is much the same, as is the weight. I think it's more than a little exaggeration to call the older iMac a "behemoth".

Depends on what you call the "older iMac".

The 27" Core 2 Duo 2008-9 era iMacs, one of which I had, weighted 13.8 kg!

The new 27" model is 9.5 kg. That's over 30% less weight...

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#165

Post by frou_dh »

rsync wrote: post #112
jwr wrote: post #5

I used to use a Hackintosh. It was a time-consuming thing, I feared OS updates, and I could never be sure about the reliability (you can get really weird problems sometimes. I then switched over to a Mac Pro (cheese grater) and was very happy with it. Unfortunately, since the trash can Mac Pro I'm left out in the cold, so I'm considering running a Hackintosh again... Unfortunately, the information is still very fragm…

"I used to use a Hackintosh. It was a time-consuming thing, I feared OS updates, and I could never be sure about the reliability (you can get really weird problems sometimes. I then switched over to a Mac Pro (cheese grater) and was very happy with it. Unfortunately, since the trash can Mac Pro I'm left out in the cold, so I'm considering running a Hackintosh again..." As the owner of an early-2009 octo-mac-pro, I am…

> I am under the impression that it is now possible to boot from a pci based SSD card on that system.

Yep, put a Samsung SM951 M.2 (AHCI version, not NVMe) on a Lycom DT-120 PCIe mounting card. Got two of those in a MP5,1 myself.

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#166

Post by temac »

daxelrod wrote: post #108
matt4077 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite easy to do now, but the community is incredibly annoying. The software is usually on sourceforge or something even shadier, it's rarely actually OSS-licensed, and configuration/documentation/interfaces are a nightmare of incomprehensible incoherence. There cannot be a software community less professional. I've seen Minecraft plugins by 8 year olds much better in these categories.

> it's rarely actually OSS-licensed It seems strange to worry about licensing in a community predicated on violating a term of an OS license. Is this a problem because source code isn't available?

It's unclear whether a license can actually prevent you from running licensed software on the HW you like, if you buy said SW in the first place.

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#167

Post by [deleted] »

jrnichols wrote: post #2

I'm in the same boat this author is. It's disappointing to see the desktop market lagging so far behind. For all of the 68k/PPC years, we could at least say "different architecture" and Intel hadn't caught up. Now we're all Intel, and it's Apple that isn't keeping up. It's frustrating, and I'm not necessarily a "Pro user" anymore at all. I have a current generation Mac Mini, and it's over 2 years old now. What I can…

[deleted]

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#168

Post by CPLX »

paulcole wrote: post #144
CPLX wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish I know what Apple was thinking. It's literally incomprehensible. Just make a really good fast desktop computer. They're one of the largest companies in the world now with essentially unlimited financial resources, and decades of core competency in making high end desktop computers. So like why don't they just fucking do it.

>It's literally incomprehensible. Just make a really good fast desktop computer. For the sake of argument, why? It's probably one of their worst selling products. Nobody defends the remaining iPod enthusiasts when they demand a new giant capacity iPod. Maybe we just need to accept that Apple doesn't want to be in the desktop computer business for much longer?

Because they are a computer company.

Their inability to make a top of the line desktop is threatening my ability to justify buying their laptops or anything else from them. I run a company. I'm not going to mix and match operating systems and if I can't have high end desktops for heavy media work I'm going to switch everything eventually. I'm not abnormal.

People keep trying to come up with some 4D chess explanations for why this makes sense for the always wise and prescient Apple. It's much simpler to use Ockham's razor to conclude that they are making a shortsighted mistake.

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#169

Post by kuon »

I have been using a similar (a bit lower specs) hackintosh for 2 years.

About two weeks ago, I decided to stop and look elsewhere.

I started a small serie on my experience if you are interested: https://medium.com/the-missing-bit/leaving-macos-part-1-moti...

I am still testing my current setup, but I guess I'll soon publish the last bit, with the setup I found and my conclusions on the switch.

Re: Building a Hackintosh Pro

#170

Post by Someone »

temac wrote: post #166
daxelrod wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's rarely actually OSS-licensed It seems strange to worry about licensing in a community predicated on violating a term of an OS license. Is this a problem because source code isn't available?

It's unclear whether a license can actually prevent you from running licensed software on the HW you like, if you buy said SW in the first place.

_When_ you're buying a license, you're not "buying said SW", and you will have to abide by the rules of the license.

(As to the _When_, that can a point for contention, given that consumer software marketing material typically doesn't explicitly mention the license)

Post reply on HN