# Cheap ‘Hackintosh’ Outperforms Mac Pro



## reberto

Oooooh but guess what, hacking OS X is illegal.


----------



## Marin

I still like my MacBook.


----------



## swatsor

Hahaha


----------



## Kamakazi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *reberto* 
Oooooh but guess what, hacking OS X is illegal.

Guess what, 75% of the people who have the ability to hack it don't care


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:


Originally Posted by *reberto* 
Oooooh but guess what, hacking OS X is illegal.











No it is not.

All you little kiddies need to learn what the word "illegal" really means.

Please show me any Federal or State Penal Code, any local law or ordinance that shows you broke any laws.

You can't.

There is no Apple Police, they will not come to your house, arrest you, put you in jail, sentence you for a crime, etc... It's pure BS.

Look up the term "Fair Use". You can hack, you can reverse engineer, you can do whatever you want as long as you are not distributing pirated copies or selling the hack for a profit or using it for any commercial purposes.

Sure, you may be breaking a Terms of Service or Terms of Usage, but they would not hold up in court. I can tell you that you can't reply to me with capital letters and you must refer to yourself in the third person, and by replying to me you agree to these terms, but it won't make it illegal if you don't.

Get a freaking clue.

EDIT: Oh wait, we've had this conversation before, and you STILL don't have a clue. Ugh...


----------



## cleverchris

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kamakazi* 
Guess what, 75% of the people who have the ability to hack it don't care


























yes and hacking is different than malicious use


----------



## Miki

Btw everyone, check out the Mac Pro's awesome specs:

Mac Pro (Suggested configuration): *$2,499*

Processor: Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
4MB shared L2 cache per processor
1.33GHz, 64-bit dual independent frontside buses

Memory: 1GB (two 512MB) of 667MHz DDR2 ECC fully buffered DIMM

Display: N/A

Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT with 256MB of GDDR2 SDRAM (single-link DVI / dual-link DVI)

Hard Drive: 250GB Serial ATA (3Gb/s); 7200 rpm; 8MB cache

Optical Drive: 8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVDÂ±RW/CD-RW)

LAWL


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Miki* 
Btw everyone, check out the Mac Pro's awesome specs:

Mac Pro (Suggested configuration): *$2,499*

Processor: Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon processors
4MB shared L2 cache per processor
1.33GHz, 64-bit dual independent frontside buses

Memory: 1GB (two 512MB) of 667MHz DDR2 ECC fully buffered DIMM

Display: N/A

Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT with 256MB of GDDR2 SDRAM (single-link DVI / dual-link DVI)

Hard Drive: 250GB Serial ATA (3Gb/s); 7200 rpm; 8MB cache

Optical Drive: 8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVDÂ±RW/CD-RW)

LAWL

Yes but does it overclock? Nevermind, I know the answer...









And man, for 2.5g's you think you'd get more than a 7300 GT, lol.


----------



## Marin

You guys, if you don't want a Mac then don't get one. I can't understand why everyone freaks the hell out when they see a Mac's performance. OMG, your computer runs faster, well who cares.


----------



## reberto

Quote:


Originally Posted by *xenophobe* 









No it is not.

All you little kiddies need to learn what the word "illegal" really means.

Please show me any Federal or State Penal Code, any local law or ordinance that shows you broke any laws.

You can't.

There is no Apple Police, they will not come to your house, arrest you, put you in jail, sentence you for a crime, etc... It's pure BS.

Look up the term "Fair Use". You can hack, you can reverse engineer, you can do whatever you want as long as you are not distributing pirated copies or selling the hack for a profit or using it for any commercial purposes.

Sure, you may be breaking a Terms of Service or Terms of Usage, but they would not hold up in court. I can tell you that you can't reply to me with capital letters and you must refer to yourself in the third person, and by replying to me you agree to these terms, but it won't make it illegal if you don't.

Get a freaking clue.

EDIT: Oh wait, we've had this conversation before, and you STILL don't have a clue. Ugh...

*sigh* If you click "agree" on the EULA, you are LEGALLY BINDED TO IT. Its basically a contract. You people who think it isn't are freakin idiots IMO


----------



## Miki

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Marin*


You guys, if you don't want a Mac then don't get one. I can't understand why everyone freaks the hell out when they see a Mac's performance. OMG, your computer runs faster, well who cares.










relax just having a little fun at Apple's expense, not like Apple never does that to Windows *cough* commercials *cough*










Truth me told I love OS X, but even people using it have to admit the hardware is a rip off.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Marin*


You guys, if you don't want a Mac then don't get one. I can't understand why everyone freaks the hell out when they see a Mac's performance. OMG, your computer runs faster, well who cares.


People just have to hate something. If they hate Linux, then they're seen as monsters because Linux is "freedom." So they don't "WANT" hate Linux. OSX costs money, it isn't as fully customizable in terms of both hardware and software, it isn't widely used, so it's the perfect target.

Oh, and it doesn't play their beloved games.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Miki*


Truth me told I love OS X, but even people using it have to admit the hardware is a rip off.


Definitely agreed. I wouldn't mind them being a bit cheaper... lol

Edit:

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


*sigh* If you click "agree" on the EULA, you are LEGALLY BINDED TO IT. Its basically a contract. You people who think it isn't are freakin idiots IMO


Well he might have a point, but I don't believe what he said about "reverse engineering" and taking it to make it your own, that part whether or not your distribute it.


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


*sigh* If you click "agree" on the EULA, you are LEGALLY BINDED TO IT. Its basically a contract. You people who think it isn't are freakin idiots IMO


And what is the criminal penalty for breaking this so called law?









Please show me a law or cite. I dare you.

There isn't one. It's not illegal.

What happens if you break the EULA? You can't use the software anymore? They would need to take you to civil court. CIVIL COURT.

Duh


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner* 
Well he might have a point, but I don't believe what he said about "reverse engineering" and taking it to make it your own, that part whether or not your distribute it.

Reverse engineering is completely legal, Intel v AMD... If one company wants to take another company to court for stealing intellectual property, it's a civil court that decides the case, not a criminal court. It may violate intellectual property laws, however that needs to be proven and decided by a court. There is no Penal Code that supports a District Attorney from pressing charges.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...on_History.pdf

Illegal and unlawful have similar but different meanings.

*Hacking an iPhone to run non-approved software or to run on a different carrier is also not illegal.*


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xenophobe*


Reverse engineering is completely legal, Intel v AMD... If one company wants to take another company to court for stealing intellectual property, it's a civil court that decides the case, not a criminal court. It may violate intellectual property laws, however that needs to be proven and decided by a court. There is no Penal Code that supports a District Attorney from pressing charges.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...on_History.pdf

Illegal and unlawful have similar but different meanings.

*Hacking an iPhone to run non-approved software or to run on a different carrier is also not illegal. *


Reverse engineering such as decompiling is like stealing someone else's work, though.

I understand the iPhone thing, though; it's just that they don't have to warrant it if you F with it. You can do whatever you want with it once it's yours, but you voided the terms of use and therefore your warranty. Like you said, it's not like you go to jail for that.

And also don't expect updates and stuff for it to work (both the phone and hacked OS.)

Edit:

The OP forgot to mention how whack this test was. It wasn't intended to be a comparison benchmark:

Quote:



First, it's worth noting that none of these setups is a perfect match for benchmarking comparisons. The Mac Pro is running two dual core 2.66 GHz processors versus the single dual core 2.21 GHz Hackintosh and 2 GHz MacBook Pro processors. Likewise, the Hackintosh has a whopping 4GB of RAM versus a measly 1GB in the Mac Pro and 2GB in the MacBook Pro. Also, the Hackintosh and MacBook Pro are both running Leopard, while the Mac Pro is still running Tiger. These aren't necessarily the ideal test subjects, but they're the machines I have access to. That said, the results are still very interesting.


----------



## Miki

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


Definitely agreed. I wouldn't mind them being a bit cheaper... lol


Yes, and to be clear, I'm definitely not knocking OS X, in fact all benchmarks are done with OS X. It's the hardware that's not right, I mean it's good but over priced.

But people pay it, and that's because OS X is so awesome. And it is.


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


Reverse engineering such as decompiling is like stealing someone else's work, though.


That is one example, and using another's code in your own product IS stealing.

However, figuring out how that particular software works, even by decompiling their code and then writing your own code that performs a similar or even identical function would be perfectly legal. It would be up to the original company to prove to the court that the reverse engineered software either stole original code (copyright infringement) or used intellectual property that did not belong to them (infringed on a patent). Copyright infringement could also include 'look and feel'... fwiw.

If the original company could not prove that the new company used code that violated copyright or patent claims, then the case would fail.


----------



## Puckbandit35

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kamakazi*


Guess what, 75% of the people who have the ability to hack it don't care










id say around 99%

and for the record

I don't care what the Eula states

*in Eric Cartmans voice*

"Whateva Whateva I do what I want"

not that I have ever done anything against an eula


----------



## Kamakazi

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Puckbandit35*


id say around 99%


I like to think there are at least some of us with morals, ethics, and that kind of stuff. More than 1% anyway.


----------



## PiratesRule

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


Edit:

The OP forgot to mention how whack this test was. It wasn't intended to be a comparison benchmark:


The whole point was that you could build a Hackintosh for only $800 compared to a $2500 Mac Pro with similar performance.


----------



## oneluvballer21

Jeebus.... did you guys look at the cost to upgrade the systems provided by Apple?? Check out the cost to upgrade your RAM... from 2x 512mb to 4x 1gb...? $700. Uhhh, am I missing something here??? Oh, no, they're just teeing off on the dumb people who are afraid of using PC's (and potentially building their own systems). Dare I talk about how much it costs to upgrade to 8x 2gb sticks...?


----------



## Marin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21*


Jeebus.... did you guys look at the cost to upgrade the systems provided by Apple?? Check out the cost to upgrade your RAM... from 2x 512mb to 4x 1gb...? $700. Uhhh, am I missing something here??? Oh, no, they're just teeing off on the dumb people who are afraid of using PC's (and potentially building their own systems). Dare I talk about how much it costs to upgrade to 8x 2gb sticks...?


Well if your dumb Apple profits.

If your smart the best thing to do is get the lowest end hard drive and RAM and buy upgrades off of www.newegg.com.


----------



## l V l

You actually call Apple failing at making fast machines news? Who DIDN'T know that?


----------



## Krunk_Kracker

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21*


Jeebus.... did you guys look at the cost to upgrade the systems provided by Apple?? Check out the cost to upgrade your RAM... from 2x 512mb to 4x 1gb...? $700. Uhhh, am I missing something here??? Oh, no, they're just teeing off on the dumb people who are afraid of using PC's (and potentially building their own systems). Dare I talk about how much it costs to upgrade to 8x 2gb sticks...?


For some ******ed reason, Apple uses ECC ram........which is very expensive.

I'd love to see someone justify using ECC ram in a DESKTOP.


----------



## Emmanuel

7300gt Ftw!!! And who uses ECC RAM outside of servers?


----------



## l V l

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Krunk_Kracker*


For some ******ed reason, Apple uses ECC ram........which is very expensive.

I'd love to see someone justify using ECC ram in a DESKTOP.


Krunk I am curious as to what BIOS version you use?


----------



## Krunk_Kracker

1216 I think? There's a ton others though since I've reflashed. OT FTW, lol.

Anyone know exactly _why_ Apple uses ECC ram??


----------



## PiratesRule

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Krunk_Kracker*


1216 I think? There's a ton others though since I've reflashed. OT FTW, lol.

Anyone know exactly _why_ Apple uses ECC ram??










Only the Mac Pro uses it I believe....probably because it's usually used by graphic professionals.


----------



## d3daiM

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xenophobe*











No it is not.

All you little kiddies need to learn what the word "illegal" really means.

Please show me any Federal or State Penal Code, any local law or ordinance that shows you broke any laws.

You can't.

There is no Apple Police, they will not come to your house, arrest you, put you in jail, sentence you for a crime, etc... It's pure BS.

Look up the term "Fair Use". You can hack, you can reverse engineer, you can do whatever you want as long as you are not distributing pirated copies or selling the hack for a profit or using it for any commercial purposes.

Sure, you may be breaking a Terms of Service or Terms of Usage, but they would not hold up in court. I can tell you that you can't reply to me with capital letters and you must refer to yourself in the third person, and by replying to me you agree to these terms, but it won't make it illegal if you don't.

Get a freaking clue.

EDIT: Oh wait, we've had this conversation before, and you STILL don't have a clue. Ugh...


EXACTLY

This is applies to almost everything else as well. Breaking a Terms of Usage is not ILLEGAL unless otherwise stated.


----------



## d3daiM

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


*sigh* If you click "agree" on the EULA, you are LEGALLY BINDED TO IT. Its basically a contract. You people who think it isn't are freakin idiots IMO


That is if it states that it is legally binding.


----------



## pbpenguins412

But only if they find out about it, and then they'd have to file a suit against you in civil court. So they would have to charge an individual user with breach of contract, raising all sorts of privacy and cost issues ($$$ and time that Apple can't really get back). In any rational analysis, it makes no sense for them to chase the average homebrew Mac user, but it would make sense if this goes big and gets commercialized, because that's a clearly business violation of the EULA. Until then, though, there's just very little chance of getting caught and/or sued.

The main reason Apple locks its OS to its hardware:

1) Optimistic view: they need to maintain hardware compatibility, since it's not as widely compatible as the thousands of devices and peripherals that windows has to support.
2) realist view: they have to do this in order to make money on their hardware, and create a monopolistic situation. They can get away with this because some Mac users are infamously computer illiterate. Note that I said some, not ALL. (THG, this means YOU.)


----------



## reberto

Quote:



Originally Posted by *d3daiM*


That is if it states that it is legally binding.










It says that its punishable by law, same thing


----------



## PiratesRule

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Solarcaine*


That's because Macintosh is clearly gay.


I love how hardly anyone on this site has anything insightful to say anymore...


----------



## loop0001

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kamakazi* 
Guess what, 75% of the people who have the ability to hack it don't care









lool that statement perfects suits your avatar pic...mehehe


----------



## SpookedJunglist

Quote:


Originally Posted by *reberto* 
Oooooh but guess what, hacking OS X is illegal.

So is slipstreaming XP service pack 2 onto a boot disc with XP.

This discussion is within the rules of the site









Oh and For all the mac Fans don't forget that we have a macforum as well.

And it is in dire need of members







. I really feel that any discussions of Macintosh should be made over there.

I do find it amusing that the hardware in a 2500 Mac Pro, is only worth about 1200 dollars. Maybe if mac would make an effort to pick cheaper better hardware they would have some better systems for cheaper. Or if they just sold their systems without the 100% mark up then they would gain my respect. Seriously for such a nice OS that has the potential to grab a lot more market than it has.

intel xeon 342x2 684
Asus server mobo 210
1gb memory 30
250gb SATA HD 63
nvidia 7300 silent 32
Asus 16x DVD burner 15
OS X retail 110
XP as well 90
total = 1144
Total with OS-X+XP = $1234

Mac Pro 2200


----------



## OmegaNemesis28

Anyone knowtice on the Apple license agreement on most of their products like Itunes and somewhere on some of the Mac OSs..... it says about mid-way though like,"You agree to never use this product for blah blah blah blah blah and anything to do or affilate with bioweaponry."

XD
I'll "hack a Mac" into any bioweapon I want to Apple!


----------



## SpookedJunglist

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OmegaNemesis28* 
Anyone knowtice on the Apple license agreement on most of their products like Itunes and somewhere on some of the Mac OSs..... it says about mid-way though like,"You agree to never use this product for blah blah blah blah blah and anything to do or affilate with bioweaponry."

XD
I'll "hack a Mac" into any bioweapon I want to Apple!


I thought you could only do that with Playstation 2s.


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:


Originally Posted by *reberto* 
It says that its punishable by law, same thing









Show me the law that will punish you. There is no crime. It is not criminal, and cannot be prosecuted. There is no sentencing guideline, nor is there a government entity that can prosecute you.

Please learn what the law is, and what the word illegal means. It'll really help you understand the point you're clearly missing. Contractual law is not criminal law, it's civil law. A contract can state whatever the writer wants, it doesn't mean it's legally binding.


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xenophobe*


Show me the law that will punish you. There is no crime. It is not criminal, and cannot be prosecuted. There is no sentencing guideline, nor is there a government entity that can prosecute you.

Please learn what the law is, and what the word illegal means. It'll really help you understand the point you're clearly missing. Contractual law is not criminal law, it's civil law. A contract can state whatever the writer wants, it doesn't mean it's legally binding.


I think you put it best that time...


----------



## pbpenguins412

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xenophobe*


Show me the law that will punish you. There is no crime. It is not criminal, and cannot be prosecuted. There is no sentencing guideline, nor is there a government entity that can prosecute you.

Please learn what the law is, and what the word illegal means. It'll really help you understand the point you're clearly missing. Contractual law is not criminal law, it's civil law. A contract can state whatever the writer wants, it doesn't mean it's legally binding.


He's right. A criminal offense, such as murder, would be tried by a criminal court, and the plaintiff/prosecution would be either the federal or the state government. By contrast, a civil offense, such as a breach of contract, would be Apple's responsibility to prosecute and persuade a judge or jury that they deserve monetary damages. To put it bluntly, they can take you to court, but it's not a matter of "breaking the law" - at worst, you're breaking a End-User License Agreement, and this may be a minor civil dispute, not a criminal offense worthy of imprisonment.

In any case, end users who do this on an individual basis are unlikely to be taken to court, especially if they purchased a legal copy of Leopard.


----------



## Mootsfox

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Krunk_Kracker*


Anyone know exactly _why_ Apple uses ECC ram??










Way back before the Intel quad's and AMD's 4x4, the only way to get a quad core PC was though the use of a server board and two dual core Xeon's. Apple used that config in their first quad core designs, and has been too lazy to change or update their top of the line tower config. You can get two quad cores on the same server board (using a daughter board for fun fully buffered ECC sticks), but Apple hasn't really changed the SuperMacTower or whatever it's called because the iPhone and the iPod and the Macbook make up a much larger part of their revenue.


----------



## Coma

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Krunk_Kracker* 
1216 I think? There's a ton others though since I've reflashed. OT FTW, lol.

Anyone know exactly _why_ Apple uses ECC ram??









For some reason, they use server xeons (the ones that need ECC FB-DIMM)...
I'm 99% sure there are motherboards that support two socket 775 processors, so I don't see why they would use THOSE.

Aren't 667MHz FB-DIMMs slower than say, 1600MHz DDR3? If I had to guess, I would say it costs about the same.

edit: So, err, Mootsfox explained.


----------



## Mootsfox

They use 771 socket boards. I couldn't tell you the exact models, but this is the type: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&name=Dual+771

667MHz fully buffered DIMMs with the same timings as unbuffered RAM are going to be slower because it actively checks for errors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB_DIMM


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mootsfox*


They use 771 socket boards. I couldn't tell you the exact models, but this is the type: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...&name=Dual+771

667MHz fully buffered DIMMs with the same timings as unbuffered RAM are going to be slower because it actively checks for errors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB_DIMM


Damn Apple crack heads....


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xenophobe*


That is one example, and using another's code in your own product IS stealing.

However, figuring out how that particular software works, even by decompiling their code and then writing your own code that performs a similar or even identical function would be perfectly legal. It would be up to the original company to prove to the court that the reverse engineered software either stole original code (copyright infringement) or used intellectual property that did not belong to them (infringed on a patent). Copyright infringement could also include 'look and feel'... fwiw.


Yeah, I suppose that makes sense then. If it's yours, you can do what you want with it, but you can't use someone else's work to make money, or give it to someone else in such a way that would be stealing (eg piracy.)

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PiratesRule*


The whole point was that you could build a Hackintosh for only $800 compared to a $2500 Mac Pro with similar performance.










Did you look at the benches? Did you look at the configurations?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21*


Jeebus.... did you guys look at the cost to upgrade the systems provided by Apple?? Check out the cost to upgrade your RAM... from 2x 512mb to 4x 1gb...? $700. Uhhh, am I missing something here??? Oh, no, they're just teeing off on the dumb people who are afraid of using PC's (and potentially building their own systems). Dare I talk about how much it costs to upgrade to 8x 2gb sticks...?


Smart people use www.newegg.com. Even at Fry's. I bought my 1 x 2GB RAM stick for $60 bucks.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Krunk_Kracker*


For some ******ed reason, Apple uses ECC ram........which is very expensive.

I'd love to see someone justify using ECC ram in a DESKTOP.


The Mac Pro isn't exactly a "desktop." It's intended to be a "workstation" and uses a server board and a server CPU.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pbpenguins412*


The main reason Apple locks its OS to its hardware:

1) Optimistic view: they need to maintain hardware compatibility, since it's not as widely compatible as the thousands of devices and peripherals that windows has to support.


OSX is more compatible with products than people give it credit for. It's not almost completely snubbed like Linux is.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pbpenguins412*


2) realist view: they have to do this in order to make money on their hardware, and create a monopolistic situation. They can get away with this because some Mac users are infamously computer illiterate. Note that I said some, not ALL. (THG, this means YOU.)


[/quote]

Did you feel smart insulting me?

Yes, they need it for their hardware sales. Think of what would happen if they released their OS for ALL computers to use. They lose virtually ALL their hardware sales (I know they'd lose mine,) because who really wants to pay Apple prices for a computer. Monopolistic? How? Computer illiterate? What's that got to do with it?


----------



## davek

Guess what.... I still don't care, I'm rockin my old school, but still powerful iMac G5. The only thing I don't like is the graphics, it was state of the art at the time, but it's an aging radion..... But at least it's sound card kicks the living **** out of everyones here except maybe a few people, like those with the modded Xfi's with all new components..... Burr brown, *****es.


----------



## holtzman

I don't get it. I have a mac and a windows. My pc rocks, I love overclocking, gaming, everything. When it comes to video editing and such, I use my mac. People don't get it, the "my pc is faster and can be overclocked and plays games" argument. DUH WE ****ING KNOW. People don't buy macs for that. They buy macs cuz they don't **** up like windows, they come with everything a video, sound or photo editor needs (minus photoshop) and they hold out forever. I'm on the side of splicing the two, linux baby! I'm just getting so fed up with the constant whining about it, everyone always sued to say mac owners were whiny and *****y about their mac being so far superior to a windows and how intellectually superior they are, but from my pov everyone needs to shut up.


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *holtzman*


I don't get it. I have a mac and a windows. My pc rocks, I love overclocking, gaming, everything. When it comes to video editing and such, I use my mac. People don't get it, the "my pc is faster and can be overclocked and plays games" argument. DUH WE ****ING KNOW. People don't buy macs for that. They buy macs cuz they don't **** up like windows, they come with everything a video, sound or photo editor needs (minus photoshop) and they hold out forever. I'm on the side of splicing the two, linux baby! I'm just getting so fed up with the constant whining about it, everyone always sued to say mac owners were whiny and *****y about their mac being so far superior to a windows and how intellectually superior they are, but from my pov everyone needs to shut up.


Do you know what kind of system almost every TV station uses to handle their footage?


----------



## Lelin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marin* 
You guys, if you don't want a Mac then don't get one. I can't understand why everyone freaks the hell out when they see a Mac's performance. OMG, your computer runs faster, well who cares.

Who cares, I like to pay more for less


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lelin* 
Who cares, I like to pay more for less









I'm gonna start an online store based on that philosophy: pay more for less! Hmmm, I think I'll call my dominion Quackintosh....


----------



## holtzman

It's not paying more for less. If you want to edit video or audio, the software a mac comes with will cost you 1000$+ on a windows. Otherwise, yes, save money, benchmark, game, and build your self a nice windows machine.


----------



## holtzman

well yeah, tv stations are a little above imovie hd. Yet most independent films use a g5 with final cut pro. If you can make a video editing rig for cheaper (without stealing software) go right ahead, but for the price a mac will always out perform on that end.


----------



## oneluvballer21

My sig rig will outperform any Mac with video editing, based on cost alone, while I use Vegas Pro... and mind you I normally use Avid, but I can't yet with this system. If I could use Avid there would simply be no competition. You would need a $5000 Mac to compete, and I built mine for $2000 (including almost $700 for water cooling). And mind you if Avid was compatible with AMD CPUs and 64-bit OS's, I would buy a legit copy for a touch over $1000 and still be way ahead of a comparable Mac. No offense meant to anyone, but I've heard this argument many times before, but you really need to stop watching the commercials and regurgitating what they say, because its not all true. I can build a better performing video editing PC for much less than the cost of a Mac that will perform the same. And mind you I've used both platforms, so I know what I'm talking about. And all things being equal, Macs still suck.


----------



## SyncMaster753

i think 1/2 of mac's client base don't know what they're getting, they just want a mac because they're 'cool'

i also think imac's and powermacs are a waste of money. For the same ammount you can make a superior system (performance/reliability/looks). You can't argue that 'overall' a mac would be better for the price

but the macbook line on the other hand is fairly competitive with it's led lcd's/8xxx series graphics and slim design (where slim designs actually matters)


----------



## holtzman

With desktops i can see there being an argument, but as sync said, mac laptops are better, no competition.


----------



## holtzman

Its the same with cars. Some idiot can pay 300,000$ for a ferrari, and then i can throw 34,000$ of parts into my '95 integra and beat him in a drag race. People don't buy macs to have the best or to get the most for their money. they don't WANT to need to install drivers, oppen the case up, learn how to build it them selves. They want results for money, and comparing them to the other pre-built machines out there, taking intoa ccount the software macs come with, they win. you simply CAN'T compare a pre-built to a custom build, mac included.


----------



## Mootsfox

Quote:


Originally Posted by *holtzman* 
well yeah, tv stations are a little above imovie hd. Yet most independent films use a g5 with final cut pro. If you can make a video editing rig for cheaper (without stealing software) go right ahead, but for the price a mac will always out perform on that end.

Do you have any proof of this? I'm just curious.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *holtzman* 
With desktops i can see there being an argument, but as sync said, mac laptops are better, no competition.

Not true, period. I've never seen Mac win a price/performance test, ever. Submit a config, and I'll beat it with a Windows-based laptop. Please try









Quote:


Originally Posted by *holtzman* 
Its the same with cars. Some idiot can pay 300,000$ for a ferrari, and then i can throw 34,000$ of parts into my '95 integra and beat him in a drag race. People don't buy macs to have the best or to get the most for their money. they don't WANT to need to install drivers, oppen the case up, learn how to build it them selves. They want results for money, and comparing them to the other pre-built machines out there, taking intoa ccount the software macs come with, they win. you simply CAN'T compare a pre-built to a custom build, mac included.

I agree completely. People who buy Ferraris don't buy them to race (maybe once or twice) or to drive to the store. They buy them TO LOOK COOL. Similar to some Mac (not all) users who bought their macbook because their friend had one, or because it's the new "alternative".


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mootsfox*


Do you have any proof of this? I'm just curious.

Not true, period. I've never seen Mac win a price/performance test, ever. Submit a config, and I'll beat it with a Windows-based laptop. Please try









I agree completely. People who buy Ferraris don't buy them to race (maybe once or twice) or to drive to the store. They buy them TO LOOK COOL. Similar to some Mac (not all) users who bought their macbook because their friend had one, or because it's the new "alternative".


lol, good points!


----------



## pbpenguins412

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


Did you feel smart insulting me?

Yes, they need it for their hardware sales. Think of what would happen if they released their OS for ALL computers to use. They lose virtually ALL their hardware sales (I know they'd lose mine,) because who really wants to pay Apple prices for a computer. Monopolistic? How? Computer illiterate? What's that got to do with it?


No, no. I wasn't trying to insult you, I was merely implying that you are a Mac user who IS computer literate, as opposed to the many on my campus who want a "pretty computer" or a "it looks cool, and it 'doesn't lock up'."

Try not to get so defensive there, buddy.


----------



## WhiteCrane

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


Oooooh but guess what, hacking OS X is illegal.


No.


----------



## Licht

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kamakazi*


Guess what, 75% of the people who have the ability to hack it don't care










So true and OWNED!


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pbpenguins412*


He's right. A criminal offense, such as murder, would be tried by a criminal court, and the plaintiff/prosecution would be either the federal or the state government. By contrast, a civil offense, such as a breach of contract, would be Apple's responsibility to prosecute and persuade a judge or jury that they deserve monetary damages. To put it bluntly, they can take you to court, but it's not a matter of "breaking the law" - at worst, you're breaking a End-User License Agreement, and this may be a minor civil dispute, not a criminal offense worthy of imprisonment.

In any case, end users who do this on an individual basis are unlikely to be taken to court, especially if they purchased a legal copy of Leopard.


Apple would have to prove that your actions caused damages to sue you for money. Fair Use comes into play here. If you are not using the hack to profit or for commercial resale or commercial use, Apple can't do anything about it except whine really loudly.

If you post instructions on a website on how to hack it and charge for it, Apple has cause to sue you. If you are doing it for your own personal use, there is nothing Apple can do. Waste $4,000+ to file a suit, and $30,000+ to fight a case that will not get them any monetary reward? Not a chance.

It's not much different than hacking the software to an iPhone. They don't want you to do it, they can try to make a big stink out of it, but they can't do anything to keep you from doing it.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *pbpenguins412*


No, no. I wasn't trying to insult you, I was merely implying that you are a Mac user who IS computer literate, as opposed to the many on my campus who want a "pretty computer" or a "it looks cool, and it 'doesn't lock up'."

Try not to get so defensive there, buddy.


OH! lol I thought this:

Quote:



Mac users are infamously computer illiterate. Note that I said some, not ALL. (THG, this means YOU.


meant you were saying the illiterate ones meant me... Apologies; I misunderstood.

But yeah, I agree that the others who buy Apple stuff and think they're smart and cool are STUPID. But I also think their numbers are greatly exaggerated.

And as for why OSX is tied to Apple computers only: I believe it's for all of the reasons mentioned, including the ones I said. When they have control over lots of the stuff, they do have less problems. But I also believe that if they release OSX for any PC, they'd lose ALL their hardware sales, and they'd be at the mercy of m$ who could then make their OS $10 or something, pay off other companies to make everything Mac-incompatible, and m$ could still survive as a business much longer than Apple could.


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *holtzman*


Its the same with cars. *Some idiot* can pay 300,000$ for a ferrari, and then i can throw 34,000$ of parts into my '95 integra and beat him in a drag race. People don't buy macs to have the best or to get the most for their money. they don't WANT to need to install drivers, oppen the case up, learn how to build it them selves. They want results for money, and comparing them to the other pre-built machines out there, taking intoa ccount the software macs come with, they win. you simply CAN'T compare a pre-built to a custom build, mac included.


lol, I like your choice of words in this little analogy... no offense meant to you though. Okay, I just deleted a long blabbering I had added to this. Trust me, you're glad I did. Not that it didn't have a good point, but even I got bored proof-reading it...


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


And as for why OSX is tied to Apple computers only: I believe it's for all of the reasons mentioned, including the ones I said. When they have control over lots of the stuff, they do have less problems. But I also believe that if they release OSX for any PC, they'd lose ALL their hardware sales, and they'd be at the mercy of m$ who could then make their OS $10 or something, pay off other companies to make everything Mac-incompatible, and m$ could still survive as a business much longer than Apple could.


So you're saying that, like M$ has a theoretical monopoly over the PC market, Mac has a monopoly over the OSX and other MacOS based systems...? So why do people who hate M$ for being a monopoly type of business flock to another monopoly in Apple...? Oh, thats right, they have deceiving advertisements...


----------



## PiratesRule

Quote:


Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner* 

Did you look at the benches? Did you look at the configurations?



So you're saying performance wasn't similar? Although the cost of the "Hackintosh" probably wasn't $800 like they said, it's at least half the cost of a Mac Pro.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21* 
So you're saying that, like M$ has a theoretical monopoly over the PC market, Mac has a monopoly over the OSX and other MacOS based systems...? So why do people who hate M$ for being a monopoly type of business flock to another monopoly in Apple...? Oh, thats right, they have deceiving advertisements...

Using the "M$" makes any point you try to make seem biased, even if it's not, and is not clever in anyway.


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PiratesRule*


Using the "M$" makes any point you try to make seem biased, even if it's not, and is not clever in anyway.


I think its rather fitting when talking about Microsoft having a financial monopoly on their OS market (and everything included in their business practice relating to it), which I think we would all argue is pretty true, all things considered. At the same time, don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro Microsoft when it comes to choosing an OS to run a system, I just ground myself in the reality that they still play ball in a way that its near impossible for competitors to play on _their_ court. Call it a love/hate relationship I have with them... that, and it doesn't hurt that their in my "back yard" and I've almost worked for them a few times (money is money, right?). If you don't think Microsoft _deserves_ the "M$" abbreviation, feel free to explain why...


----------



## mashersmasher

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SgtSpike*


Yes but does it overclock? Nevermind, I know the answer...









And man, for 2.5g's you think you'd get more than a 7300 GT, lol.


you'd think it would have more then 1gb of ram too


----------



## PiratesRule

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21*


If you don't think Microsoft _deserves_ the "M$" abbreviation, feel free to explain why...










I just feel that it is overused and when trying to have intelligent discussions. (This doesn't seem to be that place anymore though. Not a jab at you, at the site in general). Yes Microsoft makes a lot of money and basically has a monopoly, but the "M$" is just overdone and comes off as immature.


----------



## Mootsfox

Using M$ in an intelligent discussion is similar to using "Crapple" in place of Apple.


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mootsfox* 
Using M$ in an intelligent discussion is similar to using "Crapple" in place of Apple.

Or... Hackintosh...?


----------



## xenophobe

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21* 
Or... Hackintosh...?

In this circumstance, Hackintosh refers to a non-Apple certified computer hacked to run OSX, and is not used in a derogatory fashion.


----------



## ted

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kamakazi* 
Guess what, 75% of the people who have the ability to hack it don't care









So you're saying that Mac users- the folks that buy more expensive computers because they look 'pretty' and have fruit on them- even have the _ability_ to hack their system? Surely, I misunderstood...

EDIT: ME DUMB. GOTCHA.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21* 
So you're saying that, like M$ has a theoretical monopoly over the PC market, Mac has a monopoly over the OSX and other MacOS based systems...? So why do people who hate M$ for being a monopoly type of business flock to another monopoly in Apple...? Oh, thats right, they have deceiving advertisements...

Apple is the name of the company, and how do they have a monopoly of any sort? They're a PC manufacturer that has their own OS, and that's about it. The ads aren't as deceitful as they are exaggerations. The ones I've seen lately, though, are dumb (but still funny.)

And so what if the ads are getting them more sales; that's the point of ads. I'm sure AMD could get a greater market share if they would advertise like intel does. I've never seen an AMD commercial on TV, and I've only seen one billboard, but it was a "Now hiring" billboard, not really a product ad.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PiratesRule* 
So you're saying performance wasn't similar? Although the cost of the "Hackintosh" probably wasn't $800 like they said, it's at least half the cost of a Mac Pro.

lol the good old "so you're saying," a tactic used to slightly twist one's words into another's favor in order to advance his own idea...

No, I'm not saying that. The performance was kinda all over the place. The hackintosh had 4GB of RAM and a diff CPU, but the others had their stock stuff. I'd like to know the reasons for the results, though; they were interesting.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PiratesRule* 
Using the "M$" makes any point you try to make seem biased, even if it's not, and is not clever in anyway.

I've always just seen it as an abbreviation, as I don't like having to write out m-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t. And the $ is something I see all the time, so it kinda just stuck. But as for bias - it means nothing.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mootsfox* 
Using M$ in an intelligent discussion is similar to using "Crapple" in place of Apple.

I don't see it that way. I think for most people it's just an abbreviation that just stuck - nothing more.


----------



## Mootsfox

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


I've always just seen it as an abbreviation, as I don't like having to write out m-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t. And the $ is something I see all the time, so it kinda just stuck. But as for bias - it means nothing.

I don't see it that way. I think for most people it's just an abbreviation that just stuck - nothing more.


You could use MS, which is Microsoft themselves use.


----------



## MasterBillyQuizBoy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Miki*









If any of you have doubted the power of building your own PC, check this out:

Hakintosh outperforms Mac Pro

As the guy on Lifehacker just showed, his single core, sub $1000 Hackintosh just blew away the $2k+ MacPro on nearly all benchmarks. As is being shown in the â€˜Building A Mac Killerâ€™ series - Apple doesnâ€™t hold a candle to what you can do with a little research, patience and time.

Ooooohâ€¦.his hackintosh doesnâ€™t have iSight!! Or a free printer!! Whine all you want Macaplodocuses, Mac is a PC now - and it just canâ€™t hang with a DIY system in terms of price/performance.

Source

(wow harsh, btw I didn't write that just sharing some news =D)


Guess what, Mac OS stomps all over Vista at the moment. Some people are willing to pay the extra $ for a current OS that works.


----------



## Mootsfox

Why does every Apple thread have to turn into this?


----------



## jph1589

I just love reading all the senseless crap from all the amateur lawyers on here. It really is a comical way to start the day.


----------



## PiratesRule

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mootsfox* 
You could use MS, which is Microsoft themselves use.

That would be unbiased and professional, which has no place here.

/sarcasm


----------



## Xero.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marin* 
I still like my MacBook.

You should be beaten with it, and hopefully it'll still be intact enough to boot up and over clock until it explodes.


----------



## Higgins

Wow sweet.

I'd have more respect for Apple if their commercials even made sense.
Announcer: "In the left corner PEESEE!"
Mac: "Whut?"
PC: "ima fight u"
Mac: "there is no fight, some people just want a computer that works how they do"
Announcer: "actually, my cousin got a mac and LOVES it"
*apple logo*

Like what the hell is that? It doesnt even make Apple look good.

You remember that one with all the errors on the cart? I guess people get mad that errors pop up when you bang on your keyboard or put bologna in the CD drive.









Apple ad campaign =


----------



## Lelin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MasterBillyQuizBoy* 
Guess what, Mac OS stomps all over Vista at the moment. Some people are willing to pay the extra $ for a current OS that works.

My Vista works. You could start by reading the manual if it's really a challenge to get it to work.


----------



## Evostance

Well since apple don't make any money on their software thats why all their hardware is so expensive. Downloading OSX to put on a hackintosh isn't going to affect apples profits. If you buy a mac, you already have osx on their so it makes no difference.

I agree there are morals. But getting OSX to work on a PC can be a pain, it didnt work for me and now I have raid so its even harder


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xenophobe*


In this circumstance, Hackintosh refers to a non-Apple certified computer hacked to run OSX, and is not used in a derogatory fashion.


No offense, but that was pretty obvious from the first post... but its still a play on names, if I'm not mistaken.

To THG: A monopoly means they don't have competition within their own market. Microsoft, while they also make computer software, is not really in the same "market"... their operating systems use incompatible code, and therefore the programs they run are incompatible (unless the program manufacturer goes out of their way to write the program twice for both OS's). Apple has an OS "monopoly" in the same sense that Microsoft does...

But to go beyond that, and to go more where I have an even bigger issue with them, they build their systems with a select component driver base, limiting your upgrade options to what they want you to use, which also means what they want to sell you. Is it bad business? No, it increases their control over sales. But does it inspire users who would frequent a forum like this to buy their products? Not really... if you're like 99% of the people on OCN, you want the options to make upgrades in your own ways and on your own terms. In their own way they've monopolized the use of their product... you generally have to upgrade under _their_ terms. Unless you are very computer savvy, building your own Mac won't be an easy task... and the people who could do something like that, they usually by or build Microsoft/Linux based PC's... I hope I'm painting a picture for why I'll never own a Mac.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mootsfox* 
You could use MS, which is Microsoft themselves use.

Well I'm sorry for anyone who is offended by a silly abbreviation rofl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Xero.* 
You should be beaten with it, and hopefully it'll still be intact enough to boot up and over clock until it explodes.

Wow, you're smart.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Higgins* 
You remember that one with all the errors on the cart? I guess people get mad that errors pop up when you bang on your keyboard or put bologna in the CD drive.









A agree that that boxing commercial was dumb, but I read that part and rolled my eyes.























Quote:


Originally Posted by *Evostance* 
Well since apple don't make any money on their software thats why all their hardware is so expensive. Downloading OSX to put on a hackintosh isn't going to affect apples profits. If you buy a mac, you already have osx on their so it makes no difference.

OSX doesn't even have any copy protection. There are no CD keys and no activation. That's why I'm saying they won't release OSX for PCs in general; they would lose ALL their hardware sales.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21* 
To THG: A monopoly means they don't have competition within their own market. Microsoft, while they also make computer software, is not really in the same "market"... their operating systems use incompatible code, and therefore the programs they run are incompatible (unless the program manufacturer goes out of their way to write the program twice for both OS's). Apple has an OS "monopoly" in the same sense that Microsoft does...

Monopoly? I don't get it? That's like saying nintendo is a monopoly because Wii stuff isn't compatible with PS3 stuff or 360 stuff.

The market is OS sales, or PCs if you like. Just because it's a different platform doesn't make it a separate market. And in fact, as you know, Macs are now x86.

I dunno, the way you explained it is twisting it.


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


The market is OS sales, or PCs if you like. Just because it's a different platform doesn't make it a separate market. And in fact, as you know, Macs are now x86.

I dunno, the way you explained it is twisting it.


Lemme try and explain my problem in a simpler way... can you build me a Mac? Or are you forced to pay the bloated prices they dictate? If you want an Apple OS (since thats really the only thing people like about Macs), are you forced to buy their hardware/system with it? How would you classify this little thing they got goin?


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21*


Lemme try and explain my problem in a simpler way... can you build me a Mac? Or are you forced to pay the bloated prices they dictate? If you want an Apple OS (since thats really the only thing people like about Macs), are you forced to buy their hardware/system with it? How would you classify this little thing they got goin?


So if I have a PS3, then nintendo is a monopoly because I'd be forced to buy a Wii if I wanted to play Mario Galaxy?

If I have a windows mobile PDA and I want a Palm OS, Palm is a monopoly because I have to buy a Palm PDA to get their software?

If I want a Super Sonic toothbrush head but I have an Oral-B toothbrush, is Super Sonic a monopoly because I have to buy their toothbrush to fit their toothbrush head?


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


So if I have a PS3, then nintendo is a monopoly because I'd be forced to buy a Wii if I wanted to play Mario Galaxy?

If I have a windows mobile PDA and I want a Palm OS, Palm is a monopoly because I have to buy a Palm PDA to get their software?

If I want a Super Sonic toothbrush head but I have an Oral-B toothbrush, is Super Sonic a monopoly because I have to buy their toothbrush to fit their toothbrush head?


Tell me if your analogies work when you compare Apple and Microsoft in the same way... Microsoft doesn't build systems attached to their OS, and Apple does. If you want an Apple OS you have to buy the whole system with it if you want to be able to run it. You can switch to a MS OS on the same hardware if you want, but if you buy a Vista system, sorry, but you can't install an Apple OS on it. So in the world of operating systems, who is dictating what hardware you use with their OS? Apple is telling you you have to use their hardware. There is no competition in that portion of their market. It is a "monopoly" on the hardware side of their systems. Draw as many analogies as you want, but when you compare Apple and MS in this way, in the hardware you can use to run their respective OS's, Apple denies the option of hardware competition. Microsoft doesn't even try and take part in such a thing. Am I the only one who follows the logic I'm trying to draw out here??


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21*


Tell me if your analogies work when you compare Apple and Microsoft in the same way... Microsoft doesn't build systems attached to their OS, and Apple does. If you want an Apple OS you have to buy the whole system with it if you want to be able to run it. You can switch to a MS OS on the same hardware if you want, but if you buy a Vista system, sorry, but you can't install an Apple OS on it. So in the world of operating systems, who is dictating what hardware you use with their OS? Apple is telling you you have to use their hardware. There is no competition in that portion of their market. It is a "monopoly" on the hardware side of their systems. Draw as many analogies as you want, but when you compare Apple and MS in this way, in the hardware you can use to run their respective OS's, Apple denies the option of hardware competition. Microsoft doesn't even try and take part in such a thing. Am I the only one who follows the logic I'm trying to draw out here??


Maybe, but I think there's gotta be another word for it. I don't see "monopoly" as fitting. It certainly is control, but not a monopoly. You and I BOTH know what these markets are about and what's what, but we also both know that calling Apple's tie with their OS and hardware a monopoly is reducing it to the absurd.


----------



## oneluvballer21

I'll agree to some degree, as this isn't the normal usage of the word when applied to markets, but at the same time a monopoly simply implies that the company/corporation dominates their market in a way that others cannot compete with them, and in a sense they have to be in control of the market so that there is no competition. I still think this applies to their OS and hardware being forced together. No one else is allowed to build and sell Apple OS computer systems, as far as I know. But maybe I'm wrong about that part, and in which case I would take back my comment and assumption that they "control" the hardware portion of the Apple OS market. But then why wouldn't there be other companies building systems with Apple OS's installed on them? You'd think that would be a hot market to get into if Apple/Mac is allowing it to happen...


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21*


I'll agree to some degree, as this isn't the normal usage of the word when applied to markets, but at the same time a monopoly simply implies that the company/corporation dominates their market in a way that others cannot compete with them, and in a sense they have to be in control of the market so that there is no competition. I still think this applies to their OS and hardware being forced together. No one else is allowed to build and sell Apple OS computer systems, as far as I know. But maybe I'm wrong about that part, and in which case I would take back my comment and assumption that they "control" the hardware portion of the Apple OS market. But then why wouldn't there be other companies building systems with Apple OS's installed on them? You'd think that would be a hot market to get into if Apple/Mac is allowing it to happen...


It's control, but not a "monopoly." They aren't really controlling any market per se; they're only controlling their OSs compatibility with their own hardware.

Apple can't release OSX for any PC because first off, they'd lose ALL their hardware sales (because who wants to pay Apple's prices for computers?), and second there would suddenly be compatibility issues. If m$ made computers, I'm sure their platform would be the ideal choice too, eliminating many incompatibilities.


----------



## reberto

On a different note. People, stop comparing the price of a custom built PC to a mac. Compare it to a Dell or HP or even Gateway. K? good.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


On a different note. People, stop comparing the price of a custom built PC to a mac. Compare it to a Dell or HP or even Gateway. K? good.


I would agree with that... If the PC had BETTER specs. The note here is that in SOME TESTS (not even all of them; most of the dummies "zomg loling @ Apple" didn't even read the link) the PC with lower specs beat the MacPro which costs upward of $2500.


----------



## Mootsfox

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


On a different note. People, stop comparing the price of a custom built PC to a mac. Compare it to a Dell or HP or even Gateway. K? good.


Want me too? I'll find you a better deal on every performance level.

I'm keeping this as an open-ended challenge. Non-macs will always be cheaper price/performance based on hardware. Always. Laptop, desktop, workstation whatever.


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Higgins*


Wow sweet.

I'd have more respect for Apple if their commercials even made sense.
Announcer: "In the left corner PEESEE!"
Mac: "Whut?"
PC: "ima fight u"
Mac: "there is no fight, some people just want a computer that works how they do"
Announcer: "actually, my cousin got a mac and LOVES it"
*apple logo*

Like what the hell is that? It doesnt even make Apple look good.

You remember that one with all the errors on the cart? I guess people get mad that errors pop up when you bang on your keyboard or put bologna in the CD drive.









Apple ad campaign =











Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lelin*


My Vista works. You could start by reading the manual if it's really a challenge to get it to work.


Lol, those two posts had me rofling...









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mootsfox*


Want me too? I'll find you a better deal on every performance level.

I'm keeping this as an open-ended challenge. Non-macs will always be cheaper price/performance based on hardware. Always. Laptop, desktop, workstation whatever.


 Do eeet! Just because I'd like to but I'm feeling lazy at the moment.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SgtSpike*


Lol, those two posts had me rofling...








Do eeet! Just because I'd like to but I'm feeling lazy at the moment.










Wow, you're tough.


----------



## SgtSpike

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


Wow, you're tough.


What does that even mean in this context? Did someone drop you on your head when you were a child?


----------



## Mootsfox

Maybe hes that child that can't quite make it into the stroller correctly









Just kidding THG.


----------



## Jacko87

Quote:



What does that even mean in this context? Did someone drop you on your head when you were a child?


He's just a mac "defend-o-maniac" as he puts it in Vista threads...and I have no idea what he was talking about in that post either...


----------



## DorsalFin89

All I have to say is MAC FTW....if your getting one for free or from work, they are ridiculously expensive for what you get.


----------



## reberto

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Jacko87*


He's just a mac "defend-o-maniac" as he puts it in Vista threads...and I have no idea what he was talking about in that post either...


Wow, your nice


----------



## oneluvballer21

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


It's control, but not a "monopoly." They aren't really controlling any market per se; they're only controlling their OSs compatibility with their own hardware.

Apple can't release OSX for any PC because first off, they'd lose ALL their hardware sales (because who wants to pay Apple's prices for computers?), and second there would suddenly be compatibility issues. If m$ made computers, I'm sure their platform would be the ideal choice too, eliminating many incompatibilities.


With regards to "they're only controlling their OSs compatibility with their own hardware", thats not true, as its not _their_ hardware. They are buying other manufacturers hardware, putting into a "cute" case, or at least they were "cute", throwing their OS on the HDD and selling it for a top dollar... because they can. No one else sells systems with their OS on it, even though it wouldn't be that hard to do so (so long as you simply use the same hardware that the OS will allow you to use). If Apple was actually using their own hardware, that they manufactured, and that wasn't available to everyone on the open market, then you would have a solid argument, but this isn't the case. I can't go buy all the specific components in a Mac, throw it in my own case, put OSX on it, and go sell it to people. This is what happens all the time with Microsoft and their OS/software. At the same time I could build my own Mac if I wanted to, but then there's really no good reason for me to do that.


----------



## mashersmasher

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Marin*


You guys, if you don't want a Mac then don't get one. I can't understand why everyone freaks the hell out when they see a Mac's performance. OMG, your computer runs faster, well who cares.


the one who wishes they had $2500 to spend on a DECENT computer


----------



## mashersmasher

YouTube - Halo 2 "Mac and Pc" Commercial.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Jacko87*


He's just a mac "defend-o-maniac" as he puts it in Vista threads...and I have no idea what he was talking about in that post either...


I don't really defend Macs. I just defend against stupid/false claims like "they crash" and "ugly so it's a bad computer" and the like. That's much different from those saying one OS is faster than its predecessor when the numbers clearly put the latter on top.

This "benchmark," however, I am skeptical about. The guy even said the intention wasn't to actually benchmark them, and the hardware configs are way different. I don't think that makes me a defend-o-maniac.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oneluvballer21*


With regards to "they're only controlling their OSs compatibility with their own hardware", thats not true, as its not _their_ hardware. They are buying other manufacturers hardware, putting into a "cute" case, or at least they were "cute", throwing their OS on the HDD and selling it for a top dollar... because they can. No one else sells systems with their OS on it, even though it wouldn't be that hard to do so (so long as you simply use the same hardware that the OS will allow you to use). If Apple was actually using their own hardware, that they manufactured, and that wasn't available to everyone on the open market, then you would have a solid argument, but this isn't the case. I can't go buy all the specific components in a Mac, throw it in my own case, put OSX on it, and go sell it to people. This is what happens all the time with Microsoft and their OS/software. At the same time I could build my own Mac if I wanted to, but then there's really no good reason for me to do that.


Ugh, I'm gonna stop reading and just say NO it's not a monopoly... I don't know anyone else who thinks that...


----------



## christoh

You can easily overclock a Mac Pro with ZDNet Clock. This should outperfom most Hackintoshs.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:



Originally Posted by *christoh*


You can easily overclock a Mac Pro with ZDNet Clock. This should outperfom most Hackintoshs.




Very nice find. I'm sure this will displease many people on this forum.

I'll show this to Marin and ask him to try it out for us


----------



## LiNERROR

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xenophobe*











No it is not.

All you little kiddies need to learn what the word "illegal" really means.

Please show me any Federal or State Penal Code, any local law or ordinance that shows you broke any laws.

You can't.

There is no Apple Police, they will not come to your house, arrest you, put you in jail, sentence you for a crime, etc... It's pure BS.

Look up the term "Fair Use". You can hack, you can reverse engineer, you can do whatever you want as long as you are not distributing pirated copies or selling the hack for a profit or using it for any commercial purposes.

Sure, you may be breaking a Terms of Service or Terms of Usage, but they would not hold up in court. I can tell you that you can't reply to me with capital letters and you must refer to yourself in the third person, and by replying to me you agree to these terms, but it won't make it illegal if you don't.

Get a freaking clue.

EDIT: Oh wait, we've had this conversation before, and you STILL don't have a clue. Ugh...


uh, where do you plan on getting a licensed copy of OSX to begin with for your fair use?

apple will have a hard time locating and prosecuting offenders... but that doesn't make it any less illegal...

all you little know it all need to stop pretending to be lawyers and using the "everybody else does it, so i can too" defense...

not to mention the benchmarks are bull****...

if it wasn't for the slow laptop drive and the g5 optimized tests, the macbook pro would show how much faster it is...

and that OLD g5 is DDR... and falls behind to the ddr2 in the hackintosh...

How about comparing comparable systems...

instead of modern desktop vs last years anemic laptop and an ANCIENT desktop...

ffs... the dual 2ghz g5 came out in 2003!!!

imagine that... a cheap PC today, is faster then an outrageous machine 5 years ago...


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


Oooooh but guess what, hacking OS X is illegal.


Running MAC OSX on a non MAC is not usually illegal, it's just against Apple's ELUA (which is not a legally binding document in the vast majority of places).

Quote:



Originally Posted by *LiNERROR*


uh, where do you plan on getting a licensed copy of OSX to begin with for your fair use?


You go to a store and buy it, order it from Apple's site, ect.

I happen to be using a hacked and cracked version of Windows, that is not even close to illegal because I bought the OS and I'm not distributing it, or directly profiting from it. Just as Microsoft cannot legally enforce it's usability handicaps with my, neither can Apple when it comes to MAC OSX.

Buy a licence and use it on one of your systems, and it really doesn't matter if it's a MAC, a hackintosh, or a graphicing calculator. Apple won't help you out if you run into trouble, but you can call them up and tell them exactly what you've done with zero fear of legal repercussions.


----------



## mhsbrian

Quote:



Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*


Very nice find. I'm sure this will displease many people on this forum.

I'll show this to Marin and ask him to try it out for us










Too bad it's a software clocker :/.

I find it interesting, I can see why Apple markets and sells their name they way they do but I really find it hard to believe people just pay out so much money on them. I've worked on a Mac pro desktop and it was fast and snappy and everything, and I'm sure it could play pong well and all but I still don't get the satisfaction out of a Apple for the cost.

I could definately buy a 1080p 52" tv and be much happier with SUCH a lump cost.

I have no problem with Apple computers, they are just something different but I do have a problem with their price compared to what they are able to do, and their performance.


----------



## reberto

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Blameless*


Running MAC OSX on a non MAC is not usually illegal, it's just against Apple's ELUA (which is not a legally binding document in the vast majority of places).


True, but the ELUA will hold up in court, so I still wouldn't do it...oh wait I did...


----------



## Manyak

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


True, but the ELUA will hold up in court, so I still wouldn't do it...oh wait I did...










Still, as long as you are not distributing/sharing/whatever any copies, the MOST they can do is confiscate your copy of OSX or force you to pay for a new mac.


----------



## BlankThis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Marin*


I still like my MacBook.


Second that. Runs the same as the day I picked it up after getting 4GB's popped in









~B~


----------



## Blameless

Quote:



Originally Posted by *reberto*


True, but the ELUA will hold up in court, so I still wouldn't do it...oh wait I did...










Wether an ELUA will hold up in court is determined by what the ELUA says.

There have been many cases of ELUAs found to be in violation of law and thus void, and many cases where parts of ELUAs were upheld.

An ELUA, in and of itself, is not law. If it contains instructions or limitations that are inviolation of law, those parts of the ELUA are void.


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *christoh*


You can easily overclock a Mac Pro with ZDNet Clock. This should outperfom most Hackintoshs.




Interesting...I wonder how well it works.....you sure that isn't an April Fools' joke?









BTW, thread resurrection!


----------



## Mootsfox

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


Interesting...I wonder how well it works.....you sure that isn't an April Fools' joke?









BTW, thread resurrection!


"Marketing Bus Clock"

Sounds like an April Fool's Joke to me.


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mootsfox* 
"Marketing Bus Clock"

Sounds like an April Fool's Joke to me.


Quote:

Whereas there are a lot of tools available for overclocking in Windows,
O RLY? There's only one that I know of (for the CPU): Clockgen. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## christoh

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


O RLY? There's only one that I know of (for the CPU): Clockgen. I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.


Nope, ZDNet Clock is not an April fool's joke. It's an overclocking utility for Mac OS X 10.5, which does the same, Clockgen does under Windows.

In contrast to Clockgen ZDNet Clock is much easier to use. Use the slider to select your desired speed and click "apply". That's all

BTW, I've choosen the term "Marketing Clock", because what Intel calls a 1600 MHz FSB, only runs at 400 MHz.

-Christoph (Author of ZDNet Clock)


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *christoh*


Nope, ZDNet Clock is not an April fool's joke. It's an overclocking utility for Mac OS X 10.5, which does the same, Clockgen does under Windows.

In contrast to Clockgen ZDNet Clock is much easier to use. Use the slider to select your desired speed and click "apply". That's all

BTW, I've choosen the term "Marketing Clock", because what Intel calls a 1600 MHz FSB, only runs at 400 MHz.

-Christoph (Author of ZDNet Clock)



Well I'll give it to you: that's impressive


----------



## Mootsfox

Quote:


Originally Posted by *christoh* 
Nope, ZDNet Clock is not an April fool's joke. It's an overclocking utility for Mac OS X 10.5, which does the same, Clockgen does under Windows.

In contrast to Clockgen ZDNet Clock is much easier to use. Use the slider to select your desired speed and click "apply". That's all

BTW, I've choosen the term "Marketing Clock", because what Intel calls a 1600 MHz FSB, only runs at 400 MHz.

-Christoph (Author of ZDNet Clock)


Well, it's a quad pumped bus, so it is effectively 4x the bus clock.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mhsbrian* 
I could definately buy a 1080p 52" tv and be much happier with SUCH a lump cost.

Over...? What? I don't get where you're going with that one.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mhsbrian* 
TI have no problem with Apple computers, they are just something different but I do have a problem with their price compared to what they are able to do, and their performance.

For the most part, they're no more overpriced than any other pre-manufactured PC. Any extra cost can easily be attributed to lack of adware that pre-builds contain.


----------



## DarkNite

This isnt new/news.


----------



## max302

Quote:


Originally Posted by *reberto* 
Oooooh but guess what, hacking OS X is illegal.

Drinking in public is also illegal. Yet some people still do it, and if everybody did it, the world would be a better place.

Hmm... bad example.

I'm pretty sure that Apple would make money out of selling just the OS for use with other systems, just like they would make loads of cash selling unlocked iPhones. Fanboyz would still pay for the white casings anyways.

Some companies like to make money, then there's Apple. What more is there to say?


----------



## Col. Newman

Quote:


Originally Posted by *reberto* 
Oooooh but guess what, hacking OS X is illegal.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *xenophobe* 









No it is not.

All you little kiddies need to learn what the word "illegal" really means.

Please show me any Federal or State Penal Code, any local law or ordinance that shows you broke any laws.

You can't.

There is no Apple Police, they will not come to your house, arrest you, put you in jail, sentence you for a crime, etc... It's pure BS.

Look up the term "Fair Use". You can hack, you can reverse engineer, you can do whatever you want as long as you are not distributing pirated copies or selling the hack for a profit or using it for any commercial purposes.

Sure, you may be breaking a Terms of Service or Terms of Usage, but they would not hold up in court. I can tell you that you can't reply to me with capital letters and you must refer to yourself in the third person, and by replying to me you agree to these terms, but it won't make it illegal if you don't.

Get a freaking clue.

EDIT: Oh wait, we've had this conversation before, and you STILL don't have a clue. Ugh...

good to know.


----------



## Delphi44

i hate windows and mac....go linux

(gas to the fire =P)


----------



## F1ynn

Someone care to help me with a Hackintosh?


----------



## Jbads

I love stories like this, it even proves more that apple is ripping the people off.


----------



## silencespr

Time to build one =D


----------



## Pip Boy

imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery

which is why you SHOULDN'T build one


----------



## Cavi Mike

6 year old thread? Sure, why not.


----------



## PR-Imagery

nope


----------

