> Frankly, I can't see any reason for the Hackintosh middle ground other than people who can't cope without the OS but can't afford the hardware.
I have several Mac laptops that cost more than most desktops (from apple or otherwise) but use a hackintosh desktop. Price isn't the issue, Apple simply doesn't make a desktop Mac with the specs I want, specifically there is no Mac with a desktop class GPU. You can choose between an iMac with a mobile GPU or a Mac Pro with a compute optimized GPU, I don't need nor want either. If Apple made a desktop with a desktop class GPU, I'd buy it.
> The software is little more than a neutered and compromised version of BSD that lets you part way into a walled garden (cue It's a trap! meme).
It's the best user experience available on a POSIX compliant OS. I used linux as my only OS for 6-7 years, I will never go back to fighting to get basic functionality to work.
> why not built a far more powerful and cheaper hackintosh
Because I have better things to do with my time than assemble a poor substitute for a cohesive just-works experience.
> what software is there for mac OS that there is a not an equivalent to for linux or windows
As a developer, most of the exact same software I use every day on OS X runs on Linux just fine. And yet, Linux doesn't provide me with a good user experience, and it doesn't just work[1].
But fundamentally, you are just mad because other people like something you don't. Dwell on that for a while.
[1] If you're going to try and argue with me about how great Ubuntu or Mint or whatever else are these days, let me save you the time: You're wrong, and there is absolutely nothing at all that you can say that will convince me otherwise, because I do use them, but they continue to fail me as primary desktops. Your words conflict with reality, and more words won't change that.
> The biggest appeal of Apple is their wonderful hardware.
To you. To others (like me) the biggest appeal was the only even vaguely usable & consistent OS, supported by nice hardware. Now they have replaced the nice hardware with thin-and-light toys with fake keyboards, we're in a bind.
> It seems to me that a Hackintosh is the worst of both worlds. If you spend that much time hacking around the hardware anyways, why not use Linux ?
Quite, I agree. I don't want to futz with either hardware or software, so have gone for a Windows laptop. Windows is profoundly horrible, but it does work for me without having to mess around. We really have reached the point in 2018 where there literally are no good options. Just least-worst for the task at hand.
> But the rest of the system is not. I want I computer that I can use in the way that I want, with the software that I want, and not a computer that must be used as Apple wants, and limits you in using an hardware that you bought.
You can't run a lot of software on linux, you can run less of it compared to windows and osx. All hardware is limited, all the x86 laptops have soldered CPUs, there is no such thing as unlimited hardware.
>Also from an hardware standpoint Mac are overpriced machines, with insufficient I/O that forces you to bring a bag of adapters with yourself and components that are all soldered on the motherboard, impossible to upgrade.
M1 is not overpriced for its benefits, the x86 stuff I agree with though and fuck their keyboards. No more Jony Ive, so ports are back!
>The reason why I use Linux is that I can do whatever I want on my computer, I don't have to have signed applications, annoying prompts to tell me that the software is not Apple approved (till there are the prompts and Apple doesn't decide to forbid all unsigned software as on iOS), and similar.
The problem I have with this is that its not that you can do whatever, you MUST do it and use a lot of time in configuration. I find the root prompt just as annoying in linux. I just want a working environment, not a bunch of software that asks me to set every preference.
> A hackintosh takes away the only advantage macOS has over Linux, in my opinion.
I'm a massive Linux user (it's on everything, I don't own a Mac) but you can't run Creative Suite on Linux you can on a Hackintosh as well as all the other Mac native applications.
It's easy to fall into the trap that "my use case is the only use case" and that's not true. If I was a .Net developer I'd be on Windows, if I was an iOS developer I'd be on a Mac.
>If you really need mac software then why not built a far more powerful and cheaper hackintosh
I don't think it should make you mad. Different strokes for different folks.
If I go to a car forum I bet I can find a lot of people who love BMW, and more still who love Mercedes Benz. They'll probably happily argue with each other about who makes the better cars, and why one brand is far superior to the other. And then there's probably also some people who are happy with either car.
For you, there's no software on OS X that doesn't have an equivalent on Linux or Windows. But that might not be true for others (for example, I don't consider GIMP to be 'equivalent' to Photoshop...but you might). Another example - I used to work in live events, and used Mac Pros to drive video rigs. Could I have built a more powerful and cheaper hackintosh? Probably. But I doubt the build quality of what I'd put together would be superior. The cheese-grater Mac Pro could take a beating.
Again, my needs are very different to yours. Please don't get angry on my account!
> Why isn't there a company that would produce nearly macbook-quality laptops (albeit without the M-series ARM processor), but reliably linux-friendly?
Because hackintoshes are much, much, much less common than someone slapping Linux on some random bit of kit. And nobody complains about OSX breaking or not running perfectly on non-Apple hardware. As evidenced by the term "hackintosh" itself.
It's very hard for a Linux hardware company to gain any ability to innovate when so much of the market goes elsewhere.
IMHO, it's nigh on miraculous that System76 is as great as it is. I would dearly love for them to be able to do more, but the reality is that most folks complain that it's not exactly what they want, and/or not exactly at the price point they want, and give their money to someone else. (Then they complain that Linux doesn't support their new Windows hardware adequately!)
The smartest thing Apple ever did was force you to but Apple kit to run Apple software. Had they not, they'd have suffered the same fate. And we'd be discussing how much OSX sucks because it doesn't support the consumer Dell models adequately. (If OSX even continued to exist.)
> I wonder if Apple could sell a developers edition of MacOS that supported a vetted list of non-Apple hardware? Even if that was a short list and it was $999 a seat, I'm thinking people would pay the price to stay with their preferred OS and run the latest hardware.
How that situation would be different from now? It's not like Apple actively trying to defend itself from hackintoshes, they just don't care at all, so you can use hackintosh if you want. Apple supports selected list of hardware which is present in their products and it's not something proprietary, so you can buy those parts and build computer.
For $999 I bet most people would just torrent it. For $99 there wouldn't be enough purchases to justify a lot of additional work, especially support, because selling product presumes that you're going to help customers with their issues.
What Apple probably would do is just to release their OS X free without legal restrictions and with some working installer, loader, etc. It's not a lot of work and you're not getting support if you're not buying their hardware. Then hardware manufacturers would build drivers, at least for some of their hardware. Now hackintosh doesn't exist for manufacturers, because it's not completely legal and community around hackintosh isn't good enough to write their own drivers.
> there is no way that you can't build a hackintosh
Have you ever personally run a Hackintosh, full-time for a prolonged period of time?
It's anecdotal, but I can assure that once you're used to how OS X and the Apple hardware work together and never, ever, ever crash, using a Hackintosh is an exercise in frustration.
I had one of the known-best Hackintosh configurations in existence, and it didn't hold a candle to the MBP I had prior to it in terms of "it just works".
Sure, it was cheaper.
Guess what I did when that Hackintosh needed replacing? I walked in and dropped the coin on genuine Apple hardware without a second thought. I have never regretted it, and I'll never go back.
> Now if you're a programmer doing native code, I'd still recommend doing a hackintosh; Apple has no hardware for you, so you might as well roll your own. For desktops, that is. Also get an apple made macbook pro for portability. Maybe the one without the emoji keyboard though.
There's one more use case that infuriates me: CI. Are we supposed to buy outdated and underpowered Mac Minis, outdated and overpriced Mac Pros, stuff clamshell'd MBPs into racks, or horizontally slide in iMac Pros even?
The fact that we collectively have to hack hypervisors to merely flick a flag and be able to operate a snapshottable macOS on server-class, rackable hardware at non-trivial scales is just beyond ridiculous. That license requirement is inane.
It is not a matter of recommending Linux or *BSD or anything else. It is just a matter of refusing to give in to closed software on the grounds of "convenience".
I don't go around telling people what type of software they should use, but I do expect technical people and the common developer to understand what a terrible trade-off they are making when they choose proprietary desktop. I feel hard to sympathize with those that complain about the abuse and developer hostility from Apple. They sold their souls to the devil for cheap and are now trying to bargain their way out of it?
Sure it is, just not ALL of it. Everything's a tradeoff; I like my work Mac, but I'd never buy one, and not just the absurd Apple Tax reason. For my use cases, BY AND LARGE Linux works better, for me, but the Mac has some really neat features I miss in Linux.
> If it wasn't for the Mac OS, I wouldn't even bother considering their lineup anymore.
Years ago, when I exclusively used Linux even on my local machines, I used to buy Apple computers and replace the OS with Linux. Because they used to build the best damn computers (specially laptops) out there. They were way ahead of the competition.
It’s sad that now we just have to put up with Apple hardware because of software integration, etc. . If I wanted to run Linux or Windows, I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to look somewhere else.
> Most people invoking a moral imperative to not make hackintoshes are coming from the angle that it’s stealing from Apple.
I don't feel a moral obligation not to steal from Apple. I'm not sure I could steal (and use) an amount from them that would impact them at all. I mean even if I stole a classroom full of MacBook pro's in order to give free programming classes - it's not like it would affect Apple in any meaningful way.
But I don't quite get why anyone would go out of their way to get hw they'll never be able to run legally licensed os on. For fun and learning, sure. Turn your linux/bsd box into a hackintosh by dual booting. But you can never do any work on it without risk. So what's the point?
Sure you can "buy" a copy of os x - but you only get install media and a license to run on Apple hw.
> This is what you get, for free, on all versions of MacOS, ever.
You're trading one slight discomfort (in your opinion) for a thousand others because the rest of macOS is abysmal. There's hidden, undiscoverable functionality everywhere, the window management is absolutely disgusting, the file management is sorely lacking, the amount of tweaking you have to do to get decent terminal utilities is sickening, the hardware choices are extremely limited and the tyrannical company that builds it works regularly to own you.
No amount of rationalization will convince me that it's a good OS for anything other than building iOS apps.
Thankfully at least I can run a better OS on the hardware once Apple stops supporting it. Unfortunately I still must jump over many Mac hardware obstructions just to get something resembling a normal BIOS so I can even boot something else. It's just disgusting when I have to do it. At least I never gave Apple any money though since I buy it all used.
They are the China of the technology world and I wouldn't be proud to support them at all even if their desktop OS was actually desirable. Still, they own half (or more) of the phones in use in the US so I have no choice but to deal with them.
> These issues notwithstanding, the total user experience of owning a Mac laptop is far superior to any Linux or Windows machine I've tried, at least in the past 3 years or so.
That.
I don't love Apple. They're a corporation, so at best our interests temporarily align. Loving them would be absurd. I really really want them to have strong competitors. I'd love to be back on an open source OS full-time, like I was for many years.
Unfortunately, they're so far ahead of the competition, that they screw up, sometimes even in a few ways at the same time, and people come out saying "LOL and Apple fanboys won't switch to Linux even now", and that's true... but it's because I'd be trading a few problems for a few score problems.
I ran Linux on laptops and desktops for about a decade, as my main computers. Ubuntu near the end, Gentoo for about five years, Mandrake really early on, a little time with Fedora somewhere in there, a sprinkling of Debian. I still try it out every year or two! I wish it weren't, but it's still much, much worse, and in the best case slows me down and gets in my way more than a "bad" Apple machine with a "bad" version of an OS X / MacOS, barring actual faulty hardware.
> Linux becoming attractive on their hardware would almost certainly be unsupported, but I seriously doubt it would be undermined.
This. Apple doesn't even care about Hackintoshes, which are (theoretically) orders of magnitude more threatening to Apple's business model since they (theoretically) cannibalize Mac sales.
> You need to do some research when buying hardware that is compatible with Linux
This backs up my point -- I don't have to waste time researching anything with macOS.
> Nvidia is notoriously hostile to linux
That may be true, but as a user, I don't care why macOS works better, or whether it's fair. I just care that it does.
> I'm sticking to either AMD or Intel for my video cards, where everything works flawlessly.
Not an option if you need CUDA support.
> I believe the point the parent is making that Apple hardware is now bad enough that having Linux on well supported hardware, would require less fiddling
Researching what hardware is supported counts as fiddling.
I have several Mac laptops that cost more than most desktops (from apple or otherwise) but use a hackintosh desktop. Price isn't the issue, Apple simply doesn't make a desktop Mac with the specs I want, specifically there is no Mac with a desktop class GPU. You can choose between an iMac with a mobile GPU or a Mac Pro with a compute optimized GPU, I don't need nor want either. If Apple made a desktop with a desktop class GPU, I'd buy it.
> The software is little more than a neutered and compromised version of BSD that lets you part way into a walled garden (cue It's a trap! meme).
It's the best user experience available on a POSIX compliant OS. I used linux as my only OS for 6-7 years, I will never go back to fighting to get basic functionality to work.
reply