I dual boot macOS (default) and Windows 10 on it. A nice feature is that I can use my Windows installation while I'm using macOS through virtualization (Parallels), yet boot natively to the same Windows installation when I need the full performance.
Getting the Hackintosh working properly was hard as hell though, although I kinda enjoyed it since I'm a geek. Now that I've got it working, it works flawlessly. Recommended for people who want to save money/maximize performance and don't mind the grueling effort required.
I'm curious because I've been considering building one for a while, but the reports from idly skimming eg tonymacx86 are all over the place. Some say as long as you buy from their build guide it's very easy, and some people seem to have tons of problems anyway.
It took maybe an afternoon to build, and then a few more hours to get running. It's been running solid ever since.
Everything works (thunderbolt 3, usb 3, sound, airdrop, iMessage, handoff, etc) except you can't use apps that use SceneKit. So iBooks, Xcode instruments and SceneKit editor don't work. You can get them to work, by using Apple's drivers, but its a pita.
Some people claim the new nvidia pascal drivers work for SceneKit, but I've not upgraded to a 1080 yet so I can't confirm.
This is my build: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/gwV6qk
If you build using Clover only, you can upgrade as soon as Nvidia releases new web drivers (for point updates) straight through the App Store.
The only issue is SceneKit based apps.
another option besides buying from Apple or building one yourself: go on craigslist and search for hackintoshes.
you may find an experienced hackintosher who can build one for you. it's still a little dicey, but there are individuals out there who can create reliable beasts far more powerful than anything Apple sells today. (i'm certainly not one of them. much too conventional. i just buy from Apple.)
Intel Core-i5 7600k (4,6Ghz OC)
32GB 3200MHz DDR4 RAM
Nvidia Gefore 970 GTX
Samsung 960 Evo 500GB NVMe SSD
Also, I still haven't upgraded to Sierra, since the process is a bit more delicate than with regular macs.
All things considered, it's totally worth it for me.
The last time I built a hackintosh (5 years ago), you had to go through kext hell that took about one day of hacking. I just gave up and bought a Mac.
I've been running a 4790k + 980Ti since 10.9 came out, always kept it at the newest release and it's given me much less trouble than Windows in that timeframe.
As long as you have the typical well supported desktop hardware it works really well (intel + nvidia or select amd cards), only if you want it on a laptop or officially unsupported hardware then it quickly becomes a giant pain.
I've upgraded the same 2010 hardware from 10.6 to 10.12. Installed a GTX 1060 and now I have a 4k-capable machine. You couldn't really do that (either install 10.12 or drive 4k) with a 2010 mac mini or imac, but you would have saved yourself the cummulative ~2 weeks of installation I've put into this over the years.
For example - I couldn't get my GPU to work so I spent hours troubleshooting it until I discovered a random post on page 45 in thread where someone casually mentioned that his Z170 Gigabyte Motherboard couldn't store NVRAM natively. I have a Z270 Gigabyte MB, so I figured his suggestion would be worth a try. I had to inject a module for my bootloader to add NVRAM support. That should have worked, but I edited my bootloader config.plist file with a text editor so I accidentially corrupted it. Then I had to boot to Windows, find out how to mount my EFI partition, open my bootloader settings file properly and fix the corruption.
Another example - This is how you enable proper USB 3.0 support. As you can see it's not that simple.
Thankfully people are extraordinarily helpful, especially some of the moderators.
Their other answers saying they want to deliver regular updates speaks to what you said, but the part where he actually mentions modular just reads to me as reassuring people that it's not going to be a higher end SKU of an iMac.
>As part of doing a new Mac Pro — it is, by definition, a modular system — we will be doing a pro display as well. Now you won’t see any of those products this year; we’re in the process of that. We think it’s really important to create something great for our pro customers who want a Mac Pro modular system, and that’ll take longer than this year to do.
>I think, as you talk about the pro user, the fact that our user base is split over notebooks, all-in-one desktops and modular desktops is important. We aren’t making one machine for pros. We’re making three different designs for pros. We’re going to continue to.
>We care about our Pro users who use MacBook Pros, who use iMacs and who use Mac Pros, who use modular systems as well as all-in-one systems, who use the pro software we make.
Don't get me started on the poor state of creative apps for Linux in general. GIMP is literally incapable of performing half the steps in my favorite photo editing workflows (features missing which were present in Photoshop 5.0 from 1998), and Audacity makes me angry more than any other piece of software I have ever used. Inkscape and Krita are decent, though.
1. None of the Ui packages out there in Linux is as good as macOS.
1.5. Gestures. Though I can live without one, I've grown accustomed to the slick motions.
2. Chinese input on Linux is unusable. It was so confusing I gave up setting it up on my (was) Ubuntu installation.
I can't even find a good calendar app for Linux.
What about the Lightning add-on for Thunderbird? Has that been of any use?
Other than that, I would be happy (likely happier) on linux vs. OSX or MacOS or whatever. I do not game, and living on the same basic bones as my servers is a win.
Of course, this may relate to how I compute and the software I use, but it doesn't quite line up with me. Nevertheless, I keep a fedora partition around for tinkering when the mood strikes.
One of the many reasons is desktop Linux has a terrible and well deserved reputation. Most people don't have any great yearning in their loins to switch operating systems so they would prefer to keep using what works for them. Desktop Linux would have to be a lot better than macOS to get people to even consider trying it out.
Lately, however, I've had to janitor my Mac more than my Linux system. Experienced more kernel panics with it as well.
Honestly I wonder if this is actually the future of CPUs or if it will all be soldered in. That, and RAM too. The history of computers is a history of demodularization. Unlike, say, 15 years ago, today I expect a high-end CPU + Memory configuration to remain high-end for a few years, so I'm not worried about upgradability. That's definitely not true with GPUs.
If this assumption is correct, I wonder why Apple doesn't make a high price but also high value machine. Aiming at Prosumers, Pro Gamers ( If they are still on Mac ) and Professionals. With starting price of $1299. The lowest config could have been done with AMD Zen 2 and non ECC Memory. And Scale up all the way to 32 Core Zen and 256GB ECC Memory. It fix the developer's need for a "Desktop" Machine to program the iPhone, or Web Development. And the years' of cry for just "Mac". And Something clearly the Mac mini shouldn't be aiming at.
I still believe there is at least another 5 - 10 years of life in Mac before we sunset it, and unless Apple will be moving to ARM Mac ( which i doubt they will ), there is no better time to bring some of these people into the Apple's ecosystem. Whether it is iPhone, iPad, or Mac.
EDIT: I'm still fully expecting Apple to allow change-outs of key components through Apple-supplied upgrades.
Atom + Chrome (with a dozen extensions) makes web development a breeze. I can do a lot of quality front-end work.
You're also not stuck with god awful Homebrew for installing dependencies. OS X is a pretty hostile place for developers who don't live out of XCode.
`brew --prefix package` returns the latest installable package, and not the version you actually have installed.
Also things like: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew/issues/2402
It tries to do too much and ends up being a never ending surprise from hell.
(The solution to the Bash issue is to hard code the path for chsh, etc.)
I have had apt refuse to install npm because of a full /boot partition (Imagine if Homebrew refused to run because I couldn't update OS X)
I think it's ironic you say homebrew is the one trying to do too much...
Meanwhile, apt packages are incredibly stable, install the same way every time, and are exactly what you'd run on the server anyway. You can use PPAs if you need bleeding edge versions.
I have no idea how you'd compare Vagrant to... homebrew. Sometimes it's convenient to have software on my actual machine, not a VM...
Maybe get a system with 2 GPU's and do GPU passthrough of an OS X VM?
Give me standard ram, m2 slots, and pcie graphics card slot, and I will order on day one.
It's so much better being on the side of the fence where you have more control of your hardware. I don't think I could ever go back to a Mac desktop now I'm used to having so much control.
Alternatively how about being able to get a flexible modular upgradable desktop starting at 500 instead of starting at 3500.
This list could easily be a mile long.
i doubt they will though.
My first three Mac systems as a poor student were Hackintoshes. Couldn't afford a real Macbook. The first one was a Dell Mini 9, which was a $200 netboook that could somehow run Snow Leopard flawlessly (with significant contributions from the community of course).
As a working professional, I have spent close to $10k on Apple hardware in the past two years. I've also helped them make quite a bit of money through their App Store cut.
I recently put together a dual-booting Windows 10/OSX system for usage at home, used for both gaming and development. I spent about $1200 on it, and I couldn't even get an equivalent desktop from Apple no matter how much I spent. My ceiling would have probably been around $3k.
That gets you real close to buying an iMac for development and a PC for gaming. I think this is part of the reason Apple has pulled back from the high end. Hardware is cheap enough that we can use different devices for different purposes now. There are often some good advantages to doing it too. I like having my workstation in the office, my gaming PC in the living room, and a tiny little laptop for travel. That would have cost me close to $10k a decade ago!
Even people who never bought anything from Apple before are customers by definition the moment they do buy something from Apple. If Apple is trying to make money, it doesn't seem smart to take a dogmatic stance that the money of new customers isn't worth having. Everyone is by definition a possible future customer.
Apple has a long history with tactics like gluing things shut, obfuscating software,
enforcing walled gardens, banning the GPL, and an unusual degree of legal aggression toward people trying to interoperate with their products. There seems to be a well-established groupthink among Apple and its fans that this is the only possible future for Apple.
But when Apple is more extreme on these tactics than almost any company that's still in the PC business, yet is not selling all that well, it really proves the viability of softer approaches. Apple can make money, depending on its execution maybe even a lot more money, by leaving this playbook behind. They could end Windows, taking all their existing fans, and adding new ones. But they can't do it until they can learn some humility from their epic steamrolling by the IBM PC clone market in the 80s and 90s. Apple swallowed their pride about PowerPC and started using the "Intel" from "Wintel" so why does it have to keep re-enacting the anticompetitive tactics from the dawn of the personal computer?
If Apple's products really are the best on merit, it shouldn't be necessary for Apple to lock everything down at a technical level or at a licensing level or to use the law aggressively against people who just want to interact with Apple products.
I think for many people (including me), the Mac Mini was the next logical step, since it was affordable. Especially when it was still expandable (memory and disk). I think they make a mistake with making the Mini so unattractive. It may not be a blip on their radar, but I think it was a gateway machine for many people who later buy more Macs. However, now it's so unattractive that I can't see anyone buying them.