Hackintosh and updates

[Juddog]

I've been more and more curious about the hackintosh movement. I've researched the components and how to set it up, my main questions are these:
* Do you have to never run any system updates, or do you only do non-major updates?
* Does the machine somehow "report to apple" with any of the hardware specs?
* Has anybody run benchmarks comparing a hackintosh to a regular apple desktop?

Main reason I'm looking at it is that my wife's iMac, while great for multimedia, seems a bit slow for doing the more heavy lifting type programs, such as Photoshop, etc. and it's rather limited in terms of hard drive and memory. I would rather avoid the "apple tax" and just put together the components myself.

 

[alfa147x]

I've been more and more curious about the hackintosh movement. I've researched the components and how to set it up, my main questions are these:
* Do you have to never run any system updates, or do you only do non-major updates?
* Does the machine somehow "report to apple" with any of the hardware specs?
* Has anybody run benchmarks comparing a hackintosh to a regular apple desktop?

Main reason I'm looking at it is that my wife's iMac, while great for multimedia, seems a bit slow for doing the more heavy lifting type programs, such as Photoshop, etc. and it's rather limited in terms of hard drive and memory. I would rather avoid the "apple tax" and just put together the components myself.

1) I do all but point updates like 10.6.xx updates
2) Can't say
3) I would say to many things factor in for that to be a valid comparison

 

[KeypoX]

I've been more and more curious about the hackintosh movement. I've researched the components and how to set it up, my main questions are these:
* Do you have to never run any system updates, or do you only do non-major updates?
* Does the machine somehow "report to apple" with any of the hardware specs?
* Has anybody run benchmarks comparing a hackintosh to a regular apple desktop?

Main reason I'm looking at it is that my wife's iMac, while great for multimedia, seems a bit slow for doing the more heavy lifting type programs, such as Photoshop, etc. and it's rather limited in terms of hard drive and memory. I would rather avoid the "apple tax" and just put together the components myself.

1. Huh do you have to never run? I run/use/update everything, currently on 10.6.3 v 1.1 (lol)
2. Yes via the internet, forget the details has something to do with Serial Number (system): INSERTYOURSHERE
Hardware UUID: **Removed**
Yeah thats what mine says UUID is inserted by chameleon, i believe. Nothing has been done by apple regarding this but its easy to spot a hack if they wanted to.
3. Lots of people, check out insanelymac. Hacks are generally faster, especially before the core i series of macs came out.

 

[TheStu]

1: I run all but the point updates like alfa. Though I am using a vanilla kernal (meaning unmodified) I could probably be able to get away with running the point updates.
2: It could, but nothing bad will happen.
3: I am sure that many have. And in many instances the hackintosh will beat out most Apple systems. The difference is that there is a point of diminished returns. Namely if you need an insane amount of parallelization, then there is no hackintosh equivalent to the Mac Pro. You can build a hack (heck, mine probably qualifies) that can keep up with the Mac Pro on single and double threaded applications, but once you get to 4+ threads...

If you follow a good guide, and buy the right parts, you shouldn't have many problems, and you can put one together for very little money compared to most Macs. You lose out on reliable updates, warranties, and things of that nature, but if you, like me wanted to put together a faster Windows system as well as run OS X, then the Hackintosh is the way to go.

 

[Kaido]

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/237322

 

[silverpig]

1. I attempt some of the point updates. Usually it breaks something and I spend a day restoring. Generally, once you have a system up and running, it's best do avoid the OS updates and just do the programs and security patches.

2. Others answered.

3. Others answered. I'm on a Q6600 with 4GB ram and a 7900GS and it performs as you would expect.

 

[Ka0t1x]

1. As with any other system like this, keep a spare drive with a base test install on, and update with the test install.

 

[Zaap]

You don't even need a spare drive, unless you prefer it. When you set a hackintosh up, partition your hard drive into at least two partitions- a backup install partition need only be around 12GB at the smallest, 20GB just to be on the safe side. Then install/setup OSX twice- once to each partition, or do a clone. Chameleon (the most common bootloader) will boot either partition independently. So run any questionable updates on the backup partition before running it on the main.

A Hackintosh is very worthwhile- just follow a few simple common sense 'rules' about updates and you should have no problems. Since 10.5.1 (following my own rule above) I've only ever borked one backup install, and that I believe was the update to 10.5.6. But it didn't effect my main install, so no downtime and no worries.

I somehow doubt Apple cares to waste the enormous resources it would require to track Hackintosh users via updates or whatever. (They may have a method of seeing what types of machines update and flagging hacks just to keep a count of them, but it's doubtful they go beyond that into the realm of tracking individual machines). If it was any big deal, one can always update outside of system update anyway. The reality is, Hackintosh users just add to the ranks of Mac users; we buy Mac software too, and many eventually buy other Apple hardware.

Running benchmark apps: it's surprising how well even an average Hackintosh can perform. You can easily build a system with better components (graphic cards, hard drives, CPU) than Apple offers itself in the majority of its line, for less money. Some of the better i7 builds even come close to rivaling the performance of the dual MacPros for a grand or so less.

For me, the real sweet spot is building machines in the midrange- $600-$1000 that outperform anything in the same price range from Apple, with more expansion options.

As others have said, the most important thing is pick the right hardware that's known to work, and follow a good setup guide. The biggest problems are often people trying to Hackintosh random hardware, or even known-working hardware without properly following instructions.

 

[KeypoX]

1. As with any other system like this, keep a spare drive with a base test install on, and update with the test install.

yeah thats what i do.

 

[Juddog]

Awesome thanks for all of the replies. My main goal is building an upgraded system for the wife, but without the huge cost normally involved. I was thinking about just getting a decent quad core proc with 12 GB of RAM or so and tossing in one of my spare 8800 GT's as the video card, since from what I have read they do well in hackintosh systems. I am planning on using an Intel X-25MG2 SSD as the boot device with a couple secondary drives as the storage area.

Her iMac is starting to hit that performance wall and the newer applications just don't run very well on it, so it sounds like it would be a fun project.