running mac osx

[idiotekniQues]

on a freshly built intel quad-core rig on an intel chipset.


possible?


im trying to find this out before the next couple of months when my gf may overpay for a mac pro when i could build her an equally powerful system for well over 1k less that looks just as sexy from the outside (nice lian-li case)

but she wants to use osx. so can it be done without major issues?

 

[erikistired]

not unless you pirate it. yarr, but hey, it's worth it to teach her a lesson right?

quit being so close minded and let her run what she wants.

 

[idiotekniQues]

im not teaching her a lesson. im savin her over a thousand bucks for the same performance IF she can run OSX.

we arent made of money thank you very much. sure we may spend a lil more here and there, but we are not talking 50-60 bucks, we are talkin over a grand. to her and i that is a ton of money, even though it is for her work.

apple makes you pay for the brand a lot. the hardware is overpriced big-time and you know it.

if there is a legit way to buy osx and run it on a self-built machine i want to know.

 

[KeithP]

The current retail version of OS X does not support Intel based Macs, only PPC models. OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be the first retail version that you can buy that will run on Apple's Intel machines. It is due in the fall. I would guess once that ships, there would be some hacks to allow it to run on non-Apple systems.

Personally, I would just purchase the Mac Pro. Apple may announce new iMacs Tuesday so maybe that might be an option.

When Apple first came out with the Mac Pro, it was cheaper than a similarly configured Dell machine. The biggest problem with the Mac Pro is most people don't need 4 cores or FB-DIMMs. It is a real shame Apple doesn't make a Core2Duo tower using DDR2.

-KeithP

 

[TheStu]

Unless you pirate it, you will not be able to run OS X on a non-Apple system.

What exactly is she going to be doing with teh system? An iMac may suit the bill just fine, and those are significantly cheaper than the Mac Pros. The only real advantage of the Mac Pro, at least when it comes to your average to above average user, is that it is more expandable. The iMac is just as powerful when it comes to running most everything, and if they do update them this week like the rumors say, then expect the price to become more than competitive.

 

[idiotekniQues]

heavy duty photoshopping with 30 megapixel files and many layered 16-bit Tiffs.

i spec'd out a build and a mac pro with 4 cores and 4gb of ram and various other hardcore hardware and the mac was well over 3k.

the iMacs currently are not good enough especially with future proofing.

home build? just about 2k, not even.

she has a monitor already, apple 20".

 

[evetstech]

I did the whole osx86 thing before I got my macbook pro, and I have to say, an equally built will never run as smooth as the native hardware. If she wants osx, I'd say just bite and buy the mac. I barely even use my desktop now, and it's 2x more powerful, and costed me more to build than to buy this macbook pro.

 

[TheStu]

Was the home built as expandable as the Mac Pro? This is more my satisfying my curiosity than trying to poke holes in your idea. The Mac Pro has 2 sockets, 4 PCI-E slots, 8 RAM slots, and 4 Hard drive bays (admittedly, the hard drive bays are easily replicated)

Once they make the Santa Rosa transition on the iMacs, they will be more than sufficient for her needs.

I can run CS3 like a champ on my machine, handling multiple 12MP RAW images at once, while running a VM in the background.

Also, evetstech is right, OSX86 will run no where near as well as buying a mac

 

[dclive]

I have tried building the OS X on Intel setup. It works. It's such a PITA though that I can't imagine anyone wanting to do it.

You'll always have to turn down offered OS X updates, because they'll crater the machine.
Some software you actually want (Quicktime, and more) require later versions of OS X. You won't be able to run them.
Video is never right unless you get one of 2-3 types of gfx cards, and even there, there's some risk.
You never know if some random update or system change is going to crater the machine.

It's just not worth it. Too much hassle. Get the 20" iMac and be done with it.

 

[programmer]

IMO, The Mac Pros while not "cheap", are not too overpriced either, compared to a similarly equipped Dell latitude. But the Apple quality and engineering are amazing. A white Macbook plus a 1GB Crucial SIMM (total 2GB) plus 3 yr extended warranty would be about $1600. I gotta say, though, the Pro is amazing but quite a bit more $$$.

 

[dmw16]

If you google there are a lot of articles out on the net about running OSX on a PC. I have never tried it, but my guess is that it won't run very smoothly and you'll constantly being having my mess around with it.

I recently bought a macbook (after having and building many PCs) and what I love about the Mac is that everything just works. And I think if you try to install OSX on a PC you'll lose that.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: programmer
IMO, The Mac Pros while not "cheap", are not too overpriced either, compared to a similarly equipped Dell latitude. But the Apple quality and engineering are amazing. A white Macbook plus a 1GB Crucial SIMM (total 2GB) plus 3 yr extended warranty would be about $1600. I gotta say, though, the Pro is amazing but quite a bit more $$$.

The Mac Pro is the desktop, the MacBook Pro is the laptop that is in the same class as the Latitude (except you can get workstation cards on the Latitude)

The MacBooks come with matched DIMMs, so you would have to get a 2GB Kit (2*1GB)

 

[dclive]

Matched DIMMs aren't required. Check barefeats or some other Mac sites for more info on benchmarks and the matched DIMM impact. (Brief: In most cases, little or none, if memory serves, but check first if it's critical to you.)

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: dclive
Matched DIMMs aren't required. Check barefeats or some other Mac sites for more info on benchmarks and the matched DIMM impact. (Brief: In most cases, little or none, if memory serves, but check first if it's critical to you.)

I mainly said that MacBooks ship with matched DIMMs, and I have found that it is usually cheaper to get a matched kit than buying the RAM separately unless of course you don't make the immediate jump from 1 to 2 GB

 

[dclive]

Right - My MBP came with 512M, I think, and I just added a 1GB stick.

 

[TheStu]

Ok, so I think that once you disregard everything else in this thread the basic consensuses are:

1) Sure, you can run OS X on non-Apple Hardware, but it is ill-advised due to the possibility of hardware confliction

2) The Mac Pro is very possibly overkill for the situation, and since the iMac is apparently getting refreshed tomorrow (rumor!!!) that is probably your best bang for the buck option when it comes to OS X

 

[bearxor]

Unless your gf is some huge nerdy programmer compiling huge programs, re-encoding HD video or doing major 3D animation, a MacPro is overkill. They are not overpriced, however. They're overpriced if you try to build something equivalent, but certainly not if you try to build something the same. Start trying to throw together a dual-proc Xeon systems together and see how fast you get to $2500. Just two of the procs, the motherboard and RAM put you in to the $2000 range.

iMac FTW.

Running OS X on a PC is possible, but will be nowhere near as stable or complete as Apple-branded hardware.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: bearxor
Unless your gf is some huge nerdy programmer compiling huge programs, re-encoding HD video or doing major 3D animation, a MacPro is overkill. They are not overpriced, however. They're overpriced if you try to build something equivalent, but certainly not if you try to build something the same. Start trying to throw together a dual-proc Xeon systems together and see how fast you get to $2500. Just two of the procs, the motherboard and RAM put you in to the $2000 range.

iMac FTW.

Bingo, the Mac Pro is using some server grade crap and FBDIMMs.. those are freakin expensive. For what it is, it's a decent price actually.

Do you need it? hell no. Apple fails at having any decent midrange. iMac FTW.... I think not.. not for the crowd here. Granted, I have one because I thought I could get away w/ it.. but I'm seconding guessing that now. As I could really use a 24" monitor and dual internal HDDs. I was/am too engrossed in using OSX though, so that won out (and a macbook was too underpowered).

 

[tersome]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
heavy duty photoshopping with 30 megapixel files and many layered 16-bit Tiffs.

i spec'd out a build and a mac pro with 4 cores and 4gb of ram and various other hardcore hardware and the mac was well over 3k.

the iMacs currently are not good enough especially with future proofing.

home build? just about 2k, not even.

she has a monitor already, apple 20".

If cost is such an issue, why not get her an "old" Power Mac G5? My dual 2.5ghz G5 with 4gb ram has handled photos from a Phase One P45 without any problems. Hell, I know someone who still works with an original Power Mac G4 Cube.

Photoshop isn't really all all that demanding, and, IMHO, it's just not worth the cost to be able to add a layer mask .073s faster or whatever.