Hakintosh or Macintosh?

[audioslave74]

Hi guys (and girls)

After so many years working with Macintosh on PC's (Remember, Macintosh on PC's), I finally realized the difference between a real Macintosh and a Hakintosh. There is no difference at all.

So I decided to open a thread about this unfair name of Custom building Macintoshes which is HAKINTOSH.

First of all, as Apple decided to distribute her system software for free, I believe it's not a hacking at all. Hacking is when I try to unlock a purchased software. So there is no unlocking here, with serials or any other.

Second as Apple decided to use Intel CPU and chipsets, automatically created another PC machine. All are the same as a PC's hardware. So why I have to give so much money for a "HARDWARE" that is more expensive than a Custom Hardware?
There are many company's that make their own hardware. Such as HP, Dell and so many others. And there are expensive too.

The point is that is not a Hacking OS (HAKINTOSH) as the system is free and I have paid for the hardware. The hacking part is when I have used unlocked purchased Windows.

At the end for me it's a machine that I can make my work with multiple choices of OS's. You don't make a hardware like this only for Macintosh System.
Everything is legal as I have paid for them.

So come on guys, stop using this word HAKINTOSH...

Maybe it's better...Chameleon OS, Multisystem Machine or I dont know!

 

[bomerr]

Apple doesn't give you the OS to do with as you please; go read the terms of service.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Apple doesn't give you the OS to do with as you please; go read the terms of service.

I. Other Use Restrictions. The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. Except as otherwise permitted by the terms of this License or otherwise licensed by Apple: (i) only one user may use the Apple Software at a time, and (ii) you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be run or used by multiple computers at the same time. You may not rent, lease, lend, sell, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software.

 

[zangadao]

The fact is: how % of market share CustoMacs are? Apple doesn't care until the part of this market share affect the financial year. When (if) this point comes, Apple will be create more barriers and lockers for OSX.
Until now, Apple see us like a bunch of crazy guys, students and experimental users (maybe could help Apple) to test hardware and others new techs.
or...
In countries if represents a "dash" in selling numbers on mac hardware, apple doesnt care too. For Apple, this countries doesn't exist. Apple is focus and concern all forces in iPhone.

 

[CaptainKernelPanic]

If the question is "Mac vs. Hack" the answer is always "Hack."

 

[VioletDragon]

If the question is "Mac vs. Hack" the answer is always "Hack."

Not really. A hackintosh isn't native. Some people cant be bothered with all the hassle.

 

[CaptainKernelPanic]

Not really. A hackintosh isn't native. Some people cant be bothered with all the hassle.

You're right. In my personal experience the answer has always been Hack though

 

[gerardvanschip]

I would prefer to buy a real Mac any day but the sad truth is that the iMac's GPU is a joke (laptop GPU) and the Mac Pro is both unaffordable for normal people and very out of date (4 years now). If Apple does a decent small tower that has exchangeable graphics cards I will buy an Apple again.

 

[SteaKnifeBigBro]

I was all about the Hack a few years ago and then I went with some MacBooks for awhile, I resurrected my old Hack and put 10.13 on it, it was last running 10.7. Its been a breath of fresh air to have a desktop OS X machine again.

 

[yummymac]

Hi guys (and girls)

First of all, as Apple decided to distribute her system software for free, I believe it's not a hacking at all. Hacking is when I try to unlock a purchased software. So there is no unlocking here, with serials or any other.

Second as Apple decided to use Intel CPU and chipsets, automatically created another PC machine. All are the same as a PC's hardware. So why I have to give so much money for a "HARDWARE" that is more expensive than a Custom Hardware?
There are many company's that make their own hardware. Such as HP, Dell and so many others. And there are expensive too.

The point is that is not a Hacking OS (HAKINTOSH) as the system is free and I have paid for the hardware. The hacking part is when I have used unlocked purchased Windows.

At the end for me it's a machine that I can make my work with multiple choices of OS's. You don't make a hardware like this only for Macintosh System.
Everything is legal as I have paid for them.

What about someone who figures out how to make a current MacOS function in a non-supported genuine Mac? Is the machine a hackintosh?

As for Windows, the converse of your argument is true. A windows license is purchased but cannot be legally transferred from one machine to another AFAIK i.e. a purchased license cannot be legally migrated to another machine. So if one's current Windows machine fails, MSFT expects the end user to dispose of the license along with the dead machine and buy a new license for a new machine. However, an OEM version of e.g. Win10 can legally be installed once on anything, even a Mac.

The only exception has been Win10. MSFT has aggressively pushed it on licensed users of <=Win8. Given that Win10 is likely the most intrusive manufacturer-designed spyware OS in modern computing history, it's no surprise.

That being said, the only thing better than a hackintosh is having Apple release a standalone MacOS "for the rest of us" that can legally be installed on anything.