Skip to content

Comment on Building my $1,200 Hackintosh

Comments

I can imagine the thrill of building the coolest Hackintosh ever, with, say, a quad E7 and a terabyte of ram attached to a quad 5K screen arrangement, but it quickly loses appeal when you need a Mac to actually get things done.

Let's say having the ability to run Mac software enables you to increase your monthly revenue by $5K (and that is a very generous overestimation), how much of your time is worth assembling and fixing your own versus buying a reasonable iMac or a MacPro?

Unless you're building apps for iOS or designing things in Photoshop/Illustrator, any form of computer running Linux will do. Bash on Windows might also become a thing once it gets stable, at which point you can choose any form of hardware you want because Windows supports literally everything.

I'm curious why you need a Mac to get things done? Unless your work involves iOS development or a lot of Photoshopping, a standard Ubuntu Desktop installation should do just fine.

"Bash on Windows might also become a thing" - I've been dreaming about this for months. It really looks like a huge threat to Apple: Creative Cloud, BASH, and I don't have to piss around with Bootcamp when I want to play that game.

Cygwin has been there since ever (since, at least, Windows 2000) and it provides a very reasonable unix-like environment on top of Windows. This Ubuntu on Windows play may be faster and more efficient (and, with apt, more convenient) but that's it. It doesn't make possible something that wasn't before.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.