Who ever would have guessed that installing OS X would be harder than installing Linux, and would have less hardware support? It almost makes me want to giggle.
(Oh, I love how you have to boot into the CLI. If this were Linux, everyone would be up in arms about how unintuitive it is. But if you're hacking OS X, ITS SO SUPER COOL. I am amused.)
That's not quite a fair comparison. Apple isn't presenting OS X as something that's meant to be easy to install on different computers. So of course anything you have to hack to install is going to be tricky.
Sure, I know. You still have to muck around with the command-line, and you don't get full hardware support. People seem perfectly happy to make these compromises to install OS X, but they will whine and whine if it's Linux. What's the difference?
>People seem perfectly happy to make these compromises to install OS X, but they will whine and whine if it's Linux. What's the difference?
Lets see some evidence for this. There are many more Linux users than Hackintosh users, so (using a similarly flawed naive analysis to your own) it seems that Linux users are more willing to put up with compromises.
Different people complaining. It's the people who are new to Linux who complain that it's not easy to install. I would guess the people doing Hackintosh installs have no problems with Linux.
Joe, you've been around longer than I have, but I still feel like it's worth saying: nobody likes these OS dick-waving contests. I'm a Mac user, and I'm in love with my computer, and to me, using it feels like the most magical experience in the world. Like, I just got Quicksilver at long last, and suddenly ever hour I figure something out with it that blows my mind. But that's me. I like the things that OS X provides. You like Linux because it gives you some stuff that you really like. Elsewhere, some guy is using Windows because he really likes the stuff that that does for him.
I understand the sniping elsewhere, but on Hacker News it's unnecessary, and I and other users would really like to see people stop saying stupid stuff like this, and that means people on all sides. We're here because we love talking about stuff and having debates, and there's no debate here, because everybody sees their computer in different ways. So can we go back to saying useful, intelligent things rather than provoking the people on both sides? (For the record, I'm one of these people: when people get antiMac I flip out, and that's not a good thing, and I'm trying to stop getting so involved.)
Why is it always the Mac users that get upset over "dick waving contests"? When someone tells me "Linux sucks" or whatever, I just kind of laugh at them and move on. But if you say "Macs suck" to a Mac user, you get a long lecture about the experience and how awesome it is to use a computer like it's 1995 and blah blah blah (or something, I usually zone out after the first sentence).
Anyway, Mac users (and people that use Linux "to be cool") tend to behave like members of a religious cult. Instead of providing actual reasons for anything, they make up some emotional bullshit to justify their strong feelings for something not worth feeling strongly about.
everybody sees their computer in different ways
Maybe, but it's possible you have settled on something that's acceptable, rather than "the best". Reminding people of this from time to time is not necessarily a bad thing.
Why is it always the Mac users that get upset over "dick waving contests"?
I can't answer for "Mac users", because I'm one person (who, incidentally, has seen more than his share of Linux users get upset over similar contests), but here's how it works for me. I take discussion of stuff like this seriously. When somebody says that an OS sucks, I try to legitimately find out why they dislike the OS, because very often it teaches me something about my computer that I didn't know. So I find myself drawn into every fight that goes like this.
Part of it is because I hate the antiMac backlash that pops up just because it happens to have a very firm following. I love debating OS with people. It's a fascinating subject. I love talking with Windows enthusiasts and Ubuntu enthusiasts: I find out new stuff about their respective systems each time. I like talking about people who legitimately have criticisms for the Mac, because oftentimes it makes me go looking for better solutions to problems I've been having, and that makes me enjoy the experience of using my computer. And when somebody insults the Mac without saying anything meaningful, that sets me on edge. It's like somebody who disses Shakespeare or The Wire (two other things I have passionate feelings about). If they give criticism, it becomes a discussion. If they insult it needlessly, then it becomes personal, because this person is dismissing something that to me is a culmination of a long, long process.
But if you say "Macs suck" to a Mac user, you get a long lecture about the experience and how awesome it is to use a computer like it's 1995 and blah blah blah (or something, I usually zone out after the first sentence).
This is exactly the problem: when I use a Mac it feels awesome. Perhaps you feel the same about Linux, but I never hear Linux users talk like this. When I open my Mac, I feel a sheer childlike joy at the computer I'm using. Every time I find out something new, it's this incredible marvel for me. It's this wonder that somebody else anticipated what I would try to do and made it work that way. As a result, I'm not just a fan of my Mac, I'm an enthusiast. That's the right word for it. I actively talk about my Mac to people. I find it incredibly exciting. When I meet other people as enthusiastic as me, I talk to them about it and it's the thrill of meeting somebody with a similar taste as me. I'd call it the thrill of discussing art. That's how I see my Mac, both the hardware and the OS and pretty much every aspect of Apple. I view the entire thing as a masterful work of art.
Other people don't see computers like this. I'm aware of that. When I open an OS, the first thing I do is drag the cursor on the desktop to make a selection of material, and look at what the OS does when I drag over the initial point. On Windows the line disappears; on Ubuntu the line becomes 1px; on a Mac, with a 3px width the entire selector box moves over 2px as you drag, so that the line on the one side replaces the line on the other side as the boundary. That's the level of introspection I focus on my computer - and I talk about it, too! I was thrilled when I saw that. To me, there's a visual poetry to that one simple action, to the mindset that decided on that course of action. That's a feature, to me. That's something that I find wanting in other operating systems.
Do you at least comprehend that mindset? I understand why you Linux users like Linux. Some mindsets like picking things apart and tinkering with them. I, on the other hand, look for products of human creation. I look for a powerful controlling mind determining everything. I call that the "artist" mindset because every artist I meet has it. It's the feeling you get when you understand that everything you do ought to be plastered with your personality, ought to work according to your mind, and when you start to appreciate the results of other people's minds. When I use my Mac, I don't see it as a tool. I don't open it with the minds...
Last time I had a debate with you, I forgot to tell you that you were crazy :D That's a good thing. I'm crazy too.
I can understand all that you have said
But still, if we look at macs as pieces of art, and get a 40 years old soviet radio, make it in to a pc box, stuff it with hardware, install OSX on it, that would still kick ass. Is that equal to taking the Mona Lisa, writing a graffiti tag on it, and hanging it upside down in your living room, using duck tape? Probably, but its still awesome! You see, chaos is sometimes also an art, not as good art as perfection, but still its pretty cool.
From a marketing standpoint, Linux is priced wrong. It's free, so it attracts people who expect to get something for nothing. A lot of those people walk away disappointed.
Mac users understand that the Mac OS is worth money -- otherwise they'd be Linux users. So they look at a $400 machine running the Mac OS as a huge bargain, and are happy to go through all sorts of pain in exchange for it.
Of course, if the Hackintosh movement catches on there will be a new class of people who -- being too cheap to buy an actual Mac -- will try the Hackintosh route, encounter problems (installation difficulties, subtle bugs that destroy data, apps that don't work, OS upgrades that cause their machines to break) and gripe about it. Which will subtly tarnish Apple's brand. This is why Apple's lawyers are so vicious about this stuff.
> Who ever would have guessed that installing OS X would be harder than installing Linux, and would have less hardware support? It almost makes me want to giggle.
Hardware support is easy if you completely control what hardware you run on.
Anything mac fans say about this might be true, but irrelevant. OS X is better on macs than on pc's, macs are better computers, they feel better, they look better, this IS illegal, etc. But the problem is with choice. Choice is good. And some of us LIKE Dells, imagine that.
Notice the problems that're being stated about hardware failure. You don't get that on Macs because Apple controls exactly what hardware gets used on their computer. That means that their developers can focus on other cool things instead.
In the end, Apple chooses whether or not we have a choice. With their product the best choices are they ones they allow. Outside of that, the choice is between Mac and some other operating system.
All whining about how running OSX on non-apple hardware ruins the "Apple Expiience"... Isn't this supposed for "love" of OS X cannibalizing the exact same thing it is evangelizing?
This is based on the assumption that Apple is able to develop a superior operating system because they can support the effort with hardware sales. If everyone would install their copy of OSX on hardware where Apple doesn't make money, how can they continue to improve OSX?
They might start to license the "right" to run OSX o hardware manufacturers but that would get them into the same compatibility hell Microsoft has gotten themselves into. I can very well understand how they don't want to get into that spot.
It's a nice pass-time and I don't think it hurts anyone given the small scale on which this is happening. Plus it may keep the folks in Cupertino on their toes for coming up with better hardware in the future.
Furthermore, as for the Linux comparisons. This clearly shows how Linux' most glaring deficiency is the lack of a consistent UI experience. There is a heavily fragmented mess bolted on top of dear old X11. It works - sort of - and as long as you stay within your chosen camp (Gnome, KDE...) you might not be off too bad. Sooner or later when you need other applications you'll get into toolkit hell.
Has anyone here done this? I'm thinking of buying either a Mini 9 or Mini 12 with my tax refund and installing OS X. Curious to know what you think / how speedy it is.
The Dell is sold with a maximum of 1gb of RAM, but it can be upgraded to 2 gigs for OSes that aren't limited during compilation to only deal with 1gig (hint: OSX). I know this is true, because I spent thirty bucks and upgraded mine today. It works well.
Nobody said it was a technical requirement. Just that they were "limited". The net result is that netbook manufacturers are selling machines that don't live up to the capabilities of the hardware or the OSes. There are ways around them, and recompiling linux kernels and installing Mac OS are just two of them.
I wonder if such an installation would survive any software updates from Apple. Would Apple in general be able to tell you are not running this on genuine Apple hardware?
Quote from the article:
"and on top of that you'll run into all kinds of problems should you ever want to upgrade your OS or software via Software Update."
it is never completely safe to use software update on a hackintosh. certain files have been hacked to make it work. what if apple sends down a newer version of one of those files, undoing your hacks?
If you're smart you'll use the shareware package inspector, Paranoia, to snoop through the packages and tell you what the update's really doing before applying it.
Most software updates (application updates / security updates / Safari+iTunes+QuickTime will work fine. Its the 10.5.X updates that might break something.
I've been looking into getting a simple Hakcintosh environment to fool around with, and this made me check for how well Hackintosh is supported on the EEE.
50 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 100 ms ] threadWho ever would have guessed that installing OS X would be harder than installing Linux, and would have less hardware support? It almost makes me want to giggle.
(Oh, I love how you have to boot into the CLI. If this were Linux, everyone would be up in arms about how unintuitive it is. But if you're hacking OS X, ITS SO SUPER COOL. I am amused.)
Anyway, all I said was that I find this amusing.
Lets see some evidence for this. There are many more Linux users than Hackintosh users, so (using a similarly flawed naive analysis to your own) it seems that Linux users are more willing to put up with compromises.
Fixed that for you.
I understand the sniping elsewhere, but on Hacker News it's unnecessary, and I and other users would really like to see people stop saying stupid stuff like this, and that means people on all sides. We're here because we love talking about stuff and having debates, and there's no debate here, because everybody sees their computer in different ways. So can we go back to saying useful, intelligent things rather than provoking the people on both sides? (For the record, I'm one of these people: when people get antiMac I flip out, and that's not a good thing, and I'm trying to stop getting so involved.)
Anyway, Mac users (and people that use Linux "to be cool") tend to behave like members of a religious cult. Instead of providing actual reasons for anything, they make up some emotional bullshit to justify their strong feelings for something not worth feeling strongly about.
everybody sees their computer in different ways
Maybe, but it's possible you have settled on something that's acceptable, rather than "the best". Reminding people of this from time to time is not necessarily a bad thing.
I can't answer for "Mac users", because I'm one person (who, incidentally, has seen more than his share of Linux users get upset over similar contests), but here's how it works for me. I take discussion of stuff like this seriously. When somebody says that an OS sucks, I try to legitimately find out why they dislike the OS, because very often it teaches me something about my computer that I didn't know. So I find myself drawn into every fight that goes like this.
Part of it is because I hate the antiMac backlash that pops up just because it happens to have a very firm following. I love debating OS with people. It's a fascinating subject. I love talking with Windows enthusiasts and Ubuntu enthusiasts: I find out new stuff about their respective systems each time. I like talking about people who legitimately have criticisms for the Mac, because oftentimes it makes me go looking for better solutions to problems I've been having, and that makes me enjoy the experience of using my computer. And when somebody insults the Mac without saying anything meaningful, that sets me on edge. It's like somebody who disses Shakespeare or The Wire (two other things I have passionate feelings about). If they give criticism, it becomes a discussion. If they insult it needlessly, then it becomes personal, because this person is dismissing something that to me is a culmination of a long, long process.
But if you say "Macs suck" to a Mac user, you get a long lecture about the experience and how awesome it is to use a computer like it's 1995 and blah blah blah (or something, I usually zone out after the first sentence).
This is exactly the problem: when I use a Mac it feels awesome. Perhaps you feel the same about Linux, but I never hear Linux users talk like this. When I open my Mac, I feel a sheer childlike joy at the computer I'm using. Every time I find out something new, it's this incredible marvel for me. It's this wonder that somebody else anticipated what I would try to do and made it work that way. As a result, I'm not just a fan of my Mac, I'm an enthusiast. That's the right word for it. I actively talk about my Mac to people. I find it incredibly exciting. When I meet other people as enthusiastic as me, I talk to them about it and it's the thrill of meeting somebody with a similar taste as me. I'd call it the thrill of discussing art. That's how I see my Mac, both the hardware and the OS and pretty much every aspect of Apple. I view the entire thing as a masterful work of art.
Other people don't see computers like this. I'm aware of that. When I open an OS, the first thing I do is drag the cursor on the desktop to make a selection of material, and look at what the OS does when I drag over the initial point. On Windows the line disappears; on Ubuntu the line becomes 1px; on a Mac, with a 3px width the entire selector box moves over 2px as you drag, so that the line on the one side replaces the line on the other side as the boundary. That's the level of introspection I focus on my computer - and I talk about it, too! I was thrilled when I saw that. To me, there's a visual poetry to that one simple action, to the mindset that decided on that course of action. That's a feature, to me. That's something that I find wanting in other operating systems.
Do you at least comprehend that mindset? I understand why you Linux users like Linux. Some mindsets like picking things apart and tinkering with them. I, on the other hand, look for products of human creation. I look for a powerful controlling mind determining everything. I call that the "artist" mindset because every artist I meet has it. It's the feeling you get when you understand that everything you do ought to be plastered with your personality, ought to work according to your mind, and when you start to appreciate the results of other people's minds. When I use my Mac, I don't see it as a tool. I don't open it with the minds...
I can understand all that you have said
But still, if we look at macs as pieces of art, and get a 40 years old soviet radio, make it in to a pc box, stuff it with hardware, install OSX on it, that would still kick ass. Is that equal to taking the Mona Lisa, writing a graffiti tag on it, and hanging it upside down in your living room, using duck tape? Probably, but its still awesome! You see, chaos is sometimes also an art, not as good art as perfection, but still its pretty cool.
ps. http://www.kaldata.com/articles.php?action=show&showarti... It runs windows, but it's still super awesome.(Bulgarian language)
you, sir, are certainly not the average Linux fanboy.
Oh, and 2009 is the year of Linux on Desktop. Again.
Mac users understand that the Mac OS is worth money -- otherwise they'd be Linux users. So they look at a $400 machine running the Mac OS as a huge bargain, and are happy to go through all sorts of pain in exchange for it.
Of course, if the Hackintosh movement catches on there will be a new class of people who -- being too cheap to buy an actual Mac -- will try the Hackintosh route, encounter problems (installation difficulties, subtle bugs that destroy data, apps that don't work, OS upgrades that cause their machines to break) and gripe about it. Which will subtly tarnish Apple's brand. This is why Apple's lawyers are so vicious about this stuff.
Hardware support is easy if you completely control what hardware you run on.
given the fact it is purposefully done NOT TO be installed on non-Apple hardware, I guess anyone could easily guess that...
In the end, Apple chooses whether or not we have a choice. With their product the best choices are they ones they allow. Outside of that, the choice is between Mac and some other operating system.
This is based on the assumption that Apple is able to develop a superior operating system because they can support the effort with hardware sales. If everyone would install their copy of OSX on hardware where Apple doesn't make money, how can they continue to improve OSX?
They might start to license the "right" to run OSX o hardware manufacturers but that would get them into the same compatibility hell Microsoft has gotten themselves into. I can very well understand how they don't want to get into that spot.
It's a nice pass-time and I don't think it hurts anyone given the small scale on which this is happening. Plus it may keep the folks in Cupertino on their toes for coming up with better hardware in the future.
Furthermore, as for the Linux comparisons. This clearly shows how Linux' most glaring deficiency is the lack of a consistent UI experience. There is a heavily fragmented mess bolted on top of dear old X11. It works - sort of - and as long as you stay within your chosen camp (Gnome, KDE...) you might not be off too bad. Sooner or later when you need other applications you'll get into toolkit hell.
And an Atom at 1.33GHz won't be well. 1.6GHz barely cuts it with the Air.
What do you mean by this? There is no 1GB memory limit in OS X.
Most software updates (application updates / security updates / Safari+iTunes+QuickTime will work fine. Its the 10.5.X updates that might break something.
http://tigeroneeepc.wikispaces.com/working
I guess I'm not going to bother.