0

Anyone have any experience in the OSX86 field (Hackintosh)?

I have one Hackintosh notebook set up, as well as a Vista notebook running OSX86 under VMWare.

Anyone ever used it/heard of it?

(If this type of thread is not allowed, meaning related to illegal activities, please delete it and PM me telling me. Thanks)

6
Contributors
35
Replies
36
Views
11 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by John A
0

Yeah, it is pretty sweet. I actually use it (yeah, I know, I'm a geek) as a main OS. I tend to use it more than Vista...

It's pretty fun to hack drivers and stuff for it. Definitely work the time to get it to work, because you learn so much about kext files and other things.

0

Ahahaha. Are you saying that people who use Macs aren't geeks? Personally, I like hacking Macs more than using them. Macs suck at life (except when I want to record, edit, and share music/edit graphics, then they rock).

0

yeah I am... Mac users (in my biased bigoted opinion that is) are completely clueless on how to actually operate computers. I have heard mac users say "I switched to mac because windows is too complicated." Windows? Complicated? Sure....

0

Yeah, I rarely use my Mac any more. I use my Windows computer a lot, especially since I "borrowed" M-Audio Sessions, tried it out, uninstalled it, and am now going to purchase it, namely so I can have a piece of software legally that is better than GarageBand, and for the cool little dongle that comes with it.

But honestly, Macs suck in general. For one reason really -- Visual. Basic. No, I'm just kidding, but Macs lack a lot of that what Windows has... I mean, sure, GarageBand... You can use Audacity, M-Audio Sessions, Adobe Audition, Ableton Live, etc. to do the same thing. iWeb? Try Publisher, Neo, GoLive, etc. to build websites. iTunes? Ha! It's for Windows too! Safari is too, which I am very happy about. Now, that almighty DOCK! Oh my lord! Try Stardock's applications to emulate the crappy looks of OS X.

And seriously, Macs can't even find the correct side to put the buttons on. And they don't have dropdown menus in applications, that's what truly pisses me off.

As for Windows being complicated, pssh. Try Vista, and you'll see easy to use -- Aside from UAC.

And notice how I mentioned the Windows equivalents of the Mac applications above, like 5+ exist for each Mac application, whereas only one Mac one exist.

No one wants to make Mac users suffer more than they already are with their own Machines. That's why no one writes viruses for Macs... They feel bad for their sucky operating system.

And no one should say "that's not their fault," when you could easily spend $500 less on a better Windows machine with TWO MOUSE BUTTONS (Oh My!).

Macs seem to not have a lot of features to them except fun fun fun! In the work environment, what would you do with a Mac? Write a rap song that explains your lack of work to your boss? When will Apple learn that people aren't children forever...?

0

>Mac users (in my biased bigoted opinion that is) are completely
>clueless on how to actually operate computers.
Which means that obviously Macs aren't very complicated to use.

>I have heard mac users say "I switched to mac because windows is
>too complicated." Windows? Complicated? Sure....
Make up your mind.

>And seriously, Macs can't even find the correct side to put the buttons on.
In other words, Macs can't find the side that you're used to having the buttons on.

>And they don't have dropdown menus in applications
What exactly are you referring to?

>And notice how I mentioned the Windows equivalents of the Mac
>applications above, like 5+ exist for each Mac application,
>whereas only one Mac one exist.
Where's your proof? I find it ironic how a couple of the applications you mentioned as "Windows programs" are also available on the Mac platform.

>No one wants to make Mac users suffer more than they already
>are with their own Machines. That's why no one writes viruses for Macs...
Prove it.

>you could easily spend $500 less on a better Windows machine
>with TWO MOUSE BUTTONS (Oh My!).
Just curious, would you mind pointing to an example where this is the case? I'm also interested to hear what you define as "better".

>In the work environment, what would you do with a Mac?
Work with it? Are Macs incapable of being useful in a work environment? That's news to me, and likely a lot of other individuals that use Macs on a daily basis at work.

0

Yeah, I rarely use my Mac any more. I use my Windows computer a lot, especially since I "borrowed" M-Audio Sessions, tried it out, uninstalled it, and am now going to purchase it, namely so I can have a piece of software legally that is better than GarageBand, and for the cool little dongle that comes with it.

But honestly, Macs suck in general. For one reason really -- Visual. Basic. No, I'm just kidding, but Macs lack a lot of that what Windows has... I mean, sure, GarageBand... You can use Audacity, M-Audio Sessions, Adobe Audition, Ableton Live, etc. to do the same thing. iWeb? Try Publisher, Neo, GoLive, etc. to build websites. iTunes? Ha! It's for Windows too! Safari is too, which I am very happy about. Now, that almighty DOCK! Oh my lord! Try Stardock's applications to emulate the crappy looks of OS X.

And seriously, Macs can't even find the correct side to put the buttons on. And they don't have dropdown menus in applications, that's what truly pisses me off.

As for Windows being complicated, pssh. Try Vista, and you'll see easy to use -- Aside from UAC.

And notice how I mentioned the Windows equivalents of the Mac applications above, like 5+ exist for each Mac application, whereas only one Mac one exist.

No one wants to make Mac users suffer more than they already are with their own Machines. That's why no one writes viruses for Macs... They feel bad for their sucky operating system.

And no one should say "that's not their fault," when you could easily spend $500 less on a better Windows machine with TWO MOUSE BUTTONS (Oh My!).

Macs seem to not have a lot of features to them except fun fun fun! In the work environment, what would you do with a Mac? Write a rap song that explains your lack of work to your boss? When will Apple learn that people aren't children forever...?

I think your getting a tad to cozy with windows. I personally like windows more than mac, not that that is saying much for the sole reason of the awful docking bar. Its just distracting to have it move all the time. (I have actually only worked with a mac for several hours so you probably can change this..) I heard somewhere that you can have macs run X11 as its default graphical server... maybe then I would like macs... (but for now I will just stick with linux)

0

>I think your getting a tad to cozy with windows.
May I ask, is there anything wrong with that?

>Its just distracting to have it move all the time.
I don't think dock magnification is even turned on by default. You have to manually enable it.

>I have actually only worked with a mac for several hours
You're criticizing an operating system that you've only used for an hour? So that's how you know all the faults of Macs. :icon_rolleyes:

>I heard somewhere that you can have macs run X11 as its default
>graphical server
You can run X11.app, which enables you to run X11 applications right on top of Aqua (OS X's interface). It's even possible to run window managers like KDE or Gnome over top of the OS X desktop, but I don't think it's possible to use X11 as the sole window manager on OS X, or if it's possible, it's not easy.

0

Wow, joeprogrammer, slept on the wrong side of the bed last night?

What do you use on a regular basis, may I ask?

0

>Wow, joeprogrammer, slept on the wrong side of the bed last night?
Who said that I slept last night? :P

>What do you use on a regular basis, may I ask?
At the moment, Mac and Linux.

0

Exactly, you need sleep. You're hallucinating that Mac is good!

I do have a question for you, since you use Linux as a main OS...

How well will an emulated version of Ubuntu (VMWare) work work my wireless card (Intel PRO) and Audio card (Realtek), right when I install it?

How can anyone think that Macs work as well as Windows? No offense.

0

>Exactly, you need sleep. You're hallucinating that Mac is good!
I don't recall ever saying in this thread that Mac is good. What I do remember is you saying that Mac was bad, and me pointing out the flaws in your logic, something I like to do a lot in debates.

>How well will an emulated version of Ubuntu (VMWare) work work
>my wireless card (Intel PRO) and Audio card (Realtek), right when I
>install it?
Assuming that your base operating system (Windows in this case?) works with your wireless and audio hardware already, it should be pretty well hitch-free getting Ubuntu to recognize the virtual hardware that VMWare emulates.

>How can anyone think that Macs work as well as Windows?
How can anyone think that Macs don't work as well as Windows?

0

My sound doesn't work, it says "Failed to connect to the sound server..."

Any suggestions?

0

>You're criticizing an operating system that you've only used for an hour? So that's how you know all the faults of Macs.

Im not. I am saying that based on my experience (however short it may be), I like mac a lot less than windows. But I despise windows (for technical and moral reasons, mostly technical), which I have had a fair amount of experience with (~5 years).

Lets just say (something I don't think even you can refute) that mac and windows offer less freedom than linux. I liking freedom, prefer linux. Others who are not as technically inclined as I am, might prefer another operating system.

0

>My sound doesn't work, it says "Failed to connect to the sound server..."
What hardware did you select for VMWare to emulate?

>I am saying that based on my experience (however short it may
>be), I like mac a lot less than windows.
This is what can happen when you compare an operating system that you've used for a long time to one that you've used for maybe a few days.

>But I despise windows (for technical and moral reasons
Uh, moral reasons? Care to elaborate?

>Lets just say (something I don't think even you can refute) that mac
>and windows offer less freedom than linux.
To programmers and hackers, yes. Regular users, not so much.

>haha.. Joe has to come in, and back up his MAC
Actually, now that I think about it, I believe I've backed up Mac, Linux, and Windows in debates at some point or another. My debate policy is as follows: with strong opinions must come strong reasoning. If I don't believe that an individual has strong enough logic to support their claims, I defend whatever they attack.

0

Hmm, well I guess hardware isn't the problem, then. :-)

I know this sounds stupid, but what happens when you actually try playing something through a media player? In the past, I've occasionally had that error message when logging into KDE/Gnome about not being able to connect to the sound server, yet still had my sound system work fine.

0

>I'm actually using VMWare PLAYER, so I used a premade appliance. It has an 8GB Hard drive, and I got it frommmm...

why are you using that? VMware server is free!

0

>Uh, moral reasons? Care to elaborate?

Sure. I believe that closed source software is immoral. By with holding its source, companies, I believe, are violating a basic human right, the right to information. Violating this basic human right, as is violating any human right, is immoral and detrimental to a perfect community or society. Many people would disagree that the right to information is a basic human right by using weak arguments such as "you can live without information." If you live in a state of ignorence, you are not truly living. Instead of just marketing their shody software, Microsoft actively pushes it to be the de facto standard, not by improving it, but either 1) paying off other companies to use their product (A good example is how microsoft actually paid companies to use their inferior live search product) or/and 2) by destroying the competition with 'embrace and destroy' tactics. This brings up of a interesting true story.

My teacher at school brought to my attention a local writing competition. Being a good writer (If I do say so myself ;-p) I decided to look over the competition requirements. I was shocked to find out that the essays had to be in the proprietary doc format. What sense does this make? Why do they forgo open ISO\ANSI standards such as the odt (actually I use latex which exports in the venerable and open dvi and ps formats) format? Why does most of the world trust a company that is decidedly unaltruistic? The power that Microsoft wields is both enormous and dangerous, and thus I believe that Microsoft is more powerful than most countries in the world.

How does Microsoft hold onto its power you may ask? Just like the slave owners of the 1800's held on to their slaves. By propaganda and fear. It is a common misconception that most whites in America owned slaves. In fact the slave owning percentage I believe is something like 1% (I might be wrong). In fact, slavery denied jobs to lower class citizens. But the slave owners duped the populace by using FUD tactics such that "blacks are inferior" or "blacks represent the devil on earth." Sound familiar? Such like the "Linux is communism" or "Linux is against capitalism" statements that Microsoft makes?

0

Sure. I believe that closed source software is immoral. By with holding its source, companies, I believe, are violating a basic human right, the right to information.

The right to information that isn't yours? The right to information that companies poured millions of dollars into creating?

My teacher at school brought to my attention a local writing competition. Being a good writer (If I do say so myself ;-p) I decided to look over the competition requirements. I was shocked to find out that the essays had to be in the proprietary doc format.

Oh, how horrible! That means you'll have to go out and buy Microsoft Word before you can read or write to the .doc format! That is really unfair.

What sense does this make? Why do they forgo open ISO\ANSI standards such as the odt (actually I use latex which exports in the venerable and open dvi and ps formats) format?

Them being writers, not open source geeks, have probably never even heard of other formats such as the Open Document Textfile.

How does Microsoft hold onto its power you may ask? Just like the slave owners of the 1800's held on to their slaves. By propaganda and fear. It is a common misconception that most whites in America owned slaves. In fact the slave owning percentage I believe is something like 1% (I might be wrong). In fact, slavery denied jobs to lower class citizens. But the slave owners duped the populace by using FUD tactics such that "blacks are inferior" or "blacks represent the devil on earth." Sound familiar? Such like the "Linux is communism" or "Linux is against capitalism" statements that Microsoft makes?

That is really sad.

0

>The right to information that isn't yours? The right to information that companies poured millions of dollars into creating?

As I said, I believe information is for everyone.

>oh, how horrible! That means you'll have to go out and buy Microsoft Word before you can read or write to the .doc format! That is really unfair.

Why do I want to buy software that I will probably never use? If anything its encouraging me to pirate it.

>That is really sad.

Care to elaborate?

>Them being writers, not open source geeks, have probably never even heard of other formats such as the Open Document Textfile.

Exactly. Microsoft makes money off the unequality of information.

0

>As I said, I believe information is for everyone.
You believe that even after pouring millions of dollars into creating source code, it's still not a company's right to keep it? While open source is definitely a nice thing, you've got a pretty screwed perspective if you believe that it's immoral not to release source code that people have spent years of labor to produce. Just how do you expect software companies to make a profit releasing the source code for their programs? (To be fair, it is possible to make a profit using open source, but unlikely for game companies such as EA who create thousands of games.)

>Why do I want to buy software that I will probably never use?
My point was that you don't need to buy Microsoft Word to be able to use the .doc format. :icon_rolleyes:

>Care to elaborate?
Comparing Microsoft to slave owners. And, Microsoft has even partnered up with Novell/SuSE. Would you mind giving some references of those remarks about Microsoft claiming Linux is communism and against capitalism?

>Exactly. Microsoft makes money off the unequality of information.
I'm sure that if Microsoft Office were inferior to OpenOffice, .odt would soon become a well-known format.

0

>Comparing Microsoft to slave owners. And, Microsoft has even partnered up with Novell/SuSE. Would you mind giving some references of those remarks about Microsoft claiming Linux is communism and against capitalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/31/ms_ballmer_linux_is_communism/
http://techoped.com/2007/03/01/tech-moronique-steve-ballmers-nuggets-with-cheese/

to name a few.

Oh and Microsofts strategy is called "embrace and destroy"

>I'm sure that if Microsoft Office were inferior to OpenOffice, .odt would soon become a well-known format.

It is becoming well known. The Microsoft empire is crumbling. But with that said I believe Microsoft office is the superior product.

>o be fair, it is possible to make a profit using open source, but unlikely for game companies such as EA who create thousands of games.

Actually I think it is almost ok to make a proprietary game (it doesn't become the standard, its for entertainment, etc.)

>My point was that you don't need to buy Microsoft Word to be able to use the .doc format.

I would prefer not to use open office.

>While open source is definitely a nice thing, you've got a pretty screwed perspective if you believe that it's immoral not to release source code that people have spent years of labor to produce.

A harmful practice is harmful whether you spend 1 day or 1 year working on it.

Very sorry for the weak post in advance. I am a tad busy right now.

0

Balmer's a bit of a clown and a huge fool; I don't really consider anything he says to be very credible or an accurate representation of Microsoft. Bill Gates never took this stance against open source. He truly was the real spirit of Microsoft.

>But with that said I believe Microsoft office is the superior product.

So it's kind of hard to imagine OpenOffice taking over Microsoft Office in this current circumstance, isn't it?

>I would prefer not to use open office.

Just about every word processor I know has the ability to export to MS Word.

>Actually I think it is almost ok to make a proprietary game (it
>doesn't become the standard, its for entertainment, etc.)

I don't see what your problem is with Microsoft and other proprietary software. Software companies are trying to make a profit from the software that they've put money into creating, no one's forcing you to buy it. If you want access to source code, find a different program that is open source. It's called free choice. Just like software companies should have free choice whether or not to release their source code. And I think that taking away free choice is far worse than not being able to see the innards of the program that you're using. You know, like Narue said in another thread, most people don't even know what open source is, and if you were to explain to them what it is, they wouldn't give a rip.

0

>Balmer's a bit of a clown and a huge fool; I don't really consider anything he says to be very credible or an accurate representation of Microsoft. Bill Gates never took this stance against open source. He truly was the real spirit of Microsoft.

Um he is the CEO. Bill Gates doesn't need to take a stance on open source because Ballmer does it for him.

>So it's kind of hard to imagine OpenOffice taking over Microsoft Office in this current circumstance, isn't it?

Yes I would say so. But I think a free and slightly inferior office suit is more appealing to a slightly superior office suit that costs money.

>Just about every word processor I know has the ability to export to MS Word.

I prefer not to use a word processor in general. As I said before I use emacs and latex. (very good typesettings btw)

>I don't see what your problem is with Microsoft and other proprietary software. Software companies are trying to make a profit from the software that they've put money into creating, no one's forcing you to buy it.

Actually they are. Microsoft and other companies are pushing there software to be the standard. By doing this they are destroying free choice. Microsoft is a monopoly that eliminates choice by eliminating the competition. Except they face a problem with linux, that it is not a company. So they strike deals with Novell, Xandros, and Linspire. (I think?) Embrace and Destroy. And destruction is exactly what will happen when the deals are over and the open source community isn't working with any of the above companies. Instead of offering a superior product, Microsoft tries to scare companies into complying. It is a good that Red Hat and Canonical are refusing to be pushed around. I hardly call this freedom. (and regardless open source software creates a lot more freedom than it takes away)

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.