20 ms·

Modern “Hackintoshes” show that Apple should probably just build a Mac tower

197 points by Errorcod3 9y ago

iplaw 9y ago
This is what they used to do with the venerable Mac Pro tower, built as recently as Mid 2012. The heavy gauge aluminum construction was a work of art. People pick up Mac Pro G5 shells and use them to build tables, benches, etc. I am hoping that Apple returns to this sort of design philosophy. It's quite frustrating that many of their iMacs are not (easily) user upgradable. Upgrading an HDD to an SSD requires cutting adhesive, suction cups to remove the display, disconnecting not-meant-to-be-disconnected cables from comically delicate sockets, and similar feats of delicacy. The Mac Pro redesign applied the same sort of anti-consumer bullshit.
- mjn 9y ago
  The current philosophy is pretty solidly in line with the historical Apple design philosophy, so I wouldn't necessarily expect it to change. The iMac is basically today's evolution of the original Mac [1], a single-piece computer/monitor combination with no user-serviceable parts. Jobs said in 1984 that hardware customization is unnecessary to support, because "customization really is mostly software now". The Mac Pro towers were pretty different, but if anything they were the aberration, going in a more Unix workstation direction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K
  - iainmerrick 9y ago
    You're cherry-picking. That is definitely one of Apple's design philosophies, and it has definitely worked very well for the iPhone and iPad. But not all their computers have followed that style. The Mac II launched in 1987(!) and was very influential. And as the earlier commenter mentioned, before the "trash can" redesign, the Mac Pro was easy to open and had plenty of ports. Trying to apply that sealed appliance approach to every single product is sometimes a mistake, as demonstrated by the Mac Pro misstep.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      The recent MacPro was only a misstep in that they bet on CPU/GPU design zigging instead of zagging. It was a technically beautiful machine (still is, really) but their choices meant it became impossible to update. If the market had gone the other way we'd likely be talking about the 2016 MacPro instead.
      - iainmerrick 9y ago
        But they didn't have to make a bet at all. They wanted to make a tiny, silent Pro machine to make a statement, but nobody seems to have cared much about that. I haven't seen a single person saying "I hope the new Pro is still really really small, even if that means it's more expensive and less expandable!"
        abritinthebay 9y ago
        > But they didn't have to make a bet at all. Sure, neither does anyone... on anything. If the bet had succeeded though we'd all be calling them geniuses and suchlike. If no-one made bets like that we'd still have boring beige boxes. Hell the original Mac was a bet like that (the design was radical at the time). The MacPro is an awesome machine. Everyone I know that has used one loves it. That's great for a pro-machine. That's exactly what Apple likes to do - create hardware that people love They lost the bet, but it was a good bet to make. I'll take a company that makes bets like that over one that doesn't, long term.
        iainmerrick 9y ago
        Sorry, I was unclear about the "bet". I don't mean they shouldn't take risks, more that in this case it would have been easy to hedge the bet -- launch a bigger expandable box at the same time. In their recent discussions around the upcoming redesign, it sounds like they didn't realize they were making a bet at all. If they had, they should have monitored it more closely and been a lot quicker out of the gate with the redesign. A possible defence is that Apple had other priorities at the time, and wasn't paying full attention to the Pro. But it's mystifying why the world's biggest company by market cap can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The MacPro is an awesome machine. Everyone I know that has used one loves it. It's funny it hasn't been more successful, then! Although I certainly believe you. It's definitely possible for it to be popular with a niche while failing in the wider market.
lightedman 9y ago
Apple did. It came with a G5 processor. Most people didn't want to pay the exorbitant prices that Apple wanted them to pay for things like Apple-compatible AGP graphics cards and such when PCs got the same thing at literally 1/3 the price, and they pretty quickly fell into irrelevance. Apple would probably go the exact same route as they did the last time and fail just as miserably.
- ericfrederich 9y ago
  Wasn't this use case exactly what was part of their justification for switching to Intel?... the ability to keep up faster.
  - lightedman 9y ago
    They certainly did not keep up. Their equipment has been behind as far as I can tell when I worked for them starting back in the G3 days, and that's including after the intel switch.
panglott 9y ago
Why not allow developers to build their own Macs? The situation today in completely different than 1995-1996, when Apple briefly allowed Macintosh clones, before Jobs killed the project because they were cannibalizing Apple's high-end desktop sales. Now high-end desktop sales are such a small part of Apple's line that they let the products stagnate for years. Are Mac Pro motherboards really going to compete with notebook sales?
- eddieroger 9y ago
  Drivers. Apple likes the control over the hardware and software, and packages all of the drivers needed to run macOS on any blessed instance of Apple hardware currently supported (and maybe even ever created, since Intel). If you wanted, and I have done this before, you can clone a Mac made HDD and boot it from any other Mac you can get your hands on, and other than the hardware swap it's basically a reboot. If Apple let me build a tower and drop anything I wanted in to it, they can't guarantee that anymore, and even if it's just amongst developers, it hurts their brand experience.
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    If it's for developers they don't have to guarantee it. I'm happily running a hackintosh right now. If they made it a little easier we wouldn't have to do weird hacks to spoof hardware ids just so messages work.
    - 542458 9y ago
      I think the iOS "developer previews" have shown that even if you label something as being "unstable and just for developers" you'll still end up with thousands upon thousands of people with no idea what they're doing running it anyways and subsequently being vocally horrified that not everything works perfectly.
      - dawnerd 9y ago
        The difference is those people would now have to build hardware instead of just opening itunes and hitting install. You really think those users could get past the bios setup stage?
walterbell 9y ago
HP has stepped up to compete with the sealed Mac Mini. Their "Z2 Mini Workstation" is small, has user upgradeable RAM/disk, optional Xeon and Nvidia GPU, and can drive six monitors, http://www8.hp.com/us/en/workstations/z2mini.html http://www8.hp.com/us/en/workstations/z2mini.html
- icefox 9y ago
  Can you run OS X on it?
- hengheng 9y ago
  Laptops have roughly the same performance as that.
- avtar 9y ago
  Have you used this and can comment on what the driver support experience is like? I was eyeing the new HP Zbook Studio G4 laptop since it checks most of the boxes where the current 15" MBP is lacking (matte display, 32 gigs RAM, upgradeable components) but after doing a quick "Zbook driver issues" search I'm not so sure anymore.
- justinclift 9y ago
  Looking at the specs, none of the Z2 configurations have ECC memory. That's extremely disappointing for a "workstation". :(
  - walterbell 9y ago
    ECC memory is available when you select a Xeon CPU.
    - justinclift 9y ago
      Ahhh thanks, didn't notice that. :)
melling 9y ago
Do we really need a full tower? Isn't most of the space in a traditional PC "trash can" form factor wasted? The graphics card size would need to change, but it would be great if we could shrink the case and still have all the power of a desktop.
- rcarmo 9y ago
  You can build a very nice and compact machine with a relatively small footprint using off-the-shelf components: https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2016/12/17/1840 https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2016/12/17/1840 ...integrated graphics are plenty good enough for a lot of use cases, but you're right in assuming the graphics card would need to change. Current GPUs require a lot of extra power and cooling that requires a (mini-)tower form factor...
  - kawsper 9y ago
    Someone should pre-build these machines, and just ship them without OSX.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      Yeah that was tried about 15 years ago. Much legal hammering occurred.
      - itomato 9y ago
        That was because Psystar advertised and sold the machines with Mac OS installed.
- rtkwe 9y ago
  Full towers have a couple benefits against smaller cases, thermals and space for expansion (internal hdd's, additional graphics cards, etc.). Smaller cases really suffer from lack of expansion space and often severely restrict the components you can use just based on the volume you can work with.
protomyth 9y ago
How about Apple create a "Custom Hardware" program ala their Developer program and basically charge $99+ a year for a legal install usb image. Then they can skip building a Pro and concentrate on the portables and iMac they like.
- imron 9y ago
  Because the cost for supporting random hardware will probably run to more than they make from running such a program. Not to mention Apple doesn't seem to care about the developer and/or professional consumer anymore.
  - walterbell 9y ago
    There is a middle ground between "random hardware" and one Apple device, clearly evidenced by the Hackintosh community. The difference is that Apple can more effectively support a whitelist of components than the Hackintosh community that is already doing it on a volunteer basis.
  - grandalf 9y ago
    Even if once each year Apple picked a "blessed" list of commodity hardware (one motherboard, one graphics card, etc.) that was supported, it would still be a major improvement over the status quo. Apple could pick partly based on the MSRP of the hardware or charge a licensing fee to the winner. It's just such a shame that getting a high performance desktop that runs OSX is such a hassle.
  - dawnerd 9y ago
    Just offer no support or set a rate to variety for it.
  - protomyth 9y ago
    > Because the cost for supporting random hardware will probably run to more than they make from running such a program. What support? NeXT once had a fax that they sent you with the listed hardware that it worked on. Its even easier now that Intel has shut out all third-party motherboard chipsets. Your paying for legality, not support.
Shivetya 9y ago
There is a lot of opportunity for Apple to still make a design statement with a tower. One that people willingly display. The key is that is not only does it need to look good but cooling fans need to be deathly quiet. Then offer it up in aluminum or black enclosure. Dimensions are pretty much locked down by what types of video card technology they wish to support, really would love a new solution that doesn't use the typical slots we still have today. With regards to the mini, my only beef was when I wanted to integrate with my home theater white boxes just don't fit. It had to hide.
peatmoss 9y ago
For people wed to commercial design apps, I can totally understand the draw of running macOS on commodity hardware. But as someone who skews more to the hacker end of the spectrum and doesn't depend on commercial software, the day-to-day qualitative experience of Linux is head and shoulders above macOS these days. Ditto OpenBSD, etc. I'll never go back. At least it does if you've already come around to using a desktop formfactor. For me I get lots of physical RAM (R / Pandas) a mechanical keyboard, and one of those straight-out-of-the-90s Logitech marble mouses that you'll pry from my cold dead fingers. Hardware support in Linux/*BSD for any Intel graphics based system is a total non-issue.
- Xyzodiac 9y ago
  It's not just design, there's also a heavy reliance on Mac only (or at least Mac and Windows only) pro video and audio programs. I will say though, I've always loved running Linux on desktops where this isn't the use case.
  - radium3d 9y ago
    We do have DaVinci resolve and natron.fr available free now which are better than any I've used before so video editing in Linux is improving.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >It's not just design, there's also a heavy reliance on Mac only (or at least Mac and Windows only) pro video and audio programs. It's even more so in programming. Go to any developer conference, whether it's for Rails, C, Java, Haskell or whatever: a huge percentage there will have MacBook Pros, much much more than the percentage of Mac users in the general market (e.g 10% in the general market and 40 to 60% in developer circles). Which goes to say how silly the notion that "Mac's are for users who don't know about computers" is. Macs are for users who want a working GUI and/or a UNIX subsystem, and don't want to do any self-building and/or tinkering.
    - peatmoss 9y ago
      > "Mac's are for users who don't know about computers" I honestly haven't heard that argument in years from anyone I'd consider in touch with the current state of tech. And for a decade I was right there with you on the OSX == *nix plus creature comforts. But the landscape has changed since that argument held sway for me. Linux has gotten way less fiddly, and the size of my scripts to keep macOS on the straight and narrow has gotten larger.
paulrpotts 9y ago
Absolutely. I have a 2008 Mac Pro and it is still going strong, an absolute workhorse of a machine with 4 hard drives; incredibly reliable. At least, it was incredibly reliable with Snow Leopard, but MacOS X has been a bit downhill from there as far as reliability of the audio subsystem. The only real downsides to this machine have been that it is loud, which is problematic when using it for recording. But I would happily buy a modernized version of the same machine, and I'd be _especially_ happy to do so if it was much quieter. If Apple offered me a dead-silent Mac Mini, even one with not much CPU capability, I would use it for tracking -- that is, right in the room where I'm recording. Also for Skype stuff for podcast recording, and streaming; probably two of them. These machines don't need to have a lot of CPU to record; they only have to do a modest amount of live audio processing. They don't have to run dozens to hundreds of instances of plug-ins like when I'm mixing. Then the Mac Pro can go in the room where I'm mixing and mastering. So quiet is important but dead silence in the Pro is not really a requirement for me.
- covercash 9y ago
  I helped my friend run conduit last week to solve this exact problem... a 100'($500) thunderbolt cable lets him keep the machine and storage in a separate room outside of the studio. Probably cost close to $600 when you factor in the conduit materials and the Korean BBQ wings he fed me!
kirykl 9y ago
You dont need a hackintosh to run a great mac for cheap(er). I picked up a 2012 mac mini off CL with 2.5 i5 and dropped in a SSD and maxed RAM to 16GB. Runs silent in a small package. Also added a 28" 4K off craigslist (although it'll only drive up to 2k). All for under $900
- wand3r 9y ago
  A $900 hackintosh could have a modest GPU and Skylake i7.
- danieldk 9y ago
  The Late 2012 was a great model. Easily accessible memory as in previous all-aluminum generations and replacing the hard disk is just a few screws. I also have a Late 2012 with 16GB RAM and SSD (500GB) like you. I bought it new for IIRC 600 Euro. So, it's been a great investment --- had it almost five years now and it still flies. I really hope that they'll make a new Mac Mini extensible like the 2012 again.
post_break 9y ago
Honestly, Apple should make a Mac tower, and then incentivize graphic card manufacturers to write drivers. Imagine a Mac with not last years cards, but current generation cards. No custom bios BS like they had before, just buy a card, put it in, install the driver.
- wand3r 9y ago
  As of last week newer (newest?) NVIDIA GPUs work and are supported for hackintosh and presumably Mac desktops
  - kondro 9y ago
    Probably because you could just dump them in an external TB case and get close to internal performance from them.
  - post_break 9y ago
    So once, in the past like 10 years have we been able to run a newish gpu.
emersonrsantos 9y ago
If Apple can put an authentication chip in a phone cable, what is stopping them to lock down macos? They don't want to do that.
- INCOG_THE_TROLL 9y ago
  It's easier to work around if it's a general purpose computer.
- hbosch 9y ago
  They have this in the form of a legal note, don't they? Last I heard it was technically "illegal" to run macOS on anything other than Apple hardware per the TOS. Or is that just an urban legend?
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Not illegal, just against the EULA. Basically they could revoke your usage of the software and probably legally fine you. It is a software license issue. Technically it would be something like unlicensed distribution/copying. Practically speaking they don't care though. The machine building market is vanishingly small and the licensing gives Apple plausible "we never said it would work" deniability.
    - robhu 9y ago
      I think the illegal bit is using an illegal copy of their OS to install as you don't hold the copyright and so aren't allowed to make a (modified) copy of the installer that works on the non-Apple hardware.
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        Potentially. Of course if you're just downloading a modified version then it's not you that modified it. It's a bit of a strange area. Either way - it's not illegal due to any specific thing Apple does. Other copyright/IP law may apply though.
eli 9y ago
I'm not sure it follows that Apple should build it just because some people want it. Some people build Hackintoshes because they like building things or they want to save money. Neither would be addressed by an official tower.
- bischofs 9y ago
  Well to me it is important to remember who the people are that want it - These are professionals and developers that create applications for the OS (mobile and desktop) as well as creatives who have kept Apple afloat in rough times. I would think there is strategic value in keeping these people somewhat happy.
- soylentcola 9y ago
  As a counterpoint, they also build them because they want the software/OS but Apple doesn't sell a machine with the hardware to run it. Your only options are notebooks, all-in-ones (essentially notebooks built into monitors), basic lightweight desktop computers, or outdated workstations with limited hardware and expandability. There's clearly a market for high powered desktop workstations but you can't currently buy the best hardware if you want it to (officially) run MacOS.
kstenerud 9y ago
Can anyone tell me their experiences running a virtual hackintosh? In my current job I don't need a mac anymore, so I'm switching to a NUC which I'm thinking it'll be best to run Qubes on. But I do have existing mac/ios projects that I'd like to support, thus the need for a virtual hackintosh.
- marceldegraaf 9y ago
  I've tried running OS/X in VMWare on Windows. Technically it works fine but there's no video acceleration and that's annoying enough to not make it a viable option for me.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  It's better to dual boot. As mentioned graphics acceleration doesn't work which breaks a surprising amount of things. There's a good chance it will work on a NUC.
- tengbretson 9y ago
  I've had great success running kvm as a host and macOS as a client and passing through hardware to get good performance. That said, this is on a dual socket xeon board and not a NUC, so ymmv.
bischofs 9y ago
I wonder what the OS and software guys at Apple think about the lack of options in their own hardware department. It must be a little frustrating to be invested into the software as a developer but know that a lot of pro users (people like themselves) are moving away from the platform.
vbezhenar 9y ago
May be it's just me, but I don't really care about design at all. I'm perfectly fine with huge tower or some reasonable fan noise. What I care is price, durability, extendability, repairability, and, of course, performance. I'm not really into macOS, I can use Linux or Windows just fine, but macOS is not that bad. I'm actually opposed to thin things or design aberrations like trash can mac. I'm paying for that after all, with money or engineering trade-offs. The best of both worlds would be officially supported hackintosh (that is, curated list of hardware parts, which are guaranteed to work for some reasonable period (15 years or something like that). But I don't think that would happen, Apple is greedy corporation and wants piece of pie from everything.
- azeirah 9y ago
  > Maybe it's just me It is. I don't care a lot about design either (although I care a lot about user experience), but many people /do/ care for design, and are willing to pay a premium to get that design.
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    Honest question: what percent of Pro Mac users care more about design than performance? I get that lots of creatives (who might care about design) use Macs, but in the Pro community the sense I get is that performance (and expandability) are relatively more important. That's why the trash can Mac Pro was not particularly popular, to say the least.
    - potatolicious 9y ago
      The trash can Mac Pro is definitely too much form for too little function - but letting the pendulum swing back the other way is IMO also bad. The previous tower Mac Pros are massive machines - massive beyond the point of practicality for many purposes. They're also insanely heavy to the point of impracticality. Not all pros want/can live with something 3 feet tall that consumes several square feet of floor space. The "right" path forward for the pro-desktop Mac is IMO something in between - something that maximizes extensibility and versatility without completely embracing the gigantor-ATX-case-on-the-floor direction. I'm wondering about the practicality of something more like mini-ITX - small enough to be practical, but allowing access to all the core bits (RAM, CPU, GPU, HDDs).
resoluteteeth 9y ago
I wonder if Apple would prefer to simply not be selling computers at all at this point, but can't stop without seriously hurting their image.
- deelowe 9y ago
  They've been pretty open recently that the issue with their desktop platform is that the trashcan design assumed SLI would be the future. It isn't.
toddmorey 9y ago
Boy did they drop the football in this area. I always thought the advantage to making the switch to more common PC architectures was the ability to keep pace and support a wider array of components and technologies. Instead, they over-designed the enclosure and froze the high-end range of the platform. Creating a simple, but reliable tower design (optimized for speed rather than size) would have been extremely well received, would be nearly free money, and would have done wonders for the brand and their connection to creative pros. Most of the pros I work with in the industry have gone from loving the mac to tolerating the mac. They are certainly looking around. I don't love Windows, but I have to admit that the Adobe Creative Suite now sings on a modern Windows machine.
- iamatworknow 9y ago
  Deleted this comment because it's apparently rubbing people the wrong way that I experienced poor performance using Adobe programs on a Windows machine and decided to share that experience.
  - jayd16 9y ago
    Could be the disk speed.
    - iamatworknow 9y ago
      No disk drive. Running off of an ADATA Premier SP600 256 gig SSD, which is supposed to have 540MB/s read, 290MB/s write.
      - copperx 9y ago
        Pointing out the obvious here, but there seems to be something wrong with your build. Adobe CS should be running very smoothly in your system. I have CS running on and old i3 machine with 8 GB of RAM with an SSD and an integrated video card, and Photoshop runs as fast as in my MBPr i7.
        9y ago
aranajhonny 9y ago
I've been with my hackintosh for 3 years, first it was mavericks, yosemite and now i use el capitan. My pc is 2.99 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4gb ram and nvidia gt520 use only to develop. And works quite well.
captainmuon 9y ago
I've heard they are worried about brand dilution. If that's the problem, then why not create a subsidiary firm and call it, I don't know, Pear, Gala, McIntire, Darwin or something. Let this firm build hackintoshes from off-the-shelf components. The trick is then to remove any reference to Apple and every logo from the OS. People "in the know" would be able to buy a Pear and use it just like a Mac. This would be really cheap to pull off, just give some people a factory and a few million dollars, and would put next to no strain on Apple proper. It's really just buying a few blessed components, putting them together, and creating a boot disk with the needed kexts. Any mom and pop computer shop can do that if it weren't for legal issues. In the next year's iteration you can talk about custom hardware / buying at scale.
- camhenlin 9y ago
  They tried this before with clones in the 90s. It didn't end well for anyone involved.
  - Keyframe 9y ago
    It went really well for clone manufacturers and Apple with quick infusion of cash they needed. It didn't end well because Jobs came in and put an end to it, fearing cannibalisation - at a point in time when their product was Mac, more or less. Now it's different. A lot different.
  - captainmuon 9y ago
    I don't know what you mean, the model worked extremely well and IBM PC clones took over the market completely. Oh, you mean Mac clones ;-). What I'm trying to say is it depends entirely on execution if it works or not. I wouldn't go the way of outsourcing it to others. I would make the clone company a 100% daughter company of Apple, and at the same time I would crack down hard on other Hackintoshs (legally and technically). Apple can milk their cash cow and eat it, too (aehm, I mean their cake).
    - nikanj 9y ago
      And how much of the PC desktop market did IBM retain? Apple probably prefers 100% of a smaller cake.
itomato 9y ago
Apple never wanted to be part of the DIY PC movement. They adopt industry standards when convenient, but would be perfectly content to make a Pro machine locked to Moore's Law and 3-year turnovers. Dongles. Dongles are your Pro future. Apple don't want to be associated with the "Gamer".
deagle50 9y ago
Profit margin, plain and simple. I'm willing to pay a premium for the best laptop, been using macbooks exclusively for years and they are actually a great value for the quality of the components. But I will not pay 3x for comparable desktop that I can't upgrade just to run MacOS.
- lallysingh 9y ago
  Yeah, and upgrade parts are far too much of an an (ahem) apples to apples comparison. Seeing a 20-30% markup on a graphics card might make people reconsider the value they're getting on their macbook or iPhone. There's some brand reputation to protect here.
vondur 9y ago
Apple could literally just release the new Mac Pro in the old case, with updated hardware and ports, and if it was priced closer to reality, it would make a lot of their pro users happy. I doubt it would cost them much to do so too. I'd start it off at around $1500 for an entry level 4 core Xeon with an mid-level graphics card (GTX 1060 or Radeon 480).
- andrewmcwatters 9y ago
  Makes too much sense, isn't courageous enough, and certainly doesn't have a high enough margin. I'd love this, however with an updated case.
  - JohnJamesRambo 9y ago
    What if they remove the headphone jack?
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  I believe that's probably what they will do in 2017 from Tim Cook's comments.
  - lostlogin 9y ago
    There is zero chance it will look the same though - they couldn't eat that particular humble pie.
- DerekL 9y ago
  I think that it'll be a cut-down version of the old tower, not the entire huge thing. My prediction: 2 16x PCIe card slots: YES 2 4x PCIe card slots: NO, use Thunderbolt 3 instead. Every time Apple can push a device maker to switch from slow PCIe to Thunderbolt, that's another device that's usable with a MacBook Pro. 4 3.5" hard disk bays: NO 1 3.5" hard disk bay: MAYBE 2–4 PCIe Flash storage bays: YES 2 optical/Zip/floppy drive bays: HELL NO. Most users rarely use optical discs, and almost no one uses both bays. An external drive is actually more convenient, because you can put it somewhere on your desk when you need it, and put it away when you're done. Then you can place the tower wherever you like, because you won't be stuffing discs into it. In addition, ever since the Blue and White G3, Apple has had to rig up some doors to hide the off-white plastic of the optical drives. Never again! The starting price will go back to $2499, like it was in 2012. The B&W G3 started at $1599, $2340 in today's dollars.
markaius 9y ago
I purchased this (https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Dell-Inspiron-15-i7559-5012GRY-Signature-Edition-Laptop/productID.333475500 https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Dell-In...) laptop from the Microsoft store, paying right around ~$700 with a student discount. I bought an m.2 solid state and a wifi adapter that is known to work well with hackintosh's (the stock wifi card wasn't compatible), and another 8gb of ram for another ~$150. I followed this (https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/guide-dell-inspiron-15-7559-skylake-i7-6700hq-intel-hd-530-using-clover.191921/ https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/guide-dell-inspiron-15-75...) guide to get a nice hackintosh out of this laptop. Obviously this is a decent bit more difficult for the regular computer user to do. So for ~$850, after 'hackintoshing' this computer, I get: A laptop that gives me the choice to boot into an SSD imaged with latest OSX Sierra, or the regular 5,400 rpm Windows 10 drive. The last thing I want to do with this laptop is exchange the 1tb 5,400 windows drive for a 1tb SSD. When booted into Sierra: The software runs exactly the same as using a real mac. I've done some video editing in Final Cut, some audio work in Ableton, streamed 1080p youtube / netflix videos no problem. There's decent battery life, as the guide above shows you how to disable the nvidia graphics card entirely when running OSX (doesn't work anyways) to save battery. The specs are comparable to a modern macbook pro, and in one case even better. Pros - Actually get 4k resolution/screen Cons - SD card reader does not work - Mobile graphics Nvidia 960m does not work, but intel 530 HD graphics card does just fine - Backlight adjustment doesn't not work (could probably spend time to get it to work, but I'm fine without it for now) - Trackpad is a little too sensitive Sames - Hardware: Core i7, 16gb ram - Full airdrop support Where am I going with this? In my opinion the general public is becoming more tech savvy. If Apple does not embrace the culture of people wanting to experiment with code (theirs or not) on different devices, then they are putting themselves at a disadvantage. The guides to make hackintoshes are more than likely getting easier and easier as time goes on and support grows. (this was my second attempt and first success) What a disappointment this macbook pro reveal was. So instead of spending $2,399.00 on a new 15" macbook pro, I decided to hack together a very comparable one for ~$850. I'll take the $1,550 savings for a little software and screwdriver work, even with a couple of minor issues, any day. As long as those dedicated apple fans eat it up, I don't expect anything to change anytime soon. But for everyone else who can't afford those business practices, there are ways like what I did above to get what you want without breaking the bank.
alexeiz 9y ago
Apple isn't making a Mac tower because there is no demand for overpriced machines with mediocre performance. All those people building hackintoshes want a cheap Mac desktop. They won't buy a new Mac tower should Apple produce one. They'll continue building hackintoshes.
- mark212 9y ago
  not true for me. I built the hackintosh I'm typing this on last summer so I could run a large 4k display and have an Nvidia graphics card to monkey around with. If Apple builds a nice Mac tower that I can upgrade and extend (a new, larger SSD ... a new video card ... etc), I'll buy it. It's not really cost.
basseq 9y ago
The problem isn't that the Mac Pro isn't upgradeable. That is a symptom and a potential solution, but not necessarily the best one. The real problem here is that Apple itself hasn't been able to keep up with demands. If they were able to enhance and sell a "new model" of Mac pro every 6-12 months, the problem would go away. Nobody wants a hackintosh, barring the long tail of people who like building PC's anyway. (And that's an enthusiast market, not worth catering to.) A vast majority of pros would just buy a new machine every couple years. So the problem, then, is that there's no "new machine" for them to buy. Positing that the solution is to offer an upgradeable tower implies that Apple can't keep up with demand. Which, let's be honest, they can't. But the better solution here is to build a Mac Pro that Apple can upgrade in the form of a new model. That enthusiasts can upgrade it as well is a moot point (or an additional benefit). Hell, they could even have a Genius-led support model that swaps out the guts of your machine every 12-24 months. Apple-Hardware-As-A-Service?
- paublyrne 9y ago
  The real problem here is that Apple itself hasn't been able to keep up with demands. I think the problem is they chosen not to update the Mac Pro, not that they haven't been able to. Resources should not be an issue given their cash reserves. And frankly, even if the Mac Pro were not a profitable machine for Apple overall, they would be better served by choosing to keep it up to date, and to keep is desirable, in order to keep their developers happy.
  - basseq 9y ago
    I suspect they got wrapped around the axle on too much industrial design and painted themselves into a corner where they couldn't upgrade it easily. The ROI of going back to the drawing board so soon was a non-starter. They're not yet at the point where their developers' grumblings are having a material negative impact on the bottom line. Yet. I hope they don't make the same mistake twice. But I don't think a hackintosh-inspired tower with the upgrade path left solely to the buyer would be a good strategy.
    - basseq 9y ago
tachion 9y ago
I was looking into hackintoshes a lot in past, mainly in hope to build a custom Mac Pro that would fill my needs, but failed to find even a single build that wouldn't require overly complex and risk fun with custom kexts on build and then with every minor OS update. Has anything changed today?
jcrei 9y ago
Stackable Mac Minis anyone? daisy chained and with a single OS controlling all the RAM and CPU power
- itomato 9y ago
  So, "'Zilla" or Xgrid?
kuon 9y ago
I already linked it, and I don't want to make it feel like I'm hammering the link, but as the subject come up often lately. I wrote a small serie of article sharing my moving experience away from macOS. https://medium.com/the-missing-bit/leaving-macos-part-1-motivations-b10accc10889 https://medium.com/the-missing-bit/leaving-macos-part-1-moti...
dangayle 9y ago
I run a Hackintosh for my home studio and it simply comes down to cost/performance ratio. I can build a legit Hackintosh for less than the cost of a Mac Mini. EVEN IF they offered a new Mac tower, I'd probably still build my own.
jacquesc 9y ago
I'm not sure why everyone is so gung-ho for a big tower. I want expandability, but with Thunderbolt3, you can add now external GPUs, fast external drives, and (almost) anything else. And you then don't have to worry about the thing heating up. I owned a late 2013 Mac Pro for several years and it had the vision right. It was just too early and they gave up on it too quickly. I want v2 with a similar design, slightly upgraded CPU, thunderbolt 3 ports, and integrated graphics. Then pair it with an eGPU enclosure (like razer core), and get OSX to support this feature natively. I also own a Razer Stealth along with the Core, and it's a great setup. Only downside is they have to work with some shit software (Windows and terrible drivers). Apple would have the ability to own this experience from top to bottom. I don't think trying to stuff everything into a box makes sense anymore. Apple has paved the way with connectivity options, fast graphic switching, and fast bus speeds. Continue forward instead of going backwards.
watertom 9y ago
Apple doesn't need to do shit. What are our options? Windows? Where Microsoft is collecting every bit of data possible while pushing ads. Linux? I'm a geek and Linux is annoying, I've been a Unix guy since 1984. I run it on my daily laptop only because I'm not willing to spend $2,000 extra for a Macbook Pro with the same specs as a $750 Dell Laptop because it weighs 9oz less MacOS is the only real game in town. Apple knows they are in the drivers seat and they are skull fucking the public to the best of their ability. If you doubt it, see their quarter of a Trillion in cash. If they release just a Mac tower it might just break the spell and convince people they are getting skull fucked.
ksec 9y ago
Steve Jobs - Apple Is Software - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEeyaAUCyZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEeyaAUCyZs Apple is a Software company, You just have to buy their Hardware first to use it. Apple lately has been too focused, or too worried about the Design of the product and lost sight of its main direction. To more accurately phase it, Apple is an Ecosystem company. You use its Software, Hardware and Services across all ( most ) segment. I'd argue Mac Pro should be the one of those segment, ( representing 1% of the total Mac Sales, and more like 0.1% of Apple's total revenue ) where they should make it impossible for average consumer to come up with a similar spec Machine with similar price. It doesn't mean Apple is making a loss, it is more likely Apple is just making very little profits on it. The Apple now, or the Mac Ecosystem now is very different to 20 years ago. iPhone manage to pull in Lots of new developers and Pros.
flooq 9y ago
Worse than the Hackintosh users, Apple have just about lost me completely to Windows. Apple held my attention for years because I need Adobe software and prefer a Unix enviroment. I'm pretty happy using using a Windows 10 desktop with Windows Subsystem for Linux now. My workflow is pretty much the same as it is my MacBook now. So much so that I'd probably do the same with my next laptop.
quicksilverFTW 9y ago
Quicksilver Tower was the best Mac in history IMO.

197 points by Errorcod3 9y ago

This is what they used to do with the venerable Mac Pro tower, built as recently as Mid 2012. The heavy gauge aluminum construction was a work of art. People pick up Mac Pro G5 shells and use them to build tables, benches, etc. I am hoping that Apple returns to this sort of design philosophy. It's quite frustrating that many of their iMacs are not (easily) user upgradable. Upgrading an HDD to an SSD requires cutting adhesive, suction cups to remove the display, disconnecting not-meant-to-be-disconnected cables from comically delicate sockets, and similar feats of delicacy. The Mac Pro redesign applied the same sort of anti-consumer bullshit.

mjn 9y ago
The current philosophy is pretty solidly in line with the historical Apple design philosophy, so I wouldn't necessarily expect it to change. The iMac is basically today's evolution of the original Mac [1], a single-piece computer/monitor combination with no user-serviceable parts. Jobs said in 1984 that hardware customization is unnecessary to support, because "customization really is mostly software now". The Mac Pro towers were pretty different, but if anything they were the aberration, going in a more Unix workstation direction. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_128K
- iainmerrick 9y ago
  You're cherry-picking. That is definitely one of Apple's design philosophies, and it has definitely worked very well for the iPhone and iPad. But not all their computers have followed that style. The Mac II launched in 1987(!) and was very influential. And as the earlier commenter mentioned, before the "trash can" redesign, the Mac Pro was easy to open and had plenty of ports. Trying to apply that sealed appliance approach to every single product is sometimes a mistake, as demonstrated by the Mac Pro misstep.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    The recent MacPro was only a misstep in that they bet on CPU/GPU design zigging instead of zagging. It was a technically beautiful machine (still is, really) but their choices meant it became impossible to update. If the market had gone the other way we'd likely be talking about the 2016 MacPro instead.
    - iainmerrick 9y ago
      But they didn't have to make a bet at all. They wanted to make a tiny, silent Pro machine to make a statement, but nobody seems to have cared much about that. I haven't seen a single person saying "I hope the new Pro is still really really small, even if that means it's more expensive and less expandable!"
      - abritinthebay 9y ago
        > But they didn't have to make a bet at all. Sure, neither does anyone... on anything. If the bet had succeeded though we'd all be calling them geniuses and suchlike. If no-one made bets like that we'd still have boring beige boxes. Hell the original Mac was a bet like that (the design was radical at the time). The MacPro is an awesome machine. Everyone I know that has used one loves it. That's great for a pro-machine. That's exactly what Apple likes to do - create hardware that people love They lost the bet, but it was a good bet to make. I'll take a company that makes bets like that over one that doesn't, long term.
        iainmerrick 9y ago
        Sorry, I was unclear about the "bet". I don't mean they shouldn't take risks, more that in this case it would have been easy to hedge the bet -- launch a bigger expandable box at the same time. In their recent discussions around the upcoming redesign, it sounds like they didn't realize they were making a bet at all. If they had, they should have monitored it more closely and been a lot quicker out of the gate with the redesign. A possible defence is that Apple had other priorities at the time, and wasn't paying full attention to the Pro. But it's mystifying why the world's biggest company by market cap can't walk and chew gum at the same time. The MacPro is an awesome machine. Everyone I know that has used one loves it. It's funny it hasn't been more successful, then! Although I certainly believe you. It's definitely possible for it to be popular with a niche while failing in the wider market.

lightedman 9y ago

Apple did. It came with a G5 processor. Most people didn't want to pay the exorbitant prices that Apple wanted them to pay for things like Apple-compatible AGP graphics cards and such when PCs got the same thing at literally 1/3 the price, and they pretty quickly fell into irrelevance. Apple would probably go the exact same route as they did the last time and fail just as miserably.

ericfrederich 9y ago
Wasn't this use case exactly what was part of their justification for switching to Intel?... the ability to keep up faster.
- lightedman 9y ago
  They certainly did not keep up. Their equipment has been behind as far as I can tell when I worked for them starting back in the G3 days, and that's including after the intel switch.

panglott 9y ago

Why not allow developers to build their own Macs? The situation today in completely different than 1995-1996, when Apple briefly allowed Macintosh clones, before Jobs killed the project because they were cannibalizing Apple's high-end desktop sales. Now high-end desktop sales are such a small part of Apple's line that they let the products stagnate for years. Are Mac Pro motherboards really going to compete with notebook sales?

eddieroger 9y ago
Drivers. Apple likes the control over the hardware and software, and packages all of the drivers needed to run macOS on any blessed instance of Apple hardware currently supported (and maybe even ever created, since Intel). If you wanted, and I have done this before, you can clone a Mac made HDD and boot it from any other Mac you can get your hands on, and other than the hardware swap it's basically a reboot. If Apple let me build a tower and drop anything I wanted in to it, they can't guarantee that anymore, and even if it's just amongst developers, it hurts their brand experience.
- dawnerd 9y ago
  If it's for developers they don't have to guarantee it. I'm happily running a hackintosh right now. If they made it a little easier we wouldn't have to do weird hacks to spoof hardware ids just so messages work.
  - 542458 9y ago
    I think the iOS "developer previews" have shown that even if you label something as being "unstable and just for developers" you'll still end up with thousands upon thousands of people with no idea what they're doing running it anyways and subsequently being vocally horrified that not everything works perfectly.
    - dawnerd 9y ago
      The difference is those people would now have to build hardware instead of just opening itunes and hitting install. You really think those users could get past the bios setup stage?

walterbell 9y ago

HP has stepped up to compete with the sealed Mac Mini. Their "Z2 Mini Workstation" is small, has user upgradeable RAM/disk, optional Xeon and Nvidia GPU, and can drive six monitors, http://www8.hp.com/us/en/workstations/z2mini.html http://www8.hp.com/us/en/workstations/z2mini.html

icefox 9y ago
Can you run OS X on it?
hengheng 9y ago
Laptops have roughly the same performance as that.
avtar 9y ago
Have you used this and can comment on what the driver support experience is like? I was eyeing the new HP Zbook Studio G4 laptop since it checks most of the boxes where the current 15" MBP is lacking (matte display, 32 gigs RAM, upgradeable components) but after doing a quick "Zbook driver issues" search I'm not so sure anymore.
justinclift 9y ago
Looking at the specs, none of the Z2 configurations have ECC memory. That's extremely disappointing for a "workstation". :(
- walterbell 9y ago
  ECC memory is available when you select a Xeon CPU.
  - justinclift 9y ago
    Ahhh thanks, didn't notice that. :)

melling 9y ago

Do we really need a full tower? Isn't most of the space in a traditional PC "trash can" form factor wasted? The graphics card size would need to change, but it would be great if we could shrink the case and still have all the power of a desktop.

rcarmo 9y ago
You can build a very nice and compact machine with a relatively small footprint using off-the-shelf components: https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2016/12/17/1840 https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2016/12/17/1840 ...integrated graphics are plenty good enough for a lot of use cases, but you're right in assuming the graphics card would need to change. Current GPUs require a lot of extra power and cooling that requires a (mini-)tower form factor...
- kawsper 9y ago
  Someone should pre-build these machines, and just ship them without OSX.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    Yeah that was tried about 15 years ago. Much legal hammering occurred.
    - itomato 9y ago
      That was because Psystar advertised and sold the machines with Mac OS installed.
rtkwe 9y ago
Full towers have a couple benefits against smaller cases, thermals and space for expansion (internal hdd's, additional graphics cards, etc.). Smaller cases really suffer from lack of expansion space and often severely restrict the components you can use just based on the volume you can work with.

protomyth 9y ago

How about Apple create a "Custom Hardware" program ala their Developer program and basically charge $99+ a year for a legal install usb image. Then they can skip building a Pro and concentrate on the portables and iMac they like.

imron 9y ago
Because the cost for supporting random hardware will probably run to more than they make from running such a program. Not to mention Apple doesn't seem to care about the developer and/or professional consumer anymore.
- walterbell 9y ago
  There is a middle ground between "random hardware" and one Apple device, clearly evidenced by the Hackintosh community. The difference is that Apple can more effectively support a whitelist of components than the Hackintosh community that is already doing it on a volunteer basis.
- grandalf 9y ago
  Even if once each year Apple picked a "blessed" list of commodity hardware (one motherboard, one graphics card, etc.) that was supported, it would still be a major improvement over the status quo. Apple could pick partly based on the MSRP of the hardware or charge a licensing fee to the winner. It's just such a shame that getting a high performance desktop that runs OSX is such a hassle.
- dawnerd 9y ago
  Just offer no support or set a rate to variety for it.
- protomyth 9y ago
  > Because the cost for supporting random hardware will probably run to more than they make from running such a program. What support? NeXT once had a fax that they sent you with the listed hardware that it worked on. Its even easier now that Intel has shut out all third-party motherboard chipsets. Your paying for legality, not support.

Shivetya 9y ago

There is a lot of opportunity for Apple to still make a design statement with a tower. One that people willingly display. The key is that is not only does it need to look good but cooling fans need to be deathly quiet. Then offer it up in aluminum or black enclosure. Dimensions are pretty much locked down by what types of video card technology they wish to support, really would love a new solution that doesn't use the typical slots we still have today. With regards to the mini, my only beef was when I wanted to integrate with my home theater white boxes just don't fit. It had to hide.

peatmoss 9y ago

For people wed to commercial design apps, I can totally understand the draw of running macOS on commodity hardware. But as someone who skews more to the hacker end of the spectrum and doesn't depend on commercial software, the day-to-day qualitative experience of Linux is head and shoulders above macOS these days. Ditto OpenBSD, etc. I'll never go back. At least it does if you've already come around to using a desktop formfactor. For me I get lots of physical RAM (R / Pandas) a mechanical keyboard, and one of those straight-out-of-the-90s Logitech marble mouses that you'll pry from my cold dead fingers. Hardware support in Linux/*BSD for any Intel graphics based system is a total non-issue.

Xyzodiac 9y ago
It's not just design, there's also a heavy reliance on Mac only (or at least Mac and Windows only) pro video and audio programs. I will say though, I've always loved running Linux on desktops where this isn't the use case.
- radium3d 9y ago
  We do have DaVinci resolve and natron.fr available free now which are better than any I've used before so video editing in Linux is improving.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >It's not just design, there's also a heavy reliance on Mac only (or at least Mac and Windows only) pro video and audio programs. It's even more so in programming. Go to any developer conference, whether it's for Rails, C, Java, Haskell or whatever: a huge percentage there will have MacBook Pros, much much more than the percentage of Mac users in the general market (e.g 10% in the general market and 40 to 60% in developer circles). Which goes to say how silly the notion that "Mac's are for users who don't know about computers" is. Macs are for users who want a working GUI and/or a UNIX subsystem, and don't want to do any self-building and/or tinkering.
  - peatmoss 9y ago
    > "Mac's are for users who don't know about computers" I honestly haven't heard that argument in years from anyone I'd consider in touch with the current state of tech. And for a decade I was right there with you on the OSX == *nix plus creature comforts. But the landscape has changed since that argument held sway for me. Linux has gotten way less fiddly, and the size of my scripts to keep macOS on the straight and narrow has gotten larger.

paulrpotts 9y ago

Absolutely. I have a 2008 Mac Pro and it is still going strong, an absolute workhorse of a machine with 4 hard drives; incredibly reliable. At least, it was incredibly reliable with Snow Leopard, but MacOS X has been a bit downhill from there as far as reliability of the audio subsystem. The only real downsides to this machine have been that it is loud, which is problematic when using it for recording. But I would happily buy a modernized version of the same machine, and I'd be _especially_ happy to do so if it was much quieter. If Apple offered me a dead-silent Mac Mini, even one with not much CPU capability, I would use it for tracking -- that is, right in the room where I'm recording. Also for Skype stuff for podcast recording, and streaming; probably two of them. These machines don't need to have a lot of CPU to record; they only have to do a modest amount of live audio processing. They don't have to run dozens to hundreds of instances of plug-ins like when I'm mixing. Then the Mac Pro can go in the room where I'm mixing and mastering. So quiet is important but dead silence in the Pro is not really a requirement for me.

covercash 9y ago
I helped my friend run conduit last week to solve this exact problem... a 100'($500) thunderbolt cable lets him keep the machine and storage in a separate room outside of the studio. Probably cost close to $600 when you factor in the conduit materials and the Korean BBQ wings he fed me!

kirykl 9y ago

You dont need a hackintosh to run a great mac for cheap(er). I picked up a 2012 mac mini off CL with 2.5 i5 and dropped in a SSD and maxed RAM to 16GB. Runs silent in a small package. Also added a 28" 4K off craigslist (although it'll only drive up to 2k). All for under $900

wand3r 9y ago
A $900 hackintosh could have a modest GPU and Skylake i7.
danieldk 9y ago
The Late 2012 was a great model. Easily accessible memory as in previous all-aluminum generations and replacing the hard disk is just a few screws. I also have a Late 2012 with 16GB RAM and SSD (500GB) like you. I bought it new for IIRC 600 Euro. So, it's been a great investment --- had it almost five years now and it still flies. I really hope that they'll make a new Mac Mini extensible like the 2012 again.

post_break 9y ago

Honestly, Apple should make a Mac tower, and then incentivize graphic card manufacturers to write drivers. Imagine a Mac with not last years cards, but current generation cards. No custom bios BS like they had before, just buy a card, put it in, install the driver.

wand3r 9y ago
As of last week newer (newest?) NVIDIA GPUs work and are supported for hackintosh and presumably Mac desktops
- kondro 9y ago
  Probably because you could just dump them in an external TB case and get close to internal performance from them.
- post_break 9y ago
  So once, in the past like 10 years have we been able to run a newish gpu.

emersonrsantos 9y ago

If Apple can put an authentication chip in a phone cable, what is stopping them to lock down macos? They don't want to do that.

INCOG_THE_TROLL 9y ago
It's easier to work around if it's a general purpose computer.
hbosch 9y ago
They have this in the form of a legal note, don't they? Last I heard it was technically "illegal" to run macOS on anything other than Apple hardware per the TOS. Or is that just an urban legend?
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Not illegal, just against the EULA. Basically they could revoke your usage of the software and probably legally fine you. It is a software license issue. Technically it would be something like unlicensed distribution/copying. Practically speaking they don't care though. The machine building market is vanishingly small and the licensing gives Apple plausible "we never said it would work" deniability.
  - robhu 9y ago
    I think the illegal bit is using an illegal copy of their OS to install as you don't hold the copyright and so aren't allowed to make a (modified) copy of the installer that works on the non-Apple hardware.
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Potentially. Of course if you're just downloading a modified version then it's not you that modified it. It's a bit of a strange area. Either way - it's not illegal due to any specific thing Apple does. Other copyright/IP law may apply though.

eli 9y ago

I'm not sure it follows that Apple should build it just because some people want it. Some people build Hackintoshes because they like building things or they want to save money. Neither would be addressed by an official tower.

bischofs 9y ago
Well to me it is important to remember who the people are that want it - These are professionals and developers that create applications for the OS (mobile and desktop) as well as creatives who have kept Apple afloat in rough times. I would think there is strategic value in keeping these people somewhat happy.
soylentcola 9y ago
As a counterpoint, they also build them because they want the software/OS but Apple doesn't sell a machine with the hardware to run it. Your only options are notebooks, all-in-ones (essentially notebooks built into monitors), basic lightweight desktop computers, or outdated workstations with limited hardware and expandability. There's clearly a market for high powered desktop workstations but you can't currently buy the best hardware if you want it to (officially) run MacOS.

kstenerud 9y ago

Can anyone tell me their experiences running a virtual hackintosh? In my current job I don't need a mac anymore, so I'm switching to a NUC which I'm thinking it'll be best to run Qubes on. But I do have existing mac/ios projects that I'd like to support, thus the need for a virtual hackintosh.

marceldegraaf 9y ago
I've tried running OS/X in VMWare on Windows. Technically it works fine but there's no video acceleration and that's annoying enough to not make it a viable option for me.
Synaesthesia 9y ago
It's better to dual boot. As mentioned graphics acceleration doesn't work which breaks a surprising amount of things. There's a good chance it will work on a NUC.
tengbretson 9y ago
I've had great success running kvm as a host and macOS as a client and passing through hardware to get good performance. That said, this is on a dual socket xeon board and not a NUC, so ymmv.

bischofs 9y ago

I wonder what the OS and software guys at Apple think about the lack of options in their own hardware department. It must be a little frustrating to be invested into the software as a developer but know that a lot of pro users (people like themselves) are moving away from the platform.

vbezhenar 9y ago

May be it's just me, but I don't really care about design at all. I'm perfectly fine with huge tower or some reasonable fan noise. What I care is price, durability, extendability, repairability, and, of course, performance. I'm not really into macOS, I can use Linux or Windows just fine, but macOS is not that bad. I'm actually opposed to thin things or design aberrations like trash can mac. I'm paying for that after all, with money or engineering trade-offs. The best of both worlds would be officially supported hackintosh (that is, curated list of hardware parts, which are guaranteed to work for some reasonable period (15 years or something like that). But I don't think that would happen, Apple is greedy corporation and wants piece of pie from everything.

azeirah 9y ago
> Maybe it's just me It is. I don't care a lot about design either (although I care a lot about user experience), but many people /do/ care for design, and are willing to pay a premium to get that design.
- gnicholas 9y ago
  Honest question: what percent of Pro Mac users care more about design than performance? I get that lots of creatives (who might care about design) use Macs, but in the Pro community the sense I get is that performance (and expandability) are relatively more important. That's why the trash can Mac Pro was not particularly popular, to say the least.
  - potatolicious 9y ago
    The trash can Mac Pro is definitely too much form for too little function - but letting the pendulum swing back the other way is IMO also bad. The previous tower Mac Pros are massive machines - massive beyond the point of practicality for many purposes. They're also insanely heavy to the point of impracticality. Not all pros want/can live with something 3 feet tall that consumes several square feet of floor space. The "right" path forward for the pro-desktop Mac is IMO something in between - something that maximizes extensibility and versatility without completely embracing the gigantor-ATX-case-on-the-floor direction. I'm wondering about the practicality of something more like mini-ITX - small enough to be practical, but allowing access to all the core bits (RAM, CPU, GPU, HDDs).

resoluteteeth 9y ago

I wonder if Apple would prefer to simply not be selling computers at all at this point, but can't stop without seriously hurting their image.

deelowe 9y ago
They've been pretty open recently that the issue with their desktop platform is that the trashcan design assumed SLI would be the future. It isn't.

toddmorey 9y ago

Boy did they drop the football in this area. I always thought the advantage to making the switch to more common PC architectures was the ability to keep pace and support a wider array of components and technologies. Instead, they over-designed the enclosure and froze the high-end range of the platform. Creating a simple, but reliable tower design (optimized for speed rather than size) would have been extremely well received, would be nearly free money, and would have done wonders for the brand and their connection to creative pros. Most of the pros I work with in the industry have gone from loving the mac to tolerating the mac. They are certainly looking around. I don't love Windows, but I have to admit that the Adobe Creative Suite now sings on a modern Windows machine.

iamatworknow 9y ago
Deleted this comment because it's apparently rubbing people the wrong way that I experienced poor performance using Adobe programs on a Windows machine and decided to share that experience.
- jayd16 9y ago
  Could be the disk speed.
  - iamatworknow 9y ago
    No disk drive. Running off of an ADATA Premier SP600 256 gig SSD, which is supposed to have 540MB/s read, 290MB/s write.
    - copperx 9y ago
      Pointing out the obvious here, but there seems to be something wrong with your build. Adobe CS should be running very smoothly in your system. I have CS running on and old i3 machine with 8 GB of RAM with an SSD and an integrated video card, and Photoshop runs as fast as in my MBPr i7.
      - 9y ago

aranajhonny 9y ago

I've been with my hackintosh for 3 years, first it was mavericks, yosemite and now i use el capitan. My pc is 2.99 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4gb ram and nvidia gt520 use only to develop. And works quite well.

captainmuon 9y ago

I've heard they are worried about brand dilution. If that's the problem, then why not create a subsidiary firm and call it, I don't know, Pear, Gala, McIntire, Darwin or something. Let this firm build hackintoshes from off-the-shelf components. The trick is then to remove any reference to Apple and every logo from the OS. People "in the know" would be able to buy a Pear and use it just like a Mac. This would be really cheap to pull off, just give some people a factory and a few million dollars, and would put next to no strain on Apple proper. It's really just buying a few blessed components, putting them together, and creating a boot disk with the needed kexts. Any mom and pop computer shop can do that if it weren't for legal issues. In the next year's iteration you can talk about custom hardware / buying at scale.

camhenlin 9y ago
They tried this before with clones in the 90s. It didn't end well for anyone involved.
- Keyframe 9y ago
  It went really well for clone manufacturers and Apple with quick infusion of cash they needed. It didn't end well because Jobs came in and put an end to it, fearing cannibalisation - at a point in time when their product was Mac, more or less. Now it's different. A lot different.
- captainmuon 9y ago
  I don't know what you mean, the model worked extremely well and IBM PC clones took over the market completely. Oh, you mean Mac clones ;-). What I'm trying to say is it depends entirely on execution if it works or not. I wouldn't go the way of outsourcing it to others. I would make the clone company a 100% daughter company of Apple, and at the same time I would crack down hard on other Hackintoshs (legally and technically). Apple can milk their cash cow and eat it, too (aehm, I mean their cake).
  - nikanj 9y ago
    And how much of the PC desktop market did IBM retain? Apple probably prefers 100% of a smaller cake.

itomato 9y ago

Apple never wanted to be part of the DIY PC movement. They adopt industry standards when convenient, but would be perfectly content to make a Pro machine locked to Moore's Law and 3-year turnovers. Dongles. Dongles are your Pro future. Apple don't want to be associated with the "Gamer".

deagle50 9y ago

Profit margin, plain and simple. I'm willing to pay a premium for the best laptop, been using macbooks exclusively for years and they are actually a great value for the quality of the components. But I will not pay 3x for comparable desktop that I can't upgrade just to run MacOS.

lallysingh 9y ago
Yeah, and upgrade parts are far too much of an an (ahem) apples to apples comparison. Seeing a 20-30% markup on a graphics card might make people reconsider the value they're getting on their macbook or iPhone. There's some brand reputation to protect here.

vondur 9y ago

Apple could literally just release the new Mac Pro in the old case, with updated hardware and ports, and if it was priced closer to reality, it would make a lot of their pro users happy. I doubt it would cost them much to do so too. I'd start it off at around $1500 for an entry level 4 core Xeon with an mid-level graphics card (GTX 1060 or Radeon 480).

andrewmcwatters 9y ago
Makes too much sense, isn't courageous enough, and certainly doesn't have a high enough margin. I'd love this, however with an updated case.
- JohnJamesRambo 9y ago
  What if they remove the headphone jack?
Synaesthesia 9y ago
I believe that's probably what they will do in 2017 from Tim Cook's comments.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  There is zero chance it will look the same though - they couldn't eat that particular humble pie.
DerekL 9y ago
I think that it'll be a cut-down version of the old tower, not the entire huge thing. My prediction: 2 16x PCIe card slots: YES 2 4x PCIe card slots: NO, use Thunderbolt 3 instead. Every time Apple can push a device maker to switch from slow PCIe to Thunderbolt, that's another device that's usable with a MacBook Pro. 4 3.5" hard disk bays: NO 1 3.5" hard disk bay: MAYBE 2–4 PCIe Flash storage bays: YES 2 optical/Zip/floppy drive bays: HELL NO. Most users rarely use optical discs, and almost no one uses both bays. An external drive is actually more convenient, because you can put it somewhere on your desk when you need it, and put it away when you're done. Then you can place the tower wherever you like, because you won't be stuffing discs into it. In addition, ever since the Blue and White G3, Apple has had to rig up some doors to hide the off-white plastic of the optical drives. Never again! The starting price will go back to $2499, like it was in 2012. The B&W G3 started at $1599, $2340 in today's dollars.

markaius 9y ago

I purchased this (https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Dell-Inspiron-15-i7559-5012GRY-Signature-Edition-Laptop/productID.333475500 https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Dell-In...) laptop from the Microsoft store, paying right around ~$700 with a student discount. I bought an m.2 solid state and a wifi adapter that is known to work well with hackintosh's (the stock wifi card wasn't compatible), and another 8gb of ram for another ~$150. I followed this (https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/guide-dell-inspiron-15-7559-skylake-i7-6700hq-intel-hd-530-using-clover.191921/ https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/guide-dell-inspiron-15-75...) guide to get a nice hackintosh out of this laptop. Obviously this is a decent bit more difficult for the regular computer user to do. So for ~$850, after 'hackintoshing' this computer, I get: A laptop that gives me the choice to boot into an SSD imaged with latest OSX Sierra, or the regular 5,400 rpm Windows 10 drive. The last thing I want to do with this laptop is exchange the 1tb 5,400 windows drive for a 1tb SSD. When booted into Sierra: The software runs exactly the same as using a real mac. I've done some video editing in Final Cut, some audio work in Ableton, streamed 1080p youtube / netflix videos no problem. There's decent battery life, as the guide above shows you how to disable the nvidia graphics card entirely when running OSX (doesn't work anyways) to save battery. The specs are comparable to a modern macbook pro, and in one case even better. Pros - Actually get 4k resolution/screen Cons - SD card reader does not work - Mobile graphics Nvidia 960m does not work, but intel 530 HD graphics card does just fine - Backlight adjustment doesn't not work (could probably spend time to get it to work, but I'm fine without it for now) - Trackpad is a little too sensitive Sames - Hardware: Core i7, 16gb ram - Full airdrop support Where am I going with this? In my opinion the general public is becoming more tech savvy. If Apple does not embrace the culture of people wanting to experiment with code (theirs or not) on different devices, then they are putting themselves at a disadvantage. The guides to make hackintoshes are more than likely getting easier and easier as time goes on and support grows. (this was my second attempt and first success) What a disappointment this macbook pro reveal was. So instead of spending $2,399.00 on a new 15" macbook pro, I decided to hack together a very comparable one for ~$850. I'll take the $1,550 savings for a little software and screwdriver work, even with a couple of minor issues, any day. As long as those dedicated apple fans eat it up, I don't expect anything to change anytime soon. But for everyone else who can't afford those business practices, there are ways like what I did above to get what you want without breaking the bank.

alexeiz 9y ago

Apple isn't making a Mac tower because there is no demand for overpriced machines with mediocre performance. All those people building hackintoshes want a cheap Mac desktop. They won't buy a new Mac tower should Apple produce one. They'll continue building hackintoshes.

mark212 9y ago
not true for me. I built the hackintosh I'm typing this on last summer so I could run a large 4k display and have an Nvidia graphics card to monkey around with. If Apple builds a nice Mac tower that I can upgrade and extend (a new, larger SSD ... a new video card ... etc), I'll buy it. It's not really cost.

basseq 9y ago

The problem isn't that the Mac Pro isn't upgradeable. That is a symptom and a potential solution, but not necessarily the best one. The real problem here is that Apple itself hasn't been able to keep up with demands. If they were able to enhance and sell a "new model" of Mac pro every 6-12 months, the problem would go away. Nobody wants a hackintosh, barring the long tail of people who like building PC's anyway. (And that's an enthusiast market, not worth catering to.) A vast majority of pros would just buy a new machine every couple years. So the problem, then, is that there's no "new machine" for them to buy. Positing that the solution is to offer an upgradeable tower implies that Apple can't keep up with demand. Which, let's be honest, they can't. But the better solution here is to build a Mac Pro that Apple can upgrade in the form of a new model. That enthusiasts can upgrade it as well is a moot point (or an additional benefit). Hell, they could even have a Genius-led support model that swaps out the guts of your machine every 12-24 months. Apple-Hardware-As-A-Service?

paublyrne 9y ago
The real problem here is that Apple itself hasn't been able to keep up with demands. I think the problem is they chosen not to update the Mac Pro, not that they haven't been able to. Resources should not be an issue given their cash reserves. And frankly, even if the Mac Pro were not a profitable machine for Apple overall, they would be better served by choosing to keep it up to date, and to keep is desirable, in order to keep their developers happy.
- basseq 9y ago
  I suspect they got wrapped around the axle on too much industrial design and painted themselves into a corner where they couldn't upgrade it easily. The ROI of going back to the drawing board so soon was a non-starter. They're not yet at the point where their developers' grumblings are having a material negative impact on the bottom line. Yet. I hope they don't make the same mistake twice. But I don't think a hackintosh-inspired tower with the upgrade path left solely to the buyer would be a good strategy.
  - basseq 9y ago

tachion 9y ago

I was looking into hackintoshes a lot in past, mainly in hope to build a custom Mac Pro that would fill my needs, but failed to find even a single build that wouldn't require overly complex and risk fun with custom kexts on build and then with every minor OS update. Has anything changed today?

jcrei 9y ago

Stackable Mac Minis anyone? daisy chained and with a single OS controlling all the RAM and CPU power

itomato 9y ago
So, "'Zilla" or Xgrid?

kuon 9y ago

I already linked it, and I don't want to make it feel like I'm hammering the link, but as the subject come up often lately. I wrote a small serie of article sharing my moving experience away from macOS. https://medium.com/the-missing-bit/leaving-macos-part-1-motivations-b10accc10889 https://medium.com/the-missing-bit/leaving-macos-part-1-moti...

dangayle 9y ago

I run a Hackintosh for my home studio and it simply comes down to cost/performance ratio. I can build a legit Hackintosh for less than the cost of a Mac Mini. EVEN IF they offered a new Mac tower, I'd probably still build my own.

jacquesc 9y ago

I'm not sure why everyone is so gung-ho for a big tower. I want expandability, but with Thunderbolt3, you can add now external GPUs, fast external drives, and (almost) anything else. And you then don't have to worry about the thing heating up. I owned a late 2013 Mac Pro for several years and it had the vision right. It was just too early and they gave up on it too quickly. I want v2 with a similar design, slightly upgraded CPU, thunderbolt 3 ports, and integrated graphics. Then pair it with an eGPU enclosure (like razer core), and get OSX to support this feature natively. I also own a Razer Stealth along with the Core, and it's a great setup. Only downside is they have to work with some shit software (Windows and terrible drivers). Apple would have the ability to own this experience from top to bottom. I don't think trying to stuff everything into a box makes sense anymore. Apple has paved the way with connectivity options, fast graphic switching, and fast bus speeds. Continue forward instead of going backwards.

watertom 9y ago

Apple doesn't need to do shit. What are our options? Windows? Where Microsoft is collecting every bit of data possible while pushing ads. Linux? I'm a geek and Linux is annoying, I've been a Unix guy since 1984. I run it on my daily laptop only because I'm not willing to spend $2,000 extra for a Macbook Pro with the same specs as a $750 Dell Laptop because it weighs 9oz less MacOS is the only real game in town. Apple knows they are in the drivers seat and they are skull fucking the public to the best of their ability. If you doubt it, see their quarter of a Trillion in cash. If they release just a Mac tower it might just break the spell and convince people they are getting skull fucked.

ksec 9y ago

Steve Jobs - Apple Is Software - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEeyaAUCyZs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEeyaAUCyZs Apple is a Software company, You just have to buy their Hardware first to use it. Apple lately has been too focused, or too worried about the Design of the product and lost sight of its main direction. To more accurately phase it, Apple is an Ecosystem company. You use its Software, Hardware and Services across all ( most ) segment. I'd argue Mac Pro should be the one of those segment, ( representing 1% of the total Mac Sales, and more like 0.1% of Apple's total revenue ) where they should make it impossible for average consumer to come up with a similar spec Machine with similar price. It doesn't mean Apple is making a loss, it is more likely Apple is just making very little profits on it. The Apple now, or the Mac Ecosystem now is very different to 20 years ago. iPhone manage to pull in Lots of new developers and Pros.

flooq 9y ago

Worse than the Hackintosh users, Apple have just about lost me completely to Windows. Apple held my attention for years because I need Adobe software and prefer a Unix enviroment. I'm pretty happy using using a Windows 10 desktop with Windows Subsystem for Linux now. My workflow is pretty much the same as it is my MacBook now. So much so that I'd probably do the same with my next laptop.

quicksilverFTW 9y ago

Quicksilver Tower was the best Mac in history IMO.