3 ms·
A Hackintosh is arguably more stable and requires less "screwing around" when something breaks, because often that something is hardware and iMacs/Macbooks are
by ryanmonroe 8y ago
A Hackintosh is arguably more stable and requires less "screwing around" when something breaks, because often that something is hardware and iMacs/Macbooks are notoriously hard to repair yourself.
- TwoNineA 8y agoUnless a random software update breaks it. A Hackintosh's Achille's heel is not hardware breaking down but software updates from Apple hosing it.
- Kaspar0v 8y agoI have the high end model of the MBPr 15 2017 and since getting it I had around 3 months total of down time with several replacements and repairs, at this point I would have to argue that the whole reason for a hackintosh is so that I can "use the time for billable work". Not to mention that quite frankly my high end gaming pc running Mojave under KVM is a way more pleasant and smooth experience than my MBPr. There is not a single machine that apple sells today that is viable for a power user IMO.
- briandear 8y agoThe iMac Pro seems to be plenty viable for a power user. 64 core, 128GB RAM among other things.
- Kaspar0v 8y ago0 Upgradability, EXTREMELY thermal constrained, 0 self reparability. At least for me, that's not a power user machine.
- FireBeyond 8y agoI have seen this referenced multiple times. The iMac Pro doesn't have 64 cores. The highest end iMac Pro has 18 cores.