News, tips, advice, support for Windows, Office, PCs & more. Tech help. No bull. We're community supported by donations from our Plus Members, and proud of it
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon
  • ‘OpenCore Computer’ Launches Commercial Hackintosh

    Posted on Alex5723 Comment on the AskWoody Lounge

    Home Forums AskWoody support Non-Windows operating systems macOS ‘OpenCore Computer’ Launches Commercial Hackintosh

    Viewing 9 reply threads
    • Author
      Posts
      • #2272213 Reply
        Alex5723
        AskWoody Plus

        OpenCore Computer’ Launches Commercial Hackintosh in Violation of Apple’s macOS Licensing Agreement [Updated]

        Following in the footsteps of Psystar, a new company called “OpenCore Computer” (No affiliation with the OpenCore Bootloader) this week launched a commercial Hackintosh computer called the “Velociraptor,” which is a violation of Apple’s end-user license agreement or EULA for macOS…

        The company’s lineup of computers, which they call “zero-compromise Hackintoshes,” are advertised as coming with macOS Catalina and Windows 10 Pro pre-installed. The first available model is the “Velociraptor,” which is configurable with up to a 16-core CPU, 64GB of RAM, and a Vega VII GPU, and starts at $2,199. OpenCore Computer intends to launch more models at a later date, with options allowing for up to a 64-core CPU and 256GB of RAM.

        OpenCore Computer seems to be trying to get around the EULA by accepting payments in Bitcoin cryptocurrency only.

        1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #2272267 Reply
        OscarCP
        AskWoody Plus

        This is intriguing: Why would anyone actually pay actual funny money, particularly in such an awkward way, to get a fake Mac? Are these a lot cheaper? And, if they are a lot cheaper and fake, would be buying one funny money well spent? Do I read the lead comment correctly, and someone else has done this already (“Paystar”)?

        Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

        1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #2272273 Reply
        Alex5723
        AskWoody Plus

        This is intriguing: Why would anyone actually pay actual funny money, particularly in such an awkward way, to get a fake Mac? Are these a lot cheaper? And, if they are a lot cheaper and fake, would be buying one funny money well spent? Do I read the lead comment correctly, and someone else has done this already (“Paystar”)?

        There is a whole world of Hackintosh forums and users. People want a MAC Pro but can’t pay the price.

        Hackintosh PCs are not ‘fake’ apart from the missing Apple logo. They run MacOS as good as or better than any Mac.

        Paystar was building and selling Mac clones until Apple closed them.

        1 user thanked author for this post.
        • #2272310 Reply
          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          Alex5723: “They run MacOS as good as or better than any Mac.

          That is maybe half of what matters: does a fake Mac paid with funny money have the proper support a legitimate Mac would get from Apple, not the least of it being to receive security updates? I doubt it.

          Also, those who cannot afford a Mac Pro, Apple’s top of the line machine, do they really need so much computing muscle? What for? And can they afford, or are even able to pay for it with bitcoin? If they are, why bother buying a fake Mac?

          I am skeptical, and still intrigued.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

          1 user thanked author for this post.
          • #2272319 Reply
            Ascaris
            AskWoody_MVP

            That is maybe half of what matters: does a fake Mac paid with funny money have the proper support a legitimate Mac would get from Apple, not the least of it being to receive security updates?

            Of course it’s not going to get any warranty or assistance support from Apple, but I daresay that someone who pointedly buys a Hackintosh doesn’t want any of Apple’s support anyway.

            As for security updates, they’re online, and if the remote server thinks it’s talking to a Mac, it will presumably send the appropriate updates.

            I doubt it. Also, those who cannot afford a Mac Pro, Apple’s top of the line machine, do they really need so much computing muscle? What for?

            I don’t see the connection.  It’s very possible to need, or at least to “need,” something you can’t afford.  The two are independent variables.

            Not only that, but it’s not necessarily about being able to “afford” an actual Mac.  Many people are put off by Apple’s business practices, not to mention the limited selection of hardware that is often more form than function.  I want a workhorse, not a showhorse.

            Check out the Youtube channel of Louis Rossmann, owner of a Macbook repair shop in NYC, who shows you with sometimes microscopic detail (literally) what Apple’s engineering and design business practices are like. He makes a living repairing the things, but he advises people not to buy them.

            My solution to all of that is to simply do as Mr. Rossmann suggests, but for those whose business, trade, or school requires Mac software, this provides a way to do that on non-Apple hardware without having to go through the effort of building a Hackintosh yourself.  It seems pretty questionable legally, but you’d asked why people would want to run MacOS without the Mac, not whether it was a good idea!

            I have never used modern MacOS, so I do not know if I would like it, but the only way I would ever use it would be on non-Apple hardware.  The most recent Mac operating system I used was System 6, so I really don’t know if I would like it.  Given that I have very specific expectations about what an OS is expected to do, I am skeptical.  I’m disturbed that it shares the same “no [immediately obvious] text field” file open dialogs that GNOME does in Linux… that’s just bonkers, IMO, and has been my go-to example of why GNOME has lost the plot.  I can’t be sure unless I tried it, though.

            Group "L" (KDE Neon User Edition 5.19.2).

            2 users thanked author for this post.
            • #2272324 Reply
              OscarCP
              AskWoody Plus

              Ascaris: I keep hearing people that say that owning Apple computers is nothing short of a living nightmare. I am using one now and have been using the same one, a laptop, for three and a half years as my workhorse, and also have used Macs in the past. I work with people that work with Macs (as well as with Linux.) I haven’t heard them complaining about their Macs or macOS either. (Well, yes, there are issues now and then and they get mentioned, but no more than can be expected from the software of such complexity as any good OS has to be. (Nathan’s own threads and his comments elsewhere give witness to that.)

              Yes, Apple is a big corporation and it is not run by angels. But, in relative terms, my experience has been much, much, much better with Macs than with Windows PCs, entirely because of the Windows OS (the machines themselves, three so far, running 98, XP and 7, respectively and in that order, have all been OK.) Windows is something I have been forced to use, for work-related reasons, for more than two decades. But no longer, lucky me!

              As to why I say that people who need that much computing muscle power should be able to buy a legitimate Mac, well: who has a serious need for a machine with 8 to 15 processors, equivalent to twice as many virtual CPUs, because has something to do with it that requires that number-crunching capacity, but is not able to pay for the machine, or does not have the expectation of being paid for using it to do a big job, both enough to cover the purchase of the machine and also still have plenty left after that, and has instead to resort to shady deals to get it? I imagine that there might be a few such buyers, now and then, here and there, because it takes all sorts to make a world, but enough to justify setting up shop to make and sell fake Macs? It might be so, but I am still skeptical about that: there is some other reason lurking below the surface, probably not a very pleasant one, that has not been mentioned here yet.

              Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

              • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by OscarCP.
              1 user thanked author for this post.
              • #2272335 Reply
                Ascaris
                AskWoody_MVP

                But, in relative terms, my experience has been much, much, much better with Macs than with Windows PCs, entirely because of the Windows OS (the machines themselves, three so far, running 98, XP and 7, respectively and in that order, have all been OK.)

                I’m strictly talking about hardware here, since the context is an actual Mac with MacOS vs. other hardware with MacOS, and you had asked why someone might want a non-Apple “Mac” instead of an actual Mac.  The difference, in that case, is the hardware.

                The difficulties that were a part of Windows are not at all the same to me as those from the hardware.  I don’t have the mindset of one who opens the box and uses the PC… I’d been using PCs for more than ten years before I ever had that experience.  I buy the hardware, and the rest is just along for the ride.  Of those PCs that came with an OS preinstalled, I’ve only used that OS once.  In all the other cases, I bought the thing with the full intention of using some other OS.

                I certainly don’t think that having an Apple product is anything like a living nightmare.  It’s Apple’s practices and policies that I find offensive, not because I, as a consumer, would expect that something bad would happen if I bought a Mac, but just that I don’t care for how Apple conducts business.  If I wanted to run MacOS, that might be a reason I’d look at a non-Mac Mac, though I’d have to temper that with the poor odds of having warranty support for the length of the time it’s supposed to be for when the company is pulling the tail of a tiger.

                Group "L" (KDE Neon User Edition 5.19.2).

                1 user thanked author for this post.
              • #2272343 Reply
                OscarCP
                AskWoody Plus

                Ascaris, I am not arguing with your position on Apple’s hardware.

                I am considering only the need or otherwise to buy a fake super Mac by people that cannot afford a legitimate one and why would such people need it in the first place. To me, something here does not add up.

                If inconvenient hardware were the issue, then we would be discussing machines lower down the line than the Mac Pro; that would be laptops. The Mac Pro is just a box with sockets to plug in what most people would need to plug into it to do their work (including a monitor, a keyboard and a mouse), unlike the newer lines of all-in-one laptops. It is built for heavy duty use, not for users to show off with their cool looking super thin machines. The latter are not all they should be, in my opinion. Mine is an older model still being sold by Apple at the time, that I chose and bought expressly because it was enough for what I needed and being “cool” was already taking over the design of the then latest models at the expense of functionality. And still is.

                Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

                1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #2272396 Reply
        Alex5723
        AskWoody Plus

        I am considering only the need or otherwise to buy a fake super Mac by people that cannot afford a legitimate one and why would such people need it in the first place. To me, something here does not add up.

        People want MacOS running on chosen hardware components, just like others want Windows OS on Apple’s MacBooks (I know more then a few).
        You can read the outcry of Mac users regarding the coming ARM MacBooks. Many say they will dump their MacBooks as the ARM Macs (probably) won’t run Windows OS.
        Hackintosh users don’t care about Apple’s support. They do care about running MacOS , the hardware options (NVidia GPU ?) and price.
        Comparable Windows machines cost as much if not more then a Mac Pro so a Hackintosh is a way to get what they want.

        1 user thanked author for this post.
        • #2273936 Reply
          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          In other words: hobbyists with a libertarian streak that want to run anything in any which computer? Didn’t I write elsewhere in this thread that “it takes all sorts to make a world?” And yes, I imagine that Apple will have no problem shutting down whatever legal loophole they might be using to satisfy their urges, or else will go for just making their life very, very difficult, until they quit trying to run macOS on a galena-detector radio and move on to some other peculiar activity. Assuming there are enough of them to make it worthwhile for Apple to even bother with them. Fine by me, either way.

           

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

          1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #2273915 Reply
        Nathan Parker
        AskWoody_MVP

        OpenCore is likely going to get shut down by Apple, either legally or they’ll find ways to block updates to macOS.

        I wish Apple would release a mid-range Mac tower that isn’t a Mac Pro. I don’t need one (I have an iMac Pro and love the iMac form factor), but one area that has driven some Hackintoshes is people wanting to run macOS on a tower factor without owning a Mac Pro (it’s not the only factor, but it’s at least one factor Apple could eliminate).

        And while I am getting use out of my older iMac running VM’s, I’m honestly looking forward to Apple going ARM. The overall quality of Macs decreased when Apple went Intel (I owned a PowerPC Mac before the Intel switch, and it still boots and runs well and has outlived two MacBook Pros). Macs are still premium machines, but I’m expecting to see quality improve with the ARM switch.

        Nathan Parker

        • #2273937 Reply
          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          Nathan, According to Wikipedia, these are RISC machines, while Intel CPUs are CISC. Going from one to another with such a different CPU instruction set, I suspect will be a pretty big change at the heart of the Macs and of macOS, requiring a considerable overhaul of both “under the hood” that, initially, is likely to bring in, as it tends to happen, multiple bugs, wrinkles and annoyances. At least such is my not very optimistic expectation when it comes to big changes in (so far) OK machines running a (so far) OK OS. Also, at the time of “Spectre” and “Meltdown”, if memory serves, there were some revelations of equally nasty vulnerabilities peculiar to ARM chips. Which was worrisome, because of the embedded ARM chips in ATMs and such.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

          1 user thanked author for this post.
          • #2273950 Reply
            Alex5723
            AskWoody Plus

            Oscar, Apple already has switched twice Macs CPUs :
            From Motorola 68000 architecture to PowerPC, and then from PowerPC to Intel, and Mac ecosystem survived.
            Switching CPUs has become a common move lately. Samsung Galaxy Book S ditched Snapdragon processor for Intel, Lenovo’s Yoga C640 ditched Snapdragon processor for Intel…

            So it seems switching CPU architectures isn’t such a big deal any more.

            1 user thanked author for this post.
      • #2273951 Reply
        Nathan Parker
        AskWoody_MVP

        PowerPC Macs were RISC processors and used a totally different instruction set as well, and yet Apple beautifully transitioned to Intel.

        Apple has basically done three major transitions in the past:

        • Motorola 68K to PowerPC processors
        • Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (now macOS), which replaced the Mac OS with the UNIX-powered OS based on NeXTSTEP we have today.
        • PowerPC (RISC) processors to Intel/x86 (CISC) processors

        I owned a PowerPC Mac during the Intel transition and moved to Intel a couple of years later. Overall, the transition went smoothly (Apple’s two other previous transitions went smoothly as well from what I heard, although I wasn’t a Mac user during those times).

        What made the PowerPC to Intel transition go smoothly:

        • Apple released a version of XCode that allowed developers to create a “Universal Binary” that could run on both PowerPC and Intel Macs, and upgrading apps to “Universal Binary” apps overall went smoothly.
        • Apple released a translation layer in Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard (and only in Snow Leopard was it an optional install) called “Rosetta” that allowed PowerPC apps to run seamlessly on Intel Macs, albeit at a little slower performance than Intel-native apps (a few apps ran decently this way until the developers released “Universal Binary” apps.
        • Apple released an Intel Mac Developer Kit (basically a Mac Pro shell or at the time called a Power Mac shell with an Intel processor inside) that developers could rent and trade in for a production Intel Mac once shipped that gave them a year ahead to prepare and test their apps for Intel.
        • All versions of Mac OS X from day one were compiled to run on both PowerPC and Intel processors (although we didn’t know about it until Steve Jobs announced it, and only Mac OS X Tiger and later was officially released to run on Intel processors, the others were used internally for testing).

        I expect Apple to follow a similar pattern, plus these are some additional pointers that’ll make the transition more smoothly:

        • Apple has likely been testing an ARM variant of macOS for a while. We know Apple can easily run the core of macOS on ARM since iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/HomePod Software/watchOS/and BridgeOS that powers the T2 chips in Macs are all running on ARM chips and share the same core as macOS.
        • Apple has been paving the way for an ARM macOS for a while: phasing out 32 Bit app support, Project Catalyst apps, transitioning from OpenGL to Metal, all laying the groundwork for making an ARM Mac easier.
        • In terms of “Spectre” and “Meltdown”, while they can affect ARM chips, we also have Apple’s custom chip designs that will be included in any ARM Mac, and Apple can apply plenty of security workarounds to mitigate these issues. These aren’t stock ARM chips.

        While no transition will be without a few hiccups, and with the main issue being running Windows on a Mac will be more difficult unless the ARM variant of Windows seems to run decently on an ARM Mac, and while I won’t run out and buy an ARM Mac, I hope my next Mac is running an ARM chip and I can pivot away from Windows.

        Nathan Parker

        2 users thanked author for this post.
      • #2273952 Reply
        Nathan Parker
        AskWoody_MVP

        Alex was writing his at the same time I was writing mine. I added some additional details as to why I’m expecting this transition to overall go smoothly.

        Nathan Parker

        2 users thanked author for this post.
        • #2274238 Reply
          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          Nathan, as you wrote in your previous comment:

          Apple released a translation layer in Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard (and only in Snow Leopard was it an optional install) called “Rosetta” that allowed PowerPC apps to run seamlessly on Intel Macs, albeit at a little slower performance than Intel-native apps (a few apps ran decently this way until the developers released “Universal Binary” apps.

          I hope this happens again, although even then it will mean having to jump in a hurry to a new major release of macOS, whether ready or not. Because, if it does not happen, wouldn’t machines become “vintage” or even “obsolete” all of a sudden and before their time?

          Also, if memory serves (that was quite a while ago, at the time when the “Spectre” and “Meltdown” bugs were on the loose), the ARM chips’ vulnerabilities I read about were peculiar to those chips and were not those two of Intel ones.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

      • #2274267 Reply
        Alex5723
        AskWoody Plus

        I hope this happens again, although even then it will mean having to jump in a hurry to a new major release of macOS, whether ready or not. Because, if it does not happen, wouldn’t machines become “vintage” or even “obsolete” all of a sudden and before their time?

        Apple has re-registered the name ‘Rosetta’ which may come to live with ARM Macs.
        There will be no need to JUMP to the new OS. Apple will continue to support current Intel CPUs for long time and won’t change its policy.

        2 users thanked author for this post.
      • #2274395 Reply
        Nathan Parker
        AskWoody_MVP

        I will be releasing a full “WWDC Bottom Line” blog post this week once I’ve had a chance to read through all of the WWDC announcements. In the meantime, Apple will release an “Apple Rosetta 2” for ARM Macs. It will allow Intel apps not compiled for ARM chips to run on ARM Macs until those apps go ARM-native (at which then the app would run natively on the ARM Mac). Performance “sounds” better from what I’m reading about the PowerPC to Intel “Rosetta” since Apple has more control over the translation software (the previous “Rosetta” Apple simply licensed).

        From what I read, “Rosetta 2” will even allow some VMs created for Intel Macs under Parallels, etc., to still run on ARM Macs, plus ARM Macs will natively run iOS and iPadOS apps.

        macOS will be supported for Intel Macs for years to come (there’s even some Intel Mac models coming this year), so I won’t rush into an ARM Mac. I am excited about it though and my next Mac purchase will likely be an ARM Mac (although it’ll be a while before I invest in a new machine since I’m set for a while).

        Nathan Parker

        1 user thanked author for this post.
        • #2274422 Reply
          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          Nathan and Alex: Thanks for explaining the transition to the ARM Macs and their macOS. (and the possibility of not transitioning at all for at least several years after Apple makes this major change in the hardware.)

          RISC used to be regarded as a great idea that would allow machines to run faster and with fewer problems. I have not followed developments on this for some years now, so I am pleasantly surprised to find out that it is still around and that ARM-made RISC CPUs are being used , or are likely to be used as main components of regular personal computers, Macs in this case, and not just as parts of embedded processors, as I thought to be the case.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

      • #2274426 Reply
        Nathan Parker
        AskWoody_MVP

        It’s because this isn’t your grandfather’s RISC processor, nor even stock ARM. It will be processors finely-tuned by Apple to offer better performance, battery life on notebooks, etc. With Apple in control of the processor design, long-term we’ll see better performing Macs with greater quality and better hardware/OS integration.

        Nathan Parker

        1 user thanked author for this post.
        • #2274448 Reply
          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          Nathan: “It’s because this isn’t your grandfather’s RISC processor,…”

          Hmmm, good to know that, but I think I may be my grandfather here. For example, I remember when, in the late eighties and early nineties, RISC processors were introduced in Sun Microsystems UNIX and, eventually, Sun “Solaris” UNIX workstations, that I did use myself, as well as in other computers such as those built with PowerPC’s chips, Motorola’s etc. While, on the other hand, Intel-based IBM-clone PCs were still very slow and generally of considerably more limited use than they are today.

          RISC used a basic subset of the instructions of the CISC Complex Instruction Set used by Intel (and perhaps others), and simplified some of them, cutting down in the amount of central processor’s hardware needed to translate the machine code into actual computing operations. This increased speed, among other advantages, compared to the use of CISC processors. So, as I said: my grandfather I am. Here.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group W (ex B) & macOS + Linux (Mint)

          1 user thanked author for this post.
    Viewing 9 reply threads

    Please follow the -Lounge Rules- no personal attacks, no swearing, and politics/religion are relegated to the Rants forum.

    Reply To: ‘OpenCore Computer’ Launches Commercial Hackintosh

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.