Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rjevski | Hacker News Reader

No offense intended nor taken.

I’m not actually arguing with whoever wrote this, however I’m advocating against actually trying this for anything productive, especially not your main machine - you don’t want your workstation to let you down because an update suddenly broke it and you have to screw around for hours trying to get it to work again.

View on HN

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.

Unless a random software update breaks it. A Hackintosh's Achille's heel is not hardware breaking down but software updates from Apple hosing it.

I 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.

The iMac Pro seems to be plenty viable for a power user. 64 core, 128GB RAM among other things.

0 Upgradability, EXTREMELY thermal constrained, 0 self reparability.

At least for me, that's not a power user machine.

I have seen this referenced multiple times. The iMac Pro doesn't have 64 cores.

The highest end iMac Pro has 18 cores.

Worth saying if you actually do spend a couple of hours setting it up and disable updates it works great.

Been using a hackintosh for work for 4+ years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com