Hacker News Reader

Hackintoshes from my experience are usually built as a low cost hobbyist alternative. Most people earning a living from a Mac will sacrifice speed to have stability and support.

Plenty of people who want MacOS but cannot afford the official Mac will use it instead.

View on HN

I need to build my software for macOS. On my Ryzen Threadripper running Linux, I can run a faster, more powerful KVM/QEMU version of Mojave than I can buy from Apple, while still having cores and RAM left for Linux.

I could afford to buy hardware from Apple, but why would I when the cost/performance ratio for an embarrasingly parallel compute task like compiling is so much worse?

Like the previous person said, mainly stability and support. There's no doubt that macOS can run much faster in non-Apple hardware given certain parameters, but if you want support and solid stability you would probably go with Mac hardware.

I remember seeing a build on the tonymacx86 forums where someone built a Hackintosh with 64 cores (dual Xeons, I believe) and 128 GB of RAM - back in 2010. What you'd do with such a beast, I don't know, but that's well above and beyond any hardware Apple has ever sold.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com