-
Hackintosh
-
“oh – all of you people are SO STUPID – if you would simply stop using anything from Adobe, AVID, Blackmagic Resolve, and just purchase a nice iMac Pro nicely outfitted for about $7000 with 3 year Apple Care, and just use
FCP X, Motion, and Compressor – all your problems will go away, and there will be no reason for any more “debates”.
You can do everything with FCP X, Motion and Compressor, and your cost per year will be $2333, and never a need to worry if things stop working, because of Apple Care. And in 3 years, you have paid off your iMac Pro, and you get the next wonderful machine that Apple comes out with. Why do we sit here and debate all of this, when the solution to all our problems are here right now ! – is that not worth $2333 to you per year to solve all of your professional problems ? ”OK – who do I sound like ?
OH – and while I am at it – “stop using Amazon S3, Google Cloud, Backblaze B2, Dropbox, Media Silo, YouTube, and just simply use iCloud for your approval copies to your clients for FCP X – all your aggravation will go away, and everything will just work !”.
OK – who is funny ?
Bob Zelin
Bob Zelin
Rescue 1, Inc.
bobzelin@icloud.com -
The main reasons I am using a Hack over a PC is….
1) Two network clients require ProRes deliverables…will not take DNxHD. And with 8 masters needed of an hour long show (or in a couple cases, two hour specials)…outputting and transcoding is time and space prohibitive.
2) My main client uses FCX primarily, and I need to access the project every now and then for a variety of reasons.
3) A good chunk of my “helper apps” are Mac Only…like EditReady.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
That was fun to watch, but only 3 hours to do all the research he described? Obviously, he is no amateur. I still remember when Apple allowed another company to make boxes. Jobs shut that down as soon as he returned. Most people know Apple uses high gross profit margins on hardware, so it is no surprise their computers cost much more than the sum of their parts.
So it is fun to fantasize about, but I will spend my time trying to do editing and hope every 5 or 6 years I can buy an new machine and not be bankrupted.
-
I built a hackintosh Laptop, actually two, one each for me an my wife about 4 years ago.
I paid right at $300 for an HP probook which was the equivalent computer to a refurb 2012 Macbook Pro that was listed at $899 each. But my Hackintoshbook Pro also had a ssd drive. It is not as nice as the Macbook pro. The keyboard doesn’t light up. The screen doesn’t look near as good. The bluetooth could not be made to work.But I got a nice quick macbook pro machine for a third of the price and it is still running well 4 years later.
It was a days job to put it together. I make about $200 a day in my job so I am still ahead.
But, I would rather have a real macbook pro.Kirk Pitts.
video amateur.
Personal skateboard and band historian. 😉 -
[Claude Lyneis] “That was fun to watch, but only 3 hours to do all the research he described? Obviously, he is no amateur”
He is a complete amateur at making a Hack…but not so much at building computers. BUT…as he mentioned in the video, there is a website dedicated for this, so they list ALL of the compatible parts, and have suggested builds, so you only have a limited number of components to look at.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
The Mac Clone experiment in the 1990s was not well conceived. The last maker standing was Power Computing, and if memory serves me correctly, they were in bad shape at the end. Apple bought what was left of Power and shut it down.
I had a Power Computing ‘PowerWave 604|120’ system. it was actually more trouble than it was worth. Standard Apple PowerMac chipset, tweaked just enough to make it a little faster than a 8600, but out-of-spec enough to make 3rd party cards not work in it. I later bought the Bondi Blue G3 tower. All of the stuff that didn’t work in the PowerWave, just magically seem to work in the new system.
I’ve also built a Hacintosh. It was an interesting journey, it still runs, but I have never used it for anything production related. I’m still on a 2009 MacPro tower that I’ve upgraded the CPU on.
-
The guy across the street from my new place LOVES to work on his stripped down Street Rod Drag Racer (little to no original parts under the skin.)
He gets great joy from applying his hard won mechanical knowledge to creating a machine that, once he gets it to the strip – might blow away the competition in a race.
I get that. It’s where he loves to spend his time, money, and attention.
And I acknowledge that a lot of editors facing larger rasters and more and more complex composites similarly feel the need for the biggest engine possible under the hood – to grind through their work via brute strength. It’s how the game was played for the longest time.
I’ve just come to see things a bit differently.
For me now, the larger engine doesn’t seem to result in an appreciably faster car. (Witness how fast electric cars are off the line compared to gasoline technology, perhaps?)
I just need to get the work my clients ask for, done as smoothly and as efficiently as possible.
And that’s been getting easier and easier and faster and faster, not because of the rig I’m using, really. But because of the design of the tool I’m using. Organizing is faster. Assembly is faster. Revision is WAY faster. And everything just works dependably.
I can’t see the reason to chase my tail regarding hardware so much anymore.
Others with different needs, will need different approaches. But engine size is no longer an obsession for me.
I totally understand that facility editors, those with major compositing needs, heavy in shop collaboration systems – and plenty of other editors with differing needs will op for other solutions that meet THEIR needs.
But my practice is now largely download content – arrange and create the work – upload the results – and collect electronic payment in return.
This tool does that beautifully. So I’m content.
YMMV.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery. -
Bill…that’s good. That’s great that Apple has made hardware that’s perfect for you, and a LOT of it’s users. No, I am genuinely happy that iMacs and Laptops work for most people. I myself got by with a laptop that I plugged into a larger setup as my main machine for 4 years.
But then yes, there are those that need more…more than Apple is currently offering. And the more that they DID offer up to 2012, then decided that no, we DIDN’T need any of that and what we wanted instead is a small tube on our desk, with a dozen wires streaming from it to 2-3 external boxes that are either stand alone, or offer a place to put the thing we need. yeah, FAR MORE elegant than a tower with multiple things enclosed inside it. They also decided that we didn’t need to upgrade anything ourselves…like newer or better GPU, or more RAM, or more internal hard drives. Sure, YOU don’t need that, but that doesn’t mean NO ONE needs that.
Shane
Little Frog Post
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def -
[Shane Ross] “But then yes, there are those that need more…more than Apple is currently offering.”
I think it really boils down to several factors, because the current line-up does offer a lot of horsepower. To me those factors seem to be:
1. How much external gack do you want/need hanging off of your MBP/iMP/iM/nMP
2. Whether you need multiple GPUs and a choice of GPUs
3. Future upgradeability/expandability
4. Ease of service
5. Cost– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Shane Ross] “But then yes, there are those that need more…more than Apple is currently offering. And the more that they DID offer up to 2012, then decided that no, we DIDN’T need any of that and what we wanted instead is a small tube on our desk, with a dozen wires streaming from it to 2-3 external boxes that are either stand alone, or offer a place to put the thing we need. yeah, FAR MORE elegant than a tower with multiple things enclosed inside it. They also decided that we didn’t need to upgrade anything ourselves…like newer or better GPU, or more RAM, or more internal hard drives. Sure, YOU don’t need that, but that doesn’t mean NO ONE needs that.”
Listen, I totally get that perspective. I lived inside it for decades. Push the hardware as much as I could afford so I could get the performance I felt I needed.
But that was the 90’s and part of the 00’s
In this decade, what I’ve discovered is that the stock hardware of today WAY outperforms the hardware of that era. More importantly, as our needs grow, the smart people at ALL these digital media companies are changing the very nature of what video streams ARE. Whether Uncompressed HD or DV, H-264 or 265, MXF or ProRez RAW, the nature of the signals themselves are trending to do more with less. So why do I need to simultaneously chase bigger and bigger hardware when my signals are getting more and more efficient?
I understand that some clients will DEMAND that everything be as big and fat and perfect as possible. Some of them will even be correct and know what they need. (Others, as we all know, will just blindly ask for MAX everything just to hide their lack of actual understanding – and so it goes!)
We all have to skate across this thinnish ice and do what’s best to get our jobs done.
Same as ever.
Have a great weekend.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up