The main benefit for me using OSx is that is a nix desktop os that works well on a very specific hardware. Having used linux on the desktop before for years I always had some problem with drivers and alike.
If I were willing to deal with these kind of issues I'd do it with some linux distribution not osx.
I guess there are some cases like developing software for Apple os.
I can only speak for myself, but I Hackintosh because I need more computrons than I can get in a retina MBP or a Mac mini and I'm not paying $5K for a Mac Pro. My desktop (a Nehalem i7 with a Radeon HD6870) is still competitive with every Mac they field, aside from that Pro, and I paid about a grand for it three years ago.
Even aside from the lack of basically essential applications like Photoshop and Illustrator, I'd rather invest a little effort making OS X work than work every day in a Linux environment. The desktop experience, be it GNOME or KDE or XFCE, is at best lukewarm and usually leaves me asking in vain why this software hates me and wants me to waste my time.
Same here, I run a spec that Apple simply won't sell me. The moment they sell me a computer that's user upgradable over time and allows me to choose the monitors (no glare, please) that fit my needs, I'll say TAKE MY MONEY!
My Hackintosh built in 2012 for less than $800, it has:
- Core i5 3.4 GHz (still competitive with Mac CPU specs sold in 2014 and into 2015)
- GeForce GT 640 with 2 x DVI + 1 x HDMI for a triple monitor setup (much better than anything in Mac Minis and some iMacs)
- 2 SSD drives for main OS
- 2 x 3TB magnetic drives (sync'ed to Amazon Glacier)
Note that two years after my initial build, faster CPU options and graphics cards can be swapped in with incremental upgrades as my requirements increase.
I'll post separately in this thread tomorrow about my recommendations and experience running this machine, but it's hands down the best Mac money can't buy, with room to grow.
I don't do it because I don't want to give Apple my money, I have to do it because Apple won't take my money.
-
P.S. IMO, Hackintosh only makes sense for desktops. While the various methods could get it to work for laptops, no manufacturer comes close to Apple's build quality. That trackpad is just amazing.
I can respect your aesthetic reasons for running OS X, but it's entirely subjective. I'm exactly the opposite: I run Mac hardware because, for my requirements, it's the only option. I run Debian on it because, for my requirements, looking pretty is the very last thing on my list and whatever doesn't run from the terminal is a few easy clicks away.
"Lukewarm" with respect to a "desktop experience" depends entirely on what you want from your desktop. I have the same "why does this software hate me" while attempting to use OS X. It doesn't make either of our experiences more or less valid; it simply means that different people have different tastes and requirements, and that any given mix of hardware and software might be great for you but will be totally inappropriate for someone else.
Thanks for sharing, application support is something I didn't consider on my post and yes I can see a great value there.
Regarding Gnome, KDE and XFCE, I think these are not that bad, but I understand having different experiences than you because I suspect we are different type of users.
For me, Linux on the desktop is not yet close to OS X in terms of usability and application support (especially MS Office). I'm currently thinking about a hackintosh, simply because Apple does not build good hardware for desktop. The two Apple desktop machines that I currently have (Mac Mini and iMac 27") both cooked themselves to death (DVD drive on the mini and graphics card + display on the iMac). Apple simply puts too many components into too small case without enough proper thermal engineering. As a result, in heavy use the devices just end up frying themselves.
If you use a reasonable Gigabyte main board, an Intel CPU and a Nvidia graphics card, you will most likely not run into trouble. I had to change some Bios options (turn on AHCI, disable Intel Vd) and install a network and sound driver after successful installation. One of the few remaining glitches is that authentication in FaceTime is done in part by reading a unique identifier in the Firmware, which apparently is not present.
Pretty much, I need to compile to iOS and OS X. I currently use my (5 years old, but upgraded over the years) Mac mini for it, but as the latest version of the mini is severely restricted in upgrade potential (soldered on ram etc) when I'll want to upgrade I might look into this.
While I understand what you mean let me try and clarify that a bit.
Running OS X under VMware Workstation is not supported by VMware and is not allowed according to apple's EULA. This probably was what you referred towards.
However you can run OS X legally and supported on VMware Fusion and VMware vSphere provided that the hardware it runs on is apple hardware.
Yes I realized that that by itself is probably no good for most of the hackintosh folks, but it is an alternative option if you have a need to run more as one OS X version and want to reduce the cost a bit.
Below is a direct link from the VMware compatility guide on OS X 10.9, you can change the details in the search if you want info about another OS X version.
The Hackintosh movement is still going strong. One would think Apple would make their life difficult but quite the opposite appears to be the case: there are a few well-understood workarounds to get OS X working on an off-the-shelf PC, mostly just audio and networking.
Be careful if you choose not to follow the guides, though! There's a reason most Hackintoshes use Gigabyte motherboards, Atheros wireless, etc.
By this point, Macs are only a notch away from a stock PC. Even the last vestige of difference, such as the use of EFI, are becoming common practice by other computer manufacturers.
The time and effort required to introduce technical preventative measures far out-weigh the "loss" from the Hackintosh community (which is still a minuscule niche in comparison to their genuine markets).
The point of giving the OS away was to encourage buying a new device. Especially when it sends you notifications/badges that the new OS is available - and then the new OS takes advantage of newer hardware features ... and for older hardware makes sure to let you know that your Mac/iOS device doesn't support this feature.
The margins on selling the OS were never very good. Apple has always made the majority of their money from hardware sales.
I'd argue the point of giving the OS away for free was nothing to do with buying new devices. It was probably to make sure people upgraded sooner, rather than being put off by having to buy the new version. Better for the whole ecosystem.
Well put. Its just like iOS--developers are happier if most people are running the latest version. Less version-fragmentation. The "less adopted" variants of Windows are a problem for development and testing. It might make sense to only support/test XP, 7, and 10--but what a mess that is.
Just last month, there was an win32k update for which the Win8.0 version failed to install on machines that was in-place upgraded. Only the Win8.0 (aka NT 6.2) version had the problem.
> and for older hardware makes sure to let you know that your Mac/iOS device doesn't support this feature.
Where is this case? In my experience, something I saw online simply wasn't available to me, like AirDrop, for instance. I upgraded my mid-09 MBP to 10.7, looked for AirDrop and couldn't find it.
Same for Handoff and the Bluetooth-required new features in Yosemite. Apple doesn't go out of its way to inform me my hardware is out of date; features talked about in the media are just missing.
edit: Also, your post sounds dangerously close to the uninformed "Apple purposefully makes iOS n perform worse on device x", as if that's a smart business move.
Re Handoff in Yosemite... there are hacked kexts that make it work just fine in older (non BT LE/4) Macs (with regular BT) making it fairly clear that an artificial limitation was introduced.
That's not quite the whole truth. There are two Mac models where you can simply enable it: the mid-2011 Mac mini, and the mid-2011 MBA. Every other model it could potentially work on, you literally need to upgrade the wireless card.
Given that, it makes me wonder how the unmodified Mac mini and MBA perform.
pretty sure the margins for the hardware is significantly higher than the margin for their OS, so it's much more valuable that Apple makes it as easy as possible for people to buy into their ecosystem.
Obviously Apple has outsmarted us again. I love my Hackintosh with the "free" OS X (That I have had the last year (Coming from MS). But ... I finally got a iPhone a few weeks ago and I have bought for me and my so and children in the last 3 years: 6 iPads, 4 iPhones, 1 MacBook Pro, 2 MacBook Airs and 2 Apple TV's. We are now totally entrenched in the Apple Ecosystem. I love how all my devices now play together. The next six months we will likely buy 1-2 new iPads, 1 iPhone 6, 2 iWatch, 1 Apple TV and possibly another MacBook. So ... As long as Apple do not have any reasonable priced / hackable desktop I think they will be very carefull to not make osX harder to run "unofficially" on Hackintoshes. I actually get a feeling they make it easier all the time ...
I ran one for about 6 months, then finally gave up and bought a Mac Pro. I had a board that wasn't necessarily supported but through trial and error I was able to get it to work. I wanted to go to 3 monitors and my video card wouldn't support it, so I just went ahead and bought the Mac Pro.
If you needed to build some machines that you don't necessarily care about updating (like some networked "macs" for compressor or rendering) then I think these would be great. I may end up building another one but I really can't justify it with a retina macbook pro. I don't game and that's the only reason I'd go back.
I ran one for around three years before getting the Mac Pro, and it did everything I needed it to without problems. The only problem I was having was a hard drive corruption issue in OS X 10.8 and newer, which turned out to be a problem on my Mac Pro, too, until I finally realized the problem was with Apple's exFAT drivers and not with my hackintosh setup.
There are a few different kinds of issues that come up.
Software updates are a pain. Most of the time they work fine (especially now that Apple has more commodity hardware and public OS betas). Sometimes there are issues though and it is just always smart to wait a few months while they are figured out. If you are the sort that always wants to be running the latest OS version you'll find this frustrating or you'll spend a lot of time updating. My MacBook Pro was running Yosemite from day one. My hackintosh is still on 10.9.5. There are a few other minor software issues that come up.. iMessage is always a chore to get working.
On the hardware end you get much greater build to order flexibility. You are limited in hardware to largely things that Apple uses somewhere in their product line but this still gives you quite a few options since there are a few very useful combos that Apple just doesn't sell. My configuration is basically an iMac without a screen and with the Mac Pro graphics card. A Mac Pro would require me to buy ~$2000 of Xeon hardware and a second GPU, neither of which I need. An iMac would saddle me with a mobile GPU and non-replacable glossy screen. As a bonus I have 5 different internal SATA drives (with room for more) and a Blu-Ray burner.
That said, there are a lot of things about Apple hardware that I miss. I don't have any Thunderbolt ports though and the graphics card is full of legacy DVI ports instead of useful DisplayPort ones. The machine is large and uses way more power and throws off way more heat than an Apple machine. I had to do some careful design work to get something quiet and it is still not as quiet as Apple hardware. Sleep has never worked reliably. Boot screen support for my graphics card doesn't exist so I have to physically unplug video cables if I want to see what is happening during boot up (say if I want to reboot in Linux or Windows or from a recovery partition). The audio ports don't have the third contact for a headset like Apple's do so I need a USB headset.
Overall, as a desktop solution for home use, non-commercial software development, and gaming it lets you be more cost efficient with your computing hardware at the price of time spent researching and tinkering. Particularly so if your use case is one that Apple doesn't cater to like gaming or anything that thinness isn't a top priority. Once it was set up I don't tend to have problems. My hardware was ordered with Hackintosh compatibility in mind though. Problems typically tend to be clustered around OS upgrades or hardware changes rather than day to day issues (except for issues due to hardware constraints like sleep/wake and boot screens). It is otherwise pretty stable.
I'd never recommend it for a laptop, a non-technical person, anyone who has more money than time, or anyone who needs something reliable/with manufacturer support/help. I wish I could justify a Mac Pro for my use case but I can't at 3-4x the price. I have a MacBook Pro for serious work which lets me take on more risk of having the desktop out of commission due to any issues.
Just a small note... when I changed my bootloader from Chameleon (BIOS) to Clover (EFI), I stopped encountering upgrade issues. Clover lets you do "native" OS updates without resorting to messing around with the bootloader. I upgraded to each 10.9.x release and have been on the public yosemite betas since beta 1, all without touching any boot flags or kexts or anything like that. iMessage and the app store have continued to function too.
Thanks for the detailed info. Sounds like it's still a bit further off than I'd like out of a primary machine, something I tried a few years ago (unsuccessfully).
Not the OP, but I built one based on one of these guides 2 years ago. The only problem I have is that once in a while (1-2 a month) the sound doesn't work after resuming from sleep. I have to reboot to get it back.
Otherwise I don't have any issues. I'm running the latest Mavericks, could install updates etc.
>once in a while (1-2 a month) the sound doesn't work after resuming from sleep. I have to reboot to get it back.
I have a 2013(?) Mac Mini that was running Lion (and then Mavericks) and it did the same thing with HDMI audio on every single unsuspend. It took months for an update to come out that finally fixed it. Not saying your problem isn't due to hackintoshing, but getting the real thing (since 2005 and the first mac mini, for me) hasn't been problem-free either.
I built a Yosemite based Hackintosh a few weeks ago and had a same problem except it occurred almost every time computer wakes up. Solution was to unload audio drivers before computer goes to sleep and then load them again when it wakes up. Somehow it works even when kext is in use and cannot be unloaded.
Apple may benefit from what amounts to a two tiered price structure. They make their money from their mainstream customers who pay full fare for Apple hardware and software. Meanwhile, giving OSX away for use on cheaper hardware supports their app developers while taking business away from potential competitors or innovators.
To be fair, I also suspect that widespread piracy in the early days of personal computers actually contributed to Microsoft's monopoly by creating a price point that nobody could compete with.
I think Apple doesn't worry too much, their best customers, aren't techies. They may get a hackintosh up, but if there’s any frustration they probably will just go and get an all-apple product, which will "just work". And that's the attraction of Macs.
Quite. I seriously considered the Hackintosh route a few years ago and spent some time looking into what's involved, but in the end decided it wasn't worth it. One of the reasons I switched to the Mac was because I want something that just works - I was fed up with viruses and virus scanners, driver issues and such on windows. Linux wasn't an option for similar issues though I always have it handy in a VM.
The problem for me is that while I think I'm perfectly capable of handling the technical issues with setting up a Hackintosh, the extra value of that customisability it's isn't there for me. I'd rather pay a few hundred quid more and have a solid, supported system than spend a few days of my time setting a machine up and then a few hours every few months fixing niggling issues.
I fully understand why people with specific needs go the Hackintosh route, for them it's worth it. Maybe I'll be in that camp some day, but not for now.
I suspect this is why Apple doesn't bother killing Hackintoshes. If people, are wiling to spend their own time and effort doing it, they're probably not going to instead spend the money with Apple. They are still paying a cost though, so that's the market in action. The alternative would be Apple spending Engineering effort fighting them. Again, that's not an efficient or economically useful way to spend that time and money.
It's worth noting that this site, TonyMacx86, isn't well-liked by some of the Hackintosh community, because they plagiarise and rebrand software and drivers helpful or necessary in Hackintosh setup. The guide may be useful, but please get your setup tools from the original sources.
My main source for this is conversations I've had in IRC, but it's also been noted elsewhere.[0][1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Also, apparently they have weird anti-piracy measures on their software... software which they stole from others![9]
If you want Hackintosh install software which isn't stolen, I suggest myHack: http://myhack.sojugarden.com/ (I'm unaffiliated with it, but I've used it and I've had it recommended to me.) Unfortunately, myHack is now proprietary, because the author has had their code stolen in the past. It is, however, freeware.
Damn, I'm surprised somebody actually bothered to archive that post. #9 is me - It gets better though, after I wrote that post, his "legal team" sent me a "DMCA" in an attempt to get the post killed off.
Tonymac is not a great guy. Between the bans for innocuous questions, the hypocrisy, the fact that him and his staff reportedly read user's private messages, and the fact that he tries to intimidate people into not talking about his stolen code.. ick.
I wasn't aware of that. The hackintosh I built using TonyMacx86-recommended parts is sitting at 10.8.5 until it absolutely needs something newer. When it does, I'll check out myHack.
As long as a standard accepted configuration is used stuff tends to "just work". I have my Hackintosh identified as a MacPro3,1. Standards OS X maintenance releases upgrade just fine. I try to be careful with full OS upgrades which usually just involves waiting a month or so to see what problems people run into. Though, I do that even with official Apple hardware because inevitably there is some issue with official Apple hardware or software that ends up screwing me until fixes are pushed out.
The only reason the hardware would stop working is if Apple drops the similar official hardware as being supported in a new release such as when they dropped 32-bit EFI support.
It depends on the patch. If they introduce a patch to fix something say bluetooth or wifi, that patch could very well break it. If it breaks, you might have to hack it again to resolve the issues. Having a hackintosh myself, I think it's easier to just buy a mac and not worry about it. If you love tinkering / you have the time to deal with it, then by all means.
I've been running a hack desktop as my main rig for a few years (10.7 -> 10.8 -> 10.9 -> 10.10). My hardware setup only requires a single 3rd-party kext (for networking), so it holds up super well with updates. I can patch dot releases with no trouble, and only need to do a full USB key install for major releases.
I went hackintosh when the Mac Pro line had become stale. Today I would probably just suck it up and get a real Mac Pro if I was in the market for a new machine, to be honest. I've spent a lot of time on the initial setup and failed experiments and iMessage trouble and things.
(Now I run my setup with a cloned serial/ROM/MLB/etc values from one of my real Macs that I took off iCloud, which solved all of my iMessage related troubles apparently permanently).
The "Mac Pro vs. CustoMac Pro Socket 2011" comparison is completely bogus, because the CustoMac has space for hard drives and the Mac Pro requires the purchase of an external bay that runs $1,500 to $2,500. That moves the base up to $4,500 and $5,500 for people that need more than 3 hard drives (me). Now you're talking $1,550 vs $5,500 and that is the precise reason I didn't buy a Mac Pro and I did build a hackintosh.
While I'm not saying it's not fun to try and run OS X on PC hardware, can anyone explain to me how this is not morally equivalent to unauthorized copying / software piracy, given that they are both violations of the license agreement?
If you acquired the software legally, what then do you think?
Now ask yourself this question if you legally purchased Oracle or MSSQL, and were evaluating for an application, testing, etc - and now I inform you that that's unauthorized, and Oracle's license forbids you from doing any form of benchmarking related to the database. Do you feel that you are being immoral to test your application?
• remove or modify any program markings or any notice of Oracle’s proprietary rights;
• make the programs or materials resulting from the services available in any manner to any third party for use in the
third party’s business operations (unless such access is expressly permitted for the specific program license or
materials from the services you have acquired);
• cause or permit reverse engineering (unless required by law for interoperability), disassembly or decompilation of the
programs; or
• disclose results of any program benchmark tests without Oracle’s prior written consent.
Are you saying that people purchased the software not knowing that the license agreement forbids you from running it on non-Apple hardware? There are even minimal protections in place to prevent it running on non-Apple hardware e.g. "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext" http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter7/binaryprotection/ so people can't just claim it magically worked on their PC when they installed it.
To me what they are doing are no different from the people distributing cracked games with disabled copy protection.
Tying the OS to the hardware is not exactly Apple-specific. If I bought a laptop with Windows preinstalled (an OEM license) I can't activate that on different hardware either. Saying "I bought that" to the support line would likely get me laughed at.
If you bought OS X for non-Apple hardware, it has never been able to run there unmodified. It would be like complaining that my PS4 game doesn't run on the XBox One.
> It would be like complaining that my PS4 game doesn't run on the XBox One.
Actually Apple tries to convert regular computer users to these kind of Console or Home Microwave users. They want us to have less and less control over our own devices and software. So yes, we break their licenses, but as I mentioned when we have to choose between a common sense vs counter-common-sense law - we choose the former one.
Just quickly doing the math in my head, it seems like the Mini costs roughly the same as a real Mac Mini. So, what's the advantage of going the DIY route? I presume the price gap grows on the higher end systems?
> What's 'real' about the 'real' Mac Mini that's not real about this one?
Warranty and support. If Apple releases an update that breaks your Hackintosh then too bad, if Apple does it to your $100 more legit Mac Mini then you can moan at them if nothing else.
I do, however, completely agree with the upgrade argument. Particularly with the latest gen' of Mac Mini which don't allow the RAM to be upgraded because greed.
If your definition of support is the ability to "moan at [the vendor] if nothing else", is it really worthwhile to consider as an alternative? Your hardware is still warrantied by the respective vendors.
Eh, that makes no sense. You can't go to the AMD store in your mall to get your Mac Pro fixed either.
You can however, if you buy your HackPro all together at one store, go to that stores service desk and have any component replaced, they might even give you a loaner to work on while your HackPro is being repaired.
Most computer stores have better support than Apple too.
"nicer case" is subjective, although I will agree that official Apple models do have far better support and far better resale value.
That said, I don't think the average Hackintosher really cares about those things -- there's a reason why "hack" is in the name. It's a hacky and fun way to get OS X running on unofficially supported hardware, and I don't think support and resale value are high on a Hackintosher's priority list.
After a bit of brain storming between mac and hackintosh, I eventually decided to buy a mac mini 2012. I agree that the site appears very convincing, but I wonder if it's worth putting the effort to build a system that may or may not work 5 years from now.
I took the cheapest mac mini 2012, $499 at BHPhoto, and upgraded the RAM to 16 GB, and HDD to 512 SSD. Couldn't be happier! I can see this device working 5 years from now.
The installation is by now very straightforward, if you have for example Gigabyte board and standard components. In 2012 I bought a i7-3770, 8gb ram, nvidia gtx 680, gigabyte-z77-d3h and 256 SSD. On such hardware all it takes is readjusting some BIOS settings (turn on AHCI, disable Intel Vd) and maybe install a ethernet driver and sound driver. I'm pretty sure an equivalent iMac would have been significantly more expensive, than what I paid then.
I agree - the front cost is not as high as it used to be. Although, the maintenance cost is probably high which is what I was hinting to in my comment. How has your experience been around upgrades in the last two years? The apps like iMessage check BIOS to ensure that it's apple hardware that they are running on. And between upgrades, those things can potentially change. How many adjustments have you had to make along the way?
Your karma check for today:
There once was was a user that whined
his existing OS was so blind,
he'd do better to pirate an OS that ran great
but found his hardware declined.
Please don't steal Mac OS!
Really, that's way uncool.
(C) Apple Computer, Inc.
(from a low page written in memory when Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext is loaded)
Apple is rolling in cash from the 20+ Macs/iPhones/iPods I've personally owned or got from work over the years, I don't feel a tinge of guilt, I'm probably one of their best lifetime customers.
There are two fairly consistent benefits to running OS X:
1. It usually comes installed on great hardware.
2. It's less vulnerable to most things than Windows.
Beyond that, if you choose to build a Hackintosh, in my opinion you (for whatever reason) enjoy OS X enough to depend on it but don't like Apple enough to run their OS without paying their hardware premium (entirely understandable from the price perspective but a little illogical if you take it a bit further).
Frankly, I can't see any reason for the Hackintosh middle ground other than people who can't cope without the OS but can't afford the hardware. The software is little more than a neutered and compromised version of BSD that lets you part way into a walled garden (cue It's a trap! meme).
Granted: There's also the requirement of a Mac for iOS development... but guess what? You're still stuck with the developer program membership fee. Save $500 here, lose $100 a year there, along with probably being in violation of half a dozen usage limitations.
First, I don't think Apple hardware is expensive when you compare it to other machines with similar specs.
The reason for building my own Hackintosh was mostly getting a machine that was good for gaming (a powerful GPU). It wasn't about saving money, as the same money would have bought a decent iMac, but using that money better.
I'd second this. In general, Apple hardware is not terribly expensive for what you get (assuming that you don't value things like software, industrial design, power efficiency, noise, compactness at zero because you personally are not interested in them).
A Hackintosh lets you get combinations of hardware that Apple doesn't sell. It also lets you add or remove features that Apple doesn't offer on any model such as replaceable components and large/loud/inefficient machines. In many cases this does end up being cheaper because you are purposely choosing to use fewer or lower quality components.
> Frankly, I can't see any reason for the Hackintosh middle ground other than people who can't cope without the OS but can't afford the hardware.
I have several Mac laptops that cost more than most desktops (from apple or otherwise) but use a hackintosh desktop. Price isn't the issue, Apple simply doesn't make a desktop Mac with the specs I want, specifically there is no Mac with a desktop class GPU. You can choose between an iMac with a mobile GPU or a Mac Pro with a compute optimized GPU, I don't need nor want either. If Apple made a desktop with a desktop class GPU, I'd buy it.
> The software is little more than a neutered and compromised version of BSD that lets you part way into a walled garden (cue It's a trap! meme).
It's the best user experience available on a POSIX compliant OS. I used linux as my only OS for 6-7 years, I will never go back to fighting to get basic functionality to work.
The benefit I get from running OS X is "a unix-y system that is beautiful and maintenance-free." No worrying about drivers, sound systems, display managers, fonts and hinting systems. People who write software for this system tend to care deeply about adhering to the HIG. All of the ugly problems I run into with linux distributions are taken care of in OS X.
If I had money, I'd buy a real mac. But I don't, and this option is as easy as (and way more appealing than) running something like Ubuntu.
I built one 3 years ago and have been mostly pleased. It's a pain that with every point release I have to re-apply the patches for my audio to work, and migrating to new OS X versions can be nerve-wracking, but tonymac's site is an outstanding resource to help you through the process.
I've built Hackintoshes since 10.7, but I would never offer to build one for friends and family, only because I know I'll be called upon to fix the inevitable problem during software updates. This is a social obligation I rather avoid, lest I become the "IT guy" for yet another dependent.
My recommendation is - if you don't have the knowledge or patience to build one yourself, you should not ask one to be built for you, because it will break and you're gonna have an unproductive day/week while you wait for help to arrive. Not worth the headache and lost productivity.
Hackintoshing should be strictly treated as a hobby.
The main benefit for me using OSx is that is a nix desktop os that works well on a very specific hardware. Having used linux on the desktop before for years I always had some problem with drivers and alike.
If I were willing to deal with these kind of issues I'd do it with some linux distribution not osx.
I guess there are some cases like developing software for Apple os.