[obviouslygreen]

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.

[oe]

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.

[zaphoyd]

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.

[mbell]

> 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.

[Gracana]

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.