POST A COMMENT

70 Comments

Back to Article

  • Jsilva - Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - link

    Hey guys I`ve reading your comments mac vs windows and I will say that I have worked extremely in a pc for years and this what I have to say

    Im a Music producer and I use alot of heavy softwares to make music today softwares require alot of resources from the computer, I was working in pc for years because as all we know mac is so expensive and I couldn`t afford it many years ago, then after working alot in pc i decide to save money and start using a mac and these are the reason :

    first microsoft dont care about the softwares they sell there is always a bug tu fix and when you download the right patch something else is screw it up then at some point you get tired to install buggy files to the computer and is so common than suddenly you have unexpected errors with the os even in xp that is the best windows system now for pc.

    I guess we dont need to talk about the horrible windos vista that is a kind of mac system copy as always seems that gates likes to copy only what jobs do.but in wrong way just take a look of the designers of the os i wont go to deep in that

    and add to that spam alot of them every where in internet plus hundreds of virus that people that doesnt have anything better to do program so add to your
    so called cheaper system license for all that shit to keep your pc secure if that`s possible at some degree

    so you can build the most powerful pc in the world but is not about to have american muscle in there is to have something that works smootly and will work everytime you need it and that`s what mac does believeme i have been working with mac i have used very heavy softwares and used the ram at maximun my hard disk is completely full and my mac work just as the first day i opened the box something i can`t say about my old pc that at the end i needed like one hour to shutdown the system due to that the system was like shit because of the extensive use

    when you need the computer to make your living you need something in that you can trust also I play live with programs like ableton live and i would never trust a pc for that what happen if the system starts to crash in the middle of the concert?? and that happen alot with windows also with all those virus, i had the bad experience that a fucking one screw my hard drives with alot of music in there my own compositions so i started to hate windows for many reasons and that`s just the first layer

    if we talk about how smart are alot of applications like expose to give you a short and easy example, all that stuff really works when you are using the mac alot, maybe if you just use the computer to check email, watch porn in internet and play video games a pc will work for you also to be a pseudo expert builder and argue with friends that you build the best machine in town with lights inside etc etc but for serious work i would recomend a mac you have tons of smart applications watch how easy is to get your back up with time capsule for example as a professional i need something that helps me to focus in my work and not to fix errors in the system that i guess that`s why microsoft is selling you the software he is not giving it as a gift , why should i work for them to fix my system??

    also microsoft just want to be competitive in price and not in quality check all the market where microsoft is involved, video games same story xbox 360 cheaper but the system is just crap and buggy and some that where really good systems like playstation have to go cheaper in components because they build good systems meant to last alot so now is not the same because microsoft is half price than ps3 now ps3 is alittle cheaper than before but you get less stuff in it and in the long therm you are paying more for something that doesnt work as suppous to, this is the same with pc`s , video game consoles palm os same shit all around with them but most of the users are only concern of who has the bigger engine in town and the cheaper one and not how to use it properly and the one that really works because at the end is useless the most powerful pc runing ever if crashes twice at day and you spend many hours fixing and going to forums to check what is that error that the computer is showing you.
    Reply
  • IrishLeprecaun - Thursday, October 06, 2011 - link

    I have really nothing to say on the subject of Mac vs. Pc. But please for the love of all that is good on planet Earth, I ask you when you are trying to make a valid point do not spell and punctuate like a teenager. Hell I am teenager and I have better punctuation then you how sad is that. Reply
  • robinp - Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - link

    Anyone tried upgrading one of the early Mac Pro's with one of the 1333GHz FSB socket 771 Harpertowns? If not, does anyone know of a reason why it wouldn't work?

    Thanks
    Reply
  • defiancex0x - Thursday, January 10, 2008 - link

    upgrade the Mac pro to the quad core 3.0 LGA 771 133mhz cpu's @ 80w? Has it been tried yet Reply
  • Spetznatz - Thursday, January 10, 2008 - link

    Anand -- any idea if the same can be done with the new Penryn processors -- simply drop them into the first-gen Mac Pro motherboard?

    The 5420 (2.5GHz, 1333MHz FSB) at about $600 looks like a good price/performance swap for my current dual-core 2.0GHz Xeons).

    Ta
    Reply
  • InflatableMouse - Friday, July 06, 2007 - link

    Maybe I missed something obvious, but I can't seem to find how to put the system in quad channel mode?

    My Mac Pro is still running with the default 2x512MB and I'm about to upgrade to 8GB. I wanna know if I should go with 4 x 2GB or 8 x 1GB?

    I prefer the former but if performance is gained I'll go for the latter.

    I did read that banks should be filled 2 on board A and 2 on board B and I think it's logic to conclude that spreading 2 pears over the two boards creates quad channel. I still like to see that confirmed though ...

    Could someone clear this up for me please?

    Thx.
    Reply
  • JeffDM - Sunday, October 08, 2006 - link

    The first page goes on a few paragraphs about how rank within an FB-DIMM affects speed, but I didn't see any sure-fire way of how to determine the rank of the module before buying. I did find a document that suggests that 1GB and 2GB modules have a rank of 2, and smaller modules have a rank of 1. I can't find that page right now.

    I am still a bit confused as to how that makes a difference, is it as if there were two memory channels within the memory module? That would be a pretty interesting idea. It would be nice if this was benchmarked. If that's true, then the FB-DIMM concept doesn't seem so bad after all, the only problem is how much heat the AMB produces, the cost of the units and of course the latencies.
    Reply
  • JAS - Saturday, September 23, 2006 - link

    Anand: It was great hearing you discuss the Mac Pro on Leo Laporte's podcast.

    http://www.twit.tv/mbw">http://www.twit.tv/mbw
    Reply
  • CE750 - Sunday, October 15, 2006 - link

    In the end, I think Apple finally hit a home run, and some PC diehards who even if the Risen Lord came down and asked them to praise a Mac, would balk at the idea will never accept it.

    It always goes back to the silly gaming argument which is all but pointless when your talking about workstations. I mean can you play Quake IV on your Octane or Sun UltraSparc III workstation? Who cares about games? It's not like the game software is written for OS X anyway, it's for windows.. and DirectX that is where the optimizations are, not OpenGL.

    if you want to spend hours and hours tinkering with your build-a-pc box, knock yourself out. I just want a machine that works, and works well!

    Peace Out..
    Reply
  • Mhorydyn - Saturday, September 23, 2006 - link

    Hammong: I agree that I'd like to see some benchmarks done comparing gaming with 2 DIMMs and 4 DIMMs especially after seeing this: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/26/xeon_woodcr...">http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/06/26/...#dual_vs...

    For those too lazy to check it out, it shows the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest (5160) scoring roughly 3800 MB/s for both the Integer and the Floating Point benchmarks using SiSoft Sandra 2007 (dual channel). Going to quad channel nets an increase of nearly 2000 MB/s (5740-ish).
    Reply
  • hammong - Saturday, September 23, 2006 - link

    Anand - I'd like to see these Windows XP benchmarks run again with 4 FB-DIMMS installed in the Mac Pro. As everybody is aware, the Mac Pro has 8 FB-DIMM slots, and is targeted at the high-memory workstation market. In order to take advanage of the 256-bit wide DDR2 memory bus on the Intel 5000x chipset, you need to populate the memory in 4- or 8-DIMM configurations.

    The Mac Pro, despite the gripe from some home builders, is a decent bargain in the Intel workstation market. Compare the system against a comparably equipped HP, IBM, or Dell professional workstation, and the cost difference is minimal. Yeah, you can slap a Tyan server motherboard in your case of choice and build a comparable system to spec, but you also provide your own drivers, warranty service, and can't run OSX without a hack. A business relying on OSX for productivity won't build their own - and the Mac Pro isn't targeted at the budget-conscious home PC user.

    I see a lot of good comments here. Keep it going - and lets see that 4-DIMM vs. 2-DIMM comparison!

    Reply
  • JAS - Friday, September 22, 2006 - link

    Any findings since Apple posted the Mac Pro firmware update on 9/19/06? Reply
  • MasterH8r - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link

    quote: - It will cost far less to build that core 2 Duo system in the short term future as the typical market forces in the PC industry affect those prices while Apple historically keeps their flagship hardware prices elevated.

    Actually, Apple reduces their prices after their products have been available for a while. Just like everyone else. If Apple is currently selling these machines at a significantly lower price than comparably equiped machines from Dell, what makes you think they're going to suddenly jack their prices up in the 'short term future'?

    Historically, Apple has charged a high premium for their hardware, but that has changed signifcantly in the last couple of years. I wouldn't say they have a price advantage, but they're not gouging people like they used to.

    This is all moot anyway. A lot of people were able to justify the price premium because the one of the biggest advantages of owning a Mac stem from the tight integration of hardware and OS (they both come from the same place). That's not something you can get from another manufacturer. While it's true, that Windows has become an acceptable operating system of the last few years (and with the new features MS has stolen from OS X that will be included in Vista, I'm sure it will get better), it is still a third party OS on any machine it runs. It still has the uphill battle of working well on litterally thousands of different harware configurations.
    Reply
  • muf - Tuesday, September 19, 2006 - link

    It seems that there is a new problem that is affecting multiple users that needs to be seen and tested on one of these big sites.
    I just threw in 2 more gigs into my mac pro bringing the total to 3 gigs. 2x1 gig sticks and 2x 512meg sticks. Interesting thing is, windows only reports 2 gigs installed. I run sandra to test things and it reports 4 dimms installed in windows and quad channel memory mode is active. OSX reports 3 gigs correctly. Linux also only reports 2 gigs as well.
    Someone on the official mac forums said that for some reason only 2 gigs is able to be seen by windows. There are quite a few people having this problem. Anand could you look into it and confirm with me?
    Reply
  • spikespiegal - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    >>>>>The linked story illuminates a fundamental disadvantage to Microsoft (trying to roll out Vista with some degree of backward/forward compatibility with the still sort-of-large universe of hardware subsetted as "Vista compatible")<<<<<

    So, because Apple has fewer 32-bit applications and drivers to run in 64 bit operating systems, it's an advantage? Neat logic - guess that means I'll be retiring my 64-bit Opteron machines running a half dozen virtual 2003 servers and migrate to Apple. NT 4.0 didnt' exactly treat 16-bit devices efficiently either, but it didn't keep the market from embracing Win98 with more enthusiasm.

    I know more XP 64 users than 64-bit apple users. In fact, that ratio is like 100:1.

    That same graphics lab I used to work it has to run OSX 10.3 and 10.4 on different boxes to maintain hardware compatibility with various printers. Their Win 2000 boxes run everything.
    Reply
  • msanj0la - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link

    Quoting from the linked article,

    "Starting with Xcode 2.4, the OSX Universal binary format has been extended to support 32-bit and 64-bit for both PPC and Intel processors inside the same file, giving OSX quad universal binaries. Users don't have to choose between processor architectures nor 32-bit or 64-bit processors, either at the OS or application layers, it's all abstracted away from them - as it should be.

    Note that the non-emulated support in OSX is for applications and drivers. 32-bit programs on Vista 64 need to work on WOW emulation to run in Vista, and 32-bit drivers are a no-no. Lack of driver support is the main reason Windows XP x64 hasn't been widely adopted, and why the Vista fudge will ensure hardware incompatibilities between the two Windows versions remain for sometime to come."

    //end quote,



    The kernel of something / anything I get from The Inquirer bit is that a user who needs/wants a shrink wrapped 64 bit OS, and for whatever reason can't / won't go Linux, seems to have compelling or at least intriguing redirect from Vista to Leopard (with or without option to boot XP).

    I agree with everyone else who comments XP (and Win2K) are perfectly good platforms. I have no experience at all with 64 bit version of XP or lack of 64 bit drivers referenced in the Inquirer writeup, I figure someone who knows what they're doing can pick hardware known to have acceptable drivers before they build / buy / migrate existing system to XP64.
    Reply
  • spikespiegal - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    Yeah....we all know Windows has only just recently been a decent platform for graphics work (not). I recall back in the mid 90's when I was managing the digital dept at a local graphics lab, and how we were able to run film recorders, burners, printers, simultaneous sessions of photoshop, and a host of other network task *simultaneously* on NT 3.51 while our Mac OS7/8 boxes would routinely 'time bomb' while simply running Photoshop.

    Those of you Apple-heads raving about this new box haven't seen the benchmarks at the end of the article, and must not have converted your G4 cubes to terrariums yet. Boy, it looks the like a 3ghz Core 2 Duo in the benchmark tests held it's own against the Mac Pro, and even beat it in several tasks. Now I ask all of you how much you can build a 3ghz Core 2 Duo box for compared to the Mac Pro, and if you still think the housing market is in a boom cycle.

    So, what I've learned from this article is:

    - The new Mac Pro costs about the same as a similiar machine you could build yourself or buy from Dell.

    - All of the above machines are inefficient given very few tasks other than brainless rendering programs and data compressors (Cough* bootleg DVD converters cough) can utilize more than one core at a time.

    - A single Core 2 Duo at the same clock sits well against the Mac Pro, costs considerably less to build, and is far more practical for a power desktop user to use.

    - It will cost far less to build that core 2 Duo system in the short term future as the typical market forces in the PC industry affect those prices while Apple historically keeps their flagship hardware prices elevated.

    - Apple doesn't let you use a Core 2 Duo desktop, but instead offers an under powered mobile processor in the new iMac to keep Mac Pro users feeling superior (while simultaneously winking at their G5 userbase to make them feel like *they* are still superior over the "Intel junk")

    - E-machine will be selling faster machines than the Mac Pro in less than a year for 1/3 the price. Don't flame me, just look at recent history in the PC industry.

    - If I buy Windows XP or Vista, I can run it on any platform or hardware I want -vs- being forced to spend +$2500. That's why Anandtech ran the benchmarks with Windows XP and not OSX, but evaded that point.
    Reply
  • msanj0la - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link


    http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=33666">64 Bit Leopard Knocks Spots off Vista

    I'm surprised / intrigued by the cost comparisons discussed here, having always imagined Apple's business model has rested (and would likely always rest) on marketing to niche audiences willing to pay relatively large premiums for the hardware

    The linked story illuminates a fundamental disadvantage to Microsoft (trying to roll out Vista with some degree of backward/forward compatibility with the still sort-of-large universe of hardware subsetted as "Vista compatible") - yes of course MS has tremendous resources and talent (but check the blogs of disgruntled MS insiders railing against quality and timeline for rolling out Vista and MS leadership in general) - this disadvantage bookends with giving credit to efforts / resources / talent / quality of strategy and execution Apple has leveraged in support of OSX Tiger (soon to be followed by Leopard)

    So yeah, I think Apple + Intel combination sets up with reasonably good odds of picking up market share from Dell and Microsoft.

    Side note, I have never owned a Mac, am sort of on the verge of a C2D build from parts, waiting on Kentsfield mostly for possible price effect on maybe the 6600 part, getting back to cost compares, overclocking a midrange or lower end C2D with carefully selected surrounding components might tilt the equation a bit, particularly for games, but I have to say, for someone who wants a turnkey deal that (paraphrasing Al Davis) "just runs, baby" Mac Pro, hmmmmm




    Reply
  • Calin - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    "Apple's business model has rested (and would likely always rest) on marketing to niche audiences willing to pay relatively large premiums for the hardware"

    There were times when the Microsoft's consumer operating systems were not good enough for some tasks, and also the software for such tasks was running mainly on the Apple's platform. There was a time when Desktop Publishing was made only on Macs, there was a time when video editing was made almost only on Macs, there was a time when... There were times when the software optimised to run on Mac ran faster than what you could have on PC, was much less crash-prone, and so on.
    As of now, most of the software you find on Mac you can find on PC, with some limitations (like memory support for really great amounts of memory) Microsoft's consumer operating systems are stable enough, and the performance of the x86 ran circles around the Power architecture in older Macs. As a result, keeping high prices will only hurt Apple's market, and people that used a Mac will use a PC. Apple has nowhere to go now, as its market share would be cornered from all sides. Most of the "professional users" (I've seen this on a video editing computer in the days of the Pentium MMX) knows their program, and just a bit more. For them, having the wonderful Mac OS X interface or a command line interface has little effect, as long as their program runs nice, well and fast.
    Reply
  • cmdrdredd - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    " There were times when the Microsoft's consumer operating systems were not good enough for some tasks, and also the software for such tasks was running mainly on the Apple's platform. There was a time when Desktop Publishing was made only on Macs, there was a time when video editing was made almost only on Macs, there was a time when... There were times when the software optimised to run on Mac ran faster than what you could have on PC, was much less crash-prone, and so on.
    As of now, most of the software you find on Mac you can find on PC, with some limitations (like memory support for really great amounts of memory) Microsoft's consumer operating systems are stable enough, and the performance of the x86 ran circles around the Power architecture in older Macs. As a result, keeping high prices will only hurt Apple's market, and people that used a Mac will use a PC. Apple has nowhere to go now, as its market share would be cornered from all sides. Most of the "professional users" (I've seen this on a video editing computer in the days of the Pentium MMX) knows their program, and just a bit more. For them, having the wonderful Mac OS X interface or a command line interface has little effect, as long as their program runs nice, well and fast."


    That's very very true. There was a time when you couldn't really do everything on one system. Specifically with regards to graphic design and sound/video. It used to be a Macsclusive area. These days WindowsXp is mature enough that most people don't mind using it for those tasks which used to never be run on PCs. Both platforms compare well with eachother these days. The problem is that for some people, Apple is not different anymore. There used to be people who bought apple stuff because it was thought to be superior to PCs and less troublesome. Bringing WindowsXP to a Mac is good and bad. Good because now a consumer/business can use both OSes equally, and bad because some people may start to think of Apple like Dell or Compaq. Just another large OEM.

    One thing I really dislike is how apple still hates on Windows. Sure there was a day when Windows was pretty bad and didn't work well. Those days are gone and in some ways WindowsXP feels better than OSX to me. I own 7 Macs and OSX never feels as smooth as Windows. There's always something sluggish about it, but it's very hard to say what it is. Could be slow disk access, slow video performance, slow memory fetching who knows. I used to be one of the people who hated windows cause it was hard to understand and didn't work well. Today I prefer Windows. Not just for gaming either. You can do anything on a PC that you can on a Mac. Pretty much all of the professional apps are available on both platforms.
    Reply
  • newrigel - Monday, September 01, 2008 - link

    I own both and my mac smokes my PC's and I have the latest and greatest PC's made!!!
    For audio, the Mac rules because I can audition an audio file within the file hierarchy and with windows I can't so...
    Reply
  • greylica - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I Guess Fully Buffered Dimms, with a new controler that can cut latencies will do it just fine, and sooner or later we will have a situation where every part of theh computer can achieve higher performances by a number of serialized and specialized controllers, memory then can serve as a memory controler/memory module and report to the system as well as aa SCSI device. Remember in teh past years you can buy an external memory controler that serve as a SCSI card, with special functions.
    May intel will be giving you to the future in this way cause chipsets, specially north bridge with all those functions into the same package, and the nightmare to be pinning dedicated MTRR to adress memory sets into the same motherboard with only three layers, and diverse other issues caused by cost limits in this type of config with much more RAM.
    May Intel can be wrong too, AMD haves a controller dedicated into every processor with NUMA ( Non Uniform Memory architeture ), but again we have a pin count to make a hell with Growth of RAM in the computer world if we use memory like we are using until now.
    We have two sides of the story now, and, in the two cases, we have to have a dedicated controller to count memory and acess it, may be a dedicated controller with numa, or a dedicated controller over a north bridge that is nearly the same thing, except the aproaches. A Nort Bridge that servers every processor or processors that serves each other passing data as needed on Numa.

    Every memory now will be serialized to achieve the growth of the use, and we will use more and more RAM.

    FB Dimms not scares me, what scares me is that the other manufacturers will delay to start using it.

    And I really prefer Registered ECC or FB Dimms as they are reliable, did you use memtest in every memory that you have ? I use.
    One bit error and I turn back to guarantee. I don´t have time to waste with a defect that every time appears different...

    Good Vibes.
    Reply
  • vailr - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Isn't there a bios size difference between Mac vs. PC video cards? The Mac cards use 512 K bios chips, while PC cards have only 256 K. Thus, trying to flash a PC video card with a Mac version bios won't work. The extra 256K has something to do the video card's compatability with the EFI bios.
    Another question: PowerPC Macs could boot from an external firewire HD (but could not boot from USB). PC's can boot from external USB HD's, but not from firewire. What's the external bootable HD situation with the Mac Pro? Is the Mac Pro's EFI bios configurable? Haven't seen any screenshots of the Mac Pro's EFI bios setup.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I believe some PC cards will have the same size BIOS chips, but if not you need to get a hacked BIOS where someone has stripped out some extras to fit a 512K BIOS into 256K. I think I've heard of it being done, but honestly I haven't ever tried it - I don't have any Macs, unlike Anand, Derek, and a couple others. Reply
  • waamatt - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I think the high speed DDR2 + Core 2 Duo combo outperforming certain tasks on an FB-DIMM and Xeon (Dual Core) system is precisely the reason we won't see a plain ol' Mac tower anytime soon. I'd love one, but if something you want to do can be done better on it than on their pricier system, they'd just want you to buy an iMac. Hopefully advancements will be made with the whole FB-DIMM system to allow for lower latency and generally better performance, sooner than later.

    The GPU thing is a bit annoying with Macs, but it IS getting better. The number of options is growing, and the ability to keep up with new/relatively new cards is definitely better than it was, say, 3-5 years ago.

    That said, I wouldn't consider buying a Mac Pro until about the third revision as I'd like to see FB-DIMMs improved and better clock speeds on quad core processors. Plus, that sort of provides time to work out any other minor kinks in the system.

    Over all, this trio of Mac Pro articles was excellent for the way it discusses the technologies used as opposed to just going, "Ooh, aah, pretty Apple!" (Actually, does anyone other than Apple do that?)
    Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I wonder how well Vista RC1 would run on the MacPro? Reply
  • blwest - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Anand,

    I've been reading your site for years. This article was excellent in pointing out the limitations and strengths of FB-Diimms. I'm coming to a point in my life where I'm still very interested in technology, performance and the technical aspect of things.

    However, do not have the time to research individual parts, etc like I used to back in my college days. I think Apple produces a quality product with an appreciation for attention to detail. This article helps us to understand the technology, how it works and how to DIY upgrade the Mac. FWIW, the Apple case is even much higher quality than my $400 Lian-Li PC setup I run my server (linux) on. Apple has finally given us weekend warriors a sytsem to tinker with and upgrade!

    As always I take information from your article and use deductive reasoning to extrapolate what is and isn't applicable to my situation.

    I agree with the previous poster's comment, Apple sells this system well below what you can piece it together on your own--or what Dell sells.

    The final point I'd like to make is that this is a Professional system, not a gaming system. If you're into creativity, using your computer for pictures, movies, online chatting or web development--the mac's for you. If you're into running MS Office, business apps or games, then XP is for you. I no longer have time for games and prefer to use my home system for saving my family memories, communicating with friends/family and not having to pop my case open to clear my cmos in order to accomplish these things.

    Thanks again for all that you do.

    Reply
  • yacoub - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Is that Motley Crue - S.O.S. I hear playing?

    It's the saaaame old, It's the saaaame old situa-a-tion...

    Gaming: Windows PC, video work: Mac.
    Reply
  • greylica - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Yesss, the same old situation, Mac for vídeos and a PC for games, Microsoft and others when the Mac was not X86 always tried to put them on the Vídeo maker market, 2000 and XP takes place in an big users base, but they are always telling you the same thing, use a Mac. Windows is limited.
    I´m the Ceo of Grey Silica Brazil. I´m specialized to work with Blender (A Now GNU program to 3D content Creation for films and presentations ), and tested every possibility of those "dream machines" when they are on the market with their S.O.s. All I have experienced is that windows XP is a shame compared to 2000, 98 is a never think software for 3D services, although I have to use some times in 1999. Some capture cards simply doesn´t function on NT or even 2000 because of drivers.
    But leaving this question I Guess when 2000 was launched Microsoft did a very Good O.S.
    XP introduces spywares to the market, as Hackers wanted too to sell information to others to make money, the same thing as Microsoft does with their partners. You register your software to activate it and a Database Knows what machine you have, the memory you are using, the programs you have installed, the VGA card, etc, etc.
    Windows XP takes this information to sell to others and everybody knows that, course, you have to accept to use... Linux is still on the road, money mekes this world, pressure to not gave information to linuxers is a bad, bad thing.
    Well, Win 2000 now takes those information too, when you download Windows Update services, and WGA have to be installed to 2000 too in some cases. OK. When needed. But it happens now, and not when 2000 was launched. 2000 is not a bad example for hackers.
    If I am a hacker, course that I will think in the same way, I will create my own .net passport with the information hacked or stolen from them, if they buy Nvídia, tell my partners " Buy Nvídia, they sell well !".
    It´s a PC world created, not a MAC bad example. My admiration for the Mac world too, like Anand, Mac not created this monsters of vírus and spywares, they did not do this bad example to humanity collecting data in this way and serving as a sample to hackers.
    The other major problem is limiting the users, 64 Bit can use 128GB of RAM or more, Vista is 64 GB caped, and blogs are saying 4GB is for the kernell. UAU !!!
    OMG !!! 4GB for the kernell, astounting.
    Why they want to limt the users, when Mac and Linux are on the other road ?
    Obvious... To sell other S.O.
    Windows will be a Game console System in few years this way, not an S.O. great to work like they ever swear to you.
    Compare XP to 2000... They can do exactly the sa thing, but 2000 does it better and faster, complimentary software do not leave you to oblivion, Who needs I.E. 7 ehwn Firefox is better and oppen ? Who needs simple compacted folder included in explorer when 7-zip opens more files than you can imagine ?
    Who need My pictures when corel snapfire is better ?

    2000 is the best windows. Fill him with the right software and you will have the most powerfull windows ever.

    Leave MAC for MAC OS-X or Linux, when they gave you hardware that is capable of 128 GB, the OS will achieve this and will not limit you. Will you use Vista knowing this ?
    Reply
  • bobsmith1492 - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Well, thank you for the enlightenment. I will never use Vista now that I know I cannot use more than 64GB of RAM. Reply
  • blwest - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Who did that comment come from, something about never needing more than 64K? Was it Bill Gates?

    I already have customers that use Linux over MS because they utilize 64GB of ram TODAY. Even when Vista is released, they will still be using Linux.
    Reply
  • bobsmith1492 - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Well, I've doubled the amount of ram in my _personal_ computer twice in about 5 years along with one upgrade of Windows (98-XP)... so, in 5 more, I'll have 8GB, 10 more: 32, and in about 12.5 years, I'll be up to 64GB, by extrapolation. :P Anyway, I don't expect Vista to last that long, so I guess I'm ok (heck, I'll use XP for a few more years anyway, no doubt - XP was out for a few years before I upgraded).

    As far as the 64GB of RAM, if you need that for your application, you probably wouldn't even dream of using a closed-source OS for it anyway, so I think the RAM limitation isn't really that relevant (maybe for servers...)
    Reply
  • greylica - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Course the common user will not have to use that quantity of Ram, as far as I know, they are still using 256MB at nmaximun in order to run only apps for office/small production.
    Here in Brazil the most of them are using at maximun 512 MB of Ram, but when we think in a machine different, like a MAc, or then a graphic Workstation, or then an data seismic or a test evaluation machine, 64 GB in 5 years will be a cap, a limit.
    Anyway Linux can save our souls to this switch Microsoft is trying to do again, and again...

    A simpler crowd simulation in XSI can achieve 16 GB of Ram in a workstation...

    Vista Premium can accept more than 4GB, course, but in the 32 bit usage, the same old 3GB switch is aplicable, but I don´t even imagine why they at the same tima reserve 4GB for the kernel, and limit Vista to 1/2 of the potential.
    It´s a same old problem coming back again.

    Even 2000 accepts PAE, but doesn´t serve for nothing, course they can give a patch, but, do they want ???

    If a patch for ths issue is released, this topic can be sent to oblivion.

    Microsoft, give us a patch to 3GB switch right now !!!!!!
    Reply
  • mostlyprudent - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I have to agree with the first part of your post. I read the article and thought.."Why?". I have always understood the appeal of a Mac to be that you could upack it and get to work. If we start talking about running other OSs on a Mac or hacking software/drivers for better hardware supprt, then why pay the premium for a Mac? Reply
  • lopri - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Well, sort of.. Remember that now Mac is a PC with the ability to dual-boot between XP and OS X. Other than the anatomy description for CPU upgrading, I don't see anything Mac-specific about this article. You can replace the tested Mac with an equivalent workstation from Dell, HP, etc. and the end result would be the same. It's also very questionable how much appeal this article would have to an 'average' apple user - who wants a computer that just works, without worrying about upgrading or fixing, and prefers to use for creative works or entertainment. (This isn't my opinion, btw. I happened to read a few articles on Apple/Mac @DailyTech, and it's how Mac users described themselves) I totally understand this article is a sequel/finale to a previous article, but I think some people would agree with me. (If not, oh well.. :) )

    From this viewpoint, I'd like to make a comment that Anand's obsession on Apple (be it hardware or software) has been quite over-the-top already. Even though this article isn't really about something unique to Apple, he doesn't skip a single product that Apple produces. (I still can't believe he "reviewed" a mouse just because it's from Apple. There are many more superior and innovative mice in the market, you know.)

    Whether it's his personal preference towards Mac/OS X or a business strategy to expand the readership of this site isn't clear to me. But I can't help but notice the imbalance and ask why.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    The point of the article was for users that want to run OS X as well as Windows XP, rounding out the performance comparison by showing what sort of XP performance you can expect out of the Mac Pro.

    As for our Mac coverage, we definitely don't review every Apple product that comes out, but the ones that we do focus on are those that are most interesting to the community. The vast majority of our content is still PC focused, but whenever there's a big Apple release we will do our best to cover it just as we do major releases on the PC side.

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • JAS - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link

    PC = Personal Computer, regardless of whether it is running OS X or Microsoft Windows.

    Please continue with the Macintosh coverage, Anand. I appreciate the excellent work that you do, and even bought a Mac because of one of your reviews. What a fabulous computer.
    Reply
  • Calin - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    :)
    I'm sure Anand wants to expand the readership of his site to the 5% Mac users :)

    (no offence, Anand) but I think this was more like a toy, that is getting better and better. "I bet I could use only this Mac for everything" could have been the idea of the first article, and in the end it seems the Macs were even better than that (whether by look and feel, ergonomy in user interface, invulnerability to almost all viruses/worms/... (the first Mac used by Anand was Power based), other reasons or a combination of all the above).

    On another note, I wonder how well those new Macs will survive in the virus world, now that they now have the x86 processors
    Reply
  • JAS - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I wonder how well those new Macs will survive in the virus world, now that they now have the x86 processors.

    If you mean running Microsoft Windows on a Macintosh, then it is as susceptible to spyware and viruses as any other MS Windows computer. These problems are tied to the operating system, not the microprocessor. OS X is as secure running on Intel as it is on PowerPC chips.
    Reply
  • greylica - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Yesss, the same old situation, Mac for vídeos and a PC for games, Microsoft and others when the Mac was not X86 always tried to put them on the Vídeo maker market, 2000 and XP takes place in an big users base, but they are always telling you the same thing, use a Mac. Windows is limited.
    I´m the Ceo of Grey Silica Brazil. I´m specialized to work with Blender (A Now GNU program to 3D content Creation for films and presentations ), and tested every possibility of those "dream machines" when they are on the market with their S.O.s. All I have experienced is that windows XP is a shame compared to 2000, 98 is a never think software for 3D services, although I have to use some times in 1999. Some capture cards simply doesn´t function on NT or even 2000 because of drivers.
    But leaving this question I Guess when 2000 was launched Microsoft did a very Good O.S.
    XP introduces spywares to the market, as Hackers wanted too to sell information to others to make money, the same thing as Microsoft does with their partners. You register your software to activate it and a Database Knows what machine you have, the memory you are using, the programs you have installed, the VGA card, etc, etc.
    Windows XP takes this information to sell to others and everybody knows that, course, you have to accept to use... Linux is still on the road, money mekes this world, pressure to not gave information to linuxers is a bad, bad thing.
    Well, Win 2000 now takes those information too, when you download Windows Update services, and WGA have to be installed to 2000 too in some cases. OK. When needed. But it happens now, and not when 2000 was launched. 2000 is not a bad example for hackers.
    If I am a hacker, course that I will think in the same way, I will create my own .net passport with the information hacked or stolen from them, if they buy Nvídia, tell my partners " Buy Nvídia, they sell well !".
    It´s a PC world created, not a MAC bad example. My admiration for the Mac world too, like Anand, Mac not created this monsters of vírus and spywares, they did not do this bad example to humanity collecting data in this way and serving as a sample to hackers.
    The other major problem is limiting the users, 64 Bit can use 128GB of RAM or more, Vista is 64 GB caped, and blogs are saying 4GB is for the kernell. UAU !!!
    OMG !!! 4GB for the kernell, astounting.
    Why they want to limt the users, when Mac and Linux are on the other road ?
    Obvious... To sell other S.O.
    Windows will be a Game console System in few years this way, not an S.O. great to work like they ever swear to you.
    Compare XP to 2000... They can do exactly the sa thing, but 2000 does it better and faster, complimentary software do not leave you to oblivion, Who needs I.E. 7 ehwn Firefox is better and oppen ? Who needs simple compacted folder included in explorer when 7-zip opens more files than you can imagine ?
    Who need My pictures when corel snapfire is better ?

    2000 is the best windows. Fill him with the right software and you will have the most powerfull windows ever.

    Leave MAC for MAC OS-X or Linux, when they gave you hardware that is capable of 128 GB, the OS will achieve this and will not limit you. Will you use Vista knowing this ?
    Reply
  • mostlyprudent - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I have to agree with the first part of your post. I read the article and thought.."Why?". I have always understood the appeal of a Mac to be that you could upack it and get to work. If we start talking about running other OSs on a Mac or hacking software/drivers for better hardware supprt, then why pay the premium for a Mac? Reply
  • michael2k - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Because a Mac is cheaper than an equivalently configured dual dual-core Xeon workstation from Dell orr HP? Reply
  • greylica - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I see the rendering results and I Think its really will be a dream machine for 3D Rendering and not a gaming dream machine like allienware ( Now dell ) is, and therefore are a bunch of problems into running XP in this hardware that is not related here, XP is caped to the switch of 3GB and limited to 2GB per app, it´s nearly impossible to compare XP with Mac OS-X, the other downside is that I Didn´t see any review tolding you that you can read XP partition under Mac OS-X or even write to it.
    I Have so many doubts that windows Vista will not be caped in some way after seeing that the switch can really prejudice us to upgrade to another OS that MS is trying to sell.
    I will only switch my opinion about Microsoft when they finnaly release a patch to solve this caped windows in relation to this memory issue under adressing really what the hardware can do. If Mac OS-X haves 16GB of memory, XP only will see 3GB and 2GB per app, PAE ( Page adress extension ) is a nightmare for users and a dream for Microsoft.

    They are saying for all of employees now:
    - Memory Issues ? Push them to Vista !!!

    And it is not all, I discovered that windows 2000 is stronger than XP under heavy loads, and abandoned XP to rendering services, Linux, Mac OS-X and 2K are the best choices if you are a 3D professional and you hve a good workstation.

    Mac-OS-X have its own problems too before 10.3/10.4, it´s limited too to 2GB per app. But right now this is completely solved, giving to you all of your machine.

    I Have certainty to tell that professionals will really benefit from 2- quad core clovertowns under 3D content creation.

    XP was not designed to meet professionals demands, its a S.O. to play games.
    Then, do not polute your Mac, and do not buy a mac to use XP, use a budget computer that deserves XP if you wish to use this.

    If you are a pro, use windows 2000 instead of XP, it´s faster, reliable, secure.
    Windows 2000 helps your productivity. Course... Without the cosmetics...
    Reply
  • Pirks - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Are there any decent 64-bit rendering apps like Maya/Lightwave/etc that run natively on XP x64? Reply
  • splines - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    After seeing what you've said about wishing for a C2D/DDR2 Mac, I'd be interested in how the new iMac C2D with perhaps the 7600GT option stands up in gaming to a comparable PC. Sure, it's nowhere near as configurable (or as boast-worthy) as a Mac Pro, but it does seemingly offer a solution somewhere in the middle.

    That said, the 24" iMac is the only one currently supporting a 7600GT upgrade, and it does boost the price a bit. On a cost - performace ratio, in GPU-limited applications the Mac still seems to be overpriced compared to a PC.

    For interest's sake, however, it's something I'd read carefully.
    Reply
  • JackPack - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Just wondering, what's the stepping on the Clovertowns used? Reply
  • Imaginer - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I am not entirely convinced of the apple craze. I still prefer my own customability of my system and XP is really not a bad OS to work with. That and I am cheap and really dont want to shell out money for the apple package deal they have going. Reply
  • Calin - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    I just want to tell you that the MacPros are workstations - and their price reflect that. You buy one for lots and lots of reasons, the last of them are games.
    Those are used to make money - and in some cases, having twice the horsepower lets the employee that use them work twice as fast.
    I do prefer my own customability of my system (even if I barely used it), and XP is (now) not a bad OS to work with. But MacPros are for me just as much as an SGI Octane would be (very useful for tasks I wouldn't touch with a barge pole)
    Reply
  • tuteja1986 - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    <b>I just want to tell you that the MacPros are workstations - and their price reflect that. You buy one for lots and lots of reasons,</b> the last of them are games.
    Those are used to make money - and in some cases, having twice the horsepower lets the employee that use them work twice as fast.
    I do prefer my own customability of my system (even if I barely used it), and XP is (now) not a bad OS to work with. But MacPros are for me just as much as an SGI Octane would be (very useful for tasks I wouldn't touch with a barge pole)

    What the hell are you talking about :*(

    Windows Workstation with the same spec that cost cheaper could do everything that Mac workstation could do :*( only real real reason i would buy a new Mac pro if i was Video editing.
    Reply
  • Calin - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Assuming you want a workstation capable of accessing 16GB of RAM (and using two processors), your options are a bit more reduced. There was an article on Anandtech, and the Mac Pro (the most expensive) was just a couple of hundred dollars more expensive than the sum of its components (and operating system I think). Reply
  • tuteja1986 - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Intel Xeon 5150 2.66Ghz
    1GB PC2-5300 DDR2
    250GB 7200RPM Sata-II
    16x DVDRW
    7300GT
    Good Looking Case
    Server Mobo
    Mac OS

    $2499

    vs

    Intel Xeon 5150 2.66Ghz $729
    3x 250GB Western Digital in raid 5 $65 each = $195
    Pionere 110D = $50
    7900GT $260
    2x 1GBx2 OCZ PC2-5300 $200 each = $400
    TYAN S5370G2NR-RS Dual Socket 771 Intel 5000V SSI CEB Server Motherboard $319 supports 16GB ram
    Cool Master Stacker $154
    Rosewill RP600V2-S-SL 600W SLI Ready $70
    Linux OS , Microsoft Windows XP Professional X64 Edition Single Pack $139

    $2316


    I know what i will pick :!
    Reply
  • grtgrfx - Monday, December 21, 2009 - link

    And which one will run cooler and be completely silent when you push it? Ah, the Mac will. High quality build, excellent components, superior GUI: $2,500. Peace and quiet while working: priceless. Reply
  • Nimbo - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Anand did compare prices in its second article about Mac pro
    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p...">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p...
    Mac Pro: $2499
    Dell equivalent: $3110
    Home Built: $2390
    Reply
  • tuteja1986 - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link


    MAC PRO $2499

    Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
    1GB (2 x 512MB)
    250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
    NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
    One 16x SuperDrive
    Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
    Mac OS X - U.S. English

    - not include :
    Server OSX
    Monitor
    Modem
    Fiber Channel Cards
    Wireless Option
    Any Apple Software
    Or even Apple Care Protection Plan (APP)

    Now if your doing loads of Video Editing/encoding.. one Gigabyte ram is crap all and 1 250GB is to little...

    Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
    4GB (4 x 1GB)
    500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
    500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
    500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
    ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI)
    One 16x SuperDrive
    Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple wireless Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
    Mac OS X - U.S. English
    $4,909.00

    - not include :
    Server OSX
    Monitor
    Modem
    Fiber Channel Cards
    Wireless Option
    Any Apple Software
    Or even Apple Care Protection Plan (APP)

    At Mac Customize they don't give you a chose of additional 250GB hard drive just 500GB Hard drive

    Now Windows/Linux PC is where it shins :


    Intel Xeon 5150 Woodcrest $729 : $1458

    Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD5000KS 500GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb x3 $189 = $567

    HIS/Sapphire/Asus Radeon X1900XT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 CrossFire Video Card - $300-$320 could way more cheaper with rebate

    NEC/LG/Sony/Lite-on 16X DVD±R DVD Burner Beige IDE Model ND-3550A $30

    hermaltake Armor Series VA8000BWS Black Computer Case - Retail $149

    Rosewill RP600V2-S-SL 600W SLI Ready $70

    Logitech Cordless DesktopS Keyboard Mouse $58

    Creative Sound Blaster $40

    Windows XP PRO 64bit $139

    TYAN S5370G2NR-RS Dual Socket 771 Intel 5000V SSI CEB Server Motherboard $320

    Crucial Technology 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 FB-DIMM DDR2 667 $170 x 4 = $680

    $3811USD


    Reply
  • tech010101x - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    You do realize that the Mac Pro comes with all the drive sleds... you can add the WD5000KS drives yourself later. You can also add memory yourself.

    Doing it this way... ordering the Mac Pro with 2 x 512MB RAM and 1 500GB drive costs: $3009.
    Add in the RAM you quote: 4 DIMMS at $680 + 2 WD5000KS at $189 @ = $4067
    Total difference then is a mere $256.

    You are still missing firewire 400 and 800 and firewire target disk mode.
    The power supply in the Mac Pro is much beefier.
    Windows XP 64 bit is a mess.

    And then we get to the fact that you are comparing a retail price to a non-retail price, comparing a bunch of parts to a fully assembled system, and you are leaving out the shipping issue altogether. Certainly, it is possible to pay $4,909 + tax for the Mac Pro. It is also very possible to pay far less.

    The arguments in this regard are less about Apple and more about homebuilt vs. Tier 1 vendor. You might as well be comparing against IBM Intellistations, Sun Ultra 40's, or HP xw8400's. You'd appreciate it not being a homebuilt when you have to manage many of these over time.

    A 5% discount on the base system + the extra RAM and drives added later is $3917, or $106 difference. I usually get bigger discounts than that 5% on systems like this.

    In the end, if you aren't interested in using Mac OS X at all, the Mac Pro is probably not for you. It is the complete suite... from the hardware (including the nice boot menu, target disk mode, etc), the software (Mac OS X, iLife, platform user experience, etc.), solutions integration (Xsan costs $999 vs. ADIC StorNext at $4k for SAN filesystems), on through to applications (Final Cut Studio, Shake, etc.).
    Reply
  • Calin - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    Windows XP Professional supports two processors (cores) out of the box. Put a Windows 2003, and see where you get... Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    and even that "home built" price was without a case, OS, or power supply. Reply
  • Calin - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    As for the OS, you could "migrate" your Windows XP - with one small problem - XP is 1-2 processors only, this configuration would have 4 cores...
    So, add another ... for Windows 2003
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    Sorry, but that's wrong. XP is 1-2 *sockets* only. XP home will work with a dual core or even quad core CPU just fine, and XP Pro works with all 2S workstation setups without difficulty. Microsoft modified the way they count CPUs when dual core first came out. Reply
  • Calin - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    I suppose this appeared in some service pack. I've thought that XP is somehow physically limited in using just two apparent processors (one processors with HyperThreading, one dual core processor and so on). I was not referring to the licensing limitation (which I know very well - Microsoft counts one processor package as processor, no matter how many cores inside).
    So, will Windows XP use all the 8 cores in a 2 socket quad core configuration?
    Thanks
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, September 13, 2006 - link

    I don't have a 2S quad core setup (damn!), but I do know that XP Home works fine on dual core with SP2. Heck, the PC Club I reviewed a couple weeks back was Core 2 Duo with XP Home. I actually talked with a Microsoft rep a year ago and he said XP worked based on sockets, so basically there's just code to prevent XP from using more than a certain number of sockets.

    It's rather if you ask me, and I think MS should forget about what hardware is being used and simply sell/license the software, but that's one way they like to make money. "Want a 4 socket server? Oh, you'll have to pay thousands of dollars for the OS now. It's no different from the $150 OS, except we flipped a switch to support more sockets."
    Reply
  • blwest - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    This is flawed in many ways.


    Intel Xeon 5150 2.66Ghz $729 ***times two***, the mac pro has two!!!

    3x 250GB Western Digital in raid 5 $65 each = $195
    **current asking price is 70** $240

    Pionere 110D = $50
    **fine**

    7900GT $260
    **$290** for a decent model

    2x 1GBx2 OCZ PC2-5300 $200 each = $400
    **the 5000 series mainboards all run fbdimms, must buy them $109 each for 512 meg sticks***

    TYAN S5370G2NR-RS Dual Socket 771 Intel 5000V SSI CEB Server Motherboard $319 supports 16GB ram

    **where's your price on this??*** $320

    Cool Master Stacker $154
    *crappy case compared to apple**

    Rosewill RP600V2-S-SL 600W SLI Ready $70
    **can you go any cheaper? the apple has a 1000 watt unit**

    Linux OS , Microsoft Windows XP Professional X64 Edition Single Pack $139

    $2316 **NOT**

    Given 2x 512 sticks and 2 processors, a little better video card and his other components, you get $2800+/-. If you include a 1000 watt powersupply add at least 100 dollars. How much time will it take you to build this system? What is your time worth? Like the other poster said, add firewire, sound, keyboard, mouse and a 1 year warranty to the whole system. I threw those items in a cart at newegg and we're also looking at another 75+ in shipping costs.
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    You actually need two Xeon 5150 processors, since the Mac Pro comes with two in its $2499 configuration; therefore you need to add another $729 to your second configuration. As surprising as it may be, the Mac Pro is actually a pretty good buy for the hardware you get, I know it shocked me when I actually calculated it out.

    Take care,
    Anand

    Reply
  • don42 - Sunday, March 21, 2010 - link

    I know that myself who has been dealing with pc\s windows(microsoft) and the whole 9 yards is just sick of it. My first computer was a Vic 20, with a cassette tape for external memory, I never did go the commodore 64 route I was too busy working. My next computer was an Amiga 500, at that time there was nothing that could come even near that thing.....it was so good I sprung for an Amiga 2000, that was the best of the best at that time.....I have always had a leaning towards graphics and photography....at that time there was Deluxe Paint from EA....that was before scanners, there was something called Digiview where one could bring digital images into their system by using a security camera with a rgb wheel that was turned.
    I am sure someone is reading this that went through the torment of those. But that Amiga was so far ahead of anything else that I'll end this now. Then I went to PC and now even with windows 7 still look back on that amiga and shake my head. I still have a huge collection of the old amiga mod. files...8 tracks of total genius on some of them.
    Now.....that brings to why I am writing this huge dialogue......I am sitting on a precipice waiting to be pushed over the edge and falling into the world of MAC. One hates to leave what one is familiar with, but I find myself drooling when I look at those new mac pros with the intel nehelams in them. I actually was on the mac store and went as far on ordering until the last few digits of my VISA. Has anyone on here taken that plunge?
    Also can one add a second CPU to a quad core at a future date?
    Reply
  • Questar - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Now include building it, warranty, support, sound card, firewire, software. Reply
  • motoxpress - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    Clearly you have not priced out an equivilant system. Even at Newegg prices, you can't touch the MacPro for price. The whole "Macs are too expensive" arguement is tired, outdated and false.

    -mx
    Reply
  • JeffDM - Sunday, October 08, 2006 - link

    Clearly you have not priced out an equivilant system. Even at Newegg prices, you can't touch the MacPro for price. The whole "Macs are too expensive" arguement is tired, outdated and false.

    It really depends. It is false if you take a very restricted view of computers and that you don't regard flexibility to have a value in the consumer markets. The Mac Pro isn't really helping the argument because it's a workstation and as such the comparison is other workstations. As such, comparing it to an equivalent computer isn't going to win much because very few people are buying workstations, a relatively obscure type of computer, making it not a relevant product or relevant comparison for most people.

    Heck, the Mac Pro isn't even that comparable to the Dell Precision 690, which Apple compared it against. The Mac Pro offers only half the memory slots of a comparable Dell. The Mac Pro uses a consumer video card for all but the top end, the Dell Precision video cards are all Quadro units. The level of stock support isn't the same either. Dell offers three years of on-site warranty support standard, Apple charges extra for three years and it's not on-site.

    I even found a Core Duo-based 17" Toshiba notebook at Sam's Club for $1200. Apple's base price for a 17" is $2800. Granted, the Apple unit does have several features that aren't found on the Toshiba, but I think it's tough to argue that those extra features are worth the extra $1600, especially when you can buy two of the 17" Toshibas with money to spare for more upgrades, for the cost of one Apple 17". You could have an entire redundant machine or money saved for one. For the price of the Apple, I think they should either offer on-the-spot replacement or a loaner machine if the original needs repairs, that's what I'd expect of support for a pro machine, particularly at those price points. As far as I'm aware, they don't offer that level of support.

    Don't get me wrong, I do like Macs, I own a couple, but I don't like the specious reasoning used to argue for or against them. It's very tough to make a reasonably valid comparison to Windows units because Apple only offers three consumer computer models (Mac Book, mini & iMac), and two of those are oddities in terms of form factor.
    Reply
  • msva124 - Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - link

    What Apple craze? Reply
  • robvoigt - Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - link

    I know it has been a while since this article on upgrading the 2 Ghz Mac Pro, but I'm finally getting around to it. I have some software that says "best run with 3Ghz processor or faster".

    So I am looking for some encouragement to try this process but, more importantly, some hard facts about processors that a user has tried... and found successful. Anybody out there want to recommend a specific processor that they know works?

    My vitals...
    Mod: A1186 EMC No:21'3 100-120V
    MAC PRO/2.0QX/2X512/7300OT/160SD
    Ser No: G86322MRUPZ
    Reply
  • Corlissmedia - Thursday, December 09, 2010 - link

    I've been reading through a lot of these sites that discuss upgrading a 2006 Mac Pro with dual dual-core 2.66's to dual quad-core x5355's. I'm thinking of doing this upgrade also, but in researching the cpus, I've found that none of them support ECC memory, and all Mac Pros, as far as I know, have ECC memory. So how does that work????? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now