It's actually still obsolete. Xeon processors and only 667 FSB. Everyone hoped Apple was going to go Core 2 Duo and 1000 FSB.

Very sweet! I am ordering a couple right now.

Mitch

If I can find the article, I would link it to you. IIRC, it was MS themselves who said that the current OS (WinXP) cannot fully utilize multi-core setups, and Vista apprently isn't geared to do so either.

Also, IIRC as well, there aren't any major 3rd party apps (at least in the design industry) currently available that natively run on multi-core setups.

Same issue with Mac anyway. Mac's OS is setup to utilize 8 cores, but there aren't any 3rd party apps available that can do the same.

Only diff is that Windows cannot utilize mutli-core setups properly, if at all. The software itself doesn't "know" how to properly and efficiently distribute the tasks between the processors, hence the waste in power.

Keep in mind that the core of WinXP was written way before dual-core processors were made, that's why it's no surprise. What's worrying is that Vista apparently isn't going to be much of a leap either. So even if you have a quad-core setup, you'll still be wasting as much as 30-40% of your hardware's power, because Vista cannot allocate tasks efficiently.

Whereas, Mac's Tiger and Leopard OS's can.

Keep in mind, if you look at my sig, I'm on a very well-spec'd winXP PC. I'm not biased at all, I've simply been reading up a lot on what hardware my team should be investing in.

...and at the moment, it's Mac 1, Win 0. :pimp

Sorry, I need to correct my grammar:

3rd party apps do run ON multi-core setups, but because their code isn't native to multi-core setups, they cannot fully utilize the hardware, whether it be Windows, Mac, or Linux.

I'll wait for the new multi-core friendly Adobe/Macromedia software to come out, then let's see which company is going to get our money. :pimp

All of the current Macs seem to be using Intel motherboards. It looks like this is a slight variation of one of the Intel server boards (http://www.intel.com/design/servers/...af2/index.htm).

You could put it together yourself for far less.

I do agree tho that OSX is far superior to XP or Vista.

Ya know cowboy, you really love clamoring around about how Windows Vista won?t be natively optimized for dual core. In fact, you said basically the same thing in another apple thread:



I can find no evidence to support that MS said that about Vista, nor do any tests completed by beta testers seem to indicate that; in fact I find the absolute opposite in the tests that have been performed. Every indication appears, especially considering the steep system requirements that Windows Vista will require, that it will natively be optimized to handle dual-core chips. In fact it looks to be easily scalable and will be able to four and even eight-core chips in the future (keep in mind that?s probably two years off at a minimum).

Windows Vista still has a good bit of work to do and it looks like some of the key features I was really looking forward to won?t be there, at least not at launch (no wireless usb, no PC-2-PC sync), though dual-core optimization clearly isn?t one of them. Also? since there are going to be so many flavors of Vista, I don?t know if they won?t have wireless usb + other features ready exclusively for the ?ultimate? edition or premium, etc. We?ll just have to wait and see.

Technology is advancing so fast now. I remember when everyone thought the IBM PC XT had so much power with 640K of ram and its masive 10MB HD.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ahhh, those were the early days . . .

http://www.mainieri.it/WEB/images/St...T_IMG_0502.jpg

I've been playing with the woodcrests under linux for a few months now, absolutely rockin'. I'll be buying at least 1 of these, probably 2, next week.

No? just look at the build quality.. i know macs for 20 years now and their hardware has always been so much better in build quality..
For that alone i'll am ok to pay more..
But i agree, the performance is probably same as PC anyway.. nothing new there.. well for Apple it is :-)

Would be interesting to know what the same hardware would cost if you buil done yourself with clone parts.. probably much less

Mate, that's what I read. I'm not trying to "clamor around" about it.

I'm not trying to attack anyone or anything, just bringing forth to the discussion what I know. If I will be made wrong when Vista comes out, I will happily admit that I was.


Well, in a nutshell, the only reason why I'm actually considering switching over to Mac is because of their OS. If Vista does come out running multi-cores natively, then I'll happily stick with Windows again.

I've been into this whole PC thing for awhile now. I have no bias. Just an opinion. :pimp

ahh hellll

Link to this article that you read then. Or give the name of the magazine you saw this in + what month. I think you'll have trouble finding this information personally, but I would really love to see which "Microsoft" employee said this.

Actually some of us do know what we are talking about. While most have only 1 or 2 macs to their credit. Wait until you run a large network of macs and Pc's.

Why is it that after the excitement of having macs blows over fairly quickly (and I mean quickly), you then realise that they are just a grey box like a PC, but over priced to the fuck, less than impressive performance, overpriced spares and accessories, crazy bullshit priced software - you can't get out of them fast enough.

Boy I laugh when introverted Mac owners try to use the shit as bragging rights...I laugh all the way to the bank. PC retards YEH!!!! Mac fucktards of course...get a fucking life.

Lyn

Wow, jealousy sure makes you bitter.

I have 13 of them on order, shipping in 1-2 weeks

It is not expensive - I just HATE MACs. I have tryed using them - cannot stand them. I guess I am just old schooled PC. Maybe someday I will learn how to converrt from PC to MAC. Maybe.

I don't hate macs, I just hate mac users. :1orglaugh
Seriously though, I would much rather use a PC because of the ease at which parts are obtained and the price in which ?starter? computers can be put together for students/first time computer owners, or just for even personal projects. Just recently I wanted to build a Media Center PC just for the TV, so I shopped around and ended up with something that was way overkill just for a media center (Celeron 3Ghz, 1GB Ram, etc.). Best of all, it cost around $179 total for all the parts needed, talk about fucking cheap. Sure, it won?t be running UT2k4 but it would actually be a competent computer for most people if they needed a starter puter, or just a media center for their TV like I needed.

These Mac vs PC arguments are lame, even lamer considering a Mac and PC are made of EXACTLY THE SAME COMPONENTS. A Mac is now also a PC, the advantage it has is that it runs OS X.

I have both Macs and PCs all happily living on the same network. I switch from one to the other all day long, they really aren't that different. You do the same things, one just does it with more style and less bullshit. ;-)

I dunno how you can HATE macs, what do you hate about them exactly?

One thing is for certain, if Steve licensed out OS X DELL would would all over it like a rash, make no mistake.

All you gotta do is read through the feature list of Vista and you can see Microsoft digs OS X too it seems. I switched over to Mac a couple years ago and don't regret it. One of the hardest things you have to overcome when switching is un-learning all the bad habits you now take from granted after years of Windows use 'Where's the OK/APPLY buttons' ...'Where's the taskbar'....'How do I defrag my HD' etc etc..

I still use PCs but I look forward to the day when I no longer have to. I don't enjoy using Microsoft software as much as I do Apple's, that's all it boils down to for me. I have nothing against anyone who does though.

I'd advise anyone to buy a mac laptop, if they're itching to switch. Even if you don't like OS X you can use it as a windows machine. You can only make an informed decision when you've used both for a decent amount of time. Otherwise your opinion is worthless. I'm assuming that when most people say 'I HATE Macs' that they haven't used one long enough. :-)

Brand: Mac Pro Alienware Dell
Processor: Dual core 2,66 GHz Xeon (x2) Dual core 2,66 GHz Xeon (x2) Dual core 2,66 GHz Xeon (x2)
memory: 2 GB 2 GB 2 GB
HD: 250 GB 250 GB 250 GB
Optical drive: Superdrive Superdrive Superdrive
Videocard: Quadro FX 4500, 512 MB Quadro FX 3500, 256 MB Quadro FX 4500, 512 MB
Bill: $ 4.449,00 $ 5.041,00 $ 5.615,00

Stick with pc's kids ;)

I think I'm upgrading!:pimp

what a bunch of fucking tards.

For the rants about Vista supporting up to 8core. That's great, but useless if they can't even meet their release date.

For those bitching about pricing for the hardware, I just bought a macbookpro, and after matching the same specs from say, a Thinkpad, the macbookpro came with more for less.

It all depends on what you want, but in my opinion, OSX is by far the superior OS.

I asked around about this, and a few people more educated that me in this area said that the new intels apparently cant run smp, hence the stay with the Xeon's.

Core 2 Duo's were designed to run as single chips.

Then again, the main sources for this are mac-fanatics, so it could be an excuse anyway.

Take what I said with a pinch of salt. :2 cents: