turbo mac pro - the ideal christmas present

configure your dream Mac Pro!

http://store.apple.com/us_smb_78313/configure/MA970LL/A?mco=NzQ3Njkz

my config:

# Two 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (total 8 cores)
# 32GB (8x4GB) RAM
# Mac Pro RAID Card
# 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
# Two 16x SuperDrives
# Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
# Apple Mighty Mouse
# Apple Keyboard + User's Guide
# AirPort Extreme Card (Wi-Fi)

for only $17,148.00 wow. and that's not the end of the flagpole. really not. so anyone who has just won the lottery, you know where to send/spend your cash.

mtf!

Why do you need 32 GB?

I have 8 GB and Vista 64-bit now. I checked the usage of memory last days.

Vista 64-bit takes indeed 2 GB right from the start. This is heavy.
But 3d applications like ZBrush only take about 512 MB.
Even games like QuakeWars only take 512 MB.
Some modern games like Crysis take up to 2 GB (yes, even the 64-bit version).
A second OS in a virtual environment (XP in my case) takes "only" up to 2 GB.

Up to now I never exceeded 8 GB on Vista even with lots of these applications in memory. Most of the time I need "only" 3 GB.

i'd hardly buy a mac for gaming, but music and video editing.

and macOS is not windows, like all unixoid-systems, more RAM means better performance. imagine that. you could record your video files directly to ram, same with your audio files. hours of audio and HD video content, in fact. work on it simultaneously. switch to applications without a tiny delay, because it's all in the ram.

Most expensive apple in the world - 27 thousand dollars.

yes, sounds great for 17 (or even 27) thousand $, haha. You could buy Max, Maya and XSI at the same time for this money (or a new car).

I am happy that I spent only something about 1,000 Euro for my PC.

Rumor has it the mysterious golden apple is said to cost even more than 27 thousand, but apparently it's not for sale. :p

I'd not spend 27 thousand on that Mac though, not worth it,

Cheers

ha, and i spent like $600 building my pc, and recently sold my dual cards ($50) to upgrade to another $100 card making my grand total $650.... i'd never be able to put that kinda cash into my computer

it's not worth the half it costs, to be honest.

Who needs Mac if Vista is avalibale?

Vista Rules!

I like Vista as well. I wonder why so many people slam Vista?

Macs are nice but, as we can see from that web site, very expensive.

Dunno.

Because why waste 2 GB of ram if you can do the same with only 300 MB occupied by the OS.

Yes, I know it doesn't matter if you have 8 GB of RAM. But still.

Vista needs only 512 MB RAM! but it will be kinda slow
Better use Vista in 1 GB RAM.

I'm using Vista in 2 GB for very very high speed .
and better use a dual proccesor in vista.
I'm using Intel Core 2 Duo. So it will run very very fast.

Probably because it's not faster than XP. That's about it. It takes a few days getting used to for the most part, but apart from not being faster or more reliable than XP, it's a good OS.



Yes, true and I wouldn't buy one soon, but they are still quite unmatched in functionality/reliability when it comes to video and audio production,

Cheers

I am not sure about Vista 32-bit. But my Vista 64-bit takes more than 1 GB right from the start. Most of the time it consumes about 1,5-2,0 GB only for Vista.

Yesterday I checked the RPG "Witcher" and it consumed just like QuakeWars and ZBrush only 512 MB RAM. So Vista is really hungry in terms of hardware compared to modern games.

So I recommend to use at least 4 GB for Vista 64-bit.
I am sure there are some other 64-bit OS out there with less hardware consumption. But I need the Windows compatibility.

And because some of my programming tools raised problems on Vista I just installed Virtual Box to install XP in a virtual environment. And XP is able to boot in this virtual PC in 5 seconds, really, no exaggeration. This is amazing.

Since I have 2 monitors I can run XP on one and Vista on the other one and can work parallel in both systems with only one PC. This is great and I have maximum compatibility.

I have also Vista and mine eats also 1GB of RAM. And I get often bluescreen, mostly after minimizing fullscreen games several times. And some older games don't even work on VIsta anymore!
About two weeks ago, I installed additionally XP, which boots up much faster than Vista and is more compatible to older applications/games. I'm thinking about changing to XP and not using Vista at all anymore.

I've not had a single bluescreen with Vista, and I've been using it for well over a year now. You must be doing something wrong ^^.

Hmm I heard this bluescreens are caused by NVidia drivers. Maybe I did something wrong by buying an NVidia card instead of an Ati card^^ ...or by buying Vista xD

vista ram consumption is dependend on how much ram you have got. if you have got plenty of ram, it gets used as some kind of cache i think.

i don't use vista since it simply doesn't offer me any advantage over xp. i don't need all the bloat like the wasteful user interface.

i also use several operating systems in virtual box. i like this kind of virtualization much more than having to reboot into a different os and it can be very useful for experimenting with various stuff without trashing your main os!

ok, you say that vista is slow, did you try sp1?

I have 4GB RAM, so the 1GB is not such a big problem for me.


Yes, I have SP1. Vista is not that slow, but XP seems to be faster.

I have read a few reviews in the net and most of them could show that XP is indeed faster than Vista and faster than preview versions of Win 7. Also most games run faster on XP than on Vista. Often they even run faster on DX 9 than on DX 10.

But nevertheless I installed Vista this time to use a 64-bit installation of my modeling and rendering application (Lightwave 3d). So this software is able to address more memory for rendering. This can be useful especially when I use displacement mapping as a render option.
And I can run XP parallel with enough memory. So no hard disc swapping is needed at any time.

But a casual user really does not need such an operating system.

When i was installed XP, It was slower than Vista now.

Maybe Vista is kinda slow, but Vista SP1 is a lightning!



Actually, You're wrong, DirectX 10 is faster than DirectX 9.

And the slow problem isn't in DirectX, The problem is in your Video Card.

This might be a pure subjective feeling. There are real tests and benchmarks out there. I would rather believe them or do my own tests with both systems.

My new PC including Vista is also fast compared with my old PC / XP. But there is new hardware involved.

Ok, so if the people knows that Vista isn't slow, Why they hate it? it's awesome!

First, I dont hate it. I use it daily and I am happy that it supports 64-bit and more RAM than XP. XP 64-bit has weak driver support.

Secondly I meant that my new very fast PC still would run XP faster than Vista in some cases. But I take this into account because now I can address more memory. It is a trade-off.

Still I am not a fanboy. I would not fall in love with Vista nor with XP. It is just a tool to do my work.

Not you. some people hates Vista, Dunno why.



lol, Don't like it, but don't hate it, but i still like it very much, because it's better than XP.

You make a lot of generalizations. You said it is lightning fast. This is not true compared to XP. You said it is better than XP. And this is only partly true.

Yes, Vista has some improvements but it also is bloated and because of this sometimes slower than XP. And there are compatibility issues. Most companies still use XP because of this. I also run XP in a virtual environment because of this. I would rather use only one OS.

So it is definitely not better than XP in all terms, but some interface and security improvements are better.

Yeah with somethings, not all, but most...

XP Benchmarks > Vista Benchmarks

For most, if not all, games.
--------

Oh and I have both my custom built gaming PC and my Macbook. Go ahead and add an iPod Touch & an iPhone to that list.
<3 Apple. Best thing about my Mac is that it never slows down with an increase of stored files on the computer like a PC does. You get a PC on day #1, yea it's fast - congratulations. But one week into it your scratching your head to what happened. Not with a Mac.

Hahaha, yeah, Apple's MacOS is very good when it comes to resource handling. If Windows 7 isn't going to improve in that area, then I'm going to say bye bye to Windows all together, buy a MacBook Pro and a PS3 for games...

Cheers