New Mac Pros are out

  • Thread starter Thread starter Howard Brazee
  • Start date Start date
H

Howard Brazee

It looks like the new Mac Pros are out. They're a bit more
expensive than I anticipated - or that might just be which ones are
displayed.

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/01/08/new-mac-pros-and-xserve/

http://gizmodo.com/342091/new-apple-mac-pro-8-cores-count-em-baby

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2008/01/08.4.shtml

They look like the old ones - now I need to see how different they are
and start looking for the best value for the amount of money I have to
spend (remembering that they are easily upgradeable when I have more
money in the future).

I'm going to use my academic discount, buy Parallels & iWork and 2G
RAM. The "default" cheap computer seems about $100 higher than last
week.
 
in message
It looks like the new Mac Pros are out. They're a bit more
expensive than I anticipated - or that might just be which ones are
displayed.
Click to expand...
They look like the old ones - now I need to see how different they
are
and start looking for the best value for the amount of money I have
to
spend (remembering that they are easily upgradeable when I have more
money in the future).

I'm going to use my academic discount, buy Parallels & iWork and 2G
RAM. The "default" cheap computer seems about $100 higher than
last
week.
Click to expand...


Please stroke your, um, "ego" in private.
 
Howard Brazee said:
Sorry, wrong newsgroup.

However, I will be running XP on that platform.
Click to expand...



XP will run well on a $700 computer.. count 'em, baby.. 800.. 1000.. 1200..
1400 (2 XP PC's).. 1600.. 1800.. 2000 (almost 3 XP PC's).. 2200.. 2400..
2600 (no free printer).. 2800 (the tower is now yours and you have a mouse
and keyboard but no free mouse mat or display)

But you are not yet in possession of the worlds most expensive XP machine. A
top of the line Mac Pro will set you back $27,000 (twenty seven thousand).

And some complain at having to spend $80 getting a video card that will
enable Aero in Vista???
 
But you are not yet in possession of the worlds most expensive XP machine. A
top of the line Mac Pro will set you back $27,000 (twenty seven thousand).
Click to expand...

I suppose there are some reasons for people to spend that kind of
money for high end development. The computers people used to use in
places like Pixar used to be quite a bit more expensive, but things
are getting cheaper.

I bet one could spend that much for non Apple Windows machines. Of
course the article I read with someone configuring that expensive
machine, it included stuff like unlimited OS-X server licenses, two
huge monitors, 32 G Ram, etc. At this moment, Apple RAM is
overpriced as are their stand-alone monitors. But I have a monitor,
and won't get memory upgrades from Apple. That included video card
is also tremendous overkill - designed for high-end professional video
needs. I'll let the professionals decide where to buy their
hardware. There is something to be said for buying such a machine
that will run Windows.

I would spend 1/10 of that which isn't that different from a similarly
powered Sony.
And some complain at having to spend $80 getting a video card that will
enable Aero in Vista???
Click to expand...

Some do, some don't. If/when I upgrade to Vista, it's nice to know
I'll have the hardware to run it.

I needed to upgrade my computer anyway, I have two inadequate clones
with 3 copies of XP pro, one copy of XP home. They are upgrades,
which means I can't install them in Boot Manager (The installation
procedure doesn't let me show my previous Windows, and won't work if
my XP isn't service pack 2 or later), but I can install them in
Parallels by showing the installation my W95 non-upgrade disk.

It will be interesting running Windows in a VM.
 
How so?
Click to expand...

Maybe not - if there are differences, it will be interesting to
resolve them. If not, I guess it's just Windows, like with any other
hardware.

I currently use one Apple utility, "Bonjour for Windows", I expect to
use it from within Windows on my Mac, but maybe it won't be needed.

Someday I'd like to install Vista in both Boot Manager and in a VM and
compare them.
 
Won't be too much of a difference, other than the Vista load running
natively will be faster than the VM.
 
Forgive me for cutting in; wanted to say thanks for your reply a
couple of weeks ago. I lost track of the message for a while. Bob
 
Back
Top