[X4U] Re: Expandable Macs [a]

[Zane H. Healy]

At 4:39 AM +0000 1/22/08, Stroller wrote:
>On 21 Jan 2008, at 19:44, Zane H. Healy wrote:

>>...I will not run a desktop with a built in monitor
>
>Why do you say this?
>I'm glad it's not just me that feels this way!!
>
>If I were to look at the cost of iMacs & their resale value, I might 
>find my dismissal of them to be a little bit irrational, but 
>nevertheless I feel that in buying an iMac I would be buying a 
>monitor that I'd be obliged to "throw away" when I upgrade my PC. 
>All-in-one Macs just seem so "wasteful" to me.

I won't buy such a system for the same reason that I won't buy a TV 
with a built in VHS or DVD player.  If one part dies, the whole thing 
is dead.  If the monitor dies, I can just plug in another one.  If 
the computer dies, I've a bit more of a problem.

Additionally at this moment plugged into this one monitor I have my 
G5 2x2 on the DVI input, then on the VGA input I have a WinXP box, 
Linux Box, DEC Alpha (running OpenVMS), and a SunBlade 1000.  I also 
have an SGI O2 that is occasionally plugged in.  So I have a good 
reason for an external monitor. :^)

>>True, but I prefer mid-range, for extending the life of the machine 
>>past 3 years.  Though any MacPro is likely to be very usable after 
>>3+ years.  When the time comes to upgrade, I very likely will go 
>>with the low-end model this time ...
>
>I'm not convinced a computer with "only" a quad-core processor is 
>entirely "low end". ;)

Considering the "low end" model in this case, is only "low end" when 
compared with the Mac Pro, you might have a point.  I switched to the 
Mac with a PowerBook 520c (I had to have a laptop at that point). 
Since then my main Mac's have been the following 8500/180, G4/450 AGP 
(both the middle range tower at the time), and G5 dual 2Ghz (top of 
the line at the time).  I used the first for 3 years, the second for 
4, and I'm over 4 on the G5.  The first two took at most 1-2 years 
before they started to feel slow, the G5 only feels slow on a couple 
apps.

>I've never been sure that an extra core is as good as an extra 
>processor, but feel I'm unlikely to complain over the speed of a 
>quad-core Xeon.

The thing to remember about Multi-CPU systems is that it doesn't 
matter how good they are, a second CPU doesn't make your system 2x as 
fast.  Likewise a dual 4-core system won't be 8x as fast.  OTOH, 
those new Xeon CPU's have 12Mb L2 cache per CPU vs. 2-4Mb on the Core 
2 Duo.  That makes a real difference.  Of course how well written 
what you're running makes a difference as well.  A single threaded 
app will only run as fast as a single core.

>It did  occur to me that the build-to-order single quad-core MacPro 
>is likely to share the same motherboard as the one with two 
>quad-cores, so it might be possible to upgrade it economically in 
>the future. I don't know all of which processors might fit this 
>machine - or the full details of Intel's Core2 range (could one find 
>cheaper, non-Xeon quad-cores that would fit?) - but I notice (for 
>instance) that 3 year-old Dell servers go quite reasonably on eBay, 
>and one might find quad-cores installed in current models of those.

I don't know about this.  Are the CPU's even socketed?  Even if true, 
I suspect you'd have to find a dead Mac of the same Rev. level to 
steal parts from.  Additionally you might need "matched" CPU's for a 
dual CPU system.

As for using a non-Xeon CPU, not a chance, they aren't pin compatible.

Zane


-- 
| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary)    | OpenVMS Enthusiast         |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet)           | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
|     Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing,    |
|          PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum.         |
|                http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/               |