27" iMac or upgrade my Mac Pro

[ML-34]

Hi All,

I am doing steady graphics development again and I have reached a point where I want a dedicated development machine. (no e-mail or other apps).

I have a Mac Pro with 2 x 2.8 quad core, 16gb RAM a few 320gb in Software RAID10. This is an early 2008 model.

Do I put some money into upgrading this or buy a new iMac i5?

My thought was for the Mac Pro:
1. Buy a 24 inch Cinema (I have an old 23 inch Cinema ADC model now)
2. Upgrade to 32gb RAM
3. Buy 4 x 1tb RAID level drives and a hardware RAID card.
4. Upgrade the video card.

This would probably run me like $2500 minimum

Or get the iMac, upgrade the RAM and be done...

My initial gut is the Mac Pro is very expandable and I could test with different video cards, have safety of RAID 10 for my data, etc.

What would you choose knowing that I develop software, doing a lot of Open CL, 64bit optimizing and Bootcamp between OS X and Win 7.

Best,
-Jason

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Jared Earle]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:10 PM, ML <mailinglists@...> wrote:

Hi All,

I am doing steady graphics development again and I have reached a point where I want a dedicated development machine. (no e-mail or other apps).

I have a Mac Pro with 2 x 2.8 quad core, 16gb RAM a few 320gb in Software RAID10. This is an early 2008 model.

Do I put some money into upgrading this or buy a new iMac i5?

If you buy the iMac, you still have the laptop. Win. 

--
Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK
jearle@... :: http://jearle.eu
Hosting :: http://cat5.org
Blog :: http://blog.23x.net

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Larry Gusaas-4]

On 2009/11/06 12:33 PM  Jared Earle wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:10 PM, ML <mailinglists@...
> <mailto:mailinglists@...>> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     I am doing steady graphics development again and I have reached a
>     point where I want a dedicated development machine. (no e-mail or
>     other apps).
>
>     I have a Mac Pro with 2 x 2.8 quad core, 16gb RAM a few 320gb in
>     Software RAID10. This is an early 2008 model.
>
>     Do I put some money into upgrading this or buy a new iMac i5?
>
>
> If you buy the iMac, you still have the laptop. Win.

What laptop? He has a Mac Pro, not a MacBook Pro.

--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Jared Earle]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Larry Gusaas <larry.gusaas@...> wrote:

What laptop? He has a Mac Pro, not a MacBook Pro.

 

Oops, yeah, I misread that as MacBook Pro. My bad.

--
Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK
jearle@... :: http://jearle.eu
Hosting :: http://cat5.org
Blog :: http://blog.23x.net

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Macs R We]

On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:10 AM, ML wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I am doing steady graphics development again and I have reached a  
> point where I want a dedicated development machine. (no e-mail or  
> other apps).
>
> I have a Mac Pro with 2 x 2.8 quad core, 16gb RAM a few 320gb in  
> Software RAID10. This is an early 2008 model.
>
> Do I put some money into upgrading this or buy a new iMac i5?
>
> My thought was for the Mac Pro:
> 1. Buy a 24 inch Cinema (I have an old 23 inch Cinema ADC model now)
> 2. Upgrade to 32gb RAM
> 3. Buy 4 x 1tb RAID level drives and a hardware RAID card.
> 4. Upgrade the video card.
>
> This would probably run me like $2500 minimum
>
> Or get the iMac, upgrade the RAM and be done...
>
> My initial gut is the Mac Pro is very expandable and I could test  
> with different video cards, have safety of RAID 10 for my data, etc.
>
> What would you choose knowing that I develop software, doing a lot  
> of Open CL, 64bit optimizing and Bootcamp between OS X and Win 7.

Wow, way too subjective a decision for me.  One data point: the new  
iMac allows you to use the iMac screen as an external monitor, so if  
you go that way, you kill two birds.

--
   Macs R We -- Personal Macintosh Service and Support
     in the Wickenburg and far Northwest Valley Areas.
                             http://macsrwe.com

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Ashley Aitken]

On 07/11/2009, at 2:10 AM, ML wrote:

> I have a Mac Pro with 2 x 2.8 quad core, 16gb RAM a few 320gb in  
> Software RAID10. This is an early 2008 model.
>
> Do I put some money into upgrading this or buy a new iMac i5?
>
> My thought was for the Mac Pro:
> 1. Buy a 24 inch Cinema (I have an old 23 inch Cinema ADC model now)
> 2. Upgrade to 32gb RAM
> 3. Buy 4 x 1tb RAID level drives and a hardware RAID card.
> 4. Upgrade the video card.
>
> This would probably run me like $2500 minimum
>
> Or get the iMac, upgrade the RAM and be done...
>
> My initial gut is the Mac Pro is very expandable and I could test  
> with different video cards, have safety of RAID 10 for my data, etc.
>
> What would you choose knowing that I develop software, doing a lot  
> of Open CL, 64bit optimizing and Bootcamp between OS X and Win 7.'

I think it would be a pretty clear choice of the Mac Pro (with a good  
graphics card) - the architecture and expandability would make it more  
appropriate than getting a new iMac.

But this:

> I am doing steady graphics development again and I have reached a  
> point where I want a dedicated development machine. (no e-mail or  
> other apps).

seems quite "silly" (for want of a better word).  I can see no reason  
(except "personal issues") for not wanting to have email or "other  
apps" on a machine in the 21st century.

Cheers,
Ashley.

--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
Skype/iChat: MrHatken (GMT + 8hrs!)

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Jared Earle]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Ashley Aitken <mrhatken@...> wrote:

seems quite "silly" (for want of a better word).  I can see no reason (except "personal issues") for not wanting to have email or "other apps" on a machine in the 21st century.

 

I can see several reasons and know a few people who have a machine for the usual stuff and a machine without email for work. It's not just the distinction between "family machine" and "work machine" but in some cases it's "not even background processes allowed" for video or music guys who cannot do with disk hiccoughs during recording. Many reasons with little or no cross-over.

I gave up trying to fathom people's reasoning for stuff I didn't understand when it came clear to me not everyone thinks like me. 

--
Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK
jearle@... :: http://jearle.eu
Hosting :: http://cat5.org
Blog :: http://blog.23x.net

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Paul Sargent]

On 7 Nov 2009, at 05:06, Ashley Aitken wrote:

> I can see no reason (except "personal issues") for not wanting to  
> have email or "other apps" on a machine in the 21st century.

How about you like to have your communication lines always open, but  
the process of development causes crashes, reboots, running other OSs  
(gasp!). Those crashes also mean that your development machine might  
get data corruption issues (1).

I've certainly found it quite easy to crash my machine doing OpenGL /  
OpenCL development.

On 6 Nov 2009, at 18:10, ML wrote:

> What would you choose knowing that I develop software, doing a lot  
> of Open CL, 64bit optimizing and Bootcamp between OS X and Win 7.

Personally it sounds to me like the Mac Pro you have is in excess of  
any iMac already, and the upgrade path you're talking about completely  
decimates any iMac.

Current setup:
8 x 2.8GHz cores
16GB RAM
640GB Disc?
Don't know what graphics you have.

iMac
4 x 2.66GHz cores (Ok i5 is a good chip though)
Max 16GB RAM
Max 2TB Disc Non-Raid
ATI 4850 Graphics

Upgraded Mac Pro:
8 x 2.8 Ghz cores
32GB RAM
2TB Disc RAID 10
ATI 4870 Graphics / possible 5xxx series in the future

Costing up that upgrade it looks like the two big items are the RAM at  
around $700 and the display at $900. Are you really hitting the limit  
of your 16GB (I suspect not if you're looking at the iMac), and do you  
really need an Apple display? I ask because you could do the bulk of  
the upgrade (drives and graphics) for about $750 and get a Mac Mini  
(2) to handle e-mail, etc and still end up cheaper if you bought  
somebody else's display (two even). You could even go for a lower spec  
iMac.

Paul

*1 That does make me question why you want a huge set of storage on it  
though.
*2 Personally I'd build a little kubuntu box on the side for that and  
save even more, but then I'm bi-lingual and a cheap skate.
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Ashley Aitken]

On 07/11/2009, at 6:32 PM, Jared Earle wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Ashley Aitken <mrhatken@...>  
> wrote:
> seems quite "silly" (for want of a better word).  I can see no  
> reason (except "personal issues") for not wanting to have email or  
> "other apps" on a machine in the 21st century.
>
> I can see several reasons and know a few people who have a machine  
> for the usual stuff and a machine without email for work. It's not  
> just the distinction between "family machine" and "work machine" but  
> in some cases it's "not even background processes allowed" for video  
> or music guys who cannot do with disk hiccoughs during recording.  
> Many reasons with little or no cross-over.
>
> I gave up trying to fathom people's reasoning for stuff I didn't  
> understand when it came clear to me not everyone thinks like me.

I understand this reasoning but I just think it is wrong with today's  
multi-core machines with huge amounts of RAM and disk space.  I'm not  
going to try to convince anyone, if they want to follow there  
reasoning they are more than welcome - more sales for Apple (which is  
good for me in the long run).

Cheers,
Ashley.

PS So how would you stop background processes running on OSX?!  I  
don't believe that would even be practically possible ...  Of course,  
one could try to make the distinction between user applications (with  
GUI etc.) versus daemons and other processes but I think that would  
also be inappropriate.


--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
Skype/iChat: MrHatken (GMT + 8hrs!)

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Jared Earle]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Ashley Aitken <mrhatken@...> wrote:

PS So how would you stop background processes running on OSX?!  I don't believe that would even be practically possible ...  Of course, one could try to make the distinction between user applications (with GUI etc.) versus daemons and other processes but I think that would also be inappropriate.

 

By not installing stuff like Twitter, eMail, iChat ...

The less stuff you install, the less likelihood of background processes. Typing "ps wwx" in terminal will show you how many things are running, and you'll see all manner of little apps launched by the crap you've probably, if you're anything like me, installed in your menubar to make life easier o the internet.

It's indisputable that the more dedicated a machine is to a single purpose, the better it is at it. You stop background processes by not starting them in the first place. 

--
Jared Earle :: There is no SPORK
jearle@... :: http://jearle.eu
Hosting :: http://cat5.org
Blog :: http://blog.23x.net

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[LuKreme]

On 6-Nov-2009, at 11:10, ML wrote:
> 1. Buy a 24 inch Cinema (I have an old 23 inch Cinema ADC model now)

I think you'd be better off considering using two screens on your  
machine. One, the best color matching you can get (That might be the  
new 24"), and keep the old screen for extra space.

> 2. Upgrade to 32gb RAM

Do you need it? Unless you are worrying on really massively large  
files you're not going to see a lot of difference, especially since  
you aren't running any 'extra' apps.

> 3. Buy 4 x 1tb RAID level drives and a hardware RAID card.

Well, yeah. but why buy little 1TB drives when there are 1.5's and  
2.0's out there?

> 4. Upgrade the video card.

Depends on the video card you have and are upgrading to. Most of the  
upgraded video cards are only upgrades for gamers.

> What would you choose knowing that I develop software, doing a lot  
> of Open CL, 64bit optimizing and Bootcamp between OS X and Win 7.

Ah, well… BootCamp makes 32GB more attractive. Still, not sure it's  
necessary.


--
One of the universal rules of happiness is: always be wary of any  
helpful item that weighs less than its operating manual. --Jingo

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[LuKreme]

On 7-Nov-2009, at 07:17, Jared Earle wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Ashley Aitken <mrhatken@...>  
> wrote:
>
>> PS So how would you stop background processes running on OSX?!  I  
>> don't
>> believe that would even be practically possible ...  Of course, one  
>> could
>> try to make the distinction between user applications (with GUI  
>> etc.) versus
>> daemons and other processes but I think that would also be  
>> inappropriate.
>>
>
> By not installing stuff like Twitter, eMail, iChat …

You are less likely to be distracted from the work at hand.

The more 'extra stuff' you have on the machine you're working on, the  
more you're likely to be distracted by bright shiny—

—Oooo, new tweets, brb.

See what I mean?


--
...but then a lot of nice things turn bad out there

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Ashley Aitken]

On 07/11/2009, at 10:17 PM, Jared Earle wrote:

> The less stuff you install, the less likelihood of background  
> processes. Typing "ps wwx" in terminal will show you how many things  
> are running, and you'll see all manner of little apps launched by  
> the crap you've probably, if you're anything like me, installed in  
> your menubar to make life easier o the internet.
> You stop background processes by not starting them in the first place.

Sure, but my point was there are a whole lot of background processes  
already running on the system (even before you install anything) that  
could cause similar problems with resource intensive tasks.

> It's indisputable that the more dedicated a machine is to a single  
> purpose, the better it is at it.

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with that.

It's all a matter of degree (which seems to make these sort of  
discussions more difficult), for some people having the OS running  
could be a problem for what they're trying to do ;-)

I'm just suggesting that the I think for most people with today's  
machines this would not be a problem. At the worst, quit other  
significant apps before running your resource intensive tasks.

Cheers,
Ashley.

--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
Skype/iChat: MrHatken (GMT + 8hrs!)

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[Ashley Aitken]

On 07/11/2009, at 10:42 PM, LuKreme wrote:

>
> On 7-Nov-2009, at 07:17, Jared Earle wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Ashley Aitken <mrhatken@...>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> PS So how would you stop background processes running on OSX?!  I  
>>> don't
>>> believe that would even be practically possible ...  Of course,  
>>> one could
>>> try to make the distinction between user applications (with GUI  
>>> etc.) versus
>>> daemons and other processes but I think that would also be  
>>> inappropriate.
>>>
>>
>> By not installing stuff like Twitter, eMail, iChat …
>
> You are less likely to be distracted from the work at hand.
>
> The more 'extra stuff' you have on the machine you're working on,  
> the more you're likely to be distracted by bright shiny—
>
> —Oooo, new tweets, brb.
>
> See what I mean?

Yes, I agree with that - wait just check my RSS feeds - and included  
those sort of reasons under "personal issues" in my post.

Cheers,
Ashley.

--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
Skype/iChat: MrHatken (GMT + 8hrs!)

_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk

[steve harley-2]

On 2009-11-06 22:06 , Ashley Aitken wrote:
>
> On 07/11/2009, at 2:10 AM, ML wrote:
>> I want a dedicated development machine. (no e-mail or
>> other apps).
>
> seems quite "silly" (for want of a better word). I can see no reason
> (except "personal issues") for not wanting to have email or "other apps"
> on a machine in the 21st century.

i can -- they are a distraction and they consume resources; i've
actually considered doing this for work because i don't seem to have the
discipline to completely ignore the distractions of the internet; also,
my web, email, rss and other browsers take a big chunk of my systems's
memory and (to a lesser extent) CPU, so i could use a machine dedicated
to heavy lifting
_______________________________________________
MacOSX-talk mailing list
MacOSX-talk@...
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk