Windows to Mac advice

[Martyn...]

My main desktop PC never crashes... ever, and it's hugely overclocked. My server has been up and logged in 24 hours a day for 49 days now, and the only reason it was rebooted 49 days ago was to install updates.... and believe it or not, it's running VISTA of all things... and it's still bombproof. My wife's PC never crashes either.

The thing is with PCs... there are many kinds. Some are well designed and built from quality components. Some are crap. Don't judge all PCs by the crap one you had. Before you say "It wasn't crap"... well.. you seem to be always having problems, and I don't.

Oh dear... first of all.. Evesham? Seriously... the same company that was constantly in receivership, and prosecuted several times for... let's say.. creative trading practices? Hmmm... OK.

So your "Evesham" computer went bang... stuff happens.. even a Rolls Royce can break down. So you go buy an off the shelf peice of crap running Vista.. and on the basis of that, you feel PCs are bad.

Wooooosh!!!

That was the sound of credibility flying out of the window.

Anyway.... still waiting for the Macboys to run that benchmark. They won't of course

Evesham Micros were rated as being one of the best manufacturers at the time,(especially according to your beloved benchmark tests) and only got into trouble when they started selling all manner of other electrical goods, and opening up stores all over the place

Why shouldn't I expect an off the shelf item to work, to suggest otherwise as you do is just ridiculous.

Strangely my off the shelf Mac has worked perfectly for 5 years.

I admire your attempt to twist my words to suit your own agenda but go whoosh yourself

 

[Pookeyhead]

Why shouldn't I expect an off the shelf item to work, to suggest otherwise as you do is just ridiculous.

It depends who's making it. There is no one way to make a PC, and therein lies the problem. No one actually makes an entire PC from scratch, they are assembled from discreet components, and the choices you have when building one vary massively... and hence quality.

Macs are all the same. Only one manufacturer makes them, and they are all made in the same way, by the same company in the same factories, and the parts are all supplied by the same suppliers etc.

Imagine if Ford allowed their to be manufactured by anyone.. and you could choose all the parts that go into it. Eventually, there were hundreds of companies making them. Then eventually the parts themselves were being sold separately, and even third party manufacturers designed and built their own parts, and sold them separately... each part never really being thoroughly tested to see if they work with other third party manufacturers parts... and then the general public and smaller companies started manufacture too.

See my point? Pretty soon... Ford cars would become a product of variable quality; one you could not actually say with any certainty would be as good as any other Ford car..... essentially because it wouldn't be a Ford any more, nor have anything to do with Ford.

This in itself doesn't mean that the product isn't capable of being excellent... it's just that it's no longer one product.. some are crap, some aren't.

So yes... you can get a crap, off the shelf product. It happens all the time, with all manner of products.

Strangely my off the shelf Mac has worked perfectly for 5 years.

Of course it has... it's a quality product. I've said Macs were crap... . I like Macs.... sometimes. I use them all day, 5 days a week. Which is why this is not a PC fanboy rant. Macs are absolutely fine. They are however, stupidly expensive, slower, less upgradeable, and let's be honest.... just form over function. Any company that compromises performance over looks with a computer product is selling a status item as much as a utilitarian item. The new iMacs are a case in point. The Mac Pro while excellently built is just massively under specced for such a horrific amount of money too.

You're just not really getting your money's worth. The MBP is the only product that represents any real value, but it's still stupidly expensive. The retina display is a non starter for me. The actual OS desktop is scaled up and re-interpolated to the retinas higher resolution... it's not running in native res. Good job too, as everything would be too small to see on a screen that size, with that resolution. The only advantage is you cannot see the pixels. When desktop monitors of a decent size start to use panel resolutions like that, then I'll sit up and pay attention. No matter how great a laptop is... it's still a laptop. You can't really do any serious work on a 15" screen.

Those questions - all genuine, asked cause no real idea, so the ram question. Makes a nice noise as it flies past.

Your benchmarks, did run them on my MBP came out exactly as listed. I did notice it never pushed my processor past 75% or used more then half available ram. Either I'm missing something or they didn't really push things?

As listed? Just run it, upload the results to the geekbench site, and post a link to it on here so people can see it. The website explains what all the separate tests do. Sometimes it's testing RAM subsystems, sometimes it's testing specific math performance, so the processor will not be running flat out all the time, no.

 

[boyfalldown]

As listed? Just run it, upload the results to the geekbench site, and post a link to it on here so people can see it. The website explains what all the separate tests do. Sometimes it's testing RAM subsystems, sometimes it's testing specific math performance, so the processor will not be running flat out all the time, no.

As listed - it lists expected results from various OTS systems. It matched that exactly. Now you'll also note I said 'never'. For RAM or processor performance. Even I realise its not testing everything all of the time, but never to use more then 50% of my available ram, never pushing a processor to more then 75%? Not really stressing or pushing or seeming a good suite of tests.

Maybe you, or someone else can answer a questions. Asked because I don't know the answers, more then anything else.

Max OS X is simply a flavour, or derived from Unix. When I did my PhD and later when I worked in large corporate companies anything that needed serious number crunching was run on various flavours of Unix. Even though the exact same software was available (substantially more cheaply) for PC. The reason given for this was always unix type systems handled large number crunching exercises far better. More recently I was talking to the guy who develops FOCAL. He was a little peeved that the maths that program needs to run, does so far quicker on a lower speced MAC then on a faster PC.

Again, in another related question, without any great technical knowledge we often used to write simple routines for results analysis. Even the simplest of routines could have its performance radically effected by how well it was written.

So that leads to my question, are you all saying that its only the hardware that makes a difference, or can the OS effect how well that hardware is utilised?. Question by the way, not trying to cause any argument.

 

[Mark Anthony]

Pretty soon... Ford cars would become a product of variable quality

Ooops too late haha

 

[arad85]

So that leads to my question, are you all saying that its only the hardware that makes a difference, or can the OS effect how well that hardware is utilised?. Question by the way, not trying to cause any argument.

There are a number of factors here.

If you are using the "OS" to do any number crunching (i.e. you are using system provided libraries to do your maths) then yes, it is the "OS" that dictates how slow or fast something gets executed (actually it is the routines efficiency that dictates it, not the OS).

If you are implementing your own algorithms in code, then the OS doesn't dictate how fast you are going, what does is the ability of the compiler to generate code that is quick. How you write your code and how good the compiler is then has a huge impact on the efficiency of your code. It is often possible to write the same piece of code in two ways, one so badly the compiler can't do anything with it to optimise it, the other in a way that is sympathetic to the way the compiler optimises. Additionally, different compilers will be capable of different optimisations (although most optimisation techniques are fairly well known) so the same piece of code run through two different compilers will run at different speeds (I have seen benchmarks where a factor of 2 can easily be seen between compilers).

Without knowing specifics, it is impossible to know if performance problems are just badly (or unsympathetically if you prefer) written code or just someone using a poorly implemented library routine.

At the end of the day, the OS' job is to schedule execution of lumps of code on the processors that exist in the computer. Generally, once that is done, performance is down to the raw compute power and the skill of the coder in writing code that allows the compiler to maximise that power.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

There are a number of factors here.

If you are using the "OS" to do any number crunching (i.e. you are using system provided libraries to do your maths) then yes, it is the "OS" that dictates how slow or fast something gets executed (actually it is the routines efficiency that dictates it, not the OS).

If you are implementing your own algorithms in code, then the OS doesn't dictate how fast you are going, what does is the ability of the compiler to generate code that is quick. How you write your code and how good the compiler is then has a huge impact on the efficiency of your code. It is often possible to write the same piece of code in two ways, one so badly the compiler can't do anything with it to optimise it, the other in a way that is sympathetic to the way the compiler optimises. Additionally, different compilers will be capable of different optimisations (although most optimisation techniques are fairly well known) so the same piece of code run through two different compilers will run at different speeds (I have seen benchmarks where a factor of 2 can easily be seen between compilers).

Without knowing specifics, it is impossible to know if performance problems are just badly (or unsympathetically if you prefer) written code or just someone using a poorly implemented library routine.

At the end of the day, the OS' job is to schedule execution of lumps of code on the processors that exist in the computer. Generally, once that is done, performance is down to the raw compute power and the skill of the coder in writing code that allows the compiler to maximise that power.

To add on to that it also depends what processor specific optimisations the compilers use.

In the old days I used to compile my own kernels for linux, and anything with a generic i386 architecture would be a lot (2-3x) slower than i686, or even more the 64bit binary. It means a lot if you have a high spec machine and run CPU intensive code. Windows and some linux desktop systems generally have fairly low requirements - to accommodate wider user base, so they won't be optimised quite as far. OSX 10.8 is core2duo min CPU at the moment, next one will probably be i5 min. A custom built and recompiled linux would run the fastest obviously.
Then it depends on the implementation of standard C library, and any others that are called (cough Adobe, cough).

 

[PJ S]

Just run it, upload the results to the geekbench site, and post a link to it on here so people can see it.

What exactly is your point here David?

I can point you to the Geekbench browser page and show you a Mac Pro with a score 40100.
The next highest score of note, is 40189 from a £7463 (ex. VAT!) Dell PowerEdge720 Server!!

So what exactly are you trying to achieve with repeatedly asking for and referring to Geekbench test marks?

 

[Martyn...]

I've said Macs were crap... . I like Macs.... sometimes.

Confused David ...

I know it's a typo, but in the context of this thread an amusing one all the same

 

[neil_g]

I can point you to the Geekbench browser page and show you a Mac Pro with a score 40100.
The next highest score of note, is 40189 from a £7463 (ex. VAT!) Dell PowerEdge720 Server!!

that doesn't necessarily surprise me, a server isn't necessarily configured for balls out speed but more multi tasking.

look at the two models of CPU on passmark site, the xeons in the dell server blow the ones in the mac pro away. hence the higher price tag, also again its a server not a workstation so the cost will be driven up by SAS arrays, redundant PSU/NIC blah blah blah. (we've just had 2 720 delivered by the way and they're awesome servers)

go on to page 1 of those results and there are single i7 machines.

 

[PJ S]

Not my point Neil - it's a Mac Pro running Snow Leopard (OS X.6.8) which is less than the Dell, with only 89 points difference.
David is going on about this software proving something, when all I can see is an aged (and decrepit) Mac Pro putting out serious numbers.
But static benchmarks have never given an accurate picture of what any one particular system is like when running video editing, audio recording, or various PS filters.
I stopped measuring my e-penis too many years ago to remember how long it is - it's utterly stupid and pointless once you get beyond full puberty.


Yes, the Mac Pros have languished behind in Apple's updates to hardware, but I'm sure there's a reason for it, and it's never stopped those who've needed one or bought one, from doing the tasks required of them.

 

[jakeblu]

I'm just totally uninterested in whether they are classed as virii, trojans, back doors, phishing scams, worms - you name it - I don't care. The fact is that if you have an unprotected Mac and click on the wrong thing and don't realise it yourself, you're more likely to lose your personal data than someone who is protected. It's as simple as that.

Theres not a single self replicating virus in the wild that runs on OSX for the full 11 years it has been out. End of story it may very well suit your argument to claim Phishing scams and Trojans are the same they're not it takes further user input other than clicking a link!

No amount of protection will protect you from scams that require you to enter your system password its like giving the burglar the key to the house and the code for the alarm, if your fool enough to do it then you deserve all you get

Steve

 

[arad85]

Theres not a single self replicating virus in the wild that runs on OSX for the full 11 years it has been out. End of story it may very well suit your argument to claim Phishing scams and Trojans are the same they're not it takes further user input other than clicking a link!

No amount of protection will protect you from scams that require you to enter your system password its like giving the burglar the key to the house and the code for the alarm, if your fool enough to do it then you deserve all you get

Steve

You have missed my point completely. Any decent anti-virus solution ALSO helps protect you against phishing scams/trojans as they examine web pages/attachments as they are read.

Also, self replicating worms would have to get in to most peoples networks by them clicking something anyway. Most peoples routers have firewalls that will stop attacks from the outside and if someone did get through, the router wouldn't know where to route the attack as ports would have to be forwarded to individual computers in order to attack them - and then the individual firewalls on the computers would have to be configured to let it in as well. Gone are the days when people used to expose their unprotected PCs directly on the internet via a phone line....

Saying the OS is secure against one class of virus, which probably wouldn't be able to attack you anyway whether MacOS or Windows, and extending that to "I don't need to protect my computer at all" is really quite short sighted....

 

[Pookeyhead]

As listed - it lists expected results from various OTS systems. It matched that exactly. Now you'll also note I said 'never'. For RAM or processor performance. Even I realise its not testing everything all of the time, but never to use more then 50% of my available ram, never pushing a processor to more then 75%? Not really stressing or pushing or seeming a good suite of tests.

It's never meant to be pushing everything simultaneously.. it's not a stress test. Whatever it IS doing, it can do it cross platform, so it's still one of the best Windows/Mac/Linux benchmark programs out there.

Max OS X is simply a flavour, or derived from Unix. When I did my PhD and later when I worked in large corporate companies anything that needed serious number crunching was run on various flavours of Unix. Even though the exact same software was available (substantially more cheaply) for PC. The reason given for this was always unix type systems handled large number crunching exercises far better. More recently I was talking to the guy who develops FOCAL. He was a little peeved that the maths that program needs to run, does so far quicker on a lower speced MAC then on a faster PC.

Then explain when benchmarks like above, or specific Photoshop benchmark batch files are run, PCs with the same CPU/RAM always seem to be faster?

So that leads to my question, are you all saying that its only the hardware that makes a difference, or can the OS effect how well that hardware is utilised?. Question by the way, not trying to cause any argument.

No I'm not. When I run Geekbech under Ubuntu, it's much faster than Windows.

Here are my results:

Geekbench 32bit:

Ubuntu = http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/540031
Windows 7 = http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/540478

Geekbnch 64bit:

Windows = http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/533324



So... My scores seem to be roughly in the ball park of a 2012 Mac Pro running Geekbench 32bit, at 21,501. However, my rig uses a single i7-3960X, so that's 1CPU, 6 cores, 12 threads. The Mac Pro (which also seems to be around 20-22K score) uses dual Xeons... so that's 2CPU, 12 cores, 24 threads, and running a Unix derived OS.



So.. a £4000+ computer, using 2 Xeon, 12core processors, is as fast as a £2000 computer using a single 6 core processor.

I rest my case.


It seems to be memory management, and memory system design.

Mine:

Mac Pro 2012:

Socket 2011 Quad channel FTW!!!!11

 

[PJ S]

Here David, have this....

Just post that from now on, it'll save us from RSI from scrolling.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

really - shall we have a quick look at the rest of my posts in this thread. Hardly any sort of fanboy. Although I do own macs, mainly for reason 1. I guess that makes me a fanboy then. :bonk:

Hugh, you like using macs, therefore you are a fanboy....

:bang:

Is there anything wrong with preference?

Jeez, some people really need to step back from their keyboards, take a breath and stop trying to win the internet. Lets have on OS agnostic cuddle.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Here David, have this....

Just post that from now on, it'll save us from RSI from scrolling.

LOL....


Serious point though.... I just don't see what the point of the Mac Pro is. Surely the whole point of a very expensive high end machine is performance?

 

[boyfalldown]

LOL....

Serious point though.... I just don't see what the point of the Mac Pro is. Surely the whole point of a very expensive high end machine is performance?

Non now, I think when released they were awesome but not now.

 

[PJ S]

Lets have on OS agnostic cuddle.

Impossible, David's huge e-penis would get in the way.

 

[PJ S]

Serious point though.... I just don't see what the point of the Mac Pro is. Surely the whole point of a very expensive high end machine is performance?

As I said in an earlier reply, the MPs have been languishing for a while now (too long in reality) for a reason.
I can't see Apple discarding the Pro sector, so I suspect they have something coming that is taking them longer to engineer and refine.

At the end of the day though, MPs will never be on the bleeding edge, but if you know your Mac history, the first G5 versions were water-cooled, but not in the same manner PCs are.
And to this day, not one PC case manufacturer has ever put out a case with the same thickness of aluminium as what's used by the MP.
So like I also said previously, some things cost more because the components used cost more - it's not simply a case of Apple adding on extra profit margin.

 

[boyfalldown]

Impossible, David's hugh e-penis would get in the way.

David has nothing to do with my e-penis

 

[PJ S]

Felling spistake mixed.

 

[arad85]

And to this day, not one PC case manufacturer has ever put out a case with the same thickness of aluminium as what's used by the MP.

Well I must run out and by a MP now then. I had always thought the cases I was using were too flimsy!! You've got to laugh though -your e-penis is thickness related

IMHO, when people argue on the basis of build quality, they also have to realise that part of the cost is a luxury tax. Nothing more, nothing less. The luxury tax then tends to get spent by suited and booted marketeers product placing (this is what Apple tend to do) or attending global sporting events where they can wine and dine rich people to tell them they really should buy the latest and greatest product as it's superb and far better than other inferior products who aren't at the event (watch manufacturers, luxury yacht makers, anyone who sponsors F1 etc...). And so marketing continues....

So like I also said previously, some things cost more because the components used cost more - it's not simply a case of Apple adding on extra profit margin.

Unless you know the cost of manufacture, you can't assume this. My partner has just opened a shop. Looking at BT for suppliers of telephone and broadband, the cost of installation and ongoing line rentals differ. Also call packages differ. You cannot tell me that the same phone line and costs differ simply because she is running a business. No. BT charge more to the business customer as they can get away with it. Similarly business class flights cost more - not in proportion to the seat area taken up, but what the airline can get away with charging companies for the flight.

My guess would be the MP are aimed at business customers and the profit margin is bigger. Simples.

 

[Pookeyhead]

And to this day, not one PC case manufacturer has ever put out a case with the same thickness of aluminium as what's used by the MP.

Dunno... Lian Li cases are nice. I usually use them.

Impossible, David's huge e-penis would get in the way.

LOL... anyway... I've no issue with Mac OS... nice operating system. It's the hardware that annoys me.

 

[PJ S]

Dunno... Lian Li cases are nice. I usually use them.

They were one of the first, but others like CoolerMaster and Silverstone have joined the ranks, as well as Thermaltake, and no doubt others I'm unaware of since building my partner's son's PC with a CM Stacker and PSU (which ended up taking the whole lot out when it decided it couldn't contain itself any longer!).
Nice case, but thin gauge metal, designed in a way that only a cheap PC case company could be bothered - slice city.
Would've been more effective to just slit my wrists and get it over and done with in one go rather than death by a thousand nicks.

 

[neil_g]

As I said in an earlier reply, the MPs have been languishing for a while now (too long in reality) for a reason.

laziness? lack of sales compared to cost of parts?

I can't see Apple discarding the Pro sector, so I suspect they have something coming that is taking them longer to engineer and refine.

I can. their machines (and OS) step ever further from professional/business use and more towards the "ooh a mac will look pretty on my desk" type of user.

And to this day, not one PC case manufacturer has ever put out a case with the same thickness of aluminium as what's used by the MP.

some off the shelf vendors use quality alu cases. just because the MP is thick doesn't necessarily make it good. its a pain to be honest, heavy and sharp "feet" that scratch the hell out of desks etc. the only vaguely handy bit is the modularity of them but then youre into bespoke logic boards etc.

So like I also said previously, some things cost more because the components used cost more - it's not simply a case of Apple adding on extra profit margin.

the cost of processors, memory, hard drives is the same (with a little wiggle room in supplier negotiations). along with cheap labour.. where is the extra going? marketing probably. and subsidising software development.

 

[Pookeyhead]

They were one of the first, but others like CoolerMaster and Silverstone have joined the ranks, as well as Thermaltake, and no doubt others I'm unaware of since building my partner's son's PC with a CM Stacker and PSU (which ended up taking the whole lot out when it decided it couldn't contain itself any longer!).
Nice case, but thin gauge metal, designed in a way that only a cheap PC case company could be bothered - slice city.
Would've been more effective to just slit my wrists and get it over and done with in one go rather than death by a thousand nicks.

Cooler Master cases aren't exactly high end though, are they Lian Li are nice, beautifully anodised, and not a sharp edge to be seen. You get what you pay for.

Doesn't have to be alloy either. Corsair Obsidian are beautiful cases, and they're steel.

 

[Pookeyhead]

So like I also said previously, some things cost more because the components used cost more - it's not simply a case of Apple adding on extra profit margin.

How can they cost more? Nearly all Mac motherboards are made by Foxconn, and several other Chinese and Taiwanese manufacturers... all made in the same Chinese factories as their PC branded components... and Foxconn aren't that well regarded to be honest. The CPUs are just Intel chips.. same price as PC parts, and the GPUs in Mac Pros are obsolete!!

Sorry.... they charge what they charge because people are silly enough to pay it... simple as that.



[edit]

Ooops.. double post, sorry.

 

[neil_g]

Lian Li are nice, beautifully anodised, and not a sharp edge to be seen. You get what you pay for.

agreed. theyre my default go to case where possible. good quality, no sharp edges, some have configurable hard drive bays etc.

and for the record ive sliced my hand on a mac pro case. and don't get me started on the edge of the wrist rest on the unibody MacBook pro.

 

[madeinengland]

It always amazes me how Windoze geeks get upset about people buying Apple Kit. Pound for pound PC's may have better performing hardware, who the f*** cares, it's surely about the total experience.
Switch a Mac on - two minutes, ready to go, switch a PC on and go and make a coffee while it completes it's 28 updates and AV updates.
As for AV, my iMac has never had any software to protect it in the 5 years I have had it and it's on all the time. It has never crashed except when Microsoft's Entourage went tits up.
The experience you see, is excellent, and it's a joy to use, how can it not be, the OS is tested with the known hardware so much less likely to go wrong.
Finally when I come to sell it I will get something for it, unlike a PC. So yes it cost more initially but taking everything into account I wouldn't buy anything else.

 

[neil_g]

2 mins? I'd call that slow to be honest even the rather poorly MacBook Pro on my desk at work boots faster than that..

Updates? Once a fortnight on update Tuesday. Anyway you can change the settings so that they don't auto install..

Crashes? What are those? But then if you install crap software what do you expect (entourage always was a bit buggy, the latest outlook is actually quite good though especially for exchange).

Viruses/malware? Haven't had one for years (in the bad old days I did download a lot of hooky software). You could say I could uninstall avast but then I don't drive without insurance either.

Next.....

 

[Pookeyhead]

Switch a Mac on - two minutes, ready to go, switch a PC on and go and make a coffee while it completes it's 28 updates and AV updates.

Utter crap!! Sorry, but you're talking rubbish. It takes my PC from pressing the power button, to complete boot to desktop a total of 37 seconds... that includes the BIOS screen. If you time it from the BIOS screen disappearing, then it only takes 24 seconds.

As for crashing... it's never happened. I haven't had one crash with this PC.. and it's massively overclocked from 3.3GHz to 5GHz.


2 minutes is slow mate... really slow. That's what you get for buying obsolete equipment

 

[jamin100]

Use the best tool for the job

If its a mac buy a mac, if its a windows machine but that.

At work I manage 500 windows machines and 9 windows servers

At home it's Macs (but only because it fits in seamlessly with the iPhones, iPads and apple tv's) with 1 windows server

 

[madeinengland]

Utter crap!! Sorry, but you're talking rubbish. 2 minutes is slow mate... really slow. That's what you get for buying obsolete equipment

Well unlike you, I don't actually stand with a stop watch timing it, I have a life.

Did you not see that it's 5 years old so no, not cutting edge but the point is, it won't and hasn't slowed down in all the time I've had it. Remember it has a SATA drive that a mechanical device NOT an SSD drive which isn't.

Even if it was obsolete I still don't care, it's the fact that is does a good job which counts not how many megaflops it can do on some irrelevent benchmark test.

Do you put your car on a dynometer every day to see if it's still producing it's bhp?

 

[arad85]

I saw this post last night and decided to just walk away.

Let me ask: do you stand at the front door when Jehovas Witnesses call? No, me neither. There is no point discussing reasoning with Believers.... (jamin, not counting you in this - you have reasoning with seamless integration with other Apple devices ). Not a lot you can discuss with Believers as there is always a theological argument where fact can be dismissed.

(apologies to any Jehovas Witnesses that read this - or the people who stand in the middle of town on Saturdays proclaiming Jesus died for our sins...).

 

[jamin100]

Thanks lol

 

[cowasaki]

Every single thread like this goes this way :bang:


Can't read any longer as I'm off to Scan to collect my new motherboard, processor and Ram for my latest project. It will be Quad OS booting with thunderbolt, plenty of Ram, SSD and a few extras I'm building myself including dual 7" touchscreen displays and two other computers inside the case including the two ARM based machines (a Pi and a DUE). The DUE will be on all the time controlling one screen and connected to the net. I can totally control the other Pi and PC via it (the second screen can be switched between the Pi and the PC using the DUE's touch screen). The DUE can also turning either of the others on and off, take control of the screen and mouse by hardware and view the results. It'll be a fast machine with a 3770K and 32Gb of RAM but there is nothing I currently do that the MacPro 2,1 can't handle whilst running Mountain Lion Just need to decide on the flavour of Linux now. Once everything is completely running I will replace the DUE with a totally compatible DUE I am designing myself from the ICs upwards. Some of the PC builders here would probably like one in their machine, touch screens are very cool

So I can join this argument from any side I like

 

[neil_g]

Every single thread like this goes this way :bang:

to be fair there is a fair bit of good debate in here, its just a few peoples abrasive posts that fuel the fire..

 

[arad85]

Just need to decide on the flavour of Linux now.

Have to say, the one I've been most impressed with recently has been Mint (had it running in a VM here for a few days and it worked pretty well). That or Fedora. I now avoid Ubuntu unless I am installing s/w that is developed on Ubuntu (yes xbmc, I am looking at you )

BTW: multi-boot machines are soooo last year. VM servers with h/w pass through are where it's at these days (not tried passing through a graphics card yet but...) Several machines all in one at the same time

 

[cowasaki]

BTW: multi-boot machines are soooo last year. VM servers with h/w pass through are where it's at these days (not tried passing through a graphics card yet but...) Several machines all in one at the same time

My little ARM based computer sat inside the case will be able to alter the BIOS changing settings, boot drive etc. Force reboots etc etc. I will have each OS on it's own drive and the unused drives with be totally powered off. It's the best way to do it for my setup but I can't go into all the details.

 

[arad85]

but I can't go into all the details.

LOL.... Careless talk cost lives....