My new Photoshop Machine (mwuahahah...)

manaheim · Aug 24, 2008

Bifurcator said:
Well he can always download Hackintosh and install it if he wants to be a Mac guy.

I wanna see more pictures of his machine.

I'll get some pics up soon, but I need to first schedule the nude models to drape themselves all over the box while I take pictures. :lol:

Actually the box is still in the dining room at the moment. I need to order a KVM so I can run it in my office.

Don't get me started on Apple.

fug.li said:
I can't see the pictures...

P.S.: No way any windows machine could be cooler than a mac.

Don't don't don't get me started on Apple.

nanny32 · Aug 24, 2008

^_^

i like that green pipe

Ejazzle · Aug 24, 2008

wow i am truely jealous of your computer! can i have one!

ill give you a D40 as a trade

Garbz · Aug 25, 2008

JerryPH said:
Though you may be able to access more ram, in the end, the operating system of a server is not optimized to run local applications at maximum speed, but to respond to client and network requests. WinXP *is* better at running local applications better, and is limited to a maximum of 10 inbound connections (it sucks at responding to network and client requests).

How did you draw that conclusion? I thought you just said windows server rendered the video 3 minutes faster?

I am well aware that 64bits and a fancy kernel will relate to little overall improved performance for heavy processing work. I'd hope most computers are actually very equal in this regard, otherwise there are some coding problems somewhere. What I was talking about was overall OS footprint. The rest of the "consumer" windows versions do nothing but impede the user here. Pretty graphics, animations, smooth sliding effects on menus, errr ugly looking resource intensive transparent windows.

That is what I was talking about faster. Not rendering a video, but being able to click the start button and have the start menu actually appear straight away while rendering a video. That all comes down to how the kernel schedules tasks and even if applications take a microscopic performance hit I'd prefer that while trying to multitask. As for high-mem support, well I still like editing panoramas knowing that my computer won't slow down when the RAM usage gets to 3.2gb.

Admittedly that's what I do though, often 6 things at once. If you're just playing a game or just editing a photo it may be of no benefit that one app doesn't halt the rest of your system while it's working

manaheim · Aug 25, 2008

Last I looked, the Server OSes were configured by default to be more balanced towards serving network needs than running local apps. It was also configurable, however. It's been a long time since I've looked...

goodoneian · Aug 25, 2008

JerryPH said:
Too bad that the 32-bit versions of XP and Vista only see and can access a maximm of 3.25gb. :meh: This is a stupid limitation that drives me nuts at times.

that's why i have 64 bit

Sandspur · Aug 25, 2008

I'm nominating your wife's comment - "Your retardedly huge stupid computer thing showed up" - as the the most insightful comment of the decade.

manaheim · Aug 25, 2008

Sandspur said:
I'm nominating your wife's comment - "Your retardedly huge stupid computer thing showed up" - as the the most insightful comment of the decade.

hahah... yeah, my wife is good for that. Razor-like insight that cuts right to the bone.

Bifurcator · Aug 25, 2008

manaheim said:
Last I looked, the Server OSes were configured by default to be more balanced towards serving network needs than running local apps. It was also configurable, however. It's been a long time since I've looked...

Well, maybe in the defaults. They are configurable tho. You can control the balance.

@Garbz,
Hardware optimization makes a pretty huge difference too. It's not uniform across all machines. Even Mac modifies their physical server and workstations every time they make significant headway implementing 64 bit into their OS. The Mac Pro for example, is on it's forth revision all related to 64 bit optimizations. I believe it's the same case with the mac blade server too.

Sandspur · Aug 25, 2008

manaheim said:
hahah... yeah, my wife is good for that. Razor-like insight that cuts right to the bone.

I'm married to a woman like that myself.

So was my first wife.

So was my second wife.

Are we seeing a pattern here?:er:

RockDawg · Aug 26, 2008

Bifurcator said:
Well he can always download Hackintosh and install it if he wants to be a Mac guy.

No to hijack this thread, but does that really work? I looked into it once wanting to try out the Apple OS, but most reviews said it was really hit or miss and even the hits had issues.

Bifurcator · Aug 26, 2008

Yeah, I installed it on a Dell Precision Workstation 650 and everything worked great except a few special keys on the kewboard. The Eject CD/DVD and the Dell KB didn't support up to F16 on the f keys. But other than that it was perfect. That was back around 10.4.2 or so. I hear 10.5.x is even better but I didn't find anything wrong with the old one so... <shrug>

I used it for about a month in order to determine if I really wanted to go mac or if I should go for linux. I loved IRIX in the past and DEC Unix on my DEC Alphas was nice (So was Solaris on my SunUltra workstation too) but when I played with Mac OSX there was no question about it. OSX was just a more professional highly polished system. It wasn't fully 64-bit when I bought it - and it still isn't but most of the important parts are and by 10.6 it will be. So I'm very happy with it. I bought the Mac Pro 1.1 on an educator discount (just by asking for it

) 2.66 dual dual-core xeon, 4 gigs RAM for $2,100 and then upgraded on my own to 2.66 dual quad-core xeon, and several terabytes of RAID for a little under $1k. So I ended up with a really nice 8 core monster for about $3k. At the time the nearest speced roll-your-own system with the VERY cheapest parts was $4k in a PeeCee form and BoXX wanted $10K for the same, so I felt like I got a pretty good deal too.