Mac or PC?

I guess I have an issue understanding the logic about using the GPU. The GPU acts as a display engine. Somewhere something has to be modifying the the actual layer data and not a in GPU memory. So, using the GPU actually seems as if it's more work as both the image layer data and the GPU data both need to be modified and modified so that the two images are identical. Why not just modify the actual image layer data and use the GPU to rapidly move data to the display memory.

Calicajun wrote in post #15575108
Has anyone built a computer that run both Mac and PC OS? Saw a mother board the other day that states it will run both full version of each OS, not just a software that allows you to run Windows on a Mac. Sounded like a good idea on paper. Any thoughts on building this type of computer system?

Yes I have a PC running WIN 7 and OSX Snow Leopard as a dual boot.

Quite easy to do these days as long as you get components that have MAC drivers.

Nightstalker wrote in post #15592103
Yes I have a PC running WIN 7 and OSX Snow Leopard as a dual boot.

Quite easy to do these days as long as you get components that have MAC drivers.

Talking to the Apple rep at Best Buy (it was a slow day for me) he was telling me that you can't buy a legal copy of Mac OS. Did you find a legal copy or a hack copy (can I ask that)?

gjl711 wrote in post #15591175
I guess I have an issue understanding the logic about using the GPU. The GPU acts as a display engine.

Today's gpus are essentially super computers on a chip when it comes to calculations. I have software for DNA analysis that uses the gpu and it's anywhere from 100 to >1000 times faster than cpu-only (MacPro 12 core Xenon with hyper threading). A job that would normally take 2 months by cpu takes about 3 days using the gpu. My Mac Pro has an ATI 5870, which has 1600 processing streams, and is much more efficient at running parallel tasks than is any cpu. In terms of OS X, the APIs for leveraging the gpu are in the OS, thus any app that's written to call them, such as Aperture and Pixelmator, can do so, regardless of the gpu (NVidia, ATI and even Intel's HD4000 and HD3000 integrated). So long as the gpu is OS X-complient (most made today are) then gpu computing can be used by apps written to do so.

Calicajun wrote in post #15592593
Talking to the Apple rep at Best Buy (it was a slow day for me) he was telling me that you can't buy a legal copy of Mac OS. Did you find a legal copy or a hack copy (can I ask that)?

Have a read here.

http://www.tonymacx86.​com …s-guide-january-2013.html

Calicajun wrote in post #15592593
Talking to the Apple rep at Best Buy (it was a slow day for me) he was telling me that you can't buy a legal copy of Mac OS. Did you find a legal copy or a hack copy (can I ask that)?

I think he is mistaken. Just a quick google showed multiple sites which sell OS X including Amazon.

Tony-S wrote in post #15592660
Have a read here.

http://www.tonymacx86.​com …s-guide-january-2013.html

Nice link thanks for posting it, will be a good read.
Thanks,
Craig

Tony-S wrote in post #15587329
If you moved to an i-series cpu then you must have upgraded the logic board, no?

No. The DX58SO board in the case is a LGA-1366 main board and was released in '08, I believe. I had to reflash the BIOS when I went to the i7/980 (it refused to recognize the CPU otherwise) but that's it. That CPU was released in 2011. (ref: http://ark.intel.com …_33-GHz-4_8-GTs-Intel-QPI)

The LGA-1366 is a dead-letter socket now however for "Desktop" CPUs. I bought the CPU replacement fairly close to the "end of life-cycle" for the 1366 socket in desktop chips, as they were (finally) reasonable in price. The current Ivy Bridge chips are LGA-1155; Sandy Bridge is either LGA-1155 or LGA-2011.

The i7/980 in my system is a Gulftown chip and is also one of the only (if not the only) ones available in LGA-1366 that has the AES instructions on-chip, which grossly accelerate encryption operations (very useful if you want to run Truecrypt or similar, and I do.)

The DX58SO board has one hinky characteristic, and that is that it doesn't like having all four RAM sockets populated; it's triple-banked and really only wants three sockets populated. So I have 12G of memory in the box, but have yet to find this a problem.

Is there better? Sure, today you could get a 3770 which is somewhat faster but about half the price and 77W instead of 130 (runs cooler) -- but you gotta buy a new board too and that's quad-core instead of hex. For the same money today as the i7/980 you can get a 3930, which is a LGA2011 chip and hex-core -- and VERY fast, but again, new board time, Sandy Bridge, and it's 130W dissipation like the i7/980 is.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #15574827
If you want to replace your computer every 12 to 18 months then get a PC. If you want to invest one that will last for years and still have the processing power to run your software years down the road then buy a Mac. Been in both camps and am speaking from experience.

I would have to disagree. It all depends on what you get, but since Apple switched to Intel processors, the processors for both PC and Mac are the same. Let's be honest, if you are looking to purchase a Mac, the cost should warrant someone to be willing to spend the same dollar amount on a PC. In that case, the hardware should be very similar, if not the same, with the difference being the OS.

I would agree with your statement if someone is comparing a Macbook Pro to a PC equipped with an Intel Celeron; which would be an unfair comparison.

tickerguy wrote in post #15568836
The computer has nothing to do with the color space you're working with. The monitor does, but the computer does not.

I prefer the PC environment, others prefer the Mac. Buy what you're comfortable with.

Yep, do what you feel more comfortable with. I'm fluent in both but prefer the Windows environment overall and jumping back and forth on a regular basis can be a bit annoying at times for some people.

Imagine jumping between Canon and Nikon all the time, some can do it without it bothering them, some it drives nuts to have to adjust the different layouts, ways of thinking regarding the interface and the fact that the lenses mount in opposite directions. If you're not super familiar with the Mac OS you may want to play with it some before jumping in like this.

One other factor I like in having Windows is having complete control over my PC build by building it myself. A crappy motherboard or powersupply, which are common in inexpensive systems pushing decent looking specs, can certainly shorten the longevity or reduce the stability of the system. No manufacturer, even Apple, is immune from faulty components, poor logic/motherboard design or a whole host of other potential problems either.

Jon_Doh wrote in post #15574827
If you want to replace your computer every 12 to 18 months then get a PC. If you want to invest one that will last for years and still have the processing power to run your software years down the road then buy a Mac. Been in both camps and am speaking from experience.

For the record, that sort of talk is nonsense. The lifespan of one system and its ability to run future hardware isn't better on Mac than Windows, in fact in many ways Apple makes some bigger jumps causing older platforms to be abandoned than even Windows does. OS9 to OSX, PPC to Intel, etc. It's an inevitability, it happens regardless of what you choose to some degree or another. XP is no longer supported for some things now and that will only continue to become more common, but let's be realistic. It's a 12 year old OS.

Is a five year old Mac faster than a five year old Windows PC? No. If both are taken care of they'll be on par. I only replaced my almost five year old Windows 7 system because the 8 gigs of RAM wasn't enough for some things anymore and going beyond 8GB with DDR2 just wasn't cost effective. I have no idea what to do with the old system and it just sits there which disappoints me because it's still a pretty powerful system (Q9450 which has been OC'd 20% and 100% stable the entire time). Sure my i7-3770k is nice, but it's a shame to see a good system sit unused.