BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 26d, 23h, 26m | CPU: 5% | MEM: 2266MB of 3945MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Forum rules


Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: My Dream PC        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:50 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Posts
1520

Favourite OS
Mac OS 9.2.2
Image


mmmn 16gb of ram...

_________________
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:56 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
And I still managed to crash it :P But yeah, 16 GB would be nice - the Mac Pro is actually available with that much, for a mere $5,699 on top of the stock configuration of 1 GB...

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:14 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
And I still managed to crash it :P But yeah, 16 GB would be nice - the Mac Pro is actually available with that much, for a mere $5,699 on top of the stock configuration of 1 GB...

Apple's prices for RAM upgrades are insane, you can get that significantly cheaper when buying from a qualified and certified 3rd party vendor, I bet. But then, if you have such a beast, you'd be insane too if you run any flavour of Windows on it. Such a beast calls for the power of Unix.

Besides that, it still demonstrates Server 2003 Enterprise's/Datacenter's capability to use more than 4GB of RAM on an x86-based, 32-bit system, using PAE. :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 4:33 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Besides that, it still demonstrates Server 2003 Enterprise's/Datacenter's capability to use more than 4GB of RAM on an x86-based, 32-bit system, using PAE. :)


You can use more than 4GB with 32-bit Windows? If so, doesn't that eliminate one of the major advantages of x64 that they keep telling us to try and make us buy new PCs?

The Office test drive server shown here is 64-bit though, running Server 2003 Enterprise x64 (see the output of Dxdiag in thread where it was mentioned before), and presumably if you had a Mac Pro with 16 GB Ram then you would install a 64-bit edition of Windows (though is that possible with Boot Camp yet? Probably not very possible actually, as the drivers that Apple supply for Windows are only 32-bit ones, aren't they?).

16 GB is a ridiculous amount of memory though, when you think that PCs only a decade ago came with one thousand times less than that, and those were Windows 95 machines that are still usable today and can do a lot of the basic tasks expected of modern systems.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:03 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
You can use more than 4GB with 32-bit Windows? If so, doesn't that eliminate one of the major advantages of x64 that they keep telling us to try and make us buy new PCs?

Yes, of course, using PAE which involves some nasty (well, sometimes) tricks (can't describe it better because I actually don't know much about it). Machines with >4GB RAM have been there for years; Win2k Adv. Server can address up to 8GB, Datacenter up to 64GB. Win2k3 Datacenter (SP1) can aceess up to 128GB of RAM on an x86 system and up to 1024GB on an x64 system.


Quote:
The Office test drive server shown here is 64-bit though, running Server 2003 Enterprise x64 (see the output of Dxdiag in thread where it was mentioned before), and presumably if you had a Mac Pro with 16 GB Ram then you would install a 64-bit edition of Windows (though is that possible with Boot Camp yet? Probably not very possible actually, as the drivers that Apple supply for Windows are only 32-bit ones, aren't they?).

Hmm, the screenshot shows an info dialog of Server 2003 32-bit, as if it were 64-bit, the 2nd line would say "Enterprise x64 Edition". I know that because some time ago, I was running that as primary OS. But well, that's not so important.
Regarding the Mac Pro, I would never install Windows natively on a Mac, it's just obnoxious. But if I were to, I'd choose an x64 one of course. The fact Apple doesn't supply x64 drivers can't be a major drawback because I suppose you can use the drivers from the respective hardware vendors. But I'm not sure if Win/x64 will boot on such a machine as all Intel Macs have an EFI-to-BIOS emulation (because even Vista can't deal with EFI) which has been giving me some problems booting Linux/x86 on my Intel Mac. And why Windows – Mac OS X can use all of that RAM just perfectly. At school, "our" main server (which is a Dual G5 with 8GB RAM and a 400GB RAID-1 I get to administer sometimes) is performing just great.

Quote:
16 GB is a ridiculous amount of memory though, when you think that PCs only a decade ago came with one thousand times less than that, and those were Windows 95 machines that are still usable today and can do a lot of the basic tasks expected of modern systems.

Yeah, that's right for sure. But it all depends on what you want to do exactly with a machine. Take "my" 8GB school server as an example. Or my Intel Mac with 2GB of RAM – it's a nice amount, but if I am running 4 VMs on VMware simultaneously (PDC, BDC, file server, client) each running XP or 2003, you get to touch the limits even there. Thus, if I'd be building a new machine today, I'd not even consider going with anything less than 2GB of RAM, maybe even 3 or 4GB because I know I (at least sometimes) have a use for it. :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:20 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
RAM.... More RAM... MOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRREEE! :)
Image


Itanium – as a workstation???
Image

And now, let's jump into the future.... – got some RAM?
Image

Bah, the space is a bit limited, it'll be full after installing just the OS, Windows Aurelia for 1024-bit uber 1337 extended atomic optical systems with Service Pack 2 :)
Image

Well, but not bad for a 5" ultraportable notebook with 1920x1200 pixels full HD resolution, violet-ray optical drive, RFID protection system and a total weight of 200 grams, isn't it? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 5:48 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Hmm, the screenshot shows an info dialog of Server 2003 32-bit, as if it were 64-bit, the 2nd line would say "Enterprise x64 Edition". I know that because some time ago, I was running that as primary OS. But well, that's not so important.


Strange - the Dxdiag definitely shows an x64 edition of Windows, but I see what you mean about the logo in Winver - very odd. Unless they have lots of different servers and the one I connected to before was an x64 one, but the one at the top of this thread is a 32-bit one (yet still with the 16 GB Ram).

Quote:
I would never install Windows natively on a Mac, it's just obnoxious.


:lol: I didn't realise you were so anti-Windows! How would you feel about someone who got a Mac and then wiped the drive and put only Windows on it? :P

_________________
Image


Last edited by Vista Ultimate R2 on Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:43 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Quote:
Strange - the Dxdiag definitely shows an x64 edition of Windows, but I see what you mean about the logo in Winver - very odd. Unless they have lots of different servers and the one I connected to before was an x64 one, but the one at the top of this thread is a 32-bit one (yet still with the 16 GB Ram).

Yeah, strange indeed :) Only MS knows the answer... :D


Quote:
I didn't realise you were so anti-Windows! How would you feel about someone who got a Mac and then wiped the drive and put only Windows on it? ;P

Well, this was meant as a... yeah, kind of a joke, really. I use the four generic types of OSes (Windows, Linux, Unix, Mac OS X, if you want to count OS X as a 4th one) and although I'm proud of having Macs, I'm none of these silly fanboys that say "X is cr*p, Y rulz" or something like that. To be honest, I have several Windows VMs on my Intel Mac. To be really honest, Unix is my preferred type of OS. :)
About the only-Windows Mac: I won't be pleased, certainly, but after all, it's its owner's decision, isn't it? :)

To sum it up, I don't "love" an OS really, but I "hate" no OS either. These fanboys are just plain stupid.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:40 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Yeah, the fanboys really annoy me too - although maybe that's because I'm a bit of a Windows fanboy at heart and normally the fanboys bash Windows in favour of either Linux or Mac! Certainly Windows is the only one that I use regularly and know reasonably well - I know Classic Mac OS quite well (though it is a very easy OS to learn) as I have several Classc Macs at home though, and am hoping to get into OS X (and therefore Unix, having never used any Linux or Unix OSes) with my new G3 :)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:11 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
I "hate" fanboys altogether, no matter if I'm a fan of the "other product"/competitor or not. Mostly, these fanboys base their affinity on nothing but stupid arguments, without doing any real and reasonable comparisons. So, eventually, their opinion is worth close to nothing. I really ask myself why there have to be such people, what do they get from acting like this?

I have started using MS-DOS and Windows in the early 90s when I was a kid and for some time, when I hadn't touched any other OSes, I wasn't too unsatisfied with that, and I just loved the fact, e.g. that you can hack the hell out of Windows 3.x. :) But when I started using Linux, Unix (such as Mac OS X, *BSD, Solaris) and some other OSes like IBM's OS/2, I began to see their advantages (and also disadvantages, of course). And even although I now primarily use Linux and Unix (OS X mainly), I'd never think of bashing MS and/or Windows or something like that and praising Apple/Sun/... because it's stupid, simply stupid, and I don't consider myself being that stupid. :)

And now, I'm gonna share a secret with you: (a) As my signature says, Whistler is my favourite MS beta OS, (b) as soon as a new Longhorn Server build comes out, I'm already downloading it :wink: So, I'm not anti-MS, am I?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:20 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:05 pm

Posts
698

Location
Or-stray-liagh
empireum wrote:
RAM.... More RAM... MOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRREEE! :)
Image


AMD engineering sample ... nice. I once got to see a box containing an Intel engineering sample, but I obviously wasn't allowed to open it. It was actually a Dell box but with stickers and tape all over it saying it was an Intel engineering sample.

empireum wrote:
Well, but not bad for a 5" ultraportable notebook with 1920x1200 pixels full HD resolution, violet-ray optical drive, RFID protection system and a total weight of 200 grams, isn't it? :lol: :lol: :lol:


But, does it have a bluetooth wimax email access capability that you can take pictures with and surf the net anywhere, with EFTPOS? :P

_________________
pr0gram the pr0grammer
BetaArchive retiree | OSBA Expat


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:22 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Mostly, these fanboys base their affinity on nothing but stupid arguments, without doing any real and reasonable comparisons.


I've noticed that when fanboys' arguments do have any fact in them, they're always very old facts, such as "Windows blue-screens all the time for no reason" (which was maybe true for some of the old versions, especially if you had bad hardware/drivers), or "Macs are so rubbish, they only have ONE mouse button!" (when you've been able to use any mouse you want for years, and Apple themselves have made a two-button mouse for a good few years now, and even if you use one of the old one-button mice you can get the effect of a right-click by ctrl-clicking). Or they're just based on complete rubbish like the idea that the reason there's so much malware for Windows/IE is something to do with Windows itself, as opposed to it being the OS on 95% of PCs and being used by a lot of people who know nothing at all about computers (whereas to know about and make the choice to use Firefox, Linux etc you've got to have some basic knowledge about computers, and probably know how to avoid falling into malware traps).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:41 pm 
Reply with quote
wow...

@empireum

how many cost 1tb of ram?


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:07 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Namronia wrote:
wow...

@empireum

how many cost 1tb of ram?

In case you haven't noticed... These AtomChip screenshots are fake, fake, and once again fake :) But seeing that a 2GB stick of Kingston DDR-400 ECC Reg is about US$450, even 128GB of RAM would set you back about US$28,800 or EUR ~22,300. :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:44 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:30 pm

Posts
407

Location
Essex, UK

Favourite OS
Gentoo
*drools* oh man, i dont think i could actually do anything with a TB of ram, even if it was possable at a affordable price!!

i guess in 10-15 years people will think 16GB of ram is tiny, just like 16MB of ram is now

_________________
The better candies are in the cage


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ  YIM
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:12 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
kichimi wrote:
*drools* oh man, i dont think i could actually do anything with a TB of ram, even if it was possable at a affordable price!!

i guess in 10-15 years people will think 16GB of ram is tiny, just like 16MB of ram is now

Yeah, meaning also there'll be people that have dual octo-core machines with that amount of RAM, just being used for writing e-mail or whatever they might have at that time... A waste of computing power...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:10 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Yeah, meaning also there'll be people that have dual octo-core machines with that amount of RAM, just being used for writing e-mail or whatever they might have at that time... A waste of computing power...


But just imagine the full super-smooth jaw-dropping 4D-rendered interface of the version of Windows after Vienna on your triple 30-inch ultra-high-definition screens! Reading emails has never been such an amazing experience before!

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:17 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
I'd have that just running Chicago, just to wind people up! I reckon, based on computing power doubling every year like that geezer said, by 2017, a good machine might have 2 Terabytes of RAM, a 4 Terahertz clock speed, and a 1 Petabyte hard disk. I'm not sure about the clock, because we're probably at the limit of what can be done with the current style of architecture, so you should probably ignore that. :)

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:23 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Moore's Law seemed to slow down a few years ago - in the old days clock speeds doubled approximately every 18 months, as he said. However, I got my laptop new in mid-2004, with a 3.4 GHz CPU (pretty much the fastest you could get then) - by Moore's reckoning there'd be a 13.6 GHz machine available this summer, as that would be too lots of 18 months having passed! Even if you consider the current dual-core machines to be as fast as their clock doubled (which is in fact not the case), it's still nowhere near Moore's predictions. Of course you can add more CPUs to get to a total of 13.6 GHz when all of their clocks are added together, but that is not as fast as a single 13.6 GHz core, if it was possible to make such a thing and cool it efficiently, and very few programs really take advantage of more than two cores.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:33 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Posts
973

Favourite OS
First Edition UNIX
Yeah, I guess, I hadn't thought of that. Also, I've just worked out that if that law were completely true, in fifty years we'd have 512 yottabyte hard disk drives going around, which seems slightly impossible (read the link, you'll see what I mean). Ah well. I tried, and failed.

_________________
Have a day.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:58 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:30 pm

Posts
1520

Favourite OS
Mac OS 9.2.2
My real dream PC...

http://fireware.betaarchive.co.uk/files ... m%20PC.pdf

_________________
Image
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; mimic; rv:9.3.2) Clecko/20120101 Classilla/CFM
"Stupid can opener! You killed my father, and now you've come back for me!"


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:31 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12408

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
I could do better than that! How about a dual quad core (8 cores total) and 8gb RAM, with 2x512mb gfx cards, 4x500gb SATA2 HD's in RAID for 2TB. :D

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 1:41 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Andy wrote:
I could do better than that! How about a dual quad core (8 cores total) and 8gb RAM, with 2x512mb gfx cards, 4x500gb SATA2 HD's in RAID for 2TB. :D

I'd rather take a fully upgraded Mac Pro with quad-core Xeons... 8 cores at 3 GHz each, 16GB of RAM, 4x 750GB internal RAID, 4x 750GB external RAID and four graphics cards, each running a 30" flat screen and a 27" one for secondary stuff, so 8 screens in total *drooooooool*


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:37 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:05 pm

Posts
698

Location
Or-stray-liagh
How about a huge Beowulf cluster of really really fast machines? :D Or even slow ones ... people have done it with a rack of Xboxes running Linux.

_________________
pr0gram the pr0grammer
BetaArchive retiree | OSBA Expat


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:41 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
pr0gram the pr0grammer wrote:
How about a huge Beowulf cluster of really really fast machines? :D Or even slow ones ... people have done it with a rack of Xboxes running Linux.

Good idea, there's even an iPAQ cluster :)


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS