Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #70132 > unrolled thread

Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1?

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.co.uk> - 2015-02-23 11:03 +0000
    Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-02-23 14:03 +0000
      Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-23 15:19 +0000
    Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-23 10:02 -0500
    Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-23 11:34 -0500
      Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-23 14:57 -0800
        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2015-02-24 07:59 -0500
          Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-02 22:27 -0800
            Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-03-03 23:45 -0700
              Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-05 08:56 +1300
                Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2015-03-04 14:09 -0700
                  Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-04 16:55 -0500
                    Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-04 22:47 +0000
                      Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-04 18:09 -0500
                        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-04 23:33 +0000
                          Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-04 23:40 -0500
                            Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-03-05 18:12 +1300
                            Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 12:58 +0000
                            Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:53 +0000
                        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-03-05 13:25 +0000
                          Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 14:47 +0000
                    Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 04:02 +0000
                    Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-04 23:14 -0500
                      Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-04 23:51 -0500
                        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-04 23:55 -0500
                        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 13:01 +0000
                          Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 18:58 +0000
                            Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-05 21:21 +0000
                  Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-05 04:01 +0000
                  Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-03-05 13:24 +0000
    Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-02-24 02:25 +0100
      Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.co.uk> - 2015-02-24 02:14 +0000
        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-02-24 12:15 +0100
          Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.co.uk> - 2015-02-24 16:46 +0000
        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-02-24 12:46 +0000
          Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.co.uk> - 2015-02-24 16:49 +0000
    Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-02-25 05:46 +0000
      Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2015-02-25 13:48 +0100
        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.eu> - 2015-02-25 14:17 +0000
      Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 07:53 -0500
        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.eu> - 2015-02-25 14:20 +0000
          Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-02-25 12:51 -0500
            Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-02-27 03:16 +0000
          Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.eu> - 2015-02-26 14:52 +0000
        Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? tmo1138 <tmo1138@tmo1138.com> - 2015-02-27 03:14 +0000
      Re: Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1? glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.eu> - 2015-02-25 14:16 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#70132 — Recommends for good graphics card for MacPro 5,1?

Would value some suggestions / recommendations for a replacement 
graphics card for my 2010 Mac Pro 5,1.  The one I have been using has 
just died and needs to be replaced.

Genuine Apple cards are quite rare now, and eyewateringly expensive 
when you find them.  So I am expecting that the best option is some 
kind of PC video card that has been (or can be) 'flashed' using 
Netkas.org bios etc.  But I don't keep up to date with PC video cards, 
nor what among those can be 'flashed' to work on a Mac.

The card that has just died was a reflashed XFX ATI Radeon HD 6870 
(1GB).  It worked OK, and was pretty silent in the case, and one option 
is to simply get another (they cost about £115 pre-flashed in the UK).  
But I wonder if things have moved on and I'd be better off getting some 
other kind of card this time around.

I use a Cinema LED Display, and the most intensive work I do is photo 
processing using Capture One 8 and the usual suite of image processing 
software.  Capture One 8 supports OpenCL for multiple GPUs, so a card 
that when flashed has OpenCL support would be a nice extra.

Anyhow - thanks in advacne for any suggestions / thoughts: they will be 
most helpful I'm sure.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#70133

In comp.sys.mac.system glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.co.uk> wrote:
> Would value some suggestions / recommendations for a replacement 
> graphics card for my 2010 Mac Pro 5,1.  The one I have been using has 
> just died and needs to be replaced.

There isn't much activity in either of these two groups, but you 
might try posting in them anyway:

comp.sys.mac.hardware.video
comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc



-- 
K.

Lang may your lum reek.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70136

Okay, so one time? In band camp? Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> was all, like:
> In comp.sys.mac.system glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.co.uk> wrote:
>> Would value some suggestions / recommendations for a replacement 
>> graphics card for my 2010 Mac Pro 5,1.  The one I have been using has 
>> just died and needs to be replaced.

> There isn't much activity in either of these two groups, but you 
> might try posting in them anyway:

I think the best card you cn put in one of those is the Radeon HD 7950.

<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202027&Tpk=Sapphire%20Radeon%20HD%207950%20Mac%20Edition>

But I don't know where you will find one.

NB: the card is PCIe 3.0, but the MacPro5,1 is PCIe 2.0, so you will not
get full benefit from this card.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
NOBODY LIKES SUNBURN SLAPPERS Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F23

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70135

In article <2015022311030448522-gavinlawrie@2gccouk>,
 glawrie <gavin.lawrie@2gc.co.uk> wrote:

> I use a Cinema LED Display, and the most intensive work I do is photo 
> processing using Capture One 8 and the usual suite of image processing 
> software.  Capture One 8 supports OpenCL for multiple GPUs, so a card 
> that when flashed has OpenCL support would be a nice extra.
> 
> Anyhow - thanks in advacne for any suggestions / thoughts: they will be 
> most helpful I'm sure.

There's an interesting article here:

http://alikgriffin.com/may/22/how-upgrade-your-old-mac-pro-graphics-card

I'm looking at upgrades too, although I have a much older Mac Pro. I'm 
incensed that a pc card costs 1/5th the price of one that's been 
"flashed" with the Mac holiness.  Teh fanboiz tell me I mustn't upgrade, 
tho, that I must send more bux to Apple else the North Koreans will hack 
my 32-bit efi or some such nonsense.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70138

On 2015.02.23 06:03 , glawrie wrote:
>
>
> Genuine Apple cards are quite rare now, and eyewateringly expensive when
> you find them.  So I am expecting that the best option is some kind of
> PC video card that has been (or can be) 'flashed' using Netkas.org bios
> etc.  But I don't keep up to date with PC video cards, nor what among
> those can be 'flashed' to work on a Mac.

Find California companies that may have stock or that can get it from 
Apple.  California law requires 7 years of support.

-- 
"Your net worth to the world is usually
  determined by what remains after your
  bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
                                   Benjamin Franklin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70156

On 2015-02-23 16:34:42 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2015.02.23 06:03 , glawrie wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Genuine Apple cards are quite rare now, and eyewateringly expensive when
>> you find them.  So I am expecting that the best option is some kind of
>> PC video card that has been (or can be) 'flashed' using Netkas.org bios
>> etc.  But I don't keep up to date with PC video cards, nor what among
>> those can be 'flashed' to work on a Mac.
> 
> Find California companies that may have stock or that can get it from 
> Apple.  California law requires 7 years of support.

It's easy to find original equipment graphics cards with antequated 
performance.  The problem is that the cost is ridiculous (hundreds of 
dollars) especially for a card that is worse than obsolete.

That era Mac Pro is still a very fast and useful machine, but 
significantly less so without a graphics card at all, and the original 
graphics card is perhaps the only obsolete piece of equipment in the 
machine.

To the OP, my advice is to read everything you can about netkas.org's 
supported cards.  I feel your pain, as the GPU died on my old 2008 Mac 
Pro as well and I ended up breaking down and ordering one at 
significant expense to replace it, only to have it go bad eventually 
too.  I replaced it with a then-new Mac Mini which had roughly the same 
Geekbench score, and since that time (2011) I have saved enough on 
power bills alone to pay for the next machine I will buy.

The only time I notice a performance penalty is while doing tasks that 
are both CPU bound and heavily threaded, like video or sound encoding.

With Apple's lackluster support of, and reluctance to admit problems 
with their various computers especially since the Intel switchover, I 
am very reluctant to drop much money on the Apple ecosystem in the 
future.  The fact that OS X is slowly going to shit doesn't help to pry 
my pocketbook open either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70175

On 2015.02.23 17:57 , Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
> On 2015-02-23 16:34:42 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>
>> On 2015.02.23 06:03 , glawrie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Genuine Apple cards are quite rare now, and eyewateringly expensive when
>>> you find them.  So I am expecting that the best option is some kind of
>>> PC video card that has been (or can be) 'flashed' using Netkas.org bios
>>> etc.  But I don't keep up to date with PC video cards, nor what among
>>> those can be 'flashed' to work on a Mac.
>>
>> Find California companies that may have stock or that can get it from
>> Apple.  California law requires 7 years of support.
>
> It's easy to find original equipment graphics cards with antequated
> performance.  The problem is that the cost is ridiculous (hundreds of
> dollars) especially for a card that is worse than obsolete.

The OP has a dead graphics card.  If his intention is to at least 
restore functionality of his expensive Mac Pro, that is a good place to 
start.

A better graphics card would be nice, to be sure.


>
> That era Mac Pro is still a very fast and useful machine, but
> significantly less so without a graphics card at all, and the original
> graphics card is perhaps the only obsolete piece of equipment in the
> machine.
>
> To the OP, my advice is to read everything you can about netkas.org's
> supported cards.  I feel your pain, as the GPU died on my old 2008 Mac
> Pro as well and I ended up breaking down and ordering one at significant
> expense to replace it, only to have it go bad eventually too.  I
> replaced it with a then-new Mac Mini which had roughly the same
> Geekbench score, and since that time (2011) I have saved enough on power
> bills alone to pay for the next machine I will buy.

What's your electricity rate?  I'd have to run a Mac Mini for a year or 
so to save enough money to buy a cheeseburger.  Note that I heat with 
electricity so power going into the computer for about 6 months of the 
year merely offsets the heating.  eg: 0 sum.

My iMac, on average, consumes about 50 W.  (Probably not even that).

Annual cost in electrons:  About $13.

Half of that is offsetting heating.

Annual cost:  $6.50.

If I changed to a Mac mini, the savings would probably not even be 
enough for a cheeseburger.

To be sure a Mac Pro (of that era) consumes much more, but the 
electricity cost can't be that great compared to other things.



-- 
"Your net worth to the world is usually
  determined by what remains after your
  bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
                                   Benjamin Franklin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70401

On 2015-02-24 12:59:39 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2015.02.23 17:57 , Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>> On 2015-02-23 16:34:42 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>> 
>>> On 2015.02.23 06:03 , glawrie wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Genuine Apple cards are quite rare now, and eyewateringly expensive when
>>>> you find them.  So I am expecting that the best option is some kind of
>>>> PC video card that has been (or can be) 'flashed' using Netkas.org bios
>>>> etc.  But I don't keep up to date with PC video cards, nor what among
>>>> those can be 'flashed' to work on a Mac.
>>> 
>>> Find California companies that may have stock or that can get it from
>>> Apple.  California law requires 7 years of support.
>> 
>> It's easy to find original equipment graphics cards with antequated
>> performance.  The problem is that the cost is ridiculous (hundreds of
>> dollars) especially for a card that is worse than obsolete.
> 
> The OP has a dead graphics card.  If his intention is to at least 
> restore functionality of his expensive Mac Pro, that is a good place to 
> start.
> 
> A better graphics card would be nice, to be sure.

Sure, it'd be no worse than it was before with the new GPU.  But the 
cost of it (probably a couple hundred bucks) would be best applied to a 
newer GPU that is compatible and would give new life to the machine.

>> That era Mac Pro is still a very fast and useful machine, but
>> significantly less so without a graphics card at all, and the original
>> graphics card is perhaps the only obsolete piece of equipment in the
>> machine.
>> 
>> To the OP, my advice is to read everything you can about netkas.org's
>> supported cards.  I feel your pain, as the GPU died on my old 2008 Mac
>> Pro as well and I ended up breaking down and ordering one at significant
>> expense to replace it, only to have it go bad eventually too.  I
>> replaced it with a then-new Mac Mini which had roughly the same
>> Geekbench score, and since that time (2011) I have saved enough on power
>> bills alone to pay for the next machine I will buy.
> 
> What's your electricity rate?  I'd have to run a Mac Mini for a year or 
> so to save enough money to buy a cheeseburger.  Note that I heat with 
> electricity so power going into the computer for about 6 months of the 
> year merely offsets the heating.  eg: 0 sum.
> 
> My iMac, on average, consumes about 50 W.  (Probably not even that).
> 
> Annual cost in electrons:  About $13.
> 
> Half of that is offsetting heating.
> 
> Annual cost:  $6.50.
> 
> If I changed to a Mac mini, the savings would probably not even be 
> enough for a cheeseburger.
> 
> To be sure a Mac Pro (of that era) consumes much more, but the 
> electricity cost can't be that great compared to other things.

The Mac Pro I had (2008 model) had a 1500w power supply unit and would 
frequently consume at least 600-800w.  I typically get about 5 years of 
life out of a Mac before I buy a new one.  At your electricity rate you 
could afford a new Mac Mini in those 5 years from the power savings 
alone.

I know how much power my computer was using because I had it hooked up 
to a Kill-O-Watt for about 2 years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70431

Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Mac Pro I had (2008 model) had a 1500w power supply unit and would
> frequently consume at least 600-800w. 

My 2009 base model Mac Pro, with three spinning disk drives, consumes
less than 140 watts when it isn't working hard. I would be surprised if
a 2010 or later model, in just about any configuration, "frequently"
used 600 watts. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70460

In article <1m0qdy7.1fg3w311xtmk8iN%nmassello@yahoo.com>, Neill
Massello <nmassello@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Mac Pro I had (2008 model) had a 1500w power supply unit and would
> > frequently consume at least 600-800w. 
> 
> My 2009 base model Mac Pro, with three spinning disk drives, consumes
> less than 140 watts when it isn't working hard. I would be surprised if
> a 2010 or later model, in just about any configuration, "frequently"
> used 600 watts. 

Err ... how does a "2008 model" magically become a "2010 model"?!?
Motherboard transplant perhaps.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70462

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Err ... how does a "2008 model" magically become a "2010 model"?!?
> Motherboard transplant perhaps.

The OP has a 2010 model. Oregonian Haruspex's 600W figure for the power
consumption of his 2008 model is not very relevant, as it's unlikely
that the OP's newer Pro uses anything like that much power most of the
time. 

Even so, the power savings from switching to a mini *could* pay for it
in five years. A lot depends on electric rates and the OP's usage
pattern. My WAG is that the difference between a new mini at idle (6
watts, according to Apple) and the OP's Pro at idle is no more than 120
watts. At 12 hours a day, that's a difference of about 526kWh per year.
But I have no idea what the OP's electric rate might be, as I couldn't
find a UK equivalent of the USEIA's chart. (It looks like buying
electric power service in Britain is almost as complicated as buying
health care insurance in America.) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70463

On 15-03-04 16:09, Neill Massello wrote:

> Even so, the power savings from switching to a mini *could* pay for it
> in five years. A lot depends on electric rates and the OP's usage
> pattern.

If a Mini requires a separate box with separate power supply to run the
disks etc, then the power equation changes.

This is the same with current MacPro which may have far lower power
consumption than the 2009/2010 MacPros, but as a glorified Mini, it
requires separate disk storage boxes with their own power consumption.

It may turn out to still be ahead of the older MacPros, but it depends
on how much power the disk array consumes.

Idle power consumption is where the bigger differences occur over the
years as new tech is included to lower idle consumption.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70464

On 2015-03-04, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-03-04 16:09, Neill Massello wrote:
>
>> Even so, the power savings from switching to a mini *could* pay for it
>> in five years. A lot depends on electric rates and the OP's usage
>> pattern.
>
> If a Mini requires a separate box with separate power supply to run the
> disks etc, then the power equation changes.
>
> This is the same with current MacPro which may have far lower power
> consumption than the 2009/2010 MacPros, but as a glorified Mini, it
> requires separate disk storage boxes with their own power consumption.

"Glorified mini" - more of your not-so-obvious and lame trolling.

> It may turn out to still be ahead of the older MacPros

No, it's *definitely ahead of older Mac Pros, and *far* ahead of any Mac
mini. Nothing glorified about it.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70465

On 15-03-04 17:47, Jolly Roger wrote:

> "Glorified mini" - more of your not-so-obvious and lame trolling.

Functionally, it is like a mini. Requires separate screen, keyboard, no
storage expansion capability. (although all Macs are now that way)

Obviously, from a performance point of view, not in the same category.

But it is still a fairly closed box that expects peripherals to be
external, just like the Mini.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70466

On 2015-03-04, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-03-04 17:47, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> "Glorified mini" - more of your not-so-obvious and lame trolling.
>
> Functionally, it is like a mini.

glorified |ˈglôrəˌfīd|
adjective
1 [ attrib. ] (especially of something or someone ordinary or
unexceptional) represented in such a way as to appear more elevated or
special: I did the paperwork and was basically a glorified secretary.

Anyone who has used a Mac Pro knows well it is not an ordinary Mac mini
represented in such a way as to make it appear more elevated or special.
And by saying that is the case, you are lying through your teeth. If you
dislike being called out on your trolls, stop trolling. Very simple.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70483

On 15-03-04 18:33, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Anyone who has used a Mac Pro knows well it is not an ordinary Mac mini

The older MacPro is totally different from the new one. I was refering
to the new one that contains no room for expansion for storage, no place
for optical drive etc. As such, it has the same lack fo expansiuon
capabilities as the MacMini, which is quite different from the original
MacPros is the large cabinet which were built for expansion and thus
totally different in concept from all other Macs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70487

In article <54f7de53$0$4334$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-03-04 18:33, Jolly Roger wrote:
> > 
> > Anyone who has used a Mac Pro knows well it is not an ordinary Mac mini
> 
> The older MacPro is totally different from the new one. I was refering
> to the new one that contains no room for expansion for storage, no place
> for optical drive etc. As such, it has the same lack fo expansiuon
> capabilities as the MacMini, which is quite different from the original
> MacPros is the large cabinet which were built for expansion and thus
> totally different in concept from all other Macs.

"... thus totally different in concept from all other Macs."

Except for its predecessor PowerMac, and the old LC range.  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70495

On 2015-03-05, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-03-04 18:33, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Anyone who has used a Mac Pro knows well it is not an ordinary Mac mini
>
> The older MacPro is totally different from the new one. I was refering
> to the new one 

It's still not a "glorified mini" as you suggest in your original troll.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70539

Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like:
> On 15-03-04 18:33, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Anyone who has used a Mac Pro knows well it is not an ordinary Mac mini

> The older MacPro is totally different from the new one. I was refering
> to the new one that contains no room for expansion for storage, no place
> for optical drive etc. As such, it has the same lack fo expansiuon
> capabilities as the MacMini,

You are still wrong. It has room for a shit ton of expansion.

What you are whining about is *INTERNAL* 'expansion' which is, if you
think about it, not actually expansion. The new MacPro provides for many
more devices and much greater (and better) expansion than any previous
Mac or probably any other computer. I could easily connect 300 HDs to a
new MacPro, for example. That would be silly, but I could do it.

-- 
http://2blog.kreme.com
<[TN]FBMachine> I got kicked out of Barnes and Noble once for moving all
the bibles into the fiction section

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70500

In article <54f79093$0$39463$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 15-03-04 17:47, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> "Glorified mini" - more of your not-so-obvious and lame trolling.
>
>Functionally, it is like a mini. Requires separate screen, keyboard, no
>storage expansion capability. (although all Macs are now that way)

And all MacPros too. So your point was what, precisely?

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web