No more quad core?!?!?

OMG. I have been waiting 2 years for an update to the Mac mini, only to find that their highest end model will still likely be less powerful than the one I've got. The Mac mini is (or used to be) an awesome alternative to the all-in-one iMac or the super powerful (and expensive) Mac Pro. But come on — no quad core option? Why would you cripple the mini like that? I don't want an all-in-one. I like separate components (ever have to lug an entire iMac to an Apple Store when the problem is just the motherboard?). This is a major blow. I am severely disappointed, and definitely not buying a new Mac mini.

I totally agree with the original poster.
After 2 years with no update, these new Mac Minis are a major disappointment to anyone who has used the previous models. What is Apple thinking? Last week, £649 would buy a Quad-Core i7 and this week £799 (£150 more) buys you a Dual-Core i7!?!?!
Also, before anyone posts anything to do with speed tests, it's not just about how fast these newer Minis are (or aren't) compared with the 2012 models. It's about load distribution over multiple cores and the lack of Hyper-Threading, which (correct me if I'm wrong) requires the i7 chip to have four cores, to get another virtual sub cores on top.
As a user of Apples Logic Pro X, it's performance is greatly enhanced when it can distribute it's audio engine over multiple cores - using the Quad-Core i7 2012 model - Logic shows eight cores, which is fantastic for a machine that (previously) cost £649.
What would it cost me to get equal or better performance now?
£1,359 for a build-to-order 21.5-inch iMac
£1,599 for an entry-level 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro (or more on a build-to-order)
£1,789 for a build-to-order 27-inch iMac
£1,999 for a top range 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro (or more on a build-to-order)
£2,499 for an entry-level Mac Pro (or more on a build-to-order)
This is unacceptable. Apple aren't trying to offer Mac Mini users the ability to stay within Mini range, as they seem intent on forcing users to switch to a different product line, which (if they cannot afford it), could ultimately make them switch altogether to a PC.
I truly hope that if the Mac Mini line does continue into the future, that Apple will regain the common sense to listen to their end users. I've been a Mac user since 1992 and would never think of switching, but this is truly an epic mistake in Apples design decisions and one I hope they fix, sooner rather than later.

Similar Messages

Mac Pro 2.66 Quad-Core 1GBRAM, how much more RAM and HOW?

I just got my Mac Pro 2.66 Quad-Core, and I had a budget so I left the RAM down @ only 1GB because I knew I could upgrade it later. Well later is here & I want to put more in it, but I hear it is a little more complicated than the sensless shoving of big ram chips into empty slots...
I am a heavy user of Logic 7, soon to be of Logic Studio, and hopefully I will be using AutoCAD at home soon (for school). How much RAM would be optimal for me to eventually have? Right now I think I can afford to purchase 2GB more, but I dont know how exactly to put it into my machine. Right now it has a 512MB per xeon.
Can anyone help me out?

I just pulled out 1GB (2 x 512MB) simms in replaced them with 4GB (2 x 2GB) simms.
I had added more memory as 2 GB (1x2GB) and ran out of space. Now I have a total of 11GB RAM:
1GB = 2 x 512MB
2GB = 2 x 1GB
8GB = 4 x 2GB
Leaving me with 2x512MB simms sitting in the box on the self. Sure wish I knew someone local I could give these things to for a reasonable price. Anyway, I wouldn't go any higher than 2GB simms (4GB) as that seems to currently have the best price/space ratio. Crucial is good enough and order it from NewEgg.com or MacConnection.com and you'll get a good price (I got mine at MacConnection.com).

Ere are the specs on the Mac I need more power on. Mac Tower Processor 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Memory 6 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512 MB Serial Number H00354XF20G Software OS X 10.8.5 (12F45) Harddive 640 GB SATA

ere are the specs on the Mac I need more power on.
Mac Tower
Processor 2 x 2.26 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
Memory 6 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512 MB
Serial Number H00354XF20G
Software OS X 10.8.5 (12F45)
Harddive 640 GB
SATA Disk
(2) Harddrives 1 TB
SATA Disk
RAM 6 slots total -- 6 are filled with 1GB
(3) UAD Quad cards installed
I use this computer stictly for audio recording.
Pro Tools 10.3.7
Interface Apollo 16
Pro Tools is curretnly not compatible with Maverick. Also, I believe that Pro Tools 10 only allows 4GB ram to be utilized (not sure )
I know Pro Tools 11 allows more, but not sure how much more. Also not sure if the upgrade to Pro Tools 11 I will have to purchase all new plug ins or if my existing ones will continue to work in it.
The platform changes from 32 bit to 64 with the upgrade to 11
If it is as simple as adding more ram, what mode-part #l would you recomeend. Can the processor be upgraded also ?
The new tube like Macs are non compatible with UAD Cards. Those cards a must my sessions

You can use Activity Monitor to check if apps run as 32 or 64 bit - simply look at the "Kind" column (you may need to select it under View -> Columns) and see if the app in question is listed as "Intel" i.e. 32 bit or as "Intel (64 bit)".
While in Activity Monitor you can also check if Pro Tools is close to the 3-4 GB limit of a 32 bit app - if you aren't you will probably not benefit from more RAM.
Your MacPro (it appears to be a Early 2009 model) should have come with a small booklet showing how to install RAM and what kind of RAM that you need. Any RAM that fulfills the requirements should work but your safest choice is probably to buy from a retailer/online store that supports Macs as they will usually know what kind of RAM you need for your mac model.
Upgrading the CPUs should be possible, but I haven't seen Apple document how to do this, so you will probably have to google around a bit to find instructions and CPU part numbers.
Your choice of CPUs will also be limited by the motherboard and CPU socket so you may be limited to faster version of your current CPU chip and some slightly newer versions.
Going from your current CPU to the fastest version included in the 2009 MacPros would be going from 2.26 GHz to 2.93 GHz. This would only give a modest 30% speed boost. Using newer and highly clocked CPUs might boost this somewhat more maybe to 50% ?

All things being equal, does 4th gen quad core i7 (2.5GHz) need more RAM than 5th gen dual core i5 (2.7GHz) for same tasks?

Bought mid/late 2014 15" MBPr with the i7 2.5GHz and 16GB RAM. I'm within 2 week exchange period at Best Buy, and thinking of switching to 2015 13" MBPr with i5 2.7GHz and 8GB RAM for battery life and weight, and they don't offer the upgraded 16GB RAM option for any 13" models.
Needs to be Best Buy because of gift cards
Use docked at office 75% of time vs 25% out of office, so portability and battery life are nice to have but not as important as if I had 8 hour flights on weekly basis
See appeal of having 5th gen i5 in 13" vs my 4th gen i7 that will be updated this summer
Not a gamer and don't use Final Cut or other video editing, but I tend to leave several applications open and usually have between 1-3 GB free RAM of the 16GB total at any time according to my Memory Cleaner readings
Therefore, worried that 8GB is a non-starter as simple math says that I would have shortfall of 5-7GB RAM based on above readings, but wondering if dual core i5 will use RAM more efficiently than quad core i7
Any help greatly appreciated!

Also to note, would like this to last 4 years, which was reason that I bought the higher spec'd model even though I don't run games or video editing

Should i Take the more expensive Mac mini (quad core) or dual core

Hey guys!
I don't now if I should take the Mac mini with dual core or quad core
I have never had a Mac so I don't now if the quad core (200$ more) is better than the dual core :o
I use it only for standard things (email, web, twitter Mac App Store games)
But it also should not stuck at bit more powerful apps and run crystal clear !!!
I want to have the Mac mini for few years !
Thanks now!

The difference in real performance between dual core
and quad core machines is highly dependent on the
apps one uses and how many at the same time.
If you really only ever have one or perhaps two apps
open at once and if these apps are like web browsers
or email, you may never really notice a difference.
However, if you have many apps open at once or use
apps that can utilize many cores at the same time (typically
imaging and video apps), then there will be a significant
performance increase.
As far as gaming, by and large the most significant impact
on game performance is the graphics processing unit (GPU).
The integrated Intel HD4000 GPU in the Minis can typically
handle mid range games but will struggle on the very highend
games.
Also, if apps are not designed for mutiple core usage, there will be
now real improvement between 2 or 4 core machines. As a matter
of fact, I have a few apps that are faster on my MBP 13" 2.7 GHz
2 core i7 than on my quad core i7 2.0 GHz Mini Server for this
very reason.
So, the bottom line is that for some a quad core machine will
blow away a dual core machine while for others, there will be
no noticable difference.

I bought iMac 27 quad core i7 last June. Last month i have noticed lots of dark patches on the screen and now they are growing more. i bought this from US but now i have moved to Kuwait. How much it cost to replace the screen?

I bought iMac 27 quad core i7 last June. Last month i have noticed lots of dark patches on the screen and now they are growing more. i bought this from US but now i have moved to Kuwait. How much it cost to replace the screen?

Mac and Mac models are picky about the RAM the Mac needs to see and use.
As you have found out, the 1067 speed RAM will not work in your year and model iMac.
You need the 1333 speed RAM.
If, you can return the RAM for a refund, do it!
If not, try online Mac RAM source and seller Crucial memory. They have a table that matches your Mac to the correct and reliable RAM. You may need to contact them to see whether or not they ship to South Africa, though.
If Crucial dpesn't work out, here's the specs for your year and model iMac that you need to seek out and purchase.
Maximum Memory
32 GB (Actual) 16 GB (Apple)
Memory Slots
4 - 204-pin PC3-10600 (1333 MHz) DDR3 SO-DIMM
Good Luck!

Can a logic user benefit more from having a Quad core as apposed to a dual

My friend is thinking about updating to a Quad core from a dual core 3.0 ghz. He uses logic as his main sequnecer and was wondering if it would be a big performance step up to do it

Hardly. It shows that in general performance a Mac gets about 1.4 times faster with every doubling of the number of processors. So a dualcore is 1.4 times faster than a single, a quad is twice as fast as a single and an octo (dual quad) is twice as fast as a dual and 2.8 times faster than a single core - given that CPU- and bus speeds are the same... get it? It's a quadratic scale (it seems)
The fastest Mac today (I believe) is is the Mac Pro 3.2, with two quadcore Intel Xeon 5400 'Harpertown" processors. Geekbench clocks it at 8499. My machine (G4 dual 1.25, the 'minimum machine' for LP8) scores 1044... but I manage...
You can find all this information in Mactracker (freeware):
http://www.mactracker.ca/
regards, Erik.

Memory arrangements in iMac i5 quad core (mid 2010)

I used to run 8 GB of ram in 4 modules. The upper two slots were occupied with the 2 samsung 2GB modules that came with the computer. The lower two slots I filled with 2 more 2 GB ram modules from corsair. These 8 Gb of RAM worked fine until one of these corsair modules failed: after several crashes I identified the culprit module by elimination using memtest.
A good time to upgrade: I left the upper slots as is and filled the two lower slots 4 GB modules, also from corsair so that I now have 12 GB. When booting up the machine, the system profiler indicated that the machine only recognised 6 GB, one of each size module. When removing the two 4 GB modules, the imac recognised the remaining two 2 GB module. Turns out that one of the 4 GB modules is doa. It was identified again by elimination: Using only one of the 4Gb modules in the mac in the same upper left slot, the imac booted up with the good one, but not with the faulty one.
Question: why did the imac not recognise one working memory module in the upper slot when one in the lower slot was faulty, but recognised it again, once the faulty one was removed.
Apple says the i5 quad-core imac does not start up if only one of the lower slots is occupied - which is not true. Apple also says that the imac does not work properly when the memory access door is not re-installed, which is also not true.
Does it matter whether I install two 2 GB modules in the upper slots and two 4 GB modules in the lower, or would it be better the other way round. What if I installed the 4 GB modules above each other the the same with the 2 Gb modules?
Any experience would be appreciated.

Apple says the i5 quad-core imac does not start up if only one of the lower slots is occupied - which is not true.
If you look at the Apple instructions online (I believe the exact article you mentioned), I understood that Apple and I had a different idea of what top and bottom were supposed to be. Both you and I feel that the original RAM are in the top slots, but the instructions are such that it sounds as though they are in the bottom.
In any case, I've read of another case where someone moved the original RAM to the bottom and installed the added RAM in the top slots - supposedly it will result in slightly faster performance because those are the RAM that will be addressed first. However, the RAM needs to be in pairs horizontally: 2 x 4 GB in the top (or bottom) slots and 2 x 2 GB horizontally in the other banks. I do not have any idea as to why a top slot would not work if the bottom was not occupied.

2009 Mac Pro 2.66 Xeon Quad Core or 2013 Mac Mini 2.66 Quad Core i7 ?

2009 Mac Pro 2.66 Xeon Quad Core or 2013 Mac Mini Server 2.66 Quad Core i7 ? I have a choice between these two for running Final Cut Pro X. Price is nearly the same.
The Mac Pro has a ePCI 512 display adapter, 16 GB RAM, more hard drive expansion and faster 1tb 7200 rpm conventional hard drive. FW 800.
The Mini Server has two 1 tb 5400 rpm conventional drives, 16 GB RAM and an integrated display adapter. Has thunderbolt and FW 800.
My primary concern is the performance of the processors. Does anyone happen to know how they compare in video editing?

This may give you some ideas.
There are some folks on this forum who report very saticfactory results editing on Minis.
Perhaps they will chime in with first hand experience (which I can't give).
Russ

Is the mac mini server the same hardware as the other mac minis (except for the quad core i7 and dual hard drives) with different software or is it configured differently?

I have a mac mini with an i7 dual core processor. It is perceptably slower than my macbook pro with a quad core i7. Does the mac mini server have the same hardware configuation as the regular mac mini with server software or is the hardware different (aside from the i7 quad core and dual hard drives)? I want a mini with a quad core i7...

Your assumption is correct. The server does however only
have the Intel HD3000 graphics like the base model with
no option, at this time, for the discrete graphics chip. So,
depending on what you are using it for, that could be a deal
breaker. Remember that your MBP does have a discrete
graphics chip.
I have a 2011 Mini Server connected to a Thunderbolt display
that gets used as an engineering workstation and general
personal use (some photo editing, LP restoraton, general
internet browsing). You simply just not enable any of the
server services. I find the combination to work quite well
for my purposes. I also have a 13" 2.7 GHz i7 Macbook Pro
which is pretty much strictly for work. As far as CPU
power it is pretty much equivelent to your Mini. For the most
part I find the Mini does outperfom my MBP. I heavily use
Parallels and Windows7 virtual machines, so the more cores
the better.
So, If you do a lot of CPU intensive stuff that is multithreaded,
the Server may help. If it is graphics intensive and your software
heavily leaverages the GPU, you may actually take a hit on
performance.

Can someone tell me how to fix this error in 10.4.11 on a G5 Quad Core 2.5GHz Tower...A valid video device could not be found for playback. [-70017]

Can someone tell me how to fix this error in 10.4.11 on a G5 Quad Core 2.5GHz Tower...A valid video device could not be found for playback. [-70017]

That's an error reported from DVD Player I believe...
kDVDErrorMissingGraphicsDevice = -70017, // A valid graphics device is not available.
There's some conjecture it has to do with HDCP, or Video Card problems, but the only 2 cures/fixes I found were Software related, one was cured by updating the OS, another by replacing the Video kexts.
I think this error also shows up if trying to use DVD player in Safe Mode, (too much research isn't good! ).
At the Apple Icon at top left>About this Mac.
Then click on More Info>Hardware>Graphics/Displays and report like this...
NVIDIA GeForce 7800GT:
Chipset Model:          GeForce 7800GT
Type:          Display
Bus:          PCI
Slot:          SLOT-1
VRAM (Total):          256 MB
Vendor:          nVIDIA (0x10de)
Device ID:          0x0092
Revision ID:          0x00a1
ROM Revision:          2152.2
Displays:
VGA Display:
Resolution:          1920 x 1080 @ 60 Hz
Depth:          32-bit Color
Core Image:          Supported
Main Display:          Yes
Mirror:          Off
Online:          Yes
Quartz Extreme:          Supported
Display:
Status:          No display connected
Can't think of much to try at the moment, but perhaps reapplying the big 10.4.11 combo, Repair Permissions, & reboot would help, not sure.
The combo update for PowerPC-based Macs...
http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macosx10411comboupdateppc.html

2012 Macbook Pro 13in 2.9GHz vs 2011 October 15in quad core refurb

This fall I will be a freshman at my college and I have decided that I am going to invest in a macbook pro. Right now I could buy 2012 13in with 8gb of ram for $1399 or I could purchase the refurb for $1359. My question is which one will benefit me more in the long run? Is 15in to bulky and heavy to take to college? If i chose the refurb would I be able to count on it for years to come? Will it last longer than the 2012 13in. If I got the 15in I would probably upgrade to 8gb of ram. I would be missing out on USB 3.0 if I chose the refurb though. Is this a deal breaker? I'm planning on getting into Economics and my college pretty much endorses Macs so that won't be a problem. Otherwise, I will probably just be doing normal things on my computer like watching videos, surfing the web, typing papers, downloading music and the occasional playing of flash games on the internet. I just want to make sure that I can get a computer that will last me at least 4 years and hopefully more. Any suggestions and thoughts would be very helpful!

I would go a different route.....
I would buy the the 15' Quad Core.
Regardless of which one you decide to purchase, they would last for years if proper care is used.
The 2.9GHz is a fast machine. No doubt about that one. It is however, in the end, only a dual core.
Let say you decide to do some number crunching, the dual core will run out of steam before the quad core does.
Or you decide to use photoshop, the dual core will do the job but the quad will do it efficiently because of it's quad core design, the processing is done by all four cores thus finishing faster.
And when it comes with your occasional games, the 15' has it's own discreet graphics to process the videos while the 13' has to rely on the processor to drive the built in intel video. So the processor will be working harder on the 13' which will make your MB run a little on the hot side.

Hi, I bought an imac 27" quad-core i5 with 1067Mhz DDR3 RAM in it. I would like to know if this is the right type of speed for my imac as I found out that these imacs come standard with 1333Mhz DDR3's? It is crashing a lot!

Hi all. I bought an imac 27", 3.1Ghz quad-core i5 Mid 2011 last year in 2012. The machine has been crashing ever so frequently. I upgraded the RAM from the 4Gb it came with to 12Gb. It still crashes! I recently noticed that my imac came with 1067Mhz DDR3 memory chips ( slower speed) than the Apple mac recommended 1333Mhz DDR3 memory chips.
The shop I bought it from ( Incredible Connection, Woodmead, South Africa) are refusing to own up as they are saying the 1333Mhz chips have to be ordered in advance. Surely they are supposed to sell the product with the right kind of Ram in it? Not for me to find out? Now I have to fork out more money to make my imac factory standard? Maybe I am wrong, But do these Mid 2011's run well on 1067Mhz memory chips if I upgrade to 32Gb? Is it possible people are swapping 1333Mhz chips from new machines with 1067Mhz chips which are way too cheaper? My system version( SMC Number) is 1.72f5
Baffled!

Mac and Mac models are picky about the RAM the Mac needs to see and use.
As you have found out, the 1067 speed RAM will not work in your year and model iMac.
You need the 1333 speed RAM.
If, you can return the RAM for a refund, do it!
If not, try online Mac RAM source and seller Crucial memory. They have a table that matches your Mac to the correct and reliable RAM. You may need to contact them to see whether or not they ship to South Africa, though.
If Crucial dpesn't work out, here's the specs for your year and model iMac that you need to seek out and purchase.
Maximum Memory
32 GB (Actual) 16 GB (Apple)
Memory Slots
4 - 204-pin PC3-10600 (1333 MHz) DDR3 SO-DIMM
Good Luck!

Help, it feels slooow: Mac Mini 2012 2.3 Quad Core 1TB 4GB

Hi, I already posted this on another forum but I haven't got any feedback yet, I hope I'm luckier here :-)
I'm a long time Mac user. Last week I bought a new Mac Mini 2.3 i7 1Tb Quad Core.
Now, having left the OS X platform years ago when my good old G5 started feeling pretty old for more modern systems and programs, and having used a cheap basic Asus notebook in the meantime, I was really expecting the Mac Mini to fly. Well, to be honest I'm quite puzzled right now: it just feels it's lagging so often, that it doesn't feel that different to my 10 year old G5 running 10.5.
Things like opening System Preferences take an awful long time, often just going to the upper menu and clicking on things I get the dreadful spinning ball, switching between tabs in a browser, and in general the machine (especially considering it's basically new, I didn't even install anything serious on it yet, like Logic Pro, etc) feels definitely not responsive enough for a 2012 quad core.
I know, no SSD and still only the stock 4gb of Ram, but tell me this can't be true. I did some quick check with Disk First Aid and everything looks ok, I fixed permissions too.
I unchecked the "put hd to sleep when possible", but no improvement. I tried also a safe boot, but that didn't tell me much. Of course the machine feels a tad snappier, but it's hard to compare.
I was also surprised to see how slow and laggy Photoshop CS 6 felt even just working on pretty small images, (I'm just trying a 30 days demo), I mean, we're talking of a Quad Core. It's funny 'cause I was expecting it to be day and night to my G5 and that crappy notebook of a few years ago, and it doesn't feel like that. I know, apples and oranges, but still...
So these days I've just used things like Chrome (terribly RAM hungry, I know), Spotify, Open Office here and there, Text Wrangler, things like these...
Oh, the machine came with 10.8.3, now I'm on 10.9, but to be honest I didn't experience significant differences (actually I updated hoping it would have solved the problem).
So, before I return this Mac Mini, please tell me about your real life experiences with a similar configuration, and give me any advice you may have. I'd be really grateful, I don't want to end up buying another PC :-)

Wow, that has me worried as I've been waiting for the new mini. It seems nuts to me that any mac ships with 4Gb RAM these days!
I would recommend that you get at least 8Gb of RAM into your mini ASAP. If you go to the Activity Monitor app you can look for "Page outs" or "Swap Used" and that will show if your mac is having to transfer data from your RAM to your HDD - seriously slowing down the machine. With just 4Gb and Adobe CS your mac is probably doing a lot of it and really struggling. If you have the cash then an SSD will be awesome but to me, RAM is the priority - and you can do it yourself easily.
Just to highlight the differences, here's the effect of different upgrades for me, hopefully that will help with your decision
I have a mid 2010 13" MBP and it shipped with 4Gb / 250Gb 5400rpm HDD.
I updated the memory to 8Gb in 2011/2 and put in a WD Black 7200rpm HDD. That was a massive improvement that could easily be seen when using a different MBP in the original specs (my boss bought 2 so I could see them side by side). Startup was improved by a good margin but apps - especially multiple apps open - were much happier and zippy. I could have all my apps open whereas my boss had to close anything he wasn't using.
About 2 months ago I added a 120Gb SSD from OWC and the difference is massive again. The machine knocked 45 seconds off the boot time and opening/saving/closing apps and files are almost instant, even on the old sata bus. It doesn't affect how many apps I can have open, it just does anything disk related a whole lot quicker.

Windows – but Which? (What to install on Mac Pro Quad Core?)

First, apologies in advance if this seems like repetition of a recent topic, but I read through the recent "Vista vs XP" thread and it didn't quite answer my questions.
Basically, I'm planning on buying a Mac Pro "Quad Core" 2.8 and installing Boot Camp and a Windows OS startup. This puts me into the notoriously tricky area of picking the right version of Windows for my needs, something I haven't really had to deal with in regards to OS X.
Basically, I'm not looking for something with too many bells and whistles or to much bloatware built into the OS. Also, I'll probably be using some older software/shareware, so backwards compatibility is an issue. On the other hand, I'd like something that works with the Quad Core architecture at its greatest efficiency.
This means I'm wondering about a couple of features that I may or may not need, and it would be of great help if you folks could point me in the right direction regarding these:
x64 – Since the Xeon processors in the Mac Pro are 64-bit processors, am I better off with "x64"-compatible versions of Windows (either Windows Vista or x64 versions of XP)? Will this cause problems starting up older programs that may not have been written for x64?
*Dual Processor Support* – the Quad Core, of course, is a dual processor – will I get better performance from a version of Windows that list "Dual Processor Support" among its features (basically, the "pro", "business", or "ultimate" versions of XP and Vista)?
If I need those features, I'm probably looking at getting either the x64 version of Windows XP Pro or the Business or Ultimate versions of Vista. However, I'm leaning against Vista based on backwards-compatibility and bloatware issues. That leaves XP Pro x64, but I might go for a more basic version of XP if I find out the x64 or DPS features aren't actually something I need. (The other "extras" in XP Pro don't sound like anything I need.)
Also, I'm likely to install Parallel Desktop at some point and don't want a version of Windows that would have compatibility problems there, either.
Anyway, any answers you folks can provide for me in this regard would be very helpful.
Thanks in advance,
Peter

Truth is, I am disappointed in VMware Fusions slow walk toward full support for 64-bit and SP1 but 2.0 beta is getting there. Never used Parallels but best to check their own support forums. They also updated the 1.x version recently.
http://communities.vmware.com/community/beta/fusion
http://forums.parallels.com/
You don't need anything first, except I would start with a new hard drive for Vista, don't even do anything with it and pull OS X drive, boot Vista DVD and go from there, just as you would normally. Much easier. After it is installed is when you need Apple BootCamp from your Leopard OEM DVD, install, and then Apple Software Update will take care of 2.1. And install your graphic drivers yourself.
The problem(s) come with trying to use BootCamp Assist and setting up partitioning, and it only makes it harder - not easier - on Mac Pro (you aren't and don't want to use your OS X boot drive).
Windows on Mac forum @ MacRumors
http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86
And their Mac Pro area http://forums.macrumors.com which has a lot of Vista talk from Mac Pro owners.
The only real issues are which graphics card to get today or in next weeks, what drives you are going with and other upgrades like memory (8 x 1GB is actually a good base ideal figure so all DIMM slots are taken up).
Barefeats has a number of benchmark articles:
Radeon 3870: http://www.hardmac.com/news/2008-06-16/#8451
Vista graphics: http://www.barefeats.com/harper11.html
Memory: http://www.barefeats.com/harper12.html
Drives: http://www.barefeats.com/harper9.html
WD 300GB Raptor: http://www.barefeats.com/hard103.html
- this is the drive to die for, but not natively supported
I buy most of the upgrades I need over the last ten years from OWC http://www.MacSales.com that specializes in Mac.
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Western%20Digital/WD6400AAKS/
- until the WD "Black" series (I guess Blackbird name or SR71 are already taken) along with 3rd generation of their RE series drives. WD has been popular, reliable, with Mac Pro for last two years. Can't say the same of every vendor. Samsung F1 is also a real winner.
If you buy only one book to understand and get the most out of OS X: "Mac OS X: The Missing Manual" (Pogue has a Missing Manual Series on most everything, and this is the most popular recommended for Mac OS).
http://books.slashdot.org/books/08/02/27/1551206.shtml
I needed 3-4 for Vista before I found "Administrator's Pocket Consultant" and O'Reilly's "Vista Annoyances" are both excellent along with MS Press's "Inside Out."

No more quad core?!?!?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for