[geeks] Apple Pro, CPU upgrades

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:23:27 +0100
Mark <md.benson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not as far as anyone has found. I went for the lowest-end model on  
> the same assumption so I hope it works :)

I just read a review of the first generation Intel Pro line, and the guys who
wrote it replaced their Core 2 Xeons with Core 2 Xeon quad-cores, and they
worked.  OS saw them and everything.

I'm hoping it will work out OK.

> I have seen reports of the CPUs being successfully swapped for other  
> 51xx (2-core) and 53xx (4-core) units. I don't know that they will  
> support the new 7x00 Xeons however.

As long as they are electrically similar I think the main issue with new
Intel CPUs on any board is firmware support.

In the rest of the PC world, firmware generally gets updated constantly to
support the latest CPUs.  Not sure about Apple.  They might consider upgraded
Pros to be competing against their newer machines and not issue updates.
 
> What are you planning on using the machine for? 

A little of everything.  Development, front-end to various embedded and
appliance UNIX projects, general desktop use, photo editing, and writing.

I was going to get a Mini, but the 2GB memory limit is a problem, and I find
that while loading it up at CompUSA, it frequently got sluggish on me.  The
graphics on the Mini absolutely suck.

Apple does not offer a mid-range machine, so that leaves the Pro as my only
other choice.

I really wish Apple would make a $1000 tower system.  I don't like the ones
with the built-in display at all.

Better yet, I wish I could build my own hardware and run MacOS... :)

> I find mine has a  
> shit-tonne of power even at 2GHz, so I don't think and upgrade is on  
> the card s for mine for a few years yet. When it gets to then someone  

That's probably true.  The main thing with the Pro is that I can upgrade
memory when I need to, and it has a better drive subsystem.

I really rather not spend the money at all, but the UNIX apps are just not
good enough and I need to get things done.  I find I can't get my work done
with Windows, and even if I could, it's painful to use.

It's really too bad that the UNIX desktop world is so fractured, and burdened
with idiot politics.  I just don't see those issues every being resolved.

KDE is clearly the more pragmatic and functional desktop, but Gnome divides
developers and makes life hell for anyone deploying an application.  The
politics and all of this stuff combined have continuously kept the UNIX
desktop from coming together for years, and it just seems like there is no
end in sight.


-- 
shannon           | There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not
                  | philosophers.