The Memory Swap and Optimizing my Mac Pro
Ever since I bought my Mac Pro, my intent has been to take it to 4 GB of RAM. The machine came with 1 GB composed of two 512MB sticks. I then bought 2GB of RAM in the form of two 1 GB sticks from Other World Computing. As I approach buying the newly released Adobe CS3 products, I’ve been looking at completing the memory buy and finally getting to my 4GB mark.
Since the memory from OWC has worked so well and their prices are competitive, I have decided to go back to OWC for the remaining 1 GB. Currently, they’re selling 1GB for $157.99.
They also have a rebate deal going on where you can actually get money back for memory removed from your machine. Returning 1 GB of Mac Pro RAM to them will earn me $75.
Since they’re also selling a 2GB upgrade (two 1 GB sticks) for $229.99, it occurred to me the better deal might not be to buy a single GIG of Ram but to buy 2GB of RAM and then trade one in. My total cost for such a deal would be $154.99, three dollars less than simply buying the one GIG alone. The even better value is I would be more efficiently using 2 of my 8 memory slots, therefore enabling a later expansion of the available RAM at much less cost.
The only downside I can see to this is the two 512MB sticks I’d have to trade in are the ones that came from Apple, and that would leave only OWC branded memory in the machine. In the past, Apple has tried to strong-arm owners into buying only their branded memory (which is manufactured by a third party and then outrageously charged for) by denying warranty service if third party RAM was installed. Frankly, I don’t think that’s legal if there’s no reason to suspect the third party RAM caused the warranty problem; and I’m not going to let that hang me up. I’m going to press ahead with upgrading my Mac Pro using the “trade-in” deal and possibly also upgrade the RAM in my wife’s Intel iMac the same way. It’s got a 512MB stick of RAM I want to kick up to 1 GB, I’ll be pulling a 256MB stick out and I have another sitting on my desk.
I’ll let you know how this works out.
While I’m discussing optimizing my Mac Pro, I want to go back to my moderate disenchantment with Apple’s delay of Leopard. Peter Cohen published an article at the Macworld website today I can partially agree with but that also misses a valid point about how Leonard’s delay impacts current Mac Pro owners.
Peter correctly observed that much of the bitchin’ about Leopard’s delay seems to be coming from Mac owners who were waiting until Leopard was released to upgrade. While I personally wouldn’t hold up on a computer purchase while waiting for a new OS, I can understand how some users will, because of the possible “step function” nature of the hardware upgrade they may be making. While Macs are more price competitive than they have ever been, they are still more expensive than PC’s to purchase. For many people, the extra $129 (or $199 if you need a family pack and Apple holds to past pricing) Leopard can be expected to cost can be a deal breaker. It is often the poorest users who can benefit the most from the Mac’s features (especially its current freedom from most viruses and spyware), so I don’t feel that minimizing that is an especially compelling argument to excuse Apple’s delay.
Getting back to my main point: No, I don’t feel a four month delay is the end of the world. But as a current Mac Pro owner, it’s four MORE months when I’m probably not going to reap the full potential of my three thousand dollar machine.
For months now, the talk in the Apple community has been how Leopard would leverage Apple’s Core Video and Core Graphics features, and the Mac Pro has been the model of Mac that had the most to gain. Additionally, the recent articles that have surfaced questioning Tiger’s ability to handle multiple core CPU’s and its constraints on memory bandwidth sure has to have anyone looking at the Octa-Core machine questioning their desire to spend. Barefeats.com's recent Photoshop tests of the 8 core Mac Pro show it barely edges out the 4-core machine. Didn’t Adobe say that the new CS3 versions of their products were designed to work with Leopard? Anyone want to bet they will not work better with Leopard than they do with Tiger? If Leopard really does open the Mac Pro’s memory bandwidth or show noticeable performance gains using the new Adobe line, then the four month delay (if it turns out to be that and not longer) does hit every Mac Pro owner in the pocketbook, whether they’re making money with the machine or not.
I certainly understand how the delay helps developers. Frankly, it helps my pocketbook out a bit, too, and I’m not going to complain about that. But whether this “delay” is a just a bump in the road for Apple’s computer users or a peek at what’s to come is the big question. Despite the reassurances from some in the computer press, I think it’s just too early to tell; and there is reason for the computer base to be concerned. I agree with those who say that balance for the company is the key; the unanswered question is whether it’s there.
Since the memory from OWC has worked so well and their prices are competitive, I have decided to go back to OWC for the remaining 1 GB. Currently, they’re selling 1GB for $157.99.
They also have a rebate deal going on where you can actually get money back for memory removed from your machine. Returning 1 GB of Mac Pro RAM to them will earn me $75.
Since they’re also selling a 2GB upgrade (two 1 GB sticks) for $229.99, it occurred to me the better deal might not be to buy a single GIG of Ram but to buy 2GB of RAM and then trade one in. My total cost for such a deal would be $154.99, three dollars less than simply buying the one GIG alone. The even better value is I would be more efficiently using 2 of my 8 memory slots, therefore enabling a later expansion of the available RAM at much less cost.
The only downside I can see to this is the two 512MB sticks I’d have to trade in are the ones that came from Apple, and that would leave only OWC branded memory in the machine. In the past, Apple has tried to strong-arm owners into buying only their branded memory (which is manufactured by a third party and then outrageously charged for) by denying warranty service if third party RAM was installed. Frankly, I don’t think that’s legal if there’s no reason to suspect the third party RAM caused the warranty problem; and I’m not going to let that hang me up. I’m going to press ahead with upgrading my Mac Pro using the “trade-in” deal and possibly also upgrade the RAM in my wife’s Intel iMac the same way. It’s got a 512MB stick of RAM I want to kick up to 1 GB, I’ll be pulling a 256MB stick out and I have another sitting on my desk.
I’ll let you know how this works out.
While I’m discussing optimizing my Mac Pro, I want to go back to my moderate disenchantment with Apple’s delay of Leopard. Peter Cohen published an article at the Macworld website today I can partially agree with but that also misses a valid point about how Leonard’s delay impacts current Mac Pro owners.
Peter correctly observed that much of the bitchin’ about Leopard’s delay seems to be coming from Mac owners who were waiting until Leopard was released to upgrade. While I personally wouldn’t hold up on a computer purchase while waiting for a new OS, I can understand how some users will, because of the possible “step function” nature of the hardware upgrade they may be making. While Macs are more price competitive than they have ever been, they are still more expensive than PC’s to purchase. For many people, the extra $129 (or $199 if you need a family pack and Apple holds to past pricing) Leopard can be expected to cost can be a deal breaker. It is often the poorest users who can benefit the most from the Mac’s features (especially its current freedom from most viruses and spyware), so I don’t feel that minimizing that is an especially compelling argument to excuse Apple’s delay.
Getting back to my main point: No, I don’t feel a four month delay is the end of the world. But as a current Mac Pro owner, it’s four MORE months when I’m probably not going to reap the full potential of my three thousand dollar machine.
For months now, the talk in the Apple community has been how Leopard would leverage Apple’s Core Video and Core Graphics features, and the Mac Pro has been the model of Mac that had the most to gain. Additionally, the recent articles that have surfaced questioning Tiger’s ability to handle multiple core CPU’s and its constraints on memory bandwidth sure has to have anyone looking at the Octa-Core machine questioning their desire to spend. Barefeats.com's recent Photoshop tests of the 8 core Mac Pro show it barely edges out the 4-core machine. Didn’t Adobe say that the new CS3 versions of their products were designed to work with Leopard? Anyone want to bet they will not work better with Leopard than they do with Tiger? If Leopard really does open the Mac Pro’s memory bandwidth or show noticeable performance gains using the new Adobe line, then the four month delay (if it turns out to be that and not longer) does hit every Mac Pro owner in the pocketbook, whether they’re making money with the machine or not.
I certainly understand how the delay helps developers. Frankly, it helps my pocketbook out a bit, too, and I’m not going to complain about that. But whether this “delay” is a just a bump in the road for Apple’s computer users or a peek at what’s to come is the big question. Despite the reassurances from some in the computer press, I think it’s just too early to tell; and there is reason for the computer base to be concerned. I agree with those who say that balance for the company is the key; the unanswered question is whether it’s there.
posted by Andy Foster at
5:23 PM
