But it is really not worth arguing about since nobody has used a 32bit system as a server or a high end workstation in ages. Unfortunately, the photography software industry is lacking (mostly due to the neophyte customer base lack of demand for change) and has been stuck in the 32-bit application world making advances in technology and software development technique worthless for your average photographer. Though, that said, our images are still considerably smaller than the 32-bit software limits so nobody would get any SINGLE APPLICATION benefits of conversion to 64-bit systems and software unless they are doing large scale transformations / filters over a very large number of images.

I am referring to the limit of 32-bit machines/apps, not all systems period. As we both know that 64-bit vastly increases the physical RAM capability. I think we understand each other.

I am saying that when you are using a program like Photoshop or any other 32-bit app, it doesn’t matter if you exceed 4GB of physical RAM in the system, as these programs cannot access more than that limit at a time (even if the system is 64-bit).

Regards

That is not true at all. It varies by hardware on Operating Systems. I was powering my production web servers with 6GB of RAM >5 years ago with various 32-bit linux and solaris systems. Please see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension)
Operating systems vary widely in how they carve up the RAM and make it available to the OS and to applications. But generally speaking EACH application PROCESS can address up to 3GB of RAM even on 32bit systems. On 32-bit windows, mac systems I haven’t had as much success, often the processes are limited to less than 1.5GB of RAM. On 64bit systems, systems and processes don’t have these bounds (well, the upper bounds aren’t worth talkigng about) There is a performance penalty to addressing RAM with PAE but it is nothing like the cost of going to disk or using more complicated IPC schemes.

The 4GB cap applies to ALL 32-bit machines and applications (yes, even Mac). I have 12GB of RAM in my Mac Pro and it’s great until the 64-bit capable machine runs a 32-bit application; like any Adobe creative product. My system may have 12GB of RAM, but Photoshop only can recognize 4GB. The only real advantage of the extra RAM is multi-tasking, until more programs are written in 64-bit.

So, when you are doing your photos on either your iMac or your “hackintosh”, you are still only “getting by” on 4GB for productivity. Sorry, but until the rumored CS5 specs become a reality, us photographers are stuck at 4GB for productivity.

ive tried NX2, and i did like it, it works well obviously with the nikon stuff but it just doesnt seem to fit in my work flow. I can keep all my images consistent with ACR. I don’t use lightroom. Im a commercial shooter so my work flow from capture to process is color correct (gray cards, knowing light temps ect..)

I may give NX2 another try

The RAM and the hard drive specs may apparently do look under par for the 2009 entry level Mac Pro, but you have to look at the exact processor(s) that Apple put in to the machine I order to decide the total value. Mine Mac Pro is the 2006-2007 1st generation Mac Pro which featured 2 Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Dual-core processors–Woodcrest–which cost a whopping $1000 each at the time (http://www.xpcgear.com/bx805565150p.html). That starts the machine at an absolute minimum $2000. Add the aluminum case, power supply, motherboard, fans/heatsinks, superdrive, hard drive, RAM, and video card for $499. That makes the $2499 entry price make sense. The Intel Xeon processors in my machine are not consumer level CPUs, they are server CPUs. So your argument doesn’t work in this case.

Now, with today’s current Mac Pro, I will agree with you that the price is bloated as the system starts at $2499, but the single Intel Xeon 2.66GHz Nahalem Quad-core CPU only accounts for $999 of that cost (vs $2000). The rest of the specs don’t make up for the extra $1400 that it’s priced at, so, today’s Mac Pro is NOT a better value than the earlier models.

**As the 2009 model is not a better value, the deciding factor comes down to paying the extra $ for preference and/or for very stable system that is expandable up to 4TB of storage and 16GB/32GB of RAM, for the base machine (not many PC’s can be upgraded to those specs). If you are a gamer, it may not be worth the price, but if you are a creative pro, it makes all the difference in the world to have that kind of future expansion capability, my friend.

I am not a “fanboy” as I have used both PC and Mac for many years. I am well versed on both sides of the computer spectrum.

That machine you priced out does have an Intel Quad-core, but that processor model costs $569 while the processor in the base Mac Pro costs $999. So, overall, since RAM and hard drive space are both dirt cheap these days, it’s wiser to buy the fastest processor you can afford and upgrade the other items later. In this case, the Mac may be $100 more, but it gives you a superior base CPU that costs $429 more if you had to buy it by itself. This machine you quoted and the Mac Pro are rather equal in terms of value.

I certainly do like the Mac Pro better, but I didn’t ignore the value factor. As this is the 1st generation machine (2006-2007), it was the best value at that time. I can pretty much guarantee there were not ANY comparable PC’s that were expandable to 2TB of internal storage and 16GB of RAM at that time (and pretty much nowadays as well). Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

At $2500.00 dollars to get the intro MacPro station, with a whole whopping 3 gigs of DDR3 RAM, 640 gig drive, in a quad core nehalem, it boggles the mind to read the above statement. What planet do you shop on?

Today’s Mac prices are only better in terms of comparative value, so that whatever was bought in the past was even more costly with less relative performance.

I swear that Apple feeds itself on such fanboy devotion, counting on folks who don’t seek sensible cost/performance ratios. Do yourself a favor and just check out what $2500.00 would get you at, say, anywhere in a performance PC on planet earth (not planet Macworld). In two minutes, I found this ‘comparable’ for $100 less that would best your Mac Pro in every meaningful category – plus BluRay: http://www.frys.com/product/6058398#detailed

By your reasoning, everyone not in the cult of Mac is actually getting ripped off – besides stupidly following the 89% market share herd with untold software applications, customization, and cutting edge performance options. Wow.

Just admit you like the system better, paid for it, and are happy.