Dmitry... everyone is of course entitled to their opinion - but as one of the brain-washed masses I feel I need to at least reply (!). Sorry Cara...
>>> I am not happy with the direction OS X is going. Too much emphasis on eye >>> candy and not enough on underlying technology. Fair enough, but it does seem to be the way that most of the UIs/OSes are going. Erm, Windows 8, Unity... Also Apple are *constantly* innovating under the hood - albeit mainly hardware - Lightning connectors, Fusion hard-drives etc... so they are one of the few computer manufacturers actually innovating at all(!) >>> ZFS (long ago), Xgrid and X11 have been ditched, which I find disturbing. I >>> don't see Apple investing in computers given current revenue from that >>> sector. I sort of agree with you here - but on the other hand at least it is still a Unix variant underneath and we still have Xquartz. X11/X window is itself becoming quite an old beast and I'm pretty sure there's ever going to be an X12. Hence the probable rise and prevalence of Qt - so you can run any OS you like... >>> Linux in a virtual machine of your choice might be a better bang for the >>> buck. Or, Windows in a virtual machine on a Linux box for that matter. Or, ( controversially ) a Mac running Linux and Windows in virtual boxes !? Tony. Sent from my iPhone On 23 Jan 2013, at 03:03, "Dmitry Rodionov" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: AFAIK there is no problem mixing and matching different timing RAM: system will run at the speed of the slowest module. I don't think anybody will notice the difference with CAS latency Coot'ing and Refmac'ing. I don't think there is much sense in having more than 4 GB of RAM per physical core on a Mac. Majority of the Mac flock does not really care for where the RAM modules come from. As for Mac Pro's- they use ECC RAM with proprietary heat sensors, so that's a completely different story. You can still use generic ECC RAM in a MAC PRO at the cost of the fan being stuck in hurricane mode. The bottleneck of pretty much any modern system is the HDD. Apple-branded HDDs were known to have somewhat modified firmware, causing problems at times (mostly with AppleRAID, if not using an Apple-branded HDD) An end user most definitely will notice an SSD VS HDD, which brings up TRIM support on OS X, which is limited to controllers sold by Apple. Upgradeability-wise Apple is not the way to go in any case. DISCLAIMER: The rest may be much more inflammatory. Personally, I am not convinced OS X and Apple is the way to go log term (having been surrounded by MACs for the past 4-5 years) I am not happy with the direction OS X is going. Too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough on underlying technology. ZFS (long ago), Xgrid and X11 have been ditched, which I find disturbing. I don't see Apple investing in computers given current revenue from that sector. Linux in a virtual machine of your choice might be a better bang for the buck. Or, Windows in a virtual machine on a Linux box for that matter. Don't kick me, DIR On 2013-01-22, at 7:22 PM, Bryan Lepore <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Phil Jeffrey <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I don't think that anybody has shown a significant performance difference on Apple memory vs a reasonable 3rd party supplier. Apple may potentially have better quality controls but places like Crucial essentially have lifetime warranties on their memory. I use Crucial at home and at work. [...] sure, I agree with all this the only other point I really wanted to make is to be cautious when configuring a computer on the Apple website, where they might say for memory "DDR3 ECC SDRAM" (checked this for a Mac Pro just now) but that is a non-obvious way of, from what I can tell, selling only high end memory when e.g. different CAS latency is available elsewhere - again, not obvious what their CL is (perhaps it is listed somewhere). and maybe other specs apply.
