PDA

View Full Version : MacPros with WindowsXP only installed!




zoran
Dec 9, 2006, 03:35 AM
Ive heard of clients getting a MacPro with WindowsXP only preinstalled (they asked for it this way from the reseler), and not OSX. I recon they must be PC users that dont want to switch to OSX but also cant affort getting the dual dualcore Xeons in the HP or Dell workstations that are available and prefer to get the cheaper MacPro.
But is the MacPro really cheaper and best buy compared to the equivalent workstations?



nnoob
Dec 9, 2006, 04:30 AM
why the hell u wanna do that try boot camp method just google for it....

zoran
Dec 9, 2006, 04:31 AM
why the hell u wanna do that try boot camp method just google for it....
:confused:

gr8tfly
Dec 9, 2006, 04:39 AM
BootCamp is free (beta) from Apple. It allows you to setup a dual-boot system, and provides all the hardware drivers needed (actually burns a CD of them). You will need XP SP2.

The BootCamp Setup Assistant will create a Windows partition on-the-fly (w/o affecting the OS-X partition). If you want to delete the partition and regain the space for the OS-X partition, it will do that on-the-fly also.

zoran
Dec 9, 2006, 04:45 AM
I know about boot camp but whats that go to do with my topic? :)

gr8tfly
Dec 9, 2006, 04:49 AM
:confused:

I know about boot camp but whats that go to do with my topic? :)

I guess the :confused: indicated you didn't understand about boot camp?

I any event I don't believe Apple sells any systems without OS-X installed. I have heard some vendors pre-intalling Windows, but it would be using BootCamp.

I guess the Windows ONLY was why the responses about BootCamp came along.

The pricing is real: a MacPro is considerably less expensive than a comparably equipped Dell.

zoran
Dec 9, 2006, 04:52 AM
the confused icon was due to the first comment on my thread. Point is that many prefer to purchase the MacPro cause it seems cheeper than the HP and Del equivalents so many pc users get an apple and still run windows from it and not OSX!.Thats what im asking to be commented and not boot camp! ;)

Am3822
Dec 9, 2006, 04:52 AM
Anandtech's review (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816) said something to that effect, or that at was as pricey as other machines with similar specs. Mind you, prices for non-Apple hardware must've dropped since then.

Reminds me of a story I read a while back about a lab that bought a whole lot of pocket calculators because it was cheaper than buying the main chip directly from the manufacturer.

gr8tfly
Dec 9, 2006, 04:58 AM
Ive heard of clients getting a MacPro with WindowsXP only preinstalled (they asked for it this way from the reseler), and not OSX.

Folks have been trying to clarify the statement regarding "WindowsXP ONLY preinstalled". Sorry it did get past that, but that statement is in error.

Go to Dell's site and try and build something similar (you can only get close, as there are I/O not available on Dell that are on a Mac). Prices may have fallen somewhat, but the price difference wasn't slim. The last time I did it (soon after the keynote), it was many, many, hundreds of $$ more for a Dell.

And, as you know, once booted to Windows, you are only running windows. Can't even see the Mac partition.

zoran
Dec 9, 2006, 05:00 AM
why isnt it possible to have only windows installed on a MacPro? I mean without OSX?

psychofreak
Dec 9, 2006, 05:04 AM
why isnt it possible to have only windows installed on a MacPro? I mean without OSX?

It is possible, in fact, with the first vista-on-macs, the only way to put Vista on was deleting OSX, and people struggled with these problems on onmac.net, the website that started the whole boot camp malarkey.

zoran
Dec 9, 2006, 05:05 AM
not with winxp? only vista?

gr8tfly
Dec 9, 2006, 05:07 AM
It should be possible. But, I don't believe the seller is doing much more than adding WIndows as a 2nd OS. As far as I know, they can't be sold without OS-X.

edit: this reasoning is more of a marketing thing, than technical.

You have to run BootCamp Setup Assistant to get the driver CD, and to create the Windows partition. Once you're booted to Windows, you're on your own. You could remove OS-X and it's partition (using something that does it on-the-fly).

But WHY not have both available? Most people find they migrate further and further from Windows naturally, leaving on those apps that have no counterpart in Mac OS.

I see we're back on the BootCamp related topic... ;)

Sesshi
Dec 9, 2006, 06:35 AM
If you're going to need a machine in the class of the Pro / Precision 690 / xw6400 etc, it's a mistake to invest in the Mac Pro if your main use for it is Windows - it's a compromised machine for that purpose. I can't understand the logic of doing what's in the first post beyond a very expensive bragging right. No PCI slots for a start and the Mac Pro is more fragile as it were and more suited for domestic use, certainly when compared to the Dell Precision 690, and perhaps the HP xw series as well. It's the little things - like the separate cooling for more subcomponents, better motherboard, enhanced storage support, better support that you get with the competing products (and now at lower prices for some categories of buyer) over the Pro.

I use mine purely as a regular OS X desktop because I decided the 24" iMac was a bad idea. If a headless iMac was available I would definitely have gone for that instead of the Pro - and I suspect many people here also made the same decision. Apple by upselling simply got you to consider a class of machine you would probably have never considered if you were a Windows user - little wonder so many Macheads are happy with the performance of it, what you're buying is nearly a proper workstation.

EricTheRed71
Dec 9, 2006, 07:10 AM
If you're going to need a machine in the class of the Pro / Precision 690 / xw6400 etc, it's a mistake to invest in the Mac Pro if your main use for it is Windows - it's a compromised machine for that purpose. I can't understand the logic of doing what's in the first post beyond a very expensive bragging right. No PCI slots for a start and the Mac Pro is more fragile as it were and more suited for domestic use, certainly when compared to the Dell Precision 690, and perhaps the HP xw series as well. It's the little things - like the separate cooling for more subcomponents, better motherboard, enhanced storage support, better support that you get with the competing products (and now at lower prices for some categories of buyer) over the Pro.

I use mine purely as a regular OS X desktop because I decided the 24" iMac was a bad idea. If a headless iMac was available I would definitely have gone for that instead of the Pro - and I suspect many people here also made the same decision. Apple by upselling simply got you to consider a class of machine you would probably have never considered if you were a Windows user - little wonder so many Macheads are happy with the performance of it, what you're buying is nearly a proper workstation.

I think you're wrong about this.... in fact I know you are wrong about this.

A bit of history - we are a mixed Mac/PC shop with the PC side being far more heavy duty. Up till now we have always had top end workstations from Dell (650, 670, 690 etc.) or Boxxtech, maxed out with RAM etc.
We now have 4 Mac Pros all with 9GB RAM running 24/7 as fulltime Windows (x64) workstations. They are cooler, quieter, & cheaper than the same spec Dell & obviously as fast (er, it's the same components). It really makes me laugh all this talk of "compromise" etc. The Mac pro is a PC pure & simple. Just because it is sold by Apple doesn't make it any different to a Dell or a HP. The only thing different with an Apple machine is the OS.
If you want to only have Windows on your mac Pro, no problem. Remove the OSX HD, replace it with a new one & just install whatever flavour of Windows you want. Boot Camp is only needed to install Windows on the OSX HD. All of our Mac Pros have 2 HD with both OSX and x64 bootable without using Boot Camp.

Sesshi
Dec 9, 2006, 07:50 AM
Not cooler when the system is being run at reasonable capacity: The 690's run cooler in such situations because it has more direct cooling to more key subsystems. No PCI slots. No SAS support. And on the matter of support... well, NBD onsite against 'we might come and pick it up tomorrow'. Do you actually have both or are you just guessing?

zoran
Dec 9, 2006, 08:05 AM
Sesshi,
Doesnt the MacPro have PCI slots?
Whats SAS?
Whats NBD?

EricTheRed71
Dec 9, 2006, 08:19 AM
Not cooler when the system is being run at reasonable capacity: The 690's run cooler in such situations because it has more direct cooling to more key subsystems. No PCI slots. No SAS support. And on the matter of support... well, NBD onsite against 'we might come and pick it up tomorrow'. Do you actually have both or are you just guessing?

Ok, I just checked the temps of the Mac Pro against a Dell 650 & the Mac is running approx 5C higher than the Dell... so you are correct. They do have completely different internals though & a much better test would be a Dell with exactly the same CPUs etc.

What do you mean by no PCI slots? Of course standard PC hardware will not (currently) work under OSX but there is no reason why they should cause problems under Windows.

Don't need SAS & in 6 years of having Dells have never once used the NBD support. In fact when coniguring any new Dell I always turn it off first to get a better picture of the true price. I know that Apple support sucks surely that's the same for any Mac so why buy one at all?

You are wrong about price though! Just configure a Dell & you will see!

slughead
Dec 9, 2006, 09:55 AM
Apple doesn't ship any machines with XP installed, let alone installed as a primary OS.

If you want to get rid of OS X and just do XP on your machine, you'll probably need 2 hard drives for the installation process (one for windows, one for OS X, which you would remove or format later but would need to install bootcamp in the meantime).

Of course, you can't update the Mac firmware via XP, and there's a 2GB RAM cap (which is something they don't like to talk about).

So basically, you'll have a somewhat crippled machine if you choose to do XP only on a Mac.

Is it worth the extra scratch for a Dell? Probably not, unless you NEED more than 2 gigs in XP (you can keep an OS X partition around for updates).

Sesshi
Dec 9, 2006, 10:04 AM
Sesshi,
Doesnt the MacPro have PCI slots?
Whats SAS?
Whats NBD?

The Pro has PCI Express Slots. Many (in fact, almost all bar displays and certain controllers now coming onto the market) add-on PC hardware uses PCI or PCI-X, which the Pro does not provide. From the above post I can surmise that EricTheRed71 probably doesn't have access to a 690 as it's not possible for anyone with reasonable knowledge to make such an elementary mistake.

SAS storage is a high-performance storage subsystem (Serial SCSI) that is ideal for true high-performance workstations with high transactional loads which can cover intensive computational use as well as the more normal server-style database uses. This does use a PCI Express controller on the Dells.

NBD - Next Business Day.


You are wrong about price though! Just configure a Dell & you will see!

And with the number of machines you are supposed to be getting through and being such a long-time Dell user, surely you can get better than sticker price and more in my league?

zoran
Dec 9, 2006, 11:35 AM
Apple doesn't ship any machines with XP installed, let alone installed as a primary OS.
I didnt say Apple is shipping machines, but resellers do this to make it convenient from some clients, at least that what i heard, i dont know this of first hand!

Of course, you can't update the Mac firmware via XP, and there's a 2GB RAM cap (which is something they don't like to talk about).
What do u mean by a 2GB RAM cap?

So what are the other "sideffects" created by having Winxp on a MacPro? (apart from the not beeing able to install pci cards, or the cap thing which will be explained)

dusanv
Dec 9, 2006, 12:21 PM
Ive heard of clients getting a MacPro with WindowsXP only preinstalled
One word for that: travesty.

madyaks
Dec 11, 2006, 01:41 AM
If you want to only have Windows on your mac Pro, no problem. Remove the OSX HD, replace it with a new one & just install whatever flavour of Windows you want.


I have been thinking of that... With the slick SATA drive bays can't you have OSX on one drive and XP on another and simply pull out the drive you don't want to boot to?
Leave in the drive with the OS you want to use? Hell you would have the other two bays for storage drives as well.
No need to mess with Boot Camp at all.

Is there a reason this wouldn't work?

Sesshi
Dec 11, 2006, 02:29 AM
I have been thinking of that... With the slick SATA drive bays can't you have OSX on one drive and XP on another and simply pull out the drive you don't want to boot to?
Leave in the drive with the OS you want to use? Hell you would have the other two bays for storage drives as well.
No need to mess with Boot Camp at all.

Is there a reason this wouldn't work?

Premature wear. And after a while, a certain degree of hassle if you do this on a regular basis. Any internal drive caddy system is not intended for very frequent swappage.

HP have a good set-up on some desktops which is probably the best engineered for frequent removal without wearing parts - but even then it would be hassle-ish.

techster85
Dec 11, 2006, 07:42 AM
If you're going to need a machine in the class of the Pro / Precision 690 / xw6400 etc, it's a mistake to invest in the Mac Pro if your main use for it is Windows - it's a compromised machine for that purpose. I can't understand the logic of doing what's in the first post beyond a very expensive bragging right. No PCI slots for a start and the Mac Pro is more fragile as it were and more suited for domestic use, certainly when compared to the Dell Precision 690, and perhaps the HP xw series as well. It's the little things - like the separate cooling for more subcomponents, better motherboard, enhanced storage support, better support that you get with the competing products (and now at lower prices for some categories of buyer) over the Pro.

I use mine purely as a regular OS X desktop because I decided the 24" iMac was a bad idea. If a headless iMac was available I would definitely have gone for that instead of the Pro - and I suspect many people here also made the same decision. Apple by upselling simply got you to consider a class of machine you would probably have never considered if you were a Windows user - little wonder so many Macheads are happy with the performance of it, what you're buying is nearly a proper workstation.

there is a "headless imac" it's called a mac mini...haha

slughead
Dec 11, 2006, 07:44 AM
So what are the other "sideffects" created by having Winxp on a MacPro? (apart from the not beeing able to install pci cards, or the cap thing which will be explained)

Windows XP on a mac will only detect the first 2GB of RAM.

I have 3, it only detects 2.

Nobody knows why.

http://www.tenthousandpercent.com/files/2gigs_ram_105.jpg

Scarlet Fever
Dec 11, 2006, 08:06 AM
if you want to run windows permanently, i reckon get a pc. If you want to run Mac OS X, and maybe Windows occasionally, get a Mac. Simple as that.


there is a "headless imac" it's called a mac mini...haha

off the topic, but the mini doesn't have any PCI slots, a dedicated GPU, or a >2GHz CPU. It also uses notebook HDDs, which means the drives cost a lot more for a lot less capacity.

Sesshi
Dec 11, 2006, 08:36 AM
there is a "headless imac" it's called a mac mini...haha

Big deal. It's headless and gutless.

techster85
Dec 11, 2006, 09:13 AM
Big deal. It's headless and gutless.

true haha, i was more of making a joke, but i guess in my lack of sleep due to finals my comedy is off a little...

Keebler
Dec 11, 2006, 09:20 AM
whomever is doing the installation and whomever is buying these machines, without mac os on it (if they did it on purpose), should be publicly spanked to humility.

such blasphemy :)

patseguin
Dec 11, 2006, 09:46 AM
Windows XP on a mac will only detect the first 2GB of RAM.

I have 3, it only detects 2.

Nobody knows why.

http://www.tenthousandpercent.com/files/2gigs_ram_105.jpg


Windows XP can only address 2GB of RAM. It's a known fact, not a Mac limitation.

On topic, I believe the Mac Pro is a better hardware value than Dell. I was pricing out Dell Xeon's for the heck of it and didn't even see an option for Dual Xeon's. IMO, the major reason to buy a Mac is for OS X. Otherwise, go buy a Dell.

madyaks
Dec 12, 2006, 02:03 AM
Windows 2000 Memory Support. With Windows 2000 Professional and Server, the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB (identical to Windows NT 4.0, as described later in this section). However, Windows 2000 Advanced Server supports 8 GB of physical RAM and Windows 2000 Datacenter Server supports 32 GB of physical RAM using the PAE feature of the IA-32 processor family, beginning with Intel Pentium Pro and later.

Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM

LINK (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx)

patseguin
Dec 12, 2006, 07:18 AM
LINK (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx)

I stand corrected. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that XP/2000 could only address 2GB. My Mac has 4GB and XP Pro only sees 2GB of it.

EricTheRed71
Dec 12, 2006, 08:58 AM
I stand corrected. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that XP/2000 could only address 2GB. My Mac has 4GB and XP Pro only sees 2GB of it.

That's just a limitation on a Mac running Windows. Real PCs don't have this problem.
At the moment if you want to use Windows with more that 2GB of RAM then you need to use x64. I don't know what it is exactly about it that is different but it removes this limitation.

EricTheRed71
Dec 12, 2006, 09:27 AM
The Pro has PCI Express Slots. Many (in fact, almost all bar displays and certain controllers now coming onto the market) add-on PC hardware uses PCI or PCI-X, which the Pro does not provide. From the above post I can surmise that EricTheRed71 probably doesn't have access to a 690 as it's not possible for anyone with reasonable knowledge to make such an elementary mistake.

SAS storage is a high-performance storage subsystem (Serial SCSI) that is ideal for true high-performance workstations with high transactional loads which can cover intensive computational use as well as the more normal server-style database uses. This does use a PCI Express controller on the Dells.

NBD - Next Business Day.



And with the number of machines you are supposed to be getting through and being such a long-time Dell user, surely you can get better than sticker price and more in my league?

I don't pretend to be an IT bod but I do think I know a reasonable amount about computers....
I thought that PCI-E was the replacement for PCI-X? It's certainly newer technology... Fair enough if that's not the case. And you're right, I don't have a Dell 690. They were going to be the next workstations we bought but we went for the Mac Pro instead. I was just stating that we had always gone for the top end Dell that was available at the time.

Aaaaand, I never said that we went through a huge number of Dells. We have had only 12 in the last 6 years (still a decent amount) but even then have managed to get a decent deal on every one of them. The Mac still beats Dell on price (for the first time ever!).
Of course if you are talking about huge corporate orders that you are dealing with (which you imply) then surely you could negotiate a better deal with Apple too?

I'd like to know what kind of use you are talking about if you see the need for SAS. If HD video editing & 3d modelling can do without it what actually does need it? We are still talking about workstations here, not servers right?

I still think you are being too down on the Mac. For 99% of heavy users it will be fine. Ours sit here 24/7, slogging their guts out and seem well up to the job.

I won't mention your "superior" attitude.

oops

dusanv
Dec 12, 2006, 09:53 AM
That's just a limitation on a Mac running Windows. Real PCs don't have this problem.
At the moment if you want to use Windows with more that 2GB of RAM then you need to use x64.
That's utter nonsense. Just search on how to enable (http://www.macupdate.com/reviews.php?id=21237&pid=160146) the rest of the RAM in XP.

EricTheRed71
Dec 12, 2006, 10:17 AM
That's utter nonsense. Just search on how to enable (http://www.macupdate.com/reviews.php?id=21237&pid=160146) the rest of the RAM in XP.

And you've tried this have you?

I've got a feeling this chap may be using a 64 bit version of Windows Server which works the same as x64.

trainguy77
Dec 12, 2006, 05:25 PM
I know the 4gb limit is all ram like that one person said. So if you have a x1900 or multiple graphics cards it really cuts down the amount. Also this includes page files if i am not mistaken. So check the size of the page file in XP, then add that up plus your video cards, and of coarse how much ram it recognizes, this should add up to 4 gb. But I am not certain as I have never done it myself. Some people just use server 2003 to get around some of these problems but I don't know if anyone has got server 2003 running on the mac pro. I don't think it would be a problem. But who knows.

Sesshi
Dec 12, 2006, 06:01 PM
I won't mention your "superior" attitude.

oops

Thanks. I also won't mention the "stupidity" of comparing a 3-year-old workstation against a new one.

DMPDX
Dec 12, 2006, 06:49 PM
why the hell u wanna do that try boot camp method just google for it....

Waait, what? I suggest you use your eyes and actually read the actual post befoer you reply, just for future reference that is.

EricTheRed71
Dec 13, 2006, 02:52 AM
Thanks. I also won't mention the "stupidity" of comparing a 3-year-old workstation against a new one.

Who did that then? The only workstation I have that is 3 years old is an old Boxxtech AMD sat in the corner looking sad....

Erm...

Why no response to the issue of PCI-E replacing PCI/PCI-X?
Why no mention of the fact that the Dell 690 has 6 (yes, six) PCI-E slots & basically includes PCI-X to support legacy hardware?
Why no explaination of why a workstation (not a server) needs SAS?

Seeing as these are 2 of the main reasons you listed as why a Mac Pro makes a crappy x64 workstation I am genuinely interested in your answers.

How about being a bit less prickly eh mate?

Nicolasdec
Dec 13, 2006, 04:37 AM
I cant belive people are doing that they should just get a pc.

EricTheRed71
Dec 13, 2006, 05:09 AM
I cant belive people are doing that they should just get a pc.


It does seems crazy....

Why have one computer when for the price of a hard disk you can have 2???

:confused:

Eraserhead
Dec 13, 2006, 05:27 AM
That's just a limitation on a Mac running Windows. Real PCs don't have this problem.
At the moment if you want to use Windows with more that 2GB of RAM then you need to use x64. I don't know what it is exactly about it that is different but it removes this limitation.

Kinda true, XP "should" be able to see up to 4GB of RAM, but sometimes can only see 2GB or 3GB, the quote is only for XP Pro, NOT for XP Home Edition. And yes the x64 version of Windows should be able to see all the RAM on a Mac Pro.