http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/26/1739200
Price comparisons with Mac Pros also imminent
Price comparisons with Mac Pros also imminent
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dell Nehalem Workstations Imminent (with up to 192GB of RAM)
- Thread starter Infrared
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anyone got a map for all the wires inside?
I like the blue wires in the upper right corner that appear to be crossing over a member. Classy.
Yeah, DOS 5.
As for the cables, I never cared really about it. I don't do neon lights, or windows, on my computer. For that matter, I never did a huge wing or fart cannon muffler on my car either. I just use the things.
If you order a 64bit OS, then YES.
Actually, if it's Vista 64, then NO! Maybe a distro of Linux, but not Windows.
It's physical RAM limit is 128GB ... and only if you are running Enterprise, Business, or Ultimate.
Link
Microsoft can't agree with itself:
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/64bit.mspx
Says 128+ GB there. Oh well, someone buy 192GB of RAM and let us know if it works out.
Some variants of Vista support up to 128GB. With Server 2003
or Server 2008 you can have up to 2TB. Again, some variants.
Previously Dell have offered Vista. It likely wouldn't be too much
trouble to put a server OS on later, though. Lots of businesses
have their own OS install images in any case.
Would be interesting to know what is Leopard's RAM limit.
I wasn't referring specifically to Vista 64, but last I looked, I found the UK link (below), and took it to be the physical limit at the time.
Like you, I'd trust the MSDN source over anything, so forget the +. I was definitely thinking about Linux distros when I posted.
MS's other products, the 64bit EnterpriseDatacenter versions of Server 2003 on can go up to 2TB.
Not really meant for home users, but... LOL.hackintosh? hehe.
Possible though. This was the link I was thinking of when I posted.
Like you, I'd trust the MSDN source over anything
This was the link I was thinking of when I posted.
128+ GB doesn't make much sense as a "maximum memory capacity".
[Emphasis mine]
128+ GB isn't a maximum at all. It's unbounded. That's another
reason for considering the '+' to be dubious.
