More Options for 128 GB Mac Pro RAM Upgrades Now Available

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Mar 26, 2014.

  1. JulesK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    #26
    The first HD I as able to use was 5MB, on a MS-DOS based TI computer that, at the time, was a viable MS-DOS alternative to the IBM PC. (The HD alone was $1,500, and that was maybe 30 years ago!) Needless to say, we did not choose well, and that HD is long gone.
     
  2. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #27
    Just wondering how much a 128GB RAM upgrade would cost if it was a BTO option from Apple :eek:
     
  3. Chupa Chupa macrumors G5

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #28
    1 million.... err.... 100 billion dollars.
     
  4. kd5jos macrumors 6502

    kd5jos

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #29
    Well now that depends. Are you talking about a computer like the ADAM home computer, or more like an IBM PC 8086 (that had a tape deck port)?

    ----------

    An old MFM HD? I had a hard card that I placed in an IDE slot in a Leading Edge 8086. I can't remember if it was 5 megs, or 10....
     
  5. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #30
    My first computer didn't have a drive at all. If I wanted to run a program, I first typed in all the code from some printed source such as Byte magazine, did troubleshooting to fix all the typos, and then ran it. If someone then turned off the computer, it was gone.

    My second computer, thankfully, had a cassette tape drive so I could save programs that I typed into the computer. It's capacity was 100kB per side.

    Good times.
     
  6. avanpelt macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #31
    People have been saying that exact same statement for decades. Yet, people's expectations of computers evolve and software has to be written to meet those expectations. Inevitably, software that's written ten years from now will require more processing power and RAM than the software we have today.
     
  7. ptb42 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    #32
    Yeah, I remember that TI computer. It wasn't quite compatible with the IBM PC, so you generally had to buy software specifically for it. I considered it, but then Compaq came out with what was dubbed a 99-44/100% compatible clone (a reference to the purity of Ivory soap).

    Compaq was the first to develop a "clean", but compatible BIOS without referring to IBM documentation: the developers were isolated from testers, who would tell them whether their BIOS matched the behavior of the IBM BIOS -- and they iterated until the Compaq could run MS-DOS applications for the IBM PC. So, they didn't have to license an IBM BIOS from IBM.

    Compaq invested in a new company (Conner Peripherals, after merging with CoData), who developed what I believe was the first 3-1/2 drive. It was 10MB, and that's what was put in the first Compaq luggable PC-XT clone. It was shock-mounted with huge rubber bumpers, inside a metal frame that was the same size as a 5-1/4 drive.

    The price for the Compaq hard drive upgrade was about $1,500 as well -- which included the controller card that filled a full ISA bus slot. $1,500 in 1983 is worth about $3,600 today:

    http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

    My Compaq luggable is in storage. I haven't turned it on for a few years, but the last time it powered up to the C:\> prompt.
     
  8. usarioclave macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2003
    #33
    My first Apple ][ came with Lemonade on a cassette.
     
  9. Nicky G macrumors 6502a

    Nicky G

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Location:
    Baltimore & NYC
    #34
    Mine was 42MB in an Olivetti 286 16MHz with I believe 1MB of RAM. That box was sweet, because those extra 2 usable MB actually meant something, and most 286s were 16MHz. That wasn't my first computer, but it was the first one I went online with in the first few years of the 1990s. Woot. :)
     
  10. ZOZO139434371, Mar 26, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014

    ZOZO139434371 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2014
    #35
    The Mac Classic I have in my room maxed out at 4MB of ram. I don't know how much is inside it, but not more than that presumably. :p

    p.s. People here seem to be confusing RAM and hard drive space. Get it straight people! We're talking RAM here!
     
  11. jdiamond macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    #36
     
  12. unplugme71 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Location:
    Earth
    #37
    Mine was in the MB.. can't remember how much. When GB drives came out I was like wtf for? I'll never fill it up with my docs. HAHAHAHAA

    Now I have over 23TB of data.
     
  13. vmistery macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #38
    I'll only have 128 gb in my production MS sqlserver box!
     
  14. jm001 macrumors 6502a

    jm001

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    #39
    LOL! "Never need that much RAM..." That's what we thought when we were using 128KB machines like the //c and then we thought the same thing when the IIsi came out with it's 64MB capability. We always think wow we wont need any more thsi or that but somehow we always manage to push things to their limits.
     
  15. ZOZO139434371 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2014
    #40
    Imagine how much RAM holographic gaming would take up. I suspect that someday we'll truly run out of practical applications for more RAM, but we're certainly not there yet!
     
  16. prowlmedia Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Location:
    London
    #41
    The upgrade prices are not actually bad at all the new Mac Pro becomes more competitive the more you add. The base models at 3 and 4k dollars are expensive but when you add the best graphic options and ram they compete and in some cases blow away the PC competition. Even the 3k version beats mos pcs at 4k video
     
  17. MagnusVonMagnum macrumors 603

    MagnusVonMagnum

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #42
    I wouldn't say never. Most probably never thought they'd need more than 18 Megabytes of ram in an Amiga back in the early '90s (i.e. max amount an A3000 could add without expansion). Well, technology and 3D virtual realities are just going to keep moving upward and soon (within 10-15 years), 128GB of ram will seem like a piddly nothing in a machine that is 300x faster with graphics capable of rendering real-life quality 3D. Most of the people NOW that need that kind of memory are either doing 3D or real-time video editing.

    And this idea that the Mac Pro is a "Pro" machine and doesn't belong in the home is onerous. In the mid-90s, it was COMMON for a decent home computer to cost $2500-3000. People are spoiled by low-priced crap these days. Yeah, you could still get an Amiga 500 in the mid-90s for around $400-500. So what? A fast machine cost more like $3000+. The same is true today. You want 12 cores? You have to pay for them. Whether you "need" them is neither here nor there. Some people simply like to have fast things (whether cars or computers, what's the difference?) regardless if they use them to maximum capability.
     
  18. drsox, Mar 26, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2014

    drsox macrumors 65816

    drsox

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Location:
    Xhystos
    #43
    Atari 400. Programmes in BASIC. 1980

    CPU: MOS 6502,1.8MHz
    RAM: 8K base, 48K max
    Storage: external floppy drive
    cassette recorder
    OS: Atari OS

    Then a 1980 upgrade to an Atari 800 - much better ! http://oldcomputers.net/atari800.html
     
  19. mabhatter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    #44
    Video editing and number crunchin like 3-d modeling or CAD can take as much as you got to give it. Once you page to disk things take 100x as long due to processing files in parts. Remember this thing is intended to do higher than 4k cinema processing in close to real time.

    ----------

    We need enough ram to model the university so we can prove its modeling us!
     
  20. mdelvecchio macrumors 68040

    mdelvecchio

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #45
    nobody can tell you that. it's entirely dependent on what you do w/ the gear. my previous iMac served me for 6 years, as has my current macbook pro. to me, upgrading machines every other year sounds crazy.


     
  21. parish macrumors 65816

    parish

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Location:
    Wilts., UK
    #46
    RAM amounts will continue to grow as long as Moore's Law holds true. By 2020 you'll like as not be able to build a computer with a terabyte of RAM !!
     
  22. gatortpk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    #47
    I have 32 GB of RAM in my late 2009 27 inch iMac, and I'm using 25.8 GB at the moment. I'm not using any memory intensive applications either (other than Safari, but it can do with less). It's just nice not to worry about touching Swap memory. Now, that Mavericks can compress memory, I rarely see that happening as well.

    The more memory you have, the more OS X will use, and this easily applies to over 16 GB, even if 4-8 GB would have worked ok. Everything just runs a little faster when OS X doesn't have to manage or juggle memory for limited space.
     
  23. WestonHarvey1 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #48
    Mine was 5 MB.
     
  24. OWC Larry macrumors member

    OWC Larry

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Woodstock, IL
    #49
    My first computer as well.. no floppy drive, cassette (and cartridge slot) only. :)

    All Apple after that though.... But fluke event that came to have the Atari and things would be very different had that fluke not occurred including less likelihood what all came next.

    Anyway - so much capability in today's technology that allows so much bloat to be gotten away with.

     
  25. hamis92 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Location:
    Finland
    #50
    I'm typing this on a 6-year-old MacBook Pro that is in nice shape, works perfectly and runs the latest Apple software and other things I want to do with it – no particular reason to upgrade right now.

    I would be surprised if one couldn't get at least that many years out of a desktop Mac that's of a totally different calibre.

    And yeah, count me also into those people who think getting a new computer every two years is crazy.
     

Share This Page