Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Who still uses a 1,1/2,1 every day?

J

judino28

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 29, 2008
72
16
I love my 1,1/2,1. I don't use it for production or anything but do dip into hobby audio, video, and photo editing/converting.

It was originally a dual 2.66 1,1 that, over the years, I've upgraded to a 2,1 eight core 3.0 with ATI 7950, 16gb Ram, USB 3.0 card, 256gb ssd, 10k rpm velociraptor, and two other 7200rpm drives. I can triple boot into 10.11, 10.9, and Windows 7 Ultimate.

All day to day tasks are buttery smooth and I can even run many modern games under windows totally acceptably, especially considering the age of the computer. I've had this thing for over 10 years and it can still beat multicore performance of some brand new lower end macs.

I also have a maxed out 2012 2.7 i7 antiglare MacBook Pro (that I also love), which is still very officially supported, so I can still have the most modern OS and such, but I use the Mac Pro far more regularly and it's such a joy to use.

Anyone still in the same position that I'm in and still amazed that a 10 year old Mac can still easily keep up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970 and Flint Ironstag
I don't use my 1,1 on a daily basis but it does see regular use. My primary computer is a 10 year old PC (Core 2 quad) which is running strong. That PC started off running Vista and it's currently running the Fall Creator's Update of Windows 10. It's a shame Apple stopped supporting the 1,1 and 2,1 at Lion. Ironically the only current OS it cannot run is the one from the company that made it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970 and judino28
Use it most days for Indesign, Photoshop, Dreamweaver and at the moment FCPX (10.4 won't run on it though). I keep thinking I should upgrade but there's not point really. Does everything I need it too...
 
I repurposed my 1,1>2,1 (upgraded to two X5365, 32GB ram etc) as a server in my friend's design studio serving graphic files and providing other server-based services (Mail, Cal, Contacts, Web and Wiki), for 6 designers and admin staff. It might be a dinosaur but it's truly showing up it's younger siblings which were two Mac Mini Servers (4,1).

One of the Mac Minis is the primary server and it was haemorrhaging under the workload, which included file serving and two sets of backups via external USB2 hard drives and a NAS drive. It was sitting at 65% CPU almost constantly, and we were experiencing regular backup errors, file synchronising issues and Server woes (like losing all the user credentials etc).

Now the cMP 1,1>2,1 idles at no more than 20% CPU even when doing the heaviest lifting (which I know isn't much compared to video or other high CPU intensive tasks like others are using cMP for), plus with internal SATA II speeds it reads/writes so much more quickly (it took 9 hours for a backup on the Mac Mini versus 25mins on the cMP) it's like night and day in comparison.

I spend 5% of the time maintaining the cMP as I did the Mac Mini's, which equates to a huge saving on its own. Add to that it cost a third of the price of a modern Mac Mini, or 10% the cost of a nMP (which would be overkill anyway), there is no more respectable way to utilise this ironclad hardware. If it gives us another two years of service then it will have saved thousands of dollars and IT hours. The cMP is truly the best Mac ever designed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevekr, mac666er and z970
JedNZ said:
I repurposed my 1,1>2,1 (upgraded to two X5365, 32GB ram etc) as a server in my friend's design studio serving graphic files and providing other server-based services (Mail, Cal, Contacts, Web and Wiki), for 6 designers and admin staff. It might be a dinosaur but it's truly showing up it's younger siblings which were two Mac Mini Servers (4,1).

One of the Mac Minis is the primary server and it was haemorrhaging under the workload, which included file serving and two sets of backups via external USB2 hard drives and a NAS drive. It was sitting at 65% CPU almost constantly, and we were experiencing regular backup errors, file synchronising issues and Server woes (like losing all the user credentials etc).

Now the cMP 1,1>2,1 idles at no more than 20% CPU even when doing the heaviest lifting (which I know isn't much compared to video or other high CPU intensive tasks like others are using cMP for), plus with internal SATA II speeds it reads/writes so much more quickly (it took 9 hours for a backup on the Mac Mini versus 25mins on the cMP) it's like night and day in comparison.

I spend 5% of the time maintaining the cMP as I did the Mac Mini's, which equates to a huge saving on its own. Add to that it cost a third of the price of a modern Mac Mini, or 10% the cost of a nMP (which would be overkill anyway), there is no more respectable way to utilise this ironclad hardware. If it gives us another two years of service then it will have saved thousands of dollars and IT hours. The cMP is truly the best Mac ever designed.
Click to expand...
Mac Mini 4,1 uses the same level of technology as the Mac Pro 1,1. Not sure it's saying much when the Mac Pro outperforms the Mac Mini of the same technology level. One would expect it to do so.
 
Not to be argumentative, but these two computers (cMP and Mac Mini 4,1) are nowhere near the same level of technology actually. Yeah sure, the cMp is a 2006 dinosaur versus the Mac Mini 4,1's more youthful 2011 entry into this world, but that doesn't close the gap in any meaningful way.

cMP wins on CPU: The CPU difference is significantly different - one dual core (Core2Duo) Penryn 2.66GHz versus two X5365 Quad Core 3.0GHz.

cMP wins with ram: The Mac Mini has it with physical ram speed, but only has 8GB of 1066MHz versus the cMP's 16GB at 667MHz, but in this case more-at-slower beats faster-with-less for what we're using it for.

cMP wins with USB: have a PCIe USB 3.0 card with 4 ports, plus the four FW800 and five USB 2.0 standard ports in the cMP, versus Mac Mini which has one FW800 and four USB 2.0 ports. Our take-offsite backup drives are USB 3.0, so syncing our backups is hugely faster on the cMP (USB 3.0).

cMP wins with storage: 5 usable SATA II drives, plus two spare PCIe slots if we needed to install SSDs into SATA III cards, versus Mac Mini which only has two internal SATA II drives (it's the Server model).

cMP wins with graphics: cMP has a ATI Radeon Sapphire 5770 1GB in PCIe slot 1, versus the Mac Mini's NVIDIA GeForce 320M. I have headless HDMI dongles attached to the HDMI ports on the cMP and Mac Mini so I can remote access them at 1080p resolution - saves having to attach them each to a monitor.

Mac Mini wins on power consumption: cMP sucks the power grid, while the Mac Mini sniffs at it. I'm not paying the power bill!

I think you'd have to be looking at a Mac Mini 7,1 (2014) before you start to see more of an equal comparison. Benchmarks put the 8-core dual-X5365 at around 7114 versus the Mac Mini 7,1's i7 Dual Core 3.0GHz at 6753 for multi-core.
 
JedNZ said:
Not to be argumentative, but these two computers (cMP and Mac Mini 4,1) are nowhere near the same level of technology actually. Yeah sure, the cMp is a 2006 dinosaur versus the Mac Mini 4,1's more youthful 2011 entry into this world, but that doesn't close the gap in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

The processors (Penryn) used in the 4,1 Mac Mini are of the same microarchitecture, Core, as the Xeon processors (Cloverton) used in the 1,1 / 2,1 Mac Pro. Despite being four years younger than the 1,1 / 2,1 Mac Pro the 4,1 Mac Mini utilizes the same level of technology as that used by the original Intel Mac Mini released in 2006. IOW Penryn and Cloverton are of the same microarchitecture generation and have similar performance characteristics.

As the two share the same processor technology the other components in the systems are also of similar levels of technology. Given this one would expect the Mac Pro to perform better than the Mini for the reasons you outlined in your response. The Mac Pro can be configured with more processors (given the same workload is it any surprise an 8 core system sees 20% utilization compared to a 2 core systems 65% utilization?), more memory, better graphics, more disks, etc. This ignores the upgrades you appear to have added to the Mac Pro.

So, despite being four years younger, the 4,1 Mac Mini is still utilizing technology from 2006. It's no surprise a 2006 based Mac Pro can outperform a 2006 based Mac Mini.
 
I get you. And my message is I really do love having a meaningful use for the venerable cMP 1,1>2,1 . I wonder how many businesses are encouraged by their IT depts to upgrade their Mac cMP hardware when in fact it's more than adequate for a lot of purposes with a few simple hardware upgrades (USB 3.0 card, upgraded GPU, PCIe SATA III cards for SSDs etc).
 
My mother, she is a photographer and uses it all the time.
On Snow Leopard. Works flawlessly
 
Mine is used everyday, handles everything I need it to, even gaming is fair under Windows.
 
Are Mac Pros efficient enough to use as servers? I would have thought they would chew threw the old electric.
 
Simple file sharing and other basic server services doesn’t draw much power consumption, so no, they’re not hungry in that context. However, if you ramp up the CPUs and/or GPU (gaming, graphics and video rendering etc) then you can expect them to get a little hungry.

Other things can affect how much power they use:
Room temperature and/or position of cMP (airflow) which can ramp up the fans
External drives that draw power
WiFi and Bluetooth turned on but never used
 
tomscott1988 said:
Are Mac Pros efficient enough to use as servers? I would have thought they would chew threw the old electric.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you want to do with it and what power costs where you are. They do consume, relatively speaking, a lot of power so they're not very power efficient (by today's standards). However the operating costs for mine are relatively low. Not only because it sees occasional use but electricity where I live is not expensive and, assuming I used it eight hours a day, five days a week it wouldn't add significantly to my electric bill.
 
I'm in process of passing my 2,1 8 core onto my son for video rendering.
Only limitation for me was OS being limited to El Capitan
I had added USB3 and a BD burner along with usual SSD and RAM upgrades to keep it useful.
Until recently it was my main computer in daily use since I purchased new 10 years ago with a student discount.

I replaced it recently with a 12 core 5,1 bought secondhand
with enough processing power and expandability to keep my going till the next Mac Pro...
 
I still use my MP 1,1/2,1 after doing some upgrades which included new CPUs, RAM to 32GB, a few SSDs and a better GPU. Also added a second 30" ACD. A bit of a heater which was the reason to got repurposed a few years ago to a server in the living room but wanted to do the firmware change and OS change when I went shopping for a new Apple computer.
Had a bunch of problems with getting a working GPU from eBay and Amazon and still want to upgrade the 5770 to something better and possibly change the CPUs (X5355) again to something in the 3GHz range.
Overall, still a great machine and until Apple puts out a modular MP again I'm sticking to this one.
 
I still use my MacPro 1,1 from 2006. 11 years! El Capitan, 16GB RAM, ATI 7950, with a LG 34UC97-S (3440x1440!) and still working and gaming :) OK, WoW looks like 2006 too, but runs well ;)
 
Just a little relevant/fun follow up, especially in light of Kompost's comment regarding gaming.

I thought, since Star Wars Battlefront II is currently on sale on Origin, I would see how it ran under Windows 7 Ultimate Bootcamp, and, if it wasn't playable, I would just request a refund within 24 hours.

Amazingly, the game is completely stable and playable! I've put in a few hours in various game modes on high settings and I get a stable 35-45fps! There have been a few times, due to demanding environments or play modes, where I've had to dial it down to medium, but even then, it is still a beautiful game.

I find it incredible that I'm playing a brand new AAA game on over 10 year old hardware at all, not to mention on high settings most of the time! Such an amazing machine with just a few simple upgrades (ok, I guess the processor upgrade wasn't THAT simple, but it was totally doable with time and patience, and definitely worth it).
 
I just picked up a 1,1 running el cap and find it to be very snappy & fun cheese grater in comparison to my ppc boxes.
1-1desktop.jpg

Not a bad intel box at all. I can see why folks like these. This box will chew right through any DD tasks I throw at it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightBulbFun and z970
Finally retired it today (still going to keep it around, but won't be main machine). John Lewis (UK retailer) had crazy boxing day sale on 6,1, too good to miss. Still felt a little silly when I set up the 1,1 to backup today as was running so good. But need FCPX to be up to date for work...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back