The computer and electronics super geek thread

[mikeszekely]

Using Windows 7 now, i liked it! Had some problems with the sound, i can't manage all the settings the way i did in XP. At foobar setting the output at KS or ASIO, the CMSS3d or Crystalizer won't affect the sound.

Couldn't run some apps that were made for windows 98, and it is eating at least more 350 mb of ram when compared to XP.

But all the newer features are nice. I skiped vista so i don't know if they were already at vista.

I just installed the final RTM version of Windows 7 Professional. Aside from the fact that it says "Professional" instead of "Ultimate," and aside from the lack of a build number watermark, I'm not really noticing a huge difference between it and RC1. Despite the fact that it's not really different than RC1, I think it's a step in the right direction for Microsoft, and I'd honestly encourage everyone to move to it. It's enough of an upgrade from Vista to be worth it, and it fixes enough of Vista's problems (real and imagined) to please the XP hold outs.

I also just finished installing Snow Leopard on my MacBook. The MacBook is one of the original Core Duo (y'know, before they added the 2 between "Core" and "Duo") units so I don't use it much anymore, so I'm not sure how much difference I'll notice. Leopard was a big improvement from Tiger, but so far Snow Leopard seems pretty much the same as Leopard. I guess I'll notice more as I use it. Unless you have a lot of apps you know aren't compatible with Snow Leopard, or unless you're still rocking a Power PC Mac, I guess you might as well still upgrade to Snow Leopard. It's only $29, and although I used it as an upgrade from Leopard, I'm told it installs fine over Tiger.

[CoryHolmes]

Techie question. I'm looking for a small laser/LED to write some words on a sheet of paper with. Not burn into a piece of wood or anything, I just want to display letters and numbers. Any idea as to what sorts of gizmos I should be looking for?

[azrael]

I also just finished installing Snow Leopard on my MacBook. The MacBook is one of the original Core Duo (y'know, before they added the 2 between "Core" and "Duo") units so I don't use it much anymore, so I'm not sure how much difference I'll notice. Leopard was a big improvement from Tiger, but so far Snow Leopard seems pretty much the same as Leopard. I guess I'll notice more as I use it. Unless you have a lot of apps you know aren't compatible with Snow Leopard, or unless you're still rocking a Power PC Mac, I guess you might as well still upgrade to Snow Leopard. It's only $29, and although I used it as an upgrade from Leopard, I'm told it installs fine over Tiger.

Visually, Snow Leopard is about the same as Leopard. Most of the work to Snow Leopard was under-the-hood. Much of the code has been optimized for Snow Leopard. They no longer support PowerPCs. They've also removed a lot of legacy support for various devices. Because they've removed things, optimized a few others, you should see more space on your hard drive after installing 10.6. However, your mileage may vary.

If you want to switch to 64-bit, hold down the "6" and "4" keys while booting.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3773

[mikeszekely]

If you want to switch to 64-bit, hold down the "6" and "4" keys while booting.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3773

I think that's just for OS X Server. If what I've been reading is correct, the regular $29 version is a push toward 64-bit only, which was the cause of most software incompatibilities.

I just checked a few things, like if I had any incompatible apps, then shut it down. The MacBook was great when I had a job working open to close at the mall in a store that had a wi-fi connection, and all I was using it for was to browse the net, watch videos, and read comic books, before I was really into PC gaming. I do game now, though, and I don't work at the mall anymore, so I do 99.9% of my computing on my self-built desktop, and I gotta run Windows on it.

I will say this much. While Windows 7 is the best Windows to come around in ages, and while everyone will use Windows because that's what comes on their computer when they buy it, or because they game, or whatever, I do think OS X is probably the best OS around for just screwing around on the internet or popping on a video. To that end, I really wish Apple would release a 10" MacBook, sans DVD drive, for maybe a third of what the current cheapest MacBook's going for. Windows might be the best choice for my gaming rig, but OS X is perfect for netbooks.

[VF-19]

I think that's just for OS X Server. If what I've been reading is correct, the regular $29 version is a push toward 64-bit only, which was the cause of most software incompatibilities.

I just checked a few things, like if I had any incompatible apps, then shut it down. The MacBook was great when I had a job working open to close at the mall in a store that had a wi-fi connection, and all I was using it for was to browse the net, watch videos, and read comic books, before I was really into PC gaming. I do game now, though, and I don't work at the mall anymore, so I do 99.9% of my computing on my self-built desktop, and I gotta run Windows on it.

I will say this much. While Windows 7 is the best Windows to come around in ages, and while everyone will use Windows because that's what comes on their computer when they buy it, or because they game, or whatever, I do think OS X is probably the best OS around for just screwing around on the internet or popping on a video. To that end, I really wish Apple would release a 10" MacBook, sans DVD drive, for maybe a third of what the current cheapest MacBook's going for. Windows might be the best choice for my gaming rig, but OS X is perfect for netbooks.

Finally got around to installing Windows 7 on my home theater PC (woo!). I must say, come October, the main computer is getting 7 and the HTPC is getting Xp.

[shiroikaze]

A couple questions guys,

I have a P4 w/ Hyper-Threading, so of course Windows sees my CPU as two cores instead of one. So my question is will I get any benefit enabling multi-core support in some programs? Like for examples, the PS3 Media Server and Source games like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead?

Also,

I have a Dell laptop with the specs:

1.6 Ghz Core Duo (T2050)

2 GB DDR2-5400 (dunno what timings at the moment)

160 GB 5400 Hard Drive

ATI Radeon Mobility X1400 (256MB)

Win XP SP2

Now for some odd reason, whether I visit a site that uses flash or when I do something a bit more intensive like viewing 720p movies or play games, my entire computer seizes up after some time and becomes unresponsive for like 5-10 minutes before returning back to normal.

Reformatted too, and it still happens.

Closed TrendMicro and other non-essential processes, no dice.

Closed Explorer and started up Team Fortress 2 or Warcraft III, I'll still run into the problem at some point.

Whether or not I have one tab open or 30 tabs open, if I run Flash or HD stuff, I'll have enough time to make myself some tea and come back when the problem hits.

I put my finger on the CPU being the culprit, but anybody have a clue to why this happens and if there are any solutions to this?

[azrael]

A couple questions guys,

I have a P4 w/ Hyper-Threading, so of course Windows sees my CPU as two cores instead of one. So my question is will I get any benefit enabling multi-core support in some programs? Like for examples, the PS3 Media Server and Source games like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead?

TF2 and L4D do have multi-core support. Be sure to patch them and enable multi-core support in the game. Many newer versions of many programs are adding in multi-core support so you may wish to look for updated version of your programs.

Also,

I have a Dell laptop with the specs:

1.6 Ghz Core Duo (T2050)

2 GB DDR2-5400 (dunno what timings at the moment)

160 GB 5400 Hard Drive

ATI Radeon Mobility X1400 (256MB)

Win XP SP2

Now for some odd reason, whether I visit a site that uses flash or when I do something a bit more intensive like viewing 720p movies or play games, my entire computer seizes up after some time and becomes unresponsive for like 5-10 minutes before returning back to normal.

Reformatted too, and it still happens.

Closed TrendMicro and other non-essential processes, no dice.

Closed Explorer and started up Team Fortress 2 or Warcraft III, I'll still run into the problem at some point.

Whether or not I have one tab open or 30 tabs open, if I run Flash or HD stuff, I'll have enough time to make myself some tea and come back when the problem hits.

I put my finger on the CPU being the culprit, but anybody have a clue to why this happens and if there are any solutions to this?

Did you try updating your drivers?

[shiroikaze]

TF2 and L4D do have multi-core support. Be sure to patch them and enable multi-core support in the game. Many newer versions of many programs are adding in multi-core support so you may wish to look for updated version of your programs.

So, a single-core with hyper-threading can actually take advantage of the multi-core option?

Did you try updating your drivers?

Ahah, drivers from the Dell site are like several years old, I'm stuck with those really. =\

[azrael]

So, a single-core with hyper-threading can actually take advantage of the multi-core option?

Yes...so to speak. However, whatever gains you make with hyper threading, will be lost when you take a performance hit using HT on a P4. But this is only with a P4. You're emulating 2 cores on a single core system.

[shiroikaze]

Yes...so to speak. However, whatever gains you make with hyper threading, will be lost when you take a performance hit using HT on a P4. But this is only with a P4. You're emulating 2 cores on a single core system.

So kinda pointless if the performance I get isn't enough... I guess I'll give it a try and see. Thanks Azrael.

[edit]I found something interesting while searching,

http://www.dailytech.com/Windows+7+to+Offe...rticle15150.htm

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=100814725

Edited August 31, 2009 by shiroikaze

[grss1982]

I just installed the final RTM version of Windows 7 Professional. Aside from the fact that it says "Professional" instead of "Ultimate," and aside from the lack of a build number watermark, I'm not really noticing a huge difference between it and RC1. Despite the fact that it's not really different than RC1, I think it's a step in the right direction for Microsoft, and I'd honestly encourage everyone to move to it. It's enough of an upgrade from Vista to be worth it, and it fixes enough of Vista's problems (real and imagined) to please the XP hold outs.

snip....

What a coincidence!!! I just installed build 7600 (32-bit) over the weekend (yeah I'm an XP hold out ) and HOLY SH*T this thing installs fast!!!! From pressing the power button all the way to the desktop it took me about 20 to 25 minutes, AND this was on the following system:

P4 2.6Ghz with HT

Intel 865GBF Mobo

1GB DDR400 (2x512)

64MB Radeon 9000 Pro

160GB Samsung IDE Hard Drive

Realtek 8139 NIC

CMI 8738 Sound Card

Sadly though no drivers for the Video card. Sound did not work out of the box, but using drivers from here: http://code.google.com/p/cmediadrivers/, I was able to get the sound card to work.

Today, I manged to install it on a much beefier system, and for lack of a better explanation, when I'm using 7, it feels like XP under the hood with the Vista eye-candy. The beefier system BTW: Intel C2D E6420@2.13 Ghz| Gigabyte G31M-S2C| 512MB DDR3 PC HD4670 PCS | 2x1GB DDR2-533Mhz Corsair Value| W.D. 80GB SATA| W.D. 250GB SATA| LG CD-RW/DVD-ROM| DELL M770| SilverStone ST400

I was able to install the ATI Win7/Vista drivers although before that Windows' Defaut drivers worked fine.

Some programs I installed were:

Firefox 3.5.2

Foxit Redaer Version 2.3

Adobe Flash Player

Yahoo Messenger 9.0.0.2161

Far Cry 2 (DX10)

VLC 1.0.1

SMPlayer 0.6.8

Edited August 31, 2009 by grss1982

[kensei]

Just hav ea new problem now with my new rig. In really trying to pimp it out, I've bought a Zalman MFC-2 Fan Speed Controller. The noise that it makes tends to do my head in at times. I bought one, but apparently there is a problem. The cables that come with it are so:

Fan Cables : 3-Pin 1EA, 4-Pin 1EA, Y-Cable 1EA, C3 Cable 1EA

or some such. THe ones that exist in my Thermaltake Armour+ Case are Molex connectors. Is there any chance that there exist a wire that can connect to both the controller and my fans or is it a lost cause?

Edited September 2, 2009 by kensei

[Valkyrie addict]

Hi

question, I just got a PCI-E vidcard that requires a power connector cable like this

I know the 6 pin goes in the vidcard, where does the other end goes in the motherboard?? I'm really really bad and know almost nothing about mobo terminology, so if you could be as specific as possible

Edited September 3, 2009 by Valkyrie addict

[azrael]

question, I just got a PCI-E vidcard that requires a power connector cable like this

I know the 6 pin goes in the vidcard, where does the other end goes in the motherboard?? I'm really really bad and know almost nothing about mobo terminology, so if you could be as specific as possible

Find a power connector coming from the power supply unit that looks like this:

Plug that into other end.

[mikeszekely]

where does the other end goes in the motherboard??

To supplement what Az said, it doesn't plug into the motherboard. The PCIe slot you plugged the card into is the only connection to the motherboard. What the card needs is power. You can do like Az said and look for a pair cables coming out of the power supply that would mate with your cable (it's the same kind of power cable that plugs into IDE drives).

It's worth noting that the cable in your picture is actually an adapter, though. If you have a modern power supply, you might just want to see if it has a plug that can go directly into the video card (it'd look like the six-pronged end of your adapter).

[mikeszekely]

Just hav ea new problem now with my new rig. In really trying to pimp it out, I've bought a Zalman MFC-2 Fan Speed Controller. The noise that it makes tends to do my head in at times. I bought one, but apparently there is a problem. The cables that come with it are so:

Fan Cables : 3-Pin 1EA, 4-Pin 1EA, Y-Cable 1EA, C3 Cable 1EA

or some such. THe ones that exist in my Thermaltake Armour+ Case are Molex connectors. Is there any chance that there exist a wire that can connect to both the controller and my fans or is it a lost cause?

Your case? You mean your case fans use Molex connectors? As far as I know that unit doesn't support fans that use Molex connectors.

I'm pretty sure they have cables that go the other way... that is, you have a 3-pin fan cable and you want to plug it into a Molex connector. I don't know if they make cables that do you what you want (of if, assuming they did, it'd work with your fan controller). You might be better off replacing your case fans.

[Valkyrie addict]

thanks guys, I got the Y adapter cable and hook it up where Azrael pointed me to, everything working like charm

[kensei]

Your case? You mean your case fans use Molex connectors? As far as I know that unit doesn't support fans that use Molex connectors.

I'm pretty sure they have cables that go the other way... that is, you have a 3-pin fan cable and you want to plug it into a Molex connector. I don't know if they make cables that do you what you want (of if, assuming they did, it'd work with your fan controller). You might be better off replacing your case fans.

Is that unusual for a case fan to have Molex connectors? A few techies have been surprised with that. Apparently I can't use the adaptor, the details escape me, but apparently I'd fry my expensive motherboard.

If of your opinion, the 3 pin is better, I wouldn't mind replacing all my fans. When i got my computer back after they failed to hook up the fan controller, the guy forgot to plug in the fan at the back of the case, luckily the side fan of the Thermaltake Armour+ is friggen huge, and the V10 CoolerMaster is strong enough to support it.

Looking at the fans on my case, here is the specs:

Cooling System

- Front (intake) :

140 x 140 x 25mm blue LED fan, 1000rpm, 16dBA or

120 x 120 x 25mm fan

- Rear (exhaust) :

120 x 120 x25 mm TurboFan, 1300rpm, 17dBA

- Side (intake) :

230 x 230 x 20mm blue LED fan, 800rpm, 15dBA

- Bottom (intake) :

Two 140 x 140 mm fans (optional) or

Two 120 x 120mm fans (optional)

- VGA (intake) :

140 x 140 x 25mm fan (optional) or

120 x 120 x 25mm fan (optional)

I'm going to look at the Coolermaster brand for the fans, I think my Turbofan at the back is still Molex. Dammit.

Edited September 4, 2009 by kensei

[mikeszekely]

Is that unusual for a case fan to have Molex connectors? A few techies have been surprised with that. Apparently I can't use the adaptor, the details escape me, but apparently I'd fry my expensive motherboard.

If of your opinion, the 3 pin is better, I wouldn't mind replacing all my fans. When i got my computer back after they failed to hook up the fan controller, the guy forgot to plug in the fan at the back of the case, luckily the side fan of the Thermaltake Armour+ is friggen huge, and the V10 CoolerMaster is strong enough to support it.

Looking at the fans on my case, here is the specs:

Cooling System

- Front (intake) :

140 x 140 x 25mm blue LED fan, 1000rpm, 16dBA or

120 x 120 x 25mm fan

- Rear (exhaust) :

120 x 120 x25 mm TurboFan, 1300rpm, 17dBA

- Side (intake) :

230 x 230 x 20mm blue LED fan, 800rpm, 15dBA

- Bottom (intake) :

Two 140 x 140 mm fans (optional) or

Two 120 x 120mm fans (optional)

- VGA (intake) :

140 x 140 x 25mm fan (optional) or

120 x 120 x 25mm fan (optional)

I'm going to look at the Coolermaster brand for the fans, I think my Turbofan at the back is still Molex. Dammit.

I wouldn't say that it's so unusual that I've never seen it, but they're definitely a minority.

I looked at a few other fan controllers, and I'd definitely say the if you want a fan controller in your box, you're definitely going to have to replace a few fans. I'm not sure how many fans your controller supports, but I'd focus on the the 120mm case fans first, maybe the 140mm. Skip the VGA fans (you can control them manually with something like Riva Tuner if you really want). I'd leave the 230mm fan alone too, just let it do it's low RPM thing.

[kensei]

I wouldn't say that it's so unusual that I've never seen it, but they're definitely a minority.

I looked at a few other fan controllers, and I'd definitely say the if you want a fan controller in your box, you're definitely going to have to replace a few fans. I'm not sure how many fans your controller supports, but I'd focus on the the 120mm case fans first, maybe the 140mm. Skip the VGA fans (you can control them manually with something like Riva Tuner if you really want). I'd leave the 230mm fan alone too, just let it do it's low RPM thing.

Bad choice of case then i guess. I can replace all of the fans basically with CoolerMaster Megaflow and Sickle fans.

This is the place at the moment:

http://www.coolermaster.com/product.php?product_id=4395 for the 140mm Fan

http://www.coolermaster.com/product.php?product_id=6037 for the 120mm Fan

Now that side fan I still want to change, cause it is a pain in the arse making all that noise. I'm certain of it. I think that also the GTX295s might be cause a bit of noise too.

The biggest from Coolermaster is this in the 3-pin:

http://www.coolermaster.com/product.php?product_id=6474

That's 3 cm smaller than the usual. Is that still alright though? I logically can only see a problem if it was bigger, but not smaller.

[Valkyrie addict]

woa!!, that converstaion is way beyond my understanding, hahaha

got another questions, what type of new CPU's are available that will fit a AM2 socket now

I have an old ass Acer Aspire that I wish to upgrade, it has an Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 5600+ 2.8Ghz, the only superior processor I've found is the 6000+ 3.0Ghz, any idea what kind of new processor might fit the type of socket?? just in case, it has a AMD690V motherboard

I know, it's a crappy computer and it would be better off to just get a new case with a good motherboard, but humor me here

[azrael]

got another questions, what type of new CPU's are available that will fit a AM2 socket now

I have an old ass Acer Aspire that I wish to upgrade, it has an Athlon 64 x2 Dual Core 5600+ 2.8Ghz, the only superior processor I've found is the 6000+ 3.0Ghz, any idea what kind of new processor might fit the type of socket?? just in case, it has a AMD690V motherboard

This is the best your board can use:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16819103471

Bear in mind that

A) Your motherboard may not support this processor. Check with the manufacturer (in your case, Acer) if they have a new BIOS out which can support this processor. If they do not have one or one that supports Socket AM2+, you will not be able to use it.

B) You will not be able to take advantage of HyperTransport 3.0. Additionally, because your motherboard is an AM2-specification, it will be limited to features used in the AM2-specification (1 GHz HyperTransport 2.0, and one power plane for both cores and the IMC).

[Agent-GHQ]

Does anyone own a Mac Pro? I'm seriously considering dropping about $5,000- for one. What are your thoughts on Mac Pro? Yes, give me the goods and the bads of it! Feel free to discuss the significants or what makes it stands out versus PCs.

Thanks in advance all!

[VF-19]

Does anyone own a Mac Pro? I'm seriously considering dropping about $5,000- for one. What are your thoughts on Mac Pro? Yes, give me the goods and the bads of it! Feel free to discuss the significants or what makes it stands out versus PCs.

Thanks in advance all!

Not trying to be a snob, but why do you want a Mac Pro? Is there a specific reason why you need it?

[Agent-GHQ]

I noticed the great depth in graphics and a different feel when I actually played around with it. I also learned that hte parts used are much more expensive than PCs components. To me it looks and feel very contemporary and futuristics.... And the performance is quite impressive!!

[myk]

Windows. That's all the reason you need to buy a 'Mac...

[lechuck]

A Windows PC can only ever be as good as its user...

[kensei]

A Windows PC can only ever be as good as its user...

Agreed, but that goes for any computer really. Horses for courses mate.

[mikeszekely]

Does anyone own a Mac Pro? I'm seriously considering dropping about $5,000- for one. What are your thoughts on Mac Pro? Yes, give me the goods and the bads of it! Feel free to discuss the significants or what makes it stands out versus PCs.

Thanks in advance all!

If you do a lot of photo, video, or graphics editing, and you've got the money to burn, then it might be worth it. The Mac Pro is usually the preferred machine for professionals in those fields. I read an article once where the author was trying to debunk the "Apple Tax" myth by comparing a Mac Pro to a similarly specced Dell. I don't think he debunked the Apple Tax myth so much as demonstrated that it evens out on higher-end equipment, since it is pretty much a given that you can buy a Windows laptop for half the price of the cheapest MacBook, but I digress...

If you're going to use the computer mainly for surfing the net, watching videos and making documents with Office/OpenOffice, there's really no need to drop that kind of money, as the Mac Pro becomes overkill. Get a iMac or even a Mac Mini, and upgrade the RAM later on your own. You'll save a ton of money by giving up performance you really don't need (in this scenario).

If you play a lot of computer games, just stick to a Windows computer. The most powerful and expensive component in the Mac Pro is the processor, and that's because it's using a high-end $1000 server CPU. You can get a Core i7 with the same chip architecture, same clock speed, and same number of cores for under $300. For gaming, it's more important to have a good graphics card anyway, and the Mac Pro's GT 120 is a step down from from the GTX 2xx line, or ATI's Radeon HD 48xx cards. In general, the Mac versions of games come out a year later (if at all, although a few companies release Mac versions around the same time as the Windows versions), and cling to a $50 price tag long after the Windows versions are down to $20.

I noticed the great depth in graphics and a different feel when I actually played around with it.

Could you clarify that statement? I mean, yeah, Macs in general do have a very different feel than Windows computers. Some people prefer it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, but I think OS X is a great operating system for people who just want to do stuff in Office, surf the net, and store their iTunes collection, and I think it'd be a great OS for netbooks for that reason. But it's a lousy OS for gaming.

As far as the graphics thing, though, what exactly were you doing? Mac apps have a unique style to them, sure, and Leopard & Snow Leopard are kind of slick-looking operating systems, but Macs are actually nothing special in the graphics hardware department. Like I've already said, the default graphics card for the Mac Pro, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 150, is actually a step down from the GeForce GTX 2 series or ATI's Radeon HD 48xx cards. The iMacs and Mac Mini, IIRC, use the mobile versions of the GeForce 9 series, which aren't necessarily bad, but again not really competing with modern dedicated graphics cards. In any case, if you were really impressed by the visuals of the Mac Pro over the iMac, especially if you were just screwing around and not actually doing anything graphically intensive with the Mac Pro at the store, it might be the display it's connected to and not the computer itself that's really wowing you.

Lastly, before you drop a ton of money on a Mac Pro, why don't you check out Lifehacker's Guide to building a Hackintosh? The author built one for around $900 in the example, and any of the parts could be upgraded to more powerful ones if you feel like spending more money. He also claims that he's been using Hackintosh computers as his main computers for two years. It could be a great way to save money while getting a powerful Mac, and if it turns out you don't like using Mac OS you can still go back to Windows with that hardware.

One final, quick note before the Mac Vs. Windows thing turns into a royal flame war... I have a MacBook that I just installed Snow Leopard on for a laptop and a Windows 7 desktop. I've also been saving my old parts when I upgrade my desktop, and eventually those older parts are going to get reassembled into a computer destined to run Kubuntu Linux, so I'm pretty impartial to operating systems. Like I said earlier, I think OS X is a great OS for day-to-day net surfing and what not, but I'll freely admit I use my Windows desktop more, if only because I do play a lot of PC games.

[azrael]

Gonna have to agree with mikeszekely. Unless you plan on doing graphics work (Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, Animation rendering) or any kind of multimedia work, a Mac Pro is a bit over priced. What do you plan on doing with it that requires that much power in a desktop computer?

[Agent-GHQ]

I plan to built a nuclear reactor using the MacPro! lol

I love high-end machines, period!! I really wanted it for multi-media purposes and for all general functionality that is up-to-date. I'm also a sucker for its asthetics as well. The MacPro design is definitely to my likings. Anyways, thanks for the tips and the links. Now I can build one for much much less than the current MSRP.

Now I want that 32" LCD HD from Apple too!

[mikeszekely]

I plan to built a nuclear reactor using the MacPro! lol

I love high-end machines, period!! I really wanted it for multi-media purposes and for all general functionality that is up-to-date. I'm also a sucker for its asthetics as well. The MacPro design is definitely to my likings. Anyways, thanks for the tips and the links. Now I can build one for much much less than the current MSRP.

Now I want that 32" LCD HD from Apple too!

High end machines are great, you'll get no argument from me! If you really like the aesthetic of the Mac Pro tower, it might still be cheaper to buy an empty Mac Pro (or even a G5) case on eBay, then check the OSX86 Project's wiki for hardware that's know compatible with Snow Leopard, then grab the most high-end stuff you can. Aside from hardware differences, the previously-linked Lifehacker guide will still be useful for setting up the bootable USB drive that makes EFI work, and you'll wind up with a Hackintosh that looks like a Mac Pro. Then get the Apple Display with the money you saved!

[Agent-GHQ]

You know I didn't quite understood that first link you posted. The components appears to be that of a PC stuff. What exactly is the Snow Leopard?

[shiroikaze]

You know I didn't quite understood that first link you posted. The components appears to be that of a PC stuff. What exactly is the Snow Leopard?

I was under the impression that whatever a PC has, a Mac can use too... A Mac now uses Intel CPUs, and they've been using ATI and Nvidia chipsets for a while, a disc drive is a disc drive, etc...

Also, Snow Leopard is the newest OS released for the Mac. Not to mention, it's a very, very, elusive cat that lives in the mountains of Central Asia.

Edited September 6, 2009 by shiroikaze

[azrael]

You know I didn't quite understood that first link you posted. The components appears to be that of a PC stuff. What exactly is the Snow Leopard?

Those components are a list of hardware that is compatible with Mac OS X. Snow Leopard is the name for Mac OS X 10.6.x. You may want to spend some time looking at Apple's website (Linky)

I noticed the great depth in graphics and a different feel when I actually played around with it. I also learned that hte parts used are much more expensive than PCs components.

Sorry if I'm a bit confused here but is there any reason that you are looking at a Mac Pro? Are you looking at getting a Mac Pro just because the case or desktop looks good? Or do you want to switch to the Mac OS because it satisfies certain software needs? If you're getting it for just the case, I'd take mikeszekely's suggestion and look around Ebay for an emtpy, used G5 or Mac Pro case. Or make a computer according to the specs that mikeszekely posted in the links and install Mac OS on that computer. If you're planning on switching to the Mac OS platform due to hardware and/or software issues that are cumbersome with Windows or some other OS, then can you explain those? You haven't answered the question of what you want to use a Mac Pro for. Is this for e-mail, word processing, surfing the 'Net? Is this for running multiple virtual machines? Is this for intensive graphics manipulation or animation? Is this for gaming? Are you planning on using this as a full multimedia machine where you have to edit sounds, images or what not into a compliation? Etc? If you can explain what your intended use is, it helps us answer your question(s).