Mother of all PC's !!!

[RTaylor]

Regardless of whether or not your application can use the additional processer, the os can.

Im aware of that. However it wasnt relevant to what I was saying regarding applications without multi-processor support.

That's one of the benefits to running a dual system. You have a choice of processors. It is entirely relevant.

This means it can shunt system stuff {additional stand alone stuff and maybe plugins as well.} off to one processor while leaving one wide open for the application.

Not quite; plugins run in-process, I believe. If a host application isnt capable of running on multiple processors, then plugins hosted in that application wont run across multiple processors. Try it.

You could rig a second program and use it to run some plugins. Regardless, you can still run stand alone stuff and the system on another processor and use rewire or something.

[DevonB]

i hope my understanding on max RAM XP supports is not skewed.. I bileive XP 32 bit only supports upto 2GB.. so dont wanna stack the mobo with more unless fully utilized...

It is skewed. XP supports up to 4 gigs. A 32 bit integer can represent up to 4,294,967,296 or 4 gigs. The problem is most applications only support 2 gigs, unless they are LargeAddressAware. If they are, they support 3 gigs. Most apps do NOT have that enabled. There is a way to hack it with an editor and save out the .exe to make it support 3 gigs though. Do a search on here on MASM 3 gig LargeAddressAware and I'm sure you'll find the article. Last step is modify the boot.ini with teh /3gig switch, and you're good to go. Going with 3 gigs would not be bad either. At least give some memory to the OS, but the app can support 2 gigs.

It's up to you what you want to do. 4 gigs is supported though. There are various disadvantages like DDR400 drops down to DDR333 depending on the configuration as well if you go with 4 gigs. If you went with 3 gigs, you could stay at DDR400 at least.

On a personal note, I only bought 2 gigs myself....

Devon

[RTaylor]

Going with 3 gigs would not be bad either. At least give some memory to the OS, but the app can support 2 gigs.

You could always go with the 64 bit version but, unless you're running something that needs to keep a half hour of video in memory or wanting to run a corporate database I don't really see a lot of places you'd use it anyway. It would be nice to have the option and eventually all applications will be 64+ bit... you could get a head start.

It does offer an argument for splitting stuff up between multiple applications.

{Coulda' sworn I cleaned that up when I posted it.}

[johnnytluxury]

Did anyone else notice that this "mother of all pcs" has a 17 inch monitor? Jose, your boys gonna use this for for audio?? No.. 17" aint gonna do the trick. Not to diss you but I truely wonder about your computer knowledge. Youre gonna spend some 2500+ on a computer that sounds like some 7th grade horrible science project?
Try this: get yourself a decent Core 2 Duo, maybe the second to top of the line, the E6700, and get 2 gigs (1gb x 2) dual channel DDR2 mem. Spend the money on a larger WIDESCREEN monitor, say 23". Get (2) Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 perpindicualr drives, partitioned with 100 gigs for OS and apps, 200gb or so for storage, and the second drive 150 gb for audio, and 150+ for samples. Dont worry about not having the biggest and baddest, my thougths are you and your boy are gonna need some time to actaully figure the damn thing out, and by that time, there will be cheaper bigger and badder avail. You can run Windows in 64 bit, and you wont get be pissed at spending your money on shit you aint really need yet.
Lol, all you damn nerds arguing about quad core to a guy who aint even got his head on straight about processing power and Windows... but.. I do love ya.

[RTaylor]

partitioned with 100 gigs for OS and apps

It doesn't sound like he wants to use the thing for games.

Don't you think this machine's probably finished by now?

[Muzik 4 Machines]

a bit OT,would that be possible to run 2 os,one on each core(declaring itself as a single processor)
that would be parallel

[DevonB]

a bit OT,would that be possible to run 2 os,one on each core(declaring itself as a single processor)
that would be parallel

With something like VMWare or Microsoft Virtual PC, yes. Without these virutalization tools, no.

Devon

[johnnytluxury]

partitioned with 100 gigs for OS and apps

It doesn't sound like he wants to use the thing for games.

Don't you think this machine's probably finished by now?

Lol, maybe. I wouldve specified less for the os and apps( I have 50 gigs for apps), but I was afraid he wouldnt make the math add up. i wish him luck tho.

[RTaylor]

Lol, maybe. I wouldve specified less for the os and apps( I have 50 gigs for apps), but I was afraid he wouldnt make the math add up. i wish him luck tho.

My biggest system partition is 14 gigs... that's with at least 2o major applications and a ton of free and shareware as well as most of microsoft's sdks.

:} If he doesn't have the machine together by now, he needs more than luck...

[spuddle]

Spend $13,000 on a MacPro

[Ubiety]

Get a Mac Pro and reduce your questions to how much ram and storage will you need. http://www.apple.com/macpro/intelxeon.html

[VariKusBrainZ]

Spend $13,000 on a MacPro

this is tongue in cheek right

[jupiter8]

The funny thing is,now with the new Intels this is no longer the mother of all PCs.

[iskandar]

here is recent benchmarks and its pretty clear that the conroe will smoke the AMD setup your going for..

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

[RTaylor]

here is recent benchmarks and its pretty clear that the conroe will smoke the AMD setup your going for..

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

...And all is right with the world once again.