tumbleguts
Registered
Apple dual 1Ghz vs 1.42Ghz Mercury Extreme...
> Okay people - I need your advice and thoughts on the following:
I have a Quicksilver 867mhz. (I know it's starting to get a bit old skool- but I love it.) Best Apple Mac I've ever had. I spent an enormous amount of time (and money) setting it up just the way I wanted it. It has the following attributes:
1.5 MB of CL2 Crucial SDRAM
Radeon 8500 mac edition (300/300)
Adaptec 39160 SCSI card (RAID)
x2 10K rpm SCSI drives (stripe RAID / startup disk)
Aluminum fans + fan controller (very cool)
Apple Pro Speakers
Keyspan USB 2.0 card.
Panther 10.3.9
21-inch Sun flat screen monitor.
(It's perfect, but I would like it to have a bit more grunt...)
I use the Quicksilver mainly for graphic design work and illustration. I often have many applications open at once - switching between them. I always use Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, Macromedia Studio MX, iTunes, and Safari.
I've been planning to upgrade the processor - was thinking of going with the OWC 1.42Ghz Mercury Extreme that operates at 1.67Ghz on my system. I was going to choose this one because I've found (thru experience) having an L3 cache quite necessary (as opposed to getting the 7447 processors) and it fitted into my budget - $400. However, I'm in a delema because an opportunity to purchase an original Apple dual 1Ghz processor with heaksink for $300 has come my way.
> So, my question is this.
Should I go for the Apple dual 1Ghz or the OWC single 1.42Ghz?
I wasn't thinking of getting a dual processor upgrade due to cost. Furthermore, I've never used a dual before and generally was under the impression that the programs I use don't really take advantage of a second processor anyway - unless I was multitasking, which I sometimes do. Then again, I've been told that OS X flies under dual processors...
Argggh, please help! I want to make the right decision...
> Okay people - I need your advice and thoughts on the following:
I have a Quicksilver 867mhz. (I know it's starting to get a bit old skool- but I love it.) Best Apple Mac I've ever had. I spent an enormous amount of time (and money) setting it up just the way I wanted it. It has the following attributes:
1.5 MB of CL2 Crucial SDRAM
Radeon 8500 mac edition (300/300)
Adaptec 39160 SCSI card (RAID)
x2 10K rpm SCSI drives (stripe RAID / startup disk)
Aluminum fans + fan controller (very cool)
Apple Pro Speakers
Keyspan USB 2.0 card.
Panther 10.3.9
21-inch Sun flat screen monitor.
(It's perfect, but I would like it to have a bit more grunt...)
I use the Quicksilver mainly for graphic design work and illustration. I often have many applications open at once - switching between them. I always use Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, Macromedia Studio MX, iTunes, and Safari.
I've been planning to upgrade the processor - was thinking of going with the OWC 1.42Ghz Mercury Extreme that operates at 1.67Ghz on my system. I was going to choose this one because I've found (thru experience) having an L3 cache quite necessary (as opposed to getting the 7447 processors) and it fitted into my budget - $400. However, I'm in a delema because an opportunity to purchase an original Apple dual 1Ghz processor with heaksink for $300 has come my way.
> So, my question is this.
Should I go for the Apple dual 1Ghz or the OWC single 1.42Ghz?
I wasn't thinking of getting a dual processor upgrade due to cost. Furthermore, I've never used a dual before and generally was under the impression that the programs I use don't really take advantage of a second processor anyway - unless I was multitasking, which I sometimes do. Then again, I've been told that OS X flies under dual processors...
Argggh, please help! I want to make the right decision...
