PDA

View Full Version : WARNING : More than 2GB of ram ? = NO



Jean
07-10-2003, 05:14 AM
Hi
For almost a month i've been tring to build a workstation with 4 GB of Dual channel Ram ecc registered...it's impossible ! :(

we discovered (me and , the company wich builds the PC for me who are the best in France)
That 7505 chipset based motherboards are totally not compatible
with 4 GB of ram on Windows platforms.
we tried an ASUS PP-DLW" and the well known
"Supermicro X5DA8".

first weirdness : :eek:
WinXP pro showing only 3.5 GB of ram.
Second weirdness : :eek:
All my softwares : AFX 5.5, photoshop 7, lightwave 7.5, VT2 build3890, combustion 2 are using only 1.7 GB total!!!
(VT2 crach when this limit is reached.)

and that on both motherboards.

Our solution : trow away 2GB and only use the 2 left. :mad:

so tell your friends, warn those who want to use more than 2 GB or find an other chipset based motherboard.

My first chock is, Ive never heard of that anywhere before. :confused:

Jean

kirk
07-11-2003, 11:12 AM
You do realise that your using 32 bit software and OS, correct?

Your computer can have over 4GB, the E7505 supports upto 16GB, but any individual program you run is only going to see 4GB (with at most 3.5GB available, 2GB more likely).

In otherwords, with 8GB of RAM and two programs running, they could each see different regions of memory without swapping. Programs get mapped to different regions of physical RAM.

A single 32 bit program can never see over 4GB, and then you have PCI space to contend with, as well as shared DLL mappings, and then you have thread stack space (if left at default) sucking up a ton of mapping. And then you have to contend with any allocation past 2GB coming up negative and the potential bugs in software that can expose. If the software is aware, it can see ~3.5GB, but not all software is.

Please don't blame the E7505.

A lot of software have a "/3GB" switch to let it know it's tredding on dangerous ground. If you do a dogpile search, you might find some boot.ini settings you can fiddle with as well.

Gouac
07-11-2003, 02:53 PM
weird.

Jean
07-11-2003, 02:55 PM
Thank you so much kirk for your enlightments.

do you believe that all the engeneers from our pc maker didn't knew that!!! Whats creeps me out is they are the best in France...! we are doomed =(

We where asking them how that was possible and they where like a bunch of idiots babbling obscure reasons.

can you give me a link to your source so we can sue them. ;-)

thx.

Jean

kirk
07-11-2003, 03:39 PM
Actually, simply searching Microsofts site for "/3GB" would yield a bunch of informaiton:

Here's one:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;171793

and another:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q319043

(As you can see, even the "/3GB" switch isn't a perfect answer).

They don't go into how descriptor tags are mapped or the like, but they pretty much explain that getting individual processes to map over 2GB is a pain and over 4GB is an imposibility.

There are a lot of things that can be done to get software to utilize more RAM, but none are trivial and usually involve either multiple paging files, a proxy to set new selectors, or multiple process doing a bank-selection type affair. It may not be worth it to developers when a 64 bit version of Windows is just around the corner (at least it was last time I checked in 1995).

bloontz
07-11-2003, 06:09 PM
I have a Dell based on the E7505 and it evidently only supports 4GB if using non ecc memory. I only have 1GB installed so I can't say for sure that it works. I don't know much about this but perhaps the ecc memory is causing problems? Something to look into anyway...

John

Scott Bates
07-11-2003, 09:17 PM
FWIW, way way back in the early days of VT[2] there was someone building "The MegaMachine" of the time, but couldn't get the Toaster to behave no matter what he tried. After much ranting and raving on his part and great bending over backwards on NewTek's part to figure out his problem, the conclusion was that he was going to have to give up on trying to use 4Gig of RAM. He was convinced there was no reason he shouldn't be able to, but nothing worked until he took half of it out.

kirk
07-13-2003, 09:35 AM
I would concure. I think in the near future, with RAM as inexpensive as it is, that a lot more people will be running into this issue. Then Microsoft and everyone else will have an incentive to work on all the kinks.

Right now, especially on a production machine, it may be safeist to simply yank the extra dims. An application unexpectedly crashing could cost hours of work.

ECC doesn't matter at all. It simply helps prevent senility.

Registered memory can allow longer trace lines and more sinks (i.e. a third DIMM on the channel), but this has nothing to do with the amount of RAM but rather how many chips can be used. It also helps if the chip timings are slightly off spec. Again, it's not the number of GB, but rather how that GB is achieved.

kleima
07-29-2003, 11:27 PM
Well, this is good to know! I never knew that and would probably have run into this headache on my next upgrade. I guess there is no point in buying more than 2GB of RAM! Will only a 64bit OS solve this for everyone, or will all applications need to be rewritten to be able to work with more RAM??

Jim Capillo
07-30-2003, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by sbates
FWIW, way way back in the early days of VT[2] there was someone building "The MegaMachine" of the time, but couldn't get the Toaster to behave no matter what he tried. After much ranting and raving on his part and great bending over backwards on NewTek's part to figure out his problem, the conclusion was that he was going to have to give up on trying to use 4Gig of RAM. He was convinced there was no reason he shouldn't be able to, but nothing worked until he took half of it out.

I remember that guy, Scott. He complained about everything but nothing seemed to work until someone discovered the RAM problem. He ragged on NT pretty good, too. Hasn't been around in a while though - maybe he bought a Trinity ???? :D :p ;)

dwburman
08-27-2003, 03:49 PM
Ok three questions then.

#1 if I had 4+ GB of RAM and had 2 apps running would each see 3.5 or 4GB of RAM?

#2 is there stability issues running 4+ GB? It looks like there are problems at least with the VT3

#3 Will a 3GB configuration cause problems? I currently have 1GB and DFX+ goes through that pretty fast. I have a Supermicro X5DA8 Mobo.

prospector
08-27-2003, 06:34 PM
Haven't dug into windows too much but..

Is it possable to have those 2 extra gigs of ram in a 'ram disk'?
We could do that on the Amiga to stop using the HDs for paging.
That way when you do go into paging then you still run at ram speed?

Jean
08-28-2003, 04:04 AM
The problem with 2 GB is the same. I'm having a bug when VT reaches 1.61~1.67 GB of used ram.

But, other people having this kind of bug with 1 GB.

http://vbulletin.newtek.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8790

So i'm guessing it's not only a ram problem.


1- If you have 2 apps running they will see 2 different parts of your 4 GB. so you will use like 1.7GB + 1.2 GB = 2.9 GB total.


2- There is stability issues : read Kirk's posts here.

3- 3GB brings the same 32 bits platform problems than 4 GB.

very well explained befor by Kirk.

Linux-Unix can use 12 GB of ram and more without problem...thx microsoft.

mrunion
08-28-2003, 05:54 AM
Unless I am mistaken, to go above 4GB of RAM in Windows you need to use Windows Advanced Server, not just Windows "Pro" or "Server".

Jean
08-28-2003, 07:02 AM
Yes but helas, the recomended os for VT3 is crappy Winxp pro based on win 95 core.

even so
all tested 32 bit appz for win platform never use more than 1.7~2Gb of ram.

Lightwave = 1.7
AFX 5.5 = 1.2
Combustion 2 = 1.7
photoshop = 1.7

(Tested when I had 4 GB of ram)

mrunion
08-28-2003, 07:31 AM
Why does many people think WinXP is built on the Win95 core? Am I missing something? I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, but I am a Microsoft Certified Professional (not a big deal, I know) and a programmer on MS OS's since Windows 3.1.

I still cannot find out why people think WinXP is based on Win95. It is based on NT. The Win2000 "looks" are based on the 95-ish look/feel, and WinXP is basically a facelifted Win2K with a little additional support for newer hardware (and probably some old stuff dropped out).

I'm not trying to be rude or angry, but I cannot find why there is this "XP is 95 at the heart" mentality. Now, WinME is based on 95/98, but XP (Pro anyway) uses the NT code base.

Jean
08-28-2003, 10:20 AM
I was teasing with my win 95 core...
The truth is it's WIN 98 !!!
;)

I d'ont want to be rude to ANYBODY, my rudness only aply to the os.

If you use Winxp with professionals apps from the first day you can tell there is something different from years of experience on Win NT/2000 platforms.
it remembers you an old feeling, a sensation you had forgot since years, the win 95 fragility and the "crach one soft crach the whole system habit it had"
(everybody I know and who has professionally used Win NT-2000 are sharing the same feeling.)
This is not a sacarstic "spit on microsoft" reflex some people have.
this is real.

the first day we installed WinXp in our company all our crew was testing the os all day long with our apps and we where like :
- Ho...bad. hummm
- Never saw this heavyness to kill a locked up soft since 95....
- Look it's still not killed...he won't...
- Ok, Restat...nope, all is locked up now.
- where is the reset button already, haven't touched that one since 98, we are doomed.

I'm sure WinXP is Based on NT/2000 core but Microsoft managed to add/change some codes wich have perverted his stability.

Remember when they sayed win98 won't be based on Dos anymore, it was a lie... so perhaps there's some 98 in XP.

Don't you have this "feeling"?


Jean

mrunion
08-28-2003, 01:39 PM
I understand.

Killing an app can be frustrating at best. Sometimes we have to actually attach a C++ debugger to the process, then kill the debugger. Sometimes we just power off.

Sometimes we just cry.

tonsofpcs
08-29-2003, 10:15 AM
Win XP is not based upon either core, it is a new core, but the frontends are based upon 2000 (NT) and 98 [ME was horrible and MSFT knew that]

Tinker
09-04-2003, 09:45 AM
Jean.... incase you missed this link off of Intel's Website...

http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/se7505vb2/tested_mem.htm

the PDF file at the botton explains some info as well... when I first setup my 7505 it came up with 3.5GB's of memory and I fiddled around with swapping memory till I found out I had one bad memory module and replaced it.. I then reboot it and it seen 4GB's... I didn't understand the way the board dealt with the memory so I did a little research and figured it out... :)

kirkmorger
09-04-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by mrunion
I understand.

Killing an app can be frustrating at best. Sometimes we have to actually attach a C++ debugger to the process, then kill the debugger. Sometimes we just power off.

Sometimes we just cry.

Please check into PsKill (http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pskill.shtml) from www.sysinternals.com as it might help quite a bit.

You give it a process name or PID, and it kills it. You can create a batch file if you always end up needing to kill a given process name.

If that doesn't do the trick, PM me your email address, as I have something else (not as user friendly, but it takes out anything I've pitted it against).

Draven
09-28-2003, 05:52 PM
Windows has a little problem where if can only allocate 2 GB of memory for application usage. Anything better than 2 GB gets allocated to system tasks. If you have the proper OS version and your applications support it, you can use the /3GB option and your apps can access 3GB instead of 2... but only if the application and OS specifically support it. We'll have to wait for a 64-bit OS (maybe the 32/64 bit hybrid "Windows Elements", even) to get real OS-level support for larger memory amounts.

Anything larger than 4GB and you start needing things like Win2k Server Enterprise in order to support, and then all of your apps have to be written to run in that memory environment in order to use anything beyond 2GB.

Doran
10-18-2003, 05:04 PM
XP Pro Core has very little in common with 98. XP is based on 2000. 98 is still 95 based with a number of enhancements. So put 98 and 05 out of your mind. Now microsoft could stand to improve NT/2000/XP... and I don't mean the way it looks.

bradl
10-19-2003, 03:03 AM
The stability of XP (and 2000) was supposed to be in the "hardware extraction layer" where bad drivers and flaky hardware would not be able to crash the OS because they were seperated by system commands between them, not allowing contact directly. In 2000 it seemed to work marvelously, but it seems as if has been removed or diminished in XP somehow... as evidenced by the inordinate amout of OS crashes due to hardware.

However, my XP Pro system has been fairly stable. My XP Home system is another story...

djlithium
11-15-2003, 01:48 PM
"hardware extraction layer"

It's actually hardware abstraction layer or "HAL".

"What are you doing dave?"

bradl
11-15-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by djlithium
It's actually hardware abstraction layer or "HAL".


Your right of course. Whatever it is called, is it still the same as 2K?

"Would you like to hear a song, Dave?"

tonsofpcs
03-24-2004, 09:50 PM
lets see... Hardware Abstraction Layer... HAL.... H+1 = I... A+1 = B... L+1 = M....... hmmmm... Hardware Abstraction Layer + 1 must = IBM

imagodei
08-08-2005, 06:50 AM
Okay, this is slightly off topic (especially from the 2001 quotes), but is there any chance, hope, ability, plausability of being able to come up with a Linux/Unix form of the VT software? It just seems like for stability purposes this would make sense... Then again, there's no video apps for Linux are there? Too bad... Because every computer in our office crashes (Mac or PC) except those darn Linux servers we run...

MBeck
08-08-2005, 10:09 AM
Okay, this is slightly off topic (especially from the 2001 quotes), but is there any chance, hope, ability, plausability of being able to come up with a Linux/Unix form of the VT software? It just seems like for stability purposes this would make sense... Then again, there's no video apps for Linux are there? Too bad... Because every computer in our office crashes (Mac or PC) except those darn Linux servers we run...


Heh.. don't kidd yourself.. Linux is so hard to keep updated.. I use linux here and there.. and trust me.. its not for the casual computer user. We have a few linux servers and they go down too.

Paul Lara
08-08-2005, 10:41 AM
...is there any chance, hope, ability, plausability of being able to come up with a Linux/Unix form of the VT software?

Yeah, that would be cool, but most editors just can't get comfortable editing video in a DOS command prompt. ;)

andromeda_girl
08-08-2005, 11:02 AM
Yeah, that would be cool, but most editors just can't get comfortable editing video in a DOS command prompt. ;)


Linux blows chuncks. So do macs and their acid tripping goofy goon marketing people. The only "video" app that I have seen work on linux properly is an opensourced DVD player.

Unless you as the video app maker is willing to tweak a linux kernel and everything else into your own distribution there is absolutely no point in wanting to work with linux in anyway shape or form.

However when it comes to rendering nodes on a bootable CD-ROM or DVD-ROM all set up with samba linked to a storage drive with all your scene/images/object files.... well... there is some serious money I think in that.

:P

billmi
08-08-2005, 03:10 PM
Yeah, that would be cool, but most editors just can't get comfortable editing video in a DOS command prompt. ;)

But think of it.

No CG stability issues. Sure vi has a little more learning curve, and isn't quite as flexible as VT CG, and lacks things we like such as color, font choices and sizes, but it's rock solid.

And using PERL instead of VScript...

Or maybe not...

tonsofpcs
08-14-2005, 12:14 PM
There are already a few video editing apps that run on n*x [Linux/UNIX/BSD/etc], all of them require X-Windows, and all of them use GUIs. Where do you all get the idea that Linux has no GUI??? That's like saying no one would use 98SE because it is just a GUI that runs on DOS, and no one wants to use a command prompt.

imagodei
08-14-2005, 12:17 PM
Yeah, I kinda wondered that myself... Both the linux boxes we use are some sort of GUI based type of Linux. I don't know a whole lot about it myself, but the guy in our office that does systems design and installation builds linux boxes to run phone systems and the one in our office has crashed maybe once or twice in the year we've had it...

Nothing's perfect, but Linux does seem to do what it does very well.

Paul Lara
08-14-2005, 02:35 PM
Where do you all get the idea that Linux has no GUI?

It was a joke. ;)

fda
08-22-2005, 02:57 PM
Newtek 'should' consider porting to UNIX. In fact MAC OSX is basically unix also, based on BSD unix (NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD). A while ago, a company called Nothing Real created breakthrough Video Editing/Effects sofware called SHAKE. It was later bought by APPLE and Jobs made sure to KILL development of the Windows version but were 'forced' to continue development of the UNIX version. Most professional Hollywood FX studios use LINUX. Look at http://www.ifx.com/piranha/ which is a high-end HD system.
DISCREET now makes LINUX versions of their high-end compositors like FLINT and SMOKE which used to be only available on SGI IRIX systems.

Want a FREE one? Try CINELERRA http://heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3

Draven
08-22-2005, 06:33 PM
Most professional hollywood effects studios use a mix of Linux and Windows. The smaller the studio, the more likely they use Windows. Why? Software availability. Hardware availability. Using Linux for VFX use usually means having a staff of programmers... at least a few. Many facilities don't want to pay programmers. Many LW-based facilities have NO programmers on staff.

The Linux versions of Flint and Smoke are standard def only, which limits their application.

fda
08-23-2005, 08:02 PM
They both do 4:4:4 RGB HD editing, but SGI IRIX version does it 10-bit as opposed to 8-bit on Linux. But keep in mind this is running on IBM 32-bit architecture versus SGI Tezro 64-bit architecture. I think once the intel platform is 64-bit running 64-bit Linux that there won't be any advantage with SGI IRIX. Every professional studio usually uses a 'mix' period, no denying that. The point is that the complex visual fx shots are usually done in Linux on software such as Shake and others.
Interesting article for you:
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS8217660071.html
about using dual link to get 4:4:4 recording.

djlithium
08-23-2005, 08:20 PM
They both do 4:4:4 RGB HD editing, but SGI IRIX version does it 10-bit as opposed to 8-bit on Linux. But keep in mind this is running on IBM 32-bit architecture versus SGI Tezro 64-bit architecture. I think once the intel platform is 64-bit running 64-bit Linux that there won't be any advantage with SGI IRIX. Every professional studio usually uses a 'mix' period, no denying that. The point is that the complex visual fx shots are usually done in Linux on software such as Shake and others.
Interesting article for you:
http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS8217660071.html
about using dual link to get 4:4:4 recording.

Have you seen or used shake? Linux or not its complete crap when compared to digital fusion! On linux or windows. Screw that myth of shake being high end. It's slow as dirt.

fda
08-24-2005, 11:47 AM
Some would say SHAKE is faster than DF. I'd say DF may be faster with some things. Digital Fusion is a great product, I think those using SHAKE tend to use the scripting more since it's more conducive to it. There has to be some reason why SHAKE is used so much in Film, I don't think those studios have never tried Digital Fusion.
Silicon Grail, Rayz was a great product. Not sure if you're familiar with that one or 5D Cyborg. (I think Apple bought Rayz and Autodesk/Discreet bought 5D Cyborg technologies...)

And again, Flint and Smoke are available in HD on linux not just SD.

If speed is most important and you don't have renderfarms check out D2 Nuke http://shop.store.yahoo.com/toolfarm/d2softwarenuke.html
It's available on LINUX, Windows, and IRIX.
http://www.d2software.com/nuke_specs.php
I haven't really seen IFX Piranha in action but I've heard very good things.
http://www.ifx.com/piranha/

Anyway, the point I am making is this, Newtek should consider that Apple and Macs are still around and are GROWING again, they run now on basically UNIX and soon will run on INTEL processors. If they PORT their software to UNIX they can get APPLE and Linux/Unix community to help. They may need to shift more towards OpenGL if they've been relying on DirectX. Anyway LINUX is going to keep growing even MORE because of APPLE's switch to UNIX/OSX which makes it easier for APPLE MAC software to be ported to LINUX and LINUX software to be ported to OS X. (This will really be noticed when APPLE is running on INTEL chips.) Incidentally, I've always thought sooner or later Apple will be going with Intel, when I heard switch to BSD unix core I knew the time was here. Newtek, just think, harness the crazy fanaticism of both the hardcore LINUX users and their MAC/APPLE counterparts!

Heck just release a DRIVER for your board if not the software and you can just sell the hardware at first(while you work on software). (Wonder if some locked up linux user has already written one...)

billmi
08-25-2005, 07:37 AM
I really don't see how a platform change will make that big of a difference in sales, but it would have huge costs in development.

Time after time I've seen small businesses that run primarily Windows environments, but have a graphic designer using a mac. The designer is using apps (primarily Photoshop, and Quark) that are available on Windows as well. For those shopps, it's nothing but a thing to pick up a mac as their designer is more comfortable in that environment. I don't see the "all mac" or "all Windows" or "all linux" anywhere anymore. Folks get what they need to do a job.

When you look at the cost of setting up a live switching environment, or a post suite, the cost of buying the OS is nothing compared to the cost of buying the machine and the software. Look at the price of a suitable powerful computer (even a mac of similar horsepower) and a VT Live bundle. Who's going to quibble in that budget over the cost of MacOS, LINUX or Windows? VTs more often than not go in purpose built machines meant to house the VT, so it's not like a word processing app, or 3D app, where the number of machines already out there will make more of a difference.

Where real work is getting done there tends to be less OS bigotry and more of a tendancy to buy the right stuff to use the desired app - hence the reason a lot of shops run multiple OSs. That's not to say there aren't deyed in the wool dedicated users out there - remember the Macintosh Video Toaster? It was a Video Toaster (the original one) in an Amiga Computer, with a Video Toaster sticker over the Amiga label, and a cable and software that allowed a quite expensive (at the time) Macintosh to act as a glorified remote control (i.e. it acted as the keyboard and display, but the Amiga did the work.) I don't know how many sold, but I just don't think that sort of OS brand loyalty is so strong in the market anymore.

fda
08-25-2005, 10:31 AM
It really doesn't have much to do with OS cost. Though I'm sure you'd realize when considering a couple hundred or thousand systems in a big renderfarm, licensing WINDOWS for those renderfarms could get QUITE expensive. Now back to workstation video, LINUX is more STABLE and faster than windows. When there is a Windows version and a Linux version of a piece of software, studio houses use the LINUX version not because they saved a couple hundred dollars on the OS but because Linux is just more stable, dependable, more flexible (scripting etc..),and faster for what they need to do.

You said:"VTs more often than not go in purpose built machines meant to house the VT, so it's not like a word processing app, or 3D app, where the number of machines already out there will make more of a difference."

That should change, the fact is that most film work requires rendering using renderfarms not just for the 3D work but also for the VIDEO fx and compositing, renderfarms are not just for 3D rendering.

cyost
08-25-2005, 07:25 PM
Just to step into the fray...

In 32 bit OS's (Window XP, Linux, etc), an application can never address (without special coding) more the 4MB of memory. Windows by default reserves 2GB if address space to be used by the OS, and it shared amongst all appplications. The remainder 2GB of address space is per application. As mentioned above, the /3GB switch changes that to 1GB shared, and 3GB per application. This is just ADDRESS SPACE.

So, for 32bit windows OS's that can use more that 4GB (advanced server, for example) an application can still at the most addres 3GB worth of data, it just means that more applications can run without slowdown.

So how does an OS run applications that we know are using more memory than is installed? It uses a file on the hard drive (swap file) to store data that an application "thinks" is in memory, but really is not. This is why switching between application sometimes seems to take forever, while working in the application is fast. The OS has to take information that is in memory from the previous app, place it on the Hard Drive, and then move data from the hard drive into memory that the new app thinks is in memory.

For 64bit OS's (Specifically Windows XP64 or Windows 2003 server x64) the 2GB that is shared is placed outside (and is 8TB) of the 32bit apps address space, since OS pointers are 64bits (well, only 46 bits, 16TB max), which means that applications can address the full 4GB before they run out. The company that I work for have been testing several 32bit applications running in the 64bit environment, and not having any problems.

If you have a 64bit app, then the 16TB is divided in half again, 8TB for the OS and 8TB for the app.

Hope this helps.

billmi
08-27-2005, 10:35 AM
That should change, the fact is that most film work requires rendering using renderfarms not just for the 3D work but also for the VIDEO fx and compositing, renderfarms are not just for 3D rendering.

The VT is not a film work device. It's a device for realtime switching of live video, and realtime editing (not waiting for renders) of video. There's no use for a VT "render" farm because in normal use, it's not sending out frames to render. The VT is used usually in purpose built computers (and when they aren't purpose built, that's most often when hardware related problems arise.) If the machine it's going into is purpose built, compatability with what is in the studio already doesn't really matter, just like it doesn't matter what kind of chips are in a dedicated video switcher.

Yes, bundled with the VT is Lightwave, an app that does get film use and does benefit from render farms. You make a very valid point for why it should be available on multiple platforms. Of course, it already is available on multiple platforms.

fda
08-29-2005, 11:36 AM
Sorry, I didn't know the VT system was never meant for any film quality type work but I guess that's why it's not HD. If you only have need for a couple layers of fx and/or compositing and the system does it all in realtime than I guess you're right there's no need for render nodes. Let me clarify, I haven't really used the VT editor much at all so I don't know how much it can do realtime without rendering. I stand by my previous assertion that porting the software and/or drivers would be of benefit, that is all.

MBeck
09-02-2005, 07:18 AM
With Mac OS X going to intel based hardware, I would love to see newtek go mac. I have been running the dev kit version of Mac OS X on my dell laptop. It blows windows out of the water as far as speed goes. If you have ever used a mac.. then intel based macs will really suprise you! I am in love with OS X! It is very stable.. and with mac controlling the hardware (and intel making it cheaper) you get less of a problem with trying to find problems with all the different hardware.

/mac rant.