Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro as an IT professionnal
- Thread starter Vesperal
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While I don't currently work in the IT field, back when I did I never see any issues with going the mac way. With the use of VM, and understanding the limitations of virtual machines, I can't think of any real reasons why not.
As far as manufacturing enviroment, that last IT job of mine was the instalation of 56 Mac mini's on the shop floors for production use (Reporting, Material Use, etc) and they have proven to be a lot more durable than our old machines. Small size allows them to be tucked away out of the line of fire as far as getting beat on and such - only needed to replace one because of getting bashed.
As far as manufacturing enviroment, that last IT job of mine was the instalation of 56 Mac mini's on the shop floors for production use (Reporting, Material Use, etc) and they have proven to be a lot more durable than our old machines. Small size allows them to be tucked away out of the line of fire as far as getting beat on and such - only needed to replace one because of getting bashed.
I use my Mac Pro for IT work, it allows me to run different OS's for testing and configuration, I run VM's for Windows 7 and Linux, also use a VM of Windows XP to program field radios.
OS X works great for this with dual 24" monitors and multiple desktop, the more ram the better
OS X works great for this with dual 24" monitors and multiple desktop, the more ram the better
Mac, and OS X work great in the IT field. I don't have a Mac Pro [Macbook Pro, 13.3" w/8GB and SSD]. It runs flawlessly, and does all of what you mentioned. I use VirtualBox [Free], and run Windows 7, along with Debian and CentOS VM's daily. No issues at all. I even connect natively to a 2008 AD infrastructure, along with Exchange 2010 [Use built in Mail App].
You won't be sorry, and I can only imagine how well a Mac Pro with 16GB or more will run, along with a couple of nice 24" monitors...or a couple of nice Apple Displays!
You won't be sorry, and I can only imagine how well a Mac Pro with 16GB or more will run, along with a couple of nice 24" monitors...or a couple of nice Apple Displays!
I use a Mac mini with 8GB of RAM and an 256GB SSD for work.
I spend 95% of my time in OS X -- email (Lotus Notes), Safari, Microsoft Office, RDP, Things, iChat, Bomgar, etc.
A very small amount of my time is spent in a VM. Usually doing some SQL Server admin stuff, or hitting one of the intranet sites that require IE.
I spend 95% of my time in OS X -- email (Lotus Notes), Safari, Microsoft Office, RDP, Things, iChat, Bomgar, etc.
A very small amount of my time is spent in a VM. Usually doing some SQL Server admin stuff, or hitting one of the intranet sites that require IE.
My UX background is SunOS (late 1980's / early 1990's) and Linux (starting in 1993).
As an IT guy, I've been using a Mac as my UX Workstation since the Rev C. iMac G3/266 running LinuxPPC circa 1999-2000. I switched to MacOS X when the Public Beta was first released.
From there to the iMac G4, PowerMac G4 FW800, PowerMac G5, and currently the 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 since it was released.
No real complaints about the Mac Pro.
With that said though, lately I'm thinking for my purposes an iMac or Mac Mini would really do everything I need.
As an IT guy, I've been using a Mac as my UX Workstation since the Rev C. iMac G3/266 running LinuxPPC circa 1999-2000. I switched to MacOS X when the Public Beta was first released.
From there to the iMac G4, PowerMac G4 FW800, PowerMac G5, and currently the 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 since it was released.
No real complaints about the Mac Pro.
With that said though, lately I'm thinking for my purposes an iMac or Mac Mini would really do everything I need.
I don't know if it has a lot of real-world value, but I've created a "Geekbench per dollar" metric.
Mini Geekbench G/$
$599 6474 10.8
$799 7255 9.1
$899 7807 8.7
$999 9455 9.5
Pro Geekbench G/$
$2,499 9681 3.9
$2,899 10733 3.7
$3,499 14074 4.0
$3,699 15720 4.2
$4,999 22574 4.5
$6,199 24159 3.9
iMac
$2,199 12529 5.7
$1,699 11027 6.5
$1,999 9109 4.6
Mini Geekbench G/$
$599 6474 10.8
$799 7255 9.1
$899 7807 8.7
$999 9455 9.5
Pro Geekbench G/$
$2,499 9681 3.9
$2,899 10733 3.7
$3,499 14074 4.0
$3,699 15720 4.2
$4,999 22574 4.5
$6,199 24159 3.9
iMac
$2,199 12529 5.7
$1,699 11027 6.5
$1,999 9109 4.6
My personal Mac Pro handles simultaneous XCode and XNA projects using VMWare and Windows 7. I got a ton of RAM on sale, but 16GB should easily have covered my personal needs.
I wish I could use my Pro at my job (I'm a Systems Admin at a startup), but they really can't afford one.
So yes, I would say that the Ma Pro should easily meet and exceed your needs.
I'm looking at doing the same thing as the OP. One related question I have is how many core is really needed to run os x + 2 VMs simultaneously (win 7 + linux centOS). Anyone has benchmark links for VMs on Mac Pros? Tried finding some but never did. Most benchmark are for video stuff.
I'm really wondering if going from 4 to 8 core make a difference. Technically it should but technically a 12 core should be twice as fast a 6 core but in real life it just doesn't work out that way.
I'm really wondering if going from 4 to 8 core make a difference. Technically it should but technically a 12 core should be twice as fast a 6 core but in real life it just doesn't work out that way.
What kind of benchmarks are you looking for? I could shoot over a WEI for Windows 7 on VMWare, but anything more specific that you're looking for?
A quad-core machine should be enough for general VM configurations (especially with hyperthreading), but I have no idea what type of workflow you're trying to do.
And it's a bit of a misconception that 2x cores is the same as 2x speed. In a perfect world, every OS and application would fully and properly utilize each CPU core to its fullest potential at ~0% overhead. In that scenario, a 4-core 3.0GHz CPU would indeed perform twice as efficiently as a 2-core 3.0GHz CPU with the same architecture. However, things like differences in architectures (i.e. Sandy Bridge vs Ivy Bridge), cache sizes, inefficiencies in process scheduling, virtual- vs actual-core efficiency, proper (and improper) threading of applications, and general failure for a lot of software to scale with multiple cores means that the perfect world scenario is unrealistic.
Of course, that being said, all things being equal I would take my 2.26GHz 8-core machine over a 2.93GHz quad-core machine for almost every task (except perhaps gaming).
Yes, it should just fine. However, you will likely require an adapter or special sled (all Mac Pro - 1,1 through 5,1 - have required something like this). Currently, I use these in my 4,1: http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/MMP35T25/ My assumption is that if a 6,1 is released, you will need something similar.
It will..... just place it in the empty optical drive slot... that is where mine is. That way I boot off the SSD and still have the 4 drive bays for internal storage.
What is the issue?
I use fusion and it works well. It's not as seamless, you're right about that.
You will be very happy with a Mac Pro. I work in a high end multinational engineering environment. The work is very resource intensive & demanding. I do a very wide variety of engineering, scientific, design, and modeling work. I set mine up with one large dedicated Samsung 830 SSD for the OS & Apps, I have two additional multi terabyte drives for storage.
Being my third Mac Pro, I knew exactly how I wanted this one, and it's a dream. Maxed out with ram, running VMware for windows, it's a super fast, fun, and very efficient machine. Driving two Apple Thunderbolt Displays I can get a lot of work done quite quickly.
I work in the IT field and have used Macs to do work on my past two jobs.
It varies greatly what I do from job to job but if I needed Windows or Linux specific stuff I just launched VMWare. Only a few times did I ever need to boot into Windows to work in OpenGL or DirectX heavy applications. (Although they'll run in VM's, sometimes there are bugs).
This will sound silly, but honestly unless you really know your co-workers well I'd suggest keeping your Mac usage a secret.
Two jobs ago my supervisor called my job into question when he found out I bought a Mac. He went to the department head insisting I must not know my job because I was using an "easy" operating system. (Thankfully my work proved otherwise and I eventually was given my supervisors job as I knew leaps and bounds more than he did but still.)
My current job could care less thankfully and they're more curious about it since most of them have never used one.
All in all though I find it easy to do work on a Mac even if you have to support or develop in Windows environments.
----------
? Navigating through Windows is the exact same on a Mac as it is on a native Windows machine, sometimes easier depending on the applications you need if you use VMWare Fusion and have it dock Windows applications on your Mac toolbar.
That is an absolute untruth. Windows runs as well on Apple hardware as on any PC hardware
----------
The good news is software developers are turning out gaming titles for Mac at the same time as for Windows. Unlike the past where it could be years later.
----------
Not to mention Bootcamp, which comes with all the drivers Windows needs. I have bootcamp installed and use Parallels to run that virtually 95% of the time. The other 5% where I want all the resources in Windows I have that option of running Windows native.
You're still going to want to be in Windows to play all titles. Sorry OS X. But having frames double in Windows on same HW is just too enticing. Image quality is better on Win games as well. + you can over-clock your GPU and run tons of custom configs.
I'm not in IT but have seen similar things before, though not to the same level per se. I don't really understand it actually, other than that I guess the bias towards Windows machines and against Apple/Mac/Mac OS can get so extreme that it produces these kinds of situations. People judging others is not a good thing, and that's especially true when someone does so out of ignorance. chrono1081, I have compassion for you and am glad things worked out for you in that situation.
It's odd really, because it seems that for many years that Apple has made great strides towards cross-compatibility with Windows (the culmination of all of that being Boot Camp/Parallels), yet it seems (unless I'm mistaken) that Microsoft has not made similar strides towards Mac OS (aside from releasing Mac versions of MS Office etc.).
To me it seems that aside from higher prices for Mac, Apple has positioned the Mac very well in that it can run OSX as well as Windows. So those who may have had some reason (founded or unfounded) to dislike the Mac prior to the Boot Camp/Parallels releases really don't have much reason to continue to dislike it, other than because of the price point, which is understandable.
Truth be told, many years ago I harbored the opposite bias - for Mac, against Windows. Not anymore though. I've used Windows enough to be quite comfortable with it and actually kind of like some of it's features. But, I'm a Mac user through and through and that is just my preference.
Now that software companies are releasing games on both platforms there is no need to run Windows... Of course you can run Windows on Apple hardware if you choose.... Sorry PC's you can't run a great stable OS like OSX.