suggest use for extra mac pro

[dan_meyers1]

<p>Because of the never-ending upgrade cycle, I now own two mac pros: a early-2007 and mid-2010 which will effectively replace the 2007 as my work station. The older machine is frozen with Snow Leopard due to logic board limitations, hence the newer machine (Mavericks). But it still runs great, has 16GB of RAM and 4 internal drives. My other current hardware includes both a 4-bay and 2-bay external drive enclosure, an Epson 3800 and a two monitor setup.</p>

<p>I want to utilize the older machine in an efficient manner but I'm not that versed in what role it could best serve. I do not need my entire archive on-line and don't have a need for a media server and don't completely understand how to implement a server either. The old machine can only run LR 4 but the newer one has LR 5 (both have CS6) and I feel that limits the role it can play, but maybe you have more informed ideas for me to consider.</p>

<p>Looking forward to hearing your ideas!</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>I was in the same boat. What I ended up doing with giving it away to a charity and taking a tax write-off. I know that's not the same as recycling for your own use but that damn big box was hot, noisy and used too much electricity, took up too much space. Afterwards I ended up needing an old Mac to run an old OS and software and found a MacBook on eBay for $160. So in the end I wasn't disappointed with the choice. And the charity got really good use out of the old Mac. I did wipe it clean and just installed the OS that shipped with it initially. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>...be you have more informed ideas for me to consider.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Windows.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>I use a first year Mac Pro 1.1 that was running OS 10.6.8. I wanted to install Lightroom 5, but could not due to the OS. Fortunately, I could update to OS 10.7.5, Lion, and can now run Lightroom 5.5. You should be able to as well. I think that it cost me $20 from Apple to download the OS. I know that I will need to upgrade the computer in the near future, but the price of a new Mac Pro is daunting.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Use it to run a film scanner, if you need one. It can also be used as an internet radio, etc.<br /> Internet surfing doesn't require anything special and you can keep it separated from your other machines on its own network. That would be especially wise if you choose to run a version of Windows on it, where paranoia is your friend. (Friends don't let friends drive Windows..)</p>

<p>I have an early Intel Model Macbook that I read the morning papers on. My PowerPC chip machine with SCSI ran my old film scanner for years. At most times, I have 3 machines running, sometimes as many as 5.<br /> Our old idea of one person, one computer, was soooo limited. :)</p>

<p>Since the demise of the CRT, the old fishbowl idea has been cut off, but you can get software still, I think, that will put fish on the screen. And you don't have to clean the tank either.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Windows.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And those nifty virus! <br>

Dave, let's start by asking you a specific question instead of making assumptions. Any desire to move to Windows? <strong>Or</strong> you're specifically asking what to do with that old Mac? That's what I gather you were doing but it doesn't hurt to ask before making suggestions that have no bearing on the topic.</p>

<p>The idea of using this big box for driving an older scanner or SCIS device is a good one too assuming again you need to do this kind of task. I still think the old Macbook used as JMD describes would work equally well. The Mac hardware I ran my very old drum scanners on (ScanMate and Howtek) in the mid 1990's were puny power wise compared to a PowerPC Macbook. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>(Friends don't let friends drive Windows..)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed and any Intel Mac can run Windows just fine if you're that kind of masochist. </p>

[dan_meyers1]

<p>Thanks for the responses everyone.</p>

<p>I have ZERO interest in running windows!</p>

<p>I also have a Nikon film scanner that works well with the machine but somehow that scenario feels like a bunch of underutilized hardware sitting there.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The alternative (well, one alternative) being that it doesn't do anything at all, i'd say it's not too bad.<br>I have a once considered rather powerfull HP workstation doing the same: it is not much more than a scanning station for the Coolscans. It also doubles as a (too much energy consuming) network attached storage for the files produced.<br><br>Could be that i am too familiar with Windows, by the way, having used it for as long as it exists, but i don't think there is anything wrong with Windows that other OSs don't also suffer from. CP/M and Unix (terrible, but at the time, you didn't know better) and now Linux (a little bit better than Unix - the different shells do their best trying to disguise what is underneath). Everything Apple produced. The MS stuff, DOS and Windows. OS2, Mach and Nextstep: all very, very much more the same than different.<br>From Apple, through MS to Linux there is a progression of a 'closed', through a rather open, to a fully 'open' system, and it costs progressively less to run the same stuff on these OSs.<br>Apple hardware used to be different (not better: different) and the choice you made was not just in how much you paid, but also in what you got for your money. Nowadays, the hardware is the same, the price difference still is huge. One could say that friends don't let friends drive Apple. But that would be as meaningless as the reverse. Pick what you like (even if what you like is only the way the thingies look) and forget about those false differences.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I have ZERO interest in running windows!</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Other's</em> it appears would like you to feel otherwise. Talk about taking a topic OT. </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>somehow that scenario feels like a bunch of underutilized hardware sitting there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have 535.88 GB on disk for 76992 items (just now), most of which are digitized slides and negatives. That does not include a substantial number of other digitized larger-format images (1.83 GB on disk for 2444 items, mostly 4x5 Polaroid originals). This does not constitute "underutilization," but rather the liberation of my other machines to do current work. :)<br /> "It's true, it's true" that I have now done almost all of my scanning that I will ever do of <em>slides</em> (<a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00arR1">link</a>), but I continue to shoot negative films of various kinds, so nothing is exactly "idle." :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do 'em large<br /> Do 'em all<br /> Do 'em once</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lessons learned the hard way.</p>

[dan_meyers1]

<p>I run an old Dell with XP Professional for a few specific apps and an HP scanner so let's please drop the whole Windows <> Apple snooze fest because it just doesn't apply to my original question. My thinking now is veering towards putting the old box in the garage, connecting it to the network, and running it as a backup server to my new machine and the various laptops in the household. What I don't like about this is the unnecessary constant use of electricity but it would facilitate easy backups, which does have value.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>What I don't like about this is the unnecessary constant use of electricity but it would facilitate easy backups, which does have value.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if you could setup this system such the MacPro awakes at a specific time for a specific period, does the necessary backups, then sleeps. The Schedule within <em>Energy Saver</em> Control Panel should be a good start. Depending on the backup software you use, if it syncs up with the schedule on the MacPro, you're good to go. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I run an old Dell with XP Professional for a few specific apps and an HP scanner so let's please drop the whole Windows <> Apple snooze fest because it just doesn't apply to my original question<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some posters can't help themselves. I too have a Windows laptop I need for tech support and software testing but by choice I don't migrate to it unless I have to. Simply a personal preference. Maybe some of those pushing the Windows mantra here can start a Nikon is better than Canon thread. Or the Pacific ocean is better than the Atlantic ocean. Dark Chocolate is better than Milk, etc. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If low energy use is your primary goal, what are you doing with Mac Pros, anyhow? Get the smallest screen MacBook Air. (The keyboard lights up so you can type in the dark. You'll have to supply your own mittens.)</p>

<p>Give the older Mac Pro(s) to a local school; or a bright, but impecunious, youth.</p>

<p>;)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Interesting, I have an older plastic iMac running tiger just to use with my Nikon scanner. A mac pro is probably overkill for that but it is something it could do.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>"Simply a personal preference. Maybe some of those pushing the Windows mantra here can [...]"</i><br>Interesting that remarking that you wouldn't wish Windows on any of your friends is not pushing a mantra, but saying that that is a rather pointless thing to say and that you should just follow your personal preferences is... ;-)<br><br>Power use is indeed something i'm concerned about using an old computer as web storage. No solution: either the thing is on and usefull, or it is off and at least takes too long to power up again to avoid it being a nuisance. I find it takes planning: knowing when you are going to want to access the data on the thing and taking the trouble (it doesn't help putting the computer in the garage, but that's what you do, put it out of the way somewhere) to switch it on. Wake up On LAN helps.<br>Another concern are the HDDs. I wonder whether it would be better to switch to NAS drives.

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting that remarking that you wouldn't wish Windows on any of your friends is not pushing a mantra,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>I never said that</strong>, you <em>might</em> get farther taking this off topic by directing your comments to the person who made them! I happen to agree with the person who made that comment none the less.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No solution: either the thing is on and usefull, or it is off and at least takes too long to power up again to avoid it being a nuisance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, there are solutions and I outlined one possibility to reduce consumption for that big box. Yes, power consumption IS important to some of us, and I put my money where my mouth is: My recent home was built to LEED Gold standards and this year, I've sent 122 kWz back to the grid which isn't bad when my goal was net zero, despite heating and cooling of the home most of the year.</p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Simply a personal preference. Maybe some of those pushing the Windows mantra here can [...]"</em><br />Interesting that remarking that you wouldn't wish Windows on any of your friends is not pushing a mantra, but saying that that is a rather pointless thing to say and that you should just follow your personal preferences is... ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't say a word without it being cited and countered. But hey, it's argue.net after all.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I never said that</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

See.<strong><br /></strong></p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>I have ZERO interest in running windows!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So do I, Dan. I shrug and use both platforms. I use a mac laptop in the field and a high performance Windows desktop. Do I care if my car is a Honda or a Ford? Nope. I just use the most flexible tool and 14 years on XP and the probably the same will be said with W8.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

A reduction in power consumption is mostly* paid for by having a less responsive system. You will have to wait until it wakes up before you can get to the files you requested. If you set it up to WOL, the power saving is biggest, but it takes longest to respond.<br>(* The machine doesn't need a monitor when used as a file server or network drive. And that makes it a bit better.)<br>I think it worth giving it a go (do so myself - though i have the PC not that far away and will switch it off when leaving the building, switch it on when back and i think i will need the thing. I do the same with the network printer). After all, you have the machine. And if it doesn't work out, you can always do what JDM suggested.

[dan_meyers1]

<p>^Is there anything special needed to create a file server, like specific software or operating sysstem?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The easiest way is to share all drives on the PC across the home or office network and create drive mappings on all computers in that network that are going to access the drives.

[tom_elessar]

<p>Sell it on Craigslist. For $500 – $800, someone will be able to do something useful with it, especially if they put an SSD in as a boot drive. 256GB SSDs are now under $200.</p>

[dan_meyers1]

<p>If the network thing doesn't work out then I thing Craigslist is a great idea.</p>

[Dave410]

<p>I'm confused. You mean you can't just replace the motherboard, CPU, hard drive, video card, RAM or whatever like I can on my PC?? (Actually, I'm not confused because I know you can't. I just couldn't resist pulling your chain. Cheers.)</p>

[EricM]

<p>If you're considering a file server Dan, how about a nas like Synology or QNAP? I'm going that route when I have some down time. </p>