I kinda see what you guys are saying…………

[mostapha]

So, I'm looking into building a computer to host VMs. Nothing all that big…just servers to run backups and antivirus on my home network, plus a dev box, a place to play with VMs, a file server, possibly a router (since the one we have from Comcast blows)……stuff like that.

Looking into it lead me to realize that only high-end stuff does good hardware virtualization, which is something I "need" to make sure nothing can touch my backup drives other than the VM that does backups.

Still, "high end" ain't mean what it used to.

I haven't actually committed to buying it, but………

MSI Z77MA-G45 (onboard graphics, 4 ram slots, gigabit ethernet, probably some other stuff)
i7 quad core 3.5GHz (3770K)
32 GB DDR3 1333 ram
256GB OCZ Vertex 4 boot drive (might have to bump up a size)
some cheap micro ATX case
500W power supply
And a wifi card that runs under linux……
…and able to use the 5TB of storage I have sitting around…

For about $800.

What?

I need to make sure all the stuff on the motherboard is supported by xen and the linux distros I'm going to use, and I need to decide if it's worth the money for a "toy" that will probably never see any "real" use (I'll interact with it entirely through ssh or something like VNC at most).

But I finally get the "Apples are expensive" mantra.

I'm not about to switch for music and general use, because I still don't consider windows "usable" let alone good. But I finally get what you PC guys are saying about Apples being expensive.

[Era 7]

let alone being user unfriendly because of the whole custom parts thing going on. but yeah that's a helluva machine for that price.

[mostapha]

Yeah…the soldered RAM on the Air and Retina laptops are fucking stupid. If they're going to do that, the least they could do is offer real RAM upgrades at the time of purchase.

IDK, I could use linux for 90% of what I do……unfortunately, it's the 90% that's easy on the computer.

[Glen]

"because I still don't consider windows "usable" let alone good."
Im not sure how you came to this conclusion, a windows 7 ultimate machine under those specs would run beautifully, i understand if you love linux/ubuntu, but i think you should at least give it a try! I think it gets a bad rep from people not using it to its full potential

[vanaema78]

Ubuntu these days is even worse than Windows.

[mostapha]

"because I still don't consider windows "usable" let alone good."
Im not sure how you came to this conclusion, a windows 7 ultimate machine under those specs would run beautifully, i understand if you love linux/ubuntu, but i think you should at least give it a try! I think it gets a bad rep from people not using it to its full potential

The way I see it, it doesn't have any potential. And that has nothing to do with stability/virus lies or Apple Fanboyism. Apple scares me almost as much as Facebook and Google because their design decisions have so much of an impact on my life.

I essentially do 3 classes of things with computers.

1. "normal things" like web, email, chat, playing/streaming media, etc.
2. "developer/hacker things" that require a good shell (cygwin is a joke) and a good terminal emulator (OS X Terminal and xterm both work fine).
3. "music things" that require real apps like Pro Tools and Maschine, plus all the junk that comes with them.

Windows will do 1 and 3 just fine, though 3 can be more of a headache than with Apple.
Linux will do 1 and 2 just fine. In some ways, it does 1 better than OS X because it's less ugly and has better window managers available. In others, it's worse, since playing blue ray disks on linux is still in its infancy (like the first DeCSS days with DVDs)

OS X is the only one that will do all 3, and with macports (or homebrew) and xnomad, it's pretty close to the same UX that I like from Linux…except that you interact with text files less and updating system software is way more cumbersome.

And a Mac Mini would actually do everything that I want this potential computer to do……it'd just be slower (partially because you can't shove 32GB of ram in a Mac Mini but mostly because I don't think the xen hypervisor will run on it). And I don't need it to do music things. Or really normal things, since I have a nice LG 22" display for my MBP when I'm at home.

Ubuntu these days is even worse than Windows.

How so? Bloat?

I mean, Unity sucks, and that was the biggest recent change I can remember. But so did Gnome when they used that. And its package manager is a bit on the crappy side compared to something like portage, but it's usable. I guess it installs a lot of crap I don't need………but it's not crap I have to turn off, as would be the case with Windows or is the case with OS X.

Switch to a window manager that doesn't suck (I'm starting to really love dwm) and realize that you might have to install a lot of stuff from source, and it works just fine. It's a bit of a disk space hog, but my ubuntu install (dev machine for a specific project…didn't have a choice) is only an 8GB VM image, and it's half empty. That's not too bad even when you consider that it has zero media/content files on it.

[JonathanBlake]

The comparative spec Mac to the ASUS that I bought about 2 years ago was exactly double the price (in Rands). Using all the advice on these forums to unbloat the ASUS and run it lean has resulted in a machine that has NEVER failed me (save one embarressing operator error). I am now considering an update (faster processor, lighter & more compact aluminium unibody, longer battery life etc). Once again the Mac comes in at twice the price of the ASUS with the same specs. A combination of financial restraints and being an ASUS fan-boy helps the final decision. Would I like a Mac - sure. Am I compromising myself - no. My requirements are nowhere close to what you are looking for Mostapha, but the same things filter through to an off-the-shelf purchase.

[mostapha]

Yeah…it kind of annoys me that I can't use Windows, because then I'd be able to use less expensive computers. But I really just can't. Even for a dedicated music machine, too much of what I need to do has to do with moving files around, batch renaming, backups……and it's so much easier to do that when you have a system than can run gnu tools and has a variety of real scripting languages.

Windows just isn't *nix. And for me that makes it unusable.

[NewManSoon]

So, I'm looking into building a computer to host VMs. Nothing all that big…just servers to run backups and antivirus on my home network, plus a dev box, a place to play with VMs, a file server, possibly a router (since the one we have from Comcast blows)……stuff like that.

Looking into it lead me to realize that only high-end stuff does good hardware virtualization, which is something I "need" to make sure nothing can touch my backup drives other than the VM that does backups.

Still, "high end" ain't mean what it used to.

I haven't actually committed to buying it, but………

MSI Z77MA-G45 (onboard graphics, 4 ram slots, gigabit ethernet, probably some other stuff)
i7 quad core 3.5GHz (3770K)
32 GB DDR3 1333 ram
256GB OCZ Vertex 4 boot drive (might have to bump up a size)
some cheap micro ATX case
500W power supply
And a wifi card that runs under linux……
…and able to use the 5TB of storage I have sitting around…

For about $800.

What?

I need to make sure all the stuff on the motherboard is supported by xen and the linux distros I'm going to use, and I need to decide if it's worth the money for a "toy" that will probably never see any "real" use (I'll interact with it entirely through ssh or something like VNC at most).

But I finally get the "Apples are expensive" mantra.

I'm not about to switch for music and general use, because I still don't consider windows "usable" let alone good. But I finally get what you PC guys are saying about Apples being expensive.

Look into running Proxmox as your virtualization platform - a bare metal hypervisor. It runs a very small footprint of Debian Linux. With that being said, you don't need to worry about being so picky with the hardware to build the server. I run my virtual machines in Raid and the OS on it's own HD. Currently I have a file server, PBX and some different windows servers to mess around with.

Good thing about about Proxmox is, it supports OpenVZ AND KVM machines. If you are un familiar, OpenVZ shares the kernel with the hypervisor (proxmox / Debian in this case) so the VM's require very little resources in terms of ram and processor power. If you are using windows vm's, then KVM is needed and you assign them their own resources.

Also, it supports fail over cluster , live migration, has a backup system and lots of community support.

All in all, Proxmox is pretty amazing... and it is FREE.

Check it out.

[ZxZDeViLZxZ]

Have 4 systems that specs running ram in XMP mode and yeah it flys on 7 has to be windows for what their used for certain programs won't run without.... Honestly great CPU however I think dare I even say this..... AMD newer architecture blows intel for multi core use when doing virtualization.... Atleast I recall reading this... That said I trust an intel build over an amd unless we're talking xenons and operatrons the. I'm up in the air.
As far as Linux distros I have taken a liking to fedora Ubuntu has been sketchy lately eye candy over functionality bugs me