IntelliStation Z Pros

[EverythingIBM]

This one is only at $40; the seller says it has no hard drive but powers on (I'm sure putting in a cheap hard drive will make it into a fairly decent computer if the bidding stays low):
http://cgi.ebay.ca/IBM-6221-38U-INTELLISTATION-Z-PRO-FOR-PARTS-REPAIR_W0QQitemZ220604411210QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDesktop_PCs?hash=item335d0c2d4a

This one is listed at $400, I'm not sure how good a dual core 3 Ghz xeon is. 1333 FSB. Up to 32GB of RAM (damn!)
http://cgi.ebay.ca/IBM-IntelliStation-Z-Pro-Dual-Core-Xeon-3GHz-FX1500-XPP_W0QQitemZ390196588646QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDesktop_PCs?hash=item5ad9877066

[Infinite north]

New dual core chips make them obsolete. I saw a similar setup on craigs list recently for 100 bucks. It's not really worth it because xeon processors are old architecture. I have seen benchmarks that show that the new intel chips out preform old dual chip setups.

The only reason it would make sense to go that route is if you had someway to make it economically viable over purchasing a newer setup, or if you have an emotional sweet spot for xeon's.

[EverythingIBM]

I thought xeon was a little under-performing compared to the newer ones. Isn't xeon almost the same as pentium 4?

I'm not sure who'd have an "emotional attachment" to xeons. Just an overpriced pentium 4 for the gullible big corporations that have money to buy that stuff.

[ch_123]

The first one has a 3GHz Core 2 based Xeon (5160) which is not all that bad. For for that price, you could probably make your own system which would be much faster.

[EverythingIBM]

The first one has a 3GHz Core 2 based Xeon (5160) which is not all that bad. For for that price, you could probably make your own system which would be much faster.

FOR FOR! Someone is getting a little nervous and tempted to get an intellistation through stammering.

Well if it was around $50, sure why not! The graphics card sucks, quadro 1500? ewww. And I don't like the Z Pro case design.

From personal experience, the newer intel duo processors seem a lot more efficient, my silly thinkpad can do things faster than my old grunting intellistation with P4.

[ch_123]

I'd rather just upgrade my current sytem. Then again, my current system is only about a year old and there's nothing really worth upgrading in it. Still waiting for high capacity SSDs to become affordable...

[J888www]

Just finished building my system, OCZ 120GB 2.5" SATAII Solid Series Solid State Drive (£260), it is literally x 10 faster than the other 4 Year old system. Off course other components contribute to this factor, but I think it is money well spent.
By the time the price drops for SSDs, there will be other faster/better products on the market which you will desire and also be waiting for the price to drop. A life-time is far too short, better to live now than to fade away.

[EverythingIBM]

Just finished building my system, OCZ 120GB 2.5" SATAII Solid Series Solid State Drive (£260), it is literally x 10 faster than the other 4 Year old system. Off course other components contribute to this factor, but I think it is money well spent.
By the time the price drops for SSDs, there will be other faster/better products on the market which you will desire and also be waiting for the price to drop. A life-time is far too short, better to live now than to fade away.

There really is no such thing as "SATA II", so, I wouldn't use that terminology.

I didn't know OCZ made hard drives. I should use my IBM hard drive for windows 7, it's pretty kickass.

SSDs are bad because they can only be flashed so many times (I hate flash memory, it suffers from the malady of RAM in that it needs a constant supply of power). You can't really beat spinning magnetic platters.

Of course life is short! It's supposed to be. But there are a lot of silly individuals who are going around stocking up physical objects: packrats.

[Infinite north]

Ssd's dont really die when they stop working though. All the information can be retrieved from the drive once it can't write anymore. This makes the chance of data loss much less likely than with a spinning platter drive. As long as you don't have your cache or pagefile set up on it and just use it for applications\os it should last the life of the computer.

[J888www]

There really is no such thing as "SATA II", so, I wouldn't use that terminology.

SATA Revision 2.0, "SATA II" was copied and pasted from a web-page of an online-retailer (due to failing eyesight, I try not to type too much), maybe you should notify these retailers that they are using the incorrect terminology.

I didn't know OCZ made hard drives. I should use my IBM hard drive for windows 7, it's pretty kickass.

OCZ SATA II SSD, Yes they have been making these for a while, it's also one of the best and most affordable SSD's on the Market at present in comparison to other manufacturers.

SSDs are bad because they can only be flashed so many times (I hate flash memory, it suffers from the malady of RAM in that it needs a constant supply of power). You can't really beat spinning magnetic platters.

There are advantages and disadvantages for all components. In regard to 'Speed', which is the main factor for upgrade, enquire others of their choice of HDD (Platters) or SSD, many will decide on the latter, so who's to decide which is better ?

Of course life is short! It's supposed to be. But there are a lot of silly individuals who are going around stocking up physical objects: packrats.

Life is not necessarily "supposed" to be short, what Life is "supposed" to be and how long a person will live, is best left for the Omnipotent to know/decide.

Yes, it's best to obtain a new system, rather than salvaging obsolete/outdated equipment like 'IBM 6221-38U INTELLISTATION Z PRO FOR PARTS/REPAIR'/'Commodore 64'.

[ch_123]

SSDs are bad because they can only be flashed so many times

As opposed to platter hard drives which last forever? Oh wait, they don't.

(I hate flash memory, it suffers from the malady of RAM in that it needs a constant supply of power).

You're a wee bit out of date there.

You can't really beat spinning magnetic platters.

You can.

Hard drives didn't work out too well for IBM... "Deathstar" anyone?

[J888www]

"Deathstar" anyone?

Here it is, it also did not work out too well for the Empire.
May the RealForce be with you. :tongue:

[InSanCen]

Bwahahahahah....

I just knew EIBM+HDD's would end up with deathstars...

I too am waiting for the £/GB to drop to something I am willing to bite on. 60-120GB will be more than enough for an OS drive for me.

[ch_123]

The Deathstar was a marvellous design - the platters were made of glass, coated with a magnetic substrate. When the heads crashed, they'd scrape the substrate clean off the platters... When people opened the hard drive, a load of metallic dust fell out, and they were left with some useless glass coasters. Data recovery was completely and utterly impossible.

[kishy]

Truly priceless, I'd say.

What drives were most affected? I had I believe a 20GB that committed suicide fairly quickly after I put it back into service.

[InSanCen]

Truly priceless, I'd say.

What drives were most affected? I had I believe a 20GB that committed suicide fairly quickly after I put it back into service.

The 75GB versions stick out in my mind. I had 2 that died, and knew personally of many others. In the end the retailer refunded me after 3 RMA's for each drive.

[itlnstln]

I have 2 Deathstars after Hitachi took over that are still running strong (knock on wood).  Maybe Hitachi fixed something.

[kishy]

I've got an 80GB Hitachi Travelstar in my laptop. Not a quiet drive, but it performs nicely.

[ricercar]

Hitachi were the most silent drive available before the IBM buyout. Since then, I'm not convinced.

[kishy]

Hitachi were the most silent drive available before the IBM buyout. Since then, I'm not convinced.

In my case it's likely because it's a 7200RPM drive in a laptop.

[EverythingIBM]

Truly priceless, I'd say.

What drives were most affected? I had I believe a 20GB that committed suicide fairly quickly after I put it back into service.

Hey those are the ones I have!
Model: DTLA-307020
7200 RPM, 20 GB.

My IBM deskstars are working great, I love the startup noise (grrrrreeeee). Reminds me of my SCSI.

I also have another IBM one, it just says "IBM OEM", model DALA-3540, 540 MB, and it's made in the UK.

[kishy]

540MB drive you described reminds me of the drive in my PS/2 56. Came out of some sort of IBM Industrial system years ago.

[ch_123]

I have an 80MB IBM SCSI drive - it's a double height 3.5" drive... quite an impressive site to behold.

[kishy]

I have an 80MB IBM SCSI drive - it's a double height 3.5" drive... quite an impressive site to behold.

I can do better than that.

ST-250R on the shelf behind me. 40-something MB, half-height 5.25".

[ch_123]

I have some Hitachi half-height... I think it's 500MB or so.... even comes with a little plastic envelope on top containing a table of unusable sectors... Uses what looks like some pre-ATA connector.

[EverythingIBM]

540MB drive you described reminds me of the drive in my PS/2 56. Came out of some sort of IBM Industrial system years ago.

The one I have might be too then if that's what yours is. I just got it out of a random computer my (now) deceased semi-uncle had.

I have an 80MB IBM SCSI drive - it's a double height 3.5" drive... quite an impressive site to behold.

Well, do you use it? There's no point of having it and not putting it to work.

[ch_123]

Yes, obviously I use an 80MB SCSI from the 1980s in my year-old computer... ^o)

[InSanCen]

Don't make me dig out the 5MB Seagate...

I do have a working(!) 10GB Quantum Bigfoot here. It doesn't sound like much, or very old, but these things dropped like flies. They made the deathstars look reliable. The 386/40 runs an 80MB Connor IIRC. And it's still vast overkill.

[kishy]

Don't make me dig out the 5MB Seagate...

I do have a working(!) 10GB Quantum Bigfoot here. It doesn't sound like much, or very old, but these things dropped like flies. They made the deathstars look reliable. The 386/40 runs an 80MB Connor IIRC. And it's still vast overkill.

I believe the lowest capacity drive I have is a 20-some MB ST-125. It's HH 3.5" however.

Was able to obtain one of these so I'm not dealing with pre-ATA hard drives again, unless they're SCSI, even in rather old machines.

[D-EJ915]

My AT has a 32MB (if I remember) full-height MFM drive, has a nice plastic faceplate on it with an LED haha

[ricercar]

My oldest is a 40 MB Seagate from my 1990 386sz purchase. There's some files I hope to get off it someday.

[kishy]

My oldest is a 40 MB Seagate from my 1990 386sz purchase. There's some files I hope to get off it someday.

If it's ST412 you absolutely require the same brand/model of controller card if you want to access it (when a drive is first LLF'd it becomes paired up with that controller and will only be usable with it until next LLF'd on another card)

If you haven't junked the card, don't. If you have, better try to find one.

You might know this, but if not, it'll bite you in the ass pretty hard if you don't have the card.

[InSanCen]

My AT has a 32MB (if I remember) full-height MFM drive, has a nice plastic faceplate on it with an LED haha

This is one of that family too... youngun's crap when they hear the seek noise off these things! I seem to remember that mine used to have a faceplate with a red LED in it, but it's just a bare drive now.

[ricercar]

If it's ST412 you absolutely require the same brand/model of controller card if you want to access it

I'm hosed then. It was low level formatted on a long-lost Packard Bell.

[kishy]

I'm hosed then. It was low level formatted on a long-lost Packard Bell.

Well, perhaps "absolutely require" is an overstatement.

It is conceivable that multiple controllers used the same LLF technique but you'd have to get a ****load of them and go through card by card. Alternatively put up a wanted ad for an entire machine on local kijiji/craigslist site; if it was from a major company there's a good chance the same type of controller was present in all of that model.

Another option would be finding some way to read the contents of the drive on a bit by bit basis and then somehow translate the necessary portions into usable files, but that'd be far more work than it could possible be worth. Data recovery places will likely do it as well for a massive fee (as I understand it, the files are there and accessible, but cards won't know how to interface with it if the LLF was done with a different card...there's some way to get around this but I don't know it)

[Hak Foo]

I believe the lowest capacity drive I have is a 20-some MB ST-125. It's HH 3.5" however.
.

I used to have a 286-10 with two 20Mb 3.5 1" high drives.  One was a MiniScribe with a component which turned visibly as the drive seeked.

Right now, my smallest is a 40M in a 386SX-16.  I'd expect most 386SXs to be IDE-- 386SX meant cheap, IDE meant cheap too.  Next largest: 200M in a 486-133 laptop, features OS/2 3.0

[EverythingIBM]

Yes, obviously I use an 80MB SCSI from the 1980s in my year-old computer... ^o)

See now we're talking. Hook that sucker up to linux and you're set.

[JBert]

Hey those are the ones I have!
Model: DTLA-307020
7200 RPM, 20 GB.

My IBM deskstars are working great, I love the startup noise (grrrrreeeee). Reminds me of my SCSI.

I also have another IBM one, it just says "IBM OEM", model DALA-3540, 540 MB, and it's made in the UK.

I hope they keep that regular noise. Some people started calling them IBM "Deathstars" after a series of bad failures in the past.

[EverythingIBM]

I hope they keep that regular noise. Some people started calling them IBM "Deathstars" after a series of bad failures in the past.

That new IntelliStation 9229 I bought has THE WORLD'S NOISIEST HARD DRIVE. It was so freaking loud that even *I* could not tolerate it, a super fast delta fan would be music to the ears washing out such noises.

Guess I can always replace it, but I'm lazy to do that... plus I want to get some recordings of it and show some people as they are amazed.

[ch_123]

You've obviously never been in a [proper] server room...

[EverythingIBM]

You've obviously never been in a [proper] server room...

The server rooms I've been in were virtually silent: I was shocked not to hear the SCSI drives all grumbling and making noises.

[ricercar]

I've never encountered a silent server room.

[kishy]

I've never encountered a silent server room.

Then you've never been in a properly secured (read: power-disconnected) Windows server room.

And to think I like Windows!

[EverythingIBM]

Then you've never been in a properly secured (read: power-disconnected) Windows server room.

And to think I like Windows!

The only reason I like windows is because all of my hardware and software is made for it.

Bill was right, control the software and you control everything.

I do however like the windows interface SO MUCH better than OSX: I can actually do a thing called "maximize" instead of having windows all over the damn place.

I'm in a bad mood right now, the windows 7 paint is pissing me off so much. I want the XP or 98 version...

[ch_123]

You can maximize and minimize in OS X too. I've even done it myself.

The Mac OS X is far from being the perfect UI, but it has some very clever ideas.

[ricercar]

Personally I'd pay a small fortune to cascade windows in MacOS, but I've yet to see a utility that offers it. MacOS neXt has some good ideas, some atrocious, and it also discards many better ones that Apple R&D discovered and ran with for a decade.

[EverythingIBM]

You can maximize and minimize in OS X too. I've even done it myself.

The Mac OS X is far from being the perfect UI, but it has some very clever ideas.

When I mean maximize I mean SNAPPING the window and covering everything at the bottom including the little "media bar" (I hate that thing, especially the bouncing icons). Not just filling the window pathetically with little gaps in the rounded corners, not truly being snapped, and still having a huge gaping hole in the bottom.

Personally, I think windows classic is the best interface. Plain, easy to see, doesn't get boring, and highly functional. Windows 7 even has the option to change the colour of it, so you can get rid of that slight beige tinge and put it back to the windows 98 grey. AND, no stupid rounded edges!

[ch_123]

Personally, I think windows classic is the best interface because it's the one I used first

Corrected.

Free your mind, man.

[ch_123]

Lets assess the facts here -

1) When you maximize a window in Windows, it doesn't cover the taskbar either.
2) Mac OS X lets you fullscreen windows.
3) The dock (or whatever it's called) is excessively oversized by default IMHO, but the size can be changed if needs be.

I was able to figure out how to make windows fullsize, and how to change the dock size without reading any manual or the like... Says a lot really.

As for rounded edges -

[EverythingIBM]

Fully maximized, no rounded corners:


THAT'S how an interface should be.

EDIT: and yeah, the task bars should be at the bottom, since the top is reserved for the title. Not at the TOP. Otherwise you'd either have to put the title at the bottom, or end up stacking the title at the top with the task bar at the top... highly inefficient and messy.