PDA

View Full Version : Mac Pro To Continue Quad-Core Tradition? Woodcrest?


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 9, 2006, 08:42 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

AppleInsider is confirming (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1797) that Apple's upcoming Mac Pro will indeed be quad-core in at least one model. However, with quad-core on a single chip (Kentsfield (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060327125521.shtml)) not due until Q1 2007, Apple will have to employ two dual-core chips like today's Quad.

The use of multiple processors in the Mac Pro would require Intel's Woodcrest chip. Early rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060307170617.shtml) had indicated that Conroe was on tap for the Mac Pro, but Conroe can not be used in dual-processor configurations.

Recent pre-release benchmarks of Woodcrest can be found here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/05/20060524125900.shtml). Still unknown about the Mac Pro is exactly what Apple has in store for the enclosure. AppleInsider does note that recent motherboard prototypes from Intel largely mimic the size of today's PowerMac motherboards, which could indicate that an immediate departure from the current form factor is not in the cards.

AoWolf
Jun 9, 2006, 08:46 AM
At least it will be fast :-)

Are these intel chips 64bit or is that something that will just kind of fade away?

carlos700
Jun 9, 2006, 08:46 AM
As affordable as the new XEON 5000 series are, I would hope to see a couple Quad machines.

d_and_n5000
Jun 9, 2006, 08:47 AM
Well, assuming this is true, it is a good thing - now we can focus on one particular chip's specs to see what is in the future!

But no new enclosure...Apple, I'm getting a little bored. There's gotta be something new in Ive's mind!

longofest
Jun 9, 2006, 08:48 AM
At least it will be fast :-)

Are these intel chips 64bit or is that something that will just kind of fade away?

They are indeed 64-bit. Everything here on out will be 64-bit.

RichP
Jun 9, 2006, 08:48 AM
Are we even suprised? Apple has always touted their top of the line macs to be some of the fastest machines available, they are going to need something really standout to be a flagship model.

And it makes sense they are going to keep a very similar form factor. Change the aesthetics of the case, then the ACDs need to change too.

getBytesLoaded
Jun 9, 2006, 08:51 AM
Are we even suprised? Apple has always touted their top of the line macs to be some of the fastest machines available, they are going to need something really standout to be a flagship model.

And it makes sense they are going to keep a very similar form factor. Change the aesthetics of the case, then the ACDs need to change too.

What the h is an ACD?

AoWolf
Jun 9, 2006, 08:52 AM
They are indeed 64-bit. Everything here on out will be 64-bit.


Ah ok thats good then.

Sharewaredemon
Jun 9, 2006, 08:52 AM
I wanted to vote for the G4 G3 choice just because it was funny....

I'm starting to warm up to these poles Q.

SciTeach
Jun 9, 2006, 08:58 AM
They are indeed 64-bit. Everything here on out will be 64-bit.


Until a few years from now when everything will be 128-bit.:eek: :rolleyes:

If my memory is correct (It fails sometimes), hasn't Apple announced their "Pro" line in the past at WWDC (usually June) but not have the computers until mid-Oct or even close to MacExpo SF in January. Maybe the top end won't come out until then.

m-dogg
Jun 9, 2006, 08:59 AM
Sounds bad@ss!

The PowerMacPro is more than I need, but it's nice to see them make it impressive!

BenRoethig
Jun 9, 2006, 09:00 AM
The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.

Scarlet Fever
Jun 9, 2006, 09:00 AM
acd = apple cinema display

I liked the G3/4 cases, but they are terribly outdated. The current design shows power, but it wasn't designed with looks, but efficiency in mind. The reason it has holes all down the front and back of it is to increase airflow to keep those hot hot chips cool.

When the quad-core chips come out, i reckon we may be expecting an oct-core PM/MP... can't wait for the technology of tomorrow...

Lollypop
Jun 9, 2006, 09:01 AM
ACD = apple cinema display. I like the current G5 enclosure, looks good, stylish and powerfull, why change a winning formula?

Mac Fly (film)
Jun 9, 2006, 09:01 AM
The current design is sleek, but I suspect any negativity will come form people who either want a lighter case, smaller case or blunter handles :D

tcmcam
Jun 9, 2006, 09:04 AM
Apple has made the iMac better, so it has to come up with new ways to differentiate from the MacPro.

The iMac NOW includes: (this used to require a PowerMac)
- External DVI for dual-monitor support
- Dual-Core Processing

The MacPro at a minimum will provide everything the iMac does, plus:
- PCI slots for expansion
- Additional Hard Drive options
- Hopefully DUAL - dual-core chips (Woodcrest)

If all the MacPro becomes is an "expandable" iMac, that could be an issue. I see the iMac being a pretty good platform for many small business users. Perhaps the MacPro just becomes a platform for the SERIOUS horsepower user (e.g. Quark, Final Cut, Aperture, Illustrator).

I personally would love to see TWO form factors in a new "MacPro"
1. A full sized tower like today. Supports QUAD processors and everything you can throw at it.

2. A "mini-tower". Bigger than the cube, perhaps only 2 slots (one for Video, one for "future"). And a couple of hard drive bays. This would be the perfect "step up" for iMac users that need more expandability. This could just be dual-core chips like the iMac, just with more expandability. I personally would pay a small premium over the iMac for this capability.

my 2 cents....

7on
Jun 9, 2006, 09:04 AM
depending on the cooling required, the holes may just simply disappear. Maybe dual optical drives? more front ports?

Grimace
Jun 9, 2006, 09:09 AM
Excellent, I'm already saving up!

Good: Dual-Core Conroe
Better: Dual-Core Conroe (faster)
Best: 2x Dual-Core Woodcrest (insane)

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:09 AM
It's great to hear that Apple might be planning to do this. As the news item states, Conroe cannot operate in a dual processor configuration, so Woodcrest would have to be used. It wil be interesting to see if Apple splits up the line with 2 separate processor architectures - Conroe for the lower 2(?) models and Woodcrest for the top machine. Or perhaps they will introduce a "Mac" and a "MacPro", with the "Mac" being a Conroe mini-tower and the "MacPro" being a Woodcrest beast. :eek: ;) :cool:

p0intblank
Jun 9, 2006, 09:14 AM
Bring on the Mac Pro! :D

As for the design, I am very happy with how it is now. I don't own a Power Mac G5, but I really do love its current design. If they do redesign it and it looks even better, then I'm all for that too. :)

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:14 AM
I think this article is probably accurate, as Apple doesn't really have much choice in the matter. Intel is the future, PPC is "old", so Apple will need to release a top end PowerMac to compete with the current quad PPC beast. Conroe isn't going to do that. And Apple is not going to release a new PowerMac with new Intel technology and then have the "old" quad PPC PowerMac still outperform it. Apple needs to release something better than the quad, which is a tall order to fill, however Woodcrest is definitely the answer. Until Kentsfield and Cloverton that is. :cool:

admford
Jun 9, 2006, 09:14 AM
Personally, I'm a bit worried in the fact that only after the new year, many professional apps will be released in universal binary format. I understand that Apple wants to transition completely to Intel chips, but with the lack of native pro apps, the true speed of the machines, even quald cores, could be severely under rated for over six months.

Apple is trying ot boast that the passage to Intel chips gives their computers a large adavance in speed, but with the Quad Core PowerMac, being as fast as it is, it's going to be extremely hard for Apple to produce something that on ALL apps is at least 1.5x faster than the current generation.

LtCarter47
Jun 9, 2006, 09:16 AM
Or perhaps they will introduce a "Mac" and a "MacPro", with the "Mac" being a Conroe mimi-tower and the "MacPro" being a Woodcrest beast. :eek: ;) :cool:


Interesting idea. I wonder if the "Mac" could then fit in a smaller case design...

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:16 AM
As for the design, I am very happy with how it is now. I don't own a Power Mac G5, but I really do love its current design. If they do redesign it and it looks even better, then I'm all for that too. :)

Yeah, I don't see anything really wrong with the current design, other than the fact that the towers are fairly large, and there is a lot of unused space in it. I'm all for avoiding clutter and being minimal, but only to a degree.

Plus, Apple hasn't redesigned any of their machines for the Intel transition, so I see no need to now. But you never know - Apple is always full of surprises!

Grimace
Jun 9, 2006, 09:23 AM
Remember when Steve announced the move to Intel? He was on an Intel Powermac. Lower chip power consumption and more than a year (maybe more!) to play around with new enclosures -- I can definitely see a redesign.

I really hope that both DVI ports are dual-link. The $3000 pro machine shouldn't need to have another video card added (or a more expensive card substituted) for pro users. I'm thinking dual 30" displays for photo/design pros.

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 09:24 AM
Or perhaps they will introduce a "Mac" and a "MacPro", with the "Mac" being a Conroe mimi-tower and the "MacPro" being a Woodcrest beast. :eek: ;) :cool:
That sounds like a great idea, but Apple will never do it.


;)

jelloshotsrule
Jun 9, 2006, 09:27 AM
i can see them doing single chip, dual core conroes for the bottom and middle tiers of the line, with the quad core going for the top end. and then maybe a year down the road all of them will be quad (similar to how everything eventually went dual a few years ago).... i'd like to see a case redesign for some of the practical reasons (only 2 internal hdds, no dual optical, just wasted space in general), but also just because it's always interesting to see a new case/design.

looking forward to it.

Peace
Jun 9, 2006, 09:29 AM
The key to the new Mac Pro is the size of the motherboard being the same as the G5..
Knowing how Intel boards are designed I'd say we're in for quit a machine.

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:31 AM
Apple is trying ot boast that the passage to Intel chips gives their computers a large adavance in speed, but with the Quad Core PowerMac, being as fast as it is, it's going to be extremely hard for Apple to produce something that on ALL apps is at least 1.5x faster than the current generation.

Quite true. Many people look at Photoshop benchmarks, for instance, and I can’t see a quad PPC running CS2 natively being beat too easily by a Woodcrest PowerMac running it via Rosetta. With many apps not going universal until late 2006 or 2007 (especially CS3 not coming out for almost another year) this might pose a bit of a challenge. Of course though, it all comes down to the chicken and the egg problem – app developers won’t go to Intel until Intel machines are out there and people are using them, but people don’t want to buy Intel machines until the apps are there for them to use. ;) :cool:

Platform
Jun 9, 2006, 09:34 AM
It's great to hear that Apple might be planning to do this. As the news item states, Conroe cannot operate in a dual processor configuration, so Woodcrest would have to be used. It wil be interesting to see if Apple splits up the line with 2 separate processor architectures - Conroe for the lower 2(?) models and Woodcrest for the top machine. Or perhaps they will introduce a "Mac" and a "MacPro", with the "Mac" being a Conroe mimi-tower and the "MacPro" being a Woodcrest beast. :eek: ;) :cool:

Not too bad of an idea :cool:

I just don't get why people want more optical drives? for what?

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:35 AM
Interesting idea. I wonder if the "Mac" could then fit in a smaller case design...

I think that would be the whole point. Especially with only one Conroe processor in it, a smaller form factor would be ideal. Plus, I personally believe a gap exists between the iMac and the PowerMac where a product like this could fit. I think for many people, a PowerMac, especially the quad beast, is far too much for their needs, power-wise and cost-wise. Yet the iMac, although very powerful, might not be the ideal choice for some people due to its lack of upgradeability (apart from the memory). For instance, I really only need an iMac for my needs, yet if my HDD fails or if my built-in screen dies, I’m pretty much screwed. I can’t replace those components, nor can I upgrade them if I ever wanted to in the future to extends the machine’s life. If my machine goes, my perfectly good display is useless, and vice versa. A “mini PowerMac” would be ideal for me. :cool:

That sounds like a great idea, but Apple will never do it.

;)


Oh I know – I’m no dummy. ;) :D

Sharewaredemon
Jun 9, 2006, 09:35 AM
The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.

You're kidding right?

Plus, Apple hasn't redesigned any of their machines for the Intel transition, so I see no need to now. But you never know - Apple is always full of surprises!


MacBook (http://www.apple.com/macbook/macbook.html)?

DavidCar
Jun 9, 2006, 09:36 AM
Given that the Woodcrest chips should be available by the end of June, do you think Apple will wait until August to announce a Woodcrest Mac?

admford
Jun 9, 2006, 09:37 AM
Of course though, it all comes down to the chicken and the egg problem – app developers won’t go to Intel until Intel machines are out there and people are using them, but people don’t want to buy Intel machines until the apps are there for them to use. ;) :cool:


Photoshop is the central application for the moment, but there is also Maya and other engineering software. I use Ashlar-Vellum's Cobalt, and they even say on their site that running in rosetta, it's rendering is too slow to use productively. I'm worried on what would happen if you'd try to run benchmarks with Maya 7 on an Intel Mac. I have a friend that does Maya animation for a profession, and he says that the PowerMac G5 Quad machine is roughly 5-7 times faster in rendering than his one year old dual Opteron machine (with a professional level video card that supports Maya Rendering). Both machines have similar amounts of ram (4Gb for the Opteron, and I think 6GB on the PowerMac).

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:39 AM
i can see them doing single chip, dual core conroes for the bottom and middle tiers of the line, with the quad core going for the top end. and then maybe a year down the road all of them will be quad (similar to how everything eventually went dual a few years ago)....

With Kentsfield and Cloverton coming out soon after this first batch of 64-bit procs, I definitely see that happening.

Only a matter of time before we see some Dunnington PowerMacs! :eek: ;) :cool:

Macbook?

Yes, the MacBook got a bit of a facelift and of course the built-in iSight, etc., but I was referring to a whole new design. I would argue that the new MacBooks aren't that much aesthetically different from their predecessors, but perhaps that's just my perception of things....

wwworry
Jun 9, 2006, 09:41 AM
Given that the Woodcrest chips should be available by the end of June, do you think Apple will wait until August to announce a Woodcrest Mac?

If they wait until August you can be sure that it will have some conroes in part of the line-up. If it comes out earlier then it'll be all woodcrest. does anyone know what future processor the conroe will be pin compatible with? I'd like to know my upgrade path, if any.

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 09:41 AM
The key to the new Mac Pro is the size of the motherboard being the same as the G5..
Knowing how Intel boards are designed I'd say we're in for quit a machine.
Here's a Woody mobo you can buy today:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon1333/5000P/X7DB8+.cfm

http://www.supermicro.com/a_images/products/X64/5000/X7DB8+_spec.jpg

64 GiB RAM

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:42 AM
Given that the Woodcrest chips should be available by the end of June, do you think Apple will wait until August to announce a Woodcrest Mac?

Absolutely – that’s the whole point of delaying WWDC into August. Apple is definitely releasing the new PowerMacs at this event, and since this lines up nicely with the Conroe and Woodcrest release dates, I would not be surprised at all to see both chips introduced into the line as this news item speculates. :cool:

KindredMAC
Jun 9, 2006, 09:43 AM
People out there seem to have this thought that the new Mac Pro won't have any heat issues. I think IBM really got us screwed up and gun shy about heat.

All the new Macs with Intel so far have had reports that they are hotter than their PPC ancestors. My MacBook runs a hell of a lot hotter than my iBook ever did.

My personal belief is that the Mac Pro will have only some minor changes to the overall look of the Power Mac G5 based on two facts:

1) There have been no drastic changes to any of the MacIntels yet, probably to help with blending in the older PPC Macs with the newer Intel Macs. The MacBook is probably the most severe, but from across the room I have to look hard to see if my wife is using our iBook or MacBook if I am seeing it closed or opened from the back.

2) These new Intels will still kick off some major heat. They will need to have airflow similar to what is needed for the PPC G5's to start off with. I say give it 2 Intel generations before we see a drastic change to the Mac Pro, so probably around next spring/summer we could see a brand spankin new Mac Pro design..... Hmmmm just in time for Adobe CS 3 it seems.....

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:46 AM
Here's a Woody mobo you can buy today:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon1333/5000P/X7DB8+.cfm

64 GiB RAM

Nice board!

Any thoughts on whether the new PowerMacs will support FB-DIMMs?

Peace
Jun 9, 2006, 09:50 AM
Here's a Woody mobo you can buy today:

http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon1333/5000P/X7DB8+.cfm

http://www.supermicro.com/a_images/products/X64/5000/X7DB8+_spec.jpg

64 GiB RAM

Nice server board but the dimensions of 13"X13" is still roughly 2/3 the size of the G5 board.

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 09:50 AM
With Kentsfield and Cloverton coming out soon after this first batch of 64-bit procs...
Intel's been selling 64-bit CPUs since June 2004:

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20040628comp.htm

Even Celerons went 64-bit in June 2005:

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050627comp.htm
__________

I know that you meant "this first batch of Core 2 procs"... ;)

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 09:51 AM
Nice board!

Any thoughts on whether the new PowerMacs will support FB-DIMMs?
Day 1.

thl
Jun 9, 2006, 09:54 AM
so... if it is a new design for the 'tower', apple would also make a new acd with new specs or not?

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:54 AM
I know that you meant "this first batch of Core 2 procs"... ;)

Yes I did, but thanks for the clarification. :)

Day 1.

Good to know - I hope this is indeed the case. :cool:

puckhead193
Jun 9, 2006, 09:54 AM
The key to the new Mac Pro is the size of the motherboard being the same as the G5..
Knowing how Intel boards are designed I'd say we're in for quit a machine.
i'm not to happy that its going to be around the same size. I thought with with the new chips out, the mac pro or powermac would be a lot smaller. THe g5 is a great computer, but the shier size of it turns me off...(only because i don't have the room for it in a college dorm)
the current imac is powerful but i don't think its powerful enough to run pro apps, like FCS, well
so... if it is a new design for the 'tower', apple would also make a new acd with new specs or not?
didn't apple wait a few months to put out the new displays when the G5 came out...?

kingtj
Jun 9, 2006, 09:57 AM
I *partially* agree with you. I think the PowerMac G5 case was actually quite functional in most respects. Keeping the arched handles was a very smart idea, since it allows the machine to sit up off of the floor (keeping as much dust from being sucked into it when people set them up on their floor). It also makes them easier to pick up and move around, and provides a place to route cabling for external devices sitting on top of the PowerMac. All of the perforations in the front and back panels give far superior cooling to most PC tower designs I've seen too. The plastic see-through inner panel is a nice touch also, for those who like to put the insides of their machine on display. (Note that despite lots of attempts to mimic the G5 case in PC cases, they haven't yet made the effort to copy that idea.)

On the other hand, it really needs more drive bays. A MacPro is the type of system that would be likely to be configured in a RAID 5 disk array, so it should have enough drive bays to accomodate one!


The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 09:59 AM
so... if it is a new design for the 'tower', apple would also make a new acd with new specs or not?

As many have said here, a redesign of the tower is doubtful at this point, but not an impossibility. Whenever the towers do get resdesiged though the ACDs will no doubt follow, however not necessarily right away. The old ACDs were around for quite some time after the new G5 PowerMacs were released (6 months, I believe?) so if the past is any indication, Apple wouldn't be in a huge rush to change them. Apple will also want to time things with the release of new technology as well and will not release a new ACD just so it matches a new PowerMac case. ;)

All that being said, a refresh to the display line would be nice to see as well in the upcoming months... :cool:

juanm
Jun 9, 2006, 10:01 AM
the current imac is powerful but i don't think its powerful enough to run pro apps, like FCS, well




If the MacBook Pro can, chances are a same-speced iMac will work nice too...

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 10:04 AM
If the MacBook Pro can, chances are a same-speced iMac will work nice too...

Especially once the iMac line gets a refresh this fall with Conroe processors... ;) :cool:

bigmc6000
Jun 9, 2006, 10:04 AM
I'm calling this "Semi-Unrelated" because we're talking about multiple HD bays. I was wondering if anybody think that with BootCamp and a MacPro I could take my old PC HD and just plug it into the second HD bay. I think that would be an absolutely amazing option seeing as how I really don't feel like reinstalling all the games I have. I really don't know enough about HD/motherboard inter-dependency to say this will/will not work.

Any ideas??

Josias
Jun 9, 2006, 10:07 AM
If Apple makes a major redesign of the PM, they will also redesign the ACD's. I believe the aluminum will be kept for the PM, just like the MBP, and as Mini, iMac and MB have retained most of their original design. They might just spec up the ACD's and put a iSight+mic in them. I hope for all to be Woodcrest, but you never know. Designwise, I just think they will make the following changes:
1: Different/more connectors on back.
2: 4 SATA bays.
3: Same easy-access door as on the G3 and G4 powermacs.

Otherwise,I hope for it to keep the design. It looks so extremely awesome, but one sweet thing, would be 3 16x PCI-X lanes:D

Peace
Jun 9, 2006, 10:08 AM
I'm calling this "Semi-Unrelated" because we're talking about multiple HD bays. I was wondering if anybody think that with BootCamp and a MacPro I could take my old PC HD and just plug it into the second HD bay. I think that would be an absolutely amazing option seeing as how I really don't feel like reinstalling all the games I have. I really don't know enough about HD/motherboard inter-dependency to say this will/will not work.

Any ideas??


I'll defer this one to Aiden :D

rainmanbk
Jun 9, 2006, 10:11 AM
And it makes sense they are going to keep a very similar form factor. Change the aesthetics of the case, then the ACDs need to change too.

Who says there aren't new Cinema's with iSight?

New form-factor FTW!

NATO
Jun 9, 2006, 10:11 AM
This is awesome news!

Personally, I love the current Power Mac G5, I'm just interested in having an Intel version, so if it looks 100% identical on the outside, I'm over the moon :)

In terms of dual-core and 2xdual-core processors, I reckon Apple will definitely release a top end model with 2xWoodcrest CPUs. The reason for this is the fact they launched the Quad G5. Knowing that the Intel Transition was underway, it would be very negative (at least for the casual observer) that if the top-end Intel Power Mac was launched with only 2 cores, people might question the power of these machines (it certainly wouldn't have the same headline grabbing attention!). Add to that the fact Apple has always tried to claim to have the fastest workstation machines available, it makes sense to have the top model feature 2 dual-core processors.

Bring em on!

neocell
Jun 9, 2006, 10:11 AM
I'm surprised people are suggesting Conroe would ever get put into MacPros.

Yohan & Merom for portables (MacBook & MacBook Pro, respectively)
Conroe for iMac
Woodcrest for MacPro

it just makes sense, on so many different levels.

longofest
Jun 9, 2006, 10:13 AM
Nice board!

Any thoughts on whether the new PowerMacs will support FB-DIMMs?

I go back and forth on this one. FB-DIMMs seem to right now really relegated to server-class machines, although Intel touts them as also being suitable for Workstation class machines as well due to the extra bandwidth.

What I forsee is Apple offering the capability where you can either use regular DDR2 or FB-DIMM's, similar to the way the current PowerMac can handle ECC or non-ECC RAM. But that's just a guess.

bigandy
Jun 9, 2006, 10:15 AM
"we're kinda done with 'power', so let me introduce the InsaneMac! 4 quad core processors".....



....drools :D

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 10:18 AM
I go back and forth on this one. FB-DIMMs seem to right now really relegated to server-class machines, although Intel touts them as also being suitable for Workstation class machines as well due to the extra bandwidth.

What I forsee is Apple offering the capability where you can either use regular DDR2 or FB-DIMM's, similar to the way the current PowerMac can handle ECC or non-ECC RAM. But that's just a guess.
The Intel 5000 chipset only supports FB-DIMM, according to the Intel site.

Therefore, Day 1.

sinisterdesign
Jun 9, 2006, 10:20 AM
yes, the MacPro will be dual/dual cores & i've heard the enclosure isn't changing much, which is a bummer. if i find out otherwise, i'll post.

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 10:21 AM
I'm calling this "Semi-Unrelated" because we're talking about multiple HD bays. I was wondering if anybody think that with BootCamp and a MacPro I could take my old PC HD and just plug it into the second HD bay. I think that would be an absolutely amazing option seeing as how I really don't feel like reinstalling all the games I have. I really don't know enough about HD/motherboard inter-dependency to say this will/will not work.

Any ideas??
A Windows disk is customized for the hardware on which it is installed - it doesn't contain drivers for other hardware.

MB Buyer?
Jun 9, 2006, 10:22 AM
so is there any chance the mac pro will come with a decent GPU?:rolleyes:

NATO
Jun 9, 2006, 10:25 AM
so is there any chance the mac pro will come with a decent GPU?:rolleyes:

That's one of the things I was wondering. Will it be able to accept any 'off the shelf' PC Graphics card if suitable drivers are included either with OS X or by the manufacturer?

Sharewaredemon
Jun 9, 2006, 10:27 AM
so is there any chance the mac pro will come with a decent GPU?:rolleyes:

I heard it was going to be integrated to save on space inside the case.





;)

poppe
Jun 9, 2006, 10:28 AM
Keep the G5 case, but just make it a little shorter... I have a generic desk and almost all PC's, unless I want them with a crazy design, are able to fit snuggly in the slot, but not the G5. I have to make a whole section in the computer room for it.

So just make the G5 a little shorter with crazy expandibility. Lets have the option to add anything and everything our hearts can desire.

Oh you like the super drive but you also want blue ray/HD-DVD. Ok add it on. You want 2 TBs of HD. Ok add it on! and so forth.

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 10:33 AM
Apple is trying ot boast that the passage to Intel chips gives their computers a large adavance in speed, but with the Quad Core PowerMac, being as fast as it is, it's going to be extremely hard for Apple to produce something that on ALL apps is at least 1.5x faster than the current generation.

But don't forget, there are users who are running apps that ARE universal already. Plus, releasing the machines puts more pressure on the app developoers.

I just don't get why people want more optical drives? for what?

Without it, how would you add a HD or bluray dvd later on? It's also nice for duping discs without having to copy to the hard drive.

You're kidding right?

Of course not, the G5 has barely any expandability, even compared with the G4! The G4 could have three times as many internal drives! It's awful design, especially for such a giant case. It's basically a huge cooling system with minimal expandability thrown in.

All the new Macs with Intel so far have had reports that they are hotter than their PPC ancestors. My MacBook runs a hell of a lot hotter than my iBook ever did.


Are the imacs hotter? The minis? Doubt that, my mini duo runs very cool. Don't forget that most of these new machines went from one CPU core to two, if they can do that with a minimal increase in heat, I think that's pretty good.

I'm surprised people are suggesting Conroe would ever get put into MacPros.

Why? It makes perfect sense. Going all-woodcrest would mean a HUGE increase in prices, and would be a big waste of money for single chip configs. The only real downside to using conroe is needing two seperate motherboards, and that's not that big a deal since the mobos can be based on standard intel designs. I don't know if we'll see conroe in imacs either, depends on the heat issues more than anything else. It's funny...you say it makes sense on so many levels...yet fail to list ANY of those levels.

musicus
Jun 9, 2006, 10:33 AM
Personally, I'm a bit worried in the fact that only after the new year, many professional apps will be released in universal binary format. I understand that Apple wants to transition completely to Intel chips, but with the lack of native pro apps, the true speed of the machines, even quald cores, could be severely under rated for over six months.
Apple's pro apps for audio (Logic) and video (Final Cut etc) are already Universal, and those sectors are pretty significant. Design and print is another matter though; 'tis a pity InDesign and Quark are lagging behind.

fblack
Jun 9, 2006, 10:35 AM
depending on the cooling required, the holes may just simply disappear. Maybe dual optical drives? more front ports?

Yea, I would like to see more front ports--maybe a cardreader in the keyboard--and a slightly smaller case. The G5 case just felt huuugee!:D

CmdrLaForge
Jun 9, 2006, 10:35 AM
Thats what I said for a while now - of course the Woodcrest will be used

longofest
Jun 9, 2006, 10:38 AM
The Intel 5000 chipset only supports FB-DIMM, according to the Intel site.

Therefore, Day 1.

link?

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 10:43 AM
I Love The Current Elegant PowerMac G5 Design. But I wouldn't mind if there was a second Flexible External Bay for Removable HDs or Opticals. More room for 6-7 drives and two PATA busses would be helpful too. :)

I voted to keep the current design because I am not sick of it. But I do wish they would build a lot more expandability into it while keeping the outside look. I really think that aesthetically it is the best design ever. But mine's on the floor anyway so I rarely look at it. :)

it5five
Jun 9, 2006, 10:45 AM
I said it in the last thread and I will say it here: There is no reason for apple to release a mini-tower between the iMac and Mac Pro. As of now, if Apple keeps the same pricing for the Mac Pro, there is only a $300 difference between the high end iMac and the low end Powermac. Where would this mini tower fit in? Sorry all of you mini tower fans, but its probably not going to happen.

Also, if this mini tower is semi-expandable like all of you say it will be, there will be no reason for people to buy the higher end iMac, because for less than $300 they can get an expandable machine.

DavidCar
Jun 9, 2006, 10:45 AM
Absolutely – that’s the whole point of delaying WWDC into August. Apple is definitely releasing the new PowerMacs at this event, and since this lines up nicely with the Conroe and Woodcrest release dates, I would not be surprised at all to see both chips introduced into the line as this news item speculates. :cool:
I think WWDC was delayed before Woodcrest was speeded up. I don't see an advantage in waiting for a big event, allowing others to announce dual Woodcrest machines first if Apple can put out a dual Woodcrest machine now as well. Especially if no new case design is planned. Any small form factor Conroe Mac Mini Pro can wait until WWDC.

So I expect a dual Woodcrest Mac Pro in the same case by the end of June. As AidenShaw said, they have no choice but to take FB_DIMMs. Which graphics cards they will be able to use is an interesting question.

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 10:53 AM
link?
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=24664,24665,24663&familyID=9&culture=en-US

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 10:54 AM
I said it in the last thread and I will say it here: There is no reason for apple to release a mini-tower between the iMac and Mac Pro. As of now, if Apple keeps the same pricing for the Mac Pro, there is only a $300 difference between the high end iMac and the low end Powermac. Where would this mini tower fit in? Sorry all of you mini tower fans, but its probably not going to happen.

The fact that you compare the iMac and Mac Pro shows that you don't get it.

There's no "between" the iMac and the tower, they are two different models. Might as well talk about a model between the macbook and tower.

The slot for the mini tower is to fill the big gap between the mini and the tower, currently $1200.

The iMac is great for a certain market, but not an option for other users. Some people want some degree of expandability and upgradability for a reasonable price. There's no reason apple couldn't release a mini tower that costs LESS than the pricier iMacs. There's a big reason for apple to do it - there are consumers that want it and would buy it. However, it would probably take away some sales from other products, so they probably won't do it.

A is jump
Jun 9, 2006, 10:57 AM
Of course not, the G5 has barely any expandability, even compared with the G4! The G4 could have three times as many internal drives! It's awful design, especially for such a giant case. It's basically a huge cooling system with minimal expandability thrown in.



Could you really fit 6 drives in a G4? I have to say, thats is a lot of drives... seems almost silly to have that many. I just put the biggest drives i could find in my g5 and partitioned them. its like having 6 drives. You sure could put a lot of memory in them. Didnt have a lot of cardslots... but enough for me.
I think the design is very sleek, almost majestic. The cooling system is large and complex, but its quiet. I am anoyied to no end everytime i use a pc, because I can hear the fan.

I dont really care what they do with the upcoming release... but the G5 was a great design.

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 10:58 AM
So I expect a dual Woodcrest Mac Pro in the same case by the end of June. As AidenShaw said, they have no choice but to take FB_DIMMs. Which graphics cards they will be able to use is an interesting question.

No new Intel PowerMacs until WWDC. That's my prediction. We'll see who's right. :p ;) :cool:

it5five
Jun 9, 2006, 11:01 AM
However, it would probably take away some sales from other products, so they probably won't do it.

No, I get it. That was pretty much my whole point. Also, I couldn't see them pricing this mini-tower less than an iMac like you said. So, the same chip the iMac will have, but expandable? And it costs less than the iMac? Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

Hattig
Jun 9, 2006, 11:01 AM
A late 2006 Workstation needs the following features:

2 full PCIe x16 slots
1 or 2 dual-core processors (depending on cost)
8 DIMM slots
2x GigE on board

What I expect & what would be nice in the Mac Pro:

4 USB2 ports on back, 2 on front
eSATA / SAS port on back
Firewire 800 & Firewire 400 (1 on back, one on front)
8 channel audio (albeit Intel Integrated)
nVidia GeForce 7x00 series graphics card (depending on price and options)
(or ATI X1600/X1800/X1900 depending on Apple's mood)
BluRay burner option

I expect that Apple will deliver half of these.

ChrisA
Jun 9, 2006, 11:02 AM
I think Apple's biggest goal is to get through this transition. To that end they aredoing the MINIMUM amount of work so as to be done as quickly as possable. Notice they didn't change anyhting that did not have to be changed. The Mini and imac look the same. They still have two lines of notebooks and I bet the Poswer Mac has only it's main logic board swapped out and the fans redesigned.

Later once they have converted all the products over to Intel I think they will let the engineers make other changes. For example I think they _really_ need a min range headless desktop. Possably a short tower with a 64-bit dual 2 core processor and a powerfull graphic card.

So don't expect changes in the product line except forthe processor swap-out untill mid 2007

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 9, 2006, 11:02 AM
Good news , I voted for a all new design. G5 is going going........almost gone. Cool ! guess ill be replacing my Alienware this winter:o

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 11:07 AM
Personally, I'm a bit worried in the fact that only after the new year, many professional apps will be released in universal binary format. I understand that Apple wants to transition completely to Intel chips, but with the lack of native pro apps, the true speed of the machines, even quald cores, could be severely under rated for over six months.

Apple is trying ot boast that the passage to Intel chips gives their computers a large adavance in speed, but with the Quad Core PowerMac, being as fast as it is, it's going to be extremely hard for Apple to produce something that on ALL apps is at least 1.5x faster than the current generation.Yeah I used to think that too. But these 2GHz Yonah MacBook Benchmarks Show Rosetta Photoshop Already Beats Native Windoze Photoshop (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=206695) so that will not be an issue on these much faster Mac Pros. As long as the emulation mode for PPC apps beats native Windoze versions of the same apps, nobody can complain. :)

When those ppc apps go UB next year, the Windoze versions will be left behind deep in dust. ;)

billyboy
Jun 9, 2006, 11:12 AM
I think the design is very sleek, almost majestic. The cooling system is large and complex, but its quiet. I am anoyied to no end everytime i use a pc, because I can hear the fan.

I dont really care what they do with the upcoming release... but the G5 was a great design.

I wish i had had your g5 tower then, because the rev1 one I was using the last year was a pile of dog pooh and was no different than my experience running our work's Windows machines, ie when will it let me down next? Although quiet in operation, those fans came on after crashes and could have lifted the building as well as the tower. Obviously i had a lemon because my Powerbook is an amazing bit of kit, and I wont ever buy a new release Mac again, but it was a bad experience allround, and an embarrassment having persuaded the company to get me a bonmbproof Mac!

DavidCar
Jun 9, 2006, 11:12 AM
No new Intel PowerMacs until WWDC. That's my prediction. We'll see who's right. :p ;) :cool:
My most confident predictions have failed in the past, so we'll see.


Here is a link that discusses Woodcrest benchmarks and FB-DIMMS:

http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1

neocell
Jun 9, 2006, 11:15 AM
...

Why? It makes perfect sense. Going all-woodcrest would mean a HUGE increase in prices, and would be a big waste of money for single chip configs. The only real downside to using conroe is needing two seperate motherboards, and that's not that big a deal since the mobos can be based on standard intel designs. I don't know if we'll see conroe in imacs either, depends on the heat issues more than anything else. It's funny...you say it makes sense on so many levels...yet fail to list ANY of those levels.
Okay, here goes, only my somewhat educated opinions though ;)
Portable chips for portable computers.
iMac G5 was a desktop chip, now a portable chip in the intel iMac, maybe that's the way they want to go, but I'm guessing it's because they wanted an intel machine out there fast so that lots of people would grab onto it initially and easy the transition, and it has seemed to work.
eMac is being EOL, eMac are generally the old iMac, new eMac said to be released soon so goes in line with new iMac design. Since iMac was first to make transition, would make sense that it's the first (minus the MacBook) to be upgraded and put back to a level where it should be (desktop chip, Conroe, which I believe will be cheaper than Merom, so cost effective too), there, that gets Conroe in the iMacs
MacPros: when has apple not put the maximum chip into their top of the line Pro machine? I know people will say Apple has crippled a lot of their hardware, but would they cripple a MacPro to put a Conroe in instead of a Woodcrest? Unless Conroe is pretty much exactly the same as a Woodcrest, minus the multi-chip interoperability, and it sits in the same mobo, why would Apple want to have multiple, very different MacPros? Wouldn't that be a production nightmare? I would imagine that they want to have the best pro machines possible (to really stick it to PC) so 3 models, a single Woodcrest, a double Woodcrest (slow, 2.6GHz ?), a double Woodcrest (fast, 3.16GHz ?) something along those lines.
This also clearly delineates each product into its own class, based on the chip. The only overlap being the Mini with a Yonah, but those guys are pretty much portable anyways, and not a desktop.
Since the PowerMac is the last to be updated (minus the Xservers) and Woodcrest is the first chip out, it only makes sense that they will put the more powerful, earlier to arrive, chip in their top of the line computer.

These are my opinions, shoot them down if you want, but it makes sense to me.

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 11:19 AM
Could you really fit 6 drives in a G4? I have to say, thats is a lot of drives... seems almost silly to have that many. I just put the biggest drives i could find in my g5 and partitioned them. its like having 6 drives. You sure could put a lot of memory in them. Didnt have a lot of cardslots... but enough for me.
I think the design is very sleek, almost majestic. The cooling system is large and complex, but its quiet. I am anoyied to no end everytime i use a pc, because I can hear the fan.

Silly? Why? If you need that much hard drive space, how else are you going to do it with fewer drives?

If you put the biggest drives available in your G5, I can still have 2.5x as much drive space in my G4. Partitioning is like having six SMALL drives.

Lots of memory slots is nice, and it is fairly quiet. But it seems like most of the reason people go so gaga over them is just because they look cool. Sorry, in a tower I want functionality, not pretty.


No, I get it. That was pretty much my whole point. Also, I couldn't see them pricing this mini-tower less than an iMac like you said. So, the same chip the iMac will have, but expandable? And it costs less than the iMac? Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

If you really got it, you wouldn't lump the imac and tower into the same product line. There's no reason they couldn't make a mini tower for less than an imac, in fact a mini tower could be the cheapest model out of their whole line - even cheaper than a mini since they'd save money by not using parts intended for portables. But they probably won't since products like the iMac make it easier for them to avoid price comparisons with pcs.

If you take an imac, leave out the screen and have a PCI slot or two, an extra drive bay and more ram slots, then YES, it would be cheaper to build than an imac, and apple could sell it for less than an imac at the same margins. You don't think Apple could sell a basic tower for under $1699? Seriously? Are you unaware that pc makers are selling exactly that for probably half that price?

What you need to understand is that building an expandable machine is cheap and easy. Cheaper than making a laptop, a mini, or even an imac.

From a consumer standpoint, there's no reason NOT to make such a machine, consumers would love them. But a mini tower looks more like a commodity, more like a PC to apple, and they'd rather sell their more exotic machines that can get away with using design as an excuse for higher prices. I hope gaining market share beats out greed and they end up doing a mini tower.

I think chances are slim for a minitower release along with the big towers...but hopefully it will be a later addition in coming months.

danielwsmithee
Jun 9, 2006, 11:19 AM
... As of now, if Apple keeps the same pricing for the Mac Pro, there is only a $300 difference between the high end iMac and the low end Powermac.Let me take you through the math.;)

PowerMac $1999
20" Cinema $799
Total $2798

20" iMac $1699

Difference $1099

Apple could easily come out with a single processor desktop in the $999-$1599 price range that would be very popular. Two hard drive bays, a upgradeable video card, and a few spare PCIE slots around a Conroe.

I don't expect Apple to update the displays, but they will drop the prices. Competitors LCD prices have gotten much cheeper. The same 20" Cinema display LCD can be purchased for $450.:eek:

JoeG4
Jun 9, 2006, 11:21 AM
Don't expect the holes to go away - those Core Duos run ***** hot. :p

Why do so many people expect Apple to dell the Mac Proo? Just because other companies sell a lousy little desktop that is less powerful than the iMac in the same price range doesn't mean Apple has to. I hope they don't trash the PowerMac moniker with second class machines haha

nagromme
Jun 9, 2006, 11:21 AM
"Confirmed" sounds too strong, but I want a quad-Core 2 bad so keep these reports coming! :)

A new case would be nice too, just for a change. One "easy" change:

Apple could use the EXACT form factor of today, but remove the handles and use clear-over-white sides---just like a big Mac Mini on its side (plus cooling holes). Apple's pro displays already have the white trim on the sides anyway. And this way, the case would be "smaller" (though I know the handles are nice).

Re minitower: YES there's a need for MID-range headless. But I almost think it's not worth Apple's money to design the thing. Instead, they might meet the same need simply with a lower-spec'd full tower, at a lower price-point than Power Macs hit.

Willis
Jun 9, 2006, 11:21 AM
Plus, Apple hasn't redesigned any of their machines for the Intel transition, so I see no need to now. But you never know - Apple is always full of surprises!

What about the Macbook? thats a redesign.

sigamy
Jun 9, 2006, 11:22 AM
Another vote for a redesigned case. I really can't stand the current case. Way too big and bulky for my tastes. Wasn't a big reason the G5 tower was so big due to heat issues? You would think they could shrink the case a bit if Intel's chips run cooler.

Apple also needs to get their video card situation fixed. There are a bunch of people having issues with iMovie 6 because their second video card not supporting Quartz Extreme and/or Core Image. This is after they went and purchased cards that Apple support told them to purchase, later to find out they weren't supported.

danielwsmithee
Jun 9, 2006, 11:23 AM
MacPros: when has apple not put the maximum chip into their top of the line Pro machine? I know people will say Apple has crippled a lot of their hardware, but would they cripple a MacPro to put a Conroe in instead of a Woodcrest? Unless Conroe is pretty much exactly the same as a Woodcrest, minus the multi-chip interoperability ... :confused: Yes Conroe is exactly the same as Woodcrest minus the multi-chip configuration!!! That is why it is completely pointless and a waste of money to use a single Woodcrest!

CaptainCaveMann
Jun 9, 2006, 11:25 AM
acd = apple cinema display

I liked the G3/4 cases, but they are terribly outdated. The current design shows power, but it wasn't designed with looks, but efficiency in mind. The reason it has holes all down the front and back of it is to increase airflow to keep those hot hot chips cool.

When the quad-core chips come out, i reckon we may be expecting an oct-core PM/MP... can't wait for the technology of tomorrow...

Please dont ever say reckon again. On that note, im really excited about these new powermacs. I think the quad design is needed to keep up with the market. Id like to see a new form factor, maybe a lighter case? :D

brianus
Jun 9, 2006, 11:26 AM
Why does everyone seem to equate "Mac Pro redesign" with "changed aesthetics"? They can easily get a much smaller, more convenient form factor without changing the aesthetics so much that they'd clash with the ACD's (which seem to go perfectly well with the Mac mini and MacBook Pro). Even a very significant aesthetic change to the case, as long as it was still in line with the "look" of the other models in Apple's lineup, would not require changing the Cinema Displays.

And btw, the current ACD's weren't released until late summer 2004 -- more than a year after the introduction of the PowerMac G5.

scottlinux
Jun 9, 2006, 11:30 AM
What do you think the price will be on the new MacPro?

$3,000?
$4,000?

or rather:
$2,999
$3,999

?

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 11:32 AM
Okay, here goes, only my somewhat educated opinions though ;)
Portable chips for portable computers.
iMac G5 was a desktop chip, now a portable chip in the intel iMac, maybe that's the way they want to go, but I'm guessing it's because they wanted an intel machine out there fast so that lots of people would grab onto it initially and easy the transition, and it has seemed to work.
eMac is being EOL, eMac are generally the old iMac, new eMac said to be released soon so goes in line with new iMac design. Since iMac was first to make transition, would make sense that it's the first (minus the MacBook) to be upgraded and put back to a level where it should be (desktop chip, Conroe, which I believe will be cheaper than Merom, so cost effective too), there, that gets Conroe in the iMacs
MacPros: when has apple not put the maximum chip into their top of the line Pro machine? I know people will say Apple has crippled a lot of their hardware, but would they cripple a MacPro to put a Conroe in instead of a Woodcrest? Unless Conroe is pretty much exactly the same as a Woodcrest, minus the multi-chip interoperability, and it sits in the same mobo, why would Apple want to have multiple, very different MacPros? Wouldn't that be a production nightmare? I would imagine that they want to have the best pro machines possible (to really stick it to PC) so 3 models, a single Woodcrest, a double Woodcrest (slow, 2.6GHz ?), a double Woodcrest (fast, 3.16GHz ?) something along those lines.
This also clearly delineates each product into its own class, based on the chip. The only overlap being the Mini with a Yonah, but those guys are pretty much portable anyways, and not a desktop.
Since the PowerMac is the last to be updated (minus the Xservers) and Woodcrest is the first chip out, it only makes sense that they will put the more powerful, earlier to arrive, chip in their top of the line computer.

These are my opinions, shoot them down if you want, but it makes sense to me.

Since the iMac has such constrained size, the design may be more similar to a portable than to a desktop. Heat issues may require a portable chip, we won't really know until the line is updated. We never saw a dual G5 in one, did we? I doubt it would have been possible based on cooling.

Apple already ships towers without the latest chip. Right now they have dual models instead of all quad, and in the past they've had single instead of all dual. I don't see having single conroe/dual woodcrest as much different. It's not crippling a machine, it's offering a choice of different speeds at different prices. Some people want the expandability but don't need the highest speeds, it's the whole reason for having more than one tower model.

And Conroe IS pretty much exactly the same as a Woodcrest, minus the multi-chip interoperability. Single conroe performs about the same as single woodcrest, for a much lower price.

They do use different motherboards, which is additional cost savings since the conroe mobo is much cheaper. And apple already has had multiple motherboards in the towers, the single/dual/quad configs have different ones, not to mention different cooling systems. It's even easier now with intel chipsets since they have reference boards to start with instead of having to design them all themselves from scratch.

Answer me this, what would be the point of a single woodcrest mac that doesn't outperform a single conroe PC, but costs vastly more?

savar
Jun 9, 2006, 11:32 AM
What the h is an ACD?

I thought I was the only person who used "what the h" in conversations

neocell
Jun 9, 2006, 11:32 AM
:confused: Yes Conroe is exactly the same as Woodcrest minus the multi-chip configuration!!! That is why it is completely pointless and a waste of money to use a single Woodcrest!
What is the price difference between the two chips?
Would intel really make a chip that was exactly the same except for the above mention difference?
I really don't know. If this really is true, it seems very silly. All the effort of making two chips, testing, marketing etc. and the only difference is one can play nicely together and the other can't? That seems like a waste of money to me.

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 11:33 AM
I think WWDC was delayed before Woodcrest was speeded up. I don't see an advantage in waiting for a big event, allowing others to announce dual Woodcrest machines first if Apple can put out a dual Woodcrest machine now as well. Especially if no new case design is planned. Any small form factor Conroe Mac Mini Pro can wait until WWDC.

So I expect a dual Woodcrest Mac Pro in the same case by the end of June. As AidenShaw said, they have no choice but to take FB_DIMMs. Which graphics cards they will be able to use is an interesting question.David, they probably need until August 7th to build up a decent quantity of the Mac Pros so they can deliver what they announce on the same day. If they start trickling out in July, it will just be a case of mass frustration since most buyers will be posting complaints about their shipping dates sliding ad nausium.

Put yourself in Steve's shoes. You think he doesn't want to be the largest owner of Disney stepping onto the stage in a room full of developers to declare transition victory with enough Mac Pro Quads in the pipeline so they can all have one waiting for them when they get home? :p

Sales will still exceed supply August 7 no matter how soon they "could" ship them. It makes no sense for anything to happen before then - especially in light of the fact that Intel doesn't start making Conroes until July.

Silentwave
Jun 9, 2006, 11:34 AM
...but I told you so....

savar
Jun 9, 2006, 11:35 AM
I personally would pay a small premium over the iMac for this capability.

my 2 cents....

I don't understand -- you would swap out a 20" LCD for one PCIe slot and 2 hard drive bays, and [i]still[\i] pay a premium?

sigamy
Jun 9, 2006, 11:35 AM
If you take an imac, leave out the screen and have a PCI slot or two, an extra drive bay and more ram slots, then YES, it would be cheaper to build than an imac, and apple could sell it for less than an imac at the same margins. You don't think Apple could sell a basic tower for under $1699? Seriously? Are you unaware that pc makers are selling exactly that for probably half that price?

What you need to understand is that building an expandable machine is cheap and easy. Cheaper than making a laptop, a mini, or even an imac.

From a consumer standpoint, there's no reason NOT to make such a machine, consumers would love them. But a mini tower looks more like a commodity, more like a PC to apple, and they'd rather sell their more exotic machines that can get away with using design as an excuse for higher prices. I hope gaining market share beats out greed and they end up doing a mini tower.

I think chances are slim for a minitower release along with the big towers...but hopefully it will be a later addition in coming months.

Ah, the headless iMac argument yet again...good times, good times.

As much as I agree with you, the powers at Apple do not. It is not greed that makes them use design as an excuse for higher prices--it is their business model.

There are two reasons for this. First is necessity-Apple is never going to double it's market share. Never. So, how do you stay alive? You offer something unique to the smaller niche market that will pay for it. You differniate yourself from all the other PC makers who are making mini towers for half the price.

The second is that Steve Jobs still, to this day--even after everyone in the western world has used a computer and almost everyone owns a computer--Steve still feels that he knows best. He wants to make the whole widget. He doesn't want to sell you a half baked box and allow you to add things later. He is consumed by the whole package of computer/OS/software. He wants total control. Steve likes selling iMacs, notebooks and iPods because they are complete units. The whole widget. Take it out of the box and use it.

How dare you feel that you know better than Steve and feel that you need an additonal hard drive or another video card or a real time MPEG encoder.

neocell
Jun 9, 2006, 11:37 AM
Answer me this, what would be the point of a single woodcrest mac that doesn't outperform a single woodcrest PC, but costs vastly more?
See my other post.

Obviously I did not realize that Conroe and Woodcrest are basically the same chip. My bad.
And I have no idea of the cost difference

Note: I'm guessing you meant to say Conroe PC, if not, well that's a debate for all the 'benefits' that come with a Mac, and are absent in PCs (mostly operating system, etc.).

weldon
Jun 9, 2006, 11:49 AM
Plus, Apple hasn't redesigned any of their machines for the Intel transition, so I see no need to now.
iBook ----> MacBook ???

Here's what I would like to see...

CASE
2 x 5.25" drive bays for optical drives
4-6 x 3.5" drive bays
front connectors for firewire, USB2
front card reader (hidden elegantly when not in use)
IR receiver
slot for IR remote storage
quiet fans

POWER SUPPLY
modular cabling support
SATA power cables
SLI or crossfire approved

MOTHERBOARD
2 x dual-core processors
32GB RAM
4-6 SATA2 (3Gbps) ports w/ RAID 0, 1 or 5 on any/all ports
2 x PCIexpress16 slots
SLI or Crossfire approved
4+ x PCIe slots
dual gigabit ethernet
2 x eSATA (back)
3 x firewire (1 front, 2 back)
8 x USB2 (2 front, 6 back)
WiFi (b/g upgradeable to 802.11n when available)
bluetooth

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 11:50 AM
Why do so many people expect Apple to dell the Mac Proo? Just because other companies sell a lousy little desktop that is less powerful than the iMac in the same price range doesn't mean Apple has to. I hope they don't trash the PowerMac moniker with second class machines haha

Are you talking about a mini tower? What would be "lousy" or "less powerful" about it? Nobody is asking for a machine that is less powerful than the imac, just one that is headless and expandable.

We're just talking about a machine that is smaller, has fewer slots and drive bays, and maybe not all the high end features. For example, same features and specs as an imac, remove the screen, add a couple pci slots, memory slots, and one drive bay.

I don't see how that would be "lousy"...unless you already consider the imac lousy?

Ah, the headless iMac argument yet again...good times, good times.

As much as I agree with you, the powers at Apple do not. It is not greed that makes them use design as an excuse for higher prices--it is their business model.

There are two reasons for this. First is necessity-Apple is never going to double it's market share. Never. So, how do you stay alive? You offer something unique to the smaller niche market that will pay for it. You differniate yourself from all the other PC makers who are making mini towers for half the price.

The second is that Steve Jobs still, to this day--even after everyone in the western world has used a computer and almost everyone owns a computer--Steve still feels that he knows best. He wants to make the whole widget. He doesn't want to sell you a half baked box and allow you to add things later. He is consumed by the whole package of computer/OS/software. He wants total control. Steve likes selling iMacs, notebooks and iPods because they are complete units. The whole widget. Take it out of the box and use it.

How dare you feel that you know better than Steve and feel that you need an additonal hard drive or another video card or a real time MPEG encoder.

I don't agree that it's impossible for apple to double their marketshare. In fact, I think adding a model like a midtower is something that would help. Delivering niche products is great, and works well for apple, to a degree. But if that's all they do, they're giving up. They're avoiding the possibility of increasing their marketshare.

As for the all-in-one widget, apple is already shipping exceptions to this. If this was their whole philosophy, then why wouldn't they just stop selling towers at all? And why are they shipping the mini (which people insisted would NEVER happen...in posts very similar to yours)?

So far, Apple has decided not to do this. But there's no reason they couldn't change their mind. After all, they already broke their own "rule" already by releasing the mini. And circumstances have changed as well, the cost of releasing an additional model is much less on intel hardware.

BlizzardBomb
Jun 9, 2006, 12:02 PM
Or perhaps they will introduce a "Mac" and a "MacPro", with the "Mac" being a Conroe mini-tower and the "MacPro" being a Woodcrest beast. :eek: ;) :cool:

"Hey, I bought a Mac today!"
"Cool, which one?"
"A Mac."
"Yeah, which one?"
"The Mac Mac"
"Huh?"

Concept is great, the name won't work though :p

Hopefully the new Mac Pro will be sleeker, but with the same design like they did with PB -> MBP. Sleeker, brighter, cheaper ACD's with a revised pixel policy (say 2 dead pixels or 3 stuck = return) would be a bonus too.

TangoCharlie
Jun 9, 2006, 12:22 PM
At least it will be fast :-)

Are these intel chips 64bit or is that something that will just kind of fade away?

Yes, Merom (Core 2 Duo), Conroe (Core 2 extreme) and Woodcrest (Xeon ???!!!)
all support EM64T (a.k.a. iAMD64 !!).

I have long suspected that Apple will put Woodcrest into XServe and Mac Pro systems, and upgrade the iMac to Merom or even Conroe.

I still maintain, that there is room for a "Business Mac" in a smaller and sleeker enclosure than the current G5 beast. It would be Conroe based.

More StinkSecret-like guestimation: Apple will upgrade the MBP to Merom shortly after it is released... in the 17" MBP at least!

OTOH, I can't see a space in the Mac lineup for an "eMac". Any new all-in-one would have to have a TFT display, and so any "eMac" would be too close to the current iMac configuration....

Just my 2 euro cents!

ttfn:)

Tim.

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 12:29 PM
"we're kinda done with 'power', so let me introduce the InsaneMac! 4 quad core processors".........drools :DOr Two 8 Core. It'll happen sooner than we can imagine. :eek: Plus 4 cores inside MacBook Pro by the end of next year. :D

Here's the Intel Roadmap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture#Desktops) for those here who need to catch up. All these different names can be confusing. The 8 Core premiere will probably be a Yorkfield next summer at the WWDC '07. Four Tigertons will give us 16. But that might not be until '08.

What is the price difference between the two chips?
Would intel really make a chip that was exactly the same except for the above mention difference?
I really don't know. If this really is true, it seems very silly. All the effort of making two chips, testing, marketing etc. and the only difference is one can play nicely together and the other can't? That seems like a waste of money to me.Obviously I did not realize that Conroe and Woodcrest are basically the same chip. My bad.
And I have no idea of the cost difference.You know neo, we've been discussing this in depth for at least two months on other threads. Woodies are mainly for servers and incedentally for high end multi-socket workstations. Conroes are for single socket mainstream PCs. Conroes run cooler and, for the most part, at slower speeds. I am sure if you study the 2322 posts that have already been made by AidenShaw (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=14798), all will become perfectly clear to you. :)

In a nutshell, the Dual Woddies are a stopgap way to keep a Quad in the lineup until Quad Core Kentsfields (part of the Conroe Family) can be brought in early next year. Woodie Tulsas will be the first way to have 8 cores inside.

boncellis
Jun 9, 2006, 01:00 PM
The fact that you compare the iMac and Mac Pro shows that you don't get it.

There's no "between" the iMac and the tower, they are two different models. Might as well talk about a model between the macbook and tower.

The slot for the mini tower is to fill the big gap between the mini and the tower, currently $1200.

The iMac is great for a certain market, but not an option for other users. Some people want some degree of expandability and upgradability for a reasonable price. There's no reason apple couldn't release a mini tower that costs LESS than the pricier iMacs. There's a big reason for apple to do it - there are consumers that want it and would buy it. However, it would probably take away some sales from other products, so they probably won't do it.

I think Milo explained it accurately, though there is something to be said for Apple not wanting to do it either whether it is design and production cost or not enough demand in their mind.

What about this, instead: a redesign for the Mac Mini with a larger case, option for a dedicated graphics card, and 3.5" HDDs. Keep the same specs that are in there now (except with Merom replacing Yonah), IIG 965 in the low end, x1300 or x1600 in the high end and an optional 250 GD HDD. Even if the case size doubles I think it would still be plenty small. Then you could have the $599, $799 and $1099 pricepoints (or thereabout) with the high end "Mini" catering to those of us who really want something between the PowerMac and the Mini.

aswitcher
Jun 9, 2006, 01:01 PM
Apple could easily come out with a single processor desktop in the $999-$1599 price range that would be very popular. Two hard drive bays, a upgradeable video card, and a few spare PCIE slots around a Conroe.



Works for me

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 01:10 PM
What about this, instead: a redesign for the Mac Mini with a larger case, option for a dedicated graphics card, and 3.5" HDDs. Keep the same specs that are in there now (except with Merom replacing Yonah), IIG 965 in the low end, x1300 or x1600 in the high end and an optional 250 GD HDD. Even if the case size doubles I think it would still be plenty small. Then you could have the $599, $799 and $1099 pricepoints (or thereabout) with the high end "Mini" catering to those of us who really want something between the PowerMac and the Mini.

I think you're on the right track. But I'm thinking about a model in addition to the mini instead of replacing it, and make it a pizza box enclosure. Perfect for media center use as well as an all around solid mid range computer.

I think apple dropped the ball on the mini by making it so small. They should have gone slightly bigger and used desktop hard drive and optical, it would have allowed for much bigger drives and saved a ton of money. Unfortunately I don't think we'll see the mini replaced by anything much bigger because it would be viewed as a step backward for apple.

Makosuke
Jun 9, 2006, 01:16 PM
All the new Macs with Intel so far have had reports that they are hotter than their PPC ancestors. My MacBook runs a hell of a lot hotter than my iBook ever did.No, the laptops run a lot hotter because they're a lot faster. The Intel iMac, from everything I've heard, is cooler than the old design because of the Core vs. G5. Isn't it even thinner than the old one, or did that happen with the last-gen G5 iMacs?

Anyway, I'd say they've just GOT to go with Woodcrest. The fact is, they've set the current G5 towers up as absolute beast workstations, and a single dual-core Conroe at the high end would be a significant step down. Woodcrest should be able to best the G5 in most operations based on early benchmarks, so that really makes it the only viable replacement.

I do agree that splitting the line into "Mac" and "Mac Pro" or whatever would be a neat thing to do, though I'm not sure they will--they might just have identical-looking but notably crappier Mac Pros at the low end. There's certainly precident for this--some G5 tower models basically used an iMac motherboard, while the higher-end ones were far more full-featured (more RAM capacity, etc).

Glen Quagmire
Jun 9, 2006, 01:17 PM
I'd like to see:

Single Conroe on the low-end model.
Dual Woodcrests on the intermediate and high-level model.

All models:

Two optical bays
Four hard drive bays.
SATA-2 - six connectors including one external one.
RAID 0/1/5/10.
8 USB 2 ports - two on on the front of the case.
1 FW400, 1 FW800 - on the back
5.1 sound with optical out.
DVD +/- RW (SATA).
Plenty of slots for memory.
New case. I don't particularly like the old one. Get rid of the speed holes and make it smaller.
Infra-red.
Wireless ("B" and "G").
Bluetooth.
Two PCIe x16 slots, for running SLI.
One PCIe x4 slot, for network cards, RAID cards and the like.
One PCI slot (for old time's sake).
Dual Gbit Ethernet.
*Very* quiet fans.
Optional black finish (a la Macbook).

NYmacAttack
Jun 9, 2006, 01:19 PM
I think you're on the right track. But I'm thinking about a model in addition to the mini instead of replacing it, and make it a pizza box enclosure. Perfect for media center use as well as an all around solid mid range computer.

I think apple dropped the ball on the mini by making it so small. They should have gone slightly bigger and used desktop hard drive and optical, it would have allowed for much bigger drives and saved a ton of money. Unfortunately I don't think we'll see the mini replaced by anything much bigger because it would be viewed as a step backward for apple.


It would be interesting to see if apple ever goes this route. They seem to try to stay away from a true media center machine.

BlizzardBomb
Jun 9, 2006, 01:20 PM
I'd like to see:

Single Conroe on the low-end model.
Dual Woodcrests on the intermediate and high-level model.


Dual Woodcrests on intermediate? Well if you want to spend $4000 at intermediate that's fine by me.

BenRoethig
Jun 9, 2006, 01:24 PM
You're kidding right?[/URL]?

Compared to similarly PC workstations, they have half as many optical drive bays, hard drive bays, expansion slots, and ports. I know people who bought a windows workstation because they would have needed two G5s to do the same job because of lack of expansion.

Bregalad
Jun 9, 2006, 01:25 PM
The iMac is a laptop on a stand. It's highly unlikely we'll see one with a Conroe. Remember Steve hates fan noise and the iMac would need upgraded (louder) cooling to handle a Conroe.

Whether Steve likes it or not kids have an enormous say in which computer mom or dad buys. I worked in Mac retail in the mid 90's and then again in the G5 days. What I saw in the store was not what Apple could possibly have wanted. Often when a family with kids over the age of 6 came in, the parents were shopping for themselves. The majority of iMac G5 buyers had an iMac G3 that the kids had abandoned within months of it being brand new. Their endless whining about not being able to play the games their friends had led to the purchase of one or more PCs.

Apple has tried to address the no games problem with the move to Intel, but they still don't get it. Mom and dad honestly believe the Mac will last 5 years. The kids, however, know that the video card in that iMac isn't good enough for today's most demanding games and will be next to useless within 18 months. Therefore the kids will continue to demand XBox 360s and/or new PCs so they can play multiplayer games with their friends.

It isn't only kids Apple has a problem with. Advertisers have realized that 18-34 year old males don't watch much TV these days because they'd rather play games on their computers. This demographic is very knowledgeable and have the highest PC ownership of any group, driven mainly by multiplayer games.

I propose Apple go after some of these people and fill the gaping $1099 hole between the high end iMac and low end PowerMac (with equal 20" screen) with a larger version of the Mac mini. It would contain a Conroe, a 3.5" HD, upgradeable video card and (to stop the inevitable whining) a single PCI-e slot. Price it so the total cost (with 20" Cinema) falls midway between the iMac and MacPro.

The current PowerMac is an embarrasing joke. The Quad can't even run Aperture without a video card upgrade. It certainly isn't worthy of the term Pro when it can only hold two HDs. I sure hope the MacPro fixes those problems.

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 01:25 PM
It would be interesting to see if apple ever goes this route. They seem to try to stay away from a true media center machine.

True. If they did it, they would likely ship a machine that would be a good media center...but not really admit to it.

They've done that on the latest minis by adding digital audio out, they are much better than the last generation for media, but apple isn't promoting them much for that use.


The Quad can't even run Aperture without a video card upgrade.

Really? You have a link on that? I find that hard to believe, especially since people have reported running it on macbooks and minis. On the other hand, Aperture does tend to run horribly, but that seems like the app's fault since it runs poorly on virtually every machine.

I agree with you on the drive bays, but for performance the G5 has been pretty incredible for me.

boncellis
Jun 9, 2006, 01:26 PM
I think you're on the right track. But I'm thinking about a model in addition to the mini instead of replacing it, and make it a pizza box enclosure. Perfect for media center use as well as an all around solid mid range computer.

I think apple dropped the ball on the mini by making it so small. They should have gone slightly bigger and used desktop hard drive and optical, it would have allowed for much bigger drives and saved a ton of money. Unfortunately I don't think we'll see the mini replaced by anything much bigger because it would be viewed as a step backward for apple.

Right, I know what you mean. And you're right about Apple probably not replacing or changing the form factor of the Mini for the reasons you mention, it's a shame though.

The mid-range enclosure would work well for a media center, if for nothing else than the dedicated graphics. I know the 965 is supposed to be pretty good, but why just be good when it could be much better--especially for something hooked up to a 1080p set.

What you described is something I would jump on.

BenRoethig
Jun 9, 2006, 01:27 PM
Excellent, I'm already saving up!

Good: Dual-Core Conroe
Better: Dual-Core Conroe (faster)
Best: 2x Dual-Core Woodcrest (insane)

Specs like that in the pro arena are going to make Dell very happy. They need to be all woodcrest. Conroe is a consumer desktop chip.

jelloshotsrule
Jun 9, 2006, 01:29 PM
Dual Woodcrests on intermediate? Well if you want to spend $4000 at intermediate that's fine by me.

so you think that the high end mac pro will be 4k (ie, assuming 2 models with a single conroe, high end with dual woodcrests)? that seems unlikely...

neocell
Jun 9, 2006, 01:32 PM
You know neo, we've been discussing this in depth for at least two months on other threads. Woodies are mainly for servers and incedentally for high end multi-socket workstations. Conroes are for single socket mainstream PCs. Conroes run cooler and, for the most part, at slower speeds. I am sure if you study the 2322 posts that have already been made by AidenShaw (http://forums.macrumors.com/member.php?u=14798), all will become perfectly clear to you. :)

In a nutshell, the Dual Woddies are a stopgap way to keep a Quad in the lineup until Quad Core Kentsfields (part of the Conroe Family) can be brought in early next year. Woodie Tulsas will be the first way to have 8 cores inside.
As is obviously apparent, I do not read the hardware forums/threads. Even so in my mind it is a backwards step if you transition from a dual CPU configuration to a single CPU config, no matter how many cores you have. Why would apple want to do that? Obviously they did to some extent with the dual core G5s but to me, it would be silly for apple to go to single CPU Pro computers with the quad core Conroe. Why settle for four when you could have eight? Why settle for eight when you can have 16 etc.
That's just me.

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 01:38 PM
Specs like that in the pro arena are going to make Dell very happy. They need to be all woodcrest. Conroe is a consumer desktop chip.

That makes no sense. If they're all woodcrest, then prices will increase especially on the base model. Meaning that apple wouldn't have a tower under 3k probably? Now THAT would make dell happy.

A line with a range of prices and performances seems to be most competitive with dell. If dell is shipping those three configurations (which they will), how can you be competitive by offering LESS configurations, especially with nothing on the low end?

Or do you expect Dell to ship a config better than quad cores of woodcrest?

And I hate to break this to you, but the low end "pro" tower IS a consumer desktop machine. And I don't really mind that, I'd just like to see a configuration that allows a price drop on that model (assuming we don't see a cheaper mini tower).

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 01:39 PM
As is obviously apparent, I do not read the hardware forums/threads. Even so in my mind it is a backwards step if you transition from a dual CPU configuration to a single CPU config, no matter how many cores you have. Why would apple want to do that? Obviously they did to some extent with the dual core G5s but to me, it would be silly for apple to go to single CPU Pro computers with the quad core Conroe. Why settle for four when you could have eight? Why settle for eight when you can have 16 etc.
That's just me.Did you read what you wrote before pressing the Submit button? I have no idea what you mean. :confused: :eek:

Legacy
Jun 9, 2006, 01:39 PM
At the price theyre selling those beasts, they should have only the cheapest ($1999) model with the fastest Conroe chip and the other two (2499/3299) with Quad Woodcrests. Its a PowerMac, its supposed to be the fastest Mac and probably the fastest personal computer. People are willing to fork out so much for it, they should get the best.

pyropath
Jun 9, 2006, 01:44 PM
However, with quad-core on a single chip (Kentsfield (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060327125521.shtml)) not due until Q1 2007, Apple will have to employ two dual-core chips like today's Quad.

This is not strictly true. Kentsfield is a Multi Chip Module (MCM- a design first used by the POWER4) of 2x dual core chips in one module, not a single quad core.

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 01:46 PM
As is obviously apparent, I do not read the hardware forums/threads. Even so in my mind it is a backwards step if you transition from a dual CPU configuration to a single CPU config, no matter how many cores you have. Why would apple want to do that? Obviously they did to some extent with the dual core G5s but to me, it would be silly for apple to go to single CPU Pro computers with the quad core Conroe. Why settle for four when you could have eight? Why settle for eight when you can have 16 etc.

Cost. A quad core conroe will likely be much cheaper than two dual core woodcrests, and the single socket motherboard is much cheaper as well. It's the same reason you sell different speeds of the same machine at different prices, instead of having every mac with a 2.16 core duo and raising most of the prices quite a bit.

It really does make more sense to use more cores on the same CPU, performance will usually be a little better and there are cost savings on both the chip and motherboard. There's really no reason to use more CPU's instead of more cores, it's not a backward step at all.

BenRoethig
Jun 9, 2006, 01:49 PM
That makes no sense. If they're all woodcrest, then prices will increase especially on the base model. Meaning that apple wouldn't have a tower under 3k probably? Now THAT would make dell happy.

A line with a range of prices and performances seems to be most competitive with dell. If dell is shipping those three configurations (which they will), how can you be competitive by offering LESS configurations, especially with nothing on the low end?

Or do you expect Dell to ship a config better than quad cores of woodcrest?

And I hate to break this to you, but the low end "pro" tower IS a consumer desktop machine. And I don't really mind that, I'd just like to see a configuration that allows a price drop on that model (assuming we don't see a cheaper mini tower).

$1999 is not low end. In the consumer desktop class it is very high end. Also, a Single core woodcrest is very doable at that price.

neocell
Jun 9, 2006, 01:50 PM
Did you read what you wrote before pressing the Submit button? I have no idea what you mean. :confused: :eek:
Well it makes sense to me. Let me try again.

Why go from a computer architecture in which you can use two CPUs (ie quad G5, 2 dual core CPUs) to a new computer architecture in which only one CPU can be used (ie using Conroe, since apparently Conroe cannot function in a multiple CPU configuration as the MP G5s and Woodcrest can). Even if Conroe had eight cores, why disable your line up by going to a single CPU system, when if you use the Woodcrest version you could have 2 CPUs in one computer and thus 16 cores.

"Double your pleasure, double your fun with
Dual Proc, Dual Proc, Dual Proc Computers" :)

Hopefully that's clear, or else I'll try one last time

Cost. A quad core conroe will likely be much cheaper than two dual core woodcrests, and the single socket motherboard is much cheaper as well. It's the same reason you sell different speeds of the same machine at different prices, instead of having every mac with a 2.16 core duo and raising most of the prices quite a bit.

It really does make more sense to use more cores on the same CPU, performance will usually be a little better and there are cost savings on both the chip and motherboard. There's really no reason to use more CPU's instead of more cores, it's not a backward step at all.
I'm not saying that though. I agree with what you said, but why only use 1 quad Conroe, when you could use 2 (a la it's bigger brother the quad woodcrest, or "Conroe that can play with others" whatever you want to call it). Yeah I know cost, but they've been doing this for years in the past. Have chips really become that much more expensive, than when the first dual processor came out? (keeping inflation in mind of course)

I think of it as a backwards step because it's removing greater potential.

brianus
Jun 9, 2006, 02:00 PM
Cost. A quad core conroe will likely be much cheaper than two dual core woodcrests, and the single socket motherboard is much cheaper as well. It's the same reason you sell different speeds of the same machine at different prices, instead of having every mac with a 2.16 core duo and raising most of the prices quite a bit.

It really does make more sense to use more cores on the same CPU, performance will usually be a little better and there are cost savings on both the chip and motherboard. There's really no reason to use more CPU's instead of more cores, it's not a backward step at all.

I agree when it comes to the low end models, but at the high end I think neocell has a point; why not continue using a chip that can be paired, so that every time they come out with a model with twice as many cores, the high end Mac will have double that.

This after all is what they did when the dual-core G5's were released -- chucked the dual-processor configuration on the low end because it was no longer necessary, but took advantage of both on the high end to double the number of cores.

danielwsmithee
Jun 9, 2006, 02:11 PM
I agree with what you said, but why only use 1 quad Conroe, when you could use 2.Maybe you should have read more of the hardware forums. Just like Conroe does not support dual-socket configurations, the first quad-core CPU will not support dual-socket configuration. It will be another 6 months (next summer) before a processor with 4 cores can use two CPU's.

You start with 2x2. (August '06)
Then move to 4x1. (Spring '07)
Then move to 4x2. (Late summer '07)

All of the CPU's are not available at the same time. Apple has to use intel roadmap and timetable just like every other computer manufacturer.

It is an upgrade from 2x2 to 4x1. Just look at the performance increase we saw moving from the dual-processor G5's to the dual-core G5's. The dual-core 2.3 Ghz outperform the dual-processor 2.7 GHz machines on many tasks!!

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 02:13 PM
My most confident predictions have failed in the past, so we'll see.

Ah don't be too hard on yourself, you never know, you might be right this time - just wait and see. :)

shabbasuraj
Jun 9, 2006, 02:16 PM
quadcore? meh..

I want octcore.

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 02:25 PM
$1999 is not low end. In the consumer desktop class it is very high end. Also, a Single core woodcrest is very doable at that price.

All the more reason to either add a mini tower or drop the price on the base tower. If you go quad core woodcrest on the base model, you're raising the price even more. Dell will have a single conroe, Apple needs to have a model competitive with it. Same goes for other speeds of conroe as well as quad woodcrest.

You're not actually suggesting apple should go SINGLE woodcrest, are you? That would be a waste of money and less competitive with the pcs.

Whatever price single chip (I assume you mean chip and not core since none of these chips are available single core) woodcrest is doable at, conroe is doable considerably cheaper with the same results.

Why go from a computer architecture in which you can use two CPUs (ie quad G5, 2 dual core CPUs) to a new computer architecture in which only one CPU can be used (ie using Conroe, since apparently Conroe cannot function in a multiple CPU configuration as the MP G5s and Woodcrest can). Even if Conroe had eight cores, why disable your line up by going to a single CPU system, when if you use the Woodcrest version you could have 2 CPUs in one computer and thus 16 cores.

Because conroe gives you much better bang for your buck in a single chip configuration. What's the point of using chips that can run in pairs if you're not going to use that feature? And what's the point of using a pair of dual core chips if you can use a single chip with four cores, which gives you the same performance for much less money?

How is a chip with more cores and better performance "disabled"? You seem to be assuming that apple can only use one kind of chip, doesn't it make much more sense to use the cheaper chip for single cpu configs and the more expensive one for multiple cpus?

I'm not saying that though. I agree with what you said, but why only use 1 quad Conroe, when you could use 2 (a la it's bigger brother the quad woodcrest, or "Conroe that can play with others" whatever you want to call it). Yeah I know cost, but they've been doing this for years in the past. Have chips really become that much more expensive, than when the first dual processor came out? (keeping inflation in mind of course)

I think of it as a backwards step because it's removing greater potential.

You use one conroe because it's cheaper, and there's demand for a cheaper tower. Why not just use a 2.16 duo in every current mac? Sure, it's better, but a mini would start at $1399.

What do you mean, they've been doing this for years in the past? They've had single/dual G5's, then they had dual/quad. They have slower and fewer cpu's in the cheaper towers. In order to make the cheapest intel tower cheap enough, they'll use a single chip, dual core, and the conroe is the best deal for that configuration.

If you put two (dual) woodcrests into the cheapest tower, what would you use for the higher ones? And do you seriously think consumers would accept a price boost of hundreds of dollars, if not $1k on the *lowest* model?

I agree when it comes to the low end models, but at the high end I think neocell has a point; why not continue using a chip that can be paired, so that every time they come out with a model with twice as many cores, the high end Mac will have double that.

This after all is what they did when the dual-core G5's were released -- chucked the dual-processor configuration on the low end because it was no longer necessary, but took advantage of both on the high end to double the number of cores.

But they WILL use a chip that can be paired, woodcrest, in the high end. But why would you use woodcrest for the cheaper model in a single configuration when you can save a ton of money by using the conroe? The high end WILL have double the cores of the low end one, which will continue when four-core chips ship.

They ARE doing what they did with the G5. Only difference is, this time around there are two versions of the "g5", one that runs alone and is cheaper, and one that runs in pairs and costs more. Hypothetically, wouldn't you agree that it would be foolish if apple used the pricier "pairable g5" by itself?

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 02:27 PM
2GHz Yonah MacBook Benchmarks Show Rosetta Photoshop Beats Native Windoze Photoshop
Yeah, right...

http://www.barefeats.com/image06/boo-mp.gif

http://www.barefeats.com/image06/boo-sp.gif

If something seems to good to be true, it probably is. Bare Feats has been benchmarking for a long time - I would tend to believe their results over those from a random web post.

BTW, MultiMedia, your picture looks like you're old enough to use the name "Windows" for the Microsoft operating system instead of a sophomoric nickname. You demean yourself. (See definition #2 (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sophomoric))

whatever
Jun 9, 2006, 02:34 PM
No, I get it. That was pretty much my whole point. Also, I couldn't see them pricing this mini-tower less than an iMac like you said. So, the same chip the iMac will have, but expandable? And it costs less than the iMac? Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
I think you get it too!

The idea of Apple dedicating resources to a mini-tower is just stupid. What type of expandability are you looking for? More hard drives? You can do that with an iMac. A second monitor? You can do that with an iMac. The only think I can think of that you can't do with an iMac is change the video card.

The reason the Cube did not succeed was that it was to close to the Mac tower in price point and features. Did it look cool? Yes. Could it do most everything a tower could do? Yes. But at the end of the day it was the full tower that consumers bought not the Cube.

The arguments against the iMac is just stupid. If the monitor dies, you're screwed. Duh! If the video card died on a mini tower I would be screwed also!

neocell
Jun 9, 2006, 02:34 PM
Maybe you should have read more of the hardware forums. Just like Conroe does not support dual-socket configurations, the first quad-core CPU will not support dual-socket configuration. It will be another 6 months (next summer) before a processor with 4 cores can use two CPU's.

You start with 2x2. (August '06)
Then move to 4x1. (Spring '07)
Then move to 4x2. (Late summer '07)

All of the CPU's are not available at the same time. Apple has to use intel roadmap and timetable just like every other computer manufacturer.

It is an upgrade from 2x2 to 4x1. Just look at the performance increase we saw moving from the dual-processor G5's to the dual-core G5's. The dual-core 2.3 Ghz outperform the dual-processor 2.7 GHz machines on many tasks!!

We're mixing things up here, as I don't believe you're seeing what I'm trying to say. I never said (or meant to say, maybe it was interpreted that way) that transitioning from a dual CPU to a single CPU would be a performance decrease on the machine. It hopefully won't be, as the G5 transitions you pointed out bear fruit to. But using just a single CPU IS a step back in the sense that you could be using 2 of them and getter twice the kick. If a single dual-core 2.3GHz G5 was better than a 2.7GHz dual proc setup, then how much better would it have been to used the same dual processor setup for the older 2.7 G5, but drop in 2 2.3GHz dual cores? (yeah the quad). So therefore in my mind, going from a double CPU design to a single CPU design is a step back (even if it does do more teraflops than the previous dual CPU set up) because you could have twice as much with a new dual CPU system.

SeaFox
Jun 9, 2006, 02:35 PM
Nice to hear we're getting some serious iron in the new MacPro. I want the damn case to shrink. It's just a monster right now.

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 02:37 PM
You're not actually suggesting apple should go SINGLE woodcrest, are you? That would be a waste of money and less competitive with the pcs.
Assumption 1: Apple comes out with the new form-factor dual-core Conroe Mini-Tower to plug the huge gap between the MiniMacIntel and the maxi-tower.

Assumption 2: Since the maxi-tower no longer has to cool the G5 furnaces, it is redesigned (internally at least) to support 4 to 6 3.5" disk drives, and possibly a second optical.

Based on these two assumptions, an entry ProMac Tower with a single Woody might be attractive to someone building a file server or other system which was not CPU-bound.

It's probably unlikely that Apple will do this, but I wanted to point out one reasonable case where a maxi-tower with a single Woody would make sense.

brianus
Jun 9, 2006, 02:42 PM
But they WILL use a chip that can be paired, woodcrest, in the high end. But why would you use woodcrest for the cheaper model in a single configuration when you can save a ton of money by using the conroe? The high end WILL have double the cores of the low end one, which will continue when four-core chips ship.

They ARE doing what they did with the G5. Only difference is, this time around there are two versions of the "g5", one that runs alone and is cheaper, and one that runs in pairs and costs more. Hypothetically, wouldn't you agree that it would be foolish if apple used the pricier "pairable g5" by itself?

Sorry, I must have misunderstood then. I thought the argument was that they should eventually ditch dual-processor configurations altogether, even for the high end, since future iterations of Conroe will support more than 2 cores. It definitely looks right now like putting Woodcrests in the high end and Conroes in the low end will be the only way to make the lower end ones affordable, which is certainly going to continue to be necessary regardless of whether they're sold as a separate mini-tower line between the iMac and the "Mac Expert", or if they're all still sold as Mac Pros. A $1000 gap between the consumer and pro machines just will not do, especially for my line of work...

neocell
Jun 9, 2006, 02:42 PM
Okay, after rereading most of this thread, I think we're pretty much in a agreement for the most part. Saying the same things, but from different angles and in different words. It seems panties may be starting to get bunched, so I just wanted to say.

Yeah, for the new MacPros whatever they come with.

Hopefully they'll come with a dual processor option so we can take advantage of quad core intel macs, and more...

**EDIT**

Sorry, I must have misunderstood then. I thought the argument was that they should eventually ditch dual-processor configurations altogether
this is what I thought too

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 02:51 PM
quadcore? meh..

I want octcore.

So you're just going to bypass Tigerton and hold off for Dunnington? :cool:

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 03:01 PM
The idea of Apple dedicating resources to a mini-tower is just stupid. What type of expandability are you looking for? More hard drives? You can do that with an iMac. A second monitor? You can do that with an iMac. The only think I can think of that you can't do with an iMac is change the video card.

The reason the Cube did not succeed was that it was to close to the Mac tower in price point and features. Did it look cool? Yes. Could it do most everything a tower could do? Yes. But at the end of the day it was the full tower that consumers bought not the Cube.

The arguments against the iMac is just stupid. If the monitor dies, you're screwed. Duh! If the video card died on a mini tower I would be screwed also!

First, a mini tower is probably the easiest box to make, one of the best arguments for it is that it would take minimal resources to design.

You can't put a second hard drive into an imac, can you? There are still things that are either cheaper or only available on a pci card.

The reason the cube failed was that it was overpriced (I agree that it was too close to the towers in price, but it was too far away in features). A mini tower would have to be priced reasonably to succeed. But it would be cheap for apple to make, so they could easily have a cheap one and still make a decent profit.

If the video card dies in a mini tower, you're fine. Just replace the video card. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF IT.


But using just a single CPU IS a step back in the sense that you could be using 2 of them and getter twice the kick.

Sure, but going to double the cpus doubles the cpu cost (not to mention raising the cost of the motherboard). So you put dual woodcrest in the base model. And the cost goes from $1999 to $3499. Do you seriously think that all mac buyers are going to be OK with that? What do you tell the consumer who has $1999 to spend, is more interested in an affordable machine, and would be fine with two cores, while four is overkill?

Based on these two assumptions, an entry ProMac Tower with a single Woody might be attractive to someone building a file server or other system which was not CPU-bound.

Sure, this is possible. But your scenario still has apple shipping a single conroe model, I was addressing the notion of apple only shipping woodcrest in the towers, using it for both single and dual configs.

boncellis
Jun 9, 2006, 03:02 PM
So you're just going to bypass Tigerton and hold off for Dunnington? :cool:

I think Intel needs to change the names. This whole "-ton" nomenclature reminds me of Kevin Klein's character in "A Fish Called Wanda" where he introduces himself as "Manfred-jen-son-ton" to Archie's wife. Clever bit, though easily confusing. :)

Btw, ~Shard~, what did the Simpsons mean by the joke about taking pharmaceuticals that would make Regina look like Saskatoon? Can you enlighten me?

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 03:12 PM
Btw, ~Shard~, what did the Simpsons mean by the joke about taking pharmaceuticals that would make Regina look like Saskatoon? Can you enlighten me?

Actually, I can't think of anything off the top of my head which that would refer to specifically. Sure, there's a friendly rivalry between the cities, but other than that, there's nothing "drug-related" that would make that comment more applicable - it may have just been a random thing that they chose those 2 cities...

The gag that is easier to interpret was on one trip when you can see the welcome sign to Winnipeg that states "We are boring here, what's your excuse?" :D :cool:

boncellis
Jun 9, 2006, 03:15 PM
Actually, I can't think of anything off the top of my head which that would refer to specifically. Sure, there's a friendly rivalry between the cities, but other than that, there's nothing "drug-related" that would make that comment more applicable - it may have just been a random thing that they chose those 2 cities...

The gag that is easier to interpret was on one trip when you can see the welcome sign to Winnipeg that states "We are boring here, what's your excuse?" :D :cool:

Thanks for the response. I love learning about the world around me. Though I don't believe I'll ever make it to Winnipeg...

This is why I hang out in this forum. Brilliant members, brilliant discussion. ;)

MrCrowbar
Jun 9, 2006, 03:15 PM
We've seen the transition to Intel Processors making certain (CPU-Intensive) Benchmarks 2 times faster on the iMac and 4 times faster on the Macbook Pro. I'd say even more on the Macbook since the iBooks it replaces were clocked to be under the powerbooks.

So I expect the PowerMac replacement has to be at least 2 times faster than the PowerMacs we have now. I doubt you could do that for the current quad,even with 8 cores.

I say we'll have Woodcrest along the line (remember the G5 was a server CPU when the PowerMac came out). My guess is:
base model:1 Woodcrest
middle model:

morespce54
Jun 9, 2006, 03:18 PM
I wanted to vote for the G4 G3 choice just because it was funny....

Actually, my faithful G4 is (still) kind of cool... :cool:
...but then, I don't own a PWG5... so maybe I'm a tad jealous... :D ;)

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 03:19 PM
base model:1 Woodcrest

Have you read ANY of this thread? Specifically the MANY posts explaining that single woodcrest is NO FASTER than single conroe. No advantages in the single config. Period. And it's more expensive.

Really, you might want to look back a little at the thread.

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 03:19 PM
So you're just going to bypass Tigerton and hold off for Dunnington? :cool:No way man. However they deliver 8 cores first, I am there. :D

danielwsmithee
Jun 9, 2006, 03:19 PM
Based on these two assumptions, an entry ProMac Tower with a single Woody might be attractive to someone building a file server or other system which was not CPU-bound.

It's probably unlikely that Apple will do this, but I wanted to point out one reasonable case where a maxi-tower with a single Woody would make sense.So the only viable application of a single Woodcrest is one that is not CPU bound, and is instead bound by disk, or ram speed etc. Why not develop your system with a single Conroe with higher end components. You would be saving a lot of money with no performance difference by using a Conroe rather then a Woodcrest.

Just because it is a sever it does not have to use a Woodcrest. I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the fact that the Woodcrest is supposed to replace the Xeon. It is a completely new design with the same performance as Conroe.

It is a simple distinction. One socket => Conroe. Two sockets => Woodcrest. There is no reason to break this rule.

BlizzardBomb
Jun 9, 2006, 03:22 PM
Have you read ANY of this thread? Specifically the MANY posts explaining that single woodcrest is NO FASTER than single conroe. No advantages in the single config. Period. And it's more expensive.

Really, you might want to look back a little at the thread.

Surely it would be (slightly) faster. 1333MHz FSB vs. 1066MHz.

MrCrowbar
Jun 9, 2006, 03:22 PM
We've seen the transition to Intel Processors making certain (CPU-Intensive) Benchmarks 2 times faster on the iMac and 4 times faster on the Macbook Pro. I'd say even more on the Macbook since the iBooks it replaces were clocked to be under the powerbooks.

So I expect the PowerMac replacement has to be at least 2 times faster than the PowerMacs we have now. I doubt you could do that for the current quad,even with 8 cores.

I say we'll have Woodcrest along the line (remember the G5 was a server CPU when the PowerMac came out). My guess is:
base model: 2 cores
middle model: 4 cores
top model: 8 cores

I also think there will be a little price bump, just like all Macs that have gone Intel so far. Can't wait to hear Steve say (one more thing:) "You thought the Quad PowerMac. Well, the new MacPro Octa leaves it in the dust!". And if the top MacPro does Photoshop faster under Rosetta on the Quad, these things will sell.

Macinposh
Jun 9, 2006, 03:23 PM
I had this brainfart after taking a nap :




Check this out, yo:



The MacPro will feature only two different CPU options, both woodies:

One is the 2.33 5140 (2 x 470$?) version with smaller HDDs and a bit more stripped graphic card.
The second one is the loaded version with 3mhz 5160,souped up HDDs and graphics.


AND

Then you will have two of the pizzaboxes with conroe.

Slower one, 2.40 mhz E6600 (315$?) with some basic graphic card
and
Fast one , 3.33 mhz EE with a HDMI supporting card&DVR capabilities.



MacPros would be released a.s.a.p but the PizzaMac would be revealed in the WWMD in august, thus Stevie could state that the intel transition is complete.
And he could have his one more thing...just for the ***** and giggles.



This all come from the thought that apple seems to streamline it´s product lineup and making only two choices aviable per product (Mini,15.4",iMac)
Perhaps to make room for few new things, that said PizzaMac in the tabletop segement and a ultralight laptop in the mobiles?

finchna
Jun 9, 2006, 03:23 PM
cool--8 core or better in 2007!

morespce54
Jun 9, 2006, 03:24 PM
Maybe dual optical drives?

In your dream... (or in mine?) ;)
That would be awsome... :eek:

generik
Jun 9, 2006, 03:27 PM
How much would you guys expect these to be?

Because no matter how well Stevo would foist it, it doesn't change the fact that a Conroe Powered Mac Pro is really no more Pro than a consumer Dell desktop computer.. what's so special about a workstation powered by a consumer class CPU? I seriously don't see it.

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 03:33 PM
So the only viable application of a single Woodcrest is one that is not CPU bound, and is instead bound by disk, or ram speed etc. Why not develop your system with a single Conroe with higher end components. You would be saving a lot of money with no performance difference by using a Conroe rather then a Woodcrest.

Just because it is a sever it does not have to use a Woodcrest. I think a lot of people are getting hung up on the fact that the Woodcrest is supposed to replace the Xeon. It is a completely new design with the same performance as Conroe.

It is a simple distinction. One socket => Conroe. Two sockets => Woodcrest. There is no reason to break this rule.

I think his point is that it would make sense if apple *already* had two motherboards (because of a mini tower), and having a third mobo for conroe in the "big tower" would be a pain. I think it's a bit of a stretch.

Surely it would be (slightly) faster. 1333MHz FSB vs. 1066MHz.

Is that a difference that's even going to show up on a benchmark? Is a 1066MHz bus really that much of a bottleneck for one cpu chip? We're talking about a price difference of hundreds of dollars.

I say we'll have Woodcrest along the line (remember the G5 was a server CPU when the PowerMac came out). My guess is:
base model: 2 cores
middle model: 4 cores
top model: 8 cores

Again, a single woodcrest makes no sense. You're paying a big price premium JUST FOR MULTIPLE CPUS, then not taking advantage it if you use one cpu. Single conroe gives you the same performance for much less $$$ (not to mention that neither single woodcrest nor single conroe will be double the speed of dual G5).

And 8 cores?? At this point, assuming it's possible, it would require four woodcrest chips. Anyone have a guess on what that would cost? $10K?

johnpaul191
Jun 9, 2006, 03:35 PM
The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.

you never explain how the G5 case was not functional. most WinPC users i know were always impressed with the G3/G4 and G5 case.

mercury26
Jun 9, 2006, 03:37 PM
you never explain how the G5 case was not functional. most WinPC users i know were always impressed with the G3/G4 and G5 case.

The G5 case only holds two hard drives and 3 PCI (or PCI-E) cards. The fact that I have to add external drives and PCI expansion chassis is silly. I have a smaller Lian-Li case for my PC that holds 10 drives and 5 PCI cards and it is smaller!!!

Cheers,

:: Chuck

milo
Jun 9, 2006, 03:38 PM
How much would you guys expect these to be?

Because no matter how well Stevo would foist it, it doesn't change the fact that a Conroe Powered Mac Pro is really no more Pro than a consumer Dell desktop computer.. what's so special about a workstation powered by a consumer class CPU? I seriously don't see it.

Who cares? A dual G5 is really no more pro than a consumer dell. And a consumer dell is plenty good enough for lots of "pro" work.

And a single woodcrest wouldn't be any more pro than a consumer dell either, it would just be a waste of money.

I don't care if it's "special". I want to see a cheap tower that's competitive with dell's cheap towers (and that would have a conroe in it). And I want to see a high end tower that's competitive with dell's high end towers. "PRO" is just a name, they might as well call the mini the 150 and the tower the 950.

My concern isn't that the low end tower will have a conroe, my concern is that apple gets the price for it VERY low.

morespce54
Jun 9, 2006, 03:39 PM
the current imac is powerful but i don't think its powerful enough to run pro apps, like FCS, well

If the MacBook Pro can, chances are a same-speced iMac will work nice too...

Well, it is working nicely on mine...:)
But then again, I suppose it all depends on what you're working on...

BlizzardBomb
Jun 9, 2006, 03:41 PM
Is that a difference that's even going to show up on a benchmark? Is a 1066MHz bus really that much of a bottleneck for one cpu chip? We're talking about a price difference of hundreds of dollars.


Hundreds?

Conroe E6700 (2.67GHz, 1066MHz, 4MB) - $530
Xeon 5150 (2.67GHz, 1333MHz, 4MB) - $690

While I agree it is a fair bit more. It wouldn't look right having a Conroe, which could be found in cheap computers in what was once the "World's Most Powerful Personal Computer" (according to Apple anyway :p).

brianus
Jun 9, 2006, 03:44 PM
How much would you guys expect these to be?

Because no matter how well Stevo would foist it, it doesn't change the fact that a Conroe Powered Mac Pro is really no more Pro than a consumer Dell desktop computer.. what's so special about a workstation powered by a consumer class CPU? I seriously don't see it.

I don't understand this comment. Everybody on this thread seems to be of the opinion that Woodcrest is not really any different from Conroe, except that it has a slightly faster FSB, can be paired and costs more. So what on earth is the difference between "consumer-class" and "workstation-class" if that's the case? Is there any substance to that anymore?

I would think "Pro" really distinguishes the relatively crippled consumer Macs from the ones with better specs and expandability (OTOH, I just heard that the MacBook's HDD can be replaced -- which, having only ever had PC laptops, I had assumed would have been true of all Apple laptops, forever -- while the MBP's can't!! Weird..)

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 03:52 PM
No way man. However they deliver 8 cores first, I am there. :D

And I'm sure you won't be alone with that one... :) So how many cores is enough? 2? 4? 8? 32? 512? ;) :cool:

brianus
Jun 9, 2006, 03:59 PM
And I'm sure you won't be alone with that one... :) So how many cores is enough? 2? 4? 8? 32? 512? ;) :cool:

I'm holding out for the Kilocore Macs, personally

G5power
Jun 9, 2006, 04:06 PM
It wouldn't look right having a Conroe, which could be found in cheap computers in what was once the "World's Most Powerful Personal Computer" (according to Apple anyway :p).[/QUOTE]


Wow the Apple marketing hype left kool-aid stains. :)

I agree that some sort of mid sized tower configured with a single Conroe processor could help Apple expand their market share and provide a viable option for the huge gap between the mini and the high end towers.

I have a 24" Dell hooked to my dual 867 and I sure would like to update from the G4.

50548
Jun 9, 2006, 04:14 PM
That sounds like a great idea, but Apple will never do it.


;)

So you're finally giving up on the idea of a mid-range, mini-tower Mac..? Good! :rolleyes:

We're gonna probably have a big, white/gray case to match those of the MacMini and the iMac...with a great access mechanism as easy to open as the one from the PowerMac 9600.

Music_Producer
Jun 9, 2006, 04:26 PM
cool--8 core or better in 2007!

*Sigh* I could so use an 8 core machine right now (16 gb max ram, fill it up with 8 gb) Not for the "My machine is the fastest" reason, but with all the virtual software instruments nowadays, its a necessity.

slackpacker
Jun 9, 2006, 04:32 PM
Ya I really need something to run Motion at the speed it was designed to run at. Apple has a chance to come out with a truly powerful machine.

I just want a really kicking mac.

THX1139
Jun 9, 2006, 04:34 PM
The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.

WTF?!! :eek:

heisetax
Jun 9, 2006, 04:40 PM
Not too bad of an idea :cool:

I just don't get why people want more optical drives? for what?


Some people like to read from one & write to another drive. Some people do not want to use their best drive just to read a CD for program installation. Maybe it may just be personal choice. Maybe just for no good reason. In any case everyone that uses a computer do not have the same needs, wants & desires.

I have 2 optical drives in my MDD PowerMac G4 & like it better that way. I'm sure that I would have trouble justifying it. The same goes for the 3-4 internal hard drives. I also have 4-6 external drives hooked up at all times. I generally use only 1 or 2 of them at a time, but I have have had them all running many times. In fact at the present time I'm using a 60 GB, 7200 rpm, 2.5" drive to boot from & a 500 GB SATA drive to store my data including my mirror of my 60GB iPod & a partition with OS 10.4.6 on it. Both of the above mentioned drives are connected to my MDD PowerMac by FW800 connections.

Multiple external accessable drives are very nice & very necessary for many. I'm in the process of placing my harddrives into trays. That way they can easilly be changed between computers without the added cost of all of those cases.

Bill the TaxMan

sigamy
Jun 9, 2006, 04:55 PM
I don't agree that it's impossible for apple to double their marketshare. In fact, I think adding a model like a midtower is something that would help. Delivering niche products is great, and works well for apple, to a degree. But if that's all they do, they're giving up. They're avoiding the possibility of increasing their marketshare.

As for the all-in-one widget, apple is already shipping exceptions to this. If this was their whole philosophy, then why wouldn't they just stop selling towers at all? And why are they shipping the mini (which people insisted would NEVER happen...in posts very similar to yours)?

OK, this is getting well off topic but...

Market share does not equal PROFITS. Everyone is so worried about Apple's market share in the PC market. Guess what, there were two computer manufacturers that were profitable in 2004 and 2005. Dell and Apple. All those other PC makers with a larger market share than Apple--HP, IBM, etc. None of them could make a profit from selling PCs.

Jobs has said it many times--why is no one question BMW on there market share?

You either need to squeeze every dollar through manufacturing process and supply chain (Dell) or you need to charge a premium for something different (Apple).

Apple answers to it's shareholders. It needs to turn a profit for them. Apple doesn't answer to its fans who want to move ahead of 3% or 5% market share for bragging rights.

And as for the mini....you made my point exactly. Its a computer that you take out of a small box , plug in 3 or 4 cables and go. Can you swap the video card, add a hard drive? No. Again, Steve and Apple have decided that this is the machine that you should have. If you are a mini customer, you are to trust Apple that this is all you need. Heck, now it comes with bluetooth and AE built in. It's a toaster--it's the farthest thing from a mini tower with expansion.

hdasmith
Jun 9, 2006, 04:59 PM
I think this article is probably accurate, as Apple doesn't really have much choice in the matter. Intel is the future, PPC is "old".

I'm sorry, but WHAT??? The whole idea behind the PPC is years newer than the x86 Intel architecture!!!!

The reason for the PPC, and why Apple chose it instead of Intel's platform when they moved away from the M68k's is because it is MUCH more efficient than the x86 architecture. A programmer when programming endian code may need a few extra lines to do the same task, but the system will get through them faster than doing the same command in x86!

I still think Apple would have done better looking for another manufacturer to make a G6... The PPC is just a much better architecture!

THX1139
Jun 9, 2006, 05:01 PM
Absolutely – that’s the whole point of delaying WWDC into August. Apple is definitely releasing the new PowerMacs at this event, and since this lines up nicely with the Conroe and Woodcrest release dates, I would not be surprised at all to see both chips introduced into the line as this news item speculates. :cool:

You're missing part of the equation. After Apple moved the date of WWDC, Intel announced that they were going to be releasing ahead of schedule. So that means Apple has a choice of holding off until WWDC or releasing at the end of the month along with everyone else. If Apple chooses to sit on the release, they risk losing out on a couple months of sales just to make an impression. They will also be "late" to the party and that's worse than doing a silent release.

I think they would be better off getting something out there to stay competitive. I'm thinking they will release 3 models end of June to replace what is currently shipping. All with Woodcrest but the top end is Quad. I think they will continue to sell PPC Quad until Adobe goes UB, unless Steve decides to snub Adobe. After Apple releases in June, they can do a complete Macpro refresh in 6-7 months when the new chip line comes out. Probably at MacworldSF.

FF_productions
Jun 9, 2006, 05:15 PM
I think they will continue to sell PPC Quad until Adobe goes UB, unless Steve decides to snub Adobe.

I wonder about that one. At MacWorld, Steve said the current version of the Adobe Products just won't run fast enough for a professional, so I wonder if he will drop the PowerMac G5 that quickly. If he is going to keep the G5's around, he's going to have to cut those prices down because the Intels are likely to destroy them (in Universal Apps).

Silentwave
Jun 9, 2006, 05:21 PM
4-6 SATA2 (3Gbps) ports w/ RAID 0, 1 or 5 on any/all ports


Sata/3Gbps is not SATA 2. Its one of the myth-conceptions that their official website tries to debunk.

Personally i'd like to see Sata 2 in it. Perhaps 6Gbps anyone? :cool:

KindredMAC
Jun 9, 2006, 05:22 PM
I wonder about that one. At MacWorld, Steve said the current version of the Adobe Products just won't run fast enough for a professional, so I wonder if he will drop the PowerMac G5 that quickly. If he is going to keep the G5's around, he's going to have to cut those prices down because the Intels are likely to destroy them (in Universal Apps).
Makes sense.... the iMac was offered in both flavors before the PPC version was finally run dry.

I'll tell ya, CS 2 not running at pro speeds is really a huge downer for the MacIntels. I don't care how much RAM you put in the MacIntels and what processor you are using, Rosetta cannot come close to matching up with native speeds. God, I can't wait for CS 3.....

~Shard~
Jun 9, 2006, 05:32 PM
I'm sorry, but WHAT??? The whole idea behind the PPC is years newer than the x86 Intel architecture!!!!

I was speaking from Apple's perspective (Steve's RDF and all) and what they would like you to think - hence the quotes around "old". :cool:

THX1139
Jun 9, 2006, 05:38 PM
I said it in the last thread and I will say it here: There is no reason for apple to release a mini-tower between the iMac and Mac Pro. As of now, if Apple keeps the same pricing for the Mac Pro, there is only a $300 difference between the high end iMac and the low end Powermac. Where would this mini tower fit in? Sorry all of you mini tower fans, but its probably not going to happen.

Also, if this mini tower is semi-expandable like all of you say it will be, there will be no reason for people to buy the higher end iMac, because for less than $300 they can get an expandable machine.


Sorry, but your logic is flawed. What's to say that Apple won't release a low-end tower (Mac instead of MacPro) at the SAME price point as an iMac? You assume that people are only driven by money in their purchases. What about needs?? If you have a "Mac" around the same price as an iMac, it will target a different market. The average family would look at the Mac and the iMac and choose the iMac because it comes with a built-in screen and has plenty of power. Someone else might choose the Mac so that they can have freedom to expand and be able to choose their monitor etc. If you're an average consumer, you might look at the iMac and decide that's all the computer you need because it's an all-in-one package. However, you might be a prosumer and have special needs, but don't need or can't afford all the power that comes with MacPro. In short, I guess what I'm saying is that a small Mac tower (maybe with Conroe?) and an iMac are two completely different machines. The user won't choose one over the other based just on price.

Mac-mini (Merom) - entry level, consumer
iMac (Merom) - small business, consumer
Mac (Conroe) - small business, prosumer
MacPro (Woodcrest) - $erious prosumer, business, creative industry

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 05:45 PM
Okay, after rereading most of this thread, I think we're pretty much in a agreement for the most part.

Hopefully they'll come with a dual processor option so we can take advantage of quad core intel macs, and more...
Actually, these discussions would be much clearer if the terms "CPU" and "processor" were banned, and we only used "core" and "socket".

"CPU" and "processor" are confusing, sometimes people use them to mean "core", and sometime to mean "socket".

We even get posts that say that a quad-core single-socket doesn't need an SMP-capable operating system. :eek:

brianus
Jun 9, 2006, 06:04 PM
You assume that people are only driven by money in their purchases. What about needs??

You're forgetting the other salient point mentioned earlier, that the way Apple works, it's all about what they decide you need. They figure that at this point, the only people interested in expandability, the "enthusiasts" and "pro's", can probably afford to shell out a little extra, so they're not going to bother releasing something like that that could cut into sales of their designated "consumer" product.

Mac-mini (Merom) - entry level, consumer
iMac (Merom) - small business, consumer
Mac (Conroe) - small business, prosumer
MacPro (Woodcrest) - $erious prosumer, business, creative industry

Why not, instead:

Mac mini - entry level, consumer [$600-$800]
iMac - consumer [$1000s]
Mac Pro Core 2 Duo (Conroe) - prosumer, lower-maintenance creative industry (less intensive graphic design type stuff) [$2000s]
Mac Pro Core 2 Xeon (2xWoodcrest) - "enthusiast", high-maintenance creative industry (video etc) [$3000s]

Btw... I know of "small businesses" which use Mac minis, iMacs, Power Macs, you name it. I'm not sure if that label really applies anymore.

mwswami
Jun 9, 2006, 06:10 PM
Given that even the entry level laptops are dual core, I believe that we will see an all Quad-core lineup for the Mac Pro - i.e. dual Woodcrests across the board.

Entry: 2 x Xeon 5130 (2.0 GHz) $2199
Mid: 2 x Xeon 5140 (2.33 GHz) $2699
High: 2 x Xeon 5150 (2.67 GHz) $3499

The 5160 will be available only as a BTO option (+ $500) on the High end. Note that the 5130, 5140, 5150, and 5150 are expected to be priced at $316, $455, $690, and $851 respectively.

puckhead193
Jun 9, 2006, 06:12 PM
woodcrest will be released on June 26th...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060609/ap_on_hi_te/intel_chip_plans;_ylt=AtFeL2n.Q40Ap6Y5PWlYuBkjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 06:24 PM
*Sigh* I could so use an 8 core machine right now (16 gb max ram, fill it up with 8 gb) Not for the "My machine is the fastest" reason, but with all the virtual software instruments nowadays, its a necessity.Yeah me too for crushing EyeTV HD recordings to mp4 which right now takes more than real time in a 2 stage process. :( Goal: less than one minute per process - no matter how long the original is.

aswitcher
Jun 9, 2006, 06:24 PM
Why not, instead:

Mac mini - entry level, consumer [$600-$800]
iMac - consumer [$1000s]
Mac Pro Core 2 Duo (Conroe) - prosumer, lower-maintenance creative industry (less intensive graphic design type stuff) [$2000s]
Mac Pro Core 2 Xeon (2xWoodcrest) - "enthusiast", high-maintenance creative industry (video etc) [$3000s]

[/i]


I really hope Apple do "plug" this iMac PowerMac gap with such a change in lineup...

A is jump
Jun 9, 2006, 06:29 PM
I wish i had had your g5 tower then, because the rev1 one I was using the last year was a pile of dog pooh and was no different than my experience running our work's Windows machines, ie when will it let me down next? Although quiet in operation, those fans came on after crashes and could have lifted the building as well as the tower. Obviously i had a lemon because my Powerbook is an amazing bit of kit, and I wont ever buy a new release Mac again, but it was a bad experience allround, and an embarrassment having persuaded the company to get me a bonmbproof Mac!

Well thats Rev As for you. Thats exactly the reason I got a powerbook 8 months ago, because even though I wanted a macbookpro, I would rather have a slower laptop with no significant flaws.

Silly? Why? If you need that much hard drive space, how else are you going to do it with fewer drives?

If you put the biggest drives available in your G5, I can still have 2.5x as much drive space in my G4. Partitioning is like having six SMALL drives.

Lots of memory slots is nice, and it is fairly quiet. But it seems like most of the reason people go so gaga over them is just because they look cool. Sorry, in a tower I want functionality, not pretty.

I guess for me, having 2 drives built in, and using external drives to store Data is fine.... I use my G5 with Logic Pro, and some of the song files will get very large... but never have I had a project that required that I have anywhere near the kind of space you are talking about. just glancing around you could have 1.5 Terabytes of storage. without adding a third drive (which is possible http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=149)
how 'bout 2.25terabytes?
and if I WAS using logic with a huge project that required hard drive space...I would probably be unhappy with the performance of my single G5 and I'd probably have to buy another G5 and set it up as a Node... in which case I'd have three more drives.

I realize that the G5 cant hold as many drives as a g4, but I guess I dont understand, with the options I've presented, why it is a big deal to only be able to have 2.25 terabytes of storage. What kind of stuff are you doing that you really need 5.625Tb of Storage at your fingertips?

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 06:30 PM
Given that even the entry level laptops are dual core, I believe that we will see an all Quad-core lineup for the Mac Pro - i.e. dual Woodcrests across the board.

Entry: 2 x Xeon 5130 (2.0 GHz) $2199
Mid: 2 x Xeon 5140 (2.33 GHz) $2699
High: 2 x Xeon 5150 (2.67 GHz) $3499

The 5160 will be available only as a BTO option (+ $500) on the High end. Note that the 5130, 5140, 5150, and 5150 are expected to be priced at $316, $455, $690, and $851 respectively.This is what I thought in February. You are reminding me it could happen that way. And this Winter '07 the whole linup could be moved to faster Kentsfields without Apple having to lower the prices. So Swami makes sense I hope is right. If not now, next Winter '07 for sure. :)

And Aiden could have his mid-range lineup full of Conroes this way too.

novagamer
Jun 9, 2006, 06:43 PM
This is what I thought in February. You are reminding me it could happen that way. And this Winter '07 the whole linup could be moved to faster Kentsfields without Apple having to lower the prices. So Swami makes sense I hope is right. If not now, next Winter '07 for sure. :)

And Aiden could have his mid-range lineup full of Conroes this way too.

I didn't consider that the highest option might be a BTO, but I think that makes the most sense. If these are socketed, then these machines will be fun to tinker with.:D

shawnce
Jun 9, 2006, 06:53 PM
Hundreds?

Conroe E6700 (2.67GHz, 1066MHz, 4MB) - $530
Xeon 5150 (2.67GHz, 1333MHz, 4MB) - $690

The Woodcrest requires a different chipset then the Conroe which can easily add another 100 to 200 dollars (if not more) to price difference.

mwswami
Jun 9, 2006, 07:02 PM
This is what I thought in February. You are reminding me it could happen that way. And this Winter '07 the whole linup could be moved to faster Kentsfields without Apple having to lower the prices. So Swami makes sense I hope is right. If not now, next Winter '07 for sure. :)

And Aiden could have his mid-range lineup full of Conroes this way too.

I assume you meant Clovertown (2 Woodcrests in the same package) instead of Kentfield (2 Conroes in the same package). Both of these are expected to be released end of 2006 or early Q1 2007. Even though Kentfield will provide 4 cores, I believe Mac Pro and XServe lineups will choose to support 2 Clovertowns, atleast in the top models.

Anyone know if the Clovertown is going to be drop-in compatible with Woodcrest systems? Clovertown will be part of a newer platform and may choose a different socket. Also, the TDP for the Clovertown is expected to be 80-120W as compared to 65-80W for the Woodcrest.

THX1139
Jun 9, 2006, 07:15 PM
Given that even the entry level laptops are dual core, I believe that we will see an all Quad-core lineup for the Mac Pro - i.e. dual Woodcrests across the board.

Entry: 2 x Xeon 5130 (2.0 GHz) $2199
Mid: 2 x Xeon 5140 (2.33 GHz) $2699
High: 2 x Xeon 5150 (2.67 GHz) $3499

The 5160 will be available only as a BTO option (+ $500) on the High end. Note that the 5130, 5140, 5150, and 5150 are expected to be priced at $316, $455, $690, and $851 respectively.

Your prices are probably too low. For example, Boxx is releasing the 5130 at $3000. I doubt Apple will be go lower than that in a workstation and that's too high for entry level.

Trying to guess Apples Intel line-up is a major crap shoot. The problem besides having so many chips hit the market, is that they are coming out staggered over the summer/fall. The question is, would Apple be willing to wait for Conroe at WWDC or just go all Woodcre$t now? If they split the line-up into different processors/motherboards, then they have to have a staggered release. Then what happens if they hold off until end of August? They will lose sales and the date for Kentsfield will be less than 6 months. If they release an all Woodcrest in their pro-line.. assuming they keep a similar line-up to the current G5's, then where does Conroe fit in? They certainly wouldn't shift everything to Kentsfield in '07? Would Apple keep redoing their line-up to fit the chip market, or will they cherry pick what they want and leave the rest? I mean, when Conroe does become available, it doesn't mean Apple has to use it in their pro towers.

All this musing makes me think they will issue transistion machines until the whole chip line is out. I don't think we will see the big picture of the transition until '07. That is unless Apple is willing to have multiple configurations and change the line-up every 6 months or less. Not Apples style. If they are forced to start with Woodcrest, they will stick with it. Conroe will only be used in the consumer line if at all.

Squire
Jun 9, 2006, 07:27 PM
I think that would be the whole point. Especially with only one Conroe processor in it, a smaller form factor would be ideal. Plus, I personally believe a gap exists between the iMac and the PowerMac where a product like this could fit. I think for many people, a PowerMac, especially the quad beast, is far too much for their needs, power-wise and cost-wise. Yet the iMac, although very powerful, might not be the ideal choice for some people due to its lack of upgradeability (apart from the memory). For instance, I really only need an iMac for my needs, yet if my HDD fails or if my built-in screen dies, I’m pretty much screwed. I can’t replace those components, nor can I upgrade them if I ever wanted to in the future to extends the machine’s life. If my machine goes, my perfectly good display is useless, and vice versa. A “mini PowerMac” would be ideal for me. :cool:


Yet, you want something with a little more-- in terms of computing balls-- than a Mac mini. :D I see your point.

-Squire

mwswami
Jun 9, 2006, 07:44 PM
Your prices are probably too low. For example, Boxx is releasing the 5130 at $3000. I doubt Apple will be go lower than that in a workstation and that's too high for entry level.

I haven't looked at Boxx, but an entry level Dell Precision 490 can be configured for about $2000 with dual 2 core Xeons 5060 (3.2 GHz, 1066 FSB, 2x2Mb cache, list price on pricegrabber = $400). Ofcourse 5060 is not Woodcrest but the rest of the components (dual socket motherboard, fb-dimms, etc) are going to be the same.

All this musing makes me think they will issue transistion machines until the whole chip line is out. I don't think we will see the big picture of the transition until '07. That is unless Apple is willing to have multiple configurations and change the line-up every 6 months or less. Not Apples style. If they are forced to start with Woodcrest, they will stick with it. Conroe will only be used in the consumer line if at all.

I agree, it's a mess right now with too many new chips out there. But when I look at the new Dell Workstations (490 and 690) and the PowerEdge servers (1950 and 2950), it seems to me that their design will continue for over a year. Ofcourse, this assumes that Clovertown is pin compatible with Woodcrest. Note that since they are supporting Xeons 50xx, they have designed the systems with a much larger TDP than is necessary for the Woodcrests but it will come in handy for Clovertown.

kered22
Jun 9, 2006, 08:01 PM
I believe I read it on here, but am not sure (tried a search and couldn't find it). But wasn't there a rumor (late 2005, early 2006 or so) that Apple was trying to pressure Intel to push up the release of Woodcrest to use it in the MacPro? At the time Intel wasn't willing, but of course the market conditions are always the deciding factor.

Squozen
Jun 9, 2006, 08:11 PM
the current imac is powerful but i don't think its powerful enough to run pro apps, like FCS, well

Think again. The iMac is a real screamer. I'm running Logic Pro on mine with no problems at all, and it's performing just as well as it would have on a dual-pro PowerMac.

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 08:16 PM
I assume you meant Clovertown (2 Woodcrests in the same package) instead of Kentfield (2 Conroes in the same package). Both of these are expected to be released end of 2006 or early Q1 2007. Even though Kentfield will provide 4 cores, I believe Mac Pro and XServe lineups will choose to support 2 Clovertowns, atleast in the top models.

Anyone know if the Clovertown is going to be drop-in compatible with Woodcrest systems? Clovertown will be part of a newer platform and may choose a different socket. Also, the TDP for the Clovertown is expected to be 80-120W as compared to 65-80W for the Woodcrest.No. I meant Kentsfield since that would be a less expensive solution replacing the more expensive Dual Woddies allowing Apple to keep the pricing while making more money per system come Winter '07.

I agree that Dual Clovertowns are in the cards for the top though. I'm sure Apple wants to get an eight core system on the market ASAP. No matter what the price, it will be a hit among the pros who can't get enough power no matter what Apple and Intel do.

poppe
Jun 9, 2006, 08:23 PM
Sadly I can't see any reason to why Apple would release an Mid Range Tower. There might be a market place for like Dell, but not really Apple. You can claim numbers and all but unless Apple is gonna make money by the bucket loads they won't release it. It might apply to a few other markets, but a few other is not a whole new market that has cash filled pockets and ready to go.

However I wish so badly they would release one. I want one merely for that same reason I would buy a PC that is very expandable. Because I'm dirt pore, but as each pay check comes in I can upgrade piece by piece. I'd love an iMac but I dont want to be so stuck in. I get that you can upgrade, but you can only so much. The mid range should have the sky as the limit. Oh a new graphics card is out? Put it in!!.

Like I said that doesn't sound like Apple at all thought! But I'll dream on.

heisetax
Jun 9, 2006, 08:26 PM
Nice server board but the dimensions of 13"X13" is still roughly 2/3 the size of the G5 board.


Apple usually put in more memory slots in their PowerMac compared to the Windows units.

081440
Jun 9, 2006, 08:34 PM
The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.


uhh... what do you mean?

Works great as far as I'm concerned (I mean every so often the fans rev up to jet engine level but that's the PowerPC G5 for ya)

please explain how Apple can make it better without adding a bunch of junk on the front.

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 08:43 PM
uhh... what do you mean?

Works great as far as I'm concerned (I mean every so often the fans rev up to jet engine level but that's the PowerPC G5 for ya)

please explain how Apple can make it better without adding a bunch of junk on the front.Those of you without a Quad should know that it is DEAD SILENT all the time. Only my Cubes are quieter. Seriously. :)

A second 5.25" Front Port and room for more 3.5" PATA and SATA drives would help a lot. Put 4 SATA ports on the MB and add a second PATA port. Total 7 drives inside for over 3 Terabytes of space - the final frontier.

081440
Jun 9, 2006, 08:44 PM
Well thats Rev As for you. Thats exactly the reason I got a powerbook 8 months ago, because even though I wanted a macbookpro, I would rather have a slower laptop with no significant flaws.



I guess for me, having 2 drives built in, and using external drives to store Data is fine.... I use my G5 with Logic Pro, and some of the song files will get very large... but never have I had a project that required that I have anywhere near the kind of space you are talking about. just glancing around you could have 1.5 Terabytes of storage. without adding a third drive (which is possible http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&Product_ID=149)
how 'bout 2.25terabytes?
and if I WAS using logic with a huge project that required hard drive space...I would probably be unhappy with the performance of my single G5 and I'd probably have to buy another G5 and set it up as a Node... in which case I'd have three more drives.

I realize that the G5 cant hold as many drives as a g4, but I guess I dont understand, with the options I've presented, why it is a big deal to only be able to have 2.25 terabytes of storage. What kind of stuff are you doing that you really need 5.625Tb of Storage at your fingertips?

Actually you can add far more HDs in a G5, just with third party hardware and an SATA card. You can add at least three just ahead of the CPU fans just using one pre-made kit available.

DavidCar
Jun 9, 2006, 08:50 PM
Anyone know if the Clovertown is going to be drop-in compatible with Woodcrest systems? Clovertown will be part of a newer platform and may choose a different socket. Also, the TDP for the Clovertown is expected to be 80-120W as compared to 65-80W for the Woodcrest.

This article assumes they will be socket compatible:

http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/index.x?pg=1

The problem with Clovertown is that it will be two Woodcrest chips in one socket, which will require lowering the FSB speed (see article), and require twice the heat dissipation capability.

As for the equivalence of a Conroe system to a single chip Woodcrest system, I understand Woodcrest uses FB_DIMMs, but I didn't think Conroe did.

Multimedia
Jun 9, 2006, 08:51 PM
Actually you can add far more HDs in a G5, just with third party hardware and an SATA card. You can add at least three just ahead of the CPU fans just using one pre-made kit available.And a PATA Drive Fits above the SuperDrive running on it's bus.

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 09:15 PM
Goal: less than one minute per process - no matter how long the original is.
I can't find the reference, but I believe that it has been said that Seymour Cray once said that "a supercomputer is a computer that turns a compute problem into an I/O problem".

So, with an infinite number of cores, and an infinite number of disks on an infinite number of independent I/O channels, your goal is attainable.

In the real world, with compressed 1080i MPEG-2 at about 8 GB/hour (that's what MCE records at "best") you'd need 133 MB/sec on the read channel to do one hour in one minute, and say half that on the H.264 (I assume that "mp4" really means H.264) write channel - or 200 MB/sec sustained disk bandwidth.

If you want to spend $10K on multiple parallel SCSI RAID or $50K on Fibre Channel hardware RAID - I can build it for you :D

If you want to do 2 hours in a minute, I think that it can be done for $200K for disks and controllers. (I just bought a $150K disk array with quad 4 Gbps FC ports, in the right config it might be able to sustain that load as long as you don't want fault tolerant RAID.)

A is jump
Jun 9, 2006, 09:24 PM
Actually you can add far more HDs in a G5, just with third party hardware and an SATA card. You can add at least three just ahead of the CPU fans just using one pre-made kit available.

There you go! another option, eats another slot... but not a huge deal.
Apple didnt Design it to have 6 hard drives in it.. but hey you could fit 'em in there and make it work. the PMG5 design is by no means flawless, but it combines a sleek look, with a very powerful and a reasonably expandable computer, that is a difficult thing to do.
That being said, I look forward to their next design as well.
Thus far I feel there computers look better and better every time the change them. Well... with one exception, I thought the G4 imac was way cuter than the new one. but they never would have put the G5 in that enclosure.

heisetax
Jun 9, 2006, 09:25 PM
I said it in the last thread and I will say it here: There is no reason for apple to release a mini-tower between the iMac and Mac Pro. As of now, if Apple keeps the same pricing for the Mac Pro, there is only a $300 difference between the high end iMac and the low end Powermac. Where would this mini tower fit in? Sorry all of you mini tower fans, but its probably not going to happen.

Also, if this mini tower is semi-expandable like all of you say it will be, there will be no reason for people to buy the higher end iMac, because for less than $300 they can get an expandable machine.


Prices have been $100 to $300 higher for the same level model. This is unlike the lowering of prices for some recent models like the 17" PoerBook. This geives more price room. Apple seems to have more luck with low end models. That would point to no additional mid-level models. Plus they wanted to keep their group of models smaller & simpler. The 1." MacBook replace the 12" & 14" iBook & the 12" PowerBook. This cut out 2 models.

If the new top level Intel PowerMac or as some think it will be called, the Intel MacPro, comes in at $4,000 then there will be room for a mid-level Intel PowerMac. If so that may also mean a Conroe for that model.

heisetax
Jun 9, 2006, 09:46 PM
Could you really fit 6 drives in a G4? I have to say, thats is a lot of drives... seems almost silly to have that many. I just put the biggest drives i could find in my g5 and partitioned them. its like having 6 drives. You sure could put a lot of memory in them. Didnt have a lot of cardslots... but enough for me.
I think the design is very sleek, almost majestic. The cooling system is large and complex, but its quiet. I am anoyied to no end everytime i use a pc, because I can hear the fan.

I dont really care what they do with the upcoming release... but the G5 was a great design.


My MDD G4 PowerMac had factory room for 4 HD & 2 externally accessible 5.25" drive slots. For short periods of time I also installed 1 or 2 hard drives above the 5.25" drives. I didn't have any temperature reading equipment to check temperature. For that reason I didn't run the drives for long periods of times. But the room is there.

Bill the TaxMan

dagger01
Jun 9, 2006, 09:52 PM
Actually you can add far more HDs in a G5, just with third party hardware and an SATA card. You can add at least three just ahead of the CPU fans just using one pre-made kit available.

There is a reason that mod you speak of voids your warranty, if you hadn't noticed. Adding a heat source (like hard drives) into the air stream ahead of the processors, you're inviting thermal failure, if not shut down. It's akin to putting a small space heater in front of your Power Mac G5. Not on full blast, and not directed right at it, but close enough to heat the incoming air above 72 F ... well above.

Seriously, if you need additional hard drive space, go external. There are SATA external controllers and drive enclosures available for the Mac that will give you the performance you may be looking for (>800 Mbps), without voiding your warranty and causing the premature demise of your investment due to thermal failure of components. I think you will find this to be something that even other Intel PC makers start doing in the not too distant future. There is a reason why hard drives are one of the first things to fail in most PC cases; inadequate cooling/air flow. Today's hard drives, especially those running at high RPMs generate a lot of heat. Not as much as RAM does today, but it's still a significant amount; enough to contribute to thermal failure of the drive or other components inside the case if not dissipated properly. This is not to say that all external cases are built well either. If you skimp on cost here, and don't get a five year warranty on the drives themselves, you're asking for trouble, especially, if you consider your data to be "critical" to you. I'm not going to look like an advertiser and give specific vendor examples in a public forum, but some simple research on your part will point to some obvious answers.

To speak on topic, the new Mac Pros are shaping up to be some ass kicking hardware. I expect to see a slightly wider set of product choices based on rumors and public information about Intel's upcoming products. I do think there will be Woodcrest designs, and an 8-way system available after Q1 2007. The initial products will probably be in the two and four CPU per box range with 64-bit processors and PCI-Express on the motherboard (I don't think we'll see many, if any, PCI/PCI-X slots). I'm still hazy on the memory architecture, but with the flack they've taken for the poor hardware memory controller on the original G5 Power Mac, I'm sure they will over compensate for that short coming in the Intel debut. It will also be interesting to see if these machines ship with ATI or the new nVidia quad SLI GeForce 7950 GX2 as a BTO option. As for case design, I think they'll be sticking with aluminum, but doubt it will look exactly like the Power Mac G5. Think variations on a theme.

As the release date gets closer, I'm sure more holes will get poked in the curtain shrouding the actual system details. I'll be sitting in the keynote when it gets announced, so I'm not too worried about it. Having an idea about what you're getting for Christmas, but not the full details, always makes opening the present more gratifying. :-D

RichP
Jun 9, 2006, 09:53 PM
I think an all-quad future may be reasonable; as it was said, these things will most likely have a serious distance in performance from the other machines in the apple lineup; and a conroe dual core isnt going to be THAT different than the memron.

Question is, if Apple decides to use Woodcrest, and its released the end of this month..do we wait for new macs at WWDC, or do they get released sooner, right when the Woodcrest is the new rage?

And a little off topic, I checked out BOXX...16 Core AMD! OMG WTF!

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 10:08 PM
I'm still hazy on the memory architecture, but with the flack they've taken for the poor hardware memory controller on the original G5 Power Mac, I'm sure they will over compensate for that short coming in the Intel debut.
Don't be hazy, look:

http://techreport.com/etc/2006q2/woodcrest/block-diagram.gif

Apple is just putting the Intel chipsets into their systems, there's no longer any mystery. Intel's Woodies will use the Blackford Northbridge. Want specs, go to Intel (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/5000x/index.htm) and read the specs now.

You can know what Apple is going to release without waiting for The Steve® to say "one more thing"....

AidenShaw
Jun 9, 2006, 10:21 PM
Question is, if Apple decides to use Woodcrest, and its released the end of this month..do we wait for new macs at WWDC, or do they get released sooner, right when the Woodcrest is the new rage?
Yes, for both.

Since Apple released the MacBook without even a press event, one should realize that the the times they are a changin'.

Since everyone is expecting Woodies by the end of the month, Apple (aka "The Ego®") knows that "one more thing" will be greeted by a mass of yawns as WWDC if it's only a Woody Xserve or PowerMac re-hash.

So, Aiden predicts that the Woody will come out by the end of June, along with all the other Intel vendors announcing Woodcrest systems.

For WWDC? Clearly we need something special, so

The New Form-Factor Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box Is A Certainty


And a little off topic, I checked out BOXX...16 Core AMD! OMG WTF!

No AMD in Apple's near future. Think Clovertown and Dunnington.

Demoman
Jun 9, 2006, 10:36 PM
Apple has made the iMac better, so it has to come up with new ways to differentiate from the MacPro.

The iMac NOW includes: (this used to require a PowerMac)
- External DVI for dual-monitor support
- Dual-Core Processing

The MacPro at a minimum will provide everything the iMac does, plus:
- PCI slots for expansion
- Additional Hard Drive options
- Hopefully DUAL - dual-core chips (Woodcrest)

If all the MacPro becomes is an "expandable" iMac, that could be an issue. I see the iMac being a pretty good platform for many small business users. Perhaps the MacPro just becomes a platform for the SERIOUS horsepower user (e.g. Quark, Final Cut, Aperture, Illustrator).

I personally would love to see TWO form factors in a new "MacPro"
1. A full sized tower like today. Supports QUAD processors and everything you can throw at it.

2. A "mini-tower". Bigger than the cube, perhaps only 2 slots (one for Video, one for "future"). And a couple of hard drive bays. This would be the perfect "step up" for iMac users that need more expandability. This could just be dual-core chips like the iMac, just with more expandability. I personally would pay a small premium over the iMac for this capability.

my 2 cents....

Two form factors would be nice for us customers; more choice is usually better. But, my many years experience in fabrication, machining and manufacturing leads me to conclude this would add too much cost for the benefit. I cannot believe sales would increase enough to justify the hit they would take in the COGS.

Demoman
Jun 9, 2006, 11:38 PM
The fact that you compare the iMac and Mac Pro shows that you don't get it.

There's no "between" the iMac and the tower, they are two different models. Might as well talk about a model between the macbook and tower.

The slot for the mini tower is to fill the big gap between the mini and the tower, currently $1200.

The iMac is great for a certain market, but not an option for other users. Some people want some degree of expandability and upgradability for a reasonable price. There's no reason apple couldn't release a mini tower that costs LESS than the pricier iMacs. There's a big reason for apple to do it - there are consumers that want it and would buy it. However, it would probably take away some sales from other products, so they probably won't do it.

I think both of you made good points and essentially the same one. The first poster's post focused on the economics of competing against sales of their other products and you restated the same thing at the end of yours. But, there does seem to be a market for a new Mini-Tower configuration. It that can increase sales, then it maybe is not as important as revenues lost to the high-end iMac?

ammon
Jun 10, 2006, 12:28 AM
I wish Apple would have waited to use 64-bit exclusively in all their Intel products. It would have been so much nice to focus on one 64-bit OS for the x86 architecture.

As it is now, they have to work on the following:
32-bit PowerPC
64-bit PowerPC
32-bit x86 (Intel)
64-bit x86 (soon to be released)

Oh well! I guess they like doing more work than is needed!

JesterJJZ
Jun 10, 2006, 01:07 AM
Just gimmie something with at least 3 hard drive bays. 2 optical bays would be nice too. :D

BenRoethig
Jun 10, 2006, 01:11 AM
you never explain how the G5 case was not functional. most WinPC users i know were always impressed with the G3/G4 and G5 case.

Only
4 USB ports
4 expansion slots
2 hard drive bays
1 optical drive bay
No external 3.5" bays

If it wasn't for the dual CPUs and 8gb of available RAM, you'd be think I was talking about a $400 Dell and not a machine five times that price.

BenRoethig
Jun 10, 2006, 01:17 AM
You're forgetting the other salient point mentioned earlier, that the way Apple works, it's all about what they decide you need. They figure that at this point, the only people interested in expandability, the "enthusiasts" and "pro's", can probably afford to shell out a little extra, so they're not going to bother releasing something like that that could cut into sales of their designated "consumer" product.[/i]

That pretty much sums up why Apple, with all its innovation, only sells 4 out of every 100 computers. It's not about price or "ignorant stupid PC users", it's about Apple wanting to micro-manage every detail right down to what you use and how you use it.

Peace
Jun 10, 2006, 01:27 AM
Yes, for both.

Since Apple released the MacBook without even a press event, one should realize that the the times they are a changin'.

Since everyone is expecting Woodies by the end of the month, Apple (aka "The Ego®") knows that "one more thing" will be greeted by a mass of yawns as WWDC if it's only a Woody Xserve or PowerMac re-hash.

So, Aiden predicts that the Woody will come out by the end of June, along with all the other Intel vendors announcing Woodcrest systems.

For WWDC? Clearly we need something special, so

The New Form-Factor Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box Is A Certainty



You're getting warm....

MacServer w/ Intel Os X Server 10.4.7(8) end of June/Beginning of July


30th Anniversary Mac @ WWDC2006


;)

Multimedia
Jun 10, 2006, 02:53 AM
Yes, for both.

Since Apple released the MacBook without even a press event, one should realize that the the times they are a changin'.

Since everyone is expecting Woodies by the end of the month, Apple (aka "The Ego®") knows that "one more thing" will be greeted by a mass of yawns as WWDC if it's only a Woody Xserve or PowerMac re-hash.

So, Aiden predicts that the Woody will come out by the end of June, along with all the other Intel vendors announcing Woodcrest systems.

For WWDC? Clearly we need something special, so

The New Form-Factor Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box Is A Certainty

No AMD in Apple's near future. Think Clovertown and Dunnington.I hope you're right. That would be very cool for Apple to gain market share. How About Merom MacBook Pros Too at the August 7 WWDC SteveNote? Or perhaps Paris Apple Expo September 12th after Merom ships toward the end of August? In 2003, Steve introduced the all new Aluminum 15" PowerBook G4's at that venue. :)

BlizzardBomb
Jun 10, 2006, 03:34 AM
The Woodcrest requires a different chipset then the Conroe which can easily add another 100 to 200 dollars (if not more) to price difference.

Oh ok. So with the PowerMac G5 they should of had a Dual 1.8GHz G4 alongside it and say "We've saved hundreds and the only real difference is the FSB!".

it5five
Jun 10, 2006, 05:51 AM
I think you get it too!

The idea of Apple dedicating resources to a mini-tower is just stupid. What type of expandability are you looking for? More hard drives? You can do that with an iMac. A second monitor? You can do that with an iMac. The only think I can think of that you can't do with an iMac is change the video card.

The reason the Cube did not succeed was that it was to close to the Mac tower in price point and features. Did it look cool? Yes. Could it do most everything a tower could do? Yes. But at the end of the day it was the full tower that consumers bought not the Cube.

The arguments against the iMac is just stupid. If the monitor dies, you're screwed. Duh! If the video card died on a mini tower I would be screwed also!


I was being sarcastic in response to somebody else. I do not believe that Apple will release a mini tower, at least not for a long while.

I would love to see one, as I would buy that over the Mac Pro (I'm a student, so it's hard for me to shell out tons of money), but I'm not holding my breath for it. Whatever, we'll see what happens at WWDC '06.

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 06:18 AM
The G5 design was a disaster. It looked nice, but It lacked functionality compared to similar PC workstation designs.

Wha?

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 06:21 AM
With Kentsfield and Cloverton coming out soon after this first batch of 64-bit procs, I definitely see that happening.

Only a matter of time before we see some Dunnington PowerMacs! :eek: ;) :cool:



Yes, the MacBook got a bit of a facelift and of course the built-in iSight, etc., but I was referring to a whole new design. I would argue that the new MacBooks aren't that much aesthetically different from their predecessors, but perhaps that's just my perception of things....

Who the heck needs a case redesign anyway. Thinkpads have looked exactly the same, except for playing hopscotch with the IO, for about 7 years. Naturally, I'm kidding, but the G5 towers are brilliant industrial design. That case needs to go into a museum.

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 06:31 AM
People out there seem to have this thought that the new Mac Pro won't have any heat issues. I think IBM really got us screwed up and gun shy about heat.

All the new Macs with Intel so far have had reports that they are hotter than their PPC ancestors. My MacBook runs a hell of a lot hotter than my iBook ever did.

My personal belief is that the Mac Pro will have only some minor changes to the overall look of the Power Mac G5 based on two facts:

1) There have been no drastic changes to any of the MacIntels yet, probably to help with blending in the older PPC Macs with the newer Intel Macs. The MacBook is probably the most severe, but from across the room I have to look hard to see if my wife is using our iBook or MacBook if I am seeing it closed or opened from the back.

2) These new Intels will still kick off some major heat. They will need to have airflow similar to what is needed for the PPC G5's to start off with. I say give it 2 Intel generations before we see a drastic change to the Mac Pro, so probably around next spring/summer we could see a brand spankin new Mac Pro design..... Hmmmm just in time for Adobe CS 3 it seems.....

The top-end G5 had an advanced airflow design with a full liquid cooling system. I build XEON servers right now that are happy to run in tight quarters with air cooling. The laptops, yes, those are a little warmer now, but also much, much faster. The top-end Pro towers won't even come close to being as warm as they were on the G5. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the TDP on the Woodcrest should come in at right around 80W under load, about the same as a single-core G5. The Intel chip should run substantially cooler at 80W as I have a Dempsey that draws nearly 140W and is quite friendly on air cooling.

" I have a Dempsey that draws nearly 140W"

This is what you get for reading a profusion of computer articles at 6am on 3 hours sleep. I do not have a Dempsey as I believe they have just been released. I have a Paxville-based system. It doesn't generate a terrible amount of heat, but it is dissappointingly slow as its based on Netburst and at 2.8Ghz I know children who can do math faster. The new crop of Chips, Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown, should be much, mcuh snappier as they are moving away from the achilles heel that is the Netburst Architecture. not to mention that the aforementioned trio will have higher clock speeds. Sadly, these models will no feature HT, no 8 Simultaneous threads. . . However, they will have VT (virtualization) which chould make quite a splash as far as boot-camp is concerned in the high end models. Go figure. . .

iGary
Jun 10, 2006, 06:35 AM
Those of you without a Quad should know that it is DEAD SILENT all the time. Only my Cubes are quieter. Seriously.

About twice as quiet as the model it replaced.

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 07:18 AM
The iMac is a laptop on a stand. It's highly unlikely we'll see one with a Conroe. Remember Steve hates fan noise and the iMac would need upgraded (louder) cooling to handle a Conroe.

Whether Steve likes it or not kids have an enormous say in which computer mom or dad buys. I worked in Mac retail in the mid 90's and then again in the G5 days. What I saw in the store was not what Apple could possibly have wanted. Often when a family with kids over the age of 6 came in, the parents were shopping for themselves. The majority of iMac G5 buyers had an iMac G3 that the kids had abandoned within months of it being brand new. Their endless whining about not being able to play the games their friends had led to the purchase of one or more PCs.

Apple has tried to address the no games problem with the move to Intel, but they still don't get it. Mom and dad honestly believe the Mac will last 5 years. The kids, however, know that the video card in that iMac isn't good enough for today's most demanding games and will be next to useless within 18 months. Therefore the kids will continue to demand XBox 360s and/or new PCs so they can play multiplayer games with their friends.

It isn't only kids Apple has a problem with. Advertisers have realized that 18-34 year old males don't watch much TV these days because they'd rather play games on their computers. This demographic is very knowledgeable and have the highest PC ownership of any group, driven mainly by multiplayer games.

I propose Apple go after some of these people and fill the gaping $1099 hole between the high end iMac and low end PowerMac (with equal 20" screen) with a larger version of the Mac mini. It would contain a Conroe, a 3.5" HD, upgradeable video card and (to stop the inevitable whining) a single PCI-e slot. Price it so the total cost (with 20" Cinema) falls midway between the iMac and MacPro.

The current PowerMac is an embarrasing joke. The Quad can't even run Aperture without a video card upgrade. It certainly isn't worthy of the term Pro when it can only hold two HDs. I sure hope the MacPro fixes those problems.

An interesting point. I am of the opinion that the 360, and even moreso, the PS3 are on their way to making Gaming PCs obsolete. It's just a fact, that there is a great deal of overhead associated with running games on a PC, to an extreme extent with that PC runs Windows. On a console, highly specialized code runs many times as fast, which is why a console that is slow when compared to a PC still produces good graphics. While there will always be the fanboy whose parents have too much money and are hellbent on yuppifying their brood, in the almost immediate future, the demand for high-end gaming PCs will drop.

Multimedia
Jun 10, 2006, 07:23 AM
Who the heck needs a case redesign anyway. Thinkpads have looked exactly the same, except for playing hopscotch with the IO, for about 7 years. Naturally, I'm kidding, but the G5 towers are brilliant industrial design. That case needs to go into a museum.The top-end G5 had an advanced airflow design with a full liquid cooling system. I build XEON servers right now that are happy to run in tight quarters with air cooling. The laptops, yes, those are a little warmer now, but also much, much faster. The top-end Pro towers won't even come close to being as warm as they were on the G5. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the TDP on the Woodcrest should come in at right around 80W under load, about the same as a single-core G5. The Intel chip should run substantially cooler at 80W as I have a Dempsey that draws nearly 140W and is quite friendly on air cooling.

" I have a Dempsey that draws nearly 140W"

This is what you get for reading a profusion of computer articles at 6am on 3 hours sleep. I do not have a Dempsey as I believe they have just been released. I have a Paxville-based system. It doesn't generate a terrible amount of heat, but it is dissappointingly slow as its based on Netburst and at 2.8Ghz I know children who can do math faster. The new crop of Chips, Dempsey, Woodcrest, and Clovertown, should be much, much snappier as they are moving away from the achilles heel that is the Netburst Architecture. not to mention that the aforementioned trio will have higher clock speeds. Sadly, these models will no feature HT, no 8 Simultaneous threads. . . However, they will have VT (virtualization) which chould make quite a splash as far as boot-camp is concerned in the high end models. Go figure. . .I agree with you. All the more reason to keep the current design. My Quad is incredibly quiet. If Mac Pro must look different for the sake of different I am one who will miss the PowerMac G5 design enough to keep my Quad G5 instead of rolling it over. I think it will be hard for any deisgn to trump it unless it is only a variation that allows for more internal HDs and a second external bay.

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 07:30 AM
First, a mini tower is probably the easiest box to make


Funny you call it a box, because that's exactly what it would be, and it woul lead to the commoditization of Apple. With a 4% market-share and a 15-17% install base, Apple absolutely cannot afford to commoditize its product line. They do that, they become Dell, and I promise you that Apple cannot compete with Dell in the Razor-thin margin game. Anyone remember standard oil? Standard oil undercut all the other oil suppliers for a seemingly endless time until they had driven them all out of business, or at the very lease, into hiding. Dell di exactly the same thing to all the other commodity box manufacturers, and there's nothing to stop them from doing it to Apple if they try to play in Dell's field.

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 07:31 AM
All the more reason to keep the current design. My Quad is incredibly quiet. If Mac Pro must look different for the sake of different I am one who will miss the PowerMac G5 design enough to keep my Quad G5 instead of rolling it over. I think it will be hard for any deisgn to trump it unless it is only a variation that allows for more internal HDs and a second external bay.


Are you agreeing with my, it's hard to tell reading out of one Drunken-Bloodshot eye.

I love my G5 case so much, I'd be the bastard who tried to shoehorn the internals from whatever new system apple released into my old case.

kukito
Jun 10, 2006, 07:39 AM
People out there seem to have this thought that the new Mac Pro won't have any heat issues. I think IBM really got us screwed up and gun shy about heat.

Intel has a new liquid cooling (http://www.extremetech.com/image_popup/0,1694,s=1005&iid=128836,00.asp) technology which could be used.

Platform
Jun 10, 2006, 07:40 AM
Some people like to read from one & write to another drive. Some people do not want to use their best drive just to read a CD for program installation. Maybe it may just be personal choice. Maybe just for no good reason. In any case everyone that uses a computer do not have the same needs, wants & desires.

I have 2 optical drives in my MDD PowerMac G4 & like it better that way. I'm sure that I would have trouble justifying it. The same goes for the 3-4 internal hard drives. I also have 4-6 external drives hooked up at all times. I generally use only 1 or 2 of them at a time, but I have have had them all running many times. In fact at the present time I'm using a 60 GB, 7200 rpm, 2.5" drive to boot from & a 500 GB SATA drive to store my data including my mirror of my 60GB iPod & a partition with OS 10.4.6 on it. Both of the above mentioned drives are connected to my MDD PowerMac by FW800 connections.

Multiple external accessable drives are very nice & very necessary for many. I'm in the process of placing my harddrives into trays. That way they can easilly be changed between computers without the added cost of all of those cases.

Bill the TaxMan

I guess you have a point, I just don't see the price vs use justification..well thats me ;)

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 07:53 AM
Bored and trolling for articles this morning I ran across an article (http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=38816) that showed a MBP 2.16 absolutely trouncing a PM DP 2.0 in all but a few tests running FCS Pro Apps. In light of this, l shudder to think of the positivel ass-reaming performance that a Quad Woodcrest configuration could deliver in the same apps. This is especially true since FCS's apps have been being optomized fir the PPC for 5 years and this is their first release on Intel.

mcnaugha
Jun 10, 2006, 08:03 AM
Apologies, I know you've all been debating this a thousand times but:

We got the MacBook Pro, and then the MacBook...

We know they've trademarked "Mac Pro". Now the rumours say Apple will go Intel Workstation and use Woodcrest Xeons. The Power Mac G5 doubled as your Mac Workstation and Desktop (for those who could afford it). The iMac doesn't really count as a desktop platform since it's using mobile platform technology. Doesn't that open up the possibility for a new product line... the "Desktop" Mac... using Core 2 Duo processors? They already have the trademark for "Mac". The PC world has these two separate platforms. Apple has tried to enter this space before and it didn't really workout. Now seems the ultimate opportunity to give it another go. They could have a Mac with a series of Core 2 Duo choices, including the Core 2 Extreme for the rich enthusiast. They could even Viiv it up! It'd be like the more powerful big brother to the Mac mini. I could get very excited about that. Bring it out at the right price point and they'd be onto a winner. I see it coming in a white or black exterior with the iPod-like sheen. An iPod dock built-in? There is totally a gap in the market because the Mac mini's GPU is just embarrassing. The Mac Pro line could be a mix of Core 2 Duo and Xeon 51xx but that would be a shame.


A few have suggested a Core 2 Duo for desktop will appear in a notebook form factor... that's going to take some serious cooling. Although I suppose I have seen really thick PC mobile computer that could probably do it. The Core 2 Duo desktop processors are likely to come with the same thermal solution as the current Pentium D 900 series as it's still a LGA775 processor with 65nm technology.

mcnaugha
Jun 10, 2006, 08:11 AM
Bored and trolling for articles this morning I ran across an article that showed a MBP 2.16 absolutely trouncing a PM DP 2.0 in all but a few tests running FCS Pro Apps. In light of this, l shudder to think of the positivel ass-reaming performance that a Quad Woodcrest configuration could deliver in the same apps. This is especially true since FCS's apps have been being optomized fir the PPC for 5 years and this is their first release on Intel.


I benchmarked my MBP 17-inch... it clocked up nearly 18,000 MIPS... so did my Pentium Extreme Edition 840 at 3.2GHz. I was kind of shocked to find that this Mobile Core Duo processor was delivering performance, in a variety of benchmarking tests, equating to that of last year's top of the line Extreme Edition Dual Core Pentium.

IBM state the PowerPC G5 970MP as coming in at 9,250 MIPS. So that kind of suggests that, at least in terms of MIPS, the MacBook Pro 2.1GHz can perform close to the Quad Core G5 doesn't it? :-S ;)

My new Pentium D 960 clock in at just under 20,000 MIPS. The Woodcrest Xeons will certainly exceed this and if Apple sticks two in the high-end Mac Pro systems then it could be too much for people to handle! :D This is a very exciting time for Mac performance. :)

milo
Jun 10, 2006, 08:14 AM
Hundreds?

Conroe E6700 (2.67GHz, 1066MHz, 4MB) - $530
Xeon 5150 (2.67GHz, 1333MHz, 4MB) - $690

While I agree it is a fair bit more. It wouldn't look right having a Conroe, which could be found in cheap computers in what was once the "World's Most Powerful Personal Computer" (according to Apple anyway :p).

That's $160 more just for the CPU. Woodcrest also requires a more expensive mobo, plus I believe ram that costs more. So yes, hundreds. If anyone has specific numbers on those, a post of them would be appreciated.

"World's Most Powerful Personal Computer" only applies to the highest model. If you're only going to have two cores, it won't come anywhere close to the fastest model. You're already at half the speed of the top of the line tower, why go with the more expensive chip on the "budget" version of the tower just for a slight increase in bus speed?

I think people are WAY too worried about What Looks Right and are ignoring real world cost and performance. I swear, some people on here seem like they have their tape measure in hand, ready to drop their pants at any moment.

So you're finally giving up on the idea of a mid-range, mini-tower Mac..? Good! :rolleyes:

I don't think any of us ever thought it was likely...but even if it probably won't happen, that doesn't change the fact that apple SHOULD do it, it still is a good idea.

WTF?!! :eek:

Drive bays. Any machine that honking gigantic that only holds two hard drives IS a disaster.

milo
Jun 10, 2006, 08:39 AM
OK, this is getting well off topic but...

Market share does not equal PROFITS. Everyone is so worried about Apple's market share in the PC market. Guess what, there were two computer manufacturers that were profitable in 2004 and 2005. Dell and Apple. All those other PC makers with a larger market share than Apple--HP, IBM, etc. None of them could make a profit from selling PCs.

Jobs has said it many times--why is no one question BMW on there market share?

You either need to squeeze every dollar through manufacturing process and supply chain (Dell) or you need to charge a premium for something different (Apple).

Apple answers to it's shareholders. It needs to turn a profit for them. Apple doesn't answer to its fans who want to move ahead of 3% or 5% market share for bragging rights.

And as for the mini....you made my point exactly. Its a computer that you take out of a small box , plug in 3 or 4 cables and go. Can you swap the video card, add a hard drive? No. Again, Steve and Apple have decided that this is the machine that you should have. If you are a mini customer, you are to trust Apple that this is all you need. Heck, now it comes with bluetooth and AE built in. It's a toaster--it's the farthest thing from a mini tower with expansion.

One of the biggest advantages for apple of making a mini tower is that it would be very cheap to build and could be just as profitable as any other mac. I'm not saying to increase market share by cutting profits, I'm saying increase market share AND profits.

Sorry, but I think the mini supports my point more than yours. Before the mini, people used your exact argument to insist there never would be a mini. Steve decided you should have an imac, so a cheap headless box would never happen. The argument was wrong then, and I think you're wrong for the same reasons.

The mini IS far from a mini tower. Which is exactly the reason apple should make a mini tower, the mini is a poor fit for that segment of the market.

You're forgetting the other salient point mentioned earlier, that the way Apple works, it's all about what they decide you need. They figure that at this point, the only people interested in expandability, the "enthusiasts" and "pro's", can probably afford to shell out a little extra, so they're not going to bother releasing something like that that could cut into sales of their designated "consumer" product.

$1999 is only "a little extra"? Wow. I wish I had your bankroll. That sort of attitude would help explain why apple's marketshare is so tiny.

I realize that the G5 cant hold as many drives as a g4, but I guess I dont understand, with the options I've presented, why it is a big deal to only be able to have 2.25 terabytes of storage. What kind of stuff are you doing that you really need 5.625Tb of Storage at your fingertips?

2.25 is with third party add-ons, without it you only get 1.5. A node machine isn't going to give you extra hard drive space, at least not space that can be directly accessed by the main machine. And more drives give you more flexibility, generally the biggest drives aren't the cheapest per gig, it's nice to have the options of more smaller drives and save some money, not to mention the potential speed gains and raid possibilities from splitting your data.

Sadly I can't see any reason to why Apple would release an Mid Range Tower. There might be a market place for like Dell, but not really Apple. You can claim numbers and all but unless Apple is gonna make money by the bucket loads they won't release it.

And you haven't given any reason why a mini tower couldn't make money by the bucket load for apple. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't other than "but apple just wouldn't do that..." Which also applied to the ipod and the mini...and turned out to be wrong.

AidenShaw
Jun 10, 2006, 08:52 AM
I benchmarked my MBP 17-inch... it clocked up 17 Gigaflops... so did my Pentium Extreme Edition 840 at 3.2GHz.
Do you have a link to the GFLOP benchmark that you used, I could run it on one of my dual-dual Woodies right now.

Just for grins, of course, since these silly GFLOP toys that fit in cache aren't very useful for predicting performance on any other task ;)

BenRoethig
Jun 10, 2006, 09:02 AM
An interesting point. I am of the opinion that the 360, and even moreso, the PS3 are on their way to making Gaming PCs obsolete. It's just a fact, that there is a great deal of overhead associated with running games on a PC, to an extreme extent with that PC runs Windows. On a console, highly specialized code runs many times as fast, which is why a console that is slow when compared to a PC still produces good graphics. While there will always be the fanboy whose parents have too much money and are hellbent on yuppifying their brood, in the almost immediate future, the demand for high-end gaming PCs will drop.

Despite what outsiders may think, PC and console gaming are not the same thing. Each tends to be better with different genres. Anyone who has tried playing a first person shooter or a RTS on a console will know what I'm talking about.

Lone Deranger
Jun 10, 2006, 09:27 AM
However, they will have VT (virtualization) which chould make quite a splash as far as boot-camp is concerned in the high end models. Go figure. . .

Could someone please explain to me what exactly the advantage is of having Vitualization techology built into the CPU as opposed to using Parallels Virtualizations software? Or boot-camp for that matter...
It all sounds terribly exciting. :)

BlizzardBomb
Jun 10, 2006, 09:30 AM
That's $160 more just for the CPU. Woodcrest also requires a more expensive mobo, plus I believe ram that costs more. So yes, hundreds. If anyone has specific numbers on those, a post of them would be appreciated.

"World's Most Powerful Personal Computer" only applies to the highest model. If you're only going to have two cores, it won't come anywhere close to the fastest model. You're already at half the speed of the top of the line tower, why go with the more expensive chip on the "budget" version of the tower just for a slight increase in bus speed?

I think people are WAY too worried about What Looks Right and are ignoring real world cost and performance. I swear, some people on here seem like they have their tape measure in hand, ready to drop their pants at any moment.


I don't think any of us ever thought it was likely...but even if it probably won't happen, that doesn't change the fact that apple SHOULD do it, it still is a good idea.


Drive bays. Any machine that honking gigantic that only holds two hard drives IS a disaster.

Wait a second. It was only a suggestion and you're throwing a tantrum over a product that doesn't even exist yet? :rolleyes:

AidenShaw
Jun 10, 2006, 09:33 AM
So you're finally giving up on the idea of a mid-range, mini-tower Mac..? Good! :rolleyes:
Actually, I've recruited a whole team to help argue for a New Form-Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower™ - just read this thread. :)

I am surprised that so many people are turning against the big aluminum maxi-tower - two-thirds of the people in the poll have voted to replace it. Even many of the people who like the maxi-tower are asking for more internal and external drive slots, realizing that for all that size you really don't get much expandability.

Apple is like General Motors - trying to sell a big expensive SUV of a case when the customers are looking for something more practical.

AidenShaw
Jun 10, 2006, 09:39 AM
Could someone please explain to me what exactly the advantage is of having Vitualization techology built into the CPU as opposed to using Parallels Virtualizations software? Or boot-camp for that matter...
It all sounds terribly exciting. :)
VT in the CPU is like hardware acceleration for virtual machines.

It can help make the virtual machines like Parallels or VMware or Virtual PC much faster. It isn't a replacement for Parallels at this point, it's a speed booster.

In the future, VT will allow a new generation of virtual machines to have expanded capabilities and features.

SciTeach
Jun 10, 2006, 09:44 AM
This may have already been posted, but did anyone notice that Intel released a statement that the Woodcrest chips is going to be released June 26th. :) :cool:


EDIT:: Looks like puckhead beat me to it.

In any case, it appears we will see what Apple will do with the new chips (hopefully) at WWDC.

Multimedia
Jun 10, 2006, 09:53 AM
Post #233 - Bored and trolling for articles this morning I ran across an article that showed a MBP 2.16 absolutely trouncing a PM DP 2.0 in all but a few tests running FCS Pro Apps (http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=38816). In light of this, l shudder to think of the positivel ass-reaming performance that a Quad Woodcrest configuration could deliver in the same apps. This is especially true since FCS's apps have been being optomized fir the PPC for 5 years and this is their first release on Intel.Yes, the Quad Woddie will be a lot faster than the Quad G5 is.

Condescension was not intended. I was misunderstood. Please accept my sincere apology. :)

Lone Deranger
Jun 10, 2006, 09:59 AM
VT in the CPU is like hardware acceleration for virtual machines.

It can help make the virtual machines like Parallels or VMware or Virtual PC much faster. It isn't a replacement for Parallels at this point, it's a speed booster.

In the future, VT will allow a new generation of virtual machines to have expanded capabilities and features.

Thanks for that AidenShaw. That's just the answer I was hoping to hear.

mcnaugha
Jun 10, 2006, 10:01 AM
Do you have a link to the GFLOP benchmark that you used, I could run it on one of my dual-dual Woodies right now.

Just for grins, of course, since these silly GFLOP toys that fit in cache aren't very useful for predicting performance on any other task ;)

Oops... I'm a fool I tell ya! I confused GFLOPs with Thousands of MIPS. :o

I have edited my post with the more accurate terminology.

Yes, it's true these kinds of benchmarks don't reflect real world usage. Instructions aren't all the same length in the real world so this test proves little... but for a single same-sized instruction this gives a reasonable way to distinguish between different processors... at least at an amateur and cost-free level.

I simply used PC Wizard 2006 from http://www.cpuid.com/. It's a sweet little tool and I fully appreciate it ain't industry standard. Would be delighted to here your Woodie results with this tool. Go to the benchmark tab and run the Processor benchmark. The Dhrystone result is the one I've been looking at.

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 10:10 AM
Despite what outsiders may think, PC and console gaming are not the same thing. Each tends to be better with different genres. Anyone who has tried playing a first person shooter or a RTS on a console will know what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about computational performance, you're talking about a control scheme. Give us a Console that you could both use a contorller with, and strap a keyboard and mouse to. . .

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 10:14 AM
http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=38816Please don't mention an article without providing a link to it. Please edit your post, highlight "an article that showed a MBP 2.16 absolutely trouncing a PM DP 2.0 in all but a few tests running FCS Pro Apps", press the GLOBE-LINK button above and paste the link to that article you copy from your browser so we can all go read it. Thank you in advance for your help. :)
Stop Whining (http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=38816)

And don't treat me like i'm an idiot. I know how to post links, I just don't care.

SPUY767
Jun 10, 2006, 10:17 AM
Thanks for that AidenShaw. That's just the answer I was hoping to hear.
Some guy bout 2 years ago hacked his G5 such that each of the procs, having its own FSB could run 2 OSes at once. He ran linux an X for effect, but I presume that anything would work. I do not have a link for that, it's been a long time since I read it, and I can't seem to find it on google.