Mac Pro is obsolete [Archive]

Mac Rules

Sep 7, 2006, 09:53 AM

This website just gets better and better, do they not like Apple?

I very much doubt that Apple would put soo much effort into the Mac Pro, to know tht it'll be completly obsolete in just over a year...

BS from this website strikes again!

Cheers

NATO

Sep 7, 2006, 09:53 AM

Um, that's not good....

On the other hand, if Intel is expecting this, why would they have helped Apple design the Mac Pro to use RAM which they antipate will become obsolete?

Spanky Deluxe

Sep 7, 2006, 09:53 AM

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34220

B******S!!

Chaszmyr

Sep 7, 2006, 09:57 AM

This website just gets better and better, do they not like Apple?

I'm guessing you didn't read the article, because the article didn't even mention Apple.

Um, that's not good....

On the other hand, if Intel is expecting this, why would they have helped Apple design the Mac Pro to use RAM which they antipate will become obsolete?

Who really cares what RAM is being used in 2008? FB DIMMS are the best RAM on the market today, regardless of what sort of RAM computers in the future will use.

iMeowbot

Sep 7, 2006, 09:58 AM

On the other hand, if Intel is expecting this, why would they have helped Apple design the Mac Pro to use RAM which they antipate will become obsolete?
Apple used the RAM that works with the chipset they are using right now, that's fine. Next year's Mac Pro will use whatever RAM works with next year's chipset.

This is no big deal, RAM sockets and technologies are constantly changing.

This website just gets better and better, do they not like Apple?
The story is about Intel. Apple aren't even mentioned. You do know that most systems using this stuff won't come from Apple, right?

cube

Sep 7, 2006, 09:59 AM

This is no big deal, RAM sockets and technologies are constantly changing.

This means FB-DIMMs will stay expensive.

Chaszmyr

Sep 7, 2006, 10:00 AM

This means FB-DIMMs will stay expensive.

Expensive and obsolete are two totally different concepts.

cube

Sep 7, 2006, 10:05 AM

Expensive and obsolete are two totally different concepts.

Expensive because quickly obsoleted.

NATO

Sep 7, 2006, 10:06 AM

I'd take the story with a pinch of salt to be honest

PlaceofDis

Sep 7, 2006, 10:08 AM

expensive does not mean obsolete.

also i think the MacPros are running fine, hardley obsolete. :eek: :rolleyes:
i also think they will continue to run OS X and such for quite a while.

now if you were trying to say that the G3 proccessor family is now obsolete i could agree with that. (obviously not having anything to do with this story directly though)

TBi

Sep 7, 2006, 10:08 AM

Who really cares what RAM is being used in 2008? FB DIMMS are the best RAM on the market today, regardless of what sort of RAM computers in the future will use.

They aren't necessarily the best. They have high latency and fast DDR2 would be just as fast speed wise without the high latency.

displaced

Sep 7, 2006, 10:09 AM

This means FB-DIMMs will stay expensive.

RAM designed for this kind of workstation will never be cheap.

Even our 3-year+ old Dell PowerEdge servers at work still need relatively expensive RAM. For all intents and purposes, the Mac Pro's architecture has more in common with that of a mid-range server than a home PC, and the cost of components is going to reflect that fact.

The article states Intel are looking to return to using RDRAM. RDRAM has never been cheap either. At least RAM isn't a consumable. Buy wisely (i.e. don't fill your slots with low-capacity modules), buy what you need, and It'll be a one-off expense.

I must say, the thread title is bizarre. Probably the funniest reasons I've heard for a machine to be branded "OBSOLETE!!oneone1!!"... "Its RAM won't be cutting edge in 18-24 months! RAM won't be cheap!" :D

Ease up on the hyperbole! (man, I say that a lot these days, I think I should make it my sig)

TBi

Sep 7, 2006, 10:12 AM

The article states Intel are looking to return to using RDRAM. RDRAM has never been cheap either. At least RAM isn't a consumable. Buy wisely (i.e. don't fill your slots with low-capacity modules), buy what you need, and It'll be a one-off expense.

I'm not sure they meant Rambus, they said "rDimm" not "RIMM" which is the correct terminology for Rambus. I'd say they meant regular DIMM but i don't know for sure.

stephenmckeague

Sep 7, 2006, 10:12 AM

Expensive and obsolete are two totally different concepts.

Yes but expense will be one of the ramifications of making the RAM obsolete

displaced

Sep 7, 2006, 10:19 AM

Im not sure they meant Rambus, they said "rDimm" not "RIMM" which is the correct terminology for Rambus. I'd say they meant regular DIMM but i don't know for sure.

Good point! A quick google shows others have been similarly confused. However, you're correct - I now take R-DIMM to mean Registered-DIMM. This is still a server-grade technology, and will attract higher prices (although not as much as with RIMMs, because of Rambus' lovely licensing costs)

TBi

Sep 7, 2006, 10:20 AM

Yes but expense will be one of the ramifications of making the RAM obsolete
but they aren't making it obsolete, they are keeping it for the biggest and fastest servers.

TEG

Sep 7, 2006, 10:20 AM

Actually, what I read was that the FB-DIMMs are going to be used on high end servers, because you can run much more Memory through fewer slots on the Logic Board. This basically tells me that maybe we won't have FB-DIMMs, but it is more likely that this means that there will be an in between model between iMac and MacPro.

TEG

TBi

Sep 7, 2006, 10:21 AM

I now take R-DIMM to mean Registered-DIMM.

That makes a lot more sense!

cube

Sep 7, 2006, 10:22 AM

I'm not sure they meant Rambus, they said "rDimm" not "RIMM" which is the correct terminology for Rambus. I'd say they meant regular DIMM but i don't know for sure.

They mean Registered DIMMs

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34014

displaced

Sep 7, 2006, 10:25 AM

Yes but expense will be one of the ramifications of making the RAM obsolete

... then don't wait for it to become obsolete before buying it :)

It is not obsolete now. Intel's current workstation-class boards (as used in Dell servers, HP servers, IBM servers, etc.) require FB-DIMMs, so there's a need that is being filled by manufacturers.

You might as well say the Dell PowerEdge 2950 is obsolete, or the IBM SystemX 3550 is obsolete too :)

cube

Sep 7, 2006, 10:27 AM

... then don't wait for it to become obsolete before buying it :)

It's not that it will be much more expensive because of being obsolete, it's that the offer won't ramp up.

TBi

Sep 7, 2006, 10:27 AM

They mean Registered DIMMs

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34014
displaced beat ya to it, but thanks for bringing it up :)

displaced

Sep 7, 2006, 10:37 AM

It's not that it will be much more expensive because of being obsolete, it's that the offer won't ramp up.

Ah, well that's a different story :) It's more like:

"RAM For Machines Using Intel's 'Blackford' Chipset Likely to Not Drop In Price. Future Chipsets to Use Different RAM Technology."

Which isn't really an exciting headline, but at least it's accurate...

slughead

Sep 7, 2006, 10:39 AM

FB-DIMM's have their advantages, but Intel seems to think that it's not worth the heat, the high cost, and the longer latency.

FB-DIMM's, however, are stable (which likely translates to applications) and have really high-bandwidth.

When I sell my Mac Pro, the only way this article is going to affect anything is that I'll sell the RAM with it (as my new machine likely wont have it).

This doesn't make the Mac Pro "obsolete", it just means that Intel's newer models will be better in some ways, due to them switching to a new memory type. Wow, new things are better, that doesn't make the old things obsolete.

Look, this mac pro I have in front of me has FOUR GOD DAMNED PROCESSORS IN IT.. it's not going to be "obsolete" for a LONG TIME.

TBi

Sep 7, 2006, 10:40 AM

Look, this mac pro I have in front of me has FOUR GOD DAMNED PROCESSORS IN IT.. it's not going to be "obsolete" for a LONG TIME.
Unlike the Powermac G5 Quad... (just kidding :D)

stapler

Sep 7, 2006, 12:50 PM

Really, the Mac Pro will be using more advanced, higher-bandwidth RAM that's been abandoned simply for price reasons. Don't think it's obsolete, it's like saying EFI is obsolete because no PC manufactueres are using it. Anyway, I'll probably be buying another comp in 2009.

Trekkie

Sep 7, 2006, 02:29 PM

A system built in 2006 is obsolete because of something that happens in 2008?

milo

Sep 7, 2006, 02:43 PM

Stupid headline. The article linked doesn't say that at all.

The Mac Pro is one of the most powerful machines you can buy right now, it won't be obsolete for years. You might as well say EVERY high end machine right now is obsolete.

What a load of crap.

Glen Quagmire

Sep 7, 2006, 02:55 PM

Doesn't bother me. Then again, the PC I've been using for the last four years has RAMBUS memory. Registered and ECC memory to boot.

damado

Sep 7, 2006, 04:09 PM

90% of computer equipment is "obsolete" within a year.

A couple of years ago CPUs were obsolete every 6 months.

It's the nature of the electronics world. If you wait a year for the new DIMMs, newer faster DIMMs will be on the horizon after those. There's always something new comming out soon so there's usually no reason to wait. There are some milestones worth waiting for though like switching to sata, PCI-E or core 2s. But that's every few years =P

milozauckerman

Sep 7, 2006, 04:15 PM

bob5820

Sep 7, 2006, 05:32 PM

The question of obsolescence is obviously moot, but this kind of info should raise red flags about Apple's decision to use the server board and FB-DIMMs (high heat, high latency - when Apple's bread and butter are memory-intensive apps) in its sole real desktop.
Actually I think Apples decision was to use Woodcrest so that they could have a 2 socket / 4 core system to replace the G5 Quad. Woodcrest means Intel 5000 chipset and that means FB-DIMM.

MacsAttack

Sep 7, 2006, 05:34 PM

My ZX Spectrum (first computer) is obsolete.
My Atari ST is obsolete.
My first PC, a 40MHz 386 is obsolete.
The P90 that replaced it is obsolete.
My 2x466MHz Celeron (yes - I know - they are supposed to only work in sing socket systems) is probably close to being obsolete and I have retired it.
The 2x2GHz Xeon sytem I used for 4 years is still fine (I still use it once or twice a month - it uses Rambus memory by the way).
The G4 Mac mini I've been using for the last 18 months is still a perfectly respectable system (even though the G4 was "obsolete" when I bought it).
The Mac Pro I now have is not obsolete by any definition of the term - and will still be a fine system three or four years down the line.

Truth is that the pace of software development has failed to keep up with hardware. Very few applications are able to really make use of the power of even "obsolete" systems. Just look how long the move to 64 bit (of even 32 bit for that matter) takes.

It is usually the operating system and software, not the hardware itself, that makes any individual computer obsolete.

bousozoku

Sep 7, 2006, 05:44 PM

Trekkie

Sep 7, 2006, 05:45 PM

The question of obsolescence is obviously moot, but this kind of info should raise red flags about Apple's decision to use the server board and FB-DIMMs (high heat, high latency - when Apple's bread and butter are memory-intensive apps) in its sole real desktop.

That's got to be the dumbest thing said in this thread short of the original poster.

what should they have done, not released a product? There is no other option for a dual socket system out there for the next 18 months.

MacsAttack

Sep 7, 2006, 05:47 PM

Actually I think Apples decision was to use Woodcrest so that they could have a 2 socket / 4 core system to replace the G5 Quad. Woodcrest means Intel 5000 chipset and that means FB-DIMM.

Correct.

Apple had no realistic opton but to go with what was available. Just like they used the Core Duo when they really wanted to use the Core 2 Duo (64 bit for Leopard), but that would have ment waiting another 8 months before replacing the G4 in their laptop range.

The "perfect" solution for the Mac Pro would have been to wait until intel intigrate the memory controler into the CPU itself (as AMD does). But intel currently don't intend to do that until the Core 4 Duo (or whatever they will call the architecture that replaces the replacment for the Core 2 Duo) - 4 years from now (if intel stick to their roadmap).

Could Apple have kept offering the Power Mac for another 4 years?

generik

Sep 7, 2006, 05:57 PM

TBi

Sep 7, 2006, 05:58 PM

4 "GOD DAMNED" processors will be in every Walmart computer very soon...
The computer for atheists...

MacsAttack

Sep 7, 2006, 05:59 PM

Is it much different than Intel's flirtation with RDRAM during the early days of the P4?

They'll end up dropping FB-DIMMs and there will be a few machines out there with really expensive technology that is marginally better.

Yes. It is very different.

RDRAM was a good solution to the problems that Intel envisaged with faster systems about a year or so down the line. Problems was all the memory manufacturers did not want to pay royalties to RanBus, and there were some alternatives - if you did not mind only having 2 memory slots (a big change from the days were even low-end systems often had 4 or even 8).

This time FB-DIMMs are an open standard and they are a good solution to a problem that is here right now (how to get lots of memory into servers and worksations without requiring horribly expensive and complicated motherboard designs).

In another 24 months there may be other alternatives (probably be the first memory to require fans mounted on the memory modules). A new memory type comes along ever two or three years. There is always something new on the horizon.

Right now FB-Dimms are the answer

MacsAttack

Sep 7, 2006, 06:02 PM

4 "GOD DAMNED" processors will be in every Walmart computer very soon...

And almost none of the software people run will use them effectivly (he says as he surfs the net, downloads sn InDesign project, and encodes some video - and still can't get the fans on this Mac Pro to speed up)...

milozauckerman

Sep 7, 2006, 08:45 PM

Actually I think Apples decision was to use Woodcrest so that they could have a 2 socket / 4 core system to replace the G5 Quad. Woodcrest means Intel 5000 chipset and that means FB-DIMM.
Um, yeah, how does that contradict what I said? Note the 'sole desktop' part - FB-DIMMs and a quad-core system are fantastic if you need them, but this is Apple's sole true desktop and many of its users have greater use for a low-latency dual-core option. Just like the G5 before it, and just like the G4s when the line was split between dual processors and single.

That's got to be the dumbest thing said in this thread short of the original poster.

what should they have done, not released a product? There is no other option for a dual socket system out there for the next 18 months.
Yes, because there exist no desktop options on Earth aside from a server-class motherboard and $250/gig FB-DIMMs.

Moron.

bob5820

Sep 7, 2006, 10:05 PM

Um, yeah, how does that contradict what I said? Note the 'sole desktop' part - FB-DIMMs and a quad-core system are fantastic if you need them, but this is Apple's sole true desktop and many of its users have greater use for a low-latency dual-core option. Just like the G5 before it, and just like the G4s when the line was split between dual processors and single.
As I read it your statement was about Apple's decision to use FB-DIMM, my counterpoint was that the RAM was dictated by the choice of CPU/chipset. Your argument that this is Apple's 'sole true desktop' is the problem. Apple is marketing the Mac Pro as a worksation. If you argued that Apple has no 'sole true desktop' then I'd agree. Until they decide to build this mythical xMac they have no true desktop, at least by PC gameing standards. I agree that Apple may be missing part of the market here but I don't see how that makes designing a workstation as a workstation a bad decision.

milozauckerman

Sep 7, 2006, 10:24 PM

It is about Apple's decision to use Xeons (requiring FB-DIMMs) in its desktop arena. Clearly there are issues (as indicated by Intel's decision) with latency and heat (and cost) - issues that hit hardest at Apple's core desktop demographic, and thanks to the marketing decision (gotta have a quad!), Apple users who don't want a laptop-spec iMac are stuck with these issues.

chatin

Sep 7, 2006, 10:25 PM

Look, this mac pro I have in front of me has FOUR GOD DAMNED PROCESSORS IN IT.. it's not going to be "obsolete" for a LONG TIME.

Mine is on the floor, and off to one side, but I agree. IBM PowerPC 601 is obsolete - Xeon 5150 is amazing!

ammon

Sep 7, 2006, 10:42 PM

I don't see what the big deal is. This isn't exactly new news or anything.

This was one thing I was taking into consideration prior to ordering my Mac Pro a month ago.

There is always going to be something bigger and better. Not to mention that Intel has no other options other then FB-DIMMS for another year and a half. The way they have been discounting their CPUs to try and get some of the marketshare back from AMD is certainly going to put a lot of Woodcrest chips out there.

This is actually great news! Computers should be replaced every 18-24 months (depending on your wallet/needs), so when it comes time to update my Mac Pro the next version of Intel's chip/northbridge will be out.

Bring it on!

disconap

Sep 8, 2006, 02:20 AM

This is actually great news! Computers should be replaced every 18-24 months (depending on your wallet/needs), so when it comes time to update my Mac Pro the next version of Intel's chip/northbridge will be out.

As someone who has used the same system for close to six years (modded and upgraded a bit, but still), I disagree. I usually only buy when what I'm using won't hack what I need (the Swatooth replaced a performa 6200 in 2000). I see about three more years of life in my Sawtooth at least, then several more years as a fileserver.